|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Mar 28, 2016 20:36:52 GMT -5
For what it's worth, I am tired of losing in March and not succeeding either. I do think next year will be incredibly important for the team, and I expect them to turn things around. We will see if they do.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,332
|
Post by tashoya on Mar 28, 2016 23:19:31 GMT -5
So basically, anybody you disagree with is a troll. Got it. Continuing to ignore people's responses and their reasonings only to repeat yourself is pretty troll-ish imo, but everyone has a different definition of what a troll is. No. As usual, you're shaping it wrong. Everyone knows the definition of an internet troll as much as you'd like to disagree. There's a pretty clear definition. And while you don't fit that bill, neither do the people that disagree with a lot of what you type. In fairness, you're much nearer to the definition because you refuse to acknowledge or even, apparently, register differing opinions You don't read what others say and, instead, categorize them as homers or apologists without reading the content of their posts. To what end I'm not sure but that's bordering trolling as your inability to actually recognize a differing opinion serves to inflame others for no reason. Very few people are blind apologists for the coaching staff nor are there many people happy with the status quo. I know this because I read the posts. Even the posts made by the people with whom I don't agree. If you had taken the time to read the rebuttals to your own posts as opposed to plowing along with the same general "points" time and again, you'd maybe understand that a bit better. It's funny to me that one of the board rules is to disallow speculation when, in fact, nearly the entirety of the board is speculation. You don't know the players or the coaches and neither do I. But we can start threads questioning the heart and passion of the current team. We can suggest better directions for the program. I digress but you act as though you know any better than anyone else when you don't and disregard differing opinions when you have no better information than anyone else. I think very few of us are happy at the moment but some of us also realize that there's a certain framework, for now, in which improvement needs to be made. JT3 isn't going anywhere. Not because I love him and not because you don't hate him enough. Because he's not. You can get all worked up that he's not but it'll change exactly nothing and it'll also not make me any more or less of a homer or a troll. It makes me realistic. I'm neither happy nor sad that JT3 is the coach because I realize it's a constant for the time being. Term that as you like. You can call it trolling if you like. That too is fine but, again, won't be correct. Have at it.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,332
|
Post by tashoya on Mar 28, 2016 23:22:42 GMT -5
Cue the "Our juniors have to play like seniors" quotes from JT3... What kind of junior? Because there are a lot of different kinds of juniors... You got your juniors who regress your juniors who get season ending injuries your juniors who become academically ineligible for second semester your juniors who transfer... OK, coach. Are those the only kind of juniors or, even, the majority of juniors? I hate when coaches cause season ending injuries. Stupid coaches.
|
|
whatmaroon
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 819
|
Post by whatmaroon on Mar 29, 2016 0:45:39 GMT -5
This is what I'd like to see in 2016-17:
1. Make the NCAA tournament. I'd like to, but don't expect to, make the NCAA tournament every year. But after missing out two of the past three seasons, this is goal one. And I want to be solidly in, not sweating it out while watching the selection show like, say, 2001 (#10 seed, one of the last teams announced).
2. No bad non-conference losses. In his first 11 years, JT3 lost one non-conference game to a team outside the top 100 on KenPom, to Northeastern in 2013-14. We had two such losses last season, to Radford and UNC-Asheville. These are ratings- and RPI-killers.
3. At least one good non-conference win. I'm looking for a win against a ranked opponent that stays ranked all year and gets a top 6-ish seed in the NCAA tournament. I'm guessing we should have multiple chances to get this kind of wind.
4. At least 2-1 in the three "rivalry" non-conference games of UConn, Maryland, and Syracuse.
5. At least 12 Big East wins.
6. I'm mostly over conference tournaments at this point (quick take: would you rather have Seton Hall's postseason-BET title, NCAA first-round loss, or Indiana's-opening game loss in B10 tourney, Sweet 16?), but making the Big East Tournament final would be nice.
