Jack’s Blog

On May 3, 2010 I blogged about the one-and-done situation in college basketball.  I’ve received many compliments about my idea.  However, none of the people had any “juice.”  Read on and let me know if you think there’s any merit to my madness.  Especially if you have “juice.”

So many people are up in arms regarding the NBA rule that forces a high school player to attend college for at least a year before heading to the big league.  Of course, there are alternatives, but many are pretty radical, e.g. playing overseas ala Brandon Jennings.  While it (ultimately) worked out for Jennings (keep in mind he had a terrible experience over there), others have tried and haven’t been as successful as the Bucks’ star.

If memory serves me correctly (and at this age, that being true is a toss up), David Stern said the rule is in place due to some “legalese,” i.e. he’s not too thrilled about it either, but it’s the best of all evils.  With that in mind, it means that the “road most traveled” will be to enter college for at least (and for some, at most) one year.

If that’s the case, why whine about it?  Deal with it.  How?  Make college more relevant to these guys.  If they are as talented as they think they are (and as influential outsiders are telling them they are), then the school’s goal should be to help them for life after college - just like they do for all other students.  As I initially blogged on 5/6/07 (and have reprinted that post at least once), the reason kids go to college is not for an education, but to improve their station in life.

The one-and-dones are going to college because they have to - and once the sand runs out of that year-long hour glass, color them gone - for the big money.  If that’s the reality - and for the great ones, it is - why not give them a curriculum to prepare them for the life they’re about to enter?  That’s exactly what the basketball coach is doing in practice.  How about offering them (and any other student at the university) courses such as money management (including philanthropy for those who hit the jackpot), selecting advisers (mentors, agents, and, although, it could be a sensitive area, friends, i.e. posses), dealing with the media, women’s rights (this should be mandatory for many students in the wake of today’s front page stories), nutrition, maintaining physical fitness, accepting the responsibility of being a role model and acting appropriately (whether they want to or not, athletes are role models) and, since NBA players don’t have normal 8-hour work days, nor do they play year-round, a course in how to productively use “down-time” (from doing crosswords and sudokus to keeping the mind active, to reading up on a topic of interest, to tennis and golf)?  Many other course possibilities exist if people at the top would put their heads together.

What this does is give an extremely talented young man something that he can actually see will help him in his life after college.  Plus, it makes college interesting for guys.  And that might never have occurred to them before attending classes in which they saw value.  Maybe they won’t actually graduate (according to published graduation rates, several other non-athletes fail to do so as well) but the experience will be a positive, as opposed to a fraud (which, in many cases, is currently the situation).

One night a few years ago, the guys on the set of TNT’s NBA game night studio show were giving Charles Barkley a hard time about the (lack of an) Auburn education he got, leaving school without a degree.  Charles had a pretty good comeback:

“I don’t have a degree - but a lot of people who work for me do.”  �

It was reported yesterday that, due to poor academic performance, the UConn men’s basketball team will be limited to 10 scholarship players next season.  They had earlier lost two scholarships because of NCAA sanctions regarding recruiting violations and that dreaded “lack of institutional control” charge.

What does this mean?  Each men’s basketball program is allowed a maximum of 13 scholarships although few actually do so.  Those who have 13 on scholarship are usually redshirting one or two since there’s not a program in the country that uses 13 players in a game (blowouts excepted).

Will the negative publicity hurt the Huskies’ program?  Not nearly as much as their national championship(s) help it.  As far as being caught cheating, check the records.  At one time or another, nearly every Division I program has been on probation for one transgression or another.

When I was an assistant at the University of Tennessee, we had the reputation of being, along with Vanderbilt, the only schools in the SEC that didn’t break the rules.  By breaking the rules, I don’t mean minor infractions but the big stuff.  I went to UT from Western Carolina University where we took over a program that had just been placed on probation for (the most minor) NCAA violations.  I was outspoken about the cheating that went on in our league, a behavior I regret, mainly because my job was to help get the best players for the Vols I could.  That we chose to play by the rules was our decision.

Most of the other assistants in the league were friends of mine and I remember one occasion when I was discussing illegal recruiting practices with one of my peers a story he told me.  He said one very influential booster (every SEC school has at least one heavy hitter) once pulled him aside and said:

“If y’all lose, y’all will get fired.  If y’all get us a national championship trophy - but get us put on probation doin’ it - I promise y’all I’ll see to it y’all’s salaries are doubled.”

As mentioned several times in this space, I worked for seven years as an assistant men’s basketball coach at the University of Tennessee.  Pat Summitt is, for my money, the best coach, male or female, I’ve ever been around - from a basketball knowledge and organizational standpoint, as a motivator, a leader and as I posted in my ninth ever blog   (4/23/07) someone who could and would be a highly successful coach of men (of which she has absolutely no desire).  So, this blog is not written by a “women’s basketball-hater.”   Of which, unfortunately, there are many.

