Jack’s Blog

Each one of the hundreds of players who competed in Las Vegas last weekend has dreams of moving on to continue their career in college.  Whether they get to play where they want - or if they get to put on a college uniform at all - likely depends on what college coaches saw when they were evaluating.  The operative word here is saw.  Being seen is mandatory. 

For the top tier players, they got a taste of the recruiting process well before they were contacted by any institution of higher learning.  The war to obtain the services of the upper echelon high school star can be worse than the recruitment he faces from the colleges - and that’s mainly because the colleges are under NCAA rules, which are infinitely more strict than those summer league coaches, shoe reps, or “runners” for sports agents have to adhere to.  If there are any at all! 

Players are wooed by “organizations” with all the (legal) perks - flown to and from practices (those they’re was required to attend) since the hometowns of many are located too far away to make driving impractical.  Obviously, they’re was flown to events (from their hometowns) if they aren’t with the team when it departs to compete in tournaments all across the nation.  The swag that goes along with participation is all top notch - however many pairs of shoes are needed, gear in the form of uniforms, t-shirts, sweat suits, shooting shirts, any accoutrements (sleeves, braces, compression shorts, etc.) and, on several occasions, even meals.  Naturally, hotel accommodations were booked at no charge.

To my knowledge, there is no NCAA regulation against any of this - although the folks in Indy don’t in any way endorse this practice and would like it all to miraculously disappear.  Their biggest fears are the precedents that are being set and the expectations kids at a very impressionable age think they’re entitled to.

I happened to learn of one such player whose father was quite pleased with the attention his son was getting, but became somewhat disillusioned when the insanity known as the “evaluation period” for NCAA coaches began.  He was quoted as saying that his son enjoyed the experience (hey, red carpet treatment is something all of us would love to try - even once) but, according to this dad, the organizers “were guys who always wanted more.  Each tournament we go to, two new guys show up.”  When people are given lavish gifts, there has to be some ulterior motive behind it.  If you’re lucky, it has to do with winning.  It could deal with control.

What complicates matters - and is behind the, as Pat Riley used to call it - “The Disease of More,” is, down deep, these kids don’t care about winning (except in the instances where a loss eliminates the team from further competition).  What they want - and understandably so - is an opportunity to showcase their individual talents.  They know that college coaches aren’t recruiting their team, but whichever individuals impress them enough to offer a scholarship (let’s leave “beyond a scholarship” for another blog).  In case you’ve never seen this brand of basketball, it’s rife with selfishness - and, due to the nature of it, it’s tough to blame the kids. 

As far as selecting which group to play for, high school kids need to understand the following line (which I read somewhere, many years ago):

“Remember, when you sell your soul to the devil, the devil owns it.”      �

Finally out of that intense Las Vegas heat and back to Fresno - where, just to remind us of the fun we had in Sin City, the thermometer is well over 100.

Younger son, Alex, and the undermanned AAU team of kids from Central Cali (Organized Chaos), represented the Valley well, going undefeated (3-0) in their pool and winning two games in the “Championship” bracket (including a 77-51 trouncing of D-1 Sports of NC, led by Quincy Miller, rated by most as the #2 rising senior prospect in the nation) before dropping a two-point decision to Urban DFW in a contest in which OC led most of the way.

Other than getting a chance for my wife and I to watch our son and agonize over every missed shot and turnover, cheer every basket and assist and “help” the officials (some parents more than others - they know who they are), the trip gave me a chance to catch up with some old coaching friends I haven’t seen in a decade or longer.  NCAA rules preclude coaches from talking to parents of prospects at such an event but, because I have what’s referred to as a “pre-existing relationship” with so many of these guys, I enjoyed speaking, without fear of them getting in trouble, with many of the coaches whose profession I used to call my own.  Heck, I’ve known these guys a whole lot longer than I’ve known my son!

To paint a picture of what last Wed-Mon was like, there were three or four tournaments in Las Vegas involving high school prospects.  The one our kids played in (the adidas Super 64) had 40 pools of 4 teams in each pool.  160 teams!  Following pool play, teams were placed in “championship,” “gold,” “silver” or “bronze” divisions, depending on their record against the other three teams in their respective pool.  Then, single elimination tournaments began.  The other events were similar, although their numbers weren’t quite so high, more like 30-60 teams. 

