Jack’s Blog

Back in the day, as the saying goes, hiring coaches used to be an athletics director offering the job to the guy he wanted, shaking his hand and off to work they’d both go.  Since then things have changed for the better - and the worse.

Rich Rodriquez was the golden boy of West Virginia - born and raised there, a guy who went to WVU as a walk-on, earned a scholarship, later coached at his alma mater as a student, then as a volunteer assistant, (in between he coached at two small colleges in the state - a state with a great deal of pride, sticking closely together due to the fact so many others ridicule it as a backwoods section of the country).  I heard current Creighton University basketball coach, Dana Altman, who had coached at Marshall University in Huntington, WV, tell a joke at a coaching clinic that the definition of “foreplay” in West Virginia is, “Hey, sis, you up yet?”  Not surprisingly, not too many West Virginians (as well as several others in the crowd) thought that was very funny, but it showed a prevailing attitude of some people toward the way of life in the Mountaineer State.

Then how did Rodriquez, who took WVU to unprecedented heights on the gridiron (leading them to BCS bowls), become such a despised figure in his home state?  Ironically, it was something he said that made the people of West Virginia revere him, then revile him.  After being courted by the University of Alabama, a school as rich in football tradition as any in the nation, “Rod” turned back the Tide, claiming, “When the details (of the new contract with WVU) come out, you’ll see that I’m committed to West Virginia University for a very, very long time.”  This is exactly what a state with a blue collar mentality (albeit one where the once-highly profitable coal mining business has taken a major hit) wanted to hear.

It’s just that to those people, the phrase “a very, very long time” meant more than a year, which is exactly what happened when another school with a deep football roots, the University of Michigan, came courting following this season.  What made Rodriguez leave?  Was it the devastating loss to a lowly Pitt team which kept the Mountaineers from playing in the national championship game?  Did he feel he had maxed out what he could do at WVU and needed a fresh challenge at a school that many so-called experts think is one that can compete for a national championship every year?

And then there was the paper trail, how moves were made at such a time as to force WVU’s hand and other various and sundry items that the reader can research elsewhere.  The fact of the matter is the world has changed.  Trust is no longer the cherished commodity it used to be.  Lawyers and agents have entered the mix (and have found a way to make gobs of money doing it).

Coaches used to be on one year deals.  Walter Alston of the beloved Dodgers of my youth had something like 25 one-year contracts.  I can’t recall Woody Hayes, Vince Lombardi or John Wooden negotiating for long-term deals, either.  However, when recruiting became dirty (dirtier) and rivals used age and job security against their fellow coaches and owners began getting trigger happy when franchises didn’t win big enough or often enough, coaches went into survival mode. 

It helped to be able to tell a recruit you had a long-term deal or if a club wasn’t performing as expected and the boss wanted to “go in a different direction,” that the coach had something to tide him over until he hoped to land on his feet.  The pendulum had swung.  However, as pendulums are apt to do, it began its reverse arc.

Sam Jankovich, then-Washington State’s AD saw newly hired Jackie Sherrill come in (allegedly to get some head coaching experience under his belt before returning to Pitt to replace Johnny Majors, only to leave after a year when Pitt unexpectedly accelerated their football ascent and won the National Championship, sending Johnny Majors marching home to the University of Tennessee).  Off Jackie went, breaking a multi-year deal which, had he gotten fired, would have given him a huge severance package.  Next up was Warren Powers who also signed a multi-year deal expecting to lead the Cougars for many deasons, but then his alma mater unexpectedly came calling and, as much as he hated to leave (everyone I know at WSU - my alma mater - said he was a good and decent man), couldn’t turn down “Momma calling.”

Except Sam, a former coach, was also a brilliant business man.  He saw this as what it was - a totally one-sided agreement in favor of the coach … and he demanded Powers buy out the remaining years on his deal.  Thus, was the two-way, negotiable coaching contract born.

I’ve never understood why coaches were allowed to walk out on a long-term deal, yet expected compensation if they were terminated.  Kind of a “what’s good for the goose…” scenario.  Now, there are specialists on both sides writing contracts.  Doesn’t do much for the once highly regarded “trust” factor, but, unfortunately, the age of trust has long since past.

