AT THE U.S. OPEN…
A week ago it was so hot in Washington I was dreading the thought of spending a week at Congressional because just walking out the door when it is 100 degrees out is miserable. The thought of walking a hilly golf course in that kind of weather makes me want to become an editor.
Okay, that may be a bit radical but you get the point.
So, the weather thus far has been spectacular---cool, low humidity—everything you could possibly want. Of course by the weekend it will probably be awful again.
Right now though walking around here is a delight and, for once, I actually know my way around, which is a bonus.
Since I’m the local guy for this event, I’ve had more requests for radio and local TV interviews than normal. I bring that up only because it is so easy to tell the difference between those who follow golf regularly and those who don’t: The golf types want to know about the tournament. The non-golf types want to know about Tiger.
C’est la vie.
When I did my regular bit on Washington Post Live on Monday (from the golf course as opposed to the studio) Ivan Carter told me before we went on that his first question was going to be, “Why should I come out there if Tiger’s not there?”
Ivan and I joke about this all the time. I say he isn’t a golf fan because he only cares about Tiger. He insists that he is a golf fan because he likes Tiger.
So, I said, “My answer’s going to be that no one really cares if you come out here or not—they can hold the tournament without Tiger, they can certainly hold it without you.”
Ivan never asked the question.
Here’s my latest theory on Tiger: If he doesn’t play in his tournament in two weeks he won’t play the rest of the year. (It is worth remembering that I’m oh-for-Tiger this year predicting what he’s going to do: I thought for sure he would skip The Players Championship because the event means nothing to him and he’s never liked the golf course. So, he tries to play, shoots 42 for nine holes and withdraws. I thought for sure he would be healthy for the Open and he’s not here. So, take anything I say here with a grain of salt and, no, he hasn’t consulted with me on what to do next.)
The reason I believe Philadelphia will be the tipoff is this: Because of various injuries and off-course issues, Woods has missed events that he’s the ‘host,’ of on a couple of occasions since 2008. He missed that 18-man exhibition in California after his knee surgery in 2008 and missed it again after hydrant-gate in 2009.
Earlier in 2008 he couldn’t play in his tournament when it was played here at Congressional after his knee surgery. The sponsors—notably AT+T—understood that Woods couldn’t play but they very much hoped he would get on a private plane and fly in for a day to glad-hand with all their clients. Woods couldn’t make it.
Now, three years later, with the future venue of the tournament in question—it is supposed to come back to Congressional next year for the next three years but neither the club nor the Woods Foundation is thrilled with the idea—Woods’ absence this year would be a very big deal and not a good thing at all.
So, my theory is this: if there’s any way he can play he will. If he really can’t play, I think he’ll take the break a lot of people believe he should take and MAYBE play the PGA if he can get himself healthy to play at least once, maybe twice, before then.
Okay, enough Tiger. There is, after all, a major championship starting here on Thursday.
Congressional—my biases aside—is a very good venue for The Open. It isn’t Pebble Beach or Shinnecock but it is long and hard but not unfair. Rory McIlroy—who I would LOVE seeing with the trophy on Sunday—described it this morning as, ‘scoreable.’
I think that’s accurate and it is what the USGA, under Mike Davis, has wanted the last few years: play well, you score; play anything less than well and you have serious issues. A lot of players think the 16th hole might be pivotal. The area around the green—especially right and back—has been shaved to the point where if you miss the green at all you’re in big trouble. McIlroy told me his instinct after playing it a couple of times might be to lay-up rather than risk bringing six into play by hitting a long iron in. Keep an eye on how guys play the hole beginning on Thursday.
Oh, one other reason Congressional probably isn’t in the long term future for Woods’ event: The USGA has made it clear to the club that if it wants The Open back in the future, it can’t host a PGA Tour event. The USGA will look the other way on that issue for Pebble Beach but that’s because it’s Pebble Beach AND because the golf course in February is a lot different (especially with a USGA set-up) than in June.
Of course the question I’m asked most often is who I’m picking to win. That’s understandable since I’m the only media member who was smart enough to walk the first round last year with Graeme McDowell.
He was playing with Rocco Mediate and Shaun Micheel who were key figures in my last two books. I was out there to watch them. The thought that I might be walking with the winner of the championship never crossed my mind once all day.
Any of you who picked McDowell—or Louis Oosthuizen at St. Andrews or Charl Schwartzel at Augusta in April—please let me know. I’d love to get some stock tips from you.
Which of course is the beauty of golf.
******
Couple notes from last week: Final word on my friend Scott Van Pelt: First, thanks to Scott for naming me the ‘arbiter of all things.’ That’s just about as good as being the ‘czar of sports,’ as Tony Kornheiser used to call me. I’m flattered. Second, to the couple of posters who said I mis-quoted Scott by saying he met Jordan Williams when he spoke to the Maryland team before a Duke game two years ago (not that he had ‘crossed paths with him at a couple games,’ as Scott said. How did that happen since Scott doesn’t actually DO basketball games?) I was quoting JORDAN WILLIAMS who said he met Scott when he spoke to the team. Bad writing on my part if anyone misunderstood….
Oh, and then there was the question about the alleged, ‘cat,’ incident that supposedly sunk The National in 1991. If you read the story Frank Deford pretty much has it right. There were a number of reasons I wanted to come home and the cost of my coming home between The French open and Wimbledon was LESS than if I stayed. I did NOT fly home on The Concorde. The only time I flew on the Concorde was when I used USAIR points to fly on it to and from the British Open in 1994. The return flight left London at 3:30 and arrived in Washington at a little before 2 p.m.
That was cool.
Showing posts with label Scott Van Pelt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scott Van Pelt. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Maybe it’s time for Tiger to take extended break; ESPN book; Thoughts on the Jordan Williams and Scott Van Pelt story; Notre Dame follow-up
I’m not really sure where to begin today but let’s start with Tiger Woods because, well, he’s Tiger Woods and my phone began going crazy the minute he announced on Tuesday that he wouldn’t be playing in The U.S. Open here at Congressional next week.
I was so hoping he’d come by the house for a cookout one night.
