Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Letting the Culprit Go: The NCAA's failure to punish departing coaches amid major violations


Based on documents released by the school, the NCAA has found that the Oregon football program between 2008 and 2011 committed major violations, mostly through its connection to recruiting services provided by Will Lyles. 

“There were underlying major violations coupled with failure to monitor violations involving the head coach (2009 through 2011) and the athletics department (2008-2011),” NCAA enforcement staff wrote in a recent report.

Now I have no inside information here, and don’t know what exactly will come of these transgressions, but it’s hard to ignore the timing of these findings when considered in light of former head coach Chip Kelly’s recent exodus to the NFL. Whether the peculiar timing of Kelly’s departure was merely coincidental or a strategic move away from a sinking ship, what’s clear is that he got out at just the right time, the kind of fortune oddly similar to what former USC head coach Pete Carroll experienced in 2009 when he bolted for the pros.

Of course, most know that USC football is currently on probation, but many forget that Carroll managed to get out of LA just before any of the sanctions were handed down, sanctions that were issued as the result of rules broken under Carroll’s less-than-watchful eye.

Again, I don’t have inside information here; I don’t know why Pete Carroll left for Seattle when he did, or if Kelly got out of Oregon because he saw the rocky road ahead. And, really, I don’t even care. What I do know, though, is that due to probation, USC football is struggling in a big way, and that for similar reasons Oregon football is likely soon to follow. What I also know is that despite Carroll’s hand in USC’s past violations, he got out of town completely unscathed, no worse for the wear, and that Kelly has managed to escape his collegiate post with much the same luck.

It seems obvious that these coaches should in some way be held responsible for the cheating they either condoned or failed to prevent. They, however, are not.

Here’s what I’d ordinarily consider obvious logic: If one is the leader or top dog overseeing an athletic program, business or any other official organization, and under their watch certain violations are committed, that person should not be able to jump ship to avoid punishment or penalty, but rather should be held responsible for their role in said offenses. Here’s the real kicker, though: Carroll and Kelly didn’t just escape penalty for the violations they allowed or committed, one could argue they actually profited from them.

Think about it this way: Had Carroll moved to suspend Reggie Bush for the benefits he received, USC’s product on the field would have most likely suffered in a big way, and with fewer wins and accomplishments to his name, who knows if Carroll still would have landed the job in Seattle. And though it is mostly conjecture at this point, it appears Kelly and Oregon benefited hugely from the recruiting services provided by Lyles and others. Again, had Kelly been forced to play with less talent and, as a result, won fewer games, he may never have been under consideration for the job he now has with the Eagles. In each of the aforementioned cases, then, one could claim that both coaches cheated in an effort to win and build impressive resumes, and then parlayed those resumes into bigger and better jobs just in the nick of time, before they could be held accountable for the transgressions they allowed/committed.

But instead of punishing the real violators on their way out the door (admittedly, this can be hard/complicated to do), the NCAA has historically chosen to focus its attention on penalizing the programs, where the residual damage can be costly. Here, major money is lost, players completely uninvolved in the past incidents are penalized, and new, often innocent, coaches are undermined. I’m not suggesting the institutions or programs that foster these specific violations should go undisciplined, but that their leaders should be held accountable as well and, most importantly, prevented from profiting off of the dishonest culture they've created. 
  

Thursday, April 4, 2013

Recruiting, Rutgers and Rice, and More


The Bulldogs picked up their fourth commitment in the Class of 2014 earlier this week, and it came from a big prospect (figuratively and literally) in Carrollton DT Dontavius Russell. Of course, we are a long way from February 2014/National Signing Day, but the expression “it’s early” is less valid now than ever before. Sure, commitments come and go, especially when they occur this early in the process, but, in this day and age, you better be doing serious work from February to February or you’re more than likely falling behind. The time when schools like FSU could sit back, relax and close strong with nationally ranked classes on Signing Day has past.

Anyway, getting back to the Bulldogs, they’re off to a great start to this recruiting cycle, with commitments from top in-state prospects like Russell, Peachtree Ridge S Nick Glass and George Walton RB Stanley Williams. Better yet, all four of Georgia’s verbals call the Peach State home, making the wretched de-commitment less likely in these specific cases.

As for Russell, his pledge was a huge one for Georgia. At 6-3, 298 pounds, he has the potential to fit perfectly at the NG spot in Georgia’s 3-4 scheme, he plays a position of big need, and he represents one of the top interior linemen in the South, where the Bulldogs do most their damage. Russell also displays impressive athleticism, lateral agility and playing strength, just a few of the reasons he sports offers from the likes of Alabama, Florida, FSU and USC, in addition to an obvious one from Georgia.

