Jack’s Blog

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!”

There hasn’t been anyone who’s seen the video of former Rutgers basketball coach Mike Rice who can believe it.  Including (probably) Mike Rice.  Coaches - even some of the most highly successful ones who have been around for a long, long time - have been quoted that they felt uncomfortable just watching it.  Kobe Bryant claimed he would’ve “smacked the hell out of him” - even if he were only an 18 year old freshman.  Yet, not one of the Rutgers’ players even gave their coach a dirty look.  Keep in mind, however, the video was a “highlight film” (or “lowlight”) of Rice’s bullying antics, i.e. what people saw wasn’t from just one practice.  In fact, it might have been a compilation of weeks of practice video.

Most people have asked “Why did they take it?”  Why did none of them act in the manner Kobe said he would have.  Did the coach brainwash them?  Actually, that might exactly be why they took it.  Here’s my scenario (and keep in mind, it’s nothing more than conjecture, i.e. there is not a shred of evidence to it):

Coach Rice: “Look, guys, we’re the ugly stepchild of this league (the Big East).  Nobody has any respect for us.  Everybody bullies us.  For us to win, we’re going to have to be tough.  Tougher than the guys who want to bully us.

“So I’m going to bully you.  Now, it will just be in practice.  Before and after practice, nothing about our relationship will change.  My door’s still always open, you’re still my guys .  But, at practice I’m going to bully you.  I’m going to shove you, verbally abuse you and throw balls at you.  How are you going to react?  Are you going to cave in to the bully?  Or are you going to ignore him, play harder and beat him?”

Once again, this is complete conjecture.  After seeing the video - and noticing the players never seemed to get upset, never questioned Rice (although in other clips, players are seen pushing back assistant Jimmy Martelli after he shoves them - hey, assistants only get so much leeway) led me to believe that these were playing along.  Like it was a play and they were playing a part in it.  Why else would macho guys - as a good deal of today’s ballers see themselves - allow themselves to be subjected to such bullying.  Especially by somebody who recruited them - who was in their homes, spoke with their parents and their coaches.  You know he never told them to expect any such tomfoolery at practices.

Naturally, even if this were true, Rice could never admit it as it’s as asinine a strategy as telling them to play on their knees in order to get lower in their defensive stances.  Plus, admitting to using the homophobic verbiage as a ploy - in any day and age - but especially this one would force any administrator to fire him on the spot.

All of the above is only my imagination’s explanation of what occurred at Rutgers, so we should all keep in mind that:

“Just because you can justify something in your own mind doesn’t make it right.”

In other Halls of Fame, in order for a coach to be inducted, I believe a coach needs to have been retired for a period of time.  Yet in college hoops, not only is there no mandatory waiting period, they seem to find it necessary to induct active coaches.  I’ve never understood why there is such a hurry to anoint coaches with such a distinction so early.  Each of the leaders who are being selected will be certainly be chosen when their careers have come to a close.  Unless the electors worry a coach is going to die “on the bench” as so many coaches claim they’re going to do because of their love of the profession or, in some instances, because (admittedly) coaching is all they know how to do.

With all the scandals we’ve been made privy to, a wiser choice would seem to be to wait so as not to remove someone who does something illegal, unethical or worse while he or she is still an active coaching member.  By no means is this blog aimed at Rick Pitino who, coincidentally, was inducted in the 2013 class.  Both Jim Boeheim and Jim Calhoun were inducted while they were active coaches (Boeheim still is - and nearly tacked on another national championship to his lengthy resume).

My point is, why take away a spot on the ballot from an “old-timer” (for lack of a better term) or detract from the retired coach who’s entering?  For the older coach it’s a chance to reminisce some and thank others who also may be later on in years.  Right now, Pitino has to try not to forget his past teams while, naturally, the guys who just gave Louisville another banner are those who are freshest on his mind.  Besides, of his recent honors, wouldn’t it stand to reason that winning a national championship (or even a Final Four appearance had the Cards not won it), having a horse qualify to run in the Kentucky Derby and getting selected in the Hall of Fame have to rank 1,2,3 - in that order?  For someone to say no, they must really love horses.