It is hard for me—or anyone—to judge the soundness of this decision because, as is always the case with Woods, we’re reading tealeaves. His doctors have told him playing next week would be a bad idea. Makes sense. But he hopes to play in the event he ‘hosts,’ in two weeks. Does that make sense? If his knee and Achilles injuries are bad enough to keep him from playing a tournament he once won on a broken leg, they’re going to heal enough in two weeks for him to tee it up at Aronomink? Makes very little sense.
Here’s Tiger’s problem right now—in my opinion: He knows that all the various sponsors for his event, notably AT+T which is putting up about $8 million, aren’t going to be happy if he no-shows no matter how legitimate his injuries may be. There was a good deal of whining in 2008 when he couldn’t play after his knee surgery although Woods didn’t help things by not making the effort to get on a private plane and even make an appearance just to shake a few sponsor hands.
In truth, that was unlike him because the one and only group of people he’s ever been loyal to at all are those who pay him. Of course AT+T and the other sponsors weren’t technically paying him, they were paying to put on a tournament that benefits his foundation. Maybe that was the difference. Who knows?
Now Woods has those same sponsors wanting to know if he’s going to play or not. To them, showing up in Philly is a lot more important than showing up at Congressional or for The British Open or The PGA Championship this summer. Woods shouldn’t think twice about that. His skipping the Open is the first time I’ve had any sense that he’s looking at the big picture—which isn’t the next three months but the next three years, five years, ten years.
Early this year I thought he needed to play more golf. He kept talking about the ‘process,’ of working on the new swing Sean Foley has been teaching him. Fine. You can’t find true swing keys on the range. You have to take them to the golf course and see how they hold up under pressure. My friend John Cook was quoted back in March as saying Tiger was hitting it as pure as he’d ever seen on the range.
The range is irrelevant. Even hackers can hit good shots on the range. My thought was that Woods should go play four weeks in a row, even if that meant changing the schedule he has been so wedded to for years. Of course he didn’t do that and then he got hurt at The Masters.
Why he tried to play at The Players I have no idea. He doesn’t care about the event—nor should he—doesn’t like the golf course and clearly wasn’t close to 100 percent. For all of Tim Finchem’s claims that Woods looked completely healthy during the practice rounds, the fact is he was carted almost everyplace he went—which he doesn’t normally do—and other players saw him limping during the 18 practice holes (total) that he played. Does that sound healthy to you?
He obviously hurt the knee and the Achilles again trying to play there. So now I’ve come 180 degrees the other way: I think Tiger should just pack it in the rest of the year. Stay home and rest his mind and his body. Hang out with his kids, get some real rehab to be SURE he’s 100 percent before he tries to play again and just RELAX. I mean seriously, when was the last time in his life he did that for more than a week or two?
It wasn’t right after the infamous accident when he was in hiding and then in some kind of rehab and then making speeches to try to convince sponsors who were running for cover that he was a new man. A real break—not one forced on him by injury or public humiliation—might do him a lot of good. He might come back fresh and eager to play, rather than feeling he HAS to play. It might recharge him. Staying home for awhile might (though I doubt it) give him a chance to do some real reflecting on his life and his future. He should bring in a crisis manager—because the guy is still in all sorts of crisis—to tell him how he should deal with the media, with fans, with sponsors and with his travel schedule (Dubai et al should go away; play to be a champion, not to get richer). It should be someone who will tell him what to do not what he wants to hear the way his current ‘team,’ does.
Woods can still break Jack Nicklaus’s record of 18 major titles. He’s that talented and, when he isn’t in crisis, that mentally tough. But he needs to take a deep breath before he starts back up that mountain.
*****
I try very hard to steer away from ESPN-related subjects. My opinions on the people who run the network are pretty well known even if Tom Shales and Jim Miller didn’t call me for their book.
A note on the book: I don’t intend to read it if only because I haven’t found any of the excerpts particularly compelling. I mean, seriously people don’t like Chris Berman? That’s news? Keith Olbermann was crazy? Film at 11 stuff there, right? There were sex and drugs at parties in the 80s? No kidding, really? I’ve certainly never been to a party like that in my life.
The fact that the book is getting the attention it is getting is a tribute—unfortunately—to how important a part of our culture ESPN has become. There’s just no getting around that fact.
In the meantime, Scott Van Pelt has been in the news because of his Maryland connections—again. Van Pelt and I had a disagreement last year because I commented on his behavior while sitting in the stands at a Duke-Maryland game in College Park. He took offense to my saying that, as a public figure, who at times talked about college basketball on TV and radio, he needed to show some decorum, even while sitting in the stands. I wondered how people would react if say, Jay Bilas or I sat in the stands at Cameron Indoor Stadium in Duke gear and yelled at officials during a game.
Scott took offense and called me and we had a good talk and ended up, I think, agreeing to disagree. (He also took a shot a my brother during a speech at Burning Tree last summer since my brother had been the one who told me how Van Pelt behaved. For the record, my brother is close to Gary Williams and was sitting in front of Van Pelt because—like Scott—he’d been given tickets by Gary. Anyway, Scott, did you think someone wouldn’t report your crack back to me? I do have other sources).
No big deal actually. The other day Jordan Williams, the now ex-Maryland center who put his name into the draft after his sophomore year, told reporters Van Pelt had played a major advisory role in his decision. Then, after he and Van Pelt talked, Williams sort of withdrew that statement, said only that he had asked Van Pelt to get him some feedback from NBA people before making his decision and that the media—it’s always the media isn’t it?—had blown the thing out of proportion.
I don’t doubt it was blown out of proportion—what isn’t? And I’ve had coaches and athletes ask me for advice. I remember Eric Montross’s dad asking me years ago if I thought Eric should go to Indiana and play for Bob Knight. I was careful to limit my answer to what I had written in ‘A Season on the Brink.’ I did almost the same thing a few years later when Alan Henderson asked me the same question after I had spoken at Five Star. Knowing Henderson was being recruited by Duke, I was even more careful in how I answered the question.
So, I understand Scott’s dilemma. That said, I think he should have told Williams that the person he should be talking to is his college coach and to the NBA advisory board that gives a player an objective opinion on where he might go in the draft. It wasn’t Scott’s job to be Williams’ go-fer. I’m a little amused by Scott’s claim that he had, ‘crossed paths with Jordan while doing games.’ The truth is, they first met when Gary Williams asked Scott to speak to the team before a game at Duke two years ago. He was there as a Maryland grad who is a celebrity and a friend of Gary’s. Actually he was a Friend of Gary (FOG), an official support group of Gary’s.
