Jack’s Blog

Recently, I read a story about Peyton Manning and a pretty absurd request from a fan which he managed to wriggle out of by concocting an excuse nearly anyone would have seen through.  I can’t remember the exact details but I do recall thinking it was mandatory that he get out of whatever the awkward situation was - and, hence, didn’t blame him for the fabrication.

That article jogged my memory to an event that occurred at Michael Jordan’s camp in August of ‘05.  I blogged about it several years ago, but it bears repeating if only to read how otherwise normal people act in the face of “royalty” (each of the people in the story I consider normal - except for their performance on that particular day).

Considering most of the kids at Michael Jordan’s camp (ages 8-18) don’t remember seeing MJ as a player, observing the adults is much more interesting than following the kids.  The most amazing story occurred two years ago at the tenth anniversary of the camp.

There was to be a mystery guest speaker on the third night and the speculation ran wild as to the identity.  The camp’s director is George Raveling.  If you’ve read my blogs, you’ll know I worked with George as a graduate assistant at Washington State in the early ’70s, as an associate head coach at USC in the early ’90s and as assistant chairman on the Recruiting Committee of which he was chairman for about 17 years in between.  During the second day of MJ’s camp, George confided in me the speaker in question was Larry Brown, recently signed as coach of the Knicks, who had a fabulous coaching career which included an NCAA Championship at Kansas and an NBA World Championship with the Pistons.

Later that evening, I was approached on five separate occasions by parents asking me who the speaker was going to be.  Each conversation went something like this:

Parent: “Who’s the mystery guest?”

JF: “I can’t tell you.”

Parent: “But you know who it is?”

JF: “Yes.”

Parent: “Oh, come on, you can tell me (us).”

JF (looking around surreptitiously): “OK, it’s…George W. Bush.”

On no occasion, not once! did anyone question my answer.  I got replies from, “Oh, great, he’s my favorite” to “Good, that will be a great experience for my son” to, believe it or not, “I wonder if he’ll wear shorts.”  No one ever said, “Come on, you’ve got to be kidding.”

I did eventually tell them it really wasn’t the President.  They were all disappointed, but not one of them said, “I knew you were putting me on.”

Reminds me of the old line:

“Did you know that the word ‘gullible’ isn’t in the dictionary?”

Some of the things high school kids say and do makes teachers wonder how they’re ever going to get through life.  Then again, some of the brightest students don’t always shine later on in life either.

A story from my book, Life’s A Joke (which can be purchased for $10, including S&H, by sending a check to Life’s A Joke, 365 Sandpiper Ct, Fresno, CA 93730), shows being “book smart” doesn’t necessarily guarantee success in all areas of life.

One of the head coaches I worked for was married to a lady who had her Ph.D.  He told me the story of the night he arrived home and his wife, being totally absorbed in what she was doing, didn’t hear him come in.  It seemed that they had mice in their house  and she was setting a mousetrap - apparently for the first time - because she set the trap, and then, tried to gingerly place the cheese on the trap.  All of a sudden, of course, it snapped and she caught her finger in it.  He couldn’t help but laugh and when he showed her the proper way, she didn’t know whether to be upset or embarrassed.  Obviously, her Ph.D. was not in common sense.

As Robert Green Ingersoll so eloquently put it:

“It is a thousand times better to have common sense without education than to have education without common sense.”

It took me a while but I finally located what I’d planned to blog for this past Monday (the first day of school).  This post was originally done on 8/19/07 but it still feels the same.  Nothing wrong with a little nostalgia.

With the idea they’re floating in Los Angeles regarding paying teachers based on performance, it’s also topical - however, commenting on that proposal would take more time than I have to blog and way more time than you have to read.  As with any new concept, it’s interesting and could possibly be the answer educators, parents and students are looking for, but first must be tweaked several times before most (because you’ll never get all) of the bugs worked out.  Meanwhile, enjoy my blast from the past.

First day of school!  Great memories for all of us.  Even the current students, although they’d never admit it, are looking forward to a new year in school, if for no other reason than the social aspect of it.  As for teachers, sure, we love summer vacation, but one thing that makes summer vacation so great is it follows a year of teaching!

