My wish for Tubby for the 2018 class is a top 30 class. I thought that a top 30 class would be a huge jump from #55, but I was shocked to find out that it isn't.
ILLINOIS #30
#78 Smith
#122 Frazier
#166 Williams
#519 Eboigbodin
NA Vesel
This tells us a couple of things. One, the experts think very little of our players, and of course, just how bad Tubby's recruiting is when you see that a top 30 class is still mediocre.
It also probably tells us a 3rd thing, namely what some of our posters have been telling us, which is that once you get past the top 4, that you get very little credit for players after that.
The value in our class is probably it's depth, and aside from point guard, we filled out every position.
Maybe that tells us that there isn't much difference between 30 and 55. If you have a guy who is 166, can you really peg that he is that much better than a JC All American, or a guy who is #200. What if one service has a guy 150 and another has him 300, and try to compare that to a guy who is fairly consistently rated around 225 ... who's better? Or maybe it tells us that the top programs are vacuuming up most of the talent and it is less spread out than it used to be.
It's easy to tell the top guys, they stand out. The area gets grayer and grayer the farther down you go.
In other words, this is not a science.
(07-19-2017 08:25 AM)NigelTufnel Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe that tells us that there isn't much difference between 30 and 55. If you have a guy who is 166, can you really peg that he is that much better than a JC All American, or a guy who is #200. What if one service has a guy 150 and another has him 300, and try to compare that to a guy who is fairly consistently rated around 225 ... who's better? Or maybe it tells us that the top programs are vacuuming up most of the talent and it is less spread out than it used to be.
It's easy to tell the top guys, they stand out. The area gets grayer and grayer the farther down you go.
In other words, this is not a science.
I agree completely with everything except the vacuuming part. I think that there are more good players than ever which is shown by more mid majors making it farther along in the tournament. I think what happens is that when certain players get tabbed as 5 or 4 star, the other services are going to piggyback on this rating mostly because it isn't easy to see hundreds of players play and especially to see them play often.
247 was nothing up until a couple of years ago. They had our 2010 class ranked, even though we had 3 out of the top 24 players and also had Black at #60. They had our 2012 class ranked #47 but forgot to include Geron Johnson and they had the class with Adonis; their #9 ranked at #63.
The only reason we should use 247 is because they rank jucos. If we ever have a class without so many jucos it is straight back to Rivals as the bible.
For the most part, the guys in the 40's and 50's statistically outperform guys in the 120's year in and out.
Of course there are 120's who become NBA players and 40's who average 2 ppg before transferring to Texas Wesleyan.
But if were playing odds and historical trends, all things else equal it's better to get 40's than 120's.
First Year/Third year stats:
2014 Rivals 41-50:
41 Thomas Welsh C
UCLA
3.8 ppg, 3.8 rpg/ 10.8 ppg, 8.7 rpg
42 Chris Chiozza G
Florida
3.9 ppg, 2.2 apg/ 7.2 ppg, 3.8 apg
43 Terry Larrier F
Va Commonwealth
6.6 ppg, 3.0 rpg (at VCU)/ 13.5 ppg, 5.0 rpg (at UConn-injury shortened)
44 Reid Travis F
Stanford
6.2 ppg, 5.6 rpg/ 17.4 ppg, 8.9 rpg
45 Abdul-Malik Abu F
NC State
6.4 ppg, 4.8 rpg/11.8 ppg, 7.0 rpg
46 Kaleb Joseph G
Syracuse
5.9 ppg, 3.8 rpg/transferred to Creighton
47 Michael Humphrey F
Stanford
3.1 ppg, 2.7 rpg/ 9.4 ppg, 6.2 rpg
48 Robert Johnson G
Indiana
8.9 ppg, 2.9 rpg/ 12.8 ppg, 4.4 rpg
49 Jordan McLaughlin G
USC
12.1 ppg, 4.5 apg/ 12.9 ppg, 5.5 apg
50 Paul White F
Georgetown
5.0 ppg, 2.8 rpg/transferred to Oregon
121-130:
121 Gabe DeVoe G
Clemson
2.3 ppg, 0.9 rpg/ 7.2 ppg, 2.8 rpg
122 Khadeem Lattin C
Oklahoma
2.0 ppg, 3.2 rpg/8.4 ppg, 6.3 rpg
123 Ethan Happ F
Wisconsin
Redshirted/14.0 ppg, 9.o rpg
124 Vince Edwards F
Purdue
8.8 ppg, 4.8 rpg/ 12.6 ppg, 4.9 rpg
125 Isaiah Bailey F
Fresno State
went JUCO/enrolling at Bethune Cookman
126 Tre Campbell G
Georgetown
3.4 ppg, 0.9 apg/ 3.5 ppg, 1.3 apg
127 Khadeen Carrington G
Seton Hall
8.8 ppg, 1.8 apg/ 17.1 ppg, 2.9 apg
128 Idrissa Diallo C
Boston College
redshirted/averaged 1.9 ppg second year/transferred to UC-Riverside
129 Obi Enechionyia F
Temple
5.3 ppg, 3.6 rpg/ 13.1 ppg, 5.8 rpg
130 Andre Adams F
Arizona State
injury redshirt/1.4 ppg, 1.3 rpg
The most noticeable difference in 40's and 120's is playability the freshman year.
