Jack’s Blog

Boston Celtics vs. Los Angeles Lakers.  It’s what the NBA executives want (although they’d never admit it), it’s what the television gurus want (and they’d openly admit it), but most of all, it’s what the fans want.  Why?  Possibly it has to do with the following statistic: by the end of these finals, those two franchises will have won exactly half (31 of 62) of all the NBA Championships ever played. 

In a series matching these two proud organizations, long on tradition (which means there’s also a large contingency that despises each - as a dynasty tends to attract), everyone has an opinion on who will win and why.  Maybe it’s my mathematical background (or maybe it’s because I grew up in New Jersey and can still remember the Captain, Willis Reed, limping out for Game 7, being overcome with emotion and screaming like crazy when the Knicks pulled out an impossible victory), but I tend to view this series from a completely logical viewpoint.  Because of regional loyalty that existed when I was growing up (you never got to see any team other than your own on a consistent basis), I grew up as a fan of neither Boston nor LA.  Not a hater, but if the Knicks couldn’t be there at the end, well, just call me when the next season started.

To analyze this matchup, it’s like every other where the top two teams are involved - some factors favor one squad; some point toward the other.  First of all is home court advantage.  It initially looked as though this was so strongly going to determine the winner, there’d be no reason to watch.  But then, all of a sudden, teams started winning away from home.  So, Boston’s home court advantage, while a major plus for the Celts, isn’t as important as we all thought when Round Two of the playoffs was following a “home team inevitably wins” theme.

From a “who has the most dominant player” perspective, even Boston fans have to admit there’s no one playing basketball right now (on this planet anyway) who’s even close to Kobe Bryant.  Kevin Garnett is sensational and deserves more credit than any other Celtic since Larry Bird (and Bill Russell before him) for getting the “Men in Green” this far (starting with the first game he strapped it on for Boston) and, yes, he is the defensive player of the year … but Kobe’s unstoppable and he’s on the same level as defender as KG.  It’s been noted that Kobe’s such a great defender, he’s the only guy who can stop Kobe!

“But we have the ‘Big Three!’” cry the Celtic faithful.  True, but Bryant, Gasol and Odom are a formidable trio as well.  Therefore, it may come down to a game of one-on-one matchups.  From a size perspective, Boston is pretty much forced to put Perkins and Garnett on Radmanovic and Gasol, but the problem isn’t just finding a defender for Kobe (and that problem can in no way be minimized), but who plays the 6′9″ Odom (another guy who can shut himself down, but in a different way than Kobe taking bad shots, i.e. nobody has ever described Kobe with the word “knucklehead,” a moniker Odom occasionally answers to)?  Rondo and Allen are too small to guard Bryant and if Boston’s going to put Paul Pierce on Kobe, it’s bound to cut into his offensive effectiveness.  Sam Cassell and Eddie House can’t guard any of the Lakers’ starters other than Derek Fisher (and even that’s not an easy cover).  James Posey has the size, but foul trouble is a major concern with him (and anyone else who draws the assignment of guarding Kobe).  And with Tom Thibodeau running the defense for the Celtics, don’t expect to see too much zone being played.  I was fortunate to meet “Dr. Tibs” at one of our “self-improvement seminars” (see 5/2/08 blog) and, while he’s an absolutely brillaint defensive mind (as well as one helluva nice guy), the word “zone” doesn’t make its way into too many of his conversations.

On the flip side, defending Garnett on the block (if he’ll spend most of his time there) is no slice of heaven for any of the Laker bigs.  And do the Lakers put Bryant on Pierce in an attempt to take away the guy who’s been the Celtics most effective scorer or do they put him on the non-offensive minded Rondo and let him play free safety?

As far as the respective benches go, much has been made of the confidence Phil Jackson has shown in his “Wild Bunch” of Turiaf, Farmar, Walton and Vujacic.  Recall how he played them (and none of his “big three” when they were down 17 points).  Their opponents have seen some heroic play from bench members and some unlikely ones at that.  The Celtics bench, while not as productive as their Laker counterparts, have given the Boston coaching staff some solid contributions.

