Jack’s Blog

A 5′5″ jock sniffer, Nevin Shapiro, is wallowing in his “15 minutes of fame” while the University of Miami worries about how long they’re going to spend in NCAA purgatory.

Fpr the next few blogs, I’ll be giving some random observations:

The talking heads and people who call in radio talk shows are incensed that college football players would accept something outside the limits of the NCAA rules.  Full disclosure - when I was a freshman in college, I made a field goal late in our homecoming football game that was the difference in our winning.  The next day, I walked into a sub shop we frequented on Sundays when we didn’t feel like having dorm food.  I ordered my sandwich and when I went to pay, the owner said, “Nice kick.  It’s on the house.”

This was at a Division III school.  Technically, it was a violation of NCAA rules.  Not only did I not refuse the freebie, I never even considered it.  To me, it was an honor.  At that time, I didn’t feel entitled; I didn’t have a lot of extra cash and was thrilled I was a few bucks to the good.

As absurd as this sounds, it’s similar to many of today’s infractions.  Schools all claim their boosters are the best.  Do you think they mean the best as far as staying within the NCAA rules?  I’ve worked at nine Division I schools and can tell you that most fans love knowing the colleges’ athletes - and having the kids know them.  If they’re out at the mall and an athlete recognizes them by name, it’s as proud a moment as they can experience.  Having one or more to their house for dinner - especially so their children can be with them - is nirvana.

That happens to be legal now.  I remember when it wasn’t.  Our (coaches association) Recruiting Committee recommended to the NCAA Recruiting Committee that, as long as boosters weren’t providing weekly catered meals, why not allow athletes the same courtesy as other students if they knew someone in town?  The NCAA agreed and added to the rule book “an occasional meal” was acceptable.  When we pressed them to define “occasional” they wouldn’t commit.

Therein lies the answer to “Why can’t the NCAA cut their rule book?”  “Eliminate the gray areas?”  “Use more common sense?”  It’s because if you give coaches an inch, they’ll take a mile.  Everybody is looking for an edge.  Is an occasional meal once a week?  Once a month?  Besides, the NCAA isn’t concerned about a booster giving a student-athlete a meal; they’re worried about what else the kid gets while he’s there.  How is that monitored?  People with a great deal money feel they can buy things they want.  If that means recognition from a top, or even second string player, hey, it’s only money.

It’s interesting to hear ESPN’s Mark May pontificate about how the NCAA might be right in assessing the death penalty to the “U.”  I was an assistant at Robert Morris College in 1976, the year Pitt won the national championship in football.  Maybe their star running back Tony Dorsett didn’t receive any more than room, board, books tuition and fees.  But I’d love to ask May what his guess is - and while we’re at it, would he put his hand on a Bible and swear he didn’t get anything beyond the rules when he matriculated?  Pittsburgh is one of the biggest football cities in the country and the people who live there are as rabid fans as there are.  If a student-athlete goes out after a big win, don’t for a minute think he’s paying for his food or beers.  And if there’s one player who would stand up and say, “Sorry, this is against NCAA rules, I’ll pay,” let him come forth and be anointed with holy water. Ditto for Kirk Herbstreit, Craig James, Keyshawn Johnson, Robert Smith, etc.

It’s not greed; it’s human nature.  The NCAA’s problem is, “Where do we draw the line?”  Excoriating the NCAA is easy.  They do make themselves into an easy target, but:

“If someone is going to expose a problem - without proposing a viable solution - all they’re doing is complaining.”

As a former coach, I’d like to think so.  What is a “coach factor?”  It’s similar to “Win one for the Gipper.”  A coach retires, leaves (on his own or at the administration’s request), has some sort of personal setback or even dies - prior to a big game.  Does this affect the team?

Many people will say that talent wins games and is the one and only determining factor.  While I might not agree with that statement, I am completely aware that talent is far and away the most important factor in who wins or loses.  However, college football (the subject of this blog) is played on a field and not a fantasy league operation.

Emotion is and always will be part of the game.  Bobby Bowden, love him or hate him (and I’m not sure how anybody could hate a coach - excluding Adam and the rest of the James Gang), has been Florida State football for a long, long time.  His (forced) retirement could certainly have had some meaning to the Seminole players.

As far as the Sugar Bowl was concerned, it was a mismatch from the get-go.  Certainly from a talent standpoint.  But with the outpouring of love for Urban Meyer, which occurred following the outburst of negative comments from a few Cincinnati players when they learned their coach, Brian Kelly, was leaving to take the Notre Dame job, a blowout wasn’t unexpected.  Note: I wonder how many of these players who were disappointed in their coach’s “lying” to them, would have chosen Cincy over ND out of high school (had they qualified and been recruited by both schools)? 

Sometimes, the team on a positive mission (as I would call the Gators’ attitude) only needs an early break, e.g. score) to defeat the team who’s hell bent on revenge.  Undoubtedly, Florida would beat Cincinnati 10 out of 10 times.  But UC did have an undefeated season, won the Big East and I would doubt, just as strongly, that if the two squads played (with no outside distractions) ten times, none of the ten would have resulted in such a lopsided result.

How Texas Tech will play is still a mystery, but it would be interesting if someone could take a secret ballot of all the players as to their feelings toward Mike Leach - and not look at the results until after the game ends.  Michigan State has had its share of problems but nothing they’ve gone through measures up to the distraction of the Red Raiders.

Coaches are notorious for quotes and a good one regarding a team player is by Dennis Kinlaw (not a coach, but past president of Asbury College):

“One who unites others toward a shared destiny through sharing information and ideas, empowering others and developing trust.”

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?”