PDA

View Full Version : The Case for Mike Shula



ShulaFan
11-30-2007, 01:34 PM
Everyone has opinions and everyone is capable of slanting information for their own purposes. But these are facts.

In 2001, Alabama was hit with the loss of 21 scholarships and two bowl games. That is one of the stiffest penalties levied by the NCAA in college football history. The penalties were so severe, new coach Dennis Franchione immediately started looking for a way out, even considering leaving Alabama for Kansas after his first season at UA.

When Fran left following the '02 season, almost no one wanted the job due to the daunting task of coaching in Tuscaloosa under those sanctions. Mike Price was like the fifth or sixth choice in that search. Everyone else said, 'no'.

Then the Price stripper stuff went down and UA was left looking for a coach in May. The candidates were going to be scarce that time of the year and it was really going to be Shula or Croom, two guys with UA ties that would be loyal in a time of crisis. The job was thought to be impossible at the time and this is really about the only situation ever in UA's history where someone with Shula's lack of experience would be hired.

So he came in May of 2003, some 90 days before the start of fall practice and he had never been a head coach (or even a college coach) a day in his life. So this would be on the job training, in Tuscaloosa, while enduring a harsh set of sanctions. Mike would recruit his first class in Alabama under those sanctions, which limited his first class to only 19 signees. (this followed the two previous classes that were also sanctioned).

As if those problems weren't enough to endure, UA incurred a spate of injuries seldom seen anywhere. They never used the same lineup on offense or defense more than twice in a row and played one of the toughest schedules in the history of NCAA football. I know you think that is an exaggeration but imagine a schedule where you face these QBs in a single season?: Jason White (OKL-Heisman Winner), Matt Mauck (National Champs), David Greene, Casey Clausen, Timmy Chang (NCAA Record Setter), Eli Manning (1st pick in the Draft), Matt Jones, Jason Campbell (first round pick) and Jared Lorenzen. What kind of schedule is that? With all the injuries? No spring practice?

Alabama finished 4-9 but despite all that, they played Oklahoma to the final whistle. It took UT five overtimes to beat UA and they went on the road and beat Miami the following week. Arkansas won in three overtimes. Alabama lost to Northern Illinios (who was a 10 win team that year) and at Hawaii, a tough place to end the season.

But its tough to look at 2003 and those circumstances and say it was a bad coaching job. Just who would win in those circumstances?

In 2004, things looked brighter. Then came a spate of injuries that would make you wonder if Shula was cursed. Alabama lost Brodie Croyle in the first couple of weeks, then lost the backup two weeks later. By the time the end of October rolled around, not only was the entire backfield gone, the backups were gone, too. By the season ending Auburn game, UA started QB #3, a true freshman at RB, a walkon at fullback and a true freshman at TE. (these weren't typical UA true freshman -- remember, UA was recruiting under NCAA sanctions) Play in the SEC with all third team guys on offense? The defense was healthy though. They finished the season the #2 ranked defense in America. Despite all that, UA still finished 6-5 and went to a bowl. Was that a bad coaching job? This was a team far less talented than normal UA standards due to the probation, then lost the first two strings of players at Qb, Rb, Fb and Te. Alabama lost in the final minute in the bowl game to the Minnesota team that featured Barber and Maroney.

In 2005, things had to be better, right? They were. For the first time since he was there, the team stayed relatively healthy. But, of course, its not Shula if something doesn't go horribly wrong -- UA's best playmaker and Heisman Candidate (Prothro) was lost for the year in Game Six and the offense really suffered from that point on, probably like Florida's would suffer without Tebow or Missouri would suffer without Chase Daniel. Lose your best playmaker and anyone would suffer. Yet, finally with a healthy team (yet one ravaged by the sanctions), Alabama blew out Spurrier on the road, killed Florida at home, 31-3, beat Tennessee in a rare win in that series and was 10-0 and ranked 3rd in America in mid November before losing to LSU in overtime. The following week UA would lose to Auburn at Auburn before beating Texas Tech in the Cotton Bowl while holding the Red Raiders to a stunning ten points.

I guess the successes of 2005 made UA fans/administrators/boosters feel the sanctions were now behind them. But simple math showed that was not a reality -- the most hard hit recruiting classes were the 02-03 classes (before Shula arrived). In the 2006 season, those two classes were the oldest on the squad -- the seniors and juniors. Try winning in the SEC when your worst two groups are the oldest two groups. UA was able to win in '05 in large part due to a senior class that was recruited PRIOR TO the imposition of the sanctions. But those players (Croyle, Mark Anderson, etc.) were now gone.

On top of that, UA was breaking in a new QB. And they faced the following road schedule: at Arkansas, at LSU, at Florida, at Tennessee. Prior to the season, the experts saw that schedule and most pegged UA to finish no better than 8-4. Some said 7-5. That's just too tough. New QB, those road games, the loss of 7 defensive starters ...

Alabama did lose all four of those tough road games. But they lost to Arkansas in overtime. They led the eventual National Champions at halftime in the Swamp. They rang up more yards against that LSU defense than any other team they played making that game close. And UA led Tennessee in the fourth quarter. In fact, Alabama led all those teams at one point in the second half. In addition to those losses, Alabama also lost to Auburn again (by 7 points) and then there was the crippling, headscratcher loss to Miss State. That loss doesn't look quite as bad today as it did then but that was at Shula's feet. That UA team should have never lost to Miss State and there is no doubt that was the tipping point for Shula at UA. But it was Shula's first loss to a clearly inferior team probably since his first season. In all other losses, a strong case can be made that UA simply lost to a healthier team with more horses.

Shula was fired after the Auburn loss. The 6-6 season did him in. Notice that Nick Saban, the supposed genius, just went 6-6 with the same team, yet a year older, against a lighter road schedule. Maybe Shula's 6-6 record that season was more about the players and the schedule than it was about him. And again, Mike Shula never coached an Alabama team with HIS juniors and seniors. They were not only a previous regime's players, they were players recruited under some of the most severe NCAA sanctions of all time. And he was expected to win big under those conditions? While Auburn and LSU -- not coincidentally -- are experiencing Golden Ages of success?

Not a single senior made the All SEC teams. Not one. Only three were drafted and two were in the last round, one was the last pick in the whole draft.

There were very, very few arrests or off-the-field stories. Alabama, like Shula, was quiet as a mouse in the offseasons. There was one high profile arrest in four years and most of those charges were dropped. Mike suspended the player for a game.

