Morrison or Reddick? How bout' neither?

Pick up any sports page, magazine, or turn on any sports program and you are bound hear or read about a great, momentous debate going on through out the world of college basketball. The question being debated- Who should win the Naismith award for best player in college basketball, Morrison or Reddick? The answer, in my opinion, is quite simple- NEITHER.

J.J. Reddick and Adam Morrison are fine basketball players on two of college basketball's best teams but if the Naismith Award is truly anything other than a popularity contest then all talk about these two players being the best players in basketball has to stop! The reason I say this is because, when one starts to discuss the best basketball players one must take into consideration all facets of the game. A truly great basketball player does not just do one thing really well. A great basketball player has a variety of skills that he/she can use to impact the outcome of a basketball game. My problem with Reddick and Morrison as the two top candidates for player of the year is that they are two of the least well-rounded players to be considered for this award since I started watching college basketball a couple decades ago. Both Reddick and Morrison do one thing extremely well, they score. The rest of their basketball skills range from bad to better than average. While their uncanny ability to score certainly accounts for a significant amount of their teams' success, their one-sidedness leaves their teams vulnerable whenever an opposing team successfully defends them or when the have a less than average shooting performance.

Morrison and Reddick's performances during the sweet-sixteen highlights this point. J.J. Reddick was swarmed by a tall and athletic LSU defense. He shot 3 for 18 and Duke lost to fourth seeded LSU. One glance at Reddick's stat line shows you that his ability to impact that game evaporated when LSU took away his outside shot. With Morrison, he had a great scoring game until the last 4 minutes of the game when UCLA successfully shut him down and made a furious come back. Morrison's inability to create plays for his teammates down the stretch when UCLA was focusing on stopping him, was a significant factor in his team's defeat. The inability of these two gentlemen to contribute to their teams' effort when opposing teams stopped them from scoring is a prime example of why these two players should not be monopolizing the player of the year conversation. To further my point, below I have listed four players I believe are more deserving than Either J.J. or Adam.

Randy Foye- Second in the Big East in scoring. Also, averaged almost 6 rebounds a game (as a guard) along with 1.5 steals per game.

Sheldon Williams- Fourth in the ACC in scoring, first in rebounding, first in blocks, and eighth in steals. (Clearly J.J. Reddick isn't even the best player on his own team!)

Curtis Stinson- Third in Big 12 in both assists and scoring. Also averaged over five rebounds a game.

Glen Davis- Second in the SEC in scoring, first in rebounding. He also averaged a block shot and a steal per game. (Oh and his team knocked J.J. Reddick's team out of the tourney.)

What do these four players have in common? They all play in power conferences and they excel in several aspects of the game. Each one of the players consistently affects the outcome of a game in multiple ways. That's just not something I can say for either Reddick or Morrison. (Neither Reddick nor Morrison are in the top ten in any major statistical category- steals, rebounds, blocks, assists- in their conference other than scoring. In addition, both players are regarded as mediocre defensive players.) NOTE: I am using "per game" stats.

If the Naismith award is simply a Heisman-like popularity contest then Reddick or Morrison should win. But if you want to have a real debate about the best player in college basketball the debate should include players with names other than Adam and J.J.