Play a freshman over a senior? In a heartbeat
F ull disclosure: I've always wanted to be a basketball coach. Must have been growing up watching Rollie Massimino's shirt come untucked in the middle of the game, Louie Carnesecca drawing up plays with chalk in the huddle or Jim Calhoun's sarcastic claps aimed at the officials (which I miss to this day).
I've always thought more like a coach than a fan, parent or writer. I don't care about individuals, their playing time or their stats. I care about the team. Winning the game. Period. And I don't like people who think otherwise.
All of which is why I love what Dan Hurley is doing at UConn right now: playing the kids. It was fun to watch last Sunday, for instance, when three freshmen and two sophomores erased a nine-point deficit in the second half against Tulsa, totally energizing the XL Center in the process. This while the upperclassmen who contributed to the deficit (and a sleepier atmosphere) sat and watched.
UConn fans are unanimous in support of playing the young guys. It only helps the future. And the Huskies are about the future, not the present.
OK. So why am I babbling about all this? Because I believe what Hurley is doing — playing the kids over the juniors and seniors — isn't such an easy proposition. It seems obvious to all of us, sure. But sitting juniors and seniors in favor of playing freshmen and sophomores is an ongoing scourge for coaches — especially high school coaches — in every sport, not just basketball.
Just ask any high school coach: Hell hath no fury like a parent whose senior has lost playing time to a freshman.
The parental refrains reek of entitlement: My kid paid his dues! It's not fair to a senior! Been in the program four years and this is how he/she gets treated? I want a meeting! I want a head on a platter! Oh, the humanity. I see it all the time. And I always side with the coach, who sees the future as more promising than the present. It's not that complicated, except to parents totally blinded by entitlement.
It's here that perhaps we heed (and need) the words of Geno Auriemma. Geno's unloaded a number of zingers in his career, none of which are better than this one:
"I always tell kids, 'if you're good, you'll play. If you suck, you won't.'"
You'll note that nowhere in that line does Auriemma mention whether players are freshmen or seniors.
I haven't met a coach yet who is purposely trying to lose. But I've met hundreds and hundreds of kids and parents who are convinced of it. Why? Because said coach dared do what Dan Hurley is doing. Sit the juniors and seniors and play the kids.
It's pretty clear parents and coaches see the world differently. Most parents think the best outcome of the game is this: My kid scores 30 and the team wins. The second-best outcome: My kid scores 30.
Coaches don't think that way. They don't care who scores 30, who plays or who doesn't. They care about having one more point at the end of the game. It's how we should all think, really.
Hurley probably doesn't realize he's empowering coaching colleagues everywhere, especially in high school, where playing time is the No. 1 cause of indigestion. Coaches everywhere can point to Hurley now as the best support yet for "if you're good you'll play, if you suck, you won't."
I don't think I'd make a very good coach. I'd probably be more like Calhoun than I'd ever admit, just without the knowledge. And the first time a parent came to me with a playing time question? I'd go to a Geno-ism that would probably get me fired.
But to coaches everywhere who are strong enough to play the kids because it's in the best interest of the program? Godspeed to all of you. The right thing isn't always the convenient thing. This is the opinion of Day sports columnist Mike DiMauro