NBC News⁠99%

Students who covertly embody college mascots reveal identities at graduation ⁠95%

5/21/2026, 11:45:37 PM

Topics: Video
Keywords: Youtube

BS Summary: This video contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Availability Heuristic, and Hasty Generalization, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 64.2% saturation with 131 hits. Analysis detected 542 faulty-reasoning hits from 204 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 92.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠95% (837 of 16,813 videos). This video is worse (more manipulative) than 95.00% of the video peer group.

It's a viral trend taking over the internet about a secret they've held for years. 
You never know who's truly in the suit. 
At colleges and universities across the country the students who secretly embodied the school mascot revealing their true identities just before graduation. 
Highly produced hype videos introducing the people behind the fuzzy faces. 
We are the Hokie Bird. 
Guess who? 
From the Ohio State mascot Brutus Buckeye and Kansas' Baby Jay to Otto the Orange at Syracuse University and Sebastian the Ibis at the University of Miami. 
The students behind the iconic characters bringing school spirit to new heights. 
It's always going to be in the top five coolest things I've ever done. 
And at the University of South Carolina Best mascot! just listen to the class of 2026's reaction. 
Students like Braden Hensley donned the yellow feet for the final time at commencement stopping by for a quick moment with mom and dad before leading thousands of grads in one final spirit-filled celebration. 
We thank you for watching and remember stay updated on breaking news and top stories on the NBC News app or watch live on our YouTube channel. 
Confirmation Bias
8.3%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
25.5%
Representativeness Heuristic
13.2%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
54.9%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
6.9%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Negativity Bias
0%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
22.5%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
6.9%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
0%
False Dilemma
0%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
24%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
15.7%
Appeal to Emotion
64.2%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
23.5%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
0%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
0%
Indoctrination
0%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

204 words analyzed.

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.