Jack’s Blog

Although I was a diehard (Brooklyn) Dodgers fan in my (very) early years, I always admired Joe Torre for not only his skill, but for the way he carried himself on the baseball diamond.  When he was fired a couple of times (Mets & Braves), I always thought he was done wrong and, after just finishing Ted Turner’s new book, he even admits firing Joe was a mistake.  Then came the heart warming story of his brother, Frank, and his transplant surgery (coming just in time to save his life) and it seemed like everybody was in Joe’s corner.

The final straw for me, the one that made me an unabashed Joe Torre fan, was when he became manager of the hated Yankees and I started pulling (however slightly) for the Bronx Bombers.  By that time, I’d pretty much become a non-fan (actually that change occurred around 1964, my junior year in high school, when I was playing on organized teams and had only enough “fan” in me to root for the teams I played for - or later, teams our sons play[ed] for).  So, seeing a Yankees score on the “crawl,” I would hope they’d win - because this classy guy was the manager and he had to put up with the New York media (the most sarcastic writers anywhere) and, even worse, had as his boss, George Steinbrenner, a man who, no matter what he paid you, it wasn’t enough.  Joe’s Yankee teams won big (6 World Series appearances/championships in 12 years), but anyone could tell that a job working for Steinbrenner was like tip-toeing through a field with hidden mines, i.e. one wrong step and your (business) life was over.  I read with enthusiasm his book, Ground Rules for Winners, highlighted the parts I especially liked and it was one of the selections of what’s referred to as “Fertig Notes” see the “Jack’s Notes” tab on this website’s home page.  A mailout to a limited number of friends and guys I’ve known from the (mainly college) coaching community.

I was thrilled, admittedly not to the point of immersing myself into the Dodger lore the way I did when I was nine or ten years old, when Joe was hired by the Los Angeles Dodgers.  It seemed to be his destiny.  No wonder I liked him so much all those years ago.  Somehow, I must have had that gut feel that he was made to wear Dodger Blue.

Then, of all things, I discovered, about the same time as the rest of America did, i.e. a few dys ago, that Joe Torre had written a book about his Yankee years and that it was one of those “tell-all” kinds - the type a person writes to make money or get things off his chest - or both.  I figured that the former is what it had to be because I searched for another reason - any other reason - he ‘d have penned such a manuscript.  It couldn’t have been the money.  He’d been making millions for many years and was now heavy into the endorsement deals.  He’s no lunkhead athlete who spent his money as fast as he got it, assuming there would be no end to this kind of Monoply cash, nor was he the type who would put all his dough with someone like Bernie Madoff.  Tough Italian kids from Brooklyn just don’t do stupid stuff like that.  So I ruled out that he did it for the money - unless his co-author, Tom Verducci needed the income and sweet talked Joe into the project.  When someone asked if the proceeds were going toward his charity, Safe at Home, which deals with the subject of domestic violence, Joe stammered and never did say how much of it would be earmarked for his charity.

Why else?  I’ve already mentioned his leadership book, Ground Rules, so it couldn’t have been to see his name on a book cover.  It sure appeared like a type of catharsis.  Write it all down, all the crazy goings-on in the clubhouse, the expectations being so high to begin with, and then, bringing in Alex Rodriguez, one of the greatest baseball players of all-time, an experiment which did not produce the results everyone in New York expected (although in NY, results never match expectations: “Oh yeah, you guys won, but you didn’t cover!) and it looked more and more like he had to get rid of some feeling that was eating away at him.

As I get older, I find the need to set alarms to remember appointments or something important and when the alarm on my watch goes off, I usually have to look at it to see why I had it set.  (Yes, it’s as sad as it sounds).  This happened last night when it went off and I looked at it to see what the memo said.  “Larry King” was the message and it was then I remembered Joe would be interviewed shortly by the King himself.  The King of asking a difficult question but making it sound like he lobbed another softball up there, and that’s what the guest feels like, until he tries to formulate an answer.  First off, was the money question and Joe said, not that convincingly, that it was not the case, that he’d been making $7 million this past year (and when you admit you made that kind of number on national TV, you can bet that was the low end - those IRS people have been known to watch television). 

True, he’d been hurt by their response to his request for a two-year contract (probably for the same $7 mil he’d made in the past) so he could manage without the look of a lame duck (something, for all of you who go into coaching, which needs to be avoided pretty much, at all costs).  He knew that situation would only lead to constant probing and the chart of “how many days are left for Joey T?”  They countered with $5 mil, but with incentives to get it up to $7 large.  One reason for this was that the brass thought, after a particularly uncharacteristically bad season, maybe what Joe needed was a few incentives - you know, to get him to work harder.  People who’ve never been coaches (many owners and general managers fall into this category) have no idea that coaches are among the most competitive, self-motivated people on the planet.  Joe took their offer as an insult (as many coaches would have).  When a guy as old as Joe is insulted (especially with the Italian blood boiling inside of him), negotiations usually break off and the employer-employee is terminated.

