bigstick

History

Member for

4 years 39 weeks

Karma

Current value

Recent Comments

Date	Title	Body
2 years 2 weeks ago	Recognized?	First, congratulations for both getting into and completing the GRFSPP program.  It is a fine accomplishment, and I wish you the best of luck in the future. Now, about  that recognition..... Please help me to understand which of GRF's accomplishments you believe deserve recognition.  Could it be the Nixon pardon?  Maybe the fact that he's the only US President never to have been elected to the office of president or vice president?  Perhaps it was an utterly undistinguished multi-decade career as a US representative particularly notable, if memory serves, as having passed without GRF having introduced a single piece of legislation? Sorry to piss in your cheerios on this one, but we honor GRF because he was a US President (if only for two years) and a U-M alum.  I realize you weren't alive to remember, but GRF became president specifically because of his lack of accomplishments.  GRF never did anything and, consequently, never did anything to piss anyone off.  He was a great team player, so you could always count on him to do what he was told.  And this is specifically why Nixon chose him to replace Agnew (at least it's "specifically why" not counting the speculation in the next paragraph).  Easily confirmed, non-confrontational, not controversial. The Watergate break-in occurred in Jun 1972.  Nixon kept Agnew as his VP (despite his widely-reported preference for Connolly) and they were re-elected in Nov 1972.  Agnew resigned in disgrace in Oct 1973, leading to GRF's appointment.  Why GRF and not Connolly, Nixon's presumed hand-picked successor?  Well, some speculate that Nixon wanted a VP in place who would pardon him if Watergate went further south, and Connolly might not have been that guy.  Watergate did go further south, and Nixon resigned in Aug 1974.  GRF didn't disappoint and pardoned Nixon a month later in Sep 1974.    There are many of us who lived through that time that consider the Nixon pardon as one of our country's darkest days.  It raised fears that the president is, practically speaking, above the law.  Echos of GRF's decision can be seen in the Reagan, GHWB, Clinton, and W administrations, and the reverberations will be felt for a long time to come. Yes, GRF's presidency should be remembered - so that his most important decision can be undone at the first opportunity and never repeated.  Recognized or honored?  Not so much. I wouldn't have taken the time for the historical summary if you weren't so young.  (Hey, my oldest daughter is a 2011 U-M grad.  That's young, to me.)  And please note that this is not a red state/blue state issue.  It's about "the process".  If you've carefully studied GRF's career and conclude that he was a great man worthy of recognition, I'll respect your position and respectfully disagree.  But please understand that many of us worry about knee-jerk reactions that can be summarized as:  "Yea, U-M alum", "Yea, President", "USA, USA", etc.  The absence of information, study, and critical thought pushes us closer to........Ohio.  :-)
2 years 8 weeks ago	What?	Four of 14 games over 150 yards is "not bad"?  And four of 14 games under 100 yards is "not bad"?  AFTER you add back sacks? We, sir, need to compare definitions.  I'm worried that, in your next post, you'll describe Rosie O'Donnell as "not bad".  :-)
2 years 8 weeks ago	Bravo...	....from one man who, like you, personally watched everything you described.
2 years 19 weeks ago	I am an oddity...	..an old, blue-haired, alum who supported RR.  And I still found this to be one of the funniest things I've seen in a long time.  I laughed my ass off.  Thanks!
2 years 19 weeks ago	Here's one....	Rodriguez did not have to "go yesterday".  He should only be gone if (and it's looking like a big IF right now), DB had a better choice in place.  Keeping RR and changing the defensive staff was always a viable option.  Releasing RR and replacing him with JH or another solid choice ("solid" as determined by DB, not us) was also a perfectly fine option. However, it's beginning to look like DB not only didn't have a replacement lined-up, he didn't even have a fully-vetted list.  Why do I say this?  Because if he did, he would have pulled the trigger by now (unless his choice is working for one of the 6 teams still playing as of Friday night).  DB can't sell Hoke as his #2 choice (assuming JH was #1) any longer, because Hoke would have taken the job last Wednesday.  Similarly, DB can't sell guys like Wittingham (Utah) or most of the coordinators tossed around as his #2 choice because they were all available on Wed. UNLESS he signs someone with a post-Jan 4 bowl game, this doesn't look good for DB.  It looks like he went into this situation - perhaps the most important decision he will make as AD - unprepared, without a plan, and having to settle for leftovers.  And if he does sign someone with a post-Jan 4 bowl game, one has to wonder why he didn't wait to dismiss RR until he was ready to name a new coach.  Waiting would have helped on so many levels.  This is not good brand management. There is one possible exception to this and that's the scenario Mgrowold described.  I've speculated on this scenario with other old, blue-haired, alum, contributor friends - RR had to go only if he balked at the removal of all of his defensive staff (including, and perhaps especially, his best friend T Gibson).  In that case, RR certainly had to go.  But DB should have been able to refer to his long list of well-vetted candidates in that case - most of which he was confident would be interested and all of which he knew how much he'd need to spend to get them.  Any thing else is not a good job by DB, regardless of how it turns out.
