Jack’s Blog

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.”

When the question of who is the better player: Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant, the results are usually easy to predict.  The older generation picks MJ, while today’s younger fans say Kobe.  When each makes their case, the obvious bias always shines through.  “The players now are better than those from Jordan’s era (as if he played in the ’50s).  That’s why I think Kobe is better.”  “Michael has six rings.  Until Kobe has that many, there’s no argument.  It’s MJ.”  Can you guess which speaker is older?

In an attempt to keep everything as equal as possible (which is never going to happen when comparing teams or players from different times - even times as close as these are), let’s look at a number of intangible categories since comparing stats is too mundane.

#1 Each player has a focus all his own.  Game’s on the line, who takes the last shot?  MJ then, Kobe now.

#2 Each has a versatility to his game - power dunker in the earlier years, maintained/s ability to go to the hole; neither can be ignored behind the three-point line and both them have fantastic mid-range games (a trait in its own right that separates them from most of basketball’s other “superstars”).  Both are primarily 2 guards,  each can take over the point if necessary.  Yet each has an unstoppable post up game.

#3 Each demanded/demands to guard the opponent’s best offensive player and was/is a shut-down defender.

#4 Each has shown no hesitation to get in teammates’ faces in order to elevate their games and each made/makes his teammates better.

#5 Each has personal flaws (this just in - as spectacular as they are on the court, they are human).  MJ has a reputation as somewhat of a womanizer and a heavy gambler.  While Kobe doesn’t have the gambling rap of MJ, Michael was never subjected to the public humiliation of Kobe’s “post-Colorado” press conference.

#6 As marketing icons go, MJ might own a higher business acumen (has his own brand), but Kobe’s younger and has the identical global appeal Michael did at that stage of his career.

#7 Each has won multiple championships, Jordan 6 (MJ is 6-0 in title series) to Bryant’s 4 (Kobe’s 4-2), BUT Kobe’s career is not yet complete and, if championships is the end-all barometer, what if Kobe ends up with 7?  Is he automatically the better player?  It’s not that simple.

#8 Each had incredible discipline when it came to personal work ethic.

#9 Interestingly enough, the fact I don’t hear when this debate is raged is that both were coached by Phil Jackson, a remarkable coincidence when comparing two players.  Nowhere else is this the case.  Russell-Chamberlain?  Mays-Mantle?  OJ-Sweetness-Sanders-Smith?  Howe-Orr?

As far as differences, Michael went to college (and was mentored by Dean Smith), whereas Kobe’s education was growing up in a foreign country and is the son of a former NBA player.  MJ was an immediate starter; Kobe began his career coming off the bench.

As a math teacher, I understand that answers and solutions mean the same, so when someone wants to know if there’s an answer (solution) to the “Who’s better” question between Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant, I refer them to Marcel Duchamp’s quote:

“There is no solution because there is no problem.”

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!” �

During a recent Florida Marlins game, their magnificently talented shortstop, Hanley Ramirez, while chasing a pop fly in between him and his left fielder, inadvertently kicked the ball all the way down the left field line.  Earlier in the contest, Ramirez fouled a ball off of his ankle and was attended to by the Marlins’ trainer.

Apparently the injury wasn’t severe enough to remove Ramirez from the game, which is why he was in when the shallow pop up was hit.  Subsequent to kicking the ball, Ramirez gave what was accurately described as a half-hearted effort at tracking down the ball - all the while with runners rounding the bases.  He was pulled from the lineup and benched the following game.

To make matters worse, when he was interviewed, 1) Ramirez claimed he was running as hard as he could (alluding to his ankle injury) although video replays showed what he was doing could only be called “dogging it,” 2) rather than apologizing for his abhorrent behavior, Ramirez compounded the problem by attacking his manager, complete with profanity, 3) maintained that the skipper didn’t understand because he had never played in the big leagues (even though anyone who’s ever played any sport which involves any act of a physical nature knows that hustle is the key word in a player’s vocabulary) and said he had lost respect for his manager.

The following day, two members of the Marlins’ organization, Hall-of-Famers Andre Dawson (soon-to-be) and Tony Perez (who have the title of special assistant to the team president), had a chat with the new breed shortstop.  According to reports, Dawson led the conversation with an introduction similar to, “I’ll be most of the talking because if you attempt to say anything, I might knock you on your butt.”  Part of the speech dealt with the expectations of any major leaguer, i.e. 100% effort, 100% of the time, but there was also mention that Ramirez needed to be a role model and leader. 