Obviously, Rick Pitino (and Jim Boeheim and Jim Calhoun) would have been voted into the Hall following their retirement.  Maybe even at a time they’d appreciate it more or at a time the spotlight had gone away for a while, so having it return would have made it a sweeter tribute.  If there was anything any coach could do in between retirement and getting selected that would preclude him or her from induction, it would have to be some heinous crime.  The way things are run now, the title would have to be vacated, bringing additional shame on the coach and the sport.

There should be a mandatory 3-5 year waiting period for coaches to get elected in the Hall of Fame (of course with exceptions for catastrophies, e.g. Jim Valvano).  The Hall needs to show some of what coaches continually preach:

“Patience!”

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.”

If you were to ask the media what percentage of the questions they ask are fair, they undoubtedly would say 100%.  Unless they’d say 110%.  That logic is based on their feeling that they not only can, but are mandated to ask any and all questions based on their belief that the public has a right to know.  How many media people would like to have the tables turned on them is unknown but we can rest assured that it would be considerably less.  Like 100%.  If not 110%.

Take last night’s scenario.  The guy’s team just lost a game.  He feels bad.  And this wasn’t just a big non-conference game, nor was it a tough contest against a conference foe, a conference tournament fray or even an early NCAA tourney defeat.  The loss was for the opportunity to play for the national championship, the ultimate in a coach’s life.  His team wasn’t blown out, which would have given him a few minutes to realize it was all over and maybe collect his thoughts.  No, it went down until the final seconds and now . . .

He has to give his final post game speech for the season to his team which is naturally quite sentimental.  If he’s like any other coach I’ve ever known (head or assistant), he’s gone up to the squad’s seniors, one at a time, and told each one how much he appreciated their effort for the past year (or two, three, four or five).  Keep in mind the pair will be ending the relationship they’ve known for however many years.  If the coach recruited that player, the finality of the situation can be overwhelming emotionally.

Finally, his school’s media relations person tells him it’s time he must, according to NCAA tournament rules, go the press room.  The head coach is certainly upset but he harbors no ill will because he 1) understands tournament procedure and 2) implicitly trusts his media person, having “gone through the wars” with him.

The media knows all of this.  While the majority are professionals, there are inevitably one or two (or maybe more, depending, quite frankly, on the coach) who are champing at the bit to ask a question (or questions) to the person who they feel disrespected them.  Maybe a member of the media doesn’t particularly like a coach because of something he said or did to a friend or colleague.  In any case, there always seems to be someone - more so if the coach is controversial - who will see if they can say something to set the coach off, to get under the his skin.

As far as asking Boeheim if he’d return for next season, was it really necessary?  Or was it asked in an attempt to provoke the coach?  Why would his answer even matter?  Would it be binding?  Or would it give that reporter a chance to get another dig in at Boeheim if he changed his mind at a later date?  Besides, how important is it?  Syracuse already has a coach-in-waiting in Mike Hopkins so it couldn’t be to run the rumor mill about which coaches will be his successor?  Obviously, my take on the situation was that the question was more irritating than unfair.

I believe it was a big league manager who once said:

“When I think someone has a hidden agenda, I never give an answer with anything that could possibly come back to haunt me.”

The hottest sports story, including the Final Four, has got to be the total mess that took place at Rutgers and the ensuing domino effect of lost jobs and misery it’s caused.  Maybe the hottest news story as well.  Until it blows over and is replaced by something else that makes us breathe a sigh of relief while saying, “Well, there’s somebody whose life is in worse shape than mine.”

