Since many people on this board seem to think that Buzz is such an amazing coach when we win and can't coach to save his life when we lose (interesting), I figure we can revisit this topic as well, as for a while he would have a good game and myself or Chicos would point it out, and then he would have a bad game and some other people who are bitter at life would point that out.
Scott Christopherson had 18 points and the game clinching free throws (of which he was 5-5 on in the game) AT Kansas State. He shot 5-7 on field goals and 4-4 on 3 point field goals. For those of you who are UNAWARE, Kansas State is the number 5 team in the country and probably would have been a number 1 seed in the NCAA Tournament if it wasn't for this lose or a first round Big 12 Tournament loss. So you can downplay what he did at home against Nebraska, but today's performance was quite impressive.
I wouldn't mind having a player on our team who can calmly step up to the free throw line and knock down clutch free throws to put away, especially considering we had an open scholarship this year. If we had a player that could do that, we win at West Virginia, at DePaul, and vs. Florida State (basically at Florida State, all things considered). And we possibly beat Villinova at home (can't remember if free throws affected the outcome of that one).
Who would have thought a Division 3 player could have such an impact on the senior night of the number 5 team in the country? Weird.
What is this supposed to mean? We blew it with every transfer that left Marquette? Would we like a player like you describe in your last sentence? Sure, why not.
Will we be talking about Damien Saunders again? Odartey Blankston? J-May next year?
Teal?
Please?
Quote from: Pakuni on March 06, 2010, 08:15:43 PMTeal?
Please?
http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=300652306
There's all the blueish color you need. You don't see too many division 3 basketball players doing that to one of the best teams in the nation. I suppose I could be wrong about that though.
I, for one, never thought Christopherson was a D-3 player. I was a big fan - he was one of the players I thought would make an impact for us. Others thought not. All I am saying is, we need to move forward. He's gone. Didin't work out for whatever reason.
Quote from: wadesworld on March 06, 2010, 08:21:22 PM
http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=300652306
There's all the blueish color you need. You don't see too many division 3 basketball players doing that to one of the best teams in the nation. I suppose I could be wrong about that though.
So the fact Christopherson is not a D-III player - an argument made by, oh, about .00001% of the people here - means he would have been a significant player for MU?
Nice logic at work.
Face facts ... Christopherson would have battled it out with Cubi for 4th best off guard on this team.
Kid has a great game vs. #5 KSU.
Yet, the same kid scores 3 points in 33 min vs. a LOWLY Colorado team.
Would he get minutes on this team? Sure.
Would he get up on Lazar's miss and dunk the ball? HELL NO.
I'll take DJO any day.
Quote from: Pakuni on March 06, 2010, 08:51:49 PMSo the fact Christopherson is not a D-III player - an argument made by, oh, about .00001% of the people here - means he would have been a significant player for MU?
Nice logic at work.
Face facts ... Christopherson would have battled it out with Cubi for 4th best off guard on this team.
Haha .00001%? Really? I'd argue it's quite a bit more. And, that's fine that he would battle with Coobie. Coobie gets a lot of playing time.
The point is that he definitely could have helped us at end of games. He makes nearly 90% of his free throws and he goes into a hostile environment on a senior night of the #5 team in the country and clinches the game.
Quote from: 77ncaachamps on March 06, 2010, 08:55:28 PM
Kid has a great game vs. #5 KSU.
Yet, the same kid scores 3 points in 33 min vs. a LOWLY Colorado team.
Would he get minutes on this team? Sure.
Would he get up on Lazar's miss and dunk the ball? HELL NO.
I'll take DJO any day.
I'll take DJO as well. I'll take Christopherson over Roseborro. Oh wait, he already weeded himself out. And long term I'll take him over Mbao, and this year Cadougan and Williams.
Quote from: wadesworld on March 06, 2010, 09:01:36 PM
I'll take DJO as well. I'll take Christopherson over Roseborro. Oh wait, he already weeded himself out. And long term I'll take him over Mbao, and this year Cadougan and Williams.
Then I'll take Maymon over Christopherson.
Oh wait...they both LEFT our program.
Frack them.
Since no one else has said it....who gives a f*ck???
Quote from: Pakuni on March 06, 2010, 08:51:49 PM
So the fact Christopherson is not a D-III player - an argument made by, oh, about .00001% of the people here - means he would have been a significant player for MU?
