What is the greatest sporting event of all time?
I commented on the blog yesterday that if Tom Watson had won the British Open at age 59, the 2009 Open at Turnberry would have been the greatest sporting event of all time. Which got me to wondering. What is the greatest of all time?
Lots of stuff goes into that. Great drama. Great heroes. Historical impact. Flat out fun. Events that make you stand up and cheer. Events that, decades after the fact, make your heart still jump at the memory.
Here are a few nominations, just to get us started.
* Miracle of Coogan’s Bluff. The 1951 Giants-Dodgers playoff, capped by Bobby Thomson’s home run. Still the greatest event in baseball history.
* The Colts-Giants NFL title game of 1958. An overtime thriller that jettisoned pro football into the national consciousness.
* Game 5, 1976 NBA Finals. Celtics-Suns. Three-overtime classic. Still the greatest NBA game ever played.
* Game 5, 1986 American League Championship Series. Angels-Red Sox. Eleven innings. Still the greatest baseball game ever played.
* Miracle on Ice.
* The Thrilla in Manilla. Ali-Frazier III.
* Super Bowl 42. Giants-Patriots.
* Jesse Owens’ four gold medals at the 1936 Olympics in Berlin.
* USC-Texas title game, Vince Young vs. Matt Leinart.
* Nadia Comaneci’s string of perfect 10s at the Montreal Olympics.
* Duke-Kentucky 1992, East Regional final.
* Tiger Woods at Augusta 1997, winning the Masters by 12 shots.
I’ll do some more research, add to the list and rank the events later in the week. But I stand by what I said. Watson would be No. 1 on this list had he won at Turnberry.
A legend blooms: Watson’s week at Turnberry
I spent all weekend trying to get my mind around what Tom Watson was doing at Turnberry, how he had suddenly found a wrinkle in time and was threatening to win the British Open at age 59.
What could be compared? The Kansas City Star’s Jason Whitlock brought up Miracle on Ice, which for sheer improbability is in the same ballpark. Others talked of George Foreman, who won the heavyweight boxing title in 1994 at age 45, 20 years after he lost the title belt to Muhammad Ali. George Blanda, the late-game hero of several 1970 Oakland Raider victories at the age of 43, was another turn-back-the-clock hero.
But somehow, those comparisons fell short.
Hockey is a team sport, and while the U.S. 1980 Olympic upset of the Soviets was majestic and ranks as the greatest sports upset of all time, it had no genetic component. The Americans were outskilled and outexperienced, but sometimes grit and determination can make up those deficiencies.
Though we all love Foreman, it’s boxing. Titles can and are gerry-rigged all the time. Fighting who you want and when you want is not the same as standing by the lighthouse at Turnberry, knowing you have to hit into the North Atlantic wind.
And Blanda, while ancient in football age, was in 1970 only five years removed from leading the AFL in passing attempts, and his Oakland heroics were late-game, substitution-based successes. It’s not like he took the Raiders to the Super Bowl.
No, this was something else. This week at Turnberry was fantasy. This was a 59-year-old golfer about to win one of the sport’s biggest prizes, against the sport’s greatest golfers. Tiger Woods didn’t make the cut. Two-time defending champ Padraig Harrington never contended. The game’s greatest players came and went, and always there was Watson, sinking a long putt or avoiding trouble and making you think to the very end he might write a sports fairy tale to surpass all that had gone before.
This came closer than ever before to fulfilling the adage that truth is stranger than fiction.
ESPN proclaimed that Watson’s odds at winning were 1,000-to-1. I couldn’t find that kind of information. I did find a long list of pre-tournament odds, with the highest at 100-to-1 and everyone else listed as “field.” But maybe over in Scotland there numbers that had Watson at 1,000-to-1.
Sounds reasonable for a guy who hadn’t won a major in 26 years, in a sport in which no one over 53 really had ever contended for a major, much less won it. Sounds reasonable for a sport in which Jack Nicklaus’ epic Masters win in 1986 was hailed as monumental, since Nicklaus was 46 and had gone six years since winning a major.
Think about that. Watson is 13 years older than Nicklaus was at Augusta in ‘86 and had gone more than four times as long since his last major.
Watson was from a different time. As if he had traveled by time capsule. This was not a great player whose skills slowly had eroded suddenly finding himself again. This was Joe Montana returning to quarterback the ‘09 49ers. This was Mike Schmidt suddenly appearing at third base for the ‘09 Phillies. This was Kareem back in the post for the Kobe Lakers. And playing like it was 1981 all over again.
The U.S. Senior Open golf championship never has had a winner as old as 59. You want odds? Baylor is a 150-to-1 pick to win the BCS title game. Nevada-Las Vegas is 500-to-1. Tom Watson was 1,000-to-1, same as Jesse Ventura’s chances at winning the White House in 2008.
This was fantasy. This was not surreal. This was unreal. This was a ghost, a man who long ago quit contending on the PGA Tour, a man relegated to the Senior Tour, where he still occasionally wins (twice in 2008) against the old geezers, a golfer who once owned the British Open but hadn’t finished in its top 10 since 1997, suddenly returning to the scene of his greatest triumph, Turnberry, the second of his British crowns, and reviving memories in old fans and shouts in the young.
This was the likes of which we never have seen except on the silver screen. This was “The Natural,” where Roy Hobbs comes back after 16 lost years to be baseball’s best player. This was “Field of Dreams,” where youth is magically restored.
This was “Rocky Balboa.” This was an old, aged, melancholy champion suddenly finding the zest of youth. Like Sylvester Stallone’s venerable film series, Watson had five thrilling spikes in his British career. Stallone made five Rocky movies, some a lot better than others, each with a different plot. Watson won five Claret Jugs, each at a different course, some more memorable than others.
And in the end, suddenly they were back. Another Rocky film, “Rocky Balboa,” a sweet ode to a legendary, albeit fictional character, and in the end the old fighter loses, but it doesn’t really matter. And another Tom Watson week on the links of ancient Scotland, a sweet ode to a legendary, absolutely real character, and in the end the old golfer loses, but it doesn’t really matter.
Tom Watson gave sports fans another thrill at Turnberry. He achieved the impossible. He trumped his 1977 Duel in the Sun, when he shot 65-65 in the final two rounds to beat the great Nicklaus, who shot 65-66 at Turnberry. The greatest golf, some say, ever played. But this was a greater story.
Had Old Tom Watson won, this would have been the greatest sporting achievement of all time. I would have called it the greatest sporting event of all time.
In the end, midnight arrived on Tom Watson, as it arrives on us all, and the Hollywood script writers were banished from the scene, because sport and Stewart Cink do not answer to them.
But Watson left his beloved Turnberry, with its majestic lighthouse and somber war monuments and picturesque Ailsa Craig, with something more precious than a sixth Claret Jug. Watson left Turnberry having given himself the priceless gift he gave us all.
Memories.
Golf: Kill the four-hole playoff
If Stewart Cink’s SIX-shot victory in the British Open playoff doesn’t kill the four-hole playoff, nothing will.
Only the Masters, among the majors, plays sudden death, but it’s clearly the best playoff format. The U.S. Open plays a ridiculous 18 holes on Monday, which is as goofy as if the Super Bowl played overtime with an extra 15 minutes the day after the game. The PGA has adopted the British Open’s four-hole playoff.
Those who claim a major title shouldn’t be decided on one hole are right. And no major is. The Masters, if tied, is decided on 73 holes, which seems like plenty.
