Jack’s Blog

Each one of the hundreds of players who competed in Las Vegas last weekend has dreams of moving on to continue their career in college.  Whether they get to play where they want - or if they get to put on a college uniform at all - likely depends on what college coaches saw when they were evaluating.  The operative word here is saw.  Being seen is mandatory. 

For the top tier players, they got a taste of the recruiting process well before they were contacted by any institution of higher learning.  The war to obtain the services of the upper echelon high school star can be worse than the recruitment he faces from the colleges - and that’s mainly because the colleges are under NCAA rules, which are infinitely more strict than those summer league coaches, shoe reps, or “runners” for sports agents have to adhere to.  If there are any at all! 

Players are wooed by “organizations” with all the (legal) perks - flown to and from practices (those they’re was required to attend) since the hometowns of many are located too far away to make driving impractical.  Obviously, they’re was flown to events (from their hometowns) if they aren’t with the team when it departs to compete in tournaments all across the nation.  The swag that goes along with participation is all top notch - however many pairs of shoes are needed, gear in the form of uniforms, t-shirts, sweat suits, shooting shirts, any accoutrements (sleeves, braces, compression shorts, etc.) and, on several occasions, even meals.  Naturally, hotel accommodations were booked at no charge.

To my knowledge, there is no NCAA regulation against any of this - although the folks in Indy don’t in any way endorse this practice and would like it all to miraculously disappear.  Their biggest fears are the precedents that are being set and the expectations kids at a very impressionable age think they’re entitled to.

I happened to learn of one such player whose father was quite pleased with the attention his son was getting, but became somewhat disillusioned when the insanity known as the “evaluation period” for NCAA coaches began.  He was quoted as saying that his son enjoyed the experience (hey, red carpet treatment is something all of us would love to try - even once) but, according to this dad, the organizers “were guys who always wanted more.  Each tournament we go to, two new guys show up.”  When people are given lavish gifts, there has to be some ulterior motive behind it.  If you’re lucky, it has to do with winning.  It could deal with control.

What complicates matters - and is behind the, as Pat Riley used to call it - “The Disease of More,” is, down deep, these kids don’t care about winning (except in the instances where a loss eliminates the team from further competition).  What they want - and understandably so - is an opportunity to showcase their individual talents.  They know that college coaches aren’t recruiting their team, but whichever individuals impress them enough to offer a scholarship (let’s leave “beyond a scholarship” for another blog).  In case you’ve never seen this brand of basketball, it’s rife with selfishness - and, due to the nature of it, it’s tough to blame the kids. 

As far as selecting which group to play for, high school kids need to understand the following line (which I read somewhere, many years ago):

“Remember, when you sell your soul to the devil, the devil owns it.”      Â

In the week prior to the AAU extravaganza in Las Vegas, Alex’s team played in a smaller event in Southern California.  During one of the camp games, his teammate and one of his closest friends had a career game - if that can be said of a 17-year-old.

During this session, our guys were on different teams, so Alex got a chance to watch his buddy put on an offensive show.  Although a good shooter, in this particular game, the youngster went off!  He had 26 at halftime and wound up with 39 for the game - including eleven 3’s!  Possibly the best part of the story was that his performance happened to come at a game that the University of Washington’s head coach, Lorenzo Romar, was in attendance.  If he wasn’t known before the game, Alex’s running mate sure opened some eyes that night.

I had left the event at the conclusion of the tournament (this was a camp at the same site) but our older son, Andy, had driven up from Orange County (he’ll be a senior at UC-Irvine next year) where he has a summer job.  This meant I got dual accounts of this phenomenal performance.

What I found most remarkable was that, when the team got to Vegas, this kid (as nice a young man as you’ll ever meet, with two of the greatest parents) had morphed into a completely different player.  His confidence level had skyrocketed.  He started looking for his shot.  Not that he was timid before his breakout game, but he now played the game like he owned it.  

