Jack’s Blog

Following the 1991-92 basketball season at USC (where I was an assistant coach), then-junior swing man Harold Miner, a fabulous basketball player, had a difficult decision to make.  It was whether to return for his senior campaign or leave school for the NBA draft.  Our head coach, George Raveling, had done his due diligence and found out that Harold was a surefire lottery pick, going possibly as high as seventh (he wound up the twelfth pick).

Someone, somewhere, at some time had stuck the moniker, Baby Jordan, on Harold years earlier.  He was about the same height and build as Michael, jumped like him (he won the NBA’s Slam Dunk competition twice) and had a shaved head.  But, we all, including Harold, knew he was not another MJ, nor was anyone else.  That kind of attention was both unrealistic and unfair.  It really didn’t matter where he was picked, however,  because Nike offered him sixth pick money, i.e. if he was selected in the sixth slot, he got that money, BUT if he were picked anywhere lower, Nike would make up the difference between the money he was offered and what the player drafted sixth got.  So, when he dropped to #12, he still received #6 money, what #12 got (all rookie contracts are preset), plus the difference between that and #6 which was picked up by Nike.

The reason I share this bit of history is to show that Harold Miner was a sensational college basketball player.  When he was deciding, one factor in favor of him returning to school was he absolutely loved campus life.  It was a real blast for him to go to the student center the day after a big game and hear his fellow students reliving the game and some of the jaw dropping moves from the night before.  Or hear praise from a professor.  Or a custodian.  Didn’t matter.  He found it invigorating.

Johnny Manziel of Texas A&M is the reigning Heisman Trophy winner.  This year, the school has announced that, because it is such a distraction whenever Johnny Football shows up on campus, they are allowing him to take his classes online.  Now, I am by no means comparing Harold Miner’s popularity in LA with Johnny Manziel’s in College Station.  First of all, Miner’s situation was twenty years ago.  And it’s an apples vs. oranges comparison because Los Angeles is a pro city and SC is a football school.  Yet, at 6′6″, black with long arms and a killer body, people knew who Harold Miner was.  Few would pass by without making a comment or asking for an autograph or picture.

Manziel related the following story when he received the Davey O’Brien Award as the nation’s top quarterback, according to Bernie Augustine of the New York Daily News.  “I went one day — it was a small class of 20 or 25 — and it kind of turned into more of a big deal than I thought.”  Regarding the decision to take classes online, he said, “It just happened to work out where it was good after the football season with all of the stuff going on.  It was a good time not to have to worry about being on campus and some other things, too.”

At his press conference declaring for the draft, Harold Miner made reference to how much he was going to miss not only the guys on the team, but also his fellow classmates.  He realized that experience would be gone once he became a professional - and he’d never again get to feel it.

Now, Heisman Trophy winner Johnny Manziel has become so popular in College Station that the Texas A&M quarterback can no longer attend classes with the rest of the student body.  Someday, he might wish he had found a way.

It’s a shame that:

“Some people know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.”

The intent of the NBA draft was to give the poorest (as in record) team a chance to make itself better.  Then the next, the next, and so on.  The worse a team did, the earlier it got to select from the draft-eligible players. But then teams got slick.  They figured, heck, we’re pretty bad this year, but with Player X (usually the best collegiate player) on our squad, we could dominate.  For years.  Why not lose a few on purpose so we can get his draft rights?  Since that logic isn’t exactly out of the Einstein School of Thought, the idea crossed the minds of the collective braintrusts of other bad teams and, well, you can see how convoluted things got when only a few games remained in the season and two or three teams were falling all over themselves to finish first.  In the Player X sweepstakes.  Or last in the NBA.  Beyond just screwing the ticket-paying public, it kinda messed with something that’s called the integrity of the game.The NBA powers-that-be came up with a lottery system which gave ping pong balls to the lottery teams, i.e. the bottom 14 of the 30 NBA teams that don’t make the playoffs.  The number of chances to win were given in reverse order of how the teams finished.  Different methods of deciding who got what have occurred throughout the years from 1985 until the present.  In 1993, real smart guys were called in to decide the “fairest” way to decide how the selection should be for the ‘94 draft.  When real smart guys and basketball guys get together, worlds collide.  Basketball guys score in ones, twos and threes (and it took a reeeeeal long time before threes were allowed.  If smart guys were in charge of scoring, there would be square roots and decimal points involved and it would be a week after the game was played before we’d know who won.  Suffice to say this lottery system gives the team with the worst record a greater chance to win it than any other team.  25%.  That is technically true.  But while the last place team has a better chance to win than any other team, it has a much less chance to win the lottery!

