Jack’s Blog

If there’s anyone who speaks with more conviction than Colin Cowherd, it’s Stephen A. Smith.  Coincidentally, Stephen A was sitting in for The Herd yesterday.  Two topics in particular made up the show.

One was Tiger Woods and his recent struggles on the golf course.  The other was Ohio State’s appointment at NCAA headquarters.  Not surprisingly, SAS was passionate about each.  His takes were nearly diametrically opposed.

Regarding (his friend) Tiger, he basically said the difference between Woods then and Woods now is his . . . sex life.  Smith thinks that Tiger might feel more comfortable walking off the course after his round and having a “hottie” there to give him a kiss.  That now he’s now trying to play the good guy instead of just being himself.  “He’s a man who made mistakes.  Mistakes a 30-year-old who made a billion dollars would make.”

“Say What, Stephen A?”  Have you shared your philosophy on your meaning of marriage vows with Elin?  Or any other  woman?  Or man whose wife makes a bil?  Does it have to be a billion or would someone pulling down a zero or two less also qualify for a little “strange”?  SAS claimed he was only saying what was needed to be said.  As he always does.

He topped that rant off by piling on (non-friend?) Jim Tressel (a guy who certainly deserves everything that has happened and is coming to him).  But, as Stephen A tends to do to make his point crystal clear, he disparaged Tressel by calling him a liar and referring to a him in one of his press conferences as a “paragon of virtue - up there with his vest on.”  How is this different from a guy speaking so glowing of his wife and two kids after winning a tournament - with his Sunday red shirt on?  SAS also commented on Tressel as a guy who made $21.7 million, inferring that was a great deal of money.

Maybe he would have been more compassionate if Tressel had cheated on his wife.  The difference between Smith’s feelings in each situation can be summed up with the following (long) quote:

“Your friends are your friends, not because they have no faults, but because, even though they have faults, you can overlook them.  Your “enemies” are your enemies because they have faults you can’t overlook.  Keep in mind that your friends are someone else’s enemies and your enemies are someone else’s friends.  So don’t deify your friends or crucify your enemies.  Just try to understand everyone.”

Heading to the California Coast for a high school basketball tournament.  The blog will return Friday, Xmas Eve day.

This is the time of year when prognosticators of all types want to be heard.  Get it right and, especially if you have a TV or radio show, you can remind viewers and listeners of your expertise - which was presented prior to the contest.  Calling it wrong gives you carte blanche as far as criticism is concerned, e.g. it’s open season on head coaches, coordinators, kickers, offensive skill players (for fumbling, throwing picks or dropping passes) and defensive linemen (for not getting their average, or more, number of sacks).  Miss by enough and you can even roast the NCAA or BCS.

Just predicting who will has never meant much to me.  After all, when two teams are playing, Zippy the Chimp has a 50-50 chance of getting it right.  Make a pick and explain why that team will win.  Better yet, set the scenario(s) that each team needs to emerge victorious.

A few days ago, I heard Colin Cowherd, never short on opinions (or the ability to annoy/condescend), give his pick for the national championship game.  Although he’s from the Pacific Northwest, he’s convinced Auburn will win because they have better players, including the best.  Oregon has never seen such an array of talent.

While that might be true, what Auburn hasn’t seen is a team play at the pace the Ducks do.  In a pound-it-out macho conference like the SEC, coaching staffs pride themselves on situational substitutions.  Does this give an advantage to Oregon?  That’s something everyone will know as the game unfolds.

Well, what kind of prediction is that?  Everybody can tell what happened after it took place.  It’s called being a sportswriter, or more specifically, a columnist.  The fact that everyone can analyze why outcomes occurred after they happen is no more absurd than the fact that everyone can make a prediction before the game.  The more detailed you get, the greater chance you look like a genius - or a fool.

Predictions are great for water cooler conversations (or possibly conversations that take place where stronger beverages are served) and gamblers.  The latter actually do “put their money where their mouth is.”  Is it better to merely pick a winner and should your choice come up roses, gloat, and if you choose the wrong side, hide - or take a gamble and pre-analyze the fray, meaning your brilliance will be many times greater if your ship comes in, but you’ll leave yourself open to ridicule if your winner is right but for all the wrong reasons?  That answer depends on your personal make up - or how much the station is paying you.