It’s never easy to decide where you draw the line between being friendly with someone you are covering and becoming their friend. After all these years I’ve learned it is impossible NOT to be friends with some of the people you cover, especially if you know them for a long time.
I think Van Pelt made an innocent mistake not telling Williams he wasn’t the one he should be coming to for information or feedback. If I were him, rather than try to downplay the role he played, I’d just say, ‘yeah, I should have told him to talk to Gary or the advisory board and wished him luck and left it at that.’
One last thought for the day to those who (surprise) thought I was too tough on Notre Dame last week: I have read the report on Declan Sullivan and I am familiar with Father Jenkins’ pre-Notre Dame biography. Neither changes my opinion on him or on how Notre Dame has handled the situation. Oh, and I see where Michael Floyd has been cleared to get ready to play this season. Gee, what a surprise.
I was so hoping he’d come by the house for a cookout one night.
It is hard for me—or anyone—to judge the soundness of this decision because, as is always the case with Woods, we’re reading tealeaves. His doctors have told him playing next week would be a bad idea. Makes sense. But he hopes to play in the event he ‘hosts,’ in two weeks. Does that make sense? If his knee and Achilles injuries are bad enough to keep him from playing a tournament he once won on a broken leg, they’re going to heal enough in two weeks for him to tee it up at Aronomink? Makes very little sense.
Here’s Tiger’s problem right now—in my opinion: He knows that all the various sponsors for his event, notably AT+T which is putting up about $8 million, aren’t going to be happy if he no-shows no matter how legitimate his injuries may be. There was a good deal of whining in 2008 when he couldn’t play after his knee surgery although Woods didn’t help things by not making the effort to get on a private plane and even make an appearance just to shake a few sponsor hands.
In truth, that was unlike him because the one and only group of people he’s ever been loyal to at all are those who pay him. Of course AT+T and the other sponsors weren’t technically paying him, they were paying to put on a tournament that benefits his foundation. Maybe that was the difference. Who knows?
Now Woods has those same sponsors wanting to know if he’s going to play or not. To them, showing up in Philly is a lot more important than showing up at Congressional or for The British Open or The PGA Championship this summer. Woods shouldn’t think twice about that. His skipping the Open is the first time I’ve had any sense that he’s looking at the big picture—which isn’t the next three months but the next three years, five years, ten years.
Early this year I thought he needed to play more golf. He kept talking about the ‘process,’ of working on the new swing Sean Foley has been teaching him. Fine. You can’t find true swing keys on the range. You have to take them to the golf course and see how they hold up under pressure. My friend John Cook was quoted back in March as saying Tiger was hitting it as pure as he’d ever seen on the range.
The range is irrelevant. Even hackers can hit good shots on the range. My thought was that Woods should go play four weeks in a row, even if that meant changing the schedule he has been so wedded to for years. Of course he didn’t do that and then he got hurt at The Masters.
Why he tried to play at The Players I have no idea. He doesn’t care about the event—nor should he—doesn’t like the golf course and clearly wasn’t close to 100 percent. For all of Tim Finchem’s claims that Woods looked completely healthy during the practice rounds, the fact is he was carted almost everyplace he went—which he doesn’t normally do—and other players saw him limping during the 18 practice holes (total) that he played. Does that sound healthy to you?
He obviously hurt the knee and the Achilles again trying to play there. So now I’ve come 180 degrees the other way: I think Tiger should just pack it in the rest of the year. Stay home and rest his mind and his body. Hang out with his kids, get some real rehab to be SURE he’s 100 percent before he tries to play again and just RELAX. I mean seriously, when was the last time in his life he did that for more than a week or two?
It wasn’t right after the infamous accident when he was in hiding and then in some kind of rehab and then making speeches to try to convince sponsors who were running for cover that he was a new man. A real break—not one forced on him by injury or public humiliation—might do him a lot of good. He might come back fresh and eager to play, rather than feeling he HAS to play. It might recharge him. Staying home for awhile might (though I doubt it) give him a chance to do some real reflecting on his life and his future. He should bring in a crisis manager—because the guy is still in all sorts of crisis—to tell him how he should deal with the media, with fans, with sponsors and with his travel schedule (Dubai et al should go away; play to be a champion, not to get richer). It should be someone who will tell him what to do not what he wants to hear the way his current ‘team,’ does.
Woods can still break Jack Nicklaus’s record of 18 major titles. He’s that talented and, when he isn’t in crisis, that mentally tough. But he needs to take a deep breath before he starts back up that mountain.
*****
I try very hard to steer away from ESPN-related subjects. My opinions on the people who run the network are pretty well known even if Tom Shales and Jim Miller didn’t call me for their book.
A note on the book: I don’t intend to read it if only because I haven’t found any of the excerpts particularly compelling. I mean, seriously people don’t like Chris Berman? That’s news? Keith Olbermann was crazy? Film at 11 stuff there, right? There were sex and drugs at parties in the 80s? No kidding, really? I’ve certainly never been to a party like that in my life.
The fact that the book is getting the attention it is getting is a tribute—unfortunately—to how important a part of our culture ESPN has become. There’s just no getting around that fact.
In the meantime, Scott Van Pelt has been in the news because of his Maryland connections—again. Van Pelt and I had a disagreement last year because I commented on his behavior while sitting in the stands at a Duke-Maryland game in College Park. He took offense to my saying that, as a public figure, who at times talked about college basketball on TV and radio, he needed to show some decorum, even while sitting in the stands. I wondered how people would react if say, Jay Bilas or I sat in the stands at Cameron Indoor Stadium in Duke gear and yelled at officials during a game.
Scott took offense and called me and we had a good talk and ended up, I think, agreeing to disagree. (He also took a shot a my brother during a speech at Burning Tree last summer since my brother had been the one who told me how Van Pelt behaved. For the record, my brother is close to Gary Williams and was sitting in front of Van Pelt because—like Scott—he’d been given tickets by Gary. Anyway, Scott, did you think someone wouldn’t report your crack back to me? I do have other sources).
