Tomato Cans

Scream 2

2012-01-28T14:00:00.011-06:00

As I have mentioned here before, I used to work on the sports copy desk of the old Arkansas Gazette.

I made many friends during my time there. "Some are dead and some are living," in the words of John Lennon, and one of the living ones, with whom I have reconnected via Facebook, is, as I have told him, the foremost authority on tennis that I know.

I thought of him today when I was watching Maria Sharapova battle Victoria Azarenka in the women's final of the Australian Open.

It was a rematch of a tournament showdown I watched last spring, and the outcome was nearly the same. The 22–year–old Azarenka completely dominated Sharapova and appears to be well on her way to the top ranking in the world.

I wanted to get some feedback from my friend so I e–mailed him after the match, and this is what he had to say.

Of Azarenka, whose victory this morning was her first Grand Slam title, he said, "[S]he's mentally strong enough to win some slam tournaments. She plays big points well."

That was my impression as well. She continues to impress me every time I see her play — and in unexpected ways.

And, perhaps, nothing I saw in today's match made a greater impression on me than what I saw at the end — a triumphant Azarenka dropped to her knees and appeared to be stunned that she had actually won a Grand Slam event.

Never mind that she had completely dominated Sharapova, who has been regarded as a formidable force in women's tennis since winning Wimbledon nearly eight years ago.

Shortly, though, Azarenka's bewilderment turned to pure unadulterated joy as she ripped the sweatband from her brow and threw it into the cheering crowd, then threw tennis ball after tennis ball to the fans.

Her domination of Sharapova had been so complete, in fact, that none other than Chris Evert observed, at one point, that, in her day (and, I would presume, the practice predated her career), it was said that if one player won five consecutive sets (or more) against someone else, the first player owned the second.

And, based on that, Evert continued, it could fairly be said that Azarenka owns Sharapova.

Certainly, based on my observations, that is true. Azarenka beat Sharapova in straight sets in the match I watched last spring — and I thought at the time that it was their first encounter, but, as I understand it, they actually met for the first time a few years earlier. Azarenka won on that occasion, too, which means she has won at least five straight sets against Sharapova.

Of Sharapova, my friend said, "I love watching Sharapova but I don't think she's that interested in winning on the court. She can make more money posing."

Regretfully, that seems to be true.

She's still making noises about wanting to win Grand Slam tournaments, but I have to wonder, especially as Azarenka's star is ascending, if she isn't being drawn to a more lucrative modeling career.

And, frankly, who could blame her?

She is an attractive young woman, and there is always a lot of money for young women who are willing to parlay their physical attributes into bank accounts.

And, if she chooses to dedicate herself to the pursuit of easy paydays, that's fine. It might even be the wisest choice she could make.

Because Azarenka, it seems, is dedicating herself to the pursuit of Grand Slam titles. And, as Geoff MacDonald writes in the New York Times, "she is an attacking, all–court player capable of success on any surface. With her new–found equilibrium on the court, and her fearless competitive spirit, Azarenka will contend for all four Grand Slam titles."

Might be hard for Sharapova to compete.

'Ryp'ping the Bills

2012-01-28T10:47:00.008-06:00

Twenty years ago, I worked on a newspaper copy desk with a young woman who was a devout Washington Redskins fan.

And, when the Redskins won the Super Bowl in January 1992, she was ecstatic. In the aftermath of that game, all kinds of Redskins paraphernalia adorned her work station — and I'm sure I heard her humming "Hail to the Redskins" a couple of times. My desk was next to hers, and I'm convinced I couldn't be mistaken ...

I've never really cared for the Redskins, but even I had to grudgingly admit that it took a certain amount of courage for her to publicly acknowledge she was a Washington fan. We were working for a paper in north Texas, practically a stone's throw from Dallas, home of the Redskins' longtime rivals, the Cowboys.

Most of the people in the newsroom grew up here, and most were Cowboys fans. A Redskins fan living in or near Dallas must feel the same as a Yankees fan living in Boston — like a man without a country.

Oh, sure, these days devotees of just about any sports franchise can find groups of like–minded fans in any metropolitan area. Perhaps these groups have been around for a long time and today, thanks to the internet, it isn't too hard to locate them and the sports bars where they congregate, but if those groups existed in 1992, the task of finding them was a lot more difficult.

So my hat was off to her. We weren't buddies and spent no time together outside the office, but my guess is that she couldn't have had much of a support network based on her favorite football team. Must have been kind of an isolating experience for her.

Anyway, I left that newspaper a few months after the Redskins won the Super Bowl, and I have no idea what became of my former co–worker. But, if she is still living, I wonder how well she's been holding up. The Redskins haven't been back to the Super Bowl since.

For that matter, they haven't even played in a conference championship game since. They share the distinction of the longest period between NFC Championship game appearances with the team they beat in 1992, the Detroit Lions, and both teams will add to their record championship game droughts until one returns. At that time, other one will be the sole holder of that dubious record — unless they both return to the NFC Championship game in the same year.

If they do face each other in a rematch of the '92 title tilt, I hope it will be more competitive. Twenty years ago, the Lions committed two early turnovers and the Redskins jumped to a 10–0 lead and never looked back en route to a 41–10 hammering.

Considering what happened in the most recent NFL season, the Lions may well return to the NFC Championship game before the Redskins do. But it is doubtful that they will enjoy the kind of day the Redskins did in Super Bowl XXVI with the Buffalo Bills.

Things got started a little slowly, which was odd because the teams were the highest–scoring squads in the league. Neither team scored in the first quarter, but the Redskins hung 17 points on the Bills in the second quarter and took a 17–0 lead to the locker room.

The Redskins made it 24–0 before Buffalo ever got on the board, and they strolled to their eventual 37–24 triumph.

Clearly, the outcome was never in doubt.

It was vindication for quarterback Mark Rypien, who was named the game's MVP. When the season started, the Redskins weren't settled at the quarterback position. Rypien had been their starter for the last two seasons, but he had been erratic at times.

By the time the final gun sounded in Super Bowl XXVI, Rypien was regarded by many as the league's best quarterback.

But my memories of that day do not focus on the game, really.

I remember attending a Super Bowl party thrown by one of my co–workers. In true Southern fashion, he prepared brisket for his guests (with the usual sides) and was generous in his servings, each of which was bathed in his homemade barbecue sauce.

I grew up in the South and, consequently, I've eaten my fair share of brisket. This may have been the best I've ever eaten. If it wasn't the best, it was darn close to it. (It might have been the sauce.)

Yep, the food was good. Very good. But after the score became 24–0 in the third quarter, there really didn't seem to be much incentive to stick around. When the score reached 31–10 near the end of the third period, I excused myself at a commercial break and went home.

What really stands out in my memory from that day is when Bill and Hillary Clinton appeared on TV to talk about the allegations that had been made about Clinton's relationship with Gennifer Flowers.

The interview was heavily promoted since Clinton was at a critical juncture. He had come in third in the Iowa caucuses, and he was trying to overcome charges of infidelity before the New Hampshire primary that was coming up in three weeks.

That was the challenge to Clinton. If he couldn't demonstrate that his campaign was on an upward trajectory, he might as well drop out.

So the Clintons came on TV after the Super Bowl and made their case. It was convincing enough for Clinton to finish second in New Hampshire, proclaim himself the "Comeback Kid" and essentially launch his successful bid for the White House by sweeping the "Super Tuesday" primaries.

Return to Titletown

2012-01-27T16:55:00.006-06:00

I remember, as a child, watching the Green Bay Packers play on TV.

Vince Lombardi was their coach, and I was becoming interested in football cards. My cards of Bart Starr, Ray Nitschke, Willie Wood, Donny Anderson and all the others were my prized possessions.

I believed the Packers were the best in football — and they were. But I believed it would always be that way — and it wasn't.

Frankly, it seemed like kind of a dirty trick to me, hooking me as a Packers fan at an early age and then reducing the Packers to NFL bottom feeders for many years.

I can't tell you how often I longed on Super Sunday — as I watched the Dolphins or Steelers or Cowboys or 49ers win it all time after time — for the Packers to just get to a Super Bowl.

I always told myself I wouldn't mind if they lost the game. I just wanted them to play in the Super Bowl, the game everyone watched.

Of course, that wasn't true. The longer I waited, the more I wanted to see the Packers win. Just getting there wouldn't be enough. Eventually, I had to acknowledge that.

But, for a long time, the possibility of the Packers being in the Super Bowl was extremely remote. The Packers usually failed even to make the playoffs. In fact, they typically did so spectacularly. They were frequently among the first to be mathematically eliminated from the playoff discussion.

A Packers Super Bowl appearance was strictly hypothetical for Green Bay fans.

That changed 20 years ago. With a few exceptions, the Packers have become fixtures in the NFL playoffs, and they have actually been to three Super Bowls in those two decades, winning two and losing the NFC Championship game on two other occasions.

It changed when Brett Favre took over as the Packers' quarterback. Not right away. Favre led Green Bay to the playoffs almost from the start, but the Packers in those days reminded me of the Tin Woodman in "The Wizard of Oz" — a little creaky at first but gradually picking up speed as the oil spread to its extremities.

The Packers of the early '90s returned to the playoffs as a wild–card team in 1993 and 1994, then won their division in 1995 and made it to the NFC title game, where they lost to Dallas.

It was 15 years ago that the Packers finally returned to the Super Bowl for the first time since Lombardi's day. Their opponent in the New Orleans Superdome was the New England Patriots.

That might seem rather unremarkable to modern football fans, who have seen both teams in multiple Super Bowls in recent years, but it certainly made Super Bowl XXXI intriguing. At the time, the Patriots had only been to one other Super Bowl more than a decade earlier and had lost in rather spectacular fashion to the Chicago Bears. And the Packers, of course, hadn't been to the Super Bowl in three decades. On the basis of that, I wasn't sure that either team had an advantage.

The Packers, however, had made an impression on the guys who determine the point spreads in athletic contests, presumably based on Green Bay's recent upward trajectory in the playoffs. New England, on the other hand, was considered something of a flash in the pan, having rarely been seen in the postseason since losing the Super Bowl to Chicago.

Anyway, the Packers went into the game favored by 14 points. As a lifelong Packers fan, I felt a certain amount of gratification, naturally, but I also felt a bit anxious as Super Sunday approached. Everyone was treating the outcome as a foregone conclusion, and the last thing I wanted the Packers to do was to treat the game as if victory was assured.

Initially, it seemed my fears were justified. At the end of the first quarter, New England led, 14–10, but the Packers scored 17 unanswered points in the second quarter and went to the locker room with a 27–14 halftime lead.

In hindsight, I needn't have worried. As it turned out, the Packers won by precisely 14 points, thanks to a jaw–dropping 99–yard third–quarter kickoff return for a touchdown by Desmond Howard, who became the first special teams player to win the Super Bowl MVP.

Howard's return certainly deserved recognition, but I always felt that Green Bay's victory on that day was more of a team effort, with many people making significant contributions.

Howard's return did, in fact, stop New England's momentum dead in its tracks. The Patriots had just scored a touchdown that brought them within six points of the Packers, and Howard's return took all the wind from their sails.

But defensive lineman Reggie White did his part as well, setting a Super Bowl record for sacks. I can vividly remember seeing White pick up Patriot offensive linemen and toss them aside as if they were rag dolls.

And Favre, who is considered by nearly everyone to be a lock for the Hall of Fame, threw for two touchdowns and ran for another. He was the first Super Bowl–winning quarterback to account for three touchdowns or more and not be named MVP.

That didn't seem to bother Favre at the time. "We etched our place in history today," he said after the game, putting the team's accomplishment over everything else.

Favre, like most observers, probably figured he would have other opportunities to be named the Super Bowl's MVP. But he didn't.

He did play in another Super Bowl — the following year — and lost it. Only once has the Super Bowl MVP come from the losing team — and it wasn't Favre.

When Favre is inducted into the Hall of Fame, there will be many achievements to be listed beneath his name — but Super Bowl MVP will not be among them. And, in some ways, that seems unfair. All the other Green Bay quarterbacks who took the Packers to the Super Bowl were named Super Bowl MVP — including Aaron Rodgers, Favre's successor.

But Favre has a special distinction that may not always get the attention it deserves. He revived a proud but moribund franchise — as did Bart Starr in the 1960s — and is responsible for the virtually dynastic status the Packers enjoy today.

It sure is a different world from the one in which I grew up.

A Tale of Two Halves

2012-01-25T16:09:00.008-06:00

Until this day 25 years ago, Bill Parcells had never coached a team to a Super Bowl — let alone a Super Bowl victory.

He had been in the playoffs a few times, but he had never made it to the Super Bowl — thus, he was one of several NFL coaches who were considered good but not great.

