Jack’s Blog

Of course I’m prejudiced when it comes to feeling which sport is the most exciting to watch.  There’s no other sport that has more non-stop action, abundance of scoring and plethora of great athletes than basketball.  A friend of mine has been saying for years the NBA is the best entertainment because it’s the best of the best basketball players in the world.  While that’s true, then it must stand to reason that this NBA Finals would be the best of the best - teams.

This year’s finals has both great players and groups of guys who understand the team concept better than all the other professional clubs.  The first four games were, at the risk of making one of the greatest understatements of all-time, intensely competitive.  The fifth one exceeded the first, mainly because both offenses were nothing short of sensational.

The Dallas Mavericks are putting to rest any talk of them being a soft, offense-only club with little heart.  Throughout the playoffs, game after game, they’ve battled back from fourth quarter deficits.  Last night was another example.  As far as the Miami Heat. Game 5 disproved any notion that they are a selfish team.  Anyone watching the game, independent of which team they were pulling for, had to see an incredibly well-played game.  Other than LeBron James not making shots - and looking uncharacteristically lacking confidence (in his jump shot) - the game was everything a fan could have hoped for when he or she sat down to check out the action.

The ESPN studio crew of analysts began their post game dissection with unusual praise (Michael Wilbon saying these past five games were the best first five games of an NBA final he can recall seeing) but they soon lapsed into their”comfort zone” of negative comments.  At the beginning of each show, Jon Barry is lauded for his pre-game on the money predictions.  Of course we never hear those pre-game gems until the post-game show.  Do I think the guys are making up JB’s “brilliance?”  Well, to borrow a phrase from, for my money, the most annoying sports anchor on TV, Stuart Scott, “I’m just sayin’.”

Barry more or less ridiculed Heat coach Erik Spoelstra for opening the game by posting up LeBron James.  Following Game 4 Spoelstra was criticized for not getting James more involved.  Trying to post him early was a tactical move like any other coach makes - wise if it works, open to second guessing if it doesn’t.  Wilbon entered the fray by saying LeBron should have been rested more.  His reasoning?  It was necessary to play James when Dwyane Wade was out of the game but when he returned and was effective, Spoelstra needed to put James on the bench for a blow.  Forget that James never looks winded and that the suggestion reeked of “Wade and James can’t be effective together because each needs the ball.”  If ever a move would be fodder the armchair coach, that suggestion would begun more arguments than who was better - Russell or Wilt?

To top off the late night tomfoolery, Magic Johnson chimed in with the statement, “Rick Carlisle is out-coaching Erik Spoelstra.”  Now, Magic Johnson is one of the game’s best players ever, one of its greatest ambassadors and as charismatic an individual as has played professional sports, but as a coach?  On second thought, maybe it was an insightful comment because, after witnessing his brief foray into the field of coaching, he probably knows better than anyone what getting out-coached means.

The main point of this blog is, after such a competitive, well-played game, the best analysis would have been:

“Don’t hate; appreciate.”

After Game 2 all the talking heads were letting audiences know how giving up a fifteen point lead with seven minutes to go would be a crushing psychological blow for the Miami Heat, that they had a chance to go up 2-0 and gave it away.  It’s not surprising to hear it from people like Michael Wilbon or Stuart Scott who represent most fans, but for Magic Johnson, Jon Barry, Tim Legler, Jalen Rose and even Charles Barkley and Kenny Smith (earlier in the playoffs following a semifinal meltdown) to forget how quickly players put losses behind them is shocking.  Sure, games like the one Miami dropped sting - a lot.

But, and the magnitude of that but is quite significant, because they’re in a win-or-go-home series, they have no choice other than strapping it on and getting back to business.  Game video is poured over and positive feelings are reinforced after seeing that the game was yours for the taking (and every team thinks the same way).  After Game 2, LeBron James and Dwyane Wade mentioned they were headed to the video room to see what adjustments needed to be made.  That was hint #1 the Heat wouldn’t suffer emotionally from the previous contest.

Beyond video study, the reason “the game before” emotions matter little is very easy to understand.  How much energy and focus is necessary to simply compete against the greatest athletes in the world leaves no time for self-pity or reflecting on lost opportunities.  If a player is matched against Dirk Nowitzki, his total attention better be on the task at hand.  Ditto for . . . everybody else!  The game is too hard at that level to worry about anything but giving all-out effort.

Heat coach Erik Spoelstra probably said it best at the post game podium last night in his opening comments:

“What’s needed now is amnesia.”

In an exciting game that went down to the final seconds, undefeated Boise State prevailed over previously undefeated TCU in the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl.  Boise didn’t make it quite so dramatic as the last time they won in Tempe, but the powers-that-be had made sure of that when they came out with their BCS pairings.

