PHILADELPHIA, PA – If ever there were a game of consequence for two struggling programs, Tuesday’s Holy War Pillowfight between St. Joseph’s and Villanova is it. Not for the lore, the drama, or the fierce rivalry—this time, it’s about the potential future of two head coaches who’ve found themselves under intensifying scrutiny. St. Joseph’s Billy Lange and Villanova’s Kyle Neptune are on alarmingly shaky ground, with the outcome of this clash potentially determining their fates. And yes, to the fans, it’s a big game—albeit for all the wrong reasons.
The alums, boosters and fans have had enough of this shit…
Kyle Neptune, Villanova Head Coach
Imagine a WWE-style steel cage match between Lange and Neptune with the defeated coach forced to turn in his company car, office keys and bid farewell to his team after the final buzzer. It’s the kind of spectacle that perhaps only wrestling fans could appreciate, yet one that feels uncomfortably close to the current reality for both Lange and Neptune. For the respective fan bases, frustration has given way to calls for change, and patience has long run out. Both fan bases have endured too much for too long.
Lange’s record at St. Joseph’s, a tepid 60-92 (.395) since his hiring in 2019, has turned a proud program into a perennial disappointment. The Hawk faithful yearn for a return to the NCAA tournament. Many express deep skepticism regarding the current coaching staff. The St. Joseph’s message board is rife with calls for Lange’s termination. Things are even worse at Villanova. Neptune, though in his third year, has marginally fared better than Lange with a 37-34 (.521) record. However, he was handed the keys to a Ferrari and it feels like it’s been in the shop since he took over. When introduced at home games, his name is met with full throated Philly boos usually reserved for visiting opponents. For two programs that once routinely inspired confidence, their leaders appear to be hanging by the thinnest of threads, and this season’s start—punctuated by jarring losses in “buy games”—hasn’t helped.
Billy Lange, St. Joseph’s Head Coach
The buy game, a time-honored tradition, serves as a revenue stream for small programs and a quick win for larger ones. Schools like St. Joseph’s and Villanova bring in lesser-known “low major” teams, offering a hefty check, sometimes upwards of $100,000, with the tacit understanding that the visiting team will go home defeated. It’s a system that usually allows for the high-major program to pad its win column while the small school collects its payday.
But that unspoken agreement has been unceremoniously disrupted in Philly. St. Joseph’s invited Central Connecticut State for what was expected to be a routine win at 54th and City Avenue. Instead, the visitor walked away with a victory—and a paycheck. Earlier in the week, Columbia arrived at Finneran Pavillion on the Main Line, handed the Wildcats a stinging defeat, took their check, and headed back up I-95 to Manhattan. What should have been easy victories have turned into humiliating losses, pushing the fan bases to the brink.
And they are fed up. Alumni, supporters, and local fans aren’t willing to watch their schools play the role of gracious hosts handing out both checks and victories to supposedly inferior opponents. This shift from reverence to restlessness is palpable across both programs’ communities. For Lange and Neptune, these losses are not just isolated setbacks but the latest entries in a long list of grievances.
For both coaches, Tuesday’s game is likely to carry more weight than most mid-November matchups. It’s a crossroads: Lose, and they will find themselves with a diminishing number of believers. Crawl out of the steel cage with a win, and perhaps they’ll buy some time. But make no mistake, the scales have tipped. Fans are no longer willing to accept mediocrity from programs that once consistently delivered excellence.
Tuesday’s Holy War Pillowfight will be a spectacle—a big game, indeed, but not for the thrill of victory. For the fans of St. Joseph’s and Villanova, it’s about accountability, about honor, and, perhaps, about the possibility of starting anew.
CAMDEN, NJ – In today’s America, as a divided nation navigates the aftermath of Donald Trump’s presidency, Black support for Trump’s MAGA movement has drawn both curiosity and condemnation. Approximately 22 percent of Black men supported Trump in recent elections, a statistic that shocks and confounds many. The reasons are complex, but this phenomenon carries disturbing echoes of a past dilemma once personified by Isaiah Thornton Montgomery, a Black Mississippi leader who, over a century ago, publicly endorsed Black disenfranchisement. While 99.99 percent of Black Americans may have no awareness of Montgomery’s place in history, the eerie parallel to present-day Black MAGA supporters raises troubling questions about compromise, survival, and political self-identity amidst a resurgent wave of White backlash.
