Jack’s Blog

At the beginning of each season, there are pre-season polls, usually the work of sportswriters and other various and sundry pundits.  At the conclusion of the year, many of these prognosticators who put together these polls in the first place are talking about how many of the teams picked to win or finish at the top of their conference/division had disappointing seasons.

Fans, boosters and owners often buy into this concept - and they lose confidence in the coaching staff, increasing pressure (which, believe me, is plenty already) or patience (and make a change - possibly just at the time the team was poised to have that breakthrough year).  Coaches have been citied on numerous occasions for “bad-mouthing” their team’s chances during the pre-season, people claiming they don’t want the pressure.  While the possibly of this might be true, the coach also may know something (being much closer to his team than those doing the ranking) that will prevent them from living up to such a lofty selection.  Also, the reason could be that no one wants to have to live “up” to expectations; that they’d rather “surprise” people, have great seasons and, receive (sometimes planned, often not), but always welcome, the praise for an “over-achieving” campaign.  Many times these types of seasons lead to raises, contract extensions and, on occasion, a new gig (see Keno Davis from Drake going to Providence for somewhere in the neighborhood of seven figures and long-term security - whatever that is in the coaching profession - after the Bulldogs went from being picked at the bottom of their conference to becoming media darlings and NCAA Tournament Cinderellas). Obviously, the system is purely speculative (although fans love them, hence resulting in selling more papers and magazines) and on some occasions, might be right on target.  Of course, the possibility exists that these pollsters have limited knowledge of “what they speak” (or rate) and put untrue, excessive or unfair expectations on the teams.  Keep in mind that for every Keno Davis, there’s a guy who was picked high and finished low (possibly costing him the loss of his job) - all because a group who may not have done any (or, at most, limited) research into the project or, as is known to happen, may have given it to a gofer to select.

Wouldn’t it be interesting to make everyone’s poll public information and, when a guy makes drastically wrong selections (maybe two or three years in a row), he loses his job (maybe as just a prognosticator - or maybe as a “whatever he actually does for a living”)?  It would make watching the final polls so much more interesting.  Can you imagine a player or coach asking a pollster after a game, “Well, you picked us last in our league and we’re on top while the team you predicted to ‘win it all’ is foundering in seventh place.  Are you at all worried about your position at the paper/station?”  Wonder how that guy’s wife would react if she heard that on the local or national news and how their kids would feel at school the next day when their classmates would approach them and innocently ask, “My dad said he heard your dad is going to get fired.”  Just another thing in the “interesting things to think about that will never happen” category.

These prognosticators should take into account the words of Benjamin Disraeli who said:

“How much easier it is to be critical than be correct.”

Up-to-the-date news about the upcoming election to elect our country’s highest leader!

Women and older people like the female and older than her opponent, Hillary Clinton, while blacks and younger people tend to favor the black and younger, Barack Obama.  I wonder how accurate those stats are?

Meanwhile, the character assasination on Obama by Clinton supporters and on Clinton by Obama supporters (sure, hers have been worse on him than his have been on her but, hey, he’s in the lead) continue.

Meanwhile, John McCain’s backers sit back and laugh … until the Democrats finally pick a candidate (and unite - hah)!  Then watch McClain’s character get toasted.  It’s just not his time yet.

I still believe this is the greatest country in the world, but often, I’m afraid - to paraphrase Stewart Udall:

“We have, I fear, confused power with greatness.”

  Â

Stanford filled their vacant head coaching position with long-time Duke assistant, Johnny Dawkins.  Several people have made mention of the fact he has had no previous head coaching experience.  Having been a 30-year assistant on the intercollegiate level and never getting the opportunity I craved ( a head coaching job), this hits really close to home. It’s the ultimate Catch-22: you can’t get a job because you don’t have the experience and you don’t get the experience because you can’t get a job - all independent of your knowledge, people skills (recruiting ability) or work ethic. 

Everyone wants to be guaranteed the coach their favorite school hires will produce a winning (on some levels, championship on others) program.  Sorry, coaching hires don’t come with such a label.  Hiring a coach is pure and simple - a crap shoot - and no one’s yet figured out how to load the dice.

