You Can't Make This Stuff Up

Louisville has fessed up, kind of, to receiving plays from Wake Forest radio commentator Tommy Elrod, about which I wrote about earlier today. 

But it wasn't that many plays, and Wake didn't run any of them, so apparently it's okay.

Plus, get this, Louisville is offended that it has to address these issues because it has a bowl game to win.  Stop distracting us.

Seriously.

The statement from Louisville reads in full:

Lonnie (Gallaway, Louisville's offensive coordinator) received a call from Elrod during the week of the wake Forest game, and some information was shared with him that week.  Among the communication [sic] were a few plays that were sent and then shared with our defensive staff. None of the special plays were run during the course of the game. Our defense regularly prepares for similar formations every week in their [sic] normal game plan. Any other information that may have been discussed was nothing that our staff had not already seen while studying Wake Forest in their preparations for the game and the material was not given any further attention. I'm disappointed that this issue has brought undue attention to our football staff as we prepare for our upcoming bowl game.

So, in sum: "yes we cheated, helped by a traitor from the team that we were about to play, but hey, no harm no foul. Stop bothering us while we address the truly important issue, which is winning a bowl game, not sportsmanship or fair play. Nothing to see here. Move along."

Never mind the fact that the timing of "the issue" is due solely to Louisville's failure to report the contact at the time that it occurred. Or that regardless of whether or not it benefitted from the cheating, it cheated.

To all of which I say:

1. If Louisville plans on having Gallaway as its offensive coordinator for the bowl game, or any game in the immediate future, I hope that the ACC quickly disabuses it of that notion;

and

2. Petrino better be coming up with a better story than the time he told one looking like this:

photo from espn.com

No Honor Among Thieves

The saga began with the bizarre news that the Louisville football team may have obtained Wake Forest offensive plays (that the Demon Deacons had not run before) prior to the Cardinals' 44-12 win over Wake in November.

Bizarre, not because anyone would put an act of espionage or cheating past Louisville's coach Bobby Petrino or even the institution, given their collective history of unfamiliarity with the truth and familiarity with NCAA rules violations and women of leisure.  Petrino's statement when confronted with evidence that his staff had notice in advance of Wake's game plan was, given his personal history, borderline absurd: "As I've already stated this season, my coaching philosophy has always been to play the game with sportsmanship." But bizarre because, well, did at-the-time number five in the country Louisville really think it needed help to beat Wake?

But the story took a decidedly weirder turn on Tuesday, when Wake Forest announced that, after a month-long investigation, it had determined that one of its own radio commentators had been the mole providing game plans not only to Louisville, but offering them to other schools for the past three seasons. The disbelief and disappointment on the Wake side of the equation is palpable in the press release announcing the results of the investigation and in statements issued by Deac Athletic Director Ron Wellman and head football coach Dave Clawson.

Clawson summed it up: "It’s incomprehensible that a former Wake Forest student-athlete, graduate-assistant, full-time football coach, and current radio analyst for the school, would betray his alma mater. We allowed him to have full access to our players, team functions, film room, and practices. He violated our trust which negatively impacted our entire program."

That's right, the traitor wasn't some media shill hired by IMG to cover the Wake games. It was Tommy Elrod, a former Wake quarterback and 11 year coach for the Deacs before he moved to the broadcast booth in 2014, after not being retained on Clawson's coaching staff upon Jim Grobe's departure. This is the same man who, according to the school, “provided or attempted to provide confidential and proprietary game preparations on multiple occasions, starting in 2014.”

So far, Elrod's response (and that of his lawyer, another former Wake football player) has been this:

Elrod's Twitter account

There is of course rampant speculation regarding Elrod's motive in betraying his alma mater, team, and quasi-employer. I personally think the "Hell hath no fury like a quarterback scorned" (because Elrod wasn't retained by Clawson) is the leading candidate. And while others speculate regarding whether the insular world of college football in general and coaches in particular (which seems to be built on a distrust of anyone outside of the team) will turn even further in on itself, there are two other more troubling and fundamental issues, that must be addressed.

