The CardBoard
How many wake up calls does this team need? - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: How many wake up calls does this team need? (/thread-4128.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Re: How many wake up calls does this team need? - 76lsjumb - 10-31-2012

(10-31-2012, 08:52 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:76LSJUMB:  I am not virulently anti-Shaw (that is your spin/take).  I actually have met the man through kids' sports in Palo Alto (I coached his older son in one sport) and like him.  I love what he has shown on recruiting front.  And I really like the fact that he could be a lifer at Stanford (something I have always thought Stanford needed and should be able to attract).

And I love this defense - arguably the best D since at least the Thunderchicken Rose Bowl defense.

But, I am virulently anti-crappy offense (Teevensesque), especially when I firmly believe that such an offense is underperforming to its roster.  I believe that if this persists - and I hope it does not, and believe it will not (but I believed the same thing under Teevens) - it will cripple the program, irrespective of the W/L record.  This is so because few fans will show and no one will want to play in an empty stadium.

I don't think this is a particularly difficult concept to "get," yet it evidently has evaded WIM.  You (and others) may disagree with it, but I have 40+ years of attending Stanford football games that inform my conclusions.  You (and others) may think I am Chicken Little ridiculously claiming that the sky is falling.  I consider it a fair warning of a very important matter that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.

It looks like we may agree on more things than we disagree on.  I, too:

  -- think he's done a pretty good recruting job;
  -- think having a long-term coach [if he's good] is a good thing;
  -- think this defense is pretty good [and, unlike others, think it is likely to be pretty good for at least another year or two];
  -- am anti-crappy offense; and,
  -- believe this offense is underperforming.

I seem to recall you were not too thrilled about the play-calling at the end of the Fiesta Bowl, and I interpreted some other posts as critical of Shaw's play-calling and personnel decisions [essentially attributing the crappy, underperforming offense this season to those factors].  I'll take your word that I was wrong about that, but I still don't think my spin/take was wholly unsupported by the evidence.

Finally, I don't deny that poor offensive performance adversely impacts fan interest, but I don't believe it does so to the extent you are claiming.  Using the WSU game as evidence of that theory is suspect in my estimation, given that the two home games immediately preceding the WSU game were among the two more exciting games Stanford has played at home in some time, with performances by the offense that may not have been perfect, but clearly don't deserve a "crappy" rating, either.  Unless it's Homecoming weekend, people just don't go to the WSU game here...and they probably never will.

In short...it's all good!  :)

Re: How many wake up calls does this team need? - 76lsjumb - 10-31-2012

(10-31-2012, 08:52 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:76LSJUMB:  I am not virulently anti-Shaw (that is your spin/take).  I actually have met the man through kids' sports in Palo Alto (I coached his older son in one sport) and like him.  I love what he has shown on recruiting front.  And I really like the fact that he could be a lifer at Stanford (something I have always thought Stanford needed and should be able to attract).

And I love this defense - arguably the best D since at least the Thunderchicken Rose Bowl defense.

But, I am virulently anti-crappy offense (Teevensesque), especially when I firmly believe that such an offense is underperforming to its roster.  I believe that if this persists - and I hope it does not, and believe it will not (but I believed the same thing under Teevens) - it will cripple the program, irrespective of the W/L record.  This is so because few fans will show and no one will want to play in an empty stadium.

I don't think this is a particularly difficult concept to "get," yet it evidently has evaded WIM.  You (and others) may disagree with it, but I have 40+ years of attending Stanford football games that inform my conclusions.  You (and others) may think I am Chicken Little ridiculously claiming that the sky is falling.  I consider it a fair warning of a very important matter that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.

It looks like we may agree on more things than we disagree on.  I, too:

  -- think he's done a pretty good recruting job;
  -- think having a long-term coach [if he's good] is a good thing;
  -- think this defense is pretty good [and, unlike others, think it is likely to be pretty good for at least another year or two];
  -- am anti-crappy offense; and,
  -- believe this offense is underperforming.

