Top 25 talk

[Gregory Sager]

If you saw the game online....pass it on to your fellow CCIW'ers...or is there no internet in Illinois?

No, there isn't. Somebody in another state is reading all of this to me over the phone, and then typing away furiously while I dictate my voluminous responses to him.

Yeah, there is internet in Illinois.  I have used it there.

I actually think that Gregory has access to an out-of-work medical transcriptionist sitting at a word processor in India, and he is using her to do the typing!   

By the four arms of Ganesha, I swear that this is not true!

[Ethelred the Unready]

b) The McHugh theory. As I've cited it before, it basically means that pollsters are loading the bottoms of their ballots with CCIW teams, because they're unsure of which ones are the good ones and they're just waiting for league play to sort it all out for them.

Doesn't this theory contradict the idea that there is no CCIW bias then?.  That pollsters feel the need to slot in a 3rd or 4th CCIW team into the top 25 just because they are from the CCIW?

No, the pollsters feel the need to slot in a third or fourth CCIW team because the league has a 70-17 non-con record this season, not because the league is inherently better than every other league in the nation. I think it's a universally-accepted axiom that the WIAC is at least as good, if not better, than the CCIW, and that the UAA has been at peer level with the CCIW over the past few seasons. In other words, teams get a nod because their league happens to have a supersized non-con record, not because their league happens to be the CCIW.

That record might look impressive but I believe 6 CCIW teams played a non-conference record vs collectively sub .500 teams.  (at least thats true for D3 opponents).   I don't know whether thats good or bad or average for the rest of D3.  I tend to think its probably the average.  Yes, there have been some great matchups with WashU and WIAC foes, but those are out numbered by some pretty downrite weak D3 teams.

I do think that in most years the CCIW gets the large box of cupcakes to feast on and this year is no different.

I haven't crunched the numbers to look at the strength of schedule of the eight CCIW teams. Perhaps that 70-17 was achieved against a collective sub-.500 opponent base, perhaps it wasn't. But are you taking the games against the CCIW teams out of those opponent's records? It's customary to do so when you measure strength of schedule. And, yeah, the CCIW has played lots of weak teams. It's also played lots of strong teams. That's true every year, and it's true of every league. What's remarkable about this season's success is that the CCIW really hasn't played a non-con schedule that's drastically different from past years.

Also, I disagree with your assertion that "most years the CCIW gets the large box of cupcakes to feast on and this year is no different." The Midwest Region is generally acknowledged to be one of the two or three best regions in D3, and the best element of the West Region by far -- the WIAC -- is right on the CCIW's doorstep and plays a number of games against the CCIW each season. The two UAA programs that have been the strongest throughout this decade, Chicago and Wash U, are in close proximity to the CCIW and play a bunch of games against CCIW teams every season. The MWC is generally acknowledged as one of the up-and-coming leagues within D3. And it's not as though the CCIW is annually scheduling games with the bottom-feeders in your league; the four games that the CCIW are guaranteed to play each year against the MIAA are all against Hope and Calvin. And so on, and so forth.

.......as for cautionary pollsters, if they were really cautionary I don't think we'd see so many CCIW teams getting votes.

I think that the opposite is true. Who wants to be the pollster who gets blind-sided by not seeing the team that emerges as the CCIW kingpin at the same time that his pollster peers have spotted it?

So, the two close road losses to Wash U. and Wheaton mean nothing as well? Are Wheaton and Wash U. overrated also?

Possibly, Washington's resume to date isn't eye popping   http://www.d3hoops.com/school/WSHU/mens/2009   , its probably enough to keep the defending National Champion hovering around the top 5 though.

Wheaton's isn't overwhelming either   http://www.d3hoops.com/school/WTIL/mens/2009  .  But they are unbeaten.  I do wonder where they'd be ranked if they hadn't made the NCAA's last year though.

Illinois Wesleayn   http://www.d3hoops.com/school/IWU/mens/2009  where is the quality win that justifies voting a 5 loss team in the top 25?  They were on the edge last week and I suppose I can see why, at some point you can't keep voting for a team just because they've lost a bunch of close one's.