2 years 19 weeks ago	Your argument is appealing..	..but it has a serious flaw.  When you, I, or DB develop our ranked list of successor coaches, RR with a new defensive staff is on that list, somewhere - maybe #2, maybe #12, maybe #112 - but that choice is on the list. Dropping RR was not a given.  Taking serious action was absolutely necessary.  Most everyone would have been satisfied with a reorganized staff; a new, "name", DC (like Shannon or the Miss St guy, for example); and a dedicated ST coach.  (If this option was given to RR - and he declined it - well, then, good riddance, I guess). If you interview RR on Tues, fire him on Wed, and hire JH on Thurs - it's clear that you're prepared and have a plan that everyone can support.  If JH stiffs you at the last minute, you can move to the next one on the list.  No problem. But that's not what's happening here. DB reminded the world on Wed about his business experience; the importance of succession planning; and how he would be a one-person search committee.  Then, on Fri, he's reportedly hiring a search firm?  Where's the succession list containing already fully-vetted candidates?  Where are the estimates of the likelihood of each coach to accept and the $$$ it will take close the deal?  Where's the plan? On Wed at 2pm, Hoke would have crawled through the phone lines from San Diego to take the job.  If we end up with Hoke now, it's clear that Hoke wasn't #2, #3,  #4, etc. on DB's list.  Which means that, as each moment passes, it's becoming even more clear that either DB never had a list or that he has seriously misjudged everyone on that list.  That's not leadership - that's bumbling. There are only a handful of coaches (16?) that had post-Jan 1 bowl games.  When you look at that list you can quickly eliminate Tressel; Edsall; Petrino; Sherman; the Pitt, MTSU, and Miami coaches, etc as candidates.  If DB hires one of the <9 remaining coaches, then we can credit him with having a plan.  If DB hires anyone else, anyone who was available on Wed, Jan 6, then it looks an awful lot like he was not prepared and didn't have a plan.  And if he ultimately hires Clem McGillicutty (OC at I-AAAA Little Sisters of the Poor), or another up-and-coming longshot, DB is going to have a difficult time explaining why this reach is preferable to keeping RR with a new defensive staff and at least allowing RR an opportunity to work with a few upperclasssmen.
2 years 19 weeks ago	It seems that....	....32 out of 32 NFL teams are equally skeptical. Let's role play..... 1.  I'm any NFL head coach or executive at any time during the past decade, up to today. 2.  Brady is arguably the best NFL QB (maybe the best NFL player) of the past decade 3.  I just spent a top draft choice (rd 1-3) and big money on a new QB 4.  I need the best QB coach around to develop my new QB 5.  I go to the best QB in the NFL - Brady - and ask who helped him.  (This is incredibly easy to do because I'm an NFL head coach or executive.) 6.  Brady raves about Loeffler and says that, even as a GA, Loeffler did more to develop him than his QB coach. 7.  I immediately call Loeffler and offer him the job of developing my new QB at 2x-4x whatever he was making - which is a pittance compared to what I've already invested in my new QB and a nero zero delta over what I'm paying my current QB coach. Now, here's some critical thinkin' for ya...... Steps 1-4 have actually happened 10-20 times in the past decade. Why haven't Steps 5-7 happened?  Here are some of the possible answers to that question:  (a) every single NFL head coach and executive involved in these 10-20 instances is a complete f'n idiot; (b) Step 6 isn't really true, it's an exaggeration of the facts.  As Joe Pesci said in the pool hall (My Cousin Vinny), "I think I'll take (b)". Some more critical thinkin' exercises: Why didn't the Lions keep Loeffler and his widely-reknowned talent to coach their latest billion dollar QB - Matt Stafford?  They were changing the entire coaching staff at the time, so it wouldn't have been difficult to keep him.  Didn't they recognize Scot's talent with young, franchise QBs? Once the Lions passed on Loeffler, how did the other 31 NFL teams miss him? We know how Florida fans feel about Brantley, but how do they feel about Tebow's progress during his senior season under Loeffler?  Why wasn't Denver interested in keeping the "team" together in the hopes of turing Tebow into the next Brady? Let's keep an eye out for the next QB developed by Scot.  I'll meet you back here, but I won't hold my breath. BTW, you should be careful on these message boards.  You'd be surprised by who you might be chatting with and who they might know that could have been "involved in the situation".