The roots of Black conservatism today are as varied as they were in Montgomery’s time. The question, though, is not simply why some Black men align with the MAGA agenda, but whether today’s political landscape is producing contemporary Isaiahs: figures within the Black community who, consciously or unconsciously, may view alignment with right-wing movements as a pragmatic strategy for survival and advancement in an era of unprecedented polarization. With inadequate education around Black history in America’s schools, many Black citizens lack the knowledge to contextualize our current political landscape within the longer arc of racial struggle. Few are aware that today’s MAGA movement fits into a history of White backlash against perceived gains by Black Americans and other marginalized groups.
The similarity with Isaiah T. Montgomery is stark, yet his motivations were distinctly rooted in the brutal world of post-Reconstruction America. Montgomery, founder of the Black community of Mound Bayou and son of an enslaved man-turned-businessman, held an unshakeable belief in Black self-sufficiency. But at the 1890 Mississippi Constitutional Convention, Montgomery shocked the Black community by endorsing provisions like literacy tests and poll taxes, which would bar Black voters from the polls. His reasoning was couched in pragmatism: he argued that appeasing White lawmakers and ceding political ground might allow Black Americans the breathing room to pursue social and economic self-sufficiency without inciting more violent backlash from the White South.
This strategy of appeasement, however, came at a profound cost. By endorsing Black disenfranchisement, Montgomery struck a bargain that some historians argue ultimately weakened the broader fight for Black rights. In his eyes, he may have been choosing a “lesser evil,” hoping to secure a modicum of safety and stability for Black communities. But his compromise helped cement a cycle of disenfranchisement that would haunt Black communities for decades.
Today, MAGA-supporting Black men may claim a similar kind of pragmatism, citing dissatisfaction with Democrats’ failures to deliver economic and social progress and pointing to Trump’s “America First” policies as offering greater personal and economic security. This approach may seem attractive for Black men seeking relief from the relentless churn of systemic racial inequity. Yet we must question whether endorsing a movement openly allied with far-right, White supremacist sentiments—and which has fueled harmful policies on everything from immigration to voting rights—is a sustainable or honorable path forward.
Unlike Montgomery, who likely felt he had no choice but to make a Faustian bargain in a violent, oppressive environment, Black MAGA supporters today choose to align with a movement that has often diminished the Black struggle for justice and equality. That choice, whether motivated by frustration with establishment politics, belief in economic “bootstraps” rhetoric, or disillusionment with the left, serves to reinforce a coalition that has actively suppressed minority voting rights and eroded protections against racial discrimination.
Montgomery’s legacy, for all its flaws, at least left behind a vision of Black self-sufficiency through the community of Mound Bayou. His compromise, though painful, was aimed at preserving a sanctuary for Black Americans to thrive away from hostile White dominance. Black MAGA supporters, on the other hand, stake their political future on a movement that has often used their voices to validate policies that threaten the very social progress on which Black Americans rely.
The alignment of any segment of Black America with the MAGA agenda suggests a critical need for education around this country’s cyclical racial history. The disconnection from history—the “woeful inadequacy” of Black history as it is taught in American schools—prevents a clear understanding of today’s political dynamics as part of a long, repeated arc of White backlash. Without awareness of figures like Montgomery or the political choices forced on Black Americans throughout history, many fail to see how Black support of MAGA could lead to similar long-term disenfranchisement.
To be clear, the issue is not the political party of one’s allegiance, but the agenda one chooses to endorse. Black support for MAGA is not simply a divergence in political opinion; it is a move that could ultimately lend support to a movement in direct opposition to Black political and social progress. In this moment, we need more awareness, more connection to history, and, most crucially, a unified sense of purpose. Rather than aligning with those who would turn back the clock on civil rights and equality, today’s Black Americans should look toward alliances that strengthen—not weaken—the collective foundation of our community.
Isaiah Montgomery’s choices were not ideal, but they are instructive. Let us hope that modern Black MAGA supporters will learn from his compromises and understand that the consequences of such alignment often echo far beyond individual gain, shaping the freedoms—or restrictions—of future generations.
CAMDEN, NJ – As the United States grapples with immigration reform, Democrats—and Black American political leaders in particular—seem fundamentally ill-equipped to recognize a force driving much of the nation’s debate: a deeply embedded and historical animosity toward immigrants. This sentiment, often neglected in our education system, remains a potent force in American politics, one that Republicans have expertly wielded to achieve significant political victories.