That perception changed in 1986, when he guided the New York Giants to the NFC championship and their first Super Bowl berth. The Giants went on to win their first Super Bowl, too.

But, whereas many of the previous Super Bowls were effectively over by halftime, the score at the intermission of Super Bowl XXI offered no clue as to which team would eventually win.

The Denver Broncos won the first half, 10–9. It was the narrowest halftime lead any team had ever enjoyed in a Super Bowl. The Giants scored 23 unanswered points in the second half, building a 32–10 lead before the Broncos added a 28–yard field goal by Rich Karlis.

The Giants added another TD, and the Broncos answered with another touchdown, producing the final score (39–20) that falsely implied the game had been well in hand all along.

It wasn't as lopsided as it appeared, although New York quarterback Phil Simms completed 88% of his passes (22 of 25) and won the MVP award.

When the outcome was no longer in doubt, head coach Bill Parcells experienced the first Gatorade shower in Super Bowl history.

Over the years, the scene has become football's equivalent of "the fat lady singing" in opera. Until you see it happen, the outcome is still uncertain.

And, in the last quarter of a century, it hasn't been limited to championship games, either. I've seen coaches get Gatorade showers when their teams ended losing streaks or set new records of just about any kind.

But, on this day in 1987, it was brand new. It was the birth of a new ritual.

I saw it happen, but I've got to admit I didn't realize the significance of what I saw. We were only a year removed from the Chicago Bears' "Super Bowl Shuffle," and I guess I figured I was witnessing the latest fad — sure to be replaced a year later by whatever the next Super Bowl champion would do.

But the Gatorade shower has had staying power. Who knew?

Dawn of a Dynasty

2012-01-24T15:09:00.001-06:00

Super Bowl XVI was played 30 years ago today.

At least through 2009, it was the highest–rated Super Bowl of all time. I haven't seen the ratings numbers on the last two Super Bowls, but I'm pretty sure that, if either game had surpassed Super Bowl XVI in viewership ratings, someone would have mentioned it.

Last February's Super Bowl between Green Bay and Pittsburgh attracted the highest number of U.S. viewers of any Super Bowl — but that certainly was to be expected. I mean, considering the annual population growth rate, it would seem strange if the number of viewers did not increase as well.

Ratings, though, are something else. They are based on the share of viewers who watch at least part of the game at any given time while it is on.

In that category, I'm inclined to think Super Bowl XVI is still the undisputed champ — for a few reasons.

I was in college in those days, and I remember watching part of the game at a party at a classmate's home. My memory of that time is that it was unusually cold across much of the United States — it wasn't quite as cold as it had been two weeks earlier when the conference titles were decided, but it was cold enough — and many people were housebound by a blizzard. Consequently, lots of folks, even people who normally didn't watch football (or, perhaps, any sports event), may have had little choice.

If you're thinking that they would have had other TV options, you need to revisit the world of 1982. Cable TV did exist, but it was still limited in many ways, and the traditional networks still dominated. Likewise, video recorders existed, but they were still too expensive to be commonplace in most households.

The other networks virtually conceded the time slot to the Super Bowl, filling their schedules with reruns and B movies.

Let's cut to the chase here. Super Bowl XVI had a captive audience.

That was probably OK with most folks, though, because Super Bowl XVI was intriguing. It paired two teams who had never played in a Super Bowl before. That is an exceedingly rare occurrence. In fact, if you exclude the first Super Bowl, only one other prior game had been between two newcomers — and only one game since that time has been between two teams that had never been in a Super Bowl before.

Offensive–minded viewers probably figured Cincinnati would win. The Bengals' quarterback, Ken Anderson, was the league's MVP, engineering two impressive wins over the Pittsburgh Steelers, whose 1970s dynasty was showing unmistakable signs of aging but who still commanded a great deal of respect.

Among quarterbacks, Anderson's top rival in the AFC that season was San Diego's Dan Fouts — and Anderson beat him twice, once during the regular season and once on a frigid January afternoon to win the AFC title.

Statistically, Anderson's leading rival in the NFC probably was Minnesota's Tommy Kramer — who, like Fouts, completed more passes for more yards than Anderson did. But Kramer's Vikings failed to make the playoffs.

Next in line from the NFC was the man Anderson would face in the Super Bowl, San Francisco's Joe Montana. He had the highest passer rating in the conference, but most of his numbers that year weren't too gaudy — except for his team's won–lost record, which went up from 6–10 in 1980 to 13–3 in 1981.

Defensive–minded fans may have figured San Francisco would win. The 49ers were second in the NFC in team defense, third against the pass and had beaten the Bengals in the 14th week of the season, holding them to only a field goal.

As it turned out, San Francisco did win the Super Sunday rematch, but, for most of that afternoon, its defense did not shine.

People often forget that Super Bowl XVI was the first in which the team that got the most yards and scored the most touchdowns did not win the game.

The Bengals, however, turned the ball over five times, and the 49ers' defense did rise, memorably, to the occasion with a thrilling goal–line stand in the second half. It didn't seal the deal — Cincinnati scored two touchdowns in the final quarter, and San Francisco needed two Ray Wersching field goals to claim a 26–21 win — but it spoke volumes about the 49ers' team personality and desire to win.

And it turned out to be the dawn of a dynasty.

That desire to win carried the 49ers through the rest of the decade and into the next one. They added four more Super Bowl championships to their team resume in the next 13 years.

Talk about striking gold.

JoePa's Final Chapter

2012-01-22T11:02:00.012-06:00

After the child sex scandal that engulfed Penn State only a few months ago, there simply was no way that Joe Paterno's obituary — when the time for it came — would not mention Jerry Sandusky.

In fact, I remember saying that very thing to some people right after Paterno was fired. I just didn't realize Paterno's obituary would be written so soon.

But, like Richard Nixon, who lived nearly 20 years after he resigned the presidency but whose obituary still mentioned Watergate in the first paragraph, it was inevitable that, at the time of his passing, Paterno would be remembered, at least in part, for the scandal that ended his coaching career.

Paterno was a "a legend, lion and tainted leader," wrote Rana Cash for The Sporting News.

The first paragraph of ESPN's obituary observed that Paterno "won more games than anyone in major college football but was fired amid a child sex abuse scandal that scarred his reputation for winning with integrity."

Paterno was an "Ivy League–educated coach who transformed sleepy Penn State University into a national football power ... only to see his career end abruptly and his legacy tarnished," wrote Chris Dufresne in the Los Angeles Times.

The New York Times has long had the reputation for writing the best and most thorough obituaries in the print business, but Richard Goldstein, nevertheless, could not avoid mentioning the scandal in his summation of Paterno's life.

Paterno, he wrote, was "a symbol of integrity in collegiate athletics only to be fired ... amid a child sexual–abuse scandal."

Try as they might, no obituary — at least, none that I have seen today — has been able to avoid mentioning the scandal.

And some really have tried.

John Canzano, writing in The Oregonian last night when rumors were swirling that Paterno was dead, spoke of the "sad irony" that JoePa's life had become.

"[N]o discussion about Paterno will ever be complete without noting that Penn State's Board of Trustees fired him Nov. 9 in the aftermath of the child sex abuse charges against former assistant and close Paterno friend Jerry Sandusky," Canzano wrote — anticipating by a matter of hours the challenge facing those who would write Paterno's obituary.

Perhaps Jack McCallum of Sports Illustrated did the best job of balancing the good and the bad.

"For so long," McCallum wrote, "Joe Paterno seemed indestructible, more icon than man ... But when the end came, it came with such breathtaking suddenness that even non–believers must pause ... to wonder if it wasn't part of some cosmic script."

In the end, I suppose, we are left with our contradictory thoughts and feelings about this man who did so much good but whose memory will be forever linked to so much bad.

Death of a Skier

2012-01-20T07:19:00.010-06:00

I don't know if most Americans have ever heard of Canadian skier Sarah Burke.

Until recently, I must admit, I knew little about her myself. But, apparently, she was well known among extreme sports enthusiasts. And Burke' death dramatically alters expectations for the next Winter Olympics.

Burke, who died yesterday at the age of 29, was a freestyler who successfully lobbied to have her sport included in the Winter Olympics and was widely expected to win a medal in the sport when it makes its debut in the 2014 Winter Games in Russia. She died from injuries suffered 10 days ago in a training accident in Utah.

The death of one so young is always a tragedy, and the circumstances of Burke's death make it even more tragic. She was practicing the sport to which she had committed everything. Her commitment to it appears to have been even more binding than the marriage vows she took less than two years ago.

As I have observed, she was the driving force behind the inclusion of freeskiing in the Winter Olympics — and the ironic (and, apparently, inevitable) outcome of her death may well be a renewed and reinvigorated debate over the risks of her sport.

That may or may not be an overreaction. Burke's death is a tragedy, but from what I know of her I think she would agree that the sport has gone to great lengths to minimize the risks.

And the accident that caused her death appears to be more of a fluke than anything else. Observers say the accident occurred not on a complicated maneuver but on a routine jump that Burke had performed hundreds, if not thousands, of times before without incident.

Perhaps, as some have suggested, she landed at just the right angle to cause her fatal accident, that the odds against such a thing happening again are astronomical.

Accidents and injuries are "part of the game," Burke said. "Everybody gets hurt."

Canadian Freestyle Ski Association chief executive Peter Judge said, "[Burke] will be greatly missed by all of us at the CFSA and the entire ski community."

Burke may not have been a mainstream household name, but my guess is that the Olympic debut of the sport to which she dedicated herself will be among the most emotional of the next Winter Games.

And I predict that, in death, Burke will inspire far more people than she ever did in life.

It would be a tragedy compounding another to turn the situation into something it isn't, whatever the motivation.

The Greatest Is 70

2012-01-17T09:34:00.010-06:00

When I was growing up, Muhammad Ali — who was born in Louisville, Ky., 70 years ago today — was an inspiring figure.

In the eyes of many, he was a braggart, a smart aleck, the embodiment of the antiwar movement — even though, to my knowledge, he never participated in an antiwar march or protest after being stripped of his heavyweight title for refusing military induction during the Vietnam War.

It is appropriate, I suppose, that this milestone birthday comes one day after the national observance of Martin Luther King's birthday. Ali's stand, it was said, persuaded King, who had been hesitant to speak out against the war, to reverse his policy.

He took his share of scorn from those who supported the war, though, and, as I wrote last year on the 40th anniversary of Ali's first fight with Joe Frazier, the war was the reason most of those people rooted against Ali when he was in the ring.

They said he was arrogant, and they called him names like "the Louisville Lip" — an anti–Ali spin on his own declaration that he was "the Greatest" — but I always felt it was mostly a case of transference. The war was the real reason for their opposition.

Maybe they really did dislike Ali — he could be abrasive at times — but the war was their excuse.

I don't know if Ali was the greatest of all time, as he claimed. Perhaps the very suggestion was offensive to those who remembered Joe Louis or Rocky Marciano.

But I felt then — and I still feel today — that he was the best in my lifetime. Admittedly, some of that may have been due to my youth and susceptibility. But not everyone who saw him fight was as young as I was — and even many of those who disagreed with his politics acknowledged, however grudgingly, how talented he was.

His talent was never an issue for me. When Ali said he was "the Greatest," I never thought he was boasting. I thought he was stating a fact.

And today he is 70. And, strangely, I am the one who feels older.

Happy birthday, champ.

Winning the Big One ... Finally

2012-01-16T03:17:00.003-06:00

As they began the 1971 season, the Dallas Cowboys had been known as the team that couldn't win it all for a long time.

Well, it was a long time by Texas standards.

The Cowboys had actually been in existence for a little more than a decade when they finally won the conference title in January 1971 and went on to play in their first Super Bowl ever. As expansion teams go, that's a pretty rapid ascension, but they lost that Super Bowl to the Baltimore Colts on a last–second field goal — and, once again, fell short of Texas–sized expectations.

That did not happen on this date in 1972.

I don't know how — or, for that matter, precisely when — it started, but sometime in the late 1960s the Dallas defense acquired the nickname "Doomsday."

The Cowboys of those days always seemed to have talented players on offense, but the defense was the team's foundation.

And it was frequently the failure of the offense that kept the team from advancing to the next level.

In January 1972, though, Roger Staubach had been the starting quarterback most of the year and enjoyed what may have been his best season as a pro. With Staubach in charge on the field, the offense finally matched the defense, and the rest of the league was powerless to do anything about it.

Certainly, Miami appeared powerless on this day 40 years ago.

Most Super Bowl teams have scored at least one touchdown, but, on that day, Miami did not. Even the few teams that failed to score a touchdown got more points than the Dolphins did — and, unless a future Super Bowl participant is held to a safety or shut out completely, Miami's standard for scoring futility is going to remain on the record books.

