Jack’s Blog

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.”

Yesterday I had one of my all too often trips to Stanford to attend to the pain pump I (still) have implanted in my abdomen.  When I got home, I had to pick up a baby gift (see CuteBabyNameGifts.com) from one of our artists, then received a call from my wife reminding me that we were getting new carpet in each of the downstairs bedrooms and closets - on Wednesday - and needed to move all but the big pieces of furniture out of the room into the garage.  If our family had nickname, it would most certainly be “The Clutterers.”

It doesn’t look like much - until you try to move it all out.  I worked until 2:00 am and got our bedroom done.  Nearly done.  I then realized I hadn’t blogged so what follows is a reprint from five years ago nearly to the day.  The proposed “Final Four” has passed, i.e. the top four teams play 1 vs. 4 and 2 vs. 3 with the winners competing for the national championship.

If you think there’s complaining over who ought to be the 68th team selected in March Madness, how much complaining do you think there will be when the committee - or computer - picks #4.  The bitching won’t be limited to just #5, either.  I can’t wait to see that committee chair being interviewed after the announcement of the four schools is made.

More than half of the Division I-A or the “non-Football Championship Subdivision” (it was lengthened to make understanding the differences in levels of college football more difficult for the people who would like to know about it - call it “user unfriendly”) participate in end-of-the-year bowl games.  This topic has been battered around so much, if it goes on any longer, whichever proponent scores will be forced to go for two.

Those opposed say the games are meaningless, that only the top tier bowls matter, that the others merely take up television time, don’t make any money and give an extra game to a mediocre team from a good conference or a fairly good team from a mediocre conference. 

Exactly.

Those are some of the reasons to have these “lesser” bowls.  The people who claim the games are meaningless and just take up TV time are upset because they are forced to either watch them or actually do something - like take the family somewhere, clean the garage or engage in an actual conversation with another human (probably about who’s going to win one of the top tier bowls).

Is it really necessary for a game to make money in order for it to be played?  If it did, you’d end up wiping out most of intercollegiate sports altogether - from football and basketball (at the majority of schools) to badminton, equestrian, water polo and all but .00001% (a generous estimate) of the others.  Not to mention youth sports.  I haven’t checked the bottom line figures on kindergarten soccer, but I don’t think too many clubs are finishing the year in the black, even if they’re cutting back on end-of-the-game treats.

Rewarding teams with an extra game, be they bottom half teams from BCS conferences or upper half teams from non-BCS conferences, doesn’t have nearly as much to do with the game itself (although the participants usually get some sweet swag) as it does with the extra practice time.  I’ll bet if you polled the coaches (especially if their answers could remain anonymous), on what the greatest reward they get from a bowl game is, extra practice time would even beat out the “bowl bonus clause” in their contracts (that is, if they’re truly serious about succeeding in coaching and not some old geezer at the tail end of a long career who’s just trying to accumulate as much as he can before he inevitably gets canned and/or goes into retirement).

The other reason for having so many bowl games is that nearly half of the D-I football teams in the country end their season on a winning note.  This helps coach and player morale, fan excitement (something to give hope toward that great year they’ve been waiting for), donations (it’s easier to ask for money after a win than the opposite), recruiting (”Son, did you see us in that last game?  We finally put it together and with you joining us as that one piece of the puzzle we’re missing, …”).  It’s just more fun. 

Having been in the basketball part of the NCAA for 30 years, I can’t begin to tell you how difficult winning the last game can be.  Think about it.  Unless you win it all, or win the NIT (in which the winner usually is disappointed to be playing), or have a fluke occur, i.e. winning the final Ivy League game, but not the league itself (since they’re the only conference not to have a post-season tournament to determine their NCAA representative) or win the last game but not finish high enough in your league to qualify for the conference tournament or be an independent and win your last contest (the last time an independent was selected for the NCAA Tourney, Bill Gates was in pull-ups).

All in all, the bowl system is more helpful than harmful.  Besides, what would be better, a playoff?”  Hey, that won’t happen before … Bill Gates is in pull-ups.  It seems those at the top are bound and determined not to let that happen (see 12/3/07 blog).  Why?  Read into Abraham Lincoln’s quote what you wish:

“Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.”

Due to younger son Alex’s basketball schedule, this blog will run from Tuesday through Friday.  Any changes will be noted at the top of the blog during those days.