Mike was not given nearly enough time in Tuscaloosa. He inherited the worst situation in Alabama history and was only allowed three recruiting classes to "fix it". Even during that time, he managed a ten win season, a Cotton Bowl victory and a drubbing of Florida. He never coached a senior that was "his". All his juniors and seniors were products of failed regimes or, worse, products of the probation -- kids UA would normally never recruit.

On top of it all, he is a good man. Tim Tebow cried on national tv when he talked about not having the opportunity to play for Mike, a person he publicly called "the greatest man I ever met". He is a family man, and he is very wealthy (having nothing do with his own coaching career) yet he chooses to coach because he has a passion for it.

He will recruit and he would win here. He will bring a lot of attention and put butts in the seats. On top of it all, he would lead a program everyone would be proud of ...

Find a UA fan (there are millions of them) that has anything bad to say about Mike Shula, The Person. There is not one.

He should be the hire. Steve Logan is a good candidate and he did a good job up the road but has he won multiple SEC games? Heck, you could sensibly argue Shula won more big games with a roster that isn't even what East Carolina's was ... If Shula had rung up the same record at Ole Miss he did at Alabama, he would be a hot name right now. What folks don't realize is that Alabama WAS Ole Miss during his four years there. Yet, he was judged by UA standards, not Ole Miss'.

He should be the hire. He is a perfect fit. Mike was a brilliant, hardworking student at Alabama. He would fit perfectly into this environment. JMO.

Duvall
11-30-2007, 01:36 PM
If Duke wanted a good man who struggled to succeed in a difficult situation, they could have kept Ted Roof.

ShulaFan
11-30-2007, 01:43 PM
Good point but you could argue Shula actually DID succeed ...

Even in that near impossible situation, the first time he ever had the opportunity to coach a reasonably healthy team, UA won ten games and went to the Cotton Bowl on New Year's Day and beat Texas Tech, holding them to an astounding ten points.

He had a healthy team in 2006, too and that was the season that got him fired. Yet, he lost to four TOP FIFTEEN teams, all on the road, all in close games.

He lost to Auburn and Miss State at home and those were the two games that got him fired. I think that is a far cry from Ted Roof's level of success or not-so-much-success.

AtlBluRew
11-30-2007, 01:49 PM
Nice support for Shula. He was my first thought also. He did a terrific job IMO at Alabama and his name brings instant credibility.

formerdukeathlete
11-30-2007, 02:08 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Shula

The Shula's still have family in the midwest. Don is from Ohio. played football in Cleveland. started out as an assistant with the Cleveland Browns, i believe.

We certainly could use someone with some midwest creds. There is a lot of talent through that way with reasonably good academic standing.

And, it is true that Mike almost landed Tebow, notwithstanding Tebow was from the Jacksonville area and Gainesville close by.

Don Shula is going to help Duke.

Don coached Mike Curtis with the Colts.

There are some ties and rooting interest dating way back when.

Patrick Yates
11-30-2007, 02:10 PM
I really feel for Mike Shula. If Tyrone Prothro doesn't suffer what is perhaps the worst broken leg in modern college football, Shula is still coach at Alabama. But, Shula had him in during a blowout, his leg got destroyed, career over. 2 actually. (I hope Belichek is aware of this)

That said, Shula has a smell of failure attached to him. Unlike many here, I do not think Duke needs to pursue a failed coach, I don't care where and what circumstances are attached to failure. Our next coach must be a recruiter par excellance, and Shula's failure will be easy to recruit against. The opposing coach will ask a player why he thinks it will be different this time. The player will have no good answer.

Intellectually speaking, Shula is not a bad choice. I would rather it go to a coach that did not get his first HC job by falling into it by process of elimination, but he can probably do the job. But such a hire would smack of business as usual at Duke by taking the leftovers from a bigger program.

No thanks. I hope the next coach will be a youngish go getter whose team had solid year last year. One who is eager to recruit, and innovative on at least one side of the ball, with an idea for who will be innovative on the other side of the ball.

Patrick Yates

SoCalDukeFan
11-30-2007, 02:22 PM
You make a good case for him. Some questions I have:

1. Where did the wealth come from? His father, wife, outside business interest?
If outside business, does he have the time to be the head coach?

2. How will he assemble a staff? If you hire a head coach from another school then he generally brings much of his staff with him. If you hire a name guy then he generally has lots of contacts and is able to put together a staff. Certainly the Shula name is huge and he probably knows lots of people. Might not be a problem.

Clearly Mike is worthy of consideration. I have seen other names on DBR that are also worthy. Will be interesting to see what JA and the committee come up with.

SoCal

Classof06
11-30-2007, 03:20 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Shula

The Shula's still have family in the midwest. Don is from Ohio. played football in Cleveland. started out as an assistant with the Cleveland Browns, i believe.

We certainly could use someone with some midwest creds. There is a lot of talent through that way with reasonably good academic standing.

And, it is true that Mike almost landed Tebow, notwithstanding Tebow was from the Jacksonville area and Gainesville close by.

Don Shula is going to help Duke.

Don coached Mike Curtis with the Colts.

There are some ties and rooting interest dating way back when.

Don Shula is the most distinguished alumnus of John Carroll University, a small Jesuit D-III school on the East side of Cleveland, literally down the street from where I grew up.

Mike Shula definitely got a raw deal and I wouldn't complain at all if he were to be named Head Coach. I think he'd do a pretty good job.

That being said, I'd really like to get David Cutcliffe, former Ole Miss Head Coach and current Offensive Coordinator at Tennessee. This is what ESPN had to say on its College Football page:

Duke has shown some interest in Tennessee offensive coordinator David Cutcliffe, who's in his second stint with the Vols. Cutcliffe was the head coach at Mississippi from 1999-2004. He took the Rebels to four bowl games and earned a share of the SEC Western Division championship in 2003 before being fired following a 4-7 season the next year. Tennessee may also seek to sweeten Cutcliffe's deal, which pays him $340,000 annually, to entice him to stay in Knoxville.

grossbus
11-30-2007, 03:28 PM
you make a good case. my only reservation is if the "curse" comes with him or not? maybe it is attached to alabama (and now nick satan). how to tell?

Olympic Fan
11-30-2007, 03:31 PM
I am skeptical -- VERY skeptical -- of coaches who have spent most of their professional careers in the SEC (with the exception of Vanderbilt).

