With Jay Bilas

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

Josh Meeks, Charlotte, N.C., writes:

Similar "unsportsmanlike" acts happened in two games, but it seemed as only one was criticized (by yourself included). At the end of the Wisconsin vs. Michigan State game, there was an alley-oop dunk with less than two seconds left, the game already decided, and MSU having conceded the game. At the end of the Wake Forest vs. Duke game a player made what was called a "wind-mill" type dunk with less than two seconds left, the game already decided, and Duke having conceded the game. The Badgers were criticized by Tom Izzo and the media, while I didn't hear a thing said about the Deacons. Just want to get your opinion of why the two situations were different. Maybe you did say something about the Deacons situation and I just missed it.

Josh,
Fair point, and thanks for the question. I did not see the last play of the Duke vs. Wake game, as I was hustling to another part of the studio. I gave my opinion on the last play of the MSU vs. Wisconsin game immediately after the buzzer when it was thrown back to Chris Fowler and me, and I gave my opinion long before Tom Izzo's post-game comments. I am critical of any player, coach or team that "shows up" an opponent, an action I consider to be inappropriate. There is a difference between celebrating and showing people up. Both Michigan State and Duke competed hard and honorably, and deserved to be treated respectfully. Both Wisconsin and Wake Forest played better than their opponents in their respective games, and deserved to win and be happy about winning. However, any showboat plays to show up an opponent are inappropriate, in my judgment.

I didn't need to see dunks at the end of the games, made possible by miscues from demoralized opponents, to tell me the winners were good and played well. Those actions took away from the wins, rather than putting an exclamation point on them. To me, there is no better feeling than walking off the floor victorious. The end of game plays we are discussing did nothing to add to that feeling, only to take away from it.

That being said, the Wisconsin players who participated in the last play are not bad kids and their high-spirited dunk at the end of the game is hardly a capital offense. It is not necessarily a morality play, or an issue of right or wrong. Rather, it is an issue of what is best, and how winning should be handled in the most respectful manner. I do not consider taking that action to be the best way to handle an end-of-game situation. They should have run out the clock, the equivalent of taking a knee in football. Not doing that doesn't make them bad people, but running the clock out and shaking hands would have shown greater class and sportsmanship. Period. There is no law against showboating, nor should there be, but there is also no law prohibiting talking heads like me from commenting on issues of sportsmanship. Sportsmanship matters, and I will continue to comment on such issues, in an appropriate manner, when such issues arise.

While we are on the subject of Wisconsin, don't let my sportsmanship rant obscure the fact that Bo Ryan has done a great job in Madison. He has taken a program that played a certain way, and has transformed that program into something different, and has won doing it. Kirk Penney is a complete guard, and has been a marvelous leader. Wisconsin is in a great position to win a second straight Big Ten title, and Ryan and Penney deserve a great deal of credit and praise for the job they've done. The Badgers are a fine team, and that one play doesn't diminish that, or them, in my eyes.

Guy Hughes, Lexington, Ky., writes:

The best team defense you've seen all year was from Cincinnati? I saw that game and Cincinnati's defense was strong, but you're not serious are you? Florida, Kentucky, Louisville and Arizona have all had multiple games with defense equal to, or better than that performance. I'm biased and you know which one I think was the most impressive. Despite this, no member of Kentucky and only one member of Louisville was mentioned on your list of best defenders. I suggest you remember that defense is only effective when it's played by the WHOLE team and not individuals. That's why Tubby and Rick (and Lute, ok I said it) have such good clubs. Defense doesn't win championships, TEAM defense wins championships!

Guy,
I know that you are a Kentucky fan, and you have a great team, program and coach to root for. My comments about Cincinnati's defensive effort were limited to one game only, the game against Oklahoma State. I said that the Bearcats' performance against Oklahoma State was the best defensive effort in a single game that I have seen this year. It is certainly a close call, and a subjective one at that. When I say such a thing, it is intended to convey just how dominant I thought the Bearcat defense was on that day, not to say that other performances were not outstanding, or that everyone else stinks on defense. I did not say that Cincinnati had the best defense in the nation, or that Cincinnati's defense was better than Kentucky's. It is not.

This kind of thing happens a lot, so don't feel alone. I have said that T.J. Ford is the best point guard in the country, and fans of Luke Ridnour hear me to have said "Ridnour stinks!" instead. Of course, that is not what I said or meant. My praise of Cincinnati's effort that day did not reflect poorly upon Kentucky, it was intended to spotlight a superior defensive effort by Cincinnati.