One day, I received a call from a friend and former colleague who I had actually helped get into the business.  He’s currently an assistant coach at a school in a league that would be referred to as mid-major.  He called while travelling from one of the 20 or so sites.  The pace is hectic, as coaching staffs try to see (and be seen by) as many of their “top-line” prospects as they can, evaluate those players they’ve heard about or received interest from (but have yet to see play) and, especially in the case of low-to-mid-majors, maybe find an as yet unknown player whom they’d have a shot at successfully recruiting.

This coach remarked to me that he was fully aware his job was to get players, players who, in coaching parlance, “could play,” i.e. make their team better, win more games and get his team into the NCAA tournament - or get fired.  For the most part, that’s the prevailing attitude that exists in Division I now.  Why?

I posted a blog on 11/28/07 entitled The Biggest Problem in College Basketball Today.  My number one answer?  Colleges are paying coaches too much money.  Whether you agree or not, the blog is well worth reading and I suggest you check it out, keeping in mind I wrote it nearly three years ago.  The game - and profession - have progressed but, often, with progress comes problems.  Or in the case of today’s college basketball scene, increased pressure.  While what Gonzaga has done, i.e. seeing them in a Top 10 poll is no longer shocking, is remarkable, the presidents and athletics directors of the other seven teams in the WCC (Gonzaga’s conference) adopt a feeling of “If they can do it, why can’t we?” 

The WCC is a league of eight church-schools, six in California and the University of Portland, in addition to the Zags, so resources would seem to have been relatively equal throughout the league when Gonzaga began its ascent.  Don’t think the prez’s and AD’s don’t have egos.  When their counterparts from Gonzaga walk into WCC meetings, the “have-nots” begin to wonder, “Why not us?”  Changing the coach often becomes the answer.  So, while my friend’s statement about “get players or else” might have seemed a little dramatic, it’s become reality.

Yet, coaches love their profession.  Some for different reasons than others, but working long hours - and many days on the road - is just part of the job.  Consumed is the word that’s used when the coaching profession is discussed.  As a sort of personal experiment, I asked my friend if he knew who Shirley Sherrod was.  Although hers was the lead story in nearly every paper in the nation, he told me he didn’t.  In fact, when he called, he was in the car with an assistant coach from a high-major program (BCS) and he asked him if he knew about Shirley Sherrod.  Same response. 

I am not including this story to disparage nor criticize my friend and his associate.  It’s mentioned because, when I was an assistant (between 1972-2002), I wouldn’t have known about a front-page story like Shirley Sherrod either.  I don’t mean to infer that every coach on the Division I level is ignorant of the Shirley Sherrod story.  It’s just that, because of the consuming aspect of the job, there’s a feeling that nothing else matters other than what you ought to be doing to make your team better and advance your career (or keep from derailing it).  In addition, you get the (absurd) feeling that while you’re reading about that A-1 story, you could be calling a prospect or seeing another game.

My late, brilliant mentor, John Savage, used to say there were some people at opposite ends of the spectrum.  Most coaches were the latter in his statement:

“Some people are a mile wide and an inch deep, while others are an inch wide and a mile deep.”�

In my 30-year career, spent at nine Division I institutions, I can categorically say I never met anyone more loyal to their university than Mike Garrett is to the University of Southern California.  Pat Summitt and Gus Manning, UT’s second sports information director (Lindsey Nelson was the first) and former ticket manager, and their relationships with Tennessee, and Bobo Brayton (retired baseball coach) and the feelings he has toward Washington State come close but Garrett’s loyalty for his alma mater was borderline obsessive.  Now, it looks like he finally crossed the border.

Mike publicly admitted that, had the current NCAA eligibility rules, e.g. clearinghouse, been in place when he was a high school senior, his grades/standardized test scores would not have been nearly high enough for admittance to SC.  He readily told people that everything he had achieved was due to the Trojan family.  To Garrett, there were two types of people in the world - those who went to USC and those who couldn’t get in.  That undying loyalty served him well - as long as those he was dealing shared the sentiment.  SI ran a piece quoting Garrett, after he read the charges sent from the NCAA, “All I see is people who wish they were Trojans.”  He felt whatever was done at SC was justified. 

Before I go on, let me say this.  After having worked at SC for four years, I can vouch for the fact that the Trojan family is real.  During my tenure there, I believe the percentage of businesses in Southern California that were owned by SC graduates was 72%.  We used to tell kids in our recruiting pitch that if a student graduated from USC, he was guaranteed an interview (not a job) from any of those businesses.  To my knowledge, that policy is still in place.

