Jack’s Blog

One of the topics that comes up every year at this time, i.e. high school basketball tournaments in which schools of all sizes and philosophies compete, is whether the team with the insurmountable lead should call off the dogs or act like pit bulls.

It’s one of those arguments in which each side is certain beyond any doubt they’re right - and has its laundry list of reasons why.  In the end, both sides come away frustrated with the other, because neither has convinced its antagonist the error of its ways and when all is said and done, they both walk away feeling even more strongly about their side in the debate than they did prior to it.

Speaking for the “Why is it necessary to humiliate your opponent?” are those who probably have been in that situation before and remember how helpless a feeling it was.  Call them compassionate - or soft - they’re the guys who will substitute freely, call off the full court press and realize that further pounding away at an inferior opponent does nothing to make them a better team.  In the back of the coach’s mind is the “Every dog has its day” thought as well as “What goes around, comes around.”  I recall a coach telling me that he felt he didn’t see the necessity to run it up to feel comfortable in the job he did, that he was at ease knowing his team was properly prepared and executed by watching the game unfold in the manner it did.  He didn’t need to widen margin of victory to think of his team - or himself - as successful.  This particular gentleman coached football and would “take a knee” inside the opponent’s five-yard line, rather than pad the final tally.  

Representing the polar opposite approach is the “Step on your opponent’s throat” belief because, if the roles were reversed, they’d surely do it to you.  Many on this side of the altercation say, without any regard for sympathy, if you don’t like it, get better players (on the college level - for the most part), or do a better job coaching the ones you have (high school - or, really, any level, i.e. don’t ever let your team settle for being the sacrificial lambs).  Ironically, many of these coaches eventually find themselves on the other side, especially if they’ve moved to the next level and, to give the ones I have known credit, they do not change their belief (although they certainly can’t enjoy being on that end of an annihilation).  Who does?

Also on this side of the controversy are those who are less emotional than the aforementioned, but express their stance in a more logical format.  While they don’t espouse the theory of destruction, they explain why they choose to “keep the foot firmly on the floor during such blowouts in the following manner.  First of all, they point out, “This is how we play - all out pressing and trapping on defense and attacking when we have the ball” and they don’t want their guys playing any other way, since doing so would stray from the fabric of their core belief.  Secondly, when they substitute, don’t those kids, who’ve practiced just as hard as their teammates, deserve to show what they can do - within the system?

I’m not sure if having the best advice makes someone a great leader or whether someone is a great leader because he (or she) always seems to give the best advice.  Unquestionably, one of the best leaders in history (and regarding this man there seems to be no debate) was Sir Winston Churchill, who, on this difference of opinion, will have the final say:

“We shall show mercy, but we shall not ask for it.”Â

This is the time of year for basketball tournaments.  Colleges are in between semesters or quarters and high schools are on Christmas break.  For the purpose of this blog, we’ll concentrate on the high school variety.

Reasons for this are there are high school tourneys in all areas of the country, but many are the low budget kind, i.e. teams coming to play for the competition, as opposed to which tournament is giving them the best deal or the most swag.  Although each “tournament director” (in almost every instance, it’s the host school’s coach) tries to attract a “drawing card” or two, i.e. one or two of the traditional powerhouses in the state, the majority of the teams participating are local, where the players on the respective teams know each other.  Possibly, they’ve played on all-star (e.g. AAU) teams in the summer, or just as likely, they may just have competed on the playgrounds in pick up games.

Often, coaches get a little carried away and attempt to light the motivational fire by saying something about one ot two of the upcoming opponent’s players (usually the better ones).  It might be something the coach - or the assistant coach who’s giving the scouting report (or a “friend” of theirs ) overheard the star say, be it something derogatory about “our” team or about the guy whose job it is to defend the star.  Occasionally it’s true, other times, a little white lie.  Just a ploy to get the team emotionally ready for the upcoming challenge.

Players usually find it amusing, not out of disrespect for their coaching staff, but because they know these guys and, quite possibly, have been texting, emailing, my spacing, face booking or whatever kids nowadays for the week or so before the tournament.  Sort of a friendly trash talking.  After all, isn’t that what they see on television - during games or, better yet, in commercials!