OZZIE4DUKE
11-30-2007, 03:36 PM
Don Shula is the most distinguished alumnus of John Carroll University, a small Jesuit D-III school on the East side of Cleveland, literally down the street from where I grew up.

Mike Shula definitely got a raw deal and I wouldn't complain at all if he were to be named Head Coach. I think he'd do a pretty good job.

That being said, I'd really like to get David Cutcliffe, former Ole Miss Head Coach and current Offensive Coordinator at Tennessee. This is what ESPN had to say on its College Football page:

Duke has shown some interest in Tennessee offensive coordinator David Cutcliffe, who's in his second stint with the Vols. Cutcliffe was the head coach at Mississippi from 1999-2004. He took the Rebels to four bowl games and earned a share of the SEC Western Division championship in 2003 before being fired following a 4-7 season the next year. Tennessee may also seek to sweeten Cutcliffe's deal, which pays him $340,000 annually, to entice him to stay in Knoxville.

Don and I both moved to South Florida at the same time - August 1970, and I instantly became a Dolphin fan. My fan status lasted until both Don and Dan Marino retired a few years ago ( I was too far away to worry about rooting for a team I no longer knew anything about).

Duke's football ties to the Dolphins run pretty deep, more so if Mike Shula becomes our coach. We've had several players over the years become prominent players for the 'phins -- the late Bob Matheson (for whom he famed "53" defense was named - it was his uniform number, not the formation) and Charles Bowser come immediately to mind, and I think one of our centers played for them for years, but the name escapes me at the moment. Plus, Nick Buoniconti's son Nick Jr. played for us.

It is nice that we have so many qualified candidates that we're talking about. But how many of them are really interested in the job? That is the list I'd really like to see.

dukefootball1939
11-30-2007, 03:52 PM
it was confirmed by his agent that he is quote "very happy with his current job."

Devilsfan
11-30-2007, 03:56 PM
Either did the alumni it seems.

1Devil
11-30-2007, 04:13 PM
...Shula has a smell of failure attached to him.

More stink of failure would be transferred from Duke Football to Shula than the other way around. If he has interest in the job, he'd be an attractive candidate. A better hire than Duke would have a right to expect.

Does he have the requisite hunger for success?

Classof06
11-30-2007, 04:27 PM
Either did the alumni it seems.

That being said, one must remember Alabama football fans (alumni included) are the equivalent of Kentucky basketball fans. They're probably have the most unrealistic expectations in the sport.

FWIW, Shula went 26-23 in 4 seasons at Tuscaloosa. Not exactly mediocre given the situation the program was in.

RelativeWays
11-30-2007, 04:41 PM
My dad loves the Tide and even he thinks Mike Shula wasn't given enough time at Alabama. It wasn't unlike the Tommy Amaker situation at Michigan. Its hard at times to bring a program back from probation. I think Shula would be great at Duke.

Duvall
11-30-2007, 04:46 PM
My dad loves the Tide and even he thinks Mike Shula wasn't given enough time at Alabama. It wasn't unlike the Tommy Amaker situation at Michigan.

Amaker wasn't given enough time at Michigan?

grossbus
11-30-2007, 04:59 PM
ok, let me understand this clearly. are you saying shula had tebow "in the bus?" i don't follow college football recruiting at all, so i don't know from what.

if he did, or was close to, bama must feel doubly stupid for costing themselves that talent.

ShulaFan
11-30-2007, 05:13 PM
You make a good case for him. Some questions I have:

1. Where did the wealth come from? His father, wife, outside business interest?
If outside business, does he have the time to be the head coach?

2. How will he assemble a staff? If you hire a head coach from another school then he generally brings much of his staff with him. If you hire a name guy then he generally has lots of contacts and is able to put together a staff. Certainly the Shula name is huge and he probably knows lots of people. Might not be a problem.

Clearly Mike is worthy of consideration. I have seen other names on DBR that are also worthy. Will be interesting to see what JA and the committee come up with.

SoCal

His wealth comes from the business that his father owns but all the kids are beneficiaries of the income that is generated. Obviously, I wouldn't know all the ins and outs. I just know that Mike doesn't have to coach to live a very comfortable life.

As far as Mike hiring a staff, some of his staff that was with him at Alabama might be available would be excellent hires ... To throw out a few names:

Joe Kines was Mike's DC at Alabama all four years. In 04-05-06, a three year period, I am quite certain he might agree to jump back into it. He is currently in an administrative position at UA.

Chris Ball could also be a great DC. He was Mike's DB coach at UA. He is currently the DB coach at Pitt. He is outstanding.

Sparky Woods, longtime SEC assistant, took the year off after Mike's termination. He has been a head coach and off. coordinator in the SEC.

Mike has spent his entire professional life in the NFL other than his four years at Bama. His extensive contacts in the NFL would allow him to put together a high quality staff.

ShulaFan
11-30-2007, 05:17 PM
it was confirmed by his agent that he is quote "very happy with his current job."

I also know for 100% certainty that Mike is "content" with his current position in the NFL.

I believe Mike would be very interested in the "right" job as a college head coach. Duke seems like a great fit to me, personality wise. But if he is not interested, he is not interested.

Do you know for a fact the committee called Russ Campbell (Mike's agent) and requested an interview. Or was it just the media calling and asking?

Mike is not going to "campaign" for a job. That is not his style.

ShulaFan
11-30-2007, 05:19 PM
More stink of failure would be transferred from Duke Football to Shula than the other way around. If he has interest in the job, he'd be an attractive candidate. A better hire than Duke would have a right to expect.

Does he have the requisite hunger for success?

I would think the perception of his "failure" at Alabama would be all the motivation he needs...

Remember, Mike was a very successful starting QB at Alabama. I believe he was 27-6 as a starter or something like that and was famous for his two minute drill, game winning drives.

I think he has that inner fire all big time competitors have. He can just appear very laid back (because he is)...

That didn't sell well for the old school Bama fans that believe a coach should be made of fire, brimstone and gristle.

ShulaFan
11-30-2007, 05:22 PM
ok, let me understand this clearly. are you saying shula had tebow "in the bus?" i don't follow college football recruiting at all, so i don't know from what.

if he did, or was close to, bama must feel doubly stupid for costing themselves that talent.

