Jack’s Blog

It wasn’t so long ago that it seemed like the only schools that were investigated and punished by the NCAA were the little guys.  Cleveland State, Western Carolina and Centenary are three that come to mind.  Remember the line that began the war between Jerry Tarkanian and the NCAA?

Tark was approached by the Long Beach Press-Telegram to write a guest article.  He’s now admitted that he probably went too far in his criticism of college’s governing body and the hypocrisy that was going on, but many coaches told him then (and even now) that what he said was what everybody knew was going on but wouldn’t say in public.  That line was, “The NCAA is so mad (at the rules violations) at Kentucky, they decided to put Centenary on probation for another two years.”  While that might not be verbatim, it’s close enough.  Naturally, the NCAA wasn’t too fond of Tark for mocking their enforcement efforts.

Fast forward to today in college athletics and it’s the big boys who are the ones getting slapped and, in some cases, slapped hard.  “Back in the day” the smaller schools got nailed mainly because they weren’t as savvy at “working the system” or knowing the loopholes  that their bigger brethren did.  In addition, the “old” NCAA, as an enforcement agency - led by its “czar” Walter Byers - was much more corrupt, and lacked the integrity the new, kinder, gentler NCAA of today has.

North Carolina’s football team is headed into a game against LSU, a game in the past they’d have zero chance of winning.  But this season, the Tarheel program was thought to be on the rise, while there’s unrest in Bengal Tiger country, so the UNC faithful were hoping for a program-making W.  Then, adversity hit, partially from within, but also due to a party that some college football players, with eligibility remaining, attended.  Parties aren’t generally off-limits, but this particular gathering was hosted by an agent (or a runner for an agent), making it a major violation.

One area of violations that is classified as major comes under the heading of “extra benefits.”  This one’s a killer because many Division I athletes, after going through the recruiting process, which is more or less a glorified love fest - with the prospect being wooed by several suitors - develop a sense of entitlement early on and it can carry on throughout their careers.  There’s no shortage of people filling an 18-22 year old’s head with “facts” of how he’s being taken advantage of, used and mistreated.  Not surprisingly, nearly all of them are looking for something in return.

I’m on record as saying that college athletes should not be paid.  My reasons are numerous: getting a free ride is paramount to getting paid.  Ask any college student who’s working his or her way through college.  Also, there are avenues in which students can get additional money, e.g. Pell Grant (which nearly every non-foreign student-athlete qualifies for, the NCAA’s needy student-athlete fund - which every scholarship athlete is entitled to and other legal ways of earning additional income).  Add to all that the fact that, especially in the high-profile sports of football and basketball, players get to meet influential boosters - in an up close and personal manner, and every time they do, it serves as an impromptu “interview” for potential future employment opportunities.  And how about all the media requests in which an athlete has an opportunity to present him or herself in a positive light?

From a legal perspective, until it is challenged and overturned in the courts, if male athletes were paid, female athletes would have to be equally compensated, in essence, doubling the costs.  That sound you just heard is every director of athletics in the nation gasping.

Besides, if a rule passed where athletes would get paid, is anybody naive enough to think that extra benefits would cease?  Does anybody really believe that the reason for what went on that’s affecting the teams from UNC, Alabama, South Carolina, Florida and others undoubtedly “to be named later,” wouldn’t have occurred if players were given stipends?

In the case of the “party” that’s crippling the Tarheels, the unscrupulous agents are the ones who have avoided any sort of punishment.  Possibly because the NCAA has no control over agents, possibly because neither the NFL nor the NBA has joined with the NCAA to “send a strong message” to agents and their runners, possibly because the NCAA has no supoena power, or possibly because of some other reason, the NCAA has yet to get at the root of the problem.  Henry David Thoreau once said:

“For every thousand hacking at the leaves of evil, there’s one striking at the root.”

Mets’ closer, Francisco Rodriguez, is done for the rest of this season and possibly beyond.  It seems something his girlfriend’s father said or did upset him so much, he hauled off and nailed the guy - after a game - at the stadium.  That totally undisciplined move cost the Mets’ fireballer a two-game suspension.

Turns out that was the least of his worries.  After having team physicians check out the hand that dealt what K-Rod surely thought at the time was “justice,” it was learned he’d injured it so badly that he’ll be shelved for the rest of this year’s campaign.

As all good professional athletes are taught, he showed contrition, apologizing to his team, the fans, the ownership and whomever else he was told - by his agent, advisers, etc.  Sorry if I’m cynical regarding these athletes’ “heartfelt” apologies, but if they truly felt that way, they wouldn’t have done something so stupid in the first place.  Didn’t it cross his mind prior to unloading on this guy, that getting into a fight at his place of employment would shed a negative light on those he subsequently apologized so profusely to?