Speaking of coaching, the Zen-master himself, Phil Jackson (whom analyst Jeff Van Gundy used to refer to as “Big Chief Triangle” for a couple of apparent reasons), might have met his match with Glenn “Doc” Rivers, an up and coming motivational expert in his own right, e.g. showing old Muhammed Ali fights to his guys to show how to deal with adversity and, no matter what’s happening to you, make sure you get in your swings, too.  Phil’s been there more often, but when it gets to this point, it becomes more a players’ game anyway.

In all, it doesn’t matter what anybody thinks (although it makes for interesting water cooler, or watering hole, chit-chat), so let’s watch, enjoy … and, if you have a favorite, pull for your team.  Looking at “equality of rights before the law” as “the same rules of the game apply to all players,” the quote by Teddy Roosevelt sums up the true reason players play and fans watch:

“Our aim is to recognize what Lincoln pointed out: the fact that there are some respects in which men are obviously not equal, but also insist that there should be an equality of self-respect and of mutual respect, an equality of rights before the law, and at least an approximate equailty in the conditions under which each man obtains the chance to show the stuff that is in him when compared to his fellows.”

It seems to be an unwritten law that in a best-of-seven game series, when the game count is all square at two apiece, the team that wins Game 5 is going to come out on top.  Therefore, one would expect the big-time players to step forward, raise the level of their game and, if necessary, carry the team.  So how come the Boston Celtics (arguably) most potent weapon in Game 5 was the one and only … Kendrick Perkins?

The big guy who, coming into the playoffs, was a virtual unknown to all but the most rabid NBA fans, went for 18 points, 16 rebounds and two blocks against the Detroit Pistons as Boston took the all-important Game 5, 106-102.  How could something like this happen on the NBA’s biggest stage?

After watching it, I have a couple of points I think tell the not-so-remarkable story.  First of all, every game plan any team devises against the Celtics has to start with containing Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett.  Up until recently, Ray Allen had to be thrown into that mix as well and, since this is the playoffs, a team can’t afford to let a veteran with Allen’s history go unnoticed.  Now, the Celts starting five is down to two players and one of them is Rajon Rondo, their point guard and the guy who controls the ball at the beginning of most every possession.

This isn’t to minimize the tremendous impact Perkins had on the game, but due to the fact that he was nearly invisible, if someone 6′10″, 264 can ever be invisible, by the time the Pistons located him, he was putting the ball in the basket.  I broke down Perkins’ contribution into three parts.  First, was his play in the first half.  Not that it’s ever easy to score in the playoffs, but with the exception of one offensive rebound and an ensuing jump hook over Rasheed Wallace, every one of his baskets was either an easy put back (usually due to his defender rotating to stop the ball) and him getting an uncontested rebound or a pass from a penetrator and an uncontested dunk (see the aforementioned defensive rotation).

Second, and much more impressive, was his defensive rebounding.  This is where he truly asserted himself.  He was determined to end each Pistons’ possession after one shot.  Mark down that statistic as anything but easy.  After going into halftime with his stellar play in the first 24 minutes, what happened to him is what many coaches notice occurs to a “role” player, which, let’s face it, Perkins is for Boston. 

The confidence level skyrockets.  The Kendrick Perkins who came out following the intermission was someone who, up to that night, had been witnesed only by those fans of Clifton J. Ozen High School in Beaumont, TX and their opponents.  He began by snaring an offensive board and making a turnaround, fadeaway jumper - a move no one, including Doc Rivers, knew was even in his arsenal.  The rest of the half was more of the same … until, as happens with young players who can’t leave well enough alone, he over-stepped his bounds, getting slapped with a costly technical foul that, years from now, he’ll probably look back on and think, “What was my problem?  I almost ruined a near perfect performance with a bonehead move that could have doomed our team and all I did up to that point would have been forgotten because I would have only been known as the idiot who cost his team the game (and maybe the series - and maybe the NBA Championship).”

This whole scenario brings to mind a quote I read many years ago:

“Most people can’t handle prosperity.  Then again, most people don’t have to.”

Listening to the Game 5 of the Celtics-Pistons, the audience was entertained by the repartee between Mike Breen, the play-by-play guy (who has the tougher job between that and the color commentators) and Mark Jackson and Jeff VanGundy, the color guys.  Since his job is tougher (believe me, I used to do color and if you have a knack for it, e.g. analytical mind, knowledge of the game, quick wit and an ability to make a point and get out so you’re not talking over the action, it’s a relatively simple gig), he ought to stick to it and leave the color men to do their jobs.

