Jack’s Blog

Ohio State and Arizona played one of those NCAA tournament games in which the cliche “every possession counts” was to be taken literally.  ‘Zona was up at the half but the Buckeyes came storming out of the locker room and quickly claimed the lead.  Now, let’s flash forward to the final two-and-a-half minutes of the game when OSU’s Nick Johnson deflected an Ohio State pass into the backcourt.  He and the Bucks’ Aaron Craft scrambled for the ball.  Johnson did what he’s seen so many of his peers do in similar situations.  He wisely called time out.  Or was it such a smart move?  True, they got the ball - but the time out was the Wildcats’ last. Had Johnson simply grabbed onto the ball and been tied up, the call would have been a “held ball” with the possession arrow going to . . . Arizona.  In other words, there was no need to burn that final timeout, leaving the ‘Cats with zero so late in such a meaningful game.

Anyone reading this blog is undoubtedly saying, “How in the hell - in the heat of such a moment - is Nick Johnson supposed to know the possession arrow in his team’s favor?”  My former boss and current friend and mentor George Raveling started a website about a year or so ago (CoachGeorgeRaveling.com - a site I highly recommend).  To date I’ve contributed a couple articles and I’m currently working on another (”Seating Arrangements and Duties for the Coaching Staff During Games”).  The first was entitled Top 10 Traits of a College Assistant Coach.  Trait #6 mentions “end-of-game situations.”  I encourage anyone who’d like to more deeply be involved when witnessing a game to read it.  The article I’m currently writing will reiterate the answer to the above posed question - as did Trait #6.

An assistant coach should have made everyone - coaches and players - aware of 1) how many times out the team had left and 2) which team had the possession arrow.  Some may think, “oh that’s easy to say.”  No.  It . . . really . . . is.  It’s just part of your practices.  Maybe not every day in October, November or December but as the season moves on (and the majority of your defensive and offensive sets or plays have been implemented), there is more time for special situations and incidents exactly like the one that occurred in the UA-OSU contest.

Arizona’s head coach Sean Miller was speaking about the final Ohio State possession when Aaron Craft passed the ball to LaQuinton Ross who buried a three-pointer with a couple of ticks left.  What he said was their plan was to switch the screen on the ball but didn’t.  He lamented (not a direct quote):

“In the pressure of the NCAA tournament, as the pressure mounts, it’s difficult for guys to do what you want them to do.”

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.”

At the beginning of the past college basketball season, talking heads from all over the nation - including local guys with limited “listenership” in ultra small markets - were chanting the same message.  “Get a look at Duke’s freshman sensation, Austin Rivers, the nation’s top point guard, because he won’t be around the college scene after this year.”  They got it partially right.  Austin is no longer a Dookie.  Then again, some pundits claimed Rivers might not have been a point guard.

For example, on October 19, Matt Norlander from CBSSports.com wrote an article on the nation’s top PGs and listed Wisconsin’s Jordan Taylor number one.  His opinion was echoed by many in the media world.  Then, the games were televised and UNC was on (and on and on ) and the nation was raving about the sure fire #1 point guard in the US, Kendall Marshall.

I remember hearing an announcer make the statement (was it because it was cute or did he actually mean it - it sounded like the latter), “No point guard is the nation is Craft-ier that Ohio State’s Aaron.”  On December 12, still another site, rivals.com, had Xavier’s Tu Holloway listed as the top PG in the country.  Throughout the season, other names would be thrown out when the discussion turned to college’s best floor generals, e.g. Shabazz Napier (”Kemba Walker stole the spotlight last year”), Marquis Teague (”sure, he plays with great players but someone’s got to run the show and distribute”), Scoop Jardine (”the real reason the ‘Cuse is having such a great year”), Matthew Dellavedova (”if he played for a bigger name school than St. Mary’s there would be no question as to which point guard would lead the list”).

In the heat of conference races, a television piece was done on Iona’s Scott Machado, calling him, you guessed it, “the best point guard in college basketball.”  It seemed like every week there was a new “king of points” crowned.