Most decision-makers at schools with coaching openings are more intent on “winning the press conference” than in hiring the right person, i.e. seldom does due diligence figure in the selection process.  Today, athletics directors, presidents, committees or whoever use “head hunting” firms (see 3/5 blog for a thorough piece on that type of hiring strategy). 

For the purpose of this blog, let’s keep the focus on Johnny Dawkins.  His lack of head coaching experience has no significance to his ultimate success or failure at Stanford mainly because the job is so much more than calling times-out or making substitutions.  First and foremost is recruiting.  Stanford has the highest academic requirements (for schools who hope to win a National Championship) in the nation.  How fortunate they’ve been to find two pairs of twins each one of the kids having big-time Division I skills (good enough to play in the NBA), were brilliant students, wanted to go to Stanford - and, best of all, were seven-footers!  Something that would surpass head coaching experience would be for Dawkins to find out how his predecessors, Mike Montgomery, in the case of the Collins’ twins and Trent Johnson, with the Lopez’s  pulled off those remarkable feats.  On a more realistic note, one thing in his favor is the fact that both Duke and Stanford recruit on a nation-wide basis, so the contacts he’s developed throughout the country will serve him well on the Farm.

Next is the total organization of a program.  Learning from Hall-Of-Fame coach Mike Krzyzewski for 11 years as Mike’s associate - and that’s not even counting his playing days - beats the heck out of some guy who was a head coach for a few seasons at some other college.  Throw in all the ancillary parts of the job, e.g. meetings with academic advisors and compliance personnel, booster club functions, scheduling, dealing with the media and each of those will determine his success or lack of it much more so than prior head coaching experience. 

Having lived so long in the college basketball environment I witnessed guys who took opportunities and won and others who got their chance and didn’t.  One guy in particular I recall, had a great deal of success at what people would call a low-major school (this one happened to be an institution which didn’t even offer scholarships).  He moved “up” in class to a bigger program and got fired.  He was then hired at a Division II school and proceeded to win a National Championship!  Another “big-time” job opportunity followed only to produce another pink slip.  Maybe some guys are fit for certain levels better than they are for others. 

Another guy was a giant in the business, winning at many institutions - until two rules were passed: the three-point shot and the shot clock.  His philosphy was to 1) “pound it inside” and, 2) if his team had the lead, he was going to “take the air out of the ball” and make you chase him (he believed he had a delay game that took good care of the ball) or foul him (his feeling was, “If we make our free throws, we’ll win; if we don’t, we don’t deserve to”).  Each of these rules were completely contrary to his philosophy, but he stubbornly held on to his beliefs until he, too, lost his job.  Ultimately, he was re-hired at a lower level, realized he should have changed with the times and, ironically, eventually took his new team to the NCAA Tournamnet - on the back of his three-point shooters!   

Unlike what many out there think, “coaching is coaching, it doesn’t matter the level” is as far from the truth as what most politicians promise during campaigns and what they deliver.  And if Johnny Dawkins wins at Stanford, fans will claim it was because of the reasons described above, mainly due to his relationship and tutelage of Coach K.  If he doesn’t, those same people will swear it was because he never should have been hired in the first place - because he had no head coaching experience.  And that will be a shame for all the other assistants out there who’ve toiled and deserve a shot because, as Franklin D Roosevelt said:

“Repetition  does not transform a lie into a truth.”

 Â

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After watching Game 3 of the series between the San Antonio Spurs and the Phoenix Suns, one thing is very apparent - other than the fact that the Spurs will, if not sweep, certainly prevail: Shaquille O’Neal’s career as an NBA player is over.

Whether a fan is a “Shaq-lover,” “Shaq-hater” or a “Shaq-who-cares,” it bordered on depressing watching Shaq Daddy, the Big Diesel, the Big Aristotle or the Big Whoever turn into the Big Has-Been while the Spurs, on the road, thoroughly demoralized everyone connected with the Suns’ organization: players, coaches, brass, announcers and fans.  This is in no way saying the sole cause for the shellacking was due to the ineffectiveness of O’Neal - nor, for that matter, does even a majority of the reason for the loss lay at his feet. 

