After watching a bunch of close games in the NBA Playoffs I figured I would chime in about what coaches are thinking at the end of games. So far the games have been great, can't ask for better games and better series. Teams are playing their tails off, fouls are a little bit harder, and neither team is backing down.
I know every fan wants to question what coaches do at the end of the game. It doesn't matter if it's high school, college, or the pros. Fans usually give the players credit when their team wins and blame the coaches when they lose. It's a tough balance, but as I have said before there is a reason why these guys or gals are coaching at the highest level and you are sitting on your rear complaining that they don't have a clue what they are doing. There are also times when things get out of the coaches' control. Some players are flat out selfish and want their own glory instead of sacrificing for the team and that happens at all levels.
I try not to question the coaching I see on tv. I'm a coach, it's the last thing I want to do is question guys that are at a higher level than me. Now, I might not agree with what the coaches gameplan but it's hard to argue when I don't see practice every day and see how they handle end of game situations or playing time. Just like there are times when I don't agree with what Nelson thinks we should do, but he's the head coach and we usually go with what he wants (I can't always be a "yes" man to him and that's not a bad thing).
There are so many different situations at the end of games that many different coaches handle differently. One example of this is how you handle a three point lead at the end of the game. Do you let them run a play and take a chance at them hitting a 3? Or, do you foul and not let them get a shot off? I have slowly but surely become a fan of fouling at the end. Now, it's something you have to practice and you obviously can't let them get a shot off and all that jazz. We had a situation similar to that in our St. Olaf game at home this year and we didn't foul and the Oles ended up missing a decent look from 3 with a few seconds left. Looking back at it now, we probably would've fouled but they didn't have any timeouts and we didn't want them to draw something up. The decision changes on a game to game basis.
Another example of what you do at the end of the game is when the game is tied or you are down 1 or 2 and you have the ball, what do you do? I think it depends on your team. Do you have kids that can make plays off the dribble? If you remember the Florida State-VCU game in the NCAA Tournament, they didn't take a timeout in regulation and in overtime and didn't score either time. They were tied (obviously) in regulation and then down 1 or 2 during overtime. I'm pretty sure I would've called a timeout when in overtime but I'm not sure what they practice every day. They had a fifth year senior point guard and I'm sure Leonard Hamilton trusted him to make the right decision. Again, I didn't agree with what they did but it's tough to say they didn't make the right call. If they scored, nobody would be talking about the Shaka Smart led VCU squad.
Now, coaches certainly do make mistakes and for the most part those mistakes eats at them for a long time. For example, our loss to St. Thomas in the MIAC Semis still eats at me every day. I'm always thinking what we need to do to win that game. Could we have made different subs at different situations, different plays, or called a timeout earlier? What if we made one more shot at a critical point in the game? What if we contested one of their jumpers? So many different things to think about.
So, before you think about questioning these coaches, think about all the days and time they have spent with these kids or men. They spend more time together than a lot of families and usually the coach or coaches have an unbelievable feel what is best for their team. Whether you agree or not, the coach has the team's best interest in mind.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Final Four vs. NBA Playoffs
As I am sitting here watching the end of the Celtics-Knicks game, I came to think which is better, NCAA Final Four or the NBA Playoffs? There are certainly some similarities between the two. The NBA Playoffs are essentially the Sweet 16 with the ideal matchups of 1 vs. 8 and so on. Obviously, there are some differences, so here we go.
The biggest difference between the NBA and the Final Four is the format. The NBA has a best of seven series all the way through. So, you could potentially play 28 games in the playoffs and only play four teams. That's a lot of wear and tear on your body, especially after an 82 game regular season. I think it's flat out stupid because it doesn't come close to simulated their regular season schedule. I get the fact the Finals should be best of seven but the first round shouldn't be. It's all about the cash-o-la.
The most amount of games you can play in the Final Four is seven. That's with the play-in game so it's normally six. The whole "everybody participates" at the D1 level while D3 gets 61 teams (D3 has more schools than D1 does) in their tournament based off the stupid formula the NCAA uses. Once again, must be the money (I know it's terrible but it's definitely funny). On top of that, in the NBA they basically play every other night. During the tournament teams will play two games in three days and then get five day rest in between sets of games.
