We heard it all last season. Boy, are the New York Mets the team of the future. Look at all that pitching. . . Harvey, de Grom, Syndergaard, Matz, Colon, with the first four being young, hard-throwing and very good. Look out, NL East. Washington, they said, had a tougher lineup, but the Mets' pitching, well, that was the difference. It was fun to be a Mets' fan last season.
Going into this season, there remained reason to be very optimistic. The starting pitching staff was intact, even with Jon Niese going to Pittsburgh and Zack Wheeler not ready. But I cautioned a friend that any time you predict a dynasty, funny things can happen. I offered that if the Mets were to have a starter or two go down -- and they inevitably do -- there could be trouble. Well, Harvey has been erratic, Matz looks to be done for the year, and Syndergaard has a supposedly non-threatening bone spur. Meanwhile, the ageless wonder, Bartolo Colon, at 43 is perhaps the squad's best starting pitcher. Right now, Mets are in third, slightly behind the usually confounding Marlins. It is not the season that Mets' fans had hoped for. Atop that, they lost Daniel Murphy, the clutch-hitting second baseman, to rival Washington, and replaced him with the good but not-as-good Neil Walker. The biggest blow was losing David Wright to season- and perhaps career-ending surgery.
Ouch.
Roll back the clock about eight years ago and Phillies' fans had every reason to be optimistic. They won it in '08, and they had everyone back, most of whom were at or slightly before their primes. In '09, they should have won it again, but somehow Brad Lidge, who was all-world in 2008, blew up to an ERA of about 7.50, the worst ever for a full-time closer, and the Phillies lost the Series to the Yankees. Had Lidge just had half as bad a season, the Phillies would have won it all. In '10, the team suffered injuries, still had a good year until they ran into the red-hot Giants' pitching in the NLCS. In '11, with players more healthy than in '10, they won over 100 games, beat the Cards in Game 1 of the NLDS, only to have ace Cliff Lee blow a 4-0 lead after 1 inning in Game 2, and lose that series in 5 games, with Cards' ace Cris Carpenter outdueling Roy Halladay and Ryan Howard blowing out his Achilles' tendon on the last at-bat of the series. Arguably, that team should have won two World Series in those four years. And while few will complain about winning "just" one, I'm sure many Phillies' fans will express disappointment that they didn't win another. They were built to, and they probably should have.
The moral of the story is enjoy it when your team wins, hope that they win again soon, because the game changes, players change and adjust, players age and get hurt. The Mets were awesome last year, but they also were two iffy wings away from a mid-division finish. The Nats by no means are invincible, but it will be hard for the Mets to win their division without a healthy rotation. That can be said for almost any team, of course, but it goes to show you the fine line between having a team that goes to the World Series and having a team that doesn't make the playoffs.
All that said, you would figure in this day and age and with the rise of elite sports performance institutes that there would be better theories about developing and maintaining good pitchers and avoiding the gruesome types of injuries that seem to befall them. It is 2016 already, and pitchers and the art of pitching isn't much more evolved than fifty years ago. Yes, there is more specialization, but the pitchers continue to get injured. That is what makes the game so unpredictable, as it is hard to figure out what a pitching staff will look like year after year. In contrast, you will know what your basketball team will look like next year, even if players might slip a little, because you have very little risk of a basketball player blowing out his shooting hand and being out for a year. Baseball generates a lot of money, so you would figure that they should be working on some programs to help add more certainty to a pitcher's career and a team's future.
Thursday, June 30, 2016
Best Sports Month in Cleveland?
The Cavs win the NBA title.
The Indians have won twelve straight and lead the AL Central.
Clevelanders -- enjoy it!
The Indians have won twelve straight and lead the AL Central.
Clevelanders -- enjoy it!
Thursday, June 09, 2016
The Stanford Rape Case
Much has been written and said. It's hard to imagine how Judge Aaron Persky gave former Stanford swimmer Brock Turner the light sentence that he did. We expect more out of the judicial system and the hypothetical average kid that goes to an elite institution such as Stanford.
As for Persky, he goofed, plain and simple. There are calls for his resignation, his recall and his defeat at the polls in the fall. My guess is that many will remain hot on this topic to mount a serious challenge to Persky. That said, the prosecutor in this case has not called for his resignation. In fact, if you read far and wide enough, the comments that you read about Persky are that he is a good and fair judge. That said. . . it's hard to find many quotes from attorneys that would criticize sitting judges. The reason -- they have to appear before them and so do their firms. As a result, there is no upside to criticizing a judge publicly after any case. And that leads to the ultimate question -- is there a meaningful way to hold the judiciary accountable? We have learned as a society that we have failed to find good ways to hold police accountable, and I think that the same holds true for prosecutors. And now this, this, well, issue, fiasco, travesty of justice, what have you.
Turner made a terrible decision and committed a terrible act. What the heck was he thinking? He picked his sin, and for some reason he was fortunate enough to hire good counsel and then draw a judge like Persky, who was in a lenient sentencing mood. And while he will have to live with those consequences forever -- being registered as a sex offender, having that on his record -- he is far from a victim here. True, there is a lot of pressure on Stanford kids, on recruited athletes, on kids with Olympic ambitions, but almost all of them do not sexually assault unconscious women. Yes, there is a lot of alcohol on campus and promiscuity, but, again, that Turner was drunk should by no means excuse what he did. Most if not all sexual assaults on campus involve alcohol. By imbibing and then overimbibing, Turner adopted some very risky behavior that does not usually lead to happy consequences and in this case led to bad ones. He does not deserve understanding and leniency because he was caught up in a culture of alcohol and sex. Would Judge Persky have been tougher on him had he been sober? If so, why? This was not a case of "he said, she said" or "when does no mean no," and I am sure there are cases that are ambiguous and can be most difficult for triers of fact because, well, the facts are not clear. We all have to allow for the fact that everyone is entitled to a defense and that sometimes the accused did not do it. But here, two witnesses caught up to Turner after they caught him in the act. This wasn't a case of ambiguity -- this was an out and out rape.
Much has been made of the letter that Turner's father wrote. Turner's father might not have written the most eloquent or sensitive letter, but we all would go pretty far to get our child a good defense lawyer and then write to the judge. Anyone who has kids can tell you that. Privately, parents might lecture their children and hold them accountable, but everyone is entitled to a defense and family support. That doesn't mean that a horrible crime did not take place; of course it did. I know that there are some people who would argue that Turner did the crime and should do the time and that his parents only are further coddling him by trying to help him and protect him. Well, parents love their kids regardless of whether they swim in the Olympics or commit a crime. Those who are aggrieved will pick apart the case and focus on this, but I think that their time would be better spent looking at the California judicial system, sentencing guidelines, how the judge came to this decision and what can be done to make everyone more aware of problems like this on campus and how to prevent them. And it seems that they are doing just that.
This one left me speechless. I fully empathize with the victim and her family. Her note -- read aloud on television -- gives us tremendous insight into what a victim goes through and how horrible her experience was. First years in college -- and especially men -- should read it and synthesize it and try as much as possible to avoid situations that could lead to the type of behavior that Brock Turner displayed -- and should remember that any woman is someone's sister, someone's daughter, someone's good friend -- and how would you like that to happen to your sister, your daughter or your good friend? I hope that the victim is getting the help that she needs to recover as best she can; sadly, Judge Persky's abdication of his role exacerbates her pain instead of lessening it. And I hope that society can take a deep look into problems like the one that befell her and take steps so that no one has to endure what she did. We will express our outrage at the system for the lenient sentence, and we will respond to that as best we can. But the victim -- and others like her -- too quickly get forgotten. And the only way we can solve for the broader problems is by never forgetting them, and continuing to reach out to them and embrace them.
Atop that, we are a society that reacts after the fact and attacks symptoms rather than causes. We might be seventy-five pounds overweight and suffer from pre-diabetes and hypertension, but we expect inexpensive pills to help us as opposed to attacking the cause by eating less and more sensibly and by exercising. We abhor the behavior that Brock Turner displayed but yet it still goes on, much of it in all likelihood unreported. Society needs to attack the cause of these attacks -- whether it's putting kids in college who do not belong there, treating recruited athletes like they are entitled, something special and unaccountable, creating way too much pressure on them, making alcohol too available, not offering means of dealing with mental health issues, including stress, teaching them values and ethics and good manners -- the list is perhaps endless. That would help a great deal. And it's very important.
Because the sister of an undergrad who goes to a party and makes the mistake of drinking too much should end up walked home to sleep it off and not sexually assaulted on asphalt behind a dumpster.
I hope that some good can come out of the victim's eloquence and her plight, the bad environment at Stanford and on other campuses and the shocking decision from the court in California. This type of stuff has gone on for way too long. It's time for society to hit the reset button and do something about it.
As for Persky, he goofed, plain and simple. There are calls for his resignation, his recall and his defeat at the polls in the fall. My guess is that many will remain hot on this topic to mount a serious challenge to Persky. That said, the prosecutor in this case has not called for his resignation. In fact, if you read far and wide enough, the comments that you read about Persky are that he is a good and fair judge. That said. . . it's hard to find many quotes from attorneys that would criticize sitting judges. The reason -- they have to appear before them and so do their firms. As a result, there is no upside to criticizing a judge publicly after any case. And that leads to the ultimate question -- is there a meaningful way to hold the judiciary accountable? We have learned as a society that we have failed to find good ways to hold police accountable, and I think that the same holds true for prosecutors. And now this, this, well, issue, fiasco, travesty of justice, what have you.
Turner made a terrible decision and committed a terrible act. What the heck was he thinking? He picked his sin, and for some reason he was fortunate enough to hire good counsel and then draw a judge like Persky, who was in a lenient sentencing mood. And while he will have to live with those consequences forever -- being registered as a sex offender, having that on his record -- he is far from a victim here. True, there is a lot of pressure on Stanford kids, on recruited athletes, on kids with Olympic ambitions, but almost all of them do not sexually assault unconscious women. Yes, there is a lot of alcohol on campus and promiscuity, but, again, that Turner was drunk should by no means excuse what he did. Most if not all sexual assaults on campus involve alcohol. By imbibing and then overimbibing, Turner adopted some very risky behavior that does not usually lead to happy consequences and in this case led to bad ones. He does not deserve understanding and leniency because he was caught up in a culture of alcohol and sex. Would Judge Persky have been tougher on him had he been sober? If so, why? This was not a case of "he said, she said" or "when does no mean no," and I am sure there are cases that are ambiguous and can be most difficult for triers of fact because, well, the facts are not clear. We all have to allow for the fact that everyone is entitled to a defense and that sometimes the accused did not do it. But here, two witnesses caught up to Turner after they caught him in the act. This wasn't a case of ambiguity -- this was an out and out rape.
Much has been made of the letter that Turner's father wrote. Turner's father might not have written the most eloquent or sensitive letter, but we all would go pretty far to get our child a good defense lawyer and then write to the judge. Anyone who has kids can tell you that. Privately, parents might lecture their children and hold them accountable, but everyone is entitled to a defense and family support. That doesn't mean that a horrible crime did not take place; of course it did. I know that there are some people who would argue that Turner did the crime and should do the time and that his parents only are further coddling him by trying to help him and protect him. Well, parents love their kids regardless of whether they swim in the Olympics or commit a crime. Those who are aggrieved will pick apart the case and focus on this, but I think that their time would be better spent looking at the California judicial system, sentencing guidelines, how the judge came to this decision and what can be done to make everyone more aware of problems like this on campus and how to prevent them. And it seems that they are doing just that.
This one left me speechless. I fully empathize with the victim and her family. Her note -- read aloud on television -- gives us tremendous insight into what a victim goes through and how horrible her experience was. First years in college -- and especially men -- should read it and synthesize it and try as much as possible to avoid situations that could lead to the type of behavior that Brock Turner displayed -- and should remember that any woman is someone's sister, someone's daughter, someone's good friend -- and how would you like that to happen to your sister, your daughter or your good friend? I hope that the victim is getting the help that she needs to recover as best she can; sadly, Judge Persky's abdication of his role exacerbates her pain instead of lessening it. And I hope that society can take a deep look into problems like the one that befell her and take steps so that no one has to endure what she did. We will express our outrage at the system for the lenient sentence, and we will respond to that as best we can. But the victim -- and others like her -- too quickly get forgotten. And the only way we can solve for the broader problems is by never forgetting them, and continuing to reach out to them and embrace them.
Atop that, we are a society that reacts after the fact and attacks symptoms rather than causes. We might be seventy-five pounds overweight and suffer from pre-diabetes and hypertension, but we expect inexpensive pills to help us as opposed to attacking the cause by eating less and more sensibly and by exercising. We abhor the behavior that Brock Turner displayed but yet it still goes on, much of it in all likelihood unreported. Society needs to attack the cause of these attacks -- whether it's putting kids in college who do not belong there, treating recruited athletes like they are entitled, something special and unaccountable, creating way too much pressure on them, making alcohol too available, not offering means of dealing with mental health issues, including stress, teaching them values and ethics and good manners -- the list is perhaps endless. That would help a great deal. And it's very important.
Because the sister of an undergrad who goes to a party and makes the mistake of drinking too much should end up walked home to sleep it off and not sexually assaulted on asphalt behind a dumpster.
I hope that some good can come out of the victim's eloquence and her plight, the bad environment at Stanford and on other campuses and the shocking decision from the court in California. This type of stuff has gone on for way too long. It's time for society to hit the reset button and do something about it.
Wednesday, June 08, 2016
Another Side to Former Flyers' Owner Ed Snider
Joseph Heller once wrote that "all that glitters isn't gold." Snider, who passed away recently, was eulogized as the best sports owner in Philadelphia history and a true visionary in the world of sports. This article here refutes that and reveals some facts about Snider that got whitewashed over the years. When you read it, you can draw conclusions at various ends of a spectrum, either that these are lies, or that they're true but that Snider changed over the years, or that Snider's reputation was based on a foundation constructed of silly putty and wet tissues but burnished by a fawning media and his loyalty to sometimes competent and sometimes not ex-Flyers. Read the article here.
