Like most people, I love to hear stories of people who bucked the system and succeeded. Seeing as that story is the plot of half the movies coming out of Hollywood, one would think Brandon Jennings would have a biopic coming out soon. All he needs is Michael Lewis to write about him. Some NBA writers have been turning themselves inside out to figure out how nine teams passed on the greatest NBA player ever (through eight games). Others are claiming that they knew Jennings was a special talent and they believed that some teams would regret not taking him. [I found this article on the Painted Area to be particularly annoying. I am not saying that NBA front offices aren’t lazy, but they seem to imply that they knew Jennings was great before he was drafted. And, yes, they pegged him as their third best prospect, but let's face it, he's way better than Ricky Rubio. No wonder some people don’t like the blogosphere – it’s full of people who are just soooo smart.] I think the bigger story may be that basketball players who don’t want to submit to the one-and-done life of recent college stars may have another option. Brandon Jennings bucked the college basketball feeder system and his great play may make a seismic difference in the hoops world.

Let’s be honest: Jennings’ play has surprised everyone. People can claim that they knew he was going to be quite good (even I had him going fourth in an early mock draft because I am just sooooo smart), but he has been ridiculous. His 55-point game against the defense-less Golden State Warriors was the exclamation point, but he has only been held to single-digits once and is averaging 25.3 ppg, 4.4 rpg, and 5.5 apg. Were the Bucks geniuses for drafting him? Well, if you swing for the fences every time, you are bound to hit a homer eventually. Last year, the Bucks took Joe Alexander who won’t even last into a third season with the team. Two years ago, under different management, they took Yi Jianlian, who did more for Wong’s Wok (fast food restaurant in Milwaukee that offers gravy with Chinese food) than for the Bucks. The Bucks have had pretty good luck with their second round draft picks, including the now departed Ramon Sessions, the recently returned Ersan Ilyasova, and the defensively impressive Luc Richard Mbah a Moute, but I tend to think they lucked into Jennings rather than being much, much smarter than everyone else (unlike me and my friends in the blogosphere).

Jennings fast start has relied upon a bit of luck as well. Had Michael Redd not been injured in the second game of the season, Jennings never would have been able to rack up shot after shot. It may be that Jennings would have shown that he could hit long-range jumpers eventually, but it was a lot easier starting next to Charlie “Clanker” Bell than it was next to Redd (who is the scourge of the Real GM squad for his ball hogging ways). As with most things in sports, luck is an underrated aspect.

And it may have been somewhat lucky for all parties involved that Jennings spent last year in Italy rather than on the sunny campus of the University of Arizona . Unlike in college basketball where Jennings likely would have been a star, the Italian team made him earn his playing time. He wasn’t coddled to. And he didn’t play that much (driving down his draft status). Jennings may have learned a thing or two about what it means to be a professional. Living in a different country comes with its share of adversity and that may have been a good thing for Jennings as well. Of course, it may be that he’s just a really good basketball player and he would have prospered wherever he went.

Will Jennings’ instant success lead to more recruits heading to Europe to circumvent the one-and-done rule? I doubt it because most people wouldn’t want to go to the trouble. While Jennings’ journey may have toughened him somewhat, I think he still would have gone to Arizona if he could have gotten the standardized test scores to get in. There is also the case of Jeremy Tyler, who is playing in Israel and according to a New York Times story having a miserable time. Playing abroad won’t be for everyone – and who knows how many teams will continue to offer professional contracts to unproven high school talent? – but it may be a more common way for good players to get better while not having to attend Algebra I.

Even though many players wouldn’t consider going to Europe, maybe they should. As I’ve written before, they will have access to coaching and practicing without restriction, won’t have to bother with coursework (although I am dubious how much the top players study in the first place, right, Jim Harrick?), and they will be making money rather than being penalized for getting free shoes from some hanger-on. While I don’t think the NBA’s one-and-done rule is unconstitutional, I think more young basketball players may look at Brandon Jennings’ example and head across the pond. If someone told me they’d pay me to blog in Europe rather than writing in the US for free, I’d be gone faster than you could say arrivederci.

It’s the return of the Call! I wasn’t sure I wanted to resurrect this blog since I am doing quite a bit of writing for CollegeFantasyHoopsInsider.com (which you should check out – we have a lot of useful stuff including stats and player updates), but I wanted an outlet to write about specific games and I didn’t think kind of writing would really fit in with CFHI, so here I am.

I figured I’d try out ESPN 360 (sports via the computer, basically) which is a new thing on my Cox subscription. The pros are that it affords me the possibility of watching college basketball in every waking moment of my life (and maybe while I am asleep too). I could watch live games and replays of other games, so if there is a game I really want to see, I won’t miss it. I like basketball, but not quite that much, so I decided to focus on a particular game: Iowa State vs. Idaho State – mostly to get a look at Craig Brackins.

There are some cons to ESPN 360. I do watch a lot of TV shows and movies on the computer and I generally like it. I can watch with the sound up because I use headphones and I think that adds to the viewing. For sports, however, having the sound up – as I discovered – is not such a great thing. Last year I watched all of my games on mute and that is something I will start doing again. I had the displeasure of listening to the Iowa State announcers, I think. I wasn’t sure because it was like they hadn’t done much preparation on either team. They sold the Cyclones to a greater degree, so I figured they were probably from Ames. One other problem I had was that I couldn’t fast forward quite as easily. I started the game late, so the commercials were mostly zapped out.

It was easy to sell Iowa State in this case because they crushed the Bengals. That would probably the usual case when a Big Sky team visits a Big 12 team. I did get a good look at Brackins and it was easy to see why he is such a heralded college player. He has a diverse offensive game with a variety of low post moves, a soft medium range jumper that often comes on a turnaround, and some hops that allow him to board and block (he had one sweet swat). However, I think there is a pretty good reason that he might be an in demand NBA quality: while the Iowa State roster lists him at 6-foot-10, he is probably closer to 6-7 or 6-8. NBA personnel people care about that kind of thing. He’ll need to improve his ballhandling if he is going to be a small forward in the NBA because I am not sure he is good enough to make it as an undersized power forward.