I have completed listening to Ted Turner’s recently published book on CD (and am listening to it for the second time because he is such a fascinating individual - positively and not-so-positively - depending on which of the numerous responsibilities he describes).  In the book, he discusses something similar to the topic above, but on a much grander scale - and that is, leaders of countries whose philosophies are in oppostion to each other.  Ted claims the following, the truth I’ve believed in for a long, long while:

“It’s easy for people to hate people they don’t know.  However, it’s very hard once they do get to know them and realize how much they have in common.”  

To go from 1-15 to Division Champs is a remarkable accomplishment, mainly because each end of that is a remarkable feat in and of itself.  It’s difficult to win only one game in an NFL season (ask the Detroit Lions).  Seriously, the way the league is set up, with the teams drafting in reverse order of their records and the schedule set up to help out the clubs which had the poorest records in the prior season, you’d think that some type of competitive balance (and pride) would give a team at least a few shots at winning.

Yet, last year, the Miami Dolphins lost 15 of 16 contests.  In came the demanding and knowledgeable (probably in equal amounts) Bill Parcells, along with one of those long-time assistants, Tony Sporano, a guy waiting (quite a while) to get his shot as a head coach.  With the addition of, among others, Chad Pennington, a talented player, but one who became expendable when the New York Jets had the opportunity to sign the immensely popular Brett Favre, the Miami Dolphins did what coaches and the TV and radio talking heads mention all the time as the main intangible to winning: they bought in to the philosophy of the organization.

There was disagreement regarding the Favre decision between two very astute television personalities.  First, Cris Collinsworth (a fine NFL player in his own right and someone who’s made a seemless transition to the TV side) said the Favre move looked good at the time, but people would have to admit Pennington got his revenge and in hindsight, it was a move that probably should not have been made.  Costas disagreed, saying that even with the benefit of looking back, it was something that needed to be done because the Jets didn’t have an identity.  But I digress from the true point of this blog.

One of the other talking heads, former Super Bowl winning NFL quarterback (and Fresno State’s own) Trent Dilfer drew the comparison between what went on with the 2008 Dolphins and what occurred with our Olympic men’s basketball squad.  Embarrassed in the previous Olympics, Coach Mike Krzyzewski, someone who feels, first and foremost, that buying in is mandatory for a team to reach its maximum potential, had several exercises in place to find out which guys he could count on to “buy in” and went with those players.  Fortunately for him, the ones who did were exactly the ones he needed (mainly Kobe Bryant - to name the one vital cog in the Olympian’s success).

On a similar note, the Dolphins followed suit and fell in line with what the coaching staff (and anyone would be naive if Bill Parcells weren’t counted among that group) demanded.  And now they’re Division Champs.  Dilfer passed on a major compliment when he, off the cuff, blurted out to the youth of America, “Hey, kids, try to be like the Dolphins, not the Cowboys.”  Dallas’ fall from grace is probably fodder for another blog at another time. 

For now, Carolina Panthers’ coach John Fox has the last say (quoting his line from a few years ago):

“You can force players to do what you want, but it won’t work in the long haul if they don’t believe in it.” Â

As has been noted in the blogs I’ve posted, I have had to deal with an awful lot of back pain.  The insurance our school district has might not be the best in the country, but I’ve yet to hear of one that’s even as good. 

One drawback, however, is the prescription drug plan - and I really can’t complain much about this either - except for one small item.  They want you to mail in your prescriptions and get the drugs by mail order.  I have done this numerous times - and by numerous, I mean they surely made hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars off of all my maladies (and the corresponding pills) over the past seven years.  However, when I get a script for a pain medicine, I’d hope they would understand that I want it filled immediately and not have to mail it in and wait - while I’m suffering.

I tend to joke around - often - but the pain I, and several of my colleagues, experience is not only not funny; it’s nothing short of excrutiating.  This blog, though, is not about pain.  To summarize this prelude: it would have cost a ton of dough to get a refill at my pharmacy (refills at the pharamcy are not covered by my insurance), but I needed these pills in a hurry.  I was told to request from the prescription drug provider a “one-time override.”  This was denied.  I could get a mail order refill, but I’d get only a one month supply for the same price as a three month supply because they didn’t have the original script (I agreed) and it would cost extra to get them overnighted (agreed again).  When pain’s involved, you’ll agree to almost anything.

