Lutz

I go to a lot of college basketball games. And before every game, I like to check out the three guys who will be officiating.

College basketball official Mark Whitehead has worked two Final Fours. He must know what he's doing, right?

I don’t know any college basketball officials well. Just enough to perhaps say “hello,” but that’s about it. Yet I feel badly for these guys, even though they get paid a nice chunk of change for carrying a whistle.

Officiating college basketball has to be the most difficult job there is. There has never been a game in which the refs weren’t booed unmercifully, and sometimes it gets much uglier than that.

In the wake of Kansas’ impressive comeback win over Missouri on Saturday at Allen Fieldhouse, there has been much discussion of how that game was called, especially in the final seconds of regulation and the last 8.3 seconds of overtime.

The popular theory among Missouri fans is that Thomas Robinson hammered Phil Pressey on his drive to the basket at the end of regulation while making a tremendous shot block. And that, in the final seconds of overtime, KU guard Tyshawn Taylor was the beneficiary of a touch foul called against Pressey with 8.3 seconds remaining. Taylor went to the line and made both free throws to put the Jayhawks up, 87-86. That ended up being the final score.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnist Bernie Miklasz went so far as to say Missouri was jobbed Saturday at Allen Fieldhouse by an officiating crew that failed to call an obvious foul on Robinson, but did blow the whistle on Pressey’s dubious foul of Taylor.

Kansas fans, of course, don’t see it that way. And even if they did, they would point out that the Tigers were the beneficiaries of similar questionable calls during Missouri’s close win over KU in Columbia earlier this month.

In short, everybody involved with a college basketball team – the players, coaches, fans and, I’m sure, cheerleaders and pep band – think the refs are out to get their team.

And these poor guys in the black-and-white striped shirts have to try and put all of that extraneous noise out of their minds and, presumably, attempt to call every game they officiate right down the middle.

Right down the middle.

Is it even possible? Don’t factors out of their control weigh into some of the calls and decisions officials make during a game? Are they really expected to be perfect?

I think, by and large, officials do an incredible job. Coaches are constantly in their ears. The game is moving at a million miles an hour. The fans, especially in an atmosphere that existed in Lawrence on Saturday, are rabid, bordering on insane.

Yet three guys with whistles are expected to keep the game under control.

I don’t know how they do it, if indeed they do it.

The officials who worked the KU-MU game were Mark Whitehead, Gerry Pollard and Brent Meaux. It was Whitehead’s 76th game of the season, close to three times the games a college basketball team has played. Pollard has worked 65 games; Meaux only around 45.

Whitehead worked the Final Four last season,  his second. He must be good, right? Pollard has been around for a while and is highly respected by those whose job it is to determine a level of respect for a college basketball official.

I’ve seen hundreds of games over the years and it’s difficult for me to determine which officials are doing a good job vs. those who are doing poorly. I just know that if you’re working a Big 12 or a Missouri Valley Conference game you have to have done something right to get to that level.

So, I have concluded, officiating is an imperfect science, one that will never be perfected. One man’s block is another man’s charge. Instant replay, so prevalent today, is good at showing when an official gets a call wrong. But mostly it shows that the refs get a high percentage of the calls correctly. And if the game were played in slow motion, that percentage would get even higher.

But it isn’t. Basketball is played by tremendous athletes who can all run and jump the way most of us only dream of doing. Attempting to officiate these athletes is a thankless job, one that makes even the best referees appear, at times, to be completely off base.

It’s an impossible job, handed to imperfect human beings who are susceptible to their surroundings. Does a crazed home crowd sway an occasional call? Sure, without a doubt. Basketball officials don’t get them all right. But they don’t get many wrong, usually. And I’m here today to praise them because somebody’s gotta do it.

This basketball game needs to happen. And it needs to happen in the Sweet 16 round of the upcoming NCAA Tournament.

Wichita State basketball coach Gregg Marshall has a team that could go far in the NCAA Tournament. Hopefully far enough to meet Kansas.

We need to resolve this thing once and for all, although most KU fans would dispute the notion that there’s a “thing.”

As co-host of a sports talk radio show and writing a newspaper column, the one topic I hear about more than any other, it seems, is a curiosity about how Wichita State would stack up against Kansas. This comes up, mind you, only when Wichita State has an outstanding team, as is the case this season.

The Shockers are rolling and at times look like they could beat almost any team in the country. Including Kansas.

But what would happen if the teams actually did play in the NCAA Tournament?

Kansas’ tradition carries weight. But Kansas has also lost NCAA games to Missouri Valley Conference teams Bradley and Northern Iowa in recent years. Just last season, VCU sent the Jayhawks home in the Elite Eight.