Celebrities do good deeds throughout the year.  For example, one event that proved larger than life was the 12-12-12 concert for victims of Hurricane Sandy, featuring Bruce Springsteen, Bon Jovi, Alicia Keyes, Billy Joel, Sir Paul McCartney, Eric Clapton, Kanye West, The Who and Mick Jagger.  Even with such a mega event, there will never there be enough money to cover the loss by the devastation created by the hurricane.  Although there might not be enough financially to get back to “normal,” the effort, consideration and thoughtfulness eases the sting of such an incredible disaster.  Yeah, in many instances, it’s the thought that counts.

Athletes have done their part to assuage difficult times as well.  Whether encouraged by agents to build up equity for some later date, or simply making a magnanimous gesture, more and more athletes are taking trips to poverty areas, both here and abroad.  Several individuals were mentioned in last week’s double issue of Sports Illustrated for their unselfish efforts to help others not as blessed as they are.  While not as sensational as some sports exploits, it makes for very refreshing reading.

Much is made of stories of athletes’ misdoings and much of the negative pub is deserved.  Other parts are overblown.  However, the least the media should do when positive actions are taken is to be broadcast the humanitarian gestures.  One of those mentioned in the SI article was the Arizona Cardinals’ wide receiver, Larry Fitzgerald who said of one of his numerous philanthropic trips (note: his story is much the same as hundreds of others who make similar sacrifices):

“It gives you perspective.  If you get consumed by fame and fortune, your world can be a very small bottle.  We have a lot of issues here, but they pale compared to around the world.  Yet even in the poorest places I’ve been, people’s happiness isn’t dictated by their bank account.”

My summer job during my college years (1966-70) was working at the post office.  I understood all the various types of mail, from junk mail (for which there was very little urgency) to registered mail (which dealt with money and was over-the-top priority and security) to everything in between.  As far as my adolescent mind was concerned, it was a pretty smooth operation.  To this day, I defend the post office when people say they didn’t get a letter or package because the post office screwed up.  With as much mail as is handled each day, I believe the rate of successful transactions is still well over 99%.  Imagine how different the world would be if each of us had that type of efficiency?

If that impressed me, how do you think I felt about the fax machine?  On several occasions I have told the story of how amazed I am that, while I was sitting in my recliner watching television, somebody else was, in lieu of TV, thinking of a way he could get a piece of paper from where he was to somewhere else in the city/country/world.  Where do you even start to get that done?  Although the “fax” didn’t really become popular in the US until the 1980s, it turns out that, even if I had devoted my efforts away from TV, that “somebody” would have beaten me to it any way.  Alexander Bain got a patent for the first fax machine in 1843.

I could have sworn it was invented in the 1980s.  I can’t remember anyone using it prior to then.  If there was a necessity to move a document from one place to another, faxes became the way to go.  There was the post office’s special delivery (which took about 2-3 days within the continental US) and overnighting (FedEx was founded in 1971 but didn’t become highly profitable until 1983).  Faxing was nearly instantaneous.  And much cheaper.

This new age technology even hit home with my baby gift business (CuteBabyNameGifts.com).  People rave about them when they buy or receive one.  But I’m told, in order to increase hits on my website or maximize the exposure, I need to get on FaceBook, twitter, instagram and pinterest.  What?!?!?!  (If only I could find an intern - from this century).

The reason for all of the above is that this past weekend I read an article of how the fax machine is being fazed out as a tool, simply, whose time has come and gone.  The fax machine is antiquated!  How can that be?  As far as I’m concerned: It just got here!  I mean, I just learned how to use one in the past 5-10 years (I’m still not exactly sure if the paper goes in face up or face down).

First we lost audio cassettes, then film for cameras, and now, keys for cars (that last one I kind of enjoy).  But to take a picture and (do something called) scan it.  Poof!  No fax.  Unbelievable.  Dare I say it?

“I’ve become my father.”

When I decided (hoped) to become a college coach, one of the reasons I did was because I felt a coach could have more of an impact on a player than a teacher can have on a student.  I noticed this was true in the high school in which I was employed (which, coincidentally, happened to be the same high school I attended).  The kid is coming to me, the coach, to do something he wanted to do, as opposed to coming to me, the math teacher, for something he had to do.  Other thrills that inevitably accompany a college coaching career also enter into the decision but those are more an ancillary part of the experience. “Big games,” for one, are included among these thrills.