2 years 19 weeks ago	^ ^ ^ ^ ^ This	I'll bring the pitchforks.....let's meet at Pizza Bob's.
2 years 20 weeks ago	The Florida bio....and some of the posters here...	...are VERY generous to Loeffler.  Facts often help, so here are the facts: Loeffler was a UM freshman QB in 1993.  He was on the roster in 1994 and 1995, but he suffered a playing-career-ending injury; justifiably received one of those "medical scholarships" we all talk about; and continued with the team as a STUDENT assistant in 1996 and 1997.  Griese was also a UM freshman (walk-on) QB in 1993.  He and Loeffler were CLASSMATES as well as teammates.  Brady joined the team in 1995 (redshirt); didn't play in 1996 and 1997; then started in 1998 and 1999.  Loeffler was Brady's teammate the first year, a student assistant during Brady's second and third years, and a graduate assistant during Brady's last two years. Now, if you believe that teammates, student assistants and graduate assistants deserve credit for developing QBs over, say, the actual QB coach, actual offensive coordinator, and actual head coach - then have at it.  Give Loeffler all the credit you possibly can for developing Griese and Brady.  I think it's a stretch - a very big stretch probably measured in AUs or even light years - but what the heck do I know. Loeffler left for CMU with DeBord for 2000 and 2001.  I'll save you the trouble of looking up the QBs that were developed there during that time.  None. Loeffler returned to UM for Navarre's junior and senior seasons in 2002 and 2003 (after Navarre had been coached by Stan Parrish for three years).  Did Navarre get better?  Yeah, probably.  Did he get so much better that he developed into a solid NFL QB as did many of his predecessors?  No.  That doesn't mean that Loeffler did a bad job with Navarre, but it also doesn't mean that he did a great job developing Navarre.  It was Parrish who had the track record of developing NFL-ready QBs - not Loeffler. Loeffler recruited Henne to UM and coached him all four years (2004-2007).  He deserves full credit for Henne's development.  Loeffler also deserves full credit for convincing Mallett that UM was a better fit than playing behind Mustain at Arkansas. Loeffler took a place-holder job as QB coach of the Lions and its lame-duck coaching staff in 2008, then joined Florida for the 2009 and 2010 seasons.  If you saw development in Tebow as a senior in 2009, then Loeffler deserves some credit for that.  As one of the other posters said, above, Bentley didn't develop much in 2010. These facts lead many to the conclusion that Loeffler has a solid record as a recruiter, but not much of a track record as a coach.  Henne and Mallett were big-time recruiting catches.  Loeffler's been around big-name players, but really hasn't been around anyone but Henne long enough to prove he can develop them as QBs. In re:  Brady's and Griese's comments about help from Loeffler:  Brady (an NFL MVP) and Griese (a successful NFL QB) say nice things and write nice letters about a classmate, teammate, and friend in an effort to help said friend recruit NFL-caliber players to their common alma mater.  Are those comments true?  Or are they just the kind of nice thing that anyone is happy to do for their friends - especially when it just might help your college team get better players.  You decide.
2 years 20 weeks ago	Actually...	All that man did was recruit and coach Henne....unless you count the fact that he took over for Stan Parrish and coached Navarre for two years.  Maybe that's enough?
2 years 20 weeks ago	Yes.	Given that "all of his guys" has one name on the list - Henne.  And maybe a half-name if you count the fact that he inherited Navarre as a starter and was his coach for JN's final two years.