First, was Elrod not only exposing the Wake football team to a slanted playing field repeatedly the past three years, but was he exposing its players to an increased risk of injury or potential injury?  The answer has to be yes. Wake started the season with an offensive spark from newly installed sophomore quarterback Kendall Hinton, who was injured in the third game of the year (Wake started 3-0) and won't return this season. Was Hinton vulnerable to injury because the defense already knew what play had been called? Or were some of the 36 sacks that Wake has suffered this season, resulting in inevitable wear and tear on its offensive players, due to the same reason?

Even if a causal link can never be established between any particular injury and Elrod's actions, he had to be aware that he was exposing the Demon Deacon players to a higher risk of injury or, at the very least, of being worn down by opponents who knew exactly what to expect on a certain play. It doesn't matter (much) that Elrod was doing this to players wearing the same uniform that he had worn and coached for nearly 20 years. That he would willingly do this to any set of players, let alone his "own," is repugnant.

Second, why are we finding all of this out now, three years after it began, and only by happenstance and the stupidity of someone on Petrino's staff? Where were the phone calls, emails, text messages from all of the institutions of higher learning that, when receiving an offer of "help" from Elrod, immediately informed Wake or the ACC or the NCAA of his deviousness? The answer has to be: there were none because winning is more important in college football than sportsmanship or even common decency.

We don't know which schools received such an offer and which ones may have taken Benedict Elrod up on his proposals. But even if the answers are a few and one, the silence is deafening and calls into question, once again, what the true nature of college athletics is and what lessons we should all learn from its win at any cost mentality.

While Wake has essentially suggested in its press release that it does not intend to provide further information, or conduct a further investigation, regarding Elrod or his actions at this time, one hopes that this is not a matter that the ACC and the NCAA believe can be swept under the rug. Those governing bodies must conduct their own inquiries, with the focus being not on what went wrong at Wake Forest, but what went wrong at all of the other schools that had this information and at best did nothing in response.

Another Year, Another Review

As I enter my third year of posting, and with the recent migration of this blog to a new host (thanks Bulldog Creative and Chris Michael!) it seems a good time to look back at the evolution of the issues and events that I addressed over the past year.

With the exception of the occasional post about music, this blog has evolved primarily into one that examines stories in the sports headlines from the perspective of a coach, parent, fan, citizen, and lawyer. I don't intend any posts to be particularly controversial, although apparently sometimes they are. 

Neither do I intend to offend. Quite to the contrary -- I detest columnists and bloggers who transparently set out to stir the pot. But I would do you, or at the least myself, a disservice if I didn't bring my perspective to the issues that I examine. You can read about the latest employment law case or the most recent views of a particular coach's or player's deeds, or misdeeds in a variety of places; you don't need to come here for that and, frankly, it would bore me to tears to post about it. 

My perspective, more often than not, is shaped by my belief (to quote the character Mike Schwartz in the excellent book "The Art of Fielding" who, in a pre-game pep talk, quotes his teammates Schiller) that "Man only plays when in the full meaning of the word he is a man. And he is only completely a man when he plays." And that applies equally to women as well.

Here are the updates:

After I declared the U.S. Men's and Women's National teams not dead but at least ailing, the women reached the finals of the World Cup, only to lose in excruciating fashion to Japan and apparently deprive Abby Wambach of her last chance at a world championship. The good news for the women is that they qualified for the Olympics and that Wambach will be there, along with Alex Morgan, Megan Rapinoe, and Sydney Leroux, among others.

The American men failed to qualify for the Olympics, bombing out of the U-23 qualifying tournament by first losing to Canada then allowing a last-second goal from 25 yards out that tied its match with El Salvador 3-3 and sent El Salvador to the semi-finals. The U.S. effort in the tournament was marked by bad defending and atrocious goal tending, which is usually a strength of U.S. teams.

