I am a football fan, and, at this time of the year, my weekends are typically spent with my TV tuned to football games, but I must admit that yesterday afternoon I periodically monitored ESPN's coverage of the WTA finals in Istanbul.
Reportedly, Wozniacki was ailing — and things might well have been different if she had been healthy. She lost to Kvitova in straight sets and managed to win only six games — not the kind of performance one would expect from the world's top–ranked player.
Anyway, Wozniacki secured the top spot in the WTA's ranking system when Maria Sharapova had to withdraw with an ankle injury. And then the Kvitova–Azarenka match was guaranteed to result in the #2 ranking for the winner. Azarenka, who was ranked fourth going into the match, moved up one spot to third and Sharapova dropped to fourth.
This brings me to the really compelling part — what will this mean when the first Grand Slam event of 2012, the Australian Open, commences in January?
Wozniacki made it to last year's semifinals in Australia. Kvitova fell in the quarterfinals, and Azarenka didn't make it out of her section. Neither did Sharapova.
I'm not really sure what significance that will have — if any — in Australia.
Kvitova, though, seems to have momentum on her side. She won Wimbledon, as I said before, and she won the WTA championship to wrap up the year. It is reasonable to conclude that she will be a force to reckon with in Melbourne.
I haven't been this intrigued by women's tennis since the Evert–Navratilova days.
It was a fair question, I suppose, given that Paterno was taking over a program that had been mediocre at best in the previous years.
He began his tenure with a victory over Maryland on Sept. 17, 1966. That win — or the one over Boston College a few weeks later — probably qualified as his signature win in that first season at the helm. All the teams the Nittany Lions faced who had winning records that year defeated Penn State.
The next year, though, after a 1–2 start, Paterno led the Nittany Lions to seven straight wins and a Liberty Bowl date with Florida State (the teams fought to a 17–17 tie).
And the next two seasons were even better for Paterno and his teams. Their record was 22–0, which meant that, entering the 1970 season, they had won 27 of their last 28 games — and might have won all 28 if college football had allowed overtime in those days.
They also won a couple of Orange Bowls in the late 1960s, but they didn't win a national championship.
For a long time, the national title seemed a prize Paterno would never grab. He instructed many great players. He had many great teams. He coached against (and often defeated) the best of his contemporaries — Bear Bryant, Darrell Royal, Woody Hayes, Barry Switzer, Tom Osborne — but he always seemed to come up just short when the national title was on the line.
That changed in 1982, and he won another national crown in 1986.
He's won more bowl games than any other coach in the history of college football.
And now, he's won more games — period.
Yesterday's 10–7 triumph over Illinois was sloppy, but, as Stewart Mandel points out in Sports Illustrated, it was "exactly the type of game Paterno enjoys most" — one in which defense and rushing play prominent roles.
So it was appropriate for the occasion. It was Paterno's 409th Division I victory.
The milestone, in which Paterno passed Eddie Robinson of Grambling, is largely symbolic, Mandel writes, which is a fair conclusion. The Illini appear to have peaked, having been in the rankings a few weeks ago but they've stumbled lately.
Penn State has sometimes been criticized for not playing the toughest of schedules, but Robinson rarely, if ever, faced the kind of programs that Paterno has faced, particularly since Penn State joined the Big Ten nearly two decades ago.
It did seem more important when he surprassed Bryant's victory total a decade ago. Bryant, after all, built his record by beating the likes of LSU and Auburn and Georgia every year — not Rutgers and Syracuse and Temple.
Nevertheless, as Mandel said, Paterno deserves our recognition and praise. "In a sport filled with misguided, misbehaved or flat–out devious individuals, JoePa remains our moral compass, as he has for more than five decades."
"Nothing that grieves us can be called little: by the eternal laws of proportion a child's loss of a doll and a king's loss of a crown are events of the same size."
Mark Twain
Traditionally, All Saints Day is observed by Christians on November 1 — but November 1 doesn't always fall on a Sunday so many churches observe All Saints Day on the Sunday before.
In some churches today, it will be noted that there have been fewer deaths in their congregations in the year just past than has been normal — and, in other churches, it will be noted that there have been more deaths than usual.
It is typically assumed — and deservedly so — that death refers to a physical death, but the grief that is brought on by a death can be the result of other losses that are near and dear to our hearts.
Consequently, I've been thinking a lot about Twain's comment in the aftermath of this year's World Series.
His statement applies to everything, really, but it seems particularly appropriate to those who follow sports teams. Defeat can truly feel like death, and the grief and pain people experience when their favorite teams lose can be as wrenching as losing a loved one. It may seem odd, even irreverent, to say that, but it is true.
I've written about this year's World Series a few times this week. I'm sure it will be the subject of many articles and books so I probably won't write about it again — at least, not for awhile. It was a truly remarkable series. Most of the people I have heard speak about it or who have written about it already have said it was the most exciting World Series in their memories.
It really was special — particularly in the cities most directly affected by the series, Dallas and St. Louis — but there were some excruciating moments, as there are bound to be when the participants are so evenly matched, that I am sure resonated with sports fans everywhere.
And, ultimately, even with all the praise for the series ringing in their ears, it was a painful experience for the people in Dallas. I've heard grown people say that they sobbed uncontrollably when the Rangers lost that sixth game the other night. Some said they didn't cry like that when their parents died.
It's a best–of–seven series, but, of course, it doesn't always go seven games. The first team to win four is the champion. If that's done in four games — or five or six — then it is over. No point in playing the rest. This one did go seven games, the first to do so in nearly 10 years.
This series had plenty of ebbs and flows, close games and historic performances. Understandably, I suppose, Ranger fans feel frustrated. They suffered through decades of losing only to finally reach the World Series for the first time last year — and lose in five games.
They took it well, though. They were even philosophical about it. Those Rangers, the Keystone Kops of baseball, had made it to a World Series. Why, that was a victory in itself!
They were closer than they have ever been — or ever will be, until they finally cross that threshold — to winning it all. But just being there, just being close enough to taste victory, wasn't enough for the fans this time.
Some Ranger fans have taken a kind of elitist no one can understand our pain attitude in the aftermath of their defeat.
It has reminded me of a time when I was a child, and my family would come to Dallas to visit my grandparents — and they would lament the misfortunes of the Dallas Cowboys, of whom it was being said they could not win the "big one."
The same thing seems to have occurred to Randy Galloway of the Fort Worth Star–Telegram, who observed that, even though the Rangers went down quickly in last year's World Series, they were treated like kings here during the offseason.
Last winter, the Rangers had arrived as a legitimate baseball team, not just a source of idle entertainment between football seasons, and they were, in Galloway's words, "given the warm and fuzzy treatment."
That was understandable, I guess, given that last year's Rangers had done something that no other Rangers team had ever done. But this time, Galloway writes, it "wasn't about just being back in the World Series. This was about winning the thing."
They returned as two–time failures to a city that was hungry beyond words for a baseball championship. It reminded me of Tom Landry and his Dallas Cowboys of the 1960s — good enough to make it to the NFL championship game but never quite good enough to get to the Super Bowl.
In "the long winter" that awaits them, Galloway writes, the Rangers can expect a less friendly, more demanding fan base. Expectations were raised — perhaps to unreasonable heights — when the Rangers returned to the World Series for the second straight year, and now they must deal with fans who are surly after losing for the second straight year.
Whether the fans here acknowledged it or not, there was a lot of pressure on these Rangers to produce. During the sixth game, I was monitoring the conversations on Facebook between my friends in both places, and the Rangers fans were already speculating about the details of their victory parade — before the Cardinals rallied twice and swung the momentum in their favor for good.
Perhaps the more religious among us will attach some greater significance to what happened, but if there is anything to be learned from that game, I suppose, it is that one shouldn't start taking victory laps until the game is won. Officially.
