Jack’s Blog

It’s great to be back but I’m leaving again.  I’m honored to be the emcee at the party in Las Vegas tonight to celebrate Jerry Tarkanian’s induction into the College Basketball Hall of Fame.  When I get back, it’s off to the Stanford Pain Management Center for a pump refill and check up.  Then, into the car to drive down the 101 to Monterey to pick up Alex who just finished his first year of college at Cal State Monterey Bay and bring him home for the summer.  He claims he nailed it academically this semester.  If he can match his inaugural season in college hoops, in which he was one of only ten players in the country to make the Division II Freshmen All-America team - and the only one from the west coast - he’ll have had a successful beginning to college life.

Not done yet.  For those of you who have ever hit up CoachGeorgeRaveling.com, the website for the boss I had previous to Tark, you might have seen the video section entitled #JackAndCoach.  On it, I turn the tables on George who has interviews with individuals such as Oscar Robertson, Nolan Richardson, David Falk (MJ’s agent) and my man, Tark, among many others.  In our segment, I pose questions to get to know “the inside Rav.”  Currently, there are between 25-28 “shorts,” about 3-5 minutes in length.  Some are very funny, others quite moving, all entertaining.  We spent about five hours shooting last fall and it’s time for round two, so I’ll be, ahem, on location in LA, as they say, this weekend.  This blog will return Monday.  

The Chicago Bulls teased the entire country when they won Game One of their best-of-seven series with the Miami Heat - in Miami.  Nate Robinson showed what a little guy can do when given a chance - and is playing for a contract.  The fact that Nate hasn’t stuck with any of his five teams quite yet has more to do than his being an ultra-short little guy.  The performance that night - and his continued aggressive play in spite of all odds - raised the eyebrows of fans and, probably some general managers.  Last night was an abomination of a contest.  Tired or other issues?  Why haven’t the Bulls been able to repeat an effort like they did in the opener?

ESPN has four guys talking about it when the games are on their stations; TNT has four (in my opinion, better) analysts discussing the contests when they’re played on their network.  The groups chime in on what has happened and what needs to be done to fix the problem.  In each case we hear about how some player needs to contribute more, to become that all-important creation of analysts - the X-factor.  Basically, the talking heads aren’t necessary for this series.  When a superstar is forced into street clothes, it’s obvious the team’s getting nothing from him that day but in addition, they’re probably going to encounter a serious drop off at that spot in the lineup.

The complete analysis for the Bulls and Heat goes as follows:

“The Bulls have lost their starting point guard and both wings.  They’re playing against the best basketball team in the world.  Next?”

It’s vacation time!  This will be my last blog until Tuesday, May 14.  Look forward to returning with more stories to entertain and inspire.

Whatever anyone says about Jerry Tarkanian, no one refutes he was the master of getting guys to play hard.  The one type of guy who Tark couldn’t stand to have on his team, whom he knew that if he played, sooner or later, they were going to lose.  He called that kind of player a “Cool Guy.”  I haven’t talked to him yet about the Chicago Bulls but I imagine he was totally impressed.  Not because they won in Game 7 but because . . . they don’t have any cool guys.

One coach Tark has always been unbelievably impressed with is Tom Thibodeau.  Tibbs doesn’t like cool guys either.  He took a Chicago Bulls team without Kirk Heinrich, Luol Deng and, of course, Derrick Rose, a former MVP whose services he hasn’t had all year, into Brooklyn’s brand new digs and came out a winner.  He took a franchise which has had incredible success - but had never, NEVER, won a game 7 on the road.  Yet they did it.  Why?

Thibodeau has been telling us all along:

“We have enough.”

The Los Angeles Lakers were so decimated they should have come out led by a guy with a bandage around his head and a drum.  Their top two point guards, top two second guards and top small forward were all unable to play.  Tony Robbins would have given up.

The Chicago Bulls lost their point guard - for the year - and then lost his (shutdown defender) backcourt mate for Game Six.   As if they needed any more bad news, they went into a closeout game with much of their team with the flu, or as it’s become known throughout the years in the NBA as “flu-like symptoms.”  Only this time, the Bulls didn’t have the guy who can play even better with it so now it’s off to Brooklyn for Game Seven.

