In the April 28, 2008 addition of Sports Illustrated - yeah, five years ago - there was an article about the NFL draft.  Not surprising, since it was the same time of year as the one held a few days ago.  The article was about the 1998 draft, the one with Peyton Manning and Ryan Leaf, and with the #5 pick (Curtis Enis, who retired from the league two years later) and the #92 pick (Hines Ward, who became the Super Bowl XL MVP).  A couple of the people quoted in the piece were New Orleans coach Sean Payton and former Green Bay Packers general manager, and current San Diego Chargers consultant, Ron Wolf.

Their discussion was, naturally, about the “science” of drafting football players.  Their comments, however, rang just as true as if they were discussing the NBA draft.  Payton’s comment was, “You get excited about a guy because of his tools and projecting his ability, but so much of this is looking beneath the surface.”  As the NBA playoffs continue, it’s impossible not to look at the “nobodies” who slipped through the draft cracks and the high profile picks which have yet to live up to pre-draft hype.  Everybody knows the Sam Bowie over Michael Jordan gigantic  mistake and Greg Oden before Kevin Durant humongous error.  Another interesting example would be the 2009 draft in which the Minnesota Timberwolves were in the market for a guard (several as it turned out).  They took Ricky Rubio, Spain’s version of “Pistol” Pete Maravich, with the fifth pick.  They also had the sixth pick and, because most thought Rubio would be difficult to sign, they decided to go with an additional point guard.  Their choice was Syracuse’s Jonny Flynn - whose career mostly has been in the NBA, although last season he played for the Melbourne Tigers in Australia.

What Payton meant can clearly be seen in that selection.  Not only did Minnesota select Flynn over the next pick, Stephen Curry, whom the T-Wolves are constantly being reminded went to Golden State but they also passed on #10 Brandon Jennings, #17 Jrue Holiday, #18 Ty Lawson (they actually did draft Lawson but it was only to trade him to Denver for a future first round pick) and #19 Jeff Teague.  It’s more than a stretch to say that guys picked in the first round “slipped through the cracks” but it does show how the draft is such a crap shoot for a team when its name comes to make its draft selection.

Other classics?  How about the Clippers, a year after they wisely (OK, that year, a three-year-old would have) picked Blake Griffin at #1, they felt they needed to get a small forward with the ability to get his own shot.  They chose Al-Farouq Aminu with the eighth pick.  The Jazz took Gordon Hayward next, just before the Pacers who grabbed (and has never let go of) Paul George.  Why would the Clippers pass on Paul George for Al-Farouq Aminu?

For the answer, listen to the eerie crossover similarity between football and basketball, as told by Ron Wolf:

The fascinating thing about pro football is, no matter how long you’re in it, you can’t predict how guys are going to handle the pressure, the limelight, the money.”

The intent of the NBA draft was to give the poorest (as in record) team a chance to make itself better.  Then the next, the next, and so on.  The worse a team did, the earlier it got to select from the draft-eligible players. But then teams got slick.  They figured, heck, we’re pretty bad this year, but with Player X (usually the best collegiate player) on our squad, we could dominate.  For years.  Why not lose a few on purpose so we can get his draft rights?  Since that logic isn’t exactly out of the Einstein School of Thought, the idea crossed the minds of the collective braintrusts of other bad teams and, well, you can see how convoluted things got when only a few games remained in the season and two or three teams were falling all over themselves to finish first.  In the Player X sweepstakes.  Or last in the NBA.  Beyond just screwing the ticket-paying public, it kinda messed with something that’s called the integrity of the game.The NBA powers-that-be came up with a lottery system which gave ping pong balls to the lottery teams, i.e. the bottom 14 of the 30 NBA teams that don’t make the playoffs.  The number of chances to win were given in reverse order of how the teams finished.  Different methods of deciding who got what have occurred throughout the years from 1985 until the present.  In 1993, real smart guys were called in to decide the “fairest” way to decide how the selection should be for the ‘94 draft.  When real smart guys and basketball guys get together, worlds collide.  Basketball guys score in ones, twos and threes (and it took a reeeeeal long time before threes were allowed.  If smart guys were in charge of scoring, there would be square roots and decimal points involved and it would be a week after the game was played before we’d know who won.  Suffice to say this lottery system gives the team with the worst record a greater chance to win it than any other team.  25%.  That is technically true.  But while the last place team has a better chance to win than any other team, it has a much less chance to win the lottery!