Joe tried to make light of the situation in the book where he says members of the ball club would refer to A-Rod as A-Fraud, relating a story where, one day after a poor performance, one of the coaches was going to hit ground balls to Rodriguez and the coach said, “What’s it going to be today, A-Rod or A-Fraud?”  Other remarks, some of them negative, were pooh-pooh’d by Joe, saying that nothing that was in the book wasn’t “out there” already.

Joe claimed he didn’t burn any bridges but he knows all too well the grudge New Yorkers carry toward people whom they feel have disrespected them.  Another extremely intriguing question was asked of Joe.  “Do you think this book will affect your current players’ attitudes and feelings toward you?”  Amazingly - then again, not so amazingly, -Joe said, “No.”

C’mon, Joe, this just doesn’t pass the smell test.  Yet, for all of it, I still can’t bring myself to dislike Joe Torre.  To me, in an era of the Good Guys vs. the Bad Guys, Joe’s still one of the Good group.  As clever a guy as he is, however, he might want to heed the humorist Elbert Hubbard’s advice:

“An ounce of loyalty is worth a pound of cleverness.” 

  �

After reading the Sports Illustrated story on Blake Griffin, I was struck by a couple of  quotes.  The first was from Griffin, talking about retaliating to things like cheap shots. “Teams want me to do something stupid.  You want to get to the point where nothing affects you; you control them.”  The other was from his coach, Jeff Capel, who, after watching him play during the recruiting process, said, “You really don’t see high school kids playing as hard as he played.”

Since our younger son, Alex, is playing varsity basketball, I showed him these quotes because, although he’s having a good year so far, when conference play started, his opponents would have seen him in summer leagues and knew him better. They’d be more familiar with his game and would make the game tougher than non-conference teams did.  I wanted to help prepare him (since, with him being a freshman, everything is new) for what might occur.  He took in each quote with a great deal of interest.  It might be difficult to emulate a Blake Griffin who’s 6′10″ when you’re only 6′2″, but playing hard is something everybody should do.

My website is entitled “Mr. Quote” and it’s mainly due to the fact people tell me I always have a quote from someone about whatever the topic is that’s being discussed.  When I thought about it, I realized when I was a high school football player, our coach, the late Jay Dakelman (see my 9/13/08 blog) was a master motivator and would tape quotes, selected for the individual player, to his locker before games.  Jay was a little guy who looked like Buddy Hackett but was an icon in the small borough of Highland Park.  The main reason is he took over a program from a legend and proceeded to go undefeated in his first year, followed by seasons of never more than two (and it was seldom he’d lose two).  I don’t recall his exact career record but he won somwhere in the vicinity of 90% of his games, gaining him undying respect.  My first job after graduating college was as a math teacher, football and basketball coach at my alma mater.  I got to observe Jay as a colleague then and it was quite an education.

A couple years later, I became a graduate assistant to George Raveling at Washington State, another “quote man.”  The best story about George and his propensity regarding quotes came from none other than Bob Knight, who’d selected George as one of his assistants for the 1984 Olympics.  Prior to the championship game, Coach Knight told George he was in charge of getting quotes on the locker room wall.  When he walked in, Knight was amazed at what he saw.  The wall was papered with about a hundred quotes and the one he and the Olympic team’s point guard, as well as his point at IU, Steve Alford, said had the greatest impact on them was, “Each one of us in this room has a family member who gave his life for this country.  The very least you can do is give everything you’ve got for 48 minutes.”

When I was working for George decades later at USC, he got into a car accident and nearly lost his life.  He confided in me one day after he got out of the hospital, “Those first days when I was in the hospital, I couldn’t move and the pain was excrutiating.  The only thing that got me through was thinking about all the messages and quotes in those motivational and inspirational books we read.”  Powerful quotes can work wonders.

Anytime you can have a positive effect on another individual is a heart warming moment.  When it’s one of your children, the feeling means infinitely more.  I blog at the end of the day, the last thing I do before going to sleep (so what I blog is dated the following day).  On 10/30/08 I was up later than usual, finishing the next day’s blog when my phone beeped, signaling a text message.  That day’s blog had a “wrap-up quote” which read “It’s better to wear out than rust out.”  I checked the text and it was from our older son, Andy, a sophomore at the University of California-Irvine (yeah, the Anteaters).  It said, “Was getting very tired of studying and read your blog.  I’m going to wear out instead of rust out.  Thanks for the inspiration.”  That’s when I knew all the years of accumulating quotes was worth it.

The following quote, author unknown, doesn’t refer to quotes, but it could:

“There are many things that will catch your eye but only a few that will catch your heart.”

  �

Since our son, Alex, is a freshman on the varsity basketball team at Buchanan (Clovis, CA) HS, my wife and I go to as many games as we can.  It was during Buchanan’s game last night against Clovis HS that I saw something that amazed me and it had nothing to do with the play of our son - or the play of anyone for that matter.  It was how one idea can take on the power of exponential proportions.

Each of the coaches went barefoot, getting in line with hundreds of coaches across the country in an effort to raise shoes to outfit the 300 million children in the world who don’t even own a pair of shoes.  300,000,000 kids who go barefoot every day - quite a disturbing statistic.