The Cyclones had a few other interesting prospects. LeRon Dendy looks like he’ll be a good complement to Brackins in the frontcourt. While Brackins has a lot of intriguing skills, Dendy is a jumping jack who did most of his damage on offensive rebounds and put ins that the Idaho State frontline couldn’t stop. He didn’t start in the Cyclones’ first game, but I’d imagine he’ll be in the starting lineup before long. One thing I did learn from the broadcast was that Dendy’s two-year junior college career has been plagued by injuries, so the 6-foot-9, 230-pounder may be in the trainer’s room sooner or later.

Iowa State rounded out their frontcourt with Marquis GIlstrap, the preseason Big 12 newcomer of the year. Even though he made a couple of offensive fouls and turnovers in the first minutes of the game, it wasn’t hard to see Gilstrap’s potential. The 6-foot-7 small forward has a lot of athleticism and some nice skills. I could see him having some huge games if the opponents decide to focus their attention on Brackins.

As for the Bengals, as noted above their frontcourt got manhandled by the Cyclone bigs (something that may happen with increasing regularity). Their backcourt, however, has potential. Amorrow Morgan is an all-Big Sky performer who had to man the point guard position last year. He looked like a very nice shooter and finished the game with 15 points on 6-for-11 from the floor. Morgan is able to move to the off guard this season because Idaho State has brought in Broderick Gilchrist, who looked like the quickest guard on the floor. He was able to penetrate through the Cyclone perimeter defense and scored 21 points that included 11 trips to the free throw line (nine makes). Blue Ribbon picked the Bengals for fourth in the Big Sky, but if they get some balance from their bigs, they could be an in-conference factor.

At long last, the fantasy college hoops content site - Fantasy College Hoops Insider - is ready for public consumption. The rest of my preseason previews will appear there along with the thoughts of my fellow writers, Andy Bottoms and Jeff Borzello. Please stop over and let me know what you think - and if you have any suggestions for content, I am all ears.

I may still write over here once and awhile, so keep the link in the back of your mind.

A look over my top ten players from the Pac 10 reveals that the conference lacks star power. A quick look at Andy Katz’s list of 50 possible Wooden Award has six Pac 10 players and Katz doesn’t place any in his top 15. That’s hardly surprising, but the conference offers a nice amount of depth and deeper fantasy leagues could find useful players and possibly diamonds in the rough from players not mentioned in my previous article. So, to keep the ball rolling, here are some names to consider when examining the western most conference.

Arizona Wildcats
Even if Nic Wise had chosen to stay in the draft and was on his way to play in Europe or Asia, the Wildcats would have a competitive team. F Solomon Hill seems the best bet to break out and his profile makes him sound a bit like one of his namesakes, Grant Hill. C Kyryl Natazhko is the highest rated prospect by Scouts, Inc. but post players generally take the longest to adapt to the next level. F Derrick Williams (who along with G Lamont “Momo” Jones left USC when Tim Floyd departed) is the heir apparent to Jordan Hill. Another freshman, F Kevin Parrom, came along with coach Sean Miller from Xavier and should team well with Wise on the fastbreak. Of the returnees, F Jamelle Horne (6.8 ppg, 5.1 rpg)  is the most likely to be productive, although he was better known during his sophomore season for committing ludicrous fouls at the end of games.

Arizona State Sun Devils
Like their cross-state rival, the Sun Devils will have opportunities for players to step up. They have plenty of perimeter power in F Rihards Kuksiks (2.7 3pg) and G Ty Abbott (1.4 3pg), but neither of them have shown the ability to create their own shot (mainly because they didn’t have to). Freshman G Demetrius Walker comes with a reputation of playing very hard, but he will need to share time with Abbott at the two. The Sun Devils have some size returning as well in former-Duke Blue Devil C Eric Boateng, who hasn’t earned much playing time in his two years in the desert, and freshman C Ruslan Pateev, who is
7-0, 240 lbs.

California Golden Bears
In addition to their fine backcourt, the Golden Bears bring back nearly every essential piece from the NCAA tournament team of 2008-09. F Theo Robertson was the team’s third double-digit scorer and did most of his damage from beyond the three-point line. The senior hit 2.3 3pg and provided 13.1 ppg on 48.8% from the floor and 48.7% from long range. F Jamal Boykin led the team in rebounding at 6.4 rpg, The fifth year senior also added 9.6 ppg. He may get some help in 7-3 sophomore C Max Zhang who provided 17.3 rpg for the Chinese team at the World University Games. Coach Mike Montgomery also brought in a 6-8, 270 lb bruiser from junior college named F Markhuri Sanders-Frison who may bear watching.

Oregon Ducks
After consistent success, the quack went out of the Ducks last year and they represented the basement of the Pac 10. Perhaps symbolizing that disappointment was sophomore C Michael Dunigan who opened the season strongly, but got hurt and couldn’t stay out of foul trouble after the first two weeks. He averaged 15 ppg and 8.3 rpg in the team’s first five games, but finished with averages of 8.4 ppg and 4.6 rpg. Senior F Joevan Catron led the team in rebounding (6.6 rpg) and assists (2.3 apg). Among the incoming recruits, F Jamil Wilson is a highly touted recruit from Racine, WI. He could start at small forward and could be backed up by F E.J. Singler, Kyle’s younger brother. Keep an eye on sophomore F/C Josh Crittle, who at 6-8, 260 lbs, at least looks the part of a player.

Oregon State Beavers
For the first time in ages, the Beavers outdid their rivals and moved up. After going winless in the Pac 10 in 2007-08, the Beavers won eight conference games and took home the CBI tournament crown. Oregon State returns most of its team as well. I think F/C Roeland Shaftenaar is the most intriguing player and not just for name value. He has center eligibility, which is always at a premium in fantasy college hoops and provided 10.5 ppg, 4.0 rpg, and 3.3 apg. G Calvin Haynes led the team in scoring at 13.0 ppg and 1.6 3pg. He’ll be pushed by freshman G Roberto Nelson who has some offensive skills. Swingman Seth Tarver led the team in rebounding at 5.4 rpg and chipped in 8.0 ppg while F Daniel Deane (5.3 ppg, 4.1 rpg) could be someone to remember

Stanford Cardinal
No one knew exactly what to expect from first year coach Johnny Dawkins, but the long time Duke assistant acquitted himself well in the Pac 10. Of course, he had a veteran roster to rely upon and the seniors have all left the building. The Cardinal should continue to have a solid returning duo with Fields and F Josh Owens, the 6-8 native of Atlanta who provided 6.9 ppg on 56.1% from the floor and 3.6 rpg in 20.7 mpg. Sophmore G Jeremy Green was on the All-Pac 10 freshman team and converted 45.6% of his threes for 1.3 3pg. The recruiting haul includes 6-2 PG Gabriel Harris, who should start immediately. In the low post, 6-9 F Andrew Zimmerman, from Oostburg, WI via Foothill junior college, could provide some help. He previously played at Santa Clara.

