Jack’s Blog

When the subject of paying college athletes comes up, what people really mean is paying football and men’s basketball players.  I completely understand the argument that those two sports are the moneymakers.  And that by giving student-athletes a stipend, possibly illegal payments would be averted.  But that means so little when other factors are taken into account.

One is of a legal nature, i.e. Title IX - which has nothing to do with revenue.  Beyond that, as if the argument need go any further, is that, although people make the statement that kids are being exploited, they talk about institutions selling players’ jerseys (with no income going to the players), ticket sales and television money.

If we break down the revenue, though, it’s the top players whose jerseys sell, it’s the top players fans come to see and TV revenue is due to . . . duh.  Many, including ESPN’s Jay Bilas, contend we need to abandon the notion of college players being “amateurs.”  That might be the case, but paying every scholarship player the same stipend would be just as much of a sham as the situation that currently exists.  Then, again, if the better players got more money because their jerseys sold and more people paid to watch them, aren’t we creating a professional atmosphere?  Is that what we want?

Plus, if one school sold more swag than another, would its athletes receive a greater amount of  money?  Recruiting would take on the look of free agency.  This would change amateurism to professionalism, i.e. colleges would simply morph into a type of minor league.  Not sure that’s an improvement either.

As if that isn’t reason enough to shoot down the proposal of paying athletes, think about how much would each student-athlete receive?  The number $500/month has been mentioned which would mean $4500 for a nine-month school year.  Does anyone think that amount will curtail cheating?  Or are there those who feel parents would then (allegedly) request only $175,500 for their kid’s services?

“Hey, I was born at night, but I wasn’t born LAST night.”

My college coaching career began in 1972-73.  The following year, as a graduate assistant at Washington State, there was a 6′5″ second guard prospect from Los Angeles.  Our staff was certain he’d be a starter from the day he walked on campus until he graduated four years later.  We attended more of his games and showed more interest than any other school.  The strategy was working.  In recruiting terms, “we loved him and he loved us.”  At that time, there was only one signing date and it was in April of the prospect’s senior year.

There were no scholarship limitations back then.  UCLA heard we were recruiting him (no social media  or, even, cell phones in ‘74) and John Wooden (or someone sounding like John Wooden) called the youngster who committed to the Bruins the next day.  Sure enough, he signed with UCLA - and never played!  Sounding like?  Alabama football was notorious for having a coach who could impersonate Bear Bryant so that The Bear’s best friends couldn’t detect the imposter.

NCAA rules were changed and scholarship limitations were enacted.  Yeah, the initial reductions had nothing to do with Title IX (even though that law was passed in 1972).  What happened next in recruiting was trying to “outwork” people.  This meant calling your top prospect(s) more, sending more letters and, more than anything, going to more of his (their) games.  Certain schools hired assistant coaches who were, rather than first and foremost recruiters, recruiters only.  At that time, the University of New Mexico had an assistant coach rent an apartment in Petersburg, VA - and live there for the entire season - in an attempt to recruit Moses Malone.  Although he signed with Maryland, Moses never went to college, instead signing with the ABA’s Utah Stars.

This philosophy continued for the next decade-and-a-half until prospects and their parents complained to the NCAA the the recruiting process was out of control.  From 1987-2002 I was the assistant chairman of the Recruiting Committee for the coaches association.  Early in that period, our main charge was to come up with ideas and give recommendations to the NCAA Recruiting Committee.  By that time, scholarships had been reduced to 15.

We took into account what the NCAA-formed Student-Athlete Advisory Committee (made up of male and female athletes in all sports) explained to the parent organization.  Their message?  Too much pressure!  Calls were cut to once per week, beginning no sooner than the summer of the prospect’s junior year.  Kids were telling stories of some coaches calling as early as 6:00am, while others would call around midnight.  As for written correspondence, only questionnaires were allowed to younger prospects.

