With Jay Bilas

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

Derek Foltice, Grand Rapids, Mich., writes:

Jay, I just caught Thursday's College Gamenight. I was surprised to hear you criticize the jump-ball/alternate possession rule. OK, so maybe a defense may not get rewarded every time they tie the ball up, but how would a jump-ball be more fair? A guard who ties it up with a post player has at least a 50-50 chance of getting possession with the current rule, rather than a very small chance of winning the jump-ball. Possession would simply be determined by size. Even if the team got to choose who jumps, there would be a problem. The team could possibly be going with a small five in order to hassle the bigger players and tie the ball up more often. A small, scrappy team would be punished every time. Can you explain why you think a jump-ball would be the best resolution?

Derek,
Your points are well taken, but I would take the concept of fairness out of the discussion. While it may be an advantage or disadvantage to have greater size on the floor, or to go smaller and have greater quickness, there is nothing unfair about it. Size, speed, jumping ability, shooting ability and other attributes are all significant parts of the game that must be overcome in every game situation. Matchups can go either way, and it depends upon which advantage wins out, and which team or player can take advantage of particular matchups. Will quickness win out over size, or vice versa? We cannot have different rules for different sizes, shapes and ability levels of players.

Taken to the extreme, we wouldn't allow a weaker shooting team to have the old 3-to-make-2 from the free throw line, while the better shooting team gets only two shots. There is not, and should not be, a handicap system in basketball. Plus, the bigger guy does not always win jump balls, and the team of the player controlling the tip does not always come up with possession.

The reason I don't like the rule is due to the inequity of it, and the fact that it can reward the wrong team in a given situation. I have more faith in the officials to be able to throw up a jump ball than others, and I like the idea of it. It is certainly not life and death, and the game is fine the way it is. I just think that an alternating possession rule is kind of silly.

It is certainly not a big deal either way, but it is a fun point of discussion. The rule that really has to go is the one where a player can call time out when flying out of bounds. Thanks for the question.

Ryan Kelly, Queens, N.Y. writes:

Jay, How come BC is not being noticed? Their strength of schedule was No. 8 until this week, then it went to 21. Their RPI is right behind UConn and their strength of schedule is 70 spots ahead of UConn! They are 1/2 game behind UConn is the Big East standings, and they have even beaten Connecticut. So why is it that everyone is talking about Villanova, Seton Hall and Connecticut and not BC? If it weren't for a horrible loss to Northeastern, BC could have an RPI in the 30's. They still have a chance to win the Big East East Division. Thanks.

Ryan,
Boston College fell off the radar screen early, and there are always plenty of stories to follow that take our very small minds off of such teams. However, there is no denying that BC is playing the best basketball in the Big East right now, and Al Skinner's team has the attention of opposing Big East coaches. I think that BC will ultimately make the NCAA field, but there is still some work for the Eagles to do before Selection Sunday.

BC's current state is one reason I don't like the RPI as the ultimate authority as to how good a team is. Right now, beating BC will not give a team a good jump in the RPI ratings, yet playing BC is a huge task right now. The numbers do not reflect BC's strength at the present, and how much better the Eagles are than earlier in the season. BC is for real, and should be a major factor coming down the stretch.

Charles Gerrard, Seattle, Wash., writes:

Dear Jay,
Does the NCAA Tournament committee take injuries into consideration when they look at losses? Take Memphis for example, in all of their losses, their team was not 100 percent, especially against Austin Peay when the Tigers only had seven players, two of which they picked up in the city so they could have enough players to play. How would the committee look at those games?

Charles,
The selection committee does take injuries into account, as well as the circumstances surrounding wins and losses. However, if an injured player will not return to the team, the team has to be evaluated for what it is heading into the tournament, not what it was or could have been. For example, I think that North Carolina was heading toward the NCAA Tournament before Sean May got hurt. If May were to come back this week, and North Carolina were to exhibit the same form it did prior to his injury, then I believe the Tar Heels would be cut a break by the committee. However, if May were to come back from the injury and Carolina did not perform near the level it did earlier in the season, the Tar Heels would be taken for the team that they are, not what they were.