Without going into all the permutations and combinations (I was a math major in college but definitely not one of the “smart guys”), the team with the worst record has the greatest opportunity to “win” the lottery.  It’s just that those odds aren’t very good.  For example, last year’s worst team was the Charlotte Bobcats.  They had the best chance to win the #1 pick who, even the youngest of NBA fans knew, was going to be Kentucky’s Anthony Davis.  Whoever got Davis was getting a franchise player.  The Bobcats faithful had suffered through a dismal season but that would be old news if they could only start fresh with AD.  Then, the lottery came and they lost again.  And the reason was that, although Charlotte had a better chance of winning the lottery than any other NBA team, they still had a 75% chance of NOT winning it!

It’s easy to say something’s broken without giving a way to fix it but the lottery needs a different formula, mainly because the worst team hardly ever gets the pick.  Face it, last year the Bobcats were so bad that if they had tried to throw a game, they would have missed. The season was dreadful and then they get sand kicked in their face when they got third in the lottery.

This year, whoever has the worst record (Charlotte or Orlando) will have that same 25% chance of winning.  Except the lottery will be composed of guys who, other than foreign players, are looked down upon by NBA scouts.  Then why would they leave college?  Three reasons: 1) it’s supposedly a weak lottery field and 2) next year’s draft is supposedly better.  Combining 1) and 2) we get 3) somebody has to get selected. And going in the first round means guaranteed money.

To steal a memorable line from the late, great Jim Murray (who did not direct it toward the NBA draft), the description this year’s lottery could be:

“Never have so many done so little for so much.”

Every day the list of those underclassmen who are making themselves eligible for the NBA draft lengthens.  While nearly every person I’ve talked to, listened to or read has said the national championship game between Michigan and Louisville was terrific, nearly all of them thought this year’s March Madness was one of the poorest in terms of exciting, well-played games.  Emphasis on well-played.  Maybe this year was an aberration in terms of all we’ve come to expect from March Madness or maybe the absurd number of early exits has finally caught up with the college game.  If that actually were the case, the deterioration should have happened well before now but there’s no questioning this year’s NCAA tournament was as poorly played as any in memory.

One reason could be that, usually, experience makes offenses and defenses work better.  Those teams who are composed mainly of seniors, some fifth and sixth year seniors or guys who are as old as 24 or 25, are more mature, understand the intricacies better and have greater chemistry than a group of freshmen who just got thrown together and have played a total of thirty or so games, barring injuries.  How, then, a cynic or a fan might ask, could Kentucky have won the national championship a couple years ago?

Simple.  John Calipari is a master at leading and motivating a young group, getting them all to buy into his philosophy.  However, here is a life lesson that needs to be learned and never forgotten: Above all else, talent wins out.  He recruited them, motivated them and coached them.  Had Nerlens Noel not suffered a seasoning ending injury, we might have seen those results for a second straight season.  Can one man mean that much to a team?  For that answer watch the Lakers from here on out.  Especially if they make the playoffs.  Can anyone even fathom how good Kentucky would have been, forget this year’s incoming class, if the team that won it all - relatively easily - had all returned to UK for another run?  And another?  I started my college coaching career in 1972.  That was what UCLA did.  Beat everybody to death and recruited to fill the spots left by graduation.  Simple formula that worked for quite a while.