I’ve already blogged about the problem of paying the head man too much (see 11/28/07) and now we have both sides represented, resulting in nothing less than a contentious undertaking.  I hate it when people say, “In the good old days,” but there is something to be said for that part of the past.

What do you know?  Back-to-back days with Albert Einstein quotes:

“Not everything that can be counted counts and not everything that counts can be counted.”    Â

There have been an abundance of articles, editorials, letters-to-the-editors and blogs (including a few at this site) regarding people whose names are often in the spotlight for achievements they would rather not have committed.  Most recently, the University of Missouri suspended five basketball players for an “altercation” at a nightclub.  I know college kids like a good time, but during the season, it would seem all of their energy would be used up studying, practicing, and playing games, even if not in that order. Those kids apparently don’t know how to party or else one night a week - during the season - would be sufficient.

Another lesson athletes (and the rest of us) can learn is that which Jerry Tarkanian (yeah, that Jerry Tarkanian) used to tell his players (several of whom found their share of trouble): “The night air is poison.”  Maybe he said it a little tongue-in-cheek, but he’s been proven prophetic many times over.  The Mizzou mishap is simply the latest event in which athletes, having to make a decision between right and wrong, choosing to “just do it” - with “wrong” being “it.” 

UConn suspended a couple players, then went into Bloomington and beat a highly ranked, prohibitive favorite Indiana team.  In today’s world, the suspended guys probably took some credit for the victory, feeling their not being in attendance forced their teammates to circle the wagons, come together and pull out the win.

Also in the news is the highly rated quarterback signee for the University of Mississippi has ended his football career at Ole Miss before it ever started after getting caught selling steroids.  With all that’s going on, was he unaware steroids are probably one area where it would have been a prudent idea to stay as far away from as possible?  Maybe he felt using them was the wrong thing to do, but selling them was just showing off some early entrepreneurial skills.

More incidents could be cited but no more are really necessary.  The lesson here is one a wise old man (even older than Tark) said quite some time ago.  What ought to be preached to today’s youth (as well as its leaders) is Albert Einstein’s quote:

“Example is not the main thing in influencing others.  It’s the only thing.”

Optimists don’t consider themselves pie-in-the-sky thinkers.  They just choose to look for the best in whatever happens around them.  Noted speaker and author, Zig Ziglar, said, “Positive thinking won’t allow you to do anything - but, it will allow you to do everything better than negative thinking will.”  Pessimists don’t consider them negative thinkers.  Realistic is how they feel their approach to life is.  College basketball Hall-of-Famer and former two-time World Champion Detroit Pistons coach, Chuck Daly, once claimed, “A pessimist is just an optimist with experience.“ 

Which is better?  Just like in ordering food, buying clothes or selecting (or choosing not to select) a fitness program, it all depends on the individual.  What makes a person feel most comfortable is usually the right choice.  However, how that choice affects others is of major concern.  People who keep their outlook to themselves seldom hurt (or influence) others, but when someone goes public, whether to a large group or a single individual, the remark or speech can brighten or dampen the mood of the receiver(s).

I’m a bit of a satirist (the way I descibe my humor) or sarcastic (the way some others, especially those lacking a similar disposition to mine, describe it).  I make comments that some (or most, I like to think) people find ranging from rather amusing to downright hilarious (because I try to direct my humor in at a general situation as opposed to at specific individual - although I must admit there are some blatantly easy and, seemingly willing, targets out there) .  Anyone with a quick wit will, over the course of a lifetime, relationship, school year, etc., say something that might offend someone (especially if that person prides themselves on how serious they take life). Many of those times the offender wishes the quip hadn’t come out that way (or, simply, hadn’t come out at all), but as Bob Haldeman said to John Dean, “Once the toothpaste is out of the tube, it’s tough to get it back in.”  It’s the risk a satirist (I’ll choose that term) takes, rather than to allow a meeting, discussion or conversation to wallow in interminable, yet serious, boredom.

There’s a story the late Jim Valvano told about being invited to the White House after he coached N.C. State to the National Championship.  He told his mother about the invitation and, not being a big sports fan, she said, “Why, what did you do wrong?”  Jim said, “No, ma, it’s an honor because we won,” to which she warned him, “Just don’t do anything to embarrass our family.” 

