Emails in on Maravich & Bradford
The new emails are in, and it’s a light week, since I’ve been on vacation and haven’t written a column since last Monday. But some interesting stuff came in anyway.
Eddie wrote about my radio bit in which a variety of votes and nominations settled on Pete Maravich’s 44.2 college basketball scoring average as the greatest record in American sport: “Is Pete Maravich the only college player to have a higher scoring average (44.2) than field goal percentage (43.8)? He averaged 38 shots per game.”
I would assume so. No one ever scored like Maravich, so let’s drop it down. Can you imagine someone who scored in the 25-point range shooting 25 percent? No. OK, let’s go down to 15; 15 points and 15 percent? No. No one who shoots 15 percent gets to play enough to score 15 points a game. How about five? Can someone who routinely shoots 1-for-5 be good enough in other parts of the game to play, make a few foul shots and average 5.something points? Doubt it. Maravich reigns.
Craig was not so thrilled with Maravich: “He averaged 50+ against Kentucky in six games (LSU lost them all). Tennessee was the only team that consistently held him under 30. But his dad was the coach and thought he was the second coming when it came to basketball.”
First coming, I’d call it.
Several people wrote about my Sam Bradford leadership column. Jason: “After reading your Bradford article, I think the only question left in college football is: Bradford or Tebow? Who will sit at the right hand of the father throughout eternity?”
I’d say Bradford. Being right-handed, he would have a better angle to play catch.
Jerry: “Nice story on Bradford. I would like to read more about the Selmons and others that served in such a role. It should make for a good story.”
I never get tired of writing about the Selmons. Good to know someone never gets tired of reading about them.
William also wrote about Bradford: “Sam is a true leader, and unfortunately, stories like that are not what sells papers. I’ve seen him several times on campus, and his commitment to academics is really impressive. Especially for someone who has a full-time job.”
I actually think stories like that do sell papers. They don’t generate a lot of emails, but they sell papers.
Jerry: “Great article on Sam. When we first signed him, I doubted whether he would be any more than a backup, but a really good backup. He’s a great young man and us fellow Oklahomans should take great pride in how he represents not only OU but our state. Here’s hoping he has another great year. Also, I’m really proud of how Blake Griffin has handled everything even though I’m less than excited about him going to the Clippers.”
Don’t let anyone fool you. Very few, coaches included, wrote in Bradford as anything but a backup.
Brad wrote about the NBA draft: “Petro, Sene, Thabeet – no answers there. Thabeet plays defense like Marcus Camby. Comes from out of position to block a shot. Neither one can man up and play a basic defense. Same goes for Birdman, though coming off the bench (which is all he can or needs to do) his effort, energy, etc., fits well.”
I know, it’s bad form to keep drafting centers who can’t play. But the Thunder can’t dismiss Thabeet just because Robert Swift (and Sene and Petro) was a dud. If Sam Presti thinks Thabeet can defend the post, you draft him, regardless of who the Sonics drafted when they were in Seattle.
Leonard wrote about Justin Chaisson coming to OU after he was indicted for kidnapping an ex-girlfriend, then pled to a lesser charge: “Do you think it is mistake for OU football to bring this kid in from Las Vegas? Did they offer him a scholarship before all his legal stuff hit the fan? The OU statement about him sounded like it was written by attorneys.”
I think it’s a mistake. I think Bob Stoops will come out looking bad if Chaisson doesn’t walk the straight and narrow. Of course, if Chaisson does keep his nose clean, it’s a success story.
Roger talked some baseball: “I didn’t realize that Joe Mauer is still hitting over .400 this season. Suzuki leads the AL in BA at .360 and with 254 plate appearances. Mauer is 50 points ahead of Ichiro right now but lacks plate appearances. Mauer has 176 plate appearances (152 at-bats and 24 walks). Since the Twins have played 65 games, Mauer would need 202 appearances to qualify for the batting crown, so he is still short by 26. Won’t it be amazing if a catcher finishes over .400?”
It will be amazing if anyone hits .400. But Mauer could do it as easily as anyone else. I don’t think the appearances will be a problem. As I type this, Mauer is hitting .421, with 194 plate appearances. You need 502 plate appearances to qualify for the batting title, so that’s 3.3 per game the rest of the season. Even given Mauer a few days off, he should make that, barring injury.
