Fire Wojo !

[Herman Cain]

Brought to us by the performances artist known as Tex/MUFINY/Gus/Ners, who believes that if we had started Dawson, Deonte, Cohen, and JJJ, we wouldn't have even needed a 5th player on the court to beat the badgers by 50.

Add Levin and you have the fifth player.

[MU82]

In the words of the great Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke " It is time for Pitchforks and Torches..."

Congratulations. You got your wish and Marquette lost. It gives you license to do what you do best: gripe and whine.

Now, unfortunately, you didn't get your wish to have MU go 0-5 against Vanderbilt, Michigan, Pitt, Georgia and Wisconsin. But buck up. If you're really lucky Sam will have some more 0-fers, your man JJJ will play like a freshman again and you can celebrate the possibility of the de-motivator being fired down the road.

Then, a couple years after Coach Stan Johnson is in a similar predicament, you can rip Marquette for hiring the guy you wanted instead of an established name-brand coach.

You're so effen predictable.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Add Levin and you have the fifth player.

Tip of the hat

[Herman Cain]

Congratulations. You got your wish and Marquette lost. It gives you license to do what you do best: gripe and whine.

Now, unfortunately, you didn't get your wish to have MU go 0-5 against Vanderbilt, Michigan, Pitt, Georgia and Wisconsin. But buck up. If you're really lucky Sam will have some more 0-fers, your man JJJ will play like a freshman again and you can celebrate the possibility of the de-motivator being fired down the road.

Then, a couple years after Coach Stan Johnson is in a similar predicament, you can rip Marquette for hiring the guy you wanted instead of an established name-brand coach.

You're so effen predictable.

This is an internet message board . People express opinions. You should hear the talk radio in NY when one of the local teams loses.

I want Marquette to win as much as anyone else on this message board. I just have a low tolerance for stuffed shirt corporate back stabber types like Wojo.  The sooner he is gone the better.

Bob Dukiet was actually a decent human being. Can't say the same for Wojo.

[rocky_warrior]

Bob Dukiet was actually a decent human being. Can't say the same for Wojo.

OK Tex.  I've had it with your "fake news".  We gave you a second life here, and you've abused it.  Take a break for a month. 

[Dr. Blackheart]

OK Tex.  I've had it with your "fake news".  We gave you a second life here, and you've abused it.  Take a break for a month.

He gowne

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

OK Tex.  I've had it with your "fake news".  We gave you a second life here, and you've abused it.  Take a break for a month.

[MU82]

OK Tex.  I've had it with your "fake news".  We gave you a second life here, and you've abused it.  Take a break for a month.

You've ascended to be my second favorite Rocky, surpassing Balboa but still a smidge behind Bullwinkle's buddy!

[Benny B]

We live in a wonderfully complex universe, and we are curious about it by nature. Time and again we have wondered--- why are we here? Where did we and the world come from? What is the world made of? It is our privilege to live in a time when enormous progress has been made towards finding some of the answers. String theory is our most recent attempt to answer the last (and part of the second) question.

So, what is the world made of? Ordinary matter is made of atoms, which are in turn made of just three basic components: electrons whirling around a nucleus composed of neutrons and protons. The electron is a truly fundamental particle (it is one of a family of particles known as leptons), but neutrons and protons are made of smaller particles, known as quarks. Quarks are, as far as we know, truly elementary.

Our current knowledge about the subatomic composition of the universe is summarized in what is known as the Standard Model of particle physics. It describes both the fundamental building blocks out of which the world is made, and the forces through which these blocks interact. There are twelve basic building blocks. Six of these are quarks--- they go by the interesting names of up, down, charm, strange, bottom and top. (A proton, for instance, is made of two up quarks and one down quark.) The other six are leptons--- these include the electron and its two heavier siblings, the muon and the tauon, as well as three neutrinos.

There are four fundamental forces in the universe: gravity, electromagnetism, and the weak and strong nuclear forces. Each of these is produced by fundamental particles that act as carriers of the force. The most familiar of these is the photon, a particle of light, which is the mediator of electromagnetic forces. (This means that, for instance, a magnet attracts a nail because both objects exchange photons.) The graviton is the particle associated with gravity. The strong force is carried by eight particles known as gluons. Finally, the weak force is transmitted by three particles, the W+, the W- , and the Z.