Another huge difference is the fact that the Final Four is winner take all format. If you lose you are out. It's essentially survive and advance. That is why so many people love it. It's definitely another reason why there are so many upsets. If you put Morehead St against Louisville in a best of seven series, Louisville probably wins but they just needed their one game. If only we get could get Donnie Tyndale to dress like Morehead State's women's coach. This format gives the "little guy" a chance to an extent, though a #1 seed has never lost to a #16 seed.
The NBA's format gives the advantage to the higher seed aka the better team. They will potentially play four home games out of seven which is something you never with the Final Four (though the pod system tries to get them close to generate...you guessed it, more money). The #8 seed has only won the opening playoff series twice. It first happened when the Dikembe Mutombo led Denver Nuggets beat the Shawn Kemp led Seattle Supersonics. Here is one of the most iconic playoff clips ever. The other was when the Knicks beat the Heat when Allan Houston made the game winner in Miami. One thing about both of these series is that it was only a five game series instead of seven game series. The less games, odds play in favor of the "underdog."
One big similiarity between the two is that somebody is playing for money. In the Final Four, coaches are jockeying for a new contract extension and playing are jockeying for a higher draft slot. In the NBA, if you have a great playoff series it could lead to millions of dollars in contracts. HERE is an article from a few years back regarding coaches and what NCAA Tournament success means to their bank account. Just ask Brad Stevens and Shaka Smart how they stopped shopping at Marshall's and TJ Maxx.
Kemba Walker played himself into the lottery with his performance during the Final Four (his regular season was pretty darn good as well). Jeremy Lamb also played himself in a first round possibility. Dahntay Jones, formerly of the New York Knicks, got into the first round with his performance as Erick Dampier's sidekick at Mississippi State during their Final Four run. I'm sure I could find a bunch more but I've bored you guys enough.
Two perfect examples of playing themselves into a great contract for their performance in the playoffs are Jim McIlvaine and Jerome James. These two guys signed roughly $70 million worth of contracts and combined to average much less than 10 points and 10 boards over the course of them. Both terrible contracts that turned out to be terrible decisions by the each front office (Isiah Thomas was obviously involved with Jerome James). Don't get me wrong, I'd take 5 million for doing nothing (roughly my annual contract at Hamline) but these guys really didn't earn these contracts. Must be nice to be a seven footer.
Obviously the format behind the Final Four and the NBA Playoffs are very different but there are also some similarities that people seem to forget about. Most people would much rather watch the Final Four because the guys are playing for the name on the front of the jersey instead of the back but when push comes to shove, everyone is trying to reach the pinnacle and get that ring. The town idiot, the so-called sports genius, and the girl that picks teams based of their colors or mascots has interest in the Final Four, that certainly can't be said about the NBA Playoffs.
Not sure if you saw this but a great article and video from ESPN Outside the Lines. A must see for sure. ESPN isn't letting me post the video but check out the link, might bring a tear to your eye.
The biggest difference between the NBA and the Final Four is the format. The NBA has a best of seven series all the way through. So, you could potentially play 28 games in the playoffs and only play four teams. That's a lot of wear and tear on your body, especially after an 82 game regular season. I think it's flat out stupid because it doesn't come close to simulated their regular season schedule. I get the fact the Finals should be best of seven but the first round shouldn't be. It's all about the cash-o-la.
The most amount of games you can play in the Final Four is seven. That's with the play-in game so it's normally six. The whole "everybody participates" at the D1 level while D3 gets 61 teams (D3 has more schools than D1 does) in their tournament based off the stupid formula the NCAA uses. Once again, must be the money (I know it's terrible but it's definitely funny). On top of that, in the NBA they basically play every other night. During the tournament teams will play two games in three days and then get five day rest in between sets of games.
Another huge difference is the fact that the Final Four is winner take all format. If you lose you are out. It's essentially survive and advance. That is why so many people love it. It's definitely another reason why there are so many upsets. If you put Morehead St against Louisville in a best of seven series, Louisville probably wins but they just needed their one game. If only we get could get Donnie Tyndale to dress like Morehead State's women's coach. This format gives the "little guy" a chance to an extent, though a #1 seed has never lost to a #16 seed.
