Talk:Bo Schembechler

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

picture?[edit]

This article could use a good pic of Bo. - IstvanWolf 18:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New section[edit]

Considering that today is the second time he has collapsed (in the same studio, no less) I figured his health problems now merit a new section. Expand as you see fit, and as new information is available.Theirishpianist 17:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, tragically, that collapse today was far worse than initially reported (ESPN.com report). RIP. --Bobak 19:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So it would seem. Definitely unexpected, and it will be a different atmosphere at the Horseshoe on Saturday. Theirishpianist 21:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He will be missed, I don't know if there's a link for his 1983 speech... but there should be, he embodies the spirit of the college football player who cares more about his team then he does about himself... I wish I could find it online but I'm not able too. Personally I found his speech very applicable to today's sport, furthermore he respected the player more than the money and the hype. Youknowthatoneguy 11:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

NPOV?[edit]

"The best team didn't win: Ohio State would go on to defeat Michigan in a close game, 42-39"

NPOV[edit]

After several changes, an anon user continues to revert this change. Calling the wolverine's "mighty and beloved" is a non-neutral point of view. I have changed it to simply "beloved wolverines". What qualifies them as mighty? This is an encyclopedia, not a michigan fan site. --Scotsworth 18:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC) First, it seems clear from the context that the passage does not purport to be a factual statement. Rather than implying that the Wolverines are, in fact, mighty, the phrase recalls the manner in which Schembechler himself referred to the Wolverins. That is, he often called them "mighty," as when accepting the second of his Rose Bowl trophies. Second, it would seem that whatever standard you care to use, the Wolverines are, in fact, mighty. They have won more games than any other Division 1 team, they have the highest all-time winning percentage of any school within Division 1, they have finished in the Top 20 more times over the last 30 years than any other school, they've won more conference championships than any other school, produced three Heisman winners, more than 100 All-Americans, 14 national championships, and at least three legendary coaches. So if the phrase "mighty" has any objective meaning, it applies to the Univeristy of Michigan football team. Third, any article on any topic of note in an encyclopedia must have a point of view -- and must make value judgments that are not entirely objective. Last, the phrase is a rhetorical flourish. It is in aid of the story and does not pronounce itself as fact. That, it would seem, is clear from the context to most readers. If you are in search of opinions masquerading as facts, look elsewhere.

"If the phrase mighty has any objective meaning, it applies to the University of Michigan football team." That statement alone shows why one cannot call the Wolverines mighty in this article. Clearly that is an opinion, and despite the fact that Michigan has had great success on the football field, they cannot own the term "mighty." I could sit here and list the accomplishments of many other football teams, but the fact would remain that you cannot take a term like mighty and apply it to a team because it is NOT objective and is not of a neutral point of view. Case and point, do you think a Notre Dame fan or an Ohio State fan would want to refer to the Wolverines as mighty? Of course not, just like a Wolverine fan would not refer to those teams as mighty. Mighty is a loaded word and implies superiority, which while it may be based in fact, is still an opinionated term in the context of college football considering the multitude of other successful programs. I would certainly accept the inclusion of the term "mighty" if you were to make it much clearer within the article/sentence that Schembechler himself referred to them as mighty. The way the sentence reads currently suggests that the Wolverine's are mighty simply because they are from Wolverines and have all those titles and awards that you mentioned, which is, as I have said before, not a neutral statement. Here is a link to Wikipedia's definition of NPOV:
Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
I'd like to highlight a few statements from it:
"The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one." Case and point, an OSU fan wouldn't call the Wolverine's mighty, which constitutes a conflicting viewpoint and thereby is one example of why the statement cannot be in this article.
"NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases. A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense of having a predilection for one particular point of view or ideology. One is said to be biased if one is influenced by one's biases. A bias could, for example, lead one to accept or not accept the truth of a claim, not because of the strength of the claim itself, but because it does or does not correspond to one's own preconceived ideas." - You are obviously a Michigan fan, and you therefore have considerable bias in this statement. You may believe that the wolverines are mighty, but many others would disagree and probably would list their own stats, figures, and so forth to support their respective University's football team.
Finally, call into mind the statement "Let the facts speak for themselves" The Wolverines accomplishments are significant and possibly even mighty in many people's opinions...however, there is no need to say it as the facts will speak for themselves.
Once again, if you could find a way to re-structure the sentence so it shows that Bo Schembechler referred to the Wolverines as mighty and that the Wolverines do not simply garner the term "mighty" because this is an encyclopedic article on a Michigan-related topic, I would certainly stop reverting and arguing about it. --Scotsworth 10:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"Mighty, 1. having gret bodily strength of physical power; very strong or vigorous; as a mighty arm. 2. very powerful in any way; having great command; as, a mighty potentate." Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary (1983). Applying this definition to either last year's Michigan team (the one that Schembechler addressed) or Michigan football more generally, it applies. And there is no question that Michigan (like many, many other colleges) fields teams whose players have "great bodily strength" when compared to any normal human being. So the first usage applies directly, as well. You seem to think that the term "mighty" is exclusive -- that only one team, person, or school can be "mighty," and that all others are not. That is incorrect. Note that the second usage is "very powerful" -- but not the MOST powerful. So it is possible for multiple participants in any given field to be mighty at the same time. The Showtime Lakers were mighty, but so were Bird's Celtics. Ted Williams was a mighty slugger, but so was Dimaggio. And on and on. So, yes, I am a Michigan fan, but I would readily agree that Notre Dame has a mighty (perhaps the MIGHTIEST) tradition in college football, and that Ohio State's accomplishments are formidable; i.e., mighty. Of course, Michigan's recent (over the last decade) eclipse those of Notre Dame, while Ohio State's recent accomplishments (in the Tressel era) overshadow those of Michigan. But the essential point is that, if the term "mighty" can be objectively applied (and it can), all three of these schools have mighty teams and traditions. That said, I think you are still missing the larger point. The phrase, when read in context, is a rhetorical flourish. It does not purport to argue that the Wolverines are, in fact, mighty (though they are). And it certainly does not argue that the Wolverines are THE "mightiest."