For my money, the play-by-play man should describe the action while the color guy(s) should explain the why of what’s going on.  These three guys have a good chemistry among them and entertain and inform the listeners, while it’s very apparent, they’re having a great deal of fun doing their respective jobs.

It’s just that when Mike Breen moves out of his role of describing the action and makes attempts at color, his views are vastly different than his cohorts.  The reason is probably due to the fact that Jackson and VanGundy have been there and understand the inner workings of the game much better than Breen who, as most play-by-play men, have only a working man’s knowledge of the game.

Case in point: Breen argued vehemently for a flagrant foul to be called when Jason Maxiell went airborne for a layup and was fouled by PJ Brown.  His reasoning was that Maxiell was in the air and susceptible to injury due to the foul.  Each of his other members of the announcing team pooh-poohed that idea, saying this was playoff basketball and it was simply a good play, not allowing Maxiell a dunk and an easy two points.  The point was belabored more than necessary with Breen refusing to budge on what he truly felt was the right call (the refs did call it flagrant).  People who felt Breen was right, I imagine, weren’t swayed by the ex-pro player and his former coach, just as those who fell in line with the Jackson/VanGundy explanation never wavered in their opinion.  It just added unnecessary banter from what was a great game. 

My syunopsis is that Breen is speaking to the majority of the viewers who are watching the game because they have a favorite team, have a bet on it, or want people to think of them as basketball afficianados, while the small minority Jackson and VanGundy appeal to are true basketball purists, who understand the game on a much deeper level.  This isn’t to be taken as a criticism of the audience, just an observation I’ve witnessed time and again in the playoffs.

At this time of the year (high school and college seasons have long passed), there’s nothing as competitve at that pace than the NBA Playoffs.  In an attempt to liven the broadcast, we are subjected to the experiment of “miking” the coaches so we’re privy to what they say in the time out huddle and interviewing them at the end of each quarter.  I’ve yet to hear anything of substance and it’s plain to see that the coaches are doing this only because it’s in the television contract and think it’s one of the stupidest moves made by the new generation of TV producers.  “Well, we’ve got to rebound better,” Flip Saunders said after his team was outrebounded 28-11 in the first half.  If you went to the bathroom at that point and missed that gem, your enjoyment of the game was probably not affected.  The greatest example of why this is a bad idea is listening to Gregg Popovich, who looks like he’s on the verge of saying, “Oh, what the hell.  This is so ridiculous, just go ahead and fine me.  No one gains anything from these trite answers and you’re interrupting me doing my job.”  Now that he inked an extension, that day might come sooner rather than later.  And I don’t think any of his peers would blame him.

Sideline reporters are also a needless part of the broadcast.  Do we really get any insight from someone (other than occasional “eye candy” in the case of a couple of the females, that “they’re packing his ankle in ice which means his minutes will definitely be limited, if he returns at all.  Back up to you in the booth, guys.”  Wow, where’s my note pad?

All of these innovations had to have been implemented because of the proliferation of sports bars because, as Alben Barkley explained:

“The best audience is intelligent, well-educated and a little drunk.”  Â

(It’s good to be back after an eighth grade Memorial Day Tournament in Reno).

The pedigree of the highly successful college basketball coach runs the gamut from highly talented player (John Wooden, Larry Brown, Billy Donovan) to grunt (Roy Williams, Rick Majerus, Tom Izzo). 

Mark Edwards falls somewhere in between.  A good player at Washington University (that’s the Division III school in St. Louis, not the University of Washington of the Pac-10), he took a circuitous route to the coaching profession.  After a stint in the Army, his former college coach called and asked him to join his staff at his new job - Washington State - as a graduate assistant.  It was 1972 and when his service commitment ended in February (he also coached the Army team in San Antonio where he was stationed), he and his new wife, Mary, moved to Pullman.  Little did Mark know that his new boss would be terminated at the end of that season, so there he was, in the Palouse, waiting to see who the new coach was - and whether that new man would keep him on as a GA.

The new coach was George Raveling who recognized the intelligence and integrity Mark possessed (I’ve mentioned in previous blogs that George is one of the brightest men I’ve ever encountered; Mark is in the same category).  Rav also thought it would be a good idea to keep someone around who had knowledge of the roster, the school and the area.  The following season, I joined the staff as the other graduate assistant.

