[grm]

It seems like a lot of the threads move into discussions about coaches, past and present, and the AD.
They end up being somewhat "hijacked" with all of the ugly stuff being fired back and forth. I have a couple of questions.

1. Why don't we open up a thread to discuss this very stuff, and then not lock it down, as happens now?

2. Is it not reasonable to discuss, somewhere and at some point, coaching changes?

3. Isn't it a bit natural that some would be upset, when (if) the "new" coaches don't produce as well as the "old" coaches?

4. When is anybody obligated to "get over" something?

5. Wouldn't it be normal for the individual(s) who make changes to be held accountable (as least discussion-wise)
for their decisions?

[LUconn]

It seems like a lot of the threads move into discussions about coaches, past and present, and the AD.
They end up being somewhat "hijacked" with all of the ugly stuff being fired back and forth. I have a couple of questions.

1. Why don't we open up a thread to discuss this very stuff, and then not lock it down, as happens now?

2. Is it not reasonable to discuss, somewhere and at some point, coaching changes?

3. Isn't it a bit natural that some would be upset, when (if) the "new" coaches don't produce as well as the "old" coaches?

4. When is anybody obligated to "get over" something?

5. Wouldn't it be normal for the individual(s) who make changes to be held accountable (as least discussion-wise)
for their decisions?

1. Sounds good. I kept most of the bball ones open to try to let everybody get it out of their system. But it always gets pretty uncivil. It tends to bleed into every other thread too.

2. It is. You're right. And I think we do when they happen. But it's a little odd to keep talking about it a year or 2 later.

3. It's natural, but in all of our current situations, you can't come to a decent conclusion yet. The jury is still out.

4. I think you're allowed to be upset about something. But once it's done it's done. I think it's really harmful to most of the discussion around here to not drop certain subjects. I guess you can not "get over" it, but posting those feelings here is deliberately intsigating the same repeat arguments in most cases. And that's what annoys everybody so much.

5. You are exactly right. But most decisions made by an AD, which is who you're talking about, can't really be viewed with 1 year blinders on.

[jcmanson]

You guys enjoy, I'll be watching basketball.

[ToTheLeft]

The "new" coaches have about a year and a month under their belt, combined, and have a winnning record, combined.

First years are tough on a coach, and I would say the "new" coaches are doing pretty well.

Oh, that, and you can't say that you KNOW that the "old" coaches would do any better WITH THIS SAME TEAM. They might have had more success with better/different teams, but given what they have, I would say the "new" coaches are doing well.

[Sly Fox]

I would have no problem with such a thread if the arguments were limited to its boundaries. I think such a thread would be best found in the "Other Sports" forum since it carries over multiple sports. That's also the forum where we put the Barber/LSU discussions as well.

I would ask that any such discussion stick to the facts and abide by the forum rules of not getting personal in nature as far as the attacks. Let the facts state your case no matter which side of the issue you may be on.

[grm]

All good reading for me, so far, and I respect and appreciate the requirements for "appropriate" comments and
analysis. If we all keep to that, should such a thread surface, we would be able to have legitimate discussion and presentation of points of view. All of us have the obligation to be gentlemenly if we want such threads to remain open.

[LUconn]

true, but I wouldn't count on that happening. It only takes one person makign one comment to get it going in the wrong direction, and we've got 4 or 5 people that are more than willing to set it off.

[grm]

To add one more thing, I have said for a lot of years that the day would come in America where we could not even "speak" the word of God, (not shout, pound, rail, etc) no matter how gently or lovingly we attempted to present it.
There are circles now where, if we say, with a smile on our face and with kindness in our hearts, that homosexuality
is in opposition to God and His word, that we will be either shouted down or branded as some kind of outdated kook.

It is my contention (and I believe that of the Board) that we should be able to offer divergent points of view, even strong ones, if we present them properly, and, as Sly stated, without personal attack. I would like the privilege of being able to state what I believe, and I believe that privilege, like many others, is lost if we do not conduct ourselves as gentlemen.
I also know that my opinion is open to spirited attack by others whose opinions differs from mine. I believe that is all within the spirit of the Board.

I don't want to see us to get into a cycle of "Log on, Lunge out, & Lock down."

[grm]

true, but I wouldn't count on that happening. It only takes one person makign one comment to get it going in the wrong direction, and we've got 4 or 5 people that are more than willing to set it off.

In that case, the leadership is left with little choice but to "Lock Down."

[Sly Fox]

I'm willing to give it a chance. Please prove me right in starting this ...

Click Here

[matshark]

It seems like a lot of the threads move into discussions about coaches, past and present, and the AD.
They end up being somewhat "hijacked" with all of the ugly stuff being fired back and forth. I have a couple of questions.

1. Why don't we open up a thread to discuss this very stuff, and then not lock it down, as happens now?

2. Is it not reasonable to discuss, somewhere and at some point, coaching changes?

3. Isn't it a bit natural that some would be upset, when (if) the "new" coaches don't produce as well as the "old" coaches?

4. When is anybody obligated to "get over" something?

5. Wouldn't it be normal for the individual(s) who make changes to be held accountable (as least discussion-wise)
for their decisions?

2. yes

3. perhaps, but one year seems to be a bit of a short grading period on the new coaches. at least give them a second year before critiquing... i mean its not like they signed a brand new contract extension with a HUGE raise and then went 1-10 or anything after posting worse records each year...

4. i would say they are obligated to get over it when it no longer personally affects them

5. yes, typically that would be done in an administrative setting with someone who actually has the power to fire them...