The 2009 British Open was one of the greatest sporting events of the last 40 years, thanks to Tom Watson. If the 59-year-old Watson had won, 26 years after his most recent major championship, it would have been the most remarkable sporting achievement ever.
But the playoff sucked some of the greatness from the week at Turnberry. The four-hole playoff served as midnight, and Watson, who turned back the sporting clock the way it’s never been turned, suddenly reverted to a 59-year-old golfer 20 years past his prime.
That’s a shame. Had Cink beaten Watson on the first playoff hole, this Turnberry classic would have ended on a far sweeter note.
The four-hole playoff debacle doesn’t ruin the Watson fairy tale. But it does detract from it. One playoff hole is better than four.
Emails in on private schools & offensive lines
The new emails are in, a little light because it’s another vacation week, but some spirited debate about the public school/private school debate, offensive lines and assorted other subjects.
Josh, a self-proclaimed OSU psycho: “I have a research question for you. Has ANY team ever beaten Oklahoma, Nebraska AND Texas in the same season? No one has done it in the Big 12 era. Nobody. I am starting to think that nobody has ever done it. I tried to think who may have pulled it off in the Big 12. 1998: A&M lost to Texas. 2002: OSU lost to Texas. 2003: KSU lost to Texas. 2008: Tech lost to OU. OSU has gotten two of the three thrice: 1944, 1997, 2002 (OSU didn’t play NU in ’44 or ’97). I know this is complicated by the fact that Texas played in the SWC, but I am curious to see if anyone has ever gotten all three in the same season. It’s probably a pretty safe bet that if somebody did, they were pretty darn good.”
You’re right about. I found two teams — same school — that beat OU, NU and UT in the same year. The Colorado Buffaloes of 1989 and 1990. The ’89 Buffs played for the national title in the Orange Bowl. The ’90 Buffs won the national title.
Randy wrote about the OSU ticket and scheduling policies: “If you think I am going to drive four-plus hours to Stillwater eight times, just to see one game I want, you are in another fan base. The Cowboy fan base could be headed for a schism. One an hour away distance, comprised of OKC and Tulsa, the other in Dallas and southern counties. For approximately the last 15 years, OSU has been running a 14-20 percent student body from the Dallas area. There are now two somewhat different fan bases. And that is the reason I now firmly believe Holder has to bring the Cowboys to Dallas. If he doesn’t, he eventually loses this existing fan base, plus the emerging population of the southern counties in Oklahoma. This is potential large donor money. Why doesn’t OU have this problem with an existing 25 percent student body from Texas over the last 15 years? OU plays Texas in Fair Park. And Norman is roughly an hour and change closer to the Greater New Dallas metro area, which as previously mentioned, is moving into the Oklahoma southern counties. I consider Stillwater an equivalent to Troy, Alabama. Love the Oklahoma State campus, but Stillwater leaves me cold. And I speak for most of the Cowboy fans in Dallas when I write that. Due to this, as previously mentioned, I believe Holder has some immediate remedial action to salvage this fan base.”
All interesting discussions, but playing a game in Dallas doesn’t solve OSU’s chief concern, which is selling season tickets in Stillwater. Taking a good game away from campus is one less reason to buy a season ticket. It’s a thorny situation.
Jerry: “I was listening to the radio one day last week when you were asked where you would most like to see an OU away game. I was pleased to hear your response West Point. I, too, have always thought that would be a great venue for a road trip. Spend some time in NYC, then up the Hudson for some historic sightseeing. Many of my fellow fans have also mentioned to me they totally agree. Anyway, at an OU caravan stop a couple of years ago, I asked Joe C. about this possibility. He mentioned he too had heard from fans how cool this would be but said it probably would never happen. However, he didn’t explain why. Why do you think it is unlikely?”
I actually think it’s more likely now. I hear Army is more open to discussion.
Judy: “Did you hear President Obama tell Bob Costas at the All-Star Game that when he was a high school basketball player in Hawaii, his team played basketball with the Reds and Johnny Bench? It must have been during one of those not-really-sports challenge events for professional athletes. I was thinking you may have run out of things to ask Johnny Bench by now, so what about whether he remembers the game and whether he realized at some point that he’d played with a future president. Obama told Costas the experience made him a Reds fan, at least for a while.”
Bob Costas was at the All-Star Game?
MG: “I have a question regarding the OU-Florida game. Did you ever get a chance to ask Bob what his rationale was for trotting out Jimmy Stevens to attempt his longest field goal of the year? I’m interested in knowing why Bob didn’t give the best offense in the country, led by the Heisman Trophy winner, a shot to get the first down. I don’t know any Sooner fans who honestly believed Jimmy had a legitimate chance of making that kick.”
Stoops was asked right after the game — might have been me, I can’t remember — and admitted it was a mistake. And Stoops knew it. No way should Stevens have been asked to try a 47-yard field goal.
Ted wrote about blog item in which I said Roy Williams, Tony Casillas and Brian Bosworth were the three best OU defenders of the last 30 years. “Why do people believe Tony’s hype. Look at Rick Bryan’s tackle records compared to Casillas. Ricky has more career tackles than the greatest of them all, LeRoy Selmon. Besides that, Ricky was a nice guy and a very underrated OU player. Tony didn’t show up for our loss in the Orange bowl (true, he was double-teamed most of the time, but so were all the good ones) and then he blamed everybody else for the loss, including the Sooner Schooner. If he had spent less time before the game posing beside a colorful catamaran on the beach and more time concentrating on the game, we would have had another national championship. Despite his considerable personal flaws, I agree with Boz’s abilities. Roy Williams was also another dominant performer — would that that had carried over and lasted at Dallas.”
Tony Casillas hyped? He was a great, great college player, then an excellent pro. I love Rick Bryan. He was a great player, too, but he was no Casillas. Buddy Burris, who played at OU from 1946-48, saw every OU team from the ’40s into the 1990s. He thought Casillas was the best.
OK, on to the public school/private school debate. Tim: “Agree with your cornerstone point: the high stakes are a quality education, not the resting place for gold balls. Other terms used are easy to agree with: social laboratories; warehouse teens for next pass through; need for backbone, conscience, vision, & attuned parents. These have been expressed elsewhere. A term Dumbing of America comes to mind. The solution, however, is the exact opposite in which you suggest. To acquire quality education public schools require less, much less, as in zero, activities. Major core subjects reading, writing, arithmetic, must be repetitiously taught to the extreme. Some correlated minors must also be available. That’s it. No sports, cheer, pom, music, drama, debate, shop, etc. If you want such extras, do it on your own dime and time outside of public education. To become well-rounded, some refer this as developing the whole person, be advised there is no bottom to this slippery slope! There is never enough money and programs to produce desired roundness. If roundness is the goal, students need to get a job after class working for someone, make a little money and learn real world responsibility. Fire all coaches, put locks on gyms and stadiums. Nothing in the past 40 years has been more detrimental to public education than sports. It defocuses education with misplaced heroics. Instead, students must master fundamental core subjects. There is no cafeteria. School is over at 11:50. By noon students are off school grounds, unless consulting with a teacher or doing research in the library. Students who do not want to be in school for the outstanding public education available are encouraged to leave. Discipline is strict. Those who bump the line are sent home and as required suspended for the semester. End product is a superb quality public educated student at a fraction of current cost.”