Each student starts with a clean slate, goals all within reach.  For teachers, many of us wonder whether a couple of the new ideas we dreamed up during the break about trying something a little different in order to reach the kids will work as well as we anticipated, or should we just stick with the old, but effective, tried-and-true methods.

I read in an article a few years back the following quote, “The greatest gift a teacher can give is to inspire a desire to learn,” which I’ve modified to:

          “The greatest gift a teacher can give is to inspire a desire to think!”

In 1988, while I was associate head basketball coach at the University of Toledo, we signed a young man from Flint, MI, after he had played one year in junior college.  Since he was a good student, i.e. an ” NCAA qualifier” out of high school and had successfully completed a minimum of 12 semester units during each of the two semesters he attended the JC (with a minimum GPA of 2.0), he met the NCAA eligibility requirements.  We were counting on him to make a significant contribution to our team the following year.

When we sent his signed letter-of-intent to our conference (MAC) office, we were informed that he would, in fact, not be immediately eligible.  The problem was that he had attended a four-year school, the University of Michigan-Flint, following his graduation from high school, thus making him, in NCAA parlance, a “4-2-4,” defined as a student-athlete (S-A) who, upon graduating from high school, first attends a four-year institution, then transfers to a two-year school, then again to another four-year college.  This type of S-A is required to graduate from the two-year school in order to be immediately eligible.  The only exception would be if the S-A returned to his or her original four-year school.  

What made this case unique was that this S-A, while a talented player, was a 6′2″ center.  The only scholarship offers he received were from Division II schools.  He wanted to be an engineer and ultimately chose UM-Flint because of its engineering program.  UM-Flint, however, did not offer intercollegiate athletics, meaning this young man chose academics over athletics.

He did well during his first semester but while UM-Flint had an exceptional engineering program, it was also quite expensive so, after his first semester (in which he had a 3.0 GPA), he dropped out to work in order make money.  He intended to re-enroll the following fall.  During the summer, a friend of his mentioned that this strategy would take an inordinate amount of time for him to graduate.  Why not, his friend told him, enroll at the local community college (Mott CC) - since it was so much cheaper - and complete his general education courses there?

This was the avenue he decided to take and enrolled at Mott the following fall.  He was shooting baskets in the gym one day in early September when the coach there noticed him.  Oh yeah - in the year since he’d graduated from high school, he’d grown from 6′2″ to 6′6″!  The coach recognized him from his scholastic days and asked him to try out for the team.  He not only played well, but led the league in rebounding and was voted the conference’s Player-of-the-Year.

The question became: Was he to be considered a “2-4,” in which case he’d be immediately eligible (our stance) or a “4-2-4,” in which case he would not (the NCAA’s ruling)?  Our contention was that if this S-A was deemed ineligible, he would be penalized because he made an academic decision rather than an athletic one!  Our case was that he turned down athletic scholarships to follow an academic pursuit - to go to a university which didn’t even offer athletics.  The conference, possibly because we had beaten out another MAC school for his services and they were the ones who had brought this matter to the MAC’s attention (surprise!), took the path of least resistance and sided with the governing body.  We were extremely passionate that he be eligible, naturally because he was a good player, one we felt would be in the starting lineup for the opening game, but also because the NCAA’s ruling was morally wrong. 

In order to explain the rule to those readers who don’t completely understand the NCAA (which encompasses everybody - including many who work for that organization), the reason it was passed was the same reason most rules are passed - because there were coaches who found a way to “steal” their competitors’ players.  Most S-A’s (as well as a great number of students) think of transferring shortly after beginning college.  The reasons are numerous: homesickness, miss the girlfriend, difficulty handling responsibility or, in the case of recruited S-A’s, they find out that much of what they were told (promised?) during the recruiting process, didn’t appear as they thought it would, e.g. there was more competition for playing time than the coaches had said in their recruiting pitch.  The word would get out and the colleges which had recruited him, but lost out, would contact the disillusioned S-A and suggest he transfer.

Just so it wouldn’t look like tampering - and so the S-A would be immediately eligible - the “new” school would tell the S-A to transfer to a JC, pass the requisite number of units and slide on in to their school.  Clean break.  Anticipating this, the NCAA 4-2-4 rule did state that one calendar year must lapse from the initial enrollment at the first four-year institution before eligibility kicked in, but “poaching” was still a problem.