America has never fucked with non-Protestant European immigrants.
The 2024 election serves as a recent and stark example. While many on the left advocated for inclusive immigration policies, Republicans, led by President-elect Trump, tapped into the powerful strain of anti-immigrant sentiment woven into the fabric of American society. By adopting a strict posture against “illegal” immigration, Trump’s campaign skillfully activated an underlying hostility that has persisted for centuries. This approach resonated deeply with many Americans, proving politically advantageous despite, or perhaps because of, its divisive nature.
For generations, various immigrant groups have faced prejudice, discrimination, and violence in America. Irish, Italian, and Polish immigrants were among the earliest to endure this treatment in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Irish Catholics, for example, were often viewed as a religious and political threat, accused of being loyal to the Pope rather than the U.S. government. Many Irish immigrants were relegated to low-wage labor, while signs like “No Irish Need Apply” blatantly excluded them from workplaces. Italian immigrants faced racial discrimination, as Southern Italians were frequently seen as “non-white” and associated with criminality. The lynching of eleven Italian men in New Orleans in 1891 exemplified the violence they encountered. Polish immigrants, similarly, faced harsh economic exploitation and religious discrimination, navigating poor working conditions and pervasive anti-Catholic sentiment.
Asian immigrants experienced even harsher exclusionary policies. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 specifically targeted Chinese laborers, barring them from entering the country and making it nearly impossible for Chinese immigrants to achieve citizenship. Japanese immigrants, in turn, faced racist land laws and forced segregation. Anti-Asian prejudice ultimately culminated in the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, when tens of thousands of U.S. citizens of Japanese descent were stripped of their rights and forced into internment camps.
Despite these enduring struggles, many Americans are educated under the myth of the “melting pot”—the notion that diverse ethnicities can seamlessly blend into a unified, harmonious American society. This idealistic image is built on the assumption that immigrants will eventually assimilate, adopting mainstream American values while contributing their unique perspectives. This myth is repeated in schools as the ultimate American story, obscuring the realities of exclusion, racial discrimination, and social conflict that have long shaped the immigrant experience.
For Black Americans, the miseducation surrounding immigration is compounded by an educational system that frames American history through a Eurocentric lens, omitting or downplaying the discriminatory treatment of immigrants and the struggles of people of color. Many Black leaders, influenced by this same flawed education, may struggle to recognize that the “melting pot” has always had limits. The melting pot framework encourages leaders to advocate for diversity and inclusivity, often at the cost of acknowledging the longstanding antipathy toward immigrants that has pervaded American history.
By contrast, Republicans have astutely identified this antipathy, leveraging it with precision. President-elect Trump and his advisors astutely recognized that a portion of the American public harbors an underlying hostility toward new immigrants, particularly those perceived as “illegal.” This animosity has nothing to do with any single ethnicity or cultural group; rather, it is directed toward the very idea of immigration itself. Trump’s campaign capitalized on this sentiment by framing immigrants as economic competitors or cultural threats, a narrative that resonated in regions where concerns about jobs and cultural change run high.
If the “melting pot” were truly representative of American society, then one might expect Latino and Asian immigrants to show similar sentiments, internalizing an “American” identity that mirrors long-standing anti-immigration attitudes. But the reality is far more complex, with second- and third-generation immigrants often challenging these divisive narratives. This resistance itself demonstrates that the American melting pot has long been an imperfect metaphor—a convenient story rather than an honest representation of a fractured reality.
The time has come for Black political leaders, and Democrats more broadly, to confront this entrenched hostility toward immigrants. American history reveals a pattern of discrimination and exclusion, one that often reemerges when politically expedient. For too long, Black leaders have been shaped by an educational system that fails to equip them with the tools to recognize this reality. Miseducation has, ironically, become an effective means of controlling narratives around immigration and identity.
Recognizing the deeply rooted bias against immigrants is not an endorsement of anti-immigrant sentiment, but a necessary step in addressing it. Until Democrats and Black political leaders can move past the ideals of the melting pot and address the full spectrum of America’s complex and often troubled relationship with immigration, they will remain vulnerable to the political forces that skillfully exploit these divisions. If Democrats hope to counteract the appeal of anti-immigrant policies, they must confront the miseducation that has hindered their ability to see what Republicans have long understood: that in the United States, immigrant acceptance has always been more aspiration than reality.
