Jack’s Blog

When polls are taken as to which teams fans like the most, the names that are mentioned most often are the Yankees, Lakers, Patriots, USC (football), UConn (women’s basketball and Duke & North Carolina (men’s basketball).  When the question that’s asked is which teams do fans hate the most, the same names appear.

People want to be winners and, aligning themselves with a winner, makes them one - or so the thinking goes for many I’ve known over the years.  For those who want to see competitive balance, the teams that win all the time are looked at as evil empires (as Geno Auriemma used to call the Lady Vols, and, ironically, what a good deal of the country now refer to his program).  After last night’s NIT semi-final game between the Tarheels and the Rhode Island Rams, that segment of society is in an uproar.

Near the end of a very competitive game (which URI had led, and had more than share of opportunities to seal it), there were four calls, all of which went Carolina’s way.  The first was a drive by a Rhody guard in which a Tarheel defender grabbed his arm, only to have the offensive player fight through it and score anyway.  Definitely a missed call, however.

The next were a series of calls on the final play of overtime.  First, a UNC guard apparently traveled (no replay, but a move that had color commentary Bill Raftery say, “Oh, could have been a travel” and it did look as though there was a shuffling of the feet), then an out-of-bounds call that could have gone either way (although a replay looked as though the refs got it right), followed by a scramble after a Tarheel missed shot, with the Heels up one, the Rams Lamonte Ulmer got the rebound and attempted to push it upcourt when Tarheel Will graves tripped him - with his hand.  It wasn’t a cheap shot, more like a reaction, but nonetheless, a foul should have been called.

ESPN’s “third man in the booth,” Fran Fraschilla, made the comment that not only was there a foul on the play, but that call is a point of emphasis for referees this season.  I know both coaches, Roy Williams and Jimmy Baron, quite well and honestly, I had no rooting interest in the game.  Maybe that’s why my first thought was, “the Tarheel haters will be out in force tonight” (and tomorrow).  The reason jealousy is unhealthy is summed up by Baltasar Gracian:

“The envious die not once, but as often as the envied win applause.”

Although Duke is the only number one seed to have made it to the Final Four, no one is anointing them as national champion, as would have been the case had Kansas or Kentucky (but not both) had made it to Indy.  One reason might be the anti-Duke feeling in many parts.  I happen to agree with Dick Vitale (although with considerably less volume) on this point.  People may have a dislike for Duke’s program because they win so often. 

But, in this day and age, with all the wrong that’s been exposed, is it so terrible that kids who work hard on the basketball court and go to class, at a prestigious institution, with a demanding but gracious coach, are successful at what they do?  There’s another reason I think Duke isn’t the people’s choice and that’s because, throughout the year and in the tournament, they have shown serious deficiencies.

To date, they’ve been able to overcome them, but should Singler have a(nother) bad shooting day or Scheyer miss a lot more than he makes (not an uncommon occurrence) or Zoubek get into early foul trouble - and all of these events take place during the same game, not even Coach K would anticipate a W.

For Butler, they have two things going against them.  One is, as Colin Cowherd said (and who knows more - or is as arrogant - than Colin), “They’re Butler.  They don’t belong.”  He’s not the only person who feels that way, either.  Does that affect them, should they get down big or early (or both) on the biggest stage in college hoops?  Their other drawback is that the tourney’s being played in their hometown.

Huh?  That’s a disadvantage?  When he was asked what he planned on doing differently, Butler’s head coach, Brad Stevens, calmly said, “We plan on having the same practices; we plan on having a specific time set aside for the media; we plan on preparing for the game like we have all year.”  In other words, he wants to treat the game as he would any other.  Great idea.  Consistency and not changing winning habits should disrupt the team as little as possible.

Only this is the Final Four!  When the players go to class - or just walk across campus - they’re going to be showered with (deserved) admiration or, worse, deluged with ticket requests.  People in town will serve as additional distractions.  Brad wants to treat it like any other game but, no matter what spin is put on it, coach after coach maintains the first time you take a team to a Final Four, you’re unprepared.

