Jack’s Blog

On 4/30/08, I posted the following blog.  Five years later, my feelings remain unchanged.  Coaches get fired every year and as salaries soar (due to a minority of coaches who excel at their craft), pressure is ratcheted up even greater.  One fact remains.  Whatever number of teams a league has in it, somebody is going to finish last.  Writers and sportscasters aren’t held to such a standard.  See what you think.     

At the beginning of each season, there are preseason polls, usually the work of sportswriters, sportscasters and other various and sundry pundits.  At the conclusion of the year, many of these prognosticators who put together these polls in the first place are talking about how many of the teams picked to win or finish at the top of their conference/division had disappointing seasons.

Fans, boosters and owners often buy into this concept - and they lose confidence in the coaching staff, increasing pressure (which, believe me, there is plenty already) or patience (and make a change - possibly just at the time the team was poised to have that breakthrough year - see Mike Krzyzewski at Duke after their 11-17 record in the ‘82-’83 season).  Coaches have been chastised on numerous occasions for “bad-mouthing” their team’s chances during the preseason, the critics claiming the coaches don’t want the pressure.  While this is possibly true, the coach also may know something (being much closer to his team than those doing the ranking) that will prevent them from living up to such a lofty selection.  Also, the reason could be that no one wants to have to live “up” to expectations; that they’d rather “surprise” people, have great seasons and, receive (sometimes planned, often not, but always welcome) the praise for an “over-achieving” campaign.  Many times these types of seasons lead to raises, contract extensions and, on occasion, a new gig (see Keno Davis from Drake going to Providence for somewhere in the neighborhood of seven figures and long-term security - whatever that is in the coaching profession - after the Bulldogs went from being picked at the bottom of their conference to becoming media darlings and NCAA Tournament Cinderellas). Note: since then, Davis has lost his job at Providence.  Replace his name and Drake and Providence with Andy Enfield and Florida Gulf Coast and USC.  Obviously, the current system is purely speculative (although fans love them, hence resulting in selling more papers and magazines) and on some occasions, they might be right on target.  Of course, the possibility exists that these pollsters have limited knowledge of “what they speak” (or rate) and put untrue, excessive or unfair expectations on the teams.  And the coach.  Keep in mind that for every Keno Davis, there’s a guy who was picked high and finished low (possibly costing him the loss of his job) - all because a group who may not have done any (or, at most, limited) research into the project or, as is known to happen, may have given it to a gofer to select.

Wouldn’t it be interesting to make everyone’s poll public information and, when a guy makes drastically wrong selections (maybe two or three years in a row), he loses his job (maybe as just a prognosticator - or maybe as a “whatever he actually does for a living”)?  It would make watching the final polls so much more interesting.  Can you imagine a player or coach asking a pollster at the post game press conference, “Well, you picked us last in our league and we’re on top while the team you predicted to ‘win it all’ is struggling in seventh place.  Are you at all worried about your position at the paper/station?”  Wonder how that guy’s wife would react if she heard that on the local or national news and how their kids would feel at school the next day when their classmates would approach them and innocently ask, “My dad said he heard your dad is going to get fired.”  Just another item to check in the “interesting things to think about but will never happen” category.

These prognosticators should take into account the words of Benjamin Disraeli who said:

“How much easier it is to be critical than be correct.”

The hottest sports story, including the Final Four, has got to be the total mess that took place at Rutgers and the ensuing domino effect of lost jobs and misery it’s caused.  Maybe the hottest news story as well.  Until it blows over and is replaced by something else that makes us breathe a sigh of relief while saying, “Well, there’s somebody whose life is in worse shape than mine.”

There was nothing good for Rutgers that came out of this situation - except for the hundreds of coaches who are bombarding the university with their resumes for the head and assistant coaching positions.  Their problem, however, is they don’t know exactly where they should send them.  The basketball office?  Athletics director?  President’s office?  On a more somber note, I, along with every coach I’ve seen interviewed, agree none of us have ever seen anything like that.  As loyal readers will know, I spent 30 years in Division I coaching, at nine institutions, going back to 1972.  Although one of those staffs in particular held daily practices that today would probably be considered child abuse, it was nothing at all like RU.

However, what terrified me nearly as much as the videos was what I heard Christine Brennan of USA Today say.  I was completely shocked and scrambled for a pen to write it down.  While I couldn’t remember it verbatim, it was something to the effect of - what a case like this says about college athletics is that it takes the media to police them.  After hearing that, I had a question for the sanctimonious Ms. Brennan.