One reason is he is considered the most talented player on the squad.  Another has to do with the money he’s being paid.  Six years, $70 million!  Yeah, I think they figured, for that kind of bread, you’d hustle on every play, including, naturally, when the ball you kicked was 100 feet away and runners from the opposing team were circling the bases!

As with most of today’s athletes (and others in society who make glaring mistakes and then try to avoid accountability, only to have video footage show how wrong - and foolish - they are), Ramirez apologized.  Then he made the obligatory statement that he, and others like him, feel should end the conversation.  It’s time “to put those things on the side and keep moving forward.”

In the most recent copy of SI, in their “Players’ Poll” section, this week’s question (a survey of 347 MLB players) was “Whom would you build around for 10 years?”  Not surprisingly, 36% picked the Twins’ American as apple pie catcher, Joe Mauer.  In second place was Hanley Ramirez.  Granted, this poll was taken prior to the incident, so if that same question were asked now, it would be really interesting to see if there would a shift in the voting.

Think the answer’s obvious?  ESPN’s Sports Nation online poll question was (in essence), “What do you think of Hanley Ramirez being benched?”  The two choices were: “Necessary move to send a message” and “Picking an unnecessary fight with his star.”  Not surprisingly, 89% of the 31, 489 people who voted (including me) selected what any sane person would have.  Doing the math (see yesterday’s blog quote), that meant 3,464 people actually felt what Ramirez did should have been overlooked. 

Readers of this blog already know how highly I think of former coach and current TV color commentator, Jeff Van Gundy, whose wisdom far exceeds basketball.  On the day the Ramirez blunder took place (and after his tirade), Jeff made the following comment regarding the situation:

“More superstars are acting entitled rather than responsible.”

If any of you readers know Hanley Ramirez, forward this to them.  The quote, if nothing else.

If you saw Game 6 of the LA-OKC series, you’d know the answer to that question.  Coaches will always tell anyone who asks (especially media members) that there are many possessions in a game that determine the outcome.  “It’s not the guy who, with our team down one with less than a second to go, missed the one-and-one who is to blame.  There were so many other plays that determined the outcome of this game,” is something a coach might say after a close loss.

And that coach is absolutely right - in not throwing that player under the bus by scapegoating him.  Keep in mind that somewhere down the road that same guy might be in a similar situation.  The coach needs to protect him.  Plus, it’s placing too much blame on a single individual and a single event.  Yet, the fact remains that had the kid knocked down the FT - and the subsequent bonus he would have earned, the team would have left the court victorious.

Therefore, while it’s a wise coaching decision (as well as a sensitive response for a guy who has probably given a great deal of effort to his team - or else why would he be out there in crunch time) to put the game in that perspective, don’t think for a second that the player who missed isn’t running that shot over in his mind, wishing he had another opportunity (a do-over, as it was called in an earlier lifetime).  And he’s not the only one.  Although every miss during the game counted the same number of points had it gone down, that last freebie is the one being relived - over and over.

All of that rhetoric leads to this one play in the Laker-Thunder game.  It’s not the three-pointer Russell Westbrook missed late that would have all but sealed the game for Oklahoma City, nor is it the short baseline jumper he couldn’t put down on the ensuing offensive possession - although you can bet he’ll be ruminating those two attempts on many occasions throughout the, now, long off-season. 

The play I’m referring to is the last Laker possession.  Thunder coach (and NBA Coach-of-the-Year) Scott Brooks decided to let Westbrook handle Kobe Bryant all by himself, a move he undoubtedly would have been crucified for by all the second guessers (especially those who write game summaries and columns for a living).  Had Kobe knocked that shot down, you can almost hear the pundits: “Brooks must have been the only person in the building - no, in the world - who didn’t know that on the last possession of the game, with the Lakers down one, Kobe Bryant wasn’t going to take the last shot.  He’s arguably the best player in the game and, not arguably, the best closer.  Brooks ought to return that Coach-of-the-Year award.  Only a fool would allow the game to be decided by Kobe Bryant!”

Yet, Brooks, as it turned out, made the right decision - this time.  Except a couple of his players violated the Cardinal Rule of defending off the ball when a shot goes up.  They followed the flight of the ball.  After watching the replay several times, you can see that neither Nick Collison nor Serge Ibaka had the discipline to put a body on Pau Gasol, who came in untouched from the weak side wing to grab the miss and lay it in with a half a second to go.  Collison had left Gasol, the man he was guarding, to rotate to the ball in case Westbrook needed help on Kobe but failed to make an attempt to locate him after seeing Bryant rise and shoot.  Ibaka actually had a better opportunity to get into Gasol as he was coming down the lane and should have been looking for an offensive player to check.

