Jack’s Blog

It’s no secret I felt Jerry Tarkanian should have been in the Hall of Fame.  Well, he finally got voted in and I didn’t blog a thing about it.  Since I, and several others, worked on righting what we saw as a wrong (for six years), allow me to share part of the four-page document I passed along to people I knew who had “juice,” people “who knew people” and media outlets (including USA Today).  The season-by-season records were naturally included; what follows is a list of items that separated Jerry from others.

Tangible reasons:

            1 – Overall record: 990-228 (81.3%); Division I: 784-202 (79.5%), 729-201 (78.4%) counting vacated games                                                                             

            2 – 4 Final Fours (’77, ’87, ’90, ’91); National Champions in 1990  

3 – 38-18 (67.9%) in NCAA Tournament games

            4 – Undefeated seasons 1963-64 (JC); 1990-91 (D-I regular season)

            5 – Won four straight Cal JC titles (1963-67)-at two JC’s (Riverside & Pasadena)

            6 – Won at least 20 games at three different D-I schools in his first year at each – (every school was way down when he got there)               

            7 – Won championships at high school, JC & D-I levels

            8 – 29 twenty-win seasons, 2^nd to only Dean Smith who had 30

            9 – Was the first to start five black players (’64 Olympic Trials, before Don Haskins’ Texas Western national champions) – and won it

            10 – 42 NBA draft picks, 12 first-rounders

Intangible reasons:

            1 – The most difficult job a coach has is to get his or her team to play hard.  Whether a coach is a supporter of Tark’s or his severest critic, no one will ever

                  say his teams didn’t play hard. 

            2 - Won playing 1-2-2 zone, full court m-m, half court pressure m-m, amoeba

            3 – His strength was his weakness: loyalty.  His biggest flaw was he didn’t hold  kids accountable because he let people be themselves.  He was the anti-

                  authoritative coach.  It was always about the players; never about him.  

            4 – What started all the controversy was when the Long Beach Press-Telegram requested he write an article and he was critical of what he felt was the

                  hypocrisy within the organization.  Many coaches feel he wrote what others thought but wouldn’t say.

            5 – How many coaches who won NCAA D-I Championships are not in the HOF?     

6 - If breaking NCAA rules disqualifies a coach from admission, there are a whole lot who ought to be asked to vacate.

            7 - He took a team that was on probation, couldn’t go to the post-season and had started 2-2 and threw out his defensive philosophy.  He changed to a 1-2-2 zone (which he 

      last used in 1972) and won 24 straight to finish 26-2; with a team that had no motivation, nothing meaningful to play for.  That’s coaching!

            8 - He always agreed to share his ideas with colleagues.  He was truly a coach’s coach.  

As much as he won, he was always incredibly nervous before games.  His famous quote was:

“A perfect season would be all practices, no games.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“I took it as a compliment!”

If you were to ask the media what percentage of the questions they ask are fair, they undoubtedly would say 100%.  Unless they’d say 110%.  That logic is based on their feeling that they not only can, but are mandated to ask any and all questions based on their belief that the public has a right to know.  How many media people would like to have the tables turned on them is unknown but we can rest assured that it would be considerably less.  Like 100%.  If not 110%.

Take last night’s scenario.  The guy’s team just lost a game.  He feels bad.  And this wasn’t just a big non-conference game, nor was it a tough contest against a conference foe, a conference tournament fray or even an early NCAA tourney defeat.  The loss was for the opportunity to play for the national championship, the ultimate in a coach’s life.  His team wasn’t blown out, which would have given him a few minutes to realize it was all over and maybe collect his thoughts.  No, it went down until the final seconds and now . . .

He has to give his final post game speech for the season to his team which is naturally quite sentimental.  If he’s like any other coach I’ve ever known (head or assistant), he’s gone up to the squad’s seniors, one at a time, and told each one how much he appreciated their effort for the past year (or two, three, four or five).  Keep in mind the pair will be ending the relationship they’ve known for however many years.  If the coach recruited that player, the finality of the situation can be overwhelming emotionally.