The behavior of all of these particles and forces is described with impeccable precision by the Standard Model, with one notable exception: gravity. For technical reasons, the gravitational force, the most familiar in our every day lives, has proven very difficult to describe microscopically. This has been for many years one of the most important problems in theoretical physics-- to formulate a quantum theory of gravity.

In the last few decades, string theory has emerged as the most promising candidate for a microscopic theory of gravity. And it is infinitely more ambitious than that: it attempts to provide a complete, unified, and consistent description of the fundamental structure of our universe. (For this reason it is sometimes, quite arrogantly, called a 'Theory of Everything').

The essential idea behind string theory is this: all of the different 'fundamental ' particles of the Standard Model are really just different manifestations of one basic object: a string. How can that be? Well, we would ordinarily picture an electron, for instance, as a point with no internal structure. A point cannot do anything but move. But, if string theory is correct, then under an extremely powerful 'microscope' we would realize that the electron is not really a point, but a tiny loop of string. A string can do something aside from moving--- it can oscillate in different ways. If it oscillates a certain way, then from a distance, unable to tell it is really a string, we see an electron. But if it oscillates some other way, well, then we call it a photon, or a quark, or a ... you get the idea. So, if string theory is correct, the entire world is made of strings!

Perhaps the most remarkable thing about string theory is that such a simple idea works--- it is possible to derive (an extension of) the Standard Model (which has been verified experimentally with incredible precision) from a theory of strings. But it should also be said that, to date, there is no direct experimental evidence that string theory itself is the correct description of Nature. This is mostly due to the fact that string theory is still under development. We know bits and pieces of it, but we do not yet see the whole picture, and we are therefore unable to make definite predictions. In recent years many exciting developments have taken place, radically improving our understanding of what the theory is.

If you want to learn more, visit the sites listed below. I also highly recommend the popular science book "The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for The Ultimate Theory" (W. W. Norton & Company, 1999), written by Prof. Brian Greene, a well-established string theorist.

[MU82]

We live in a wonderfully complex universe, and we are curious about it by nature. Time and again we have wondered--- why are we here? Where did we and the world come from? What is the world made of? It is our privilege to live in a time when enormous progress has been made towards finding some of the answers. String theory is our most recent attempt to answer the last (and part of the second) question.

So, what is the world made of? Ordinary matter is made of atoms, which are in turn made of just three basic components: electrons whirling around a nucleus composed of neutrons and protons. The electron is a truly fundamental particle (it is one of a family of particles known as leptons), but neutrons and protons are made of smaller particles, known as quarks. Quarks are, as far as we know, truly elementary.

Our current knowledge about the subatomic composition of the universe is summarized in what is known as the Standard Model of particle physics. It describes both the fundamental building blocks out of which the world is made, and the forces through which these blocks interact. There are twelve basic building blocks. Six of these are quarks--- they go by the interesting names of up, down, charm, strange, bottom and top. (A proton, for instance, is made of two up quarks and one down quark.) The other six are leptons--- these include the electron and its two heavier siblings, the muon and the tauon, as well as three neutrinos.

There are four fundamental forces in the universe: gravity, electromagnetism, and the weak and strong nuclear forces. Each of these is produced by fundamental particles that act as carriers of the force. The most familiar of these is the photon, a particle of light, which is the mediator of electromagnetic forces. (This means that, for instance, a magnet attracts a nail because both objects exchange photons.) The graviton is the particle associated with gravity. The strong force is carried by eight particles known as gluons. Finally, the weak force is transmitted by three particles, the W+, the W- , and the Z.

The behavior of all of these particles and forces is described with impeccable precision by the Standard Model, with one notable exception: gravity. For technical reasons, the gravitational force, the most familiar in our every day lives, has proven very difficult to describe microscopically. This has been for many years one of the most important problems in theoretical physics-- to formulate a quantum theory of gravity.

In the last few decades, string theory has emerged as the most promising candidate for a microscopic theory of gravity. And it is infinitely more ambitious than that: it attempts to provide a complete, unified, and consistent description of the fundamental structure of our universe. (For this reason it is sometimes, quite arrogantly, called a 'Theory of Everything').