All 10 of the 40's played as frosh and had a median ppg of 6.1.
3 of the 120's redshirted and one went to JUCO--meaning 40% of those guys didn't contribute as frosh. Counting the JUCO and redshirts as 0.0 ppg (because that is what they essentially provided) the median ppg for the 120's is 2.2 ppg. Just using the six that actually played: 4.4 ppg.
By the third year, the 120's have caught up a bit, with the median ppg for the 40's at 12.3 ppg and 10.5 for the 120's.
Six of the eight 40's averaged at least 10 ppg (with another at 9.2 who averaged 10.4 as a soph), while only four of the 120's were above 10 ppg.
(07-19-2017 10:52 AM)salukiblue Wrote: [ -> ]The most noticeable difference in 40's and 120's is playability the freshman year.
All 10 of the 40's played as frosh and had a median ppg of 6.1.
3 of the 120's redshirted and one went to JUCO--meaning 40% of those guys didn't contribute as frosh. Counting the JUCO and redshirts as 0.0 ppg (because that is what they essentially provided) the median ppg for the 120's is 2.2 ppg. Just using the six that actually played: 4.4 ppg.
By the third year, the 120's have caught up a bit, with the median ppg for the 40's at 12.3 ppg and 10.5 for the 120's.
Six of the eight 40's averaged at least 10 ppg (with another at 9.2 who averaged 10.4 as a soph), while only four of the 120's were above 10 ppg.
Again, with all of the differences we have had over the years, this has never been one of them. The 2005 class screwed the fanbase for life as far as reasonable expectations go. Great post.
(07-19-2017 10:39 AM)salukiblue Wrote: [ -> ]For the most part, the guys in the 40's and 50's statistically outperform guys in the 120's year in and out.
Of course there are 120's who become NBA players and 40's who average 2 ppg before transferring to Texas Wesleyan.
But if were playing odds and historical trends, all things else equal it's better to get 40's than 120's.
First Year/Third year stats:
2014 Rivals 41-50:
41 Thomas Welsh C
UCLA
3.8 ppg, 3.8 rpg/ 10.8 ppg, 8.7 rpg
42 Chris Chiozza G
Florida
3.9 ppg, 2.2 apg/ 7.2 ppg, 3.8 apg
43 Terry Larrier F
Va Commonwealth
6.6 ppg, 3.0 rpg (at VCU)/ 13.5 ppg, 5.0 rpg (at UConn-injury shortened)
44 Reid Travis F
Stanford
6.2 ppg, 5.6 rpg/ 17.4 ppg, 8.9 rpg
45 Abdul-Malik Abu F
NC State
6.4 ppg, 4.8 rpg/11.8 ppg, 7.0 rpg
46 Kaleb Joseph G
Syracuse
5.9 ppg, 3.8 rpg/transferred to Creighton
47 Michael Humphrey F
Stanford
3.1 ppg, 2.7 rpg/ 9.4 ppg, 6.2 rpg
48 Robert Johnson G
Indiana
8.9 ppg, 2.9 rpg/ 12.8 ppg, 4.4 rpg
49 Jordan McLaughlin G
USC
12.1 ppg, 4.5 apg/ 12.9 ppg, 5.5 apg
50 Paul White F
Georgetown
5.0 ppg, 2.8 rpg/transferred to Oregon
121-130:
121 Gabe DeVoe G
Clemson
2.3 ppg, 0.9 rpg/ 7.2 ppg, 2.8 rpg
122 Khadeem Lattin C
Oklahoma
2.0 ppg, 3.2 rpg/8.4 ppg, 6.3 rpg
123 Ethan Happ F
Wisconsin
Redshirted/14.0 ppg, 9.o rpg
124 Vince Edwards F
Purdue
8.8 ppg, 4.8 rpg/ 12.6 ppg, 4.9 rpg
125 Isaiah Bailey F
Fresno State
went JUCO/enrolling at Bethune Cookman
126 Tre Campbell G
Georgetown
3.4 ppg, 0.9 apg/ 3.5 ppg, 1.3 apg
127 Khadeen Carrington G
Seton Hall
