Why lock these threads?

[Fab5Coug]

I don't mean to be a pest, but why keep locking the longest threads on the board? I understand they're about Wulff, a topic some feel tiresome, but they're also the most active threads on the board. Clearly, it's what people want to talk about.

I find it interesting to look through old classes, and discuss recruiting in general, and as long as they don't devolve into primarily personal attacks, don't see the need to lock them.

 

[Loyal Coug]

I think you kind of answered yourself

Most if not all long threads on this site deteriorate into name calling and personal attacks. Or into a he-said, she-said about who loved/hated Wulff.

I support Master Britton on this one.

 

[britton ransford]

Originally posted by Fab5Coug:
I don't mean to be a pest, but why keep locking the longest threads on the board? I understand they're about Wulff, a topic some feel tiresome, but they're also the most active threads on the board. Clearly, it's what people want to talk about.

I find it interesting to look through old classes, and discuss recruiting in general, and as long as they don't devolve into primarily personal attacks, don't see the need to lock them.

We can talk about it over email, if you'd like. Contact info is below.

 

[Coug95man2]

I'm torn on this. Wish he didn't have to, but understand it. When it's the same 'ol, same 'ol, Sponge, Ed and Fishie (sometimes SoCal recently) against everyone else, I get tired. I have a couple on ignore but when people quote, it's kinda useless. I choose the threads I keep up on. But all of these things that I do, many don't.

These may be fun for the individual(s), but for the site, not so much.

Which brings me to the business side of this, which you slightly touch on. This site is KNOWN for this bull. It chases many, many people away. I personally know 2. Not because of anyones stance, but the CONTINUAL fights over the EXACT same issues. This fight is 4 to 7 years old. And it always starts with the slightest, smallest of digs then it blows up… either quickly or slowly… Doesn't matter.. So on the business end of this, Britt has been very patient, IMHO. Business has been chased away for too long, apparently. He's decided to pull the trigger… What'cha gonna do? Hopefully stop talking about him.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

Its too bad, really. Now you can't simply make a statement of fact (whether some consider it a dig or not is irrelevant, the facts about CPW's tenure are what they are...), such as

"we haven't had this many injuries at qb since 2008" or

"blah blah hope we never have a stretch of 9-40 again blah blah"

because it will devolve into "so and so loves CPW and hates CML" or the opposite, whatever.

Personally, I'm sick of CPW, M Wilson, et al and the infinite infantile "discussions" surrounding them. 100% on board with the moratorium.

 

[wulffui]

I don't know, the whole "why can't Leach recruit?" faction need some Wulff reminders, it seems like to me.

We also get plenty of Tuel and Bucannon references about previous talent evaluation, without ever hearing say, Davis, Prescott, Golden, Dunn, Reitnouer, Jiles, Tuitupou, Hodgdon, Eaddy, Waseem...

Wait. We ACTUALLY do still mention Waseem on occasion... as a "don't" in bathroom etiquette.

This post was edited on 12/18 4:04 PM by wulffui

 

[YakiCoug]

Originally posted by wulffui:
I don't know, the whole "why can't Leach recruit?" faction need some Wulff reminders, it seems like to me.

We also get plenty of Tuel and Bucannon references about previous talent evaluation, without ever hearing say, Davis, Prescott, Golden, Dunn, Reitnouer, Jiles, Tuitupou, Hodgdon, Eaddy, Waseem...

Wait. We ACTUALLY do still mention Waseem on occasion... as a "don't" in bathroom etiquette.

This post was edited on 12/18 4:04 PM by wulffui

This is nookie's new thing, but it ignores the recruiting disasters of 2008-2011, as well as the fact that Leach had to purge at least 10 of Wulff's "magic eye" prospects shortly after he was hired to make room for others, many of whom did not pan out (Ewing, Jackson, Davey, Sale, Ford, Jones, Pettway; this excludes Wulff holdovers Tuivaiave, Villarrubia, Dotson, and Dockery). Even so, it hardly compares to the 16 of the 28 members of Wulff's landmark 2011 class that washed out. The 2010 class wasn't quite as bad, but those two classes, in addition to the disasters of 2008 and 2009, set up the trials we've seen so far under Leach. I said long ago that Leach would struggle early, because there is no denying the cupboards were mostly bare. That's why a bowl game in Year 2 is astonishing. Leach should have signed JC defensive prospects to plug the holes created by Sagote's and Gauta's departures. That's on him, but it doesn't excuse the failures that preceded him and which nookie et al purposely ignore just to stir the pot here.

