I voted not to extend Zamberlin's contract with some misgivings. I recognize that the budget and support from the ISU administration have not been what it should be to succeed. I also happen to think Zamberlin is a truly nice person. That being said, this has nothing to do with our first two recruiting class problems. Both retention and disipline problems. Unlike many of you, I saw our first two recruiting classes first hand, the days they visited. You should have seen the ones who got away. Unfortunately they were kids we had no chance of getting unless they were in serious trouble or failing school. We wasted our first two recruiting weekends on kids we had no chance of getting the first two years, and failed to bring in kids we did have a chance of getting. No one was good enough for Orthman or Strandly until it was to late. Of the first years potential class, we have already played against two we should have had when we played at Weber. Remember the D-end from Box Elder on Weber's team. He wanted to come here and didn't even get a sniff until to late to get him. We did not sign one impact player in the first class; the best was Kelvin Krosch. Kelvin Mill lost his chance for mention because he cannot attend class unless his mommy is there to dress him. The verdict is still out on Rouser. The coaching staff who for the most part came from a Div. II program were not willing to listen to anyone on who or what they should recruit. Remember, Whitworth was not the only coach retained from the prior staff, we retained two GA's, one who was recruiting Hawaii and Utah. The result is we are now less athletic than most the teams we play. The second class was marginally better, but again we passed on players we should have been recruiting to chase "pie in the sky" players. Hell, our starting left tackle was brought in with the walk-ons/partial offer group as was our starting TE. Who allowed this, the head coach? And it is hurting us today. I sat through 8 years of Lewis recruiting. They brought in the players they wanted and thought they could get the first visit. If ten came in they would commit eight. Zamberlin brought in I believe 15 or 20 his first group, to be honest I don't remember how may committed. But trust me, it was not many if any. I do believe we got one or two out of that group. The same with the first group his second year. His last year he finally brought in the kids he could both get and could help the program the first weekend, we committed more out of that group than either of the first two years. I wonder why our offensive coordinator did not get a substantial raise when he took his position, but we are paying a D-line coach very well as a position coach. Why, if you thought the D-coordinator needed help did you not bring a d-coordnator and relegate the present D-coordinator to D-line duties. Why not bring in a mature O-coordinator to teach your young line coach rather than blaming the offenssive problems on a young coach. Face it the O-line coach does what the O-coordinator wants, not the other way around. I'm tired of the excuses myself. I'll equate it to a comment Zamberlin made in yesterdays radio broadcast concerning the first interception. He said that Hill should have gone to the three reciever side of the field rather than the one reciever side. Well no sh!t Sherlock, I'm betting Hill is thinking the same thing now himself. Hindsight is always best sight, makes some people allot smarter than they really are. But what he should be asking is why in the past two games has two different QB's been intercepted on the same route. Coach you might want to take a look at what your doing that tips the other team off on what play or route you are running. There had to be a reason that CB felt it was a good time to jump that route as did the CB on the interception going into the end zone against Eastern. Try not placing blame on a player for play on the field when your staff essetially placed the game in his hands to win or lose.