8.8 ppg, 1.8 apg/ 17.1 ppg, 2.9 apg
128 Idrissa Diallo C
Boston College
redshirted/averaged 1.9 ppg second year/transferred to UC-Riverside
129 Obi Enechionyia F
Temple
5.3 ppg, 3.6 rpg/ 13.1 ppg, 5.8 rpg
130 Andre Adams F
Arizona State
injury redshirt/1.4 ppg, 1.3 rpg
Can't disagree with that, but what about the difference between 120 and 180? My guess is that there wouldn't be a big difference at all (maybe I'm wrong) even going forward, but those ratings impact the final # for the recruiting class. Or who knows, maybe since the 180 guys are going to smaller schools, they could put up better numbers.
Not sure. Anyway, I agree, there isn't much to dispute that on average, a guy ranked in the 40's is going to historically outperform a guy in the 120s.
Also agree with Stammers (did I just write that???) that the guys up through 50, and probably up to 100, get a lot more study than the guys in the 120s.
(07-19-2017 12:12 PM)NigelTufnel Wrote: [ -> ] (07-19-2017 10:39 AM)salukiblue Wrote: [ -> ]For the most part, the guys in the 40's and 50's statistically outperform guys in the 120's year in and out.
Of course there are 120's who become NBA players and 40's who average 2 ppg before transferring to Texas Wesleyan.
But if were playing odds and historical trends, all things else equal it's better to get 40's than 120's.
First Year/Third year stats:
2014 Rivals 41-50:
41 Thomas Welsh C
UCLA
3.8 ppg, 3.8 rpg/ 10.8 ppg, 8.7 rpg
42 Chris Chiozza G
Florida
3.9 ppg, 2.2 apg/ 7.2 ppg, 3.8 apg
43 Terry Larrier F
Va Commonwealth
6.6 ppg, 3.0 rpg (at VCU)/ 13.5 ppg, 5.0 rpg (at UConn-injury shortened)
44 Reid Travis F
Stanford
6.2 ppg, 5.6 rpg/ 17.4 ppg, 8.9 rpg
45 Abdul-Malik Abu F
NC State
6.4 ppg, 4.8 rpg/11.8 ppg, 7.0 rpg
46 Kaleb Joseph G
Syracuse
5.9 ppg, 3.8 rpg/transferred to Creighton
47 Michael Humphrey F
Stanford
3.1 ppg, 2.7 rpg/ 9.4 ppg, 6.2 rpg
48 Robert Johnson G
Indiana
8.9 ppg, 2.9 rpg/ 12.8 ppg, 4.4 rpg
49 Jordan McLaughlin G
USC
12.1 ppg, 4.5 apg/ 12.9 ppg, 5.5 apg
50 Paul White F
Georgetown
5.0 ppg, 2.8 rpg/transferred to Oregon
121-130:
121 Gabe DeVoe G
Clemson
2.3 ppg, 0.9 rpg/ 7.2 ppg, 2.8 rpg
122 Khadeem Lattin C
Oklahoma
2.0 ppg, 3.2 rpg/8.4 ppg, 6.3 rpg
123 Ethan Happ F
Wisconsin
Redshirted/14.0 ppg, 9.o rpg
124 Vince Edwards F
Purdue
8.8 ppg, 4.8 rpg/ 12.6 ppg, 4.9 rpg
125 Isaiah Bailey F
Fresno State
went JUCO/enrolling at Bethune Cookman
126 Tre Campbell G
Georgetown
3.4 ppg, 0.9 apg/ 3.5 ppg, 1.3 apg
127 Khadeen Carrington G
Seton Hall
8.8 ppg, 1.8 apg/ 17.1 ppg, 2.9 apg
128 Idrissa Diallo C
Boston College
redshirted/averaged 1.9 ppg second year/transferred to UC-Riverside
129 Obi Enechionyia F
Temple
5.3 ppg, 3.6 rpg/ 13.1 ppg, 5.8 rpg
130 Andre Adams F
Arizona State
injury redshirt/1.4 ppg, 1.3 rpg
Can't disagree with that, but what about the difference between 120 and 180? My guess is that there wouldn't be a big difference at all (maybe I'm wrong) even going forward, but those ratings impact the final # for the recruiting class. Or who knows, maybe since the 180 guys are going to smaller schools, they could put up better numbers.