It was four years ago that Ron Hunter, the basketball coach at IUPUI (Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis), made a recruiting trip to Lagos, Nigeria.  He was stunned beyond description at the poverty he saw - to the point of actually deciding to do something about it.  Together Samaritan’s Feet, a charitable organization whose goal it is to “equip 10 million kids with 10 million shoes in 10 years,” Hunter, on January 24, 2008 coached a college basketball games shoeless.  His goal that day was to collect 40,000 shoes.  The effort raised over 100,000.  This year’s goal is to raise one million.  Don’t bet against it.

The story brought national media attention, including a Sports Illustrated article and an ABC World News Report Person of the Year award for Coach Hunter.  This past summer, Ron, his coaching staff and some of his players made a trip to Peru and handed out shoes to the children there who’d never had a pair on their feet.  They washed the kids’ feet, measured them and helped the youngsters put them on - including lessons in tying the laces.  Why would you need to know how to tie shoelaces when you’ve never had a pair of shoes?

As normally is the case with such charitable projects as these, Hunter and his travel party got as much or more out of their mammoth gesture than the kids did.  We’ve all heard the phrase, “Don’t judge a man until you’ve walked a mile in his moccasins.”  Well, in order to begin, he first needs some moccasins.

This year, he’s enlisted other coaches throughout the nation and, as I witnessed last night, the invitation has trickled all the way to the high school level.  Due to the current state of the economy in the United States, many of the shoes collected in the 2009 effort will be donated to the children of this country.  The website is www.samaritansfeet.org and, naturally, anyone and everyone is certainly welcome to join this worthwhile cause.

Alan Loy McGinnis said it as well as it could be said:

“There is no more noble occupation in the world than to assist another human being - to help someone.”

One of my closest friends (and world’s greatest guys), Paul Dolinoy, who was (along with his wife, Betty), a classmate during the college years (hard to believe it was over 40 years ago), called me to tell me he’s not only been faithfully reading my blog, but has spread the word to many of his friends and colleagues.  According to “King D,” the reviews are quite favorable, so, in honor of the new readers, let me give you a taste of a “blog from yesteryear,” when this site was in its infancy and hits were a tiny fraction of the rather hefty number they are now.

In case you’re wondering what kind of person reads this blog, here’s a factoid about Paul and Betty: they have two girls, Dana, who got her Bachelor’s and Doctorate degrees from Duke (she took some time off in between to get her Master’s - from Harvard) and Jill, who only has two degrees - a Bachelor’s from Vanderbilt and a Master’s from Columbia.  Pretty comfortable in assessing their child rearing as 2 for 2.  An aside: the first C.U.T.E. Baby Gift - see my other website - www.CuteBabyNameGifts.com - went to Dana’s baby , Paul’s and Betty’s first grandchild, Paul (named after none other).  Click on the link to see how you can get a unique baby gift and spend no time shopping.

Enough advertising, let’s get on with the blog - from 5/15/07.  Taking it to heart can make you smarter and your commutes more enjoyable.

In case you were unaware, Southern California, and especially the Los Angeles area, has a major traffic problem.  When I worked at USC, I found that when traveling to a destination, I’d either be a few minutes late (luckily, cell phones were just emerging as popular “must have” items, so I could at least alert people) or an hour and a half early.

I felt a major culture shock moving from Toledo, where the guy in charge of meetings would lock the door when the starting time passed, to USC, where meetings never would start on time - for the simple reason you couldn’t ever tell what the traffic situation was.  And you dare not complain about someone being late because you knew, “There but for the grace of God,…”  You’d be moving along with everybody else at 70 mph and all of a sudden, come to a complete stop!  Seconds later, you’d be part of the world’s largest parking lot, independent of whether you were on the 10, 110, 101, 5, 405 or even surface streets - and have no idea why you weren’t moving.

It was at this time in my life I was introduced to “books on tape.”  Of course, I’d known of them all along, but never did I realize what a life saver - and enhancer - they’d be.   First of all, when I’d get out of the car, I’d be smarter than when I got in, which I felt was a pretty good trade off - as opposed to listening to Vinny from Encinitas complain about the inept Raiders’ pass rush on a sports talk show.  Don’t get me wrong, I’m not one to knock talk radio as I’ve had a few shows myself (including hosting The Jerry Tarkanian Show on Fox Sports 1340 &1400 during the basketball season).  But I’ve found they are best in moderation.

Biographies, autobiographies, self-help, motivation - anything to try to improve.  For longer rides, 5-6 hours by myself, novels were a great way to pass the trip.  It’s like going to the movies with your eyes closed.  I’d find myself getting to my destination but not wanting to turn off the tape because it was “right at a good part.”  A word of caution: at a particularly exciting part in the book, check the speedometer.  I’d occasionally notice I’d be approaching 90.  Cruise control is a must in this situation.