The day of the meeting arrived and as they were waiting for the photo op, then-President Ronald Reagan turns to Jim and asks, “By the way, coach, is your name pronounced Val-vaa-no or Val-vay-no?”  “V” says, it’s “Val-vaa-no, Mr. President.”  After a pause, he looks at the president and says,  “And is yours Ree-gan or Ray-gan.”  As soon as he said it, he screamed out, “I’m sorry, ma!“  Probably apocryphal, but still vintage Valvano and, in the case of his mom, a lady who knew her son, i.e. a realist.  

Also, two people can make the same statement, but it may be viewed it in an entirely different manner.  If Eli Manning says the Giants will win the Super Bowl, people will call him an optimist (or some other terms my wife refuses to allow me to print here).  If Tom Brady makes the same statment regarding his team, people think he’s just being realistic.

So, when it comes to optimism versus pessimism, James Cabell made a statement that captures the essence of the debate perfectly:

“The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist fears that this is true.”  ¼/p>

Although I’m fairly certain the Giants don’t need another suggestion on how to beat the New England Patriots in the upcoming Super Bowl, I’m putting together a game plan for them anyway.  I don’t know if anyone from the Giants’ organization reads this blog (to date, I’ve never received a comment from anyone connected with the club), but, with the odds stacked pretty much against them (a poll was conducted and 80% of the respondents said they thought the Patriots were going to be Super Bowl Champs … and all the participants in the poll were members of the Giants’ players’ families), implementing what follows might be worth a shot for the New Yorkers.

The main advice I’d give them is to throw caution to the wind.  Think about: every opponent the Patriots played this year went into gameday with a plan that basically said, “Look, if we just do what we’re capable, execute it properly, that is play our game, we feel confident that, although the Patriots are a great team, we’ll be able to beat them … and every team lost - every one of them!. 

So, it would stand to reason that the Giants should do as little as they normally do.  I read the book, The Education of a Coach, written about New England’s coach Bill Belichick, and in it, the strongest attribute possessed by the coach is his thorough preparation of a game plan, designed to take away what the opponent likes to do best.  Give him two weeks to prepare and he’ll know every tendency the guys on the other side of the field employed on every situation of every game they played - for the past decade.

Therefore, the element of surprise would be the logical kryptonite for Coach Bill.  Pass when you used to run and run when you used to pass.  Run your gimmick plays (every team has them & the Jints still have a week left to put some new razzle dazzle stuff in).  People thought of the “hook & ladder” and “Statue of Liberty” as out-of-date plays. “Yeah, but they were plays from a long time ago.  They’d never work in today’s game,” yet they helped Boise State win, arguably, the most exciting football game ever. 

Hey, what ever happened to the “quick kick?”  Third and real long?  The back lines up eight yards deep anyway; snap it through the QB’s legs directly to him & let him boot it.  He certainly can get it over the DB’s head & the roll the ball ought to get should pin the Pats deep in their own territory.  If you feel your QB is the better kicker, run the play out of the shotgun and let Eli punt on third down.  With all the players in his house when he was growing up, and with the competitve nature of the Mannings, I’m sure they had bets on who could kick the farthest.  Even if he wasn’t the best Manning then, the pure cojones it takes to actually do it - in a Super Bowl - might shake the so-far unflappable New Englanders.

The first eighteen games have proven beyond a shadow of any doubt that if Tom Brady gets time, the result is joy in Foxboro.  Design a blitz package you haven’t run all year (I can’t believe the Giants have used every blitz package ever invented this year) and throw it at ‘em - maybe on the first play of the game!  Although I think on-side kicks are a bad idea (Belichick will certainly have their special teams ready for that gamble), a fake punt or field goal should definitely be attempted at least once during the game.  

What’s the worst thing that can happen?  You’ll be humiliated?  Take it from your own coach, who asked the team who lost the Super Bowl two years ago and it took a while for someone to come up with the answer.  All you’re in the game for is to win it.  If you lose, no one cares how or how bad.  If you’re in the record books as being on the wrong end of the most lopsided Super Bowl loss ever, the loser’s share per player is still the same.

That’s enough - especially considering they probably won’t read it, but take the word of that football fanatic, Mohandas K. Gandhi, who had no idea any team would go undefeated, thus giving the world a double entendre (taking the chance/beating the Pats) when he said:

Greatness lay in doing what everybody could, but does not, do.

