Jack’s Blog

In the April 28, 2008 addition of Sports Illustrated - yeah, five years ago - there was an article about the NFL draft.  Not surprising, since it was the same time of year as the one held a few days ago.  The article was about the 1998 draft, the one with Peyton Manning and Ryan Leaf, and with the #5 pick (Curtis Enis, who retired from the league two years later) and the #92 pick (Hines Ward, who became the Super Bowl XL MVP).  A couple of the people quoted in the piece were New Orleans coach Sean Payton and former Green Bay Packers general manager, and current San Diego Chargers consultant, Ron Wolf.

Their discussion was, naturally, about the “science” of drafting football players.  Their comments, however, rang just as true as if they were discussing the NBA draft.  Payton’s comment was, “You get excited about a guy because of his tools and projecting his ability, but so much of this is looking beneath the surface.”  As the NBA playoffs continue, it’s impossible not to look at the “nobodies” who slipped through the draft cracks and the high profile picks which have yet to live up to pre-draft hype.  Everybody knows the Sam Bowie over Michael Jordan gigantic  mistake and Greg Oden before Kevin Durant humongous error.  Another interesting example would be the 2009 draft in which the Minnesota Timberwolves were in the market for a guard (several as it turned out).  They took Ricky Rubio, Spain’s version of “Pistol” Pete Maravich, with the fifth pick.  They also had the sixth pick and, because most thought Rubio would be difficult to sign, they decided to go with an additional point guard.  Their choice was Syracuse’s Jonny Flynn - whose career mostly has been in the NBA, although last season he played for the Melbourne Tigers in Australia.

What Payton meant can clearly be seen in that selection.  Not only did Minnesota select Flynn over the next pick, Stephen Curry, whom the T-Wolves are constantly being reminded went to Golden State but they also passed on #10 Brandon Jennings, #17 Jrue Holiday, #18 Ty Lawson (they actually did draft Lawson but it was only to trade him to Denver for a future first round pick) and #19 Jeff Teague.  It’s more than a stretch to say that guys picked in the first round “slipped through the cracks” but it does show how the draft is such a crap shoot for a team when its name comes to make its draft selection.

Other classics?  How about the Clippers, a year after they wisely (OK, that year, a three-year-old would have) picked Blake Griffin at #1, they felt they needed to get a small forward with the ability to get his own shot.  They chose Al-Farouq Aminu with the eighth pick.  The Jazz took Gordon Hayward next, just before the Pacers who grabbed (and has never let go of) Paul George.  Why would the Clippers pass on Paul George for Al-Farouq Aminu?

For the answer, listen to the eerie crossover similarity between football and basketball, as told by Ron Wolf:

The fascinating thing about pro football is, no matter how long you’re in it, you can’t predict how guys are going to handle the pressure, the limelight, the money.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After watching the Bulls totally throttle the Nets, Bill Simmons must have been proclaiming, “Can anybody say, ‘sweep BULLS IN FIVE!’ ”

The Heat is (doesn’t it sound like it oughtta be “are”) clearly the favorite but a team that might give them trouble would be one made up of Derrick Rose, Rajon Rondo, Kobe Bryant, Amar’e Stoudamire, David Lee, Jordan Hill, Jared Sullinger, Danilo Gallinari, Danny Granger and Boris Diaw.  82 games is a lot of wear and tear on a body, especially one that has to endure the increasingly allowable physical play. That group of injured guys, if healthy, would be a tough one to beat.

At first it simply sounded like another case of superlative playoff commentary when Charles Barkley and Kenny Smith anointed the Warriors’ Steph Curry and Klay Thompson “the best two shooters in the world” - until you start thinking about it.  Even Reggie Miller - who might not have been the greatest shooter in the world, but was certainly in the finals - agreed with the assessment.  After seeing them up close, George Karl wasn’t about to disagree.

Is it really fair to report that the Clippers need to get to the Western Conference finals for Vinny Del Negro to keep his job?  And then continually ask him how he feels about it?  If, in fact, getting to the finals is what’s necessary, why not leave the guy alone so he can put everything he has into achieving that goal?  Naturally, it’s typical NBA tomfoolery that a coach who produced a franchise high 56 victories, won the division and finally gained the respect of the league isn’t the man to take them to the next step.  First of all, the Clippers have never sniffed the next step, so how would they even know what type of coach should lead them there?  Seems like their motto is, “If it ain’t broke, break it.”