Nice logic at work.
Face facts ... Christopherson would have battled it out with Cubi for 4th best off guard on this team.
Isn't Newbill going to battle it out with Blue and Buycks for the 4th best off guard next year?
Seriously, spare me the "Scotty C did this tonight so he would have done it for MU". The kid left the friggin school and isn't nearly as athletic as any of the guards on this team. Does he shoot free throws well? Yes. But so does Lazar and Jimmy and Cubie according to their percentages. So give it a rest.
Well, it was definitely more than 0.0001%....that's an insulting number.
Let's just cut to the chase...the same people (largely) that ripped on Acker, Cubillan, Christopherson did so for the same reason and we all know what that reason is.
Because of who brought those kids to MU, that's the only reason.
Personally, I think Christopherson is at a better place for him considering the style of play Buzz runs. I'm happy for the young man as he seems to be nice kid with his head on straight. I'm also happy that he has dispelled some of the ridiculous attacks against him and his level of skill much like Cubillan and Acker have.
SC has moved on and I hope he continues to do well. Go Marquette
A player that can make free throws only matters if he is the one shooting them, so adding Christopherson to our team yesturday probalby would not of mattered. I always claimed he was better than most people were given him credit for. But he is not quick enough to play the in your face defense Buzz wants, so he would not have been on the floor yesturday for MU. The Notre Dame game reminded me of the DePaul game. I think we were just destined to lose those two games. Missing free throws aginst DePaul is one thing, but they had to hit two great shots to beat us. Now look at yesturday's game. ND throws the ball away, but it hits the ref and Buzz gets a technical. That was a four point swing right there. Throughout the year Hayward has gotten stupid reaching in fouls. Yesturday he fouls out on essentially four rebounding fouls, none of them in my opinion were over the back. He did reach in on his last foul. However, Hayward did not get a foul while defending a player yesturday and still fouls out in a game that there were not a lot of fouls called. They also called a three second call on Hayward when he got tied up in the lane. That to me was an unusual call. First of all three seconds is rarely called and when it is it is usuall called on a center that is camped out in the lane without the ball, which is what the rule is designed to prevent. Butler missed one free throw that was half way down. ND's #1 bounces one high off the rim and it falls in. Late in the game a Notre Dame player misses a shot right at the rim and just slaps at the rebound and goes back up and in. The next two posessions DJO takes the ball to the hoop and neither shot drops. We played great defense on the last play and regulation and somehow ND hits a three point shot out of it. More than once a missed shot by Notre Dame resulted in the rebound bouncing offoff the rim right to a Notre Dame player. Those things you cannot control. I would not mind playing Notre Game again.
Quote from: Marquette84 on March 06, 2010, 09:29:35 PM
Isn't Newbill going to battle it out with Blue and Buycks for the 4th best off guard next year?
No. There's no chance Blue is going to be battling it out for the 4th best off guard on the team next year.
Christoperson would, though.
Of course, Christopherson would be a 6'2" senior with a limited skill set. Newbill will be a 6'4" freshman who can play multiple positions and has three additional years of development ahead of him.
Some might suggest there's a difference. Some might suggest a developing frosh has more value to a team tucked away on the bench than a senior.
Some might also suggest it's assinine to pine over a player who chose to leave two years ago and is averaging 7.8 ppg for a team that won't even make the NIT.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 07, 2010, 02:14:58 AM
Well, it was definitely more than 0.0001%....that's an insulting number.
An insulting number?
Could you please cite some examples of the many posters who have declared him in D-III player?
Quote from: Pakuni on March 07, 2010, 09:09:49 AM
An insulting number?
Could you please cite some examples of the many posters who have declared him in D-III player?
The most people ever on this board was about 650--652 (March 28, 2008, 12:04:20 AM). If even just ONE of those peoples said it, it's .15%. In fact, a single person is mathematically closer to 100% than it is to your suggestion of .00001%.
Just to put that in perspective, if someone made your order of magnitude mistake when describing Jerel McNeal's career scoring, they would say he scored just 0.13 points in his Marquette career.
Perhaps "insulting" isn't the correct word--but
stunningly incorrect or
incredibly misleading certainly applies.
