Jack’s Blog

The number one sports question of all time, in any sport, that is argued the most (by far) is the universal, “Who is the greatest ever?”  Team, player, player at a certain position, coach, sportscaster/writer, play-by-play man, color guy, what or whoever? 

Invariably, someone tries to enter statistics into the discussion.  This is always touchy because statistics in different eras tell different stories.  Whether it’s field, court or track surfaces, equipment, training and coaching methods, diet, outside influences, the list seems to be endless and it’s mainly due to something Tony Sparano, coach of the Miami Dolphins, said in an article in Sports Illustrated (9/15/08).

“It’s the competition,” Sparano said, but his response was toward the question regarding “the motivation that drives NFL players to squeeze every snap out of their bodies, and why teams are eager to open their doors to anyone who can help them win.”  He was referring to Brett Favre and why he was having such a hard time retiring, to guys getting multiple chances after various social blunders (many of them resulting in arrests, e.g. Adam “Don’t Call Me PacMan Anymore” Jones).

That same quote, though, could also apply to 1 - steroid use (talk about squeezing every last …) 2 - one of the ultimate second chance stories (should it ever materialize) in Michael Vick and 3 - more benign, yet still considered radical (at least by the “old timers”) moves made by teams (in all sports) such as bringing in the latest gadgets (underwater treadmills and the University of Oregon’s Bod Pod, which measures fat-to-muscle ratio), improving facilites and equipment (include golf, tennis and swimming into this discussion), hiring nuitritionists, chefs, flexibility and player development coaches, and “feel good” guys (motivational, inspirational, team builders, psychologists, yoga instructors, even hypnotists). 

Some will argue technology has inflated statistics, while the N-Geners claim specializtion and strategies have improved to a level that they have had an adverse effect on today’s stats.  Changes such as the relief pitcher (back in the day, players were batting against the tired arm of a starter who had nothing left late in the game, thereby padding their stats) or, the short reliever (even moreso,  teams carrying a lefty, whose sole job is to get out - possibly - one left-handed batter per game).  Or, the defensive specialist in basketball or the nickel defense in football (not to mention that going both ways has gone the way of the buffalo).

Rule changes have rendered comparison of statistics virtually useless.  How many more points would great shooters, e.g. Pete Maravich, have scored if the three-point line had been in place when he played at LSU?  How about the goal posts being ten yards closer!  Changing yards to meters in races?  The new configuration of baseball stadiums - or, simply playing in Denver?

In an unrelated article in the 8/4/08 edition of SI, Phil Taylor wrote a column about Tim Forneris, the Busch Stadium groundskeeper who retrieved Mark McGwuire’s 70th home run ball and, rather than trying to sell it for the fortune it would have commanded back then, he gave it to McGwire.  Fast forward to the present day and, as Taylor wrote, “who would have thought that 10 years (later), the hero of the story would be Tim Forneris?”

When it comes to arguing the “who’s the greatest” question, let’s hope that, at the very least, for the integrity of each sport and athlete, each individual involved would, as Phil Taylor describes the action of Forneris:

“Do right when so much around them is wrong.”

The latest news out of the Adam Jones camp is that the Dallas Cowboys may sign him to a contract next year.  This release came directly from the horse’s ass mouth, Jones himself.  Not surprisingly, the organization had no comment.  They probably didn’t want to let the other NFL teams know of their strategy and alert them that such an outstanding football player and upstanding citizen was available.

Owner Jerry Jones (no relation - and I’m sure Jerry would be the first to make that information public knowledge) made several mistakes this year and, although people with larger than life egos (in this area, the two are closely related) feel mistakes are for other people to make, it’s doubtful Jerry wouldn’t put the signing of Adam at the top of the list. 

After listing his trangressions - at least ten, according to the reliable crawl on ESPN, with the latest revelation that Jones (Adam, not Jerry) was the person who hired outsiders to shoot at individuals with whom Adam had a major disagreement - his public persona took a downward turn that, due to the current location of that persona, seemed impossible.  Here’s a thought to live by: Anytime people are on television speaking badly of you - and they’re in silhouette - that’s normally a sign that unpleasant days may be ahead.

When he was accused of arranging this shooting, ESPN had Stephen A. Smith interview him.  Under the harsh stare and frighteningly direct questioning Smith is known for, Jones denied having anything to do with such a deplorable act.  So I guess that settles it.  Wait … if Jones actually had committed such a crime, do you think he’d admit it to Stephen A. - on TV?  Something tells me this investigation, despite the high level of scrutiny and intense interrogatory power of Stephen A. Smith, might still be ongoing.  Off the record, I don’t think even Smith believed Jones.