As good as the Jayhawks have been this season – and they have been surprisingly good given their lack of experience – I do not believe they are a far superior team to Wichita State. Nor do I think it would be a fluke if the Shockers beat KU.

I do think the Jayhawks have an edge with 7-foot Jeff Withey and 6-10 Thomas Robinson. Wichita State center Garrett Stutz would match up well with Withey, perhaps, but who do the Shockers have to battle the physically-gifted Robinson?

Then again, the Shockers are an outstanding transition team and would be able to keep up with the Jayhawks in the full court. Wichita State has more shooters and more ways to score.

When I think about this potential game, I get worked up. I want it to happen.

It apparently is never going to happen during the regular season – and you know how I feel about that – so all we can hope for is a postseason meeting between the Jayhawks and Shockers. It has happened only once, in 1981, and I believe all Wichita State fans remember how that one went.

Shocker basketball fans love their team, no doubt about it. But they can become obsessed with KU. I don’t really get it, but it’s real. Perhaps it’s all the success the Jayhawks have had over the years. Perhaps it’s a perception that KU fans think they’re a little better than the rest. Perhaps there is some class envy here.

I think Wichita State-Kansas could develop into one of the finest basketball rivalries in the country if the two schools ever decided to give it a chance. It’s KU, of course, that does the most to hold it back. And by “the most,” I mean the Jayhawks virtually ignore the fact that Wichita State even exists.

And that’s another reason WSU fans would love a shot at the almighty Jayhawks.

The best chance of it happening is for Kansas to secure a regional No. 1 seed and for Wichita State to be seeded No. 4 or No. 5 in the same regional. Two wins for each would put them against one another in the Sweet 16 and the Shockers would finally get their chance to back up their fan base’s tough talk.

I shouldn’t be looking this far ahead. But I can’t help myself. I’ve had an epiphany in the past couple of days. It’s time for a Wichita State-Kansas basketball game to happen.

How would it turn out?

I have no idea. I think WSU would be in the game, though. I can’t imagine it would be a blowout.

The Shockers are good. Really good. And there isn’t a Kansas fan – at least an honest one – who would tell you he or she wasn’t a little nervous about the potential of this game.

If the two teams played 10 times on a neutral floor, I think KU would win six. Maybe seven.

But there’s not that much difference in these teams. The Shockers would benefit from having such a veteran group of players, mostly seniors. There would be no intimidation factor.

Kansas has two great players in Robinson and Tyshawn Taylor. They would be clearly the two best players on the floor in this fantasy game. But they wouldn’t run over Wichita State, which would have an overall edge in guard play, I believe. Joe Ragland is playing at a high level, as is Toure Murry.

And what about the coaches? How much fun would it be to watch Gregg Marshall match wits with Bill Self?

Yes, this game needs to happen. At high noon, if need be. At 10 paces.

Two weeks ago, 7-footer Garrett Stutz was easily Wichita State’s Most Valuable Player for the 2011-12 season. Well, can we put a hold on that vote?

Wichita State senior guard Joe Ragland.

Senior guard Joe Ragland was amazing against Saturday during the Shockers’ 91-74 BracketBusters win at Davidson. And while Stutz is probably still the MVP, it’s fair to pause and consider Ragland’s contributions. In doing so, be prepared to perhaps change your mind.

Ragland has been good all season, but he has been brilliant in some of the Shockers’ biggest games. Against UNLV in December, Ragland scored a season-high 31 points on 9-of-12 shooting. He was 8 of 9 from the three-point line.

In a big home win over Utah State, Ragland made 6 of 10 shots and 4 of 7 three-pointers, finishing with 19 points.

At Creighton last Saturday, Ragland scored 28 points on 9-of-12 shooting and made two of his four three-point attempts.

And his 30-point outburst against Davidson on Saturday included 11-of-14 shooting; three of four from behind the three-point arc.

Throw in games against Drake, Southern Illinois and Northern Iowa, and Ragland is a combined 59 of 88 (67 percent) from the field, 28 of 42 (66.7 percent) from the three-point line and has made 22 of 25 (88 percent) free throws.

Ragland has had some of the best games ever played by a Wichita State guard, and that includes a bunch of high-quality guards. He is playing not like an All-Missouri Valley Conference player, but like an All-American.

It’s easy to get flowery about the Shockers, who improved to 24-4 with Saturday’s win. There is no denying Ragland’s impact on this team. Remember, this is a player who last season, his first for the Shockers after transferring from North Platte (Neb.) Community College, shot only 44.3 percent from the floor and just 31.3 percent from the three-point line.