The NBA's format gives the advantage to the higher seed aka the better team. They will potentially play four home games out of seven which is something you never with the Final Four (though the pod system tries to get them close to generate...you guessed it, more money). The #8 seed has only won the opening playoff series twice. It first happened when the Dikembe Mutombo led Denver Nuggets beat the Shawn Kemp led Seattle Supersonics. Here is one of the most iconic playoff clips ever. The other was when the Knicks beat the Heat when Allan Houston made the game winner in Miami. One thing about both of these series is that it was only a five game series instead of seven game series. The less games, odds play in favor of the "underdog."
One big similiarity between the two is that somebody is playing for money. In the Final Four, coaches are jockeying for a new contract extension and playing are jockeying for a higher draft slot. In the NBA, if you have a great playoff series it could lead to millions of dollars in contracts. HERE is an article from a few years back regarding coaches and what NCAA Tournament success means to their bank account. Just ask Brad Stevens and Shaka Smart how they stopped shopping at Marshall's and TJ Maxx.
Kemba Walker played himself into the lottery with his performance during the Final Four (his regular season was pretty darn good as well). Jeremy Lamb also played himself in a first round possibility. Dahntay Jones, formerly of the New York Knicks, got into the first round with his performance as Erick Dampier's sidekick at Mississippi State during their Final Four run. I'm sure I could find a bunch more but I've bored you guys enough.
Two perfect examples of playing themselves into a great contract for their performance in the playoffs are Jim McIlvaine and Jerome James. These two guys signed roughly $70 million worth of contracts and combined to average much less than 10 points and 10 boards over the course of them. Both terrible contracts that turned out to be terrible decisions by the each front office (Isiah Thomas was obviously involved with Jerome James). Don't get me wrong, I'd take 5 million for doing nothing (roughly my annual contract at Hamline) but these guys really didn't earn these contracts. Must be nice to be a seven footer.
Obviously the format behind the Final Four and the NBA Playoffs are very different but there are also some similarities that people seem to forget about. Most people would much rather watch the Final Four because the guys are playing for the name on the front of the jersey instead of the back but when push comes to shove, everyone is trying to reach the pinnacle and get that ring. The town idiot, the so-called sports genius, and the girl that picks teams based of their colors or mascots has interest in the Final Four, that certainly can't be said about the NBA Playoffs.
Not sure if you saw this but a great article and video from ESPN Outside the Lines. A must see for sure. ESPN isn't letting me post the video but check out the link, might bring a tear to your eye.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Big East or Big Least
Everyone that watched the NCAA Tourney saw a big dose of the Charles Barkley bashing for the Big East. Obviously, UConn won and they are in the Big East but what does that say about the 9th place team in the conference winning the conference tourney and then the Final Four? I think it tells everyone how deep the Big East is and how there weren't a surefire #1 team in the country.
Like I've said before the NCAA Tourney is all about matchups. Many of the teams in the Big East ended up getting a tough draw. It's just not realistic to think that all the teams in the Big East were going to match the Sweet 16. Were most of their teams ranked high throughout the year? Yes, but it's a whole different scenario when it comes to most teams getting a full week to prepare for their first opponent in the tourney.
With UConn making the run that they did is flat out phenomenal. A team that went 9-9 during conference play was able to run the table. To me, that shows depth in the league. If you look at the results from other teams in the tourney, not exactly a easy draw:
Pitt lost to Butler
Notre Dame lost to Florida State
St. John's lost to Gonzaga
Syracuse lost to Marquette
Marquette lost to UNC
WVU lost to Kentucky
Villanova lost to George Mason
Cincinnati lost to UConn
Georgetown lost to VCU
Louisville lost to Morehead State
So, if you really look at things, Pitt, WVU, Cincinnati, and Georgetown all lost to teams that made the Final Four. Syracuse and Cincinnati lost to conference teams. St. John's got a tough draw after losing one of their best players (DJ Kennedy) to a torn ACL. 'Nova and G'town were playing like crap down the stretch and probably wouldn't have done much regardless and Louisville lost a heartbreaker to Morehead State.
If you look at the Elite 8, here is the conference breakdown
SEC (2) - Kentucky, Florida
Big East (1) - UConn
CAA (1) - VCU
ACC (1) - UNC
Pac 10 (1) - Arizona
Horizon (1) - Butler
Big 12 (1) - Kansas
Is the SEC the best league? Doubt it. Tennessee got smoked by Michigan and Vandy lost to Richmond. You never know what's going to have come tournament time. Could they saw that the Big East was the best conference in '85 when G'town, 'Nova, and Providence all made the Final Four? Maybe, I don't really remember the teams back then so I can't answer that.
