Unofficial Official 2012-13 College Basketball Thread

[spleen1015]

I'll concede that it is not a shitty job. Historically it might by a top 5 job, but I don't think it is today.

It is scary to think what Shaka Smart might be capable of with a top school's resources.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Again, it depends on what you criteria is, but lets not act like this is Tennessee or Texas we are talking about. Winning at UCLA is on par with winning at KU, UNC, Kentucky, and IU.

I said 6 programs and those were the 5 I had in mind plus Duke. Does Duke get to go there? It was basically coasting along throughout history, building the counting stats of historic but non-elite program like Temple or St Johns and then Coach K gets there. Over the last 30 years, they start racking up the NCAA tourney appearances, conference titles, NBA players, Final Fours, and NCAA titles that put them on par with the other 5 programs even tho it's basically the product of one, admittedly excellent, coach. For instance, they had 4 Final Fours in their 74 years before 1980 and 11 since. They have more conference titles since he's been there than the 74 years before, etc. So, if a coach is there 30 years, enough to significantly define a program, can we move them into the elite group?

SI

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I said 6 programs and those were the 5 I had in mind plus Duke. Does Duke get to go there? It was basically coasting along throughout history, building the counting stats of historic but non-elite program like Temple or St Johns and then Coach K gets there. Over the last 30 years, they start racking up the NCAA tourney appearances, conference titles, NBA players, Final Fours, and NCAA titles that put them on par with the other 5 programs even tho it's basically the product of one, admittedly excellent, coach. For instance, they had 4 Final Fours in their 74 years before 1980 and 11 since. They have more conference titles since he's been there than the 74 years before, etc. So, if a coach is there 30 years, enough to significantly define a program, can we move them into the elite group?

SI

Yes sir. Not a whole lot different than UCLA and Wooden or Indiana and Bobby Knight.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

I'll concede that it is not a shitty job. Historically it might by a top 5 job, but I don't think it is today.

It is scary to think what Shaka Smart might be capable of with a top school's resources.

And that's exactly it: put someone that savvy with that many resources and you have a scary power that could be up and running in fairly short order. However, one never knows how well it fits. Maybe he can't recruit the west coast. It's harder to convince better guys to buy into your system when they think what they do works. There are more internal politics to a job like UCLA than at VCU where you can make that sort of noise in the tourney and practically run the school. Maybe the family doesn't like the west coast or LA. Who knows. There are lots of reasons why these things don't work but it could also work out very well.

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Yes sir. Not a whole lot different than UCLA and Wooden or Indiana and Bobby Knight.

Kindof my thoughts as well, but figured I'd throw it out there

SI

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Just ask NHL fans how that works out. It's just human nature: you want security and when you have it, you start looking around and seeing what else is important in life. I imagine that once you've got your guaranteed $10M or $20M or whatnot, you just don't work quite as hard. You start thinking that maybe it's more important to go see your son's play or daughter's game than spend those extra 2 hours looking over tape for the next game or looking at potential recruits.

SI

See Kirk Ferentz, Iowa football.

[muns]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

And that's exactly it: put someone that savvy with that many resources and you have a scary power that could be up and running in fairly short order. However, one never knows how well it fits. Maybe he can't recruit the west coast. It's harder to convince better guys to buy into your system when they think what they do works. There are more internal politics to a job like UCLA than at VCU where you can make that sort of noise in the tourney and practically run the school. Maybe the family doesn't like the west coast or LA. Who knows. There are lots of reasons why these things don't work but it could also work out very well.

SI

Or you end up with nut cases as recruits for a stretch of a period of time combined with a few guys leaving to the nba and you lose your job.....

I love how people think Howland cant coach anymore. Like he up and magically forgot. He had a tough stretch there for a bit but he isn't dirt like most fans think he is.

I think Smart has a promising future, but I don't know a lot of top 50 recruits that want to play in your face D for the entire game..... Its all about scoring points, not playing tough D......

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by muns

Or you end up with nut cases as recruits for a stretch of a period of time combined with a few guys leaving to the nba and you lose your job.....