Putting together a winning streak is quite thrilling but, depending on where you’re working, the definition of a winning streak can vary greatly.  That’s why ending a long winning streak is probably more gratifying.  You have only a limited amount of time to get it accomplished e.g. 40 minutes, and if you succeed, it’s over!  And there’s never a doubt who did it.

Baylor’s Lady Bears had its 42-game winning streak snapped by the Stanford Cardinal (is there such a thing as a Lady Cardinal, especially when it stands for a color - or a tree?) last night in an early season tournament in Hawaii.  Everyone talks about parity in college basketball but that argument falls to pieces when the starting lineups are announced and only one team has Brittany Griner.  I’m not quite old enough to remember George Mikan but I’m just a year younger than Lew Alcindor, the center from Power Memorial HS who set scholastic winning streaks before enrolling at UCLA and refusing to lose there too.

Bill Walton was a dominant UCLA center after the fellow who subsequently became Kareem Abdul Jabbar graduated and UCLA continued to put streaks together.  Most notably, the 88-game winning streak that Notre Dame and its young coach Digger Phelps ended.  While the Bruins didn’t have as powerful force in the middle, they continued to win at a remarkable pace, especially in the friendly confines of their home court, Pauley Pavilion.

They had gone 98 games at home without a loss, a streak that continued after John Wooden had retired as coach.  Gene Bartow was the man who followed the legend and, as he later would admit, he never enjoyed winning at such a great rate less than the two years he spent at Westwood.  It was 1975 and I was a lowly graduate assistant at the University of Oregon.

I arrived on the Ducks’ campus after three other GA years (two at Washington State and one at the University of Vermont).  I made $1550 each year I was at WSU, a raise from the $1000 I got for 1972-73 school year at UVM.  Both schools also paid my tuition for grad school, something I couldn’t have cared less about at the time but appreciated a great deal as I got older (matured).  All three of the seasons before arriving in Eugene had produced losing campaigns.  The Ducks were in the same league as WSU (at that time, the Pac-8) so I understood how good they were going to be during that 1975-76 season.

It seemed as though I brought bad luck with me as we suffered a couple of early upsets (Duquesne was one in particular I can recall), knocking us out of the Top 20.  We opened Pac-8 play (the Arizona schools, nor other imposters weren’t in the league yet) at home against the mighty Bruins.  Everyone in our locker room was absolutely certain we were going to knock off the Bruins.  With just seconds to go, our superstar guard Ronnie Lee poked the ball away from one of their guys to one of ours who laid the ball in the basket, putting us up one.  A late, phantom whistle - foul on Ronnie - not only took away the basket and kept us down one, but put them on the free throw line for a 1-and-1 (no double bonus back then either) and it was Ronnie’s fifth foul. 

Mac Court (our arena back then) was rockin’.  You couldn’t hear yourself think it was so loud.  Naturally, their guy missed the free throw and our back up guard let one go from the side of half court that looked like it was going to bank straight in.  Instead, it banked - and rimmed the hoop - before coming out.  We’d lost our conference opener by one.

A month later we had to make the trip south to play USC on Friday and UCLA on Saturday.  After defeating the Trojans, we read in the paper (there was no Internet then and the information super highway was a simple road under construction.  We did see a press release that the Bruins had a 98-game home winning streak.  The sting of the earlier one-point loss hadn’t gone away yet.  When the word got around about their 98-game winning streak, you’d never seen a bunch of more confident guys - ready to play.

Bottom line: we were up 30-12 at the half.  Only because they hit three deeeeeeep jumpers (no three-point shot then either) did they score double figures in the first half.  They made a brief run, very early in the second half but not nearly enough.  We beat them 65-45.  Maybe the most remarkable thing about the game was with 7 minutes to go and us comfortably ahead, their fans started leaving!  Talk about a spoiled group.  Their fans couldn’t even sit through one game out of 100 (they won the next one after us) they didn’t win?

To this day, whenever any of us get together, the UCLA game at Pauley always comes up.  It must be the old American adage (just kidding for those of you ultra-sensitive schmucks):

“It’s fun to win but it’s funner to screw someone else up.”