Would wishbone have survived with Switzer?
OU fired Barry Switzer 20 years ago today, and we could stage a rousing debate over whether the Sooners are better off or worse for wear over that decision.
Here’s an even better debate: Did the departure of Switzer spell the doom of the wishbone in big-time college football?
Few teams have run the ‘bone in the last 20 years, mostly service academies, and OU bailed on it in 1989, Year 1 of Gary Gibbs’ six-year run as coach. In John Blake’s desperation year of 1998, the Sooners went back to in limited form, but it had no chance. In Bob Stoops’ first game, the 1999 opener against Indiana State, the Sooners lined up in the wishbone on the opening snap, then shifted into the spread offense, and the ‘bone was gone for good.
What would have been the wishbone’s future had Switzer stayed at the helm? It would have had a much longer shelf life and been much more successful.
First, a clarification. We’re not talking about option football. Plenty of teams still run the option. Zac Robinson and Tim Tebow still run some option. We’re not talking Nebraska’s option, which lasted until Bill Callahan’s arrival in 2005.
We’re talking wishbone. Three running backs. Triple option.
Switzer long has said teams still can win with the option. But I don’t think the wishbone would have survived these two decades. Switzer would have given it a go and stuck with the ‘bone for several years. But eventually, the change in the game would have dictated a change in the coach.
College football defenses became bigger and faster. Creases are not as big. Open spaces closed more quickly. The need to throw grew, both in a variety of different ways and much more efficiently.
I think Switzer would have adapted. Would have morphed into more of a Nebraska option offense and maybe eventually into something resembling the current OSU offense, with triple threats of throwing, running and the option.
But no wishbone. Defenses could stack the line and get away with it. With exotic pass coverages unknown in the wishbone heyday, the home run passes that Jack Mildren and Steve Davis, J.C. Watts and Jamelle Holieway could sting unsuspecting defenses would be gone.
The wishbone’s chief limitation in 21st-century football is the inability to spread the defense. You would have seen the ‘bone broken more and more, to where eventually the base offense was not the three backs, but one or more likely both halfbacks in motion, to the slot or all the way to the sideline.
The wishbone was grand for 20 years of OU football. It would not have survived another 20, even with its greatest champion in control.
Tiger’s competition vs. Jack’s competition
The U.S. Open starts today — it’s already started; Tiger Woods is even through four holes as I type this — and a major always is a good time to renew the Tiger vs. Jack Nicklaus debate.
Nicklaus had 18 major titles; Tiger has 14 and counting, at the age of 33. A common belief is that Nicklaus had better elite competition than does Tiger, that while the talent pool today is far deeper than what Nicklaus faced, the stars are fewer today. Basically, it comes down to this. Tom Watson, Lee Trevino, Gary Player and Arnold Palmer vs. Ernie Els, Phil Mickelson, Vijay Singh and Retief Goosen.
On the surface, it looks like a mismatch. Of the 13 players in history with at least six major titles, four were contemporaries of Nicklaus and none are contemporaries of Tiger.
But two things must always be considered. 1. Tiger is in mid-career; he will win a lot more majors, and his contemporaries will win a lot more majors. 2. Tiger is winning at a much higher rate than did Nicklaus; if it weren’t for Tiger, his contemporaries would have more impressive records in majors.
Tiger has won 14 of his 47 majors since he broke through in the 1997 Masters. Nicklaus won 18 of his 103 majors from his first, the 1962 U.S. Open, through 1987, which was his last truly-competitive season.
So if Tiger stays competitive another 10-15 years — who among us believes he won’t — then not only will he far surpass Nicklaus’ majors total, but some of his contemporaries will reach the totals of some of Nicklaus’ rivals.
Now, Gary Player’s nine majors are out of reach. Tom Watson’s eight, too, I’d say. But Palmer’s seven and Trevino’s six? Not necessarily.
Mickelson and Els each have won three majors. And both would have more if not for Tiger. Mickelson finished second to Tiger in the 2002 U.S. Open, and Els twice has tied for second behind Tiger, in the 2000 U.S. and 2000 British opens. Goosen, who has two majors, also finished runnerup to Woods, in the 2002 Masters.
