Jack’s Blog

The Los Angeles Lakers finished last season without the championship they think they’re entitled to (annually) so they decided to fix the problem.  Someone must have thought it was the offense because during the off-season they brought in Eddie Jordan to install the Princeton offense.  The only thing is that the Princeton isn’t installed like a new electronic gadget.  It doesn’t really come with a manual nor is there a money-back refund guaranteed.  And it takes longer than a few hours.

Apparently. Mitch Kupchak was left out of this decision - or at least the knowledge behind it - because no one who ever played for Dean Smith would ever think the Princeton offense could be implemented in an NBA preseason camp and expect it to produce immediate victories.  Maybe that’s why they left Mitch out in the cold because if he did know, Pete Carril would have legal grounds for a malpractice suit with Mitch being the first witness.

Really, did the Buss’s think any offense could work so quickly?  They complain about the luxury tax, yet they are now paying Mike Brown and however many of his assistants (my guess is three) who are let go and Mike D’Antoni and however many guys he’s bringing in (he’s already hired his capable brother Dan and his longtime assistant Phil Weber).  As I blogged on 11/10/12, the Lakers personnel wasn’t even conducive to running the Princeton O.

So now they’re putting in another offense - and the season’s already started.  Why should this one work?  One reason is that D’Antoni’s offense (really offensive concepts) are made for the pro game while the Princeton offense is . . .   I won’t insult you by finishing that sentence.

The hope for all Laker faithful  (I’m not a fan of any particular team - I pull for teams who have coaches/players on them I know - but to call fans “the faithful” sounds like they’re worshiping something) is that the Buss Boys take direction from Cavet Robert’s famous quote on commitment:

“The definition of commitment is following something through after the enthusiasm of the moment has passed.”

Prior to hiring Mike Brown, the Lakers should have taken a page out of UPS’ playbook: “What can Brown do for you (us)?”  Apparently, his reputation was in tightening up the defense.  The Lakers had a super-talented, albeit young and immature center who could erase mistakes and a proven big-time scorer, maybe the best player in the game who, also, relished taking the challenge of shutting down the opponent’s best perimeter player.  Good start for the D.  Brown’s main problem, though, seemed to be the lack of a blueprint for immediate success.  He didn’t quite get it - that with the Lakers, they only want one championship - per year.  In LA there’s no laboratory, no “Let’s try this, see if it works.  If not, let’s give this a shot.”  Uh uh.  Not in LA.  Maybe the Lakers’ front office wasn’t clear enough with their new coach.

The question is did the front office know, when putting together this year’s team, that Mike Brown was a bad fit?  If so, why would they allow him to bring in Eddie Jordan to install the Princeton offense?  Mitch Kupchak, as opposed to other GMs in the league, has a really good basketball background (heck, he played for Dean Smith).  Why, then, did he not realize the guys he was acquiring were 1) really talented and 2) a poor match for the Princeton O?  Steve Nash needs to be the predominant ballhandler & decision maker (that’s why everybody is so enamored with him), not be part of a five-man offense.  Surely, Kupchak (or whoever) realized Dwight Howard wasn’t the prototypical Princeton center.  Believe it or not, the Tigers don’t usually play with a guy in the post who is the size of King Kong.

After relieving Brown of his head coaching duties, Kupchak said, “This team was built to contend this year.”  If that was the organization’s thinking, it seemed as though they were trying to fit square pegs in round holes with the change in offensive philosophy.  Once the job opened, it was apparent which way the Lakers would be going although their meal ticket said later in the day: “I’m not sure what direction we’re heading in next.”  Kobe, to quote Seth Meyers, “Really?”

One of the reasons Phil Jackson called it a career was because of how much his body hurt after long trips.  After flying on a charter with captain’s chairs, trainers and doctors (and all the things they have in their little black bags).  Those trips are still on the schedule.  But now Steve Nash and Dwight Howard are on the plane.  That usually makes for a smoother flight.  All Laker fans hope Phil gets well soon.  Well enough to coach weeks into the summer.

As far as Mike Brown’s situation goes, Ron Livingston might want to rephrase what he once said:

“It can be liberating to get fired because you realize the world doesn’t end.  There’s other ways to make money, better jobs.

Maybe yes to the first part, but the second?  C’mon now.