Doomsday held Miami to a single Garo Yepremian field goal in the first half, essentially smothering the Dolphins' key offensive weapons — receiver Paul Warfield and running backs Larry Csonka and Jim Kiick.

When the Cowboys had the ball, Staubach completed nearly two–thirds of his passes, two of which went for touchdowns as Dallas prevailed, 24–3. Staubach was named the game's MVP and was jubilant, recalling on the 25th anniversary of that triumph that "I don't think I ever felt any better as an athlete than ... I felt after that game."

And why shouldn't he? Staubach and his teammates shook a monkey the size of King Kong from their backs that day.

The First Super Bowl

2012-01-15T00:20:00.004-06:00

Super Bowl Sunday is firmly established as perhaps the biggest social event of any year.

It's so well established, in fact, that it is almost certainly difficult for most people to imagine a time when there was no Super Bowl. But there was.

The first Super Bowl was played 45 years ago today. It wasn't called the Super Bowl at the time. It was generally known as the AFL–NFL World Championship Game; some media reports called it the Supergame. Later on, Kansas City Chiefs owner Lamar Hunt came up with the name it is known by today — Super Bowl.

But that's another story.

What it was, actually, was the Establishment vs. the Upstarts. The Establishment was the NFL, appropriately represented by the Green Bay Packers — who, incidentally, will be hosting the New York Giants in the playoffs later today. The Upstarts, the AFL teams, had only existed for a few years, but, like a presidential challenger who is given an opportunity to stand on a level playing field as the president's equal in a debate, they were eager to make the most of it.

Unfortunately for the AFL's representatives, the Chiefs, things never really went their way. That didn't surprise most people. The Packers came into the game as 14–point favorites and exceeded expectations with a 25–point margin of victory.

I guess it goes without saying that a lot of things have changed in 45 years. That's probably a classic understatement applicable to any time, any year in recorded history, and it's certainly true of the Super Bowl.

The game that was played 45 years ago today really bore little resemblance to the spectacle that the Super Bowl has become. The difference in the name is probably the least of the changes.

In fact, if a football fan could be magically transported back to January 1967, that fan would be in for quite a case of culture shock.

Oh, to be sure, it would look like the same game in many ways — same field dimensions, same rules (mostly), same uniforms (although their designs as well as their construction certainly have changed).

The first thing a modern fan probably would notice would be an absence of hype surrounding that first Super Bowl. It was really more of a curiosity. I mean, everyone just knew that the NFL's team would beat the AFL's team. The superiority of the NFL was obvious. Nearly all of the best college football players went on to play for NFL teams.

At that time, I think the only truly high–profile college player who had signed with an AFL team was Joe Namath — and Namath did go on to win an early Super Bowl, legitimizing the league in the eyes of many. But that was still in the future on this day in 1967.

Super Bowl I was unique in other ways.

It is the only Super Bowl to be broadcast on two TV networks, NBC and CBS. NBC had the rights to AFL games; CBS had the rights to NFL games.

Subsequent Super Bowl broadcast rights have been granted to only one network each year, although the network has varied depending upon the arrangement. Forty–five years ago, it was decided that the best solution was to permit both networks to carry the game.

Very little video footage from that first Super Bowl survives to this day, even though two networks carried it.

There was a broadcasting procedure at the time called wiping, in which videotape of a previous program was taped over. Usually — but not always — this was done with tapes of programs that weren't expected to have much value in the future.

It is, perhaps, indicative of just how low expectations for the game were that both networks chose to recycle their videotapes instead of preserving them.

Considering how difficult it is to acquire tickets to a Super Bowl today, it certainly would surprise some modern fans to know that the very first Super Bowl was not a sellout.

It was still possible on game day to walk up to the Los Angeles Coliseum, where the game was played, and pay $12 for admission to the game. Those were the days, huh?

Confessions of a Packer Fan

2012-01-13T09:41:00.012-06:00

I try not to mention it too often on this blog, but I am a Green Bay Packers fan.

I have been a Cheesehead since I was a child — when I lived in central Arkansas, the only TV my family had was a rather small black–and–white number that my grandparents gave us and a guy named Lombardi was on the Green Bay sideline.

Through most of my life, a statement like "I am a Green Bay Packers fan" was kind of like one of those confessions people make at 12–step meetings. But not really. I mean, such meetings usually are about some kind of addiction over which a person is powerless, like an addiction to alcohol or tobacco. Other times, they are about an addiction to some other kind of destructive behavior, like kleptomania.

In the early years of my life, being a Packer fan was rarely about gratification — although I guess a case could be made for the cumulative destructive impact on one's psyche and self–esteem from all those losing seasons.

("My name is David, and I'm a Packerholic ...")

For awhile, I wore it as a badge of honor. When I was about 12 or 13, I had a Packers jacket — designed like those letterman jackets that jocks have been wearing since the dawn of time — that I wore almost defiantly everywhere I went.

It was a small club. I had a few friends who liked the Packers, too, and most of my friends wore similar NFL jackets, but the logos on their jackets were for the winners. I tended to see most of my peers as either fair–weather fans who followed whichever team was winning (they were the ones who liked Don Shula's Dolphins or Chuck Noll's Steelers) or were susceptible to regional influences (mostly Cowboys fans).

I considered myself special because my allegiance was not based on either factor.

Green Bay must be several hundred miles from my hometown, and the Packers rarely had winning seasons when I was growing up. It's hard to make a convincing case that someone jumped on a team's bandwagon when the team in question routinely loses at least two–thirds of its games — unless the fan is a glutton for punishment, which I am not.

(At least, I don't think I am.)

But, as I got older, I started to think that being a Packer fan was something shameful so I stopped sharing it with new acquaintances, and I became selective about the old friends with whom I would discuss it. In that sense, perhaps I was sort of like an alcoholic, indulging in my addiction within a select circle of friends — or (shudder!) when I was by myself.

Most of the time, it was easier just to not say anything when I was with a group of Cowboys fans or fans of the latest powerhouse.

Drinking alone would have been far more satisfying than sitting through the Packers' often lopsided losses. Fortunately, I guess, I rarely saw a Packers game on TV in those days. They weren't winning so there was little interest in them outside their home region.

Occasionally, I might get to see them on a Sunday (if they were playing someone in my region, like the Cowboys or the Chiefs or the Cardinals when they were still in St. Louis) or in a Monday night game. But, most of the time, I was spared the pain of watching them being subjected to a severe beating — which, inevitably, they were.

In spite of it all, I remained loyal to the Packers — through all those 2–, 3– and 4–win seasons. I assured myself that things would turn around eventually. I just didn't know if I would live to see it.

But I did.

I guess all those losing seasons really conditioned me because, even after the Packers turned things around, I still kept expecting them to revert to their old ways. In my formative years — after Lombardi left Green Bay — success was fleeting. Winning seasons didn't come in bunches.

I must admit, I was often envious of the people I knew whose favorite teams were always in the playoffs. For me, if my favorite team was in the playoffs, that alone was cause for celebration. Who knew when it might happen again?

Because of that mindset, it's kind of like an out–of–body experience — or maybe an alternate reality experience — to read Richard Rothschild's suggestion in Sports Illustrated that today's Packers might be better than Lombardi's teams of the 1960s.

Well, actually, Rothschild didn't suggest it — members of the 1961 team that won the first of five NFL championships in seven years suggested it — but Rothschild made a good statistical case supporting it.

God help me, I think I'm starting to believe it.

In my experience, things started to turn around in the 1990s, when Brett Favre came to Green Bay and started leading the Packers to the playoffs on a regular basis. Before he left Green Bay, Favre set all kinds of records and took the Packers to two consecutive Super Bowls, matching Bart Starr's achievement in my childhood, but he couldn't win both.

But even with all his success, even with three consecutive MVPs in the 1990s, Favre didn't take the Packers to the dizzying heights that were reached in the 1960s. Starr is still the only quarterback to lead the Packers to two straight Super Bowl victories.

But Aaron Rodgers, Favre's successor, has the opportunity to match Starr in that category if he wins this year's Super Bowl, and the Packers appear to be talented enough to turn this decade into a repeat of the decade of Starr and Lombardi.

But who should be standing in their way this weekend but the New York Giants ... the very team that came to Lambeau Field four years ago and beat Favre in his final game in a Packer uniform, the NFC Championship game that most observers thought would propel him to his third Super Bowl.

That would have been a first for a Packer signal caller. Instead, it was the end of an era, and I am sure I wasn't the only Packer fan who worried that the team might slip back into mediocrity.

The Packers did slump to that all–too–familiar sub–.500 territory in Rodgers' first season as Green Bay's starting quarterback, but he had them back in the playoffs the next year. And he won the Super Bowl the year after that.

The NFC Championship is not on the line this weekend. It won't be the first time these teams have played each other since that game in January 2008. They've met twice, both times in Green Bay, and the Packers have won both.

But those were regular–season games. There's an appealing symmetry to the idea that Rodgers — who launched a 19–game winning streak with a lopsided victory over the Giants in December 2010 — can avenge that playoff loss Sunday.

Wanna talk symmetry? The Giants were the first team the Packers of the 1960s beat in an NFL championship game back in December 1961. On Sunday afternoon, they will be back at Lambeau Field.

In spite of myself, I'm starting to think pro football history might be about to repeat itself.

The Value of a Single Catch

2012-01-10T22:43:00.002-06:00

I have often wondered how different professional football would have been if the San Francisco 49ers had not won the NFC championship on this day 30 years ago.

I've been following sports since I was a child, and if there is one thing I have learned, it is that there really is such a thing as destiny — at least when it comes to sports teams.

Some franchises never overcome their initial reputations as losers, and some allow those reputations to continue to hinder their progress long after they have risen above those reputations.

Sometimes franchises that have been struggling surge to the top from nowhere, get close to grabbing the brass ring but come up short and then fall back into relative obscurity — after which you might hear from them again in another 10 or 15 years.

But sometimes those franchises that surge to the top break on through to the other side and win it all — and a dynasty is born.

I believe that's what happened with the San Francisco 49ers 30 years ago today.

The 49ers weren't strangers to the playoffs, but they hadn't been participants in the postseason for nearly a decade.

Shoot, it had been five years since they had had a winning season.

In their memorable showdown with the Dallas Cowboys on that Sunday afternoon, the 49ers introduced the West Coast Offense to football fans, many of whom were seeing it for the first time. If it had failed, Joe Montana might never have enjoyed the career that he did — and the West Coast Offense might not have risen to the prominence it did.

At least, at that time.

It's safe to assume that, if Dallas had won the game, something else would have been the popular offense — and some other quarterback would have emerged as the NFL's top signal–caller — of the 1980s.

Failure on this day would have meant that the Cowboys would return to the Super Bowl for the fourth time in seven years. Success for the 49ers, however, brought the energy and excitement of a new team in the Super Bowl — and that is what the 49ers were in January 1982, first–timers in the Super Bowl (as were their opponents, the Cincinnati Bengals).

But it might never have happened if Montana hadn't completed a six–yard pass to Dwight Clark in the end zone, an iconic moment that was captured in photographs that appeared in newspapers across the country the next day.

It isn't hard for me to imagine Bill Walsh and his coaching staff abandoning the West Coast Offense if it failed to produce a conference championship on this day in 1982.

Walsh was kind of like football's version of Franklin D. Roosevelt. From the moment he became the 49ers' coach, his mission was to revive a foundering franchise, just as it was Roosevelt's mission to revive the nation. FDR's presidency in the 1930s was very experimental; if something didn't have the desired effect, it would be scrapped and something else would replace it.

If the 49ers had failed to win the NFC championship on this day 30 years ago, Walsh and his staff certainly would have re–evaluated their roster — and they might well have concluded that their personnel was better suited for a different strategy.

That doesn't mean that the West Coast Offense would have died three decades ago today, never to be seen on an NFL field again.

No, I'm sure someone would have resurrected it — and probably thrived with it — if it had gone unused for years following a 49ers defeat 30 years ago today because defensive coordinators would have spent little, if any, time planning for it.

But Montana completed that pass to Clark — and the 49ers went on to win four of the next nine Super Bowls.

And the West Coast Offense set the pace in professional football for the next two decades.

A Really Cold War

2012-01-10T07:09:00.008-06:00

On this day in 1982, there were lots of stories vying for the attention of the editors of metro newspapers.

Jan. 10, 1982, was a Sunday. And, historically, Sundays are pretty slow news days.

There are exceptions to that rule, of course. The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on a Sunday. Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon on a Sunday. As far as news is concerned, Sunday is just another day in the week.

And that Sunday 30 years ago was a spectacular exception to the rule.

Sports desks were busy — as they had known they would be — with the AFC and NFC championship games that were to be played that day. I worked on sports desks for several years, and I can easily imagine the anticipation in newsrooms across the country.

