Jack’s Blog

My 6/20/08 blog mentioned that because the popularity of these blogs has grown leaps and bounds since it originated in April of 2007 (according to the number of  hits, visits and page views), that it might be easier on the readers for me to reprint some of the earlier ones (as opposed to asking you to scroll through the archives).

The 6/20 blog dealt with what would shock my father if he were to return to earth today (he’s been deceased since 1976).  Today’s is thought provoking as well, but of a more serious nature: the role of the “political strategist.”  Although I don’t claim to be a political expert (actually, I’m closer to a political dunce, with the minute amount of political knowledge - and interest - I have on the subject), the more I think of what the job description of political strategist entails, the more it seems that special interests and private agendas are much higher on the list of prerequisites than “making America better for everyone” is.  In any case, here was the blog from 4/22/07:

Immediately following one of my back surgeries (I’ve had eight), I was lying in the hospital bed watching a TV talk show. The guest was a political strategist (I can’t remember what the party affliation was) when I started to wonder, “What, exactly, is a political strategist?”

Having been an intercollegiate assistant basketball coach for nine institutions covering a 30 year career, I related the job to what I did when I scouted future opponents, i.e. find out the opponent’s strengths and weaknesses, assess our team and come up with a plan to counter what they do well, force them to do things they don’t do well and generally inspire our team to attack the opponent so we’d come out on top.  Occasionally, “literary license” on what the truth might have been was used in terms of quotes attributed to the opposition or something of the sort to inspire our team to victory. 

The major difference in the two jobs, i.e. basketball scout and political strategist, is that what I did was to help win a game. What politicians do affects our lives. If the opponent comes up with a great plan (which may be a “win” for the majority of the population), it seems like the strategist’s job is to find something wrong with it (even if it makes sense and the party agrees with the concept) or find a way to take credit for it, e.g. say something like, “it was really our idea to begin with.” 

As this gentleman was being interviewed, I could see the slant he put on each question & realized that while he was simply doing his job, he certainly wasn’t looking out for the average working person.

Possibly that’s why politics holds so little interest for me. I’ve always believed the most important aspect of any team (and I feel the USA is a team) is:

“What’s right is more important than who’s right.”

Our older son, Andy, turned to me earlier today and said, “Dad, now that the NBA season is finished, the College World Series is over (OK, not such a big deal in terms of the world-wide sporting scene, but unbelievably HUGE if you live in Fresno, as we do), no American men are left in Wimbeldon and Tiger’s out for a year, what are we going to do, until college football starts, for sports on the tube?”

Good question.  I have to admit that, while not a complete coach potato, I am in that family at some level when it comes to sports on TV.  I can barely drive a stick, so anything having to do with race cars doesn’t interest me, major league baseball doesn’t get it done until October; September at the earliest and the other “newly invented” sports, or reality shows with sports involved (Wipe Out!), just don’t make the cut. 

Prior to my eighth back surgery, I enjoyed playing tennis (admittedly, at a less than stellar level), but as far as watching it, avid was not the word that would come to mind when measuring my interest.  So that interest has waned even further over the past 6-7 years and, at the risk of being sued, I must admit I never particularly enjoyed watching the women play since, probably, Chris Evert retired.  Not meant to be a chauvinistic remark in any way, just an honest assessment of how I feel.

Back to my (and my son’s) dilemma.  Playing golf has taken over in my life in terms of recreation.  Although I’ve experienced a great deal of pain for quite a while, my surgeon and the other doctors at the Stanford University Pain Center have told me that, not only is it alright for me to play golf, they actually encourage it.  Of course, they encourage tennis as well but, maybe due to the age factor, maybe due to laziness (riding in a cart with a good friend, on a gorgeous day in a beautifully landscaped area seems to beat sweating in the unbearably hot Fresno sun on a tennis court) - probably the laziness, has turned me into a golf fan.

