Jack’s Blog

In what was Buchanan High’s first home playoff game in recent memory, the #1 seeded Bears hung tough against Stockdale High School out of Bakersfield and its star, senior Jordan Burris (who’s bound for Nevada).  Younger son Alex had a boatload of points (estimates ranged from 28-31) but it was his senior teammate, Sam Milhous, who tipped in Alex’s miss just prior to the buzzer sounding, enabling the Bears to “survive and advance” to the next round.

After the hectic game, it’s off to New Jersey to visit my ailing mother - assuming I can get into New Jersey.  Whatever the case, the blog will be taking a leave of absence until I return in the middle of next week.  As always, I recommend catching up on the archived posts, which go back as far as 2007 when this space was begun.

You’re bound to learn a little something.  As Mark Twain said:

“I never met a man I couldn’t learn from.”

Be back with you shortly.

Yesterday, I blogged as to whether the University of North Carolina, (if they end the season with at least a .500 record), should accept a bid to the NIT.  Last night, on his radio show, I posed the same question to Jerry Tarkanian.

I’ve known Jerry since 1974 and thought I knew what his answer would be.  While his answer was exactly what I thought it would be (”If I were Roy, there would be no way I’d want to play, unless there was political pressure from the administration”), one of his reasons was something I hadn’t considered.  Maybe this is what a head coach (which he was for his entire career) thinks about that an assistant (which I was for my entire career) doesn’t.

“Carolina shouldn’t accept an NIT bid because their players don’t deserve it.  Post season play should be a reward for a good season,” the coach said.  He also mentioned that nothing good could come out of playing in the NIT for the Heels.  Then he enlightened the listening audience with a story about his first team at UNLV, a team he has publicly said he didn’t like - putting it rather mildly.

“We needed to win our last three games to get an NIT bid,” began the coaching legend.  “Near the end of each game, our fans would begin the chant, ‘NIT, NIT.’  After we won our last game, the crowd was cheering louder and louder.  I really didn’t like the team.  As I was thinking of what I was going to say to the guys in the locker room, my assistant leaned over to me and said:

‘Tark, do you realize that if we go to the NIT, we’re stuck with these guys for another two weeks?’ “   

Invitation declined, thank you.

If invited (they only would need a break-even or better record), would the University of North Carolina men’s basketball team consider playing in the NIT?  With the state of hoops what it is in Tar Heel Land, it looks like their NCAA Tourney run is over.  Not the deep run, but the “getting in the Dance” run.

The NIT would so love to have UNC in the field that, not only would they give them all home games to the semis, but they might even think about playing the Final Four in The Smith Center.  Sure Chapel Hill’s not New York, but The Dean Dome has a greater capacity than the Garden and they’d be guaranteed sellouts.  Even if all Carolina Blue faithful boycotted the games, the fans of the other ACC schools would buy tickets just to cheer the Heels to defeat.  A ground breaking for a Tavern on the Green-South might be imminent.   

Bob Knight, who, safe to say, hated losing as much as any other guy, still would never refuse to play in the NIT.  That hearkened back to his coaching days at West Point - when the ultimate goal was for the Cadets to get an invite to play in the Garden (back then, all games were played in MSG).  Also, Knight had tremendous respect for those on the NIT Committee as well as legendary former East Coast coaches as Clair Bee, Joe Lapchick and Al Lobalbo.

Now, Roy’s not like Bob Knight in many ways, but one trait they share is a deep respect for the tradition of college basketball - and the NIT is more than just tradition.  Now a joke among fans and talk show hosts, it’s still considered an honor to compete in the postseason and an incredible experience if a team should ever make it to The Big Apple.  Most of the critics don’t have an appreciation for what getting into post season play means  - especially for some schools, who have to overcome injuries, defections or snubs by larger schools to play home & home, or in many cases, to play at all.  I wonder how many of these people would be selected for a similar type of “postseason award” in their business, i.e. in the top 19% of people in their line of work (what a team has to do to be invited to the NCAA Tournament) or in the top 28% (NCAA or NIT) ?

