The Olympics received significant bad publicity prior to the opening of the games. There were concerns about how well-prepared the Greeks were, whether there would be terrorist attacks, and about how many athletes would be disqualified because of blood-doping problems. There is also some general disillusionment about how commercial the games have become and how professional the athletes are. With all that in the background, I admit it was hard to get enthusiastic for the Olympics.
1. Opening Ceremonies. And it got worse before it got better, because I watched the taped Opening Ceremonies on NBC, which co-anchors Katie Couric and Bob Costas butchered. First, there was bad chemistry. Two divas don't combine for a good duet in a non-music setting. Second, there was the emphasis, the emotion, the presentation. Okay, Katie and Bob, you could have at least tried to fake it, but you were somewhat subdued. What, you couldn't give us your A game because you knew what you were saying wasn't being fed live to millions of households? Third, Bob Costas didn't really need a co-pilot in this particular cockpit. News people doing sports are worse than sports people doing news, because the sports people are used to calling events all the time. America may love Katie, but she was out of her element. Costas gave a low Class A ball performance.
2. Ugly Americans. Check out all of the posts on the U.S. men's basketball team. They didn't play well yesterday, that's for sure, but trying to cast stones as to who was at fault is like trying to figure out who's responsible for an underachieving baseball team -- the owner, the GM, the manager or the players (see, for example, the Philadelphia Phillies). Still, the Yanks are laying a big egg in the sport they invented. On a positive note, the hoopsters shouldn't feel so badly. At least USA Basketball qualified for these Olympic Games. After all, the USA Baseball team did not. But let's not paint all American performances with a broad brush -- the women are faring very well.
3. Ugly Iranians. Arash Miresmaeili is an Iranian Olympian, or, at least was an Iranian Olympian. He carried the flag for the Iranian delegation in the opening ceremonies, only to bow out because his first round opponent was to be an Israeli, Ehud Vaks. Dan Wetzel, Yahoo's columnist, posted a good column on this subject. It's ironic that these games, in which hostilities are supposed to take a back seat, at least for a while, have provided one of the most brutal and closed societies with a forum for hatred and abject anti-Semitism. That type of behavior is inexcusable, and the IOC, if it has any guts, should take the Iranians to task for it. And did Miresmaeili bow out because of his protest against Israeli, or for the shame he might have felt at home had he lost to an Israeli, a Jew? I suppose we'll never now, but in this book he's a loser no matter how you spin it.
It's ironic, too, because as much as the Iranians excoriate the West, the U.S., and Israel and Jews in particular, they have permitted two very tall hoopsters, Jaber Rouzabahani and Hamid Hadaddi, to emigrate to the U.S. to try to achieve their dreams of playing in the NBA (click here and here for those posts). Hey, Iranian athletic officials, I got some news for you: the Commissioner of the Great Satan's NBA, David Stern, is Jewish. Gonna let 'em play now?
4. Cheesecake. I've posted on this before (regarding women athletes such as Amy Acuff doing all sorts of things to get attention), but women's volleyball has taken the word exposure to a much different level. Check out this post on TigerHawk to look at the slide show that Reuters has provided. I suppose that the Iranian delegation wouldn't be too happy about these events either. But the Iranian judoist who now must not be named didn't use his pullout as a protest of Western decadence, did he?
5. Cool Cat. I just love it when overlooked players rise to the occasion and put up awesome performances. Quick, name one U.S. women's softball player besides Jenny Finch? Can you do it? Okay, so if you're an Olympics savant, perhaps you know the name of the other star pitcher, Lisa Fernandez. That's pretty good. But can you name the third pitcher, a sleek Texan who's been on the international softball team since she was 17 and who was brilliant in a 3-0 extra-innings shutout of a tough Japanese team today? Remember the name, Cat Osterman. Awesome performance.
6. Silly Sports. Bad enough that synchronized diving is a sport, but did NBC have to lead off with it on Monday night? Pretty bad stuff. I'm generally against "judged" sports, even after the fall of the Iron Curtain and all of the hijinks that went on with diving, gymnastics and boxing. (If you're of a certain age, you used to joke when someone fell awkwardly in gym class or playing on the playground, "And the East German judge gave it a 4." Or something like that). It's not that these events aren't sports, but it's much better when performers can beat the other team or win a race without having to worry about what some judge thinks. Sorry, but I just don't trust those events the way I do, say, the 100-meter dash.
Early conclusion. Despite the suffocating news stories, the pre-Olympics hype, the endless commercials, even bad broadcasting, there is something about the games that is alluring and compelling. The Olympics, for all its warts (including President for Life Juan Antonio Samaranch, who insisted upon being called His Excellency during his tenure), brings together athletes from all over the world in a unique forum. And, in an ever-crazy world where different societies value human life most differently, getting all nations together, even for the relatively unimportant world of sport, is a good thing. I've enjoyed watching the games with my children, who are young but who have enjoyed watching China-Spain in basketball, the 200 meter freestyle featuring Ian Thorpe and Michael Phelps, even the synchronized diving with the young and talented Chinese divers, the women's softball and just about everything else. That's the one thing about the Olympics -- there's always something -- and someone -- to cheer for.
Monday, August 16, 2004
Sunday, August 15, 2004
Puerto Rico 92, U.S. 73
I had posted earlier that I couldn't name the three teams that could beat the U.S. out of any medal in the Olympics, but now you can name one, Puerto Rico, which totally outclassed the U.S. men's team today in an opening round game. From start to finish America's putative 51st state pushed past the aggregation of athletic hoopsters from the first 50, and it was the Puerto Ricans who put on the clinic. To quote Allen Iverson, "they play the game the way it's meant to be played. . . it's good for little kids to see."
Allen's just tossing out the great lines for the media, isn't he? I thought that the U.S. team was supposed to play the game the way it was meant to be played, given that a) the game was invented in the U.S. and b) that the U.S. team ostensibly has the best coach in the world coaching it. That said, the international game is all about shooting and playing a stifling zone defense, and most fans know that the way you bust a tough zone is with good outside shooters, of which the U.S. has zero. So, you can have Larry Brown, Phog Allen or Dr. Naismith himself coach the team, but it won't matter much unless the assembled talent can hit the outside jumper.
The U.S. men's hoop team is living in interesting times, that is for sure, and unless they figure out how to solve these zone defenses and hit some jump shots, the "Dream Team" will have a nightmare that it won't be able to live down for a long time.
Perhaps ever.
People still talk about the miracle on ice that took place in the 1980 winter Olympics, when a team of U.S. collegians beat the heavily favored Soviet team, a team of professionals, en route to winning the gold medal. That game, and the U.S. team's run, are among the most memorable surprises in Olympic history.
In the 1980 winter games, the loaded Soviet team did win a medal.
It remains to be seen how this U.S. team will fare.
For if they don't win a medal, well, that might even be a bigger upset than in 1980.
They say that at the end of the day, the talent will win out. There is no question that the U.S. team is laden with basketball talent. More talent than any of the other 11 teams in the Olympics.
For the U.S. game.
They still have to prove in the next week or so that they have the right type of mixture of talent for the international game.
The world is watching, and perhaps under his leadership, Allen Iverson's U.S. squad can rediscover in a hurry how to play the game the way it was meant to be played.
The other international squads have balanced rosters with players who know how to be effective without the basketball. The U.S. squad, so far, looks like a bunch of players who don't necessarily know what to do unless they have the ball. They look unsynchronized at times and their spacing on offense was awful today.
Hats off to the Puerto Rican national team -- you played a great game. (Perhaps the U.S. can finally grant Puerto Rico statehood so that we can get an Olympic team that knows how to play with one another).
As for the U.S. team, well, the prescription is simple -- they have to play better to get into medal contention. Old-time, fundamental basketball, just like Allen Iverson said. Where people play together, all of the time. Where the outside players can hit a few jump shots.
They should give that type of hoops theory a try. After all, they cannot play much worse than they did today.
Allen's just tossing out the great lines for the media, isn't he? I thought that the U.S. team was supposed to play the game the way it was meant to be played, given that a) the game was invented in the U.S. and b) that the U.S. team ostensibly has the best coach in the world coaching it. That said, the international game is all about shooting and playing a stifling zone defense, and most fans know that the way you bust a tough zone is with good outside shooters, of which the U.S. has zero. So, you can have Larry Brown, Phog Allen or Dr. Naismith himself coach the team, but it won't matter much unless the assembled talent can hit the outside jumper.
The U.S. men's hoop team is living in interesting times, that is for sure, and unless they figure out how to solve these zone defenses and hit some jump shots, the "Dream Team" will have a nightmare that it won't be able to live down for a long time.
Perhaps ever.
People still talk about the miracle on ice that took place in the 1980 winter Olympics, when a team of U.S. collegians beat the heavily favored Soviet team, a team of professionals, en route to winning the gold medal. That game, and the U.S. team's run, are among the most memorable surprises in Olympic history.
In the 1980 winter games, the loaded Soviet team did win a medal.
It remains to be seen how this U.S. team will fare.
For if they don't win a medal, well, that might even be a bigger upset than in 1980.
They say that at the end of the day, the talent will win out. There is no question that the U.S. team is laden with basketball talent. More talent than any of the other 11 teams in the Olympics.
For the U.S. game.
They still have to prove in the next week or so that they have the right type of mixture of talent for the international game.
The world is watching, and perhaps under his leadership, Allen Iverson's U.S. squad can rediscover in a hurry how to play the game the way it was meant to be played.
The other international squads have balanced rosters with players who know how to be effective without the basketball. The U.S. squad, so far, looks like a bunch of players who don't necessarily know what to do unless they have the ball. They look unsynchronized at times and their spacing on offense was awful today.
Hats off to the Puerto Rican national team -- you played a great game. (Perhaps the U.S. can finally grant Puerto Rico statehood so that we can get an Olympic team that knows how to play with one another).
As for the U.S. team, well, the prescription is simple -- they have to play better to get into medal contention. Old-time, fundamental basketball, just like Allen Iverson said. Where people play together, all of the time. Where the outside players can hit a few jump shots.
They should give that type of hoops theory a try. After all, they cannot play much worse than they did today.
Saturday, August 14, 2004
Fran Dunphy to Stay at Penn
In Philadelphia basketball circles, the suspense was tantamount to the selection of a new Pope, which doesn't happen that often either. But this would have been the first time that a sitting (or standing, as it were) Big 5 coach would have left one Big 5 school for another. For the past month, the question was whether Penn coach Fran Dunphy would leave his perch as dean of Ivy coaches for his alma mater, LaSalle University.
There were great arguments both ways. On the "go" side, Dunphy would be returning to his alma mater as the savior of a once-proud program that has not had a winning season in 10 years and that has just undergone a major scandal. He would return as a conquering hero. On the "stay" side, the arguments were that he has a great gig going at Penn, where he has become an institution, and that he might have developed a serious case of "be careful what you wish for" had he taken the LaSalle job, for he might have realized that despite the increase in pay (which apparently Dunph insiders know he doesn't really need) and fortified Explorer recruiting budget, HS kids still would wonder why they would want to spend 4 years in north central Philadelphia, on a campus that doesn't compare to, say, nearby Villanova's (or even nearby St. Joe's). In short, the world has grown tremendously since Dunphy went to LaSalle, and he would have found that out in a hurry.
A suburban Philadelphia columnist, Mike Sielski, kept great tabs on this story, as much as any sportswriter could have given that Dunphy kept quiet during what had to be a tumultuous time making his decision. Penn alums probably persuaded him if not begged him to stay, and Penn's most prominent hoop fan, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, was among the callers. And getting Dunphy to stay at Penn might be among the Governor's top five accomplishments since he was elected. Click here to read the article that broke the news.
Penn, naturally, is thrilled that Dunphy has elected to remain. Click here for the statement from the University of Pennsylvania, which includes a quote from Penn A.D. Steve Bilsky. Apparently, they were singing "Kumbaya" at the Penn A.D.'s office after all, despite reports that Bilsky, a former Penn hoops star when Penn was a top 10 team, and Dunphy (who played against Bilsky), didn't get along. Perhaps, in the end, business considerations outweighed the personal. And, of course, Ed Rendell is quite the charmer. One of the best.
So now LaSalle has to focus on hiring a new coach. Click here for my post on who I think they should consider going after, now that three coaches (Fran Dunphy, Fran O'Hanlon and Joe Mihalich) have taken themselves out of the running. The cognoscenti say that Maine coach John Giannini may still be a viable alternative; he was the runner-up three years ago when Billy Hahn was hired. Let's wish the LaSalle administration good luck; they're going to need it.
So Fran Dunphy now has some peace of mind, at least in the short term. The LaSalle job under ordinary circumstances wouldn't have appealed to him except he went there and obviously has great feelings for the school. What he really has been looking for is a true step up, at a university in a major conference, with great facilities and a solid recruiting budget, just so that he can have a shot at the bigger time. His agreeing to stay at Penn probably isn't as much a concession that Penn is his ultimate resting spot as it is that he couldn't go home again to LaSalle, that his beloved alma mater wasn't the same institution and didn't hold the same appeal as it did when he was a HS senior making his college choice. My bet is that if opportunity knocks again at the "right" school, Fran Dunphy will want to answer his biggest "what if" question in his professional career. And leave Penn. Despite any entreaties from Ed Rendell. Or anyone else, for that matter.
Princeton's legendary coach, Pete Carril, flirted with other opportunities during his coaching career, perhaps wrestling with the same "what if" demon that has made its way into Dunphy's kitchen. Rumors abounded during Carril's time that he was in the running for jobs at Boston College, Fordham (where he would have doubled as the A.D.) and even Auburn (where he ultimately took himself out of the running). Carril, though, is a much different personality from Dunphy, and while he always probably wanted to know the answer to the "what if" question, he was (and is) a smart guy, and probably realized that his very direct, non-coddling style might not have played at the bigger-time schools during his prime. So he remained in central New Jersey, where he built an amazing record and a legacy that even Penn's beloved Dunphy will have difficultly surpassing (despite having the chance to win more titles than Carril did).
In a way, though, Pete Carril did get his "what if" question answered, because he knew his post-Princeton calling was as an NBA assistant, where he could be the consiglieri and draw up plays until the sun came up. And he has done that, putting the trademarked "Princeton offense" on the map and earning a place in basketball's Hall of Fame. And while the Sacramento Kings haven't won an NBA title since he has been affiliated with them, that they have gotten so far is testimony, in some part, to the basketball genius that Pete Carril is.
