Jack’s Blog

Heading to UC-Santa Cruz to watch a scrimmage against younger son Alex’s Cal State Monterey Bay’s Otters.  This will be the first time to check him out in a college uniform.  Possibility of staying and enjoying a day at Sana Cruz so this blog will continue on Monday.

Election Day is around the corner and the Obama people I know think their man’s going to win, as do my Romney friends think of their guy’s chances.  That means an awful lot of people are going to be terribly disappointed.  However, this isn’t like a football game where the losers go to a local hangout, drown their sorrows in suds, sleep it off - and by Wednesday, they’re ready to start to design chants for next Saturday’s opponents.

This is a four-year loss.  That’s tougher to take.  Your opponent is now your leader and what he does - or influences others to do - has a major affect on your life.  One of the things that confuses you is that your guy has just come out and said, “Sure the campaign had its contentious moments, but it’s time for us to come together and support (the winner).  I know I am and I hope you do to.”

Wait!  You are?  And you hope we, who have been working our butts off for you, you hope we support the person you said is/was not ready for the job, insinuated he was a liar or, at the very least, a manipulator of the facts, and someone whose policy would doom America, he is the guy you’re telling us to support?

Election races are intense.  The two candidates and their parties just spent months dividing the country with ugly rhetoric about each other.  And now the guy who lost, our guy, the guy whose every word we believed in, is telling us it’s time to unify?  You mean, the same guy you’ve been badmouthing all this time?  Get behind him?

We thought if they won, our country would be in dire straights, that it would be Armageddon.  Now you’re saying everything is going to be alright?  So it turns out we can’t believe you, either.

What we need in this country is to take into account what FDR - whether you agree or disagree with him - said long ago:

“Competition has been shown to be useful up to a certain point and no further, but cooperation, which is the thing we must strive for today, begins where competition leaves off.”

The San Francisco Giants went up two games to none yesterday in the World Series, shutting out the Detroit Tigers, 2-0.  When Giants’ reliever Sergio Romo, who got the save, was interviewed immediately following the game, his comment was, “I could feel everyone was with us.”  He was referring to the crowd as well as the team.  Romo did acknowledge the group in the Tigers dugout who, understandably weren’t part of the Giants’ support group.  Nearly everybody believes that to be successful, it’s infinitely easier to win when everybody pulls together.

I was watching the beginning of the game at the gym, peddling away on a recumbent bike with one of three televisions above me.  The World Series was on the TV above me.  To the left was the middle of the TVs and that station was tuned into a political station, which naturally, had people talking about the presidential race.

Behind me, on a couple treadmills, were two guys, probably in their 60s, the bigger one reacting heatedly to one of the talking points on the show.  At first I just heard him (F-bombs tend to get your attention), then saw the two of them in the giant mirror that runs the length of the wall.  The bigger man was attempting to persuade his buddy about something, I’m not sure exactly what, but it was an anti-Obama item.  Everything he talked about was what the current administration had done and how they screwed it up and then lied about it.  His friend questioned him but the bigger guy shouted him down.

On the flip side, other people I know have told me they couldn’t vote for Romney for numerous reasons.  He doesn’t look or act presidential (too stiff in social situations; what he does say sounds canned).  Because of that and his lack of foreign policy experience (even though his opponent was in the same position four years ago), they say they won’t vote for him.

An outstanding social experiment would be to have ballots that had five selections: 1) Obama, 2) Romney, 3) someone else, 4) against Obama, 5) against Romney. Right now, the pundits are saying it’s a 47-47 race and each candidate’s “people” agree with that assessment.  If the experiment were implemented, my guess would be that, discounting answer #3, the other voting percentages would not be 25% a piece.  Rather, I think 4) and 5) would dominate.

Sadly, we’ve become the Divided States of America, even though were always taught:

“United we stand, divided we fall.”

One positive thing about coaching is the relationships you make.  When Larry Shyatt, currently the head basketball coach at the University of Wyoming, and I first met, we were assistant coaches at Cleveland State University and Robert Morris College, respectively.  The year was 1976.

Fourteen job changes later (seven a piece), we reunited for dinner and, naturally, some BS.  Shy let me know he was going to be in the Fresno area Wednesday night to recruit (what else would a college coach be doing at this time of the year?)  I picked him up at the airport around 3:30 and we caught up on old times as he freshened up in his hotel room.

