Jack’s Blog

Many times I have heard the statement, “There’s no such thing as a born leader.”  Technically, this is true.  Otherwise, there would be an article in some paper saying, “Yesterday, a leader was born to Mr & Mrs.——.”  Leaders are people who climb the proverbial ladder of success and don’t give up until they get where they want to go.  Unless it’s inherited success, the entire ordeal takes quite a bit of time, often measured in decades.

For football players, once they get to the top, they have to compete with others in their field, or, rather, on the field.  The ultimate goal in football is the National Football League and, if the majority of people in the world were polled as to who the leader of an NFL team is, the answer would most likely be the quarterback.  People love arguing about sports.  Therefore, if the leader of the team is the quarterback, the majority of those disagreements are going to be about the QBs.

Many fans will claim that quarterback is the toughest position of any in any sport.  Especially during football season.  Then it’s the point guard (but that’s a blog for another time).  In any discussion where there’s no true way of measuring what’s right, it’s impossible to have a “winner.”  Case in point: I asked a friend of mine who played Division I football and coached on the college level to give me the three best quarterbacks in the NFL.  After some thought, his reply was, “Aaron Rodgers and the two Mannings.”  When I said, “Not Tom Brady or Drew Brees?” he smiled and thought about changing his answer until I brought up how many other regional fans would put on their list: Ben Roethlisberger, Phillip Rivers, Matt Ryan, Cam Newton, Joe Flacco, Robert Griffin III, Andrew Luck, Sam Bradford, Alex Smith, Mark Sanchez, Tony Romo, and probably others.  After last week, maybe not Sanchez or Romo but a good performance - and a win - next week and they make their way back into the discussion.

These guys are the best of the best at their position.  Are they successes?  Everyone who’s chasing success because they want to be happy ought to heed the advice of Albert Schweitzer:

“Success is not the key to happiness.  Happiness is the key to success.  If you love what you’re doing, you will be successful.”

Due to the NFL lockout, coaches had no communication with their players, including rookies and free agents, and will have abbreviated preseason training camps.  This means that a game based a great deal on timing will have 11 guys who have had a limited number of practices.  After watching Jon Gruden stump Cam Newton when he asked him to call an Auburn play, it was obvious that the typical NFL playbook is incredibly complicated.  Even though drafted rookies got their playbooks prior to the strike, having no conversation with their position coaches or coordinators should severely retard the cohesion of a team.

How can fans not expect the level of play to deteriorate?  Maybe it will but because people are so hooked on pro football they’re just relieved that games will be played.  Those challenged more than players and coaches will be members of fantasy teams.  “Owners” will need to take into account experienced players vs. more talented newcomers, teams with new head coaches and/or coordinators and how quickly their systems will be absorbed, and, naturally, the question of chemistry.

In the end, there will be much written about how the lockout has affected the game itself but very little will matter because at least there will be NFL football - something that, for a while, wasn’t at all assured.  And if you doubt that, wait until the NBA “season”.

For the sake of their fans/constituencies, the NFL owners and players, NBA owners and players and Congress ought to heed H. E. Luccock’s line:

“No one can whistle a symphony.  It takes an orchestra to play it. “

During one of the seemingly endless rounds of interviews Cam Newton is subjected to, he made a comment that he was, in addition to a football player, an entertainer and an icon.  Pretty brash for a one-and-done NCAA football  player, no?

On this one, I side with young Mr. Newton.  He’s hounded day and night by writers, reporters and wannabes, all looking for a new angle to expose.  Then, when he says something like he’s an entertainer and an icon, he’s made out to be some sort of egomaniac.

No one will leave the guy alone and some of the controversy surrounding him is of his own doing (with assistance from his dad), but if he’s going to be badgered, he has few options - shut down media access (which would result in other people’s opinions about him, undoubtedly leading to worse pub), saying the same thing to everybody (and being called boring at best, ignorant at worst) or continuing as he is (with no end in sight).

