Jack’s Blog

I’m just not sure what. 

To have a countdown is good theatre but is it that important?  Unquestionably, LeBron James is the most high profile athlete to be on the open market, so to speak, yet where he winds up is limited to a handful of teams, each of which has its reasons why LBJ should establish residence there but anointing this newly formed squad as the latest dynasty might be a little (lot) premature.

Keep in mind that in 2003-04, the Lakers signed Gary Payton and Karl Malone to go along with Kobe and Shaq.  At the press conference, Payton made the classic comment, “You can’t double team all of us.”  On the flipside, I remember wondering how anyone was going to score on them.  In Payton, they had “The Glove.”  Kobe was a lockdown defender even that far back, meaning those two could match up with the best two perimeter players the opponent had, leaving the weakest of the three for whoever would be the fifth starter.  Karl Malone could defend any power forward in the league and just Shaq’s physical presence was enough to enable him to guard a center.  

Yet, not only did they not win it all, they only managed to win one game in the finals, losing 4-1 to Detroit.  Sure, there were injuries - but who’s to say this new superteam that LeBron and whatever other free agent(s) decide to join him, combining with that team’s nucleus, e.g. DWade, or Rose and Noah, or whoever’s left with the Cavs, Knicks, Clippers or even some mystery team - doesn’t encounter the same fate? 

Plus, even with all that megatalent, they won’t exactly have a corner on the superstar market.  I don’t see Kobe joining that bunch and rumor has it that he’s a rather competitive sort, someone who might cotton to the challenge of taking on all comers - especially a “stacked” team.  And, in the process, win his third straight title.  Lest we forget, wherever LeBron takes his talent (unless he fulfills Tiger’s wish), his new (or old) club will be attempting to dethrone the two-time champs.

Then there are other factors that play just as big a role as where the King and his new court, eventually settle.  With the remainder of the talented free agents, how the draft picks perform, sign and trades, and other wheeling and dealing that inevitably will ensue, there are so many other combinations that could arise that one of them, possibly, on paper, could look just as formidable, if not a tad better, than the much awaited consortium, in the process making the new “Unbeatables” the underdog.

Next, throw in the coaching changes that currently exist.  It looks like a few of the soon-to-be co-favorites (Bulls, Cavs and Clippers) will be coached by assistants who have yet to call a time out or by a coach with minimal head coaching experience.  Include the possible (probable?) coaching changes to each of last year’s finalists and it makes for interesting barroom chatter. 

This blog has done nothing but muddle the picture, so the quote that will further confuse the reader.  It’s by that well-known basketball aficionado, William Butler Yeats, and has to do with those fans who dream of multiple championships when the smoke clears:

“But I being poor have only my dreams.  I have laid my dreams beneath your feet.  Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.”

In 1988, while I was associate head basketball coach at the University of Toledo, we signed a young man from Flint, MI, after he had played one year in junior college.  Since he was a good student, i.e. an ” NCAA qualifier” out of high school and had successfully completed a minimum of 12 semester units during each of the two semesters he attended the JC (with a minimum GPA of 2.0), he met the NCAA eligibility requirements.  We were counting on him to make a significant contribution to our team the following year.

When we sent his signed letter-of-intent to our conference (MAC) office, we were informed that he would, in fact, not be immediately eligible.  The problem was that he had attended a four-year school, the University of Michigan-Flint, following his graduation from high school, thus making him, in NCAA parlance, a “4-2-4,” defined as a student-athlete (S-A) who, upon graduating from high school, first attends a four-year institution, then transfers to a two-year school, then again to another four-year college.  This type of S-A is required to graduate from the two-year school in order to be immediately eligible.  The only exception would be if the S-A returned to his or her original four-year school.  

What made this case unique was that this S-A, while a talented player, was a 6′2″ center.  The only scholarship offers he received were from Division II schools.  He wanted to be an engineer and ultimately chose UM-Flint because of its engineering program.  UM-Flint, however, did not offer intercollegiate athletics, meaning this young man chose academics over athletics.

He did well during his first semester but while UM-Flint had an exceptional engineering program, it was also quite expensive so, after his first semester (in which he had a 3.0 GPA), he dropped out to work in order make money.  He intended to re-enroll the following fall.  During the summer, a friend of his mentioned that this strategy would take an inordinate amount of time for him to graduate.  Why not, his friend told him, enroll at the local community college (Mott CC) - since it was so much cheaper - and complete his general education courses there?