His appointment was in a town about 45 minutes away.  The conversation turned to the presidential race and he had some strong opinions (shocking, huh, a coach with strong opinions).  Without revealing which side he’s on, allow me to throw in my two cents.

“Have you noticed,” I began, “that when you ask someone which side he or she is for in this election, the first two or three comments they make has to do with something they don’t like about the other side?”  Example: “How can anyone be for Obama when he said he was going to curb unemployment and get us out of debt and now unemployment is worse than ever and we’re three times as much in debt?”  The flip side: “With what he did at Bain and him wanting to give tax breaks to the wealthy, how can anyone vote for Romney?”  Politics have come down to which guy is less worse.

I wondered aloud, “What if the Republicans won this election and the Democrats treated the Republicans the same way the GOP treated the Dems when they got in four years ago?”  Obviously, that plan wouldn’t work.  Yet, maybe then - maybe then - someone would realize the current actions by both parties isn’t working.  And it never will.  Realistically, there’s too much money to be made in the political game but until politicians and their strategists start treating this country like a team with everybody working together, I don’t think we’ve got a chance to prosper.

Right now, the number one strategy when it comes to winning an election is negative campaigning.  The reason is simple: it works.  Most people would rather drag their opponents down than prove their own worth.  It’s easier.  And more fun.  My solution (yes, I know it’s unrealistic) would be to have candidates wired and as soon as one of them says something negative, they would get shocked.  The only way a candidate would be allowed to speak is if he or she made points about their platforms only.

It was great having dinner and spending a good part of the evening with my man, Larry Shyatt.  He and I used to discuss negative recruiting and we each felt if the only way you could get a kid was by wiping out other schools, you’d probably wind up losing him at some point - the point when he realized the fabric you were made of.

As Woodrow Wilson said:

“Friendship is the only cement that will hold the world together.”

Forgive me but I should have mentioned I was going to at the Stanford Pain Management Center yesterday.  While I have you here, I ought to let it be known I’ll be in Fort Lauderdale tomorrow through Sunday, then onto Monterey for freshman orientation Monday.  The blog will should resume on Tuesday.  Blame me if you like, but read on.

It is a microcosm of America that any discussion of the NBA Finals always reverts to blaming somebody.  It was LeBron James’ fault that, while he was so great a player, his teams never won a championship.  Now his team’s on the verge of closing out the Thunder and hoisting the NBA Championship trophy.  So what did I hear today on ESPN?  Stephen A. (tell it like it is even if it always isn’t) Smith and Skip (I love to be hated because if I didn’t, I’d be sad all the time) Bayless each say they’d lay the blame for the Thunder’s downfall on Kevin Durant.

My immediate thought was, “What would they be saying if the Thunder was up 3-1?”  Oh yeah, back to LeBron.

That’s the new way of life in this country.  When I listen to the most fervent conservatives, I hear how terrible a job the Obama administration has done.  The Obama sucks! rhetoric outweighs the Romney’s the man! belief on a scale of about a zillion-to-one.  It’s not “get our man in”, it’s “get the other guy out.”  On the flip side, President Obama’s message is his programs are the right ones for America, it’s just that the conservatives won’t allow him to implement them.  He mentions the millions of jobs his administration has created.  So I guess unemployment could be even worse.  But I imagine that he been asked prior to being elected what an acceptable -and realistic - unemployment rate would be during the last year of his first term, his answer would have been significantly lower.

The most absurd argument - and you can get passionate people from both sides to argue the point - is the reason for the national deficit.  When George W. Bush took over, there was a surplus.  When he left, there was a deficit.  That was one of the arguments the Democrats made in seeking to get their candidate elected.  So, their guy got in - and now there’s a much greater deficit.  And the Republicans are livid!

Yet they weren’t nearly so upset when W was in office and we went from plus to minus.  Now the worm’s turned and the Democrats seem to have amnesia when it comes to their complete and utter disdain for a president to take the country’s fortunes backward.  As is usually the case, the massive outrage is made by an extremely small segment of society - on each side.  Their (whichever’s) goal is to swing our way of thinking to their (negative) side.  Do they think the rest (majority) of us are dupes?  Never mind.  Forget I asked that question.

“If it’s true that when everybody’s right, nobody’s wrong, doesn’t it stand to reason that if everybody’s wrong, nobody’s right?”

Heading to an AAU tourney in SoCal.  Blog will return Tuesday.

