Jack’s Blog

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.”

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.”

Some people are uncomfortable doing the “single dating game thing.”  Where are you supposed to go that doesn’t make it look obvious, e.g. that a guy is looking to pick up a girl or that a girl is hoping to get picked up (by someone like her dad who will wind up being her lifelong partner)?  When I was in my 20s and 30s, there were folks who loved the dating scene - both men and women.  Many, however, would go only if others accompanied them.  I hated it because back then, bars were filled with smoke, and the whole schtick seemed so phony.  Most everybody worth dating would have their guards up.  It was nearly impossible to get to know anybody.

My own personal dating strategy was to get fixed up, i.e. the old “blind date.”  It was usually dinner and a movie.  I can’t ever recall being at a loss of words but all I had to do was chat it up during dinner because there’s no talking during a movie.  To many, the only thing worse than barhopping was the infamous blind date.  My philosophy, however, was “If a girl can stand me for an evening, I certainly ought to be able to get through it.”

Whether my formula is the right way to go or not, last year my wife, Jane and I celebrated 25 years of marriage.  Throw in our two sons, who are each currently thriving, and our model can stand up against anyone’s.  Then again, I was a month away from my 40th birthday before I decided it was time to make the leap.  I didn’t have a handbook or a mentor showing me the way.  Today, the “hook up” routine has been revamped.

Anytime I want to know something, I’m always told, “Google it.”  Therefore it comes as no surprise that the computer has become the source of guidance for America’s (or, the world’s, for all I know) singles.  Allegedly, there are over one thousand dating service sites.  Another example of the computer solving problems for society.  There are sites for baby boomers, Christians, Jews, Indians, Latinos, Asians and gays.  Googling “online dating service,” I noticed in Wikipedia one section entitled “Problems.”  Believe it or not, one subsection was “Lies.”  Really?  You mean people are going to lie about their online profile to somebody they don’t even know but want to date, or maybe even, marry?  Kinda starts off the relationship on a downer.

These dating services (not to be confused with escort services, although I imagine there are at least a few out there who feel the former could be like the latter - just without the monetary exchange) take care of all kinds.  I will not make any ethnic remarks - however funny readers might find them - but there are a couple observations I’ve made.  When I heard the ad for ChristianMingle.com say, “Sometime we wait for God to make the next move when God is saying it’s your time to act.  The next move is yours.”  Wow!  Do they know really know God said that?  I didn’t put quotation marks inside the last sentence and a half of the above quote because I don’t think they were actually quoting God.  Although it is something they’d like you to think.

The ad I saw and heard today while riding the stationary bike at the gym is the one that propelled me into blogging on the topic.  It was for FarmersOnly.com.  Apparently, this site is for someone looking for a “farmer, rancher, cowboy, cowgirl or animal lover,” i.e. a dating site “meant for down to earth folks.”  So, any y’all down to earth folks interested in, uh, well, you know, check us on out, ya hear?  What did down to earth folks do before FarmersOnly.com?

All of this is, I guess, exactly what I was looking for 35 years ago.  Have friends introduce me to someone they thought would be a good match for me.  As J.B. Priestly said:

“Many a man is praised for his reserve and so-called shyness when he is simply too proud to risk making a fool of himself.”

College kids storming the floor after a huge win (”huge” being relative at different universities) has become as much a part of campus life as homecoming.  Hey, why not?  Coaches and athletics administrators implore students to attend games and be loud!  “We especially need help tonight against our rivals, State U, who’s #1 in our league/in the country.”

So they follow orders, support the players and, often, really make a difference.  Maybe a little one but in a close game, all the squad needs is a point or two.  Maybe the team gets a bucket because of a hustle play by a player not known for going all-out.  Or maybe one of their guys shortarms, better yet, airballs a free throw into a crowd of waving, screaming, stomping students.

The game progresses and as the scoreboard hits 0:00 with the home team - the major underdog - ahead!  For all their hard work and sweat, the players celebrate on the court.  Why would anyone expect the students to act any differently?  Let them loose!  Where the professional game and the college game differ is the players are being mobbed by their classmates.  

Naturally, the problem is for the safety of the group of visitors.  Mike Krzyzewski (whose team has been on the receiving end of more floor rushes than anyone else) has expressed concern for his players’ safety.  One idea is to, in the waning seconds, escort the losing club and have security make sure the remaining players on the floor get off safely.  In the past this hasn’t been an issue.  Like in the past boarding an airplane wasn’t an issue.

