Dave Paulsen

[MasonSAE4]

To me that's the whole point of coming to the A10 - less conference championships maybe, but increased opportunity for more and consistent NCAA appearances.

Works well in years when there isn't parity at the top of the A10 like there is this year. Could totally see some quality programs getting left out in March. Hell, if Dayton runs the table it could be a a one bid league.

 

[Falco]

Given the dramatic and quick turnaround we've seen, and the open commitment to basketball from the admin, I have no reason to expect Paulsen's ceiling is anything short of what is happening at vcu - 8 consecutive NCAA's? To me that's the whole point of coming to the A10 - less conference championships maybe, but increased opportunity for more and consistent NCAA appearances.

Obviously that's not a given, and I'll be happy with every 2 to 3 years with some NIT's in between, but why would that not be considered the "ceiling", or best case scenario?

every 2 to 3 years.... I think we should expect our off years to have an NIT appearance. and only have an off year every 2 to three years. We should expect NCAA tourney appearances!!

 

[GreenLantern]

I expect final 4 every year with us winning the national title every other year. The off year, play the defending NBA champions with the expectation of winning every time!

 

[Falco]

I expect final 4 every year with us winning the national title every other year. The off year, play the defending NBA champions with the expectation of winning every time!

Funny, why shouldn't we expect tourny appearances. That's the whole reason why we joined the A10.

If we only expect to be in tourney every 2 to 3 years why wouldn't we have stayed in the CAA?

I expect Mason to be regular top 5 A10 every year. And if we miss the tourney because the a10 is in a down year then so be it. But when the a10 is strong we should expect an invite.

 

[GreenLantern]

Funny, why shouldn't we expect tourny appearances. That's the whole reason why we joined the A10.

If we only expect to be in tourney every 2 to 3 years why wouldn't we have stayed in the CAA?

I expect Mason to be regular top 5 A10 every year. And if we miss the tourney because the a10 is in a down year then so be it. But when the a10 is strong we should expect an invite.

Im just going to temper my expectations. Some form of post season each year would be nice and have consistent 20 win seasons and ill be happy

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[Falco]

Im just going to temper my expectations. Some form of post season each year would be nice and have consistent 20 win seasons and ill be happy

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

I think everyone and myself include are getting expectations and reality confused. Like parents expect their kids to get straight As, but they know their kids wont always be able to achieve that.

 

[gmujim92]

Funny, why shouldn't we expect tourny appearances. That's the whole reason why we joined the A10.

If we only expect to be in tourney every 2 to 3 years why wouldn't we have stayed in the CAA?

I expect Mason to be regular top 5 A10 every year. And if we miss the tourney because the a10 is in a down year then so be it. But when the a10 is strong we should expect an invite.

As we've discussed before, there is having expectations and then there is doing the things necessary to make your expectations realistic.

We are at a significant disadvantage in terms of facilities and other program/infrastructure investments when compared to vcu, Dayton, UMass, URI and Richmond.

That is five teams right there and how many of them are consistent NCAA participants? Two.

Richmond paid its coach $1M+ per year and spent $17M to renovate its arena, and still has only been to 2 NCAAs in the past 11 years.

If we want to get to the level of vcu and Dayton, our donors are gonna have to step up their game a lot.

 

[ephoops]

Story about DP in the Williams College newspaper:

http://williamsrecord.com/2017/02/08/former-williams-coach-dave-paulsen-87-finds-success-in-div-i/

 

[GMUgemini]

I think everyone and myself include are getting expectations and reality confused. Like parents expect their kids to get straight As, but they know their kids wont always be able to achieve that.

Right now, there is only one A-10 team who you could consider a perennial NCAA team (vcu), Dayton will probably enter that conversation as it looks like they're going to probably get their 4th appearance in a row, and if Archie Miller sticks around I expect them to be right up there near the top every year.

Every other A-10 team goes through cycles (with the exception of Fordham and Duquense who has pretty much stunk for a long time): GW, St. Joes, Richmond, UMass, La Salle, St. Bonaventure all have up and down years -- URI seems to be a perennial NIT team, always on the cusp (and always a favorite analyst pick). Of the mid-pack teams, St. Joes seems to be the most consistently in the conversation (6 NCAA bids, 5 NIT bids since 2001), although their season seems to be collapsing around them right now.

