The NCAA has upcoming meetings in Baltimore to discuss proposals by the National Association of Basketball Coaches that would a) permit a school to stage tryouts for 18 high school recruits during a recruiting season (whereby they would play with existing players on a team for no more than 2 hours, something which Division II already permits) and b) permit a school to give 5 years of eligibility to a men's basketball player. In addition, the proposal would increase sanctions for various rules violations. USA Today has been all over this story, and reports that the coaches believe these proposals will strengthen the mentor-player relationship.
SportsProf posted about some of the proposals earlier, and here are his current thoughts:
1. The tryouts seem harmless enough. Given that there are scholarship limits and given that many people dress up well and say the right things in an interview, he sees no harm in a 2-hour tryout. Such tryouts might aid in the Darwinism of the recruiting process, in that kids who don't belong at a high-end major might find that out in several tryouts, spare themselves the pain of riding the deep bench and go where they should go in the first place, to a mid- or low-major. Where, perhaps, they can blossom precisely because they'd be getting the playing time they wouldn't get riding the pine at Kentucky. Such tryouts also might prevent schools from overrecruiting, because you'd have to figure that the recruits, who get to know one another well enough at summer camps, will keep tabs on one another. No one wants to be the third PG in a three-PG recruiting class at a high-end major. So long as there is a limit as to number and time, this suggestion could work out pretty well.
2. The five years of eligibility sends a bad message if it gives kids five years on the floor. That shouldn't happen. Given them five years to get their degrees, so that if they exhaust their eligibility in four they can get the fifth year to finish up their school work. That is a great solution and sends the right message. But that extra year of eligibility doesn't necessarily help anyone and suggests that a school's primary mission is not education, it's keeping a full arena. SportsProf laughs at the suggestion that all of these reforms are designed to improve the coach/player mentoring relationship. Given all the resources that DI schools throw at their hoops programs, how can this rule, absent putting a man of character in the head coaching position, improve this relationship? Either the head coaches take the time to get to know their kids and to teach them, or they don't. The graduation numbers, while slightly flawed, don't lie. Many schools today do a terrible job of graduating their players. They shouldn't be rewarded with any incentive to keep them their for a fifth year of eligibility.
3. The NABC clearly is a male-dominated if not exclusively male organization. They seemingly limit their suggestions to men's basketball, which would be understandable but for the Federal legal ramifications of some of these suggestions. What's to say you wouldn't have to offer the same accommodations to women basketball player or other women athletes for that matter? Why should basketball be so special? What about ice hockey, lacrosse, riflery? The possibilities are endless.
SportsProf acknowledges that men's college hoops does have some issues. The best teenagers aren't going to college any more; they are going to the NBA, or they're leaving college after one or two years. That said, it's somewhat comforting to know that kids who merit going straight to the pros can get there, and that there is somewhere to go for kids who shouldn't go to college in the first place (although the creation of a meaningful minor league system in professional hoops is a must). It's more comforting to know that because of that phenomenon, more teams have access to the Sweet 16, and a Cinderella can get further. That makes the Big Dance a tournament that everyone can embrace, precisely because you can get a bunch of fourth-year seniors who don't have an NBA future to capture lightning in a bottle for a six-week period starting in March.
SportsProf is all for improving amateur athletics as best as they can be improved, just so long as the powers that be in those sports remember a principle maxim every time they tinker:
These are still games for our kids.
Tuesday, July 20, 2004
Sunday, July 18, 2004
Some Things to Think About -- SportsProf Might Not Be Able to Blog for a Week
SportsProf will be out of the country for about one week (and no, he will not be standing on the Champs Elysee watching Lance Armstrong capture his sixth straight Tour de France or Greg LeMond throwing ripe tomatoes at him while he does so) and is uncertain whether or not he'll be able to blog, so he wants to leave his devoted blog readers with some things to think about, as follows:
1. The Big Unit. Reports on the wire services today indicate that Randy Johnson is more likely to stay in Arizona than he is to accept a trade anywhere else. Which means, of course, that a trade well might be imminent. In the past, SportsProf has always thought that the big late July trades are part of the suspense that makes baseball fun. Who will give up say AA first baseman Jeff Bagwell for reliever Larry Andersen or Class A pitcher and home state prospect John Smoltz for Doyle Alexander? SportsProf is worried, for reasons he cannot fully articulate now, that a payment by the Yankees of millions for Johnson would be bad for the game. The Yankees would have to make a big cash payment because they don't have many prospects to trade. If the Commissioner has the guts he's been trying to display, he'd step in and prevent that type of transfer from happening. If he doesn't do something, then, well, he'll prove that he's no Bowie Kuhn. Kuhn, while a flawed commissioner, did step in and prevent Charlie Finley from fulfilling the legacy of Connie Mack's A's and selling key players to the Red Sox and Yankees in the mid-1970's (he called Bowie Kuhn "the village idiot" at the time). So while you're flexing you're muscles against the players' union on the steroids issue, Mr. Commissioner, flex your muscles against the Yankees for the other problematic substance issue -- throwing too much money around. Let's see if you're truly looking out for, gulp, the best interests of baseball.
However they are defined these days.
2. Andy Reid. The pundits are circling around now like sharks. Not only is the pressure on the Eagles to finally get to the Super Bowl after losing three straight NFC championship games, the last of two at home, but now the Eagles have to play 2 games against both Joe Gibbs and Bill Parcells, not to mention 2 against Tom Coughlin. Oooh, the watchers are saying with the tone of voice that middle schoolers use to get someone in trouble, the Eagles should be really scared -- the competition is just too touch.
And, of course, the pundits are saying that the Eagles are weaker at corner because they failed to re-sign either the self-named blanket, Bobby Taylor, or Troy Vincent. They do give the Birds credit for inking Jevon Kearse (one of many feet-challenged defensive linemen on the Eagles) and trading for Terrell Owens, and they're right to, because the Eagles' front office was very silent up to the first-day of the free-agent signing period, only to sign Kearse on the first day. Still, though, you get the sense that they doubt Reid can be more than a poor man's Merv Levy and get to the Super Bowl.
There is enough to doubt, but Reid seemingly has done a masterful job on the personnel front, along with the team's capologist, President Joe Banner. Last year they let Hugh Douglas and Brian Mitchell walk, and those players laid eggs with their new teams. Douglas was ineffective with Jacksonville, and Mitchell had an awful year returning kicks for the Giants. And, by letting Mitchell go, the Eagles paved the way for Brian Westbrook, who had a masterful season for the Eagles.
This past off-season, after a lot of public discussion (where the fans on the talk shows lamented the Birds' moves), the Eagles decided to let Bobby Taylor, either 31 or 32, and Troy Vincent, 33, go the route of free agency. The Eagles seem content to let third-year players Sheldon Brown and Lito Sheppard man the corners, with rookie Matt Ware, a tall corner out of UCLA, backing them up. "Mistake," said the water-cooler GMs. "There's not a shutdown corner among them. Awfully risky." True, Brown and Sheppard didn't have great seasons filling in for Taylor and Vincent when both were injured, but Vincent showed signs of age and Taylor showed signs of being brittle, and, further, the Eagles' had a woeful pass rush last year. Even the best corners could have trouble covering if their teammates in the trenches can't put pressure on the other team's QB. SportsProf isn't guaranteeing that Brown and Sheppard will be all-Pros, but he does demand that Bird watchers give them a fair chance.
A few years ago, the Birds let their starting middle linebacker, Jeremiah Trotter, go the way of free agency instead of heeding his loud demands and signing him to a 5-year, $25 million contract. Trotter was vocal about the lack of appreciation he was being shown, and he took his skills to division rival Washington for a lucrative contract. Oh, the water-cooler GMs criticized the Birds for letting "The Axe" go (they loved how strong and physical he was), but Trotter had a bad two years in Washington, got hurt, and was released after last season. The Eagles had let him go in the first place because they were worried about his gimply knee (which he had hurt in college at Stephen F. Austin) and his frequent overrunning of plays, and they didn't (and still don't) view linebackers as all that important to their defensive schemes (relative to linemen and backs).
So what happened? Trotter is back, having mended fences with Reid, to whom he apologized for handling his situation badly two years ago. He signed for the veteran minimum, and he'll back up starting MLB Mark Simoneau, who, after winning the NFL's defensive player of the month in October, wore down as the season progressed. Simoneau is a small middle linebacker, and he doesn't appear to have the "fight in the dog" talents of that other small middle linebacker, Zach Thomas, which goes to show you that at some point, even in the pros, size does matter. So enter Trotter, who should, at least, give the water-cooler GMs something to talk about.
The point in all this? Andy Reid knows what he is doing. Vincent is a better instinctive corner than Taylor, and he might have a decent year left in him, and Taylor might as well. But thus far, Andy Reid has shown that he knows what he is doing, both as a coach and as a GM. The bet here is that no pundit will be crowing about how the Eagles erred in letting these two players become free agents.
And while Joe Gibbs is back and the Tuna is toiling in Dallas, in 2004 it is they who have to show they can outdo Andy Reid and knock the Birds off their perch, and not vice versa, strange as that may sound.
3. There are other topics to talk about, such as the U.S. Track and Field doping scandals, the NHL's labor situation, the basketball venue for Iranians Jaber Rouzbahani and Hammid Hadadi this fall, the Olympics (and whether, despite the "defections", the U.S. will win the gold), and the story about the two Air Force Academy football players who will be court-martialed for steriod use. Funny how our tax dollars' priorities go -- use steroids at a Division I school that is not an arm of the U.S. government, go undetected and be a football hero; use them at Air Force, and go to jail. Character, after all, is fate. SportsProf will cheer a bit for the Falcons this fall.
Have a good week; I hope to blog when I can.
1. The Big Unit. Reports on the wire services today indicate that Randy Johnson is more likely to stay in Arizona than he is to accept a trade anywhere else. Which means, of course, that a trade well might be imminent. In the past, SportsProf has always thought that the big late July trades are part of the suspense that makes baseball fun. Who will give up say AA first baseman Jeff Bagwell for reliever Larry Andersen or Class A pitcher and home state prospect John Smoltz for Doyle Alexander? SportsProf is worried, for reasons he cannot fully articulate now, that a payment by the Yankees of millions for Johnson would be bad for the game. The Yankees would have to make a big cash payment because they don't have many prospects to trade. If the Commissioner has the guts he's been trying to display, he'd step in and prevent that type of transfer from happening. If he doesn't do something, then, well, he'll prove that he's no Bowie Kuhn. Kuhn, while a flawed commissioner, did step in and prevent Charlie Finley from fulfilling the legacy of Connie Mack's A's and selling key players to the Red Sox and Yankees in the mid-1970's (he called Bowie Kuhn "the village idiot" at the time). So while you're flexing you're muscles against the players' union on the steroids issue, Mr. Commissioner, flex your muscles against the Yankees for the other problematic substance issue -- throwing too much money around. Let's see if you're truly looking out for, gulp, the best interests of baseball.
However they are defined these days.
2. Andy Reid. The pundits are circling around now like sharks. Not only is the pressure on the Eagles to finally get to the Super Bowl after losing three straight NFC championship games, the last of two at home, but now the Eagles have to play 2 games against both Joe Gibbs and Bill Parcells, not to mention 2 against Tom Coughlin. Oooh, the watchers are saying with the tone of voice that middle schoolers use to get someone in trouble, the Eagles should be really scared -- the competition is just too touch.
And, of course, the pundits are saying that the Eagles are weaker at corner because they failed to re-sign either the self-named blanket, Bobby Taylor, or Troy Vincent. They do give the Birds credit for inking Jevon Kearse (one of many feet-challenged defensive linemen on the Eagles) and trading for Terrell Owens, and they're right to, because the Eagles' front office was very silent up to the first-day of the free-agent signing period, only to sign Kearse on the first day. Still, though, you get the sense that they doubt Reid can be more than a poor man's Merv Levy and get to the Super Bowl.
There is enough to doubt, but Reid seemingly has done a masterful job on the personnel front, along with the team's capologist, President Joe Banner. Last year they let Hugh Douglas and Brian Mitchell walk, and those players laid eggs with their new teams. Douglas was ineffective with Jacksonville, and Mitchell had an awful year returning kicks for the Giants. And, by letting Mitchell go, the Eagles paved the way for Brian Westbrook, who had a masterful season for the Eagles.
This past off-season, after a lot of public discussion (where the fans on the talk shows lamented the Birds' moves), the Eagles decided to let Bobby Taylor, either 31 or 32, and Troy Vincent, 33, go the route of free agency. The Eagles seem content to let third-year players Sheldon Brown and Lito Sheppard man the corners, with rookie Matt Ware, a tall corner out of UCLA, backing them up. "Mistake," said the water-cooler GMs. "There's not a shutdown corner among them. Awfully risky." True, Brown and Sheppard didn't have great seasons filling in for Taylor and Vincent when both were injured, but Vincent showed signs of age and Taylor showed signs of being brittle, and, further, the Eagles' had a woeful pass rush last year. Even the best corners could have trouble covering if their teammates in the trenches can't put pressure on the other team's QB. SportsProf isn't guaranteeing that Brown and Sheppard will be all-Pros, but he does demand that Bird watchers give them a fair chance.
A few years ago, the Birds let their starting middle linebacker, Jeremiah Trotter, go the way of free agency instead of heeding his loud demands and signing him to a 5-year, $25 million contract. Trotter was vocal about the lack of appreciation he was being shown, and he took his skills to division rival Washington for a lucrative contract. Oh, the water-cooler GMs criticized the Birds for letting "The Axe" go (they loved how strong and physical he was), but Trotter had a bad two years in Washington, got hurt, and was released after last season. The Eagles had let him go in the first place because they were worried about his gimply knee (which he had hurt in college at Stephen F. Austin) and his frequent overrunning of plays, and they didn't (and still don't) view linebackers as all that important to their defensive schemes (relative to linemen and backs).
So what happened? Trotter is back, having mended fences with Reid, to whom he apologized for handling his situation badly two years ago. He signed for the veteran minimum, and he'll back up starting MLB Mark Simoneau, who, after winning the NFL's defensive player of the month in October, wore down as the season progressed. Simoneau is a small middle linebacker, and he doesn't appear to have the "fight in the dog" talents of that other small middle linebacker, Zach Thomas, which goes to show you that at some point, even in the pros, size does matter. So enter Trotter, who should, at least, give the water-cooler GMs something to talk about.
The point in all this? Andy Reid knows what he is doing. Vincent is a better instinctive corner than Taylor, and he might have a decent year left in him, and Taylor might as well. But thus far, Andy Reid has shown that he knows what he is doing, both as a coach and as a GM. The bet here is that no pundit will be crowing about how the Eagles erred in letting these two players become free agents.
And while Joe Gibbs is back and the Tuna is toiling in Dallas, in 2004 it is they who have to show they can outdo Andy Reid and knock the Birds off their perch, and not vice versa, strange as that may sound.
3. There are other topics to talk about, such as the U.S. Track and Field doping scandals, the NHL's labor situation, the basketball venue for Iranians Jaber Rouzbahani and Hammid Hadadi this fall, the Olympics (and whether, despite the "defections", the U.S. will win the gold), and the story about the two Air Force Academy football players who will be court-martialed for steriod use. Funny how our tax dollars' priorities go -- use steroids at a Division I school that is not an arm of the U.S. government, go undetected and be a football hero; use them at Air Force, and go to jail. Character, after all, is fate. SportsProf will cheer a bit for the Falcons this fall.
Have a good week; I hope to blog when I can.
Possible Redemption for Adrian McPherson?
After having written the post on Art Schlichter, for whom redemption in the professional sports world seems highly unlikely, SportsProf ruminated about another QB who has had mostly downs (and not first downs) in his short-lived post-HS career. His name: Adrian McPherson.
Only four years ago, McPherson was a hotshot athlete in Florida who was a huge basketball recruit as well as one of the top football recruits in the country. He went to Florida State for football and ended up getting into trouble with the law on what publicly is viewed as the most egregious sin a football player can commit: gambling. (You may recall the conversation between Caretaker and Paul Crew in the movie "The Longest Yard," where Crew, a former professional QB (played well by Burt Reynolds), asked why some of the inmates hated him so much. Caretaker replied that most of the people in the prison were in for murder, arson, robbery and that sort of thing. But then he looked at Crew said, "But you bet on football games. That's un-American." ).
In contrast to McPherson, the lengthy rap sheet of U. of Miami linebacker recruit extraordinaire Willie Williams didn't create as much furor (even though it probably got as much attention) because it almost seems that extra-legal pilfering and violence is expected of gridders who play on the defensive side of the ball. And Williams has been arrested something like 11 times in his 19 years. Williams did get his share of publicity, but his rap sheet hasn't cost him the privilege of playing football for the U. of Miami Hurricanes (the original Miami U., in Ohio, to its credit probably wouldn't have let the kid in).
McPherson, meanwhile, left or was dismissed by Florida State and found himself on trial for gambling charges, and in the summer of 2003 the jury was unable to reach a verdict. So there he was, twenty years-old, having been accused of an athlete's cardinal sin, and ostensibly without a future.
Until he found Arena Football, the sport that brought you Kurt Warner and his three subsequent amazing years with the St. Louis Rams. McPherson surfaced this past season with the Indiana Firebirds, and won the Arena League's Rookie of the Year award at age 21. Click on the Firebirds link and check out McPherson's results. He had a very good year.
He also seems to be making the most of his second chance, and he may be a candidate for entry into the NFL Draft in 2005. In the interview with NFL Draft Blitz, McPherson seems humble and focused on becoming a better football player. At eighteen, he might have been a kid who just couldn't handle all the attention thrust upon him, and, in the process, he made some bad choices that took him away from Florida State and to the Arena League.
Most guys who play in the Arena League play there because they can't play anywhere else. They're too something -- too short, too light, too heavy, too slow, too weak -- to get to the next level, and ask any competitive athlete and he or she will tell you that you always want to play against the best competition. Most, if not all, of the huge talents coming out of college wouldn't even give the Arena League a second thought, for to do so would be to lose that "eye of the tiger" that is so necessary for an elite prospect to get to the pinnacle. Many respect the effort that the players in the Arena League give, respect the fact that Kurt Warner played in that league and that those guys play for the love of the game under conditions you wouldn't find at Florida State let alone an NFL locker room. But in the end, the Arena League is for people who you have never heard of and most likely, in our society's obsession with celebrity, never will.