Undoubtedly, the early entry rule changed the player’s thought process but what really flipped the college game was the color green.  The talk of giving a college kid a stipend is nice - for the good players who are planning on going to school for four years anyway.  Does anybody really think a stipend is going to change a kid’s mind when he’s looking at the possibility of a six or seven figure contract?  If he can’t make the right decision there, maybe he’s not smart enough to be in college.

Louisville’s Russ Smith has declared for the draft even though most who make up mock drafts have him going mid- to late-second round, meaning no guaranteed money.  You think he’d change his mind if the NCAA passed a $300/month stipend?  $400?  $500?  Maybe, as the old joke goes, “he loves college but hates class.”  What compounds the problem is the timing of when to leave.  OK, most guys are going to go as soon as they can.  There are others, though, who realize they need some more seasoning and another year (or more) under their current “professor” would make them a much better and more ready prospect.  And that’s where the timing dilemma comes in.

Take, for example, this year.  I don’t pretend to know even one foreign prospect.  I leave that up to my man Franny Frascilla who can tell you all of them.  As far as the college players who comprise this year’s crop, there’s not one who doesn’t have “holes” in his game?  The consensus number one pick is Nerlens Noel who’s intercollegiate career was limited to 24 games.  Even if a team is comfortable with the brief showing of his considerable skills, there has to be a concern regarding the injury.  One, did it heal properly and two, is he injury-prone, e.g. Grant Hill, Darko Milicic or the two guys no one can ever forget - Greg Oden and Sam Bowie?

The rest?  In no particular order (since different mock drafts have them in different order), the guys who are consensus top picks are: Ben McLemore, Marcus Smart, Victor Oladipo, Otto Porter, Anthony Bennett, Trey Burke, Shabazz Muhammed, Cody Zeller, Alex Len.  Let’s not forget Isaiah Austin.  He hits home because he played with my younger son, Alex, back in the 5th grade AAU days.  What makes it particularly difficult when I evaluate him is that he looks exactly the same as he did when he was ten!  From the long, lanky arms and legs to the same goggles, it’s like watching him through a magnifying glass.  There is little doubt he’s going to be a great one just as there’s little doubt he’s not NBA-ready.  Ready to start banging his slender body with the 25-30 year old men who’ve been in the league for several years, taking advantage of all the professional strength trainers and facilities.  I’m sure Baylor’s facilities are first-class, but if they were placed side by side, I’m certain the state-of-the-art NBA equipment is far superior.  Plus, the NBA isn’t limited as to how much time - or when - coaches can work with players, as do NCAA-affiliated institutions.

Having watched each of the above guys, some on multiple occasions, my belief is none of these guys are NBA-ready.  Yet they’re going to get picked high.  Why?  Because, if they all stayed in college and worked on their skills, strength and stamina . . . here is what the draft would look like: Mason Plumlee, CJ McCollum, Mike Muscala, Jeff Withey, Erick Green, Nate Wolters, Jackie Carmichael, Solomon Hill, Michael Snaer, Brandon Paul, Eric Murphy, Pierre Jackson, Richard Howell, Isaiah Canaan, Trevor Mbakwe, Rodney Williams and a whole lot of Franny’s guys from overseas.  And unless Fran has uncovered some real gems, many of those names listed would be lottery picks.  Each of those players are good prospects, but if the thought of your favorite team using a lottery pick on any of them gives you a warm a feeling, check your pants leg because you might have just . . .

There is another reason guys leave school early and this one you won’t find anywhere but right here.  My firm belief is that the real reason people go to college is not to get an education.  The real reason is:

“These kids go to college to improve their station in life, and with what the NBA is paying - even if their careers are short-lived - it is a considerable improvement of their station in life.”

