Billy Donovan might actually succeed in Orlando; Other observations from the M's to LeBron to white GMs

So, Billy Donovan wants to coach in the pros, huh?

The college hoops fan in me -- and it's a big one -- is disappointed to be losing Donovan to a job where the odds are severely stacked against him. But I can't really say I blame him -- $6 million is a heck of a lot of money to pass up, no matter if you're going to be making $3 million at your previous place of employment or not.

And, despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary, I think there's actually an outside shot that this college coach could have some success in the NBA where so many others have failed.

I think most college coaches that get pro jobs fall into the self-fulfilling prophecy category -- they don't succeed in the NBA because they inherit terrible teams that have little talent. It's a league of superstars: If you've got one, you generally win; if you don't, you don't. The rule isn't hard and fast, but you try finding an NBA winner without a star. (You could maybe argue Utah, but Deron Williams sure looks like one to me after his team folded without him in the series-deciding game with the Spurs.)

So, let's look at the recent history of college coaches in the NBA:

• Rick Pitino: Inherited a putrid 15-win Boston team, missed out on Tim Duncan in the lottery. Think Pitino might have been a better pro coach with Duncan on his team?
• Lon Kruger: Inherited a putrid 28-win Atlanta team. (This just in: Without Kruger, the Hawks are still putrid -- only once since his final year of 2002 have they exceed the 33 wins he posted that year.)
• John Calipari: Inherited a putrid 30-win New Jersey team. His "stars" were an injured Sam Cassell and noted headcase Stephon Marbury; he was fired just in time for the team to hire Rod Thorn, who drafted Richard Jefferson, Kenyon Martin and traded Marbury for Jason Kidd. In what I'm sure was all the coaching skill of his successor, Byron Scott, the team won 52 games in 2001-2002.
• Mike Montgomery: Inherited a so-so 37-win Golden State team that hadn't had a winning record since 1994. Fired after two years, Don Nelson leads franchise to the playoffs in his first year -- but only with a healthy Baron Davis and after suckering Indiana into taking Mike Dunleavy and Troy Murphy for Stephen Jackson and Al Harrington, two key cogs in the Warriors' late-season success.

Donovan does have this going for him that those guys never had: This team just made the playoffs, and has a budding superstar. Granted, making the playoffs in the east -- and at 40-42 at that -- isn't the biggest accomplishment, and they were obliterated in the first round by Detroit. But with Dwight Howard as the centerpiece of the franchise, they're already heading in the right direction; Donovan will not be fighting against years of suckitude from the get-go, as virtually every other college-to-NBA coach has.

Additionally, I know that I'm overimplifying each of the four situations above, and that on some level each of them was in a bit above their heads in the NBA. Pitino's hard-driving nature grinds on players, while Montgomery's players never took him seriously. I'm not convinced that Donovan will be so over his head in Orlando. He's 42 years old, still young enough to relate to players (as was obvious from his rapport with his players in Florida) yet old enough to command some respect. He also was (briefly) an NBA player and (briefly) an NBA assistant. So he at least has some clue about the culture he's going to be entering.

If there's a guy to buck the trend of college coaches failing at the NBA level, I think Donovan might actually be it.

Other thoughts from the last 24 hours:

• Didn't catch hardly any of the Mariners game last night, but I was pleased to see that this team did exactly what it should have done: Beat the tar out of a terrible team. Good to see the offense continue to roll against an awful, awful pitcher, and good to see Cha Seung Baek do enough to keep his team in a game. Disappointing that Hargrove had to gas the bullpen a little bit to make a 7-0 lead hold up, but J.J. Putz needed to pitch anyway. A sweep would be fantastic; anything less than winning two of the final three is a failure.
• I also didn't watch the Cavs/Pistons game last night, but I did watch the highlights of LeBron James scoring 29 of his team's final 30 points here. This just might go down as one of the greatest playoff performances in the history of the NBA, but only if the Cavs can win the series. We'll see how much LeBron has left in the tank tomorrow night after that heroic effort. Guess he kinda does know what he's doing, doesn't he?
• What's with NBA franchises just handing over the reigns to former players who have absolutely no previous track record of any kind with player personnel? Why do franchises constantly think these people will be able to manage franchises? Here's to betting that Steve Kerr, like former players Danny Ainge and Kevin McHale before him, will figure out a way to run a perfectly OK franchise into the ground.
• And while we're at it: Is it just me, or are only white former players -- with the notable exception of Michael Jordan (who stunk at his job, too) -- the only people NBA franchises will hire for these jobs with no experience? With so many black coaches, it looks like the new color barrier in the NBA is to the front office. Just wondering why this is.

