Jamie says:

"Thanks all for the props on being near the top of the list of best ball player...truly humbling. I would say that your votes are probably a bit skewed since your memories of me were at a time when you were just "young pups" as Buze stated. Most likely you had an over-inflated view of my talents compared to yours at that time. After reading a lot of the posts, I began to reflect on where I stacked up as a player back in the days of short polyester shorts. I could obviously score but when you get 80% of the touches on each possession, you should be able to score a bunch of points. There also weren't too many people taller than me in the weak D4 competition we faced. I remember on the bus rides to the games how I would sit there and envision me making every shot and grabbing every rebound that was on my side. I would go into games with that mindset - that NO ONE would outplay me at my position. Sure that's not bad motivation, but does that make one a good/best player? As always when you try to compare players in any major team sport, you end up acknowledging that they were good but did they make the players around them better? Isn't that what really defines just how good a player is? Sure stats are great, but how did you make your teammates better and thus, your team better? I'd have to say that I could have done a lot more in helping my teammates achieve their potentials during my years at Trinity. Yes, I wanted to win the game above everything else (like being mad during the Austine game when I scored my 1000th point and they stopped the game for it. I hated that and just wanted to win the game with the recognition coming AFTER the game). But too many times I told myself that as long as I played good (meaning my stats: turnovers, rebounds, blocks, and shooting percentage) then that's all I could do. So with that I'll leave my teammates up to the voting with that in mind."