And that may be so. But for Adrian McPherson, the Arena League is just fine. And, if he continues to work hard and fulfills the great promise he once showed as a HS senior and even at Florida State, well, he could end up being the next Kurt Warner. And not the next Art Schlichter.
And the Arena League Alumni Association would have its second great story.
Only four years ago, McPherson was a hotshot athlete in Florida who was a huge basketball recruit as well as one of the top football recruits in the country. He went to Florida State for football and ended up getting into trouble with the law on what publicly is viewed as the most egregious sin a football player can commit: gambling. (You may recall the conversation between Caretaker and Paul Crew in the movie "The Longest Yard," where Crew, a former professional QB (played well by Burt Reynolds), asked why some of the inmates hated him so much. Caretaker replied that most of the people in the prison were in for murder, arson, robbery and that sort of thing. But then he looked at Crew said, "But you bet on football games. That's un-American." ).
In contrast to McPherson, the lengthy rap sheet of U. of Miami linebacker recruit extraordinaire Willie Williams didn't create as much furor (even though it probably got as much attention) because it almost seems that extra-legal pilfering and violence is expected of gridders who play on the defensive side of the ball. And Williams has been arrested something like 11 times in his 19 years. Williams did get his share of publicity, but his rap sheet hasn't cost him the privilege of playing football for the U. of Miami Hurricanes (the original Miami U., in Ohio, to its credit probably wouldn't have let the kid in).
McPherson, meanwhile, left or was dismissed by Florida State and found himself on trial for gambling charges, and in the summer of 2003 the jury was unable to reach a verdict. So there he was, twenty years-old, having been accused of an athlete's cardinal sin, and ostensibly without a future.
Until he found Arena Football, the sport that brought you Kurt Warner and his three subsequent amazing years with the St. Louis Rams. McPherson surfaced this past season with the Indiana Firebirds, and won the Arena League's Rookie of the Year award at age 21. Click on the Firebirds link and check out McPherson's results. He had a very good year.
He also seems to be making the most of his second chance, and he may be a candidate for entry into the NFL Draft in 2005. In the interview with NFL Draft Blitz, McPherson seems humble and focused on becoming a better football player. At eighteen, he might have been a kid who just couldn't handle all the attention thrust upon him, and, in the process, he made some bad choices that took him away from Florida State and to the Arena League.
Most guys who play in the Arena League play there because they can't play anywhere else. They're too something -- too short, too light, too heavy, too slow, too weak -- to get to the next level, and ask any competitive athlete and he or she will tell you that you always want to play against the best competition. Most, if not all, of the huge talents coming out of college wouldn't even give the Arena League a second thought, for to do so would be to lose that "eye of the tiger" that is so necessary for an elite prospect to get to the pinnacle. Many respect the effort that the players in the Arena League give, respect the fact that Kurt Warner played in that league and that those guys play for the love of the game under conditions you wouldn't find at Florida State let alone an NFL locker room. But in the end, the Arena League is for people who you have never heard of and most likely, in our society's obsession with celebrity, never will.
And that may be so. But for Adrian McPherson, the Arena League is just fine. And, if he continues to work hard and fulfills the great promise he once showed as a HS senior and even at Florida State, well, he could end up being the next Kurt Warner. And not the next Art Schlichter.
And the Arena League Alumni Association would have its second great story.
Saturday, July 17, 2004
The Sad Case of Art Schlichter
Do you remember Art Schlichter (pronounced Shlee-ster for those of you who may not remember)? The three-sport wunderkind from Ohio who was going to lead the Buckeyes to renewed glory on the gridiron and perhaps help out on the basketball court? Great HS athlete destined for bigger things in the Big 10 Conference and beyond?
You probably remember his fall, a resounding thud that would have been more scary hadn't it been so pathetic. Schlichter fell in with a bad crowd, got suspended by the NFL for gambling, is currently serving a sentence in federal prison for money laundering and just copped a plea for another eight years for a fraud scam. ESPN reports on this former HS hero's sad circumstances.
Even Michigan fans couldn't boo these circumstances or derive any pleasure from the awful descent into hell that this guy who had a wonderful life in front of him has had. Hard to say whether Schlicter just fell in with a bad crowd or just never developed an appropriate sense of right from wrong. Ohio State fans and Ohioans probably know better.
Thankfully, for every Schlichter there are more Craig Krenzels, the since-graduated Ohio St. QB who was drafted in the recent NFL draft and who will go on and become a doctor some day. Yet, it was Schlicter who was one of the most heralded QBs ever to walk into the football locker room in Columbus, the most heralded since Rex Kern.
And, that, in retrospect, says a lot about how we choose our heroes. (Ironically, Krenzel, and not Schlichter, led the Buckeyes to a national title).
You read about the Art Schlichters of the world and the linebacking recruit for Miami with a rap sheet that is perhaps longer than his 19 years on this earth, and you wonder where all the Craig Krenzels are.
There are many of them out there, and SportsProf for one would like to see more articles on where those guys are today. In classrooms, in laboratories, in operating rooms, picking up in life where their college educations left off. Helping others become better people or healthier people. Or both.
No doubt there could be more Art Schlichter stories and perhaps even a book or made for TV movie, and Craig Krenzel might play a couple of years in the NFL before going to med school and becoming an oncologist or orthopedic surgeon. Perhaps no one will ever write a book about him. Too nice. No scandal. Too boring.
But, in all likelihood, he'll probably be writing a book of his own some day.
Probably a medical textbook.
And that's the best story of them all.
You probably remember his fall, a resounding thud that would have been more scary hadn't it been so pathetic. Schlichter fell in with a bad crowd, got suspended by the NFL for gambling, is currently serving a sentence in federal prison for money laundering and just copped a plea for another eight years for a fraud scam. ESPN reports on this former HS hero's sad circumstances.
Even Michigan fans couldn't boo these circumstances or derive any pleasure from the awful descent into hell that this guy who had a wonderful life in front of him has had. Hard to say whether Schlicter just fell in with a bad crowd or just never developed an appropriate sense of right from wrong. Ohio State fans and Ohioans probably know better.
Thankfully, for every Schlichter there are more Craig Krenzels, the since-graduated Ohio St. QB who was drafted in the recent NFL draft and who will go on and become a doctor some day. Yet, it was Schlicter who was one of the most heralded QBs ever to walk into the football locker room in Columbus, the most heralded since Rex Kern.
And, that, in retrospect, says a lot about how we choose our heroes. (Ironically, Krenzel, and not Schlichter, led the Buckeyes to a national title).
You read about the Art Schlichters of the world and the linebacking recruit for Miami with a rap sheet that is perhaps longer than his 19 years on this earth, and you wonder where all the Craig Krenzels are.
There are many of them out there, and SportsProf for one would like to see more articles on where those guys are today. In classrooms, in laboratories, in operating rooms, picking up in life where their college educations left off. Helping others become better people or healthier people. Or both.
No doubt there could be more Art Schlichter stories and perhaps even a book or made for TV movie, and Craig Krenzel might play a couple of years in the NFL before going to med school and becoming an oncologist or orthopedic surgeon. Perhaps no one will ever write a book about him. Too nice. No scandal. Too boring.
But, in all likelihood, he'll probably be writing a book of his own some day.
Probably a medical textbook.
And that's the best story of them all.
Friday, July 16, 2004
When They Crash in the Northwest, They Really Crash
SportsProf confesses that he's one of these East Coasters whose daily routine prevents him from giving West Coast teams their absolute due. Of course, that "absolute due" cuts both ways, because while he's wont to follow Pac-10 hoops (and, naturally, the good teams), he's less prone to following the really bad teams. In any sport.
Let's face it, unless you have a relative, a kid from your school or your neighbor's nephew playing on a bad team that's three time zones away, you probably don't pay poorly performing teams much attention. Which should be the case with the Seattle Mariners, who, after years of great seasons, have finally hit their wall. Hard. And those great seasons were especially so because how many franchises could lose Randy Johnson, Ken Griffey, Jr. and A-Rod and then still win over 100 games in a season? For several years?
Perhaps none, but somehow they cultivated a stable of young pitchers (such as Freddy Garcia) and rehabilitated a lefty whose career almost ended in the early 90's (Jamie Moyer), and they had some stellar position players (Buhner, Boone, Olerud, Edgar Martinez, who, while not really a position, has swung a mean bat for a long time). And SportsProf, no doubt, has missed some names (such as Mike Cameron, who played very well while Junior languished with injuries in Cincinnati). Somehow, the Seattle ownership and front office did a great job with what they had.
But now, the magical formula on which the Mariners relied for so many years has run out of whatever special elixir fueled it for years. The Mariners are in dead last, they traded their best pitcher, they designated their SS (Rich Aurilia) for assignment and have just designated their 1B, and a Washingtonian to boot, John Olerud, for assignment (Olerud turned down a trade to SF and still might be dealt during the 10-day designation period). Not that the SS and 1B are great, either, but their designation for assignment within a week or so of one another is a stark sign that they've all but given up in the Great Northwest. Moreover, the fans aren't turning out, and that's hurting local businesses. For more on that, click here and read Sports Economist's post on the local eateries and how they are suffering.
Many managers would confess that they don't make a great deal of difference during a season, and the pundits and cognoscenti (which can be a mutually exclusive group at times) can argue that a good manager might win you an extra 10 games in a season. If that's the case, then Lou Piniella was an excellent manager, because with Sweet Lou aboard perhaps the Mariners would still be in the race (especially given the strong showing of Piniella's current team, the D-Rays). Then again, the Sparky Andersons of the world would counter that the secret to becoming a winning manager would be to get a team with great talent and then pretty much stay out of their way.
Still, the problem at Safeco isn't the manager, because he just doesn't have enough players. The Mariners miss Sweet Lou, but probably not as much as A-Rod and the Big Unit and, yes, even the oft-injured Junior. They're conducting a fire sale in Seattle, and they're talking to all bidders.
Seattle, you had a great run, but it was bound to end. It didn't have to (see: Atlanta Braves), but fate dictated it to be so. The baseball deities just couldn't let you keep on keeping on like that, having jettisoned three future Hall of Famers within about 5 years of one another. While the so-called "small market" teams might have been cheering you on (as perhaps was Bud Selig) because you had the gumption to keep your payroll in line and still win 100 games, you just can't keep on letting huge stars go and getting away with it. Time, and the lack of talent, finally catches up to every franchise. So, instead of being compared to the Atlanta Braves, you deserve to be compared to the Boston Red Sox.
And when was the last time they won it all?
Right before they traded the greatest player of all time.
Let's face it, unless you have a relative, a kid from your school or your neighbor's nephew playing on a bad team that's three time zones away, you probably don't pay poorly performing teams much attention. Which should be the case with the Seattle Mariners, who, after years of great seasons, have finally hit their wall. Hard. And those great seasons were especially so because how many franchises could lose Randy Johnson, Ken Griffey, Jr. and A-Rod and then still win over 100 games in a season? For several years?
Perhaps none, but somehow they cultivated a stable of young pitchers (such as Freddy Garcia) and rehabilitated a lefty whose career almost ended in the early 90's (Jamie Moyer), and they had some stellar position players (Buhner, Boone, Olerud, Edgar Martinez, who, while not really a position, has swung a mean bat for a long time). And SportsProf, no doubt, has missed some names (such as Mike Cameron, who played very well while Junior languished with injuries in Cincinnati). Somehow, the Seattle ownership and front office did a great job with what they had.
But now, the magical formula on which the Mariners relied for so many years has run out of whatever special elixir fueled it for years. The Mariners are in dead last, they traded their best pitcher, they designated their SS (Rich Aurilia) for assignment and have just designated their 1B, and a Washingtonian to boot, John Olerud, for assignment (Olerud turned down a trade to SF and still might be dealt during the 10-day designation period). Not that the SS and 1B are great, either, but their designation for assignment within a week or so of one another is a stark sign that they've all but given up in the Great Northwest. Moreover, the fans aren't turning out, and that's hurting local businesses. For more on that, click here and read Sports Economist's post on the local eateries and how they are suffering.
Many managers would confess that they don't make a great deal of difference during a season, and the pundits and cognoscenti (which can be a mutually exclusive group at times) can argue that a good manager might win you an extra 10 games in a season. If that's the case, then Lou Piniella was an excellent manager, because with Sweet Lou aboard perhaps the Mariners would still be in the race (especially given the strong showing of Piniella's current team, the D-Rays). Then again, the Sparky Andersons of the world would counter that the secret to becoming a winning manager would be to get a team with great talent and then pretty much stay out of their way.
Still, the problem at Safeco isn't the manager, because he just doesn't have enough players. The Mariners miss Sweet Lou, but probably not as much as A-Rod and the Big Unit and, yes, even the oft-injured Junior. They're conducting a fire sale in Seattle, and they're talking to all bidders.
Seattle, you had a great run, but it was bound to end. It didn't have to (see: Atlanta Braves), but fate dictated it to be so. The baseball deities just couldn't let you keep on keeping on like that, having jettisoned three future Hall of Famers within about 5 years of one another. While the so-called "small market" teams might have been cheering you on (as perhaps was Bud Selig) because you had the gumption to keep your payroll in line and still win 100 games, you just can't keep on letting huge stars go and getting away with it. Time, and the lack of talent, finally catches up to every franchise. So, instead of being compared to the Atlanta Braves, you deserve to be compared to the Boston Red Sox.
And when was the last time they won it all?
Right before they traded the greatest player of all time.
Don Haskins Shouldn't be Too Sad. . .
that Ben Affleck turned down the role of Don Haskins.
Disney is making a film called "Glory Road", about the upset victory that Texas Western, coached by a young Don Haskins, scored over Adolph Rupp's favored Kentucky squad in the 1966 NCAA title game. Texas Western, now known as UTEP, started five African-American players, the first time that a team starting five African-Americans won the NCAA title. It's a great story, and the time is ripe to make it a feature film.
SportsProf thinks that the producers can get someone to play Haskins better than Affleck, who is more a ubiquitous sports fan (he's becoming the Zelig of celebrity sports fans) than he is a great actor. (See Ben hanging with the Red Sox or the Patriots or at some other sports venue, but what has he done with his day job lately?). Better to get a lesser known (albeit not too lesser known, given what damage the producers did to "The Junction Boys" by casting Australians in the roles of Texas football players to save money) actor who can really act to play Haskins.
Besides, casting Affleck perhaps would have focused more attention on Affleck than Texas Western and Haskins. And that wouldn't have been right.
Disney is making a film called "Glory Road", about the upset victory that Texas Western, coached by a young Don Haskins, scored over Adolph Rupp's favored Kentucky squad in the 1966 NCAA title game. Texas Western, now known as UTEP, started five African-American players, the first time that a team starting five African-Americans won the NCAA title. It's a great story, and the time is ripe to make it a feature film.
SportsProf thinks that the producers can get someone to play Haskins better than Affleck, who is more a ubiquitous sports fan (he's becoming the Zelig of celebrity sports fans) than he is a great actor. (See Ben hanging with the Red Sox or the Patriots or at some other sports venue, but what has he done with his day job lately?). Better to get a lesser known (albeit not too lesser known, given what damage the producers did to "The Junction Boys" by casting Australians in the roles of Texas football players to save money) actor who can really act to play Haskins.
Besides, casting Affleck perhaps would have focused more attention on Affleck than Texas Western and Haskins. And that wouldn't have been right.
Thursday, July 15, 2004
The BCS Changes Its Formula
SportsProf couldn't help but think of Gomer Pyle, that goofy misfit of a private first class who used to bug the heck out of Sergeant Carter, and whose trademark line was "Surprise, Surprise, Surprise." Well, golly, Sergeant Carter, after there was so much controversy as to how USC was left out of last year's BCS championship game, the BCS up and changed its formula.
And it's very interesting how they went about it.
One might argue that the BCS had to re-visit its formula when the new-and-improved New York Times had a born-again moment with journalistic ethics and (rightly) determined that it should not have its poll be part of the BCS formula because then how could it cover BCS teams objectively since it was playing a part of the BCS (controversy)? So, the Times yanked its poll from the BCS. Not that the Times doesn't have bigger issues to address, and most haven't considered the Times to be at the forefront of sports journalism, at least since Red Smith passed away in the winter of 1982. But in the age of journalistic self-examination in NYC, the Times did the right thing, perhaps even for the right reason (although another right reason would be to remove itself from the silliness of the BCS formula).
But re-visit the BCS formula the BCS did, and, interestingly enough, ESPN reports (and I hope the link works), that, in essence, the BCS has reduced its reliance on computers in creating its new formula. In addition, it appears that they went back in time to test the new formula, with the result that had it been in play last year, LSU would have played USC for the national title, and not Oklahoma, and there wouldn't have been a split national championship. The BCS Committee did this for the 2000 season as well, where Miami (I think it was Miami) would have played Oregon instead of Nebraska, whom Colorado had pummeled 62-36 late in the season. So, at least the BCS Lords can claim gleefully that the BCS formula works -- at least in retrospect.
Revisionist history? Perhaps. A formula guaranteed to work? Definitely not. SportsProf is certain that some scenario will come up in the next couple of years that will make people dislike this formula too.
It's funny that the people in charge of running the games are playing games with the games themselves, still fiddling with a formula that the Absent-Minded Professor would have put in the compost heap a long time ago. The answer, of course, is quite simple: let's have a post-season tournament. No one complains about the horrors wrought on scholar-athletes because of the College World Series or the NCAA Basketball Tournaments. No one complains about the rigors of the Division I-AA, II and III football post-season tournaments.
It's pretty simple, actually. The solution is right there, right in front of the BCS, plain for everyone to see. The Lords of the BCS should figure out a way to have a short enough season (no more than 11 games) and then a meaningful post-season playoff. Even in an age where computers are doing more and more things, the more all-American thing to do is have a playoff. Imagine the suspense and the audience a national title game would generate. Huge theater. Great drama.
After all, championships are supposed to be won on the field.
And not anywhere else.
