Jack’s Blog

When I decided (hoped) to become a college coach, one of the reasons I did was because I felt a coach could have more of an impact on a player than a teacher can have on a student.  I noticed this was true in the high school in which I was employed (which, coincidentally, happened to be the same high school I attended).  The kid is coming to me, the coach, to do something he wanted to do, as opposed to coming to me, the math teacher, for something he had to do.  Other thrills that inevitably accompany a college coaching career also enter into the decision but those are more an ancillary part of the experience. “Big games,” for one, are included among these thrills.

Putting together a winning streak is quite thrilling but, depending on where you’re working, the definition of a winning streak can vary greatly.  That’s why ending a long winning streak is probably more gratifying.  You have only a limited amount of time to get it accomplished e.g. 40 minutes, and if you succeed, it’s over!  And there’s never a doubt who did it.

Baylor’s Lady Bears had its 42-game winning streak snapped by the Stanford Cardinal (is there such a thing as a Lady Cardinal, especially when it stands for a color - or a tree?) last night in an early season tournament in Hawaii.  Everyone talks about parity in college basketball but that argument falls to pieces when the starting lineups are announced and only one team has Brittany Griner.  I’m not quite old enough to remember George Mikan but I’m just a year younger than Lew Alcindor, the center from Power Memorial HS who set scholastic winning streaks before enrolling at UCLA and refusing to lose there too.

Bill Walton was a dominant UCLA center after the fellow who subsequently became Kareem Abdul Jabbar graduated and UCLA continued to put streaks together.  Most notably, the 88-game winning streak that Notre Dame and its young coach Digger Phelps ended.  While the Bruins didn’t have as powerful force in the middle, they continued to win at a remarkable pace, especially in the friendly confines of their home court, Pauley Pavilion.

They had gone 98 games at home without a loss, a streak that continued after John Wooden had retired as coach.  Gene Bartow was the man who followed the legend and, as he later would admit, he never enjoyed winning at such a great rate less than the two years he spent at Westwood.  It was 1975 and I was a lowly graduate assistant at the University of Oregon.

I arrived on the Ducks’ campus after three other GA years (two at Washington State and one at the University of Vermont).  I made $1550 each year I was at WSU, a raise from the $1000 I got for 1972-73 school year at UVM.  Both schools also paid my tuition for grad school, something I couldn’t have cared less about at the time but appreciated a great deal as I got older (matured).  All three of the seasons before arriving in Eugene had produced losing campaigns.  The Ducks were in the same league as WSU (at that time, the Pac-8) so I understood how good they were going to be during that 1975-76 season.

It seemed as though I brought bad luck with me as we suffered a couple of early upsets (Duquesne was one in particular I can recall), knocking us out of the Top 20.  We opened Pac-8 play (the Arizona schools, nor other imposters weren’t in the league yet) at home against the mighty Bruins.  Everyone in our locker room was absolutely certain we were going to knock off the Bruins.  With just seconds to go, our superstar guard Ronnie Lee poked the ball away from one of their guys to one of ours who laid the ball in the basket, putting us up one.  A late, phantom whistle - foul on Ronnie - not only took away the basket and kept us down one, but put them on the free throw line for a 1-and-1 (no double bonus back then either) and it was Ronnie’s fifth foul. 

Mac Court (our arena back then) was rockin’.  You couldn’t hear yourself think it was so loud.  Naturally, their guy missed the free throw and our back up guard let one go from the side of half court that looked like it was going to bank straight in.  Instead, it banked - and rimmed the hoop - before coming out.  We’d lost our conference opener by one.

A month later we had to make the trip south to play USC on Friday and UCLA on Saturday.  After defeating the Trojans, we read in the paper (there was no Internet then and the information super highway was a simple road under construction.  We did see a press release that the Bruins had a 98-game home winning streak.  The sting of the earlier one-point loss hadn’t gone away yet.  When the word got around about their 98-game winning streak, you’d never seen a bunch of more confident guys - ready to play.

