ESPN Team Preview: Marquette

[brandx]

Adjusting for talent level and circumstance is difficult for some to do.

Do you think Buzz thinks, "well, player A is far and away better than player B. But, player A is a freshman. Therefore, screw playing him."

Sounds like Chicos and his 5 year requirement before judging a coach.

It's a comfort level for Buzz - it's all about a player earning his trust. And obviously the longer a guy has been here, the better chance he has to know what Buzz wants where he can earn that trust.

[Lennys Tap]

Bullshyte........search is your friend.  I'm sure the apology is on the way.     The mighty SEARCH ENGINE has spoken and consistency from day one.  Sorry your bubble just burst.  Thank you search engine!

"I've said on numerous occasions...so far so good"
May 28, 2008

Wow. On May 28, 2008 (Buzz had been HC for all of 50 days) you had already, on numerous occasions, said "so far, so good"?

I'll give you some of my remembrances of you from your "so far, so good" period:
1. Printing anything and everything negative you could find on Buzz, from UNO fan boards to some hack blogger from Milwaukee.
2. "Squirming" over and over again about a bunch of stuff that was either made up or never amounted to anything
3. Accepting Brad Forster and Philly Coach's version of the DJ Newbill fiasco lock, stock and barrel, basically calling Buzz a liar.
4. Reflexively coming down on the side of Pilarz and LW in every battle with Buzz, whether real or imagined
5. Calling his (and your) team "choking dogs", something I never recall you doing during the previous administration.

I could go on and on, but it's all been said before. Buzz is someone all Marquette fans should celebrate, not nitpick. But the more his accomplishments dwarf TC's the snarkier you get.

[brewcity77]

Do you think Buzz thinks, "well, player A is far and away better than player B. But, player A is a freshman. Therefore, screw playing him."

I'll be one to say that I don't think Buzz has any real problem playing freshmen. He played Blue and he played Mayo. Even guys like Taylor and Gardner got chances. I just feel this team is deep enough that we won't need many minutes from freshmen. Duane could play, sure, but I think people are really underrating DeWil. How many people had written off Vander after his freshman year, and again after his sophomore year? Then he played at an all-conference level as a junior.

I'm not saying Derrick will be all-conference, but the idea that he could be a solid 25 mpg starting PG isn't at all far-fetched, especially if we see improvement from Mayo, consistency from Jamil, and the same performance out of the centers we got last year.

Just as this board is way too quick to hype the next freshman who has never played a minute of D1 ball as the second coming, they are way too quick to write off the guy who's been toiling behind others off the bench. Jimmy Butler and Maurice Acker went from reserves with pedestrian statlines in 08-09 to leaders and stars in 09-10. Otule, Gardner, Jamil, Buycks, all guys who saw their production improve as they gained confidence and the coach's trust.

Guys develop. They improve. And just like people wrote off guys like Butler, Acker, and Blue too early, maybe we've written Derrick off a bit too early. It amazes me the confidence people have that he's going to be hot garbage considering the success Buzz has had developing players and how guys have emerged when it was their time to shine. Before we hand his position to a kid who's never faced a single team the caliber of Grambling, much less teams like Wisconsin or Georgetown, let's see what DeWil can do as a junior. Because there's a very good chance it will be better than what he's shown us in the past.

[mu03eng]

I'll be one to say that I don't think Buzz has any real problem playing freshmen. He played Blue and he played Mayo. Even guys like Taylor and Gardner got chances. I just feel this team is deep enough that we won't need many minutes from freshmen. Duane could play, sure, but I think people are really underrating DeWil. How many people had written off Vander after his freshman year, and again after his sophomore year? Then he played at an all-conference level as a junior.

I'm not saying Derrick will be all-conference, but the idea that he could be a solid 25 mpg starting PG isn't at all far-fetched, especially if we see improvement from Mayo, consistency from Jamil, and the same performance out of the centers we got last year.

Just as this board is way too quick to hype the next freshman who has never played a minute of D1 ball as the second coming, they are way too quick to write off the guy who's been toiling behind others off the bench. Jimmy Butler and Maurice Acker went from reserves with pedestrian statlines in 08-09 to leaders and stars in 09-10. Otule, Gardner, Jamil, Buycks, all guys who saw their production improve as they gained confidence and the coach's trust.