The remaining two teams could be favorites for their toughness, talent and coaching (although Tom Izzo has had this experience so many times before, Bob Huggins isn’t on his maiden voyage, having gone in 1992), but each has had a star go down with an injury.  For the Spartans, Kailin Lucas is lost for the tournament.  No matter what they’ve done without him, Michigan State may find themselves looking for his leadership and scoring if the game gets close. 

As far as the Mountaineers, their main man, Darryl “Truck” Bryant is talking about being fitted with a special shoe, enabling him to play.  This might be more of a distraction for two reasons.  One is that it’s going to be a constant topic of conversation for the coach and players.  “Will he or won’t he?”  At this time, anything that takes a player’s mind away from focusing on the game plan can’t help.  Worse, however, is if Bryant does play.  It’s hard to believe that someone who was diagnosed with his injury would be able to compete at all, much less at the level needed to be effective, i.e. it might be a hindrance to play him.  If all the talk of him trying to play is just a smokescreen, see the first reason - distraction.

That’s the bad news.  The good news is somebody’s going to win it.  Everyone of them is enthusiastic and as Norman Vincent Peale said of that trait:

“Enthusiasm releases the drive to carry you over obstacles and adds significance to all you do.”

The Final Four is complete and the four teams good (and lucky) enough to move on, begin preparations for an event they’ll never forget.  As for the four who came oh-so-close, but were denied, they’ll look back and beat themselves up over something they did or did not do - that may have prevented their team from playing instead of watching next weekend’s games in Indianapolis.

In the Butler-Kansas State game there were too many to mention.  Years, or maybe even days from now, the K-State guys will wonder, “How could I have been tired in a game that was so important?“  It was so apparent that the 2OT game against Xavier 48 hours prior to the Butler tilt had a major effect on the Wildcats.  A person can will his body to do only so much.  Some may disagree, but in my mind the Wildcats’ problem was much more a physiological than psychological one.  These were tough guys whose major opponent that night was Mother Nature.

The other Wildcats, i.e. the young men from Kentucky, will replay their game over and over in their minds and second guess their willingness to continue to launch three-pointers after missing the mark again and again.  If they’re honest with themselves, they’ll have to admit they might have listened to the hype that they had a clear path to the national championship after Kansas lost.  They also may have been a little overconfident after hearing that WVU’s starting point guard Truck Bryant was out for their game.  As often happens to young players, they think too much about a game they’re not playing (the national championship) and fail to focus properly on the one they’re in.  If you don’t believe that, ask any UK player if they were to play West Virginia again tomorrow who would win.

The Baylor Bears had things going their way, including the large, boisterous crowd in Reliant Stadium, when they missed a couple block out assignments, giving Duke second chances - which the Blue Devils turned into six points.  Think they’d like to have those back?

The heart break of heart breaks, though, was the Michigan State-Tennessee game.  For the first time in UT’s history, its men’s team was playing in the Elite Eight (a fact I was well aware of - as I was an assistant coach for one of the Vols’ Sweet Sixteen teams, a game that had we won, we would have faced a BYU team whom we had beaten earlier in the season by 18 points - in order to go to the Final Four).  Also a first in Big Orange Country - the men were playing after the women.  Take a moment to digest that.  Tennessee isn’t a program with no basketball tradition, yet, prior to yesterday, every season when the men’s team was done playing, their women were still involved in the distaff tourney.

The Vols lost by one.  One point.  You think there won’t be guys replaying moments from that game in their minds?  A missed free throw (especially late in the game), getting over a little too slow on a defensive rotation causing a block call instead of a charge, a referee’s call (of course, that one has to be in there), a point blank or wide open miss, . . . or as Bruce Pearl mentioned - and anyone watching could see he was already reliving it - not sprinting back to set up in the half court on their last defensive possession which would have surely forced overtime.  In his words, “We liked our chances in overtime.”