The woman who answered said it still wouldn’t go out that day because it first had to be processed (which could take 3-5 business days).  Then it would be overnighted.  I asked to speak to a supervisor who, after hearing my story, capped off with my hypothetical question, “How would you get this done if it were your mother who needed it?” said he understood and would take care of it.  That was the Tuesday, December 23 and I’m still without pill, but with increasing pain.

Here’s what I’m really blogging about (after all of that)!  I called the company today and I heard a greeting I realized I hear on so many companies’ automated phone messages:  “In order to measure the quality of service we provide our customers, your call may be monitored or recorded.”  My main question is this:

Who do they think they are kidding? 

1) There are probably thousands of calls daily.  Who has the time to listen to each one (or any of them for that matter) to “measure the quality of service (they) provide to (their) customers”?

2) Do you know, or have you heard, of anyone who actually has this type of job?

3) Have you ever seen such a position ever advertised?  I’d think, with as boring as it sounds, there wouldn’t be a plethora of applicants - even in the present economic condition many folks are in?  It doesn’t sound like a real plum job.

4) It sounds like the kind of thing that would be done to someone the company wants to pink slip, but due to tenure - or because it’s the boss’ relative - they can’t, so they decide to make life so miserable, he or she will quit - or opt for an early retirement.

5) Plus, how depressing does the position sound?  By the time you listened to your first call, there would be three or four more that just came in.  It would be a modern day version of Sisyphus, the poor soul from Greek mythology, who was cursed with the punishment of rolling a boulder up a hill, only to watch it roll back down, forcing him to repeat the act - throughout eternity.

6) Even if somebody did this job, how would he or she have time to call a meeting - or even send out an email - letting the rest of the company know the results?

7) Assuming someone did listen, and got the word out to the co-workers, why does the service on the calls continue to be so incompetent?

To paraphrase Will Rogers:

“You’ve got to be an optimist to be a customer of some of these companies, and you’ve got to be a humorist to stay one.”   Â

The three candidates are the original one, the one that made it famous and today’s.  Once again, we have entered an unwinnable, unprovable argument.  Still, it’s fun to compare and even more fun to hear it debated - live - at your local pub.

The old-timers point out that team play was at its best back then.  By “back then” we’re including the NBA all the way up to the 1969-70 Knicks and the 1971-72 Lakers.  Proponents will claim that sound fundamentals were more prevalent (admittedly because the players didn’t possess the innate ability of today’s freakish athletes).  Only the best played because there were only eight teams (1960, 14 in 1970), salaries were such that players had off-season jobs - and that didn’t include shooting commercials for endorsement deals - the men played for the true competitive aspect of the sport so winning was of paramount importance (playoff shares weren’t pocket change for the superstars, but coveted income) and guys had roommates on the road.  The people claiming this era say over and over, the game was pure.  Note: it is somewhat of a stretch including the ‘69-’70 Knicks and the ‘71-’72 Lakers in this group but the line had to be drawn somewhere - and it’s my blog.

What wouldn’t be a stretch is making the statement that the best and most dominant team of all-time was Red’s (and Russell’s) Celtics.  A team composed of Cousy, the Jones boys (Sam and K.C.), Ramsey, Heinsohn, Luskie, Nellie (yeah, that Nellie), Satch, Hondo and, of course, the greatest winner ever, Big Russ himself.  Before anyone says that era was simply the NBA’s version of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, consider the ‘69-70 Knicks of Clyde (talk about style & class), Monroe, Bradley, DeBusschere and the captain, Willis Reed and the ‘71-’72 Laker dream team of former great Bill Sharman, made up of the Logo, Elgin, Goodrich and the greatest athlete who ever lived, Wilt. 