I don’t buy it. To use your terms, only rearranged, the end product is a fraction of superb quality public educated students. Extracurricular activities do more than create a well-rounded person. They keep many students interested and connected to school. High school is not just a college prepatory school. All kinds of kids won’t go on to college and shouldn’t. But we need plumbers as much as we need doctors and a heck of a lot more than we need lawyers or college professors. And to say that sports has been the most detrimental element in schools the last 40 years is ridiculous. Bad parenting laps the field on that one.
David: “Extra-curricular activities are extremely valuable for the life lessons they teach regardless of how many medals or trophies are won. I actually think that so long as kids put forth great effort, they can often learn more from defeat than winning. However, I’m not convinced that compulsory participation is best. After all, you do need to be able to cull the bad eggs because they will bring the other participants down. But kids could benefit greatly if we encouraged our schools to place a bigger emphasis on participation.”
Interesting debate. Are knuckleheads pulled up by being placed in a good environment, or do they pull others down? I would say it depends on the quality of the discipline — and that goes for the classroom and the ballfield.
Lynn: “Let me tell you a little story about my school. Every so often, I do a little informal survey of my high school classes. I ask the students how many of them have a job. Typically, about 90 percent of the students hold up their hands. I then ask those who have jobs, ‘How many of you depend on your jobs to buy your school uniforms, supplies, and other things you need?’ Of those who have jobs, usually all to nearly all, hold up their hands. Then I ask, ‘How many for how many of you, your paycheck pays for the light bill, some of the rent or other family needs?’ Usually half of the students hold up their hands for this one. I know my survey is entirely anecdotal, but I don’t think it is all that inaccurate considering the home lives these kids have. This is a further advantage that private schools have over our school. For me, the only solution is for private schools to have their champion and public schools theirs. I know this won’t satisfy those who want a true champion, but after all, extra curricular activities are about character rather than winning, aren’t they?”
I’m afraid Lynn is right. But the train has left the station. Forty years ago, when Bishop McGuinness first was admitted to the OSSAA, some warned that public schools would rue the day.
Mary: I am a high school band director, beginning my 30th year of teaching in the Oklahoma public schools. During the 30 years, I have seen a decline in the student’s discipline and work ethic. There are so many life lessons that are taught in extra-curricular activities. I appreciate your words and encouragement for extra-curricular activities.”
I know that requiring all kids to participate in an extra-curricular would be a hardship for some. But it might be worth it.
Diane: “You made many generous statements about private schools. I appreciate that. And I applaud your thesis: it would be to the advantage of youngsters in public schools to have an activities requirement for graduation. I hope the suggestion is taken seriously by public schools. However, as a teacher and administrator for over 30 years in private schools (and a former teacher in public schools), I disagree with the oft-repeated position regarding the ‘inherent advantage’ that private schools have over public ones in athletics. More specifically, that the private schools are able to ‘control their enrollment’ gives them an advantage in OSSAA activities. ‘That’s a huge difference,’ you say. Why? I find it hard to understand that public school athletic directors and principals take this position. Are they not in control of their team memberships? Do the public school teams accept all comers? No. In fact, the fact that it is more difficult to make a team in public schools (or have playing time if you do manage to make it) is one reason why some parents make the sacrifice to send their modestly-talented kids to private schools. So that they can be a part of something, even if they aren’t stars, and have the memories and life experiences that your column advocates. And the greater percentage of students (that your article recommends) ‘participating’ exerts its own pressures on coaches different from those caused by ‘knuckleheads,’ but challenges, just the same. Yes, private schools decide whom they enroll. And like public schools, they can ‘remove’ kids who are problems, reassigning them to alternative settings. Most important, all schools have the right to disallow kids with character issues to be on a team.”
This is a train wreck of a letter. This was written by someone who hasn’t been in the real world since about 1964. Knuckleheads on teams are not the problem in public school. Knuckleheads in school, who can NOT be easily removed, are the problem.
Carrie: “You made lots of good points. When we have school-age kids, we want them to participate in something, anything, whatever they want. I think clubs and teams and other activities provide support for kids, especially those without much of a home life.”
I don’t think there’s any doubt about it.
My theory that offensive lines aren’t as important as they once were drew some dialogue. Roy: “A fine line divides champions from also-rans like Texas Tech and, sad to say, OU. You do need meatpackers to consistently get short yardage in critical situations (especially near the goal line). OU’s generally dismal performance in this area has probably cost them a couple of national championships. OU TDs in the red zone: 71 out of 84 (not that great). Look at the big games. Outrushed badly by Texas and Florida. Four for four from red zone vs. Texas, none by running. Only 2 for 4 vs. Gators, none by rushing, and as I recall they had an interception at the 4. Man, you gotta be able to muscle it in from there when the chips are down.”
Well, I think 71 of 84 is pretty darn good. In fact, I looked it up. OU was fifth nationally in red-zone efficiency, scoring on 78 of 84 possessions. That ranked behind Ohio State, UNLV, Miami and Utah State. But the NCAA measures red-zone efficiency as scoring after reaching the red zone and doesn’t differentiate between a field goal and a touchdown, which is silly. So I calculated touchdown efficiency from the red zone. And OU led the nation by a wide margin. OU’s 71 of 84 is .845 percent. Next best was Utah (.784), UNLV (.783), Texas (.765), Arizona (.750) and LSU (.745). And as for the notion that OU couldn’t run it into the end zone, that’s kooky. OU had 41 rushing touchdowns last season, which led the nation by a huge margin. Florida was next with 32. The Sooners failed to muscle it in against Florida. No doubt about it. But OU had a first-rate offensive line last season. It’s just like I said; o-line play isn’t as vital as it once was.
James: “To lend a little more credence to your ranking of the importance (or lack of) of an offensive line, we need look no further than last year’s Super Bowl winner. Add to that the fact that the Steelers also won a Super Bowl just a few years before that with a far less than stellar offensive line.”
I’m no expert on the Steelers’ offensive line, but what I say about college offensive lines do NOT apply to the NFL. In the pros, you still play he-man football.
Shlomo: “Your piece on the value of the O-Line in college football reminds me of Coach Switzer’s promotion of the wishbone as the best thing since sliced bread. He said that, among the benefits of the formation, it was relatively easy to teach, not least of which because the offensive linemen didn’t have to hold their blocks; the play developed so quickly that the initial block was sufficient. Another analogy: Back then, and before the ‘bone, when it was Shotts up the middle and Owens making like a human tractor, the OU coaches used to say that there weren’t but three things could happen when you throw the ball and two of ‘em are bad. Now the wishbone tended to leave the ball on the floor a lot, owing to the razzle dazzle. But the spread, in the wrong hands, can get pretty sloppy, too. And for all the success that the OU offense had last year, nevertheless, when push came to shove, it was the lack of one smashmouth play that pulled defeat out of the jaws of victory. So, for me, I wonder if OU will put up the kind of numbers that we saw last year. The O-line might have more to do with it than one might imagine. The receiving corps is a work in progress. Sam may need more time. A little ball control might be just what the doctor ordered. One last thing. Sam Bradford is a gifted athlete. And he is not a little guy. If he could do some running, that might make the offense even more unpredictable and, therefore, explosive. Would he even if he could? Will the coaches try to protect him? Should they?”
Yes, the coaches should try to protect Bradford. If they put some quarterback-run game into the playbook, they’ve lost their minds. Bradford is an OK runner, but nothing special. Nothing that would make you think he could get you six yards on 3rd-and-5. The Sooners still will try to run the ball this year and almost surely will be successful. They might even overpower some foes. But line play isn’t as important as it once was, because there are other ways to attack defenses. Seems simple to me.