Working for George in those days was exactly that.  His intent, which he often made public, was that we were going to outwork any other staff, not only in the league, but in the country.  I don’t know if we did, but if someone beat us, they must have found a way to add more hours to the day.

After two years, I left to become a grad assistant at Oregon and its team then known as the Kamikaze Kids, while Mark stayed on at WSU in a full-time capacity.  In all, he remained with the Cougars for ten years.  By then, it was 1981 and I was at my sixth Division I school, the University of Tennessee.

We’d talk as frequently as Division I assistants could in those days (work and no cell phones eliminating a lot of opportunity for casual conversations), when one day, he told me his alma mater, which had dropped men’s basketball in 1970, was bringing it back and the AD there wanted to know if Mark would take the job.  I told him how foolish it would be for him and proceeded to list the reasons.

First of all, because there hadn’t been a program for over a decade, he’d get crushed for years!  The rule on recruiting was the prospects had to contact you first. Why would players contact a school with no team?  He felt that all the contacts he’d made with high school coaches through the past ten years, plus the academic reputation of “Wash U” - as it was known, that would make the process, while not easy, easier.  

Most of all, though, I said, it was Division III.  How could he consider, after all the time and work he put in for 10 years, to give it up for a D-III job?  There aren’t scholarships in Divsion III.  How could he ask a kid (and his parents) to work as hard as he was going to ask him to work, put in all the time he’d have to in order to compete in the classroom (Wash U is among the top 10-15 private schools in the nation), and then have to pay all that money?  Plus, I mentioned not as sheepishly as I should have, “What about giving up all the stuff?”

Division I guys get all kind of free gear (shoes, shirts, shorts, sweat suits), have pretty good expense accounts (especially at our level - the Pac-10 & SEC), stay in nice hotels, play on television, go to the NCAA & NIT (and get more stuff).  Your friends come up to you and say things like, “What’s it like watching Bill Walton from the bench?” and “Is Dick Enberg (who announced the Pac-8 Game-of-the-Week when we were at WSU- the AZ schools had yet to join the league) as nice a guy in person as he seems on TV?”

Mark, being more mature and having less ego, simply told me he was taking it because he loved the school, loved living in St. Louis and wanted to run his own show.  I wished him well (sincerely, because he’s one of the true “good guys”), but felt he was making a mistake because of all he was “giving up.”  I, also sincerely, couldn’t understand it.

Sometime around 1995, when I was at my ninth D-I institution, Mark and I got together at the Coaches’ Convention as we did every year.  He said something that floored me.  “Why don’t you take a Division III job?”  I was stunned.  In the past, I turned down a couple of D-III’s, because I was going for the brass ring.  Being the insightful guy he is, he read my mind and said, “I know it’s not the glamour of D-I, but think about it: you get to run whatever you want, you deal with great kids (when was the last time you read about a Divsion III player getting in trouble?) and you don’t have to put up with all that crap that’s become Division I recruiting?  It’s still coaching - once the ball goes up, you don’t care what level the game is - you just want to win.  Plus the relationships you make with the players - while not future pros - are future solid citizens and leaders, kids who come back and you’re just so proud of - because you know you made a difference in their lives.”  He was right and I knew he was right, but my whole philosophy of coaching and recruiting (too much to go into here) revolved around the Division I level.

In his first three years, Mark’s teams won a total of seventeen games.  Since then, the Bears have had twenty-four consecutive winning seasons.  Two years ago, Mark’s team went to the D-III Final Four and lost a heart-breaker in the semi’s.  This past year (his twenty-seventh at Wash U), Mark Edwards and the Washington University Bears won the Division III National Championship - by a score of 90-68, so not only did he win it all, but had a chance to actually enjoy it - during the game.

I told you he was smart.  He followed Jean Monnet’s advice:

“The world is divided into those who want to become someone and those who want to accomplish something.”

Congrats, Manny.  ¼/p>

SportsCenter has given us another baffling sound bite.  In an NFL segment, James Harris asked James Hasty four questions.  The only one I remember, probably because I was numb after hearing Hasty’s response to it, was his answer to the question, “Was Carson Palmer right for ‘calling out’ receivers Chad Johnson and T.J. Houshmandzadeh for missing ‘organized team activity’ (OTA) workouts?”