The essential idea behind string theory is this: all of the different 'fundamental ' particles of the Standard Model are really just different manifestations of one basic object: a string. How can that be? Well, we would ordinarily picture an electron, for instance, as a point with no internal structure. A point cannot do anything but move. But, if string theory is correct, then under an extremely powerful 'microscope' we would realize that the electron is not really a point, but a tiny loop of string. A string can do something aside from moving--- it can oscillate in different ways. If it oscillates a certain way, then from a distance, unable to tell it is really a string, we see an electron. But if it oscillates some other way, well, then we call it a photon, or a quark, or a ... you get the idea. So, if string theory is correct, the entire world is made of strings!

Perhaps the most remarkable thing about string theory is that such a simple idea works--- it is possible to derive (an extension of) the Standard Model (which has been verified experimentally with incredible precision) from a theory of strings. But it should also be said that, to date, there is no direct experimental evidence that string theory itself is the correct description of Nature. This is mostly due to the fact that string theory is still under development. We know bits and pieces of it, but we do not yet see the whole picture, and we are therefore unable to make definite predictions. In recent years many exciting developments have taken place, radically improving our understanding of what the theory is.

If you want to learn more, visit the sites listed below. I also highly recommend the popular science book "The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for The Ultimate Theory" (W. W. Norton & Company, 1999), written by Prof. Brian Greene, a well-established string theorist.

So, unless I'm reading this wrong, you're saying the Standard Model requires firing Wojo?

[rocket surgeon]

  a couple of things, which is the weakest? W+, W-, or the Z?  secondly, if the string theory is building to be the new normal, what is going on with the bond(s) that hold the individual particles strings together to keep them in particulate form?  assuming each string(linear) is connected at some point together to form the photon or quark,  can they become unraveled, or disconnected thus  becoming a "string" as opposed to being a "particle"?

      alright, i get it.  right now, the team is a bunch of unraveled strings.  now, in order to keep this in the al, let's just say that wojo is either a W+,/- or Z and the team is UN-particle-ized gluons at the moment.  but,  thru the forces of gravity, which is the most questioned or unknown of forces, come together to form a nice, strong"gluon", wojo will keep his job.  this would take all of the players quarks to focus their photons into a single, monochromatic, coherent beam, hence laser, toward the same goal of putting the sphere in to the black hole=WINNING

reminds me of what my high school physics teacher used to say-physics is phun and easy     

[wildbillsb]

Gosh, now I understand.  Thanks, everybody!

[Newsdreams]

So Benny B is Stephen Hawking

[TSmith34, Inc.]

OK Tex.  I've had it with your "fake news".  We gave you a second life here, and you've abused it.  Take a break for a month.

Dang it!  Just when I had come to appreciate Tex's posts for what they were.  One must read them not for their informational value--they have none, for they were never intended to convey actual information--but for their pure whimsical, artistic allure.

[Newsdreams]

Dang it!  Just when I had come to appreciate Tex's posts for what they were.  One must read them not for their informational value--they have none, for they were never intended to convey actual information--but for their pure whimsical, artistic allure.

Yep I can see what u saying

[bilsu]

We live in a wonderfully complex universe, and we are curious about it by nature. Time and again we have wondered--- why are we here? Where did we and the world come from? What is the world made of? It is our privilege to live in a time when enormous progress has been made towards finding some of the answers. String theory is our most recent attempt to answer the last (and part of the second) question.

So, what is the world made of? Ordinary matter is made of atoms, which are in turn made of just three basic components: electrons whirling around a nucleus composed of neutrons and protons. The electron is a truly fundamental particle (it is one of a family of particles known as leptons), but neutrons and protons are made of smaller particles, known as quarks. Quarks are, as far as we know, truly elementary.

Our current knowledge about the subatomic composition of the universe is summarized in what is known as the Standard Model of particle physics. It describes both the fundamental building blocks out of which the world is made, and the forces through which these blocks interact. There are twelve basic building blocks. Six of these are quarks--- they go by the interesting names of up, down, charm, strange, bottom and top. (A proton, for instance, is made of two up quarks and one down quark.) The other six are leptons--- these include the electron and its two heavier siblings, the muon and the tauon, as well as three neutrinos.