And it's very interesting how they went about it.
One might argue that the BCS had to re-visit its formula when the new-and-improved New York Times had a born-again moment with journalistic ethics and (rightly) determined that it should not have its poll be part of the BCS formula because then how could it cover BCS teams objectively since it was playing a part of the BCS (controversy)? So, the Times yanked its poll from the BCS. Not that the Times doesn't have bigger issues to address, and most haven't considered the Times to be at the forefront of sports journalism, at least since Red Smith passed away in the winter of 1982. But in the age of journalistic self-examination in NYC, the Times did the right thing, perhaps even for the right reason (although another right reason would be to remove itself from the silliness of the BCS formula).
But re-visit the BCS formula the BCS did, and, interestingly enough, ESPN reports (and I hope the link works), that, in essence, the BCS has reduced its reliance on computers in creating its new formula. In addition, it appears that they went back in time to test the new formula, with the result that had it been in play last year, LSU would have played USC for the national title, and not Oklahoma, and there wouldn't have been a split national championship. The BCS Committee did this for the 2000 season as well, where Miami (I think it was Miami) would have played Oregon instead of Nebraska, whom Colorado had pummeled 62-36 late in the season. So, at least the BCS Lords can claim gleefully that the BCS formula works -- at least in retrospect.
Revisionist history? Perhaps. A formula guaranteed to work? Definitely not. SportsProf is certain that some scenario will come up in the next couple of years that will make people dislike this formula too.
It's funny that the people in charge of running the games are playing games with the games themselves, still fiddling with a formula that the Absent-Minded Professor would have put in the compost heap a long time ago. The answer, of course, is quite simple: let's have a post-season tournament. No one complains about the horrors wrought on scholar-athletes because of the College World Series or the NCAA Basketball Tournaments. No one complains about the rigors of the Division I-AA, II and III football post-season tournaments.
It's pretty simple, actually. The solution is right there, right in front of the BCS, plain for everyone to see. The Lords of the BCS should figure out a way to have a short enough season (no more than 11 games) and then a meaningful post-season playoff. Even in an age where computers are doing more and more things, the more all-American thing to do is have a playoff. Imagine the suspense and the audience a national title game would generate. Huge theater. Great drama.
After all, championships are supposed to be won on the field.
And not anywhere else.
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
Wilt Chamberlain traded for Jerry Chambers, Archie Clark and Darrell Imhoff
Oops, wrong year, wrong team trading the big guy.
Yes, there are comparisons. It's not totally fair to paste the Lakers for trading Shaq for Caron Butler, Lamar Odom, Brian Grant and a first-round draft pick. That is a far better haul than Jerry Chambers, Archie Clark and Darrell Imhoff for Wilt. And the 76ers that traded Wilt didn't have a Kobe Bryant on the bench after the trade was done. And these Lakers probably won't turn into a 9-73 pumpkin the way the 76ers did a few years after losing Wilt. That's unlikely.
But somehow a team doesn't get equal value when you trade one of the top 50 players of all-time. And, okay, so he's an irrepressible egomaniac, he played out of shape, and he may be on the downside of his career. Still, not many can guard Shaq, and when you ask NBA insiders about the one player you can't stop on a given night, they'll answer his name (even if Kobe and Jerry Buss have turned him into the Lakers' version of "he who must not be named" a la Harry Potter). It's that simple.
And while Mark Cuban can blog all he wants that the Pistons changed the paradigm of what the model team is in order to win a title, remember this: there is an absolute famine in the NBA when it comes to big men. Which makes them, like beautiful women in "Casablanca", so valuable, is that they are so scarce (and therefore shouldn't be dispensed with so easily). Which also makes the good ones hard to defend. And Shaq is the hardest offensive player in the NBA to defend.
So, the Heat now have Shaq, and Dwayne Wade, and Eddie Jones, and those players alone could well make them one of the top four teams in the East (which isn't necessarily saying a lot, given how weak the Eastern Conference has been over the past few years and given that after those 3 players, the Heat have very little to brag about on their roster). Still, anytime you get one of the 50 best players of all-time in your league, your fans get a rush. Miami is buzzing.
And the Lakers? Well, they have three players who are stars or stars in the making who are either two guards or small forwards or both -- Kobe (assuming he re-signs), Odom and Caron Butler. The last time SportsProf checked, a team with that type of talent made it to the second round of the NBA playoffs after an 0-7 start and then fizzled out. The team: the '03-'04 Miami Heat. It's hard to expect the Lakers, even with Kobe, faring all that much better in the talent-laden Western Conference, because the obstacles in the West are more formidable than in the East.
NBA scouts can talk all they want about the talent that the Lakers got, but then the question becomes who's tall enough to play 96 minutes a night at the 4 and 5 spot? Slava Medvedenko? While SportsProf loves the way Young SP tries to pronounce his name (it's much cuter than the way Stephen A. Smith of ESPN says it), a combination of Medvedenko, Brian Cook, Luke Walton and an aged Karl Malone won't cut it at those key positions. You saw what happened when Shaq went out of the game in the NBA Finals. It wasn't pretty.
Caron Butler is a real talent. As is Lamar Odom. And, of course, so is Kobe Bryant. But who will rebound? Who will block shots? Who will defend Kevin Garnett? Tim Duncan? Chris Webber? Dirk Nowitzki? Who will help the Lakers hold their own on the boards? Because of those unanswered questions, the Lakers can hope to fare not a whole lot better than the Heat did last year (and, remember, the Lakers are in the (much) tougher conference).
So now the Van Gundy brothers coach two of the most feared big men in the game, Shaq of the Heat and Yao of the Rockets. Shaq and Dwayne Wade versus Yao and Tracy McGrady. Could be quite an excellent show. Stan Van Gundy versus Jeff Van Gundy. And yet, given that the Pistons probably improved their roster (signing Antonio McDyess)and the Spurs and Kings are still hanging around, even that "dream" matchup might not happen for a while, if ever.
And what about the NBA? A league whose product is suffering now has a weakened flagship franchise in Los Angeles, a woeful once-upon-a-dynasty in Boston, a tortured onetime pillar in New York, a going nowhere onetime pillar in Philadelphia and a lost-at-sea once-upon-a-time impossible team to beat in Chicago. Not great news for this mighty league, whose popularity internationally may be stronger than it is at home. Which goes to show you, that where they're starved for hoops entertainment and don't know the game all that well, they'll watching anything.
But these aren't your older brother's Lakers, your father's (or grandfather's) Celtics, your uncle's 76ers. And that faded glory for those franchises, and those in Chicago and New York, isn't likely to return any time soon.
A great post-season so far for the Van Gundy family. And a pretty darn good one for Carlos Boozer's pocketbook if not his reputation.
But a lousy one so far for the NBA.
Yes, there are comparisons. It's not totally fair to paste the Lakers for trading Shaq for Caron Butler, Lamar Odom, Brian Grant and a first-round draft pick. That is a far better haul than Jerry Chambers, Archie Clark and Darrell Imhoff for Wilt. And the 76ers that traded Wilt didn't have a Kobe Bryant on the bench after the trade was done. And these Lakers probably won't turn into a 9-73 pumpkin the way the 76ers did a few years after losing Wilt. That's unlikely.
But somehow a team doesn't get equal value when you trade one of the top 50 players of all-time. And, okay, so he's an irrepressible egomaniac, he played out of shape, and he may be on the downside of his career. Still, not many can guard Shaq, and when you ask NBA insiders about the one player you can't stop on a given night, they'll answer his name (even if Kobe and Jerry Buss have turned him into the Lakers' version of "he who must not be named" a la Harry Potter). It's that simple.
And while Mark Cuban can blog all he wants that the Pistons changed the paradigm of what the model team is in order to win a title, remember this: there is an absolute famine in the NBA when it comes to big men. Which makes them, like beautiful women in "Casablanca", so valuable, is that they are so scarce (and therefore shouldn't be dispensed with so easily). Which also makes the good ones hard to defend. And Shaq is the hardest offensive player in the NBA to defend.
So, the Heat now have Shaq, and Dwayne Wade, and Eddie Jones, and those players alone could well make them one of the top four teams in the East (which isn't necessarily saying a lot, given how weak the Eastern Conference has been over the past few years and given that after those 3 players, the Heat have very little to brag about on their roster). Still, anytime you get one of the 50 best players of all-time in your league, your fans get a rush. Miami is buzzing.
And the Lakers? Well, they have three players who are stars or stars in the making who are either two guards or small forwards or both -- Kobe (assuming he re-signs), Odom and Caron Butler. The last time SportsProf checked, a team with that type of talent made it to the second round of the NBA playoffs after an 0-7 start and then fizzled out. The team: the '03-'04 Miami Heat. It's hard to expect the Lakers, even with Kobe, faring all that much better in the talent-laden Western Conference, because the obstacles in the West are more formidable than in the East.
NBA scouts can talk all they want about the talent that the Lakers got, but then the question becomes who's tall enough to play 96 minutes a night at the 4 and 5 spot? Slava Medvedenko? While SportsProf loves the way Young SP tries to pronounce his name (it's much cuter than the way Stephen A. Smith of ESPN says it), a combination of Medvedenko, Brian Cook, Luke Walton and an aged Karl Malone won't cut it at those key positions. You saw what happened when Shaq went out of the game in the NBA Finals. It wasn't pretty.
Caron Butler is a real talent. As is Lamar Odom. And, of course, so is Kobe Bryant. But who will rebound? Who will block shots? Who will defend Kevin Garnett? Tim Duncan? Chris Webber? Dirk Nowitzki? Who will help the Lakers hold their own on the boards? Because of those unanswered questions, the Lakers can hope to fare not a whole lot better than the Heat did last year (and, remember, the Lakers are in the (much) tougher conference).
So now the Van Gundy brothers coach two of the most feared big men in the game, Shaq of the Heat and Yao of the Rockets. Shaq and Dwayne Wade versus Yao and Tracy McGrady. Could be quite an excellent show. Stan Van Gundy versus Jeff Van Gundy. And yet, given that the Pistons probably improved their roster (signing Antonio McDyess)and the Spurs and Kings are still hanging around, even that "dream" matchup might not happen for a while, if ever.
And what about the NBA? A league whose product is suffering now has a weakened flagship franchise in Los Angeles, a woeful once-upon-a-dynasty in Boston, a tortured onetime pillar in New York, a going nowhere onetime pillar in Philadelphia and a lost-at-sea once-upon-a-time impossible team to beat in Chicago. Not great news for this mighty league, whose popularity internationally may be stronger than it is at home. Which goes to show you, that where they're starved for hoops entertainment and don't know the game all that well, they'll watching anything.
But these aren't your older brother's Lakers, your father's (or grandfather's) Celtics, your uncle's 76ers. And that faded glory for those franchises, and those in Chicago and New York, isn't likely to return any time soon.
A great post-season so far for the Van Gundy family. And a pretty darn good one for Carlos Boozer's pocketbook if not his reputation.
But a lousy one so far for the NBA.
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
And This is a Good Thing, Because. . .?
Forget about conspiracy theories, as I write this during the first inning of the All-Star game, where Roger Clemens already has yielded 6 runs in the top of the first. Don't blame Mike Piazza's pitch calling (thankfully we've seen enough of Fox's low-grade hype on the Piazza-Clemens Hatfield-McKoy type relationship to last a milennium) on Clemens' misfortune. You try pitching to those American Leaguers in a bandbox and see what happens.
Sorry Houston, but what a problem you have on your hands tonight. Instead of lionizing a legend, you'll be praying that he doesn't get hurt.
But SportsProf digresses. In skimming the various newspapers on the Internet this evening, SportsProf noticed a headline in USA Today indicating that the Commissioner of Baseball may stay on after his term expires in 2006. Hasn't baseball learned that it shouldn't rain on its own great events with questionable news? True, Bud Selig's talk of contraction right after the D-Backs beat the Yankees in the World Series 3 years ago tops this, but Selig's announcement about his perpetuating his reign is right up there in the realm of absurdity.
Football has had two memorable commissioners, the visionary Pete Rozelle and the very able Paul Tagliabue. Basketball had the very steady Walter Kennedy, the affable Larry O'Brien and the master builder David Stern. And baseball has had, well, who?
None of the commissioners rivals the best the NBA and NFL have had to offer. Even Judge Landis, who allegedly "saved" baseball after the Black Sox scandal of 1919, was a flawed man (his views on the breaking of the color line were awful). Ban Johnson? Ford Frick? Bowie Kuhn? Fay Vincent (who gets lionized in comparison). Bart Giammati (not there long enough to judge)? Bud Selig?
Live in the present we must, and while we'd rather live with the type of Bud(weiser) that's for you, we baseball fans have to live with the former owner of the Milwaukee Brewers as Commissioner, and on more than just a caretaker basis at that. And what amazes SportsProf about baseball is that it keeps on going, with its ups and downs, regardless of who the Commissioner is. Imagine the NFL without Rozelle or the NBA without Stern? They could well be far different from what they are today.
Now imagine baseball without a good commissioner? You'd have no World Series in 1994, declining attendance, post-season games that start so late that they go well past the bed-time not only of the average fifth grader but also after the average worker in America. Obscenely high program and beer prices, a steroids scandal, a franchise in woeful decay (Montreal), too many franchises, and as many if not more pitching injuries in 2004 than there were in 1954. The list goes on. You wonder what might have transpired with some meaningful leadership. We all do.
In fairness, the NBA has its problems too, and the NFL isn't perfect. But while NBA and NFL fans applaud the work of those leagues' commissioners, baseball fans simply tolerate theirs at best and ignore him at worst. There is no vision, there is an awful, mistrustul relationship with the players' union (perhaps the most successful union in the history of organized labor) that has persisted for more than a quarter century, and the game has lost its place as the national pastime to professional football.
So when Bud Selig says that he may consider staying on for two years, baseball fans should scream, at the top of their lungs, from the skyscrapers in New York to the farm houses in Iowa, that they just won't stand for it, that they want a commissioner, any commissioner, who can fire up the game and set it on a course for bigger and better things in years to come.
Not all of this is Bud's fault, of course, as the owners of the game have a model of governance that renders the commissioner a candidate for a clinical trial comparing Viagra, Levitra and Cialis. But with baseball attendance on an upswing (thanks, in some part, to new ballparks and to a surprisingly competitive MLB landscape this year), the owners should take stock in their game and its future. And take some bold steps while they have the chance.
And, when they do, they should reward the fans with a structure for MLB that lets the commissioner help steer the game back to preeminence. And after they set up that structure, they should convey the good news that the Bud Selig era is over.
Honor the national pastime, honor this game that defies time, honor the chalk on the baselines and the power alleys and the Green Monster, the ivy, the 7th inning stretch and all of the little things that make this game so wonderful. And, of course, honor the fans, whose fealty has been taken for granted.
Baseball is a great game, a game for boys and their dads, for families to go to and have a good time in great weather. The Lords of Baseball thus far, with all of their blundering (much of it well intentioned), haven't damaged the game beyond repair. The fans just won't let them.
So reward our faith, Lords of Baseball, trust us, hear our call, and give us a commissioner worthy of the title, the next Rozelle, the next Tagliabue, the next Stern.
And the first one in a long time to make a real bit of difference.
Sorry Houston, but what a problem you have on your hands tonight. Instead of lionizing a legend, you'll be praying that he doesn't get hurt.
But SportsProf digresses. In skimming the various newspapers on the Internet this evening, SportsProf noticed a headline in USA Today indicating that the Commissioner of Baseball may stay on after his term expires in 2006. Hasn't baseball learned that it shouldn't rain on its own great events with questionable news? True, Bud Selig's talk of contraction right after the D-Backs beat the Yankees in the World Series 3 years ago tops this, but Selig's announcement about his perpetuating his reign is right up there in the realm of absurdity.
Football has had two memorable commissioners, the visionary Pete Rozelle and the very able Paul Tagliabue. Basketball had the very steady Walter Kennedy, the affable Larry O'Brien and the master builder David Stern. And baseball has had, well, who?
None of the commissioners rivals the best the NBA and NFL have had to offer. Even Judge Landis, who allegedly "saved" baseball after the Black Sox scandal of 1919, was a flawed man (his views on the breaking of the color line were awful). Ban Johnson? Ford Frick? Bowie Kuhn? Fay Vincent (who gets lionized in comparison). Bart Giammati (not there long enough to judge)? Bud Selig?
Live in the present we must, and while we'd rather live with the type of Bud(weiser) that's for you, we baseball fans have to live with the former owner of the Milwaukee Brewers as Commissioner, and on more than just a caretaker basis at that. And what amazes SportsProf about baseball is that it keeps on going, with its ups and downs, regardless of who the Commissioner is. Imagine the NFL without Rozelle or the NBA without Stern? They could well be far different from what they are today.
Now imagine baseball without a good commissioner? You'd have no World Series in 1994, declining attendance, post-season games that start so late that they go well past the bed-time not only of the average fifth grader but also after the average worker in America. Obscenely high program and beer prices, a steroids scandal, a franchise in woeful decay (Montreal), too many franchises, and as many if not more pitching injuries in 2004 than there were in 1954. The list goes on. You wonder what might have transpired with some meaningful leadership. We all do.
In fairness, the NBA has its problems too, and the NFL isn't perfect. But while NBA and NFL fans applaud the work of those leagues' commissioners, baseball fans simply tolerate theirs at best and ignore him at worst. There is no vision, there is an awful, mistrustul relationship with the players' union (perhaps the most successful union in the history of organized labor) that has persisted for more than a quarter century, and the game has lost its place as the national pastime to professional football.
So when Bud Selig says that he may consider staying on for two years, baseball fans should scream, at the top of their lungs, from the skyscrapers in New York to the farm houses in Iowa, that they just won't stand for it, that they want a commissioner, any commissioner, who can fire up the game and set it on a course for bigger and better things in years to come.
Not all of this is Bud's fault, of course, as the owners of the game have a model of governance that renders the commissioner a candidate for a clinical trial comparing Viagra, Levitra and Cialis. But with baseball attendance on an upswing (thanks, in some part, to new ballparks and to a surprisingly competitive MLB landscape this year), the owners should take stock in their game and its future. And take some bold steps while they have the chance.