As a matter of fact, not picking up golf at an earlier age (see 5/9/07 blog) is one of several major regrets I have.  Maybe because every so often (admittedly, very, very rarely), you can hit a shot a pro couldn’t have hit any better, e.g. holing out an approach shot, chipping in from off the green, making a 45-foot putt or the ultimate: a hole-in-one.  Granted, your shot entailed a great deal more luck than the professional, but the result was still the same.

That’s where Andy’s remark about Tiger comes in.  Whether or not Tiger’s the greatest golfer of all-time (an argument that brings out sincere passion in many), his approach to the sport - and subsequent success - is what sets him apart from every other athlete.  There have been other dedicated professionals in all sports, but none with the dominance of Tiger Woods.  As far as Michael Jordan fans go, although not a fanatic in terms of my rec room being a shrine to MJ or possessing an ability to recite his stats from Laney (NC) HS through his time with the Wizards, you can still place me firmly in that camp.  Yet, Michael played with other guys, against other teams whereas Tiger plays against other guys, a lot of other guys - simultaneously (see 6/17/08 blog for additional opinions regarding why I place Tiger as the number one athlete ever).  All the information from that blog, plus the way he was raised by his late father, Earl, adds to his legacy.

There have been many “pushy” (for lack of a better word) dads, some of whom worked out okay, Press Maravich and Richard Williams are two who come to mind and some whose efforts may have backfired, (Marv Marinovich and Stefano Capriati).  If anyone could ever figure out why one parent’s methods work and another one’s doesn’t … wow, talk about a best seller - that book would outsell every book other than The Holy Bible.

There’s just a stigma to Tiger (and Earl) that absolutely captivates everyone - whether there’s a sports interest or not.  An example is the story told in the 6/23/08 issue of SI, in which “at a critical juncture of a long-ago U.S. Amateur,” Earl whispered into Tiger’s ear:

“Let the legend grow.”

And thus our gap until college football.

  �

The blog I did on 7/12/07 details how I got to Fresno - that my boss, friend and mentor, George Raveling, was in a near fatal car accident which forced him to retire, that my wife’s job was being terminated and moved to Fresno (which happened to be one of my options) and how I’d heard the community support was fantastic.  The blog also explains how, coincidentally, on our family’s “let’s explore Fresno” trip, we awoke on Sunday morning to the front page headline of the Fresno Bee, entitled “DOG HOUSE DIVIDED” and the inner turmoil that was going on in the athletics department between the men’s and women’s programs.

What I found infinitely interesting was, at that exact same time, USC was in court dealing with former women’s basketball coach, Marianne Stanley, who was suing the university, claiming she was entitled to the same money George Raveling was making.  After reading the Bee article (which was, I believe, at least a page and a half), it struck me that at SC, Stanley’s case really had no effect on the comraderie of the department.  Maybe it was because USC is so heavily endowed that money problems seldom exist, maybe because the contract offer Stanley had turned down would have made her the third highest paid head coach (male or female) on campus or maybe it was due to the fact that the case had no merit (Stanley lost it, appealed to a higher court and lost that, then appealed again to the state’s highest court whereupon the judge dismissed it in a “summary judgment,” which I found out later meant the judge felt the suit was so frivilous, he decided to act on it himself because bringing it to a jury would be a waste of time).

Yet, here was a school, Fresno State, where coaches were comparing the number of pages in each team’s press guides!  I still ended up a Bulldog and worked at FSU for seven years.  In 1998, the women’s softball team won the National Championship, the first in school history.  The 7/12/07 blog explains the idea I presented to honor the team and coaches in an attempt to reach out and unite the community with the champs and, also to possibly create some revenue for the department.

The reaction between the national championship at Fresno and those at USC (about a week prior to signing the contract to be associate head basketball coach, the men’s tennis team won it all) were strikingly different - just as strikingly different as the daily moods at each institution.  George insisted our staff go to the acknowledgement of the tennis championship and while there, it seemed I met, if not every coach in the department (male and female), at least a representative of each sport’s coaching staff.  That’s when I found about about “the Trojan Family.”  Sure, there are problems at SC, but as far as coaches and players getting along, the atmosphere at SC was much more similar to the other seven colleges I’d been than that at Fresno State.

