There are certain things that every championship team absolutely MUST have in order to win the title. These things are non-negotiable. I'm not talking about heart, effort, etc. I am talking about actual construction of a title team. What are the pieces needed? What roles have to be filled? What jobs have to be done?

Over the next week or so, I am going to try and look at the pieces to a title team, looking at the last five NCAA champs (Kansas, North Carolina, Duke, Connecticut and Kentucky) and the last five NBA champs (San Antonio, Boston, Lakers (x2) Dallas).

So without further ado...

Piece #1 A go to scorer.

This doesn't mean that you have to have a guy that averages a bunch of points, necessarily. Two of the NBA champs (08 Boston and 07 San Antonio) didn't have anyone average more than 20 ppg. Two of the college teams (08 Kansas and 12 Kentucky) didn't have anyone average even 15 ppg. No, a go to scorer means that, with the game on the line and needing a basket, your team knows who is getting the basketball, and knows that they will get that basket.

In the NBA playoffs and in March Madness, defenses tighten and skill level rises. Your plays don't work as well because they are being defended by better teams, better players and with better execution. Because of that, you can't depend on your "system" to get you a basket. It doesn't matter if you're running the Triangle Offense, the High-Low, Motion, the Dribble Drive, Four Out or the Princeton. Good defenses will be able to dig in and stop the initial options off of those plays. This doesn't mean that sets won't work, or that sets are worthless. They are very valuable and necessary. In fact, I will cover their value in a later section.

However, when sets break down, you still have to be able to score and that is when individual talent takes over.

Walk with me back to wherever you were watching the 2008 NCAA title game. There's 10 seconds left. KU down 3. Length of the court to go. One shot to tie. If you're like me, you probably knew what play KU was going to run. Bill Self had run that play (or a variation) no less than five times in similar situations in less than 2 years. Calipari knew the play as well. And guess what? The play broke down. But even though the play broke down because Collins was forced inside instead of being able to dribble up the sideline (the correct play, by the way to avoid the trap) and stumbled when he tried to cut back outside to get the ball to Mario, the talent on the floor executed the basket even as the play was breaking down. That wasn't a practice jump shot that Mario hit. Derrick Rose was ALL OVER him. 6-9 Robert Dozier was closing out.

That play was made because everyone knew that the object of the play was to GET MARIO THE BASKETBALL. Collins didn't try to do his own thing because he knew that the shot was Mario's to take. Jackson got out of the way because he recognized that the man defense would add an extra defender that could get in Mario's way. The play centered around everyone making sure Mario could do HIS job - hit the shot.

That's a go to player. And Mario didn't even lead that team in scoring. Brandon did. But just about every big shot that season went to Mario, and he made it.

You have to have a go to scorer that can get you a basket when a basket is the only thing that will save your season. The 07 Spurs had Duncan. 08 Boston had Paul Pierce. The Lakers had Bryant. Dallas had Dirk (how many times did you see them iso him around the FT line and just let him get his shot down the stretch - that's a go to player!). Duke went to Kyle Singler. UConn went to Kemba. UK went to Doron Lamb. UNC went to Hansbrough. It's also notable that among those go to scorers, each of them is a solid to good FT shooter, meaning even when they get fouled, they can still put the points on the board that their team needs.

So piece #1 of the championship puzzle is a go to scorer.

I have a problem with the NCAA scholarship process. The problem is the responsibility all falls on one party, while the rewards and control all go to the other.

The player must attend meetings, practices, get good grades, play well, etc. In return, they receive an athletic scholarship that pays tuition, board and a small stipend.

The university gets the rewards of having athletic teams (donors, gate receipts, concessions, public recognition, etc) and gets to decide if they will renew those scholarships every year. If a student decides they do not like a certain school, the school can decide whether or not they can transfer, or if they can transfer to certain schools or not and be offered scholarships at those places.

The next time someone says that D-1 athletes are just like other students on scholarship I want you to remember this – a student on an academic scholarship can decide that they don’t like the major offered at one school, or they want to go to a different school that has a different program and, if their grades are good enough, they are gone. They don’t have to wait for the English department to release them from their scholarship. They don’t have to petition the NCAA for a waiver. They can just pack up their stuff and apply to another school and that’s that. Athletes cannot do that. They have to be released, or apply for a waiver. If neither of those things happen, their only other option is to drop down a level (meaning a D-1 player can only go D-2, D-3 or NAIA, D-2’s can only go D-3 or NAIA).