Our contention was that this case was unique because the first institution didn’t even offer athletics, much less basketball.  Round and round we went, until the NCAA finally agreed to hear our case.  Three of us, our director of athletics, faculty representative to the NCAA, and I flew to NCAA headquarters (at that time located in Overland Park, KS) and appeared before the NCAA Eligibility Committee.

The room we were in was identical to what you see during Senate Committee hearings.  The four of us were seated at a table in the center of the room facing two rounded tiers of seats occupied by the members of the committee.  Each member had a copy of our S-A’s high school, UM-Flint and Mott academic transcripts.  We presented our case.  “This S-A was to be considered a ‘2-4′ because the original institution did not offer an athletics program.  Therefore, his attendance at the four-year institution should be disregarded from an athletics standpoint, i.e. he should not be considered a ‘4-2-4′.  Since he had satisfied the eligibility requirements of a ‘2-4,’ he should, thus, be granted immediate eligibility.  If he were not, then the NCAA would be unjustly treating a S-A who had put academics ahead of athletics in his college decision.  Such a ruling would fly in the face of everything the NCAA claimed it stood for.”   We were asked questions and were told the Eligibility Committee would take everything under consideration and would notify us of their ruling.

Sometime later, we received the news that the committee had ruled in our favor and that our player would be immediately eligible.  In fact, if you were to google “ncaapublications.com” and go to “Eligibility,” then click on “download PDF,” on page 24 of the “Transfer 101” section (Basic information you need to know about transferring to an NCAA college), you will see under the part that says, “Possible exceptions if you are a 4-2-4 transfer,” the amendment, “if your sport was never sponsored at your original four-year school . . . “  That exception was added after the ruling on the University of Toledo case.

Did I forget to mention that their committee only met at certain times and when we finally got their decision that the first semester had already passed and this kid, who should have been eligible in August when school started, didn’t get his NCAA clearance until the middle of January and we were about 10 games into our season?  As I ended a previous blog (from about two years ago), the NCAA is a lot like the Lord:

“It acts in strange and mysterious ways.”�

For a couple of years the “in” offense to run in high school and college has been the Dribble, Drive Motion.  It’s an offense predicated on the player with the ball being able to beat his defender off the dribble.  He then continues to the basket or kicks the ball out for a three point attempt by the teammate whose defender helped on the drive.  Should a post defender step up, the pass is made to the offensive post player for a layup or dunk.

The concept is based on the fact that most players are better offensively than their opponents are defensively.  This makes sense.  Think about the last time you drove, jogged or walked past a basketball court.  What did you see?  Kids shooting, dribbling, maybe even passing.  Ever see a kid doing defensive slides?  Ever have a kid jump out from behind a tree and take a charge on you?

One aspect this offense does not allow are screens.  Another is the mid-range game, i.e. the short jump, two-point jump shot.  It’s just not a part of the philosophy.  Many teams run this offense and many win.  Others run it and lose but that’s true with any offense.  In a large majority of cases talent dictates the winner of a game anyway.  Maximizing the squad’s talent is the coach’s job.

In the NBA, principles of the DDM are used but if a rule were passed that outlawed screening, NBA offenses, as we know them, would cease to exist.  Same for the mid-range jumper.  Take, for example, the four teams that remain.  Well, three because the Orlando Magic have yet to find an effective offense to run against the Boston Celtics (however, what they ran in the first two series worked fine as they swept both). 

The Lakers run the now-famous (or since the Bulls won their six titles) triangle offense.  Movement is predicated on where the ball goes.  Cutting and passing are of paramount importance. 

Phoenix’s offense would be hardest hit if a “no screen” was implemented as on nearly every possession someone is setting a screen for Steve Nash.  This strategy makes sense since Nash is a reincarnation of John Stockton, i.e. a guard who only needs a screener to get a piece of his defender, free him for a split second while he surveys the floor for a pass to the screener, a pass to another of his teammates (whose defender has left him to help stop the ballhandler) or a drive to the bucket for himself.  He also can split the two defenders and pass, drive or shoot or a jump shot - whether inside the three-point line or beyond it (if the defender chose to go under the screen).  If this sounds difficult to guard, ask the Lakers who tried in vain last night.

