Gary Parrish

Just a few hours after DraftExpress.com's Jonathan Givony reported that Stephen Curry -- a likely lottery pick -- will soon announce his decision to enter the NBA Draft, Davidson coach Bob McKillop, perhaps in response, told the Associated Press that his star guard is still undecided.

So that's where we're at right now.

Givony says Curry will be in.

McKillop says the future remains unknown.

Either way, I'll say this: I have no idea who is sourcing this story for Givony, but I'm 99 percent sure it comes from the NBA side, and NBA people are typically the most plugged in on who is coming and going, the college coaches often the last to know. It's kind of like coaching searches in that the people getting left are usually a step behind the folks on the other side, because coaches (and in this case, prospects) almost always tell the people associated with their futures that they're coming before they tell the people they're leaving that they're leaving.

Does that make sense?

Bottom line, Curry is "officially" still undecided, sure.

But Givony reporting it's done is probably a good sign that it's done.

Which means the Southern Conference will likely need a new star next season.

Obviously, I disagree with Gregg Doyel's column .

I love Gregg.

I wish I was as muscular as him.

But I disagree with the idea that Tyler Hansbrough has to be a first-team All-American. That's why I made him a second-team All-American. And if you understand my criteria -- which Gregg does, and I appreciated him acknowledging it -- then you know that this decision came down to me selecting DeJuan Blair or Tyler Hansbrough, because I'll put no more than two bigs on any All-America team, and I wasn't leaving off Blake Griffin.

So really, that's the debate: Hansbrough or Blair.

Gregg thinks it should be Hansbrough.

That's a reasonable opinion.

But to me, Hansbrough has not had a better season this season than Blair has had this season.

Period.

Sure, Hansbrough is averaging more points per game (21.1 to 15.6). But Blair is averaging more rebounds (12.4 to 8.1), and he's doing it while playing 3.3 fewer minutes per game than Hansbrough (30.0 to 26.7). Also worth noting is that Blair simply doesn't get the opportunities Hansbrough gets on the offensive end, which is why his points aren't comparable despite the fact that Blair actually has a higher field goal percentage (59.6 to 52.5).

Understand, Hansbrough takes 12.96 shots per game and shoots 8.42 free throws to get his 21.1 points. Blair takes 10.90 shots per game and shoots 4.23 free throws to get his 15.6 points, which means Blair takes roughly two fewer shots and four fewer free throws than Hansbrough per game, and if you consider Blair's percentages from both the field (59.6) and free throw line (69.2) it's clear he'd average more points than Hansbrough if he had the same opportunities.

(Please, just stay with me; this is going to be good.)

If Blair took the same number of shots (12.96) and free throws (8.42) per game as Hansbrough, and if Blair made those attempts at the same rate he currently makes his attempts, then Blair would make 7.72 field goals and 5.83 free throws per game. Multiply the 7.72 field goals by two (for two-point baskets) and the 5.83 free throws by one (for one-point baskets), and what you'll find is that if Blair took as many shots and free throws as Hansbrough he'd average 21.27 points per game, which is slightly better than the 21.12 points Hansbrough is averaging.

(Jesus, my head is hurting.)

So that's that.

I think Blair has been just as dominant as Hansbrough, but he's done it more efficiently and for a team that has accomplished just as much. Basically, that's why I went with Blair, but I did feel sick about it, because I love Hansbrough and think all the anti-Hansbrough talk is insane. If you hate Tyler Hansbrough, something is wrong with you, not him. But for these purposes, I had to look for the two bigs who are having the best seasons in this particular season, and in my opinion -- with apologies to Gregg Doyel -- that's Blake Griffin and DeJuan Blair.

As for some other controversial decisions, I'll address them quickly.

Right now.

Where's Jodie Meeks?

If you look at my All-America teams you'll see that every guy I have listed is projected by Jerry Palm to play in the NCAA tournament, except for Davidson's Stephen Curry. That should show you how much emphasis I put on winning, and how much I disregard players posting big numbers for bad teams. I mean, lots of guys post big numbers on bad teams (UCF's Jermaine Taylor comes to mind). So while I do think Meeks is great and one of the most fun guys to watch in college, the reality is that he's posting big numbers for a bad team, one that is especially bad by Kentucky standards.