I guess that falls under the heading of "Monday morning quarterbacking," as one disappointed Rangers fan said to me on Friday, but it's a point that has been made time and time again throughout history.
It is no less painful for those who must learn that lesson anew.
That seems to be the best word to describe what unfolded last night at Busch Stadium in the sixth game of this year's World Series.
If you didn't see it, the bottom line is that St. Louis beat Texas, 10–9, to force tonight's Game 7. That's a much higher score than one ordinarily sees in any major league baseball game, even in the American League with its designated hitter rule.
But even the knowledge that 19 runs were scored doesn't fully do justice to how all those runs were scored — to the fact that the Cardinals were a single strike away from defeat — not once but twice — and came back to win.
In the last minutes of Thursday or the earliest minutes of Friday, the Cardinals officially overcame the Rangers with a walk–off home run and made tonight's Game 7 necessary.
Joe Strauss of the St. Louis Post–Dispatch wrote, fittingly, that it was a moment that was "too complex to fully understand but too compelling to ignore."
Those are the words from the winning side — and I'm sure Cardinals fans do feel that what they saw last night really was too complex to understand but impossible to ignore. Some may be inclined to attach some sort of religious significance to what happened.
As Bernie Miklasz writes in the Post–Dispatch, "Their strength never wanes. Their will to win never fades. Until the end, this proud and resilient team believed. They knew that somehow the dream would stay alive."
Has a biblical sound to it, doesn't it? You can almost hear him exhorting the faithful to open their hymnals.
Here in north Texas, the pain of defeat is everywhere this morning. Anyone who considers himself or herself to be a sports fan surely understands how the fans here feel. Everyone has had that feeling.
Not everyone claims to have spoken directly to God, though, but Texas' Josh Hamilton does, according to Eddie Sefko of the Dallas Morning News.
Hamilton, Sefko reports, says God told him he was going to hit a home run in the 10th inning of last night's game.
"He said, 'You haven't hit one in a while and this is the time you're going to,' " Hamilton said. "But there was a period at the end of that. He didn't say, 'You're going to hit it and you're going to win.' "
OK. It's really hard to know God's reason for speaking to Hamilton and telling him that he would hit a home run that, in the end, would not win the game for his team. The Lord apparently didn't share his reason with Hamilton, but I have to wonder why he would tell a player that he would hit a home run that would ultimately mean little to anyone except that player.
Why, for that matter, would he even bother to tell Hamilton that he's going to hit a home run? He doesn't seem inclined to share more important insights with those in a position to influence economies and global conflicts.
Guess he must know what he's doing, though. After all, people are always saying that he has a plan, which suggests there must be a reason for everything that happens — even when bad things happen that devastate lives while good things, like Hamilton's dinger, ultimately mean nothing to anyone except him.
Oh, well.
If the Rangers lose this series — and they're facing Chris Carpenter, who won Game 1 in St. Louis and got a no–decision in Game 5 in Arlington — they may be sorry they used Derek Holland in a relief role last night.
I think that is a decision the Rangers may well regret.
But, with the one–day delay, he would have been rested enough to pitch tonight. Instead, Texas manager Ron Washington chose to use him in a relief role last night, clearly in the hope that he could wrap things up in six, and stick with his original choice to start Game 7, Matt Harrison, if it went that far.
Strategically, it is hard for me to see why Harrison would be preferable over Holland — if it had been up to me, with Rangers leading the Series 3–2, I would have used Harrison in middle relief and save Holland for a potential — and, now, definite — Game 7.
The Cardinals haven't proved they can hit Holland. But they have proved they can hit Harrison.
Meanwhile, the Rangers have had problems with Carpenter.
I think it will be a good game, a low–scoring game, and I think the Cardinals will win it.
I suspect that the thoughts of most college football fans this weekend will be on the LSU–Alabama showdown that is coming up next weekend.
And, in the aftermath of Oklahoma's loss to Texas Tech last week, talk has even surfaced that LSU and Alabama might meet again for the national championship. But, in the spirit that has led previous weekends to be dubbed things like "Road Test Saturday," I think this weekend should be known as "Redemption Saturday" because so many teams can find at least a modicum of redemption in their games.
Just because they can find redemption in those games does not mean, of course, that they will. And that, I suppose, is what keeps us tuning in.
Rice at #18 Houston, 7 p.m. (Central) on FSN:"Home field advantage" really seems like a misnomer for this series.
I mean, both campuses are in the city of Houston so it is never much of a road trip for the visiting team — whichever team that happens to be.
The schools have been playing annually since 1999, and it's been a pretty even series — 7–5 in Houston's favor.
But I really can't see how this year's version can be close. I expect Houston to win by a margin in double digits.
Saturday
Baylor at #3 Oklahoma State, 2:30 p.m. (Central) on ABC: Baylor has lost five in a row to Oklahoma State and hasn't won at Stillwater since 1939.
There haven't been many times when OSU has been ranked higher than its in–state rival from Norman, especially when OU has a team that is clearly talented and may well be better than OSU. That question will be answered when the teams play in early December.
In the meantime, the Cowboys can be forgiven for enjoying their present position ahead of OU in the national food chain. And my guess is they will be extremely hesitant to yield it — even though the Bears, who opened the season strongly but stumbled in recent weeks, have some redemption of their own in mind.
The Bears might find some redemption against other teams on their remaining schedule, but I don't think they will find any in Stillwater. Oklahoma State should prevail.
#4 Stanford at #20 USC, 7 p.m. (Central) on ABC: In the last 20 years, this series has been about as close as it can be, with USC winning 11 times and Stanford winning nine.
In recent years, it has tilted to Stanford. The Cardinal have won the last two meetings and have only lost at USC twice since 1999.
History, rankings and general statistics all suggest this game will be won by Stanford — and so do I — but I think the final margin might be closer than a lot of people think.
#6 Clemson at Georgia Tech, 7 p.m. (Central) on ABC: If Saturday truly is a day of possible redemption, Georgia Tech must certainly be near the top of the list.
The Yellow Jackets were 6–0, but consecutive losses to Virginia and Miami (Florida) knocked them out of the Top 25.
Now, Clemson is coming to town — where Tech is 53–22 overall since 2000 and 7–3 against Clemson in the last two decades.
It won't be an easy game for the Tigers. In fact, I'm going to predict that Georgia Tech will win in an upset.
Washington State at #7 Oregon, 2 p.m. (Central) on FSN: Since 1991, Oregon is 14–6 against Washington State.
And, frankly, there is no reason for anyone to think that Washington State is capable of winning this time.
What baffles me is why anyone — other than Oregon fans — would want to spend time watching this game when there are so many more intriguing options.
#8 Arkansas at Vanderbilt, 11:21 a.m. (Central) on SEC Network: This is only the sixth time these teams have played since becoming conference rivals in 1992.
Arkansas is 4–1 against Vandy in those previous encounters — with the only setback coming in Fayetteville. The teams played three times before becoming members of the same conference, and Arkansas won two of those games. The loss came in Little Rock.
So, since 1949, Arkansas is 6–2 against Vanderbilt overall — and 3–0 in Nashville — and I'm not inclined to think the Commodores are going to end their skid. They may be 4–3 so far, but their only SEC win has come against Ole Miss. The Razorbacks might struggle if they don't remain focused, but I think Arkansas should win by a couple of touchdowns.
#9 Michigan State at #13 Nebraska, 11 a.m. (Central) on ESPN: Michigan State's victory over Wisconsin must have been intoxicating for the Spartans, but they should not be too carried away.
Their record against Nebraska is not extensive — only three games, including the 2003 Alamo Bowl — but they are still looking for their first win over the Cornhuskers.
Being at home might help, but, in the end, I expect Nebraska to wear down the Spartans — and that would be true wherever the game was being played.