Speaking of interfering with a coach’s concentration, is it really necessary for Kobe to tweet during games?  It’s almost like Mike D’Antoni is supposed to be looking at his iPhone while the game is going on.  It’s one thing to want to stay involved but what Kobe does from a hospital bed (or his own) ought to be kept between him and his teammates - just like players say when their privacy is invaded.

Coaches in the NBA make an incredible amount of money, have a cushy life - in terms of having things done for them that the rest of us have to do for ourselves, enjoying perks the average person could only dream about (exorbitant per diem, private jets, luxury hotels), but the way these intelligent, decent people - with families - are treated is truly criminal.  It’s a sexy job, but to have other people who might not know, but think they do determine whether you continue your passion defies all logic.

Many of the owners and front office people have been called cynics and as Oscar Wilde once said:

“A cynic is someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.”

On 4/30/08, I posted the following blog.  Five years later, my feelings remain unchanged.  Coaches get fired every year and as salaries soar (due to a minority of coaches who excel at their craft), pressure is ratcheted up even greater.  One fact remains.  Whatever number of teams a league has in it, somebody is going to finish last.  Writers and sportscasters aren’t held to such a standard.  See what you think.     

At the beginning of each season, there are preseason polls, usually the work of sportswriters, sportscasters and other various and sundry pundits.  At the conclusion of the year, many of these prognosticators who put together these polls in the first place are talking about how many of the teams picked to win or finish at the top of their conference/division had disappointing seasons.

Fans, boosters and owners often buy into this concept - and they lose confidence in the coaching staff, increasing pressure (which, believe me, there is plenty already) or patience (and make a change - possibly just at the time the team was poised to have that breakthrough year - see Mike Krzyzewski at Duke after their 11-17 record in the ‘82-’83 season).  Coaches have been chastised on numerous occasions for “bad-mouthing” their team’s chances during the preseason, the critics claiming the coaches don’t want the pressure.  While this is possibly true, the coach also may know something (being much closer to his team than those doing the ranking) that will prevent them from living up to such a lofty selection.  Also, the reason could be that no one wants to have to live “up” to expectations; that they’d rather “surprise” people, have great seasons and, receive (sometimes planned, often not, but always welcome) the praise for an “over-achieving” campaign.  Many times these types of seasons lead to raises, contract extensions and, on occasion, a new gig (see Keno Davis from Drake going to Providence for somewhere in the neighborhood of seven figures and long-term security - whatever that is in the coaching profession - after the Bulldogs went from being picked at the bottom of their conference to becoming media darlings and NCAA Tournament Cinderellas). Note: since then, Davis has lost his job at Providence.  Replace his name and Drake and Providence with Andy Enfield and Florida Gulf Coast and USC.  Obviously, the current system is purely speculative (although fans love them, hence resulting in selling more papers and magazines) and on some occasions, they might be right on target.  Of course, the possibility exists that these pollsters have limited knowledge of “what they speak” (or rate) and put untrue, excessive or unfair expectations on the teams.  And the coach.  Keep in mind that for every Keno Davis, there’s a guy who was picked high and finished low (possibly costing him the loss of his job) - all because a group who may not have done any (or, at most, limited) research into the project or, as is known to happen, may have given it to a gofer to select.

Wouldn’t it be interesting to make everyone’s poll public information and, when a guy makes drastically wrong selections (maybe two or three years in a row), he loses his job (maybe as just a prognosticator - or maybe as a “whatever he actually does for a living”)?  It would make watching the final polls so much more interesting.  Can you imagine a player or coach asking a pollster at the post game press conference, “Well, you picked us last in our league and we’re on top while the team you predicted to ‘win it all’ is struggling in seventh place.  Are you at all worried about your position at the paper/station?”  Wonder how that guy’s wife would react if she heard that on the local or national news and how their kids would feel at school the next day when their classmates would approach them and innocently ask, “My dad said he heard your dad is going to get fired.”  Just another item to check in the “interesting things to think about but will never happen” category.