The idea of books on tape falls under the line made famous by Satchel Paige:
                               

“When you stop gettin’ better, you stop bein’ good.”�

After watching the argument between the Arizona Cardinals’ wideout Anquan Boldin and their “O” coordinator, Todd Haley - while the game was going on - I was amazed.  Neither man made much out of it later, Boldin saying he just wanted to play a greater role in the offense (because he sincerely felt that strategy would be in the team’s best interest if they wanted to win), while Haley saying he has no problem with guys speaking their mind, but he’s going to express his opinion right back. 

Haley mentioned that “I coach hard,” a statement I’ve heard other coaches use, e.g. coaches on the hot seat after suffering a defeat, who proclaim, “Sure we lost, but as a coaching staff we’re just going to get out there at practice and coach ‘em hard this week and see if we can’t get this thing turned around.”  What in the world is coaching hard?  Does it mean you’re going to yell more, dole out more punishments (running, push ups, other activities players don’t enjoy), get in people’s faces, not smile? 

Some of the most successful coaches in history would never be thought of as guys who “coached hard,” yet they were big-time winners.  Guys like John Wooden, Dean Smith, Tom Landry and Tony Dungy come to mind.  Wasn’t there ever a game that got under their skin, a game they lost they knew they should have won, where after the game, the thought of coaching hard entered their mind as a means of restoring winning ways? 

To be honest, I’ve studied coaches for a long time; at first it was to see if there were any hints I could pick up to make me better so when I got my opportunity, I’d be ready for whatever situation came along.  Although that experience never came, I continue to observe coaches to this day, probably out of sheer force of habit, and have not, to this day, seen what coaching hard means.  On a local level, if I were forced to describe someone who coaches hard, I would have to say Fresno City College’s Ed Madec, the men’s basketball coach there, would be a prime example, especially if it means “imposing your will on your team,” because he does that as well as anybody I’ve ever seen.  Quite possibly it’s because he doesn’t have high caliber talent, but still manages to squeeze every drop out of the guys he has.  However, I tend to think if he coached the Celtics, he’d coach the same way - although maybe not for long.  Does that mean coaching hard only works on some levels?  Or do different guys just happen to have different styles?

As far as the players yelling at the coach, some coaches handled it quite differently than others.  Al McGuire, the legendary head coach (and color commentator), actually encouraged players to yell at him.  This was undoubtedly due to his upbringing as a tough Irish New Yorker who felt if you had a problem with him, let’s settle it - by rolling up the ol’ sleeves and getting it on.  The story, people who knew Al swear it’s not apocryphal, about the time Al challenged one of his players to a fight under the bleachers and the two of them duked it out.  After it ended, Al had no hard feelings, respected the kid and was ready to get on with whatever was next up on the practice plan (except Al never had a practice plan, just coached by gut feel).  That day, his gut told him the best way to get his message across was to fight his own player.  How can anyone argue with that logic?

Bob Knight was asked by his cohorts at ESPN about the Boldin-Haley incident and he more or less blew it off.  He said the media was making entirely too much out of it and it ought to be a non-issue.  The winningest men’s Divsion I coach of all-time continued, “I didn’t mind if a kid yelled at me - as long as he was right.”  My guess would be that, throughout Knight’s coaching career there were a number of players who, at the time, he felt were right.  And that number would be zero. 

To others in the business, “coaching hard” might mean working hard, e.g. staying a little later to break down one more game video to see if there’s anything you missed - on the first six games you charted.  Or maybe it meant “paying closer attention to details.”  I’ve heard coaches say, “We’ve gotten away from it,” meaning they slacked off on what had made them successful in the past.

One method of coaching (whether it’s hard or soft I don’t know) which is used by some very successful coaches (and I imagine by some not so successful ones), is something players absolutely hate, and that’s speaking to the individual players on the team through the media.  Two championship winning coaches have been accused of that on numerous occasions, but make up for it in other areas, because I simply don’t believe it’s a proper way to communicate.  Those two coaches are Pat Riley and Phil Jackson. 

Players have long complained about Riles saying, “We’re a team and what goes on here stays here.”  Then, players read the papers or are confronted by journalists who say, “Pat said this, do you think he was referring to you?” (which he obviously was to anyone who had seen the previous game).  Players disliked it when Jackson would use similar psychological tactics, mainly because Phil was the master motivator and he had so many other inspirational tools he could have used.  Then, again, many of the players who complained used the exact same tactic.

Hard or soft?  Which works?  In coaching, one thing every coach learns in due time (some not before it’s too late and they’re no longer employed), is be yourself.  As far as the arguing, consider the fact (and it takes a hell of a man - and coach to admit this) you might be wrong.  In that case, take a page out of Dr. David Burns’ book:

“Never give up your right to be wrong, because then you will lose the ability to learn new things and move forward with your life.” �

With two weeks in between the NFC and AFC Championship games and the Super Bowl, it can’t be an easy task to be a sportswriter, burdened with the task of coming up with, in some cases, a story a day.  Still, some of the storylines - all the way back to the time one scribe asked a player, “If you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be?”  Or was it an animal? - seem to show how difficult (as far as imagination regarding sports stories) some writers find the fortnight.