Chronologically, the next era was the one that introduced the world to the NBA.  It was the time ruled by the “Showtime” Lakers, the Bad Boys of Motown (that’s Detroit, for those who just recently arrived in this country) and Michael & the Jordanaires.  This is the one that gets my vote because of teamwork, superstars and entertainment value.  It tops the three eras discussed in this blog.  Remember, it’s my blog - feel free to post comments if you agree/disagree.

It was a time of salaries the common folk could understand, if not see in their own pay stub (I still recall the amazement over Magic’s 25-year, $25 million contract with Los Angeles), teams clinging to the idea that roommates helped players bond (which is especially true when those stories are told today), a league that expanded the number of teams but simultaneously expanded the pool of talent, with not only black players as the norm rather than the quota, but also foreign-born players (making it the real world-wide sport).  Teamwork and sizzle could be found when watching the Lakers of Magic, Scott, Worthy, Perkins and Kareem.  Teamwork and muscle were on display when the Pistons won back-to-back titles with cocky, but talent to match Isiah, classy 2 guard Joe Dumars, instant “O” off the bench with the microwave, Vinnie J, the enforcer, Rick Mahorn, the originator of the “pick-and-pop” center (as opposed to “roll”), Bill Laimbeer, and a tatoo-less, relatively normal (i.e. pre-Madonna), rebounding machine named Dennis Rodman.  Putting together teamwork, flash and D - as well as six championships - the Chicago Bulls of Pippen, a less than normal, but still rebounding machine, Rodman, Horace Grant, Ron Harper, shooters Paxson & Kerr, center by committee and the best who ever played, MJ, showed the world how the game was meant to be played.

There was no dearth of confidence during this time, either, as a rookie point guard decided he’d play center when his mentor was injured (and Magic pulled it and the Finals’ MVP off), coupled with the famous (and identical) lines, first by Larry Bird (when, during a time out late in the game, head coach K.C. Jones was hesitant about which play to call), “KC, just give me the bleepin’ ball and everybody get the hell out of the way” to Doug Collins’ explanation in the post-game press conference of the play they called that won it: “We call it the ‘Give the bleepin’ ball to Michael and everybody get the hell out of his way’ play.”  I’m not one who enjoys trash-talking, but at least, back then, you had to be great to do it, not after one shot block become a fool who will stare his opponent down, pound his chest and shout expletives, yet, as one current head coach mentioned recently to his team, be a guy “who hasn’t yet pissed a drop in this league.”

Magic showed us all how a 6′9″ guy could play the point, Bird how the “common man”  type of superstar, someone who wasn’t particularly quick or could jump all that high, could steal an inbounds from a guy as talented and smart as Zeke, feed DJ and win an all but lost contest and MJ could go out night after night and get everyone to want to “Be Like Mike.”

Today’s game, with fewer fundamentals, but greater natural skill (Kobe, KG), with team play taking a back seat to physical, overpowering dominance (Shaq, Amare, Dwight Howard and, of course, LeBron - 275 pound LeBron), yet with a group of point guards from Jason Kidd and Steve Nash to Chris Paul and Derrick Rose as good as any who’ve ever put on a uni - from any era - is still an entertainment phenomena.  To America -and the rest of the world’s - youth, it’s the only basketball they know and it’s more popular than ever.  So how can someone knock the current style of ball - even if there is more jumping teams, complaining publicly about minutes, shots or strategy?  Keep in mind if the internet had been around in earlier times, maybe the eras would be closer to the same in certain areas.  There’s remarkable talent although it’s watered down due to expansion, e.g. Washington, Charlotte and Oklahoma City (is there really a team in Oklahoma City?) makes it possible for teams like the Celtics, Lakers and Cavs to acquire such glossy records.  (Oh yeah, there used to be teams in Fort Wayne and Rochester, huh)?

This type of talk will surely raise blood pressure and bring out loyalties, with everyone having their favorites.  Who knows who’s truly the best?  The best line, by far, that I’ve heard when it came to comparing eras was the one the great Bill Russell said in response to a reporter’s question: “Bill, how do you think you’d compare against the centers of today?”  Big Russ paused, looked at the scribe and calmly said:   

“Young man, I think you have that question backward.”�

Say what you want about the New York Yankees, but one thing that has to be acknowledged is they’re a sure cure for ambivalence.  Their fans sit back and say, “That’s the way a franchise ought to be run.  The ownership wants to improve the product.”  Those who hate them - and in this case, hate might not be a strong enough word - claim they’re making a mockery of the game, ruining any chance of competitive balance with their over-the-top spending behavior.

