Jack’s Blog

Following the 1991-92 basketball season at USC (where I was an assistant coach), then-junior swing man Harold Miner, a fabulous basketball player, had a difficult decision to make.  It was whether to return for his senior campaign or leave school for the NBA draft.  Our head coach, George Raveling, had done his due diligence and found out that Harold was a surefire lottery pick, going possibly as high as seventh (he wound up the twelfth pick).

Someone, somewhere, at some time had stuck the moniker, Baby Jordan, on Harold years earlier.  He was about the same height and build as Michael, jumped like him (he won the NBA’s Slam Dunk competition twice) and had a shaved head.  But, we all, including Harold, knew he was not another MJ, nor was anyone else.  That kind of attention was both unrealistic and unfair.  It really didn’t matter where he was picked, however,  because Nike offered him sixth pick money, i.e. if he was selected in the sixth slot, he got that money, BUT if he were picked anywhere lower, Nike would make up the difference between the money he was offered and what the player drafted sixth got.  So, when he dropped to #12, he still received #6 money, what #12 got (all rookie contracts are preset), plus the difference between that and #6 which was picked up by Nike.

The reason I share this bit of history is to show that Harold Miner was a sensational college basketball player.  When he was deciding, one factor in favor of him returning to school was he absolutely loved campus life.  It was a real blast for him to go to the student center the day after a big game and hear his fellow students reliving the game and some of the jaw dropping moves from the night before.  Or hear praise from a professor.  Or a custodian.  Didn’t matter.  He found it invigorating.

Johnny Manziel of Texas A&M is the reigning Heisman Trophy winner.  This year, the school has announced that, because it is such a distraction whenever Johnny Football shows up on campus, they are allowing him to take his classes online.  Now, I am by no means comparing Harold Miner’s popularity in LA with Johnny Manziel’s in College Station.  First of all, Miner’s situation was twenty years ago.  And it’s an apples vs. oranges comparison because Los Angeles is a pro city and SC is a football school.  Yet, at 6′6″, black with long arms and a killer body, people knew who Harold Miner was.  Few would pass by without making a comment or asking for an autograph or picture.

Manziel related the following story when he received the Davey O’Brien Award as the nation’s top quarterback, according to Bernie Augustine of the New York Daily News.  “I went one day — it was a small class of 20 or 25 — and it kind of turned into more of a big deal than I thought.”  Regarding the decision to take classes online, he said, “It just happened to work out where it was good after the football season with all of the stuff going on.  It was a good time not to have to worry about being on campus and some other things, too.”

At his press conference declaring for the draft, Harold Miner made reference to how much he was going to miss not only the guys on the team, but also his fellow classmates.  He realized that experience would be gone once he became a professional - and he’d never again get to feel it.

Now, Heisman Trophy winner Johnny Manziel has become so popular in College Station that the Texas A&M quarterback can no longer attend classes with the rest of the student body.  Someday, he might wish he had found a way.

It’s a shame that:

“Some people know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.”

As television programs go, there are many that aren’t as captivating as Inside the NBA.  The show is so entertaining that I know people who don’t watch the NBA game that’s televised that night yet will tune into Ernie & the ex-NBA stars.  The word that’s used when people try to explain why it wins awards is chemistry.

Ernie Johnson is the moderator and, maybe because he understands which guys the viewers want to hear, or maybe because he wants to keep getting paid large dollars, or maybe because it’s what his bosses tell him to do, he relinquishes the stage to Charles Barkley, Kenny Smith and Shaquille O’Neal.  Since everyone has an opinion (and they all stink - the punchline of an old adage) and this is my blog, I’ll let you know mine.  I feel the best the show was was either when it started and it was only a three-man operation, or when they added Greg Anthony.  Maybe I like guards better, but I didn’t think Chris Webber added anything to the show and I think Shaq takes away from it.