Tebow was never on the bus. But out of 100 schools vying for his services, Alabama came in a close second. It came down to the last day. Per Tebow at the time, he woke up that morning still not knowing what he would do.

At his press conference, this lifelong Gator fan cried when talking about Mike Shula and he said, "He is the greatest man I have ever met. I hope it works out that I do get to play for him one day."

Tebow attended multiple UA games his senior year. Came for an official. Two days before his press conference, Mike spent literally 12 hours with him at his home.

It was close and it never should have been.

RelativeWays
11-30-2007, 05:29 PM
Amaker wasn't given enough time at Michigan?

I was more referring to the fact that Tommy Amaker was left to rebuild the Michigan Basketball program after the mess that Steve Fischer and the Fab Five left, Mike Shula had similar issues at Alabama. Amaker was also at Michigan for what....four years maybe? Most of his teams had winning seasons and barely missed the cut for the NCAA tournament like last year.

RPS
11-30-2007, 05:35 PM
That said, Shula has a smell of failure attached to him. Unlike many here, I do not think Duke needs to pursue a failed coach, I don't care where and what circumstances are attached to failure.A winning record in the SEC is hardly "failure," especially given the situation he was in. Moreover, modest but insufficient success in a first head coaching job can provide a vital learning experience and motivation leading to future success (see Belichick, Bill). Besides, a coach who knows a bit about failure ought to be able to relate to players who must feel like failures themselves.


Our next coach must be a recruiter par excellance, and Shula's failure will be easy to recruit against. The opposing coach will ask a player why he thinks it will be different this time. The player will have no good answer.I'm sorry, but this doesn't ring true for me. If I'm an opposing coach, I don't point at the HC, I point to decades of failure and simply say that nobody can win at Duke. To succeed, our next coach is going to have to be pretty terrific and get sufficient support from the school. Frankly, I'm much more worried about the latter than the former even though I'm pretty worried about our ability to get a terrific coach to come here, largely (and ironically) because of the lack of institutional support. Let's hope there's a real commitment to change and that JA is able to convince a terrific coach sufficiently of that fact to get him to sign-on.


Intellectually speaking, Shula is not a bad choice. I would rather it go to a coach that did not get his first HC job by falling into it by process of elimination, but he can probably do the job. But such a hire would smack of business as usual at Duke by taking the leftovers from a bigger program.Business as usual at Duke would mean cheap with no fundamental change in institutional philosophy.


No thanks. I hope the next coach will be a youngish go getter whose team had solid year last year. One who is eager to recruit, and innovative on at least one side of the ball, with an idea for who will be innovative on the other side of the ball.I used to be a believer in the need for innovation at Duke. Grobe has convinced me that it isn't necessary if a good overall plan is in place -- a plan which includes institutional support and patience.

I don't know if Mike Shula would be right for the job or even if he would be interested. But the OP makes a pretty good case for his consideration.

Duvall
11-30-2007, 05:37 PM
I was more referring to the fact that Tommy Amaker was left to rebuild the Michigan Basketball program after the mess that Steve Fischer and the Fab Five left, Mike Shula had similar issues at Alabama. Amaker was also at Michigan for what....four years maybe? Most of his teams had winning seasons and barely missed the cut for the NCAA tournament like last year.

Six years. And four NIT trips in five years suggests stagnation, not rebuilding.

grossbus
11-30-2007, 05:42 PM
what is his current job?

CameronBlue
11-30-2007, 06:14 PM
...I think one of our centers played for them for years, but the name escapes me at the moment.

Not center, guard, Ed Newman. Played 12 years including 4 trips to the Pro Bowl before moving on to a recurring role on Seinfeld. Inducted into the Jewish Sports Hall of Fame in the Wingate Institute, outside of Netanya, Israel.

dukefootball1939
11-30-2007, 06:35 PM
I also know for 100% certainty that Mike is "content" with his current position in the NFL.

I believe Mike would be very interested in the "right" job as a college head coach. Duke seems like a great fit to me, personality wise. But if he is not interested, he is not interested.

Do you know for a fact the committee called Russ Campbell (Mike's agent) and requested an interview. Or was it just the media calling and asking?

Mike is not going to "campaign" for a job. That is not his style.

Yes, Campbell was contacted and he said that Shula has not been contacted by Duke and that he is not interested right now.

OZZIE4DUKE
11-30-2007, 07:02 PM
Not center, guard, Ed Newman. Played 12 years including 4 trips to the Pro Bowl before moving on to a recurring role on Seinfeld. Inducted into the Jewish Sports Hall of Fame in the Wingate Institute, outside of Netanya, Israel.

How in the world could I forget Ed Newman? Seriously, I am embarrassed. Ed's senior year was my freshman year, then he went to my Dolphins. He suffered from thyroid cancer in 1975, and once he beat it, his career flourished. Here's a link to a nice story about Ed.

ugadevil
11-30-2007, 07:35 PM
I am skeptical -- VERY skeptical -- of coaches who have spent most of their professional careers in the SEC (with the exception of Vanderbilt).

Is this because of the lack of having to deal with tough academics?

1Devil
11-30-2007, 07:38 PM
what is his current job?

Looks like he's QB coach for the Jacksonville Jaguars.

Zeke
11-30-2007, 09:02 PM
Is this because of the lack of having to deal with tough academics?
Vandy has Peabody college where most of their athletes are taking classes - not Vandy itself - BIG difference.
Shula is a really good person and would be a good catch for Duke, if they can get him - but they won't. Duke is not a good job for a professional football coach.
David Cutcliff will not come to Duke - he's happy at UT and they will pay him appropriately. He's also had a heart problem and doesn't want the grief that DU hands out for football coaches.
There must be a high school coach in the Durham area that might be interested. That's where Bill Murray came from - but he hired really good assistant coaches that helped - a lot.

Indoor66
11-30-2007, 10:36 PM
Vandy has Peabody college where most of their athletes are taking classes - not Vandy itself - BIG difference.
Shula is a really good person and would be a good catch for Duke, if they can get him - but they won't. Duke is not a good job for a professional football coach.
David Cutcliff will not come to Duke - he's happy at UT and they will pay him appropriately. He's also had a heart problem and doesn't want the grief that DU hands out for football coaches.
There must be a high school coach in the Durham area that might be interested. That's where Bill Murray came from - but he hired really good assistant coaches that helped - a lot.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_D._Murray:
"William (Bill) D. Murray was the head football coach at University of Delaware from 1940 to 1950. During that tenure, he compiled a 49-16-2 record. This included three consecutive undefeated seasons from 1941 to 1946. From 1951 to 1965 he coached at Duke. His career record at Duke was 93-51-2. The win total gave him the second most in school history behind Wallace Wade."