I love how people think Howland cant coach anymore. Like he up and magically forgot. He had a tough stretch there for a bit but he isn't dirt like most fans think he is.

I think Smart has a promising future, but I don't know a lot of top 50 recruits that want to play in your face D for the entire game..... Its all about scoring points, not playing tough D......

Part of the magic of great coaching. Pitino can sell defense to his top recruits. Howland just hasn't been able to sell his ideas at UCLA and would probably do better at a school like Iowa or Minnesota where he isn't trying to sell to the top high school players in the nation.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Im disappointed that SLU lost. Live by the 3, die by the 3.

They were ice cold for sure. Credit Oregon's defense, should be a good game vs Louisville.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by rowech

Is it anymore really? I can name 10 schools I would rather be at and you're always being judged against Wooden which is never going to come close to being repeated.

Nobody has compared a coach to Wooden in 30 years.

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Sorry, but I don't buy this. Wouldn't the better career trajectory be Krysewski at Duke? Why follow in people's footsteps when you can create your own legacy and build a program to immortal status?

They're never going to replace Wooden, why not be the first Brad Stevens?

Duke had success before Butler did. Not a good comparison.

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Or the first Mark Few?

And therein lies the problem. It's really hard to get to the top of the mountain, even if pretty much everything breaks right for you at one of the smaller schools.

UCLA is absolutely a sleeping giant that just needs the right coach. It's one of the 6 major programs in college hoops. But it comes with extremely high standards. After all, Howland made three straight Final Fours earlier in his tenure and now he's gone after a couple of fairly bad seasons (not sure why they didn't fire him after last season but it's because of the recruiting class, I assume).

SI

Missing the tournament in two of the five years, while not making it to the Sweet 16 in 6 years is high standards?

Originally Posted by spleen1015

I don't believe for a second that Stevens would leave Butler for a shitty job at UCLA. Stevens will stay at Butler for his entire career.

None of those 3 coaches are dumb enough to leave their current jobs for UCLA. UCLA is not a top tier job any more. None of the hot young names in coaching will go there. Someone lame like Bruce Weber will go there.

I don't think a more awful take has been made in this thread.

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Yes sir. Not a whole lot different than UCLA and Wooden or Indiana and Bobby Knight.

Indiana? That's not a very good comparison at all. Since Wooden retired, UCLA won another NC and made the finals with two other coaches (but lost).

Indiana....haha.

Originally Posted by muns

Or you end up with nut cases as recruits for a stretch of a period of time combined with a few guys leaving to the nba and you lose your job.....

I love how people think Howland cant coach anymore. Like he up and magically forgot. He had a tough stretch there for a bit but he isn't dirt like most fans think he is.

I think Smart has a promising future, but I don't know a lot of top 50 recruits that want to play in your face D for the entire game..... Its all about scoring points, not playing tough D......

Howland can still coach. He lost his players during the last Final Four and has been unable to get them back since. He also sacrificed what brought him success (hard D and athletes) and instead went after shooters, who subsequently have a lack of athleticism to run his defense.

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Part of the magic of great coaching. Pitino can sell defense to his top recruits. Howland just hasn't been able to sell his ideas at UCLA and would probably do better at a school like Iowa or Minnesota where he isn't trying to sell to the top high school players in the nation.

I agree. I think he'd work well at Northwestern.

Here is an old article written about UCLA that sums up things well.
------------------------------------------------------
I've experienced many people attempting to comment about UCLA basketball who don't really know it.

Because they don't know it, they do a few things to have an angle:

-- They trot old old fallacies about the UCLA basketball community not accepting anything less than Wooden-level success.

-- They take the word of people who have an agenda, or other people who don't know UCLA basketball.

-- There is kind of an accepted unwritten creed that, if you're a commentator, you defend all coaches, even if the commentator knows that the coach is deservedly on the hot seat (except for Bill Walton, of course, to ad nauseum).

