A CHEAP-SHOT COWARD?
Valentine’s Day is supposed to be about love and passion. Which fellow coach comes to mind when you hear the word passion?

Bruiser Flint: John Chaney. I can’t think of anyone that has more passion and love for his players and the game.

Phil Martelli: I have to agree with Bru. John Chaney. No one puts more of himself into coaching.

This was part of a roundtable discussion with former Marist Coach Dave Magarity, Wisconsin’s Bo Ryan, Drexel’s Bruiser Flint and St. Joseph’s Phil Martelli you can read at:

collegeinsider.com/portly/valentine.html

This was before the unfortunate incident at Temple University when Coach Chaney made a mistake that has become a top sports story throughout the country. If I were to have been part of this discussion, my answer would have mirrored that of Coach Martelli and Coach Flint. I spent three seasons as an assistant coach at Duquesne University, and the highlight of my three seasons was having the opportunity to coach against John Chaney, meet him, and get to know his staff.

I would have said it then and I will say it now: Coach Chaney is one of the coaches who represent everything that’s right with college sports. Most people or almost everyone would have agreed with me before February 22, 2005. Now, after listening to talk shows, reading the newspapers and hearing the comments of sports fans, he has become the villain, an example of a coach who as one talkie suggests, “is above the law” or as another prominent newspaper writer wrote in the Chicago Sun Times, “a low-down cheap-shot coward.”

I feel very passionate about this issue, and I am disturbed at how little defense John Chaney has received. Before you misunderstand this article, I am not defending his actions. I am defending the man! John Chaney is a man who has been revered for more than being a great coach. Any statement that has ever been made in regards to Coach Chaney has talked more about the man than the coach.

Chaney was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 2001, so I used the Internet to learn what was said by those closest to him. There are so many nice things to choose from, but I found three statements that are the most telling. First, former player Eddie Jones on Chaney, “John loves his players. He always put school first. He gave me the opportunity to succeed. I’m in the NBA. I have a college degree. He gave me everything.”

Here is a portion of a joint statement by Howard Gittis, Chairman of the Board of Trustees, and David Adamany, President of Temple University regarding Coach Chaney’s induction, “His coaching career has been a reflection of the man himself -- it's about discipline and dedication, passion and compassion, and hard work. For John, coaching has never been about the victories and the losses -- although his record is impressive -- but rather about being a teacher and a leader of young men, daring them to dream about what they might accomplish.”

Lastly, a statement by Joe Kissel, an Owl Club member and former football player at Temple, “I’ve been a Temple fan since 1965, and there are more Temple fans here than any other school.” That other school would include Duke, as Mike Krzyzewski was inducted with John Chaney on that same day.

Chaney has been more than just a coach at Temple University. He has been the face of the school, and has undoubtedly had the most success of any coach at a school from a non-power conference of this generation. His record in the previous 22 years at Temple is 483-224 and he has led the Owls to 17 NCAA Tournaments and 21 straight postseason berths. He has attained this success in 23 years of coaching without being cited once for an NCAA violation.

Unlike most coaches whose success leads them to the power conferences, Chaney has served only one Division 1 school for 23 years. I am sure he has had opportunities: Pete Gillen, Mike Jarvis, John Calipari, Skip Prosser, Thad Matta, and Oliver Purnell turned NCAA Tournament bids from the Atlantic 10 into high-profile jobs. Not only has Coach Chaney been loyal to Temple, his name has never been mentioned for other jobs, because Chaney is Temple University.

John Chaney made a mistake on February 22 and for that mistake many non-coaches and non-players want his head. They want to make an example of Chaney, and not give him another chance, as Rick Telander of the Chicago Sun-Times says, “Not for a man who has power over young men and whose betrayal of that trust is tantamount to criminal abuse.” Before we rush to judgment, shouldn’t we know all of the facts of this incident? Do we know the answers to every question? These are some things you might learn in the near future:

1. What if Coach Chaney told Nehemiah Ingram to set hard screens and drill the opposing team with illegal screens like he felt his team had been facing throughout the game?

2. What if Coach Chaney has spoken with Ingram and his family to apologize?

3. What if Ingram and his family still loves and respects Coach Chaney, knowing that Chaney would do anything for him and his family?