He was always a solid contributor (he and Alex have played on the same AAU team for 4-5 years), but was never considered the “go-to guy.”  He was now!  As the games came and went, he looked to be more assertive.  There’s no question in my mind that the game in which he went for 39 changed his outlook on his capabilities. 

Kids, even at this level, are confident but often, it’s a false bravado.  They’ve been told by their coaches, parents, brothers or others in their camp how good they are and then they go out to try to prove it.  But when a player actually does it - when he has a game that he’ll never forget - it often inserts a shot of true confidence because, as Satchel Paige once said:

“It ain’t braggin’ if you kin do it.”  Â

Finally out of that intense Las Vegas heat and back to Fresno - where, just to remind us of the fun we had in Sin City, the thermometer is well over 100.

Younger son, Alex, and the undermanned AAU team of kids from Central Cali (Organized Chaos), represented the Valley well, going undefeated (3-0) in their pool and winning two games in the “Championship” bracket (including a 77-51 trouncing of D-1 Sports of NC, led by Quincy Miller, rated by most as the #2 rising senior prospect in the nation) before dropping a two-point decision to Urban DFW in a contest in which OC led most of the way.

Other than getting a chance for my wife and I to watch our son and agonize over every missed shot and turnover, cheer every basket and assist and “help” the officials (some parents more than others - they know who they are), the trip gave me a chance to catch up with some old coaching friends I haven’t seen in a decade or longer.  NCAA rules preclude coaches from talking to parents of prospects at such an event but, because I have what’s referred to as a “pre-existing relationship” with so many of these guys, I enjoyed speaking, without fear of them getting in trouble, with many of the coaches whose profession I used to call my own.  Heck, I’ve known these guys a whole lot longer than I’ve known my son!

To paint a picture of what last Wed-Mon was like, there were three or four tournaments in Las Vegas involving high school prospects.  The one our kids played in (the adidas Super 64) had 40 pools of 4 teams in each pool.  160 teams!  Following pool play, teams were placed in “championship,” “gold,” “silver” or “bronze” divisions, depending on their record against the other three teams in their respective pool.  Then, single elimination tournaments began.  The other events were similar, although their numbers weren’t quite so high, more like 30-60 teams. 

One day, I received a call from a friend and former colleague who I had actually helped get into the business.  He’s currently an assistant coach at a school in a league that would be referred to as mid-major.  He called while travelling from one of the 20 or so sites.  The pace is hectic, as coaching staffs try to see (and be seen by) as many of their “top-line” prospects as they can, evaluate those players they’ve heard about or received interest from (but have yet to see play) and, especially in the case of low-to-mid-majors, maybe find an as yet unknown player whom they’d have a shot at successfully recruiting.

This coach remarked to me that he was fully aware his job was to get players, players who, in coaching parlance, “could play,” i.e. make their team better, win more games and get his team into the NCAA tournament - or get fired.  For the most part, that’s the prevailing attitude that exists in Division I now.  Why?

I posted a blog on 11/28/07 entitled The Biggest Problem in College Basketball Today.  My number one answer?  Colleges are paying coaches too much money.  Whether you agree or not, the blog is well worth reading and I suggest you check it out, keeping in mind I wrote it nearly three years ago.  The game - and profession - have progressed but, often, with progress comes problems.  Or in the case of today’s college basketball scene, increased pressure.  While what Gonzaga has done, i.e. seeing them in a Top 10 poll is no longer shocking, is remarkable, the presidents and athletics directors of the other seven teams in the WCC (Gonzaga’s conference) adopt a feeling of “If they can do it, why can’t we?” 

The WCC is a league of eight church-schools, six in California and the University of Portland, in addition to the Zags, so resources would seem to have been relatively equal throughout the league when Gonzaga began its ascent.  Don’t think the prez’s and AD’s don’t have egos.  When their counterparts from Gonzaga walk into WCC meetings, the “have-nots” begin to wonder, “Why not us?”  Changing the coach often becomes the answer.  So, while my friend’s statement about “get players or else” might have seemed a little dramatic, it’s become reality.

