ChristoThor

I think that is 100% correct. I think we do our best to address each other respectfully. When we are speaking from a place of ignorance or inexperience and someone informs us to that fact, we do our best to correct and move forward. I am not telling you that you have to adjust because I told you so that is all just my take on the situation. Others may disagree. From my perspective, making the statement that racism is just being picked on isn't the way to discuss it. I'm curious. When you say it is not your duty to change, what are you getting at? I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean change the truth based on previous posts of you saying you are willing to learn and grow. That statement of "not my duty to change" though can also come across as, "I know what is right and everyone else is wrong. It is not my job to change for them, but for them to see that I am right and should just listen to me." I am not saying that is what you were trying to say, but reading that gave me that vibe on my first read. I have been told before that, "We should agree to disagree. I can't learn anything from you and you won't listen to me." It is a very combative way of approaching disagreeing and this also could come across that way. I also feel like the two things you quoted are lacking their surrounding context. They are both said in the context that while I stand by those statements, it is still the least affected party's responsibility to maintain a helpful tone in the conversation. I hope that the wronged party can look past emotion, but that can be especially difficult when you feel wronged/hurt. This is a difficult topic and it is even more so for those who are actually affected by it. On the note of CRT, I have noticed a lot of people take a look at it, feel uncomfortable, and find a way to dismiss it. Normally this is through a strawman argument where they find someone who pushes a very extreme interpretation. This falls back to what I was saying earlier about the beliefs of a group not being consistent across the board and engaging with an idea to truly understand it. I think for CRT or any other controversial ideology (feminism for example) it is best to try and find what the founding/central/official concept is for it outside of a bunch of people shouting their interpretation. Back to the example of feminism, I found the way some feminist talked about certain topics were hard to digest and accept. It was up to me to try and look at the overall goal/ideology of feminism outside of loud opinions. Upon doing that, it became easier to listen to those very same feminists because I felt I had a better idea of where they were coming from. I don't know if I can give a great explanation, but I will try. I believe that Cori Bush feels that the policies that Byron Donalds is supporting can help the white supremacy agenda. By saying "Despite being Black" she is saying that it is more likely that someone who is Black should understand the importance of standing against white supremacy and it is surprising to see someone who is Black support it. I do not believe she is saying you can't be Black if you don't vote the same way as me. I am not the best informed. I can't speak to the absolute truth of the situation, but I can understand where she is coming from. Byron Donalds being supported by those who refuse to vote for McCarthy does not instill a lot of confidence in him personally speaking. I also think it is folly to look at politicians for guidance. In fact, a lot of the time I feel they are much better representatives of what not to do.