No description needed. El Salvador was wearing blue.

After getting off to an indifferent start under Jurgen Klinsmann, however, the U.S. full team is undefeated in 2012, including a 5-1 thrashing of Scotland last week, highlighted by a hat-trick by Landon Donovan and a stunning strike by midfielder Michael Bradley. The U.S. is playing five matches over the next two weeks to begin preparations for World Cup qualifying. The match Wednesday against Brazil will tell us more about how that preparation is coming, and whether Klinsmann is starting to get to team to a level where it can compete consistently against the best in the world. Highlights of the Scotland match are below.

Lionel Messi capped a record-breaking personal season with a goal in Spain's Copa Del Rey ("King's Cup") bringing his total on the season to an unimaginable 73. The victory was the fourth trophy this season for Barcelona (adding to the Club World Cup, European Super Cup, and Spanish Super Cup already won), but the two biggest prizes, the Champions League and La Liga titles, eluded Barca in its final season under Pep Guardiola, who had already announced his retirement at the tender age of 41. Fortunately, Real Madrid and Christiano Reynoldo also crashed out of the Champions League in the semi-finals.

Meanwhile, in American football Bobby Petrino lost his job as Arkansas coach, to be replaced by John Smith, who never coached a game for his alma mater Weber State, which had just hired him over the winter. Stan Van Gundy is gone as well, apparently at Dwight Howard's behest, although the "NBA insiders" now believe it almost a certainty that Howard will not return to the Orlando Magic after he plays out his next and last season under his current contract. At least in the NFL the foxes are not yet running the hen house as Roger Goodell laid heavy fines and suspensions on the New Orleans Saints, their players and coaches, and former defensive coordinator Greg Williams. But an arbitrator has yet to rule on the players' suspensions, and we know how that could turn out.

In State College, Joe Paterno's son announced 11 days after my post about his reign at Penn State that his father had lung cancer. Two months a day later, Paterno died. While his sudden decline was tragic, it is made all the more so by his tarnished legacy, caused by hubris, inattention, or implausible deniability.

Finally, and sadly, back to soccer where my Blackburn Rovers were relegated from the Premier League, going out with a whimper and two last dismal performances. The club is in greater disarray now than before, with a decision regarding the future of manager Steve Kean (who would be long gone from any professional organization) still up in the air. News of Rovers will be much harder to come by next season on this side of the Atlantic, but that may not be a bad thing.

Indentured Servitude

Unlike my positions on many other topics, I often vacillate when it comes to college sports in the U.S.

Perhaps my favorite spectator sport other than soccer is college football. There's nothing quite like a crisp autumn afternoon in a packed stadium cheering for your team with thousands of other fans. The spectacle simply can't be beat.

College basketball is close too, although, because its games are indoors and the crowds are smaller, it's not quite as scintillating. But in its heyday (i.e., back when, in any given year, every school had a shot) the thrill of going to an ACC basketball game in old Winston-Salem Memorial Coliseum or Cameron Indoor or Carmichael Auditorium was second-to-none.

One of the draws of college sports when I started following them decades ago, other than the obvious allegiance to a school that one grew up supporting or attended, is that it was an amateur endeavour. While pro sports were increasingly subject to athletes changing franchises and franchises changing location, college sports remained a bastion of those who were playing the game for the joy of playing.

Thirty years ago that was a simplistic, but somewhat valid, belief. Today, it would completely ignore reality.

Let's face facts. The only thing that's amateur about college football and basketball these days is that the players aren't paid. The coaches, the schools, the conferences, and the NCAA make millions and billions of dollars from the television rights based on the sweat of their athletes. And, under that completely ridiculous guise of amateurism (in the correct sense of the word), all refuse to allow the players to share in the bounty.