My opinion is that Ted Beitchman's article is true. I had heard some of the stories from family members and what Beitchman writes confirms what I had heard. Look, Snider did develop the loyalty of his ex-players and I'm sure did a lot of good things for them and others. But it doesn't appear that the Flyers were his idea and it seems to appear that he took advantage of Jerry Wolman's difficulties for his own personal gain. What gets lost in the translation is that he was a horrible leader of the 76ers for 15 years and that his refusal to move away from Flyers' alumni and the 1970's style of play has kept the Flyers without a Stanley Cup since the mid-1970's (and some of that style -- the endless fighting, third men in and bench-clearing brawls -- has basically been heavily regulated and penalized).
I'm not a hockey fan per se (I like playoff hockey), don't like the fighting aspects of the game and wonder whether any team has a multiple of fans beyond those who regularly attend the games. The game is hard to follow on television and it's hard to identify with players who wear headgear.
At the end of the day, I thought that the press missed out on the real Snider the way they missed out on baseball's steroids scandal. They referred to him as "Mr." long past when they referred to any other figure as Mr. I just couldn't figure out why. He owned a sports team, cut an unbelievable and virtually unaccountable deal with the Roberts' family and Comcast to maintain control of a team he ceased owning (and running the 76ers horribly and the Flyers in an up-and-down fashion) and would have been fired after a few years of mismanaging the 76ers had there been any modicum of accountability and would have been fired after say five years given his history after the Flyers lack of progress. Instead, he was put on this pedestal and given an entitlement to preside over not one but two sports teams because of what he did in the early-to-mid 1970's. It was hard to believe and hard to take.
That doesn't make him an evil or horrible person, of course, just a person who had his successes (many, some big and all well publicized) and his failures (basically glossed over by a media who either was in awe of him or afraid of losing access or some form of retribution). What Ted Beitchman does is to try to round out the picture of someone who was about as human in character as many others, if at times more so.
Sometimes you just have to let it go, as Jerry Wolman did. But other times to clarify the record the entire story should be told. And Ted Beitchman did a good job telling it.
My opinion is that Ted Beitchman's article is true. I had heard some of the stories from family members and what Beitchman writes confirms what I had heard. Look, Snider did develop the loyalty of his ex-players and I'm sure did a lot of good things for them and others. But it doesn't appear that the Flyers were his idea and it seems to appear that he took advantage of Jerry Wolman's difficulties for his own personal gain. What gets lost in the translation is that he was a horrible leader of the 76ers for 15 years and that his refusal to move away from Flyers' alumni and the 1970's style of play has kept the Flyers without a Stanley Cup since the mid-1970's (and some of that style -- the endless fighting, third men in and bench-clearing brawls -- has basically been heavily regulated and penalized).
I'm not a hockey fan per se (I like playoff hockey), don't like the fighting aspects of the game and wonder whether any team has a multiple of fans beyond those who regularly attend the games. The game is hard to follow on television and it's hard to identify with players who wear headgear.
At the end of the day, I thought that the press missed out on the real Snider the way they missed out on baseball's steroids scandal. They referred to him as "Mr." long past when they referred to any other figure as Mr. I just couldn't figure out why. He owned a sports team, cut an unbelievable and virtually unaccountable deal with the Roberts' family and Comcast to maintain control of a team he ceased owning (and running the 76ers horribly and the Flyers in an up-and-down fashion) and would have been fired after a few years of mismanaging the 76ers had there been any modicum of accountability and would have been fired after say five years given his history after the Flyers lack of progress. Instead, he was put on this pedestal and given an entitlement to preside over not one but two sports teams because of what he did in the early-to-mid 1970's. It was hard to believe and hard to take.
That doesn't make him an evil or horrible person, of course, just a person who had his successes (many, some big and all well publicized) and his failures (basically glossed over by a media who either was in awe of him or afraid of losing access or some form of retribution). What Ted Beitchman does is to try to round out the picture of someone who was about as human in character as many others, if at times more so.
Sometimes you just have to let it go, as Jerry Wolman did. But other times to clarify the record the entire story should be told. And Ted Beitchman did a good job telling it.
Friday, June 03, 2016
Cleveland Rocks or Cleveland Bricks?
A few thoughts:
1. Because neither Steph Curry nor Klay Thompson hammer at people physically the way LeBron James or Russell Westbrook do, I suspect that many fans believe that the Warriors are a soft, finesse team. As Kobe Bryant said the other day in an interview on ESPN Radio, both Curry and Thompson are "stone-cold killers." For what it's worth, the NBA is becoming an outside game, which values finesse over the ability to toss the ball into the low blocks to a big man with a big rear end who can back in and put the ball off the backboard into the basket. That big man is healthy, but having guys who can hit the three consistently is now the recipe to winning titles.
2. The Cavs are healthier and deeper than last year. They need to show that depth more in Game Two than they did in Game 1. Some believe that the Cavs will change their game plan and will win Game Two. Somehow I don't think that the lapses that the Warriors demonstrated in the OKC series will recur in this one. Last night, the Warriors had six players score in double figures. They also have two guys who can harass LeBron James enough to make him work for everything. LBJ had a pretty good night last night, but the Cavs bench was AWOL and for large parts so was Kyrie Irving.
3. While I didn't post it here, I told others that I thought the Warriors would win the series in five games. That's not because I think Cleveland is bad or worse than the Spurs or Thunder. The Cavs are a very good basketball team. That also takes into account the strong will and wish of LeBron to bring a title to Cleveland. It's just that I think that the Warriors woke up and hit their stride both in the last five minutes of Game 6 against the Thunder and in Game 7 of that series. They realized that they had to dig a little deeper. Thompson led that effort in the fourth quarter of Game 6, and the team did a much better job as a whole in Game 7. The Warriors are primed. Instead of having a grueling series against the Thunder exhaust them, it sharpened their skills. In contrast, the Cavs hardly had the challenges in the East that the teams in the West faced. That showed in Game 1 last night.
4. The James-Love-Irving troika is an impressive three. While different, I'm not sure that it's as impressive as the Curry-Thompson-Green three. It's hard to argue against the comment that James is the best player in the game. But Love disappeared in the Eastern finals in the games in Toronto and Irving, while very good, also can be inconsistent enough that a very good team can exploit his inconsistencies. Curry, when healthy, is at the pinnacle of the game, and Thompson almost singlehandedly in the fourth quarter of Game 6 against the Thunder saved the Warriors' playoff season. Green is volative and voluble, a lightning rod for attention and stress, a player you want on your team but hate playing against, the type of catalyst who can combust your engine or, when he misfires, combust your team's chances with bad moments. Based on last year in the playoffs and this year's regular season, I'll take the Warriors' troika.
5. Of course, it's not just about three players. The Warriors' bench outscored the Cavs' bench 42-10 last night. That cannot continue if the Cavs are to win the championship.
6. The series is far from over. They say in soccer that the second goal in a game is the most important one. Well, the second game in a series might be the most important one. Sunday night's result will go a long way in telling us the type of series we are going to witness.
1. Because neither Steph Curry nor Klay Thompson hammer at people physically the way LeBron James or Russell Westbrook do, I suspect that many fans believe that the Warriors are a soft, finesse team. As Kobe Bryant said the other day in an interview on ESPN Radio, both Curry and Thompson are "stone-cold killers." For what it's worth, the NBA is becoming an outside game, which values finesse over the ability to toss the ball into the low blocks to a big man with a big rear end who can back in and put the ball off the backboard into the basket. That big man is healthy, but having guys who can hit the three consistently is now the recipe to winning titles.
2. The Cavs are healthier and deeper than last year. They need to show that depth more in Game Two than they did in Game 1. Some believe that the Cavs will change their game plan and will win Game Two. Somehow I don't think that the lapses that the Warriors demonstrated in the OKC series will recur in this one. Last night, the Warriors had six players score in double figures. They also have two guys who can harass LeBron James enough to make him work for everything. LBJ had a pretty good night last night, but the Cavs bench was AWOL and for large parts so was Kyrie Irving.
3. While I didn't post it here, I told others that I thought the Warriors would win the series in five games. That's not because I think Cleveland is bad or worse than the Spurs or Thunder. The Cavs are a very good basketball team. That also takes into account the strong will and wish of LeBron to bring a title to Cleveland. It's just that I think that the Warriors woke up and hit their stride both in the last five minutes of Game 6 against the Thunder and in Game 7 of that series. They realized that they had to dig a little deeper. Thompson led that effort in the fourth quarter of Game 6, and the team did a much better job as a whole in Game 7. The Warriors are primed. Instead of having a grueling series against the Thunder exhaust them, it sharpened their skills. In contrast, the Cavs hardly had the challenges in the East that the teams in the West faced. That showed in Game 1 last night.
4. The James-Love-Irving troika is an impressive three. While different, I'm not sure that it's as impressive as the Curry-Thompson-Green three. It's hard to argue against the comment that James is the best player in the game. But Love disappeared in the Eastern finals in the games in Toronto and Irving, while very good, also can be inconsistent enough that a very good team can exploit his inconsistencies. Curry, when healthy, is at the pinnacle of the game, and Thompson almost singlehandedly in the fourth quarter of Game 6 against the Thunder saved the Warriors' playoff season. Green is volative and voluble, a lightning rod for attention and stress, a player you want on your team but hate playing against, the type of catalyst who can combust your engine or, when he misfires, combust your team's chances with bad moments. Based on last year in the playoffs and this year's regular season, I'll take the Warriors' troika.
5. Of course, it's not just about three players. The Warriors' bench outscored the Cavs' bench 42-10 last night. That cannot continue if the Cavs are to win the championship.
6. The series is far from over. They say in soccer that the second goal in a game is the most important one. Well, the second game in a series might be the most important one. Sunday night's result will go a long way in telling us the type of series we are going to witness.
Tuesday, May 31, 2016
The Rio Olympics Make Sense Because. . .
It's good to have the Olympics somewhere other than the First World -- Western Europe, the U.S. or Japan. It's good to have the Olympics in one of the top ten most populated countries in the world. The climate could be much better than Qatar's for the World Cup in six years. Brazil's economy was once a raging tiger not so many years ago; now it is a pussycat in need of a rescue.
Its economy is a mess. At the Confederations Cup two years ago there were massive protests complaining that a country in need of some basics was building so many stadiums for that tournament and the World Cup. Yes, the World Cup was a success, at least through the roving eyes back in the U.S. The stadiums looked great, the weather was tolerable, the broadcast crew the best thing since the days of ABC's Wide World of Sports, and the mural that was being painted was sublime.
What we saw was the veneer, though. Two years ago there were protests. Last year there was a façade. This year the country is like the guy in the cartoon who fell into the shopping cart, got pushed, and now the shopping cart is running at Indy 500 speeds on a downhill slope toward a cliff. The president of the country will be fired. And then what?
Atop that, well-identified pollution problems plague the waters were rowing and sailing will be held. Now there's the presence of the Zika virus. Brazil's problems kind of remind me of the story behind Rasputin's death. He was poisoned, clubbed, stabbed, shot and then thrown into the river. When found, the cause of death was drowning. The good news in that parable is that Rasputin was stubborn enough to hang in there. The bad news was that he was so vilified and of such character that many wanted him dead. Brazil, no doubt, will reveal national pride, but it has so many maladies it will be a wonder if they pull off the Olympics without a hitch, with no athletes getting sick, and without further hurting their economy.
If you read this you like sports, but we have to ask ourselves periodically how much we emphasize sports over solving much more important problems, like hunger, human trafficking, global warming and pollution. Building stadiums where people need basic structure or building a $62.5 million high school football stadium in a state with a lot of poor people just doesn't make a lot of sense. There are times -- and places -- for competitions and for celebrations.
It just doesn't seem that Rio in 2016 should be one of them or will be one of them.
Its economy is a mess. At the Confederations Cup two years ago there were massive protests complaining that a country in need of some basics was building so many stadiums for that tournament and the World Cup. Yes, the World Cup was a success, at least through the roving eyes back in the U.S. The stadiums looked great, the weather was tolerable, the broadcast crew the best thing since the days of ABC's Wide World of Sports, and the mural that was being painted was sublime.
What we saw was the veneer, though. Two years ago there were protests. Last year there was a façade. This year the country is like the guy in the cartoon who fell into the shopping cart, got pushed, and now the shopping cart is running at Indy 500 speeds on a downhill slope toward a cliff. The president of the country will be fired. And then what?
Atop that, well-identified pollution problems plague the waters were rowing and sailing will be held. Now there's the presence of the Zika virus. Brazil's problems kind of remind me of the story behind Rasputin's death. He was poisoned, clubbed, stabbed, shot and then thrown into the river. When found, the cause of death was drowning. The good news in that parable is that Rasputin was stubborn enough to hang in there. The bad news was that he was so vilified and of such character that many wanted him dead. Brazil, no doubt, will reveal national pride, but it has so many maladies it will be a wonder if they pull off the Olympics without a hitch, with no athletes getting sick, and without further hurting their economy.
If you read this you like sports, but we have to ask ourselves periodically how much we emphasize sports over solving much more important problems, like hunger, human trafficking, global warming and pollution. Building stadiums where people need basic structure or building a $62.5 million high school football stadium in a state with a lot of poor people just doesn't make a lot of sense. There are times -- and places -- for competitions and for celebrations.
It just doesn't seem that Rio in 2016 should be one of them or will be one of them.
Friday, May 27, 2016
The Baylor Fiasco
If you wrote this as a novel, unless it were a Carl Hiassen farce, people wouldn't believe it because of the two major elements to the story:
1. Christian school.
2. School president is former White House Special Prosecutor.
Then again, people might believe it because
1. It is college football.
2. It is college football in Texas.
3. College football is a big business.
Add to that the confusion between the good book and idolatry. Baylor fans worship God and Art Briles, the now-deposed football coach, and it made you wonder at times in what order.
Football came first, as did the attention and money that went with it. Protecting, among others, everyone's daughters, having a process for letting victims speak up safely and treating them with fairness, have a process to investigate allegations quickly, fairly and effectively, not so much. And now Baylor has a huge mess that snowballed out of proportion because there were institutional failures too numerous to count. Before anyone goes on a feeding frenzy, not all Baylor employees are awful people and not all Baylor football players are criminals. All have to be careful to stick to the facts and not paint any situation with a broad brush. Yes, it is a mess.