Too early to tell about Davidson and us.

Would love to become that third elite A-10 team that gets into the tournament just about every year. But I'd also take a Phil Martelli level of success here too (13 postseasons in 22 years, 7 NCAA appearances, including a Sweet 16 and an Elite 8; an NIT finals appearance; 413 overall wins, 201 conference wins, 3 active NBA players, a 4th who played 10 years in the league). Not too shabby.

 

[GMUSig03]

Keep in mind what I said was current expectations for the CEILING of how good the future can be, assuming future FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS. Lot's of caveats and I was saying what we could reasonably expect to be the best case scenario, not necessarily what I expect to happen.

Regarding what Jim said about vcu scheduling, I checked vcu's scheduling the last 4 seasons and the only BCS teams they have played at home are GT, Cincy, UVA. All home and homes and they lost every home game (but won at Cincy and UVA).

We just blew out PSU in the first leg of our home and home with them and they are on par with GT, and we recently split with UVA.

Instead, what I see as the glaring difference between our scheduling and vcu's is the premier early season tournaments they are in, where they usually get to play 2 or 3 top 25 caliber BCS programs on neutral courts. That's not money, that will come with us getting back on the map. Hell, we played 3 BCS teams in our tournament last year and beat 2 of them.

 

[GSII]

The Battle 4 Atlantis Tourney pays each school 2 million bucks. vcu has been in that twice in past 5 years.

vcu got GT at home bc of the A10 deal with the ACC. ACC got barclays from A10 in exchange for playing several home and home games vs A10 schools.

Not only does getting into the NCAA tourney pay big bucks, but it gets you into the the big paying pre season tourneys as well.

 

[smccart5]

If we just get back to regularly having 20+ win seasons and taking care of home court, then I will be very happy. That means we have a shot at winning the conference tourney every year and we'll be in bubble discussions, and every few years we'll be able to make a run. Those are my expectations and i'm fine with that because it makes every year fun. I don't expect us to become a perennial powerhouse.

We could be there soon though, just look at UVA. It wasn't long ago that we were able to compete and actually beat them (on their home court I believe). And now they are a top team.

 

[GSII]

We beat uva on our home court. However, they were missing one or two starters. The following year we got raped in C'ville.

 

[Cedric Dempsey]

So, at this point, I feel relatively confident saying Paulsen has demonstrated that he can coach/develop guys at the a-10 level.

I am no longer willing to entertain the notion that this seasons results have been flukey. We are absolutely no worse than a mediocre A-10 team, which represents a substantial improvement in my opinion. I think it is perfectly rational to expect us to finish the season in the middle of the A-10 pack.

I further feel comfortable in saying that Paulsen has demonstrated that he can recruit at AT LEAST this level. The team is senior led, yes, but the progress of guys like Otis and Jaire leads me to believe that they will, by the time they are seniors, be replacement level guys for the seniors we have now. I see no reason why Paulsen would not be able to continue to recruit at that level, and his second recruiting (kier/Temara/wilson/boyd) class looks to me to be of a similar (at least) talent level.

The point is, after 1 and a half seasons, I firmly believe that Coach Paulsen's floor is "middle of the pack A-10", once he's got a full 4 year cycle of his guys in the program. Frankly, for me, that's good enough for now. A competent, competitive team that seems to have an idea of what they want to do, and a coach that seems to have an idea of how to get his team to do it is fine by me, even if they're maybe not the most talented bunch in the league.

The question, in my mind, is "what is his ceiling"? I don't have an answer for that just yet. His recruiting seems to be fairly level (Mar looks like a nice player, but I wouldn't say that he strikes me as an order of magnitude different from a guy like Boyd), but we haven't seen enough time pass to see what player development looks like under Paulsen over the course of a career. I don't think a 1 year bump can be extrapolated out over the course of a career.

Thoughts?

Why would anyone want to establish a ceiling?

 

[gmujim92]

Keep in mind what I said was current expectations for the CEILING of how good the future can be, assuming future FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS. Lot's of caveats and I was saying what we could reasonably expect to be the best case scenario, not necessarily what I expect to happen.

Regarding what Jim said about vcu scheduling, I checked vcu's scheduling the last 4 seasons and the only BCS teams they have played at home are GT, Cincy, UVA. All home and homes and they lost every home game (but won at Cincy and UVA).