There was nothing good for Rutgers that came out of this situation - except for the hundreds of coaches who are bombarding the university with their resumes for the head and assistant coaching positions.  Their problem, however, is they don’t know exactly where they should send them.  The basketball office?  Athletics director?  President’s office?  On a more somber note, I, along with every coach I’ve seen interviewed, agree none of us have ever seen anything like that.  As loyal readers will know, I spent 30 years in Division I coaching, at nine institutions, going back to 1972.  Although one of those staffs in particular held daily practices that today would probably be considered child abuse, it was nothing at all like RU.

However, what terrified me nearly as much as the videos was what I heard Christine Brennan of USA Today say.  I was completely shocked and scrambled for a pen to write it down.  While I couldn’t remember it verbatim, it was something to the effect of - what a case like this says about college athletics is that it takes the media to police them.  After hearing that, I had a question for the sanctimonious Ms. Brennan.

Are you serious?

First of all, the person you most vilified (after Mike Rice), is Rutgers athletics director Tim Pernetti - who used to be a TV guy.  Had he stayed in the media world, he might be one of your guys policing college athletics.  Wow, how ironic would that be?  The person who watched the video of Mike Rice at Rutgers’ practices and decided not to fire him (which, correctly, offended you and the entire nation) . . . would be a watchdog.  Woof.  I don’t think so.

Since there are a couple, some, many, most, the overwhelming majority of people in this country who don’t, uh, what’s the right word here, oh, yeah, . . . trust the media, what exactly is the vetting process going to be like?  Can I be on the committee?  My memory recalls there have been media members who, how should I put it, have done wrong.  I think plagiarism (whether committed at the New York Times or lesser papers) is still against the law, isn’t it?  How would such people eliminated from your “policing” program?

Yesterday happened to be my annual check up with my optometrist.  After carefully watching and reading all the reports, I asked him if he could do anything to improve my hindsight.  One person I truly admired was the late Haywood Harris who served for five decades at the University of Tennessee as its SID (Sports Information Director, now referred to as Director of Athletic Media Relations).  Haywood was as intelligent and respected as anyone in the state.  He was inducted into four different Halls of Fame.  One day, he heard a young Knoxville sportswriter proudly claim that the media was “the watchdog of society.”  Haywood looked at the visitor and said:

“I’m a member of society.  I don’t remember ever requesting a watchdog.”

P.S. Here’s another question to ponder: Do you think these tapes would have been made public had Rutgers retained Eric Murdock?

This past weekend I was listening to sports talk radio when I heard a familiar voice.  It was Bobby Cremins.  Although Bobby and I are both east coast guys, I didn’t get to know him until we were working in the Southern Conference, Bobby as the head coach at Appalachian State and me as an assistant at Western Carolina.  We became pretty good friends.  Aside from enjoying a career as a highly successful coach, Bobby is one of the most genuine guys in the business and loved by everybody in - and out -of it.  The following story is from my book, Life’s A Joke.  It is pure Bobby.

With all the stops I’ve made, I’ve witnessed some pretty great rivalries: Washington State vs. Washington, Oregon vs. Oregon State, Tennessee vs. Kentucky, Toledo vs. Bowling Green and USC vs. UCLA.  While those are certainly intense, possibly the most heated rivalry is the one between Western Carolina and Appalachian State.  Each is in the Southern Conference - Western Carolina located in the valley of the Smoky Mountains, Appy State at the very top, about a 2 1/2 hour drive from one to the other.  Each (at that time) played in cracker box gymnasiums and every game was hotly contested.

While I was there in the late ’70s, the coach at Appalachian State was Bobby Cremins who later went on to have a highly successful coaching career at Georgia Tech.  Bobby is a native New Yorker and, as had his college coach, Frank McGuire, established a New York pipeline down to Boone, NC where Appalachian State is located.  There’s a major difference between people from the east and those from the south - and this certainly holds true for the student-athletes as well.