Everyone in Congress worked feverishly to barely avoid a shut down of our government.  They “rescued” all of us, literally, at the 11th hour - with a temporary solution.  Then, we got to hear John Boehner, Barack Obama and Harry Reid tell us how hard they worked, how they compromised, put aside their differences and got the deal done so, tomorrow, “the Washington Monument and the government will be open for business.”  After what they just did to us, I’m not so sure the latter is such a good thing.

As someone who’s worked 35 years in the world of basketball, I always found it absurd when I heard people pop off about strategies, coaching moves and other things related to my field when I felt, deep down, these people had no clue what they were talking about and how it would be better for them to just keep quiet.  In this case, I probably should take my own advice.  Humor me this once because, as a math person (my college major and what I teach), I tend to look at problems from a logical viewpoint.

We elected these officials to do a job - and they simply did not do it.  On the subject of the budget, they spent over a year blamestorming, rather than brainstorming due to personal agendas, ego gratification and just being plain obstinate, thus disregarding the reason we hired them.  Like we care about whose fault it is that the country is in the pitiful shape it’s in.  It seems as though many people do, however, casting their allegiance to one party over another.  Yet, if asked, I’d hope that, given the choice as to whether they would want to fix the nation’s problems or see their “team” win, they’d choose . . well, I don’t think I have to tell you my wish.

To put the American people through what we went through - some families more than others (on a personal note, my wife works for the government so we agonized over her being furloughed) and then nearly gloat about their ability to compromise, . . . none should be surprised if they should be unemployed after the next election.  Unless they decide to adopt the “what’s right is more important than who’s right” philosophy that’s the core paradigm of any successful group, company, organization or country, we’re doomed to continue down the path we’ve been on.

Special interest groups, lobbyists, unions all have (had) their place in the United States.  Many of them now are more problem than solution.  I may be way off base but, taking the logical bent, this great country ought to be in better shape than it is and I don’t think I’m the only one who feels this way.

My feeling about politicians is derived directly from the definition of politics:

” ‘Poly’ meaning ‘many’ and ‘tics’ meaning ‘blood sucking creatures.’ ”  

Who’s better - Oregon or Auburn?  Boise State or TCU?  Peyton Manning or Tom Brady?  Or Drew Brees?  Tim Lincecum or Roy Halladay?  Or Cliff Lee?  The Lakers or the Celtics?  Or the Heat?  Michael or Kobe?  Or LeBron?  George W. or Barack?  Rush or Michael Moore?  Let’s delete the last pair since each has an agenda to get personally wealthy while dividing the country beyond salvation.

In each instance, there are numerous - and loud - votes cast for each.  Any of the above comparisons will elicit extreme emotion from the debaters.  Yet, everybody can’t be right.  Or wrong.

Every time I hear one of those topics discussed - or when I used to participate in them when I was younger and (thought I was) wiser, one tactic would invariably creep into the discussion.  That tactic was demeaning the opposition.  Hey, maybe we shouldn’t delete Limbaugh vs. Moore after all.  Demeaning the opposition is at the core of each of their messages.

As an example, let’s look at the top two teams in the current college football poll.  Oregon supporters will argue they’ve blown away everybody (except Cal).  Auburn backers will talk of how their team plays in the nation’s toughest league.  Before long, however, UO people will be saying that Auburn is a one-man show and that one man probably is  ineligible.  AU folks will counter with the Pac-10 being nothing but a bunch of soft teams and that if Phil Knight ever pulled his support, the Ducks would shrink to mid-major status.

I was guilty of this type of immaturity - when I was a teenager.  Maybe even a few years (decades?) beyond.  But after reading an article on the Harbaugh brothers in Sports Illustrated, I’ve come to the same conclusion that my friend Jeff Van Gundy stated on an NBA broadcast a couple weeks ago.  After reading the same article, Jeff says he has sworn off comparisons because of something that John Harbaugh said in that interview:

“I’ve got this rule.  We make no comparisons.  Somebody is going to be devalued.”

If people would follow the “somebody is going to be devalued” rule, the world of sports would be less fun for the fanatics and void of talk radio, but a lot more sane for others.

President Barack Obama went to Denmark to pitch a bid for Chicago to host the 2016 Olympics.

Reactions?  Senator Roland Burris (D-IL) said the reason Chicago lost the bid is because of the negative feeling the world has toward the United States.  He blamed this on the past administration and all they did to alienate everyone against our country during the eight years they were in power.