That said, last night’s national championship game set the women’s game back more than just a few steps.  To begin with, it was the perfect stage - following, arguably, the most exciting (especially considering the participants involved) men’s championship game ever.  Basketball fans were left with great anticipation for more heart-pounding action.  The very next night, the women paraded out their two best teams - the #1 team in the land, with a 77-game winning streak on the line against its opponent, #2 and the last team to have beaten what’s become “The Evil Empire” (as Geno used to refer to the Lady Vols, after their sixth national championship and third in a row, this one of the undefeated variety).  In addition, Stanford entered the contest with a glossy 36-1 record, the only loss to mighty UConn, in Storrs, by an 80-68 margin - noteworthy because it was the closest anyone had come to defeating the Lady Huskies.  This was no David vs. Goliath battle.

Another storyline - and if you don’t believe it, your head’s buried deep in the sand - is the favorite was coached by a man; the underdog, by a woman.  Ask anyone in the women’s game and if they give you an honest answer, this situation might as well be known as The Great Divide.  Take it from someone who worked closely with the biggest group of overzealous Title IX fanatics since the invention of lawyers (and I’m not only referring to women making up that group).

So the game starts and the rumbling that could be felt from San Antonio to San Salvador was that of James Naismith turning over in his grave.  The halftime score was 20-12.  There were more turnovers than baskets.  The upset-minded team was scorching the nets at a blistering 25.8%, while the team that threatened John Wooden’s heretofore- thought-of as unapproachable record (88 straight games without a loss) had just suffered through a drought of 16 consecutive missed shots, on its way to shooting 17.2%.

The second half began as more of the same.  The first TV time out came and Stanford had yet to score.  In fact, if it weren’t for Maya Moore, forcing someone to watch this game would have replaced water in the Chinese culture.  Moore, probably the top three players in the women’s game (if people were allowed to vote for a player more than once), finally made some shots and, whether coaches or commentators will admit it (”This was truly a team victory!”), single handedly won the game for UConn.  Once Moore (UConn) caught and passed the Cardinal, a couple of her teammates summoned up the courage to knock down a shot or two.  Until that time, there wasn’t a player on the floor who could make an uncontested shot - from any range - and there weren’t too many candidates who seemed anxious to even try.

The “man-haters” - oh yeah, those exist, too - will start spewing other numbers, e.g. graduation rates, the lack of one-and-dones, arrests - to remove the focus from the putrid display of their side’s two best teams setting basketball back decades.  But even if this area, females are catching up to their male counterparts, as witnessed by Baylor’s Brittany Griner not only punching an opponent, but , with pre-meditation, throwing a hay-maker, walking into the hit from a couple steps away.  Who can say what would have happened had a male player done the same to an opposing player?  Somehow, I believe the punishment would have merited more than a two-game suspension.

But let’s not be distracted.  The national championship game was a fiasco.  Certainly, the women’s game is better than what was nationally televised last evening.  Yet, in the case of yesterday’s UConn-Stanford game, we have to look no further than Benjamin Disraeli who said:  

“The secret of success in life is for someone to be ready for their opportunity when it comes.”

Every coach believes he or she will be a big winner - they may even believe there will be a National Championship somewhere down the line.  If asked how long before they reach that type of success, the realistic coach will say, “a few years as an assistant, a head coach at a smaller school” (followed with instant and mega success), “then onto the big-time, and after a brief period, a championship of some sorts” - conference, NCAA tournament appearance, Final Four or, (if they’re honest) a National Championship.  Total elapsed time: 10-15 years, max.

Consider the case of Mark Edwards, the 62-year-old head coach of Division III Washington University in St. Louis, his alma mater.  Mark’s coaching career started in 1970 in the military in Fort Sam Houston, but, after his honorable discharge in 1972, he decided to become a graduate assistant to his college coach, Bob Greenwood, who had moved on to Washington State University.  After only a few months, Greenwood was dismissed as head coach and Mark was stuck in Pullman.

George Raveling became the new head man of the Cougars for the 1972-73 season and felt it would be a good idea to have someone on his staff who knew the landscape.  Ask George today and he’ll tell you it might have been the best move of his entire coaching career.  My association with Mark began the following season when I joined the staff as a GA.  We’ve stayed very close ever since.

Mark had a terrific career at Wash U (which happens to be one of the top academic institutions in the nation).  In fact, up until just a couple years ago, he was still the leading rebounder in the school’s history.  However, shortly after his graduation, the Bears dropped the men’s basketball program.  When the administration decided, in 1981, to resurrect its men’s basketball program, they turned to only one candidate.  Mark, after a ten years in the prestigious Pac-10, along with all the perks a big-time school offers, gladly accepted the challenge.

And it was a challenge.  I recall the conversation we had when I asked him if he was crazy.  “You’re going to leave Division I?”  By then, Mark had endured the losing seasons in Pullman and the Cougs had been going to the NCAA tournament.  “To start a D-III program?“  Mark confided in me that the day he got to campus, he found out just how difficult the job was going to be.

“Manny” (a nickname he gave me the day he saw me), “there’s not even a basketball here - anywhere!“  In case you don’t know, at the Division III level, a coach is not allowed to contact a recruit - unless the recruit contacts him first.  How was Mark supposed to recruit?  No one even knew they had a basketball team!

