With Jay Bilas

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

Uncle Don, Indianapolis, writes:

Jay,
Looking at the top ten teams in the country, Who has the best backcourt in the country?

Uncle Don,
Good question. I think you would have to start with Arizona's backcourt of Jason Gardner and Salim Stoudamire. The Wildcat guards are experienced, good scorers, and can guard people. Kentucky may not have the marquee stats that other backcourts have, but Gerald Fitch, Keith Bogans and Cliff Hawkins have been as good as anyone this season. Oklahoma's Hollis Price and Quannas White may be the toughest mentally and physically, and Boston College guards Troy Bell and Ryan Sidney are a potent scoring and rebounding duo. Maryland has Steve Blake and Drew Nicholas, St. Joseph's has Jameer Nelson and Delonte West -- who have both been magnificent all season long -- and Pitt has some outstanding guards, especially on the defensive end, in Brandin Knight, Julius Page and Jaron Brown. The Big 12 is loaded with good backcourts, with Kirk Hinrich and Aaron Miles at Kansas, T.J. Ford and Brandon Mouton at Texas, and the combo of Victor Williams, Tony Allen and Melvin Sanders at Oklahoma State. Perhaps the most underrated backcourt would be Devin Harris and Kirk Penney at Wisconsin. Pick your poison.

Jacob Dawson, Cincinnati, Ohio, writes:

With all this talk of POY going on now, who do you see as the best player in the nation? Also, do you think that any one player has an advantage because of the conference they play in?

Jacob,
The best player may wind up being Carmelo Anthony of Syracuse. He is a wonderful prospect, but just a freshman. However, the best player is not always the player of the year. My pick for Player of the Year would be either David West of Xavier, T.J. Ford of Texas, or Dwyane Wade of Marquette. My mid-major Player of the Year would be either Blake Stepp of Gonzaga or Kyle Korver of Creighton. There may be disagreement over who should be named Player of the Year, but National Defensive Player of the Year is an easy one. It is Emeka Okafor of Connecticut. He impacts the game the way a young David Robinson did at Navy.

Amit of Atlanta, Ga., writes:

Jay,
This might sound like a ridiculous question, but why is the automatic bid for each conference given to the team that wins their tournament as opposed to finishing first in their league? For conferences that usually get only one team in, it seems unfair that their regular season really doesn't matter (except for seeding purposes in the league tourney) and that if a team happens to get on a roll and wins four tournament games in a row, they are in the Dance. Just a thought.

Amit,
That is a good question, and the answer is money. A conference with an automatic bid to the NCAA Tournament can have any system it wants to determine its representative, such as staging a tournament or giving it to the regular season champion. Tournaments provide a chance for everyone, and make the most money and provide the most excitement. That's what makes Championship Week so special. Every team has a chance, and the "mid-majors" are literally winning or going home. To me, the little guys are the ones playing with real pressure in conference tournaments. It is like it was in the old days, where each conference sent only one team. That's pressure, when you have had a great season, and can see it all go down the drain with an upset in the conference tourney. Yikes.

Matt McDonough, Melrose, Mass., writes:

I wrote a few weeks ago regarding the lack of respect received by the Big East. Not surprisingly, you failed to answer my question. The Big East is clearly the No. 3 conference in America this year. Maybe you'll comment on the depth of the Big East in light of St. John's (5-9 in Big East play) out-toughing your alma mater 72-71?

Matt,
Sorry for not responding to your first question, but, as you might imagine, I get a lot of e-mail questions and it would be impossible to respond to them all. But, your whimpering caught my attention and felt it deserved a response this time (just kidding, Matt).

Of course, the Big East is a very good conference, and it is in the mix for third place among leagues. However, I think that the Pac-10, Big 10 and ACC are in that mix as well, and it is not an easy call. The Big East is better top to bottom than the Pac-10, but arguably not as strong at the top. The ACC is not as strong as it has been, but is competitive with the Big East, and the Big Ten compares favorably, but does not have any great teams at the top. In my judgment, the Big East is going to get at least five teams into the Tournament, and maybe six, while the ACC will likely get only three. Syracuse, Pitt and Notre Dame are all teams capable of the Elite Eight, and UConn is dangerous but very young.

By the way, congratulations to the Johnnies! Mike Jarvis' team made a tremendous comeback and provided one of the best games of the weekend. The Big East has more teams than the ACC that have proven themselves worthy of multiple NCAA bids. But I find it hard to believe that a reasonable person would think that St. John's is a better team than Duke. Similarly, North Carolina's win over UConn does not mean the Tar Heels are currently better than the Huskies. Sadly, it doesn't work that way. If it did, the NCAA Tournament would be easier to fill and seed, and it wouldn't be as much fun to watch. Thanks for your question, again.