The Lakers’ NBA co-host at Staples Center could have used some good news since they’ve lost a couple guys to injury.  Having suffered through more than enough “player games lost” they found out just prior to Game Five their poster boy was hobbled. And it couldn’t have happened against a worse team.  Usually, a team can switch defensive assignments to help an injured player out a little but when you’re a post player and Memphis is the opponent, it’s . . . pick your poison.  Only getting 19 minutes in a Game Five loss doesn’t bode well for a Game Six - on the road.

Injuries that occurred prior to the playoffs to Boston’s flamboyant leader and just before they began to Denver’s major offensive weapon really doomed them and now each is trying to stay alive but have formidable paths ahead of them.

In reality, all of these match ups are window dressing.  Sure, the playoffs will make money for the league but this year’s NBA Playoffs might be as much of a forgone conclusion than any other year in recent memory.  The Miami Heat are soooooooooo much better that they can deal with injuries of their own and still have no worries.  I don’t believe I’m going out on a limb saying the engraver can start on the O’Brien trophy as soon as he wants.  I’m fully aware that “It ain’t over ’til the fat lady sings.”  Well,

“The fat lady might not yet be singing but, if you’ll listen closely, you can her clearing her throat.”

Yesterday, both Boston and the Lakers were down 0-3.  It was apparent that neither was going to win its series.  Yet the Celtics won Game 4 in Boston, knowing that all they have to look forward to is the Knicks’ inevitable series-clincher in New York.   Meanwhile, the Lakers lost to San Antonio in LA.  Can we conclude anything from these two performances?  Even though, without Rondo, the Celtics had almost no chance of advancing, they were well aware they didn’t dare let their long-time, ticket-buying fans down in an elimination game.  Apparently, the Lakers’ relationship with their fans isn’t quite as intimate as that of the Celts.

On TNT’s pregame show, Kenny Smith even exclaimed that he’d heard Jack Nicholson gave his tickets to his cousin.  Which, of course, was absurd.  Because Jack has a relationship with the Lakers that’s stronger than a series sweep (against - he’s witnessed the flip side), even if it’s his favorite team getting blown out twice in a row.  He remembers the past - and looks forward to the future.  Whatever (and whomever) it brings.

For the record: how many people who were criticizing the way Mike D’Antoni coached yesterday’s game would have wanted to switch places with him?  And for those foolish enough to say yes, do you really think the outcome would have been any different because of your brilliant bench manuevering?  If you do, there are talk show hosts and hundreds of callers waiting to abuse you on the Subway fresh take hot lines, #1-25.

Truthfully, Boston had a shot at winning yesterday and the Lakers didn’t.  For that game, they’d lost their their starting small forward and top four guards - one of whom happens to be one the top three players in the game.  They were so decimated with injuries, nothing could have been done against the Spurs.  Nothing.

Whether or not that is true for the entire season will remain a mystery.  The saddest part of the entire year is the truth behind Charles Barkley’s statement regarding the Lakers’ pitiful performance in Game 3:

“It’s not too many times you can take the Lakers +30 - and lose.”

If anyone ever wanted to see a weird playoff basketball game, the Chicago Bulls and Brooklyn Nets were more than happy to oblige.  During the regular season, there are games in which one team jumps out on another and the team that’s behind comes back to make a game of it, sometimes even win it.  But usually, there’s an underlying reason.  The team that’s ahead might be playing the third game of a back-to-back-to-back and exhaustion finally sets in.  Maybe there’s some other scenario.  Whatever.  Sometimes it happens.

But in the playoffs?  And with a 5′8″ guy who takes over as if the game was invented for short people.  Nate Robinson got into one of those zones where no one could stop him - and, which is not always the case - his teammates recognized it.  Robinson scored 24 points - from the fourth quarter on!  Of course there were three OTs to give him a few more scoring opportunities but he was clearly the X factor.