Guys who’ve experienced similar situations have mentioned they have never been able to bring themselves to watch the game, or the end of games they lost like that.  Maybe that’s why Mercedes Lackey said:

“If only.  Those must be the two saddest words in the world.” Â

Everyone thought Michigan State had a distinct advantage in last year’s Final Four, playing so close to home in Detroit.  Prior to the 2009-10 college basketball season, no one predicted hometown Butler would be a participating member of this year’s Division I national championship.  Even the grandest of visionaries wouldn’t dare make the claim that, years ago, when Indianapolis was awarded the 2010 men’s Final Four, that they advised that it would be unfair to the other three teams if Butler were to advance that far. 

The fact they did and now have the hometown advantage shouldn’t be cause for alarm for the parent organization, the NCAA.  What should be worrisome to the leaders of college athletics, however, is the magnification of a problem they face every year at this time - monitoring of complimentary tickets.  Scalping of Final Four tickets has become a mega-business.  It is equal in scale to any sporting event - the Super Bowl, BCS Championship, Kentucky Derby, Indianapolis 500 (see, those folks are already well-versed in dealing with brokers). 

Players of the participating schools get complimentary tickets.  This area has been a continuing nightmare for the NCAA enforcement staff.  Throughout the years, changes have been made due to players getting top dollar for tickets - and these were tickets for their regular season home games.  Initially, rules were passed that made tickets available only to family members.  During my three decades in intercollegiate basketball (which ended in 2002), questions would arise such as: how about 1) a player’s fiancee or fiancee’s parents or siblings, 2) the person who literally raised the student-athlete, yet is not technically a blood relative or legal guardian, or 3) a life-long friend or neighbor, often people who would feed and house the s-a?  As with most NCAA rules, whenever one loophole was closed, a few more would open. 

The advent of a “wild-card” ticket (or two) was always discussed, but every administrator knew if a player found the right wild-card, . . . let’s just say complimentary tickets became the 1000 lb gorilla in the room.  Not exactly “Don’t ask, don’t tell” but as cumbersome an issue as the parent group had in its ever-expanding rule book.  

When I first joined the National Association of Basketball Coaches (NABC), the organization used to mail the coach his tickets.  As the tournament grew in popularity, as shocking as it may sound, there were coaches who would actually sell their tickets (which their employer paid for, along with their travel, lodging, food, convention fees and NABC dues).  I can vividly remember being immediately approached by scalpers who knew exactly what time the coaches lined up for and received their tickets.  Naturally, in the free market enterprise system, there were those who took the business to more sophisticated levels, contacting coaches months in advance, allowing for a much smoother and less risky method of supplementing both of their incomes.

Now, along comes Butler - a school who is as close to pure and whose athletes probably haven’t a clue as to how much potential revenue they’re about to control.  In addition, Butler (as well as its conference, the Horizon League) is a host of the event, meaning they receive additional tickets - both complimentary and for sale.  The economy being what it is, temptation will rise to never before heard of heights.  The integrity of players, managers, coaches, administrators and who knows who else will be put to the ultimate test.

This situation reminds me of an old joke: A guy walks up to an attractive lady in a bar and says, “Would you go to bed with me for a million dollars?”

The lady stares at the fella, ponders the offer and, times being what they were, says, “OK.”  

The guy’s follow up is, “How about a dollar?”

The woman becomes indignant.  “A dollar?  What kind of woman do you think I am!”

To which the gentleman replies, “Oh, we’ve already established what type of woman you are.  Now, we’re just haggling over the price.”

As much as we’d like to think people will make the proper (in the NCAA’s eyes) decision, the unfortunate truth always seems to be (with the exception of Mother Teresa, Gandhi and others whose names you could count on two hands):

“Everybody has their price.”Â

Coaches everywhere preach that defense wins games.  I’ve blogged in the past that offense was more important than defense in basketball because - basketball is the only team game in which the defensive goal is not a shutout. 