In the end, this class will largely be judged on whether the Dawgs can land Gainesville’s all-world QB DeShaun Watson (currently “85% committed” to Clemson), but the team’s sitting pretty with the State’s top RB (Cedartown’s Nick Chubb) and has done a nice job building important momentum relatively early in the process.

Rutgers and Rice
The inappropriate actions and subsequent dismissal of Rutgers head basketball coach Mike Rice has at this point been well documented.  With that said, I don’t care to rehash those details in this setting. There are, however, a couple things that need to be made clear.

First, Rutgers AD Tim Pernetti did NOT fire Mike Rice. We did. The tape capturing Rice’s behavior was given to Pernetti in December. At that time, Pernetti decided to suspend Rice and fine him $75,000 and that, of course, means he decided NOT to fire him. Since then, nothing new has surfaced and, quite honestly, nothing new was needed. The tape, and the tape alone, was more than sufficient evidence and cause for dismissal. Again, Pernetti had that in December of 2012. Worse yet, on Tuesday of this week, before the court of public opinion could officially cast its verdict, Pernetti went on ESPN’s Outside the Lines and defended his decision to “rehabilitate” rather than fire Rice. Only when Pernetti’s pitiful judgment was thrown in his face and ridiculed by literally everyone made aware, including NJ Governor Chris Christie, did the AD decide to do what’s right. But that doesn’t count. You don’t credit for doing something that was forced upon you. For knowing what went on, and doing not nearly enough to stop it, Tim Pernetti made himself an accomplice to the crime and must be fired.

Second, Rutgers President, Robert Barchi, should follow Rice and Pernetti out the door.  On Tuesday, Pernetti claimed Barchi had in fact seen the film of Rice and that together they agreed on a punishment as well as on the need for a secondary investigation. Sine then, Barchi has said he did not view the footage until this Tuesday, and it was at that time he realized Rice needed to be dismissed. I’m not sure I believe Barchi here, but I also don’t think it really matters. If he didn’t view the tape in December, he’s at the very least terrible at his job and guilty of absolute neglect.

When an AD tells a college President that his basketball coach is guilty of violent and inappropriate behavior towards his players, that this behavior has been caught on tape and that serious action must be taken, how does that President not at the very least ask to see the tape? This is all rather simple. Barchi either needs to be fired for watching the tape and deciding to do nothing about it, or he needs to be fired because he didn’t care enough to watch the footage in the first place. Either way, Rutgers has to distance itself from this issue in a big way and, to do so, has to cut ties will all parties involved. After all, they were complicit in a collegiate institution’s egregious failure to develop and protect its student athletes.

Griner to the NBA…You Can’t be Serious
If my headline is your first exposure to this story, let me start by saying it’s true…unbelievable, but true. On Tuesday, Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban said he would consider drafting Brittney Griner, the 6-8 female center from Baylor.

"Right now, I'd lean toward yes, just to see if she can do it," Cuban said. "You never know unless you give somebody a chance."

Interestingly, Griner responded to Cuban’s comments in an affirmative tone, claiming via twitter that she would “hold her own.”

First, I should at least acknowledge that I believe this is mostly a publicity stunt by a Cuban, an owner known for his outside-the-box approach to management. From Cuban’s perspective, he can draft Griner in the second round, one usually filled with journeymen and washouts, and let things play out from there. At worst, Griner becomes a national story - like Michelle Wie, Danica Patrick and Annika Sorenstam before her – attracts fans to usually unattended summer league games, and increases Maverick franchise revenue all before she fails. At best, she does all that and more, finding a way to shock the world and actually stick around.
With all that said, though, anyone who actually believes a 6-8 female center can hang in the NBA is absolutely nuts. And legendary Connecticut women’s basketball coach Geno Auriemma agrees:

"I think it would be a sham," he said. "The fact that a woman could actually play right now in the NBA and compete successfully against the level of play that they have is absolutely ludicrous."

Really, Auriemma said it best, and he's as close as anyone to the women’s game. Griner doesn’t have the skill, athleticism or physical aggression to hang with NBA men and it isn’t even close. And if a woman were to ever make that jump, she would almost certainly play the PG position, one that relies more on finesse, skill, vision and leadership than the others. But Griner plays center, a position home to the NBA’s biggest and strongest, and couldn’t even dream of wrestling down low with the Association’s baddest. In fact, matchups with guys like Dwight Howard, DeAndre Jordan, DeMarcus Cousins and Omer Asik could get ugly enough to be deemed illegal.

What do you guys think? Should Pernetti and Barchi face similar fates as Rice? Is this Griner-to-the-NBA discussion a complete and total joke, or something more?

