With Jay Bilas

Send in your Hoops 101 questions. Jay Bilas will answer a few each week as the season continues.

Will Rothschild, Spartanburg, S.C. writes:

Great piece on the declining emphasis of "teaching" the game of basketball. Outside of "big-name" college coaches such as Mike Krzyzewski, Roy Williams and Lute Olson, whose teams are always fundamentally sound and always in the top 10? Who are some college coaches who don't get enough attention for being great "teachers" of the game? I would be especially interested in any at mid-major programs around the country that have caught your eye. Thanks in advance, and keep up the great work.

Will,
Thanks for taking the time to write. While college coaches can fall victim to overemphasizing "coaching" instead of "teaching", the focus of my article (or rant) was on lower levels of the game. College coaches have time restrictions that limit the amount of time they can spend on the floor to 20 hours per week. If a college player wants more, he has to practice unsupervised. No other aspect of college life is so limited. Students can spend as long as they like on particular subjects without restriction. Of course, there needs to be balance, but a twenty hour restriction (which includes time spent playing in games) removes any common sense from the equation.

On lower levels, the situation has become alarming. I have a six-year-old son who loves to play ball. He plays on a junior league team that plays a game a week, and has a practice a week. Kids at that age do not, and arguably cannot, understand the nuances of the game. They need to be taught fundamentals like passing, dribbling and shooting, not how to run a clear out for the best or most advance player. These games do not even keep score, so who cares about winning or running plays? In the 90 minutes invested into my son's game, over half of the kids did not even touch the ball! In practice, instead of lecturing kids on fundamentals, they have to do it. The kids can play dribble tag, play passing games, and play shooting games that make learning the right way to do things fun. Junior coaches do not need to run practice like Krzyzewski, Olson or Chaney. They need to have each kid bring their own ball and devise fun ways for the kids to "do" rather than simply watch or listen.

As for the coaches that are also the best teachers, there are too many to mention. A few of the best teachers of all-time, in my judgment, have been Pete Newell, Henry Iba, Bob Knight, Dean Smith, John Kresse, and John Wooden. Among the younger and active coaches, Mike Krzyzewski, Roy Williams, Lute Olson, Rich Pitino and Tubby Smith come immediately to mind. If you get a chance, watch the teams of Mark Few, Bill Self, Paul Hewitt and John Beilein and you will see teams and players that have been well taught.

Matt Brill, Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif., writes:

(Yes, I am a name from the past...) I enjoyed your article "America needs more 'teaching' from its coaches". One question that I would have: Don't you need to have kids who are willing to be taught? I agree with you that the focus of the coach needs to move back to the teaching of fundamentals. However, when watching college and even some high school games, I see too much one-on-one as opposed to team play. I just wonder if the majority of the kids are willing to listen and learn. It appears that the consistent top programs have the team concept which usually means there is a combination of a coach that can teach with players that are willing to listen.

(In full disclosure, Matt and I played junior basketball together from fourth to eighth grade on a travelling all-star team in Southern California. Our team stayed together for eight years through high school, we played over 50 games a year, and had even more practices. We were fortunate to have a youth coach named Dick Spidell who taught us how to play and to compete. Matt was as good a young shooter as I played with, and was selected every time to shoot technical free throws ... and technical fouls were called a lot, even in the old days.)

Matt,
While you are correct that players need to be willing learners, if they are not such learners collectively, it is a failure in teaching. Generally, players will do what it takes to get onto the floor and earn playing time, and if they are made to work on fundamentals in practice in a creative way, they will do it. I have a hard time believing that kids would rather stand and listen to coaches lecture them on the slides of a 2-2-1 press, instead of working on shooting, dribbling or passing. If every kid could shoot like you did, we wouldn't have any problems on any levels, and zones would be obsolete!

Bryant Higgs, Bozeman, Mt., writes:

Jay,
Concerning your comment last night, Jan. 7, 2003, about how Oregon has to come east to prove themselves. Why shouldn't the eastern teams have to go west to prove themselves? All you media types really need to get past this east coast bias you so liberally hold.