How does it get this far? I do not want in any way to diminish the importance of the victims here -- the women who were assaulted. They have suffered immeasurably and no one not a victim can say "I know how you feel," because they do not. But there are symptoms that are deeply rooted in our culture that give rise both to the offending behaviors and the lack of accountability that need to be addressed. Among those are:
1. Let's stop anointing football players as untouchable demi-gods from the time they are 10.
2. Let's stop overlooking their transgressions because those transgressions might mess up their transgressions and ruin their chances at a "full ride."
3. Let's figure out alternative ways for them to deal with their frustrations, aggressions and stress constructively and when they are not being watched. In other words, let's work on their coping and social skills -- in a big way. Society puts a lot of pressure on these kids to train and perform, perhaps too much so for young men this young. That statement is not meant to excuse the bad behavior, but perhaps to identify a cause for it.
4. Let's examine how football coaches talk about women and tolerate what else is said about women. Women are very important people, period, who command respect and treatment with decency. They are not objects for football players' amusement. And they have every right to say no all the time.
5. Let's de-couple the good feelings a school might have or earn for itself from the success of any athletic team. Football, after all, should be an extracurricular activity. Sadly, in many places, it is a business, and at most FBS schools a poorly run one, as a huge majority of DI football programs lose money. But if we could de-couple the two, somehow administrators would be able to treat every department and program equally and not have to look the other way because influential alums might deny donations or get them fired if they don't enable the football program to overlook bad behavior if otherwise three key players might get dismissed from the team. The better argument is that every school that gives a kid a pass on bad behavior is doing him a disservice. Everyone needs feedback and accountability, especially in these very formative years. Show me a kid who doesn't get held accountable for more basic, non-criminal transgressions, and I'll show you a kid who will have trouble in the work force and perhaps in life. Not holding players accountable for sexual assaults -- when then anyone who knew about the attack should be working elsewhere, not at a university and not with college kids.
6. Let's stop putting college football coaches on pedestals. They are not leaders who could run corporations (which require a lot more dexterity, inclusion, process and sensitivity) or who could lead governments -- at least as a general proposition. Most are dictators who get things their way almost all the time. Some are snake-oil salesmen, using kids for their own gain without caring about their progressing toward a meaningful degree. Many live lives that are way out of balance. They are human beings, flawed human beings, just like the rest of us.
What happened to the Christian aspects of Baylor? What happened to the moral high ground that Ken Starr used to define and insist that he operated on? What happened to dignity and decency for all students? And, Art Briles, what would have happened if your daughter was a victim? Let's remember, if an assault happens to anyone's daughter, it could have happened to our own daughters. And that's a scary thought. Who was protecting those young women? Shouldn't the adults in the room report matters up the chain, be prepared to demonstrate integrity even if it were to mean losing football games because of suspended or dismissed players, and be expected to care about and take care of all kids at the university?
It's a sad day all around. I just fear that there are other situations out there, perhaps many others, because universities get so focused on winning football games that they forget their overall missions and doing the right thing as much as possible. There is much more to life than football games.
1. Christian school.
2. School president is former White House Special Prosecutor.
Then again, people might believe it because
1. It is college football.
2. It is college football in Texas.
3. College football is a big business.
Add to that the confusion between the good book and idolatry. Baylor fans worship God and Art Briles, the now-deposed football coach, and it made you wonder at times in what order.
Football came first, as did the attention and money that went with it. Protecting, among others, everyone's daughters, having a process for letting victims speak up safely and treating them with fairness, have a process to investigate allegations quickly, fairly and effectively, not so much. And now Baylor has a huge mess that snowballed out of proportion because there were institutional failures too numerous to count. Before anyone goes on a feeding frenzy, not all Baylor employees are awful people and not all Baylor football players are criminals. All have to be careful to stick to the facts and not paint any situation with a broad brush. Yes, it is a mess.
How does it get this far? I do not want in any way to diminish the importance of the victims here -- the women who were assaulted. They have suffered immeasurably and no one not a victim can say "I know how you feel," because they do not. But there are symptoms that are deeply rooted in our culture that give rise both to the offending behaviors and the lack of accountability that need to be addressed. Among those are:
1. Let's stop anointing football players as untouchable demi-gods from the time they are 10.
2. Let's stop overlooking their transgressions because those transgressions might mess up their transgressions and ruin their chances at a "full ride."
3. Let's figure out alternative ways for them to deal with their frustrations, aggressions and stress constructively and when they are not being watched. In other words, let's work on their coping and social skills -- in a big way. Society puts a lot of pressure on these kids to train and perform, perhaps too much so for young men this young. That statement is not meant to excuse the bad behavior, but perhaps to identify a cause for it.
4. Let's examine how football coaches talk about women and tolerate what else is said about women. Women are very important people, period, who command respect and treatment with decency. They are not objects for football players' amusement. And they have every right to say no all the time.
5. Let's de-couple the good feelings a school might have or earn for itself from the success of any athletic team. Football, after all, should be an extracurricular activity. Sadly, in many places, it is a business, and at most FBS schools a poorly run one, as a huge majority of DI football programs lose money. But if we could de-couple the two, somehow administrators would be able to treat every department and program equally and not have to look the other way because influential alums might deny donations or get them fired if they don't enable the football program to overlook bad behavior if otherwise three key players might get dismissed from the team. The better argument is that every school that gives a kid a pass on bad behavior is doing him a disservice. Everyone needs feedback and accountability, especially in these very formative years. Show me a kid who doesn't get held accountable for more basic, non-criminal transgressions, and I'll show you a kid who will have trouble in the work force and perhaps in life. Not holding players accountable for sexual assaults -- when then anyone who knew about the attack should be working elsewhere, not at a university and not with college kids.
6. Let's stop putting college football coaches on pedestals. They are not leaders who could run corporations (which require a lot more dexterity, inclusion, process and sensitivity) or who could lead governments -- at least as a general proposition. Most are dictators who get things their way almost all the time. Some are snake-oil salesmen, using kids for their own gain without caring about their progressing toward a meaningful degree. Many live lives that are way out of balance. They are human beings, flawed human beings, just like the rest of us.
What happened to the Christian aspects of Baylor? What happened to the moral high ground that Ken Starr used to define and insist that he operated on? What happened to dignity and decency for all students? And, Art Briles, what would have happened if your daughter was a victim? Let's remember, if an assault happens to anyone's daughter, it could have happened to our own daughters. And that's a scary thought. Who was protecting those young women? Shouldn't the adults in the room report matters up the chain, be prepared to demonstrate integrity even if it were to mean losing football games because of suspended or dismissed players, and be expected to care about and take care of all kids at the university?
It's a sad day all around. I just fear that there are other situations out there, perhaps many others, because universities get so focused on winning football games that they forget their overall missions and doing the right thing as much as possible. There is much more to life than football games.
Wednesday, May 18, 2016
Why are There So Many Transfers in College Basketball?
Occam's Razor suggest that the simplest solution is usually the best one. This ESPN.com article gives some flavor to how big this issues is. Ergo. . .
1. You are dealing with kids who have had a lot of success in basketball and are running into failure for the first time. Head coach and assistant coach woo the kid, project the kid to get all sorts of playing time, possibly to be a star. Head coach and assistant coach are embellishing if not lying. Not everyone can be a star, not everyone can get a lot of playing time. Something has to give. Kid might be lying to himself -- he might believe what his friends and coaches are telling him -- that he is the man. Deep down, though, the kid might know that he has to develop his other hand, needs to get more stamina and has to work on his jumper. But he chooses the easier path -- which is to believe -- totally -- what he is told in the wooing process. So, after a season or two, when the coach who was sweet talking him turns out to be a meanie, a liar, favoring others and this kid sits at the end of the bench, he gets irritated. Perhaps he got sold a bill of goods. Perhaps the coach isn't being fair. Perhaps he his mad at himself because he wasn't totally sure of the situation. Most definitely, he isn't ready to give up the dream of finding a better spot. Transferring, like second marriages, represents the triumph of hope over experience. It's a leap of faith, especially if you thought you were burned. And if you didn't think you were burned, you at least are more relaxed and say, "well, it wasn't a good fit for me, and I have to find a better place." Remember, we're dealing with teenagers mostly, and they are not fully formed. They are dealing with frustration, disappointment and failure -- many for the first time in their young lives. They are feeling all sorts of emotions and have started to doubt themselves. And it hurts. A change of scenery could help.
2. Social media doesn't help things. It's much easier to figure out what is going on at other schools, who will have a need for your position in the following season or two, who might be leaving, who might be unhappy, what have you. And the kids can read about themselves much more, too. Imagine if you're eighteen and you read that you didn't show up the way people thought, that you're a stiff, that you aren't a good fit. And then you match that up with the feedback you get from the coaches and your playing time. And then you have your friends giving you all sorts of advice. You're nineteen, your head is spinning. It gets filled up with all sorts of clutter about your skills, your future, who is being honest with you about your potential and who has lied, what have you. So, you tap into your network -- your parents, your AAU coach -- and you put out feelers to the schools that recruited you before and, if you're really savvy, schools that might have a real need for your position. Now, those schools might have warts, too, and they might have openings precisely because kids they recruited didn't think that they got a fair deal. No matter, because you are desperate to find a better fit and the coach at that school shouldn't make the same mistake twice. You also might have grown and become more mature in dealing with your first disappointment. In any event, the omnipresence of the media just heightens the players sensitivities.
3. Coaches Never Stop Recruiting and Players Never Stop Being Recruited. When there is an epidemic, there is a persistent, spreading problem. So, most coaches must think that they are going to lose some of every freshman class. Their assistants probably keep tabs with a select number of AAU coaches of players that they missed out on, ostensibly to find out about new prospects but clandestinely to see how those kids like their new schools. Correspondingly, if a kid doesn't like his situation, he taps into his network, which includes his AAU coach, and asks that coach to put out feelers to some of the schools he rejected. It can become a vicious cycle. If you're a head coach fighting hard to compete every year, you do the "keep tabs, continuous recruiting of current college players" thing to make sure that you will have a robust roster every year. If you're a player, well, you didn't become an elite player and draw Division I interest because you were clueless. After some trending trouble, you'll put out some feelers to ascertain who might be interested in you. And then the cycle gets worse.
4. One-year renewable scholarships also are a problem, especially when paired with lucrative long-term deals for head coaches. If you're a bit at the margins at your DI program, you probably should keep in touch with your high school and AAU coaches just in case you feel that the winds are blowing the wrong way and you might not get renewed. And you might then want to jump before you're pushed, so to speak, so that the quest to transfer looks like it was your decision. Invariably, if you were good enough in high school, some other DI coach will view you as a bargain and try to sign you up quickly. I don't know whether granting kids a four-year scholarship that is automatically renewable would make a difference. You would think that for some kids who ultimately might be happy sitting on the end of the bench that it might.
5. The pressure on coaches to win and their lucrative compensation puts enormous pressure on them to win and might encourage unethical tactics. I don't think I need to write anything more here. The headline says it all.
I don't blame the kids for wanting to transfer. Sure, in a perfect world they should pick a school because it's the right fit for them and because they can get a good education. And most DI basketball players would subscribe to that, especially because most will not play for money after college. But they have to spend so much time to get good enough to get noticed, it's hard to blame them for not wanting to play in DI after putting all that time in. Travel basketball is a year-round phenomenon, and the kids want to get the playing time and accolades that they thing that they have earned. Besides, who wants to have his signing of a letter of intent be the crowning achievement of his career? College should be the next chapter in a fun journey, not the end of the road for the player.
The kids are standing up to an authoritarian system and authoritarian coaches. It's hard to argue with.
1. You are dealing with kids who have had a lot of success in basketball and are running into failure for the first time. Head coach and assistant coach woo the kid, project the kid to get all sorts of playing time, possibly to be a star. Head coach and assistant coach are embellishing if not lying. Not everyone can be a star, not everyone can get a lot of playing time. Something has to give. Kid might be lying to himself -- he might believe what his friends and coaches are telling him -- that he is the man. Deep down, though, the kid might know that he has to develop his other hand, needs to get more stamina and has to work on his jumper. But he chooses the easier path -- which is to believe -- totally -- what he is told in the wooing process. So, after a season or two, when the coach who was sweet talking him turns out to be a meanie, a liar, favoring others and this kid sits at the end of the bench, he gets irritated. Perhaps he got sold a bill of goods. Perhaps the coach isn't being fair. Perhaps he his mad at himself because he wasn't totally sure of the situation. Most definitely, he isn't ready to give up the dream of finding a better spot. Transferring, like second marriages, represents the triumph of hope over experience. It's a leap of faith, especially if you thought you were burned. And if you didn't think you were burned, you at least are more relaxed and say, "well, it wasn't a good fit for me, and I have to find a better place." Remember, we're dealing with teenagers mostly, and they are not fully formed. They are dealing with frustration, disappointment and failure -- many for the first time in their young lives. They are feeling all sorts of emotions and have started to doubt themselves. And it hurts. A change of scenery could help.
2. Social media doesn't help things. It's much easier to figure out what is going on at other schools, who will have a need for your position in the following season or two, who might be leaving, who might be unhappy, what have you. And the kids can read about themselves much more, too. Imagine if you're eighteen and you read that you didn't show up the way people thought, that you're a stiff, that you aren't a good fit. And then you match that up with the feedback you get from the coaches and your playing time. And then you have your friends giving you all sorts of advice. You're nineteen, your head is spinning. It gets filled up with all sorts of clutter about your skills, your future, who is being honest with you about your potential and who has lied, what have you. So, you tap into your network -- your parents, your AAU coach -- and you put out feelers to the schools that recruited you before and, if you're really savvy, schools that might have a real need for your position. Now, those schools might have warts, too, and they might have openings precisely because kids they recruited didn't think that they got a fair deal. No matter, because you are desperate to find a better fit and the coach at that school shouldn't make the same mistake twice. You also might have grown and become more mature in dealing with your first disappointment. In any event, the omnipresence of the media just heightens the players sensitivities.