Fresno State’s winning the College World Series was followed, deservingly so, by a parade and ceremony for the guys after they returned from Nebraska - similar to the one they had when the ladies won their championship and flew back from Oklahoma. I’m not sure how long the entire ordeal lasted, but I’m sure somebody had a stopwatch on it (as well as how much money was spent on each - to the penny).  It’s odd that there have yet to be quotes from other coaches and athletes at the school regarding the grandest possible accomplishment a college team can achieve, the ultimate goal of each sport.

I’ve mentioned on numerous occasions in meetings and to friends that the number one rule of any organization - “What’s right is more important than who’s right“ is violated way too often at Fresno State.  How much it’s changed in the six years I’ve been gone I don’t claim to know, but the quote from F. Lee Bailey always struck me as pertaining (on a lesser scale) to the situation within the Bulldogs’ athletics department:

“Can any of you seriously say the Bill of Rights could get through Congress today?  It wouldn’t even get out of committee.”

Of the thirty first round draft picks who were selected in the NBA draft, sixty percent were either freshmen or sophomores in college - and keep in mind, seniors in high school weren’t eligible to be drafted.  Is it because they’re clearly better than the upperclassmen (in some cases) or because of the attitude, “We know what the older guys can do, but can you imagine, with natural growth and maturity, how good this 19- or 20-year-old will be in a couple of years?”  And we thought we gave up on those kinds of reveries when we were youngsters.

Potential to some means “this player has a skill set that will allow him to (be a perennial All-Star, dominate, take our club to the next level, etc.”).  To others, all the word potential means is “maybe he can, but the one thing we know is, he ain’t done it yet.”  The NBA is chock full of stories of future superstars, full of potential, who were busts, just as it is full of non-first round (some even non-drafted, e.g. Ben Wallace), players who became solid 10-12 year veterans who helped win championships.

The draft is a crap shoot - maybe less now, with all the modern technology and work that teams put into making the “right” choice - than in years past, but it’s still very much inexact in nature.  First rounders Nikoloz Tskitishvili (2002, #5 pick), Jonathan Bender (1999, #5), Michael Olowokandi (1998, #1), Ed O’Bannon (1995, #9), Chris Washburn (1986, #3), the infamous Sam Bowie (trivia answer to “who was picked #2 over Michael Jordan in the 1984 draft?”) and the greatest bust of a #1 overall pick ever, LaRue Martin (1972), are names most of us have forgotten (except for the people who made the selections, if you can find any who’ll own up to it).  In some of the “bust” cases, namely O’Bannon and Bowie, injuries played a major factor in their limited NBA careers.  Then, of course, the other overall #1 many are still waiting for - Kwame Brown (2001) - could still be a star (he is only 26), but most people would feel he’s proven he deserves a spot in the above category. 

While it is too much work and responsibility to empower one person in the selection, it’s shocking (when the “war rooms” are shown on television), at how many people are in there!  It’s unfathomable that such a large group could agree on what to order for dinner!  Certainly, difference of opinion is good.  We all remember the line, “If you and I agree on everything, one of us isn’t necessary.”  But somewhere between mass confusion (let’s let everyone have a say) and omnipotence (raising of the voice and banging on the table), there’s a balance of “reasonableness,” where “what exactly have we seen him do,” needs to trump what we’ve seen him do that leads us to believe he’ll be able to do  in the future (we, especially the coach - depending on the length of his contract - hope he’ll do in the immediate future). 

And what about the foreign players?  How can they be properly evaluated?  Based on several insiders I’ve heard and spoken with, the love affair the NBA had with foreign players is on the wane - unless the Spurs come back and win it again.