It would be a real dilemma for Roy and the administration if they were invited to the NIT. Talk about a “lose-lose” situation!  Even “cutting down the nets” would be demeaning to some of their fans.  I remember, after a fairly long streak of NCAA appearances, we (at the University of Tennessee) got invited to the NIT.  I remember having a conversation with Jud Heathcote shortly after the selection and mentioning our disappointment.  He told me he felt the same way - until one year, Michigan State had a losing season and didn’t get invited anywhere.  He advised me to be grateful for any postseason.

Which is the situation staring UNC squarely in the face.  As for what fans of Carolina ought to be doing, consider John Randolph’s quote when evaluating the current season: 

“Stick with a friend a little in the wrong.”

In this era of the me-first, selfish, stubborn athlete, Tim Tebow is a beacon of hope to everyone who dreams of famous people being role models and standing for all that’s right. 

Many were of the feeling, “he has everything I wish I did” (National Championship, Heisman Trophy, POY awards, love and respect that went well beyond Gator Nation, good looks, intelligence, personality, supportive family - wow, no wonder people are jealous), “let’s see how we can tear him down.”  Yet, Tebow, hearing criticism heaped upon him (isn’t “piling on” still a penalty?) - some of it valid, some petty - listened, and rather than striking out at his critics, as many of today’s athletes do, decided to make what he considered necessary changes.

And there were many changes to accomplish in a short period of time.  At first he said all he wanted was for a team to give him a chance at playing quarterback in the NFL.  The “experts” did him a favor and broke down what they considered his flaws.  One was he always operated out of the gun, so he worked on 3- and 5-step drops.  He reached out and asked for help with his footwork.

Next up on the “change” docket was his holding the ball too low and “winding up” to throw, taking entirely too long to deliver a pass.  Video clips show him working on keeping the ball up and releasing it from the top, sans wind up. 

He explains he still just wants a shot but, instead of attacking his critics (which his stats would back up) or complaining about his coaches at Florida never having corrected it while he was matriculating at UF (a valid point), he acknowledges what needs to be changed and speaks of succeeding because of his work ethic - something that no one, even his harshest critics, ever questioned.

As a father of two sons, one a junior in college (a year younger than Tebow) and the other who’s showing rare talent for someone as young as he is (a high school soph), I anticipate the boys asking me about someone who’d serve as a good role model.  Tim Tebow is certainly one of the top two people on the list - and, right now, I’m not sure who the other one is.

Tim Tebow must have attended the Richard Bach school of attitude.  Bach’s quote:

“You are never given a wish without also being given the power of making it come true.  You may have to work for it, however.”    Â

There are times when your children’s behavior makes you wonder if they hear anything you tell them.  While their actions make you wonder, every so often you get an indication that they’re paying more attention to you than you realize.  The following story is from my book, Life’s A Joke (naturally, available for purchase, by sending a check for $10 - I cover the tax and S&H - to 365 Sandpiper Ct, Fresno, CA 93730).  I was with a group of friends and, actually, someone else brought it up.  It got a chuckle from everyone in attendance so I figured I’d share it.  (That, and I couldn’t think of anything else to blog).

We moved to Fresno (from Arcadia) in 1995 and our first son, Andy, began playing soccer with a group of boys from his elementary school.  The coach was a father of one of the players and someone who was very knowledgeable and passionate about soccer.  Following games, he would have a brief meeting with the team to discuss what had happened - in order to improve their performance for the next game.

Our opponent on this day had a young star named Benji.  He was the talk of the team prior to the game and I was really interested to watch this 7-year-old prodigy.  Sure enough, Benji lived up to his reputation as he scored both goals in the 2-0 match.  After the contest, the coach called the team together as he always did.  He posed the question, “What do we need to do to get better?”

Andy immediately raised his hand, absolutely certain he knew the answer. 

“Recruit Benji!”