No big deal actually. The other day Jordan Williams, the now ex-Maryland center who put his name into the draft after his sophomore year, told reporters Van Pelt had played a major advisory role in his decision. Then, after he and Van Pelt talked, Williams sort of withdrew that statement, said only that he had asked Van Pelt to get him some feedback from NBA people before making his decision and that the media—it’s always the media isn’t it?—had blown the thing out of proportion.
I don’t doubt it was blown out of proportion—what isn’t? And I’ve had coaches and athletes ask me for advice. I remember Eric Montross’s dad asking me years ago if I thought Eric should go to Indiana and play for Bob Knight. I was careful to limit my answer to what I had written in ‘A Season on the Brink.’ I did almost the same thing a few years later when Alan Henderson asked me the same question after I had spoken at Five Star. Knowing Henderson was being recruited by Duke, I was even more careful in how I answered the question.
So, I understand Scott’s dilemma. That said, I think he should have told Williams that the person he should be talking to is his college coach and to the NBA advisory board that gives a player an objective opinion on where he might go in the draft. It wasn’t Scott’s job to be Williams’ go-fer. I’m a little amused by Scott’s claim that he had, ‘crossed paths with Jordan while doing games.’ The truth is, they first met when Gary Williams asked Scott to speak to the team before a game at Duke two years ago. He was there as a Maryland grad who is a celebrity and a friend of Gary’s. Actually he was a Friend of Gary (FOG), an official support group of Gary’s.
It’s never easy to decide where you draw the line between being friendly with someone you are covering and becoming their friend. After all these years I’ve learned it is impossible NOT to be friends with some of the people you cover, especially if you know them for a long time.
I think Van Pelt made an innocent mistake not telling Williams he wasn’t the one he should be coming to for information or feedback. If I were him, rather than try to downplay the role he played, I’d just say, ‘yeah, I should have told him to talk to Gary or the advisory board and wished him luck and left it at that.’
One last thought for the day to those who (surprise) thought I was too tough on Notre Dame last week: I have read the report on Declan Sullivan and I am familiar with Father Jenkins’ pre-Notre Dame biography. Neither changes my opinion on him or on how Notre Dame has handled the situation. Oh, and I see where Michael Floyd has been cleared to get ready to play this season. Gee, what a surprise.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
The story of ‘The Road to The Final Four’ and ‘Selection Sunday’; Tying up loose ends
For the past few weeks I’ve been saying and writing that those of us who love college basketball had better savor this coming Selection Sunday because it is likely to be the last one with the kind of suspense we have become accustomed to on the second weekend in March. When the NCAA expands the tournament—which I think is almost inevitable—teams like Illinois, Seton Hall, South Florida, Georgia Tech, Arizona State, Florida, Wichita State and Northeastern—all of whom are on the bubble this year, will already have locked up bids.
It’s worth nothing that none of those teams has done anything particularly special this season. They’re all just solid teams that may (or may not) get squeezed out by the numbers game. That’s part of what the process so much fun: who gets in and who gets left out and the fact that each of those teams has SOME claim to a spot in the field. That will be gone with a 96 team field we all know that. The NCAA knows that and doesn’t care as long as the money offered by ESPN or (less likely) CBS-Turner is so out-of-whack that they can roll around in it for years to come.
In writing about how much I have come to enjoy Selection Sunday I would be remiss if I didn’t remind people who don’t know how it came about. Most basketball fans—especially younger ones—just take the day for granted, sort of like Christmas. There’s always been Selection Sunday, right grandpa? Well no, there hasn’t been.
It started in 1982, the year that CBS took over the rights to the NCAA Tournament from NBC.
The role that NBC and the syndicate TVS (run by Eddie Einhorn) played in building the NCAA Tournament into a national event can’t be underplayed. Remember, as recently as the historic 1966 Texas Western-Kentucky championship game, The Final Four wasn’t on network TV. It was syndicated—and not picked up in many cities—by TVS. It wasn’t until 1969 when TVS entered into a deal with NBC that The Final Four—in Lew Alcindor’s senior season at UCLA—was televised nationally. Even then the semifinals were regionalized: The East-Mideast regional was shown in the eastern half of the country, the Midwest-West regional in the west. That was the first year the semifinals were moved from Friday to Thursday because the championship game was moved to Saturday afternoon since it clearly wasn’t worthy of prime time.
The progression from that point forward was rapid: NBC took the championship game to prime time in 1973, making The Final Four a Saturday-Monday night affair and Bill Walton made it work by shooting 21-of-22 for UCLA against Memphis State in the championship game. Two years later the tournament expanded from 25 teams to 32 and conference runners-up were allowed to participate. A year later Indiana and Michigan played in an all-Big Ten final as the post-John Wooden era began.
Then came Magic and Bird in 1979 and more expansion: first to 40 teams, then 48 and 53 and finally 64 in 1985. Note that the number moved up slowly, the committee wanting to be sure it wasn’t going too fast. The move to 64, pushed hard by Wayne Duke and Vic Bubas had as much to do with wanting to eliminate byes and have everyone play the same number of games as anything else. Obviously with a 96 team field that will go out the window.
Al McGuire won the national championship with Marquette in his final game as a coach in 1977. The next year, he joined Billy Packer and Dick Enberg to form basketball’s first three man booth and they became cult figures in college basketball. When CBS wrested the rights from NBC by offering $48 million for three years—triple what NBC had paid—there was a good deal of talk that an era had ended (which it had) and that college hoops would never be the same.
CBS needed to do something to establish itself as THE network of college basketball, especially since NBC still did regular season games with Enberg and McGuire and there were those who still thought IT was the network of college basketball.
After failing in an attempt to hire Bob Knight (yes, Bob Knight) as its No. 1 color commentator, CBS hired Packer, both for that job as a consultant on scheduling (it had no college hoops contacts at the time) and on the package in general. Packer and Len DeLuca, then a CBS producer who now works at ESPN, sat down to think of ways to connect CBS to college basketball.
They came up with two ideas: Tie together the entire season with some kind of theme: The Road to The Final Four. Every game would be part of that road and every week would lead to—in the case of 1982—New Orleans. Then, one of them said something like this: “Why don’t we announce the brackets on TV?”
