Hang tight guys ...

[aubaseball 2,629]

49 minutes ago, WarEagleHunter1221 said:

Yep. Same thing with wearing alternative uniforms. Anytime you even mention it the good ol boy fans literally almost pass out. I don’t care if we wear them or not but IMO we should do what the players want and I’m sure they would love that. I absolutely hate the under armor BS. It’s so old time Auburn it makes me sick. 

You guys must not remember Russell Athletic gear that Auburn use to wear.   Under armor is way better than that crap 

[Tigerpro2a 5,650]

15 minutes ago, Gowebb11 said:

I’m a big fan of Caddy as well, but disappointed that he was not able to hang on to Goodwin and lost MAR to the transfer portal. 

I mean.....I don't know that he had any way to save MAR. The one time I saw MAR go in during the Texas AM game, Gus ran down the sideline to Caddy and we never saw him again. 

As for Goodwin, That one stings, but I give him a pass on it with the coaching change.

[aubaseball 2,629]

21 minutes ago, cole256 said:

You can just look and see how just a little energy can really help a program take off. Look at what Deion Sanders is doing at Jackson State. Just imagine what that could've done with a place like here.....but that's something that wouldn't ever happen here. 

We're still fine with making folk heroes out of mediocre talent and arguing about how they are so great and making villains out of the guys who does have talent. 

What????  Dion Sanders?? Are you serious.  That’s all a bunch of hyped up BS.   No thanks.    I’ll take the professional coming in and running this thing like Saban has done.   All the smoke and mirrors of Dion will fade away with time.   

[Ausburn2 487]

22 minutes ago, RunInRed said:

Any body want to take this for me ...

Read Shea Brennamam of Auburn Wire and Justin Hokanson's tweets and you can get a general reflection of that posters feelings.  Neither come with listing sources. Justin more questions. Shea more opinions.  The deleted post  I saw had a little more passion in its writing.  Hope that puts some context of thread.

[Leftfield 2,616]

7 hours ago, Ausburn2 said:

If the narrative doesn't fit your perspective put me on your ignore list.

Honest question: What is your goal in this discussion? 

It's easy to gather that you disagree with what RIR posted, but you've given no counter other than, basically, "he can't prove it." If his version is not correct, then I think I speak for everyone here in saying please let us know what is. Unfortunately, at this point, even if you have an alternate version, you've likely sabotaged it because of the way you've approached us: immediate condescension and attacking one of the most respected people here, whose argument has been backed up by two other well-respected members of the forum, journalists with access to the program, and a number of former players.

The view of most on this forum is that the Board of Trustees and influential boosters have not done a good job at running the football program.  Certainly it hasn't been a complete disaster, as we've clearly had success at times. The University has long shown that building a top program was a priority, and has been investing to get it. Unfortunately many of the actions taken seemed to sabotage that investment. Moves such as hiring Gene Chizik and giving Gus Malzahn an enormous contract extension were ill-advised and unpopular, and ultimately it was shown why. Buying a $13 million dollar scoreboard, while football facilities were sorely lacking compared to those we wish to compete against, was the equivalent of buying a Lexus and having to sleep in it because your house is falling apart. The new recruiting area, while needed, looks like it was slapped on instead of part of a cohesive plan. It all appears to support what we've heard from behind-the-scenes for years: the money is there, but there are so many conflicting interests, pet projects, and egos that nobody can get on the same page and do what needs to be done for a first-class operation.

I understand your defense of the BOT. I have no doubt they act with the best interests of the University in mind. However, when it comes to running the football program, why should they be acting at all? Is this not what an Athletic Director is for? Certainly they should have to sign off on any large-scale action the program takes, to make sure budgets are followed and there is no detrimental effect elsewhere, but it is not their job to decide how the program is run, who runs it, or who coaches it. It is their job to make sure the AD and coach can perform their tasks without undue influence, and that is clearly not the case. 

This is the frustration we as fans have had to deal with for may years: who should be held accountable? Many called Jay Jacobs a good "Auburn Man." Nobody doubted he loved Auburn, but he was viewed by many, and probably most, as a puppet. He could have his say on minor things, but when it came to major decisions he was beholden to the boosters and the Board. Which boosters? Which Board members? There were always rumors, but very few could ever be sure. Undoubtedly this is how those in power love to operate: access to all areas of the program, all the adulation when things go well, plausible deniability when they go bad. 