This was the avenue he decided to take and enrolled at Mott the following fall.  He was shooting baskets in the gym one day in early September when the coach there noticed him.  Oh yeah - in the year since he’d graduated from high school, he’d grown from 6′2″ to 6′6″!  The coach recognized him from his scholastic days and asked him to try out for the team.  He not only played well, but led the league in rebounding and was voted the conference’s Player-of-the-Year.

The question became: Was he to be considered a “2-4,” in which case he’d be immediately eligible (our stance) or a “4-2-4,” in which case he would not (the NCAA’s ruling)?  Our contention was that if this S-A was deemed ineligible, he would be penalized because he made an academic decision rather than an athletic one!  Our case was that he turned down athletic scholarships to follow an academic pursuit - to go to a university which didn’t even offer athletics.  The conference, possibly because we had beaten out another MAC school for his services and they were the ones who had brought this matter to the MAC’s attention (surprise!), took the path of least resistance and sided with the governing body.  We were extremely passionate that he be eligible, naturally because he was a good player, one we felt would be in the starting lineup for the opening game, but also because the NCAA’s ruling was morally wrong. 

In order to explain the rule to those readers who don’t completely understand the NCAA (which encompasses everybody - including many who work for that organization), the reason it was passed was the same reason most rules are passed - because there were coaches who found a way to “steal” their competitors’ players.  Most S-A’s (as well as a great number of students) think of transferring shortly after beginning college.  The reasons are numerous: homesickness, miss the girlfriend, difficulty handling responsibility or, in the case of recruited S-A’s, they find out that much of what they were told (promised?) during the recruiting process, didn’t appear as they thought it would, e.g. there was more competition for playing time than the coaches had said in their recruiting pitch.  The word would get out and the colleges which had recruited him, but lost out, would contact the disillusioned S-A and suggest he transfer.

Just so it wouldn’t look like tampering - and so the S-A would be immediately eligible - the “new” school would tell the S-A to transfer to a JC, pass the requisite number of units and slide on in to their school.  Clean break.  Anticipating this, the NCAA 4-2-4 rule did state that one calendar year must lapse from the initial enrollment at the first four-year institution before eligibility kicked in, but “poaching” was still a problem.

Our contention was that this case was unique because the first institution didn’t even offer athletics, much less basketball.  Round and round we went, until the NCAA finally agreed to hear our case.  Three of us, our director of athletics, faculty representative to the NCAA, and I flew to NCAA headquarters (at that time located in Overland Park, KS) and appeared before the NCAA Eligibility Committee.

The room we were in was identical to what you see during Senate Committee hearings.  The four of us were seated at a table in the center of the room facing two rounded tiers of seats occupied by the members of the committee.  Each member had a copy of our S-A’s high school, UM-Flint and Mott academic transcripts.  We presented our case.  “This S-A was to be considered a ‘2-4′ because the original institution did not offer an athletics program.  Therefore, his attendance at the four-year institution should be disregarded from an athletics standpoint, i.e. he should not be considered a ‘4-2-4′.  Since he had satisfied the eligibility requirements of a ‘2-4,’ he should, thus, be granted immediate eligibility.  If he were not, then the NCAA would be unjustly treating a S-A who had put academics ahead of athletics in his college decision.  Such a ruling would fly in the face of everything the NCAA claimed it stood for.”   We were asked questions and were told the Eligibility Committee would take everything under consideration and would notify us of their ruling.

Sometime later, we received the news that the committee had ruled in our favor and that our player would be immediately eligible.  In fact, if you were to google “ncaapublications.com” and go to “Eligibility,” then click on “download PDF,” on page 24 of the “Transfer 101” section (Basic information you need to know about transferring to an NCAA college), you will see under the part that says, “Possible exceptions if you are a 4-2-4 transfer,” the amendment, “if your sport was never sponsored at your original four-year school . . . “  That exception was added after the ruling on the University of Toledo case.

Did I forget to mention that their committee only met at certain times and when we finally got their decision that the first semester had already passed and this kid, who should have been eligible in August when school started, didn’t get his NCAA clearance until the middle of January and we were about 10 games into our season?  As I ended a previous blog (from about two years ago), the NCAA is a lot like the Lord:

“It acts in strange and mysterious ways.”�

Summer’s officially here and with it, the camp/tournament circuit.  UCLA camp today & Sunday  Since I do blogs “the night before,” we’ll probably get back too late Sunday for an entry.  Late Monday night I’ll be blogging about an experience I had at NCAA headquarters - and how we actually got a rule amended. 