And, when they do, they should reward the fans with a structure for MLB that lets the commissioner help steer the game back to preeminence. And after they set up that structure, they should convey the good news that the Bud Selig era is over.
Honor the national pastime, honor this game that defies time, honor the chalk on the baselines and the power alleys and the Green Monster, the ivy, the 7th inning stretch and all of the little things that make this game so wonderful. And, of course, honor the fans, whose fealty has been taken for granted.
Baseball is a great game, a game for boys and their dads, for families to go to and have a good time in great weather. The Lords of Baseball thus far, with all of their blundering (much of it well intentioned), haven't damaged the game beyond repair. The fans just won't let them.
So reward our faith, Lords of Baseball, trust us, hear our call, and give us a commissioner worthy of the title, the next Rozelle, the next Tagliabue, the next Stern.
And the first one in a long time to make a real bit of difference.
Enough Already. . . Or How Entertaining Would It Be?
The Illinois Republicans have asked Mike Ditka to run for the U.S. Senate (the incumbent, Republican Peter Fitzgerald, is retiring) against the heavily favored Democrat, Barack Obama, after the Republican candidate, 44 year-old businessman Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race because of a sex scandal. (He probably wasn't using Levitra, though).
SportsProf's first reaction is, "enough already." Who would his chief of staff be, Buddy Ryan? His expert on national defense? Mike Singletary? Mike Ditka is a colorful character, was a good football player and a successful professional football coach (at least in his first stop). Of course, you can debate the qualifications of other members of the House and Senate, but SportsProf doesn't believe that Mike Ditka belongs in the U.S. Senate any more than, say, Ted Kennedy belongs on the sidelines coaching the New England Patriots (and the senior Senator from Massachusetts did play football at fair Harvard, where, no doubt, he fought fiercely).
Of course, the Illinois Republicans are desperate, and they will get an initial buzz if and when they announce that their candidate is Mike Ditka. But Ditka should look before he leaps, and should consider the arena that he might opt to play in carefully. After all, when he was helping evaluate talent for da Bears, he probably wouldn't have wanted to put a Division III quarterback with a 5.2 time in the 40 and a so-so arm behind center for his beloved team. And who's to say that the beloved Bears alum's political qualifications are any better?
One thing that slow, weak-armed quarterback would have figured out quickly is that the pro players hit hard and are faster than anything he'd ever seen before. And that he was in the fight for his life -- on every snap. Would you be any different fielding questions from the media or trying to grapple with your opponent, who is one of the fastest rising stars on the national political scene?
Coach, you've deserved a good retirement, and people love you for the image you project. The same way they don't like seeing their football heroes limping along after their prime, trying to eke out one more season, they also don't like to see their heroes look out of sync in another arena, an arena where they don't belong. They might have paid to see you work wonders with one of the best football teams ever, but that doesn't mean they'll vote for you.
But think hard about it first. Running for U.S. Senate is like being on the kickoff squad and trying to take on the wedge. You have to give it everything you've got. So if you run, run for the office the way you played the game, hard.
In that way, whatever the outcome, you won't get hurt, even if you lose, which you probably will.
SportsProf's first reaction is, "enough already." Who would his chief of staff be, Buddy Ryan? His expert on national defense? Mike Singletary? Mike Ditka is a colorful character, was a good football player and a successful professional football coach (at least in his first stop). Of course, you can debate the qualifications of other members of the House and Senate, but SportsProf doesn't believe that Mike Ditka belongs in the U.S. Senate any more than, say, Ted Kennedy belongs on the sidelines coaching the New England Patriots (and the senior Senator from Massachusetts did play football at fair Harvard, where, no doubt, he fought fiercely).
Of course, the Illinois Republicans are desperate, and they will get an initial buzz if and when they announce that their candidate is Mike Ditka. But Ditka should look before he leaps, and should consider the arena that he might opt to play in carefully. After all, when he was helping evaluate talent for da Bears, he probably wouldn't have wanted to put a Division III quarterback with a 5.2 time in the 40 and a so-so arm behind center for his beloved team. And who's to say that the beloved Bears alum's political qualifications are any better?
One thing that slow, weak-armed quarterback would have figured out quickly is that the pro players hit hard and are faster than anything he'd ever seen before. And that he was in the fight for his life -- on every snap. Would you be any different fielding questions from the media or trying to grapple with your opponent, who is one of the fastest rising stars on the national political scene?
Coach, you've deserved a good retirement, and people love you for the image you project. The same way they don't like seeing their football heroes limping along after their prime, trying to eke out one more season, they also don't like to see their heroes look out of sync in another arena, an arena where they don't belong. They might have paid to see you work wonders with one of the best football teams ever, but that doesn't mean they'll vote for you.
But think hard about it first. Running for U.S. Senate is like being on the kickoff squad and trying to take on the wedge. You have to give it everything you've got. So if you run, run for the office the way you played the game, hard.
In that way, whatever the outcome, you won't get hurt, even if you lose, which you probably will.
Sunday, July 11, 2004
Sports Parents and Referees of (Supposedly) Kids' Games
SportsProf read a disturbing piece of original journalism in his local Sunday paper today (which frequently is content to run wire service stories and stories on local summer sports leagues) regarding the difficulty organized baseball for kids has had in finding umpires. The reason: abusive and violent coaches and parents, especially towards the umps.
I recall a line from the (bad) movie "The Junction Boys", which was about Bear Bryant's first year at Texas A&M in the early 1950's (the book was quite good). Bear Bryant was speaking to a father of a kid he felt badly about cutting from the squad (the kid had suffered a bad case of heat stroke from Bryant's brutal summer regimen) and he said, "I'd like to have you, but it's war out there." The kid's father turned around, and he only had one arm. The father looked at Coach Bryant and said, "Coach, I know all about war. Football's a sport."
Exactly. As is baseball. A sport is a game that kids play to learn the value of teamwork, hard work and sportsmanship. Not brinksmanship, not Friday night biker bar fighting techniques, not intimidation. It's bad enough that some parents have to compel their kids to have the athletic careers that they couldn't have, but it's worse to subject the kids and the entire community to the embarrassing spectacles that some of these confrontations with umpires create. It's awful that people can't teach there kids that sometimes in life bad calls happen, in a variety of circumstances, and that those who lump them the best and figure out ways to transcend them without physically threatening or beating up an umpire (or his real-life equivalent) will turn out to be the real winners.
Every time.
SportsProf's solution is to have zero tolerance for these coaches and parents. They can question away, within reason, but once profanity starts, tempers are lost or physical violence is threatened, they should get put out of the game. And suspended. And, if it happens again, they should be suspended more. I'd stop short of having games forfeited because I don't want to punish the kids, who, presumably, are being punished enough by having no choice but to watch this bad behavior. And if gets worse, the cops will need to show up. And, if necessary, arrests made.
Coaches and parents, in this arena, first and foremost should be teachers and mentors. They should teach the kids the finer points of the game, teamwork and sportsmanship. Yes, they can challenge an umpire's call, but there is a right way to do so and a wrong way to do so. But they should always remember that, in the end, these are just games. For kids.
And fun means playing with great zeal. Fun means going for pizza and ice cream afterwards, and fun means seeing the kids improve year after year.
Everything else should be, well, icing on the cake.
And the rest of it -- the overbearing parents, the parents who hound the coaches that the wrong kids are getting too much playing time, the parents and coaches who get on the umpires and act out of line -- should go in the garbage can where it belongs.
Because baseball, in its most pure form, played by kids, is a fun game. Let's all remember to honor it and cherish it each time we pitch wiffleballs in our backyards or have catches with our kids or coach first base at a little league game.
There are many things in life to get uptight or even hot about.
Kids' games shouldn't be one of them.
I recall a line from the (bad) movie "The Junction Boys", which was about Bear Bryant's first year at Texas A&M in the early 1950's (the book was quite good). Bear Bryant was speaking to a father of a kid he felt badly about cutting from the squad (the kid had suffered a bad case of heat stroke from Bryant's brutal summer regimen) and he said, "I'd like to have you, but it's war out there." The kid's father turned around, and he only had one arm. The father looked at Coach Bryant and said, "Coach, I know all about war. Football's a sport."
Exactly. As is baseball. A sport is a game that kids play to learn the value of teamwork, hard work and sportsmanship. Not brinksmanship, not Friday night biker bar fighting techniques, not intimidation. It's bad enough that some parents have to compel their kids to have the athletic careers that they couldn't have, but it's worse to subject the kids and the entire community to the embarrassing spectacles that some of these confrontations with umpires create. It's awful that people can't teach there kids that sometimes in life bad calls happen, in a variety of circumstances, and that those who lump them the best and figure out ways to transcend them without physically threatening or beating up an umpire (or his real-life equivalent) will turn out to be the real winners.
Every time.
SportsProf's solution is to have zero tolerance for these coaches and parents. They can question away, within reason, but once profanity starts, tempers are lost or physical violence is threatened, they should get put out of the game. And suspended. And, if it happens again, they should be suspended more. I'd stop short of having games forfeited because I don't want to punish the kids, who, presumably, are being punished enough by having no choice but to watch this bad behavior. And if gets worse, the cops will need to show up. And, if necessary, arrests made.
Coaches and parents, in this arena, first and foremost should be teachers and mentors. They should teach the kids the finer points of the game, teamwork and sportsmanship. Yes, they can challenge an umpire's call, but there is a right way to do so and a wrong way to do so. But they should always remember that, in the end, these are just games. For kids.
And fun means playing with great zeal. Fun means going for pizza and ice cream afterwards, and fun means seeing the kids improve year after year.
Everything else should be, well, icing on the cake.
And the rest of it -- the overbearing parents, the parents who hound the coaches that the wrong kids are getting too much playing time, the parents and coaches who get on the umpires and act out of line -- should go in the garbage can where it belongs.
Because baseball, in its most pure form, played by kids, is a fun game. Let's all remember to honor it and cherish it each time we pitch wiffleballs in our backyards or have catches with our kids or coach first base at a little league game.
There are many things in life to get uptight or even hot about.
Kids' games shouldn't be one of them.
Friday, July 09, 2004
College Basketball Roundup
Many topics to blog on today:
1. The Ohio State coaching job. Well, after indicating that they were going to give a second interview to at least Willis Wilson, the Buckeyes got their first choice after all. Welcome to Columbus, Thad Matta. You have had a great career so far, and good luck in the Big 10. For Buckeyes fans, the hope is that Ohio State hired Matta with enough time left in the July recruiting period to sign some big names. While Ohio State has some ground to cover to get back to the first division, this is not your older brother's Big 10. The league just wasn't that good last year and, outside Tom Izzo (and, to a lesser extent, Gene Keady), has no huge names in men's college basketball coaching.
2. The Xavier coaching job. Matta's joining Ohio State left open the Xavier job, where he leaves a hard act to follow (even if he had a hard act to follow in Skip Prosser, now at Wake Forest, and perhaps the only alum of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy to excel at Division I college basketball coaching). Xavier acted quickly and hired its top assistant, Sean Miller. His ascendancy to the top job at Xavier, a top-major school, gives Miller a happy ending. A few years ago, when Herb Sendek's job at NC State was in jeopardy, Miller bolted Raleigh for Xavier to assist Matta. At least one national publication called that move a lateral one at best. Miller obviously saw trouble in Raleigh, and, well, his judgment turned out wonderfully for him. Yes, he's the same Sean Miller who once was the magical ballhandler who was the Big East Rookie of the Year and first-team all-Big East as a senior. Good luck, Sean. The expectations in Cincinnati are probably higher than they are in Columbus.
3. Fran Dunphy and Willis Wilson. Bridemaids, again, and, for the same job, again. SportsProf doesn't know much about Wilson, but Dunphy has more than paid his dues and he has the results to boot (results which, even allowing that Wilson coaches a Rice team that is at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to basketball recruiting in its league, Wilson does not have). Time is running out for Fran Dunphy to get that job that would prove to be a "step up." But Dunphy is happy in University City, and he's a hero on the Penn campus. Ivy foes beware: Fran Dunphy hasn't gone anywhere.
4. Villanova. Ugh. They get put on two years' probation but don't lose any scholarships and don't get banned from post-season play because of recruiting violations that occurred from '01 to '03 (SportsProf had read that implicated in this scandal were the same types of telephone credit cards that were part of Villanova's scandal about 8-9 years ago involving Kerry Kittles). Given that the penalties are rather small, this seems like "double secret probation." But, looking more closely, you have to wonder about how much longer the winning-starved Villanova alumni will support Coach Jay Wright, who came to Philadelphia's Main Line about 4 years ago after a great run at Hofstra. Certainly, the administration can't be thrilled with 2 years' probation. SportsProf thinks that if Nova doesn't make the Big Dance this year, Wright will be given the gate.
5. LaSalle. Uh-oh. Horrible problem there with 2 alleged rapes, one that took place a month ago and one that took place a year ago. Allegedly (and the Phila. papers have been all over this one), two guards on the basketball team, including the star of the team, were involved in a rape on campus a month ago. They have turned themselves in, and the Phila. police believe they have an excellent case (they have obtained DNA samples from the accused). The surfacing of that rape allegation led to the surfacing of an allegation about a rape that took place in 2003, where the accused is a former basketball player, and the accuser was a member of the women's basketball team. SportsProf is looking into all of the details, but the newspapers have reported that LaSalle has put both the men's and women's basketball coaches on administrative leave with pay until they complete their investigation. The allegations are that the coaches discouraged the '03 victim from coming forward. Awful stuff for a good school with a rich basketball history.
6. And a word about Coach K. They didn't make you the coach at Duke because you weren't a bright guy. The Lakers' job must have been tempting, but you made the right decision here. You already have dealt with an aching hip; you didn't need to give yourself an aching head. You might have lost Deng and Livingston, but somehow you'll find a way for your Blue Devils to get to more Final Fours and win at least one more national championship before you retire. Here's the big challenge for you now: will you be around long enough to eclipse Dean Smith's record for most career wins?
1. The Ohio State coaching job. Well, after indicating that they were going to give a second interview to at least Willis Wilson, the Buckeyes got their first choice after all. Welcome to Columbus, Thad Matta. You have had a great career so far, and good luck in the Big 10. For Buckeyes fans, the hope is that Ohio State hired Matta with enough time left in the July recruiting period to sign some big names. While Ohio State has some ground to cover to get back to the first division, this is not your older brother's Big 10. The league just wasn't that good last year and, outside Tom Izzo (and, to a lesser extent, Gene Keady), has no huge names in men's college basketball coaching.
2. The Xavier coaching job. Matta's joining Ohio State left open the Xavier job, where he leaves a hard act to follow (even if he had a hard act to follow in Skip Prosser, now at Wake Forest, and perhaps the only alum of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy to excel at Division I college basketball coaching). Xavier acted quickly and hired its top assistant, Sean Miller. His ascendancy to the top job at Xavier, a top-major school, gives Miller a happy ending. A few years ago, when Herb Sendek's job at NC State was in jeopardy, Miller bolted Raleigh for Xavier to assist Matta. At least one national publication called that move a lateral one at best. Miller obviously saw trouble in Raleigh, and, well, his judgment turned out wonderfully for him. Yes, he's the same Sean Miller who once was the magical ballhandler who was the Big East Rookie of the Year and first-team all-Big East as a senior. Good luck, Sean. The expectations in Cincinnati are probably higher than they are in Columbus.
3. Fran Dunphy and Willis Wilson. Bridemaids, again, and, for the same job, again. SportsProf doesn't know much about Wilson, but Dunphy has more than paid his dues and he has the results to boot (results which, even allowing that Wilson coaches a Rice team that is at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to basketball recruiting in its league, Wilson does not have). Time is running out for Fran Dunphy to get that job that would prove to be a "step up." But Dunphy is happy in University City, and he's a hero on the Penn campus. Ivy foes beware: Fran Dunphy hasn't gone anywhere.
4. Villanova. Ugh. They get put on two years' probation but don't lose any scholarships and don't get banned from post-season play because of recruiting violations that occurred from '01 to '03 (SportsProf had read that implicated in this scandal were the same types of telephone credit cards that were part of Villanova's scandal about 8-9 years ago involving Kerry Kittles). Given that the penalties are rather small, this seems like "double secret probation." But, looking more closely, you have to wonder about how much longer the winning-starved Villanova alumni will support Coach Jay Wright, who came to Philadelphia's Main Line about 4 years ago after a great run at Hofstra. Certainly, the administration can't be thrilled with 2 years' probation. SportsProf thinks that if Nova doesn't make the Big Dance this year, Wright will be given the gate.
5. LaSalle. Uh-oh. Horrible problem there with 2 alleged rapes, one that took place a month ago and one that took place a year ago. Allegedly (and the Phila. papers have been all over this one), two guards on the basketball team, including the star of the team, were involved in a rape on campus a month ago. They have turned themselves in, and the Phila. police believe they have an excellent case (they have obtained DNA samples from the accused). The surfacing of that rape allegation led to the surfacing of an allegation about a rape that took place in 2003, where the accused is a former basketball player, and the accuser was a member of the women's basketball team. SportsProf is looking into all of the details, but the newspapers have reported that LaSalle has put both the men's and women's basketball coaches on administrative leave with pay until they complete their investigation. The allegations are that the coaches discouraged the '03 victim from coming forward. Awful stuff for a good school with a rich basketball history.
6. And a word about Coach K. They didn't make you the coach at Duke because you weren't a bright guy. The Lakers' job must have been tempting, but you made the right decision here. You already have dealt with an aching hip; you didn't need to give yourself an aching head. You might have lost Deng and Livingston, but somehow you'll find a way for your Blue Devils to get to more Final Fours and win at least one more national championship before you retire. Here's the big challenge for you now: will you be around long enough to eclipse Dean Smith's record for most career wins?
Thursday, July 08, 2004
No Honest Man Can Rest Easy When . . . The National Association of Basketball Coaches is in Session
SportsProf thought that this only held true for legislatures everywhere, but a blurb he read in USA Today this morning on this topic was confusing or frightening, depending on how you look at it. SportsProf will allow for the fact that the article was only a blurb, so there could be a better explanation behind this issue.
