ADVERTISEMENT

Can I get some Fife/Rabjohns clarity here?

Am I correct that Rabjohns was saying just a few weeks ago that Woodson had shut out assistant coaches and wasn't getting input from them, but rather from Jim Todd and Randy Wittman instead?

Am I correct that many assumed that Dane Fife was the source of that info to Rabjohns?

And then last week Rabjohns published or spoke about some of the things that apparently caused Fife to get the heave ho, but many accused Rabjohns of being a mouthpiece for Woodson and that info being leaked to him specifically to get the word out about Fife's transgressions....and many/some have said these were strictly fabricated or embellished (by either Woodson or Rabjohns). Is any of that false?

So, depending upon who you believe (or what tin foil hat you're wearing), Rabjohns is not only 'boys' with Fife and publishing info he gets from him, but also a mouthpiece for Woodson and publishing leaks from him to make Fife look bad. Is that all accurate?

I'm no Rabjohns fan. Maybe he'll go cover Lander's new team and ooh and aah over him wherever he goes. But I'm having a hard time keeping up with all of the theories and relationships.

A summary that defines Trump....

"This vision of nationhood should be familiar to Americans. It is what Donald Trump has been peddling for years. It sheds light on his long, weird infatuation with Putin. Like Putin, he has a vision of national greatness that identifies the nation with himself, despises international cooperation in general and NATO in particular, is prepared to trash any institution that stands in its way, declares millions of his fellow citizens to be the nation's enemies and insouciantly sacrifices his trusting followers' lives for the sake of that vision."

The whole article is linked below but the above is the reason I do NOT like Trump.

  • Poll
It’s a blue blood final 4

Which blue is the true blue to cut the nets a week from Monday

  • Kansas — the befeathered, red headed blue blood

    Votes: 10 25.6%
  • UNC — the Tarheeled, Carolina blue blue blood

    Votes: 2 5.1%
  • Villanova — the private Catholic, Philadelphia Storied blue blood

    Votes: 4 10.3%
  • Duke — the bedeviling, former assistant on a Victory Tour blue blood

    Votes: 9 23.1%
  • Who cares, this board’s fave doesn’t wear blue

    Votes: 14 35.9%

All teams in the final, wear blue. No Cinderella lasted past midnight (the elite 8)

Gold RR Tracks on Black, wear the wrong color, and lost to a flock of #15 blue peacocks.

One of the original blue bloods, hailing from Rupp Arena, are almost conspicuous by their absence.

Evansville@IU, Game 3: IU wins 6-5 and takes the series...

Nathan Stahl on the mound for the 2nd game of the DH. He gave up two straight hits to start the game, got a K, and gave up another single to load the bases with one out. A fielder's choice scored a run with two outs and runners on the corners and the dangerous Berkey up who had killed IU in the first two games, but he flies out to end the inning with UE up 1-0. The temp at the start of the game is 40.

Doanes got a leadoff single for IU in the 1st. Glasser singled that sent Doanes to 3rd with runners on the corners and no outs. Whalen hit into a DP which scored Doanes to tie the game at 1-1. Ellis struck out to end the inning.

Evansville@IU, Game 2: IU survives a disastrous 8th by the bullpen to win 6-5...

It's a cold day with the temp at 37 in the first game of a DH, and both teams have already committed 3 errors with Evansville committing 2 of them. IU scored four runs in the 1st with Whalen getting an RBI on a single, Jessee an RBI on a double, and Ellis cranked his 11th homer of the season, a 2-run homer. IU got a leadoff walk in the 2nd, but stranded him at 2nd. Brehmer has not given up a hit through 2 IP and has walked 2 while striking out 2. His pitch count is at 42.

A serious basketball question with potentially broader societal implications

Can a college coach really fix an 18-22 year old’s shot? At what point are things set to a large degree as to one’s skills so that no amount of teaching is going to significantly move the needle (re shooting % in actual games)?

Can a high school coach turn a kid from a middling basketball player into a good one just through teaching and time?

In academics, can a high school teacher reliably and repeatedly turn kids a few grade levels behind in reading or math into honors students/great performers on SAT?

Where do we draw the line? How much in time and resources at these levels do we expend for a small amount of change, if that’s what the data shows, and wouldn’t we better off focusing on other avenues to help out a kid, player, program, or school?

USA Today article on another B1G flameout


"A more likely theory posits that the Big Ten beats up itself too much in the regular season......"

".........There's also questions about whether the Big Ten style of play translates when playing against the rest of the country."

makes sense to me
ADVERTISEMENT

Filter

ADVERTISEMENT