Charlie Weis (allegedly) kicked Brock Berglund off the team, along with JaQwaylin Arps, Dexter McDonald, Darrian Miller, Adonis Saunders, and Keeston Terry. It is now rumored that KU is not releasing Berglund and that Miller is having trouble being granted his release as well. These players say they had informed the staff that they wanted to transfer, and the staff has indicated (by saying they kicked them off the team) that they don’t want them on the KU football team. So why not grant the releases? Only Travis Bodenstein has been granted a release to transfer and he has moved on to Arkansas State. Is KU not releasing the others because there’s a chance that Miller, Terry and McDonald all transfer to Mizzou (all were high on the Tigers before ultimately picking KU). Adonis Saunders to K-State or Iowa State maybe? Is KU worried that they could lose these guys to rivals and doesn’t want to look bad?

This isn’t an indictment of Weis so much as it is on the system. There was a coaching change. Recruits pick schools based on the coach. That coach isn’t there anymore, so they should be allowed to transfer if they so choose in my opinion. Coaches can take another job and coach there immediately. We don’t see Weis having to sit out a year after leaving Florida for the head job at KU. Sumlin left Houston for Texas A&M and will be on the sidelines there next year. Coaches can leave one job for another with no penalty. Athletes have to give up a year, and if they have already redshirted, they just lose that year of playing.

I sincerely hope that KU does the right thing and grants these releases. There’s no reason to keep these kids from pursuing their careers elsewhere if they are no longer wanted on the team at KU.

Over the course of this season, I have been thinking quite a bit about the construction of this team. When I looked at the squad in the Fall, the thing that I was most worried about was the lack of a true #1 scorer.

Every basketball team needs a number one scorer. This is the guy that gets the ball when everyone knows that the ball is going to him, and then he scores anyway. At least that’s what the best number one scorers do. But it’s more than that. Being the number one scorer is a responsibility. It’s knowing that you absolutely have to get your offensive game going every night. It’s knowing that even if you aren’t shooting the ball well, you need to get to the FT line, or get inside for buckets, or something because you HAVE to put points on the board. I worried that KU didn’t have that.

The best number one scorers have been number ones all their lives. Chamberlain, Abdul-Jabbar, Bird, Jordan, Iverson, Bryant, they all were number one scorers from their high school (and in some cases earlier) days on.

This KU team didn’t have that. Robinson was a rebounder/enforcer in high school. Yeah, he got his points, but his meal ticket in high school (and even now) is rebounding and bringing that D.C. toughness to the table. Tyshawn Taylor averaged about 10 points a game as a senior because he was the lead distributor on a D-1 talent laden roster. Jeff Withey was always just the tallest guy. Elijah Johnson was a guy that could score in bunches, but he was considered more of a combo guard than a true scorer.

And then I remembered that one guy on the team had been a number one scorer. One guy had gone for over 40 points as a freshman in a j.v. game while in high school. One guy had been the guy that they gave the ball to even when everyone knew he was getting the ball – Travis Releford.

It’s been a long time coming for Travis. Barely playing, then redshirted, then battling injuries, and now, finally healthy and at the top of his game. Congratulations Travis. And hopefully, the best is yet to come.

Charlie Weis? Really, Charlie Weis?

Ok, let's think about this for a minute.

Charlie Weis is a brilliant offensive coordinator. He has run successful offenses in the NFL, and had some pretty solid attacks at Notre Dame on a couple of occasions. He has a reputation of being great with young quarterbacks and he doesn't bring a lot of baggage to the table. These are all good things.

That said, he failed as a coach at Notre Dame. He has said that he "doesn't like recruiting." He has said that he "doesn't like making appearances at booster events." He's not a defensive coach. These are all not so good things.

Great offensive coach/ poor defensive coach is a wash. The right coordinator and position coaches can make up for that, so that is not a concern. Lack of baggage is good. I will grant him a pass on struggling at Notre Dame because nobody has really won at Notre Dame since Lou Holtz left.