3. Coaches Never Stop Recruiting and Players Never Stop Being Recruited. When there is an epidemic, there is a persistent, spreading problem. So, most coaches must think that they are going to lose some of every freshman class. Their assistants probably keep tabs with a select number of AAU coaches of players that they missed out on, ostensibly to find out about new prospects but clandestinely to see how those kids like their new schools. Correspondingly, if a kid doesn't like his situation, he taps into his network, which includes his AAU coach, and asks that coach to put out feelers to some of the schools he rejected. It can become a vicious cycle. If you're a head coach fighting hard to compete every year, you do the "keep tabs, continuous recruiting of current college players" thing to make sure that you will have a robust roster every year. If you're a player, well, you didn't become an elite player and draw Division I interest because you were clueless. After some trending trouble, you'll put out some feelers to ascertain who might be interested in you. And then the cycle gets worse.
4. One-year renewable scholarships also are a problem, especially when paired with lucrative long-term deals for head coaches. If you're a bit at the margins at your DI program, you probably should keep in touch with your high school and AAU coaches just in case you feel that the winds are blowing the wrong way and you might not get renewed. And you might then want to jump before you're pushed, so to speak, so that the quest to transfer looks like it was your decision. Invariably, if you were good enough in high school, some other DI coach will view you as a bargain and try to sign you up quickly. I don't know whether granting kids a four-year scholarship that is automatically renewable would make a difference. You would think that for some kids who ultimately might be happy sitting on the end of the bench that it might.
5. The pressure on coaches to win and their lucrative compensation puts enormous pressure on them to win and might encourage unethical tactics. I don't think I need to write anything more here. The headline says it all.
I don't blame the kids for wanting to transfer. Sure, in a perfect world they should pick a school because it's the right fit for them and because they can get a good education. And most DI basketball players would subscribe to that, especially because most will not play for money after college. But they have to spend so much time to get good enough to get noticed, it's hard to blame them for not wanting to play in DI after putting all that time in. Travel basketball is a year-round phenomenon, and the kids want to get the playing time and accolades that they thing that they have earned. Besides, who wants to have his signing of a letter of intent be the crowning achievement of his career? College should be the next chapter in a fun journey, not the end of the road for the player.
The kids are standing up to an authoritarian system and authoritarian coaches. It's hard to argue with.
Thursday, May 12, 2016
A Sign of the Times on ESPN.com
If you like sports, you read that website. In the middle right, there is a list of headlines with hyperlinks to the text. One of those headlines is that Everton sacked Roberto Martinez.
Say what?
Everton is not a team in any of the major US sports leagues. It isn't a university, either. And yet, on the American website, the firing of the manager (read: head coach) of an also-ran top-division English soccer club gets a headline of this prominence -- even at a time when ESPN has a website dedicated totally to soccer.
What should we read into this?
1. It's a slow news day, and, sorry, but outside Max Scherzer's striking out 20 of his former Tiger teammates there is no sports news this morning.
2. Soccer has become a much bigger deal in the U.S.
3. More global readers read ESPN.com than in years past.
4. Many Americans got to know Roberto Martinez during ESPN's telecasts of the World Cup in 2014 and came to like him, so he's somewhat better known in the U.S. than, say, Guus Hiddink.
5. Perhaps those who read ESPN.com right now do not find baseball as compelling as fans thirty years ago did.
6. All of the above.
And why? Well, for one thing, the average age of an MLB fan is about 56 years old, and hockey seems to have a limited audience beyond those who attend games. It's the off-season for college football and basketball, and while the NBA playoffs can be fascinating, they don't hold the broad sports audience night after night. Whether they should at this stage is a totally different issue. But with soccer -- and the nascency of its being broadcast from England into the U.S. on NBC Sports Channel -- there is much more interested, especially because a) mostly all games but Cup games have concluded and b) we could be upon one of the most volatile transfer seasons in recent memory.
While this is great for soccer, it is not as good for those who got displaced. My read is that the elders of baseball should be very worried about the demographics of their fans base.
As for Martinez, he seems to be a good guy who lost his team. He's a natural in the broadcast booth, and here's to wishing him well and finding the next good job.
Say what?
Everton is not a team in any of the major US sports leagues. It isn't a university, either. And yet, on the American website, the firing of the manager (read: head coach) of an also-ran top-division English soccer club gets a headline of this prominence -- even at a time when ESPN has a website dedicated totally to soccer.
What should we read into this?
1. It's a slow news day, and, sorry, but outside Max Scherzer's striking out 20 of his former Tiger teammates there is no sports news this morning.
2. Soccer has become a much bigger deal in the U.S.
3. More global readers read ESPN.com than in years past.
4. Many Americans got to know Roberto Martinez during ESPN's telecasts of the World Cup in 2014 and came to like him, so he's somewhat better known in the U.S. than, say, Guus Hiddink.
5. Perhaps those who read ESPN.com right now do not find baseball as compelling as fans thirty years ago did.
6. All of the above.
And why? Well, for one thing, the average age of an MLB fan is about 56 years old, and hockey seems to have a limited audience beyond those who attend games. It's the off-season for college football and basketball, and while the NBA playoffs can be fascinating, they don't hold the broad sports audience night after night. Whether they should at this stage is a totally different issue. But with soccer -- and the nascency of its being broadcast from England into the U.S. on NBC Sports Channel -- there is much more interested, especially because a) mostly all games but Cup games have concluded and b) we could be upon one of the most volatile transfer seasons in recent memory.
While this is great for soccer, it is not as good for those who got displaced. My read is that the elders of baseball should be very worried about the demographics of their fans base.
As for Martinez, he seems to be a good guy who lost his team. He's a natural in the broadcast booth, and here's to wishing him well and finding the next good job.
Wednesday, May 11, 2016
Who Would You Start Your NBA Team With?
This is a multiple-choice test.
a) Steph Curry
b) LeBron James
c) Kawhi Leonard
d) Kevin Durant
e) Russell Westbrook
f) James Harden
g) Anthony Davis
h) Other?
Curry is the two-time reigning MVP. LBJ plays a unique position the way Magic did and is in the conversation for being among the five or ten best of all time. Leonard is the silent assassin. Doesn't show the effusive enthusiasm of Curry or the physical dominance of LeBron, but his basketball IQ is off the charts and he makes everyone better. Durant is a deadeye shooter, among other things. Westbrook has Allen Iverson's drive and Tiny Archibald's ability both to thread the pass and hit the jumper -- only better. Harden might not be the optimal defender, but he does so many things well, even if Houston had a problem this year. Davis is a great big man in a league devoid of good post players and post defenders. Sound simple?
Argue away!
a) Steph Curry
b) LeBron James
c) Kawhi Leonard
d) Kevin Durant
e) Russell Westbrook
f) James Harden
g) Anthony Davis
h) Other?
Curry is the two-time reigning MVP. LBJ plays a unique position the way Magic did and is in the conversation for being among the five or ten best of all time. Leonard is the silent assassin. Doesn't show the effusive enthusiasm of Curry or the physical dominance of LeBron, but his basketball IQ is off the charts and he makes everyone better. Durant is a deadeye shooter, among other things. Westbrook has Allen Iverson's drive and Tiny Archibald's ability both to thread the pass and hit the jumper -- only better. Harden might not be the optimal defender, but he does so many things well, even if Houston had a problem this year. Davis is a great big man in a league devoid of good post players and post defenders. Sound simple?
Argue away!
Tuesday, May 10, 2016
The Kevin Durant Sweepstakes
He came in a distant fifth in the MVP standings, is one of the best players "never to win a title," joining the likes of Charles Barkley, Karl Malone and John Stockton, played an awesome game the other night to help the Thunder defeat San Antonio and even that series at two games apiece. He's from DC, went to college for a year at Texas, and has spent his career with the same franchise. It seems that if he were to stay, and Russell Westbrook along with them, that together they could be destined to be like Karl Malone and John Stockton, in the sense that they could play for a long time together, win a lot of games but not win a championship. Now, they are distinctly different players from the all-time pick-and-roll combination, but their fates could be similar.
It would seem to be a reach for Durant to stay in OKC. OKC, while a nice place, isn't a hotbed for nightlife or culture. That said, it depends what Durant wants to do. Does he want to stay in OKC and get a max deal, thereby lessening the likelihood that OKC could attract another piece to help them get past Golden State and the Spurs in the West? Would he opt for a sign-and-trade deal, so that he can get a max deal and then get traded to a team of his choice, although that team presumably could be prevented from signing needed pieces because of cap space? (That said, the cap is expected to go up a lot in the next couple of years). Or, and this is the big "if", would he be willing to take less the way Tim Duncan has with San Antonio (or "had" in the sense that he is a role player now and not the all-timer he once was) and go to a team with other pieces and make them simply awesome -- such as the Warriors or Spurs. Finally, to me there are two other looming options out there. The first are the Wizards, who are in Durant's hometown, hired his former coach (Scott Brooks) and have a great backcourt with John Wall and Bradley Beal. The second are the Celtics, which have a knack for getting great players, have a great young coach and a good nucleus. If either of those teams were to land Durant, they would be among the top three in the East. If the Warriors or Spurs were to land him, they'd be next year's favorite to win the NBA title.
Needless to say, the Wizards will make a big push and the Celtics should. The Warriors and Spurs could get into a battle for him, too, with the stakes being huge because the team that does not get him will be behind the one that does, that is, if either were to get him. The question for Durant is that if he were to stay in OKC, he would be one of two superstars on the roster. If he were to go to the Wizards he'd be one of two also (but with a purer point guard in Wall), and if he were to go to Boston he would be the main guy. If he were to go to the Warriors he would be the number two guy behind the two-time reigning MVP, Steph Curry, and if he were to go to the Spurs he probably would be on equal footing with Kawhi Leonard if only because Leonard is one of the rare superstars who doesn't seem to care who gets the credit so long as there is plenty of credit to go around. Would any of that matter to Durant?
If the status on the team and money matter, then Golden State might be out. On that basis, Boston would seem to be the best fit. If the money only matters, then OKC probably can offer him the best deal. If the money doesn't matter as much and the status does, then the Spurs might be a better fit. And then, when you layer in the chance to win a title, the leading teams out West should be able to offer him the best chance at winning a title.
Got all that? Durant is the big catch in this year's free-agent sweepstakes, a great player and rare talent who can do a lot of things well. So many choices seem so compelling, though, that it is hard to speculate where he will land for next season.
It would seem to be a reach for Durant to stay in OKC. OKC, while a nice place, isn't a hotbed for nightlife or culture. That said, it depends what Durant wants to do. Does he want to stay in OKC and get a max deal, thereby lessening the likelihood that OKC could attract another piece to help them get past Golden State and the Spurs in the West? Would he opt for a sign-and-trade deal, so that he can get a max deal and then get traded to a team of his choice, although that team presumably could be prevented from signing needed pieces because of cap space? (That said, the cap is expected to go up a lot in the next couple of years). Or, and this is the big "if", would he be willing to take less the way Tim Duncan has with San Antonio (or "had" in the sense that he is a role player now and not the all-timer he once was) and go to a team with other pieces and make them simply awesome -- such as the Warriors or Spurs. Finally, to me there are two other looming options out there. The first are the Wizards, who are in Durant's hometown, hired his former coach (Scott Brooks) and have a great backcourt with John Wall and Bradley Beal. The second are the Celtics, which have a knack for getting great players, have a great young coach and a good nucleus. If either of those teams were to land Durant, they would be among the top three in the East. If the Warriors or Spurs were to land him, they'd be next year's favorite to win the NBA title.
Needless to say, the Wizards will make a big push and the Celtics should. The Warriors and Spurs could get into a battle for him, too, with the stakes being huge because the team that does not get him will be behind the one that does, that is, if either were to get him. The question for Durant is that if he were to stay in OKC, he would be one of two superstars on the roster. If he were to go to the Wizards he'd be one of two also (but with a purer point guard in Wall), and if he were to go to Boston he would be the main guy. If he were to go to the Warriors he would be the number two guy behind the two-time reigning MVP, Steph Curry, and if he were to go to the Spurs he probably would be on equal footing with Kawhi Leonard if only because Leonard is one of the rare superstars who doesn't seem to care who gets the credit so long as there is plenty of credit to go around. Would any of that matter to Durant?
If the status on the team and money matter, then Golden State might be out. On that basis, Boston would seem to be the best fit. If the money only matters, then OKC probably can offer him the best deal. If the money doesn't matter as much and the status does, then the Spurs might be a better fit. And then, when you layer in the chance to win a title, the leading teams out West should be able to offer him the best chance at winning a title.
Got all that? Durant is the big catch in this year's free-agent sweepstakes, a great player and rare talent who can do a lot of things well. So many choices seem so compelling, though, that it is hard to speculate where he will land for next season.
Friday, May 06, 2016
A Successful Over 50 Something Diet
Like many people in their fifties, I wasn't getting enough exercise, wasn't watching my portions or the intake of things that taste really good -- sweets and wine, for example. I felt tired, sluggish, not in shape and carrying around too much weight around the mid-section. Atop that, reports on obesity, diabetes and even the connection between too big a stomach and later-life dementia were worrisome.
I self-reflected in January. I thought about what Jack LaLanne once said, which is "If it tastes good, spit it out." Or about what a friend said about why he worked out consistently -- "because when you look at groups of old men, you don't see any fat guys, do you?" I shared my concerns with my wife, who offered this in the way of guidance -- "Make a project out of it, because when you put your mind to something whatever OCD you have kicks in and you'll achieve it."
I confess that I haven't always been a good listener and have tried to do things myself. But having lost and gained back weight a few times since turning forty, I figured that I needed some guidance. I read articles, I surfed the net, confirmed thoughts and got some new ones. In the end, the website of Mayo Clinic was very helpful. I purchased their diet app, worked on the "Live it" program for two weeks and followed it with the "Lose It" program. Basically, you watch your habits, you track your portions and you watch your weight. And, you keep a daily log -- of goals, of exercise and of your food intake. The first two weeks are tough -- you limit yourself to 1400 calories a day -- and then you move into a mode where you simply have to watch what you put into your mouth and make sure that you move and then move some more.