There is still some dispute between the two of them as to who actually thought of the idea first but together they came up with it. Until then, coaches would sit in their offices on Selection Sunday—there were no games played that day, the ACC didn’t move its championship game to Sunday until 1982—and wait for a phone call from the NCAA office in Kansas City, which is where the selection committee would meet.
Packer and DeLuca changed that. No one got a phone call anymore. Instead, they were told to watch their TV on Sunday afternoon to find out if they were in and if so where they were going. From there, the whole thing just grew and grew until it reached the point where it has become a national holiday for college hoops fans.
So, as we get ready for what might be the last truly meaningful Selection Sunday of our lives, let’s pause for a moment and pay tribute to Packer and DeLuca. It probably seemed like a minor thing to them all those years ago but it turned out to be a truly big deal.
*********
I had a nice talk with Scott Van Pelt yesterday. He called after reading yesterday’s blog, understandably a little upset, but very willing to discuss both his point of view and mine on the subject. He admitted that he had “wrestled,” with the issue for years. “I grew up a Maryland fan, I went to Maryland and I’m very passionate about my school,” he said.
All of which is absolutely fine as far as I’m concerned. In fact, I can honestly say I wish I felt a little more passion for my school. He also asked if I was wrong when I directed a profanity at the officials five years ago during a Navy-Duke football game. Of course I was wrong. That’s why I apologized on the air right away, offered to resign and, as I’ve said before, kind of grin and bear it when people bring it up now. I screwed up; I pay the price.
That said, he and I agreed that there’s a difference between one brief outburst and repeatedly getting up and screaming in public even if you aren’t on duty at the time. I would add in response to some of yesterday’s posts that I readily admit I have a bias towards Navy (and Army) but during broadcasts I probably defend the officials on calls that go against Navy about as often as I criticize them. Ask the Navy fans who listen regularly. That said, I withdraw nothing I’ve ever said about Perry Hudspeth.
One more point on bias: OF COURSE I’m biased. Everyone is for one reason or another. Do I like Mike Krzyzewski (or Gary Williams or Roy Williams or Paul Goydos or Ernie Els to name a few) more than Tiger Woods? Yes. I think they’re nicer people, having nothing to do with what they do away from their professions. That doesn’t mean I have an axe to grind with Woods, I just disagree with his behavior often—and did so long before November 27th—while always admiring his brilliance on the golf course.
Scott said he had talked to Jay Bilas, who I mentioned because I believed then (and believe now) that if he or I were to sit behind a Duke bench and yell at officials we’d be crucified. He said Bilas told him he thought what Scott did was okay—something about believing in the “duality of man,”—spoken like a true lawyer, which is fine. As I said, TV guys do commercials and the standards ARE different than for print guys.
In the end, I think we agreed to (sort of) disagree. I think Scott understands WHY I’d criticize him and I understand WHY he feels the way he feels. And we’re both proud members of FOG—Friends of Gary (me, unofficially of course). I give him credit for making the call and handling the situation, in my opinion, very maturely.
********
Finally to my friends from Hoya Paranoia Inc: Yes, you are RIGHT I was WRONG. Georgetown made The Big East Tournament in 2004. My memory is good but it isn’t perfect. I looked it up last night after I hosted the radio show on WFAN. Georgetown was 4-12 in the league and tied for 12th with Miami in a 14-team league and made the tournament (losing first round) on a tiebreaker. Craig Esherick was fired soon thereafter and replaced by John Thompson III.
Here’s the irony of the whole thing: I made the comment about the 2004 team on the air last night in the context of complimenting Thompson for coming in and rebuilding the program and going to The Final Four three years later. I wasn’t ripping Georgetown or, as one poster put it, “lying,” about the Hoyas. I was complimenting them and had a memory block. Like I said, my memory is good, but it isn’t perfect—especially these days.
So, I apologize for my mistake. I would also urge all of you to calm down for crying out loud. Will I continue to criticize Georgetown for not playing in the BB+T Classic? You bet. You want to say I’m wrong to do that, have at it. We’ll agree to disagree. I also will continue to say that John Thompson the elder killed local rivalries in DC in part because HE says he did it and in part because the evidence is right there for anyone to see.
For the record: I get along fine with JT the elder these days even if we disagree on the issue of local rivalries and the BB+T. Neither of us screams or yells or calls the other a “liar,” when we talk about those subjects. I’ve known JT III since he played at Princeton and think he is a terrific coach even though I wish he would just tell his dad, “I know you didn’t play in the BB+T but I think it is the right thing to do so I’m doing it.”
My guess is his dad would get over it. You Hoya fans need to do the same.
It’s worth nothing that none of those teams has done anything particularly special this season. They’re all just solid teams that may (or may not) get squeezed out by the numbers game. That’s part of what the process so much fun: who gets in and who gets left out and the fact that each of those teams has SOME claim to a spot in the field. That will be gone with a 96 team field we all know that. The NCAA knows that and doesn’t care as long as the money offered by ESPN or (less likely) CBS-Turner is so out-of-whack that they can roll around in it for years to come.
In writing about how much I have come to enjoy Selection Sunday I would be remiss if I didn’t remind people who don’t know how it came about. Most basketball fans—especially younger ones—just take the day for granted, sort of like Christmas. There’s always been Selection Sunday, right grandpa? Well no, there hasn’t been.
It started in 1982, the year that CBS took over the rights to the NCAA Tournament from NBC.
The role that NBC and the syndicate TVS (run by Eddie Einhorn) played in building the NCAA Tournament into a national event can’t be underplayed. Remember, as recently as the historic 1966 Texas Western-Kentucky championship game, The Final Four wasn’t on network TV. It was syndicated—and not picked up in many cities—by TVS. It wasn’t until 1969 when TVS entered into a deal with NBC that The Final Four—in Lew Alcindor’s senior season at UCLA—was televised nationally. Even then the semifinals were regionalized: The East-Mideast regional was shown in the eastern half of the country, the Midwest-West regional in the west. That was the first year the semifinals were moved from Friday to Thursday because the championship game was moved to Saturday afternoon since it clearly wasn’t worthy of prime time.