These prognosticators should take into account the words of Benjamin Disraeli who said:

“How much easier it is to be critical than be correct.”

Yesterday’s blog never happened due to “an intermittent power issue last night which interrupted service” - whatever all that means.  I just know that every time I started, I couldn’t get whatever or wherever it was I needed to blog.  And that’s about as technical an explanation as you’ll get from me (because that’s as technical a reason as I know).

Regarding the question of whether John Beilein should have played Trey Burke after getting two fouls in the first half of the national championship, allow me to tell a story of a similar situation (hey, it’s what I do best).  We (Fresno State) were in the NCAA tournament as a #9 seed that had beaten #8 Cal a couple nights before.  Now we were going up against #1 Michigan State who was very talented at every position and had a huge frontline.

Melvin Ely, a 6-10 center, was our best player.  Sure enough, he picked up his second foul early (like within first five minutes of the game.  Tark left him in.  Big Mel then picked up foul #3.  Tark still stayed with him.

We wound up losing.  In the press conference Tark was asked about it and gave two answers.  The long answer was that he felt for us to win, Melvin had to have a big game, meaning score and rebound big, and get their plethora of big men in foul trouble.  If Melvin didn’t, there was no fooling anybody - we had no shot.  Tark said it wasn’t really that great of a risk because while he hoped Melvin wouldn’t have picked up that third one, there was no way we were going to win anyway.

Some (non-coaches) will say Tark didn’t show enough confidence in his team, that “stranger things have happened.”  And they’re entitled to their opinion.  Maybe they can even cite an example of such an instance in which a team playing without their star - and winning - against a taller, stronger, quicker, more talented squad. Usually, though, in that scenario, if you stay long enough following the game, you get to see the credits roll.

The move he made hadn’t surprised me because in previous years I’d heard him discuss what his philosophy (not necessarily the right philosophy) was about protecting great players who got into foul trouble:

“He’s not doing us any good sitting next to me.”

Most people, myself included, read Sports Illustrated for the articles.  At least until the swimsuit edition arrives.  But other than that issue, pictures are secondary (after the first few pages) to the written word.  The last page has become an audition to see which writer comes as close in popularity to the readers as Rick Reilly.  It might be a stretch to compare him to John Wooden but there seems to be no outright favorite yet even though there have been several very good columns.  It seems that there are many Gene Bartows, Gary Cunninghams, Walt Hazzards, Jim Harricks, Steve Lavins and Ben Howlands (most of whom were outstanding coaches) at SI but no one like Coach Wooden.  For my money, there hasn’t even been a Larry Brown yet.

When SI first asked its readers which of a list of sports, other than football, basketball, baseball and possibly a couple others that currently escape my mind (which shows my particular tastes), they had an interest in, e.g. tennis, golf, auto racing, etc. my choices came down to tennis and golf.  It was a tough choice and if I were younger - and still playing tennis - that would have been what I’d have selected.  Since my back issues eliminated playing tennis about a decade ago, I chose golf.  Now I get additional articles on the sport as well as special extra editions.  A good friend of mine is a scratch (or close) golfer so those issues go to him, after I’ve briefly scanned them.

The one on the Masters that just came out intrigued me enough that as I perused it, the article with their panel of (three) experts (and one anonymous pro) caught my eye.  Opinions abound in sports and I’ve found (through experience) it’s always a good idea to hear what others who are deeply involved in a sport or topic think before you start popping off, or even discussing, issues so as not to look foolish.  Although I’ve read some interesting points in the past, little did I think I’d come across as introspective an explanation as Gary Van Sickle’s regarding Rory McElroy’s approach to his profession.  Van Sickle said of the young star:

“He’s not all golf like Tiger was.  Rory is going to take the time to enjoy his life.  He reminds me of Arnold Palmer a little there.  He’ll be streaky great, and he’s got other interests.  He’ll have a better quality of life, and if that means a couple fewer major wins in the long run, that’s all right.”