Are you serious?

First of all, the person you most vilified (after Mike Rice), is Rutgers athletics director Tim Pernetti - who used to be a TV guy.  Had he stayed in the media world, he might be one of your guys policing college athletics.  Wow, how ironic would that be?  The person who watched the video of Mike Rice at Rutgers’ practices and decided not to fire him (which, correctly, offended you and the entire nation) . . . would be a watchdog.  Woof.  I don’t think so.

Since there are a couple, some, many, most, the overwhelming majority of people in this country who don’t, uh, what’s the right word here, oh, yeah, . . . trust the media, what exactly is the vetting process going to be like?  Can I be on the committee?  My memory recalls there have been media members who, how should I put it, have done wrong.  I think plagiarism (whether committed at the New York Times or lesser papers) is still against the law, isn’t it?  How would such people eliminated from your “policing” program?

Yesterday happened to be my annual check up with my optometrist.  After carefully watching and reading all the reports, I asked him if he could do anything to improve my hindsight.  One person I truly admired was the late Haywood Harris who served for five decades at the University of Tennessee as its SID (Sports Information Director, now referred to as Director of Athletic Media Relations).  Haywood was as intelligent and respected as anyone in the state.  He was inducted into four different Halls of Fame.  One day, he heard a young Knoxville sportswriter proudly claim that the media was “the watchdog of society.”  Haywood looked at the visitor and said:

“I’m a member of society.  I don’t remember ever requesting a watchdog.”

P.S. Here’s another question to ponder: Do you think these tapes would have been made public had Rutgers retained Eric Murdock?

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.”

In yesterday’s blog, I mentioned CoachGeorgeRaveling.com as a website that is well worth visiting.  One area of George’s site is a Q&A in which I ask him questions about himself - information that very few people are aware of - in order for people who don’t know him (as well as those who do) to better understand this complex individual.  To date there are somewhere in the neighborhood of twenty such segments.

A week or so ago George and I had lunch when he told me he wanted to video another set of vignettes in the near future.  As sort of a scoop for those of you who read this blog, I’ll let everyone in on one questions I plan to ask him during our next recording session.  It’s no secret that there are infinitely more people interested in coaching on the college level than there are positions.  Ask any head coach and he (or she) will tell you that on a seemingly daily basis they’re getting letters, phone calls, emails, recommendations - whatever type of communication available - from or about candidates for coaching positions.

Something I’ve noticed since I began in college coaching 40 years ago is that while coaching is such a coveted profession, an overwhelming majority who earn their living in the coaching business (on the Division I college level) are bitter when  their careers end - especially those who ascend to the position of head coach.  One would think that someone who finally reached the pinnacle, who got to grasp the brass ring, would be elated when their careers ended.  One would be wrong.  By a lot.

For example, of the ten head coaches for whom I worked, I’d say eight of them didn’t leave on their own terms.  While some get over it, others never do.  Bump into them - I’m talking about all former coaches now, not just my ten bosses - and when the conversation gets around to their career, they’ll either start to reminisce about when times were better or tell you (for the nth time) how such-and-such administrator/booster/player/assistant/you-name-it stabbed them in the back or didn’t give them enough time or didn’t understand how difficult the job was.

George wasn’t one of them, although his departure from coaching came after a retired professor ran a red light on the outskirts of USC’s campus and broadsided his car, not only forcing him into retirement but nearly ending his life.  How many more years George would have coached is unknown but with multiple broken ribs, a broken pelvis, broken back, punctured lung and numerous other injuries coaching took a backseat to . . . living.

A couple of former coaches with whom I’ve been reunited - if only via Sirius FM radio - are part of the small minority of D-I head coaches who got out of coaching on their own volition and are loving life.  It shows in their radio personalities and in their voices.  One is Bobby Cremins whom I first met when he was the head coach at Appalachian State and I was an assistant at Western Carolina.  For those of you who are unaware (meaning nearly everybody), these two schools are bitter rivals, Appie State on top of the mountain and WCU in the valley.  It’s like the Hatfields and the McCoys.  We had some epic battles in the Southern Conference.  We got the better of them; they go the better of us.  Bobby did well enough to land the Georgia Tech job.  He did so well there, they ultimately named the floor at Alexander Coliseum after him, but not before firing him first.  He said he was going to take a year off before coaching again. That year became six - before he took the reigns at the College of Charleston where he led them back to the glory days of legendary coach John Kresse before retiring to a life of radio and golf.