Just as a very small number of people seem to have ruined it for the overwhelming majority, we now have issues at basketball games.  These “sore winners” feel it necessary to verbally abuse the visitors at exactly a time that all they want to do is get into their locker room with their own people.  Of course, there’s a chance tempers would flare and the situation escalate.  Or the perpetrator, perhaps fortified with liquid courage and feeling the “strength in numbers” behind him, might just act beyond foolish and cause an incident.  Even if Mike’s proposal to guard the visiting team were put into effect, there would be no accounting for the game in which the outcome was decided by a last second shot - a make by the home squad or a miss by the favored visitors.

I’ve been involved with quite a few such “storming the Bastille” situations - on both sides.  At Fresno State we beat Tulsa in the finals of the WAC tournament (which was held on Fresno State’s home floor) to punch our dance card to the NCAAs.  At that time, Bill Self’s team had lost four games - three of them to us, this one by the largest margin - three.  During the regular season, we’d won at Tulsa by one and in Fresno by two.  Terrence Roberson hit his only three-pointer of the game on our last possession with the score tied, we got a stop and . . . batten down the hatches!  After addressing our guys in the locker room, Jerry Tarkanian went into theirs (the only time he ever entered an opponent’s locker room after a game) and said, “I only wish I could get our guys to play as hard as you guys do.”  He capped off the tribute with his trademark, “You’re the best.”

One year I was an assistant at USC, we had a magical run, finishing in the top 10 in the nation.  In the (then) Pac-10, we’d beaten UCLA both times and entered the final game (this was prior to a Pac-10 conference tournament) 14-3 in league play.  The Bruins were 15-2, meaning we’d gotten no help from anybody.  In order to win the championship, we needed to beat Arizona at home and then watch and hope Arizona State could defeat UCLA later that day.

We were down by one with seconds to play and ran a play for Harold Miner, our All-American.  Of course, the Wildcats weren’t going to let him score.  They doubled him, leaving our point guard open.  He took a 15-footer - and missed.  Our do-it-all combo guard, Rodney Chatman, picked up the rebound on the baseline about eight feet from the basket.  Because there was so little time, he simply flipped the ball at the basket.  Later (no replays for referees back then), ESPN’s cameras showed the ball had left the tips of his fingers with 0:00.1 tick left.  Good basket.  Game over.  Trojans win.

Our head coach, George Raveling, didn’t wait for the students to storm the floor.  He sprinted across the floor and dove into the student section!  UCLA beat ASU a couple hours later to dampen our parade but I’ll never forget George’s - and the students’ - reactions.

About three weeks prior to that thriller, we traveled to Pullman, our (George’s and my) old stompin’ grounds, he being the head coach there for 11 years and me being a graduate assistant and earning my master’s from Washington State.  We were neck-and-neck with UCLA for first place in the league.  WSU shot the lights out and beat us.  And their student body stormed the floor.  As we headed back to the locker room, George turned to me and said:

“I can’t believe it, Jack.  A team storming the court after beating USC in basketball.  We’ve finally arrived.”

Survey after survey claimed fans wanted instant replay.  Now, I’m not so sure it’s such a good idea.  Granted, more incorrect calls are being overturned (yeah, I know, every now and then, a correct call will be overturned), but at what cost?  Flow and momentum are two vital pieces in football and basketball.

With every stoppage of play, the flow of the game is interrupted.  I’ve heard some people say the answer is to put a clock on the referees for their decision, but that’s counterintuitive to the purpose of instant replay.  It appears to the viewer that the referees want to make absolutely certain they get the call right - which, with instant replay, they ought to.  In the past, if an official kicked a call, announcers, coaches (after a brief cooling off period - briefer for the winning coach), fans (and even refs themselves) would say, “Hey, they’re (we’re) only human.”

Therein lies the problem.  Instant replay takes out the human element.  Now the officials are expected to get the call right.  If they miss one, there’s always the complaint - “why didn’t you check the monitor?”  Unlike football with coaches’ challenges, in basketball referees stop the action, on their own, to check, for example, whether a shot was a two or a three.  Unless it’s the last two minutes, can’t the extra ref sitting at the scorer’s table look at the monitor and determine whether the call was correct before the next dead ball?  Coaches would be pleading with the alternate ref rather than one of the three working the game.  Then, if the call was correct, the game continues and no one’s the wiser.  If incorrect, then announce to the crowd (as well as separately inform a representative of each team) that the shot was whatever it was, and that the score is being corrected.  The reason someone from each team must be told is, believe it or not, coaches and players occasionally get so wrapped up in the game, they fail to hear a PA announcement, no matter how loud.