I will start by saying any portions I am leaving out from your previous response post are things I feel have been covered enough to not continue discussing. I also want to state that when I am using "you" it is a general collective "you" and not personally directed at you since I am responding to you. My point in bringing up Malcolm X is that you can't attribute all progress from the 60's to King. That is not a full picture and is misleading. It is also not a full picture to only include Malcom X as well, but my point isn't to provide a complete picture in the argument (I will be honest, I don't have the complete picture and I feel this forum post isn't the place to explore that). It is to point out that it is rare to be able to point to only one person or action to explain larger pieces of history. I really want to address the bolded and underlined portion above. If you are going to talk to people about racism, reducing it to being picked on is a terrible way to establish connection and trust. To a degree, yes I think you did search out an agreeing statement for yourself. In this response, you are actually acknowledging others who have contributed to the society wide conversation of racism so I can say that it was a mostly incorrect assumption. However, I also feel the need to state up until this point I have not seen you acknowledge any one on the opposite side of your view points. You come across as disingenuous when you are only referring to one side of the discussion without at least engaging with and attempting to understand the opposition's ideology/arguments/statements. When I speak of understanding, what I personally mean is not just understanding what is said to be able to respond, but to understand the mindset, background, and motivation that formed the other person's response. That was my entire point. I am saying that it isn't simple and that for true understanding you need both sides. It isn't about saying one side is completely right or wrong or completely falling in with one side or the other. It is not simple I completely agree. If you are wanting to engage with the topic in a meaningful way, you should put in the time and effort to understand where all involved parties are coming from. This is not easy and in some cases not even possible, but to dismiss an entire side of a conversation is not the right answer. You need to push past discomfort and try to truly understand where they are coming from so you can gain a better picture. Again I feel the need to point out the tone used to discuss this. This is something that applies to all people involved in the conversation. If you talk in a way that belittles other's thoughts, it won't help the conversation. That being said, I do feel the pressure to maintain a helpful and understanding tone is on the side of those who were not wronged by whatever action is causing the conversation. In this case, that would be white people. I have stated before and again below that consistency of belief and view points across a group of people can't be expected and I stand by that. However, when someone is hurt and wronged if someone truly wants to help them they will not talk down to them. If you can't do that, you probably aren't the one to help. I want to also state that helping someone does not mean hiding from the truth or changing your beliefs to be in complete unison with them. People can be hurt or wronged and still be incorrect themselves (I mention this for situations at large this is not directed at the issue of racism specifically). It is possible to hear someone out, actively engage with what they are saying, and still walk away disagreeing. I understand the claim. My point in bringing christianity up is in regard to my first sentence of the paragraph you were responding to, which I am including again here. It is hard to look at any group of people and expect consistency of belief across their entire population I want to finish by saying. I am not trying to attack you with all of this. You have been responding to me and I have been using that to address concerns I have with how people discuss racism and other issues. I feel it has been related to what you have said, but some of what I have said may not apply to you personally.

I can accept that as a misunderstanding on my part. I can understand appreciating the end of slavery, but the way you talk about it seems to be used as a way to put up a smokescreen from acknowledging what more needs to happen. You were making very firm statement by saying you are either grateful or full of resentment. Us acknowledging the things that are happening in today's society is not blaming people for slavery of the past. I know some call for blaming people of today for slavery of the past, but I feel all that accomplishes is distracting for the real issues at hand. I understand the frustration of that, but I do not feel that is what the majority of people are trying to bring to light or asking to solve. I think I understand what you are saying, but I do feel you are doing a disservice to what Malcolm X also accomplished around the same time. You may not like what it looked like, but it wasn't all Mr. King who put in the work. Mr. King acknowledged Malcom X and what he did. He stated they may not see eye to eye, but he held deep affection for him. I believe in peaceful protest, but I won't discount the anger that bein on the receiving side of racism sparks in people. Sure that can be true, but that doesn't mean Cole has to explain. There is plenty out there that we can all research without having to involve others. With the Larry Elder thing, I have noticed that people who don't like what the opposing opinions are saying will go find someone who says what they want to negate the opposing opinion. This is something I have run into a fair bit with some people. This isn't to say you have to be completely convicted of what the opposition is saying, but growth can't happen without change. If you only gather opinions that look like your own you will never have a way to grow outside of random personal revelation. In acknowledging and trying to understand an opposing opinion, you can see the error in your own and their opinion that will hopefully help you form a more accurate understanding of a situation. I feel that searching out for any person of color to agree with you instead of trying to understand the rest who disagree is a way to cling to the comfort of your own opinions. It is hard to look at any group of people and expect consistency of belief across their entire population. Of course there will be people within the same "group" making opposite claims. A great is example is christianity. You made the claim that christianity as a unified group fought slavery. Someone else pointed out that there were people on both sides of the civil war using their christian beliefs to justify their side of things. There will always be a disparity of education, opportunity, and experience within any group. Just because there is difference of opinion within the black community doesn't mean you can choose which side has the valid opinion. It just means that all those with the difference of opinion need to take a look at themselves, their beliefs, and those that oppose them and find the opportunity for growth. Again though, that doesn't mean anyone is obligated to do that for you. We have a wealth of information and publications out there on both sides for those who are interested to go and find and learn. I think this is of very high importance since I believe we all will be called to stand by our beliefs one day. I would rather delve in myself and form my own opinion rather than regurgitate things that make me feel safe and not truly understand what I am standing for.