Since the quarterback is, more or less, the offensive captain of the team, I thought what Palmer did might have shown some strong, positive leadership skills - especially with 1) the well-publicized off-the-field, legal matters several of the Bengals’ players incurred and 2) their sub-.500 (7-9) record for the 2007 season.  It is a fact that both of the receivers have All-Pro talent and only they, and their teammates, may be aware of other issues that would cause their absence.  What I heard from James Hasty, though, absolutely startled me.

His answer was an emphatic “No,” that Palmer’s criticism of his teammates was unjust. I don’t recall what his reason was regarding Johnson, mainly because I was, and still am, in a state of shock over why he was firmly behind the “no show” by Houshmandzadeh, last year’s only Bengal to be named to the Pro Bowl.  “Carson Palmer is scheduled to make $118 million over the course of his contract,” Hasty explained.  “T.J. is in the final year of his contract and will make only $13 million this year.”  The rest of the segment, and the remainder of SportsCenter, were just a jumble of words.  Hasty, with a straight face, no facetiousness, no smirk or smile, no hint of sarcasm, actually said, ONLY THIRTEEN MILLION DOLLARS THIS YEAR.”  

I was waiting to see if he followed up that reasoning with, “And with gas going over $4 a gallon, …”  Only thirteen bleeping million dollars!  That poor bastard!  I can hear Hasty justifying the remark with, “Sure, he’s making $13 mil, but he’s in the last year of his contract.  What if he has a bad year and no one picks him up or, worse yet, what if he gets injured, what then?” 

“OK”, the hypothetical answer would go, “here’s ‘what then.’  Get a job like other people who can no longer play a game for a living, like most of us in society would have loved to be able to do (in fact, dreamed of doing), but simply weren’t good enough once our high school or college athletic careers ended.  Better yet, show a morsel of brainpower and salt away a few of your ‘only $13,000,000′ for later in life.  Lacking that iota of gray matter, hire somebody to invest your money (once you’ve taken into account the mandatory income needed to keep up a lavish lifestyle).”

“Only thirteen million dollars.” 

What’s an NFL blog without a quote from Lawrence Welk?  “The King of the Champagne Bubbles” got paid handsomely for what he did so well (entertain people - just like professional football players), but I doubt he was referring to the money when he made the statement:

“To be granted some kind of usable talent and to be able to use it to the fullest extent of which you are capable - this, to me, is a kind of joy that is almost unequaled.”

In a shrewd move prior to Game 7 in New Orleans, San Antonio Spurs Coach Gregg Popovich instucted his team, underdogs to the Hornets, to pack for a trip to Los Angeles following the game.  This flies in the face of the more conservative view of most coaches who will only talk about focusing on “one game at a time.”  It’s also proactive thinking and the type of bold move that has vaulted “Pop” into consideration as, possibly, the league’s best coach.  And, although not quite as dramatic, Popovich, a former military man, played on the “burn the bridges, men; it’s victory or death” theme.

The casual fan found out about the strategy innocently enough.  In a TNT post-game interview, Hall-Of-Fame player-turned award-winning studio commentator, Charles Barkley, asked Spurs’ guard Tony Parker if the team was flying home after the game or directly to Los Angeles.  Parker, somewhat hesitantly told Charles (and the entire viewing audience) that, yes, now the secret was known - they were going directly to LA.  Barkley, a veteran of many playoffs, verbally applauded the move, claiming that was definitely in the best interests of the Spurs.

There was one unforeseen problem, however.  Popovich failed to plan for Murphy’s Law.  So, when they boarded the chartered flight, they found out that there was a mechanical problem.  Think about it, now all of us have something in common with the defending World Champs - airplane mechanical problems that screwed up our plans (although I imagine their accomodations were somewhat nicer than what the rest of us had to deal with, it’s still nice to know millionaires share similar inconveniences to the rest of us common folks).  Apparently, getting the plane fixed wasn’t an option, so they called for another - which couldn’t get there until the next morning.  Pop told the squad it was a sleepover - get as comfortable as you can and “lights out at 2:00AM.”

No doubt, San Antonio’s faithful will be complaining about the situation, but Pop is a “no excuses” kind of guy and fully understands there’s another side of life than the cushy one those involved with the NBA experience.  Besides, with a twenty-point lead in the third quarter, it’s difficult to say it was at that moment that bed sores or cramped conditions from the night before took their toll on the bodies of the Spurs.