Did that one play lose the game?  No, of course not.  There were so many others that, had they been made, would have forced a Game 7.  But, yes! that play did lose the game - in that, had it been executed properly, both teams would be headed to the Staples Center.  That’s why it’s been said:

“The two saddest words in the English language are IF ONLY.”

In the SEC Tournament finals, Mississippi State, at the beginning of the tourney considered by most on the outside looking in as far as NCAA Tournament selections went, played the #2 team in the nation, the University of Kentucky.  The game plan was simple: win and no roomful of suits could exclude you from the Dance; lose and hope those same suits, most of whom undoubtedly had never stepped foot in Starkville, would be impressed with your showing.  Option A was an infinitely better strategy than Option B - or any other letter, in any other alphabet.

For most of the 40 minute game, MSU did just that.  They were beating UK and answered every Wildcat bucket.  Late in the most important game of the Bulldogs’ season, they had managed a three point lead.  UK brought the ball across midcourt and, with five seconds to go, their coach, Rick Stansbury, elected to play the odds.  With Kentucky having at least three clutch shooters - John Wall, Eric Bledsoe and Patrick Patterson (not the three best three-point shooters in the nation, but when the chips were down - maybe because of the presence of Wildcat Nation, or maybe because of the pressure of it - these guys seemingly came through for their team), Stans had ordered a foul.

The “should you foul with a three point lead and under 10 seconds to go so they can’t tie it with a three or should you just play good, solid defense because crazy things can happen” philosophy was about to be put to the ultimate test - the finals of a conference tournament with an NCAA bid on the line.  As a matter of full disclosure, I am, and always have been a proponent of fouling in this situation.  Maybe it’s because I’m a math guy and think it’s a wise move from a percentage standpoint or maybe it’s because I’ve seen too many guys hit late game threes (see my blog from a couple days ago), but it just seems like the sensible move to make.

After the first free was made, everyone in the arena knew an intentional miss was coming.  Now, let’s stop and think.  If you are one of the MSU players lined up on the lane, whether on the inside position or in the third spot, you know that if you secure the rebound - and the way the rules are set up, it’s to your advantage, as you have both inside spots and four of the six on the lane - it’s virtually impossible for your team to lose.  You’d be ahead by two and, at the very least, would be shooting two free throws with under five seconds to go - odds that are astronomically in your favor.

Add to that universal thought the extra bonus of being named champions of the SEC Tournament.  Make it sweeter that an automatic bid to the NCAA tourney accompanies that title.  And, for the sake of brutal reality, understand that, should you not secure the errant free throw - and subsequently lose, you might be excluded from the field of 65.

So, with all that on the line, sure enough, the Bulldog (purposely unnamed) on the inside failed to have the discipline to get contact with Patrick Patterson, who whirled to the baseline and tipped the ball out to John Wall, who attempted a three-pointer, a shot, that had it dropped, would have won the game right there and then for the Wildcats.  As it was, Wall’s shot was short - so short it landed in the hands of Derrick Cousins, who managed to get the shot off an eyelash before the horn sounded and the red light illuminated.

It was so close the referees had to take several looks at it (I was driving at the time and color analyst Kevin Grevey made the comment that he looked at the replay five times and couldn’t decide whether the basket was good or not.  Slo-mo replays showed Cousins did get it off in time and the game went into overtime.  It didn’t have to.  Mississippi State should have conceded.  During the time the officials were checking the monitors, there should have been a team vote, saying, “If you say the basket is good, we surrender.”

The teaching point is: with all that on the line, if you can’t give every ounce of energy and effort you have FOR FIVE SECONDS, what makes anyone think you can do it for another five minutes?  That missed opportunity (especially the missed block-out) will haunt the Bulldog program for a long, long time - mainly because it was so unnecessary.

That said, do you ever think something like it will ever happen again?  If you don’t, take a cue from Douglas Adams:

“Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experiences of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.”  �

Speaking at the press conference after AFC title game, Peyton Manning made the comment that he was glad there was a two-week break before the Super Bowl.  He claimed he didn’t know how the guys used to do it, i.e. when the game was played the following week.  He admitted to being mentally tired - not physically tired, but mentally tired.