Finally, his school’s media relations person tells him it’s time he must, according to NCAA tournament rules, go the press room.  The head coach is certainly upset but he harbors no ill will because he 1) understands tournament procedure and 2) implicitly trusts his media person, having “gone through the wars” with him.

The media knows all of this.  While the majority are professionals, there are inevitably one or two (or maybe more, depending, quite frankly, on the coach) who are champing at the bit to ask a question (or questions) to the person who they feel disrespected them.  Maybe a member of the media doesn’t particularly like a coach because of something he said or did to a friend or colleague.  In any case, there always seems to be someone - more so if the coach is controversial - who will see if they can say something to set the coach off, to get under the his skin.

As far as asking Boeheim if he’d return for next season, was it really necessary?  Or was it asked in an attempt to provoke the coach?  Why would his answer even matter?  Would it be binding?  Or would it give that reporter a chance to get another dig in at Boeheim if he changed his mind at a later date?  Besides, how important is it?  Syracuse already has a coach-in-waiting in Mike Hopkins so it couldn’t be to run the rumor mill about which coaches will be his successor?  Obviously, my take on the situation was that the question was more irritating than unfair.

I believe it was a big league manager who once said:

“When I think someone has a hidden agenda, I never give an answer with anything that could possibly come back to haunt me.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ohio State and Arizona played one of those NCAA tournament games in which the cliche “every possession counts” was to be taken literally.  ‘Zona was up at the half but the Buckeyes came storming out of the locker room and quickly claimed the lead.  Now, let’s flash forward to the final two-and-a-half minutes of the game when OSU’s Nick Johnson deflected an Ohio State pass into the backcourt.  He and the Bucks’ Aaron Craft scrambled for the ball.  Johnson did what he’s seen so many of his peers do in similar situations.  He wisely called time out.  Or was it such a smart move?  True, they got the ball - but the time out was the Wildcats’ last. Had Johnson simply grabbed onto the ball and been tied up, the call would have been a “held ball” with the possession arrow going to . . . Arizona.  In other words, there was no need to burn that final timeout, leaving the ‘Cats with zero so late in such a meaningful game.

Anyone reading this blog is undoubtedly saying, “How in the hell - in the heat of such a moment - is Nick Johnson supposed to know the possession arrow in his team’s favor?”  My former boss and current friend and mentor George Raveling started a website about a year or so ago (CoachGeorgeRaveling.com - a site I highly recommend).  To date I’ve contributed a couple articles and I’m currently working on another (”Seating Arrangements and Duties for the Coaching Staff During Games”).  The first was entitled Top 10 Traits of a College Assistant Coach.  Trait #6 mentions “end-of-game situations.”  I encourage anyone who’d like to more deeply be involved when witnessing a game to read it.  The article I’m currently writing will reiterate the answer to the above posed question - as did Trait #6.

An assistant coach should have made everyone - coaches and players - aware of 1) how many times out the team had left and 2) which team had the possession arrow.  Some may think, “oh that’s easy to say.”  No.  It . . . really . . . is.  It’s just part of your practices.  Maybe not every day in October, November or December but as the season moves on (and the majority of your defensive and offensive sets or plays have been implemented), there is more time for special situations and incidents exactly like the one that occurred in the UA-OSU contest.

Arizona’s head coach Sean Miller was speaking about the final Ohio State possession when Aaron Craft passed the ball to LaQuinton Ross who buried a three-pointer with a couple of ticks left.  What he said was their plan was to switch the screen on the ball but didn’t.  He lamented (not a direct quote):

“In the pressure of the NCAA tournament, as the pressure mounts, it’s difficult for guys to do what you want them to do.”