From a standpoint of dealing with others, what he had in loyalty, Mike Garrett lacked in people skills.  Allow me to share a personal story, not in an effort to burn any bridges nor to pile on, but because it’s pertinent to this post.

One day, Mike called down to the basketball office and I happened to be the only coach who was in.  Our secretary put his call through and when I answered, he said, “Jack, I have a problem with the basketball staff.”

We (the basketball coaches) had a cordial relationship from the time he first returned to SC as associate AD (we ended that season in the top 10 in the nation), so I was really taken aback by his statement.  “What’s the problem, Mike?”  I asked.

“You guys can’t even keep your best player happy,” he replied.

I honestly had absolutely no idea which guy he was talking about.  “Who do you mean,” I said. 

There was about a 4-5 second pause on his end, which I soon realized was due to the fact he was thinking I was being a wise guy.  Then it finally registered with him that, rather than displaying insubordination, I really didn’t know which player he was referring to. 

He told me the kid’s name, to which I responded, matter-of-factly (and completely flabbergasted since I wouldn’t have picked this guy in our top five best players), “Mike, (he)’s not our best player.  To be honest with you, even though he’s talented, he gives minimal effort on the court and in the classroom.” 

He just said, “OK, have George call me.”  I said I would and hung up, shocked both at the call, and the fact that our AD actually thought this kid was our best player.  Our fans didn’t even feel that way, nor did anyone who knew this kid. 

Until he had a near fatal car accident which caused him to retire, George Raveling was USC’s head basketball coach and my immediate boss at SC.  I called him (he was out of town), and told him of the strange conversation I had with Mike.  He said, “Wow, how can he think that?  Don’t worry about it.  I’ll call him.”

When George came in, he told me how his call went - that, not only did he agree with my assessment but frankly said, “This kid’s not only been a disappointment, but he’s become a real pain in the ass.”  George then said he couldn’t believe Garrett’s response.  “George, I can take it from you because you’re the head coach, but I’ll be goddamned if I’ll have a (bleeping) assistant question my opinion.”

It wasn’t a department policy he implemented that I disagreed with, just an evaluation of a guy I worked with every day.  My relationship with Mike Garrett was never the same after that incident.  After George’s accident at the beginning of the following season and his subsequent retirement, I knew I was leaving as well.  There’s absolutely no question SC’s a great school, but I went there because of George and when he left, there was no way I was going to stay.

One day, I asked one of the assistant AD’s, and one of Mike’s closest friends, why he treated so distantly.  The guy told me, “Jack, the only bad thing I ever heard Mike say about you was that time you said what you did about (the player).”  

In many instances, people’s strengths are also their flaws.  That is the case with Mike Garrett.  To him, there was one side to every story.  Fast forward to the year after I left.  The kid in question transferred to a junior college after that, his freshman, year.  Since there was no way he was going to graduate from the JC, he was forced to return to SC since he was classified a 4-2-4 (see my 6/29/10 blog) and it was the only D-I school at which he’d be eligible to play. 

He dogged it through that season and when it was over, he and his mom had a meeting with Garrett in which (I was told this by people who heard the argument outside Garrett’s office) both of them “dog-cussed” Garrett for reneging on promises he allegedly made during his (second) recruiting process.  Naturally, Garrett has no use for either the kid nor his mom.  You’d think this would exonerate me in Mike’s eyes.  Yet, when Fresno State hosted SC a couple years later in a NIT game, he treated me as he did following the phone call.   

George Raveling is the definition of the Renaissance Man.  He also set the standard when it came to effective people skills.  Mike Garrett resented George; he could never understand why people loved Rav.  When I asked that same assistant AD why Mike didn’t like George, he confided in me that, “Mike thinks George sells ‘woof’ tickets, that he wasn’t a true Trojan (George is from Washington, DC) and never won as big as Mike thought SC deserved from its hoops coach.

The fact he led the USC athletics department for 17 years is a testament to his loyalty.  The way he lost his job speaks to his lack of objectivity, his stubbornness and his severe lack of people skills.  Andrew Carnegie said:

“As I grow older, I pay less attention to what people say.  I just watch what they do.”

For starters, Cavs’ owner, Dan Gilbert’s reaction is completely understandable.  He made as many concessions to LeBron as the King requested, e.g. from obtaining Shaq and Antwan Jamison to the incredibly foolish move of allowing James’ cronies/posse/leeches to travel on the team plane.  Still, c’mon Dan, making all the accusations you did - and going public with them - made you sound like a spoiled, rich kid and made your open letter rival the worst owner blunders since . . . Ted Stepien.