I saw a game a few days ago in which the referee who was supposed to make the call stop the game because he was unsure whether the shot was a two or three.  The delay lasted entirely too long and when they showed the best angle, it could only have been known for sure if the camera zoomed as close to the court as possible.  As it was, play was continued, with the opposite call that I, and the announcers, thought was as it should have been. In that case, the old method of having the referee make the call and, then, commenting on how he missed it!

Now, irrefutable evidence comes into play.  There are so many times, especially in football, where the call that was made on the field was upheld because of lack of irrefutable evidence.  Yet, had the opposite call been made, it also would have been upheld.  How can that be?  Irrefutable evidence has to be irrefutable.  It sounds just like “beyond a reasonable doubt.”  There’s an idea.  Maybe we should have juries determine calls during games.

Interrupting flow is annoying, especially to coaches and basketball purists because the game (at least, a well-played one) has such a beautiful, natural rhythm to it.  But, interrupting momentum is, or ought to be, a sin.  Anyone who has taken in a game in which one team is way ahead and the other team comes storming back, scoring and getting stops, independent of the winning team changing strategies, substituting, calling time out, whatever! understands momentum.  It’s something people in the arena, watching on TV or listening on radio can feel.  Stopping a game at such a point is nothing short of ruining it.  There are many other examples of momentum that are more subtle but, nevertheless, stopping it is a major advantage to one team while being disadvantageous to its opponent.  In football, stopping play in a game played in inclement weather is infuriating to coaches and players (and the fans who are freezing their butts off waiting for action to resume).  In basketball, it’s during the mini-runs that can break a game open.  Too many times this is occurring in today’s games although good referees are aware of these instances and are hesitant to stop the action, unless absolutely necessary.

The bigger problem, though, is the seemingly interminable delay in games.  As awkwardly as it sounds, the problem is:

“The replay may happen at the instant but not for an instant.” 

A couple days ago I blogged about the theory of giving all kids trophies, i.e. raise their little self-esteems and justify it by claiming they’re participation awards.  Even if a kid never swung a bat, or caught or threw a ball.  That idea bothers me - as it does a whole lot of other people.  Another issue that I find irritating is the philosophy that every child needs to go to college.

As I tend to do, allow me to relate a story.  Last weekend, as my wife and I have done every weekend since the basketball season started for the Cal State Monterey Bay Otters, we traveled to watch younger son Alex play.  On afternoon prior to a game, we were at our room in the Marriott, watching, what else? - other college games on TV when the CBS station went down.  All the other channels worked, just not CBS.  A call to the front desk brought a relatively young guy up to the room.  He immediately fixed it, we thanked him and, no sooner had he walked out the door than it went blank again.

I saw him down the hall, called and he returned.  He looked at it again, thought for a moment and said he had an alternate plan.  Sure enough, presto, CBS.  I asked him if he’d gone to the local college.  His response was that he didn’t, that in fact, he hadn’t even gone to college.  “I went to electricians’ school.”  I told him wherever he went, he must have paid attention because he had no trouble fixing our problem - even if he did have to go to Plan B.  We told him how appreciative we were, I offered him a “green” thank you (which he refused) and everybody lived happily ever after (at least so far).

My point is that here is a young man who is providing necessary service, making a living, doing what he likes (maybe loves) to do and is probably pretty proud of himself.  He isn’t a drain on society and chances are, he never will be.  What’s wrong with that?  Admittedly, I don’t know whether or not our TV savior was a good math student in high school.  I regret I didn’t ask.

When I returned to classroom teaching in 2002 (my last math classroom assignment was in 1972), I saw changes at the administrative level.  One was the belief that every student should take (and pass) algebra in the eighth grade.  When the No Child Left Behind law was passed, it reeked of politics.  How many actual teachers were involved - and whose input was valued - I don’t know but I am convinced that politicians were more deeply involved than teachers.  Listen to it: No Child Left Behind.  Sounds like a vote getter.  The question we teachers posed was, “Did you really think we were leaving kids behind before you invented your Pollyanna, cockamamie law?”  Really?  The numbers said graduation rates weren’t where they needed to be, colleges were turning out inferior students (compared to other nations as well as what we’d produced in prior decades) and, damn it, we needed to do something about it!  So, how do politicians and administrators go about fixing things?

They have meetings.  Obtain data.  Come up with a catchy slogan.  Then, when it’s time to do the actual work, turn it over to the people.  If it works, take the credit; if it doesn’t, ignore it.  Unless it’s too big.  Then point fingers.

