Home Unfiltered Articles Players Baseball Prospectus
Basketball Prospectus home
Click here to log in Click here for forgotten password Click here to subscribe

Click here for Important Basketball Prospectus Premium Information!

<< Previous Article
Introducing the EGOT's (01/28)
<< Previous Column
Tuesday Truths (01/22)
Next Column >>
Tuesday Truths (02/05)
Next Article >>
Premium Article Judging K-State, Butle... (01/30)

January 29, 2013
Tuesday Truths
Full-Strength Edition

by John Gasaway

Printer-
friendly
Contact
Author

Welcome to Tuesday Truths, where I look at how well 131 teams in the nation's top 11 conferences are doing against their league opponents on a per-possession basis. For a tidy little homily on why this stuff is so very awesome, go here.

This week for the first time we have enough games in the books to look at all 11 conferences. Welcome to the evaluative party, A-10, C-USA, and Mountain West.

ACC: It's the defense

Through games of January 28, conference games only
Pace: possessions per 40 minutes
PPP: points per possession Opp. PPP: opponent PPP
EM: efficiency margin (PPP - Opp. PPP)

                      W-L   Pace    PPP   Opp. PPP    EM
1.  Miami             6-0   66.3    1.02    0.81    +0.21
2.  Virginia          4-2   59.2    0.99    0.88    +0.11
3.  Duke              4-2   69.7    1.06    0.95    +0.11
4.  NC State          5-2   70.4    1.09    1.02    +0.07
5.  North Carolina    3-3   70.0    0.98    0.97    +0.01
6.  Clemson           3-4   61.6    0.98    0.98     0.00
7.  Maryland          3-4   67.7    0.92    0.94    -0.02
8.  Boston College    1-5   65.0    1.03    1.07    -0.04
9.  Wake Forest       3-4   67.5    0.95    1.05    -0.10
10. Florida St.       3-3   63.5    0.92    1.02    -0.10
11. Georgia Tech      1-5   70.4    0.89    0.99    -0.10
12. Virginia Tech     2-4   65.6    1.02    1.15    -0.13

AVG.                        66.4    0.99

Last season we watched a team representing a football school in southern Florida ride a suffocating defense to within two possessions of the Sweet 16. And that is where the similarities between South Florida 2012 and Miami 2013 end.

The 2011-12 Bulls didn't start their run of dominant defense until the second week of February, and, anyway, their offense was far below average. This year's Hurricanes, conversely, already look ridiculous on defense in late January, and their offense is actually a little better than the ACC average. South Florida outscored the Big East by 0.02 points per trip. You may have noticed Jim Larranaga's group is beating that figure by just a bit thus far.

So if you're expecting Miami to revert to form and start looking like the Miami that hasn't made the NCAA tournament since 2008, you could be in for a long wait. No, I don't suppose ACC opponents will continue to miss fully 74 percent of their threes against the Hurricanes, but then again I don't expect those same opponents to suddenly discover it's a piece of cake to score inside the arc against the likes of Kenny Kadji, Julian Gamble, and Reggie Johnson. With games yet to play at NC State and at Duke (I'm guessing the Blue Devils will be more motivated for that one than they've been for any UM game in program history), the Canes will have every opportunity to come back to the pack. But the fact that we're even discussing whether Miami will "come back to the pack" in the hallowed ACC is itself a remarkable tribute to Larranaga.

Big 12: The statistical gift of two games against TCU

                      W-L   Pace    PPP   Opp. PPP    EM
1.  Baylor            5-1   65.9    1.01    0.84    +0.17
2.  Kansas            7-0   64.7    1.02    0.87    +0.15
3.  Oklahoma St.      3-3   68.5    1.00    0.90    +0.10
4.  Iowa St.          4-2   65.8    1.06    0.99    +0.07
5.  Oklahoma          4-2   65.9    1.04    0.99    +0.05
6.  Kansas St.        4-2   62.7    1.05    1.00    +0.05
7.  West Virginia     2-5   63.3    0.97    0.99    -0.02
8.  Texas             1-5   65.8    0.96    1.02    -0.06
9.  Texas Tech        2-5   64.1    0.84    1.07    -0.23
10. TCU               0-7   62.0    0.80    1.06    -0.26

AVG.                        65.0    0.98

Don't panic. Baylor shows up at No. 1 here simply because they've already played both their games against TCU. Kansas will get to play two of those as well, and will presumably get to ride the same statistical booster rocket.