See you Tuesday.

Please read my ideas about the “one-and-dones” in intercollegiate athletics (along with my ideas on aiding the apparent problem).  This post will not be a rehashing of that one but, rather, will tie some of the points I made in it into a bet made by a couple of local athletes. 

Fresno State fans were fortunate for the past couple years (something they might just now be realizing) to have had the opportunity to watch two extremely talented athletes, a football player (Ryan Mathews) and a basketball player (Paul George) play at a non-BCS institution.  Seldom do schools at that level have such gifted athletes, much less at the same time.  Note: Since I was working at Fresno State at the time, I am aware that David Carr, Melvin Ely, Stephen Abas, Nick Watney and Jamie Southern all played for the Bulldogs the same year, so this phenomenon is not a first for the school.

This current fact, though, was validated after this past year’s NFL and NBA drafts.  Both stars were selected in the first round, Mathews picked 12th by the San Diego Chargers, George 10th by the Indiana Pacers.  In an interview with George in yesterday’s Fresno Bee, it was reported that, prior to the NBA selection process that he and Mathews had a $5,000 bet as to which player would be drafted higher.

I have said numerous times before, both in this space and in conversation with others that one of the easiest things to do in life is to spend other people’s money.  So, let me preface my remarks by saying this is not an indictment on either or both of these young guys (neither of whom I know).  Possibly, my reading of this wager (of minute proportions considering what their contracts will be) coincided a little too soon after my reading the cover story on the recent Time magazine (2/28/10).  That issue has on its cover the license plate BNKRPT and the story is about the miserable economic plight of nearly every state in this nation.

Far be it from me to lay guilt on two student-athletes in their early 20s.  It’s just that, after reading the article, it occurred to me that, had these guys - who must have entered college fairly certain that a professional career in their sport was not only a goal, but a distinct possibility - been able to study a course which would have made them aware of the economic condition in this country (as well as others), possibly the bet would have been $5K to the charity of the winner’s choice.  Then again, maybe they were taught that and maybe the winner’s take did wind up as a charitable donation, but the tone of the article didn’t seem as though the bet was made with that purpose in mind.

Hey, I know it’s their money and they earned it (although some may say that remains to be determined).  It’s just that if guys are going to leave school early - or even if they’re not - part of a college education ought to be enlightening the student on national and global issues.  The question can also be asked of me, “What am you doing for others?”  Quite pertinent and while I won’t list my charitable deductions, I can only say I act and agree (admittedly, on an infinitely lesser level) with the feelings of Bill Gates who said:

“Is the rich world aware of how four billion of the six billion live?  If we were aware, we’d want to help out, and we’d want to get involved.”

     Â

When you work for Jerry Tarkanian, as I did from 1995-2002 (and, since I host his radio show, I guess I still am), you hear more superlatives than anyone who ever lived.  See what I did there?

Jerry was always saying this player was the greatest he’d ever seen.  During our first year at Fresno State, Jerry had brought in a kid who, if nothing else, looked like a player.  Lithe body, sinewy, good-looking kid.  He got into a defensive stance on the first day of practice and Jerry turned to me and said, “I think he might be the best defensive player I’ve ever coached.”

I looked at Jerry, whom I’d known for many years, but had just started working for him and said in amazement, “Better than Stacy Augmon?”  “The Plastic Man” was the first player voted as the best collegiate defensive player three years in a row!  That was Jerry.  The best player ever, the best game ever, the best whatever ever.

Tark’s not the only one who goes a little overboard when something truly outstanding is accomplished.  On the other hand, I tend to go in the opposite direction.  No matter what, I always think that sometime, somewhere, somebody had to be at least as good.

Yet, without it even being completed, I will say, unequivocally, the greatest show of physical and mental strength - and talent - in a competitive, pressure-packed, individual (meaning between two participants, e.g. not scaling Mt. Everest or swimming the English Channel) professional sporting event, has got to be the match at Wimbledon between John Isner and Nicolas Mahut.  After 10 hours, there’s only one word that can describe their play and it’s the most overused word in the English language (hey, another superlative):

“Unbelievable!”Â

Each year, the NBA’s contending teams make moves they hope will pay off with a title.  This past NBA season saw a flurry of activity, with each move trumpeted as “the one” to push that team ahead of the others.