I think that if you try hard enough you can find something to dislike about every D3 team's resume. If I had to single out one CCIW team that I really think is getting too much of the benefit of the doubt, though, it would probably be IWU -- although I think that Millikin and North Central have fairly dubious cases as well.

b) The McHugh theory. As I've cited it before, it basically means that pollsters are loading the bottoms of their ballots with CCIW teams, because they're unsure of which ones are the good ones and they're just waiting for league play to sort it all out for them.

Greg, I think you mean the Gordan Mann theory...

http://d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2009/01/01/happy-new-season/

Could be, although I don't remember reading that blog piece. Perhaps D-Mac picked up the gist of it and recited it somewhere where I remember reading it.

At any rate, sorry for the lack of attribution, Gordo.

This may be nitpicking, but I don't think the numbers support that particular statement.  I would argue UR would be one of the two, not Chicago. 

[Gregory Sager]

This may be nitpicking, but I don't think the numbers support that particular statement.  I would argue UR would be one of the two, not Chicago. 

Chicago's won four UAA titles over the past decade, while Rochester's won two. Go back a dozen years, and Chicago's won six UAA titles to Rochester's two.

[David Collinge]

I feel like what's happening is that this is a confusing year with the NCAC and the MIAA so down.

You mean, "this is a confusing year with Wittenberg and Wooster, and Hope and Calvin, so down." Those four programs are not synonymous with their respective leagues, and for all we know the leagues themselves may be just as good, or better, than they have been in previous years. [...] Let's not mistake greater balance within normally top-heavy leagues for overall slumps of those leagues.

With the singular exception of Hiram, the entire NCAC is down this year, as April appears to understand.

[Mr. Ypsi]

WOW - over four pages in a single day - in the FIRST HALF OF JANUARY!

Alas, primarily on a red herring.  There are at least 2-3 teams even a CCIW fanatic like myself would not have voted for (one of which is, alas, IWU ), but I can't see any of the seven that are obviously off-the-wall votes.

C'mon folks - just 2 polls ago the CCIW had 3 teams in the top 9; now #3 is 20th!  How much public flagellation must poor, abused CCIW supporters undergo?

[sac]

#19  Elmhurst

I'm sorry man, but any other team from any other conference that loses 3 in a row drops out of the poll.  This is quite ridiculous imo.   

I do not agree with this logic.

Elmhurst was ranked #10 in Week 5 collectively by the voters.  And the Wash U win and the Anderson loss had been factored in by this time.  This week the voters had two pieces of data to base their new Elmhurst decision on:

1) A 1-point loss @ #7 Augustana .

2) A double overtime loss to 10-2 Millikin.

If you have Elmhurst #10, you cannot "penalize" them for losing by 1 @ #7.  If anything, that is game that justifies where they are ranked relative to Augustana.  It was a "good loss" - I sure hope the voters don't automatically penalize a team when they see an "L."

So then you're left to deal with the "bad loss" at home to Millikin.  Elmhurst dropped 10 spots, to #20.  That seems very fair to me.

Each week as a voter you deal with the new data you have.

I guess the difference is how we perceive the Millikin loss..........I don't perceive that as a good one, double overtime or not.  Its hard for me to justify 3 straight losses keeping anyone in the poll, and I think the history of the poll has that to be the case.

I think the SIUE win for Millikin is getting way to much love, no one's updated SIUE since the Milliken game but they've been getting thrashed by everyone except Missouri-Kansas City (5-13) and Southeast Missouri State(5-14), I think they're 4-14 now.   http://www.siue.edu/ATHLETIC/MBB/20082009/sked.html

Millikins schedule doesn't really inspire either.   http://www.d3hoops.com/school/MLKN/mens/2009

[Gregory Sager]

I feel like what's happening is that this is a confusing year with the NCAC and the MIAA so down.

You mean, "this is a confusing year with Wittenberg and Wooster, and Hope and Calvin, so down." Those four programs are not synonymous with their respective leagues, and for all we know the leagues themselves may be just as good, or better, than they have been in previous years. [...] Let's not mistake greater balance within normally top-heavy leagues for overall slumps of those leagues.

With the singular exception of Hiram, the entire NCAC is down this year, as April appears to understand.

The NCAC is the league you watch, DC, so I trust your judgement of it. However, the numbers indicate otherwise. Last season the non-Woo/Witt part of the league went 24-48 (.333) in non-con play. This year it's gone 30-39 (.435), a significant uptick. And Hiram isn't the biggest improvement outside of the circuit; that would be Kenyon, which has gone from 2-7 in non-con play to 6-3 this season. Denison and Oberlin have also, like Hiram, significantly improved in non-con play from 2007-08 to 2008-09.