The NCAA finally gets something right

I generally never have a tough time finding things about which to rip the NCAA, America's favorite beaureaucratic athletic institution that rarely can get out of its own way enough to figure out the right way to do things.

However, this time, when faced with a no-brainer decision, they actually -- gasp! -- made the no-brainer decision.

The Duke lacrosse players, recently national runners up just one year after false rape allegations led to the cancellation of a the better part of the 2006 season, have been granted an extra year of eligibility by the NCAA.

"These individuals were involved in an unusual circumstance that we believe warrants providing them the opportunity to complete their four years of competition," said Jennifer Strawley, NCAA director of student-athlete reinstatement and membership services.

Kudos to the NCAA for seeing the bigger picture. Yes, these players were involved in an ill-advised party that eventually led to the false charges being brought against three of their teammates. But what they were doing hardly was illegal -- unless you count the underage drinking that hardly is uncommon on college campuses -- and they certainly were not deserving of what happened to them.

However, not everyone is wise enough to see the bigger picture -- most notably a rival conference coach who probably would rather the Duke program go away.

"Everybody in the lacrosse world was embarrassed by what happened," [Virginia coach Dom Starsia] said. "But it almost feels now as if nobody's really paying for this thing. I would've been the first to say that Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty probably deserved another year. But I'm not sure that everybody involved here should be painted with the same broad brush and it just seems that's what the NCAA chose to do."

Who would you suggest pays for this, Starsia? The players? Even though the NCAA does it all the time, punishing players to get at the institution is never a good idea. Thousands of wild parties go on every weekend on college campuses; I'm not condoning them, but let's be real -- if every sports team that had a wild party was shut down, there would be no NCAA. I've been to them.

And I'm sure if we took a close look at your team, Starsia, I'm sure we wouldn't find 35 choir boys. Coaches should never stand on a sanctimonious soap box, lest someone find out what skeletons are in their closet.

The seniors on the Duke team would have to pursue post-graduate work in order to stay on for one more year; I'm sure many of them won't, having already said their emotional and psychological goodbyes to their college careers. But even if they don't, this will serve as one last symbolic apology. The NCAA too often punishes athletes who had absolutely nothing to do with the circumstances for which they're being punished.

Good on the NCAA for acting swiftly to make things right with players who deserved better.

In case you missed it ...

... Kobe Bryant asked to be traded from the LA Lakers. Yes, the salaries work out to trade Ray Allen for Kobe straight up. No, it's never going to happen, because Kobe has a full no-trade clause, and if he is unhappy in LA, no way does he want to come here. Plus, he has a $13 million escalator clause in his contract, to be paid by the team that acquires him. Think Clay Bennett wants to pony up that kind of money?

... Jeff Weaver is returning to the M's rotation next week. I am not making this up. (You'll have to scroll down a little to find it. You'll also find a nice little shout out by Baker for HWTN -- pretty cool!)

... The NCAA actually did something right, granting the Duke lacrosse players an extra year of eligibility. I'll have more thoughts on that in the morning.

Until then, get your rally caps on -- M's trail by two in the top of the eighth. UPDATE: M's lose, 8-6. Disappointing end to the ninth -- really, is it that tough to lay off a breaking ball that bounces 12 inches in front of the plate? -- but I actually feel pretty good about the M's right now. I'll explain why in a full post in the morning.

Quick thoughts on the night that was, plus the news of the day

I don't have a lot of time to write today, so here are some bulleted thoughts from what was a great night in sports.

• There's a lot of evidence that what Jarrod Washburn is doing more a function of the crappy offenses he's facing than it is a function of anything he's doing differently on the mound, as Dave Cameron over at U.S.S. Mariner accurately describes. However, I'll say this: I don't much care if it's statistically sustainable; I'm just happy we're winning some games right now.
  
  It certainly seemed to me that Washburn got equally hammered by both good and bad offenses alike last year, and I'm inclined to say that Washburn has to have at least something to do with the statistical anomaly that this season is becoming. I can remember a lot of times last year when Washburn would consistently fall behind hitters, only to get pounded into submission. Maybe the fact that he's facing such bad teams has to do with him being more aggressive in the strike zone, and maybe it will come back to bite him when he faces his first great offense of the year in the Yankees on Sunday. I'm interested in finding out.
  
  (And, by the way, if you're interested in understanding Dave's reasoning behind how he evaluates pitchers, check out this article. It's a little dense, but it'll give you some background to help you understand how he reaches his conclusions.)
  