As far as the public is concerned, we should all heed the quote:

“If there be a discipline in which the Americans are wanting, it is the discipline of awe and respect.”

Random thoughts on last night’s BCS game:

Exciting.  It certainly couldn’t have been closer, a game won on the last play.

The big plays made by big players (Newton, Fairley, James, Maehl, Matthews - and by some lesser known (Dyer, Byrum - at least lesser known to the average fan - and the Auburn bench who implored Michael Dyer to continue running, not so much because they didn’t think his knee was down but because of the number one rule of football - play until the whistle blows!).

The defensive side of the ball.  With all the offensive talent on the field, for each team’s defense to hold the other to such a low point total, was nothing short of remarkable.

Disappointing.  If there was ever any debate about who runs sporting events, it’s over now.  The extra times out and the increased length of them disrupted the flow of the game.  With the money that’s being tossed around, this will only get worse - for the rhythm of the game and for the fans’ enjoyment of it.

Kirk Herbstreit, one of the best analysts (definitely in terms of preparation), making the statement, “Oregon better not try to get too cute” after a reverse on a kickoff, then saying, “What a gutsy call by Chip Kelly” on the very next play, one which went for an 81-yard gain.  Like Herbie said, “That’s who they are.”

Seeing Nick Fairley getting flagged for exactly what he’s been accused of during the season.

Invoking God by nearly every Auburn individual.  Thank Him for the your skills, not for the win.  It’s called God-given ability, not God-given victory.  Oregon has just as much to thank God for.

Probably most disappointing for Oregon was not knowing what to do, e.g. continued inside running plays, especially deep in the red zone.  It’s their coach, Chip Kelly, who says the last thing he tells the team before leaving the locker room:

“Pressure is what you feel when you don’t know what you’re doing.  We don’t feel pressure because we know what we’re doing.”

There’s a little bit of arrogance in that remark - and it just might have hurt them last night.

The decision from the NFL commissioner’s office on the Brett Favre case was announced and the result was a fine of 50 large.  Roger Goodell assessed the fine based, not on evidence, but Favre’s not being forthcoming with the NFL’s investigation.  The majority opinion seems to be that he got off lightly.

When the NCAA went public with its decision on the Cam Newton ordeal, public opinion was pretty much identical.  I even heard one radio talk show host claim it was ridiculous, that obviously Newton had known and the NCAA should have suspended him immediately.  So much for “innocent until proven guilty.”  Yet that’s the prevailing thought in each case.  And why not?  In both of those instances, common sense would lead someone to believe the offender got off easily.  In fact, if they did what their accusers claimed, the court of public opinion would ring true.

Let’s go back to the origination of each allegation.  In both instances, the “modern” way of life exposed (excuse the pun in the Favre case) the culprits.  For Newton, it was someone who, for whatever reason, decided to “come clean and tell all.”  In Favre’s situation, technology did him in - even though, according to what’s been put out there for the general public, none of the alleged sext photos have been seen.

Back in the day, as the saying goes, none of this would ever have been public knowledge.  Reporters used to travel with teams (on the professional level) and even drink (and participate in other activities unrelated to the playing surface) with the athletes - but mum was the word.

With seemingly everyone having a cell phone or other gadget that enables the user to take and send pictures (or even video goings-on and record conversations), the modern day athlete - with all the perks their predecessors did without (and on the professional level, this includes outrageous salaries) had better understand that a higher level of accountability accompanies those goodies.  Bad ideas, such as Greg Oden’s texting self-portraits, Gilbert Arenas’ bringing guns into a locker room (although he meant no harm) and tweeting absurd messages (too many to begin to list) can derail a career or at least severely tarnish a reputation (or legacy).  That fact is as much a part of the “new” world of sports just as much as world-wide fame and mega-deals which set an athlete and his family up for life.