#11 Oklahoma at #10 Kansas State, 2:30 p.m. (Central) on ESPN: Oklahoma certainly will be seeking at least a measure of redemption after losing at home to Texas Tech last week.
Kansas State seems like a good place for the Sooners to start seeking redemption, too. They've won more than three–quarters of their games with the Wildcats and, even though they have been more successful in Norman than Manhattan, in the long run, it really doesn't matter. Oklahoma has won its last six regular–season games with KSU.
And I believe the streak will continue. Oklahoma by 10.
#12 Wisconsin at Ohio State, 7 p.m. (Central) on ESPN: Wisconsin, most assuredly, will be seeking redemption after losing to Michigan State on a truly weird play, but history does not suggest that Columbus, Ohio, is the place for the Badgers to find it.
Wisconsin will be playing its 39th game in Columbus and will be seeking only its eighth win.
That knowledge might encourage some Ohio State fans. It might even motivate some of the Buckeye players. But the truth is that this is not the most talented team Ohio State has fielded in recent years — not even close, really — and emotion can only carry a team so far.
In the end, I think that Wisconsin will win — but Ohio State will hold the margin to single digits.
#14 South Carolina at Tennessee, 6:15 p.m. (Central) on ESPN2: Historically, Knoxville is not the place a South Carolina team wants to play, whether it is seeking redemption or not.
The Gamecocks are 1–14 all time on Tennessee's field.
It's a tough choice for me, but I'll stick with Tennessee at home.
#15 Virginia Tech at Duke, 11:30 a.m. (Central) on ABC: It might come as a surprise to you, but Duke actually has a slight edge over Virginia Tech in games that have been played in North Carolina.
But Tech has beaten Duke on the last four occasions that the Hokies visited the Blue Devils and hasn't lost to Duke since 1981.
I expect Virginia Tech to win by a couple of touchdowns.
Missouri at #16 Texas A&M, 11 a.m. (Central) on FX: Nearly two–thirds of the games between these schools have been played since they became conference rivals in the mid–1990s.
A&M won the first six games, but Missouri has won four of the last five.
Missouri also was more highly regarded earlier in the season and might be seeking a measure of redemption of its own. If so, I don't think the Tigers will find it in College Station.
But I don't think it will be an easy win for the Aggies. Give me Texas A&M by six.
Purdue at #17 Michigan, 11 a.m. (Central) on ESPN2: I can't remember the last time Michigan was ranked this deep into the football season.
It was probably before Purdue's most recent victory in Ann Arbor, which was in 2009.
That's a little misleading, though. Before that win in 2009, Purdue hadn't won a game at Michigan since the 1960s.
In fact, Purdue's record in Ann Arbor is pathetic — only five victories in 31 games.
Purdue was having a largely unimpressive season until the Boilermakers upended Illinois last week. They aren't ranked — and they aren't likely to be, even if they beat Michigan on Saturday — but they can get some momentum going.
Can and will are two different things, though. Yes, the Boilermakers can, but, no, they won't. Michigan by a couple of touchdowns.
Iowa State at #19 Texas Tech, 6 p.m. (Central) on FSN: This will be the 10th game between these schools, and Iowa State has never beaten Tech in Lubbock.
Iowa State has beaten Tech twice — most recently, last year — but both of those wins came at home. The Cyclones are 0–5 in Lubbock.
I think it is highly unlikely that the Cyclones will win this time, either. I expect Texas Tech to win by 20 points.
Illinois at #21 Penn State, 2:30 p.m. (Central) on ABC: The Illini probably rated as most people's surprise team of 2011 as they got off to a 6–0 start, but consecutive losses to Ohio State and Purdue dropped them from the rankings.
Meanwhile, Penn State has re–emerged as a member of the Top 25 after dropping out in the wake of the Nittany Lions' loss to Alabama last month.
This seems like a good opportunity for the Illini to redeem themselves. If they win at Penn State, it will be their second in a row — after losing in their first six trips there.
Yep, that would be a great story line. A winning streak at Happy Valley certainly would suggest that times are changing at Illinois. And maybe they are.
But ... not so fast, my friend, as Lee Corso would say. The times aren't changing that quickly. And I think Penn State will win by six.
#22 Georgia vs. Florida at Jacksonville, Fla., at 2:30 p.m. (Central) on CBS: I don't know if it predates tailgating, but the Georgia–Florida rivalry has become known as "the World's Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party."
It is one of the few neutral–site rivalries that is still played, and it has been called "the World's Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party" since a Florida sports editor coined that phrase more than half a century ago — which means it probably does predate the concept of tailgating if not the actual practice (whether it had a name or not).
Anyway, this will be either the 89th or 90th edition of this rivalry — the schools can't agree on whether to count the very first game, which was played in 1904 in Macon, Ga. The Georgia athletic department counts it, but Florida does not because it was not the University of Florida that we know today but one of its ancestor institutions, Florida Agricultural College.
The schools do agree that Georgia has won more games than Florida, and it is a matter of record that Florida is 18–3 against Georgia since 1990 — with victories in five of the last six games.
I think this game will be very competitive, very entertaining. And I think it will go down to the wire. But the momentum is with the Gators in this series these days so I'll take Florida — but only by a point or two.
Colorado at #23 Arizona State: This is only the third meeting between these two schools, but Colorado is still looking for its first victory over the Sun Devils.
My guess is that the Buffs will still be looking for that first victory when the weekend is over. I'll take Arizona State.
#25 West Virginia at Rutgers, 2:30 p.m. (Central) on ABC: West Virginia has thoroughly dominated its series with Rutgers — to an extent that few teams dominate another.
The Mountaineers have won 16 straight against Rutgers. Make that 17 for West Virginia.
At one time or another, I guess, most American boys play organized baseball.
And most probably fantasize about driving in the run that wins the World Series for their teams.
If that is the dream, then what happened to Bill Buckner on this night 25 years ago is the nightmare.
Buckner's Boston Red Sox were one out away from ending a World Series drought that had existed since 1918. In fact, the scoreboard in New York's Shea Stadium flashed a congratulatory message — briefly.
But that turned out to be premature.
The Mets, who had given up two runs in the top of the 10th, scored a run, then had the tying run on third and the winning run on first. Mookie Wilson was at the plate against a new pitcher, who threw a wild pitch, scoring the tying run and putting the winning run at second.
Wilson then hit a slow grounder in the direction of veteran first baseman Bill Buckner, who seemed sure to make the play. But the ball took a strange hop just before it got to Buckner and rolled into the outfield, allowing Ray Knight to score the winning run from second.
The cameras almost immediately zeroed in on home plate, where Knight was scoring the winning run, but they lingered for a few seconds on Buckner after the ball got away from him, providing the image I will always remember from that night — Buckner standing forlornly at first while his teammates scrambled to retrieve the ball in the outfield.
My instinct would have been to run after that ball, even if I knew deep in my heart that there was no way I could reach it before one of the other players did — and, even more importantly, before Knight could score that winning run. My mind wouldn't let me accept that the die had been cast, that it was over.
But it was as if Buckner realized, in that split second when the ball took its inexplicable jump, that it was over, and he was resigned to the abuse that he knew would come his way.
Actually, it wasn't the end of the Series. The Red Sox brought a 3–2 lead to New York and needed to win either Game 6 or Game 7. The game that was played 25 years ago tonight was only the sixth game. The Red Sox could have won the seventh game and been world champions, but the pitching staff fell apart, as it had been inclined to do against the Mets.
As it did in Game 6 when that wild pitch allowed the tying run to score.
It wasn't Buckner's fault that Boston lost that seventh game, either. He went two for four at the plate and committed no errors in the field. In fact, Buckner even scored a run in Boston's comeback attempt in the late innings, but it simply wasn't enough.
