Jack’s Blog

Many years ago I roomed with one of the other assistant coaches on our staff for an extended road trip.  Because we were on the road so long, we discussed a variety of subjects, one of which was gays.  Not gay athletes (or lesbians), just gay men.  My “roommate” absolutely despised homosexuals, saying he was disgusted a man would choose to live that way.  I said that I didn’t think they necessarily wanted to be gay.  He maintained it was a way of life and whoever lived that style of life had to have selected it.  Nothing I said seemed to shake his profound belief until I finally came up with a scenario that, while it didn’t change his mind, it did rattle his foundation - a little.

The language we used in the conversation was salty so out of respect for those readers who would be uncomfortable with it, I’ve changed the exact words.  Independent of who you are, you will thoroughly understand the message so there’s no need to put it down verbatim.  I initially asked him if (a female star whom I can’t remember now but who would be that day’s equivalent of Beyonce) walked into the room and began to disrobe, would he get excited?  He said of course he would.  I asked him if he was sure, if there was anything that would prevent that from happening.  He assured me that, other than being blind and deaf (he did put those qualifiers on his answer), he would be aroused.  Maybe he thought it was a trick question.

Then I asked him if (the equivalent of LL Cool J, Chris O’Donnell or Eric Olsen - hey, I think NCIS-LA has a good-looking cast - including Daniela Ruah) did the same thing, if he’d experience similar feelings.  “NO WAY!” he screamed, as if I should have been drawn and quartered for even suggesting it.

Wait, I asked, how about if the lights were low, some Barry White was playing and . . .”NO!“  I go the “caps” answer to that one.

C’mon, what if he’d been out drinking and just got really wasted and hadn’t had sex in a month (this guy was in his early 30s and was a very eligible bachelor) and the dancer was wearing provocative . . . There aren’t enough expletives for his response.

I went for the trump card.  “Even if you tried to talk yourself into it?”  When he remained steadfast in his belief, I said to him, “Don’t you think that’s how it is for gay guys?  What you’re saying is you’re wired into feeling the way you do - and couldn’t change if you tried.  Don’t you think it’s the same for them?”

I noticed in one of the past couple issues of SI there was a letter from a reader which corrected a previous SI story that used the term “sexual preference.”  The writer said it should have been “sexual orientation.”

The following quote from Warren Bennis’ was referring to how business leaders should treat employees in general.  I’m not sure this topic is what he had in mind, yet it fits perfectly.

“Accept people as they are, not as you want them to be.”

Accept people as they are, not as you want them to be.

As television programs go, there are many that aren’t as captivating as Inside the NBA.  The show is so entertaining that I know people who don’t watch the NBA game that’s televised that night yet will tune into Ernie & the ex-NBA stars.  The word that’s used when people try to explain why it wins awards is chemistry.

Ernie Johnson is the moderator and, maybe because he understands which guys the viewers want to hear, or maybe because he wants to keep getting paid large dollars, or maybe because it’s what his bosses tell him to do, he relinquishes the stage to Charles Barkley, Kenny Smith and Shaquille O’Neal.  Since everyone has an opinion (and they all stink - the punchline of an old adage) and this is my blog, I’ll let you know mine.  I feel the best the show was was either when it started and it was only a three-man operation, or when they added Greg Anthony.  Maybe I like guards better, but I didn’t think Chris Webber added anything to the show and I think Shaq takes away from it.

For my (cable subscription) money, I don’t see where a fourth person is necessary.  In the beginning (not to compare the show to The Bible, it’s not that good), Ernie provided the knowledge that a television pro needs to know - plus he’d throw in a witticism every so often.  Kenny’s opinion was gleaned from a guard’s point of view, as well as that of a player who not only was a member of, but was a major contributor to the championship team.  Charles gave commentary from a big man’s perspective, and also that of a Hall of Famer.  Plus, he’d say blurt out statements like, “There’s a fight I wouldn’t break up,” when player-enforcers David West and Kenyon Martin started to scuffle.  That combination was enough.  And perfect.  Why the producers or directors or Ted Turner or whoever thought the show needed anyone else is as shocking as why they continue to allow Shaq overdo whatever schtick comes to his mind.