Without going into all the permutations and combinations (I was a math major in college but definitely not one of the “smart guys”), the team with the worst record has the greatest opportunity to “win” the lottery.  It’s just that those odds aren’t very good.  For example, last year’s worst team was the Charlotte Bobcats.  They had the best chance to win the #1 pick who, even the youngest of NBA fans knew, was going to be Kentucky’s Anthony Davis.  Whoever got Davis was getting a franchise player.  The Bobcats faithful had suffered through a dismal season but that would be old news if they could only start fresh with AD.  Then, the lottery came and they lost again.  And the reason was that, although Charlotte had a better chance of winning the lottery than any other NBA team, they still had a 75% chance of NOT winning it!

It’s easy to say something’s broken without giving a way to fix it but the lottery needs a different formula, mainly because the worst team hardly ever gets the pick.  Face it, last year the Bobcats were so bad that if they had tried to throw a game, they would have missed. The season was dreadful and then they get sand kicked in their face when they got third in the lottery.

This year, whoever has the worst record (Charlotte or Orlando) will have that same 25% chance of winning.  Except the lottery will be composed of guys who, other than foreign players, are looked down upon by NBA scouts.  Then why would they leave college?  Three reasons: 1) it’s supposedly a weak lottery field and 2) next year’s draft is supposedly better.  Combining 1) and 2) we get 3) somebody has to get selected. And going in the first round means guaranteed money.

To steal a memorable line from the late, great Jim Murray (who did not direct it toward the NBA draft), the description this year’s lottery could be:

“Never have so many done so little for so much.”

One day coming up soon, because of availability I’m not sure which, I’ll be headed to Stanford for some (more) tests.  Since I may be contacted and not have enough time to let you readers know, if you get to this site and you see the same blog you read the day before . . . that’s the day(s) I’m at Stanford.  Rest assured I’ll be returning shortly.

Ed Rush, former supervisor of officials for the Pac-12, lost his job because he made a statement that many people felt was obviously in jest.  Not according to CBSSports.com’s Jeff Goodman however.  Or rather, Goodman - and his secret informant.  Goodman reported one of the officials, i.e. referee, in the room told him Rush said that if an official would bang (call a technical foul on) Arizona’s coach, Sean Miller, or would run him (throw him out of the game), he (Rush) would give that ref $5000 or a free trip to Cancun.  Initially, Larry Scott, Pac-12 commissioner made the statement, “I do not find anything that rises to a fireable offense or a breach of ethics or a breach of the integrity of officiating or the program.”  But, claims Goodman, that was before Scott was privy to what the official told Goodman.

Was it?  Really?  Or, have we as a society, become so sensitive to anything said by or to anybody that a significant number of us have assumed the position of the PC (politically correct) police?  Under the guise of exposing insensitivity, they alert, a la Chicken Little, the public about some horrific crime - and in the process ruin lives of some while not benefiting society nearly to the degree they’re tearing it down.

What needs to be revealed is who leaked the information - and why?  According to Goodman, it was one of the referees.  The more the reporter spoke, it was apparent the secret informant was someone close to Goodman, possibly a good friend of his.  If this official believed so strongly that Rush is that evil a person, i.e. Rush really meant what he said, why not come out himself with the accusation?  Or was the guy upset because - although of course he didn’t referee for the money (just joking because if that was the case, he’d be the first for a guy at that level) - he didn’t get selected to officiate in the NCAA tournament and got stuck with one of the lesser post season assignments which pay less money, per diem and prestige?  Due to the fact that most, if not all, of Pac-12 referees have climbed the ladder of elementary, junior high, high school, JC, D-II and/or D-III and lesser name conferences (possibly skipping a rung here or there), when they’ve risen to the level of the Pac-12 (by far the highest in level and pay on the west coast), egos are bruised easily.  So if you believe his outrage was directed more for the love of the game being violated than his substantial paycheck (and national TV face time) being significantly reduced, you’re beyond naiive.  If this referee, Jeff Goodman’s anonymous source, didn’t have a hidden agenda of some sort, I’ll pay him five large or give him a free vacation to Cancun.  Actually, forget the $5K but my wife and I traded our time share and are headed to Cabo San Lucas next month.  I think there’s an extra bedroom.  Everybody knows that Cabo beats Cancun.  What do you say, anon?