In an earlier interview, Jones made the statement that, if he couldn’t play football, it wasn’t the end of the world - that football wasn’t the only thing he could do.  Judging by what else we know of him, I kind of hope for the sake of society, the Cowboys do sign him.

Disregarding his transgressions (and wouldn’t everyone who engaged in off-the-field behavior such as he did wish it could be disregarded), he wasn’t even a particularly effective football player this past season.  And when it comes to signing contracts, skill has a whole lot more to do with that kind of offer than character - a fact people, especially those who have children, have a tough time understanding.

In all, much of what Adam Jones’ problem seems to be is self-discipline, which many of us can relate to and what defines that area is the line:

“Self-discipline is doing what’s right even when you don’t feel like doing it.”  Â

Adam “Don’t Call Me Pacman” Jones (see my 4/24/08 blog) is back in the news and, unfortunately, it’s midweek, the time for an NFL player to stay as clear of publicity as possible.  It seems, that Jones, who was reinstated by NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, after Jones’ multiple transgressions with the law, was involved in a scuffle with one of his bodyguards.  The incident was allegedly caused by (or, at least, had something to do with) alcohol.  When Goodell made his decision to allow Jones to continue his professional football career, it carried a zero tolerance clause with it.  The punishment is currently a four-game suspension.

Examine the facts.  Here’s a guy who’s making a good deal more money than the average American and someone who, in all likelihood, isn’t as concerned with the financial collapse that’s befallen the country as many of the rest of us are, finds it necessary (or someone near him does) to have four bodyguards.  That statement alone seems like a person begging for some kind of trouble.  One issue that came to my mind is, “If you’ve hired four bodyguards, maybe you have a combination of too many dollars and not enough sense.”  I mean, if alcohol was part of his original problem (as has been reported), wouldn’t you, no matter how much you craved it, have at least one of those four guys “protecting” you, include protecting you from overindulgence where drinking is involved? 

The real story behind all this could be what can be found in many instances like these - and that is, that, for all he lacks as a role model, the simple fact of the matter is Jones isn’t as good a player as the Cowboys thought he was and, thus, has not only failed to live up to expectations, but has, in addition, become a bad influence on their younger guys (duh).  There are cases where making big money and having a ton of adulation showered upon a person has changed them, but that’s certainly not the rule.  Usually, deep down, when a situation demands it, a person’s true character will surface.

Some people, especially extremely gifted ones, don’t seem to understand the difference between a right and a privilege.  The last word on that debate comes from Ramsey Clark -and it would behoove all talented people (or anyone, for that matter) need to take it to heart.  He simply said:

“A right is not what someone gives you; it’s what no one can take away from you.”

*The following is an excerpt from the article I wrote for the latest (July/August 08) issue of HIS magazine.  The article, in its entirety, can be seen by obtaining a copy at a local news stand or in many of the fine establishments that display HIS.

Of all the vacation spots there are in the world, the most enigmatic is Las Vegas.  In some ways, “Lost Wages” represents all that’s wrong in America, the ultimate of a “something-for-nothing” mentality and a propensity for bad decision-making.  It’s all too common to see a man with a cardboard sign on the street - the day after he blew the rent money on “23 red.”  Someone once told me, “You see those magnificent structures?  They didn’t build ‘em on winners.”

Although anyone can get into trouble, when professional athletes embark on the city to do some serious partying, all too often, bad news and, occasionally, tragedy follows.  The combination of excess cash and irresponsible behavior is a surefire recipe for disaster.  The most notorious case is of Adam (Don’t call me “Pacman”) Jones, a member of the Dallas Cowboys.  The summary of the Jones’ story is: he went to a strip club, threw thousands of dollars at the dancers and a shooting ensued which caused devastating injuries.  His explanation was he only went to the establishment to dine (which equates to saying the reason you went to a brothel was for the exercise).  This only illustrates that not only can someone lose their money in Las Vegas, but their mind as well.

Yet, with Las Vegas being the major resort destination that it is, there must be positives - and there are - in abundance.  It is the ultimate entertainment location as far as quality, quantity and diversity of attractions - anywhere in the world.  When the name Las Vegas is mentioned, the first thought that comes to mind is gambling - all of which is legal.

Right after gambling, the shows are probably the greatest attraction.  Folies Bergere, the best plays on Broadway, singers, dancers, comedians, animal acts and magic shows - all are advertised as breathtakingly spectacular and never disappoint. 

If it’s food you live for (and there are many of us in that category), you can find both fine dining (if you can afford it) and inexpensive, all-you-can-eat specials (if you can’t).  Should your love be golf, some of the most luxurious courses in the country can be found here.   Also, as is the case with many families, while one member might favor the links, another is more inclined for some intense shopping.  From the Forum Shops at Caeser’s to the outlet malls and every price range in between, Las Vegas is a shopper’s delight.  If there weren’t all these attractions, why do you think so many conventions, events, rodeos and basketball tournaments (including the NBA All-Star Game) would be held in Las Vegas?