Bottom line: we were up 30-12 at the half.  Only because they hit three deeeeeeep jumpers (no three-point shot then either) did they score double figures in the first half.  They made a brief run, very early in the second half but not nearly enough.  We beat them 65-45.  Maybe the most remarkable thing about the game was with 7 minutes to go and us comfortably ahead, their fans started leaving!  Talk about a spoiled group.  Their fans couldn’t even sit through one game out of 100 (they won the next one after us) they didn’t win?

To this day, whenever any of us get together, the UCLA game at Pauley always comes up.  It must be the old American adage (just kidding for those of you ultra-sensitive schmucks):

“It’s fun to win but it’s funner to screw someone else up.”

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.”

Politics in America today have turned into theater, which may be appealing to the performers but does little for many of us who would like to hear what they think of the real issues and how they plan on improving the country.  So, representing this brand of individual is none other than yours truly.  Here are the (my) rules:

1) The moderator is equipped with a taser to be used as soon as one candidate a) so much as mentions the other’s name, b) refers to what my opponent’s plan is or will be and c) talks over the other, out of turn.  In other words, tell Americans about you and what electing you would mean to us.  Note: If a taser is deemed to be overly excessive, the rule shall be amended, to, rather than tase the offender, mute his/her microphone.

2) Each candidate will be allowed to bring a special adviser, whomever he or she considers an expert on the subject being discussed and whose views reflect those of the candidate.  These advisers will or will not necessarily be a current or potential Cabinet member.  The reason for this rule is simple.  The job of president is entirely too difficult for one person to do by him or herself.  The candidate will answer the question but will be allowed to confer with his or her adviser before doing so.

The nation, if not the world, has become one of specialists.  No one ought to be expected to know everything.  It is now commonplace for an honest gaffe to be recorded and YouTubed forever.  A candidate may has changed his or her opinion from years ago, yet the former version is still out there for anyone and everyone to see, hear, email, text or tweet.  Everyone’s job - especially the POTUS - is infinitely more difficult since the invention of the Internet.

3)  There should be a gallery of people who have used dishonest methods in the past to attain personal fame, power or fortune.  Should candidates find it necessary to use any such person in their campaign, it should be duly noted and the candidate should disclose his or her reason for wanting to be associated with such an individual.  This is not negative campaigning as the agenda of each of these people has been exposed and we should see them for what they are - people who will win at any cost.  There shouldn’t be any room for such people in politics.  Examples are Michael Moore, Karl Rove and hundreds of others - on both sides.

4) Each candidate must explain how he or she plans to work with members of the opposing party.  Once again, there is to be no speaking over the opponent.  In this one case there will be an exception and each candidate will have a limited amount of time (two minutes?) to explain why his or her opponent’s “across-the-aisle” techniques won’t succeed but there needs to be evidence why the methods won’t work .

Why, you might ask, would I, someone who admittedly knows next-to-nothing about politics - and cares just a smidgen less - would decide to come up with something like the above?  The recent negativity in campaigning is, or at least out to be, embarrassing to all Americans - and outlawed.  Plus, it’s hard to blog on something every day!  Seriously, if selecting a leader is vital - and it is - how important is picking someone to lead the country for the next four years?  Seemingly, the overwhelming majority of our citizens aren’t happy with the direction our nation is headed in so many areas - educationally, economically, taking care of our seniors, younger folks being able to take care of themselves, the use of our military, . . .  whatever!   We have a chance to improve it but only if we change our attitudes.

As best selling author John Maxwell says:

“It’s not our conditions that determine our choices; it’s our choices that determine our conditions.”

It seems as though any time there’s something new going on, there are polls taken.  On television there was a fan poll asking the viewers of NFL games how they thought the replacement referees were doing in comparison to their striking brethren.  I can remember the results being about 60/40 but I can’t recall which side got the 60%, which side the 40%.  It seems like nearly every poll - football, political or otherwise is around 60/40.

Why?  I don’t know.  Our country is an argumentative one.  People today wait until they hear how the majority feels and then decide to go the other way.  However, when it comes to this year’s NFL replacement officials, the mistakes they make are nearly always seen by millions - in slow motion.  It’s tough when you’re thrust into a position you really want but, deep down, you know you’re not quite ready for.