This argument could go either way (kind of like this blogpost right now). I just think the gauntlet of teams you play in the Big East is the toughest in the country. Let's say you are Dook and you get put in the Big East for one season. You have a series of three games that goes as this: @ Syracuse, home vs. Notre Dame, @ Pitt. I certainly wouldn't want to play that schedule. I couldn't imagine Dook wanting to play that schedule either. That was a three game stretch that WVU had to play this year. Not fun.
Like I've said before the NCAA Tourney is all about matchups. Many of the teams in the Big East ended up getting a tough draw. It's just not realistic to think that all the teams in the Big East were going to match the Sweet 16. Were most of their teams ranked high throughout the year? Yes, but it's a whole different scenario when it comes to most teams getting a full week to prepare for their first opponent in the tourney.
With UConn making the run that they did is flat out phenomenal. A team that went 9-9 during conference play was able to run the table. To me, that shows depth in the league. If you look at the results from other teams in the tourney, not exactly a easy draw:
Pitt lost to Butler
Notre Dame lost to Florida State
St. John's lost to Gonzaga
Syracuse lost to Marquette
Marquette lost to UNC
WVU lost to Kentucky
Villanova lost to George Mason
Cincinnati lost to UConn
Georgetown lost to VCU
Louisville lost to Morehead State
So, if you really look at things, Pitt, WVU, Cincinnati, and Georgetown all lost to teams that made the Final Four. Syracuse and Cincinnati lost to conference teams. St. John's got a tough draw after losing one of their best players (DJ Kennedy) to a torn ACL. 'Nova and G'town were playing like crap down the stretch and probably wouldn't have done much regardless and Louisville lost a heartbreaker to Morehead State.
If you look at the Elite 8, here is the conference breakdown
SEC (2) - Kentucky, Florida
Big East (1) - UConn
CAA (1) - VCU
ACC (1) - UNC
Pac 10 (1) - Arizona
Horizon (1) - Butler
Big 12 (1) - Kansas
Is the SEC the best league? Doubt it. Tennessee got smoked by Michigan and Vandy lost to Richmond. You never know what's going to have come tournament time. Could they saw that the Big East was the best conference in '85 when G'town, 'Nova, and Providence all made the Final Four? Maybe, I don't really remember the teams back then so I can't answer that.
This argument could go either way (kind of like this blogpost right now). I just think the gauntlet of teams you play in the Big East is the toughest in the country. Let's say you are Dook and you get put in the Big East for one season. You have a series of three games that goes as this: @ Syracuse, home vs. Notre Dame, @ Pitt. I certainly wouldn't want to play that schedule. I couldn't imagine Dook wanting to play that schedule either. That was a three game stretch that WVU had to play this year. Not fun.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Winning Really Ugly
Last night my eyes were glued on the National Championship game featuring the Huskies of UConn vs. the Bulldogs of Butler. Before that game, I was able to view the Yanks beat the Twins, per usual. It was probably the ugliest game I've watched in a long time (probably couldn't name one worse). Both teams looked to be well prepared and both teams played hard (couldn't have said it any better Rasheed).
After watching both teams throughout the season, I thought I had a really good grasp of how they would approach the game. Butler was going to rely on their gritty defense and their patient offense. UConn were going to attack outside to in and force Butler to score over them (UConn led NCAA in blocks for a record 7 or 8 years a while back). Butler has run some great stuff throughout the season and we might put in some of their stuff for next year. UConn obviously has one of the best players in the country in Kemba Walker but they had an emerging star in Jeremy Lamb and a couple of other very good role players.
The first half was downright ugly. Neither got into any type of rhythm. Both teams were taking bad shots and missing good ones. I thought this type of game played perfectly into Butler's hands. Even more so when Shelvin Mack made the three right before the halftime buzzer. It could've been a big momentum changer and confidence boost for the Bulldogs.
Butler then made a 3 to start the 2nd half and it was all downhill for them afterward. They played very impatient and took some really bad shots. Their offense looked like they were a very undisciplined team with each guy trying to get their own. They were pressing for the quick answer and nothing seemed to work. There never seemed to be a time where they were attacking on their 2nd and 3rd catch rather than their first. That is something we preach to our guys. The gaps and openings in the defense won't be there immediately but as the possession goes further the more chances of creating lanes to penetrate. I'd never seen that out of Butler before.
