With Jay Bilas

Thanks for all of your questions. Keep them coming! Send in your Hoops 101 questions. Jay Bilas will answer a few each week as the season continues.

Randy Bower, Casper, Wyo., writes:

This isn't exactly a question, just more of a comment. During halftime of the Wyoming-Kansas game, you were talking about the steps the NCAA may take to try and hold institutions and athletes more responsible for their academics. You made a statement about making the institutions hold all scholarship students to these standards and that this would improve education. To this I take great offense. I am not a star athlete and I do not come from a wealthy family. I am however on a full academic scholarship that requires me to maintain a full course load and a 3.33 GPA. My major is Biology with a minor in Chemistry. I assure you that if my grades or academic status were to fall in any way below the standards dictated by my scholarship, I would lose that scholarship until I could again meet those requirements. I don't think that it is too much to ask, for student athletes to meet their requirements.

I take great offense to the notion that regular students are not held to higher expectations than that of the student athlete. If the rest of us are required to meet the expectations of the university then why should the student athletes be any different. I doubt this will be posted on the net or answered on air, I don't expect it to be. I would however appreciate a response, even something from an assistant would suffice. I normally enjoy your comments, but this one offended me. Thank you.

Randy,
First, congratulations on your scholarship and your fine academic record, and thanks for taking the time to share your comments. I believe that you misunderstood my point, or I did not make it clear. I certainly did not intend to offend you or anyone else, and I hope I have demonstrated by my own commitment to academics how important I believe education to be.

I did not say, or suggest, that institutions hold all scholarship students to any particular standard. I made a far different suggestion, which I discuss below, and took it to an extreme to make a point. I don't believe that having blanket standards that provide penalties based upon graduation or academic performance of athletes. Each institution differs greatly, and such "across the board" standards would have a negative and disparate impact.

I suggested that, if academic performance is so important to the NCAA, postseason play, athletic scholarships and money should be tied not just to the academic performance of athletes, but of the entire student body as a whole. Under my admittedly extreme proposal, if Wyoming's entire student body did not reach a certain global standard, the university would forfeit the NCAA Tournament, athletic money and athletic scholarships, not anything else. Your scholarship would not be affected in any way by my rather tongue-in-cheek proposal, just athletic money, scholarships and postseason play.

If you were offended by the idea of such standards, imagine how student-athletes feel when the gross generalization is made that they are not "real students" with any "real intention" of getting an education? When I was in law school, I would often hear such generalizations, and would wonder how my classmates would react if I said they shouldn't be allowed in the gym or weight room because they weren't "real athletes" and weren't interested in pursuing "serious athletic performance." Education is a noble and valuable pursuit, even if a student is not focused on making the Dean's List or winning a Nobel Prize.

To me, it is simple. If any student or student-athlete does not meet the academic requirements set by his institution, he will not graduate from that institution. If either falls behind, he will be placed upon academic probation, according to the standards set by that institution. If a student-athlete does not meet his academic requirements, he will not graduate. To me, that is incentive enough, or punishment enough.

While reasonable minds can differ on this, I am not in favor of impinging upon an institution's autonomy with regard to academics and how students progress toward graduation. I am in favor of minimum eligibility standards, but once a student is shown to be qualified, I am not in favor of telling institutions how they should educate those students, what their standards should be for graduation, or how difficult their majors should be. Every school has a different mission statement, and different standards. Wyoming has different standards than Wake Forest; Notre Dame has different standards than Mississippi Valley State; and Harvard has different standards than Northern Arizona. For all schools to have the same standards for every student or student-athlete strikes me as overkill, and unfair. At some schools, the athletes graduate at a higher rate than the general student population. How do we account for that? Graduating from Duke may be easier than graduating from Wyoming, but how would such a difference factor into the NCAA guidelines? How do we account for the difference between private schools and public schools? I believe the NCAA's current proposal would cause more problems than it would solve, mostly due to the law of unintended consequences. Standards are good ... but I would rather let individual institutions set their own standards.

I believe that higher education is for everyone, but not every institution is for everyone. Because there are so many different institutions with different mission statements and different levels of students, having blanket standards is unworkable.

