Kale H. Nelson
Southern Utah University
Suggested Citation:
Nelson, K. H. (2025). Rhetoric on the ropes: Analyzing Jim Mora and Mike Ditka’s press conference rants. Utah Journal of Communication, 3(1), 83-91. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15312848
Abstract
This study explores the rhetorical strategies used in post-loss press conference rants by NFL coaches Jim Mora and Mike Ditka. Using grounded theory and rhetorical analysis, the research identifies five primary communication categories across four iconic rants: deprecation, emotional expression, statistical analysis, deflection, and audience interactivity. Findings indicate that deprecation (both self and team) and emotional expression were the most frequently used rhetorical techniques, revealing a heavy reliance on pathos. Statistical analysis and deflection were employed more sparingly, while audience interactivity added a layer of direct engagement—often combative. The study discusses the potential implications of these strategies on team cohesion, media perception, and public image. It also proposes that coaching style may influence rhetorical choices in press conferences. This analysis offers a framework for understanding emotional leadership communication in sports and opens avenues for future research on the effectiveness and impact of public rants in athletic contexts.
Keywords: Image repair, grounded theory, sports communication, press conferences, emotional expression
Rhetoric on the Ropes: Analyzing Jim Mora and Mike Ditka’s Press Conference Rants
Over the past century, the National Football League (NFL) has experienced significant growth and expansion, solidifying football’s role as a central focus in American culture. In 2018 alone, 46 of the top 50 most-watched telecasts in the United States were NFL games (Gulizia & Willis, 2019, para. 37). With this heightened visibility comes increased scrutiny—not only of the players but also of the coaches who lead them. Among the most notable figures in this realm is the late Dennis Green, a trailblazing innovator and the second African American head coach in NFL history. Green guided the Minnesota Vikings through a dominant era in the 1990s, including a remarkable 15-1 season in 1998 during which the team set a then-record for points scored (Chadiha, 2023). Posthumously, he was honored as the third head coach inducted into the Vikings Ring of Honor.
Despite his many contributions to the sport, Green is perhaps most publicly remembered for a passionate post-game press conference during his tenure with the Arizona Cardinals. After a devastating 24–23 loss to the undefeated Chicago Bears—a game in which his 1–4 team had led 20–0 at halftime—Green delivered an impassioned and now-iconic rant, exclaiming, “They are who we thought they were!” and “If you want to crown them, then crown their ass!” (Mill, 2017; Nesbitt, 2020; Dubin, 2016). This outburst has since become a defining moment in Green’s legacy, earning a place among the top coaching rants in NFL history (Friedman, 2014; Mill, 2017; Nesbitt, 2020). Green belongs to a larger cohort of NFL coaches known—sometimes infamously—for emotionally charged post-game press conferences. These intense and unscripted moments offer a compelling opportunity to analyze the communicative strategies coaches use under pressure.
Two coaches who consistently appear on rankings of the most notable coaching rants are Jim Mora and Mike Ditka. Both men enjoyed successful careers and are celebrated not only for their accomplishments on the field but also for their vivid and memorable rhetoric off it. Mora is best known for two press conference tirades—“Playoffs?” and “Diddly poo”—delivered during his time with the New Orleans Saints and Indianapolis Colts. He led the Saints to their first winning seasons and orchestrated a dramatic turnaround for the Colts, earning the NFL Coach of the Year award in 1987 and later securing a place in the New Orleans Saints Hall of Fame (New Orleans Saints, n.d.). Similarly, Ditka’s emotionally charged rants—“What do you care?” and “Wrong guy for this job”—alongside a heated exchange with a fan during a press conference, reflect a career marked by intense public expression. Ditka’s accolades include being the first individual to win an NFL championship as a player, assistant coach, and head coach (Pro Football Hall of Fame, n.d.).
The public expression of frustration by coaches such as Mora and Ditka invites further scholarly examination into how leaders in high-pressure environments communicate failure, process emotion, and attempt to maintain authority. By analyzing the rhetorical and emotional strategies embedded in these rants, researchers can begin to identify patterns of post-loss communication and evaluate their potential implications for team dynamics, media narratives, and stakeholder perceptions.