But the news desks were busy with a developing story that would seize the nation's attention — a fierce cold front that set records in many cities across the country. Hundreds of those records would be shattered within the week by an even more brutal cold front, leaving in its wake record low temperatures that still stand today.

In pro football lore, the 1967 NFL Championship game played in Green Bay has long been remembered as the "Ice Bowl" — and deservedly so. The air temperature was –15°. The wind chill was –48°. No other postseason game has ever been played in conditions as cold as that.

But the game played in Cincinnati three decades ago today came close. The air temperature that day was –9°, and the wind chill was –37°.

I wasn't in Cincinnati that day. I was in Fayetteville, Ark., where I was in college at the time. Fayetteville was well acquainted with cold winters. It always had snow during the winter months. The snow didn't always remain for days or weeks, but sometimes one snowfall would still be on the ground when the next one came along.

That winter, snowfall after snowfall fell and stayed for weeks because it was so cold — and on that day, it might have approached 30° briefly at some point, but my memory is that the temperature was mostly in the teens if not single digits. And it was windy — not fiercely so but windy enough to make it feel colder than it actually was.

I spent nearly all that day indoors next to the fireplace watching the football games — with a mug of hot chocolate in one hand and a blanket over my feet.

Of the second game that was played that day — the now–legendary Dallas–San Francisco game — I will have more to say in my next post later today. It was a very exciting game with plenty of big plays and momentum shifts.

The Cincinnati–San Diego game wasn't really that way. Maybe it was the extreme cold. Mind you, it was cool in San Francisco that afternoon, cooler than it normally is, I suppose. But it was cold in Cincinnati, and that made it memorable.

If it had come down to the final seconds, the way it did in Green Bay 15 years earlier, I guess that would be what people remember about that game.

But it wasn't close. The Bengals had things under control early. They forced four turnovers and won by 20 points.

Cincinnati's coach that day was Forrest Gregg, the right tackle for Green Bay in the "Ice Bowl," but, reportedly, he could not recall a game that was played in colder conditions than the one played in Cincinnati 30 years ago today.

Perhaps moving around on the field helped him feel warmer in Green Bay.

I remember feeling sorry for the fans I saw shivering in the stands in Cincinnati. I feel the same way whenever I see footage from the "Ice Bowl." I suppose it was a good thing — in both instances — that the home team won. That way, most of the fans had plenty to cheer for and jump up and down about (thus generating a little warmth).

The fans in Cincinnati didn't have a lot to be happy about two weeks later when their Bengals lost the Super Bowl.

But, because it was so cold 30 years ago today — coldest ever in the AFL/AFC — the game with the Chargers achieved a memorable status all its own.

Seizing the Moment

2012-01-09T04:59:00.005-06:00

The Rose Bowl in Pasadena has been the scene of many memorable college football games over the years, but no professional football games were played there until this date 35 years ago.

Only five professional football games have been played in the Rose Bowl — and all were Super Bowls. The NFL has a policy against holding a Super Bowl in a city that does not have an NFL franchise, but that does not mean Super Bowls can only be played in stadiums that are the full–time homes of active teams.

The Rams and, for a time, the Raiders played in other stadiums when they were based in Los Angeles, but, by the mid–1990s, the Raiders had returned to Oakland and the Rams had moved to St. Louis.

Thus, Los Angeles no longer has an NFL franchise — which is why no Super Bowls have been played there since 1993 — but it was the most popular Super Bowl destination for more than 15 years, starting with the game that was played on this day in 1977.

That was one of the things that made Super Bowl XI noteworthy before it was played — the fact that it was being played in the Rose Bowl where so many great college football games had been played in the past, but, up to that time, no professional games had been played there.

Another thing that made it noteworthy was the knowledge that championship futility was going to end for one of the two entrants. The Oakland Raiders and the Minnesota Vikings had both been to the Super Bowl before and come away empty handed. They had made the playoffs on other occasions as well and missed the Super Bowl entirely.

When I was a child, the Dallas Cowboys were known as the team that couldn't win the Big One. But the Cowboys shook that monkey from their backs, winning it all in January 1972 and returning as the Super Bowl's first wild–card entry a year before the Raiders and Vikings met on this day.

By the mid–1970s, a handful of NFL squads had emerged as the latest teams that couldn't win the Big One. The Raiders and Vikings were clearly in that group when the 1976 season began, and they surged to their division titles as if they were men on missions.

They both won rematches of early regular–season contests in their respective league championship games, advancing to meet in the Super Bowl in Pasadena, and each was impressive in its own way.

The Vikings overwhelmed the Rams, who fought to a 10–10 tie with Minnesota in the second week of the season, and the Raiders beat the two–time defending Super Bowl champion Pittsburgh Steelers, 35–20. The Raiders beat the Steelers by a field goal in the season opener.

The first quarter was a testament to the desire on both sides as neither team managed to score.

Defense played a prominent role in that game. I guess you wouldn't think that if all you knew about the game was the final score (Oakland 32, Minnesota 14), but it is really true.

Minnesota entered the game with the NFL's second–best defense even though many Viking starters were thought to be nearing the ends of their careers (as, in fact, many were), but if either defense was in the spotlight prior to the game, it was Oakland's. The Raiders were ranked 12th in defense, but they had often been criticized in the mid–1970s for being too aggressive.

Undoubtedly, the Raiders' defensive backs were a hard–hitting bunch, especially George Atkinson. After breaking Russ Francis' nose in the first round of the AFC playoffs and then giving Lynn Swann a concussion in the AFC championship game, Atkinson was truly the center of attention.

But it was teammate Jack Tatum — also known as "The Assassin" — who delivered what is rightly regarded as the hardest blow in Super Bowl XI, if not in the history of the Super Bowl.

Minnesota quarterback Fran Tarkenton found Offensive Player of the Year Sammy White on a crossing pattern. The pass didn't hit him in the numbers, but it required no special effort to catch, either, and White caught it in stride. Tatum seemed to come from nowhere and knocked off White's helmet with a teeth–rattling hit. Incredibly, White held on to the ball.

Such concentration should have been rewarded, but, of the Vikings' four (so far) Super Bowl losses, the margin in the game they lost 35 years ago today was the widest.

White's heroic effort was for naught, and none of his successors in purple have had the opportunity to make up for it.

In the 35 years since that day, the Raiders have been back to the Super Bowl on several occasions. The Vikings have never returned.

Sometimes I wonder if they ever will.

The Swan Song for Two Legends

2011-12-08T05:45:00.006-06:00

When I was a boy in Arkansas, as I have written here before, I was a fan of the Arkansas Razorbacks — like nearly everyone else.

Many of my earliest memories are of Saturday afternoons at my friends' houses — where, more often than not, the Razorback play–by–play could be heard on the radio in the kitchen or the living room.

I'm still a Razorback fan, but many things are different for me now. Yet, sometimes, when the breeze blows just so or I catch the scent of honeysuckle in the evening air or I feel a slight chill after an autumn rain shower, my memory bank conjures up, however briefly, a snippet from my childhood.

Most of the time, I don't remember the game or the circumstances — or the names of people whose faces I can see in my mind's eye for a second or two.

I only know that it is a link to a time that was early in my life, when things seemed more reliable, more stable.

Maybe that was one of the things that I always liked about the Razorbacks. They were reassuringly constant. They almost always had competitive teams, and I always got excited when Arkansas and Texas were about to play.

I guess you could say there were three things that I felt I could count on in those days:

Frank Broyles was the coach of the Razorbacks. There had never been any other head coach at Arkansas in my lifetime.

Darrell Royal was the coach of the Longhorns. There had never been any other head coach at Texas in my lifetime.

The Arkansas–Texas football game was always televised. (That wasn't as routine as it might seem to 21st century football fans, who are used to the idea that most of their favorite team's games will be televised. There was no cable in those days, and there were restrictions on the number of regular–season TV appearances a team could have.)

Probably the most memorable of the Arkansas–Texas games in my childhood was the one played in December 1969. It is remembered as the "Great Shootout," and it was so big it brought the president of the United States to tiny Fayetteville, Ark.

I may be wrong, but I believe that, until native Arkansan Bill Clinton came to dedicate a statue on the UA campus, it was the only time a sitting president ever came to Fayetteville.

That game, I must say, was not an example of stability — and not only because it drew higher–profile attendees than usual.

Ordinarily, Arkansas and Texas met in mid–October — but, because everyone figured they were the two best teams in the country, they were persuaded to move their 1969 game to the first week in December, when no other games would be played (this was a couple of decades before conferences started holding championship games), and the attention of the nation would be on that game alone.

And, in fact, the gamble paid off. It turned out that Texas was ranked #1 in the nation and Arkansas was ranked #2 when they met in Fayetteville on that December day. The winner would go to the Cotton Bowl to play Notre Dame for the national title, but the president was on hand to prematurely proclaim the winner the national champion.

When the game was over, I remember watching President Nixon gush about the Longhorns as he presented them with a national championship plaque that he said would be engraved with the winning school's name — and I noted bitterly that he hadn't said anything about the Razorbacks, who had shut out the Longhorns for the first three quarters.

If Texas was the best team in the nation, I reasoned, Arkansas was nearly as good. The Longhorns beat the Razorbacks by a single point that day.

I didn't dream that, nearly seven years later to the day, in another Arkansas–Texas game that had been moved to December, Broyles and Royal would leave the sidelines together for the last time.

I'm not sure if I ever knew the reasons why Arkansas and Texas agreed to move their 1976 game to early December. They had shared the Southwest Conference championship with Texas A&M the year before, and perhaps the ABC executives were gambling that, as in 1969, the two would be the best teams in the conference — if not the nation.

If that was the gamble, though, it came up way short of expectations. Arkansas and Texas tumbled out of contention early that season. Newcomer Houston won the conference title and went to the Cotton Bowl. Neither Arkansas nor Texas played in a bowl game that season so 35 years ago last weekend, the coaching careers of Broyles and Royal came to an end.

I don't know when or why those two men decided to retire from coaching. It just always seemed right that they did so at the same time. I couldn't imagine watching another Arkansas–Texas game and seeing one but not both on the sidelines.

Both continued to influence athletics as the athletic directors at the schools where they had built their coaching reputations.

And Broyles, at least, continued to wield the kind of power that successful football coaches in small states tend to wield. During his coaching days — and afterward, as athletic director — Broyles was, arguably, the most influential individual in Arkansas — more powerful than governors or senators, more revered than ministers (and, in devoutly religious Arkansas, that truly is saying something).

Broyles retired a few years ago. He's still living — he'll be 87 the day after Christmas — and, while he may still be an influential figure within Arkansas, outside the state one hears little about him anymore.

Royal marked his 87th birthday last summer. One hears even less of him. After he stopped coaching, he continued, as Broyles did, to serve as the school's athletic director, but only for a few years. Texas re–named its football stadium in his honor, and you hear his name mentioned whenever the Longhorns play in big games, but he has mostly remained out of the spotlight for the last three decades.

He now serves as a special assistant to the UT president — which sounds a lot like professor emeritus. If that is, indeed, what it is, he earned the honor, winning nearly three–quarters of the college games in which he coached.

Likewise, Broyles enjoyed a successful coaching career. He won more than two–thirds of his games, and he remains the only Arkansas football coach to win 100 or more games.

Current coach Bobby Petrino would have to win every regular season game, every conference championship game and every postseason bowl game from now until the end of this decade to match Broyles — and, since Broyles' 1964 team was the last Arkansas team to go through an entire season without losing, it seems likely that Petrino would have to remain at Arkansas well beyond 2019.

Even at his present pace (10 wins in each of the last two seasons), it would take Petrino until the year 2023.

Of course, if he manages to do that, he is sure to replace Broyles as the most powerful man in Arkansas — by which time, Broyles is likely to be deceased or far too old to care. In the immediate future, though, Broyles' status is secure.

Royal is also the winningest coach in Texas history, but the current coach, 60–year–old Mack Brown, needs only 35 wins to pass him.

In 2005, Brown became the second Texas coach to win a national championship. Royal was the first, and he went on to win three of them. Brown needs two more to match him.

No matter how you slice it, Broyles and Royal are living legends, and, for many long–time fans of both schools, their legacies are intertwined, like the epic boxing duels between Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier or the tennis matches between Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova or the Triple Crown races between Affirmed and Alydar.

It was fitting that they ended their coaching careers together.

History's Spotlight

2011-12-06T05:54:00.003-06:00

Perhaps it is fitting that this year's Heisman Trophy race is expected, by many observers, to be one of the closest ever.

Whoever the winner turns out to be, it's likely to be fodder for one of those "what–if" debates.

I suppose that is the most intriguing thing about the study of history — the wide variety of the "what if" questions.

You can find them taking many shapes in every human endeavor — politics, religion, sports, the arts, everything.