The report out of the National Association of Basketball Coaches that has that group pushing for five years of eligibility for college basketball players given a stat they cite that indicates that it takes the average college kid 4.8 years to graduate. Well, I'm all for the five years of stipends if they enable a kid to graduate, and I'd support five years' worth of stipends but only four years of eligibility, so you can give the kids an extra year to finish up. That would make sense. After all, the kids are there to get a college education.
Aren't they?
But five years' of eligibility? With the best players perhaps staying for one or two years (and what of Title IX issues and the other sports -- shouldn't they get 5 years too?) And without any threat of loss of scholarships if somehow you don't have a minimal graduation rate on a rolling basis (and a meaningful rate that doesn't count transfers against you, but does count flunk outs and kids who are declared ineligible because of grades because perhaps they shouldn't have gone there in the first place). Imagine what the schools with 15% graduation rates can do with five years' of eligibility for their players? The possibilities are endless. Some could be good, and some could be awful, and no doubt there will be petitioning for sixth and seventh years (analagous to the petitioning for fifth and sixth years now) under special circumstances (Danny Earl's back, Evan Eschmeyer's feet). College indefinitely? Neat concept.
SportsProf wants to know more on this topic, because there are some well-intentioned coaches among this group. Well-intentioned men who make a lot of money and who view themselves as not only coaches, but educators as well. In their minds, it could well be that by getting this proposal through the NCAA they'll move the roles closer together. But until the fine print is revealed, it also could be that they are becoming more coach-educators than educator-coaches, the way they could be making their scholar-athletes who are there on the "seven years of college down the drain" deal "athlete-scholars", which many of them are already.
Because, after all, the purpose of a college education is to open up people's minds to great, wonderful possibilities, to broaden their horizons so that they call can help make their worlds a better place. Not necessarily to spend scholarship funds to give a kid an extra year. To read about a true educator, click here and scroll down to the July 7 posts, where SportProf's friend TigerHawk, speaks eloquently of his late father, a college professor.
And then think about what a college education (and college experience) should mean to every kid.
Sports has its place, and college sports for the most part are fun. But when is enough enough?
The report out of the National Association of Basketball Coaches that has that group pushing for five years of eligibility for college basketball players given a stat they cite that indicates that it takes the average college kid 4.8 years to graduate. Well, I'm all for the five years of stipends if they enable a kid to graduate, and I'd support five years' worth of stipends but only four years of eligibility, so you can give the kids an extra year to finish up. That would make sense. After all, the kids are there to get a college education.
Aren't they?
But five years' of eligibility? With the best players perhaps staying for one or two years (and what of Title IX issues and the other sports -- shouldn't they get 5 years too?) And without any threat of loss of scholarships if somehow you don't have a minimal graduation rate on a rolling basis (and a meaningful rate that doesn't count transfers against you, but does count flunk outs and kids who are declared ineligible because of grades because perhaps they shouldn't have gone there in the first place). Imagine what the schools with 15% graduation rates can do with five years' of eligibility for their players? The possibilities are endless. Some could be good, and some could be awful, and no doubt there will be petitioning for sixth and seventh years (analagous to the petitioning for fifth and sixth years now) under special circumstances (Danny Earl's back, Evan Eschmeyer's feet). College indefinitely? Neat concept.
SportsProf wants to know more on this topic, because there are some well-intentioned coaches among this group. Well-intentioned men who make a lot of money and who view themselves as not only coaches, but educators as well. In their minds, it could well be that by getting this proposal through the NCAA they'll move the roles closer together. But until the fine print is revealed, it also could be that they are becoming more coach-educators than educator-coaches, the way they could be making their scholar-athletes who are there on the "seven years of college down the drain" deal "athlete-scholars", which many of them are already.
Because, after all, the purpose of a college education is to open up people's minds to great, wonderful possibilities, to broaden their horizons so that they call can help make their worlds a better place. Not necessarily to spend scholarship funds to give a kid an extra year. To read about a true educator, click here and scroll down to the July 7 posts, where SportProf's friend TigerHawk, speaks eloquently of his late father, a college professor.
And then think about what a college education (and college experience) should mean to every kid.
Sports has its place, and college sports for the most part are fun. But when is enough enough?
Sports Prof is Back -- Topic: Gambling
SportsProf apologizes for the absence (technical difficulties), but he has amassed some issues to write about over the past several days, so here goes:
There are two things that SportsProf can't figure out. First, why ESPN televises the World Series of Poker. Poker is a game, not a sport, but, then again, ESPN initially meant the "Entertainment and Sports Programming Network." I suppose that if they televised the national spelling bee, they'll televise this. And, I suppose, people watch the stuff, although "watching" on ESPN means many fewer households than watch, say, the final round of the Masters. ESPN, you are really stretching here. And if you watch it, all I can say is I hope you're doing so while you're gutting it out on your treadmill, running, not walking. And then only because you can't tolerate any more ab roller infomercials.
Unless, of course, you're onto something. Which is, of course, people's need to gamble. Way back when (and if you still have relatives who wear suspenders to pull the waistband of their pants past their navels, they'll tell you), horse racing was one of the most popular sports in America, along with baseball and boxing. The reason: it was legalized gambling, and Vegas was basically a one-watt bulb town. After all, there are those who say that football is as popular as it is because it's so easy to bet on (unlike the other "major" sports). So perhaps you're just offering another form of gambling as entertainment, as horse racing's popularity has seriously waned, the comet-like popularity of Funny Cide and Smarty Jones notwithstanding. Still, SportsProf doesn't see it.
Televise high school summer all-star games, make more documentaries, anything else. But no table top games. What's next, the Southeastern Missouri Boggle Tournament?
And then there's more on gambling. Many states are putting slots at their horse tracks. Most recently, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania passed legislation that legalizes slot machines at about 14 tracks around the state (SportsProf didn't know there were that many on the whole East Coast), with the tax proceeds going to provide hundreds of dollars per family in real estate tax relief. And, get this, those crafty Pennsylvania legislators can legally put their hands in the till, because they passed a provision that will let them own 1% of a company with interests in the slots. SportsProf, while sympathetic to the need for real estate tax relief, shudders when he hears that one of the major ways to save a society is legalized gambling. Any time you hear that, you should run the other way.
Fast.
There are two things that SportsProf can't figure out. First, why ESPN televises the World Series of Poker. Poker is a game, not a sport, but, then again, ESPN initially meant the "Entertainment and Sports Programming Network." I suppose that if they televised the national spelling bee, they'll televise this. And, I suppose, people watch the stuff, although "watching" on ESPN means many fewer households than watch, say, the final round of the Masters. ESPN, you are really stretching here. And if you watch it, all I can say is I hope you're doing so while you're gutting it out on your treadmill, running, not walking. And then only because you can't tolerate any more ab roller infomercials.
Unless, of course, you're onto something. Which is, of course, people's need to gamble. Way back when (and if you still have relatives who wear suspenders to pull the waistband of their pants past their navels, they'll tell you), horse racing was one of the most popular sports in America, along with baseball and boxing. The reason: it was legalized gambling, and Vegas was basically a one-watt bulb town. After all, there are those who say that football is as popular as it is because it's so easy to bet on (unlike the other "major" sports). So perhaps you're just offering another form of gambling as entertainment, as horse racing's popularity has seriously waned, the comet-like popularity of Funny Cide and Smarty Jones notwithstanding. Still, SportsProf doesn't see it.
Televise high school summer all-star games, make more documentaries, anything else. But no table top games. What's next, the Southeastern Missouri Boggle Tournament?
And then there's more on gambling. Many states are putting slots at their horse tracks. Most recently, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania passed legislation that legalizes slot machines at about 14 tracks around the state (SportsProf didn't know there were that many on the whole East Coast), with the tax proceeds going to provide hundreds of dollars per family in real estate tax relief. And, get this, those crafty Pennsylvania legislators can legally put their hands in the till, because they passed a provision that will let them own 1% of a company with interests in the slots. SportsProf, while sympathetic to the need for real estate tax relief, shudders when he hears that one of the major ways to save a society is legalized gambling. Any time you hear that, you should run the other way.
Fast.
Monday, July 05, 2004
Various Thoughts on the All-Star Game
First, does anyone care what really happens in the All-Star game anymore? Does anyone watch it? Is it watchable? Yes, like everyone else, SportsProf likes to watch the fanfare surrounding the event, most particularly the introduction of the players. I won't deny that it's an honor for a player to be chosen to the squad; it does mean something, perhaps even a great deal. But the game itself? It starts rather late (which is bad for baseball if it really cared about attracting kids to watch the game), and it ends late. It's great to see players from various generations mixing, as it waiting to see who got named to the team. Sportsprof only wishes that somehow there was more excitement to the game itself.
Second, don't start with, "well, the League that wins the game will gain the team that represents it in the World Series home field advantage." Like I am sure that members of the Red Sox really care if somehow they were to give the Yankees home field advantage. They'd rather drink hemlock. The baseball men (as opposed to the Moneyball disciples) will swear that it means something, but they're also the people who think that Bud Selig has been an exemplary commissioner. Funny that while baseball is agog about steroids and human growth hormone, because they don't seem to care too much about marijuana, and that's what the supporters of the "game means something now" rule have to be smoking.
Third, the selections. How come Bobby Abreu didn't get the NL players more excited about his season than Moises Alou, for whom the NL players voted? Let's guess, it's kind of like voting in American politics. Say you're from New Hampshire and you voted for Sununu the younger for U.S. Senate because his father's name rang a bell with the Bush the 41st administration. Well, then, you might have voted for Moises for the same reason, because, well, Alous have always been in the All-Star game. But don't start about how he's better than Bobby Abreu. No shot there. Alou is having a good season, but Abreu is having a better one. Now Abreu is in the five-player vote-off that Major League Baseball provides for the fans. Great if you're the player chosen, a bit humiliating if you lose the balloting and really deserve to be there anyway. Hard to say who else should have gone who didn't get selected. For the Phillies, they got Thome because it's hard not to name Thome, but Jack McKeon doesn't like the Broad Street bunch that much so he wasn't going to go out of his way to name a second player. Great fuel for what should be an interesting pennant race among the Mets, Marlins and Phillies.
Fourth, when was the last time that two Milwaukee Brewers made the All-Star team? And didn't take a front office revolt and the relinquishing of control by Bud Selig's family to lift the jinx? Congratulations to Ben Sheets and Dan Kolb for being named to the All-Star team. They both deserve it.
Fifth, kudos (and not kudus) to Johnny Estrada, the Braves' starting catcher who has had some career misfortune backing up both Mike Lieberthal and Javy Lopez. Estrada is hitting the heck out of the ball (average about .325), has a good on-base percentage and is throwing out about 40% of the runners trying to steal (which, of course, also might mean that the Braves' pitchers are decent at holding runners, but let's not rain on Estrada's parade). Also, he's probably the lowest-paid player to make the All-Star game, earning a miserly $312,500.
Sixth, what trades remain to be made in Major League Baseball? Will Randy Johnson agree to be dealt? Will the Pirates unload Kris Benson, or are they primed to make a run? SportsProf thinks the perennial also-rans that find themselves in contention would be fools to make any trades while they are still in contention. Those teams have credibility issues with their fans already, and they'd be crazy to harm their rosters at this point.
So let the debate begin as to who should have made the All-Star rosters and who should not have. And, Lance Carter, where are you this year?
Second, don't start with, "well, the League that wins the game will gain the team that represents it in the World Series home field advantage." Like I am sure that members of the Red Sox really care if somehow they were to give the Yankees home field advantage. They'd rather drink hemlock. The baseball men (as opposed to the Moneyball disciples) will swear that it means something, but they're also the people who think that Bud Selig has been an exemplary commissioner. Funny that while baseball is agog about steroids and human growth hormone, because they don't seem to care too much about marijuana, and that's what the supporters of the "game means something now" rule have to be smoking.
Third, the selections. How come Bobby Abreu didn't get the NL players more excited about his season than Moises Alou, for whom the NL players voted? Let's guess, it's kind of like voting in American politics. Say you're from New Hampshire and you voted for Sununu the younger for U.S. Senate because his father's name rang a bell with the Bush the 41st administration. Well, then, you might have voted for Moises for the same reason, because, well, Alous have always been in the All-Star game. But don't start about how he's better than Bobby Abreu. No shot there. Alou is having a good season, but Abreu is having a better one. Now Abreu is in the five-player vote-off that Major League Baseball provides for the fans. Great if you're the player chosen, a bit humiliating if you lose the balloting and really deserve to be there anyway. Hard to say who else should have gone who didn't get selected. For the Phillies, they got Thome because it's hard not to name Thome, but Jack McKeon doesn't like the Broad Street bunch that much so he wasn't going to go out of his way to name a second player. Great fuel for what should be an interesting pennant race among the Mets, Marlins and Phillies.
Fourth, when was the last time that two Milwaukee Brewers made the All-Star team? And didn't take a front office revolt and the relinquishing of control by Bud Selig's family to lift the jinx? Congratulations to Ben Sheets and Dan Kolb for being named to the All-Star team. They both deserve it.
Fifth, kudos (and not kudus) to Johnny Estrada, the Braves' starting catcher who has had some career misfortune backing up both Mike Lieberthal and Javy Lopez. Estrada is hitting the heck out of the ball (average about .325), has a good on-base percentage and is throwing out about 40% of the runners trying to steal (which, of course, also might mean that the Braves' pitchers are decent at holding runners, but let's not rain on Estrada's parade). Also, he's probably the lowest-paid player to make the All-Star game, earning a miserly $312,500.
Sixth, what trades remain to be made in Major League Baseball? Will Randy Johnson agree to be dealt? Will the Pirates unload Kris Benson, or are they primed to make a run? SportsProf thinks the perennial also-rans that find themselves in contention would be fools to make any trades while they are still in contention. Those teams have credibility issues with their fans already, and they'd be crazy to harm their rosters at this point.
So let the debate begin as to who should have made the All-Star rosters and who should not have. And, Lance Carter, where are you this year?
Sunday, July 04, 2004
Speculation as to Who Would Coach Penn Quakers If. . .
Fran Dunphy were to leave.
SportsProf is a firm believer that a) Fran Dunphy is a very good coach and b) that if he is looking for a shot at the big time, at some point he'll get it. He is a serious candidate for the Ohio State job (see prior posts), and if he doesn't get that job and Kevin Stallings of Vandy does, he should be a serious candidate for the Vandy job.
That said, who would replace Coach Dunphy were he to leave coaching the home team in America's greatest venue for a college basketball game, the Palestra? After all, it wasn't as though Dunphy's elevation to the Penn head coaching job in the late 80's after Tom Schneider left for Loyola (Md.) was met with rousing cheers. Dunphy was a career assistant, Schneider wasn't as successful as many Penn coaches in the recent past (Bob Weinhauer and Chuck Daly), and, well, while it was an important decision for the future of Penn basketball, Dunphy wasn't a big name.
He is now. And he is the dean of Ivy hoops coaches, having succeeded Pete Carril on that notable perch. So, if he were to leave Penn, who would succeed him?
Among his current assistants, Gil Jackson would seem to be the favorite. Jackson was a finalist for the Dartmouth job that went to former Colorado assistant Terry Dunn, the brother of former Penn State coach Jerry Dunn. The one thing against Jackson is his age -- at 57 or so, he's old to be getting his first major college coaching gig.
Among his former assistants, there are two front-runners. One is Steve Donahue, who currently is the head coach at Cornell. While Donahue has yet to turn around the Big Red the way James Jones turned around Yale or Glenn Miller turned around Brown, he has made some strides at that hockey school in Ithaca. He's also about 42, young enough to be in University City for a while. The other is Fran O'Hanlon, the head coach at Lafayette, a brilliant basketball mind who has done wonders in Easton, Pennsylvania. O'Hanlon, like Jackson, is in his late 50's.
There also are other intriguing names. Fran McCaffrey, once a McDonald's all-American, formerly John MacLeod's top assistant at Notre Dame, a Penn alum (Class of '82) and currently the head coach at UNC-Greensboro, would warrant consideration. As would Dan Leibovitz, a Penn alum who, to the best of SportsProf's knowledge, never played at Penn (he played at Franklin & Marshall before transferring to Penn and went to and coached at Episcopal Academy outside Phila., where his coach was Dan Dougherty, a one-time mentor of, yes, Fran Dunphy), who is John Chaney's top assistant at Temple. He's in his early 30's and is a great recruiter, although admittedly Temple recruits a far different type of kid from the type Penn does. Then there is Lehigh coach Billy Taylor, a McCaffrey protege, who took the Engineers to their first NCAA berth in about 20 years. He might warrant consideration, although the Penn link is somewhat attentuated.
Are there others? Well, given that the Penn family is a rather well-defined one, it would be hard to see the Penn administration going with anyone outside it. SportsProf thinks its too early to speculate as to the pecking order of the favorites, although right now he would argue hard that the best coach available for the job would be Fran O'Hanlon. If O'Hanlon were 10 years younger, after what he did at Lafayette, he'd be coaching an upper-level major program. But he's in his late 50's, so he's probably missed is window for the big-time, as Lafayette isn't as prominent a launching pad as Princeton and Penn are proving to be.
Of course, all of this depends on whether Ohio State hires Dunphy in the first place. It says here that they should, but hiring an Ivy coach would be a big leap for any Big 10 school save Northwestern, which hired former Princeton mentor Bill Carmody about 4 years ago, and which many Big 10 stalwarts think should be in the Ivies (perhaps "wish" is the better verb, as Carmody has made great strides in his four years in Evanston and has won some big games with the Wildcats).
One thing is for sure: should Fran Dunphy move on to greener pastures with loftier aspirations, the Penn Quakers should have no problem finding an excellent coach. Penn has a great tradition and a magical building in which to play.
SportsProf is a firm believer that a) Fran Dunphy is a very good coach and b) that if he is looking for a shot at the big time, at some point he'll get it. He is a serious candidate for the Ohio State job (see prior posts), and if he doesn't get that job and Kevin Stallings of Vandy does, he should be a serious candidate for the Vandy job.