Bryant,
No east coast bias here, as I grew up in Southern California and hated the idea that west coast basketball was "soft". While I grew up in the "mean streets" of Rolling Hills, Calif., and never had to fight for food or shelter, I fought harder than many deprived inner city players for rebounds, and was tougher than many such players, as well. Basketball isn't a regional sport, nor is success in the game determined by socio-economics.

Oregon has already proven it is a quality team and program. My statement about Oregon was not that the Ducks should travel east to "prove themselves", but to "better themselves". There are different styles of play around the country, and it is good for every team that has or wants a national profile to play a national schedule. Oregon has not won a game on the east coast since 1978, mostly since the Ducks have not played on the east coast. It is not because of recruiting they should play east, but to expose the players to different styles and conditions. When the Ducks fly east more often, more people will see what you and I already know ... west coast kids can play. The east coast schools are stocked with them.

Marc Herman, Los Angeles, writes:

Jay, The Arizona Wildcats have such a tremendous amount of talent. With Will Bynum being the first to transfer out for lack of playing time, do you see a problem going forward with others on the team? It also seems as if Jason Gardner in particular is really stepping up as a team leader, sacrificing his own stats for the betterment of the team. But has he also hurts his chances for individual season-ending awards because these awards seem to be based more on individual statistics than team leadership. Hopefully that is not the case. What do you think, and can Arizona win it all as they do not historically fair well as front runners?

Marc,
Kids tend to transfer when they don't play. Will Bynum wanted to play more, and he didn't want to have to come to practice every day having to fight tooth and nail to get it. It is that simple. Transfers are part of the game, especially now, when the game is younger, and coaches are forced to recruit over a kid. Years ago, Lute Olson would not have recruited a guard similar to Bynum for a year or two. Now, he has to, or risk that a kid leaving for the NBA or via transfer will put him in a significant hole. That is why the 5/8 Rule (a school can only sign five players in one year, eight over a two year period) is so silly. Lute Olson did not run off Bynum, and now cannot replace him. If Salim Stoudamire or Hassan Adams leaves for the NBA, which they are not ready to do, Olson has a problem he cannot fix through recruiting. That is wrong.

I think Arizona is the best team, and has the best chance to be great. Of course, the Wildcats can still lose in the second round or Sweet 16, but that is true of every team in the country. Jason Gardner may not win the Wooden Award, but he is one of the best players in the country, and will be happier with another Final Four and chance at a title simply because of who he is ... a winner.

Brett Fisher, Urbandale, Iowa, writes:

Jay, what is your take on Creighton's Kyle Korver? In your opinion does playing at Creighton hurt his chances at an All-American award and possibly being drafted?

Brett,
Kyle Korver is a great college player, and deserves to be an All-America selection. How he plays the remainder of the season will determine it, but right now, he has had a season worthy of selection as one of the nation's 10 best As for his NBA chances, Korver will get a good look, and will likely be drafted, probably in the second round. Much of NBA thinking is determined by position, fitting a profile, and who you can guard. Korver can play at that level, but he has to find the right situation.

Sean Fox, Chicago, writes:

Jay,
Do you think Kirk Hinrich's multi-dimensional game will translate to the NBA? I kind of see him as a Steve Nash-type player, what's your take? Also, are Hinrich and Nick Collison enough to lead the Jayhawks to another Final Four, now that Wayne Simien is out and we have no bench?

Sean,
I said before the season that Kirk Hinrich is the best shooting guard in the country, period. I stand by that. To pat myself on the back, I said on the air last year in November that Maryland's Juan Dixon was the best shooting guard. Because of his speed, skills, shooting and toughness, Hinrich will be an outstanding pro, and a lottery pick. When experts are salivating over freshmen, I still look to guys like Hinrich that are the best players right now.

As for the Jayhawks, they are still a Final Four team, but need Simien back. Actually, the Jayhawks could be a better team when he returns because Jeff Graves, Michael Lee and Bryant Nash have to play minutes and will improve greatly. The Kansas depth problem is not that Roy Williams cannot find replacements for Gooden and Boschee, it is that he cannot find replacements for last year's reserves Simien and Langford. Kansas does not shoot a lot of 3s, but they are so efficient in getting the ball inside it more than compensates. If Simien is back by mid-February, KU will be in New Orleans.