Finally, the Boston Celtics have a variety of offensive sets (if it were up to Rajon Rondo, they’d fast break every time).  One of the plays the Celts run has Ray Allen run off multiple screens.  There are a couple of reasons for this.  One is that Ray Allen is one of the premier shooters ever to wear an NBA uniform.  Yet another is that chasing Allen around that many screens and taking that many hits - from bodies like Kendrick Perkins, Big Baby Davis, Kevin Garnett (and his pointy elbows) and Rasheed Wallace (who will hit you with any and everything he can) - wears out a defender.  Because that defender becomes an offensive player when the ball exchanges hands, often there’s not much energy left to play at the offensive end.  Most great offensive players won’t give up their points, so they glide on defense, allowing Allen open shots.

Dribble, Drive Motion is the rage at the levels below the NBA, but don’t expect to see it take over at the professional level as long as screening is allowed.  Which only means:

“There’s more than one way to skin a cat.” (or “score a ball”).

Your team is in the playoffs and you must win.  Forget tomorrow.  The future is now.  Which point guard would you rather have - Rajon Rondo or Steve Nash?  Tough question.

Does it matter who’s on your team?  Maybe these two phenom guards just happen to be perfectly suited for the club they’re currently leading?  Was the franchise built with their skills in mind?  Could the Celtics be even better with Nash?  Or would he dominate the ball too much and lessen the talents of KG, Paul Pierce and Ray Allen?  What about the Suns with Rondo?  Could they play even faster?  Or would Amare miss his assist machine - although it’s not like Rondo doesn’t drop dimes the way Rockefeller used to.

Wouldn’t it be great if, just for one game, Phoenix would play Boston - with their point guards in each other’s jerseys?  Experience over enthusiasm?  Would Nash get the max out of his new teammates or would Rondo push his guys harder, upping their offensive production, making them even more difficult to beat?

Well, we might as well dream about it because as a line from the X-Files went:

“Dreams are answers to questions we haven’t yet figured out how to ask.”

After watching a multitude of basketball games this season (as if that’s even noteworthy), I’ve been noticing more and more cameras searching through the crowd, looking for homemade signs made by fans.  Some are the generic “We Love (the heart symbol) _______” (fill in the blank with their favorite player).  I mean, if you’re going to hold up a sign, at least show a little creativity.

I was reminded of a game in the ’80s when I was an assistant at the University of Tennessee.  This story is from my book Life’s A Joke, available for purchase for $10, including S&H (click on the “Jack’s Book” tab on this website).

The Vols’ football team had finally beaten the University of Alabama, coached by the legendary Paul “Bear” Bryant, after a decade-long (or possibly more) losing streak.  When the Tide’s basketball team, coached by the legendary (although on a somewhat lesser scale than the Bear) Winfrey “Wimp” Sanderson, came to Knoxville, a group of students unfurled a banner that read:

“If we can beat a Bear, we can beat a Wimp.”   �

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’ rookie.

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.

If that’s the case, why whine about it?  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’s 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?  That’s exactly what the basketball coach is doing in practice.  How about offering them (and any other student at the university) courses such as money management (including philanthropy for those who hit the jackpot), selecting advisers (mentors, agents, and, although, it could be a sensitive area, friends), dealing with the media, women’s rights (this should be mandatory for many students in the wake of today’s front page stories), nutrition, maintaining physical fitness, accepting the responsibility of being a role model and acting appropriately (whether they want to or not, athletes are role models) and, 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)?  Many other course possibilities exist if people at the top would put their heads together.

What this does is give an extremely talented young man something that he can actually see will help him in his life after college.  One night a few years ago, the guys on the set of TNT’s NBA game night studio show were giving Charles Barkley a hard time about the (lack of an) Auburn education he got, leaving school without a degree.  Charles had a pretty good comeback:

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

The NFL didn’t need another controversy but that’s exactly what it got when Miami Dolphins’ General manager Jeff Ireland conducted what was thought to be a personnel interview with wideout Dez Bryant.