The problem in this case was the entire feel-good operation was fundamentally flawed.  And here was the main flaw.  One of my former fellow teachers - without the use of data, technology or even calling a meeting - put it better than anyone I’ve ever heard: “We don’t leave any children behind,” she said.  “Some of them choose to stay.”  And one reason (of many) is that the powers-that-be who decide what curriculum should be taught have the notion that, among other impractical beliefs, every child take and pass algebra in the eighth grade.

I had juniors in some of my classes who couldn’t pass algebra, no matter how many times they tried.  Sure, the politicians and administrators claim, Jaime Escalante got it done but the Escalantes, just as the Shakespeares, Michael Jordans, Babe Ruths, Picassos, Gates’ - you get the drift - are in short supply.  Just as the Abraham Lincolns and Geoffrey Canadas are. One reason kids have trouble with algebra is they can’t see the relevance.  While I had many examples of the crossover value between algebra and life (actually, math and life), kids at that age need more proof.  My “proof” is my electrician friend from the Marriott.  Although I didn’t ask him what grade he got, my guess is that if he went to electricians’ school, he probably went there instead of college or, as several youngsters I’ve taught, went after an attempt at college.

Many years ago I had a freshman in an algebra class who didn’t do anything in class.  No homework, didn’t study for tests.  Naturally, he was failing.  I checked his other classes and noticed he was failing nearly all of them.  One day I asked him, “If you’re not doing homework or studying, what do you do after school every day and night?”

A glow appeared in his eye and he said, almost defiantly, “I can’t wait to get home every day.  My dad has an old Chevy in our garage and I start working on it as soon as I get home until I go to bed.”  I thought about it and said, “You must know that car pretty well.”  I’d never before seen such passion in his look.  It was like he was saying, “Go ahead, ask me something about that car.  As a matter of fact, ask me something about any car!”

I told him - and the class - that when I was in school, we’d make fun of the kids who took auto shop.  Then, one day, I was at my mechanic’s garage getting my car fixed because I knew as much about cars as he (looking at the young boy) did about algebra.  The class laughed.  He sneered.  My mechanic fixed it - and I got the bill.  $1,200!  That was when I wished I had taken auto shop in school.  I praised the boy for thoroughly understanding something so practical.

Then I made a statement that politicians and administrators would have thought blasphemous.  I told the class that no one had ever died from lack of algebra knowledge.  I looked at that boy - who was listening more intently than at any time all semester - and said, “Not everyone needs to go to college.”  I continued, “So why, then, do you need algebra?  To get a high school diploma.  My mechanic didn’t go to college.  But he graduated from high school.

“Many of you have parents who can’t help you with your algebra homework, right?”  I now had their attention.  About 75% of the heads were nodding.  “Yet, at one time, your parents could do algebra.  Which means one thing: you don’t need to know this forever.”

Studies have shown that, after being tops in education for decades, the U.S. is currently behind many countries in math (other subjects, too, but math was my area).  During my next-to-last year, one of our other algebra teachers had a student teacher who was born and raised in China.  One day at an algebra meeting we asked her why the Chinese were so proficient in math.  Her answer was, as I had read about Japan, that students were tested in their early teens and placed in one of three categories: military, vocational or college.

The reason I was given when I asked why we didn’t employ the same system was, “Oh, Jack, that would be tracking.”  So?  Isn’t it good to be on the right track?  It seems there is a strong lobby, or whatever the group is called, that believes (see my blog from 2/26) every kid should get a trophy.  The other countries are passing us by because they’re placing kids where they have the greatest chance to succeed.  Rumor has it they save a ton of money on trophies, too.  (Granted, there ought to be an “out” if a kid’s a late bloomer but how many late bloomers are there compared to those who are “miscast,” for lack of a better word?)

For example, hotels need not only outstanding electricians but gardeners, cooks, front desk clerks, order takers and food servers (aka waitresses and waiters), bus boys and girls, valet parkers, plumbers, bartenders, security personnel.  Heck, there are more non-college jobs than positions for college grads.  And that applies to so many other walks of life.

When it comes down to it, the number one goal in any person’s occupation is:

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

Let’s reexamine what we’re doing, identify kids’ passions and abilities, and give them the best opportunity to succeed.  For them and the country.

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.”

Note:  There are many jobs in broadcast journalism.  This blog encompasses the person doing play-by-play, color commentator, studio show participants, sideline reporters, anyone who has an on-air position behind a microphone.