The progression from that point forward was rapid: NBC took the championship game to prime time in 1973, making The Final Four a Saturday-Monday night affair and Bill Walton made it work by shooting 21-of-22 for UCLA against Memphis State in the championship game. Two years later the tournament expanded from 25 teams to 32 and conference runners-up were allowed to participate. A year later Indiana and Michigan played in an all-Big Ten final as the post-John Wooden era began.
Then came Magic and Bird in 1979 and more expansion: first to 40 teams, then 48 and 53 and finally 64 in 1985. Note that the number moved up slowly, the committee wanting to be sure it wasn’t going too fast. The move to 64, pushed hard by Wayne Duke and Vic Bubas had as much to do with wanting to eliminate byes and have everyone play the same number of games as anything else. Obviously with a 96 team field that will go out the window.
Al McGuire won the national championship with Marquette in his final game as a coach in 1977. The next year, he joined Billy Packer and Dick Enberg to form basketball’s first three man booth and they became cult figures in college basketball. When CBS wrested the rights from NBC by offering $48 million for three years—triple what NBC had paid—there was a good deal of talk that an era had ended (which it had) and that college hoops would never be the same.
CBS needed to do something to establish itself as THE network of college basketball, especially since NBC still did regular season games with Enberg and McGuire and there were those who still thought IT was the network of college basketball.
After failing in an attempt to hire Bob Knight (yes, Bob Knight) as its No. 1 color commentator, CBS hired Packer, both for that job as a consultant on scheduling (it had no college hoops contacts at the time) and on the package in general. Packer and Len DeLuca, then a CBS producer who now works at ESPN, sat down to think of ways to connect CBS to college basketball.
They came up with two ideas: Tie together the entire season with some kind of theme: The Road to The Final Four. Every game would be part of that road and every week would lead to—in the case of 1982—New Orleans. Then, one of them said something like this: “Why don’t we announce the brackets on TV?”
There is still some dispute between the two of them as to who actually thought of the idea first but together they came up with it. Until then, coaches would sit in their offices on Selection Sunday—there were no games played that day, the ACC didn’t move its championship game to Sunday until 1982—and wait for a phone call from the NCAA office in Kansas City, which is where the selection committee would meet.
Packer and DeLuca changed that. No one got a phone call anymore. Instead, they were told to watch their TV on Sunday afternoon to find out if they were in and if so where they were going. From there, the whole thing just grew and grew until it reached the point where it has become a national holiday for college hoops fans.
So, as we get ready for what might be the last truly meaningful Selection Sunday of our lives, let’s pause for a moment and pay tribute to Packer and DeLuca. It probably seemed like a minor thing to them all those years ago but it turned out to be a truly big deal.
*********
I had a nice talk with Scott Van Pelt yesterday. He called after reading yesterday’s blog, understandably a little upset, but very willing to discuss both his point of view and mine on the subject. He admitted that he had “wrestled,” with the issue for years. “I grew up a Maryland fan, I went to Maryland and I’m very passionate about my school,” he said.
All of which is absolutely fine as far as I’m concerned. In fact, I can honestly say I wish I felt a little more passion for my school. He also asked if I was wrong when I directed a profanity at the officials five years ago during a Navy-Duke football game. Of course I was wrong. That’s why I apologized on the air right away, offered to resign and, as I’ve said before, kind of grin and bear it when people bring it up now. I screwed up; I pay the price.
That said, he and I agreed that there’s a difference between one brief outburst and repeatedly getting up and screaming in public even if you aren’t on duty at the time. I would add in response to some of yesterday’s posts that I readily admit I have a bias towards Navy (and Army) but during broadcasts I probably defend the officials on calls that go against Navy about as often as I criticize them. Ask the Navy fans who listen regularly. That said, I withdraw nothing I’ve ever said about Perry Hudspeth.
One more point on bias: OF COURSE I’m biased. Everyone is for one reason or another. Do I like Mike Krzyzewski (or Gary Williams or Roy Williams or Paul Goydos or Ernie Els to name a few) more than Tiger Woods? Yes. I think they’re nicer people, having nothing to do with what they do away from their professions. That doesn’t mean I have an axe to grind with Woods, I just disagree with his behavior often—and did so long before November 27th—while always admiring his brilliance on the golf course.
Scott said he had talked to Jay Bilas, who I mentioned because I believed then (and believe now) that if he or I were to sit behind a Duke bench and yell at officials we’d be crucified. He said Bilas told him he thought what Scott did was okay—something about believing in the “duality of man,”—spoken like a true lawyer, which is fine. As I said, TV guys do commercials and the standards ARE different than for print guys.
In the end, I think we agreed to (sort of) disagree. I think Scott understands WHY I’d criticize him and I understand WHY he feels the way he feels. And we’re both proud members of FOG—Friends of Gary (me, unofficially of course). I give him credit for making the call and handling the situation, in my opinion, very maturely.
********
Finally to my friends from Hoya Paranoia Inc: Yes, you are RIGHT I was WRONG. Georgetown made The Big East Tournament in 2004. My memory is good but it isn’t perfect. I looked it up last night after I hosted the radio show on WFAN. Georgetown was 4-12 in the league and tied for 12th with Miami in a 14-team league and made the tournament (losing first round) on a tiebreaker. Craig Esherick was fired soon thereafter and replaced by John Thompson III.
Here’s the irony of the whole thing: I made the comment about the 2004 team on the air last night in the context of complimenting Thompson for coming in and rebuilding the program and going to The Final Four three years later. I wasn’t ripping Georgetown or, as one poster put it, “lying,” about the Hoyas. I was complimenting them and had a memory block. Like I said, my memory is good, but it isn’t perfect—especially these days.
So, I apologize for my mistake. I would also urge all of you to calm down for crying out loud. Will I continue to criticize Georgetown for not playing in the BB+T Classic? You bet. You want to say I’m wrong to do that, have at it. We’ll agree to disagree. I also will continue to say that John Thompson the elder killed local rivalries in DC in part because HE says he did it and in part because the evidence is right there for anyone to see.
For the record: I get along fine with JT the elder these days even if we disagree on the issue of local rivalries and the BB+T. Neither of us screams or yells or calls the other a “liar,” when we talk about those subjects. I’ve known JT III since he played at Princeton and think he is a terrific coach even though I wish he would just tell his dad, “I know you didn’t play in the BB+T but I think it is the right thing to do so I’m doing it.”
