It’s beginning to look a lot like March, at least for those that follow the Arizona Wildcats basketball team.

The Cats, fresh off an 84-78 win over in-state rival ASU, are 11-3 on the year and have won eight straight games.

They’ve done so by lighting up the LED scoreboard of McKale like a dollar-store piñata—averaging 83.2 points per game, while surrendering 69 points per game during said streak.

The Wildcats put their recent luck on the line, first against Utah at 7 p.m. tonight from the unfriendly confines of Huntsman Arena in Salt Lake City.

They then will hop over the majestic Rocky Mountains to visit the most overrated college town in America, Boulder. (Can you tell I went to CSU yet?) They play the Buffs at noon on Saturday.

The Utes (11-3, 2-0) have an uncanny ability to adjust their offensive tempo, depending on their opponent, scoring 80+ points in six of their 13 games, while also scoring 66 points in wins over Oregon and Oregon State last weekend.

The Buffaloes, meanwhile, sit at 8-6 for the year, having lost their last three games—against Iowa, Oregon State and Oregon by a combined score of 233-192.

It’s the first time Sean Miller and company have ventured to the Rocky Mountain schools since getting swept in 2015.

That trip included a 70-64 loss to the Utes, the Wildcats’ first against Utah since the 1998 NCAA Tournament.

Miller didn’t seem too worried about his team’s mindset heading into the clash, telling reporters in Tuesday’s press conference that this year’s squad is completely different from the one that fell at Huntsman 23 months ago.

“That was, like, 15 years ago," Miller said. "It’s irrelevant to the world today. Obama used to be the president. Trump is now. Khalil Tate is the quarterback. Remember when [Rod] Gronkowski was here? Sean Elliott used to play here; it doesn’t have much to do with today.”

Whether there will be a hangover of sorts for the Wildcats after the high-energy defeat of the then-undefeated Sun Devils is yet to be seen, but rest assured that Sean Miller totally doesn’t have any hard feelings about their last meeting in the Wasatch.

How to Watch: Tonight’s game against Utah is on ESPN at 7 p.m. Saturday’s game against Colorado is on the Pac 12 Network at noon.

How to Bet: Arizona is favored by 3.5 over Utah. The line against Colorado has not been released.

Who to Watch: Keep an eye on Utah’s David Collette and Justin Bibbins, who average 13.2 and 13.1 points per game, respectively. Senior Tyler Rawson could also be a thorn in Miller’s side, averaging 11 points per game this season. Colorado’s McKinley Wright IV is the player to watch, averaging 16 points, 5 rebounds and 4.9 assists per game. Senior George King is another name to watch in Saturday’s game, as the senior has scored in double figures in 11 of the Buffs’ 14 games,
averaging 13.2 points per game this season.

The 17th and 18th centuries in Europe are often referred to as the Age of Enlightenment or the Age of Reason. The early 20th century in the U.S. is known as the Gilded Age, a term recently dusted off and reclaimed for use in our own period of growing income inequality.

I suggest the period beginning June 16, 2015, the day Trump announced his candidacy for president, should be referred to as the Age of "What The Fuck?!"

Thirty-plus years of teaching in a high school classroom trained me to keep it clean, in public anyway. Though my private conversations are laced with profanity, I watch my language when I'm in the public square. I broke with my normal decorum when I used "bullshit" in a post last March, but I made sure to give the word academic respectability by referring to the book, On Bullshit, by American philosopher Harry Frankfurt.

Today I'm throwing away my decades-old restraint. Nearly every night as I watch cable news, I yell, "What The Fuck?!" at the latest Trump outrage. Mornings, I growl the phrase as I pore over the paper and check the latest on the web.

Prior to the advent of Trump, I was often angered by what goes on in our political world. More than angered. Outraged. Incensed. Horrified. But I was rarely this astonished before The Donald descended the Trump Tower escalator and walked onto the political stage. I find myself doing mental double and triple takes at the unbelievable, frightening absurdity of our president's actions and utterances. Political humor on Saturday Night Live is meant to be satire. Lately it feels more like reportage.

A former assistant to ex-UA football coach Rich Rodriguez, who was fired Tuesday night amid sexual misconduct allegations, is seeking $7.5 million for emotional distress, according to a notice of claim filed with the Arizona Attorney’s General’s Office on Dec. 28.

The claim, filed by the attorney for Melissa Wilhelmsen, alleges that Rodriguez forced her to help keep an affair secret from Rodriquez’s wife and later made sexual advances toward her. It also claims and that Rodriguez at one point typed up a book, called “The Hideaway Book,” which sought to establish secrecy within Rodriguez’s inner circle—including Wilhelmsen and then-assistants Charlie Ragle and Miguel Reveles.

The University of Arizona released a statement from UA President Robert C. Robbins and Athletic Director Dave Heeke Tuesday night announcing Rodriguez’s dismissal, saying that an independent investigation commissioned by the university could not substantiate Wilhelmsen’s original allegations, partly because she did not cooperate with the investigation.

But university officials decided to fire Rodriguez because "Arizona Athletics did become aware of information, both before and during the investigation, which caused it to be concerned with the direction and climate of the football program,” Robbins and Heeke said.

Wilhelmsen alleged that Rodriguez’s conduct veered from inappropriate to outright sexual harassment—including a request that she bring him his underwear from the equipment area and a conversation in which he told her his “preferred style of underwear ‘visually enhanced’ his genitalia when worn,” according to the claim.

Wilhelmsen also accused Rodriguez of touching the side of her breast, and then trying to kiss her during a meeting in January 2017, after telling her, “Whatever you need, I’m here for you.” The alleged incident occurred as Melissa and Jason were having marital troubles that stemmed from her stressful work environment, the claim said.