You are stating that abolishing slavery is the ultimate acknowledgement of sins. Ultimate means final, at the end of a process, or the best imaginable/achievable. Abolishing slavery is none of those. It is literally only the start. The ultimate acknowledgement of the sin of slavery is to make sure every person regardless of race or background has an even playing field and we most definitely don't have that. You are making absolute statements that if we don't say we appreciate slavery was abolished then we are only filled with resentment. Stating that we still aren't where we need to be on the issue of race doesn't represent a lack of thankfulness that slavery is abolished in the US. That is an absurd statement. You are using progress being made as an excuse to justify where we are. Of course people are upset with the timeline. No one should have to be subjected to racism. How is this even a take? You don't want answers because if you did you would find them. Instead, you want to say that someone needs to discuss with you so you can find answers so you don't have to put in effort. It is no one else's job to educate you on racism and how to solve it. Expand your view. The material is out there for you. Don't just look for the one black guy saying racism isn't a big deal. Maybe try to find view points that are different from your own rather than trying to bait someone else into looking like the bad guy so you can feel good about yourself.

I have noticed a lot of the time people are talking about free speech they are misunderstanding that free speech means you can say it, not that you are safe from the consequences. You can say whatever you want, but others can decide what the consequences are if they control the platform you say them on. If it gets bad enough, your employer or the government could even get involved. That is just the nature of all of this. Free speech isn't being taken away. You just have to watch your mouth because people won't put up with certain things. You are of course welcome to take yourself to other platforms or even create your own. It is unreasonable to put it on everyone but yourself to accommodate you because you don't like that others don't want you speaking on their platform. I say all of this not trying to claim either side is right or wrong in every case (although in some cases there is very clearly a wrong party), but to highlight the fact that we have limited power to influence other people's business/platforms. To be upset about that is pointless. Making some "grand" gesture calling them out even when you are famous typically doesn't end well so just understand that you aren't the intended audience and either adjust or find somewhere else.

I was talking to to another fan at work and apparently this kid didn't play all throughout high school. I'm not too sure how to really find that information. I googled it to the best of my ability and it looks like he was added to his high school's roster in 2021. That could just be that I am not looking in the right places. The other guy was saying though if he had played more in high school like he did last year he would be higher ranked. That is all a bunch of hypothetical situations, but at the same time it could mean good things for this kid. If he can be coachable under this staff, he may prove to be on of the few lower ranked qb's to stand out. Again, I know that is held together with a good bit of wishful thinking. I just don't see the point in saying this kid isn't going to cut it.

I have been curious myself about Cadillac being retained. I would love for Cadillac to stay at Auburn, but it looks kind of awkward to me at this point. He isn't ready for a coordinator position let alone a head coach position right now in my opinion. Again, I am very grateful for him stepping up and it is clear he loves Auburn and has the team fired up. I am open to being wrong about this. He may make a huge difference in these last 3 weeks. The biggest problem for him staying is if the new coach wants to keep him. He is awesome and I love what he has done at Auburn, but to me it looks like he would go back to being a RB coach again. I would imagine it would be kind of hard to step back to a position coach after being interim head coach. Another option I see is him being an assistant OC or something along those lines. The problem I see with that is it is an awkward position to put your OC in if he is looking to stay since he would know there is a replacement for him breathing down his neck that he would also be teaching how to do his job. All that being said, I'm definitely now the smartest guy around and I could have completely misread the situation. In my perfect dream world, I would love it if we got a strong OC who may want to look for a HC position in the next 2-3 years and who is willing to show Cadillac the ropes and help him build a strong foundation.

He's good at driving ticket prices down. I just saw that tickets for this weekend's game are starting at $13.

I completely agree. I just wanted to say my super greedy wish lol.

I think what I want is for us to stay in the top 15 in recruiting and ranking on a regular basis. I am not saying every year has to be up there, but we should at least be a team that gets top 15 recruiting classes and 8 win seasons are the floor of our expectations most years with legitimate chances at making SEC championship appearances every few years.