Literature Review
While a variety of communication theories could both be applied to the themes and rhetoric of press conference rants, grounded theory provides an objective outlook through which data can be analyzed. In The Discovery of Grounded Theory, sociologists Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss suggested “systematically discovering and interpreting empirical data to generate theory, in contrast to testing or verifying theory derived from a priori assumptions” (Matin et al., 2018, para. 1). Regardless of its origin in sociology, this method of research has been popularized across the realm of social sciences since its inception, with much conflict regarding its widespread use. While Glaser proposes strict adherence to the initial outline of grounded theory, Strauss and other researchers have explored alternative ways the theory can be used, abiding to the spirit of grounded theory and not its exact framework (Khan, 2014).
Despite the contention regarding its use, grounded theory offers an important lens through which data can be analyzed as it is collected through the processes of theoretical sampling and coding. Through theoretical sampling, researchers collect and analyze data, which is then used to determine the focus of further data collection (Lawrence & Tar, 2013). This provides a way to explore the emerging framework during data collection to refine further data collection (Lawrence & Tar, 2013). The process of coding, which occurs during and after data collection, includes open coding, involving “line by line coding where concepts and key phrases are identified and highlighted and moved into subcategories, then categories” (Noble & Mitchell, 2016, para. 13), axial coding, where relationships between these categories are investigated, and selective coding, which solidifies core categories and begins formation of the grounded theory (Noble & Mitchell, 2016). The theory produced by this research strategy should be free of preconceptions (Glaser & Strauss, 2014) and come to a conclusion unaffected by previous researcher notions.
The use of the grounded theory method can be particularly effective in less saturated fields of research, such as the study of communication in sport. Since existing theories in communication may not always fit this less studied topical area, the grounded theory approach can help avoid the bias of existing theories on data analysis (Coombs, 2022). That being said, if the data collected on emotional outbursts aligns with an existing perspective on communication, the conclusion drawn as a result will reflect this, rather than forming an unnecessary new grounded theory.
Press Conferences in Athletics
While press conferences are a common source of study in the field of communication, particularly when it comes to image repair, the analysis of outraged rants in these press conferences is a less common focal point. This study specifically focuses on analyzing themes used in highly expressive and emotional communication following losses. However, the existing body of communication research on press conferences in sports offers a groundwork for more focused and specific studies like this.
In a study analyzing leadership messaging styles following loss and team performance in the NFL, Katkade and Gutter (2023) observed that the relationship between content of post-loss press conferences and future team success was weak. They suggested that “coach press conferences provide little information about a team’s response to a loss” (p. 12). If these post-game communications have little to no impact over team success, what purpose do they serve and why do coaches feel a need to participate in them? According to post-loss press conference research by Ostrowsky and Stein (2020), the engagement of athletes in image repair shows that athletes feel a threat to their image or “hero” status immediately following a loss. Regardless of the varying repair strategies these individuals used in their post-game communication, athletes consistently felt the need to recover their image following failure, even if they didn’t commit any deviant behavior.
In comparison to a typical press conference, however, post-game rants present an interesting dilemma to what would typically be an attempt at image repair. While providing respectful sport courtesy to the opposing team after a loss is commonly used as the first brick toward repairing public image (Dumitriu, 2011), these rants jump directly to vivid expression of frustration. Despite the seemingly ineffective nature of these outbursts on public image, communication literature supports that the abrasively negative content of these press conferences could actually have a positive impact by protecting speakers from further reputational damage (Speer, 2019).
Self-deprecation, a process that occurs regularly in post-loss rants, may appear to depreciate the image of an individual coach or their entire team. In reality, self-deprecatory meta-comments can inoculate the communicator from criticism, as they shape the receiver’s expectations and discourage further criticism than the communicator’s initial comment (Speer, 2019). In addition, Wolfe and Shepherd (2015) found that coaches using negative content in a press conference will be more effective in taking an “all-or-nothing” approach. “When it comes to negative emotions, being either emotionless or highly emotional are superior strategies as compared with adopting a more moderate approach which might be considered “wishy-washy” and therefore less effective” (para. 56). The communication literature illustrates that themes in press conference outbursts could potentially be damaging or beneficial to individual and team reputation depending on how the messages are targeted.