That said, who would replace Coach Dunphy were he to leave coaching the home team in America's greatest venue for a college basketball game, the Palestra? After all, it wasn't as though Dunphy's elevation to the Penn head coaching job in the late 80's after Tom Schneider left for Loyola (Md.) was met with rousing cheers. Dunphy was a career assistant, Schneider wasn't as successful as many Penn coaches in the recent past (Bob Weinhauer and Chuck Daly), and, well, while it was an important decision for the future of Penn basketball, Dunphy wasn't a big name.
He is now. And he is the dean of Ivy hoops coaches, having succeeded Pete Carril on that notable perch. So, if he were to leave Penn, who would succeed him?
Among his current assistants, Gil Jackson would seem to be the favorite. Jackson was a finalist for the Dartmouth job that went to former Colorado assistant Terry Dunn, the brother of former Penn State coach Jerry Dunn. The one thing against Jackson is his age -- at 57 or so, he's old to be getting his first major college coaching gig.
Among his former assistants, there are two front-runners. One is Steve Donahue, who currently is the head coach at Cornell. While Donahue has yet to turn around the Big Red the way James Jones turned around Yale or Glenn Miller turned around Brown, he has made some strides at that hockey school in Ithaca. He's also about 42, young enough to be in University City for a while. The other is Fran O'Hanlon, the head coach at Lafayette, a brilliant basketball mind who has done wonders in Easton, Pennsylvania. O'Hanlon, like Jackson, is in his late 50's.
There also are other intriguing names. Fran McCaffrey, once a McDonald's all-American, formerly John MacLeod's top assistant at Notre Dame, a Penn alum (Class of '82) and currently the head coach at UNC-Greensboro, would warrant consideration. As would Dan Leibovitz, a Penn alum who, to the best of SportsProf's knowledge, never played at Penn (he played at Franklin & Marshall before transferring to Penn and went to and coached at Episcopal Academy outside Phila., where his coach was Dan Dougherty, a one-time mentor of, yes, Fran Dunphy), who is John Chaney's top assistant at Temple. He's in his early 30's and is a great recruiter, although admittedly Temple recruits a far different type of kid from the type Penn does. Then there is Lehigh coach Billy Taylor, a McCaffrey protege, who took the Engineers to their first NCAA berth in about 20 years. He might warrant consideration, although the Penn link is somewhat attentuated.
Are there others? Well, given that the Penn family is a rather well-defined one, it would be hard to see the Penn administration going with anyone outside it. SportsProf thinks its too early to speculate as to the pecking order of the favorites, although right now he would argue hard that the best coach available for the job would be Fran O'Hanlon. If O'Hanlon were 10 years younger, after what he did at Lafayette, he'd be coaching an upper-level major program. But he's in his late 50's, so he's probably missed is window for the big-time, as Lafayette isn't as prominent a launching pad as Princeton and Penn are proving to be.
Of course, all of this depends on whether Ohio State hires Dunphy in the first place. It says here that they should, but hiring an Ivy coach would be a big leap for any Big 10 school save Northwestern, which hired former Princeton mentor Bill Carmody about 4 years ago, and which many Big 10 stalwarts think should be in the Ivies (perhaps "wish" is the better verb, as Carmody has made great strides in his four years in Evanston and has won some big games with the Wildcats).
One thing is for sure: should Fran Dunphy move on to greener pastures with loftier aspirations, the Penn Quakers should have no problem finding an excellent coach. Penn has a great tradition and a magical building in which to play.
Saturday, July 03, 2004
More on the Ohio State Head Coaching Job
Good article by Andy Katz on espn.com yesterday regarding Ohio State AD Andy Geiger's process and who the four candidates are (I'd give you a link, but SportsProf has been a miserable failure in linking to espn.com).
The four candidates are:
Rice coach Willis Wilson
Vanderbilt coach Kevin Stallings
Lakers' assistant Jim Cleamons
Penn coach Fran Dunphy.
Apparently, Geiger interviewed all 4 candidates last week, and Wilson and Stallings, according to Katz, said that the interviews went well.
You'll recall (or, maybe you won't) that in the mid-1980's then Stanford AD Geiger brought a relatively unknown (but successful in the Big Sky Conference) coach Mike Montgomery to the Farm, and, well, next to Duke's hiring of Coach K in 1980, that hiring turned out to be perhaps the best college basketball coach hiring of the past 25 years (along with Kentucky's hiring of Tubby Smith). Are there any parallels here? How will Andy Geiger draw on his experience with the Cardinal to help the Buckeyes?
Wilson comes from a great academic school, but his results have not been so stellar, about .500, so selling Wilson in Columbus could be hard, even if Rice has played in a conference whose schools don't require the academic rigor that Rice does. Stallings works at a great academic school in a conference whose stress on academics leaves a lot to be desired. But he's been established for a while, and, as Katz points out, Vandy is trying hard to sign Stallings to a contract extension. It's hard to fathom the attraction to Cleamons, because he hasn't been in the college game for a while. The attraction to Dunphy is obvious; Penn is a great academic school, and Dunphy's teams not only have excelled in the Ivies, they also have beaten some good non-Ivy competition.
From among this bunch it doesn't look like there is another Mike Montgomery, which is probably too bad for both Andy Geiger and Ohio State. That's not to say that these coaches aren't good coaches (they are), but the pool that they form doesn't come from the same creative thinking that Geiger used to find Montgomery in the mid-1980's.
Others have declined to interview, according to Katz, such as St. Joe's head coach Phil Martelli and Notre Dame mentor Mike Brey. Again, well-established coaches, but neither is up and coming.
The bet here is that Ohio State will throw a big enough compensation package to land Stallings, who will have a better chance of winning a national title in Columbus than he would in Nashville. If the Buckeyes fail to land Stallings, then the bet is Fran Dunphy, who can't be a runner-up forever.
But who else could be out there that could capture Geiger's imagination? A coach from a mid-major, who has done wonders with less, and who has led his team to titles and who plays by the rules. Isn't there anyone out there who fits that bill?
Isn't there someone at a Ball State, a Utah State, a Monmouth, a Western Kentucky, a Lehigh who can turn heads? It says here that there is, and that perhaps Andy Geiger should also think outside the box.
He might just find the next Mike Montgomery.
The four candidates are:
Rice coach Willis Wilson
Vanderbilt coach Kevin Stallings
Lakers' assistant Jim Cleamons
Penn coach Fran Dunphy.
Apparently, Geiger interviewed all 4 candidates last week, and Wilson and Stallings, according to Katz, said that the interviews went well.
You'll recall (or, maybe you won't) that in the mid-1980's then Stanford AD Geiger brought a relatively unknown (but successful in the Big Sky Conference) coach Mike Montgomery to the Farm, and, well, next to Duke's hiring of Coach K in 1980, that hiring turned out to be perhaps the best college basketball coach hiring of the past 25 years (along with Kentucky's hiring of Tubby Smith). Are there any parallels here? How will Andy Geiger draw on his experience with the Cardinal to help the Buckeyes?
Wilson comes from a great academic school, but his results have not been so stellar, about .500, so selling Wilson in Columbus could be hard, even if Rice has played in a conference whose schools don't require the academic rigor that Rice does. Stallings works at a great academic school in a conference whose stress on academics leaves a lot to be desired. But he's been established for a while, and, as Katz points out, Vandy is trying hard to sign Stallings to a contract extension. It's hard to fathom the attraction to Cleamons, because he hasn't been in the college game for a while. The attraction to Dunphy is obvious; Penn is a great academic school, and Dunphy's teams not only have excelled in the Ivies, they also have beaten some good non-Ivy competition.
From among this bunch it doesn't look like there is another Mike Montgomery, which is probably too bad for both Andy Geiger and Ohio State. That's not to say that these coaches aren't good coaches (they are), but the pool that they form doesn't come from the same creative thinking that Geiger used to find Montgomery in the mid-1980's.
Others have declined to interview, according to Katz, such as St. Joe's head coach Phil Martelli and Notre Dame mentor Mike Brey. Again, well-established coaches, but neither is up and coming.
The bet here is that Ohio State will throw a big enough compensation package to land Stallings, who will have a better chance of winning a national title in Columbus than he would in Nashville. If the Buckeyes fail to land Stallings, then the bet is Fran Dunphy, who can't be a runner-up forever.
But who else could be out there that could capture Geiger's imagination? A coach from a mid-major, who has done wonders with less, and who has led his team to titles and who plays by the rules. Isn't there anyone out there who fits that bill?
Isn't there someone at a Ball State, a Utah State, a Monmouth, a Western Kentucky, a Lehigh who can turn heads? It says here that there is, and that perhaps Andy Geiger should also think outside the box.
He might just find the next Mike Montgomery.
Round the Horn -- Various Thoughts on Baseball
SportsProf has neglected baseball a bit lately, but is happy to note the following:
1. Lots of good pennant races are shaping up. When SportsProf counted this stat last week, there were 24 teams (out of 30) in playoff contention. The NFL may have parity, but if MLB has a pennant race in every division come September (except the AL East, perhaps, although the Red Sox are in the wild-card race), the Lords of Baseball will have done a good job (and, yes, Donald Fehr, you're included in that grouping). Who would have thought that the Mets, the Brewers, the Padres, the Tigers and the Rangers would be in contention at the All-Star break?
2. Sad to see Bob Brenly get the axe in Arizona. After all, it wasn't like he hadn't accomplished anything. Like it really was his fault that a) the ownership always had overextended on its debt, b) they have 13 guys on the DL at this time and c) 5 of those guys, SportsProf believes, are on the 60-day DL. Hard to win under those circumstances. Also, the 4-for-1 trade for Richie Sexson has turned out to be a disappointment, with the big 1B on the DL and Messrs. Counsell, Spivey, Moeller and especially Lyle Overbay contributing well for the Milwaukee Brewers.
3. Nice to see 3B coach Al Pedrique get a shot, though, as Brenly's replacement in Arizona. Pedrique had a winning record in 8 years as a minor-league manager, and he's paid his dues riding the buses of the minors. He played in the Mets, Pittsburgh and Detroit organizations, and probably got a thermos full of coffee in the majors as a player. Pedrique played on some great Mets' minor league teams in the early-to-mid 80's, including a Jackson Mets' team that had the following lineup: C either Barry Lyons, John Gibbons or Greg Olson (Olson caught on some of the Braves' teams in the early 90's), 1B Randy "Moose" Milligan (who played 1B for the Orioles and Reds), 2B Pedrique at times (he also played SS after Kevin Elster advanced), SS Kevin Elster, 3B Dave Magadan, LF Kevin Mitchell, CF Lenny Dykstra, RF Mark Carreon. Among the pitchers were Rick Aguilera and Roger McDowell (and two Ivy Leaguers, Kurt Lundgren of Columbia and Mark Lockenmeyer of Princeton). Billy Beane, the current A's GM, also was on those teams. And those teams won championships. Here's to hoping Pedrique does well and gets a chance to manage further in the majors.
4. Bobby Abreu is a great, if quiet, major league player. He entered last night's game, according to the Phila. Inquirer, first among NL outfielders in runs scored, third in walks, tied for third in batting average, fifth in RBIs and tied for fifth in doubles. His OBP is something like .420 and no one runs on him (if they do, they usually get thrown out). He deserves an All-Star berth, his first, but may not get it because, well, he's not flamboyant. It also doesn't help that some of the Philadelphia media, including the drive-time talk show host on sports' radio (with whom SportsProf agrees more often than not, even if SportsProf doesn't always like his tone), say that he's not intense, that he's not about the team and that, well, he's not clutch. I'm not so sure that in this case they know what they're talking about. The numbers don't lie. Without someone like Abreu, the Phillies' disappointing season thus far would be downright awful.
5. Remember the name Ryan Howard. He's the Phillies' AA first baseman at Reading in the Eastern League, and last night he hit his 32nd home run of the season. The franchise's record is 33 (set by another slugger, Greg Luzinski, in 1971). Howard's future in Philadelphia doesn't seem bright because he's blocked by a 1B named Thome, and he doesn't have another position. His market value right now is very high, and if the Phillies are determined not to trade top pitching prospects Cole Hamels and Gavin Floyd, Howard would seem to be prime trade bait -- for the centerfielder that the Phillies need to put them over the top.
The big question is whether such a trade will help the Phillies for several years or will turn into the late 80's trade that had the Braves send a vetern Doyle Alexander to the Tigers for a young pitcher with some promise. Well, Alexander had a great half season for Detroit (his records was something like 13-1), and helped the Tigers immediately (but for not much longer), and the young pitcher turned out to be a guy named Smoltz, who I think you've heard of. Or, could the trade also could replicate one that had the Astros send now-Phillies broadcaster Larry Andersen to the Red Sox for a AA first baseman in the late 80's. Andersen didn't fare well in Boston, and that first sacker turned out to be a kid named Bagwell.
The Phillies should maximize Howard's value, because the NL is not adopting the DH rule soon and the Phils aren't trading Jim Thome. If you're a Phillies' fan, you should hope that they get a real player who can help for yours and not, in Casey Stengel's vernacular, a ribbon clerk. The fear, of course, is that the CF they trade Howard for helps only in the short-term, while Ryan Howard turns out to be someone who hits 600 home runs in his career. Phillies' fans, keep your fingers cross. The BoSox may have the Curse of the Bambino, but your franchise suffers from a long-term malaise that vanishes once a quarter decade or so. Start rubbing your talismans now.
That's the baseball wrap for now. Enjoy the All-Star game, have fun with all of the hot-stove talk, and may your team give you something to cheer for during the hot summer months!
1. Lots of good pennant races are shaping up. When SportsProf counted this stat last week, there were 24 teams (out of 30) in playoff contention. The NFL may have parity, but if MLB has a pennant race in every division come September (except the AL East, perhaps, although the Red Sox are in the wild-card race), the Lords of Baseball will have done a good job (and, yes, Donald Fehr, you're included in that grouping). Who would have thought that the Mets, the Brewers, the Padres, the Tigers and the Rangers would be in contention at the All-Star break?
2. Sad to see Bob Brenly get the axe in Arizona. After all, it wasn't like he hadn't accomplished anything. Like it really was his fault that a) the ownership always had overextended on its debt, b) they have 13 guys on the DL at this time and c) 5 of those guys, SportsProf believes, are on the 60-day DL. Hard to win under those circumstances. Also, the 4-for-1 trade for Richie Sexson has turned out to be a disappointment, with the big 1B on the DL and Messrs. Counsell, Spivey, Moeller and especially Lyle Overbay contributing well for the Milwaukee Brewers.
3. Nice to see 3B coach Al Pedrique get a shot, though, as Brenly's replacement in Arizona. Pedrique had a winning record in 8 years as a minor-league manager, and he's paid his dues riding the buses of the minors. He played in the Mets, Pittsburgh and Detroit organizations, and probably got a thermos full of coffee in the majors as a player. Pedrique played on some great Mets' minor league teams in the early-to-mid 80's, including a Jackson Mets' team that had the following lineup: C either Barry Lyons, John Gibbons or Greg Olson (Olson caught on some of the Braves' teams in the early 90's), 1B Randy "Moose" Milligan (who played 1B for the Orioles and Reds), 2B Pedrique at times (he also played SS after Kevin Elster advanced), SS Kevin Elster, 3B Dave Magadan, LF Kevin Mitchell, CF Lenny Dykstra, RF Mark Carreon. Among the pitchers were Rick Aguilera and Roger McDowell (and two Ivy Leaguers, Kurt Lundgren of Columbia and Mark Lockenmeyer of Princeton). Billy Beane, the current A's GM, also was on those teams. And those teams won championships. Here's to hoping Pedrique does well and gets a chance to manage further in the majors.
4. Bobby Abreu is a great, if quiet, major league player. He entered last night's game, according to the Phila. Inquirer, first among NL outfielders in runs scored, third in walks, tied for third in batting average, fifth in RBIs and tied for fifth in doubles. His OBP is something like .420 and no one runs on him (if they do, they usually get thrown out). He deserves an All-Star berth, his first, but may not get it because, well, he's not flamboyant. It also doesn't help that some of the Philadelphia media, including the drive-time talk show host on sports' radio (with whom SportsProf agrees more often than not, even if SportsProf doesn't always like his tone), say that he's not intense, that he's not about the team and that, well, he's not clutch. I'm not so sure that in this case they know what they're talking about. The numbers don't lie. Without someone like Abreu, the Phillies' disappointing season thus far would be downright awful.
5. Remember the name Ryan Howard. He's the Phillies' AA first baseman at Reading in the Eastern League, and last night he hit his 32nd home run of the season. The franchise's record is 33 (set by another slugger, Greg Luzinski, in 1971). Howard's future in Philadelphia doesn't seem bright because he's blocked by a 1B named Thome, and he doesn't have another position. His market value right now is very high, and if the Phillies are determined not to trade top pitching prospects Cole Hamels and Gavin Floyd, Howard would seem to be prime trade bait -- for the centerfielder that the Phillies need to put them over the top.
The big question is whether such a trade will help the Phillies for several years or will turn into the late 80's trade that had the Braves send a vetern Doyle Alexander to the Tigers for a young pitcher with some promise. Well, Alexander had a great half season for Detroit (his records was something like 13-1), and helped the Tigers immediately (but for not much longer), and the young pitcher turned out to be a guy named Smoltz, who I think you've heard of. Or, could the trade also could replicate one that had the Astros send now-Phillies broadcaster Larry Andersen to the Red Sox for a AA first baseman in the late 80's. Andersen didn't fare well in Boston, and that first sacker turned out to be a kid named Bagwell.
The Phillies should maximize Howard's value, because the NL is not adopting the DH rule soon and the Phils aren't trading Jim Thome. If you're a Phillies' fan, you should hope that they get a real player who can help for yours and not, in Casey Stengel's vernacular, a ribbon clerk. The fear, of course, is that the CF they trade Howard for helps only in the short-term, while Ryan Howard turns out to be someone who hits 600 home runs in his career. Phillies' fans, keep your fingers cross. The BoSox may have the Curse of the Bambino, but your franchise suffers from a long-term malaise that vanishes once a quarter decade or so. Start rubbing your talismans now.
That's the baseball wrap for now. Enjoy the All-Star game, have fun with all of the hot-stove talk, and may your team give you something to cheer for during the hot summer months!