Georgia Tech lost a heart-breaker yesterday when Maryland beat them twice with buzzer-beaters.  Down one, with seconds to play, the first game-winner, a shot by Greivis Vasquez, Maryland’s leading scorer, went in with 0.9 seconds to play.  However, . . . it was disallowed because, just prior to it, UM had called time out.

No prob.  The referees had the clock reset to 1.5 seconds and, after Terps’ coach, Gary Williams, diagrammed the play he wanted, Cliff Tucker nailed a three-pointer as the horn sounded.

When I saw the highlight, I had a flashback to one of the most depressing moments of my 30-year college coaching career as an assistant (of some sort) at nine Division I schools.  It was the second round of the 1992 NCAA Tournament.  Midwest region #2 seed (USC, my school) was playing the #7 seed (Georgia Tech) in Milwaukee.  Our team was playing great.  We’d swept UCLA and went 15-3 in the Pac-10 but didn’t win the league because, other than us, no one else in the league had beaten the Bruins.  To my knowledge, it’s the one and only time a team finished 15-3 in league play and didn’t at least share the Pac-10 title.

That didn’t matter to us.  We’d steamrolled NE Louisiana in the first round and felt confident we could beat the Yellow Jackets - even though talent-wise, they were far superior to us.  We had two guys, junior Harold Miner - who. months later, would be Miami’s first round pick at #13 and senior point guard Duane Cooper, who got drafted in the second round and made the Lakers’ roster.  Neither of them had much of a career at the next level.  Tech, meanwhile, had Jon Barry and Travis Best as their backcourt and Matt Geiger in the middle - all multi-year NBA guys.

Prior to our game, Memphis State, the #6 seed, upset #3 seed, Arkanasas, so going into our game, we knew the path to the Final Four had become considerably easier for the winner of our contest.  With seconds to go, we scored to go up two.  Ga Tech called their last time out.  Our head coach, George Raveling, told our guys to pick up full court (there were about eight seconds to go) and the strategy was not to let Barry or Best beat us.  Barry was guarded so tightly, that as he got to midcourt, he dribbled the ball off our guard’s foot - with 0.8 seconds left.  For those unfamiliar with 0.8, it stands for eight-tenths of a second.  We were less than a second away from advancing to the Sweet Sixteen (and, due to Arkansas getting upset, we felt, the Elite 8).

The ball was awarded to Tech across from their bench (the identical spot Maryland inbounded the ball in yesterday’s game.  Since they didn’t have a time out left, there was confusion as they lined up for the side-out-of-bounds play.  When the referee handed the ball to the Georgia Tech player, our two guards, remembering the instructions from the previous time out, i.e. “Don’t let Barry or Best beat us” went into all-out denial.  Their inbounder was having trouble finding someone to throw it to.  The five-second count was winding down and Al McGuire (who was doing the color commentary) was screaming, “Throw it at the basket, throw it at the basket!” 

Finally, their freshman, James Forrest, broke free, caught the pass and, as he was quoted after the game, “shot it without really looking at the rim.”  From our angle at the opposite end of the floor, we could see it was a rainbow - that was destined for the bottom of the basket.  We lost - on a prayer.

Yesterday, in the post-game press conference, Tucker said it was a play they’d run in practice - although he had never taken the shot.  Deja vu for Georgia Tech, only with the tables turned.

Another twist to this story is that George Raveling used to be an assistant coach at Maryland and Georgia Tech is coached by Paul Hewitt, a former Rav assistant.  So, as the quote goes:

“Coincidence is God’s way of staying anonymous.”   Â

Random thoughts on Tiger Woods’ “public statement,” as Tom Rinaldi aptly described it.

How can so many people feel so strongly on both sides of this issue - and not just your average slappy who just wants to vent?  None other than a group of completely unrelated people like Donny Deutsch, George Stephanopolous, Rick Reilly, Jim Gray, Christine Brennan and John Salley thought he did anywhere from “great” to “did what was expected of him.”  The polar opposite group consisted of John Feinstein, Stephen A. Smith, Rick Cerrone (former NY Yankees’ head of PR), other “media coaches” (whose names are omitted because they wouldn’t be recognized) and Brit Hume - whose counsel to Tiger was he should become a Christian.  How could so many people’s feelings be so diametrically opposed?