LeBron James finally (after all, he’s already 27) put to rest that, although he was a great player, he couldn’t win a championship.  Soon, we’ll be discussing who now is the best baller without a ring.  Actually, we already are but read on.

For some reason we feel this moniker needs to be if not presented formally, at least discussed - in every sport.  From national tv to local watering holes.  I coached in the college basketball world for 30 years and when I started in 1970 a similar label was thrown around in our business.  As a young guy in the field one of the veteran coaches I was in awe of was Dean Smith.  It shocked me when I would hear the “Greatest Coach Who Has Never Won a Title” attributed to him.  Freshman Michael Jordan’s jumper took care of that nonsense but shortly thereafter the crown was passed to Mike Krzyzewski.

It was almost a badge of honor for coaches.  In order to qualify for the unenviable title, a coach needed to take a team to the Final Four on more than one occasion and come up short.  For most coaches reaching the Final Four is conquering the Holy Grail.  After Mike won in 1991, thus bequeathing the “honor,” the latest line was, “Sure, Rick (Pitino) can take a team the the mountaintop but he can’t them to the Promised Land.”  In 1996 his Kentucky Wildcats won it all but the debate raged on.

By now it was mandatory for fans and media to have a coach whose feet they could hold to the fire.  It must have made them feel good at that time because there were two contestants.  And as fate would have it, their teams squared off in the 2003 championship game.  Jim Boeheim of Syracuse and Roy Williams of UNC.  In a show of empathy, while shaking hands after the game, Boeheim said to Williams, “Don’t worry;  you’ll get one” after the Orange beat the ‘Heels.  It was similar to the exchange Bob Knight had with Boeheim after his Hoosiers beat the ‘Cuse in ‘87.  And, of course, ‘ol Roy did just that.  Twice.

I won’t tell you who had the wrath of the nation up until last year.  You probably can figure it out.  The hint is: he no longer has to deal with the problem.

Sports is definitely the most highly scrutinized business - possibly because there are fans and we love to argue.  Now that cyberstat guys have entered the world, it doesn’t seem like there will be any stone unturned.  If only Wall Street could have such a fan base - although it might be a little too late for that.

Now NBA followers are placing the “good stats/great player but can’t win a championship” mantle on Kevin Durant (a little too early, don’t ya think?), Carmelo Anthony, Amare Stoudamire, Steve Nash and Dwight Howard just like they did to Charles Barkley, Pete Maravich,  John Stockton & Karl Malone.

Some of those guys got close but it wasn’t to be.  Maybe they played in the wrong era; maybe they didn’t quite have the right mix of teammates, i.e. not enough talent.  I’m showing my age when I say I remember a couple National League MVP awards going to Ernie Banks - even though his Chicago Cubs finished last!

Still, people revel in the misery of others even though it doesn’t make the critical person’s life any better.  Or put another way:

“Although someone may come up short in their endeavors, it doesn’t make you better at any of yours.”

There are differing styles of coaches just as there are different styles of coaching.  As with the varied ways coaches choose to attempt to win games strategically, the overall coaching philosophy of reaching players and bringing out the best they have to give crosses just as wide a spectrum.When I first got involved in athletics, the most popular coaching style undoubtedly was the one based on fear and respect of authority figures.  Being a “Baby Boomer,” I am part of a generation who saw their fathers rush to serve their country in World War II and be enormously proud of it (mine included).  Speaking at coaching clinics, I often made mention that the difference between the players of my day and the players of today is that, if I ever went home and told my father the coach yelled at me, my dad would “dress me down” and wonder what I did to make the coach so upset (to the point that punishment may have followed), while when today’s player informs his father (or mother) the coach yelled at him (or her), the parent immediately starts searching for the lawyer’s number.

The coaches of this breed usually shared a mantra.  It is, “Tear them down so we can build them back up.”  Those who experienced the most success employing this method are John Thompson, Bob Knight and Pat Summitt - each a Hall-of-Fame Coach, the last of whom is the current leader in career wins.  Each of the three were known for their unquestioned authority and Pat, whom I got to know well during my seven years in Big Orange Country and whom I consider the best coach - man or woman - I’ve ever seen (keep in mind, I coached with and against some of the nation’s best over 30 years), is still famous for her “Stare.”  Many a player and assistant of hers have told me you don’t want to be on the receiving end of IT (caps intended).