Its also ironic. In your attempt to suggest that the complaint about Christoperson was
overstated, you turned around and
understated it by an even greater amount.
Quote from: Pakuni on March 07, 2010, 09:05:12 AM
No. There's no chance Blue is going to be battling it out for the 4th best off guard on the team next year.
Christoperson would, though.
Of course, Christopherson would be a 6'2" senior with a limited skill set. Newbill will be a 6'4" freshman who can play multiple positions and has three additional years of development ahead of him.
Some might suggest there's a difference. Some might suggest a developing frosh has more value to a team tucked away on the bench than a senior.
Some might also suggest it's assinine to pine over a player who chose to leave two years ago and is averaging 7.8 ppg for a team that won't even make the NIT.
Keep in mind I brought in Newbill to expose your hypocrisy. You claim that we didn't need a 4th off guard on this years team, but defend signing a 4th for next year.
Second, some would say senior leadership is more important than having a frosh who will be tucked 4 deep at his position.
Finally, Acker and Cubillan are two other guys who were also frequently accused of not having D1 skills (by far more than .00001% of posters on this board). Are they "tucked away on the bench" this year? How can you be so certain that Christopherson wouldn't be able to contribute this year or next?
One of the current headlines on the front page of SI.com:
Christopherson, Iowa St. upset No. 5 Kansas State
It caused me to do a double-take. Count me in the .0001% who was/is happy he isn't here (although I didn't think he's a D-3 player). Good for him that he found a great fit, but I couldn't see him burying 3s or creating any other shots for us this year even close to what we've seen from DJO. And that's not even talking about D. Win-win for all involved.
Quote from: Pakuni on March 07, 2010, 09:09:49 AM
An insulting number?
Could you please cite some examples of the many posters who have declared him in D-III player?
0.0001% is an insulting number. What do you think we have, a million members on this board. I'm sure you were trying to be cute, but you also have tried to downplay a very real phenomenon with a sect of people that will simply say black is white or day is night solely based on one common denominator, and we all know what that denominator is.
I said insulting because it's a ridiculous number on every level. It insults intelligence of anyone that got past basic algebra.
Quote from: Freeport Warrior on March 07, 2010, 10:09:26 AM
One of the current headlines on the front page of SI.com:
Christopherson, Iowa St. upset No. 5 Kansas State
It caused me to do a double-take. Count me in the .0001% who was/is happy he isn't here (although I didn't think he's a D-3 player). Good for him that he found a great fit, but I couldn't see him burying 3s or creating any other shots for us this year even close to what we've seen from DJO. And that's not even talking about D. Win-win for all involved.
I'm glad it worked out for everyone. For the jagoffs that said the kid was a DIII player or low DI, I'm happy they've been proven wrong.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 07, 2010, 10:42:30 AM
0.0001% is an insulting number. What do you think we have, a million members on this board. I'm sure you were trying to be cute, but you also have tried to downplay a very real phenomenon with a sect of people that will simply say black is white or day is night solely based on one common denominator, and we all know what that denominator is.
I said insulting because it's a ridiculous number on ever level. It insults intelligence of anyone that go past basic algebra.
And your penultimate sentence insults English majors on EVER(Y) level. Your ultimate one insults the intelligence of anyone that GO(ES) past 1st grade English.
The point is you and 84 are "insulted" by a simple math error by Pakuni instead of discussing the basic truth of his assertion - that maybe one or two at most on this board ever said Chistopherson was a D3 player. If the number is higher please cite examples.
Quote from: Marquette84 on March 07, 2010, 10:01:26 AM
The most people ever on this board was about 650--652 (March 28, 2008, 12:04:20 AM). If even just ONE of those peoples said it, it's .15%. In fact, a single person is mathematically closer to 100% than it is to your suggestion of .00001%.
Just to put that in perspective, if someone made your order of magnitude mistake when describing Jerel McNeal's career scoring, they would say he scored just 0.13 points in his Marquette career.
Perhaps "insulting" isn't the correct word--but stunningly incorrect or incredibly misleading certainly applies.
Are you this obtuse and overly literal in real life, or just on the Internet?
You're right ... you totally busted me, dude. Clearly I wasn't exaggerating for effect. [/quote]
QuoteKeep in mind I brought in Newbill to expose your hypocrisy. You claim that we didn't need a 4th off guard on this years team, but defend signing a 4th for next year.