For my (cable subscription) money, I don’t see where a fourth person is necessary.  In the beginning (not to compare the show to The Bible, it’s not that good), Ernie provided the knowledge that a television pro needs to know - plus he’d throw in a witticism every so often.  Kenny’s opinion was gleaned from a guard’s point of view, as well as that of a player who not only was a member of, but was a major contributor to the championship team.  Charles gave commentary from a big man’s perspective, and also that of a Hall of Famer.  Plus, he’d say blurt out statements like, “There’s a fight I wouldn’t break up,” when player-enforcers David West and Kenyon Martin started to scuffle.  That combination was enough.  And perfect.  Why the producers or directors or Ted Turner or whoever thought the show needed anyone else is as shocking as why they continue to allow Shaq overdo whatever schtick comes to his mind.

What the fans get to see is how varied opinions, based on their experiences, can be - whether you hear analysis from a guard (Kenny or Greg), “The guards need to establish tempo” or from the big guys (Charles, C Webb or Shaq), “They need to get the ball inside.”  The fans also get - or have to put up with - depending on the reason a viewer is tuning in, the tomfoolery among the combatants.  Often it is hilarious, sometimes with the on-air banter, sometimes with the vignettes the producers put together to tease the guys in the studio.  Charles has been an amazingly good sport as the other guys, including those not on camera, continually poke fun at him for various mistakes he’s made, things he’s said or . . . pretty much anything from his life.  However, his attitude might just be a case of a healthy salary because the Chuckster once said on-air “I can be bought.  If they paid me enough, I’d work for the Klan.”  Make no mistake about that, however.  On that, he was joking.

Kenny is the perfect foil to Charles (or maybe it’s the other way around).  Charles knows the bond the two of them have is such that anytime Kenny’s embarrassing him, it’s only for the sake of good TV.  Kenny does a great job when he’s explaining video, illustrating his point so that someone who’s not that into the hoops can understand the point he’s trying to make.

Shaq seems to have been added more to capture the interest of a different demographic of basketball fan with his references to today’s music, dance and lingo.  The issue with him is he overdoes it.  His stuff becomes old and tired - and he refuses to let up.  He either doesn’t know he’s annoying or doesn’t care.  Or enjoys it!  I mean wasn’t there anybody in the studio telling him “Birdman, Birdman” was getting old?  I’m not sure how many times he said it last night but, then again, I can’t count to infinity.

The show has obvious off-camera, inside jokes among the four of them, but those are almost funny in a teasing sort of way.  The show can have it’s serious moments as well (apart from the obvious basketball talk).  Although Charles can learn from Shaq about overdoing something (enough already with the “Only God’s an expert,”), Chuck has made several poignant statements.  It’s apparent when he’s passionate about a topic, e.g. remarking on not taking being an NBA player as seriously as those of the five other professions he mentioned (teacher, policeman, fireman, doctor, military) - although plumbers, electricians, maintenance workers, auto mechanics and others working in fields outside the five he mentioned might be offended.  His sincerity does show through.  As it did when he remarked:

“The great thing about sports is that it takes you away from reality.”

After watching the Bulls totally throttle the Nets, Bill Simmons must have been proclaiming, “Can anybody say, ‘sweep BULLS IN FIVE!’ ”

The Heat is (doesn’t it sound like it oughtta be “are”) clearly the favorite but a team that might give them trouble would be one made up of Derrick Rose, Rajon Rondo, Kobe Bryant, Amar’e Stoudamire, David Lee, Jordan Hill, Jared Sullinger, Danilo Gallinari, Danny Granger and Boris Diaw.  82 games is a lot of wear and tear on a body, especially one that has to endure the increasingly allowable physical play. That group of injured guys, if healthy, would be a tough one to beat.

At first it simply sounded like another case of superlative playoff commentary when Charles Barkley and Kenny Smith anointed the Warriors’ Steph Curry and Klay Thompson “the best two shooters in the world” - until you start thinking about it.  Even Reggie Miller - who might not have been the greatest shooter in the world, but was certainly in the finals - agreed with the assessment.  After seeing them up close, George Karl wasn’t about to disagree.

Is it really fair to report that the Clippers need to get to the Western Conference finals for Vinny Del Negro to keep his job?  And then continually ask him how he feels about it?  If, in fact, getting to the finals is what’s necessary, why not leave the guy alone so he can put everything he has into achieving that goal?  Naturally, it’s typical NBA tomfoolery that a coach who produced a franchise high 56 victories, won the division and finally gained the respect of the league isn’t the man to take them to the next step.  First of all, the Clippers have never sniffed the next step, so how would they even know what type of coach should lead them there?  Seems like their motto is, “If it ain’t broke, break it.”