Guys develop. They improve. And just like people wrote off guys like Butler, Acker, and Blue too early, maybe we've written Derrick off a bit too early. It amazes me the confidence people have that he's going to be hot garbage considering the success Buzz has had developing players and how guys have emerged when it was their time to shine. Before we hand his position to a kid who's never faced a single team the caliber of Grambling, much less teams like Wisconsin or Georgetown, let's see what DeWil can do as a junior. Because there's a very good chance it will be better than what he's shown us in the past.

I agree, remember Steve Taylor got huge defensive minutes in the regular season match up with Syracuse at the end of the game.  Buzz doesn't care what age they are as long as they have shown ability.

Also, during the non-conference last year he said after the Wisco game(I think) that DeWil deserved to be starting over Junior...that doesn't just get said because he has no ability and Buzz is saying weird things

[hoyasincebirth]

I don't think anyone actually read the content of the article. It's a little, long, but here is the key point:

"In today's analysis, I essentially attempt to control for circumstances. I predict each player's playing time based on his stats (his measured production) and the stats of his teammates. If a coach is playing an optimal lineup, the player with the best measured stats (high ORtg given usage rate, high steal rate, ect.) should play the most. But what you see is that most coaches will typically play a freshman less than an upperclassman producing at the same level.

The main new variable is shown in the next table under the heading "Fr Rel to Soph". This shows how many minutes a freshman will receive relative to a sophomore with equivalent statistics. In the vast majority of cases, the freshmen will play less. For example, under Mike Krzyzewski if a freshman and sophomore have equivalent stats the freshman will play 9.0% fewer minutes. Under Bill Self, if a freshman and sophomore have equivalent stats the freshman will play 9.7% less. Amazingly, under John Calipari, if a freshman and sophomore have equivalent stats, the freshman will play 3% more minutes. This is exceedingly rare."

It's not a complete negative things. Most coaches favor upper classmen. But Buzz more so than most. The point is not that you're playing someone significantly worse due to seniority, but a freshman has to be clearly better than the alternative to earn playing time.

[brewcity77]

I don't think anyone actually read the content of the article. It's a little, long, but here is the key point:

"In today's analysis, I essentially attempt to control for circumstances. I predict each player's playing time based on his stats (his measured production) and the stats of his teammates. If a coach is playing an optimal lineup, the player with the best measured stats (high ORtg given usage rate, high steal rate, ect.) should play the most. But what you see is that most coaches will typically play a freshman less than an upperclassman producing at the same level.

The problem is it doesn't seem he takes much improvement into account. Anyone who tried to predict Vander's last season based on his measured previous production would end up vastly wrong, I believe he improved his ORtg by 10 points while also increasing his usage. And if he is attempting to predict freshman to sophomore jumps, remember that Van's jump was sophomore to junior.

Every preview will have its flaws...I don't blame the writer for whichever ones his may have as I'm sure if I did one myself it would be just as flawed, if not more so. I just think if you aren't intimately close to each team, you'll likely miss some stuff. Hell, guys that watched MU every game the past decade never expected Blue to make the jump he did. Sometimes, you just never can tell.

[Jay Bee]

Something I never said.  5 years to FULLY JUDGE, but you can judge plenty along the way...something I wasn't shy about.  "SO FAR SO GOOD"

This is becoming like oft stated error that marriages end in divorce 50% of the time.  No they don't, not close.  Just like I never said you have to wait 5 years to judge a coach....to fully judge, yes (let the recruited classes come through).  Big difference.

On your statements about Freshmen, I agree...he will adapt and play the best players.

What is the difference between a "judgment" and a "full judgment"? I think your definition necessarily will include the amount of available evidence, not the action (i.e., judging is judging... this isn't entering a verdict in court.. you're always judging a coach based on all available evidence you find relevant).

That is, you're simply saying that FOR YOU, "full judgment" includes the opportunity to purge the last guys players and bring in the current coaches own... there are many reasons why 5 years may or may not be reasonable to make a good judgment.. or a "full judgment".. by your definition a "full judgment" is nothing more than a subjective clarification of when you feel like you're ready to lock into a decision. But, a judgment is a judgment is a judgment is a judgment.

Reasonable thinkers are able to make decisions when appropriate. Full judgment? Half pregnant? SHEESH.