His shooting numbers have dramatically improved this season, to 56.6 percent (128-226) from the field and 47.5 percent (47-99) from three-point range. And Ragland is doing a lot of other things well, too. He rebounds well for a small guard and is a good passer, too.

If there was an MVP vote for the Shockers, I suspect he would get a good number of votes. So would senior Toure Murry, whose overall game has never been better. Murry was outstanding against Davidson, too, and is a big contributor to the Shockers even when he doesn’t score a lot.

Last season, depth was Wichita State’s calling card. This season, Shockers’ coach Gregg Marshall prefers to keep his rotation tight, usually with seven or eight players. But the firepower on this team far exceeds that of a team that won 29 games and an NIT championship in 2010-11.

Last season, a Shocker player scored 20 or more points only four times. That’s how balanced the offensive attack was. And only once did a Shocker go for more than 20 – Stutz had 24 in WSU’s semifinal NIT win over Washington State.

This season, a Wichita State player has scored 20 or more points in a game 17 times. Stutz scored at least 20 six times; Ragland five. Murry and senior Ben Smith have done so three times.

This offensive explosion has elevated the Shockers, who are shooting 59.2 percent from the field, 57.1 percent from the three-point line and 86 percent from the free-throw line in the past four games. Just when you thought they were due for a cooler shooting game, they made 35 of 55 shots in picking apart Davidson.

The beat goes on for the Shockers, who are playing at an unbelievably high level. Every performance is better than the last.

How long can it last? You tell me. This team is not cooling off one bit.

What I am about to admit here is monumental.

And before you even think it, I’m going to quash the notion that I’m making this admission out of respect for my wife. While I have a great deal of

Kate Upton, that's here here with her left arm in back of her head, is this year's "Sports Illustrated" swimsuit issue cover girl. Hooray for Kate.

respect for my wife (we’ve been married for nearly 14 months, by the way), she does not mandate my reading, or in this case looking, habits or censor my material. Just last night I was looking at some old “Real Detective” magazines. Saucy stuff.

So I am free to look at whatever I choose, which includes the annual “Sports Illustrated” swimsuit issue, which arrived in our mail Wednesday. I wasn’t home to pick up the mail, so this time my wife did. And she put the magazine in the same place she puts all of my magazines, in a magazine basket in my office. It’s not really a “magazine” basket, per se, because other things can be placed inside. But because she puts my magazines in the basket, I have chosen to call it a magazine basket.

Anyway, where was I?

Oh yeah, the SI swimsuit issue just doesn’t do it for me anymore. I mean, how many gorgeous young women dressed scantily, to say the most, can you look at?

So as I turned the pages today, I was struck by how much I wasn’t being drawn in. Sure, the women are beautiful. And tan. And curvy, as us old-timers like to say. But the SI swimsuit issue seems so 1980 to me.

Cheryl Tiegs and Elle MacPherson and Christie Brinkley were my girls. I say “my girls” in an innocent way, because I know my wife reads my blog. Oh, and Rachel Hunter and especially Kathy Ireland, my all-time favorite.

But what I like about the issue nowadays isn’t the skin, it’s that it signals the beginning of spring. I know, spring is still more than a month away. But the pictures of all the girls in all of the sun without all of the clothes – they make me think of spring.

The problem is – I guess it’s a problem, I’m not really sure – is that spring is about all I think about when it comes to this particular issue of SI. Last year, I don’t even think I perused the swimsuit issue before putting it somewhere soon forgotten. I opened the 2012 edition  only so I could have some background before I started writing this blog post.

And having looked at every page, I’m left feeling empty. I’m left thinking how old it must get for these models to pose for these pictures all day long in the pulsating heat and tropical wonder of such places as Panama, Zambia, Victoria Falls, Australia and the Seychelles, wherever the heck that is. In many of the poses, the models are put in what looks to be uncomfortable positions. Many have on or both arms stretched above or behind their heads. I might ask my wife to try it later, who knows?

Arms, I have deduced, are a big deal when it comes to swimsuit modeling. As you’ll notice in the cover shot of Kate Upton, her left arm is raised behind her head, exposing an arm pit. Exposed arm pits are another big deal, it appears, because there are many in the swimsuit issue.

I’m told just to get one usable shot can require hundreds, if not thousands, of camera clicks. Everything has to be just right. There cannot be a hair out of place.