Most amazingly of all is what the Chamber of Commerce has done in promoting the city.  In the early days, the mob allegedly ran it (but you didn’t hear that from me).  Then, commercials about Las Vegas were advertised as a fun family experience, and roller coasters and mega-game rooms were built all over the Strip.  Now, it’s “What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.”  I think they’re trying to attract the same folks: it just depends on whether dad - or mom - go with the kids - or alone.

If you’re thinking about making the trip to “Sin City,” here’s some unsolicited advice.  Don’t bet more than you can afford to lose and go for the right reasons, whatever right means to you.  But remember:

“If you sell your soul to the devil, the devil owns it.”     

This was supposed to be the year of the character draft in the NFL.  Michael Vick, “Pacman” Jones, “Tank” Johnson and Chris Henry were all suspended this past season for various infractions that were a source of major embarrassment to the league.  One of this year’s draft prospects (if I’m not mistaken, it was the University of Tennessee’s Jerod Mayo) was asked, “How many times have you cheated on your girlfriend?”  This question displays not only the insensitivity of the NFL, but also the lack of experience in using methods for character identification.

The main reason the NFL is such a novice at discovering character flaws (until they become “after the fact”) is that the one overriding issue that drives the NFL, as well as every last professional sport (certainly, every one in which big money is at stake), is T-A-L-E-N-T.  Character is not, and never will be, as important as talent in the world of play-for-pay.  A person’s talent is God-given; the same person’s character is not.  However, each can be developed and improved - with commitment, hard work and a burning desire to get better.

Character can get much closer to perfection than talent can ever dream of doing.  The characters of Mother Teresa and Mohandes Gandhi were infinitely closer to perfection than the talents of Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods, e.g. there weren’t any days I’m aware of (nor is anyone else, I’d venture to bet) where Mother T or the Mahatma “lost,” yet MJ and Tiger have suffered numerous defeats in their careers - careers in which they happen to be, arguably (but not by that much), the best of all-time in their respective sports.  That’s probably why you could never get odds on either Mother Teresa or Gandhi on the Vegas board.

While character is admirable and, seemingly, has become more and more visible in champions in recent years, talent is the ultimate component in victory - because there are exponentially more situations in which, should the people on the field (in the case of football) have superior talent to their opponent, their team will win - up to, and including, the Super Bowl.

This blog is not at all minimizing the importance of character.  In those times where, as the cliche goes, “all other things being equal,” character is invariably the determining factor between success and failure.  But looking at it realistically, there isn’t a true sports fan in this country who can’t name player after player of somewhat low character (and that’s giving many of these guys who have a “ring” the benefit of the doubt) who made significant contributions for their championship teams while, at the same time, name more high character guys who never experienced the ultimate winner’s circle. 

As long as winning’s number one in this nation - and don’t for a minute think it’s not - talent will trump character.  A person’s character can change and there have been cases where it has.  Much of it - at the professional level - comes with how young people handle everything that comes from being in among an elite group - that of being a professional athlete.  I was the host of a sports talk show when, after an athlete (and not a “star” by any means) made the news for all the wrong reasons (I can’t remember the exact incident but I think there was an arrest involved), a caller made a statement like, “I can’t believe these guys.  They’re making millions and embarrassing their employers.  I’d play for $100,000 and never cause a problem.”  My response was, “Not only would that never happen, but the team wouldn’t have you on its roster if you paid them a $100,000 (or whatever amount) for one simple reason - you’re not talented enough to help them win.”  In the end, being a pro is a highly exclusive club and the number one prerequisite is talent. 

While an organization’s goal is to win, along the way, they hope to do so with a Peyton Manning, Brett Favre, Jerry Rice … the list goes on and on.  It is fortunate there are so many from which to choose for those of us who are parents because our kids see these guys as role models.  In the most recent (April 28) issue of Sports Illustrated, former highly successful Green Bay Packers general manager, Ron Wolf, is quoted as saying, “The fascinating thing about pro football is, no matter how long you’re in it, you can’t predict how guys are going to handle the pressure, the limelight, the money.”  All those items can shape, but don’t have to define, a player’s character.   