Here are some realities:

-- The UCLA community is by far a more forgiving one that any other traditional top-five program in the country. No other top 5 program would tolerate the program's performance under coaches like Steve Lavin, Larry Farmer or Walt Hazzard. UCLA kept Lavin, amazingly, for 7 years. No other top 5 program would tolerate the most recent five seasons. And not only does the UCLA community tolerate it, a big portion of the community actually forgives it. Do you think this could happen at Kentucky, Kansas, or North Carolina? It wouldn't, because those basketball communities wouldn't tolerate it.

If you put some things into place at UCLA, in either football or basketball, but moreso basketball even, the Giant will awaken. This is what it takes: money, good facilities and a good coach. If you have that, UCLA's natural advantages will keep it in the rarified air of the nation's top five programs consistently. For the last 10 years, UCLA didn't have good facilities, didn't have money but, for the most part (well the first five years), had a good coach. What has happened to Howland at UCLA, however, is in own fault. He abandoned the philosophy and approach that took him to three straight Final Fours, and it begot him the last four seasons of only two NCAA appearances, and poor appearances at that, and one losing season -- along with this current season. Howland gambling with his philosophy and approach and his personality is what did him in, not anything about UCLA's fans.

Now, UCLA has good facilities and some money to spend. It just needs a good coach, one who hasn't coached himself into a corner in terms of his management style, philosophy, approach and recruiting.

[muns]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Part of the magic of great coaching. Pitino can sell defense to his top recruits. Howland just hasn't been able to sell his ideas at UCLA and would probably do better at a school like Iowa or Minnesota where he isn't trying to sell to the top high school players in the nation.

This is my exact point in saying what I said. Did he somehow forget how to recruit and coach?? He has already done it at UCLA. Why cant he continue? He just made won the pac-12 and made the tourney again.

My point was that top recruits don't target programs that play full court in your face D. They just don't. Lousiville had 1 guy in the top 99 last year recruiting wise. UCLA had 4 in the top 50 including 2 in the top 5 and that was in the middle of people saying Howland was done coaching....

Finding guys to fit your style and getting that buy in, is much different than getting guys that want to come to begin with.

How many finals 4's has Pitino been to in the past 10 years? 2. Howland has been to 3 including the title game.

so his philosophy being different or better at Minnesota or Iowa makes no sense to me. It has worked at UCLA, and worked better than most remember.

Fan bases are crazy.....

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by muns

This is my exact point in saying what I said. Did he somehow forget how to recruit and coach?? He has already done it at UCLA. Why cant he continue? He just made won the pac-12 and made the tourney again.

My point was that top recruits don't target programs that play full court in your face D. They just don't. Lousiville had 1 guy in the top 99 last year recruiting wise. UCLA had 4 in the top 50 including 2 in the top 5 and that was in the middle of people saying Howland was done coaching....

Finding guys to fit your style and getting that buy in, is much different than getting guys that want to come to begin with.

How many finals 4's has Pitino been to in the past 10 years? 2. Howland has been to 3 including the title game.

so his philosophy being different or better at Minnesota or Iowa makes no sense to me. It has worked at UCLA, and worked better than most remember.

Fan bases are crazy.....

Howland can't manage the roster. The AAU teams in California are steering players away. Can you imagine a scenario where kids in California DON'T play for UCLA? We had the top class last year, yes, but not one kid was from the state of California. And it took hiring an AAU coach from Georgia to land two of those kids. The class of 2013? We have three kids. One unranked SF from California, and a kid from Washington and Nevada. The year before we landed Norman Powell from San Diego and if Howland stays, he's leaving. He even has been reported to have told two former teammates in HS to not come to UCLA. It's toxic at UCLA. It has nothing to do with coaching. Howland, in all of his time at UCLA, has never had a full roster. He's had spots avilable to give to walkons for the year.