Who were the chief victims of Nicklaus? Well, Palmer I assume you know about. Arnie thrice was second to Nicklaus, including one tie. Tom Kite and Tom Weiskopf each twice tied for second behind Nicklaus. Greg Norman tied for second behind Nicklaus. So did Johnny Miller. Billy Casper finished runnerup once. Tom Watson never did.
But the player most cursed by Nicklaus was Australian Bruce Crampton. Crampton was a solid player who had a fine career and dominated for a stretch on the senior tour. Crampton four times finished second in majors, including one tie. All four times, he finished second to Nicklaus.
Bruce Crampton never won a major.
So what’s the verdict on our debate? I would say that the deeper talent pool now has cut into the majors won by most great players. The majors are spread out more, with the notable exception of Tiger Woods.
Salute to college baseball’s mid-majors
The College World Series has become one of the most fun events in NCAA sports, because of who has been winning it. The last six years, the champions have been Cal State-Fullerton, Rice, Texas, Oregon State twice in a row and Fresno State.
That’s three mid-major champs out of six years, plus a two-time winner from out of the Sun Belt.
Six years, only one upper-crust champion, the Longhorns.
You don’t get that kind of parity in football or basketball. In football, it’s a breakthrough if a mid-major wins a BCS bowl (like Boise State over Oklahoma or Utah over Alabama) or even gets an invitation. In basketball, it’s a huge accomplishment if a mid-major reaches the Final Four (George Mason).
But baseball habitually not only provides us a Cinderella story, but a couple. And they often come through.
This year, two mid-majors reached Omaha. Alas, their stays were short. Southern Mississippi and Cal State-Fullerton both were eliminated in two games, Fullerton on Monday and Southern on Tuesday.
But this Omaha era was a terrific ride by mid-majors. College baseball has periodically provided America with a little-guy champion. Fullerton in 1979, 1984 and 1995. Wichita State in 1989. Pepperdine in 1992. Then this run, punctuated by Fresno State, which last season was a No. 4 seed in its regional, which means the baseball committee did not consider the Bulldogs among the top 48 teams in America. That’s the equivalent of a 13 or 14 seed winning the NCAA basketball tournament.
Even in this disappointing season, mid-majors, we salute you.
Nine days and counting to the NBA draft
This is the most anticipated NBA draft in Oklahoma history, for two reasons: 1. For the first time, a permanent Oklahoma team will take part in the draft; and 2. For the first time, an Oklahoman will be the No. 1 pick.
We have been following all the draft talk extensively, and I’m about draft-talked out. Maybe some other franchises leaks; maybe some other franchises have multiple people making the decisions. But with Oklahoma City, Sam Presti is a one-man supreme court, and he is not loose-lipped.
Which means everything is speculative. Does the Thunder covet Hasheem Thabeet? Or Ricky Rubio? Or James Hardin? Who knows? How much will the Thunder offer the Clippers for Blake Griffin? How far down will Presti be willing to trade? We’re all guessing.
But it’s kind of fun to try to make the puzzle fit together. If Memphis does this, the Thunder does that. If the Thunder does that, Sacramento does this. And so on.
The truth is, no one knows, because the real decision-making will occur even after the draft begins. Trades are not likely before the draft. They will be spurred on by the deadline of draft night and the knowledge, finally, of what the upper-selecting teams do.
So my best guess:
1. Clippers take Griffin and rebuff trade offers.
2. Memphis takes Thabeet.
3. OKC takes Rubio and keeps him. The offer to trade Rubio to Sacramento will be great — the Kings would love him — but the presence of Rubio upgrades OKC’s overall talent. Russell Westbrook becomes a combo guard, a guy who plays 18 minutes at point and 18 points off the ball, which in no way is an indictment of Westbrook’s ability or a limit on what kind of player he can be. Even if Westbrook becomes a sixth man, he can be a star. Manu Ginobili comes to mind.
Anyway, if Presti believes Rubio is a difference-maker, you can’t pass on him. You can’t go drafting for need when the whole danged roster needs upgraded. If Rubio has star potential, you have to draft him and make the pieces fit.
That’s my best guess.
NBA Finals not living up to standard
Another NBA Finals is history, and here are my thoughts:
1. The Finals, as an event, has an identity problem. The Finals are too much about the individual. It’s always, can Kobe win without Shaq. Or can Kevin Garnett get the ring. It’s never focused on the team or franchise.
