Charles Fischer

I was talking with a Duck-Buddy about George K.'s statement to the California Board of Regents asserting the "UCLA will lose money going to the B1G." It got me to thinking how the LA schools need us in the B1G eventually for a western "pod" of opponents. But what if the Pac-12 does not allow any conference school to play any B1G school in any sport? That means the LA schools are going to do a lot of traveling! And it will drive up their costs and what was once a recruiting advantage of going to the B1G, now becomes a recruiting albatross with the long trips, jet lag and trying to do school work besides? I've been looking at how this conference is working to raise revenue to come close to B1G income, but the other method of evening things out is to raise the cost of doing business for the LA schools. Right? Is that what George has in mind? A scheduling freeze that disallows any contests with B1G teams? (Sorry, but I cannot help but snicker at the thought!) I know...I got to pondering again...

I received a PM that stated the following about your post: [Your remark]...struck me as off-topic and inflammatory, not to mention flat-out wrong and perpetuating a stereotype. I work with many non-profits and the vast majority have overhead ratios below 25% (often below 15%), yet they're constantly accused of "spending all their money on staff and fundraising." I agree, but not with either of you, but to please keep the discussion to Oregon Sports? I have enough to moderate without getting into the finances of Non-Profits.

This has been a GREAT thread, and it demonstrates the wide diversity of opinion about whether the posts were in violation, and what to do about it. I guess more than anything--I've learned so much from all of you on so many topics in the past that I was hoping for a silver-bullet that someone offers to this dilemma. Nope. It is as difficult for all of you as it is for me. Had I sent the emails to No. 2 and No. 3 in the examples....they would not have been happy and would have thought that, "Charles, you are going too far." Of course the problem is always with Charles....it couldn't be that they could have written the post in a way that conveys their opinion without running afowl of our rules! I sure appreciate your feedback Drex, and all the good people who responded here.

My template explains how we operate, and lists the rule broken and has a link to the rules. You are right; a customized email gives some people the access to argue their case with me. What I've learned is that 99% of those who break the rules respond with..."my bad, so sorry Charles, won't do it again. Love what you are doing, and please keep it up." For people like that? You want to give them a hug, and them we forget about it and move on. The good people of this community who make an occasional mistake get a mulligan. Repeat offenders who create more work for me are the ones who get banned, and that is a very small percentage. But I still have to deal with 15 a month, and 185 violations in the last 12 months. I don't wish it on anyone. I do use the responses to my template/customized emails to help me gauge the future "trouble-level" I will have with a particular OBD member. Like the criminal justice system where most of the crimes are committed by repeat offenders....I found the same was true here as well. So if someone pushes back right away to the rules, the probability is high that he/she will continue to, and be an ongoing problem for me. I now have a template to their catty response that tells them what you suggested..."these are the rules and you decide if you can adjust. If you continue with multiple violations--you will be banned. Or you can adjust to our 'no-aggression-needed' atmosphere, or you can leave." I've learned to cut it sooner with certain people to save me time and work later. But it doesn't solve those grey-area posts like you see to begin this thread. Thanks for your thoughts.

I send a different template email for each type of violation, and usually I customize some stuff at the beginning of each email pertaining to what was written by the OBD member. I thought that explaining how 99.70% of the posts are published as just fine, and how his/hers falls in the low percentage...I figured that would make it obvious that civility is what the community wants. But I think you make a good point about making it more apparent; at first they were MY rules, but since the vast majority like "having the trash taken out," then it has become our rules. Thank you.

What is the surprise? Mario averaged 32 points a game last year at Oregon, and is doing the same now at Miami. Sounds like the “Prevent Offense” is in place to me! The only surprise is how clueless the journalists in the east are.

You wrote my feelings better than I have. THANK YOU.

That all makes sense. Now sell it to the masses...

Thank you Pitt, but in reference to your suggestion above...I've actually had people tell me, "if you don't like a post of mine--go ahead and edit it." Who made ME your damn editing maid? The point is--people are terrible about taking advantage of kindness. I show compassion, and they see weakness. If there are no consequences, then they will continue to violate rules and "let Charles clean up my mess." And when I apply consequences to people for their own behaviors? "In the end Charles, you are just a petty little tyrant." Whew!

This same offensive line would have languished had Cristobal stayed. Why? 1) How many were going to leave before Lanning/Dillingham/Klemm showed up? Wasn't it two or three? I know our best one who has won Pac-12 Offensive Lineman of the Week twice in six games, TJ Bass was one of them. 2) Dillingham's scheme is damn near twice as good as Cristobal's offense. EVERYBODY can see that. We've gone from 32 points per game to 42 points per game, which includes the Georgia contest! Nearly 50 points per game in the last five games, as this is an offensive lineman's paradise.

