Jack’s Blog

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

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

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

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

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

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

College kids storming the floor after a huge win (”huge” being relative at different universities) has become as much a part of campus life as homecoming.  Hey, why not?  Coaches and athletics administrators implore students to attend games and be loud!  “We especially need help tonight against our rivals, State U, who’s #1 in our league/in the country.”

So they follow orders, support the players and, often, really make a difference.  Maybe a little one but in a close game, all the squad needs is a point or two.  Maybe the team gets a bucket because of a hustle play by a player not known for going all-out.  Or maybe one of their guys shortarms, better yet, airballs a free throw into a crowd of waving, screaming, stomping students.

The game progresses and as the scoreboard hits 0:00 with the home team - the major underdog - ahead!  For all their hard work and sweat, the players celebrate on the court.  Why would anyone expect the students to act any differently?  Let them loose!  Where the professional game and the college game differ is the players are being mobbed by their classmates.  

Naturally, the problem is for the safety of the group of visitors.  Mike Krzyzewski (whose team has been on the receiving end of more floor rushes than anyone else) has expressed concern for his players’ safety.  One idea is to, in the waning seconds, escort the losing club and have security make sure the remaining players on the floor get off safely.  In the past this hasn’t been an issue.  Like in the past boarding an airplane wasn’t an issue.

Just as a very small number of people seem to have ruined it for the overwhelming majority, we now have issues at basketball games.  These “sore winners” feel it necessary to verbally abuse the visitors at exactly a time that all they want to do is get into their locker room with their own people.  Of course, there’s a chance tempers would flare and the situation escalate.  Or the perpetrator, perhaps fortified with liquid courage and feeling the “strength in numbers” behind him, might just act beyond foolish and cause an incident.  Even if Mike’s proposal to guard the visiting team were put into effect, there would be no accounting for the game in which the outcome was decided by a last second shot - a make by the home squad or a miss by the favored visitors.

I’ve been involved with quite a few such “storming the Bastille” situations - on both sides.  At Fresno State we beat Tulsa in the finals of the WAC tournament (which was held on Fresno State’s home floor) to punch our dance card to the NCAAs.  At that time, Bill Self’s team had lost four games - three of them to us, this one by the largest margin - three.  During the regular season, we’d won at Tulsa by one and in Fresno by two.  Terrence Roberson hit his only three-pointer of the game on our last possession with the score tied, we got a stop and . . . batten down the hatches!  After addressing our guys in the locker room, Jerry Tarkanian went into theirs (the only time he ever entered an opponent’s locker room after a game) and said, “I only wish I could get our guys to play as hard as you guys do.”  He capped off the tribute with his trademark, “You’re the best.”

One year I was an assistant at USC, we had a magical run, finishing in the top 10 in the nation.  In the (then) Pac-10, we’d beaten UCLA both times and entered the final game (this was prior to a Pac-10 conference tournament) 14-3 in league play.  The Bruins were 15-2, meaning we’d gotten no help from anybody.  In order to win the championship, we needed to beat Arizona at home and then watch and hope Arizona State could defeat UCLA later that day.

We were down by one with seconds to play and ran a play for Harold Miner, our All-American.  Of course, the Wildcats weren’t going to let him score.  They doubled him, leaving our point guard open.  He took a 15-footer - and missed.  Our do-it-all combo guard, Rodney Chatman, picked up the rebound on the baseline about eight feet from the basket.  Because there was so little time, he simply flipped the ball at the basket.  Later (no replays for referees back then), ESPN’s cameras showed the ball had left the tips of his fingers with 0:00.1 tick left.  Good basket.  Game over.  Trojans win.

Our head coach, George Raveling, didn’t wait for the students to storm the floor.  He sprinted across the floor and dove into the student section!  UCLA beat ASU a couple hours later to dampen our parade but I’ll never forget George’s - and the students’ - reactions.