The Super Bowl isn’t that way. The World Series isn’t that way. But the NBA Finals are. Not since Detroit in 2003 has the NBA championship been about a team winning the crown, though you could argue San Antonio isn’t mired in the individual morass that plagues the sport.
I love the NBA playoffs and have written about that extensively. But the Finals are a different story.
2. Here’s an example of the Finals’ slump. In the last 21 years, we’ve had exactly two NBA Finals that went seven games. Two out of 21. And neither were exactly memorable: 2005, San Antonio over Detroit; and 1994, Houston over the Knickerbockers. Those Game 7’s weren’t duds, but neither were they classics. The Spurs beat the Pistons 81-74, and the Rockets beat New York 90-84. The NBA could use a great Finals.
3. There seemed to be minimal talk this year about an unfair format, which is good. There is nothing wrong with the 2-3-2 format. Heck, I’d use it for all the series. The idea that it’s too difficult for a team to win three straight at home is silly, on two fronts.
For one thing, the team that gets three straight at home is not the superior team, based on the regular season. So there’s no reason to think that team is routinely capable of winning three straight.
But more importantly, the main reason teams don’t win three straight is that teams rarely win TWO straight. In the 25 Finals played since the 2-3-2 format was adopted, only once has the team without homecourt advantage won the middle three games — the 2006 Miami Heat.
But only three other times has the team without homecourt advantage won its first TWO home games. Think about that. No matter how long the series goes, every series includes at least two home games for each team. But only four times in 25 years has the team with the inferior regular-season record won its first two home games in the Finals. You can’t win three in a row without winning two in a row.
The format is not the problem. The problem is the better team wins.
Vacation comes, but check the blog
I went on vacation about 3 p.m. Sunday. Finished up a column on Sam Bradford that will run in the morning, and after that, I’m not scheduled to appear in The Oklahoman until June 24.
This is one of those do-nothing vacations. I’m not going anywhere this week. Just get caught up on some things around the house, get my reading back in gear, take my granddaughter for daily adventures to the creek or the swimming pool. Things like that.
But I’ll stay connected with readers. Time was, vacation separated me from readers. Ten, 12 years ago, email came along, so I still corresponded with some. Now we’ve got this blog, and I’ll update it daily, just like always.
The blog is an easy and fun way to pass along my thoughts on the sporting world. The NBA Finals, the draft, any college football developments.
When I first started radio in 2002, some of my bosses were concerned that I might share views over the air before they saw print, and some of that probably happened. But now, if something happens, or something pops into my head, I generally blog about it long before I get on the radio.
Also this week, I plan to grow more accustomed to my new blackberry. Right now, it’s driving me crazy and I’m pining for the old Nokia. But if I can get that blackberry down, I’m afraid I’m Twitter-bound, so I’ll be even more on the spot. Wish me luck.
Emails on public school/private school flap
The new emails are in, and they’re loaded up on the public school/private school debate. We’ll hit the other stuff first, then jump into the big debate of the summer.
Joshua checked in on Game 4 of the NBA Finals: “The morning after Derek Fisher hits a clutch 3-pointer to tie the game and send Game 4 to overtime, everyone is jumping on Nelson for not ‘defending’ the 3 good enough. If you watch the replay, he had a hand in his face – the best you can do without fouling. If Jeff Van Gundy on ABC would not have said anything and just talked about Fisher’s great shot, then no one in the media (ESPN, sports radio) would even be talking about that.”
Yes they would. I would be, at least. Nelson’s defense was awful. He gave Fisher four or five feet. Fisher talked about how he likes to step into 3-pointers to get a shot off, and he had all kinds of room to get off that shot. Nelson’s hand in the face wasn’t much of a hand in the face. Terrible, terrible defense. In that situation, you guard the line. Nelson guarded the basket like he was afraid Fisher might decide to drive. I think it’s a psychological thing. Players are preached at all their lives to stay between their opponent and the basket, then every once in awhile in the final seconds of a game, they are told to give the guy the basket. The mind doesn’t transfer that easily.
Matt wrote about Justin Chaisson being placed on the OU roster: “Please tell me you are going to write a column about Chaisson. He kidnapped his ex and held a screwdriver to her throat. How does Stoops justify honoring his scholarship? This seems worse than Jarboe to me.”