But the love and pride he had for his alma mater rose above all.  Not that it translated into immediate success.  Mark’s first three teams posted records of 3-16 (1981-82), followed by 6-20 and 8-18.  Still, he stayed the course.  He knew he was coaching at one of the premier academic schools in the country (there’s never any talk of graduation rates it’s simply 100%, i.e. every one of his players graduate), he loved where he & his wife, Mary, were living, he knew he could relate to kids and he knew hoops.

Fast forward to today.  Washington University is ranked as the #1 D-III team in the US, sporting a perfect 7-0 record.  Oh yeah, they’re coming off back-to-back National Championships.  The year prior to their first one (2006-07), they lost in the semi-finals, meaning Wash U has been to three straight Division III Final Fours - or as Mark puts it, “Everyone in our program, except the freshmen, have ended each season in the Final Four.”  The records from ‘06-’07 are 25-5, 25-6 and 29-2.

This guy, Mark Edwards, who spent nearly 40 years - forty freakin’ years - toiling as a graduate assistant, assistant and head coach of a first-year program is now basking in the glory of success - more than he, or any coach, would have ever imagined.

There is no greater example of James Whitcomb Riley’s quotation on persistence than the story of Mark Edwards:

“The most essential factor is persistence - the determination never to allow your energy or enthusiasm to be dampened by the discouragement that must inevitably come.”

         �

Last night was the first Jerry Tarkanian Show of the season.  I’ve been fortunate to co-host the show (which runs during the college basketball season) with one of college basketball’s winningest coaches for several years now and each year, I wonder how much longer this gig will last.

Jerry’s completing his seventh decade on this planet.  While he’s slowing down some (he underwent surgery for a broken collarbone and removal of bone chips which caused severe leg pain this past summer), he loves basketball and people as much as when he began coaching.  The Red Zone Sports Bar serves as this year’s venue for the show and several of his Fresno friends came out for the “premier.”  One of the guys in the production crew remarked to me that watching Tark mingle with the crowd was so astonishing.  The staff member said to me, “he looks like he really is enjoying himself talking to people he doesn’t even know.”

He followed that statement with a surprised look when I told him Jerry was having the time of his life - that he needs the company of people to make him feel real.  Unlike many “celebrities,” however (and if you have any doubts that he’s a celebrity, try walking with him in any public place in America and you’ll be stunned to see the magnetic quality he still possesses), he thrives on interacting with people.

I pride myself in being a great “student of people,” always trying to figure out what makes them tick - independent of who they are.  And I have come to the conclusion that Jerry Tarkanian is, no matter what your thoughts on him as an individual or a coach might be, the most genuine person you’ll ever meet.  In all the years I’ve known him (I met him during the summer of 1973), I can’t remember him ever saying something he didn’t mean, controversy be damned.

An example was the  hypothetical question I posed on the show, “If you had four good players and your choice between Michael Beasley (as a freshman at Kansas State) or Tyler Hansbrough (as a senior at UNC), who would you take?”  He said Hansbrough but, because he thought he was a better player, not because he was a senior.  When I asked him about the “one-and-done” players, i.e. the guys who go to school for a year (because the NBA and commissioner David Stern dictate they have to) and then go pro, he said he’d take them in a heartbeat.  I asked him if he didn’t think it was a charade - making these guys go to college when they had no interest in it, that wouldn’t it be better to let kids go pro if they wanted, but if they went to college, make them stay a minimum of 2-3 years, he simply said, “I have no control over that.”  In otehr wordss, the question had to do with what he knows best - winning - and that was his answer.

Here’s a guy who’s been out of coaching, and at 79, certainly isn’t looking to ever coach again, yet could revert to exactly how he’d feel - that winning is the name of the game.  People can talk all they want about all the other things that make up college.  Believe me, I’ve been around when his former players, many of whom went on to “stardom” in fields other than basketball, and are retired themselves now, come by to see him.  The love they have for their old coach and the credit they give for the success they had in their lives is what every coach strives for.  Yet, when I asked him about talented players, one-and-done’s were perfectly welcome - and would be highly sought after (which really doesn’t make him any different than the “great” coaches we see worshipped today).  I could feel the intensity of his answer.  He’s a coach’s coach, who’s seen many a colleague graduate his players at an incredibly high rate, win season after season, only to come upon a 2-3 year drought . . . and get pink-slipped.

If they’ll help us win, bring them in.  People said all he cared about was winning basketball games, that he didn’t give a flip about anything else a kid did.  I’m going on record to let the readers know that if Jerry Tarkanian were the band director and there was a kid with a checkered past who played a helluva flugle horn, he’d be part of Tark’s band.  Same as if he was a drama or forensics coach.  He was consumed with winning.  And along the way, took on some projects who didn’t pan out, some who even embarrassed him, and the school, their families and themselves. 

But, for every “bad apple,” there were hundreds of good ones and he was prepared to take on those odds - and admit it.  As many image-conscious-first-people, i.e. phonies, as there are out there, Jerry Tarkanian subscribes to Charles Schulz’s theory:   

“Be yourself.  Everyone else is already taken.” 

First and foremost in the fan’s mind is a well-conceived plan for hiring a new coach.  It begins with, “We’ve got to fire our coach!”  When the situation has gotten to this point, the geniuses in the stands have had all they can take - because, after all, who cares more about their beloved football program than someone like them who go to every game and (maybe) write a check out to the athletics department each year?  Certainly not someone like the coach who spends about of 14-16 hours every day?  Hey, it’s what he’s paid to do.