And since that time, that's what I have done. It's been over 100 days now, and for all but one of them I have exercised for at least an hour a day -- on a spin bike, on elliptical trainers, rowing machines, walking, stretching, using stretch bands, medicine balls, machine weights -- you name it. A typical breakfast is a parfait of non-fat plain yogurt (very low sugar) with some flax cereal and mixed berries. Lunch is a salad that has vegetables mixed in, along with a light spinkle of low-cal dressing, and with a few grilled chicken strips, and some fruit on the side. Water is the drink of choice. If I need a snack in the afternoon, I eat a portion of celery and carrots or an orange, apple or banana. If I need a taste of sweets, I have a small piece of dark chocolate (about 50 calories). Dinner consists of a protein, perhaps a half a sweet potato, some vegetables. I'll have fruit for dessert, and perhaps a portion of popcorn. All told, I fall within the prescription for fats, sweets, carbohydrates, protein, fruit and vegetables, not to mention exercise. Now, if I were to go to a restaurant, as social events and work sometimes require me to do, I'll eat as lightly as I can -- no alcohol or one glass of wine and no dessert. And if I were to indulge in a glass of wine and sharing a dessert with my wife, I'll ration the rest of my sweet calories for the rest of the week to fall within the guideline.
I feel a lot better. I have lost about 20 pounds since January, am sleeping better and feel more flexible. I just had a physical, and my cholesterol is low, my sugar levels are fine and my heart compares to people decades younger. That's not to say I don't have some issues and don't continuously need to figure out ways to deal with stress -- I do. But having a consistent diet and exercising regularly are keys to better health and increased serenity.
None of this is rocket science, except the part that requires the will and discipline to stay the course. It means the will to get up early before work to start exercising and the willpower not to snack unless absolutely necessary. It requires the discipline to hold yourself accountable by keeping the logs that Mayo Clinic suggests. That accountability is key -- it's the log version of holding yourself accountable that you are doing the right thing when it comes to honoring your diet and exercise regimen.
My wife asked me the other day about cravings, and I said that you just have to let them pass. Yes I do miss things -- I love chocolate -- but my forbearance gives me something more -- feeling better, feeling better about myself and ultimately feeling better about everything.
I self-reflected in January. I thought about what Jack LaLanne once said, which is "If it tastes good, spit it out." Or about what a friend said about why he worked out consistently -- "because when you look at groups of old men, you don't see any fat guys, do you?" I shared my concerns with my wife, who offered this in the way of guidance -- "Make a project out of it, because when you put your mind to something whatever OCD you have kicks in and you'll achieve it."
I confess that I haven't always been a good listener and have tried to do things myself. But having lost and gained back weight a few times since turning forty, I figured that I needed some guidance. I read articles, I surfed the net, confirmed thoughts and got some new ones. In the end, the website of Mayo Clinic was very helpful. I purchased their diet app, worked on the "Live it" program for two weeks and followed it with the "Lose It" program. Basically, you watch your habits, you track your portions and you watch your weight. And, you keep a daily log -- of goals, of exercise and of your food intake. The first two weeks are tough -- you limit yourself to 1400 calories a day -- and then you move into a mode where you simply have to watch what you put into your mouth and make sure that you move and then move some more.
And since that time, that's what I have done. It's been over 100 days now, and for all but one of them I have exercised for at least an hour a day -- on a spin bike, on elliptical trainers, rowing machines, walking, stretching, using stretch bands, medicine balls, machine weights -- you name it. A typical breakfast is a parfait of non-fat plain yogurt (very low sugar) with some flax cereal and mixed berries. Lunch is a salad that has vegetables mixed in, along with a light spinkle of low-cal dressing, and with a few grilled chicken strips, and some fruit on the side. Water is the drink of choice. If I need a snack in the afternoon, I eat a portion of celery and carrots or an orange, apple or banana. If I need a taste of sweets, I have a small piece of dark chocolate (about 50 calories). Dinner consists of a protein, perhaps a half a sweet potato, some vegetables. I'll have fruit for dessert, and perhaps a portion of popcorn. All told, I fall within the prescription for fats, sweets, carbohydrates, protein, fruit and vegetables, not to mention exercise. Now, if I were to go to a restaurant, as social events and work sometimes require me to do, I'll eat as lightly as I can -- no alcohol or one glass of wine and no dessert. And if I were to indulge in a glass of wine and sharing a dessert with my wife, I'll ration the rest of my sweet calories for the rest of the week to fall within the guideline.
I feel a lot better. I have lost about 20 pounds since January, am sleeping better and feel more flexible. I just had a physical, and my cholesterol is low, my sugar levels are fine and my heart compares to people decades younger. That's not to say I don't have some issues and don't continuously need to figure out ways to deal with stress -- I do. But having a consistent diet and exercising regularly are keys to better health and increased serenity.
None of this is rocket science, except the part that requires the will and discipline to stay the course. It means the will to get up early before work to start exercising and the willpower not to snack unless absolutely necessary. It requires the discipline to hold yourself accountable by keeping the logs that Mayo Clinic suggests. That accountability is key -- it's the log version of holding yourself accountable that you are doing the right thing when it comes to honoring your diet and exercise regimen.
My wife asked me the other day about cravings, and I said that you just have to let them pass. Yes I do miss things -- I love chocolate -- but my forbearance gives me something more -- feeling better, feeling better about myself and ultimately feeling better about everything.
Tuesday, May 03, 2016
All Hail Leicester City!
I heard a story once about a horse in a race, perhaps the Derby winner, or perhaps the Derby favorite. I'm telling the story this way without the benefit of having checked it out on Google, but the story was that the favorite was the top thoroughbred of the time, a horse at the turn of the 20th century named Man o' War. Well, Man 'o War ran the race and lost to a longshot. The horse's name was Upset. Because we didn't have television or the internet or even much radio in the day, the newspapers were plentiful and the sportswriters were creative. And, as the legend has it, the word "upset," traditionally used to mean "turn over," as in "he upset the table," took on a whole new meaning. To upset, in a competition, is now universally used to mean to pull off a big surprise, a shocker.
Perhaps now they should change the word again to Leicester.
Five years ago its star goal scorer, who was 24 at the time, about mid-career for many stars in Europe, was playing in something like a fifth division Sunday beer league. Their two other stars, even younger, were playing a few years ago either for second- or third-tier French teams. Promoted out of the English Championship League two years ago, Leicester fought for its life to avoid relegation back to that league after last season. The team's manager, well, Chelsea fired him twelve years ago. As for Leicester, well, it was never going to be mentioned in the same breath as Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City, Manchester United or Tottenham. No, it seemed that Leicester would be lucky to remain in the middle of the table and perennially try to avoid relegation.
Going into the season, Leicester was a 5,000 to one shot to win the English Premier League. To do so, it would have had to pass over those six behemoths, plus the likes of a resurging West Ham. It would be like starting in the Round of 64 in the NCAA tournament as, say, Monmouth and beating the legends in succession -- Indiana, UCLA, North Carolina, Duke, Syracuse and Kentucky. It would be like promoting say the Lehigh Valley Iron Pigs to the National League East and having them win the World Series. Think about that.
Leicester enjoyed none of the reputation, tradition or money of the six teams I mentioned. But what they had was belief, heart, chemistry and a tireless work ethic. It's amazing what a team can accomplish when no one worries about the credit because if no one worries about the credit and simply focuses on the work there ultimately could be more than enough credit to go around. In contrast, look at Chelsea and Manchester City, owned by gazillionaires with tons to spend on payroll. The former got old on the back line fast, looked at times rudderless and leaderless and figured out that while money helps, it cannot buy things that propel teams to victory. The latter suffered from injuries but some of the same issues -- they got older fast, and some of their well paid stars looked overpaid by the season's end.
It could be the case that, among others, Schmeichel, Kante, Mahrez and Vardy become so expensive that they request transfers so that they can cash in and play in the Premier League or in places like Barcelona, Madrid or Munich. That remains to be seen. But, in the here and now, savor this triumph, regardless of for whom you cheer. Because this triumph is one for the ages, the stuff that a Disney script is made of except that this is true. Older manager, not a top choice among elite squads, up-and-coming players or several players who played at Leicester because that was the best they could do, all combining to do their best to win one of the toughest soccer leagues in the world as a 5,000-1 longshot.
Was it an upset? You bet.
Was it a Leicester? Extraordinarily so.
Perhaps now they should change the word again to Leicester.
Five years ago its star goal scorer, who was 24 at the time, about mid-career for many stars in Europe, was playing in something like a fifth division Sunday beer league. Their two other stars, even younger, were playing a few years ago either for second- or third-tier French teams. Promoted out of the English Championship League two years ago, Leicester fought for its life to avoid relegation back to that league after last season. The team's manager, well, Chelsea fired him twelve years ago. As for Leicester, well, it was never going to be mentioned in the same breath as Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City, Manchester United or Tottenham. No, it seemed that Leicester would be lucky to remain in the middle of the table and perennially try to avoid relegation.
Going into the season, Leicester was a 5,000 to one shot to win the English Premier League. To do so, it would have had to pass over those six behemoths, plus the likes of a resurging West Ham. It would be like starting in the Round of 64 in the NCAA tournament as, say, Monmouth and beating the legends in succession -- Indiana, UCLA, North Carolina, Duke, Syracuse and Kentucky. It would be like promoting say the Lehigh Valley Iron Pigs to the National League East and having them win the World Series. Think about that.
Leicester enjoyed none of the reputation, tradition or money of the six teams I mentioned. But what they had was belief, heart, chemistry and a tireless work ethic. It's amazing what a team can accomplish when no one worries about the credit because if no one worries about the credit and simply focuses on the work there ultimately could be more than enough credit to go around. In contrast, look at Chelsea and Manchester City, owned by gazillionaires with tons to spend on payroll. The former got old on the back line fast, looked at times rudderless and leaderless and figured out that while money helps, it cannot buy things that propel teams to victory. The latter suffered from injuries but some of the same issues -- they got older fast, and some of their well paid stars looked overpaid by the season's end.
It could be the case that, among others, Schmeichel, Kante, Mahrez and Vardy become so expensive that they request transfers so that they can cash in and play in the Premier League or in places like Barcelona, Madrid or Munich. That remains to be seen. But, in the here and now, savor this triumph, regardless of for whom you cheer. Because this triumph is one for the ages, the stuff that a Disney script is made of except that this is true. Older manager, not a top choice among elite squads, up-and-coming players or several players who played at Leicester because that was the best they could do, all combining to do their best to win one of the toughest soccer leagues in the world as a 5,000-1 longshot.
Was it an upset? You bet.
Was it a Leicester? Extraordinarily so.
Friday, April 29, 2016
The NFL Draft
Analytics have taken over the world, particularly those analytics that can help us predict outcomes. But I wonder if anyone has done a detailed analysis of the NFL draft and demonstrated how right or wrong teams were in making their picks. Much of what we have is anecdotal or pronounced, as the massive failures (see Walt Patulski, Tony Mandarich, Tim Couch, Akili Smith, Ryan Leaf) get significant press while the overall draft gets very little.
For example, conventional wisdom has it that the best drafter in the past thirty years was Jimmy Johnson when he was in Dallas, one of the main stories being that when he was watching film of prospects at Texas Tech, he kept on seeing this undersized linebacker making many plays. When he asked his scouts about the player, they replied that he was too small and that the coach should watch the players they had identified. But Johnson kept seeing this linebacker make plays and became enamored of him, so much so that he took the linebacker in the fifth round. That kid turned out to be Zach Thomas, who appeared in many Pro Bowls and anchored the Dallas defense at middle linebacker. He was about 5'9", 220, didn't look like he could leap buildings in a single bound or take on the 49ers' offensive line singlehandedly. All he did was make the plays.
But how does everyone else do? I don't know why I said this to my son, but I offered that of the top-10 picks, Jack Conklin of Michigan State will be the most successful. Why would I have said that? Well, the one thing I like about Conklin is that he really wants it, started out as a walk on and keeps on improving. The risk with some of these draft picks is that they have peaked, the money will spoil them, they have injury issues, etc. Conklin just seems like a riser. My son didn't ask me who will be a failure, but history tells us that one of Jared Goff and Carson Wentz will not succeed. Mike Greenberg offered a stat the other day that suggested that only 41% of quarterbacks taken in the first round in the past couple of decades have won a Super Bowl or made the Pro Bowl. That's telling.
In any event, I felt badly for the young men who traveled to Chicago only to not have their names called. Myles Jack's health issues are serious, and I don't know what was up with the Alabama Three, the two defensive linemen and linebacker Reggie Ragland, except that I read on Twitter that Ragland has a heart issue that concerns some teams. Still, it goes to show you that while Nick Saban can coach defense, that doesn't mean that everyone on his squad is a first-round pick. It just means that they're close, which is pretty amazing in its own right.
The funny aspect of all of this is that somewhere out there is a kid who will go in the fifth round who will turn into Josh Norman or Richard Sherman. That seems to happen every year. And somewhere out there is a big fellah who can push people off the line who will go undrafted just because he's an offensive lineman and, well, picking good ones is a risky business. And he'll go on to have a Pro Bowl career. For all that analysis and scouting, you would figure that teams would get better at drafting players.
But they don't.
Enjoy Day 2 tonight.
For example, conventional wisdom has it that the best drafter in the past thirty years was Jimmy Johnson when he was in Dallas, one of the main stories being that when he was watching film of prospects at Texas Tech, he kept on seeing this undersized linebacker making many plays. When he asked his scouts about the player, they replied that he was too small and that the coach should watch the players they had identified. But Johnson kept seeing this linebacker make plays and became enamored of him, so much so that he took the linebacker in the fifth round. That kid turned out to be Zach Thomas, who appeared in many Pro Bowls and anchored the Dallas defense at middle linebacker. He was about 5'9", 220, didn't look like he could leap buildings in a single bound or take on the 49ers' offensive line singlehandedly. All he did was make the plays.