One night in Cullowhee, where Western is located, the game was very close until ASU started to pull away at the end.  The crowning blow was a dunk by one of the Appalachian players who hailed from NYC.  As he ran by the capacity crowd of 4400 in a building designed to seat about 3400, he gave the fans the one finger salute.  The chancellor at Western Carolina at that time was, as they say Down South, “a good ol’ boy” and one of the best university administrators I’ve ever been around.  His name was Dr. H.F. “Cotton” Robinson.  Dr. Robinson was an absolutely huge sports fan, not only attending every contest on campus, but really getting involved in the game.

Because Cullowhee was the type of town it was, e.g. unincorporated, no population, no mayor, no Main Street, there weren’t too many jacket-and-tie people coming to games.  This included Dr. Robinson who always sat in the first row, opposite the visiting team’s bench, usually in corduroy pants and a plaid shirt.  Once the game ended and the coaches and players had shaken hands, Dr. Robinson made a beeline for Bobby and said how embarrassed he should be that a player who acted in such a rude manner would be representing his school.  Bobby, being from New York, said what most New Yorkers like him would say.  “Get the bleep outta here!”

Dr. Robinson replied, “Young man, I’ll have you know I’m the chancellor at this university, and I don’t appreciate you talking to me like that.”

To which, Bobby, after checking the corduroy pants and plaid shirt, and realizing that he’d never seen a person of authority dress in such a manner, said, “Get outta my face.  You’re no bleeping chancellor.”

You can only imagine how shocked and embarrassed Bobby was when his media relations director asked him what he and Western Carolina’s chancellor were talking about.

“Better to reserve judgment until you’ve accumulated ALL the facts.”

Heading into their match up with Michigan, Billy Donovan, a coach who’s noted for details or, as we’ve learned during the media time out, logistics, needed to come up with a game plan for his Florida team.  One strategy would be to pressure the Wolverines and try to force as many turnovers as they could so the Gators would have numerous opportunities to score in the open court.  That had been their usual plan throughout the season.  Another method would be to make it a half court game so that the Gators could take advantage of their superior size and pound it inside because UM usually played with four guards and only one big man.

Donovan chose the one that exploited the inside mismatch.  On paper it was an excellent philosophy - except for the fact that his inside guys weren’t as noted for their back-to-the-basket skills as much as they were for facing up and offensive rebounding.  I wonder how much time Billy himself worked with those inside guys, explaining how vital it was they scored (as much as I’d like to think players listen to an assistant - having been one for 30 years - I fully understand their antennae tune in more sharply when the head man speaks).  Not pressing the action defensively as much as they could have meant the greater majority of their point production had to come from the “bigs.”

It might have been a moot point because had his team extended its defense to attempt to create turnovers against Michigan, the Wolverines’ guards might have broken the pressure.  Then any of their three point shooters (of which they have four on the floor during most possessions) would have been knocking down shots - scoring in threes.

Basically, there are two philosophies in forming a game plan: 1) if we go to our strength(s), will that be good enough for us to win or 2) would it better to attack their weaknesses?  Naturally, there are others but for the most they’re derivatives of the two above.  Unfortunately, the Gators looked much more reactive on defense and, while they were getting the ball inside, their bigs weren’t scoring, mainly because they’re not true back-to-the-basket players.  Before you know it, they were down a couple.  Touchdowns.  It was 13-0 and it only got worse.  UF attempted to rally but every mistake was magnified, e.g. fouling a three point shooter at the end of the half which thwarted the minor momentum they’d built.

Billy Donovan has currently been to three consecutive Elite Eights.  Florida fans might be disappointed they haven’t gone farther.  Well, Gator Nation, Ben Howland is available.  Oh yeah, he committed the same crime at UCLA (although his were Final Four “failures.”  For now, the Florida faithful can take solace in the fact they seem to be stuck with Billy the Kid - the same guy they cheered when he changed his mind and reneged on the offer he’d accepted from the Orlando Magic.

When a game between relative equals starts out like the UF-UM game did yesterday, it tends to balance out after a while or, as George Raveling used to say:

“The game will return to reality.”

