Jack’s Blog

Young coaches usually make the mistake of trying to coach each aspect of the game as passionately as the next, spending equal amounts of time on offense (man, zone, special), defense (man, zone, press, combination), special situations (OBs under and side, free throws, end of clock, end of game)  It’s an enviable strategy but, as coaches figure out all too soon, impossible to execute - the one exception being the coach has significantly better talent than all of his competitors.

Last night, Ohio State was outplaying Duke in Cameron Indoor Stadium in the first half - to the point the Blue Devils went ten minutes without a bucket.  Ten minutes!  Finally they got a put back basket off of another missed shot.  At that time, Duke was . . . down five.  Imagine going ten minutes without a basket and still being in the game, much less only down five points.  That’s why Coach K emphasizes defense and making more free throws than their opponents take. What kept the Blue Devils in the game was the fact they could still put points on the board even though they were ice cold.  Plus, of course, their defense.

Duke wound up winning the game and much of the reason is they it lit up from the three-point line.  The message to young coaches is if your staples stay strong, the rest of your game may just come around and you’ll always have a shot at winning.

Many people would say that Mike Krzyzewski became a head coach too early in his career.  When you rise to the “boss” level in your mid-20s, there’s bound to be a learning curve.  His Army teams mirrored his personality.  They were cadets - just like he was when he played for his mentor Bob Knight.

When he took the Duke job, it’s well-documented he was saved early on by his AD, Tom Butters, who shut out the complainers, independent of where they stood on the (booster) food chain.  Butters knew he had the right man and, unlike so many ADs, stood up to the pressure.  The Devils started winning and the rest . . .

Mike Krzyzewski’s greatest skill might be how he deals with people.  He’s gone from cadet to head coach to speaker to author to Olympic gold medal winner.  The greatest inspirational speaker of all time (in my opinion), Zig Ziglar, passed away yesterday at 86.  His signature line personifies Mike Krzyzewski:

“You can get whatever you want out of life if you’ll just help enough other people get what they want.”

LeBron James finally (after all, he’s already 27) put to rest that, although he was a great player, he couldn’t win a championship.  Soon, we’ll be discussing who now is the best baller without a ring.  Actually, we already are but read on.

For some reason we feel this moniker needs to be if not presented formally, at least discussed - in every sport.  From national tv to local watering holes.  I coached in the college basketball world for 30 years and when I started in 1970 a similar label was thrown around in our business.  As a young guy in the field one of the veteran coaches I was in awe of was Dean Smith.  It shocked me when I would hear the “Greatest Coach Who Has Never Won a Title” attributed to him.  Freshman Michael Jordan’s jumper took care of that nonsense but shortly thereafter the crown was passed to Mike Krzyzewski.

It was almost a badge of honor for coaches.  In order to qualify for the unenviable title, a coach needed to take a team to the Final Four on more than one occasion and come up short.  For most coaches reaching the Final Four is conquering the Holy Grail.  After Mike won in 1991, thus bequeathing the “honor,” the latest line was, “Sure, Rick (Pitino) can take a team the the mountaintop but he can’t them to the Promised Land.”  In 1996 his Kentucky Wildcats won it all but the debate raged on.

By now it was mandatory for fans and media to have a coach whose feet they could hold to the fire.  It must have made them feel good at that time because there were two contestants.  And as fate would have it, their teams squared off in the 2003 championship game.  Jim Boeheim of Syracuse and Roy Williams of UNC.  In a show of empathy, while shaking hands after the game, Boeheim said to Williams, “Don’t worry;  you’ll get one” after the Orange beat the ‘Heels.  It was similar to the exchange Bob Knight had with Boeheim after his Hoosiers beat the ‘Cuse in ‘87.  And, of course, ‘ol Roy did just that.  Twice.

I won’t tell you who had the wrath of the nation up until last year.  You probably can figure it out.  The hint is: he no longer has to deal with the problem.