UConn looked really comfortable in the second stanza. Having Shabazz Napier hounding Butler's guards really went unnoticed. Kemba and Jeremy Lamb were running the Bulldog guards rampant on the staggered double baseline screens. They also got a couple of baskets in transition which really put Butler away. Impressive second half performance for the National Champs.
One thing I couldn't get over last night was how the announcers were talking about the "length" of UConn. Is UConn long? Yes, they are but they aren't much longer than VCU or Florida. Butler flat out didn't make shots. It was one of those nights. Was the UConn defense to blame for the 18.8% shooting? You bet it did but not enough for Clark Kellogg to keep on talking and talking about it. They played great defense, they closed out great all night, and they rebounded the crap out of it.
Another thing that bothered me was all the talk about Butler searching to figure out a way to stop UConn with their zone and "inverted" zone. Come on guys, have a clue. Does Butler normally play man to man defense? Yes, but they needed to do something different to get them going. They were probably hoping that they could get something in transition. It just never happened. Did Butler play an "inverted" zone? No, they played a 1-3-1 with Matt Howard at the top. They were trying to get UConn to stand around and force them to take bad shots. We must remember Butler did as good of a job on Kemba as anyone did all year. He was 5-19 from the field. It's not like UConn lit the world on fire in the second half. UConn was just under 35% from the floor for the game and 1-11 from 3 for the game, and scored 53 points. If I'm Butler I'm extremely happy with my defensive effort, they just couldn't throw it in the ocean.
Congrats to UConn. They deserved the win. They were better. When push comes to shove, "It's not about the X's and O's, it's about the Jimmy's and the Joe's." UConn's Kemba's and Jeremy's were a little better than Butler's Shelvin's and Matt's.
Now that UConn won the Final Four and Auburn winning the BCS, the really question is which program gets their National Championship taken away first?
And this goes out to my former teammates at Brockport. Let the tears begin...
After watching both teams throughout the season, I thought I had a really good grasp of how they would approach the game. Butler was going to rely on their gritty defense and their patient offense. UConn were going to attack outside to in and force Butler to score over them (UConn led NCAA in blocks for a record 7 or 8 years a while back). Butler has run some great stuff throughout the season and we might put in some of their stuff for next year. UConn obviously has one of the best players in the country in Kemba Walker but they had an emerging star in Jeremy Lamb and a couple of other very good role players.
The first half was downright ugly. Neither got into any type of rhythm. Both teams were taking bad shots and missing good ones. I thought this type of game played perfectly into Butler's hands. Even more so when Shelvin Mack made the three right before the halftime buzzer. It could've been a big momentum changer and confidence boost for the Bulldogs.
Butler then made a 3 to start the 2nd half and it was all downhill for them afterward. They played very impatient and took some really bad shots. Their offense looked like they were a very undisciplined team with each guy trying to get their own. They were pressing for the quick answer and nothing seemed to work. There never seemed to be a time where they were attacking on their 2nd and 3rd catch rather than their first. That is something we preach to our guys. The gaps and openings in the defense won't be there immediately but as the possession goes further the more chances of creating lanes to penetrate. I'd never seen that out of Butler before.
UConn looked really comfortable in the second stanza. Having Shabazz Napier hounding Butler's guards really went unnoticed. Kemba and Jeremy Lamb were running the Bulldog guards rampant on the staggered double baseline screens. They also got a couple of baskets in transition which really put Butler away. Impressive second half performance for the National Champs.
One thing I couldn't get over last night was how the announcers were talking about the "length" of UConn. Is UConn long? Yes, they are but they aren't much longer than VCU or Florida. Butler flat out didn't make shots. It was one of those nights. Was the UConn defense to blame for the 18.8% shooting? You bet it did but not enough for Clark Kellogg to keep on talking and talking about it. They played great defense, they closed out great all night, and they rebounded the crap out of it.