A similar style is the coach whose number one key to success lies in the toughness of the team.  Examples of this type range from Billy Martin and Woody Hayes to Bob Huggins and Tom Izzo.  Every name mentioned truly believed/believes in the saying, “A team takes on the personality of its coach” and consider that to be a bonafide compliment.

Maybe in a class by himself for winning the way he did was Vince Lombardi who religiously felt that all players should be treated equally and as one of his star players confirmed, “Coach Lombardi treated each of us the same - like dogs.”  Consider, also, that he might be believed to be the greatest football coach of all-time.

Another popular style is that of the coach who gives his/her players the utmost respect as people, realizing the team is going to be only as good as the players on it perform.  This is not a new philosophy.  It was successfully used by Dean Smith, Tommy Lasorda, Jerry Tarkanian (a coach I worked under who excelled in people skills ) and Tony Dungy.  Modern versions of this coach are Sean Payton, Doc Rivers and Brad Stevens.

Which method is the best method is an easy question to answer.  It’s the one in which the style suits the coach’s personality.  In other words, “To thine own self be true” is a perfect fit for one to decide which type of coach to be.

The one trait that all these highly successful coaches had in common was that they all truly cared about their players.  In addition, there are two other areas I think must be mentioned.  One is that it’s difficult (although maybe not impossible) for a coach to be successful if his or her ego is out of control.  However, the other is a virtual lock for the unsuccessful coach (especially one in charge of adults) and that is you’re digging an awfully deep hole, one which you may never be able to extricate yourself from, if you choose to motivate by humiliating people.  Because, as Lord Chesterfield remarked:

“He makes people pleased with him by making them first pleased with themselves.”

“Michael Jordan can score, but his team will never win.”

“They’ll never be able to replace Brett Favre in Green Bay.”

“The Red Sox are cursed.”

“Dean Smith can’t win the big one.”

“Sonny Liston can’t be beaten.”  (As if I’m not dating myself enough with the Dean Smith reference).

After watching last night’s LA-Dallas game, another can be added to the list:

“Dirk Nowitzki is soft.”

As Jerry Tarkanian says so often, getting into the NCAA Tournament is a reward for a good season.  Losing in it, however, as every team but one does, almost seems like a punishment.  Although I never was part of an NCAA tourney squad as a player, I was an assistant on three different staffs that made a total of six NCAA tourney appearances (along with ten NITs - two of them Final Fours).  When your team is eliminated (yeah, in the NIT, too), you experience such an empty feeling, it’s hard for the fan, media member or any other person who’s never been in the arena as a competitor, to comprehend.

Recent cases in point: Jamie Dixon, head coach at Pitt, who’s done such a marvelous job at a football school, in a football city.  He’s raised the bar that his former boss, Ben Howland, set extremely high.  He had his club in the Top 5 all season.  Yet, he’s now being criticized as the guy who “can’t win the big one” because of another premature departure in the postseason.  He can solace in the fact that past “title holders” include Dean Smith, Jim Boeheim, Rick Pitino and Roy Williams.

Ben Howland, UCLA, was under heavy scrutiny for having a losing season last year and, while winning a first round game this year, came under fire for almost blowing a big lead to Michigan State.  This is the same guy who took over a program that was built on sticks when he got there and he shortly thereafter took the Bruins to three consecutive Final Fours.

Among yesterday’s “losers” was none other than Mike Krzyzewski whose Duke Blue Devils were, after leading by six at the half against Arizona (and the only reason they weren’t ahead by 20+ was a 25-point performance by Derrick Williams), embarrassed by the high energy Wildcats.  Now, second guessers all around the country will be analyzing (criticizing) the best coach in the college game about his decision to play freshman point guard Kyrie Irving, who missed nearly the entire regular season (and ACC Tournament).

A few of the talking heads have questioned the wisdom of Coach K with the idea that Nolan Smith took over the point guard position when Irving went down and played magnificently - earning such praise as being a potential Player-of-the-Year candidate.  While that argument appears to have merit (because they lost and Smith played possibly his worst game of the year), don’t think for one second that had Mike chosen not to play Irving after doctors had cleared him and, naturally, Duke had lost, he wouldn’t be second guessed by the very same indivduals.