In terms of physical attributes, while his best one surely isn’t his height, believe it or not, it’s not his quickness either.  Sure, the little fella is definitely quick enough but his true strength is . . . his strength.  Plus he’s low enough to the floor that he’s impossible knock off balance.  Yet none of Nate would have been necessary had C.J. Watson not missed a wide open transition layup/dunk with 3:16 left in the game and his team up 14 points.  Here’s a coaching point for C.J.  Either jump higher or just lay the damn ball in the basket.  You can never be ahead by too much.

Another coaching point for the Nets is, especially in one possession games, it’s mandatory to block out on missed free throws because Nazr Mohammed’s rebound of Carlos Boozer’s free throw pretty much iced the game that should have been yours.

To say that Bulls’ coach Tom Thibodeau is a basketball purist is like saying Euclid understood geometry.  So, Nate Robinson (whose line happened to be 34 points, 4 assists, 2 steals and a huge forced five-second call on a Nets’ side OB play), if Dr. Tibbs gets pissed when you take bad shots - which you are prone to do (and, for the record, did last night on several occasions) - how do you handle him in the huddle?  Nate’s answer last night was classic:

“Just keep shootin’ and hope to make ‘em.”

P.S. The OKC-Houston game could have easily been the subject of this blog.  39-19 OKC at the end of the first quarter.  Thunder up 26 with 8:00 minutes to go in the half, Rockets go ahead with 3:45 to go in the game and are up two under a minute.  Kevin Durant took a three-pointer that hit the back rim, then hit the side of the rim, then hit the back rim again, then fell through.

Fan is short for fanatic.  It’s just that a fanatic gets fanatical about his or her team when the team is down as well as when it’s winning.  And that fanaticism can take on the form of sarcasm, negativity and disgust if losing persists - even if injuries turn a slim chance into a nonexistent one.  In the case of the Los Angeles Lakers, their fans should have their “fan licenses” revoked after the way they acted toward their team - or what was left of it - the past few games.

If any Lakers fan is asked to name the greatest player in the NBA, every last one of them will (still) yell, “Kobe!“  So, when your team loses its best player - who happens to be the best player in the NBA (according to you) - wouldn’t you think it would be normal (even for fanatics) - to tone down their expectations?  At least a little?  One of them was heard (on the air in Fresno) answering that question by exclaiming, “Maybe, but this is the Lakers.“  Meaning what?  That there’s a proclamation issued that your team is bequeathed wins?

First of all, before they lost Bryant, the Lakers were a seven seed matched up against the two seed.  The two seed that just happened to be the San Antonio Spurs, a team that’s used to post season pressure, having won its share of championships in the past, and a team that has a coach in Gregg Popovich who many think is the best in the business.  In addition to having the great Kobe MIA for the remainder of the year, Los Angeles had Steve Nash as its point guard.  He would have been the perfect lead guard had he not gotten hurt.  Some fans felt that it was a mistake to obtain Nash because it was inevitable he was going to get hurt - with his age and history of injuries.  Nevertheless, these fans still expected Nash to lead the team to a World Championship.  But, alas, Nash got hurt and wasn’t available last night.

Steve Blake is, ideally, the back up to Nash, so with Nash out, Lakers fans felt he was certainly capable to lead the team.  Then, he pulled his hamstring - and now he’s out indefinitely.  Jodie Meeks, a nice complementary player was next, but he sprained his ankle and is headed for an MRI.  Is there someone out there with a Los Angeles Lakers voodoo doll?  I guarantee if there was such a thing, they’d sell out in a hurry.

Still and all, Laker fans went into Game 3 with hope that, maybe the home crowd could pull them through.  Of course, if that were to happen, it would have to wait until at least midway through the second quarter because that’s when it’s fashionable to show up in LA.  You know, like, with the traffic and all.

When the game began, the Lakers got a few points from their big guys - Pau Gasol and Dwight Howard.  The fans, which include their announcers, actually thought, even though the game is 48 minutes, that they’d have a shot.  “Get it inside!” they yelled, because it is somewhat unrealistic to depend on a second year player and a guy just called up from the D-League to knock down enough shots to win.  And, because that’s what Kobe tweeted.  As if the Spurs didn’t consider it would be a good idea for the Lakers to try to score that way and had not game planned for it.