Wednesday, April 3, 2013

Falcons achieve winning culture, Heat lose just in time


           Tradition, pedigree, culture…all these concepts, though less than completely tangible, always seem to count in sports. In the NFL, teams like the Steelers and Patriots forever appear near or at the top of the standings by season’s end. In the NBA, it seems like, no matter their luck, the Lakers, Celtics and Spurs always find a way to contend, if not win it all. Winning big, and expecting to win on a consistent basis, starts at the top with the Owner and General Manager, and their plan for success must then be skillfully reinforced and implemented by a team’s head coach.
            The aforementioned franchises have figured this winning formula out.  When I moved to Atlanta in 2007, the Falcons hadn’t. Michael Vick and Jim Mora Jr. were on their less-than-illustrious ways out of town, and so was support for and faith in the team’s championship cause. Of course, the national perception and opinions of the franchise around the league weren’t much more favorable. Then, in 2008, Arthur Blank formed what is now an inspired threesome, brining in Thomas Dimitroff as GM and Mike Smith as head coach, and the turnaround has been remarkable. Since then, the franchise has made the postseason in all but one year and, with guys like Matt Ryan, Julio Jones and Sean Weatherspoon roaming the sidelines, appears to be setup well for the future.
           Entering the 2012 playoffs, however, people both in and out of Atlanta still lacked respect for the Falcons. Whether they weren’t winning by enough points or hadn’t yet won big, the faith just didn’t seem to be there among most. With a postseason victory and a prosporous summer, though, all that seems to have changed. After more than five years of quality leadership from the top down, the transformation feels complete. The City of Atlanta believes in the Birds more now than ever, and the league has certainly taken notice. The importance of outclassing other top teams to land major free-agent veterans like Steven Jackson and Osi Umenyiora, guys too old and established to sign with anything other than a contender, should not be overlooked or undervalued, and locals have now adopted a championship-or-bust mentality.
         Whether those expectations are realistic doesn’t matter. What does matter is that said perception marks an arrival. The arrival of a new culture at Flowery Branch. A culture that, like with the Yankees or Lakers, attracts big-name free agents looking to win now. A culture that inspires fans to expect a win every Sunday. A culture created and reinforced by management that’s never satisfied, by management that will do everything its power (like trading up to pick Julio Jones) to bring a title to Atlanta. From a personnel standpoint, the Falcons might actually be good enough to win a Super Bowl in 2013. More importantly, though, the franchise, City and league now actually expect it to happen. 

BULLS COOL HEAT…
            Everyone by now knows, the Bulls topped the Heat on Wednesday night, putting an end to Miami’s historic 27-game winning streak, six shy of the mark set by the Lakers of 1971-72. I should acknowledge that I never thought Miami would actually top the 33-game mark, and was sort of shocked to see the Heat keep it going for so long. But not for the reason most would assume; Miami is indeed noticeably better than just about every team it faces, so winning a bunch of games in a row never seemed impossible for this Heat. There is, however, a reason no defending champion (which Miami is) had ever won so many games in a row, and I think it has a lot to do with mindset.
            Past champions are usually driven by one thing only: more championships. Once a team or player has won a title, they tend to adopt more of a big-picture approach, caring little about other lesser milestones. After championship runs, teams like the Lakers and Celtics have famously coasted through the first half of regular seasons before rounding into shape just in time for the playoffs. Greg Popovich and the Spurs are notorious for sacrificing regular-season victories in an effort to rest key veterans with the playoffs in mind. The Heat, though, were surpisingly special in their approach, adopting and chasing a cause only achievable in regular-season play.
            This distinction highlights a hugely important question: from a philosophical perspective, was Miami wise to chase regular-season history? The argument here against the chase is that the Heat would be better off rested and healthy heading into the postseason, chasing another title, and that battling, fighting tooth and nail to capture a somewhat meaningless regular-season record could potentially compromise that greater goal. It’s an issue teams in all sports have grappled with for ages. During a nearly perfect 16-0 regular season in 2009, Peyton Manning and the Colts had to deal with a very similar predicament: to play or not to play. And while the threat of injury is not the same in basketball as it is in football, I truly believe Miami, and all its championship aspirations, was better served in Wednesday night’s history-crushing loss to the Bulls.
          What do you think? Does chasing 34 consecutive wins or a perfect 19-0 season compromise a team's championship aspirations and, if so, is it worth it? 

The Madness of March and More


The cost and benefits of tournament play, and danger in judging trades

On last weekend’s Zone Sports Saturday (Sports Radio 790TheZone), with the NCAA Tournament on our minds, Beau Bock and I took some time to discuss the merits of playoff systems in general. To be exact, I was extremely critical of the single-elimination tournament process (as opposed to the NBA’s series-tournament model), and always have been. Sure, the NFL makes it work, but that league has such unique parity from Week 1 to 19 that it’s hard, after the fact, to say any single Super Bowl Champion is undeserving.