Sports is definitely the most highly scrutinized business - possibly because there are fans and we love to argue.  Now that cyberstat guys have entered the world, it doesn’t seem like there will be any stone unturned.  If only Wall Street could have such a fan base - although it might be a little too late for that.

Now NBA followers are placing the “good stats/great player but can’t win a championship” mantle on Kevin Durant (a little too early, don’t ya think?), Carmelo Anthony, Amare Stoudamire, Steve Nash and Dwight Howard just like they did to Charles Barkley, Pete Maravich,  John Stockton & Karl Malone.

Some of those guys got close but it wasn’t to be.  Maybe they played in the wrong era; maybe they didn’t quite have the right mix of teammates, i.e. not enough talent.  I’m showing my age when I say I remember a couple National League MVP awards going to Ernie Banks - even though his Chicago Cubs finished last!

Still, people revel in the misery of others even though it doesn’t make the critical person’s life any better.  Or put another way:

“Although someone may come up short in their endeavors, it doesn’t make you better at any of yours.”

There are differing styles of coaches just as there are different styles of coaching.  As with the varied ways coaches choose to attempt to win games strategically, the overall coaching philosophy of reaching players and bringing out the best they have to give crosses just as wide a spectrum.When I first got involved in athletics, the most popular coaching style undoubtedly was the one based on fear and respect of authority figures.  Being a “Baby Boomer,” I am part of a generation who saw their fathers rush to serve their country in World War II and be enormously proud of it (mine included).  Speaking at coaching clinics, I often made mention that the difference between the players of my day and the players of today is that, if I ever went home and told my father the coach yelled at me, my dad would “dress me down” and wonder what I did to make the coach so upset (to the point that punishment may have followed), while when today’s player informs his father (or mother) the coach yelled at him (or her), the parent immediately starts searching for the lawyer’s number.

The coaches of this breed usually shared a mantra.  It is, “Tear them down so we can build them back up.”  Those who experienced the most success employing this method are John Thompson, Bob Knight and Pat Summitt - each a Hall-of-Fame Coach, the last of whom is the current leader in career wins.  Each of the three were known for their unquestioned authority and Pat, whom I got to know well during my seven years in Big Orange Country and whom I consider the best coach - man or woman - I’ve ever seen (keep in mind, I coached with and against some of the nation’s best over 30 years), is still famous for her “Stare.”  Many a player and assistant of hers have told me you don’t want to be on the receiving end of IT (caps intended).

A similar style is the coach whose number one key to success lies in the toughness of the team.  Examples of this type range from Billy Martin and Woody Hayes to Bob Huggins and Tom Izzo.  Every name mentioned truly believed/believes in the saying, “A team takes on the personality of its coach” and consider that to be a bonafide compliment.

Maybe in a class by himself for winning the way he did was Vince Lombardi who religiously felt that all players should be treated equally and as one of his star players confirmed, “Coach Lombardi treated each of us the same - like dogs.”  Consider, also, that he might be believed to be the greatest football coach of all-time.

Another popular style is that of the coach who gives his/her players the utmost respect as people, realizing the team is going to be only as good as the players on it perform.  This is not a new philosophy.  It was successfully used by Dean Smith, Tommy Lasorda, Jerry Tarkanian (a coach I worked under who excelled in people skills ) and Tony Dungy.  Modern versions of this coach are Sean Payton, Doc Rivers and Brad Stevens.

Which method is the best method is an easy question to answer.  It’s the one in which the style suits the coach’s personality.  In other words, “To thine own self be true” is a perfect fit for one to decide which type of coach to be.

The one trait that all these highly successful coaches had in common was that they all truly cared about their players.  In addition, there are two other areas I think must be mentioned.  One is that it’s difficult (although maybe not impossible) for a coach to be successful if his or her ego is out of control.  However, the other is a virtual lock for the unsuccessful coach (especially one in charge of adults) and that is you’re digging an awfully deep hole, one which you may never be able to extricate yourself from, if you choose to motivate by humiliating people.  Because, as Lord Chesterfield remarked:

“He makes people pleased with him by making them first pleased with themselves.”

