With Jay Bilas

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

Andy Gonzalez, Tustin, Calif., writes:

I read your article on Steve Lavin and was quite amused. Being a college student at the University of California, Riverside, I would like to ask you if you think Steve Lavin would take a job at a mid-major school after coaching such a prestigious program like UCLA's? Do you think that he would want a high-profile job or would he be interested in a "just growing program" that he himself can help develop?

Andy,
Steve Lavin will make someone else a fine coach, whether he chooses to take a "mid-major" job in the West Coast Conference or in a job in the Big Ten. As I stated in my column, it is ironic that Lavin is now prepared to do the job he was not prepared to do when he was hired seven years ago. He is, in my judgment, a victim of his situation, and of the poisoned atmosphere around Westwood. Whether they admit it or not, the UCLA administration and vocal fan base were never fully behind Lavin, and that is unfortunate. I have supported Lavin, based upon the results he achieved, from the time he first accepted the full-time head coaching position at UCLA. Steve is a good coach, and will be in the business for a long time.

To be clear, my column was not intended to suggest that Steve is not a good coach, or did not do a good job. He is, and he did. I wanted to dispel the theory that interim coaches that do well "automatically deserve" the job, or have "earned the right" to have the job. I feel that is silly. Hire the right guy. It may be the interim guy, but it is most likely not. How an interim coach does in the interim year may be an indicator of future success, but it is certainly not dispositive.

Steve, Calera, Ala., writes:

Just a quick note that it is unfair that you should mention Mike Davis in the same context with the other interim-to-head coaches. Davis has done nothing short of reaching the championship in only two years and has continued winning, despite a now decreasingly large fan base that opposed any coach besides Bob Knight. Don't argue that he did so with Coach Knight's players ... Coach Knight couldn't do it with his own players. At Indiana, Mike Davis was the right hire, not just the interim they could not justify letting go.

Steve,
Thanks for writing. You are correct that Mike has done a nice job with the Indiana program. Just because he had no head coaching experience in college didn't mean that he wasn't the right choice for Indiana, and if he had not gotten to the NCAA Tournament in his first year, it wouldn't have meant that he wasn't the right guy, either.

Please don't take my column out of context. I never said that Mike should not have been hired. Indiana determined he was the right guy, but if IU hired Mike simply because he did a good job in that one season, it was a shortsighted and uninformed decision, and IU got lucky. When hired, Mike had far more experience in the game than Lavin did, and was older. Mike Davis is a good coach. I have never said otherwise. As for the statement that Indiana "could not justify letting Davis go", you are exemplifying my point. He would not have been let go. Mike was hired as an interim coach. Once the interim period was over, there is no obligation to hire the interim coach. You hire the right guy. IU determined he was the right guy, and I think that is great for them. However, it is not an automatic choice because Mike did well in the interim year.

As for your reference to Bob Knight, in which you say Knight "couldn't do it" with his own players, please remember that Knight is the all-time winningest coach in Big Ten history, and has won three national championships. He arguably should have won three others in 1975, 1980 and 1993, but lost primarily due to injury. Remember also, his loss to Pepperdine in the NCAA Tournament, in what turned out to be his final game at Indiana. Kirk Haston got hurt in the first few minutes of the game, and did not play. Given his record and success at Texas Tech, I believe that Knight has proven he "could do it". He did it, and did it as well as any coach in the history of this game.

Mike Davis is a good coach that has a chance to do some great things, but having a discussion about which coach is better is counterproductive, and unfair at this stage of Mike's career.

Patrick Monroe, Peoria, Ill., writes:

Jay,
While I agree with many of your observations in the Lavin article, I for one think Coach Lavin has done more than just an adequate job. Right now there are very few of us defending his right to retain his job, but I think we need to look at the players as well as the coach for UCLA's decline this year. The team is primarily made up of players that have failed to live up to their high school billings. Coach Lavin may be responsible, in part, but not for the total failings of this year's team. I think he should be retained, but I am not optimistic enough to believe he will be, at the end of the season.

Patrick,
I didn't say that Lavin has done "just an adequate job" while at UCLA. In fact, I have consistently stated on the air and in print that, according to the standards that college basketball media and administrators hold dear -- NCAA Tournament performance -- Lavin has done quite well. However, he has been under constant scrutiny and criticism at UCLA, and he has not done a "great job".