Long story short: I don't think anyone here has a desire to overturn the entire BOT or sweep out all the big money that has supported the program for so long. All we want to see is a professional operation, with the separation of powers that is necessary for transparency and accountability, and a unified vision of where the program will go. The AD and coaches need to be able to do their jobs without undue interference. If it's felt they aren't up to the task, remove them and get someone who can, but if you're going to commit the amount of money to them that this University has then it's for damn sure that measures should be taken to get someone worthy of that money. And yes, perception matters here. If we hire Kevin Steele, we will literally be a laughingstock because of how this situation has been handled, and it will reflect poorly on the University's ability to run things in general. Living up north, I can assure you there is still a great lack of respect for academics at most southern schools. The emphasis and money thrown at athletics does not help, but operating it with buffoonery and insisting on controllable, insular hires makes the perception that much worse.

I wish we could have an actual dialogue on this, but forgive me for being skeptical due to the way you've come forward. I can understand your feeling attacked personally with the way many on this forum are venting, but you've come across as feeling "above the commoner," and therefore reinforcing the very opinion that has brought us here.

 

[gr82be 14,439]

2 hours ago, aucom96 said:

You can argue over the when, but Gus had to go. Auburn was paying big time money for middling results. It may not have been a losing record overall, but we were dominated by our rivals and were losing ground quickly in recruiting. Plus we had in-built recruiting issues like Gus' refusal to take recruiting offensive linemen seriously. In 7 seasons, we'd gone as far as we were going to go with Malzahn. If we had kept him another season, we'd have the same results if not worse. 

We may wind up just as bad off or worse because Auburn's problems obviously didn't begin and didn't end with Gus Malzahn, but both parties needed a better fit. Gus isn't a top level SEC coach and that's the kind of money Auburn is spending. 

Unfortunately only those who see it this way are the ones who get it. Your explanation, like many of us before, falls on deaf ears or in this case, blind eyes. Some just refuse to see the problem that existed with Gus vs SEC rivals. 

[leglessdan 1,934]

8 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Honest question: What is your goal in this discussion? 

It's easy to gather that you disagree with what RIR posted, but you've given no counter other than, basically, "he can't prove it." If his version is not correct, then I think I speak for everyone here in saying please let us know what is. Unfortunately, at this point, even if you have an alternate version, you've likely sabotaged it because of the way you've approached us: immediate condescension and attacking one of the most respected people here, whose argument has been backed up by two other well-respected members of the forum, journalists with access to the program, and a number of former players.

The view of most on this forum is that the Board of Trustees and influential boosters have not done a good job at running the football program.  Certainly it hasn't been a complete disaster, as we've clearly had success at times. The University has long shown that building a top program was a priority, and has been investing to get it. Unfortunately many of the actions taken seemed to sabotage that investment. Moves such as hiring Gene Chizik and giving Gus Malzahn an enormous contract extension were ill-advised and unpopular, and ultimately it was shown why. Buying a $13 million dollar scoreboard, while football facilities were sorely lacking compared to those we wish to compete against, was the equivalent of buying a Lexus and having to sleep in it because your house is falling apart. The new recruiting area, while needed, looks like it was slapped on instead of part of a cohesive plan. It all appears to support what we've heard from behind-the-scenes for years: the money is there, but there are so many conflicting interests, pet projects, and egos that nobody can get on the same page and do what needs to be done for a first-class operation.

I understand your defense of the BOT. I have no doubt they act with the best interests of the University in mind. However, when it comes to running the football program, why should they be acting at all? Is this not what an Athletic Director is for? Certainly they should have to sign off on any large-scale action the program takes, to make sure budgets are followed and there is no detrimental effect elsewhere, but it is not their job to decide how the program is run, who runs it, or who coaches it. It is their job to make sure the AD and coach can perform their tasks without undue influence, and that is clearly not the case. 

This is the frustration we as fans have had to deal with for may years: who should be held accountable? Many called Jay Jacobs a good "Auburn Man." Nobody doubted he loved Auburn, but he was viewed by many, and probably most, as a puppet. He could have his say on minor things, but when it came to major decisions he was beholden to the boosters and the Board. Which boosters? Which Board members? There were always rumors, but very few could ever be sure. Undoubtedly this is how those in power love to operate: access to all areas of the program, all the adulation when things go well, plausible deniability when they go bad. 