What was so sad, though, was seeing a once feared, dominant giant of a player, both literally and figuratively, become a source of ridicule on the same hardwood he used to own.  The “paint,” where he once resided and did as he pleased on offense, or patrolled defensively as “enter at your own risk” (and most people dared not try) became foreign territory to the big fella.  As far as his offensive game, there couldn’t be a better guard for him to play with than Steve Nash, who often, would put lobs in such a place all Shaq had to do was deflect the ball and he’d score.  (Unfortunately, Nash’s career might be headed for a similar fate, but that’s for another blog).  When he wasn’t missing what used to be easy short bank shots, the Spurs decided to use the Hack-a-Shaq philosophy which worked as he made fewer than half of his free throws.  Even before the game became a rout, San Antonio mercifully called off the tactic (possibly) so as not to further humiliate a future Hall-Of-Famer.  That and because the game’s outcome was no longer in doubt. 

Defensively, the Spurs continually exposed him as they took him away from the paint by running pick and roll (or pop) and forced him to 1) switch and try to guard the ballhandler (when it was Tony Parker, Shaq could have won a best [non] supporting actor in a sitcom - it was that funny watching him attempt to get into a defensive stance which, by the time his knees were bent, Parker was by him), 2) switch, but not commit to full perimeter defense (in which case, he was time and again, scorched by the three-point shot, many times, also by Parker) or 3) try to half-and-half it, not switching or trapping but not staying with his original man (who would be open for drives to the basket or short jumpers).  Just watching him trying to get up and down the floor was painful and it seemed like the enthusaism that marked his play during most of his career departed with his quickness.  Although he scored 19 points and had 6 rebounds, he gave up much more than he delivered.  Age certainly must be considered a factor in defense of his (lack of) defense as well as all the rest.

Think of how much pounding his ankles, knees and hips had to have taken throughout the years from his very early-on sculpted body to the current heavier, but by no means bad physical specimen he is, although, in both cases, a body in excess of 300 pounds!  His medical problems have been well-documented, but somehow, it wouldn’t come as a surprise if we found out after he retires (which anyone with an ounce of compassion would hope will be following the Suns imminent exit from the playoffs) that his injuries were far more serious than we ever were informed. 

How he’ll be remembered will be undoubtedly as a monster of a center, one who won a multitude of championships.  His critics will point out that he had a couple of things that are certainly of high value when it comes to winning championships.  One of them was another superstar (Kobe Bryant in LA and Dwayne Wade in Miami) to share the burden (critics will say “share” is a too kind way of putting it) and a great coach (Phil Jackson with the Lakers and Pat Riley with the Heat - each of whom won multiple championships without O’Neal).  He’ll be known for his outrageous boastfulness (mostly? backed up) and his moody, monotone interviews which, every so often would end in a huge grin (kind of like “I’ve been putting you on all along”).  Some will question the seriousness in his approach toward the game.  It took quite a while when playing for the Orlando Magic, where he started his career (remember?), to live down his remark, which was in response to the team not winning a championship which went something to the effect of, “Hey, I’ve won championships at all levels of this game - except for college and the pros.”  Four NBA championships later, only LSU, the Magic and the Suns can be disappointed.  Other players can be accused of worse.

In all, it took longer to shelve the big guy than it does most athletes, but as is the case in 99% of life:

“If you want to know how long it takes to get to the top, get a calendar.  If you want to know how long it takes to get to the bottom, get a stopwatch.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yesterday’s blog was about AAU basketball and the good and bad it - and other non-scholastic basketball - bring to the table.  However, a couple of years ago, I was made aware of an AAU rule (or loophole, really) that enables a player over the age limit for the team to participate with younger kids.

Sound confusing?  Wait until you hear the rule - or at least the way I understand it.  When our sons got involved with AAU programs, I remember having to produce a birth certificate for each so the organization could verify the ages of my boys.  Naturally, I had no problem with that as it seemed perfectly normal as well as the right thing to do.  We’ve all heard of the Little League baseball fiasco years ago (and now what’s going on with Miguel Tejada) and who wants to allow such a blemish to take away from the competition and all that’s good about the entire experience?