About three weeks prior to that thriller, we traveled to Pullman, our (George’s and my) old stompin’ grounds, he being the head coach there for 11 years and me being a graduate assistant and earning my master’s from Washington State.  We were neck-and-neck with UCLA for first place in the league.  WSU shot the lights out and beat us.  And their student body stormed the floor.  As we headed back to the locker room, George turned to me and said:

“I can’t believe it, Jack.  A team storming the court after beating USC in basketball.  We’ve finally arrived.”

Now is the time of year when directors of athletics whose football teams haven’t won as much as they need 1) financially or 2) to please the boosters/fans, face difficult decisions.  In a few months, basketball coaches’ heads will be on the guillotine.  “Today’s” ADs, i.e. guys with backgrounds in finance or business, pretty much solve the problem the same way.  Fire the coach and hire a headhunting firm give them a list of three or so.  Then have a committee interview each - with the loudest mouth in the room usually making the final decision.  The reason for such a solution is they really don’t know any other way.

These directors have such limited playing or coaching experience, certainly on the college level, that hiring becomes a hit-or-miss operation.  Teams can win and be poorly coached, lose but be well coached, yet these guys are out of their element in evaluating the team’s performance.  What they understand is the bottom line.  And there’s a reason for that: it’s why they were hired.  Even casual sports fans know that college athletics has become big business.  Football and men’s basketball are the revenue producers.  On several campuses those coaches are making more than the president!  ADs are under more pressure than ever before because, as Eric Kaler, president of the University of Minnesota said, “Athletics and our facilities serve as a front door to—and a window into—the University.”  I would be willing to bet that if Kaler and his fellow presidents voted on whether football and basketball coaches ought to be paid more than the prez gets, I could predict the outcome of that vote - within 2-3%.  So when teams lose, . . .  

Throughout history there have always been coaches get fired, mainly because in every league, someone has to finish last.  When their bosses were former coaches (usually football coaches), the head man nearly always got the benefit of the doubt.  Of course, it was easier when the coach was making high five figures/ low six-figures instead of low-to-mid seven-figures (doesn’t sound like that much of a difference when it’s put that way).

Sometimes, a coach doesn’t give the university a choice, e.g. Bobby Petrino and his indiscretion/poor road skills/worse coverup at Arkansas (although he wound up on his feet, apparently at a school that believes in second chances - as long as the team wins, more fans show up, fund raising increases, etc.)  Other times, the coach should never have been hired, e.g. Derrick Dooley at Tennessee.  What he had going for him was 1) his success at Louisiana Tech and 2) his dad.  I spent seven years at UT and that was plenty long enough to know what football means there.  La Tech is not a good enough proving ground for a job of that magnitude and once the team started losing, the Vols’ fans didn’t care if his father was Knute Rockne.  Sure, he was dealt a miserable hand by Lane Kiffin who left so abruptly for SC (a job opening which he coveted but I truly believe he had not seen coming open when it did).  In any case, it screwed up UT’s next two recruiting classes.  That is why they needed to hire a powerful figure.  With the money they have, they could have gotten it done.  With all it’s costing them now - in severance and rebuilding - hey, it’s just my observation.

Probably the greatest example of a former coach who became director of athletics sticking with his coach, understanding he had the right man, even though the team was losing, was Tom Butters at Duke.  Butters was also a former major league baseball player (a pitcher for the Pittsburgh Pirates).  The basketball team had lost - with allegedly top talent - yet Butters knew he’d hired the right guy.  So he didn’t fire Mike Krzyzewski.  Wise move.

Due to obscene amounts of money, the new breed of ADs have infinitely more difficult positions than their “coach-turned-AD” forefathers, but as the best sports columnist of all-time, Jim Murray, once said:

“Nothing is ever so bad it can’t be made worse by firing the coach.”

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.”

Early reports left no doubt the Zen Master was returning to ring up another.  Mike D’Antoni might have been mentioned but less than Harry S was in ‘48.  Sure enough, the headline writers got it wrong again.  How and why are left to insiders.  Some say Phil overplayed his hand, requesting (demanding) a piece of the organization, others say his exit last time (plus other lack of human connection occurrences) got under Jim Buss’ skin so much, the younger Buss reveled in saying no.  Of course, being a protected, some may say, spoiled child, he had Mitch Kupchak deliver the news.