After watching the games last night, I amend that statement.  Tack on an addendum: until your team gets to the Sweet Sixteen.  For the people who know me best, they won’t believe I’ll give up my basic premise - one that I developed in the late ’70s - that easily.  And they’d be right.  I still think offense is more important for the simple reason that, even at this time of the year, coaches are writing on the board before a game their defensive goal - and it’s always at least 50.  That means, in order for their team to win, they must find a way to generate at least 51 points.  And don’t tell me they anticipate getting it from their defense.

If coaches depended on their defense for all their points, they’d have to change their defensive goals to around 20!  Execution is the name of the game as far as scoring at the offensive end - and therein lies the problem come tournament time.  Teams are so much more focused and, whether coaches want to admit it or not, kids play harder at tourney time.  Maybe it’s the sudden death atmosphere or that more games are televised (or, for the teams whose games are always televised, they realize the audience is so much larger), but it’s easier for coaches to get that maximum effort they’re always talking about.

With this increased effort, defenses dig in deeper and scoring becomes much more difficult.  Cases in point were last night’s Sweet Sixteen games.  Although the Tennessee-Ohio State game was in the 70’s (relatively high scoring for this time of year), both teams play up tempo, UT and their flamboyant coach, Bruce Pearl, enjoy that style and the Buckeyes often have four guards on the floor who function much more effectively in an open floor game.  Even still, the Vols win it with a stellar defensive play when J.P. Prince cleanly blocks Evan Turner’s three-ball attempt to tie.

The other games were simply defensive gems by the winners.  Baylor employed a zone that 1) limited Omar Samhan’s touches (or at least his scoring opportunities, making him pass the ball back out nearly as soon as he caught it), 2) didn’t allow the ball to go easily into the high post, forcing the Gaels to pass around the zone, rather than penetrating it and 3) were close enough to render three-point shooters ineffective and, most importantly, 4) held St. Mary’s to 49 points, 17 in the first half.  The Bears seemed so juiced up by their stellar defense, that they were uncharacteristically efficient on the offensive end.

Tom Izzo has always been known as a motivational guru and, ask any coach, it’s difficult to motivate guys to excel offensively.  It’s about execution, timing and making shots.  Defensively, motivation can be used quite effectively - and Izzo is no stranger to pulling the right strings at the right times.  When his teams practice in shoulder pads, it’s not to fine tune their offense.  Northern Iowa, a very good team, independent of whatever tag someone wants to place on them, had a tough time finding shots it wanted, especially the perimeter threes it shots so well.  Knowing Izzo at this time of year, though, he’s probably upset the UNI cracked the 50 point barrier. 

Duke’s offense was absolutely miserable at the outset of their contest against Purdue, but, defensively, they simply turned off the Boiermakers’ water.  When you’ve only scored 24 points at the half - and are winning - your “D” is doing its job.  The only reason Purdue got as many as 57 points was because the Dookies were ahead by so much at the end, you could hear, “Don’t foul” as PU’s guys drove to the bucket in the waning minutes.

The reason defense dominates is because it’s easier.  Offense takes skill.  Defense is based much more on desire.  In essence, the reason defense is easier is:

“Offense has to actually accomplish something - put the ball in the basket, while defense is simply stopping someone from doing something.  A group with a strong work ethic will find success a lot more at the latter than the former.”

Early in this year’s basketball season, I asked Jerry Tarkanian (on The Jerry Tarkanian Show) what he thought of Syracuse’s team this year.  He said he thought they were as talented as any team in the country, but one thing that has always intrigued him about their teams is that, “They don’t always come to play.”

Last night, the Orange lost to Butler.  Some may wonder: how could a team not come to play in the Sweet Sixteen!  That answer is simple.  Syracuse didn’t lose last night because they weren’t ready to play.  They lost because, in a game in which neither team shot the ball very well, the ‘Cuse turned the ball over too many times.  Butler, on the other hand, did a better job of taking care of the ball. 