2 years 27 weeks ago	Quick Answer...	No. The West Side Chairbacks do not get access to either the east side club levels or the suite levels on both sides. The benefits are that they are located between the 20s and, as you indicated, the seat backs, cushioned seat bottoms, and the cupholders (between the seats in front of you). By the way, I think they've lowered the contribution on these seats next year from $2,000 each to something like $1,250 or so. Hope this helps.
2 years 29 weeks ago	Yes. Everyone agrees, but..	Experience is critical.  We don't have experience (regardless of who is to blame). But experience (or lack of experience) isn't the end of the discussion (see Ezeh, Obi; and Mouton, Jonas). Isn't the question now (and hasn't it been for some time):  What should be done about it? Yes, recruiting.  Yes, patience (some posters treat recruits like they're NFL draft choices and should be ready to step in soon, if not immediately).  Yes, "coaching up" the players you have.  But the question I'm asking is "what should be done about it" on a week-to-week basis. The answer is, I think, you can't coach/game plan in your "normal" way.  I think you have to be desperate about getting your defense off the field and keeping them off the field.  Brian has referred to this, in part, as "Stop Kicking the Damn Ball".  With this defense, for whatever reason, there is no such thing as "bend but don't break".  This defense is clearly the poster child for "bend until you break".  You don't fix it, but you might be able to deal with it.  It seems to me you have to gamble regularly.  You will get burned, but you're already in the slow roaster.  Let's get it over with and move on to the next series where I'll try to create a negative play for you. For the offense, each drive needs to be called with the same desperation to stay on the field as a fourth quarter come-from-behind effort requires.  Every first down marker becomes the goal line.  If "going heavy" is the play on third and 1 from the 1, then do the same thing at the 27 - or the 47.  If you're going straight ahead, use Hopkins, but don't use Smith unless it's a delay/draw.  Third and 8 looks different if you know you've got two plays to make it.  If the opposition is playing a position switch in his first game at CB (as PSU did), attack him (as everyone attacks our CBs).  If Denard isn't the best guy to do that, then put Tate in.  If something works, run it again until they've stopped it twice in a row.  The pass, run, pass, pass effort by Denard down 10 with under 6 minutes to go was weak, at best.  If this is what you want to do, bring Tate in.  I'd prefer that you just keep running the ball with Denard and his 7+ yds per carry. I'm worried that our staff doesn't realize they're unable to play football as they, us, or anyone else knows it with the defense in the state it's in.  It's tennis on a 100yd court.  You have to hold serve, and then take some chances to force the other guy into making a mistake when he's serving.
2 years 30 weeks ago	and, it seems, gets blatantly held....	....without a call.  I thought Roh was held when I saw it live.  I checked the replay on my FanVison and confirmed it.  ESPN / ABC didn't have a good angle on the hold, but I did see one view where it was clear that Roh had beaten his block and was well-past the lineman, but the lineman had hooked him.  It seemed obvious to me, did anyone else see it that way?
2 years 31 weeks ago	Right....	Now imagine paying $55k (or more) for a suite and getting a six-game (not eight-game) schedule that looks like that (Ill, NW, MSU, Iowa) plus the two cupcakes.  That's a brutal schedule on many different levels.
2 years 32 weeks ago	Big Brothers	Call Big Brothers www.bbbswashtenaw.org 734.975.0933
2 years 41 weeks ago	That's the part I agree with....	"the fact still remains that the whole stinking mess was agonizingly avoidable but for a few folks who were too lazy to do their jobs." Well said, sir.
2 years 41 weeks ago	You've missed Draper's role in all of this.	The history here seems to indicate that Draper and Labadie were a team.  I wouldn't be surprised if Labadie reported directly to Draper, not Rodriguez.  As I recall, Compliance DID inform Draper and he didn't follow up.  We shouldn't ignore or minimize Draper's role in all of this.  At the very least, he should have been responsible for keeping the ship running steady during the transition.  RR arrived amid a boatload (if you'll excuse another pun) of problems - some self-inflicted PR issues and a roster deleted from years of neglect.  Keeping Draper and Labadie in place seems like a good decision under those circumstances in the sense that there was no apparent reason to believe there were any administrative issues with the program. In the end, I'm not sure your incontrovertible fact is so incontrovertible.  I'm not ready to concede that RR had carte blanche to terminate Draper and Labadie on Day 1 - or any other day.  The incontrovertible fact here is the Martin was responsible - in every sense and at every time.  It seems quite clear that Brandon's rapid appearance is due primarily to the need for NCAA damage control - and Martin obviously wasn't the guy for that. Another reasonably-inferred fact is that Rodriquez trusted Martin to be sure that administration would be properly taken care of - as it had seemingly been done in the past - while RR focused his attention on the real problems.  And finally, yet another reasonably-inferred fact is that RR has had it with the Carr-era holdovers and, now that he has Brandon's full support, he demanded that Labadie be terminated and an RR guy be put in that position. The bottom line here is that Martin, Draper, and Labadie have full responsibility here.  To the extent that Rodriguez has responsibility - organizational or actual - it is far overshadowed by the fact that he was victimized by this edition of the Three Stooges.