What’s the answer?  Dick Vitale, never one to be short on opinions, feels the NBA should allow the great ones - Kobe, KG, LeBron, Rose, Mayo, Beasley - to enter the NBA right away.  According to Dickie V, the others need to go to college for a minimum of three years, a la the baseball rule.  Good idea, but here are a few questions that are left unanswered - possibly because there are no answers.  What about the kids who think they’re in that select group?  Who determines who’s in and who’s not?  Isn’t that what we had before?  Kids, hearing sweet whispers in their ears about how good they are (so the whisperer could cash in for between 3 and 15%), making the mistake of jumping directly from high school to the NBA?  Or sometimes a SHOUT, as in “he’s a diaper dandy!”  If college guys wear diapers, then wouldn’t it stand to reason that high school kids wear them, too?

How come no one knew that Andrew Bynum, who many think is the key to giving the Lakers what they need to “win it all” (so Kobe can ask Shaq about his taste buds), and who was picked at #10 in the 2005 draft was better than Martell Webster, who was picked #6?  Gerald Green was a high school kid and was selected in the first round (#18), but C.J. Miles, Louis Williams, Andray Blatche and Amir Johnson were scholastic stars who went in the (non-guaranteed money) second round.  In 2004, many in the San Joaquin Valley questioned the Seattle Supersonics when they chose Bakersfield’s Robert Swift with the 12th pick of the first round.  He hasn’t contributed much (and many think he never will) but, unless he’s a complete fool, he has a pretty sizable bank account - and who’s to say a year (or three) in college wouldn’t have exposed him more than benefitted him.  The NBA will say that’s why Dick’s idea is a good one.  Swift and his family will say why what existed at that time was just fine.

Everyone (NBA executives, team owners, coaches, players, fans, TV commentators, and whoever’s left) looks at the problem through a different set of glasses.Where is the starting point; what’s the overriding paradigm?  Until that’s figured out, the ultimate answer is probably as murky and philosophical as Frank Crane’s quote:

“Nobody has things just as he would like them.  The thing to do is make a success with the material I have.  It is a sheer waste of time and soulpower to imagine what I would do if things were different because they’re not different.”      �

Most people have offered their opinions on which player the Chicago Bulls, with the rights to the number one pick in the 2008 NBA draft, should select and it’s as close to unanimous as can be (meaning I haven’t heard anyone disagree) that Derrick Rose deserves that honor.  This makes sense for all the reasons I’ve heard - plus one.

The Chicago Bulls have a new head coach in Vinny Del Negro who has more charisma (a significant amount) than head coaching experience (none).  Whether he was born with charisma or was educated in its art from his college coach, the late Jim Valvano (who had as much or more of it than anyone I’ve ever known) is uncertain, but it’s that quality that will determine his success in his first coaching job more than any other factor, e.g. system, strategy, substitution pattern or anything else purely basketball-related.  His greatest need is in that all important coaching trait of getting his guys to buy in to what he wants.  He was a point guard and that’s why he needs a point guard - one who’s talented enough to run a team, but also one who’s been with the club for a lesser amount of time than he has been, so his “leader on the floor” realizes who’s in charge (don’t laugh, it’s not as obvious as it ought to be in today’s NBA).  That’s why Derrick Rose is more vital to him than a big man, e.g. Tim Duncan or a great scorer, e.g. Kobe Bryant (even though Kobe also is a lock-down defender).  Rose will, when necessary, take on a subordinate role to his coach sooner than the other two.

Young coaches seldom win, not due to lack of experience, but usually because they inherit a bad job.  It’s imperative they have a team the coach is comfortable with more so than one that’s ultra-talented (yet less talented than many others in its division, hence the job opening). 

A similar situation exists in Miami with first-year head man, Eric Spoelstra, who has coached (nine years of “coaching” with the Heat, including the last three years leading their summer league team), but doesn’t have the presence Del Negro seems to possess (how could anybody, working for another King of Charisma, Pat Riley).  The Heat were 15-67 last year, so they certainly are in need of an infusion of talent (having a healthy Dwyane Wade would significantly help as well), but no one player will be able to turn that abysmal record around.  The grinding NBA schedule means those inevitable losing streaks - usually occurring during road trips.  While losing’s bad enough to deal with, any “off-the-court” incidents (or “on-court” incidents - all of which are recorded for the media to play and replay as many times as a light or heavy sports day dictates) become ancillary problems that will consume a young coach’s work day, which is already packed from sunrise until all his players finally check back into the team hotel (most of time, well after sunset).