One day coming up soon, because of availability I’m not sure which, I’ll be headed to Stanford for some (more) tests.  Since I may be contacted and not have enough time to let you readers know, if you get to this site and you see the same blog you read the day before . . . that’s the day(s) I’m at Stanford.  Rest assured I’ll be returning shortly.

Ed Rush, former supervisor of officials for the Pac-12, lost his job because he made a statement that many people felt was obviously in jest.  Not according to CBSSports.com’s Jeff Goodman however.  Or rather, Goodman - and his secret informant.  Goodman reported one of the officials, i.e. referee, in the room told him Rush said that if an official would bang (call a technical foul on) Arizona’s coach, Sean Miller, or would run him (throw him out of the game), he (Rush) would give that ref $5000 or a free trip to Cancun.  Initially, Larry Scott, Pac-12 commissioner made the statement, “I do not find anything that rises to a fireable offense or a breach of ethics or a breach of the integrity of officiating or the program.”  But, claims Goodman, that was before Scott was privy to what the official told Goodman.

Was it?  Really?  Or, have we as a society, become so sensitive to anything said by or to anybody that a significant number of us have assumed the position of the PC (politically correct) police?  Under the guise of exposing insensitivity, they alert, a la Chicken Little, the public about some horrific crime - and in the process ruin lives of some while not benefiting society nearly to the degree they’re tearing it down.

What needs to be revealed is who leaked the information - and why?  According to Goodman, it was one of the referees.  The more the reporter spoke, it was apparent the secret informant was someone close to Goodman, possibly a good friend of his.  If this official believed so strongly that Rush is that evil a person, i.e. Rush really meant what he said, why not come out himself with the accusation?  Or was the guy upset because - although of course he didn’t referee for the money (just joking because if that was the case, he’d be the first for a guy at that level) - he didn’t get selected to officiate in the NCAA tournament and got stuck with one of the lesser post season assignments which pay less money, per diem and prestige?  Due to the fact that most, if not all, of Pac-12 referees have climbed the ladder of elementary, junior high, high school, JC, D-II and/or D-III and lesser name conferences (possibly skipping a rung here or there), when they’ve risen to the level of the Pac-12 (by far the highest in level and pay on the west coast), egos are bruised easily.  So if you believe his outrage was directed more for the love of the game being violated than his substantial paycheck (and national TV face time) being significantly reduced, you’re beyond naiive.  If this referee, Jeff Goodman’s anonymous source, didn’t have a hidden agenda of some sort, I’ll pay him five large or give him a free vacation to Cancun.  Actually, forget the $5K but my wife and I traded our time share and are headed to Cabo San Lucas next month.  I think there’s an extra bedroom.  Everybody knows that Cabo beats Cancun.  What do you say, anon?

All of this means that, in today’s world, we need to be on our best behavior all the time lest someone be offended.  If this sounds like the raging of an old man who hasn’t decided to play by the current rules, let me correct that sentiment - slightly.  There is no doubt I am from an other time, one that took place long ago.  It also got us where we are as a society.  Alright, so maybe that’s nothing to brag about but in my world, like it or not, sarcasm was used much of the time.  In 99% of the cases it was intended to be humorous.  About 95% of the time, it actually was.  Studies have shown that laughing is good for a person’s health.  If this PC nonsense continues, nobody will ever laugh again - for fear of hurting the feelings of whomever thinks that you’re laughing at him.  Or her.  Or it.

Here’s a short (believe it or not) story that illustrates my point.  Our high school football team was made up of seven or eight ethnic groups.  One day, in the locker room after practice, our center who was Polish Catholic, pulled me aside and said, “You’re the only Jew I know who I like.”  Today, national headlines.  Instead, I viewed it as I truly believe it was intended:

“I took it as a compliment!”