What does surprise me is that, with the multiple championships the Spurs have won recently, the club doesn’t have its own plane, as many NBA franchises do.  For now, though, it’s simply, move on to Game 2, obtain the split you want in the first two road contests and head to San Anton deadlocked at 1-1, with your guys holding home court.

As philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer remarked:

“Fate gives us the hand, and we play the cards.”

     ¼/p>

As soon as the Detroit Pistons clinched their playoff series against the Orlando Magic after just the fifth game of the series, the pundits started pondering the possible positives of the playoff picture for the Pistons (just wanted to show off my alliteration skills).

In all seriousness, much was made regarding the inordinate amount of rest the Pistons would get, waiting for the Boston-Cleveland series to wind up.  “Great news!” declared many, especially for Chauncey Billups, the All-Star guard for Detroit who was forced to watch Games 4 and 5 from the bench due to a hamstring injury which occurred early in Game 3.  Also, many claimed that, at this point in a long, grueling NBA schedule, rest is hard to come by and very much welcomed.  Advantage: Pistons

Looking at the situation from the Celtics’ viewpoint, would they be able to re-focus so soon after such an emotionally draining seven-game series, one in which the home team won every game and the clincher would go down in history as one of those classic nail-biting, epic battles (Paul Pierce’s 41 points vs. LeBron James’ 45 points)?  Advantage: Pistons

Or would all this work in the Celtics’ favor, as the ever-present “devil’s advocate” side would take, meaning, “When you’re in the groove, got it going (especially because Game 1 would be in Boston), the ‘Let’s get it on right now’ mentality will be to the Celts’ liking.”  Advantage: Celtics

Wait a minute, what about the slump Ray Allen is in?  Don’t you think he’d like a little time to regroup?  Advantage: Pistons 

Then again, would the Pistons’ rhythm be disrupted by having such a long stretch without a real game, especially Billups, who’s playing for the first time in nearly two weeks?”  Practice is fine, but there’s no way true, competitive game-type pressure situations can be simulated in practice.  Advantage: Celtics

And so it goes.  Advantage one side, advantage the other.  We seem to be in an era where cynical “know-it-all’s” feel it’s mandatory to take one side or the other in any controversy.  Sometimes it even appears that the job description for talk-show hosts and columnists is that they’re paid by the opinion and the stronger and louder that opinion is, the more they rake in.  Yet, maybe it’s not cowardice, but rational thinking that allows someone to not take a stand on an issue, or as Carl Jung said:

“The shoe that fits one person pinches another; there’s no recipe for living that suits all cases.” 

 Â

The last blog was intentionally shorter due to suggestions that I make the blogs more compact.  Actually, the suggestions were more like thinly veiled threats that if I didn’t condense them, this friend would never tune in again. 

One topic that never gets too old to discuss is “success.”  In any company, team, group or organization, the goal is to be successful.  How that’s achieved varies, especially in the case of a newly appointed leader, fresh out of the Leadership 101 course which, naturally, was just aced - complete with all the idealism that accompanies it.  Mistake #1 is talking about the “perfect” plan. 

While the more experienced of us know perfection can never be attained in anything, it can certainly be addressed - as it was by the late, Hall-Of-Fame coach Vince Lombardi.  The legendary leader, in his first-ever meeting with the Green Bay Packers team he inherited, explained:

 “Gentlemen, we are going to relentlessly chase perfection, knowing full well we will not catch it because nothing is perfect.  But we are going to relentlessly chase it, because in the process we will catch excellence.”

Consistency, passion, persistence, a true work ethic, total commitment and a complete devotion to the organization’s plan are the keys.  All that, and the leader had better have a thorough knowledge of whatever the relevant subject matter is as well as a clear, concise way of communicating it to the “troops.”  If all those traits are apparent, the trust a leader needs will follow.

Now that this recipe has been put out there for public consumption, there’s no reason for anyone not to be successful - or at least “catch excellence.”  However, it’s just like most things that are written, the implementation is a great deal more difficult than the theory.  Still, the great ones seem to have that knack, so at least we know it’s a possibility.  Give it a shot, you might come closer than you ever dreamed imaginable. 