Let’s take a couple of examples I’m somewhat familiar with - Tennessee and Fresno State - the former because I worked there from 1980-87 as an assistant basketball coach, the latter because my tenure as Director of Basketball Operations was also seven years (1995-2002).  The day I started at UT in 1980 nearly coincided with the day Phillip Fulmer, the recently deposed football coach, began.  He was returning to his alma mater from Vanderbilt to become the offensive line coach.  The two of us went through orientation together and, because of the training table UT offered, would sit together during lunch on several occasions until my departure to become the associate head coach at the University of Toledo.

Pat Hill arrived in Fresno in 1997 and, while Fresno State is not his alma mater, he did put in a five-year stint there as offensive line coach and recruiting coordinater (1984-89).  I distinctly remember the first day I met Pat, not so much because of our meeting, but because when I arrived home that night, our older son, Andy, said a new student just moved into his 2nd grade class and was sitting next to him.  That new kid was Zak Hill, the youngest of the three Hill boys.  Andy and Zak became fast friends and Andy, on many occasions, has vacationed with the Hill family.

Both Phil and Pat took over their respective programs under very similar circumstances, following in the footsteps of legendary coaches who each had experienced a decline in the teams’ records near the end of their careers.  Johnny Majors was not only a Vols’ alum, but was a superstar tailback during his intercollegiate stay there.  Anyone who can remember that far back will tell you Majors got royally shafted in the 1956 Heisman Trophy voting by the Eastern and Catholic media, coming in second to Paul Hornung of Notre Dame after the Vols posted a 10-1 record while the Irish finished the season with only two wins.  In fact, I was in attendance at a meeting where Hornung admitted to exactly that.

Jim Sweeney, the coach Pat replaced and worked for, was at Washington State when I was a graduate assistant there, but with the rules being what they were at the time, e.g. unlimited scholarships, nobody could have won at WSU.  After a brief time with the Oakland Raiders, Jim wound up as the head coach of the Bulldogs and is considered the man whose program built Bulldog Stadium (the field is named after him) and put the program in the spotlight by winning in the Big West and immediately competing for the WAC championship.

Health issues marred the final year of both Majors’ and Sweeney’s careers.  The end for Majors was more controversial because the Vols had begun the season by losing.  Majors’ pain was so severe, he needed surgery shortly after the season begun.  Fullmer took over and the Vols won three in a row.  Majors returned to the sidelines, saying that had always had been the plan, but to the chagrin of many fans, who felt he should step down in favor of Phil (wonder if they hadn’t won the fans would have felt the same way?)  The team lost after Majors returned and at the end of the ‘92 season, Fullmer had the interim tag removed.  There’s been bad blood between the two coaches ever since, most fans siding with Fullmer in the early years, especially in 1998 when the Vols won the National Championship.  Lately, however, it’s amazing how many of these same fans are bringing up how “Phillip stabbed Johnny in the back.”

Sweeney’s departure, though, was not a cause of dissension, with Jim helping his former assistant get the Bulldogs’ job and continuing to be supportive.  When Hill first started scheduling “big-time” teams (Hill’s philosophy of “We’ll play anybody, anytime, anywhere” meant just what it said), the academic success and graduation rates (under associate head coach John Baxter, inventor of the now widely- used Academic Game Plan) dramatically improved and Pat’s knack for player evaluation (one of his NFL tasks he had while toiling as an assistant coach in for the Browns and Ravens) led to better and better recruiting classes, the entire San Joaquin Valley was gaga for the ‘Dogs.

Now, the two former offensive lineman, each of whom was an assistant for the school prior to becoming head coach, and each turned the success ratio of W’s and L’s around have been under fire from the “supporters.”  In fact, Fullmer has already been shown the door, replaced by Lane Kiffin (coincidentally a Fresno State grad), who lost his fight and job with the Oakland Raiders and boss, Al Davis, (usually the loss of one translates into the loss of the other).  Kiffin’s hiring, only a day or so ago, has been criticized by Mark May of ESPN who said his past experience doesn’t prepare him for a job the magnitude of Tennessee.  Talk about a short honeymoon!  “Good luck, Coach - but consider renting.”

Fresno losing to archrival and one of nation’s hottest teams over the past five years, Boise State, by a score of 61-10 has added fuel to the fans’ fire.  What I am constantly amazed by is the spewing of venom at the coach when his team doesn’t perform to the fan’s expectation.  “I don’t spend my hard earned money to watch us get beat time after time.”  For the record, FSU is 7-5 this season and will probably play in a bowl game.

Hill has himself to blame for some of the criticism because he sets lofty goals and then dares to make them public.  When the Bulldogs beat BCS schools as they’ve done at the rate of about one per season (a rather remarkable feat, considering they don’t get the chance to play them that often and when they do, it’s nearly always on the opponent’s home turf), chests in Fresno are stuck out proudly.  But, the mantra of “If we can beat those guys, how come we can’t win the WAC?” is heard by fans (chests now deflated).

My proposal: get a search committee of fans, ask them the following questions - printing their responses in the local paper:

Who do you think we should get to coach the coach instead of the man we have now?  The answer is simple.  Someone who will WIN!