While he may not have heard of the decision until it was made, LeBron’s not returning his phone calls nor responding to any other forms of correspondence had to be a hint-and-a-half.  Plus, if all those nasty things Gilbert said about him were actually true, why would he even want someone like that to be the face of his organization?  And promising that the Cavs would win a championship before LBJ does, well, judging from the Cavs’ roster, his best hope is for a tie. 

As far as classless moves go, LeBron, in the ultimate oxymoronic gesture, has raised the bar to new depths.  Of course he has the right to select whichever team he wants, but at least he should have shown the common decency to personally inform to his former employer who, by all accounts, did everything humanly possible to keep him home.  He compared all of this to ending a long relationship with a girlfriend.  Doing it through an hour tv special isn’t exactly page 23 of the “How to Break Up.” manual.

Another observation is that we have seen the “athlete of today.”  First, Dwayne Wade met with the Bulls, he made the statement, “I will make the best decision for me and my family (a divorce has his kids in Chicago).”  Yet, in an interview with Michael Wilbon, he answered the question, “What was the deciding factor in re-signing with the Heat?” his response was, “Playing with Chris (Bosh).”

James’ comment on selecting Miami was, “I’m taking my talents to South Beach.”  Isn’t it strange he’d phrase it that way? Did he say it that way to ID his new home or because the location was a reason.  Maybe it’s just the “today’s athlete’s” way of making a statement.

The lessons we can learn from LeBron James’ decision are numerous:

1) His character is in inverse proportion to his talent.   We would be hard-pressed to find a more self-absorbed athlete (mostly because Barry Bonds retired).  As uncomfortable as it may be, your former organization deserves to hear that you’re not returning - from you.  Then, if they can’t deal with that, so be it.

2) His business acumen parallels his character.  When several powerful businessmen want to show you their plan to make you a billionaire - with a B - you don’t make them come to you (when you have your own Gulfstream) nor do you show up to the meeting in sweatpants and a t-shirt.  Imagine Michael Jordan - one guy LBJ wants to compared to (what other reason for the “chalkdust in the air” pregame routine) showing up to a business meeting in sweats and a T?  Never happen.  Arguably, the most successful NBA star-turned-businessman is Magic Johnson.  Think Magic would dress down for that meeting? 

3) He simply doesn’t realize that a true superstar has the courage to take whatever hand (or roster) is dealt him and make them into not only big winners, but champions, a la MJ and Larry Bird. 

4) As far as comparing James to other NBA megastars, Allen Iverson is more like The King than either MJ or Kobe.  LBJ and AI were born out-of-wedlock to teenage mothers and have taken their underdog squads to an NBA Finals but come up short.  Doing an hour-long special displays an attitude of tremendous self-importance.  Iverson’s rant of “Practice.  We talkin’ ’bout practice!” also illustrated that what norms that apply to others don’t apply to him.   Neither guy gets it.

A couple unanswered questions are:

1) Is the rumor true that the Boys and Girls Club got $2-3 million (a tidy sum), rather than the $5-6M that the extravaganza allegedly hauled in?

2) Of greater interest (except to the B&G’ers) is whether Pat Riley, who fined guys for helping up fallen opponents and banned talking to the other team’s players during pregame warmups, let LeBron’s “extra baggage” on the team charter and how will he react the first time he stages one of his famous make believe picture sessions just before a game? 

The best quote to wrap up this blog would be a humorous one and for that, I turn to Conan O’Brien, who was quoted as saying:

“I don’t care where LeBron James goes - as long as it’s not at 11 pm on TBS.”

Just a couple days ago, the Boston Celtics stole home court advantage from the Los Angeles Lakers, prompting Paul Pierce to remark that he didn’t plan on the series returning to LA.  After last night, he might just be right. 

During Game Two, his teammate, Ray Allen, set a record knocking down eight (of nine) three-pointers.  Last night, except for a couple guys who missed one more shot than he did (on their way to an infamous, borrowing a term from the late Al McGuire, schneider), Allen would have set another record.  As it was, he wound up 0-13 (o-8 from three-point land) and scored no points.