Look at the average rushing yards in the ten years before Cristobal, and then the average during his four years, and now what we doing now in rushing? Cristobal's teams underperformed what Kelly/Helfrich, and now what Lanning/Dillingham are doing. The scheme before Cristobal, and after Cristobal creates superior rushing numbers, despite his talk of being physical and running the ball. When you are the first team in NCAA history to average 45 points a game for four years and you come in and change that offense? How stupid/stubborn/boneheaded can you be? (He is a former coach, thus we can write those things) Yes. I am still sore about it, as Oregon could have done so much better. He recruited well, but was it the best on the offensive line? No, that goes to Coach Greatwood. Did he have the best scheme to create more rushing yards? No. Everyone before and after have done better including Bellotti. Now did Cristobal raise the overall talent level at Oregon? Yes, and I credit him for that. But remember...it was Willie Taggart who first broke the recruiting glass ceiling at Oregon. Would Willie Taggart Have Outperformed Mario Cristobal? FISHDUCK.COM These are not two of your favorite people to contemplate right now, but I would ask for your indulgence and fantasizing along with me. I understand how people...

Meh. The best offensive line in Oregon history that sent four to the NFL, and who are still on rosters were recruited by Steve Greatwood...before Cristobal. Coach Greatwood had five great ones verballed before July 4th in 2015...for signing in February of 2016. Calvin Throckmorton And they were wasted by Cristobal. Those pesky facts...

I have to agree with your logic all the way through, as I did not consider some of the points you made--good stuff. Thanks!

Go from one winning season to another...

Ha! Isn't that the truth...and that is why when guys come in blustering about how much they know football, and how I don't know diddly...they don't consider how silly some of their stuff will look later. I've been humbled so many times that I always make sure that I establish that, "it is my opinion is all." And that's what we're doing here, just sharing our opinions on Duck stuff.

I just discontinued the "FishDuck Feed" at the top of the site because I would have needed 12 to 18 new volunteers to help with it. I do not have the time or energy for the hours of phone calls to recruit and train that many people, let alone for two new departments. I would need a ton of people available during the day, and unfortunately...many retired people who have the time do not want to help. The majority of volunteers are already working full-time, and I cannot add to their plate as I am so very grateful for the time they give all of us as it is. In my managing of the site--I've also learned that if I come in with humor--they don't take me seriously, and I will have to deal with the same violation again. It is a very delicate balance of being tough, yet able to forget about a member's mistake and move on after he/she has acknowledged the error. This is a ton harder than it looks. (Hence why I asked for feedback, and thanks for taking your time to offer)

That was my own inclination, but yet...I do have to let people let off some steam. Great to see you join the forum and WELCOME!

The challenge is...trying to "train" people how to write when they are hyped up about the topic. A ton of good people would leave because..."I can't write anything about the team, Charles." Now that is an exaggeration, but I have had a TON of very sensitive people leave the site because I called them on one mild violation. With the 52,400 posts of last year, it is very hard to strike the right balance. Ideally, I agree with your premise, but executing it in reality is really tough. Discussing this stuff about players/coaches is what a forum is about, but I am trying to keep it civil without making it too rigid.

Well, I am not wild about this either...

Amen Duck-Brother! Felt great to read that, and it is true.

Our process is...when a moderator sees a violating post, he/she can hide it from public view with just two quick clicks. (That is why you rarely see a violating post, as our wonderful moderators catch them right away) Then they text me and I get to it when I can. I am often not around/available during the weekday, so I cannot get to violation emails until that evening, and it is too late for them to revise their post. And they cannot after one hour...

I'd rather see "that" than some of the emails I receive! Although when you have dealt with over 700 offenders over five years....you look for something new in the string of insults sent. Most think they are quite clever without realizing I truly have read what they wrote a hundred times before. But I did enjoy one recently when he wrote..."in the end Charles, you are just a petty little tyrant!" I could not resist responding with..."I am NOT....little!" I never said I was noble.

This is actually quite common. I do not recall the precise number, but the summer before the first Rose Bowl year of 1994...we had something like 13 players that HAD to pass all classes in summer school or they could not play. Apparently there were many big names of that team under this pressure. So the coaches were checking on every player, every day. They all passed! Later in 1997...the rumor is that our star running back that year had to pass a summer class, but had a hard time waking up. So the coaches assigned would not wait at class, but actually go to his apartment and pound on the door. He passed too!

Look who we are tied with! (Below us)

Yes.