But Dunphy and Carril aren't a matched set; their careers only overlapped for 7 seasons (7 of Carrils' 30 or so at Princeton), and they aren't paired the way Affirmed and Alydar were, Foyt and Andretti or Chamberlain and Russell. There is no bad blood, no rivarly (in fact, Carril was one of the references who called his own alma mater, Lafayette, on behalf of Fran O'Hanlon when the former Dunphy assistant was applying for the Lafayette job). Both are great coaches. One enjoys status as an exalted senior statesman of the game, while the other one still wonders, a bit, what remains on his journey and where, if anywhere, his next stop will be.
Like a good coach, Fran Dunphy will work hard in the present, focusing on helping prepare his Penn Quakers to win yet another Ivy title under his tenure. And, in electing to remain in University City, he elects to face a very tough challenge -- a veteran Princeton team that won the title last year, that has almost everyone back, and that has a new coach with a great curriculum vitae of his own, Joe Scott, the Princeton alum who might get nominated for college hoops sainthood himself one day for the miracle he worked at Air Force.
That's a big enough challenge in and of itself, and Fran Dunphy will have fun tackling it. In early February he'll be in the thick of the Ivy race, instead of waiting for his LaSalle season to end quickly so he can hit the recruiting trail and get some players. He'll be grateful he stayed. I think he made the right decision and was surprised that it took him this long.
That said, the quality of Ivy coaches has increased markedly over the years, and in facing Joe Scott, he'll be facing one of the best young coaches in the game, a coach who is probably better from a tactical and disciplinary standpoint (in terms of ball and clock management) than his predecessor, John Thompson III, who is a very good coach in his own right. So the challenges remain for Fran Dunphy.
For now.
There were great arguments both ways. On the "go" side, Dunphy would be returning to his alma mater as the savior of a once-proud program that has not had a winning season in 10 years and that has just undergone a major scandal. He would return as a conquering hero. On the "stay" side, the arguments were that he has a great gig going at Penn, where he has become an institution, and that he might have developed a serious case of "be careful what you wish for" had he taken the LaSalle job, for he might have realized that despite the increase in pay (which apparently Dunph insiders know he doesn't really need) and fortified Explorer recruiting budget, HS kids still would wonder why they would want to spend 4 years in north central Philadelphia, on a campus that doesn't compare to, say, nearby Villanova's (or even nearby St. Joe's). In short, the world has grown tremendously since Dunphy went to LaSalle, and he would have found that out in a hurry.
A suburban Philadelphia columnist, Mike Sielski, kept great tabs on this story, as much as any sportswriter could have given that Dunphy kept quiet during what had to be a tumultuous time making his decision. Penn alums probably persuaded him if not begged him to stay, and Penn's most prominent hoop fan, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, was among the callers. And getting Dunphy to stay at Penn might be among the Governor's top five accomplishments since he was elected. Click here to read the article that broke the news.
Penn, naturally, is thrilled that Dunphy has elected to remain. Click here for the statement from the University of Pennsylvania, which includes a quote from Penn A.D. Steve Bilsky. Apparently, they were singing "Kumbaya" at the Penn A.D.'s office after all, despite reports that Bilsky, a former Penn hoops star when Penn was a top 10 team, and Dunphy (who played against Bilsky), didn't get along. Perhaps, in the end, business considerations outweighed the personal. And, of course, Ed Rendell is quite the charmer. One of the best.
So now LaSalle has to focus on hiring a new coach. Click here for my post on who I think they should consider going after, now that three coaches (Fran Dunphy, Fran O'Hanlon and Joe Mihalich) have taken themselves out of the running. The cognoscenti say that Maine coach John Giannini may still be a viable alternative; he was the runner-up three years ago when Billy Hahn was hired. Let's wish the LaSalle administration good luck; they're going to need it.
So Fran Dunphy now has some peace of mind, at least in the short term. The LaSalle job under ordinary circumstances wouldn't have appealed to him except he went there and obviously has great feelings for the school. What he really has been looking for is a true step up, at a university in a major conference, with great facilities and a solid recruiting budget, just so that he can have a shot at the bigger time. His agreeing to stay at Penn probably isn't as much a concession that Penn is his ultimate resting spot as it is that he couldn't go home again to LaSalle, that his beloved alma mater wasn't the same institution and didn't hold the same appeal as it did when he was a HS senior making his college choice. My bet is that if opportunity knocks again at the "right" school, Fran Dunphy will want to answer his biggest "what if" question in his professional career. And leave Penn. Despite any entreaties from Ed Rendell. Or anyone else, for that matter.
Princeton's legendary coach, Pete Carril, flirted with other opportunities during his coaching career, perhaps wrestling with the same "what if" demon that has made its way into Dunphy's kitchen. Rumors abounded during Carril's time that he was in the running for jobs at Boston College, Fordham (where he would have doubled as the A.D.) and even Auburn (where he ultimately took himself out of the running). Carril, though, is a much different personality from Dunphy, and while he always probably wanted to know the answer to the "what if" question, he was (and is) a smart guy, and probably realized that his very direct, non-coddling style might not have played at the bigger-time schools during his prime. So he remained in central New Jersey, where he built an amazing record and a legacy that even Penn's beloved Dunphy will have difficultly surpassing (despite having the chance to win more titles than Carril did).
In a way, though, Pete Carril did get his "what if" question answered, because he knew his post-Princeton calling was as an NBA assistant, where he could be the consiglieri and draw up plays until the sun came up. And he has done that, putting the trademarked "Princeton offense" on the map and earning a place in basketball's Hall of Fame. And while the Sacramento Kings haven't won an NBA title since he has been affiliated with them, that they have gotten so far is testimony, in some part, to the basketball genius that Pete Carril is.
But Dunphy and Carril aren't a matched set; their careers only overlapped for 7 seasons (7 of Carrils' 30 or so at Princeton), and they aren't paired the way Affirmed and Alydar were, Foyt and Andretti or Chamberlain and Russell. There is no bad blood, no rivarly (in fact, Carril was one of the references who called his own alma mater, Lafayette, on behalf of Fran O'Hanlon when the former Dunphy assistant was applying for the Lafayette job). Both are great coaches. One enjoys status as an exalted senior statesman of the game, while the other one still wonders, a bit, what remains on his journey and where, if anywhere, his next stop will be.
Like a good coach, Fran Dunphy will work hard in the present, focusing on helping prepare his Penn Quakers to win yet another Ivy title under his tenure. And, in electing to remain in University City, he elects to face a very tough challenge -- a veteran Princeton team that won the title last year, that has almost everyone back, and that has a new coach with a great curriculum vitae of his own, Joe Scott, the Princeton alum who might get nominated for college hoops sainthood himself one day for the miracle he worked at Air Force.
That's a big enough challenge in and of itself, and Fran Dunphy will have fun tackling it. In early February he'll be in the thick of the Ivy race, instead of waiting for his LaSalle season to end quickly so he can hit the recruiting trail and get some players. He'll be grateful he stayed. I think he made the right decision and was surprised that it took him this long.
That said, the quality of Ivy coaches has increased markedly over the years, and in facing Joe Scott, he'll be facing one of the best young coaches in the game, a coach who is probably better from a tactical and disciplinary standpoint (in terms of ball and clock management) than his predecessor, John Thompson III, who is a very good coach in his own right. So the challenges remain for Fran Dunphy.
For now.
Friday, August 13, 2004
Bumblers, Stumblers, Humblers and the Just Plain Good
As the headline suggests, there are many topics to talk about today, so let's get to it.
As for the humbler, proper grammar suggests that "more humble" might be the better term. Let's look at two guys who aren't getting a ton of attention this year but who deserve it: Jason Schmidt of the SF Giants and Mark Shapiro of the Cleveland Indians. The former is the best pitcher in the NL and perhaps in all of baseball, and he gets almost no publicity because a) he plays on the West Coast and b) his teammate Barry Bonds might be the best position player in the history of the game. But Jason Schmidt is 15-4, and he's the favorite to win the NL Cy Young Award. Shapiro is the GM of the Indians. He replaced John Hart, now in Texas, and had the misfortune of presiding over the dismantling of the teams from the late 90's. Well, guess what? He's a builder too. The Indians are fighting for the lead in the AL Central, and if they had a good closer, well, they might be in the lead. Shapiro has done an excellent job.
As for the stumbler, well, all I'll do is point to The Smoking Gun's post on Donald Sterling, the owner of one of the worst franchises in the history of modern sports, the Los Angeles Clippers (Note: This is not for readers under the age of 18). Click here and read about Mr. Sterling's salacious extracurricular activities. Come to think of it, since that type of stuff now is illegal as far as NCAA recruiting is concerned (click here for my post on that), perhaps the Clippers' management should check with their "The Donald" about non-cash inducements to free-agent recruits. Actually, it's rather sad that this whole thing became public, but perhaps this is one reason why The Clipper Donald has not paid as much attention to his hoops investment as he should have over the years.
Another humbler, well, is that Mike & Mike in the Morning (on ESPN Radio) form the best sports talk radio team in the country, bar none. They will host a show at 8 p.m. tonight on ESPN, and you should check it out. Mike Greenberg is the very knowledgeable straight man, and Mike Golic is the well-informed former pro athlete. Why humbler? Because they know their stuff and are nice about it, which is more than you can say for most big-city talk radio sports hosts, including the famous duo in NYC whose knowledge is great but whose sense of self-esteem couldn't fit into an ESPN studio.
Finally, I don't know whether this belongs in the bumbler category, but I wonder about all of the commercialism that is attached to the Olympics. I suppose I'm okay with the athletes attaching their celebrity to ad campaigns, and I do hope that rowers and archers get the big bucks along with the folks that draw the ratings -- the swimmers, hoopsters and track stars -- but I am realistic that they will not. I know that it's an unfair world, and that typically the revenue sports stars (in this case, that means the athletes who appear in prime time and whose sports attract the biggest ad dollars) will get the lion's share of the bucks. Perhaps that's okay. But what troubles me is the extent to which talented women athletes are trying to sell sex appeal as a means to make more money or gain more notoriety. Yes, Amy Acuff looks really fit (you can scroll around the web to take a look), but is she cheapening her accomplishments by going to these lengths to get exposure? Somehow, I think that the athletes who are trying to market their sex appeal (as opposed to their accomplishments, and I confess that there can be a fine line at times) , most of whom are women, are tarnishing their hard-earned reputations as world-class athletes.
It's like a friend of mine who is a former professional athlete used to say: "Win something, then pop off." Or, in this case, take it off.
As for the humbler, proper grammar suggests that "more humble" might be the better term. Let's look at two guys who aren't getting a ton of attention this year but who deserve it: Jason Schmidt of the SF Giants and Mark Shapiro of the Cleveland Indians. The former is the best pitcher in the NL and perhaps in all of baseball, and he gets almost no publicity because a) he plays on the West Coast and b) his teammate Barry Bonds might be the best position player in the history of the game. But Jason Schmidt is 15-4, and he's the favorite to win the NL Cy Young Award. Shapiro is the GM of the Indians. He replaced John Hart, now in Texas, and had the misfortune of presiding over the dismantling of the teams from the late 90's. Well, guess what? He's a builder too. The Indians are fighting for the lead in the AL Central, and if they had a good closer, well, they might be in the lead. Shapiro has done an excellent job.
As for the stumbler, well, all I'll do is point to The Smoking Gun's post on Donald Sterling, the owner of one of the worst franchises in the history of modern sports, the Los Angeles Clippers (Note: This is not for readers under the age of 18). Click here and read about Mr. Sterling's salacious extracurricular activities. Come to think of it, since that type of stuff now is illegal as far as NCAA recruiting is concerned (click here for my post on that), perhaps the Clippers' management should check with their "The Donald" about non-cash inducements to free-agent recruits. Actually, it's rather sad that this whole thing became public, but perhaps this is one reason why The Clipper Donald has not paid as much attention to his hoops investment as he should have over the years.
Another humbler, well, is that Mike & Mike in the Morning (on ESPN Radio) form the best sports talk radio team in the country, bar none. They will host a show at 8 p.m. tonight on ESPN, and you should check it out. Mike Greenberg is the very knowledgeable straight man, and Mike Golic is the well-informed former pro athlete. Why humbler? Because they know their stuff and are nice about it, which is more than you can say for most big-city talk radio sports hosts, including the famous duo in NYC whose knowledge is great but whose sense of self-esteem couldn't fit into an ESPN studio.
Finally, I don't know whether this belongs in the bumbler category, but I wonder about all of the commercialism that is attached to the Olympics. I suppose I'm okay with the athletes attaching their celebrity to ad campaigns, and I do hope that rowers and archers get the big bucks along with the folks that draw the ratings -- the swimmers, hoopsters and track stars -- but I am realistic that they will not. I know that it's an unfair world, and that typically the revenue sports stars (in this case, that means the athletes who appear in prime time and whose sports attract the biggest ad dollars) will get the lion's share of the bucks. Perhaps that's okay. But what troubles me is the extent to which talented women athletes are trying to sell sex appeal as a means to make more money or gain more notoriety. Yes, Amy Acuff looks really fit (you can scroll around the web to take a look), but is she cheapening her accomplishments by going to these lengths to get exposure? Somehow, I think that the athletes who are trying to market their sex appeal (as opposed to their accomplishments, and I confess that there can be a fine line at times) , most of whom are women, are tarnishing their hard-earned reputations as world-class athletes.
It's like a friend of mine who is a former professional athlete used to say: "Win something, then pop off." Or, in this case, take it off.
Thursday, August 12, 2004
Patience Pays off for Ronald Curry
How long ago was it that Ronald Curry was everyone's all-American? He was one of the country's top football recruits as a QB out of Hampton (Va) HS, and he was one of the top 10 basketball recruits as a PG. He went to North Carolina, because he was told he could play both sports. The Heels let him do so, but Curry did not find success in either sport. Yes, he started at QB, and yes at one point he started in 21 straight games as a PG, but he starred in neither. Curry fell victim to the Darwinism of major-college sports, namely, that in Division I-A you cannot play two well. Perhaps you can play two sports or even three in Division III, but in Division I-A the two-sport player is fighting against PGs who hoop year round and QBs who train as QBs year round. The result, even the most gifted of athletes, of which Curry is one, would struggle. The one-sport only kids are that good.