Long story short: I don't think anyone here has a desire to overturn the entire BOT or sweep out all the big money that has supported the program for so long. All we want to see is a professional operation, with the separation of powers that is necessary for transparency and accountability, and a unified vision of where the program will go. The AD and coaches need to be able to do their jobs without undue interference. If it's felt they aren't up to the task, remove them and get someone who can, but if you're going to commit the amount of money to them that this University has then it's for damn sure that measures should be taken to get someone worthy of that money. And yes, perception matters here. If we hire Kevin Steele, we will literally be a laughingstock because of how this situation has been handled, and it will reflect poorly on the University's ability to run things in general. Living up north, I can assure you there is still a great lack of respect for academics at most southern schools. The emphasis and money thrown at athletics does not help, but operating it with buffoonery and insisting on controllable, insular hires makes the perception that much worse.

I wish we could have an actual dialogue on this, but forgive me for being skeptical due to the way you've come forward. I can understand your feeling attacked personally with the way many on this forum are venting, but you've come across as feeling "above the commoner," and therefore reinforcing the very opinion that has brought us here.

 

 

[gr82be 14,439]

9 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Honest question: What is your goal in this discussion? 

It's easy to gather that you disagree with what RIR posted, but you've given no counter other than, basically, "he can't prove it." If his version is not correct, then I think I speak for everyone here in saying please let us know what is. Unfortunately, at this point, even if you have an alternate version, you've likely sabotaged it because of the way you've approached us: immediate condescension and attacking one of the most respected people here, whose argument has been backed up by two other well-respected members of the forum, journalists with access to the program, and a number of former players.

The view of most on this forum is that the Board of Trustees and influential boosters have not done a good job at running the football program.  Certainly it hasn't been a complete disaster, as we've clearly had success at times. The University has long shown that building a top program was a priority, and has been investing to get it. Unfortunately many of the actions taken seemed to sabotage that investment. Moves such as hiring Gene Chizik and giving Gus Malzahn an enormous contract extension were ill-advised and unpopular, and ultimately it was shown why. Buying a $13 million dollar scoreboard, while football facilities were sorely lacking compared to those we wish to compete against, was the equivalent of buying a Lexus and having to sleep in it because your house is falling apart. The new recruiting area, while needed, looks like it was slapped on instead of part of a cohesive plan. It all appears to support what we've heard from behind-the-scenes for years: the money is there, but there are so many conflicting interests, pet projects, and egos that nobody can get on the same page and do what needs to be done for a first-class operation.

I understand your defense of the BOT. I have no doubt they act with the best interests of the University in mind. However, when it comes to running the football program, why should they be acting at all? Is this not what an Athletic Director is for? Certainly they should have to sign off on any large-scale action the program takes, to make sure budgets are followed and there is no detrimental effect elsewhere, but it is not their job to decide how the program is run, who runs it, or who coaches it. It is their job to make sure the AD and coach can perform their tasks without undue influence, and that is clearly not the case. 

This is the frustration we as fans have had to deal with for may years: who should be held accountable? Many called Jay Jacobs a good "Auburn Man." Nobody doubted he loved Auburn, but he was viewed by many, and probably most, as a puppet. He could have his say on minor things, but when it came to major decisions he was beholden to the boosters and the Board. Which boosters? Which Board members? There were always rumors, but very few could ever be sure. Undoubtedly this is how those in power love to operate: access to all areas of the program, all the adulation when things go well, plausible deniability when they go bad. 

Long story short: I don't think anyone here has a desire to overturn the entire BOT or sweep out all the big money that has supported the program for so long. All we want to see is a professional operation, with the separation of powers that is necessary for transparency and accountability, and a unified vision of where the program will go. The AD and coaches need to be able to do their jobs without undue interference. If it's felt they aren't up to the task, remove them and get someone who can, but if you're going to commit the amount of money to them that this University has then it's for damn sure that measures should be taken to get someone worthy of that money. And yes, perception matters here. If we hire Kevin Steele, we will literally be a laughingstock because of how this situation has been handled, and it will reflect poorly on the University's ability to run things in general. Living up north, I can assure you there is still a great lack of respect for academics at most southern schools. The emphasis and money thrown at athletics does not help, but operating it with buffoonery and insisting on controllable, insular hires makes the perception that much worse.

