Jack’s Blog

As most of the (sporting) world knows by now, five Ohio State Buckeye football players sold some of the awards they garnered for tattoos (and who knows what else).  The NCAA has ruled all of the culprits ineligible for the Bucks’ first five games next year.  Their reason for delaying the punishment, i.e. not rendering them ineligible for their BCS Sugar Bowl game wasn’t due to the fact that would certainly lower TV ratings and almost certainly cause OSU to lose to Arkansas but because 1) the NCAA felt the players were inadequately educated on the penalties of such actions and 2) the players didn’t gain a competitive advantage.

The decision to allow or suspend the players for the bowl game was then left up to Buckeye head coach Jim Tressel who came up with an interesting solution: if you want to play in this bowl game, he told them, you must commit to returning to The Ohio State University next year, i.e. not play in the bowl game and then avoid punishment for your misdeeds by declaring for the NFL draft.

This ultimatum by Tressel serves as fuel for the (all-too) numerous cynics out there, many of which would say, “Of course they’re going to agree to their coach’s demand, they need the sweet swag they’re going to haul in from the Sugar Bowl to trade for more tats” (or whatever else they can barter).

The first legitimate question (which has already been posed on ESPN) is, “Is this even legal?”  The follow up query would be be, “What if they pledge to their coach and university, and then renege?”  An insightful television interview with former Ohio State running back Robert Smith was aired.  Smith recalled an early season meeting he had with Tressel (of whom Smith openly says he greatly admires) where the coach admitted to him that he was troubled with how easily players lied to his face.  In spite of that statement, Smith thinks Tressel’s mandate to the players is a “brilliant move.”

One reason is something that all of us should take to heart - and that is that Jim Tressel, through his actions, has built up so much equity throughout not only Buckeye Nation but the entire country, that for the players to go back on their word would have a much greater impact on public opinion (and possibly, the opinions of NFL people) toward the players than the coach.  This is a coach who walks his walk more so than the average head man in intercollegiate athletics.

Tressel certainly can be seen as naive, especially after his comment that he was disappointed that the items the players traded represented “important keepsakes” of their college careers.  This can be seen as out of touch with today’s current player, one who values such mementos far less than those players of yesteryear.  One of those awards was a gold trinket given to players for beating Michigan.  For this one item, people can understand how it doesn’t mean as much to these guys as it would to former players simply because Ohio State has been so dominant over Michigan that the players can’t possibly see the value it might have.

How most people think of this situation is probably predicated on their feelings toward the Buckeyes.  Anyone who thinks this is the defining issue regarding Ohio State needs to take heed of Robert Brault’s line:

“The thing about family disasters is that you never have to wait long before the next one puts the previous one into perspective.”

The decision from the NFL commissioner’s office on the Brett Favre case was announced and the result was a fine of 50 large.  Roger Goodell assessed the fine based, not on evidence, but Favre’s not being forthcoming with the NFL’s investigation.  The majority opinion seems to be that he got off lightly.

When the NCAA went public with its decision on the Cam Newton ordeal, public opinion was pretty much identical.  I even heard one radio talk show host claim it was ridiculous, that obviously Newton had known and the NCAA should have suspended him immediately.  So much for “innocent until proven guilty.”  Yet that’s the prevailing thought in each case.  And why not?  In both of those instances, common sense would lead someone to believe the offender got off easily.  In fact, if they did what their accusers claimed, the court of public opinion would ring true.

Let’s go back to the origination of each allegation.  In both instances, the “modern” way of life exposed (excuse the pun in the Favre case) the culprits.  For Newton, it was someone who, for whatever reason, decided to “come clean and tell all.”  In Favre’s situation, technology did him in - even though, according to what’s been put out there for the general public, none of the alleged sext photos have been seen.

Back in the day, as the saying goes, none of this would ever have been public knowledge.  Reporters used to travel with teams (on the professional level) and even drink (and participate in other activities unrelated to the playing surface) with the athletes - but mum was the word.

With seemingly everyone having a cell phone or other gadget that enables the user to take and send pictures (or even video goings-on and record conversations), the modern day athlete - with all the perks their predecessors did without (and on the professional level, this includes outrageous salaries) had better understand that a higher level of accountability accompanies those goodies.  Bad ideas, such as Greg Oden’s texting self-portraits, Gilbert Arenas’ bringing guns into a locker room (although he meant no harm) and tweeting absurd messages (too many to begin to list) can derail a career or at least severely tarnish a reputation (or legacy).  That fact is as much a part of the “new” world of sports just as much as world-wide fame and mega-deals which set an athlete and his family up for life.