That may explain why Pat Riley, the Heat’s president, expressed doubt about the character of the most likely number two pick, Michael Beasley.  Spoelstra is Riley’s hand-picked successor and just the thought of someone, let’s call it “misbehaving” for the sake of a G-rated blog, during a time frame when the team is stringing together multiple losses, undermines any chance of success a new, young coach has.  Not that O.J. Mayo (the most likely replacement candidate) is going to be on the cover of Role Model magazine anytime soon (unless the only choices were USC alumni named O.J.), but the article done on Beasley by Sports Illustrated during the college basketball season showed not only an immature college freshman with a history of “misbehavior,” but a somewhat unrepentant one at that. 

Teams have way too much money invested in these picks and they hope to make such a good one, they’ll never have to pick this high again (being a regular on the “ping pong ball show” is very hazardous to your employment health).  As Henry Miller said:

“The real leader has no need to lead - he is content to point the way.”

He just needs to make sure he’s pointing to the right guy.

Each year, those who get paid to inform us about which teams will select which players in the upcoming NBA Draft, always point out that there seems to be a trend of some sort.  One year, it was the drafting of high school kids (now made irrelevant by the rule stating a high schooler needs to go to college - or post-high school - for at least one year); another year, it was a fondness for foreign players; some years, it’s playmakers, i.e. guys who can run a ball club and get it into some semblence of an effective offense (much more difficult to accomplish than it sounds); while still other years, it’s guys who can “score the ball.” 

Before I go any further, I realize to be a real basketball insider, you have to be down with the freshest “basketball-speak,” but have you ever heard a statement any more ludicrous than “score the ball?”  What else can you score?  “Gee, Jim, he’s really having trouble scoring the ball tonight, but he’s absolutely deadly scoring his socks … and did you see him score that Gatorade bottle he polished off at the last time out?  Wow, talk about being en fuego!” (Another basketball insider term, or at least, it used to be).  If you can’t “score the ball” in a game of hoops, but still want to be on the squad, you’ve pretty much pigeonholeded yourself as someone who’d better average 15-20 assists/game or be a “shut-down defender.”

As far as this year’s trend, it looks like, of the top 14 selections, i.e. “lottery picks,” 7 or 8 of them will be college freshmen (the “one and done” guys).  There’s some debate that college players ought to spend at least three years on college campuses (mainly supported by people who’ve gone to more than three years of college), but if memory serves me correctly, this type of idea was, or a version of it was, determined to be unconstitutional. 

When asked if this is a good rule, the anwers I’ve heard have all been in the affirmative, but the reasons have varied: 1) the NBA’s evaluation process is now so much more advanced, as each of the teams have gotten to see the kids (they’ll be spending zillions on) in a highly competitive environment, answering questions they’d never have known if they’d have entered the league straight out of high school, 2) the fans get to see these kids in action so they can relate to them better (how much more acquainted with Derrick Rose and Michael Beasley is the average fan today than if each had turned pro right after whatever type of schooling they were receiving last year?), 3) another year for the NBA to “market” these guys and the remarkable skills they possess and 4) it gives these kids another year to mature as players and young men (like coming from poverty - in many cases - then being on a college campus for one year, followed by a season full of adulation from people you didn’t grow up with, climaxing in getting more money than you’d ever seen in your life will help in making good, sound financial decisions). 