For that same reason, I left off Notre Dame's Luke Harangody, too.

Simply put, I like impact players on successful teams.

Let the world be warned.

So how do you justify Stephen Curry?

I don't think Curry was on a bad team. I think he was on a conference champion that got caught in the semifinals of the Southern Conference tournament, and now he'll pay the price for that. Is Davidson as good as a good Big East or ACC team? Of course not. But relative to Southern Conference teams, the Wildcats are very good, which means Curry was succesful by any reasonable measuring stick, just not when you have to be in a one-bid league, unfortunately.

And why can't you have three bigs on the same team again?

Think of an All-Pro football team.

They don't just take eight quarterbacks when they do those.

They take a quarterback, a few receivers, a kicker, a couple of safeties, so on and so forth. I like that because it better resembles an actual team , and that's my thought process on not having three traditional bigs (like Griffin, Blair and Hansbrough) on the same team, because there's no way those three would ever actually get on the court together at the same time, I don't think.

If you want to know the truth, I believe there are eight players worthy of first-team All-America status.

They are ...

• Ty Lawson
• Stephen Curry
• James Harden
• Blake Griffin
• DeJuan Blair
• Tyler Hansbrough
• Hasheem Thabeet
• Sherron Collins

That's my top eight, regardless of position. So what I did was take a point guard (Lawson), a shooting guard (Curry), a wing (Harden) and two bigs (Griffin and Blair) from that list, and I called it a day. It really was that simple. And I hope that makes some sense, though I'm sure it won't to some.

CHAPEL HILL, N.C. -- Remember those long jumpers against Georgetown?

The runners against Wisconsin?

That smile?

Man, those were good times Stephen Curry provided last March.

And if you planned for similar ones this March, well, your plans are now shot, because -- as hard as it might be to swallow -- Davidson will not be in the NCAA tournament thanks to Sunday's 59-52 loss to the College of Charleston in the Southern Conference tournament. The Wildcats are 26-7 and nowhere near the bubble thanks to a 69 RPI and 1-4 record against the top 100. Consequently, March Madness won't feature the All-American whom some have called the face of college basketball , and it really is too bad for everybody ... except for the folks who run the NIT.

And Charleston, of course.

Here's Tuesday's Dear Gary ...

Dear Gary: It seems that having a great point guard has been important to going deep in the NCAA tournament (Derrick Rose and Mario Chalmers last year, Mike Conley and Taurean Green in 2007, etc.). Therefore, if you were a coach about to enter the NCAA tournament, who would you want starting at point guard for you from the list below?

• Nick Calathes (Florida)
• Sherron Collins (Kansas)
• Darren Collison (UCLA)
• Stephen Curry (Davidson)
• Levance Fields (Pittsburgh)
• Jonny Flynn (Syracuse)
• Courtney Fortson (Arkansas)
• Daniel Hackett (USC)
• Curtis Jerrells (Baylor)
• Ty Lawson (UNC)
• Kalin Lucas (Michigan State)
• Patrick Mills (St. Mary's)
• Jeremy Pargo (Gonzaga)

-- Joe

Before we proceed, Joe, let's get your list fixed. Fortson, Hackett and Jerrells don't seem likely to make the NCAA tournament, and neither does Mills (at the moment). So let's take those four out and replace them with Tyreke Evans (Memphis), A.J. Price (Connecticut), Jeff Teague (Wake Forest) and, I don't know, maybe Greivis Vasquez (Maryland). If nothing else, that gives us a better list. And though I'd be tempted to take Vasquez (after what he did this past weekend) or Lawson (because he's probably the best pure point guard in college) or Calathes (because he does a little bit of everything), I think the smart pick is -- you guessed it -- Stephen Curry.

Why?

Because he's already shown he's capable of starring in March.

Remember, he did it last March.

