Football Is Back!

College football returns tonight, and I am so ready.

I like the NFL, too, but I've always preferred the college game. Maybe I owe it to my father. He's that way, too. Or maybe it's because of where I grew up. In Arkansas, there is no professional team. The University of Arkansas' Razorbacks fill that role.

Well, whatever the reason may be, football is back. Let the games begin. Oh, and for you new readers. I don't pick against the spread, which means I tend to have great weeks in the nonconference portion of the season, not so much when conference play begins. Anyway, it's all in fun. I don't encourage anyone to gamble — and certainly not on the basis of anything I have to say.

Thursday

• #9 South Carolina at #21 Texas A&M, 5 p.m. (Central) on SEC Network: This will be the first–ever meeting between these two schools, but it won't be the last. Under the new arrangement, they will face each other every year as regular non–divisional foes.
  
  The Aggies have a lot of questions at the QB position. Since the now–departed Johnny Manziel was responsible for most of A&M's wins in the last couple of years, that's a pretty serious question mark. I don't think the Aggies will answer them tonight. I pick South Carolina.
• Boise State vs. #18 Ole Miss in Atlanta, 7 p.m. (Central) on ESPN: Another first. In the old days, it would be regarded as a mismatch. It may still turn out that way. But I pick Ole Miss to win what could be a close game.
• Weber State at #19 Arizona State, 9:30 p.m. (Central) on Pac–12 Network: This one, on the other hand, really should be a mismatch. Arizona State should have no trouble.

Friday

• Jacksonville State at #8 Michigan State, 6:30 p.m. (Central) on Big Ten Network: Likewise, Michigan State should have little to no difficulty subduing Jacksonville State.

Saturday

• Oklahoma State vs. #1 Florida State in Arlington, Texas, 7 p.m. (Central) on ABC: It's been nearly 30 years since the last time these teams met (in the 1985 Gator Bowl), and it's been 55 years since the Cowboys beat the Seminoles (in the 1958 Bluegrass Bowl).
  
  The Cowboys were good last year, good enough to hand previously unbeaten Baylor its first loss of the season, but defending Heisman winner Jameis Winston should be too much for OSU. I'll take Florida State at home.
• West Virginia vs. #2 Alabama in Atlanta, 2:30 (Central) on ABC: First–ever meeting. Logic says Alabama should win — and so do I. West Virginia isn't all that far removed from 10–plus win seasons — but it has been a couple of years now, years in which Alabama was in the thick of the national championship fight.
  
  In fact, Alabama has won 10 or more (usually more) in six straight seasons. It reminds me of the days when Bear Bryant prowled the sidelines.
• South Dakota at #3 Oregon, 9:30 p.m. (Central) on Pac–12 Network: Lots of folks are saying the Ducks will play for the national title. Maybe they will. If they are that good, they won't have any trouble with South Dakota. I pick Oregon.
• Louisiana Tech at #4 Oklahoma: First–ever meeting. I wouldn't be surprised if Louisiana Tech doesn't want to make another trip to Norman when this one is over.
  
  Tech is coming off a 4–8 season, the Bulldogs' fifth losing season in the last eight years. Oklahoma, on the other hand, has been in the BCS conversation the last four seasons. The Sooners' most recent game was their Sugar Bowl triumph over Alabama. I have to pick Oklahoma.
• #5 Ohio State vs. Navy in Baltimore, 11 a.m. (Central) on CBS Sports Network: Ohio State has never played at Navy, but the teams have met before — four times, in fact, and the Buckeyes won them all.
  
  Ohio State did play Navy at Baltimore once, but that was the closest they've come, and nothing changes this time. Still not going to Annapolis. Same outcome, though. Ohio State will win.
• Arkansas at #6 Auburn, 3 p.m. (Central) on SEC Network: This will be the 24th time these schools have faced each other. Their first meeting was back in the 1984 Liberty Bowl; all the other meetings have been as SEC rivals.
  
