G  MIN  FG  FGA  3P 3PA  FT FTA  REB  PF AST  TO BLK STL  PTS
93-94 UConn      34  735 158  310  33  82  80 101  155  46  53  47   7  38  429
94-95 UConn      32 1051 255  521  85 191  80 110  218  53  75  64  16  61  675
95-96 UConn      35 1215 292  618 115 247 119 147  228  46 117  82  18  60  818
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS          101 3001 705 1449 233 520 279 358  601 145 245 193  41 159 1922

                  MIN   FG%   3P%   FT%  RPG  APG  TPG  BPG  SPG   PPG
93-94 UConn      21.6  51.0  40.2  79.2  4.6  1.6  1.4  0.2  1.1  12.6
94-95 UConn      32.8  48.9  44.5  72.7  6.8  2.3  2.0  0.5  1.9  21.1
95-96 UConn      34.7  47.2  46.6  81.0  6.5  3.3  2.3  0.5  1.7  23.4
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS           29.7  48.7  44.8  77.9  6.0  2.4  1.9  0.4  1.6  19.0

        A natural scorer. Allen's graceful, compact moves on offense often
evoke comparisons with Michael Jordan. Allen is probably more of a scorer
than a natural shooter, but he can hit from long distance. He runs the break
like a gazelle and can finish effectively. His size and diverse offensive
game are well-suited to the up-tempo pace of the NBA. 
  
        His ball-handling and man to man defense need to improve in order to
make the transition to the NBA.

A very athletic shooting guard, with great scoring potential: very good 
shooter, with quick release. shoots well coming of screens, and can also 
create his own shot off-the-dribble. good pull up J shooter...
A slasher, can get to the basket in half court set, and is an explosive 
and exciting finisher, mostly on the break. excellent runner, has good 
quickness and leaping ability, and big hands, which allows his to catch 
the ball on the move and dunk on people...
Unselfish player, but not a gifted passer or ball handler, and won't be 
able to, say, play the point...
Also has potential as a defender. not very big or strong, but has quick 
feet, and should be able to defend shooting guards on the perimeter...

I dont think he's a 'frenchise player', but could become a great 
second-option on a good team, in the mold of Kandall Gill or a 'calmer' 
John Starks.

General Info:
             First team All-American. Big East Conference Player
             of the Year.
Comments:
             Terrific all-around player. Can create for himself or
             teammates. 
Summary:
             I consider him the best player available.

No Stats

I played against and watched Kobe Bryant at Lower Merion and in summer 
leagues so I might know a little.
Strengths-  Kobe's number one stregth is his maturity.  He is a lot more 
mature than a lot of the college players and some NBA players as well.  
This is a huge asset because he isn't going into this without thinking 
like some people might think.  Extremely intelligent player and student.  
Sees the floor very well because of his height and is an excellent 
finisher.  Knows the game of basketball and what needs to be done to win 
(won the state championships without his point guard and top outside 
shooter).  Is a true leader who often dominated games with triple teams 
most of the time.  Can hit from three with accuracy (good %).  Fierce 
competitor with a lot of determination. Played all 5 positions in high 
school so he can also work down low.  Has perfected the turn around 
fall-away jumper (Jordan's tradmark)  A lot of people think he doesn't 
like to lift to bulk up but he'll do whatever it takes to make it in the 
league.
Weaknesses- True, he is 17 (close to 18) which is huge but as his dad 
said "he's 17 going on 25".  Has questionable ballhandling skills (to be 
a projected point guard). May not be ready for the rigors of the NBA life 
and does not have the body for it right now (although his father, ex-nba 
player, will be with him most of the time).  Does not have a true 
position.  Played all 5 in high school and didn't perfect any one of the 
five.  Is very good at all 5 but not great.
I project him just as everyone else going no lower than 12 or so and I 
wouldn't be suprised if he goes much higher.  Don't everyone jump on me 
at once who read this but I read that the 76ers might be intersted in 
keeping him home.  He practiced with them in the summer and they loved 
him.  Even said they would draft him when he came out.

General Info:
             Led his team to the state championship, while
             averaging 30 ppg. He's currently 17 years old.
Comments:
             Has been compared to Grant Hill, but some scouts
             feel he doesn't have the ballhandling and shooting
             skills to be an effective guard.
Summary:
             He'll likely be a top 20 pick.

                  G  MIN  FG  FGA  3P 3PA  FT FTA  REB  PF AST  TO BLK STL  PTS
92-93 Arizona St 28  696 134  377  66 217  31  47   98  63  51  65  17  47  365
93-94 Arizona St 28  908 139  383  59 194  61  91  139  76  71  75  10  38  398
94-95 Arizona St 33  997 192  437  80 222  64  86  176  81  48  64  12  69  528
95-96 Arizona St 27  900 186  478  58 198 113 157  166  62  69  82  15  48  543
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS          116 3501 651 1675 263 831 269 381  579 282 239 286  54 202 1834

                  MIN   FG%   3P%   FT%  RPG  APG  TPG  BPG  SPG   PPG
92-93 Arizona St 24.9  35.5  30.4  66.0  3.5  1.8  2.3  0.6  1.7  13.0
93-94 Arizona St 32.4  36.3  30.4  67.0  5.0  2.5  2.7  0.4  1.4  14.2
94-95 Arizona St 30.2  43.9  36.0  74.4  5.3  1.5  1.9  0.4  2.1  16.0
95-96 Arizona St 33.3  38.9  29.3  72.0  6.1  2.6  3.0  0.6  1.8  20.1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS           30.2  38.9  31.6  70.6  5.0  2.1  2.5  0.5  1.7  15.8

Very athletic shooting guard with decent size.
Has excellent leaping ability and good quickness.
Thrives in a trapping type of defense, where he can
steal the ball and take it in for a dunk, which would
make him a good fit for a Seattle-type team. Scoring went up, but
shooting stats (both fg% and 3pt fg%) took a hit his senior year -
similarly to what happened to Michael Finley (ASU star center
Mario Bennett and his inside scoring left for the NBA.)
Naturally there are questions whether he can succeed in a
traditional NBA half-court offense.  Certainly he has a similar
upside and game to Michael Finley, although Finley is probably a better
half-court defender and drive and dish guy.  The athleticism is
certainly there.