Another guy who had a nice run in the profession was Tom Brennan.  Tom led the University of Vermont into the NCAA tournament, a feat similar to climbing Mount Everest.  With mittens.  Barefoot.  I began my 30-year journey through nine D-I institutions at UVM and while I realize the situation was better for Tom than it was for us, it’s only because . . . it had to be.  In 1972 I went there as a grad assistant for $1,000 plus graduate school tuition.  Oh yeah, I was the only assistant.  Our head coach, Peter Salzburg, was in his first year and was hauling in $12,500.  Our entire budget, not including salaries and scholarships was $9,975.  I don’t care what kind of improvements they made, there should be a statue of Tom Brennan outside Roy L. Patrick Gymnasium.

When Bobby or Tom are on the radio, each has a wonderful sense of humor - usually the self-deprecating kind.  When they are pointing out interesting and insightful information, neither takes himself too seriously.  They enjoyed their head coaching successes, endured their failures (which were numerous since each took over absolutely dreadful jobs) and exited gracefully, moving on to where they are thoroughly enjoying their current gigs.  The other ex-coaches (whose agents got them radio and TV jobs) sound like they’re interviewing for their next job every time they express an opinion. Because they are.

Brennan, however, after hearing of lavish gifts heaped upon someone when he announced his retirement (I can’t recall the name now), joked that when he left Vermont, they gave him a barbeque.  “And I was thrilled!”

Since nothing good comes from stress - and no one’s getting out of life alive - probably the best way to view what’s going on in the tournament is to use the line retired Texas Tech football coach Sonny Dykes said:

“We are fixin’ to have more fun than a little.”

If someone’s interested in deep, thoughtful and knowledgeable insight about what’s happening in the world of sports, talk radio is about the best source going.  If you’re driving.  Alone.

I admit it’s more than mildly entertaining when people from all over the country call in and speak so passionately about the things and people they love or hate, but don’t really know at all.  Occasionally, shows get out of hand but, I imagine, that’s not exactly a negative in the world of all sports, all the time.

One topic I heard debated (actually, it wasn’t exactly a debate because the host just pontificated, only mentioning his friend’s agreement) on my 2 1/2 hour return trip from Monterey was the host of the show talking to a friend of his (another sports jock) and how they both felt the NCAA tournament is making the regular season in college basketball irrelevant.  That all that matters is where teams are at the end of the season.  Teams load up their schedule early with cupcakes in an attempt to win big and stay healthy so, come March, they’ll be running on all cylinders.  He was even ranting that teams like Gonzaga and Butler and VCU will be seeded high when other schools have been playing bigger, better competition all season.  Shouldn’t what teams did in the entire season matter just as much? he exclaimed.

It is pretty much the same argument the BCS has been using against having a football playoff.  When I mentioned this observation to a friend of mine, he told me he listens to the same show during football season when he travels and the host is one of the biggest proponents for a playoff!  Why?  My buddy said he states how the teams should battle in a one-and-done format to see which team comes out on top.  That, that team should be declared the winner.

It reminded me of the saying some politicians employ:

“He’ll stand for whatever you’ll fall for.”

Following Friday night’s Cal State Monterey Bay basketball game (the final contest for the Otters since they failed to qualify for the conference tournament, i.e. finish in the top eight of the 12-team CCAA), my wife and I drove home with our son, Alex, and his two freshmen roommates for a weekend in Fresno.  Yesterday morning was the return trip (males only) to get them back in time for their first class, an English class at 2:00pm.  First class at 2:00.  Tough life.

The audio book I had in the CD player ran out so I turned on Sirius radio and got a sports talk show out of New York.  A story was reported regarding Nolan Ryan being edged out with the Texas Rangers.  Apparently, Jon Daniels, the Rangers GM, was promoted to president of baseball operations and word had it that he had been in charge of all baseball decisions since late November.

Are you kidding me?  Nolan Ryan, Hall of Famer - maybe baseball immortal - being asked to step aside when the organization is going to make a decision about. . .  baseball!  How could such injustices take place?  This seems to be the case so often - especially on sports talk.  People are enraged when whatever happened, happened.  Voices are raised, arguments - pro and con - are debated, people try to shout over each other.  Obviously, buttons are pushed.  So how is anybody supposed to know which side is right?