7. No bad postseason losses. I can handle a loss like the one to Utah, who was rightly favored and in a game that was tied with 7 to play. But I don't want a noncompetitive blowout loss to a better team, and I really really don't want to see another upset to a real underdog.
|
|
seaweed
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,670
|
Post by seaweed on Mar 29, 2016 6:02:38 GMT -5
6. I'm mostly over conference tournaments at this point (quick take: would you rather have Seton Hall's postseason-BET title, NCAA first-round loss, or Indiana's-opening game loss in B10 tourney, Sweet 16?), but making the Big East Tournament final would be nice. Victory in the BET should always be the target
|
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,605
|
Post by guru on Mar 29, 2016 7:19:40 GMT -5
What kind of junior? Because there are a lot of different kinds of juniors... You got your juniors who regress your juniors who get season ending injuries your juniors who become academically ineligible for second semester your juniors who transfer... OK, coach. Are those the only kind of juniors or, even, the majority of juniors? I hate when coaches cause season ending injuries. Stupid coaches. You seem to be reading a lot into a joke (albeit not a very strong one). Not sure you get the reference, so that's OK.
|
|
KHoyaNYC
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,900
|
Post by KHoyaNYC on Mar 29, 2016 7:39:12 GMT -5
One thing for certain - at least JTIII and fans won't be able to point to the team's inexperience as an excuse for underperformance. With 1 senior, 4 juniors and 3 sophomores (and only one incoming freshman) in the rotation, this is definitely a make-or-break year for the program. Can't blame how hard it is to teach the "system", the leap necessary to play high D1 defense, or any other shortcoming based on youth/inexperience. I'm looking forward to that, for a change. Don't you think though that realistically we are two years away from being really good again (assuming everyone stays)? I don't perceive the team making the big leap it needs to make in one year. This isn't a criticism of JTIII directly, although the lack of development this year is one reason I think we have a lot of ground to make up before we are good again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2016 8:09:34 GMT -5
One thing for certain - at least JTIII and fans won't be able to point to the team's inexperience as an excuse for underperformance. With 1 senior, 4 juniors and 3 sophomores (and only one incoming freshman) in the rotation, this is definitely a make-or-break year for the program. Can't blame how hard it is to teach the "system", the leap necessary to play high D1 defense, or any other shortcoming based on youth/inexperience. I'm looking forward to that, for a change. Don't you think though that realistically we are two years away from being really good again (assuming everyone stays)? I don't perceive the team making the big leap it needs to make in one year. This isn't a criticism of JTIII directly, although the lack of development this year is one reason I think we have a lot of ground to make up before we are good again. Maybe - but it's not out of the realm of possibility. Last year, Seton Hall seemed to be in complete disarray. Guys were transferring out (including one who left mid-season), they sputtered to the finish, there was talk of major locker room discord, etc etc etc. This year, they were solidly #3 in the conference, won the BET and got a 6 seed in the tournament. Setting aside the first-round loss, that's a pretty good season from a group that - one year ago - was in a pretty similar place that Georgetown seems to be. Not saying that it will happen, but I wouldn't discount the possibility. DSR and Hayes are gone, Mosely comes in, the Peak/Copeland/Campbell/White group take a step up, Johnson and/or Agau gives us something we didn't expect...who knows? There are a lot of variables. Next year's team - despite having many of the same players - may look nothing like this year's team. Of course, it could all go off the rails - but I don't want to imagine what that might look like.