Mark Harris, Los Angeles, writes:

Hi Jay!
I was wondering why do you think the NCAA feels justified in destroying a team by doing its investigation during the season. As I understand it, the NCAA is investigating Marvin Stone for something done in high school. Marvin Stone has been at Kentucky and now Louisville for four years (I believe he is a senior). Why is this now just surfacing? I think the NCAA needs to have a "Statute of Limitations" placed on them. The penalty on Michigan and the pending investigation against Louisville always hurts people who have no investment or reaped any reward in those past on goings. Your thoughts please ... am I being naive?

Mark,
You are not naïve. NCAA rule enforcement lacks common sense, and is a flawed process. NCAA investigations tend to be slow and methodical, in part because of the bureaucracy and in part because the NCAA has no subpoena power and cannot compel witnesses to testify under penalty of perjury. The thing that bothers me is that NCAA rules do not seem to have a common sense component. If you have an allegation against a player, whether it is for academics or improper benefits, the player has to sit out while the matter is investigated. The credibility of the allegation is not factored into the analysis, the player is simply ruled ineligible by the school because the school is afraid it will have to forfeit games and money if the player plays and is later ruled ineligible.

For example, Mario Austin of Mississippi State was held out of competition earlier this season due to questions about his initial eligibility and qualification three years ago. Austin was cleared by the NCAA, played and did well in school, and still had to sit out while the NCAA looked into the matter. The whole thing was silly. The purpose of initial eligibility standards is to ensure that a youngster is prepared to handle school and play at the same time. Austin proved that he could, and even if technically ineligible at the time of his freshman year, he would have been eligible at the time of the investigation. Yet Austin had to sit out anyway until he was cleared. It is a "guilty until proven innocent" system.

The same is true for Marvin Stone of Louisville. The allegations against him were five-years old, and Stone had to sit while the investigation was going on. It was silly. There needs to be common sense in the process.

Joshua Huber, Albuquerque, N.M., writes:

Dear Jay,
As a native of Illinois I am a huge Illini fan. I have heard all year the bashing as well as some praises against and for the league. I do agree that it is down a bit this year but I think it always seems that way. As you said on the halftime report during the Illinois-Indiana team; "I don't think there is a dominant team in the Big Ten but there are some good teams." I agree with you 100 percent, but look at Ohio State and Wisconsin a couple of years ago. My question is how many teams will the Big Ten get and how far can they go playing their best ball? Thanks.

Joshua,
The Big Ten will get five bids to the NCAA Tournament. Wisconsin, Illinois, Purdue, Indiana and Michigan State will all get in, barring a huge collapse by one of the last teams. All five teams listed above have put together resumes that compare favorably with the "bubble teams" that have very few quality wins to rely upon. After all, the Committee has to take 65 teams.

As to how the league will do, that depends upon the draw and matchups. Few would have given Indiana a chance to make the Final Four last year, or Wisconsin in 2000, but each made it. The Big Ten has won 47 NCAA Tournament games over the last four years, the most of any league. The Big Ten will win some games this year as well, it's just not favored to win.

Dom, Merrillville, Ind., writes:

How do you feel about conference tournaments in the power conferences? I know they can help the middle of the pack teams, but sometimes it is just going to hurt the strong teams to have to play everyone for a third time. Will a team's status change from in to out just because they lost a tournament game? For instance, should a team like Michigan State or Indiana win out and slip into the Big Ten No. 5 spot and lose in the first round to a tourney lock such as Purdue or Illinois, will their bubble burst? Or should N.C. State finish fourth and lose to Georgia Tech or Virginia, would their bubble burst?

Dom,
I love conference tournaments, because it is a different test, and a wonderful event. I was fortunate to play in four ACC tournaments, winning one, and finishing second in another. There is nothing like the ACC tournament, which is one of the grandest events in American sport. I can't even describe what it is like in the tunnel before a game. You have to pass the teams that have just played, and everyone is primed for the event. It is a magnificent weekend, and in many ways it was better than the Final Four because it was brother against brother. Even though the NCAA Tournament looms, the ACC tournament is important to every player, coach and fan.

These tournaments are not just for NCAA Tournament positioning, but celebrations of the conferences, and a different type of competition. The regular season is a marathon, and a long haul. The tournament is a three- or four-day sprint. To me, if a team wins both the regular season title and the tournament title, that is the true league champion. All else needs to be qualified.