Basically, there are two types of sports announcers.  One is the former successful player or coach who, while having no formal training or academic background in broadcasting, gives the viewer the inside look on the field of play or in the locker room.  The other group is composed of well-educated men or women who probably were the manager or writer for the school paper due to their lack of athletic ability.  Naturally, there are others in the field who don’t fall into either category.  If you’re interested in those people, this isn’t the place for you.  I only include that because it seems people are facing legal action if no such disclaimer is stated.

Listeners are usually split as far as which group they like better.  Or, because the world has become so negative, dislike less.  However, each has followers from the other’s side.  From the “non-jock” organization, many of those fans may have a favorite superstar they loved when they were growing up.  On the flip side, the ex-athlete or coach might, especially if he or she is cynical, enjoy the talking heads whose acts are based on sarcasm.

It’s difficult for anyone not to appreciate the skills and delivery of veterans Al Michaels, Bob Costas, James Brown or my favorite of all-time, Vin Scully.  Similarly, the ex-jocks/coaches who are unanimously appreciated for their knowledge of explaining the game are Doug Collins, Mike Fratello, Gary Danielson, and in his own way - and no one else has quite the “way” - Charles Barkley.

Where the debate arises is in the presentation strategy of the two groups (excluding the above and selected others), i.e. the manner in which they choose to educate, inform or entertain the listener.  It’s appallingly evident that some of the former athletes don’t do their homework, feeling they’re entitled to the job and need only to throw in an occasional comment or relate a story, however meaningful, or not, it might be.  Their feeling is they busted their butts for so many years - physically.  Nobody out there in the audience has any idea how difficult it was.  And because of that sacrifice - and commitment - they should get a pass, i.e. a great paying job (although it’s a major cut for them).  Even when told that’s not the way the world works, their response is, “It is for me.”  Read Robert Parish’s recent comments as the perfect example.

Then there’s the “new wave” of reporters, i.e. the post-Jim Rome/Keith Olberman era.  They have their own set of rules as well.  “We went to school to learn our craft, not have it bequeathed to us.”  And, with this kind, anything goes.  Many are bitter.  Maybe because they were cut from their teams, relegated to the scorebook or collecting the equipment, while the jocks got everything they wanted - including girls.  This injustice burned inside them.  The serious ones went to college to become as good at reporting the game as their prima donna friends were at playing it.  Undoubtedly, there are a good number who simply wanted a job in journalism and possessed that same work ethic their athletic friends had.  And they have the majority of fans.  Those who didn’t want the rigors of school; they just want to bitch.

As has been stated earlier, the world has turned highly cynical, for whatever reason - from pampered athletes to people buying political offices to others stealing money from and bankrupting friends to banks defrauding people while their CEOs walked away with multi-million dollar packages.  That would upset most people - and it certainly has.  People have become more concerned, not with what they don’t have but with what other people do.  Why?  How does it help?

Maybe it doesn’t but complaining feels good and if you’re good enough, you can get paid.  Except for the slackers (and it’s becoming more and more apparent who they are), it comes down to either knowledgeable people (former player/coach or not) talking their listeners: the ones who understand what’s happening and want to know more, or the guy who comes on, baring his teeth, ready to pounce on whatever story that listener - the one who thrives on other people’s misery - can complain about the rest of the day.  Even though it does no one any good.

My main man, the late John Savage’s line was:

“You don’t strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.”

On many occasions I’ve told people I wish I had listened to my colleague (and former geometry teacher) way back in 1971.  George Towne (and that’s really his name) brought in to Highland Park High School one of those huge IBM mainframes.  He was going to teach all of HPHS’ math teachers about this computer thing.  I was in my second year teaching math and coaching football and basketball at my alma mater, but was working toward obtaining a graduate assistant position (by writing over 200 letters to colleges at all levels, all over the country).

Since I knew exactly what I wanted to do, I avoided George and his new giant, rectangular friend - which took up about a quarter of the space of our tiny math department office.  Why did I need to know about something so far removed from hoops?  Somehow, I always managed to get out of his workshops, not realizing how much more comfortable I’d be when computers became the rage.

Although my shortsighted anti-computer attitude is one of my great regrets (unlike another Jersey guy, I have many of them), it had no shortage of company from others in the coaching fraternity.  In the mid-70s, work was the catchword of my new profession and that is what all of us prided ourselves in - outworking people - day and night.  And loving it!