Former President Bill Clinton is being criticized for his recent stumping for his wife’s presidential campaign.  A husband doing his best to help his wife succeed?  Would you expect any less from any candidate’s spouse?

Actually, the answer’s not so clear when all the rhetoric is heard and digested.  It seems that when Barack Obama’s own campaign appeared to be pulling ahead in the race for the Democratic presidentail nominee, the former president overstepped his bounds by, not only singing the praises of his wife and what she could do as our nation’s next leader, but also by directing some inflammatory remarks toward Senator Obama.

We all know how nasty and even downright “dirty” political campaigns have become in this country (please refer to my 4/22 blog on political strategists), but it ought to be beneath the dignity of a former president to resort to tactics used by the guys from Watergate and their successors (read: Carl Rove). 

Why would Clinton stoop so low?  The obvious answer is he wants his wife to win.  Yet many people feel, from a character issue, something like this should never occur.  Let’s start by looking at the premise: character.

Bill Clinton has an abundance of gray matter.  I don’t think his strongest opponents would deny that statement.  He might be one of the smartest presidents we’ve ever had (certainly when compared to the man who currently occupies that positon.  And as far as charisma, well, if you’d ask anyone who’s ever met the man, that may be an even greater strength of his than his intellect.  But, character?  The names Monica Lewinsky, Jennifer Flowers and Kathleen Willey all evoke a time in his presidency in which, if nothing else, he doesn’t mention when asked about the highlights of his tenure in the Oval Office.  And it wasn’t the dalliances alone (I’m not sure there’s anyone who feels that mixing telephone calls from the office with whatever Monica was doing - even if some people don’t consider it “sex” - is an appropriate way to lead the country). 

So, if what he’s done on the campaign trail wouldn’t be done by someone of the highest character, maybe the question of why he did it was answered as soon as it was asked -even if he did subsequently apologize (what’s the old line - “You can’t unring a bell”)?

As far as anyone’s campaign supporters go, we’d all be better served if we followed Joe Friday’s advice:

“Just the facts, m’am (or sir), just the facts.”Â

There’s always a book being played on my car’s cassette deck or CD player.  The current selection is How to Grow When Markets Don’t.  In it, there’s an interesting story about a company who’s product (check printing), although done in a quality manner, was on the verge of becoming extinct due to an influx of customers paying online, by credit or debit card, etc.  The company was frantically attempting to come up with innovative ways to compete in the market when, during a meeting, one executive realized they already had a successful customer base so, while they looked to improve their product,  they should simultaneously focus on their current customer’s satisfaction.

This idea got me thinking.  Which is more important - taking care of the customers you have now or coming up with a new, better and improved product to entice new customers?  I’ve always been big on customer loyalty, probably because I’m very product loyal, e.g. if a product or company has been effective or treated me well, I’ll stay with them unconditionally.  Case in point: Lexus produces quality automobiles, but their number one concern, from when they made their first car, has always been customer satisfaction, so there’s been a Lexus (five different ones) in our driveway since 1991.  People ask me how I can afford to have a Lexus and my response is I can’t afford not to have one.  On a lesser scale, I’ve been using Q-Tips for decades and won’t use any other cotton swabs even they’re given to me.  If you, the reader, think about it, I’m certain you’ll come up with a number of products you feel the same way about - and you’re just as loyal to that brand.

What the company in the book-on-tape did was to gain their customers’ trust.  Decisions were made in the customer’s best interests, not the company’s.  When they finally developed another product to offer, they had maintained a loyal base of people and companies for their original product.  When in the market for a new and improved version, these customers gave that company first shot - all any company can ask for.

So, when the higher-ups decide to make their product or service more “user-friendly,” is their goal easier for the “user” or more efficient (especially from a cost angle) for the organization?  I direct you to my 6/6 blog regarding a phone call I made to Delta in which I was greeted by a voice saying how important my phone call was to them - yet I was put on hold for quite a while.  Most companies use automated phone systems and I imagine there’s a tremendous cost savings.  But there’s a difference between having the customers being satisfied and with the company being efficient with them. 

Stephen Covey said that (and millions of people bought - and bought into) you should be efficient with things, but you have to be effective with people.  Since time is precious to all of us, being put on hold, even if it so positively affects your bottom line you can sell your product at a lower price, isn’t my (nor any other person read: potential customer’s) idea of effective use of that precious commodity.  I couldn’t agree more with Pat Summitt, the all-time winningest intercollegiate basketball coach and leader of the University of Tennessee Lady Volunteers, who said:

“The best way to show someone that you respect them is to respect their time.”