But how does everyone else do? I don't know why I said this to my son, but I offered that of the top-10 picks, Jack Conklin of Michigan State will be the most successful. Why would I have said that? Well, the one thing I like about Conklin is that he really wants it, started out as a walk on and keeps on improving. The risk with some of these draft picks is that they have peaked, the money will spoil them, they have injury issues, etc. Conklin just seems like a riser. My son didn't ask me who will be a failure, but history tells us that one of Jared Goff and Carson Wentz will not succeed. Mike Greenberg offered a stat the other day that suggested that only 41% of quarterbacks taken in the first round in the past couple of decades have won a Super Bowl or made the Pro Bowl. That's telling.
In any event, I felt badly for the young men who traveled to Chicago only to not have their names called. Myles Jack's health issues are serious, and I don't know what was up with the Alabama Three, the two defensive linemen and linebacker Reggie Ragland, except that I read on Twitter that Ragland has a heart issue that concerns some teams. Still, it goes to show you that while Nick Saban can coach defense, that doesn't mean that everyone on his squad is a first-round pick. It just means that they're close, which is pretty amazing in its own right.
The funny aspect of all of this is that somewhere out there is a kid who will go in the fifth round who will turn into Josh Norman or Richard Sherman. That seems to happen every year. And somewhere out there is a big fellah who can push people off the line who will go undrafted just because he's an offensive lineman and, well, picking good ones is a risky business. And he'll go on to have a Pro Bowl career. For all that analysis and scouting, you would figure that teams would get better at drafting players.
But they don't.
Enjoy Day 2 tonight.
Friday, April 22, 2016
Isn't Taking Carson Wentz a Big Risk?
To frame up the argument:
I am not a snob when it comes to schools. Great players can come from small colleges and there can be big busts from schools in major conferences. Grambling probably has produced more Hall of Famers in the NFL than many major conference schools. That said, Grambling doesn't have the players it once did because the major DI schools no longer discriminate the way they used to. Still, players from FCS schools can and do have good and long careers in the NFL. There just are not as many of those players as players who come from FBS schools.
Atop that, how many quarterbacks from Division I-AA or FCS schools have excelled in the NFL? Phil Simms? Joe Flacco? Tony Romo? The answers is not many. Atop even that, how many quarterbacks from Division 1-AA or FCS schools have been first-round draft picks? Anyone besides Ken O'Brien in the quarterback-laden first round of 1983? Atop even that, how many quarterbacks taken in the first round over the past 25 years have become either Pro Bowlers or Super Bowl champions? In all likelihood, less than half, probably by some good margin. (Just recall the 1999 draft, when Tim Couch, Akili Smith and Donovan McNabb went 1-2-3. Couch was in a pass-happy, innovative offense at Kentucky, Smith was a one-year wonder at Oregon, and McNabb was the real deal at Syracuse. Two out of those three picks failed).
So what did the Philadelphia Eagles do? Apparently, a lot of research last year, what with now GM Howie Roseman's having been sent to the football version of Siberia when he lost a power struggle to Chip Kelly. I would have thought that Roseman would have come up with a premise that you cannot win unless you get a great push on both sides of the ball, so load up on linemen. That would have made sense, and there are some good offensive tackles and pass rushers available (then again, many first-round offensive line picks don't pan out either). That theory would have pushed the Birds to trade up for Ole Miss tackle Leremy Tunsill, who is high on everyone's draft board. He and Lane Johnson would make a fine pair of tackles. But Roseman did not do that.
What he did instead, smartly, was to figure out common themes among championship teams. He discovered the Captain Obvious point that if you have a good quarterback, you have a good chance to win a lot of games. Remember, Sam Bradford was highly touted coming out of Oklahoma, played for some bad teams and kept on hurting the same knee. Now he's healthy, had a good second half of the year and might be able to call audibles this year, something Kelly had forbidden him to do. Sounds like a decent plan.
But a healthy, more mobile and more free Bradford apparently doesn't fit into Roseman's formula. So, he went bold, ignoring the concept that there are bold GMs and old GMs, but there's no such thing as an old, bold GM (see Ozzie Newsome in Baltimore for someone who continues to do things well, even if the Ravens had a bad year last season). Roseman traded a Herschel Walker's ransom of picks for the second pick in this year's draft, guaranteeing that the Eagles will get whichever quarterback the Rams don't take with the first pick. And that quarterback right now is Carson Wentz.
I know, Jon Gruden and Ron Jaworski like him a great deal, but the best body language I got out of Gruden last year was not about the first couple of quarterbacks taken, but about the Raiders' Derek Carr out of Fresno State, who looks like he can be a very good one. It's hard to know who the next best QB is after Wentz and Cal's Jared Goff, but they don't seem to generate the excitement that someone like Andrew Luck did several years ago. And, of course, there's the reminder that the Patriots took Tom Brady oh so many years ago in the sixth round, that Joe Montana was taken in the third round and that Johnny Unitas was a free agent. Times have changed, naturally, but even with all of the diligence around draft picks, teams still fail.
Will Wentz succeed? Perhaps the quarterback evaluators and the draftniks are right. Perhaps a kid who has started in about two dozen FCS games and led his team to two FCS championships can make the leap to the NFL and excel. Or perhaps the speed and complexity of the game might overwhelm him, or the limelight could upset his equilibrium. Philadelphia, after all, is light years away from North Dakota. And presumably a lot more intense.
Those in favor of the deal and Roseman will argue that you cannot just fall into line, play the game and take who's there, especially when who is available might not meet your needs. They have drunk the Sam Hinkie Kool-Aid to a degree and want a franchise-changing bold move. Those opposed will argue that the team has a good nucleus, that Bradford could work out, and that the Eagles have so many needs why did they elect to bet the bank on the FCS QB from North Dakota State?
There is no mistaking that Roseman is putting his career in Philadelphia on the line here. He has generated momentum for himself through a very good off-season and is now parlaying that into this bold strategy. If Wentz becomes a star, then Roseman's star will brighten too. If Wentz fails, then Roseman will fail, took, and presumably follow him out the door quickly.
Interesting times for the Philadelphia Eagles. Make no mistake, Howie Roseman is taking a very big chance on the Flavor of the Month.
If it works, he had the courage to unearth a gem. If it doesn't, he's taken the guy who will make Eagles' fans forget Mike Mamula.
I am not a snob when it comes to schools. Great players can come from small colleges and there can be big busts from schools in major conferences. Grambling probably has produced more Hall of Famers in the NFL than many major conference schools. That said, Grambling doesn't have the players it once did because the major DI schools no longer discriminate the way they used to. Still, players from FCS schools can and do have good and long careers in the NFL. There just are not as many of those players as players who come from FBS schools.
Atop that, how many quarterbacks from Division I-AA or FCS schools have excelled in the NFL? Phil Simms? Joe Flacco? Tony Romo? The answers is not many. Atop even that, how many quarterbacks from Division 1-AA or FCS schools have been first-round draft picks? Anyone besides Ken O'Brien in the quarterback-laden first round of 1983? Atop even that, how many quarterbacks taken in the first round over the past 25 years have become either Pro Bowlers or Super Bowl champions? In all likelihood, less than half, probably by some good margin. (Just recall the 1999 draft, when Tim Couch, Akili Smith and Donovan McNabb went 1-2-3. Couch was in a pass-happy, innovative offense at Kentucky, Smith was a one-year wonder at Oregon, and McNabb was the real deal at Syracuse. Two out of those three picks failed).
So what did the Philadelphia Eagles do? Apparently, a lot of research last year, what with now GM Howie Roseman's having been sent to the football version of Siberia when he lost a power struggle to Chip Kelly. I would have thought that Roseman would have come up with a premise that you cannot win unless you get a great push on both sides of the ball, so load up on linemen. That would have made sense, and there are some good offensive tackles and pass rushers available (then again, many first-round offensive line picks don't pan out either). That theory would have pushed the Birds to trade up for Ole Miss tackle Leremy Tunsill, who is high on everyone's draft board. He and Lane Johnson would make a fine pair of tackles. But Roseman did not do that.
What he did instead, smartly, was to figure out common themes among championship teams. He discovered the Captain Obvious point that if you have a good quarterback, you have a good chance to win a lot of games. Remember, Sam Bradford was highly touted coming out of Oklahoma, played for some bad teams and kept on hurting the same knee. Now he's healthy, had a good second half of the year and might be able to call audibles this year, something Kelly had forbidden him to do. Sounds like a decent plan.
But a healthy, more mobile and more free Bradford apparently doesn't fit into Roseman's formula. So, he went bold, ignoring the concept that there are bold GMs and old GMs, but there's no such thing as an old, bold GM (see Ozzie Newsome in Baltimore for someone who continues to do things well, even if the Ravens had a bad year last season). Roseman traded a Herschel Walker's ransom of picks for the second pick in this year's draft, guaranteeing that the Eagles will get whichever quarterback the Rams don't take with the first pick. And that quarterback right now is Carson Wentz.
I know, Jon Gruden and Ron Jaworski like him a great deal, but the best body language I got out of Gruden last year was not about the first couple of quarterbacks taken, but about the Raiders' Derek Carr out of Fresno State, who looks like he can be a very good one. It's hard to know who the next best QB is after Wentz and Cal's Jared Goff, but they don't seem to generate the excitement that someone like Andrew Luck did several years ago. And, of course, there's the reminder that the Patriots took Tom Brady oh so many years ago in the sixth round, that Joe Montana was taken in the third round and that Johnny Unitas was a free agent. Times have changed, naturally, but even with all of the diligence around draft picks, teams still fail.
Will Wentz succeed? Perhaps the quarterback evaluators and the draftniks are right. Perhaps a kid who has started in about two dozen FCS games and led his team to two FCS championships can make the leap to the NFL and excel. Or perhaps the speed and complexity of the game might overwhelm him, or the limelight could upset his equilibrium. Philadelphia, after all, is light years away from North Dakota. And presumably a lot more intense.
Those in favor of the deal and Roseman will argue that you cannot just fall into line, play the game and take who's there, especially when who is available might not meet your needs. They have drunk the Sam Hinkie Kool-Aid to a degree and want a franchise-changing bold move. Those opposed will argue that the team has a good nucleus, that Bradford could work out, and that the Eagles have so many needs why did they elect to bet the bank on the FCS QB from North Dakota State?
There is no mistaking that Roseman is putting his career in Philadelphia on the line here. He has generated momentum for himself through a very good off-season and is now parlaying that into this bold strategy. If Wentz becomes a star, then Roseman's star will brighten too. If Wentz fails, then Roseman will fail, took, and presumably follow him out the door quickly.
Interesting times for the Philadelphia Eagles. Make no mistake, Howie Roseman is taking a very big chance on the Flavor of the Month.
If it works, he had the courage to unearth a gem. If it doesn't, he's taken the guy who will make Eagles' fans forget Mike Mamula.
Tuesday, April 12, 2016
From Jeff Goodman: About 700+ DI College Basketball Players are Transferring
Some who study education have offered that the high school dropout rate is so high because young people get tripped up on math, cannot contemplate geography and trigonometry and then turn off. I think that they're onto something, personally, as much of what is taught in schools is taught because it always has been taught, and not because for many it will have any relevance for their vocation (and it hurts their self-esteem). That doesn't mean that kids should not be challenged to stretch their abilities, it just means that maybe we can identify some strengths earlier and not torture some kids and make them feel worthless or irrelevant. And much of what many do in life might involve some basic algebra and, of course, basic math.
So let's do some basic math. Let's suppose that there are 330 Division I basketball teams. And let's suppose that there are 15 players on each team (some have more, some have less, and if you have more than a certain number you are talking about walk-ons because of scholarship limits -- again, I said basic, as in back-of-the-envelope, math). So let's multiply 330 by 15. That gives you 4,950 Division 1 basketball players. And let's say, for purposes of argument, that these players are equally divided among first years, sophomores, juniors and seniors. In other words, let's divide the 4,950 by four. That gives you, rounded up, 1,238 players in each class. That would give you 1,238 seniors or players who are using up their eligibility. So, let's subtract 1,238 from 4,950. That would give you 3,712 college basketball players out there on the 330 teams. And let's suppose that some quit the game or flunk out. Let's just say that those would number about one player for every five teams, so let's divide 330 by 5 and get 66. Let's subtract those 66 players from the 3,712 and that will give us 3,646 players who could return to their DI basketball teams.
Now, according to ESPN's Jeff Goodman, about 750 players are transferring. The reasons could vary, from getting a release because of a coaching change, wanting more playing time, the "senior transfer rule" (whereby the senior graduated and is taking his last year of eligibility somewhere else), to getting a release because, well, the scholarships are one-year renewable and the player didn't perform to expectations to unhappiness for whatever reason. And now let's do the math -- let's divide 750 by 3,646.
The result -- about 21% of all Division I basketball players are transferring this year. Now, I know that the numbers are rough, but the current state of play is that kids who have labored hard in many cases want to get playing time in addition to the free education. Some will be happy sitting on the bench (see Monmouth, the Carolina "Blue Steel" bench from a few years ago and Mark Titus, when he sat on the bench at Ohio State). Many will vie for playing time and not get it or get enough. They will keep in touch with their AAU coaches (and, probably to a lesser extent, their high school coaches), who, in turn, keep in touch with the head coaches and lead recruiters at the DI schools. Especially the schools that "just failed to land" the player who now is seeking to transfer when that player was in high school. Most teams have openings and needs, and most players would rather take a chance on a different school that offers a better chance at playing time than staying put and seeing their chances of playing erode. And, again, these are young people, and many high school stars do no want to resign themselves to "practice player" status when they are 18 or 19 years old. Hence the transfer rate -- 21%.
This is a bit of a mess, isn't it? The kids get so excited about being recruited only to have a coach leave, a coach get fired, or a glut at their position. The coaches get excited about the kids, only to find out that someone just doesn't get that he needs development and might have to wait a season or two before breaking out. Coaches leave, sometimes because they jump, sometimes before they are pushed and sometimes when they are pushed. Kids should be picking schools because of what the schools offer beyond basketball, but basketball is what identifies them. And they hear things from family and friends about how high their celing is, which is a height invariably that differs -- sometimes markedly -- from the ceiling that their college coaches ascribe to them.