Alright, I'll just agree to disagree and we'll leave it in unless anyone else has a serious objection to it. --Scotsworth 03:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
UPDATE: A well respected user has also called "mighty and beloved" for not being NPOV, which puts it at two users saying its bad --Scotsworth 04:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't know about "well respected" - I've just got a lot of edits, I'm no Admin. Anyway, I removed the statement as it was flagrantly POV, and completely out of place in any encyclopedia. Unless it was referring to a specific quote (which, reading some of the above, would not appear to be the case), this is not the place for it. And as for the screeds of specious argument supporting the "mighty and beloved" text - please! Surely it would be much better to spend time improving other articles? Cheers, --Plumbago 07:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please. I guess that, rather than address the points I've made, it's easier to dismiss them as a "screed." Whether you agree or not -- and everyone is entitled to their opinion -- my posts are hardly "screed[s]". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.73.218.110 (talk • contribs).

I'm sorry if you're offended that I referred to your points as a screed, but they really don't matter here. Our aim is to write an objective and neutral encyclopedia. Labelling something as "mighty and beloved" outside of a quote is clearly an inadmissable point of view. What is so special about the Wolverines that makes such labelling allowable here? The case you make above (which I did read, by the way) has no bearing here: you're simply expressing a (disputable) point of view (among other things, even the Wolverines' own article doesn't use this expression). By the logic above, practically anything could be labelled as "mighty and beloved" so long as someone views things that way. Anyway, sorry, but as such it's clearly against WP:NPOV and so I'm going to delete it again. Cheers, --Plumbago 10:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my previous points. Moreover, I think it is beyond reasonable debate that Schembechler considered the Wolverines "mighty and beloved" (hence my use of the phrase "his mighty and beloved"). But I'll concede that my use of the phrase may be more appropriate in tone for a magazine article or retrospective. Accordingly, I'll refrain from editing that point further. As an aside, you may want to consider your tone in future posts. I find it somewhat self-important and condescending, and it detracts from the essential points your making. It may needlessly antagonize others. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.65.160.35 (talk • contribs).

Hello again. Thanks for responding, and I'm pleased that we can agree on this one. My apologies about my tone above - needless to say, it certainly wasn't supposed to come off as self-important!  :-) Cheers, --Plumbago 14:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries.

bowl games[edit]

Is there any reason why the bowl games results are omitted from Schembechler's coaching grid on the main page? Hanksummers (talk) 03:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)hanksummers[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Brandstatter[edit]

Please take a moment and comment whether this article should or should not be deleted. Ikip (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know Bo !![edit]

He was my neighbor when he was at Miami. Kicked me outta his house more than ONCE !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidmichael1 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bo Schembechler. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bo Schembechler. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coaching Tree[edit]

Why are Dave Brandon and Warde Manuel listed on the Bo Schembechler coaching tree? Neither have ever served as head coaches in either college or the pros. Listing non-head coaches in a coaching tree turn it into an indiscriminate, subjective list of people who worked or played for Bo. If AD's, why not professional sports administrators/GM? Or prominent, long time assistant coaches? Or a list of "prominent" players? FlaviusFunderburke (talk) 14:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The legacy of Bo Schembechler has remained strong in the 30 years since he stepped down as head coach. The fact that the University has selected two of Schembechler's former players to oversee its athletic department is testament to that legacy. You are correct that the AD is not a coach, he is actually the coach's boss. For this reason, I did not include Brandon and Manuel as bullet point entrants on the "coaching tree" list. Instead, I added a brief narrative mention after the coaching tree list. Cbl62 (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even as a narrative list, their appearance in the "coaching tree" section is beyond the scope of that list. It stretches the bounds of the coaching tree legacy just the same as if the list included future University presidents who played for him, or prominent assistant coaches, or the like. The coaching tree/legacy pages of similarly prominent coaches like Bear Bryant, Woody Hayes, and Joe Paterno don't include those who became AD's, and there's no reason why Bo's should. Perhaps that information can be moved to another part of the article? FlaviusFunderburke (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it fits there best. Do you have a more apt location that you would suggest. Cbl62 (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would either 1) rename the section Legacy or 2) move it to the After Michigan section and put it in as a sentence after the sentence that Bo was succeeded by Moeller and Carr as head coaches. FlaviusFunderburke (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl, have we identified any third-party sources that establish Schembechler's tree as notable? I skimmed through the ones cited in the section and they appear be either first-party or run-of-mill noting that coach X worked for coach Y. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bo_Schembechler&oldid=1219246925"