Much has been made of the recent firing/reassignment of the Clovis West (CA) High School football coach, Marty Martin, and for people who live in the Fresno/Clovis area, that line could be entered in the “understatement of the year” category and would be the odds-on favorite to win the award.

The main focal point mentioned in the numerous stories that have surfaced since the announcement is the role of parental involvement that takes place at the high school level.  Of course, it’s only natural for parents to want the best for their children, but the prevailing attitude in today’s society is one that allows - and even encourages - parents to not merely support their offspring but shield them as well.  In last week’s issue of Sports Illustrated, there’s a lengthy (and quite revealing) article on St. Louis U’s men’s basketball coach, Rick Majerus.  Rick is a “gym rat” in the truest sense of the word and enjoys nothing more than practice - the time to work with and educate young players to the fundamentals and intracies of the game.  He was married for a brief period 20 years ago, but as a former coaching colleague of mine used to say, “He was already married - to the ball - and nothing will ever come between them.”  Rick has, however, worked with hundreds (thousands if you count all the camps and clinics he’s done) of kids and there’s a real compassionate side to the guy.  In the article, he makes a very keen and poignant observation on today’s parents.  Parents today, he says, “want to take all the pain, all the heartache and all the sadness out of their kids’ lives.  All the things that make you a better person … all the things that are so much the fabric of life.”

It’s not that today’s parent (and I’m one of them) doesn’t understand what being a team player is.  Several of them participated in sports in their youth (some at the highest level), but due to the change our me-first society, they have the feeling that, “I know there are a lot of kids on the team, but there’s only one care about.”  They may not admit it, the old agade about actions speaking louder than words, more or less indicts them.  And, in what could tongue-in-cheek be called hereditary, their children’s actions and attitudes mirror that of their parents - complete and total selfishness.

As always, the blog will be summarized by a quote I’ve heard or read throughout the years, this one directed to today’s parents:  

“The most important work you do in the world will be done within the walls of your own home.”

When you’ve worked at as many places as I have, you’re bound to come across a variety of bosses, but even moreso, a great number of “characters” who serve as your co-workers.  Seeing an email with the acronym “FYI” brought back a story of a couple of my former colleagues.

In one of the departments where I was employed, we had an athletics director who was fond of sending articles, memos, etc. to the members of the department and writing to whomever he was addressing the employee’s name at the top of the page, FYI, and then signing it.

One of the non-revenue sport coaches was a guy who seemed to be at odds with the athletics director.  Since those poor guys are the first ones to absorb budget cuts and the last to receive any positive “action,” yet are as competitive as any person in the university, they are constantly subjected to a tremendous amount of self-imposed pressure. 

This AD probably picked the wrong time to send the coach one of his famous memos.  It read:

“Coach: FYI.  AD”

The coach’s response was:

“AD: FY. Coach”

Each had an exact understanding of the other meant, although I don’t think it’s what Abraham Lincoln had in mind when he said:

“The only way you can motivate somebody is to communicate with them.”   ¼/p>

Although I don’t have a son playing varsity basketball this year (Andy graduated last year and Alex is still in junior high), I’ve been attending more high school games than I have in the past.  Possibly, it’s because the morphine pump I have implanted in my abdomen (yeah, you read that right), is making life a bit more tolerable and possibly it’s because I enjoy watching high school kids play.

In any event, I witnessed an event about a week ago when a player got hurt (it looked like he was intentionally kicked by the opponent, not really as malicious in nature as it was out of frustration) and the subsequent actions by one of the youngster’s parents brought me back to my brief tenure in high school coaching.  It could be entitled “the protective nature of parents.”

We weren’t a particularly talented team (a candidate for understatement of the decade) and we were playing in a Xmas tournament game.  In this particular game, we were behind but hanging in there, down only a couple with less than a minute to go.  It was vital we get a stop as our opponent had the ball but couldn’t run out the clock.  Sure enough, they missed and one of our big guys grabbed the rebound with about four seconds left - and his man was called for going over his back! 