UCLA Bruins
The Bruins have been devastated by players leaving early for the draft. Nevertheless, coach Ben Howland continues to restock the shelves with impressive recruiting classes. While there might not be a Kevin Love or Jrue Holiday type prospect in the young’uns for UCLA, someone will likely step to the front. F Nikola Dragovic is the team’s top returning scorer (9.4) and rebounder (4.3). He also made 1.6 3pg. C J’Mison Morgan was heavily hyped prior to last year after he reneged on a commitment to LSU. F Drew Gordon was also heavily hyped and looked promising this summer before injuring his knee. Among the newcomers, F Tyler Honeycutt or F Mike Moser could be the team’s go-to player. Honeycutt has skill and athleticism and Moser is a tough defensive player.

USC Trojans
Like Howland, new USC coach Kevin O’Neill prefers a slow down defensive game. That might lead to more wins for the Trojans, but it also results in fewer possessions and less fantasy relevance for his players. O’Neill should care about fantasy (although I am sure he would probably tell me where to stick it). After the mass exodus of Trojans, the team will have a short bench which could recoup some fantasy value. G Dwight Lewis led the team in scoring at 14.4 ppg and converted 1.6 3pg. 6-8 F Leonard Washington showed some skills (6.1 ppg, 4.2 rpg) in his freshman year and will lead the frontcourt. He missed four games with an ankle injury and was slowed for the remainder of the season. Former-Tar Heel F Alex Stepheson is also now eligible and could help with low post defense.

Washington Huskies
The Huskies had three players in my top ten, but have plenty of depth too. British F Matthew Bryan-Amaning had a double-double on Dec. 14 against Portland State, but was mainly a bench player. The 6-9, 236 lb forward could inherit Jon Brockman’s spot and might see 30+ mpg if he can stay out of foul trouble. If Abdul Gaddy has troubles adapting to college basketball (he is rather slight), G Venoy Overton could get more of an opportunity. The 5-11 guard has played 20.5 mpg in his first two seasons and provided 3.2 apg as a freshman. The Huskies also have brought in some power players in 6-7 freshman F Clarence Trent and 6-9 juco transfer F Charles Garcia, Jr. Trent has offensive skills and Garcia can man the post.

Washington State Cougars
With the Bennett shackles off the offense, the team could be more fantasy relevant. Of course, it may be that new coach Ken Bone doesn’t want to dismantle what Tony Bennett built and will continue to rely on the team’s defensive identity. The Cougars have returning talent. F DeAngelo Casto played played on the U.S.’s U19 team but hurt his knee. He is expected to be ready for the season. The 6-9 sophomore set a Cougar freshman record with 39 blocks last year. When I watched Washington State last year, I liked F Nikola Koprivica. He reminded me of Toni Kukoc and is the team’s only senior. Freshman F Brock Motum is a 6-9 Aussie. He did strain his calf this summer, but like Costa should be ready to roll in November when the season tips off.

My apologies for not updating the blog in awhile. Two pieces of business have kept me without the proper amount of time to tip off some conference previews. First off, I opened the sign up for the Big Chief Challenge, this is my own concoction of a fantasy basketball league that I wrote about last month. Feel free to pop over to the site, look around, and join us if you feel like it (it’s free). Secondly, at some point in the next couple of months, I will be managing a fantasy college basketball content site. This preview, in an updated form, will probably land there. More details as they come available.

As for the Pac 10, on paper, it looks to be a down year. In my top ten run down last month, there was a nary player from west of the Rockies. Over the last two years, many stars have departed early (see Bruins, UCLA) and some of just run out of eligibility (like rugged Jon Brockman). If you view a conference by its signature team, then the suddenly lackluster Bruins make the conference seem weak. However, things on paper have a way of turning themselves around on the court. Someone will likely step up in southern California (USC has a lot of question marks, too) and more frontcourt players will do their requisite damage around the basket. In any case, here is my best guess at the top ten fantasy prospects for the Pac 10.

1. G Nic Wise, Arizona Wildcats
The wise return of Wise (if you aren’t good enough play in the NBA, there is nothing wrong with spending a senior season in the desert, despite what I wrote a couple of months ago brings some star power to Arizona. They have an excellent incoming recruiting class (F Solomon Hill, C Kyryl Natyzahko, and two former USC-signees Derrick Williams and Momo Jones), but an experienced hand is definitely need to mold these youngsters. While new coach Sean Miller’s style at Xavier seemed egalitarian, he recruited excellently and always had plenty of depth. If all of the Wildcat freshmen play as expected, Arizona should have nice depth as well, but Wise will be the unquestioned star of the team. The point guard may be hard pressed to equal last year’s stats (15.7 ppg, on 45.2% from the floor, 4.6 apg, 1.5 spg, 1.8 3pg, 36.4 mpg), but he should have plenty of opportunities.

2. G Jerome Randle, California Golden Bears
Randle is the league’s leading returning scorer (18.0 ppg) and assist maker (5.0 apg) and I have bounced back and forth between Randle and Wise as the league’s top player. Randle will score more than Wise, but I think the burden of actually winning (and sharing with Christopher) could affect his fantasy value a bit. The 5-10 Chicago native had a remarkable shooting season as a junior. He made 50.1% of his shots, 86.3% of his free throws, and 46.3% of his threes. Will he be able to shoot that well again? I have my doubts. His assists add value, but his lack of sticky fingers (just 0.7 spg in 35.3 mpg) may cause problems in some fantasy leagues.