On paper KU's unusually one-dimensional, and by "unusually" I mean by Jayhawk standards. The success they've achieved thus far in Big 12 play is largely attributable to the fact that conference opponents are making just 38 percent of their twos. (Now why would that be?) That, plus a big surplus in attempted free throws, has propelled Kansas to a 7-0 start.

Off paper we know something closer to the truth. Bill Self may have the nation's best defensive player in Jeff Withey, and he definitely has a lottery pick-to-be in Ben McLemore. Most coaches would take that foundation gladly.

McLemore has been so good so fast I'm not sure we've had the proper "Hey wait a minute, this is amazing" moment yet. He's hitting 54 percent of his twos and 46 percent of his threes, and he's doing it as a freshman who's the featured scorer for a team that expects to win the national championship. The standard expectation with elite freshmen is that they get even better as the season progresses. If that expectation is fulfilled with this freshman on this team with this defense, mercy.

Big East: Two cheers for Coach Boeheim not fouling up three

                      W-L   Pace    PPP   Opp. PPP    EM
1.  Louisville        5-3   65.3    1.03    0.91    +0.12
2.  Syracuse          6-1   61.4    1.09    0.97    +0.12
3.  Pitt              5-4   62.9    1.07    0.95    +0.12
4.  Marquette         6-1   61.6    1.07    0.98    +0.09
5.  Cincinnati        4-3   61.4    1.03    0.99    +0.04
6.  Georgetown        4-3   60.4    0.97    0.94    +0.03
7.  Notre Dame        4-3   60.0    1.12    1.09    +0.03
8.  Connecticut       3-3   65.9    1.05    1.03    +0.02
9.  Villanova         4-3   68.4    0.96    0.95    +0.01
10. St. John's        5-3   69.5    0.93    0.93     0.00
11. Providence        2-6   67.9    0.99    1.07    -0.08
12. Rutgers           3-5   64.3    0.95    1.05    -0.10
13. Seton Hall        2-5   63.5    0.98    1.09    -0.11
14. DePaul            1-5   75.7    0.91    1.04    -0.13
15. S. Florida        1-7   58.3    0.91    1.07    -0.16

AVG.                        64.4    1.00

If Jim Boeheim had instructed his team to foul when they led 61-58 in the last seconds of regulation at Villanova on Saturday, there's a good chance Syracuse would be sitting atop the Big East at 7-0. Instead, he chose to play it straight. Ryan Arcidiacono received a feed off an offensive rebound, Michael Carter Williams did everything but wave an "I AM NOT FOULING HIM" sign at the refs (if that's possible when one's arms are at one's sides in perfect "I AM NOT FOULING HIM" position), and the three went down. In overtime the Wildcats won, 75-71.

Twitter loves to speak in categorical imperatives, and Boeheim was savaged in that venue for not fouling. As it happens I agree that Boeheim should have fouled in that particular instance, but in the coach's defense I'll also add that the pursuit of an answer to "Should you foul up three?" is doomed from the start. It's like saying there's an answer to "Should you go for it on 4th-and-short?" The answer to both questions, of course, is it depends.

Game situation -- up three, final seconds -- is just one of the factors in play. The players and the refs are two others, and let me state for the record that in a game where I'm up three in the closing seconds I will never instruct my players to foul a beloved America's Sweetheart type on the opposing team if any one of a number of TV-loving refs is working the game. In such cases there's an increased likelihood the foul will be called in the act of shooting, or intentional, or worse.

Saying that coaches should foul more often than they do when they're up three is not the same thing as saying they should always foul up three.

Big Ten: How I learned to stop worrying and love Michigan's defense

                      W-L   Pace    PPP   Opp. PPP    EM
1.  Michigan          6-1   63.1    1.20    0.96    +0.24
2.  Indiana           6-1   66.5    1.08    0.94    +0.14
3.  Wisconsin         5-2   57.8    1.00    0.90    +0.10
4.  Ohio St.          5-2   64.5    0.99    0.90    +0.09
5.  Michigan St.      6-2   65.4    1.02    0.96    +0.06
6.  Minnesota         3-4   62.9    1.08    1.03    +0.05
7.  Purdue            4-3   63.4    0.96    0.99    -0.03
8.  Iowa              2-5   67.0    0.95    1.00    -0.05
9.  Illinois          2-5   65.3    0.96    1.04    -0.08
10. Northwestern      3-5   60.9    0.96    1.07    -0.11
11. Nebraska          2-6   61.9    0.86    1.00    -0.14
12. Penn St.          0-8   64.0    0.85    1.07    -0.22