Your question about N.C. State is a good one. The Wolfpack may need to win the ACC title to get into the NCAA field because of its weak non-conference schedule. It seems ridiculous that a team that wins nine games in ACC competition could be sitting on the fence, but N.C. State has few wins outside of the ACC to rely upon. I think that N.C. State is good enough to be in the field, but if the committee goes by traditional numbers, disappointment looms.

Sean Ramsden, Wayne, N.J., writes:

Jay,
I want to be clear that I have always looked to you as a unique and fresh voice with regard to college basketball. I think you have an ability to filter out a lot of the typical blather we fans must typically endure, and that you bring what I consider an intellectual approach to your analysis.

But having said that, I have to wonder if you have some sort of axe to grind with Seton Hall. I was more than a little surprised to watch College Gamenight on Thursday, February 27 and hear you telling Troy Bell that there is no doubt that Boston College is the hottest team in the Big East. Troy is a magnificent player, and I'm sure you folks already had this feature prepared, but I have to wonder what your motivation is to seemingly abandon your credibility by ignoring the obvious: Seton Hall is HANDS DOWN the hottest team in that conference this morning. Not only has the Hall's hot streak been going on longer than the Eagles', but it also features wins over far better teams. Who of note, besides Connecticut, which was struggling at the time, have the Eagles beaten? Was it that awful loss to Rutgers that impressed you?

Like you, I have long thought the RPI was overused as an effective tool in measuring a team's NCAA worth, so I won't suddenly begin to champion it when it is convenient to my point. I don't have to. Seton Hall, after beginning the Big East season at 0-3 has played to the tune of 9-1, with wins over Pitt, Notre Dame and now Villanova. They have vaulted past the top-10 Irish in the standings and have a chance to win the division outright. That's not the hottest team in the league? You've changed, Jay. You've changed.

Sean,
Perhaps I was too courteous to our guest in my question, but I think you should stop short of saying I have it in for Seton Hall. I don't. If I told Troy Bell that there was "no doubt" that BC was the hottest team in the Big East, then you are correct. There is doubt. It could be Seton Hall instead, or even Syracuse, Pittsburgh or UConn. I have no axe to grind with Seton Hall. You are correct that BC has not beaten a row of heavyweights, but neither has the Hall. The wins over Pitt and Notre Dame are great resume builders, but the Pirates still have some work to do to feel secure on Selection Sunday. I think that Seton Hall is a good team that will ultimately be in the NCAA Tournament field, while BC has a long way to go still. Because I gave BC some credit for coming back from the dead doesn't mean that I am disrespectful of the Hall.

Listen up, Sean, because I am saying this for you ... "Seton Hall is a good team, and one of the hottest teams in the Big East, and deserves to be in the NCAA Tournament."

Thanks for setting me straight!

Joe Wagstaff, Wendell, N.C., writes:

Jay,
This year there is so much balance in each conference, how can the selection committee make it so that for a team to have any chance at a NCAA berth they must get at least 8 wins in the conference. I mean look at the ACC, and the SEC, both conferences are stacked and continue to beat up on each other. For example, look at Auburn: The Tigers are 18-8 and 7-6 in the SEC with an RPI in the mid-30's and they are on thin bubble ice. Do you think that this is an unjust stereotype for the selection committee?

Joe,
There is no such requirement. The committee realizes, and its rules reflect, that one of the 34 best teams after the automatic qualifiers are established may be a team with a losing conference record. Clearly, a middle of the pack team in the Big 12 or SEC can be better than one of the top teams of another conference. There has to be room for those teams to be included, and there should not be an arbitrary cutoff.

Here is what happens. Every year the Committee has to make tough calls on teams that get in, and get left out. When deciding between the last team in and the first one left out, the Committee will often have one factor that stands out as the deciding factor between those two teams. That factor takes on a life of its own, and gets over analyzed. For example, if Boston College and Colorado are the last two teams left for just one spot, it may be too close to call without really going through every last detail. The Committee may ultimately decide that, most factors being equal, Boston College's road record was better, and made the difference in selecting the Eagles over the Buffaloes. The deciding factor will be misunderstood to those outside the Committee as being the Holy Grail of the selection process, and everyone will proclaim that road record is the most important thing to the Committee. It is not. It is one factor, and the deciding factor between other teams could be top 25 wins, conference wins, or the record in the last ten games.

We have seen similar issues when Committee members have spoken to the media. Their answers are often not put into the proper context, and often misunderstood. That is how this whole flap started regarding teams being required to have a .500 conference record to be selected. That was unintended and incorrect, and caused a lot of backpedaling. The Committee does a great job, and the decisions are not easy to quantify. Reasonable minds can differ on teams, which is why you have to win your games so that your fate is not in the hands of others on Selection Sunday.

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