What I can't speak to without a more thorough study is how the NCAC's strength of schedule might've changed from last season to this season.

[Gregory Sager]

I think the SIUE win for Millikin is getting way to much love, no one's updated SIUE since the Milliken game but they've been getting thrashed by everyone except Missouri-Kansas City (5-13) and Southeast Missouri State(5-14), I think they're 4-14 now.   http://www.siue.edu/ATHLETIC/MBB/20082009/sked.html

SIUE is 5-13. The Cougars beat St. Xavier last Thursday by eight, although that doesn't do the CCIW as a whole much good; St. Xavier beat Illinois Wesleyan in December.

[David Collinge]

I feel like what's happening is that this is a confusing year with the NCAC and the MIAA so down.

You mean, "this is a confusing year with Wittenberg and Wooster, and Hope and Calvin, so down." Those four programs are not synonymous with their respective leagues, and for all we know the leagues themselves may be just as good, or better, than they have been in previous years. [...] Let's not mistake greater balance within normally top-heavy leagues for overall slumps of those leagues.

With the singular exception of Hiram, the entire NCAC is down this year, as April appears to understand.

The NCAC is the league you watch, DC, so I trust your judgement of it. However, the numbers indicate otherwise. Last season the non-Woo/Witt part of the league went 24-48 (.333) in non-con play. This year it's gone 30-39 (.435), a significant uptick. And Hiram isn't the biggest improvement outside of the circuit; that would be Kenyon, which has gone from 2-7 in non-con play to 6-3 this season. Denison and Oberlin have also, like Hiram, significantly improved in non-con play from 2007-08 to 2008-09.

What I can't speak to without a more thorough study is how the NCAC's strength of schedule might've changed from last season to this season.

Thanks for trusting my judgment, if that's what you've done here.  Denison and Oberlin combined to win one non-conference game last year; nowhere to go but up.  And I recall some well-placed D3 fan calling Kenyon "egregiously bad" earlier this season; it wasn't true, but if they're better than they were last season, it's only marginal at this point.  I base that on the 12 games I saw them play last year and the five I've seen this year, not an analysis of their strength of schedule.

[Gregory Sager]

Thanks for trusting my judgment, if that's what you've done here. 

David, I'm simply trying to reconcile what you said in April's defense with what the W-L records appear to indicate.

Denison and Oberlin combined to win one non-conference game last year; nowhere to go but up.

... and how does this fit in with your assertion that nobody but Hiram was on the upswing this year? The awfulness of Denison and Oberlin in 2007-08 doesn't really seem to be at issue, only whether or not the two teams had improved in 2008-09.

And I recall some well-placed D3 fan calling Kenyon "egregiously bad" earlier this season; it wasn't true,

No, David, what isn't true is the way that you have used this quote. It's obviously been a burr under your saddle all season long, since you've referred to it a couple of times since, so I'm surprised to see you misrepresent me with that statement.

This is what I said on opening weekend after watching the Kenyon vs. Illinois Tech game:

Kenyon holds off Illinois Tech in Chicago, 71-59, to record the first NCAC win of the season.  It was all Bryan Yelvington, all the time in his hometown--well, home metro-area.  The senior POTY candidate put up 30 points--24 in the second half--while taking better than 40% of his team's shots and logging 38 minutes.  Bryan hit 11 of 22 from the floor and grabbed a game-high 9 rebounds to boot.  Sophomore J.T. Knight chipped in 16 mostly second-half points.  Overall the Lords shot 42%, hitting 39% of their 18 treys, and shot 20/27 from the line (4 of the missed free throws were in the final 5:05), while holding IIT to 39% from the field, 29% from the arc.  The Scarlet Hawks missed ten free throws, many of them in key second half situations which helped the Lords take control of the game.  Tied at the half 25-25, the Lords built a 17-point lead with 6:18 left, then held on as both Allen Bediako and Dave Knapke fouled out.  Kenyon played basically a seven-man rotation, with a significant contribution from rookie guard Anthony Chun (8 points, 6 assists.)  Kenyon moves on to the championship round of the Midway Classic, where they will face Edgewood, upset winners over host Chicago, 101-93.  Box; recap.