Situation: he shoots one and one, meaning if he can make both, we tie and have momentum going into overtime.  Because he wasn’t a good free throw shooter, we had a “game” on, something we did to increase our chance of grabbing the rebound should he miss.  Our big fella walks the length of the court and I’m feeling better than I have all game, since we’d been behind ever since the opening tip.

The referee hands him the ball, our two guys in the lane shoot each other a look so they know what they’re doing in case of a miss.  Now, if he can come through and make the first one, the dream scenario would be to make the first and have one of our guys  rebound the second & put it back in to win it for us.  The big man aims, fires and shoots  … an air ball!!!  At that point, we have, for all intents and purposes, lost all hope of  winning the game. 

The gym is deafeningly silent … until his mother shouts out, “That’s OK, baby!”  What I wanted to say to his mom at that point can’t be printed (if I have any intention of continuing this blog), but suffice to say I thought, “You know, that’s exactly the reason he missed.  Because whatever he did was going to be OK.  I understand the mother was trying to say, That’s OK, baby, I still love you.”  But doesn’t that go without saying?  A parent’s love doesn’t hinge on how well or poorly their child shoots free throws and if the child doesn’t know that, missing free throws is the last thing he ought to be worried about.

If the mom had said, “Come on now, baby, you can do it” prior to the foul shot and the result was the same, I could have lived with that.  But the way it played out, it was just an embarrasing moment all around.  Parents needn’t worry about how their kids view themselves as long as they remind them the following:

“The human body is designed so that it’s difficult to pat ourselves on the back or kick ourselves in the butt.”

The New York Giants beat the Green Bay Packers in overtime.  To get your team to the conference’s championship game is quite an accomplishment, but to hear fans (those strange birds that day after day call in to talk radio shows) tell the story, either the losing coaches (and their staffs) are a bunch of idiots or the guys they’re coaching are chokers, guys who can’t handle the pressure of a “big game” (as if the past week’s contest was a “little game” because winning it only gave them a chance to choke in the big one. 

The night after the game, I heard a guy who called in (must have been on the day shift at the Stop-N-Go that week) and ripped the Pakers’ offensive coaching staff for throwing the ball on first down over and over.  Keep in mind most fans like teams that throw on first down because it “keeps the defense from loading the box” (meaning they’re trying to stop the run).  Of course, everyone knows the real reason fans like throwing on first down is because if it were up to the fans, teams would throw on every down - it’s just more exciting to watch - unless the back breaks one for a long run - and up to this point, no fan has figured out how to call in a show and tell the host how to break a big run (other than blocking the guys in the way, which even a “first time caller, long time listener” wouldn’t dare say).

The fact that the Packers didn’t have a true running threat and went into the game with the plan to beat the Giants with the pass wasn’t a valid point to this caller.  He also somehow overlooked the personnel aspect of the Packers and the fact they have a quarterback who holds several passing records and has been to and won “the big one” before.

The height of absurdity is that it was a game that went into overtime!  Do you realize how any one play could have affected the game and turned the Packers into the winners and sent the Giants home for the year?  If the pass in overtime that the Giants intercepted had been thrown a little further outside, there’s a strong chance the Patriots would be preparing for a different opponent in the Super Bowl.

The caller I heard brought me back to a game I was involved in during the early ’80s.  I was an assistant coach at Tennessee and we were leading one of our SEC rivals by one point with less than 30 seconds to go when their guy knocked down a shot (pre-three point line era), putting them up one.  We brought the ball over midcourt and called time out with less than 10 seconds to go.  Our head coach went to check with the official to see exactly where we were going to inbound the ball and when he did, I turned to our local (extremely negative) newspaper columnist (the home media sat right next to our bench, the visiting media sat next to the visitor’s bench with the scorekeeper, timer and stat people in between) and said, “Well, Al, what should we do?” 

I wish I had a picture of the look on his face.  It was a mixture of “I can’t believe one of the coaches talked to me at this point in the game” and “Are you kidding me?  I get paid to write about what should have been done and get to do it after I know how things turned out.”  As our head coach returned to the huddle, I said to this “slice-and-dice” artist, “I know you’re going to be certain tomorrow, so I thought I’d ask you now - because that’s when we need to know.”

Our last second play happened to work perfectly (sometimes they do) and we escaped with a victory.  The next day’s column was quite complimentary.

“The two saddest words in the English language are ‘if only.’” ¼/p>