Question for Fleck Critics

I wonder if all coaches bother or offend the anti-Fleck people in the same way? I'm curious as to why anyone would find Fleck's use of these types of communication tools particularly offensive?

Who said fleck’s slogans and use of tools offends them? I am the only one who has used the term “offend” in this thread - and except to a couple looney birds (S2, S12) that seem to lack simple reading comprehension skills, I feel I have been pretty clear about what/when PJ offends me. You can read post #45 if that isn’t clear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

This is exactly what I was thinking. Minnesota has ZERO brand recognition and ZERO tradition in the world of college football. Love it or hate it, PJ has given Minnesota instant brand recognition, the winning is putting it in the forefront. Most transitions on national shows to Minnesota football goes right to the RTB and Ski U Mah (Fleck has brought Ski U Mah into the living rooms of college football fans everywhere) which we never had before.

I have learned to live with it, it is what it is! Relevance comes with a price for Minnesota football.

Yeah, Gophs should have some rivalry trophies...
 


Who said fleck’s slogans and use of tools offends them? I am the only one who has used the term “offend” in this thread - and except to a couple looney birds (S2, S12) that seem to lack simple reading comprehension skills, I feel I have been pretty clear about what/when PJ offends me. You can read post #45 if that isn’t clear.

Well, here's a copy-and-paste of Post #45:

"Yes, I find it offensive when someone deliberately and repeatedly is dishonest with the sole intent of creating a perception that is based on falsehoods. Other’s “don’t care”, think it is “minor” or “coach speak”, or accept it if we win. We have been over this many times"

What do you see as dishonest or false about our coach? I'm not arguing with you, just trying to understand your perspective.
 

Well, here's a copy-and-paste of Post #45:

"Yes, I find it offensive when someone deliberately and repeatedly is dishonest with the sole intent of creating a perception that is based on falsehoods. Other’s “don’t care”, think it is “minor” or “coach speak”, or accept it if we win. We have been over this many times"

What do you see as dishonest or false about our coach? I'm not arguing with you, just trying to understand your perspective.

We have been down this road many times. PJ is a good coach. I like the direction of the team. He also has chosen to do exactly what you bolded on many occasions. I don’t like when people take advantage of a situation in that way. I don’t like PJ for that reason.

The OP asked opinions on the subject and I gave mine as well as my explanation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 


We have been down this road many times. PJ is a good coach. I like the direction of the team. He also has chosen to do exactly what you bolded on many occasions. I don’t like when people take advantage of a situation in that way. I don’t like PJ for that reason.

The OP asked opinions on the subject and I gave mine as well as my explanation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When has he been dishonest to the point of being offensive?
 

These times:

Consensus Top 25 Class, 4 of final 5, 80% underclassmen, Youngest Team, 2nd Youngest Team, Best Back-To-Back Classes Ever, 9 Scholarship Seniors, HS Teacher, 8-Hour Radius, Major Paycut
 

Saying a person is "dishonest" strikes me as a very strong accusation. If someone accused me of dishonesty, I'd immediately demand an explanation.

Again, I'm not provoking you here; just genuinely wondering what, specifically, you're referring to.
 

Seems like a really dumb thing to get worked up about, but alright, man. Enjoy the season.
 



These times:

Consensus Top 25 Class, 4 of final 5, 80% underclassmen, Youngest Team, 2nd Youngest Team, Best Back-To-Back Classes Ever, 9 Scholarship Seniors, HS Teacher, 8-Hour Radius, Major Paycut

Ohhhhhh... that kind of stuff. Got it.
 

When has he been dishonest to the point of being offensive?

Spoof claims that Fleck's dishonesty offends him. So I would assume the answer to your question would be all of the times he is dishonest.

I agree with Spoof that Fleck plays free and loose with the facts, yet I don't care as much about it.

I don't understand why people are so riled up that Spoof finds it offensive.
 

Spoof claims that Fleck's dishonesty offends him. So I would assume the answer to your question would be all of the times he is dishonest.

I agree with Spoof that Fleck plays free and loose with the facts, yet I don't care as much about it.

I don't understand why people are so riled up that Spoof finds it offensive.

Huh?

Who is "riled up"?

Specific examples of Fleck's (alleged) dishonesty are what was requested.

If someone asks, "When was Fleck dishonest?" and you reply, "All of the times he was dishonest", well.. that is actually NOT an answer to the question, I'm afraid.

Again, I for one am not "riled up" about it. Just asking questions, actually.
 
Last edited:

Huh?

Who is "riled up"?

Specific examples of Fleck's (alleged) dishonesty are what was requested.

If someone asks, "When was Fleck dishonest?" and you reply, "All of the times he was dishonest", well.. that is actually NOT an answer to the question, I'm afraid.

Again, I for one am not "riled up" about it. Just asking questions, actually.

The question wasn't "when was fleck dishonest", the question was "when was fleck dishonest to the point of being offensive".

Being offended is subjective. So I supposed that if Spoof is offended by dishonesty, he would be offended by it all the time. The poster I responded to did not ask for specific times he was dishonest but rather when Fleck's dishonesty was offensive.

One example from yesterday was Fleck said we had 2 100 yard rushers in the post game presser. Shannon had 99, this is being dishonest but I don't think its malicious so I personally don't care.
 