In San Antonio, the addition of Richard Jefferson was supposed to add offense and athleticism to the (aging) Big Three (Duncan, Parker & Ginobli).  The Spurs never have replaced the lockdown defense that Edison (Fresno) High’s Bruce Bowen gave them.  With Jefferson, a hard-to-guard three man, moving into the lineup, the thought was the Spurs would be a formidable threat.

The Cleveland Cavaliers picked up Shaquille O’Neal and Antawn Jamison.  People who praised the move said he’s still a beast (for brief periods) and one who could guard Dwight Howard.  In addition, the big guy wanted to show he’d gladly be regulated to sidekick so he could to bring a championship to the Cavs (mainly LeBron) like he did for DWade.  Critics of O’Neal said opponents would put him in pick & roll situations, a fact not denied by anyone in basketball.  Jamison was supposed to take some of the scoring load off of James.

The Orlando Magic, came so close last year to winning it all, but having lost Hedo Turkoglu, realized they needed serious help - which came in the form of Vince Carter.  Never have fans and pundits swayed to and fro when it came to assessing whether obtaining VC was a good move or not.  They’d win and - if Carter played well - the blockbuster move was brilliant.  A Magic loss, or a few in a row, and VC was the on the receiving end of brutal criticism.  One reason was that there was no move the Magic could have made that would have replaced what they lost in Torkoglu’s game.

Boston made a huge move when they acquired Rasheed Wallace.  Sheed gets a bad rap from fans, mainly because of his on court rantings and the number of T’s he picks up.  However, talk to any NBA insider and they’ll tell, to a man, what a great teammate and locker room guy Wallace is.  Then, late in the season, the Celtics picked up controversial and talented Nate Robinson from the dysfunctional Knicks - a move that paid off exactly as Doc Rivers had predicted.

However, the Lakers addition of Ron Artest, also a lightning rod for controversy, paid off the most.  Why?  Because LA won the championship and as the saying in professional sports goes:

“Winning isn’t everything.  It’s . . . Forget it, winning IS everything.”

 Â

When people are faced with major decisions in life, one strategy that’s suggested is to take a piece of paper and write down two columns.  One of the columns is the positive side, the other the negative.

Although I spent 30 years in college basketball and got to know Tom Izzo pretty well, I am not privy to whether he used this method or not.  If he did, however, I am sure he made the right call in turning down the offer to coach the Cavs.  My only wonder is why it took him so long to decide.

In the positive column, that one being to take the job, there would be, of course, the money - reportedly $6 million/year for five years (forgive me for intruding for just a moment, but he makes $3 mil now - so how much more would his and his family’s life style improve - even with his salary doubling)?  Therefore, the only other positive I can think of would be: “If when I get fired, they owe me a whole bunch of dough.”  Imagine getting canned after year two and him coming home and saying, “Lupe, I’ve got good news and bad news.  The bad news is I got fired” (because getting fired is usually considered bad news).  “The good news is I have the next three years off and we have $18 million to spend” (which kinda takes the edge off of the bad news, don’t ya think)?   

Seriously, other than a new challenge (as if trying to win a national championship in college basketball isn’t enough of a challenge), what other possible positive could there be?  Winning an NBA title?  Even if LeBron told Izzo that not only was he going to stay in Cleveland, but his boys promised to join him (and I’m not using those words to describe the high school buddies he claims as dependents every April 15th), there still might not be sufficient reason to start planning the parade.

When moving is entered into the equation, no offense to the Rock ‘N Roll Hall of Fame and now, Betty White, but changing your address from East Lansing to Cleveland (or even Shaker Heights) isn’t considered that much of an upgrade.  Especially when you’re a legend in the former.  Sure it’s Magic’s hometown, but he doesn’t walk down those streets much anymore, so as far as “owning” a town, that one is definitely Izzo’s.

As far as “enjoying the job,” why would the NBA’s Eastern Conference grind be more fun than the Big Ten - independent of how many teams they put in it?  Certainly, the addition of Nebraska isn’t so frightening he’d consider packing his bags.  Tom is a self-described grunt and, to date, no one’s ever pinned that label on LeBron James so a marriage of Beauty and the Beast (as far as innate ability goes), might not have a fairy tale ending.  And remember, Tom, which of you is the native son.