None of these address the question, “What, if anything, are any (or the majority) of these guys doing in college?”  Do they even understand that they’re in college - or do they look at this time as an audition for the job of their dreams?  Is anything going on in terms of an academics or is the “one and done” rule a sham?  What’s their attendance like in class?  And, what kind of courses are they taking?  If the NBA is sending kids they (and the rest of us) know are only going to be there for a single academic year, why not set up a curriculum in: how to choose financial advisors, lawyers and other trustworthy people to help maximize the windfall that will be coming your way (or what to do if that bubble bursts and the dream isn’t realized); explain saving vs spending vs investing; proper nutrition and the effects of putting the wrong foods (as well as illegal substances) in your body, i.e. courses that will mean something to them after their year-long sabbatical and courses that they, if not want to go to, will illustrate why there ought to be exceptions to the rule. 

I’m not trying to be some kind of academic prude.  I’m just saying, “OK, if they’re not allowed to go directly into the league after their scholastic careers are finished, have a contingency plan.”  Let them play, in the developmental league!  Isn’t that what a developmental league is for?  I am realistic enough to know that numbers 2 and 3 above are rendered meaningless should the “D” League become the solution and a whole lot of people would be upset if 2 and 3 weren’t part of the college basketball landscape.  This bit of (unsolicited) advice solves everyone’s dilemmas (I can think of).

When the smoke clears, however, there is only one trend: which young men do the NBA decision-makers think give their clubs the best chance of winning … right now!  And it does nothing to do with “trends.”  The NBA owners, GM’s, coaches, etc. don’t care what the thinking is behind the pick, just that:

“To whom much is given, much is expected.”

George Carlin’s first television appearance was in 1965, which would make me a 17- or 18-year old at the time.  I couldn’t imagine a funnier guy.  The “hippy-dippy weather man” bringing us “the hippy, dippy weather, man” and his evening forecast of “dark tonight, continuing dark throughout the night with widely scattered light in the morning” was brilliant - in its simplicity.

Later in his career, Carlin proclaimed to be at odds with what his act was about, the generation to whom he was delivering it, yet the generation he felt he was more a part of and went about directing his humor in different areas.  He became more anti-whatever: (government & religion to name two)  and drifted away from his early comedy, which I thought was absolutely hysterical.  In essence, he moved into making jokes about what was happening with and to the new generation while I wanted to keep laughing at the old comedy routines, which were better than anybody else’s at that time - at least anybody I can currently think of.  I guess he became my age and I became his.

The defining split came in his 1972 album, AM/FM, which, on one side basically said what was allowed on AM channels (the old, more staid, funny stuff) and what could be said on FM channels (the new, vulgar, funny stuff).  It was then I realized he was just a funny guy.  The things he said, the topics and people he insulted, all of it, was great comedy.  I just hapened to enjoy the then-Carlin more than I did the now-Carlin.  It wasn’t for the same reason he fell out of favor with many in America; I just preferred that brand more.

Yeah, he was irreverent and offensive, but as comedian and border line worshipper of George Carlin, Bill Maher, said, “If you took the jokes out of his act, it would still be an interesting speech.”  That line opened my eyes.  I was between 17-24 and didn’t care about what was going on in the world.  Like many my age, I cared about the same thing we all did - myself.  Make me laugh - don’t make me think.

As I matured, I still enjoyed his earlier stuff more, but that’s because I think it’s some of the cleverest comedy ever delivered - and delivery was a crucial key because no one was as good in that area, at that time, as George Carlin. Then I began to understand his post-1972 comedy and as I did, I saw he was much more than a comedian, he was a philosopher and a borderline genius.  What he saw was Americans taking themselves too seriously; maybe America taking itself too seriously - and, in his own creative manner, he pointed it out - in comedic fashion, but one that upset people.

Rather than paying heed to the adage: “There’s a great deal of truth in comedy,” many of his listeners, and many more who claimed they didn’t listen screamed at how offended they were (I never could figure out how you could be offended by what someone said whom you didn’t listen to).  I looked at his new schtick as entertaining on a political level as opposed to a simplistic one, e.g. his monologue on the difference between football and baseball, which is priceless (and a skit I can think would offend only someone whose sense of humor was surgically removed). 