Most of the time, they are along the lines of the road not taken — sort of like the Burt Lancaster character in "Field of Dreams." But sometimes there are the tragic tales of those who did not live long enough to realize their full potential.

Today is the 50th anniversary of such a milestone in one such life story.

On this day in 1961, Ernie Davis was the first black man to be awarded the Heisman.

That isn't a "what–if" — unless you're thinking of the guys who were on the ballot with Davis.

It was the second–closest vote in Heisman history, with Davis beating the runnerup, Ohio State fullback Bob Ferguson, by only 53 votes.

Texas' Jimmy Saxton, Minnesota's Sandy Stephens and Alabama's Pat Trammell rounded out the top five.

It capped what must have been one of the greatest football careers of all time. In 1959, as a sophomore, Davis led Syracuse to a national championship and was named MVP of the Cotton Bowl. In 1961, as a senior, he was MVP of the Liberty Bowl, and everyone thought his career would continue into the NFL.

Davis seemed to be a great natural talent for whom the NFL was the next logical step. If the Super Bowl had existed at the time, speculation probably would have centered on when, not if, he would play in it — and how many times he would return.

In 1962, he was drafted by the Washington Redskins, who quickly dealt him to the Cleveland Browns. The Redskins were owned by George Preston Marshall, who was known to be racist.

The Redskins were the last NFL franchise to resist signing black players, which Marshall defended as being based on sound business strategy. He said he wanted to maintain good relations with the Southern market.

In Cleveland, Davis was expected to be paired with Jim Brown to form what may well have been the most potent running game in NFL history.

But no one will ever know how great that backfield could have been. In the summer of 1962, Davis was diagnosed with leukemia, and he died the following year at the age of 23. He never played a down in the NFL.

Brown was Syracuse's star halfback before Davis came along; in fact, Brown helped recruit Davis, who went on to break all of Brown's school records.

And Cleveland was reasonably successful even without Davis in the early to mid–1960s — until Brown retired. More than 40 years later, Brown was recognized as the greatest pro football player of all time by The Sporting News.

But other teams, most notably the Packers, climbed the mountain ahead of the Browns.

Davis played at a time when freshmen were not allowed to play varsity ball. In the three years that he could play varsity ball, he was named first–team All–America twice.

How much greater could the Browns have been with Davis in the backfield?

It may not be one of history's greatest "what–if" questions, but it's got to be near the top of the list for sports.

Hoping for Turmoil at the Top

2011-12-01T07:21:00.002-06:00

Well, conference championship weekend is upon us.

And, being as anti–BCS as I am, I'm still hoping for some upsets that can spark a real debate over who deserves to play for the national title and who doesn't.

Right now, it appears that LSU is the clear choice for one of the slots — but what if LSU loses to Georgia this weekend?

Should Alabama be allowed to play for the national title whether LSU is there or not? Alabama won't play for its conference championship, and 'Bama's coach said, several years ago, that no team that did not play for its conference championship should be allowed to play for a national title.

What if some of the other highly ranked teams should falter this weekend? What if #3 Oklahoma State loses to Oklahoma? What if #5 Virginia Tech loses to Clemson? What if the only remaining unbeaten team is Houston and the only remaining one–loss teams are Boise State, Stanford and Alabama, none of which will play for a conference title this weekend?

That's the kind of thing that can make a playoff system more likely in college football.

And that's what I want.

Idle: #2 Alabama, #4 Stanford, #6 Arkansas, #9 USC, #14 South Carolina, #17 Michigan, #20 Nebraska, #23 Penn State, #25 Florida State

Thursday

#22 West Virginia at USF, 7 p.m. (Central) on ESPN: The home team wins this game two–thirds of the time – literally.

They've played each other six times, three times at each school, and the home teams have won two of the three.

I'm inclined to think the home team will prevail again. Give me USF — by a point or two.

Friday

UCLA at #8 Oregon, 7 p.m. (Central) on FOX: Historically, UCLA has won nearly 61% of its games with Oregon.

But recent history has favored the Ducks. Although the schools didn't face each other during the regular season this year, Oregon has a three–game winning streak against UCLA, and the Ducks have beaten the Bruins in eight of the 10 games they have played since 2000.

Even more recently, Oregon beat USC, 38–35, on Nov. 19. The following week, USC blanked UCLA, 50–0.

If USC wasn't on a suspension from postseason activity, the Trojans would be playing Oregon for the Pac–12 title in a rematch of their Nov. 19 thriller. And that would be a game worth watching.

But UCLA finished second in that division and took the championship game berth in USC's place.

I expect Oregon to win by at least four touchdowns. If UCLA keeps the deficit below that, that will be the upset.

Saturday

#12 Georgia vs. #1 LSU at Atlanta, 3 p.m. (Central) on CBS: This will be the third time in the last decade that these teams have played for the SEC championship.

That series is currently tied, 1–1.

Historically, LSU holds a three–game edge in its series with Georgia, 15–12–1, but in the last 20 years, it is Georgia that holds a three game advantage, 6–3 (including the conference championship games).

And I think Georgia is capable of giving LSU a pretty good run this time. After all, the Bulldogs' offense is 34th in the country, but it's hard to see how it can be too productive against the second–best defense in the land.

When LSU has the ball, it is hard to see how its 62nd–ranked offense can be very imposing — and Georgia's fifth–ranked defense seems well prepared for the task of stopping it.

It's just plain hard to give Georgia the benefit of the doubt on anything.

LSU has been facing top–notch teams all year, teams that are still ranked as the season draws to a close — Oregon, West Virginia, Alabama, Arkansas — and has beaten all comers.

Georgia, on the other hand, faced none of those teams. Its two early losses were to teams that were and remain ranked, but it didn't play any of the SEC West's Big Three — LSU, Alabama or Arkansas — during the regular season.

You can make a convincing argument that Georgia hasn't really been challenged since mid–September. I guess I'm suceptible to that because I'm so anti–BCS and would love to see anything that hastens its demise.

Georgia is a double–digit underdog in this game, but I'm still going to pick Georgia — albeit hopefully — in a conference championship weekend upset special.

#13 Oklahoma at #3 Oklahoma State, 7 p.m. (Central) on ABC: This will be the 100th meeting between these schools, but victories for Oklahoma State have been, to put it mildly, rare.

Currently, OU owns an eight–game winning streak in the series — which looks impressive to people outside Oklahoma.

Speaking as someone who lived in Oklahoma for four years, I can tell you that the current winning streak is dwarfed by others in the series. Between 1967 and 1991, Oklahoma beat Oklahoma State in every year but one (1976). From 1946 to 1964, the Sooners won every encounter — 19 in all.

Most people seem to be picking OSU to win this game, and it isn't hard to see why. The Cowboys are ranked third in the country in offense, and they've been getting a lot of publicity for it — but OU's offense is just as good, ranked fourth in the nation.

Since there is practically no difference between the two in total offense, the key may be in total defense — and that is really no contest, even though the defenses are not nearly as spectacular as the offenses. Oklahoma's defense is a modest #52 in the country while OSU's doesn't even crack the Top 100.

I pick Oklahoma.

#5 Virginia Tech vs. #21 Clemson at Charlotte, N.C., 7 p.m. (Central) on ESPN: You couldn't tell it from their last five meetings, but this series once belonged to Clemson.

It's been a sporadic series. They met two or three times a decade — at best — from the turn of the 20th century until the 1980s — and they have only played twice as conference rivals.

On Saturday, they will play for the ACC title — and it just might be the most entertaining game of the day.

Clemson hasn't beaten Virginia Tech since 1989 — and I'm not inclined to think that will change.

Clemson has a narrow edge on offense. The Tigers are 29th in the country while the Hokies are 36th. Tech has a clear edge on defense, ranked 12th while Clemson is 63rd.

They say defense wins championships so I guess this is Tech's opportunity to prove it. If my other predictions hold up, a win in this game could put Virginia Tech in the national championship game.

Whether it does or not, though, I'm still picking Virginia Tech by nine points.

#24 Southern Miss at #7 Houston, 11 a.m. (Central) on ABC: It's probably a bit of a stretch to see Houston playing in the national championship game — even if the Cougars beat Southern Miss and remain undefeated.

Chances are that the folks who attend the game — or watch it on TV — will be treated to quite a show. Houston has the nation's top–ranked offense, but Southern Miss' offense is pretty explosive, too. It is ranked 15th in the country.

Once again, I am reminded of the old adage that defense wins championships because Southern Miss turns the tables on Houston on the defensive side of the ball. Southern Miss has the country's 26th–best defense while Houston's defense is rather pedestrian, ranked 60th in the land.

The game is for the Conference USA championship — the second time these teams have played for the conference title. Houston won the first time, and I expect Houston, with its potent offense, to win this time, too.

New Mexico at #9 Boise State, 5 p.m. (Central) on The Mtn.: There really is no reason to expect much from New Mexico in this game.

These teams have only played twice before, in 1999 and 2000, and Boise State won both times. This season, Boise State has been much better on both sides of the ball than New Mexico.

I expect Boise State to absolutely hammer New Mexico.

#15 Wisconsin vs. #11 Michigan State at Indianapolis, 7 p.m. (Central) on FOX: Since 2003, the home team has won this game — including the time the two played earlier this season in Lansing, Mich. The Spartans won that game, 37–31.

This will be the 50th time these teams have played. As the Big Ten title game, it is being played in the neutral site of Indianapolis so home field track records aren't terribly relevant. Wisconsin was the winner the only other time the teams played on a neutral field — in December 1993 when the teams played in the Coca–Cola Classic in Tokyo.

That offers little insight, though. Certainly, the game played earlier in Michigan provides more — except that the score didn't reflect reality. Both teams have Top 10 defenses. Michigan State's is third in the country, Wisconsin's is seventh.

Wisconsin's offense is pretty good, too, ranked 12th in the country while MSU's is, by comparison, rather dismal. It is ranked 64th.

I pick Wisconsin to win the rematch.

Iowa State at #16 Kansas State, 11:30 a.m. (Central) on FSN: The history of this series has been that the home team usually wins it.

But this hasn't been a typical season at Iowa State. It looked like it might be when ISU got off to a 3–4 start with three narrow non–conference wins followed by four straight conference losses. But then — inexplicably — Iowa State got hot and reeled off three straight wins, including a double–overtime thriller against Oklahoma State.

Now 6–5, the Cyclones appear headed to their seventh bowl since 2000. That's pretty impressive when you consider that Iowa State played in no bowl games from 1979 to 1999.

Meanwhile, Kansas State is enjoying the kind of recognition it has rarely seen since the dawn of the 21st century. But the 9–2 Wildcats were unable to defeat Oklahoma State when they had their opportunity.

I got the feeling, as I watched parts of Iowa State's game with Oklahoma last week, that ISU is running out of gas. The numbers say ISU has the better offense and KSU has the better defense.

Can't win if you don't score, but scoring hasn't been a problem for Iowa State in recent years. Scoring more than K–State, though, has been another matter, and I think ISU will come up just short this time, the way it has tended to do in recent years.

Kansas State by a touchdown.

UNLV at #18 TCU, 1:30 p.m. (Central) on Versus: Unless you are a TCU fan, I can't think of a reason for a college football enthusiast to watch this game.

UNLV, 1–10, simply doesn't appear capable of beating TCU, 9–2. TCU is light years ahead of UNLV on both offense and defense.

And there isn't really any hope to be found in the series record. TCU is 8–1 all time against UNLV and enjoys a seven–game winning streak (UNLV's only win came in 1997).

As TCU departs for the Big 12 next season, the Frogs should be leaving the Mountain West on a winning note. TCU is the clear choice in this one.

Texas at #19 Baylor, 2:30 p.m. (Central) on ABC: If you grew up in the old Southwest Conference (as I did) — or even if your memory only includes the Big 12 in the post–SWC era — it is not strange to see these teams play each other.

They've been playing since 1903, when they first met in the neutral site of San Antonio. Texas won that first encounter, 48–0. In what may have been an indication of the futility of the Bears' efforts in this series, Texas shut out Baylor in their next two meetings as well.

In fact, the Longhorns either shut out the Bears or held them to less than 10 points in all but one of their first 10 games. Meanwhile, Texas scored at least 11 points (and, often, much more than that) in all but one of those games — the exception was the only one Texas didn't win (a 6–6 tie).

That has been the history of this series, which will be renewed for the 100th time on Saturday. Baylor usually struggles to score — and win — no matter where they play. The Longhorns have been a little more successful at home than in Waco, where they play this year, but even on the Bears' home field, Texas has won about two–thirds of the time.

And the Longhorns have won their last six games in Waco. Baylor hasn't beaten Texas there since 1997.

As I say, it isn't strange for these teams to play each other. Nor is it strange for one of the teams to be ranked. But the ranked team has almost always been Texas, not Baylor.