I seem to recall you were not too thrilled about the play-calling at the end of the Fiesta Bowl, and I interpreted some other posts as critical of Shaw's play-calling and personnel decisions [essentially attributing the crappy, underperforming offense this season to those factors].  I'll take your word that I was wrong about that, but I still don't think my spin/take was wholly unsupported by the evidence.

Finally, I don't deny that poor offensive performance adversely impacts fan interest, but I don't believe it does so to the extent you are claiming.  Using the WSU game as evidence of that theory is suspect in my estimation, given that the two home games immediately preceding the WSU game were among the two more exciting games Stanford has played at home in some time, with performances by the offense that may not have been perfect, but clearly don't deserve a "crappy" rating, either.  Unless it's Homecoming weekend, people just don't go to the WSU game here...and they probably never will.

In short...it's all good!  :)

Re: How many wake up calls does this team need? - teejers1 - 10-31-2012

norcalcard:  putting aside that football and basketball are entirely different animals (including the fact that 7,000 is considered horrifying attendance in the former and a sell out in  the latter), I think you are mis-remembering - or at least selectively remembering - Monty's hoops teams.  They scored quite a bit, particularly many of his more memorable teams.

It's true that the rap was that elite and athletic opponents could break our guys down off the dribble and muck up Monty's structured offense; however, I don't think Montgomery's teams were known for being low-scoring (Massacre at Maples; showdowns with Duke; the entire year the season Stanford lost to 'Bama in the NCAAs, Stanford was routinely blowing teams out by 30 points all refute that contention).

76LSJUMB, I'd say Shaw has been a great recruiter so far (last season was tremendous and this one looks good for its smaller size).  I promised folks I would never raise the Fiesta Bowl again, but in response to your post I definitely stated that Shaw's end play failed to give Stanford the best chance to win the game, and I don't think it held up to even a "conservative" approach.  Nonetheless, a 36 yard FG try to win the game is a decent bet.  And more fundamentally, I think that Stanford team was incredibly well-prepared to play Oklahoma State - and in fact dominated the Cowboys.  So Shaw and staff deserve credit for that, even though the end play was clusterbombed.

P.S.  Hope my theory does not have to be tested next year.  But I'd be surprised if season ticket sales next year match this year, even though the home schedule is much-improved.  We'll see.

Re: How many wake up calls does this team need? - teejers1 - 10-31-2012

norcalcard:  putting aside that football and basketball are entirely different animals (including the fact that 7,000 is considered horrifying attendance in the former and a sell out in  the latter), I think you are mis-remembering - or at least selectively remembering - Monty's hoops teams.  They scored quite a bit, particularly many of his more memorable teams.

It's true that the rap was that elite and athletic opponents could break our guys down off the dribble and muck up Monty's structured offense; however, I don't think Montgomery's teams were known for being low-scoring (Massacre at Maples; showdowns with Duke; the entire year the season Stanford lost to 'Bama in the NCAAs, Stanford was routinely blowing teams out by 30 points all refute that contention).

76LSJUMB, I'd say Shaw has been a great recruiter so far (last season was tremendous and this one looks good for its smaller size).  I promised folks I would never raise the Fiesta Bowl again, but in response to your post I definitely stated that Shaw's end play failed to give Stanford the best chance to win the game, and I don't think it held up to even a "conservative" approach.  Nonetheless, a 36 yard FG try to win the game is a decent bet.  And more fundamentally, I think that Stanford team was incredibly well-prepared to play Oklahoma State - and in fact dominated the Cowboys.  So Shaw and staff deserve credit for that, even though the end play was clusterbombed.

P.S.  Hope my theory does not have to be tested next year.  But I'd be surprised if season ticket sales next year match this year, even though the home schedule is much-improved.  We'll see.