Where the rub enters the fray is that if a tournament is held for kids, say, 14 & under, you’d think it would be simple.  From whatever day is selected, be it January 1 of that year, the opening of the school year (around September 1), the day schools end (around June 1) or whatever arbitrary day the AAU or ruling organization picks, that’s how players’ team placement is decided.  What was explained to me is that if it’s a 14 & under tournament, usually a 14-year old will be in the 8th grade, so…basically, the tournament becomes “reclassified.”  It’s now an 8th grade and under tournament. 

What’s this mean?  Apparently, it means if a youngster is in the 8th grade, he’s eligible to compete…under some rule labeled a “grade exception.”  The day I discovered this was during a tournament our younger son was playing in.  I mentioned to our team’s director that one of the players on the other team looked a great deal older than the (at that time) 13 years old he was supposed to be.  The director told me, in fact, he was … and then proceeded to explain the grade exception rule.  (I believe he told me each team was allowed two such players).

For the life of me, I can’t figure out the thought process behind this bit of legislation.  What it amounts to is rewarding a youngster for, pardon my political incorrectness, stupidity.  “Look, son, even though you don’t have what it takes to move on academically in school, don’t worry, you can always dominate kids you’re physically more mature than by competing against kids younger than you are.”  I have nothing against giving, for lack of a better term, disadvantaged kids, whether the disadvantages are mental, psychological, emotional, family-oriented or economic, the same opportunities all other children have, but why not have him (or her) play with the kids their own age?

Is it because these are the ones they sit with in class and socialize with every day?  Oh, please.  If it’s traumatic for a 6th grader to have to play with 7th graders (because the two are the same age, but don’t attend the same school), then why wouldn’t it be just as traumatic for a 14-year old to have to play against a 15-year old (who just happens to have already gone through maturity and is physically superior to those in his class)? 

Having witnessed (as a coach and parent) for nearly 40 years now, I can say pretty much with a clear conscience that this rule is doing much more harm than good.  After learning of it two years ago, I’ve since spoken with other coaches who have been aware of it and the “grade exception” youngster is being done a disservice.  Often his dominance is due to the fact he is older and more (physically) mature, so he starts to get coddled by some as seeing this “wonder child” as a potential meal ticket down the road.  Many more times than not, it doesn’t work out as anticipated (for any of the parties) and the kid ends up getting “kicked to the curb” with nothing - in terms of an athletic future or an academic one.  Oftentimes, his emotional maturity (especially in conjunction with things like responsibility and accountability) degenerates as (usually not-so) well-meaning adults enable his every action and make excuses for continual unacceptable behavior.

I could be way off base on this topic but, to date, no one’s explained it to me any differently.  So why was the rule invented?  Possibly because as Joseph DeMaistre interestingly put it:

“It is one of man’s idiosyncrasies to create difficulties for the pleasure of resolving them.”

If that’s the case here, let’s get this one resoved - and the sooner, the better.Â

Long weekend spent in Houston at the Kingwood Classic Tournament (the largest AAU event - 681 teams, over 1333 games at over 66 sites…all in a 48-hour period).  It’s extremely well-run (by Hal Pastner, who’s done it for 14 years), an efficient and cost-effective method for college coaches to see a tremendous number of prospects all in one city and very organized (imagine how much of a nightmare getting that many officials must be, dealing with scoreclock or electrical problems, and accomodating teams from out of the area who can’t make it in for a Friday night contest - or worse, whose flights are delayed or cancelled?)

In addition, there is competition for youngsters all the way down to age nine (and under!)  The good in these tournaments are grand and glorious.  Both of our sons, first Andy, as a member of his high school team, and now, Alex, as a member of a “travel” team have immensely enjoyed these experiences.  Young kids get to see different parts of the country (and, in some cases, the world - see my first three blogs of 2008), places they’d never get to visit if not for the game of basketball. 

They also get to know and “live with” others from different backgrounds and, in many cases, areas of the nation.  All of this speeds up the maturation process of the youngsters and as long as each has the proper guidance at home, every encounter should have some type of educational, albeit sometimes negative, but nonetheless worthwhile, value.  The players get to share stories and most will come away with a greater understanding and a deeper respect for his teammates (even those he goes to school with every day).  Travel teams offer the opportunity to play with different players than the ones he (or she, as AAU has crossed the gender line) plays with at home on a regular basis.  Players may learn that, although they’re the “king” (or “queen”) at home, there are other, better players outside their comfy environment and the work their coaches have been preaching to them about improving is true after all.  Others find out their game is on par - or occasionally superior - to people from other locales, boosting their confidence.  In all, the play itself becomes a learning experience as well.

