College coaches and commitment to their schools

John Chaney at Temple. Lute Olson at Arizona. Mike Krzyzewski at Duke. Jim Boeheim at Syracuse and Jim Calhoun at UConn. Most great college basketball head coaches are historically considered synonymous with their school, spending the length of their career zenith under that one roof and leaving only via retirement. Even Bob Knight at Indiana and Jerry Tarkanian at UNLV departed their schools after many years due to scandal, rather than what leads coaches away from their alma maters now.

Tony Bennett takes over for his father at Washington State… and three years later jumps ship to coach at Virginia. John Calipari, the morally questionable college coach of great success at UMass who recently built a juggernaut program at Memphis… has now agreed to coach at Kentucky. When the Kentucky opening emerged, the media immediately jumped on UCLA coach Ben Howland (who himself took that job after jumping from Pittsburgh) to ask if HE would jump ship to take the Kentucky job.

College coaches used to seek glory by presiding over a winning program, and some still do. Despite his meandering career as a successful coach, it doesn’t appear Rick Pitino is leaving his successful Louisville program anytime soon (though I suppose we can check back in a year). Roy Williams jumped ship from his successful career at Kansas only because his current job at North Carolina, his alma mater, was his dream job. He’s not going anywhere. I mentioned Boeheim, Coach K and Calhoun.

But still we see a growing trend of hit and run repair jobs at college programs by successful coaches who commit long enough to recruit and coach middling teams into winners, and either get quickly bored or see fool’s gold when a high profile coaching opening comes along. My hometown school, UNLV, has a basketball coach who was the king of hit and run program building: Lon Kruger. Krueger presided over rebuilds in: Texas Pan-American, Kansas State, Florida, Illinois and now (following an ill-advised NBA coaching job with the Atlanta Hawks) UNLV. Despite watching the Runnin’ Rebels stumble into the NIT this season, Kruger had to fend off rumors that he considered jumping ship to yet another program. To his credit, this was his 5th season at UNLV, the 2nd longest tenure he’s spent at any one program in his 23 year coaching career (to his six years in Florida), so maybe he’s settled down. Maybe.

How must a recruit feel about signing up to play for a coach that might not be around next season if an attractive coaching vacancy opens up? How do the kids at Memphis feel about their coach jumping ship? How about the Cougs at Washington State? No, I’m not talking about the one and done high school superstars who jerk around in class and score 20 points a game as hired guns until they can enter the NBA draft… but the honest to goodness talents a step or two down that are probably going to get an actual degree and stay all four years. I know 18 year old kids recruited for their basketball skills aren’t the most forward thinking, prescient individuals, and that in itself is probably why a Calipari, a Billy Donovan or Lon Kruger can get away with promises of commitment in exchange for the player’s four year commitment despite the coach’s track record for jumping ship.

If not for that, I would think the careers of these coaches would eventually dry up, as top recruits looking for a commitment wouldn’t commit to a non-committal coach, and recruiting top talent is (sadly) a large part of the battle in NCAA Division I college basketball. But since most kids are just looking for a place to play, where they have a chance to get significant minutes in important games and maybe play on a winning team, and many top recruits aren’t planning to commit for more than 1-2 years anyway, the trend of big coach hopping will likely continue in earnest unabated, since kids will continue to place their trust in these hired guns posing as mentors.

Anxiety caused by a team's fear of their pitcher sucking

The Detroit Tigers place embattled pitcher Dontrelle Willis on the 15 day disabled list with "an anxiety disorder".

But Willis said he has been feeling well on and off the mound.

“I have no idea, but (the doctors) didn’t like what they saw in the blood,” Willis said. “This is not something where I’m too amped up and I don’t know where I’m at, and I’m running sprints up and down the parking lot.”

General manager Dave Dombrowski said he could not provide details about Willis’ medical condition or treatment because of privacy regulations.

There is nothing physically, mentally or emotionally wrong with Dontrelle Willis, and if anything it's a surprise that the team would make up such a dubious, character disparaging ailment as an anxiety disorder, especially when Dontrelle and team sources gave absolutely no indication that he was emotionally distressed, as an excuse to place him on the 15 day DL. Dontrelle's remark about the team telling him they "didn’t like what they saw in the blood" confirms this is a phantom excuse to stash the struggling Willis, who got demoted last year due to getting hammered by AL hitting and had struggled during this spring training, on the DL.

An unspoken secret in MLB is that teams will often sneak a struggling veteran onto the DL with a phantom injury, such as a strained forearm/back/calf/face. They can't or don't want to send the player to the minors, so instead they make up an injury (that can't be confirmed or denied due to HIPAA medical privacy laws) for the player and place that player on the DL until the player stops sucking or they need that player to replace a departed or (actually) injured player.

MLB generally looks the other way because a) who cares and b) this allows teams to field better teams, which helps improve the overall MLB product.

On performance enhancing drugs in baseball

Along with the story earlier this week about released Federal docs with testimony that Barry Bonds not only tested positive for steroids on a few occasions, but had trainers injecting performance enhancing drugs "all over the place"... now we have a story that top shelf slugger Alex Rodriguez tested positive for steroids during his 2003 MVP season with the Texas Rangers.