I agree with your assessment that TEAM defense wins, and you are right that Kentucky's whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Kentucky does not have a first-round pick on its team, but it may wind up being the best team in the country before it is all said and done. However, don't forget about Arizona. To me, Arizona is still the prohibitive favorite.

As you know in Lexington, and the rest of the world should know by watching, is that Tubby Smith is doing a fabulous job with this Kentucky team. I have said consistently over the last five years is that Tubby is among the truly elite coaches in America, and he continues to prove it. I also think, and have said, that Kentucky did not get the credit it deserved in the mid-90's for its accomplishments. The Wildcats were within an overtime period of a "three-peat" with three very different teams, and two coaches. Only Laettner's miracle shot kept Kentucky from being, without reasonable debate, the team of the decade.

Plus, you have Ashley Judd.

John Shuffett, Lexington, Ky., writes:

Jay,
I tend to agree with most of what you say, but the best TEAM defense in the country is Cincinnati? Maybe for that one game -- although I'd make my case for UK at Alabama (see: 10 FGs the entire game) But certainly you've got to see Kentucky as being the best defensive team in the country. If not THE best, then certainly the most consistently dominant defense over the last 6 weeks.

Love ya, Jay!

John,
Please see my explanation to Guy from Lexington, above. You are correct, I did qualify my statement about Cincinnati to limiting it to that one game. I do see Kentucky as being the best defensive team in the country, especially since the second half at Vanderbilt. Tubby Smith is arguably the best halfcourt defensive coach in the business, and is doing another great job this year. Getting a team to play hard and together on the defensive end is perhaps the toughest thing to do in coaching, and Tubby does it as well or better than anyone. Thanks for writing.

Aaron Madfes, San Francisco, writes:

Hi Jay,
Everyone knows Steve Lavin is "Dead Man Walking" at UCLA. My question is, who is out there to replace him? Will UCLA take a winner from a lesser program (Pepperdine) or will they turn to the NBA ranks (Larry Brown)?

Aaron,
Steve Lavin may indeed be out at UCLA, but I have to say that he has handled his current situation with absolute class. Steve is certainly not enjoying the current circumstances, but I cannot imagine a coach handling himself in a better manner given the situation. Steve Lavin is a good person and a good coach. He deserves better than he has gotten at UCLA.

That said, UCLA needs to get an experienced and qualified coach. For that, the Bruin administration needs to do something it has never done, and that is to pay a top-flight coach what he is worth. The days are over when UCLA can attract a great coach with low pay, no facilities and such lofty expectations. It is too early to tell who it will be, but UCLA will determine its future with this decision.

Darril Fosty, Seattle, Wash., writes:

Jay,
I have to respectfuly disagree with your comments about teams who are sub-.500 in their conference making the tournament. My opinion is, for what little it is worth, if a team cannot be competitive within their own conference (when they are forced to play a balanced home/road schedule) then they have virtually no chance of competing against the elite teams in March. Reward teams who went out, week after week, and consistently won. I agree that there is no comparing the Big 12's strength of schedule to the Big Sky, but that is why the big conferences get almost all the at-large bids already. At the same time, the Gonzagas of the world have to play all the big power schools on the road (you certainly would not see Kansas travel to Wyoming to go suck high-altitude air and risk the loss, but it is expected of teams like Wyoming to play all their marquee matchup on the road in order to get an at-large bid.) Each year there are always small conference teams who dominate their league and play great basketball all year then get upset in their conference tournament and do not make the big dance. Is that fair that their whole season might come down to one ill-timed loss? Teams know going into the year what it takes to make the tournament. First and foremost the requirement is to play well in your own conference, a team that cannot do that should not be considered.

Darril,
We are closer in our opinions than you think. I believe that a team under .500 in its league should have its schedule closely examined, but do not believe that its chances should be dashed because of some silly rule. There is a chance, based upon the difficulty of a team's schedule, that a sub-.500 team in the SEC will be better than a team that is one game over .500 in the Big East or ACC this year. While winning and closing the deal in close games is very important, playing a great team to a one-point game on the road in one league is often more impressive than beating some cellar-dwellers in another league. Wins and losses are not always the best indicator, quality of play is. If you never beat anybody, then you have no argument. But if you take on all comers, win some, lose some, and get beat in some close ones, why should that be dumped from consideration over a team that finishes just over .500 in a lesser league? You can't tell me that finishing .500 in the SEC or Big 12 is the same as finishing .500 in the ACC, the Big East or the Pac-10 this season. I don't believe that.