Yet, coaches love their profession.  Some for different reasons than others, but working long hours - and many days on the road - is just part of the job.  Consumed is the word that’s used when the coaching profession is discussed.  As a sort of personal experiment, I asked my friend if he knew who Shirley Sherrod was.  Although hers was the lead story in nearly every paper in the nation, he told me he didn’t.  In fact, when he called, he was in the car with an assistant coach from a high-major program (BCS) and he asked him if he knew about Shirley Sherrod.  Same response. 

I am not including this story to disparage nor criticize my friend and his associate.  It’s mentioned because, when I was an assistant (between 1972-2002), I wouldn’t have known about a front-page story like Shirley Sherrod either.  I don’t mean to infer that every coach on the Division I level is ignorant of the Shirley Sherrod story.  It’s just that, because of the consuming aspect of the job, there’s a feeling that nothing else matters other than what you ought to be doing to make your team better and advance your career (or keep from derailing it).  In addition, you get the (absurd) feeling that while you’re reading about that A-1 story, you could be calling a prospect or seeing another game.

My late, brilliant mentor, John Savage, used to say there were some people at opposite ends of the spectrum.  Most coaches were the latter in his statement:

“Some people are a mile wide and an inch deep, while others are an inch wide and a mile deep.”Â

. . . I’m in Las Vegas at one of the many tournaments. 

 The blogs will return on Wednesday.

In my 30-year career, spent at nine Division I institutions, I can categorically say I never met anyone more loyal to their university than Mike Garrett is to the University of Southern California.  Pat Summitt and Gus Manning, UT’s second sports information director (Lindsey Nelson was the first) and former ticket manager, and their relationships with Tennessee, and Bobo Brayton (retired baseball coach) and the feelings he has toward Washington State come close but Garrett’s loyalty for his alma mater was borderline obsessive.  Now, it looks like he finally crossed the border.

Mike publicly admitted that, had the current NCAA eligibility rules, e.g. clearinghouse, been in place when he was a high school senior, his grades/standardized test scores would not have been nearly high enough for admittance to SC.  He readily told people that everything he had achieved was due to the Trojan family.  To Garrett, there were two types of people in the world - those who went to USC and those who couldn’t get in.  That undying loyalty served him well - as long as those he was dealing shared the sentiment.  SI ran a piece quoting Garrett, after he read the charges sent from the NCAA, “All I see is people who wish they were Trojans.”  He felt whatever was done at SC was justified. 

Before I go on, let me say this.  After having worked at SC for four years, I can vouch for the fact that the Trojan family is real.  During my tenure there, I believe the percentage of businesses in Southern California that were owned by SC graduates was 72%.  We used to tell kids in our recruiting pitch that if a student graduated from USC, he was guaranteed an interview (not a job) from any of those businesses.  To my knowledge, that policy is still in place.

From a standpoint of dealing with others, what he had in loyalty, Mike Garrett lacked in people skills.  Allow me to share a personal story, not in an effort to burn any bridges nor to pile on, but because it’s pertinent to this post.

One day, Mike called down to the basketball office and I happened to be the only coach who was in.  Our secretary put his call through and when I answered, he said, “Jack, I have a problem with the basketball staff.”

We (the basketball coaches) had a cordial relationship from the time he first returned to SC as associate AD (we ended that season in the top 10 in the nation), so I was really taken aback by his statement.  “What’s the problem, Mike?”  I asked.

“You guys can’t even keep your best player happy,” he replied.

I honestly had absolutely no idea which guy he was talking about.  “Who do you mean,” I said. 

There was about a 4-5 second pause on his end, which I soon realized was due to the fact he was thinking I was being a wise guy.  Then it finally registered with him that, rather than displaying insubordination, I really didn’t know which player he was referring to. 

He told me the kid’s name, to which I responded, matter-of-factly (and completely flabbergasted since I wouldn’t have picked this guy in our top five best players), “Mike, (he)’s not our best player.  To be honest with you, even though he’s talented, he gives minimal effort on the court and in the classroom.” 