To me, George Carlin was someone who was in the upper 1/10th of 1% of those who do what he did.  Somewhere along this “new American way,” i.e. looking for words, statements and/or conversations (private and public) to kick start a lawsuit - either they’re too shallow in nature but someone wants to make a big deal over them or they’re truly deep in nature and while we would benefit discussing them, people are determined to be contrary, the life is sucked out of people like George Carlin.  The best quote here is one I used to wrap up my 11/3/07 blog (please excuse the duplication, I really try to use new ones each time, but I couldn’t find one more applicable):

“Too many people take themselves too seriously and their jobs too lightly.”

The Fresno State Bulldogs’ baseball team is in the College World Series’ Finals!  That means that of all the intercollegiate baseball teams in the entire country, there are only two left -and one of them is the Bulldogs (in reality, both of them are the Bulldogs, because Georgia shares the same mascot as Fresno State - my apologies to the people from Georgia who think that should be stated in reverse order).

ESPN commentators, in making the comparison of what Fresno State’s Diamond Dogs have done, to a similar accomplishment for a team in basketball’s March Madness, said it would be like a #13 seed playing in the Final Four.  And everybody thought 11th-seeded George Mason shocked the world!  Not only are the ‘Dogs in the “Final Four,” they’re in the final game, er, games, since in baseball, it’s a best-of-three series. 

Does that mean their feat would equate to simply being in the Final Four because they actually need to win two games (albeit against the same opponent) to win a National Championship?  Baseball sure is a complicated game, with all these rules and such, yet when it comes to second guessing, “Game’s On” for all the pundits. 

Although I worked at FSU for seven years, I never knew Mike Batesole since he got there after I’d departed.  One thing that has impressed me with him when I’ve heard him interviewed is he seems like a real “baseball man.”  That’s why I thought it was laughable to read and hear all of the criticism he received for not going to his closer, Brandon Burke, in the prior evening’s game with UNC - and watching Carolina win it with a two-run homer.  

If only he’d listened to the critics - you know, the ones who don’t want to recruit any of the kids on the team, work with them in the off-season, and struggle through a miserable first dozen or so games - just the ones who, after he’s gotten them to within one game of the Finals, want to make the walk to the mound, look out to the bullpen and tap the right arm, signaling to bring on the big fella.  It doesn’t work that way.  In for a dime, in for a dollar. 

A baseball coach’s decision-making process isn’t quite so easy as Alice Caldwell Rice once explained:

“Ain’t no use puttin’ up your umbrella ’til it rains.”

Coaching any sport requires making strategic moves, be they impulsive (”gut-feeling”) or well-thought out (totally based on computer data compiled from the season, post-season or head-to-head confrontations) or anywhere in between.

When I was younger (even well into my 20’s), I loved to play baseball and, if I had to pick a sporting event to watch in person (not counting sitting in a luxury box, in which case, I’d be available for curling), it would be baseball.  However, I have to admit that the College World Series has never been on the list of sporting events I tune into on an annual basis. 

It was never for a lack of being around good college baseball since I worked at many institutions (Washington State, Tennessee, USC and Fresno State) where baseball was played at a level equal to or better than many of the lower professional leagues.  And I’ve always been quite close with the coaching staffs - head coaches and assistants alike (at WSU, my roommate was the future head man at Washington and the Naval Academy, Bob MacDonald, at the time, chief assistant to Hall-of-Fame coach Bobo Brayton), yet for some reason (probably recruiting, which seemed to interfere with many other interests, but was a good idea to diligently work at, especially to remain employed) I never got into the CWS.

Until this year.  And the magical run the Fresno State Diamond Dogs have made.  Baseball’s always been a popular sport at FSU.  It has to be one of only a handful of schools whose teams have had three coaches in the history of the university (which covers sixty years)!  While this season started slowly, the Bulldogs have seemed to master that legendary phrase, “peaked at just the right time” and are on the verge of, possibly, winning the whole deal, which would set off a celebration that (with the exception a small, very bitter minority) would unite the community. 

Impossible, some experts may say (about winning it all, not uniting the community - that’s another story), but if FSU (the West Coast one) does not claim the championship, there are only two others who can - and that number could have been one, had not a late game two-run homer kept North Carolina’s chances alive. 