 

[britton ransford]

Really, guys?

This is actually going to turn into another former head coach thread? Unreal.

 

[britton ransford]

Originally posted by YakiCoug:

Originally posted by wulffui:
I don't know, the whole "why can't Leach recruit?" faction need some Wulff reminders, it seems like to me.

We also get plenty of Tuel and Bucannon references about previous talent evaluation, without ever hearing say, Davis, Prescott, Golden, Dunn, Reitnouer, Jiles, Tuitupou, Hodgdon, Eaddy, Waseem...

Wait. We ACTUALLY do still mention Waseem on occasion... as a "don't" in bathroom etiquette.

This post was edited on 12/18 4:04 PM by wulffui

This is nookie's new thing, but it ignores the recruiting disasters of 2008-2011, as well as the fact that Leach had to purge at least 10 of Wulff's "magic eye" prospects shortly after he was hired to make room for others, many of whom did not pan out (Ewing, Jackson, Davey, Sale, Ford, Jones, Pettway; this excludes Wulff holdovers Tuivaiave, Villarrubia, Dotson, and Dockery). Even so, it hardly compares to the 16 of the 28 members of Wulff's landmark 2011 class that washed out. The 2010 class wasn't quite as bad, but those two classes, in addition to the disasters of 2008 and 2009, set up the trials we've seen so far under Leach. I said long ago that Leach would struggle early, because there is no denying the cupboards were mostly bare. That's why a bowl game in Year 2 is astonishing. Leach should have signed JC defensive prospects to plug the holes created by Sagote's and Gauta's departures. That's on him, but it doesn't excuse the failures that preceded him and which nookie et al purposely ignore just to stir the pot here.

You literally just stirred the pot.

 

[YakiCoug]

Originally posted by Britton Ransford:

Originally posted by YakiCoug:

Originally posted by wulffui:
I don't know, the whole "why can't Leach recruit?" faction need some Wulff reminders, it seems like to me.

We also get plenty of Tuel and Bucannon references about previous talent evaluation, without ever hearing say, Davis, Prescott, Golden, Dunn, Reitnouer, Jiles, Tuitupou, Hodgdon, Eaddy, Waseem...

Wait. We ACTUALLY do still mention Waseem on occasion... as a "don't" in bathroom etiquette.

This post was edited on 12/18 4:04 PM by wulffui

This is nookie's new thing, but it ignores the recruiting disasters of 2008-2011, as well as the fact that Leach had to purge at least 10 of Wulff's "magic eye" prospects shortly after he was hired to make room for others, many of whom did not pan out (Ewing, Jackson, Davey, Sale, Ford, Jones, Pettway; this excludes Wulff holdovers Tuivaiave, Villarrubia, Dotson, and Dockery). Even so, it hardly compares to the 16 of the 28 members of Wulff's landmark 2011 class that washed out. The 2010 class wasn't quite as bad, but those two classes, in addition to the disasters of 2008 and 2009, set up the trials we've seen so far under Leach. I said long ago that Leach would struggle early, because there is no denying the cupboards were mostly bare. That's why a bowl game in Year 2 is astonishing. Leach should have signed JC defensive prospects to plug the holes created by Sagote's and Gauta's departures. That's on him, but it doesn't excuse the failures that preceded him and which nookie et al purposely ignore just to stir the pot here.

You literally just stirred the pot.

You can focus on one line in a post that is a response to another post and which presents a sound argument for the current predicament. That's your prerogative.

 

[SaveFerris]

Originally posted by Coug95man2:
This site is KNOWN for this bull. It chases many, many people away. I personally know 2. Not because of anyones stance, but the CONTINUAL fights over the EXACT same issues.

Each of the WSU sites has their own personal set of "bull" issues. As you said, there's the ignore button, it's pretty easy to stay away from the attack threads if you want to, or stop paying for the site as I did awhile back. Britton is great and his content may pull me back but the constant fights between a certain few (and I was one of them at one point) made it an easy decision to cancel.