2 years 43 weeks ago	Sorry, jmblue...	It was Lawrence Reid, not Lawrence Ricks, who threw the ball to Corso. Reid (#23) was a senior in 1979 and had 12 carries for 99 yards in the IU game. Ricks (#46) was a freshman in 1979 and did not have a carry against IU. Stats are available at www.mgoblue.com in the football section.
2 years 43 weeks ago	Sorry, jmblue...	It was Lawrence Reid - not Lawrence Ricks. Reid was a senior in 1979 and had 12 carries for 99 yards in the IU game. Ricks was a freshman in 1979 and did not have a carry against IU. Stats available at www.mgoblue.com, in the football section. I PUT THIS IN THE WRONG PLACE - SORRY FOR THE DUPLICATION.
2 years 43 weeks ago	This is the right answer ^^^^^^^	IU was actually pretty good in 1979. The game itself was a dull, boring affair with UM playing very uninspired ball and wasting opportunity after opportunity.  IU scored very late and played for the tie by kicking the extra point - instead of going for two and the win.  There was no OT in those days.  UM's final drive came immediately after the IU kickoff and the stadium was emptying out quickly in anticipation of the tie. Others here mentioned Lawrence Reid's intentional "fumble" out of bounds to stop the clock and the play before the Wangler to Carter pass.  During and after the play, the stadium erupted - but that included probably only 70k - 80k fans.  The rest were gone. In the end, Lee Corso - yes, that Lee Corso - got what he deserved by gutlessly kicking the point, but that was NOT a classic game.  It was only a classic play (or two plays) at the end of a dull, disappointing game.
2 years 48 weeks ago	There are probably few here who remember...	...but I liked the 1968 endzone.  There were alternating maize and blue stripes, at a 30-45 deg angle to the goal line.  The stripes were very wide, probably 15ft wide, and were angled toward the nearest sideline, creating a triangle in the middle of the endzone.  As I remember, the triangle was blue, with a maize block M in the middle.  I looked for a picture, but didn't find one.  I think I remember seeing a picture of Ron Johnson at Schembechler Hall that included the endzone - and there's probably a picture at Bentley.
2 years 49 weeks ago	OK, but....	....you can't and you won't get 50,000 vuvuzela-equipped fans to blow them only when they are supposed to blow them.  If it was possible to organize the fans otherwise, maybe the idea should be considered, but that level of fan organization hasn't been possible at Michigan Stadium for decades and it's unlikely to be developed any time soon.  As a result, you will undoubtedly experience the constant, annoying drone now being seen/heard/felt in South Africa throughout our football game.  Sorry.
2 years 49 weeks ago	Try this....	1.  Go to youtube and get a copy of Woodson's punt return against OSU in 1997. 2.  Listen to the crowd noise over Keith Jackson's play call.  You'll first hear a collective "ooh" as Woodson makes the first man miss and a block takes out two Buckeyes, then you'll hear a loud, anticipatory, "OOOOO" as the crowd recognizes this return has potential, then all hell breaks loose as Woodson gets past the punter on his way to the endzone. 3.  Now imagine the same scene with the drone of vuvuzelas drowning everything out. Following this short, three-step process should answer all of your questions regarding vuvuzelas at Michigan Stadium - and pre-empt forever any questions regarding same.
3 years 2 weeks ago	Great find!	+100 to you, sir.