During the FSU-UNC contest, there were so many decisions the opposing coaches had to make, most of them coming down to “Do I make this decision based on 1- we gotta win today (more for UNC’s head coach, Mike Fox, than Fresno’s Mike Batesole, but don’t think for a minute that idea wasn’t in his head as well) or 2- in case we have to play tomorrow, what will we have left?”  In the CWS, due to the double elimination and TV format, i.e. games being played so frequently, the thought-making process must be organized well in advance - and then, based on the flow of the game, injuries (major and minor), a coach’s gut feel or, maybe even a superstition (a huge factor in all of baseball), all of that planning may be thrown out the window and a “let ‘er rip” philosophy takes over.

So far this post-season, Batesole’s “dice” have been hot.  A bad pitch cost the ‘Dogs an easier path to the Finals, but the next game’s just around the corner and we could see an “all-Bulldogs” (Georgia’s already in) best-of-three championship pairing after all.

To some, the coaches’ choices may look like they rely more on action than vision, but believe me, there’s so much preparation involved, each boss undoubtedly takes into account leadership author, Keshavan Nair’s advice:

“Action without vision is like shooting without a target.”

Curt Schilling is shutting down his baseball career for the remainder of this season and, in his words, may have “thrown my last pitch forever.”  Some time ago, the Red Sox medical director advised a course of rehabilitation for Schilling who had injured his shoulder.  He then went to another doctor, Craig Morgan, for a second opinion.  Dr. Morgan advised Schilling to undergo surgery, but he declined and went with the rehab plan.

After making his announcement that his season is done and his career might be finished as well, a reporter asked Schilling the question, “Does this mean Dr. Morgan was right?”  He paused, before saying, “I don’t know and I don’t care.”

This could very well be a telling remark.  Many times in his past, Curt Schilling has been involved in verbal battles with teammates, other colleagues and media members.  A very close friend of mine (who happens to be a member of the media of one of Schilling’s career stops) told me that Schilling could be a great interview for the national guys, but an arrogant ass with the “locals.”  When your career has taken you from Baltimore to Houston to Philadelphia to Arizona to Boston, there’s a good chance you’ve antagonized a lot of “locals” along the way.

At the end of every great player’s career, there’s always the question of will he or won’t he be elected to the Hall-of-Fame?  Schilling’s credentials are sensational (to his supporters), yet can be argued as good, but not good enough (by his detractors, i.e. those he upset along the way to a fabulous career).  On the plus side, he’s as good a money player, i.e. “clutch in the post-season” as even a Reggie Jackson (and possibly as obnoxious - according to other media people I know).  A vital member of three World Championship teams with a post-season record of 11-2, a World Series record of 4-1, and a 2.23 ERA all have to work in his favor.  Many people, when they think of Curt Schilling’s post-season performances, will use the words “heart” and “ankle” on multiple occasions. 

Regular season statistics are split when it come to “worthiness” of HOF voting.  On the plus side is certainly the post-season performances as well as his 3,116 strikeouts, six All-Star appearances, three-300 “K” years and as many 20-win seasons.  Although it’s not supposed to factor into the equation, his charity work on behalf of finding a cure for ALS (Lou Gehrig’s Disease) will be difficult to disregard.

It’s hard to say “only 216 wins” can be held against him, but there are players who are not in the HOF with better (as far as numbers go) credentials.  The biggest reason as to whether Schilling gets his ticket to Cooperstown punched will be his relationships (or lack of) with people.  Why should this be such a determining factor?  Because players get voted in and it’s people who vote.  The “human element” always matters.

If I had a vote, Curt Schilling would get a “Yea” from me, but I don’t know him, never met him.  All I’d go on is what I saw him accomplish on the field and to me, that should be the overriding ingredient for membership into any Hall-of-Fame.  Which is why I think it’s absurd there even exists such a place without Pete Rose in it.

Maybe it ultimately comes down to:

“You reap what you sow.”