A few years ago a teaching/coaching friend of mine took a job in professional basketball.  He and I discuss topics on a (nearly) daily basis.  I met him when I came to Fresno as director of basketball operations at Fresno State under Jerry Tarkanian (my ninth and final job in Division I college hoops).  After Tark retired, I took a job as a high school math teacher and basketball coach.  So I was where he was and he was doing what I was doing for 30 years, i.e. basketball all day/every day - except at a higher level in the bright lights of the NBA.  When each of us sees in print, or hears on television or radio, about some controversy in public school education or another NCAA violation committed by a student-athlete/coach/institution or some story in the NBA that moves some fan’s “emotional meter,” we just chuckle.  It’s rather comical when writers (letters-to-the-editor) or callers (”long-time listener, first time caller”) rant about whatever rankles them.  These people are absolutely incensed yet, if they knew what really went on behind the scenes, they’d most certainly feel differently.

Anytime we hear of a “sensational” story - in any field - our conclusion is always:

“Unless and until you’re deeply inside a profession - whatever it is - you have NO idea of what’s right and wrong.”

After spending all that time in the car with my sports-talk listening wife last weekend (when “the 50s on 5″ wasn’t on- I mean, we are baby boomers), I can’t help but compose another blog about the guys who spew sports knowledge over the air.  Maybe I’m sensitive because I’ve done that job before.  Not for a living, more as a substitute for a friend, or as a post game call-in host.

My first experience was in 1971 when I was a grad assistant at Vermont.  It was the first time I’d ever hosted a sports talk show, substituting for a friend of mine who did it everyday, three hours a day, six days a week.  Occasionally, he took an R&R day and this was one of those days.  What I did is what I’m not hearing now on sports talk and that is being prepared to comment about what is going on in the sports world.  Sure, I was only filling in for a night and these guys are doing it for a living but you owe your boss and your listeners a 100% effort.  When I went on the air (for a three hour segment), I had enough “filler”, i.e. interesting sports information, to put on a compelling show if no one called.

Instead, today’s guys seem to possess one essential characteristic: they’re all highly opinionated.  They bluff their way through shows, often repeating phrases they’ve heard from coaches and players to make themselves sound educated.  One I caught was: “”Having a running game in the NBA is great but in the playoffs, teams make you play half-court.”  Yet I’ve never heard one of those talking heads (not counting former coaches or players, of course) explain to a listening audience how, exactly, that’s accomplished.  Another that’s in vogue is, “one change that could be a major factor in the football team’s success is the change from the 4-3 to the 3-4 defense.”  Other than the obvious (assuming it is obvious), never have I had described to me what the difference in coverage is and why, after all these years of 4-3, is 3-4 the “right” move now.

The one I like best is the low-risk, high-reward prediction of “I know they’re huge underdogs but I have a good feeling today.“  This bold statement is usually made by the sports guy on the station for the local underdog, trying to create an upbeat atmosphere.  It’s also a ploy for a big, national contest where one guy sticks his neck out and goes contrary to the rest of his colleagues.  If the guy is right, he gets to bask in his own prognosticating brilliance, as well as remind everyone in the listening audience that his “gut” just told him something.  If he’s wrong (it’s mainly a “he” game now, but women will be settling into those seats soon enough), hey, it was just a “feeling.”  Or, simply never bring it up again.

This on-air “knowledge” isn’t really new.  I can remember how you’d hear about the wisdom of pinch hitting righties against lefthanders and vice versa.  Back then, though, the guys in the booths were actually told that by the coaches and players.  They actually could explain about higher percentages of success.  Then people like Tony LaRussa, Jim Leyland and Billy Beane started doing things their way - and they weren’t about to tell anybody why.

Back to my first sub role on a radio talk show.  As stated, I had all kinds of tidbits to keep people entertained and informed.  Then, I got my fist call.  It was about race car driving, the subject that would rival “mating rituals of the yak” as the topic I know least about.  I had to admit this to the caller, only to have the next two callers ask about the same subject.  My response was, “Of all the subjects you callers could ask, you bring up race car driving.  I don’t even know how to drive a car with a stick shift!”

The moral of the story is:

“Stick to talking about what you know.”

Each weekend has taken my wife and me to a couple different locations to watch our younger son and his CSU Monterey Bay Otters compete in basketball.  When I’m in the car, I usually listen audio books.  Except when I’m with the missus who doesn’t cotton to hearing someone - in this case, Dan Rather - discuss . . . well, anything.  Believe it or not, she enjoys talk radio.