It’s only natural in today’s world of “all sports, all the time” that once an athlete performs in an extraordinary manner he (until there’s a little more history on the distaff side, this blog will address only the men’s side) is immediately compared to the person who’s situated on the pedestal.  Whether or not this type of rush to judgment is warranted doesn’t really matter.  It’s just the way things are.  So when Rory McElroy went “Tiger” at the U.S. Open, it was inevitable the comparisons would follow.

It was impossible to put on a sports talk station today without hearing opinions from “He reminded me of Tiger” to “It might be a little too early to crown Rory as the new Tiger just yet” to “It’s simply insane to make any kind of comparison to what Tiger did.”  On ESPN radio in Fresno, which has two stations, both of them were devoted the Rory-Tiger debate.  Who cares?  If it helps the sport, golf has to be thrilled with everyone chatting up the recent events.

I started thinking about all this - both the pros and the cons - and couldn’t remember if this same talk occurred following Tiger’s first major victory which probably means where this story goes is yet to be written.  One thing is for certain.  If McElroy’s trouncing the field at Congressional stokes Woods’ competitive juices, everyone wins.

So, to paraphrase Bob Knight, who possibly would like to take back his comment:

If (it’s) inevitable, relax and enjoy it.”

Each Tuesday night at 6:00 (PST) The Jerry Tarkanian Show airs on 1430 ESPN radio (Fresno) and during the second segment, there’s an interview with someone prominent in college hoops (usually a coach of a national power but we’ve also had Bob Knight, Billy Packer and Dick Vitale).  Every year, Jerry has had his former (national championship) point guard, Greg Anthony, discuss the upcoming NCAA Tournament.  This year, however, Greg’s star has shown so brightly that his current employer, CBS Sports, wouldn’t allow him to do an interview with his former coach.

So, as a last minute replacement for last night’s Tark Show, Jerry’s guest was former head coach at UTEP, Texas A&M and Kentucky, Billy Gillespie.  Billy Clyde had some truly interesting things to say about his coaching experiences and, unlike most radio talk shows, none of it was negative or bitter.

Gillespie spoke about how he had always loved coaching and when he first started, when he thought about how much money he’d make, figured he’d probably pull down $30-40,000 a year.  This was fine with him because he enjoyed the relationship with the players, the challenge of preparing a team to beat an opponent and, simply, the game itself.

He talked about his days as Bill Self’s assistant at Tulsa.  Self, as any basketball fan knows, is the highly successful coach at Kansas.  What most fans don’t realize is on his Tulsa staff were three guys who would wind up becoming Division I head coaches themselves.  Gillespie, Norm Roberts (St. John’s) and John Phillips (who eventually became the coach at Tulsa).  Each of those guys were pink-slipped, the latter two from their first head coaching gig, although both were considered good coaches, just ones who didn’t win enough.  The same could be said for Gillespie who drew the wrath of the Wildcat faithful after being named the SEC Coach-of-the-Year after his first campaign in Lexington and won 22 games his second season there.

Gillespie talked about the frenzy that exists all the time on UK’s campus and how Tark tried to talk him out of the Kentucky job, telling him, “You were great at UTEP and you’ve done wonderful things at A&M but that will always be a football school.  If you blow your nose at Kentucky, everybody will hear about it.”  In all, the UK job can - and has - swallow up a coach.

I recall when I was an assistant at Tennessee all the nasty things the fans there would say about (then head coach) Joe B. Hall - and he won a national championship!  “Yeah,” their fans would say to those who made that remark, “but he’s only won one.”

Although pressure like this is greater at UK, don’t for a minute think other big-time schools don’t have unrealistic expectations for their coaches.  In football, it may be even worse.  With pressure like this, can anyone wonder why so much rule breaking goes on in college athletics?  A future blog will be devoted to “cheating” on the intercollegiate level.