In a continuing swimsuit issue trend, female athletes are the victims – I mean, recipients – of body painting. It’s an art form in which someone with paint and a brush paints the nude bodies of soccer player Alex Morgan, golfer Natalie Gulbis and swimmer Natalie Coughlin, to make it look as if they’re wearing a swimsuit. I swear, as long as I looked, I could not tell that was paint on those places.

In related news, 83 percent of high school boys now list body painting as their career goal. The new big hangout is Sherwin-Williams.

But my enthusiasm for SI’s swimsuit issue is nearly dead. There’s nothing in there for me. It’s just a bunch of pretty faces, legs, arms and arm pits.

I’ll let this go soon, I promise.

But I started playing around with the City League boys top 50 list I produced on the blog last week (remember, just one man’s opinion) and decided to have just a little more fun.

So I broke down the top 20 into two teams. The first team is made up of the top five (Ricky Ross, Darnell Valentine, Perry Ellis, Antoine Carr and Greg Dreiling) along with the reserves from the Nos. 16-20 slots: Val Barnes, Mike Hollimon, Steve Woodberry, Johnny Murdock and Riney Lochmann.

The second team includes the players I ranked from 6-10: Aubrey Sherrod, Conner Frankamp, Adrian Griffin, Taj Gray and Randy Canfield. Joining them are the five players who ranked from 11-15 on my list: Korleone Young, Jamie Thompson, Warren Hollins, Kelly Pete and Gaylor Nickerson.

You see where I’m going with this?

How would Team 1 do against Team 2 in a 10-game series?

Clearly, only my imagination can make this work. But it’s interesting how it sorted out. Team 1′s starters include a center (Dreiling), a power forward (Carr or Ellis), a small forward (Carr or Ellis), a shooting guard (Ross) and a point guard (Valentine).

Team 2′s starters match up perfectly, at least position-wise. There’s a center (Canfield), a power forward (Gray), a small forward (Griffin), a shooting guard (Sherrod) and a point guard (Frankamp).

I would give a slight edge to Team 2′s bench, but Team 1 looks to have a better starting five. Yeah, well, there are four McDonald’s All-Americans in that starting group and another player, Valentine, who would have been had he not graduated in 1977, a year before the first McDonald’s All-America team was chosen.

Valentine vs. Frankamp might be the most intriguing player match-up in my fictitious game. Valentine was able to overpower opponents defensively during his career at Heights. He was a stronger player than Frankamp, but Valentine didn’t become as dominant a player until his senior season.

Remember, Frankamp is only a junior. And he’s already a better offensive player than Valentine, who was not a great shooter at Heights but was able to score a lot because of his great defense and ability to turn steals and other turnovers into lay-ups. Understanding that Frankamp is a work in progress, I’ll give an edge in this matchup to Valentine.

The Ross-Sherrod battle at shooting guard is epic. These are two of the finest scorers in City League history. Ross was a better ball-handler and defender, but Sherrod could fill it up. We actually saw this match-up for a season in the City League, when Ross was a senior in 1978-79 and Sherrod was a sophomore. But the two years difference made it an unfair fight. Give Ross an edge in my fantasy game.

The small forwards would be Ellis vs. Griffin. That’s another intriguing battle. Ellis is the better athlete but Griffin had some of the best instincts ever for a City League basketball player. He knew how to position his body as a rebounder and as a scorer. Ellis, meanwhile, is really taking off as a player this season. I saw him Friday night against Northwest and it wasn’t close. Ellis is becoming a man right before our eyes and it’s going to be difficult to keep him – and Heights – from winning a fourth consecutive Class 6A state championship. Edge to Ellis, but not a big one.

At power forward, Carr goes against Gray. This is another interesting match-up, but Carr gets the edge, even though he wasn’t a true power forward at Heights. He liked to roam the floor and for good reason. His athletic ability allowed him to play as well from the perimeter as he did from the paint. Gray, too, could roam, and he was a better rebounder than Carr in high school. Overall, though, Carr gets the nod here. Easily.

Now for the big guys, Dreiling and Canfield. The 7-foot-1 Dreiling has a four-inch edge over Canfield, a standout at Southeast during the late 1960s and one of the first of his kind in City League history. Dreiling and Canfield had similar skills, but Dreiling had a bigger helping. So he gets the edge, giving Team 1 a sweep. Makes sense, since I picked the Team 1 guys as the five best City Leaguer’s I’ve seen.

Does Team 2′s bench make enough of a difference to even up these games? Maybe. I really like that Team 2 bench.

But if through some time machine miracle we were able to see 10 games between these teams, I think Team 1 would win eight. Maybe nine. They would be entertaining, though.