  Auburn holds a narrow advantage (11–10–1) in those conference clashes. As a graduate of Arkansas, I would love to see the Razorbacks even the conference score with Auburn, but I know they won't. Auburn played for the national title last year; Arkansas didn't even win a conference game (losing to Auburn, 35–17, in the process).
  
  Historically, Arkansas has enjoyed some success at Auburn, winning in four of the Hogs' last six visits, but I can't imagine that they will make it five of their last seven. Auburn will win.
• #7 UCLA at Virginia, 11 a.m. (Central) on ESPN: First–ever meeting. Virginia has had winning seasons only twice in the last eight years. It hasn't been so long since UCLA struggled, too, but the Bruins have developed a taste for winning the last couple of seasons. I pick UCLA to win a contest that may be closer than many people think.
• UC–Davis at #11 Stanford, 3 p.m. (Central) on Pac–12 Network: I've got to wonder if UC–Davis' football team has ever been on TV before. I doubt that UC–Davis will be anxious to repeat the experience after Saturday's game. Got to go with Stanford.
• #16 Clemson at #12 Georgia, 4:30 p.m. (Central) on ESPN: For such a rivalry, the series tilts heavily in one direction. Georgia has beaten Clemson more than twice as many times as the Bulldogs have lost to the Tigers.
  
  But Clemson upset the Bulldogs last season, snapping a five–game losing streak. I'd like to think lightning can strike twice, but it's been more than a quarter of a century since Clemson beat Georgia in back–to–back seasons. Before that, you'd have to go back to the days of Teddy Roosevelt — and Barack Obama is no T.R. I pick Georgia.
• #14 Wisconsin vs. #13 LSU in Houston, 8 p.m. (Central) on ESPN: This one really has the potential to be a good game. These teams met twice in the early '70s, and LSU won both.
  
  But that was 40 years ago. And, while I have more friends who went to LSU than to Wisconsin, I'm going to pick Wisconsin in an upset.
• Fresno State at #15 Southern Cal, 6:30 p.m. (Central) on Fox: This will be the fourth meeting between these schools, and Fresno State did actually win once — in the 1992 Freedom Bowl. USC won the last two, including last year's Las Vegas Bowl.
  
  Fresno should make it competitive for awhile, but I have to pick Southern Cal to win.
• Rice at #17 Notre Dame, 2:30 p.m. (Central) on NBC: The bad news for Rice is that this is the fifth time the Owls have played Notre Dame, and they have lost each of those games. However, the good news is that these schools haven't played each other in more than a quarter of a century.
  
  That probably won't matter. I'll take Notre Dame. Heck, if Rice scores 12 points, it will be something of a moral victory for the Owls. Eleven points is their high–water mark in this series.
• Stephen F. Austin at #20 Kansas State: I have to take Kansas State in this one. How can I not?
• Florida Atlantic at #22 Nebraska, 2:30 p.m. (Central) on Big Ten Network: These teams met once before, in the first week of September 2009. Nebraska rolled to victory. I don't know if the Cornhuskers will roll this time, but I will pick Nebraska to win.
• Liberty at #23 North Carolina: I don't know how good North Carolina is this year, but the Tar Heels must be good enough to beat Liberty. I'll take North Carolina.
• South Dakota State at #24 Missouri, 2:30 p.m. (Central) on ESPNU: I think Missouri is going be coming back to earth this season after playing for last year's SEC crown, but this game should belong to Missouri. The comeuppance will come another day.
• #25 Washington at Hawaii, 9:30 p.m. (Central) on CBS Sports Network: I'm not really sure how I feel about the Huskies. I suppose we will learn a lot from watching how they respond to traveling through a couple of time zones to open the season.
  
  The all–time series is tied at 2–2, but it took Washington's win in their last meeting — in 2011 — to accomplish it. Now the Huskies seek something they haven't had since 1973 — the series advantage.
  
  Hawaii has won only nine times since that game with Washington — and five of those victories came in that 2011 season. Hawaii has not been very good in the last couple of seasons. It is hard to imagine the kind of improvement that would be necessary to win this game. I take Washington.