When teams don’t shoot well, sometimes it’s because they’re having an off night.  On many occasions, however, it’s the defense of the opponent that forces teams into a poor shooting percentages.  And, as happens so often, when points are hard to come by, the importance of every shot is magnified and the pressure on every shot increases.

To me, last night’s game was an example of why John Chaney’s teams used to shoot one of the lowest percentages in the country every year - and still win.  Poor shooting percentages didn’t bother John at all - as long as his teams didn’t commit turnovers.  He’d live with bad shots.  What?!?  Aren’t bad shots enemy number one for all coaches?  Not Chaney.  And here were his reasons - and maybe why the (much) smaller Bulldogs beat the Orangemen:

“A bad shot may have a poor chance of going in - but a turnover has NO chance.  And, worse than that, . . . you can’t rebound a turnover.”

Tom Izzo is a grunt - and admits to it.  Nothing easy ever came to him.  Sure, he has one of the best jobs in the nation but he worked his butt off to get it to that position - as a graduate assistant, full-time assistant and as the guy in charge.  He wasn’t a star player who walked into a cake job.

At first, following Jud Heathcote, one of the wisest coaches - and sharpest wits in the business - was a challenge.  And that’s nothing short of one of the great understatements of all time.  Jud had won a national championship (with Magic Johnson) and came close on other occasions - all the while, doing it his way.

Tom’s first year at Michigan State found his club in the NIT.  For his maiden postseason voyage, they sent him and the Spartans packing to Fresno.  It was Jerry Tarkanian’s first year with the Bulldogs and, by the end of the season, Jerry’s guys had bought into his pressure defense.  Tom’s offensive philosophy was to run plays.  Jerry’s defensive philosophy was not to let teams runs plays, to force them to make plays.  By the time MSU pulled into Fresno’s Selland Arena, the joint was hoppin’ - 10,220 strong.  The ‘Dogs blew away Sparty.  Years later, the two teams and coaches met again - in the NCAA tournament’s second round.  This time, after years of gruntwork, i.e. serious recruiting, Izzo got his revenge - beating Tark and eventually making it to Final Four.  Where he’s seemingly been ever since.

Last year, the stars were aligned and not only did Michigan State make it to the Final Game, but it was held in the Palace at Auburn Hills, nearly walking distance for Spartan fans.  Unfortunately, the opponents were the UNC Tarheel teams, loaded with first round draft picks.  The ‘Heels prevailed but this year, while UNC’s season turned south, Michigan State returned stronger than ever.

And then, in as exciting a second round game as the tourney’s ever seen, they knocked off Maryland - only because they had the ball last.  In the process, however, they lost Kalin Lucas, their point guard and leader on the court.  For the rest of the tournament.  What looked like a stroke of luck, #1 overall seed and next opponent, Kansas, was upset by Northern Iowa, turned sour after Lucas went down.  While the Spartans could still get by UNI, Ohio State looms as the team standing between them and another Final Four (if the Buckeyes can get past Tennessee) and, ironically, OSU found itself where MSU is now earlier in the season when their superstar, Evan Turner, took a nasty spill and sat out a number of games. 

When’s a good time to get hurt?  Turner is probably still smarting from the awful fall he took early in the year (while dunking), but he’s thankful he’s healthy now, while Lucas can only cheer.  But at least those guys got hurt in action, helping their teams win a game. 

Darryl “Truck” Bryant of West Virginia broke his right foot in practice.  We’re talking about practice.  Maybe Allen Iverson had it right.  Although that’s really not the case.  The foot had begun to bother Bryant in the Mountaineers second round game against Missouri.  He changed shoes at halftime, knowing something was wrong. 

Bob Huggins has been to the Final Four once before - in 1991 as a #4 seed.  I didn’t even have to look it up, as it is indelibly etched into my brain.  I was associate head coach at USC and we were the #2 seed (in the Midwest).  We were handed a crushing defeat by Georgia Tech (their freshman, James Forrest hit the first three-pointer of his college career - with 0:00.8 of a second left in the game - and us up two).  This, following then-Memphis State’s upset of #3 Arkansas and the day before the biggest upset, UTEP beating #1 Kansas.