AVG.                        63.6    0.99

A few days ago Luke Winn pointed out that no team with a defense as mediocre as Michigan's -- No. 45 at the time Luke was filing, No. 39 at this writing -- has won a national title in the last decade. Meaning none of the following teams were as bad at defense as the Wolverines have been so far:

Syracuse        2003
Connecticut     2004
North Carolina  2005
Florida         2006
Florida         2007
Kansas          2008
North Carolina  2009
Duke            2010
Connecticut     2011
Kentucky        2012

What Luke is quite correctly documenting is that the most common path to a national title has been excellence on both offense and defense. The worst performance by any of these teams on either side of the ball was No. 19 in the country (Syracuse 2003, defense).

It may turn out to be the case that Michigan is not in fact excellent at defense, that they're merely very good at it. But that needs to be seen in the proper context. First, this isn't a case like, say, Missouri last season, where a good many people chose to overlook the Tigers' vulnerability on D. (There was a push to give that team a No. 1 seed. I still shudder at the memory.) John Beilein's defense this season is day-and-night better, thus far, than Frank Haith's was last season.

Second, whatever Michigan's level of performance has been on defense, the Wolverines have been able to plug that in as one half of an equation whose result has been outscoring the best conference in the country by nearly a quarter of a point per possession. The Wolverines' only loss this season has come not to an offensive juggernaut that was able to exploit UM's worrisome deficiencies on defense, but to the hapless-on-offense Ohio State Buckeyes, who shut down Michigan's offense beautifully.

Lastly, the past 10 years can be ransacked profitably not only for prerequisites (and I'll be joining Luke on this beat soon -- watch for it!) but also for weirdness. I've seen a team rank No. 8 in its 12-team league in two-point accuracy and then go on to win a national championship. I've seen a team rank No. 103 in the nation in offense and then go on to make the Final Four. And do I even need to drag Gordon Hayward into this?

When choosing national title favorites, I too prefer teams that are excellent on both offense and defense. But I'll be the first to admit that if a team ranked No. 39 or 45 or so on one side of the ball does go on to win it all, that won't even be in the same building as any of the above in terms of weirdness.

Why no one's talking about a much improved Pac-12

                      W-L   Pace    PPP   Opp. PPP    EM
1.  Arizona           5-2   68.9    1.05    0.95    +0.10
2.  Oregon            7-0   70.1    1.06    0.97    +0.09
3.  Arizona St.       5-2   65.7    1.02    0.97    +0.05
4.  UCLA              6-2   71.2    0.99    0.95    +0.04
5.  Stanford          3-4   67.7    1.01    0.97    +0.04
6.  Washington        4-3   65.9    1.01    0.98    +0.03
7.  Colorado          4-4   68.7    1.00    0.97    +0.03
8.  USC               3-5   68.8    1.00    1.04    -0.04
9.  Cal               3-4   65.2    0.97    1.02    -0.05
10. Washington St.    2-5   64.9    0.97    1.04    -0.07
11. Oregon St.        1-6   69.7    0.97    1.05    -0.08
12. Utah              1-7   62.5    0.94    1.06    -0.12

AVG.                        67.4    1.00

The Pac-12's overall statistical strength is higher than it's been since 2009, but the key word there is "overall." Utah has actually made a huge improvement in their performance since last season, but when you're 1-7 no one's writing features about how you've turned the corner. USC is clearly a far better team than they were a season ago, but when you fire your coach mid-season no one's holding you up as the feel-good story of the year.

That being said, if there is a team in this league that might be able to get the proper credit for making a great leap forward, it's Arizona State. Herb Sendek's team has a flashy freshman that keeps popping up on the authoritative and uncommonly well-written list of the nation's best first-year players, so naturally everyone is attributing the turnaround to the flashy freshman.

Everyone is half right. Jahii Carson has stepped in as a scoring point guard from day one and has proven to be reliable with the ball -- increasingly so, in fact, as the season has progressed. That's been huge for an offense that has cut its Pac-12 turnover rate from 26 percent in 2012 to just 17 percent this season. Carson isn't the only player behind ASU's U-turn, however. Give some of the credit here to 7-2 junior Jordan Bachynski, as the Sun Devils have been playing very effective (and very low-foul) interior D.