3 years 2 weeks ago	Amen, Brian, Amen.	Hypothetical Summary 1.  NFL Scout to RR:  "What about Trent?"    (A reasonable question) 2.  RR to Scout:  "Some talent, didn't buy in, didn't work hard."  (A reasonable answer) 3.  Scout to LC:  "What about Trent?"  (A reasonable question) 4.  LC to Scout:  "He worked hard for me."  (Again, a reasonable answer). 5.  LC to Trent:  "RR sold you out."    (WTF??!!??) If this is true - and I stress "IF" - it seems that Brandon should run LC out of town on a rail.  I can't find any excuse or reason at all for LC (a current UM employee) to have contacted Trent to have that discussion.  None at all.
3 years 2 weeks ago	..before May 1, 1994...	Exactly.  For those too young to know or remember, F1 on the streets of Detroit was an amazing event.  Senna was a young, up-and-coming driver for the JPS Lotus team who would race through the field to challenge the leaders.  It was better racing than I've seen anywhere, anytime.  I caught myself crying a little when he was killed.  I've been to Spa and Barcelona, and I'll always look forward to my next F1 race, but I miss Ayrton Senna - the best there ever was.
3 years 8 weeks ago	After reading the article....	...something tells me that Kenny would have loved to have a replay system to get the calls right. He didn't and he paid a heavy emotional price for it. On Sunday night, Gravallese had a chance to use the replay to make the right decision. He didn't do it. I have a great deal of respect for referees who must make difficult judgment calls in imperfect circumstances. I have no respect for Gravallese - who elevated the sound of a improperly-blown whistle < 0.1 second too soon over the right answer - recognizing a goal that was on its way across the goal line and that no one, anywhere, could possibly stop. Truth and Justice, if they exist, should require Gravallese to alternately watch the replay of that goal, then the look of disappointment and pain on Hunwick's face, for eternity. And, to be clear, that's not because he blew the whistle early (we all make well-intentioned mistakes, Gravallese is certainly entitled to his share), but it's because he had the opportunity that Kenny never had - the opportunity to make the right call and arrive at the right outcome - and he consciously refused to make the right decision.
3 years 8 weeks ago	Here's the problem I have with this.....	The referee in this case had the benefit of a replay. It seemed clear to me that the whistle blew sometime after the puck left Lynch's stick and before it hit the back of the net. I am nearly positive that the whistle did not blow before Lynch took the shot. During the replay review, the referee seemed to be trying to judge whether the puck had "broken the plane" of the goal line when the whistle was blown. This approach evidences a slavishness to a "rule" that misses the entire point of the replay process - which is to get the call right. The replay shows that the puck was not covered (and therefore "dead", requiring a whistle) and that Miami didn't have control of the puck (and therefore "dead" because of the delayed penalty call). The ref should have quickly seen that he made a mistake by blowing the whistle too early, that the play should have continued, and that a goal was scored. His very next question should have been whether anyone was prejudiced or put at risk by a whistle that was less than 0.1sec too quick - did Miami stop playing or did they have any chance to stop the goal? The answer, of course, is no. The puck was already behind the goalie when Lynch took the shot. I can understand calling the play dead if the puck was in front of the goalie (on a shot from the point, for example) because the goalie might have a play on the puck. But that wasn't the case here. It was a bad whistle that was blown hundreths of a second too early. Miami didn't lose an opportunity because of it. The "right" call was to allow the goal. Instead the ref took away the excellent opportunity created by Hagelin after he took a pretty intentional-looking slash to the head and the goal created by Lynch's hard work. Hey, the whole point of the delayed penalty call is to let the play continue and give the attacking team additional opportunity because of the penalty - there's no way you should be blowing your whistle quickly under those circumstances - especially when there's that kind of action around the net. It's difficult to understand the quick whistle to begin with - it's just a horrible job to confirm it after seeing that replay. I'm sure it can't be easy to be a referee and I can't blame someone too much for missing calls or making bad calls in the heat of the action. But I can blame someone for having the benefit of replay, using it, then missing the entire point of the replay process.
3 years 10 weeks ago	I think the answer is....	....to (a) have one more man back to guard against an easy look close to the basket, and (b) not to foul. You have to concede that a foul in these circumstances leads to a disaster - two free throws to send the game to OT - which isn't likely to end well. I'm willing to consider other opinions, but I'm just not ready to say it was a bad decision. I think I'd be happy to put every game in the season on the line with the other team's best player taking a shot from 37 to win or lose. I'd probably have a better record than Bobby Knight.

more