There hasn’t been anyone who’s seen the video of former Rutgers basketball coach Mike Rice who can believe it.  Including (probably) Mike Rice.  Coaches - even some of the most highly successful ones who have been around for a long, long time - have been quoted that they felt uncomfortable just watching it.  Kobe Bryant claimed he would’ve “smacked the hell out of him” - even if he were only an 18 year old freshman.  Yet, not one of the Rutgers’ players even gave their coach a dirty look.  Keep in mind, however, the video was a “highlight film” (or “lowlight”) of Rice’s bullying antics, i.e. what people saw wasn’t from just one practice.  In fact, it might have been a compilation of weeks of practice video.

Most people have asked “Why did they take it?”  Why did none of them act in the manner Kobe said he would have.  Did the coach brainwash them?  Actually, that might exactly be why they took it.  Here’s my scenario (and keep in mind, it’s nothing more than conjecture, i.e. there is not a shred of evidence to it):

Coach Rice: “Look, guys, we’re the ugly stepchild of this league (the Big East).  Nobody has any respect for us.  Everybody bullies us.  For us to win, we’re going to have to be tough.  Tougher than the guys who want to bully us.

“So I’m going to bully you.  Now, it will just be in practice.  Before and after practice, nothing about our relationship will change.  My door’s still always open, you’re still my guys .  But, at practice I’m going to bully you.  I’m going to shove you, verbally abuse you and throw balls at you.  How are you going to react?  Are you going to cave in to the bully?  Or are you going to ignore him, play harder and beat him?”

Once again, this is complete conjecture.  After seeing the video - and noticing the players never seemed to get upset, never questioned Rice (although in other clips, players are seen pushing back assistant Jimmy Martelli after he shoves them - hey, assistants only get so much leeway) led me to believe that these were playing along.  Like it was a play and they were playing a part in it.  Why else would macho guys - as a good deal of today’s ballers see themselves - allow themselves to be subjected to such bullying.  Especially by somebody who recruited them - who was in their homes, spoke with their parents and their coaches.  You know he never told them to expect any such tomfoolery at practices.

Naturally, even if this were true, Rice could never admit it as it’s as asinine a strategy as telling them to play on their knees in order to get lower in their defensive stances.  Plus, admitting to using the homophobic verbiage as a ploy - in any day and age - but especially this one would force any administrator to fire him on the spot.

All of the above is only my imagination’s explanation of what occurred at Rutgers, so we should all keep in mind that:

“Just because you can justify something in your own mind doesn’t make it right.”

In other Halls of Fame, in order for a coach to be inducted, I believe a coach needs to have been retired for a period of time.  Yet in college hoops, not only is there no mandatory waiting period, they seem to find it necessary to induct active coaches.  I’ve never understood why there is such a hurry to anoint coaches with such a distinction so early.  Each of the leaders who are being selected will be certainly be chosen when their careers have come to a close.  Unless the electors worry a coach is going to die “on the bench” as so many coaches claim they’re going to do because of their love of the profession or, in some instances, because (admittedly) coaching is all they know how to do.

With all the scandals we’ve been made privy to, a wiser choice would seem to be to wait so as not to remove someone who does something illegal, unethical or worse while he or she is still an active coaching member.  By no means is this blog aimed at Rick Pitino who, coincidentally, was inducted in the 2013 class.  Both Jim Boeheim and Jim Calhoun were inducted while they were active coaches (Boeheim still is - and nearly tacked on another national championship to his lengthy resume).

My point is, why take away a spot on the ballot from an “old-timer” (for lack of a better term) or detract from the retired coach who’s entering?  For the older coach it’s a chance to reminisce some and thank others who also may be later on in years.  Right now, Pitino has to try not to forget his past teams while, naturally, the guys who just gave Louisville another banner are those who are freshest on his mind.  Besides, of his recent honors, wouldn’t it stand to reason that winning a national championship (or even a Final Four appearance had the Cards not won it), having a horse qualify to run in the Kentucky Derby and getting selected in the Hall of Fame have to rank 1,2,3 - in that order?  For someone to say no, they must really love horses.