Re: How many wake up calls does this team need? - g1313 - 11-01-2012

(10-31-2012, 09:57 PM)norcalcard link Wrote:What scared me about the attendance drop-off this week was the Red Zone.  None of the excuses regarding kids sports conflicts, Giants games, uncertain traveling plans due to network time issues, etc, would apply to a group of students that can walk down to the game in their flip-flops.  And recall the students weren't even here for SJSU and Duke.  They'd seen S.C. and Zona, not exactly boring games.. how do you get football fatigue in your 3rd home game?  I hope that was a fluke.  Lack of student support could doom the program, and that was never a problem when the basketball team was good.

I heard it mentioned (and have casually confirmed by browsing a few course websites) that this was midterms week at Stanford, which might explain the below-normal student attendance. I wouldn't be worried unless they also don't turn out for the OSU game.

Re: How many wake up calls does this team need? - g1313 - 11-01-2012

(10-31-2012, 09:57 PM)norcalcard link Wrote:What scared me about the attendance drop-off this week was the Red Zone.  None of the excuses regarding kids sports conflicts, Giants games, uncertain traveling plans due to network time issues, etc, would apply to a group of students that can walk down to the game in their flip-flops.  And recall the students weren't even here for SJSU and Duke.  They'd seen S.C. and Zona, not exactly boring games.. how do you get football fatigue in your 3rd home game?  I hope that was a fluke.  Lack of student support could doom the program, and that was never a problem when the basketball team was good.

I heard it mentioned (and have casually confirmed by browsing a few course websites) that this was midterms week at Stanford, which might explain the below-normal student attendance. I wouldn't be worried unless they also don't turn out for the OSU game.

Re: How many wake up calls does this team need? - scorecard - 11-01-2012

(10-31-2012, 10:48 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:norcalcard:  putting aside that football and basketball are entirely different animals (including the fact that 7,000 is considered horrifying attendance in the former and a sell out in  the latter), I think you are mis-remembering - or at least selectively remembering - Monty's hoops teams.  They scored quite a bit, particularly many of his more memorable teams.

It's true that the rap was that elite and athletic opponents could break our guys down off the dribble and muck up Monty's structured offense; however, I don't think Montgomery's teams were known for being low-scoring (Massacre at Maples; showdowns with Duke; the entire year the season Stanford lost to 'Bama in the NCAAs, Stanford was routinely blowing teams out by 30 points all refute that contention).

76LSJUMB, I'd say Shaw has been a great recruiter so far (last season was tremendous and this one looks good for its smaller size).  I promised folks I would never raise the Fiesta Bowl again, but in response to your post I definitely stated that Shaw's end play failed to give Stanford the best chance to win the game, and I don't think it held up to even a "conservative" approach.  Nonetheless, a 36 yard FG try to win the game is a decent bet.  And more fundamentally, I think that Stanford team was incredibly well-prepared to play Oklahoma State - and in fact dominated the Cowboys.  So Shaw and staff deserve credit for that, even though the end play was clusterbombed.

P.S.  Hope my theory does not have to be tested next year.  But I'd be surprised if season ticket sales next year match this year, even though the home schedule is much-improved.  We'll see.

Indeed, in Monty's best years, we did score pretty well.  The offense was efficient, and we got the most out of the talent that we did have.  We killed teams on the boards with physicality.  We didn't have high-flyers, we put bodies on the high-flyers.  We forced teams to defend and chase dead-eye shooters (like Cross, Weems, Jacobsen, and Lottich) through screens and when we missed, we worked the glass for the putbacks.  This was winning basketball, and it was a big draw. 

What I think norcalcard is getting at, is that we generally haven't had real elite athletic talent, no individually jaw-dropping highlight-reel kind of players that make the Sportscenter highlights.  It's not that they weren't athletic in a different kind of way, but just not the speedy high-flying athlete who was individually captivating like a John Wall, Derrick Rose or even a Steve Francis who could blow by someone and hammer it home.  And we never had a big man on springs like a Dwight Howard or Amare Stoudemire (of course, no one else did either, those kind of guys just skipped college altogether at the time).  In football, we can point to Luck, Plunkett, and Elway as Stanford players who were NFL stars (projecting a bit with Luck, I know).  In basketball, we really haven't fared as well with translating to the NBA (maybe Brook Lopez is the best one).  And as a team, we have never been anywhere close to something like Michigan's Fab Five, UNLV's Running Rebels, or even like the UCLA team that had the O'Bannon brothers and Toby Bailey. 

