Jack’s Blog

When I got to the University of Tennessee in 1980, Pat Summitt had already been the women’s basketball coach for six years.  She’d been incredibly successful and had led the Lady Vols from AIAW to the NCAA.  Immaculata and Old Dominion were the AIAW powers but they couldn’t keep it up after the switch of parent organizations.  UT got better.  To Pat, it was just another challenge.  Although she hadn’t won a national championship, it was evident that, watching her work, she wouldn’t stop until she won it all.

The year I left, 1987, she finally did.  The she won seven more.  She’s the all-time winningest coach, male or female, in college basketball.  When I was at USC in the early ’90s, one of our other assistants asked me a question I’d been posed numerous times, “Do you think Pat Summitt could coach men?”  My response was the same one I’d been giving since the ’80s.  “Absolutely - and she’d be about as successful as she is now.”

How do you now write something on Pat without making it sound like a eulogy?  You take a page out of Pat’s own book.  No pity party, keep focused on the task at hand.  She’s the most complete person I’ve ever known - confidant without any trace of arrogance, personable yet driven, brilliant but always looking to learn and improve, serious but willing to be the butt of a joke, hard worker but the ultimate team player.

She overcame being a “girl” in a man’s world (including a tough dad and competitive brothers who showed her no mercy), won as a coach despite having no experience, rose above everyone in her profession, won it all - and kept on winning.

When I first heard she was diagnosed with early-onset dementia, I thought it was a joke, that the punch line was the diagnosis came after she said she was considering coaching men.  But it wasn’t.  She’s beaten nearly everything and everyone in her way.  Now she faces a foe who’s undefeated.  My mom was one of its victims, losing her battle this past June 24th.  Pat’s teams always played the best schedules, never ducking anyone.  But this opponent is unfair.  It plays by its own rules.

All we can do is wish Pat the best.  She deserves nothing less.

As Kierkegaard said:

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forward.”

This is my final year as a teacher.  Our younger son graduates from high school in June and I’m “graduating” with him.  In addition to this year being the swan song, it looks as though it will be the most difficult.  One reason is, as anyone who follows the news understands, is the amount of cutbacks in education. 

When I began teaching in high school in 2002 (following 30 years coaching at the college level), our freshman math classes were capped at 20.  This was so our school would receive funds from the state.  It is a sensational idea and is probably as close to the perfect number for a freshmen Algebra I class.  Now, however, California is hurting real bad and the “trickle down” effect (more like monsoon) is being felt in schools like never before.  My classes will be closer to 40.

Factor in my health issues and this year looks like it’s going to take much more of my time and test my creative thinking skills.  Those simultaneous problems are causing me to suspend - I hope for just a brief period - these blogs.  Please check this space in a month or so.  I realize many readers will be lost forever since there are such a multitude of areas to take up one’s time.

In the meantime, the following is a reprint and serves as a motivator for me.

First day of school!  Great memories for all of us.  Even the current students, although they’d never admit it, are looking forward to a new year in school, if for no other reason than the social aspect of it.  As for teachers, sure, we love summer vacation, but one thing that makes summer vacation so great is it follows a year of teaching.

Each student starts with a clean slate, all goals within reach.  For teachers, many of us wonder whether a couple of the new ideas we dreamed up during the break about trying something a little different in order to reach the kids will work as well as we anticipated, or should we just stick with the old, but effective, tried-and-true methods.

I read in an article a few years back the following quote, “The greatest gift a teacher can give is to inspire a desire to learn,” which I’ve modified to:

“The greatest gift a teacher can give is to inspire a desire to think!”

Coaches and players form strong relationships.  Many are referred to as father figures.  Radio talk show hosts, as well as their callers, repeat the thought that many of the misdeeds committed by athletes ought to be apparent to the coaches, especially the assistants.  The following is not an excuse for assistants’ actions, or non-actions, just a realistic overview of what assistant coaches do.

These guys, of which I was one for 30 years, have so many things to do, whether it be work a guy out, break down game film to teach, recruit or scout, meet about practice, make recruiting calls and, yeah, deal with boosters.    If a coach hears a story about one of the guys having dinner with , or in the company of a fan, the first inclination is to question him.  If he’s not there, you’d probably make a note to ask him or bring it up in a staff meeting.  It’s easy to condemn, should there be a violation committed, the coach who should have dropped everything to check out what could have just been a rumor.  Yet, the coach has immediate responsibilities and has to make a decision.