But 21% attrition? Suggests that basketball is more than an extracurricular.
It's a business.
And one that trades in the futures of teenagers.
Who wins?
So let's do some basic math. Let's suppose that there are 330 Division I basketball teams. And let's suppose that there are 15 players on each team (some have more, some have less, and if you have more than a certain number you are talking about walk-ons because of scholarship limits -- again, I said basic, as in back-of-the-envelope, math). So let's multiply 330 by 15. That gives you 4,950 Division 1 basketball players. And let's say, for purposes of argument, that these players are equally divided among first years, sophomores, juniors and seniors. In other words, let's divide the 4,950 by four. That gives you, rounded up, 1,238 players in each class. That would give you 1,238 seniors or players who are using up their eligibility. So, let's subtract 1,238 from 4,950. That would give you 3,712 college basketball players out there on the 330 teams. And let's suppose that some quit the game or flunk out. Let's just say that those would number about one player for every five teams, so let's divide 330 by 5 and get 66. Let's subtract those 66 players from the 3,712 and that will give us 3,646 players who could return to their DI basketball teams.
Now, according to ESPN's Jeff Goodman, about 750 players are transferring. The reasons could vary, from getting a release because of a coaching change, wanting more playing time, the "senior transfer rule" (whereby the senior graduated and is taking his last year of eligibility somewhere else), to getting a release because, well, the scholarships are one-year renewable and the player didn't perform to expectations to unhappiness for whatever reason. And now let's do the math -- let's divide 750 by 3,646.
The result -- about 21% of all Division I basketball players are transferring this year. Now, I know that the numbers are rough, but the current state of play is that kids who have labored hard in many cases want to get playing time in addition to the free education. Some will be happy sitting on the bench (see Monmouth, the Carolina "Blue Steel" bench from a few years ago and Mark Titus, when he sat on the bench at Ohio State). Many will vie for playing time and not get it or get enough. They will keep in touch with their AAU coaches (and, probably to a lesser extent, their high school coaches), who, in turn, keep in touch with the head coaches and lead recruiters at the DI schools. Especially the schools that "just failed to land" the player who now is seeking to transfer when that player was in high school. Most teams have openings and needs, and most players would rather take a chance on a different school that offers a better chance at playing time than staying put and seeing their chances of playing erode. And, again, these are young people, and many high school stars do no want to resign themselves to "practice player" status when they are 18 or 19 years old. Hence the transfer rate -- 21%.
This is a bit of a mess, isn't it? The kids get so excited about being recruited only to have a coach leave, a coach get fired, or a glut at their position. The coaches get excited about the kids, only to find out that someone just doesn't get that he needs development and might have to wait a season or two before breaking out. Coaches leave, sometimes because they jump, sometimes before they are pushed and sometimes when they are pushed. Kids should be picking schools because of what the schools offer beyond basketball, but basketball is what identifies them. And they hear things from family and friends about how high their celing is, which is a height invariably that differs -- sometimes markedly -- from the ceiling that their college coaches ascribe to them.
But 21% attrition? Suggests that basketball is more than an extracurricular.
It's a business.
And one that trades in the futures of teenagers.
Who wins?
The NCAA is at it Again -- More of a Plantation Mentality for Football
The NCAA has banned satellite football camps. This august body made this ruling in response to numerous protests about Michigan coach Jim Harbaugh, who was holding football camps for high schoolers outside Ann Arbor, in essence going where groups of talented players live. Many of the major conferences supported this rule, if only to protect their home turf and to get some version of exclusivity over their own backyards. Hugh Freeze, the Ole Miss coach, got lambasted on "Mike & Mike" on ESPN Radio this morning for allegedly having said that his life is exhausting as it is, and by passing this rule the NCAA helps him sleep in his own bed at night during the off-season because he won't have to hold camps on the road. Or something like that.
Another part of the ban on satellite camps is the prohibition on permitting other coaches from other teams attend your camp. So, for example, every year Ohio State holds a camp for high school players, and that camp has many sessions. The custom has been for OSU to permit coaches from other colleges -- including the Mid-American Conference, FCS schools and in all likelihood DIII schools -- to attend the camps. Why? Because mostly all of the kids at Ohio State's camp will not get a chance to play in Columbus. As a result, the Ohio State camp would turn into a showcase camp of sorts to give prospects the opportunity to prove to some coach that they were worthy of a full ride, a partial scholarship or even a preferred chance at admission to a college. That seemed to make sense. After all, the time parents have to allot to driving their kids from camp to camp is limited, and, in this fashion, the undersized offensive lineman who shows well in Columbus but is not on Ohio State's list might end up with a scholarship, say, to Akron, or getting preferred admission to Kenyon. Right now, that will not happen any more.
The sad thing about this is that at a time when college football has had many controversies and problems -- from concussions to scandals to problems with one-year non-renewable scholarships to overly lavish facilities to the unionization attempt by Northwestern players to the fact that most FCS programs lose money -- the NCAA just pours gasoline onto the fire and draws attention to an area that it should have left alone for a while. As Mike Greenberg and Mike Golic argued eloquently this morning, the NCAA should be about protecting the kids and offering them the most opportunities to shine. Instead, it opted to protect the oligarchy of programs that wants to protect their own turfs and grossly overpaid coaches who seemingly care much more about perpetuating their own glory and records and job tenure than doing the right thing. That's the tragedy in all of this.
There are showcase tournaments in other sports. For example, if your daughter is a great softball player, she'll find her way onto an elite travel team (the very tough if not awful part here is that for the privilege the parents might have to pay $15,000 a year) and end up playing in showcase tournaments in the summer where all of the college coaching staffs attend. Those tournaments guarantee that your kid will get a chance, in essence, to audition for college coaches around the country. And, yes, it does involve, in most circumstances, traveling from place to place to hit a good number of tournaments. The question is, why can't football players go to say a handful of camps to get showcased and then take the rest of the summer to be, well, teenagers.
I was talking with an FCS coach a few years ago about quarterback prospects around the country. He relayed to me the story of one kid who showed very well at his camp, and he was hoping that he would have an in because of some loose family connections to the school and because his camp was the last camp the kid attended. Now, mind you, this was a rising high school senior, and he attended about 16 camps in one summer. The coach marveled that this quarterback prospect's arm was not about to fall off. I secretly wondered about the toll on the family and the cost to the parents -- in terms of money and family togetherness time. And for what, really?
Maybe the kid gets a free ride, but, if he does, the coaching staff will own this kid forever, because that free ride can be yanked year to year. Or, suppose the kid gets romanced and then the reality of the school differs from what he was shown. Then what? Or suppose he gets beaten out? He could end up transferring. At some point, when does this kid get off the treadmill that his gifts and his parents and he himself have put him on and start figuring out what he's going to do with this life? Never mind the possible long-term effects of too many jarring hits to his body and frequent hits to his head. All so that he can put that he played college football on his resume or because his parents have perhaps something more interesting to talk about at the market than the parents whose kid works twenty hours a week at the market and commutes to school?
But back to the ruling. It does not make any sense, and it only hurts the kids, both in terms of their choices and their ability to showcase themselves for coaches at all levels without incurring a huge expense in the summer time. Is there anything wrong with that?
The conventional wisdom is that you are supposed to build a house according to its blueprints so that you'll know what it looks like when it is finished and that you'll be able to have a decent handle on your costs and the timeline for completion. I wonder if the NCAA has any blueprints that its building off of, because it's hard to see a pretty end result coming from a ruling like this.
Another part of the ban on satellite camps is the prohibition on permitting other coaches from other teams attend your camp. So, for example, every year Ohio State holds a camp for high school players, and that camp has many sessions. The custom has been for OSU to permit coaches from other colleges -- including the Mid-American Conference, FCS schools and in all likelihood DIII schools -- to attend the camps. Why? Because mostly all of the kids at Ohio State's camp will not get a chance to play in Columbus. As a result, the Ohio State camp would turn into a showcase camp of sorts to give prospects the opportunity to prove to some coach that they were worthy of a full ride, a partial scholarship or even a preferred chance at admission to a college. That seemed to make sense. After all, the time parents have to allot to driving their kids from camp to camp is limited, and, in this fashion, the undersized offensive lineman who shows well in Columbus but is not on Ohio State's list might end up with a scholarship, say, to Akron, or getting preferred admission to Kenyon. Right now, that will not happen any more.
The sad thing about this is that at a time when college football has had many controversies and problems -- from concussions to scandals to problems with one-year non-renewable scholarships to overly lavish facilities to the unionization attempt by Northwestern players to the fact that most FCS programs lose money -- the NCAA just pours gasoline onto the fire and draws attention to an area that it should have left alone for a while. As Mike Greenberg and Mike Golic argued eloquently this morning, the NCAA should be about protecting the kids and offering them the most opportunities to shine. Instead, it opted to protect the oligarchy of programs that wants to protect their own turfs and grossly overpaid coaches who seemingly care much more about perpetuating their own glory and records and job tenure than doing the right thing. That's the tragedy in all of this.
There are showcase tournaments in other sports. For example, if your daughter is a great softball player, she'll find her way onto an elite travel team (the very tough if not awful part here is that for the privilege the parents might have to pay $15,000 a year) and end up playing in showcase tournaments in the summer where all of the college coaching staffs attend. Those tournaments guarantee that your kid will get a chance, in essence, to audition for college coaches around the country. And, yes, it does involve, in most circumstances, traveling from place to place to hit a good number of tournaments. The question is, why can't football players go to say a handful of camps to get showcased and then take the rest of the summer to be, well, teenagers.
I was talking with an FCS coach a few years ago about quarterback prospects around the country. He relayed to me the story of one kid who showed very well at his camp, and he was hoping that he would have an in because of some loose family connections to the school and because his camp was the last camp the kid attended. Now, mind you, this was a rising high school senior, and he attended about 16 camps in one summer. The coach marveled that this quarterback prospect's arm was not about to fall off. I secretly wondered about the toll on the family and the cost to the parents -- in terms of money and family togetherness time. And for what, really?
Maybe the kid gets a free ride, but, if he does, the coaching staff will own this kid forever, because that free ride can be yanked year to year. Or, suppose the kid gets romanced and then the reality of the school differs from what he was shown. Then what? Or suppose he gets beaten out? He could end up transferring. At some point, when does this kid get off the treadmill that his gifts and his parents and he himself have put him on and start figuring out what he's going to do with this life? Never mind the possible long-term effects of too many jarring hits to his body and frequent hits to his head. All so that he can put that he played college football on his resume or because his parents have perhaps something more interesting to talk about at the market than the parents whose kid works twenty hours a week at the market and commutes to school?
But back to the ruling. It does not make any sense, and it only hurts the kids, both in terms of their choices and their ability to showcase themselves for coaches at all levels without incurring a huge expense in the summer time. Is there anything wrong with that?
The conventional wisdom is that you are supposed to build a house according to its blueprints so that you'll know what it looks like when it is finished and that you'll be able to have a decent handle on your costs and the timeline for completion. I wonder if the NCAA has any blueprints that its building off of, because it's hard to see a pretty end result coming from a ruling like this.
Monday, April 11, 2016
On Jordan Spieth
Sadly, Jordan Spieth will be reminded of his +6 at Amen Corner, which includes a quadruple bogey, at The Masters for years to come. He's only 22, he's had a lot of success, and yet the human mind refers to the negative so much that the sports media will remind him of this every time he has a lead in a major, or, heck, any tournament. That's the world in which we live.
But you know something, he's young, the young can heal and sometimes quickly, and he'll be fine. And before anyone starts jeering too hard, think about this -- how many fans are as good at their professions as Spieth is, where they might work hard and be given an opportunity to, well, falter at such a high level? The answer is very few.
You have to be a great player to get to the position where you can do what Jordan Spieth did yesterday. A very great player.
You don't hear about the odd-man out, the last person who made the cut who has to play with a marker, and you don't hear about the players who missed the cut five minutes after they missed it. You won't hear as much this year about who won The Masters as much as who lost it. The latter is sad, but in a world where selling stories is key, Spieth's misfortune outweighs David Willett's steadiness.
But as I just said, you have to be pretty great to achieve as much as Jordan Spieth did, even if failure.
And at the age of 22.
But you know something, he's young, the young can heal and sometimes quickly, and he'll be fine. And before anyone starts jeering too hard, think about this -- how many fans are as good at their professions as Spieth is, where they might work hard and be given an opportunity to, well, falter at such a high level? The answer is very few.
You have to be a great player to get to the position where you can do what Jordan Spieth did yesterday. A very great player.
You don't hear about the odd-man out, the last person who made the cut who has to play with a marker, and you don't hear about the players who missed the cut five minutes after they missed it. You won't hear as much this year about who won The Masters as much as who lost it. The latter is sad, but in a world where selling stories is key, Spieth's misfortune outweighs David Willett's steadiness.
But as I just said, you have to be pretty great to achieve as much as Jordan Spieth did, even if failure.
And at the age of 22.
Thursday, April 07, 2016
Letter to Jay Wright: Please Stay at Villanova
Dear Jay:
First, congratulations on Villanova's national championship. You are to be commended for crafting a high-quality coaching staff and putting together a very good group of players. You had a solid core of starters and substitutes that played great during the NCAA tournament and beat a "who's who" in college basketball to win the championship. You should take some time to celebrate this great accomplishment with your family, your friends, the team and your school.
It seems like the NBA is interested in your services. Yes, Phoenix is a nice place, but is the NBA really about basketball more so than entertainment and building character as opposed to coaching characters? By all accounts -- and I write this with a big smile -- you never will be as good a coach as they say you are now. In truth, you're probably virtually the same guy you have been in the past five years. You're certainly not as awful a coach as they said last year, when the fates did not align and you could not get a very talented team to the Sweet 16. Overall, you're a heckuva coach.
