Jack’s Blog

When I was in the midst of my 30-year career in the world of intercollegiate coaching, I used to speak before booster groups and joke with the audience that one of the true bonuses of coaching in college was that I got to meet so many absolutely brilliant people.  Not only were they experts in their own field, but they could also do our football coach’s job, our basketball coach’s job, our athletic director’s job, - their talents were seemingly limitless.  Of course, many of these guys were very average in what they actually did for a living - and would be tremendously insulted if you ever even hinted at a way they could improve their business.

At the time, I wasn’t kidding.  When I first got to the University of Tennessee, our football team was struggling and I would hear from friends of mine how pitiful a job the football staff was doing and how they couldn’t believe we didn’t throw more, throw deep more, blitz more, fumble less - you get the idea - all strategical moves they would utilize if only the powers that be would wake up & give the reins to someone who really knew the game, someone who’d been watching football for the better part of 20 years (albeit from the 42nd row).  

The coaches they were talking about were my colleagues and friends, yet it was assumed I ought to be agreeing with every bit of their wisdom.  These people used to say all this to me as if I didn’t know that during basketball season, if we were to lose, I wouldn’t realize they’d be saying the same thing about our staff. 

Suffice to say I’m somewhat sensitive regarding second guessers.  After you’ve been in meetings, practices, locker rooms and watched hundreds of hours of video, you find it hard to listen to someone who, not only thinks he’s an undiscovered genius, but who gets even brighter by the drink.  After 1:00 am, you’d think you were talking (listening) to Bill Walsh or John Wooden.

Now that I’m removed from the coaching wars and have been relegated to the role of fan, or even worse, parent, I can see a shred of truth in the critcism from outside sources.  I probably knew it then, too, but your defensives are up, you fight back.

The quote that wraps up this blog comes from the former director of USC’s Leadership Institute, Warren Bennis (note this is the second time in the past three days I’ve used a quote from him) who said:

“Receptivity to criticsm is as necessary as it is loathsome.  And the more valid the criticism, the more difficult it is to receive.”Â

It seems there can’t a conversation with an athlete - in any team sport - without a mention of “the ring.”

“What are your goals this year?”

“Play our to our potential, leave everything on the field/court, yada, yada, yada and win a ring!”

This obsession with the ring can be analyzed for hours and hours, but the best analysis I’ve ever heard regarding this topic was given by former Miami Dolphin, Eugene “Mercury” Morris, the running back on the only team ever in the NFL to go from the first game through the Super Bowl without losing.

When I was at USC, our head coach, George Raveling, would bring in speakers to address our team.  One year we had Mercury Morris talk to our guys.  He told us how Dan Marino used to hound him constantly with the question, “Merc, how can I get a ring?  Man, you got a ring, I gotta get a ring, how can we get a ring?

Morris thought Marino’s focus was misguided.  He told Marino simply:

“Dan, win the championship.  They send you the ring in the mail.”

It used to amaze me that highly successful & well-paid (over paid?) people in the fields of, for example, sports & entertainment would allow their famous & lucrative careers to be ruined by continued drug use.

I say “used to amaze” because in the late ’80s, I had somewhat of a revelation while sitting in my rocker-recliner (where most of my revelations occur) in our house in Toledo.  The “Glass Capitol of the World” was the hometown of a highly recruited running back, coveted by every big-time college in the country.  The football coaches at my previous stop, the University of Tennessee, won the recruiting battle.  The UT coaches confided in me over dinner one night following a visit to the prospect’s home that he was a sure Pro Bowl back and, barring injury, a 10-year NFL player.

Chances are you’ve never heard of him - because he got involved in drugs, failed one drug test after another, and finally was dismissed from the squad.  Of all the colleges I’ve worked for, none had more resources for athletes and athletics than UT.  The trainers there told me of the numerous intervention programs, seminars, drug education meetings and whatever else they tried to help this troubled individual overcome his habit.

How could somebody, with all this going for him, blow it?  What was “revealed” to me that night in Toledo is that the power the drug has over an individual is something we can’t understand - unless you think of something (legal) that has the same power over you.  Maybe it’s coffee.  Could you go the rest of your life without coffee if coffee - or worse yet, caffeine, were deemed illegal?  How about your favorite food?  What about exercise or reading or crossword puzzles - any addictions?  I know people who freak out if they can’t workout two days in a row!  What if exercise were made illegal? 

