After the Illinois and Purdue losses, many of us (including myself more than I care to admit) have been idiots, particularly on the subject of Rich Rodriguez. There has been a lot of content generated to disparage Rodriguez, many of which have lacked any remotely logical or semi-legitimate reasons to back up their views. And in those instances that the criticism had a valid point, the author has often been disparaged for being negative. This is stupid because it should not matter in the slightest whether we are positive or not if we've got a point.
Is it so unreasonable to ask that we just debate the merits and demerits of Rodriguez? I personally feel that Rodriguez inherited an impossible situation in which he could not institute any of his schemes and win football games consistently because he inherited the wrong players and little depth, particularly at two of the most important positions on the field: QB and safety. At the same time, I do question his judgment with regard to picking assistants (Scott Shafer and Jay Hopson...) and game management (I was especially pissed throughout the Illinois and Purdue games because of this, particularly when we had Brown run on downs 1-3 against Illinois).
Having said all of this, I recognize that my views may not be wholly accurate (or logical) and remain amenable to changing them. At the same time, the only way to do this is to have a reasonable debate in which we don't just go off on highly emotional rants because we act like little girls when we lose football games.