Granted, Bryant’s had a checkered past and due diligence needed to be done, especially if the club’s going to shell out major cash.  Possibly because Ireland wanted to find out the root cause of Bryant’s behavioral issues, possibly because he was trying to elicit a reaction from the receiver to a highly personal question, or possibly because he’s simply an insensitive pig, he decided to ask Bryant if his mother was a prostitute.

A little background: Bryant’s mother was 15 when she had him.  His father was in his 40s at the time of his birth.  Bryant’s mother, who had three kids by the time she was 18, was a cocaine, marijuana and PCP user, as well as someone who served a year-and-a-half for distributing crack.  And Bryant himself has never been accused of being a choir boy.

But, hey, if you don’t want to sign the guy, don’t sign him.  No matter what his upbringing or past has been, she’s still his mother - and anyone with an ounce of common sense or an iota of sensitivity would understand that’s an inappropriate question!  Besides, would it have mattered what his answer was?  What, exactly, was Ireland, or the Dolphins’ brass expecting, or better yet, hoping to discover?  Whether he would lash out or if he’d show extreme poise in responding in a calm, yet firm tone.

When Bill Parcells interviewed with the Dolphins, did they ask him, “When you were a young boy, was your mother an obese blimp?”  Same type of probing, reaction-seeking and completely senseless query. 

Provocative or introspective questions aimed to gauge a potential employee’s reaction - as long as they are tasteful - are fair game and serve a purpose.  What Ireland asked (or was directed to ask) was totally out of line and deserves more than just an apology.  “Genius” is a word that’s long been used in football.  As the old saying goes:

“The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.”�

One of the first blogs I ever did (4/28/07) was on the NFL draft.  After hearing the hype about this year’s crop, I went back into the archives (you need to click on Aug, ‘07 to get to any blog pre-Sept, ‘08 due to technical incompetence) and re-read what I wrote.  If you don’t think everything still applies, let me know.  

OK, It’s Not a Science. What Is It? Home Ec?
Forever, we’ve heard that draft day is so difficult for professional teams. No one’s sure which list is longer - first rounders who became busts or low draft picks (or even free agents) who became All-Stars.

Each year, greater technology is used but it never ceases to amaze us how wrong certain picks can be. This has to be due to the human element. Way back when, guys were selected though what decision makers, e.g. owners, general managers, coaches, player personnel directors heard about the players from friends, other coaches, confidants and, who knows, maybe even fans or sportswriters. Now, we have combines (I thought that’s how wheat was harvested, not players) and tests, both psychological and written.

It would seem that watching a player play would be a better indicator than how fast someone runs a 40 (if a guy has a great 40 time, you’ll want to play him in case the other team has someone real fast who breaks away and you need to catch him, except when that happens, it’s too late to sub), how many times he can bench press 220 lbs. (”Boy, he looks awful on video but how can we pass on some so strong?), how high he can jump (jumping doesn’t seem to be in the top 5 talents needed to play football) or how well he scored on a test (remember, many of these guys haven’t taken a test without the help of a tutor in years).

Coaches always say, “The film doesn’t lie,” yet film be damned when it comes to evaluating talent (”Just let me see him at the combine or in an individual workout) - where the are no fans screaming, there’s no “team” scoreboard on and the competition are stop watches, free weights and sticks coming out of a pole.

Call me old-fashioned (because I probably am), but watching a player in person - on film if being there’s not possible - of course, taking into account who the opponent is and calling on people you can trust (relationships made throughout a long career) has to be more reliable. Some guys are magnificent performers “until the lights go on” - and with the money and future (your job!) being invested, you’d want to be as certain as possible.

Naturally, one-on-one interviews are a must, but, again, some people can fool you. Using all the modern methods of information gathering isn’t a waste, but the greater variety of these tools used, the greater number of egos become involved. You may tell me he’s fast, but I want to time him (or have one of my people do it). A psychologist has mounds of empirical data from a test (s)he’s developed, along with accuracy of prediction of success. Having things you can trust (a pair of eyes which have watch thousands of hours of video) and an experienced mind (who’s he compare to from years past?) and the opinions of people you would select to be in a bunker with you if it came to it ought to make you more comfortable than a new breed of “experts.”

When it comes to technology, I agree with Dale Carnegie:

“As technical skills have gotten better, communication skills have gotten worse.”