One action that seems obvious would be to call the athletics department’s compliance office.  The problem is that, while coaching staffs and compliance officers are working for the same university, they often aren’t on the same page.  Compliance offices are a relatively new addition to athletics departments, having been added approximately 25 years ago.  Its mission is to make sure no rules are broken.

Inexperienced compliance officers tend to live by the saying, “When in doubt, don’t.”  Any request is usually met with a “No.”  Where the rub comes in is that often the questions of whether to, or not to, is something that needs an immediate response. e.g. “A 16-year-old prospect’s dad is sick.  Is it OK for him to get a ride to the game from his neighbor and use one of his (three NCAA allowed) complimentary tickets for him?”  The answer is yes but I’ve heard that some compliance people would tell the coach to wait until he or she checked whether the neighbor is a alum, a contributor to the university, has a pre-existing relationship with the prospect, etc.  By the time the ruling is issued, the game might be in the second half.

Compliance officers are similar to referees.  A good one goes unnoticed; one who makes a mistake is vilified.  For this reason, compliance officers live in fear.  Few have good working relationships with coaches.  One group has as its goal never to be found guilty of NCAA violations.  If that happens, usually jobs are lost.  The other group’s purpose is to win.  If that doesn’t happen, unemployment is nearly a certainty.

The university wants both.  As long as there are so many secondary NCAA violations, an acrimonious relationship will surely exist.  That’s a bad omen for intercollegiate athletics.  Al McGuire used to say:

“There is an enemy but it’s not in this locker room.”

Unless someone is a true Pollyanna, college athletics has always had a sordid element to it.  What transpired at Miami is very similar to what’s been happening on college campuses for 30-40 years.  Probably longer.

The nature of recruiting is to convince a prospect that your school is best for him (or her).  Gaining the prospect’s trust is the key.  While explaining the academic excellence and unparalleled opportunities following graduation should be foremost, if anyone thinks getting the kid to like you doesn’t rank number one, they wouldn’t keep their job very long.

Wherever prospects wind up, you can bet they were made to feel special.  One reason is because of the media coverage recruiting gets.  Fans know who the new guys on the block are and most just want to get to know them better.  There are some college athletes like Tim Tebow, A.C. Green and Reggie White.  The other end are similar to Joe Namath, Terrell Pryor and Charles Barkley.  Like it or not, kids are more influenced by the latter group than the former.  Prospects often discover they can receive favorable treatment which, occasionally, means swag.  Having “stuff” is a status symbol.  Not always cars and thousands but, because of the NCAA rule book, lesser items that are deemed illegal by NCAA rules.

Some boosters go over the top.  Nevin Shapiro is just the latest.  The knowledgeable hoops junkie remembers Sam Gilbert who was prominent with UCLA players during their magic run.  Just as Shapiro is doing time for an illegal activity, it was uncovered that Gilbert’s wealth was not derived from his construction company, but rather had connections to the drug world.

Of the numerous violations committed by Shapiro, the one that has people so shook up is that he allegedly paid for an abortion.  When I was a graduate assistant at a Pac-8 institution in the mid-70s, one of our players told me his buddy, a starter at UCLA, got his girlfriend pregnant.  He said Mr. Gilbert paid the abortion.  College kids getting girls pregnant is nothing new.  This blog is not making any judgments on abortion.

Until there are sweeping changes made in the NCAA, it looks as though we’ll have to take the outlook of Ulysses S. Grant:

“Live life the way it is, not the way you want it to be.”

The NCAA rule book wasn’t always as massive a document as it is now.  What’s taken place throughout the course of college athletics is that a school would play a little fast and loose with the rules, gain a competitive advantage (usually that meant signing a prospect away from another school) and the “losing” school(s) would complain.  This led to addition and amendments to the existing rules.  Do this enough and the rule book grows - exponentially (check my 6/22/11 blog mentioning “no problem vs. end run”).  In other words, every end run leads to another rule - or clarification.

The greatest problem among NCAA institutions - and they have many - is an inherent, and well-deserved, lack of trust.  In team sports, unlike many other areas of life, score is kept.  If a football score is 24-17, all that matters is whether your team is 24.  Fans wan to win.  Winning makes supporters happy.  The happier people are about “their” team, the more tickets they buy, the greater are their donations, the more pleased they are with the coaching and administration.  Fans want to know how they can help, administrators tell them to support the programs by ___________________ (independent of the rhetoric that goes in the blank, the interpretation is “spend money”).