Watched Riley for 4 years at ASU, and didn't see much improvement, but a 
solid college career.  Nevada State H.S. player of the year in his senior 
season.  Played in shadows of Stevin "Hedake" Smith and Mario Bennett for 
his first 3 seasons.  All time leading scorer at ASU.  Despite the low 
percentages, is a decent outside shooter.  Excellent rebounder for his 
size, can jump out of the gym.  Sometimes disappeared in crucial 
situations.  His game is very similar to that of Michael Finley, although 
Riley is a better outside shooter at this stage.  Decent defender, ASU 
played a trapping style defense for much of his career.  Shouldn't make an 
immediate splash in the league, but could develop into a solid pro in 
time.

General Info:
             Improved his consistency during his career at A.S.U.
Comments:
             Scouts have mixed opinions on him. Some feel he has
             the athletic ability to thrive at the pro level. Other
             scouts feel he's a marginal prospect.
Summary:
             Riley is capable of being an effective player at both
             ends of the court. I think he'll be a "steal" in the
             mid-second round.

                  G  MIN  FG  FGA  3P 3PA  FT FTA  REB  PF AST  TO BLK STL  PTS
92-93 Villanova  27  875 108  224  41  95  37  55   94  43  79  53  11  47  294
93-94 Villanova  32 1260 233  516  73 209  91 129  207  41 109  71  13  87  630
94-95 Villanova  33 1218 264  504  86 209  92 120  201  55 115  70  13  71  706
95-96 Villanova  30 1059 216  475  78 193 103 145  213  45 105  55  10  72  613
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS          122 4412 821 1719 278 706 323 449  715 184 408 249  47 277 2243

                  MIN   FG%   3P%   FT%  RPG  APG  TPG  BPG  SPG   PPG
92-93 Villanova  32.4  48.2  43.2  67.3  3.5  2.9  2.0  0.4  1.7  10.9
93-94 Villanova  39.4  45.2  34.9  70.5  6.5  3.4  2.2  0.4  2.7  19.7
94-95 Villanova  36.9  52.4  41.1  76.7  6.1  3.5  2.1  0.4  2.2  21.4
95-96 Villanova  35.3  45.5  40.4  71.0  7.1  3.5  1.8  0.3  2.4  20.4
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS           36.2  47.8  39.4  71.9  5.9  3.3  2.0  0.4  2.3  18.4

        If the grace and fluidity of Ray Allen compare to Michael Jordan
than Kerry Kittles is more like a Scottie Pippen-type. His wiry frame and
well-rounded game bring compare easily with the Bulls' All-Star small forward. 

        Kittles is the type of player who can contribute without scoring.
His strong defense and above average ball handling can make his teammates
look better. The prototypical slasher, Kittles creates his offense by
sllicing his way to the basket rather than standing behing the arc and
firing from long-range. His jump shot often runs hot-and-cold and will need
to become more consistent in order to make him a star in the NBA. Kittles
will also need hit the weight room and add some muscle to his sleek frame in
order to handle some of the NBA's stronger 2-guards.

General Info:
             First team All-American. Suspended for three games
             late in the season for misuse of a credit card.
Comments:
             Prototype off guard, with good all-around skills.
Summary:
             Kittles will be a top 10 pick.

                  G  MIN  FG  FGA  3P 3PA  FT FTA  REB  PF AST  TO BLK STL  PTS
92-93 Kentucky   30  287  47  104  18  51  24  33   57  24  22  19   3  17  136
93-94 Kentucky   34  970 200  440  95 254  69 108  153  70  59  59  21  64  564
94-95 Kentucky   33  960 207  433  77 197  60  89  110  67  65  51   9  53  551
95-96 Kentucky   36  947 229  464  93 210  88 110  150  72  64  64  13  67  639
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS          133 3164 683 1441 283 712 241 340  470 233 210 193  46 201 1890

                  MIN   FG%   3P%   FT%  RPG  APG  TPG  BPG  SPG   PPG
92-93 Kentucky    9.6  45.2  35.3  72.7  1.9  0.7  0.6  0.1  0.6   4.5
93-94 Kentucky   28.5  45.5  37.4  63.9  4.5  1.7  1.7  0.6  1.9  16.6
94-95 Kentucky   29.1  47.8  39.1  67.4  3.3  2.0  1.5  0.3  1.6  16.7
95-96 Kentucky   26.3  49.4  44.3  80.0  4.2  1.8  1.8  0.4  1.9  17.8
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS           23.8  47.4  39.7  70.9  3.5  1.6  1.5  0.3  1.5  14.2

        A lethal marksman from long-distance, Delk's range seemingly extends
to the parking lot outside of the arena. Tony demostrated his ability to
fill the nets up in a hurry in the Final Four, draining a record seven
three's in the championship game. Delk is also an excellent defender who
uses lightning quick hands and feet and his compact, muscular frame to
blanket the man with the ball.

        Delk's biggest weak point is his lack of height for a two-guard.
There aren't very many effective 6' two-guards in the NBA, which doesn't
bode well for Delk's tranisition to the NBA. He may have trouble getting his
shot off against taller opponents and his lack of size will be routinely
exploited in the post. 

        Delk's ball-handling and passing are also a sore spot. Pitino tried
to move him to the point at the beginning of the year but the experiment
failed miserably. Kentucky only started to catch fire when Anthony Epps took
over the starter's spot and Delk was moved to his natural 2-spot. He hasn't
really shown the ability to create his own shot in a half-court set on
offense either.

        In the NBA. Delk may be best suited to coming off the bench and
providing instant offense for a team with a big point guard that can offset
his lack of size.

        compensate somewhat for his lack of height.  Delk is also very strong
        which will help out when he is posted up down inside.  No doubt,
        Delk will have trouble guarding much taller players, but not as
        badly as most 6'1" guards.