More significantly, there was the creation of a recruiting calendar, certain times when coaches were allowed to be off campus.  Some of those periods were designated as “evaluation” meaning coaches could only watch prospects, while other were called “contact” periods in which coaches were allowed at games and practices but also communicate afce-to-face with prospects and their parents.  “Quiet” periods allowed prospects to visit campus but restricted coaches to their own campuses.  “Dead” periods prohibited coaches from leaving campus as well as prospects and families visiting them.  This action also reduced costs which had been spiraling out of control (imagine that concept).

To top it all off, an “early signing” period - an eight-day window from the first Wednesday in November through the second - was established (more on that in a future blog).  Parents rejoiced.  Finally, some normalcy to the recruiting process.

Coaches, as they are prone to do, loudly voiced their displeasure.  “How are we supposed to get to know kids with such limited recruiting time?” was the main criticism.  They had a point. Current statistics show more and more student-athletes are transferring.  So what’s the NCAA to do?  Some say the main problem is no matter how hard anyone may try:

“You can’t legislate equality.”

As mentioned several times in this space, I worked for seven years as an assistant men’s basketball coach at the University of Tennessee.  Pat Summitt is, for my money, the best coach, male or female, I’ve ever been around - from a basketball knowledge and organizational standpoint, as a motivator, a leader and as I posted in my ninth ever blog   (4/23/07) someone who could and would be a highly successful coach of men (of which she has absolutely no desire).  So, this blog is not written by a “women’s basketball-hater.”   Of which, unfortunately, there are many.

That said, last night’s national championship game set the women’s game back more than just a few steps.  To begin with, it was the perfect stage - following, arguably, the most exciting (especially considering the participants involved) men’s championship game ever.  Basketball fans were left with great anticipation for more heart-pounding action.  The very next night, the women paraded out their two best teams - the #1 team in the land, with a 77-game winning streak on the line against its opponent, #2 and the last team to have beaten what’s become “The Evil Empire” (as Geno used to refer to the Lady Vols, after their sixth national championship and third in a row, this one of the undefeated variety).  In addition, Stanford entered the contest with a glossy 36-1 record, the only loss to mighty UConn, in Storrs, by an 80-68 margin - noteworthy because it was the closest anyone had come to defeating the Lady Huskies.  This was no David vs. Goliath battle.

Another storyline - and if you don’t believe it, your head’s buried deep in the sand - is the favorite was coached by a man; the underdog, by a woman.  Ask anyone in the women’s game and if they give you an honest answer, this situation might as well be known as The Great Divide.  Take it from someone who worked closely with the biggest group of overzealous Title IX fanatics since the invention of lawyers (and I’m not only referring to women making up that group).

So the game starts and the rumbling that could be felt from San Antonio to San Salvador was that of James Naismith turning over in his grave.  The halftime score was 20-12.  There were more turnovers than baskets.  The upset-minded team was scorching the nets at a blistering 25.8%, while the team that threatened John Wooden’s heretofore- thought-of as unapproachable record (88 straight games without a loss) had just suffered through a drought of 16 consecutive missed shots, on its way to shooting 17.2%.

The second half began as more of the same.  The first TV time out came and Stanford had yet to score.  In fact, if it weren’t for Maya Moore, forcing someone to watch this game would have replaced water in the Chinese culture.  Moore, probably the top three players in the women’s game (if people were allowed to vote for a player more than once), finally made some shots and, whether coaches or commentators will admit it (”This was truly a team victory!”), single handedly won the game for UConn.  Once Moore (UConn) caught and passed the Cardinal, a couple of her teammates summoned up the courage to knock down a shot or two.  Until that time, there wasn’t a player on the floor who could make an uncontested shot - from any range - and there weren’t too many candidates who seemed anxious to even try.

The “man-haters” - oh yeah, those exist, too - will start spewing other numbers, e.g. graduation rates, the lack of one-and-dones, arrests - to remove the focus from the putrid display of their side’s two best teams setting basketball back decades.  But even if this area, females are catching up to their male counterparts, as witnessed by Baylor’s Brittany Griner not only punching an opponent, but , with pre-meditation, throwing a hay-maker, walking into the hit from a couple steps away.  Who can say what would have happened had a male player done the same to an opposing player?  Somehow, I believe the punishment would have merited more than a two-game suspension.