Can’t you just hear it now?  “Krzyzewski has the best player in the country - the guy everybody who knows anything about basketball is saying is the #1 pick in this year’s NBA draft - and he doesn’t use him!  What could he have possibly been thinking?  A weapon like that and you keep him on the shelf.”

The question about whether to play Irving and risk disrupting the team’s marvelous chemistry was bantered about on studio shows and talk radio - with no conclusive answer.  Of course, those who, at that time, suggested it would be wrong to do so are now throwing out their shoulders patting themselves on the back - as if they knew Smith would have such a poor performance.  Their comments today would undoubtedly have much less volume had the Dookies prevailed.

On one of the post-game shows, Tom Izzo, a fellow who knows a thing or two about winning, was asked that exact question and his response, tongue-in-cheek, was right on point:

“It’s a problem I’d like to have.”

When the question of who is the better player: Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant, the results are usually easy to predict.  The older generation picks MJ, while today’s younger fans say Kobe.  When each makes their case, the obvious bias always shines through.  “The players now are better than those from Jordan’s era (as if he played in the ’50s).  That’s why I think Kobe is better.”  “Michael has six rings.  Until Kobe has that many, there’s no argument.  It’s MJ.”  Can you guess which speaker is older?

In an attempt to keep everything as equal as possible (which is never going to happen when comparing teams or players from different times - even times as close as these are), let’s look at a number of intangible categories since comparing stats is too mundane.

#1 Each player has a focus all his own.  Game’s on the line, who takes the last shot?  MJ then, Kobe now.

#2 Each has a versatility to his game - power dunker in the earlier years, maintained/s ability to go to the hole; neither can be ignored behind the three-point line and both them have fantastic mid-range games (a trait in its own right that separates them from most of basketball’s other “superstars”).  Both are primarily 2 guards,  each can take over the point if necessary.  Yet each has an unstoppable post up game.

#3 Each demanded/demands to guard the opponent’s best offensive player and was/is a shut-down defender.

#4 Each has shown no hesitation to get in teammates’ faces in order to elevate their games and each made/makes his teammates better.

#5 Each has personal flaws (this just in - as spectacular as they are on the court, they are human).  MJ has a reputation as somewhat of a womanizer and a heavy gambler.  While Kobe doesn’t have the gambling rap of MJ, Michael was never subjected to the public humiliation of Kobe’s “post-Colorado” press conference.

#6 As marketing icons go, MJ might own a higher business acumen (has his own brand), but Kobe’s younger and has the identical global appeal Michael did at that stage of his career.

#7 Each has won multiple championships, Jordan 6 (MJ is 6-0 in title series) to Bryant’s 4 (Kobe’s 4-2), BUT Kobe’s career is not yet complete and, if championships is the end-all barometer, what if Kobe ends up with 7?  Is he automatically the better player?  It’s not that simple.

#8 Each had incredible discipline when it came to personal work ethic.

#9 Interestingly enough, the fact I don’t hear when this debate is raged is that both were coached by Phil Jackson, a remarkable coincidence when comparing two players.  Nowhere else is this the case.  Russell-Chamberlain?  Mays-Mantle?  OJ-Sweetness-Sanders-Smith?  Howe-Orr?

As far as differences, Michael went to college (and was mentored by Dean Smith), whereas Kobe’s education was growing up in a foreign country and is the son of a former NBA player.  MJ was an immediate starter; Kobe began his career coming off the bench.

As a math teacher, I understand that answers and solutions mean the same, so when someone wants to know if there’s an answer (solution) to the “Who’s better” question between Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant, I refer them to Marcel Duchamp’s quote:

“There is no solution because there is no problem.”

If invited (they only would need a break-even or better record), would the University of North Carolina men’s basketball team consider playing in the NIT?  With the state of hoops what it is in Tar Heel Land, it looks like their NCAA Tourney run is over.  Not the deep run, but the “getting in the Dance” run.

The NIT would so love to have UNC in the field that, not only would they give them all home games to the semis, but they might even think about playing the Final Four in The Smith Center.  Sure Chapel Hill’s not New York, but The Dean Dome has a greater capacity than the Garden and they’d be guaranteed sellouts.  Even if all Carolina Blue faithful boycotted the games, the fans of the other ACC schools would buy tickets just to cheer the Heels to defeat.  A ground breaking for a Tavern on the Green-South might be imminent.   