Finally, the NBA draft was held and, according to every knowledgeable basketball person I’ve ever heard - to a person - the two most important positions to have for a successful team are a big guy and a point guard.  So which of the previously mentioned PGs was drafted first?  None!  Instead, Damian Lillard of Weber State which only goes to show that NBA teams draft the same way NFL clubs do.  The pre-draft camp, the NBA’s version of the NFL combine (as well as personal visits to the team’s site), mean more than watching a guy during a season (or post-season).

Now, I realize a player can be the best collegiate point guard and still not get the love from NBA scouts for a myriad of reasons, but the way “the best” is reported by the media can only be compared to the number of junior high crushes that go on in the average first week of school.  Of course, nothing matters until they strap it on anyway.  The players, not the junior high kids.

“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder - or the team that needs what you bring to the table.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When the NCAA’s rule book started expanding exponentially (during the ’80s), someone - maybe at “corporate” headquarters, maybe a proactive person at one of the power schools - decided a position was necessary to monitor compliance of that massive document.  Thus, the “compliance officer” was created.  The major problem with the rules is that, as soon as one is passed, there are a group of individuals (let’s call them “coaches”) who immediately try to find a way (or ways) to circumvent it.

Now, it’s impossible to locate a school that does not have an office of compliance.  At most Division I institutions, there is an assistant or associate director of athletics for compliance and a few employees or graduate assistants serving under him/her.  Their job is to make sure the school’s coaches, as well as others at the university - and, as unrealistic as it sounds, boosters (better known as “athletic representatives”) - are playing by the rules of the governing body.

Given the complexity of the NCAA rule book, compliance officers have an impossible job.  However, if there’s one area that compliance officers understand, it’s . . . cars.  Why?  1) One reason recruits love cars is because they’re status symbols, 2) a car used to be (BCO - before compliance officers) what was used to “seal the deal,” 3) in order to get a car, there has to be paperwork and 4) the one area compliance officers can monitor is student-athlete cars, e.g. to whom is it registered, what about the specific details of the transaction (if there aren’t any, that’s a major red flag).

On 2/12/10 I did a blog about circumventing the rules.  Current University of Florida associate director of athletics Jamie McCloskey was the Director of Legislative Services at the NCAA during the ’80s.  As I mentioned in that post, I used to call Jamie a great deal during that time and later, when i was associate head coach at the University of Toledo and he was associate commissioner of our conference, the Mid American.  I’d give “what ifs” and he’d reply either, “I have no problem with that” (perhaps not within the letter of the rule, but no “competitive advantage” - which is what governs most decisions of guilt by the NCAA) or “No, that’s an end run” (basically, the opposite of the former).

While many in the cynical world of “fandom” will think there was a coverup at OSU in “cargate” (especially those who live in Michigan), the Buckeyes probably did a very good job of monitoring its athletes’ vehicles.  As far as illegal contact with boosters, selling swag or gear, free meals or clothes, other “deals,” etc., keep in mind:

“It’s not what you know that kills you; it’s what you don’t know - or have no way of proving.”

Computer problems kept this blog from being published before now.  The good news is a new computer’s on the way.  The bad news is that I’m going to have to get used to it, not an easy task for someone who’s not exactly from this century.  Your patience is appreciated.

It’s the perfect time to pile on the (or is it “The”) Ohio State football team as more and more information is being discovered that tarnishes one of the NCAA’s heretofore thought model programs.  Apparently Jim Tressel isn’t the professorial type guy the media made him out to be.  Or else he made a mistake and by not owning up to it, the entire situation snowballed out of control.  Either way, his detractors have been having a field day.  But when one of the “whistle blowers” turns out to be a former highly recruited player, one has to pause and take into the account of exactly why that player decided to “cleanse his soul.”

Roy Small, who was a wide receiver at OSU between the years 2006-09, entered Ohio State as another potential NFL player from the Buckeye football factory.  But he turned into just another disgruntled teenager who admitted to academic laziness and was enabled by his father who, together with his talented, but underachieving son went on a tirade against Tressel, accusing the coach of purposely ruining the youngster’s career.

The biggest issue here ought to be the fact that Small waited until Buckeye Nation was vulnerable to come forth with his accusations (selling Big Ten championship rings and taking advantage of special car deals offered because of his status as a football at OSU), saying every player at Ohio State acted like he did.  Our current society, with its any dirt is worthy of print, encourages lowlifes like Small (perfect name) to grab their fifteen minutes of fame.