The existing literature on grounded theory and sports communication provides a strong foundation for analyzing the rhetorical structure of emotionally charged coaching rants. Grounded theory, with its emphasis on inductive, data-driven analysis, is particularly well-suited for exploring less saturated topics like post-loss communication in professional sports. While much research on press conferences has focused on leadership messaging and image repair, the specific phenomenon of impassioned outbursts remains underexamined. Traditional post-game statements typically aim to preserve image through measured responses, but coaching rants often abandon these conventions in favor of vivid emotional expression, including self-deprecation and overt frustration. Despite their apparent volatility, such rants may serve strategic purposes, such as inoculating the speaker against further criticism or enhancing perceptions of authenticity. Given this gap in the literature, the current study seeks to explore the rhetorical patterns found in press conference rants by posing two research questions:
RQ1: What are the present communication strategies in Jim Mora’s press conference rants?
RQ2: What are the present communication strategies in Mike Ditka’s press conference rants?
Method
This study employed a qualitative research design, utilizing both grounded theory and thematic analysis to examine the rhetoric and thematic structures of press conference rants. Grounded theory provides a systematic methodology for developing theories directly from data through iterative analysis, while rhetorical analysis offers a structured approach to understanding the persuasive elements and communicative strategies used in these rants.
Grounded theory, originally developed by Glaser and Strauss (1967), is a qualitative research method designed to construct theories through systematic data collection and analysis rather than testing pre-existing theoretical frameworks. This method is particularly useful for exploring emergent themes in under-examined fields (Coombs, 2022), such as the communication dynamics in sports press conferences. The application of grounded theory in this study follows the procedures outlined by Strauss and Corbin (1998), including theoretical sampling, coding, and constant comparison. Theoretical sampling involves collecting and analyzing data iteratively to refine research focus based on emerging themes (Lawrence & Tar, 2013).
Data were coded using a three-step process: (1) open coding, in which key phrases and concepts were identified and categorized (Noble & Mitchell, 2016), (2) axial coding, where relationships between categories were explored, and (3) selective coding, which synthesized the core themes into a coherent theoretical framework. By employing this approach, the study ensures that conclusions are derived inductively from the data rather than being influenced by pre-existing theoretical biases (Glaser & Strauss, 2014).
A thematic rhetorical analysis was employed to examine the language, symbolic gestures, and communicative strategies used in press conference rants. This approach focuses on how language and discourse shape audience perception, influence credibility, and frame the intended message (Creswell & Creswell, 2022). The study applies rhetorical criticism to assess elements such as ethos (credibility), pathos (emotional appeal), and logos (logical argumentation) within press conference discourse (Foss, 2018). To conduct this analysis, transcripts and video recordings of selected press conferences were collected from publicly available sources via YouTube. The analysis follows a multi-step process: (1) identifying rhetorical strategies used by coaches or players, (2) examining the impact of these strategies on audience reception, and (3) interpreting how these rhetorical elements contribute to broader themes of leadership, accountability, and emotional expression in sports communication (Dumitriu, 2011). The effectiveness of the rhetoric was assessed based on audience reactions, media coverage, and recurring themes in public discourse.
The integration of grounded theory and rhetorical analysis provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the communicative strategies employed in press conference rants. Grounded theory facilitated the emergence of theoretical insights from the data, while rhetorical analysis contextualized these findings within established communication frameworks. Constant comparative analysis was applied throughout the study to ensure that evolving themes were grounded in the data and interpreted within their rhetorical contexts (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Since the study utilizes publicly available data, there are no direct ethical concerns related to participant confidentiality. However, care was taken to ensure accurate representation of press conference discourse, and interpretations were supported with multiple data sources to avoid misrepresentation or bias. The integration of these qualitative methods ensures that the study remains both empirically grounded and theoretically insightful, offering new perspectives on sports communication and leadership discourse.
Results
The evaluation of Jim Mora and Mike Ditka’s press conference rants revealed multiple rhetorical techniques used with varying frequency. 17 rhetorical strategies were identified in the four rants during open coding. These strategies were separated into five encompassing categories during axial coding: (1) deprecation, wherein the speakers insulted, demeaned, or otherwise discredited the efforts of the team or themself as an individual, (2) emotional expression, in which the coaches both aggressively and passively detailed their frustration, shame, and concern, (3) statistical analysis, illustrated by Mora and Ditka’s use of specific in-game instances or statistics that contributed to their failure, (4) deflection, where coaches attempted to avoid the situation by shifting focus or using complete ignorance, and finally (5) audience interactivity, in which coaches directly addressed their listeners by both unifying and combative methods.