There are four fundamental forces in the universe: gravity, electromagnetism, and the weak and strong nuclear forces. Each of these is produced by fundamental particles that act as carriers of the force. The most familiar of these is the photon, a particle of light, which is the mediator of electromagnetic forces. (This means that, for instance, a magnet attracts a nail because both objects exchange photons.) The graviton is the particle associated with gravity. The strong force is carried by eight particles known as gluons. Finally, the weak force is transmitted by three particles, the W+, the W- , and the Z.

The behavior of all of these particles and forces is described with impeccable precision by the Standard Model, with one notable exception: gravity. For technical reasons, the gravitational force, the most familiar in our every day lives, has proven very difficult to describe microscopically. This has been for many years one of the most important problems in theoretical physics-- to formulate a quantum theory of gravity.

In the last few decades, string theory has emerged as the most promising candidate for a microscopic theory of gravity. And it is infinitely more ambitious than that: it attempts to provide a complete, unified, and consistent description of the fundamental structure of our universe. (For this reason it is sometimes, quite arrogantly, called a 'Theory of Everything').

The essential idea behind string theory is this: all of the different 'fundamental ' particles of the Standard Model are really just different manifestations of one basic object: a string. How can that be? Well, we would ordinarily picture an electron, for instance, as a point with no internal structure. A point cannot do anything but move. But, if string theory is correct, then under an extremely powerful 'microscope' we would realize that the electron is not really a point, but a tiny loop of string. A string can do something aside from moving--- it can oscillate in different ways. If it oscillates a certain way, then from a distance, unable to tell it is really a string, we see an electron. But if it oscillates some other way, well, then we call it a photon, or a quark, or a ... you get the idea. So, if string theory is correct, the entire world is made of strings!

Perhaps the most remarkable thing about string theory is that such a simple idea works--- it is possible to derive (an extension of) the Standard Model (which has been verified experimentally with incredible precision) from a theory of strings. But it should also be said that, to date, there is no direct experimental evidence that string theory itself is the correct description of Nature. This is mostly due to the fact that string theory is still under development. We know bits and pieces of it, but we do not yet see the whole picture, and we are therefore unable to make definite predictions. In recent years many exciting developments have taken place, radically improving our understanding of what the theory is.

If you want to learn more, visit the sites listed below. I also highly recommend the popular science book "The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for The Ultimate Theory" (W. W. Norton & Company, 1999), written by Prof. Brian Greene, a well-established string theorist.

That is an impressive post, but my toughts after reading it is that MUscoopers have sinned. They will be continued to punished by God until they repent. After all God is the central power of the univererse.

[fjm]

OK Tex.  I've had it with your "fake news".  We gave you a second life here, and you've abused it.  Take a break for a month.

I'm ALL for opinion of posters. But he was just downright ruthless on fire Wojo, everyone is wrong but in right, I know inside on every player in the country, MU sucks.
I could even accept his 0-5 takes. But we win 2 of the 5 (I was hoping for 3) and he freaks.

I will say this though, coming into this week, there were so many scoopers hoping for 2-1 out of this 3 game stretch. And we did get 2-1, with the loss coming to, what I honestly see is a top 10 UW team once all is said and done.

Should we have won? Possibly. And I upset? Nope I'm disappointed and really bummed but this team is better. But COME ON, 4 senior started with final four experience and HAPP. Was gonna be a tough go.

Keep strong and push on. Wojo has them on the right track.

Having said that, Wojo needs to work a bit on his defense for sure. But I have faith.

(I also claim no inside knowledge, and I played basketball for 3 years in middle school coming off the bench and scored a total of 2 points in those 3 years... so I'm just a fan. That loves his team and thinks Wojo is a great recruiter and a solid coach. But still has a ways to go)

[GWSwarrior]

Start it now, why not ?  Poor discipline. Poor coaching. Jacking up 3 pointers. Poor defense. No accountability. Another year of disappointment. Another year of poor defense against 3, poor interior defense and poor shooting. That's it ! How many millions does MU spend on BBall ?

You're afraid and fear makes you dumb so basically you're being dumb

[Dawson Rental]

We live in a wonderfully complex universe, and we are curious about it by nature. Time and again we have wondered--- why are we here? Where did we and the world come from? What is the world made of? It is our privilege to live in a time when enormous progress has been made towards finding some of the answers. String theory is our most recent attempt to answer the last (and part of the second) question.