So Ronald Curry came out of HS figuring he would earn the huge bucks in either the NBA or the NFL, and he came out of college more of a suspect than anything else. As this article in the SF Examiner indicates, his road to a solid professional career has been rocky at best. First, he struggled at QB, then he returned kicks and played WR, then he got cut, and then re-signed. Or something like that. Not exactly the resume you'd have expected to see from Curry when he was such a blue-chip prospect coming out of HS.
But he didn't quit. He kept at it, and that's where this story is so great. Because Raiders coach Norv Turner just named Curry the team's #3 WR behind the fleet (and healthy) Jerry Porter and the all-time best, Jerry Rice. Turner probably cut Tim Brown, another future Hall of Famer, to make room for Curry, and, if Curry excels in his new role, he'll be the odds-on favorite to replace Rice when Rice retires (and he's expected to retire after this season). Sounds like a nice career path for a young wideout.
It's been a long, hard road for Ronald Curry. It has been a far easier road for his UNC hoops and gridiron teammate, Julius Peppers, but Peppers clearly was a football player first, and he hooped for the varsity because they found him banging with the recruited hoopsters in pick-up games, liked what they saw and needed some muscle inside. Peppers wasn't an NBA-level talent, more like a Tony Gonzalez on the hardwood (and Gonzalez, you will recall, could ball -- he played a mean forward for Cal) than, say, Rasheed Wallace. In other words, Peppers hooped for one reason that Dr. Naismith created basketball in the first place -- to stay in shape and have some fun. And now Peppers is a start DE for a Super Bowl contender, the Carolina Panthers. Just as everyone predicted he would be.
It's hard to say what people predicted for Ronald Curry after his senior year at Carolina. I'm sure that many probably said, "great athlete, just not good enough in either sport." And, for a while, it looked like they would be right.
But Ronald Curry was patient, didn't listen to the doubters, worked harder, and now his patience is being rewarded. So the book on Ronald Curry now has tons of promise. Perhaps it started out slow, but it could give all of those who read it a whopping finish.
Patience and potential. Not a bad combination.
So Ronald Curry came out of HS figuring he would earn the huge bucks in either the NBA or the NFL, and he came out of college more of a suspect than anything else. As this article in the SF Examiner indicates, his road to a solid professional career has been rocky at best. First, he struggled at QB, then he returned kicks and played WR, then he got cut, and then re-signed. Or something like that. Not exactly the resume you'd have expected to see from Curry when he was such a blue-chip prospect coming out of HS.
But he didn't quit. He kept at it, and that's where this story is so great. Because Raiders coach Norv Turner just named Curry the team's #3 WR behind the fleet (and healthy) Jerry Porter and the all-time best, Jerry Rice. Turner probably cut Tim Brown, another future Hall of Famer, to make room for Curry, and, if Curry excels in his new role, he'll be the odds-on favorite to replace Rice when Rice retires (and he's expected to retire after this season). Sounds like a nice career path for a young wideout.
It's been a long, hard road for Ronald Curry. It has been a far easier road for his UNC hoops and gridiron teammate, Julius Peppers, but Peppers clearly was a football player first, and he hooped for the varsity because they found him banging with the recruited hoopsters in pick-up games, liked what they saw and needed some muscle inside. Peppers wasn't an NBA-level talent, more like a Tony Gonzalez on the hardwood (and Gonzalez, you will recall, could ball -- he played a mean forward for Cal) than, say, Rasheed Wallace. In other words, Peppers hooped for one reason that Dr. Naismith created basketball in the first place -- to stay in shape and have some fun. And now Peppers is a start DE for a Super Bowl contender, the Carolina Panthers. Just as everyone predicted he would be.
It's hard to say what people predicted for Ronald Curry after his senior year at Carolina. I'm sure that many probably said, "great athlete, just not good enough in either sport." And, for a while, it looked like they would be right.
But Ronald Curry was patient, didn't listen to the doubters, worked harder, and now his patience is being rewarded. So the book on Ronald Curry now has tons of promise. Perhaps it started out slow, but it could give all of those who read it a whopping finish.
Patience and potential. Not a bad combination.
Marcus Vick on the Road Back
As you know, I wrote a piece recently praising Virginia Tech officials for compelling Marcus Vick to withdraw from school so that he could get his act together. I thought at the time that Virginia Tech showed considerable wisdom, for while the Hokies aspire to be a football power, they clearly proved that they were looking out for the welfare of this talented young man (and their own community) first -- at the expense of depth on their football roster. Click here for that post. This suspension came at a time when the University of Miami admitted LB Willie Williams, he of the long pre-college arrest record. I was critical of Miami for admitting Williams, and you can click here for that post. The Hurricanes seemed more concerned about the depth of the football program than the depth of the university.
As you can see from the article in today's USA Today, Marcus Vick has taken responsibility for his actions and has apologized to the Va Tech community. He also indicated that he'll do whatever it takes to get into the good graces of Va Tech.
Good news from a kid who seems determined to get his life back on the right track. Football coaches frequently talk about how the teams that are well-schooled in the fundamentals fare the best. That probably holds true off the field as well as on. Marcus Vick has always known that there are no free passes on the football field, and he's learned the hard way that there are no free passes off it. If he can remember that, several years from now you'll be talking about another fleet, strong-armed quarterback named Vick at the time the Mel Kipers of the world talk about QB prospects for the NFL draft.
Good luck, Marcus Vick.
As you can see from the article in today's USA Today, Marcus Vick has taken responsibility for his actions and has apologized to the Va Tech community. He also indicated that he'll do whatever it takes to get into the good graces of Va Tech.
Good news from a kid who seems determined to get his life back on the right track. Football coaches frequently talk about how the teams that are well-schooled in the fundamentals fare the best. That probably holds true off the field as well as on. Marcus Vick has always known that there are no free passes on the football field, and he's learned the hard way that there are no free passes off it. If he can remember that, several years from now you'll be talking about another fleet, strong-armed quarterback named Vick at the time the Mel Kipers of the world talk about QB prospects for the NFL draft.
Good luck, Marcus Vick.
How Do Traded Ballplayers Move During the Season?
Did you ever wonder about that? I gleaned a little bit from Steve Fireovid's book, "26th Man", in which the former Padres pitcher described how he was always on the cusp of the majors and how he handled the shuttle from AAA to the big league. But that book was more about being a 26th man on a 25-man roster than addressing the practicalities of moving from one city to another during the season, when you're traded (or called up) on a Monday and are expected to be in a city 2800 miles away the next night and start.
How do ballplayers do this? How does Nomar Garciaparra wind up his affairs in Boston and move his house, his essentials, to Chicago, in time to live reasonably comfortably? And how does he get a place to live in Chicago? Where does he live? How does he know?
My guess is that basketball players, who have posses, have it easier, at least those who can rely upon their posses to help clean up their affairs, pack, etc., in a responsible fashion and not turn the well-paid hoopsters crib into a party palace from between the date of the trade and the end of the season. Baseball players don't have posses, or, at least, they're not written about the way they are in basketball. But all kidding aside, for those of us who have moved, even within the areas in which we live, moving is a huge hassle. Even if you're just renting a place. Even if for a short while.
I believe that Roberto Alomar lived at the hotel that is attached to the SkyDome while he played for the Blue Jays, and I gather that Manny Ramirez lives in the Ritz Carlton in Boston during the season. Many of these guys make such gobs of money that they can afford to rent a nice place, even on a short-term basis. But still, there is a question of getting your stuff and mail and all of that. And, if you're on the periphery of your professional league and get traded and don't have the type of money that can buy you the ultimate in conveniences, what do you do then?
Do teams have staff members who help the newly traded players get acclimated? Does the players' union offer any assistance? What does the checklist look like? You get the call from the GM, who tells you that you've been traded from Los Angeles to Florida. You get a call from the Florida GM, welcoming you to Florida during hurricane season, and asking you whether you can get to Milwaukee from Colorado (where your former team was playing) to start in left field the next night. Your pregnant wife and two year-old son are in Los Angeles, in your house. What the heck goes on in your mind other than you have to be in Milwaukee, on little sleep, getting there in the wee hours so that you can face Ben Sheets in his own ballpark.
Suppose you're a rookie, or you don't make the $8 million a year than some of your teammates do, but that you're closer to the minimum, which is still more than most Americans make in, say, a five-year if not ten-year span. How do you handle all of this and still hit Ben Sheets' heat?
My guess is that a combination of things happens. Your agent gets involved, your new team helps you find new digs, and either there are independent businesses out there or the players' union has hired some kind of service to help players with this sort of thing (if there isn't one, write the business plan and start the business. It could be lucrative). The union seems to have covered everything in the collective bargaining agreement, but how do you clean up your affairs in the other city? Wait for an off day? Wait until the end of the season? How do you at least get your clothes and some personal items to your hotel room at your hotel in Milwaukee, be it the fanciest place in town (courtesy of something that exists in the collective bargaining agreement) or Extended Stay America? What about your car? (You can always buy the Game Boy or XBox at a Circuit City near you).
Precipitious moves could be disruptive for many people. I suppose the difference is that baseball (and basketball) players are younger, more resilient, less settled in a community, they might not live full-time in the city in which they are playing and, because they're ballplayers, they've been conditioned to be traded and to move around (the minors certainly conditions them to move around).
Still, it cannot be easy, even if it happens with some frequency during every baseball season.
Dave LaPoint, you who at one time in your career had been traded so much that you were teammates with 25% of everyone on a Major League roster, where are you now that we need you?
How do ballplayers do this? How does Nomar Garciaparra wind up his affairs in Boston and move his house, his essentials, to Chicago, in time to live reasonably comfortably? And how does he get a place to live in Chicago? Where does he live? How does he know?
My guess is that basketball players, who have posses, have it easier, at least those who can rely upon their posses to help clean up their affairs, pack, etc., in a responsible fashion and not turn the well-paid hoopsters crib into a party palace from between the date of the trade and the end of the season. Baseball players don't have posses, or, at least, they're not written about the way they are in basketball. But all kidding aside, for those of us who have moved, even within the areas in which we live, moving is a huge hassle. Even if you're just renting a place. Even if for a short while.
I believe that Roberto Alomar lived at the hotel that is attached to the SkyDome while he played for the Blue Jays, and I gather that Manny Ramirez lives in the Ritz Carlton in Boston during the season. Many of these guys make such gobs of money that they can afford to rent a nice place, even on a short-term basis. But still, there is a question of getting your stuff and mail and all of that. And, if you're on the periphery of your professional league and get traded and don't have the type of money that can buy you the ultimate in conveniences, what do you do then?
Do teams have staff members who help the newly traded players get acclimated? Does the players' union offer any assistance? What does the checklist look like? You get the call from the GM, who tells you that you've been traded from Los Angeles to Florida. You get a call from the Florida GM, welcoming you to Florida during hurricane season, and asking you whether you can get to Milwaukee from Colorado (where your former team was playing) to start in left field the next night. Your pregnant wife and two year-old son are in Los Angeles, in your house. What the heck goes on in your mind other than you have to be in Milwaukee, on little sleep, getting there in the wee hours so that you can face Ben Sheets in his own ballpark.
Suppose you're a rookie, or you don't make the $8 million a year than some of your teammates do, but that you're closer to the minimum, which is still more than most Americans make in, say, a five-year if not ten-year span. How do you handle all of this and still hit Ben Sheets' heat?
My guess is that a combination of things happens. Your agent gets involved, your new team helps you find new digs, and either there are independent businesses out there or the players' union has hired some kind of service to help players with this sort of thing (if there isn't one, write the business plan and start the business. It could be lucrative). The union seems to have covered everything in the collective bargaining agreement, but how do you clean up your affairs in the other city? Wait for an off day? Wait until the end of the season? How do you at least get your clothes and some personal items to your hotel room at your hotel in Milwaukee, be it the fanciest place in town (courtesy of something that exists in the collective bargaining agreement) or Extended Stay America? What about your car? (You can always buy the Game Boy or XBox at a Circuit City near you).
Precipitious moves could be disruptive for many people. I suppose the difference is that baseball (and basketball) players are younger, more resilient, less settled in a community, they might not live full-time in the city in which they are playing and, because they're ballplayers, they've been conditioned to be traded and to move around (the minors certainly conditions them to move around).
Still, it cannot be easy, even if it happens with some frequency during every baseball season.
Dave LaPoint, you who at one time in your career had been traded so much that you were teammates with 25% of everyone on a Major League roster, where are you now that we need you?
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
The Influence of Shoe Companies
Dave Sez has another post about the influence of the sneaker companies on young kids, so check it out. He has written a lot of interesting stuff on the topic of shoe companies and particulary Sonny Vaccaro, and you can pick out his recent posts on those topics at his blog site.
I haven't investigated the influence of the shoe companies enough to form opinions, but I will try to do so in the near future. One thing that troubled me a couple of years ago was a comment a prospect made that he wasn't interested in a certain university because it wasn't a "Nike" school. One observation I did make in the "Blue Ribbon" guide going back several years was that when Blue Ribbon highlighted say the top 50 HS seniors, in their photographs the kids were wearing either adidas or Nike logos. It does make you wonder whether, when these kids go to college, they are becoming amateurs or whether they already were and nothing has changed. And why the loyalty to a shoe company's logo?
That a HS senior would pick his college because of its hoops team's affiliation with a shoe company says a lot about the kid and whether he should be in college in the first place. A star HS b-ball player should pick his school based upon the hoops coach, whether he'll get sufficient playing time and develop appropriate, and, of course, lest we forget, whether he can get a good education.
And, yes, of course, you need comfortable shoes, because as the reflexologists will tell you the key to good health is through your feet. Somehow, some way, I think that a major college athletic program could accommodate the footwear needs of any scholarship player regardless of the logo on the shoe. That shouldn't be too difficult, given the resources the DI programs give to their revenue-generating sports.
But since when do you pick a college because of your feet?
Because, lest we really forget, it's the colleges who contract with companies to provide scoreboards, bleachers, basketball floors, athletic tape and uniforms, because it's (or at least it should be) the colleges that run the show.
And not the other way around.
I haven't investigated the influence of the shoe companies enough to form opinions, but I will try to do so in the near future. One thing that troubled me a couple of years ago was a comment a prospect made that he wasn't interested in a certain university because it wasn't a "Nike" school. One observation I did make in the "Blue Ribbon" guide going back several years was that when Blue Ribbon highlighted say the top 50 HS seniors, in their photographs the kids were wearing either adidas or Nike logos. It does make you wonder whether, when these kids go to college, they are becoming amateurs or whether they already were and nothing has changed. And why the loyalty to a shoe company's logo?