When I was an assistant at Robert Morris, a couple buddies of mine, who were highly successful in the business world from college asked me if we offered cars to prospects.  I laughed at the statement, told them how illegal something like that was, and asked them why they would even ask.  Their answer was, “Why else would a kid want to go to Robert Morris College?”

Then they asked if we wined and dined them.  I, once again, educated them on the NCAA rules.  They simply couldn’t understand how the recruiting process worked since, when they wanted to gain a new client, taking them out was part of the deal.  The difference was we were dealing with “amateurs” while they were wooing “professionals.”

And that’s the problem.  Intercollegiate athletics, meaning football and men’s basketball, is bigger money than most other businesses - for the networks, institution, coaches, administrators, etc.  Remember: they keep score.  Winning matters.  To many, more than integrity.  Especially when a livelihood is at stake.

Recruiting is about relationships.  Coaches get extremely close to prospects and their families.  Yet, the prospect can only pick one school.  Sometimes, it’s just a little extra that will seal the deal.  Often, that little extra is an “end run” (once again check the 6/22/11 blog).

Many years ago I worked at a school which underwent an internal investigation.  When the AD (a former coach) questioned me about how I felt regarding the NCAA rules, I said I thought they should be followed. He looked me in the eye and told me what he thought about them.

“My philosophy is to bend those suckers as much as you can.”

A 5′5″ jock sniffer, Nevin Shapiro, is wallowing in his “15 minutes of fame” while the University of Miami worries about how long they’re going to spend in NCAA purgatory.

Fpr the next few blogs, I’ll be giving some random observations:

The talking heads and people who call in radio talk shows are incensed that college football players would accept something outside the limits of the NCAA rules.  Full disclosure - when I was a freshman in college, I made a field goal late in our homecoming football game that was the difference in our winning.  The next day, I walked into a sub shop we frequented on Sundays when we didn’t feel like having dorm food.  I ordered my sandwich and when I went to pay, the owner said, “Nice kick.  It’s on the house.”

This was at a Division III school.  Technically, it was a violation of NCAA rules.  Not only did I not refuse the freebie, I never even considered it.  To me, it was an honor.  At that time, I didn’t feel entitled; I didn’t have a lot of extra cash and was thrilled I was a few bucks to the good.

As absurd as this sounds, it’s similar to many of today’s infractions.  Schools all claim their boosters are the best.  Do you think they mean the best as far as staying within the NCAA rules?  I’ve worked at nine Division I schools and can tell you that most fans love knowing the colleges’ athletes - and having the kids know them.  If they’re out at the mall and an athlete recognizes them by name, it’s as proud a moment as they can experience.  Having one or more to their house for dinner - especially so their children can be with them - is nirvana.

That happens to be legal now.  I remember when it wasn’t.  Our (coaches association) Recruiting Committee recommended to the NCAA Recruiting Committee that, as long as boosters weren’t providing weekly catered meals, why not allow athletes the same courtesy as other students if they knew someone in town?  The NCAA agreed and added to the rule book “an occasional meal” was acceptable.  When we pressed them to define “occasional” they wouldn’t commit.

Therein lies the answer to “Why can’t the NCAA cut their rule book?”  “Eliminate the gray areas?”  “Use more common sense?”  It’s because if you give coaches an inch, they’ll take a mile.  Everybody is looking for an edge.  Is an occasional meal once a week?  Once a month?  Besides, the NCAA isn’t concerned about a booster giving a student-athlete a meal; they’re worried about what else the kid gets while he’s there.  How is that monitored?  People with a great deal money feel they can buy things they want.  If that means recognition from a top, or even second string player, hey, it’s only money.

It’s interesting to hear ESPN’s Mark May pontificate about how the NCAA might be right in assessing the death penalty to the “U.”  I was an assistant at Robert Morris College in 1976, the year Pitt won the national championship in football.  Maybe their star running back Tony Dorsett didn’t receive any more than room, board, books tuition and fees.  But I’d love to ask May what his guess is - and while we’re at it, would he put his hand on a Bible and swear he didn’t get anything beyond the rules when he matriculated?  Pittsburgh is one of the biggest football cities in the country and the people who live there are as rabid fans as there are.  If a student-athlete goes out after a big win, don’t for a minute think he’s paying for his food or beers.  And if there’s one player who would stand up and say, “Sorry, this is against NCAA rules, I’ll pay,” let him come forth and be anointed with holy water. Ditto for Kirk Herbstreit, Craig James, Keyshawn Johnson, Robert Smith, etc.