With a job like UCLA, there should at least be the promise of greater success than Lavin has experienced over the last six years. UCLA's 1997 team was Harrick's, and was nicely guided by Lavin under difficult circumstances. Since then, UCLA has had to go on late-season runs just to make the NCAA field, and has had to pull upsets to advance in the Tournament. If that is a great job, then dozens of other coaches should be up for sainthood soon. Steve Lavin has had mixed results at UCLA, and will not survive into next season.

Of course the players deserve some of the blame in the situation. But they are kids, and are doing their best. This is not a situation that most kids can handle, and the UCLA players are mentally worn down. I genuinely feel for them. Lavin is a grown man, and will come out of this fine. I worry more about the kids.

On the subject of Lavin, this situation is taking a toll on him, but he has handled himself with great class and dignity. Steve is a good person and a good coach, and should be proud of the way he has conducted himself amid all of the stinging criticism. I admire Lavin very much for that.

Craig Pollard, Louisville, Ky., writes:

I am just curious about something. Do you still hold a grudge towards Louisville because of 1986?

I enjoy watching College Hoops Tonight, but it is starting to become obvious that you have a strong dislike for U of L. I don't know if you have watched them play or not, but they are definitely a Top 10 team. On another note, you must be crazy not to have Reece Gaines on your list for the top players in the country! The NBA draft will reflect what everyone else in the country already knows! I noticed that you thought it was amusing when Rick Pitino's name was listed next to Kentucky on Thursday night. Rick Pitino is doing exactly what everyone knew he would. He is just doing it ahead of time. I hope that Duke and Louisville face off against each other in the Tournament ... but I doubt Duke will last long enough for that to happen! Keep giving props to the ACC and to a few other schools that are still ranked high because of their name alone, it will sting even more come March when you are forced to have to say the name "Louisville"!

Craig,
I admire your enthusiasm for the Louisville program, and your "us against the world" mentality. Your focus on perceived slights is misplaced with me. If you would look back on my first column this season, Reece Gaines was on my list of underrated players, and I said he was one of the best guards in the nation. I agree that he will be a top draft pick, and should be a national player of the year candidate.

With regard to my selection of mid-season player of the year candidates on our show, I limited it to five players. Just because I named some other players ahead of Reece doesn't mean I don't believe he is truly outstanding. I do believe that he is a great college player, and have consistently said so. Look at the Louisville Courier-Journal article about which player you would choose between Gaines and Keith Bogans. When every other talking head commentator bailed out, I said that I would choose Gaines.

As for your theory that I hold a grudge against Louisville because the Cardinals beat my team in the 1986 NCAA championship game, you are incorrect. I have always respected the Louisville program, played against the Doctors of Dunk in 1983 as well as in 1986, and I have consistently praised the job that Rick Pitino has done. I have spoken often in glowing terms about Gaines and the Cardinal program. Watch the tape of the Louisville-Tennessee game, and see if I "hold a grudge." By the way, my older brother lives in Louisville, and I am a frequent visitor to the city. It is a great place, and I have lost a lot of golf balls there.

As for giving "props" to the ACC, do you consider me biased for stating that the SEC and Big 12 are the best conferences in the nation? Or, did I "hold a grudge" against Louisville when I said that Duke was nowhere near the best team in the country when the Blue Devils were undefeated and ranked No. 1? I support your right to say that I am biased if that is what you truly believe, but if you really believe that, I believe you are wrong. I also believe that you are a great supporter of the Cardinals, and for that, you are okay with me.

Thanks for your question, and for your honesty.

Dr. C. E. Land, Louisville, Ky., writes:

I have been watching your Hoops Tonight show and I am disappointed that you speak of the "Big Six" conferences and ignore C-USA. The BCS may dominate NCAA football, but the teams of C-USA (Louisville, Cincinnati, Memphis, Marquette, UNC-Charlotte, etc.) have basketball traditions that far exceed many of those in the conferences you (or your producers?) have artificially designated the "Big Six". All conferences have their celler-dwellers, but C-USA elite can play with anyone in the country. I want to know when you will be balancing your coverage to include C-USA as one of the major conferences in the NCAA and better coverage of C-USA teams such as the Louisville Cardinals (currently No. 1 in the Sagarin computer rankings) in your and not simply hype certain schools based on what seems to be personal preference.