My guess is his dad would get over it. You Hoya fans need to do the same.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Tiger carefully charting a controlled return; Responding to question about journalists, TV guys, cheering at games
Okay, so I was wrong about Tiger Woods.
Don’t get carried away Tiger-apologists. I didn’t wake up this morning and become George Stephanopoulos or Robin Roberts.
Back when he held his Tiger-and-pony show on February 19th I found one thing about the whole circus act encouraging: the fact that he said this was not the time for him to think about when he would return to The PGA Tour; that he needed to get his personal life in order before even giving any thought to his golf career.
I had been predicting all along that Tiger would come out of hiding in time to play at least once before The Masters, perhaps twice. My thinking was that his so-called hiatus was little more than a PR move, that in the end he would do what was best for his golf game and wouldn’t miss the chance to add a major championship trophy to his collection.
On that morning in February I thought I’d misjudged him a little, that maybe there was some sincerity when he said the most important thing in his life was to repair his marriage and his personal life. My new guess became that he would come back in time to play a warm-up tournament or two before the U.S. Open at Pebble Beach.
Well, I got it wrong.
I should have been alerted by the fact that someone told me on the day of the Tiger-and-pony performance that he’d been hitting balls on the driving range at Isleworth the day before. I wasn’t.
Now though, it seems to be pretty clear he’s going to play The Masters. He spent some time with fellow Isleworth member Charles Howell last Monday and Howell was more than willing to tell people at last week’s Honda Classic how good Tiger looked. Then, Hank Haney, his swing coach, was spotted working with him on the Isleworth range this past weekend. And Monday, Mark O’Meara, his closest friend in golf, told The Golf Channel that he “wouldn’t be surprised,” if Woods tees it up on March 22nd in the Tavistock Cup, an exhibition staged for rich people and TV between the pros who belong to Isleworth and the pros who belong to nearby Lake Nona.
This is a perfect place for Woods to make his first public appearance with a golf club in his hands. To begin with, the event is “invitation only,”—members and guests from the two clubs and The Golf Channel, which pays a rights fee to televise the “tournament.” You can bet there won’t be any media, except perhaps a hand-picked apologist or two, on that guest list. If The Golf Channel is granted an interview you can also bet it will be under the “golf-questions only,” rule.
In fact, here’s an advance text on Tiger’s answers: “I felt good. It felt good to be competing again, to be with the guys. My game is a long way away from where I know it needs to be but this is a nice way to start.”
Question: “How’s it look for Augusta?”
“We’ll see how it goes. But I love playing in The Masters.” Pause to smile. “You know it’s been a while (2005) since I’ve won there so if my game’s up to it and I feel up to it, I’d like to play.”
From The Tavistock Cup you can expect Tiger to go down the road to Bay Hill. The tournament is run by IMG and the golf club is owned by Arnold Palmer. Again, control. They won’t be able to keep all the media out but they can probably keep the gossip media out. It will be a little more of a step from the cocoon but nothing that major. Then, two weeks later, Augusta, where you can bet the green jackets will protect Tiger with the zeal of a college president chasing money.
So, unless I’m wrong AGAIN, we’re back where we started: Tiger carefully charting a controlled return, making sure he doesn’t miss a major along the way.
All of which is fine. He’ll certainly be welcomed back by the golf world with open arms and about 90 percent of golf fans just want to see him play again. I’m all for that. Just please—please—don’t try to tell me he’s a different person. The Tiger-and-pony show was a clear indication that he’s still a control freak who thinks (correctly) that he can pretty much do whatever he wants and most people will just nod their head and thank him for existing.
That’s certainly what PGA Tour commissioner Tim Finchem did, not only sitting in the room like one of the acolytes, but then coming up with some ridiculous statistic about how many press conferences Woods has held as a defense for his refusal to answer questions. This wasn’t about birdies-and-bogeys commish and you know that as well, if not better, than anyone.
It will actually be amusing to witness the breathlessness around Tiger when he returns. If you think people walked on eggshells around him in the past, wait until you see the ballet moves people make now. What do you think the over-under is on people talking about what Tiger has “overcome,” when he comes back.
For the record, I have no axe to grind with Tiger. He’s never done anything to me. He’s actually given me more access over the years than he’s given to most writers—which is still very little—and I’m fine with that. He’s been great for golf right up until the morning of November 27th and, to be honest, that’s been great for me as someone who covers golf.
I just don’t buy the act. I know others do. And they’re certainly entitled to do so.
*********
Someone raised a question in yesterday’s posts about something I said on a radio show last week. Apparently there was a comment on some Maryland message board about the fact that I had said that if Jay Bilas and I (both Duke graduates) sat behind the Duke bench at Cameron Indoor Stadium and screamed at the officials all night the way Scott Van Pelt often does at Maryland games, we’d both be (justifiably) crucified. The Maryland person referred to Van Pelt as, “SVP.” To be honest it took me a minute to figure out who he was talking about.
Did I say it? Yes. Have I said it before? Yes. Look, I know TV guys are different than real journalists. They do commercials for one thing, which we don’t. Often they’re nothing more than teleprompter readers although the ESPN guys like to point out that they write their own stuff. (Stuart Scott once said this to me and I suggested he stick with the story that he was just reading what someone else wrote for him).
All that said, they are allegedly covering sports. Van Pelt has a radio show in which he interviews people and expresses opinions. Everyone knows he’s a Maryland grad, which is fine, we all went somewhere. He’s out-of-the-closet that he’s a rabid fan and that he hates Duke. If he wants to sit in the stands and berate the officials, that’s fine. Just don’t EVER talk about college basketball. As discussed here before, we ALL have opinions and we all have biases. But there needs to be a line you don’t cross if you are a public figure who is paid to express opinions and dispense news on sports.
As I said, if Bilas and I behaved that way at a Duke game—not likely since we’ve both outgrown that sort of thing a while ago—we’d get nailed for it. Maybe the fact that people just laugh and say, “Hey, that’s just Scott,” means that people don’t take him that seriously.