Although I enjoy listening to audio books when I drive, during March Madness it’s all sports talk, all the time.  (Besides, my James Patterson novel ended on my way to LA).  Some of what’s said is delivered by coaches whose teams are in the tournament and, while what they say is usually nothing more than coach-speak, it’s still interesting to hear from the guys whose team was selected, especially if you get a first-timer.  Just as entertaining is the coach whose team got “snubbed.”  Their comments can also be enlightening - as long as you can get beyond the bitching.  Other contributors to the shows are “experts,” e.g. former players, writers or guys who put an extraordinary amount of time into understanding and studying the NCAA tournament - like Joe Lunardi, ESPN’s expert bracketologist.

As I was returning from my sojourn to watch the Clippers and hang out with friends (see yesterday’s blog), the radio was tuned to Sirius channel #86 - Mad Dog sports.  Adam Schein, host of the Schein on Sports, was ranting about his (apparently brilliant yet incredibly foolish) pick of New Mexico making it all the way to the Final Four.  Schein said he’d seen New Mexico play so many times and even did additional film study on the Lobos.  His resume says he graduated from Syracuse with a degree in Broadcast Journalism.  Because he went to a university that produces athletes in the field of basketball and non-athletes who go into sports media, I’m curious to know what extensive film study exactly means.  An extra bonus was that he had mentioned to his readers that Harvard’s coach, Tommy Amaker, “couldn’t coach his way out of a wet paper bag.”  (I always wondered not how, but exactly when, such an opportunity would arise).  His remark was that he gave his listeners New Mexico for all the right reasons (what happened, Adam, did somebody contact you about losing money?), yet he did admit, “I was absolutely dead wrong.”  Then he proceeded to blast Steve Alford for such a poor coaching job.

Mainly because he was embarrassed that the bracket he thought was going to shock (and defeat) his co-workers with such a ballsy pick was now blown up, he did what most non-competitive people do.  He blamed other things and people for his own shortcomings - in as cutting and obnoxious a method as a slick journalist would do.  Referencing the plethora of three-pointers that Harvard, the Lobos’ opponent, made, Schein shouted, “Hey, Steve, did it ever occur to you to guard the three-point line?”  I’ve often heard media guys use that phrase and wonder what, exactly, they would say to a team in regards to performing that task.  “Or maybe change defenses?” was another of his witty, sarcastic remarks directed at the New Mexico coach - like they should have been in the magical defense that doesn’t allow three point attempts to go in.

He continued to complain that none of the clutch guys for the Lobos during the season showed up and how atrocious the free throw shooting was.  Apparently, Alford was negligent in not having a contingency plan ready in case the guys he had depended on all year had off nights and the team couldn’t knock down a free throw - so that nothing could stand in the way of Adam Schein boasting about his clutch selection (like the selection should have been reason enough for the victory).  Then, he brought out mistake #1 that talk show hosts love to use when someone commits such an unpardonable sin.  “Alford was supposed to be on with us earlier week but he didn’t show.”  As if . . .

Schein was also incensed by Alford’s comments at the post game press conference in which Steve made the statement that his guys didn’t seem to be focused.  One of the things coaches dislike most are distractions.  At NCAA tournament time, there are so many additional media requests - leading to more distractions, including some members who ask questions like, “Looking beyond the Harvard game (in other words, we all know you’ll crush them, they’re just an Ivy League school), do you think you can beat Arizona?”  “Didn’t seem to be focused?!?  How the hell can they not have been focused?” Schein blasted.  “It’s the NCAA tournament!”

Possibly due to the fact that the show is multiples hours long, Schein then became vicious, saying Alford’s coaching was “atrocious,” “pathetic” and “repulsive.”  He then made the remark, “Bag it, loser!”  Schein’s over-the-top diatribe made me wonder (since this show was the first time I’d even heard his name) if he ever had a bad show.  Maybe lost focus, maybe felt he couldn’t quite put on the performance he had displayed so many, many times before.  Since no one is playing defense on him, i.e. not attempting to screw him up, had he ever had a bad night?