The game doesn’t only deflate the losers’ egos.  After some godlike performances in the playoffs, including a sensational display in Game One, Kobe Bryant has struggled to find his (normal) shooting touch.  And if it wasn’t for a good Game Three, Lamar Odom might have acquired the reputation as the second Los Angeles superstar alleged to be hiding out at the Kardashians’.  Kevin Garnett, long thought of as one of the league’s best, is finding out that, sure enough, “anything is possible.”  Just not the way he’d imagined.

The amazing part of this story is that, in 48 hours, all roles could be reversed.  As far back as I can recall, I can still hear the admonition of many a coach, preaching to their teams:

“No one’s bigger than the game.”

Kendrick Perkins should have read my blog yesterday.  For those you who haven’t - and thank you to the many who contacted me by posting a comment, emailing me with kind words or calling my cell phone (I’m starting to figure out this “power of the Internet” thing everybody’s always talking about), the blog was about NBA players complaining - about every call - and even some of the non-calls too.

In this case, while Perkins does need to maintain better control over his emotions (after all, the game is about more than just him), the subsequent technical foul called by veteran official Eddie F. Rush was flat-out wrong.  While Perkins displayed disagreement, he was walking away from the action - and Rush.  There was absolutely no reason, other than Rush’s ego, for him to make that call.  And because it’s Perkins’ seventh technical of the post-season (who said Rasheed Wallace doesn’t have influence over the Celtics?), he, by rule, merits an automatic one game suspension.

The way the series has made a turnaround, the likes of which haven’t been seen since . . . yesterday, when the Phoenix Suns tied their series with the Lakers, the Celtics look like Friday’s game in Boston, although they still lead 3-2, is a must game.  Consider that they lost Game Four and then got hammered last night.  That means should they go down in Game Six, the deciding game will be in Orlando.  Don’t think that after winning three in a row and heading home the Magic won’t be a prohibitive favorite.  In a game of Friday’s magnitude, Boston had better have everyone on its roster.  Which definitely includes their starting center.

Doc Rivers (have you ever seen a calmer guy in such a stressful situation?) mentioned that, had Rush known the call would have automatically disqualified Perkins from Game Six, he probably wouldn’t have made it.  Slick move.  Why antagonize a league that holds in their hands the decision as to whether Doc’s club has to go into a pressure-packed game short-handed?  Plus, if he complains, he 1) gives his guys a reason to justify losing (it was the referee’s fault) and 2) gets hit with a fine which, in the current state of affairs, just adds insult to injury (to his bank account).

What Eddie Rush did reminds me of a story the late Jim Valvano used to tell.  In an NC State game in which V was coaching, he complained to an official about a call.  The ref hit him with a technical foul.  When Jim asked the guy why what he said deserved a tech, the zebra turned to him and said, “Jim, you showed me up.”

Valvano said to the guy (and this line should be retold at every officials’ meeting):

“Showed you up?  Who the hell do you think came to watch YOU!” �

One of the first blogs I ever did (4/28/07) was on the NFL draft.  After hearing the hype about this year’s crop, I went back into the archives (you need to click on Aug, ‘07 to get to any blog pre-Sept, ‘08 due to technical incompetence) and re-read what I wrote.  If you don’t think everything still applies, let me know.  

OK, It’s Not a Science. What Is It? Home Ec?
Forever, we’ve heard that draft day is so difficult for professional teams. No one’s sure which list is longer - first rounders who became busts or low draft picks (or even free agents) who became All-Stars.

Each year, greater technology is used but it never ceases to amaze us how wrong certain picks can be. This has to be due to the human element. Way back when, guys were selected though what decision makers, e.g. owners, general managers, coaches, player personnel directors heard about the players from friends, other coaches, confidants and, who knows, maybe even fans or sportswriters. Now, we have combines (I thought that’s how wheat was harvested, not players) and tests, both psychological and written.

It would seem that watching a player play would be a better indicator than how fast someone runs a 40 (if a guy has a great 40 time, you’ll want to play him in case the other team has someone real fast who breaks away and you need to catch him, except when that happens, it’s too late to sub), how many times he can bench press 220 lbs. (”Boy, he looks awful on video but how can we pass on some so strong?), how high he can jump (jumping doesn’t seem to be in the top 5 talents needed to play football) or how well he scored on a test (remember, many of these guys haven’t taken a test without the help of a tutor in years).

Coaches always say, “The film doesn’t lie,” yet film be damned when it comes to evaluating talent (”Just let me see him at the combine or in an individual workout) - where the are no fans screaming, there’s no “team” scoreboard on and the competition are stop watches, free weights and sticks coming out of a pole.