That is a fair point. It could still be possible, but I don't really see it. If I could have my way though, I would like to be greedy and get Aranda and Grimes as OC.

I can't say I have been great about reading every thread about who we all want for the next head coach, but I have a few thoughts. I am going to start with my top two choices I don't think will happen. Aranda and Stoops. Aranda. The first thing is that I think the 12 team playoff we are moving to is actually going to hurt us when it comes to getting another coach right now. I am not sure if this has been said, but any coach that is currently successful at a decent program knows that they can stay where they are and have a pretty good shot at making the playoffs pretty regularly. This is what crosses my mind for coaches like Aranda at Baylor. Why would he be interested in coming to fix Auburn when he can stay at Baylor and pretty much rule what is left of the Big 12 after Texas and Oklahoma are gone? Stoops. The other side I think of is money. I know Auburn has a lot of money to throw around on coaches, but we are still paying Gus I am fairly certain. We will also be on the line for a fairly decent sized buyout for Harsin as well if we fire him soon. Stoops is a name I like, but he is going to make $6.75 million this year and $8 million in his last year of 2027. What kind of offer would we have to make to get him to Auburn? Its not going to be cheap and I don't know if Auburn will want to pay that much to get him. In my mind, that leaves us with trying to pick a coach from smaller conference again and hoping they are a diamond in the rough, look for a good coordinator and give them a shot at their first HC job, or go to the NFL. I don't love any of those options necessarily, but I from my perspective that seems to be where we are. I am not a fan of going for another HC from a smaller conference again (I could be wrong to feel that way) and I don't know the NFL coaches very well so that leaves me with coordinators who may be ready to make the leap to HC. So all of that to say that I think Grimes is my realistic #1 choice at this moment. Grimes seems like a strong choice on that front even if he is not a super flashy or appealing choice. He could hopefully help with recruiting and especially with our OL.

To be honest, I would like to see the pod schedule be put together. Its not to get away from Georgia though. I would like to see Alabama in our pod and then I think there should be a cross pod rival in each of the 3 pods that are guaranteed every year and Georgia should be one of them. We have been playing Georgia for so long I would hate to see that get thrown away out of "fairness" or pod scheduling.

I understand there isn't much else to expect at this point. I even said later I get that he is going to get his chance first. I also understand he could have improved and he may end up beating everyone else for the starting position. I am just saying as of right now I don't feel good about Finley. I am open to being wrong.

I can definitely see what you are saying. I understand that Finley is going to get his chance since he was already in this system and even started in it. I just worry that he is going to really perform in practice enough to get on the field and then choke. I know it is a bit irrational, but I just want to see someone else get a shot. I wish the best for Finley and maybe he can turn into a great QB at Auburn, but I just don't currently have a lot of faith in him and I worry he will push his way to a starting position past spring.

Reading this does not make me feel good. I didn't see anything already discussing who is going to be starting on A day and wanted to post this here to see how others felt about this. I understand it is too soon to really say anybody has earned the starting position, but sticking with Finley leaves a bad taste in my mouth. https://flywareagle.com/2022/03/02/auburn-football-qb-first-team/

I can't speak for most Tennessee fans or their forums, but my coworker is happy with Heupel. It took them a few games to replace Milton with Hooker at QB and they came alive after that. It wasn't so much the number of wins this season for them. It was more that they had a team that actually played football after losing a lot of their more talented players in a first year system. Those TN boys played their hearts out this season and it seems well received.

Team morale I think will be the biggest indicator at this point in my opinion. If the team is buying in, some great stuff can happen. Look at TN this year. They did not have a lot to work with this year, but they came alive under Heupel. If Harsin can get that out of this year's team, I will be pretty excited. I hope he can pull it off.

When it comes to cause, I think we are getting it confused. It seems like we are thinking of cause as the reason for firing him. When they are saying fire with cause, they are talking about not having to pay a buyout which is guaranteed by contract unless there is a situation that voids it (also should be stated within contract what those situations are). It is similar to severance pay. A company can fire you if they feel you aren't performing, but if you have severance pay negotiated you will get it unless they can find a way out.