3. G Isaiah Thomas, Washington Huskies
It will be interesting to see which Is(a)iah Thomas garners more media attention by season’s end. The new Florida International coach is doing a nice job of escaping his NBA shadow, but my guess is that the pint-sized Husky sophomore will be the one getting the ink. The 5-8 shooting guard led Washington, the Pac 10 regular season champion, in scoring at 15.5 in his first year and wasn’t shy about taking shots away from the upper classmen. He only made 41.8% of his shots and 29.1% of threes, so a marked improvement in those numbers will lead to an improved season. Thomas should start next to 6-3 freshman Abdul Gaddy, so his size will be less of a factor against Husky opponents.

4. G Patrick Christopher, California Golden Bears
Between fellow seniors Randle and Christopher, the Golden Bears have not only the best backcourt in the Pac 10, but one of the best in the nation. It will be up to the frontcourt (including Jamal Boykin) to keep pace and help Cal to the top of the Pac 10 standings. As a junior, Christopher actually took a slight step back as Randle took a giant leap forward. The 6-5 shooting guard saw his scoring average fall from his fine sophomore season from 15.2 ppg to 14.5 ppg. He made more threes (35.8%) and more free throws (83.0%), but saw his field goal percentage fall to 44.1% (from 45.6%). Christopher scored in the 20’s eight times, including each of the first four conference games in early January. As opposing defenses concentrate on Randle, Christopher will need to provide offensive balance.

5. G Klay Thompson, Washington State Cougars
For the duration of the Bennett era in Pullman, the Cougars played the slowest brand of basketball possible. While I am not going to say that it was bad basketball necessarily or even hard to watch, it drastically hurt the fantasy values of players who could have been pretty decent on an up tempo team. Bennett has moved on to Virginia and former Portland coach Ken Bone is in his place. While the Cougars may not turn into VMI overnight, they should play a speedier brand of ball. That will help sophomore G Klay Thompson who had a respectable freshman season (12.5 ppg, 4.2 rpg, 2.1 3pg). Mychal’s son played big minutes (33.1 mpg) in his first year and scored in the 20’s three times (all against Pac 10 competition). He should be the focus of the Cougar offense and could be among the conference’s leading scorers.

6. F Quincy Pondexter, Washington Huskies
I am proud to state that for the first time in my college basketball writing history, I have not added an “I” to the middle of Pondexter’s name. For whatever reason, I apparently got the 6-6 Husky forward confused with a member of the cast of Revenge of the Nerds. It’s kind of hard to believe that Pondexter was part of the same recruiting class as Spencer Hawes. The Fresno, CA native has survived to his senior year and is coming off a junior season in which he set career highs in scoring (12.1 ppg), shooting (51.1%), and rebounding (5.9 rpg). Without rebound magnet Brockman around, Pondexter is a good bet to collect more boards and could get more scoring opportunities as well.

7. F Landry Fields, Stanford Cardinal
In his first year as a starter, the 6-7 Fields showed that he could play competently (averages of 12.6 ppg on 49.8% shooting, 6.6 rpg, 0.9 3pg) and sometimes excellently. Fields had his best game in the last Pac 10 conference tournament. In a losing effort against Washington, he provided 16 points and 15 rebounds for his fifth double-double of the year. In 2009-2010, the senior will need to lead a young squad. He did score in the 20’s three times last year, but he will likely attract more defensive attention this year. His field goal percentage will likely decrease, but his points could average out to about 15 per game.

8. G TaJuan Porter, Oregon Ducks
For non-fantasy purposes, Porter is my least favorite type of player: a short shooting guard who bombs away and has little interest in passing. My impressions aside, Porter has been a consistent long range threat over his first three years with the Ducks and there’s little reason to think he’ll provide something different in his senior season. The 5-6 shooting guard has averaged between 13.9 and 15.4 ppg over his career and has made no less than 2.6 3pg. Last year, he provided his career high in scoring and 2.8 3pg. He will not help your team’s shooting percentage (39.3% from the floor), but he did make 87.2% of his free throws and provided a career high 1.0 spg.

9. G Abdul Gaddy*, Washington Huskies
Generally, I take a conservative approach to freshmen. Gaddy is the only one to make my Pac 10 top ten and I think number nine is probably the right place for him. The 6-3 guard from Tacoma, WA should start next to Thomas, but he will have some competition in Venoy Overton to take Justin Dentmon’s spot. Gaddy will likely grow into the starter’s role, but he could lead the conference in assists by the end of season. The Huskies have plenty of offensive options, so Gaddy might not be among the lead scorer’s. Husky coach Lorenzo Romar has shown no fear in playing freshmen big minutes. If the scouting reports are true about Gaddy being a pure point guard, he will get plenty of court time.

10. G Derek Glasser, Arizona State Sun Devils
There were a number of options for this tenth slot, but rather than going with one of the mediocre-to-possibly-decent big men, I decided to complete the point guard trend and go with the Sun Devils field marshal. The 6-1 senior has now had three years to run coach Herb Sendek’s Princeton-style offense and he made the most of his starting role last year. He set career highs in minutes (33.0 mpg), points (8.8 ppg), assists (4.8 apg), threes (1.3 3pg) and three-point percentage (41.3%) while chipping into an NCAA tournament team. Speaking of the Big Dance, Glasser saved his best game for the Sun Devils’ win over Temple with 22 points and four threes. While he might not blow up to become a superstar, Glasser should be a consistent contributor of ten points and five assists per game.

Prior to the NCAA tournament, I was interviewed by my Sports Buff/World Fantasy Games/Rapid Draft buddy Matt Schauf about fantasy college hoops. At that time, I said it was probably my favorite fantasy sport, but that was somewhat due to the fact that I have logged the most time at it in the past few years. Now that I’ve had more time to think about it, I think I agree with myself of a few months ago, but for slightly different reasons. I think fantasy college basketball compares favorably to football, baseball and basketball with some bonuses. With all due respect to other niche fantasy sports (like hockey, college football, NASCAR, and golf) that I don’t play, I’d like to compare fantasy college basketball, my sport, to the big three.