That a HS senior would pick his college because of its hoops team's affiliation with a shoe company says a lot about the kid and whether he should be in college in the first place. A star HS b-ball player should pick his school based upon the hoops coach, whether he'll get sufficient playing time and develop appropriate, and, of course, lest we forget, whether he can get a good education.
And, yes, of course, you need comfortable shoes, because as the reflexologists will tell you the key to good health is through your feet. Somehow, some way, I think that a major college athletic program could accommodate the footwear needs of any scholarship player regardless of the logo on the shoe. That shouldn't be too difficult, given the resources the DI programs give to their revenue-generating sports.
But since when do you pick a college because of your feet?
Because, lest we really forget, it's the colleges who contract with companies to provide scoreboards, bleachers, basketball floors, athletic tape and uniforms, because it's (or at least it should be) the colleges that run the show.
And not the other way around.
Matt Leinart, USC QB and Heisman Hopeful, Has a Blog.
You can check it out by clicking here or checking out my links on the left-hand column of my blog page. It's basically a diary of the USC junior QB and Heisman hopeful, and it's a decent read for a 21 year-old QB from USC with virtually only football on his mind. Don't expect great literature here -- Leinart is just a kid -- but some of the insights are interesting and I give him credit for sharing his thoughts with the public. That a USC QB has thoughts might be startling for Stanford, Cal and of course UCLA alums (who refuse to give USC credit for anything), but remember, it was Pat Haden, a USC QB, who was a Rhodes Scholar. And the names of former Stanford, Cal and UCLA QBs who were Rhodes Scholars were? So stop any sophomoric debates/jokes about the intra-California rivalries, and check out the blog when you get a chance.
Where Have You Gone, Pat Croce?
About 3 years ago, the Philadelphia 76ers were almost on top of the world. They got to the NBA Finals, beat the Lakers in L.A. in Game 1 and almost stunned the Lakers in Game 2, failing to take advantage of a key fact -- they got Shaquille O'Neal to foul out of the game. Their star, Allen Iverson, was named the NBA's MVP, and their coach, of course, was Larry Brown. After winning Game 1, however, they lost 4 straight. It was the Lakers who partied in Philadelphia after Game 5, not the hometown team.
Atop the 76ers' organization then was a colorful character named Pat Croce, perhaps the most enthusiastic man in the Western Hemisphere. He used to move around the First Union (now Wachovia Center), dressed in black, high-fiving fans, giving off positive energy and feeding off theirs. He was the President of the 76ers and referred to himself as the owner, even though he owned a small percentage of the team (Comcast owned the rest) and even though he reported to Ed Snider, founding owner of the Philadelphia Flyers (a team which Comcast also owns), who led Comcast's sports operations. There is no question that Croce created a very positive buzz in Philadelphia about the 76ers. He was a man of the people, having gotten his start from humble beginnings as a personal trainer. He ultimately built a chain of rehab centers that he sold to NovaCare, making him a multi-millionaire in the process.
But after that almost magical season, Pat Croce wanted a promotion, or so the story went. He wanted to replace Ed Snider, and Ed Snider wasn't exactly ready to go. And Ed Snider probably wasn't pleased about Pat Croce's ambition, which would have been at his expense. And Ed Snider didn't get to his perch in the sporting world by a nice guy, either, and at the end of the day it was Pat Croce getting the gate.
Without an exit strategy.
He appeared as a commentor on the NBA for NBC, but that gig didn't last too long. He's knowledgeable about things that are more for a Tony Robbins-type presentation than hard NBA analysis, and not being a stat geek or a former player or coach, he was out of his element. He subsequently surfaced as a commentator for Slam Ball (which to many defies description and is hardly worth watching), he's published two books, and now he'll appear for NBC in Athens as the color commentator for Tae Kwon Do (Croce is an accomplished martial artist). Once he returns from Athens, he'll host a reality show (premise unknown to me) in the fall.
It's fair to say that outside of finding more funds and cap room for great players, a team president doesn't really get to become that well known and probably doesn't make that much of a difference, except by finding a good head coach and the funds for good players. So the tough question is, how much of a difference did Pat Croce make for the Philadelphia 76ers? If you measure the 76ers' performance after Croce left, you could argue that he helped create some form of momentum during his tenure that got them to the NBA Finals, because without Croce the 76ers haven't been very good. That analysis is insufficient though, because, again, teams' fortunes don't rise and fall with the comings and goings of club presidents. Croce did create a very positive atmosphere, and that will be his legacy. But he wasn't a basketball man, in the end, and what transpired on the court largely was a function of the coach and the players, and not the president/part owner. Yes, he did realize a mistake after he hired Johnny Davis to coach and Brad Greenberg as his GM in his first year (the team during the Answer's rookie season was awful), and he rectified it quickly by canning them and bringing in Billy King and Larry Brown. But that decision probably was the only significant one he made that had any basketball impact.
So here he is now, commenting, hosting, and, well, being on the periphery. It must be driving him nuts, because Pat Croce has defined himself previously for being at the core of whatever he does. And he hasn't been at the core of anything that has given him a public face, which he likes, for quite a while.
F. Scott Fitzgerald once wrote that "There are no second acts in American life."
Pat Croce has already had two -- with his rehab centers and with the 76ers.
The question is whether he will get a third, or, more fairly, whether he even wants one.
Atop the 76ers' organization then was a colorful character named Pat Croce, perhaps the most enthusiastic man in the Western Hemisphere. He used to move around the First Union (now Wachovia Center), dressed in black, high-fiving fans, giving off positive energy and feeding off theirs. He was the President of the 76ers and referred to himself as the owner, even though he owned a small percentage of the team (Comcast owned the rest) and even though he reported to Ed Snider, founding owner of the Philadelphia Flyers (a team which Comcast also owns), who led Comcast's sports operations. There is no question that Croce created a very positive buzz in Philadelphia about the 76ers. He was a man of the people, having gotten his start from humble beginnings as a personal trainer. He ultimately built a chain of rehab centers that he sold to NovaCare, making him a multi-millionaire in the process.
But after that almost magical season, Pat Croce wanted a promotion, or so the story went. He wanted to replace Ed Snider, and Ed Snider wasn't exactly ready to go. And Ed Snider probably wasn't pleased about Pat Croce's ambition, which would have been at his expense. And Ed Snider didn't get to his perch in the sporting world by a nice guy, either, and at the end of the day it was Pat Croce getting the gate.
Without an exit strategy.
He appeared as a commentor on the NBA for NBC, but that gig didn't last too long. He's knowledgeable about things that are more for a Tony Robbins-type presentation than hard NBA analysis, and not being a stat geek or a former player or coach, he was out of his element. He subsequently surfaced as a commentator for Slam Ball (which to many defies description and is hardly worth watching), he's published two books, and now he'll appear for NBC in Athens as the color commentator for Tae Kwon Do (Croce is an accomplished martial artist). Once he returns from Athens, he'll host a reality show (premise unknown to me) in the fall.
It's fair to say that outside of finding more funds and cap room for great players, a team president doesn't really get to become that well known and probably doesn't make that much of a difference, except by finding a good head coach and the funds for good players. So the tough question is, how much of a difference did Pat Croce make for the Philadelphia 76ers? If you measure the 76ers' performance after Croce left, you could argue that he helped create some form of momentum during his tenure that got them to the NBA Finals, because without Croce the 76ers haven't been very good. That analysis is insufficient though, because, again, teams' fortunes don't rise and fall with the comings and goings of club presidents. Croce did create a very positive atmosphere, and that will be his legacy. But he wasn't a basketball man, in the end, and what transpired on the court largely was a function of the coach and the players, and not the president/part owner. Yes, he did realize a mistake after he hired Johnny Davis to coach and Brad Greenberg as his GM in his first year (the team during the Answer's rookie season was awful), and he rectified it quickly by canning them and bringing in Billy King and Larry Brown. But that decision probably was the only significant one he made that had any basketball impact.
So here he is now, commenting, hosting, and, well, being on the periphery. It must be driving him nuts, because Pat Croce has defined himself previously for being at the core of whatever he does. And he hasn't been at the core of anything that has given him a public face, which he likes, for quite a while.
F. Scott Fitzgerald once wrote that "There are no second acts in American life."
Pat Croce has already had two -- with his rehab centers and with the 76ers.
The question is whether he will get a third, or, more fairly, whether he even wants one.
Is it Really the Case?
The NBA cognoscenti used to joke that the favored NBA team would be Shaq with whatever four other guys you put out there with him. In Miami, at least, that adage will get tested somewhat, as the cupboard is relatively bare with the exception of star in the making Dwayne Wade and Eddie Jones. Check out the Heat's roster and figure out who will be the other 5 players in an eight-man rotation. It's hard to do.
The same holds true for the Houston Rockets, who have cobbled together a roster of suspects, old hands and prospects to play alongside Yao Ming and Tracy McGrady. They just generated some media attention on what had to be a slow news day when they announced that they signed a former Fla. State backcourt -- Bob Sura and Charlie Ward, who last played in Tallahassee in 1994. Those are not impressive signings, as Houston now has from among Ward, Tyronn Lue and Reece Gaines to choose as their PG. They must be hoping that Gaines can emerge, because Ward and Lue are not first-string PGs, period. And the rest of the roster isn't going to wow anyone either. After Yao and T-Mac, try to pick the other 6 players to fill out Jeff Van Gundy's eight-man rotation. Again, it's hard to do.
Which means that the Van Gundy brothers both have unique challenges in forging championship teams. It may be that with Shaq and Wade Stan Van Gundy doesn't need much else, and I'm sure the Rockets are making a similar bet with Yao and McGrady.
It should be interesting to watch, and if both teams succeed they'll think they've created an even newer formula for success than the one Mark Cuban theorized based upon the Pistons' championship (which in essence was that you need 3 6'10" guys with long arms who can score inside and outside on the front line and play defense, and you'll win the title). That formula will be that you need two superstar-class players and then a cast of unselfish others who will keep on fueling the star system, who are good fundamental players, and who can hit the open shot when needed.
But, of course, that formula is not new at all. It's the recipe that Phil Jackson honed to perfection in Los Angeles. Remember that Shaq did play alongside with a guy named Kobe and won three titles.
Some coaches look for the next Michael Jordan, but I have the feeling that the Van Gundys will be looking for the next Derek Fischers, Robert Horrys, Rick Foxes, Brian Shaws to help get them to the next level.
Maybe it won't prove to be as hard as it sounds, as there are more of the Fischers, Horrys, Foxes and Shaws out there than Shaqs and Yaos. Lots more. But check out their teams rosters and see if you can find them.
It's not as easy as it looks, is it?
The same holds true for the Houston Rockets, who have cobbled together a roster of suspects, old hands and prospects to play alongside Yao Ming and Tracy McGrady. They just generated some media attention on what had to be a slow news day when they announced that they signed a former Fla. State backcourt -- Bob Sura and Charlie Ward, who last played in Tallahassee in 1994. Those are not impressive signings, as Houston now has from among Ward, Tyronn Lue and Reece Gaines to choose as their PG. They must be hoping that Gaines can emerge, because Ward and Lue are not first-string PGs, period. And the rest of the roster isn't going to wow anyone either. After Yao and T-Mac, try to pick the other 6 players to fill out Jeff Van Gundy's eight-man rotation. Again, it's hard to do.
Which means that the Van Gundy brothers both have unique challenges in forging championship teams. It may be that with Shaq and Wade Stan Van Gundy doesn't need much else, and I'm sure the Rockets are making a similar bet with Yao and McGrady.
It should be interesting to watch, and if both teams succeed they'll think they've created an even newer formula for success than the one Mark Cuban theorized based upon the Pistons' championship (which in essence was that you need 3 6'10" guys with long arms who can score inside and outside on the front line and play defense, and you'll win the title). That formula will be that you need two superstar-class players and then a cast of unselfish others who will keep on fueling the star system, who are good fundamental players, and who can hit the open shot when needed.
But, of course, that formula is not new at all. It's the recipe that Phil Jackson honed to perfection in Los Angeles. Remember that Shaq did play alongside with a guy named Kobe and won three titles.
Some coaches look for the next Michael Jordan, but I have the feeling that the Van Gundys will be looking for the next Derek Fischers, Robert Horrys, Rick Foxes, Brian Shaws to help get them to the next level.
Maybe it won't prove to be as hard as it sounds, as there are more of the Fischers, Horrys, Foxes and Shaws out there than Shaqs and Yaos. Lots more. But check out their teams rosters and see if you can find them.
It's not as easy as it looks, is it?
Monday, August 09, 2004
Around the Horn
Various topics of interest today.
1. Hoops. Dave Sez has a nice post on an article from the Greensboro newspaper about coaching trees in the ACC. Fun stuff and a good read.
2. Olympics. Was it a Pyrrhic victory or a Sisyphian exercise? No matter, two Greek baseball players were suspended from the Olympics because their blood tests revealed that they had taken banned substances. What makes it worse is that they are not Greek Greeks, but Olympic Greeks, which, translated, means citizens of another country (in this case the U.S.) who summoned up their Greek ancestry in order to get into the Olympics. I'm sure they had their reasons for wanting to get into the Olympics as badly as they did, but now they look a bit foolish. Read all about it in USA Today (which will not change its name to Greece Today in order to honor the Olympics). This is kind of a sad story all around. (It does remind me, though, of a story when I went to day camp and they staged an Olympics, with different groups playing different countries, and this arrogant counselor, a college kid, told people that he was really Greek and that his name was something like "Ari Papadopolous" and they had the kids changing, "We want Ari, Ari Papadopolous", and many of us were really thinking, "who is this schmuck?" He didn't look or sound Greek to any of us, but boy you should have seen his peacock act when they called his (fake) name like that).