All of this means that, in today’s world, we need to be on our best behavior all the time lest someone be offended.  If this sounds like the raging of an old man who hasn’t decided to play by the current rules, let me correct that sentiment - slightly.  There is no doubt I am from an other time, one that took place long ago.  It also got us where we are as a society.  Alright, so maybe that’s nothing to brag about but in my world, like it or not, sarcasm was used much of the time.  In 99% of the cases it was intended to be humorous.  About 95% of the time, it actually was.  Studies have shown that laughing is good for a person’s health.  If this PC nonsense continues, nobody will ever laugh again - for fear of hurting the feelings of whomever thinks that you’re laughing at him.  Or her.  Or it.

Here’s a short (believe it or not) story that illustrates my point.  Our high school football team was made up of seven or eight ethnic groups.  One day, in the locker room after practice, our center who was Polish Catholic, pulled me aside and said, “You’re the only Jew I know who I like.”  Today, national headlines.  Instead, I viewed it as I truly believe it was intended:

“I took it as a compliment!”

There hasn’t been anyone who’s seen the video of former Rutgers basketball coach Mike Rice who can believe it.  Including (probably) Mike Rice.  Coaches - even some of the most highly successful ones who have been around for a long, long time - have been quoted that they felt uncomfortable just watching it.  Kobe Bryant claimed he would’ve “smacked the hell out of him” - even if he were only an 18 year old freshman.  Yet, not one of the Rutgers’ players even gave their coach a dirty look.  Keep in mind, however, the video was a “highlight film” (or “lowlight”) of Rice’s bullying antics, i.e. what people saw wasn’t from just one practice.  In fact, it might have been a compilation of weeks of practice video.

Most people have asked “Why did they take it?”  Why did none of them act in the manner Kobe said he would have.  Did the coach brainwash them?  Actually, that might exactly be why they took it.  Here’s my scenario (and keep in mind, it’s nothing more than conjecture, i.e. there is not a shred of evidence to it):

Coach Rice: “Look, guys, we’re the ugly stepchild of this league (the Big East).  Nobody has any respect for us.  Everybody bullies us.  For us to win, we’re going to have to be tough.  Tougher than the guys who want to bully us.

“So I’m going to bully you.  Now, it will just be in practice.  Before and after practice, nothing about our relationship will change.  My door’s still always open, you’re still my guys .  But, at practice I’m going to bully you.  I’m going to shove you, verbally abuse you and throw balls at you.  How are you going to react?  Are you going to cave in to the bully?  Or are you going to ignore him, play harder and beat him?”

Once again, this is complete conjecture.  After seeing the video - and noticing the players never seemed to get upset, never questioned Rice (although in other clips, players are seen pushing back assistant Jimmy Martelli after he shoves them - hey, assistants only get so much leeway) led me to believe that these were playing along.  Like it was a play and they were playing a part in it.  Why else would macho guys - as a good deal of today’s ballers see themselves - allow themselves to be subjected to such bullying.  Especially by somebody who recruited them - who was in their homes, spoke with their parents and their coaches.  You know he never told them to expect any such tomfoolery at practices.

Naturally, even if this were true, Rice could never admit it as it’s as asinine a strategy as telling them to play on their knees in order to get lower in their defensive stances.  Plus, admitting to using the homophobic verbiage as a ploy - in any day and age - but especially this one would force any administrator to fire him on the spot.

All of the above is only my imagination’s explanation of what occurred at Rutgers, so we should all keep in mind that:

“Just because you can justify something in your own mind doesn’t make it right.”