The main attraction in this game has to be those times when Baylor has the ball. The Bears' offense, led by Robert Griffin III, and the Longhorns' defense are both in the Top 10.

Texas has a mediocre offense, but it should be able to handle Baylor's defense, which is one of the worst in the country.

Frankly, I'd love to see Baylor win. Combined with the Bears' win in Austin last year, that would give Baylor a rare winning streak against Texas. How rare is it? Well, Baylor has had a couple of two–game winning streaks against Texas in my lifetime, one more during my parents' lifetimes and one more during my grandparents' lifetimes.

The Bears have never won more than two in a row against Texas.

But I just can't shake the feeling that Baylor will be undone by its defense. I pick Texas to win.

Last week: 15–1

Season: 204–51

Closing the Deal

2011-11-25T06:49:00.004-06:00

"They can quit playing now. They have played the perfect game."

Dave Kindred
Louisville Courier–Journal

It's different with every Heisman Trophy winner.

Sometimes, guys go into seasons as the clear favorites to win it — and they don't get hurt and they don't have more than one or two really bad games and, when they receive the Heisman in December, it seems to have been preordained.

Other times, Heismans are won primarily on the basis of one or two explosive performances — whether those performances came in the Heisman–winning season or not, whether they were representative of the player's skills or not.

Sometimes you're not so sure.

Nebraska's Johnny Rodgers, it always seemed to me, may have secured the next season's Heisman on this day 40 years ago.

The 1971 Heisman was given to Auburn senior Pat Sullivan, an Academic All–American who graduated with a degree in business administration — in addition to setting all kinds of records at the quarterback position.

That decision had already been made by this time in 1971 — even though Rodgers, with an electrifying performance, had not yet sparked the #1 Cornhuskers to a victory of legendary proportions over #2 Oklahoma and Sullivan's Tigers had not yet lost to Alabama by the convincing score of 31–7 after the announcement had been made.

Sullivan's senior status — and academic credentials — were just enough to edge out Cornell's Ed Marinaro, the Ivy League's first legitimate Heisman contender in years.

And if anyone even mentioned giving Rodgers the trophy in 1971, he was probably talked out of it rather quickly — perhaps because Sullivan would have no other opportunities to win the Heisman and Rodgers would, perhaps because Rodgers was a convicted felon (and no convicted felon had won the Heisman before).

It wasn't because no one knew who Rodgers was.

He had been making contributions to the team's success all season — but Nebraska's Heisman contender in 1971 was quarterback Jerry Tagge (and he finished seventh). There were also a couple of OU players who had support in the Heisman balloting — halfback Greg Pruitt, who finished a distant third, and quarterback Jack Mildren, who finished sixth.

Anyway, what happened 40 years ago today had no influence on the Heisman balloting. In a procedure that differs dramatically from the one with which modern football fans are familiar, the winner was announced the day before Nebraska and Oklahoma played each other, and the trophy was presented to Sullivan nine days later.

And history tells us that Rodgers' Cornhuskers beat the second–ranked Sooners that day in a game that, 40 years later, folks who are old enough to remember it — and even folks who hadn't been born yet when the game was played — speak of it in hushed tones.

But Rodgers' early punt return was widely seen as the decisive play on that Thanksgiving afternoon, and it is hard for me to believe that Rodgers did not think, when he left the field that day, that he had just closed the deal on the next season's Heisman Trophy.

College Football's Feast of Rivalries

2011-11-24T21:16:00.002-06:00

I've been following college football for a long time now, and I can't think of a time when there was as much uncertainty — spoken and unspoken — on as many fronts as there is today.

On perhaps the most minimal level, college football fans are quite familiar with not really knowing which teams will play for the national title — and that certainly appears to be the case this year. It is generally assumed that top–ranked LSU will be one of the teams invited to play for the BCS' mythical crown, but the Tigers still have to get past my alma mater, the University of Arkansas, on Friday afternoon — and then the Georgia Bulldogs in the SEC Championship Game the next weekend.

Neither assignment will be easy.

As the Arkansas–LSU game is on this week's Top 25 schedule, I will discuss it — and why I think it is more than possible that LSU will lose — a bit later. But, if LSU wins and goes on to play Georgia, it's worth remembering that those teams have faced each other in the SEC Championship twice — and each team won one (by almost identical scores, too).

It won't be easy for LSU to beat Georgia.

The currently 9–2 Bulldogs have their traditional season–ending game with Georgia Tech this week, and there is a severe price to be paid if one overlooks that rivalry, but I'm sure the Bulldogs will endeavor to ration their emotion, knowing that one of three teams — LSU, Alabama or Arkansas — will be waiting for them in Atlanta next week.

What a story it would be if Georgia coach Mark Richt — virtually given up for dead after an 0–2 start — could win the SEC title and end the national title hopes of one of those three schools — because the winner of the SEC West is sure to be entertaining those thoughts next week.

The Bulldogs will be grateful just to be there and are sure to be the underdog, no matter which SEC West team they face (and, as Stewart Mandel of Sports Illustrated observed, rarely has a single conference — let alone a division within a conference — been so well represented at the top of the national polls).

Consequently, all eyes this week will be on the two big games in the SEC West, Arkansas–LSU and Alabama–Auburn. Ironically, the only team of the four who cannot fantasize about winning a national title is Auburn — last year's national champion.

Without Cam Newton, the Tigers have been reduced to mere mortal status — but that doesn't mean they aren't capable of pulling off an upset.

So Auburn gets its chance to upset the apple cart this week, then it will be Georgia's turn.

Well, that's what could happen on the SEC's side. It is likely that one of the teams in the national title game will be from the SEC — but probably not if Georgia wins in Atlanta next week.

There still would be the matter of which team would face LSU, Alabama or Arkansas. Will it be Stanford? Oklahoma State? Virginia Tech? How about Boise State? Or undefeated Houston? There are several potential upsets out there, too — Notre Dame might well knock off Stanford; Virginia could surprise Virginia Tech; who knows what else might happen?

It's the point in the schedule that is loaded with traditional rivalries, and those are a different breed. Records don't matter too much.

Being as anti–BCS as I am, of course, I am openly pulling for any chaos that will erupt — except where my alma mater is concerned! If the system works in the Razorbacks' favor, I will tolerate it. But, in general — and on principle — I think that, the sooner college football goes to a real playoff system, the better.

Let it be decided on the field — like the games in Waco, Los Angeles and Ames last week.

Idle: #5 Oklahoma State, #16 Kansas State, #19 TCU

Friday

#3 Arkansas at #1 LSU, 1:30 p.m. (Central) on CBS: Most teams would probably be intimidated by LSU but not Arkansas.

The Razorbacks have beaten LSU in three of the last four years — including a triple–overtime thriller in Baton Rouge in 2007, the last time LSU won a national championship.

I can certainly see why the casual viewer would be inclined to think that LSU will win. The Tigers are ranked second in the nation in defense — and I've been hearing the adage "Defense wins championships" all my life.

I guess this will be a good test. The Razorbacks have a far better offense than LSU's. In fact, Arkansas' offense (ranked #21 in the nation) has been consistently better than any other offense in the Southeastern Conference.

Arkansas also has been dealing with a team tragedy this week. Freshman tight end Garrett Uekman died Sunday, the victim of an undiagnosed heart condition. On the day after Thanksgiving, I'm betting that his teammates will dedicate their game with LSU to him — and Arkansas will win in an upset.

#8 Houston at Tulsa, 11 a.m. (Central) on FSN: There have been some outrageous scores in this series, almost always on Houston's side.

Probably the single most outrageous score was the day in 1968 when the Cougars ran up 100 points at home against a hapless Tulsa squad, but a couple of years earlier Houston tallied 73 points on Tulsa. In 1988, Houston registered 82 points and then scored 70 points in their 2008 meeting.

Sometimes the scores are just wild on both sides. The last time these teams played in Tulsa, Houston won, 46–45. (The time before that, Tulsa won, 56–7.)

I don't know if football fans are in for another wild score this time, but I do know, as do most college football fans, that Houston has one of the most potent offenses in America. What a lot of people don't know is that Tulsa has a pretty good offense, too (currently ranked 19th in the nation).

I expect Houston to win — but it will be a lot closer than many people expect.

Iowa at #22 Nebraska, 11 a.m. (Central) on ABC: This has been Nebraska's first season as a member of the Big Ten and many of the Cornhuskers' conference games have been their first — or nearly their first — with various teams.

But Iowa is a familiar foe — historically. This will be the 31st time the teams have met, but it will be their first game in more than 10 years and only the seventh time they have played since 1979.

Half of the games were played in the 1930s and 1940s — so the outcomes of those games don't really mean much in the 21st century.

But, no matter which decade or era is being discussed, Nebraska has generally dominated Iowa. Overall, the Cornhuskers have won 70% of their games with the Hawkeyes — and 83% of the games played since 1979.

The fact that the game is being played in Lincoln probably works in Nebraska's favor, too, but I don't think the weather will be a factor. Current forecasts for Friday are calling for midday temperatures in the upper 40s or lower 50s in Nebraska — roughly the same as the forecast for Iowa.

I expect Nebraska, with a slight advantage on offense and a more decisive one on defense, to beat the Hawkeyes by about 10 points.

Saturday

#2 Alabama at Auburn, 2:30 p.m. (Central) on CBS: As it has so often before, the "Iron Bowl" appears destined to play a key role in the national championship race.

Until 1998, this game was almost always played in the neutral city of Birmingham, but every game since then has been played at Auburn or Tuscaloosa. I guess that's been good news for Auburn. The Tigers have winning records on both campuses; the Crimson Tide won nearly two–thirds of the games played in Birmingham so they lead the overall series.

As an Arkansas graduate, I would love nothing more than to see the Razorbacks win on Friday and the Crimson Tide lose on Saturday — because that combination would put Arkansas in the SEC Championship Game next week.

And I do believe, as I wrote earlier, that Arkansas will beat LSU — but Alabama has such a ferocious defense. It's the best in the country, and it was pretty good last year, too — and, without Cam Newton to engineer a comeback (dubbed "The Camback") this year, I don't see how the Crimson Tide can be denied.

I pick Alabama — reluctantly.

#22 Notre Dame at #4 Stanford, 7 p.m. (Central) on ABC: This series began in the mid–1920s, when Notre Dame's famed "Four Horsemen," coached by Knute Rockne, defeated Stanford and Pop Warner in the Rose Bowl.

The teams played a few times after that, but the series really didn't become an annual event (not even annual, really) until 1988.

Overall, Notre Dame has won 68% of the games it has played with Stanford, and the Irish won seven in a row against weak–to–mediocre Stanford teams between 2001 and 2008, but the Cardinal has won the last two.

These days, when people think of Stanford's football team, they probably think of quarterback Andrew Luck, and it is true that he is a major reason why Stanford's offense is 10th in the country. But the Irish have been quietly compiling some pretty impressive offensive numbers of their own; they're currently ranked 33rd in the country.

Neither team has been too shabby on the defensive side of the ball, either, and there is virtually no difference between them. Stanford is ranked 24th in the nation, Notre Dame is ranked 28th.

Unless Luck is injured in what seems increasingly likely to be his final home game, I think Stanford will win the game and extend its streak against Notre Dame to three in a row.

#6 Virginia Tech at #24 Virginia, 2:30 p.m. (Central) on ABC: I'm sure it is no exaggeration to say that probably few people expected the Cavaliers to be playing for the division crown.

But there was really no reason to think that Virginia would get its improbable win over the Seminoles — without which the Coastal Division race would be over and the Cavaliers would enter this game with nothing other than in–state pride going for them.

However, that one–point win over Florida State has put the Cavaliers a victory over Tech away from the ACC Championship Game with Clemson. Virginia didn't play Clemson, but Virginia Tech did. It was the only game the Hokies lost (so far, anyway), and you have to figure that Virginia Tech would like a second shot against the Tigers.

But the Hokies have to take care of business first, and that could be pretty challenging. Tech's numbers have been better than Virginia's on both offense and defense — but not by much — and having an excited home crowd pulling for them could lift the Cavaliers to victory.

But I don't think that will happen. I'll take Virginia Tech by a pair of field goals.

Wyoming at #7 Boise State, 1 p.m. (Central) on The Mtn.: Wyoming is 0–5 against Boise State.

But the Broncos should be concerned. Wyoming is 7–3 and its only conference blemish is its loss to TCU, who also beat Boise State. Whoever wins will be the runnerup in the conference — and perhaps the recipient of a respectable bowl bid.

There's a lot at stake, but I see no reason to think that Wyoming can do something it has never done before. There can be room for only one of those in a given football season, and Baylor already claimed it last week.

I pick Boise State to beat Wyoming by a wide margin.