What kind of offensive should the new coach run?  Are you kidding?  Wide open, throw it on every down, so we can score 50 points/game.  What a foolish question that was!

How about the defensive side of the ball?  We need a defensive coordinator who can figure out how to shut down the opposing team’s offense.  You know, if the previous staff didn’t understand that, they deserve to be out of jobs.

And who do you think that is?  This answer ranges from 1) the hottest coach in the country.  Nothing’s too good for us.  Who’s coaching the #1 team in the nation?  Oh, he makes four times what we’re paying our current coach?  How ’bout one of the Top 5 then?  Uh, each of them makes more, coaches at a BCS school and, undoubtedly has a buy-out clause in his contract that is greater than the entire budget for our School of Education (not to mention the buy-out we’re on the hook for in order to let go the coach you’re so anxious to fire).  2) Yeah, what about someone who’s a proven winner, but has retired?  You know how coaches have that itch and are always coming back for more.  So, … what about guys like Lou Holtz, Don Shula or John Madden?  Well, each has a  pretty cushy job right now, Holtz makes more in a couple of speaking fees than we can afford, Shula’s getting paid to lose weight and I’d love to see how you’d expect us to get Madden to the Hawaii game.  3) How about an up-and-comer, you know, like Gerry Faust, Karl Dorrell or one of the Bowden boys?  Wait, I’ve got the perfect guy?  The dude from Boise State.  Why would a guy want to leave a school he’s led to an undefeated season for another in the same league he just beat by 50?  So he can have you guys as fans?

It reminds me of George Burns’ line about complaints regarding whoever’s president:

“Too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are busy driving taxicabs and cutting hair.”  �

When I mentioned in my 8/5 blog that George Raveling, to my knowledge, was the creator of the “mastermind group” idea, I received countless emails requesting a blog about that subject.  I’ve done about 400 blogs to date (so much for those who doubted a “commitment”) and George is mentioned in at least 15 of them.  That’s why I thought the creation of the mastermind group could wait, but I either peaked the curiosity of the readers or George has a real fan club (headed by Dan, a major Villanova hoops fan).  Who knows?  Maybe it was both.  In any case, on with the mastermind story.

My feeling always has been that people couldn’t teach themselves how to coach, i.e. coaching was an inherent skill - you either had it or you didn’t; you either knew the game and had the ability to get it across to a group or you couldn’t.  Over the years, I’ve said many, many times that George Raveling proved me wrong.

As the faithful readers know very well by now, George got the Washington State head basketball coaching job in 1972.  I know he was one of the nation’s first black head coaches (the late Will Robinson, who got the Illinois State job in 1970 was the first) and I’m quite certain Rav was the first on the West Coast.  George had been an unbelievably successful recruiter at his alma mater, Villanova (hence the VU Hoops connection), and subsequently, for Lefty Driesell at Maryland.

However, at the time of his appointment at WSU, the big man’s head coaching experience was limited to leading the 1971-72 UM freshman team (at that time, freshmen were ineligible for varsity competition - a rule the “powers-that-be” will never reinstate, but if they really were sincere about increasing graduation rates, would be a major first step - hey, what d’ya know, another future blog topic) to an undefeated season and a team which destroyed their competition by an average margin of something like 30 ppg.  Footnote: The #2 ranked frosh team that year was Bill Walton’s UCLA squad.

George’s idea toward coaching was simple: get the best talent (a belief shared by his mentor, Driesell).  That fit nicely with his other philosophy: outwork anyone and everyone with a work ethic pushing the limits of human capability (a thought also shared by the “Lefthander”).  What hurt - badly - was that the NCAA rules during that era allowed for an unlimited number of scholarships (a pretty big clue no one took Title IX very seriously, since ‘72 is the year that piece of legislation was passed).

Rav and his staff, of which I was a graduate assistant from 1973-75, worked longer hours than you’d believe if I told you, but were thwarted by 1) being in Pullman (hundreds of miles from nearly any Division-I prospect) and 2) being in a conference where, if we could get a youngster interested, could be outdone by one phone call from the Wizard of Westwood - or anyone on his staff.  John Wooden coached until 1976, so George’s first three years produced a total a total of 24 victories.  The fact that many of the other teams in the Pac-8 (the Arizona schools had yet to join the conference) were coached by future Hall-of Famers was the third reason for so many L’s.  It became apparent a change was mandatory.

What to do?  George decided going to coaching clinics was a good first step, but it seemed that, at each clinic, there were only two speakers who had topics that interested him - and one of those would invariably cancel.  Rav, no wallflower, would imediately approach the speaker he admired and ask to sit down and expand on what he’d just shared.  After hearing a couple of times, “I’d love to George, but I have a plane to catch.  Hey, why don’t you plan on coming out to our campus and stay a couple of days?  I really want to hear your camp ideas and how you organize recruiting,” it got him to thinking.  “Everyone wants to hear about my camps and recruiting oragnization.  Why don’t I take advantage of that strength?”