The hottest sports story, including the Final Four, has got to be the total mess that took place at Rutgers and the ensuing domino effect of lost jobs and misery it’s caused.  Maybe the hottest news story as well.  Until it blows over and is replaced by something else that makes us breathe a sigh of relief while saying, “Well, there’s somebody whose life is in worse shape than mine.”

There was nothing good for Rutgers that came out of this situation - except for the hundreds of coaches who are bombarding the university with their resumes for the head and assistant coaching positions.  Their problem, however, is they don’t know exactly where they should send them.  The basketball office?  Athletics director?  President’s office?  On a more somber note, I, along with every coach I’ve seen interviewed, agree none of us have ever seen anything like that.  As loyal readers will know, I spent 30 years in Division I coaching, at nine institutions, going back to 1972.  Although one of those staffs in particular held daily practices that today would probably be considered child abuse, it was nothing at all like RU.

However, what terrified me nearly as much as the videos was what I heard Christine Brennan of USA Today say.  I was completely shocked and scrambled for a pen to write it down.  While I couldn’t remember it verbatim, it was something to the effect of - what a case like this says about college athletics is that it takes the media to police them.  After hearing that, I had a question for the sanctimonious Ms. Brennan.

Are you serious?

First of all, the person you most vilified (after Mike Rice), is Rutgers athletics director Tim Pernetti - who used to be a TV guy.  Had he stayed in the media world, he might be one of your guys policing college athletics.  Wow, how ironic would that be?  The person who watched the video of Mike Rice at Rutgers’ practices and decided not to fire him (which, correctly, offended you and the entire nation) . . . would be a watchdog.  Woof.  I don’t think so.

Since there are a couple, some, many, most, the overwhelming majority of people in this country who don’t, uh, what’s the right word here, oh, yeah, . . . trust the media, what exactly is the vetting process going to be like?  Can I be on the committee?  My memory recalls there have been media members who, how should I put it, have done wrong.  I think plagiarism (whether committed at the New York Times or lesser papers) is still against the law, isn’t it?  How would such people eliminated from your “policing” program?

Yesterday happened to be my annual check up with my optometrist.  After carefully watching and reading all the reports, I asked him if he could do anything to improve my hindsight.  One person I truly admired was the late Haywood Harris who served for five decades at the University of Tennessee as its SID (Sports Information Director, now referred to as Director of Athletic Media Relations).  Haywood was as intelligent and respected as anyone in the state.  He was inducted into four different Halls of Fame.  One day, he heard a young Knoxville sportswriter proudly claim that the media was “the watchdog of society.”  Haywood looked at the visitor and said:

“I’m a member of society.  I don’t remember ever requesting a watchdog.”

P.S. Here’s another question to ponder: Do you think these tapes would have been made public had Rutgers retained Eric Murdock?

The following is a blog I posted five years ago after speaking at length with many wise people - including lawyers - about a seemingly absurd idea I had.  It still seems doable, mainly because it would take care a major problem for many of us and open up a new occupation I believe people would take seriously.  See what you think of the plan.

With all the seemingly endless, nonsensical, pointless law suits that are resulting in obscene awards, I propose a potential cure for this madness.  Professional jurors.  Before you dismiss the idea as some whacky blogger searching for a topic, here me out.

First, make the profession of “juror” a legitimate, honorable and desirable one; then, pay them a competitive wage, educate them (college degrees probably a necessity) in basic areas of the law (certainly in the areas which are the most common grounds for law suits) and what should be expected to come to a proper conclusion, e.g. emotions should (as difficult as it may be) eliminated in the decision-making process and, finally, have them pass a series of tests regarding such areas.

Have panels of retired judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys (or even current ones, if they have the time and are interested in cleaning up the mess we’re faced with) travel throughout the country to interview prospective candidates in order to select the best and eliminate those with built in prejudices or hidden agendas.  Obviously, the person looking to make money through accepting bribes should be dismissed, but who better to be able to recognize these frauds than those who made their living dealing with such types? Some skeptics might say there will still be underhanded people trying to infiltrate the ranks, but aren’t there frauds in any profession?  I can give you the name of a surgeon who operated on me whom I’d call a butcher except that I have too much respect for butchers - and would fear a potential lawsuit.