Anyone who is aware of the Peyton Manning story (which includes any true fan of pro football - and several casual ones as well) knows how much preparation Manning puts into his game plan.  And that’s just for a regular season game.  Imagine how much video prep, meetings with his coaches, receivers and O linemen and speaking with his dad and brother goes into a postseason contest, where it’s a “win or go home” scenario.  And, obviously, the deeper the Colts go, the more time he invests.

The night prior to the game, ESPN’s Teddy Bruschi said that, in order to beat Peyton Manning, a defense must keep him off balance - and even then, he will adjust as the game goes on.  Jets’ coach, Rex Ryan’s post game remarks echoed that philosophy: “You have to keep Peyton Manning off balance and we didn’t keep him off balance enough.” 

Sure enough, the Jets did throw different looks at him, changed out of what they were initially running in order to confuse the Colts’ QB and the Colts struggled - in the beginning.  The Jets jumped out to a 17-6 lead.  But, Peyton being Peyton, just before the half, he led his offense to a TD, the first seven of what were to be 24 unanswered points to move on to Miami and Super Bowl XLIV.  Certainly Peyton Manning is highly skilled but it’s his discipline and work ethic that sets him apart from his peers. 

During an ESPN college basketball telecast, the station’s newest color commentator, none other than the winningest men’s coach of all-time, Bob Knight, voiced his support of the Colts.  He said his relationship with Colts’ president, Bill Polian, was the reason for his support of Indy.  Then, he shared a statement that he made to Peyton Manning which spoke to Manning’s approach to his craft:

“If I had five guys just like you, in varying sizes, I’d never lose.” �

What follows is a copy of the blog I posted last year.  Due to the impact of what Dr. King had on this country, and all he stood for, each year in this space, on (or in this case, following) his day, this blog will be posted.  If only we had more heroes like him.

Last Martin Luther King Jr Day, I blogged about a story that many people know by now.  It’s been documented on national television and written about in so many newspapers, if you haven’t heard or read about it, you’re probably in the minority.  Each MLK Day from now on, I will post the story in this space because it is nothing short of remarkable - and it involves my close friend and mentor, George Raveling.  At its conclusion, I sum up the life lessons that can be learned from it.

In his mid twenties, George, native of Washington, DC was with a few of his friends when they were approached by a man who told them that the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. was going to be speaking in the nation’s capitol.  This was no secret as there was a buzz in the air as soon as Dr. King’s arrival date was announced.  Apparently, the size of the crowd was misjudged and there was a need for additional security.  Would they be interested?  George, who has always had the sense of understanding a great opportunity when one is presented, immediately assured the guy he’d be available while his buddies made comments like, “I might have something going on,” “How long will it take?” and even, “Do we get paid?”

The day of the speech came and George didn’t just get there on time, he got there 45 minutes early.  The same man who had offered the gig was impressed and mentioned to George, who at 6′5″, could make a pretty good security guard had he chosen that field, that he could serve as part of the group on stage with Dr. King.  George felt this had all the markings of quite an event.

The oratory MLK delivered that day was entitled, “I Have A Dream.”  Yeah, that speech.  As anyone who’s ever seen the footage of the speech can attest, at its conclusion, the massive audience was at an emotional frenzy.  People were applauding, cheering, shouting, crying and no one was more caught up in the moment than George himself.  As Dr. King began to leave the stage, George said to him (and as he’s told me on more than one occasion, “I have no idea why I did it”), “Dr. King, may I have a copy of your speech?”  At that time, Martin Luther King, Jr. handed George the manuscript (hand written notes in the margins included) that he had just had in front of him.  George thanked him, but at that moment, someone else said something and Dr. King had turned away.  So George went home and stuck the notes in one of the numerous books he had in his apartment (George has always been a voracious reader and any place he’s ever lived has stacks of books throughout it).

Subsequently, Dr. King was assassinated and stories of all the impressive, life changing accomplishments he’d made to humanity flooded the airwaves and print media.  Naturally, the I Have A Dream speech was referred to time and again.  All of a sudden, it hit George that he actually had the original notes from that famous speech, arguably the greatest one ever given.  He went home, rummaged through his belongings and, sure enough, there they were, in the same book he had placed them.

