Justin St. Germain Sports Editor

It wasn't supposed to be like this. Five days to the Final Four, and there are no lines at campus travel agencies. Sports fans are actually in class, instead of driving back from Atlanta or to San Antonio. The basketball team spent last weekend watching softball.

That's not an ending befitting the preseason No. 4 team, a team widely regarded as one of the most talented in the nation. So, what went wrong? Was the team just that overrated?

Well, yes. It was. Even now, after the most disappointing season of the Lute Olson era, too many myths endure about this team and its abilities.

For instance, the common perception that Andre Iguodala is a can't-miss NBA prospect. Not only can he miss ÷ as he proved by shooting 37.9 percent from the field in the last 10 games of the season ÷ but if he leaves this year, he probably will. Would-be prophets and would-be profiteers point to his athleticism and say the NBA Draft has changed; that now, teams draft on potential. He's been compared to former UA standout Richard Jefferson, who, like Iguodala, was the third or fourth offensive option during his final year. Jefferson didn't blossom until he went to the pros, and Iguodala's got better court vision, as evidenced by his three triple-doubles.

But Jefferson also did a few things Iguodala obviously doesn't ÷ namely, he played defense, dribbled with some semblance of proficiency and hustled for 40 minutes. He also lists at 6-foot-7, one inch taller than Iguodala.

Most importantly, in the last month of his final season, Jefferson took on the role of defensive stopper during Arizona's 2001 Final Four run, because it was what his team needed. Iguodala, on the other hand, turned the last month of what might be his last season into his own personal NBA tryout, throwing bricks like a Palestinian teenager as his team lost crucial games.

That's not to say the season's result was Iguodala's fault. Despite what another popular misconception ÷ that the UA coaching staff is beyond reproach ÷ would suggest, the blame shouldn't fall on the players, collectively or individually.

Everybody knew this team had the talent, and coaching is about getting the most out of a team's talent. But questioning Lute Olson is considered heresy on this campus, so I won't. His own words from the Seton Hall postgame press conference do a good enough job of that.

After citing the team's lack of a "take-charge type of person," he gamely shouldered the blame.

"From a coaching standpoint, I guess we just were not able to get that from the other spots," he said. "It was an obvious problem that we had to deal with, and we just didn't get the job done."

Other generally accepted hallmarks of good coaching include winning close games and beating lesser opponents, especially during conference play. This season, Arizona went 4-6 in games decided by five points or less and lost to three Pac-10 teams that finished with losing overall records.

Hard to blame all of that on the players, or on the lack of one go-to guy.

Speaking of which, another myth crumbled all by itself this year. It became absolutely limpid as the season progressed that Salim Stoudamire is not this team's

take-charge player. Too many times, the fans harbored the hope that he would suddenly step up down the stretch of a tight game and take over.

UA fans and coaches need to dismiss the idea that the team will only go as far as Stoudamire takes it. Not only is it not true ÷ it's not fair. Every time the team folded in the face of adversity, all eyes turned to Stoudamire, expecting him to mount a one-man offensive and win the game. What about the supposed lottery pick, Iguodala? What about the best center in the Pac-10, Channing Frye? What about the team's most passionate player, the closest thing it had to a leader, Hassan Adams? The expectations of the entire UA community didn't fall on them. They fell on Stoudamire, and it showed every time he sat on the bench with a towel over his head.

There's a reason Stoudamire is always described as "dangerous" or "streaky." His reputation is based almost entirely on one virtuoso performance against Kansas during his sophomore year. That one game ÷ a 32-point outburst in which he could do no wrong ÷ prompted too many people to anoint him as the team's savior, and those unjust expectations have weighed on him ever since.

If he comes back next year ÷ and it's hard to imagine he wouldn't ÷ Stoudamire should be viewed as one weapon on a team that will be even richer in depth and talent than this year's was supposed to be.

That's the good news ÷ that there is good news. This year was a disappointment on many levels, but next year's team shapes up to be one of Olson's best. He might have had an off year in terms of coaching, but next year's class ÷ and its jewel, Jawaan McClellan ÷ proves he can still recruit with the best. Iguodala's possible departure could actually benefit the team by allowing McClellan more minutes and keeping anybody else ÷ like Chris Rodgers ÷ from becoming next year's Will Bynum or Dennis Latimore. Both were talented players who transferred because of lacking playing time, and whom the Wildcats profoundly missed this year.

One thing's certain: whatever transpires between this season and next, the expectations will only be greater next year. Only next year, those expectations will be justified.

Justin St. Germain is a senior majoring in English and creative writing. He can be reached at sports@wildcat.arizona.edu.