Jack’s Blog

The guys from TNT’s NBA studio show are an interesting bunch.  I feel they had it perfect a few years ago before adding a fourth member.  Ernie Johnson is a true pro who can keep a show going and, when necessary, throw in a quip or two of his own.  He realizes the stars of the show are the analysts, i.e. the former NBA players, much of their commentary being based on past experiences.

Charles Barkley gives the perspective of the team stud who, although close, could never get his guys an NBA championship.  He has no problem admitting how frustrating it was being on a number of teams, yet never grasping the golden ring.  While Kenny Smith was a starter and integral member of a championship squad, he was by no means the superstar.  Not with Hakeem as his teammate.

It was a perfect trio.  Everybody had enough time to express their opinion and still inject a good deal of humor, some of it inside stuff, some of it from “down home” (Charles), some of it from the street (Kenny).  Ernie was a wonderful foil for the other guys, often serving as the butt of the joke, but having no ego or issue with accepting his role.  When the station added a fourth, no matter who filled the seat, he upset the timing.  What information he added wasn’t as necessary as the time he took away from the show.

During a recent broadcast, one of the guards involved (a good possibility is J.R. Smith) was going through a miserable shooting series - not just a game - and the question was posed regarding how to snap out of it.  Opinions were offered.  One I remembered, and have heard on other occasions, was to get to the free throw line.  Many coaches agree with that idea.  Then Kenny was asked what he thought.  His reply made a great deal of sense as well - certainly for players who cared enough to attempt it.  It was “to play better defense.”  He explained that many times players thought about their shooting woes and thinking was the last thing they needed to do.  “Focusing at the defensive end” kept a player’s mind from being overwhelmed by negative thoughts and making a key defensive play or getting a steal which led to an easy hoop was a better formula.

In the world of TV, as in other areas, it’s often true:

“More is not always better.”

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.”

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.”

Since Michael Jordan turned 50 this past Sunday, talk show hosts (and several other media members) felt it was necessary to raise the unanswerable question of “Who’s the best player of all-time?”  Naturally, because they are the two best current players (with Kevin Durant nipping at their heels), the argument shifted to who’s better between Kobe Bryant and LeBron James.

All the comments were made - Kobe has five rings, LeBron is at his prime with many years left to play dominate.  The debate is a necessary one - if you’re ten years old.  Maybe fifteen.  Anytime past that age, if you continue to play the “who’s better/who’s the best game,” you need to at least realize that there are no winners (and plenty of losers.

Kobe is sensational - skill set, mind set, defensive ability, personal drive and (which can be a negative, depending on how strong or fragile your teammates are) ability to demand/produce the best in your teammates.  MJ shared the exact same qualities.  Which is why Kobe has them - because, from the day he entered the league, he has modeled everything he does like Jordan.  Not just his play, which is sensational, but his mannerisms, his dealing with the media, his gait … his being.

LeBron can’t match those two because his skills, body, mental aspect - nothing - is like those two.  He’s 6′8″ and willing to admit to 250, with rumors as high as 280, and negligible body fat.  For that reason, people have tried to compare him to Magic.  LeBron is no Magic either, if for no other reason than Magic was a point guard and LeBron is not.  LeBron is the epitome of what Don Nelson used to call a point guard.  Magic ran the show and, when he shot, it was a set shot.  He could drive, but it usually ended with a pass or a layup, seldom a dunk.  LeBron is the show, shoots (real) jumpers, and when he drives, the result is … louder.  It still obtains the same desired results as Magic - Ws.

Sure, you can get into “rings,” what we used to call championships but what now needs to be defined as something you can wear and show off, as opposed to a something you were part of, that only a selected few can actually claim they “be” (as opposed to “have”).  So when the trump card in the Kobe vs. LeBron debate is five rings to one, the line LeBron used (oh so obviously created by one of his publicists), that if rings are the determining factor, then Bill Russell must be the best because he has 11 and Michael has six.”  Then, others had to be brought in besides Russell, e.g. Wilt Chamberlain, Jud Bueschler, Charles Barkley, Robert Horry, Reggie Miller, Karl Malone, Patrick Ewing and a cast of characters from NBA past and present.