Seems like a really dumb thing to get worked up about, but alright, man. Enjoy the season.

And I’m perfectly content that you view it that way. I came to the conclusion a long time ago, and have said so on here, that clearly these things bother me more than others.

Again, WFG asked, I responded. And I am enjoying the season. A lot. Trying to coordinate a trip to Iowa City right now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

One example from yesterday was Fleck said we had 2 100 yard rushers in the post game presser. Shannon had 99, this is being dishonest but I don't think its malicious so I personally don't care.

I noted that too - but things like that one don’t bother me. Only when it is intentionally* done to alter perception of reality.

*IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

The question wasn't "when was fleck dishonest", the question was "when was fleck dishonest to the point of being offensive".

Being offended is subjective. So I supposed that if Spoof is offended by dishonesty, he would be offended by it all the time. The poster I responded to did not ask for specific times he was dishonest but rather when Fleck's dishonesty was offensive.

One example from yesterday was Fleck said we had 2 100 yard rushers in the post game presser. Shannon had 99, this is being dishonest but I don't think its malicious so I personally don't care.

The word "when" in both questions iindicates a request for a specific example or examples. But, hey... carry on.
 

Spoof claims that Fleck's dishonesty offends him. So I would assume the answer to your question would be all of the times he is dishonest.

I agree with Spoof that Fleck plays free and loose with the facts, yet I don't care as much about it.

I don't understand why people are so riled up that Spoof finds it offensive.

He's more than free and loose at times. It ties back to Fleck's academically, athletically, socially and spiritually thing. Looks like he doesn't walk the talk at times when he makes those statements.

Don't know how many noticed, but in SON's recap Fleck said Gophs had two 100 yard RBs in the Nebby game. Brooks had 99 yards. Repeatedly saying Gophs won 4 of 5 to end 2018. He does not need to do those things but still chooses to do so.
 

He's more than free and loose at times. It ties back to Fleck's academically, athletically, socially and spiritually thing. Looks like he doesn't walk the talk at times when he makes those statements.

Don't know how many noticed, but in SON's recap Fleck said Gophs had two 100 yard RBs in the Nebby game. Brooks had 99 yards. Repeatedly saying Gophs won 4 of 5 to end 2018. He does not need to do those things but still chooses to do so.

It’s a one yard difference, man. Don’t clutch those pearls so tightly. The team is winning.
 

I've always stated that I like Fleck and hope he'll succeed. My annoyance has been with the Flecksters on this site, not Fleck himself. Though I do think the ROTB is hokey , but he is just trying to market and get attention which is part of his job.
 

the consistent top-20 programs generally don't have catch phrases or slogans

LOL! This is essentially the polar opposite of the actual situation.

Roll Tide
Hook 'Em Horns
War Eagle
Touch the Rock
Tiger Bait
We Are....
That Team Up North/O-H I-O
Go Gators
Woo Pig Sooie
Go Blue
Fight On!
Boomer Sooner
Play Like a Champion

Yes, top 20 teams don't have catch phrases or slogans.
 
Last edited:


Yep, so I wonder why he felt the need to do it.

Yes! Yeeeeeeessss... now that you mention it, it's highly suspicious! I think he may be up to no good!

Let's keep a sharp eye on him, eh?
 

Yep, so I wonder why he felt the need to do it.

maybe he rounded up to make it more concise, maybe he saw some preliminary summary that had Brooks at 100 yards. He was right in principle, not correct in precise facts. It is not like he said we had 500 yards rushing, or just made some crap up.

In general, all of the criticisms are basically pulling hairs to find a problem. Some of the details may not be exactly right (I wish he would be more precise), but it is not like he is totally making it up. His transgressions are more like saying you drove to Chicago when it was really Joliet, as opposed to saying you drove to Denver when it was really Joliet.
 

Yes! Yeeeeeeessss... now that you mention it, it's highly suspicious! I think he may be up to no good!

Let's keep a sharp eye on him, eh?

Always changing his best, right?

Not sharp eye needed when he does it is such public ways. It's a such needless way to draw negative attention to oneself.
 

Hey, anyone who wants to be crabby about P.J. Fleck has every right to do so. Go nuts!

You could even start a (very small) club (hey, let's call it exclusive), and make Patrick Reusse president and Dan Barriero vice president.

I'll bet the meetings would be a blast!
 

maybe he rounded up to make it more concise, maybe he saw some preliminary summary that had Brooks at 100 yards. He was right in principle, not correct in precise facts. It is not like he said we had 500 yards rushing, or just made some crap up.

In general, all of the criticisms are basically pulling hairs to find a problem. Some of the details may not be exactly right (I wish he would be more precise), but it is not like he is totally making it up. His transgressions are more like saying you drove to Chicago when it was really Joliet, as opposed to saying you drove to Denver when it was really Joliet.

The 4 of 5...
 

Always changing his best, right?

Not sharp eye needed when he does it is such public ways. It's a such needless way to draw negative attention to oneself.

You think he substituted 100 for 99 in order to "call attention to himself"?

Are you serious?
 



Hey, anyone who wants to be crabby about P.J. Fleck has every right to do so. Go nuts!

You could even start a (very small) club (hey, let's call it exclusive), and make Patrick Reusse president and Dan Barriero vice president.

I'll bet the meetings would be a blast!

Brilliant!
 




Top Bottom