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.”

Yesterday, both Boston and the Lakers were down 0-3.  It was apparent that neither was going to win its series.  Yet the Celtics won Game 4 in Boston, knowing that all they have to look forward to is the Knicks’ inevitable series-clincher in New York.   Meanwhile, the Lakers lost to San Antonio in LA.  Can we conclude anything from these two performances?  Even though, without Rondo, the Celtics had almost no chance of advancing, they were well aware they didn’t dare let their long-time, ticket-buying fans down in an elimination game.  Apparently, the Lakers’ relationship with their fans isn’t quite as intimate as that of the Celts.

On TNT’s pregame show, Kenny Smith even exclaimed that he’d heard Jack Nicholson gave his tickets to his cousin.  Which, of course, was absurd.  Because Jack has a relationship with the Lakers that’s stronger than a series sweep (against - he’s witnessed the flip side), even if it’s his favorite team getting blown out twice in a row.  He remembers the past - and looks forward to the future.  Whatever (and whomever) it brings.

For the record: how many people who were criticizing the way Mike D’Antoni coached yesterday’s game would have wanted to switch places with him?  And for those foolish enough to say yes, do you really think the outcome would have been any different because of your brilliant bench manuevering?  If you do, there are talk show hosts and hundreds of callers waiting to abuse you on the Subway fresh take hot lines, #1-25.

Truthfully, Boston had a shot at winning yesterday and the Lakers didn’t.  For that game, they’d lost their their starting small forward and top four guards - one of whom happens to be one the top three players in the game.  They were so decimated with injuries, nothing could have been done against the Spurs.  Nothing.

Whether or not that is true for the entire season will remain a mystery.  The saddest part of the entire year is the truth behind Charles Barkley’s statement regarding the Lakers’ pitiful performance in Game 3:

“It’s not too many times you can take the Lakers +30 - and lose.”

As television programs go, there are many that aren’t as captivating as Inside the NBA.  The show is so entertaining that I know people who don’t watch the NBA game that’s televised that night yet will tune into Ernie & the ex-NBA stars.  The word that’s used when people try to explain why it wins awards is chemistry.

Ernie Johnson is the moderator and, maybe because he understands which guys the viewers want to hear, or maybe because he wants to keep getting paid large dollars, or maybe because it’s what his bosses tell him to do, he relinquishes the stage to Charles Barkley, Kenny Smith and Shaquille O’Neal.  Since everyone has an opinion (and they all stink - the punchline of an old adage) and this is my blog, I’ll let you know mine.  I feel the best the show was was either when it started and it was only a three-man operation, or when they added Greg Anthony.  Maybe I like guards better, but I didn’t think Chris Webber added anything to the show and I think Shaq takes away from it.

For my (cable subscription) money, I don’t see where a fourth person is necessary.  In the beginning (not to compare the show to The Bible, it’s not that good), Ernie provided the knowledge that a television pro needs to know - plus he’d throw in a witticism every so often.  Kenny’s opinion was gleaned from a guard’s point of view, as well as that of a player who not only was a member of, but was a major contributor to the championship team.  Charles gave commentary from a big man’s perspective, and also that of a Hall of Famer.  Plus, he’d say blurt out statements like, “There’s a fight I wouldn’t break up,” when player-enforcers David West and Kenyon Martin started to scuffle.  That combination was enough.  And perfect.  Why the producers or directors or Ted Turner or whoever thought the show needed anyone else is as shocking as why they continue to allow Shaq overdo whatever schtick comes to his mind.

What the fans get to see is how varied opinions, based on their experiences, can be - whether you hear analysis from a guard (Kenny or Greg), “The guards need to establish tempo” or from the big guys (Charles, C Webb or Shaq), “They need to get the ball inside.”  The fans also get - or have to put up with - depending on the reason a viewer is tuning in, the tomfoolery among the combatants.  Often it is hilarious, sometimes with the on-air banter, sometimes with the vignettes the producers put together to tease the guys in the studio.  Charles has been an amazingly good sport as the other guys, including those not on camera, continually poke fun at him for various mistakes he’s made, things he’s said or . . . pretty much anything from his life.  However, his attitude might just be a case of a healthy salary because the Chuckster once said on-air “I can be bought.  If they paid me enough, I’d work for the Klan.”  Make no mistake about that, however.  On that, he was joking.

Kenny is the perfect foil to Charles (or maybe it’s the other way around).  Charles knows the bond the two of them have is such that anytime Kenny’s embarrassing him, it’s only for the sake of good TV.  Kenny does a great job when he’s explaining video, illustrating his point so that someone who’s not that into the hoops can understand the point he’s trying to make.

Shaq seems to have been added more to capture the interest of a different demographic of basketball fan with his references to today’s music, dance and lingo.  The issue with him is he overdoes it.  His stuff becomes old and tired - and he refuses to let up.  He either doesn’t know he’s annoying or doesn’t care.  Or enjoys it!  I mean wasn’t there anybody in the studio telling him “Birdman, Birdman” was getting old?  I’m not sure how many times he said it last night but, then again, I can’t count to infinity.

The show has obvious off-camera, inside jokes among the four of them, but those are almost funny in a teasing sort of way.  The show can have it’s serious moments as well (apart from the obvious basketball talk).  Although Charles can learn from Shaq about overdoing something (enough already with the “Only God’s an expert,”), Chuck has made several poignant statements.  It’s apparent when he’s passionate about a topic, e.g. remarking on not taking being an NBA player as seriously as those of the five other professions he mentioned (teacher, policeman, fireman, doctor, military) - although plumbers, electricians, maintenance workers, auto mechanics and others working in fields outside the five he mentioned might be offended.  His sincerity does show through.  As it did when he remarked:

“The great thing about sports is that it takes you away from reality.”