Obviously, Rick Pitino (and Jim Boeheim and Jim Calhoun) would have been voted into the Hall following their retirement.  Maybe even at a time they’d appreciate it more or at a time the spotlight had gone away for a while, so having it return would have made it a sweeter tribute.  If there was anything any coach could do in between retirement and getting selected that would preclude him or her from induction, it would have to be some heinous crime.  The way things are run now, the title would have to be vacated, bringing additional shame on the coach and the sport.

There should be a mandatory 3-5 year waiting period for coaches to get elected in the Hall of Fame (of course with exceptions for catastrophies, e.g. Jim Valvano).  The Hall needs to show some of what coaches continually preach:

“Patience!”

Yesterday’s blog never happened due to “an intermittent power issue last night which interrupted service” - whatever all that means.  I just know that every time I started, I couldn’t get whatever or wherever it was I needed to blog.  And that’s about as technical an explanation as you’ll get from me (because that’s as technical a reason as I know).

Regarding the question of whether John Beilein should have played Trey Burke after getting two fouls in the first half of the national championship, allow me to tell a story of a similar situation (hey, it’s what I do best).  We (Fresno State) were in the NCAA tournament as a #9 seed that had beaten #8 Cal a couple nights before.  Now we were going up against #1 Michigan State who was very talented at every position and had a huge frontline.

Melvin Ely, a 6-10 center, was our best player.  Sure enough, he picked up his second foul early (like within first five minutes of the game.  Tark left him in.  Big Mel then picked up foul #3.  Tark still stayed with him.

We wound up losing.  In the press conference Tark was asked about it and gave two answers.  The long answer was that he felt for us to win, Melvin had to have a big game, meaning score and rebound big, and get their plethora of big men in foul trouble.  If Melvin didn’t, there was no fooling anybody - we had no shot.  Tark said it wasn’t really that great of a risk because while he hoped Melvin wouldn’t have picked up that third one, there was no way we were going to win anyway.

Some (non-coaches) will say Tark didn’t show enough confidence in his team, that “stranger things have happened.”  And they’re entitled to their opinion.  Maybe they can even cite an example of such an instance in which a team playing without their star - and winning - against a taller, stronger, quicker, more talented squad. Usually, though, in that scenario, if you stay long enough following the game, you get to see the credits roll.

The move he made hadn’t surprised me because in previous years I’d heard him discuss what his philosophy (not necessarily the right philosophy) was about protecting great players who got into foul trouble:

“He’s not doing us any good sitting next to me.”

Most people, myself included, read Sports Illustrated for the articles.  At least until the swimsuit edition arrives.  But other than that issue, pictures are secondary (after the first few pages) to the written word.  The last page has become an audition to see which writer comes as close in popularity to the readers as Rick Reilly.  It might be a stretch to compare him to John Wooden but there seems to be no outright favorite yet even though there have been several very good columns.  It seems that there are many Gene Bartows, Gary Cunninghams, Walt Hazzards, Jim Harricks, Steve Lavins and Ben Howlands (most of whom were outstanding coaches) at SI but no one like Coach Wooden.  For my money, there hasn’t even been a Larry Brown yet.

When SI first asked its readers which of a list of sports, other than football, basketball, baseball and possibly a couple others that currently escape my mind (which shows my particular tastes), they had an interest in, e.g. tennis, golf, auto racing, etc. my choices came down to tennis and golf.  It was a tough choice and if I were younger - and still playing tennis - that would have been what I’d have selected.  Since my back issues eliminated playing tennis about a decade ago, I chose golf.  Now I get additional articles on the sport as well as special extra editions.  A good friend of mine is a scratch (or close) golfer so those issues go to him, after I’ve briefly scanned them.