I'm even okay with him not being a rah rah pep rally booster event fund raiser type. It's alright to have a coach that isn't a fundraiser and public speaker, as long as his X's and O's are solid.

That said, how can you hire someone to coach at the University of Kansas when he doesn't like to recruit? This isn't Texas, where you can walk into a school with a UT polo on and convince top flight players to commit on the spot. This isn't Florida, where you have D-1 caliber athletes tripping over each other at every high school in the state. This isn't a name school like Alabama or USC or even Notre Dame, where you can recruit purely off the name.

This is Kansas. We have to recruit. We have to recruit night and day. We have to out scout and out work and out recruit other schools. We have to scout hard and recruit hard and sell hard to convince a kid to ignore Texas, and A&M and the mad hatter at LSU and Nick Saban at Alabama and Arkansas and medium sized game Bob Stoops at Oklahoma and Boone Pickens money at Oklahoma State and 100,000 screaming fans at Michigan or Ohio State or the sunshine at Florida or USC or any of those other things so he can play football on the hill in Lawrence. You have to have a DRIVE to do that, and outrecruit those names and those traditions and those locations and the homesickness and everything else that pops up along the way. Charlie Weis has said he DOES NOT HAVE THAT. Is it fair to tell Reggie Mitchell that he isn't the head coach, won't be paid like a head coach, but that he has to get recruits here because the head coach doesn't really enjoy that part of his job? Really? Really?!?!

The other issues with Charlie Weis I can ignore because they aren't really that important. But half the job of being a college football coach is RECRUITING. Charlie Weis DOES NOT LIKE RECRUITING. I'd argue that 60-70% of the job at KU is RECRUITING and we are set to hire a coach that doesn't like to do that.

I'm baffled. I hope my gut feeling is wrong. I really sincerely do. Will we be looking for a new coach in December 2014 or 2015? And how bare will the cupboard be then?

Turner Gill is gone. I am sure that statement makes some individuals happier than others, but either way, the deed is done. Now is the time to move on.

However, we have a problem here. Who will be the next coach? The way I see it, you can see if you can land an established name, go after a hot coordinator, or try and get an up and comer from a smaller conference.

I laid out the problems with those briefly in my last post, but want to go over them again in a little more detail here. For an established coach, KU isn’t that attractive of an option. Programwise, KU is no better than seventh in its own conference as far as resources and attractiveness, behind Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, West Virginia, TCU, and Texas Tech. K-State has been more successful, but doesn’t have nearly the resources as those other schools. Baylor doesn’t have the resources or the sustained success, although being in Texas is a HUGE plus for them. Iowa State is at the bottom of this list any way you slice it.

So why would an established coach take on the KU job unless they have some serious baggage (Mike Leach) or were unceremoniously excused from their previous job because of W’s and L’s (Phil Fulmer, Houston Nutt). Out of that group, Nutt is probably the best coach, but there’s no proof that he would want to come to KU. Leach has so much baggage that he probably shouldn’t even be considered (and yet somehow he’s the favorite). And Fulmer isn’t even being mentioned for open SEC jobs yet, so there have to be questions about his interest in coaching at all, let alone at KU. Sure, there are other guys out there that have coaching experience in BCS conferences (Jim Leavitt – too much baggage, Mike Stoops – not enough success), but they don’t exactly improve the overall field. For that reason, I think hiring a coach with BCS experience is unlikely. If Nutt is willing to take the job, sure, come on down. The rest are shaky moves at best, and unless you want another coaching search kicking off in December 2014, they aren’t the best ideas.

Looking at the up and coming coaches, you have to wonder if any of them would even consider KU a possibility. They are currently kings of campus where they are at. If they come to KU, they know that they may only have a 2-3 year window to get things turned around. Depending on how they feel about the talent Gill has brought in, they may think that’s enough, but it’s a dicey call. And regardless, you would have to think that Chris Petersen, Troy Calhoun, Kevin Sumlin and Dave Doeren all have a much easier task at their current school, with less pressure, than they would have at KU, where it is clear that the right donors (with the right money) can orchestrate your ouster rather quickly. I’m not saying that this doesn’t happen at other schools, because it does. However, when you are in a position of trying to build a program, that doesn’t help the attractiveness of your school to have donors that can bully a coach out the door after only a couple of seasons.