As anyone who knows anything about fantasy sports knows, fantasy football is king. It generates the most writing, the most playing, and is most integrated with the NFL. No other sport that I can think of has embraced fantasy like the NFL and the networks commonly air “fantasy leaders” (even though they generally put passer completion percentage as one of the stats and I’ve yet to see a fantasy league with that stat.) I enjoy fantasy football for what it is, and that  is 75 percent luck. Trying to predict who will score touchdowns in any particular week is like trying to figure out who is going to hit a homer in particular game. Well, it’s not quite that bad, but fantasy football is more akin to gambling than any other fantasy sport. Yes, there are degrees of luck in every other game, but not as much as football. I think that’s one of the reasons that it is so popular. Anyone can win and because the player pool isn’t particularly deep, you don’t have to spend hours tending your garden. Fantasy college basketball’s head-to-head style of play is similar to fantasy football, but there isn’t a similar reliance on one stat so things are evened out. I should probably note that I have never won a fantasy football league (although last year I had a team that scored 200 more points than any opponent in the regular season, then pooped out in the fantasy championship. A bad beat, just like poker, another form of gambling).

Fantasy baseball is in many ways the opposite of fantasy football. Fantasy baseball teams require daily maintenance, the season is long, and the player pools (especially those in individual leagues – AL- and NL-only) are deep. Because of these reasons I think fantasy baseball fans are most likely to enjoy fantasy college basketball. There is also much more strategy to fantasy baseball than football because there are generally eight or ten statistical categories in which each player can contribute to half and most leagues aren’t head-to-head where luck is a prevailing factor. If you want to win, you’re going to have battle throughout the season. There are also many ways to form your team into a winner. I prefer big bats, middle relief, and a small starting pitching crew. Baseball is also a number lover’s dream sport because almost everything can be quantified. Fantasy baseball was the first fantasy game I played and in many ways it is the best. I have a few problems with it: a couple of minor quibbles and one major personal problem. A minor problem is that you have to balance hitting and pitching.  I also don’t like some of the statistics used, especially steals, saves, and wins. The first two stats because they are dominated by specialists who often don’t help in other categories; and wins because it is a silly statistic that has little to do with how a pitcher actually pitched. My major problem with fantasy baseball is that I don’t like to watch baseball. It’s too slow and there is way too much time for the announcers to talk mindlessly.

Part of the problem with discussing fantasy college and pro basketball is that people feel like they have to take sides. I used to prefer the NBA because I watched 75 Milwaukee Bucks games a year (and after that punishment, I still came back for more). These days I watch much more college basketball and prefer it somewhat because teams employ varied styles, which is certainly a difference from the NBA (plus, the games are shorter). It’s hard to go wrong with NBA players, however, and I like both sports very much. I even like their fantasy games almost equally. Fantasy basketball combines some of the best parts of football (somewhat relaxed schedule) and baseball (especially non head-to-head leagues). Fantasy basketball one ups baseball in that each player is rated on the same eight or nine categories, so the best players can contribute mightily in some areas and won’t hurt you in others. No single player will dominate every category. This leads to more interesting trades and a wide variety of strategies.

Finally, we have fantasy college basketball. It suffers because it is the most loosely defined, but that can also be an advantage. If you don’t like the settings of one league, you can hop to another one that is more your style – or create your own. Like fantasy football, fantasy college basketball uses head-to-head games which can lead to wackiness (an 18-seed won the Big Chief Challenge last year). Like fantasy baseball, the player pool is generally very deep, especially if you are one of those nuts like me who is in a league or two that uses the entire Division 1 (340+ teams). Like fantasy basketball, each player is rated by the same set of categories. No player will dominate rebounds and assists. Even in points leagues like fantasycollegehoops.com and the James River Gang, there are many strategies to follow to win (although being lucky doesn’t hurt here either). In all of its forms, fantasy college basketball is a deep, vibrant, and - most of all - fun game to play.

The yearly calendar for the fantasy enthusiast offers very few let ups. While there are football drafts to prepare for, baseball All-Star break is one of the occurrences in which very little is going on. So, I figured it would be as good a time as any to introduce (or go over again) the various resources available for playing fantasy college basketball. For the past three years, I have played in three and I know of a few others. I also found one last weekend on Facebook, but if you know of others, please let me know and I’ll add them to the list.

Fantasy College Hoops – I would be remiss if I didn’t start with this blog’s benefactor: Rick Young and his fantastic site. The site has been going for ten years and has a variety of leagues (unfortunately, no remaining openings for next year). This is the closest thing to actually coaching a team that I’ve seen. The leagues use the entire Division 1 player pool and the head-to-head scoring is based on fantasy points which is a formula of the sum of point, rebounds, offensive rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, and threes. Missed shots, free throws, and turnovers each deduct a point. The best players average about 30 fantasy points per game and good players provide 20. This is a full keeper league with limited player movement (although they have become somewhat more liberal in the past few seasons), so you keep your players from year to year. During the season, there are 11 weeks in which you play three teams per week to add up to a 33-game schedule. While the game is solid, it is the little things that Rick does that take the site over the top. He has detailed records and team histories that give the league’s an extra bite. There is also a forum for trash talkers and I plan to bring the deluxe garbage this year.

Big Chief Challenge – This league is the closest to my heart because I created it three years ago. It has slowly been gaining steam ever since. The first year we had ten people, two years ago 16, and this past year we had 22 players in the Tier 1 challenge and another 16 in the Master’s Edition. The Big Chief Challenge is much simpler than Fantasy College Hoops and I intended it as a gateway league into more in depth leagues. We used the players from the Tier 1 conference and play weekly head-to-head games against one opponent (which I prefer). The Masters edition used the top seven mid-major or Tier 2 conferences. This year, it will involve the WAC, MWC, Valley, Horizon, Conference USA, Colonial, and A10 (the Colonial and Horizon replace the MAC and WCC). Points, rebounds, and assists are scored separately and if a team sweeps all three, they get an extra win. Like the FCH, each team has to start a freshman. Asa Tysseling who hosts the forum has been working on various web applications to make scoring and player acquisition easier. This year, we’ll also host a money league in addition to our two free leagues.

