NAPERVILLE–I read with interest the opposing viewpoints regarding NCAA vs. NBA basketball. If I’m a debate judge, Dan McGrath is a clear winner, making solid points regarding effort and enthusiasm, while Sam Smith mostly whined about foul shots at the end of the game, which they do in the NBA, too, and that the kids aren’t students and are being taken advantage of. The latter point could be the subject of endless debate but is basically irrelevant as to whether college games are more exciting to watch than the pros.
However, both gentlemen missed what in my opinion is the key difference in the two games. In the college game, everyone plays by the same rules and, with occasional exceptions, the amount of allowed contact is kept to a minimum, the way Dr. Naismith intended. The pro game has evolved into a game of brute force. . . . If the NBA is all about team sport and fairness, could someone point out to me where in the rule book it describes to the officials what the differences are in the rules for the rookies vs. the veterans?
The bottom line is, if you’re into a league that accentuates individual play and larger-than-life superstars, the NBA is your game. If you’re interested in watching a game with more emphasis on team play, enthusiasm, effort, excitement and a more consistent application of the game’s rules, you’ve got to love March Madness!
Jerry Allanach
Morrissey off base
CHICAGO–I was surprised and disappointed to read Rick Morrissey’s column about Duke and its coach, Mike Krzyzewski (“Whiny, Smug Coach K Doesn’t Get It,” March 26). As a general rule, Morrissey’s columns are thoughtful and well-researched. This was neither.
Morrissey attacks Coach K for his “insistence that there is something different about his program,” yet provides not a single quote or example of such behavior by Coach K. In fact, the only remark to which Morrissey points is Coach K’s statement that he likes his program. That is hardly a remarkable, much less regrettable, statement. . . .
Other than Morrissey’s snide remarks about Coach K, his appearance and his voice, I am at a loss to understand what he could find so offensive about Duke. In the past, Morrissey has (in my view, correctly) maligned the lowering of standards and corruption of sports, particularly at the college level. Duke and Coach K are examples of how to triumph in spite of that trend. It is a shame that Morrissey cannot see it, or does not want to see it. I feel sorry for him.
Christopher Paetsch
Ungrateful Zimmer
CHICAGO–Our old pal Don Zimmer is quoted as saying he would never go about repairing his strained relationship with Yankees owner George Steinbrenner (Tribune, March 20). I wonder what Zim thinks when he looks in his jewelry box and spies four, count ’em, four World Series rings he earned as Joe Torre’s bench coach. Or how about his best-selling autobiography published in ’01 with our man Zim on the cover adorned in Yankee pinstripes and pictures inside of him laughing it up with David Letterman on TV and Bill and Hillary Clinton while visiting the White House?
I realize “Popeye” has given his entire adult life to baseball and he will always be a local hero for what he did with the ’89 Cubs, but methinks he doth protest too much.
We’ve all read over the years what a tyrant Steinbrenner can be (after all, look what George Costanza went through). But the man loves to win and spares no expense in doing so. And if things were really that bad, why did an intelligent manager (and friend of Zim) like Joe Torre just re-up for another two years?
On outward appearances, Zim seemed like he had a good thing going, especially for a man in his 70s. But now our lasting memory of Don Zimmer may be him charging on the field toward Pedro Martinez in the playoffs last year and ending up with grass burns on his forehead.
Paul Zanke
Rogers strikes out
LOVES PARK–Phil Rogers makes the same mistake in his March 21 column that many other writers have made when the subject is Billy Beane. Rogers clearly lacks objectivity and provides very little support for his viewpoint. Beane has had great success as general manager of the A’s. Despite a pitifully small budget and the loss of considerable talent as a result, he has kept his team near the top. He is either brilliant or incredibly lucky.
In all that I have read, I haven’t seen Beane try to portray his moves as “recurring strokes of brilliance.” I have seen Michael Lewis and a few other prescient observers do so, and the results of Beane’s deals (many of them forced, as Rogers acknowledges) would seem to indicate plenty of intelligence on his part. But I haven’t read any egotistical comments made by Beane.
A lot of what is believed by folks who have been around baseball for a lifetime turns out not to be true when tested scientifically. I’ve followed the game pretty closely for well over 50 years, and I still have a lot to learn. Clearly, so does Rogers.
Frank Anderson
———-
Sound off
If you have an opinion, drop us a line at Other Views/Sports, Chicago Tribune, 435 N. Michigan Ave., Chicago IL 60611. Readers can also e-mail us at sports@tribune.com. Letters and e-mail must include your name, address and phone number and are subject to editing.
