Jack’s Blog

It’s vacation time!  This will be my last blog until Tuesday, May 14.  Look forward to returning with more stories to entertain and inspire.

Whatever anyone says about Jerry Tarkanian, no one refutes he was the master of getting guys to play hard.  The one type of guy who Tark couldn’t stand to have on his team, whom he knew that if he played, sooner or later, they were going to lose.  He called that kind of player a “Cool Guy.”  I haven’t talked to him yet about the Chicago Bulls but I imagine he was totally impressed.  Not because they won in Game 7 but because . . . they don’t have any cool guys.

One coach Tark has always been unbelievably impressed with is Tom Thibodeau.  Tibbs doesn’t like cool guys either.  He took a Chicago Bulls team without Kirk Heinrich, Luol Deng and, of course, Derrick Rose, a former MVP whose services he hasn’t had all year, into Brooklyn’s brand new digs and came out a winner.  He took a franchise which has had incredible success - but had never, NEVER, won a game 7 on the road.  Yet they did it.  Why?

Thibodeau has been telling us all along:

“We have enough.”

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.”

If anyone ever wanted to see a weird playoff basketball game, the Chicago Bulls and Brooklyn Nets were more than happy to oblige.  During the regular season, there are games in which one team jumps out on another and the team that’s behind comes back to make a game of it, sometimes even win it.  But usually, there’s an underlying reason.  The team that’s ahead might be playing the third game of a back-to-back-to-back and exhaustion finally sets in.  Maybe there’s some other scenario.  Whatever.  Sometimes it happens.

But in the playoffs?  And with a 5′8″ guy who takes over as if the game was invented for short people.  Nate Robinson got into one of those zones where no one could stop him - and, which is not always the case - his teammates recognized it.  Robinson scored 24 points - from the fourth quarter on!  Of course there were three OTs to give him a few more scoring opportunities but he was clearly the X factor.

In terms of physical attributes, while his best one surely isn’t his height, believe it or not, it’s not his quickness either.  Sure, the little fella is definitely quick enough but his true strength is . . . his strength.  Plus he’s low enough to the floor that he’s impossible knock off balance.  Yet none of Nate would have been necessary had C.J. Watson not missed a wide open transition layup/dunk with 3:16 left in the game and his team up 14 points.  Here’s a coaching point for C.J.  Either jump higher or just lay the damn ball in the basket.  You can never be ahead by too much.

Another coaching point for the Nets is, especially in one possession games, it’s mandatory to block out on missed free throws because Nazr Mohammed’s rebound of Carlos Boozer’s free throw pretty much iced the game that should have been yours.

To say that Bulls’ coach Tom Thibodeau is a basketball purist is like saying Euclid understood geometry.  So, Nate Robinson (whose line happened to be 34 points, 4 assists, 2 steals and a huge forced five-second call on a Nets’ side OB play), if Dr. Tibbs gets pissed when you take bad shots - which you are prone to do (and, for the record, did last night on several occasions) - how do you handle him in the huddle?  Nate’s answer last night was classic:

“Just keep shootin’ and hope to make ‘em.”

P.S. The OKC-Houston game could have easily been the subject of this blog.  39-19 OKC at the end of the first quarter.  Thunder up 26 with 8:00 minutes to go in the half, Rockets go ahead with 3:45 to go in the game and are up two under a minute.  Kevin Durant took a three-pointer that hit the back rim, then hit the side of the rim, then hit the back rim again, then fell through.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are two constants that viewers of NBA playoff games - or is it any game? - can count on.  One of them is players complaining to referees following fouls called on them.  Or fouls not called on guys guarding them.  Dwight Howard, Pau, Russell Westbrook, KD, Melo, Boozer, KG, Blake Griffin, Tim Duncan, Zach Randolph, LeBron, Bosh, and for all intents and purposes, every other player in the league.  Possibly, it’s because they’re embarrassed they missed a shot.  Or maybe they really got fouled and the ref missed the call.  Or it should have been a charge instead of a block - or a block instead of a charge.

Whatever the case, the following scenario is guaranteed.  The offended player gives the referee the stank eye, then mumbles (or louder and clearer) his displeasure.  Something like “It was a clean block”/”Didn’t you see him hit me?”  Occasionally, additional adjectives an adverbs find their way into the conversation.  In some cases, he will soon be donating money to the league.

The second constant is the refs don’t change their minds.  Larry Sanders of the Milwaukee Bucks put it best in the 4/15/13 edition of Sports Illustrated when he discussed his new found philosophy toward officials:

“What’s going on here?  I’m arguing with the ref, but he’s not the enemy.  Sometimes he makes good calls, sometimes he makes bad calls, but he never overturns his calls.  So what am I doing?”

Heading to Monterey for the Cal State Monterey Bay men’s basketball awards banquet.  Will most likely spend a couple days on the coast.  This blog will return on Wednesday.

The Knicks beat the Celtics.  The Celts are going to have a tough go of it.  Don’t even try to say, as some have, Boston is better without Rajon Rondo.  In every game he plays, he’s extremely likely to have a triple-double and unless that productivity can be replaced by a player or players in some other area(s), it’s just too much offense to give up.  And he disrupts the opponent’s offense because of his quickness, anticipation and long arms.

In the Denver-Golden State game, Andre Miller showed old guys can still play - that an incredibly high basketball IQ can make up for what Father Time has taken away.  As the father of a son whose game is highly dependent on basketball intelligence, it’s refreshing to see winning is not all about the “wow factor.”

Bill Simmons showed why he is on the studio show.  He represents “Joe Fan” which he proved during the halftime segment of the Nets-Bulls game.  With the score 60-35 in favor of Brooklyn, Simmons incredibly said “Well, it looks like a sweep?”  Sweep?  He sounds just like a guy sitting at the end of a bar who is pissed off because he has $20 on the Bulls plus the points.  Knowledgeable sports people understand that a 25-point halftime lead in Game One only guarantees you one game in the series.  Maybe.  Sure the Nets might sweep, but it’s a tad premature to give up on Chicago at least winning a game just yet.

Simmons again displayed his less-than-brilliant insight when he claimed at halftime that, while Chauncey Billups was having a great game (10 points), it wasn’t wise for LA to play him because in the next round they’ll need the quickness of Eric Bledsoe.  It was subsequently mentioned by one of his colleagues - and probably 90% of the viewing audience - that playing Billups this series would be fine because Bledsoe could replace him in the next series.  Duh.

As extra added bonus analysis, Simmons oh-so-cleverly brought to the viewers’ attention that, “Kobe Bryant’s twitter feed is going to be a very interesting subplot,” inferring Mike D’Antoni ought to be worried about what his injured star tweets.  As if trying to beat the Spurs, without Kobe and possibly, Steve Nash, isn’t enough to keep him up at night.  Simmons has a huge following because there are so many fans out there like him, i.e. guys who never played and who love to criticize guys who do.  Or idolize them.  His sport has always dealt with a pen and paper.  He’s taken his game to the next level by mastering the computer and social media.

For ESPN’s halftime studio show, he serves as comic relief.  He has had run-ins with the station (according to his Wikipedia page) over censorship matters, among other issues.  Maybe the best advice he could receive is:

“Don’t take yourself so seriously; no one else does.”

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.”

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.”

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!”