Meanwhile, Senator Kip Bond (R-MO) claimed the president neglected his presidential duties by making the trip, not saying what, exactly, he should have been doing, e.g. creating jobs, pushing to get his health care bill passed, winning the war in Afghanistan, or being a better daddy to his daughters, only that he shouldn’t have gone to Copenhagen. 

And, the Voice of Reason, the completely rational and impartial Rush Limbaugh, said that Chicago, not only not getting the bid, but being the first city eliminated, was the world telling Obama - or “Barack Hussein Obama mmm, mmm, mmm,” as Rush “Oxycontin” Limbaugh refers to our (and whether he likes it or not, his) nation’s leader - that they want him to fail.  In other words, the world is finally falling in line with Rush.

What all this says to me is that many in the country are still mired in their own - or their party’s - agendas, which will remain as the number one reason the United States will never reach the enormous potential we have - because as I have stated in at least five previous blogs, first and foremost, for any group, organization, team, or even country, to be as successful as it can be is to subscribe to the belief:

“WHAT’S right is more important than WHO’S right.” 

My greatest fear (which isn’t exactly front page news) is that, due to partisan politics and greedy, money-hungry, fame-addicted egotists, this mantra will never, ever mean what it once did . . . and our once mighty nation will be irreparably split, keeping the United States from ever again being the dominant nation in the world.  Whether the people who can do something about it don’t see it that way, or worse, that they do, but just can’t bring themselves to subjugate their egos for the good of the country is beyond tragic. �

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell was a guest on Larry King Live last night and one of the questions the “King” asked him was whether he voted for Barack Obama because the Senator was black.

General Powell reminisced about his relationships with then-Senator Obama as well as the one he had with his “good friend of 30 years and fellow Vietnam veteran, John McCain.”  He said he weighed what he felt was each candidate’s philosophies, beliefs, platforms, strategies, plans (or whatever else a candidate has) for the United States and decided which man to support.

While he mentioned he had hoped race didn’t play a factor in his decision, there were a couple of things - one he said, and the other he didn’t - that made me skeptical.  I don’t pretend to be a voice specialist or an expert in body language, but I did detect a distinct hesitation in his voice (albeit brief) when he said race didn’t play a part.  Plus, later in the interview, he said that, on the night of the election, when he finally heard television reporters declare that Barack Obama was, in fact, going to be the country’s next president, he cried. Not that he shouldn’t have cried; that’s exactly what he, and the millions of African-Americans of his era, would be expected to do.  Yet, if his emotions were that strong, then quite possibly, race may have been more prominently on his mind than he’d realized at the time.

That interview reminded me of a story my late mentor, John Savage, used to tell when he said that people accused him of voting for John Kennedy because JFK was Catholic.  Savage always said:

“I did not vote for Kennedy because HE WAS CATHOLIC.  I voted for him because I’M Catholic.”  

By now, I’m fairly certain most people in this country have heard, and probably have an opinion on, President Obama’s comment regarding the Cambridge police acting “stupidly” toward his friend Dr. Henry “Skip” Gates.

As I watched the press conference and listened to the President say he didn’t know all the facts, but that Skip Gates was a friend, so he might be biased, I was hoping he’d say, “and because I don’t know all the facts and because I’m friends with one of the people involved, yet don’t know any of the others, I probably should just focus on what I was elected to do, which has proved to be quite a task in itself.”

Instead, he made the now well-known remarks, making all the “extremists” day.  Enter, surprise! the Reverand Jesse Jackson.  To his credit, he was briefed that Sgt. Jim Crowley (imagine if his name didn’t have the “ley” at the end) was an officer with an outstanding reputation when it came to racial profiling, so much so that he was selected to teach fellow officers a class in racial profiling and why & how it should not be done.  Not exactly Mark Fuhrman.

But the Rev. Jackson (I always think of the late George Carlin’s line, “Exactly which church is Jesse Jackson the reverand for,” inferring, as blatantly as only George Carlin could, that the title allowed him a rather clever way to be exempt from paying taxes) never gives up the “pulpit” quite so quickly.  “The charges have been dropped but the stain remains.  Humiliation remains.  These incidents are so much a national pattern on race,” Jackson said, doing what he does best, fueling the fire any chance he gets to speak out on how poor race relations are, and how much better they need to be, knowing full well that he’d never admit the country was in racial harmony, as long as there existed one bigot.