But let’s not be distracted.  The national championship game was a fiasco.  Certainly, the women’s game is better than what was nationally televised last evening.  Yet, in the case of yesterday’s UConn-Stanford game, we have to look no further than Benjamin Disraeli who said:  

“The secret of success in life is for someone to be ready for their opportunity when it comes.”

The Baylor-UConn game was close for a while.  A while longer than most people thought it might have been.  And it could have been a great deal more interesting had Baylor made some make-able shots after they cut the Lady Huskies lead to three.

What I noticed was what seems to happen to all (incredibly) dominant teams.  When the game is closer than expected, especially in the second half, the outside jump shots that easily find the bottom of the net when the lead is 20+, tend to come up a tad short.  Then, the rim not only doesn’t have the manhole cover off of it any longer, but it looks a lot smaller.  Adding to that psychological factor is the real live one, i.e. that everyone in the arena wants to see the little guy (even if their center is 6′8″ - or 6′4″ as in their next opponent) upset the unbeatable team.

Baylor had its chances.  It’s hard to criticize a team for not shooting 90%.  How can anyone expect a performance like that?  Hint: Ask the 1985 Villanova Wildcats who not only did it, but had they not, they would have gone down in history as the team that gave a monumental effort against a team no one could have beaten anyway.

Enter the Stanford Cardinal.  While UConn has won a zillion games in a row (actually 77), the Lady Cardinal (can a color have a gender?) have only one blemish on their record - and it happens to be the closest game the Lady Huskies have had to date.  If the women’s game will ever draw a major market share of a television audience, the intrigue of this scenario is as much as anyone could have scripted.

First, it will be televised on Tuesday - the night after the final men’s game is broadcast, meaning there is no competition from the “other” side, yet still at a time fans are craving for college hoops.  The giants are coached by a (and don’t think this isn’t a major divisive factor in the women’s game) man (ugh!) - and not just any man, but one who has done everything in his power to create controversy and intentionally label himself as public enemy number one (and don’t think he doesn’t love all that comes with that).  Title IX didn’t cure all the ills. 

While Baylor looked a little rattled (how can anyone blame them - on such a large stage), it would surprise many close to the sport if Stanford didn’t fare better.  Pressure to their players is taking their third final of the day - in Organic Chemistry.  Basketball is something they actually like.  After all, that’s the reason they chose Stanford in the first place.  Don’t believe anything else you might hear.  The scholarship they accepted is for basketball, and why they chose The Farm might be for Tara, or Stanford’s tradition, but, believe me, the decision was made for the moment they’re about to experience Tuesday night.  To quote one of the greatest competitors, male or female, who ever had to deal in similar situations, Billie Jean King:

“No matter how tough, no matter what kind of outside pressure, no matter how many bad breaks along the way, I must keep my sights on the final goal, to win, win, win - and with more love and passion than the world has ever witnessed in any performance.” Â

The passing of Title IX in 1972 put women’s basketball on the national map.  It just took about twenty years for university leaders to get serious about it.  Now, women’s basketball is so popular at many schools that coaches are making six- and even seven-figure salaries!  At these schools, you’ll find sell-out crowds - in large arenas.  Tell me anybody who thought that was going to happen when Title IX was passed and I have a small cup for them to (half) fill.

More young girls are getting opportunities now than ever before.  I ask the girls in my math classes how many of them play sports for our school (the question is regarding equality and how I relate it to equality in the math world, i.e. Title IX says whatever you do for men you have to do for women and math says whatever you do to one side of an equation you have to do to the other side, lest I become the target of a lawsuit for digressing from math to “poisoning” minds of our youth through some chauvinistic means).  After a number of hands go up, I tell them to go home and ask their grandmothers how many of them played high school athletics.  The girls are shocked that their grannies, who might well have been talented athletes told them they didn’t play organized sports in high school - because they weren’t offered.

Because of the victory of, as a good friend of mine refers to it, the “Femini-Nazis” over the “Helmet-Heads,” i.e. Title IX legislation being passed (most people don’t realize Title IX was not really about athletics, but simply equal opportunity) and the strict, to a point of absurdity, interpretation of it, women’s athletic administrators have a problem few, if any of us have - too much money.  I’ve been part of nine NCAA Division I institutions since 1972 and have seen money both put to very good use and ridiculously wasted.