He can run a team, hit the open man, create for others, create for himself and make huge shots when huge shots need to be made. In my opinion, Curry is the most valuable guard in the country, somebody who scores 28.6 points and dishes 5.9 assists per game despite being the primary (and sometimes only ) focus of opposing defenses. So given a choice of any point guard to coach in the NCAA tournament, I'd take Curry, cross my fingers and try to ride him to the Final Four or farther, if he was up for it.

The nation tuned in to see Stephen Curry.

Now everybody is talking about Gordon Hayward.

The Butler freshman finished with a career-high 27 points and nine rebounds in the Bulldogs' 75-63 victory at Davidson in which he outshined Curry's star while introducing himself to a country that doesn't see enough Horizon League basketball. Despite the hostile environment and big stage, Hayward looked comfortable from start to finish. He made six of 12 field goal attempts and 11 of 12 free throws, further proving that his decision to focus on hoops instead of tennis was a wise one.

And he was a pretty good tennis player, too.

"This is the first time he's really been playing basketball for 12 (consecutive) months because he's been such a good tennis player for so long," Butler coach Brad Stevens said Saturday afternoon by phone, noting that his 6-foot-8 wing spent many summers playing tennis instead of basketball, which explains why Hayward was an unheralded recruit according to most scouting services. "He's a good player and an easy guy to coach. He's a great kid and a great student, and it's fun to be around guys like that."

As for Curry, well, he looked out of sorts.

He played for the first time since spraining his ankle last weekend and appeared to have no rhythm or feel, though it would be wrong not to give Butler some credit for making things difficult. No question, the Bulldogs did a great job on the All-American. But Curry missed a lot of shots he usually makes and actually started 0-of-8 from the field before finishing 6-of-23 with 20 points and seven turnovers.

Still, Stevens never felt comfortable, even late.

"Steph is so good," he said. "You're just sitting there saying, 'Please don't be another chapter in this book.' Up 13 with four minutes to go or whatever, that's what you're thinking. 'Please don't be another chapter in this book.'"

To Butler's credit, it was not.

Instead, the Bulldogs exited Belk Arena with a nice road win.

And they looked like a team worthy of keeping their national ranking.

Blake Griffin is running away with the National Player of the Year award.

That's what the results of a straw poll conducted by Michael Rothstein show. The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette writer reached out to 55 media members from across the country (myself included), and 51 of them placed Griffin at the top of their ballot (myself included).

The top three in order were ...

1. Blake Griffin (Oklahoma)

2. Stephen Curry (Davidson)

3. Tyler Hansbrough (North Carolina)

Click this link to see the full results.

The request came from Michael Rothstein of the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette.

It was simple.

Rank the top three National Player of the Year candidates

Turns out, Michael is conducting a straw poll with various media members, one he plans to do every couple of weeks for the rest of the season. He'll publish the poll the day after we submit ballots, which means he should have it all put together by tomorrow, and I'll be sure to relay the results. In the meantime, I figured I'd give you the three names I submitted, then list a few other players who deserve a mention.

So here goes ...

1. Blake Griffin (Oklahoma)

2. Stephen Curry (Davidson)

3. James Harden (Arizona State)

A few other players who deserve a mention (in alphabetical order): Jeff Adrien (Connecticut), DeJuan Blair (Pittsburgh), Trevor Booker (Clemson), Jon Brockman (Washington), Derrick Brown (Xavier), Nick Calathes (Florida), DeMarre Carroll (Missouri), Sherron Collins (Kansas), Darren Collison (UCLA), Dante Cunningham (Villanova), Toney Douglas (Florida State), Devan Downey (South Carolina), Tyreke Evans (Memphis), Jonny Flynn (Syracuse), Tyler Hansbrough (North Carolina), Luke Harangody (Notre Dame), Manny Harris (Michigan), Gerald Henderson (Duke), Jordan Hill (Arizona), Matt Howard (Butler), Ty Lawson (North Carolina), Kalin Lucas (Michigan State), Eric Maynor (VCU), Jerel McNeal (Marquette), Jodie Meeks (Kentucky), Greg Monroe (Georgetown), Kyle Singler (Duke), Tyler Smith (Tennessee), Jeff Teague (Wake Forest), Hasheem Thabeet (Connecticut),  Evan Turner (Ohio State), Terrence Williams (Louisville), Sam Young (Pittsburgh).