The biggest problem thus far has been the interruption in the flow of the game.  Usually they get the call correct - whether it’s the original one or the overturn - but there is one concern that the game has no continuity.  The other issue is, eventually, an injury is going to occur.  Coaches are trying to intimidate the new guys and players are using the tricks they try on veterans, thinking they’ll work even better on these rookies.  And maybe they will.  But at what cost.

The culprit is - what else - money.  It’s just amazing that with the strength and skill the players possess, the NFL, the referees and the NFLPA would allow it.  All parties feel they deserve what they get or what they’re asking for.  Happiness is involved in this argument but all parties should remember what Frederick Koenig said:

“We tend to forget that happiness doesn’t come as a result of getting something we don’t have but rather of recognizing and appreciating what we do have.”

It wasn’t but a couple of days after the national championship game before the talk of which teams would make up next year’s Final Four.  Talk radio is a great invention.  It allows fans to feel like they’re really a part of the college basketball scene.  There have always been bar stools, but this means of pontification is actually like being interviewed!

If you’ve ever listened to talk radio, you quickly realize there is no IQ test for either the hosts or callers - especially the callers.  Sports is so fascinating and it’s so easy to get caught up in the excitement that if shows were recorded and played back months later, people would hear what was said and swear the tapes were doctored.  Nobody could be that foolish.

A couple of examples: one guy said he was putting together his Final Four for next year and the first, and only, name he mentioned was . . . Butler.  Now, I read where Brad Stevens was quoted as saying that on their flight from Houston to Indianapolis, he was formulating all that he needed to do to prepare for next year.  He followed that by saying that he hadn’t been contacted by any other school.  In other words, the statement was more about his desire to remain at Butler than it was how he planned on getting his squad to New Orleans.

Another one said that Butler had a better chance to get back to the Final Four next season than did UConn.  The thinking was that UConn would lose more players to the NBA draft than the Bulldogs would.  Consider that Matt Howard, Shawn Vanzant and Zach Hahn graduate and there’s probably a better than 50-50 chance that Shelvin Mack enters the draft.  Do the remaining players on their roster spell Final Four?  Since most of the really good players signed last November and, while the Bulldogs bring in a solid class of four (two posts, a wing and a point), to pick them to be among the last four standing is a real stretch.

The reason they made it back this year was because of the experienced guys who were returning, not their 2010 recruiting class.  Ronald Nored and Andrew Smith are a nice nucleus but to even dream about Butler being in next year’s Final Four, ask yourself this question: Exactly how many teams have gone to three consecutive Final Fours?  Face it, the optimism behind the prediction is mainly due to the coaching prowess of Stevens and while he would like to think a third straight trip is within reach (after all, the first two have already been accomplished), he knows full well it’s a pipe dream - no matter how stellar a coach he is.  The days of winning two games - in your geographic region, a la the UCLA teams of John Wooden - are long gone.

As for UConn, true, they will undoubtedly lose Kemba Walker - and maybe even Jeremy Lamb - but Alex Oriakhi, Roscoe Smith and Tyler Olander are a nice frontcourt to build around and Shabazz Napier, defensively, and Ryan Boatwright, an incoming freshman scoring machine (in the image of Kemba himself, sans the strength) make for a formidable pair of guards.  Plus, you can be sure there are superior players sitting out, or who served as reserves on this year’s club, who are more likely to make an impact in D-I than their counterparts at Butler.

In addition, no one expected Jim Calhoun’s squad to accomplish what it did this year.  Much was made of the Huskies winning it all after being picked tenth in the pre-season Big East polls.  Then again, they finished the regular season ninth!  Since Calhoun spun that miracle once (giving the Huskies their third national championship, all under Calhoun), don’t think for a minute that the people of Connecticut, heck, all of New England, don’t believe he won’t (shouldn’t) do it again.

If you have any doubts, listen to the callers already second guessing Bruce Bochy after the Giants started off slowly.

Does it even need to be said?  Coaching is all about:

“What have you done for me lately?”         

