"Strumming my pain with his fingers...singing my life with his words...Killing me softly with his song, killing me softly..."--The Fugees

Every time I see Indiana University forward Marco Killingsworth play, that's what inevitably runs through my head, Lauren Hill and the Fugees singing about something that I barely understand the words to, much less understand the point to.

What else do I think of Killingsworth? I think his transfer from Auburn to IU looks su####ious at best. I think he plays for a terrible coach and a team that I used to follow during my childhood but now nearly detest.

And I think he's the nation's M.I.P (Most Important Player).

Slightly different from MVP. And I'm guessing that several of you out there "slightly" disagree. 

But after watching Killingsworth dominate another team last night, this time (5) Illinois,  I'm under the impression that he might just be the most important College Basketball player in the country right now. That's right--Marco Killingsworth, I presume.

Granted, he's not statistically rated in the Top 5 of any major category--Killingsworth is 85th in scoring, 102nd in rebounds--but he could very well be the nation's most important player for a multitude of reasons. He seems to be more of an intangibles type guy. Which makes him a perfect fit for M.I.P.

For M.I.P., there's just one category:

1) Importance To Team

Gonzaga's got everybody's favorite "Larry Bird look-alike" in Adam Morrison, who leads the nation in points per game at 28.3. As a junior, he's also guiding the Bulldogs to a Top Ten ranking and a 14-3 record. His team would be notably different and worse without him, but they'd still probably make the NCAA Tournament because of the weaker WCC and the current big-league status of Gonzaga.

Last week, Gonzaga coach Mark Few actually let point guard Derek Raivio look-off Morrison on a play designed specifically for him--and didn't rip Raivio a new one because Raivio hit the shot that followed the Morrison look-off.

Even though we're talking about Mike Davis here, even he knows where his bread and butter is. Do you think he'd let Roderick Wilmont or Marshall Strickland look off Killingsworth repeatedly? The ball goes into Killingsworth like it should and it stays there until he makes a move. 

Think there's a reason that IU leads the nation in three point shooting and team field goal shooting? It's because of Killingsworth, even though he rarely ever takes a shot outside of fifteen feet. Most of the plays are designed for Killingsworth to touch the ball on the interior and evaluate his scoring options on the player guarding him.

He then sees if anyone's open on the perimeter. Let's just say by the stats that a few guys are open. When you have more open shots, your shooting percentages rise. I could go 5-8 shooting and drop about 13 points a game with Killingsworth drawing double teams and then dishing it back out.

Marco's the reason Indiana's winning, plain and simple. How else do you explain that this very team, this exact team was 15-14 last year, losing in the NIT first round and 14-15 in 2003-2004? The reason for the turnaround certainly isn't Davis coaching.  

With Killingsworth, Indiana's a Top 15 team and now a virtual lock (unless Mike Davis does something to screw it up) to make the NCAA Tournament in March after two seasons in the NIT and a sub-.500 record last year.

Now I can hear those J.J. Redick backers shouting from the Cameron Indoor rooftop, "What about J.J.?" Redick currently sits fourth in the nation in scoring at 26.4 points per game. Impressive, yes. Certainly his 41 points against then #2 Texas was impressive. But he's not going anywhere in the value department averaging only two assists and 2 rebounds per game.

Plus, look at Duke's schedule; thus far it includes the likes of Davidson, Drexel, Valpo, UNC Greensboro and Bucknell. For every Memphis, Texas and IU on their schedule, they've got a card full of patsies. My point is merely that Redick's not taking on everyone's best on a nightly basis to the extent that Morrison and Killingsworth are.

The list of "worthies" could go on: Rudy #### from UConn has tons of potential, but you're not M.I.P. material if the point guard who missed the first part of the season (Marcus Williams) for some shady computer ordeal is considered more important to the Huskies than you are.

And let me just state for the record that I love Kevin Pittsnogle, the Bobaganosh from West Virginia. He's got the Mountaineers on an 11-game winning streak behind his near nightly double doubles.

But he's not as important to his team's fortunes as Marco Killingsworth is to Indiana's.

Or to Mike Davis.

Think about it: Davis was on the verge of being fired; ironically he's on a zero-tolerance policy with IU like his predecessor was, it's just this one has to do with wins and losses and making a certain NCAA Tournament.

Davis certainly doesn't help himself out when he tells reporters before the season to "reserve" their tickets to Indy for a Monday night game in April (implying that IU will be playing for the national championship). At that point, Hoosier fans everywhere were probably smacking their foreheads and actually saying, "I miss Bobby Knight--he would never have said something so dumb." Which is a paradox statement in itself.

The only way in which Davis helps out his cause is by continually throwing the ball into Killingsworth and praying for good things. Did you see Davis's mixed and odd reaction when it appeared Killingsworth wouldn't play last night because of severe back spasms? Davis hit Coaching Def-Con 2, easily. He was flipping out, wondering what his team would do without Marco providing power in the paint.

That's why Killingsworth is so important. He's saved Mike Davis from being exposed until at least the NCAA Tournament. 

Killingsworth reminds me of Chris Webber in an odd way. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing, but he's got that look and that style of play that Webber had at Michigan. But here's the thing about Killingsworth, Webber, Pittsnogle or just about anyone else not a guard: they've got to have the ball in their hands to be effective, like a wide receiver in the NFL. If you don't get them the ball, they can't do anything. Give Steve Smith of the Carolina Panthers the ball 10-12 times a game he gives you 200-plus yards and a couple touchdowns.