What made me think of this topic were a pair of games played on the distaff side yesterday.  One was a league game in which powerhouse UConn blasted Big East opponent Seton Hall, 91-24.  Even UConn coach Geno Auriemma, not exactly known for his compassion (keep in mind that I worked as an assistant - on the men’s side - at Tennessee for seven years in the ’80s and consider Pat Summitt the best basketball coach I’ve ever been around, male or female), said, “You never want to see scores like (today).  It’s not good for anyone.”

Imagine what he must have felt about the non-conference game between Baylor and Texas State which ended with a Lady Bears’ win, 99-18.  Or earlier in the season when LSU beat Centenary, 92-19.  Although I can’t locate it (since I’m a relative noob when it comes to googling - and finding what I want), I’m certain there was a women’s score (I believe, last week) where the margin of victory was over 90 points!  No college should beat another by that type of score.  First of all, the game should never be scheduled.  In Seton Hall’s case, however, they’d just better hit the recruiting trail a lot harder.

From personal experience, I’ve seen money wasted in the name of Title IX.  Some people, passionate about their cause to the point of being overzealous, simply have their eye on the wrong scoreboard.  To them, it’s about absolute equality: be it regarding spending, practice time & facilities, or even, the number of pages in a press guide.  Yes, I worked at an institution ( and after hearing that story, I thought some of the people should have been committed to an institution) in which the female coach actually counted the number of pages in the men’s and women’s press guides and complained the men’s was larger.  Never mind that there were a number of years in which the men fielded a team and the women didn’t.

Pat put it the best way I’d ever heard when asked about equal distribution of equipment. She responded, “If I ask for 30″ (not sure what exact number she used) “pairs of shoes and you give them to me, I don’t care if the men’s team gets more.  Now, if you give me less than what I need and the men get more, then we have a problem.”  But when it comes to attitude toward all of this equality, she summed it up perfectly - with a two-part answer. 

The first has to do with people in general and the second deals with her focus (and should not be thought of as her feelings for the men because I can vouch first-hand that she is one of the greatest supporters the men’s side has.  When Pat was asked, with all the money UT made, why she didn’t complain, she said:

“First, no one likes a complainer; and second, the men’s program is irrelevant to me.”   Â

Manny Ramirez got whacked for 50 games and about $7.7 million in salary (the approximate GNP for some small countries), but that’s not the biggest story.  As the days, weeks, months and, now, years, go by, we’re finding out that there was an entire era in which the culture of the game of baseball was that of: “Hey, I’ve got some stuff here that will make you bigger, stronger, faster and, naturally, a better player.  Oh, did I mention it will help you recover from injuries faster, too?  And it’s not illegal!” (yet)

It seems as though the overwhelming response by MLB’s finest (and probably, not so finest), would have been, “Are you serious?  Where do I get some?  There are a few guys I’ve seen bulking up real quick - guys I used to own, and now their stats make mine look like what mine used to make theirs look like.  I knew they had to be doing something I wasn’t.  Tell me where I can score some of this miracle stuff so I can level the playing field.”

And that’s exactly what many of us believe - that the reason steroid and performance enhancing drug use became so prevalent was because players were just looking to keep their jobs.  They saw guys hit 10-12 home runs three or four years in a row and all of a sudden, erupt for 50 in a year.  With apologies to Lloyd Bensten, some of the old timers were saying to these newly developed sluggers, “In Willie Mays’ best year, he hit 52 HR’s. I’ve seen Willie Mays, I played with Willie Mays.  Willie Mays was a friend of mine, and, you, son, are no Willie Mays.”   

Baseball’s a game in which, although a player’s longevity is greater than most of the other athletes in professional sports, as far as a career, the window for cashing in on financial security doesn’t stay open near long enough.  This PED and steroid usage predated what’s currently in the CBA between the player’s union and MLB.  Basically, there are three types of players: 1) the superstars, 2) the guys who will never be superstars, but will always make a team because they are either a specialist or because they can adequately fill many positions/roles and 3) the guys who, year after year, struggle to make a roster.