Don’t think for a minute the BCS people didn’t intentionally match those two non-BCS teams in order to avoid potential major embarrassment.  I’m not sure that, had each of them played a BCS school, the “little guys” would have won either or both of the contests.  But, other than Texas, Alabama and Florida, I think Boise and TCU could give any BCS team a battle.  And anything but a blowout by the big boys would make a BCS official look bad, and those guys do not like to look bad.

So the game was close.  What does that mean?  Nothing.  Are both great, both good, or are they simply competitive with each other because they’re just a notch below the big guys? As we all know, things that are out of the ordinary happen during bowl games and last night’s Fiesta Bowl was no exception, with it being the only game TCU’s highly efficient QB Andy Dalton threw more than one interception (he threw three). 

What else can happen, and when Boise State plays, it usually does, is some trick play to captivate the audience (as if something was really needed - after all, it was the only football game in the land).  Inspector Gadget, aka Chris Peterson, pulled out a fake punt/pass by kicker Kyle Brotzman to a (naturally) wide open Kyle Efaw on fourth down, which turned out to be the key play in the game.

Does this mean we need a playoff?  Like I’ve posted on numerous occasions, a playoff does not give the fans a true number one team in the country.  Does anybody think Jimmy V’s NC State team was the best team in the nation in ‘83 when they beat Houston?  It was great drama - but they were no more number one than the ‘85 Villanova Wildcats.  Yet each of those teams wound up National Champions.

And Stuart Scott!  C’mon, dawg (you have no idea how much it pains me to type that lingo), you must have been concussed from your beloved Tarheels’ loss to the College of Charleston when you said you thought the winner of the game Thursday night ought to play Boise State for the National Championship.  If there were a playoff (which Stu advocates), that would be matching #1 vs. #2 in the semi-finals against the winner of #? vs. #?

Besides, if there were an eight team playoff (how many more could there be without cutting regular season games - hurting about 115 of the D-I’s, or whatever the BCS people call them now), do you really think both TCU and Boise would have been invited?  Let’s see, there are six BCS conferences.  Does anyone out there really think the champs of each of those wouldn’t be in the mix of eight?  So, then, who gets left out this year - Florida?  A playoff without the University of Florida would be a bigger joke than one without the Broncs or Frogs.

So what, put all the undefeateds in (Ala, Tex, Cin, Boise, TCU), plus Florida - and pick two of the remaining three BCS champs (ACC, Big 10, Pac-10)?  If you think a BCS champ will be left out of a playoff, you’re as naive as the BCS bigwigs are arrogant.  And that’s about as extreme a statement as could be made.  An Arabian proverb of three words says about arrogance all that needs to be said about it:

“Arrogance diminishes wisdom.”Â

In a word: both.  End of debate.

And I don’t see how any unbiased, level-headed individual could see it any other way.  Why so adamant?  Consider the following:

We’re seeing athletic accomplishments today we’ve never seen before - ball handling, passing and shooting (from deep) by players who are as much as a half a foot taller (or more) per position (think about it: how many 6′7″-6′9″ guards did we see 40 years ago?), jumping ability (the game is now played above the rim and players are dunking like never before, be it a can-you-believe-he-got-up-that-high/stayed-up-that-high-for-so-long, or did you see that little guy throw it down?) and the number of eye-catching, physical specimens (while Wilt was considered a physical freak back in his day, he’d be one of many today, e.g. Shaq, LeBron, Dwight Howard, Amare Stoudamire and even Ben Wallace, Carlos Boozer, Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett and Tracy McGrady).

How did this happen?  Medical and equipment breakthroughs that allow today’s players to eat better, more nuitritional foods (during and in the off-season - prepared by personal chefs, as opposed to the typical NBA player of the ’60s who never gave a second thought that the cigarettes he was smoking might have been harmful to his health); modern strength and conditioning ideas and the hiring of people who monitor such activities; state-of-the-art body building machines, custom made shoes, uniforms that breathe and fit better (the jury’s still out concerning whether today’s “longs” compared to the “shorts” that were worn 40 years ago are an improvement to a player’s game or not); better consistency of the ball used today and in general, improved playing surfaces, rims and overall facilites. 

