what had already been said, just now with proof then How was it NOT innappropriate for people including Val to show support of the embattled HC by touting his acedemic and Honor Code success with the team? If you and anyone else can say GC is a good coach because of X, when their "really" wasn't much to substantiate that "X" was true in the first place, and "X" is then proved to be untrue then how is it innapropriate to end the open ende debate on "X". A lot ofpeople who think GC is NOT doing the greatest job in thw world for whatever particular reason were bombarded with those two facors as why he is a good coach. All I read is statman saying, "See you guys who were stretching to find something positive , something that is a "reason" to keep GC as HC were wrong about one of your reasons, which leaves one less argument for keeping him." That is all I read. Statman is not making fun of the particular situation directly. Nor is he saying that GC is responsible, IMO. Just that his Honor Code record versus Lavel, or as a stand alone recrd isn't a strong argument now that we know Honor Code violations ARE occuring and that they are sever. How we know that is irrelevant and not even addressed by Statman, just that it is.

-----

CarolinaCoug