Dr. Land,
There has been no "artificial" designation of the Big Six conferences. It is a very real designation, and it is not just me (or my producers) that notice it. The NCAA Tournament Selection Committee awards more bids from the Big Six conferences than from other conferences, generally. As for the strength of Conference USA, it is a very good league, especially at the top. There are some teams with very good basketball traditions, but not with the recent success of the Big Six conferences.

Conference USA is strong at the top, but lacking in the middle and below. Fair or unfair, here is the truth. Cincinnati has won the league in every year of its existence. While seven of its teams have been to the Final Four, and three programs have won national titles in the past, no Conference USA team has advanced to the Final Four since the league was formed. The last Final Four for Cincinnati was 1992; for Louisville was 1986; for Memphis was 1985; for Houston was 1984; for DePaul was 1979; for Marquette was 1977; and for Charlotte was 1977. The league is getting better because of the outstanding coaches like Bob Huggins, Rick Pitino, Tom Crean, Bobby Lutz and John Calipari. Conference USA will likely get four teams into the NCAA Tournament this year, and has a couple of real Final Four contenders. However, C-USA is not as good a conference as the SEC, Big 12, Big Ten or ACC.

By the way, I do not believe that I "hype" any team, coach or player. I try to consistently provide reasoned judgments, and I usually back up my statements with good evidence so that you may make your own judgments. If you think I am biased against Louisville, or Conference USA, I would have to disagree, respectfully. Thanks for having the guts to disagree with me, and thanks for your email.

Brian Mellage, Raleigh, N.C., writes:

Jay,
Just read your article on Lavin at UCLA. Good, interesting read. Down here in Raleigh, the Wolfpack has been languishing in mediocrity under Herb Sendek. Can't help but notice the similarities -- both Lavin and Sendek are relatively young coaches in their seventh years without much improvement in their respective tenures. While N.C. State is not quite the pressure cooker UCLA, as you well know we take our basketball pretty seriously in ACC country. Sendek's record is quite a bit worse than Lavin's with his crowning achievement thus far being an invite to the tourney last year. This year the heat is back with a relatively mediocre start to our season, in my opinion we're not looking like a tourney team, under .500 in the league and barely .500 overall is my prediction. Not exactly impressive.

As a Wolfpack fan I would appreciate it if you would consider doing a piece on state of our basketball program and Sendek's performance. I think you could offer unique insight with you background in ACC. I don't expect you to bash Sendek, just be fair and unbiased. To me it's a puzzling story -- a program so full of history and fan support can accept such mediocrity. I think your readers might enjoy.

Thanks, Brian

Brian,
N.C. State has an excellent coach in Herb Sendek, in my opinion. Sendek has brought the N.C. State program out of the dark times following Jim Valvano's departure, and Sendek has done it the right way. I promise you this, if Ilian Evtimov did not get injured, N.C. State would have been a real threat to win the ACC this season. He was a real playmaker in Sendek's offense, and there is a void without him. Clearly, losses to UMass and Boston College do not look good, but there are corresponding wins to offset those missteps. While you may not agree, I think Herb Sendek is a terrific coach, and will do a good job at N.C. State. Did you see the Duke and North Carolina games? Sendek can coach, and he's doing a nice job at N.C. State.

Adrian Gaskins, Boulder Colo., writes:

Hi Jay,
Appreciate your work. What's going on with the Spartans of MSU this season? They have trouble scoring, and closing out in defending other teams. They're not even getting the rebounding edge they have typically enjoyed the last several years. Is this really a function of inexperience at the point, or do the issues go deeper?

Thanks, Adrian

Adrian,
I think that Michigan State is just a hair away from being very good this year, and will be outstanding next year. The Spartans do not score the ball easily, and get very little in transition. That puts a lot of pressure on MSU's halfcourt defense and its rebounding. Injuries have upset the Spartans' continuity and development, but I still believe that there are the pieces in place for MSU to be good.

Adam Ballinger is struggling with his confidence, the big men are young, Chris Hill has a lot of responsibility on his shoulders, and the wing guards are just now healthy. If MSU can keep from turning the ball over, get some easier baskets in transition and off of the offensive glass, and continue to guard well, the Spartans are an NCAA team. I still believe in Michigan State.