  
• Unbelievable game in Dallas last night. I still think the series is over -- it ends Thursday night in Oakland -- but the reversal of roles in the last three minutes of the contest was so startling, it wouldn't surprise me now if the Warriors figure out a way to squander the series lead. (How's that for playing both sides of the fence!)
  
  For 4.9567 games, Golden State had been the loosey-goosey, we're-just-happy-to-be-here, there's-no-pressure-on-us team. Then, all of a sudden, when the pressure should have been on Dallas most -- facing elimination -- the Mavs and Dirk Nowitzki finally stopped wetting themselves and said, "Well, if we're going to go out in the next three minutes, we're going out swigning." That's the attitude they should have had all along, and now that they've discovered it ... well, that out to be enough to scare the crud out of the Warriors.
  
  
• If you don't watch the NHL Stanley Cup playoffs, you just don't like sports, and you'll never be able to convince me otherwise. Period. It's some of the most riveting, intense television there is, and when it's on in HD ... well, let's just say I've been a very happy sports fan over the past few weeks. (Go Red Wings!)
  
  
• Interesting story that further underscores the differences between the haves and the have-nots in college athletics: "The NCAA's latest Academic Progress Report, released Wednesday, shows historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) account for about 13 percent of all schools facing potential scholarship losses or receiving warning letters because of poor classroom performance." Anyone think these HBCUs have dumber or less committed students than their BCS counterparts? Anyone? So what accounts for the difference? Hmmmmmm ... could it be the resources available to the players at schools with bloated athletics budgets?
  
  
• Speaking of race in sports -- a topic that fascinates me, if you couldn't tell -- there's a story in the New York Times today detailing some research that suggests white NBA referees call fouls on black players at a higher rate than they do on white players. The NBA, of course, has done it's own study in response that (shockingly) finds there is no bias. However, the Times had three independent experts examine both studies, and all found the original study "far more sound."
  
  The most interesting point made in the article is this: "The paper by Mr. Wolfers and Mr. Price has yet to undergo formal peer review before publication in an economic journal, but several prominent academic economists said it would contribute to the growing literature regarding subconscious racism in the workplace and elsewhere, such as in searches by the police." Wanna find out if you've got subconscious racial tendencies? Take this test (Race IAT), and prepare yourself for the results ... you might not like what you find out.

That's probably it for today. I might check in later tonight.

The beauty of sports: Bringing a community together

I've had the privilege a few times in my life of watching a sports team bring a community together in a way that just otherwise would not have been possible -- the 1995 Mariners, 1997 Cougars and 2005 Seahawks all come to mind.

But it's inspiring when sports do even more than that -- when they help a community heal.

That's what's happening in Blacksburg, Va., as we speak.

About a half an hour ago, students at Virginia Tech continued the process of returning some semblance of normalcy when their Hokies took the baseball field against Miami. While the result of the game will be insignificant, getting together with other hurting people will help the healing process.

I vividly remember the first Mariners game I went to after 9/11, and the surprising comfort I found being in the presence of 45,000 other Americans, doing something other than mourning. I'm guessing Virginia Tech students will feel the same way, even if it's only a few hundred.

The killer would have wanted the community to remain in a perpetual state of mourning. Good on the Hokies for honoring the victims by competing in their memory.

Once again, NCAA is behind the curve

News is out today that the NCAA -- which regulates virtually everything except when athletics employees can go to the bathroom -- is going to recommend a ban on using text messaging in recruiting.

Congratulations, NCAA: Not only are you about four years too late on this one, you're about to create a rule that is virtually unenforceable. Way to go.

While there are limits on "personal contact" such as phone calls, there are no limits on other kinds of contact, such as snail mail, save for "dead periods" where no contact of any kind is allowed. When it was discovered that text messaging fell under mail in the NCAA guidelines ... well, you can imagine what kind of a field day coaches have had with that one.

The thing is, it takes the NCAA about a year to get anything on the books, and coaches constantly are working to outsmart the system. If I'm a coach, I've already got a MySpace page, a Facebook page, and I've got my own page on YouTube, complete with an open recruiting pitch about the benefits of my university. And while I clearly would never ask my boosters to contact recruits -- that would be against NCAA regulations -- I certainly wouldn't discourage them from being smart enough to use an alias to woo a recruit.

The NCAA hasn't even thought about adressing those things yet.

The bottom line is that the NCAA, once again, is far behind the curve. By the time this text messaging ban is in place, innovative coaches will have found another way to exploit technology to accomplish their goals. It's time to overhaul the NCAA's archaic, 460-page book on regulations, which committees just keep adding to in an effort to stop the bleeding.