 

[YakiCoug]

Originally posted by SaveFerris:

Originally posted by Coug95man2:
This site is KNOWN for this bull. It chases many, many people away. I personally know 2. Not because of anyones stance, but the CONTINUAL fights over the EXACT same issues.

Each of the WSU sites has their own personal set of "bull" issues. As you said, there's the ignore button, it's pretty easy to stay away from the attack threads if you want to, or stop paying for the site as I did awhile back. Britton is great and his content may pull me back but the constant fights between a certain few (and I was one of them at one point) made it an easy decision to cancel.

The improved recruiting coverage here has been a welcomed improvement, but the dearth of feature stories is a glaring weakness. It's something to consider if you're thinking of subscribing or resubscribing.

 

[BiggsCoug]

Let this ship sail. It's over. Move forward. Or just start banning people that bring it up.

 

[Fab5Coug]

There was a lot of good discussion about recruiting battles & talent evaluation in that last thread. Just seems like throwing out the baby with the bath water to me,

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

Originally posted by wulffui:
I don't know, the whole "why can't Leach recruit?" faction need some Wulff reminders, it seems like to me.

We also get plenty of Tuel and Bucannon references about previous talent evaluation, without ever hearing say, Davis, Prescott, Golden, Dunn, Reitnouer, Jiles, Tuitupou, Hodgdon, Eaddy, Waseem...

Wait. We ACTUALLY do still mention Waseem on occasion... as a "don't" in bathroom etiquette.

This post was edited on 12/18 4:04 PM by wulffui

Anyone complaining about CML recruiting can look to the current rankings; bringing up the past is irrelevant, other that for the sole purpose of

 

[brettcraycraft51]

my $0.02: i'm fine w/ mentioning wulff. it wasn't so long ago that he was the coach and some of the program still has his fingerprints on it. there are current subjects where talking about wulff's tenure still does have at least a little bearing. for example, if someone wanted to start a thread about recruiting trends under leach, it would be tough to avoid the mess he was taking over as a factor in his first recruiting class. there's a way to say, 'this is what happened under wulff and here's how it affected leach's recruiting.' or whatever. the issue is that's never what happens. usually, someone says 'i don't like the way leach [fill in criticism].' followed by someone else (and we're really just talking about one of a small handful of possibilities here) chiming in w/ 'you must just miss the good old days then, cause you loved it when wulff was [fill in statement about how wulff was far worse at original leach criticism subject].' and off we go.

it's frustrating because wulff was--and still is in some ways--a factor in this program, and it would be nice if that fact could be part of whatever discussion is going on at a given moment without the inevitable accusations, bad puns, and creepy sexual innuendos.

in sum: i think locking certain threads is a perfectly reasonable response to the nonsense that invariably ensues when certain folks begin--ahem--discussing wulff.

or you could just get rivals programers to develop a little animation of monkey's throwing their crap at each other that you could append to the main thread title when it starts to go south.

 

[britton ransford]

Originally posted by brettcraycraft51:
my $0.02: i'm fine w/ mentioning wulff. it wasn't so long ago that he was the coach and some of the program still has his fingerprints on it. there are current subjects where talking about wulff's tenure still does have at least a little bearing. for example, if someone wanted to start a thread about recruiting trends under leach, it would be tough to avoid the mess he was taking over as a factor in his first recruiting class. there's a way to say, 'this is what happened under wulff and here's how it affected leach's recruiting.' or whatever. the issue is that's never what happens. usually, someone says 'i don't like the way leach [fill in criticism].' followed by someone else (and we're really just talking about one of a small handful of possibilities here) chiming in w/ 'you must just miss the good old days then, cause you loved it when wulff was [fill in statement about how wulff was far worse at original leach criticism subject].' and off we go.

it's frustrating because wulff was--and still is in some ways--a factor in this program, and it would be nice if that fact could be part of whatever discussion is going on at a given moment without the inevitable accusations, bad puns, and creepy sexual innuendos.

in sum: i think locking certain threads is a perfectly reasonable response to the nonsense that invariably ensues when certain folks begin--ahem--discussing wulff.

or you could just get rivals programers to develop a little animation of monkey's throwing their crap at each other that you could append to the main thread title when it starts to go south.