Last night Alex, our younger son, was playing in his second ever college basketball game, his first on the road.  Nerves were kicking in.  Mine and his mom’s, not his.  Someone told us that there was great news, that the game was being “live streamed.”

First I had to figure what live streaming was - other than what’s always going on in the men’s room.  When I found out it meant we could watch the game on TV, I nearly flipped.  Where did we have to go?  Our older son, Andy, the technological genius in our family, told me to buy an HDMI cord.  Oh yeah, of course, an HDMI cord.  What?  Where?  Why?

Actually, it wasn’t too painful.  The people at Best Buy were, as always, great.  They love to see me coming because as soon as I walk in the door, everybody moves up a notch on the “Who knows the least about technology” list.  I said to the man in the blue shirt, “Look, what you know about technology plus what I know about technology equals what you know about technology.”  He said, “Hey, I get it.  That’s like a math problem.”  I didn’t worry about moving down any notches on the “math” list.

After I brought it home, I plugged it into our computer - no problem.  We thought we had the right website for the game until we heard there was an alternate one so that was issue #1.  Issue #2 was the TV.  It had three possibilities for the other end of the HDMI cord to plug into.  We took a guess and picked one.  After a while, bingo!

Cal State Monterey Bay, our new favorite college hoops team, was in Alaska to play UA-Fairbanks in the first of a three games in three days round robin format (as opposed to a winners/losers tournament style).  Usually, Division II games are not televised.  That is, other than the national championship game.

First of all, my wife and I are thrilled that we’ll be able to travel to all the other games since I retired last June and she’s calling it quits (after a 43-year career) at the end of December - and all the games are in California.  Now - to hear that we could catch our son on the big screen (the one at our house) was uplifting to no end.  I began watching the first game, getting ready for the main event.  Finally, our guys came out for warmups.

Keep in my that there’s no Dickie V, studio show or commercials involved with this production.  So far, so good.  Except for barely hearing an occasional female voice say, “That’s a charge on #21,” there really isn’t any audio.  What is kinda cool is, on our other computer (how ’bout us being a two computer family), we have the play-by-play sheet of the actual game, describing, well if I have to tell you what the play-by-play sheet is, you probably ought to find a nice gardening site.  During my 30 years in Division-I hoops, I was used to seeing these but almost always not until after the game (with the exception of a clock or score keeping dispute).  They tell, as the game is going on, who does what, e.g. “rebound by,” “three-point goal by, assist to,” foul on, his second.”  There, I told you anyway.  Now here we were checking this out as the game is going on.  It was almost like somebody didn’t trust the cameramen.  What a blast!

Until the video froze . . . and all that moved were little dots, moving counterclockwise around the word “buffering.”  What in the hell is buffering and why is it ruining the game?  I thought there weren’t supposed to be any commercials.  Andy called and, sure enough, it also had the nerve to go on at his Southern California residence, disrupting his enjoyment of watching his favorite baller.  Only their buffering was at difference times.  To further complicate matters, when both of us were actually witnessing the game, his TV was seven seconds ahead of ours.  A possible sign of insanity is when your son tells you somebody from Cal State Monterey Bay missed a shot and you’re watching . . . still hoping it goes in.

As if the Otters’ first loss and Alex getting only eight points (about half of what he had in the opener) wasn’t torture enough, for the last ten minutes of the game, our screen went blank.  Fade to black.  It just gave up.  Somehow, in a mere 15 hours or so, it had better pull itself back together because game two of the Alaska adventure is on at 4:00 pm today.

After all those glitches, I can only repeat what former major leaguer Oscar Gamble most eloquently said:

“They don’t think it be like it is, but it do.”

Society is composed of good and bad people.  It would be nice (and easier for most of us) if the good prevailed.  A question that’s been kicked around are forever is regarding how each of us will be judged.  Must it be only black or white?

Consider the following:

Bernie Madoff wanted to be known as the best in his business.  He cheated and stole a ton of other people’s money.

Lance Armstrong wanted to be known as the best in his business.  He cheated and raised a ton money for other people.

Both are proven cheaters.  A lot people are better off because of Lance Armstrong.

I guess the moral of the story is:

“If you feel your lot in life MUST be that of a crook, at least help a whole lot of others along the way.”