I wish we could have an actual dialogue on this, but forgive me for being skeptical due to the way you've come forward. I can understand your feeling attacked personally with the way many on this forum are venting, but you've come across as feeling "above the commoner," and therefore reinforcing the very opinion that has brought us here.

 

Perfect!!

[aub4life 33]

34 minutes ago, RunInRed said:

Any body want to take this for me ...

I see a LOL emoji so, obviously, I've missed something or am just blind?

[I_M4_AU 7,863]

28 minutes ago, Tiger said:

No wonder he kept hiring his former players smh and we thought Gus' trust issues were overblown. The program needs a thorough purge

Evidently, Gus didn’t have any former defensive players he had control over, his ultimate down fall.  Well, that and he is just too Beta to hold off the coup.

[Ausburn2 487]

A common Alabamian.  Grew up with them and still live with them

Didn't attack RIR.  Challenged source and claim of a conspiracy between between three people.

The writings of wanting Gus gone and change the PTB go back further than 2 years on this forum.  Is that any less of a conspiracy?  Calls for the PTB whoever to rid the plains of Gus go back further than two years here.  So now the PTB removes Gus one week ago and a power struggle breaks out.  They are fighting over who's candidate gets the nod.  Pointing fingers serves no one.

5 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

 

I wish we could have an actual dialogue on this, but forgive me for being skeptical due to the way you've come forward. I can understand your feeling attacked personally with the way many on this forum are venting, but you've come across as feeling "above the commoner," and therefore reinforcing the very opinion that has brought us here.

 

 

[cole256 17,084]

49 minutes ago, woodford said:

Deion Sanders? Lol that’s a giant publicity stunt. There’s zero evidence to believe that Jackson State is going to dominate the SWAC. 

I have no interest in explaining to you how you don't know what you are talking about but you missed the actual point and I'm cool with that

[wcware 1,365]

5 minutes ago, Ausburn2 said:

A common Alabamian.  Grew up with them and still live with them

Didn't attack RIR.  Challenged source and claim of a conspiracy between between three people.

The writings of wanting Gus gone and change the PTB go back further than 2 years on this forum.  Is that any less of a conspiracy?  Calls for the PTB whoever to rid the plains of Gus go back further than two years here.  So now the PTB removes Gus one week ago and a power struggle breaks out.  They are fighting over who's candidate gets the nod.  Pointing fingers serves no one.

 

I don’t understand how anyone who thinks KS is the man for the job can have any credibility with anyone. I don’t care how much money you have.

[cole256 17,084]

34 minutes ago, aubaseball said:

What????  Dion Sanders?? Are you serious.  That’s all a bunch of hyped up BS.   No thanks.    I’ll take the professional coming in and running this thing like Saban has done.   All the smoke and mirrors of Dion will fade away with time.   

Yeah I have no doubt you wouldn't like it. You're programmed....of course there's no reason for you to think he can coach lol. But you missed it too

[Auhud08 596]

4 minutes ago, Ausburn2 said:

A common Alabamian.  Grew up with them and still live with them

Didn't attack RIR.  Challenged source and claim of a conspiracy between between three people.

The writings of wanting Gus gone and change the PTB go back further than 2 years on this forum.  Is that any less of a conspiracy?  Calls for the PTB whoever to rid the plains of Gus go back further than two years here.  So now the PTB removes Gus one week ago and a power struggle breaks out.  They are fighting over who's candidate gets the nod.  Pointing fingers serves no one.

 

When non-influential people talk- its just that- talk. When influential people talk it means something. When youre in a position of power there is a certain responsibility you take, there is an accountability for your actions.

No, no one has a direct quote or a name that they will attribute these “conspiracy theories“ to, asking for one is idiotic. When multiple people offer up similar stories with nothing to gain other than shining a light on irresponsible influential people, you should at least give it some thought. Youre welcome to poke holes in the theory and ask questions but to completely throw their words out the window because YOU disagree with what YOU think their motive is, gets us nowhere. 
 