Umm ... Mr. Literal? Please point out where I ever said such a thing.
I mean, in order for you to "expose my hypocrisy" shouldn't I have at least said the hypocritical statement first?
Of course, I didn't.
What I have said - and what I stand by - is that Christopherson would not be a significant player on this year's team. Even charter members of the Scott Christopherson Fan Club (see: Chico's) admit as much.
I note you have yet to argue otherwise. You have yet to explain why SC would have been a big contribuor this year, why this NCAA-bound MU squad would have been significantly better with a bench player from a sub-.500 program.
Probably because you recognize it as a losing argument. So instead, you choose to engage in a petty and irrelevant discussion of my math, when even Ray Charles would have seen it as an intentional exaggeration.
Bravo, my man. I'll remember to be more exact in your presence.
p.s. According to this site, it has 3,353 registered members. That's more than 650-652. Not that anybody is counting. Still, I would expect you to demand the same level of mathematical accuracy from yourself that you demand from others. Guess not.
Quote from: Marquette84 on March 07, 2010, 10:01:26 AM
The most people ever on this board was about 650--652 (March 28, 2008, 12:04:20 AM). If even just ONE of those peoples said it, it's .15%. In fact, a single person is mathematically closer to 100% than it is to your suggestion of .00001%.
Just to put that in perspective, if someone made your order of magnitude mistake when describing Jerel McNeal's career scoring, they would say he scored just 0.13 points in his Marquette career.
Perhaps "insulting" isn't the correct word--but stunningly incorrect or incredibly misleading certainly applies.
Its also ironic. In your attempt to suggest that the complaint about Christoperson was overstated, you turned around and understated it by an even greater amount.
Keep in mind I brought in Newbill to expose your hypocrisy. You claim that we didn't need a 4th off guard on this years team, but defend signing a 4th for next year.
Second, some would say senior leadership is more important than having a frosh who will be tucked 4 deep at his position.
Finally, Acker and Cubillan are two other guys who were also frequently accused of not having D1 skills (by far more than .00001% of posters on this board). Are they "tucked away on the bench" this year? How can you be so certain that Christopherson wouldn't be able to contribute this year or next?
Well, math errors happen. 1/650 = .0015%
Quote from: Daniel on March 07, 2010, 11:21:25 AM
Well, math errors happen. 1/650 = .0015%
No. 1/650 = .0015 = .15%
egregious math error = hyperbole
hy·per·bo·le [hahy-pur-buh-lee]
–nounRhetoric.
1.
obvious and intentional exaggeration.
2.
an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as "to wait an eternity."
Scott also had a key turnover at the end of the game the last game ISU played. that made sportscenter.
Nothing against Scott C. but even a casual glance at ISU's season results reveals he's had at best average performances & some absolute clunkers against teams that i'd say are Big East caliber:
@ Cal 7 pts in 22 minutes
Duke 3pts in 18 minutes
Texas 0 pts in 12 minutes
Kansas 9 pts in 33 minutes
K State 6 pts in 28 minutes
@ Mizzou 0 pts in 20 minutes
@ Kansas 5 pts in 25 minutes
He had really nice games in 4 of their last 6 games of the year against quality competition so he closed the year out strong.
Looks to me like a role player that can occasionally bust out a big game. Not a bad thing to have but I wouldn't trade him for any of our current players.
I don't think any (or many) have said they would trade him out for any current players. The slap against the kid, however, by some here because of who recruited him, was unwarranted. He's a DI player, playing in a high major conference (#1 in the RPI right now) and has done fairly well as a sophomore. I wish the kid well. At some point maybe the hatred over the previous coach will go away, I know I'm looking forward to it.
Quote from: Pakuni on March 07, 2010, 11:14:58 AM
Are you this obtuse and overly literal in real life, or just on the Internet?
You're right--you totally busted me, dude. As if I really thought you were trying for accuracy in your .00001% estimate.
I should remember the rule that only
you are allowed to 'exaggerate for effect' but if someone returns fire extending the effect back at you, it must mean they took it 100% literally.
Are you this smug and sanctimonious in real life, or just on the internet?