Athletes claim invasion of privacy and in many cases, they’re spot on.  Unfortunately, with the good comes the bad.  I recall reading an excerpt from a book in which there’s a story about journalists riding to a game on the same train as the ballclub they were covering.  In the middle of their card game, the door to their car burst open and Babe Ruth ran naked down the aisle, followed closely by a naked woman wielding, if memory serves me correctly, a knife.  What one of the sportswriters said at that moment is no longer true - and today’s athlete had better realize it.  And the scene needn’t be nearly so explosive.

The sportswriter was quoted as saying:

“There goes another story we won’t be reading about in tomorrow’s paper.”

As I was going through some of my old blogs (teachers get a lot of time off for the holidays), I came across one of my early posts and was amused at how timeless it is.  Not only that but I really believe that, with the obsession people have toward sports, it will be just as relevant 50 years from now - unless by that time, fans are actually allowed to coach the teams they support.  See what you think and, as always, comments - both for and against - are welcome.

When I was in the midst of my 30-year career in the world of intercollegiate coaching, I used to speak before booster groups and joke with the audience that one of the true bonuses of coaching in college was that I got to meet so many absolutely brilliant people.  Not only were they experts in their own field, but they could also do our football coach’s job, our basketball coach’s job, our athletic director’s job, - their talents were seemingly limitless.  Of course, many of these guys were very average in what they actually did for a living - and would be tremendously insulted if you ever even hinted at a way they could improve their business.

I’m not so sure they didn’t realize that when I spoke to them I wasn’t kidding.  When I first got to the University of Tennessee, our football team was struggling and I would hear from friends of mine how pitiful a job the football staff was doing and how they couldn’t believe we didn’t throw more, throw deep more, blitz more, fumble less - you get the idea - all strategical moves they would utilize if only the powers that be would wake up & give the reins to someone who really knew the game, someone who’d been watching football for the better part of 20 years (albeit from the 42nd row).  

The coaches they were talking about were many my closest friends, yet it was assumed I ought to be agreeing with every bit of their wisdom.  These people used to say all this to me as if it would never cross my mind that during basketball season, when we lost, they’d be saying the same thing about our staff. 

Suffice to say I’m somewhat sensitive regarding second guessers.  After you’ve been in meetings, practices, locker rooms and watched hundreds of hours of video, you find it hard to listen to someone who, not only thinks he’s an undiscovered genius, but who gets even brighter by the drink.  After 1:00 am, you’d think you were talking (listening) to Bill Walsh or John Wooden.

Now that I’m removed from the coaching wars and have been relegated to the role of fan, or even worse, parent, I can see a shred of truth in the criticism from outside sources (although “shred” might even be stretching it).  I probably knew it then, too, but when your defenses are up, you tend to fight back.

Lou Holtz used to say that when he heard outside criticism, he’d listen - and if it made sense, he’d change; if it didn’t he’d simply dismiss it.  Not a bad strategy.  The quote that is appropriate here comes from the former director of USC’s Leadership Institute, Warren Bennis who said:

“Receptivity to criticism is as necessary as it is loathsome.  And the more valid the criticism, the more difficult it is to receive.”

By now, there can’t be a football fan who hasn’t heard that the game scheduled for this past Sunday between the Philadelphia Eagles and the Minnesota Vikings has been rescheduled for today due to the blizzard that swept through the East.  Whether or not the move was necessary has been a lively topic of conversation started by none other than the governor of Pennsylvania.

Ed Rendell, a former mayor of Philly and a staunch Eagles fan, came down hard on those who made the decision to postpone the game a couple days - and it seems his remarks have placed interested parties in one of two camps.  The league, citing the obvious weather condition factor, made the decision to put off the game until today.  One point they claimed was that there was a possibility that 70,000 fans and 3,000 stadium workers could have been stranded after the game because of the massive amount of snowfall during the contest, i.e. that the parking lot would be snowed in and it would be virtually impossible to move cars.  A rather compelling argument.