One question that has been asked and written about has to do with the opposing coaches.  When Bill Cowher stepped down as coach of the Steelers, nearly everyone thought Ken Whisenhunt, or maybe Russ Grimm, two very capable Steeler assistants would be promoted - especially with the Steelers history of being a “family” type organization.  Ironically, the rule passed that mandated any team that had a coaching opening to interview at least one minority candidate (many in, and out of, the business look at it as just a token gesture) is referred to as the “Rooney Rule,” due to the proposal made by owner Dan Rooney (the Rooneys own the Pittsburgh franchise).

The candidate selected for that interview was the defensive coordinator of the Minnesota Vikings, Mike Tomlin, a not-so-well-known (outside of coaching circles) assistant.  Whisenhunt, allegedly, feeling uncertain regarding the direction the process was heading, withdrew and accepted the head coaching position with the Arizona Cardinals, considered a wonderful place to live, but no such a terrific team to coach, certainly nowhere close to the Steelers and the tradition (5 Super Bowl championships) of the team in a football crazy city.

The Rooneys’ decision to interview Tomlin was either brilliant or lucky, as they found out early on.  The phrase most used when describing the Rooneys’ feelings toward Tomlin’s interviews is “blown away,” the same phrase that many (who didn’t know Tomlin) felt when it was announced that the young (34 at the time he was hired), black coach who’d never played in the NFL.  The results he’s put up over his first three years has continued to blow away NFL insiders and outsiders alike.  

Meanwhile, when the president of the Cardinals, Michael Bidwill, and their general manager Rod Graves set out to bring coaches in to consider for their top spot, what they were looking for was someone who could turn the Cardinals into … a team like the Steelers.  Both franchises got their men and now they’re about to square off in the Super Bowl.

The storyline that was inevitable in this day and age of stirring up controversy whenever possible (hey, it stinks sells) is the one of revenge for the Whisenhunt/Grimm duo or the “now you know why they waited to hire me” feeling that people (sportswriters?) think Tomlin must (ought to) have (since that’s how most people beneath the stature of a Mike Tomlin believe). 

The coaches have dismissed it, as anyone thought they would.  Maybe I’m wrong because I haven’t spoken to any of the three men, nor do I even know them, but if there is someone, somewhere in the world who thinks that set of circumstances, three years ago, will serve as extra motivation for any of the three involved, I only have this to say to you. 

It’s the freakin’ SUPER BOWL!  Do you really think ANYBODY needs EXTRA motivation? 

And, if they actually still believe this way, exactly when do you think that feeling’s going to come into play?  While they’re breakling down video edits, trying to find some weakness they can exploit offensively or defensively (or on special teams for that matter)?  Imagine Tomlin, Whisenhunt or Grimm saying, “Hey, look guys, there’s an area we can hit where they have no answer.  That could win us this thing and give me the redemption I’ve been searching for these past three years.  Make note of that.” 

Running through his head at that time would undoubtedly be: Yeah, forget about the new contract, job security, place among all the great coaches who’ve won Super Bowls, endorsement deals my agent will be sifting through.  Who cares about getting the winner’s share and even the ring, vindication will be mine!  

Remember this bit of advice:

“Always give your best, never get discouraged, never be petty; always remember, others may hate you.  Those who hate you don’t win unless you hate them.  And then you destroy yourself.”

The speaker was Richard M. Nixon.

My book on tape ended and I didn’t have another so I tuned into sports talk radio which, from time to time, can be quite interesting.  (I, for one, ought to be promoting sports talk as I used to have several shows myself and am currently the co-host of “The Jerry Tarkanian Show” on Fox Sports Radio 1340 and 1400 out of Fresno).  The topic being discussed was which player would you want on your team, Matt Cassel (who was portrayed as the ultimate “team player,” a guy who would just as soon defer to Tom Brady instead of trying to go elsewhere so he could have the chance to start) or Anquan Boldin (who was upset - and let anyone who’d listen know it - because he didn’t play a bigger role even though his team won the game that put them in the Super Bowl)?  Naturally, as typical of today’s society, the host of the show and the majority of the callers sided with Boldin.

Those in favor of Cassel (sounded like they) were of the older, there’s no “I” in team group.  They want a teammate who understands and accepts his role because, heading into the dream game in any football player’s career, it’s mandatory that every team member focus on the task at hand and subjugate their individual ego for that of the team.  This group went on to characterize Boldin as “today’s brand of player” (also leading me to believe they were from an earlier era), who only thinks about himself and places his personal goals above that of the team.

The pro-Boldin callers brought up that here was a guy who broke his jaw and had screws put in to his face so he could compete, showing his loyalty to the team was beyond reproach.  All he wanted was for his team to win and he knew the best way for the Cardinals to do that was to make him an integral part of the game plan.  Plus, why would anyone want to count on a guy like Cassel as a teammate?  Someone who could go and show what he was made of, but, instead, was willing to accept a huge pay raise, and be satisfied sitting and holding a clipboard behind Tom Brady.