The one on the Masters that just came out intrigued me enough that as I perused it, the article with their panel of (three) experts (and one anonymous pro) caught my eye.  Opinions abound in sports and I’ve found (through experience) it’s always a good idea to hear what others who are deeply involved in a sport or topic think before you start popping off, or even discussing, issues so as not to look foolish.  Although I’ve read some interesting points in the past, little did I think I’d come across as introspective an explanation as Gary Van Sickle’s regarding Rory McElroy’s approach to his profession.  Van Sickle said of the young star:

“He’s not all golf like Tiger was.  Rory is going to take the time to enjoy his life.  He reminds me of Arnold Palmer a little there.  He’ll be streaky great, and he’s got other interests.  He’ll have a better quality of life, and if that means a couple fewer major wins in the long run, that’s all right.”

In addition to expertly defining the differences between the two golfers, the Van Sickle quote speaks volumes to most everybody who has a job.  If you’ve just entered the working world, those are your choices.  How do you approach your profession?  Do you love it so much that it consumes your every waking minute?  In the business world, that type of an employee is called a workaholic.  Those people often find an abundance of material wealth, yet, frequently, there is something missing in their life in another area of it.  In the field of sports, we call them single minded and driven.  Some (most?) people think a person’s life should be balanced.  We all remember the old adage “All work and no play make Jack a dull boy.” 

The times and people (and salaries/purses for sporting events/endorsement deals) have made that quote obsolete.  Now, it’s “get it while you can” and “the window of opportunity is open only so long.”  Maybe not so much in golf where some wise brilliant old golfer had the imagination - or told somebody else - to create a Seniors Tour.  Still, people don’t want to see extraordinary talent not pushed to the ultimate.  Usually parents and agents because 1) nearly all of them weren’t as athletically blessed and 2) they don’t have to do the heavy lifting.

Far too many people have altered the line so that it turned around the original message.  Maybe Rory McElroy has it right but for now it’s become:     

“All work and no play make Jack (or Jill) a champion.”

Heading into their match up with Michigan, Billy Donovan, a coach who’s noted for details or, as we’ve learned during the media time out, logistics, needed to come up with a game plan for his Florida team.  One strategy would be to pressure the Wolverines and try to force as many turnovers as they could so the Gators would have numerous opportunities to score in the open court.  That had been their usual plan throughout the season.  Another method would be to make it a half court game so that the Gators could take advantage of their superior size and pound it inside because UM usually played with four guards and only one big man.

Donovan chose the one that exploited the inside mismatch.  On paper it was an excellent philosophy - except for the fact that his inside guys weren’t as noted for their back-to-the-basket skills as much as they were for facing up and offensive rebounding.  I wonder how much time Billy himself worked with those inside guys, explaining how vital it was they scored (as much as I’d like to think players listen to an assistant - having been one for 30 years - I fully understand their antennae tune in more sharply when the head man speaks).  Not pressing the action defensively as much as they could have meant the greater majority of their point production had to come from the “bigs.”

It might have been a moot point because had his team extended its defense to attempt to create turnovers against Michigan, the Wolverines’ guards might have broken the pressure.  Then any of their three point shooters (of which they have four on the floor during most possessions) would have been knocking down shots - scoring in threes.

Basically, there are two philosophies in forming a game plan: 1) if we go to our strength(s), will that be good enough for us to win or 2) would it better to attack their weaknesses?  Naturally, there are others but for the most they’re derivatives of the two above.  Unfortunately, the Gators looked much more reactive on defense and, while they were getting the ball inside, their bigs weren’t scoring, mainly because they’re not true back-to-the-basket players.  Before you know it, they were down a couple.  Touchdowns.  It was 13-0 and it only got worse.  UF attempted to rally but every mistake was magnified, e.g. fouling a three point shooter at the end of the half which thwarted the minor momentum they’d built.

Billy Donovan has currently been to three consecutive Elite Eights.  Florida fans might be disappointed they haven’t gone farther.  Well, Gator Nation, Ben Howland is available.  Oh yeah, he committed the same crime at UCLA (although his were Final Four “failures.”  For now, the Florida faithful can take solace in the fact they seem to be stuck with Billy the Kid - the same guy they cheered when he changed his mind and reneged on the offer he’d accepted from the Orlando Magic.