Athletes claim invasion of privacy and in many cases, they’re spot on.  Unfortunately, with the good comes the bad.  I recall reading an excerpt from a book in which there’s a story about journalists riding to a game on the same train as the ballclub they were covering.  In the middle of their card game, the door to their car burst open and Babe Ruth ran naked down the aisle, followed closely by a naked woman wielding, if memory serves me correctly, a knife.  What one of the sportswriters said at that moment is no longer true - and today’s athlete had better realize it.  And the scene needn’t be nearly so explosive.

The sportswriter was quoted as saying:

“There goes another story we won’t be reading about in tomorrow’s paper.”

As anyone who has a passing interest in college athletics knows - and probably to some who don’t have ANY interest - Reggie Bush was forced to return his Heisman Trophy.  This action was taken after USC returned their Bush Heisman and was made to vacate wins during his era).  If all that wasn’t embarrassing enough to the intercollegiate’s governing body, this year’s sure-fire bet to win the coveted trophy, Cam Newton, was embroiled in controversy regarding breaking NCAA rules.

It turned out that, after the NCAA (thoroughly) investigated the situation, it was only Newton’s father who had committed any infractions, so the Auburn QB was cleared to play for the nation’s top team.  Lucky too, because ruling him ineligible - and forcing the War Eagles to forfeit wins, so late into the season, would have clouded an already foggy BCS landscape.

SC athletics director, Pat Haden, publicly questioned the NCAA’s ruling, stating that in the Reggie Bush case, it was also the parents who received from improper benefits.  Others brought up that in an earlier interview regarding his recruitment, Cam Newton made the statement that, one evening at a family dinner, his dad said, “It’s Auburn” and that was when the decision was made about his future.  In his most recent accounting of his choosing a college, the junior Newton claims he never spoke to his father about where he was going to matriculate.

Those two incidents haven’t been the only NCAA problems regarding student-athlete ineligibility.  Highly recruited players, Enes Kanter (Kentucky) and Josh Selby (Kansas), were ruled ineligible - the latter just recently being allowed to compete while the former still remains sidelined.

In addition Martinique native Guy-Marc Michel (Indiana) was declared ineligible for reasons similar to Kanter, i.e. that, for various reasons, each had violated amateur status.  Last week, Kansas State’s Jacob Pullen and Curtis Kelly were declared ineligible and, not to be outdone, five prominent members of the Ohio State football team were found to have broken NCAA rules.  None will be withheld from competing in their BCS bowl (making the NCAA look bad), all will have serve suspensions next year (hurting the Buckeyes’ chances) and OSU will appeal the ruling, dragging the story out even longer (making both look bad).

I’m not being cynical when I say that these reported violations aren’t first time infractions.  24 hour news availability, nearly every cell phone having the capability of taking pictures (or video), the meteoric rise of the “investigative journalist” (so many see Woodward and Bernstein as role models) and the acceptance of “anonymous sources” have brought instances like these to the public’s attention.  Therein lies the major problem for the NCAA.

It used to be that only the “little” guys got put on probation.  The big boys knew the rules and how to avoid getting caught.  Does anyone really think Heisman Trophy winners didn’t get items beyond room, board, books, tuition and fees?  Star athletes, especially from college towns, didn’t get preferential treatment?  Come on.  New technology has forced the NCAA’s hand.  The schools in the (negative) news nowadays are the organization’s cash cows.  Let’s make one thing perfectly clear:  Paying players is not the answer.

What many of these kids did wouldn’t be avoided if student-athletes were given a monthly stipend - even as much as $500/month.  This is a much larger problem that can be solved with a pittance.  In the following quote by Henry David Thoreau, the NCAA is the thousand.  What we need - and maybe it’s a panel of proactive, imaginative thinkers - is the one he was speaking about:

“For every thousand hacking at the leaves of evil, there is one striking at the root.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I subscribe to Casey Stengel’s theory:

“Never make predictions, especially about the future.”