As with most arguments about whose opinion is right, i.e. an argument with no definitive answer, people get themselves all lathered up when they probably don’t know all the facts (which, to these people, is of little consequence).  Maybe Cassell found out, after being pressed into action and performing admirably, that he loved the New England system, felt it was most conducive to his skills and that the organization (or possibly even Brady himself) confided to him that the Super Bowl winning QB wasn’t going to be ready to go at the beginning of the year and the job was his.  Or, how about the wild idea that, after this season, Cassel might just be playing coy (he remembers that he didn’t start at SC in college but still made the NFL) and is saying the right things (because that’s how he was raised or that’s the strategy he’s using) but, deep in his heart, he feels he can beat Brady out.  Just give me a chance to compete against him, now that we’ve both shown we’re NFL capable quarterbacks.  I plan on coming into camp in the best shape of my life, have hired a personal workout guy and, now that I got a lot of game experience, I’m working on the things the coaches told me throughout the year I needed to improve.  I’ll be ready to earn the big money (franchise tag?) the Pats are offering and then you’ll see the method behind my madness.

Boldin’s side of the story might be that he realizes that Larry Fitzgerald is the new prototype of an NFL receiver, but with all the attention he’s going to receive, he finally will have the chance to go up against a defense that’s not geared toward stopping him and if those guys would throw it his way, they’d all attain the same goal - to become World Champions!  It’s not a selfish attitude as much as it is a practical one.

What separates talk radio (sports, news or politics) from normal conversation are the whack jobs who call in - the people who, rather than forming a logical pattern of thought from their head before they speak, blurt out something idiotic from their heart (or out of their … another body part, located about the same distance from the heart the head is, just in the other direction).  These people are not only incapable of seeing a situation from both points of view, they feel that only one side can be right, so the other one must be wrong.  Then they go about trashing the “opponent” by showing how foolish or cowardly or misinformed they are, thus proving their side to be the “the winner.”  They usually succeed in doing just that, but it’s themselves who wind up looking foolish and misinformed.  If you favor one side over another, does it mean the one you didn’t select has to have no positive qualities?

Usually, the host of the show is one of these types of guys.  Ever since Jim Rome showed how many “wannabees” and “never was’s” there are out there in “Listenerville,” and how bitter they are that other people make a ton money to play a game while they themselves have to work long and hard to barely scrape by, and, how, if the host will give them a platform to criticize these “prima donnas” by doing exactly that as the host, how loyal they’ll be to him and how outrageous his show will become … and what a hit it will be because, in today’s misguided world, this is what sells - and, in radio, selling’s the name of the game.

All of this is based on the principle my late mentor, John Savage, used to say so often it’s burned into my skull: “You don’t strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.”  And, how much, in the times we’re going through now, do I miss him because, in addition to being a close friend, I learned something everytime we’d speak - about selling or investing (he was an insurance salesman/speaker and is the only person, I believe he still holds this record, to speak at the insurance industry’s Million Dollar Round Table twelve years in a row) or simply about life.  John’s brilliance was a very basic type, the kind that’s not in vogue today, mainly because it’s based on accepting responsibility for your own actions.

His advice was similar to that given by John Hancock:

“The greatest ability in (life) is to get along with others and influence their actions.  A chip on the shoulder is too heavy a piece of baggage to carry through life.”

     �

Herm Edwards of the NFL’s Kansas City Chiefs just got fired, becoming the most recent professional head coach to lose his job.  It was about time for a coach to be fired.  After all, it was a entire day since Mark Iavaroni was pink slipped by the Memphis Grizzlies of the NBA.

People think the reason for firing a coach is he did a poor job and lost too many games. And they’re correct -partially.  However, there are other factors that come into play.  The reason it can’t just be losing is that many of the teams that just fired their coaches wouldn’t have won if Vince Lombardi or Red Auerbach, in their heydays, were coaching them.  Plain and simple, they were bad teams whose rosters were filled with bad players, players, for the most part, selected in the draft, free agency or through trades by the general manager.  Firing the coach “buys time” for the GM, shifting the blame to the head coach - and blame is what the fans, i.e. buying public, is most interested in.  “Oh, he was the culprit?  You know, I always thought so.  Off with his head.  Boy, now I can’t wait until next year.”

Another reason for the coach being fired, in several cases, is that his lack of success can be pinned on someone else - the owner, who simply made a poor management decision, by hiring the guy in the first place!  Every year, there are certain hires that raise the eyebrows of those “in the know,” i.e. the guys who have been around the game seemingly forever (mainly former coaches and, in some cases, media members) and can give a laundry list of reasons why the new man was the wrong man.  In all my years, I’ve yet to see these wise old vets wrong. 

Next up on the “reasons coaches get fired list” is the coach couldn’t get along with the players, or at least the players who had the owner’s (and possibly GM’s) ear.  The tag “franchise player” doesn’t refer only to playing skills.  This isn’t a new concept (unless you consider what Magic Johnson did to Paul Westhead as recent).

Another factoid, albeit one less frequent - a proven winner becomes available, i.e. the GM or owner hears from, say, Bill Cowher’s agent that his client is worried that his jaw is unclenching which can only mean he’d better get back into coaching and is there any truth to the rumor your coach’s contract won’t be renewed?  There is now.