Deprecation
The most prominent theme in all four press conference rants, deprecation, was further separated into two distinctive subcategories: team deprecation and self deprecation. These subcategories were combined due to the fact that all instances of deprecation in the data include specific directing of post-game ranting towards individuals or the team as a whole. For example, instances of team deprecation were visible when Mora stated, “It’s absolutely pitiful to perform like that,” in his ‘Playoffs?’ rant or when Ditka stated, “We don’t make any plays,” in his ‘Wrong guy for this job’ rant. Since the statements refer to the failure of the collective group, including staff and players, they fall into the team subcategory. Team deprecation further includes athlete deprecation, in which the coach insults athletes rather than the entire organizational unit, such as when Mora said, “The players did a horrible job,” in his ‘Playoffs?’ rant. Meanwhile, self deprecation includes comments directed at the speaker themself or the coaching in general, like when Mora stated “Coaching—we all—coaching did a horrible job,” in his ‘Diddly Poo’ rant or when Ditka said, “I’m probably the wrong guy for this job.” Both forms of deprecation were regularly evident in at least one rant from each coach.
Emotional Expression
The category of emotional expression proved to be equally as prominent as deprecation. It encompasses a range of statements and expletives that share the commonality of a pathos-focused rhetorical approach. However, rather than being focused towards a direct target like the comments in the deprecation category, these remarks instead serve to display the coach’s emotional state to press conference viewers. Examples include a variety of negative emotions like frustration, such as when Mora said, “It sucked. It stunk,” in his ‘Diddly Poo’ rant, shame, such as when Mora said, “I’m totally embarrassed and totally ashamed,” in the same rant, and concern for the future, such as when Ditka responded, “I don’t know,” after being asked if he planned to return the next year in his ‘Wrong guy for this job’ press conference. Also added to this category due to being used primarily as a means of emotional expression was instances of profanity, such as when Mora said, “The second half, we just got our ass totally kicked. We couldn’t do diddly poo offensively,” in his ‘Diddly Poo’ rant. Instances like these that use profanity and insult the team were counted under both the deprecation and emotional expression categories.
Statistical Analysis
The category of statistical analysis relies heavily on the rhetorical method of logos and was used less often by the coaches. However, this technique was particularly distinct due to the use of factual analysis in place of exclusively emotion-based outburst. Ditka used this strategy when he stated, “We turned the ball over seven times or six times in the game,” in his ‘Wrong guy for this job’ rant and Mora used this strategy when he said, “When you turn the ball over five times, four interceptions, one for a touchdown, three others in field position to set up touchdowns—you ain’t gonna beat anybody I just talked about,” in the ‘Playoffs?’ press conference. Statistical analysis was used in only three of the four press conference rants.
Deflection
Rather than the atypical rant-based rhetoric referenced in the aforementioned categories, the methods of deflection used by both coaches fall more classically in line with efforts of image repair. Deflection includes techniques of shifting focus to team positives or opponent success as well as avoidance of specific topics or questions. An example of highlighting team positives is when Mora stated, “I’ll start off by saying this: do not blame that game on the defense,” in his ‘Playoffs?’ rant, and an example of blaming opponent success is illustrated by the quote, “Every time they got the ball, they went down and got points,” in his ‘Diddly Poo’ press conference. When using the process of avoidance, the two coaches were less veiled in their deflection of uncomfortable topics, such as when Ditka said, “I have no thoughts about it,” in response to a question or when he choicefully ignores a following inquiry regarding his status with team management in his ‘Wrong guy for this job’ rant.
Audience Interactivity
The final category involves the coaches’ use of audience interactivity, which included calls for acknowledgement from viewers, such as the use of return questions like, “What’s the difference?” in Ditka’s ‘Wrong guy for this job’ rant, initiating questioning, such as Ditka’s repeated use of the word “Next” to call for questions in his ‘What do you care?’ rant, and combativeness, such as when Ditka said, “It’s nobody’s concern but ours. Nobody’s,” in the same rant. One interesting combination of strategies was Ditka’s repeated use of initiating questions immediately followed by combativeness.
Discussion
The data revealed five distinct rhetorical devices used by coaches in their press conference rants: deprecation, emotional expression, statistical analysis, deflection, and audience interactivity. The results of this study provide insight into the potential implications of press conference ranting as well as extensive avenues for further research. Due to the prominence of deprecation and emotional expression in all four of the rants, the conclusion can be drawn that these pathos-rooted rhetorical techniques are the most commonly used by Mike Ditka and Jim Mora in their rants. Statistical analysis, deflection, and audience interactivity serve as secondary techniques to support the coach in their use of deprecation and emotional expression to rant.