By the way, I get along fine with him, I’ve known him for years. I just don’t talk Maryland basketball with him because he’s completely insane on the subject. Gary Williams is a more objective observer. Now if HE wants to rant at the officials, that’s okay.
Don’t get carried away Tiger-apologists. I didn’t wake up this morning and become George Stephanopoulos or Robin Roberts.
Back when he held his Tiger-and-pony show on February 19th I found one thing about the whole circus act encouraging: the fact that he said this was not the time for him to think about when he would return to The PGA Tour; that he needed to get his personal life in order before even giving any thought to his golf career.
I had been predicting all along that Tiger would come out of hiding in time to play at least once before The Masters, perhaps twice. My thinking was that his so-called hiatus was little more than a PR move, that in the end he would do what was best for his golf game and wouldn’t miss the chance to add a major championship trophy to his collection.
On that morning in February I thought I’d misjudged him a little, that maybe there was some sincerity when he said the most important thing in his life was to repair his marriage and his personal life. My new guess became that he would come back in time to play a warm-up tournament or two before the U.S. Open at Pebble Beach.
Well, I got it wrong.
I should have been alerted by the fact that someone told me on the day of the Tiger-and-pony performance that he’d been hitting balls on the driving range at Isleworth the day before. I wasn’t.
Now though, it seems to be pretty clear he’s going to play The Masters. He spent some time with fellow Isleworth member Charles Howell last Monday and Howell was more than willing to tell people at last week’s Honda Classic how good Tiger looked. Then, Hank Haney, his swing coach, was spotted working with him on the Isleworth range this past weekend. And Monday, Mark O’Meara, his closest friend in golf, told The Golf Channel that he “wouldn’t be surprised,” if Woods tees it up on March 22nd in the Tavistock Cup, an exhibition staged for rich people and TV between the pros who belong to Isleworth and the pros who belong to nearby Lake Nona.
This is a perfect place for Woods to make his first public appearance with a golf club in his hands. To begin with, the event is “invitation only,”—members and guests from the two clubs and The Golf Channel, which pays a rights fee to televise the “tournament.” You can bet there won’t be any media, except perhaps a hand-picked apologist or two, on that guest list. If The Golf Channel is granted an interview you can also bet it will be under the “golf-questions only,” rule.
In fact, here’s an advance text on Tiger’s answers: “I felt good. It felt good to be competing again, to be with the guys. My game is a long way away from where I know it needs to be but this is a nice way to start.”
Question: “How’s it look for Augusta?”
“We’ll see how it goes. But I love playing in The Masters.” Pause to smile. “You know it’s been a while (2005) since I’ve won there so if my game’s up to it and I feel up to it, I’d like to play.”
From The Tavistock Cup you can expect Tiger to go down the road to Bay Hill. The tournament is run by IMG and the golf club is owned by Arnold Palmer. Again, control. They won’t be able to keep all the media out but they can probably keep the gossip media out. It will be a little more of a step from the cocoon but nothing that major. Then, two weeks later, Augusta, where you can bet the green jackets will protect Tiger with the zeal of a college president chasing money.
So, unless I’m wrong AGAIN, we’re back where we started: Tiger carefully charting a controlled return, making sure he doesn’t miss a major along the way.
All of which is fine. He’ll certainly be welcomed back by the golf world with open arms and about 90 percent of golf fans just want to see him play again. I’m all for that. Just please—please—don’t try to tell me he’s a different person. The Tiger-and-pony show was a clear indication that he’s still a control freak who thinks (correctly) that he can pretty much do whatever he wants and most people will just nod their head and thank him for existing.
That’s certainly what PGA Tour commissioner Tim Finchem did, not only sitting in the room like one of the acolytes, but then coming up with some ridiculous statistic about how many press conferences Woods has held as a defense for his refusal to answer questions. This wasn’t about birdies-and-bogeys commish and you know that as well, if not better, than anyone.
It will actually be amusing to witness the breathlessness around Tiger when he returns. If you think people walked on eggshells around him in the past, wait until you see the ballet moves people make now. What do you think the over-under is on people talking about what Tiger has “overcome,” when he comes back.
For the record, I have no axe to grind with Tiger. He’s never done anything to me. He’s actually given me more access over the years than he’s given to most writers—which is still very little—and I’m fine with that. He’s been great for golf right up until the morning of November 27th and, to be honest, that’s been great for me as someone who covers golf.
I just don’t buy the act. I know others do. And they’re certainly entitled to do so.
*********
Someone raised a question in yesterday’s posts about something I said on a radio show last week. Apparently there was a comment on some Maryland message board about the fact that I had said that if Jay Bilas and I (both Duke graduates) sat behind the Duke bench at Cameron Indoor Stadium and screamed at the officials all night the way Scott Van Pelt often does at Maryland games, we’d both be (justifiably) crucified. The Maryland person referred to Van Pelt as, “SVP.” To be honest it took me a minute to figure out who he was talking about.
Did I say it? Yes. Have I said it before? Yes. Look, I know TV guys are different than real journalists. They do commercials for one thing, which we don’t. Often they’re nothing more than teleprompter readers although the ESPN guys like to point out that they write their own stuff. (Stuart Scott once said this to me and I suggested he stick with the story that he was just reading what someone else wrote for him).
All that said, they are allegedly covering sports. Van Pelt has a radio show in which he interviews people and expresses opinions. Everyone knows he’s a Maryland grad, which is fine, we all went somewhere. He’s out-of-the-closet that he’s a rabid fan and that he hates Duke. If he wants to sit in the stands and berate the officials, that’s fine. Just don’t EVER talk about college basketball. As discussed here before, we ALL have opinions and we all have biases. But there needs to be a line you don’t cross if you are a public figure who is paid to express opinions and dispense news on sports.
As I said, if Bilas and I behaved that way at a Duke game—not likely since we’ve both outgrown that sort of thing a while ago—we’d get nailed for it. Maybe the fact that people just laugh and say, “Hey, that’s just Scott,” means that people don’t take him that seriously.
By the way, I get along fine with him, I’ve known him for years. I just don’t talk Maryland basketball with him because he’s completely insane on the subject. Gary Williams is a more objective observer. Now if HE wants to rant at the officials, that’s okay.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)