John Rohrich, Chicago, writes:

As Big Ten conference play gets under way, myself and surely many IU alums are ready for another run but are skeptical of our chances. Yes the Hoosier guards, in general, have shot the lights out. But can we really have a strong Big Ten showing and run in March without consistent post and inside play from Jeffrey Newton and George Leach?

John,
Indiana is a very good team, but must rebound to win. The Hoosiers can spread you out, hit 3s, and drive the ball, but must limit the second opportunities of opponents to win consistently over time. Jeffrey Newton and George Leach are very good, and very good together, but cannot grab every rebound themselves. Newton and Leach are long shotblockers, but sometimes that strength can become a weakness. If Newton and Leach go after shots, there needs to be a rotation down to cover up for them, or the offensive boards are open. Every IU player on the floor has the responsibility to rebound. The defensive possession is not over until the rebound is secured. If IU rebounds with passion, intensity and urgency, the Hoosiers can win the Big Ten and do well in the postseason. If not, they can be ordinary at times.

Rich from Arlington, Va., writes:

I am sorry to say that I am a die-hard UNC fan. I was cautiously optimistic after the Preseason NIT, and it doesn't seem that this team can get over the hump after losing to Iona and Miami. Where do you think this team will end up?

Rich,
You should not apologize for being a "die-hard UNC fan" for any reason, unless you are just joking with me because of the fact that I went to Duke. I said before the season that I thought that Carolina would win from 18 to 22 games this year. When Sean May got hurt, obviously, Carolina's chances to meet that win total took a bit of a hit. However, this team can still be good, and still win a lot of games. The average fan may not know this, but it takes time to build, or rebuild, a program in a conference like the ACC. Matt Doherty is doing a good job, and he is the same coach that won National Coach of the Year honors his first season.

Here is my take. Carolina had one of the best coaches ever in Dean Smith, and he was replaced by one of the finest coaches in the country in Bill Guthridge. Don't sell Bill Guthridge short just because he chose to remain an assistant for so many years. Guthridge could easily have been a head coach years earlier, and would have been considered one of the very best coaches in the country. He is a fine gentleman, an astute basketball mind, and should be regarded as one of the best coaches in ACC history.

That said, he was placed in an untenable situation. Because of his age, Guthridge was hounded by speculation and questions about how long he would be in Chapel Hill, and was negatively recruited against in that regard. As a result, Carolina's recruiting took a hit, and Matt Doherty is paying the short-term price for it. Bank this ... Doherty will have Carolina's program back to elite status by next season. His kids are learning how to compete and win, and with added experience and depth, will get it done. May's injury may have slowed the progress, but the destination will be reached.

When I was recruited to Duke in 1982, there was a young coach there with a losing record. He went 11-17 two years in a row, and the alums were calling for his head on a plate. How stupid do you think they all feel now, considering that the coach was a kid named Mike Krzyzewski?

Joseph Moore, Memphis, Tenn., writes:

Why aren't the Memphis Tigers getting any respect in the polls for their wins over Syracuse on the road in Madison Square Garden, Villanova, Ole Miss, Arkansas and, last but not least, the Fighting Illini of Illinois?

Joseph,
Don't put too much emphasis on the polls, and always listen to talking heads like me with a healthy dose of skepticism. Just because we say it, or think it, doesn't make it right. The pollsters usually need to be beaten over the head with quality wins to vote for a team that has disappointed them in the past, and Memphis is in that category. Because analysts like me have gotten away from analyzing and have gravitated to prognosticating, when a team they pick fares poorly, they say "Memphis will have to prove it to me" because they have gotten burned. John Calipari has done a great job with this team, which is not as talented as last year's team, but has better chemistry. That shows you how important team dynamics are. Dajuan Wagner is gone, Kelly Wise is gone, and the Tigers are better. Behind John Grice and the new-and-improved Chris Massie, Memphis is an NCAA Tournament team. Few teams can boast five quality wins like the Tigers.

Jay Bilas is a college basketball analyst at ESPN and is a regular contributor to ESPN.com.