The quid pro quo is supposed to be that the athletes receive an education "for free." Others argue that, considering various available grants and stipends (including board) players are actually paid (although this theory broadly asserts that all athletes are eligible for, and receive, these various grants and that most are not equally available to non-athletes).  But it's hard to ignore the fact that while the compensation that the athletes are receiving from the schools is at best in the tens of thousands of dollars, the schools are making millions and millions of dollars off of them.

The distinction between the way players and coaches are treated under the NCAA's current system was driven home by two recent events.

In the first, University of Wisconsin basketball coach Bo Ryan initially blocked his player, Jarrod Uthoff (who had determined that his style of play didn't fit into Ryan's system) from potentially transferring to a number of schools. The universities that Ryan prohibited Uthoff from contacting to determine his ability to transfer there included all of those in the Big Ten (somewhat understandable), Marquette (as a local rival, somewhat defensible, although Uthoff is from Iowa and thus does not appear to have any obvious ties to the state of Wisconsin), Iowa State (apparently vindictive) and every ACC school (completely inexplicable and nothing but petty and vindictive).

Uthoff practicing while a Badger.

While Wisconsin ultimately modified Ryan's restrictions, allowing Uthoff to discuss transferring to any school other than one in the Big Ten, the damage had already been done. While Ryan attempted to defend his decision as one that had been recommended by other coaches whose opinions he sought because he was unfamiliar with a transfer request (despite the fact that he had willingly accepted a transfer from Iowa, and defended the decision, in 2010) and one which the school could decide to modify (which it ultimately did), his position never appeared anything other than a master telling his servant where and when he could pursue his educational and vocational goals.

Meanwhile, in college football, John L. Smith, who was hired by his alma mater, Weber State, to be its head coach beginning with the 2012 season, never coached a game for the school, jumping ship to become the head coach at Arkansas after it fired Bobby Petrino.  Presumably, Weber State had neither the foresight nor the ability to place restrictions on Smith regarding what schools he might potentially abandon his alma mater for, or Arkansas would have likely been on the list since Smith was its special teams coach for the past three seasons.

The cavernous gap between the ability of players to change schools as opposed to that of coaches highlights the disparity between the way the two are treated by the NCAA. The players, who earn the institutions millions of dollars through their play, have restrictive covenants placed upon them by the schools, while the coaches that they play for earn millions of dollars (Ryan, after the Uthoff debacle,  received a contract extension that will presumably pay him more than the $2.11 million per year he was earning before) and apparently can severely limit their players' options for movement according to their inclination toward or displeasure with a particular player.

If schools and the NCAA continue to treat players as employees, they ought to pay them as employees.  Not necessarily in the same manner as professional athletes, but as employees of the schools. While the NCAA recently allowed conferences to vote on allowing payments of $2000 to all scholarship athletes, part of the requirement is that a school pay the same stipend to all scholarship athletes. While presumably this  reflects the NCAA's mantra that the majority of college athletes are going to "go professional" in a pursuit other than sports, it's just a smokescreen to avoid talking about the two sports that rake in all the money for the schools and the NCAA - basketball and football.

My proposal is that the schools make a rough calculation of the number of hours that an athlete will spend in games, practice, training, travel, media appearances, etc., in football or basketball in a given season and pay them, per hour, the same rate that students at the school are paid for work-study programs (I presume at or near the minimum wage). I would end the charade that all college athletes are created equally in terms of their value to produce income to the schools and make this payment available only to football and basketball players (I know, there's likely a Title IX issue here, but let me ignore that for the moment).

The least that the schools that make millions of dollars through the work of these athletes can do is pay them in the same manner as they pay other students who are also employees at their institutions. That may make it a little more tolerable when the next Jarrod Uthoff rolls around and his request to transfer away from the school, which would never be necessary for a "normal" student, is refused.

An Awkward Day for Coaches

Three events regarding American coaches were revealed on Thursday were so surreal I can't let them pass without offering a word about each.