For the opposing viewpoint, we turn to Rendell who bluntly stated, “We’ve become a nation of wusses. The Chinese are kicking our butt in everything. If this was in China do you think the Chinese would have called off the game?”  He then made the claim the Chinese would not only make it to the game, but would be doing calculus on the way.  As is the case with anything un-vanilla, look for complaints from groups ranging from China to mathematicians.  Or maybe they’re in Rendell’s corner.

He certainly has a strong following with the “wusses” remark.  There’s a large number of individuals, mostly of the Baby Boomer and older generations, who think the country is entirely too soft for their liking - and getting softer!  As far as his comment about Vince Lombardi mocking the decision-makers and spinning in his grave, that’s something we’ll never know - although there are no lack of supporters in that camp.

Rendell’s feelings are based on what we used to do in situations like these.  No doubt the gov isn’t a fan of domes and instant replays.  It shouldn’t take someone too long to figure his stance on touchdown celebrations and helmet-to-helmet hits either.

But is he wrong?  Football is a game steeped in tradition, even if many of those traditions seem to be Neanderthal in nature.  To use the now-chiche’d expression, “It is what it is.”

On this topic, I leave you, the reader, to come to your own conclusion (I’m not sure I’ve yet come to mine), by absorbing a quote from British scholar C.S. Lewis:

“We all want progress, but if you’re on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back the soonest is the most progressive.”

When I was an assistant coach at the University of Tennessee, the other SEC assistants and I used to keep the difficulty of recruiting in perspective by telling each other, “At least we don’t have to recruit to Starkville.”  As far as jobs go, MSU has to be at the bottom of the league.  Ole Miss has Oxford, which is loaded with history.  Auburn isn’t exactly Las Vegas but it’s a much more desirable location than Starkville.  The great players in Mississippi haven’t even wanted to go to Mississippi State.

They’ve always seemed to overachieve in terms of the level of coach they’ve been able to hire and that has kept the Bulldogs competitive.  Rick Stansbury is the latest coach and a guy who fits the school well in that he’s had success (including a trip to the Final Four) yet doesn’t seem to be searching for a “better” job.  What his program is currently facing may force him to update his resume - assuming he doesn’t become a casualty of the current environment.

MSU wanted Renardo Sidney soooo bad when he came out of high school that they may overlooked the inordinate (even for today’s player) amount of baggage he brought.  Sidney was an ultra-talented kid who was a load to deal with inside but had the ability to knock down three-pointers - as he did again and again during the CIF playoffs.  It was reported he wanted to attend USC or UCLA but his father got involved in his recruitment and he wound up at Mississippi State.  Does that sound familiar for some reason?

Sidney’s brief career has had more incidents than points, the latest being an actual fist fight between him and teammate Elgin Bailey (his road roommate) in the stands at a Christmas tournament in, of all places, Hawaii.  If you can’t enjoy yourself (and behave) in Hawaii, you deserve to be sent back to Starkville.  Naturally, he has made a statement of apology to all MSU fans, the players and coaches, the administration, i.e. the “form apology” that must be on file in every college’s Media Relations department.

What happens to Renardo Sidney now is anyone’s guess.  It’s difficult to recruit - and keep - SEC talent in Starkville, Miss.  The question now facing Bulldogs’ coaches and athletics administrators is:

“Has he become more problem than player?”

After “The Decision” was made public, it seemed a cause for alarm was issued.  Someone as knowledgeable as Jeff Van Gundy even made a statement that the Miami Heat would win 73 games, i.e. breaking the NBA record for wins in a season.  He has since recanted but following last night’s beatdown of the defending champion LA Lakers, talk of a championship for the club from South Beach is no longer as foolish as it sounded during the first fifth of the season.

The Heat was ridiculed when they began the season in Boston and the Celtics rather easily disposed of them.  The punchlines continued after three losses in a four-game stretch (the lone victory coming over the lowly New Jersey Nets) and escalated following three consecutive defeats - to bottom feeders Memphis and Indiana, and capped with a 104-95 embarrassment to in-state rival Orlando.

Then, after splitting the next pair of contests, came a twelve game winning streak.  Even with their improved play, the Heat was dismissed as just another talented team that beat up on the have-nots of the new watered-down NBA.  Just wait until Christmas Day was the familiar refrain they heard.  The Lakers - in Los Angeles, a game the defending champs had circled on their calendar ever since the “Big Three” announced their intentions to join forces, news that trumped their back-to-back championships - would be their Waterloo.

