INTERESTING STUFF

1996-97

• RULES CHANGES

• NOTES

• SPORTING NEWS ARTICLE

RULES CHANGES

NOTES

SPORTING NEWS ARTICLE ABOUT SEASON

College basketball has evolved (devolved?) to the point where, among other things, quality big men, senior standouts and polished play have become relics of past Final Fours.

To understand the future of college basketball, look no further than this year's NCAA Tournament. This extravaganza produced more than an unexpected but highly deserving champion when Arizona upset Kentucky on Monday night. It also provided a wonderful road map to show us where the sport is headed after too many years of losing too many elite underclassmen to the NBA.

Surprised there weren't more dominant big men in the Final Four? Shouldn't be. Shocked there wasn't a dominant team in the Final Four? Shouldn't be.

Stunned that guards were, for the most part, the dominant players in the Final Four? Shouldn't be.

Perplexed that unheralded No. 4 seed Arizona could wind up the nation's best team, capturing its first championship, despite finishing fifth in the Pac-10 Conference? Shouldn't be.

Amazed by the sloppy ballhandling or the inaccurate shooting or the lack of precise offenses or the gnawing feeling that although the three games in Indianapolis were exciting, none featured a particularly high caliber of play? Shouldn't be.

What we saw in Indianapolis is the future of college basketball. To say the sport is ready for a respirator is missing the point. What we have now is parity, and that is great for generating excitement and close competition. That's what occurred over the weekend in abundance, capped by a dramatic championship game that continued into overtime until Arizona (25-9) finally emerged with an 84-79 victory. This change in college basketball is no reason to turn off the TV or stop buying tickets or claim, as Kentucky coach Rick Pitino did last year, that the game is in trouble. But if you expect more from the sport, if you expect waves of polished big men and monster teams that rank with the ages and multiple schools with quality depth and squads led by elite upperclassmen, well, give up those dreams. If any of these happen in future years, it will be a fluke, not a trend.

Arizona will be the favorite to win next year, considering every one of its best players returns. If guard Miles Simon, the MVP of the Final Four after scoring 30 against Kentucky (35-5), returns for his senior year -- and that is his intention, at least for now -- the Wildcats will be an exception to the trend toward underclassman-dominated quality teams. But as good as Arizona figures to be, it will not evolve into a squad ready for the most-memorable-of-all-time category. Nor will the Wildcats produce flashbacks to Duke's title-winning teams in 1991 and '92. The major reason Arizona won this season is because other more potentially gifted teams lost too many players prematurely to the NBA. Otherwise, the Wildcats are an Elite Eight squad, at best. But in this era of college basketball, who will be better next season?

We now have a game rarely able to produce mythical players; usually, they aren't around long enough for us to get that familiar with them before they leave college. Rarely are we able to follow four years of exploits from the likes of a Patrick Ewing or a Bobby Hurley. It just isn't part of this era of college basketball. Instead, we are sadly left with coaches having more influence -- and a bigger share of the spotlight -- than ever before. It is methodically moving away from being a players' game.

You can't argue with the cold reality of statistics. Last year, 17 first-round picks, including nine of the first 10 selections, were underclassmen or, worse yet, high school seniors. Another 13 from that combination could be first-rounders in this year's draft. That kind of talent exodus can't help but damage the quality of play on the college level. It has gotten to the point where you tire of hearing a coach recite what his team might have been had a couple of stars not opted for the NBA. Hey, that is now the reality of the sport; if you recruit a blue-chip prospect, keeping him for more than two years should be a shock. "It's almost like junior college in reverse," Pitino says. Translation: The four-year schools have become two-year breeding grounds for players, preparing them -- albeit briefly -- for the next step. "I think some players have the mind-set about staying one year, like a Stephon Marbury," Pitino says. "If that's what they are looking for from college, college is better off without you and I think the player is better off going right to the NBA." As a result of this talent drain, Final Fours of the future will continue to feature fewer first-round draft picks than in the past. Maybe seven players in this Final Four eventually will be chosen in the opening round; in 1991, the last time this event was played in Indianapolis, Duke and UNLV produced a combined six first-round choices. Unlike with other generations of players whose priority was this tournament and a national title, today's stars for the most part aren't driven to extend their college careers just to make a run at a championship.

"But it is difficult to criticize these young men for making career decisions about going to the NBA," North Carolina coach Dean Smith says. "Everyone would like to see young men receive a college education, but they have to pursue a path they think is right for them." Translation: If they see basketball as their future, why not become a pro instead of hanging around in school? If you were a computer whiz, say, and a Silicon Valley firm made you a $1 million offer after your sophomore year, what choice would you make: college or career?