Basically, I think that all relevant factors should be considered. To eliminate a team from consideration just because it plays in a tough conference to me is silly. Similarly, I don't think that numbers tell the whole story for mid-majors, who can consistently win and play at a high level, and their RPI ratings go down because of who they have to play. The analysis of how good a team is has to go much deeper than the numbers on the selection committee's Nitty Gritty Report.

Your question about fairness is a good one. The only way to make things fair with regard to mid-majors is to force the majors to play them. My proposal would be to build in certain incentives into the RPI to encourage teams to play mid-majors. I think the big boys should get an exemption to play a couple of additional mid-major games, and then not count those games in their RPI calculations if they lose. I cannot see any other way to do it, and have it be fair. Thanks for your thoughts.

Jabari Bell, Raleigh, N.C., writes:

Mr. Bilas,
I agree with your assessment 100 percent. My question is how do you compile that data in a way that the selection committee can use it. Computer ranking formulas showed up in collegiate football because selection of its national champion is largely subjective. Basketball has a tournament, which I would argue is not as subjective as polls or any system derived from polls. Basketball has the RPI, which isn't nearly as sophisticated as football computer rankings. Would a intelligent formula that quantifies, your WHO, WHERE, & HOW, be feasible to better distill the best 34 at-large teams from the 286 non-conference champs? Or are the NCAA, the college presidents, and the conference commissioners too happy with their product, which is a great, to tinker with it and go though the hard work to improve it by improving the selection process?

Jabari,
Great question. Here is what I think. The BCS is a good gauge of system, but there needs to be a playoff system is place to determine the true champion. For example, I believe that USC could have been the best team in America at the end of the football season. However, an early loss kept the Trojans from playing in the title game. If there were an eight-team playoff, USC could have won the title. The only difficulty would be choosing between the eighth team, which would get in, and the ninth through umpteenth teams, which would not. I think that small problem is secondary to making sure more qualified teams have a real chance, and so we get the best result.

In basketball, there is often too much emphasis placed upon the teams that barely make it into the field and the teams that are barely excluded from the field. While it hurts to be left out, there has to be a line drawn somewhere, and everyone knows where that line is. We have a true champion in basketball, and I think the committee does a great job with a system that is as good as one can be. I like the idea of the human element in the process, and believe that it is better to have qualified people decide rather than going by a rigid formula.

Because of my rather bloated ego, I would like to make all of the selections myself, but nobody has yet asked me to take over the process. Can you believe that?! Thanks for your question.

Aaron Markowitz, Tempe, Ariz.:

Jay,
After seeing you at the Arizona State/UCLA game today, I just had a couple of questions for you. First, is Ike Diogu the best big man in the country? Being a huge Kansas fan as well, and having seen Wayne and Nick beat up on UCLA earlier this season in person, I still can't think of anything they did that even rivaled Ike today. The man has too many moves and is too strong inside. Second, how far do you think this Sun Devils team can go? Are we underrated on a national level? I realize that you did vote for ASU in the Power-16 poll earlier this year, but ASU hardly garners any votes in either "major" poll. Thanks!

Aaron,
I think Arizona State is an NCAA Tournament team, and that Diogu is one of the elite players in the country. I would put David West, Nick Collison, Brian Cook, and Mario Austin ahead of him right now, but Diogu is just a freshman. He is very impressive, and will get better. I have not seen a more efficient freshman big man in the nation, and believe that Diogu and Chris Bosh are the two best rookie interior players.

Rick from Madison, Wis., writes:

Jay,
The Badgers just beat Indiana (and MSU on Tuesday) and I can't help but think that there's still no shot at them being in the top 25. They're leading the conference and have lost just five games all season. Oh yeah, they are defending Big Ten champs as well. What do Bo Ryan's boys have to do to get respect from the media?

Rick,
We in the media need to be hit in the head with a sledgehammer sometimes before we get it. I agree with you that Wisconsin is a top 25 team, and that the Badgers are in a great position to win the Big Ten again. Bo Ryan has done a great job with that program, and you are right. Wisconsin is doing just what you need to do to get noticed. The Badgers are winning. Thanks for shining some light on the situation.