Speaking of interfering with a coach’s concentration, is it really necessary for Kobe to tweet during games?  It’s almost like Mike D’Antoni is supposed to be looking at his iPhone while the game is going on.  It’s one thing to want to stay involved but what Kobe does from a hospital bed (or his own) ought to be kept between him and his teammates - just like players say when their privacy is invaded.

Coaches in the NBA make an incredible amount of money, have a cushy life - in terms of having things done for them that the rest of us have to do for ourselves, enjoying perks the average person could only dream about (exorbitant per diem, private jets, luxury hotels), but the way these intelligent, decent people - with families - are treated is truly criminal.  It’s a sexy job, but to have other people who might not know, but think they do determine whether you continue your passion defies all logic.

Many of the owners and front office people have been called cynics and as Oscar Wilde once said:

“A cynic is someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.”

Every day the list of those underclassmen who are making themselves eligible for the NBA draft lengthens.  While nearly every person I’ve talked to, listened to or read has said the national championship game between Michigan and Louisville was terrific, nearly all of them thought this year’s March Madness was one of the poorest in terms of exciting, well-played games.  Emphasis on well-played.  Maybe this year was an aberration in terms of all we’ve come to expect from March Madness or maybe the absurd number of early exits has finally caught up with the college game.  If that actually were the case, the deterioration should have happened well before now but there’s no questioning this year’s NCAA tournament was as poorly played as any in memory.

One reason could be that, usually, experience makes offenses and defenses work better.  Those teams who are composed mainly of seniors, some fifth and sixth year seniors or guys who are as old as 24 or 25, are more mature, understand the intricacies better and have greater chemistry than a group of freshmen who just got thrown together and have played a total of thirty or so games, barring injuries.  How, then, a cynic or a fan might ask, could Kentucky have won the national championship a couple years ago?

Simple.  John Calipari is a master at leading and motivating a young group, getting them all to buy into his philosophy.  However, here is a life lesson that needs to be learned and never forgotten: Above all else, talent wins out.  He recruited them, motivated them and coached them.  Had Nerlens Noel not suffered a seasoning ending injury, we might have seen those results for a second straight season.  Can one man mean that much to a team?  For that answer watch the Lakers from here on out.  Especially if they make the playoffs.  Can anyone even fathom how good Kentucky would have been, forget this year’s incoming class, if the team that won it all - relatively easily - had all returned to UK for another run?  And another?  I started my college coaching career in 1972.  That was what UCLA did.  Beat everybody to death and recruited to fill the spots left by graduation.  Simple formula that worked for quite a while.

Undoubtedly, the early entry rule changed the player’s thought process but what really flipped the college game was the color green.  The talk of giving a college kid a stipend is nice - for the good players who are planning on going to school for four years anyway.  Does anybody really think a stipend is going to change a kid’s mind when he’s looking at the possibility of a six or seven figure contract?  If he can’t make the right decision there, maybe he’s not smart enough to be in college.

Louisville’s Russ Smith has declared for the draft even though most who make up mock drafts have him going mid- to late-second round, meaning no guaranteed money.  You think he’d change his mind if the NCAA passed a $300/month stipend?  $400?  $500?  Maybe, as the old joke goes, “he loves college but hates class.”  What compounds the problem is the timing of when to leave.  OK, most guys are going to go as soon as they can.  There are others, though, who realize they need some more seasoning and another year (or more) under their current “professor” would make them a much better and more ready prospect.  And that’s where the timing dilemma comes in.

Take, for example, this year.  I don’t pretend to know even one foreign prospect.  I leave that up to my man Franny Frascilla who can tell you all of them.  As far as the college players who comprise this year’s crop, there’s not one who doesn’t have “holes” in his game?  The consensus number one pick is Nerlens Noel who’s intercollegiate career was limited to 24 games.  Even if a team is comfortable with the brief showing of his considerable skills, there has to be a concern regarding the injury.  One, did it heal properly and two, is he injury-prone, e.g. Grant Hill, Darko Milicic or the two guys no one can ever forget - Greg Oden and Sam Bowie?