CAMDEN, NJ – In the early hours of Wednesday morning, Americans awoke to news that Donald Trump had been re-elected as president in a hard-fought campaign. Once again, the peaceful transfer of power through a free and fair election reinforced a hallmark of the American experiment: a democracy, as James Madison wrote, that preserves the “spirit and form” of governance by the people. To many, particularly Black Americans and communities historically marginalized, Trump’s victory reads as an existential threat to American democracy as they know it. But the prevailing narrative that American political culture has been a pristine example of democracy in world history—one that safeguards freedom for all—is, and always has been, incomplete.
America’s democracy has endured in form, but the substance of that democracy has always been as much shaped by exclusionary ideologies—racism, sexism, xenophobia—as by the ideal of equality. These dual forces have existed side by side since the nation’s founding, influencing not only who participates in politics but the very values that American governance upholds. With that reality in mind, perhaps it’s worth reframing what some see as the potential “end” of American democracy. While the Civil Rights Era may have come to a symbolic close last night, democracy in its original, sometimes mercilessly exclusive form, will likely persist, even flourish.
American democracy, founded in ideals of freedom and representative government, was also founded as a racial and gendered hierarchy. For nearly two centuries, the racist/white supremacist system with procedurally democratic features held firm, enshrining the values of White male property owners while excluding millions based on race, nationality, and gender. Women, enslaved Black Americans, Indigenous peoples, and other minorities were systematically denied full participation in what was nonetheless celebrated as a bastion of democratic governance. From its birth, America’s so-called democracy was a profoundly unequal system, designed for the enfranchisement and empowerment of a narrow group of wealthy, White men.
When the Founders issued their declaration of freedom to the British crown, declaring “all men are created equal,” they carved out that declaration to serve a select few. This sentiment laid the groundwork for a nation that would go on to build institutions catering to the privilege of a specific demographic. A revolution against monarchy and aristocracy—yes. But a democracy for all? Hardly. While revolutionary in comparison to European monarchies, America’s democratic spirit came bound with the chains of slavery, the forced dispossession of Native lands and rigid exclusion of women.
This enduring myth—that America has always stood as a beacon of equality—feeds a dangerous misperception. Many Black Americans fearing democracy’s end in light of Trump’s return are responding to a version of history that never fully included them. The American education system has long centered its lessons on the actions of wealthy, White Protestant men, pushing the contributions and sacrifices of Black Americans, Indigenous peoples, women, and other marginalized groups to the periphery. This has cultivated an understanding of democracy as a singular narrative of freedom and progress when, in reality, it is a deeply divided one.
To critique America’s selective version of democracy is not to minimize the contributions of Founders like Jefferson, Adams, Washington, and Franklin. Nor is it an appeal to disparage the “MAGA” movement’s resurgence. Rather, it is a call to recognize that America’s political culture is far more complex than the sanitized version we’ve long been taught. The stark reality is that racism, sexism, and xenophobia are as American as baseball, apple pie and hip-hop. These inegalitarian ideologies are as deeply ingrained in our political fabric as any notion of liberty. For nearly two centuries, America was considered a democracy while enslaving millions on armed labor camps, slaughtering and forcibly removing surviving Native Americans, and rigidly upholding an Apartheid/Jim Crow segregation system. Rest assured that American democracy, at least in “spirit and form,” will endure through the next four years and beyond.
True, the election of Donald Trump may well signal the end of the Civil Rights Era’s vision of democracy, but that vision is only a recent addition to American life. The structures that enabled the original version of democracy to exist—and indeed, thrive—in the face of brutality and exclusion still stand. To reclassify our current system as anything but democracy would require rethinking the foundational structures laid by the Founding Fathers themselves. We would have to classify Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Madison as antidemocratic. That is a project that, for now, remains highly unlikely.
Instead, it is up to Black educators, leaders, and all Americans who see through the myth to challenge the dominant historical narratives. An education system grounded in truth, not legend, will better serve our future generations. It will equip them to recognize the contradictions and complexities that define American political culture—a democracy that has always held equality and exclusion in uneasy balance.
PHILADELPHIA, PA – Villanova University’s men’s basketball program, long the gold standard of success and integrity, now stands at a critical juncture. Once the envy of collegiate hoops, the Wildcats under Jay Wright evolved from an admired East Coast program to a permanent resident among the sport’s “blue bloods.” In his two decades as head coach, Wright led Villanova to six Big East titles, four Final Fours, and a pair of national championships, solidifying the Wildcats’ place alongside the likes of Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina and Kansas.