When a game between relative equals starts out like the UF-UM game did yesterday, it tends to balance out after a while or, as George Raveling used to say:

“The game will return to reality.”

It doesn’t surprise anybody when I tell them the pull I have with the NCAA and the NBA is equal to the juice I have with the White House.  That doesn’t mean I don’t have a better idea when it comes to the (admitted) problem of the NCAA’s one-and-done student-athlete.  While the following post (which, by the way, I first blogged on 5/3/2010 and altered a little here) certainly could use further tweaking, it’s exponentially superior to whatever has been proposed thus far.  Plus, it’s not illegal nor does it break any NBAPA rule.  Read and let me know what you think.  Better yet, contact the NBA office.  Especially if you have clout.

So many people are up in arms regarding the NBA rule that forces a high school player to attend college for at least a year before heading to the big league.  Of course, there are alternatives, but many are pretty radical, e.g. playing overseas ala Brandon Jennings.  While it (ultimately) worked out for Jennings (keep in mind he had a terrible experience over there), others have tried and haven’t been as successful as the Bucks’ star.

If memory serves me correctly (and at this age, that being true is a toss up), David Stern said the rule is in place due to some “legalese,” i.e. he’s not too thrilled about it either, but it’s the best of all evils.  With that in mind, it means that the “road most traveled” will be to enter college for at least (and for some, at most) one year.  My claim is that the current situation can be changed for the betterment of . . . everybody.

The why are we whining about it?  Let’s deal with it.  How?  Make college more relevant to these guys.  If they are as talented as they think they are (and as influential outsiders are telling them they are), then the school’s goal should be to help them - just like colleges are helping all other students.  As I initially blogged on 5/6/07 (and have reprinted that post at least once), the reason kids go to college is not for an education, but to improve their station in life.

The one-and-dones are going to college because they have to - and once the sand runs out of that year-long hour glass, color them gone - for the big money.  If that actually is the reality - and for the great ones, it is - why not give them a curriculum to prepare them for the life they’re about to enter, e.g. show them there is relevance for them to attend college!  Why not create a major in the field.  Put off the general education classes temporarily and offer them (and any other student at the university for that matter) courses in 1) money management (including the value of philanthropy for those who really hit the jackpot), 2) how to select advisers (mentors, agents, and, although, it could be a sensitive area, friends), 3) how to deal with the media and use it to their advantage, 4) women’s rights, including “no means no” (this should be mandatory for many students in the wake of today’s front page stories), 5) nutrition, 6) maintaining physical fitness, 7) accepting (embracing) the responsibility of being a role model and acting appropriately (whether they want to or not, athletes are role models) and 8 since NBA players don’t have normal 8-hour work days, nor do they play year-round, a course in how to productively use “down-time” (from doing crosswords and sudokus to keep the mind active, to reading up on a topic of interest, to tennis and golf, to . . . whatever)?  Many other course possibilities exist if people at the top (maybe create a mastermind group) would put their heads together.  For the kid who doesn’t get drafted or realizes he’s not yet ready, or better yet, realizes a college degree might be a necessity, and at the very least, certainly wouldn’t hurt, the sophomore year can be devoted to catching up on general ed classes.

What this does is give an extremely talented (in the sport of basketball) young man something that he can actually see will help him in his life after basketball.  Although Charles Barkley is a one-of-a-kind, e.g. an out-of-shape kid who eschewed attending classes, he became one of the 50 best players in the NBA and has been inducted into both the intercollegiate and NBA Halls of Fame.  He has managed to make a great life for himself, currently serving as a studio analyst for both the NCAA and NBA as well as a pitchman for several products.  That is, he’s making a lot of money.  However, for every Charles Barkley, there are hundreds, maybe even thousands, of kids who never played a second of pro ball, nor cashed an NBA paycheck.

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

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