Deprecation
The category of deprecation emerged as one of the most prominent rhetorical strategies employed in the press conference rants of both Jim Mora and Mike Ditka. This theme includes both team deprecation, in which coaches criticize their players or the team as a whole, and self-deprecation, where the speaker turns blame inward by highlighting personal shortcomings or leadership failures. The frequent use of these rhetorical moves raises significant questions about their broader implications, particularly concerning team morale, public perception, and the mental health of athletes and staff. Research suggests that repeated negative messaging directed toward oneself or others in high-stress environments may contribute to deteriorating interpersonal relationships, hinder team cohesion, and potentially reinforce a culture of blame rather than growth (Speer, 2019).
Despite these risks, deprecation may also serve a strategic communicative function. In emotionally charged situations—especially following a loss—coaches may use deprecatory language as a defensive rhetorical mechanism to preempt external criticism. According to Speer (2019), self-deprecating comments can inoculate a speaker from further reputational harm by demonstrating a level of self-awareness and accountability. When a coach openly acknowledges failure, either on their part or the team’s, it may neutralize the audience’s impulse to assign blame, redirecting the conversation toward constructive discourse or, alternatively, serving as a cathartic release. In this sense, deprecation becomes not just an emotional expression but a deliberate rhetorical strategy employed to manage public scrutiny.
The differing emphases on team versus self-deprecation between the two coaches offer insight into their distinct communication and leadership styles. Mike Ditka’s rants frequently featured self-critical remarks, including statements like, “I’m probably the wrong guy for this job,” suggesting a personalized sense of responsibility and perhaps a perfectionist or individualistic leadership style. In contrast, Jim Mora’s rants more often targeted the team or players broadly, with comments such as, “The players did a horrible job,” reflecting a more collectivist or externalized attribution of blame. This divergence may be rooted in deeper coaching philosophies, with Ditka potentially embracing a more internally focused model of leadership that centers accountability on the head coach, while Mora’s approach may reflect a model that emphasizes team-wide responsibility and collective performance evaluation.
This difference in deprecatory focus invites future research to explore whether these patterns are consistent across broader samples of coaches and how these rhetorical choices influence media narratives, fan reactions, and team dynamics. Additionally, it would be valuable to investigate the relationship between coaching styles and the use of deprecation—particularly whether collectivist or authoritarian leadership correlates with team-focused criticism, while individualistic or servant leadership styles align with self-directed remarks. Further examination could also assess the long-term impacts of deprecation on athletes’ perceptions of leadership, team culture, and psychological safety.
Ultimately, while deprecation may appear destructive on the surface, its rhetorical value and strategic purpose warrant deeper investigation. Understanding when and how such language is used can provide meaningful insights into emotional leadership communication, the pressures of high-stakes performance, and the complex interplay between public accountability and private team culture in professional sports.
Statistical Analysis
Among the rhetorical strategies identified in the press conference rants of Jim Mora and Mike Ditka, statistical analysis was notably underutilized. This technique, grounded in logos or logical appeal, involves referencing quantitative data—such as turnovers, scoring margins, or specific game incidents—to substantiate claims and explain performance outcomes. In contrast to the emotionally driven content rooted in deprecation and frustration, statistical analysis offers a more structured and rational narrative that could help clarify the causes of failure while reinforcing the speaker’s credibility. However, in the rants analyzed, both coaches relied heavily on pathos-based appeals, with statistical references appearing sporadically and often embedded within emotionally charged statements. This imbalance suggests a missed opportunity to strengthen arguments with objective data that might resonate with both the media and fans.
The limited use of statistical analysis may be attributed to the emotional intensity and spontaneity of these press conferences, during which coaches may prioritize venting frustration over delivering a carefully structured explanation. Nevertheless, integrating more statistical content could enhance the rhetorical effectiveness of post-loss communication by grounding emotional expression in fact. For instance, when Ditka stated, “We turned the ball over seven times,” or when Mora detailed specific turnovers and field position issues, they briefly shifted from emotional outbursts to measured analysis. These moments introduced an important contrast—demonstrating that even within a passionate rant, logic can reinforce the speaker’s argument and provide tangible reasons for failure.