On a side note, as much as I like Kevin Sumlin (I wanted him to get the job when Gill was hired) I really don’t want him to take this job now. He has a good situation at Houston and this KU situation is tenuous at best. I’m not sure that he could rally support from the key donors and boosters right now, and he would probably have the shortest amount of leeway among any coaching candidate. So I hope he stays at Houston or gets a shot at another BCS school.

For the coordinators, its really simple. Right now, they are on staffs of perennial top 10 teams. Coming to KU is building from the ground up. The last four years the program has been in decline – yes, I said the last four. Mangino’s last two years showed that the foundation was cracked and giving way. Gill has put in a solid foundation with young talent, but there’s nothing other than the foundation here. So would Venables want to leave his stable of talent at OU for a shaky situation at KU (and have to go down to Norman next season, too)? Would Smart want to leave Bama, where they will almost certainly be in the hunt for a BCS bowl again next season for Lawrence and try to figure out how to calm the masses by beating K-State?

And remember, every single one of these candidates also will be considering the fact that they could get pushed out if the right people aren’t happy with the progress after 2-3 years. For the current coaches and coordinators, that’s a pretty high risk situation. Add to that the tenuous nature of the Big X(II), and KU may not be the most attractive landing spot for a coaching candidate right now, particularly those in non-BCS conferences who could take the KU job, then wind up in the Mountain West a couple years from now if the Big X(II) really implodes.

This situation isn't any easier today than it was with Gill as head coach, and the wrong decision could cripple KU football for the next decade.

The season is early and tonight’s game is a pretty big one, but we know a few things about this team so far.

First, we know that we can play 8-9 guys, but that our success is directly tied to our top 3. If Robinson, Johnson and Taylor play well, we can stay with just about anyone. If any one of the three struggles, we are in for a long night. Against elite (top 10) level competition, we are going to rely on these three and they absolutely have to respond.

Second, we know about what we are going to get from our interior players not named Thomas Robinson. The trio of Withey, Wesley and Young will give us some solid minutes. They will rebound a little bit. Withey will block some shots. Ultimately, we are going to be hoping for about 55 mpg, 55% shooting, 12-15 rebounds, 2 blocks and 10-12 points. Anything more will be gravy. If one of these three emerges, we could have a deep tournament run, but that remains to be seen. Still, they will be at least solid night in and night out.

Third, we know that when we need a bucket, we will be looking at Taylor or Johnson to create. In the three tough games so far this year (not counting Towson), when we have needed to score the ball has gone out top to either Taylor or Johnson and they have been looking to create off the dribble. Other than Sherron’s junior year, that hasn’t been the preferred Bill Self method, but that looks to be our best option. T-Rob is really better as a scorer when he can turn, face up and use his quickness, particularly because he isn’t as natural a jump shooter as someone like Marcus Morris, and he isn’t as big as a guy like Cole Aldrich. He’s got an array of moves, but T-Rob has never been a #1 scorer, and I’m not sure he’s comfortable in that role. That’s okay, because he will still average a double double and be an All-American, but when we need to stop a run, or get a big hoop down the stretch, we are probably going to see Johnson or Taylor creating off the bounce.

Fourth, we know that we will need Releford AND Teahan to hit open perimeter shots. This kind of goes without saying. Some thought that Teahan alone could be our designated shooter, and to some degree, he still is because Travis is a natural slasher. However, Travis has worked on his shot, and it shows. We will need him to continue to knock down his open opportunities. In addition, we need Conner to start using his pump fake to get one dribble and knock down the 17 footer. Everybody knows that he’s a terrific three point marksman, and they are going to do everything they can to run him off that shot. The counter is the Bobby Knight approved pump fake, one hard dribble and the jump shot. Conner’s such a pure shooter that if he can slow down the challenge even a little because they have to consider the shot fake as a weapon, he can still get up 2-3 threes per game (which is where he will be most dangerous).