When I asked a couple of long-time friends/daily readers of this blog for some constructive criticism, they made mention that the blogs are often too long.  If you were to see their daily schedules, it’s not like their appointment calendar resembles that of Barack Obama, John McCain or even, a local weatherman in Fresno (”Well, it looks like it’s going to be another hot one in the ‘No), but if you ask for advice, you ought to listen to it.  Besides, it wasn’t first time I’ve heard from someone that I tend to be on the verbose side (closer to the million and first time), so the following is an attempt to make an interesting observation in less time.

Game Seven of the Boston-Cleveland series gave fans all they wanted in a deciding game - a tightly, well-fought contest which was a classic - reminiscent of another Game Seven in Boston 20 years ago that was nearly identical to it.  That one involved two Hall-Of-Famers, Larry Bird and Dominique Wilkins, who scored 34 and 47 points respectively, with the lower of the “high scorer’s” team being the winner.  This one had two future Hall-Of-Famers (giving Paul Pierce the benefit of the doubt) and, once again, the player with the lower score of the two monster games (Pierce had 41, only to be outdone, individually anyway, by LeBron James who scored 45) coming away with the victory.

In any basketball game, there are countless blunders and this one was no exception,  but let’s focus on the two warriors (Pierce and James), mainly because in this country, at this time, it would behoove us to heed Vince Lombardi’s classic line:

“It is time for us all to stand and cheer for the doer, the achiever - the one who recognizes the challenge and does something about it.”

Now is the time of the year for graduation parties.  Last year, we threw one for our older son who is now a freshman at the University of California-Irvine.  This past weekend, my wife and I attended parties for a couple of other graduates, but these two, a boy and a girl, had just graduated from college. 

The difference is enormous.  Although making the transition from high school to college means the parents’ influence has diminished, the kids are still dependent on the old folks, even if it seems like the need might only be for money and figuring out “what to do with all this dirty laundry” (my wife was never happier than when our “Anteater” surprised her with a trip home for Mother’s Day and her present - a ton of clothes that needed to be washed, dried and folded - in the next 48 hours).

But the college degree?  That’s so much more final!  All of a sudden, it’s time to start making a difference in the world (unless it’s postphoned with more schooling, parties, tuition expenses and, of course, dirty laundry - no matter how smart they are, that’s the last problem college students, especially boys, solve).  Now it’s on to a career, receiving a check with someone’s name on it who actually isn’t related to you and, in most cases, living on your own.

The two parties were very different in many ways but both of them shared that common theme.  The boy, who’s now a good-looking young man, has the job he wants (or thinks he does) and is looking forward to becoming the success kids always hear they can be when they’re growing up - as long as they’ll put the effort into it.  The girl, whom I met as a teenager with a bubbly personality has grown into a young woman whose beauty can be best summed up with the word “innocence.”  When I looked at her, then at her dad, I just shook my head and he instantly knew where my thoughts were.  Reflecting on 22-year-old (and up) males and what their, for lack of a better word, intentions, are, he returned the gesture.  All I’ll say is I’m I glad I’m not in his shoes.  There are enough other problems in life to think about.

Another scary, or uplifting, thought (I guess, depending on your level of optimism and view of reality), is that following the college graduation, the son or daughter is (supposed to be) a responsible adult.  In a child psychology course I took, I remember the professor saying that there were three theories on how to raise children but, unfortunately, none of them worked.  What I (and I imagine all other parents) have found is that communication with the kids (from birth) is mandatory, instilling the proper values in them (more by the parents’ actions than their words) is invaluable, monitoring (with as little interference as possible) the peers they hang around with is a necessary evil, giving them positive reinforcement a must and finally, loving them (without smothering - which usually ends up being resented, or enabling - which is nothing but “false love,” i.e. making them “happy” instead of responsible) the ultimate trait.  Allow them to make decisions … and, as they grow older, the decisions can be on issues of greater importance.  Then, hope for the best. 

It’s not unheard of that some highly successful, wonderful, well-liked and respected people have been parents of misguided, problem children who grew up to be, unfortunately and apparently without a logical reason, the complete opposite of the fine people who raised them.  So, at the risk of minimizing the impact parents have on their child, there appears to be a great deal of truth in the quote attributed to Lynn Hall:

“We did not change as we grew older, we just became more clearly ourselves.”  ¼/p>