It seems that the Mets are seriously looking into voiding the remainder of his contract - which happens to have the club on the hook for $11.5 million next year and $17.5 the following season.  Naturally, the Players’ Association will file a grievance.  On what grounds?  That players are volatile people following games, especially losses, and shouldn’t be held accountable for their actions if provoked?

The MLBPA won’t be K-Rod’s only ally.  Since his agent is due a small percentage of those large numbers above, he will do everything in his power to place some kind of non-negative spin to the public, while blackmailing the team (he undoubtedly represents others playing for the Mets or players elsewhere whom the team would like to obtain).

Really, it’s hard to blame him.  If he were to hold his player accountable, he’d be throwing away his own money and, probably of greater importance to him, would get fired by his client - who would then badmouth him to other potential (highly-paid) individuals.

It’s tough to make a living off of people who act how some pros do - and still maintain a value system.  I wonder what Rodriguez’s agent, as well as the head of the Players’ Association, tell their kids when they ask them why it seems the people they represent are held to less of a standard than the ones they fathered?

Ronald Reagan once said:

“We must reject the idea that every time a law is broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker.  It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”

Nearly every time a professional athlete is interviewed, he says how blessed (the new magic word for players) he is to be able to play a game for a living.  Yet, each year, several of these blessed individuals don’t show up to work on time.  Why would that be?

If I were given three guesses, all three of them would be . . . agents.  I’m not demeaning that profession - it does enough of that to itself.  In fact, I happen to know a few sports agents (each of whom is described as belonging in the legitimate category) and understand how difficult a business it is.  For the purposes of this blog, let’s limit our discussion of agents to only those who are legit.  The underhanded ones don’t deserve the space - and are such easy targets for criticism, this post would be reduced to an uninspiring “preaching to the choir” entry.

The day Mark McCormack (the “inventor” of the sports agent) broached the subject of representing his good friend, Arnold Palmer, is one that changed the entire landscape of professional athletics.  The idea of a sports agent makes so much sense, it’s a wonder someone hadn’t thought of it even earlier.  The concept of it is quite sound: 1) allow the athlete to give his (and now, her) total focus to his (her) trade and not to worry about distractions such as contract negotiations, 2) remove the athlete from having to deal with owners, who are multi-millionaires (except for the ones whose description exchanges the “m” with a “b”) and who made most, if not all of their money using the “buy low, sell high” philosophy, 3) create additional revenue streams through endorsements and, in the case of good agents 4) form a team of advisers, financial people, accountants, realtors, etc. to mentor the athletes and make certain their “lives after sport” will be provided for - since the window of earning power, while almost infinitely greater than the average Joe, is so much shorter. 

The major flaw in all of this is the agent’s livelihood is completely dependent on the client, i.e. the agent’s sole means of support is a small percentage (usually no more than 4% of the contract and 10% of the endorsement deals) of what the client makes.  Also, the agent is forced to become a master spin doctor (if not an out-and-out. blatant liar).  It’s hard for me to recall an agent representing a client who screwed up, whether a minor infraction or a blatant violation of the law, holding that client accountable for any misdeed.  After all, that’s their meal ticket!

As far as players not attending team practices goes, it would be comical, if it wasn’t so insulting, listening to the agents explain why holding out is the right thing to do - especially for a rookie.  Try as I might, I can’t imagine a player, if asked prior to his final year on the “amateur” circuit if he’d play for, say, a guaranteed $15 million, not responding with, “ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?”

Because it happens every year, it seems like agents have the knack of getting their client(s) to drink the Kool-Aid.  I simply can’t believe that, once again let’s talk about rookies, an untested player, regardless of stats, skill level or hype, doesn’t realize how holding out retards his development and is detrimental to the team (especially in terms of timing), not to mention what it does to team chemistry (especially if he’s making more than the veterans).

Like it or not, agents are here to stay.  There’s a great deal of money to be made (4% of a lot of money is more than enough to live on - quite comfortably), representing marquis clients usually means fame for agents as well and agents will be thought of as a major players, even if they’ve never suited up.  In the words of one of the best agents, Leigh Steinberg:

“Very narrow areas of expertise can be very productive.  Develop your own profile.  Develop your own niche.”

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.”      Â

It’s off to SoCal and an AAU tournament - the first that son Alex will perform before NCAA coaches.  No pressure on him.  How he does could determine the course of his life - for the next 50+ years.  Relax and enjoy it.  Jack’s Blog will return Sunday.

Yeah, it’s good news - for David Lee.  We often hear about “character” guys in professional sports.  David Lee is the poster child for character guys.   No one with the talent Lee possesses and the effort he exerts - every night - should be stuck in such a mess as is the current Bockers.  Now that they’ve shelled out a max contract for Stoudamire, the Knicks will be forced to let Lee go.  Hooray for Lee! 