Besides, the Mets were favored to win that Series before it began — and they weren't slight favorites, either. The Mets were heavy favorites that year.
The fact that the Mets won it was no real surprise. What was surprising was the way that title was won.
I knew it was a bitter experience for Red Sox fans — to be so close and see it slip through their fingers — and I empathized with them. But that did not excuse how they treated Buckner when the Series was over.
One would have thought he was a latter–day Shoeless Joe Jackson — except Shoeless Joe at least got the gamblers' money. As far as I can see, Billy Buck got nothing but abuse.
Say it ain't so, Billy Buck. But it was so. It just wasn't intentional.
What happened 25 years ago tonight had to be one of the strangest finishes of any game in World Series history — and it was almost immediately taken to be the latest confirmation of the existence of the "Curse of the Bambino" — the superstitious belief that, when the Red Sox sold Babe Ruth to the New York Yankees, a "curse" was put on the franchise, preventing it from winning a championship.
I always felt it was unfair for Buckner to be subjected to the abuse of the frustrated Boston baseball fans — just as I always thought it was unfair when the fans of another long–suffering baseball franchise blamed their team's 2003 postseason defeat on a fellow fan's innocent reach for a foul ball.
Team sports are precisely that — team sports. On extremely rare occasions, a team's loss is clearly the fault of a single player or an official's bad call; on even rarer occasions, a loss is the fault of an innocent bystander.
Most of the time, though, it is the result of a team effort. Teams win and lose as teams.
Whether such a thing as the "Curse of the Bambino" ever really existed, the Red Sox, who had won several titles before selling Ruth to the Yankees, went on to lose the 1986 World Series to the other New York team.
The Sox did not win another title until 2004. The Yankees, meanwhile, became the most successful franchise in major league baseball after acquiring the Babe.
I don't know if that was a curse, but 25 years ago tonight, Buckner probably would have told you that it sure wasn't a blessing.
Anyway, after the perceived "curse" was gone, the Red Sox were just another team again, and they were free to play ball without the weight of all those years on their shoulders.
A few years later, they won another title, and no one, as I recall, said anything about a "curse." As he watched the Series, Buckner (who, ironically, played for the Cubs before coming to Boston) may have thought about it and reflected that 21st century ball players don't know the meanings of the words pressure, expectations and superstition.
But the following spring, Buckner participated in the unfurling of the world championship banner at Boston's Fenway Park. The fans gave him a standing ovation, and Buckner later spoke of a sense of closure that came from being in the ballpark on that day.
Gosh, you know, it seems like only yesterday that Jayson Stark of ESPN.com was saying that this year's World Series was going to be must–see television ...
Wait a minute. It was only yesterday. And Stark was writing in the context of the first two games, which were low–scoring nail–biters. Each was decided by a single run.
I suppose the people of that time might have been able to witness either of those accomplishments on the newsreels at their local theaters — except they didn't really come along until a few years later.
Consequently, Ruth's achievements — which sandwiched his historic 1927 season, in which he hit 60 home runs and set a record that stood for more than 30 years — were seen by a comparatively tiny sample of America's population.
Any baseball fans who were not fortunate enough to be in Sportsman's Park (which, ironically, was in St. Louis) on either of those days had to wait nearly 50 years to see that accomplishment matched.
What viewers saw last night is something exceedingly rare, something that sports fans have witnessed en masse only once before — on Oct. 18, 1977, when Reggie Jackson hit three home runs and drove a huge stake through the hearts of Dodger fans (and I know because I am a Dodger fan).
Needless to say, I guess, Game 3 of this year's series wasn't as close as the first two games were.
There is a new attitude here in north Texas these days — at least among baseball fans.
Some things haven't changed.
Diehard football fans are still living and dying — mostly dying — with the outcomes of Cowboys games.
Diehard basketball fans continue to wonder if they will get to see the Mavericks defend their NBA title this year.
There are still some diehard hockey fans around here, too. The bandwagon jumpers who followed the Stars when it was trendy — after they won a Stanley Cup more than a decade ago — have mostly jumped off now so the Stars crowds are almost entirely genuine hockey enthusiasts.
But until last year, the Texas Rangers were lovable losers who had never even caught much of a whiff of the World Series — let alone been immersed in its magical waters. For many years, if one went to a Rangers game, it was for the entertainment value alone, not because the Rangers were anything approaching legitimate contenders.
Now, I'll admit that I feel pulled by both sides when it comes to this year's World Series. I have friends who live in the St. Louis area. My goddaughter lives in the St. Louis area with her young son. But my family's roots are here in the Dallas–Fort Worth Metroplex. I have lived here for most of the last 20 years.
So I am torn. As Mark Twain replied when asked whether he preferred heaven or hell, I have friends in both places.
The Cardinals have been here many times before. In fact, no other major league team — except the Yankees — has won as many world championships as the Cardinals.
When the Rangers finally scaled that mountain last year, they and their fans celebrated winning the American League championship — and were glad merely to be in the big show.
Now that the Rangers are back in the World Series, just getting there won't be enough. Even this area's most casual baseball fans — the ones for whom a trip to Arlington still qualifies as entertainment and not some sort of pilgrimage — know that.
Jeff Wilson of the Fort Worth Star–Telegram mentioned that difference in attitude in yesterday's column. But Wilson wrote that the difference for the players was visible on their airplane ride home from St. Louis.
The pressure they felt being down 0–2 to San Francisco when they returned to Texas for Game 3 last year was nowhere to be seen this year. These Rangers are more relaxed, more confident.
No, just being there won't be satisfactory this time. I've heard countless people around here speaking of how the momentum of the series shifted in the Rangers' favor when they rallied to win Game 2 the other night — and how home field advantage belongs to Texas now.
But the games that will be played here almost certainly will be different from the ones that we saw played in St. Louis. They will require both managers to make different kinds of strategic decisions.
And, frankly, while the first two games were thrillers, these lineups just have too much pop for either team to settle for 2–1 and 3–2 victories. A persuasive argument can be made that both teams are overdue for an offensive explosion.
As most people acknowledge, The Ballpark in Arlington is much more hitter–friendly than Busch Stadium, but that doesn't seem special to me. St. Louis has always been tough for hitters.
I went to many games in the old Busch Stadium, and it was never known as a hitters' park. Mark McGwire was probably the only genuine power hitter to play in St. Louis since the days of Stan the Man — until Albert Pujols came along.
For as long as I can remember, the Cardinals built teams around pitching and defense. On offense, they scratched out hits and were aggressive on the base paths, but, at best, their power hitters supplied 20 or 25 home runs a season.
That's not a very good description of the modern version of the Cardinals, though. Everyone already knew about Pujols, but the postseason has given the rest of the country the opportunity to become familiar with a whole roster of guys who can produce at the plate.
Bernie Miklasz of the St. Louis Post–Dispatch writes that "[t]here's no reason to believe the Cardinals will remain in the slumber mode."
In 2011, Miklasz points out, "the Cardinals averaged more road runs than every American League team. And the Cardinals will have a DH in their lineup over the next three games. So there's really no excuse for Cardinals hitters to struggle."
Except, perhaps, for the sheer resolve of the Rangers — and their devoted followers — to win it all this time.
I teach writing at the local community college, and one of my students will be at tonight's Game 3. We talked about it the other day in class. He is part of the emerging generation of Rangers followers, the ones who don't remember the long years of losing their elders endured after the old Washington Senators moved here in the early 1970s.
He remembers only the years when the Rangers have contended, even made the playoffs, but fallen short. He can't understand the frustration of people around here who have been following this ball club for four decades.
He doesn't remember the time when the Dallas Cowboys ruled the football world. The Cowboys haven't played in a Super Bowl in his memory. But he has seen the hockey team win it all and the basketball team win it all, and he wants to see the baseball team win it all, too.