Well, it does me, too. And I wrote about it a couple of months ago when it was obvious Chaisson was headed to Norman. About the only thing left to say is that Chaisson holds Stoops’ reputation in his hands.
Mark: “I appreciate you speaking your mind, but I am a little disappointed in your column about Blake Griffin and the Clippers. You are usually pretty upbeat but this was depressing. Couldn’t you include some of the positive? Such as his great salary; the hope he brings other young kids; the opportunity to play in the NBA; the chance to make the Clippers a better franchise like Lebron James did, etc. I, too, wish he had landed in a better place, but let’s make the most out of his opportunity and keep our standards high for him.”
Keep our standards high for him? Griffin is about to land in a cesspool. When you land in a cesspool, you don’t look for chemicals to clean it up. You try to get out of the cesspool.
Doyle: “In your column last Monday, you wrote about the quarterbacks who led OU to its seven national championships. You talked about pictures being taken of all the different guys and in one space you mentioned a picture being taken of Davis and Switzer. You said a picture was taken of ‘he and Switzer.’ Where did you learn to write? That sentence was (is) wrong. You wouldn’t take a picture of ‘he,’ you would take a picture of ‘him.’ There is an unwritten grammar rule about that kind of thing that says if you shorten your sentence to ‘a picture of he’ or ‘a picture of him,’ you will soon learn which is more correct. Get it? In this case, ‘a picture of him and Switzer’ is correct! You goofed, but then you do that a lot. Mike Stoops to Texas to replace Mack Brown? Bob Stoops to Cleveland? Bob Stoops to Denver? I could go on and on with your ridiculous predictions. Why don’t you just write about sports news instead of trying to predict the world of tomorrow? Then to make a grammatical error like you did is unforgivable.”
How about I just come over and you cut off my head.
Larry, our old Texas Tech fan, wrote about Bob Stoops: “No one should know better than a Sooner fan that any time you go into the head coaching market, it’s a crapshoot. Back in ‘99, Oklahoma won the lottery. Bob Stoops is in my authoritative and widely sought opinion the gold standard for college football coaches. What he has accomplished in his 10 seasons at Oklahoma is astounding, and I’m not just referring to his won/loss record. He’s also a shining example for any father to point to in trying to instruct his son on how to conduct oneself as a competitive sportsman. I respect and admire the guy (and dearly wish he coached in another conference so I could continue to admire him from further afar). That he has doubters much less detractors among Sooner fandom befuddles me. I know a couple of yahoos who claim to have soured on him and wish Oklahoma would ‘move on.’ Neither of them actually attended Oklahoma University, but they’re both ‘No. 1 Sooner fans,’ walking talking authorities on all things OU. I don’t bother to debate the point with them. I might as well discuss politics with my dog.”
Great points, all the way, including about the dog. But the point about the crapshoot and lottery when hiring a coach is well-stated, and that’s EXACTLY why schools tend to hire head coaches. They want as much proven commodity as they can get. And it’s still a crapshoot. But it takes a lot of faith to hire an assistant coach. Bully for the decision-makers who do just that. The most successful coaches in OU history were not head coaches when hired. Stoops, Wilkinson, Switzer, Fairbanks. OSU has a long run of hiring quality assistants to be its head coach – Jim Stanley, Jimmy Johnson, Pat Jones, Bob Simmons, Les Miles, Mike Gundy, and it’s mostly paid off handsomely for the Cowboys.
OK. Time to move on to the public school/private school debate. I wrote that the OSSAA was correct in voting down the measure that would bump up most private schools two classes. My solution: move private schools and magnet schools up one class. But an even better solution, I said, was to start talking reasonably. Anyway. Let’s get to it.