Sunday

• SMU at #10 Baylor, 6:30 p.m. (Central) on Fox Sports: Back in their Southwest Conference days, this was a pretty competitive series. It should be a better game than most of the meetings between those schools were when they were conference rivals, and Baylor will be showing off a brand–new stadium. I have to take Baylor.

The Consensus Grows: Pete Rose Deserves His Shot at Cooperstown

---

---

When he was playing baseball, Pete Rose knew only one speed. He went all out, every day. He wanted to win.

I guess that tenacious drive to win — which was so admired by baseball fans — was what got him in trouble 25 years ago. On this day in 1989, Commissioner Bart Giamatti accepted what was called Rose's "voluntary ineligibility" from baseball for violating its prohibition on gambling.

What that meant, in simple language, was a lifetime ban from major–league baseball.

And a lifetime ban from baseball is exactly what it sounds like, too. It's for someone's lifetime — and then some. Nearly all the time, he has been prohibited from even being in a major–league ballpark. In one of the rare exceptions that comes to my mind was in the summer of 1999, he was part of the All–Century squad that was honored prior to the All–Star game at Fenway Park.

Rose was given a standing ovation from the fans that evening, by the way.

Why is gambling such a serious matter? Well, it has to do with the integrity of the game, the sport's assurance to its fans that the games are on the level. And the penalty isn't as severe if the player or coach bets on a game involving two other teams, but if a bet involves the team for whom the player plays or the coach coaches, it is much worse because such individuals are in a position to influence the outcome.

Rose was alleged to have made bets on games involving his own team, a charge he denied for 15 years — but finally admitted in 2004.

There's been considerable debate over the years over whether Shoeless Joe Jackson participated in the conspiracy to throw the 1919 World Series; if he did, his performance in the Series didn't show it (at the plate, he had 12 base hits and the only home run for either team; in the field, he committed no errors). Yet his ban remains in effect, nearly 100 years later — and more than 60 years after his death.

Shoeless Joe went to his grave insisting that he wasn't involved in the conspiracy — but you won't see his bust at Cooperstown.

Rose, now 73, knows there is virtually no chance that he will be reinstated, that even though he is still the all–time hits leader (and likely to remain so — his closest active competition is 40–year–old Derek Jeter, who is retiring at the end of this season and should still be at least 750 hits behind Rose when he does), he will never be enshrined in baseball's Hall of Fame.

And he appears to be at peace with that.

"I'm the one that screwed up," he told Keith Olbermann during last year's World Series. "I'm not mad at anybody. I'm not mad at [present Commissioner] Bud [Selig] or Bart [Giamatti]. I haven't given up on Bud giving me a second chance. I know he's retiring after [the current season], but I'll continue to be a great ambassador for the game of baseball and try to keep selling the game of baseball because I love the game."

Giamatti died a week to the day after Rose's ban went into effect.

ESPN recently reported that Rose still hasn't given up on being reinstated. At least, he says he hasn't.

My thoughts on Pete Rose have changed over the years. When the ban was put into effect, I was fully in favor of it. I remember saying to a friend, "When Shoeless Joe Jackson is allowed into the Hall of Fame, we can talk about Pete Rose."

I guess I still feel that way — to a certain extent. I don't think it would be right for Rose to be eligible to be enshrined at Cooperstown and Shoeless Joe not to be. I wanted Rose to admit what he had done, and I was angry that he did not when all the evidence pointed to his guilt. But he has since admitted betting on his team, and I'm willing to accept the last decade as his penalty for that.

I was primarily opposed to enshrining Rose, not continuing to ban Jackson, and my position today is that both should be enshrined — or, at least, they should be eligible for it. Whether they are or not should depend upon their body of work as baseball players; on that, I think we can all agree that they not only meet but exceed requirements. Their contributions to the game should be recognized, not denied because of a mistake that one made and unsupported allegations against the other.

Enough is enough.

I don't know how everyone in the sports media feels about Shoeless Joe, but I can report that there is a growing consensus that Rose should be eligible for a spot in Cooperstown.

Briana Altergott of the Atlanta Journal–Constitution takes no sides but summarizes what has been written recently in the sports press. The headline on Altergott's piece asked the question many in sports media are asking: "Does Pete Rose deserve a second chance?"