Another thing that bothered me was all the talk about Butler searching to figure out a way to stop UConn with their zone and "inverted" zone. Come on guys, have a clue. Does Butler normally play man to man defense? Yes, but they needed to do something different to get them going. They were probably hoping that they could get something in transition. It just never happened. Did Butler play an "inverted" zone? No, they played a 1-3-1 with Matt Howard at the top. They were trying to get UConn to stand around and force them to take bad shots. We must remember Butler did as good of a job on Kemba as anyone did all year. He was 5-19 from the field. It's not like UConn lit the world on fire in the second half. UConn was just under 35% from the floor for the game and 1-11 from 3 for the game, and scored 53 points. If I'm Butler I'm extremely happy with my defensive effort, they just couldn't throw it in the ocean.
Congrats to UConn. They deserved the win. They were better. When push comes to shove, "It's not about the X's and O's, it's about the Jimmy's and the Joe's." UConn's Kemba's and Jeremy's were a little better than Butler's Shelvin's and Matt's.
Now that UConn won the Final Four and Auburn winning the BCS, the really question is which program gets their National Championship taken away first?
And this goes out to my former teammates at Brockport. Let the tears begin...
Saturday, April 2, 2011
The Fab 5 Documentary
After watching the Fab 5 Documentary on ESPN a couple of weeks ago I knew it was going to bring about some controversy. The team that totally changed the way we saw college basketball was an interesting group. They brought up the baggy shorts and the black socks. They basically revolutionized the basketball culture and not too many people were happy about it. They had some really talented players which included Chris Webber, Jalen Rose, Juwan Howard, Jimmy King, and Ray Jackson (no, I didn't have to look at that up).
The biggest thing that come up from the documentary was Jalen Rose's "Uncle Tom" statement about Duke. What people seem to be taking out of context was the fact that Rose thought that was the case when he was at Michigan, not necessarily now. I believe he said, "I thought they were a bunch of Uncle Toms." Naturally, there were responses from former Duke players as well as Coach K.
When you really look at the statement, some of it was about jealousy and Rose admitted that. Most of the guys on Duke's team came from two parent households and lived a good life. Rose was the son of a former NBA player, Jimmy Walker, who was never in his life. He was raised on the tough streets of Detroit while the perception for the Dook (I know it's wrong but it's right for me) players were raised in a nice neighborhood in the suburbs. Now, I don't about about all of Dook's players that were black but Grant Hill comes to mind as fitting into the perception. His dad was an NFL player and his family was wealthy. Did he really have to grind by playing on the streets to earn respect? I doubt it. It's just drastically different lifestyles that they grew up in. Both have long careers in the NBA, so you certainly can't say which lifestyle is better to play pro ball.
Now, I can somewhat see where Rose is coming from when it comes to his Dook statements. I don't want to say Dook's players are Uncle Tom's but they certainly were "safe" recruits. Grant Hill, Thomas Hill, and Brian Davis were all clean cut well spoken individuals. Carlos Boozer, Jay Williams, and Elton Brand were as well. Even with their top incoming player this year, Austin Rivers comes from a very affluent background (his dad is Doc Rivers). Again, I'm not saying these guys aren't good players because they are. These players certainly aren't the type of kids that Calipari or Pitino tend to go after. To each his own.
The times when Coach K took chances on guys, the results weren't what he was hoping for. Corey Maggette took money when he was in high school and should've never have played at Dook and their banner for the time he was there should be taken down like it was a Memphis with Derrick Rose. Sean Dockery was another player who didn't exactly fit the "Dook" mold but his career didn't exactly pan out like he expected. Now, I don't know either of these players' family situations but they both played in the Chicago Public League.
Not really sure how to end this with what I've already said but it's clear Jalen Rose has taken a lot of flack for what he said and I don't think it's really justified. He was talking about how he felt when he was an immature 18 or 19 year old kid, not now.
Go Butler!
The biggest thing that come up from the documentary was Jalen Rose's "Uncle Tom" statement about Duke. What people seem to be taking out of context was the fact that Rose thought that was the case when he was at Michigan, not necessarily now. I believe he said, "I thought they were a bunch of Uncle Toms." Naturally, there were responses from former Duke players as well as Coach K.
When you really look at the statement, some of it was about jealousy and Rose admitted that. Most of the guys on Duke's team came from two parent households and lived a good life. Rose was the son of a former NBA player, Jimmy Walker, who was never in his life. He was raised on the tough streets of Detroit while the perception for the Dook (I know it's wrong but it's right for me) players were raised in a nice neighborhood in the suburbs. Now, I don't about about all of Dook's players that were black but Grant Hill comes to mind as fitting into the perception. His dad was an NFL player and his family was wealthy. Did he really have to grind by playing on the streets to earn respect? I doubt it. It's just drastically different lifestyles that they grew up in. Both have long careers in the NBA, so you certainly can't say which lifestyle is better to play pro ball.