I did, however, highlight a few of the major reasons I believe college football would greatly suffer in going to a playoff format, one beyond the four-team format already agreed upon. Simply put, the less exclusive a single-elimination playoff becomes, the more you diminish the importance of that sport’s regular season and any given team’s success within it, and that’s what college football has always managed to avoid. The sport is certainly different, and probably better, for this very reason; champions must play like them for an entire season and, as a result, every game truly counts.
In stark contrast, college basketball opens its postseason up to 64 teams and, in the process, significantly compromises the intrigue and passion surrounding (or, in this case, not surrounding) its regular season. Big picture, I’m obviously not a huge fan of the college basketball model, and hope and pray college football avoids going any further down that path.
BUT, with all that said, the mega-bracket tournament model does make for one obvious thing: a crazy, often jaw-dropping, edge-of-your-couch March. It’s drama on steroids, with some basketball mixed in, here and there. The NCAA Tournament captures the undivided attention of all major sports fans out there, and of every casual onlooker, too. Put it this way, if a person knows what basketball is, they are probably watching it in March. And even though I prefer a contentious regular season followed by a more traditional postseason, like the rest of America I certainly have no problem carving out and occupying a spot on my couch for the next month, throwing every sports-watching atom in my body wholly and completely into the madness that is college basketball in March. I’m excited…can you tell?

Breaking it Down
Speaking of the tournament, this year’s is as wide open and devoid of a dominant team as any in recent memory. Of course, as always, a top-seeded one will still find a way to win this thing. In fact, the long-cherished idea that March Madness is all about the little guy, the Cinderella if you will, is mostly a misconception. Forget winning it all, which since 1985 (when the tournament expanded to 64) has been done by an eight seed once (Villanova in 85), by a six seed once (Kansas in 88), by a four seed once (Arizona in 97) and then by a bunch of ones, twos and threes in every other year. But check out this stat: 224 teams have made the Elite Eight since 1985, and only one of those teams was seeded worse than No. 11. So, while the NFL postseason highlights the sport’s parity, the NCAA Tourney really only further reinforces college basketball’s longstanding hierarchy of the haves and have-nots. 

Anyway, I’m hoping my third-seeded Gators can do it this year, and we have a chance; Florida is the only team in America to finish the season ranked in the top five in both offensive and defensive efficiency. We sure do stink in close games away from home, though (all 7 of Florida’s losses came on the road this year and the Gators are 1-7 in games decided by 11 or less). And in a tournament dominated by favorites, a couple of things always show up. Veteran teams with size and athleticism (Miami) seem to have success, and so do teams led by Tom Izzo (Michigan State), top big men (Indiana and Cody Zeller) and elite perimeter defenders (Aaron Craft and Ohio State).

Philly Fiasco 
Moving on, I couldn’t help but laugh when earlier this week Philadelphia Sixers center Andrew Bynum finally declared himself out for the remainder of the season, failing to play a single game for Philly this year (after summer knee surgery, Bynum has to have it again, this time on both the left and right knees). If you don’t remember, he was a part of the summer trade that sent Dwight Howard to LA, Andre Iguodala to Denver and Moe Harkless/Arron Afflalo/Nikola Vucevic to Orlando.

Anyway, the 7-0 Bynum had major durability problems in LA (he played in more than 60 games just twice in seven seasons) and even the most casual fan had to know something was up when Orlando refused a simple Howard-for-Bynum deal and instead required it to include both Philly and Denver. Of course, with Bynum set to become a free agent this summer and his future health in serious question, he not only killed Philadelphia’s playoff chances this season, but his long-term market value as well. When the trade went down, it was assumed Bynum would either re-sign in Philly for max dollars, or sign somewhere else for similar money. Now, the dude comes with more red flags than ever and will be lucky to get a long-term deal at all.

Mostly, though, the Bynum fiasco serves as yet another lesson in the dangers of judging trades on paper, or simply too soon. At the time it was executed, pretty much regardless of who you asked, LA did well to get Howard, Denver improved with Andre, Philly was set for the future with Bynum, and Orlando was bludgeoned, getting back nothing but a collection of throw-ins. And, while it’s probably still too early to judge the trade with complete confidence, its complexion has certainly changed dramatically over the course of the season.

Denver has found success out West (47-22, 5th in its Conference), but Howard is acting a fool in Laker Land and Philly is out of postseason contention with an increasingly bleaker future by the day, all while Orlando found its center of the future in Vucevic (averaging 12.4 ppg, 11.5 rpg at 22) and a promising perimeter athlete in Harkless. Interestingly, it reminds me a lot of another Lakers trade, one they pulled off in 2008, when trading Memphis the draft rights to rookie Marc Gasol in return for brother Pau Gasol seemed like highway robbery, but instead turned out to be an extremely beneficial move for both parties. I guess, in the end, winning is complicated, life is fluid, and jumping to conclusions is just plain dumb.
That’s all I’ve got for now, folks. Have a great weekend succumbing to the Madness…and some basketball.