Mickey: “‘OU still likes to play smashmouth on occasional downs, which is why they still make room for Haystack Calhouns on the line.’ Great line, Berry. I didn’t realize you and your readership were that old.”
I’m still looking for old wrestling fans who remember the Medics and the Assassins.
Which golf major produces best champs?
I’m sitting here watching TNT’s coverage of the British Open — Breakfast at Turnberry — and thought about golf’s majors.
I love golf’s majors. Four tournaments a year that define greatness. These tournaments, golf culture has declared, are what matter most, and few debate that status. Win the Masters, or the U.S. Open, or the British, or the PGA, and you’re a made man. Forget money-winnings. Forget overall wins, at the John Deere Classic or the Buick Open. The majors matter most.
Debating the majors themselves is great fun. Which is most prestigious? Which format is best? Which is preferred, a single-course major like the Masters at Augusta National, a limited-courses rotation like the British or a much-bigger pool of courses like those used in the U.S. Open and PGA?
One of the arguments for the Masters over the years has been its list of champions, the idea that Augusta produces a better caliber of champ than the other majors. When you see a Lucas Glover win the U.S. Open and Shaun Micheel win the PGA, you can appreciate such sentiment.
But is it true? I decided to run a study. Make a list of all the one-time major winners. I figure no one can question your legitimacy of a two-time major winner. You win two majors, it wasn’t a fluke. But a one-timer? Maybe he got hot. Maybe rode a sizzling putter or funky conditions or opponents who fell apart and found himself with a trophy that’s really not indicative of his championship abilities.
Which major has produced the most, and the fewest, one-time major champ? It’s not a fool-proof system. There’s a huge difference in one-time major champs. Tom Kite and Tom Weiskopf each won only one major, but they hardly were in the same class of player as Todd Hamilton and Zach Johnson. Call it the Jeff Sluman Factor, in honor of the 1988 PGA winner at Oak Tree. Sluman won the Oklahoma City metro’s only major ever. He wasn’t a fluke player; Sluman won five other PGA Tour events, finished second in a U.S. Open and tied for fourth in a Masters. But he wasn’t a dominant player. If Jeff Sluman wins your major, it doesn’t enhance your status.
Anyway, I ran the numbers and cut it off at 1960. The concept of the majors really started about then, when Arnold Palmer started playing in the British Open and connected golf on both sides of the Atlantic. But that’s basically 50 years of majors; 50 years for the Masters and U.S. Open, 49 years for the British and PGA.
I figured the Masters indeed would carry the day. The Masters has a significantly smaller field than the other three majors, which by definition means it’s easier to win. Golf is a parity-driven game. Whereas Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal are overwhelming favorites to reach the finals of a tennis major, Tiger Woods is less than a one-in-three pick in most majors. Too much competition. Too many players of similar ability.
And indeed the Masters leads our list. But it’s close. Very close.
The Masters has 12 single-major champs. But the U.S. Open has only 13, Glover being the latest. So they were tied until the rain softened up Bethpage Black in June. And the British has just 14. So those three majors are very close.
Only the PGA is separated, with 19 single-major champs. The PGA long has had the distinction of being the least of the majors, and this certainly shows that.
Anyway, here is the list of all the single-major winners.
Masters: Trevor Immelman, Zach Johnson, Mike Weir, Fred Couples, Ian Woosnam, Larry Mize, Craig Stadler, Tommy Aaron, Charles Coody, George Archer, Bob Goalby and Gay Brewer.
U.S. Open: Lucas Glover, Geoff Ogilvy, Michael Campbell, Jim Furyk, Steve Jones, Corey Pavin, Tom Kite, Scott Simpson, Jerry Pate, Lou Graham, Orville Moody, Ken Venturi and Gene Littler.
British Open: Todd Hamilton, Ben Curtis, David Duval, Paul Lawrie, Justin Leonard, Tom Lehman, Ian Baker-Finch, Mark Calcavecchia, Bill Rogers, Tom Weiskopf, Robert DeVicenzo, Tony Lema, Bob Charles and Kel Nagle.
PGA: Shaun Micheel, Rich Beem, David Toms, Davis Love III, Mark Brooks, Steve Elkington, Paul Azinger, Wayne Grady, Jeff Sluman, Bob Tway, Hal Sutton, John Mahaffey, Lanny Wadkins, Don January, Al Geiberger, Dave Marr, Bobby Nichols, Jerry Barber and Jay Hebert.
If you back to the ’50s, the British drops back and the PGA stays back, with the Masters and U.S. Open still sporting champs that won other majors. But 1960 is a solid place to start, which shows that the Masters, U.S. Open and British Open all produce about the same quality of champion.
Sorry, Utah: BCS doesn’t break anti-trust laws
After I wrote last week about the BCS, the Mountain West Conference and the U.S. Senate committee hearings, I heard from an old friend. Kent Meyers is an Oklahoma City attorney who you probably know best as co-host, along with OKC mayor Mick Cornett, of “The Verdict,” a weekly topical talk show.
I’ve been on the show with Kent and Mick a few times, and Kent said he’d be available to chat if I needed a little light on the anti-trust elements of the whole BCS case.
We talked Wednesday, and it was very educational. First, Meyers’ credentials. He tried his first anti-trust case in 1972 and has done virtually nothing else since in the field of law. “It’s kind of where I live,” Meyers said. He teaches anti-trust law for all three of the state’s law schools (OU, OCU, Tulsa U.) Meyers worked the anti-trust aspects of the OU-Georgia lawsuit against the NCAA in the early 1980s, which opened the doors for schools to control their own television destiny.
Meyers said he has read the transcripts from the Senate hearings last week, which included attorneys from both sides, Nebraska chancellor Harvey Perlman for the BCS and Utah president Michael Young for the Mountain West, which is asking for the BCS to turn into a full-fledged playoff.
Meyers wants to make it clear he has no dog in the fight. “I don’t care whether we have a playoff or not,” Meyers said. He is a college football fan but not hard-core. Meyers, for instance, admits to not knowing such details as how many automatic-qualifying conferences are in the BCS (”five or six,” he said). His contribution to this discussion is strictly related to the anti-trust laws, which is why the Senate convened. Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch claimed anti-trust laws are being broken by the BCS, when the mid-majors are given secondary status in the structure that determines major bowl assignments in college football.
OK. So what does Meyers say? The BCS does not violate anti-trust laws. Doesn’t even come close.
Meyers gave me a quick lesson on anti-trust law, which admittedly is elementary, considering what he tried to teach me in 15 minutes he teaches students over a full semester. But it comes down to this simple concept: anti-trust laws protect the consumer, not the competitor.
Did you grasp that? I didn’t know it until I talked to Meyers. I figured Holiday Inn could sue Marriott for anti-trust violations, if Marriott practices were harming Holiday Inn. But no. Only if tourists and businesspeople and travelers were harmed by Marriott practices.
So the BCS is in violation of anti-trust laws NOT if the University of Utah or the Mountain West feels slighted. It is in violation of anti-trust laws if college football fans in general are being economically injured.
We know the answer to that. In college football, attendance has gone up. Stadium expansion has gone up. The number of games has gone up. Advertising revenue has gone up. Cost per spot of the advertising revenue has gone DOWN, which is another good thing for consumers. The number of bowl games has gone up.