We just blew out PSU in the first leg of our home and home with them and they are on par with GT, and we recently split with UVA.

Instead, what I see as the glaring difference between our scheduling and vcu's is the premier early season tournaments they are in, where they usually get to play 2 or 3 top 25 caliber BCS programs on neutral courts. That's not money, that will come with us getting back on the map. Hell, we played 3 BCS teams in our tournament last year and beat 2 of them.

I'm not talking about vcu buying games against P5 teams. Those obviously are home-and-home series.

Where the "buy money" comes into play is being able to buy a home game against a very good Princeton team, which despite injuries is leading the Ivy and ranked in the top 100 RPI, instead of having to give them a home and home.

To get Princeton on our schedule a couple years ago, we had to give them a home game and they beat us on their court.

We also signed a home and home with Penn. It didn't matter this season because our RPI really isn't an issue, but if it had, even beating a mediocre team on the road would've hurt our NCAA profile.

Pretty sure vcu also already bought a home game against Northern Iowa or have one next season. Meanwhile, we're hoping we can keep the home-and-home going with UNI.

The fewer home and homes you have to give teams that conceivably could kick your a** (like Northern Iowa), the better chance you have to win a bunch of OOC games and position yourself for a bid. That's what it is all about.

vcu has the money to adopt a P5-style scheduling philosophy going forward:

* Lots of buy games at home against teams that are expected to finish in the top 50 or 100 RPI.

* 3 to 5 games against P5s, including an exempt tournament

* Very few true road games

This is how we're going to have to schedule to become a consistent NCAA team. It's just too hard to do year-after-year playing mostly tomato cans at home and home-and-homes against schools from lower conferences.

 

[GSII]

Sounds about right. Paulsen even said more home games were going to increase.

One thing that is not considered enough in that scheduling philosophy is that., it depends on the strength of the the A10 for it to maximize itself.

 

[Washingtonian]

I am glad Mason did a home and home w/Penn. To see the Cathedral of college basketball was well worth the trip.

If we can't get UNI to continue the home and home, let's get Wichita State again. Those games were fun.

 

[gmubrian]

So, at this point, I feel relatively confident saying Paulsen has demonstrated that he can coach/develop guys at the a-10 level.

I am no longer willing to entertain the notion that this seasons results have been flukey. We are absolutely no worse than a mediocre A-10 team, which represents a substantial improvement in my opinion. I think it is perfectly rational to expect us to finish the season in the middle of the A-10 pack.

I further feel comfortable in saying that Paulsen has demonstrated that he can recruit at AT LEAST this level. The team is senior led, yes, but the progress of guys like Otis and Jaire leads me to believe that they will, by the time they are seniors, be replacement level guys for the seniors we have now. I see no reason why Paulsen would not be able to continue to recruit at that level, and his second recruiting (kier/Temara/wilson/boyd) class looks to me to be of a similar (at least) talent level.

The point is, after 1 and a half seasons, I firmly believe that Coach Paulsen's floor is "middle of the pack A-10", once he's got a full 4 year cycle of his guys in the program. Frankly, for me, that's good enough for now. A competent, competitive team that seems to have an idea of what they want to do, and a coach that seems to have an idea of how to get his team to do it is fine by me, even if they're maybe not the most talented bunch in the league.

The question, in my mind, is "what is his ceiling"? I don't have an answer for that just yet. His recruiting seems to be fairly level (Mar looks like a nice player, but I wouldn't say that he strikes me as an order of magnitude different from a guy like Boyd), but we haven't seen enough time pass to see what player development looks like under Paulsen over the course of a career. I don't think a 1 year bump can be extrapolated out over the course of a career.

Thoughts?

I have no concerns with Paulsen's ability to take this team to the top tier of the A10 and take us to the NCAA tourney on a regular basis. I am comfortable with what I see as the three key areas of coaching. He seems to be able to recruit, especially diamonds in the rough, and hopefully that translates as the team moves upward. He seems to be able to teach the kids to play well and to play tough as evidenced by how much the players and team seems to improve over time. He also seems to do the third leg of the coaching tripod, the Xs and Os aspect, very well. I am happy with what I have seen on all three fronts.