DukeVu
11-30-2007, 11:31 PM
PY: I have never seen anyone try so hard to disparage a potential Coaching hire that I believe most would consider a great hire for Duke. Duke is not going to have an unlimited number of ourstanding candidates so it appears that you have a preference and all others be damned. It is ok to have a preference but stop trying so hard to taint Shula.

calltheobvious
11-30-2007, 11:32 PM
Let me start by disclosing my allegiances: I'm a Duke alum whose brother and father went to Auburn. Growing up in Alabama, I have followed Auburn and Alabama football my entire life. Further, since I lived in Alabama during the entire Franchione-Shula era in Tuscaloosa, I consider myself pretty well-informed when it comes to Shula's head coaching capabilities.

This is a complicated case, man; a lot of ins, a lot of outs, a lot of what-have-yous. Anytime a coach comes into a probation situation, things are never clear-cut. But Mike Shula's case at Alabama is as close to clear-cut as it could possibly be.

While Mike Shula inherited a program with a lot of problems, he used the tools that he was left very, very poorly. His teams generally lacked discipline on Saturdays, and when that lack of discipline reared its head off the field (see Simpson, Juwon), he showed himself to be manifestly unwilling to take strong steps to address such problems. By the middle of last season, his team had completely lost respect for him (he had players screaming at him during last year's Tennessee game), and the bad seeds he allowed to sprout proved the downfall of Nick Saban this season.

Even in the one season in which Shula had the players necessary to compete at the national level, 2005, he never demonstrated that he had the chops to close deals when the lights shone brightest. Let me hasten to add, since I realize which job the present discussion centers around, that he didn't exactly set the world on fire against mediocre competition either. Shula won exactly one game as an underdog in his entire tenure at Alabama. And given his barely-.500 record overall, he obviously didn't fare too well as a favorite, either.

To be fair to Shula, he had absolutely no business ever being hired at Alabama. He had zero hc experience and very little coordinator experience. It's funny, given how things have turned out, to think about who was passed over in that process: someone in the Alabama family (played under Bear) who had decades of coaching experience, including a long sting in the NFL; someone who would be hired by a school 90 miles from Tuscaloosa and beat Alabama twice in his first four years. Looking back, it's even more unbelievable (except not really) that Sylvester Croom wasn't hired to coach the Crimson Tide.

I haven't closely read the first long post by ShulaFan, because frankly I listened for two years in Alabama to people supporting this guy who was so clearly out of his depth. I'll go back and read those and make some more pointed responses. In the meantime, I went back and found some old private messages that I exchanged with a fan last year after Shula was fired. I didn't keep his posts, but suffice it to say, he thought Shula was not given enough time, and that he was a serviceable game coach. I have pasted my three responses below, and I think readers will have enough context to follow the 'discussion.' The posts are very strategy/tactics heavy, which goes to my biggest criticism of Shula: he's a horrible, horrible game coach. When you combine that with the fact that he was not able to accomplish much of anything in his four years (and ftr, I am discounting for probation; Tommy Tuberville went 6-5 at Ole Miss with 50 scholarship players) at Alabama, I just have zero confidence in his ability to come into a situation that I consider far, far more difficult than the one he came into at Alabama.

Sorry to ramble, but I do have to add that Shula doesn't deserve bonus points for 'almost' getting Tebow. The reason that Shula was the one to come in second for Tebow was that every other coach realized several weeks earlier that nobody other than Urban had a shot. Mom and Dad are Gators, he grew up 90 miles from Gainesville with Gator sheets and bedspreads. Oh yeah, and the Gators were very good-to-amazing for his first 14 years on Earth, and okay for the next three, before bringing in another coach in Spurrier's stratum. For any of you out there with parents who are Duke alums, if Coach K or G had come calling when you'd been a senior in high school, would anybody else have had a chance? That was the Tebow story. All Shula did was waste his entire last day of recruiting season courting Tebow when he could have been calling players he actually had a chance with.

Okay, so if anybody wants to read old analysis of bad in-game decisions, here you go.
----------------------------------------------------

(K says Shula's a competent game manager, hasn't been given enough time, playing with inferior talent,etc.)

Hi K,

Arkansas '06--Bama watches its kicker struggle the whole game. Then late in the fourth quarter, with a chance to win, he coaches very passively, content to attempt a field goal with a freshman in his first SEC road game who has already struggled mightily in the game. You know that Meyer, Richt, Tub, Fulmer, and actually probably even Brooks would have at least tried to score a touchdown in that situation. CMS didn't, his kicker missed another FG, then a PAT in OT to lose.

MSU '06--Do we even need to talk about this one? Was CMS playing with inferior talent in that one? This was the game that got him fired.

UT '06--3-3 late first half with first down at the UT 7. CMS knows--or should--at this point that 16 points might win the game, but anything less than that is very dicey. This means you absolutely must score at least one touchdown to win, and probably two. It's actually a pretty good bet, given the off. struggles, that this will be the best chance at a TD you get all day. You must make an aggressive attempt at it. So what does CMS do on 1st down? You got it, Darby off-tackle for 1 yd. 2D, incomplete pass (which of course UT knew was coming, since it's 2D and goal from the 6 and Bama can't run it). CMS calls TO, which is good, and then runs a DRAW! My first thought, OMG, you're kidding me. Then I said, ok, CMS knows it's 4-down territory, so he figures that if he can get at least 5 yards on 3rd down, he has a manageable 4th and goal from the 1 or 2. Then he kicks. Crazy. You must know before 3rd down whether you're going to go for it on 4th if you get close. If you know you won't go for it, how can you possibly call a draw there? Then the players want to go for it, he pudds out, and they go into half up 6-3 feeling worse than if he'd shown some confidence in them on 4th even to have them fail.