"If Selig wanted Rose's banishment to serve as a deterrent for those inside the game who were thinking about betting on it," writes John Erardi of USA Today, "Selig got it — a quarter of a century's worth."

Kevin Sherrington of the Dallas Morning News writes, "Rose has admitted mistakes and served his time. Twenty–five years. Time to make him eligible for the Hall of Fame. Leave it up to the process to determine if he's worthy.

"Frankly, I think he's deserving, just as I did 35 years ago and 25 years ago and last week. For better or worse, there's never been another player like him."

I'll go along with that. I saw him play in person once when I was a kid. He was electrifying to watch, whether you were pulling for him or against him. He wants to be part of baseball again. I believe he has learned from his years in the wilderness. "The last thing in the world I'd do now is bet on baseball," he told ESPN. "I would be the cleanest guy in the world when it comes to that because of the scrutiny I would go through. You may think I'm crazy, but I think baseball is in a better place if I'm in it."

I agree.

Pete Rose has paid his debt to baseball for gambling. Baseball has a chance to be generous and forgiving now.

The Cheshire Cat Strikes Olympic Gold

---

---

The 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles were noteworthy before they began. Most of the world's communist–bloc nations declined to participate because the United States had led a boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow.

So the Games were noteworthy for who was not there.

But it was also noteworthy for who was there.

President Ronald Reagan, who served as governor of California for eight years, was there to open the Games. Track and field star Carl Lewis was there, and he won four gold medals, matching the 1936 performance of Jesse Owens. Michael Jordan, Patrick Ewing and Chris Mullin were there, and they participated on the U.S. basketball team that won the gold medal.

And Mary Lou Retton was there. Thirty years ago today, she became the first gymnast outside Eastern Europe to win the all–around competition.

Even with all those big names at the Games, Retton often seemed to be the only attraction. She had one of those smiles that was so big it seemed to exist all by itself — kind of like Lewis Carroll's Cheshire Cat.

Jordan, Ewing and Mullin had not yet begun their professional careers; Jordan, in particular, was not as famous as he would become. Eight years later, all three would be members of the so–called "Dream Team."

---

---

Mary Lou was America's sweetheart that summer. I don't think I have seen another U.S. female Olympian who was as adored as Mary Lou — with the possible exception of Dorothy Hamill.

In fact, it was during the '76 Summer Games — a few months after Hamill won her gold medal in figure skating — that Nadia Comaneci became the first gymnast to score a perfect 10.0 in Olympic competition. It was an achievement that most Americans probably dreamed — but dared not believe — one of their countrymen would match someday.

But Retton outdid Comaneci in 1984, scoring two perfect 10s, on the floor exercise and vault. The latter was particularly dramatic, given that Retton had knee surgery five weeks before the Games began.

Reagan, who was seeking a second term as president in 1984, enjoyed an approval rating of 52–54% during the Olympics — he accepted the Republican nomination in Dallas later that month — but my guess would be that Retton's approval far exceeded the president's that summer.

I don't know of any polls that were conducted at that time, but I'm reasonably sure Retton was the most popular person in America that year — at least in July and August.

Reagan went on to win 49 states in November, but, that summer, Retton might have been the only person in America who could have beaten him.

And she was only 16 years old.

Retton, now living in Houston with her husband and four daughters, recently attended a reunion of Team USA '84. A wistful time appears to have been had by all. Retton recalled that one of the highlights of her Olympic experience was riding on the bus to the Opening Ceremony with members of the U.S. basketball team.

Those '84 Olympic Games were, in the words of the Murfreesboro (Tenn.) Post, "one for the ages" — although I'm not sure where writer David Hunter heard that the Olympics in 1984 saved the Games.

(I know the Americans boycotted the 1980 Games in Moscow, and the Russians boycotted the '84 Games, but the Post's reasoning was too simplistic. Technically, Mr. Hunter was correct when he said that was "because of the Cold War," but that is really too general. The Americans and dozens of other countries boycotted because of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.)