Where is the economic injury to the consumer? It does not exist. Anti-trust laws have not been violated. “The guy representing Utah does not know what he’s talking about,” Meyers said. “There’s nothing wrong with a group of conferences or teams getting together where agreement is needed to have the product.”
Again, Meyers reiterates the anti-trust bedrock: “Anti-trust laws protect economic competition but do not protect competitors.” He offers an example. He and I both offer to sell the same product to The Oklahoma Publishing Company. OPUBCO decides to buy my product and not his. I’ve won, he’s lost. “There’s always going to winners and losers,” Meyers said. “What we’ve done is carry out the competitive system as it’s supposed to work.”
The key on the BCS, Meyers said, is to look at the BCS and see if it’s more pro-economic competitive, not withstanding individual competitors. “If this case got filed, (the question would be) has the BCS had more pro-competitive benefits than anti-competitive benefits … How has the BCS affected the product of college football and how has the BCS affected the output of college football?”
Meyers said he sees no anti-competition elements to the BCS. Some say, for instance, that Utah would have made more money without BCS restrictions. “How do we know that?” Meyers asked. In truth, the “better-off” argument — that the mid-majors are much better off with the BCS than before it — which so angers fans is absolutely relevant in anti-trust discussions.
Meyers offers another example. Say Oklahoma City wants a National Hockey League franchise. It goes to the NHL and asks to be admitted. Does the league have to admit OKC? “Hell no,” Meyers said. “The NHL has the right to add who it wants to.”
Meyers said the fact that the mid-majors are in the NCAA’s Bowl Subdivision along with the power conferences is irrelevant. The BCS is not an NCAA venture.
Meyers calls anti-trust laws the “Mills Lane” of the marketplace. Lane refereed the Mike Tyson-Evander Holyfield fight in which Tyson bit Holyfield’s ear. A referee steps in when there’s cheating going on, as Lane did to eject Tyson. Anti-trust laws stand on the sidelines and don’t enter the fray, Meyers said, until there’s cheating going on that harms the American consumer.
“This is a far cry from Tyson biting off Holyfield’s ear,” Meyers said. “They’re putting out a product the consumer clearly loves.”
Bottom line: anti-trust laws protect Joe Six-Pack, not the University of Utah.
The Mountain West and the Utes and Orrin Hatch might have an argument and might have a case and might have an army of vocal college football fans cheering them on. They do not have anti-trust laws on their side.
How big is OSU-Georgia?
OSU athletic director Mike Holder caught my attention with this quote he gave our gal Andrea Cohen last week:
“I’m expecting a great season. Nine wins last year. Probably the biggest non-conference game in the history of OSU football against Georgia. That game’s gonna set the tone, I think, for the rest of the football season. If we can pull out a win there, I think anything’s possible. I think we could contend for a conference championship if we didn’t win that game, but it opens up a whole new spectrum of opportunities if we can win that game.”
Virtually everything Holder said is true, with the possible exception of the historical status of the Georgia game. “Probably” the biggest non-conference game in OSU history, Holder said. But is it?
Of course, everything seems bigger in the 21st century. More hype. More spotlight. More fans. More media. More everything.
And OSU-Georgia is huge. A traditional SEC power, coming to Stillwater to play a Cowboy team with what surely will be the highest preseason ranking in school history.
I figure OSU will be ranked around 10-12, while Georgia will be in that neighborhood, perhaps a little lower. And here’s a stunner for you: only twice in history has OSU played a non-conference game (not counting bowls) matching two ranked teams.
In 1985, a season opener, No. 16 OSU went to No. 12 Washington and won 31-17 in Seattle.
In 1958, on Thanksgiving Saturday, the No. 17 Cowboys hosted No. 5 Oklahoma. OU won 7-0. That’s right, Bedlam. OSU-OU wasn’t a conference game until 1960. When the Cowboys rode high in the ’40s, OU was down. When Bud Wilkinson ruled the ’50s, OSU was down. But 1958 was different; Cliff Speegle’s Cowboys entered that game 7-2, while the Sooners entered 8-1.
Strange, but all those OSU-Arkansas games, including the donnybrooks of the 1970s, never matched top-20 teams. The schools played 28 times from 1950 through 1980, all but thrice in Little Rock. The Razorbacks were ranked in 1960, 1963, 1965, 1966, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1978, 1979 and 1980. The Cowboys were ranked in 1973 and 1977.
Of course, rankings don’t always determine huge games. Take 1974, an amazingly entertaining year for OSU football. The Cowboys opened with a 59-0 thrashing of Wichita State, then embarked on a three-game swing of Southwest Conference foes. OSU beat 10th-ranked Arkansas 26-7, rose to No. 12 in the poll and lost 31-14 at Baylor. The Cowboys fell out of the rankings and went to No. 10 Texas Tech, where OSU lost 14-13.
Another game of note was the 1984 season opener, when Pat Jones’ era debuted with a 45-3 thumping of No. 12 Arizona State, though the Cowboys were unranked.
Anyway, here’s my list of the five biggest non-conference games in OSU history:
5. 1974 Arkansas: The week before, the Razorbacks had pinned a 22-7 thrashing on Southern Cal. So this was a chance for the Cowboys to make a big name for themselves — and they did it, by dominating Arkansas.
4. 1984 Arizona State: New coach, lots of optimism, a season opener against a team picked No. 1 by Sports Illustrated. Then a 45-3 blowout victory to boot. In terms of non-conference import AFTER the fact, this one ranks No. 1.
3. 1985 Washington: The Cowboys made a statement with the rout at Arizona State, and this gave OSU a chance to do it all over again, against a school coming off an Orange Bowl victory over OU.
2. 2009 Georgia: Of all the big non-conference games in OSU history, this is by far the biggest in Stillwater. The Cowboys made a habit of going to Arkansas virtually every year, and the big showdowns with Washington and Arizona State were on the road, too.
1. 1958 Bedlam: Games late in the season generally are bigger than games early. The Cowboys, armed with a national ranking and a good team, had a chance to create great momentum for the eventual move into the Big Eight Conference.
Triple crown or .400? Which will come first
The All-Star break seems as good a time as any to debate which will come first in baseball: another .400 hitter or another triple crown winner?
I staged a survey on the radio Monday, and 20 callers checked in. The triple crown carried the vote 12-8, but I’m surprised it was that close. To me, the triple crown is much more attainable than is a .400 season.
The Twins’ Joe Mauer leads the majors with a .373 average, but Mauer, as great as he is, doesn’t seem like a prime candidate. He’s a career .323 hitter, though at 26 he’s just hitting his prime.
No ballplayer has reached .400 since Ted Williams in 1941. In recent decades, a few hitters have taken their stab at .400. George Brett batted .390 in 1980. Rod Carew hit .388 in 1977. Larry Walker hit .379 in 1999. Tony Gwynn was batting .394 in 1994 when the season stopped and never restarted.
But here’s another way to look at it. Wade Boggs, a simply wonderful batsman, never batted higher than .368. So asking any current player to reach .400 is a tall order, considering batting averages haven’t spiked the way power numbers have in the last 20 years.
In this homer-crazy era, strikeouts also have gone through the roof. Even a skilled hitter like Mauer has his share. He averages about 55 whiffs a season and a little fewer than 500 at-bats. So let’s say over 480 at-bats, with 55 strikeouts, Mauer would have to hit .452 when making contact to reach .400 overall. Think about that for a moment.