So, what is the world made of? Ordinary matter is made of atoms, which are in turn made of just three basic components: electrons whirling around a nucleus composed of neutrons and protons. The electron is a truly fundamental particle (it is one of a family of particles known as leptons), but neutrons and protons are made of smaller particles, known as quarks. Quarks are, as far as we know, truly elementary.

Our current knowledge about the subatomic composition of the universe is summarized in what is known as the Standard Model of particle physics. It describes both the fundamental building blocks out of which the world is made, and the forces through which these blocks interact. There are twelve basic building blocks. Six of these are quarks--- they go by the interesting names of up, down, charm, strange, bottom and top. (A proton, for instance, is made of two up quarks and one down quark.) The other six are leptons--- these include the electron and its two heavier siblings, the muon and the tauon, as well as three neutrinos.

There are four fundamental forces in the universe: gravity, electromagnetism, and the weak and strong nuclear forces. Each of these is produced by fundamental particles that act as carriers of the force. The most familiar of these is the photon, a particle of light, which is the mediator of electromagnetic forces. (This means that, for instance, a magnet attracts a nail because both objects exchange photons.) The graviton is the particle associated with gravity. The strong force is carried by eight particles known as gluons. Finally, the weak force is transmitted by three particles, the W+, the W- , and the Z.

The behavior of all of these particles and forces is described with impeccable precision by the Standard Model, with one notable exception: gravity. For technical reasons, the gravitational force, the most familiar in our every day lives, has proven very difficult to describe microscopically. This has been for many years one of the most important problems in theoretical physics-- to formulate a quantum theory of gravity.

In the last few decades, string theory has emerged as the most promising candidate for a microscopic theory of gravity. And it is infinitely more ambitious than that: it attempts to provide a complete, unified, and consistent description of the fundamental structure of our universe. (For this reason it is sometimes, quite arrogantly, called a 'Theory of Everything').

The essential idea behind string theory is this: all of the different 'fundamental ' particles of the Standard Model are really just different manifestations of one basic object: a string. How can that be? Well, we would ordinarily picture an electron, for instance, as a point with no internal structure. A point cannot do anything but move. But, if string theory is correct, then under an extremely powerful 'microscope' we would realize that the electron is not really a point, but a tiny loop of string. A string can do something aside from moving--- it can oscillate in different ways. If it oscillates a certain way, then from a distance, unable to tell it is really a string, we see an electron. But if it oscillates some other way, well, then we call it a photon, or a quark, or a ... you get the idea. So, if string theory is correct, the entire world is made of strings!

Perhaps the most remarkable thing about string theory is that such a simple idea works--- it is possible to derive (an extension of) the Standard Model (which has been verified experimentally with incredible precision) from a theory of strings. But it should also be said that, to date, there is no direct experimental evidence that string theory itself is the correct description of Nature. This is mostly due to the fact that string theory is still under development. We know bits and pieces of it, but we do not yet see the whole picture, and we are therefore unable to make definite predictions. In recent years many exciting developments have taken place, radically improving our understanding of what the theory is.

If you want to learn more, visit the sites listed below. I also highly recommend the popular science book "The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for The Ultimate Theory" (W. W. Norton & Company, 1999), written by Prof. Brian Greene, a well-established string theorist.

Christ!  More Myron Metcalf type BS.

[Spotcheck Billy]

Superbar!

We live in a wonderfully complex universe, and we are curious about it by nature. Time and again we have wondered--- why are we here? Where did we and the world come from? What is the world made of? It is our privilege to live in a time when enormous progress has been made towards finding some of the answers. String theory is our most recent attempt to answer the last (and part of the second) question.

So, what is the world made of? Ordinary matter is made of atoms, which are in turn made of just three basic components: electrons whirling around a nucleus composed of neutrons and protons. The electron is a truly fundamental particle (it is one of a family of particles known as leptons), but neutrons and protons are made of smaller particles, known as quarks. Quarks are, as far as we know, truly elementary.