Call me old-fashioned (because I probably am), but watching a player in person - on film if being there’s not possible - of course, taking into account who the opponent is and calling on people you can trust (relationships made throughout a long career) has to be more reliable. Some guys are magnificent performers “until the lights go on” - and with the money and future (your job!) being invested, you’d want to be as certain as possible.

Naturally, one-on-one interviews are a must, but, again, some people can fool you. Using all the modern methods of information gathering isn’t a waste, but the greater variety of these tools used, the greater number of egos become involved. You may tell me he’s fast, but I want to time him (or have one of my people do it). A psychologist has mounds of empirical data from a test (s)he’s developed, along with accuracy of prediction of success. Having things you can trust (a pair of eyes which have watch thousands of hours of video) and an experienced mind (who’s he compare to from years past?) and the opinions of people you would select to be in a bunker with you if it came to it ought to make you more comfortable than a new breed of “experts.”

When it comes to technology, I agree with Dale Carnegie:

“As technical skills have gotten better, communication skills have gotten worse.”

Fans know weird things can happen to their teams.  When they actually do, though, there’s still major shock value.  For youth, e.g. players, the first time something like occurs, especially when it directly affects them, their world can be turned upside-down.

Take, for example, a group of America’s finest football players who recently, after having their senior years adjusted so they could graduate early, enrolled in the University of Tennessee.  In many cases, these youngsters gave up winter and spring sports in which they may have excelled (not even taking events that become lifelong memories like the prom, the senior class trip and graduation parties into account).  No matter how cool a front a kid puts up, i.e. like he’s not really fazed by all the attention and gear (and that’s some pretty sweet swag), you know there’s an little man inside him jumping up and down, excited as all get-out.

One of those youngsters is the San Joaquin Valley’s Tyler Bray, player-of-the-year, billed as UT’s next quarterback savior - and if you think there’s no one the people of Knoxville have to compare him to, let me remind you of a guy who just won his (unprecedented) fourth NFL MVP.  It’s fair to say the bar is rather high for a QB in Big Orange Country.  Ty was an outstanding (6-7) shooting guard/”small” forward for KHS’s basketball team and an accomplished pitcher for the baseball squad. 

Yesterday, the man who recruited him, Lane Kiffin, as well as the guts of his staff, called an emergency meeting.  We can only wonder what went through his mind when the reason for the hastily called meeting was to inform one and all that the head coach was leaving to replace Pete Carroll at USC.  Obviously, this was a quick courtship of Kiffin, since SC seemed to be directing its efforts elsewhere.  Nonetheless, this has to be quite a shock for young Mr. Bray too.  I mean what if the Big Orange brass decide to hire a guy who prefers the “Wildcat?” 

At least he’s not alone.  His family recently moved to Tennessee.  However, all of this hubbub may not be any cause for concern.  In fact, if rumors are true that Duke’s head coach, David Cutcliffe, is being offered the job, Bray will be trading a young, talented and brash mentor for a wise football mind who tutored the Manning brothers, Peyton as QB coach at UT and Eli as the head man at Ole Miss.  

That depends on whether Tennessee can lure Cutcliffe to Knoxville.  While some may question whether SC’s a better job than UT, the opinion’s as close to unanimous as one can be that the Vols program trumps Duke’s - although Duke is certainly the superior academic school.  Then again, if the institution’s graduation rates really mattered in college football, Stanford and Vanderbilt (or maybe even Duke) would play each other for the National Championship every year.

What Bray and the other “new Vols” are experiencing is similar to what SC’s recruits are going through.  Some, allegedly, “uncommitted” to the Trojans when Carroll left.  With Kiffin and what may be the strongest coaching staff ever assembled coming to SC, they might wish they never reversed field, especially if some of them popped off about loyalty, etc., as young kids are prone to do.  They will surely welcomed back - after all, talent wins out in the end - but their first meal on campus may be crow.

As far as loyalty and breaking hearts, consider that Tyler Bray had verbally committed to San Diego State prior to changing his mind.  I remember one coach saying that a kid backing out of a commitment was akin to saying, “I’ll commit to you . . . unless I get a better offer.”  The coach then made the statement, “How would kids like it if schools offered a scholarship and then, withdrew it saying they found a better player?”  How prophetic.

Egos may be bruised, dreams (temporarily) crushed, but ultimately everybody will survive.  The lesson that will be learned is one articulated by the late John Lennon:

“Life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans.”