Some have asked why Amar’e would go to a club like the Knicks - a perennial loser with awful chemistry, led by Stoudamire’s former coach (whom he butted heads with often in Phoenix) and with no one at the point closely resembling Steve Nash?  Amar’e is considered a defensive liability - so that would explain why he’d want to play for Mike D’Antoni, a brilliant offensive mind who feels defense is something to be tolerated until you can get the ball back.  As for his feelings for Nash, please see my 7/1/10 post regarding Amar’e and it will explain why he doesn’t mind leaving his meal ticket.  Hint: I think he felt if anyone was anyone’s meal ticket, he (Amar’e) was the benefactor.  

Money is the one word answer that explains his decision.  In most players’ minds, that’s what matters.  “Rings” may separate players from each other but money is what separates them from the rest of society - especially the “haters” as they’re referred to.  Teachers are often placed in that category.  And why shouldn’t money be a determining factor?  After all, only one team is going to win the championship and each team begins the year as a 29:1 underdog.

Plus, should there be a lockout after next season, as many expect, Stoudamire doesn’t exactly possess an abundance of skills outside of those that make him one of the game’s best power players, so to lock in that kind of cash sets him up for life.  All his talk at the press conference about the tradition of the Knicks, being in New York and winning championships means squat when someone is putting a nine-figure deal in front of you.  Ditto for Joe Johnson and his agent’s spiel about how, now that Joe inked a max deal - 6 years for $120 million (put your arms around those numbers), his next move is to woo other stars to join him in Atlanta.  Yeah, Joe, the city that’s possibly the worst major market professional sports city in America.  One of the reasons you said you were looking to move.  Could leaving approximately $30 mil on the table had you signed anywhere else have been a factor in you choosing to stay with the Hawks?

Money means a lot to a good portion of society, more so in the NBA because, paraphrasing Mark Victor Hanson:

“Some people tie their self-worth to their net worth.”

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’ rookie.

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 - 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’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), 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 keep 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.  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.”  �

Last night, after searching the Internet for information regarding which collegiate players have declared for the NBA draft, I found the number was 54.  When I checked the night before, the number was 50.  Then I noticed a related story that Arkansas soph point guard Courtney Forston had declared, yet his name was not on the list, so that pushed the number to 55.  Additionally, neither Kyle Singler’s and Patrick Patterson’s names were on the list and most people feel Singler will declare if, for no other reason, than to see how he stacks up to the other potential draft picks and listen to where the NBA people think he’ll be drafted.  In Singler’s case, he has the perfect mentor in Mike Krzyzewski.  This isn’t John Calipari’s first rodeo either, so Patterson has someone with knowledge to lean on, too.  

If an NCAA athlete hires an agent, he immediately forfeits any remaining eligibility.  If he doesn’t, he has until May 8 to withdraw his name to retain his eligibility (unless he’s pulled this trick once before - as in the case of Patterson last year - in which case, once the player declares for the second time, he’s considered a pro).  Players have until midnight on April 25 to file.

One website listed whether the player had, had not or probably would hire an agent.  The number of those who had hired an agent was 19 (probably 20 with Patterson), the “had not’s” numbered 25 (actually 26 since Forston has not) and in the probably category, there were 10.  Considering there are only 60 draft picks (two rounds, 30 NBA teams) - and there will certainly be some seniors and foreign players drafted, it seems as though some guys are being subjected to really bad advice.

First of all, players declaring for the draft fall into different categories.  The guys who don’t hire an agent (especially juniors, since they’re only allowed one mulligan) are, like most feel about Singler, testing the waters.  Similar to football, if a guy shows well at the pro-sponsored workouts, NBA decision-makers tend to discard the previous year(s) of his career and raise the guy’s stock.

Guys who do hire an agent usually come in three varieties - 1) a sure-fire first rounder who wants sound counsel regarding his future; 2) a dreamer with less-than-average intelligence (who’s listening to all the sweet nothings - and usually that’s exactly what they’re worth - that some wannabe is whispering in his ear), and 3) a guy who thought (or was told) “this was my (your - our?) year” and stopped going to class.  In this third case, declaring and hiring an agent shows the public (in his mind) that he’s a pro.  When he, as often happens, goes undrafted, blame will be lain at the feet of someone or many people (but not him).  Mostly, this guy was going to be dismissed from school for academic reasons and declaring for the draft is simply a means of saving face.

There is another guy who fits in the third group and that’s the one who does not hire an agent, yet has no intention of returning to school.  This is a slick way of making it look like you’re exploring all options when, in reality, you’re not returning for one major reason: you can’t.  It, then, comes as no surprise when, in spite of poor showings, this student-athlete decides, after all, to go pro. 

While recruiting has become a slimy business, the time when players finish their careers might be worse.  That’s mainly because now, we’re talking serious money.  The lack of conscience of some of the characters influencing these teenagers (or young men in their early 20’s) is akin to a Larry Stowe, the snake oil salesman who was exposed last night on 60 Minutes.  To prey on innocent - or in some cases, not-so innocent - kids has got to bother anyone with any sense of decency.