Where my concerns lie are with the support Paulsen can be provided by the AD. I fear 1 of 2 things might jeopardize how high we go in the Paulsen era or how long the era lasts. Here is how I envision it panning possibly panning out:

1. The AD can't provide adequate support and resources to Paulsen, et al. to compete with other A10 schools and all top tier D1 schools. I see this impacting in different ways, one of which includes recruiting could be impacted (no practice facility yet, mediocre practice facility is built in the formed of a shared RAC facility, etc.). Another way this could impact how far we can go is that we can't draw new or keep existing fans engaged. To get to the next level we need to win at home almost all of the time. EBA needs to have a real home court advantage. EBA itself and the game day experience needs to be kept modern and the AD need to step things up in marketing to new fans/donors and retaining existing fans/donors.

2. The other way I could see it going is that Paulsen becomes (too?) successful before our AD has turned the corner on fund raising/marketing/outreach. Maybe we really overachieve in one of the next couple of seasons, make a run in the tourney, Paulsen starts to get interest from higher level programs and we lose him prematurely because we can't make an interesting enough counter offer. If he does good enough, at some point we may never be able to keep up with a top tier program trying to take him, but it would be nice if we had the resources to win a round or two of the inevitable bidding war type of problem.

So, I think we are in great shape in the coaching department. It is the support the AD is capable of providing him that concerns me. Now, someone posted above about a recent article regarding the practice facility that is to be part of the RAC as well as athletics fundraising. That got me excited, so before I posted this I went and found those articles and read them (the ones in the recent Mason Spirit). While it is nice to see them talking about it more so than we had seen these topics discussed under the previous regime, I felt both were so short on specifics that I am concerned if anything is happening anytime soon. The practice facility article didn't provide anything concrete. Not much more than the information that was provided for the previous incarnation of a practice facility plan. The article sounded to me like they don't have anything in place yet, maybe even from a funding standpoint. Not even a start date for phase 1. Maybe that was just the way that article was written and things are actually more concrete. I really hope so. I am not 100% sold on the shared facility aspect either. While it should help on the access to practice areas front, will it be impressive enough to keep pace on the recruiting front? Will the space allocated to basketball remain dedicated to basketball, or will there be scope creep? That would be less likely with a dedicated practice facility. I understand it will likely be cheaper this way, but I also think donors would be less likely to give to a shared facility or give less. You probably lose naming rights value by doing that as well. The John Doe Basketball practice area inside of of the RAC doesn't sound nearly as good as The John Doe Basketball Practice Facility.

As for the article that was more about fundraising for athletics, my issue is the age old issue I have had with Mason and fund raising for athletics. It references the faster farther campaign (which has the words backwards if you ask me-it should be the farther faster campaign). I would like to see a dedicated campaign for the practice facility. Maybe they are raising funds from all donor types (those interested in academics, those interested in athletics, etc.) and then going to redirect them to athletics, hoping that they can get more for athletics. If that is the game they are playing, it might work once, but you could alienate academic donors by doing that. It was Mason playing similar shell games why I stopped trusting Mason a while back to allocate money as I intended it to be used when I donated it, so I started directing my money more specifically and finally cut back on the size of the donations (even prior to my recent athletics boycot...). If you want to raise money for an academic building, do a campaign specifically for that. If you want to raise money for an athletics facility, then do a campaign specifically for that. Let people know exactly what you are really raising the money for and then spend it on that. Don't obfuscate the purpose or mislead your donors.

I hope I am wrong, but, outside of the (excellent) coaching change, I am just not seeing a lot of progress on other fronts in the AD.

OK, I am getting down off my soapbox now.

Wow, I just noticed how much I typed. I must be really bored with this DR exercise waiting to get to the point where I have more to do...

 

[Falco]

I have no concerns with Paulsen's ability to take this team to the top tier of the A10 and take us to the NCAA tourney on a regular basis. I am comfortable with what I see as the three key areas of coaching. He seems to be able to recruit, especially diamonds in the rough, and hopefully that translates as the team moves upward. He seems to be able to teach the kids to play well and to play tough as evidenced by how much the players and team seems to improve over time. He also seems to do the third leg of the coaching tripod, the Xs and Os aspect, very well. I am happy with what I have seen on all three fronts.