After all, if these guys would simply keep in mind what the great John Wooden was fond of saying, most problems would be eliminated:

“Talent is God-given, be thankful.  Praise is man-given, be humble.  Conceit is self-given, be careful.”       Â

So Adam “Pacman” Jones got his wish.  The Tennessee Titans traded the great football player/not-so-great citizen to, naturally, Jerry Jones’ (and make no mistake about it, they are Jerry Jones’) Dallas Cowboys (actually, “naturally” is misused because the identical reaction would have been elicited had the Raiders picked him up).  If the Green Bay Packers are a “community-owned” team, the Cowboys are at the complete other end of the football ownership spectrum.  Hey, it’s his dough - and, he certainly deserves a ton of credit for rebuilding a proud, championship football franchise into a … championship football franchise.

Jerry’s under the assumption that I heard back in the ’80s - “I don’t care what you write about me, just don’t ignore me.”  Fat chance of that ever happening with JJ at the helm.  He either got the “Steal of the Decade” or possibly ruined the team chemistry of “America’s Team,” who once was also known as “South America’s Team” for a different brand of chemistry.

Jones (Pacman, not Jerry) is unquestionably a fabulous athlete and football player, the kind of talent every team would not only like to have but, arguably, build their defense around.  It’s his off-the-field problems that have turned off most teams and fans (except for those who gravitate toward players like Pacman, i.e. people without children).  He’s had six arrests and twelve incidents with the police, yet feels he deserves a second chance.  I currently teach math and can’t figure how 2 comes after 6 and 12.  After being banned from the NFL for a year, he’s made the statement he’s done nearly everything commissioner Roger Goodall told him he needed to - like what the boss suggested was to live like he does, i.e. “clean” for an extended period of time and now that he’s “nearly” done so, he ought to be allowed to re-enter his chosen profession (and re-enter his previous lifestyle, too?)

Now, I know a little about taking on such projects, e.g. kids who had gotten in trouble in their lives at one point or another (mostly due to a lack of an authority figure in the home), having worked with Jerry Tarkanian for seven years.  The one major difference is that we were dealing with amateurs and Pacman is a professional.  After reading up on Jones’ and his history, I’ve come to the conclusion that a great many of his problems come from having too much money, not that he doesn’t have enough (a problem many others face).

The solution, and its my understanding that the NFL spends a good deal of quality time discussing the topic (as does the NBA), is that these guys are immediately thrust into an economic situation they are so far from comprehending, they start out with the proverbial two strikes against them when it comes to handling their finances - and the occasional extravagances that accompany their paychecks.  Much is made of the adjustment that’s needed to be made to effectively “play on Sundays” and there’s no doubt the level of play between what they’ve experienced for whatever school they attended (no matter how “big-time”) can’t be exaggerated.  But, in that area, they’ve been prepared their entire athletic lives to deal with such an challenge.

Not so when it comes to handling the “Monopoly money” they’re given.  Even if a player came from a wealthy family, and in nearly every case (in fact, I can’t think of one where this isn’t true), they’re making so much more money than anyone in their family’s ever even seen, it borders on a fantasy existence.  So the solution is to get someone 1) who is competent at providing financial advice to extraordinarily rich young men - who will only command that kind of money for a brief period of time; 2) who are looking out for the welfare of their client (with no hidden, personal agendas) and, of course, whom the client can trust, 3) keep at arm’s length, i.e. far enough away from their pockets, those who feel entitled to a share of the wealth because of some earlier pact such as “whoever of us makes it big, takes care of the rest” and 4) and this is last on the list because it’s the least necessary, a person who can increase their net worth through endorsements and other kinds of legal, and relatively not-too-time-consuming and risk-free work.  If managed properly, 1-3 should suffice.

This doesn’t mean to cut off contact with childhood friends (although in some cases, … , never mind, one thing you shouldn’t even try to do is pick a kid’s friends), but keep them in the “friend” category.  “Posses” should be for old Western movies, but if it’s a measure of success in today world of professional athletics to have one, then go ahead - just make certain their access to the “breadwinner’s” hard-earned cash (and, make no mistake about it, it is hard-earned) is managed by the person who’s trained to do such a job.

This may be a new paradigm (and to some of these guys, “paradigm” means twenty cents - and in too many cases, that’s the joke and the hope, i.e. a “pair of dimes” doesn’t mean what gets several in trouble in the first place) but it should be mandatory.  Look, none of these guys is making anywhere near the bank that Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods was - or is - and neither of them are staring legal or economic trouble in the face -because they each made excellent decisions regarding signing on with brilliant, trustworthy people who could let them be who they wanted to be, yet assure them and those who follow them (their families and others of their choosing) secure financial futures.  

Being loyal to childhood buddies is an admirable quality, but when it comes to planning for the future (or even the present), take a cue from Warren Buffet who, to my knowledge, had no athletic skill, yet somehow seemed to carve out a nice living for himself.  He once made the statement:

“I talk with smart people and I listen to what they have to say.”  ¼/p>