Stats not all it takes to be Player of the Year

My CBS schedule has me in Los Angeles this weekend for Arizona State at UCLA. And as always I'm looking forward to it. The timing is excellent. Sunny and warm in L.A. compared to winter storm warnings in Columbus, Ohio, this weekend. One of the blessed perks of the job.

Not only will I see a pair of top 20 teams, but I'll also see two of the nation's premier players, UCLA's Darren Collison and ASU's James Harden. Both are having outstanding seasons and are on every initial list of Player of the Year candidates.

With about half of the regular season remaining, I think there are probably no more than eight players who merit serious Player of the Year consideration. If you're a college hoops fan, you can identify them yourself. At the beginning of March, I'll give you my top three candidates and personal choice. However, today I would like to look at the objective and subjective elements that go into choosing a POY.

For me, the objective elements are things that are obvious, not prone to debate, skewed to individual performance, and universally accepted. The subjective elements are prone to debate, skewed to team performance and more variable in nature. So between now and March Madness, enjoy the debate about college basketball's POY. Over the next two months, I'm quite sure the leading candidates will separate themselves from each other and a consensus will be reached.

Objective

1. Stats/numbers: A POY candidate has to be posting some impressive individual numbers. That's what grabs our attention. Points, rebounds, assists and field goal percentage are the most significant.

2. Consistency: POY candidates can't have only a two- to three-week power surge. They have to be plugged in all the time and lighting up the stat sheet all season. Game after game, they have to bring the goods. Off nights are very infrequent.

3. Presence: A POY candiate not only is consistent, but he occasionally or even consistently dominates games. He doesn't often blend in. His play more times than not stands out for its excellence.

4. Represents: A POY candidate embodies the values of the game and represents himself, his team and the university in a positive way.

Subjective

1. Team success: To what degree an individual's performance in a team game impacts the record is a fair and important consideration, but it is open to debate. A POY candidate on a strong team should win more games than a POY candidate on a weaker team. A POY candidate who helps a weaker team win half its games is just as impressive as one on a stronger team winning its conference.

2. Behind the numbers: How is a POY candidate accumulating his stats? Is it more a function of the system he plays in or the level of competition he faces? There's also the possibility that a player can be "better" while his numbers go down, or vice versa -- his numbers are up, but he hasn't really "played" better. The eye of the beholder rules here.

3. Expectations: Like preseason polls, preseason rankings of players can have some level of influence in determining how a POY candidate is viewed. A player returning from an All-America season can benefit from some early season hype or be unreasonably held to his prior standard.

Kellogg: Stephen Curry just needs the green light. (US Presswire)

After broadcasting five games in person and watching a few dozen on the tube, here are some noteworthy performers. This is not meant to be a comprehensive list, just a fun little shout-out.

Stat-sheet-stuffer supreme: Terrence Williams, Louisville -- A legitimate threat to get a triple-double or two this season.

Call me "Double Dub:" Blake Griffin, Oklahoma -- Automatic twin digits in points and rebounds in almost every game he plays.

Buckets: Jodie Meeks, Kentucky -- Efficient and ever ready to erupt for big numbers. A school-record 54 points Tuesday at Tennessee.

Buckets II: Jeff Teague, Wake Forest -- One of the nation's most explosive and hard to corral offensive players.

Give me the green light: Stephen Curry, Davidson -- He's got it and his team needs him to have it. A high-volume shooter with a high basketball IQ, too.

Low profile/high power IPO: Andrew Nicholson, St. Bonaventure -- Double-figure points per game and 51 blocked shots so far for this freshman.

Triumvirate treat: Dominic James, Wesley Matthews and Jerel McNeal, Marquette -- Dynamic producers at both ends, and fun to watch.

Nano-second fast: Kailin Lucas, Michigan State -- Speed to burn and the poise to use it effectively.

Gluteus maximus glasseater: DeJuan Blair, Pitt -- The nation's most relentless and gifted offensive rebounder. And he punishes opponents with a smile.

Unranked, but not unnoticed: Bradley, BYU, Gonzaga, Illinois, Illinois State, Kentucky, Memphis, Oklahoma State, UNLV, Wisconsin.