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.”

After an 82 games (not including those always exciting preseason tilts), the NBA moves into the “games that really count” portion of the schedule.  The first round used to be best-of-five but they were changed to best-of-seven for two (really one) reason(s).  The first was that best-of-seven add more games (even though it may only be one game per match up) and more games mean more money.  The other (as in redundant) reason is that, on occasion, the lower seed would win - which usually translated into fewer games - meaning less money.  And, as we’ve all come to know, if there’s one thing owners desperately care about it’s the health and well-being of the players money.

Way back when I was a youngster (as in 50 or so years ago), we knew what season it was by what professional sport was playing its games.  Baseball’s guys were called “the men of summer.”  Football was played when the leaves were turning colors, i.e. fall.  Basketball was indoors because it was in the winter.  Spring was for baseball’s spring training unless you lived in the south (or Texas or Oklahoma), in which case it was reserved for college’s spring football.

All the best bowl games were New Year’s Day and a week or so later the championship game in pro football, which became known as the Super Bowl, was played.  Now, the Super Bowl is in February (which only has 28 days so it could be in jeopardy of losing its showpiece television program).  The World Series has ended in November which means the new baseball fan will wonder if Reggie Jackson is known as Mr. October because he couldn’t deliver in the biggest games.  And while it used to be that basketball’s end meant baseball was about to begin, the NBA Finals may have to be scheduled around the major league all-star game.

Since it’s finally here, let the youngsters make believe they’re hitting the game-winner while we reflect on having done the same in our youth.  Beyond the memories, let’s just sit back and watch the world’s greatest athletes perform acts that would be difficult for viewers a foot shorter or a light year slower.  Basketball has become a combination of ballet and MMA in which there needs to be a strong emphasis of teamwork.  I’m not sure Dr. Naismith would be proud or utterly confused.

While NBA players are usually the most confident bunch in the world (next to boxers), this year (at least so far) there haven’t been too many outlandish quotes.  I saw one attributed to the Grizzlies’ Tony Allen which, undoubtedly, will be repeated thousands of times by countless others:

“We just want to take it one game at a time.”

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

Tangible reasons:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

            10 – 42 NBA draft picks, 12 first-rounders

Intangible reasons:

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

                  say his teams didn’t play hard. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The intent of the NBA draft was to give the poorest (as in record) team a chance to make itself better.  Then the next, the next, and so on.  The worse a team did, the earlier it got to select from the draft-eligible players. But then teams got slick.  They figured, heck, we’re pretty bad this year, but with Player X (usually the best collegiate player) on our squad, we could dominate.  For years.  Why not lose a few on purpose so we can get his draft rights?  Since that logic isn’t exactly out of the Einstein School of Thought, the idea crossed the minds of the collective braintrusts of other bad teams and, well, you can see how convoluted things got when only a few games remained in the season and two or three teams were falling all over themselves to finish first.  In the Player X sweepstakes.  Or last in the NBA.  Beyond just screwing the ticket-paying public, it kinda messed with something that’s called the integrity of the game.The NBA powers-that-be came up with a lottery system which gave ping pong balls to the lottery teams, i.e. the bottom 14 of the 30 NBA teams that don’t make the playoffs.  The number of chances to win were given in reverse order of how the teams finished.  Different methods of deciding who got what have occurred throughout the years from 1985 until the present.  In 1993, real smart guys were called in to decide the “fairest” way to decide how the selection should be for the ‘94 draft.  When real smart guys and basketball guys get together, worlds collide.  Basketball guys score in ones, twos and threes (and it took a reeeeeal long time before threes were allowed.  If smart guys were in charge of scoring, there would be square roots and decimal points involved and it would be a week after the game was played before we’d know who won.  Suffice to say this lottery system gives the team with the worst record a greater chance to win it than any other team.  25%.  That is technically true.  But while the last place team has a better chance to win than any other team, it has a much less chance to win the lottery!

Without going into all the permutations and combinations (I was a math major in college but definitely not one of the “smart guys”), the team with the worst record has the greatest opportunity to “win” the lottery.  It’s just that those odds aren’t very good.  For example, last year’s worst team was the Charlotte Bobcats.  They had the best chance to win the #1 pick who, even the youngest of NBA fans knew, was going to be Kentucky’s Anthony Davis.  Whoever got Davis was getting a franchise player.  The Bobcats faithful had suffered through a dismal season but that would be old news if they could only start fresh with AD.  Then, the lottery came and they lost again.  And the reason was that, although Charlotte had a better chance of winning the lottery than any other NBA team, they still had a 75% chance of NOT winning it!

It’s easy to say something’s broken without giving a way to fix it but the lottery needs a different formula, mainly because the worst team hardly ever gets the pick.  Face it, last year the Bobcats were so bad that if they had tried to throw a game, they would have missed. The season was dreadful and then they get sand kicked in their face when they got third in the lottery.

This year, whoever has the worst record (Charlotte or Orlando) will have that same 25% chance of winning.  Except the lottery will be composed of guys who, other than foreign players, are looked down upon by NBA scouts.  Then why would they leave college?  Three reasons: 1) it’s supposedly a weak lottery field and 2) next year’s draft is supposedly better.  Combining 1) and 2) we get 3) somebody has to get selected. And going in the first round means guaranteed money.

To steal a memorable line from the late, great Jim Murray (who did not direct it toward the NBA draft), the description this year’s lottery could be:

“Never have so many done so little for so much.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“I took it as a compliment!”