Auburn '06--In this game, CMS totally lost his mind and let the pendulum swing back to the other extreme, making an assenine decision to go for 2 late in the first half down 14-9. He misses, and that decision could have cost him the ballgame, given:

1) Bama scores a TD to open the 2nd half. Now it's 15-14, and Shula pretty much has to go for 2. Fails again. At this point, with even half a brain, it's 17-14 Bama. Instead, it's 15-14, and an AU field goal wins the game instead of tying it.
2) AU scores a go-ahead td to make it 20-15. If it's 20-17, Tub kicks the point, and Bama's still in decent shape down 21-17. Instead, at 20-15, the PAT does nothing for AU, so Tub goes for two and makes it easily, and it's 22-15. Now a td only gets UA to overtime, whereas they should still be in a position where a td wins.
3) With 4:35 to go in the 4th, Bama has the ball with 4th and 16 at the AU 19. If CMS had not lost his mind, he could have kicked a field goal there, gotten it to 21-20, and still have been in the game down 1 with a lot of time left and a couple TO left. But what happened? After incomplete on 3rd to set up 4th and 16 with a stopped clock, Shula calls a to (?!?!?!), THEN goes for it.

Now, let's deconstruct this one. 4th and 16, down 7 with 4:35 left, you kick the damned fg. You have next to no chance to convert the first down here. Second, you don't take your second TO to think about it. Even if you want to make the low percentage call and go for it, you immediately send your WR in there with a play and see what happens.

But no, Shula screwed this one up six ways from Sunday. He couldn't make a decision, and then, with the play clock running down, rather than just take the delay and try the FG from 38yds rather than 33yds, he calls the TO!

Okay, so now we have to reset again. The TO has been burned, so you're down to one, with 4:35 left and you're down 7 with 4th and 16. Well, Shula, after making who knows how many consecutive bad decisions, has finally put himself in a circumstance where going for it is probably (though still debatably) the right thing to do. But what does it say when the head coach puts his team in a situation in which a play with maybe a 5% chance of success is the best available option?

This guy simply does not have what it takes to make the correct decisions in tough situations.

And I haven't even yet mentioned the Juwan Simpson debacle, or the fact that he stubbornly refused to relinquish play-calling duties, despite the fact that every other team he was competing against was paying someone to focus all of his energies on offense, whereas Shula was (presumably) splitting his time among offense, defense, special teams, and, obtw, being the CEO of a multi-million-dollar business.

So my question is, what evidence did you uncover in his four years at Bama that would lead you to believe that he would ever be able to win a big-time game--even with equal talent--against a big-time coach? Tub and Phil are the most disappointed guys in the country that Shula is gone. What does that tell you?

(continued in the next post)

calltheobvious
11-30-2007, 11:34 PM
(K responds that the analysis is easy in hindsight.)

K,

Disclaimer: All of the thoughts that I posted were in-game thoughts. I understand it's easy to write that now, but it's true.

1) I thought that protecting the psyche of the pk was exactly why Shula should should have been aggressive when he got inside the Ark. 20 late in the 4th. My thinking was that he should do everything he can to avoid putting the game on a struggling kicker's shoulders. He absolutely settled for a fg attempt there. My nickel-psychological analysis is that it's easier to go out there when you know your teammates and coaches have tried and failed to score the touchdown, than when they have put everything on your shoulders as soon as they get inside the 20.

Now, you might reasonably respond that this act would imbue the kicker with confidence. I would buy that sometimes, but not when the kicker is a freshman in his first conf. road game, despite his game-winning kick against VU.

Another point on confidence relates to the rest of the O. What's the message it sends to them when you go into a shell when it's winning time, especially when the o knows exactly what's happened in the kicking game over the first 3.5 quarters?

I think that CMS was very insecure professionally while at UA, due mostly to those factors that made him totally unqualified for the job in the first place. When CMS got nervous, when the game was on the line, he got very tight. I think that his bungling of clock management situations is evidence of this. Even the simple decisions became complicated for him in crunch time, because he was so nervous that he could not process things as quickly as he otherwise would. When it came time to step on Arkansas's throat last season, he was too worried about getting intercepted to see the plethora of evidence in front of him that playing for the fg was a fundamentally flawed strategy.

2) If all of the losses against superior talent are going to be excused on those grounds, then losses against those with inferior talent are inexcusable. Tuberville has lost to some inferior teams over the years, but these losses have been forgiven due to the fact that he may be the best big-game-underdog coach in the country. If you're never going to get your less-talented guys over the hump against the bigger, faster guys, you better not allow inferior teams to do that to you.

3) Here's the thing about UT: nobody gave UA a chance to win except the team. They needed to play near-perfect football to win that game, and Shula damn-well should have recognized that part of near-perfect meant converting first-and-goal situations into tds. Obviously, no one wants him to go for it on 4th from the 9, but that's not what was happening. With a minute left in the 1H, he SHOULD have been thinking, "I need 17 pts to even begin to feel like winning this game is possible. I have a D that's thin and going to wear down in the 2nd H, and I can't expect them to hold UT to only 10 in the second half. If they do, great, but I have to act as if it won't happen. Therefore, I've got to get 7 here, if possible." Well, 4th and goal from the 1.5 is indeed possible. And the what-if crowd? Screw 'em. Going for it was the right thing to do. And if you're not going to go on 4th from the 1, don't run the damned draw on 3rd and g from the 7.

4) I think your argument here is disingenuous. The decision to go for 2 early against AU had nothing to do with a lack of confidence in the PK's ability to make a PAT. Christensen had been re-inserted as pk, and was fine.

As for the chart, it most certainly does not call for 2 down 5 in the 2nd qtr. Why? Because too much football is left to be played. You may never need that extra point that the 2pc might give you. Shula had a case of brain-lock, which was par for the course. He wasn't being aggressive there, he was being stupid. I said it before the attempt, and I said it after it failed.

5) 2005.
Beat Fulmer: I'm not giving him a lot of credit for needing a lucky, late fumble to avoid losing at home to a team that would finish 5-6.
Beat UF:Fair enough. Once in 4 years his team puts it together on the big stage.
Beat Nutt:Arkansas was 4-7

As for losing to two top-10 teams by a combined 13 points, that's not really fair. If AU had played more than 2 qtrs, they would have lost that game by 35. Can we agree to say that UA was competitive (although nauseatingly conservative) against LSU, and that they didn't even show up against Auburn?

As for Bryant, remember what he did after those two bad seasons? He scrapped everything about his offense and installed the 'bone. Shula never projected the self-confidence to admit that things weren't working in the first place. Moore tried to get him to let Rader go, and Shula wouldn't do it. If I thought Shula were confident enough to make some major changes, I might give him another year or two to prove himself, but he's not once demonstrated himself to be capable.
---------------------------------------------------

(This time around, K doesn't respond to any of my critiques of Shula's tactics, so he switches gears and reverts to the old saw that criticism harms the program.)