Travel teams are usually coached by people outside the school system, so players have the opportunity to play in different systems for coaches with different philosophies.  All of this will do nothing but broaden the young baller’s knowledge of the game.

There is, however, both the unrealistic side and cold-hearted reality to this brand of hoops - and as they sound, neither is particularly positive in nature.  Many times the play becomes nothing more than individual showcases (especially for those the college coaches are watching, i.e. the 17 & under group).  “Team” play all but flies out the window once it’s “game time” (or “showtime”).  For the supremely gifted player, a great deal of, for lack of a better term, “ass-kissing” goes on - both by the travel team coach (so as not to lose him to a rival who’s trying to “out-kiss” the current mentor) and from the college coaches who usually use the “you get more flies with honey than vinegar” philosophy (even though many of these “superstars” would be much better served with a higher intake of vinegar in their basketball diets).  Promises, some kept, most not, run rampant as the college coaches (who are making more and more money -assistants included) feel increased heat (which usually accompanies more money) to deal with the bottom line - the one on the National-Letter-of-Intent where the prospect signs.

The cold, hard reality comes when 1) the prospect doesn’t live up to his advanced billing and his former “BFF’s” (college coaches) seem to have forgotten how to text (is that illegal yet?) or even call or write; 2) another player at the same position commits, plays better or shows more interest (as well as skill); 3) the “Privacy Act” is somehow avoided and academic transcripts become common knowledge (of course, the super-superstars still manage to be kept on some coaches’ Fav 5’s) or, 4) the worst - which is nothing short of a brisk slap in the face - a devastating injury should occur.  When any of these happen, Barack Obama’s “bitter” people increase in number - and that number includes not only the player, but his family and all of the people who were thought of as influential in the prospect’s decision and, thus, brought “in the loop” because of their deep feelings for the young player.  Often, deep feelings for someone are still admirable, just not as necessary from the recruiter’s point of view. 

When any of these situations take place, some well-intended, positive thinking soul will invariably say something to the effect that everything happens for a reason and it’s actually a blessing, to which Sir Winston Churchill once said:

“If this is a blessing, it is certainly very well disguised.” 

Note: Tomorrow’s blog will be on one particular aspect of AAU basketball that needs to be addressed and eliminated.  Please note for the sake of full disclosure: not all “out-of-season” basketball falls under the umbrella of the AAU - they’re simply the biggest and most powerful.  Tomorrow’s blog will relate relevant information, but will mainly focus on one particular mistake that currently exists.Â

In reading an article about the 61st anniversary of Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier, I was perplexed to hear that there was disappointment in a release that said the number of blacks making up major league baseball rosters had declined from 8.4%in 2006 to 8.2% last year.  The statement continued to say that as recently as 1995, the percentage of blacks in the majors was 19% and the numbers were troubling.

Granted, the article was brief, not delving much further than the numbers and a short quote, but to any baseball fan in the United States (and even the world, now that the game’s gone somewhat global), the reasons are glaringly apparent and, from my point of view, all positive.  While the percentage of blacks decreased in the past 15 or so years, the percentage of Latino players doubled - to where Latino players currently hold down nearly 30% of the spots on major league rosters!  Added to that statistic, the number of Asian players has increased (from none) to where many are not only occupying places on rosters, but are some of the most talented and popular ballplayers in the game.

I can’t help but think that African-Americans today have more doors open to them in other industries, both inside and outside the world of professional sports.  Dominating “country club” sports like golf and tennis as Tiger Woods and the Williams’ sisters have done had to have been an inspiration to youngsters of color.  There also seems to be an effort in other industries as well to hire regardless of race, as this current generation of minority college graduates descend upon the business and political worlds.  Indeed, how long ago would someone have thought that the leading candidate for the presidency of this nation would have been a black man?   