Now, I can somewhat see where Rose is coming from when it comes to his Dook statements. I don't want to say Dook's players are Uncle Tom's but they certainly were "safe" recruits. Grant Hill, Thomas Hill, and Brian Davis were all clean cut well spoken individuals. Carlos Boozer, Jay Williams, and Elton Brand were as well. Even with their top incoming player this year, Austin Rivers comes from a very affluent background (his dad is Doc Rivers). Again, I'm not saying these guys aren't good players because they are. These players certainly aren't the type of kids that Calipari or Pitino tend to go after. To each his own.
The times when Coach K took chances on guys, the results weren't what he was hoping for. Corey Maggette took money when he was in high school and should've never have played at Dook and their banner for the time he was there should be taken down like it was a Memphis with Derrick Rose. Sean Dockery was another player who didn't exactly fit the "Dook" mold but his career didn't exactly pan out like he expected. Now, I don't know either of these players' family situations but they both played in the Chicago Public League.
Not really sure how to end this with what I've already said but it's clear Jalen Rose has taken a lot of flack for what he said and I don't think it's really justified. He was talking about how he felt when he was an immature 18 or 19 year old kid, not now.
Go Butler!
Friday, April 1, 2011
The Reset Generation
People ages 30 and younger live in a totally different world than what people have seen before. With the likes of Myspace (a former favorite of mine), Facebook, and Twitter around, everyone is alive and well when it comes to status updates, new pics from the party last night, and the latest twitter bomb. These same people are what many people have called "The Reset Generation."
The Resets (as I'll call them the rest of the way) are in the thinking that everything can just be wiped out by hitting the reset button. Whether it be on that video game that the computer is cheating or deleting the status update that was inappropriate, let's hit the reset button and poof, everything is back to normal. Most of the people of this generation just hit the reset button and you get back to where you want to be. Unfortunately, this isn't reality when it comes to adulthood.
When you get into the working world, if you have a job, you can't just say "I quit" and be gone from that self described "dead-end" job. You have to think about how you are going to pay the bills, how you are going to eat, and how you are going to put gas in the car? If you quit and are able to find a job immediately, good for you, but in this economy the likelihood of that happening isn't high. Possibly, your job is terrible and you hate going to work everyday but you realize that because of the above mentioned things you have to stick through it.
I get to see it all the time in AAU basketball. Little Johnny isn't playing or getting as many touches as mom and dad think he deserves and all of a sudden he is playing for another AAU team. Same thing happens with transferring high schools. A lot of the time, it doesn't necessarily work out how the parents planned. I know here in Minnesota and in California, they are pretty strict about movements to different high schools.
Don't get me wrong, I'm in this generation. I've hit the reset button many times on my old Sega Genesis game system when I was playing Sonic the Hedgehog. I switched high schools my senior year (though my family moved). I went through some tough times in college in my basketball career. Even my dad said if I didn't play my junior year, it was time to look at other schools. I sat for the first two years because I wasn't good enough to play (didn't realize that then but now I do). I could've easily transferred to greener pastures but I'm in the proving people wrong business.
I didn't think I got a fair shot from Nelson. Guess what I did, I forced him to play me by working harder than everyone else. I did everything I could to get on the floor. I heard, "You're the least athletic player I've ever coached," just about every other day. I might have laughed during practice but it drove me to become a better athlete and better basketball player. By the middle of my junior year I found myself in late game situations all the time. I was the guy Nelson trusted with the ball at the end of the game. I earned that. It wasn't given to me.
Another example with me was my job at Potsdam right after college. I had a graduate assistant job there where I was paid very minimally, as in, well below the poverty line. The perks of my job was that I was coaching basketball, I was getting most of my grad degree paid for, and I had two other guys that I worked with in the same situation as me. The negatives to my job was that I worked my tail off everyday for basically nothing, I lived in the middle of nowhere (2 and 1/2 hours from Syracuse and 3 from Albany), and the fact that I lived in a community is all about fishing, hunting, and drinking none of which I do.