Hugs thought his team this year was better than that club.  Until Bryant went down in Tuesday’s practice.  This type of adversity is devastating, but when it happens twice to the same guy.  Huggins best team, the 1999-2000 Cincinnati Bearcats, were poised to make a run at a national championship when, during the Conference USA tournament, Kenyon Martin, the ‘Cats’ star broke his leg and missed the NCAA tournament.  How good was he?  A short while later, he became the number one overall pick in the NBA draft.

As harsh as it sounds, the Spartans and Mountaineers should heed the advice of one of the world’s great leaders, Sir Winston Churchill:

“If you’re going through hell, . . . keep going.”Â

As I’ve told my former colleague (we were members of the University of Oregon staff in 1975-76), Jim Haney, currently the executive director of the National Association of Basketball Coaches (NABC), one of the biggest problems in college basketball today is coaches make too much money.  (See my blog from way back - 11/28/07).  I’m not saying this because I am bitter because I coached at a time when coaches’ salaries were lower because I’m perfectly happy with what I’m doing - and with what I did - and what I made (OK, sure, who couldn’t use a few extra bucks)?

I can’t think of anybody who got into coaching when I did (the early ’70s) who did so because they wanted to make a ton of money - because there wasn’t any.  Not that we were pure as the driven snow.  There were a great many who entered the profession for the “glamor” of the job.  But most guys wanted to be a college coach because we wanted to do just that - coach. 

Don’t get me wrong.  Coaches in that era were upwardly mobile too, but the moves were usually made because a bigger job gave the coach a better chance to get into or advance further in the NCAA Tournament, maybe win it all.  Today, the almighty dollar has become, possibly, the greater reason for changing employers.  Which the same reason professional players don’t stay with teams like they used to.

The major problem with chasing the buck is guys leave their comfort zones.  Exhibit A: Todd Lickliter is an alum of Butler University.  After coaching at the high school ranks, he eventually became an assistant at his alma mater, rising to the head coaching job in 2001.  Success was immediate (granted, he took over a solid program, but he was a major reason it was solid) and in six years he won three league championships, went to the postseason four of those years and compiled an overall record of 131-61.  He won 53 games in his first two years, third best mark for any coach in his first two years.

He left to take the job at Iowa, replacing Steve Alford, another coach who had great success at Manchester College and Southwest Missouri State - where he went 74-48 and got to a Sweet Sixteen.  Iowa lured him with a big contract, only to show him the door eight years later.  Maybe because Lickliter’s name didn’t carry the cachet that Alford’s did, he was pink-slipped after only three years.  Alford resurfaced at New Mexico and has found success.  Lickliter is 54 years old and looking for a job, a good coach at a tough age.

It also happened to Jerry Wainwright who had great success at the University of North Carolina-Wilmington, after being an assistant at Wake Forest.  He moved to Richmond where he won, but not as much.  It was hard to blame Jerry, as fine an individual and as tough a guy (he nearly died in a car accident, but came back stronger than ever) as you’ll find, for taking the DePaul job (he’s a native of Chicago).  He lost his job this year - not because he forgot how to coach, but mainly because DePaul isn’t what it was when Ray Meyer was there.  It’s just that the people at DePaul don’t want to face reality.

The “show me the money” game nearly did in Dan Monson, who inherited the Gonzaga job from the late Dan Fitzgerald, took it to never-before-been-experienced-heights, only to bolt for the mega-cash at Minnesota.  He got the boot at UM and, after a brief hiatus, wound up at Long Beach State - while his assistant at Gonzaga, Mark Few, elevated the Zag program even higher.  Possibly due to what he saw happen to his friend, Mons, Few has stayed in Spokane despite being wooed year after year.

I’ve used it before but the most poignant quote regarding changing jobs came from Jim Valvano (who himself moved from Johns Hopkins to Bucknell to Iona to NC State).  He’d mention this to every coach who asked him about whether or not to move from one job to another.  His only question to the coach was, “Are you happy?”  Most would reply in the affirmative.  His response was:

“Don’t mess with happy.”