Who would be prime candidates for this position?  Start with people who are good listeners, feel they are skilled in the area of conflict-resolution and want to see justice properly served.  Naturally, in certain cases where there might exist a conflict of interests due to something in the juror’s background, some would have to be excluded. And, of course, the phrase “a jury of your peers” would no longer apply but, to be honest, are most juries really made up of our peers?  Not likely.  Currently, most people do everything in their power to get out of jury duty, resulting in the old joke - “Your fate rests in the hands of twelve people who weren’t smart enough to find a way out of jury duty.”  Hence, many cases are decided by lawyers who play on jurors’ emotions, resulting in verdicts and awards that are based on the hearts, as opposed to the minds, of the twelve people in the box.  Why not upgrade the decision-making process with people who have been educated in how to do so, rather than “rookies” who’ve been educated by the judge prior to the trial?  Face it, emotion will always play a part in any human decision, but professional jurors lessen the chance of that happening.  What’s also vital to consider is that in many law suits today, it is an individual claiming he or she was used, abused, neglected and/or illegally dealt with by big companies or organizations whom current jurors look at as having “deep pockets.” If you’re having difficulty visualizing this picture, imagine how you’d feel if you were suing your employer (Giant Inc. or State U. or another group with hundreds or even thousands of employees) and the jury box was filled with twelve present or former CEO’s.  How do you like your chances?

As long as today’s mentality - especially here in California - consists of the following when people get into trouble: (1) blame someone else, (2) lie, (3) sue (see my 4/26/08 blog) and, all too often, (4) win! we need to look at changing something that’s worse than broken - it is inherently wrong - and it’s costing tax payers bundles.  Basically, what we now have ain’t workin’, so in the words of Benjamin Disraeli:

“In a progressive country, change is not only constant, it is inevitable.”

After spending all that time in the car with my sports-talk listening wife last weekend (when “the 50s on 5″ wasn’t on- I mean, we are baby boomers), I can’t help but compose another blog about the guys who spew sports knowledge over the air.  Maybe I’m sensitive because I’ve done that job before.  Not for a living, more as a substitute for a friend, or as a post game call-in host.

My first experience was in 1971 when I was a grad assistant at Vermont.  It was the first time I’d ever hosted a sports talk show, substituting for a friend of mine who did it everyday, three hours a day, six days a week.  Occasionally, he took an R&R day and this was one of those days.  What I did is what I’m not hearing now on sports talk and that is being prepared to comment about what is going on in the sports world.  Sure, I was only filling in for a night and these guys are doing it for a living but you owe your boss and your listeners a 100% effort.  When I went on the air (for a three hour segment), I had enough “filler”, i.e. interesting sports information, to put on a compelling show if no one called.

Instead, today’s guys seem to possess one essential characteristic: they’re all highly opinionated.  They bluff their way through shows, often repeating phrases they’ve heard from coaches and players to make themselves sound educated.  One I caught was: “”Having a running game in the NBA is great but in the playoffs, teams make you play half-court.”  Yet I’ve never heard one of those talking heads (not counting former coaches or players, of course) explain to a listening audience how, exactly, that’s accomplished.  Another that’s in vogue is, “one change that could be a major factor in the football team’s success is the change from the 4-3 to the 3-4 defense.”  Other than the obvious (assuming it is obvious), never have I had described to me what the difference in coverage is and why, after all these years of 4-3, is 3-4 the “right” move now.

The one I like best is the low-risk, high-reward prediction of “I know they’re huge underdogs but I have a good feeling today.“  This bold statement is usually made by the sports guy on the station for the local underdog, trying to create an upbeat atmosphere.  It’s also a ploy for a big, national contest where one guy sticks his neck out and goes contrary to the rest of his colleagues.  If the guy is right, he gets to bask in his own prognosticating brilliance, as well as remind everyone in the listening audience that his “gut” just told him something.  If he’s wrong (it’s mainly a “he” game now, but women will be settling into those seats soon enough), hey, it was just a “feeling.”  Or, simply never bring it up again.