So do we give the M.I.P. award to a "quarterback" like Redick, who's on a loaded team that would surely be Top 10 without him, or to a "wide receiver" like Killingsworth?

It's Killingsworth, I presume.

"Killing me softly with his rebounds, singing my life with his j...Killing me softly with his game, Killing me softly..."

Delusional, either from lack of sleep or excitement from the game, I watched the highlights and Morrison's post-game interview--and could have sworn I saw Larry Bird.

On the surface, Morrison looks the part--guiding a mid-major power team with a good jump shot, floppy hair and a 7th grade mustache.  Just like Bird, he drops 40 plus on teams, including those "dagger" shots which just buries the opposition late in games. If you look hard enough, you can even see Morrison hold ball a little bit like Bird did on his jumper.

For the next two weeks I kept tabs on Morrison, including watching hit the game winning "Bank-Is-Open-On-Saturday's" three pointer against Oklahoma State last weekend. For the season, he's averaging 28.5 points, 6 rebounds and 1.4 assists per game. Bird's senior year at Indiana State, as College Player of the Year, he averaged 28.6 points, 14.9 rebounds and 5.5 assists per game (Basketball reference.com). Besides the points, there's no much similarity in their games. But Morrison could be the next Larry Bird, right?

The problem isn't necessarily our infatuation with finding the "Next Michael Jordan" or the "Next Larry Bird"--it's that we're only looking for the next white Larry Bird and next black Michael Jordan. Why do we automatically compare all athletes with former players of their own race? What if, for example, Adam Morrison's really more comparable to Michael Cooper than Larry Bird?

For years, even before Michael Jordan retired the first time, we started comparing every hot college prospect with him. I remember it starting with Kendall Gill when he was at Illinois in 1989. It really got going with USC's Harold Miner a few years later--so much so that we aptly nicknamed him "Baby Jordan". Turns out, that as a pro, "Baby Jordan" stunk worse than a baby diaper.

Did we learn our lesson that there wouldn't be another Air Jordan? Of course not.  Since Miner, we've given the "Next Michael Jordan" tag to Michael Finley, Vince Carter, Tracy McGrady, Kobe Bryant, Korleone Young, Darius Miles and most notably, LeBron James. (Bonus points if you know who Korleone Young is). 

In 1998, as Kentucky was winning its second NCAA Basketball Championship in three years, I compared UK's star guard Jeff Sheppard, who is white, with former Lakers star Bryon Scott, who is black. I thought they were both great leapers, good shooters and had similar quickness. No one agreed with me. Maybe I was wrong, or maybe it was because I was comparing two players of a different race.

In the NFL, Michael Vick is an "original" at the quarterback position. For all my complaining about Vick as a quarterback, I will agree, he is special. But when he's compared to other players, no one comes up with a comparison likes this: "He's got Steve Young's legs and Joe Montana's arm!" Can't he be a cross between two white players? Brian Urlacher of the Bears is never compared to Lawrence Taylor--but they both knocked the opposition into next week.

What makes us so uncomfortable with comparing athletes of a different race? We should be able to look at the stats of a player and compare him with anyone from that sport--it's disrespectful not to, really.

In 1999, I read an article comparing then University of Miami (OH) star Wally Szczerbiak with Larry Bird, without specifically mentioning which parts of their game were alike. To the best of my knowledge, Wally's World involves shooting three's and lifting a lot of weights. The only thing it looks like Bird ever lifted off a rack was a basketball.

If you compare the stats of Bird over his career with other players, know who he's most similar to? Try Kevin Garnett, Magic Johnson, Clyde Drexler and Dirk Nowitzki (Basketball-reference.com). Of that group, only Nowitzki, who is white, is compared to Bird.

Last spring, as the NBA was debating the MVP Award, many argued that Shaquille O'Neal was the most dominate player in the game since Jordan. He was more valuable than any other player by far. While I agree with that, it doesn't mean he automatically wins the MVP every year (especially when he missed more games than Steve Nash).

If the argument is always who's the Most Valuable for their team overall in any year and not any given year, then Shaq should have won over Nash. By that policy, Jordan should have been MVP for every year from 1989-1998, even the years he missed while playing minor league baseball--because it proved how much the Bulls needed him. 

But the reality is the MVP is given to the player who's Most Valuable to his team in a given year, which is why Karl Malone won the award over Jordan in 1997 and Charles Barkley won over Jordan in 1993. It's why Allen Iverson won the award as a point guard for the Sixers in 2001--but no one really had a problem with it then, even if Shaq was more valuable to the Lakers that year than he was the Heat last year. How are Steve Nash and Allen Iverson's MVP wins over Shaq any different, aside from race?

As basketball fans, we're always craving the "Next", whether that's Magic, Michael or Larry. Why don't we just enjoy what we've got--which is the first LeBron and the first Dirk. These guys, like all others, should ultimately be judged on their stats and their performances, not on their skill level as it compares to former players of the same race.

Maybe then we can put down the binoculars, enjoy each player for who and what they are, and ultimately end the "Bird" Watch.