It would be interesting (actually, more like fascinating) to find out which one of these groups started the pill popping, butt injecting, clear smearing generation that has now become the face of baseball.  Was it a scrub, who all of a sudden began turning heads with his newly sculpted bod and where-did-that-come-from-power?  Or was it the middle group - the utility guy - who, all of a sudden, started dominating in the batting cage?  Or could it have been the guy who already was a Hall-of-Fame to be type e.g., oh, let’s say a guy who played in a city where all the professional teams there wear the same colors - who, even though he was better than most, if not everyone, exploded and became even better than his close relatives, blood and otherwise?

Independent of the case, there would be no doubt such an improvement would cause gossip, considering the egos involved in men already playing at the highest level, but, now, wanted to surpass their peers - whether for personal records or simply, survival.  I remember when I was a teenager, reading about a study in which aspiring Olympians were asked, “If you could do something that would assure you of winning a gold medal in the next Games, BUT you would lose 10 years off of your life expectancy, would you do it?  80% answered in the affirmative.

Succeeding in their chosen sport is the absolute ultimate for elite athletes - even to the point that they act irrationally.  Does anyone think for a minute that these would be Olympic heroes stopped to think and question the survey, “Does that mean I’ll never marry and have children?” or “Does that mean I’ll die before my parents?” or “Does that mean I’ll leave my young kids without me as a parent in their elementary school years - or even earlier?”

None of these things were taken into account when the decision to cement their chances at athletic immortality was made.  Are we to believe professionals are any different than Olympic athletes?  So that gives us the answer to “WHY?”

Not as important, and if it wasn’t for the severity of the repercussions of taking PED drugs and/or steroids, they would be comical, are the answers/rationalizations/excuses these athletes spout when caught.  “It was planted,” “they were my Dominican cousin’s,” “I had no idea what it was, I was just told to take it,” and Man Ram’s, “I got it from a doctor for a personal health issue and he gave me the medication” (which turned out to be a woman’s fertility drug taken by steroid users to restart natural testosterone production after coming off a cycle of use).  “Unfortunately, it was on the banned substance list” (there has to be a Title IX lawsuit somewhere in there for some miserable person/people and their I’m-doing-this-so-that-justice-will-be-served, but make sure you spell my name right on the check, lawyer).  “Now, that is my mistake and I’m responsible for it,” Manny so responsibly claimed.

When someone is overly passionate (or egocentric) about their career, they can’t think rationally, maybe what happens to them is a just reward.  What’s so sad is they violate one of Stephen Covey’s basic tenets of responsible social behavior:

“You can’t talk yourself out of problems you behave yourself into.”

After years of discussion and statistical study, the three point line is being moved back a foot (from 19′9″ to 20′9″) in men’s basketball.  What will be the biggest effect on the game?  Confusion.

Now there will be a 19′9′ line for women, a 20′6″ international line, a 20′9″ line for the men and a 23′9″ NBA line.  It will maker tougher for the referees, who struggle to do the job they’re assigned to now.  As far as strategy, there might be a little more zone defense played, but for the most part, I don’t see too many coaches changing their philosophy, as they did when the line was first introduced, or as they would have had the lane been widened (which was a rule change that many coaches had hoped would coincide with the new three point line).

It won’t open up the middle as much as many who passed the legislation think it will because, it’s only a foot and basically, the kids who could make threes won’t be affected.  Where the change might come in is with the kids who thought they could make the three, but were really incapable.  This player will be further embarrassed this year.

At first, when I heard they were moving it back for men but not women, I was fearful of a gender equity law suit, especially in Fresno since they’re on such a roll here, but somehow cooler heads prevailed and the courtroom was avoided.  Stay tuned because there’s always a lawyer out there, as well as a malcontent seeking publicity (in the name of fairness), so don’t rule out legal action in the future.

On a (I hope) more serious note, basketball has seen so much radical change in the past 25 years, this decision to move the line won’t shake things up too much.  Steph Curry and his disciples will still reign (and rain three’s).