When I first heard the Cavs were offering the job to Izzo, my first thought was, “I wonder how those guys will react the first time Tom tells them to put on the shoulder pads for a rebounding drill?”  He’d better have some serious front office backing or what could ensue would make what the French soccer team just did look like a group of guys heading for the john. 

Plus, Tom’s an emotional guy.  Sure, there are a lot of hugs when the Spartans cut down the nets after winning a regional, but prior to those embraces is a good deal of “in your face” (constructive) criticism.  Reflect on the recent NBA playoffs (I’d say the regular season, but I wanted more than two readers to be able to participate in the reflection).  Stan Van Gundy might be a screamer (but his tirades more to the team than directly at a specific player) and while Gregg Popvich did call his guys “dogs,” that was after a loss (and was said to the media).  How many NBA head coaches get right up in the players’ mugs and chew them out?  Naturally, I’m talking about serious rotation guys, not the ones who, if they chirped back, the coach could have released the following day.  And don’t start with Phil yelling at Kobe as he comes off the floor.  That’s more to show the rest of the guys what they all know - that he realizes Kobe is trying to do too much.  You’ll also notice when Phil’s barking at him, he’s never so close that he violates Kobe’s space.  Add to that scenario that Kobe’s come out publicly stating total support for his coach.  In LeBron’s case, John Calipari as coach would be more like Kobe-Phil, and the jury’s out on how that relationship would survive in the NBA.  

Tom Izzo and the Cleveland Cavaliers (or any team in the NBA) is as wrong a match as Tom and Michigan State is the perfect one.  Besides - and I know I’ve used this Jim Valvano quote before - but I also know this would be V’s advice to Tom just as it was to all those successful coaches who flirted with leaving a place they’d built and loved:

“Don’t mess with happy.”

After the Los Angeles Lakers beat the Boston Celtics last Thursday night, the comment most often heard was that, if it hadn’t been the seventh game of the NBA Finals, people would have turned off their sets.  The play was, except for the last few minutes, hideous.

Yesterday’s final round of the U.S. Open surpassed the hoops contest - by a long shot.  As in a 350+ yard drive, duck-hooked into the fescue.  Basketball can always explain away poor offensive execution by claiming how great the defense is - and in Game 7, that was, in large measure, the truth.  Losing basketball players (and coaches) have another luxury golfers don’t - they can always blame the referees.  Technically, other than the weather (and in Pebble Beach’s case, the ridiculous manner in which the course was laid out), there is no outside defense (or other excuses) in golf.  Even jiggling of change by the playing partner is considered a breach of etiquette.

Since golf is an individual sport, and when it gets down to crunch time, e.g. Sunday of a major, the most vital tool for a golfer is mental toughness.  Seeing golfers, even  professionals, crack under such pressure is not an uncommon sight, but seeing everyone in contention fold up is unfathomable.  Yesterday’s display was, let’s all hope, one for the ages.

Granted, the course was made absurdly difficult and whoever performed that dastardly deed should be strung up by his Titleist Pro V1s.  I can guarantee it wasn’t anyone connected with NBC.  However, even with horrendous weather conditions and a brutally arranged course, there’s always someone who manages to block out all the negatives and rise to the top (of the leader board).

Naturally, the most likely comparison of pro golfers to professional hoopsters would be Tiger Woods and Kobe Bryant (at least that used to be the most apt comparison).  During Kobe’s Game 7 (admittedly) miserable performance, one of his worst, fans kept waiting for him to break out and become the “difference.”  Same with El Tigre yesterday.  Neither ever took place.  What Kobe can do, though, that Tiger can’t is rely on his teammates to pull him through so he still can be all smiles at the post-game press conference.

In golf, you alone are the winner and while you can deflect praise toward your caddy, coach or momma, the trophy has your name engraved on it.  That’s why, should anyone ever ask a golfer that most dreaded question: “What happened?“ the player can use a line from a manager of a team sport, the loquacious Tommy Lasorda, who, following a loss, gave the sporting world one of its more memorable quotes:

“This bleepin’ job is not that bleepin’ easy!”  Â

Whether the answer to that question is yes, maybe or no (and you’ll get little quarrel from me if you answer in the affirmative), one thing is for certain:  he is by no means the best Laker studio analyst.  Whichever former Laker actually is the best at that position I’m not sure, but in no way is he named Earvin Johnson.

When Magic played basketball, the game seemed to come so easy to him.  Even when he was a rookie point guard and was forced to play, not only out of position, but as a center - in the highest of leagues, on the biggest of stages - he responded with a 42-point, 15-rebound, 7-assist, 3-steal effort that won the his club the NBA Championship and himself the Finals MVP Award - the first rookie to do so.  As a player, he was a natural.