Meanwhile, triple crowns have become rare. We had five in 26 years, 1942 through 1967. Ted Williams in ‘42 and ‘47, Mickey Mantle in ‘56, Frank Robinson in ‘66 and Carl Yastzremski in ‘67. Baseball’s triple crown had become like horse racing’s triple crown; not common, but not rare.
But now we’ve gone 42 years since Yaz.
Yet Albert Pujols remains a solid contender. He leads the National League in home runs (32) and runs batted in (87) and is fourth in hitting, at .332. Florida’s Hanley Ramirez leads at .349. It’s still a long shot for Pujols, but it’s not crazy talk to think Pujols could win the NL batting title and stay atop the home run and RBI list.
Here’s a stat that will make you think differently of Pujols. Guys most mentioned as .400 contenders are Ichiro Suzuki and Mauer. Ichiro’s career batting is .332. Mauer’s is .323. Pujols’ is .334.
Pujols is the best hitter in the game today, not even counting his power. He’s also the best power hitter. That’s a prime recipe for a triple crown winner.
Sooners lead in returning Heisman winners
Sam Bradford is back in an Oklahoma uniform after his Heisman Trophy-winning season of 2008. Sammy B’s the 11th player to return to college football after winning the Heisman. And OU has supplied three of those players: Billy Sims, Jason White and Bradford.
The only school with more than one returning Heisman winner in its history is Ohio State, which had Vic Janowicz in 1950 and Archie Griffin in 1975. Griffin, of course, became the only two-time Heisman winner.
Generally, returning Heisman winners fare very well in their encore seasons. Griffin won, Sims placed second to USC’s Charles White in 1979 and SMU’s Doak Walker (1949), Brigham Young’s Ty Detmer (1991), White (2004), USC’s Matt Leinart (2005) and Florida’s Tim Tebow (2008) all placed third. Army’s Doc Blanchard was fourth in 1946.
The only non-factors were Janowicz in 1951 and Navy’s Roger Staubach in 1964.
Emails in on BCS, Blazers & steroids
The new emails are in, and lots of talk about the BCS, the Blazers and steroids. Let’s get to the BCS and my support for it.
Chad: “The BCS system should provide a real quagmire now that Congress has waded in. Not even Congress will probably have the weight to move it one way or another. But there is a precedent in Teddy Roosevelt for the hearings one supposes. I thought the BCS did a pretty good job up to this point in putting the right teams together. And even Utah didn’t suffer the humiliation of Arizona State years ago when it went undefeated, beating Nebraska in the Fiesta Bowl, and was not considered the national champion. What I would like to see Congress do is to nullify the BCS decision to allow cable television to handle every single one of the games we want to see. Put it back on the public airwaves and forbid it to leave. There’s a recession going on, and if this economic situation keeps up, who’s gonna see the darn game anyhow? Even sports has gone to the special interest groups.”
Teddy Roosevelt did indeed step in on college football rough-housing more than a century ago. But Chad raises a better question that the BCS. Could the economy cause the public to pull the plug on some of its sports enterprises? So far, no, judging by ticket sales. But if times get tougher, the least of anyone’s problems is going to be the post-season.
Coltan: “Get over it. OU was closer to the ‘05 Holiday Bowl team in their ‘06 Big 12 championship season than they were to a national championship contender. A decent OU team got lucky, won the Big 12 and barely got beat by the greatest Boise State team in its history. OU will be contending for mythical national championships long after Boise State has faded from the college football scene. Let it go. There is no reason to hold animosity toward non-BCS teams. As for your reasoning. Do you guys that support the BCS ever listen to your arguments? The Jim Crow laws are the best because they are better than slavery? The BCS is awesome because it’s not the old bowl system? Really? Officer, I beat my wife less than I used to, doesn’t that make it OK? Oh, and the old system allowed an Independent nobody (Miami) to win a national championship and become a college football power in only five years. How? By winning. The new system eliminates success like that.”
This whole thing reminds me of a M*A*S*H episode, when Col. Blake brought home a pretty young thing he met in Seoul. Said he was in love. Hawkeye and Trapper proceeded to remind him about his wife. But anyway, Henry is ga-ga over this girl, yet while Henry is in surgery, the girl comes on to Hawkeye and he utters the immoral line: “One of us loves Henry Blake, and I think it’s me.” Well, listening to all these playoff junkies makes me say: One of us loves the mid-majors, and I think it’s me. The mid-majors would be shut out of a playoff system. They shouldn’t be; I actually advocate an 11-team playoff, with each league’s champion admitted. But we won’t get that. We’ll get an 8- or 16-team playoffs. In an 8-teamer, the mid-majors won’t get a sniff. In a 16-teamer, a couple will get to play and will get a road game at Florida or USC or somewhere, where they have no chance to win. Within five years, the mid-majors will look back longingly on the days when they had the chance at a fair fight.
Bruce: “If the BCS is illegal, then I guess the SEC, Big Ten and ACC are as well. With all the grandstanding by Congress in the BCS mess, the only thing that may even be slightly illegal and under the purvey of Congress is the claim by the BCS or any of its members or sponsors as it being the national championship, which I don’t ever recall seeing. They call it the BCS National Championship Game, which it most certainly is. But they would probably be best served by calling it the BCS Championship Game. The BCS is basically a super conference comprised of six conferences, the television networks and the major bowl games whose goal is to match the two highest ranked teams based on a predetermined criteria. Anything that the BCS-affiliated conferences give to teams outside the six including a guaranteed spot for an non-BCS team, provided it meets certain criteria, seems like a favor and completely unnecessary. For the feds to come in and make some determination otherwise (by legislation, executive action or through the courts) is seriously out of bounds. Now is the BCS totally fair to all Division I-A teams? No, but it’s also not totally fair that if I open up a convenience store that I don’t get the same wholesale price for a case of Doritos that Wal-Mart does. Size, power and reputation do matter, and if it didn’t then the Sun Belt would have the same television contract as the SEC.”
Bruce actually has arrived at the crux of the problem. Division I-A football is unwieldy. Too many schools. Too many dissimilar programs. Kent State should not be in a division with Ohio State. Louisiana-Lafayette should not be in a division with LSU. It would be like baseball’s Montgomery Biscuits playing in the American League. Or the Shreveport Mudbugs playing in the NHL. And don’t give me college basketball. College basketball has 340 teams in Division I, but that’s a smokescreen. There are sub-divisions in Division I, playing entirely different games. The lower schools serve as fodder for the big schools and help fill out the immensely popular 64-team bracket, with no reasonable hope of success. Sometimes it does happen. Davidson to the elite eight. George Mason to the Final Four. And sometimes Boise State wins the Fiesta Bowl and Utah the Sugar Bowl.
Rich: “You make an interesting case that the Mountain West is biting the hand that feeds it. I don’t know that I agree entirely, but then again, I’ve always been a big fan of Rocky Balboa. I hate Wal-Mart, and I think Bill Gates sold his soul in exchange for the strokes of fate that brought about his empire. I’d be curious to know your thoughts on the bowl system and how it could fit within a redesigned BCS playoff system. Why couldn’t that work better than what currently exists? Why wouldn’t it produce more revenue for all schools involved while maintaining the integrity of the regular season? I guess I’m just too much new school, because I think the existing system just stinks and needs to evolve into a playoff just like every other sport out there.”