Pitino says he is trying to buck this leave-early trend by not recruiting players who say they are looking at no more than a two-year commitment. But don't expect coaches to line up behind him. "If a player like Mike Bibby wants to play for you, it is very difficult to pass him up, even if he only wants to stay for a short time," Arizona coach Lute Olson says. "I'd rather have him for two than not at all." Translation: It's better to have two years with a Picasso than four years with a billboard painter.

What still needs to play out is the long-range effect early decisions have on the gorilla programs, such as Kentucky and North Carolina, which once recruited huge talent pools and then dominated through both quality and depth. On one hand, Kentucky was able to return to the Final Four for the second consecutive season because, despite not having eight players available off its 1996 championship roster, it still had enough good players, especially a blue-chipper in Ron Mercer, to allow it to reload quickly. But on the other hand, Olson theorizes that Carolina and Kentucky will be hamstrung by the uncertainty of how long their best players will stay in school. Will a blue-chip forward avoid Carolina and go somewhere else because he is not sure whether Antawn Jamison will return next year? If Olson is right, Carolina and Kentucky might have to start learning how the rest of the basketball world functions.

But the exodus will continue to allow more young teams such as Arizona to contend for a title. Against Kentucky, Arizona beat a team that managed to get this far despite losing its leading scorer, Derek Anderson, to a knee injury in January. Even Pitino was amazed the tournament field was so weak that his squad could do so well despite such a devastating personnel loss.

The Final Fours of the future most likely will feature at least one pivotal freshman, such as a Bibby (this season) or a Mercer (last season), who will make a bigger-than-expected impact on his team. That will happen because, with the absence of upperclass excellence, there is a greater opportunity for young players to take over a starring role more quickly. "You bring in a freshman like Mike and you don't want to think he has to play such a big role but that is what happens," Olson says. "Not everyone can do it, but an elite player like Mike has that ability to really make a difference on a team." It is impossible to overestimate the importance of Bibby to Arizona. His calm demeanor and floor savvy provided the glue that gave the Wildcats continuity. Even though he had eight turnovers against Kentucky, his ballhandling abilities were greatly responsible for the success Arizona had neutralizing Kentucky's full-court pressure. Unlike Minnesota in the semifinals, Arizona did not wilt under Kentucky's pressure.

Besides, freshmen such as Bibby really aren't freshmen anymore in terms of experience. By the time they reach college, the best ones have gone through years of high-caliber competition at elite summer camps. It accelerates their development substantially. Just look at the youth in this Final Four. North Carolina's best player is Jamison, a sophomore, and the Tar Heels' top six players include three other freshmen or sophomores. One of those was freshman playmaker Ed Cota, whose emergence near season's end jump-started Carolina into a 16-game winning streak that ended in last Saturday's semifinals against Arizona. Kentucky's best player is Mercer, a sophomore who already has declared his intention of jumping to the NBA; among the Wildcats' other top seven players are three sophomores and a freshman. Arizona's best players are Bibby and Simon; of the other seven leading Wildcats, five are freshmen or sophomores. Minnesota is the lone exception -- remember, there will be exceptions -- with an upperclass-dominated club that featured senior Bobby Jackson as its star. But if a coach is fortunate enough to keep a squad together long enough to feature some talented seniors, he has a huge advantage in this era. Want another example? Look again to Arizona next season.

And like this Final Four, future Final Fours will be fortunate to have any quality big men. Wake Forest's Tim Duncan tried to become an exception and failed, which is a shame. This event would have profited from his brilliance. But any player with size and ability will be increasingly tempted to make the leap from high school to the NBA. What we are left with are guys such as North Carolina's Serge Zwikker -- Serge Zwikker! -- as the most prominent tall guy in this Final Four. And that is why future Zwikkers, with their quickness and agility limitations, will occupy similar roles in future tournaments. What an ugly thought to contemplate.

This game is evolving more into the hands of transition players with daring quickness and lightning reflexes who aren't concerned about pounding it inside. Years ago, UCLA's John Wooden told the world about the advantages of quickness over size, and his preaching is more accurate than ever, particularly with the advent of the 3-point shot. That's why Kansas was overrated. We are so driven to pick out one great team, then build it into mythical size that we rush to judgment to anoint squads before they are truly deserving. The poor Jayhawks were all but handed the national title despite some nagging weaknesses, most especially the lack of quickness inside. Better to have a few quick leapers than a few sluggish tall guys. Kansas coach Roy Williams fielded a prototype starting lineup: playmaker, shooting guard, power forward, small forward, center. Looks nice on paper but for this era, it is miscast.

Again, just look at Arizona, and at Kentucky, if you want to see the physical makeup of most future Final Four teams. Study Arizona's style. Dominant perimeter players. Explosive inside guys without a lot of bulk but great leaping and slashing ability. An offense that sets weakside screens designed to free up 3-point shots, not feeds to the low post. Fast breaks that encourage 3-point pull-up jumpers just as much as layups. Ballhandlers who create their offense instead of relying heavily on set patterns to produce shots. Did we mention quickness, quickness, quickness?