The Bronx Millionaires now own the rights to the four highest contracts in the game - Alex Rodriguez (10 years, $275 million), C.C. Sabathia (7 years, $161 million), Mark Teixeira (8 years, $180 million) and Derek Jeter (10 years, $189 million).  It almost makes the recently signed A.J. Burnett (5 years for $82.5 million) seem like a bargain.  This elite group joins fellow pinstripers Mariano Rivera (average yearly income $15 million), Jorge Posada ($13.1 million annually), and Johnny Damon and Hideki Matsui (each making $13 million per annum).  C’mon, other than their salaries, they’re probably just like you and me.

Looking at it from a totally objective viewpoint (a nearly impossible task when it comes to the Yanks), there are positives and negatives to this argument.  In their defense, nothing they are doing is against the rules of Major League Baseball.  In order to curtail excessive spending, owners must pay a luxury tax if they “overspend.”  The Yankees bill came to nearly $27,000,000 - and they paid it.  Whether the ownership feels it owes the Yankee fans an effort to do everything in its power to win or whether winning simply feeds the leader’s ego, is irrelevant.  In the eyes of Mr. Steinbrenner, it means get the best players (a feeling shared by many others), and he does just that.

Agents make their living by negotiating the best deal for their clients (the players) and that is simply to get the highest price (there are other factors involved, but when it comes down to it, the straight salary will suffice for this blog - and will make it easier to understand).  Some of the students I have in the algebra classes I teach have a tremendously difficult time comprehending the different mathematical concepts, but I’d guess most, if not all, would be able to figure that 4% of more is greater than 4% of less.  The agents demand it and if they can get just one owner to pay it, they’ve successfully performed their job.

If that’s all there is to it, then maybe the rest of the owners should just “step up to the plate” and compete.  Unfortunately, it’s not that simple.  When players get overpaid, it trickles down.  I remember arguing with a friend years ago that the salary cap in basketball was a great idea.  His rationale was that the Chicago Bulls might have been paying Michael Jordan $30 million dollars a year, but they were making many times that off of MJ - in extra attendance figures, concessions sold to people who came to watch just him, the number of jerseys and other Jordan memorabilia they sold.

I completely agreed, but came back with the argument that the Bulls were also paying the last man on the squad money (and due to the Players’ Association collective bargaining agreement, there was a minimum pay scale that was well above minimum wage) and nobody was coming to see him play - or buy concessions or his jersey.  OK, maybe when he went in, people headed for the concession stands because it meant the Bulls were so comfortably ahead they couldn’t lose.  And that line of reasoning probably held true for numbers nine, ten, eleven all the way through the guys on the injured or inactive list or reserve squad or whatever they called the players whose major contribution to the team was that of practice fodder.

On the flip side, however, the markets where the teams are based dictate much of what owners can expect to receive in return compensation.  So, a good business decision for one team, say one in New York, might not be sound fiscal reasoning for a team based, say, in Milwaukee.  The Brewers’ owner, Mark Attanasio, made the remark that his whole payroll was $220 million and the Yankees had just laid out nearly twice that ($423.5 mil) for just three players (Sabathia, Burnett and Teixeira)!  His conclusion: “I’m not sure anyone can compete with them.  Frankly, I think baseball needs a salary cap.”

Competitive balance is not a bad thing.  The other sports have some sort of system in place to attempt to level the playing field somewhat.  There’s a new collective bargaining agreement to be negotiated and there had been talk of a work stoppage by the players.  Given the curent economic status in this country, the owners may have zillions more than the average American, but all those “Joe the Plumbers” aren’t going to have much sympathy with the players if they strike for more, considering what they’re getting by on. Granted, it’s a profession that many would love, yet only the uber-talented need apply.  Still and all, there’s not going to be a ground swell of support for people, no matter the amount of skill they possess, when the rest of us are really the consumers who pay this gifted group.