And therein lies the problem.  ESPN is also forcing him into a new position - but in this one, natural would be about the last word to describe him.  On the court, no one ever had to tell him what to do.  He told them.  Based on his performance during the past NBA Playoffs, it was apparent someone mentioned to him that his trademark enthusiasm should be on display.  When he played, however, his love of the game was so spontaneous; on the air, it’s so evident he’s trying too hard.  In his Laker #32 purple & gold, the Hall-of-Famer made his teammates better.  In his suit & tie, that trait just isn’t there.  In fact, he looked the least comfortable of the quartet.

He’s undoubtedly one of the all-time greats ever to play the game.  He beat AIDS and became an incredibly successful businessman in one of the most difficult of areas to so.  But in his latest venture, he needs to heed the advice of the late John Wooden:     

“Do not let what you cannot do interfere with what you can do.”

Those who interview Kobe Bryant find him as tough a cover as those who guard him.  Many come away feeling humiliated, much as the guys trying to defend him feel after the game.  While it’s his job to destroy those checking him, why should he display the same attitude toward those who are simply writing about him?  Because they ask irrelevant and asinine (to him) questions, that’s why!

When one scribe posed to Bryant a question about how the Lakers could possibly come back from such a devastating Game 5 loss to the Celtics, the result of which put them in a 3-2 hole, Kobe said, “What’s the big deal?  We go home, put on our boots and go to work.”  It was reported that Kobe’s response upset the media member who asked it because he obviously thought it was a highly insightful question.  While it may seem like a perfectly normal question to ask, the guy should have considered to whom he was directing it.  Plus, he probably felt as though Kobe was “showing him up,” the same phrase that referees use when they T guys up (see 5/27/10 blog).

Plain and simple, Kobe Bryant is different than the rest of us.  Not just his skill, but his approach to competition, his ability to focus, his getting his body in peak physical condition (do you call your workouts, “blackouts” like Kobe calls his and is someone begging you to leave the gym because you’re pushing yourself too hard)?  Basically, his will to win. 

“Kobe, does it mean anymore to beat the Celtics than it does another team?”  He claims, at the time, no.  But after beating the Celtics in Game 7, he admits he was lying to “you guys.”  His guard is down now - because he’s accomplished what he set out to do.  Competition.  Focus.  Will to win.  Yet, his answer to that identical question the same time next year (probably asked by that same media member - those guys have loooooong memories) will be just what it was this year.  It’s how he’s wired.  Does he want to be that way?  It doesn’t matter - he just is.  Just like you and I are wired however we are. 

Think about how you’ll occasionally play a great tennis match on a Sunday at the club, but still lose.  You shake your opponent’s hand, like any good sport would do.  Deep down, you actually feel pretty good about the way you played.  You gave it your all (wrong, you can always give more), but you just came up a little short.  Nothing to be ashamed of.

Kobe Bryant never feels this way.  Neither did Michael Jordan.  Or Larry Bird.  Or Jack Tatum.  Or Pete Rose.  Or John McEnroe.  Or George Allen.  This list goes on and, as it shows, that attitude might not always be healthy.  These guys are not like the rest of us.  Something inside drives them - oftentimes to the point of personal destruction.  Maybe to the point of ignoring their family.  They can’t change - just like you and me.  All of us can try but, as our current society’s most favorite cliche goes, “we are what we are.” 

1. God  

2. Family

3. Winning

That is the credo many in the sports world preach, mainly because it’s blasphemous, unhealthy or just plain wrong to think of living life in any other order.  Yet, to these people, who, once again, didn’t ask to be put together this way, their life follows only one path:

1. Winning

2. Winning

3. Winning

In many ways, their singlemindedness of purpose is admirable.  For those of us who will compete like hell - until we reach that point where, when we taste defeat, can justify it saying that being too competitive puts us in danger of losing the balance in our lives.  In may ways, that’s the best point of view; in other ways, it’s a cop out. 

Sure, these supreme competitors still manage to carry on with life if they don’t win (although most have a real tough time ever getting over it) , as another member of that list, Vince Lombardi, said (the quote having no meaning without the last word):

“I firmly believe that any man’s finest hour, the greatest fulfillment of all that he holds dear, is that moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle - victorious.”