The Constitutionalist

If my Ducks are playing, I'm watching. We could be 0-11 and I'll still watch that last game. It's fine and even encouraged to have high expectations for the team, and it's fine to be disappointed, frustrated, and even spitefully angry when they don't meet them. But I'm not going to turn my back on a team coached by a man in his first head coaching position that was 7 points away from taking us to an 11 win season, at minimum.

I actually think this suggests that perhaps Mario didn't meddle in the offense as much as we would like to believe. Consider that Arroyo, who prior to taking the Oregon OC position was virtually and vocally (and for a long time as stated in many interviews) in love with the pistol offense. He then proceeded to install the very same offense at UNLV and well... you've seen the results. After he left and we brought on Moorhead, we slowly switched out of the pistol during his first year and nearly completely out of it his second. Just food for thought, but the pistol was kind of Arroyo's "thing." I don't imagine "offensive genius" Moorhead will last much longer at Akron either.

There's no point in trying to make everyone, including the rule breakers, happy. Personally, I don't have a problem with any of the examples, even if they do break the rules. I get that emotions run high in the heat of the moment, and often, despite how the comment is read by the reader, the writer likely had better intentions. Context matters, but so do the rules. There's certainly an amount of subjectivity that goes into moderation and I trust the team. I've seen a couple suggestions here about sending rule violators a brief, polite email, but I don't think that's effective. You already do that and I'd wager that the majority of the vitriol you receive is in response to emails explaining your reasoning. All it does is give the rulebreaker an avenue to argue and vent because the email, in addition to having a comment deleted/edited, feels like punishment enough. Getting a lecture on top of it hurts the feelings of the less emotionally mature. Delete the rule-breaking comments and send a non-personalized email that simply states: Your comment on <date> was found by the moderation team to break our rules and was removed. Please familiarize with the rules here <link>. Don't give them the opportunity to plead their case. The rules are the king here. If they're a repeat offender, ban them along with a similarly non-personalized email.

The Pistol was Arroyo's idea. It's sort of his thing. Arroyo's had 2 years at UNLV and he's won what, 3 games? As far as I know, this is the first time he's run any plays at UNLV not out of the pistol.

Off topic, but wasn't there a semi-recent decision made that essentially barred coaches from monitoring their athletes weight?

I just want to point out that the last time we tried to turn a coordinator into a HC, we went 11-2 and kicked Texas in the mouth, then played for a Natty the next year.

Oh no, we're on the same page and we agree. I suppose I was a little vague on what I meant. What I meant was that they should just be fans, no different than any of us.

Not to be "that guy," but the fans don't have a great track record either, Charles. Here, and elsewhere, there were a lot of calls for Wilcox, Kelly, and even Helfrich. We're a rather hard to please bunch and like fans everywhere else, we get very emotional. No voice is louder in our own heads than the one that tells us that we were right all along, especially if we can't be proven wrong. And I'll be the first to forget, even on purpose, when I am wrong (if I haven't already first spun the argument to make me right). If Lanning doesn't work out, Wilcox et al., will be the best coaches we never had. As far as I'm concerned, without any disrespect implied, former players are the same as the rest of us -- they're fans. They did their part, and for that I'm grateful, but the word former is there for a reason. Personally, I think the letter was taken out of context. I think it was written with good intentions by people without all the information, published at the exact wrong time, and capitalized on and framed by people trying to stir up drama. Had the letter come out a few days earlier, we'd be celebrating it as an even-handed, well written piece with a message we can all agree on, at least philosophically.

Time will tell. I think Lanning will be an upgrade, but what I wonder is how long we allow him to grow into the role. He has no HC experience and that means there will be some growing pains. I'm more worried about the fanbase having unrealistic expectations than I am about Lanning's eventual performance as our HC. I see no reason that we can't have at least a 10 win season next year - but I also see no reason to be disappointed if we don't.

A good number of us feel hurt by MC's departure. We feel hurt, betrayed, and like he broke a commitment. That's why I have no issue with Lanning coaching his boys in the playoff and hopefully the National Championship game. If anything, it tells me that he is a man of his word and he wants to see what he starts through to completion. I'm not worried about recruiting. Lanning is a proven recruiter and there's something to be said about coming to play for a loyal, hopefully championship winning coach.

These things take time. If the rumors that were floating around are true, it's not unreasonable to think that Mullens believed he could keep MC. It hasn't been a week yet -- and I'd much rather this process takes a little bit longer and we hire the right guy, than immediately hire the wrong one. Yes, we may lose some recruits, but if we hire a prominent, winning coach from another program, some of those recruits will likely follow him.