Dr. Matthew Stratman, Phoenix, Ariz., writes:

Students transferring schools should not cause an uproar and they should not have to sit out of athletics for a year (or two) if they do transfer. Students transfer schools all the time, as do coaches. Coaches can change jobs in a heartbeat without any penalty.

Look at the situation in Michigan: Steve Fischer is now at SDSU, Michigan can't play in the tournament and the student-athletes suffer.

Everyone just needs to come to the realization that the NCAA is not fair to student-athletes. The student-athletes compete and what do they have to show for it -- only a handful make it to the NBA and hardly any graduate. When they try to better their own situations, they get punished by sitting out a year. Don't you think the student-athletes should unionize and unite their power because without them the NCAA is useless?

Dr. Stratman,
I tend to agree that there is a double-standard with regard to coach and player movement. Coaches break their contracts and walk out on players for a better opportunity all of the time. But why do they do that? I think it is because coaches are too often fired before the end of their contracts, and because other institutions routinely hire coaches away from other member institutions, encouraging them to break their commitments. Commitments work both ways ... if you don't want coaches to leave, quit firing them or hiring employed coaches away, and there will not be such a climate. That may be unrealistic, but it is true.

Meanwhile, players are bound to the institution even after the coach leaves. If players were allowed free movement, without having to sit out a year, competitive balance would be severely affected. Perhaps the answer lies in making coaches sit out a year if they leave for another member institution before the end of their contracts!

The NCAA is not unfair, nor is a bad organization, in my judgment. In the vast majority of cases, the NCAA does the right thing, and has the best interests of the student-athletes at heart. The NCAA simply has some rules that lack common sense in their application and enforcement, and way too much bureaucracy and red tape. Apply good common sense to the rules, and we have he best game.

As for unionization, I don't believe it will work, practically or legally. It would be too difficult to organize, and there is too much turnover to maintain. The Student Basketball Council, the brainchild of the NABC and chaired by Shane Battier, is already out of existence, and a non-factor.

Johnnie Grimes, Baltimore, Md., writes:

Who's better Carmelo Anthony or Lebron James?

Johnnie,
LeBron James is a better prospect, but it's a close call as to which player is better right now. Carmelo Anthony has had the benefit of playing at a higher level for a season, and is probably a bit more polished right now. However, James is a truly special talent. He is one of the most skilled players I have ever seen coming out of high school, and he is physically ready for the NBA right now. If I had to choose, I would pick James (and not just because he can give you a ride in style right now), but second place is pretty darn good in this contest.

Rodney Back, Charleston, W.Va., writes:

Jay,
Who do you think is the best freshman in the ACC? I think it is J.J. Redick. The UNC freshmen are good players, but Redick hardly ever makes mistakes, and is so smooth you can't even consider him a freshman.

Rodney,
You can make a great case for J.J. Redick or Rashad McCants for the ACC's best freshman, but I would choose Georgia Tech's Chris Bosh. Bosh is an outstanding lefty scorer, rebounder and shotblocker. He is multi-skilled, athletic, and has the potential to be great. Put Bosh on the Duke or North Carolina roster, and talking heads like me would explode with platitudes for him. Paul Hewitt will make Bosh even better, and I think he will become the ACC's best player in a short time.

Andrew Smith, West Lafayette, Ind., writes:

Jay,
I was just curious to see if you could enlighten me a bit regarding the Purdue Boilermakers this year. They have been off of the radar screen for the last two years, and I had assumed that Keady had lost his touch. However, they are playing better this season and they just had a good win against Michigan State. Why have they been playing better, and are they legitimate contenders to get into the NCAAs and end a two-year drought? Or is that wishful thinking?

Andrew,
Good call, as I wrote about Purdue this week. The NCAA Tournament is not wishful thinking for the Boilermakers, and I think that Purdue will be in the field of 65 this season. I am amused by the questions about whether the game has passed Gene Keady by. I played for Coach Keady on the 1985 USA Basketball National Select Team, and I know him to be a great coach. His team did not defend well last season, but that was because of the players, not the coach. I know they were taught to guard people, but they just didn't do it. This year, Purdue is guarding, and winning because of it.

