 |
 |
|
| | Thursday, February 17 | |||||
ESPN.com | ||||||
| The first tipoff has yet to take place, but the the Word's Answer Man already has his full-court press in place. If you want to send a question to the Word, click here and check back each week to see if your question was answered.
Can you tell me what the real story is behind the Louisville signing of Luke Whitehead, who according to many websites was almost committed to New Mexico? Did UNM back off or did Whitehead? And who will they pursue in his place? Also, do you think they can make a legitimate championship run in the next few years now that they have Fraschilla making big waves in Albuquerque? I'm a big Lobo fan who really hopes they can!
Losing Whitehead won't hurt New Mexico. Marlon Parmer is a legitimate big-time point guard. The Lobos are set at the position for the next few years. It's a bit premature to look at New Mexico being a potential title team. Fran Fraschilla simply needs to get the Lobos back to the tournament and someday soon make the second weekend. He should be able to get that done. Just as with football, it appears that the Pac-10 may experience a down year this year despite the view of some experts that Arizona, UCLA and Stanford are Top-20 teams. Given Arizona and UCLA's youth, and Stanford's loss of four key senior starters, do you see any Pac-10 school making noise at the national level, and would you predict that the Pac-10 will be fortunate to have four schools in the 2000 NCAA tournament?
I can't disagree more. The Pac-10 has three legitimate Final Four contenders in Arizona (remember these names: Loren Woods, Michael Wright, Jason Gardner), UCLA (four of five starters back, plus potential freshman of the year in Jason Kapono) and Stanford (four of five starters who could vie for similar positions on any roster). Oregon, Oregon State and USC begin the year on the bubble. All three could make a run at a bid. Don't count out Arizona State and Cal from making noise, either. Wisconsin coach Dick Bennett is widely regarded as a tremendous basketball coach, but as a recruiter he is maligned because he doesn't have any McDonald's all-American type players, preferring to recruit players that will fit in his style of ball. I think this is the correct approach for him to take, but can Wisconsin acheive a consistent Sweet 16-type program without top ranked recruits?
The style works for Wisconsin. The Badgers aren't going to get the flashy player with the all-American credentials. But they can get the players who will fit their system like Mike Kelley, Andy Kowske and Mark Vershaw. It works for Wisconsin and it may get the Badgers to the Sweet 16. I've just read your list of top sleeper teams, and noticed that you didn't include Georgetown. Does this top program, with a top-notch recruiting class coming in and five starters returning, have some major holes that I don't see? Or did you omit them from your list for some other reason?
| ALSO SEE Have a question for the Weekly Word? The Weekly Word on college basketball  | |||||