In 1992-93 when Montgomery went 7-23,  I can remember only one guy on the team actually being able to dunk in a game (Brent Williams).  Those games were pretty painful to watch, and no one showed up to those games either.  As a student, this was the year before the original Sixth Man Club and you could walk in and sit down courtside at any time during a game.  If you had told me then that we would ever hold the #1 ranking in the country, I would have had you committed for being completely delusional.  But boy, when the team started winning, the fans showed up in droves. 

It will be interesting to see what happens this year in basketball.  Like I've said before, I'm excited for this season and hopefully Dawkins can regain some lost momentum for the program.  Athletically, it may be the best collection of athletes that I can remember us having in sometime (perhaps the team that had Julius Barnes, Justin Davis, Childress, and Haryasz would be the closest thing). 

There are some interesting parallels with the football program as well, where we also seem to have the best overall collection of athletes and depth in the program that I can remember.  We have much more momentum in football, of course, starting with Toby (loved watching him steamroll through players), and then Luck whose individual brilliance got us an ESPN blog.  The blog may be dying, hopefully this doesn't mean that our momentum will as well. 

I do worry about what teejers1 is saying because the memory of high-school kids are short, and half-empty stadiums don't impress most elite recruits (how we ended up with Luck at all is a testament to Luck and his character; I don't think we can get away with the Barry Sanders approach with most recruits -- "So, um, our fans will pretty much leave you alone").  Recruiting the elite recruits is the life-blood for a program that wants to be a perennial BCS contender, and not just a program that hopes to pull off big upsets from year to year.  Thankfully Shaw and his staff have proven to be outstanding recruiters.

I am in the corner though that we will be better next year despite losses of some key players, just based on the type of recruits we are bringing in, and the young guys will be both stronger and more familiar with the playbook and system.  Hopefully, coaching improves as well.  Of course, your average fan probably doesn't pay attention to recruiting, so I wouldn't be surprised either if the initial season ticket sales next year are worse, especially if we cannot identify a serviceable QB to be a major face of the program.  (Actually, who would be the face of the program on offense next year?  Might be a tough sell for the marketing department).  I do know this: with all this wait-til-next-year business, I am going to be really pissed off if the Mayans turn out to be right.

Re: How many wake up calls does this team need? - scorecard - 11-01-2012

(10-31-2012, 10:48 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:norcalcard:  putting aside that football and basketball are entirely different animals (including the fact that 7,000 is considered horrifying attendance in the former and a sell out in  the latter), I think you are mis-remembering - or at least selectively remembering - Monty's hoops teams.  They scored quite a bit, particularly many of his more memorable teams.

It's true that the rap was that elite and athletic opponents could break our guys down off the dribble and muck up Monty's structured offense; however, I don't think Montgomery's teams were known for being low-scoring (Massacre at Maples; showdowns with Duke; the entire year the season Stanford lost to 'Bama in the NCAAs, Stanford was routinely blowing teams out by 30 points all refute that contention).

76LSJUMB, I'd say Shaw has been a great recruiter so far (last season was tremendous and this one looks good for its smaller size).  I promised folks I would never raise the Fiesta Bowl again, but in response to your post I definitely stated that Shaw's end play failed to give Stanford the best chance to win the game, and I don't think it held up to even a "conservative" approach.  Nonetheless, a 36 yard FG try to win the game is a decent bet.  And more fundamentally, I think that Stanford team was incredibly well-prepared to play Oklahoma State - and in fact dominated the Cowboys.  So Shaw and staff deserve credit for that, even though the end play was clusterbombed.

P.S.  Hope my theory does not have to be tested next year.  But I'd be surprised if season ticket sales next year match this year, even though the home schedule is much-improved.  We'll see.