Let me say one more thing about older coaches. Instead of pining for younger coaches who can relate to today's players, we should be celebrating the experienced coaches in the game (whether over 60 or not) that are the game's best teachers. Check the records of the coaches over 60 currently in the game, and compare those records with the coaches between 30 and 39. I promise you that the older coaches have much better records. I have spent a lot of time watching the practices of Bob Knight, Lute Olson, John Chaney and others, and they have as much energy and enthusiasm as ever. Instead of asking whether the game has passed the likes of Keady, Knight, Chaney or Jim Harrick by, we should be asking whether the game has even gotten to the younger coaches!

Let's not chase out our best coaches because of some arbitrary age limitation. They are not airline pilots, for crying out loud, they are teachers.

Timmy, Wallingford, Pa., writes:

Jay,
How come Saint Joseph's isn't getting the love it deserves. The Hawks are 12-1, and have been in the top 10 in the RPI for most of the season. They destroyed Boston College on the road, handed Gonzaga their first home lose in a while, and have pretty much dominated everyone else -- most recently Temple in their own house. We have one of the best defenses in the country, a tremendous backcourt in Delonte West and Jameer Nelson, and an awesome coach who is getting the best out of his young players. Do you think my Hawks can keep up their winning ways against teams like Xavier, Villanova, Penn, and Dayton, and have any chance of advancing far in the tournament?

Timmy,
While it is difficult to do, don't pay any attention to the polls. It is a silly and flawed system, and does not take into account the teams you think are the best teams, just the teams that won last week. If a good team plays well and loses to another good team, it can still be ranked lower than an average team that rolls over a bunch of bad teams. Poll watching is for suckers, and you Timmy, are not one.

Phil Martelli has done another masterful job on Hawk Hill. This is not his most talented team, but it has the best chemistry of any of his teams since his 1997 squad. Chemistry is so important. This Hawk team guards people, swarms the ball, and plays together. Jameer Nelson is the one that makes the difference, and he makes everyone better. He is shooting it well, finding the crease and getting into it, and finding open teammates. However, the Hawks are masking some serious issues inside. This is not a great rebounding team, nor is it a team that can score inside. That will be an issue in the NCAA Tournament when facing balanced opponents with solid inside games. But, with the 3-point shot, you never know.

Win or lose in the NCAA Tournament, this St. Joseph's team reminds you what college basketball is all about. It is a team game, and the Hawks are a true team.

Mark Wilkinson, Milwaukee, Wis., writes:

Jay,
When is Eddie Sutton going to get the credit that he deserves as a college basketball coach? If anything, the game against OU shows that Sutton can coach and, more importantly, get offensive-minded kids to play lights-out defense. Ask Hollis Price, consensus preseason all-America, about the defense the Cowboys play. Sutton-coached teams consistently compete for the Big 12 title and his teams go to the NCAA Tournament despite having far less talent than Williams at Kansas, Snyder at Missouri, and most of the other "great" coaches at the collegiate level.

Mark,
Until Coach Sutton becomes a self-promoter or has a press agent out stumping for him, he is probably destined to be simply a great coach and man of substance instead of flash. He doesn't wear Armani suits, talk in sound bytes, or seek out publicity. All he does is teach his kids how to play the right way, and win. Eddie Sutton is an outstanding basketball coach, and his legacy in the game is secure among those who understand and appreciate basketball. His roots in the game go all the way to the legendary Henry Iba, and Coach Sutton is one of the jewels of the coaching profession. He is a Hall of Fame-caliber coach, and everybody knows it. He is also a great man, and I will always remember the compassion, grace and dignity he showed, and continues to show, following the tragic plane crash two years ago.

Coach Sutton is also getting great help from his son, Sean, who is a fine basketball coach, and will be an excellent head coach himself. If you will notice, Sean has taken a more front-and-center role on the Cowboy sidelines, and is up coaching as the head coach would during games. That takes a lot of pressure off of Eddie Sutton, and may keep him going longer as a result.

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