Not sure. Anyway, I agree, there isn't much to dispute that on average, a guy ranked in the 40's is going to historically outperform a guy in the 120s.
Also agree with Stammers (did I just write that???) that the guys up through 50, and probably up to 100, get a lot more study than the guys in the 120s.
If I agree with Saluki, you have no reason to feel shame for agreeing with me.
Well they get more study because they are showing up on the radar with good stats.
What come first the study or the stats?
Actually, every once in a while (at least in JUCO) you see a guy who really stands out but doesn't have the all around stats to match. Usually, though, he's a borderline headcase, or has family issues, book learning issues, or is prone to injury, or likes to party too much. lol ...all of the above.
(07-19-2017 12:19 PM)Stammers Wrote: [ -> ] (07-19-2017 12:12 PM)NigelTufnel Wrote: [ -> ] (07-19-2017 10:39 AM)salukiblue Wrote: [ -> ]For the most part, the guys in the 40's and 50's statistically outperform guys in the 120's year in and out.
Of course there are 120's who become NBA players and 40's who average 2 ppg before transferring to Texas Wesleyan.
But if were playing odds and historical trends, all things else equal it's better to get 40's than 120's.
First Year/Third year stats:
2014 Rivals 41-50:
41 Thomas Welsh C
UCLA
3.8 ppg, 3.8 rpg/ 10.8 ppg, 8.7 rpg
42 Chris Chiozza G
Florida
3.9 ppg, 2.2 apg/ 7.2 ppg, 3.8 apg
43 Terry Larrier F
Va Commonwealth
6.6 ppg, 3.0 rpg (at VCU)/ 13.5 ppg, 5.0 rpg (at UConn-injury shortened)
44 Reid Travis F
Stanford
6.2 ppg, 5.6 rpg/ 17.4 ppg, 8.9 rpg
45 Abdul-Malik Abu F
NC State
6.4 ppg, 4.8 rpg/11.8 ppg, 7.0 rpg
46 Kaleb Joseph G
Syracuse
5.9 ppg, 3.8 rpg/transferred to Creighton
47 Michael Humphrey F
Stanford
3.1 ppg, 2.7 rpg/ 9.4 ppg, 6.2 rpg
48 Robert Johnson G
Indiana
8.9 ppg, 2.9 rpg/ 12.8 ppg, 4.4 rpg
49 Jordan McLaughlin G
USC
12.1 ppg, 4.5 apg/ 12.9 ppg, 5.5 apg
50 Paul White F
Georgetown
5.0 ppg, 2.8 rpg/transferred to Oregon
121-130:
121 Gabe DeVoe G
Clemson
2.3 ppg, 0.9 rpg/ 7.2 ppg, 2.8 rpg
122 Khadeem Lattin C
Oklahoma
2.0 ppg, 3.2 rpg/8.4 ppg, 6.3 rpg
123 Ethan Happ F
Wisconsin
Redshirted/14.0 ppg, 9.o rpg
124 Vince Edwards F
Purdue
8.8 ppg, 4.8 rpg/ 12.6 ppg, 4.9 rpg
125 Isaiah Bailey F
Fresno State
went JUCO/enrolling at Bethune Cookman
126 Tre Campbell G
Georgetown
3.4 ppg, 0.9 apg/ 3.5 ppg, 1.3 apg
127 Khadeen Carrington G
Seton Hall
8.8 ppg, 1.8 apg/ 17.1 ppg, 2.9 apg
128 Idrissa Diallo C
Boston College
redshirted/averaged 1.9 ppg second year/transferred to UC-Riverside
129 Obi Enechionyia F
Temple
5.3 ppg, 3.6 rpg/ 13.1 ppg, 5.8 rpg
130 Andre Adams F
Arizona State
injury redshirt/1.4 ppg, 1.3 rpg
Can't disagree with that, but what about the difference between 120 and 180? My guess is that there wouldn't be a big difference at all (maybe I'm wrong) even going forward, but those ratings impact the final # for the recruiting class. Or who knows, maybe since the 180 guys are going to smaller schools, they could put up better numbers.