Bob Knight, who, safe to say, hated losing as much as any other guy, still would never refuse to play in the NIT.  That hearkened back to his coaching days at West Point - when the ultimate goal was for the Cadets to get an invite to play in the Garden (back then, all games were played in MSG).  Also, Knight had tremendous respect for those on the NIT Committee as well as legendary former East Coast coaches as Clair Bee, Joe Lapchick and Al Lobalbo.

Now, Roy’s not like Bob Knight in many ways, but one trait they share is a deep respect for the tradition of college basketball - and the NIT is more than just tradition.  Now a joke among fans and talk show hosts, it’s still considered an honor to compete in the postseason and an incredible experience if a team should ever make it to The Big Apple.  Most of the critics don’t have an appreciation for what getting into post season play means  - especially for some schools, who have to overcome injuries, defections or snubs by larger schools to play home & home, or in many cases, to play at all.  I wonder how many of these people would be selected for a similar type of “postseason award” in their business, i.e. in the top 19% of people in their line of work (what a team has to do to be invited to the NCAA Tournament) or in the top 28% (NCAA or NIT) ?

It would be a real dilemma for Roy and the administration if they were invited to the NIT. Talk about a “lose-lose” situation!  Even “cutting down the nets” would be demeaning to some of their fans.  I remember, after a fairly long streak of NCAA appearances, we (at the University of Tennessee) got invited to the NIT.  I remember having a conversation with Jud Heathcote shortly after the selection and mentioning our disappointment.  He told me he felt the same way - until one year, Michigan State had a losing season and didn’t get invited anywhere.  He advised me to be grateful for any postseason.

Which is the situation staring UNC squarely in the face.  As for what fans of Carolina ought to be doing, consider John Randolph’s quote when evaluating the current season: 

“Stick with a friend a little in the wrong.”

The story that hit the wire service yesterday was of the massage therapist at UNC saying to Roy Williams, no doubt to make him put his team’s current woes in perspective (Carolina had dropped seven of their last nine games, now eight of ten after last night’s home defeat versus Duke), “Coach, what’s going on in Haiti is a catastrophe, what you’re going through is a disappointment.”

Roy’s reply was, “Depends on which chair you’re sitting in.”

Wow!  The uproar from the bleeding hearts and the contrarians (and the Tar Heel haters) and, possibly a large majority of the nation was of astronomical proportions.  But before the entire civilized world burns Roy in effigy (and not for the losing streak), allow me to clarify what I believe he meant.

Here’s my explanation.  Roy Williams is probably a more caring individual than most college coaches.  I’ve known Roy since he was a high school coach in Asheville, NC in 1977.  He makes a ton of money, but isn’t as materialistic as many of his contemporaries.  In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if I were to find out he wrote a large check to the relief fund there.

Here are a couple of Roy’s most glaring traits.  One is he truly outworks the competition.  That’s an overused term in coaching, but in Roy’s case, there’s tangible evidence.  When they were both assistants to Dean Smith at Carolina, Eddie Fogler told me that Roy is incapable of sleeping on an airplane (until I got on these pain drugs, I had the identical problem).  When he would take the West-to-East Coast red eye, he’d be up all night writing notes to recruits, get to the Raleigh-Durham airport at six or so in the morning and go directly to the office.  He would take a shower and start his day, just as every other UNC employee who just had a full night’s sleep.

Another famous “Roy outwork the comp story” was when he was at Kansas and they were recruiting Raef LaFrentz, the best player (by far) in Iowa.  Naturally, there was tremendous pressure on LaFrentz to attend Iowa.  After he committed to KU, LaFrentz and his dad said how impressed they were that Roy attended the BCI tournament in Tempe, AZ in person to watch him play, while the Iowa head coach sent his assistant coaches to the event.  The excuse was that Iowa was in the middle of their basketball camp and the coach felt obligated to the campers to be there.  What was so impressive about Roy being there was that KU was in the middle of their camp as well.  Roy used a private plane to fly to Tempe after his camp session, watched Raef play (of course, making sure the LaFrentz’s knew he was there) and then flew back to Lawrence after the evening BCI games.