|
|
rockhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,830
|
Post by rockhoya on Mar 29, 2016 8:23:02 GMT -5
Continuing to ignore people's responses and their reasonings only to repeat yourself is pretty troll-ish imo, but everyone has a different definition of what a troll is. No. As usual, you're shaping it wrong. Everyone knows the definition of an internet troll as much as you'd like to disagree. There's a pretty clear definition. And while you don't fit that bill, neither do the people that disagree with a lot of what you type. In fairness, you're much nearer to the definition because you refuse to acknowledge or even, apparently, register differing opinions You don't read what others say and, instead, categorize them as homers or apologists without reading the content of their posts. To what end I'm not sure but that's bordering trolling as your inability to actually recognize a differing opinion serves to inflame others for no reason. Very few people are blind apologists for the coaching staff nor are there many people happy with the status quo. I know this because I read the posts. Even the posts made by the people with whom I don't agree. If you had taken the time to read the rebuttals to your own posts as opposed to plowing along with the same general "points" time and again, you'd maybe understand that a bit better. It's funny to me that one of the board rules is to disallow speculation when, in fact, nearly the entirety of the board is speculation. You don't know the players or the coaches and neither do I. But we can start threads questioning the heart and passion of the current team. We can suggest better directions for the program. I digress but you act as though you know any better than anyone else when you don't and disregard differing opinions when you have no better information than anyone else. I think very few of us are happy at the moment but some of us also realize that there's a certain framework, for now, in which improvement needs to be made. JT3 isn't going anywhere. Not because I love him and not because you don't hate him enough. Because he's not. You can get all worked up that he's not but it'll change exactly nothing and it'll also not make me any more or less of a homer or a troll. It makes me realistic. I'm neither happy nor sad that JT3 is the coach because I realize it's a constant for the time being. Term that as you like. You can call it trolling if you like. That too is fine but, again, won't be correct. Have at it. Lol there is more than one definition...
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 29, 2016 8:56:08 GMT -5
Don't you think though that realistically we are two years away from being really good again (assuming everyone stays)? I don't perceive the team making the big leap it needs to make in one year. This isn't a criticism of JTIII directly, although the lack of development this year is one reason I think we have a lot of ground to make up before we are good again. Maybe - but it's not out of the realm of possibility. Last year, Seton Hall seemed to be in complete disarray. Guys were transferring out (including one who left mid-season), they sputtered to the finish, there was talk of major locker room discord, etc etc etc. This year, they were solidly #3 in the conference, won the BET and got a 6 seed in the tournament. Setting aside the first-round loss, that's a pretty good season from a group that - one year ago - was in a pretty similar place that Georgetown seems to be. Not saying that it will happen, but I wouldn't discount the possibility. DSR and Hayes are gone, Mosely comes in, the Peak/Copeland/Campbell/White group take a step up, Johnson and/or Agau gives us something we didn't expect...who knows? There are a lot of variables. Next year's team - despite having many of the same players - may look nothing like this year's team. Of course, it could all go off the rails - but I don't want to imagine what that might look like. Right. I think people forget that we lost a great many games by essentially a basket or two. We have to replace two starters -- I get it -- but it's not crazy to think we could be pretty good. National title good? Well, no. But safely qualify for NCAAT good (which means reasonable chance at second weekend good). And you take your chances from there. A lot has to go right, but not a crazy amount. The hard part with really challenging for a national title (aside from a lucky Cuse-like run) is that you need either: (1) a transcendent one-and done player (or two) and enough limited talent around him or them in that one year they're on the team -- thats really really hard; (2) a player that becomes a transcendent player in the middle of his career, and you happen to have talent around them to take advantage of it timing wise. Provy couldn't really pull it off this year based on other talent. We couldn't quite do it with Otto. It's hard for a team not consistently getting top-level talent to make this work, but certainly teams do. (3). A great player that sticks around even if they didn't have to. Think Hield or Valentine. So, you have to have developed a great player, and you have to luck out by his wanting to stay. (4). A group of very good college players that are balanced class-wise, or all become juniors or seniors together. This may include college stars that don't seem to translate well to the NBA or just guys (like Nova) that are all very good but not good enough to have realistically left early. This is hard in its own way because you need to pick and/or develop five or six kids very well. Four is our realistic model. And if you look at teams with success, they were veteran teams by and large. Or at least teams with a preponderance of veterans. I know we had Monroe, so we had a crack at one or two for two years, but that's really hard to make work. The dream would be that everyone takes a step forward next year (even a small one), virtually all are experienced, our PG play is good enough for one reason or another, and we are pretty good at every position. Maybe another step forward by LJ leads him to leave, so next year would be the year to do some damage. But you could envision an LJ that is a bit better on both ends surrounded by our other pieces doing some damage. That sort of LJ would be a first-team BE (or better, frankly) type player. Surround him with a four and a five man that can play passably in the post and shoot 35% or better from three (that part is pretty easy to envision), and surround him with a three man (Ike or Paul) that resembles even what we got at the end of this year from that spot, and then complete it with passable point play (that is, significant improvement from what we got from Tre this year). And you've got yourself a fine, fine team. Lots of ifs. But not crazy.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Mar 29, 2016 9:05:08 GMT -5
We won the Kenpom golden turkey for the highest-ranking team with a losing record and did so losing every single hustle stat on the board.