... and what an ugly game it was to watch. Although it picked up a little in the second half, mostly thanks to Yelvington, the first half was a missed-shot festival. Layups, treys, midrange jumpers, hook shots, free throws, you name it -- IIT and Kenyon missed 'em in all flavors, and leavened the mess with a lot of turnovers as well. And it isn't as though either team was even close to playing the sort of defense that was good enough to explain it all. One has to expect a lot of rust on opening weekend, but that was egregiously bad basketball even by opening-weekend standards.

I said that the game was egregiously bad, not the teams themselves. That's obvious by the context of the quote, which is all about that particular game's performance and not a bit about ability or talent. Frankly, David, I'm surprised to see you twist my meaning around like that. That's just not your style.

but if they're better than they were last season, it's only marginal at this point.

Marginally better is still better, n'est-ce pas?

I base that on the 12 games I saw them play last year and the five I've seen this year, not an analysis of their strength of schedule.

That's why I said that I defer to you based upon your observation of these teams. As I said, I'm simply trying to make a good-faith effort to reconcile what you're saying about the NCAC being down with what the W-L records appear to indicate, which is the opposite conclusion.

[Pat Coleman]

Wow, lots of stuff going on here. Where to begin?

I think what you're looking at with the three single-digit vote-getting CCIW teams is simply a lack of consensus among the voters as to who the third- or fourth-best CCIW team is. If you added up 8, 7 and 5 to get 20 points and assigned them all to one team I doubt we would be having this part of the discussion. The only problem is there is some difference of opinion as to who should be getting those votes and different voters have different opinions.

Cal Lutheran-Carthage. Played Nov. 24, about 10 games ago for each. What have the teams done since? Recently, Cal Lu lost to Tufts and Carthage beat Augustana. (Also, our SCIAC voter tells me CMS is the best team in the league, so I am voting for CMS instead of Cal Lu, who I voted for the previous week.)

Lots of talk about York (N.Y.). York picked up three transfers at the semester break (averaging 31 points per game, if my math is right) and has won three out of four. If Millikin hadn't won at Elmhurst I am sure they wouldn't be getting votes either, but it was enough for a couple voters to take a flier.

[cardinalpride]

These are good points, except that:

1) All games are supposed to be reflected in the d3hoops.com Top 25 poll, not just D3 games. Therefore, IWU doesn't get a free pass for its losses to Olivet Nazarene (7-9) and St. Xavier (10-9). If it did, then you likewise couldn't reward Millikin for beating a D1 team. So the "only x number of D3 losses" argument doesn't have merit.

2) Yes, Baldwin-Wallace has won four straight, but the Yellowjackets are nevertheless only 6-7 and in seventh place in the OAC. That loss to Bald Wally was a bad one for NCC, and unless the Yellowjackets continue on their winning streak for a couple more weeks it can't really be spun otherwise.

3) Your NCC/IWU argument is circular. You can't really build your case for the Cardinals upon a win over IWU while at the same time you're trying to build a case for the Titans. Somebody has to pay a price for that game in the poll; either it's a bad loss for a good Titans team, or it's not quite an earth-shaking win for a good Cardinals team because it was over an IWU team that has been overrated.

4) Your explanations for Millikin's loss to York (NY) are valid -- I've raised them myself -- but at the same time, there aren't enough explanations in the world that can erase that debacle. In my mind, it wiped out whatever goodwill that the Big Blue had earned for their upset win over SIUE.

I'm pleased that the CCIW has seven teams that are receiving votes, but I just don't see the merit in it. On the other hand, I don't see it as a conspiracy, or as some sort of sign that the pollsters are in utter awe of the CCIW. I think that it's a combination of one or more of the following possibilities:

a) Scattershot conclusions on the part of the pollsters. Some think that IWU is overrated and unworthy of recognition, but that NCC is an up-and-comer worthy of a #24 or #25 slot. Some like what Carthage has done thus far in January, and they're banking on a resurgence by the two MIAA powers to buttress Carthage's case, but they think that it's ridiculous to keep giving Millikin any love, especially with Elmhurst crashing; some are still sold on IWU but not yet on Carthage; some figure that they can slip NCC and Millikin onto their ballots while at the same time balancing things out by drastically dropping Elmhurst, IWU, and Augie; etc.