Let’s talk reality and nothing talks reality better than numbers.  The number of NFL games in a year is 256, i.e. 16 (the number of games played by each team) times 16 (32 NFL teams with two teams playing in each game).  The overall record each year in the NFL is 128 wins and 128 losses.  Note: There was one tie this past year, so call the record 127-127-2.  So … when the Tennessee Titans went 13-3, somebody had to absorb those 10 losses to even out the slate.  Same goes for every other team posting a winning record.

In the NBA the numbers are 82 games played by 30 teams or an overall record of 615-615.  Currently, the Lakers, Celtics, Magic and Cavs are a combined 102 games over .500 and the season just passed the halfway point!  Can you start to understand now why seven of the 30 NBA head coaches have been fired already?  With rumors of possible changes in Detroit, Phoenix, New Jersey and, naturally, the Clippers?     

Former head man for the Houston Rockets and New York Knicks, Jeff Van Gundy, a very cerebral commentator, coach, individual (and being smart in one area does not necessarily mean you automatically qualify in the others) evaluated the current situation of the NBA coach’s life expectancy.  “Unless your name is Phil Jackson, Gregg Popovich, Jerry Sloan or Doc Rivers, if you lose three games in a row, you’re instantly on the hot seat.”  And, until last season, Doc’s seat was mighty warm.

If changing coaches can increase a team’s value, consider it done. Your fans will not put up with excessive losses.  Season-ticket renewals aren’t so easy in today’s economy. 

Yet, while fans must be placated, the people directly involved don’t want to come off as heartless.  Fishing reels aren’t spun as much as press conferences after a coach is let go.  Listen to a portion of the press conference when Tampa Bay fired Jon Gruden (who, although he was the coach when the Bucs won a Super Bowl, it was just too long ago).  “These decisions are never easy. This is the toughest decision you can make for an NFL franchise.  Jon (is a) consummate professional.  (He’s) poured (his) heart and soul into this franchise,” Buccaneers co-chairman Joel Glazer said. “It’s really been an honor to work with (him).”  Or this from the most recently deposed coach: “This was not an easy decision,” the KC’s boss, Clark Hunt, said. “Herm is an outstanding football coach and a man of integrity.”  Other terms of endearment are lines like: “____ is a great human being and we wish him the best in his future endeavors.  We just decided we needed to go in a different direction” (why didn’t they just give this wonderful humanitarian a compass)?  Or the ever popular, “We felt like we needed a different voice.”  Perfect, hire a ventriloquist - or, better yet, Rich Little.  Who has more voices than Rich?  Anytime a different voice is needed, bingo.  Talk about job security.

One item that’s never mentioned is the nice parting gift the outgoing coach receives.  Even if he only has one year left on his contract, like Herm Edwards, it’s usually for what his is - the last year of a 4-year, $12 million deal.  Herm ought to be able to make ends meet for a while - as long as he doesn’t run into a Bernie Madoff protege.

One thing I’ve never understood is coaching is one job where there are an overabundance of applicants (and with the law of averages being what it is, many of them must be highly capable), all of whom like money, but most of whom (the highly competent ones included) would take the position for a fraction of what teams are currently paying.  Sure, no one’s going to get a Bill Cowher at a bargain price, but it doesn’t seem like Mike Tomlin’s doing such a bad job in his absence (at about half the price).  I have no knowledge of this, but I’m pretty certain he would have taken the job for less (than the 4-year, $10 million he’s making).  He obviously (now) was the perfect fit and I’d be willing to bet he knew that - and only needed the opportunity.  Should the Steelers win the whole enchilada, he’ll be in for a new deal and a (BIG) raise.

My strong feeling is that coaches and players (although the union would be up in arms should it even be suggested) ought to be paid based on only two elements: wins and paid attendance.  No other stats will do because players will find ways to pad them (remember Dennis Rodman missing easy shots so he could get another rebound before he scored or the stories of him stealing rebounds from teammates just to up his total number of boards)?

Teams shouldn’t fear the untested coach.  Just make sure the proper research on him is done.  What he lacks in experience, he’ll more than make up for in enthusiasm, work ethic and energy.  “But the players won’t respect a guy who’s not making a ton of money,” the skeptics will cry.  Do you really think there’s a whole lot of respect right now?  Especially on these teams who are making coaching changes?  As former Princeton coach Pete Carril used to say everytime he’d hear the players complaining their coach’s firing was unjustified, that it was them on the floor and that they loved the guy, “If they really felt that way, they should have been playing harder for him during the season.”

It might be a giant risk, but what you’re doing now ain’t working, so as the saying goes:

“Don’t have your goal: to get to death safely.”  �

Independent of what type of organization you’re working for, unless you’re a self-employed outfit of one, you must face the task of having to deal with co-workers.  This is not always unpleasant and, as a matter of fact, for some people (the truly lucky ones), it’s the best part of the job.  The statement regarding colleagues that resonated most with me was made by long-time, ultra-successful Fresno City College baseball coach Ron Scott.  When asked by a reporter about not getting the opportunity to land a Division I head coaching job, despite winning California State Titles and developing numerous professional baseball players, including many major leaguers, Scott said something that made me stop and think, and to be quite honest, I was a little envious (still am).  He gave the company line (like so many others) about how he loved being at FCC, but followed it up with, “I come out to work with my best friends everyday.  How many people can say that?”  How many indeed.