What I heard, although Billy Gillespie never said it, was the purity of coaching, i.e. the fun, has been removed from coaching and in its place are a whole lot of dollars.  Is this better?  As the saying goes:

“Money isn’t everything, but it beats the hell out of whatever comes in second.”   

Obviously, every team wants to start strong and get stronger as the year progresses.  Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way.

Some teams are powerful out of the gate but then falter.  A current example: Villanova.  After watching the Wildcats early, knowledgeable people were singing their praises.  The past couple weeks haven’t been kind, especially last night when the Fighting Irish blew them out in South Bend.

Other teams are the polar opposite, i.e. starting out as disappointments, only to turn it on late in the campaign.  A couple teams who fit that bill are, to a lesser extent, North Carolina, and the poster team in this category: Kansas State.  They demolished in-state rival KU from start to finish.  OK, prognosticators said, that game was in the friendly confines of cozy Manahattan.  All doubts about these bunch of Wildcats after last night’s victory in Austin - get ahead, allow Texas back in, but have the courage to close them out.

The again, some teams don’t start too well, but never seem to ever catch fire.  The “poster team” for this example would be Michigan State (largely due to their early season schedule - and a non-forgiving conference).

What about teams that start strong, slip, then come back - like the Syracuse Orangemen?  They start out 14-0, lose four straight and have everyone writing them off, e.g. “opponents have figured out how to attack the 2-3″ and “no leadership in sight.”  So, naturally, they win at UConn and have played fairly consistent ball the remainder of the way.

Consistency is a word Tennessee doesn’t seem to understand.  Wobble against mid-majors, beat undefeateds, lose your coach and the next couple games (albeit really close ones), get him back and continue on the win games people think you can’t, and do the same in reverse.

Washington never hit the heights predicted and only can hope for a Kansas State ending.  Arizona made a strong case for the elite squad in the Pac-10 - and then went to Los Angeles, losing to SC and whatever is worse than losing to UCLA.

The most intriguing team of the year has to be St. John’s.  They lose to St. Bonaventure (without Bob Lanier) and Fordham (without Charlie Yelverton) - references for the old guys - but then knock off six Top 10 clubs!  The Johnnies have to be the favorites to win it all - or lose in the first round.

The season’s strongest team, i.e. a group that has never been embarrassed is Ohio State (Pitt is a not-so-close second).  The Buckeyes have to be the odds-on favorite to cut down the nets - and the way the season is going, no one wants that said about them.

As Bob Knight once said regarding “peaking” at tourney time:

“I never wanted my teams to peak.  Our goal was just to get better every day.”

After watching Texas absolutely destroy Texas A&M - in College Station, there appears to be a new power emerging in college hoops.  By beating the Aggies on the road, UT has added their scalp to other huge victories away from the friendly (and loud) confines of their own Erwin Center.  Wins against such powers as Michigan State, Kansas and Oklahoma State.  Ironically, the Longhorns’ lone (true) road loss was the pasting they took at USC (56-73), a far inferior squad to those they’ve beaten.  Their other losses were close games (a two-pointer vs. Pitt @ MSG and a one-point OT heart breaker at home against UConn.

Rick Barnes’ ball club is playing unselfishly at the offensive end to go along with his trademark pressure defense.  In addition, when he goes to his bench, he gets what every coach dreams of - an increase in energy and intensity.  One sportswriter mentioned that, although Texas is playing sensational ball, they might just be peaking too soon.

On that subject, I leave the final words to the man who did the color commentary on last night’s UT-A&M contest, Bob Knight (doesn’t he always have the last word)?  A couple of years ago, I interviewed Coach Knight on The Jerry Tarkanian Show and asked him if he tried to get his team to peak at tournament time and his answer was as insightful as his commentary:

“I never wanted my teams peaking; I never liked that term.  Our goal was to get continually better throughout the season.”