[muns]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Howland can't manage the roster. The AAU teams in California are steering players away. Can you imagine a scenario where kids in California DON'T play for UCLA? We had the top class last year, yes, but not one kid was from the state of California. And it took hiring an AAU coach from Georgia to land two of those kids. The class of 2013? We have three kids. One unranked SF from California, and a kid from Washington and Nevada. The year before we landed Norman Powell from San Diego and if Howland stays, he's leaving. He even has been reported to have told two former teammates in HS to not come to UCLA. It's toxic at UCLA. It has nothing to do with coaching. Howland, in all of his time at UCLA, has never had a full roster. He's had spots avilable to give to walkons for the year.

Now this makes sense to me, but that's not what I hear most people grumbling about.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by muns

Now this makes sense to me, but that's not what I hear most people grumbling about.

What are they grumbling about?

The SI article didn't do Howland any favors nor did losing to Cal Poly and WSU this year.

[muns]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

What are they grumbling about?

They will just throw things out there that makes no sense, like he hasn't had past success and didn't just have success again this year. Now if he has lost control (like it has been suggested before, I.E. the SI article) then that's different. Being in the middle of it, you would know, but from an outsider it looks like he got things back on track this year.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by muns

They will just throw things out there that makes no sense, like he hasn't had past success and didn't just have success again this year. Now if he has lost control (like it has been suggested before, I.E. the SI article) then that's different. Being in the middle of it, you would know, but from an outsider it looks like he got things back on track this year.

Admittedly, he did a great job coaching 7 players this year. However, we are bringing in three kids so far, a SG, SG, and a SF. We are losing a PG and a SF. But we are also going to lose our 8th player, Tony Parker and only C on the roster and Norman Powell as well. It's because they can't stand playing here. So we'll lose 4 and add just three. I'm not sure we can land a transfer from North Carolina (we have three by the way) anymore as Roy stopped recruiting kids from California. Howland's fix? Start recruiting Junior college college players.

[molson]

Originally Posted by muns

How many finals 4's has Pitino been to in the past 10 years? 2. Howland has been to 3 including the title game.

so his philosophy being different or better at Minnesota or Iowa makes no sense to me. It has worked at UCLA, and worked better than most remember.

Fan bases are crazy.....

Ya, where I can make a bet that the next UCLA coach won't get to 3 final fours before he leaves (let alone the 4 it would take to be more successful than Howland)? I think the boosters and even general fan-bases of pretty much every program think they're supposed to be much better than they are.

[muns]

Im a Pitt fan. Our fan base is stupid for wishing Jamie Dixon would leave. Like Pitt Basketball was this major contributor to college basketball before Howland and Dixon made them relevant. Ya so we have fell on our faces in the tourney the past few years but we weren't anywhere before them. Id rather be there than no be there, and have some other guy come in and set the program back on a downward trend. The what have you done for us lately stuff is crazy sometimes.

[muns]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Admittedly, he did a great job coaching 7 players this year. However, we are bringing in three kids so far, a SG, SG, and a SF. We are losing a PG and a SF. But we are also going to lose our 8th player, Tony Parker and only C on the roster and Norman Powell as well. It's because they can't stand playing here. So we'll lose 4 and add just three. I'm not sure we can land a transfer from North Carolina (we have three by the way) anymore as Roy stopped recruiting kids from California. Howland's fix? Start recruiting Junior college college players.

I cant say a thing about what you are talking about there. Thanks for the articulate info on what you see inside the program Bug

[MrBug708]

FWIW, Brad Stevens will be the first guy on the list to discuss. I think they'll also want to speak to Donovan and Pitino

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by molson

Ya, where I can make a bet that the next UCLA coach won't get to 2 final fours before he leaves? I think the boosters and even general fan-bases of pretty much every program think they're supposed to be much better than they are.

You probably can't make that bet with any school/coach combo.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I said 6 programs and those were the 5 I had in mind plus Duke. Does Duke get to go there? It was basically coasting along throughout history, building the counting stats of historic but non-elite program like Temple or St Johns and then Coach K gets there. Over the last 30 years, they start racking up the NCAA tourney appearances, conference titles, NBA players, Final Fours, and NCAA titles that put them on par with the other 5 programs even tho it's basically the product of one, admittedly excellent, coach. For instance, they had 4 Final Fours in their 74 years before 1980 and 11 since. They have more conference titles since he's been there than the 74 years before, etc. So, if a coach is there 30 years, enough to significantly define a program, can we move them into the elite group?