I think there are all kinds of viable playoff plans. The problem is, the major schools don’t want them. The presidents, the athletic directors, the coaches. They like it the way it is. Every other sport out there has a playoff, administered by the NCAA, which would do the same for an expanded playoff. And then the money goes to the NCAA, which will dole it out to schools. Uh-oh.
Richard: “You said that in the 54 seasons before 2004, four mid-majors made BCS bowls or the high-paying, New Year’s Day bowls that eventually formed the BCS: Air Force in the 1959 Cotton and 1971 Sugar, Wyoming in the 1968 Sugar and Louisville in the 1991 Fiesta. However, BYU played in the Fiesta Bowl in 1974.”
True enough, except the Fiesta Bowl in 1974 was not a major bowl. The Fiesta entered major status, I would say, with the 1986 season, when Penn State and Miami played for the national title.
Tim: I know I am stretching an analogy about sports (the BCS) to the breaking point when I talk about serious history, but I want you to see how ridiculous your argument looks to the other side. In the early days of the Industrial Revolution, the factory owners rationalized horrendous working conditions and child labor by saying that the workers had it better than they would on the farms. I mean, they chose to work in the factories didn’t they? I am sure the Russian nobility rationalized that their serfs were mostly happy and that they were better off with the noble’s paternal oversight. I am sure that plantation owners in the Antebellum South told themselves that their slaves were better off in their fields than they would be in the jungles of Africa. A generation or two latter, the descendents of those plantation owners probably said Jim Crow laws were fine because it was an improvement on the days of slavery. As if the only alternative to Jim Crow was slavery. The fact that some members of the side that have benefited from a corrupt and biased system have managed to convince themselves that they are doing a favor for those they oppress is NOT a convincing argument, not convincing at all. In short, the fact that supporters of the BCS, especially supporters of the three conferences (Big 12, Big Ten & SEC) that have made out like bandits, have lied to themselves well enough to believe that they deserve their privileged place in a un-American and unjust system, does not make the system any less shameful. Besides the argument that the BCS system has been relatively good for the excluded programs is hogwash and not born out by a simple analysis.”
I love history. I was a history major. And you’re right; you stretched the analogy to the breaking point. Here’s the truth that people don’t really like to talk about. College football is controlled by those six major conferences, excluding the little guy, no doubt about it. But the door is not closed to the little guy. If a school really wants to play big-time football, it can get there. Arizona State, Arizona, Louisville, Cincinnati, all were mid-majors not that long ago. Outside the circle. What did those schools do? Built up their programs, invested, worked hard and were invited in. That’s the American way. If Brigham Young wants in a BCS league, it can be before sundown. If East Carolina or Boise State wants elevation, it’s possible, with a serious financial commitment. In fact, before the Fiesta Bowl, I wrote that if Boise State won, it would be in the Pac-10 within 10 years. I don’t think that’s crazy talk. I still think it’s possible. College football doesn’t live under Jim Crow laws. It lives under the laws of economic realities.
Nils: “So by now your mailbox is filling up with angry emails. Let me add mine. Life is not fair? Tell Mizzou fans that after the 1990 Colorado game. However, when good schools won’t play you because you are too good but the BCS won’t rank you highly because you don’t play good enough teams. What is Utah to do? Or Boise State for that matter, but Oklahoma fans must still be stewing over that one. What this really boils down to is ‘more money for us’ and less money for non-BCS teams.”
You’re exactly right. This is a money deal. And it’s a scheduling deal. The plight you described is exactly what the Mountain West (and others) face. But it’s not corrected by a post-season, for crying out loud. That would only exacerbate the problem. You think the big boys cower now, wait until you have a 16-team playoff. You won’t see a decent game the entire month of September.
Jason: “First, let me state that Congress should not be wasting time on college football. I think Hatch is being a typical politician just looking for votes in the next election. Enough on that, now on to the school, coaches, players and fans. I think Utah looks around and sees Fresno State with a national championship in baseball. They see George Mason earning its way to a Final Four. I think they look at their main rival displaying that joke of a national title from 1984. The BCS has given some sweet to the mid-majors, but not without some sour. Florida wins the national title with maybe their biggest win coming against Alabama. At least it was until Utah dominated that same Alabama team in SEC country. What if? They couldn’t have beat Florida anyway, they’re too good. Before the Sugar Bowl game, Alabama was too good too. The BCS has given more money and opportunity to these teams than ever before, but if you’re a competitor, what do you want more than money or a bowl trip? I think you want a chance to compete for a championship. I’m sure they look at that Sugar Bowl trophy with great pride, but I imagine it is accompanied with a thought of, what if?”
You know what would be a good survey. Talk to Division I-AA players, from Appalachian State or Georgia Southern or wherever, and ask them which they prefer. A 16-team playoff, in which they play home games or fly or bus to road games and turn around and go home, with a national title game in Chattanooga or some such place. Or would they prefer a bowl system. Would they like to go play a relatively-meaningless game in Tampa or San Antonio or San Diego and spent 4-5 days practicing but otherwise taking a vacation. I don’t think the playoff junkies want to know the answer.
Martin: “Great article on the BCS. Couldn’t agree with you more. As much as I love college football, I side with the presidents. These are college students after all. The season is long enough. The BCS works well, warts and all.”
The academic issue is a red herring. A playoff would not encroach on academics. But the length of the season is a real issue for players. It’s already 6-7 months, counting the virtually-mandatory summer workouts. Now you want to either add in a big chunk of December or a big chunk of January? Don’t buy the talk that players all want a playoff. What they’d really like is some free time.
Craig: “I loved the old way because OU won more championships. They didn’t have to necessarily beat the No. 1 team or the beast team to be No. 1. I’d rather win a title from the back door (1975) than lose head on (2003, 2004, 2008). It definitely made New Year’s Day more anticipated and eventful. It gave the No. 3 through No. 8 teams a shot and an argument for being No. 1 after the bowls were played out. However, don’t know if it could match the excitement in today’s college football as it wouldn’t be much different than many college football weekends as almost every meaningful regular season game is televised and so many weekends are drama filled and argued over in determining No. 1 and 2.
I hated the old way. In fact, all the current BCS complainers, I sort of feel their pain, because that’s how I felt about the old days. I like the current system because we have a championship game. All we’re really arguing about today is how to get to that title game. The way I see it, as long as we have a game, that’s all that matters.
OK, enough BCS. Don wrote about Jack Mitchell: “I was delighted to read your blog about Mitchell and the split-T. Your research into the origin of the option was remarkable. I had not known that the option pitch had prior to Mitchell been pre-determined and that Mitchell actually ‘read’ it. Good stuff. I saw Wilkinson’s teams play Faurot’s several times, and I had always wondered what the fuss was about Faurot’s split-T: pedestrian and unimaginative. One of the things other than the option which made the split-T so hard to stop was the dive/slant tandem. The splits were wide so that Wilkinson’s small quick linemen merely had to occupy briefly the opposing d-lineman/linebackers. They did this with a swift hard first blow. I saw Gomer demonstrate this with his linemen at a football clinic back in 1962. The halfbacks would find the crease quickly, then peel pack against the grain searching for the long gain. But really, what made the split-T devastating was the fullback slant. The fullback would shave off the halfback’s rump sharply to the outside, between the tackle and end. Usually, the defense could not see this coming, as the halfback shielded the handoff to the fullback. This, of course, set up the option, as the fullback was already in a position to block outside. You will notice that Wilkinson almost always had a great fullback. Leon Heath, Buck McPhail, Billy Pricer, Prentice Gautt, Jim Grisham. I’ve always wondered why more teams even today don’t run the split-T. In my experience, it is actually more difficult to stop than the wishbone and it offers four quick receivers for the short passing game.”