SEC: Ole Miss picked a tough year to be historic

                      W-L   Pace    PPP   Opp. PPP    EM
1.  Florida           6-0   62.2    1.20    0.77    +0.43
2.  Ole Miss          6-0   68.4    1.06    0.91    +0.15
3.  Alabama           4-2   60.9    1.02    0.96    +0.06
4.  Kentucky          4-2   66.3    1.03    0.98    +0.05
5.  Missouri          4-2   67.3    1.03    0.99    +0.04
6.  South Carolina    2-4   67.0    0.97    0.94    +0.03
7.  Arkansas          3-3   69.3    0.94    0.93    +0.01
8.  Texas A&M         2-4   60.4    0.98    0.98     0.00
9.  Tennessee         2-4   65.3    0.98    1.04    -0.06
10. Auburn            2-4   64.7    0.98    1.07    -0.09
11. Vanderbilt        2-4   64.8    0.91    1.00    -0.09
12. LSU               1-5   68.0    0.90    1.01    -0.11
13. Georgia           2-4   62.2    0.91    1.08    -0.17
14. Mississippi St.   2-4   68.0    0.85    1.08    -0.23

AVG.                        65.3    0.98

Keep in mind +0.15 is a very healthy scoring margin. This is not the strongest SEC we've seen come down the pike by any means, but in most seasons outscoring a major conference by 0.15 points per trip is a serviceable enough synonym for Final Four potential. Early in the season we're seeing that kind of performance from Ole Miss, of all teams. And that's far from the biggest story presented by the SEC right now.

Florida has opened the SEC season by playing about as well as the sport permits. Granted the first half at Georgia was no oil painting, but no conference opponent has presented Billy Donovan's team with even the hint of a second-half threat. It's easy enough to envision the Gators' level of play becoming more like that of a normal very good team, but when UF finds itself actually having to compete in the second half to win games the essentials of this situation will still be the same.

Even with losses to Arizona and Kansas State taken into account, this has been one of the nation's best defenses all season long. And while perimeter shooting can indeed come and go (ask Illinois), Florida's interior attack is anchored by two stars (Patric Young and Erik Murphy) who for the season are shooting a combined 62 percent on their twos.

Sure, the Gators might start playing worse. But you can say that about Michigan, Kansas, or any top team. I think what we really mean when we say it about Florida in particular, however, is something more like: "Hey, in the preseason we didn't think you'd be this good." So far they have been this good.

The post-Xavier A-10 is a wild place to be

                      W-L   Pace    PPP   Opp. PPP    EM
1.  Butler            4-1   62.2    1.12    1.00    +0.12
2.  Dayton            2-3   68.2    1.09    0.97    +0.12
3.  GW                4-2   64.8    1.06    0.98    +0.08
4.  VCU               4-2   67.0    1.11    1.03    +0.08
5.  Saint Louis       3-2   66.5    1.01    0.97    +0.04
6.  Xavier            4-2   62.7    0.98    0.95    +0.03
7.  UMass             3-2   69.7    1.04    1.01    +0.03
8.  La Salle          4-2   67.1    0.98    0.96    +0.02
9.  Richmond          3-3   63.4    1.03    1.03     0.00
10. Saint Joseph's    2-3   63.4    1.07    1.08    -0.01
11. Temple            2-3   64.5    0.99    1.02    -0.03
12. Rhode Island      1-4   62.5    1.00    1.04    -0.04
13. Charlotte         4-2   69.2    0.93    0.97    -0.04
14. St. Bonaventure   2-4   63.5    1.05    1.12    -0.07
15. Fordham           2-3   71.1    0.96    1.08    -0.12
16. Duquesne          0-6   68.8    0.95    1.14    -0.19

AVG.                        65.9    1.02

Butler and VCU were expected to be very good in their new league, and for the most part they have been. Otherwise, man this place is a mess. For starters Saint Joseph's was the preseason pick to win this thing and look at the Hawks now. Phil Martelli's team has suffered a total collapse on defense. And then there's the small matter of Temple. One minute they're beating Syracuse in the Garden, the next they're losing at home to St. Bonaventure. This is chaos.

And, no, Dayton head coach Archie Miller should not go bragging to big brother Sean about his superior efficiency margin. The Flyers' impressive number has come to them courtesy of home games against Fordham and Duquesne. Archie will want to take a screen capture of this Tuesday Truths, because with road dates upcoming at Xavier and Saint Louis this may be the last UD will be seeing of the 2 spot for a while.

