One of these fads that comes from there being so many mediums and so much information nowadays is everyone’s trying to find the next hot thing before its even luke-warm.

It shows up almost everywhere: fashion (those who keep trying to make bellbottoms stylish), annoying catchphrases (“Fear the Turtle?” How original-what’s next, for Hofstra: “Fear the upside-down Visa card”?) and whoever the hosers are who keep trying to turn “One Shining Moment” after the NCAA Tournament into Max Headroom.

Heck, I remember when as a freshman in high school ten years ago, I knew kids who wore Clippers stuff and told any of us who followed the NBA: “The Clippers are gonna be GOOD!”

Well, I wised up and I hope he did too: I no longer waste my time watching the NBA (call me, David Stern, when your refs call it the same for every player and when your teams use those eight extra minutes a game to outscore Princeton). And the Clippers were never good.

Anways, the “sexy pick” is now a staple for those analyzing an upcoming college basketball season. People look at a preseason roster with more returning starters than dance girls, see newcomers who averaged 75 ppg at Ping Pong High or hear about a team having one of the 200 future NBA lottery picks and start drooling about that team’s prospects like a rabid dog.

With all the early defections to the NBA , it’s even more common this year. According to varying 2002-03 preseason annuals, we should expect, among others, Florida, Xavier, Texas, Minnesota, and Alabama to all have their best seasons in years.

All should make deep runs in the NCAA Tournament because, well, they just look like they should. Maryland, defending champs? Apparently that doesn’t count for anything; they’re nowhere near the top ten in most polls.

Now, few will argue most of these teams should be decent, probably good enough to get into the tournament. This year at least prognosticators latched onto teams who won some games last year. Most years they hitch their horses to those whose only recent distinguishing moment was maybe three games in March.

Given that, all above are still probably more hype than happening. One might call these teams the Mazda Miatas of college basketball; if you get past the sporty look and take a peek under the hood, there’s still a lot to prove.

Of those five listed, three didn’t advance past the second-round of the NCAA’s last year, one made it to the Sweet 16 because of the idiotic pod system, and one didn’t even make the tournament. Furthermore, these teams have combined for a total of three Final Four appearances ever, two if you take away Minnesota’s forfeiture in 1997.

That’s overlooked now, though, because everyone wants to be the first to say “I knew it” when a team looks good. Not to encourage outright skepticism, but a little discretion would be nice.

Alabama was throttled by Kent State in the NCAA’s last year. Not edged. Hammered. The Crimson Tide returns most of its team, so some expect a Final Four. Again. Hasn’t anyone seen what happens when Tampa Bay keeps getting picked for the Super Bowl?

Florida had a tumultuous regular season and lost to Creighton in the first-round of the tournament last year. They have some flashy new recruits, but what else is new? Florida has recruits every year. Why is Florida picked top five by some publications who don’t even put Creighton-which returns almost everybody-in their top 25?

This is not to pick on these schools. Overestimating can be found everywhere. In the Horizon League someone picked Wisconsin-Green Bay, 9-21 last year and with a new coach but lots of returning players this year, to finish second ahead of solid programs like Butler, Detroit and Illinois-Chicago, who combined to win 63 games a year ago. Huh?!?

The point is, many boosters and fans get a little too excited when they see their team listed in the top 15/top 10/top 5 when it hasn’t proven much. If the team wasn’t that good last year, why expect the same team is going to be much better this year?

Many get distorted views of teams because it looks good on paper, but there’s so many other variables. How hard did the players work in the offseason? Were any personnel losses more important than at first glance? Did the team really accomplish that much last year?

All these teams have flaws. I just don’t see how Minnesota, which wasn’t that good last year and lost two double-figure scorers, is going to be second even in a suspect Big 10. Texas got extremely fortunate with its NCAA draw last year and has an in-and-out offense. And who thinks the crooks on the NCAA Tournament Selection Committee will really give Xavier or Western Kentucky (another trendy pick) a seed allowing them to do much in the tournament, even if they have spectacular regular seasons?

All of this is just offered as a word of caution. Wouldn’t want anyone thinking about starting the next “firecoachX.com” site if your team falters.