Russell Witt, Washington, writes:

I was wondering do really believe the hype that if you do not have a big man you will not get a ring? Look at the Gators. They have played two top teams with good centers in Maryland and Mississippi State (both on the road). I could be wrong or a little biased, but I do not think without big man Florida will be without a ring with the way they play "Billy-Ball" down in Gainesville. So, what kind of chances do you give Florida in the dance without a "big man" in the center? The way Walsh, Lee and, let not us forget about Bonner, are playing, the only thing Florida needs right now is a hotel room for the FINAL GAME in NEW ORLEANS.

Russell,
Good call on Florida. Billy Donovan has done a wonderful job with that team, and I agree that the Gators have a great shot at New Orleans. I do believe that you need good big men to win at the highest level. There are few, if any, true low-post centers in the college game these days, but there is no question that you need an inside presence to be successful. There is no way you can win without guards OR without big men. Show me a team that has won the title without solid inside play?

While not classic low-post players, I count David Lee and Matt Bonner as big men. They rebound and defend inside, and just because Bonner can hit 3s, it doesn't mean he isn't a big guy. My comments about guards and big men were a bit tongue in cheek, but I do believe that you need good inside play to win.

Jeff, Omaha, Neb., writes:

What is your position on the mid-major seedings in the NCAA tourney? Creighton is a team that could possibly go into the tourney with 30 wins, yet from here on out, every conference game it plays and wins hurts its RPI rating. Furthermore Creighton is a no-win game for the perennial powers which creates scheduling quality non-conference games very difficult. Where do you seed them and why? And should the NCAA somehow encourage the major conferences to play mid-majors?

Jeff,
The mid-majors have to battle uphill all season long. The big boys will not play them, and if they do, it is at home with their own league's officials. Now, there are fewer quality opportunities for mid-majors to play Goliath because of the "2-in-4" rule, which I am opposed to. Mid-major leagues do not provide the same RPI boosts as the bigger leagues provide, which is inequitable. However, that will not change, and all the talk about unfairness will not make the road any easier for Butler, Creighton, Gonzaga or Kent State. The only thing mid-majors can count on is the chance for an automatic bid.

While I would like to see more equity, I would rather that different leagues be required to play non-conference games against smaller opponents than giving the mid-majors some sort of break in the selection or seeding process. Encouragement won't help, it has to be mandatory. Once the NCAA Tournament rolls around, it is important to pick the best teams, not reward a little guy for a good season. A bid to the Tournament is an invitation to compete for a championship, not a reward system.

I respect the mid-majors because they operate with little or no margin for error. To me, that is pressure, not trying to finish .500 in your league to pick up another watch.

Ben Wronowski, Norman, Okla., writes:

Jay,
You've made a big deal about the clock situation during the OU/Texas Tech game. Have you gone back through the entire game and made sure that the clock stopped and started at the exact time it was supposed to? I'm pretty sure minor discrepancies such as 0.7 sec. will even out over the course of a game.

Ben,
I don't think I made a big deal of it, I just pointed out that there was a clock problem in the OU-Texas Tech game. There was, and it was not just .7 seconds, but 1.7 seconds. I also said that Oklahoma won the game, and won it fair and square, with no room for reasonable argument on that point. Clock problem or not, the issue was not discovered until after the game, and Hollis Price handled the situation that was in front of him, and handled it like a champion. If he were faced with only 2.8 seconds instead of 4.5, he would have done it differently, and probably would have made that one, too!

Here is what I pointed out. At 6.7 seconds remaining, the clock stopped in the middle of play for one full second. This was not due to a slow finger on the button when there was a foul or the ball was inbounded. It happened in the middle of play. It was probably a clock malfunction, and one that was nearly impossible to catch while the ball is in play. Who looks at the clock in the middle of a play, with no hint of a whistle, time out or violation? It was a freak thing. But it still needs to be corrected.