If you believe that EVERYTHING that was posted was incorrect, then please tell me what you think has/is happening? What are your sources?

[chizhead 618]

This is concerning

[Leftfield 2,616]

19 minutes ago, Ausburn2 said:

A common Alabamian.  Grew up with them and still live with them

Didn't attack RIR.  Challenged source and claim of a conspiracy between between three people.

The writings of wanting Gus gone and change the PTB go back further than 2 years on this forum.  Is that any less of a conspiracy?  Calls for the PTB whoever to rid the plains of Gus go back further than two years here.  So now the PTB removes Gus one week ago and a power struggle breaks out.  They are fighting over who's candidate gets the nod.  Pointing fingers serves no one.

 

This is the second time you've talked of a "conspiracy" to remove Gus by this forum. A conspiracy requires secrecy, a plot, and power to actually do something. The latter two this forum did not have; most just wanted him gone. And as to secrecy, we were quite open about it.  

Be that as it may, even if this forum had had the power to conduct a conspiracy, I challenge you to find a single person here whose master plan would have been to hire Kevin Steele as head coach.

Pointing the finger, when we've been kept in the dark for years and years, absolutely serves us if it reveals the players that have so poorly managed this program for so long.

It's interesting that you say you've been on this site for six years, yet before last night you had a total of, what, 30-35 posts? So 5-6 posts a year? Why so much sanctimony suddenly for RIR's spilling the beans? Certainly there have been more egregious violations of the "source" policy, by less respected members, that you would have thrown up your arms about?

 

[chizhead 618]

2 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Certainly there have been more egregious violations of the "source" policy, by less respected members, that you would have thrown up your arms about?

Red flag for sure on this guy

[The Freak 2,528]

24 minutes ago, Ausburn2 said:

A common Alabamian.  Grew up with them and still live with them

Didn't attack RIR.  Challenged source and claim of a conspiracy between between three people.

The writings of wanting Gus gone and change the PTB go back further than 2 years on this forum.  Is that any less of a conspiracy?  Calls for the PTB whoever to rid the plains of Gus go back further than two years here.  So now the PTB removes Gus one week ago and a power struggle breaks out.  They are fighting over who's candidate gets the nod.  Pointing fingers serves no one.

 

What's your old user name?

[AUFlyer99 647]

44 minutes ago, gr82be said:

Unfortunately only those who see it this way are the ones who get it. Your explanation, like many of us before, falls on deaf ears or in this case, blind eyes. Some just refuse to see the problem that existed with Gus vs SEC rivals. 

I think most of us here share this line of thinking.  

[cole256 17,084]

We could easily create our own space and could be celebrated breaking away from all ridiculous and pointless traditions, we could let those go and keep the good stuff. The only way we escape mediocrity is to think outside of the box anyway because clearly doing it this way isn't working. Or we'll be like that guy that quoted me not too long ago.....waiting for a saban.....lol, as if saban would take all this meddling bull s***

[PigskinPat 2,579]

30 minutes ago, chizhead said:

This is concerning

Ugh, that is definitely concerning.

[aubaseball 2,629]

4 minutes ago, cole256 said:

We could easily create our own space and could be celebrated breaking away from all ridiculous and pointless traditions, we could let those go and keep the good stuff. The only way we escape mediocrity is to think outside of the box anyway because clearly doing it this way isn't working. Or we'll be like that guy that quoted me not too long ago.....waiting for a saban.....lol, as if saban would take all this meddling bull s***

Maybe it didn’t come across the right way and you missed the point.   Didn’t say anything thing about getting Saban, I meant someone that takes the Saban approach, Kirby is the same way.   

It’s not rocket science.  You scout and recognize talent.  Try and recruit that talent to come to your school.    Coach that person/persons to play at their best.   Put them in the best position to succeed.   

The players that one should be recruiting aren’t the ones that care about all the bulls**t.  Those are the ones that are going to walk out on the team for this or that anyway.    

 

[Harp_AU2013 221]

5 minutes ago, PigskinPat said:

Ugh, that is definitely concerning.

What is this referencing? TWill?

[PigskinPat 2,579]

1 minute ago, Harp_AU2013 said:

What is this referencing? TWill?

Could be, or the back room conversations that went on with Steele and Gardner. Or it could be in reference to college drama going on in his life, who knows?