Pitt's loss to Connecticut Saturday was simple ... THE PANTHERS REALLY MISS LEVANCE FIELDS.

I know this is not something that is rocket science but the bottom line is as much as Pitt is a "team" the Panthers still have stars who are their go-to players and a guy like Fields, who plays point guard -- the most important position on the court by the way -- is just not replaceable, particularly given the toughness and the confidence he brings every game.

And the bottom line is this -- if Levance Fields does not come back 100 percent healthy, far more of these close games against good teams are going to go the other team's way than Pitt's way because he is their go-to guy and right now they look lost in the final minutes of close games.

And at the end of the UConn loss, just like the Villanova loss and the Cincinnati loss -- the Panthers needed someone to take the ball and take control of the offense. Penetrate and either hit a basket or dish it to an open man and right now they just don't have that guy.

A go-to guy is more than just a good scorer -- it is a guy who can create his own offense, a guy who wants the ball when the game is on the line and a guy who isn't afraid to take the shot when his team is down by 1 and the clock is winding down.

Fields is that guy -- he is fearless and he is clutch.

With Fields, the Panthers are a potentially great team. Without him, they are a good team.

And with him the Panthers can make a long run in the NCAA tournament. Without him, they will be on first-round upset alert.

Thursday they play host to West Virginia in the basketball version of the Backyard Brawl. It is a game they should win going away but if it comes down to the end and the Panthers need a big shot to win it, well, it will be interesting to see: (a) who has the ball, (b) if he gets the shot off and (c) if he can make it ...

If Fields were around, the answer to all three questions would be easy: Fields, yes and yes.

W.V.WHO?

• Speaking of the Mountaineers, I covered the 62-39 stinker they laid against Cincinnati last Wednesday and I can honestly say the only time I can ever remember a West Virginia team playing worse offensively at home, was, well you remember the game I'm sure ...

Actually at least that version of the Mountaineers had an excuse -- Pitt's defense played well. Against the Bearcats the other night, the Mountaineers were just flat out awful, as 10-for-50 from the field would suggest. The Mountaineers had only 21 points from the field that night in 40 minutes of basketball. That is pretty hard to do.

But it illustrates one thing about a coaching transition -- especially one as dramatic as they have undergone -- and that is at some point new coach gets tired of trying to fit his system around inherited players and makes the decision to begin building a foundation for the future.

And that's what seems to be going on in Morgantown -- Bob Huggins is a defensive coach who preaches a physical, hard-nosed brand of basketball built around big, strong post players who dominate the paint and he has a bunch of players recruited to play a more European-style based on good jump shooting and zone defenses. Early in the season Huggins seemed to play a lot more zone defense and a lot more perimeter offense but recently he's begun to ask a lot more out of his players in man-to-man defense and he has benched guys who aren't able to get it done on that side of the court.

That night against the Bearcats, it was clear that the shooters had no legs and they were using a lot of energy on defense. Part of it was several of the players had the flu, but I think the other part is some of the shooters legs are just getting weary. The Mountaineers did bounce back against Providence, though I'm not sure what that means because the Friars haven't really been relevant since Rick Pitino was around.

It will be interesting to monitor this the rest of the year. I do think that Huggins is on the right track and that the Mountaineers will be formidable in time, but it is clear he is a little frustrated because he doesn't have the horses to push teams around like he usually does.

"Playoffs? Don't talk about playoffs. Are you kidding me? Playoffs?"

Why is college football's "playoff" system better than college basketball's?

Simple, because in college football, an upset of the magnitude of Penn State 85, No. 7 Michigan State 76, would have been the top story on Sportscenter and nationally a major story with major ramifications on the national title. Instead, it is sort of a blip on the radar screen lost in the shuffle of hundreds of basketball games that mean very little because 65 teams make the tournament and even teams that stink the joint out for the regular season can still make it by getting hot for three or four games in their conference tournament.

The BCS is far from perfect but I still would argue that it is a better way to pick a national championship than the "let's have a party for every team with a pulse" method of the NCAA Tournanment because every game in the regular season is huge.

That's why people still talk about Pitt over West Virginia, Appalachain State over Michigan, Stanford over USC and nobody really remembers the "big" basketball games in December ...

March is only a month away ...

Finally, since the system is what it is, let's talk NCAA Tournament from the the Big East perspective.

As of right now (and barring a total collapse) I think there are seven teams looking fairly good Notre Dame, Syracuse, Louisville, Connecticut, Pitt, Marquette and Georgetown but only Georgetown can be considered a lock. The other six have been too inconsistent to consider them a lock. I think you could throw WVU into the borderline category but the Mountaineers have a tough stretch coming up and need to get some wins.

Beyond that I can't see any other team that right now looks like more than an NIT berth and I'd say given the way the Big East teams have beat each other up -- a few of the top teams are likely to fall back as well.