I'm going to give this serious consideration.

 

[Coug1990]

Originally posted by Britton Ransford:

Originally posted by brettcraycraft51:
my $0.02: i'm fine w/ mentioning wulff. it wasn't so long ago that he was the coach and some of the program still has his fingerprints on it. there are current subjects where talking about wulff's tenure still does have at least a little bearing. for example, if someone wanted to start a thread about recruiting trends under leach, it would be tough to avoid the mess he was taking over as a factor in his first recruiting class. there's a way to say, 'this is what happened under wulff and here's how it affected leach's recruiting.' or whatever. the issue is that's never what happens. usually, someone says 'i don't like the way leach [fill in criticism].' followed by someone else (and we're really just talking about one of a small handful of possibilities here) chiming in w/ 'you must just miss the good old days then, cause you loved it when wulff was [fill in statement about how wulff was far worse at original leach criticism subject].' and off we go.

it's frustrating because wulff was--and still is in some ways--a factor in this program, and it would be nice if that fact could be part of whatever discussion is going on at a given moment without the inevitable accusations, bad puns, and creepy sexual innuendos.

in sum: i think locking certain threads is a perfectly reasonable response to the nonsense that invariably ensues when certain folks begin--ahem--discussing wulff.

or you could just get rivals programers to develop a little animation of monkey's throwing their crap at each other that you could append to the main thread title when it starts to go south.

I'm going to give this serious consideration.

I just watched "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes." Guys be careful about making fun of Monkeys. They may rule one day

This post was edited on 12/19 8:51 AM by Coug1990

 

[chinookpirate]

Anyone complaining about a #5 conference ranking, #29 overall with a balanced class is a fool... and likewise to any one celebrating before the 'game' is over.

If Leach can hold onto his commits and finish, this will be a very good class.

 

[Loyal Coug]

Hey Britton, how does it feel....?

.....to be a 20-something having to babysit and

Originally posted by Britton Ransford:
This is actually going to turn into another former head coach thread? Unreal.

 

[brettcraycraft51]

Originally posted by Coug1990:

Originally posted by Britton Ransford:

Originally posted by brettcraycraft51:
my $0.02: i'm fine w/ mentioning wulff. it wasn't so long ago that he was the coach and some of the program still has his fingerprints on it. there are current subjects where talking about wulff's tenure still does have at least a little bearing. for example, if someone wanted to start a thread about recruiting trends under leach, it would be tough to avoid the mess he was taking over as a factor in his first recruiting class. there's a way to say, 'this is what happened under wulff and here's how it affected leach's recruiting.' or whatever. the issue is that's never what happens. usually, someone says 'i don't like the way leach [fill in criticism].' followed by someone else (and we're really just talking about one of a small handful of possibilities here) chiming in w/ 'you must just miss the good old days then, cause you loved it when wulff was [fill in statement about how wulff was far worse at original leach criticism subject].' and off we go.

it's frustrating because wulff was--and still is in some ways--a factor in this program, and it would be nice if that fact could be part of whatever discussion is going on at a given moment without the inevitable accusations, bad puns, and creepy sexual innuendos.

in sum: i think locking certain threads is a perfectly reasonable response to the nonsense that invariably ensues when certain folks begin--ahem--discussing wulff.

or you could just get rivals programers to develop a little animation of monkey's throwing their crap at each other that you could append to the main thread title when it starts to go south.

I'm going to give this serious consideration.

I just watched "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes." Guys be careful about making fun of Monkeys. They may rule one day

This post was edited on 12/19 8:51 AM by Coug1990

yeah, i suppose that was an unflattering comparison... for the monkeys.