Unlike many baseball fans, I have long since accepted the distinct possibility that many of the league's players have used illegal performance enhancing drugs over the offensive boom of the last 15-20 years. People have smeared his accusation given his general credibility, but I'm not sure Jose Canseco was all that wrong when he estimated that at least half the league is using (he's pushed the number as high as 85% before backing off). Some illegal drugs can't be detected in tests, like Human Growth Hormone. And there are dozens upon dozens of designer drugs available for the taking under the radar. Even with measures taken to discover and track down offending usage, to try and catch everyone is like trying to climb Mt. Everest during a blizzard and an avalanche.

The general perception of steroids is that they make you stronger or better, but they're not an instant pill of success. What they really do is accelerate recovery from wear and tear. Doctors legally prescribe them for exactly that reason: to help people recover from surgery, injuries or illness. Weightlifters inject them after workouts so their muscles recover quickly, allowing them to resume working out sooner. And baseball players, who throw, hit, run and field damn near every single day between February and November, can wear down from peak performance. Also, we all have a berserker mode: if we get mad or intense enough during physical activity, our physical performance level increases as adrenaline enters the bloodstream over a short term. Roids can allow a player to play at a higher intensity than is comfortable, then bounce back immediately and retain that enhanced level of intensity for longer periods.

It doesn't help every player: if you suck, the absolute best you can give may still not be good enough. A good player who uses them may not add enough performance to become a top player. A top player who already plays well in an even-keeled state and doesn't have to work as intensely to play well... but can play at an MVP or legendary level when he turns on the jets, may stand to gain more than the decent player who adds a few hits or strikeouts to his numbers, or that AA retread who sees no real improvement to his major league prospects.

And I think that's what has Americans so pissed off and/or defensive about the issue. Nobody really gives a crap about Yusmeiro Petit or Ryan Franklin getting caught roiding, because those guys are lost in the shuffle anyway. But tell people that Barry Bonds' historic home run records had some help, that the Mark McGwire vs Sammy Sosa chase was brought to you by juice, or that Roger Clemens' historic career lasting effectively into his 40's came thanks to some sauce... and that's when people get roiled up over players roiding up.

It's like telling people that the stuff that dreams are made of are too good to be true. It's akin to a child finding out that Santa Claus isn't real or that the tooth fairy was really their mom shoving a buck and a handwritten note in her best calligraphy under their pillow at 2 am. These are the sort of epiphanies that end childhoods. And even as people become more jaded in their adulthood, epiphanies like these don't necessarily hurt any less.

I understand the separate sets of reactions, the anger of those who accept it's happening and the denial to the death of those who refuse to believe it's true or that it's a fundamental problem... even if they're not fully informed. But we live in a world of inconsistent honesty, where many will go to extensive lengths to get an edge. Many will go to great lengths to hide any transgressions. Thousands of players come spawned from a world laden with corruption and deceit, and every single one of them competes with one another for their jobs, for millions of dollars and, of course, victory on the field. It's not a surprise that many turn to underground performance enhancers to get themselves whatever edge they can, even the best in the business.

As to whether or not this is a moral problem... it lies in the eye of the beholder. And that's where I plan to leave this conversation behind.

Playing until the clock says 0:00

Two Texas private high school girls basketball teams, The Covenant School and Dallas Academy, played on January 13, with Covenant winning a 100-0 nailbiter.

It was a bit of a mismatch, and a lot of people on the periphery aren't happy.

Some details on the game itself:

A parent who attended the game told The Associated Press that Covenant continued to make 3-pointers -- even in the fourth quarter. She praised the Covenant players but said spectators and an assistant coach were cheering wildly as their team edged closer to 100 points.

"I think the bad judgment was in the full-court press and the 3-point shots," said Renee Peloza, whose daughter plays for Dallas Academy. "At some point, they should have backed off."

Dallas Academy coach Jeremy Civello told The Dallas Morning News that the game turned into a "layup drill," with the opposing team's guards waiting to steal the ball and drive to the basket. Covenant scored 12 points in the fourth quarter and "finally eased up when they got to 100 with about four minutes left," he said.

Dallas Academy, a school geared towards enrolling kids with learning difficulties like dyslexia and ADD, has to field a girls basketball team from a student body with only 20 girls total. And not all of them possess suitable athletic ability to even play sports, let alone well. The eight girls Dallas Academy did get to play this season... well, let's just say Louisiana Tech assistants aren't banging down the door to recruit them. The school hasn't won a game in four years.

School directors for both sides, district directors and the media have criticized Covenant for their merciless running up of the score well after the game had been decided, though, honestly, this game was practically decided before tipoff: Never mind that 3A Covenant was playing 2A Dallas Academy: Dallas Academy's team would have a hard time with a well-stocked junior high squad. These girls are just playing for the experience, and not too skill-equipped for competitive interscholastic high school basketball.

Even the winning school felt bad about the blowout. REAL bad.

Now officials from The Covenant School say they are trying to do the right thing by seeking a forfeit and apologizing for the margin of victory.