Of course this team can be good next year. Nobody would be as disappointed as they are if the talent weren't there. And our "recruiting" class basically has White and Agau in it at the very least. If Mosely makes a difference or we land a transfer PG that's a bonus but no way this team should sandbag expectations.
|
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,605
|
Post by guru on Mar 29, 2016 10:06:48 GMT -5
We won the Kenpom golden turkey for the highest-ranking team with a losing record and did so losing every single hustle stat on the board. Of course this team can be good next year. Nobody would be as disappointed as they are if the talent weren't there. And our "recruiting" class basically has White and Agau in it at the very least. If Mosely makes a difference or we land a transfer PG that's a bonus but no way this team should sandbag expectations. Can one of the Big Data Dudes on the board explain why KenPom always loves us. Even our recent craptastic teams (09, 14 and 16) have ranked no lower than 65. And the 2009 team, which was steaming hot putrid garbage by the end, was #34! What is it about our stats that KenPom likes so consistently? It's a great site overall, but seems awfully misleading when it comes to the Hoyas. Or maybe we just underachieve...
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 29, 2016 10:32:07 GMT -5
We won the Kenpom golden turkey for the highest-ranking team with a losing record and did so losing every single hustle stat on the board. Of course this team can be good next year. Nobody would be as disappointed as they are if the talent weren't there. And our "recruiting" class basically has White and Agau in it at the very least. If Mosely makes a difference or we land a transfer PG that's a bonus but no way this team should sandbag expectations. Can one of the Big Data Dudes on the board explain why KenPom always loves us. Even our recent craptastic teams (09, 14 and 16) have ranked no lower than 65. And the 2009 team, which was steaming hot putrid garbage by the end, was #34! What is it about our stats that KenPom likes so consistently? It's a great site overall, but seems awfully misleading when it comes to the Hoyas. Or maybe we just underachieve... All KenPom cares about is what you score and what you give up on a per possession basis, adjusted only for the strength of the team you play and where. Actual wins and losses are completely irrelevant. So if you beat three good teams by 20 points, and lose to six equivalently good teams by two points each, KenPom (in a relative sense) is going to love you compared to what the polls or fans would think. 2009 is a great example if you look at the scores of the games. We finished the year 3-7 (the hot putrid garbage to which you refer). Here were five of those losses (with KenPom ranks in parentheses). at Baylor by 2 (34) Louisville by 16 (5) Marquette by 6 (19) at Cuse by 4 (16) Cincy by 2 (90) The two others were a bad St. Johns team, but still, you see how KenPom would rate those losses as -- by and large -- not bad given the strength of the teams and the scores. The three wins were by 8 vs. DePaul (213); at Nova by 2 (9); and at S. Fla. by 25 (151). That's a great, close win against a premiere team; a reasonably close win against a putrid team; and a blowout of a bad team. So, if you put it all together (and, remember, it's looking at the whole season -- where we did beat Cuse, UConn, and UMD among others), you can see how the computer would see things a lot differently. Think about our seasons as a whole -- it's very rare for us to get blown out. The formula is supposed to take into account pace, obviously, but I think it does over-state the performance of teams that play at a slower pace, generally. I can't prove that. But I think it doesn't properly take into account that a team playing at a higher pace may not score much more on a per possession basis than a team that plays at a slower pace, but still wins more games comfortably. I think that's one of the reasons it overstates us. We are more likely in some ways, I think, to lose close games when we aren't good. That is, like this year, we might stink, but still not got blown out. KenPom likes that, but it doesn't ultimately help us. To make the same point a different way, North Carolina might win by 15 points on average at a very fast pace and our games we win by 5. That may be equivalent in the KenPom formula based on differing paces. But, to me, it's easier to avoid actual real-life losses when you're winning by 15 at a higher pace. (Of course, even that is too simplistic: we have won our share of close games at a slow pace that I'm sure a team playing at a higher pace would have lost -- Virginia and Cuse is a classic example. Potentially, had Virginia maintained its slower pace, it wins a tight game.) EDIT: Bottom line: I don't think it's perfect. But it does certainly identify situations where you might be better or worse than the score-line or wins and losses would indicate. This year is a pretty good example. Check out the KenPom rankings and look at the teams it thinks were really under-seeded. Far more than is random did better in the NCAAT than you'd expect (Wichita, Gonzaga, Syracuse, Stephen F. Austin jump out).