He, then, made a list of four or five coaches he really thought highly of regarding their technical knowledge of various aspects of basketball (and whom he knew well enough that they’d agree with his newly developed plan) and get them to get together somewhere, simultaneously, to exchange ideas.  Since, from 1973-77, George had a dominating center, a marvelously talented kid from Chicago named Steve Puidokas - a 6′11″, 260 lb scoring giant (who, by the way, tragically died way too early in life), followed closely by 7′2″ James Donaldson and 6′11″ Stuart House, he sought out a coach who was reknowned for teaching post play and how to get the ball inside.  And so on with whatever other parts of the game he wanted to fully understand.

At this time in coaching, the clinic business was thriving, headed by the Medalist company.  But there was one catch.  The bottom line of the coaching clinic business was all about…the bottom line.  Every one of them was all about making money.  George’s scheme was to have a group of five or six coaches speaking on topics they were each experts…but with one caveat: it was to be an exclusive club.  There would be no admission charge because there would no admission.  No one else was invited! 

The early list of coaches would shock many - mainly because, while all were highly successful, few were household names.  George was looking to soak up knowledge, not to impress anybody.  I can’t remember exactly who made up the original group or who was added soon thereafter, but among those attending were: Glenn Wilkes of Stetson (who, to this day, remains one of George’s closest friends), Sonny Smith of Auburn, Murray Arnold of Tennessee-Chattanooga, Gary Colson of New Mexico and Bill Foster of Clemson.  These basketball minds would speak on their expertise.  Naturally, George’s topics were camp and recruiting organization.  There was one main rule: no secrets.  Full access to anything and everything in each other’s minds and files.  Note: There are entirely too many coaches who think they actually invented something, only to have it pointed out to them the same (or a close facsimile) idea was employed 30 years ago. 

After a few years, guest speakers were brought in to enlighten the group on such “non-basketball” information as financial planning and how to write contracts.  Then, there came a period of time when each member of the group knew each of the other’s philosophy so well, they felt any one of them could step in and run the other’s program.  At this point, they agreed each coach could invite another into the group, thus doubling the size of the “club.”  It’s how legendary NBA assistant, currently with the Chicago Bulls, Del Harris, gained membership.  To my knowledge, the group still meets occasionally.

Since then, many other groups like this one were organized.  Larry Shyatt, currently one of Billy Donovan’s assistants at two-time National Champion Florida and Scott Duncan, who now reports to Ben Howland at UCLA, were both on Colson’s New Mexico staff and wondered why, after a couple years of seeing how their boss’ membership in the “Raveling Group” had paid off in wins for the Lobos, called me while I was an assistant at Tennessee and asked what I thought of us starting a similar “think tank” for assistants.  I belonged from the outset (around 1981) until back injuries forced me from coaching a few years ago. 

That’s how I can say, from an up close and personal view, the idea, whether initiated by George Raveling or someone else, was absolutely brilliant.  It’s in use in most every major industry today and shows:

“When you light another’s candle, you lose none of your own.  You simply make evrything brighter.”        �

The NCAA started calculating graduation rates for its member institutions back in the early-to-mid 80’s.  I was an assistant coach at the University of Tennessee then and can recall some remarkably unjust flaws in how those rates were calculated.

Here are a couple of “for instances” during my tenure at UT.  A player many fans will remember from those days is Dale Ellis, a 20-year veteran of the NBA.  There are a couple of stories in my book, Life’s A Joke (which can be purchased through this website), about Dale, but one in particular deals with his pursuit of a college degree.

Dale’s mother, Lucille, wasn’t as much of a hoops fan as she was of her son’s education. She said he’d be the first in their family to earn a degree.  I assured her I’d talk to him.  Later that same day, he walked into my office and I said, “Dale, do you know that there are (1983 statistics) 720,000 high school basketball players, 18,000 college players and only 276 guys on NBA rosters?  You made it through the first cut and should make it through the next one, but can you see how important getting your degree is?” 

He looked at me, smiled and said, “Coach, I appreciate your concern and I’m pretty sure you just spoke to my mom (Dale was very perceptive as well as being a great shooter).  Don’t worry, I promised her I’d get my degree - and I will.”

He was selected ninth overall in the NBA draft, played his rookie season and returned that summer to take a couple of courses.  He was still shy of his degree requirements, so following his second NBA season, he came back to Knoxville and got his degree.  I can still visualize the picture in the Knoxville newspaper of Dale in his cap and gown, signing autographs for his fellow graduates.

Back then, however, the rule was that a student-athlete had to graduate within five years from his or her initial enrollment date (it has since been changed to six and, for all I know may have been amended again).  My point is: what’s the difference how long it takes, the degree is the goal.  Here was our dilemma: not only did Dale Ellis not count as a graduate, he counted as a non-graduate!  I distinctly recall speaking with an NCAA staff member who explained to me (as if I were a six-year-old, that the policy was within five, not six, years).  I told him my undergraduate degree was in math and I was well aware of the difference between five and six, but could they be somewhat reasonable and, at the very least, have him not count as a non-graduate?  He told me that if we wanted to amend an existing rule, we had to put the change in writing with the specific justifications for said change, contact six other institutions and get them to sign off on the idea and submit it to the NCAA Rules and Interpretations Committee (which, at that time, probably met on the second Tuesday of each week).