Where my concerns lie are with the support Paulsen can be provided by the AD. I fear 1 of 2 things might jeopardize how high we go in the Paulsen era or how long the era lasts. Here is how I envision it panning possibly panning out:

1. The AD can't provide adequate support and resources to Paulsen, et al. to compete with other A10 schools and all top tier D1 schools. I see this impacting in different ways, one of which includes recruiting could be impacted (no practice facility yet, mediocre practice facility is built in the formed of a shared RAC facility, etc.). Another way this could impact how far we can go is that we can't draw new or keep existing fans engaged. To get to the next level we need to win at home almost all of the time. EBA needs to have a real home court advantage. EBA itself and the game day experience needs to be kept modern and the AD need to step things up in marketing to new fans/donors and retaining existing fans/donors.

2. The other way I could see it going is that Paulsen becomes (too?) successful before our AD has turned the corner on fund raising/marketing/outreach. Maybe we really overachieve in one of the next couple of seasons, make a run in the tourney, Paulsen starts to get interest from higher level programs and we lose him prematurely because we can't make an interesting enough counter offer. If he does good enough, at some point we may never be able to keep up with a top tier program trying to take him, but it would be nice if we had the resources to win a round or two of the inevitable bidding war type of problem.

So, I think we are in great shape in the coaching department. It is the support the AD is capable of providing him that concerns me. Now, someone posted above about a recent article regarding the practice facility that is to be part of the RAC as well as athletics fundraising. That got me excited, so before I posted this I went and found those articles and read them (the ones in the recent Mason Spirit). While it is nice to see them talking about it more so than we had seen these topics discussed under the previous regime, I felt both were so short on specifics that I am concerned if anything is happening anytime soon. The practice facility article didn't provide anything concrete. Not much more than the information that was provided for the previous incarnation of a practice facility plan. The article sounded to me like they don't have anything in place yet, maybe even from a funding standpoint. Not even a start date for phase 1. Maybe that was just the way that article was written and things are actually more concrete. I really hope so. I am not 100% sold on the shared facility aspect either. While it should help on the access to practice areas front, will it be impressive enough to keep pace on the recruiting front? Will the space allocated to basketball remain dedicated to basketball, or will there be scope creep? That would be less likely with a dedicated practice facility. I understand it will likely be cheaper this way, but I also think donors would be less likely to give to a shared facility or give less. You probably lose naming rights value by doing that as well. The John Doe Basketball practice area inside of of the RAC doesn't sound nearly as good as The John Doe Basketball Practice Facility.

As for the article that was more about fundraising for athletics, my issue is the age old issue I have had with Mason and fund raising for athletics. It references the faster farther campaign (which has the words backwards if you ask me-it should be the farther faster campaign). I would like to see a dedicated campaign for the practice facility. Maybe they are raising funds from all donor types (those interested in academics, those interested in athletics, etc.) and then going to redirect them to athletics, hoping that they can get more for athletics. If that is the game they are playing, it might work once, but you could alienate academic donors by doing that. It was Mason playing similar shell games why I stopped trusting Mason a while back to allocate money as I intended it to be used when I donated it, so I started directing my money more specifically and finally cut back on the size of the donations (even prior to my recent athletics boycot...). If you want to raise money for an academic building, do a campaign specifically for that. If you want to raise money for an athletics facility, then do a campaign specifically for that. Let people know exactly what you are really raising the money for and then spend it on that. Don't obfuscate the purpose or mislead your donors.

I hope I am wrong, but, outside of the (excellent) coaching change, I am just not seeing a lot of progress on other fronts in the AD.

OK, I am getting down off my soapbox now.

Wow, I just noticed how much I typed. I must be really bored with this DR exercise waiting to get to the point where I have more to do...

Basically easy solution to this problem. Cut the non revenue generating sports and allocate that money to the basketball team. Haha.

 

[Cedric Dempsey]

I have no concerns with Paulsen's ability to take this team to the top tier of the A10 and take us to the NCAA tourney on a regular basis. I am comfortable with what I see as the three key areas of coaching. He seems to be able to recruit, especially diamonds in the rough, and hopefully that translates as the team moves upward. He seems to be able to teach the kids to play well and to play tough as evidenced by how much the players and team seems to improve over time. He also seems to do the third leg of the coaching tripod, the Xs and Os aspect, very well. I am happy with what I have seen on all three fronts.