My feelings toward Jesse Jackson were formed when he referred to Jews as “Hymies” and calling New York City “Hymie-town.”  Not only am I Jewish, but, coincidentally, my father’s name was “Hymie.”  I’ve heard from several blacks (friends of mine and others I don’t know, but have heard on television) that he has since apologized for those remarks but, you’ll have to forgive me if I feel that apology was as sincere as the one Michael Richards’ gave after his infamous tirade.  “I don’t know where those words came from,” Richards claimed.  I can tell you where they came from - his heart, because that’s where they were all along - just as Jesse Jackson’s remarks about Jews.

Then, I recall how Jackson flew in (or was flown in) to console and advise then-President Clinton after his Monica Lewinsky non-sexual affair - only at the time Reverand Jackson was performing this duty, it was reported that he had recently fathered a child out of wedlock.  No wonder he was brought in to advise the prez.  Did I hear somewhere that a major problem in the African-American community is the number of children born to unwed mothers?

President Obama’s remarks brought out the best in the self-promoting Sean Hannity too.  Always on the lookout for something in his wheelhouse, i.e. that which affords him the opportunity to criticize the President, the “stupidity” comment sent Hannity into a ratings orgasm.  He devoted his next show to this very subject and, to be “fair and balanced” (as only Fox News tells us they are), he had a panel composed of a white priest (let’s everyone forgive everyone else), a black pastor (forgive, hell, it’s all about race and Dr. Gates is a victim!) and an intelligent, blond representative from Fox News (hey, what’s wrong with a little eye candy) who, somehow, happened to agree with 100% of what host Sean “I have no problem having dialogue with anyone, as long as they side with me on every issue I bring up” Hannity.  The result was one of his most successful shows, success being measured by how much of the country can be further divided and make it look like the division was caused by the Democrats, especially the head one.   

On CNN, we were treated to Roland Martin, another talking head who never lets an opportunity pass to rail against all the racial prejudice there is in the country, yet somehow fails to mention that Barack Obama wouldn’t be president unless a whole lot of white folks voted for him - so aren’t we making a little progress, Rollie?  Martin said the charges were dropped, meaning there was no case.  Yet, others said due to the events that occurred, in situations like these, it’s common for the charges to be dropped.  

Some random thoughts about the case:   How about the woman who called 911 to report two black men breaking into a house in her neighborhood?  The aforementioned black pastor actually made the statement she was the cause of the problem for not recognizing her neighbor, Dr. Gates.  Wow!  And there’s the argument that if someone shows they live in that house, shouldn’t that be enough?  Someone familiar with domestic violence cases, on one of the shows I saw yesterday (I’m watching entirely too much TV), said there have been incidents where a husband broke into his wife’s (or ex-wife’s) house and brutality followed.  So, if the Cambridge police left after realizing he, in fact, did live there, and domestic violence ensued, what word would describe the cops’ behavior?  How about “stupid?”  Then, there’s the report that when Dr. Gates was asked to show his ID, he showed his Harvard ID, which didn’t have his address on it.  Whatever the case, was it really necessary to handcuff a 59-year-old man with a cane?  And is it true that Officer Crowley did not supply his name and badge number as requested by Dr. Gates?  Why wouldn’t he, (even if the professor was enraged) if that’s what it would have taken to diffuse the situation?

But nobody will acknowledge anyone else’s statements unless they are in line with their own.  Because it’s all about personal agendas (except for those who are also ratings-conscious) and as long as private agendas trump what’s good for the nation, we will continue to sink deeper into the abyss the individual has created.  Right now, we’re near, if not below, sea level. 

As far as my take on the situation (if you’ve read this far, you might as well finish), I’d say to the President (even though I don’t recall him asking), “Remember who you are.  The POTUS, as the CIA guys refer to you.  The majority of Americans voted for you to unify the country and to fix the overwhelming number of major problems that are currently destroying it.  Isn’t that a big enough task?  Was it really necessary to inject your opinions toward this case when you weren’t fully informed?  Isn’t that what your dissenters and the media do?”

We all understand he’s human (probably one of the reasons so many people like him is he’s shown more of a human side than others in that office), but he should make sure not to empower those who want to destroy him by promoting their own personal views and causes.  It’s not like he’s been checking off accomplishments he’s taken care of that were on his campaign promise “to do” list. 