In summary, it’s not up to the Yankees to back away and say, “No, we’re not going to try to get the next great player; we have enough already.  Let someone else have him even though 1) we think he’d make us better, 2) we have the money to meet what his agent is demanding and 3) if we don’t get him, we’re sure to have to play against him.”  After all, it’s not like the Yankees win it all every year.

The owners know what they’d like and what they think is fair.  They’re a bright enough group; it’s pretty difficult to be an owner if you haven’t been successful in some line of work (unless you inherited your team).  So, it comes down to the old line:

“Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.” Â

Rematches of the previous year’s Super Bowl teams, NBA Champions, World Series combatants or any of the year before’s NCAA finalists (in any sport) quite often are meaningless because rosters have been overhauled or the teams’ records are nowhere near what they were last year.  Not this season in the NBA.  Two of the top three teams this year, record-wise, are the same two who squared off in the NBA Finals last June. (Cleveland has the second best record, having a sensational year thus far with a 24-4 mark).  The Los Angeles Lakers (according to many, including the players themselves, are the odds on favorites to win it all this year) and the Boston Celtics gave the world a finals to remember (although the last game was anticlimactic).  This year each is off to an incredible start, the Lakers owning a glossy 23-5 won-loss mark while the Celtics have accomplished an all-time NBA record for starting a season posting 27 wins in their first 29 games.

It’s not a coincidence they’re matched on Christmas Day, the overwhelming majority of the American work force off from work and home with their loved ones.  Fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, aunts, uncles and cousins - and the NBA - the organization that Cares - on the tube.  Why not cuddle up with the fam (since a great portion of the nation is under one giant winter storm watch) and see the world’s best athletes run, jump, shoot, dunk - and trash talk.  Where can a family find entertainment this semi-wholesome - and its free!

The sub-plots are numerous: the Celts are riding a 19-game winning streak (of all the great Celtic teams - and there are many of us, although the number’s dwindling, who actually remember those clubs - none ever strung together that many consecutive W’s), they broke the best start in NBA history with their latest victory (both the 1966-67 Philadelphia 76ers and the 1969-70 New York Knicks started 26-2 - and each of those won the NBA Championship the same year), while on the Lakers side, the next game Hollywood’s league rep wins will be Coach Phil Jackson’s 1000th conquest (not counting Jeanie Buss).

The winner will be (unfortunately, you have to wait until after the game to find out) “whoever wants it more.”  Of all the sports’ cliches, this might be the most absurd, simply because it seems to “want it more,” you have to be on the winning side.  Does that mean, there’s never been a team who wanted it more, but their opponent was simply better (more talented) or luckier (got some key calls or bounces of the ball) and so, they lost?  What if two teams want it equally?  Tie?  Overtime?  In the case of OT, if the team who wanted it more during the regulation, but was a gnat’s eyelash from winning, has nothing left due to fatigue, injuries and disqualifications from foul problems, do they now lose - even if their opponent still doesn’t want it more than they do?

So who’s going to win?  Kevin Garnett, when questioned in the post-game interview after win #27, “Can you guys play better?” responded  “Hell, yeah!”  KG mentioned they didn’t always “step on the gas” when they had teams down, i.e. didn’t step on their throats, and, also, they had yet to play a perfect game (the best goal to have, according to the legendary John Wooden, simply because it’s impossible to achieve, only to approach).  If they get much closer to perfection, it might be frightening - especially to the rest of the league. 

On the other hand, the winner could be the Lakers because, as former coach and expert/extremely witty commentator, Jeff Van Gundy, has maintained, they have more talent - led by the NBA’s best player, Kobe Bryant, and, when comparing bench strength of each squad, are superior in that category as well.

For a game with this much magnitude (albeit still early in the season) and one packed with all this drama, if the players were asked about it, to a man, they’d say, to a man, (even though they would know we’d recognize it as a little white - and transparent - lie):

“It’s just another game.”

Portland State 77   #7Gonzaga 70  (Portland State?)

Butler 74   #14Xavier 65  (at Xavier!)

Michigan 81   #4Duke 73  (need we say more?!)