James River Gang – One problem with the above two leagues is that they are both fairly schedule dependent. So, if a team’s set of players has more games on the schedule than their opponent, they are often in good shape even before the match begins. Scott Tingen and his James River Gang league have an innovative way around that (among other interesting innovations). This league also plays an approximately 30-game schedule, but there often two games per week: a Monday-Thursday game and a Friday-Sunday game. Rather than drafting players in this league, you draft six entire teams and make your lineup out of players from that roster. Another twist is the scoring system: points and rebounds are worth one, assists and steals are worth two, and blocks are worth three points. I always get suckered looking for block shot guys, but like in any league, it pays to have balance. In order to strengthen the importance of the regular season, teams are given point advantages in the final tournament (as opposed to my league in which a 17-seed won the championship).

Those are the three leagues that I play in. I have not tried U-Sports, which has merged with Athlon to become a powerful player in the fantasy college sports market. I do know that U-sports could customize leagues to pretty much whatever setting you like and Athlon provide excellent college basketball coverage (and editor Braden Gall participated in the Big Chief Challenge last year). They feature “automated stat updates” and the ability to change lineups until tipoff. There host public leagues and offer a lot more customization for private leagues, including a waiver wire system, live drafts, and adjustable league rules. They also have leagues for college fantasy football enthusiasts (of which, sadly, I am not one). There are few other leagues out there and if you have more information, please feel free to comment. Four more months until the season…

Before Lance Stephenson signed with Cincinnati last week, I had sketched out my preseason freshmen top ten. I thought about keeping Stephenson off, but the more I hear about him, the more I think he may the ideal, me-first fantasy player. While ballhogs are generally not wanted on basketball teams, they make for some of the best fantasy players.  So, Florida State G Michael Snaer fell off the list (although he may be a chucker too). I’ll be honest, I haven’t seen any of these players play and I am mostly going on scouting reports and perceived fit for a team. I also am not looking at anything beyond Tier 1. Last year, I gave Nevada F Luke Babbitt a crazy review, but I am generally pretty conservative when it comes to prospecting. I don’t think any of these players will transcend their class and be the next college basketball superstar, but I think this class is better than the freshman class of 2008-09.

1. F Derrick Favors, Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets
Had Gani Lawal decided to stay in the NBA draft, Favors would have been on firmer ground as the top incoming freshmen. The more I considered it, the more I thought that maybe Lawal’s return will actually be a benefit to Favors. By sharing the low post responsibility, Lawal will allow favors more opportunities to showcase his impressive athleticism. Because opposing defenses will have to consider Lawal, who provided 15.1 ppg and 9.6 rpg, Favors should get more open looks and may be a force on the boards. Of course, it’s possible that the two players will get in one another’s way, but I am confident that coach Paul Hewitt will work it out and get the Yellow Jackets into the top half of the ACC after finishing last year in the basement.

2. G John Wall, Kentucky Wildcats
Based on the hype, Wall is the top prospect for the 2010 NBA draft. However, hype won’t help in fantasy leagues and Wall has some obstacles to get over to become a fantasy producer. Coach John Calipari won’t be one of those impediments and has shown the willingness to put the ball in a freshman’s hands (i.e. Derrick Rose, Tyrese Evans, etc.) and them work it out. However, this year’s Wildcat squad has better low post players (Patrick Patterson, DeMarco Cousins) than any of Coach Cal’s previous Memphis squads, so Wall will have to learn how to share. The 6-3 point guard should still be an impact performer, but he wouldn’t one of the players I’d select at the top of the draft.

3. G Avery Bradley, Texas Longhorns
After three years of consistent play, the Longhorn backcourt is in a state of transition. That state won’t last long with Bradley entering the scene. The  6-3 shooting guard from Tacoma, Washington should get plenty of playing time and make the most of his ability to get to the basket. According to Scouts, Inc., Bradley relishes his opportunities to ballhawk and that should lead to many easy baskets on the fast break. Steals are notoriously inconsistent as far as stats to rely upon, but I think Bradley will bring plenty of steals, points, and field goal percentage as well as rebounds for a guard. Longhorn coach Rick Barnes is like Calipari in that he uses his freshmen heavily.

4. G Lance Stephenson, Cincinnati Bearcats
Because of a clouded legal history and schools unwillingness to take on a risk, Stephenson was left out in the cold until last week when he signed on with Mick Cronin’s Bearcats. The 6-5, 220 lb Stephenson should be a nice fit (if he is indeed eligible) for the Bearcat offense that already has some pieces in place. The team was dominated by Deonta Vaughn, but Stephenson should take some of the scoring load from Vaughn. The two guards may be able to complement each other with Stephenson being the powerful slasher and Vaughn lofting shots from the perimeter. While he is a likely one-and-done candidate (and the one is a bit of a surprise), he should make his mark in Ohio.

5. G Abdul Gaddy, Washington Huskies
This appears to be a down year for the Pac 10. That will almost certainly be true of the southern California teams. While the Huskies lose a major piece in Jon Brockman, their backcourt should be one of the best in the country. Gaddy is a natural point guard who will allow Isaiah Thomas to stay to his more natural shooting guard position. The 6-3 Gaddy, who like Bradley is from Tacoma, will also be a nice defensive balance for the 5-8 Thomas. The Huskies should battle Cal for the top spot in the Pac 10 and it will a great battle of backcourts when the two teams meet.

6. F DeMarco Cousins, Kentucky Wildcats
It’s hard to guess how Cousins will operate as a third wheel (as opposed to the inside-outside duo of Wall and Patterson), but my guess is that Calipari will get him to be a rebounding, dunking machine. Patterson should command a double-team in the low post and that will leave Cousins for some bunnies. The 6-9, 260 lb Cousins should also be a load to move from the block and will be able to use his variety of low post moves when Patterson is out of the game or on the perimeter. Teams with too many cooks in the kitchen don’t tend to produce fantasy players (see the champions of the last two years for prime examples), but Kentucky should play at a fast enough pace to get plenty of shots for its variety of superstars. I could see Cousins have a bit better season than his now-cross state rival Samardo Samuels at Louisville.

7. C Keith Gallon, Oklahoma Sooners
If there is such a thing as basketball inheritance, “Tiny” Gallon should be in a good spot. He will take over the low post spot manned by Blake Griffin last year. While the 300-pound Gallon is a completely different player than the jumping jack he replaces, his place in the Sooner offense could be similarly important. Someone is going to need to provide a balance to sophomore G Willie Warren and Gallon has a diversified offensive game, especially for someone so large, that he could be an instant presence in the Big 12. Gallon has range on his jumper and improving post moves, according to Scouts, Inc. My guess is the problem will be fouls, but if Gallon can stay on the court, he’ll put up double-double numbers.