4. What if Temple’s players just want their coach back on the sidelines, the coach who recruited them and the coach who lectures them every day on issues that go beyond basketball?

I once asked Temple’s assistant coach, and now acting Head Coach Dan Leibovitz, how hard it was to practice early mornings and play in Chaney’s disciplined system. He told me, “The players know there is a clear line between on the court and off the court. When it comes to something off the court, they know he loves them and they love him.”

It is my opinion that before we decide if John Chaney is unfit to be a teacher of young men, which is how Chaney is best described, we need to have the answers to the above questions. We also need to go back and examine his entire body of work, and not base decisions on the highlights or lowlights we see on ESPN. There have been numerous stories on all channels that not only focus on the incident, but also focus on Chaney’s legacy. We only see pictures of Chaney looking frustrated, upset, or going after John Calipari. Is that really all Chaney has given us in the last 23 years at Temple?

Coach Chaney has acknowledged his mistake saying what he did was “reprehensible.” He has apologized to John Bryant and his family in a face-to-face meeting while offering to pay his medical bills. He has suspended himself through the Atlantic 10 tournament realizing that the consequences of his actions have damaged St. Joseph’s team. He has been contrite and done everything the public has asked of him while never giving the phony apology of, “If I offended anyone, I am sorry.” Almost daily I hear someone say that if Barry Bonds would just admit doing steroids and apologize, people would let him move on. Chaney has not run from this situation at any time, but an apology sure is not enough to let him move on.

A friend of mine asked me if I would forgive someone who murdered another person if they apologized. It is hard for me to believe that this is a fair comparison. It is also hard to believe that this incident could be compared to Woody Hayes (former Ohio State football coach) actually punching an opposing player himself. If John Bryant did not break his arm, and was just the recipient of a hard foul that is not unlike many fouls we see on a day-to-day basis at all levels of basketball, would this incident be compared to Woody Hayes? Would people be calling for the coach to be fired?

I believe that Chaney is also being punished for the lack of leadership shown from the Atlantic 10 office and the Temple athletic department. The Atlantic 10 should probably have immediately suspended Chaney for his actions, but the severity of this situation was not completely realized by anyone initially. The president of St. Joseph, Reverand Timothy Lannon recognized this saying, “We believe it is the role of institutional and conference officials, not solely an individual coach, to demonstrate the necessary leadership in upholding the league’s code of conduct and assuring the safety of student-athletes in competition.” I would agree that Chaney should not be judge and jury of his own suspension, but is it Chaney’s fault that his superiors were unable to step up like David Stern of the NBA and issue swift punishment?

Jay Bilas of ESPN was posed a question regarding Temple’s justification for firing John Chaney. He said that Temple would be justified, but he also said that is not what he necessarily thinks Temple should do.

It would be sad for college basketball and Temple University if John Chaney never coaches again. John Chaney is to Temple what John Wooden is to UCLA and Dean Smith is to North Carolina. Seventy-six students made the trip to Springfield to see Chaney inducted into the Hall of Fame. Former president of the Owl Club Vera Hutton called his induction, “One of the most exciting nights of my life. Although it’s a thrill to see all of the inductees, it’s really a treat to honor Chaney. We hope we have his presence for many years.”

Temple is still a competitive program under his leadership (14-12), and he has his top seven players returning next season. And by the way, take a look at their out of conference schedule this year (Duke, Wake Forest, Alabama, Villanova, Maryland, Penn, South Carolina, Georgetown). If they played the usual non-conference schedule most schools play, Temple would be close to 20 wins.

If someone bothers to ask Chaney’s players now, they would tell you that their lives would not be the same without their coach. However, it seems that there are a lot of people who seem to know what is best for Temple University and John Chaney’s players. But then again, I am sure people who have never coached or took a chance on teaching underprivileged kids from the inner city would probably know what is best for them anyway.
 

David Adelman spent 7 years as a Division I assistant and two years as a Division III assistant at the University of Wisconsin Stevens Point. After two years coaching minor league professional basketball, he is currently working as a consultant for the New Jersey Nets. EMAIL DAVID