In addition to expertly defining the differences between the two golfers, the Van Sickle quote speaks volumes to most everybody who has a job.  If you’ve just entered the working world, those are your choices.  How do you approach your profession?  Do you love it so much that it consumes your every waking minute?  In the business world, that type of an employee is called a workaholic.  Those people often find an abundance of material wealth, yet, frequently, there is something missing in their life in another area of it.  In the field of sports, we call them single minded and driven.  Some (most?) people think a person’s life should be balanced.  We all remember the old adage “All work and no play make Jack a dull boy.” 

The times and people (and salaries/purses for sporting events/endorsement deals) have made that quote obsolete.  Now, it’s “get it while you can” and “the window of opportunity is open only so long.”  Maybe not so much in golf where some wise brilliant old golfer had the imagination - or told somebody else - to create a Seniors Tour.  Still, people don’t want to see extraordinary talent not pushed to the ultimate.  Usually parents and agents because 1) nearly all of them weren’t as athletically blessed and 2) they don’t have to do the heavy lifting.

Far too many people have altered the line so that it turned around the original message.  Maybe Rory McElroy has it right but for now it’s become:     

“All work and no play make Jack (or Jill) a champion.”

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.”

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!”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fans of sports teams often act like they’ve lost their minds.  As a group they can’t be studied too much as far as I’m concerned.  Now that I’m retired, I get to live the life of a fan.  Not a life-long, jersey-wearing, shut-everything-down-when-my-team-is-playing type of supporter, but still a guy with a vested rooting interest in a team.  My son plays for the Cal State Monterey Bay men’s basketball team and possibly because, for the years and years I coached and watched relatively normal people lose their objectivity (always) and their sensibility (a little less often), I usually remain rather stoic during games.

Sports Illustrated did an article on Indiana’s return to the top of college basketball a little over a year ago (1/16/2012).  In it they mentioned a guy named Ed Hirt who is a psychology professor at Indiana.  Professor Hirt has done years of research on the group known as “sports fans.”  On only one occasion did I witness an IU game in Assembly Hall (a really interesting blog for another day).  It was an NIT quarterfinal game, meaning the winner went to Madison Square Garden for the NIT Final Four.

The Hoosiers were playing Marquette, coached by the late Rick Majerus.  Here’s a brief summary: although I think officials’ calls usually even out over the course of a game, in this contest, there was no doubt Marquette got screwed throughout.  The worst call of the night came when Indiana had the ball, down one with seconds to play.  There was a shot at the buzzer - that missed.  Out from under the basket, a referee came with his arm up, hand clenched.  He had an off-the-ball (more like off-the-wall) foul against Marquette.  Uwe Blab, the Hoosiers’ center made the first, missed the second.  IU prevailed in OT.

During the game, however, there were some close calls that went against IU.  Men, well-dressed and groomed, seemingly intelligent, with their young sons (6-10 years old) by their sides, would go absolutely apoplectic, screaming at the officials, saying words I know their little boys had yet to hear in school - but would certainly be repeating at IU games well into the next (this) century.

Hirt’s findings (not solely Indiana fans, for the record) are “that the subjects’ moods were deeply affected by the team’s performance of their team.”  That, in itself is not shocking.  But he went on to say that when their team won, the fans experienced such a high, they felt they could perform better than usual, i.e. down when their “team” loses, up when it wins.

Having rabid fans was awesome - during games.  Outside of game day, not so good.  As a 30 year assistant, I was more of a target for fans’ complaints than the head coach, mainly because fans are in awe, or are afraid, of the head man.  They feel an assistant coach is the vehicle through which they can vent, that I would either pass along their brilliant suggestions so we’d win the next one (and never lose again, in many of their minds) or that I was just as frustrated as they were since my team lost too (because of that idiot of a head coach we had).  If they couldn’t find something stupid the head coach did, they’d blame the loss on a player or players.  This was easier since it was obvious if a guy missed a shot or threw the ball away.  Although it might be deserved, blaming a loss on a college kid made the fan(s) feel bad, but in most cases, an increase in the amount of spirits could overcome that remorse.

This phenomenon was described by Hirt as:

“The identity is so powerful, fans often see themselves through their team.”

Sad, but true in many cases.