|
|
BigmanU
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 915
|
Post by BigmanU on Mar 29, 2016 10:41:48 GMT -5
One thing for certain - at least JTIII and fans won't be able to point to the team's inexperience as an excuse for underperformance. With 1 senior, 4 juniors and 3 sophomores (and only one incoming freshman) in the rotation, this is definitely a make-or-break year for the program. Can't blame how hard it is to teach the "system", the leap necessary to play high D1 defense, or any other shortcoming based on youth/inexperience. I'm looking forward to that, for a change. Don't you think though that realistically we are two years away from being really good again (assuming everyone stays)? I don't perceive the team making the big leap it needs to make in one year. This isn't a criticism of JTIII directly, although the lack of development this year is one reason I think we have a lot of ground to make up before we are good again. I may be a lone soldier but, I think we'll be good next year. LJ, Ike & Paul will be the unquestioned leaders. Losing hurts. If they love the game, they will make sure this never happens again. I think they know now how hard it is to not just fit in but lead and succeed at this level. You have to put the work in. It is on the rising Junior class this year and believe me they know this.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Mar 29, 2016 10:48:35 GMT -5
Don't you think though that realistically we are two years away from being really good again (assuming everyone stays)? I don't perceive the team making the big leap it needs to make in one year. This isn't a criticism of JTIII directly, although the lack of development this year is one reason I think we have a lot of ground to make up before we are good again. I may be a lone soldier but, I think we'll be good next year. LJ, Ike & Paul will be the unquestioned leaders. Losing hurts. If they love the game, they will make sure this never happens again. It is on the rising Junior class this year and believe me they know this. Also, the freshman class has a lot of potential and they can very easily make the sophomore leap. I think, due to the prevalence of 1 and done instant impact types, we forget that freshman are usually 17-18 years old, still growing/filling out and have never spent an entire year in a college basketball training program. Jesse, Marcus and Kaleb are so far from finished products, but they all have the potential to be special players if they put in the work.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Mar 29, 2016 10:48:59 GMT -5
To the above point, I think we're about two bonehead turnovers a game from significantly more wins every year including this one. Kenpom classifies this volatility as "luck."
But we're in the bottom half of "luck" a lot (like 6 of the last 8 years many times 200+). So just as with our "crapshoot" issues in tournaments, fewer possessions when your biggest flaw is inconsistency in valuing the basketball means a bad stretch is more likely to do you in.
|
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,910
|
Post by Filo on Mar 29, 2016 10:59:50 GMT -5
Are those the only kind of juniors or, even, the majority of juniors? I hate when coaches cause season ending injuries. Stupid coaches. You seem to be reading a lot into a joke (albeit not a very strong one). Not sure you get the reference, so that's OK. Don't sell yourself short. That was a helluva joke.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 29, 2016 11:01:54 GMT -5
To the above point, I think we're about two bonehead turnovers a game from significantly more wins every year including this one. Kenpom classifies this volatility as "luck." But we're in the bottom half of "luck" a lot (like 6 of the last 8 years many times 200+). So just as with our "crapshoot" issues in tournaments, fewer possessions when your biggest flaw is inconsistency in valuing the basketball means a bad stretch is more likely to do you in. Well, KenPom takes those turnovers into account. They'd count as possessions without baskets, so they should already turn up in our ranking. I should have put this in my other post, but I think the biggest thing to remember with KenPom is that it is designed to be purely predictive. It is NOT designed to rank teams based on performance. All it's really designed to do is allow you to somewhat accurately what would happen if Team A played Team B. And if you look at the teams around us in the rankings, you'd expect us to play close games with them.