 

[britton ransford]

Originally posted by Coug1990:

Originally posted by Britton Ransford:

Originally posted by brettcraycraft51:
my $0.02: i'm fine w/ mentioning wulff. it wasn't so long ago that he was the coach and some of the program still has his fingerprints on it. there are current subjects where talking about wulff's tenure still does have at least a little bearing. for example, if someone wanted to start a thread about recruiting trends under leach, it would be tough to avoid the mess he was taking over as a factor in his first recruiting class. there's a way to say, 'this is what happened under wulff and here's how it affected leach's recruiting.' or whatever. the issue is that's never what happens. usually, someone says 'i don't like the way leach [fill in criticism].' followed by someone else (and we're really just talking about one of a small handful of possibilities here) chiming in w/ 'you must just miss the good old days then, cause you loved it when wulff was [fill in statement about how wulff was far worse at original leach criticism subject].' and off we go.

it's frustrating because wulff was--and still is in some ways--a factor in this program, and it would be nice if that fact could be part of whatever discussion is going on at a given moment without the inevitable accusations, bad puns, and creepy sexual innuendos.

in sum: i think locking certain threads is a perfectly reasonable response to the nonsense that invariably ensues when certain folks begin--ahem--discussing wulff.

or you could just get rivals programers to develop a little animation of monkey's throwing their crap at each other that you could append to the main thread title when it starts to go south.

I'm going to give this serious consideration.

I just watched "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes." Guys be careful about making fun of Monkeys. They may rule one day

This post was edited on 12/19 8:51 AM by Coug1990

An army of monkeys riding horses and mowing down humans with assault rifles will forever be a fear of mine after watching that movie. Good flick, though.

 

[CougEd]

Personally I think a fine of $10.00 every time his name is mentioned

As Brett points out there are his fingerprints on the program. 2011 was a disaster class, and could help explain the struggles this year. Similar to the fingerprints on a 6-6 season in 2013 where they stayed healthy and the majority of kids were from the previous regime.

 

[wulffui]

Originally posted by BleedCrimsonandGray:

Originally posted by wulffui:
I don't know, the whole "why can't Leach recruit?" faction need some Wulff reminders, it seems like to me.

We also get plenty of Tuel and Bucannon references about previous talent evaluation, without ever hearing say, Davis, Prescott, Golden, Dunn, Reitnouer, Jiles, Tuitupou, Hodgdon, Eaddy, Waseem...

Wait. We ACTUALLY do still mention Waseem on occasion... as a "don't" in bathroom etiquette.

This post was edited on 12/18 4:04 PM by wulffui

Anyone complaining about CML recruiting can look to the current rankings; bringing up the past is irrelevant, other that for the sole purpose of

With that guys arm speed and consistency, I hope someone offered him at QB.

 

[chinookpirate]

Re: Personally I think a fine of $10.00 every time his name is mentioned


I think reasonable people should be able to discuss this reasonably.

Originally posted by CougEd:
As Brett points out there are his fingerprints on the program. 2011 was a disaster class, and could help explain the struggles this year. Similar to the fingerprints on a 6-6 season in 2013 where they stayed healthy and the majority of kids were from the previous regime.

 

[Coug95man2]

Re: Personally I think a fine of $10.00 every time his name is mentioned

That's the problem, Fishie. It never stays "reasonable". You can say you are staying "reasonable" (you've cussed me out enough where I can say you wouldn't be able to, but I digress) but others don't. THAT'S the problem. Very few stay "reasonable".

And regardless of "reasonable" discussion, this is a topic that has been rehashed for 5 years or more. There isn't a shadow or minutia point that hasn't been "discussed" in a "reasonable" fashion.

 

[spongebob11]

I don't blame him at all. Its not good for the site and chases new people away as well as some long time posters...and its why I quit posting since December.

 

[wazzubruce]

Re: Hey Britton, how does it feel....?

Loyal nailed it ! A yak/Ed board would be priceless and very much needed.

 

[Fab5Coug]

Re: Personally I think a fine of $10.00 every time his name is mentioned

Originally posted by CougEd:
As Brett points out there are his fingerprints on the program. 2011 was a disaster class, and could help explain the struggles this year. Similar to the fingerprints on a 6-6 season in 2013 where they stayed healthy and the majority of kids were from the previous regime.

$10 every time you mention Wulff? That's rich. You'd have a tab 10,000 pages long.

 

[CougEd]

Maybe...but I do know one thing...

out of those 10000 pages Iwouldbe willing to venture since he has been fired I have not started a post with his name.