Where my concerns lie are with the support Paulsen can be provided by the AD. I fear 1 of 2 things might jeopardize how high we go in the Paulsen era or how long the era lasts. Here is how I envision it panning possibly panning out:

1. The AD can't provide adequate support and resources to Paulsen, et al. to compete with other A10 schools and all top tier D1 schools. I see this impacting in different ways, one of which includes recruiting could be impacted (no practice facility yet, mediocre practice facility is built in the formed of a shared RAC facility, etc.). Another way this could impact how far we can go is that we can't draw new or keep existing fans engaged. To get to the next level we need to win at home almost all of the time. EBA needs to have a real home court advantage. EBA itself and the game day experience needs to be kept modern and the AD need to step things up in marketing to new fans/donors and retaining existing fans/donors.

2. The other way I could see it going is that Paulsen becomes (too?) successful before our AD has turned the corner on fund raising/marketing/outreach. Maybe we really overachieve in one of the next couple of seasons, make a run in the tourney, Paulsen starts to get interest from higher level programs and we lose him prematurely because we can't make an interesting enough counter offer. If he does good enough, at some point we may never be able to keep up with a top tier program trying to take him, but it would be nice if we had the resources to win a round or two of the inevitable bidding war type of problem.

So, I think we are in great shape in the coaching department. It is the support the AD is capable of providing him that concerns me. Now, someone posted above about a recent article regarding the practice facility that is to be part of the RAC as well as athletics fundraising. That got me excited, so before I posted this I went and found those articles and read them (the ones in the recent Mason Spirit). While it is nice to see them talking about it more so than we had seen these topics discussed under the previous regime, I felt both were so short on specifics that I am concerned if anything is happening anytime soon. The practice facility article didn't provide anything concrete. Not much more than the information that was provided for the previous incarnation of a practice facility plan. The article sounded to me like they don't have anything in place yet, maybe even from a funding standpoint. Not even a start date for phase 1. Maybe that was just the way that article was written and things are actually more concrete. I really hope so. I am not 100% sold on the shared facility aspect either. While it should help on the access to practice areas front, will it be impressive enough to keep pace on the recruiting front? Will the space allocated to basketball remain dedicated to basketball, or will there be scope creep? That would be less likely with a dedicated practice facility. I understand it will likely be cheaper this way, but I also think donors would be less likely to give to a shared facility or give less. You probably lose naming rights value by doing that as well. The John Doe Basketball practice area inside of of the RAC doesn't sound nearly as good as The John Doe Basketball Practice Facility.

As for the article that was more about fundraising for athletics, my issue is the age old issue I have had with Mason and fund raising for athletics. It references the faster farther campaign (which has the words backwards if you ask me-it should be the farther faster campaign). I would like to see a dedicated campaign for the practice facility. Maybe they are raising funds from all donor types (those interested in academics, those interested in athletics, etc.) and then going to redirect them to athletics, hoping that they can get more for athletics. If that is the game they are playing, it might work once, but you could alienate academic donors by doing that. It was Mason playing similar shell games why I stopped trusting Mason a while back to allocate money as I intended it to be used when I donated it, so I started directing my money more specifically and finally cut back on the size of the donations (even prior to my recent athletics boycot...). If you want to raise money for an academic building, do a campaign specifically for that. If you want to raise money for an athletics facility, then do a campaign specifically for that. Let people know exactly what you are really raising the money for and then spend it on that. Don't obfuscate the purpose or mislead your donors.

I hope I am wrong, but, outside of the (excellent) coaching change, I am just not seeing a lot of progress on other fronts in the AD.

OK, I am getting down off my soapbox now.

Wow, I just noticed how much I typed. I must be really bored with this DR exercise waiting to get to the point where I have more to do...

Have you spoken to Brad Edwards regarding your extensive concerns? I met with him after he arrived and he was very open about what he was attempting to do and the issues going forward. I'm in for tix and a modest 4 figure annual gift because I loved the DP hire and BE's vision. He sure didn't need to meet with me. Also, why would anyone publish pictures of (I'm assuming) paid for and planned for facility needs w/o an institutional buy in? Finally, I have a group of college friends that constantly rant about what they won't do to financially improve programs they care deeply about and it makes no sense to me. They always lament that no one listens yet they rarely talk to the right people about their greatest concerns.