George Bernanos had an idea about moves such as these when he said:

“A thought which does not result in an action is nothing much, and an action which does not come from a thought is even worse.”

Before I get any deeper in this blog, let me confess I am a Nike loyalist - even though during my 30-year intercollegiate coaching career, the teams I was associated with wore Nike basketball shoes in only three of those seasons (and this includes nine different universities).

Those numbers are a little deceptive because it wasn’t until the mid ’80s that Nike made one of the best business decisions of all-time when, instead of paying ten professional basketball players a half a million dollars each to wear Nike basketball shoes, they gave the entire $5 million dollar budget to Michael Jordan.

Up until that time, the Converse shoe company ruled the basketball sneaker industry.  When signing pros became the thing to do, Converse’s strategy was two-fold: 1) they signed the two “faces of the NBA” (Magic Johnson and Larry Bird) and 2) they felt college basketball teams (and the fans who followed those teams) would stick with “Cons” out of loyalty.  Incidentally, MJ’s team in college, the University of North Carolina, wore Converse when he played there.

What ensued was Michael transcended everything - basketball, race, gender.  (Note: If Jordan Brand basketball shoes - a subdivision of Nike - were a stand-alone company, it would be the second largest basketball shoe selling company - to Nike basketball shoes - in the world).  Nike basketball shoes steamrolled the competition.  Nike basketball decided to go after college basketball coaches (a group that was making decent money, but nowhere near the exorbitant - obscene - salaries they’re raking in now) by offering not only free gear and Nike basketball shoes, but paying the coaches “stipends” as well.  A wonderful strategy, since college athletics departments were feeling the budget crunch as they finally came to realize that the 1972 Title IX law was really supposed to be adhered to.  Even still, the product had to be a great one or all the money in the world wouldn’t have worked.  Inferior merchandise just doesn’t hold up in a competitive marketplace. 

Obviously, Nike basketball shoes were not only good, but exceptional.  One indication: eleven of the twelve members of the Olympic team are contracted with Nike basketball (Dwight Howard being the lone exception).  This group of players won the Gold, played as a true team on and off the floor and conducted themselves impeccably.

The swoosh was everywhere and what Nike received in positive publicity, as well as the TV ads that seemed to run on every network and cable channel, has assured them of remaining atop the athletic footwear and apparel business for as long as anyone can see.

People have referred to the Nike basketball shoe strategy as popular wisdom, but as speaker and business magnate extraordinaire Harvey MacKay once said,

“Popular wisdom is a contradiction in terms.  If it’s popular, it’s popular, but it isn’t wisdom.  Wisdom involves seeing what is beyond popular.”

 Â

When I mentioned in my 8/5 blog that George Raveling, to my knowledge, was the creator of the “mastermind group” idea, I received countless emails requesting a blog about that subject.  I’ve done about 400 blogs to date (so much for those who doubted a “commitment”) and George is mentioned in at least 15 of them.  That’s why I thought the creation of the mastermind group could wait, but I either peaked the curiosity of the readers or George has a real fan club (headed by Dan, a major Villanova hoops fan).  Who knows?  Maybe it was both.  In any case, on with the mastermind story.

My feeling always has been that people couldn’t teach themselves how to coach, i.e. coaching was an inherent skill - you either had it or you didn’t; you either knew the game and had the ability to get it across to a group or you couldn’t.  Over the years, I’ve said many, many times that George Raveling proved me wrong.

As the faithful readers know very well by now, George got the Washington State head basketball coaching job in 1972.  I know he was one of the nation’s first black head coaches (the late Will Robinson, who got the Illinois State job in 1970 was the first) and I’m quite certain Rav was the first on the West Coast.  George had been an unbelievably successful recruiter at his alma mater, Villanova (hence the VU Hoops connection), and subsequently, for Lefty Driesell at Maryland.