Wilhelmsen, according to the claim, tried to leave her role and join the athletic department’s development office after the kissing incident in March of 2017. She scheduled an appointment, but it was later canceled with no reason. She then tried to make another appointment a month later with the same person, but received no response, the claim said.

Wilhemsen said she felt trapped in her job with the Athletic Department because she feared for what would happen to her daughter—who also worked within the department and attended the UA at a discounted tuition rate because of Wilhemsen’s job, the claim said.

Wilhelmsen finally left the department in August for a non-University job, but was cornered by Rodriguez’s wife on her last day, before confessing to the truth about Rodriguez’s girlfriend, according to the claim.

Attorney Augustine B. Jimenez III, who represents Wilhelmsen, said in the claim that no public figure should be allowed to harass women with impunity.

“If this case were to go to trial, in the current climate where #MeToo is in the headlines on a daily basis, neither male nor female jurors would have any sympathy for a public figure who used his authority and power to oppress and degrade his female assistant in such ways. Undoubtedly, the verdict could be in the tens of millions of dollars because the jurors would want to send a message to such high-profile and highly paid coaches that such abuses of power are not acceptable,” Jimenez said.

In a statement on Twitter, Rodriquez admitted to an extramarital affair but said Wilhelmsen’s claims were “baseless and false” and vowed to “vigorously fight these fabricated and groundless claims.”

Read Wilhelmsen's notice of claim for yourself here: 

The University of Arizona fired football coach Rich Rodriguez Tuesday, according to a UA press release.

No exact reason was given for the school’s decision, though the university will honor the separation terms of Rodriguez’s contract, which include a $10.2 million buyout, according to USA Today.

Director of Athletics Dave Heeke cited the school’s investigation into allegations of sexual harassment against Rodriguez, which began in October.

That investigation, according to Heeke, did not find that Rodriguez posed any danger to members of the community, though the alleged victim chose to pursue further litigation.

“As a result, we have been reviewing the findings and deliberating our course of action. While this is a difficult decision, it is the right decision. And it is a decision that lives up to the core values of the University of Arizona,” Heeke said.

Update: Rodriguez took to Twitter Tuesday to release a statement regarding the UA's investigation.

He discussed a complaint by a former administrative assistant, who threatened to file a $7.5 million lawsuit alleging harassment.

Rodriguez said he cooperated with the 10-week-long investigation, taking a voluntary polygraph test, which he passed.

He admitted to have an extramarital affair with a woman not affiliated with the university and expressed regret for his conduct.

"It was wrong, and I have apologized to my wife and family. I am still working incredibly hard to repair the bonds I've broken and regain the trust of my wife and children, whom i love dearly," Rodriguez said.

Rodriguez thanked his staff and players for their commitment and effort during his tenure, and vowed to fight against the claims made against him going forward.

There is no timetable for naming Rodriguez’s replacement, though the National Signing Day for high school players is Feb. 7.

Here's the UA statement:

The Koch Brothers are already deeply invested in Arizona politics and education. With the 2018 election season already in swing, it's certain the Brothers and their cronies will once again invest millions of dollars in Arizona races. That makes this a good time to step back and take a look at what they and other libertarians think of public education and, more specifically, public "government schools," so we understand what candidates whose campaigns are supported by the Brothers will advocate for if they're elected.

The Koch Brothers have invested in libertarian-themed outposts at University of Arizona and Arizona State University, and the state has upped the ante by adding $5 million worth of government funding for the centers in its recent budget. The UA bastion, the Freedom Center, created a high school course favoring libertarian views on economics and politics which is currently being offered in four Southern Arizona school districts and a smattering of charter schools, all government funded institutions. Yet the Koch Brothers invested at least $1.8 million in defeating a 2012 ballot measure which would have increased K-12 funding by a billion dollars. The Brothers also invested at least $1.4 million in the 2014 gubernatorial campaign of Doug Ducey, who bills himself as the "education governor" but rejects any substantive increase in school funding.

What are the Koch Brothers' views on education, and where do they come from?

The best place to start is with Milton Friedman, a Nobel Prize winning economist who is much revered by libertarians. In 1955, Friedman wrote The Role of Government in Education, which put the idea of school vouchers on the map and added the term "government schools" to our political lexicon. Friedman laid out the economic justification giving parents money for their children's educations and letting them spend it where they wish. He didn't advocate for getting rid of public schools entirely, but he put them at the end of his list of schools, almost as an afterthought.

"Such schools [funded by vouchers] would be conducted under a variety of auspices: by private enterprises operated for profit, non profit institutions established by private endowment, religious bodies, and some even by governmental units."

His combination of "some" and "even" with schools run "by governmental units" shows he didn't think many of them would survive in a voucher-financed competition with the private sector.

Friedman thought vouchers should be limited to the amount it costs to provide what he calls "general education for citizenship." Though he didn't define the term exactly, he was clearly thinking about the minimum education needed to survive in our society and participate in our democracy. Parents would have to pay for anything beyond "general education."

One positive byproduct of limiting government's financing of education, according to Friedman, could be that families, especially poorer families, would have fewer children. Since parents would have to pay for everything beyond a minimal education, he reasoned, they would think twice about the financial burden of having to pay for educating too many children.

The only negative Friedman saw concerning his voucher plan was that, after the Supreme Court's 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision mandating the desegregation of schools, parents were using vouchers to pay for whites-only private schools. Though he writes, "I deplore segregation and racial prejudice," Friedman claims that, just as every private business should have the right to hang out a "Whites only" sign in its window, schools should be allowed to be segregated. Let the invisible hand of the marketplace work its magic on schools rather than allow the heavy hand of government to impose desegregation.

Skip ahead 25 years to the 1980 presidential election.