C-USA: Donnie Tyndall, I salute you!

                      W-L   Pace    PPP   Opp. PPP    EM
1.  Southern Miss     6-0   66.3    1.16    0.85    +0.31
2.  Memphis           5-0   65.9    1.08    0.88    +0.20
3.  UCF               4-1   66.5    1.09    0.98    +0.11
4.  UTEP              4-1   61.9    1.01    0.92    +0.09
5.  Tulsa             4-3   64.8    0.96    0.94    +0.02
6.  East Carolina     3-3   70.2    1.03    1.07    -0.04
7.  Tulane            2-3   63.6    1.00    1.05    -0.05
8.  SMU               1-5   64.0    0.94    1.02    -0.08
9.  Houston           2-4   68.8    1.00    1.08    -0.08
10. Marshall          2-3   71.9    0.94    1.02    -0.08
11. UAB               0-5   70.2    0.87    1.04    -0.17
12. Rice              0-5   61.7    0.93    1.19    -0.26

AVG.                        66.3    1.00

Last year Southern Miss was a poster child for everything that's wrong with the RPI. And, of course, that wasn't the Golden Eagles' fault. Still, the most amazing thing about the RPI is how everyone simply accepts something as remarkable if not outrageous as an undeniably nondescript Conference USA team showing up in mock brackets in January as a No. 9 seed. So Southern Miss went dancing, and they lost in the round of 64 to Kansas State.

This season there may be a happier tale to tell in Hattiesburg. The Eagles are presumed to be just another nondescript Conference USA team, but in Donnie Tyndall's first season this group could push Memphis for the league title. True, unsustainable levels of three-point shooting (44 percent) and opponent turnovers (28 percent) are driving the unsustainable number for per-possession scoring margin. But even when reality reasserts itself, Jonathan Mills and Michael Craig will still be crashing the offensive glass. Tyndall is apparently giving them the same Izzo-level motivation he gave to Kenneth Faried in the coach's previous life at Morehead State. Josh Pastner and the Tigers may have some competition after all.

Missouri Valley: Canadians in Omaha? Australians in Wichita? It's only a matter of time....

                      W-L   Pace    PPP   Opp. PPP    EM
1.  Creighton         7-2   64.9    1.20    0.99    +0.21
2.  Wichita St.       8-1   63.8    1.11    0.93    +0.18
3.  N. Iowa           4-5   62.9    1.03    0.96    +0.07
4.  Indiana St.       6-3   65.5    1.03    0.99    +0.04
5.  Evansville        5-4   64.7    1.03    1.05    -0.02
6.  Missouri St.      4-5   60.2    1.05    1.07    -0.02
7.  Illinois St.      3-6   67.9    0.98    1.01    -0.03
8.  Drake             3-6   68.9    0.99    1.11    -0.12
9.  Bradley           4-5   63.2    0.94    1.07    -0.13
10. S. Illinois       1-8   62.9    0.98    1.15    -0.17

AVG.                        64.5    1.03

The Missouri Valley has officially become the pre-BYU West Coast, with Creighton as Gonzaga (duh), and Wichita State doing a pretty fair star turn as Saint Mary's. It's all about those two teams; no one else is even close. (Though I must salute the nice back-from-the-dead routine currently being executed by Illinois State, winners of three straight.)

The Bluejays forfeited the conference lead with a rather inexplicable loss at Drake, a game the Shockers had long since played and won with ease. Then again Greg McDermott's team can even that score if they win in two week at Evansville, in the arena where WSU suffered its own somewhat inexplicable setback.

In a league that's fairly notorious for having given up on offensive rebounds, Gregg Marshall is in effect saying don't mind if I do. Wichita State has pulled down 40 percent of its misses in Valley play. In a normal conference that would be very good. In the MVC it's the moral equivalent of 50 percent.

Mountain West: Could the UNLV-SDSU race everyone anticipated be won by CSU?

