I never said anything about Helmer doing poorly. Again, Chapman never underachieved. And if people want to say Helmer is already averaging what Chapman did then lets look at the differences in the teams they both walked into. The guys Chapman had for the first couple of years were nowhere near as talented as the guys Helmer got. I think it's safe to say that Chapman's first two years hurt, which was not his fault. So he damn well better be at least averaging what Chapman did. I'm simply defending Chapman because it's ridiculous when people say that he is a bad coach. I don't want to write his accomplishments again, but I can't understand (and I've tried) how people can possibly say that a guy has underachieved when you consider the things he has done. Now if Chapman had been at Wisco or Oregon, etc. and he had only those same accomplishments then I think it would be safe to say that he underachieved. But he coached at Indiana. Indiana. Indiana is not an amazing place. Sorry to the die-hard IU fans. But quite frankly, overall IU's athletics suck and have sucked for a long time. And will probably continue to suck. So, lets not expect someone to come in and win team national championships with a bad team within 9 years. That goes for Helmer to. Unbelievable. Now I see why people outside of Indiana University hate Indiana University.