Indeed, in Monty's best years, we did score pretty well.  The offense was efficient, and we got the most out of the talent that we did have.  We killed teams on the boards with physicality.  We didn't have high-flyers, we put bodies on the high-flyers.  We forced teams to defend and chase dead-eye shooters (like Cross, Weems, Jacobsen, and Lottich) through screens and when we missed, we worked the glass for the putbacks.  This was winning basketball, and it was a big draw. 

What I think norcalcard is getting at, is that we generally haven't had real elite athletic talent, no individually jaw-dropping highlight-reel kind of players that make the Sportscenter highlights.  It's not that they weren't athletic in a different kind of way, but just not the speedy high-flying athlete who was individually captivating like a John Wall, Derrick Rose or even a Steve Francis who could blow by someone and hammer it home.  And we never had a big man on springs like a Dwight Howard or Amare Stoudemire (of course, no one else did either, those kind of guys just skipped college altogether at the time).  In football, we can point to Luck, Plunkett, and Elway as Stanford players who were NFL stars (projecting a bit with Luck, I know).  In basketball, we really haven't fared as well with translating to the NBA (maybe Brook Lopez is the best one).  And as a team, we have never been anywhere close to something like Michigan's Fab Five, UNLV's Running Rebels, or even like the UCLA team that had the O'Bannon brothers and Toby Bailey. 

In 1992-93 when Montgomery went 7-23,  I can remember only one guy on the team actually being able to dunk in a game (Brent Williams).  Those games were pretty painful to watch, and no one showed up to those games either.  As a student, this was the year before the original Sixth Man Club and you could walk in and sit down courtside at any time during a game.  If you had told me then that we would ever hold the #1 ranking in the country, I would have had you committed for being completely delusional.  But boy, when the team started winning, the fans showed up in droves. 

It will be interesting to see what happens this year in basketball.  Like I've said before, I'm excited for this season and hopefully Dawkins can regain some lost momentum for the program.  Athletically, it may be the best collection of athletes that I can remember us having in sometime (perhaps the team that had Julius Barnes, Justin Davis, Childress, and Haryasz would be the closest thing). 

There are some interesting parallels with the football program as well, where we also seem to have the best overall collection of athletes and depth in the program that I can remember.  We have much more momentum in football, of course, starting with Toby (loved watching him steamroll through players), and then Luck whose individual brilliance got us an ESPN blog.  The blog may be dying, hopefully this doesn't mean that our momentum will as well. 

I do worry about what teejers1 is saying because the memory of high-school kids are short, and half-empty stadiums don't impress most elite recruits (how we ended up with Luck at all is a testament to Luck and his character; I don't think we can get away with the Barry Sanders approach with most recruits -- "So, um, our fans will pretty much leave you alone").  Recruiting the elite recruits is the life-blood for a program that wants to be a perennial BCS contender, and not just a program that hopes to pull off big upsets from year to year.  Thankfully Shaw and his staff have proven to be outstanding recruiters.

I am in the corner though that we will be better next year despite losses of some key players, just based on the type of recruits we are bringing in, and the young guys will be both stronger and more familiar with the playbook and system.  Hopefully, coaching improves as well.  Of course, your average fan probably doesn't pay attention to recruiting, so I wouldn't be surprised either if the initial season ticket sales next year are worse, especially if we cannot identify a serviceable QB to be a major face of the program.  (Actually, who would be the face of the program on offense next year?  Might be a tough sell for the marketing department).  I do know this: with all this wait-til-next-year business, I am going to be really pissed off if the Mayans turn out to be right.

Re: How many wake up calls does this team need? - JohnR34231 - 11-01-2012

(10-31-2012, 05:38 PM)76lsjumb link Wrote:[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=6762.msg51076#msg51076 date=1351728289]
Good trolling?

Teejers is a long-time CardBoarder. He's responsible for the h-word being banned. Check the FAQ.

I know teejers.  I like teejers.  Teejers is no troll.