I'm not arguing that publicly second-guessing Shula doesn't harm the program. I'll even concede that maybe Shula lost a game somewhere that he would have won had the team not been facing so much pressure from the fanbase.

My overarching points are,

1) Alabama is big-boy football. If you can't handle the heat from irrational fans, you shouldn't take the job.

2) Critical fans didn't cause Shula to absolutely BUNGLE many, many situations over the course of his years at Alabama. He proved himself unfit for the job at an administrative level with the way he handled the Juwan Simpson case from start-to-finish.

He proved himself unfit from a staff management perspective with his decision to hire an old friend as a favor, give him the offensive coordinator tag without allowing him to call plays, and then staunchly refusing to fire his buddy, or relinquish play-calling duties, despite the general ineffectiveness of the offense over his last 20 games or so.

And, as I think I argued compellingly, his game-coaching skills were almost sickeningly bad at times, and I'm an Auburn fan.

I'll finish with this, and if you choose to respond, yours will be the last word. But after the 2005 season, my brother and I were having dinner in Montgomery talking about where Alabama could go from there. I said that, as difficult as it would be to do from a pr perspective, they should go ahead, bite the bullet, and fire Shula then, because it was clear that they would never win a championship with Shula--not even an SEC championship.

My reasoning was that Shula had shown that even with a great group of players, he could not ultimately
outcoach anybody with a comparable team and a superior coach (please don't bring up Florida, because they were still struggling to find themselves as a team at that point). He could not even beat Les Miles at home. And as knowledgeable LSU fans will tell you, Miles is another guy who's totally out of his depth in his job, but he inherited an absolute juggernaut at LSU that it's going to take him a couple of more years to really screw up.

I guess ultimately you're not going to budge on the idea that Shula "hasn't been given enough time."

Starting from the premise that I presume you accept, which is that he was woefully underqualified to start with, my question is What have you seen to give you any indication whatsoever that he has the chops to have won any sort of championship at Alabama?

formerdukeathlete
12-01-2007, 12:38 AM
When considering shula versus the other possible interested parties, the offers should be a function of who can help Duke now.

Franks could not recruit very well, so he went to Nan and asked to lower admissions so he could nab some kids on the cusp of getting a BCS offer.

Roof landed a few from the northeast, but they were handed to him on a silver platter. The guy was uncomfortable out of the southeast. When Duke's program had a fresh start, with an energetic coach (Roof) after winning some games with franks kids and assistants, Duke landed a straight up good class. But, the kids did not choose Duke because of Roof's magnetic recruiting charm or tireless effort. They chose for the school with a ray of hope at the time for the Football program.

So, would Shula be able to do differently. Yes, a 100 times, yes, no doubt. He gets it. You just do not sell that Duke is a great U, you find the right buyers and then you sell it to them. Sell to kids with 1100s not 950s. Shula can do it.

throatybeard
12-01-2007, 07:24 AM
Is this because of the lack of having to deal with tough academics?

More like general ACC superiority complex towards the SEC, I think. You can't go more than a few posts on this board or most ACC boards after a mention of the SEC without some snooty comment surfacing.

Olympic Fan
12-01-2007, 10:31 AM
More like general ACC superiority complex towards the SEC, I think. You can't go more than a few posts on this board or most ACC boards after a mention of the SEC without some snooty comment surfacing.

Yes, I have a snooty attitude toward a league where cheating is a way of life (one SEC goal, announced a few years ago, was to be probation free at some point in the future) and academic commitment is best summed up by the Georgia administrator who responded to the Jan Kemp scandal by saying that they take kids who would otherwise end up as garbage men and educate them enough to work in the post office.

I also had an Auburn administrator defend the academics of the football team a few years ago by saying, "Look, we've got 22,000 kids on campus. So what if we bring in 30-40 illiterates to help us win in football?"

Or we could look into why Florida State is in the ACC rather than the SEC.

More snooty attitude.

rockymtn devil
12-01-2007, 12:54 PM
More like general ACC superiority complex towards the SEC, I think. You can't go more than a few posts on this board or most ACC boards after a mention of the SEC without some snooty comment surfacing.

To be fair, the SEC does have a stink that other conferences don't. Every day since January 3, 1985, at least one SEC team has been on NCAA probation. At one point, 5 of the 12 teams in the conference were on probation. Mississippi State comes off probation next summer which, assuming no one else gets into trouble, will end a 23-year streak for the league.

I don't think this is reason to bypass Shula, but I can understand where the distrust of the SEC comes from.

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news?slug=dw-secmedia072607&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

ShulaFan
12-05-2007, 02:35 PM
There is a ton of good information in calltheobvious's posts. I appreciate you taking the time to write all that, even if we agree to disagree on a few points.

You did point out that Tubberville went 6-5 at Ole Miss with 50 players on scholarship. I don't understand why folks see that as a sign he did an outstanding job considering the lack of big wins ... Yet, Shula wins 6 games three times in his four years at Alabama and he was playing nearly as shorthanded as Tubberville. I don't know what Alabama's low point was in terms of scholarship players but it was probably in the high 60's. How is Tubberville's winning six games admirable and Shula winning ten games under the same circumstances just shrugged off?

Yes, I think its fair to question a lot of Shula's in-game calls. But its so much easier to call plays and make decisions when you have better personnel than the other guy. I think throughout the majority of Mike's tenure at UA, as far as the SEC goes, Alabama was only better talent wise than maybe Ole Miss, Mississippi State and Vanderbilt. Mike was something like 10-2 against those three.

He was 26-24 overall, I believe but was 1-11 against LSU, Tennessee and Auburn. While that stat alone was a big reason Mike was fired, 31 NFL teams right now are 0-13 against the Patriots. In the end, its all about personnel. The Patriots have it. Mike Shula did not.

Last year, in Mike's final year, not a single UA senior made an All SEC first or second team for the first time in 50 years. (Mike did not recruit that senior class. That was Fran/Price)

Yet, Alabama's talent level is rarely even discussed when Shula's job was analyzed. I think it should be the ENTIRE discussion, yet its not even part and parcel of it.