SI

I didn't consciously leave them out,those were just the programs I chose to put in for comparison. Duke certainly belongs there, as does Syracuse

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by muns

Im a Pitt fan. Our fan base is stupid for wishing Jamie Dixon would leave. Like Pitt Basketball was this major contributor to college basketball before Howland and Dixon made them relevant. Ya so we have fell on our faces in the tourney the past few years but we weren't anywhere before them. Id rather be there than no be there, and have some other guy come in and set the program back on a downward trend. The what have you done for us lately stuff is crazy sometimes.

As a Washington alum I echo this sentiment, sadly most UW fans dont agree, at least the vocal ones

[molson]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

You probably can't make that bet with any school/coach combo.

Yes, and the same with the equivalent in football, but I think the boosters and fanbases often think that's just what they're doing. If the last guy had 3 final fours in 10 years and that was a failure, then presumably they believe the next guy will do better.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by molson

Yes, and the same with the equivalent in football, but I think the boosters and fanbases often think that's just what they're doing. If the last guy had 3 final fours in 10 years and that was a failure, then presumably they believe the next guy will do better.

From an outsiders POV, I would agree. But that's not the situation at all. It's not like the Final fours are spread out either, it's been a few years, including missed NCAA tounaments. But again, coaching ability isn't the issue

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Lathum

As a Washington alum I echo this sentiment, sadly most UW fans dont agree, at least the vocal ones

I would like you to land Aaron Gordon. I don't think it's in the cards though.

[molson]

I don't know exactly when Jim Boeheim became unfireable but there were some stretches where they couldn't get past the round of 16 for a while and where they were upset a lot in he tournament. I think under modern thinking he would have been fired during one of those stretches. But I don't think the Syracuse program would have been better in the long-run if they went through a few coaches in the between then and now. Though, Syracuse is a private school in a dead city with terrible weather, so unlike UCLA, nothing about them really would inherently indicate a successful athletic program aside from Boeheim, so it'd make sense to build that with him as long as possible.

[muns]

Originally Posted by Lathum

As a Washington alum I echo this sentiment, sadly most UW fans dont agree, at least the vocal ones

He is on my list of coaches like that, as was herb at nc state. The Sydney Lowe experiment didn't exactly go as planned and that is not what I want to go through at Pitt.

[muns]

Man Iowa State has missed so many lay-ups in this game. Clyburn cant buy a lay-up and luscious cant hold on to the ball. Its impressive they are still in this game

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by muns

so his philosophy being different or better at Minnesota or Iowa makes no sense to me. It has worked at UCLA, and worked better than most remember.

Fan bases are crazy.....

He can coach "his" guys at Minnesota or Iowa. At UCLA he is forced with higher talent worse attitude guys in a lot of cases. His fault for not adjusting but I'm not sure why u think Howland has done such a super job. His teams have under achieved and he has constantly had players in trouble. Not a good fit.

[muns]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

He can coach "his" guys at Minnesota or Iowa. At UCLA he is forced with higher talent worse attitude guys in a lot of cases. His fault for not adjusting but I'm not sure why u think Howland has done such a super job. His teams have under achieved and he has constantly had players in trouble. Not a good fit.

Where would you have the cut off point for "super" be? 3 final 4's doesn't do it for you? Goes back to the point of what have you done for me lately.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Indiana? That's not a very good comparison at all. Since Wooden retired, UCLA won another NC and made the finals with two other coaches (but lost).

Indiana....haha.

.

Well it's also been 40 years since wooden retired and less than 15 for Knight. 1 championship and 3 finals for UCLA in 40 years isn't exactly great.

[sterlingice]

If you're Ohio State, how do you keep leaving guys open for 3s? Iowa State just can't get inside except somehow for offensive boards but they live and die by the 3 so why not go out on them more?

SI

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by muns

Where would you have the cut off point for "super" be? 3 final 4's doesn't do it for you? Goes back to the point of what have you done for me lately.