As I’ve maintained for years, playing an audiobook makes you smarter when you get out of your car than you were prior to getting in.  While you might say it depends on what you’re listening to, my contention is it might not matter if you are hooked into one of the new type of talking head - the loud, obnoxious, know-it-all who has strong beliefs based on . . . his strong beliefs.

Since I got Sirius, I have access to Mad Dog radio which, here’ a little history lesson, is a descendent of “Mike & the Mad Dog,” a show with Mike Franscesa and his partner, Christopher “Mad Dog” Russo.  Now, the entire station is called “Mad Dog Radio” and some of its studio hosts play a little fast and loose with the content.  While Jane and I were driving to Pomona, one of them, Scott Wetzel, made the statement, “Give me a month to get in shape and I could play on a World Cup team and no one would notice.”

If he was trying to awaken all of the soccer fans in the country, he knew what he was doing.  After a few minutes of him, however, it was quite apparent he didn’t know what he was doing, but actually believed his boast and took call after call just to prove it.  We listened while intelligent, not to mention, passionate, soccer fans attempt to explain to this fool exactly how difficult their favorite sport was.  No matter, he kept on defending his indefensible stance.

“You don’t realize how skilled these guys are with the ball.”  “So, it’s not like I don’t know how to kick it.”  Independent of what people who were very knowledgeable about soccer said, he refused to cease making an ass of himself.  He said that he could mask his lack of any kind of offensive skills by playing defense.  When questioned about being exposed when an offensive player came at him, well, . . . he talked but, by now it didn’t much matter.

To be honest, I’m not a soccer fan.  I’ve always said it won’t catch on in this country because there’s too little scoring and Americans don’t see the beauty in the game like the rest of the sporting world does.  That said, I am fully aware of the level of skill necessary to play competitive soccer and was embarrassed that someone who hosted a radio sports talk show didn’t.  To make it worse, there were a couple of callers who weighed in with their dislike for soccer but they only fed Wetzel’s ignorance and gave him additional courage to display such an incredible lack of sports sanity.

Before you know it, we were listening to none other than Dan Rather as it became quite apparent that:

“The only reason this guy opened his mouth was to change feet.”

Since Michael Jordan turned 50 this past Sunday, talk show hosts (and several other media members) felt it was necessary to raise the unanswerable question of “Who’s the best player of all-time?”  Naturally, because they are the two best current players (with Kevin Durant nipping at their heels), the argument shifted to who’s better between Kobe Bryant and LeBron James.

All the comments were made - Kobe has five rings, LeBron is at his prime with many years left to play dominate.  The debate is a necessary one - if you’re ten years old.  Maybe fifteen.  Anytime past that age, if you continue to play the “who’s better/who’s the best game,” you need to at least realize that there are no winners (and plenty of losers.

Kobe is sensational - skill set, mind set, defensive ability, personal drive and (which can be a negative, depending on how strong or fragile your teammates are) ability to demand/produce the best in your teammates.  MJ shared the exact same qualities.  Which is why Kobe has them - because, from the day he entered the league, he has modeled everything he does like Jordan.  Not just his play, which is sensational, but his mannerisms, his dealing with the media, his gait … his being.

LeBron can’t match those two because his skills, body, mental aspect - nothing - is like those two.  He’s 6′8″ and willing to admit to 250, with rumors as high as 280, and negligible body fat.  For that reason, people have tried to compare him to Magic.  LeBron is no Magic either, if for no other reason than Magic was a point guard and LeBron is not.  LeBron is the epitome of what Don Nelson used to call a point guard.  Magic ran the show and, when he shot, it was a set shot.  He could drive, but it usually ended with a pass or a layup, seldom a dunk.  LeBron is the show, shoots (real) jumpers, and when he drives, the result is … louder.  It still obtains the same desired results as Magic - Ws.

Sure, you can get into “rings,” what we used to call championships but what now needs to be defined as something you can wear and show off, as opposed to a something you were part of, that only a selected few can actually claim they “be” (as opposed to “have”).  So when the trump card in the Kobe vs. LeBron debate is five rings to one, the line LeBron used (oh so obviously created by one of his publicists), that if rings are the determining factor, then Bill Russell must be the best because he has 11 and Michael has six.”  Then, others had to be brought in besides Russell, e.g. Wilt Chamberlain, Jud Bueschler, Charles Barkley, Robert Horry, Reggie Miller, Karl Malone, Patrick Ewing and a cast of characters from NBA past and present.