How about we just agree to leave it at this:
There were enough people on this board who have loudly and frequently attempted to discredit Scott Christopherson as a D1-level player that wadesworld thought it was worthwhile to bring up his performance yesterday. As with Acker and Cubillan, he has done more than enough this season to prove his critics wrong.Does that work for you?
Quote from: Pakuni on March 07, 2010, 11:14:58 AM
What I have said - and what I stand by - is that Christopherson would not be a significant player on this year's team. Even charter members of the Scott Christopherson Fan Club (see: Chico's) admit as much.I note you have yet to argue otherwise. You have yet to explain why SC would have been a big contribuor this year,
Perhaps you missed the point about leadership, or that people said essentially the same thing about Acker and Cubillan.
Let me extend, since you still think I didn't make the point at all:
1. He would have provided upperclass leadership this year and next
2. We have a short roster (essentially only 6 played more than token minutes yesterday)
3. We are prone to games of poor outside shooting (4 of 23 yesterday, 5 of 19 versus Pitt, 5 of 18 vs. St. Johns).
4. Similar criticisms made regarding the inability of Acker and Cubillan to perform at Big East levels have turned out to be incorrect.
Based on those four thoughts, I think the chances are good that Christopherson may have found a role in the rotation.
Please note--since you like to use exaggeration--that I am not saying he'd start, be better than DJO, be the best shooter on the team, or any of the other exaggerations you might want to make.
What I am suggesting that he might--just might--provide enough minutes that we don't have to play our starters 35 minutes--and in games like yesterday may have given Buzz another outside shooter when everyone else came up dry.
In terms of participation, I think he could give us at least what we currently get from Joe Fulce. Significantly more than we get from Erik Williams. Maybe not as much as we get from Dwight Buycks.
Quote from: Pakuni on March 07, 2010, 11:14:58 AM
why this NCAA-bound MU squad would have been significantly better with a bench player from a sub-.500 program.
Christopherson started 14 of 16 conference games. Is your referring to him as "bench" player merely some sort of
exaggeration for effect of the two games he did not start? Or did you honestly not know he was starting?
But perhaps you're right. There's
no possible way that a guy from a sub-.500 Iowa State team that didn't even make the NIT could
ever help an NCAA-bound Big East program. Just ask Syracuse what a dud Wesley Johnson turned out to be.
Scott Christopherson became a starter in game 18 this year after Lucca Staiger quit the team to play in Germany. The first 17 games he came off the bench.
Charter member of the Scott Christopherson fan club. LOL. Wait, did I take you too literally?
Nah, I like the kid a lot, hate to see transfers, could have used him at times this year considering how depleted we were, but with the way Buzz uses players he wouldn't have played. It's worked out well for everyone.
I'd call myself a charter member of "exposing ridiculous statements from posters based on hatred of our former coach club." That's why Christopherson was brought up months ago, because a few posters here (more than I could have imagined) are so unhinged with our former coach that they believe that anything the former coach touched or was responsible for is inherently evil. LOL
I'll never understand why grown adults rip on kids, college age kids on message boards, who are just giving their all to their school, coaches, and programs. But hey, I'm old school.
The thing about Scott is who can he guard in the Big East?
He's not exactly a world beater on O either.
With the guard talent coming in not sure how he would fit in....Buzz has said he likes all around players.
yeah, its great to see Scott get big minutes in Ames as well as get his name on the big sites. always seemed like a good kid caught in an unfortunate regime change. (thats ignoring that he seemed a little over his head here in the beginning too - but who knows what he would have become). seems like a guy who is a nice niche player on a below average team.
+1 with all those before me who still say that it doesnt seem like he would fit in. this whole idea of just inserting individual statlines into our statistics is ill-conceived. similar debates have come up surrounding guys like Harangody before, and what they would do if on a different team. too bad there isnt an easier way to study comparisons like that - is that what PER ratings and efficiency ratings attempt to do? i was never smart or dedicated enough to totally understand Hollinger.
I find it interesting that Christopherson is brought up as a what if. Damian Saunders is the real "what if". We took Trevor Mbakwe and Pat Hazel over him.......
to be fair - Patrick Hazel gave us a huge contribution as the subject of Lazar's Buzz impressions.
Quote from: DomJamesToTheBasket on March 07, 2010, 06:35:48 PM
I find it interesting that Christopherson is brought up as a what if. Damian Saunders is the real "what if". We took Trevor Mbakwe and Pat Hazel over him.......
