With Jay Bilas

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

John Greene, Bellaire, Texas, writes:

Jay,
I appreciate all of the things you had to say about the LeBron James situation, and you are absolutely correct that his was a case of "too much too soon". I am not looking to pick a fight or anything, but I am curious how you can say that there is "nothing wrong" with the shoe companies wanting to sign this kid to a long-term deal. If you're going to make (correct) moral judgments about everyone else involved, can't you extend some of that morality to the shoe companies and hold them to a higher and more responsible standard, too? Perhaps they shouldn't be so active in the "amateur ranks", regardless of legality or profit? Can you expound on that a little bit?

John,
Fair point, and thanks for the question. There is no question that all of us, the media, the shoe companies and those in charge of James' well-being, are accountable and responsible for the actions we have taken in this whole saga. While it would be preferable for the media and the shoe companies to show restraint and understand that this kid is stuck in a box because of the rules governing his situation, it is a practical impossibility for that to happen. Coverage of James means ratings, and television is driven by ratings. For the shoe companies, signing James means money, and anyone who was around in 1984 knows that Michael Jordan would have preferred to sign with adidas, but Nike made him a better deal and showed more vision with regard to his marketing future. Don't you think that adidas remembers finishing second on that one? The shoe companies should not put kids in the position of jeopardizing their eligibility, but are not restrained by NCAA or high school rules.

My point is, the media devours what it is fed, and feels a responsibility to report the news. People wanted to see James, and ESPN made it happen. The practical responsibility of keeping the shoe companies and the media in check with regard to a kid falls to the responsible adults in charge of James' welfare. I think that schools should not take money or gear from the shoe companies, and should not sell their games to television. No games on TV, no media circus, and LeBron would not have had to go through all of this. They should have made the kid act like a kid, and when he turned pro, he could do what he wanted.

Gary Anderson, Reno, Nev., writes:

Jay,
Who are you to say that high school basketball is not entertainment? And what is really different about LeBron James' activity and the activity of the little girl who won the gold medal figure skating at age 14, or the tennis players who are winning at ages younger than this boy. If you have a gift, you have a gift, and those who don't tend to be very jealous. And remember sir, that junior tennis, with no prize money, is televised. So, again, who are you to say that high school basketball is not entertainment. I have had enough of this elitist garbage.

Gary,
You make some good observations, and thanks for your comments. I will tell you exactly who I am. I am one voice, and one opinion, just like you. My opinion is worth no more and no less than yours, and both of our views are valid. We can disagree without being disagreeable. I think our misunderstanding can be based upon semantics. Clearly, high school basketball can be "entertaining" to watch. However, I do not consider high school sports to be an "entertainment" enterprise. It is part of the educational process, and should be kept in perspective.

I agree that youngsters, younger than James, can be viable pros in tennis or skating. But those are individual sports where kids and their guardians can choose levels of participation. James cannot turn pro in the United States until his high school class has graduated. The NBA will not take him until the end of this year, so he has to stay in high school or go overseas to play as a pro. It may not be fair, but that's the way it is. While he is in high school, it is not just his development (physically, emotionally and psychologically) that is at issue. He has other teammates that are with him, and are not at the same stages of development. I think that, while he is in high school, he should be a high school kid, and he should be treated as a high school kid.

If James were a math whiz, I would not consider it appropriate to have him travel the nation doing exhibitions or have him go to M.I.T. early just because he was able. If he were a musician, it would not be appropriate in my judgment to have him doing two shows a day all around the country just because he was good. He's a kid with an enormous talent, but still a kid surrounded by kids.

I respect your opinion if you feel otherwise.

Chuck Griffith, Norfolk, Va., writes:

Dear Jay,
I read your recent commentary analyzing the issues presented by the handling of LeBron James' unique circumstances. I applaud your complete analysis and agree with you completely.

I am a Circuit Court Judge in Virginia, was a prosecutor for 20 years, have coached AAU basketball, and have a high school sophomore who plays basketball at a small private school in Norfolk. I have some perspective here.

My son is not a LeBron James. He is a normal and well-balanced young man who loves sports and is working hard to get an education. My son also brings perspective to the situation. He realizes that young athletes of the caliber of LeBron James are treated special and that there should be limits. What he doesn't understand is why adults are confused and confounded that young men such as LeBron James fail to meet expectations when it comes to such things as accepting gifts of the type LeBron accepted. As you mention, only the rare person doesn't clamor for freebies when given an opportunity. Additionally, kids realize who is really at fault here. Adults created this monster. We are hypocritical for expecting children to know how to resist the temptations we constantly dangle before their hungry eyes.