Finally, this team needs Travis Releford to be the “fill-in-the-blanks” guy. Some nights, that will be upping his scoring from 8 or so into the 12-15 range. Other nights it will be locking down the opponent’s best wing scorer. Other nights, we will need him to grab 8-10 boards. Travis’ role this year is going to be doing whatever the big 3 aren’t doing that night (scoring, rebounding, passing, defending, saving possessions, getting floorburns, etc.). It’s a tough role to have, because the expectation will change without warning.

Right now, my prediction for KU is 26 wins, Big XII regular season champs, loss in the conference semis, Sweet Sixteen. I don’t know that we have enough Elite Level talent to beat a 1 or 2 seed right now, but I am willing to revise after I see what happens tonight against Duke, and on Dec. 10 (Ohio State).

This time next week, there's a good chance that KU football will be in the market for a head coach. Those of you that have read my comments know that I have been in Coach Gill's corner since he was hired. I am still generally supportive of his plan, although it goes without saying that his results have been very poor.

The question now is whether a coaching change will help or hurt KU in both the short and long runs. I am unsure on both fronts.

In the short term...

Yes, a coaching change will probably pump life into the program, even if it is only very briefly. A change will appease a large portion of alums, boosters and fans frustrated by the blowout losses. Those are all good things.

On the other hand, though, a coaching change after only two years on the job for Coach Gill is a red flag for any potential coaching candidate out there. Remember, Gill inherited a KU team that was losing its all time leading passer, top two receivers, it's #2 rusher from the previous season, the entire LB corps and its top DB (and defensive leader). This from a team that had gone 5-7 (1-7). Yes the losses have been embarassing, but was there any way to predict that KU would have done better than 3-9 or 4-8 last year anyway regardless of coaching? Would a young KU team have done much better than 3 wins this season, regardless of coaching? And regardless of the answer to those two questions, will any established coach (Houston Nutt or the equivalent), or any up and coming coordinator (Brent Venerables or the equivalent) want to risk his job security knowing that he will only have a 2 year window to improve on field results?

Further, Gill has, by all accounts, done very well on the recruiting trail. Will axing him harm the relationships built by this staff with key coaches in Texas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and here in Kansas?

Moving to the long term...

If KU can't land a big name (and it's unlikely that we will), there is no guarantee that we won't be pondering another change in 2-3 years. To have the program on its 4th coach in less than 7 years could be potentially devastating long term.

Missouri moving to the SEC changes their recruiting dynamic. The change of the Big XII structure alters the scheduling considerations for KU. Simply put, we have to be prepared for a Big XII world where we have to match up with OU, Texas, TCU and OSU every single year. There will be no backing into the Big XII title game, as KSU has done before. There will be no magical run to the BCS without having to play any of the other traditional powers like we did in 2008. That means that we have to legitimately plan to compete with those schools, and the only way we can do that is to recruit against them.

I don't know if Turner Gill will be head coach after this weekend.

I don't know if he's the right man for the job.

I don't even know if there is a legitimate replacement out there.

I do know that if he is fired, that's where the questions really begin.

I haven't had time to lead up to the Who Can Win it All series this year, but I still want to do at least a couple. Part of the problem is it has taken quite a bit of time to figure this year out in college hoops. Teams have struggled. Injuries have mounted. Some leagues are extremely deep (Big East, Big 12). Some leagues are very shallow (Pac 10). And then there are leagues that look deep, but really aren't (SEC, Big 10, ACC).

If ever there was a year that mid major teams could make some serious noise, this is that year. Every team is flawed, some significantly. Every team is vulnerable. And with the way injuries have been going this year, unless you are really deep, I can't really put too much into any one team. That said, Contenders are still the top dogs, Threats are the next group and Pretenders are the overranked teams.

One side note that I think has to be mentioned here.

The point of emphasis on swinging elbows has been a big thing in college hoops this year. At least one major NCAA game will turn because a prominent player gets the showers after the officials review the video, and it will cost a team a game. That's part of what makes this so tough. A game could change depending on what the officiating crew sees in slow motion video, and there is no way to predict that because every crew enforces the intent part differently.

Contenders 1. Ohio State - They are still undefeated and Sullinger is a horse inside, ensuring that they can score in the half court. They are very good defensively, too. They are really vulnerable to the officiating though, because if Sullinger and Lighty aren't available, their offense could bog down against a good team.