But Jay Wright’s abrupt departure in 2022 created a seismic shift on the Main Line. Wright had led an undermanned Villanova squad to the Final Four in his final season, only to vanish stage left, much to the surprise and disappointment of the Wildcat faithful. In a swift succession plan, Villanova’s leadership tapped former assistant Kyle Neptune to inherit the program — a coach respected for his Villanova pedigree but still untested at the program’s elite level. There was no search firm involvement, no long drawn out series of interviews with high profile national candidates. The president, the athletic director and, of course, Wright quickly anointed Kyle Neptune as heir to the Villanova throne.
North Philly’s Wooga Poplar
In a matter of days, the Villanova brass handed Neptune the keys to the Lexus.
The move, while somewhat surprising, made sense on many levels. Neptune was no stranger to the Main Line. He spent eight years as an assistant on Wright’s staff with the Wildcats — he was on the sideline when Kris Jenkins knocked in his NCAA championship-winning 3-pointer in 2016. He left Philadelphia for the Bronx in March 2021 after being hired to coach Fordham.
Neptune, took over as Fordham’s coach after the Rams finished an abysmal 2-12 in the pandemic-shortened 2020-21 season. In his lone season at Rose Hill Gymnasium, Neptune impressed, leading Fordham to a 16-16 record. This represented a 14-win improvement between the 2020-21 and 2021-22 seasons and the biggest single-season jump in program history.
After just one season in the Bronx, leading a perennially mediocre Fordham program, Wright tossed the keys to his protege. While he hasn’t “crashed the car,” alums and fans are definitely tired of Neptune driving over the rumble strips. This noise is both unfamiliar and undesirable to Main Line hoopheads. One can only assume that the sound inside the vehicle is just as intolerable. Nonetheless, it serves as a warning to a Neptune and his staff that they have been veering off the roadway.
This stakes could not higher for Neptune. He succeeded Wright on the heels of a Final Four appearance and is just 35-33 over the past two seasons. The Villanova program has dropped from perennial national championship contender to one that has been knocked out of the NIT in the first round the last two seasons. Villanova Athletic director Mark Jackson gave Neptune a strong vote of confidence at the end of last season and subsequently left for Northwestern and the Big 10. At some point during the basketball season, Neptune will get a new boss who will surely notice the fully loaded S-Class Mercedes Benz parked outside Harry A. Gampel Pavilion in Storrs, Connecticut.
A Proving Ground for Neptune
For Neptune, this season is more than just a chance to return to the NCAA tournament after a two-year absence. It’s an opportunity to affirm that Villanova’s reputation as a national powerhouse isn’t just a Jay Wright-era artifact. This is no simple task: He inherits both the pressure of a devoted fan base and the expectation to maintain a “Villanova brand” known for discipline, ball movement, and defensive intensity. Yet, for a program accustomed to national title contention, Neptune’s middling 35-33 record over two seasons is hardly a confidence booster. So… Exactly how will the staff return the Wildcats to prominence?
Graduate Student, Eric Dixon
Philly Area Ballers on the Main Line
Neptune has leaned heavily on players from the Philadelphia region to bring Villanova back to prominence. Leading the charge is graduate student Eric Dixon. This Wildcat squad is Dixon’s team. Hailing from Abington, Dixon is extremely strong for a player at the college level and has often just powered to the basket during his illustrious college career. While he is undersized for the center position, Dixon uses his body very well, has great hands and good post footwork. He able to hold position on the blocks and back down his defender. On most nights, Dixon will be a serious mismatch for defenses in the low post. He posses a soft shooting touch around the basket uses a number of spins and drop steps to score However, it should be noted that he has expanded his offensive repertoire. Despite playing center, he was also tied for second on the team in three-point range attempts, knocking down just under 35% of his nearly five tries per game. He runs the floor well for someone his size. Dixons plays good positional defense due to his above average lateral quickness and wide body. The Wildcats need Dixon to play at an All-American level if they are going to make the NCAA tournament after a two year hiatus.
Alongside Dixon is Jordan Longino, a Germantown Academy product who has shown glimpses of promise, albeit interrupted by injury. Averaging nearly 22 minutes per game last season, Longino’s shot and intensity on both ends of the floor could make him a consistent contributor — if he can stay healthy. The third key local returnee is Nnanna Njoku, whose power forward play and physical presence offer crucial support, though he, too, will need to avoid injuries to fully contribute.