Another of Roy’s characteristics is that he might be the most competitive coach in the business.  Forget that “Aw shucks, Deputy Dawg, Ol’ Roy” facade.  Underneath it all beats the heart of a guy who is a fanatical, relentless game planner who would just as soon stop breathing as he would stop winning.

My take on Roy’s Haiti comment is that, while he sympathizes as much as the next person over the plight of those unfortunate people, what is it people want him to do?  If someone told him his presence in Haiti would cure the problem, my bet is he’d be on the next plane.  His comment was not meant to compare the problem in Haiti to the problems the Tar Heels are experiencing.  It was just to point out that, from the seat he’s in, as far as what he can control, for what he’s paid to do (and, since he has the highest winning percentage of any coach in the country, he apparently does it well), he - and his squad - are facing a catastrophe.  Of course not of the same proportions, but a catastrophe nonetheless.

Do his critics think he should call a team meeting and say to his guys, “Fellas, sure we’ve lost eight out of our last ten games - something that’s unacceptable in this program with all the tradition the players before you worked so hard to build - but it’s not a catastrophe?  What’s going on in Haiti is a catastrophe.”  Undoubtedly, there are readers right now who are shaking their in agreement with that past statement, but my question to you is, “How does that help North Carolina’s basketball team - or what’s going on in Haiti?” 

I wonder if the head shakers had a job in which they were graded (win or loss) at the end of certain days, and they lost eight out of ten of those (and their job security depended on having more W’s than L’s - a lot more), whether they’d feel better about their performance if they thought about the tragedy in Haiti.  

When I posed this question to Tark last night on The Jerry Tarkanian Show, he responded with a line that cut right to the heart of the matter.  His feeling was that Roy shouldn’t have said what he said - to the massage therapist.  Jerry’s thought was:

“That’s something you should only say to another coach because they would understand what you meant.”

 �

My role as host of The Jerry Tarkanian Show is to ask Jerry questions that will elicit responses that listeners will bring to work the following day so they can “one-up” their colleagues.  I call the category “I know something you don’t know.”

It seems that every time I brought up a question about why he was so successful - or even why coaches like him, e.g guys who took over “down” programs and instantly turned them around, found success, his answer was consistent.  “Great players.”  Sure, great players make coaches, but there has to be more to it than just great players. 

Finally, last night, I got him to vary his answer - although this one was rather mundane as well.  What made him get off his standard response was my bringing up the quote from Lou Holtz: “You can’t win with bad players, but you can lose with good ones.”  My octogenarian friend lit up a little and said, “That’s a great line.  I agree completely.”

So my (lengthy) follow-up question was, “How can two guys (Dick Harter and Ralph Miller), at the same time (mid-70s), coaching at the two major in-state universities (Oregon and Oregon State) have such conflicting philosophies?  I worked for Dick (an ex-Marine) and, if any of our guys ever switched on a screen, practice would stop and everybody would run.  Yet, Ralph’s feeling was, ‘To play good pressure defense, you have to use the switch.’

“Dean Smith felt changing defenses was a must, while Bob Knight refused to ever play anything but man-to-man.  And, probably the best example of an ‘anti-coach’ was John Chaney, who practiced at 5:30 am in Philadelphia (where it gets ‘uncomfortably chilly’ in the winter), played only zone (recruiters always would use that against him, saying the NBA had a no zone rule) and, had such a hatred for turnovers, encouraged his players to take bad shots, the cardinal rule be damned.  How could all these guys be so successful?”

Jerry finally gave an answer that was devoid of the words great players.  “That’s what makes basketball such a great game,” Tark said.  “There’s no one way to win.  Everyone of those guys you mentioned had players who believed in their coach’s philosophy and every one of those coaches got their teams to play hard.”

If ever there were two words that were more quoted than “great players” when discussing winning coaches, they’re “play hard.”  Yet, in this blog, the reader has the essentials to be a successful coach: great players, belief in the coach’s philosophy and play hard.

Can it really be that simple?  Yeah - except getting those three tenets accomplished isn’t.  The following quote sums up this blog, yet may not shed any light on how to get it done:

“Everything is simpler than you think and yet more complex than you imagine.”