Our current knowledge about the subatomic composition of the universe is summarized in what is known as the Standard Model of particle physics. It describes both the fundamental building blocks out of which the world is made, and the forces through which these blocks interact. There are twelve basic building blocks. Six of these are quarks--- they go by the interesting names of up, down, charm, strange, bottom and top. (A proton, for instance, is made of two up quarks and one down quark.) The other six are leptons--- these include the electron and its two heavier siblings, the muon and the tauon, as well as three neutrinos.

There are four fundamental forces in the universe: gravity, electromagnetism, and the weak and strong nuclear forces. Each of these is produced by fundamental particles that act as carriers of the force. The most familiar of these is the photon, a particle of light, which is the mediator of electromagnetic forces. (This means that, for instance, a magnet attracts a nail because both objects exchange photons.) The graviton is the particle associated with gravity. The strong force is carried by eight particles known as gluons. Finally, the weak force is transmitted by three particles, the W+, the W- , and the Z.

The behavior of all of these particles and forces is described with impeccable precision by the Standard Model, with one notable exception: gravity. For technical reasons, the gravitational force, the most familiar in our every day lives, has proven very difficult to describe microscopically. This has been for many years one of the most important problems in theoretical physics-- to formulate a quantum theory of gravity.

In the last few decades, string theory has emerged as the most promising candidate for a microscopic theory of gravity. And it is infinitely more ambitious than that: it attempts to provide a complete, unified, and consistent description of the fundamental structure of our universe. (For this reason it is sometimes, quite arrogantly, called a 'Theory of Everything').

The essential idea behind string theory is this: all of the different 'fundamental ' particles of the Standard Model are really just different manifestations of one basic object: a string. How can that be? Well, we would ordinarily picture an electron, for instance, as a point with no internal structure. A point cannot do anything but move. But, if string theory is correct, then under an extremely powerful 'microscope' we would realize that the electron is not really a point, but a tiny loop of string. A string can do something aside from moving--- it can oscillate in different ways. If it oscillates a certain way, then from a distance, unable to tell it is really a string, we see an electron. But if it oscillates some other way, well, then we call it a photon, or a quark, or a ... you get the idea. So, if string theory is correct, the entire world is made of strings!

Perhaps the most remarkable thing about string theory is that such a simple idea works--- it is possible to derive (an extension of) the Standard Model (which has been verified experimentally with incredible precision) from a theory of strings. But it should also be said that, to date, there is no direct experimental evidence that string theory itself is the correct description of Nature. This is mostly due to the fact that string theory is still under development. We know bits and pieces of it, but we do not yet see the whole picture, and we are therefore unable to make definite predictions. In recent years many exciting developments have taken place, radically improving our understanding of what the theory is.

If you want to learn more, visit the sites listed below. I also highly recommend the popular science book "The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for The Ultimate Theory" (W. W. Norton & Company, 1999), written by Prof. Brian Greene, a well-established string theorist.

[Benny B]

So, unless I'm reading this wrong, you're saying the Standard Model requires firing Wojo?

I was simply trying to bring the average intelligence in this thread up to a 2nd grade level, but evidently, I'm going to have to discover cold fusion for that to happen.

[MU82]

I was simply trying to bring the average intelligence in this thread up to a 2nd grade level, but evidently, I'm going to have to discover cold fusion for that to happen.

When I used to go out to start my Ford on a chilly Chicago morning, that was one cold Fusion.

[Loose Cannon]

We lost to an experienced, ranked team, I get it. A win would have been great but it really wasn't expected. But that doesn't mean Wojo was playing with house money. You can take different paths to a 9 point loss, and there can be different take away's from those paths. Had UW gradually pulled away, maybe up 4 at 10:00, up 7 at half, up 11 at 30:00 and win by nine, yeah, nothing to feel to bad about, we were outplayed by the slightly better team. But to go from up 5 with 18:24 to go to down 15 with 9:24 is a different kind of thing. We lost those nine minutes 27 - 7. And this is, what, the third time in 10 games we've seen a stretch like this? I just don't see how its not on our coach when the team's collective brain shuts off for 25% of a game. 

And it stings more because it's Bucky.

It Stings, because you let it Sting.

Very old Proverb  "Pain is inevitable, Suffering is a Choice"

[RushmoreAcademy]

In the spirit of internet memes.... I present the Fire Wojo series.

[GoldenDieners32]

Why fire wojo? He's been coaching fine just needs to coach defense