His show, I believe, was a five-hour ordeal - and, no, I didn’t listen to it in its entirety.  Before one of the breaks, he made the statement, “Well, that’s three phenomenal hours in the book.”  He would occasionally give props to a listener for a good point he hadn’t thought of, or some such comment, and I’d think of Golda Meir’s line:

“Don’t be so humble.  You’re not that great.”

Granted, these are the dog days of the NBA.  There are a few teams that might already be, dare I say, “positioning themselves” for the draft?  Others know there is more ball to be played (and bonus money to be made) once the season ends.  Except for a select few, e.g. the Lakers, many are more concerned with keeping their key guys healthy than trying to influence the postseason match ups.

Enter the Harlem Globetrotters Miami Heat.  The Heat won it all last year (one year too late, some say).  One of the concerns last season was whether the team had a reliable three point shooter to kick it out to after penetration.  So they got . . . the greatest three point marksman of all-time, Ray Allen.  He joined LeBron, D-Wade and Chris Bosh and (most of) the remainder of the team that won it all.  Was that fair?  There’s nothing fair about building a team in the NBA - the better the executives, the more understanding the owner is that money must be spent wisely (but, make no mistake about it, it must be spent), the slicker the people running the organization, the more likely the team will plug the gaps that are holding it back from being mentioned as a club that can compete for a championship - on a nightly basis.

The Miami Heat knew they were going to - as coaches are fond of saying - get everyone’s best shot.  Winning as much as they did during the first part of the year wasn’t surprising.  The “Big Three” had shed whatever it was that could have been on their collective backs their initial season (their first together) and they seemed to be playing looser.  A similar feeling for their coaching staff.

As the season progressed, injuries hit team after team and, as the post-All Star game part of the schedule moved on, the Heat kept adding win after win.  Now, the “streak” became the topic of conversation.  With the NCAA’s March Madness fever grabbing nearly every sports fan, college basketball owns this time of the year.  Spring training has begun, football and its trading deadline occupies some space and the Blackhawks gave hockey enthusiasts something to talk about post-lockout.

Meanwhile, Miami (the pro hoops team, not the college one) almost bored people with its dismantling of opponents - the “contendas” as well as those who show up because league rules dictate they must.  OK, so what about their bitter rival, aka the (aging, but) capable Boston Celtics?  The arena will always be rockin’ when the Heat show up regardless of the circumstances.  Except that there would be no Rajon Rondo (even though the W-L results have yet to be affected by the little dynamo’s absence) and no KG.  What Kevin Garnett gives the Celts, beyond points and rebounds, is a nastiness seldom seen in any sport.  Or pretty much in any walk of life.  You’ve heard how people say, “If I were in a war, the guy I’d like to have in my foxhole is Kevin Garnett?”  Even pacifists feel that way about KG.

So when it was announced that Garnett wouldn’t be available, green flags were about to be flown at half staff.  Only this is Boston, damn it!  Beantowners don’t surrender to anybody!  Somebody would come through with a wicked good game.  This time that somebody was Jeff Green who had a personal high (as well as a high for most NBA players) of 43.  The Men in Green were often up double digits and led for the entire game.  Or so it seemed.  Until LeBron hit the game winner after the Heat finally tied it.

Had the Heat been toying with them?  To many it might now seem so after watching that game last night, the Heat’s 23rd victory in a row.  A person I was with suggested Miami actually would like to see the streak end so they could simply worry about just winning the playoffs.  The pressure of back-to-back will be enough of a burden.  A winning streak would only be an albatross for the last season’s champs.

Some may wonder if the late, and fiercely competitive, owner of the Raiders, Al Davis, wouldn’t back off (between now and the end of the regular season) his famous saying:

“Just win, baby!”

The ESPN guys each were to ask NCAA basketball committee head Mike Bobinski one question.  When they got around to Greg Anthony, he asked why #5 seed UNLV was playing #12 Cal 1) when the committee didn’t have teams play each other who’d played during the regular season and 2) why the game was being played in San Jose, a virtual home game for the Golden Bears.  Coincidence?  Anthony’s a proud graduate of UNLV and was simply looking out for his home boys.  Take a listen to every other TV commentator.