        Delk is a total fit at shooting guard offensively.  We all know about
        his outside shooting -- the tremendous range, the ability to shoot
        from a standstill as well as shooting off the dribble.  Delk's senior
        year showed career highs in every shooting category.  Perhaps what
        stands out the most is that he upped his FT percentage more than 13
        percentage points from his junior year, which is nothing but a
        testament to concentration and practice.  But Delk is much more than
        a shooter.  The fact is, Tony Delk is a pure scorer.  You don't lead
        the team in scoring 3 straight years playing under Rick Pitino being
        a standstill shooter.  In addition to the terrific outside game, Delk
        can score off the dribble, as well as occasionally post up inside,
        using his strength to his advantage.  In fact, and we've
        heard comparisons before, but Tony Delk could honestly be the next
        Vinnie Johnson.  The difference between Delk and other players who
        have been compared to VJ in the past?  The strength and ability to
        play down low.  Delk is neither afraid nor shy about going inside
        for shots, and here his leaping ability contributes as well.  Delk
        rarely doesn't finish a play when he's 2 feet from the hoop, either
        on the break, or on a regular drive to the hoop from a halfcourt
        set.

        Delk could probably fill in at point guard in a pinch.  He is a good
        ball-handler and is actually an underrated passer.  The fact of
        the matter is, he just does not have the mentality to play the
        position for anything more than a few minutes a game.  Likely most
        of the time he'll see at PG will be more from a defensive standpoint.

        NBA prospects?  Delk is likely a lower 1st round pick -- much of this
        probably will be due to Shawn Respert's mediocre (to say the least)
        rookie showing after his lottery selection.  No question NBA scouts
        and teams will have doubts about another similar type of guard.  But
        Delk may very well be a better prospect.  But he will likely be a
        later 1st round pick, maybe sneaking as high as right after the
        lottery.  Delk will likely see a role early in his career as a
        sparkplug off the bench, and if his game develops, he may eventually
        make a switch over to the point, and play a role somewhat like that
        of Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf with the Nuggets.  Again, it will likely be
        a team with a tall point guard that selects him, but overall, you
        really can't go wrong with a winner like Tony Delk.

General Info:
             Second-team All-American, who helped Kentucky win
             the national championship.
Comments:
             Scouts feel he'll have to make the transition to
             point guard. However, with his long arms and athletic
             ability he should be able to cover taller off guards.
Summary:
             When you consider that Shawn Respert was the eighth
             overall selection in last year's draft, it's hard to
             believe that Delk will probably be selected late in 
             the first round. He'd be a great pick for Orlando at
             #27.

                  G  MIN  FG  FGA  3P 3PA  FT FTA  REB  PF AST  TO BLK STL  PTS
92-93 Maryland   28  926 149  355  59 173  35  66  145  68  91  62  12  71  392
93-94 Maryland   30 1030 148  353  40 129  38  61  203  91 122  83  21  78  374
94-95 Maryland   34 1114 190  362  45 120  50  72  179  99 126  76  18  85  475
95-96 Maryland   30 1000 197  412  42 135  66 116  177  77  98  70  11 110  502
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS          122 4070 684 1482 186 557 189 315  704 335 437 291  62 344 1743

                  MIN   FG%   3P%   FT%  RPG  APG  TPG  BPG  SPG   PPG
92-93 Maryland   33.1  42.0  34.1  53.0  5.2  3.3  2.2  0.4  2.5  14.0
93-94 Maryland   34.3  41.9  31.0  62.3  6.8  4.1  2.8  0.7  2.6  12.5
94-95 Maryland   32.8  52.5  37.5  69.4  5.3  3.7  2.2  0.5  2.5  14.0
95-96 Maryland   33.3  47.8  31.1  56.9  5.9  3.3  2.3  0.4  3.7  16.7
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS           33.4  46.2  33.4  60.0  5.8  3.6  2.4  0.5  2.8  14.3

A top shooting guard prospect out of Washington Dunbar in 1992, Johnny
Rhodes was an exciting, if not erratic player, in his four years at
Maryland.

Basically, Johnny needs to do one thing. Work on his jump shot, work on
his jump shot, work on his jump shot. Although it has gotten markedly
better, it still was not enough to take the pressure off Joe Smith in
previous years, and off the almost nonexistent post game besides that of
Keith Booth last year. He has good slashing ability, and decent size for
a wing guard, though he could improve on his assist to turnover ratio,
something puzzling for a guy whose defense is phenomenal. Basically,
Johnny could pick the pocket of whoever he wanted to in the ACC. With
lightning quick hands, he wasted no time in leading the ACC in steals
four years. If he improves his shooting, I see a definite role for
Rhodes as a role player being a defensive stopper, and decent offensive
player on a good team. He's got the athletic ability and the mental, but
it does need to be polished.

General Info:
             One of the nation's leaders in steals.
Comments:
             Good defender, mediocre shooter. Has a good, strong
             build for a guard.
Summary:
             A good all-around player, who'll probably be picked
             late in the second round.  

                  G  MIN  FG  FGA  3P 3PA  FT FTA  REB  PF AST  TO BLK STL  PTS
92-93 Canisius    7  235  46   82   0   1  23  32   63  19  13  20   1   9  115
93-94 Canisius   29  914 190  357  12  41  68 102  217  75 104 102   9  42  460
94-95 Canisius   35 1200 212  409  12  40 108 142  229 110  73 108  12  43  544
95-96 Canisius   24  832 167  326  23  57 111 163  183  58  57  64   8  41  468
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS           95 3181 615 1174  47 139 310 439  692 262 247 294  30 135 1587

                  MIN   FG%   3P%   FT%  RPG  APG  TPG  BPG  SPG   PPG
92-93 Canisius   33.6  56.1   0.0  71.9  9.0  1.9  2.9  0.1  1.3  16.4
93-94 Canisius   31.5  53.2  29.3  66.7  7.5  3.6  3.5  0.3  1.4  15.9
94-95 Canisius   34.3  51.8  30.0  76.1  6.5  2.1  3.1  0.3  1.2  15.5
95-96 Canisius   34.7  51.2  40.4  68.1  7.6  2.4  2.7  0.3  1.7  19.5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS           33.5  52.4  33.8  70.6  7.3  2.6  3.1  0.3  1.4  16.7