A few years later, one of our student-athletes, Sam Arterburn, felt he wasn’t going to ever get the playing time he’d hoped for and, because he wanted to play right away, decided to transfer to a Division II school so he wouldn’t be subject to the one-year waiting period for his eligibility to begin.  He selected Rollins (FL) College and went on to have a very successful career on the court (he was an all-conference selection) and in the classroom (where he became one of, I believe, only three student-athletes in the entire nation to receive an NCAA post-graduate scholarship).  He was voted an Academic All-American, yet, as far as Tennessee’s graduation rate was concerned, he was a non-graduate.  This situation also has since been altered.  I often wonder if the rules were retroactive, but have never checked - for the same reason no one ever checks - because it’s really not important.  Dale Ellis and Sam Arterburn are both college graduates.  There’s no rule that can dispute those facts.  But … NCAA interpretations, on the other hand, are another story.

Take the case of Larry Abney of Nyack, NY.  In 1995, I left USC as associate head basketball coach to take on the duties of Director of Basketball Operations at Fresno State, the same year Larry signed a grant-in-aid (scholarship) at Fresno State.  He signed with the previous coaching staff, i.e. prior to Jerry Tarkanian being named head coach.  Although never having seen him play, Jerry honored the the letter-of-intent and Larry was a member of Tark’s first FSU squad, although his playing time was quite limited.  One of the hardest workers ever - anywhere - Larry saw he wasn’t going to get much PT the following season, but wanted to return to Fresno State for his remaining two years of eligibility.  So, he transferred to the local JC, Fresno City College.

Larry worked as hard in the classroom as he did on the court and became one of the most beloved Bulldog players in history.  One reason was due to games like the one against SMU in which he pulled down 35 rebounds (the highest number of rebounds by an individual since 1965), but also because Larry earned his college degree.

Yet, did Larry Abney count as a student-athlete who got a degree?  NO!  Now, many (if not all) of you must be wondering “How in the hell could the NCAA screw up this perfect example of what every person in America wants a college kid to be - a hard worker who get results - on and off the playing surface?”

Well, it seems that during that time period (changes may have been made since - whether or not they’re retroactive is another story), the NCAA only counted incoming freshmen when compiling graduation rates.  Their contention was that Larry was a junior college transfer and, therefore, he should not be included in that year’s graduation rates.  Our contention was that he was an incoming freshman - class of ‘95 - because that’s what he was.  Keep in mind, incoming freshmen basketball classes might be composed of two guys, so the graduation rate possibilites for that class is 0%, 50% or 100%.  One guy can make a huge difference.  (Hey, how about if he’s the only incoming freshman?  Then the difference of whether you’re puffing out your chest and claiming a “100% graduation rate” or reading in the paper that your graduation rate for that class was 0%! is riding on the choices and decisions made by a single individual.

When I was at SC, our Assistant Athletics Director for Academics was Fred Stroock.  Fred was just as confused as everyone else, so one day, he came up with twenty “what if’s,” e.g. what if a player transfers from your school to another school and subsequently graduates from the second institution?  Does he count as a graduate, non-graduate or not count at all toward your school’s graduation rate?  Same situation, but he does not graduate from the second college.  Count, not, n/a?  Identical situations, but the s-a in question is a JC?  All the way to: What if a student-athlete competes for your school but contracts a serious illness, is forced to withdraw from classes and tragically, dies before exhausting his eligibility.  These, plus another fifteen examples.  You get the idea.  Fred sent this list to twenty of his colleagues.  He asked his peers to calculate what they thought the graduation rate should be based on their understanding of the rule.  Of the 20, he received sixteen replies - and sixteen different graduation rates!

Don’t get me wrong. This is a great concept.  But, understand that if so much emphasis is being put on these kids’ academic performances i.e. loss of scholarships and practice time if the university is found delinquent, can you begin to sense the pressure that coaches and administrators are under and the possibility of professors being schmoozed, coddled, cajoled or, maybe even, intimidated for grades?  On a lesser level of evil, wouldn’t it be to the university’s advantage to place their players in the easiest path to academic success, e.g. less rigorous courses?  With the stress levels that some coaches and/or administrators have to deal with in this world of big-time college athletics, along with the mega-bucks the coaches are being paid and administrators are responsible for, isn’t there cause for concern should the numbers come up sour?  If you think for one minute that this scenario couldn’t take place (if, in fact, it hasn’t already) , you’re not living in the same $6 billion-television-contract world that I am.  

There are institutions of higher learning trying to do the right thing.  John Baxter, associate head football coach at Fresno State and creator of the Academic Game Plan,  is putting up Stanford-like numbers.  Then, why isn’t everybody doing the same across the country, you ask?  Because it takes a total commitment, as well as the blessing of the head coach that Baxter has from Bulldogs’ head man, Pat Hill, who feels as strongly toward it as he does.  But, it’s not magic, it’s time and work and as anyone even remotely in the know will attest, time is something that’s in short supply in the world of big-time intercollegiate athletics.  Yet all schools have good, if not AGP-like help available to their student-athletes. 

When Wimp Sanderson, then-head basketball coach at the University of Alabama was asked how many players on his team graduated, his response was succinct and right on target:

“Everyone of them who wants to.”