"It is shameful and an embarrassment that this happened," Kyle Queal, the head of the school, said in a statement, adding the forfeit was requested because "a victory without honor is a great loss."

******

One of sports' great arguments concerns the matter of running up the score. Once a superior team gets far ahead and has the game well in hand... do they continue playing hard until the game is over, or do they ease off the gas and give the losing team a chance to save some face? This is actually a heated topic in many a sports discussion both online and off. Some say you should never quit trying. Some say once you know you've got the game won, you should allow the other team to save some face.

The term 'running up the score' comes from the argument that continuing to play hard after the game's clearly been decided shows bad sportsmanship and disrespect towards the other team. The argument is that once the game is in hand, you should play your backups, run out the clock and give the other team some dignity, if not some breathing room.

Interestingly enough, the term and concept are unique only to sports in the United States. Granted, other popular sports around the world don't lend themselves to running up the score like American football or basketball do.

Soccer: Scoring a goal is very difficult in soccer, and it's rare to stake yourself to more than a 2-3 goal lead, a dominant margin of victory but hardly an embarrassing blowout akin to running up the score. Plus, you can only substitute a small handful of players per match (usually 2-3, no more than 4-5), so you still need to leave many of your best players on the field. Also, given the small handful of goals in a typical match, it's very easy for a losing team to suddenly score a goal and get right back in the match.

Baseball: Pitching and hitting are both difficult acts. Big rallies that produce 10 run leads are often quite flukish: yes, they can be a byproduct of talent, but you can't produce them at will against inferior opposition the way a football team can produce first down after first down against an inferior front seven. Like soccer, the other team can rally from seemingly large deficits with some luck, and if you pull starters, you can't put them back into the game, so pulling the starters can hurt you if the other team comes back.

You also can't necessarily 'ease off': a hitter must maintain his proper swing to not throw off his performance in subsequent games... and the other pitcher still has to throw strikes. If, say, hitters decided not to swing out of courtesy, but the pitcher can't locate, he could still walk a lot of guys and maybe force in some runs, which itself is even more embarrassing to the losers than if the winning team just continued hitting as usual.

Also, blowouts just don't happen that often in baseball. Every now and then you take a bad loss, but losing teams generally don't curse the other team for, say, making a 10-1 deficit a 15-1. They usually consider it their own damn fault for pitching and fielding like crap.

Cricket: Each side only gets 1-2 chances on offense per match, so running up the score IS the idea! You damn well better run the score up as far as you can, because you don't want the other guys running it up more than you do.

Boxing: Got a problem with the other guy piling on the scorecard? Can't fight back worth a damn? Take a punch. Go down. Stay down. Wait for the ref to count to 10. Problem solved.

But America has sports that facilitate scoring and operate on a clock, thus lending themselves to the possibility of looming blowouts that emerge well before the contest has concluded, which creates the winning team's dilemma: 'do we keep playing hard and make a big loss worse for them, or do we stop trying, just so they can get back some dignity?'

******

So, was Covenant as "disgraceful" as school officials claim they were in pushing the floor well after they clearly had the game won? I'll say yes and no.

No, it's not disgraceful to continue playing hard for every minute you're on the floor. There certainly may come a time where you meet your match and you'll want to have the experience of playing a full four quarters or nine innings or three periods, and you won't get it if you take the rest of the night off every time your game is decided well before the buzzer. Give Dallas Academy credit for never quitting and keeping their heads up when they clearly were getting their asses handed to them. But give Covenant credit for playing a full game instead of hot dogging the last two periods. Neither team quit trying, and there's more honor in that than the district may want to admit.

However, yes, it was disgraceful for Covenant to keep the starters out there when the game was clearly in hand. Covenant has a bench with reserves: coach Micah Grimes should have given extended minutes to every girl on that bench. It's not like the 12th girl on the bench gets to play a ton. Yes, they should have run their offense/defense and tried to execute plays to their best, and it's quite likely the Dallas Academy girls would have still been overmatched against the weakest team Covenant could possibly throw out there. But it would've loosened the strings a bit, would have offered a lot more value to both teams than the extended pimpslap that resulted, and maybe the Dallas Academy girls could have scored a basket or two to save some face. There was no need to get Covenant's point guard 48 points or shut out Dallas Academy.

College basketball coach Billy Tubbs had a thing for letting his Oklahoma teams run up the score. When criticized about this, he offered up the following, "If they don't like it, they should get better."

Ultimately, sports are a competitive endeavor, and when you play a 60 minute ballgame, the idea is to give your best effort for 60 minutes. Teams get criticized for quitting during the game, and go figure society also criticizes teams for not quitting during the game. Some compromise by taking knees, running generic sets and playing the backups. I'm a believer that every player on the field should give their best as long as they're on the field. But once a game's in hand, the coach should do his best to get everyone on the team who doesn't regularly play some playing time, not only to give the other team a chance to save face against lesser competition, but to take the opportunity to get those infrequently used players some cherished action. They can try and use different strategic sets and see how they look in a low-pressure situation.

Blowouts can present an opportunity, not to run up the score, but to give others a chance, whether they're on the other team or yours.