The rest?  In no particular order (since different mock drafts have them in different order), the guys who are consensus top picks are: Ben McLemore, Marcus Smart, Victor Oladipo, Otto Porter, Anthony Bennett, Trey Burke, Shabazz Muhammed, Cody Zeller, Alex Len.  Let’s not forget Isaiah Austin.  He hits home because he played with my younger son, Alex, back in the 5th grade AAU days.  What makes it particularly difficult when I evaluate him is that he looks exactly the same as he did when he was ten!  From the long, lanky arms and legs to the same goggles, it’s like watching him through a magnifying glass.  There is little doubt he’s going to be a great one just as there’s little doubt he’s not NBA-ready.  Ready to start banging his slender body with the 25-30 year old men who’ve been in the league for several years, taking advantage of all the professional strength trainers and facilities.  I’m sure Baylor’s facilities are first-class, but if they were placed side by side, I’m certain the state-of-the-art NBA equipment is far superior.  Plus, the NBA isn’t limited as to how much time - or when - coaches can work with players, as do NCAA-affiliated institutions.

Having watched each of the above guys, some on multiple occasions, my belief is none of these guys are NBA-ready.  Yet they’re going to get picked high.  Why?  Because, if they all stayed in college and worked on their skills, strength and stamina . . . here is what the draft would look like: Mason Plumlee, CJ McCollum, Mike Muscala, Jeff Withey, Erick Green, Nate Wolters, Jackie Carmichael, Solomon Hill, Michael Snaer, Brandon Paul, Eric Murphy, Pierre Jackson, Richard Howell, Isaiah Canaan, Trevor Mbakwe, Rodney Williams and a whole lot of Franny’s guys from overseas.  And unless Fran has uncovered some real gems, many of those names listed would be lottery picks.  Each of those players are good prospects, but if the thought of your favorite team using a lottery pick on any of them gives you a warm a feeling, check your pants leg because you might have just . . .

There is another reason guys leave school early and this one you won’t find anywhere but right here.  My firm belief is that the real reason people go to college is not to get an education.  The real reason is:

“These kids go to college to improve their station in life, and with what the NBA is paying - even if their careers are short-lived - it is a considerable improvement of their station in life.”

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!”

Most people, myself included, read Sports Illustrated for the articles.  At least until the swimsuit edition arrives.  But other than that issue, pictures are secondary (after the first few pages) to the written word.  The last page has become an audition to see which writer comes as close in popularity to the readers as Rick Reilly.  It might be a stretch to compare him to John Wooden but there seems to be no outright favorite yet even though there have been several very good columns.  It seems that there are many Gene Bartows, Gary Cunninghams, Walt Hazzards, Jim Harricks, Steve Lavins and Ben Howlands (most of whom were outstanding coaches) at SI but no one like Coach Wooden.  For my money, there hasn’t even been a Larry Brown yet.

When SI first asked its readers which of a list of sports, other than football, basketball, baseball and possibly a couple others that currently escape my mind (which shows my particular tastes), they had an interest in, e.g. tennis, golf, auto racing, etc. my choices came down to tennis and golf.  It was a tough choice and if I were younger - and still playing tennis - that would have been what I’d have selected.  Since my back issues eliminated playing tennis about a decade ago, I chose golf.  Now I get additional articles on the sport as well as special extra editions.  A good friend of mine is a scratch (or close) golfer so those issues go to him, after I’ve briefly scanned them.

The one on the Masters that just came out intrigued me enough that as I perused it, the article with their panel of (three) experts (and one anonymous pro) caught my eye.  Opinions abound in sports and I’ve found (through experience) it’s always a good idea to hear what others who are deeply involved in a sport or topic think before you start popping off, or even discussing, issues so as not to look foolish.  Although I’ve read some interesting points in the past, little did I think I’d come across as introspective an explanation as Gary Van Sickle’s regarding Rory McElroy’s approach to his profession.  Van Sickle said of the young star:

“He’s not all golf like Tiger was.  Rory is going to take the time to enjoy his life.  He reminds me of Arnold Palmer a little there.  He’ll be streaky great, and he’s got other interests.  He’ll have a better quality of life, and if that means a couple fewer major wins in the long run, that’s all right.”