This on-air “knowledge” isn’t really new.  I can remember how you’d hear about the wisdom of pinch hitting righties against lefthanders and vice versa.  Back then, though, the guys in the booths were actually told that by the coaches and players.  They actually could explain about higher percentages of success.  Then people like Tony LaRussa, Jim Leyland and Billy Beane started doing things their way - and they weren’t about to tell anybody why.

Back to my first sub role on a radio talk show.  As stated, I had all kinds of tidbits to keep people entertained and informed.  Then, I got my fist call.  It was about race car driving, the subject that would rival “mating rituals of the yak” as the topic I know least about.  I had to admit this to the caller, only to have the next two callers ask about the same subject.  My response was, “Of all the subjects you callers could ask, you bring up race car driving.  I don’t even know how to drive a car with a stick shift!”

The moral of the story is:

“Stick to talking about what you know.”

Probably because I was in the “arena” so long (30 years in Division I basketball at nine different institutions, for first time readers - or those who’ve been away for a while and have less than stellar memories), I chuckle (now - I used to fume) when I see “letters-to-the-editor” or hear TV talking heads spew venom when they know, maybe, 10% of what they’re commenting on.  All that said, I saw something in yesterday’s paper, the entirety of which I imagine I know very little.  Armed with so little knowledge, however, I will still go out on a limb and make comment on it.

The story was about Billy Hunter, the executive director of the National Basketball Players’ Association.  Full disclosure: I am on record as being on the David Stern side of the NBA & David Stern vs. NBPA & Billy Hunter battle.  One reason is that I think Stern is as competent at his job than anyone else was/is at theirs.  Inside the world of sports or out of it and for that, I truly admire him.  Hunter always struck me as the pompous, bullying sort for which I can’t bring myself to respect him.

It seems that, as unbelievable as it sounds, there was criticism of his hiring practices.  Somehow his daughter and daughter-in-law were on the payroll of the NBPA. Hey, maybe they killed the interview.  Or aced the written exam.  Falling within a similar realm of incredulity, the NBPA used to work with Prim Capital.  I have to admit I’ve never heard of that organization.  One thing I do know about it, though, is that Hunter’s son, Todd, is employed there.  Bids in sealed envelopes, perhaps?  In any case, Hunter was forced to fire the two ladies and the NBPA no longer can be affiliated with Prim Capital.

Situations like this mess beg for a quote - and in the case of someone like Billy Hunter, it’s not Mark Jackson’s catchphrase, “You’re better than that!”  Rather, we’d have to paraphrase Desi Arnez:

“Billy, you got some ’splaining to do!”

Amazingly, former Oakland Raiders great Tim Brown maintained his former head coach, Bill Callahan, sabotaged Super Bowl XXXVII.  When I first heard it, I thought Brown was going to add a punchline to add.  To charge that any head coach, much less your own, would throw a game is as serious a charge as can be levied.  It’s interfering with the absolute fabric of the game.  And the Super Bowl?  Keep in mind all that goes to the winning coach of the Super Bowl: you’re one of only x number of guys who’ve ever done it, your agent gets you flooded with endorsement opportunities, you’ve achieved what has probably been your number one goal since you decided to be a coach.  There are, I imagine, several other reasons I’ve omitted.

To hear about the accusation at this time in the season seems a little too coincidental.  Brown says Callahan changed the game plan two days before the biggest game of the year.  He did this because 1) he hated the Raiders (the team that was paying him and gave him the opportunity to be a head coach - which has led to the opportunity every other of his colleagues only dreamed about) and 2) he was good friends with Jon Gruden, the coach of the Raiders’ opponent in the Super Bowl, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.  First of all, you’d have to really hate your team to dump a Super Bowl and that would have to be one really good friend - to give him what just about every guy who’s ever coached would die for.  If ever there was such a friendship, it might be this year, but I doubt that either would perform such a gesture for the other.

For the record, QB Rich Gannon did put on one of the worst performances ever by throwing five interceptions, three of them “pick 6s.”  This, after the original game plan was “run-heavy,” according to Brown.