3. Baseball. Just when you think that Donald Fehr, Gene Orza, Bud Selig, Bob Depuy and Rob Manfred were sitting around the campire, making 'Smores, telling ghost stories and singing "Puff the Magic Dragon", the players' union now has a new cause, and it will be quite a dandy. Yes, this new issue is guaranteed to be the cause of a huge, public urination contest between the Lords of Baseball and the Union. The subject of the controversy: the Arizona Diamondbacks and their newly anointed CEO, soon-to-be-former player agent Jeff Moorad (once an associate of Leigh Steinberg). Moorad has enjoyed great success and has a big book of business. I'm drawing a blank as to who he represents, but he has represented some of the biggest names. Now, he's going over to the dark side, so thinks the union, which will examine the D-Backs' management situation very closely. I don't know all of the particulars, and, naturally, the union is concerned that Moorad might have a conflict of interest or reveal confidential information in his new role -- not only representing management, but being management. Somehow, I think that the sides should be able to agree upon the appropriate controls and procedures to ensure that Moorad doesn't use any information to his team's advantage and any player's disadvantage. Reasonable people should be able to agree, but the union and Major League Baseball aren't always reasonable with one another. And there's another wrinkle: the union naturally doesn't like management that much, but they probably hold player agents in only slightly higher esteem. The reason: agents can take and have taken advantage over the union membership, so the union more or less tolerates agents because they have to (and because they don't negotiate wages for their membership the way many unions do). Still, Moorad's joining the D-Backs gives the union something to fight about once again, and, given that they need to stay in bickering shape, the union will sharpen its jousting skills on this controversy if given the opportunity. Good luck to Jeff Moorad. Not only will you have the challenge of trying to rebuild a once-proud, now woeful franchise, but you'll also have to do it while fighting off the union. That's kind of like firefighters dodging bullets to put out a ten-alarm fire. Be careful what you wish for.
1. Hoops. Dave Sez has a nice post on an article from the Greensboro newspaper about coaching trees in the ACC. Fun stuff and a good read.
2. Olympics. Was it a Pyrrhic victory or a Sisyphian exercise? No matter, two Greek baseball players were suspended from the Olympics because their blood tests revealed that they had taken banned substances. What makes it worse is that they are not Greek Greeks, but Olympic Greeks, which, translated, means citizens of another country (in this case the U.S.) who summoned up their Greek ancestry in order to get into the Olympics. I'm sure they had their reasons for wanting to get into the Olympics as badly as they did, but now they look a bit foolish. Read all about it in USA Today (which will not change its name to Greece Today in order to honor the Olympics). This is kind of a sad story all around. (It does remind me, though, of a story when I went to day camp and they staged an Olympics, with different groups playing different countries, and this arrogant counselor, a college kid, told people that he was really Greek and that his name was something like "Ari Papadopolous" and they had the kids changing, "We want Ari, Ari Papadopolous", and many of us were really thinking, "who is this schmuck?" He didn't look or sound Greek to any of us, but boy you should have seen his peacock act when they called his (fake) name like that).
3. Baseball. Just when you think that Donald Fehr, Gene Orza, Bud Selig, Bob Depuy and Rob Manfred were sitting around the campire, making 'Smores, telling ghost stories and singing "Puff the Magic Dragon", the players' union now has a new cause, and it will be quite a dandy. Yes, this new issue is guaranteed to be the cause of a huge, public urination contest between the Lords of Baseball and the Union. The subject of the controversy: the Arizona Diamondbacks and their newly anointed CEO, soon-to-be-former player agent Jeff Moorad (once an associate of Leigh Steinberg). Moorad has enjoyed great success and has a big book of business. I'm drawing a blank as to who he represents, but he has represented some of the biggest names. Now, he's going over to the dark side, so thinks the union, which will examine the D-Backs' management situation very closely. I don't know all of the particulars, and, naturally, the union is concerned that Moorad might have a conflict of interest or reveal confidential information in his new role -- not only representing management, but being management. Somehow, I think that the sides should be able to agree upon the appropriate controls and procedures to ensure that Moorad doesn't use any information to his team's advantage and any player's disadvantage. Reasonable people should be able to agree, but the union and Major League Baseball aren't always reasonable with one another. And there's another wrinkle: the union naturally doesn't like management that much, but they probably hold player agents in only slightly higher esteem. The reason: agents can take and have taken advantage over the union membership, so the union more or less tolerates agents because they have to (and because they don't negotiate wages for their membership the way many unions do). Still, Moorad's joining the D-Backs gives the union something to fight about once again, and, given that they need to stay in bickering shape, the union will sharpen its jousting skills on this controversy if given the opportunity. Good luck to Jeff Moorad. Not only will you have the challenge of trying to rebuild a once-proud, now woeful franchise, but you'll also have to do it while fighting off the union. That's kind of like firefighters dodging bullets to put out a ten-alarm fire. Be careful what you wish for.
Sunday, August 08, 2004
Olympic Hoops, LaSalle, Philadelphia Eagles, Penn
No, this isn't a Karnak (or was it Carnac?) the Great riddle, just four topics to addres briefly on a Sunday morning.
1. U.S. Men's Basketball Team. A Peja-less Serbia-Montenegro team, the defending world champions, were just what the doctor ordered for the U.S. team. This is relatively old news, but I wanted to make the point that the reason so many of us came down so hard on U.S.A. Basketball is that we thought that outside Tim Duncan, Carlos Boozer and Amare Stoudemire, the other 9 guys are basically the same player at different sizes -- gifted, athletic slashers. I am still worried that in the Olympics Team USA will run into a hot-shooting, zone defending team that gives it fits. And, one game does not a trend make. Still, Larry Brown (and Stu Jackson for that matter) has to be happy about this convincing win. Certain pundits (drive-time radio types on local stations who don't like anything that Allen Iverson has become the face of) predict that this team won't win a medal. Perhaps they're prescient, but then riddle me this: name the three teams that will win the medals instead of Team U.S.A.? I don't think you can.
2. LaSalle Coaching Job. There's a good local Phila. area columnist named Tom Sielski who has reported that as part of the offer LaSalle made to Fran Dunphy, Dunphy would not have to report to the Athletic Director but would be reporting to someone else, presumably the university's president. If that's the case, say it ain't so -- both LaSalle and Fran Dunphy. LaSalle shouldn't let any coach rise about the authority of the athletic department. That sets an awful precedent. And, if Dunphy really has insisted upon it, then perhaps he isn't the absolutely great, magnanimous guy he has appeared to be. No coach should insist upon this type of reporting relationship, as no coach should be bigger than the school he is going to be a part of. If this is true, then it does make you wonder whether both Penn A.D. Steve Bilsky and LaSalle A.D. Tom Brennan are awful bosses or whether Fran Dunphy has a problem with working for anyone.
3. Philadelphia Eagles. How high are expectations in Philadelphia? Well, 25,000 people showed up at the Eagles' training camp in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, about 1 1/2 hours outside Philadelphia, this past Friday. One of the Eagles, whose name escapes me (it probably was DT Darwin Walker), said that the Eagles had more people at training camp this past Friday than the Arizona Cardinals did at regular-season games when he was with the Cardinals. 25,000 people? Expectations are high in Philadelphia. As they are in Baltimore, where approximately 16,000 people showed up one day last week to watch the Ravens practice at the college once known as Western Maryland, which is not all that close to Baltimore. Expectations are high in Crab City as well.
4. The Penn Coaching Job. Should Fran Dunphy leave, the pressure will be on Penn A.D. to make the right choice in a tight time frame. One poster commented that Penn should go with top assistant Gil Jackson, and it's clear that Coach Jackson has paid his dues, bided his time and has made great contributions to the Penn program over the years. The last time Penn anointed a long-time college assistant was, well, in 1989, when they tapped Tom Schneider's top aide, a guy named Dunphy, to take over the top spot (Schneider bolted for Loyola (Md), where he could coach at a scholarship school). The comparisons between 2004 and 1989 are interesting, because Jackson has assisted a (much) more successful coach than Dunphy did (Penn fans don't remember much about the Tom Schneider era as Dunphy has eclipsed his one-time boss). In other words, Jackson's pedigree, having assisted Dunphy for years, is stronger than Dunphy's was in 1989. It's hard to say that the pressure is any greater on the Penn administration now than it was in '89 to pick an excellent coach. In '89, there was always the lingering threat of Princeton, and that threat is there and pronounced given that the Tigers are the defending champs in the Ivies, have a great team coming back, and have a hot, young coach in Joe Scott. The same way Princeton went the current assistant route in 1999 when Bill Carmody left, the safest play for Penn about a month before school starts would be to go the current assistant route too. Unless, of course, they go the former assistant route -- in the names of Steve Donahue or Fran O'Hanlon. Make no mistake about it, there will be plenty of great candidates to choose from, making it hard for Penn to make a bad or wrong choice.
1. U.S. Men's Basketball Team. A Peja-less Serbia-Montenegro team, the defending world champions, were just what the doctor ordered for the U.S. team. This is relatively old news, but I wanted to make the point that the reason so many of us came down so hard on U.S.A. Basketball is that we thought that outside Tim Duncan, Carlos Boozer and Amare Stoudemire, the other 9 guys are basically the same player at different sizes -- gifted, athletic slashers. I am still worried that in the Olympics Team USA will run into a hot-shooting, zone defending team that gives it fits. And, one game does not a trend make. Still, Larry Brown (and Stu Jackson for that matter) has to be happy about this convincing win. Certain pundits (drive-time radio types on local stations who don't like anything that Allen Iverson has become the face of) predict that this team won't win a medal. Perhaps they're prescient, but then riddle me this: name the three teams that will win the medals instead of Team U.S.A.? I don't think you can.
2. LaSalle Coaching Job. There's a good local Phila. area columnist named Tom Sielski who has reported that as part of the offer LaSalle made to Fran Dunphy, Dunphy would not have to report to the Athletic Director but would be reporting to someone else, presumably the university's president. If that's the case, say it ain't so -- both LaSalle and Fran Dunphy. LaSalle shouldn't let any coach rise about the authority of the athletic department. That sets an awful precedent. And, if Dunphy really has insisted upon it, then perhaps he isn't the absolutely great, magnanimous guy he has appeared to be. No coach should insist upon this type of reporting relationship, as no coach should be bigger than the school he is going to be a part of. If this is true, then it does make you wonder whether both Penn A.D. Steve Bilsky and LaSalle A.D. Tom Brennan are awful bosses or whether Fran Dunphy has a problem with working for anyone.
3. Philadelphia Eagles. How high are expectations in Philadelphia? Well, 25,000 people showed up at the Eagles' training camp in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, about 1 1/2 hours outside Philadelphia, this past Friday. One of the Eagles, whose name escapes me (it probably was DT Darwin Walker), said that the Eagles had more people at training camp this past Friday than the Arizona Cardinals did at regular-season games when he was with the Cardinals. 25,000 people? Expectations are high in Philadelphia. As they are in Baltimore, where approximately 16,000 people showed up one day last week to watch the Ravens practice at the college once known as Western Maryland, which is not all that close to Baltimore. Expectations are high in Crab City as well.
4. The Penn Coaching Job. Should Fran Dunphy leave, the pressure will be on Penn A.D. to make the right choice in a tight time frame. One poster commented that Penn should go with top assistant Gil Jackson, and it's clear that Coach Jackson has paid his dues, bided his time and has made great contributions to the Penn program over the years. The last time Penn anointed a long-time college assistant was, well, in 1989, when they tapped Tom Schneider's top aide, a guy named Dunphy, to take over the top spot (Schneider bolted for Loyola (Md), where he could coach at a scholarship school). The comparisons between 2004 and 1989 are interesting, because Jackson has assisted a (much) more successful coach than Dunphy did (Penn fans don't remember much about the Tom Schneider era as Dunphy has eclipsed his one-time boss). In other words, Jackson's pedigree, having assisted Dunphy for years, is stronger than Dunphy's was in 1989. It's hard to say that the pressure is any greater on the Penn administration now than it was in '89 to pick an excellent coach. In '89, there was always the lingering threat of Princeton, and that threat is there and pronounced given that the Tigers are the defending champs in the Ivies, have a great team coming back, and have a hot, young coach in Joe Scott. The same way Princeton went the current assistant route in 1999 when Bill Carmody left, the safest play for Penn about a month before school starts would be to go the current assistant route too. Unless, of course, they go the former assistant route -- in the names of Steve Donahue or Fran O'Hanlon. Make no mistake about it, there will be plenty of great candidates to choose from, making it hard for Penn to make a bad or wrong choice.
Saturday, August 07, 2004
Big Five Coaching Intrigue -- Much Could Happen by Monday
Word out of Philadelphia this morning is that LaSalle made a long-term offer to Penn's Fran Dunphy to make Dunphy the next LaSalle basketball coach and the first person ever to be the head coach at two different Big 5 schools. The contract is in the $400,000 per annum range (reportedly Dunphy currently makes $240,000), and LaSalle apparently has committed to upgrading its basketball program, especially its recruiting budget. Mike Jensen of the Philadelphia Inquirer has been all over this story, and you can read about it there (because a subscription is required, I don't think I can link to the story).
The offer raises many questions, of course. First, Fran Dunphy has tons of friends around Philadelphia, people who lovingly call him Dunph, people who may not know him well but to whom he's always nice when he sees them. He's a deeply rooted Philadelphia guy, and the word is the Coach Dunphy isn't in it for, and doesn't need, the money. The recurring theme I have heard from many different people, all professing to know the coach, is that his wife comes from money and money isn't his motivator. So, if he takes the LaSalle job, the money certainly would be nice (and would constitute competitive pay, which is probably as much as a competitive coach in a competitive situation would ask for), but the real inducement has to be the opportunity not to worry about academic indices, great point averages and SAT scores to the degree he has had to do so in the Ivies. In short, Fran Dunphy wants to see how he stacks up at a more competitive level.
That he wants to do so is no secret. He's been in the running in the past for jobs at Penn State, Georgetown and Ohio State, and probably many more. As an added bonus, he'll get to go home, so to speak, to the place where he played his college basketball, and he'll return as a conquering hero to a school and an alumni body that are starved for a winner (LaSalle hasn't had a winning season since 1992-1993). The expectations will be high, but he'll be able to handle them, precisely because he's a hard worker and a class act.
That is, of course, if he takes the job in the first place.
And then, of course, speculation will run rampant about who Penn will pick to succeed Dunphy should he go from 33rd and Walnut to 20th and Olney (it's a longer distance than you might think -- you can't walk it, there is no direct public transportation route from Penn to LaSalle, and the wags might argue that in other respects they're light years apart). I've already posted on this topic, so please click here to read up on the potential successors to the current dean of Ivy hoop coaches and the winningest coach in Penn history (which is saying a lot given that Jack McCloskey, Dick Harter, Chuck Daly and Bob Weinhauer all had successful runs as the Penn head coach).