Also.. you say marriages don't end in divorce 50% of the time.. "not close" to 50% you say. I believe otherwise - I believe the number is probably trending around 40-50%. What do you believe it to be and why? I understand the issue with the origin of the "50% claim", but that doesn't mean it doesn't coincidentally happen to be a reasonable estimate of a difficult-to-gauge figure. Curious as to what "not close to 50%" is.

[MU82]

I'll be one to say that I don't think Buzz has any real problem playing freshmen. He played Blue and he played Mayo. Even guys like Taylor and Gardner got chances. I just feel this team is deep enough that we won't need many minutes from freshmen. Duane could play, sure, but I think people are really underrating DeWil. How many people had written off Vander after his freshman year, and again after his sophomore year? Then he played at an all-conference level as a junior.

I'm not saying Derrick will be all-conference, but the idea that he could be a solid 25 mpg starting PG isn't at all far-fetched, especially if we see improvement from Mayo, consistency from Jamil, and the same performance out of the centers we got last year.

Just as this board is way too quick to hype the next freshman who has never played a minute of D1 ball as the second coming, they are way too quick to write off the guy who's been toiling behind others off the bench. Jimmy Butler and Maurice Acker went from reserves with pedestrian statlines in 08-09 to leaders and stars in 09-10. Otule, Gardner, Jamil, Buycks, all guys who saw their production improve as they gained confidence and the coach's trust.

Guys develop. They improve. And just like people wrote off guys like Butler, Acker, and Blue too early, maybe we've written Derrick off a bit too early. It amazes me the confidence people have that he's going to be hot garbage considering the success Buzz has had developing players and how guys have emerged when it was their time to shine. Before we hand his position to a kid who's never faced a single team the caliber of Grambling, much less teams like Wisconsin or Georgetown, let's see what DeWil can do as a junior. Because there's a very good chance it will be better than what he's shown us in the past.

For me -- and, I'm guessing, for Buzz -- it will be pretty simple.

If JJJ and Duane are hitting 3s, that is an area of definite need, and they will get playing time because of it. Hell, Buzz was even willing to give Jake a chance last year just for the threat of 3s.

In college basketball, you must hit outside shots. Not only do you need the shots themselves, you need the threat of those shots to open up the court for the likes of Gardner.

Just as Buzz played Vander and Mayo as freshmen, and a very unproven (if not a freshman) Jake last year, he will play JJJ and Duane during the nonconference games. If they are hitting 3s, he will keep playing them. If they stop hitting them (as Jake did), they'll see pine unless they can do something else to help the team.

Oh, and I still say if Duane is a better PG than Derrick, Buzz eventually will relent and play Duane the majority of minutes. For all of his loyalty to Derrick and for all of the times Buzz said Derrick should have played over Junior, to whom did Buzz give most of the minutes? Not Derrick. Because Junior was a better offensive PG, period.

This just in: Buzz is a coach and coaches want to win. If the freshmen give us the best chance to win, Buzz will play them.

[Jay Bee]

In college basketball, you must hit outside shots. Not only do you need the shots themselves, you need the threat of those shots to open up the court for the likes of Gardner.

Yeah, as proven by the most recent national champion. Had their starting backcourt not shot a sensational 31.6% from deep, who knows how awful they would have been?!?!

[Lennys Tap]

What is the difference between a "judgment" and a "full judgment"? I think your definition necessarily will include the amount of available evidence, not the action (i.e., judging is judging... this isn't entering a verdict in court.. you're always judging a coach based on all available evidence you find relevant).

That is, you're simply saying that FOR YOU, "full judgment" includes the opportunity to purge the last guys players and bring in the current coaches own... there are many reasons why 5 years this may or may not be reasonable to make a good judgment.. or a "full judgment".. by your definition of a "full judgment" is nothing more than a subjective clarification of when you feel like you're ready to lock into a decision. But, a judgment is a judgment is a judgment is a judgment.

Reasonable thinkers are able to make decisions when appropriate. Full judgment? Half pregnant? SHEESH.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

[brewcity77]

Oh, and I still say if Duane is a better PG than Derrick, Buzz eventually will relent and play Duane the majority of minutes. For all of his loyalty to Derrick and for all of the times Buzz said Derrick should have played over Junior, to whom did Buzz give most of the minutes? Not Derrick. Because Junior was a better offensive PG, period.