                  G  MIN  FG  FGA  3P 3PA  FT FTA  REB  PF AST  TO BLK STL  PTS
93-94 LSU        27  678 144  381  72 228  69  97   96  67  31  55  12  29  429
94-95 LSU        27  977 219  511  68 212 124 169  142  71  59  78  16  35  630
95-96 LSU        23  717 183  397  49 146  87 127  107  68  32  60  14  40  502
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS           77 2372 546 1289 189 586 280 393  345 206 122 193  42 104 1561

                  MIN   FG%   3P%   FT%  RPG  APG  TPG  BPG  SPG   PPG
93-94 LSU        25.1  37.8  31.6  71.1  3.6  1.1  2.0  0.4  1.1  15.9
94-95 LSU        36.2  42.9  32.1  73.4  5.3  2.2  2.9  0.6  1.3  23.3
95-96 LSU        31.2  46.1  33.6  68.5  4.7  1.4  2.6  0.6  1.7  21.8
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS           30.8  42.4  32.3  71.2  4.5  1.6  2.5  0.5  1.4  20.3

General Info:
             One of the premier scorers in the S.E.C. during his
             career at L.S.U.
Comments:
             Henderson combines good shooting skills with the
             ability to drive to the basket. However, he's never
             met a shot he didn't like.
Summary:
             He'll probably be selected late first-early second
             round. Would be an excellent choice for Seattle at
             #28.

                  G  MIN  FG  FGA  3P 3PA  FT FTA  REB  PF AST  TO BLK STL  PTS
92-93 GWU        26  287  48  119  23  54  26  35   43  37  13  14   4   5  145
93-94 GWU        30  805 130  346  57 167  79 109  141  74  51  66  20  32  396
94-95 GWU        32 1080 211  507  74 225 126 174  183 101  77  92  19  45  622
95-96 GWU        29  967 178  435  66 184 121 166  139  73  64  67  20  37  543
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS          117 3139 567 1407 220 630 352 484  506 285 205 239  63 119 1706

                  MIN   FG%   3P%   FT%  RPG  APG  TPG  BPG  SPG   PPG
92-93 GWU        11.0  40.3  42.6  74.3  1.7  0.5  0.5  0.2  0.2   5.6
93-94 GWU        26.8  37.6  34.1  72.5  4.7  1.7  2.2  0.7  1.1  13.2
94-95 GWU        33.8  41.6  32.9  72.4  5.7  2.4  2.9  0.6  1.4  19.4
95-96 GWU        33.3  40.9  35.9  72.9  4.8  2.2  2.3  0.7  1.3  18.7
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS           26.8  40.3  34.9  72.7  4.3  1.8  2.0  0.5  1.0  14.6

Kwame Evans is a pure spot-up 3 point specialist.  He has good shot 
selection and knows how to draw the foul if he gets in trouble.  Often 
has to rely too much on his shot because of mediocre ball-handling 
skills.  Has great defensive skills that have really improved since last 
season and fights through picks fairly well.  Isn't really good at 
shaking a defender one-on-one, often starting a move, not being able to 
get by and has to dish off.  Moves very well without the ball, shooting 
well coming off of a pick.  Often uses his shot as a decoy;  he throws a 
head fake and then tries to go by the defender.  If it works, his problem 
is finishing.  Often goes for the pretty, fancy up and under move, trying 
to get the foul and the shot and sometimes gets neither.  Can light it up 
on some days (38 or so against LaSalle) but often goes cold and never 
warms up (a-10 tourn. vs. Umass).  Is not much of a leader but is a hard 
worker in practice.  I predict mid-2nd round, if not he will definetely 
by signed in free agency but not last very long.
Strengths- shot (money from three), defense
Weaknesses- doesn't step it up at the right times, mediocre ball-handling 
and on-on-one skills, tries to be too fancy

                  G  MIN  FG  FGA  3P 3PA  FT FTA  REB  PF AST  TO BLK STL  PTS
92-93 Seton Hall 35  465  44   87   0   2  31  53  123  41  29  36   3  28  119
93-94 Seton Hall 30  893 106  224   2   6  76 126  233  71  66  48  17  43  290
94-95 Seton Hall 30  949 184  332   6  20  86 119  216  77  85  68  22  66  460
95-96 Seton Hall 28  983 213  438  12  44 107 161  231  82  86  87  16  70  545
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS          123 3290 547 1081  20  72 300 459  803 271 266 239  58 207 1414

                  MIN   FG%   3P%   FT%  RPG  APG  TPG  BPG  SPG   PPG
92-93 Seton Hall 13.3  50.6   0.0  58.5  3.5  0.8  1.0  0.1  0.8   3.4
93-94 Seton Hall 29.8  47.3  33.3  60.3  7.8  2.2  1.6  0.6  1.4   9.7
94-95 Seton Hall 31.6  55.4  30.0  72.3  7.2  2.8  2.3  0.7  2.2  15.3
95-96 Seton Hall 35.1  48.6  27.3  66.5  8.3  3.1  3.1  0.6  2.5  19.5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS           26.7  50.6  27.8  65.4  6.5  2.2  1.9  0.5  1.7  11.5

                  G  MIN  FG  FGA  3P 3PA  FT FTA  REB  PF AST  TO BLK STL  PTS
92-93 Miss St                     Did Not Play - Ineligible
93-94 Miss St    29  801 133  314  67 181 138 171   98  73  73  65   2  45  471
94-95 Miss St    30  967 150  357  94 227 141 169  140  63  76  69   3  45  535
95-96 Miss St    34 1244 178  399  97 237 160 201  142  62  96  86   6  50  613
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS           93 3012 461 1070 258 645 439 541  380 198 245 220  11 140 1619

                  MIN   FG%   3P%   FT%  RPG  APG  TPG  BPG  SPG   PPG
92-93 Miss St               Did Not Play - Ineligible
93-94 Miss St    27.6  42.4  37.0  80.7  3.4  2.5  2.2  0.1  1.6  16.2
94-95 Miss St    32.2  42.0  41.4  83.4  4.7  2.5  2.3  0.1  1.5  17.8
95-96 Miss St    36.6  44.6  40.9  79.6  4.2  2.8  2.5  0.2  1.5  18.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS           32.4  43.1  40.0  81.1  4.1  2.6  2.4  0.1  1.5  17.4

While fellow teammates Erick Dampier and Dontae Jones received more 
attention, Mississippi State's MVP in their Final Four season was 
Darryl Wilson.  The 6'1 shooting guard was the heart and soul of the 
team as well as the most dependable scorer.  A dead-eye shooter, 
Wilson was one the SEC's leading three-point and free throw shooters.  
He also has the ability to penetrate off the dribble and score in the 
paint.