b) The McHugh theory. As I've cited it before, it basically means that pollsters are loading the bottoms of their ballots with CCIW teams, because they're unsure of which ones are the good ones and they're just waiting for league play to sort it all out for them.

c) Name-brand bias. As April alluded, there may be pollsters out there who are just incapable of keeping historically strong programs off of their ballots. This is a charge that would seem to be particularly applicable to IWU (8-5, 0-2); it might reflect upon Elmhurst (9-4, 0-2) a bit as well, but the Bluejays have that great win over Wash U on their resume that is hard for pollsters to forget.

d) That intimidating non-con record. The CCIW as a whole is going to break its all-time record this season for winning percentage outside of the circuit; it's currently an eye-popping 70-17 (.805) with one game left (next Monday's Millikin @ Knox contest). It's obviously a league loaded with great teams this season; who wants to guess wrong as to which of them is nationally legit and which one of them is as hollow as a chocolate soldier? Or, indeed, if any of them at all are hollow?

I think that what we're seeing is a cautious group of pollsters who haven't really received enough information yet to sort out who is a contender and who is a pretender in the CCIW.

Greg,
I don't know if the CCIW deserves 7 teams receiving votes! By the same token, I don't believe anyone else knows either.  While I respect Sac and OB's opinion, I was merely making a case for why the voters may think so.  Also, I didn't hear Sac and OB complaining about IWU when they were in the top twenty.  All of a sudden they're not worthy of a single vote.  That's ridiculous!

The league obviously has some strength this year or it wouldn't have won 80% of its non-conference games!

Also, if wash u. was the measuring stick of all Division III b-ball at the beginning of the year (23 of the 25 1st placed votes in the preseason), then the CCIW may be ranked appropriately.  Here are some score comparisons between the near unanimous preseason #1 Wash U and the CCIW. I'll start with North Park the only CCIW team to not receive a top 25 vote this week.  I'm using Wash U. because they played half the league this year.  Here we go:

North Park loses by a 24pt margin to Wash U. in a tournament season opener (most D3 followers expected that outcome).  A week ago, NP minus two of their best players(3 if you include Jones), loses to #7 Augie at Augie by 17.  Three nights later NP, after regaining those two players, loses to NCC by 15 at NCC (The margin might have raised some eyebrows amongst CCIW followers but the outcome of the game wasn't a big surprise).  I have seen NP this year.  They have a quality young team that's still learning how to win consistently!

Augie #2 at the time loses in ot to Wash U by 5 (not a surprise to most d3 followers).  The same Augie team that just beat NP by 17 with out NP's best player lost on the road to Carthage by 9 (That was a bit of a shocker by most CCIW followers or was it).   Afterall, Carthage had just won 4 straight including an 8pt victory at Millikin.  

IWU, the #13 ranked team at the time, loses a close game to Wash U. by 7 in St. Lou (that outcome did more to validate IWU's ranking than hurt it and I did not hear anyone screaming IWU is overrated on December 6th).  Just last week, the same IWU team lost a close game to #1 ranked Wheaton by 4 in Wheaton (Once again did this road lost hurt IWU or was it expected?). Three nights later, this same IWU team lost at home to NCC by 7 and NCC missed 14 free throws in the game(This had to open some eyes not only in the CCIW but around the nation).

On Dec 20th, #10 Elmhurst beats #1 Wash U by 7 at home(Did this send shock waves throughout the country? I think not!  Was anyone screaming Elmhurst was overrated then? No!).  Elmhurst is the only team keeping Wash U. from being a unanimous #1 ranked team right now!  Two weeks later #7 Elmhurst loses on the road to a hot Anderson team by 6 (a bit of a downer if you're a CCIW fan, but definitely not eyepopping if you're a d3 follower around the country).  Besides, Anderson had won 5 in a row going in to that game and now their streak is up to 8! Most likely they would have been receiving votes had it not been for the holiday break.  Afterall, that was the same Anderson team that lost at home to preseason ranked #7 Platteville by 2 and preseason #1 Wash U. by 2 (# 23 ranked Anderson's other lost is to Franklin by 10 on the road) I mention this because NCC had Franklin by 20 at home before the JV checked into the game. Now, after #10 Elmhurst loses a heart breaker to #7 Augie on the road and three nights later lose at home to Millikin in DOT all of sudden they're overrated(many CCIW observers felt EC should have won the game by the way. EC had a 9pt lead with 3min remaining at Augie only to succomb to a furious late game rally by the vikings! Was EC overrated Jan 7th? I didn't hear anything from the peanut gallery that night!)!