The Coach K Succession Sweepstakes (What Ifs)
If Coach K were to leave Duke for the millions that the Lakers are tossing at him to make him the highest paid coach in all of professional sports (talk about putting an attractive target on your back), the speculation as to who his successor would be has run only to people in the "Duke" family. (Which is ironic given that a member of the North Carolina family, Mitch Kupchak, has offered the Hollywood mentoring job to a Dukie.) But is that wise?
When Coach K got the job, Duke needed a good successor to a successful coach, Bill Foster, who took the Blue Devils to the championship game with Mike Gminski, Gene Banks and Jim Spanarkel. On Bob Knight's recommendation, they hired the Army coach, a Knight protege, Coach K. At the time, the selection was somewhat curious. It wasn't as though Coach K had done at Army what, for example, Joe Scott recently did at Air Force (turn an absolute doormat into the champion of a top-10 league and get an NCAA bid to boot), but he was young, his pedigree was strong, and the Duke administration thought it saw something in the young coach. How right they turned out to be.
Today, because the program is so established, it would appear that the Duke administration has its hands tied a bit. It's doubtful, from a public relations and alumni standpoint, that they'll do anything nearly as bold as go outside the family for a relative unknown when inside the family they have some interesting choices. The professional pundits had narrowed the group to three: current Duke Associate Head Coach Johnny Dawkins, Notre Dame coach Mike Brey and Michigan coach Tommy Amaker.
All three would make good choices for Duke. Dawkins has been Coach K's right-hand man, and for a precedent in the ACC for the success of right-hand men, you don't have to look any further than a short drive down Tobbaco Road to Chapel Hill, where long-time assistant Bill Guthridge took the Tar Heels to a Final Four after Dean Smith left. Mike Brey has recruited well at Notre Dame and done very well as a basketball coach at a football school. He probably would do better at a school with less rigorous admissions standards and where basketball is the top priority. Tommy Amaker has to be third in this group, if only because he didn't fare as well as forecasted at Seton Hall, and he's in the process of turning the Michigan program around. In short, it's a good, if not outstanding, group.
But what if the Dookies were to venture beyond the family? To a young, hard-working coach that has the fire and the vision? Could they find Coach K again? Where would they look? To Xavier's Thad Matta? To Princeton's Joe Scott (don't laugh, but he worked a miracle at Air Force and has both vision and fire), although Scott just returned to his alma mater from Air Force? To Gonzaga's Mark Few? Any of those coaches would do well at Cameron, and the Dookies shouldn't turn up their noses at any of them. And they are better known nationally than Coach K was 25 years ago. After all, who really had heard of Coach K in 1980, when he arrived in Durham?
No one, that's who. But now the Duke trademark is the hottest in college basketball, the revered name. Perhaps in 1980, when the media wasn't omnipresent, when there weren't satellite dishes and the internet was just in someone's imagination, the Duke administration could get away with hiring an unknown, even if at the time they had one of the finest college basketball programs in the land. The lens through which the program was viewed was not as intense, the lights not as bright.
Today, though, brand maintenance is a very important thing, and, well, you can't just put anyone on the Blue Devils' bench. But the outsiders aren't just anyone, they are accomplished coaches, and they could bring the same fire to Durham that Coach K did almost a quarter of a century ago. And, they can do so without the burden of the expectations that being a member of the Duke family would bring. That's not to say that there wouldn't be very high expectations, just that in a nuanced way the expectations would be different.
One thing is for sure, and that is whoever replaces Coach K will be in a tough spot. UCLA had a devil of a time replacing John Wooden, and Alabama had a tough time replacing Bear Bryant (sorry for the mixed metaphor). It's tough to replace a legend, so perhaps the best way to do so is not to look for someone stamped out of the legend's mold, but someone who can start a legend all his own.
When Duke hired Coach K in 1980 it wasn't looking for the next Bill Foster or Vic Bubas for that matter, it was looking for a coach who could win with class. Little did the Duke administration know that they were hiring the next college basketball coaching legend. Perhaps if they apply the same mindset to this hiring (should Coach K leave), they'll find a gem where they least expect it.
When Coach K got the job, Duke needed a good successor to a successful coach, Bill Foster, who took the Blue Devils to the championship game with Mike Gminski, Gene Banks and Jim Spanarkel. On Bob Knight's recommendation, they hired the Army coach, a Knight protege, Coach K. At the time, the selection was somewhat curious. It wasn't as though Coach K had done at Army what, for example, Joe Scott recently did at Air Force (turn an absolute doormat into the champion of a top-10 league and get an NCAA bid to boot), but he was young, his pedigree was strong, and the Duke administration thought it saw something in the young coach. How right they turned out to be.
Today, because the program is so established, it would appear that the Duke administration has its hands tied a bit. It's doubtful, from a public relations and alumni standpoint, that they'll do anything nearly as bold as go outside the family for a relative unknown when inside the family they have some interesting choices. The professional pundits had narrowed the group to three: current Duke Associate Head Coach Johnny Dawkins, Notre Dame coach Mike Brey and Michigan coach Tommy Amaker.
All three would make good choices for Duke. Dawkins has been Coach K's right-hand man, and for a precedent in the ACC for the success of right-hand men, you don't have to look any further than a short drive down Tobbaco Road to Chapel Hill, where long-time assistant Bill Guthridge took the Tar Heels to a Final Four after Dean Smith left. Mike Brey has recruited well at Notre Dame and done very well as a basketball coach at a football school. He probably would do better at a school with less rigorous admissions standards and where basketball is the top priority. Tommy Amaker has to be third in this group, if only because he didn't fare as well as forecasted at Seton Hall, and he's in the process of turning the Michigan program around. In short, it's a good, if not outstanding, group.
But what if the Dookies were to venture beyond the family? To a young, hard-working coach that has the fire and the vision? Could they find Coach K again? Where would they look? To Xavier's Thad Matta? To Princeton's Joe Scott (don't laugh, but he worked a miracle at Air Force and has both vision and fire), although Scott just returned to his alma mater from Air Force? To Gonzaga's Mark Few? Any of those coaches would do well at Cameron, and the Dookies shouldn't turn up their noses at any of them. And they are better known nationally than Coach K was 25 years ago. After all, who really had heard of Coach K in 1980, when he arrived in Durham?
No one, that's who. But now the Duke trademark is the hottest in college basketball, the revered name. Perhaps in 1980, when the media wasn't omnipresent, when there weren't satellite dishes and the internet was just in someone's imagination, the Duke administration could get away with hiring an unknown, even if at the time they had one of the finest college basketball programs in the land. The lens through which the program was viewed was not as intense, the lights not as bright.
Today, though, brand maintenance is a very important thing, and, well, you can't just put anyone on the Blue Devils' bench. But the outsiders aren't just anyone, they are accomplished coaches, and they could bring the same fire to Durham that Coach K did almost a quarter of a century ago. And, they can do so without the burden of the expectations that being a member of the Duke family would bring. That's not to say that there wouldn't be very high expectations, just that in a nuanced way the expectations would be different.
One thing is for sure, and that is whoever replaces Coach K will be in a tough spot. UCLA had a devil of a time replacing John Wooden, and Alabama had a tough time replacing Bear Bryant (sorry for the mixed metaphor). It's tough to replace a legend, so perhaps the best way to do so is not to look for someone stamped out of the legend's mold, but someone who can start a legend all his own.
When Duke hired Coach K in 1980 it wasn't looking for the next Bill Foster or Vic Bubas for that matter, it was looking for a coach who could win with class. Little did the Duke administration know that they were hiring the next college basketball coaching legend. Perhaps if they apply the same mindset to this hiring (should Coach K leave), they'll find a gem where they least expect it.
Friday, July 02, 2004
Moneyball and Money to Play Ball
Two baseball observations before the weekend, one global, one parochial:
1. One of the basic premises in the book "Moneyball", as far as offensive players were concerned, was that defense didn't matter all that much. The statisticians who seemingly have come up with an algorithm for all things in offensive baseball haven't been able to come up with any meaningful statistics, at least in SportsProf's recollection, that can prove that a defensive player with a bad OBP (read: Cesar Izturis) is really worth having on your team or, put plainly, that defense really matters. Of course, countering this group are the veteran baseball men, who would argue that guys like Izturis do things that don't show up in the box score and "win games with their defense."
With that background out of the way, SportsProf would like to point to one of baseball's premier "Moneyball" teams (although this team also has the bucks to spend on players the way the A's apparently do not), the Boston Red Sox. Why? Because they lead the majors in both errors and, not illogically, unearned runs allowed. And, to have watched them over the past 10 days, especially against the Phillies, was to see some premier butchery. So before the supporters of the Billy Beane school start defending Theo Epstein and his gang, ask yourselves one question: "Where are the Red Sox today?" Oh, about 8 1/2 games out of first place, and, get this, they're no longer in the lead for the wild card, Oakland is. SportsProf is all in favor of using mathematical theorems and statistics to make all teams better. But "Moneyball" supporters, your team does have to help cause the other team to make 27 outs, and all of those errors aren't helping any. In the majors, at least some defense is required.
2. On the Ivy League baseball front, only 1 of the 7 Ivy players drafted in the first 20 rounds of the MLB draft has signed. Five-tool OF B.J. Szymanski, the one-time Princeton wide receiver who the Reds took 48th overall (in the second round), has signed for $725,000. The remainder -- Dartmouth P Ed Lucas (8th round -- Royals), Columbia SS Fernando Perez (7th round -- Devils Rays) and the host of other Princeton players -- P Ross Ohlendorf (4th round -- D-Backs), OF Will Venable (15th round -- Orioles), IF Steven Young (16th round -- Tigers) and C Tim Lahey (20th round -- Twins) remain unsigned.
1. One of the basic premises in the book "Moneyball", as far as offensive players were concerned, was that defense didn't matter all that much. The statisticians who seemingly have come up with an algorithm for all things in offensive baseball haven't been able to come up with any meaningful statistics, at least in SportsProf's recollection, that can prove that a defensive player with a bad OBP (read: Cesar Izturis) is really worth having on your team or, put plainly, that defense really matters. Of course, countering this group are the veteran baseball men, who would argue that guys like Izturis do things that don't show up in the box score and "win games with their defense."
With that background out of the way, SportsProf would like to point to one of baseball's premier "Moneyball" teams (although this team also has the bucks to spend on players the way the A's apparently do not), the Boston Red Sox. Why? Because they lead the majors in both errors and, not illogically, unearned runs allowed. And, to have watched them over the past 10 days, especially against the Phillies, was to see some premier butchery. So before the supporters of the Billy Beane school start defending Theo Epstein and his gang, ask yourselves one question: "Where are the Red Sox today?" Oh, about 8 1/2 games out of first place, and, get this, they're no longer in the lead for the wild card, Oakland is. SportsProf is all in favor of using mathematical theorems and statistics to make all teams better. But "Moneyball" supporters, your team does have to help cause the other team to make 27 outs, and all of those errors aren't helping any. In the majors, at least some defense is required.
2. On the Ivy League baseball front, only 1 of the 7 Ivy players drafted in the first 20 rounds of the MLB draft has signed. Five-tool OF B.J. Szymanski, the one-time Princeton wide receiver who the Reds took 48th overall (in the second round), has signed for $725,000. The remainder -- Dartmouth P Ed Lucas (8th round -- Royals), Columbia SS Fernando Perez (7th round -- Devils Rays) and the host of other Princeton players -- P Ross Ohlendorf (4th round -- D-Backs), OF Will Venable (15th round -- Orioles), IF Steven Young (16th round -- Tigers) and C Tim Lahey (20th round -- Twins) remain unsigned.
Thursday, July 01, 2004
The Lakers Court Coach K
You know, if you think about the name of the team it's somewhat comical, isn't it. The Los Angeles Lakers. It's not as bad as the Utah Jazz, because the last big city in America where you'd expect to find jazz haunts is Salt Lake City. But still, how many lakes are in Los Angeles? Perhaps some decorative koi ponds in the back yards of multi-millionaires, but they're still looking for that elusive lake.
So, somewhere on the continuum of things that don't go together are Coach K and the Los Angeles Lakers. Sure, Coach K won't have to worry about recruiting, and that is a plus. Especially when the Duke mentor is seeing something happen today that he didn't see ten years ago. Not only are some of his kids leaving early (see Luol Deng), they're also not showing up in the first place (see Shaun Livingston). So, if you leap to the NBA, coach, you'll get to coach a lot of precocious kids. Coaching prodigies is never a bad thing, is it?
Except when they're spoiled brats who pout when they don't get what they want or when they act like babies who want to pick up their ball and go home rather than share it with the other kids. Which is what Coach K might find, in droves, in the NBA.
SportsProf recalls being at a dinner honoring Rollie Massimino after the 1985 NCAA hoop season when Villanova upset Georgetown to win the NCAA title game, shooting something like 80% in the second half to do so. Massimino was the hot commodity, and he was on the verge of signing a lucrative contract with the New Jersey Nets. At that point in time the Nets were the NBA's version of Boys Town, and his friends at this roast were ribbing him but good. "Have you ever been to Lovetron?" joshed his friend, Billy Cunningham, who apparently had to take one trip there too many when trying to deal with former 76er and then-Net Darryl Dawkins. The jokes were very funny.
If only they were just joking. After the dinner, Cunningham and Jim Valvano (and others) took Rollie to the bar at the Philadelphia hotel where this dinner took place. . . and talked Rollie out of going to the NBA! The press conference was scheduled for the next day! Rollie might have been out of place in the NBA, probably because he wouldn't have had the absolute authority he enjoyed at Villanova. Plus, he had just won the NCAA title (as it turned out, given his rocky departure at 'Nova, his troubled tenure at UNLV and then his mediocre run at Cleveland State, perhaps he should have gone). He was on top of the world, and there was no reason to jump from a great situation to a lousy one. And money might have been a consideration for him (as it shouldn't be for Coach K, who not only has a good deal at Duke, but also from Nike).
So fast forward to 2004, when you have Coach K considering the NBA and the Los Angeles Lakers. There is precedent in 2004 for jumping from a secure college perch at a revered academic institution to the NBA -- see Mike Montgomery's leap to the Golden State Warriors. But Montgomery never won an NCAA title, and perhaps he figured that without Josh Childress it would have taken a while for him to get back to a Final Four, and, like Coach K, he's in his late 50's. Fine.
But Coach K? Did you drink the same Kool-Aid that Coach Montgomery did? Is there the same lemming-like mechanism in your brain that apparently is in Coach Montgomery's? What can you possibly be thinking?
SportsProf holds Coach K in high regard, although he confesses he's not the biggest Duke fan (for the same reason he's not the biggest Yankee fan, even though he respects the Bronx Bombers and Joe Torre). It's just hard to fathom why the most revered coach in college hoops would want to jump head first into the bubbling cauldron that is the Los Angeles Lakers. Your star center wants to be traded, your start shooting guard is on trial, wants to be the centerpiece and opted out of his contract, and your two Hall of Fame senior citizens are at a career crossroads. If all hell breaks lose on the trade front this summer, you could end up coaching Pavel Podkolizine at center, the Mail Man, on his gimpy knee, at forward, Devean George at small forward, Antoine Walker at two guard and Gary Payton at point (and he needs roller skates). With the defensively challenged Luke Walton as the sixth man. Remember, you're a basketball coach, not Harry Potter. Even Nike can't make a magic wand for you.
Why are you interested? SportsProf might be more understanding if the team you went to was the Clippers, because you coached some of them in college and their talent more resembles some of your Duke teams. And, if the Lakers get depleted, the Clippers would have more talent for the first time than the time with which they share a building. But what challenge would be to coach a Lakers team that would be rebuilding at best?
Sure, it's L.A., and it's one of the NBA's most storied franchises and perhaps the glitziest. Jack Nicholson goes to the games, and so does Dyan Cannon. They sit in prominent seats. The Laker girls are cute, and the Lakers have a great tradition. And they'll throw big bucks at you too. And, yes, they hope that if you come Shaq will cool off and Kobe will stay. Very tempting.
Just remember one thing, though, Coach, and you don't have to be an alum of the U.S. Military Academy or Duke to know this gem: All that glitters isn't gold.
Because perhaps the gold that you seek you have already found. On Tobacco Road, in North Carolina. They worship you there, and they might worship you in Los Angeles when you get there. As the savior, as the man who will make things right.
But then teams with more talent than a Shaq and/or Kobe-less Lakers team will beat you more often than your team beats them, and your team then finishes 35-47 and out of the playoffs. And then you're no longer the revered Coach K, but the Coach K who was a great college coach who just didn't do it in the pros. And then all of a sudden those who wanted you there so badly will wonder what the fuss was, why they had deluded themselves into thinking that a bad team with a great coach could ever beat good teams with coaches whose names you'll forget within a year after they're out of the league. The talk shows will burn the airwaves, and even the print media, yes, even in mellow L.A., will wax skeptical. They'll wonder why they thought you had a magic wand, why you thought you could have made a difference.
And, the thing of it is, so will you.
So, somewhere on the continuum of things that don't go together are Coach K and the Los Angeles Lakers. Sure, Coach K won't have to worry about recruiting, and that is a plus. Especially when the Duke mentor is seeing something happen today that he didn't see ten years ago. Not only are some of his kids leaving early (see Luol Deng), they're also not showing up in the first place (see Shaun Livingston). So, if you leap to the NBA, coach, you'll get to coach a lot of precocious kids. Coaching prodigies is never a bad thing, is it?
Except when they're spoiled brats who pout when they don't get what they want or when they act like babies who want to pick up their ball and go home rather than share it with the other kids. Which is what Coach K might find, in droves, in the NBA.
SportsProf recalls being at a dinner honoring Rollie Massimino after the 1985 NCAA hoop season when Villanova upset Georgetown to win the NCAA title game, shooting something like 80% in the second half to do so. Massimino was the hot commodity, and he was on the verge of signing a lucrative contract with the New Jersey Nets. At that point in time the Nets were the NBA's version of Boys Town, and his friends at this roast were ribbing him but good. "Have you ever been to Lovetron?" joshed his friend, Billy Cunningham, who apparently had to take one trip there too many when trying to deal with former 76er and then-Net Darryl Dawkins. The jokes were very funny.