Whatever the case, all the players seemed to be excited in getting Phil back and held nothing back with their praise of the apparent move.  Naturally, Steve Nash was ecstatic.  Kobe was even smiling.  Now that the newest news is out, everybody seems to feel the same way.  Kobe’s answer to the switch was the slickest.

He claimed when ownership asked him (following the Brown dismissal), his choice was actually D’Antoni.  He had no idea Jackson would be available.  Then, when it was announced that Phil wanted the job, Kobe said of course that was the guy he wanted.  Incredibly political, probably 95% true (the other 5% was in case Coach K was in the mix).  He said he got to know D’Antoni from the Olympic experience and he’s unbelievably competitive - which is right up Kobe’s alley.

So who is the biggest loser?  The fans?  Forget them.  If the team wins, they’ll all say they were in the “We Like Mike Club” all along.  If they lose, they’ll be as angry as . . . if Jackson coached and the team lost.

Listen to Todd Musberger, Phil’s agent, who is slamming the club for offering his client the job and awakening him from relaxing night’s sleep to say they were going in a different direction.  Phil has been known to have slept with management, so to speak, but there were no indications anyone else was awoken when Kupchak called.  Musberger is saying there were no outrageous demands made by his client, just that they had a handshake deal Phil had until Monday, i.e. about 12 hours later to decide.  Now, Phil. the master media manipulator (remember how he’d communicate his displeasure with his players through the media?), is saying he really wanted the job.

Really, does anyone in their right mind think the Lakers would say, “OK, go ahead, you’re our coach.  We’ll hammer out the details at a later time”?  Give him that much of an upper hand?  C’mon, Todd, even you can’t buy that one.  The real loser here is the agent because:

“0% of nuthin’s nuthin.”

His statue is moved, the NCAA is on their way in and people everywhere - with the possible exception of those in eastern PA - are having at Joe Paterno and what his legacy will be.  Maybe this is as it should be but there ought to be some degree of fairness afforded him.  The first part of the fairness is that, while the entire situation is disgraceful, the main culprit is Jerry Sandusky.  He is the man who abused those children, not Paterno.  For the people who claim what Paterno did was just as bad as what Sandusky did, that’s simply not true.  Paterno’s lack of proper action was an egregious mistake.  Had he - and others - acted immediately, many of the young boys would have spared.  But Paterno was not a child molester.  In fact, without Jerry Sandusky there is no tragedy at Penn State.  NCAA violations, quite possibly, but if you truly believe that that list isn’t a lengthy one, your favorite team better be from the Ivy League or someday you might be in for a major shock.

“The horrific allegations that came to light in November have haunted us all, but nothing we have experienced compares to that of Jerry Sandusky’s victims,” Steve Garban former chairman of the Penn State board of trustees said.  “My thoughts and prayers will remain with them always.”  All of Paterno’s vocal critics will say, “Amen” to Garban but, “now let me get on with my lambasting Paterno.”

The highly opinionated Roland Martin said, “Joe Paterno was nothing more than a narcissistic, arrogant coward.”  How well Martin actually knew Paterno I don’t know but there are many who have exhibited similar intense feelings toward the late coach.  Maybe that attitude is due to some previous confrontation with Paterno, maybe it’s a long held vendetta because JoePa blew them off one day when they asked for an interview they didn’t get.  Or maybe they’re just small people who love it when people higher up on the totem pole than they are found to have faults and relish in crucifying them.  What is it these people want?  Exhume his body and draw and quarter it in Beaver Stadium on national TV?

Therein lies the difference in how people feel toward this ugly situation.  Those who’ve known him for some time, e.g. his former players, have an entirely different take of him.  From Lavar Arrington to Matt Millen to former defensive captain Lee Rubin.  When Rubin was asked, “After hearing the Freeh report, do you feel the same way about Joe Paterno?” his response was, “Not regarding my relationship with him and all he did for me.”

“All he did for me.”  Let’s not forget that JoePa spent over six decades, longer than most of his critics have been alive, and accomplished some pretty exceptional things during that tenure.  Those who knew Joe, or admired him from afar, are devastated by his inability to have done what was right because, for so long, that’s what they felt Joe stood for.  When he said, “In hindsight, I wished I had done more,” his supporters sympathized. The human element holds as true in this story as it does in every one.