Seth Greenberg, not surprisingly, empathized with any bubble team that played in a “big” conference, had a huge win but bad losses and was left out of the Dance, himself having been shut out of an at-large bid for several years - including one year in which his Virginia Tech squad beat Duke, at the time the #1 team in the country.  In a TV interview after the game he was assured by none other than Dick Vitale that you won’t have to sweat a bid this year, baby, you’ll be dancing (or something like that).  The Hokies, however, followed up that monumental win by losing to Boston College at home by 15, then again at Clemson to finish the regular season.  That year, as there usually are, there were attractive “mid” major clubs and one (or more) of them was selected over the Hokies.  Can’t say as I blame him for being snubbed as going to the NIT gets old for your fans.

If you didn’t know Jay Bilas attended Duke, you’d probably be able to figure it out when you hear him explain which teams should be in and which should be out.  Maybe he could disguise Duke but not his affection for schools from “power” conferences.  This year his beef was “In order to get selected by the committee, it’s not about who you beat; it’s about who you lose to.”  This stems from the “little” guy not playing as difficult a schedule as the big boys do.  Not non-conference but conference!  It’s almost like it’s the little guy’s fault they’re in a conference that doesn’t give them chances game after game to get “quality” wins (from others in the league).  One of these was Middle Tennessee State who went 28-5, but lost to Florida International in the semi-finals of the Sun Belt Conference (annually a one bid league).

One thing that’s for sure regarding Middle Tennessee.  Any other team from any power conference, had it switched places in the Sun Belt this season with MTSU, would have faced a tall order to accomplish what the Blue Raiders did this season.  Beyond the glossy record, their non-conference losses were at Florida, at Akron (in OT) and at Belmont (all NCAA tournament teams).  They lost in their fourth conference game of the season, at Arkansas State in OT, before stringing 17 straight league victories.  Then, the fateful setback to FIU.  True, they didn’t have some of the big-name wins a team like Virginia had.  They didn’t have the opportunity!  They also didn’t have the opportunity to lose games to the schools, including the bad ones.

It’s the same slam Gonzaga sued to receive and first, Don Monson, then, Mark Few, went out and insanely scheduled the big boys, often with no return game.  Now, teams like Gonzaga, Middle, Davidson, Butler, VCU are just like Duke, UNC and Kentucky as they get every team’s best shot, in front of packed arenas - which for other games the attendance doesn’t approach capacity.  It’s as hard, or harder, to play in front of a jammed, raucous band box of a gym holding a few thousand, than it is a 15,000 sold out arena.

There’s no way of comparing mid-majors and “middling” majors as bracketologist Joe Lunardi refers to schools who aren’t particularly good but get to play in power conferences.  In one way this year’s ESPN production was quite a turnaround for Bilas, who in 2011 absolutely lambasted the committee for awarding one of the final bids to VCU, not only on Selection Sunday, but in every show he was part of - until the Rams were still alive in the Sweet Sixteen.  Of course, that year, the Rams made a Cinderella trip to the Final Four, justifying not only their selection but legitimizing them as a program not to ever again be taken lightly.

Wally Szcerbiak, who starred at Miami (OH), ending his career as Mid-American Conference Player-of-the-Year, picked Gonzaga to the Final Four and there was joy in his voice as he’d been on the Zags’ bandwagon before it was fashionable.

Mateen Cleaves went away from that line of thought when he picked Louisville over Michigan State, admitting he wasn’t going with his heart when he made the choice.  Almost like he was apologizing to Spartan Nation for doing his job as a paid prognosticator.

It’s interesting listening to each guy explain his “side.”  This most difficult part of Jay Bilas is that he’s a former (or, for all we know, a current) lawyer.  What that means is that it’s difficult for others to speak with him because as a very close friend of mine once said:

“When two people have a discussion, it should be an exchange of information, that is, each person should learn something from the other.  With a lawyer, there has to be a winner and a loser.  And the lawyer has to win.”