No less an authority on Laker hoops (and competitive natures) than Magic Johnson mentioned his boys had felt slighted and wanted to put the Heat in their place.  The outcome was never in doubt, but it wasn’t the Lakers, with their home crowd behind them, who jumped out early, but the guys from Miami.  And they never let up, especially at the defensive end.  Kobe Bryant’s post-game press conference saw him as terse as he’s ever been.  Everyone needs to take the Miami Heat seriously from this point on.

It looks like the operative line in the NBA is now:

“If you can’t take the Heat, get out of the playoffs.”

As anyone who has a passing interest in college athletics knows - and probably to some who don’t have ANY interest - Reggie Bush was forced to return his Heisman Trophy.  This action was taken after USC returned their Bush Heisman and was made to vacate wins during his era).  If all that wasn’t embarrassing enough to the intercollegiate’s governing body, this year’s sure-fire bet to win the coveted trophy, Cam Newton, was embroiled in controversy regarding breaking NCAA rules.

It turned out that, after the NCAA (thoroughly) investigated the situation, it was only Newton’s father who had committed any infractions, so the Auburn QB was cleared to play for the nation’s top team.  Lucky too, because ruling him ineligible - and forcing the War Eagles to forfeit wins, so late into the season, would have clouded an already foggy BCS landscape.

SC athletics director, Pat Haden, publicly questioned the NCAA’s ruling, stating that in the Reggie Bush case, it was also the parents who received from improper benefits.  Others brought up that in an earlier interview regarding his recruitment, Cam Newton made the statement that, one evening at a family dinner, his dad said, “It’s Auburn” and that was when the decision was made about his future.  In his most recent accounting of his choosing a college, the junior Newton claims he never spoke to his father about where he was going to matriculate.

Those two incidents haven’t been the only NCAA problems regarding student-athlete ineligibility.  Highly recruited players, Enes Kanter (Kentucky) and Josh Selby (Kansas), were ruled ineligible - the latter just recently being allowed to compete while the former still remains sidelined.

In addition Martinique native Guy-Marc Michel (Indiana) was declared ineligible for reasons similar to Kanter, i.e. that, for various reasons, each had violated amateur status.  Last week, Kansas State’s Jacob Pullen and Curtis Kelly were declared ineligible and, not to be outdone, five prominent members of the Ohio State football team were found to have broken NCAA rules.  None will be withheld from competing in their BCS bowl (making the NCAA look bad), all will have serve suspensions next year (hurting the Buckeyes’ chances) and OSU will appeal the ruling, dragging the story out even longer (making both look bad).

I’m not being cynical when I say that these reported violations aren’t first time infractions.  24 hour news availability, nearly every cell phone having the capability of taking pictures (or video), the meteoric rise of the “investigative journalist” (so many see Woodward and Bernstein as role models) and the acceptance of “anonymous sources” have brought instances like these to the public’s attention.  Therein lies the major problem for the NCAA.

It used to be that only the “little” guys got put on probation.  The big boys knew the rules and how to avoid getting caught.  Does anyone really think Heisman Trophy winners didn’t get items beyond room, board, books, tuition and fees?  Star athletes, especially from college towns, didn’t get preferential treatment?  Come on.  New technology has forced the NCAA’s hand.  The schools in the (negative) news nowadays are the organization’s cash cows.  Let’s make one thing perfectly clear:  Paying players is not the answer.

What many of these kids did wouldn’t be avoided if student-athletes were given a monthly stipend - even as much as $500/month.  This is a much larger problem that can be solved with a pittance.  In the following quote by Henry David Thoreau, the NCAA is the thousand.  What we need - and maybe it’s a panel of proactive, imaginative thinkers - is the one he was speaking about:

“For every thousand hacking at the leaves of evil, there is one striking at the root.”

Watching your son play is difficult enough.  Whether he’s missing easy shots or making difficult ones, getting in foul trouble through foolish plays or referee’s questionable calls or being the beneficiary of a bad one (or even having fouls announced against him when, in fact, the foul is committed by a teammate - on the other side of the court), turning the ball over or completing a perfect pass, it’s equally agonizing and exhilarating.  To witness the team lose to teams they ought to beat or beat teams who are significantly more talented add to the frustration and joy.