I’m on record as saying MJ is the G.O.A.T. but as far as Kobe versus LeBron, it’s too tough a call.  They’re waaaaaay different, each with their own strengths.  Kobe couldn’t have won as many without Shaq but Shaq couldn’t win as many without Kobe (even though they each did without each other).  LeBron couldn’t win without selecting his current teammates but, c’mon, he got to the Finals with the Cavs.  Have you ever checked that roster?  Closely checked it?  Had he won the whole thing with that group, the comparisons would be with Bill Walton and the Trailblazers.  Take LeBron off the Cavs and Walton off the Blazers and pit the remaining players against each other.  That finals would probably be the least watched in television history.  Definitely the most boring, lackluster series ever.

It’s been used before but John Harbaugh’s rule should be considered prior to anyone opening their mouth in the Kobe-LBJ discussion:

“I’ve got this rule.  We make no comparisons.  Somebody is going to be devalued.”

Note:  There are many jobs in broadcast journalism.  This blog encompasses the person doing play-by-play, color commentator, studio show participants, sideline reporters, anyone who has an on-air position behind a microphone.

Basically, there are two types of sports announcers.  One is the former successful player or coach who, while having no formal training or academic background in broadcasting, gives the viewer the inside look on the field of play or in the locker room.  The other group is composed of well-educated men or women who probably were the manager or writer for the school paper due to their lack of athletic ability.  Naturally, there are others in the field who don’t fall into either category.  If you’re interested in those people, this isn’t the place for you.  I only include that because it seems people are facing legal action if no such disclaimer is stated.

Listeners are usually split as far as which group they like better.  Or, because the world has become so negative, dislike less.  However, each has followers from the other’s side.  From the “non-jock” organization, many of those fans may have a favorite superstar they loved when they were growing up.  On the flip side, the ex-athlete or coach might, especially if he or she is cynical, enjoy the talking heads whose acts are based on sarcasm.

It’s difficult for anyone not to appreciate the skills and delivery of veterans Al Michaels, Bob Costas, James Brown or my favorite of all-time, Vin Scully.  Similarly, the ex-jocks/coaches who are unanimously appreciated for their knowledge of explaining the game are Doug Collins, Mike Fratello, Gary Danielson, and in his own way - and no one else has quite the “way” - Charles Barkley.

Where the debate arises is in the presentation strategy of the two groups (excluding the above and selected others), i.e. the manner in which they choose to educate, inform or entertain the listener.  It’s appallingly evident that some of the former athletes don’t do their homework, feeling they’re entitled to the job and need only to throw in an occasional comment or relate a story, however meaningful, or not, it might be.  Their feeling is they busted their butts for so many years - physically.  Nobody out there in the audience has any idea how difficult it was.  And because of that sacrifice - and commitment - they should get a pass, i.e. a great paying job (although it’s a major cut for them).  Even when told that’s not the way the world works, their response is, “It is for me.”  Read Robert Parish’s recent comments as the perfect example.

Then there’s the “new wave” of reporters, i.e. the post-Jim Rome/Keith Olberman era.  They have their own set of rules as well.  “We went to school to learn our craft, not have it bequeathed to us.”  And, with this kind, anything goes.  Many are bitter.  Maybe because they were cut from their teams, relegated to the scorebook or collecting the equipment, while the jocks got everything they wanted - including girls.  This injustice burned inside them.  The serious ones went to college to become as good at reporting the game as their prima donna friends were at playing it.  Undoubtedly, there are a good number who simply wanted a job in journalism and possessed that same work ethic their athletic friends had.  And they have the majority of fans.  Those who didn’t want the rigors of school; they just want to bitch.

As has been stated earlier, the world has turned highly cynical, for whatever reason - from pampered athletes to people buying political offices to others stealing money from and bankrupting friends to banks defrauding people while their CEOs walked away with multi-million dollar packages.  That would upset most people - and it certainly has.  People have become more concerned, not with what they don’t have but with what other people do.  Why?  How does it help?

Maybe it doesn’t but complaining feels good and if you’re good enough, you can get paid.  Except for the slackers (and it’s becoming more and more apparent who they are), it comes down to either knowledgeable people (former player/coach or not) talking their listeners: the ones who understand what’s happening and want to know more, or the guy who comes on, baring his teeth, ready to pounce on whatever story that listener - the one who thrives on other people’s misery - can complain about the rest of the day.  Even though it does no one any good.

My main man, the late John Savage’s line was:

“You don’t strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.”