1. Kansas - They can score on anybody. That shouldn't be a problem. Surprisingly, the problem is that this team (a Bill Self team) is just ok on defense. That scares me come March, when getting stops will be at a premium.

2. Texas - They can score, and they can protect the basket. The thing that hurts them is that Rick Barnes occasionally gets in the way of the talent on the floor. Still, they should be in every game, and if they start rolling, they have the talent to run all the way to Houston.

3. Duke - They have the scoring punch, and come March, it's guaranteed that no matter where they go, they will get the calls. Every team in the country should be afraid of that. I know I am worried that if KU sees Duke in the national semifinal that Marcus could get tossed for an incidental elbow while fighting Kyle Singler for a rebound. Ohio State and Texas should have much the same concern.

Threats 1. San Diego State - They are one of those mid majors that I think can legitimately think about going to Houston. They should stay out west for most of their games, meaning they will have an advantage if they catch an east coast team in an afternoon game.

1. BYU - Jimmer Fredette is the key here. Because he's not a big, he doesn't have to worry about fouls or elbows nearly as much as the inside guys who will be fighting for rebounds and position on every play. And every night, you have to worry about him going for 35. It's like Steph Curry, except with better supporting players.

2. Pitt - They will come out of the Big East as battle tested as anyone. They defend great. The issue, as it has been for the last few years, is can they score when they absolutely have to against a team intent on locking them up. If I knew the answer was yes, they would be one category higher. If I knew the answer would be no, they would be one category lower. Since I don't know, they are here.

Pretenders 1. Notre Dame - They are probably the fifth best team in the Big East, but right now, they are somehow a few spots up. I am guessing that will change in the coming weeks.

1. Wisconsin - always tough at home, always solid on the road, but again, can they score? I know they can defend, but their lack of punch makes me think they are ripe for an upset, especially since they can't overwhelm you with sheer talent.

2. Purdue - Just not healthy enough. Come March, they will need Robbie Hummel, and they won't have him.

Teams I have no idea what to do with, but wouldn't want to play in March 1. Tennessee - They are simply too talented to be the mess that they are. If they make the tournament as a 8-10 seed, be very wary of them. 2. K-State - see above. Also, they will defend. Even if you beat them, you will work to do it, and that could be your undoing in the next round. 3. Kentucky - If they put it all together, they can beat anybody. They aren't as talented as last year, but they have more shooters and still possess an ok inside game. And of course, Calipari has gone deep in the tournament with less talent than he has this year at UK. 4. Arizona - they gave KU fits, and they have two elite level players. That could be enough to win a couple of tournament games, maybe more, or flame out in the first round. 5. George Mason, Wichita State, St. Mary's, Temple, Xavier, Utah State - two of those teams will get seeded too low and pull upsets. I just don't know which two yet.

As always, discuss.

I have been thinking about a way to break down this year's KU team, and I figured no better way than looking at each of the players the way a scout would. I am blending scouting opinions here, taking both the approach that advance scouts would when looking at the strengths and weaknesses of players that their team was going to play, as well as looking at the players the way scouts at the next level would look at them.

I will do some pro and con for each player, as well as some notes and a projected ceiling for their skill level. I didn't include Josh Selby since he hasn't played yet. I will follow up with his report after he has a few games under his belt.

Beginning alphabetically -

Elijah Johnson

Pros - Explosive athlete with lots of useable athleticism. Good size for a pg. Improving touch.

Cons - Inconsistent handle and decision making. Too many off ball lapses defensively.

Notes - Has the useable athleticism to be an above average defender, though he has too many lapses. Game is maturing, but still makes far too many mistakes. Still very dependent on raw ability rather than basketball skill and smarts, though he has made strides. Often makes mistakes in bunches, compounding one bad play with two or three in a row as he tries to make up for mistakes.

Ceiling - He could become a solid backup at the next level, although his decision making must improve. perhaps a four year player in college, followed by time in either the D-League or Europe to sharpen his true PG skills could make him an effective NBA player.

Mario Little

Pros - Lots of useable strength, great touch out to 20. Lots of diversity, particularly inside and at medium range. Good understanding of leverage makes him an excellent rebounder.