However, at the time of his appointment at WSU, the big man’s head coaching experience was limited to leading the 1971-72 UM freshman team (at that time, freshmen were ineligible for varsity competition - a rule the “powers-that-be” will never reinstate, but if they really were sincere about increasing graduation rates, would be a major first step - hey, what d’ya know, another future blog topic) to an undefeated season and a team which destroyed their competition by an average margin of something like 30 ppg.  Footnote: The #2 ranked frosh team that year was Bill Walton’s UCLA squad.

George’s idea toward coaching was simple: get the best talent (a belief shared by his mentor, Driesell).  That fit nicely with his other philosophy: outwork anyone and everyone with a work ethic pushing the limits of human capability (a thought also shared by the “Lefthander”).  What hurt - badly - was that the NCAA rules during that era allowed for an unlimited number of scholarships (a pretty big clue no one took Title IX very seriously, since ‘72 is the year that piece of legislation was passed).

Rav and his staff, of which I was a graduate assistant from 1973-75, worked longer hours than you’d believe if I told you, but were thwarted by 1) being in Pullman (hundreds of miles from nearly any Division-I prospect) and 2) being in a conference where, if we could get a youngster interested, could be outdone by one phone call from the Wizard of Westwood - or anyone on his staff.  John Wooden coached until 1976, so George’s first three years produced a total a total of 24 victories.  The fact that many of the other teams in the Pac-8 (the Arizona schools had yet to join the conference) were coached by future Hall-of Famers was the third reason for so many L’s.  It became apparent a change was mandatory.

What to do?  George decided going to coaching clinics was a good first step, but it seemed that, at each clinic, there were only two speakers who had topics that interested him - and one of those would invariably cancel.  Rav, no wallflower, would imediately approach the speaker he admired and ask to sit down and expand on what he’d just shared.  After hearing a couple of times, “I’d love to George, but I have a plane to catch.  Hey, why don’t you plan on coming out to our campus and stay a couple of days?  I really want to hear your camp ideas and how you organize recruiting,” it got him to thinking.  “Everyone wants to hear about my camps and recruiting oragnization.  Why don’t I take advantage of that strength?”

He, then, made a list of four or five coaches he really thought highly of regarding their technical knowledge of various aspects of basketball (and whom he knew well enough that they’d agree with his newly developed plan) and get them to get together somewhere, simultaneously, to exchange ideas.  Since, from 1973-77, George had a dominating center, a marvelously talented kid from Chicago named Steve Puidokas - a 6′11″, 260 lb scoring giant (who, by the way, tragically died way too early in life), followed closely by 7′2″ James Donaldson and 6′11″ Stuart House, he sought out a coach who was reknowned for teaching post play and how to get the ball inside.  And so on with whatever other parts of the game he wanted to fully understand.

At this time in coaching, the clinic business was thriving, headed by the Medalist company.  But there was one catch.  The bottom line of the coaching clinic business was all about…the bottom line.  Every one of them was all about making money.  George’s scheme was to have a group of five or six coaches speaking on topics they were each experts…but with one caveat: it was to be an exclusive club.  There would be no admission charge because there would no admission.  No one else was invited! 

The early list of coaches would shock many - mainly because, while all were highly successful, few were household names.  George was looking to soak up knowledge, not to impress anybody.  I can’t remember exactly who made up the original group or who was added soon thereafter, but among those attending were: Glenn Wilkes of Stetson (who, to this day, remains one of George’s closest friends), Sonny Smith of Auburn, Murray Arnold of Tennessee-Chattanooga, Gary Colson of New Mexico and Bill Foster of Clemson.  These basketball minds would speak on their expertise.  Naturally, George’s topics were camp and recruiting organization.  There was one main rule: no secrets.  Full access to anything and everything in each other’s minds and files.  Note: There are entirely too many coaches who think they actually invented something, only to have it pointed out to them the same (or a close facsimile) idea was employed 30 years ago. 

After a few years, guest speakers were brought in to enlighten the group on such “non-basketball” information as financial planning and how to write contracts.  Then, there came a period of time when each member of the group knew each of the other’s philosophy so well, they felt any one of them could step in and run the other’s program.  At this point, they agreed each coach could invite another into the group, thus doubling the size of the “club.”  It’s how legendary NBA assistant, currently with the Chicago Bulls, Del Harris, gained membership.  To my knowledge, the group still meets occasionally.