When all the smoke clears, one factor still remains: Roy Small could have been a big-time talent, known for being a professional wide receiver.  Instead, he’s just another stoolie, the timing of his admissions shedding more light on his lack of character than anything that ever went on at Ohio State.  In other words, he’s living proof that:

“There are more horses asses in the world than there are horses.”

Heading to Stanford (again) for more tests and consultations.  Blog will return Wednesday. 

In several of my previous blogs (9/4/10, 9/9/10, 9/16/10 and 10/9/10 are but a few examples), I mentioned how widespread “cheating” is in intercollegiate athletics.  What is undoubtedly the greatest problem for NCAA sleuths to deal with is the area known as “extra benefits.”  Some of these are impossible to control yet, with today’s “information super highway” and the instant notoriety, i.e. celebrity, that can be attained by a “wannabe somebody,” the NCAA has a nearly unlimited number of volunteer investigators.

The most recent case which gets juicier for the public on a weekly basis is what’s going on at Ohio State.  What began as a “swag for tats” exchange has elevated to a coach lying to NCAA staff people (a sure-fire career killer for the untruthful soul - even one as the seemingly straight-arrow Jim Tressel) to now, a car scandal in which 70+ football players got, according to NCAA rules, illegal deals.

When I began in college basketball in 1972, there was no such position as “compliance director.”  (For that matter, there were no academic or video coordinators to be found either).  Today, there isn’t an NCAA Division I institution which doesn’t have a compliance director and, for the big-time schools, the head compliance person carries the title of associate director of athletics for compliance and has a multitude of people working under him/her.  The compliance office is revered by many and feared by more.

For the compliance director at OSU to make the statement that there was no violation committed by the Buckeye football players is, at one end, naive, and at the other, absurd.  Allegedly, one sales price was listed at $0 (although the athlete claims he’s making payments on the car - possibly in multiples of the sales price) and there was one car salesmen in particular who attended several Ohio State football games as a guest of different players.

The NCAA rules have been unrealistic for quite some time.  Usually rules are passed to close loopholes.  But as soon as a rule is passed, coaches are looking for legal ways to circumvent it.  The new strategy may follow the letter of the law, but certainly not the intent of it.  No matter.  Failure to keep up could mean the difference between getting the prospect or losing him (or her, since the women have gone to school on their male counterparts as recent investigations of the distaff side have uncovered).  Lose out on enough prospects and games turn out the same way, creating resume updates for the soon-to-be unemployed.  So the rule book gets bigger but the difficulty of enforcing it varies in direct proportion.

The current problem is the popularity of sports, television and, with TV, the big money that accompanies it.  Rules today can’t be enforced (assuming they were) like they used to be.  The areas that nearly every high major school struggles with are: monitoring phone calls by coaching staffs (and other “representatives” of the program), complimentary tickets, extra benefits (free or reduced meals, clothing and other purchases, special privileges such as admittance to private clubs, back stage passes, and the one that so many coaches are dealing with now: paying for travel to games for players’ parents - which, naturally, includes room and board).

Although there doesn’t appear to be another alternative, what could be true of intercollegiate’s organizing body is:

“It’s outlived its effectiveness.”

About two-thirds of the way into the regular season, one of the many talking heads on ESPN (which one I can’t recall), made a statement that seemed, at the time, to make perfect sense.  In response to a remark about parity in college basketball, he said that while the talent might be spread out more than ever, there were only five teams that could be considered serious contenders for the national championship.  The teams were Ohio State, Pitt, Kansas, Texas and Duke.

I remember nodding my head in agreement because that quintet was so much more dominant than the remainder of the teams that made up Division I.  Each week, one of them took its place at the top of the rankings.  It was difficult to maintain the top spot, but there’s was little doubt that they were the class of college hoops.

Now, four of them have been eliminated and if upstart VCU plays today like they did in their first four upset victories, Kansas will have fallen too, meaning none of them will have even made it to the Final Four, much less win it all.  The point is that the way a national champ is crowned in college basketball, a team had better not let the game come down to the final possession because anything can happen (Pitt, Texas and Ohio State) and they’d better be ready to make adjustments if their opponent turns in their best performance of the season (Duke).