Cons - Not as quick as you would hope for a perimeter player. Handle is shakier than you want from a 2 guard, so he is relegated to the 3.

Notes - Has a really smooth stroke, and the ability to get his shot off even in a crowd with his strength. Can guard 2-4 for stretches at a passable level. Does a good job utilizing his strength on offense, but doesn't use it as well defensively, particularly on the perimeter. Allows his hips to get too high defensively at times, which may account for his occassional lack of quickness.

Ceiling - He can probably play in Europe or the D-League. His lack of elite quickness and explosiveness probably will prevent him from having an NBA career.

Brady Morningstar

Pros - High basketball IQ. Feeds post well. Maximum effort guy. Superb conditioning. Excellent off ball defender.

Cons - No real position. Lack of any single elite skill. Suspect handle.

Notes - Excellent in ball denial defense, but not nearly as good on-ball. His conditioning allows him to play at max effort on every possession. To be effective, he must go 100mph, but this allows him to be exploited on back cuts. A much better defender against catch and shoot types than slashers. Doesn't contribute much offensively, other than an occassional three or garbage bucket. Lack of size makes him a below average rebounder for his position.

Ceiling - Probably reached his peak a year ago physically. Basketball IQ and work ethic make him a strong coaching candidate.

Marcus Morris

Pros - Offensive diversity. Excellent touch to 20. Very solid handle.

Cons - Not a great passer. Inconsistent as a rebounder. Questionable useable athleticism.

Notes - Not a flashy athlete, but offensively is very efficient. Understands and exploits mismatches against both bigger and smaller defenders. Has some sneaky power. Doesn't rebound consistently, particularly on the defensive end (questions about ball pursuit). Needs to finish with violence and authority in traffic.

Ceiling - Clear NBA talent. Probably will be a third scorer, and his offensive diversity should help him there. Needs to demonstrate an ability to guard quicker guys, because he's an NBA 3.

Markieff Morris

Pros - Offensively diverse. Very good touch out to 20. Good handle, particularly for a 4. Very good rebounder.

Cons - Foul prone. Questionable useable athleticism.

Notes - Not an explosive athlete, but very efficient. High volume rebounder. Footwork occassionally lapses on defense, exposing him to foul problems. Good timing as a shotblocker. Needs to dunk more.

Ceiling - NBA talent. Will play somewhere, probably for a very long time, likely as a 4, though he needs to demonstrate that he can guard bigger guys. Also needs to refine his pick and pop game for the next level.

Tyrel Reed

Pros - Excellent touch. Range out to 23+. Sneaky athleticism.

Cons - Below average rebounder. Merely average as a passer.

Notes - Excellent shooter, though he is slumping of late. Can get hot and stay hot for an extended period of time. Underrated defender and athlete. Has improved his dribble drive game, though he is still very awkward around the rim. Doesn't have much drive and dish game. Slightly above average defender. Good court awareness.

Ceiling - He could probably put together a solid European career as a shooter. Doesn't have the size to make it as an NBA 2.

Travis Releford

Pros - Improving touch out to 20. Useable athleticism. Scorer.

Cons - Not as good a defender as he should be.

Notes - Rebounds well for his position. Now that he has a jumpshot, he can score in every zone. Probably is a little too in love with his new toy (three point shot) at the expense of his bread and butter (slashing). Has the physical tools to be a true lock down defender, though he has demonstrated that skill only in flashes. Best finisher among the perimeter players.

Ceiling - As of right now, he still has a ways to go to become an NBA caliber player. His best tool (scoring) isn't an elite skill at the next level. He must become a shutdown defender to play at the next level.

Thomas Robinson

Pros - Top notch rebounder. Good shotblocker. Improving touch to 16.

Cons - Too dependent on athleticism. Not much of a passer.

Notes - Pursues every ball as a rebounder on either end. Does all of the "dirty work." Protects the rim defensively. Has improved his game from just garbage buckets by adding a jumpshot out to 15 or so. Offensively with the ball he is basically a shooter because his vision isn't very good at this point. Violent finisher.

Ceiling - He will play in the NBA for his rebounding if nothing else. If his offensive game continues to progress and he improves his passing, he could be a starter on a good team.