Yes, the NBA is attractive, the pinnacle, but it can be cruel. They'll mock you for your suits, they'll call you "Joe College," and they'll argue that if people like John Calipari could not succeed, why should you? You won't have a campus environment so to speak of, you will not command the respect that you do at Villanova, you'll be on the road a ton, and you'll have to do with young players who are still growing up, their agents, their families, the media, and the pressure from the front office to win. After all, you're the magical Jay Wright, you beat Kansas, Oklahoma and Carolina in succession, so why can't you, with the bad Phoenix roster, beat the Spurs, Warriors, and Thunder. Heck, if you to go Phoenix, you'll not only have the NBA, you'll have the Western Conference. Which means, unless they turn around the roster fast, you could be coaching back in college in three years.
There is precedent for this dilemma. About 30 years ago I attended a charity banquet on City Line Avenue in Philadelphia. I forget the charity, but Rollie Massimino was the guest of honor. Yes, the same guy who coached the Wildcats to their improbable title in 1985, when they only missed on shot in the second half and beat the heavily favored Georgetown Hoyas by a point to win the national championship. The story in the papers -- there was no internet yet -- was that Coach Mass was about to accept the head coaching job of the New Jersey Nets. The roasting was fun, the deal was all but done, but something was brewing up on the podium. Some good friends of Coach Mass's -- 76ers legend and coach Billy Cunningham and the late, great Jim Valvano -- were some of the roasters. And they chided Massimino mercilessly about the perils of the NBA. While the late Darryl Dawkins was loveable, he really was, he also was a very talented man-child who was hard to coach. Dawkins, a former 76er, became a Net. And that prompted Billy Cunningham to ask one of the night's most memorable questions -- "Have you ever been to Lovetron?" Lovetron was the imaginary planet Dawkins said he habitated. The audience roared.
Massimino took the ribbing in good stride. After the festivities ended, a bunch of basketball luminaries repaired to the bar at the hotel, among them Cunningham and Valvano. They had a few, and then a few more, and then they talked Massimino out of the NBA and into staying at Villanova.
Now Coach Mass was an over-sized personality, and he ultimately was blamed (probably correctly) for fracturing Philadelphia's Big Five (subsequently others revived it) because he had to go "bigger time" with his Wildcats. Ultimately, he made the error of trying to replace the fallen Jerry Tarkanian at UNLV, and, well, it's hard to replace any legend and I would recommend that any coach going into that situation avoid it. There also seemed to be something about a secret deal he cut with the university president about his compensation that didn't go over so well. Ultimately, Massimino and UNLV parted company.
There is a lesson in all of this. Why, at 54 or so, would you leave for the NBA? What possibly could you prove there? You already are a wonderful coach. You work at an excellent university in a great setting. You can recruit good kids who are great players there. And you can win. It was one thing to see then Penn coach Fran Dunphy bolt the Quakers after his long tenure there. Dunphy probably was seeking more money than the Ivies can pay but also a chance to see how his skills translated to a school that could contend for a national championship. But you already have that, Coach Wright, and you've done that.
But the lesson isn't finished. You could argue that you could get itchy at Villanova and want to leave for a bigger job. I have news for you -- you have turned Villanova into a big job. Oh, yes, the Augustinians don't pay the way the schools where your peers coach pay. You could get more at Syracuse should they bail on their deal to promote Mike Hopkins should Jim Boeheim retire, or you could wait to replace someone who currently is flailing at a top-ten job and might get fired next year. That could be the play. But that's kind of what Rollie did, and it didn't work. That doesn't mean it won't for you, but why put yourself under all that pressure?
Finally, how much money is enough? By the looks of it, you make enough coin to buy some pretty fancy duds to wear on the sideline. So, suppose a place like Syracuse -- where it can be as cold as hell for long periods, by the way -- were to double your compensation. What would you buy in update New York? What would you really do with it?
Sometimes the grass can be greener somewhere else. Sometimes we don't appreciate what's in front of us. So sure, take a look, talk to the fellows in Phoenix, perhaps even consider wearing light blue pants with white loafers, but then consider what you have and all that you have built. And then say no.
And hey, you have a helluva team coming back next year, and imagine what this victory will do for recruiting. You have built a great legacy at Villanova, arguably better than Rollie's. Now you can add to it.
Again, congratulations on your team's great victory, one for the ages.
All the best,
SportsProf
First, congratulations on Villanova's national championship. You are to be commended for crafting a high-quality coaching staff and putting together a very good group of players. You had a solid core of starters and substitutes that played great during the NCAA tournament and beat a "who's who" in college basketball to win the championship. You should take some time to celebrate this great accomplishment with your family, your friends, the team and your school.
It seems like the NBA is interested in your services. Yes, Phoenix is a nice place, but is the NBA really about basketball more so than entertainment and building character as opposed to coaching characters? By all accounts -- and I write this with a big smile -- you never will be as good a coach as they say you are now. In truth, you're probably virtually the same guy you have been in the past five years. You're certainly not as awful a coach as they said last year, when the fates did not align and you could not get a very talented team to the Sweet 16. Overall, you're a heckuva coach.
Yes, the NBA is attractive, the pinnacle, but it can be cruel. They'll mock you for your suits, they'll call you "Joe College," and they'll argue that if people like John Calipari could not succeed, why should you? You won't have a campus environment so to speak of, you will not command the respect that you do at Villanova, you'll be on the road a ton, and you'll have to do with young players who are still growing up, their agents, their families, the media, and the pressure from the front office to win. After all, you're the magical Jay Wright, you beat Kansas, Oklahoma and Carolina in succession, so why can't you, with the bad Phoenix roster, beat the Spurs, Warriors, and Thunder. Heck, if you to go Phoenix, you'll not only have the NBA, you'll have the Western Conference. Which means, unless they turn around the roster fast, you could be coaching back in college in three years.
There is precedent for this dilemma. About 30 years ago I attended a charity banquet on City Line Avenue in Philadelphia. I forget the charity, but Rollie Massimino was the guest of honor. Yes, the same guy who coached the Wildcats to their improbable title in 1985, when they only missed on shot in the second half and beat the heavily favored Georgetown Hoyas by a point to win the national championship. The story in the papers -- there was no internet yet -- was that Coach Mass was about to accept the head coaching job of the New Jersey Nets. The roasting was fun, the deal was all but done, but something was brewing up on the podium. Some good friends of Coach Mass's -- 76ers legend and coach Billy Cunningham and the late, great Jim Valvano -- were some of the roasters. And they chided Massimino mercilessly about the perils of the NBA. While the late Darryl Dawkins was loveable, he really was, he also was a very talented man-child who was hard to coach. Dawkins, a former 76er, became a Net. And that prompted Billy Cunningham to ask one of the night's most memorable questions -- "Have you ever been to Lovetron?" Lovetron was the imaginary planet Dawkins said he habitated. The audience roared.
Massimino took the ribbing in good stride. After the festivities ended, a bunch of basketball luminaries repaired to the bar at the hotel, among them Cunningham and Valvano. They had a few, and then a few more, and then they talked Massimino out of the NBA and into staying at Villanova.
Now Coach Mass was an over-sized personality, and he ultimately was blamed (probably correctly) for fracturing Philadelphia's Big Five (subsequently others revived it) because he had to go "bigger time" with his Wildcats. Ultimately, he made the error of trying to replace the fallen Jerry Tarkanian at UNLV, and, well, it's hard to replace any legend and I would recommend that any coach going into that situation avoid it. There also seemed to be something about a secret deal he cut with the university president about his compensation that didn't go over so well. Ultimately, Massimino and UNLV parted company.
There is a lesson in all of this. Why, at 54 or so, would you leave for the NBA? What possibly could you prove there? You already are a wonderful coach. You work at an excellent university in a great setting. You can recruit good kids who are great players there. And you can win. It was one thing to see then Penn coach Fran Dunphy bolt the Quakers after his long tenure there. Dunphy probably was seeking more money than the Ivies can pay but also a chance to see how his skills translated to a school that could contend for a national championship. But you already have that, Coach Wright, and you've done that.
But the lesson isn't finished. You could argue that you could get itchy at Villanova and want to leave for a bigger job. I have news for you -- you have turned Villanova into a big job. Oh, yes, the Augustinians don't pay the way the schools where your peers coach pay. You could get more at Syracuse should they bail on their deal to promote Mike Hopkins should Jim Boeheim retire, or you could wait to replace someone who currently is flailing at a top-ten job and might get fired next year. That could be the play. But that's kind of what Rollie did, and it didn't work. That doesn't mean it won't for you, but why put yourself under all that pressure?
Finally, how much money is enough? By the looks of it, you make enough coin to buy some pretty fancy duds to wear on the sideline. So, suppose a place like Syracuse -- where it can be as cold as hell for long periods, by the way -- were to double your compensation. What would you buy in update New York? What would you really do with it?
Sometimes the grass can be greener somewhere else. Sometimes we don't appreciate what's in front of us. So sure, take a look, talk to the fellows in Phoenix, perhaps even consider wearing light blue pants with white loafers, but then consider what you have and all that you have built. And then say no.
And hey, you have a helluva team coming back next year, and imagine what this victory will do for recruiting. You have built a great legacy at Villanova, arguably better than Rollie's. Now you can add to it.
Again, congratulations on your team's great victory, one for the ages.
All the best,
SportsProf
Sam Hinkie Resigns at 76ers' GM
ESPN the Magazine rated the 76ers as the #1 team in all of sports when it came to innovation and the use of analytics. The architect of that innovation was Sam Hinkie, whom they hired several years ago fresh off assisting Daryl Morey in Houston to help the team, over time, develop a perennial contender. Hinkie, it's well known, created something called "The Process," which involved trading established players, stockpiling many draft picks and essentially fielding a D-League Team Plus for a few years. The team was the worst in the NBA, so said its record. Yet the fan were optimistic that with a healthy Joel Embiid and a few better guards next season, they might have a chance to grab the #8 spot in the playoffs. Charles Barkley opined the same.
Reports on Embiid are that he's on his way to a full recovery after missing two seasons. Getting Embiid, the best center prospect since Hakeem Olajuwon, having Jalil Okafor and Nerlens Noel, bringing Dario Saric over from Turkey and having the top pick plus a few others could set up the 76ers to make a good run for the next many years. Hinkie, the Stanford MBA, was known for keeping his ideas close to him and for running all sorts of metrics-driven simulations so as to demonstrate his points about the future of the team and the value of draft picks. It all sounded so good.
Yes, this year's team, like last year's, was plum awful. Yes, they need more players. But had Embiid not gotten hurt the team would have fared better earlier and been more attractive to free agents. True, the Embiid pick on Hinkie's watch, was risky. There's no arguing that. But few at the time questioned it, even if the risks were known, namely, that big men suffer this type of foot injury and sometimes it ruins their careers. Bill Walton and Yao Ming are two prime examples.
But, the 76ers were onto something. Hinkie is onto something. There's no doubting that. True, the league was getting embarrassed about how poorly the 76ers were faring, and I'm sure that the highly competitive owners also were losing patience. If they were, you wonder what the conversations with Hinkie were about how many years they were giving him. Otherwise, to bring in Jerry Colangelo as an adult in the room and apparently bringing on his much-decorated son Bryan, does not make any sense. And, if Bryan Colangelo helps turn the team into a winner, the bet here is that he does so on a solid foundation that Sam Hinkie built.
Alas, Sam Hinkie, you are an innovator, someone before his time. The bet here is that in 20 years all teams will be doing the types of things that ultimately got you either fired, de-emphasized or eased out of your post at the Philadelphia 76ers.
"Trust the Process" might not have worked out the way Josh Harris and Sam Hinkie wanted, but there was something to it. And, if it were to be called a failure, well, we all learn a lot from failures. In basketball's case, it would be unwise to toss onto the trash heap everything that Hinkie did. It would be wise to study it, analyze it and then salvage from it the types of analytics that drew attention to Sam Hinkie as an innovator, as someone relying upon sophisticated mathematics to help determine the type of players he needed to craft a championship team.
Sam Hinkie had the courage to think outside the box. It might have got him fired, but I would encourage him to keep at it. He was onto something, and the question now is whether the 76ers' front office can pick up on it, build upon it, and craft a championship contender.
Reports on Embiid are that he's on his way to a full recovery after missing two seasons. Getting Embiid, the best center prospect since Hakeem Olajuwon, having Jalil Okafor and Nerlens Noel, bringing Dario Saric over from Turkey and having the top pick plus a few others could set up the 76ers to make a good run for the next many years. Hinkie, the Stanford MBA, was known for keeping his ideas close to him and for running all sorts of metrics-driven simulations so as to demonstrate his points about the future of the team and the value of draft picks. It all sounded so good.
Yes, this year's team, like last year's, was plum awful. Yes, they need more players. But had Embiid not gotten hurt the team would have fared better earlier and been more attractive to free agents. True, the Embiid pick on Hinkie's watch, was risky. There's no arguing that. But few at the time questioned it, even if the risks were known, namely, that big men suffer this type of foot injury and sometimes it ruins their careers. Bill Walton and Yao Ming are two prime examples.
But, the 76ers were onto something. Hinkie is onto something. There's no doubting that. True, the league was getting embarrassed about how poorly the 76ers were faring, and I'm sure that the highly competitive owners also were losing patience. If they were, you wonder what the conversations with Hinkie were about how many years they were giving him. Otherwise, to bring in Jerry Colangelo as an adult in the room and apparently bringing on his much-decorated son Bryan, does not make any sense. And, if Bryan Colangelo helps turn the team into a winner, the bet here is that he does so on a solid foundation that Sam Hinkie built.
Alas, Sam Hinkie, you are an innovator, someone before his time. The bet here is that in 20 years all teams will be doing the types of things that ultimately got you either fired, de-emphasized or eased out of your post at the Philadelphia 76ers.
"Trust the Process" might not have worked out the way Josh Harris and Sam Hinkie wanted, but there was something to it. And, if it were to be called a failure, well, we all learn a lot from failures. In basketball's case, it would be unwise to toss onto the trash heap everything that Hinkie did. It would be wise to study it, analyze it and then salvage from it the types of analytics that drew attention to Sam Hinkie as an innovator, as someone relying upon sophisticated mathematics to help determine the type of players he needed to craft a championship team.
Sam Hinkie had the courage to think outside the box. It might have got him fired, but I would encourage him to keep at it. He was onto something, and the question now is whether the 76ers' front office can pick up on it, build upon it, and craft a championship contender.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)