On the one hand, you could wonder whether three of the four major contenders would leave their head coaching jobs this late in the summer (Gil Jackson, the fourth major contender, is Dunphy's top assistant at Penn). Stop wondering. Coaching opportunities are few and far between, and the Penn job is a special one. Sometimes you cannot pick your timing, so I do not think that any of the contenders, if they really wanted the job, would hesitate to turn it down just because it's summer. (For a precedent, Princeton's Bill Carmody took the Northwestern job in the late summer about 5 years ago, but he left the Princeton faithful wondering why he would go to a historically bad b-ball program and leave Princeton's strong tradition. This time around, it would be hard to second guess any of Fran O'Hanlon, Steve Donahue or Fran McCaffery for leaving Lafayette, Cornell or UNC-Greensboro, respectively; each would be taking a step up).
The bet here right now is on Donahue, unless there is some unwritten, double secret Ivy rule that you don't poach each other's coaches right before school starts. McCaffery has been away from the Ivies for too long, relatively speaking, and O'Hanlon and Jackson are both past 55. It would be hard for Penn to anoint Jackson with more than an interim tag given that cellar dwellar Dartmouth just turned him down (he was a finalist for that head coaching job, which ultimately went to Terry Dunn). O'Hanlon is intriguing, of course, and an excellent coach. In the end, if the friction reported between Penn A.D. Steve Bilsky and Dunphy was palpable, it might be hard to see Bilsky hiring Dunphy's best friend in coaching or Dunphy's best friend in coach wanting to work for Bilsky. And, to complicate matters further, O'Hanlon just signed a 10-year contract extension making him "coach for life" in Easton. To complicate matters even further, Lafayette is the only Patriot League school that doesn't offer scholarships. Lastly, we don't know what conversations O'Hanlon had with Lafayette about what he would do if the Penn job opened up. Something tells me it won't be O'Hanlon, even though I think he'd be the ideal candidate for the job and should be the person Penn pursues. Hard.
And then there's a final question, probably a minor detail, but will any Penn players opt to transfer to LaSalle to follow Fran Dunphy should he go? Typically you don't get recruited by the same schools when you're a HS player (exceptions: Penn alum Paul Romanczuk, whom former LaSalle coach Speedy Morris regrets not having pursued harder, and LaSalle alum Tim Legler, former NBA player and now NBA analyst for ESPN, who apparently opted for LaSalle over Princeton). Still, while the schools wouldn't want to admit it, the hoop recruits choose the coach as much as the school, even in the Ivies. Still, the bet here is that a) no Penn player transfers and b) no player that Dunphy currently is recruiting for Penn will find himself in the LaSalle pool. The sets are probably too disjoint, and Dunphy wouldn't be going to LaSalle to coach Ivy-type players, at least for the most part. Of course, he wouldn't turn down a future Andy Toole, Koko Archibong or Ugonna Onyekwe if they showed up on his doorstep.
We should know more early next week. If Dunphy takes the offer, look for the Penn Quakers to move very quickly to get their next coach in place.
The offer raises many questions, of course. First, Fran Dunphy has tons of friends around Philadelphia, people who lovingly call him Dunph, people who may not know him well but to whom he's always nice when he sees them. He's a deeply rooted Philadelphia guy, and the word is the Coach Dunphy isn't in it for, and doesn't need, the money. The recurring theme I have heard from many different people, all professing to know the coach, is that his wife comes from money and money isn't his motivator. So, if he takes the LaSalle job, the money certainly would be nice (and would constitute competitive pay, which is probably as much as a competitive coach in a competitive situation would ask for), but the real inducement has to be the opportunity not to worry about academic indices, great point averages and SAT scores to the degree he has had to do so in the Ivies. In short, Fran Dunphy wants to see how he stacks up at a more competitive level.
That he wants to do so is no secret. He's been in the running in the past for jobs at Penn State, Georgetown and Ohio State, and probably many more. As an added bonus, he'll get to go home, so to speak, to the place where he played his college basketball, and he'll return as a conquering hero to a school and an alumni body that are starved for a winner (LaSalle hasn't had a winning season since 1992-1993). The expectations will be high, but he'll be able to handle them, precisely because he's a hard worker and a class act.
That is, of course, if he takes the job in the first place.
And then, of course, speculation will run rampant about who Penn will pick to succeed Dunphy should he go from 33rd and Walnut to 20th and Olney (it's a longer distance than you might think -- you can't walk it, there is no direct public transportation route from Penn to LaSalle, and the wags might argue that in other respects they're light years apart). I've already posted on this topic, so please click here to read up on the potential successors to the current dean of Ivy hoop coaches and the winningest coach in Penn history (which is saying a lot given that Jack McCloskey, Dick Harter, Chuck Daly and Bob Weinhauer all had successful runs as the Penn head coach).
On the one hand, you could wonder whether three of the four major contenders would leave their head coaching jobs this late in the summer (Gil Jackson, the fourth major contender, is Dunphy's top assistant at Penn). Stop wondering. Coaching opportunities are few and far between, and the Penn job is a special one. Sometimes you cannot pick your timing, so I do not think that any of the contenders, if they really wanted the job, would hesitate to turn it down just because it's summer. (For a precedent, Princeton's Bill Carmody took the Northwestern job in the late summer about 5 years ago, but he left the Princeton faithful wondering why he would go to a historically bad b-ball program and leave Princeton's strong tradition. This time around, it would be hard to second guess any of Fran O'Hanlon, Steve Donahue or Fran McCaffery for leaving Lafayette, Cornell or UNC-Greensboro, respectively; each would be taking a step up).
The bet here right now is on Donahue, unless there is some unwritten, double secret Ivy rule that you don't poach each other's coaches right before school starts. McCaffery has been away from the Ivies for too long, relatively speaking, and O'Hanlon and Jackson are both past 55. It would be hard for Penn to anoint Jackson with more than an interim tag given that cellar dwellar Dartmouth just turned him down (he was a finalist for that head coaching job, which ultimately went to Terry Dunn). O'Hanlon is intriguing, of course, and an excellent coach. In the end, if the friction reported between Penn A.D. Steve Bilsky and Dunphy was palpable, it might be hard to see Bilsky hiring Dunphy's best friend in coaching or Dunphy's best friend in coach wanting to work for Bilsky. And, to complicate matters further, O'Hanlon just signed a 10-year contract extension making him "coach for life" in Easton. To complicate matters even further, Lafayette is the only Patriot League school that doesn't offer scholarships. Lastly, we don't know what conversations O'Hanlon had with Lafayette about what he would do if the Penn job opened up. Something tells me it won't be O'Hanlon, even though I think he'd be the ideal candidate for the job and should be the person Penn pursues. Hard.
And then there's a final question, probably a minor detail, but will any Penn players opt to transfer to LaSalle to follow Fran Dunphy should he go? Typically you don't get recruited by the same schools when you're a HS player (exceptions: Penn alum Paul Romanczuk, whom former LaSalle coach Speedy Morris regrets not having pursued harder, and LaSalle alum Tim Legler, former NBA player and now NBA analyst for ESPN, who apparently opted for LaSalle over Princeton). Still, while the schools wouldn't want to admit it, the hoop recruits choose the coach as much as the school, even in the Ivies. Still, the bet here is that a) no Penn player transfers and b) no player that Dunphy currently is recruiting for Penn will find himself in the LaSalle pool. The sets are probably too disjoint, and Dunphy wouldn't be going to LaSalle to coach Ivy-type players, at least for the most part. Of course, he wouldn't turn down a future Andy Toole, Koko Archibong or Ugonna Onyekwe if they showed up on his doorstep.
We should know more early next week. If Dunphy takes the offer, look for the Penn Quakers to move very quickly to get their next coach in place.
Friday, August 06, 2004
NCAA Bans Strippers, Adopts Tougher Recruiting Rules
Among them are a requirement that I-A schools adopt policies banning, presumably as recruiting tools, underage drinking, drug use and sex. Which raises the question, of course, as to whether by adopting this policy the NCAA believes that such activities were legal to begin with, either in the context of their relatively small universe or within the larger context of U.S., state and local law. Imagine if the NCAA really believed that to be the case, and imagine the schools that are kicking themselves for not offering an enhanced "sex, drugs and rock 'n roll" recruiting weekend to previously sheltered farm country football stars. Talk about a lost opportunity!
You can read all about the NCAA's behavioral legislation in today's USA Today.
The NCAA also has placed restrictions on how schools may ferry a recruit to campus and the type of accommodations they can provide. In addition, they've banned customized jerseys and scoreboard presentations welcoming a recruit to a school. Perhaps now they'll go so far as to make their football heroes and basketball stars stand in line for meal tickets and course selection, just like the 4-H and Key Club members, the trombonists, math whizzes and student evangelists.
Hard to tell right now if there are any loopholes. Presumably if boosters are banned from embarking upon similar conduct, the shoe companies are too. Presumably, a shoe company can't offer improper inducements to a HS star to get that kid to go to a school it outfits. Somehow, some way, though, the Sonny Vaccaros of the world will still have their sway, will still find their edge.
Still, it's amazing that the NCAA found it necessary to require its member schools to adopt policies on the topics I mentioned above. Underage drinking? Drug use? Strippers? For eighteen year-olds? What will be next? Policies against assault, breaking and entering and taking things from the school store that you normally should pay for? Hasn't there always been a policy in every school's handbook that all members of the university community should abide by all laws, or did members of the U.S. House of Representatives from states with schools in the SEC tack on a rider to a budget or tax bill years ago making major college revenue sports exempt from laws that would be antithetical to serving up a successful football or basketball team?
These new recruiting policies, believe it or not, should help level the playing field for the schools that go about things the right way. And they should challenge the schools who always have pushed the envelope on this sort of thing to sell their own schools on their merits and not because of illicit fluff that has no bearing on whether the school is right for the kid in the first place. Any coach or school that complains about the new policies should examine whether he or it's in the right business - educating our children. Schools who can't support these policies should become casinos, and coaches who can't honor these policies should become, well, the people at the casinos who handle the high rollers and make sure they're comfortable.
Because if schools or coaches say they can't get kids without those types of recruiting "extras", then they're saying a lot about themselves, their programs and their people.
And none of it is good.
And the kids should stop holding their hands out too and look at why they're going to college in the first place. Sure, the elite kids are going for football first because they need to get their tickets punched, they need to put in their 3 years, in order to get to the NFL (the elite hoopsters, all seven of them, can skip HS to go pro, and that's a luxury that the elite HS football players do not have). But most kids don't go to the NFL, so instead they should look at the merits of a school and how the school can help them get as good an education as is possible. This is not to say that all scholarship athletes hold their hands out; that's hardly the case. But those who do should grow up just a bit and realize that the school they enroll at may prove to be far different from the one that showed them a good time. Once you're there, they really mean business, and, for many, business is all about winning football games and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with you.
It should be interesting to see how this sorts out, whether behavior will really change, and how the NCAA will go about enforcing these new rules.
And it's heartening, at any rate, to know that when a college football program now uses the word "strip", they really mean to take the ball away from a running back.
Glad that got cleared up.
You can read all about the NCAA's behavioral legislation in today's USA Today.
The NCAA also has placed restrictions on how schools may ferry a recruit to campus and the type of accommodations they can provide. In addition, they've banned customized jerseys and scoreboard presentations welcoming a recruit to a school. Perhaps now they'll go so far as to make their football heroes and basketball stars stand in line for meal tickets and course selection, just like the 4-H and Key Club members, the trombonists, math whizzes and student evangelists.
Hard to tell right now if there are any loopholes. Presumably if boosters are banned from embarking upon similar conduct, the shoe companies are too. Presumably, a shoe company can't offer improper inducements to a HS star to get that kid to go to a school it outfits. Somehow, some way, though, the Sonny Vaccaros of the world will still have their sway, will still find their edge.
Still, it's amazing that the NCAA found it necessary to require its member schools to adopt policies on the topics I mentioned above. Underage drinking? Drug use? Strippers? For eighteen year-olds? What will be next? Policies against assault, breaking and entering and taking things from the school store that you normally should pay for? Hasn't there always been a policy in every school's handbook that all members of the university community should abide by all laws, or did members of the U.S. House of Representatives from states with schools in the SEC tack on a rider to a budget or tax bill years ago making major college revenue sports exempt from laws that would be antithetical to serving up a successful football or basketball team?
These new recruiting policies, believe it or not, should help level the playing field for the schools that go about things the right way. And they should challenge the schools who always have pushed the envelope on this sort of thing to sell their own schools on their merits and not because of illicit fluff that has no bearing on whether the school is right for the kid in the first place. Any coach or school that complains about the new policies should examine whether he or it's in the right business - educating our children. Schools who can't support these policies should become casinos, and coaches who can't honor these policies should become, well, the people at the casinos who handle the high rollers and make sure they're comfortable.
Because if schools or coaches say they can't get kids without those types of recruiting "extras", then they're saying a lot about themselves, their programs and their people.
And none of it is good.
And the kids should stop holding their hands out too and look at why they're going to college in the first place. Sure, the elite kids are going for football first because they need to get their tickets punched, they need to put in their 3 years, in order to get to the NFL (the elite hoopsters, all seven of them, can skip HS to go pro, and that's a luxury that the elite HS football players do not have). But most kids don't go to the NFL, so instead they should look at the merits of a school and how the school can help them get as good an education as is possible. This is not to say that all scholarship athletes hold their hands out; that's hardly the case. But those who do should grow up just a bit and realize that the school they enroll at may prove to be far different from the one that showed them a good time. Once you're there, they really mean business, and, for many, business is all about winning football games and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with you.
It should be interesting to see how this sorts out, whether behavior will really change, and how the NCAA will go about enforcing these new rules.
And it's heartening, at any rate, to know that when a college football program now uses the word "strip", they really mean to take the ball away from a running back.
Glad that got cleared up.
Okay, Still a Bit More on the LaSalle Head Coaching Job
Read a piece today in a suburban Philadelphia newspaper about what's going on with this search, and, admittedly, the columnist did not offer a whole lot new.
He did offer that Fran Dunphy turned the LaSalle job down a few years ago when Billy Hahn got it because he and his alma mater were more than $100,000 (per year) apart on salary. That's not surprising, because the word on the street always has been that the LaSalle job is one of the lowest-paying jobs in Division I.
He also offered that Dunphy may be having qualms about going to work for LaSalle AD Tom Brennan, about whom little love has been professed in the Philadelphia papers. That's an interesting observation, because www.ivybasketball.com, in its assessment of whether LaSalle was targeting Dunphy, noted that Dunphy and Penn AD Steve Bilsky don't lock arms and sing "Kumbaya" either.