But, with all due respect -- and I readily concede a lot of respect is, indeed, due -- the virulent anti-Shaw nature of the posts does, on occasion, bear at least a passing "troll-like" resemblance.  Also, the notion that a couple of 7-5 seasons [which I, too, certainly hope does not come to pass] will inevitably send us into the depths of pre-Harbaugh football oblivion for eternity [thereby confirming Shaw's utter inability to coach] strikes me as a little over-the-top. 

After all, even if that DOES happen, Shaw's career head-coaching record at Stanford would still be...signficantly better than Bill Walsh's.

And, no, I'm not saying that Shaw is a better coach than Bill Walsh.  I do believe, though, that Shaw was probably a better wide receiver than Carson Palmer...  ;D
[/quote]

I say Amen to that.

I certainly agree that our offensive production needs to improve.

However the notion that if it doesn't happen tout de suite the program is headed for the shoals of disaster strikes me as a bit much.  Especially when we are winning 75% of our games.

Also, I can remember when 7-5 was considered a pretty decent season. The fact people are now looking in horror at the prospects of it shows you how much expectations have changed post-Luck.

Re: How many wake up calls does this team need? - JohnR34231 - 11-01-2012

(10-31-2012, 05:38 PM)76lsjumb link Wrote:[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=6762.msg51076#msg51076 date=1351728289]
Good trolling?

Teejers is a long-time CardBoarder. He's responsible for the h-word being banned. Check the FAQ.

I know teejers.  I like teejers.  Teejers is no troll.

But, with all due respect -- and I readily concede a lot of respect is, indeed, due -- the virulent anti-Shaw nature of the posts does, on occasion, bear at least a passing "troll-like" resemblance.  Also, the notion that a couple of 7-5 seasons [which I, too, certainly hope does not come to pass] will inevitably send us into the depths of pre-Harbaugh football oblivion for eternity [thereby confirming Shaw's utter inability to coach] strikes me as a little over-the-top. 

After all, even if that DOES happen, Shaw's career head-coaching record at Stanford would still be...signficantly better than Bill Walsh's.

And, no, I'm not saying that Shaw is a better coach than Bill Walsh.  I do believe, though, that Shaw was probably a better wide receiver than Carson Palmer...  ;D
[/quote]

I say Amen to that.

I certainly agree that our offensive production needs to improve.

However the notion that if it doesn't happen tout de suite the program is headed for the shoals of disaster strikes me as a bit much.  Especially when we are winning 75% of our games.

Also, I can remember when 7-5 was considered a pretty decent season. The fact people are now looking in horror at the prospects of it shows you how much expectations have changed post-Luck.

Re: How many wake up calls does this team need? - fullmetal - 11-01-2012

It's not so much that the level of production will doom the program, but the lack of improvement and lackadaisical attitude that contributes to such will certainly doom a program.  Listening to Nick Saban on ESPN (the man apparently doesn't wear socks with his highwater slacks when being interviewed by Samantha Steele) this morning, he talked about every player playing to their full potential.  You have to see that improvement, and if guys aren't doing that, then they've got the wrong attitude.  Same goes for the offensive playcalling...that's gotta keep getting better.

Re: How many wake up calls does this team need? - fullmetal - 11-01-2012

It's not so much that the level of production will doom the program, but the lack of improvement and lackadaisical attitude that contributes to such will certainly doom a program.  Listening to Nick Saban on ESPN (the man apparently doesn't wear socks with his highwater slacks when being interviewed by Samantha Steele) this morning, he talked about every player playing to their full potential.  You have to see that improvement, and if guys aren't doing that, then they've got the wrong attitude.  Same goes for the offensive playcalling...that's gotta keep getting better.

Re: How many wake up calls does this team need? - Cardinal96 - 11-01-2012

On a tangent, I see the word "troll" get lobbed on this site a few times (not just in this thread).  I have seen very little trolling at all on this site.  Yes, you see people speak passionately about our program, our coach, our QB and the direction that the program is headed.  But that is because they care and seeing a downward slope in performance upsets them.  I check a lot of football sites and the criticisms leveled here are nothing compared to most sites.  If you don't believe me, check out ShaggyBevo or BearInsider for something closer to home.