Whatever happened to a sure bet?  How are unranked teams, such as these, beating not only ranked, but cream of the crop clubs for the 2008-09 season?

First of all, it’s not against any kind of NCAA rules for these teams to win.  But for a possible explanation, let’s probe a little deeper - or earlier - as in one game earlier in the schedule.  Each one of these upsets happened in the game following a contest that was ballyhooed for its importance.  One at a time:

First, Portland State against Gonzaga.  The game was played at Portland State, unquestionably the biggest game on the Vikings’ schedule (and not nearly the biggest for the Zags).  However, what is of greater significance (and the basis for this blog) is the fact that it was the first game Gonzaga played directly following their prime time match up against #2UConn, a game that the #8 (at that time) Zags were in control of and, I’m certain, feel they could - and should - have won in regulation.

Secondly, the game preceding the Butler contest for the then #7Musketeers from Cincy was their battle with #6 Duke, a game in which the Muskies had high hopes, only to get throttled from beginning to end by the Blue Devils, in what had to be a major disappointment for several reasons.  Number one, they were behind 22-3 before they got their first basket.  Number two, Duke was up 31 at the half.  Number three, Xavier was undefeated (9-0) entering the game, giving some justification for a swagger, even if they were about to take on one of the most storied programs in college basketball.  Numbers one and two de-swaggered them in a hurry.

The third upset was Duke losing to Michigan in Ann Arbor, but whether it was the biggest game of the year for the Wolverines is highly debatable, what with Michigan State and the rest of the Big Ten coming in for visits later in the year.  The game before this one?  How about one of the most talked about up-and-comers in Purdue (although up-and-comer is relative since it’s not like Gene Keady didn’t achieve success during his long tenure in West Lafayette).  The two teams were billed as mirror images of each other - and the game was in Mackey Arena, as loud a venue (and this is from first hand experience of my 30 years spent in intercollegiate coaching), as each of the following: Rupp (Kentucky), the “Deaf Dome” (LSU), the Erwin Center (Texas), the Marriott Center (Utah), Williams Arena (Minnesota) and the McKale Center (Arizona).  (Note: MacArthur Court, Oregon’s home court, is in a category of its own).

Yet, Duke destroyed the Boilermakers by just absolutely “shutting off their water.”  It was a defensive clinic and the crowd was never able to become a factor.  The way Duke played that day, it would have taken an all-star team (or one dressed in sky blue, but isn’t that redundant) to keep up with Coach K’s guys.

After these games, especially a win like Duke experienced, it’s so difficult to immediately refocus (usually in just a matter of days) to reach the level necessary to maintain peak performance.  Everybody on campus and around town the players are running into are all talking about the game just played and how a ref’s call (Gonzaga vs. UConn) or “if we had played them on any other day” (Xavier vs. Duke) or, worse, if the team won (like Duke vs. Purdue), “man, you guys merked ‘em,” “you locked them up” and other compliments.  In no case, does anyone, other than the coaching staff, talk about getting ready for the next game.  The players are either beating themselves up (Gonzaga re: UConn), questioning themselves (Xavier vs. Duke) or celebrating (Duke vs. Purdue).

As legendary football coach and master psychologist, George Allen, always mentioned at clinics:

“The most difficult game to play is the one right after a big emotional game.” Â

The football story of the summer (and into fall) was the un-retirement of Brett Favre.  The parting with his one and only professional team was far from amicable and wherever he ended up, there was bound to be comparisons between the face of the cheesehead franchise and his successor, Aaron Rodgers.

The fact Favre ended up playing in the nation’s biggest media market only increased the number and intensity of the comparisons.  As with every argument regarding a subject that cannot be proven, these are fun, sometimes absurd, but great talking points at local watering holes, be they the office water cooler or an after hours establishment.  What makes them so enjoyable is that, first of all, as you present your case, you feel like you are a brilliant barrister - so smart and well-informed - and, after the debate’s over, both sides think they won!  Where else does that happen (other than steamy sex scenes in big budget movies).