Memphis does not need any help from the committee. The Tigers are in already, and are just playing for seeding.

Brad Hopkins, Charlotte, N.C., writes:

Jay,
I just finished reading your article, "Only the Strongest Survive on the Road." I grew up just north of Champaign, Ill., and bleed orange and blue. The Illini have lost five games this year, all on the road, four in conference (Iowa, Indiana, Mich. St., and Purdue). As my brother and I chat about the games, we both agree the intensity level and hustle are just not there on the road. We don't understand why a team can not or will not bring the same intensity and hustle to every game (like our home game against Michigan State). It boggles my mind. Anyway, we are undefeated at home and at neutral sites thus far. Come NCAA Tournament time, in your opinion, how does the road record versus neutral site record give insight to team's potential performance?

Brad,
Matching the intensity of the opponent on the road sounds easy, but it is hard. The home team has the crowd to fire it up, and the crowd is tough for road teams to combat, especially young teams. It takes experience to fight hard on the road, and to understand the commitment it takes. A team's performance on the road or on neutral sites gives an insight into how tough that team really is. However, it depends who you play on the road, not just that you play on the road. Who you play and how you play are the measures that I use, and the ones that should be relied upon. Sadly, sometimes all you need is a calculator and a scratch pad to determine who is in the NCAA Tournament or in the NIT, and where a team is seeded. But you certainly won't be using the RPI to fill out your brackets for the office pool. Bill McCulloch, Grosse Pointe Woods, writes:

Jay,
Being an alumn of Arizona, do you think they are peaking at the right time? Their last five games, albeit against two of the weaker sisters (UCLA and Washington State) of the Pac-10, they have actually played a full 40 minute game. I know you're a student of the game and have great respect for Coach Lute Olson, I'd love to hear your feedback.

Bill,
Lute Olson and his staff have done a great job of bringing this team along. Arizona has had nagging injuries, a transfer and is starting to play its best basketball. Against Arizona State, Arizona looked as good as it has all season, and I still like the Wildcats' chances to cut the nets down in April. I have never wavered from that, and I feel the same way about Arizona this year that I did about Michigan State in 2000. If you remember, Mateen Cleaves got hurt before the season, the Spartans stumbled, and I never took Michigan State out of the top spot. Arizona is the same type of team. The best part of it is, I could easily be wrong, and Arizona could go down in the earlier rounds. That's what makes the Tournament great.

Kevin Reitmeyer, Pittsburgh, Pa., writes:

Jay,
Why all the talk about the Big Ten and what's "wrong" with it? The conference is terrible! It has two teams ranked and probably shouldn't even have them ranked. Check out these numbers, as a conference the Big Ten is 14-23 for a .378 winning percentage against the five other major conferences (ACC, Big 12, Big East, Pac-10, SEC). It has a .211 winning percentage against currently ranked teams (4-15); a combined road record of 27-67 (.287). I don't understand why people are making excuses for this conference, can't it just be bad every once in a while? Every conference has its down years and this is the Big Ten's year, but for some reason nobody wants to see that. I find it hard to believe that more than two teams from the Big Ten should get into the NCAA Tournament, but we know that since they are a big-school conference they will get about 4-5 and bump a more deserving smaller school to the NIT.

Kevin,
You are correct that the Big Ten is not as good as it has been in the past several years. It is still a strong league, but it is not as strong at the top as it has been, and it has some doormats. However, I can guarantee you that there will be more than two bids out of the Big Ten this year. Remember, the committee has to take 65 teams, and the 30 or so teams that everyone says are on the ubiquitous bubble cannot all be left out. Watch for Purdue, Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana and Michigan State (if the Spartans can get a couple of more wins) to get in. Minnesota can still snatch a bid as well. Of course, that can change based upon the RPI numbers down the stretch.

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