I’m on record as saying MJ is the G.O.A.T. but as far as Kobe versus LeBron, it’s too tough a call.  They’re waaaaaay different, each with their own strengths.  Kobe couldn’t have won as many without Shaq but Shaq couldn’t win as many without Kobe (even though they each did without each other).  LeBron couldn’t win without selecting his current teammates but, c’mon, he got to the Finals with the Cavs.  Have you ever checked that roster?  Closely checked it?  Had he won the whole thing with that group, the comparisons would be with Bill Walton and the Trailblazers.  Take LeBron off the Cavs and Walton off the Blazers and pit the remaining players against each other.  That finals would probably be the least watched in television history.  Definitely the most boring, lackluster series ever.

It’s been used before but John Harbaugh’s rule should be considered prior to anyone opening their mouth in the Kobe-LBJ discussion:

“I’ve got this rule.  We make no comparisons.  Somebody is going to be devalued.”

Note:  There are many jobs in broadcast journalism.  This blog encompasses the person doing play-by-play, color commentator, studio show participants, sideline reporters, anyone who has an on-air position behind a microphone.

Basically, there are two types of sports announcers.  One is the former successful player or coach who, while having no formal training or academic background in broadcasting, gives the viewer the inside look on the field of play or in the locker room.  The other group is composed of well-educated men or women who probably were the manager or writer for the school paper due to their lack of athletic ability.  Naturally, there are others in the field who don’t fall into either category.  If you’re interested in those people, this isn’t the place for you.  I only include that because it seems people are facing legal action if no such disclaimer is stated.

Listeners are usually split as far as which group they like better.  Or, because the world has become so negative, dislike less.  However, each has followers from the other’s side.  From the “non-jock” organization, many of those fans may have a favorite superstar they loved when they were growing up.  On the flip side, the ex-athlete or coach might, especially if he or she is cynical, enjoy the talking heads whose acts are based on sarcasm.

It’s difficult for anyone not to appreciate the skills and delivery of veterans Al Michaels, Bob Costas, James Brown or my favorite of all-time, Vin Scully.  Similarly, the ex-jocks/coaches who are unanimously appreciated for their knowledge of explaining the game are Doug Collins, Mike Fratello, Gary Danielson, and in his own way - and no one else has quite the “way” - Charles Barkley.

Where the debate arises is in the presentation strategy of the two groups (excluding the above and selected others), i.e. the manner in which they choose to educate, inform or entertain the listener.  It’s appallingly evident that some of the former athletes don’t do their homework, feeling they’re entitled to the job and need only to throw in an occasional comment or relate a story, however meaningful, or not, it might be.  Their feeling is they busted their butts for so many years - physically.  Nobody out there in the audience has any idea how difficult it was.  And because of that sacrifice - and commitment - they should get a pass, i.e. a great paying job (although it’s a major cut for them).  Even when told that’s not the way the world works, their response is, “It is for me.”  Read Robert Parish’s recent comments as the perfect example.

Then there’s the “new wave” of reporters, i.e. the post-Jim Rome/Keith Olberman era.  They have their own set of rules as well.  “We went to school to learn our craft, not have it bequeathed to us.”  And, with this kind, anything goes.  Many are bitter.  Maybe because they were cut from their teams, relegated to the scorebook or collecting the equipment, while the jocks got everything they wanted - including girls.  This injustice burned inside them.  The serious ones went to college to become as good at reporting the game as their prima donna friends were at playing it.  Undoubtedly, there are a good number who simply wanted a job in journalism and possessed that same work ethic their athletic friends had.  And they have the majority of fans.  Those who didn’t want the rigors of school; they just want to bitch.

As has been stated earlier, the world has turned highly cynical, for whatever reason - from pampered athletes to people buying political offices to others stealing money from and bankrupting friends to banks defrauding people while their CEOs walked away with multi-million dollar packages.  That would upset most people - and it certainly has.  People have become more concerned, not with what they don’t have but with what other people do.  Why?  How does it help?

Maybe it doesn’t but complaining feels good and if you’re good enough, you can get paid.  Except for the slackers (and it’s becoming more and more apparent who they are), it comes down to either knowledgeable people (former player/coach or not) talking their listeners: the ones who understand what’s happening and want to know more, or the guy who comes on, baring his teeth, ready to pounce on whatever story that listener - the one who thrives on other people’s misery - can complain about the rest of the day.  Even though it does no one any good.

My main man, the late John Savage’s line was:

“You don’t strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.”