New Faces, High Hopes
Coatesville’s Jhamir Brickus
Surrounding the local returnees will be some key additions from the transfer portal. Manning the point guard position for Neptune will be Jhamir Brickus. A Coatesville High School legend, Brickus is using his COVID bonus season of eligibility, after transferring from La Salle. Brickus played four seasons with the Explorers, and he had an outstanding campaign as a senior. He averaged 13.9 points, 3.5 rebounds, 4.8 assists, and just over a steal per game while hitting 40% of his threes. Brickus is a rock-solid choice to run the Villanova offense. He displays great court vision and makes his teammates better. He is an experienced, savvy, clutch vet who has seen it all. Brickus drives the lane like an NFL fullback, and either finishes strongly or finds the open man. Although relatively short in stature, he plays much bigger than his size on offense. He has been known to effectively post up bigger guards and forwards. Neptune has given him a chance to put his skills on full display before a national audience in Big East competition.
A Philadelphia Public League legend will play on the wing for Neptune. Wooga Poplar, hailing from North Philly, is blessed with truly elite level explosiveness. Poplar was was one of the most intriguing prospects in college basketball last season and considered making the leap to the NBA this past off season. When he is healthy, Poplar displays electric speed and quickness, and is certainly one of the best leapers in college basketball. At MCS High School and subsequently the University of Miami, Poplar played an exciting and fairly flashy style. He is a highlight reel dunker in the transition game. He has a sweet looking jump shot, and his range extends past the NBA 3-point line. Poplar is able to hit shots off of screens or off the dribble, making him a guy who must be accounted for no matter what on the perimeter. He has more than adequate ball-handling ability and will be a tough cover due to his athleticism and shooting skills. He has proven that he can slash when crowded or stop and pop if the defender gives him space. Poplar gets great elevation and has a high release giving him a great ability to get shots off. He has the ability to put up points in bunches. A late blooming prospect, who wasn’t a highly touted recruit until late in his high school career, Poplar could really just be scratching the surface of his true ability.
Fresno State transfer Enoch Boakye
They have added Enoch Boakye to play the center position while Dixon moves to power forward full-time. Boakye is an athletic forward with superior shot blocking and rebounding tools. He brings an evolving offensive game that includes the ability to finish lobs near the rim. last season with Fresno State. He gave the Bulldogs just short of 8 points and 8 rebounds a game. He brings much needed length and explosiveness to the Wildcat front court.
Neptune did not go far for his final portal acquisition. He successfully recruited Tyler Perkins (6’4”, 205 lb, Lorton, Virginia), who was one of the best player in the Ivy League as a freshman at Penn last season. For the season, he averaged 13.7 points and 5.3 rebounds per game and hit nearly 35% of his three-pointers. But, maybe… Just maybe, he’s at Villanova because he for dropped 22 points, six rebounds, and a block on the Wildcats in a 76-72 Quakers victory at The Palestra last season.
Penn transfer Tyler Perkins
The Wildcats have also brought in in four freshmen, including two top 100 prospects. Matthew Hodge (6’8”, 200 lb, Belmar, New Jersey) is #70 in the 247 Sports Composite, while Josiah Moseley (6’6”, 185 lb, Round Rock, Texas) ranked #82. They also add redshirt freshman Kris Parker (6’9”, 195 lb, Tallahassee, Florida) on a transfer from Alabama where he did not play after ranking #99 in the 2023 247 Composite and Jordann Dumont, a versatile and athletic 6’8″ forward.
Neptune’s recruitment has been solid, but the question remains whether he and his staff can coach this talented roster to the program’s accustomed heights. Simply stated, can this staff coach these players to a level that results in deep runs in the NCAA tournament?
A Season on the Brink
The Wildcats’ early season schedule — including tests against St. Joseph’s, Virginia, and Maryland — offers Neptune a chance to prove that his Wildcats can hang with the best. But for the alumni and fans accustomed to the stability and success of Wright’s reign, patience may be wearing thin. The next few months will reveal if Neptune is indeed steering Villanova back on course or if, in the eyes of the Villanova faithful, the Wildcats’ time as a college basketball “blue blood” is starting to fade.
We are about to find out Neptune can avoid the rumble strips early this year.
The Black Cager 