Aaron Brooks/Dominic James, Mike Anderson, Coaches Poll

1. A few weeks ago, I made a long post listing the virtues of Drew Lavender, Xavier's 5'7" point guard. In it, I described a number of attributes that I find crucial to succeeding at that height in major college basketball.

One that slipped my mind was fearlessness, and I was reminded of it twice over the past two nights.

The first came when Oregon's Aaron Brooks, listed at six feet even, hit the game-winning shot in the Ducks' win at Arizona Sunday night. With the score tied and the clock running down, Brooks drove by his defender, finding Chase Budinger -- a long 6'7" who can jump out of the gym -- blocking his path to the basket. Unfazed, Brooks lofted a soft shot that hit the glass high and dropped through.

Then, tonight, I saw Marquette's Dominic James, the 5'11" sophomore, hit three three-pointers in quick succession, the last of which was a "heat check" defined, an in-your-face shot over Louisville's David Padgett, who stands a foot taller.

It's not easy to make either of those shots; both players had to calculate a slightly higher trajectory than a taller player would. That comes with practice, though. What's harder to teach is the moxie it takes to actually take those shots. Basketball players are taught from an early age to shoot only when their open, when it's easy to get the shot off. Well, when you're that height, it's almost never easy to get a shot off. It takes a special trust in one's ability to take a shot with a much taller defender in your face. After all, if you miss, you're much more likely to be embarrassed or chastised -- the higher degree of difficulty, the more criticism you'll receive for taking it in the first place.

This confidence is something I previously touched on briefly, when I mentioned how Chris Clark, Temple's diminutive junior, didn't penetrate deep enough to draw defenders and open up his teammates. It's something I struggled with as a player in high school (I am 5'8"). It is intimidating to dribble into a group of taller players. Even if you don't plan on shooting, their long limbs can make passing difficult, too. So the instinct is to make the pass as soon as possible. In a lot of cases, that means passing before getting the defense to fully commit. The recipient of the pass is open, but just barely, and by the time he receives the ball, his defender will have recovered. Even one additional will make the play significantly more effective, but it takes courage and confidence to take that extra bounce.

That was sort of a tangent, but you get the idea. Brooks and James are extremely confident, despite their height disadvantage. Those are the kind of guys you want with the ball when the game is on the line.

2. I know that a 2-3 zone played a big part in Missouri's taking a late lead at Kansas last night, but I think Mike Anderson stuck with it too long. It was a nice change of pace and it confounded KU for a while, but once the Jayhawks figured it out, I think it was time to switch back to man.

The "40 minutes of Hell" nickname given to coach Mike Anderson's uptempo style is a nod to the fullcourt defense he favors, but it has implications on offense, too. Anderson's teams thrive on turning defense into offense, and they are used to shooting early and often on the offensive end. That quick-trigger shot selection is okay if you are forcing turnovers and have the opposition playing frantically, but when you slow the opposition down -- as Mizzou did with the zone on Monday -- their defense is in a better position to stop you. You're forced into a halfcourt game, something Anderson-led teams are uncomfortable with and ill-suited for.

You could see it at various points down the stretch. A couple of shots inside -- I didn't catch who took them -- were rushed. The player went up timidly on both occasions, trying to place the ball rather than shoot it, releasing it on the way up. Both were bunny shots; both missed. Later, Kansas' Darrell Arthur blocked another Missouri player twice on the same possession -- although he was called for a dubious foul on the second. The Tiger in question did not go up confidently, and didn't use his body to protect the ball.

I'm a proponent of adjusting your game plan to take away an opposing team's strength, but you need to recognize when it's affecting your team's effectiveness too adversely.

3. I'd love to know what more the voters in the coaches poll want from Virginia Tech. The Hokies appeared in the poll at number 25, behined fellow debutantes Notre Dame (20) and Texas (23).

Virginia Tech has now knocked off ACC heavyweights Duke and North Carolina on consecutive weekends. The first was a barnburner in Durham, the second a dominating performance in Blacksburg save the last few minutes, when the Hokies got a little sloppy and let Carolina make it close. Sandwiched in between was a blowout of UNC-Greensboro.

Notre Dame enters at 20 on the strength of ho-hum home wins over West Virginia and Seton Hall. Texas comes in after wins over Missouri and Oklahoma. Meanwhile, Maryland moves up three spots to 22 after a home win over previously-unbeaten Clemson; I guess poll voters forgot all about their loss to Miami at the Comcast Center earlier in the week.

I know rankings don't mean a whole lot, but I'd love to see the justification behind some of this. What's the point of having the polls if they don't make any sense? At least the writers put the Hokies at 23, ahead of all teams not ranked in the previous poll.