Every Wednesday night during the college basketball season, I host The Jerry Tarkanian Show, live at the Red Zone Sports Grill on the local ESPN radio station in Fresno (1430AM).  The hour show (6:00-7:00pm) is comprised of four segments, the first of which is me asking Jerry about the happenings of the past week.  The final two segments talk about his past week’s picks and how (& why) he did (third segment) and the big games to be played the following week and his selections (final segment). 

The second segment is a pre-recorded interview that he tapes at the studio.  I defy anyone to show me a Rolodex as comprehensive as Tark’s.  So far this year, here’s a partial list of the coaches we’ve had: John Calipari, Bill Self, Rick Barnes, Bob Huggins, Rick Majerus and Lorenzo Romar.  There have also been interviews with members of the media: Bob Knight (who ever thought he’d be in that category), Billy Packer and Greg Anthony (a particular favorite of Coach Tark’s because Greg was the point guard on his 1990 National Championship team) as well as others “in the game,” such as Gavin Maloof (one of the owners of the Sacramento Kings) and Mark Warkentien (GM of the Denver Nuggets - and a former assistant to Jerry at UNLV).  This is the fifth or sixth year I’ve been the host and I can’t think of anyone whom he wanted on the show he hasn’t gotten.

Wednesday night’s guest was Mike Krzyzewski, coach of the Duke Blue Devils and the Gold Medal winning coach of our Olympic team.  The exchange between the two mentors was fascinating.  Coaches open up to Jerry, mainly because they realize he has no agenda and, as he’s been called on innumerable occasions, he is a coach’s coach.  He’s not into criticizing coaches as much as studying and learning from them.  What are they doing - and why - who else in their league/the country do they have the most trouble coaching against - the exact questions the basketball fan would ask if given the chance.

In the interview, Mike divulged that his current team is made up of an eight-man rotation, with six of the eight being “bigs.”  This fact means he’s coaching differently than he has in over a decade, e.g. no press - or even half court pick up.  The rest of the conversation was just as interesting, not the normal “coachspeak” that most interviews tend to be.

Following the discussion between Mike and Jerry, I mentioned that there have been a number of upsets recently (last week, the numbers 1, 2 and 3 teams were all beaten).  My observation was that the winners seemed to play harder in those games than they had all year.  Plus, most upsets seem to be by the home team.  My point was that the truly great teams play hard every night, not just on a special occasion, i.e. they are consistent.

The question I posed to Tark was, since his teams’ trademark was they played hard all the time, was, What’s the key to maintaining that constant effort?  We had discussed earlier how, at the end of the season, most coaches cut the time of their practices down dramatically - from three hours + at the beginning of the year to, maybe, an hour and fifteen minutes, or no longer than an hour and a half.  Many people think the reason is to save the legs of the players - which is true, to a point.  Jerry added a vital component to his practice philosophy and why he thought his guys always played hard.

“No matter how long - or short - our practices were, we always went 100%.  We may have shortened the practice time, but NEVER the intensity.”�

It seems as though college basketball’s 2009-10 season is void of true marquis teams we’ve seen in past years.  Teams play great, look like title contenders, but then fall mightily to also-rans.  Examples: Texas (in the midst of a serious slide after becoming #1 for the first time in the school’s history - basketball, not football . . . or baseball . . . or track . . . hey, maybe it was too much to handle), Villanova, Syracuse, Purdue (although they’re coming on strong as of late), Tennessee (possibly the hottest and coldest team in the nation - during the same week), Georgetown, Duke, Michigan State, Kansas State and the list goes on.

Two schools have distanced themselves from the rest of the country and even if someone’s dyslexic they could figure out at least one of them.  Right now, the initials of this year’s (highly) probable national champion are the same, but the jury’s out as to which order they’ll go on the trophy.  Kansas, aka KU, has a phenomenal team, a blend of youth and experience - both talented - but their mirror image (in more ways than UK) is as good, if not better.