Oregon State at #9 Oregon, 2:30 p.m. (Central) on ABC: Known as the "Civil War," this is the seventh–oldest rivalry in America.

It was first played in 1894, and the schools have been playing as Division I rivals since 1916. In 94 meetings since that time, the teams are nearly even (Oregon leads, 45–43–6), and, strangely enough, the visiting team has a slight edge. In games played at Oregon State, Oregon leads 23–18–3. In games played at Oregon, Oregon State leads, 21–20–3. (Six games were played in the "neutral" city of Portland prior to 1952, and Oregon State won four of those).

In recent years, the advantage has belonged to Oregon, winner of three straight and 11 of the 17 games played since 1994. I think that will continue. I pick Oregon by four touchdowns.

UCLA at #10 Southern Cal, 9 p.m. (Central) on FSN: The rivalry between UCLA and Southern Cal is extremely unusual in American sports because they are not just in–state rivals. They are in–city rivals, with campuses that are, perhaps, 15 miles apart.

Consequently, with more than 65,000 undergraduate students between them, many of whom remain in Los Angeles or southern California after graduation, there is a high likelihood that current students and alumni of both schools will interact on a daily basis, even if no sport is in season.

And that tends to intensify the competition.

It is also intensified on those occasions when the winner is likely, as it has been many times, to win or share the conference championship and represent the conference in the Rose Bowl.

Based on the overall records, USC (9–2) would appear to have the advantage over UCLA (6–5), but that overlooks the fact that nonconference schedules are not created equal. UCLA lost to Houston and Texas in September; USC defeated Minnesota and Syracuse during the same period.

In conference play, both lost to Stanford — UCLA by a far more decisive margin. USC lost to Arizona State; UCLA did not. But UCLA lost to Utah and Arizona — and USC did not.

The recent history of this series strongly favors USC. The Trojans have won all but one of the 12 games played between the schools since 1999.

I'll pick USC by a couple of touchdowns.

#11 Michigan State at Northwestern, 11 a.m. (Central) on Big Ten Network: There is a certain symmetry that exists in this series.

Michigan State is 18–6 at home against Northwestern — and 18–6 on the road against Northwestern.

That's a three–fourths victory rate in either place — and that's the Spartans' ratio against Northwestern in the last four games between the schools.

It isn't always that neat, of course. From 1991 to 2006, the series was pretty competitive. MSU won seven times, Northwestern won five.

But the Spartans seem to have been particularly successful on the road against Northwestern, winning eight of their last 10 games in Evanston.

I've seen no compelling reason to pick against the Spartans. I expect Michigan State to win the game.

Iowa State at #12 Oklahoma, 11 a.m. (Central) on FX: Beware, Sooners. Iowa State just beat your in–state rivals in double overtime and now comes to Norman looking for more Okie blood.

As much of an upset as Iowa State's victory over Oklahoma State was, though, a triumph over OU would have to be even more shocking.

Oklahoma has won 12 straight against Iowa State and has lost only once to the Cyclones in the last 50 years.

In a series that goes back to the 1920s, Iowa State has won less than 10% of the time, so there aren't too many bright spots for the Cyclones. But if you really want something to hang your hat on, the two most recent Iowa State victories over Oklahoma came in Norman — in 1961 and 1990. So, too, did their 7–7 tie in 1981.

And those are all the games with Iowa State that Oklahoma did not win in the last half century. The Sooners are unblemished in the 21st century, and I expect it to stay that way. Oklahoma should win.

#13 Georgia at #25 Georgia Tech, 11 a.m. (Central) on ESPN: Ever notice how the nicknames that are given to many rivalries tend to be sort of politically correct in their tone? I mean, they reflect the general nature of a rivalry, but not the true spirit.

In that context, the Georgia–Georgia Tech rivalry is almost a breath of fresh air in its honesty — it is known as "Clean, Old–Fashioned Hate."

Each side has something to hate about the other, and, based on the numbers, the very best that each team has to offer will be on the field at the same time. The numbers say that Georgia Tech has the better offense and that Georgia has the better defense.

All else being equal, I tend to lean to the stronger defense. And that is what I'm doing in this one. I'll go with Georgia.

#18 Clemson at #14 South Carolina, 6:45 p.m. (Central) on ESPN: Roughly 130 miles separate the two campuses. It was only natural that they would become rivals.

The rivalry between the schools goes back to the 19th century. The rivalry between the football teams goes back to the turn of the century.

Most of the football games have been played at South Carolina, but Clemson has won more than 60% of the time in spite of having to be the visiting team on most occasions. In recent years, however, the Gamecocks have held the upper hand, winning three of the last five contests.

South Carolina's defense is fifth in the country (compared to Clemson's rather ordinary defensive unit) — and should be tested by Clemson's 18th–ranked offense (South Carolina's offense has really struggled).

Once again, I will go with the stronger defense and pick South Carolina to win by a touchdown.

#20 Penn State at #15 Wisconsin, 2:30 p.m. (Central) on ESPN: Since these teams became Big Ten rivals in the 1990s, they have played in Wisconsin six times, and each team has won three.

Thus, the winner of Saturday's game will take the lead in their conference series in Madison. More than that, the winner will advance to the inaugural Big Ten Championship Game.

In those previous six games, though, Joe Paterno was on the sidelines. This will be the 15th time the schools have played each other in football but only the second time that Paterno hasn't been part of it.

We're still in the early stages of the post–JoePa era, and I'm sure there will be lots of stories like that in the next year or two.

By next fall, the returning Nittany Lions will have had nearly a year to adjust to the new reality. But it's all still new to them, and I don't think they're able, at this point, to compartmentalize the way they need to do to rise to the occasion against the Badgers.

I think Wisconsin will win.

Ohio State at #17 Michigan, 11 a.m. (Central) on ABC: Nearly 12 years ago, ESPN said this was the greatest of all sports rivalries.

There are others I would have included on ESPN's list, but, when I was a child, the Ohio State–Michigan game was more than a football game. It was an event.

It isn't that way anymore. Oh, usually one team, maybe both, will be ranked, which makes it interesting, but when I was growing up, both teams were usually in the Top 10 — and the winner of their game almost always went to Pasadena to play in the Rose Bowl.

Michigan can grab a share of the Leaders Division championship but, because the Wolverines lost to Michigan State earlier this season, cannot play for the Big Ten crown.

They can, however, play for pride and bragging rights — and to snap a seven–game losing streak in the series. I think Michigan will win the game — by a touchdown.

#21 Baylor vs. Texas Tech at Arlington, Texas, 2:30 p.m. (Central) on FSN: When you've just beaten the Oklahoma Sooners for the first time in school history, what do you do for an encore?

For Baylor, I suppose, a fitting finale would be to defeat the other team that beat Oklahoma this year (except the Bears still have a game to play against Texas on Dec. 3).

The Red Raiders have played the Bears more often than any other team. Theirs is a series that began long before the teams became Southwest Conference rivals.

Tech has won 15 straight, including the last two, which have been played in Dallas and Arlington. History suggests the Bears would have been better off keeping the home–and–away arrangement. Even though they have lost every game played since 1996, they do have a winning record against Tech in Waco.

Tech needs to have history on its side, though, because the Red Raiders haven't had much else this season. They've lost six of their last season (with the exception being their win in Norman — go figure) while Baylor is riding a three–game winning streak.

I can see in which directions these teams are headed, and I pick Baylor by four points.

Last week: 15–7

Season: 189–50

The Dawn of the Iron (Mike) Age

2011-11-22T06:19:00.016-06:00

My overwhelming memory of Mike Tyson's reign as heavyweight champion is that he was reckless in the ring.

But the problem is that reckless doesn't really seem to be the right word for "Iron Mike" in his heyday.

See, reckless — for me — conjures up the image of the Tasmanian devil from the old cartoons spinning his way through whatever happened to be in his path — trees, houses, mountains, whatever.

Tyson — for those of you who are too young to remember or may not have been born yet — was a powerful man, all right. When you watched him in the ring, even if he was simply standing in his corner of it, you saw muscles rippling all over his body — in his arms and legs and his torso.

Boxing's aficionados have mentioned Tyson with history's greatest punchers — comparable to Joe Frazier, Sonny Liston, Rocky Marciano, George Foreman. He was entirely capable of ripping into anyone and anything that got in his way.

To be sure, he looked reckless at times. But he was no Tasmanian devil. That was just his way.

I never really got the impression that Tyson was much of a thinker or strategist in the ring. To me, he seemed somewhat disdainful of pursuits of style points.

Style points were for fighters who didn't expect to knock the other guy out, who expected both fighters to still be standing at the end of the final scheduled round.

And Tyson always gave the distinct impression that he expected to knock the other guy out. I don't think he ever believed that an opponent was capable of going the distance with him.

He acted more on instinct, like a wounded bear defending his turf. His objective was never to outwit a foe. His objective was to hurt his foe and finish the fight as quickly as possible.

He never seemed to care if his opponent knew what he was going to do. He did it, anyway.

And most of the time, Tyson did finish off his opponent in a round or two.

That's what happened 25 years ago tonight. Tyson was in his prime and as disciplined as he was ever going to be during his boxing career, finishing off Trevor Berbick quickly to become the youngest man to win the WBC, WBA and IBF world heavyweight titles.

It was a "watershed moment," writes Tim Smith in the New York Daily News.

"Not since Tyson," Smith writes, "has any heavyweight champion captured the attention of the sporting public with a unique brand of ring menace and concussive force."

Tyson was barely 20 when he defeated Berbick by a second–round technical knockout. When I watch the film of the fight, I can see the intense focus in Tyson's eyes. Maybe it was really naivete — maybe he was just too young to comprehend that he was trying to do something no one his age had ever done before.

And I can sense growing trepidation in Berbick's eyes.

When Tyson lost the title forever in a stunning upset at the hands of Buster Douglas in 1990, it was in large part due to the fact that Douglas used his own version of Muhammad Ali's famous rope–a–dope strategy that forced a fighter who was accustomed to getting the job done in a round or two to wear himself out. Douglas wore Tyson down, then put him away in the 10th round.

It was reminiscent of the night in 1974 when Ali took the heavyweight title from another two– or three–round specialist by the name of George Foreman.

By the time Douglas beat Tyson, many things had changed in Tyson's world. His mentor, Cus D'Amato, died about a year before Tyson claimed the title in his fight with Berbick, but Tyson was still fighting under D'Amato's influence with his protege, Kevin Rooney, stepping into the void after D'Amato's death.

Tyson and Rooney came to a parting of the ways in 1988, and Tyson's career, and life in general, started spinning out of control.

But, on this night in 1986, it was vintage Tyson. Bleacher Report calls it one of the 10 strangest knockouts in boxing history, but I never saw it that way.

Granted, it wasn't pretty. In fact, it was often primitive. But it got the job done. Tyson was disciplined enough to do that much.

And when one watches the footage of the Berbick fight, one can only wonder what Tyson might have been if he had continued to be as disciplined long after D'Amato was gone.

BCS Chaos

2011-11-20T08:46:00.012-06:00

I have made no secret of my distaste for the so–called Bowl Championship Series — or BCS — that is supposed to match the two best college football teams in a national championship game at season's end, even though neither team must earn its spot in a playoff system.

Unless one or both must play in a conference championship game.

But no champions from other conferences must be conquered to reach the national title game. Only the pollsters and computers must be persuaded of the teams' worthiness — and they need not be familiar with the teams they choose.

In fact, there probably are coaches who vote in their poll or sports writers who vote in their poll who have had little, if any, exposure to the teams that ultimately are anointed to play for all the marbles.

That is my greatest gripe about the BCS system, I suppose.

Let's assume, if only for a minute, that LSU wins the SEC championship game against Georgia. A case can be made that the participants in that game earned their berths on the field — and, since the championship game will be played on a day when there will be very few other college football games, it is logical to assume that most, if not all, of the coaches who participate in their poll and the sports writers who participate in their poll will see the game.

But week in and week out, how many coaches do you suppose take time out from their own game preparation responsibilities to familiarize themselves with three or four dozen college teams by watching tape of and/or reading articles about them?

For that matter, how many sports writers take time from their coverage of local or regional programs to view the tapes and read the articles relating to those same three or four dozen college teams from around the country?

Probably few in either instance.

But, like lemmings allegedly committing mass suicide when they migrate, they follow the group. What may have begun as the perception of a few becomes a self–fulfilling prophecy.

Unless fate intervenes.

Fate intervened this weekend.

LSU, the top–ranked team in the nation, almost surely will remain where it was when the weekend began.

But #2 Oklahoma State as certainly will drop after its double–overtime loss to Iowa State on Friday night — a development that was doubly shocking. The Cowboys were expected to whip the Cyclones, even before the news reached the team that the OSU women's basketball coach and one of his assistants were killed in an airplane crash in central Arkansas.