However, the effectiveness of statistical analysis depends not only on its presence but also on how it is framed. If used to single out individual athletes or deflect responsibility, statistics can quickly become a tool for scapegoating, which may undermine team cohesion and damage the athlete-coach relationship. To avoid this, any inclusion of statistics in a press conference rant must be collectivistically framed, emphasizing team-wide accountability and organizational shortcomings rather than individual blame. Statements such as “we gave up five turnovers as a team” or “we failed to convert on third downs collectively” can communicate necessary critiques without isolating players or creating division within the team. This approach aligns with research suggesting that effective leadership communication balances accountability with support, particularly in high-pressure public settings.
Moreover, expanding the role of statistical analysis in press conference rants could serve as a credibility-enhancing strategy, offering coaches a means to maintain authority while softening the emotional intensity of their messages. This could be especially useful in managing media narratives, where factual clarity can offset potential backlash from emotionally charged remarks. As such, future research could examine how the strategic use of statistics influences audience reception, media framing, and stakeholder trust in the aftermath of team failure.
Although statistical analysis was minimally employed in the rants examined, it holds significant potential as a rhetorical tool for balancing emotion with reason. When used appropriately and collectivistically, it can enhance message coherence, protect athlete well-being, and support more constructive public dialogue following disappointing performances.
Audience Interactivity
Audience interactivity emerged as a distinct rhetorical category within the press conference rants of Jim Mora and Mike Ditka, characterized by direct engagement with reporters through rhetorical questions, conversational prompts, and reactive responses. While both coaches employed this strategy, Mike Ditka demonstrated a notably higher frequency of combative interactivity, particularly during moments of heightened frustration. His repeated use of dismissive language—such as “What do you care?”—and rhetorical deflection was often paired with initiating questions like “Next,” creating a paradoxical engagement pattern. This tension between inviting dialogue and shutting it down suggests a rhetorical strategy aimed at asserting control over the press environment.
Ditka’s heavy reliance on self-deprecation may have contributed to his confrontational tone, as he may have perceived himself as the primary target of criticism, prompting a defensive response toward the media. This behavior may function as an effort to reclaim authority in a moment of reputational vulnerability. Rather than conceding control, Ditka repositions himself as the dominant voice in the room, using interactivity not to collaborate with the audience but to frame the narrative on his terms.
In contrast, Mora’s use of audience interactivity was less aggressive and more restrained. While he engaged with reporters, he did so in a less combative manner, suggesting a different communicative approach, possibly influenced by personality or coaching philosophy. This contrast highlights how individual coaching styles impact rhetorical choices during press conferences, especially under emotional strain.
Future research should explore the impact of audience interactivity on media framing, fan perception, and team morale. It remains unclear whether combative rhetoric is perceived as passion and authenticity or as hostility and defensiveness. Conversely, more unifying or cooperative responses might foster public goodwill and maintain team cohesion. Understanding the rhetorical effects of different interactivity styles can provide coaches and public relations professionals with better strategies for managing post-loss communication while preserving reputational integrity and team unity.
Conclusion
This study explored the rhetorical strategies employed in post-loss press conference rants by NFL coaches Jim Mora and Mike Ditka through a dual application of grounded theory and rhetorical analysis. By identifying five major rhetorical categories—deprecation, emotional expression, statistical analysis, deflection, and audience interactivity—the study reveals that Mora and Ditka’s rants were driven primarily by pathos, with both coaches relying heavily on emotionally charged language to express frustration and disappointment. Deprecation, particularly in the forms of team-directed and self-directed criticism, emerged as the most dominant strategy, followed closely by emotional expression. Although these methods present potential risks for team cohesion and public perception, they may also serve strategic functions, including inoculating the speaker from further criticism and reinforcing a sense of authenticity.
While statistical analysis and deflection were used less frequently, they played important supporting roles. Statistical references offered a rare but valuable appeal to logic, grounding emotional rhetoric in factual evidence. Deflection, meanwhile, allowed coaches to redirect attention or manage the tone of the press conference when faced with uncomfortable questions. Audience interactivity further shaped the press conference environment, with Ditka displaying a notably combative style and Mora employing more measured responses. These contrasting approaches underscore the influence of individual coaching styles on rhetorical choices, suggesting that public communication is shaped not only by situational emotion but also by deeper leadership philosophies.