I didn't feel wanted (the GA's weren't invited to staff or included in any other perks) and I felt that I did more than just about everyone else on staff and wasn't given anything in return. I stuck it out there for two years because I knew it was best for me to get my grad degree but I hated that place. As soon as I got that offer from WVU, I was gone. I still keep in touch with one of the other GA's that I worked with but I don't ever plan on going back there. It wasn't fun but I grinded through.
Nelson went through a similar thing when he was in college. The head coach at his college told the starting point guard that Nelson would never play there when Nelson was a freshman. What did Nelson do? He went out to prove that coach wrong and ended up starting for three years and led the team to the NCAA tournament.
Maybe, Nelson and I have similar personalities. We are grinders and had to earn things instead of having things given to us like a lot of our teammates had. It could be the reason why were are both coaching. We are willing to work for what we get and the work that we put in will make whatever program we are at better.
We need to realize that the easy way out isn't always the best way out. Sometimes you just have to work at it and the breaks eventually will go your way.
The Resets (as I'll call them the rest of the way) are in the thinking that everything can just be wiped out by hitting the reset button. Whether it be on that video game that the computer is cheating or deleting the status update that was inappropriate, let's hit the reset button and poof, everything is back to normal. Most of the people of this generation just hit the reset button and you get back to where you want to be. Unfortunately, this isn't reality when it comes to adulthood.
When you get into the working world, if you have a job, you can't just say "I quit" and be gone from that self described "dead-end" job. You have to think about how you are going to pay the bills, how you are going to eat, and how you are going to put gas in the car? If you quit and are able to find a job immediately, good for you, but in this economy the likelihood of that happening isn't high. Possibly, your job is terrible and you hate going to work everyday but you realize that because of the above mentioned things you have to stick through it.
I get to see it all the time in AAU basketball. Little Johnny isn't playing or getting as many touches as mom and dad think he deserves and all of a sudden he is playing for another AAU team. Same thing happens with transferring high schools. A lot of the time, it doesn't necessarily work out how the parents planned. I know here in Minnesota and in California, they are pretty strict about movements to different high schools.
Don't get me wrong, I'm in this generation. I've hit the reset button many times on my old Sega Genesis game system when I was playing Sonic the Hedgehog. I switched high schools my senior year (though my family moved). I went through some tough times in college in my basketball career. Even my dad said if I didn't play my junior year, it was time to look at other schools. I sat for the first two years because I wasn't good enough to play (didn't realize that then but now I do). I could've easily transferred to greener pastures but I'm in the proving people wrong business.
I didn't think I got a fair shot from Nelson. Guess what I did, I forced him to play me by working harder than everyone else. I did everything I could to get on the floor. I heard, "You're the least athletic player I've ever coached," just about every other day. I might have laughed during practice but it drove me to become a better athlete and better basketball player. By the middle of my junior year I found myself in late game situations all the time. I was the guy Nelson trusted with the ball at the end of the game. I earned that. It wasn't given to me.
Another example with me was my job at Potsdam right after college. I had a graduate assistant job there where I was paid very minimally, as in, well below the poverty line. The perks of my job was that I was coaching basketball, I was getting most of my grad degree paid for, and I had two other guys that I worked with in the same situation as me. The negatives to my job was that I worked my tail off everyday for basically nothing, I lived in the middle of nowhere (2 and 1/2 hours from Syracuse and 3 from Albany), and the fact that I lived in a community is all about fishing, hunting, and drinking none of which I do.
I didn't feel wanted (the GA's weren't invited to staff or included in any other perks) and I felt that I did more than just about everyone else on staff and wasn't given anything in return. I stuck it out there for two years because I knew it was best for me to get my grad degree but I hated that place. As soon as I got that offer from WVU, I was gone. I still keep in touch with one of the other GA's that I worked with but I don't ever plan on going back there. It wasn't fun but I grinded through.
Nelson went through a similar thing when he was in college. The head coach at his college told the starting point guard that Nelson would never play there when Nelson was a freshman. What did Nelson do? He went out to prove that coach wrong and ended up starting for three years and led the team to the NCAA tournament.
Maybe, Nelson and I have similar personalities. We are grinders and had to earn things instead of having things given to us like a lot of our teammates had. It could be the reason why were are both coaching. We are willing to work for what we get and the work that we put in will make whatever program we are at better.
We need to realize that the easy way out isn't always the best way out. Sometimes you just have to work at it and the breaks eventually will go your way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)