But, then again, Scott is the boss (as far as running the baseball program goes) and, for the most part, gets to hire whomever he pleases.  Not many of us have that power.  In fact, most of us got a job where the vast majority of the company was made up of people we, not only didn’t know, but people we’d actually never even met.  And in most cases, it was up to us to fit in with those already in place.

In most cases, you usually tread somewhat lightly, using the early days - and maybe even weeks and months, to observe which of your fellow employees you seem to connect with and whose company you’d enjoy during break times, before and after work hours, or even whom you’d select as someone to sit next to during a staff meeting or get together.

As the old saying goes, “It takes all kinds” and, inevitably, there will be people who, for whatever reason(s) will rub you the wrong way.  In the vast majority of cases, it’s likely those people’s feelings toward you is mutual, which is great because, while you don’t particularly want to socialize with them, they don’t look at hanging out with you as a slice of heaven either.

Since I’m the author of this blog, I get to select which type of co-worker I feel is the most annoying.  Although there are many categories available from which to choose, my pick would have to be the person who … has to be right.  About everything.  Even things that don’t matter.  I can remember as far back as my college days when one of my roommates dated a bitch girl who was the prototype of this character.  One day, one of us wondered aloud how much money the average hot dog street vendor in New York City made.  She knew, to the dollar.  One of my other roommates, just to egg her on, disagreed and said, “No way they make that much.”  She started rattling off statistics she couldn’t have possibly known (naturally, she gave no source) and it turned a frustrating conversation into an amusing episode as he continually contradicted her with figures of his own - except he was quoting sources (Baron’s, The Wall Street Journal, the financial section of the New York Times) all the while, of course, pulling numbers out of the air, going so far as to give dates to the articles he was quoting.  What she didn’t realize was, this guy never read a newspaper that didn’t have a sports section (which happened to be all he read of it).

Earlier this week, I spoke with a very good friend from out of town and he told me of a guy he worked with who was the poster boy for the “always right crowd.”  No one ever brought up a subject he didn’t know everything about, including areas unrelated to their job.  He viewed himself as the resident expert.  One time, the boss made a statement and this guy had the cojones to correct him, basically saying, “No, you’re wrong.”  And this is in a job where there’s not only no tenure or union to back you should the boss take (the ultimate) offense - as many a boss might have in such an instance but where the best word that fits the job security is tenuous.  The superior in this instance happened to be a lot more secure in his job and himself than to even acknowledge the knucklehead.

My friend usually doesn’t say much at this type of meeting, but in this case, he felt obliged because by now (not that day, but harkening back to when he started with the company and had to endure this egomaniac over and over) he’d had his fill of this know-it-all and he said, looking the joker dead straight in the eye:

“Your wife told me when she married you, she found her Mr. Right.  She didn’t realize, though, that your first name was ‘Always.’”

Shortly thereafter (I think he told me right after he made that comment), the meeting was adjourned.  All but one of the participants was smiling as they left.        �

A night of high school basketball, followed by final exams that need to be graded by tomorrow (I always get tests back the following class period because studies have shown one of the best motivators for production is immediate feedback) has sent me into the archives for one of the best blogs - seriously - I’ve ever done (5/14/07), especially with what’s in store for all of us now.  See if you don’t agree - and, as always, whether you do or not, feel free to post a comment. 

There’s no doubt that somewhere in a person’s past, he or she wanted to accomplish something and didn’t.  Why not?

There are as many explanations as there are failures.  I’ve lived in nine different states, all across the nation, among a great diversity of people, and can testify with a reasonable amount of certainty that I’ve heard, while not all, definitely the overwhelming majority of excuses.

“People were out to get me,” “I wasn’t given the promised resources/support,” “I got so close when they pulled the plug on me,” “Personailty clash with the boss,” “It was an impossible situation from the get-go,” “It simply wasn’t meant to be,” “The weather,” “I wasn’t given a fighting chance,” “They were against me because of my ______ (fill in the blank with ‘race’, ‘ethnicity’, ‘gender’, ‘religion’, etc.”), “Deep down, they really didn’t want me to succeed.”

Taking all this into account, as well as all the situations I’ve experienced, witnessed, read or heard about, the real reason comes down to one word: commitment.  Whoever it was, yours truly included, didn’t fulfill the goal because there was a lack of commitment.  The greatest quote I’ve ever heard regarding commitment is one attributed to the founder of the National Speakers Association, Cavett Robert, who said:

“The definition of commitment is following something through after the enthusiasm of the moment has passed.”

Add to that, a quote from the back jacket cover of one of the books I’m currently reading entitled Talent Is Overrated by Geoff Colvin.  The quote is by author Daniel Pink, who says Colvin:

“…reveals the true path to high performance - deliberate practice fueled by intrinsic motivation.”