In the NFL, the release of audio tape of Greg Williams, the former New Orleans Saints defensive coordinator, and now in all likelihood a former coach in all respects, presumably sealed not only WIlliams' fate but also that of his former bosses, the Saints and head coach Sean Payton, with regard to the fines and suspensions placed on them by the league in the wake of the bounty program that Williams installed and Payton not only tacitly allowed but actively tried to cover up.

Meanwhile, in the NBA, Orlando Magic head coach Stan Van Gundy had apparently decided enough was enough and outed his superstar, Dwight Howard, who has been working behind the scenes to get Van Gundy fired. In the height of awkward moments, immediately after Van Gundy had completed his comments to the media about Howard, Howard appeared at the press gathering and put his arm around Van Gundy.

And, finally, news came from Arkansas that the University's football coach, Bobby Petrino, hadn't been as forthcoming as Van Gundy in his recent dealings with the press. Petrino informed the press on Tuesday that he had been involved in a motorcycle accident Sunday. What he didn't tell the press (and in fact lied about) was that there was another rider on his bike. A 25 year-old female employee (and former volleyball player) at the school, with whom he was, according to the school which has now suspended him, engaged in an "inappropriate relationship."

Petrino at his press conference. One can only assume
that the neck brace and scrapes are from his accident,
not what his wife did to him when he got home.

If one were to pick one word to describe each of the three coaches and their unusual circumstances, the word I choose for Williams is arrogant. Stupid and evil would work too. While NFL players and commentators debate whether what Williams said in his "pep talk" went beyond the bounds of decency, or at least normality where the NFL is concerned, there's something more simple at play in my mind. 

Williams knew, or should have known at the time that he made the speech, that he and the Saints were under investigation for their bounty program. He knew that they had been told to stop offering money to defensive players for injuries to the opposing team. And Williams knew that there was an individual from outside of the team (filmmaker Sean Pamphilon, who was making a documentary on Saints player Steve Gleason) present during his speech.

All of which has to lead one to conclude that Williams thought he was above the law. After all, he had gotten away with his antics for years before, first with the Buffalo Bills, then with the Saints. It was pure arrogance that led Williams to conclude that it was business as usual when it came to his the defensive tactics his Saints would employ against the San Francisco 49ers. That arrogance will surely cost him any chance to ever coach again. And rightfully so.

Good riddance Mr. Williams

My word for Van Gundy is honest. Coaching and honesty don't always go hand-in-hand, and sometimes it is almost inevitable that the two cannot coexist. In preparing a team for a game a coach will often have to stretch or ignore the truth, whether to convince his or her team that they have a chance, or that the other team has a chance. It's the same in dealing with the media, when coaches often have to defuse tension within the team, or not say what's really on their mind ("the referees didn't cost us the game" comes to mind as a statement that is often the exact opposite of what a coach is really thinking).

Yet Van Gundy chose to confront a question about Howard in a straightforward and honest manner. He could have chosen to plead ignorance, simply ignore the question, or shoot the messenger, but he gave an honest answer and then an honest assessment of the situation. And he was absolutely right. Many of us don't particularly care for some of the people we work for or with, but it doesn't, or shouldn't, stop us from doing our jobs as best we can.

Slimy has to be the word for Petrino. Not because he was apparently engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a woman half his age with a wife and four kids at home (history is littered with men and women much better than Petrino who have done the same or worse). Not because he abandoned his previous employer, the Atlanta Falcons, in mid-season.

But because he lied about the accident, first to his boss and then to the media, and then by all appearances made an appearance that was meant to draw sympathy to him (or attention away from the circumstances that surrounded his mishap). And asked a Good Samaritan who drove by the scene of the crash not to call 911. And because the week before his companion was hired as his team's "student-athlete development coordinator."

Head football coaches, especially those at big state universities, expect to and can get away with a lot when they win. But the way Petrino handled this situation, in an apparently calculating manner from the moment it happened, can only be seen as the acts of a selfish, and, yes, slimy man.

One day, three unusual and awkward moments for three coaches, who can be described in three words. How can a blogger be so lucky?