By the 1980s the work ethic paradigm was still in vogue but with a caveat - eating better and exercising.  More fiber, smarter food choices and jogging swept through the profession.  But, for the life of me, I can’t remember computers as an integral part of our work with the possible exception of the athletic development and ticket offices.

During the early 1970s, I worked for George Raveling as a grad assistant at Washington State.  Rav, who became one of my two greatest mentors, and I hooked up again in 1991 at USC, only this time my title was associate head coach.  Cell phones had now flooded our profession, as well as the rest of society.  It was becoming evident that computer knowledge was going to be mandatory for success - or survival.

If there was someone who knew less about computers than I did, it was my man George.  Only he had a plan.  He simply followed the advice of my other brilliant mentor, the late John Savage, who used to say, “Never do anything you can get someone else to do.”  It wasn’t as trite it sounded.  For example, in addition to being a motivational speaker, John was a giant in the life insurance industry.  During one of the newly established NCAA dead period (May), I’d travel with him when he spoke and he was the most basic, down-to-earth person I’d ever encountered.  One thing he’d say to other insurance agents was, “Why waste your time filling out an application?  Have your secretaries fill out apps.  Do what you do best: sell!”

George, now in his 70s, is one of the brightest people I know.  He’s always shared information with his friends, whether it’s the best dining or shopping experiences or book recommendations and travel spots.  While he’s certainly capable of learning computer skills, he felt (since he has the means), “Why not get someone else to do it?”  He’s hired an absolute computer whiz (whose name is withheld because I haven’t asked him for permission to print it) who’s designed CoachGeorgeRaveling.com.  It is chock full of information, in addition to where to dine, shop and what to read, there are interviews with George and legendary coaches (Lefty Driesell, Jerry Tarkanian, John Chaney, Nolan Richardson, Joe B. Hall, John Calipari) as well as other sports figures (David Falk, Ann Meyers Drysdale, Harry Edwards, Howard Garfinkel).  Also, there are a plethora of sensational interviews with George himself.  Sensational because I happen to be the one interviewing him.

Other categories are articles (two of which I’ve authored - Top Ten Traits of a College Assistant Coach & The Greatest, Most Realistic, Pressure Free Throw Shooting Drill) on nearly every area of basketball - for coaches and players, the latest NBA news, George’s famous “Life Lessons”, leadership, and other topics that are captivating, interesting and educational.

Anyone who knows George Raveling will tell you he has no problem spending money.  Luckily, throughout his life, he’s had no trouble making it either.  He put together his strength with a concept spoken about in a book titled The McKinsey Way by Ethan Raisel to create his website (which I’m sure you realize I highly recommend):

“I would rather be surrounded by smart people than have a huge budget.  Smart people will get you there faster.”

When you’re a parent, you’re constantly giving advice to your children.  Many times you wonder if any of it ever gets through.  Basically, the rules are: love them and do the best you can.  Then one day, they’re on their own.

Our older son, Andy, is now an account executive for Booker (formerly GramercyOne), a company with offices in New York and Orange County (the latter being his base of operations).  They sell software mainly to spas, health clubs and fitness centers.  Andy will often remind me of a motivational or inspirational quote (one of my favorite areas) that he used in a presentation or that kept him going when times got tough, as is bound to happen in that field.  It always gives me a feeling that the effort wasn’t wasted.

Last weekend, our younger son, Alex, (a freshman  basketball player at Cal State Monterey Bay) played a CCAA conference game at Stanislaus State in Turlock.  Due to the fact that this particular game is, geographically, the closest Alex would play to our hometown of Fresno, several people made the hour and a half drive up the 99 to check out how his college career was progressing.  One of his biggest fans was a grade school kid who always liked watching Alex play in high school.

Fortunately, Murphy’s Law didn’t raise its ugly head and Alex came through, scoring a game-high 20 points, including a couple late buckets (a three and a two) that gave CSUMB the lead for good.  The youngster and his father waited for Alex to come out of the locker room and hugs were exchanged and pictures were taken.  After they left, I pulled Alex aside and said, “How great is it to have a big game when people go out of their way to see you?  Remember why it’s important to give 100% all the time?  You remember the story of Joe DiMaggio, don’t you?”

“Yes, Dad.”   Alex said, with the sound of someone who’s heard a story a few more times than he feels is necessary (possibly bordering on triple figures).  Then he paraphrased what Joltin’ Joe said when asked the question why, independent of the importance of the game or how he felt, he always played so hard:

“There might be somebody who bought a ticket who’s never seen me play.  I owe that guy my best effort.”