Wilson compares very well with Kentucky's Tony Delk.  Both are 
undersized 2-guards with similiar abilities.  Wilson is actually a 
better three-point shooter than Delk.  Like Delk, a good defender and 
scorer.  However, the doubts about Delk are magnified for Wilson.  
Without Delk's reach and jumping ability, Wilson will have an even 
more difficult time guarding NBA guards.  A decent passer but doesn't 
have a point guard's instincts.

While not a NBA starter, could possibly come off the bench and provide 
a quick offensive spark.  Range is definitely beyond NBA's three-point 
line.  Unlikely to be drafted, will almost certaintly will get a 
chance to make an NBA roster as a free agent.

                  G  MIN  FG  FGA  3P 3PA  FT FTA  REB  PF AST  TO BLK STL  PTS
92-93 N Carolina 35  250  24   52   9  23   7   9   27  26  29  21   1   9   64
93-94 N Carolina 35  715  93  216  41 118  55  76  103  72  84  44   2  37  282
94-95 N Carolina 33 1099 120  237  66 133  41  57  159  67  88  60   4  38  347
95-96 N Carolina 32 1124 136  320  77 195  56  79  137  61 135  70   1  32  405
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS          135 3188 373  825 193 469 159 221  426 226 336 195   8 116 1098

                  MIN   FG%   3P%   FT%  RPG  APG  TPG  BPG  SPG   PPG
92-93 N Carolina  7.1  46.2  39.1  77.8  0.8  0.8  0.6  0.0  0.3   1.8
93-94 N Carolina 20.4  43.1  34.7  72.4  2.9  2.4  1.3  0.1  1.1   8.1
94-95 N Carolina 33.3  50.6  49.6  71.9  4.8  2.7  1.8  0.1  1.2  10.5
95-96 N Carolina 35.1  42.5  39.5  70.9  4.3  4.2  2.2  0.0  1.0  12.7
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS           23.6  45.2  41.2  71.9  3.2  2.5  1.4  0.1  0.9   8.1

Calabria came to UNC as a lower rated (i.e. unheralded) recruit and became a valuable
reserve on the 1993 National Championship team as a point guard.  Dantes playing time
an contributions increased every year at his stay at UNC.  He played 4 positions
during his Junior and Senior years.  Because of injury, Calabria was the starting
Small Forward on the 1995 Final Four team often guarding players much taller then
him.  During this year, Dante proved himself to be an excellent rebounder for his
size.  In his Senior year, Dante was able to settle into the SG spot and had a fine
campaign.

Calabria's main strenght is his shooting ability.  If open Calabria can just nail
jumper after jumper.  He has a very quick release.  Dante is a very heady player
who has a knack for making the clutch play.  His game tying shot against Wake
in the 1994 ACC Semi stands out, as does his flip to the basket that set up
Antwan Jamisons game winner against Maryland.  Dante is a very good ball handler
who will more then likly be able to play some point at the next level.  He
Backed up Phelps in 93 and 94 and saw time there the last two years.

Calabria's weaknesses include a lack of quickness (which in turn causes him to have
trouble creating his own shot), a lack of strength (he will need to get stronger).
Calabria was able to be taken out of games with some "in your face" defense and
will need to improve on creating his own shot.

I doubt that Calabria will be drafted before the late second round (if at all).
It would probably be in his best interest to play in Europe (Italy) for awhile
and gain some more skills.  He should look to Vinny Del Negro as a role model
and hope to make the NBA in a couple of years.

                  G  MIN  FG  FGA  3P 3PA  FT FTA  REB  PF AST  TO BLK STL  PTS
92-93 Illinois   32  724  92  226  57 145  25  34   71  59  73  58   4  25  266
93-94 Illinois   28  809  81  213  48 113  14  22   97  73 113  49   4  30  224
94-95 Illinois   31  939 123  324  63 173  29  44  119  72 111  63   4  30  338
95-96 Illinois   31  928 107  288  69 186  34  42  116  71 162  66   8  40  317
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS          122 3400 403 1051 237 617 102 142  403 275 459 236  20 125 1145

                  MIN   FG%   3P%   FT%  RPG  APG  TPG  BPG  SPG   PPG
92-93 Illinois   22.6  40.7  39.3  73.5  2.2  2.3  1.8  0.1  0.8   8.3
93-94 Illinois   28.9  38.0  42.5  63.6  3.5  4.0  1.8  0.1  1.1   8.0
94-95 Illinois   30.3  38.0  36.4  65.9  3.8  3.6  2.0  0.1  1.0  10.9
95-96 Illinois   29.9  37.2  37.1  81.0  3.7  5.2  2.1  0.3  1.3  10.2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS           27.9  38.3  38.4  71.8  3.3  3.8  1.9  0.2  1.0   9.4

Strength:  Spectacular court awareness.  Outstanding passer.  Can play
  point, at 6-6 can see over the defense better. Smart ball handler with
  tremendous shooting range.  Illinois' career three point
  leader. Became more focused on his game his senior year.  Improved his
  defense of quicker players, and hustled for more loose balls and
  rebounds.

Weakness: Can be streaky at times. Often criticized for not
  concentrating on the game, but has improved that. Not as vocal of a
  leader as he should have been as the lone senior for Illinois last
  year.

