We seem to run into this debate every March, and this year is no different. What makes a winning tournament team? A balanced, defensive minded squad who focuses on fundamentals? Or is it the fast-paced, athletic, offensive style that wins championships? Usually, we find that a mixture of these wins the prize in April (April? C'mon guys).
But maybe a better debate would be Star vs. Teams: which wins championships more often?
Now, having a team filled with stars will definitely improve your chances at winning a championship (in college at least), but I'm talking specifically about a star-run team (looking at you Kemba, Jimmer, Zona's Derrick Williams) vs. the prototypical Kansas, Ohio State and Florida State (defensive) modes.
Let's say you are a coach. You are given the option of selecting a game-changer like Walker, or you are given a bunch of blue-chip athletes to build a team around. Which would you choose? I'm sure most of your would take the blue-chippers as basketball is played by 5 at a time. But let me argue for the other side.
Take Uconn (as Kemba's impact on the basketball world seems to be a significant one). A team that a year ago lost to Virginia Tech in the NIT second round, and a final four loser to Michigan State the year prior, Connecticut was definitely full of mixed feelings and questions. The one constant during these two seasons? Kemba Walker... But as a second, third, fourth option. When Kemba became THE MAN, Connecticut followed; for in college athletics, a big time player makes everyone around him better. College athletes (and students in general) are a strange mixture of energy and complacency, they always want to be the first but sometimes won't act until they see an example of how to act. This idea follows the same path with Uconn. They had the talent, they had the players, they just didn't have the leader, and sometimes a leader, a star, is exactly what you need to win.
Look also at Jimmer Fredette at BYU. He was an absolute monster in last year's first round game again Florida (a rematch I am quite looking forward to in the coming week) and single-handedly carried his team to the NCAA tournament last year. This year? His team seems to understand the urgency and ability of their star and have stepped up mightily.
As an opposing coach, what do you do with a star player? You have to spend a lot of time game planning to shut him down. And admist all of that effort, it is usually another player who steps up to enable the star to win it all. And we see this time and time again in America's greatest tournament.
And this leads us to Duke. Probably the most loved/hated team in America, because year in and year out, it wins. Wins. Wins. Wins. And with star players? Sometimes. But more often than not, it is a well coached team who plays within themselves to get the wins. And in the greatest counter-argument of all to star players, Duke reveals championship banners with a well-rounded team. But lost in all of the "team" concept Duke produces, people forget to realize... the ENTIRE TEAM is packed with stars.
So I guess the answer to the debate are players. Players win you championships. Good players give you a better chance than poor players, and a Star gives you better chance than no star.
If you ask me, I'll take the Star-filled team, but I'm a sucker for underdogs, so give me a gig and I'll bring my team to victory, no matter how good.