It’s always amusing to me when fans hit the panic button after the first game of the season.  Well, for supporters like that, the Lakers just forced a major run on panic buttons.  The only thing about that is this time, it might just be the proper move to make.

It’s widely known the Lakers went 0-8 in the preseason.  LA coach Mike Brown even said his team might go winless in the preseason.  The staff was trying to put in the Princeton offense.  Ding!  Ding!  Ding!  There is the problem.  Pete Carril, the inventor of the Princeton offense when he was head coach at - duh - did so for a couple of reasons.  One was, being at Princeton, he had guys who were extraordinarily bright.  This isn’t always a formula for success in athletics as book smart doesn’t necessarily equate to ball smart.  But Pete’s guys were both.  Secondly, Pete knew that when his teams played the “big boys,” the only chance he had was to slow the game down and frustrate better players.

Certainly, running the Princeton offense wasn’t going to be done because the Lakers were smarter than their opponents (even though their starting five might just be).  The Lakers have better players than their opponents (maybe not all of them) and need to be doing exactly what Pete Carril was doing at Princeton, i.e. taking advantage of his players’ abilities.  Like pushing the ball first and foremost, then running pick and rolls with Steve Nash, pounding the ball inside to Dwight Howard, isolating Kobe Bryant - putting all their guys in positions to do what they do best - exactly what Carril’s offense did.

Defensively, one issue they have is that they have to doubleteam every pick and roll because of Nash.  They obviously can’t switch.  He also has a tough time staying in front of quicker guards and as he gets older, there are A LOT of quicker guards (while attacking him wears him down, so has Father Time).

One question lingers: did Brown really not care if they went 0-8 in the preseason because, as Vince Lombardi said, “Winning is a habit; so is losing” and we all know basketball (as are most sports) is a game of habits.  Sure, all the guys weren’t playing in preseason games so it’s tough to get in sync.  But this was a home loss, to a Mavs team without Chris Kaman.  And, oh yeah, Dirk Nowitzki.  Charles Barkley wasn’t even commenting on the Lakers’ loss when he said post game, “You can’t judge the Mavs without their two best players - Dirk and Kaman.”  Ouch.

So is it time to panic?  Hey, it’s only 1 game out of 82 (at least they get in a whole season this year).  Can they come back?  Sure.  Although I am truly an admirer of the Princeton offense, Los Angeles is not the time nor the place to run it.  Except for maybe Cal Tech.

Mike Brown comes off as a pretty cool customer and is certainly an intelligent man but he ought to consider this one stat.  Last night was the only game in Steve Nash’s career in which he scored less than ten points and had fewer than five assists when playing at least 20 minutes.  There are many learned people who will tell you that stubbornness is an admirable quality.  Mike Brown seems to come off that way.   He would be wise to keep in mind Alexander Herzen’s thought on being stubborn, considering how many coaches’ careers have ended because of it:

“There is nothing in the world more stubborn than a corpse: you can hit it, you can knock it to pieces, but you cannot convince it.”

On May 3, 2010 I blogged about the one-and-done situation in college basketball.  I’ve received many compliments about my idea.  However, none of the people had any “juice.”  Read on and let me know if you think there’s any merit to my madness.  Especially if you have “juice.”

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.

If that’s the case, why whine about it?  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 for life after college - just like they do for 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’s 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?  That’s exactly what the basketball coach is doing in practice.  How about offering them (and any other student at the university) courses such as money management (including philanthropy for those who hit the jackpot), selecting advisers (mentors, agents, and, although, it could be a sensitive area, friends, i.e. posses), dealing with the media, women’s rights (this should be mandatory for many students in the wake of today’s front page stories), nutrition, maintaining physical fitness, accepting the responsibility of being a role model and acting appropriately (whether they want to or not, athletes are role models) and, 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 keeping the mind active, to reading up on a topic of interest, to tennis and golf)?  Many other course possibilities exist if people at the top would put their heads together.

What this does is give an extremely talented young man something that he can actually see will help him in his life after college.  Plus, it makes college interesting for guys.  And that might never have occurred to them before attending classes in which they saw value.  Maybe they won’t actually graduate (according to published graduation rates, several other non-athletes fail to do so as well) but the experience will be a positive, as opposed to a fraud (which, in many cases, is currently the situation).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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