Standing by the Magic Eight

Sports Illustrated senior writer Grant Wahl answers your college basketball questions every Wednesday. Click here to send him a question.

Can't mess around this week, folks: Got a plane to catch to Bluegrass Country, which brings us to reader Erik Alexander of Champaign, Ill., who asks if the rise of Louisville and Kentucky has me worried about my Magic Eight picks from January. (You may recall that for three years running we've guaranteed the national champ will emerge from our list of eight candidates -- and gotten it right every time.)

Since this is college hoops' Year of Parity (much as the Chinese call it the Year of the Sheep/Dog/Pig/etc.), then it's fair to say I'm scared to death. After all, Indiana? Mississippi State? Creighton? And no Louisville or (most worrisome) Kentucky? Yikes. The Wildcats are playing better than anyone in the country these days, and if they can continue rampaging through the SEC (including at least a split of their upcoming road games at Georgia and Florida) I believe they should enter the tournament as the favorite, just ahead of Arizona.

This being the hard-headed 'Bag, though, we're not about to backtrack. And Arizona, Kansas, Duke and Florida all have excellent chances in this most unpredictable of seasons.

Moving forward, Jeff Waterstredt of Royal Oak, Mich., wonders if the internecine strife in the Big Ten reveals a conference mired in mediocrity or one that will actually prove to be underrated come March. As Jeff points out, Big Ten clubs do have some good nonconference wins (Michigan State over Kentucky, Indiana over Maryland, Illinois over Missouri, to name three). My take is that the Big Ten is better than people think. I've run into national observers who think that not a single Big Ten team should be included among the NCAA tournament's top 16 seeds. Nonsense. Michigan State is rounding into form after a disastrous stretch had put the Spartans in danger of missing the tournament, and my new favorite team is Wisconsin. If you're looking for potential postseason heroes, Badgers guard Kirk Penney might be your guy. After seeing him excel in the World Basketball Championship last summer for New Zealand and in previous NCAA tourneys, I'm convinced he's one of the nation's top crunch-time players.

Kyle Jen of Lansing, Mich., asks why so many coaches are ignoring the opportunity for "two-for-ones" when their teams get the ball with, say, 60 seconds left in the half. Why aren't they instructing their teams to shoot the ball before the game clock hits 0:35 (and make another possession possible)? Good point, Kyle. A sign of a well-coached team is one that takes advantage of the two-for-one chance, with or without having to be told by the man on the sideline. From watching practices around the country over the years, I can tell you that Missouri's Quin Snyder is one coach who makes a point of it to his players.

Richard Travassos of Spokane, Wash., wants to know if Gonzaga's Mark Few will be pursued by other programs at the end of the season, and I'd say that it's a likely prospect. That said, Few is a completely different cat than your typical coach-trying-to-move-up-the-ladder. He turned down the chance for a major salary increase when he said no to Washington last year, and just because someone dangles big $$$ in his face doesn't mean he'll leave Spokane. A couple of thoughts: 1) When he turned down Washington, a source close to Few told me that the coach would only leave for "a top-10 kind of job." 2) UCLA is the most likely school to make a run at him this year, though I wouldn't say he's the leading candidate for the job. 3) If I had to lay money down, I'd say Few will stay at Gonzaga.

Jon Cilurzo of Nashville, Tenn., thanked the 'Bag for our spotlight on Dayton two weeks ago but balked at the "backhanded compliments" from a rival assistant coach whose team had played Dayton earlier in the year. If I recall correctly, Jon, his props weren't entirely backhanded. All he said was that he expected Xavier to win both games against the Flyers this month, which might very well happen if the Musketeers can pull it off in Dayton this weekend. I did have the chance to watch Dayton put Saint Joseph's down for the count last week and came away impressed with UD's balance, defense and (not least) crowd support. One question: If I'm in agreement with you on this topic, can we call them the Dayton Accords?

Kenny Cole of Cleveland has the random question of the week: "Do you think that CBS, ESPN and others add sneaker-squeaking noise to their broadcasts? My friends and I are pretty convinced that this is the case." Could be, Kenny, could be. After all, I guarantee you that SportsCenter highlights are "enhanced" with sounds of the ball going through the net or being dunked. Anyone out there who can help us out with this?

The Princeton offense

After reading my recent Sports Illustrated story on the spread of the Princeton offense, Chuck from Durango, Colo., checks in to ask if I can give fans a description of the scheme that goes beyond "backcuts" but doesn't devolve into an X's and O's treatise. I'll give it a shot, Chuck. The Princeton offense has five different sets, each of which is designed to serve as a sort of pressure-release against defenses and as a counter to the previously run set. If you read the SI story, you know that Jim Burson (the coach at Division III Muskingum College in Ohio) has codified the different sets using fishing terms. (This is the source of much mirth to the Princeton inner-circle guys, but that's another story.)

In Burson's rendition of the scheme (which Northwestern coach Bill Carmody told me was "pretty accurate"), the post player is located in one of four spots: Hook (high), Line (low), Sinker (side) and Bobber (top of the key). The post's location determines which set you're in. Whenever the offense is started the players don't know what will happen, since it's based on a series of reads (much in the way that an NFL quarterback reads defenses). The basic read is simple: Am I being pressured by my defender (if so, then cut backdoor), or is he giving me space (so I can knock at the front door)? The amount of improvisation allowed depends on the coach. For example, Gary Walters (the Princeton AD and a former Tigers player) argues that the New Jersey Nets (and Butch van Breda Kolff's Bill Bradley-led Princeton teams) are more improvisational than Pete Carril's teams were.

The most popular (and one of the most basic) Princeton sets is the Chin series, which even Florida is running these days. The basic move in Chin is a shuffle-cut in which a perimeter-player rubs off the high post and cuts backdoor. Look for it whenever the Gators have decided the break won't work and then back the ball out. (It's amazing to me how often this play connects; one of the Kansas assistants told me Florida killed the Jayhawks with Chin when they played in New York at the start of the season.)

Hope that helps a little. I don't pretend to know every in and out of the scheme, but I've been lucky that several coaches have tried to clue me in on a few things.

Thomas Reagan of Arlington, Texas, isn't a fan of the Princeton style at all, writing, "If I want to see a team run patterns for layups, my fellow fortysomething friends and I can set up a video camera. There are already too many coaches afraid to let their team run a scheme where they don't call every play." Certainly the system isn't for everyone, Thomas, but I disagree with you on two counts: 1) The offense is in fact compatible with athleticism, as the Nets have shown, and 2) When the offense is run well, the coach isn't calling the plays at all. On the contrary, the players have more freedom on the court than they do in many other offenses, and the reads they make are up to them.

Station break: Four random things