8. F Jordan Hamilton, Texas Longhorns
Whereas Bradley has the reputation of a defensive clamper, Hamilton joins Texas with a sterling offensive reputation that should get fantasy owners tongues awagging. The reason the  6-7 Hamilton is not more highly rated on this list is the return of Damion James. While Barnes will likely find a lineup that includes both Hamilton and the athletic James, they may take some shots away from each other. Because James has seniority (as well as some senioritis perhaps as he was turned away from the NBA), he should get the opportunity to carry the offense with Bradley. Hamilton, meanwhile, could be a sixth man to provide some instant offense.

9. F Dante Taylor, Pittsburgh Panthers
For the first time in a few years, the Panthers are going to be almost totally unrecognizable. The triumvirate that led to one of their most successful seasons is gone and coach Jamie Dixon will need to start anew with complementary parts from last year and new pieces like Taylor. The 6-9 power forward from Greenburgh,NY has the power and quickness to become an instant factor around the basket. According to Scouts, Inc., he – like so many big men these days – likes to venture away from the basket which goes against his strength. Isn’t that what European big men are for? Dixon has had the good fortune not to have to rely on freshmen much (although he wasn’t shy about playing DeJuan Blair as a first year player). Taylor may change that trend.

10. F Solomon Hill, Arizona Wildcats
Like Pittsburgh, Arizona in a team in transition. They did hold onto their point guard Nic Wise, but new coach Sean Miller will need to rely on freshmen in the frontcourt. Along with C Kyryl Natyazhjo and Derrick Williams (who like Hill and PG Momo Jones were purloined from USC after all of the troubles with the Trojans), Hill should form a solid frontcourt. Scouts, Inc. notes that Hill is an excellent passer and rebounder. I like big guys who can pass. Hill is only 6-6, but his variety of skills should be prized by Miller and he should get plenty of playing time.

I think in-season top 25 lists are silly. Losing one game doesn’t necessarily mean a team should drop from the top spot and that’s all the polls appear to measure. Offseason top 25 lists are even sillier. Why not let the teams play before you rank them? Yet, every major basketball writer is following the lead and trying to predict who are the best teams before a shot has been taken. Kansas is very good – on paper. While I won’t be submitting my own top 25 because I don’t care if teams win or lose, it is time to start sharpening my knowledge of the top player for fantasy college hoops. As such, please allow me to present my summer of 2009 top ten of Tier 1 players (with comments!) Feel free to tell me who I missed (and, by the way, Corperryale Harris was #11 – don’t think I’ve forgotten about my man).

1. F Luke Harangody, Notre Dame Fighting Irish
Like any player who tests the draft process, I was surprised that Harangody came back to school. While I am pretty sure he wouldn’t have been drafted in the first round (although with Hansbrough going at #13 – who knows?), he’ll be similarly placed next year after he shatters all of the Notre Dame scoring and rebounding records. The 2007-08 Big East player of the year improved on his numbers as a junior and provided 23.3 ppg and 11.8 rpg. It’s true that his minutes went up (34.2 mpg) and his field goal percentage went down (45.9 percent) and he did not lift his team into the NCAA tournament. It’s hard to imagine he’ll get more shots (19.2 field goal attempts per game), but without Kyle McAlarney, it’s possible.

2. F Craig Brackins, Iowa State Cyclones
Was there a quieter big time performer than Brackins last year? Granted, the Cyclones were pretty lousy, but Brackins did average 20.2 ppg and 9.5 rpg. He decided to return to school early and was my pre-deadline top player (before Harangody returned). As a sophomore, he was very consistent and even exploded a couple of times. He scored 42 points on Kansas on January 24 in a loss and led the Cyclones to a win over Houstin with 38 points on December 28. Brackins finished the season with three straight double-doubles and had five in his last seven games. As a junior, Brackins should be able to garner some Big 12 Player of the Year attention.

3. G/F Evan Turner, Ohio State Buckeyes
Unlike the past two years, I don’t think we’ll see many articles this year about how the Big 10 is down. Purdue and Michigan State bring back many good players. Minnesota, Michigan, and Illinois should be quite good and even Northwestern may achieve a .500 in-conference record. The conference will also boast its own superstar in the Buckeyes’ Turner. The 6-7 swingman came within one rebound and two assists of turning a triple-double in Ohio State’s first round, double overtime loss against Siena. It did take him 50 minutes to accrue his stats, but Turner averaged 17.3 ppg, 7.1 rpg, and 4.4 apg. A triple-double is bound to occur during his junior season.

4. C Cole Aldrich, Kansas Jayhawks
While Sherron Collins was clearly the man – for good or ill – for the 2008-09 Jayhawks, I think the evolution of Aldrich will continue as he challenges Brackins for Player of the Year honors in the Big 12. The 6-11 center averaged a double-double (14.9 ppg, 11.1 rpg) and appeared to become more of a focal point of the offense as the season went on. In the game that I focused on, December 13 against Massachusetts, Collins dominated the ball and ignored Aldrich for much of the game (despite Aldrich’s size advantage). With superstar freshman Xavier Henry providing more perimeter help, Aldrich should have more room to operate and get a lot of easy buckets.

5. F Devin Ebanks, West Virginia Mountaineers
If this list has a sleeper, Ebanks is probably it. The former Hoosier recruit’s numbers are somewhat reduced because he played a minor role for Bob Huggins’ team in the first six games of the season. Once he established himself as a rebounding fool, Ebanks made the leap into superstardom. He’ll be paired with Da’Sean Butler, who will likely lead West Virginia in scoring again. Ebanks will also get more shot opportunities and will enhance his value with double-digit rebounding. As a freshman, Ebanks – who I consistently want to call Eubanks as if he is related to the host of the Newlywed Game – had nine double-doubles. I bet he averages that as a sophomore.

6. G Willie Warren, Oklahoma Sooners
My first game of the week last year featured Oklahoma against Davidson. Obviously, Warren wasn’t the focus of that game, but I did come away impressed by the 6-4 freshman. In 2009-2010, the Sooners will be his team and none of the members of the Family Guy family will be around. Even as the second option, Warren provided 14.6 ppg on 47.3 percent shooting and 3.1 apg. He’ll get many more opportunities as a sophomore and may be able to run the point more often with Austin Johnson gone. Warren will have plenty passing options as well, including senior Tony Crocker and incoming freshman Keith Gallon (a 6-9, 300 lb center from the Oak Hill Academy).

7. F Patrick Patterson, Kentucky Wildcats
John Calipari’s run of successful teams at Memphis have generally been guard-oriented. That may be because he hasn’t had a forward like Patterson. The 6-9 junior-to-be got off to a great start in his second season before injuries slowed him down. Patterson missed two games in the heart of the SEC schedule with a sprained ankle, but came back with five double-doubles in the team’s last nine games. He’ll have plenty of frontcourt help in the forms of DeMarcus Cousin and Daniel Orton, but Calipari is a smart enough coach not to ignore his big man. Whether John Wall hogs the ball will be another question.

8. F Kyle Singler, Duke Blue Devils
With Eliot Williams transferring to Memphis, Duke may be in for a season of change. Maybe Nolan Smith and Jon Scheyer will run the point and the brothers Plumlee will patrol the paint. Even with all of the changes around him, Singler should be the singular focus of the Blue Devil offense and should have plenty of shot opportunities. The 6-8 forward did not play quite as many minutes in the first half of the season so that he could put the pedal to the metal in the second half. He ended up with 16.5 ppg, 7.7 rpg, 2.4 apg, 1.5 spg, and 1.0 bpg. If all of those numbers go up just a tick, he’ll be in for a monster fantasy season.

9. G Talor Battle, Penn State Nittany Lions
I have to admit that I often overlooked Battle last year. No, it wasn’t because he is short (although he is at 5-11). I just always seem to forget about the Nittany Lions when it comes to Big 10 basketball. That won’t be an issue this year. Battle provided a steadying force for the Penn State backcourt and played 37.4 mpg. He averaged 16.7 ppg, 5.3 rpg, and 5.0 apg and provided three double-doubles (all with rebounds). Battle won’t have Jamelle Cornley to provide some frontcourt balance in 2009-10, but maybe F Andrew Jones III will continue to improve.

10. F Al-Farouq Aminu , Wake Forest Demon Deacons.
I don’t always believe in addition by subtraction, but it’s hard not to like Aminu’s potential with James Johnson and Jeff Teague having moved on. As a freshman, the 6-9 Aminu provided 12.9 ppg and 8.2 rpg and showed off a variety of skills. The Demon Deacons will still have plenty of muscle in Aminu’s fellow classmates Ty Walker and Tony Woods to keep opponents away from Aminu. Ish Smith will regain his point guard duties to provide pinpoint passes to set up Aminu as well. The freshman shot less than ten times per game last year, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see him among the top scorers and rebounders in the ACC next year.

Earlier this month I wrote about the one-and-done rule that has come under such scrutiny because college coaches are forced to try to get basketball players who have no business going to college past admissions boards. I felt that perhaps colleges should offer a stipend to players because of the income generated by big time college athletics. One person took me to task for saying that colleges should do more than provide a free education and room-and-board, and he may be right. The cost of tuition for the regular student is already a handsome sum. If a university is to give that to an athlete, perhaps their part is done. Nevertheless, there may be other options to entice top athletes to play for colleges without needing me to take the SAT fifty times a year. I should also not that that if a person couldn’t get into a university on their own, there should be some apprenticeship basketball program (maybe an expanded NBDL) so that college coaches wouldn’t be “forced” to cheat. (Some – without naming names – would probably cheat anyway. That’s just their way. My cell phone just rang – oh, just another text from Kelvin Sampson)

What I’d like to examine today is why college athletes have to have amateur status. According to Wikipedia, “Amateurism was a zealously guarded ideal in the 19th century, especially among the upper classes, but faced steady erosion throughout the 20th century, and is now strictly held as an ideal by fewer and fewer organizations governing sports, even as they maintain the word ‘amateur’ in their titles.” It doesn’t take make reading between the lines to see that this system is an anachronism. Even though the upper crust of the 1800’s thought sports shouldn’t be besmirched by money, it’s the all mighty dollar that pretty much runs things today.

The article has some other interesting tidbits about the abandonment of amateur status in the Olympics in almost all sports except boxing and golf. I always thought that this was caused by the results of the 1988 men’s basketball tournament in which the US lost to countries that employed various types of professional players, leading to the 1992 Dream Team. To be honest, I never really minded that the rest of the world had caught up to the US in basketball, even if they weren’t using “amateurs.” If the Olympics can ditch amateurism, why not college sports as well?

One final quote from the august Wikipedia, “Even the most commercialized college sports, such as NCAA football and basketball, do not financially compensate competitors, although coaches and trainers generally are paid. College football coaches in Texas and other states are often the highest paid state employees, drawing salaries of over one million US dollars annually. Athletic scholarship programs, unlike academic scholarship programs, cannot cover more than the cost of food, housing, tuition, and other university-related expenses. A school can pay an athlete to attend classes. However, a school cannot pay an athlete to play.” So, we know coaches are doing quite well for themselves and the student-athletes aren’t without a certain amount of compensation.

While it may not be right for the colleges and universities themselves to pay athletes, I am not sure why the regal status of amateurism needs to be upheld. While it may not be an apples-to-apples comparison, if an English major writes a book during college, does he lose his amateur status if he sells copies? If a musician records a bunch of songs, do the proceeds of any sales go directly to the university? Why should college athletes have to perform and make gobs of money for universities and coaches? Probably because unlike the student novelist or musician, there is gobs of money to be made.

My proposal is to dump amateur status. Let college athletes sign with agents and endorse products. If a player isn’t good enough to make money on their celebrity, agents aren’t going to want to sign them. Yes, this introduces the dirty concept of money into college athletics, but wouldn’t it be better to have things out in the open than Eddie Sutton mailing packages of dirty lucre to Chris Mills’ door? I don’t think players should have to attend university, but if they do, why should they have to lose money?