 

[YakiCoug]

Originally posted by Coug1990:

Originally posted by Britton Ransford:

Originally posted by brettcraycraft51:
my $0.02: i'm fine w/ mentioning wulff. it wasn't so long ago that he was the coach and some of the program still has his fingerprints on it. there are current subjects where talking about wulff's tenure still does have at least a little bearing. for example, if someone wanted to start a thread about recruiting trends under leach, it would be tough to avoid the mess he was taking over as a factor in his first recruiting class. there's a way to say, 'this is what happened under wulff and here's how it affected leach's recruiting.' or whatever. the issue is that's never what happens. usually, someone says 'i don't like the way leach [fill in criticism].' followed by someone else (and we're really just talking about one of a small handful of possibilities here) chiming in w/ 'you must just miss the good old days then, cause you loved it when wulff was [fill in statement about how wulff was far worse at original leach criticism subject].' and off we go.

it's frustrating because wulff was--and still is in some ways--a factor in this program, and it would be nice if that fact could be part of whatever discussion is going on at a given moment without the inevitable accusations, bad puns, and creepy sexual innuendos.

in sum: i think locking certain threads is a perfectly reasonable response to the nonsense that invariably ensues when certain folks begin--ahem--discussing wulff.

or you could just get rivals programers to develop a little animation of monkey's throwing their crap at each other that you could append to the main thread title when it starts to go south.

I'm going to give this serious consideration.

I just watched "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes." Guys be careful about making fun of Monkeys. They may rule one day

This post was edited on 12/19 8:51 AM by Coug1990

Well, the GOP does control both the House and the Senate, so ...

 

[YakiCoug]

Re: Maybe...but I do know one thing...

Originally posted by CougEd:
out of those 10000 pages Iwouldbe willing to venture since he has been fired I have not started a post with his name.

So, you've gone from just mentioning his name to starting a post (thread?). Typical. You're still at 10,000 and counting.

 

[CougEd]

Typical what? That I don't bring up his name unless there is already

a thread about him. Like I said, I have never initiated a thread about Wulff since the day he was fired. Not all that hard to understand.

I never said I haven't joined in a thread.

But it is nice to see you can have those moments of civility where we can actually discuss this topic.

 

[HarHarHar]

Why lock them? Do you think the forum is here because Britton is bored? Imagine you stroll in, you're considering purchasing the product Britton is trying to sell, and you see this delightful bit:

--------------------------------------------------
"If Ttown is Mrs. Wulff, you are the chaser, and identifying the "talent" is something of which Wulff wives were good at, and, as such, should have justified a fifth year. Give it up, girl."

YakiCoug
--------------------------------------------------





I expect it won't be long before this board is closed completely, and it will because our fans are just the worst. Unbelievable. Nobody here cares about football, they care about their petty rivalries and eternal grudges. He can't even ban YakiCoug because everyone on both "sides" will start crying about how it's throwing a wrench in their Two Minutes Hate.

You know why your "community" here is so much smaller than BX? Because you're way ****ing worse than that place. Think about that. Worse than Brand X. Quite an achievement.

 

[longtimecoug]

Originally posted by HarHarHar:
Why lock them? Do you think the forum is here because Britton is bored? Imagine you stroll in, you're considering purchasing the product Britton is trying to sell, and you see this delightful bit:

--------------------------------------------------
"If Ttown is Mrs. Wulff, you are the chaser, and identifying the "talent" is something of which Wulff wives were good at, and, as such, should have justified a fifth year. Give it up, girl."

YakiCoug
--------------------------------------------------





I expect it won't be long before this board is closed completely, and it will because our fans are just the worst. Unbelievable. Nobody here cares about football, they care about their petty rivalries and eternal grudges. He can't even ban YakiCoug because everyone on both "sides" will start crying about how it's throwing a wrench in their Two Minutes Hate.

You know why your "community" here is so much smaller than BX? Because you're way ****ing worse than that place. Think about that. Worse than Brand X. Quite an achievement.

smaller, but growing. brand X is pathetic

 

[Coug1990]

I don't give one crap if BX has more members than WW. This is not a competition or pissing contest. Now, I do want this site and Britton to be successful. But, I doubt he measures himself by if WW is bigger than BX.

 

[CougSinceBirth]

Originally posted by HarHarHar:

You know why your "community" here is so much smaller than BX?

There is no community on that other board. If you're implying that by playing the "numbers game," you're missing the point. Beyond the mudslinging that happens periodically, there can actually be real discussion here. Other boards all I see are "posters"; here, I see "family." So I respectfully disagree with your statement, sir.