It’s not greed; it’s human nature.  The NCAA’s problem is, “Where do we draw the line?”  Excoriating the NCAA is easy.  They do make themselves into an easy target, but:

“If someone is going to expose a problem - without proposing a viable solution - all they’re doing is complaining.”

Boise State has been playing football at the same level of the nation’s elite teams for quite a while.  Many people, those both in-and out-of-the-know, have been saying the Broncos deserve to be included in BCS formula.  In turn, they’ve given hope to several other non-AQ (or whatever they’re called) teams.

The naysayers claim Boise’s inferior conference and schedule should preclude them from consideration.  The main reason, however, Boise doesn’t belong happened last week.  Although their football, men’s and women’s tennis, and track and field teams were investigated for NCAA violations (showing an increased commitment to be an upper level athletics program), their administration can’t hang with other football powers.

Why?  They immediately fired their director of athletics, Gene Bleymaier - who’d been on the job for 30 years!  Bleymaier did some great things at BSU in his three decades, the greatest of which was being the leader behind the famous blue turf.  Yet, as soon as news of the NCAA investigation struck, Bleymaier’s career was history.  The Broncos worst offenses supposedly came in women’s tennis; all the other violations were reported to be of the secondary nature.  Looks like they don’t understand how to be big-time in Boise.  Granted, I don’t know all the “facts,” just as I’m not privy to other NCAA violators.

Schools like North Carolina, who took about two years to fire its AD, Dick Baddour after many football transgressions.  Or Tennessee who allowed Mike Hamilton to resign.  He received a nice $1.335 MILLION parting gift.  His last words were, “I need to close this chapter of my life and move on.”  At least we know that wherever he goes, he’ll be able to afford the movers.  No word if Bleymaier even got a few complimentary bags of potatoes.

Since, technically, the investigation of Ohio State isn’t complete (2-3 years from now there probably will new evidence uncovered), The Buckeyes’ Gene Smith still is employed.  The University of Miami is the latest institution to join the NCAA’s most wanted list.  If Boise State’s administration were in charge, the athletics director would be toast.

When it comes to being a BCS member, Gene Bleymaier needs to remember:

“It’s not the company you’re with; it’s the company you keep.”

The University of Texas got their own television network.  It wasn’t the first school to do so but it might have been the proverbial “straw” as it relates to conference realignment.  Texas A&M is a great institution with a proud tradition but they couldn’t handle being second enchilada in the state.  Many will question placing the Aggies #2 but that’s not the point to the people in College Station.  Number one is the only one that counts and a school with its own TV network is too much of an advantage (and a slap in the face).

The state university is simply more popular than any of its “subsidiaries.”  I’ve been on both sides of that argument.  When I was at Washington State, it was difficult admitting “UDub” was the choice of Washington residents.  I left Cougar Country for the University of Oregon and the tables were turned.  Our rivals, from “Corn Valley” were now the “Cow College.”

For most of the ’80s I was employed by the University of Tennessee.  There was no question who was The Boss.  I recall a conversation with the director of athletics from UT-Chattanooga who said he was a student at Chattanooga College in the ’50s.  They enjoyed their experience and felt the school offered them a solid education.  Much later, the powers-that-be at UT approached the smaller school’s administration and told them they wanted it to join the UT system.  The “old-timers” balked, saying they liked their independence and didn’t think becoming a sister school, with a hyphenated name was a good idea.  The Knoxville brass assured them that would not be the case.  The little guys accepted the offer and have been, as expected, UT-Chattanooga.  The old Chattanooga College people still resent the decision and refer to the University of Tennessee as UTK.

In every state, but one, “the University of . . .” is more prestigious than “. . . State U.”  Think about it: North Carolina, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, Florida, Colorado, etc.  The one exception wasn’t always that way - and Tom Izzo deserves most of the credit.

These other institutions need to heed Charles Schultz’s line:

“Be yourself.  Everyone else is already taken.”

I’ve never understood the true sports fanatic but that’s more my issue than the fans’ because there are so many of them.  