Now, though, Brown is backtracking - a little.  He said his comments “were taken the wrong way.”  Excuse me if I have a question or two.  Actually, it’s Brown who says he has a question.  Actually, he said the sabotaging remark should have been a question, not an accusation because “I’ve never said he sabotaged the game.  That’s something that can never be proven.  We can never go into the mind of Bill Callahan.”

Callahan, for his part in all this, maintains his “innocence.”  Brown does have a supporter, though.  His ally is one of his fellow receivers in that game, Jerry Rice.  If you’re looking for a credible person in the game of football, having the greatest receiver of all-time on your side certainly can’t hurt.  However, other Raiders who would go on the record, as well as one who wouldn’t, are on the “non-dump” side.

If Tim Brown didn’t initially talk out of turn (or frustration), he ought at least to remember the street cred motto and stand firmly behind it:

“I said it, I meant it, I’m here to represent it.”

That’s something that can never be proven. We can never go into the mind of Bill Callahan

Read more at: http://nesn.com/2013/01/tim-brown-ive-never-said-callahan-sabotaged-the-game/

That’s something that can never be proven. We can never go into the mind of Bill Callahan

Read more at: http://nesn.com/2013/01/tim-brown-ive-never-said-callahan-sabotaged-the-gam

When I was a member of the National Speakers Association, I wrote a book of funny (true) stories (Life’s A Joke) and had begun another on a more serious subject.  It was to be titled “The Lost Art of Role Model Leadership.”  My idea was to write the book but have a “co-author,” someone relatively famous who would only have to read the text and agree to have his name on the cover - above mine.  The content was derived from the numerous books I’d read, the experiences I’d had and the people I’d met.  There were five categories with several traits in each categories.  Naturally, a great deal of it was to be quotes.  Short, or a bit longer, lines that made a powerful point.

I got the idea when I was returning from working Michael Jordan’s Flight School in Santa Barbara.  Nearly all the time I’m driving alone I’m listening to an audiobook.  Since the one I had in my disk player on the way to Santa Barbara had finished, I stopped at an outlet mall in Atascadero to get another.  The one that caught my eye was a book Jane Leavy did on Sandy Koufax.  If ever I idolized a professional athlete, Sandy Koufax was my man.  I mean, I was a Jewish teenager from New Jersey in the ’60s.  After listening to that audiobook, I knew I had my co-author.  Instead of boring you with how it didn’t happen, suffice to say I thought I had an “in” to help me present my idea to Sandy but it didn’t pan out.

I was pretty bummed out until it struck me there had to be other guys who qualified.  That thought was more difficult than it should have been but I came up with several other possibilities.  Because I spent 30 years in the world of relatively big-time college athletics, I had made contacts and met “people who knew people.”  A few I thought would be possibilities were David Robinson, Cal Ripken Jr, Roger Staubach and John Stockton as well as a couple of other basketball guys, Grant Hill and Bruce Bowen, because of their alpha vs omega type backgrounds.  Obviously, nothing came to fruition.  My contacts not as powerful, or willing, as I thought.

Now that I’m retired, I’ve had people ask me if I was planning on coming out with another book - a sequel to Life’s A Joke.  I mentioned to my friend/boss/mentor George Raveling I had quite a bit of a book on role model leadership already done and he said to me, “Then why don’t you write it?”  Good question.  Currently occupying my time are CuteBabyNameGifts.com, a business which produces unique, personalized artwork for babies and toddlers; traveling weekends throughout California with my wife to watch our son, Alex, play for the Cal State Monterey Bay Otters; yoga, stretching and exercising, and, if you’ve read many of these posts or know me at all, going to doctors’ appointments.

If I did decide to venture into the literary world and tackle my original idea, who in the world could be a role model?  Our country’s been blitzed by not just negative stories but horrendous, offensive ones.  Put it this way, if you’ve ever wanted to tell a lie, now’s the time!  From Jerry Sandusky to Lance Armstrong to Manti Te’o, we’ve got some hard-to-top whoppers.  I imagine there are some qualified men and women.  In fact, if you think of one - please let me know.

What is redeeming is that people are tired of less-than-the-whole-truth apologies and explanations.  What needs to be taught to the youth (and not-so-youth) is the statement by  Mark Twain:

“A lie can travel halfway round the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”