I do believe that Duane is likely more talented than Derrick. I do believe he has more physical upside. But I'm far from convinced Duane is a better PG for this team than Derrick is. Will Buzz be willing to stomach the inevitable mistakes and higher turnover percentage that a freshman would bring? Maybe so. But it wouldn't surprise me at all if he went with the guy he trusts to value the ball and accepts that he can get scoring from other places on the floor.

All I'm really trying to say is people are willing to write a guy off way too easily who hasn't been given much of a chance. But I suppose that's the thankless job of being a Marquette point guard.

[hoyasincebirth]

The problem is it doesn't seem he takes much improvement into account. Anyone who tried to predict Vander's last season based on his measured previous production would end up vastly wrong, I believe he improved his ORtg by 10 points while also increasing his usage. And if he is attempting to predict freshman to sophomore jumps, remember that Van's jump was sophomore to junior.

Every preview will have its flaws...I don't blame the writer for whichever ones his may have as I'm sure if I did one myself it would be just as flawed, if not more so. I just think if you aren't intimately close to each team, you'll likely miss some stuff. Hell, guys that watched MU every game the past decade never expected Blue to make the jump he did. Sometimes, you just never can tell.

It's retrospective not prospective. It's looking at did freshman get as many minutes as their performance on the court indicated they should. In buzz's case no they didn't.

[GGGG]

I do believe that Duane is likely more talented than Derrick. I do believe he has more physical upside. But I'm far from convinced Duane is a better PG for this team than Derrick is. Will Buzz be willing to stomach the inevitable mistakes and higher turnover percentage that a freshman would bring? Maybe so. But it wouldn't surprise me at all if he went with the guy he trusts to value the ball and accepts that he can get scoring from other places on the floor.

All I'm really trying to say is people are willing to write a guy off way too easily who hasn't been given much of a chance. But I suppose that's the thankless job of being a Marquette point guard.

In many ways, this is yet another version of fandom writing off a guy too early (Derrick), and anointing the new guy too quickly (Duane.)

I can already see the "Wow has Derrick improved!" posts, and the "What's wrong with Duane?" posts

[ChicosBailBonds]

Wow. On May 28, 2008 (Buzz had been HC for all of 50 days) you had already, on numerous occasions, said "so far, so good"?

I'll give you some of my remembrances of you from your "so far, so good" period:
1. Printing anything and everything negative you could find on Buzz, from UNO fan boards to some hack blogger from Milwaukee.
2. "Squirming" over and over again about a bunch of stuff that was either made up or never amounted to anything
3. Accepting Brad Forster and Philly Coach's version of the DJ Newbill fiasco lock, stock and barrel, basically calling Buzz a liar.
4. Reflexively coming down on the side of Pilarz and LW in every battle with Buzz, whether real or imagined
5. Calling his (and your) team "choking dogs", something I never recall you doing during the previous administration.

I could go on and on, but it's all been said before. Buzz is someone all Marquette fans should celebrate, not nitpick. But the more his accomplishments dwarf TC's the snarkier you get.

Are you denying 50 days in that I said that?  Sure sounds like it....please clarify so I can point you to the exact post, or do you want me to save you the trouble.

1) Funny how one sided your point of view is.  I tried to be an equal opportunity poster.  Yup, I posted UNO fan postings....I could have been like you and buried my head in the sand and pretended it wasn't there, but I didn't.  Hmmm, did I also post really good things from posters and administrators at Texas A&M?  Wow, I did'  From Billie Gillespie....hey, I did.  Did I post positive comments from Colorado State....oh my Gosh, I did.   Hmm, you don't seem to mention those.

2)  All legit, most of it taken care of, some we got lucky on.  Happens at many places.  To this day there are things like Newbill, etc, that were BS.  It doesn't bother you, it does me.  We all have different moral compasses.

3) Actually, accepting Newbill's relatives version as plausible, but again some people want to put heads in sand and refuse to consider all the evidence...you excel at that. 

4) Every battle with Pilarz and Williams...not even close.  Some, absolutely.  Every, never, always...words that I associate with you and your argumentative skills.  Shows a person unable to process all sides of the story, just like I proved out in item one here.

5) Yup, I did call them choking dogs, and apologized for it....which you never mention.  I also said we peed down our leg a few times, for which you got hellbent on only to then be reminded they were the EXACT same words Buzz used and I just reused them.  LOL.  And yes, I have said that about the previous administration, but again your tunnel vision is so extremely narrow you don't process them, just as I proved out in point one here and have many times in the past.  You look at the critiques, and never the other stuff.  It's how you are...you get all bent when  I correct someone on Crean and call me a defender, yet you do the exact same thing with Buzz.  The irony is delicious.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Wow. On May 28, 2008 (Buzz had been HC for all of 50 days) you had already, on numerous occasions, said "so far, so good"?