Since then, many other groups like this one were organized.  Larry Shyatt, currently one of Billy Donovan’s assistants at two-time National Champion Florida and Scott Duncan, who now reports to Ben Howland at UCLA, were both on Colson’s New Mexico staff and wondered why, after a couple years of seeing how their boss’ membership in the “Raveling Group” had paid off in wins for the Lobos, called me while I was an assistant at Tennessee and asked what I thought of us starting a similar “think tank” for assistants.  I belonged from the outset (around 1981) until back injuries forced me from coaching a few years ago. 

That’s how I can say, from an up close and personal view, the idea, whether initiated by George Raveling or someone else, was absolutely brilliant.  It’s in use in most every major industry today and shows:

“When you light another’s candle, you lose none of your own.  You simply make evrything brighter.”        Â

The blog I did on 7/12/07 details how I got to Fresno - that my boss, friend and mentor, George Raveling, was in a near fatal car accident which forced him to retire, that my wife’s job was being terminated and moved to Fresno (which happened to be one of my options) and how I’d heard the community support was fantastic.  The blog also explains how, coincidentally, on our family’s “let’s explore Fresno” trip, we awoke on Sunday morning to the front page headline of the Fresno Bee, entitled “DOG HOUSE DIVIDED” and the inner turmoil that was going on in the athletics department between the men’s and women’s programs.

What I found infinitely interesting was, at that exact same time, USC was in court dealing with former women’s basketball coach, Marianne Stanley, who was suing the university, claiming she was entitled to the same money George Raveling was making.  After reading the Bee article (which was, I believe, at least a page and a half), it struck me that at SC, Stanley’s case really had no effect on the comraderie of the department.  Maybe it was because USC is so heavily endowed that money problems seldom exist, maybe because the contract offer Stanley had turned down would have made her the third highest paid head coach (male or female) on campus or maybe it was due to the fact that the case had no merit (Stanley lost it, appealed to a higher court and lost that, then appealed again to the state’s highest court whereupon the judge dismissed it in a “summary judgment,” which I found out later meant the judge felt the suit was so frivilous, he decided to act on it himself because bringing it to a jury would be a waste of time).

Yet, here was a school, Fresno State, where coaches were comparing the number of pages in each team’s press guides!  I still ended up a Bulldog and worked at FSU for seven years.  In 1998, the women’s softball team won the National Championship, the first in school history.  The 7/12/07 blog explains the idea I presented to honor the team and coaches in an attempt to reach out and unite the community with the champs and, also to possibly create some revenue for the department.

The reaction between the national championship at Fresno and those at USC (about a week prior to signing the contract to be associate head basketball coach, the men’s tennis team won it all) were strikingly different - just as strikingly different as the daily moods at each institution.  George insisted our staff go to the acknowledgement of the tennis championship and while there, it seemed I met, if not every coach in the department (male and female), at least a representative of each sport’s coaching staff.  That’s when I found about about “the Trojan Family.”  Sure, there are problems at SC, but as far as coaches and players getting along, the atmosphere at SC was much more similar to the other seven colleges I’d been than that at Fresno State.

Fresno State’s winning the College World Series was followed, deservingly so, by a parade and ceremony for the guys after they returned from Nebraska - similar to the one they had when the ladies won their championship and flew back from Oklahoma. I’m not sure how long the entire ordeal lasted, but I’m sure somebody had a stopwatch on it (as well as how much money was spent on each - to the penny).  It’s odd that there have yet to be quotes from other coaches and athletes at the school regarding the grandest possible accomplishment a college team can achieve, the ultimate goal of each sport.

I’ve mentioned on numerous occasions in meetings and to friends that the number one rule of any organization - “What’s right is more important than who’s right“ is violated way too often at Fresno State.  How much it’s changed in the six years I’ve been gone I don’t claim to know, but the quote from F. Lee Bailey always struck me as pertaining (on a lesser scale) to the situation within the Bulldogs’ athletics department:

“Can any of you seriously say the Bill of Rights could get through Congress today?  It wouldn’t even get out of committee.”