A major point of contention in this overblown “Gatesgate” is the refusal by everyone involved to apologize.  Each person involved is a leader. One is the President of the United States, one is a leader of policemen (teaching peers against racial profiling) and one is a leader of the leaders of tomorrow (at one of the premier institutions of higher learning in America).  In The One Minute Apology by Ken Blanchard and Margaret McBride, there’s a quote that each of these gentlemen ought to heed (and if they don’t, possibly they’re not the leaders they make themselves out to be):

“The failure of many leaders begins when they are unwilling to admit to themselves that they’ve done something wrong.  It’s their job to accept responsibility for their actions.” 

 �

A couple days ago, Dick Vitale asked Bob Knight who he (Knight) felt would win it all.  When previously asked to give his selection, Bob, prior to selecting a school, would explain his choice.  Last night, after the Saturday games had ended, Dick kidded (I think) the coach about not giving a definitive answer.

Vitale, breaking all kinds of speaking records (in speed, hand signals and volume), told the crowd that he (Vitale) was going to pick a winner, “and I am not going to say, ‘If this happens,’ or ’should that occur with less than …’ “  He insinuated that Knight was wishy-washy when it came to prognosticating (as if Bob Knight could be wishy-washy about anything). 

What made Coach Knight such a brilliant leader of men (he was chosen to be the head coach of the Olympic team in 1984 - and won the Gold medal - then exited the college game many years later, some say not for good, as the Division I leader in number of games won) was his thorough preparation for upcoming opponents.  He would absorb all of the information that was available, watch video of as many games as were played by those opponents, and after forming his game plans for either squad, he would weigh which scenarios would most likely happen.  It’s only after all that, even if all he’s doing is a television studio show, does he feel comfortable in verbalizing his choice.

I’ve often wondered - on games that are won on a half court buzzer-beater (like my most heart breaking loss of all, the 1992 second round NCAA Tournament game vs. Georgia Tech), if the person who picked the winner was rejoicing, telling all the people who’d listen, how he picked that game.  “Oh yeah, I had that one!” boasts the guy fortunate enough to be on the correct side of pure luck.  Three and a half seconds were on the clock and we (USC) were up two after hitting a short baseline jumper.  They called their last time out.  We told our guys, “Don’t let (Travis) Best or (Jon) Barry beat us.  Our guy, Rodney Chatman, guarded Barry so closely that the ball went out of bounds (off of Rodney’s foot) - with 0.00.8 on the clock.  With the ball on the opposite side of the court from their bench, and them with no TO’s left, it was chaos over there.  Our guys were set on “D” - knowing that we don’t want Barry or Best to beat us and with our center, Yamen Sanders, fronting Matt Geiger (another of their players who went on to the NBA and who played about a decade in the League).  None of those guys touched the ball.  Their freshman, James Forrest, popped out at the last second and, admittedly, didn’t even have a chance to look at the basket.  Naturally, the ball went straight down the middle for the first three-pointer of his life.  My point is, if somebody actually had that pick, I w0uld hope they realized they just dodged a bullet. 

It’s always been so much more impressive if someone had asked you, “Who do you have in the (1990) championship game?” and you say, “UNLV.  Duke doesn’t stand a chance.  They’ll be lucky if they can stay within thirty points of the Rebels,” or, after watching a few videos the following year (1991), you remark, “You know what?  This Blue Devil team seems more mentally tough than last year’s.”  And, sure enough, Duke beat the Runnin’ Rebels (in the semi-finals) that next year (by a point) on their way to winning it all.

If, instead, you had the two logos and put them on the floor, then asked your dog to pick one, if that canine picked the Runnin’ Rebs in ‘90 and the Dookies in ‘91, then maybe you have a dog as smart as your wife thinks it is.  Or maybe you have the luckiest mutt on the planet.

Dick Vitale wants to turn it into “eenie, meenie, meinnie, moe.”  Don’t get me wrong - Vitale makes his tournament selections very judiciously.  It’s just that some games make no sense - which is part of the our leisure time as well.

Saying the game will come down to free throws and if a team has a chance to put the other away and they don’t - and that game happens to be the year Derrick Coleman missed them, or it happens to be the year Rumeal Robinson made them, makes you better at handicapping games than the person who has “Fido” on a roll.

As President Obama tersely replied to a reporter who asked, why, after he’d read the report, did he let that scribe know, in no uncertain terms:

“Because when I am going to speak on something, I like to know what I’m talking about.”