                  G  MIN  FG  FGA  3P 3PA  FT FTA  REB  PF AST  TO BLK STL  PTS
91-92 Rutgers    30  594  47  140  20  65  25  43   71  36  61  33   5  23  139
92-93 Rutgers    28  900  81  193  14  39  68  81   76  58 122  71   3  27  244
93-94 Rutgers                     Did Not Play - Redshirted
94-95 Rutgers    28  737  74  208  17  70  44  71   73  31  85  63   1  20  209
95-96 Rutgers    27  915 163  387  70 160  68  94   95  40  82  70   2  24  464
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS          113 3146 365  928 121 334 205 289  315 165 350 237  11  94 1056

                  MIN   FG%   3P%   FT%  RPG  APG  TPG  BPG  SPG   PPG
91-92 Rutgers    19.8  33.6  30.8  58.1  2.4  2.0  1.1  0.2  0.8   4.6
92-93 Rutgers    32.1  42.0  35.9  84.0  2.7  4.4  2.5  0.1  1.0   8.7
93-94 Rutgers               Did Not Play - Redshirted
94-95 Rutgers    26.3  35.6  24.3  62.0  2.6  3.0  2.3  0.0  0.7   7.5
95-96 Rutgers    33.9  42.1  43.8  72.3  3.5  3.0  2.6  0.1  0.9  17.2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS           27.8  39.3  36.2  70.9  2.8  3.1  2.1  0.1  0.8   9.3

                  G  MIN  FG  FGA  3P 3PA  FT FTA  REB  PF AST  TO BLK STL  PTS
92-93 Iowa       32  677  77  182   6  31  55  95  130  69  35  37  23  45  215
93-94 Iowa       27  806 122  297  12  56  77 137  157  66  55  56  19  56  333
94-95 Iowa       33  929 141  307  26  80  71 120  139  80  39  61  14  58  379
95-96 Iowa       32  877 129  229   5  24  40  64  140  71  57  64   7  41  303
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS          124 3289 469 1015  49 191 243 416  566 286 186 218  63 200 1230

                  MIN   FG%   3P%   FT%  RPG  APG  TPG  BPG  SPG   PPG
92-93 Iowa       21.2  42.3  19.4  57.9  4.1  1.1  1.2  0.7  1.4   6.7
93-94 Iowa       29.9  41.1  21.4  56.2  5.8  2.0  2.1  0.7  2.1  12.3
94-95 Iowa       28.2  45.9  32.5  59.2  4.2  1.2  1.8  0.4  1.8  11.5
95-96 Iowa       27.4  56.3  20.8  62.5  4.4  1.8  2.0  0.2  1.3   9.5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS           26.5  46.2  25.7  58.4  4.6  1.5  1.8  0.5  1.6   9.9

                  G  MIN  FG  FGA  3P 3PA  FT FTA  REB  PF AST  TO BLK STL  PTS
92-93 Ventura JC                  Statistics Unavailable
93-94 Ventura JC                  Statistics Unavailable
94-95 Utah       34 1060 203  422  27  95 115 163  202  75  82  90  11  33  548
95-96 Utah       27  814 130  287  19  47  97 124  140  55  52  53   9  33  376
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Div I TOTALS     61 1874 333  709  46 142 212 287  342 130 134 143  20  66  924

                  MIN   FG%   3P%   FT%  RPG  APG  TPG  BPG  SPG   PPG
92-93 Ventura JC            Statistics Unavailable
93-94 Ventura JC            Statistics Unavailable
94-95 Utah       31.2  48.1  28.4  70.6  5.9  2.4  2.6  0.3  1.0  16.1
95-96 Utah       30.1  45.3  40.4  78.2  5.2  1.9  2.0  0.3  1.2  13.9
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Div I TOTALS     30.7  47.0  32.4  73.9  5.6  2.2  2.3  0.3  1.1  15.1

                  G  MIN  FG  FGA  3P 3PA  FT FTA  REB  PF AST  TO BLK STL  PTS
92-93 Polk CC                     Statistics Unavailable
93-94 Polk CC                     Statistics Unavailable
94-95 Georgia    28  677 104  247  24  83  75  91   91  46  60  55   7  52  307
95-96 Georgia    31  896 176  364  62 163  75  98  138  73 122  71   7  70  489
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Div I TOTALS     59 1573 280  611  86 246 150 189  229 119 182 126  14 122  796

                  MIN   FG%   3P%   FT%  RPG  APG  TPG  BPG  SPG   PPG
92-93 Polk CC               Statistics Unavailable
93-94 Polk CC               Statistics Unavailable
94-95 Georgia    24.2  42.1  28.9  82.4  3.3  2.1  2.0  0.3  1.9  11.0
95-96 Georgia    28.9  48.4  38.0  76.5  4.5  3.9  2.3  0.2  2.3  15.8
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Div I TOTALS     26.7  45.8  35.0  79.4  3.9  3.1  2.1  0.2  2.1  13.5

                  G  MIN  FG  FGA  3P 3PA  FT FTA  REB  PF AST  TO BLK STL  PTS
91-92 St Louis   27  837  99  206   4  25  54  98  156  68  80 101  10  27  256
92-93 Missouri                    Did Not Play - Transfer Student
93-94 Missouri   30  551  52  105   1   3  23  46   91  63  35  52   3  24  128
94-95 Missouri   25  798 107  199   3  12  60 101  190  64  67  64   6  19  277
95-96 Missouri   33  916 107  205  13  27  60 101  169  74  96  94  10  15  287
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS          115 3102 365  715  21  67 197 346  606 269 278 311  29  85  948

                  MIN   FG%   3P%   FT%  RPG  APG  TPG  BPG  SPG   PPG
91-92 St Louis   31.0  48.1  16.0  55.1  5.8  3.0  3.7  0.4  1.0   9.5
92-93 Missouri              Did Not Play - Transfer Student
93-94 Missouri   18.4  49.5  33.3  50.0  3.0  1.2  1.7  0.1  0.8   4.3
94-95 Missouri   31.9  53.8  25.0  59.4  7.6  2.7  2.6  0.2  0.8  11.1
95-96 Missouri   27.8  52.2  48.1  59.4  5.1  2.9  2.8  0.3  0.5   8.7
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS           27.0  51.0  31.3  56.9  5.3  2.4  2.7  0.3  0.7   8.2

Decent ball handler, could play point guard (Nate McMillen type).  Not 
really 6'5" but closer to 6'3".  Knee injuries have taken some athletic 
ability, but still can hang with NBA players.  No real shot from further 
than 15'.  Absolutely no three point range.  Is OK as a slasher.  Just 
isn't offensively minded at all.  Superior defender.  Could probably 
guard most NBA point guards and shooting guards.  (Guarded much taller 
small forwards his sophomore and junior years).  Superior rebounder for 
size.  Very good fundamentally.  Is almost a Nate McMillen clone, but 
will probably bounce around in CBA for awhile.  Don't bet against him 
making it in league in a few years (defense number 1 reason).