Their pulling away from the field has been displayed by one of the most difficult tasks in college hoops - winning, in the league, on the road.  While the others have faltered in hostile arenas, the Jayhawks and Wildcats have stood strong.  KU’s lone loss was at Tennessee, a depleted team due to suspensions, but one that, prior to losing three key players, got embarrassed in Los Angeles by a “nothing-to-play-for” bunch of scrappy USC Trojans.  UK lost at USC as well, but it was a group of Southern Gamecocks, led by a tiny, yet apparently, unguardable player who, upon first blush, wouldn’t exactly strike fear in the hearts of big-time basketball players.

Both “K’s” have bounced back nicely and have stood firm against their competition, much of it formidable, if not up to the usual level for their respective conferences.  At this moment, Kansas might have the edge due to more experienced leadership, but when the tournament rolls around a month from now, Kentucky’s guys will have gained plenty of basketball maturity.  Each coach has not only been to the biggest game, but they did so against each other (Bill Self at KU and John Calipari at Memphis) in a game that couldn’t have been closer.  No doubt, Bill thanks his lucky stars every time he thinks of his championship, while Cal beats himself up over what could have been.

Naturally, college basketball, as unpredictable as it always seems to be, may not come down to the symmetrical UK-KU match up in the Finals.  But it would be some game if it did.  Although it would lose something in suspense knowing now that would be the last game on Monday night, I have to admit I can’t think of a game that would be more appropriate.

While attempting to stay out of the trouble, I’ll paraphrase a statement Bob Knight made to Connie Chung (actually was sandbagged by the mood Chung had set off camera, according to people who were there) about the inevitability of a Jayhawk-Wildcat national championship match up: 

“If this game’s inevitable, relax and enjoy it.”

My role as host of The Jerry Tarkanian Show is to ask Jerry questions that will elicit responses that listeners will bring to work the following day so they can “one-up” their colleagues.  I call the category “I know something you don’t know.”

It seems that every time I brought up a question about why he was so successful - or even why coaches like him, e.g guys who took over “down” programs and instantly turned them around, found success, his answer was consistent.  “Great players.”  Sure, great players make coaches, but there has to be more to it than just great players. 

Finally, last night, I got him to vary his answer - although this one was rather mundane as well.  What made him get off his standard response was my bringing up the quote from Lou Holtz: “You can’t win with bad players, but you can lose with good ones.”  My octogenarian friend lit up a little and said, “That’s a great line.  I agree completely.”

So my (lengthy) follow-up question was, “How can two guys (Dick Harter and Ralph Miller), at the same time (mid-70s), coaching at the two major in-state universities (Oregon and Oregon State) have such conflicting philosophies?  I worked for Dick (an ex-Marine) and, if any of our guys ever switched on a screen, practice would stop and everybody would run.  Yet, Ralph’s feeling was, ‘To play good pressure defense, you have to use the switch.’

“Dean Smith felt changing defenses was a must, while Bob Knight refused to ever play anything but man-to-man.  And, probably the best example of an ‘anti-coach’ was John Chaney, who practiced at 5:30 am in Philadelphia (where it gets ‘uncomfortably chilly’ in the winter), played only zone (recruiters always would use that against him, saying the NBA had a no zone rule) and, had such a hatred for turnovers, encouraged his players to take bad shots, the cardinal rule be damned.  How could all these guys be so successful?”

Jerry finally gave an answer that was devoid of the words great players.  “That’s what makes basketball such a great game,” Tark said.  “There’s no one way to win.  Everyone of those guys you mentioned had players who believed in their coach’s philosophy and every one of those coaches got their teams to play hard.”

If ever there were two words that were more quoted than “great players” when discussing winning coaches, they’re “play hard.”  Yet, in this blog, the reader has the essentials to be a successful coach: great players, belief in the coach’s philosophy and play hard.

Can it really be that simple?  Yeah - except getting those three tenets accomplished isn’t.  The following quote sums up this blog, yet may not shed any light on how to get it done:

“Everything is simpler than you think and yet more complex than you imagine.”