Of course, it’s ridiculous, but the point is - how would you feel if any of these or other things you’re truly “addicted to” were outlawed and what would you do to simulate the feeling they provide for you?  The point is drugs are so addictive that the running back from Toledo and any other person like him, did realize he was  ruining his life, but he was powerless to do anything about it because of the overwhelming “pull” the drugs had over him.  We can - and should - try to help these people kick their habits, as well as be thankful the ones we have aren’t, as yet, against the law.  But our attitudes toward these souls should be, as USC leadership guru, Warren Bennis, said:

               “Accept people as they are, not as you want them to be.”

We’re all one law away from being just like them.

As many in the country did, I watched the apology by Michael Vick last night on television.  He spoke for nearly four and one half minutes, without notes, and did remarkably well.  He said the right things, apologized to the right people and took the hit for his misdeeds.

But does he really feel this way or is he saying these things because he got caught, i.e. if his dogfighting racket was never uncovered, what chance would there have been for him to step forward and admit the very thought of this behavior is reprehensible?

It’s reminiscent of the press conference Kobe Bryant had after his encounter with the young woman in Colorado.  One of Kobe’s quotes was about how he was disgusted with himself.  No one present asked if his disgust was for his behavior or his getting caught.  If the young lady had never stepped forward and said anything, would Kobe have held the press conference to apologize in order to clear his conscience?  He mentioned his disgust was for committing adultery, but once again, no one asked if this was the first time he had done so - or only the first time he was exposed (pun intended).

Michael Richards blurted out racial insults and then claimed he didn’t know where words like that came from.  Watch the video and it’s pretty obvious where the words came from.  Same with Don Imus.  Would he have apologized and retracted what he said about the women’s team from Rutgers (see 4/16 blog) if there was no uproar from the nation?  Mel Gibson made some of the most heinous anti-Semitic remarks of recent time and then apologized.  Sincere apology or hollow words?

I had a student in class whom I had to ask to stop talking while the class was going on.  When I asked him to be quiet, he said, “I’m sorry.”  I asked, “Because I caught you talking or because you were being disruptive?”  The answer will be easy enough to find out.  How long before that student talks again to a classmate during the lesson? 

Someone named Tessie Rose (I believe in the book, The One Minute Apology), said:

         “An apology, not followed by a change in behavior, is an insult.”

Why is it that when someone invents something revolutionary, there is a group who tries to see how they can capitalize on it in a negative way?

Tonight’s Sportscenter had a story on facebook.com, myspace.com and other new internet means of communication, mainly visual - and how there are people out there using the pictures and information to blackmail or tear down an athlete or group of athletes.  Similarly, sexual predators use the internet (a miraculous breakthrough in technology- whether Al Gore is the true inventor or not remains to be verified) for things other than it was intended.

Steroids weren’t created to pump up athletes to hit a ball farther or a person harder or recover from an injury sooner so someone who truly should not be participating is now “cured.”  It was a significant medical find, thought to be helpful to people with injuries and illnesses. 

This misuse reminds me of my time coaching in the ’80s at the University of Tennessee.  The NCAA would institute a rule intended on leveling the playing field for all schools or reducing the recruiting pressure on high school prospects or something else to make intercollegiate better and the first thing many coaches would do was to figure out a way to circumvent the rule.  The violators were thought not to have knowledge of the rules when the truth of the matter was, they were more knowledgable than most coaches - probably the main reason they seldom got caught.

I know people want to succeed and many justify it by saying they’re just so competitive, they’ll do what it takes - not only to win - but to keep from losing.  One of the first speeches I heard on an audio cassette was one by Jim Rohn, a speaker from Southern California and on it, one of the many interesting statements he made was, “People ask me ‘Why do others have to lie?’  Well, it’s simple - because they’re liars!  That’s why the word was invented - because of people who didn’t tell the truth.  If it weren’t for liars, we’d have no need for the word.”

Pretty realistic view, just like the words from Ulysses S. Grant, which more or less explains my original question:

                      “Life live the way it is, not the way you want it to be.”

What do you do during the day when you’re absolutely dead on your feet?  Drink caffeine?  Pop greenies?  Take a brisk five minute walk?  Run in place?  I’ve tried three of those four (other than traffic lights, I’m not a big fan of the color green), yet the greatest solution to the problem of exhaustion I’ve found is the nap.

I’ve read that everyone from Edison to da Vinci to Einstein to other well-known major achievers used to plop down sometime during midday and grab a snooze - whether it was a 15-minute power nap or an hour and a half to two hour deep slumber.  Although some people I know say they wake up groggy, the overwhelming majority swear by the “shut-it-down-for-a-time” philosophy.