He just said, “OK, have George call me.”  I said I would and hung up, shocked both at the call, and the fact that our AD actually thought this kid was our best player.  Our fans didn’t even feel that way, nor did anyone who knew this kid. 

Until he had a near fatal car accident which caused him to retire, George Raveling was USC’s head basketball coach and my immediate boss at SC.  I called him (he was out of town), and told him of the strange conversation I had with Mike.  He said, “Wow, how can he think that?  Don’t worry about it.  I’ll call him.”

When George came in, he told me how his call went - that, not only did he agree with my assessment but frankly said, “This kid’s not only been a disappointment, but he’s become a real pain in the ass.”  George then said he couldn’t believe Garrett’s response.  “George, I can take it from you because you’re the head coach, but I’ll be goddamned if I’ll have a (bleeping) assistant question my opinion.”

It wasn’t a department policy he implemented that I disagreed with, just an evaluation of a guy I worked with every day.  My relationship with Mike Garrett was never the same after that incident.  After George’s accident at the beginning of the following season and his subsequent retirement, I knew I was leaving as well.  There’s absolutely no question SC’s a great school, but I went there because of George and when he left, there was no way I was going to stay.

One day, I asked one of the assistant AD’s, and one of Mike’s closest friends, why he treated so distantly.  The guy told me, “Jack, the only bad thing I ever heard Mike say about you was that time you said what you did about (the player).”  

In many instances, people’s strengths are also their flaws.  That is the case with Mike Garrett.  To him, there was one side to every story.  Fast forward to the year after I left.  The kid in question transferred to a junior college after that, his freshman, year.  Since there was no way he was going to graduate from the JC, he was forced to return to SC since he was classified a 4-2-4 (see my 6/29/10 blog) and it was the only D-I school at which he’d be eligible to play. 

He dogged it through that season and when it was over, he and his mom had a meeting with Garrett in which (I was told this by people who heard the argument outside Garrett’s office) both of them “dog-cussed” Garrett for reneging on promises he allegedly made during his (second) recruiting process.  Naturally, Garrett has no use for either the kid nor his mom.  You’d think this would exonerate me in Mike’s eyes.  Yet, when Fresno State hosted SC a couple years later in a NIT game, he treated me as he did following the phone call.   

George Raveling is the definition of the Renaissance Man.  He also set the standard when it came to effective people skills.  Mike Garrett resented George; he could never understand why people loved Rav.  When I asked that same assistant AD why Mike didn’t like George, he confided in me that, “Mike thinks George sells ‘woof’ tickets, that he wasn’t a true Trojan (George is from Washington, DC) and never won as big as Mike thought SC deserved from its hoops coach.

The fact he led the USC athletics department for 17 years is a testament to his loyalty.  The way he lost his job speaks to his lack of objectivity, his stubbornness and his severe lack of people skills.  Andrew Carnegie said:

“As I grow older, I pay less attention to what people say.  I just watch what they do.”

Before readers start wondering whether I understand the magnitude of Wade’s remarks, let’s take a look at Wade - from several different perspectives. 

First of all, would what he said have caused such a stir if it had come from a random rabid Miami Heat fan (of which many have sprung up recently)?  A fan who, upon being asked by a member of the media if he thought the Heat were going to go undefeated, said, “If we (as any fan refers to his team) lose two or three in a row, you all (meaning the media, as Wade did) are going to make it like the World Trade Center is coming down again.”  Would that statement have caused as much of an incident as when Wade uttered it? 

Examine the speaker in this case.  As cool and stylish as any of today’s athletes, Dwyane Wade was born to a couple who did more than dabble in the drug culture, especially his mom, who spent time in prison.  Google Dwyane Wade’s name and you’ll read about how he was sent to live with his dad and his new wife (who also began having marital problems).  While Dwyane, Sr. played ball with his son (hour after hour) and taught him how to deal with adversity on the court, the son apparently didn’t receive the same guidance in the academic world.