That’s when the cynicism begins.  All because the fan’s team is losing.  And they don’t want to be a loser.  A number of them are losers in what they do.  The Lakers give them meaning - and they think - respect.  Hey, they don’t need any more help being a loser.  While fanatic has the word “fan” in it, so does infantile.  Winston Churchill said a long time ago:

“A fanatic is someone who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.”

There are two constants that viewers of NBA playoff games - or is it any game? - can count on.  One of them is players complaining to referees following fouls called on them.  Or fouls not called on guys guarding them.  Dwight Howard, Pau, Russell Westbrook, KD, Melo, Boozer, KG, Blake Griffin, Tim Duncan, Zach Randolph, LeBron, Bosh, and for all intents and purposes, every other player in the league.  Possibly, it’s because they’re embarrassed they missed a shot.  Or maybe they really got fouled and the ref missed the call.  Or it should have been a charge instead of a block - or a block instead of a charge.

Whatever the case, the following scenario is guaranteed.  The offended player gives the referee the stank eye, then mumbles (or louder and clearer) his displeasure.  Something like “It was a clean block”/”Didn’t you see him hit me?”  Occasionally, additional adjectives an adverbs find their way into the conversation.  In some cases, he will soon be donating money to the league.

The second constant is the refs don’t change their minds.  Larry Sanders of the Milwaukee Bucks put it best in the 4/15/13 edition of Sports Illustrated when he discussed his new found philosophy toward officials:

“What’s going on here?  I’m arguing with the ref, but he’s not the enemy.  Sometimes he makes good calls, sometimes he makes bad calls, but he never overturns his calls.  So what am I doing?”

Heading to Monterey for the Cal State Monterey Bay men’s basketball awards banquet.  Will most likely spend a couple days on the coast.  This blog will return on Wednesday.

The Knicks beat the Celtics.  The Celts are going to have a tough go of it.  Don’t even try to say, as some have, Boston is better without Rajon Rondo.  In every game he plays, he’s extremely likely to have a triple-double and unless that productivity can be replaced by a player or players in some other area(s), it’s just too much offense to give up.  And he disrupts the opponent’s offense because of his quickness, anticipation and long arms.

In the Denver-Golden State game, Andre Miller showed old guys can still play - that an incredibly high basketball IQ can make up for what Father Time has taken away.  As the father of a son whose game is highly dependent on basketball intelligence, it’s refreshing to see winning is not all about the “wow factor.”

Bill Simmons showed why he is on the studio show.  He represents “Joe Fan” which he proved during the halftime segment of the Nets-Bulls game.  With the score 60-35 in favor of Brooklyn, Simmons incredibly said “Well, it looks like a sweep?”  Sweep?  He sounds just like a guy sitting at the end of a bar who is pissed off because he has $20 on the Bulls plus the points.  Knowledgeable sports people understand that a 25-point halftime lead in Game One only guarantees you one game in the series.  Maybe.  Sure the Nets might sweep, but it’s a tad premature to give up on Chicago at least winning a game just yet.

Simmons again displayed his less-than-brilliant insight when he claimed at halftime that, while Chauncey Billups was having a great game (10 points), it wasn’t wise for LA to play him because in the next round they’ll need the quickness of Eric Bledsoe.  It was subsequently mentioned by one of his colleagues - and probably 90% of the viewing audience - that playing Billups this series would be fine because Bledsoe could replace him in the next series.  Duh.

As extra added bonus analysis, Simmons oh-so-cleverly brought to the viewers’ attention that, “Kobe Bryant’s twitter feed is going to be a very interesting subplot,” inferring Mike D’Antoni ought to be worried about what his injured star tweets.  As if trying to beat the Spurs, without Kobe and possibly, Steve Nash, isn’t enough to keep him up at night.  Simmons has a huge following because there are so many fans out there like him, i.e. guys who never played and who love to criticize guys who do.  Or idolize them.  His sport has always dealt with a pen and paper.  He’s taken his game to the next level by mastering the computer and social media.