If you think that this interaction is childish, it’s probably because you remember hearing it from us as children.  Then, why are adults arguing?  Two reasons: one, we are the kids you heard when you were our age, but you grew up (in that particular area, anyway) and we didn’t and secondly, young kids see and hear their parents doing it (not as many women as men, but with the feminist movement, if there’s an area men dominate, you can bet there will be women trying to crack that famous “glass ceiling” - even if this one’s made of balsa wood) and you were so proud of your parents because they sounded so smart.

The take on this massive disagreement begins as all these do - with the agenda the people bring into it.  If you’re an Aaron Rodgers fan, you have all the stats (total passing yards, average yards per pass, more TD’s and fewer INT’s.  Entering the “arena” as a Favre supporter, you point to better pass completion percentage, last year’s record of the Pack vs. this year’s and last year’s Jets’ record and this year’s, plus all the intangibles Brett brings.  

But Aaron is young and the future; Brett is older and had better get it done now.  Besides, Brett wouldn’t have done any better than Aaron with this year’s version of the Pack.  Backing it up are the stats (courtesy of sportswriter, Dan Pompei): in the fourth quarter, with the Packers within seven of its opponent, Rodgers (this year) is 46 of 72 for 583 yards with 4 TD’s and 4 INT’s while (over the past two years), Brett’s numbers in the same situation are 75 of 126 for 793 yards with 5 TD’s and 5 INT’s.  Actually, how can you even compare those numbers?  They look like a wash and they happened in different years with and against different personnel, under different conditions and … who cares?  That’s where the debater’s passion comes in, i.e. can you get over-the-top excited about something so absurd - especially when there’s so much more important issues going on?  The level-headed fan who isn’t as moved by this topic doesn’t really care about it, but is ready, willing and able if someone says something that does hit his hot button. 

Maybe that’s why it’s done.  These guys will admit they’re not experts on financial situations.  (Come to your own conclusions about the line that follows that one). 

Where this discussion is like that really matters is how the situations parallel each other when it comes to the line by Will Rogers (no relation to Aaron - or for that matter, Brett):  “One of the evils of democracy is, you have to put up with the man you elect whether you want him or not.”  It could be stated this way:

“One of the evils of free agency is, you have to put up with the man you  signed whether you want him or not.”

Especially when the 8-8 team is the Arizona Cardinals who, after clinching its division title, have played like complete dogs.  So much so they incurred the wrath of Chris “I lost a ton of weight on NutriSystem and now I can’t wait (weight) until my endorsement contract with them runs out so I can go back to my optimal broadcasting weight” Berman. And the other team is the 11-5 New England Patriots (everybody’s idea of what an NFL franchise ought to be - and every network who carries NFL games dies for, as opposed to a team which won’t bring in huge - or even mediocre - ratings, e.g. Arizona).  I’m not so certain people would feel the same way if the situation was reversed and the Cardinals had the glittery record and the Pats were cruising. 

“Yeah, but Belichick wouldn’t allow his players to slide by without exerting an effort.”  Most likely, but maybe it’s just a difference in the way some coaches (post-season) game plan and the method others decide to use.  Apparently, it’s not against league rules.

OK, but isn’t it a mockery that a team can win a division and then coast, rest players, lose ugly (by playing uninspired and with little effort), yet still be assured home field advantage?  Sure, but no more of a mockery than a BCS system which is forced to take Big East or ACC “champions” (Cincinnati and Virginia Tech) instead of Texas Tech, Georgia or, even, Boise State (a fan favorite and a draw for two reasons: what they did in their last BCS appearance and to see if they could remain undefeated). 

Or that, in all likelihood a sub-.500 Eastern Conference team (or two) will get into the NBA Playoffs and a better than .500 squad from the West be left out?  Same in MLB.  It’s simply the system that each league or whatever you call the BCS (and it’s been called plenty) has in place.  Next year might bring the exact opposite.  It could change and maybe something like all of the above will lead to changes.  However, every year there will be some sort of quirk in the plan-of-the-moment that will make people cry out, “It’s not fair!” 

If you’re looking for fairness, roll this around a few times and see if it makes sense to you:

“Expecting the world to be fair because you’re a nice person is a little like expecting the bull not to charge you because you’re a vegetarian.”Â