Sincerely, Chuck Griffith

Your Honor,
Thanks for writing. I applaud your son, and his perspective on things. I agree that the adults are to blame for this situation getting out of control. Kids need guidance and limits. James is a good kid, but he is still just a kid. Just because he has a man's game doesn't mean that he is ready to process all that comes with being an NBA player. He still needs guidance and limits going forward, and still needs an education. LeBron should not have accepted the jerseys, in part because it violated a rule. However, there is another reason that I consider just as important ... because you should not take something for nothing, because there is no such thing. Nobody gives out anything of value for free. They always expect something in return, and James should not put himself in the position of being beholden to anyone.

Mark Johnson, Morehead City, NC, writes:

Jay,
Mostly I agree with your stance on LeBron James; however, you must admit LeBron forced the OHSAA's hand. In order to salvage relevancy and respect, Muscaro had to do something with all that was flaunted in his face. Unless they rewrite the rules regarding amateurism, he did the right thing with the suspension. Unfortunately, in this litigious society, the lesson to learn now is just as it was with O.J.'s trial, if you can afford the best, justice might not be so blind. I just wonder what will happen with LeBron when he enters the NBA and is rendered an average player for these next developmental years. How will a boy with a king's ego adapt to possible years of riding the pine and learning the game all over again?

Flash to Kwame Brown whining about playing time.

Mark,
Agreed. James did put himself in a spotlight by accepting the car and giving the OHSAA the impetus to go after him. However, for that mistake in judgment, he did not deserve to lose his entire high school career so as to be an example to others. Just because the adults around him did not do the right things doesn't mean the OHSAA does not have to act with reasonable fairness. Muscaro could have acted in a way that would have preserved his rules and their teeth, but in going over the top, he jeopardized the credibility of his organization. His office allows the travel that James undertook, and his office allows the schools to take gear and money from shoe companies. He cannot sit there and speak of "our troubled times" and the "purity" of amateur athletics while simply meting out unreasonable punishment. James did wrong, but so did Muscaro, and I expect more out of a mature adult.

As to his future in the NBA, James has the talent, the question is, does he have the maturity to handle what he is getting into? He will make enough money to be set for life, if he is prudent with his spending. Does he have the drive and ambition to pursue greatness? We shall see. He has all of the tools. I just hope it is not a case of "too much, too soon" on the next level.

Mike Hickerson, Elsmere, KY, writes:

Dear Jay,
There is plenty of blame to go around in the LeBron James' story, but letting ESPN off the hook is the wrong approach. I have heard you and many of your colleagues at ESPN excuse yourselves from responsibility with the poor reasoning, "Hey, we're just following the story." Covering LeBron James on SportsCenter is "just following the story." Showing his game nationwide on ESPN is joining the circus. Certainly, as you point out, ESPN would never have been able to show the game if it were not for sale, but in our free market system, we are free both to sell and to buy. No one put a gun to ESPN's corporate head and forced them to purchase the rights to the game. What is the place of restraint in the sports entertainment world? It is not enough to simply say that where there's a story, you will follow. ESPN needs to have more thoroughly developed policy on underage athletes -- or, at least, its commentators need to communicate a more thoroughly developed policy. ESPN also needs to own up to its responsibility in creating the mess in amateur athletics. The media is certainly not the only one at fault, but ignoring the media's role is irresponsible.

Sincerely yours, Mike Hickerson

Mike,
I agree that ESPN and other major media outlets bear responsibility like everyone else in how we handled the coverage of James. Believe me, there was a lot of discussion and disagreement over whether James' games should have been televised in the first place. Sports Illustrated put James on the cover last year, and NBA personnel have been quite vocal that James will be the first pick in the draft. He is a story worthy of coverage.

While it certainly raised the temperature of the events to have ESPN cover his games, we would not have been able to put them on the air without the express permission of his school. The decision on whether it was right or wrong to allow television coverage rested with James' high school.

I can tell you that, while I had some reservation about being assigned to the games, I felt confident that ESPN would do the best possible job in handling the situation, and I am comfortable with how Dick Vitale, Bill Walton, Dan Shulman and I handled the broadcasts. I was careful with my words, and tried to convey accurately that I thought James was the best high school player I had seen at this stage of his career, which is no guarantee of future success. I said that he needed to work on his shot, but that he was as skilled and as physically imposing as any high school kid I have seen. While I feel uncomfortable with any teenager being thrust into situations that adults would have trouble processing, I feel that ESPN did a good job under the circumstances. I understand that you may disagree, and I respect your well stated opinion.