                      W-L   Pace    PPP   Opp. PPP    EM
1.  Colorado St.      3-2   65.6    1.05    0.92    +0.13
2.  San Diego St.     4-2   65.7    0.99    0.91    +0.08
3.  New Mexico        4-1   67.3    0.92    0.85    +0.07
4.  UNLV              3-2   67.2    1.02    0.97    +0.05
5.  Air Force         3-2   65.9    1.02    1.06    -0.04
6.  Wyoming           2-4   58.2    0.89    0.93    -0.04
7.  Nevada            2-3   66.0    0.95    1.01    -0.06
8.  Boise St.         2-3   66.0    1.03    1.10    -0.07
9.  Fresno St.        1-5   62.1    0.93    1.04    -0.11

AVG.                        64.9    0.98

Colorado State comes out on top in the MWC's first Tuesday Truths appearance because the Rams walloped Air Force at home by 39. Then again Larry Eustachy's team has already played road games at New Mexico and San Diego State, so you should entertain the possibility that this really could be the best team in what could be the nation's third-best conference. (Don't freak out about the "third-best" thing. A slimmed-down nine-team league has less chance of having multiple Fresno State-level bad teams.)

By the way, the Colorado State game notwithstanding Air Force is a lot better than they've been in a while. (Dave Pilipovich, I salute you!) And if we didn't know it already based on stops at (what used to be called) Southwest Missouri State and Iowa, Steve Alford definitely knows his way around a good defense.

West Coast: Beware the hair!

                      W-L   Pace    PPP   Opp. PPP    EM
1.  Gonzaga           6-0   64.6    1.19    0.98    +0.21
2.  BYU               6-2   68.9    1.13    0.94    +0.19
3.  Saint Mary's      6-1   64.6    1.16    0.98    +0.18
4.  Santa Clara       4-3   66.7    1.12    1.06    +0.06
5.  San Diego         4-3   63.6    0.96    1.02    -0.06
6.  San Francisco     2-6   66.5    0.99    1.09    -0.10
7.  Pepperdine        2-5   63.1    0.96    1.10    -0.14
8.  Loyola Marymount  1-6   66.7    0.94    1.10    -0.16
9.  Portland          1-6   63.7    0.88    1.05    -0.17

AVG.                        65.4    1.04

Why is there zero national POY talk for Kelly Olynyk? His offensive rating is slightly higher than Cody Zeller's, and his possession usage dwarfs the corresponding number for the Hoosier. Mark Few's junior takes 29 percent of the Zags' shots during his minutes and he's hitting 69 percent of his twos.

I realize in the preseason no one expected Few to give Olynyk the keys to the offense, and so there was zero hype in this direction. But this is what has occurred. So why don't I hear "Olynyk" along with "Zeller," "Burke," "McDermott," and "McLemore"? Just asking.

John uses fewer decimal points on Twitter: @JohnGasaway.

John Gasaway is an author of Basketball Prospectus. You can contact John by clicking here or click here to see John's other articles.

1 comment has been left for this article.

<< Previous Article
Introducing the EGOT's (01/28)
<< Previous Column
Tuesday Truths (01/22)
Next Column >>
Tuesday Truths (02/05)
Next Article >>
Premium Article Judging K-State, Butle... (01/30)

RECENTLY AT BASKETBALL PROSPECTUS
State of Basketball Prospectus: A Brief Anno...
Tuesday Truths: March-at-Last Edition
Easy Bubble Solver: The Triumphant Return
Premium Article Bubbles of their Own Making: Villanova, Temp...
Tuesday Truths: Crunch Time Edition


MORE BY JOHN GASAWAY
2013-02-03 - Premium Article Smarter After Saturday: How IU Can Get Even ...
2013-01-31 - Premium Article Just Imagine: If Gonzaga Were in the Big Ten
2013-01-30 - Premium Article Judging K-State, Butler and Pitt: Polls vs. ...
2013-01-29 - Tuesday Truths: Full-Strength Edition
2013-01-27 - Premium Article Smarter After Saturday: Why UNC's On the Bub...
2013-01-24 - Premium Article Ducks, Cats and Bruins: The Pac-12's Big Thr...
2013-01-22 - Tuesday Truths: Gator-Bait Edition
More...

MORE TUESDAY TRUTHS
2013-02-19 - Tuesday Truths: Brother-in-Law Birthday Edit...
2013-02-12 - Tuesday Truths: Theme-Free Edition
2013-02-05 - Tuesday Truths: Truth-in-Advertising Edition
2013-01-29 - Tuesday Truths: Full-Strength Edition
2013-01-22 - Tuesday Truths: Gator-Bait Edition
2013-01-15 - Tuesday Truths: Too-Early Edition
2012-03-05 - Tuesday Truths: Final Reality
More...

Basketball Prospectus Home  |  Terms of Service  |  Privacy Policy  |  Contact Us
Copyright © 1996-2014 Prospectus Entertainment Ventures, LLC.