YES!
Count Odartey into the real "What If" discussion as well.
Quote from: DomJamesToTheBasket on March 07, 2010, 06:35:48 PM
I find it interesting that Christopherson is brought up as a what if. Damian Saunders is the real "what if". We took Trevor Mbakwe and Pat Hazel over him.......
From what I remember, it wasnt necessary that simple. If it was just a matter of taking the better player, Hazel probably would have been the one to go elsewhere.
Hazel was a lot better than he got credit for. The rare occurrences that he played, there was an impact. He really crashed the boards and got some good blocks in limited minutes. Ultimately, I'm glad he left because there are more minutes elsewhere. 6'7" posts typically have a rough time at the highest college levels, but that dude played taller than his height........HUGE wingspan.......his hands were freakshow LARGE. Hopefully, things are going well for him. You can't blame him for leaving.
Quote from: DomJamesToTheBasket on March 07, 2010, 08:52:58 PM
Hazel was a lot better than he got credit for. The rare occurrences that he played, there was an impact. He really crashed the boards and got some good blocks in limited minutes. Ultimately, I'm glad he left because there are more minutes elsewhere. 6'7" posts typically have a rough time at the highest college levels, but that dude played taller than his height........HUGE wingspan.......his hands were freakshow LARGE. Hopefully, things are going well for him. You can't blame him for leaving.
Is there another Pat Hazel that I forgot about?
Quote from: DomJamesToTheBasket on March 07, 2010, 08:52:58 PM
Hazel was a lot better than he got credit for. The rare occurrences that he played, there was an impact. He really crashed the boards and got some good blocks in limited minutes. Ultimately, I'm glad he left because there are more minutes elsewhere. 6'7" posts typically have a rough time at the highest college levels, but that dude played taller than his height........HUGE wingspan.......his hands were freakshow LARGE. Hopefully, things are going well for him. You can't blame him for leaving.
Pat Hazel was TOLD to leave and it had nothing to do with basketball. So while we certainly can't blame him for leaving, he can and should be blamed for the actions that caused his departure.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 07, 2010, 09:06:22 PM
Pat Hazel was TOLD to leave and it had nothing to do with basketball. So while we certainly can't blame him for leaving, he can and should be blamed for the actions that caused his departure.
Hmmm, didn't know. I'm sorry to hear that.
Quote from: Stone Cold on March 07, 2010, 05:21:39 PM
The thing about Scott is who can he guard in the Big East?
Funny, if I had a nickel for every time someone said that about
Acker as well.
I wonder how he guards those terrible Big 12 players from Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Texas, Oklahoma State, etc
You guys make it sound sometimes like the Big 12 doesn't have quality players or teams
Remember, when Christopherson left, at the time, we had James, McNeal, Matthews, Acker, and Cubillan on the depth chart ahead of him, and also had (tentatively) Tyshawn Taylor coming as well (although the Taylor situation was resolved about a week after Scott left). So in theory, when Scott made the transfer decision, he was realistically the 6th or 7th guard in the rotation had Taylor come to Marquette at least as a sophomore.
That being said, Scott was not necessarily overrated (I remember he was about #125 or so in the Rivals 150), but overhyped (#25 player in the country as a sophomore in high school). While he could shoot, he definitely lacked lateral quickness and was not a very good on ball defender.
Overall, he was probably a better fit for Crean's system than Buzz's. The numbers he put up this year are about the same as to what Buycks did this year, but Buycks is a better on-ball defender and rebounder as well.
All in all, it's good to see Scott doing well at Iowa State. He did what was best for his career, and both himself and Marquette are doing just fine.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 07, 2010, 09:06:22 PM
Pat Hazel was TOLD to leave and it had nothing to do with basketball. So while we certainly can't blame him for leaving, he can and should be blamed for the actions that caused his departure.
Yes, but other players were also told to leave and allowed back. It's one of those things that the more needed you are as a player, the bigger the forgiveness scale can be (obviously there are other factors like the reason one was asked to leave). That's just the reality of life and occurs pretty much everywhere....corporate America, athletic teams, politics, etc.
Quote from: GOMU1104 on March 07, 2010, 08:58:09 PM
Is there another Pat Hazel that I forgot about?
I think he's mixing him up with Jeremy Hazell.