He was a Proposition 48 casualty, meaning he wasn’t eligible to play his freshman year in college.  The story is similar to many such scholastic stars - OK grades, but missed the necessary standardized score (in Wade’s case, the ACT) by one point.  Whether that was the case or not, missing academic eligibility isn’t like narrowly missing the Dean’s List.  With his academic and social background, it’s amazing Dwyane Wade grew into the type of young man he is.  But let’s not make him someone we should turn to for social commentary. 

Wade fell in love early in life and married his high school sweetheart - after she gave birth to their first child.  They stayed together for quite a while, but I remember coaching friends making comments that, with the temptations professional athletes were presented, especially the high profile, rich, good-looking ones, it was only a matter of time before the Wade romance hit the skids.  As has been reported, i.e. publicly dragged through the mud, a nasty divorce and child custody battle is now taking place.

Then there’s the story of how D-Wade walked into a tattoo shop, as seemingly all the great ones do, turned around and left because he knew his father would disapprove.  That’s a rather major statement in this day and age.  Parents guide in different ways.  I recall a professor I had in a child psych class in college lecture us one day that there were three theories on how to raise children.  “Unfortunately, none of them work,” he ended the lesson.

Granted, Dwyane Wade makes big money.  10% of that (before tax) is donated to his church.  It’s easy to say, “If I had that much money, I’d be giving it away too,” but exactly how much are of your own money is designated to charity?  Regardless of your views on Wade, Sports Illustrated saw it fit to name him their Sportsman of the Year for 2006, an award they don’t give away lightly. 

So who is Dwyane Wade?  In this instance, it’s a case of walking a mile in another man’s moccasins.  Shouldn’t he have realized that that comment would set off a frenzy of disbelief that someone could be so insensitive?  Sure - if he had your social awareness, intelligence, upbringing and, yeah, common sense.  Just like you wouldn’t be such a klutz when you play your weekend hoops game at your local gym if you had his basketball skill.

Dwyane Wade’s talent in basketball has given him fame, fortune and some powerful friends (not just LeBron and Bosh).  Yet, as difficult as it may be to understand, it doesn’t mean he fully comprehends the magnitude of an event that took place when he was nineteen.  That’s not an excuse, just what I believe happens when people with a platform are ill-equipped to discuss certain issues.

This reminds me a little - and just a little - of what brought down Jimmy “The Greek” Snyder.  In 1988 I was associate head basketball coach at the University of Toledo when Jimmy made his infamous remarks that got him fired from CBS and happened to be a guest on a Toledo radio station .  When asked for how I summed up the story, I said:

“The guy was a bookmaker and now people are making him out to be a geneticist.”

As anyone who reads this blog knows by now that the winner of this year’s British Open is Louis Oosthuizen of South Africa.  He won it the way most every golfer wins their first (major) tourney.  He combined the most important quality of all, talent, with consistent play, determination, wise decision-making, an ability to keep his nerves under control and focus to lead nearly wire-to-wire. 

When I heard him asked the question in an interview following Friday’s round, “Who was your role model?” I turned to the person next to me and confidently said, “Gary Player,” just as Louis gave his answer.  “Ernie Els.”  Am I that old? 

A white guy and a black caddie from South Africa - on Nelson Mandela’s 92nd birthday (which, if we didn’t know prior to the day’s play, we found out immediately after it was over and Louis wished the leader a happy birthday) - not only take the Claret Jug, but do so by steamrolling the competition, winning by 7 - yeah, seven - strokes.  Were the stars aligned just right or will we hear more from this gracious champion?

Because of the manner in which he conducted himself over the past four days, I know I’m hoping for the latter, and there is no doubt that hundreds of other fans share that feeling.  So what’s the key for a guy who missed the cut in 7 of his previous 8 majors?  Take the advice of Anthony Robbins:

“In essence, if we want to direct our lives, we must take control of our consistent actions.  It’s not what we do once in a while that shapes our lives, but what we do consistently.” 

 Â

Ask any of the major network executives whether they would rather have a British Open final pairing of Tiger Woods vs. Phil Mickelson or Louis Oosthuizen vs. Paul Casey and, . . . you probably don’t need for me to tell you what their choice would be.  Can’t blame them.  Popularity drives TV ratings and the American duo beat their counterparts in that category in every part of the world - including South Africa and England.