If only they were just joking. After the dinner, Cunningham and Jim Valvano (and others) took Rollie to the bar at the Philadelphia hotel where this dinner took place. . . and talked Rollie out of going to the NBA! The press conference was scheduled for the next day! Rollie might have been out of place in the NBA, probably because he wouldn't have had the absolute authority he enjoyed at Villanova. Plus, he had just won the NCAA title (as it turned out, given his rocky departure at 'Nova, his troubled tenure at UNLV and then his mediocre run at Cleveland State, perhaps he should have gone). He was on top of the world, and there was no reason to jump from a great situation to a lousy one. And money might have been a consideration for him (as it shouldn't be for Coach K, who not only has a good deal at Duke, but also from Nike).
So fast forward to 2004, when you have Coach K considering the NBA and the Los Angeles Lakers. There is precedent in 2004 for jumping from a secure college perch at a revered academic institution to the NBA -- see Mike Montgomery's leap to the Golden State Warriors. But Montgomery never won an NCAA title, and perhaps he figured that without Josh Childress it would have taken a while for him to get back to a Final Four, and, like Coach K, he's in his late 50's. Fine.
But Coach K? Did you drink the same Kool-Aid that Coach Montgomery did? Is there the same lemming-like mechanism in your brain that apparently is in Coach Montgomery's? What can you possibly be thinking?
SportsProf holds Coach K in high regard, although he confesses he's not the biggest Duke fan (for the same reason he's not the biggest Yankee fan, even though he respects the Bronx Bombers and Joe Torre). It's just hard to fathom why the most revered coach in college hoops would want to jump head first into the bubbling cauldron that is the Los Angeles Lakers. Your star center wants to be traded, your start shooting guard is on trial, wants to be the centerpiece and opted out of his contract, and your two Hall of Fame senior citizens are at a career crossroads. If all hell breaks lose on the trade front this summer, you could end up coaching Pavel Podkolizine at center, the Mail Man, on his gimpy knee, at forward, Devean George at small forward, Antoine Walker at two guard and Gary Payton at point (and he needs roller skates). With the defensively challenged Luke Walton as the sixth man. Remember, you're a basketball coach, not Harry Potter. Even Nike can't make a magic wand for you.
Why are you interested? SportsProf might be more understanding if the team you went to was the Clippers, because you coached some of them in college and their talent more resembles some of your Duke teams. And, if the Lakers get depleted, the Clippers would have more talent for the first time than the time with which they share a building. But what challenge would be to coach a Lakers team that would be rebuilding at best?
Sure, it's L.A., and it's one of the NBA's most storied franchises and perhaps the glitziest. Jack Nicholson goes to the games, and so does Dyan Cannon. They sit in prominent seats. The Laker girls are cute, and the Lakers have a great tradition. And they'll throw big bucks at you too. And, yes, they hope that if you come Shaq will cool off and Kobe will stay. Very tempting.
Just remember one thing, though, Coach, and you don't have to be an alum of the U.S. Military Academy or Duke to know this gem: All that glitters isn't gold.
Because perhaps the gold that you seek you have already found. On Tobacco Road, in North Carolina. They worship you there, and they might worship you in Los Angeles when you get there. As the savior, as the man who will make things right.
But then teams with more talent than a Shaq and/or Kobe-less Lakers team will beat you more often than your team beats them, and your team then finishes 35-47 and out of the playoffs. And then you're no longer the revered Coach K, but the Coach K who was a great college coach who just didn't do it in the pros. And then all of a sudden those who wanted you there so badly will wonder what the fuss was, why they had deluded themselves into thinking that a bad team with a great coach could ever beat good teams with coaches whose names you'll forget within a year after they're out of the league. The talk shows will burn the airwaves, and even the print media, yes, even in mellow L.A., will wax skeptical. They'll wonder why they thought you had a magic wand, why you thought you could have made a difference.
And, the thing of it is, so will you.
Wednesday, June 30, 2004
Larger Than Life
In Philadelphia, everywhere you go, people still talk about him. When he was alive, everyone had a story about him. Or a sighting. When he died, the papers talked about him for days; it was as though the President had died. They talked about how he had changed his profession and the way others who came after him had to go about it. They talked about how he, and not some rival up in Boston or someone from a younger generation who did his work in Chicago, was the best that ever was. They all were talking about Wilt Chamberlain.
Well, on Monday they dedicated a statue in his honor outside the Wachovia Center, and more stories were told. About his generosity, about his inspiration, about his community involvement and, of course, his athletic ability. It was good to read. SportsProf has missed you, Wilt.
For too long SportsProf had to put up with the negative comparisons to Bill Russell, the knocks on Wilt's ability as a team player, the knocks on his defense. Yes, Russell was a great player and yes, Russell was the greatest defensive player ever. You'll get no quarrel here. But Wilt, perhaps, was the second-greatest defensive player. Ever. And, perhaps, the greatest offensive player. Ever. (Especially if you're from Philadelphia, you won't let anyone from Boston, Chicago or anywhere else win this argument). He set over 100 records, and, sure, he was not a good foul shooter, but at least once he led the league in assists! How many centers do that? He averaged 30.1 points, 22 rebounds and 4.4 assists a game! 22 rebounds a game? Who does that? How many basketball players are referred to by their first name alone? Still? Yes, the Celtics were a great team, perhaps the best ever. The '66-'67 Philadelphia team that unseated them is heralded as one of the best teams ever too, and it was the case that for most of the time Wilt was in Philadelphia the Celtics had more talent than the 76ers. No one will argue; the Celtics usually were the better team. Looking back, there shouldn't have been a whole lot of shame in being second best.
It's also probably the case that had Wilt Chamberlain played on those teams instead of Bill Russell the Celtics would have won all those titles just the same. I believe John Wooden said that, and I also believe that Red Auerbach would agree (after all, given the way the NBA had territorial drafts back then, he tried to convince Wilt to go to Harvard so that the Celtics could have first dibs on him. Smart man, that Coach Auerbach!). While some Boston fans will argue until they're red in the face that Russell made the Celtics and that he brought so much to the team that Chamberlain never could, they are forgetting that Chamberlain brought a ton to his team too. Again, SportsProf isn't knocking Bill Russell; he's just giving Wilt Chamberlain his due.
But this post is not meant to compare legends. There's room in the NBA's pantheon for all of them, for the Russell-led Celtics, for Michael Jordan, for Magic Johnson and Larry Bird, and, of course, for Wilt Chamberlain. The warm comments that poured out when he passed away several years ago were quite touching, and they came from people from all walks of life and from, among others, his former teammates and his former competitors (Bill Russell's comments were quite good). At 63, he died way too young (SportsProf had wanted to watch him playing beach volleyball at 80 -- and holding his own!).
No, the purpose of this post is to just give a nod once again to a Paul Bunyan-like figure, not only in West Philadelphia, where he grew up, or in Kansas, where he played (and where, decades later, they honored him in a ceremony at the Jayhawks' arena and Wilt came out in a Kansas letterman's jacket and brought down the crowd by leading them in the "Rock Chalk" cheer), or in Philadelphia or Los Angeles, where he played most of his professional career.
Sure, there are plenty of Wilt stories, and many of them are great ones.
But the greatest part of Wilt now is not a statue, which is nice, but all of the warm feelings that his legacy engendered. It was a shame, Dipper, that you felt the need to defend yourself and your career during most of your post-basketball life, and, that, as a result, some people didn't get to see the sides to you that people so fondly remembered on Monday.
Your legacy is not only of your revolutionary hoops exploits, but of your kindness and your heart. There may never be another player or person quite like you, but we were happy to have watched you while you were with us. Thanks for the great memories. Again.
Well, on Monday they dedicated a statue in his honor outside the Wachovia Center, and more stories were told. About his generosity, about his inspiration, about his community involvement and, of course, his athletic ability. It was good to read. SportsProf has missed you, Wilt.
For too long SportsProf had to put up with the negative comparisons to Bill Russell, the knocks on Wilt's ability as a team player, the knocks on his defense. Yes, Russell was a great player and yes, Russell was the greatest defensive player ever. You'll get no quarrel here. But Wilt, perhaps, was the second-greatest defensive player. Ever. And, perhaps, the greatest offensive player. Ever. (Especially if you're from Philadelphia, you won't let anyone from Boston, Chicago or anywhere else win this argument). He set over 100 records, and, sure, he was not a good foul shooter, but at least once he led the league in assists! How many centers do that? He averaged 30.1 points, 22 rebounds and 4.4 assists a game! 22 rebounds a game? Who does that? How many basketball players are referred to by their first name alone? Still? Yes, the Celtics were a great team, perhaps the best ever. The '66-'67 Philadelphia team that unseated them is heralded as one of the best teams ever too, and it was the case that for most of the time Wilt was in Philadelphia the Celtics had more talent than the 76ers. No one will argue; the Celtics usually were the better team. Looking back, there shouldn't have been a whole lot of shame in being second best.
It's also probably the case that had Wilt Chamberlain played on those teams instead of Bill Russell the Celtics would have won all those titles just the same. I believe John Wooden said that, and I also believe that Red Auerbach would agree (after all, given the way the NBA had territorial drafts back then, he tried to convince Wilt to go to Harvard so that the Celtics could have first dibs on him. Smart man, that Coach Auerbach!). While some Boston fans will argue until they're red in the face that Russell made the Celtics and that he brought so much to the team that Chamberlain never could, they are forgetting that Chamberlain brought a ton to his team too. Again, SportsProf isn't knocking Bill Russell; he's just giving Wilt Chamberlain his due.
But this post is not meant to compare legends. There's room in the NBA's pantheon for all of them, for the Russell-led Celtics, for Michael Jordan, for Magic Johnson and Larry Bird, and, of course, for Wilt Chamberlain. The warm comments that poured out when he passed away several years ago were quite touching, and they came from people from all walks of life and from, among others, his former teammates and his former competitors (Bill Russell's comments were quite good). At 63, he died way too young (SportsProf had wanted to watch him playing beach volleyball at 80 -- and holding his own!).
No, the purpose of this post is to just give a nod once again to a Paul Bunyan-like figure, not only in West Philadelphia, where he grew up, or in Kansas, where he played (and where, decades later, they honored him in a ceremony at the Jayhawks' arena and Wilt came out in a Kansas letterman's jacket and brought down the crowd by leading them in the "Rock Chalk" cheer), or in Philadelphia or Los Angeles, where he played most of his professional career.
Sure, there are plenty of Wilt stories, and many of them are great ones.
But the greatest part of Wilt now is not a statue, which is nice, but all of the warm feelings that his legacy engendered. It was a shame, Dipper, that you felt the need to defend yourself and your career during most of your post-basketball life, and, that, as a result, some people didn't get to see the sides to you that people so fondly remembered on Monday.
Your legacy is not only of your revolutionary hoops exploits, but of your kindness and your heart. There may never be another player or person quite like you, but we were happy to have watched you while you were with us. Thanks for the great memories. Again.
Tuesday, June 29, 2004
Omens for the Fall (for Beantown and Texas, at least)
SportsProf spoke with a Friend of SportsProf today (given that in the Blogosphere we give people nicknames, perhaps we should call him "Bubba from Westchester County (NY)" regarding Bubba's prowess as a little league coach for his daughters' softball team. Because he couldn't get the Mets as his team's name, Bubba settled upon the Red Sox. Well, these Red Sox were good enough, as the real-life Red Sox, to make the playoffs, where they faced the mighty Yankees in a one-game elimination for the right to play for the championship. They led 5-2 going into the bottom of the seventh and last inning, whereupon in real Red Sox' style they surrendered 3 runs and the Yankees had a runner on third with two outs. Unlike the '86 BoSox, however, these Westchester County BoSox hung in there, no bouncing ball went through the first baseman's legs, and no pitcher poured gasoline on the fire. They won in extra innings.
That led them to an uphill fight against the favored Cubs, who, by their performance in the regular season, only had to win one game (to the Red Sox' two) in order to win the title. And, to top it all off, these BoSox had to play a morning game after a night game, and, if they won the first one against the Cubbies, another game only 15 minutes after the first game.
So what happened? Did these young girls from Westchester County fold? To the contrary, under Bubba's magnificent leadership (his motto: "Have fun, kids") they swept the mighty and favored Cubs to win the title. And Bubba's girls played a significant role in the outcome.
Red Sox beating Yankees to get to the championship, where they face the Cubs for all the marbles? Sounds like another league that many of us watch. As this Westchester (NY) little league goes, perhaps, so goes Major League Baseball. If I'm in Boston, I'd want to trade my lucky charms for the jerseys of these little leaguers.
And, speaking of heavily favored, perhaps this segment could be entitled, "Forget the Texans" after what apparently transpired after the College World Series championship game on Sunday in which Cal State Fullerton upset the Texas Longhorns 3-2 to win the NCAA baseball title. The Longhorns stayed in their locker room after the game and did not come out for the awards ceremony. And they're getting buried for that choice in the national media, with writers and commentators questioning their leadership and their sportsmanship.
Let's see, now, Texans angry about finishing in second place. Could this be an omen for, well, what happens right after the World Series -- the U.S. Presidential election?
That led them to an uphill fight against the favored Cubs, who, by their performance in the regular season, only had to win one game (to the Red Sox' two) in order to win the title. And, to top it all off, these BoSox had to play a morning game after a night game, and, if they won the first one against the Cubbies, another game only 15 minutes after the first game.
So what happened? Did these young girls from Westchester County fold? To the contrary, under Bubba's magnificent leadership (his motto: "Have fun, kids") they swept the mighty and favored Cubs to win the title. And Bubba's girls played a significant role in the outcome.
Red Sox beating Yankees to get to the championship, where they face the Cubs for all the marbles? Sounds like another league that many of us watch. As this Westchester (NY) little league goes, perhaps, so goes Major League Baseball. If I'm in Boston, I'd want to trade my lucky charms for the jerseys of these little leaguers.
And, speaking of heavily favored, perhaps this segment could be entitled, "Forget the Texans" after what apparently transpired after the College World Series championship game on Sunday in which Cal State Fullerton upset the Texas Longhorns 3-2 to win the NCAA baseball title. The Longhorns stayed in their locker room after the game and did not come out for the awards ceremony. And they're getting buried for that choice in the national media, with writers and commentators questioning their leadership and their sportsmanship.
Let's see, now, Texans angry about finishing in second place. Could this be an omen for, well, what happens right after the World Series -- the U.S. Presidential election?
Monday, June 28, 2004
More on the Ohio State Men's Hoops Coaching Job
Apparently Ohio State told Bob Knight "Thanks, No Thanks" after he indicated to his alma mater that he would accept the job if offered. ESPN.com reports that now the Buckeyes are interested in Vandy head coach Kevin Stallings, and in the same report they indicate that University of Pennsylvania head coach Fran Dunphy also is a candidate. Dunphy was a runner up to John Thompson III for the Georgetown job this past spring and was a candidate for the Penn State job last year (that ultimately went to Penn State alum Ed DeChellis, who did a great job at East Tennessee State and left the cupboard there so full that his successor coached the team to a 27-6 record and a berth in the Big Dance).
ESPN also reported that other candidates are ESPN analyst George Karl, Laker assistant Jim Cleamons, and, possibly, Xavier coach Thad Matta (whose name surfaced in the early rumors regarding the vacancy).
Ohio State would do very well if it hired the current dean of Ivy League coaches. Dunphy hasn't been a finalist for other jobs because those schools want to remind themselves that they are coaching student athletes and because it would look good to have an Ivy coach in the pool. To the contrary, he's been a finalist because of his won-loss record and his outstanding accomplishments at Penn. He is a great blender of talent, a good teacher of the game, and a class act. He's always been able to navigate the difficult waters that are recruiting student-athletes in the Ivies, so with the ability to give full athletic scholarships in the Big 10, he shouldn't have a problem getting top talent to matriculate in Columbus.
Perhaps he's destined to be a bridesmaid once again. But if, somehow, Andy Geiger is able to lure Kevin Stallings from Nashville to Columbus, the Vandy folks should not look any further than, well, Fran Dunphy, who has proven he can coach student-athletes that satisfy the Commodores' expectations.
Fran Dunphy is no one's bridesmaid. At least not for long.
ESPN also reported that other candidates are ESPN analyst George Karl, Laker assistant Jim Cleamons, and, possibly, Xavier coach Thad Matta (whose name surfaced in the early rumors regarding the vacancy).
Ohio State would do very well if it hired the current dean of Ivy League coaches. Dunphy hasn't been a finalist for other jobs because those schools want to remind themselves that they are coaching student athletes and because it would look good to have an Ivy coach in the pool. To the contrary, he's been a finalist because of his won-loss record and his outstanding accomplishments at Penn. He is a great blender of talent, a good teacher of the game, and a class act. He's always been able to navigate the difficult waters that are recruiting student-athletes in the Ivies, so with the ability to give full athletic scholarships in the Big 10, he shouldn't have a problem getting top talent to matriculate in Columbus.
Perhaps he's destined to be a bridesmaid once again. But if, somehow, Andy Geiger is able to lure Kevin Stallings from Nashville to Columbus, the Vandy folks should not look any further than, well, Fran Dunphy, who has proven he can coach student-athletes that satisfy the Commodores' expectations.
Fran Dunphy is no one's bridesmaid. At least not for long.
Remember These Titans
At mid-season, the Cal State Fullerton baseball team was 15-16 and its star pitcher, Jason Windsor, had tendinitis in his throwing arm. So what happened? They went on a 32-6 run, culminating in an improbable national championship with a 3-2 win over heavily favored Texas yesterday. Windsor put up great numbers as the winning pitcher. The CWS title was the Titans' fourth in the past 25 years, first since 1995, and first for coach George Horton, whose mentor, Texas head coach Augie Garrido, won the other three when he was at Fullerton. Windsor, by the way, was a third-round pick of, you guessed it, the Oakland A's, which goes to show you that not only does a smaller-market major league team know where to find value, so does a non-Pac 10 team as well.
Only LSU, with 5, has won more CWS in the past 25 years. Miami, like Fullerton, also has won 4.
Only LSU, with 5, has won more CWS in the past 25 years. Miami, like Fullerton, also has won 4.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)