                  G  MIN  FG  FGA  3P 3PA  FT FTA  REB  PF AST  TO BLK STL  PTS
92-93 Murray St  30  591  81  166  18  50  86 109   84  85  33  57   7  34  266
93-94 Murray St  29  747 182  362  37 121 125 149  111  86  79  40  10  57  526
94-95 Murray St  30  973 219  429  44 119 189 211  147  69  63  58   9  76  671
95-96 Murray St  29 1080 254  536  74 175 185 220  139  82 119 102   8  65  767
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS          118 3391 736 1493 173 465 585 689  481 322 294 257  34 232 2230

                  MIN   FG%   3P%   FT%  RPG  APG  TPG  BPG  SPG   PPG
92-93 Murray St  19.7  48.8  36.0  78.9  2.8  1.1  1.9  0.2  1.1   8.9
93-94 Murray St  25.8  50.3  30.6  83.9  3.8  2.7  1.4  0.3  2.0  18.1
94-95 Murray St  32.4  51.0  37.0  89.6  4.9  2.1  1.9  0.3  2.5  22.4
95-96 Murray St  37.2  47.4  42.3  84.1  4.8  4.1  3.5  0.3  2.2  26.4
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS           28.7  49.3  37.2  84.9  4.1  2.5  2.2  0.3  2.0  18.9

General Info:
             One of the nation's leading scorers in Division I.
Comments:
             Similar to Ronnie Henderson. He's a good athlete,
             who can score in bunches.
Summary:
             Should be selected somewhere in the second round.

                  G  MIN  FG  FGA  3P 3PA  FT FTA  REB  PF AST  TO BLK STL  PTS
92-93 WKU        32  574  89  175  16  52  41  64  110  58  37  30   4  28  235
93-94 WKU        31  954 187  391  34  93  49  68  178  96  63  71  19  49  457
94-95 WKU        31  947 203  448  35 110  86 121  207  94  68  88   7  58  527
95-96 WKU        26  860 163  358  30 101  81 120  161  89  61  66  18  68  437
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS          120 3335 642 1372 115 356 257 373  656 337 229 255  48 203 1656

                  MIN   FG%   3P%   FT%  RPG  APG  TPG  BPG  SPG   PPG
92-93 WKU        17.9  50.9  30.8  64.1  3.4  1.2  0.9  0.1  0.9   7.3
93-94 WKU        30.8  47.8  36.6  72.1  5.7  2.0  2.3  0.6  1.6  14.7
94-95 WKU        30.5  45.3  31.8  71.1  6.7  2.2  2.8  0.2  1.9  17.0
95-96 WKU        33.1  45.5  29.7  67.5  6.2  2.3  2.5  0.7  2.6  16.8
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS           27.8  46.8  32.3  68.9  5.5  1.9  2.1  0.4  1.7  13.8

                  G  MIN  FG  FGA  3P 3PA  FT FTA  REB  PF AST  TO BLK STL  PTS
92-93 Nebraska   31  534  84  185  32  88  43  59   63  78  66  61   4  47  243
93-94 Nebraska   30  671 102  241  41 117  77  95  103  86  96  71  11  60  322
94-95 Nebraska   31  942 175  394  54 160 101 139  167  96 133  96   7  89  505
95-96 Nebraska   35 1087 174  399  52 148 116 141  170 101 119 100  10  61  516
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS          127 3234 535 1219 179 513 337 434  503 361 414 328  32 257 1586

                  MIN   FG%   3P%   FT%  RPG  APG  TPG  BPG  SPG   PPG
92-93 Nebraska   17.2  45.4  36.4  72.9  2.0  2.1  2.0  0.1  1.5   7.8
93-94 Nebraska   22.4  42.3  35.0  81.1  3.4  3.2  2.4  0.4  2.0  10.7
94-95 Nebraska   30.4  44.4  33.8  72.7  5.4  4.3  3.1  0.2  2.9  16.3
95-96 Nebraska   31.1  43.6  35.1  82.3  4.9  3.4  2.9  0.3  1.7  14.7
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS           25.5  43.9  34.9  77.6  4.0  3.3  2.6  0.3  2.0  12.5

Erick Strickland, a 6'3" shooting guard from Nebraska will 
have to convert to be a point guard to make it in the NBA.
He has decent ball handling ability and a pretty good outside shot.
His leadership and other intangibles can make him a real
sleeper in this year's draft.  A great defender, he will cause
opposing guards fits.  And he has an NBA body at the PG 
position.

                  G  MIN  FG  FGA  3P 3PA  FT FTA  REB  PF AST  TO BLK STL  PTS
92-93 Nebraska   31  583  76  185  17  57  46  56   72  57  87  53  11  26  215
93-94 Nebraska   30  898 138  290  35  95  55  78   78  67 109  84   7  36  366
94-95 Nebraska   32 1043 199  455  70 182  91 134  106  64 116 100  10  40  559
95-96 Nebraska   34 1105 162  397  59 167  86 123   92  80 134  93   8  29  469
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS          127 3629 575 1327 181 501 278 391  348 268 446 330  36 131 1609

                  MIN   FG%   3P%   FT%  RPG  APG  TPG  BPG  SPG   PPG
92-93 Nebraska   18.8  41.1  29.8  82.1  2.3  2.8  1.7  0.4  0.8   6.9
93-94 Nebraska   29.9  47.6  36.8  70.5  2.6  3.6  2.8  0.2  1.2  12.2
94-95 Nebraska   32.6  43.7  38.5  67.9  3.3  3.6  3.1  0.3  1.3  17.5
95-96 Nebraska   32.5  40.8  35.3  69.9  2.7  3.9  2.7  0.2  0.9  13.8
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS           28.6  43.3  36.1  71.1  2.7  3.5  2.6  0.3  1.0  12.7