He isn't alone. Then again, everyone seems to have an opinion about this series.
Joe Lemire of Sports Illustrated anticipates a jump in run production now that the Series has moved southwest about 550 miles.
The weather will be warmer, he points out — can't argue with that since today's high around here is supposed to be 84° while the high in St. Louis is expected to be 70°, but we're in the unpredictable time of year in these parts.
Perhaps you've heard of that devastating drought we've been experiencing here this year? We hardly had a drop of rain all summer, but suddenly rain has emerged as a threat in the baseball postseason. Already at Arlington they've had one playoff game delayed for a couple of hours by rain, and another game was rained out and had to be played the following day.
We may be in for more of the same tonight. The National Weather Service says there is a 50% chance of rain after the sun goes down.
If they're able to play, Gerry Fraley of the Dallas Morning News writes that St. Louis starter Kyle Lohse might struggle tonight. His previous appearances in Arlington didn't go well — but it's been more than five years since he started a game here, and he is a different pitcher now.
And, if this series goes six or seven games — and, consequently, must return to St. Louis — the outlook is for wetter, cooler weather on the days when the last two games are scheduled to be played.
We might see some high–scoring games in Arlington over the next few days — only to go back to St. Louis next week to see that offensive fire doused by a cold rain and harkening the return of the 2–1 and 3–2 scores.
Jayson Stark of ESPN.com thinks we might be on the brink of "something special." The first two games were nail–biters, he observes. If you aren't watching, you're missing out.
As a persistent critic of the BCS — as well as constant advocate of an NCAA football playoff system — I can't argue with Tommy Hicks of the Mobile (Ala.) Press–Register.
If one can assume that the top four in the initial BCS rankings is a reliable projection for the rest of the season, then, as Hicks observes, the BCS will, indeed, provide the equivalent of a playoff — with the help of the existing regular–season schedule.
LSU and Alabama are currently ranked #1 and #2, respectively. They will meet in Tuscaloosa on Nov. 5. The winner will then be expected to run the table and win the SEC championship game.
Oklahoma and Oklahoma State are ranked #3 and #4, respectively. They will meet in Stillwater on Dec. 3. For the winner of that game, there will be nothing else until its postseason game — no championship game in the Big 12 this year — but the obvious assumption will be that, if the winner of the game in Stillwater is unblemished, that team will be playing for the national title.
Thus, those two games are shaping up to be the playoff games that will give us the national finalists — but all that discounts the possibility of another team tripping them up along the way.
Or someone else catching fire and moving up in the rankings — Wisconsin, perhaps, or Stanford — or maybe even Boise State. Who knows?
It's still October. As those two games suggest — and, remember, they are only two games with many, many others still to be played — a lot can happen.
I worked with sports writers for years, and I know that they love to speculate. It's sort of an occupational hazard during football season.
Sports journalists don't have as much time for speculation between games in other sports, but football season, with its once–a–week games, has a lot of time to kill — and a lot of space to fill — for sports writers.
I guess the temptation to idly speculate — i.e., Don Banks of Sports Illustrated, while admitting it was "way premature and patently ridiculous," nevertheless proceeded recently to assess the 6–0 Green Bay Packers' chances of running the table — is irresistible for most writers.
And football season is the very definition of temptation.
But October really is too early to be anticipating who will be playing for the national title in January.
#11 West Virginia at Syracuse, 7 p.m. (Central) on ESPN: Syracuse snapped an eight–game losing streak to West Virginia last year.
That was the first time Syracuse had won at West Virginia since 2000. Now the challenge facing the Orange is to beat West Virginia at Syracuse for the first time since 1993.
Syracuse might make a good run for it, but, in the end, I expect West Virginia to win by a touchdown.
Saturday
#19 Auburn at #1 LSU, 2:30 p.m. (Central) on CBS: Unless something really unexpected happens, defending national champion Auburn will not be playing for another national title in January.
But the twice–beaten Tigers still have a shot at playing in the SEC championship game — or at least snaring a share of the SEC West crown.
In order to do that, Auburn must beat LSU in Baton Rouge on Saturday and then beat Alabama on Nov. 26. That's a tall order for anyone, but, historically speaking, Auburn might be up to the task — at least when it comes to competing with LSU.
Since 1991, Auburn is 10–9 against LSU, but Auburn has lost its last five in Baton Rouge.
Auburn has been a different team on LSU's turf. And, without Cam Newton, Auburn has been a different team than it was last year. I predict that LSU will prevail by two touchdowns.
Tennessee at #2 Alabama, 6:15 p.m. (Central) on ESPN2: Everyone knows about Alabama's in–state rivalry with Auburn, but I have heard that the legendary Bear Bryant cared more about beating Tennessee.
The Alabama–Tennessee game has long been known as "the third Saturday in October" in recognition of the date when the game was traditionally played, but it has only been played on the third Saturday in October a handful of times in recent years.
Nor will it be played on the third Saturday in October this year.
Anyway, Alabama has won the last four games between the school and holds a 48–38–7 overall series advantage. The Vols haven't won in Tuscaloosa since 2003.
Since 2008, Alabama is 26–1 at home — and that lone loss was Auburn's fabled comeback in last year's Iron Bowl.
There is simply no way Tennessee will be competitive in this game. I expect Alabama to win by about 30 points.
Texas Tech at #3 Oklahoma, 7 p.m. (Central) on ABC: For the last seven years, the host team has won this game.
And Oklahoma has won its last seven home games against Texas Tech.
I guess that dovetails nicely with those who contend the Sooners will remain unbeaten until they meet their in–state rivals from Oklahoma State on the first Saturday in December.
And the recent history of the series does say that the home team's victories tend to be lopsided. Last year, OU beat Tech in Norman, 45–7. In 2008, it was even more lopsided — 65–21.
So should the Red Raiders even bother to show up to play the game? Well, they might make it competitive for the first half, but, in the end, I expect Oklahoma to win by three touchdowns.
#4 Wisconsin at #15 Michigan State, 7 p.m. (Central) on ESPN: Some people are predicting that Wisconsin will be one of the two teams playing for the national title in January, and that's a tough one to counter.
We know, for example, that either Alabama or LSU (possibly both) will have at least one loss by the time the bowl season begins. It is inevitable. The teams will face each other on the first Saturday in November, and college football did away with ties more than a decade ago. Even if they have to play a dozen overtime periods, someone will win that game.
Oklahoma, too, could lose a game. The Sooners play Texas Tech this weekend and still must face Kansas State, Baylor, Texas A&M and Oklahoma State before the season ends. There's no championship game in the Big 12 this year, but, if the Sooners can negotiate that obstacle course, they might deserve a spot in the national championship game.
College football always has those hidden time bombs, ticking away, waiting for an encounter with an overconfident team. On any given Saturday ...
Wisconsin won't be out of the woods if the Badgers beat the Spartans, but they will be getting closer to the clearing. They still have to play Ohio State, Illinois and Penn State — and then there will be the inaugural Big Ten title game, which might be a rematch with these Spartans.
If defense truly does win championships, this game will be a good test for that premise. Both teams are in the Top 10 nationally in defense — MSU is #1, Wisconsin is #7. Wisconsin's defense may not be tested too much (the Spartans rank 66th in total offense), but Michigan State's might have its hands full with Wisconsin's eighth–ranked offense, led by the nation's #1 passer, Russell Wilson, and runner Montee Ball (19th in rushing, 34th in all–purpose yards).
I think it will be close ... and low scoring. The Badgers have more power on offense so I'll take Wisconsin by four points.
Air Force at #5 Boise State, 2:30 p.m. (Central) on Versus: This might be the most exciting game of the weekend — at least, if you're a Boise State fan.