In addition to expertly defining the differences between the two golfers, the Van Sickle quote speaks volumes to most everybody who has a job.  If you’ve just entered the working world, those are your choices.  How do you approach your profession?  Do you love it so much that it consumes your every waking minute?  In the business world, that type of an employee is called a workaholic.  Those people often find an abundance of material wealth, yet, frequently, there is something missing in their life in another area of it.  In the field of sports, we call them single minded and driven.  Some (most?) people think a person’s life should be balanced.  We all remember the old adage “All work and no play make Jack a dull boy.” 

The times and people (and salaries/purses for sporting events/endorsement deals) have made that quote obsolete.  Now, it’s “get it while you can” and “the window of opportunity is open only so long.”  Maybe not so much in golf where some wise brilliant old golfer had the imagination - or told somebody else - to create a Seniors Tour.  Still, people don’t want to see extraordinary talent not pushed to the ultimate.  Usually parents and agents because 1) nearly all of them weren’t as athletically blessed and 2) they don’t have to do the heavy lifting.

Far too many people have altered the line so that it turned around the original message.  Maybe Rory McElroy has it right but for now it’s become:     

“All work and no play make Jack (or Jill) a champion.”

It doesn’t surprise anybody when I tell them the pull I have with the NCAA and the NBA is equal to the juice I have with the White House.  That doesn’t mean I don’t have a better idea when it comes to the (admitted) problem of the NCAA’s one-and-done student-athlete.  While the following post (which, by the way, I first blogged on 5/3/2010 and altered a little here) certainly could use further tweaking, it’s exponentially superior to whatever has been proposed thus far.  Plus, it’s not illegal nor does it break any NBAPA rule.  Read and let me know what you think.  Better yet, contact the NBA office.  Especially if you have clout.

So many people are up in arms regarding the NBA rule that forces a high school player to attend college for at least a year before heading to the big league.  Of course, there are alternatives, but many are pretty radical, e.g. playing overseas ala Brandon Jennings.  While it (ultimately) worked out for Jennings (keep in mind he had a terrible experience over there), others have tried and haven’t been as successful as the Bucks’ star.

If memory serves me correctly (and at this age, that being true is a toss up), David Stern said the rule is in place due to some “legalese,” i.e. he’s not too thrilled about it either, but it’s the best of all evils.  With that in mind, it means that the “road most traveled” will be to enter college for at least (and for some, at most) one year.  My claim is that the current situation can be changed for the betterment of . . . everybody.

The why are we whining about it?  Let’s deal with it.  How?  Make college more relevant to these guys.  If they are as talented as they think they are (and as influential outsiders are telling them they are), then the school’s goal should be to help them - just like colleges are helping all other students.  As I initially blogged on 5/6/07 (and have reprinted that post at least once), the reason kids go to college is not for an education, but to improve their station in life.

The one-and-dones are going to college because they have to - and once the sand runs out of that year-long hour glass, color them gone - for the big money.  If that actually is the reality - and for the great ones, it is - why not give them a curriculum to prepare them for the life they’re about to enter, e.g. show them there is relevance for them to attend college!  Why not create a major in the field.  Put off the general education classes temporarily and offer them (and any other student at the university for that matter) courses in 1) money management (including the value of philanthropy for those who really hit the jackpot), 2) how to select advisers (mentors, agents, and, although, it could be a sensitive area, friends), 3) how to deal with the media and use it to their advantage, 4) women’s rights, including “no means no” (this should be mandatory for many students in the wake of today’s front page stories), 5) nutrition, 6) maintaining physical fitness, 7) accepting (embracing) the responsibility of being a role model and acting appropriately (whether they want to or not, athletes are role models) and 8 since NBA players don’t have normal 8-hour work days, nor do they play year-round, a course in how to productively use “down-time” (from doing crosswords and sudokus to keep the mind active, to reading up on a topic of interest, to tennis and golf, to . . . whatever)?  Many other course possibilities exist if people at the top (maybe create a mastermind group) would put their heads together.  For the kid who doesn’t get drafted or realizes he’s not yet ready, or better yet, realizes a college degree might be a necessity, and at the very least, certainly wouldn’t hurt, the sophomore year can be devoted to catching up on general ed classes.