Mike Leach - incredibly successful coach who became out of control or a victim of “buyer’s regret” and a portrayed in such a fashion so his employer could avoid shelling out mega dollars they never wanted to pay?  It’s hard to tell because of one major the sub-plot.

At the heart of the Mike Leach story is Adam James, one of the Red Raider players and son of ESPN football analyst Craig James.  Is there any way that the media can be fair when “one of their own” is so directly involved in a story of such magnitude?  In what’s termed “full disclosure,” let me state that I have been the subject of unfair treatment by the media (stories for another blog, possibly in the near future), so my opinion is definitely biased.   

When the story first broke regarding Texas Tech football coach Mike Leach being suspended for cruel and inhumane punishment to the younger James, the coverage was completely one-sided.  Sure, ESPN posted Leach’s career and bowl records, but these were unavoidable facts.

As far as the anti-Leach side of the story, ESPN had interviews with Craig James, Texas Tech’s chancellor and a quote from one Red Raider player, as derogatory as I’ve ever heard from a player regarding his coach.  There were statements from Leach’s attorney as well.  And, finally, an interview with the coach - which would have added much more to all of this had it been done at the same time as the others.  People totally unfamiliar with the story would have been appalled with what they initially heard, i.e. prior to hearing the coach’s side.

In addition, ESPN gives Colin Cowherd a platform to open fire on any and all topics, using sarcasm as his main means of supporting whatever it is he so staunchly believes.  Apparently, there are an incredible number of people who love to hear someone so controversial, possibly because they’d love to do it themselves but lack the courage/have the brains not to make a such an ass of themselves.  Cowherd decided rant about what a bad guy Mike Leach is.  Cowherd’s favorite form of exercise is jumping to conclusions and when he heard his colleague’s kid was “abused” (I have no idea whether or not Cowherd & James have ever met), he felt it was necessary to fill his time slot with a totally prejudiced view of the situation.

It’s strange that someone so cynical as Cowherd, who said there were just some things that an employee couldn’t do (although intentionally blowing up a website that annoyed him, like he himself did - for which he received no punishment, other than the station implementing a zero tolerance policy from here on out - wasn’t one of them) never made mention of the fact that the timing of Texas Tech’s suspension (at that time, Leach had not yet been fired) was quite suspicious.  That he signed a 5-year, 12.7 million contract and was due a bonus of $800K if he was the coach on December 31, just a few days away.

Normally, this would be a tidbit someone with his derisive personality would swoop in on.  Add to the fact that Craig James was a major star of SMU football teams that got the university the only death penalty ever dealt a school because of the numerous egregious NCAA violations (including large cash payments to players) committed by the Mustang program (although James was never accused of any wrongdoing).  Does this matter in this current case?  Probably not, but when evidence such as this favors the media’s case, it somehow seems to be reported.

ESPN absolutely loved Mike Leach because of his “quotability,” as the media does with anyone who makes statements like Leach did (when things were going well).  It makes their jobs so much easier.  These same statements probably didn’t go over too well in Lubbock, as Leach often came off as cocky and sarcastic, an attitude that doesn’t go over well in West Texas (I imagine Cowherd’s numbers aren’t real high there). 

Because Leach took the Red Raiders to 10 bowl games (winning five, or half the total number of bowl victories in the university’s history) - and, undoubtedly, because he had a great lawyer, aka a wheeler-dealer, TTU was forced into giving him a “competitive” contract.  His name kept popping up for other jobs (a clever trick a lawyer, agent or even the coach himself uses to get a raise) and the Texas Tech fans would have revolted had the administration let such a winner leave - TTU had beaten the Longhorns the year before, for goodness sakes!  Its location, coupled with being in a league it realistically can never win, doesn’t make it a plum of a job.

Is Leach simply a wise guy who alienated the administration (a fight he was doomed to lose) - and, quite possibly, let his exalted stature in the community, i.e. his ego, get in the way of how he should have dealt with Adam James?  Or was James just a spoiled brat, someone who leaned on his dad’s celebrity (and even might have been the son of an overbearing parent who was one of those high maintenance types, i.e. wanted more playing time, more balls thrown his son’s way, thought the coaching staff was hurting his son’s professional chances, etc.), had horrible work habits and was a player who polarized the team?

It’s probably something we may never know.  My question is:

“Would the coverage of this case have been the same had the player in question not have been the offspring of a rather high profile employee of the station covering it?”           