Tyshawn Taylor

Pros - Useable athleticism. Good passer. High quality defender.

Cons - Questionable decision making.

Notes - His jumpshot is neither a plus nor a minus. You can't dare him to shoot, because he will hit it, but you don't have to consider him a huge threat, either. He has blow by you quickness and great open court speed with the basketball. Can finish above the rim, and takes contact well. Has improved as a defender from good towards the elite level.

Ceiling - He will play in the NBA. Whether he is a starter or a career backup depends on his dedication to improving his decision making. Could be a Rajon Rondo type of defender at the next level.

Jeff Withey

Pros - Excellent size. Good touch for a big man.

Cons - Health issues. Useable strength.

Notes - Big guy, but doesn't bang particularly well. Has a nice touch out to mid range. Excellent timing as a shot blocker. Good passer as a big man. Health concerns as he has had foot/ankle problems as a big man.

Ceiling - Probably an NBA talent, although his durability may cause some teams pause.

I left out Selby as stated above, and don't have enough game time to fairly evaluate Woolridge or Roberts.

The NCAA will be a shell of itself within the next two decades, possibly within the next 5-7 years.

Why? The money train will run out, and move on to greener pastures.

Think about this with me for a second. What did we learn this summer? Remember those wild weeks of conference realignment talk, with the fate of nearly every major conference hinging on what happened in Austin, Tx and South Bend, In? Remember that? Well, the NCAA definitely remembers that, because they had ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROL over what was going on. Let me restate that for those who weren't paying attention.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association SAT BY and watched POWERLESSLY as the entire landscape of college athletics nearly changed OVERNIGHT. College sports nearly had a massive overhaul and the NCAA was sitting on the sidelines, because they have NO REAL POWER.

So what does this mean? Well, it means that when the age of the superconferences comes (and that age is coming, do not fool yourself), the NCAA may be left holding the bag.

Think about college football. There is currently no NCAA Division I football champion. The NCAA doesn't sanction college football, other than ruling on eligibility, etc because the institutions are NCAA member schools. But think about it - why do those schools need the NCAA? Only for their other sports. Football could function entirely outside the NCAA umbrella, save for the fact that as NCAA member institutions, the players must be cleared by the NCAA to be eligible. Who holds the power in college football? The BCS.

There is no question that the BCS holds all the cards in college football. If you aren't in the BCS (like TCU and Boise State) you can win all the games you want, and still wonder if you will ever get a shot at playing for a national title, and the NCAA can't step in and change that.

College sports is big business. It has been since the Big East was formed to take advantage of college hoops in the New York/Boston/Philadelphia/D.C. area in the early 80's. Now the Big Ten has a network, the Pac-10 is starting one, the SEC has one in the works, and Texas is angling for their OWN TV network, just to broadcast Longhorn sports. The money is driving this train, and the NCAA is on the outside looking in.

So what happens once the age of superconferences dawns? Well, there will only be 96 teams (maximum) that make the cut. Six superconferences with 16 teams each. It's hard to predict how that will shake down, but in the end, only 96 schools will matter in Division 1. The rest might as well just drop to D-2, because the money gulf will only widen from here.

Once those 96 schools are sorted out, the BCS can open up shop to replace the NCAA. Their own eligibility system. Their own rankings. Their own championships in every other sport. Think about it. If the Superconferences are really calling all the shots, what could the NCAA do if all the major programs (Michigan, Ohio State, Texas, USC, Florida, etc.) decided they were going to break away and start their own series of championships? Really, who would watch the leftover D-1 programs (teams from the Sun Belt, Conference USA, and the dregs of the WAC and Mountain West) battle it out. Or who would watch an NCAA basketball field without Indiana, Kansas, UCLA, Duke, North Carolina, Kentucky, or any of the other traditional powers?

Remember, the NCAA, because it does not control basketball, makes the vast majority of it's profits from the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament. If that cash cow suddenly wasn't producing any milk, the NCAA would have nothing. And if the power schools left, leaving only the Pepperdine's and Butler's and Gonzaga's of the world, would those schools still get potential NBA prospects when the BCS basketball tournament would feature almost all of the top talent?

The Superconferences are coming, and the end of the NCAA could be not too far behind on the horizon.