Not sure. Anyway, I agree, there isn't much to dispute that on average, a guy ranked in the 40's is going to historically outperform a guy in the 120s.
Also agree with Stammers (did I just write that???) that the guys up through 50, and probably up to 100, get a lot more study than the guys in the 120s.
If I agree with Saluki, you have no reason to feel shame for agreeing with me.
TrUeTh
I'll bump this.
It appears now that we are #46 in the nation on 247. I think they adjusted the composite to weight their own ratings higher. We are #42 only using the 247 ratings. It might have something to do with 247 buying Scout.
We are #1 in the AAC.
We would be #5 in the Big Ten, but #6 because Maryland should jump us after they sign the Ole Miss kid.
We would be #7 in the Big 12.
We would be #10 in the ACC.
We would be #10 in the SEC, but #9 when Ole Miss official drops after losing the kid to Maryland.
We would be #10 in the Pac-12.
We will be ahead of both our regional rivals in Ole Miss, and Tennessee. But trailing Arkansas.
I note this as well, since there has been some debate. There are officially now only 110 4* players for 2017. It appears closer to the end of a recruiting cycle they do adjust players down.
But again, too, a lot of that is weighted on volume of recruits.
I'd rather have two top 40 hs players and another top 200 hs guy and then tack on four no star JUCO's than have some decently rated hs kids and the JUCO all-star caravan.
As for this year, Tennessee didn't have a lot to add. 6 of their top seven players are returning--and they are all frosh or sophs.
(07-24-2017 10:20 AM)salukiblue Wrote: [ -> ]But again, too, a lot of that is weighted on volume of recruits.
I'd rather have two top 40 hs players and another top 200 hs guy and then tack on four no star JUCO's than have some decently rated hs kids and the JUCO all-star caravan.
You don't get credit after the 3rd or 4th guy. So the scenario you actually describing is like Virginia Tech, which is a top 20 class. [1] I don't think anyone would argue that #20 isn't better than #46.
Now you could be describing the fact that teams with only two players are getting hurt in the ratings. I don't think that scenario is that common.
Maryland, Michigan State, Auburn, Kansas are the candidates.
[1] -
http://virginiatech.247sports.com/Season...ll/Commits
(07-24-2017 10:10 AM)FlyingTiger2016 Wrote: [ -> ]I'll bump this.
It appears now that we are #46 in the nation on 247. I think they adjusted the composite to weight their own ratings higher. We are #42 only using the 247 ratings. It might have something to do with 247 buying Scout.
We are #1 in the AAC.
We would be #5 in the Big Ten, but #6 because Maryland should jump us after they sign the Ole Miss kid.
We would be #7 in the Big 12.
We would be #10 in the ACC.
We would be #10 in the SEC, but #9 when Ole Miss official drops after losing the kid to Maryland.
We would be #10 in the Pac-12.
We will be ahead of both our regional rivals in Ole Miss, and Tennessee. But trailing Arkansas.
I note this as well, since there has been some debate. There are officially now only 110 4* players for 2017. It appears closer to the end of a recruiting cycle they do adjust players down.
It is decent, but it should be better. It has been better in the recent past and we should never be out recruited by WKU, Xavier, UNLV, and Creighton all in the same year. I will not diminish expectations and accept mediocrity just because Tubby is coach or any other coach.
(07-24-2017 10:20 AM)salukiblue Wrote: [ -> ]But again, too, a lot of that is weighted on volume of recruits.
I'd rather have two top 40 hs players and another top 200 hs guy and then tack on four no star JUCO's than have some decently rated hs kids and the JUCO all-star caravan.
As for this year, Tennessee didn't have a lot to add. 6 of their top seven players are returning--and they are all frosh or sophs.