If ever anyone needed to be convinced that Cameron Newton is, by far, the best football in the college game, all that was necessary was to view his performance against South Carolina in the SEC championship game.  He runs, throws, nad goes through his progressions - to the point where, on occasion, he has to be hitting his fourth option. And he’s, for lack of a better word, slithery.  On a number of occasions Gamecock defenders had him in their grasp, only to see him escape and turn negative plays into positive yardage.  He’s nearly impossible to tackle in the open field, has the requisite power and acceleration when he needs it (to move the chains or get into the end zone) and has a strong and accurate arm.

Since the story of his recruitment became public, he’s displayed laser-like focus, performing as if he has never had anything on his mind but his responsibility as Auburn’s quarterback.  Deep down, he has to have an uneasy feeling, either because he’s living a lie or because, even though he truly had no knowledge of his father’s actions, he has had to bear witness to all his dad is going through.  After all, this isn’t a story of a dead-beat, johnny-come-lately father who just appeared to bask in the glory and enjoy the inevitable wealth his son is certain to attain.

The most damning part of the Cam Newton saga is that the NCAA is in possession of such indisputable evidence against Cecil Newton that Auburn has made a statement that Cecil’s association with Auburn be limited and that Mississippi State severed all ties with alum Kenny Rogers.  In a society in which sue has become as common a word as breathe, for the governing body to make such a proclamation has to affect the minds of those most interested - the fans.  Hearing no denial from Cecil Newton, people are led to believe that, in fact, he requested money from Mississippi State.  If he asked for anywhere near what’s been reported, most people out there (War Eagle fans excluded) think he must have received something from the university where he did eventually enroll.

What also falls under the category of intrigue is the number of times Cam Newton has recently evoked God’s name in each of his comments.  I don’t recall him being so divinely grateful prior to the NCAA investigation.  I’ve always had a problem with athletes who give God credit for their side winning.  If they’re talking about their God-given ability, OK, but to make comments like “God was with us today” is insulting to nearly everyone involved, God included.  To have the audacity to think not only that a divine being would care about which team wins a football game (yeah, even the Super Bowl) but that He would actually choose a side is blasphemous.

Obviously, there are a very select few who really know the truth regarding the recruitment of Cam Newton and, just as obviously, none of them are talking - yet.  To end the post with a little humor, I quote the late Abe Lemons who said, when he was asked what he thought of an alleged “pay-for-play” situation regarding a big-time player (don’t try to figure out which one, there were too many) that occurred when he was coaching:

“Whatever they paid for him, it was worth it.”

There were three collegiate football games with major implications played yesterday.  Oregon, Auburn and Boise State, ranked #1, 2 & 3 in the AP Top 25 poll were all competing, and each had hopes for a national championship.

Both sides - BCS and non-BCS teams and conferences - have debated the fairness of the current system, with no clear cut “winner” in the discussion.  One factor that has not been mentioned has to do with the leaders of the actual schools involved, i.e. the directors of athletics and the presidents, as well as the conference commissioners.

During the Alabama-Auburn game, U of A president Dr. Robert Witt and AD Mal Moore, most certainly were comfortably seated in their sky boxes, cheering on their beloved Crimson Tide.  No doubt, Mike Slive, the SEC commish was there as well.  All were entertained by a terrific game, the Alabama contingent obviously disappointed with the outcome.  Commissioner Slive’s only rooting interest was, most probably, that no further incriminating news regarding Auburn’s Heisman Trophy leading quarterback, Cam Newton, was revealed during the afternoon.

Similarly, in Eugene, Arizona prez Robert Shelton and its director of athletics, Greg Byrne, were intently watching the contest, hoping that somehow their Wildcats could do what no team on the Ducks’ schedule had done - slow down Oregon’s fast-paced offense and derail the nation’s number one team.  I would imagine that Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott got what he wanted.  Both schools played well and there were no embarrassing incidents.