Both teams have potent offenses so the game seems likely to hinge on the defenses. If that is, indeed, how it turns out, the odds favor Boise's 12th–ranked defense over Air Force's dismal 106th–ranked unit.
Give me Boise State.
#6 Oklahoma State at Missouri: Since 1979, OSU has beaten Missouri about three–fifths of the time. And the Cowboys have won their last two encounters with the Tigers.
But what about 2011?
Well, while Oklahoma State currently has the nation's second–ranked offense, Missouri's offense is a respectable 13th in the nation. And Missouri's defense (currently 30th in the country) has outshone the Cowboys' defense (ranked 103rd).
In what will certainly be considered an upset, I'll take Missouri to defeat previously unbeaten Oklahoma State — and mess up that tidy BCS playoff arrangement of which Hicks wrote.
#22 Washington at #7 Stanford, 7 p.m. (Central) on ABC: Not too long ago, Washington could compete with Stanford. The Huskies even managed to win their games on a regular basis.
But that was then — before Andrew Luck came along.
Frankly, I just don't see how Washington can hope to stop Luck. The Huskies are 106th in total defense, and Luck is third in the nation in passing. Give me Stanford by two touchdowns.
North Carolina at #8 Clemson, 11 a.m. (Central) on ESPN: It's been 10 years since North Carolina won at Clemson — and winning there wasn't a familiar experience before that, either.
The teams are about even on defense, but Clemson, with Sammy Watkins (10th in all–purpose yardage) and Tajh Boyd (13th in passing), are light years ahead of the Tar Heels in offense. I'll take Clemson.
#9 Oregon at Colorado, 2:30 p.m. (Central) on FSN: It's really hard to have much regard for Colorado's football program these days.
The 1–6 Buffs are 64th in total defense. How can they expect to stop Oregon's fifth–rated total offense?
Colorado's defense is better than its offense, though. The Buffs are 92nd in the nation in that category. How can they possibly expect to score with an offensive unit like that?
I don't think they can. I'll take Oregon by 20.
#10 Arkansas at Ole Miss, 11:21 a.m. (Central) on SEC Network: In 1981, more than 10 years before they became conference rivals, Arkansas and Ole Miss revived a series that had been dormant since the 1969 Sugar Bowl — and hadn't been part of the regular–season schedule in a couple of decades.
At one time, though, it was one of the most heated rivalries in the South, if not in college football, and success in the series tended to come in waves.
Since 1981, Arkansas has the edge, 18–11–1. From 1952–1961, Ole Miss was 7–3 against Arkansas, and Arkansas won about two–thirds of the games played in the first half of the century.
The Ole Miss football program has been something of a train wreck lately. Its offense is one of the worst in the country (117th); its defense is better but not by much (86th). I'll take Arkansas by three touchdowns.
#12 Kansas State at Kansas, 11 a.m. (Central) on FSN: Most people don't know it — mostly, I suppose, because neither of these schools is known for its football program — but this rivalry is the fourth–longest uninterrupted series in college football history.
The winner of the football game — which, for the last two years, has been KSU — is awarded the Governor's Cup, and the outcome of the football game is factored in with the results of the other athletic contests between the two schools to decide the annual winner of the "Sunflower Showdown."
So, while this game usually means next to nothing to people outside Kansas, it appears to have a great deal of meaning to people within that state.
Emotion aside, Kansas gave Oklahoma a real run for it last weekend, but I don't see the Jayhawks being able to sustain that against the Wildcats. I pick Kansas State to win by 12 points.
#13 Nebraska at Minnesota, 2:30 p.m. (Central) on ABC: In the first half of the 20th century, these teams used to play just about every year. In recent years, not so much.
Now that they compete in the same conference, I expect them to play a bit more regularly.
This will be the first time they have met on the gridiron since 1990, when a mediocre Minnesota team traveled to Nebraska — and lost, 56–0.
The Gophers hosted the Cornhuskers in 1989 — and got shut out that time, too, 48–0.
Minnesota has scored against Nebraska — in 1984, when Minnesota went to Lincoln and lost, 38–7. The year before that, Gophers hosted Nebraska and scored 13 points. But the Cornhuskers, who were en route to their Orange Bowl game with Miami, scored 84 points.
Minnesota lost 10 more games to the Cornhuskers in the 1960s and early 1970s. In fact, unless I have overlooked something, Minnesota hasn't beaten Nebraska since Sept. 24, 1960.
Still, they hold the series lead, 29–20–2, thanks primarily to having won eight of the first 10 games in the early part of the 20th century.
And, as Ben Welter of the Minneapolis Star Tribune observes, Saturday will be the 100th anniversary of Minnesota's 21–3 triumph over Nebraska — which was played in Minnesota, by the way.
Is that a good omen? Probably not. Nebraska (5–1) is much better than Minnesota (1–5) and should win by 25.
Boston College at #16 Virginia Tech, 2 p.m. (Central) on RSN: Since 1996, Boston College has won only four of 15 games with Virginia Tech (including a loss in the 2007 ACC title game).
But BC has won two of the last four times it has played at Virginia Tech.
Does that mean Boston College can win this time? Well, it could — but I wouldn't bet on it. Virginia Tech (6–1) is much better on both sides of the ball than Boston College (1–5) and should prove it handily.
#17 Texas A&M at Iowa State, 2:30 p.m. (Central) on ABC: With the Aggies headed for the Southeastern Conference next year, this will be the ninth and final meeting of these teams as Big 12 rivals.
A&M has only lost one of those encounters, but that was in College Station. The Aggies are 4–0 in Ames.
With games against Missouri, Oklahoma and Kansas State coming up — and a spotless record at Iowa State — the Aggies could be forgiven for overlooking the 3–3 Cyclones. But that would be a mistake.
Don't get me wrong. I think Texas A&M will remain focused and take care of business.
#20 Georgia Tech at Miami (Fla.), 2:30 p.m. (Central) on ESPN: As conference rivals, Georgia Tech holds a 4–3 lead in its series with Miami.
When you count the Y2K New Year's Day Gator Bowl between the schools, the series is deadlocked, 4–4.
Before that, you have to go back to the Eisenhower administration to find the last time the teams played.
This is very much a 21st century series. Georgia Tech has been tested several times and, while coming off a loss, seems to have enough in its arsenal to handle Miami. I'll take Georgia Tech by a field goal.
Marshall at #21 Houston. 3:30 p.m. (Central) on CSS: It almost seems like old times, like when Andre Ware was running the Run 'N' Shoot. The Houston Cougars have the nation's top–ranked offense.
When people speak of college quarterbacks these days, the conversation inevitably winds up being about Andrew Luck or Robert Griffin III. But Houston's Case Keenum is sixth in the nation, has a higher completion percentage than Luck and has accounted for more passing yardage than either.
But Keenum is overlooked — primarily, I suppose, because he doesn't play in a major conference, and, therefore, has racked up his stats against less impressive competition.
In recent years, these teams have met twice as conference rivals.
Each team has held serve at home, and I think Houston will keep that streak alive by a two–touchdown margin.
#23 Illinois at Purdue, 11 a.m. (Central) on ESPN2: Now, I suppose, we will find out if Illinois is as good as its record.
The Illini, of course, are coming off their first defeat of the season. I know it was disappointing, but, hey, they lost to Ohio State. They've only beaten the Buckeyes once since 2002.
Since 1985, Illinois and Purdue have played 20 times, and each has won 10. Illinois was more successful against Purdue in the late 20th century — at least when the teams have played in Indiana. Purdue has beaten Illinois the last three times the Boilermakers have hosted the Illini.
This looks like a "gotcha!" game to me. Purdue may be 3–3, but the Boilermakers aren't too far behind 5–1 Illinois in total offense and total defense.
If the Illini aren't careful, this could be their fourth straight loss at Purdue. But I'm betting that Illinois will hang in there long enough to win by a field goal.