What the fans get to see is how varied opinions, based on their experiences, can be - whether you hear analysis from a guard (Kenny or Greg), “The guards need to establish tempo” or from the big guys (Charles, C Webb or Shaq), “They need to get the ball inside.”  The fans also get - or have to put up with - depending on the reason a viewer is tuning in, the tomfoolery among the combatants.  Often it is hilarious, sometimes with the on-air banter, sometimes with the vignettes the producers put together to tease the guys in the studio.  Charles has been an amazingly good sport as the other guys, including those not on camera, continually poke fun at him for various mistakes he’s made, things he’s said or . . . pretty much anything from his life.  However, his attitude might just be a case of a healthy salary because the Chuckster once said on-air “I can be bought.  If they paid me enough, I’d work for the Klan.”  Make no mistake about that, however.  On that, he was joking.

Kenny is the perfect foil to Charles (or maybe it’s the other way around).  Charles knows the bond the two of them have is such that anytime Kenny’s embarrassing him, it’s only for the sake of good TV.  Kenny does a great job when he’s explaining video, illustrating his point so that someone who’s not that into the hoops can understand the point he’s trying to make.

Shaq seems to have been added more to capture the interest of a different demographic of basketball fan with his references to today’s music, dance and lingo.  The issue with him is he overdoes it.  His stuff becomes old and tired - and he refuses to let up.  He either doesn’t know he’s annoying or doesn’t care.  Or enjoys it!  I mean wasn’t there anybody in the studio telling him “Birdman, Birdman” was getting old?  I’m not sure how many times he said it last night but, then again, I can’t count to infinity.

The show has obvious off-camera, inside jokes among the four of them, but those are almost funny in a teasing sort of way.  The show can have it’s serious moments as well (apart from the obvious basketball talk).  Although Charles can learn from Shaq about overdoing something (enough already with the “Only God’s an expert,”), Chuck has made several poignant statements.  It’s apparent when he’s passionate about a topic, e.g. remarking on not taking being an NBA player as seriously as those of the five other professions he mentioned (teacher, policeman, fireman, doctor, military) - although plumbers, electricians, maintenance workers, auto mechanics and others working in fields outside the five he mentioned might be offended.  His sincerity does show through.  As it did when he remarked:

“The great thing about sports is that it takes you away from reality.”

There are two constants that viewers of NBA playoff games - or is it any game? - can count on.  One of them is players complaining to referees following fouls called on them.  Or fouls not called on guys guarding them.  Dwight Howard, Pau, Russell Westbrook, KD, Melo, Boozer, KG, Blake Griffin, Tim Duncan, Zach Randolph, LeBron, Bosh, and for all intents and purposes, every other player in the league.  Possibly, it’s because they’re embarrassed they missed a shot.  Or maybe they really got fouled and the ref missed the call.  Or it should have been a charge instead of a block - or a block instead of a charge.

Whatever the case, the following scenario is guaranteed.  The offended player gives the referee the stank eye, then mumbles (or louder and clearer) his displeasure.  Something like “It was a clean block”/”Didn’t you see him hit me?”  Occasionally, additional adjectives an adverbs find their way into the conversation.  In some cases, he will soon be donating money to the league.

The second constant is the refs don’t change their minds.  Larry Sanders of the Milwaukee Bucks put it best in the 4/15/13 edition of Sports Illustrated when he discussed his new found philosophy toward officials:

“What’s going on here?  I’m arguing with the ref, but he’s not the enemy.  Sometimes he makes good calls, sometimes he makes bad calls, but he never overturns his calls.  So what am I doing?”

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.”