Yet, although the average fan is certainly more apt to tune in to a Tiger-Phil match-up (which is why TV ratings are higher - duh), he identifies more with the lesser known golfer.  Somehow, we think their plight resembles ours.  Although they’re still professionals and play a completely different game of golf than we do, we still think they’re experiencing the nervous feelings we would if we were in their cleats.  And maybe they are.  Unlike us, however, they possess the skills and knowledge that, if they can contain their emotions and remain “in the moment” as Louis (unlike Tiger and Phil, he’s known by his first name because nobody can pronounce his last name) put it in a post-round interview yesterday, they realize they actually can hold up the Claret Jug at the end of today’s play.

After witnessing Tiger and Phil hit amazing shots from impossible lies, we view them and their game as godlike, the same as we do when we watch what Peyton Manning can do with a football, Kobe Bryant with a basketball, Tim Lincecum with a baseball or Roger Federer with a tennis ball.  It’s somewhat like the SI swimsuit edition - beautiful places we’d like to go, but knowing we’ll never get there. 

So, in essence, rooting for either Louis or Casey (we can pronounce that one) is really like pulling for ourselves - just like when we were kids and fantasized that we made the game-winner - whatever the game was.  There’s also a segment (I’d like to think small) who watches in anticipation of a Dustin Johnson  or Jean Van de Velde moment - a monumental collapse on national television.

In the words of one of the greatest underdogs ever (on a golf course anyway), Bill Gates:

“If there’s one cultural quality we have, it’s that we always see ourselves as an underdog.”

As if he cares.

As far as sports fans go, I consider myself, while not a fanatic, someone who enjoys watching competition, be it on the high school, collegiate or professional level.  As a player, it was football, basketball and baseball in high school.  In college, football for a brief period and intramurals throughout.  After graduating, there were the summer basketball, baseball and softball leagues, followed by tennis and golf in my adult years.

One thing about sports I’ve always taken for granted is that events should be fair to all those participating.  This doesn’t mean the teams have to have equal talent, whether they are composed of 11, 9, 5, 2 or even one player.  Anyone who was ever placed in a competitive environment (including a spelling bee or eating contest) quickly comes to the realization that all men are not created equal. 

One of the most talented and respected writers of this era is Rick Reilly.  After hearing his comments on the suspension of play at the British Open due to high winds, I was somewhat surprised at his feelings.  He couldn’t believe play was halted and went so far as saying that he thought players should tee it up in a hurricane if that condition arose. 

Golf is a frustrating enough sport.  Sure, seeing the pros get out of seemingly impossible situations with equally impossible shots is one of the reasons fans tune in.  When a shot actually is impossible, e.g. in the water or out of bounds, it’s always interesting to assess the mental toughness golfers show.  Do they allow the bad shot to affect their next one or can they put it out of their mind and play the subsequent ball as if they’re shooting a perfect round?

To watch golfers at St. Andrews mark their ball on the green, only to have the wind blow it when they place it down, time after time, . . . what’s the point?  Do they wait for the wind to stop blowing the ball, hit it while it’s on the move (isn’t that illegal?) or root it on if it’s being blown closer to the hole (if the wind blows it in, does that count as a stroke)?  As high as the winds got on Friday, we might have been witness to the first hole-in-none!    Watching a golf tourney in such conditions isn’t my cup of tea.  However, if that’s what the weather is, then go at it.  But not if the entire field doesn’t have to play under the same conditions!

Naturally, in golf, it’s not possible to have identical weather for every player at every minute.  But if some play in (relatively) pleasant weather while others - in the same tournament - are forced to compete during a monsoon, isn’t the real winner Mother Nature?  It might as well be broadcast on The Weather Channel.    