Being disappopinted that a .2% drop in the number of blacks playing major league baseball trivializes what Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier stood for.  Certainly, if those numbers reflected a quota system of some sort, we all should be embarrassed, but people of all races or ethnicities became benefits of Jackie’s courageous battle.  As John F. Kennedy proclaimed:

“All of us do not have equal talent, but all of us should have an equal opportunity to develop our talents.”

If you were a kid growing up in New Jersey in the early ’50s, you rooted for one of three teams - the New York Yankees, the New York Giants or, my favorite, the Brooklyn Dodgers.  Although my father was a die-hard Yankees fan, he was a good enough sport (and good enough dad) to take me to Ebbets Field, home of my beloved Bums (my father always claimed I was brain washed by my mother’s side of the family, all of whom hailed from Brooklyn).

The first time we ever went to Ebbets Field, I was four years old.  My father was a toll collector for the New Jersey Turnpike and my mother was a secretary so disposable income was tough to come by and, although my father scraped the money together for a couple of train tickets (by far the most economical means to get to the city) and two tickets, we were watching the game from the nosebleed section (which was totally fine with me - hey, I was at a Dodger game! - and, to be perfectly honest, Ebbets Field was such a bandbox, any seat was a good one - unless you got stuck behind a pole).

I can remember many of the fans in our section being black and one, when he saw me, asked, “Hey, little fella, who’re you for?”  Now, one thing you’re going to get from a four-year-old kid is an honest answer (lying doesn’t become part of a youngster’s makeup until a few years later), so I looked up, wide-eyed and said, “The Dodgers!”  This was shortly after Jackie Robinson had broken the color barrier and the country was still divided on the race issue.  “Hey, get this kid a Coke - and a hot dog.  Get his old man a beer.”  We were subjected to the royal treatment. 

I didn’t know why, but I figured out I must have given the right answer.  We might have gotten a chauffered ride back to Jersey if they would have asked who my favorite player was because Jackie Robinson was my childhood idol.  All I saw was a guy who could hit, field, run bases, was strong and handled himself with so much class and dignity.  I’m sure I had no idea what class and dignity were at that point in my life, but I knew I wanted to be just like Jackie.

Don’t get me wrong: Erskine, Newk, Labine, Black, Spooner, Campy, Hodges, Gilliam, PeeWee, Cox, Amoros, the Duke, Furillo, all had their baseball cards on my bedroom wall, but it was Jackie’s that was front and center.  Naturally, being a Jewish kid, Sandy Koufax soon jumped to the head of the class but not until years later.  These Dodgers were the guys who won the first ever World Championship for the Dodgers in ‘55 and I can still remember the ground ball to PeeWee Reese who threw to Gil Hodges for the final out in Johnny Podres’ 2-0 shutout of the hated Yankees in game 7 that let out a roar from my house (the neighborhood boys on either side of me and the twins across the street were all Yankee fans and I’d finally gotten my chance to bask in glory.

My aunt, a good athlete and pretty big fan in her own right, mailed a birthday card to the club requesting all the guys sign it for her nephew who “lived and died” with the Dodgers.  They did, I got it back, but somewhere in the 20+ relocations I’ve made since, it’s nowhere to be found.  I’m still sick about it.

At that time, as I mentioned, I completely idolized Jackie Robinson for his superior talent, the way he carried himself and because he was the best player on my favorite team.  As I read about his life, I found out about how remarkable an athlete (football, basketball, tennis and track) he was and how intelligent he was.  He’d attended UCLA and starred there.  Furhter research into his life explained his ultra-competitive and courageous nature.  What had impressed me most was that Branch Rickey, the president and general manager of the Dodgers selected him to be the first player to break the color barrier, not merely because of any of those traits lited above, but more so because he knew Jackie had the mental makeup to withstand all that was about to be leveled at him and he’d be able to stand up for himself without physically fighting back, but retaliate in the best way possible - to thoroughly defeat his opponents in the best way he could to make a point for all of mankind and especially, for his people.

When I became a teenager and Jackie’s career was on the downhill side, his exit was the classiest move of all.  The Dodgers traded him to the Giants, and rather than play for the bitter rivals, he retired - he walked away and never looked back.  In my mind, he remains to this day without a peer.

If ever a line was appropriate for one person, Maxwell Anderson’s quote defines the legacy of Jackie Robinson:

“There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk on higher ground in that lifetime.” Â