                  G  MIN  FG  FGA  3P 3PA  FT FTA  REB  PF AST  TO BLK STL  PTS
92-93 W Carolina 26  595  69  174  16  70  36  47   50  44  46  65   1  28  190
93-94 W Carolina 28  967 128  276  47 129  35  61   90  62  97  70  10  38  338
94-95 W Carolina 28  979 168  375  83 230  79 102   94  67  78  75   6  36  498
95-96 W Carolina 30 1081 257  566  99 241 138 166  159  70  91  86   9  45  751
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS          112 3622 622 1391 245 670 288 376  393 243 312 296  26 147 1777

                  MIN   FG%   3P%   FT%  RPG  APG  TPG  BPG  SPG   PPG
92-93 W Carolina 22.9  39.7  22.9  76.6  1.9  1.8  2.5  0.0  1.1   7.3
93-94 W Carolina 34.5  46.4  36.4  57.4  3.2  3.5  2.5  0.4  1.4  12.1
94-95 W Carolina 35.0  44.8  36.1  77.5  3.4  2.8  2.7  0.2  1.3  17.8
95-96 W Carolina 36.0  45.4  41.1  83.1  5.3  3.0  2.9  0.3  1.5  25.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS           32.3  44.7  36.6  76.6  3.5  2.8  2.6  0.2  1.3  15.9

                  G  MIN  FG  FGA  3P 3PA  FT FTA  REB  PF AST  TO BLK STL  PTS
92-93 Stanford   29  537 105  222  30  65  66  80   39  40  23  46   1  12  306
93-94 Stanford   28  816 144  324  54 128  80 101   76  49  35  38   4  15  422
94-95 Stanford   29  934 157  359  82 171  91 110   51  50  33  52   4  15  487
95-96 Stanford   29  933 132  329  75 187  81  88   57  62  53  51   6  24  420
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS          115 3220 538 1234 241 551 318 379  223 201 144 187  15  66 1635

                  MIN   FG%   3P%   FT%  RPG  APG  TPG  BPG  SPG   PPG
92-93 Stanford   18.5  47.3  46.2  82.5  1.3  0.8  1.6  0.0  0.4  10.6
93-94 Stanford   29.1  44.4  42.2  79.2  2.7  1.3  1.4  0.1  0.5  15.1
94-95 Stanford   32.2  43.7  48.0  82.7  1.8  1.1  1.8  0.1  0.5  16.8
95-96 Stanford   32.2  40.1  40.1  92.0  2.0  1.8  1.8  0.2  0.8  14.5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS           28.0  43.6  43.7  83.9  1.9  1.3  1.6  0.1  0.6  14.2

                  G  MIN  FG  FGA  3P 3PA  FT FTA  REB  PF AST  TO BLK STL  PTS
92-93 UMass                       Did Not Play - Ineligible
93-94 UMass      35  892 142  307   5  13  88 133  202 104  42  78  24  35  377
94-95 UMass      34  741 120  251   3  13  71 104  157  83  75  60  44  28  314
95-96 UMass      37 1130 202  422  11  36 123 155  213 101  64  80  25  43  538
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS          106 2763 464  980  19  62 282 392  572 288 181 218  93 106 1229

                  MIN   FG%   3P%   FT%  RPG  APG  TPG  BPG  SPG   PPG
92-93 UMass                 Did Not Play - Ineligible
93-94 UMass      25.5  46.3  38.5  66.2  5.8  1.2  2.2  0.7  1.0  10.8
94-95 UMass      21.8  47.8  23.1  68.3  4.6  2.2  1.8  1.3  0.8   9.2
95-96 UMass      30.5  47.9  30.6  79.4  5.8  1.7  2.2  0.7  1.2  14.5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS           26.1  47.3  30.6  71.9  5.4  1.7  2.1  0.9  1.0  11.6

                  G  MIN  FG  FGA  3P 3PA  FT FTA  REB  PF AST  TO BLK STL  PTS
93-94 Iowa       27  545  65  195  44 137  46  56   71  55  35  35   2  23  220
94-95 Iowa       33  929 169  423 117 297  98 122   88  94  55  58   5  41  553
95-96 Iowa       29  663  99  290  65 211  82 103   68  54  54  41   3  16  345
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS           89 2137 333  908 226 645 226 281  227 203 144 134  10  80 1118

                  MIN   FG%   3P%   FT%  RPG  APG  TPG  BPG  SPG   PPG
93-94 Iowa       20.2  33.3  32.1  82.1  2.6  1.3  1.3  0.1  0.9   8.1
94-95 Iowa       28.2  40.0  39.4  80.3  2.7  1.7  1.8  0.2  1.2  16.8
95-96 Iowa       22.9  34.1  30.8  79.6  2.3  1.9  1.4  0.1  0.6  11.9
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS           24.0  36.7  35.0  80.4  2.6  1.6  1.5  0.1  0.9  12.6
                  MIN   FG%   3P%   FT%  RPG  APG  TPG  BPG  SPG   PPG

                  G  MIN  FG  FGA  3P 3PA  FT FTA  REB  PF AST  TO BLK STL  PTS
92-93 E Michigan 30  568  67  211  27  94  42  58   60  71  30  49   0  32  203
93-94 E Michigan 27  632 133  307  43 118  70  87   95  70  57  57   5  39  379
94-95 E Michigan 30  ... 173  405  60 177 103 131  124  80  89  63   4  62  509
95-96 E Michigan 31  ... 221  464  74 191 119 140  133  69  93  68   5  65  635
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS          118  ... 594 1387 204 580 334 416  412 290 269 237  14 198 1726

                  MIN   FG%   3P%   FT%  RPG  APG  TPG  BPG  SPG   PPG
92-93 E Michigan 18.9  31.8  28.7  72.4  2.0  1.0  1.6  0.0  1.1   6.8
93-94 E Michigan 23.4  43.3  36.4  80.5  3.5  2.1  2.1  0.2  1.4  14.0
94-95 E Michigan 33.0  42.7  33.9  78.6  4.1  3.0  2.1  0.1  2.1  17.0
95-96 E Michigan 34.0  47.6  38.7  85.0  4.3  3.0  2.2  0.2  2.1  20.5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS            ...  42.8  35.2  80.3  3.5  2.3  2.0  0.1  1.7  14.6