There is a large, vocal group of fans who are beside themselves because there is no Division I football playoff.  “Why,” they cry, “are NCAA champions crowned on the field, court, pool, wherever, in every sport and division except for D-I football?”  After witnessing the D-I national championship basketball game, they might want to take some campaign time off.As I have blogged on several occasions, while a playoff creates incredible enthusiasm, it doesn’t always produce the “best” team in the nation.  A friend of mine, Mike Adras, head coach at Northern

Arizona

University, must share that feeling as he’s been thrust into the headlines because of his vote in the final men’s basketball poll.  Mike’s been a voting member for several years and when he cast his last ballot, he did not put UConn at the top spot.  Maybe he voted right after watching the game.

The Huskies are indeed national champs and won it exactly how those anti-BCS people claim a championship should be won: on the field of competition, in Monday night’s case, in the vast confines of Reliant Stadium.  Yet, on Mike’s ballot - as well as everyone else who voted - there were numbers: from 1-25.  He did not place UConn first.  He didn’t even put them second.  In his view, he voted the teams in the order he felt they deserved, namely,

Ohio

State #1 and

Kansas #2.  Just as he had done all season.

Driving home from a place I frequent entirely too much, Stanford Pain Management, I was listening to, first, KNBR out of San Francisco, then ESPN radio.  On one of the programs, it was mentioned that this controversy could have been avoided if only there was no poll after the national championship game!  After all, isn’t that why we have a playoff?  Good point.

As I mulled the question of a “do we really need a post-national championship poll?” over in my mind (something I have three hours’ worth of driving time to do - each way), a line my late friend and mentor (another mentor reference, Vaz), John Savage, used to say about situations which made no sense popped into my head:

“It’s like scratching something that doesn’t itch.”

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, . . .”

Joe Lunardi is ESPN’s number one (and, I would think, only) “bracketologist.”  While some folks might wonder how we got along all the years before Joe, others ponder the question, “If the NCAA Selection Committee picks the tournament teams on the final Sunday of the regular season, what’s the need for a bracketologist at all?”

The country is so ensconced in hoop hysteria - especially college basketball because it seems everybody either went to a school involved or passionately roots for one - discussing or debating which teams get into the Big Dance and which teams don’t, is nearly as much fun as watching the games themselves.  College football has spring ball; college basketball has “bubble teams” and seedings.

Before and after games, at halftime and, occasionally even during the contests, announcers and color guys, studio hosts and analysts, and even coaches can be heard giving their expert opinions on which club has played themselves in - or out - caught a break (good, if a team thought to be in stumbled or bad, if an underdog beat a “lock”), or is on the bubble.

Some of these guys are retired coaches or former players who’ve actually experienced the feelings, some are guys who never strapped one on but devote their life’s work to “being in the know” and others are in between - coached or played some in their day, maybe at the D-I level, maybe elsewhere - but now are career sports journalists.

I find listening to each to be extremely entertaining which, undoubtedly, is why so much air time and newspaper space is devoted to something which will be rendered moot once the Selection Committee reveals its decisions.

Case in point: One guy says North Carolina, if it beats Duke (today) - another example of something that won’t matter 18 hours after the words leave the prognosticator’s mouth - it deserves a #1 seed.  Their strength of schedule alone dictates they earned the top spot.  Wait just a minute, retorts his not-so-humble counterpart, usually prior to the first speaker finishing his thought, Carolina has only two wins against Top 20 teams.  Notre Dame, with 11 such victories, should get the #1 seed.

Whoa!  How can a team get a #1 when they didn’t even win their league or the conference tournament?  In fact, they didn’t even make it to the final game of the tourney.  Carolina will have won 20 of their last 22 games.  Hold on, counters “anti,” UNC was awful early in the season.  Sure, they played a great schedule but they didn’t win those games, uh, except for Kentucky.

Banter is heard on nearly every show, radio or TV, and in many newspaper columns and Internet posts.  This team has faltered down the stretch but had some very big wins early.  This is where the famous “body of work” argument enters the discussion.  Someone who’s not so enthralled with the team that’s mentioned might then say, “Yeah, but that win was a long time ago,” meaning it must be the recent body of work holds greater importance.

The debates are fun but their only real value is to the guy who’s sitting at the end of the bar and wants to sound like he knows something the other patrons don’t.  We all realize that all that matters is what Joe Lunardi, er, the Selection Committee ultimately decide.