|
|
|
Post by iheartdurenbros on Mar 29, 2016 11:12:20 GMT -5
I may be a lone soldier but, I think we'll be good next year. LJ, Ike & Paul will be the unquestioned leaders. Losing hurts. If they love the game, they will make sure this never happens again. It is on the rising Junior class this year and believe me they know this. Also, the freshman class has a lot of potential and they can very easily make the sophomore leap. I think, due to the prevalence of 1 and done instant impact types, we forget that freshman are usually 17-18 years old, still growing/filling out and have never spent an entire year in a college basketball training program. Jesse, Marcus and Kaleb are so far from finished products, but they all have the potential to be special players if they put in the work. I would also add that this team lacked communication. No one on the team was able to fill the role that Mikael had on the team on defense. This role is not one for freshmen, but we will have players in a better position to assume that role next year.
|
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,605
|
Post by guru on Mar 29, 2016 11:14:55 GMT -5
Can one of the Big Data Dudes on the board explain why KenPom always loves us. Even our recent craptastic teams (09, 14 and 16) have ranked no lower than 65. And the 2009 team, which was steaming hot putrid garbage by the end, was #34! What is it about our stats that KenPom likes so consistently? It's a great site overall, but seems awfully misleading when it comes to the Hoyas. Or maybe we just underachieve... All KenPom cares about is what you score and what you give up on a per possession basis, adjusted only for the strength of the team you play and where. Actual wins and losses are completely irrelevant. So if you beat three good teams by 20 points, and lose to six equivalently good teams by two points each, KenPom (in a relative sense) is going to love you compared to what the polls or fans would think. 2009 is a great example if you look at the scores of the games. We finished the year 3-7 (the hot putrid garbage to which you refer). Here were five of those losses (with KenPom ranks in parentheses). at Baylor by 2 (34) Louisville by 16 (5) Marquette by 6 (19) at Cuse by 4 (16) Cincy by 2 (90) The two others were a bad St. Johns team, but still, you see how KenPom would rate those losses as -- by and large -- not bad given the strength of the teams and the scores. The three wins were by 8 vs. DePaul (213); at Nova by 2 (9); and at S. Fla. by 25 (151). That's a great, close win against a premiere team; a reasonably close win against a putrid team; and a blowout of a bad team. So, if you put it all together (and, remember, it's looking at the whole season -- where we did beat Cuse, UConn, and UMD among others), you can see how the computer would see things a lot differently. Think about our seasons as a whole -- it's very rare for us to get blown out. The formula is supposed to take into account pace, obviously, but I think it does over-state the performance of teams that play at a slower pace, generally. I can't prove that. But I think it doesn't properly take into account that a team playing at a higher pace may not score much more on a per possession basis than a team that plays at a slower pace, but still wins more games comfortably. I think that's one of the reasons it overstates us. We are more likely in some ways, I think, to lose close games when we aren't good. That is, like this year, we might stink, but still not got blown out. KenPom likes that, but it doesn't ultimately help us. To make the same point a different way, North Carolina might win by 15 points on average at a very fast pace and our games we win by 5. That may be equivalent in the KenPom formula based on differing paces. But, to me, it's easier to avoid actual real-life losses when you're winning by 15 at a higher pace. (Of course, even that is too simplistic: we have won our share of close games at a slow pace that I'm sure a team playing at a higher pace would have lost -- Virginia and Cuse is a classic example. Potentially, had Virginia maintained its slower pace, it wins a tight game.) EDIT: Bottom line: I don't think it's perfect. But it does certainly identify situations where you might be better or worse than the score-line or wins and losses would indicate. This year is a pretty good example. Check out the KenPom rankings and look at the teams it thinks were really under-seeded. Far more than is random did better in the NCAAT than you'd expect (Wichita, Gonzaga, Syracuse, Stephen F. Austin jump out). Illuminating. Thanks for the explainer!
|
|