Anytime an individual or team with a big lead loses, the word “choke” surfaces.  That was the scenario in yesterday’s PGA Championship when Keegan Bradley came from five strokes down with three holes to play, rallied to tie Jason Dufner and then beat him in a three-hole playoff.  So which was it - was Bradley clutch or did Dufner choke?  Without trying to psychoanalyze, probably both.

Dufner played sensationally (although the commentators had mentioned some of the short putts he made did look a little shaky) . . . until he had the five stroke lead - which he obtained when Bradley triple bogeyed the par three 15th hole.  Dufner was a hole behind Bradley and bogeyed 15 (and, ugh, 16).  Bradley birdied 16 and Dufner watched him birdie 17 as well.  After Dufner bogeyed 17, the tourney was tied.  Bradley closed out his round with a par.  With the pressure on - and momentum against him, Dufner was forced to par - or lose.  For someone who had bogeyed three consecutive holes - on national TV, in a major, Dufner could have . . . choked.  He parred the hole which forced a playoff.

On the first playoff hole, Dufner hit his shot close but Bradley knocked one inside him.  Dufner missed his birdie attempt, Bradley made his and went on to win the PGA.  As for whether Dufner choked, Henry Ford’s quote sums it up best - without disparaging anyone:

“There isn’t a person anywhere who isn’t capable of doing more than he thinks he can.”

There are differing styles of coaches just as there are different styles of coaching.  As with the varied ways coaches choose to attempt to win games strategically, the overall coaching philosophy of reaching players and bringing out the best they have to give crosses just as wide a spectrum.When I first got involved in athletics, the most popular coaching style undoubtedly was the one based on fear and respect of authority figures.  Being a “Baby Boomer,” I am part of a generation who saw their fathers rush to serve their country in World War II and be enormously proud of it (mine included).  Speaking at coaching clinics, I often made mention that the difference between the players of my day and the players of today is that, if I ever went home and told my father the coach yelled at me, my dad would “dress me down” and wonder what I did to make the coach so upset (to the point that punishment may have followed), while when today’s player informs his father (or mother) the coach yelled at him (or her), the parent immediately starts searching for the lawyer’s number.

The coaches of this breed usually shared a mantra.  It is, “Tear them down so we can build them back up.”  Those who experienced the most success employing this method are John Thompson, Bob Knight and Pat Summitt - each a Hall-of-Fame Coach, the last of whom is the current leader in career wins.  Each of the three were known for their unquestioned authority and Pat, whom I got to know well during my seven years in Big Orange Country and whom I consider the best coach - man or woman - I’ve ever seen (keep in mind, I coached with and against some of the nation’s best over 30 years), is still famous for her “Stare.”  Many a player and assistant of hers have told me you don’t want to be on the receiving end of IT (caps intended).

A similar style is the coach whose number one key to success lies in the toughness of the team.  Examples of this type range from Billy Martin and Woody Hayes to Bob Huggins and Tom Izzo.  Every name mentioned truly believed/believes in the saying, “A team takes on the personality of its coach” and consider that to be a bonafide compliment.

Maybe in a class by himself for winning the way he did was Vince Lombardi who religiously felt that all players should be treated equally and as one of his star players confirmed, “Coach Lombardi treated each of us the same - like dogs.”  Consider, also, that he might be believed to be the greatest football coach of all-time.

Another popular style is that of the coach who gives his/her players the utmost respect as people, realizing the team is going to be only as good as the players on it perform.  This is not a new philosophy.  It was successfully used by Dean Smith, Tommy Lasorda, Jerry Tarkanian (a coach I worked under who excelled in people skills ) and Tony Dungy.  Modern versions of this coach are Sean Payton, Doc Rivers and Brad Stevens.

Which method is the best method is an easy question to answer.  It’s the one in which the style suits the coach’s personality.  In other words, “To thine own self be true” is a perfect fit for one to decide which type of coach to be.

The one trait that all these highly successful coaches had in common was that they all truly cared about their players.  In addition, there are two other areas I think must be mentioned.  One is that it’s difficult (although maybe not impossible) for a coach to be successful if his or her ego is out of control.  However, the other is a virtual lock for the unsuccessful coach (especially one in charge of adults) and that is you’re digging an awfully deep hole, one which you may never be able to extricate yourself from, if you choose to motivate by humiliating people.  Because, as Lord Chesterfield remarked:

“He makes people pleased with him by making them first pleased with themselves.”