Thoughts?

Stephen Curry got 32 points Wednesday night in Davidson's 92-70 win at Chattanooga.

From the AP game story: Curry hit a 3-pointer as time expired to give the Wildcats a 41-28 halftime lead.

Absolutely, that's one way of putting it.

Another would be to write that Curry hit a 70 -footer as time expired to give the Wildcats a 41-28 halftime lead.

Did you see the shot?

It was pretty wild.

Click this link and check it out.

Here's Wednesday's Dear Gary ...

Dear Gary: The amazing thing (about Stephen Curry against West Virginia) was that as soon as Davidson lost its lead down the stretch, you just KNEW Curry was going to start draining 3-pointers like he was in shoot around. And as soon as you saw him drain that first, ridiculous fade-away 3-pointer after a nasty crossover, you knew that the game was basically over. Everyone in the building knew that shot was a swish.

-- Nate

That was the real lesson from Tuesday night. Not that Stephen Curry is a great shooter, because he actually missed twice as many shots as he made. It was bigger than that. What was special about the performance was that the guy played as poorly as he can play (eight turnovers) and shot as poorly as he can shoot (started the game 5-of-22 from the field), and yet when things were in the balance he took over, made, as Bob Huggins said, "two hard shots" in the final 61 seconds and led his team to another win over a program from a power conference. That's a unique talent, to be able to do that. Not to mention on national TV. In Madison Square Garden. With everybody expecting you to do it.

So, Nate, I agree with you, that what happened Tuesday night was "amazing," at least in basketball terms. And that's why Curry is getting so much attention, because he consistently lives up to the hype, even if it takes him 35 or so minutes to get started.

At what point does the kid not live up to expectations?

Will that ever happen?

Because Stephen Curry went wild again Saturday, scoring 44 points against another high-major program in Davidson's 72-67 victory over North Carolina State while advancing his legend just a little bit more as LeBron James watched from courtside, argued with officials and enjoyed himself just as much as everybody else in the arena (except for those with Wolfpack rooting interests). It was remarkable and exciting and the type of thing even folks focused on football this weekend took a moment to take in, and if there's a more appealing player in the country I've yet to see him.

We can debate whether Curry is a better college player than Tyler Hansbrough.

Or more valuable to his team than Blake Griffin

Or a better prospect than James Harden.

But what we can't argue is that Curry is the most exciting player in the nation, the guy most likely to make you punch the guy beside you in the arm, jump off the couch and laugh and laugh and laugh, because there is no argument against to be had. He's just spectacular in that way. And the best part is that the Stephen Curry Show's next stop will be New York's Madison Square Garden, where he and his Davidson teammates will on Tuesday face West Virginia on the biggest basketball stage in the world.

Should be fun times.

If only LeBron could be there.

I've never been a basketball coach.

Let me preface this with that.

But everything I know tells me the top priority when it comes to coaching should be to win or at the very least stay competitive, which is what makes Jimmy Patsos' decision to double-team Stephen Curry pretty much every minute of Tuesday's game (even when he didn't have the ball) one of the most bizarre sights I've ever seen. I mean, seriously, the whole thing was a joke, and that Patsos let his Loyola Greyhounds lose 78-48 to Davidson while basically playing three-on-four is an embarrassment to his profession, program and the players he supposedly coaches.

Sure, Loyola held Curry to three shots and no points.

That's great.

But if such an achievement comes at the expense of a 30-point loss then it's stupid, and Patsos didn't help himself in the post-game press conference when he explained his rationale and essentially acknowledged that he was more interested in not letting Curry play than he was in actually trying to win.

"Anybody else ever hold him scoreless?" Patsos asked. "I'm a history major. (Are people) going to remember that we held him scoreless or (that) we lost by 30?"

Actually, they'll remember neither, Jimmy.

What people will remember is the putz who let his team get embarrassed to prove a point that had no point.

The AP All-American team looks exactly like the CBSSports.com All-American team.

But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be some debate.