Some people can sleep in any position (I’ve heard of one guy who claims he can lean against a wall and nod off.  I tend to believe him and I think if you were to meet him, after being exposed to his personality, you’d believe it too).  For me, however, horizontal’s the way to go.  Hey, if you’re going to give an early rendition of what you propose to do later on, why not simulate the real thing.

Possibly because of the drugs I have running through my system - due to the double figure surgeries I’ve endured - sleeping is one thing that’s actually improved over time.  I wake up refreshed (although usually hungry as well) and the remainder of the day is much more productive.

I imagine the first person to ever consider taking a nap - beyond the age of kindergarteners - asked the question, “What if we stopped where we are, rest for a brief period and see if things don’t look more clearly in a while?”  Which is probably where the phrase:

       “The definition of imagination is, What comes after ‘what if…’” 

In any case, here’s to you, inventor of the afternoon shut-eye, you truly came up with an idea for us to sleep on.

After watching ABC’s 20/20 TV show, Cheap in America - Who Gives, Who Doesn’t,  I have as many questions now as I did prior to watching - and that’s a good thing.

I’ve worked for and with people I’d consider the most frugal, generous, stingy and “spend thrifty” in the country.  This diversity of philanthropy comes from having many jobs with many different types of people in many areas of the U.S.  Some were a combination of the four adjectives above, some the epitome of just one.

My late friend and mentor, John Savage, once told me (in the late ’80s), “Jack, I make $750,000 a year…because that’s all I want to make.  I could make more (& believe, me, this was no idle boast), but it breaks down like this: my family and I live on $250,000, I pay $250,000 in taxes and I give $250,000 away.”  Giving money away was a true hobby for John and it gave him more pleasure than anything outside of his family.  While one of the most generous people I’ve ever known, John was the antithesis of a spendthrift.  Going out to dinner meant a night at the Sizzler.

The other of my two main mentors, George Raveling, might be the definition of a spendthrift, while being remarkably generous as well.  George can go shopping, see a pair of jeans he admires - and buy six of them.  If George finds, for example, a book he likes, he might buy ten of them and give nine to friends he feels would enjoy them.  I know this for a fact because I’ve been on the receiving end of several.

Other colleagues I’ve known were so tight that if they took a five dollar bill out of their wallet, Abraham Lincoln would blink at the light.  One was a guy who made upwards of a quarter of a million dollars.  When the goal of our department was 100% participation in United Way, rather than him donating, say $10 from each paycheck as most department members did, he declined, but didn’t want to stand in the way of the department’s goal.  So he wrote a check - for $25.  He once told me, “Why should I give money to somebody else?  Nobody ever gave me any money.”  It truly hurt him to give money away.

The ABC show focused on the super rich - Ted Turner, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and others, with some very poignant remarks from Turner.  You might remember it was Jane Fonda’s ex who donated a billion dollars, partly in attempt to send a message to his filthy rich compadres that they, too, could afford to part with large(r) portions of their dough to benefit bonafide charities. 

One story stood out as a great lesson in combining generosity with a sound business decision.  Warren Buffet decided to give some ungodly amount of money away, but displaying the wisdom that put him in the top five of the richest people in the country, he gave it to Bill Gates (actually, Gates’ Foundation).  Why?  “Because Bill would do a better job of giving it away than I would,” said Buffet in what had to be one of the greatest illustrations of trust and empowerment in history.

Host John Stossel took time to mention the generous donations he’s made (no figures mentioned - numbers are only asked by media, never disclosed), largely to New York’s Central Park and then showed what the park looked like prior to his serving on the “clean-up committee” and what it looks like now.  This was followed by a commercial because a doctor had to attend to the injury he received when he threw his arm out patting himself on the back. 

(I remember an interview several years ago when Mike Wallace asked Johnny Carson how much money he made, to which Carson said, “How much do you make, Mike?  I don’t think you’re filling out the short form.”  Either Mike didn’t answer or his response ended up on the cutting room floor.)

A part of the show focused on the children of the wealthy - those who inherited a fortune and simply live off of it.  This was the saddest part of the show for me, especially listening to these “kids” justify their lifestyle.

An interesting section dealt with people giving away their time in lieu of or in addition to, their money.  I remember a story about a woman who spent a large amount of her time and money supporting an animal group when a guy went up to her and said, “How can you devote so much time & money to animals when there are so many people groups in need in this country?”  To which she asked, “Oh, and which one of those groups are you supporting?”