The Great Debate has begun in earnest in college football. Who deserves to be ranked #1 right now? And will that team be ranked #1 when the season is over?
That second question simply cannot be answered in mid–October. But there are always those who will argue over the merits of ranking one team ahead of another. It was that way before the BCS rankings were thrown into the mix, and it simply intensifies when the first BCS calculations are announced.
Those first BCS rankings of 2011 won't be released until after this weekend's games, but a vigorous debate has already begun over whether Oklahoma, LSU or Alabama — or even someone else — should be ranked at the top of the list.
Last weekend's games really didn't help clarify things much:
Bill Reiter of Fox Sports observed, in the aftermath of LSU's victory over Florida, that Les Miles "might be the most underappreciated top–tier football coach in the country."
In the latest edition of the "Red River Rivalry," Berry Tramel of The Oklahoman writes that Oklahoma "reminded Texas who really owns this conference" in the Sooners' convincing 55–17 triumph in the Cotton Bowl.
As for Alabama, well, the Crimson Tide demolished Vanderbilt, as expected. But 'Bama was entitled to a breather, having beaten Arkansas and Florida on consecutive Saturdays.
I don't think one of the big three is likely to be the victim of an upset this week, and the debate should continue when the first BCS standings are released.
Only two things seem truly clear midway through the college football season:
A good case can be made for all three schools, but the Alabama–LSU part of the equation should be settled in Tuscaloosa on Nov. 5.
Normally, Tuscaloosa would intimidate a visiting team, but LSU had won four in a row there until the Crimson Tide beat the Tigers en route to the national title in 2009.
In fact, LSU has defeated Alabama in eight of their last 11 meetings so beating the Tide, whatever the venue, is feasible for the Tigers, and, according to Glenn Guilbeau of the Shreveport Times, they became so bored in their ho–hum win over Florida last week that the Tigers were fantasizing that they were actually beating up on Alabama.
They will have to wait a few more weeks for their real chance.
Considering that Florida, Florida State and Miami have all played for — and won — national titles at one time or another in the last 12 years, that is a pretty amazing development.
Idle: #10 Arkansas, #13 West Virginia, #14 Nebraska, #25 Houston
Saturday
#1 LSU at Tennessee, 2:30 p.m. (Central) on CBS: LSU has beaten Tennessee three straight times, including the 2007 SEC Championship game.
But this has always been a competitive series. Last year, for example, the Volunteers came to Baton Rouge and lost by only two points in a really wild finish. In that 2007 title game, LSU won by a touchdown, and the year before, the Tigers left Knoxville with a four–point win.
Neither side has much regard for the other's home field. "I like beating people in their own house," a Tiger player told the Baton Rouge Advocate recently. He probably does feel that way and so do most of his teammates — as would the Vols, I suspect, if they were the road team — but the fact is, I think, that LSU simply has more firepower than Tennessee, and that knowledge is bound to help with your confidence.
They don't play each other every year, but they square off frequently enough, and the last time either beat the other by more than a single score was in 1993, when the Vols doubled up the Tigers, 42–20.
I think the Tigers might finally return the favor. I'm less inclined to think LSU is overrated than I was when the season began, but I still have my doubts about them over the long haul. This weekend, though, I expect LSU to win by a double–digit margin.
#2 Alabama at Ole Miss, 5 p.m. (Central) on ESPN2: In the last two decades, Alabama has lost to Ole Miss only twice — but both losses came in Jackson.
I've seen Alabama play a few times this year. The Crimson Tide has a defense that is worthy of the best that Bear Bryant ever put on the field.
I haven't seen Ole Miss play, but I've seen the scores of the Rebels' games. They're 2–3 with a lopsided loss to the same Vanderbilt team that 'Bama blanked last weekend.
This was once a competitive rivalry. I guess it could be worse for the Rebels. They could be playing in Tuscaloosa, where they haven't won since 1988.
As it is, though, I expect them to lose to Alabama by four touchdowns.
#3 Oklahoma at Kansas, 8:15 p.m. (Central) on ESPN: John Shinn of the Norman (Okla.) Transcript reports that the Sooners are only concerned about improving. They aren't worried about the polls.
It may be hard for them to judge just how much better they are becoming, though, with Kansas on this week's schedule. Kansas doesn't figure to be much of a test.
Back in the days of the old Big Eight Conference, OU used to dominate Kansas routinely.
Things haven't changed too much, I suppose. The Sooners have won six in a row against the Jayhawks and haven't lost to KU since 1997. In fact, that '97 loss was OU's third straight to Kansas.
But that was an aberration. It was the first time Kansas beat Oklahoma in football in two or more consecutive seasons since the Herbert Hoover administration. That's how lopsided the series has been.
And things don't figure to get any better for the 2–3 Jayhawks, who were blown out by Oklahoma State, 70–28, last week. I'll take Oklahoma by five touchdowns.
Indiana at #4 Wisconsin, 11 a.m. (Central) on ESPN2: The Badgers have beaten the Hoosiers six straight times.
And this edition of the Hoosiers — 1–5 so far — simply doesn't seem even remotely capable of claiming only its fourth win in Madison since 1989.
I predict that Wisconsin — which beat Indiana by 63 points last year — will win this one by at least 30.
#5 Boise State at Colorado State, 5 p.m. (Central) on The Mtn.: Colorado State is new to the Mountain West Conference, and these schools will be facing each other for the first time.
The absence of a history doesn't keep me from reaching a conclusion on this game, though. Boise is undefeated. CSU is 3–2 — not bad but no signature wins.
Boise is 30th in the nation in total offense; CSU is 95th. Boise is 12th in the nation in total defense; CSU is 33rd.
By virtue of its 14–10 win over New Mexico, CSU currently leads the conference with a 1–0 record. This will be Boise's first conference game of the season. And I predict Boise State will win by at least 31 points.
#6 Oklahoma State at #22 Texas, 2:30 p.m. (Central) on ABC: Last year's win in Stillwater was OSU's first victory over Texas since 1997.
Since the schools became conference rivals, OSU has only won at Texas once — last season. Until that happened, Texas had beaten OSU 10 straight times at home.
(A good barometer for how well the Longhorn defense is holding up, writes Kirk Bohls in the Austin American–Statesman, could be whether OSU's punter is forced to punt more often. The Cowboys have performed so well on offense this season that the punter has only had to punt a couple of times per game.)
Anyway, I pick Oklahoma State to win by 10 points.
#7 Stanford at Washington State: Stanford usually enjoys success when it visits Washington State, winning seven of its last 10 games there.
But this can be kind of a streaky and unpredictable series.
Last year, for example, when Stanford's only loss all season came on the road at Oregon, lowly WSU (only two wins all season) came closer to beating Stanford than any visitor except for Southern California.
At 3–2, Washington State has already matched its win total for 2009 and 2010 combined. Two more victories will match the total for those seasons and 2008 — and maybe the Cougars will manage to win two more games this season.
But I don't expect them to get one of them against Stanford. I expect Stanford to win by a couple of touchdowns.
#8 Clemson at Maryland, 6 p.m. (Central) on ESPNU: There was a time, primarily in the latter half of the 1980s and 1990s, when Clemson routinely defeated Maryland, sometimes by wide margins.
In the last decade or so, though, the Terps have been something of a thorn in the Tigers' side. They've split their last dozen games, and home field has proven to be neither an advantage nor a disadvantage.
I certainly don't think home field will help Maryland much in this game. The Terps have lost three of their last four games, with only a win over Towson to show for their trouble. Clemson, meanwhile, has beaten Auburn, Florida State and Virginia Tech en route to a 6–0 start.
I pick Clemson by a touchdown.
#18 Arizona State at #9 Oregon: In the last couple of decades, Oregon has beaten Arizona State about two–thirds of the time.