I’m not sure modern fans realize how much Oklahomans embraced the split-T. Much the same way that 20 years later the wishbone became the coolest thing ever. It was the identity of Sooner football.
Mike wrote about my column saying fans don’t really care about steroids: “I’m a consultant who travels coast to coast. As is my nature, I strike up conversations in airports, the business office, restaurants, etc. I’ve met coaches, athletes, former minor league and major league players, fathers, uncles, cousins and so on. What I’ve come to learn is that most men who are fans and are over 40 consider illegal steroid/HGH users cheaters and those players should not be voted into the Hall of Fame or, at least, some stigma should be attached to the player’s stats (kind of supports your hard-core fan stance). Most men 40 and under believe that all athletes use steroids/HGH so what’s the big deal? Without the conscience of the sports media, the younger fans will continue to not care, in my humble opinion. This is probably the strategy that MLB has embraced and the sports media has complied with — right or wrong. As one of those over-40, hard-core fans I abhor illegal steroid/HGH users and feel their stats are tainted enough to be ineligible for the Hall of Fame, consideration/historical comparison. I’d have Roger Maris and Hank Aaron still atop the home run categories with footnotes saying Barry Bonds exceeded their numbers but his numbers were attained using illegal steroids. I think that’s pretty fair. He’s in the books but doesn’t get the records. To those who feel that pro sports are entertainment, then let’s give those athletes Emmys and Oscars and establish a sports entertainment Hall of Fame. Use ESPN’s ESPY awards as the starting point.”
I think once you start categorizing the record book – most home runs without steroids, most home runs with steroids, most victories in the dead-ball era, etc. – you are inviting people to put it down and never pick it up. As for the ESPYs, I’d rather watch a C-SPAN book review show.
Clay: “You are right the fans don’t care if a player is cheating if it helps their team win. They even call it performance enhancing drugs. Baseball is no different than football, cycling or anything other sport. Don’t for a second think football players aren’t on growth hormone and/or testosterone. There was no outrage a few years ago when the entire Panther O-line was found to be using after their super bowl season.”
There is no outrage whatsoever in the NFL. Shawn Merriman was suspended four games for doping and was named the league defensive player of the year.
Jim: “Baseball purist like myself can, and I repeat can, separate stats and old records from what is taking place in the steroid era. And I am afraid that high school players will follow in the footsteps of the major leagues. I think they already do take body building chemicals right now in many cases. But what the major league players take or do, I could care less and let’s not waste any more money investigating this so-called scandal. I hate that some members of Congress get involved in commissions to control football playoffs and steroids.”
I don’t think separating the records is as easy as you say. We only have conjecture about some of the older modern players. And we have unknowns about the more recent players, like Pujols. Everyone is under suspicion. It’s a big mess. That’s why the easy answer for some of us is to just quit caring.
Now, on to the Blazers. Corbin: “The Blazers represented the CHL and what minor league sports are about. I knew when Brad left things were going the wrong way, as Funk Jr. has much bigger plans than the Blazers could fulfill. I hope that Lund comes back to manage the replacement team if that becomes a reality, though it won’t be the same. I remember going to Blazers games in my childhood. Being on the ice when the team won its first championship was one the best moments of my childhood.”
The unfortunate truth about minor league hockey is that it has a boom-and-bust element. Goes great guns, then slacks off. I think the Oklahoma City market is strong enough that minor league hockey always will be with us, but the glory days of the early Blazer years probably are gone.
Budd: “Good hockey story. We’ve been Blazer regulars for three years and usually need a magnifying glass and a seeing-eye dog to find a decent Blazer story. Have never seen a single mention by you until now, when it was time to write their obituary. At my age, 80 going on death, I don’t ever expect to see another hockey game at the Ford (Thunder) Center where I could sit in my wheelchair right up behind the Blazer bench at a reasonable price. Ah, well….there’s always deep sea diving.”
Hang in there, Budd. Sounds to me like you could outlive the next hockey franchise, too.
Eddie: “If you are wondering about the demise of the Blazers, as a hockey dad and fan I can give you several reasons. First is the level of play, They claim to be AA hockey, but anyone who follows hockey knows it is Class A hockey at best. The only true AA league is the ECHL. The vast majority of the players in the CHL have little or no chance of moving up. The ECHL has players moving up to the AHL and beyond. Players getting cut from the ECHL end up playing in the CHL. When the Blazers started in 1992, the talent was much better than it is now. Mike McEwen and Mark Berge were the coaches. They, along with the players, got involved in youth hockey and got a lot of kids playing , which in turn created more hockey families and fans. The support for youth hockey has not been there for a very long time, and I know for a fact that has turned a lot of people off. You talked about the attendance numbers, but I would be willing to bet those numbers are skewed , and for several recent years a great number of those tickets were given away. The demographic for the Blazers has changed dramatically in the past 10 years. The crowd they have now is just looking to see a fight, and that is usually what they get. If I want to see numerous fights I will buy a ticket to boxing or MMA. Just like many hockey fans that I know, I would not go to a Blazer game if you paid me. If OKC can get a AHL or even a ECHL team here, I will buy season tickets. As for now I will enjoy watching the OU and UCO hockey teams when the season rolls back around.
I can’t say that I’m disappointed with the Blazers folding, but I do hope those guys can find another place to play.”
Sorry, but I don’t buy that level of play. I know the Blazers are a good step below the AHL or even the ECHL, but you can’t tell me hockey novices in Oklahoma can tell a noticeable difference. Eddie, if you’re a transplant from Duluth, OK, I’m buying it. But otherwise, sorry.
Butch also wrote about the Blazers and brought up the interesting point about owner Bob Funk’s lawsuit with previous owner Horn Chen, on how much money the Blazers actually were worth: “Let me answer your questions. 1. If the Blazers don’t make financial sense in the Central Hockey League, how will they make it in the more-costly AHL? ‘Run it like a business and not a hobby. Don’t forget Bob Funk has been going through a divorce with his wife of 45 years. Business slows down, divorce…..the golden goose is not as perky as she once was. Shut down the dog and let Junior start fresh. It will be interesting to see what happens after the lawsuit and divorce are settled. 2. Why not just sell the Blazers? ‘If this lawsuit is going Funk’s way, then sell the team and move on. If it’s going Horn Chen’s way, don’t sign a lease, cut your losses, shut it down and give it back to the previous owner. Funk made some counter claims about the team that are going to scare off potential buyers. Junior confirmed some of that in his press release. If you think you were conned into buying the team and the judge isn’t going to see it your way, then close it down and say here’s your team back.’ 3. Is the city looking to squeeze out the lower-level CHL, as it tried to do nine years ago in favor of the International Hockey League? ‘From what I saw I don’t think the city is too concerned either way. They have the NBA. None of this really matters to the Funks either. If all things were equal and there was not a lawsuit and there was not an opportunity with the AHL, the Blazers would be here next year. Bob likes having his Express Personnel banners hanging up in the arena and he likes getting the free publicity that he gets. That’s been worth the expense.”
You know, that lawsuit is an interesting element we haven’t discussed. Funk says the franchise isn’t as profitable as he was led to believe. Horn Chen says it was. Funk tries to prove how unprofitable by shutting it down. Interesting. Very interesting.