Now, if you take what you read out of context, you could conclude (wrongly, I might add) that Dunphy is an impossible prima donna who can't work under any supervision (he's not, he's a good guy). Or, you could conclude that both Penn and LaSalle have impossible athletic directors. That's probably a wrong conclusion too.
Athletic Directors don't always get a lot of love. For whatever reason, they are more likely to receive criticism than praise, and this notion isn't unique to Philadelphia's Big 5. That's why A.D.'s have to have a lot of self-confidence, because they aren't going to get the hugs and reassurance from those whom they're managing. Moreover, good coaches are confident themselves, and they don't necessarily appreciate being managed by anyone. So the tension there is natural, and it will always exist so long as the best coach at the school doesn't double as the A.D. And that doesn't always work, the same way making the head coach in the NFL the G.M. doesn't work (see, for example, Paul Holmgren in Seattle, among others). Finally, good A.D.'s can make a world of difference for the better. They can raise money, find better coaches, create better facilities and help sell athletics to the rest of a university's administration.
So, what the local suburban Phila. newspaper suggests is that the barrier to getting Fran Dunphy to LaSalle is the A.D. That said, what is the LaSalle Administration doing?
Are they a) looking for someone other than Dunphy or Maine's John Giannini, or b) are they trying to figure out a way to sack Tom Brennan and make their famous alumnus, Coach Dunphy, both coach and A.D.?
Stay tuned.
He did offer that Fran Dunphy turned the LaSalle job down a few years ago when Billy Hahn got it because he and his alma mater were more than $100,000 (per year) apart on salary. That's not surprising, because the word on the street always has been that the LaSalle job is one of the lowest-paying jobs in Division I.
He also offered that Dunphy may be having qualms about going to work for LaSalle AD Tom Brennan, about whom little love has been professed in the Philadelphia papers. That's an interesting observation, because www.ivybasketball.com, in its assessment of whether LaSalle was targeting Dunphy, noted that Dunphy and Penn AD Steve Bilsky don't lock arms and sing "Kumbaya" either.
Now, if you take what you read out of context, you could conclude (wrongly, I might add) that Dunphy is an impossible prima donna who can't work under any supervision (he's not, he's a good guy). Or, you could conclude that both Penn and LaSalle have impossible athletic directors. That's probably a wrong conclusion too.
Athletic Directors don't always get a lot of love. For whatever reason, they are more likely to receive criticism than praise, and this notion isn't unique to Philadelphia's Big 5. That's why A.D.'s have to have a lot of self-confidence, because they aren't going to get the hugs and reassurance from those whom they're managing. Moreover, good coaches are confident themselves, and they don't necessarily appreciate being managed by anyone. So the tension there is natural, and it will always exist so long as the best coach at the school doesn't double as the A.D. And that doesn't always work, the same way making the head coach in the NFL the G.M. doesn't work (see, for example, Paul Holmgren in Seattle, among others). Finally, good A.D.'s can make a world of difference for the better. They can raise money, find better coaches, create better facilities and help sell athletics to the rest of a university's administration.
So, what the local suburban Phila. newspaper suggests is that the barrier to getting Fran Dunphy to LaSalle is the A.D. That said, what is the LaSalle Administration doing?
Are they a) looking for someone other than Dunphy or Maine's John Giannini, or b) are they trying to figure out a way to sack Tom Brennan and make their famous alumnus, Coach Dunphy, both coach and A.D.?
Stay tuned.
Thursday, August 05, 2004
Even More on. . . the LaSalle Head Coaching Job
I've written a lot about this, perhaps for two reasons. One, it's the only open men's DI basketball coaching job in the country. Two, it's part of Philadelphia's famed Big Five, and LaSalle is school with a rich basketball tradition.
There's a new twist, as reported by Bob Cooney in today's Philadelphia Daily News. LaSalle hasn't asked Maine for permission to speak with the Black Bears' hoops coach, John Giannini. Why is this important? Because the news stories out of Philadelphia was that Giannini was getting a long look from the Explorers. So let's do the math together: Giannin is not a candidate for the job.
Which puts the focus right back on LaSalle alum and Penn head coach Fran Dunphy, who did not return the Daily News' phone calls. Which means that he's either on vacation, exhausted from the July recruiting season, or in the midst of talking about a deal with his alma mater. The Daily News is trying to imply that intrigue is transpiring because of Dunphy's lack of availability. For all we know, Dunphy is escorting four elderly members of Penn's Old Guard to the races at Saratoga. Still, it's a classic old-time journalism technique -- fuel the speculation.
It could well be that LaSalle is looking in another direction. I'm a relative Luddite as a blogger, so I'm not sure how to link to my prior posts, but if you look in late July and early August you'll find my speculation as to who LaSalle might be focusing on. Who should they be focusing on? Well, that's another matter entirely.
And then there's Penn, which, if Dunphy leaves, ironically will face a similar situation to what Princeton did five years ago. You'll recall that Kevin O'Neill, now the coach of the Toronto Raptors, left Northwestern, where he was head coach, for a job with either the Knicks or the Pistons. Northwestern President Henry Bienen, a former Princeton professor, recruited Carmody to go to the midwest (the money and three more years of having to face Ugonna Onyekwe at Penn were a good enough incentive to go), leaving Princeton in a late-summar quandry. Their top assistant, Joe Scott, had left for the Air Force head coaching job before Carmody left for Northwestern, leaving the Princeton job almost by default to John Thompson III, the team's second assistant (it was, admittedly, a pretty good default to have).
Were Dunphy to leave Penn, Penn would have to hustle to find its next coach. Perhaps the favorite, at least on an interim basis, would be top assistant Gil Jackson, who was a finalist for this year's Dartmouth job. There are many other excellent candidates among current DI head coaches, but it would be tough to see them leaving their jobs for another so late in the season. Then again, Bill Carmody made a good move by doing so, and the Penn job is a great one. So don't be surprised if there are a few more open seats in a coaching game of musical chairs.
Three sitting head coaches -- Steve Donahue, Fran O'Hanlon and Fran McCaffery, would be candidates for the Penn job under the right circumstances (yes, O'Hanlon, even if he just got a 10-year contract extension from Lafayette). If any of those coaches were to go to Penn, then one of the Cornell, Lafayette or UNC-Greensboro jobs would be open. And the musical chairs would begin anew.
Right now, of course, it's all speculation, and it's beginning to feel like the movie "Groundhog Day", as I've been writing about the same thing over and over again.
And it's been fun.
There's a new twist, as reported by Bob Cooney in today's Philadelphia Daily News. LaSalle hasn't asked Maine for permission to speak with the Black Bears' hoops coach, John Giannini. Why is this important? Because the news stories out of Philadelphia was that Giannini was getting a long look from the Explorers. So let's do the math together: Giannin is not a candidate for the job.
Which puts the focus right back on LaSalle alum and Penn head coach Fran Dunphy, who did not return the Daily News' phone calls. Which means that he's either on vacation, exhausted from the July recruiting season, or in the midst of talking about a deal with his alma mater. The Daily News is trying to imply that intrigue is transpiring because of Dunphy's lack of availability. For all we know, Dunphy is escorting four elderly members of Penn's Old Guard to the races at Saratoga. Still, it's a classic old-time journalism technique -- fuel the speculation.
It could well be that LaSalle is looking in another direction. I'm a relative Luddite as a blogger, so I'm not sure how to link to my prior posts, but if you look in late July and early August you'll find my speculation as to who LaSalle might be focusing on. Who should they be focusing on? Well, that's another matter entirely.
And then there's Penn, which, if Dunphy leaves, ironically will face a similar situation to what Princeton did five years ago. You'll recall that Kevin O'Neill, now the coach of the Toronto Raptors, left Northwestern, where he was head coach, for a job with either the Knicks or the Pistons. Northwestern President Henry Bienen, a former Princeton professor, recruited Carmody to go to the midwest (the money and three more years of having to face Ugonna Onyekwe at Penn were a good enough incentive to go), leaving Princeton in a late-summar quandry. Their top assistant, Joe Scott, had left for the Air Force head coaching job before Carmody left for Northwestern, leaving the Princeton job almost by default to John Thompson III, the team's second assistant (it was, admittedly, a pretty good default to have).
Were Dunphy to leave Penn, Penn would have to hustle to find its next coach. Perhaps the favorite, at least on an interim basis, would be top assistant Gil Jackson, who was a finalist for this year's Dartmouth job. There are many other excellent candidates among current DI head coaches, but it would be tough to see them leaving their jobs for another so late in the season. Then again, Bill Carmody made a good move by doing so, and the Penn job is a great one. So don't be surprised if there are a few more open seats in a coaching game of musical chairs.
Three sitting head coaches -- Steve Donahue, Fran O'Hanlon and Fran McCaffery, would be candidates for the Penn job under the right circumstances (yes, O'Hanlon, even if he just got a 10-year contract extension from Lafayette). If any of those coaches were to go to Penn, then one of the Cornell, Lafayette or UNC-Greensboro jobs would be open. And the musical chairs would begin anew.
Right now, of course, it's all speculation, and it's beginning to feel like the movie "Groundhog Day", as I've been writing about the same thing over and over again.
And it's been fun.
An Apology to Bill Parcells
Yesterday I questioned Bill Parcells' management style because of what appeared to be a rather rash decision to cut Quincy Carter. I had figured that Parcells did so because Carter wasn't taking the competition with Vinny Testaverde seriously and hadn't started doing all of the little things necessary to become a winner in Parcells' book. In so doing, I overestimated Parcells' authoritarian nature, which, while substantial, is not absolute and unthinking.
As it turned out, Quincy Carter, according to Chris Mortenson of ESPN (and ESPN Radio), flunked his second drug test and thus is one strike away from a suspension should he fail a third. Because of his bad test record off the field, Parcells released Carter. He just couldn't see putting a player at the controls of his offense who isn't totally in control of his life. He just didn't want to take the risk of losing Carter during the season, after investing a significant amount of time and energy on him, because of a failed third drug test.
Sounds like it's good, logical thinking. Carter has unique gifts and was afforded to play a game at a level that most people only dream about. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, he just couldn't handle the overall pressures, and, because of that, he's now in the predicament that he's in. It's very hard to fault Parcells for the decision he made.
But Mike Golic of ESPN Radio, on the outstanding "Mike & Mike in the Morning Show" raised the wonder, almost ethical question: "Would the Cowboys have released Quincy Carter under these circumstances if he were one of the top five quarterbacks in the game?" Golic and Mortenson quickly agreed that they would not have, and Mortenson also said that, for example, the Cowboys wouldn't have released Troy Aikman under these circumstances.
Carter, everyone agrees, isn't a top-5 QB and might not even make it into the top half, but he did lead the Cowboys to the playoffs last year. And, no doubt, a QB-challenged squad will pick him up and put him in their mix because of what he did last year.
Quincy Carter will get at least one more chance, and here's to hoping that he puts his troubles behind him and makes the most of it.
And Bill Parcells now will try to make a go of it with an too old and too slow Vinnie Testaverde or a too young and too inexperienced Drew Henson.
As it turned out, Quincy Carter, according to Chris Mortenson of ESPN (and ESPN Radio), flunked his second drug test and thus is one strike away from a suspension should he fail a third. Because of his bad test record off the field, Parcells released Carter. He just couldn't see putting a player at the controls of his offense who isn't totally in control of his life. He just didn't want to take the risk of losing Carter during the season, after investing a significant amount of time and energy on him, because of a failed third drug test.
Sounds like it's good, logical thinking. Carter has unique gifts and was afforded to play a game at a level that most people only dream about. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, he just couldn't handle the overall pressures, and, because of that, he's now in the predicament that he's in. It's very hard to fault Parcells for the decision he made.
But Mike Golic of ESPN Radio, on the outstanding "Mike & Mike in the Morning Show" raised the wonder, almost ethical question: "Would the Cowboys have released Quincy Carter under these circumstances if he were one of the top five quarterbacks in the game?" Golic and Mortenson quickly agreed that they would not have, and Mortenson also said that, for example, the Cowboys wouldn't have released Troy Aikman under these circumstances.
Carter, everyone agrees, isn't a top-5 QB and might not even make it into the top half, but he did lead the Cowboys to the playoffs last year. And, no doubt, a QB-challenged squad will pick him up and put him in their mix because of what he did last year.
Quincy Carter will get at least one more chance, and here's to hoping that he puts his troubles behind him and makes the most of it.
And Bill Parcells now will try to make a go of it with an too old and too slow Vinnie Testaverde or a too young and too inexperienced Drew Henson.
Wednesday, August 04, 2004
The Answer Answers, But Will It Be Enough?
Man almost bit dog again today, as the US Olympic hoops team barely edged Germany, 80-77, thanks to "the first buzzer beater in my life" by Allen Iverson. This German team featured Dirk Nowitzki, who scored a game-high 32 points, and this German team also has another distinction -- it didn't qualify for the Olympics.
The US team celebrated by fleshpiling Iverson (at least from the looks of it) after the game. Either the fleshpiling occurred because it was a reflex reaction or because this team knows that it better celebrate the wins it gets because wins against international opponents aren't automatic anymore. Larry Brown is an excellent coach and teacher -- that's a given -- but he had better ramp up his cram course because he won't have a full school year to do the teaching that he loves talking about. Larry, it's time for the Stanley Kaplan course about how to win the international game, and it's time for your gang to start cramming.
Perhaps it's even time to pull an all-nighter.
Losing to Italy by 17 and barely beating a so-so German team by 3 don't mean a whole lot right now. The Dream Team, as it were, or perhaps the DayDream Team, needs to win convincingly to give them the confidence that they can put away people once the games start for real in a week. Right now, the flow isn't there and the confidence isn't there.
You do have big names, but your big names just make your opposition hungrier. Most of the players on your opponents don't have rich contracts or shoe deals waiting for them.
What they do have is the hopes and prayers of their nations, perhaps better fuel for victories than a shoe that's named after you or the big contract that lets you and your posse eat nightly at 3-star Michelin restaurants. Beat Team U.S.A., and you won't have to pay for a meal in your home country for a long time. That type of food tastes better than anything an imported French chef can put together.
It's un-American to root against America, but it's American to root for the underdog. U.S.A. fans still will find away to root for this underachieving, not-so-fundamentally sound bunch, but they probably will not take away a great amount of satisfaction should Team USA win the gold.