I kind of hate to defend the PTB, but this doesn't really feel right from them. With CGM we went from people speculating his future in early December to him being fired a week later. Auburn made a pretty quick decision as soon as the season was over. If it is the PTB that was behind all of this, why would they wait until February to start it? It seems to me they knew what to do last year and just cut it off as soon as possible to give the best chance to keep things under control. Waiting two months to start trying to get rid of your HC doesn't really make sense to me. The more I think about it, this is starting to feel like there is somebody close or was close to Auburn who is either mad at Harsin and wants to damage him. It could as be that someone heard a rumor or caught something inappropriate happening and let it slip to the wrong person before the validity/proof could be solidified.

I have been looking through this for a while now and this has been a wild ride. I think we all need to calm down on taking one side or the other here. The players seem to be falling into two camps. The first camp seems to be good with Harsin and respect what he is trying to accomplish. The second camp is upset with how they have been treated. I believe (not that it means much) that Harsin is just trying to push hard work and accountability. However, this does not invalidate those who are upset. My father always told me that "perception is reality." If there are players who feel neglected or mistreated, Harsin's intentions aren't as important. That may be hard to accept, but it's true. It is Harsin's job to work with these players and it is pretty much impossible to guarantee that you will get a team full of people who resonate with Harsin's "tough love." Harsin has to figure out how to connect with all types of players who will come through his program. I don't think he has been malicious in the way he has treated players (I could definitely be wrong on that), but all of this coming out is a sure sign he has some work to do in connecting with his players. On the statement I made above about intention not being important, your intentions behind your actions do not get to dictate how other people perceive and react to your actions. You may get the opportunity to explain yourself to iron things out, but you don't get to tell other people that they are wrong to see things a certain way. You also don't get to force forgiveness after the fact. If these players feel slighted, that is their perception of the events and Harsin doesn't necessarily get a chance for forgiveness. That doesn't make Harsin the devil and it doesn't make the players soft or lazy. All of those things may be true, but these events don't really show that to me.

Well isn't Oregon's OC Dillingham who was Bo's first OC? I thought that was part of the reason he went to Oregon. Maybe I am wrong, but I was under the impression he was back under an OC he had before.

I understand the frustration with the reliance on passing in the game, but how are we supposed to run the ball all the time. I understand that Tank is our best and most reliable offensive asset. That is the thing though. Houston knew this as well. He had a good yard per carry stat during the game I won't argue that. I think if we stuck with running the ball with Tank that stat would have fallen drastically and we would have seen even more stops at or behind the line of scrimmage. We can't fully utilize Tank until we get more threats on offense. It would have been bad play calling to just keep giving Tank the ball. Houston was waiting on us to give the ball to Tank and that is why the passing plays were good calls. Yes I agree that we don't have a reliable quarterback, but he has made pass plays and if he can make the pass we are going to be in a great position. We just couldn't pull it off. That doesn't mean it was not the right thing to try at the time.

I can see that. My main point was that if he was willing to leave Oregon he would be willing to leave Auburn. Having family down there makes a bunch of sense though.

Lanning is a maybe. I didn't pay too much attention to him. To be honest, I don't really think Sark or Freeze were going be instant winners and generate relationships with high school coaches and have excitement about their identity any quicker than Harsin. Sark had his shot at head coach and didn't really light the world on fire. I'm not saying he is a bad choice. I just don't see how he would be considered a clear upgrade from Harsin. Freeze is hard to get behind with his recruiting violations. From what I understand, we took too long to get committed and didn't want to put the money together to get Cristobal. Even if we did get him we could have been in an awkward spot of losing him to his alma mater. I don't really see how going from Oregon to Miami is a step up. I'm not saying its a step down necessarily, but I don't see why he would leave Oregon otherwise. If he is willing to leave Oregon for Miami, what is there to say that he wouldn't do the same to Auburn? I'm not trying to be a jerk. I just don't think that we were going to find this mysterious miracle hire that was going to put us on the ground running without a need for rebuilding.