 

[wulffui]

Each Cougar "community" has blowhards who detract from conversation on the message boards, and there's no gold medal with regards to one of the several Cougar fan board having MENSA worthy conversations, while the rest are flinging poo- there's whiny people and rational people on both sides of most issues at all the boards. Some of the more drawn personal stuff here is tacky as hell, but it's the nature of these boards- all of them, far as I can tell. Honestly, I don't even know which brand is X anymore now that there's a Y and Z.

As for the esteemed operator of the site, I like the down the middle approach and apparent legwork done by Britton, especially considering the assumption that Scout is putting more resources into their WSU website than Rivals (maybe not, but it does seem that way).

I also like that, given the nature of new media and today's recruit, someone younger and more apt to communicate well in that vein as the lead writer on the website. I also bet that as the kids he discussed their recruitment with mature through their WSU experience, those seeds will bear very thoughtful features.

The fact is, this site allows more open discussion than others, and that lets it go to ugly places sometimes. But it's also far more prone to push that ugliness aside and have decent conversation past that, and we're all adults here- I'm not here to clutch pearls and adjust my monocle at every quibble.

As for the site drying up, it's a Power 5 team and Rivals will have an entity affiliated with it until Rivals dries up and blows away- which isn't happening soon- no matter who regrets giving who a ride, or how often Paul Wulff gets mentioned.

Damnit, I'm going to have to get a membership to endorse the work and the openness of candor.

 

[Cougatron]

The only real issue here are the people that cling to the previous coach and dismiss the current one.

those are the ones that should be removed, and the board can move forward.

Just like Leach cleaning house with the players that were holding us back the board should be purged of the people that constantly want to throw dirt on the present in order to make the manure pile of wulff seem like roses.

Those people don't belong anymore. They should have been kicked out along with Wulff. They aren't coug fans. They are Wulff fans, and he isn't the coach anymore and rightfully so, and they need to buy in or leave.

And people like Jim Moore who don't like leach for personal reasons can get out too. You don't have to like a person for them to do a good job. In fact most of the hardest workers I know aren't the most likable people. But they get the job done because at the end of the day that's what matters.

Leach doesn't have to be anyone's best friend. He has to turnaround one of the worst programs in the BCS. He's on his way to do it, but some people either don't want him to because they liked the previous guy, or don't want him to because he isn't their very best friend; and boths those groups need to realize that Leach isn't the problem, THEY are the problem.

And WSU will be better off without them. Don't tell me that WSU needs them because it doesn't. We don't need people that want to hold the program back in order to justify their infatuation with a terrible coach. We don't need people that have an incessant need to be liked to try and validate their personal insecurities.

What we need is a tough football coach that can take our soft dough program and harden it into a group that can kick the crap out of any of the Pac-12 teams.

 

[Whitworth-Coug]

Originally posted by Cougatron:
The only real issue here are the people that cling to the previous coach and dismiss the current one.

those are the ones that should be removed, and the board can move forward.

Just like Leach cleaning house with the players that were holding us back the board should be purged of the people that constantly want to throw dirt on the present in order to make the manure pile of wulff seem like roses.

Those people don't belong anymore. They should have been kicked out along with Wulff. They aren't coug fans. They are Wulff fans, and he isn't the coach anymore and rightfully so, and they need to buy in or leave.

And people like Jim Moore who don't like leach for personal reasons can get out too. You don't have to like a person for them to do a good job. In fact most of the hardest workers I know aren't the most likable people. But they get the job done because at the end of the day that's what matters.

Leach doesn't have to be anyone's best friend. He has to turnaround one of the worst programs in the BCS. He's on his way to do it, but some people either don't want him to because they liked the previous guy, or don't want him to because he isn't their very best friend; and boths those groups need to realize that Leach isn't the problem, THEY are the problem.

And WSU will be better off without them. Don't tell me that WSU needs them because it doesn't. We don't need people that want to hold the program back in order to justify their infatuation with a terrible coach. We don't need people that have an incessant need to be liked to try and validate their personal insecurities.

What we need is a tough football coach that can take our soft dough program and harden it into a group that can kick the crap out of any of the Pac-12 teams.

Well Said.............