Could personal agendas be involved?  Say, a member of the pro-Woods group have a book or endorsement deal lined up that he or she could neatly profit from?  How about the anti folks?  Maybe someone requested an exclusive interview or an appearance and was blown off?

The people who are in his corner say they thought Tiger looked vulnerable, uncomfortable, shaken, scared and one even said he resembled a “broken” man.  They say there was a humility not seen before, and certainly there was none of that TW confidence and “Eye of the Tiger.”  One doctor feared he might be depressed and had not yet hit bottom. 

The opposition’s case claimed the event was staged and he was overcoached.  Only speaking before friends and not allowing questions did little to make the apology credible.  One critic went so far as to call it an infomercial.  

For the question of the night on ESPN, they asked the nation if they still believed in Tiger. The response was that two-thirds were still behind him.  My guess is that group was represented by people who didn’t know Woods, bringing me to the conclusion that either people want to believe he can come back and be the Tiger everyone admired (or was it idolized?) or they just want him back on the Tour because golf is so much more interesting when he’s playing.

A few more ramblings:

As far as apologies, in addition to his wife, family, sponsors and the world of golf (which took a beating without Tiger on tour), there is another group he needs to beg for forgiveness and that’s all those who wrote checks to his Foundation.  When that type of donation is usually made, there is an unspoken level of trust involved.  

Although I think he’s a fine writer (and love his initials), I have to disagree with John Feinstein who said “Tiger’s a great actor.”  Independent of  how good an actor is, admitting to multiple cases of adultery on national TV (it was said, “The nation came to a halt” to witness this apology, meaning millions and millions of viewers) - with your mother barely ten feet away - had to cause emotional distress - even to Sir Laurence Olivier.

For those who wanted him to answer questions and came away unsatisfied, what did they want - dates and times, graphic details, tears?  Forget the latter - the Tiger-haters would claim they were manufactured. 

As I blogged on 12/3/09, Tiger’s biggest sin, in my eyes, was that if he knew he had this “problem” (and he must have known), he should have put off marriage until he had it under control.  Had Tiger not been married, the public would look at him like they do Derek Jeter - the ultimate athlete who happens to be a great looking guy and whose fame might only be exceeded by his money - the bon vivant every man dreamed he could be.  (Sans the prostitute charges, that is).

I truly believe how people felt after viewing the fifteen or so minutes Woods spoke - from Rick Reilly to Stephen A. to the weekend hacker - had next to nothing with the delivery, content, whether or not the comments were authentic (to say he needed someone to write it for him - c’mon, the guy went to Stanford) or whether or not he was sincere.  How people felt after watching him was identical to how they felt before.  They watched yesterday’s proceedings with a jaundiced eye, picking apart what he said and using whichever lines would serve to justify their (prior) feeling toward him. 

This seems to be another case of Stephen Covey’s statement:

“We judge others by their actions; ourselves, by our intentions.”Â

It seems as though college basketball’s 2009-10 season is void of true marquis teams we’ve seen in past years.  Teams play great, look like title contenders, but then fall mightily to also-rans.  Examples: Texas (in the midst of a serious slide after becoming #1 for the first time in the school’s history - basketball, not football . . . or baseball . . . or track . . . hey, maybe it was too much to handle), Villanova, Syracuse, Purdue (although they’re coming on strong as of late), Tennessee (possibly the hottest and coldest team in the nation - during the same week), Georgetown, Duke, Michigan State, Kansas State and the list goes on.

Two schools have distanced themselves from the rest of the country and even if someone’s dyslexic they could figure out at least one of them.  Right now, the initials of this year’s (highly) probable national champion are the same, but the jury’s out as to which order they’ll go on the trophy.  Kansas, aka KU, has a phenomenal team, a blend of youth and experience - both talented - but their mirror image (in more ways than UK) is as good, if not better.