In John Maxwell’s book, Everyday Greatness, he relates that in 1972 Paterno was offered the head coaching job with the New England Patriots which was worth in the neighborhood of $1.5 million, plus partial ownership of the franchise.  After refusing it, JoePa said, “I love winning ballgames as much as any coach does, but I know there’s something that counts more than victory or defeat.  I get to watch my players grow - in their discipline, in their educational development and as human beings.  That is a deep lasting reward I could never get from pro ball.”  That doesn’t sound like the monster many are making him out to be.

In the end his loyalty to Penn State may have been his undoing.  He stayed too long.  Winning as big as he did, for as long as he did, in such a remote place as Happy Valley gave him godlike stature.  This is what could have led to his dismissal of Sandusky’s actions and his apparent abuse of power.  Paterno isn’t alone in a football coach who, in retrospect, made missteps in authority.  To find what autonomous power can do, read The Junction Boys about Bear Bryant’s preseason conditioning techniques.  People laugh that off as, “Ol’ Bear was a sonuvabitch to play for, but he made you a man.”  As with much of life, timing is key.  Does anyone in their right mind think Joe Paterno really condoned sexually abusing children?

In an interview earlier this week, Mike Krzyzewski, who became a close friend of JoePa’s said that there’s danger when someone is afforded power, prestige and, he added, money.  “But,” Mike continued, “with all of that comes trust and it can’t be abused.”

Another coach, Bill Parcells, when asked about how to handle making a mistake, gave some terrific insight:

“When you make a mistake: 1) admit it, 2) correct it, 3) learn from it, 4) don’t dwell on it, 5) don’t repeat it.”

Rest assured, America, the gold medal stand for men’s basketball will be occupied by the USA once again.  As it will be by our women’s team.  As it was by the original Dream Team.  The opponents the latter two teams faced simply lack, and lacked, talent.  On the other hand, our men will be facing some incredibly talented, i.e. NBA, players.Make no mistake about it, we still dominate from a skills perspective.  Of this past year’s NBA all-stars, 19 of them are U.S. citizens. However, many of the clubs we face have a plethora of very good NBA players.  Last night’s opponent, Brazil, had four guys regularly seen on the NBA Network - Nene, Leandro Barbarso, Tiago Splitter and Anderson Varajao.  In addition, arguably their most talented player, Mercelo Huertas, is not in the NBA.

Why not?  Because he’s making too much money overseas!  Last night he dished out 13 assists to go with his 11 points but was definitely Brazil’s most difficult player for us to guard.  When it became a half court game, he penetrated easily, on his own or with the use of a screen.  His vision is exceptional and he plays like an overseas baller, i.e. with a sense of flair.  No look passes are his forte but they’re made with a sense of purpose, not ego.

So, with the foreign squads catching up in the talent area, how can another American gold be assured?  While our guys do seem a little too content to jack up three pointers (one reason is the ability of Chris Paul to penetrate and get them wide open threes) - which can get them into a hole, as it did last night - there are two reasons for Coach K and his staff to feel confident they’ll bring home the gold.  Both of them start with the letter D.

One is defense.  When the USA got down early, much of which was because of starting 0-9 from behind the (shorter) arc, commentators mentioned it might be time to establish the inside game.  You know, that new stat: “get some points in the paint.”  Which the USA did.  It’s just that the points in the paint were lobs for dunks and more conventional layups off of steals.  If you’ve heard the term that’s also currently in vogue in hoops - long - and you’re not really sure what it means or the difference between long and the better known - tall - watch our men play D.  From the traps (and the four arms) that seem to impede every passing lane, to the rotations that shut down the lanes that an offensive player does manage to locate, Team USA forces turnovers that lead to easy buckets - and demoralize opponents.