The only problem is, by the time the plug one leak, another has sprung.

Why is it so hard for Americans to forgive?

I've been thinking for a few days about what, if anything, I had to say about Don Imus and his offensive comments.

Unlike most opinion-mongers on the Internet these days, I wanted to give myself some time to digest as much information as possible before passing judgement on the situation. With the announcement yesterday that CBS has fired Imus over his racist and sexist remarks about the Rutgers women's basketball team, I'm left to wonder:

Why are Americans only satisfied when someone gets crucified?

We always want someone to pay, as if the only thing that can right a wrong is a pound of flesh. (Lawsuits, the death penalty, insurance settlements ... the list goes on.) But instead of looking at every injustice as an opportunity to punish the wrongdoer, why don't we more often look at injustices as opportunities to educate?

There's no doubt what Imus said is deplorable and absolutely unacceptable, but I find it unfortunate that the first reaction of grandstanding third parties is to call for the man to lose his job, as if that was the only thing that could harm Imus enough to right the wrong.

In the wake of the furor he caused, Imus was contrite and sorry. He courageously faced his critics when he just as easily could have hidden and waited for the storm to pass. But of all the people to respond in the media to Imus' epithet, the only ones to seize the opportunity before them were the very people Imus impinged: The players themselves, and their coach, C. Vivian Stringer (in photo, above).

As hurt as they were, never once did they call for his job. Instead, they chose to have a meeting with Imus -- private, behind closed doors, no media invited. They chose, in the end, to accept his apology, and begin the process of forgiveness, which brings its close friend -- healing -- with it.

"These comments are indicative of greater ills in our culture," the team's statement said Friday. "It is not just Mr. Imus, and we hope that this will be and serve as a catalyst for change. Let us continue to work hard together to make this world a better place."

And of all the "reverends" who have been so vocal in the wake of the comments, only one -- Stringer's own pastor, Rev. DeForest Soaries -- eximplified the compassion of his religion.

At a news conference later Friday, (Soaries) announced a plan to hold a town meeting within 30 days on the Rutgers campus involving educators, entertainers, young people and clergy to address a culture that "has produced language that has denigrated women."

"No African-American leader, no national leader should consider this a victory," Soaries said in reference to Imus' firing. "We have to begin working on a reponse to the larger problem."

For those that believe America has taken a step forward because Imus was fired, I beg to differ. Although no hero, is there any better man to share what was learned from this experience than the very man who had to learn the most from the mistake? Instead, the only message seems to be, "Don't say one wrong thing, or you'll lose your job." After all, when Rev. Al Sharpton suggested to Imus that he should not walk away from this unscathed -- meaning he should be fired -- Imus spoke a truthful response:

"Unscathed? Don't you think I'm humiliated?" Imus said. "Don't you think I'm embarrassed?"

No, America will talk a step forward when our society truly understand why words such as his are so hurtful -- something that will only happen when leaders use these incidents as teachable moments rather than opportunities to rage with rhetoric.

No. 14 vs. No. 25? Not on TV, Pac-10 fans ...

From the too stupid to be true file, check out why the Cougars won't be on TV tomorrow night against fellow Top 25 team Stanford. (No. 2 UCLA vs. No. 19 USC won't be on tonight either.)

A bit of the story:

Compared to Pac-10 football, where you can play your way onto TV frequently, there's less flexibility in basketball. Fox Sports Net has the rights, makes its picks before the season and secondary carrier FSN gets second dibs.

For the Cougars, it's not seconds. FSN has its Sonics contract, and also a tighter deal with the University of Washington. That means lesser access for WSU, and having to stay away from the "windows" of those telecasts.

For instance, FSN, which will show the Washington-Cal game Thursday night, offered WSU the option of being televised live at 9:30 p.m. The Cougars declined, and they should. Schussing up Highway 195 to Spokane at 12:30 a.m. on a winter night is not a good thing.

The Pac-10 does a lot of things right, but scheduling TV games in its showcase sports and getting good tie-ins for bowl games are not two of them.

What's that you say? Those are the two most imporatnt things for any conference?

Uhhhh ... never mind.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Pac-10 commissioner Tom Hansen is the worst commissioner in collegiate sports. He's a backwards thinking old man who has no clue how to promote what should be one of the premier conferences in the country. ESPN passed him by years ago, and now he's stuck trying to make up lost ground, something he clearly has no interest in doing.

(Apparently, I'm not the only one who feels this way. Check out this site.)