The study’s methodological integration of grounded theory and rhetorical criticism proved effective in capturing the complexity of press conference communication. It allowed for the emergence of new theoretical insights while situating those findings within established rhetorical frameworks. However, limitations such as the small sample size and the focus on only two coaches restrict the generalizability of the conclusions. Future research should broaden the scope by analyzing a more diverse set of coaches and sports contexts, and by assessing audience reception of various rhetorical styles through media content analysis or fan response data.
Ultimately, this research contributes to a deeper understanding of emotional leadership communication in sports. It highlights the need for strategic communication training for coaches, particularly in moments of high tension, and offers a foundation for further study into how public emotional expression influences reputation, team morale, and stakeholder trust.
References
Chadiha, J. (2023, February 28). Dennis Green leaves immense impact on NFL community. NFL.com. https://www.nfl.com/news/dennis-green-leaves-immense-impact-on-nfl-community-0ap3000000676326
Coombs, H. V. (2022). Mythical framing messages in ESPN.com’s coverage of the NBA Finals over 10 years. Utah Journal of Communication, 0(1), 21-30. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7134102
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2022). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Dubin, J. (2016, July 22). Looking back on Dennis Green’s “they are who we thought they were” moment. CBS Sports. https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/looking-back-on-dennis-greens-they-are-who-we-thought-they-were-moment/
Dumitriu, D. (2011). The role of context in coaches’ post-match discourses. Revista Română de Comunicare şi Relaţii Publice, 13(3), 43-55.
Foss, S. K. (2018). Rhetorical criticism: Exploration and practice (5th ed.). Waveland Press.
Friedman, D. (2014, June 12). Counting down: The top 10 head-coach rants of all time. CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/counting-down-the-top-10-head-coach-rants-of-all-time/
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (2014). Applying grounded theory. The Grounded Theory Review, 13(1), 46-50.
Gulizia, A., & Willis, J. (2019, August 14). How the NFL took over America in 100 Years. ESPN. https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/27321898/how-nfl-took-america-100-years
Katkade, O., & Gutter, A. (2023). Analyzing leadership messaging styles and team performance in the NFL: Insights from post-first loss press conferences. Journal of Student Research, 12(3), 1-14.
Khan, S. N. (2014). Qualitative research method: Grounded theory. International Journal of Business and Management, 9(11), 224-233.
Lawrence, J., & Tar, U. (2013). The use of grounded theory technique as a practical tool for qualitative data collection and analysis. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 11(1), 29-40.
Martin, V. B., Scott, C., Brennen, B., & Durham, M. G. (2018). What is grounded theory good for? Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 95(1), 11-22.
Mill, M. (2017, October 2). NFL: The 10 best coaching rants in history (with videos). Bleacher Report. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/638841-the-10-best-coaching-rants-in-nfl-history-with-videos
Nesbitt, A. (2020, March 4). Memorable rants by NFL coaches that you must see again. FOX Sports. https://www.foxsports.com/stories/other/memorable-rants-by-nfl-coaches-that-you-must-see-again
New Orleans Saints. (n.d.). Jim Mora – New Orleans Saints legends. https://www.neworleanssaints.com/team/history/legends/jim-mora
Noble, H., & Mitchell, G. (2016). What is grounded theory? Evidence-Based Nursing, 19(2), 34-35.
NFL. (n.d.). NFL 100. NFL.com. https://www.nfl.com/100/originals/100-greatest/characters
Ostrowsky, M., & Stein, K.A. (2020). “I got beat, and he deserves to win”: Image repair strategies used by athletes who lost big games. Journal of Sports Media, 15(1), 75-97.
Pro Football Hall of Fame. (n.d.). Gold Jacket Spotlight: “Iron Mike” Ditka. https://www.profootballhof.com/news/2021/05/gold-jacket-spotlight-iron-mike-ditka/
Sanderson, J. (2016). Elite quarterbacks do not laugh when they are losing: Exploring fan responses to athletes’ emotional displays. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 14(3), 281-294.
Speer, S. A. (2019). Reconsidering self-deprecation as a communication practice. British Journal of Social Psychology, 58(4), 806-828.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Wolfe, M. T., & Shepherd, D. A. (2015). “Bouncing back” from a loss: Entrepreneurial orientation, emotions, and failure narratives. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(3), 675-700.