I'm sure an apology is coming soon from you.....................

[brewcity77]

EDIT: Meh...not worth continuing a dead discussion.

[ChicosBailBonds]

What is the difference between a "judgment" and a "full judgment"? I think your definition necessarily will include the amount of available evidence, not the action (i.e., judging is judging... this isn't entering a verdict in court.. you're always judging a coach based on all available evidence you find relevant).

That is, you're simply saying that FOR YOU, "full judgment" includes the opportunity to purge the last guys players and bring in the current coaches own... there are many reasons why 5 years may or may not be reasonable to make a good judgment.. or a "full judgment".. by your definition a "full judgment" is nothing more than a subjective clarification of when you feel like you're ready to lock into a decision. But, a judgment is a judgment is a judgment is a judgment.

Reasonable thinkers are able to make decisions when appropriate. Full judgment? Half pregnant? SHEESH.

Also.. you say marriages don't end in divorce 50% of the time.. "not close" to 50% you say. I believe otherwise - I believe the number is probably trending around 40-50%. What do you believe it to be and why? I understand the issue with the origin of the "50% claim", but that doesn't mean it doesn't coincidentally happen to be a reasonable estimate of a difficult-to-gauge figure. Curious as to what "not close to 50%" is.

I think it is pretty clear Jay Bee. I've also said on numerous times that some people can make that judgment very quickly, but for me I wanted 4 or 5 years.  In the meantime, so far so good.  Sorry, but there is a difference, a big difference.  I laid it out consistently from day one.  I want a coach to have his guys go through the program which takes 4 or 5 years for a recruiting class to go all the way through.  Thus, I see no reason why you can't judge someone early on (so far so good) but hold final judgment for that timeline to go through.  

I'm glad you believe otherwise on the marriage stuff, but you are wrong.  It is one of the great myths out there.  I invite you to do some reading on it.  All it takes is for one or two people to say it and it gets legs.  Scary.  Remember when Toyotas had a defect and were out of control cuz the media said so...oops.  Breast implants caused cancer...oops.  Here are some starters, but the stat is Urban Legend and complete fiction.  The real number is closer to 30%.  It's urban legend which was my point.  You keep saying I said to wait 5 years, that's not what I said.  I said wait 5 years to FULLY judge because you need to get a class or two to matriculate.  Never did I say you have to wait 5 years to render any judgment.  You are perpetuating an urban legend, just like divorce rates at 50%. 

http://psychcentral.com/lib/the-myth-of-the-high-rate-of-divorce/00011473

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/07/divorce-myths-debunked_n_804934.html#s219156title=Half_of_All

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/d/divorce.htm#.UlgQeZzl358

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/05/11/myths-about-divorce/

etc, etc, etc

[Newsdreams]

Wow even posts about marriage and divorce rates? Guess I got in before the lock!

[Skatastrophy]

Wow even posts about marriage and divorce rates? Guess I got in before the lock!

With references including HuffPo, this is a very serious Internet fight!

[Jay Bee]

I think it is pretty clear Jay Bee. I've also said on numerous times that some people can make that judgment very quickly, but for me I wanted 4 or 5 years.  In the meantime, so far so good.  Sorry, but there is a difference, a big difference.  I laid it out consistently from day one.  I want a coach to have his guys go through the program which takes 4 or 5 years for a recruiting class to go all the way through.  Thus, I see no reason why you can't judge someone early on (so far so good) but hold final judgment for that timeline to go through.  

I'm glad you believe otherwise on the marriage stuff, but you are wrong.  

Marriage - I said I believe the number is probably trending in the 40-50% range. You say it's closer to 30% and "not even close" to 50%. We could both provide various studies and offer critiques of each one. I'd challenge your belief that there is a firm 30% known divorce rate while 40% is "wrong". Again, the origins of the 50% "myth" are silly, but the coincidentally the percentage may not be far off and it's certainly not what I'd call "not even close" to 50%.

OK, now you're saying a "full judgment" is the same as a "final judgment", which is equally bizarre. There are many reasons, even for a guy that refuses to make a final judgment until 5 years have passed, why you may need more information or your judgment of someone may change.