What this does is give an extremely talented (in the sport of basketball) young man something that he can actually see will help him in his life after basketball.  Although Charles Barkley is a one-of-a-kind, e.g. an out-of-shape kid who eschewed attending classes, he became one of the 50 best players in the NBA and has been inducted into both the intercollegiate and NBA Halls of Fame.  He has managed to make a great life for himself, currently serving as a studio analyst for both the NCAA and NBA as well as a pitchman for several products.  That is, he’s making a lot of money.  However, for every Charles Barkley, there are hundreds, maybe even thousands, of kids who never played a second of pro ball, nor cashed an NBA paycheck.

One night a few years ago, the guys on the set of TNT’s NBA game night studio show were giving Sir Charles a hard time about the (lack of an) Auburn education he got and leaving the school without a degree.  Charles had a pretty good comeback (which may only apply to him):

“I don’t have a degree - but a lot of people who work for me do.”

In yesterday’s blog, I mentioned CoachGeorgeRaveling.com as a website that is well worth visiting.  One area of George’s site is a Q&A in which I ask him questions about himself - information that very few people are aware of - in order for people who don’t know him (as well as those who do) to better understand this complex individual.  To date there are somewhere in the neighborhood of twenty such segments.

A week or so ago George and I had lunch when he told me he wanted to video another set of vignettes in the near future.  As sort of a scoop for those of you who read this blog, I’ll let everyone in on one questions I plan to ask him during our next recording session.  It’s no secret that there are infinitely more people interested in coaching on the college level than there are positions.  Ask any head coach and he (or she) will tell you that on a seemingly daily basis they’re getting letters, phone calls, emails, recommendations - whatever type of communication available - from or about candidates for coaching positions.

Something I’ve noticed since I began in college coaching 40 years ago is that while coaching is such a coveted profession, an overwhelming majority who earn their living in the coaching business (on the Division I college level) are bitter when  their careers end - especially those who ascend to the position of head coach.  One would think that someone who finally reached the pinnacle, who got to grasp the brass ring, would be elated when their careers ended.  One would be wrong.  By a lot.

For example, of the ten head coaches for whom I worked, I’d say eight of them didn’t leave on their own terms.  While some get over it, others never do.  Bump into them - I’m talking about all former coaches now, not just my ten bosses - and when the conversation gets around to their career, they’ll either start to reminisce about when times were better or tell you (for the nth time) how such-and-such administrator/booster/player/assistant/you-name-it stabbed them in the back or didn’t give them enough time or didn’t understand how difficult the job was.

George wasn’t one of them, although his departure from coaching came after a retired professor ran a red light on the outskirts of USC’s campus and broadsided his car, not only forcing him into retirement but nearly ending his life.  How many more years George would have coached is unknown but with multiple broken ribs, a broken pelvis, broken back, punctured lung and numerous other injuries coaching took a backseat to . . . living.

A couple of former coaches with whom I’ve been reunited - if only via Sirius FM radio - are part of the small minority of D-I head coaches who got out of coaching on their own volition and are loving life.  It shows in their radio personalities and in their voices.  One is Bobby Cremins whom I first met when he was the head coach at Appalachian State and I was an assistant at Western Carolina.  For those of you who are unaware (meaning nearly everybody), these two schools are bitter rivals, Appie State on top of the mountain and WCU in the valley.  It’s like the Hatfields and the McCoys.  We had some epic battles in the Southern Conference.  We got the better of them; they go the better of us.  Bobby did well enough to land the Georgia Tech job.  He did so well there, they ultimately named the floor at Alexander Coliseum after him, but not before firing him first.  He said he was going to take a year off before coaching again. That year became six - before he took the reigns at the College of Charleston where he led them back to the glory days of legendary coach John Kresse before retiring to a life of radio and golf.

Another guy who had a nice run in the profession was Tom Brennan.  Tom led the University of Vermont into the NCAA tournament, a feat similar to climbing Mount Everest.  With mittens.  Barefoot.  I began my 30-year journey through nine D-I institutions at UVM and while I realize the situation was better for Tom than it was for us, it’s only because . . . it had to be.  In 1972 I went there as a grad assistant for $1,000 plus graduate school tuition.  Oh yeah, I was the only assistant.  Our head coach, Peter Salzburg, was in his first year and was hauling in $12,500.  Our entire budget, not including salaries and scholarships was $9,975.  I don’t care what kind of improvements they made, there should be a statue of Tom Brennan outside Roy L. Patrick Gymnasium.