The reality is that when I put together my team the only must-have-players were Tyler Hansbrough, Stephen Curry and Luke Harangody. I can't understand why any ballot wouldn't include those three names, but I can't understand a lot of what happens on AP ballots. So whatever. As for Blake Griffin and Darren Collison, yes, I also featured both. But I considered teams without those names and actually almost went one of the following:

G: Darren Collison (UCLA)
G: Stephen Curry (Davidson)
G: James Harden (Arizona State)
F: Luke Harangody (Notre Dame)
F: Tyler Hansbrough (North Carolina)

Or ...

G: Stephen Curry (Davidson)
G: James Harden (Arizona State)
F: Tyler Smith (Tennessee)
F: Luke Harangody (Notre Dame)
F: Tyler Hansbrough (North Carolina)

To be clear, I love Griffin and Collison. But Collison's dreadful Final Four appearance is something I nearly couldn't get out of my head, and though Griffin was dominant as a freshman his numbers weren't quite as good as Hansbrough's or Harangody's. So that's why I considered dropping one or both for Harden and/or Smith. But in the end, I think I got it right. And I think the AP voters got it right, too.

So good for me.

And good for them.

And we'll just have to argue some other day.

Here's Wednesday's Dear Gary ...

Dear Gary: What is your PROBLEM? You are doing it again. I told you last year, you would not listen but, you had them ranked what 7th at end of season?SODUMMY?????DAVIDSON WILDCATS and STEPHEN CURRY??not in your top 26man u r STUPID

-- AW

I think it's hilarious that somebody who doesn't know how to A) properly space, B) properly punctuate or C) properly spell is calling me stupid (and using all capital letters to do it). But I'm not interested in spending too much time on your shortcomings, AW, because the core of your email -- that I am stupid for not ranking Davidson, if I interpreted that correctly -- is 100 percent accurate.

I should've learned my lesson about doubting Stephen Curry.

I know that now.

Which is why I've explained in multiple blogs (like here and here) that Davidson will be included when I update the Top 25 (and one) before the season begins. Looking at it now, I would guess that Arizona will drop out (because of the loss of Brandon Jennings) and Davidson will move in, though I'm confident there will be additional changes, too. So till then, hold tight. And in the meantime, AW, it wouldn't hurt if you worked on your spacing, punctuation and spelling, and just relaxed a bit in general.

Here's Tuesday's Dear Gary ...

Dear Gary: Tyler Hansbrough is overrated! Go Duke!

-- Hayden

I knew that column about how Stephen Curry could be the New Face of College Basketball would be perceived as a shot at Hansbrough, which is why I went out of my way to write nice things about the North Carolina senior -- like that he's the "easy pick for Preseason National Player of the Year, destined to go down as one of the best in ACC history and if I had to start a college team tomorrow I'd take him with my first pick. Make no mistake, I like Psycho T (and let the record show I think he'll be a better pro than most expect)."

Despite all that, UNC fans thought I was bad-mouthing Hansbrough.

And anti-UNC fans -- mostly Duke fans, shockingly -- applauded me for ripping Hansbrough.

But both groups of fans are missing the point.

I was not bad-mouthing or ripping Hansbrough while writing about Curry, and let me take this moment to explain how Hansbrough is not overrated at all. Most people think he's the most dominant basketball player in America and that's exactly what he is, the most dominant basketball player in America. So Hansbrough isn't overrated. He's accurately rated. Likewise most people think the Beatles are the best band of all-time and that's exactly what they are, the best band of all-time. Thus, the Beatles are accurately rated, too. So Tyler Hansbrough and the Beatles are accurately rated, and I hope we never have to go over this again.

That said, I don't necessarily believe Hansbrough is the type of player casual fans love to watch on TV.

I kinda agree with the coach from the column on that point.

His game doesn't feature blocked shots into the second row, beautiful drives to the basket or gorgeous stepback jumpers. Hansbrough does his work in other, less-pretty ways. Which is why I think Curry is the guy most fans would rather watch play a game even though Hansbrough should be the Preseason National Player of the Year (he's the best player on the best team, after all). And I think that's a reasonable point that shouldn't be taken as a shot at Hansbrough.

I am the Walrus.

Goo goo g'joob.