Opinion

We believe what we believe

Saturday, September 23, 2006

Last Saturday's Nebraska game at USC has sparked a fairly significant debate ar-ound the state and its ramifications impact not only on the game itself, but in the way we live our lives with others in this other great game that is being played out every minute of every day. The game of life.

This controversy be-came very evident to me while talking to several people in the days following the game. I talked to two different sets of people; native Nebraskans and transplanted Nebraskans and their perspectives on what transpired on the playing field were almost one hundred and eighty degrees away from each other.

What I heard from non-native Neb-raskans, people living here now that hailed originally from Iowa, Colorado, and Kansas, was that Callahan knew he couldn't win at USC. He knew the Nebraska football program is still not an upper echelon program like everyone in the state wants it to be. But the game was on the schedule and it had to be played. The only thing to decide was how to play it.

Callahan decided to take the most risk-free option and that was to run the ball. Run, run, run the ball. And that's exactly what they did. In doing so, they effectively abandoned the west coast offense that Callahan brought to Nebraska with him and consequently, it looked much more like a Solich-coached team than a Callahan-coached team. Why did he do that?

The transplanted Neb-raskans concluded that since you know you have little chance of winning, your only option is to minimize the consequences of losing.

So the decision to keep the ball on the ground was based on a need to get the game over with as quickly as possible, (running the ball always shortens the game), avoid in-juries, and not get embarrassed by a potential rout, which would have been a distinct possibility had Nebraska decided to line up and go toe-to-toe with the opposition.

California is fertile recruiting ground for Nebraska and the last thing Callahan wanted to do was get blown out. So, although we've been hearing since last year that Zac Taylor was poised to become a top-tier college quarterback this year, primarily because of his passing, he was forced into a running game that displayed few of the skills that were supposed to make him such a formidable player.

The Huskers were only 9 for 17 passing for a total of 143 yards. Taylor himself was 8 for 16. They ran the ball more than twice as much as they passed it, 36 rushes for a grand total of 68 yards, a paltry 1.9 yards per carry. The concerns of all the transplanted Nebraskans were the same.

What kind of message does this send to the players when your coach is telling you that you can't win by changing the very nuts and bolts of the offense? If they weren't aware of that before the game, they certainly became aware after the game because it has been discussed extensively in the media.

On the other hand, native Nebraskans seemed to buy into, for the most part, Callahan's explanation that running the ball gave Nebraska the best chance to win the game.

Understanding WHY it gave them the best chance to win was a little more difficult to figure out, but if that's what Callahan was saying, then that's what the natives were going to believe.

It's not surprising that the above scenario is played out daily in practically everyone's lives. Whether it be an athletic contest, a political contest, column writing, religion, love relationships, friend relationships, or situations at work, we all are either skeptical of what is being said or we embrace it. In the political world around Nebraska, Republicans can do no wrong and Democrats can't get anything right. We hear some juicy gossip about someone and we either believe it if we don't like that person very much or we defend them if we do like them.

People come up with all kinds of interpretations about the columns I write and many are based on whether they like me or not, rather than actually paying attention to my words. If we like people or are loyal to people, for whatever reasons, we tend to defend them. If we don't, we tend to criticize them, no matter the arena.

In relationships, some people will believe the things that others are telling them about the person they know better than anyone does. But if they're unsure of themselves, or easily persuaded, or feeling guilty about the relationship, they will often believe the lies and half-truths of others instead of believing the one they love.

Everything we see or do or hear or experience is filtered through the biases and prejudices we've allowed to reside within ourselves. We see what we want to see, hear what we want to hear, and believe what we want to believe.

Often times, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: