Yes, Kevin Love is Ready to Go

I've been saying this around for some time now, so I decided to consolidate with a post.

Kevin Love is ready for the NBA. Now all of you know.

Wait ... You're asking why? Well he should marinate another year in college, he won't be a good pro, he's not athletic, he's white, blah blah blah, etc. I've heard these lines of reasoning plenty of times each.

Here's the deal: The kid is good. Pac-10 Player of the Year award-good. First team All America-good. This past season, he had spectacular averages: 17.5 points per game, 10.6 rebounds per game, 1.44 blocks per game and even hit about one three per game. How many freshmen average a double-double that aren't named Michael Beasley or Kevin Durant? And unlike those guys, he was the best player on a team that made it to a Final Four. Plus, although his outlet passing is already much-ballyhoed, you can't discount that it's a marketable skill that no one else has. Plus, who else can make full-court shots like it's their job?

Right now, ESPN has him as a lottery pick, and I believe this is a fair evaluation based on Love's success in college and his array of post moves and ways to score. The draft profile right now basically says the same stuff that most people are saying (good, but can't jump, not big enough, etc.).

Look, just say Kevin Love isn't going to be a good pro. So what? What more reason does he have to stay in college? Win a championship? I can't blame the guy for turning down a "college education" for lottery-pick money. These days, you have to protect your body like its an investment - you can't afford to get injured.

In addition, Love had an incredible season. Incredible seasons are followed by raised expectations. Why should Love subject himself to increased scrutiny by people trying to poke holes in his game? What if he already has hit his ceiling and doesn't improve? Let's not forget just how special a guy like Tyler Hansbrough is, who vastly improved statistically by staying another year (He should go, too - you don't do better than Player of the Year).

What if he hits a sophomore slump? Does he go the way of Josh McRoberts and drop stock like it's goin' out of style? It's not good business. If you have a good season, go and get paid! How can anyone hate on that?

Kevin Love is one of those guys that will work hard on his game and always try hard to make it in the league. In terms of attitude and maturity, you can't ask for much more of a young man, especially when there are so many Pacmans running around. The adjustment will definitely be hard, but another season in college probably has more risk than reward.

So smile, Mr. Love, when you get that paycheck. Smile when you sign that shoe deal. Don't hide it - it feels good. Even if you don't turn out in the NBA, either way, you're gonna get to spend that money.

It didn't take four years of college to make that no-brainer.

Photo Credit: AP

Is Kansas a Historic Team?

Mario Chalmers forces overtime with a spectacular shot that will surely be remembered in title game history, and in doing so helps Kansas and Bill Self finally win it all. But does that make Kansas a historic team?

In the Final Four, I would argue that Kansas was the most anonymous team left because it is bereft of major stars: UNC has Hansbrough and Lawson, UCLA has Love and Collison, Memphis has Rose, CDR and Dorsey. Kansas has ... Rush and Chalmers? Will those faces last the test of time like Laettner, Hurley and Hill? I'm not sure.

No one's arguing that Kansas didn't have a great season or a great title game, but they were relatively under the radar all year. Will their lack of media attention relegate them to just another team that you have to check on Wikipedia to remember?

Please leave your opinion/thoughts/comments.

Photo Credit: Baltimore Sun

BTDub, Michael Beasley is the Player of the Year

Every now and then, I catch an announcer or some list on the web anointing either Kevin Love or Tyler Hansbrough as THE Player of the Year. No. That's just completely wrong.

Michael Beasley of Kansas State is Player of the Year - clear as day. Not only is he leading the race, he's running ahead like Secretariat.

It seemed to me that last year, Kevin Durant was the consensus POY. Why? Not because Texas was the best NCAA team, as Rivals.com's Andrew Skwara says, but because of his numbers and how otherworldly they were. The guy was the only player both in the top-10 in scoring and rebounding. Add that to a couple big-game performances, Durant basically had the award wrapped up by February.

Now here's the confusing part: Beasley is doing it again this year, but he still seems to be flying under the radar.

I suppose any player that goes to Kansas State is bound to fly under the radar, but Beasley is single-handedly making that team relevant. He averages a ridiculous 25.2 ppg and 12.3 rpg. The rest of the starters average only 40.2 ppg and 15.1 rpg. B-Easy also leads the team in steals and blocked shots. How else do you explain that Kansas State is now ranked No. 18 and beat then-No. 2 Kansas under a first year coach when last year, they choked on a 23-12 record and an NIT berth under Bob Huggins?

Also, about the "otherworldly" stats? Yeah, Beasley got those, too. Remember those averages in the paragraph above? Well they're good for No. 4 on the scoring list and No. 1 in rebounds per game in the whole country. You can't say that about Hansbrough, and you definitely can't say that about Love.

Some people say it's not all about stats, and that it's about team success. Ok, first of all, stats are a huge part about how a player impacts the game. But sure, UNC and UCLA are among the best teams in the nation. But you know what? They were among the best before Hanbrough and Love even got there. UNC won the championship the year before Hansbrough came to town and Roy Williams recruits tons of talent every single year. Beasley isn't surrounded by the likes of Lawson and Ellington. Same thing goes for Love - UCLA has been a two-time Final Four contender, and the credit goes to Ben Howland. He doesn't always have the biggest or most athletic players, but he finds ways to win, especially on defense.

Not that Psycho T and K-Love aren't good players, I've said as much before. But if they all played together in some kind of Collegiate All-Star game (that I'm making up but I wish could happen), I don't think you could have any doubt about who was the best player on the floor. Beasley has post game, he has really good shooting range (43% 3FG) and rebounds like no other - literally. Love and Hansbrough are very good post players and that's about it. They aren't really athletic and they can be outplayed by forwards and centers with better athletic ability (i.e., James Gist against UNC). Their NBA game is surrounded by question marks (way to stay in school, Tyler), while it's almost certain that Beasley will be a star. He has the body to ball in the pros (which Durant still doesn't really have), and, in the words of a friend of mine, "he can do just about anything he wants with a basketball."

This is just a public service announcement really, for the people that only pay attention to the top-5 teams. Just because someone is on a good team doesn't make them the best player in the country. Michael Beasley has shown that he's the only player in college basketball worthy of this distinction.



Photo Credit: Sports Illustrated, MichaelBeasley.org