Adam Simers, Kent, Ohio, writes:

Mr. Bilas,
I understand why many mid-majors are overlooked for top 25 ranking, and national recognition, and it's basically that they do not play as tough a schedule as the majors. I'm only wondering why some teams, especially Kent State, Butler, etc., seem to get shafted by the polls. Is it because the media wants to keep some teams hidden somewhat to build a Cinderella story for each year. Last year Kent State won 30 games, no recognition. We beat Oklahoma State in the first round, it's just the first round. We beat Bama, well it's a good story but you're still going to lost to Pitt. We beat Pitt, well they play in the Big East. And then we lose to Indiana by them shooting an incredible 3-point percentage. So why is there no respect for Kent State after starting 16-2 this year after losing four good seniors?

Adam,
I have great respect for the mid-majors, as do many other talking heads like myself. To me, the mid-majors play the way the game used to be, when only one team from each conference went to the NCAA Tournament. That is real pressure. Don't tell me that the Big Six conferences have pressure when they have great games built into their schedules, and can lose multiple games and still get into the tournament. The mid-majors can have a great year, get upset in the postseason, and they have to stay home. That, my friend, is pressure.

The problem is, nobody will play the mid-majors because it does not improve your RPI numbers, and you can get beat. Why schedule a game with Kent State and take the chance of getting your tail kicked when nobody will understand that it was a quality loss? It just looks bad to lose games like that, and jobs are literally on the line.

I believe that there has to be some sort of addition to the RPI formula that rewards the majors for playing against mid-major teams. Without that, there is no reason for the big shots to play them. Give the majors some incentive, and they will do it, but right now, the majors only hurt their postseason prospects by playing those games. Do you think that Duke benefited from playing Butler? Nobody remembers the game, but Duke would have taken a severe hit in perception if they had lost that game.

Tim K., Hoboken, N.J., writes::

Wake Forest has shown streaks of brilliance this year, and it is certain that the ACC is testing their mettle. Is this the year for the Demon Deacons to return to the Final Four?

Tim,
Wake has a chance, but I think a Final Four run is a long shot. But like Indiana last year, it is possible if the Deacons get a good draw and get some breaks. However, it is unlikely. Skip Prosser should get a medal for the job he has done with Wake Forest. The Deacons are not a great ball-handling team, but have overcome that with rebounding and Josh Howard. Wake Forest is painfully young, so young that the Deacons don't have a curfew, they have a bedtime. Prosser should be the ACC Coach of the Year, and get national coach of the year attention. He is the real thing.

Larry Harms, New Orleans, La., writes:

How severe do you feel the NCAA sanctions will be against the University of Michigan and Tommy Amaker related to the Ed Martin incident?

Larry,
I hope the NCAA will be fair, and take into account that nobody that did wrong in the 1990s is in Ann Arbor anymore. Michigan has taken responsibility for the wrongdoing, and has put controls in place to make certain there is not a repeat of the past problems. My sense it that the NCAA will hit Michigan with penalties over those which were self-imposed. The NCAA sees these issues as institutional problems, and will punish the institution rather than the individuals. While Michigan will take the brunt of this, the coaches and administrators in charge are free to work elsewhere without penalty. It may not be fair, but that is the way I believe it will come down. Tommy Amaker and his staff will be left to pick up the pieces. Michigan couldn't have a better man in charge, and his presence speaks volumes about UM's commitment to do things the right way going forward.

Sam DeGrazia, Chicago, IL, writes:

Jay, What do you think of teams like Kentucky and Louisville winning so far this season with DEFENSE? Is it also true in college hoops that "defense wins championships"?

Sam,
Great question. I think that teams need to be able to defend in the halfcourt to win championships. There is no question in my mind that, if you cannot stop people from scoring, you cannot consistently win at the highest level. However, you need to be able to score the ball efficiently and consistently to win, as well. That is what makes college basketball the very best game. You have to play both offense and defense, and no other game has the speed and frequency of scoring and defending as basketball. You have to be proficient offensively and defensively to win over time. That is why teams like Arizona, Kentucky and Louisville are so good. All can score and all can guard you.

Willis N. Simmons, Currituck, N.C., writes:

Do you think that The University of North Carolina Athletic Department will keep Matt Doherty if he has a losing season? If yes, how many more years do you think that they will give him?

Willis,
North Carolina is fortunate to have Matt Doherty as its coach, and I believe he is doing and will do a good job rebuilding that program. Right now, he is not playing with a full compliment of players. Sean May is injured, Rashad McCants is hitting the wall a bit as a freshman (which happens to almost all freshmen), and Doherty has precious few seniors and juniors to rely upon.

It is not fair to suggest that Carolina's current condition is the fault of Matt Doherty. I will tell you this, if Doherty is shown the door before having five years to get his program going, then a lot of Carolina administrators should go with him. Give Doherty some time. You will be glad you did.

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