The National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) is an absolute necessity.  There must be a governing body for intercollegiate athlectics.  That being said, it can be viewed, not as a necessary evil, but as necessary and evil.  My interaction with this colossal organization dates back to 1972 when I took the job of graduate assistant basketball coach at the University of Vermont.  Back then, many folks closely associated with the NCAA saw it as pure evil.

There are so many personal stories, even for someone so far on the outside, that my comments will probably be spread over a few blogs.  “Back in the day,” as the current terminology goes, the NCAA was, if not the most arrogant organization in the country, certainly one that was annually in the finals for the award.  They’d win every case against them (caused by many of their unfair and archaic rules) with the same absurd logic, “The NCAA is a voluntary organization.  You choose to become a member and may leave it at any time,” as if there was a major university in the country that was about to hold a press conference and say, “We have an announcement to make; as of today, our institution is applying for membership in the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA).”

It was a monopoly in the truest of sense of the word.  Through the years, and with a change in leadership, i.e. when “The Great and Powerful” Walter Byers finally stepped down, it became, if not “a kinder and gentler NCAA” that some people (mainly those at the NCAA) would like the giant to be thought of, but as a group that makes rules and rulings with more compassion and, in some cases, on an individual basis.

However, the worst idea (aka public relations gimmick) someone thought up is that of “graduation rates and APR” (Academic Progress Rate).  This is intended to come off as, “Although we have bright, caring and talented student-athletes in nearly all our sports, certain sports, (namely, those that produce all of our revenue), have not emphasized the ’student’ half of the term we use for their participants.  This is very disturbing to us (although not nearly as disturbing as if CBS had not signed off on the $6 billion - with a ‘b‘ - contract for the rights to men’s basketball) and we plan to take immediate steps to … get our fans to think we really care that such a small percentage of the individuals representing these sports actually leave school with a degree (which everyone would like to think is the reason these young, unbelievably gifted, physical specimens enroll in college for in the first place).”

The major problem is the paradigm itself.  Certainly, a college degree is the ultimate goal of a college student (unless another opportunity to improve the student’s station in life becomes a possibility - see 5/6/07 blog - or consider that Bill Gates dropped out of college and still managed to carve out a good living for himself and his loved ones - even if his loved ones number in the billions - with a “b”).  It’s just that the cross-section of colleges throughout the nation have such different, and sometimes diametrically opposed missions, that a one-size-fits-all policy is simply unjust.

Examples are Stanford, Duke and the Ivies whose mission is to educate the “classes,” as opposed to, among others, state universities whose mission is to educate the “masses.”  The former do their weeding out process on the front end whereas a school like one of my former coaching stops, the University of Toledo, has an admirable policy (or did when I was there from 1987-91) of admitting any child, as long as that student had graduated from an accredited high school in the state of Ohio.  There is a need and a place for both types of institutions of higher learning, as well as all those in between, but to say their APR’s should be calculated the same way is to say wrestling shouldn’t have different weight divisions for its competitors.  Too bad if you weigh 106, your next opponent weighs 350, and if you lose, you’re out (probably cold).

Many people feel athletes should graduate at a higher rate.  After all, they contend, they’re on scholarship (the ones mainly being discussed in this blog anyway) and have no monetary problems.  Plus, they get all that academic assistance, including the advantage of preferential registration, individual and group tutors, access to computer labs, etc. while the “average” students may have to work part-time jobs to make ends meet and eat and study when they can squeeze it in.  This is all true, but consider that the athlete is also “working” for that scholarship and the amount and intensity of the time and work they exert in most cases far exceeds any part-time job in the community.  Then, there’s additional pressure (which, granted, the athletes can turn in their favor) that student-athletes are forced to handle, such as being placed in gut-wrenching situations, dealing with the media and having to adjust to inconvenient travel schedules, to name a few of the major undesirable (to most of us) events.  

Title IX is based on the female population at the school.  It would be absurd, for example, to require West Point to spend equal amounts of dollars on its male and female athletes.  Instead, the law states the number of scholarship athletes has to be within five percent of the student body (it may have changed to three percent, I’ve admittedly been away from the college scene for several years), e.g. if a school had a student-body enrollment of 55% women, it had to have a minimum of fifty percent of its athletes be female.

That is how graduation rates should be calculated for all universities.  The particular sport should be within (use an arbitrary number, say) five percent of the graduation rate of that university.  To reward Stanford for graduating 85% of its athletes in a sport when the overall graduation rate on the Farm might be 95% (numbers arbitrary and not based on research, just used to make a point) is simply, if not morally, wrong - just as its wrong to penalize a school that graduates 67% of its athletes when the school’s overall graduation rates for its student body is 55%.  In a fair and just society, the rewards and penalties would be reversed.

But do you really think that, with the presidents who make up the NCAA’s governing board, that something as reasonable as that will ever happen? 

Tomorrow, I’ll relate some real-life graduation rate stories from the past (many of which have been corrected, but that’s exactly the point).  When they occurred, the NCAA refused to back down, just as they do now because they sincerely believe they fixed the problem and currently have it right.  My feeling toward the organization has always been:

The NCAA is like the Lord.  It works in strange and mysterious ways.”