One of my nine coaching stops was in a league in which NCAA rules were viewed as nuisances (or on several occasions, not at all).  Winning was all that mattered.  Colleagues of mine (in other leagues) couldn’t understand that attitude, although they, too, wanted to win.  The remarks I heard ran the gamut from “good point” to “sour grapes.” 

Since that time, we’ve lived (are living) through the steroids era in sports.  That was (is) also about winning.  Most people feel cheated when players using PEDs are exposed.  They’re outraged!  The term level playing field has been (over)used in the world of sports for as long as I can remember.  Yet, I think it’s because we want to see the winner(s) as those who conquered their opponent(s) fairly.  I doubt anyone would think it right if a basketball game were played in which, rather than using the alternate possession rule, the same team was awarded the ball on every tie up.  Or if the fences were moved back when one team came to bat.  If one football team wins the toss at the beginning of the game (with much of the decision having to do with weather), should it also have the choice at halftime too?  Other than Bobby Riggs, who would play tennis if the same player got to serve every game?

I realize these are situations we can control, while weather is not, but to have a major professional golf tournament determined by the time a player plays, well, why would Rick Reilly think that’s fun?  I wonder how this year’s British Open would be run if Abraham Lincoln were in charge (assuming he lived to age 201), since he once said:

 “These men ask for just the same thing, fairness, and fairness only.  This, so far as in my power, they, and all others, shall have.”

 Â

Many of the names occupying the sports pages recently have been old favorites, some still working, some looking for employment and some deciding that maybe now’s the time to hang ‘em up.

Lance Armstrong gave the two-wheeler one last shot and found it might be time to just make commercials - on a stationary bike.  Did he give the Tour de France one last go because he thought he could actually win it?  If anyone would know, it’s Lance - no one’s won that race more.  Or, was he trying to prove to his accusers he could, at his age, win it all, squash all speculation of PEDS, end in yellow, kiss girls (at the end of the race) and ride off into the sunset - in low gear?  Whatever, it didn’t end that way.

One “elderly” chap - a true fans’ favorite (as well as a popular guy among his peers), John Daly, turned heads at the course where golf was invented - at least according to the inhabitants there.  Ol’ JD sported some pants that made him impossible to ignore and his play spoke as loudly as his drawers.  If anyone was looking for a comeback story, St. Andrews was a good place to start.

St. Paul might be home to another comeback story.  Maybe it’s not a comeback tale as much as it is a never leave one.  Brett Favre looks like he’ll be in purple & gold again this season.  The only debate surrounding Favre is whether he needs the additional time to heal or whether he’s just trying to avoid training camp.  Who cares?  His job is one where he is pampered nearly every day of his working life - except for the one day a week he poses as a human pinata.  If you think his decision is nerve-racking, how would you like to be his backup?

Another pigskin prodigy (or is the term pigheaded) is Terrell Owens.  He claims he is ready to play and, love him or hate him, one thing that’s never in question is his body.  If no one picks him up (which would be for a variety of reasons, all non-talent related), he ought to forget reality TV - in which he displays a very spoiled, hate-able side - and head up America’s War on Obesity.  Have those kids follow TO around and they’ll be in shape in no time.  What else they’ll become is another matter.

Another old warrior - and reality TV star - looking for work is Shaquille O’Neal.  He might be encountering some of the same issues TO is.  A talented guy who grabs more attention that his current ability warrants, Shaq has a couple of problems to deal with that Owens doesn’t - due to the demands of his sport.  While TO is still a serviceable wide receiver (although certainly not as prolific as he once was), Shaq has been exposed in recent years as a defensive liability anywhere outside of 15′ from the basket (especially in Cleveland), as someone a running team would have to wait for on offense (Phoenix) and a player a coach would rather not have on the floor at the end of a game if the team had a lead (everywhere).  Plus, the money he’s asking (demanding, begging) for might outprice him in the current market. 

Why is it guys seem to want to hang on so much longer?  The adulation can’t be the sole answer since many outstay their welcome and boos become more dominant that cheers at this stage of their career.  For my money - which ain’t much - the reason is that the key to a successful job is:

“Find something you love to do and get somebody to pay you to do it.”