If they win the gold.
The US team celebrated by fleshpiling Iverson (at least from the looks of it) after the game. Either the fleshpiling occurred because it was a reflex reaction or because this team knows that it better celebrate the wins it gets because wins against international opponents aren't automatic anymore. Larry Brown is an excellent coach and teacher -- that's a given -- but he had better ramp up his cram course because he won't have a full school year to do the teaching that he loves talking about. Larry, it's time for the Stanley Kaplan course about how to win the international game, and it's time for your gang to start cramming.
Perhaps it's even time to pull an all-nighter.
Losing to Italy by 17 and barely beating a so-so German team by 3 don't mean a whole lot right now. The Dream Team, as it were, or perhaps the DayDream Team, needs to win convincingly to give them the confidence that they can put away people once the games start for real in a week. Right now, the flow isn't there and the confidence isn't there.
You do have big names, but your big names just make your opposition hungrier. Most of the players on your opponents don't have rich contracts or shoe deals waiting for them.
What they do have is the hopes and prayers of their nations, perhaps better fuel for victories than a shoe that's named after you or the big contract that lets you and your posse eat nightly at 3-star Michelin restaurants. Beat Team U.S.A., and you won't have to pay for a meal in your home country for a long time. That type of food tastes better than anything an imported French chef can put together.
It's un-American to root against America, but it's American to root for the underdog. U.S.A. fans still will find away to root for this underachieving, not-so-fundamentally sound bunch, but they probably will not take away a great amount of satisfaction should Team USA win the gold.
If they win the gold.
What They Don't Teach You at Management School
Is there any way to link management styles and personnel decisions throughout the world of sports? Clearly there have been some curious management decisions lately -- about stocking teams with players, cutting teams, keeping managers, so I figured I would explore some of them looking for answers.
1. USA Basketball. Former Knick and Vancouver coach Stu Jackson was instrumental in putting this team together. It's a team of excellent athletes, mostly slashers, no shooters, almost as if USA Hoops is trying to prove a point, that you can take hockey players to Brazil and win a soccer match or you can take PeopleSoft operators and make them Oracle people overnight. Lest anyone forget, the international game emphasizes shooting and the zone defense. Without any real zonebusters, it will be interesting to see how even the best of the slashers will be able to beat a collapsing 2-3 zone. What's the management theory here? What's the personnel theory here? Formerly, it was if we just show up, we'll win. Now it's, like, wow, these kids (and, yes, Larry, they are good kids) have to get a clue in a hurry and turn themselves into international players fast. Good luck. This team is probably an example of management by "let's get the biggest names available" and hope it works out. It may be that Larry Brown wishes for a few thirty-three year old jump shooters when all this is over. Those guys, though, don't get the shoe contracts any more.
2. Bill Parcells. He just cut the QB who led his team to the playoffs last year, the QB who said just a couple of days ago that he is the starter -- Quincy Carter. Yes, the off-doubted Quincy Carter, the QB whom we all thought Bill Parcells would jettison if he had a suitable replacement. Now he is gone. Which Parcells thinks he has in Vinny Testaverde, who is perhaps older than the average American house (and you know the creaks and leaks that the average American house has). This, clearly, is authoritarian management, ergo, the decision is absolutely right because Parcells is one of the all-time greats. So, it's hard to question the Big Tuna, except for one thing: even the all-time greats don't stay great forever (see, for example, Joe Paterno at Penn State). If you thought that Doug Pederson as a fill-in before Donovan McNabb was ready in Phila. five years ago was painful to watch, watching Vinnie until Drew Henson is ready in Dallas might be equally bad. This is management according to the school of "I'm the biggest name in my type of management, so therefore my decisions not only are not always right, but they also should be accepted as brilliant without any questions" school.
3. John Henry and Larry Lucchino. This dynamic duo runs the Boston Red Sox. They offered a good deal to their star SS, Nomar Garciaparra last year (a $60 million contract), and he turned them down. It's hard to believe that Nomar is any more of a prima donna than any other star MLB player, and it's very hard to believe than he could have been higher maintenance than his notorious teammate, Manny Ramirez. So instead of trying to let the season play out, Henry and Lucchino did to Nomar what Ed Wade and Larry Bowa did to Scott Rolen in Philadelphia after Rolen turned down big bucks to remain in the Cradle of Liberty. Basically, because they got rejected, they started to publicly question the person who jilted them. Rolen is as solid a citizen and as tough a competitor as they come, and he has gone on to great things in St. Louis. Meanwhile, Wade and Bowa are on the ropes in Philadelphia. The only difference with these two situations is that Henry owns the Red Sox, so presumably he will never be on the ropes career-wise. If they were to have learned anything from the Rolen situation, it's that it's bad kharma to diss superstars publicly. They will only come back to haunt you (and if anyone in Philadelphia would rather have Jim Thome with his .190 or so average with runners in scoring position than Rolen, they are kidding themselves). This is management by the "if we can't have him, he's no good" school and no doubt will leave the players on your roster wondering what type of treatment is reserved for them if they step out of line.
4. Dave Montgomery. Who is Dave Montgomery, you ask? He is the president of the Philadelphia Phillies, and he is presiding over this monumentally disappointing season. And now he has a real doozie of a problem. Here's the pathology. After the Phillies fired nice guy Terry Francona, they hired Bowa, which was a good thing because they needed good marketing and Bowa was their best marketing tool. Philadelphia fans remember fondly the 1980 World Champions, and Bowa was one of the pistons that fired the engine. Okay, so Bowa's combustible, but his combustibility provided great theater -- for the fans. Everywhere you read -- Sporting News, Sports Illustrated, USA Today, Street & Smith's -- you always saw quotes from scouts saying that the Phillies could make a big move once they fired Bowa. Why? Because it's one thing to be outwardly combustible, but when you treat your own players poorly it's hard to get good results. So, many Philadelphia fans though it would only be a matter of time before Larry Bowa was given the axe. Especially with Charlie Manual, former Cleveland manager and still friend of Jim Thome, hanging around as a special assistant to GM Ed Wade.
Easy solution -- the team performs poorly, so fire the manager. The age-old remedy, right? Right, except that the tide has turned in Philadelphia. Somehow, some way, the fans are now focusing their wrath on Ed Wade. Why? Because he didn't find the right combination of players. Why? Because some of the players -- Mike Lieberthal, Roberto Hernandez, Billy Wagner -- are allegedly crybabies and shouldn't let an abrasive manager affect their play. (They conveniently let Jim Thome off the hook, even though during last year's post-home run handshaking fiasco that led to the release of Tyler Houston, Thome took a powder when given the opportunity to back his manager). So now, the airwaves are full of "poor Larry Bowa, he hasn't been given the right team" talk. Bowa looks like a beaten man and deserves a peaceful resolution to his tenure in Philadelphia. He doesn't necessarily deserve a pass, however, and neither does Ed Wade.
So what is Dave Montgomery to do? If you fire Bowa, you fire a guy who still excites the fans, and you could lose the ever-so-important fan base because they'll collectively view the team as a bunch of crybabies. If you fire Wade, you'll probably find a decent GM (there is a public cry to anoint Dallas Green again), but then you still have Bowa, and the scouts think he's the problem.
Phil Sheridan had a great column in the Phila. Inquirer today where he offered a different solution -- fire the franchise. But that would mean that the fans could fire the Phillies ownership, which, of course, is at the root of the problem and should have sold the team long ago.
The guess here is that Montgomery will do nothing until the season's over. This is management by passivity, which has been at the core of the Phillies' family crest since they joined the National League.
What is the meaning of all of this? Obviously, we're not in the front office or in the clubhouse, so we don't really know, do we? Of course, because we're not there, we'll get lectured by those who are that we don't know what we're talking about. That's called "management by putting other people on the defensive", whereby they'll want us to spend so much time defending our own credentials that we'll find no time to argue the true points. That style only works for so long, however. The truth -- the record of the home team -- transcends all conversation.
And, at the end of the day, the fan base will be around longer than any of the above decision makers. And they'll remember who was up front, who was arrogant, and who was fair.
Unless, of course, their team won the title. And then that's all they'll remember.
Whatever the management style.
1. USA Basketball. Former Knick and Vancouver coach Stu Jackson was instrumental in putting this team together. It's a team of excellent athletes, mostly slashers, no shooters, almost as if USA Hoops is trying to prove a point, that you can take hockey players to Brazil and win a soccer match or you can take PeopleSoft operators and make them Oracle people overnight. Lest anyone forget, the international game emphasizes shooting and the zone defense. Without any real zonebusters, it will be interesting to see how even the best of the slashers will be able to beat a collapsing 2-3 zone. What's the management theory here? What's the personnel theory here? Formerly, it was if we just show up, we'll win. Now it's, like, wow, these kids (and, yes, Larry, they are good kids) have to get a clue in a hurry and turn themselves into international players fast. Good luck. This team is probably an example of management by "let's get the biggest names available" and hope it works out. It may be that Larry Brown wishes for a few thirty-three year old jump shooters when all this is over. Those guys, though, don't get the shoe contracts any more.
2. Bill Parcells. He just cut the QB who led his team to the playoffs last year, the QB who said just a couple of days ago that he is the starter -- Quincy Carter. Yes, the off-doubted Quincy Carter, the QB whom we all thought Bill Parcells would jettison if he had a suitable replacement. Now he is gone. Which Parcells thinks he has in Vinny Testaverde, who is perhaps older than the average American house (and you know the creaks and leaks that the average American house has). This, clearly, is authoritarian management, ergo, the decision is absolutely right because Parcells is one of the all-time greats. So, it's hard to question the Big Tuna, except for one thing: even the all-time greats don't stay great forever (see, for example, Joe Paterno at Penn State). If you thought that Doug Pederson as a fill-in before Donovan McNabb was ready in Phila. five years ago was painful to watch, watching Vinnie until Drew Henson is ready in Dallas might be equally bad. This is management according to the school of "I'm the biggest name in my type of management, so therefore my decisions not only are not always right, but they also should be accepted as brilliant without any questions" school.
3. John Henry and Larry Lucchino. This dynamic duo runs the Boston Red Sox. They offered a good deal to their star SS, Nomar Garciaparra last year (a $60 million contract), and he turned them down. It's hard to believe that Nomar is any more of a prima donna than any other star MLB player, and it's very hard to believe than he could have been higher maintenance than his notorious teammate, Manny Ramirez. So instead of trying to let the season play out, Henry and Lucchino did to Nomar what Ed Wade and Larry Bowa did to Scott Rolen in Philadelphia after Rolen turned down big bucks to remain in the Cradle of Liberty. Basically, because they got rejected, they started to publicly question the person who jilted them. Rolen is as solid a citizen and as tough a competitor as they come, and he has gone on to great things in St. Louis. Meanwhile, Wade and Bowa are on the ropes in Philadelphia. The only difference with these two situations is that Henry owns the Red Sox, so presumably he will never be on the ropes career-wise. If they were to have learned anything from the Rolen situation, it's that it's bad kharma to diss superstars publicly. They will only come back to haunt you (and if anyone in Philadelphia would rather have Jim Thome with his .190 or so average with runners in scoring position than Rolen, they are kidding themselves). This is management by the "if we can't have him, he's no good" school and no doubt will leave the players on your roster wondering what type of treatment is reserved for them if they step out of line.
4. Dave Montgomery. Who is Dave Montgomery, you ask? He is the president of the Philadelphia Phillies, and he is presiding over this monumentally disappointing season. And now he has a real doozie of a problem. Here's the pathology. After the Phillies fired nice guy Terry Francona, they hired Bowa, which was a good thing because they needed good marketing and Bowa was their best marketing tool. Philadelphia fans remember fondly the 1980 World Champions, and Bowa was one of the pistons that fired the engine. Okay, so Bowa's combustible, but his combustibility provided great theater -- for the fans. Everywhere you read -- Sporting News, Sports Illustrated, USA Today, Street & Smith's -- you always saw quotes from scouts saying that the Phillies could make a big move once they fired Bowa. Why? Because it's one thing to be outwardly combustible, but when you treat your own players poorly it's hard to get good results. So, many Philadelphia fans though it would only be a matter of time before Larry Bowa was given the axe. Especially with Charlie Manual, former Cleveland manager and still friend of Jim Thome, hanging around as a special assistant to GM Ed Wade.
Easy solution -- the team performs poorly, so fire the manager. The age-old remedy, right? Right, except that the tide has turned in Philadelphia. Somehow, some way, the fans are now focusing their wrath on Ed Wade. Why? Because he didn't find the right combination of players. Why? Because some of the players -- Mike Lieberthal, Roberto Hernandez, Billy Wagner -- are allegedly crybabies and shouldn't let an abrasive manager affect their play. (They conveniently let Jim Thome off the hook, even though during last year's post-home run handshaking fiasco that led to the release of Tyler Houston, Thome took a powder when given the opportunity to back his manager). So now, the airwaves are full of "poor Larry Bowa, he hasn't been given the right team" talk. Bowa looks like a beaten man and deserves a peaceful resolution to his tenure in Philadelphia. He doesn't necessarily deserve a pass, however, and neither does Ed Wade.
So what is Dave Montgomery to do? If you fire Bowa, you fire a guy who still excites the fans, and you could lose the ever-so-important fan base because they'll collectively view the team as a bunch of crybabies. If you fire Wade, you'll probably find a decent GM (there is a public cry to anoint Dallas Green again), but then you still have Bowa, and the scouts think he's the problem.
Phil Sheridan had a great column in the Phila. Inquirer today where he offered a different solution -- fire the franchise. But that would mean that the fans could fire the Phillies ownership, which, of course, is at the root of the problem and should have sold the team long ago.
The guess here is that Montgomery will do nothing until the season's over. This is management by passivity, which has been at the core of the Phillies' family crest since they joined the National League.
What is the meaning of all of this? Obviously, we're not in the front office or in the clubhouse, so we don't really know, do we? Of course, because we're not there, we'll get lectured by those who are that we don't know what we're talking about. That's called "management by putting other people on the defensive", whereby they'll want us to spend so much time defending our own credentials that we'll find no time to argue the true points. That style only works for so long, however. The truth -- the record of the home team -- transcends all conversation.
And, at the end of the day, the fan base will be around longer than any of the above decision makers. And they'll remember who was up front, who was arrogant, and who was fair.
Unless, of course, their team won the title. And then that's all they'll remember.
Whatever the management style.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)