At 4.5 seconds and OU down by 2, Hollis Price caught the ball, and dribbled nearly twice before the clock started, giving OU an extra .7 seconds. That timing error was of less consequence, in my opinion. The timer had a slow trigger finger, and .7 seconds is slow, but there is not any evidence of anything improper. The bottom line is this, both teams played very well down the stretch, and the extra time could have worked against or benefited either team, depending upon how the ball bounced at the end. Nobody in a position of influence has suggested that there was anything improper done on the part of the timer. The film of this situation is not the basketball equivalent of the Zapruder Film, and there is no conspiracy.

The Big 12 is looking into it, and looking at the entire tape to see if there is a clock problem. I am confident that they will determine the cause of the problem and fix it. It is in everyone's interests to do so.

Thanks for the question.

Jay Schmitt, El Paso, Ill., writes:

Hey Jay,
I wanted to thank you for your very good and unbiased coverage of college basketball in general. My question is this: Is it time to take your alma mater out of the truly elite teams for this season yet? In my opinion Duke has no post game at all and J.J. Redick can be easily limited if you just keep a hand in his face. I think they benefited from a cupcake home-dominated schedule (could have lost to Georgetown if Sweetney wasn't in foul trouble) and that the walls will come down quickly when they start playing some teams that have a post presence. I can't see them making the second weekend of the big dance. Am I being unfair or does the arrow come close to its mark?

Thanks

Jay,
You are not being unfair, but maybe a little hard on Duke's chances. I said from the beginning of the year that I thought Duke would be quite good by the end of the season, but that Arizona was the best team, and that there were other teams such as Pitt, Kansas, Texas and Florida that would be title contenders. The Blue Devils are better earlier than I thought they would be, but when they ascended to No. 1, I never thought Duke was the best team this year. There are also more teams capable of winning it all than I thought there would be in October.

As for J.J. Redick, I don't think he can be easily limited. I think you have to dedicate a defender to him, or he can absolutely kill you. He is capable of hitting seven or eight 3s in a game, and he curls off of screens if you trail him. He is a good passer, and is one heck of a college basketball player, freshman or not. Duke can be very good, and still reach a Final Four this year. It is wide open to teams that continue to improve, and play their best in March.

Does that sound familiar? Coach K says the same thing every year.

Ashwin Lal, Boston, Mass., writes:

Hey Jay,
As a UVA alum, I ride up and down the roller coaster that is their basketball team. They beat "great" teams at home and then play lackluster (effort?) games on the road. Can Pete Gillen get the job done? Is it the players? I know they don't stop anyone on defense, but what is the real problem in Charlottesville that is keeping this team from transcending mediocrity?

Ashwin,
Virginia is a very good team, but does not play with the same consistency on the road as they do at home. I believe that it is directly related to the players' commitment to defense. Virginia is capable of putting a lot of points on the board, and are sometimes content to "out-score" people instead of having a sense of urgency to stop people from scoring.

To be a true contender, you have to win tough games on the road, and you win tough games on the road by really making guarding people a priority. Your commitment to defense, in my judgment, shows up most clearly on the road. When Virginia defends with consistency and that sense of urgency, the Cavaliers will be among the nation's best teams. They are not far off, in my opinion.

I think that Pete Gillen is a terrific coach, and a great guy. In a league as difficult as the ACC, where established power is difficult to fight, I think that Pete is doing a really good job. Stick with him. You will be glad you did.

Gary Stange, Las Vegas, writes:

Has the rule book changed the rules for dribbling and travelling? I thought when the hand went below three o'clock and nine o'clock on the ball it was carrying? This gives an unfair advantage to the dribbler to allow him to put his hand under the ball. I also thought it was travelling when a player changes his pivot. I see so many players shuffle their feet or fake one way and comeback the other way leading with the opposite foot. I hate watching the game because the players can't play the game within the rules. Anyone can look more athletic and faster if they don't have to play within the rules intended for the game.

Gary,
I hear you, but I am more concerned with those calls being made at the lower levels. In college, it has become an issue of advantage-disadvantage, and too many times a clear "carry" is ignored because it did not provide an advantage to the handler. I agree that the officials could put a stop to a lot of that stuff if it were called more frequently. I don't sense you are calling for the return of Chuck Taylors or short shorts (which would be good for no one), but rather are interested in the purity of the game and its rules. I applaud that, even though I can't get to the hole in the lawyers' league anymore without a carry and an extra hop.

If it's good enough for Iverson, its good enough for me. Thanks for the question.

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