Most people (outside the pacific Northwest) agree Auburn might have more better athletes (see yesterday’s blog re: “more better”) - and certainly no one is in the class of Cam Newton (unlike Florida’s claim that Newton wasn’t in the classes of many of his teammates - OK, bad joke) - but Oregon’s roster isn’t exactly composed of dogs.  The Ducks’ hurry-up offense is just as difficult to prepare for as Cam Newton.  It’s one thing to see each on camera, but another thing to try to actually tackle Newton, or play at the pace Oregon forces teams to do.

Who’s my selection?  I’ve worked in both leagues (albeit in basketball), so there’s no preference there.  I’ve always been partial to coaching and preparing game plans and in that regard, I favor Oregon, but to go out on a limb and say who the winner will be?

I subscribe to Casey Stengel’s theory:

“Never make predictions, especially about the future.”

Although Duke is the only number one seed to have made it to the Final Four, no one is anointing them as national champion, as would have been the case had Kansas or Kentucky (but not both) had made it to Indy.  One reason might be the anti-Duke feeling in many parts.  I happen to agree with Dick Vitale (although with considerably less volume) on this point.  People may have a dislike for Duke’s program because they win so often. 

But, in this day and age, with all the wrong that’s been exposed, is it so terrible that kids who work hard on the basketball court and go to class, at a prestigious institution, with a demanding but gracious coach, are successful at what they do?  There’s another reason I think Duke isn’t the people’s choice and that’s because, throughout the year and in the tournament, they have shown serious deficiencies.

To date, they’ve been able to overcome them, but should Singler have a(nother) bad shooting day or Scheyer miss a lot more than he makes (not an uncommon occurrence) or Zoubek get into early foul trouble - and all of these events take place during the same game, not even Coach K would anticipate a W.

For Butler, they have two things going against them.  One is, as Colin Cowherd said (and who knows more - or is as arrogant - than Colin), “They’re Butler.  They don’t belong.”  He’s not the only person who feels that way, either.  Does that affect them, should they get down big or early (or both) on the biggest stage in college hoops?  Their other drawback is that the tourney’s being played in their hometown.

Huh?  That’s a disadvantage?  When he was asked what he planned on doing differently, Butler’s head coach, Brad Stevens, calmly said, “We plan on having the same practices; we plan on having a specific time set aside for the media; we plan on preparing for the game like we have all year.”  In other words, he wants to treat the game as he would any other.  Great idea.  Consistency and not changing winning habits should disrupt the team as little as possible.

Only this is the Final Four!  When the players go to class - or just walk across campus - they’re going to be showered with (deserved) admiration or, worse, deluged with ticket requests.  People in town will serve as additional distractions.  Brad wants to treat it like any other game but, no matter what spin is put on it, coach after coach maintains the first time you take a team to a Final Four, you’re unprepared.

The remaining two teams could be favorites for their toughness, talent and coaching (although Tom Izzo has had this experience so many times before, Bob Huggins isn’t on his maiden voyage, having gone in 1992), but each has had a star go down with an injury.  For the Spartans, Kailin Lucas is lost for the tournament.  No matter what they’ve done without him, Michigan State may find themselves looking for his leadership and scoring if the game gets close. 

As far as the Mountaineers, their main man, Darryl “Truck” Bryant is talking about being fitted with a special shoe, enabling him to play.  This might be more of a distraction for two reasons.  One is that it’s going to be a constant topic of conversation for the coach and players.  “Will he or won’t he?”  At this time, anything that takes a player’s mind away from focusing on the game plan can’t help.  Worse, however, is if Bryant does play.  It’s hard to believe that someone who was diagnosed with his injury would be able to compete at all, much less at the level needed to be effective, i.e. it might be a hindrance to play him.  If all the talk of him trying to play is just a smokescreen, see the first reason - distraction.

That’s the bad news.  The good news is somebody’s going to win it.  Everyone of them is enthusiastic and as Norman Vincent Peale said of that trait:

“Enthusiasm releases the drive to carry you over obstacles and adds significance to all you do.”

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?”