Their pulling away from the field has been displayed by one of the most difficult tasks in college hoops - winning, in the league, on the road.  While the others have faltered in hostile arenas, the Jayhawks and Wildcats have stood strong.  KU’s lone loss was at Tennessee, a depleted team due to suspensions, but one that, prior to losing three key players, got embarrassed in Los Angeles by a “nothing-to-play-for” bunch of scrappy USC Trojans.  UK lost at USC as well, but it was a group of Southern Gamecocks, led by a tiny, yet apparently, unguardable player who, upon first blush, wouldn’t exactly strike fear in the hearts of big-time basketball players.

Both “K’s” have bounced back nicely and have stood firm against their competition, much of it formidable, if not up to the usual level for their respective conferences.  At this moment, Kansas might have the edge due to more experienced leadership, but when the tournament rolls around a month from now, Kentucky’s guys will have gained plenty of basketball maturity.  Each coach has not only been to the biggest game, but they did so against each other (Bill Self at KU and John Calipari at Memphis) in a game that couldn’t have been closer.  No doubt, Bill thanks his lucky stars every time he thinks of his championship, while Cal beats himself up over what could have been.

Naturally, college basketball, as unpredictable as it always seems to be, may not come down to the symmetrical UK-KU match up in the Finals.  But it would be some game if it did.  Although it would lose something in suspense knowing now that would be the last game on Monday night, I have to admit I can’t think of a game that would be more appropriate.

While attempting to stay out of the trouble, I’ll paraphrase a statement Bob Knight made to Connie Chung (actually was sandbagged by the mood Chung had set off camera, according to people who were there) about the inevitability of a Jayhawk-Wildcat national championship match up: 

“If this game’s inevitable, relax and enjoy it.”

One of the words created in the past decade is coachspeak.  It stands for what coaches (don’t) say at press conferences and in interviews.

Some coaches take the “the public is on a need to know basis” approach.  Bill Belichick has perfected this style.  They feel like “anything they say can, and will, be held against them” in a court - or field - or locker room.  The answers are such that most any interested fan could give.  The Joe Friday response - “Just the facts, m’am, just the facts.”  Heaven forbid, anything is uttered that would wind up on the opponent’s bulletin board.  I can’t ever recall someone saying about a successful coach - or an unsuccessful one for that matter - “That guy has the best bulletin board in the league.”

The bad-mouth coach, made popular by Lou Holtz, is one that only his own fans can love.  Even when having an overwhelming size, strength and talent advantage - and playing at home - these guys would make Tony Robbins worry.  “I know our opponent hasn’t won a game since kicking tees were eliminated, but, on any given day, they’re capable of knocking anyone in the country.”  At least Lou, when questioned about his philosophy, explained it in a somewhat reasonable fashion.  “If they play as well as they can,” Lou began, “and we play as poorly as we can, can we lose?  I always found the answer to be ‘yes.’ “ 

Then there’s the coach who subscribes to the “if you can’t dazzle them with your footwork, then baffle them with your BS.”  These coaches, usually young or on losing streaks (sometimes over the course of a couple - or more - years), feel the best way to insure job security (since they just got the job - or fear they’re in danger of losing it) is to speak in tongue.  The thought process is, “maybe this guy is wet behind the ears (or overweighted in the L column), but the depth of his knowledge sure surpasses mine.” 

Words and phrases like “he eats glass (great rebounder), has no trouble switching 1-4(can defend post players and guards) and can really deck it” (the guy can drive to the basket) makes a basketball coach sound knowledgeable.  What has surfaced recently must have been invented because there are too many analysts - and nobody wants to be boring.  “He can really score the ball.”  What the hell else would you want him to score?  “his shot may be off today but he did you see him score his socks?”  “Don’t let him get close to the bucket because he can really throw down that Gatorade cup.” 

Football coaches have their pet phrases, too.  They are notorious for never saying “game” or “player” - it’s always “football game” and “football player.”  As in, “That was one great football game.”  What other kind of contest did they think we wanted their observations on?  Also, the most overused word by football coaches is, without a doubt, “hopefully.” 