The other D stands for depth.  The aforementioned Huertas was dropping dimes like Rockefeller but, in the much more physical international game, he eventually needed a rest.  In came a 19 year old Brazilian and what happened to him could have been called child abuse.  He had difficulty not only advancing his dribble, but in simply retaining it.  Team USA’s roster affords the coaching staff exactly what every coach dreams of - going to the bench and raising the level of intensity - without decreasing the level of talent.

The only way the USA can be derailed is with ego problems an Coach K won’t let that happen.  He takes a page out of John Wooden’s book and, as hard as it might be to believe watching some of them, he gets the guys to buy in:

“Talent is God-given. Be humble. Fame is man-given. Be grateful. Conceit is self-given. Be careful.”

Our Olympic basketball team should be considered no less dominant after Blake Griffin was replaced by Anthony Davis.  In fact, the team might just have gotten better because although Davis is younger, he is a much better shot blocker than the NBA’s newest version of the “Human Highlight Film.”

While it may not hurt the USA’s chances for gold, the two players involved have had their lives seriously impacted.  Davis is the lucky winner (for now, remember, he sprained his ankle and missed the “tryouts”).  While only one year out of college (which he stayed only one year), the former Wildcat star will receive an accelerated course in professionalism - from the group as a whole, not particular individuals.  The veterans - to Davis, every teammate is a veteran - will hold him accountable for his assignments, especially at the defensive end.  Mike Krzyzewski is blessed with more depth than any team his group will face (that statement could be said if all the other teams combined to make a twelve-man all-star squad) and, judging from last night’s exhibition against the Dominican Republic, Coach K plans to trap - especially in the half court.  This style is a gamble if the opponent can beat that first trap.  That’s why it’s mandatory every guy on the floor understand his rotation assignment.  In general, the players expect every person on the club to work at 100% - physically and mentally.  What a benefit for such a young, potential superstar like Davis.

Griffin, on the other hand, might not publicly say he’d like everybody’s sympathy, but he sure deserves some.  Here’s a guy coming off a sensational year.  Both the basketball and marketing worlds have become his oyster and now this.  Keep in mind, he’s the same guy who lost his entire first season to an injury.  Then, after an all-star season, he got injured in the playoffs.

Also, don’t think the positive influence of the veteran players on the team wouldn’t have helped Griffin’s career.  Lost in the posterizing dunks are the flaws in his game, namely, lack of shot blocking for a guy who can jump so high (as pointed out so expertly by Hubie Brown, a coach was known for criticizing players so they’d reach their potentials) and defense.  Hubie also noted in a broadcast or two that Blake enjoyed leaking out for the breath taking dunk when, truth be told, he should have stayed in and rebounded.  Try that a time or two and don’t think Kobe and LeBron wouldn’t bring it to his attention.  Not to mention his Clips’ teammate, Chris Paul.

So the Dream Team, or Redeem Team, or Redeem Dream Team marches on and Anthony Davis and Blake Griffin need to adopt the same theory:

“Things turn out best for people who make the best out of the way things turn out.”

During the past two days I’ve watched interviews with Larry Bird (two days ago) and Mike Krzyzewski and Jerry Colangelo (yesterday).  The one with Coach K and the USA Basketball’s Director dealt with the selection of our Olympic team.

Even though the USA had several superstar players who were forced to withdraw due to injuries and other ailments, the team is still loaded with talent.  A potential problem could be the fact that many of our opponents have incredible size.  It’s not uncommon to see seven footers handling the ball and shooting threes in addition to rebounding.  That said, Team USA has so much quickness, speed, and athleticism - and depth - that opponents will be under constant duress every game.

“As the dust settles, I’m proud to say that we’ve put together in my opinion a terrific team with great athleticism and great versatility and we believe we’re going to be successful,” Colangelo said when asked about the roster.  Talent certainly won’t be the problem.  And in recent years there’s been nobody better in the coaching business to get guys to play together the Mike Kzyzewski.

The interview I saw with Bird dealt with his success - as a player, coach and executive.  He commented that it was more difficult to win now than in the past.  When asked what the solution was, he mentioned something Colangelo and Kzyzewski will definitely heed and are blatantly aware of:

“If guys would accept their roles and quit listening to their agents, we’d be a lot better off.”

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.”