I think it's important to remember there's a spectrum of critique. I'd break it up into the following:
Red: "The Insurrectionists" - want Cal gone no matter what (probably about 2-5% of this board if I had to guess). They want to storm the Bastille and invert the whole system but lack the depth to offer a viable replacement system or coach. Most of their arguments go about ankle deep and they tend to base their arguments off raw emotion. If you cut out the trolls who pretend to be UK fans, the "insurrectionists" actually represent our smallest group of posters.
Orange: "The Revolutionaries" - want to keep Cal, but think he needs to make massive changes to his offense, coaching staff, philosophy, etc. They typically blend criticisms into one compound criticism instead of analyzing each point on a micro level. They call for very loose revolutionary paradigm shifts, such as offensive philosophy, but rarely offer any additional information about offensive systems that might actually replace UK's current system. Most of their ideas represent half-solutions, which marginalizes their overall outlook and often makes them resort to overstating their points and being confused for "insurrectionists." They probably represent around 20-30% of the board.
Yellow: "The Reformers" - think there are some ways to improve with maybe one staff change or a philosophical realignment that consistently brings in more grad transfers every year or starts playing dirty with Nike in order to land elites (I'm somewhere in this camp). This group is more pragmatic than "green" outlooks, and don't mind the gray areas. They will often distance themselves from the drastic overcompensation that orange "revolutionaries" tend to shade towards. I'd estimate they represent about 15-20% of the board.
Green: "The Modifiers" - Thinks changes could be a good thing, but largely keep perspective regarding historical precedent at the forefront of every discussion. These posters aren't really willing to drastically change course just yet, but they also recognize that new methods of improvement should always be in consideration. They won't go the road of yellow in terms of endorsing Nike gray areas (for example), but they do advocate for possibly adding a new staff member or recruiting more grad transfers. They have a pretty strict moral code when it comes to recruiting ethics, but will still listen to logic and hear out good opinions. They represent about 40-50% of the board. Probably the most trusted outlook on the board, I might add. They have some alphas that lead the way ideologically and set the tone for the less articulate "modifiers."
Blue: "The Maintainers" - These fans deflect from almost any form of criticism. They overcompensate in the same way that the "red" fans do, just using the opposite criteria, portraying nearly all evidence as a way to deflect from finding fault within any area of outlook. They constantly point to a silver utopia where everything somehow comes together someday; where no sample size is sufficient for forming analytical critique; and where the only precedent that matters is the one that points to the "randomness" of the tournament structure, thereby rendering any expectations nullified. Many of their posts gain support from "modifiers", but if you read the overall theme of their posts, they are far from modifiers in reality because unlike green category thinkers, blue "maintainers" never allow for critique against UK's staff, coaching decisions, player decisions, etc. 5-10% of the board is a good estimate here.