"Final" and full judgment? So you're locked into the coach after 5 years? What if he gets better? What if there were issues largely outside of his control that affected the program in years 4 and 5? Too bad. Chicos locks in a FINAL judgment. It's a done deal.

You're refusing to back off of your bizarre, ultra-strict PERSONAL rules and it just doesn't work in the world of rational thought.

But, more importantly I'm still curious on what you think about IU's buyout due to Crean for termination w/o cause starting at $16MM last November?

[willie warrior]

Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

...said Homer while drooling over Aaron Rodgers.

[forgetful]

Didn't read the entire thread, but how the hell do we go from a 2013-2014 preview of MU to arguments about divorce rate.

I've been part of some wildly tangent arguments, but this one is special.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Marriage - I said I believe the number is probably trending in the 40-50% range. You say it's closer to 30% and "not even close" to 50%. We could both provide various studies and offer critiques of each one. I'd challenge your belief that there is a firm 30% known divorce rate while 40% is "wrong". Again, the origins of the 50% "myth" are silly, but the coincidentally the percentage may not be far off and it's certainly not what I'd call "not even close" to 50%.

OK, now you're saying a "full judgment" is the same as a "final judgment", which is equally bizarre. There are many reasons, even for a guy that refuses to make a final judgment until 5 years have passed, why you may need more information or your judgment of someone may change.

"Final" and full judgment? So you're locked into the coach after 5 years? What if he gets better? What if there were issues largely outside of his control that affected the program in years 4 and 5? Too bad. Chicos locks in a FINAL judgment. It's a done deal.

You're refusing to back off of your bizarre, ultra-strict PERSONAL rules and it just doesn't work in the world of rational thought.

But, more importantly I'm still curious on what you think about IU's buyout due to Crean for termination w/o cause starting at $16MM last November?

The 50% number is wrong.  Dead wrong.  It has been wrong from the start and continues to be wrong.  NY Times, USA Today, Psychology today, Catholic services, doesn't matter who you use, the number is wrong and it isn't close.  40% isn't 50%.  It isn't close.  If you read what I provided you, one analysis says 33%...which isn't even close to 40% (closer to 30%) let alone 50%.   The 50% number is wrong, but the point is that it lives on with people because someone said it, didn't get it right but a bunch of dopes kept repeating it.  Just as their are dopes out there that think a certain guy was born in Kenya or another guy let 9/11 happen.  The trouble is, a LOT of people hear this crap and just keep parroting it.

Fair point on final judgment.  I'll state again, as I have since 2008, I like for coaches to have classes matriculate to give a full judgment (or fuller judgment, however you wish to define it).  Some of you are in love at first sight, I am not.  Some were in love with Matt Doherty 1 year in, Tennessee fans with Kevin O'Neill, Umass fans with Bruiser Flint, ND fans with Charlie Weiss, USC fans with Lane Kiffin....that is your right.  I like to give it some time, but your characterization that I said you have to wait 5 years to make any judgment is blatantly false.  I've provided the evidence and you seem to be an evidence kind of guy (unlike Lenny who will never apologize for being wrong).  The evidence is right there and there have to be 100's of other posts that confirm the same thing. 

[Lennys Tap]

...you get all bent when  I correct someone on Crean and call me a defender, yet you do the exact same thing with Buzz.  The irony is delicious.

I consistently defend Buzz from all your BS because I think very highly of him as a coach and a person. I'm critical of Crean because I think he's moderately inferior to Buzz as a coach and a disaster as a human being. The more I know about both the more confident I am of my opinion/observation.

You're the one who's engaged in an odd/ironic kabuki dance on the subject. You say you love Buzz, think he's a great guy, but never miss an opportunity to take a passive aggressive shot at him. And you say you hate Crean, think he's a total douche, but you never miss a chance to defend/praise him. Maybe you just love being the contrarian - it's a way to get noticed and you certainly are a "Hey, look at me!" kind of guy. Or maybe you're just plain disingenuous. Who knows?

[ChicosBailBonds]

With references including HuffPo, this is a very serious Internet fight!

LOL.  I like that one.


NY Times if you prefer   http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/health/19divo.html?_r=0     They say never topped 41%, often lower.  Other study says 33%.  No one believes 50%, except for a bunch of Americans too stupid to know better.