The Ducks' success rate at home has been slightly better than that.
But they have seldom faced a Sun Devil team that was playing as well as this one has this far into the season — and sometimes, like when the Ducks hosted the Sun Devils in 2004, they do not win.
Adam Jude of the Eugene (Ore.) Register–Guard says Oregon is moving forward in spite of injuries to key players like rusher LaMichael James. "Injuries happen," the Ducks' coach says. It's part of football.
And Oregon victories are usually predictable in this series — so I choose Oregon by 10 points.
#11 Michigan at #23 Michigan State, 11 a.m. (Central) on ESPN: Michigan State has beaten its cross–state rivals three straight times.
That really astonishes me because, through most of my life and especially when I was a child, Michigan beat Michigan State just about every year. Michigan State victories over Michigan were rare; victories in consecutive seasons were rarer still.
This year, the rankings suggest that Michigan will end its losing streak. But the Spartans can be stubborn in Lansing, and Denny Schwarze of the Lansing State Journal observes the Spartans have the opportunity to hand the Wolverines their first loss of the year for the third consecutive season.
In this series, that is more than enough motivation. And I'm going to predict that Michigan State will win what may be the most exciting game of the weekend — by a single point.
#12 Georgia Tech at Virginia, 2:30 p.m. (Central) on ESPNU: Georgia Tech has played in a bowl game for 14 straight years, and, judging from the Yellow Jackets' ranking thus far into the 2011 campaign, it is likely that Tech will make that 15 in a row.
Virginia has appeared in bowls about half as often — and the Cavaliers have been to only one bowl in the last five years — but they are 12–9 against Tech since 1990, and they are 8–2 against Tech at home in that time.
Jerry Ratcliffe of the Charlottesville (Va.) Daily Progress says stopping Tech's triple–threat offense poses a strategic challenge. I think so, too.
I also think Georgia Tech will win, but Virginia will keep it close.
#15 South Carolina at Mississippi State, 11:21 a.m. (Central) on SEC Network: South Carolina holds a narrow edge in its series with Mississippi State since the two became conference rivals in the early 1990s.
That's a little misleading, though. Carolina hasn't lost to MSU since 1999, but the teams play in different divisions so they play each other irregularly — or, at least, they have since the dawn of the 21st century. In the '90s, they met every year, and MSU won most of those encounters, but their roles have reversed in the last 10 years.
Mississippi State is clearly struggling this year, having lost three of its last five games. South Carolina, meanwhile, is 5–1. The one thing the teams have in common is a loss to the defending national champion, Auburn. MSU lost on the road by a touchdown. South Carolina lost at home by a field goal.
In what will probably be regarded a mild upset, I will pick Mississippi State to win at home by a single point.
Ohio State at #16 Illinois, 2:30 p.m. (Central) on ABC: It isn't so outrageous to imagine Illinois facing Ohio State in a regionally televised football game.
What does seem strange is that it is Illinois, not Ohio State, that enters the game undefeated and ranked — in fact, the Illini are 6–0 for the first time since 1951 — while Ohio State comes into the game with two straight defeats (three losses in the Buckeyes' last four games) and nothing remotely resembling a ranking (not even so much as a single vote in the latest AP poll).
Anyway, Illinois is now bowl eligible, and who knows if Ohio State will win enough games to play in a bowl this year? For someone who grew up watching Woody Hayes prowl the sidelines, this is through–the–looking–glass territory.
That Illinois team went on to play in — and win — the Rose Bowl against Stanford, and it eventually improved to 7–0 before suffering its only blemish of the year, a tie with — wait for it — Ohio State.
If this game was in Columbus, I would be tempted to take Ohio State. I'm still tempted to take Ohio State, but I'll resist that temptation and take Illinois to win by a field goal.
#17 Kansas State at Texas Tech, 6 p.m. (Central) on FSN: In recent years, Tech has had the upper hand in its games with non–divisional rival KSU, but, in the 1990s, the edge belonged to the Wildcats, who made three appearances in the Big 12 title game in five years.
Kansas State is back in the rankings and Tech, a top 10 team not so long ago, is not ranked, but the Red Raiders might be on their way back. I have a lot of respect for KSU's coach, and I believe what the Wildcats have accomplished this year is quite remarkable, but I'm still going to take Texas Tech at home — where the Wildcats are 1–3 against the Raiders since 1997.
#19 Virginia Tech at Wake Forest, 5:30 p.m. (Central) on ESPN3.com: Wake Forest hasn't beaten Virginia Tech since 1983.
I'm tempted to take Wake Forest, simply because the Demon Deacons are 3–1 (and 2–0 in ACC play) while Tech is 4–1 (0–1 in the ACC) — but Tech's lone setback came against eighth–ranked Clemson.
Wake Forest probably will have to beat Clemson if the Deacons hope to play in the ACC title game, but Wake Forest won't play Clemson for another month. The game with Tech figures to be the Deacons' greatest conference test between now and then.
And I don't think they will pass it. I predict Virginia Tech will win by a touchdown.
#20 Baylor at #21 Texas A&M, 11 a.m. (Central) on FX: This will be the 27th time Baylor and Texas A&M have played since Baylor left College Station with a victory.
Oh, the Bears have beaten the Aggies since 1984 — three times — but those wins came in Waco, and the teams did play to a tie in College Station once — back in 1990 — but that, as they used to say before overtime put an end to that tying foolishness, is like kissing your sister. Or at least your cousin (unless you happen to be Jerry Lee Lewis).
Baylor backers crave an outcome with more meaning.
The Aggies struggled through two second–half implosions recently — their losses to Oklahoma State and Arkansas — but they seem to have gotten back on track with their win at Texas Tech last week. I think they will keep that momentum going this week, and I pick Texas A&M to win by 15 points.
Florida at #24 Auburn, 6 p.m. (Central) on ESPN: Since 1990, Florida is 10–5 against Auburn, but most of those wins have come at home.
This will be a crucial game for both teams. Defending national champion Auburn is 2–1 in SEC play and needs to win this game to stay in the hunt for the conference championship game. The Tigers still have dates with LSU and Alabama on their schedule so they can be said to control their own destiny — as long as they don't lose any other conference games.
Florida is 2–2 in conference play and needs to keep winning to keep pace with once–beaten South Carolina and Georgia, both of whom the Gators have yet to play. What's more, a win over Auburn could catapult the Gators back into the rankings.
I expect this to be a pretty entertaining game, and I pick Florida to win it by a point or two.
A "tomato can" is a fighter who is believed to be past his prime and an "easy" or "guaranteed" win for an up-and-coming fighter who wants to pad his record.
Sometimes, though, the "tomato can" doesn't cooperate. For example, in 1990, undefeated heavyweight champion Mike Tyson lost the title to a 42-to-1 underdog named Buster Douglas.
Another heavyweight champion, Muhammad Ali, almost lost his title to lightly regarded Chuck Wepner in 1975. Wepner nearly went the distance against Ali and inspired the original "Rocky" movie.
I got my bachelor's degree in journalism from the University of Arkansas, and I got my master's degree in journalism from the University of North Texas. Most of my adult life has been dedicated to writing and editing in one form or another. Most recently I have taught writing (news and developmental) as an adjunct journalism professor at Richland College, where I advise the student newspaper staff. Go, Thunderducks!
I found it compelling. Wimbledon champ Petra Kvitova defeated Victoria Azarenka to clinch her first WTA title.
Anyway, Wozniacki secured the top spot in the WTA's ranking system when Maria Sharapova had to withdraw with an ankle injury. And then the Kvitova–Azarenka match was guaranteed to result in the #2 ranking for the winner. Azarenka, who was ranked fourth going into the match, moved up one spot to third and Sharapova dropped to fourth.