In this era, guards become pivotal. In the title game, Simon and Bibby combined for 49 of Arizona's 84 points and took 30 of 58 field-goal attempts. They are too elusive to double team in the open court, and if you try to sag on them, they'll either pop in the open jumper or pass off when challenged. It's a difficult combination to handle. Kentucky, which certainly has decent quickness, wound up fouling too much. Arizona shot 41 free throws, making 34; Kentucky was 9-of-17.

"I love the way Arizona plays," Pitino says. "They are no fluke. They got better and better. I love players who can pass, catch, dribble and shoot, and they have plenty of those guys." "It's difficult to compete against the athletically gifted teams," Utah coach Rick Majerus says. "They can throw all those 6-7, 6-8 and 6-9 guys at you who can run and jump and handle the ball." What Pitino and Olson want are players who are interchangeable offensively and defensively, who aren't limited to certain parts of the court, who don't necessarily have to fit the mold of a prototype performer at a certain position. "Kentucky can kill you," says Majerus, who has lost to the Wildcats the past two NCAA Tournaments, "because they can put five guys out there who can shoot 3's and still have size to rebound and move."

As the influence of big men decreases, the importance of the 3-point shot increases. Arizona loves to spread the floor, work to the weakside, shove up a 3 or penetrate to the basket. The 3 was instituted to return spacing to the game and reduce the bumping and grinding inside. Now, with the role of big men being redefined, the 3 has become the weapon of choice. (Kentucky took a Final Four-record 30 against Arizona). And tall guys such as the 7-3 Zwikker need to get out of the way before they get run over. "The 3 changed the game, and I think it has changed it for the better," says Olson, whose team made 6-of-13 in the final. "I know there are purists out there who feel that while passing and working the ball in for the close shot is what basketball really should be about, but they probably also think that it would be better if we went back to the jump ball, too -- after every basket."

Olson certainly doesn't want anyone tinkering with the rules, not after finally winning a national title in his fourth Final Four, including three at Arizona. Until now, he has been shadowed by the embarrassment of three first-round losses as the Wildcats' boss. But that has given way to a marvelous coaching effort in this Final Four, particularly against Kentucky, when Arizona's defense clamped down on Mercer so relentlessly he was neutralized as a game-breaker. Mercer's quiet 13 points were not enough to offset the work of the slashing Simon, who gave his team the big-time game a team must have to win it all. His confidence was especially evident at the foul line, where he coolly made 14-of-17 attempts. And this was a player who missed the first 11 games of the season because of academic problems, wondering if he would be able to contribute anything to the team's success.

"They have terrific guards," Kentucky forward Scott Padgett says. "And they did a great job of penetrating, and that's what caused so many fouls." Whenever Mercer cut off screens, Arizona would switch off a man to pick him up. The vast majority of the time, he had none of the open jumpers that came so easily in previous tournament games.

Arizona's anticipation and knowledge of Kentucky's offense was amazing. "Every time I curled around (off a screen), they had somebody waiting for me," Mercer says. "They made it tough for me to score."

When Arizona had the ball, Simon in particular did a wonderful job using his quickness to break through the initial efforts of Kentucky's defense, then pull up for six-foot leaners instead of driving all the way to the basket. "Miles just has an understanding of the game that is beyond anything you can teach," Olson says. "He just has a feel for it." Kentucky respected Arizona's ability so much that Pitino really didn't want to employ his full-court press in the game. But after the first five minutes, he went to it reluctantly, trying to increase the tempo. In the second half, however, the pressure had little effect on Arizona.

Still, Kentucky clawed and scratched and gave itself a chance to win by pushing the game into overtime. Trailing 72-68 with 61 seconds left, Mercer and guard Anthony Epps made 3-pointers despite tight defense to tie things up and leave Arizona frustrated. After all, Kentucky was behind virtually the entire second half and never appeared capable of taking charge. Yet two improbable baskets offset 40 minutes of hard work by Arizona. But Kentucky couldn't take advantage of its new life. It missed its first three field-goal attempts in OT, then had to foul Arizona, which was 5-of-8 from the line to take a 79-74 lead and put the game out of reach. Kentucky played with tired legs; Arizona was much fresher and more aggressive in the last five minutes. Kentucky is a great defensive team, but Arizona undeniably is better.

"I'm not sure two teams could expend more energy than these two teams did," says Olson, whose team became the first to beat three No. 1 seeds en route to the title. "Shots were difficult to come by. I still have difficulty believing this has happened. We've had other outstanding, experienced teams here. But this group has been something special all season. I think we answered all the questions people have had about us since the season began." And in the process, they have shown us the future of college basketball. Better get used to it.