I am not a big fan of the up-rating and down-rating and how it gets applied.  I have seen many legitimate posts downrated for no other apparent reason than the people down-rating them disagreed with the viewpoint. 

Re: How many wake up calls does this team need? - Cardinal96 - 11-01-2012

On a tangent, I see the word "troll" get lobbed on this site a few times (not just in this thread).  I have seen very little trolling at all on this site.  Yes, you see people speak passionately about our program, our coach, our QB and the direction that the program is headed.  But that is because they care and seeing a downward slope in performance upsets them.  I check a lot of football sites and the criticisms leveled here are nothing compared to most sites.  If you don't believe me, check out ShaggyBevo or BearInsider for something closer to home.

I am not a big fan of the up-rating and down-rating and how it gets applied.  I have seen many legitimate posts downrated for no other apparent reason than the people down-rating them disagreed with the viewpoint. 

Re: How many wake up calls does this team need? - fullmetal - 11-01-2012

Yeah :(  I try to vote against such backlash on both sides.

Real trolls are easy to spot on arrival, that's for sure.  Some of those $EC board trolls...yuck.

Re: How many wake up calls does this team need? - fullmetal - 11-01-2012

Yeah :(  I try to vote against such backlash on both sides.

Real trolls are easy to spot on arrival, that's for sure.  Some of those $EC board trolls...yuck.

Re: How many wake up calls does this team need? - yvonne - 11-01-2012

(11-01-2012, 06:19 AM)NYCCardinalFan link Wrote:On a tangent, I see the word "troll" get lobbed on this site a few times (not just in this thread).  I have seen very little trolling at all on this site.  Yes, you see people speak passionately about our program, our coach, our QB and the direction that the program is headed.  But that is because they care and seeing a downward slope in performance upsets them.  I check a lot of football sites and the criticisms leveled here are nothing compared to most sites.  If you don't believe me, check out ShaggyBevo or BearInsider for something closer to home.

I am not a big fan of the up-rating and down-rating and how it gets applied.  I have seen many legitimate posts downrated for no other apparent reason than the people down-rating them disagreed with the viewpoint.

It takes a lot to get a person banned. (-50) I issue warnings after posts that seem to be trolling, and then put a watch on the person's account after two infractions. Basically, the idea is to allow true discussion and contrary opinions while sealing out those who issue what used to be called "flame bait."

It's interesting because most people tend to down vote, but not reply to the true trolls, and I think that discourages them.

Re: How many wake up calls does this team need? - yvonne - 11-01-2012

(11-01-2012, 06:19 AM)NYCCardinalFan link Wrote:On a tangent, I see the word "troll" get lobbed on this site a few times (not just in this thread).  I have seen very little trolling at all on this site.  Yes, you see people speak passionately about our program, our coach, our QB and the direction that the program is headed.  But that is because they care and seeing a downward slope in performance upsets them.  I check a lot of football sites and the criticisms leveled here are nothing compared to most sites.  If you don't believe me, check out ShaggyBevo or BearInsider for something closer to home.

I am not a big fan of the up-rating and down-rating and how it gets applied.  I have seen many legitimate posts downrated for no other apparent reason than the people down-rating them disagreed with the viewpoint.

It takes a lot to get a person banned. (-50) I issue warnings after posts that seem to be trolling, and then put a watch on the person's account after two infractions. Basically, the idea is to allow true discussion and contrary opinions while sealing out those who issue what used to be called "flame bait."

It's interesting because most people tend to down vote, but not reply to the true trolls, and I think that discourages them.

Re: How many wake up calls does this team need? - fullmetal - 11-01-2012

Starvation (and shame)...effective.

Re: How many wake up calls does this team need? - fullmetal - 11-01-2012

Starvation (and shame)...effective.