For ESPN’s halftime studio show, he serves as comic relief.  He has had run-ins with the station (according to his Wikipedia page) over censorship matters, among other issues.  Maybe the best advice he could receive is:

“Don’t take yourself so seriously; no one else does.”

As I’ve mentioned many times previously, I was a math major in college.  The reason I chose it was by process of elimination, e.g. I didn’t read fast enough nor did I comprehend enough of what I read, so English was out; I didn’t like history or science even a little; I was pretty good at French but I wasn’t nearly fluent which, if I was going to major in it, would be mandatory and, for whatever reason, I had absolutely no interest in business.  Math, on the other hand, came easy to me - and as unbelievable as it sounds, I really liked it.  Not only could I catch on quickly to what was being taught, but it made perfect sense.

One characteristic of “math people” is they are nauseatingly logical.  First, you ask, “what kind of problem is it?”  Then, every move is based on what information is given and what info you know.  You decide where is the best place to start.  Following that, you take a stab at what should be done next.  And next.  And next.  It’s a  step-by-step process, ending in an answer.  An answer that makes sense.  It’s frustrating to me when illogical events take place - even though that the difference between life and math is that, in math, if you properly do all the steps, you get the correct answer.  In life, doing all the right steps doesn’t always lead to the correct answer.  Just ask the non-smoker who contracts lung cancer.  Or the eight-year-old boy who went to watch the Boston Marathon.

And that’s why yesterday’s bombing in Boston is so troublesome to me.  My first thought eerily brought me back to what happened about a dozen years ago.  I can still remember on 9/11/01 driving to a Time Out Club meeting (the name of the booster club for Fresno State men’s basketball) and getting off the exit at around 7:00 am when my cell phone buzzed.  It was a media guy who had been our beat writer.  He called me from his new job on the east coast and asked if I knew that a plane had just crashed into one of the towers of the World Trade Center.  My logical response was, “On purpose?”  Naturally, I thought a small aircraft lost its bearings and wound up in downtown New York.

That made sense to me.  Shortly after our meeting started, we heard about the other plane that crashed into the second tower.  Now I knew it was no coincidence.  Not that I’m a genius but that’s how the minds of math people work.  The first plane was a mistake; the second - now we got problems.  But, and this is where I show my ignorance, destroying things is something I just can’t wrap my head around.  Other people’s things.  As well as other people.  Innocent people.

The Internet, and all the ancillary inventions that have, and continue to, sprout from it, has shrunk the world in terms of connecting people with each other.  But the world is still big enough that everyone should be able to exist - if not coexist.  Apparently, there are radical groups who feel there are others who shouldn’t be allowed to share space - no matter how far away they are - on this planet.  And we’ve discovered there’s a segment of that society would feel so strongly about their cause that they would die for it.

Therein lies my problem.  “Suicide bomber” isn’t something a person is going to list on his or her resume as a former vocation.  The finality of what people do is frightening, especially because everyone knows those at the top of that club don’t believe that way - or else, eventually, the breed would die off.  This a group that puts Tony Robbins to shame.  These cats persuade people to take on a mission which, if it’s successful, they die.  That’s way more than walking across hot coals.  And, by doing it, they will be honored in an afterlife.  Talk about getting an audience to buy in!

No, none of this makes sense - and that just, as the immortal Peter Griffin says - “grinds my gears.”  The human rights activists claim profiling is something we need to stay away from - so in a show of treating people equally, we make 80-year-old great-grandmothers remove their shoes before boarding a plane.  Whenever someone sees that, does anybody think they feel safer or do they feel a sense of ridicule that our nation has caved into the tree huggers.

As far as the bombs in Boston go -and the rest of the atrocities - I have one question I would love to know the answer to before I depart this earth.  If someone would let me know what it is, I’d know whether my fascination with logic was so well-founded.  That question is:

“Why, exactly, are they doing this?”

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!”