Yeah great talent on them teams. Love, westbrook, collision, affalo, mbah a moute and others.

With 2 future nba MVP candidates on a roster you can only wonder how the final four was their ceiling.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Well it's also been 40 years since wooden retired and less than 15 for Knight. 1 championship and 3 finals for UCLA in 40 years isn't exactly great.

Half the country didn't get in the tournament in the early years post Wooden either.

[muns]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Yeah great talent on them teams. Love, westbrook, collision, affalo, mbah a moute and others.

With 2 future nba MVP candidates on a roster you can only wonder how the final four was their ceiling.

lol so it still wasn't a feat to make the final 4 three years in a row? Name the last coach that did it.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by muns

lol so it still wasn't a feat to make the final 4 three years in a row? Name the last coach that did it.

I think there are 6 of them, and Howland is the only one who didn't win a title

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by muns

lol so it still wasn't a feat to make the final 4 three years in a row? Name the last coach that did it.

Tom Izzo

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by muns

lol so it still wasn't a feat to make the final 4 three years in a row? Name the last coach that did it.

Never said it wasn't a feat. His time has come and gone. They aren't getting them players anymore and they aren't winning anything plus their players they do get don't fit the system.

[muns]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

I think there are 6 of them, and Howland is the only one who didn't win a title

now that is a neat stat

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Half the country didn't get in the tournament in the early years post Wooden either.

That was kind of the original point on if duke belonged in the elite discussion

[sterlingice]

I guess the converse is "For a coach who made 3 Final Fours earlier in his tenure, how bad does it have to be before he gets fired"

SI

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

That was kind of the original point on if duke belonged in the elite discussion

I dont have a problem of who is included, just that UCLA isn't.

[muns]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Never said it wasn't a feat. His time has come and gone. They aren't getting them players anymore and they aren't winning anything plus their players they do get don't fit the system.

I'm just going to agree to disagree. Bug's argument makes sense about losing control and not being able to get the top cali talent. Yours does not.

They just had what a top 5 class last year, and won the pac-12 title this year. Still seems very relevant to me.

Anyone have a guess to where Howland ends up?

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I guess the converse is "For a coach who made 3 Final Fours earlier in his tenure, how bad does it have to be before he gets fired"

SI

If Howland was still consistently making tournaments, it wouldn't be the right answer

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by muns

I'm just going to agree to disagree. Bug's argument makes sense about losing control and not being able to get the top cali talent. Yours does not.

They just had what a top 5 class last year, and won the pac-12 title this year. Still seems very relevant to me.

Anyone have a guess to where Howland ends up?

He's not wrong either though. When your talent pool dries up, you get anyone who will come play. The Wear twins aren't without talent, but they should never be on an Final Four caliber Howland roster.

Once Howland lost that Final Four to Memphis, he changed the recruits he was looking for in his system.

[muns]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

Tom Izzo

touché sir

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

I dont have a problem of who is included, just that UCLA isn't.

I was defending them.

Unc
Kansas
Kentucky
Duke
UCLA
Indiana

Would be my top 6

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by muns

touché sir

As far as I can tell

Wooden (Duh)
Coach K (1988-1992)
Izzo (1999-2001)
Dean Smith (1967-1969) *No title there, but later on
Harold Olsen (1944-1946) *No title
Phil Woolpert (1955-1957)

[MrBug708]

UCLA has always been considered the job that never made good hires and that was because they are cheap. Did you know Howland took a pay cut to come to UCLA? They went with Lavin because he was the only assistant left from the title winning team. Had Romar and Gottfried stayed, either of them would have gotten the job. Harrick was the fifth choice because no one wanted to come to UCLA due to the small pay.

But during Wooden's final years as coach, Denny Crum asked JD Morgan (UCLA AD) if he could follow Wooden and so he wouldn't take the Louisville job. Morgan wouldn't give him that guarantee, so Crum left. So Wooden to Crum to Pitino could have been the realistic coaching progression at UCLA with quite a few more titles than 1.