My wife and I went to Santa Maria to watch our son Alex’s Buchanan Bears compete in the National Prep Classic - national division (as opposed to prep).  Keep in mind that this is the same high school that I coached for three years (all the while in tremendous pain, both because of the emergency back surgery I had right after I signed the contract and because of the poor product I put on the floor).  When I coached at BHS, not only would we not have competed in the national division, we would have struggled in a pre-natal league.

The team went 2-2 and just to keep the parents’ stomachs churning, they made sure they lost to a couple of teams they certainly could have beaten on a good day while beating two teams - one of which was ranked #16 in the state (and whose 6′9″ center is being recruited by the likes of UConn, UCLA, Kansas and North Carolina) and the other who is the Division III defending state champs.

It was during the final game we experienced a new adventure as parents.  Our guys started strong and were ahead by a large margin when the opponent began a furious comeback.  With 3:17 to go in the third quarter, one of their guys scored on a layup.  Because of my chronic back pain, I can’t sit in the bleachers and have purchased a portable rocking chair (I’ve always been a world class rocker) which I usually place at the corner of the baseline.

For this game, I happened to be at the opponent’s end of the floor.  After one of their guys scored, there was a loud grunt on their side of midcourt, followed by another of their players staggering over toward the end of their bench.  He collapsed a few feet in front of where I was.  He was holding his head and a trace of blood trailed him.  I looked out toward midcourt and saw Alex with his back to me, holding his mouth.

Apparently, after the basket, Alex started forward to receive the inbounds pass, while their kid, currently sprawled out in front of me, had turned in the opposite direction to get back on defense.  As he rose, the left side of his forehead made contact with Alex’s two front teeth.  The poor little guy now in front of me was spurting blood and was in shock.  As the training staff attended to him, I walked the length of the floor to check on my son.

As I passed on of our assistants, I inquired as to what happened.  He said to me, “Alex broke his two front teeth.”  It took a while for that statement to register.  When I got to Alex, I asked him what had happened.  His response was classic.  “Look at the score!  We were up 28 and now we’re only up six!”

When I told him I was referring to his health, he looked at me and smiled.  More like showed me his teeth.  He looked like the guy in the movie Dumb and Dumber.  Where the bottoms of each of his front teeth had been straight across, they were now at 45 degree angles to each other.  One of the referees had handed our head coach’s wife (who was keeping our scorebook) a couple of chicklets he’d found on the floor and she gave them, in a cup, to her young daughter to bring to my wife.  Merry Xmas!

The emergency squad was called for the youngster on the floor and he was taken away on a stretcher.  He had calmed down quite a bit after the initial shock had worn off.  After a 30 minute delay, the game continued.  Just prior to the resumption in play, our head coach (my successor) asked me what I thought he should do with Alex.  I told him to play him if Alex felt up to it.  He sat out the remainder of the third quarter, returned in the fourth, scored 12 points and helped the Bears pull out a win.  For the game Alex had scored a career high 34 points.

After Alex had his braces removed a couple of years ago, the orthodontist, who himself had been a basketball player, told him his teeth were about as perfect as they could be - and he should never play without a mouthpiece.  Alex claimed it was uncomfortable, he couldn’t talk and while we kept bugging him about using it, we weren’t as insistent as those who knew better should have been.  We’ll fulfill our role better but following two hours in the dentist’s chair yesterday morning getting his two front teeth bonded,  I think Alex might have gotten the message.

“Some of life’s best lessons are its most painful.”

Heading to the California Coast for a high school basketball tournament.  The blog will return Friday, Xmas Eve day.

This is the time of year when prognosticators of all types want to be heard.  Get it right and, especially if you have a TV or radio show, you can remind viewers and listeners of your expertise - which was presented prior to the contest.  Calling it wrong gives you carte blanche as far as criticism is concerned, e.g. it’s open season on head coaches, coordinators, kickers, offensive skill players (for fumbling, throwing picks or dropping passes) and defensive linemen (for not getting their average, or more, number of sacks).  Miss by enough and you can even roast the NCAA or BCS.

Just predicting who will has never meant much to me.  After all, when two teams are playing, Zippy the Chimp has a 50-50 chance of getting it right.  Make a pick and explain why that team will win.  Better yet, set the scenario(s) that each team needs to emerge victorious.

A few days ago, I heard Colin Cowherd, never short on opinions (or the ability to annoy/condescend), give his pick for the national championship game.  Although he’s from the Pacific Northwest, he’s convinced Auburn will win because they have better players, including the best.  Oregon has never seen such an array of talent.