Brian Headley, Norwood, Mass., writes:

Hey Jay,
What do you think of Holy Cross' chances in the NCAA Tournament this year? I think they definitely can pull of an upset this year. They seem to be in a tiny bit of a lull right now, but they are still 19-4 and are better than the team that took Kansas to the wire last year.

Brian,
Holy Cross is will be a tough first-round game for a No. 1 or No. 2 seed in the NCAA Tournament, if the Crusaders can win the Patriot League. Holy Cross has an RPI rating in the 80's, which would suggest that the Crusaders have the proverbial "snowball's chance" to get an at-large berth. Ralph Willard is an outstanding coach, and is one of the most respected coaches in the game by his peers. He has some size, experience and skillful players, with Tim Szatko and Patrick Whearty up front, and Jave Meade and Brian Wilson anchoring the backcourt. Holy Cross is balanced, and on a neutral site, they can pull an upset. The last team you want to play in a first- or second-round game is an unknown, well-coached and experienced team. Those are the ones that beat you.

Adam Williams, Ft. Worth, Texas, writes:

Mr. Bilas,
I am an avid Big 12 fan and supporter, however lately I have been closely following the intriguingly close race in the Atlantic 10. How many teams do you think the Atlantic 10 will land in the tourney? And, considering the lack of schedule strength and competition, how legitimate of contenders are the Atlantic 10 teams such as Dayton, St. Joe's, and Xavier, and do you expect these teams to make any noise come tourney time?

Adam
Right now, the top three teams in the A-10 are in the RPI top 30. The league should get three teams in, and probably will. However, all three need to continue to play well and win to be assured of a spot. There is a lot of time left to play into the field, and to play out of it. Everyone asks about their team's chances this time of year for one reason, to feel comfortable. Well, there is no way you are ever going to feel comfortable. If it isn't getting in that worries you, it's seeding. If it isn't seeding, it's keeping the wheels on toward the Final Four. Being on edge is a good thing, especially for players. Everyone should learn to enjoy it.

As to noisemaking, all three can win games. St. Joseph's has overachieved, and has proven that chemistry is as important as talent. Phil Martelli has a terrific team, not just a bunch of terrific players. Dayton is just solid at both ends, and does not beat itself. Xavier has the most power, with David West and Romain Sato, and with Lionel Chalmers back, the Musketeers have the best chance to advance.

Matt A. of Yorktown, Va., writes:

Why is UVA so bad on the road, but mostly unbeatable at home? Matt,
The road is a different animal than home. There is no time that a team needs to be tougher mentally or physically, and more together, than on the road. If you win on the road, you are truly an outstanding team. The truth is, anyone can win at home if they are good. The teams that separate themselves are the ones that win on the road. Virginia is one of those teams that tends to struggle a bit away from University Hall. Why? Well, I think it has to do with the team's toughness level. You don't get calls on the road, and you don't get any breaks. You have to be tough enough to absorb that, and still execute. So far, the Cavs have only done that here and there, but not consistently. That does not mean they are not good, it means that they are not separating themselves from the rest of the college game that has a tough time finding wins on the road. As a result, the committee will have a tough time separating them as well.

James Hammer of Berkeley, Calif., writes:

What do you think about the California Golden Bears? The Bears have Arizona at home next week, and if they run the table, win the Pac-10 crown. But there isn't a whole lot of talk about them at the national level. After losing Jamal Sampson to the NBA, the Big Three (Tamir, Shipp and Weathers) along with freshmen Richard Midgley, stepped it up big time, while coach Ben Braun is doing another amazing job. What will it take to get them some much-deserved respect? James,
Agreed. Cal has done a great job, and Ben Braun deserves an enormous amount of credit. Shipp is my Pac-10 Player of the Year, Tamir is one of the best passing big men in the country, and Wethers is one of the toughest all-around players you will find. Cal would not be within striking distance without Midgley, though. He is a tough kid, and he can make shots. He gives them a different energy level on the floor, and has been a great addition. Cal has good wins against Stanford and Oregon twice. The Golden Bears have not lost to anyone they are better than, and all losses have been quality losses, including losses at Arizona, and at Arizona State. The Bears also dropped games to Georgia in a close game, and to Kansas. I think that Cal should be in line for a No. 6 seed. But if the Bears can beat Arizona and Arizona State, they will move up for sure.

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