I found a perfect quote to wrap up this blog, but I can’t find who said it:

“The key is to get to know people and trust them to be who they are.  Instead, we trust people to be who we want them to be - and when they’re not, we cry.”Â

It became official last week.  Michael Jordan became the first former player to be a majority owner of an NBA team.  Ground-breaking, yes; wise decision; the jury’s still out. 

Why might this new venture not work?  A check of MJ’s past success as a player showed he won for a variety of reasons.  One was he usually could control the outcome of a game.  There has yet to be an owner with such power.

Secondly, he made a ton of money - but, although he was more talented than arguably (and it wasn’t much of an argument) all of his peers, he mainly did it by outworking them.  It’s tough to outwork the other owners, especially because most of them made their moo-la without much aerobic activity. 

In any discussion of his skills, let’s not forget he is a shrewd businessman.  The difference between him and his fellow owners is he actually worked “in the field.”  He knows better than any other of his new competitors how many of the employees truly earn their paychecks.  Armed with that knowledge, he’s going to have a hard time dealing with “employee representation,” i.e. agents, who are going to try to pry as much of Jordan’s hard-earned cash away from him for their less-than-100%-effort-giving clients.

No one who follows the NBA doesn’t know how competitive MJ was on the court.  It had to tear away at him a couple of days ago, to have to watch Joe Johnson of the Hawks hit a buzzer-beater to down his new investment.

Finally, he’s dealt with rumors all his professional life, but the one that could hurt him the most is if his hand-picked coach (and fellow Tarheel alum), Larry Brown - who has spoken so frequently about the “Carolina family” - bolts to become the head coach of the Clippers, as many in the rumor mill business are speculating.

Michael Jordan might be breaking the Cardinal rule of aging:

“As you get older, your life is supposed to get less complicated.”Â

Gilbert Arenas pulled a gun on a teammate, says he’s taking responsibility for his actions (must have been after an exhaustive search to try to find somebody else who would or could assume that responsibility came up empty) and calls himself a goofball. 

In July of ‘08, the owner of the Washington Wizards, Abe Pollin, who died this past November 25, offered a maximum contract to Arenas.  Arenas actually took less than the maximum.  $16 million less.  He did so because it would enable the team to have extra money to sign quality players who would surround him, Antwan Jamison and Caron Butler and give the Wizards an opportunity to win a championship.  So he settled for only $111 million over 6 years - which averages to over $50,000 per day! 

Too bad the extra $16M couldn’t have bought character, common sense or proper decision-making skills.  Those, unfortunately, aren’t for sale.  Neither are championships.  It could be because of the internet (after all, years ago, someone like me couldn’t reach basically everyone in the world to let them know my feelings about this; an invention to force to read what I have to say hasn’t been invented yet - thankfully), but it seems like our athletes have a much greater sense of entitlement in today’s sports world.

This has to come from several different sources since I sincerely doubt people are born that way.  The list of culprits are numerous: parents (and relatives) of the athletes, their coaches, trainers and “mentors,” fans (every level on which they play) and, ultimately, those who control the purse strings or amke the monetary decisions (GM’s, VP’s, presidents, owners). 

A separate category has to be reserved for agents, people whose very livelihood depends on a very small percentage how much they can wrestle away from an organization (or sponsor).  How many critical comments do you think athletes hear from their agents?

This sense of entitlement has grown to epic (epidemic?) proportions.  Whether the indiscretions deal with harmful areas to others (infidelity, lying, failing to act in a professional manner) or illegal acts (DUIs, drugs, PEDS, unlawful possession of firearms), shouldn’t something be done to increase awareness in these people?  Or does Agent 0 stand for the amount of common sense he possess?  It’s easy to criticize others, but the level of frustration is mounting higher and higher. 

What’s this country coming to?  I know upper middle class people who live from paycheck to paycheck, folks who’ve lost their homes and were forced to file for bankruptcy, decent people who are out of jobs or in debt over their eyeballs.  Yet we see multi-million dollar purses for athletic events and those in team sports receiving $57 million for three years of work (whether they’re healthy or not).  Granted, these are a group of highly skilled performers in their field, but I still ask, “Where is the money to pay these people coming from?”  Although I’m not in favor of socialism, what we currently have doesn’t seem to working so well.

Especially when self-proclaimed goofballs are pulling down better than $50K/day.  Wonder what Arenas would think if he was reminded of what Abe Pollin said to him when he made that contract offer (taken from Ivan Carter’s 7/4/08 Washington Post article): 

“You’re the face of the Wizards. When you’re out of the country walking down the street, I know that I have a fine young man representing me, this organization and the city of Washington to the fullest.”

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?”