In the Boise State-Nevada nightcap, however, there had to exist the height of ambivalence on the part of the Wolfpack’s president, Milt Glick and its AD Cary Groth.  If their boys won, it would be an upset for the ages.  The game was billed as “The Biggest Sporting Event in Reno History” since Jack Johnson fought there - 100 years ago!

Yet, because of the current BCS structure, their conference, the WAC, would be denied the mega-check that comes from one of their conference members participating in a BCS bowl - which has now been lost due to the overtime thriller in which Nevada prevailed.  Sure, the ‘Pack won, but what about the million or so dollars they, and the other conference schools, would have received had Boise won?  This isn’t a concern for the schools in the BCS leagues - even those as pitiful as Vanderbilt, Washington State, Wake Forest, Kansas or Minnesota.  Or Indiana - who gave up 83 points in an earlier game to fellow conference member Wisconsin.  Do the Hoosiers really deserve all that revenue?  More than Boise State and Nevada do?

And that’s just for playing in a BCS bowl.  I read somewhere that each BCS school receives in the neighborhood of $7 million - regardless of whether they even won a game during the season.  Nice neighborhood - if they let you in.

So far there’s been no mention of the WAC commissioner, Karl Benson, who must be in mourning.  Not only has Benson lost out on the BCS bowl paycheck, but next year Boise State moves to the Mountain West conference, followed by Nevada the following season.  Fresno State also leaves with Nevada and Hawaii is seriously consider bolting the WAC too.  Anyone who thinks Karl Benson was an impartial observer last night in Reno doesn’t understand the true problem a non-BCS conference commissioner has.

There’s little doubt that Benson and everyone belonging to the NCAA “family,” but outside the all-powerful BCS group, shares Mike Honda’s feeling:

“My own mother always taught me that fairness was a family value - I think equal pay is about fairness for everyone.“ 

Cam Newton embroiled in controversy, claims of AAU coaches with their hands out, agents involved with student-athletes while still in college.  None of this should shock anyone who’s been following college athletics.

I’m privileged to be on the Jim Murray Memorial Foundation’s email list.  Each Monday I receive a column written by the G.O.A.T. sportswriter.  Yesterday’s selection (reprinted with permission from Jim’s former employer, the L.A. Times) was on the subject of the less-than-pure world of big-time college football.  It was written on 11/7/86 and, except for adjustments due to inflation, the story could have been penned today (except that the public hasn’t been blessed with a sportswriter of the late Mr. Murray’s eloquence since he passed away).

The content of the article dealt with the imbalance of the importance of college football and its place in the mission of the university.  When you read one of Jim Murray’s masterpieces (meaning everything he ever published) the descriptions, anecdotes, metaphors and other means of narration leave no doubt as to how he feels about the subject matter.  And, if you have any sense, how you should feel about it, too.

Regarding his analysis of big-time college football, his summary was that it starts with college presidents (over)paying coaches, expecting them to produce winning teams (or else) and then being stunned when the “student-athletes” come from seedy environments, e.g. “pool halls or longshore shape-ups instead of seminaries.”  In today’s vernacular, that would equate to recruiting kids with police records.

He goes on to make the case that while college professors are expected to produce educated graduates and make sure these youngsters are “upright members of society,” coaches are held to a different standard.  Then again, points out Mr. Murray, professors have tenure while coaches can be shown the door at the whim of their bosses.  (Note: Equipped with an agent, today’s fired coach leaves far from empty-handed).  Give the coaches tenure and perhaps they won’t be so desperate to recruit any and every talented player regardless of character.  Sure, there would still be crooks, but not as many of them - and they’d stick out a little more than they do today.

No one made a point better than Jim Murray, or as colorfully.  When it came to fixing the problem of recruiting anyone at any price, he said:

“Until football coaches can be assured they’re not more than one blocked punt from going into selling insurance, they will not shrink at suiting up quasi-sociopaths or the Abominable Snowman if he can blitz.”