Marc: “I had a daughter graduate from McGuinness in ‘04 who played softball and basketball, and I have a daughter there now. I am on the booster club and am very involved with all athletic aspects of the school (and the politics that go along with them). I agree with you that there are a lot more knuckleheads in public school because knuckleheads don’t last long at schools like McGuinness before being shown the door. But how often do you see public school coaches keep these kinds of kids around? They might be at the school but not on the athletic teams. And can you tell me that the kids at McGuinness are better athletes overall than kids from John Marshall or Douglass? Millwood has more Division I athletes in five years than McGuinness has ever had. Our kids may be better coached and more disciplined but not better athletes. The sad part of all this is that none of it came up until McGuinness had a run of championships the likes of what no one has ever seen in this state. We had all kinds of allegations about recruiting and paying players, none of which is true. All but a handful of them came up through the traditional Catholic feeder schools. And the private schools even drastically reduced their boundaries before this year. But some people just can’t take losing so they have to point fingers at those who win and claim that things aren’t fair. Where were these complainers when we were in 5A and struggling just to make the playoffs? There wasn’t any whining back then.”
You know, this dilemma is not going to get anywhere so long as people keep making ridiculous statements. And the victim-mentality of the McGuinness people is not going to get us anywhere. This issue DID come up before McGuinness started winning championships. It came up to a vote in 1992 and again in 1998, and it was an issue even before that. And Marc is making the public schools’ point about knuckleheads; no, coaches don’t keep around the knuckleheads. But they’re still in school, counting against the enrollment in public schools.
William: “Your article regarding private and public schools (athletics) is dead on. I have personally witnessed my kids being the victim (short end of the stick) in multiple sports. My oldest son graduated high school last May. His high school soccer team advanced to the second round of the playoffs three years straight, only to lose (twice) to eventual champ Cascia Hall. This squad was an outstanding soccer team and could beat anyone in their class, except Cascia Hall. Cascia was just on another level. It was ridiculous. Likewise in football, my son’s last football game came at the expense of Bishop McGuinness in OKC.”
Now here’s a problem from the other side. It’s not a divine right to win a state championship. OK, so Cascia cost this team a state title. But public schools have been knocking out public schools for decades. That’s the way athletics work. The idea that everyone is entitled to a championship is off base, and to paint the private schools as infidels that are stealing state championships from deserving public schools is just wrong.
Chigger – I swear I don’t make up these names – disagreed with me: “No, the OSSAA did not make the right call. Prime example: In 2007, my stepson played at the state basketball tournament. We lost in the semis to OCS. According to their own information in the program, they had nine seniors on that team. Guess what, they went up a class in 2008 and still made it to state in basketball.. How did they possibly go up a class, lose nine seniors and still get back to state? I will tell you how, they cheat! The 2008 OCS team had a kid from Texas and another from Arkansas.”
Here we go again. OK, let’s repeat. If you want to see mass movement by players in high school, check out the public schools. Transferring is rampant, in both large and small schools. As for how OCS made it to state after losing the core of its team, well, how about tradition and strong coaching and lots of depth. Same way all kinds of public schools make it back.
Josh: “I will respectfully disagree with you on the private school-public school debate. Keep the schools right where they are. Moving the private schools up one class will not solve a thing, except put the private schools at a competitive disadvantage. Moving them up one class would eliminate the private schools from the ability to win state championships, especially in football. I am a McGuinness alum class of ‘98, and I played football. I remember people accusing us of recruiting and cheating even when we were in 5A. That was a ridiculous notion. Every major player on that team went to the likes of Rosary, Christ the King, Westminster or other Catholic feeder schools. Make no mistake this debate is all about one thing – jealousy over recent success. You cannot convince me otherwise. McGuinness has won a whopping two state titles on the gridiron and winning at this level in football is a fairly recent development. Greater credit needs to be given to coach Kenny Young. This debate takes credit away from him and several players who have worked very hard. The recent success is due to them and not some make-believe advantage that people seem to think exists. I’ll ask this, if there is such an advantage for the private schools, why are they not winning major sports championships every single year? They’re not. This success is due to two factors and two factors only – coaching and talent, nothing more.”
This will probably get me in some hot water, since some McGuinness folks are among my bosses at work, but the umbrage taken by the Irish on this issue is going to get us nowhere except all-out chaos. No matter how much you stand and shout that this all stems from McGuinness jealousy, it’s not true. This issue festered long before McGuinness’ 21st-century success, but the responses from both patrons and officials the last few weeks have only fanned the flames, which is different from some of the other private schools. If that attitude persists, this issue will not end well for McGuinness.
Jim: “Too bad more emphasis is not on education and funding schools for better equipment and paying for supplies so that the teachers do not have to buy them out of their own pockets!”