Other coaches in other sports have their similar styles and maybe the the Internet caused all this.  Too many interviews with guys not wanting to give the same sound bite.  It was refreshing, though, to read the article on the Saints winning the Super Bowl in 2/15/10 issue of Sports Illustrated and read Sean Payton’s quote.  Not because it’s startling, but because I never thought I’d hear a coach publicly say something like this (even though he waited until after they won):

“It’s a coach’s dream to be an underdog when you’ve got the better team.”Â

Loyal reader Dave Pickford, World History teacher supreme and an even better swim and water polo coach, emailed me the following.  Although relinquishing ego is difficult, what he talks about is certainly as good as any post I’ve ever done - from a content point of view as well as from a thought-provoking angle.  Here are his ideas, well thought out and certainly worth your time.  Comments are welcome.

I had a question on whether or not you had written a blog on the development of leadership/leadership characteristics within teenagers.  Checking your index and seeing that you had over 300 cross references to leadership, I thought it would be a better use of my time just to ask you than to sift through all of that brilliance (especially during swim season when I have to plan three workouts a day, six days a week).Here’s my question.  With all of the administrating of youth sports (and the preponderance of video games and social networking and other crimps on kids time), have we basically cut the opportunities for kids to develop leadership characteristics?  When you and I were growing up, we played basketball with the fellows in the neighborhood.  Frank was my neighbor and he was the luckiest kid on the block (in my mind) because he had a basketball hoop attached to his house and much of the day, when his parents didn’t park the car in the driveway, we would play one on one, two on two, two on three, etc.  We would play outside for hours.  Now I grew up in Huntington Beach where the average temperature year-round is 72′ so it was easier to stay outside for that long.  Now these games were played on a driveway that was sloped so the outside shots had to be calibrated.  A shot under the basket was nine and half feet off the ground and the shots from the the sidewalk were ten and a half feet.  The mid-range jumper was a perfect ten feet high.My point is that we played for hours, called our own fouls, set up our own teams, decided who played who, administrated disputes and even figured out how to get Frank’s dad to move the car when he was sleeping so we could play (hey, Mr. Sanborn, we’ll cut your grass if you move the car so we can play).  A lot of times I made suggestions on how we could make the games competitive or come up with other shooting games.  I think one of the reasons I have coached for a long time is that each season is not a copy of the same season’s plan we had for the last fifteen years.  How do I teach this concept in a way the kids have fun but they also develop the skill I want them to learn?  Additionally, since we called our own fouls, anybody who was unreasonable was shouted down.  “That’s a foul…are you kidding me, I never touched you…no, you bumped me…and you’re calling that a foul!”

The only time I can ever recall things not working out democratically was one of the kids took his ball home after being outvoted on some argument but fortunately, he wised up a few days later and life went on.Today, kids look to their parents, officials, administrators and other adults to solve disputes.  Rarely do they get chance to do it themselves and now look what seems to happen more and more frequently…Johnny goes off to college and makes all of these bad decisions.  Perhaps it’s because he was never allowed to make any decisions, good or bad, when he was growing up.I took this concept and applied it to water polo practices a few summers ago, first with the girls and then later with the boys’ teams.  It worked really well with the girls, I thought, because none of them had ever played half-court basketball.  “Taking it back” was a foreign concept, calling their own fouls was a new experience and even just having someone speak up and direct people here to go was eye-opening.  I just explained the way the game should be played and that there would be no referee on deck to call fouls.  We set up three half-court games and then just sat back and  watched.  After a while, girls who had always relied on the referee to call the foul and bail them out of a difficult  situation were reluctant to call it on the player guarding them.  Both girls knew if it was a foul or not and if it was, it was called and if it wasn’t, a girl who claimed it was was given the benefit of the doubt and play continued.  The “fouled” player filed that experience in her head and thought better about calling it the next time it came up.  If the girls knew the rules, they could apply them which is always a good thing.  The first time we played, there were a few times when I had to step in but by the fourth time we played that summer, I could not have even been there except to open the pool.

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