If you were to ask the media what percentage of the questions they ask are fair, they undoubtedly would say 100%.  Unless they’d say 110%.  That logic is based on their feeling that they not only can, but are mandated to ask any and all questions based on their belief that the public has a right to know.  How many media people would like to have the tables turned on them is unknown but we can rest assured that it would be considerably less.  Like 100%.  If not 110%.

Take last night’s scenario.  The guy’s team just lost a game.  He feels bad.  And this wasn’t just a big non-conference game, nor was it a tough contest against a conference foe, a conference tournament fray or even an early NCAA tourney defeat.  The loss was for the opportunity to play for the national championship, the ultimate in a coach’s life.  His team wasn’t blown out, which would have given him a few minutes to realize it was all over and maybe collect his thoughts.  No, it went down until the final seconds and now . . .

He has to give his final post game speech for the season to his team which is naturally quite sentimental.  If he’s like any other coach I’ve ever known (head or assistant), he’s gone up to the squad’s seniors, one at a time, and told each one how much he appreciated their effort for the past year (or two, three, four or five).  Keep in mind the pair will be ending the relationship they’ve known for however many years.  If the coach recruited that player, the finality of the situation can be overwhelming emotionally.

Finally, his school’s media relations person tells him it’s time he must, according to NCAA tournament rules, go the press room.  The head coach is certainly upset but he harbors no ill will because he 1) understands tournament procedure and 2) implicitly trusts his media person, having “gone through the wars” with him.

The media knows all of this.  While the majority are professionals, there are inevitably one or two (or maybe more, depending, quite frankly, on the coach) who are champing at the bit to ask a question (or questions) to the person who they feel disrespected them.  Maybe a member of the media doesn’t particularly like a coach because of something he said or did to a friend or colleague.  In any case, there always seems to be someone - more so if the coach is controversial - who will see if they can say something to set the coach off, to get under the his skin.

As far as asking Boeheim if he’d return for next season, was it really necessary?  Or was it asked in an attempt to provoke the coach?  Why would his answer even matter?  Would it be binding?  Or would it give that reporter a chance to get another dig in at Boeheim if he changed his mind at a later date?  Besides, how important is it?  Syracuse already has a coach-in-waiting in Mike Hopkins so it couldn’t be to run the rumor mill about which coaches will be his successor?  Obviously, my take on the situation was that the question was more irritating than unfair.

I believe it was a big league manager who once said:

“When I think someone has a hidden agenda, I never give an answer with anything that could possibly come back to haunt me.”

This past weekend I was listening to sports talk radio when I heard a familiar voice.  It was Bobby Cremins.  Although Bobby and I are both east coast guys, I didn’t get to know him until we were working in the Southern Conference, Bobby as the head coach at Appalachian State and me as an assistant at Western Carolina.  We became pretty good friends.  Aside from enjoying a career as a highly successful coach, Bobby is one of the most genuine guys in the business and loved by everybody in - and out -of it.  The following story is from my book, Life’s A Joke.  It is pure Bobby.

With all the stops I’ve made, I’ve witnessed some pretty great rivalries: Washington State vs. Washington, Oregon vs. Oregon State, Tennessee vs. Kentucky, Toledo vs. Bowling Green and USC vs. UCLA.  While those are certainly intense, possibly the most heated rivalry is the one between Western Carolina and Appalachian State.  Each is in the Southern Conference - Western Carolina located in the valley of the Smoky Mountains, Appy State at the very top, about a 2 1/2 hour drive from one to the other.  Each (at that time) played in cracker box gymnasiums and every game was hotly contested.

While I was there in the late ’70s, the coach at Appalachian State was Bobby Cremins who later went on to have a highly successful coaching career at Georgia Tech.  Bobby is a native New Yorker and, as had his college coach, Frank McGuire, established a New York pipeline down to Boone, NC where Appalachian State is located.  There’s a major difference between people from the east and those from the south - and this certainly holds true for the student-athletes as well.