In this year’s Sweet Sixteen, eleven conferences are represented.  This is an astounding fact, considering the BCS is made up of only six conferences.  What does this mean?  Simply this.  There are more and more good players playing basketball. 

Granted the elite players leave school early and head for the (bigger) money, but still, to have five non-BCS leagues in the Sweet Sixteen, is a testament to the amount of talent around the nation (or the world, in the case of some schools, e.g. St. Mary’s). 

The cause of this is two-fold.  As mentioned, the best players - and sometimes, some good, but not best players - leave school prior to exhausting their eligibility.  Seldom is this the case at lesser known schools, so they wind up with veteran teams.  When a student-athlete whose name is unknown, from a non-BCS school, puts his name in the NBA draft, it’s usually because he wasn’t enough of the student part of student-athlete, i.e. he left the school before they dismissed him.

The other rule that’s forced parity is cutting the number of scholarships.  That rule has been in effect for quite a while, but with the influx of foreign talent and the work ethic and contacts of coaches, both head and assistants, very few, if any, good players go unnoticed.  In other words, this year is not an aberration, more of a trend.  I was speaking to an assistant coach at a big-time school (which did not make the tournament field this year)last evening who told me, “Although we lost players to the professional ranks, we have made errors in evaluation.  We took some kids who didn’t pan out and turned down others who have become superstars at other places.”

My response was that, when I was at USC, there was a time (1991-92 when we finished 6th in the country in one poll and 8th in another) when we really had it going.  We were so strong in Southern California, we had our choice of players.  Some we misevaluated, but others we couldn’t take because, . . . you can’t take them all!  A couple of the kids went on to become the leading scorers in the history of the schools where they chose - after we turned them down.  Another one went on to lead his college team to a national championship.  We didn’t miss on these kids.  We knew they were good, but we took other prospects because they were better for our program at the time. 

I don’t pretend we didn’t make mistakes (boy, did we ever in a couple cases), but for many of these guys, they got the chance to showcase their skills a places because those schools had to play them.  While it may have surprised us they played as well as they did, we knew they were talented.  They did what anyone who is talented in an area would do.  They worked at their craft and took advantage of the opportunity.

These guys took the advice of Abraham Lincoln:

“I will prepare and someday my chance will come.”

It became official last week.  Michael Jordan became the first former player to be a majority owner of an NBA team.  Ground-breaking, yes; wise decision; the jury’s still out. 

Why might this new venture not work?  A check of MJ’s past success as a player showed he won for a variety of reasons.  One was he usually could control the outcome of a game.  There has yet to be an owner with such power.

Secondly, he made a ton of money - but, although he was more talented than arguably (and it wasn’t much of an argument) all of his peers, he mainly did it by outworking them.  It’s tough to outwork the other owners, especially because most of them made their moo-la without much aerobic activity. 

In any discussion of his skills, let’s not forget he is a shrewd businessman.  The difference between him and his fellow owners is he actually worked “in the field.”  He knows better than any other of his new competitors how many of the employees truly earn their paychecks.  Armed with that knowledge, he’s going to have a hard time dealing with “employee representation,” i.e. agents, who are going to try to pry as much of Jordan’s hard-earned cash away from him for their less-than-100%-effort-giving clients.

No one who follows the NBA doesn’t know how competitive MJ was on the court.  It had to tear away at him a couple of days ago, to have to watch Joe Johnson of the Hawks hit a buzzer-beater to down his new investment.

Finally, he’s dealt with rumors all his professional life, but the one that could hurt him the most is if his hand-picked coach (and fellow Tarheel alum), Larry Brown - who has spoken so frequently about the “Carolina family” - bolts to become the head coach of the Clippers, as many in the rumor mill business are speculating.

Michael Jordan might be breaking the Cardinal rule of aging:

“As you get older, your life is supposed to get less complicated.”Â