On last night’s Lakers-Bulls telecast, they showed the “retired jersey” of Phil Jackson in the rafters at the United Center.  As always is the case, mention was made of Phil winning all those rings but . . . how he always had great players.  First, Michael & Scottie, then Shaq & Kobe and then Kobe and the cast of characters from last year’s team (with the emphasis on Kobe). 

It seems Phil Jackson’s championships can’t be mentioned without someone bringing up the “Yeah, but he had great players” line.  While it is true, there have been many coaches with great players who have failed to win championships - at all levels (remember the Phi Slamma Jamma Houston Cougars of Guy Lewis)?  It takes more than just great players.  And the way championships are won differ with the different personalities of the coaches who lead those talented squads.

There’s Phil and his Zen approach.  Imagine getting NBA players to understand Zen, much less embrace it?  There was a story of how he tried it on one of his early championship Bulls’ teams.  He told the guys to sit quietly and close their eyes.  The legend goes that a few (or more) of the players peeked - and saw Michael Jordan sitting with his eyes closed - and that sealed the deal.  Moral: Get your best player to buy into your philosophy and the others fall right into line.

Doc Rivers coached a team put together by Danny Ainge (with help from his best friend, Kevin McHale) which initially had perennial all-star, but perennial also ran (as far as his team went), Paul Pierce.  Ainge added Ray Allen, one of the best shooters in NBA history (and in case you haven’t noticed, scoring is more important in basketball than any other team sport) and superstar, but also mired on a mediocre team, Kevin Garnett.

Doc knew he had an abundance of talent, but none of these guys had ever won.  He came up with the rallying cry/mantra, “Ubuntu” which (some thought meant “Help me, I’m in my contract year”), but actually, according to none other than Nelson Mandela, meant a concept made up of traits like unselfishness, caring and enabling others.  They rode it to a championship, to the point that when many of the Celtics were asked what their championship secret was, they claimed, “Ubuntu.”  That’s buying in.

Speaking of the Celtics, Red Auerbach had his run of championship after championship.  Bill Russell wound up with more rings than fingers.  What Red did was clever.  He made everybody else hate him, thus taking all the pressure off his guys.  It’s not like he had a bunch of slouches, but the shenanigans he pulled at the old Boston Garden (dead spots in the floor, turning up the heat in the visitor’s locker room, no hot water, and the piece de resistance - the victory cigar).  Plus, he did subtle things, like going to Big Russ and telling him not to pay attention when he yelled at him in practice, but if the rest of the players saw Russell getting an earful, they’d have no right to complain when Red jumped their cases.

The master of massaging egos (and in the NBA, there’s no shortage of that commodity) was the late Chuck Daly.  He took a team and gave it an image.  The “Bad Boys” aka the Detroit Pistons won back-to-back championships with nasty (dirty?) Bill Laimbeer; tough guy Rick Mahorn; bordering on lunatic, Dennis Rodman; if-you-need-a-score, call-me, Vinny Johnson; classy Joe Dumars (how did someone so respected, with so much class become a - vital - part of this team?) and Mr. Hidden Agenda, Isiah Thomas. 

I was working at the University of Toledo (less than an hour from Detroit) during those championship years and a little known fact is that the Pistons’ owner, Bill Davidson, made his early (and big) money in glass - and Toledo was known as the Glass Capital of the World.  We’d get choice seats (Mr. Davidson’s own - right behind the basket at the Pistons end of the floor) because there were many people in Toledo who were quite friendly with Mr. D. 

One of his confidantes told me a story that was not allowed to be leaked (so how did I find out)?  Mr. Davidson was so fond of Thomas that he pledged to him a million dollar bonus if the team won a championship.  Imagine what that kind of dissent that would have caused if it got out.

That’s how good Chuck Daly was.  Because he knew and, yet, had the ability to mold this apparent group of misfits into not one, but two championship teams.  His main strength was that he possessed so little ego.  Winning was his goal and he focused on working individually with each player on the team. 

Many people have said he knew how to handle players, but as Wilt Chamberlain told his new coach, Alex Hannum, when the coach said to the Big Dipper, “I heard you’re hard to handle.”

“You don’t handle people.  You handle animals,” said the player who caused more rule changes than any other in the history of the game.  Talk about making a statement early in a relationship.

When it comes to winning championships, sure, great players are needed, but as the late & great coach Chuck Daly (coach of the Original Dream Team - talk about egos!) said:

“It’s harder to take a group of really talented players and make them a championship team than it is to take a group of average guys and make them competitive.” 

  