While that might be true, what Auburn hasn’t seen is a team play at the pace the Ducks do.  In a pound-it-out macho conference like the SEC, coaching staffs pride themselves on situational substitutions.  Does this give an advantage to Oregon?  That’s something everyone will know as the game unfolds.

Well, what kind of prediction is that?  Everybody can tell what happened after it took place.  It’s called being a sportswriter, or more specifically, a columnist.  The fact that everyone can analyze why outcomes occurred after they happen is no more absurd than the fact that everyone can make a prediction before the game.  The more detailed you get, the greater chance you look like a genius - or a fool.

Predictions are great for water cooler conversations (or possibly conversations that take place where stronger beverages are served) and gamblers.  The latter actually do “put their money where their mouth is.”  Is it better to merely pick a winner and should your choice come up roses, gloat, and if you choose the wrong side, hide - or take a gamble and pre-analyze the fray, meaning your brilliance will be many times greater if your ship comes in, but you’ll leave yourself open to ridicule if your winner is right but for all the wrong reasons?  That answer depends on your personal make up - or how much the station is paying you.

Most people (outside the pacific Northwest) agree Auburn might have more better athletes (see yesterday’s blog re: “more better”) - and certainly no one is in the class of Cam Newton (unlike Florida’s claim that Newton wasn’t in the classes of many of his teammates - OK, bad joke) - but Oregon’s roster isn’t exactly composed of dogs.  The Ducks’ hurry-up offense is just as difficult to prepare for as Cam Newton.  It’s one thing to see each on camera, but another thing to try to actually tackle Newton, or play at the pace Oregon forces teams to do.

Who’s my selection?  I’ve worked in both leagues (albeit in basketball), so there’s no preference there.  I’ve always been partial to coaching and preparing game plans and in that regard, I favor Oregon, but to go out on a limb and say who the winner will be?

I subscribe to Casey Stengel’s theory:

“Never make predictions, especially about the future.”

 John Harbaugh said, “We make no comparisons.  Somebody is going to be devalued.”  Wise words to live by.  As far as comparing the current winning streak owned by the UConn women’s basketball team to the one achieved by the UCLA men anyway.

It’s difficult enough to compare men vs. men from different eras.  Now people seem to think it’s necessary to demean the UConn streak because it appears they’re going to surpass the mark of the late John Wooden’s Bruins.  Although it’s the same game, i.e. basketball, it really isn’t the same.

Compared to (there’s that nasty word) intercollegiate men’s basketball, the distaff version is in its infancy.  There has only been a women’s NCAA tournament since 1982 (prior to that, the women’s game was under the auspices of the AIAW).  In that time there have been only 35 different teams represented in the Final Four.  The men’s side has had 35 different reps since 1992.  In addition, the women’s game has just recently gone through the upheaval of traditional powers being eased out of the Top 20 poll.  In the 1940s, CCNY, Dartmouth, Duquesne, NYU and Holy Cross were dominant squads just as in the early ’80s, Louisiana Tech, Cheney State and Old Dominion were all Final Four participants, but whose programs haven’t kept pace with today’s powers.

Since 1982 there have been six women’s teams go undefeated while hoisting the championship trophy (Texas and Tennessee once each and UConn four times).  On the men’s side, that feat hasn’t been accomplished since the 1976 Indiana Hoosiers, and because so many more of the men’s games are televised - and so many of the male coaches want to be on TV (not to mention how much money is paid by the networks), television dictates much of the power teams’ schedule.  Play enough of those games and any club is bound to drop one.  If not, they lose the contest prior to, or following it.  That’s called human nature.

Add to the fact that because the men have been playing so much longer, there are, as a former boss of mine, Don DeVoe, was fond of saying when discussing a great vs. an average team, the better one has “more better players.”  Because the female game is, in comparison (can’t seem to stay away from it) to its male counterpart, in its infancy, there aren’t yet “more better players” from which to choose.  Therefore, the fan never sees a non-top 20 team upsetting a powerful women’s squad, much less a number one, a la Chaminade beating Virginia when the Cavs were the nation’s #1.  So, while the UConn women have defeated more top 10s than the Bruins did on their way to 88 straight W’s, Geno Auriemma’s recruiting prowess has more to do with the mega margins of victory his teams have posted along the way.

To sum up this post, when discussing the two streaks, sue the teenagers new motto:

“Don’t hate; appreciate.”