As far as the Juwan Simpson thing goes .. what exactly did Juwan do to warrant getting booted off the team. In the end, after a trial, he was found guilty of NOTHING. In fact, he was arrested for possession of marijuanna yet he tested negative the very right he was arrested. The gun charges were dismissed because he had every legal right to possess that gun. So in the end, he did nothing but get arrested.

Yet, Mike suspended him for a game anyway. I never understood how that translated to Mike being anti-discipline. Mike Shula kicked eight kids off the team in four years for violating team and school rules and suspended nine kids for a game, even in his last season. How is all that viewed as a lack of discipline?

Saban is regarded as an ultra disciplinarian, yet in his ten months at UA, more players have been arrested under his watch than Shula's did in FOUR YEARS. And how many of Saban's five arrested kids were suspended? None. Yet, Saban is the disciplinarian and Shula is not?

Regardless, its just an opinion. I think Mike Shula is the perfect fit for Duke. Apparently, Duke doesn't feel that way and neither does Shula. That's a shame.

I guess I will pick another horse.(g)

DukeVu
12-05-2007, 05:40 PM
And we will all wait and see how the chosen horse succeeds.

calltheobvious
12-06-2007, 12:18 AM
Yes, I have a snooty attitude toward a league where cheating is a way of life (one SEC goal, announced a few years ago, was to be probation free at some point in the future) and academic commitment is best summed up by the Georgia administrator who responded to the Jan Kemp scandal by saying that they take kids who would otherwise end up as garbage men and educate them enough to work in the post office.

I also had an Auburn administrator defend the academics of the football team a few years ago by saying, "Look, we've got 22,000 kids on campus. So what if we bring in 30-40 illiterates to help us win in football?"

Or we could look into why Florida State is in the ACC rather than the SEC.

More snooty attitude.


OlympicFan,

You're definitely in my top five most respected posters on this board. Your knowledge of sports history absolutely blows me away sometimes, and that's not a comment I make flippantly. That said, I am genuinely puzzled by your theory on why FSU went to the ACC. IIRC 1992 was their first season in the ACC, and at age 16, I wasn't terribly aware of a lot of the off-the-field stuff; but I've certainly been operating under the assumption that they felt like it was win-win given that they'd be able to dominate in football and ride the conference's coattails in basketball. I'm inferring from your post that you believe that it had something to do with FSU's academic standards. That's more than a little surprising to me, but I'm willing to be enlightened. Please advise.

Cheers
jb

blueprofessor
12-06-2007, 08:24 AM
OlympicFan,

You're definitely in my top five most respected posters on this board. Your knowledge of sports history absolutely blows me away sometimes, and that's not a comment I make flippantly. That said, I am genuinely puzzled by your theory on why FSU went to the ACC. IIRC 1992 was their first season in the ACC, and at age 16, I wasn't terribly aware of a lot of the off-the-field stuff; but I've certainly been operating under the assumption that they felt like it was win-win given that they'd be able to dominate in football and ride the conference's coattails in basketball. I'm inferring from your post that you believe that it had something to do with FSU's academic standards. That's more than a little surprising to me, but I'm willing to be enlightened. Please advise.

Cheers
jb
FSU joined the ACC for a variety of reason. Some of the reasons I mention are based on what two close friends who run the booster program told me.The academic statistics come from what I learned as a Harvard alumnus admissions interviewer. First, the SEC had been unwelcome to FSU in the past.That stoked the passions of inferiority. Second, FSU, considered the junior school academically and athletically to Florida, wanted to establish a distinct "brand" from Florida. In the state of Florida, the ACC is recognized as having nationally top ranked schools( Duke #5, Virginia #18, Wake #24, and UNC #25, with Tech a fine engineering school with a median SAT about 1200--math and verbal-- a tad higher than UNC and about 60 points better than FSU--still lower than Duke's 1405, UVA's 1300, and Wake's 1250) and FSU liked the company for academic branding.The SEC offered Vandy(20th) and Florida(a top 10 state school, but trailing considerably in overall national rankings,yet far superior to FSU).Further, FSU needed to join a conference for revenue purposes and knew the SEC was brutal in football. It saw the ACC as a conference it would dominate in football and,perhaps, in baseball. Only fair in basketball, FSU reasoned that ACC glitter would meliorate its basketball recruiting. At FSU, football interest is light years ahead of any other sport; a fortune is spent on sports with generally sub-par Directors' Cup rankings--19th is the highest ranking achieved,I believe.It was ,therefore , critical to the boosters that FSU be master in football in the conference it did join.Entering the ACC has helped improve FSU's academic standing, as the pool of applicants is much better than it was 16 years ago. There is something to be said of FSU's "branding" strategy.:cool:

Devilsfan
12-06-2007, 09:24 AM
the game even passed his father (West coast offenses, etc.).

calltheobvious
12-06-2007, 05:50 PM
FSU joined the ACC for a variety of reason. Some of the reasons I mention are based on what two close friends who run the booster program told me.The academic statistics come from what I learned as a Harvard alumnus admissions interviewer. First, the SEC had been unwelcome to FSU in the past.That stoked the passions of inferiority. Second, FSU, considered the junior school academically and athletically to Florida, wanted to establish a distinct "brand" from Florida. In the state of Florida, the ACC is recognized as having nationally top ranked schools( Duke #5, Virginia #18, Wake #24, and UNC #25, with Tech a fine engineering school with a median SAT about 1200--math and verbal-- a tad higher than UNC and about 60 points better than FSU--still lower than Duke's 1405, UVA's 1300, and Wake's 1250) and FSU liked the company for academic branding.The SEC offered Vandy(20th) and Florida(a top 10 state school, but trailing considerably in overall national rankings,yet far superior to FSU).Further, FSU needed to join a conference for revenue purposes and knew the SEC was brutal in football. It saw the ACC as a conference it would dominate in football and,perhaps, in baseball. Only fair in basketball, FSU reasoned that ACC glitter would meliorate its basketball recruiting. At FSU, football interest is light years ahead of any other sport; a fortune is spent on sports with generally sub-par Directors' Cup rankings--19th is the highest ranking achieved,I believe.It was ,therefore , critical to the boosters that FSU be master in football in the conference it did join.Entering the ACC has helped improve FSU's academic standing, as the pool of applicants is much better than it was 16 years ago. There is something to be said of FSU's "branding" strategy.:cool:

Hi Blue,

Thanks so much for the details. This makes perfect sense, and is probably along the lines of what OlympicFan was trying to imply.

Thanks,
jb