You can look at Tennessee's last few classes. I don't think you would find them impressive. Ole Miss as well. The talent gap isn't that large between us an them.
(07-24-2017 10:34 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-24-2017 10:10 AM)FlyingTiger2016 Wrote: [ -> ]I'll bump this.
It appears now that we are #46 in the nation on 247. I think they adjusted the composite to weight their own ratings higher. We are #42 only using the 247 ratings. It might have something to do with 247 buying Scout.
We are #1 in the AAC.
We would be #5 in the Big Ten, but #6 because Maryland should jump us after they sign the Ole Miss kid.
We would be #7 in the Big 12.
We would be #10 in the ACC.
We would be #10 in the SEC, but #9 when Ole Miss official drops after losing the kid to Maryland.
We would be #10 in the Pac-12.
We will be ahead of both our regional rivals in Ole Miss, and Tennessee. But trailing Arkansas.
I note this as well, since there has been some debate. There are officially now only 110 4* players for 2017. It appears closer to the end of a recruiting cycle they do adjust players down.
It is decent, but it should be better. It has been better in the recent past and we should never be out recruited by WKU, Xavier, UNLV, and Creighton all in the same year. I will not diminish expectations and accept mediocrity just because Tubby is coach or any other coach.
I agree it should be better.
But it's certainly bubble potential, which means we probably will be in an interesting scenario a few years from now.
(07-24-2017 10:35 AM)FlyingTiger2016 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-24-2017 10:20 AM)salukiblue Wrote: [ -> ]But again, too, a lot of that is weighted on volume of recruits.
I'd rather have two top 40 hs players and another top 200 hs guy and then tack on four no star JUCO's than have some decently rated hs kids and the JUCO all-star caravan.
As for this year, Tennessee didn't have a lot to add. 6 of their top seven players are returning--and they are all frosh or sophs.
You can look at Tennessee's last few classes. I don't think you would find them impressive. Ole Miss as well. The talent gap isn't that large between us an them.
I'll add. It Auburn and State aren't above UTk and Ole Miss next year. I might start doubting recruiting rankings. Because come on...
(07-24-2017 10:30 AM)FlyingTiger2016 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-24-2017 10:20 AM)salukiblue Wrote: [ -> ]But again, too, a lot of that is weighted on volume of recruits.
I'd rather have two top 40 hs players and another top 200 hs guy and then tack on four no star JUCO's than have some decently rated hs kids and the JUCO all-star caravan.
You don't get credit after the 3rd or 4th guy. So the scenario you actually describing is like Virginia Tech, which is a top 20 class. [1] I don't think anyone would argue that #20 isn't better than #46.
Now you could be describing the fact that teams with only two players are getting hurt in the ratings. I don't think that scenario is that common.
Maryland, Michigan State, Auburn, Kansas are the candidates.
[1] - http://virginiatech.247sports.com/Season...ll/Commits
We got some credit for players after the 4th rating on the 46th rank score. For example, Enoh (our 7th ranked player) received a +0.01 score.
http://memphis.247sports.com/Season/2017...ts/Preview
Most colleges don't find themselves in such a pickle---needing so many starters and bench players in such a short time. The recruiting ranking a list of the colleges who needed recruits. It doesn't seem to be playing in to where they are predicting us to finish in our conference.
#1 in recruiting
# 8 or 9 in the conference
So we are trying to say....give Tubby and his gangbangers some props? They recruited a massive amount of players in a short time? That was Joe who did that. I'll give him some props.
(07-24-2017 10:57 AM)snowtiger Wrote: [ -> ]Most colleges don't find themselves in such a pickle---needing so many starters and bench players in such a short time. The recruiting ranking a list of the colleges who needed recruits. It doesn't seem to be playing in to where they are predicting us to finish in our conference.
#1 in recruiting
# 8 or 9 in the conference
So we are trying to say....give Tubby and his gangbangers some props? They recruited a massive amount of players in a short time? That was Joe who did that. I'll give him some props.
I prefer that people stop considering us a dumpster fire as compared to our regional rivals. This might be a low point, but our low point is a high point for a lot of schools.
I don't know. I think it might be a inferiority complex among a certain segment of fans who discount the transformation this University has had in the past five years. The people who always think we will be < certain schools.