The best reason to debate who’s “going dancing” is found in the old line:

“If two of us agree on everything, one of us isn’t necessary.”

Ohio State won their 23rd game of the season last night.  They remain the only undefeated team in the nation and are, of course, #1 in the country.  So why are people speaking so ill of them?  It turns out that recently, the Buckeyes have not only had close calls in the streak, but they’ve played tight games against teams they, on paper, should easily be defeating.  Bad omen for the Bucks?

On that count, there are two schools of thought.  One is that playing all those down-to-the-wire contests will prepare them for pressure games “when it counts,” i.e. at tourney time.  Recall that my friend and former boss, Jerry Tarkanian, once had an undefeated team that pretty much glided through the season untested and when they met Duke in the semifinals of the Final Four, struggled to properly execute on the last play, potentially costing them the first unblemished record since the 1976 Indiana Hoosiers as well as back-to-back national championships .  Oh yeah, and arguably, the designation of best college team ever.

So, if OSU is winning, what’s the downside?  Former Notre Dame great and current ESPN studio analyst, LaPhonso Ellis, answered that question with a startling stat.  It seems that in games in which the Buckeyes are heavily favored, e.g. Penn State, Northwestern, Michigan, they are being outrebounded and the differential is not insignificant.  Ellis hypothesized that similar play against the nation’s best could come back to haunt them.

In the past, coaches of other undefeated clubs have simply shrugged it off with a line like, “We’re still unbeaten and seem to have a knack for doing what needs to be done.”  Ohio State coach Thad Matta took a different approach in his post-game interview.  His comment was that, after last night’s game with the Wolverines, he told his guys:

“Michigan didn’t play Ohio State tonight.  They played the number one team in the country.”

 John Harbaugh said, “We make no comparisons.  Somebody is going to be devalued.”  Wise words to live by.  As far as comparing the current winning streak owned by the UConn women’s basketball team to the one achieved by the UCLA men anyway.

It’s difficult enough to compare men vs. men from different eras.  Now people seem to think it’s necessary to demean the UConn streak because it appears they’re going to surpass the mark of the late John Wooden’s Bruins.  Although it’s the same game, i.e. basketball, it really isn’t the same.

Compared to (there’s that nasty word) intercollegiate men’s basketball, the distaff version is in its infancy.  There has only been a women’s NCAA tournament since 1982 (prior to that, the women’s game was under the auspices of the AIAW).  In that time there have been only 35 different teams represented in the Final Four.  The men’s side has had 35 different reps since 1992.  In addition, the women’s game has just recently gone through the upheaval of traditional powers being eased out of the Top 20 poll.  In the 1940s, CCNY, Dartmouth, Duquesne, NYU and Holy Cross were dominant squads just as in the early ’80s, Louisiana Tech, Cheney State and Old Dominion were all Final Four participants, but whose programs haven’t kept pace with today’s powers.

Since 1982 there have been six women’s teams go undefeated while hoisting the championship trophy (Texas and Tennessee once each and UConn four times).  On the men’s side, that feat hasn’t been accomplished since the 1976 Indiana Hoosiers, and because so many more of the men’s games are televised - and so many of the male coaches want to be on TV (not to mention how much money is paid by the networks), television dictates much of the power teams’ schedule.  Play enough of those games and any club is bound to drop one.  If not, they lose the contest prior to, or following it.  That’s called human nature.

Add to the fact that because the men have been playing so much longer, there are, as a former boss of mine, Don DeVoe, was fond of saying when discussing a great vs. an average team, the better one has “more better players.”  Because the female game is, in comparison (can’t seem to stay away from it) to its male counterpart, in its infancy, there aren’t yet “more better players” from which to choose.  Therefore, the fan never sees a non-top 20 team upsetting a powerful women’s squad, much less a number one, a la Chaminade beating Virginia when the Cavs were the nation’s #1.  So, while the UConn women have defeated more top 10s than the Bruins did on their way to 88 straight W’s, Geno Auriemma’s recruiting prowess has more to do with the mega margins of victory his teams have posted along the way.

To sum up this post, when discussing the two streaks, sue the teenagers new motto:

“Don’t hate; appreciate.”