As far as the selfish aspect, society itself has transformed into a more me-first world, than the total team concept it had long ago.  Several other factors encourage selfish play, including: 1) The lack of power and control coaches now have as compared to what used to be the norm, mostly due to the owners caving in to players’ demands rather than stand by the man they hired. 2) Cable television - now every fan in the nation gets to see all the teams (naturally, the high-profile teams and markets are shown more, but back in the early days, you were fortunate to see your local team) and don’t think each player isn’t vying to be the lead-in to SportsCenter.  When someone throws the perfect, fundamental bounce pass at the end of the break which leads to a layup, can you imagine hearing Stuart “Maybe I ain’t got mad skills, but I’m a still a mega-star” Scott opening with, “Watch this play where the floor leader is okie-dokin’ the bounce pass while the forward is freakin’ the layup.”  3) Maybe the greatest reason for the change to today’s selfish player is - yes, they are probably are necessary and, yes, there are some good ones - the profession known as the sports agent.  At the core of the problem is the fact that the agent is looking after two people’s best interests - the client he represents and the person he loves more than anyone else in the world - himself.  If that’s a hard concept to grasp, remember this: the sole source of income for the agent is the player and to get on someone’s good side (the side that gives you 2, 3, or 4% of his salary, along with 10-15 or maybe even as high as 20% of his endorsements), the agent’s most likely will lean toward the side of, how’s the best way to put it - kissing his client’s ass and saying anything and everything his meal ticket wants, as opposed to ought - to hear.  This is mandated by the fact that he’s one childish tirade (and don’t think for a minute that many of today’s NBA players aren’t just a notch above a child when it comes to disciplining themselves or hearing unflattering remarks) from getting pink-slipped.  In keeping with the realism theme, how many of the agent’s competitors do you think would feel sympathy if their colleague lost a client?  A condolence card would be forthcoming - right after several calls to the, now unrepresented, breadwinner.  4) Escalating (completely out of sight) salaries - see 3).  5) Finally, a new factor has entered the world of the NBA during the past (probably) decade or so - the phenomen known as the player’s posse, usually composed of his high school buddies (you know, all the guys who took the oath, “If one of us makes it, he takes care of all of us”) and the star wasn’t bright enough to see that he was 8″ taller and 100 times more skilled than his “peeps.”  Living the high life using someone else’s cash might be an even better gig than being the star, mainly because you don’t have to produce for your keep.  Just pucker up, tell him how his 2-20 shooting/2 rebounds/6 turnovers night was the coach’s fault and, every once in a while, bring up how much you appreciate “your main man” keeping his word.

Although both sides represent progress (I guess, we’re forced to take one if we want the other), Phil Jackson, in his last (but certainly not his final) book, stated:

“In the 1960s and ’70s, players asked, ‘Where do I fit in?’  Now they ask, ‘How do I get what I want?’  Given this selfish mind-set, it is remarkable, actually, that teams play with any cohesiveness.”

The Monday Night football game between the Dallas Cowboys and the Philadelphia Eagles had everything a fan (of offensive football) would want.  There certainly was a great deal to talk about on the post-game show for Stuart Scott and his two sidekicks who actually played professional football and have Hall-of-Fame careers (as opposed to cute signature catch words and phrases) to back up their commentary.  Boo-yah.

Early in the game, the Eagles’ sensational rookie receiver out of Cal, DeSean Jackson, on his way to a touchdown, prematurely celebrated his apparent score, but, as he did in a high school all-star game (although not as dramatic), he failed to cross the goal line with the ball.  In high school, he did a flip, landing on the one-yard line, jarring the ball loose.  In the game against the Cowboys, he casually discarded the ball, once again on the one-yard line.  The play, although embarrassing to Jackson, didn’t cost the Eagles, as the referees decided the ball belonged to the Eagles on the one and they subsequently scored.

Following the contest, Scott’s partners, Steve Young and Emmitt Smith, took opposing views on Jackson’s nonchalant play.  Young claimed it was no big deal and “I can fix that problem tomorrow,” stating a practice drill making Jackson run through the end zone with the ball and having his teammates laugh and joke about it would create an impression in mind he’d remember the next time (and all those thereafter) he was in a similar position.  Young’s main point was that the rookie is a “difference-maker,” a guy who can make plays that can change the outcome of a game.  It seemed as though (amateur analyst I am) that this was a quarterback’s view.  Someone who was always looking for a guy who could break a reception into a game-breaker and once he found one, didn’t want to do anything to upset the (possible) fragile ego. 

Smith took the diametrically opposed viewpoint.  His was that of a running back, a guy who had to bang, get banged and struggle for every yard and touchdown and they weren’t so easy to get that someone should ever act so “cool” about attempting to do what is, in essence, the purpose of the game.  He went so far as to say Jackson’s action was simply one to draw attention to himself, something that’s become more and more common for today’s me-first generation of athlete.

Give props to Scott for allowing two guys who played the game at the highest of levels to go at each other, each trying to prove his case (as opposed to making some innane comments about Pookey and Ray-Ray or some hip-hop mumbo jumbo like “dude has mad, sick skills” in the name of “entertainment” - the game, and Young and Smith’s post-game analyses were entertaining enough).  Young continued his argument that players who can do what Jackson can do don’t come around all that frequently and how the team leaders, i.e. best players and coaching staff, need to (gently) let him know what he did was great - until right there at the very end.  Smith refused to back down from his stance that football is not a game whose goal is to promote yourself and that individual celebration is not welcome, especially if it could cost the team in the long run.

After a game as exciting as that one, it was fitting commentary with two masters taking opposing sides of what’s become a current fad.  The fact they vehemently diasagreed reminded me of a line I heard many, many years ago:

“If you and I agree on everything, one of us isn’t necessary.”   Â