One night in Cullowhee, where Western is located, the game was very close until ASU started to pull away at the end.  The crowning blow was a dunk by one of the Appalachian players who hailed from NYC.  As he ran by the capacity crowd of 4400 in a building designed to seat about 3400, he gave the fans the one finger salute.  The chancellor at Western Carolina at that time was, as they say Down South, “a good ol’ boy” and one of the best university administrators I’ve ever been around.  His name was Dr. H.F. “Cotton” Robinson.  Dr. Robinson was an absolutely huge sports fan, not only attending every contest on campus, but really getting involved in the game.

Because Cullowhee was the type of town it was, e.g. unincorporated, no population, no mayor, no Main Street, there weren’t too many jacket-and-tie people coming to games.  This included Dr. Robinson who always sat in the first row, opposite the visiting team’s bench, usually in corduroy pants and a plaid shirt.  Once the game ended and the coaches and players had shaken hands, Dr. Robinson made a beeline for Bobby and said how embarrassed he should be that a player who acted in such a rude manner would be representing his school.  Bobby, being from New York, said what most New Yorkers like him would say.  “Get the bleep outta here!”

Dr. Robinson replied, “Young man, I’ll have you know I’m the chancellor at this university, and I don’t appreciate you talking to me like that.”

To which, Bobby, after checking the corduroy pants and plaid shirt, and realizing that he’d never seen a person of authority dress in such a manner, said, “Get outta my face.  You’re no bleeping chancellor.”

You can only imagine how shocked and embarrassed Bobby was when his media relations director asked him what he and Western Carolina’s chancellor were talking about.

“Better to reserve judgment until you’ve accumulated ALL the facts.”

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.”

Ohio State and Arizona played one of those NCAA tournament games in which the cliche “every possession counts” was to be taken literally.  ‘Zona was up at the half but the Buckeyes came storming out of the locker room and quickly claimed the lead.  Now, let’s flash forward to the final two-and-a-half minutes of the game when OSU’s Nick Johnson deflected an Ohio State pass into the backcourt.  He and the Bucks’ Aaron Craft scrambled for the ball.  Johnson did what he’s seen so many of his peers do in similar situations.  He wisely called time out.  Or was it such a smart move?  True, they got the ball - but the time out was the Wildcats’ last. Had Johnson simply grabbed onto the ball and been tied up, the call would have been a “held ball” with the possession arrow going to . . . Arizona.  In other words, there was no need to burn that final timeout, leaving the ‘Cats with zero so late in such a meaningful game.

Anyone reading this blog is undoubtedly saying, “How in the hell - in the heat of such a moment - is Nick Johnson supposed to know the possession arrow in his team’s favor?”  My former boss and current friend and mentor George Raveling started a website about a year or so ago (CoachGeorgeRaveling.com - a site I highly recommend).  To date I’ve contributed a couple articles and I’m currently working on another (”Seating Arrangements and Duties for the Coaching Staff During Games”).  The first was entitled Top 10 Traits of a College Assistant Coach.  Trait #6 mentions “end-of-game situations.”  I encourage anyone who’d like to more deeply be involved when witnessing a game to read it.  The article I’m currently writing will reiterate the answer to the above posed question - as did Trait #6.

An assistant coach should have made everyone - coaches and players - aware of 1) how many times out the team had left and 2) which team had the possession arrow.  Some may think, “oh that’s easy to say.”  No.  It . . . really . . . is.  It’s just part of your practices.  Maybe not every day in October, November or December but as the season moves on (and the majority of your defensive and offensive sets or plays have been implemented), there is more time for special situations and incidents exactly like the one that occurred in the UA-OSU contest.

Arizona’s head coach Sean Miller was speaking about the final Ohio State possession when Aaron Craft passed the ball to LaQuinton Ross who buried a three-pointer with a couple of ticks left.  What he said was their plan was to switch the screen on the ball but didn’t.  He lamented (not a direct quote):

“In the pressure of the NCAA tournament, as the pressure mounts, it’s difficult for guys to do what you want them to do.”