I guess the moral of the story is: don’t criticize others, just do something for somebody.  Giving is personal and each individual does it in his or her own way.  I won’t disclose mine, but suffice to say, I do “walk the walk.”  As one of history’s two greatest speakers of all-time (see 7/6 blog ), Martin Luther King, Jr. said:

“Life’s most persistent and urgent question is, ‘What are you doing for others?’”

Cliches are taking a bad rap.  People make fun of these lines which, in reality, were so powerful, they became overused.

Example: When the going gets tough, the tough get going.  Whoever came up with this little ditty presented a motivational line heard in every board room meeting - and with as many recessions as there have been, that’s an awful lot - as well as saw it posted in every locker room, on classroom walls, refrigerator doors, bathroom mirrors and anywhere else people needed pick-me-ups. 

Then, it became overused - so we started to see bumper stickers like “When the going gets tough, the tough go shopping.”  It’s seems the same with any other line that makes an impact on us.  Take, “I’m going to give 100%.”  That’s taken on astronomical proportions, e.g. I’m going to give 110%, 150%, 200% and the granddaddy of them, 1,000%.  None of these can be done, but the line packed such a wallop, some people found it necessary to “take it to the next level.”

You get the idea.  This blog could go on for quite a while, but the point’s been made.  So, I guess, all’s well that ends well.  Or, in the case of this blog, all’s well that ends.  Why not go on?

In the words of my late and wonderful mentor, John Savage,

“Before you open your mouth to speak, make sure what you have to say is an improvement on the silence.”

The old way of leadership was the “tree diagram” or vertical type with the exalted one on the top and branches descending from him - or as some leaders thought of themselves, descending from Him. 

Now it’s time for the new and improved type, known in the trade as “leader-as- servant” method.  This is more of a horizontal model where the leader identifies a capable worker and delegates a job to him or her, with the basic instructions, “The job is yours to complete; let me know how I can be of assistance to you.”  It’s called empowerment and replaces the leader giving a worker a job, then constantly looking over his or her shoulder, meddling, interfering & criticizing.

Obviously, many leaders, especially the older, stuck in their ways, types of bosses are finding it hard to “let go” and treat someone whom they consider “beneath” them (at least on the company’s “organizational chart”) as a respected colleague.  They find it hard to believe that with all their years “in the business” someone can possibly do a job better than they can. 

I’ve experienced both ways and, when used properly, horizontal beats vertical hundreds of times over - mainly because no one person can possibly keep track of the many projects today’s organization needs to accomplish.  So many companies, groups and organizations pride themselves in their hiring process, be it the number of background and reference checks, interviews, or super head hunting firm they employ.  Instead, the innovative firms are “hiring good people & working to their strengths.”

I’ve found two quotes to sum up this idea, one more specific than the other.  Federal Express founder, Fred Smith said,

“Being a good boss does not mean you can do the job better than your people.  It means you can get your people to do the job better than you,” while Sir Alec Douglas-Hume was more succinct.  He said:

         “You don’t buy a canary and sing yourself.”¼/p>

Warning: This blog will be all over the place, going in several different directions.

#1 Some claim dogfighting is a tradition in the South.  So was lynching, but no one apologized for the guys in sheets when they were arrested.

#2 Why would somebody do this?  It’s a classic case of a person making too much money.  It wasn’t like this “hobby” took all Vick’s dough.  What he did for his former high school is well documented and he also gave a ton to Virginia Tech, his college alma mater.  Undoubtedly, there were other expenses.  And still plenty of mad (dog) money left over.

#3 With all the problems, sleazy activities and illegal acts people in professional sports are accused of, why is this transgression so hideous?  Next to children, cruelty to pets really sets people off.  And remember, dogs are referred to as “man’s best friend.”

#4 How can his teammates still support him?  If you asked that question, you’ve probably never been part of a team - not a good one, anyway.  Although it’s a cliche, a team truly is like a family and you don’t turn your back on a family member independent of how ill-advised an act (s)he committed.

#5 Will he ever play again?  What?!?  Can you imagine the reaction of the fans of the team who’s going to sign him?  How are they going to spin that transaction?  And what would his first road trip be like, e.g. how do you think the Browns’ Dog Pound would treat him?

#6 Taking low lifes, with absolutely zero positive skills and giving them carte blanche to his home and, for all intents and purposes, his checkbook, then having them turn on him, is probably what Vick should have expected.

Niccolo Machiavelli was once attributed the quote, “The first method for estimating the intelligence of a (person) is to look at the people he has around him.”