Are the North Carolina Tar heels not worthy of a top ten ranking because they've dropped two straight?  Are they not one of the best teams in the ACC and/or nation because they are at the bottom of their league right now?  Are the Boston Celtics no longer a favorite to win the NBA title because they've lost 7 out of 10?  Good/Great teams do lose on a occasion!  It happens!

Now I know that the scoring comparisons doesn't mean anything but it is what it is.  Does the CCIW have 7 top 43 teams? Maybe, maybe not!  I don't know! Sac and OxyBob don't know either and for them to suggest otherwise without a whole lot of merit doesn't sit well with me!

[cardinalpride]

By the way, Carthage just beat the #7 team in the county!

I saw Carthage play. Cal Lutheran manhandled them and won easily. Carthage was wholly ordinary. If the Red Men beat the so-called "#7 team in the county!" then the CCIW is even more overrated than I already knew.

Let me know the next time Cal Lutheran comes to the midwest and manhandles a CCIW team!  From looking at this year's roster, that's the same CLU team minus its leading scorer from a year ago that beat my 10-15 cardinals last year in overtime.  It took a game tying three pointer to force the overtime by the way!  Did I mention NCC was without its best player at the time.  So, spare me the overrated comments!

Bob,
I watched the Cal LU/Carthage game online.  Maybe if Cal Lu came east of vegas the rest of the country would see how good they are or aren't!

Same roster???
Looks like CLU's roster had quite the turnaround, with 6 freshmen on the team, 2 which start.  Only 2 starters returning (Meier, Knudsen), only 3 with significant playing experience.....with Fisher.  Meier was the leading scorer last year...he has returned.  CLU lost 3 Seniors (2, 3yr starters and solid utility player), another starter (6-6 manchild Owens), and backup PG (Gums) as well as 4 or 5 others.
This year's stats:
http://www.clusports.com/stats/mens_basketball/2008_2009/teamcume.htm

Last year's stats and team:
http://www.clusports.com/stats/mens_basketball/2007_2008/teamcume.htm#TEAM.IND


If you saw the game online....pass it on to your fellow CCIW'ers...or is there no internet in Illinois?  Here is the link:
http://kadytv.com/CLU/clu_ibn.htm

I stand corrected with the roster.  It was a guess! However, is CLU better this year?

[magicman]

How about RIT.............last week no votes, this weekend make a last second 30 footer that may have been after the buzzer.........voila, Top 25 team.  

I'm more bothered by the fact that the pollsters penalized Ithaca for that dubious outcome. The Bombers dropped 34 points and one slot in the poll for losing a game on a buzzer-beater that didn't actually beat the buzzer.

Greg,
I have to agree. Also thought Amherst losing to 3-6 Wesleyan(now 4-7) was much worse and would send them below Ithaca. Amherst's lofty ranking was gained by beating 6 teams with a combined 18-51 record. Talk about cupcake schedules and they barely beat 2 of those teams(2 pt. and 3 pt wins).  

[OxyBob]

Does the CCIW have 7 top 43 teams? Maybe, maybe not!  I don't know! Sac and OxyBob don't know either and for them to suggest otherwise without a whole lot of merit doesn't sit well with me!

In addition to SCIAC teams Oxy, Cal Lutheran, Caltech, Pomona, and Claremont, so far here are the D-III teams I have seen play this season: Carthage, Lawrence, Buena Vista, Luther, Pacific Lutheran, Ripon, Messiah, Amherst, UMass-Dartmouth, Chapman, UC Santa Cruz and NYU-Poly, not a bad cross-section, I'd say. I base my opinion on what I see. You don't like what I have to say because it doesn't jive with your preconceived notion that the CCIW is the be-all and end-all of D-III basketball.

Cal Lutheran-Carthage. Played Nov. 24, about 10 games ago for each. What have the teams done since? Recently, Cal Lu lost to Tufts and Carthage beat Augustana.

The old "We played you early in the season but now we'd beat you" excuse. You must be a Redlands football fan; that's also one of their favorites.

OxyBob