It doesn’t surprise anybody when I tell them the pull I have with the NCAA and the NBA is equal to the juice I have with the White House.  That doesn’t mean I don’t have a better idea when it comes to the (admitted) problem of the NCAA’s one-and-done student-athlete.  While the following post (which, by the way, I first blogged on 5/3/2010 and altered a little here) certainly could use further tweaking, it’s exponentially superior to whatever has been proposed thus far.  Plus, it’s not illegal nor does it break any NBAPA rule.  Read and let me know what you think.  Better yet, contact the NBA office.  Especially if you have clout.

So many people are up in arms regarding the NBA rule that forces a high school player to attend college for at least a year before heading to the big league.  Of course, there are alternatives, but many are pretty radical, e.g. playing overseas ala Brandon Jennings.  While it (ultimately) worked out for Jennings (keep in mind he had a terrible experience over there), others have tried and haven’t been as successful as the Bucks’ star.

If memory serves me correctly (and at this age, that being true is a toss up), David Stern said the rule is in place due to some “legalese,” i.e. he’s not too thrilled about it either, but it’s the best of all evils.  With that in mind, it means that the “road most traveled” will be to enter college for at least (and for some, at most) one year.  My claim is that the current situation can be changed for the betterment of . . . everybody.

The why are we whining about it?  Let’s deal with it.  How?  Make college more relevant to these guys.  If they are as talented as they think they are (and as influential outsiders are telling them they are), then the school’s goal should be to help them - just like colleges are helping all other students.  As I initially blogged on 5/6/07 (and have reprinted that post at least once), the reason kids go to college is not for an education, but to improve their station in life.

The one-and-dones are going to college because they have to - and once the sand runs out of that year-long hour glass, color them gone - for the big money.  If that actually is the reality - and for the great ones, it is - why not give them a curriculum to prepare them for the life they’re about to enter, e.g. show them there is relevance for them to attend college!  Why not create a major in the field.  Put off the general education classes temporarily and offer them (and any other student at the university for that matter) courses in 1) money management (including the value of philanthropy for those who really hit the jackpot), 2) how to select advisers (mentors, agents, and, although, it could be a sensitive area, friends), 3) how to deal with the media and use it to their advantage, 4) women’s rights, including “no means no” (this should be mandatory for many students in the wake of today’s front page stories), 5) nutrition, 6) maintaining physical fitness, 7) accepting (embracing) the responsibility of being a role model and acting appropriately (whether they want to or not, athletes are role models) and 8 since NBA players don’t have normal 8-hour work days, nor do they play year-round, a course in how to productively use “down-time” (from doing crosswords and sudokus to keep the mind active, to reading up on a topic of interest, to tennis and golf, to . . . whatever)?  Many other course possibilities exist if people at the top (maybe create a mastermind group) would put their heads together.  For the kid who doesn’t get drafted or realizes he’s not yet ready, or better yet, realizes a college degree might be a necessity, and at the very least, certainly wouldn’t hurt, the sophomore year can be devoted to catching up on general ed classes.

What this does is give an extremely talented (in the sport of basketball) young man something that he can actually see will help him in his life after basketball.  Although Charles Barkley is a one-of-a-kind, e.g. an out-of-shape kid who eschewed attending classes, he became one of the 50 best players in the NBA and has been inducted into both the intercollegiate and NBA Halls of Fame.  He has managed to make a great life for himself, currently serving as a studio analyst for both the NCAA and NBA as well as a pitchman for several products.  That is, he’s making a lot of money.  However, for every Charles Barkley, there are hundreds, maybe even thousands, of kids who never played a second of pro ball, nor cashed an NBA paycheck.

One night a few years ago, the guys on the set of TNT’s NBA game night studio show were giving Sir Charles a hard time about the (lack of an) Auburn education he got and leaving the school without a degree.  Charles had a pretty good comeback (which may only apply to him):

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

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.”