One-and-done is exciting but can be heartbreaking for teams and their fans.  For all those so staunchly opposed to the BCS plan:

“Be careful what you wish for, . . .”

Ranking in controversy as to whether or not to foul at the end of a game with a three point lead is the decision of calling time out to set up a last shot - when the score’s tied or the offensive team is down one possession.  Last night’s final two NCAA tourney games gave everyone a few more chances to argue each point of view.

Kentucky had the ball against Ohio State with the score tied and Wildcat coach John Calipari chose not to call a TO.  Brandon Knight eschewed a high screen, drove to his right, pulled up and drained the go-ahead bucket.  It turned out to be the game winner when OSU coach Thad Matta chose the same route and allowed his guys to race the ball upcourt with no stoppage of play, except Dallas Lauderdale’s three-point attempt hit off the rim at the buzzer.  UK moved on to the Elite Eight while the Buckeyes’ season ended.

In the other game, played simultaneously, Florida State found itself down one with seven ticks to go against the latest Cinderella, #11 seed VCU (although FSU was only a #10 seed so it was more like Cinderella vs. David), and the Seminoles’ head man, Leonard Hamilton, also decided against stopping action.  His guard, Derwin Kitchen, drove the right baseline and appeared to be going up for a five-footer but chose to pass.  The ensuing shot at the buzzer was blocked and the Rams escaped.

Those in favor of calling time out contend that the coach should be the ultimate decision-maker.  After all, he’s the one getting paid big bucks to orchestrate the game and that includes diagramming last second - winning - plays.  On the flip side, there’s the argument that his counterpart is in charge of setting up a defense to stop game-winners.  A coach would need a rather large ego (no shortage of those in the coaching ranks) to believe what’s in his bag of tricks trumps the guy down the sideline.

When asked why he didn’t go with the TO, Hamilton made his case in a very convincing manner.  “We go over these situations every day in practice.  Derwin had a five-footer.  For whatever reason, he passed it up.  I’m not sure I could have drawn up a play that would have gotten us a better shot than a five-footer.”

If you want to know which theory is better, here’s the answer:

“A good coaching move is one that works.”

Gene Smith is this year’s chair of the NCAA Selection Committee and thus, is the target of frustration for all the people who wouldn’t want the job but are more than happy to criticize what Smith and his group labored over for who-knows-how-long.   Of course, it’s infinitely easier to tear down the work of others than to tackle the actual task yourself.  Don’t be fooled for a minute that if Jay Bilas or Dick Vitale, or . . . anyone attempted the charge of selecting the 37 at-large teams and seeding the 68 that make up the NCAA Tournament that people would be shouting, “Perfect!  They nailed it!”

Each year, the committee chair is forced to face the public right after the announcements, and explain the inevitable controversy that arises from the eventual choices.  Although Smith knew he had to endure this uncomfortable situation, another set of circumstances would trump his misery.  He had absolutely no clue when he accepted the lead role that, of all years, he’d have to discuss - and support - his heretofore clean-cut football coach, Jim Tressel, against charges of committing NCAA violations and lying to the governing body about his role in the case.

Smith can’t be blamed for having his defenses up and being hesitant to anything that could come back and bite him.  As far as timing, him serving as this year’s chair has to be the all-time negative coincidence.  However, as the overused term goes, “It is what it is” and college basketball fans all over the nation want to hear the answers to the same questions that’s posed to the committee every year at this time: “Why?”

First, (OSU alum) Clark Kellogg and Jim Nantz of CBS, then George Smith of ESPN interviewed the Ohio State AD regarding decisions made by the committee he headed and, in each case, he told the viewers . . . nothing!  Every question was answered with a generic response, e.g. “there are so many good teams, we just didn’t have enough slots” and “we spent so much time on the top two lines” (#1 and 2 seeds) “but we spent a lot of time on the final teams as well.”

Regardless of his personal situation and the difficulty of the queries, the viewing public deserved more specific information.  In short:

“The only way he could have said less is if he’d talked longer.”