George began thinking, “These notes are a part of history.  They really belong in the Martin Luther King Museum in Atlanta.”  He got the number, called, and explained the ordeal and that he wanted to donate this valuable document to the museum - with one caveat.  He didn’t want any money; he just wanted for the plaque to say, “Notes donated by George H. Raveling.”  As incredible as it sounds, the voice on the other end not only refused, but became somewhat indignant, lecturing George that he really didn’t have anything to do with the notes and turned down his request.  George is as reasonable as the next guy, as well as quite a bit brighter, so once again, he attempted to get the man to understand he didn’t want the plaque to say, “Written by George H. Raveling,” only that he had donated them.  The museum rep couldn’t be budged, even telling George the notes weren’t his, to which Rav replied, “Then how come I’m holding them in my hand?”  Shortly thereafter, the call was terminated and, to this day, George has the I Have A Dream notes safely stored away.

By the way, I believe the last offer George told he received for the notes was three million dollars, but because he understands the significance of what they stand for, he refuses to sell.  At USC, we would bring them out when we had a big recruiting weekend and seeing the notes, now framed under glass, makes the hair on the back of your neck stand up, even if you don’t have any hair.  You realize you are in the presence of a major historical document, one which possibly explained the civil rights movement better than anything else and, in turn, did more to open people’s minds to what a brighter future the country could have. 

There are lessons to be learned from all stories and this one has several.

     1) When presented with an opportunity, seize it.  Worry about what minor inconveniences it may cause at a later date.

     2) When you’re supposed to be somewhere, don’t just get there on time; get there early. 

     3) Lose your inhibitions.  If, at the conclusion of that speech, Martin Luther King, Jr. had said to the crowd, “Is there anyone out there who’d like my notes?” do you think George’s hand would have been the only one to go up?

     4) Don’t let pride get in the way of a good decision.  If George’s request was properly handled, the notes would be hanging in the museum as you read this.

John F. Kennedy summed up his feelings on the subject when he said:

“Every American ought to have the right to be treated as he would wish to be treated, as one would wish his children to be treated.”

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?”           

How in the world couldn’t they?

This was one of the subjects on Larry King Live last night.  Doug Ferguson, who wrote the article, said that, not only did Tiger Woods far outdistance the competition (he received 56 first place votes to 33 for runner-up Lance Armstrong), he built an early lead (ballots sent in prior to his car accident) and actually, expanded on the lead after the word of his admission of infidelity became public.  Kind of like the way he (used to) play golf.  Get an early lead and pull away from the rest of the field.

Also on the program were former PGA player, Brandel Chamblee and LPGA Hall-of-Famer, Amy Alcott.  Each of them echoed the view of Ferguson, who said (if not he, then Larry King), “After all, it wasn’t Husband of the Decade” or “Person of the Decade.”  Kudos to these folks being able to separate what the award is from what the person receiving it is (or has become in the public’s eyes).  Too often, we, as a society, are ready (as has been mentioned in this space numerous times previously) to “strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.”  What he did privately in no way diminishes the dominance he had in his sport for the past ten years.

If any other athlete had been chosen (mainly because over the past decade, no one has come close to being as superior to the competition in his or her sport), the award, and the recipient, would have been an embarrassment.  Isn’t Tiger an embarrassment, you say?  Of course, but not as a golfer - and certainly not for the past ten years!

What his next move is no one, maybe not even Tiger himself, knows.  But I think everyone is in agreement that, at some time (and that exact date is wide open for debate), he will return to the PGA Tour.  

What can we expect?  It was interesting to hear the two former pros discuss this possibility.  Chamblee said he found it incredibly amazing that, given the alleged length of time of Tiger’s dalliances, that he could remain so focused - that he had to realize what was going on in his life - and that it could explode at the drop of a name or text or email.  Alcott made the point that, because golf takes so much discipline, many golfers seek going “inside the ropes,” as she put it, to find sanctuary from the outside world.  There, great golfers can (must) block out everything else if they plan on playing their best - which in Tiger Woods’ case, means winning.

So everyone agrees he’ll be back.  The golf courses, however, won’t pose nearly as much of a challenge as the post match press conferences.  Whenever Tiger’s emergence occurs, extreme mental toughness will rule the day/weekend/year.

And if what Vince Lombardi said about mental toughness is true, Tiger Woods has a very tough road in front of him:

“Mental toughness is many things and rather difficult to explain.  Its qualities are sacrifice and self-denial.  Also, most importantly, it is combined with a perfectly disciplined will that refuses to give in.  It’s a state of mind - you could call it character in action.”  