Great point. The issues that put public schools at a disadvantage on the athletic field are real. However, I wish we could spend more time discussing how to deal with those issues in the classroom, because that’s where the ultimate losing takes place.
Joyce: “The only difference I see is that most private schools require all of their students to participate in some form of athletics. Many private schools don’t elect to have PE for those who don’t want to participate in some sport. They believe that participating in team sports for all is essential to the students’ development. That, in a nutshell, is the difference. It could be solved by the public schools requiring all of their students to participate in some sport. It is unfair to punish students who have parents who really value their child’s education and are able in some way to allow him/her to attend a private school.”
I think you’re on to something here, Joyce, although it’s not punishment to attempt to level the playing field. Same thing goes for the privates that go with the publics: there’s no divine right to championships. But your idea about requiring participation is interesting. You can’t require kids to play sports, but you can require kids to participate in extra-curricular activities. Sports, music, drama, debate. Whatever. We always hear how extra-curricular activities keep kids in school and promote their all-around development. Let’s get serious about that notion.
Barry: “Your article on the OSSAA meeting was very well written. I’m a Bridge Creek parent and have been fully involved in this push for change. I appreciate your professionalism in covering the meeting. My concern is that the 1992 and 1998 committees accomplished zip. Our decisions now are to work within the committee, litigate or form a new league. There is a substantial group willing to separate. I’m curious if you think a new association would fly?”
I think a new association would be a big mess. Starting from zero would create virtual anarchy for several years, while the OSSAA would die on the vine almost immediately if most of the public schools dropped out. But I think a new association is possible if we don’t get rational people talking.
Jimmy: “Maybe one of the best articles authored by you that I have ever read. As a retired high school principal and former athletic director, I fully concur with your synopsis. I am glad cooler heads prevailed as there are extremists on both sides of this issue.”
You know what we’ve got here. Politics. With a capital P. We’ve got extremists on both sides, with not nearly enough people talking in the middle. And that’s what worries me the most. I look at Washington, I look at our state legislature, and I see venom. I see people uninterested in the greater good. And that’s what I see here.
David: “I agree that the original proposals were ludicrous. However, private school participation rates may not be related to keeping out the knuckleheads. Parents willing to sacrifice to pay tuition are much more likely to be involved in the school and its activities. My third child is attending Mount St. Mary, and we have been and continue to be very involved, as are many of the parents we know. The students are constantly being encouraged to get involved with the activities that interest them. Students on the teams know that they won’t be third or fourth string, because there aren’t enough kids to go much past second string. In football, everybody plays more than one position. This past year, our skill positions on the football team were manned by the best players on the basketball team. Imagine that team having to play those bigger schools week in and week out.”
The point about parenting is at the heart of the matter. That’s where knuckleheads mostly come from; homes where parenting has slipped. But the idea that St. Mary, for example, would be playing Carl Albert is silly. St. Mary is Class 2A. Under my plan, it would rise to 3A and play teams like Pauls Valley or OCS or Lexington. I promise you, the Lexington Bulldogs aren’t going three-deep at right tackle.
Bob: “An important part of the argument still doesn’t get hashed out. The punishment of the private school athletics is because public schools have become places where the knuckleheads rule. And that is not the fault of private schools. That is the fault of the public education paradigm. Public school administrators are not man enough to stand up and say it is our fault that our school environments are as they are, let’s quit picking on the privates and start emulating them. I don’t hear that or read that. Forty years ago in OKC, I went to McGuinness. Putnam City was the bastion of academics. Every year they went to the UCO academic weekend challenge and blew the field away. Harding High School was the public Casady. They sent kids to the Ivys every year. The bulk of John Marshall kids were from Nichols Hills and were high academic achievers. Douglass was a high academic, strict disciplined all-black school. Norman High School was a school like McGuinness is now. McGuinness had spartan facilities, no money and was taught by nuns, whether they had good academic backgrounds or not. You went to McGuinness because you were Catholic, and for no other reason. If you wanted the best facilities, the best academics, the best sports, you went to public schools. My neighborhood was Northwest Classen. I was jealous of what all my neighborhood friends had at their school. But I was Catholic. So my point is, this isn’t discussed. And it drives me crazy. The public schools are picking on privates because the environment is turned upside down. They need to spend the time emulating McGuinness like McGuinness did them for all these years. McGuinness saw what they weren’t and through the years adapted, raised money and changed to be like the publics. The publics need to tighten up their bootstraps and get to work, and realize their public school education paradigm is a joke and has failed our kids, and try to emulate the privates, not punish the privates. They should be embarrassed about the environment they have, not vindictive against the successful privates. Their vile is nonproductive. It won’t help their kids one bit. Focus on a new paradigm.”