When Bobby or Tom are on the radio, each has a wonderful sense of humor - usually the self-deprecating kind.  When they are pointing out interesting and insightful information, neither takes himself too seriously.  They enjoyed their head coaching successes, endured their failures (which were numerous since each took over absolutely dreadful jobs) and exited gracefully, moving on to where they are thoroughly enjoying their current gigs.  The other ex-coaches (whose agents got them radio and TV jobs) sound like they’re interviewing for their next job every time they express an opinion. Because they are.

Brennan, however, after hearing of lavish gifts heaped upon someone when he announced his retirement (I can’t recall the name now), joked that when he left Vermont, they gave him a barbeque.  “And I was thrilled!”

Since nothing good comes from stress - and no one’s getting out of life alive - probably the best way to view what’s going on in the tournament is to use the line retired Texas Tech football coach Sonny Dykes said:

“We are fixin’ to have more fun than a little.”

Robert Parish was selected as one of the 50 greatest players of all-time.  Does that make him qualified to be an NBA coach?  To my knowledge there’s never been a definitive study done comparing skill as a player to that of a coach.  However, history tells us that while being a great player doesn’t preclude someone from having a similar career on the bench, it’s a rare superstar who becomes a successful coach.

Parish is upset at his former teammates, claiming they didn’t reach out to him the past few years.  Independent of former players shunning him or teams turning their backs on him (mainly his club, the Celtics), his story boils down to the fact that a) he’s broke, b) he’s not broke but doesn’t have as much money as he needs or c) he simply just doesn’t have as much money as he wants.

The story of his plight always returns to his money woes.  He’s auctioned off his championship rings, his Hall-of-Fame ring and his 50 greatest player ring, items most people would never part with.  Although he was employed by the team he played for, Parish claimed the $80,000 a year job the Celtics were paying him wasn’t enough.  He said he was in the market for an NBA assistant or head coaching position - one that paid six or seven figures.  Right there, he lost sympathy from most of us common folk.  Personally, prior to my retirement, I had seven figure jobs from as far back as 1977.  Of course, two of those figures were after the decimal point.

The reason Parish says he ought to be hired is because he was such a highly skilled player himself; that he could really help a team.  Parish is experiencing the same cold shoulder as a couple other former superstars - Kareem Adbul Jabbar and Rick Barry.  Each of these guys shared a characteristic other than being one of, if not the best, at their position.  All were standoffish.  And that’s being extremely kind.

What Robert Parish, as well as others like him, needs to learn is summed up in a line I heard many years ago from Hubie Brown:

“You’ve got to learn how to say hello before it’s time to say goodbye.”

The NFL is nothing if not a business.  Black Monday, the day after season-ending games, saw several coaches receive pink slips.  Andy Reid was one.  A guy who got fired Monday, yet he’s already interviewed with Kansas City and will do the same shortly at Arizona.  For the record, people “in the know” claim it’s a great idea.  Andy Reid is universally liked, a guy who probably stayed too long (14 years) in Philadelphia, a city in which patience comes in at the opposite end of Pat’s cheese steaks on the like/dislike scale.  Sounds like he’s going to be recycled in record time.

Basically there are there are four types of guys who are attractive as future NFL head coaches - fired NFL coaches (aka recycled or retreads), coordinators (offensive or defensive, depending on which is the desired way to play at that time, so now that means offensive), really hot college head coaches (but they’d better be really hot now, e.g. no NFL team is looking to hire Dan Hawkins or Steve Sarkisian) and TV guys (who got their current jobs after getting fired or “retiring” as head coaches - at least that’s how it works in baseball and basketball).

There’s good pay (with some awesome “bene’s”), endless work, you’re held accountable for things you are, are not and in no way could be accountable for, incredible pressure, early retirement and good pay (it’s so good, it deserves to be mentioned twice).

A head coach has to make millions of coaching moves.  What gets a guy fired is making too many bad ones.  And how is a guy supposed to know the difference between a good and bad coaching move?  Simple.

“A good coaching move is one that works.”