I don’t know what you think I’m going to say about this one. Maybe I’ll fool you. I agree. I think the public schools have problems, and I think most of those problems stem from this. They are being asked to solve all kinds of societal ills unrelated to education. Behavioral. Emotional. Even nutritional. Public schools should get out of the social work business and get back to education. Discipline has left much of our public schools and it must return. I’m not talking about corporal punishment; that never solved anything. I’m talking about the requirement of respect, with the consequence of removal. Bring back the discipline into the public schools, and all of a sudden there’s no such a disparity between McGuinness and Southeast. Of course, until that discipline returns, there is a disparity between McGuinness and Southeast, which leads us back to the current question and what’s fair for the kids.
Dawn: “Let me guess, you have kids in private schools.”
No. My daughter attended Norman North. Let me guess. You thought the treaties at the end of World War I were just right.
Fun times in Dallas for the OU Caravan
The Sooner Caravan in Dallas on Thursday night was a good time. Coaches, players, a little humor, a good meal, lots of optimism. You had three teams represented; one played for the national title (football), one reached the Final Four (women’s basketball), one played for a trip to the Final Four (men’s basketball).
Anyway, there were some funny moments I thought I’d pass along along.
OU tailback DeMarco Murray, with a straight face until the crowd erupted, talked about playing for a coach who played “back in the ’60s.” Bob Stoops soon enough corrected Murray, saying, “I was born in ‘60. To these guys, if you’re over 25, you’re old.”
Whitney Hand talked about how the Sooners will sit in the locker room and discuss Sherri Coale’s outfits. “I need to come in five minutes earlier and talk about nothingness,” Coale said. “They’re not paying attention while I’m talking about the game plan.”
Coale talked about how much national publicity the Sooners received last season and even referred to the OU-Tennessee game, when Bobby Knight served as ESPN’s color analyst and raved about Hand. “Getting Bobby Knight to say something nice about a women’s basketball player? That isn’t easy,” Coale said. “I thought lightning was going to strike in Oklahoma City.”
And Stoops did a mea culpa on calling out the fans before the Texas Tech game, when he basically said the Sooner crowd wasn’t loud. That Tech game turned into the loudest in Owen Field history. “Anyone have fun at that game?” Stoops asked. “I sure didn’t mean to offend anybody.” Stoops said he just wanted to make sure the fans impacted that game, and “boy, did you.”
Davis humbled by devotion of OU fans
I’ve written and blogged quite a bit this week about the Sunday book-signing of OU’s five national championship quarterbacks — Claude Arnold, Jimmy Harris, Steve Davis, Jamelle Holieway and Josh Heupel. The crowd was enormus, with the autograph line snaking through the little Sooner Schooner store in Norman and going out the door. The event lasted four hours.
Davis, 32-1-1 as a starter and the quarterback on the Sooners’ 1974 and 1975 national title teams, sent me a nice email, pondering the day. I thought I would share some of it with you:
“These events always humble me when I think of the devotion of the Sooner fans. Only today am I beginning to realize the full impact of the success of the those teams I was honored to lead as its QB.
“I remember as a young boy working in my grandfather’s grocery store on those glorious fall Saturday afternoons past when I would carry groceries out the back door and into the common parking lot of Farmer’s Furniture store in Sallisaw. It was there, on many occasions, where my grandfather would find me watching an OU football game and dreaming of my future. I guess, on those football Saturdays, customer service took a backseat to my passion for following my heroes.
“Last Sunday I was reminded of how devoted many OU fans are and how Oklahoma University football has impacted many lives…….they can recall events, dates, wins and losses as well as any of the five national championship QBs could today. It all makes me realize the impact of sport on our society and the passions it creates and sustains. It’s funny, I just thought I was going to spend a little time with two of my football idols (no offense to Josh or Jamelle) on a pleasant Sunday afternoon. Boy, was I mistaken.”