News of the tragedy was expected to serve as even more motivation for the Cowboys — but it didn't.

They were stunned, I guess — or maybe they were simply lethargic. Their big showdown with Oklahoma is two weeks away — and the Cowboys have next week off. How could 10–0 Oklahoma State, with wins over the likes of Texas A&M, Texas and Kansas State, get excited about playing 5–4 Iowa State?

Whatever it was, the Cowboys lost the game.

Folks were still absorbing that news when a couple of other bombshells were dropped on the Top 10.

First, the other Oklahoma school went down in spectacular fashion. The once–beaten Sooners faced Baylor University, a team that had never beaten Oklahoma in 19 previous attempts. In fact, it had been more than a decade since Baylor even came within two touchdowns of OU.

But, on Saturday night in Waco, Texas, the Bears beat the fifth–ranked Sooners — pretty convincingly, too.

And, as that equally shocking development was playing out in the heart of Texas, there was even more.

Fourth–ranked Oregon was losing its second game of the season. The Ducks' first defeat was way back at the beginning of the season in a Labor Day weekend clash with LSU. Oregon had been craving a rematch in the national championship game, but the loss to 18th–ranked Southern California undoubtedly put an end to any such hopes.

It can be argued, for that matter, that Oklahoma is also out of the national championship conversation. And, although they have only one loss, that one loss — to a six–win team — is probably too devastating for the Oklahoma State Cowboys to overcome.

Well, I've been saying it would take a state of utter chaos to build momentum for the implementation of a playoff system — and we may be witnessing the start of such a state.

But I want it to go beyond what has happened this weekend.

On Friday, my alma mater, the University of Arkansas (ranked sixth when the weekend began and certain to move up in the rankings later today following a 44–17 victory over Mississippi State yesterday) will travel to Baton Rouge to play LSU. Baton Rouge can be a scary place for most football teams — but not necessarily for Arkansas.

Sure, the Razorbacks are 1–4 in Baton Rouge since 2001, but all but one of those games were decided by three points or less. And the Razorbacks have won three of their last four games against the Tigers.

Another victory is not out of the question — and it could propel the Razorbacks into the SEC championship game against Georgia.

Especially if Auburn upends currently second–ranked Alabama in Saturday's Iron Bowl. If you're scoffing at that notion, let me remind you that Alabama–Auburn is a rivalry of long standing — and rivalries like that operate in spheres of their own.

There are other things that could happen in other games to change the dynamics of the BCS and make more college football fans think about the system that currently chooses the national champion and how it compares to a legitimate playoff system.

Undoubtedly, those things will be evident later today when the latest polls come out and then tonight when the latest BCS standings are released.

In the end, LSU may well be the only unbeaten team standing and may be the unquestionable choice to be national champion.

But I'm still pulling for chaos, and if what happened on Friday and Saturday is the beginning of revolutionary chaos, then all I can say is ...

Let the revolution begin.

But, for now, I am pleased.

The Letdown of the Century

2011-11-19T16:53:00.007-06:00

Over the years, many games in many sports have been called — in anticipation, rarely in retrospect — "the game of the century."

The latest, of course, was the LSU–Alabama game earlier this month.

But, even if there is such a game every year for the next 100 years, there will never be another game that will end like the one that was played 45 years ago.

On this day in 1966, such a game was played in East Lansing, Mich., between the undefeated Michigan State Spartans and the also undefeated Notre Dame Fightin' Irish. Notre Dame was ranked #1 in both polls. Defending UPI national champion Michigan State was ranked #2 in both polls.

It was ironic, really, that the teams played each other at all that season. The top two teams in the polls had not faced each other in 20 years, since the 1946 Army–Notre Dame game (which featured three past or future Heisman Trophy winners and, perhaps even more ironically, ended in a 0–0 tie), which made it a rarity to begin with.

But that is only the beginning of the story.

On the original 1966 schedule, which had been released several years earlier, Michigan State had only nine games slated, even though a team was allowed to play as many as 10 regular–season games. Notre Dame, meanwhile, did have10 games scheduled, but one of its opponents, Iowa, dropped the Irish.

Since Michigan State had an open spot, the Spartans agreed to play the Irish, setting the stage for their showdown — even though no one knew at the time that it would be a #1–#2 clash.

In those pre–cable days, NCAA rules and regulations permitted college football teams to play in only one nationally televised and two regionally televised games during the regular season. The postseason was an entirely different matter, but, again, the times were different. There were far fewer bowl games — and no conference championship games.

Notre Dame had already played its nationally televised game, and ABC's executives didn't want to show the game outside the schools' region, but interest was so high elsewhere that they gave in and agreed to show it on a delayed basis to non–regional viewers.

Whether they saw it live or on tape, those viewers witnessed what had to be the letdown of the century.

Looking at the final score from the perspective of 45 years later — 10–10 — I suppose one's initial conclusion would be that it was an edge–of–your–seat, nail–biting finish, an old–fashioned defensive struggle.

To an extent, I suppose that is true. But not entirely.

Michigan State scored all its points in the first half, and Notre Dame managed to cut the deficit to 10–7 by intermission. The Irish then tied the game with a field goal at the beginning of the fourth quarter. Michigan State had a chance to take the lead on a deep pass, but the receiver outran the pass and had to double back. Notre Dame intercepted the pass, but then missed a field goal that would have given the Irish the lead for the first time.

So far, so good. Then the game of the century became the letdown of the century.

With a little more than a minute remaining in the game, Notre Dame had the ball at its 30 and needed to reach Michigan State's 30 to be in field goal range. Most viewers probably figured the Irish would take a stab at it. In those days, there was no overtime in college football.

But Notre Dame coach Ara Parseghian chose not to make the attempt and ran out the clock. It was a controversial decision, to say the least.

"We'd fought hard to come back and tie it up," Parseghian said. "After all that, I didn't want to risk giving it to them cheap. They get reckless, and it could cost them the game. I wasn't going to do a jackass thing like that at this point."

The Irish crushed Southern California the following week but did not accept bowl bids at the time, thus ending the 1966 season at 9–0–1 and clinging to the top ranking. That didn't go over well at all with Alabama fans, whose team had a perfect record. Even after 45 years, it's still a sore point for older Crimson Tide supporters.

Michigan State also finished 9–0–1 and did not play in a bowl but because of conference rules, not school policy.

At that time, the Big Ten did not allow a school to represent it in the Rose Bowl in consecutive years, and Big Ten teams were not allowed to play in any bowl game other than the Rose Bowl so the Spartans stayed home for the holidays.

And the question of who was really the best college football team in 1966 remained unanswered for many college football fans.

Joe Frazier's First Title Defense

2011-11-18T05:01:00.004-06:00

It is somewhat ironic that Joe Frazier died less than two weeks ago because today is the 41st anniversary of his first defense of the title he won in February 1970 — against light heavyweight champion Bob Foster in Detroit.

It was the 26th professional fight for Frazier, who won a gold medal at the 1964 Olympics, and it ended like the first 25 did — with a victory. It was his quickest triumph in a year and a half.

It was also his last fight before the first of Frazier's legendary trilogy of bouts with Muhammad Ali.

In hindsight, perhaps the Foster fight should have been something of a cautionary tale for Ali.

"Joe was a vicious wrecking machine against Foster," boxing trainer Emanuel Steward told the Detroit Free Press. "He was like an animal (in the ring)."

Frazier's performance against Foster certainly contributed to his reputation.

"Even for those born long after Frazier hung up the gloves, Smokin' Joe is a boxing legend," wrote Jake Emen for Yahoo! Sports when Frazier died earlier this month.

Emen wrote, as everyone does, that two of Frazier's fights with Ali — the "Fight of the Century" and the "Thrilla in Manila" — were the greatest two moments of his career, but he also mentioned Smokin' Joe's two–round triumph over Foster as being one of his "solid victories" between the fight in which he won the title and his first fight with Ali.

Frazier's fight with Foster, a Hall of Fame light heavyweight, was, indeed, a solid, workmanlike effort, finishing off his challenger in two rounds. The decisive punch was one of Frazier's trademark left hooks, and Foster couldn't beat the count.

For Smokin' Joe, the prelude to the chapter of his life's story that will always be remembered was over.

Next for Frazier would be the first of his bouts with Ali — the only one of the three that he won and the one that would secure his spot in boxing history as one of the great heavyweight champions of all time.

Nearing the Finish Line ...

2011-11-16T22:01:00.007-06:00

Sunday will be the 29th anniversary of what may be
the most amazing finish in the history of the Big Game.

After major showdowns in the SEC and Pac–12 the last couple of weeks, this week seems sort of like the lull before the next storm.

Some of the more significant late–season games will be coming up next week — on Thanksgiving and the weekend that follows.

Texas–Texas A&M may not have the kind of national implications it has had in the past, but it may well be the last meeting between these two old rivals and will certainly draw a sizable TV audience on Thanksgiving night.

Then, the next day, LSU will host Arkansas, and Alabama will meet Auburn on Saturday.

Like the UT–A&M game, next weekend's rivalry clashes between the likes of Florida and Florida State and USC and UCLA won't necessarily mean much to the rankings, but they have a lot of significance for the students and fans of those schools.

Then, the following weekend, all eyes will be on Oklahoma–Oklahoma State. Whatever happens between Alabama and Auburn, football fans will still be curious to know if OSU can remain unbeaten or if the Sooners can upend the Cowboys and sneak into the national championship game (and, incidentally, Stewart Mandel of Sports Illustrated says OU has a better chance of being in the national title game than Alabama).

There should be several intriguing story lines in college football in the next few weeks.

I've made no secret of the fact that I'm no fan of the BCS. I'd like to see college football go to a real playoff system, perhaps incorporating the existing bowls as the sites for the championship, the semifinal rounds and, possibly, quarterfinal rounds — on a rotating basis.

But, if such a thing is going to happen, we're going to need a season or two of virtually complete chaos. That's going to require inconclusive regular seasons followed by equally inconclusive conference championship games, producing several legitimate prospects for the two national championship berths, not merely three or four.

Ideally, I suppose, we need about half a dozen one–loss teams. Really, the more the better, but it seems to me that it's going to take half a dozen at least to loosen the exclusive grip the BCS has on NCAA football. The grip won't be broken in one season, and the BCS has frequently been criticized when three or more teams could make plausible arguments for being allowed to play for a national title.

This season probably won't produce the kind of chaos that is needed to prompt a wholesale reform of the system, but football fans who want to see the NCAA go to a real playoff system can always hope, right up until the final whistle of the championship game itself, that the kind of chaos that is needed will happen.

As I say, that kind of chaos probably won't happen this year. But, if it's going to happen at all, it might as well start to happen this year. And this weekend is as good a weekend as any.

Thursday

#22 Southern Miss at UAB, 7 p.m. (Central) on CBSSN: This series has been exclusively the product of the 21st century — but, until two years ago, it was traditionally lopsided.

Southern Miss went 9–0 against UAB from 2000 to 2008, but UAB has won the last two meetings — all of which means precisely nothing, I suppose.

Except in terms of momentum and confidence — not to mention the fact that Southern Miss (9–1) is ranked in the Top 25 and UAB is 2–8.

I think Southern Miss will win by three touchdowns.

#9 Virginia Tech at North Carolina, 7 p.m. (Central) on ESPN: Historically, Virginia Tech has dominated this series — although the series was dormant for nearly half a century.

In the first half of the 20th century, the schools met regularly on the gridiron. But then they fought to a tie for the only time at North Carolina — and didn't play again until the Gator Bowl on New Year's Day 1998.

They became conference rivals in 2004 and have been playing each other ever since. Virginia Tech is 6–1 in that time — a much higher winning percentage than the Hokies have compiled against the Tar Heels since their first meeting way back in 1902.

One of these days, North Carolina will beat Virginia Tech. But not this time. I pick Virginia Tech by 10 points.

Friday

#2 Oklahoma State at Iowa State, 8 p.m. (Central) on ESPN2: Historically, OSU would prefer to be playing this game in Stillwater, where the Cowboys have a 14–6–2 advantage.

Since 1991, Iowa State is 4–2–1 at home against Oklahoma State.

But this is Oklahoma State, 2011 edition, we're talking about. The Cowboys are averaging more than 50 points a game. Iowa State, meanwhile, has been averaging less than half that.

I pick Oklahoma State to win by three touchdowns — at least — in the Cowboys' warmup for their in–state grudge match with Oklahoma.

Saturday

#1 LSU at Ole Miss, 6 p.m. (Central) on ESPN: I've been saying all along that I am not sold on LSU — and, in spite of everything that has happened, I am still not sold on the Tigers. Not yet. If they beat my Razorbacks next week, I'll concede the point. But until then ...

It is beyond dispute, though, that, in last weekend's Associated Press poll, LSU became the first unanimous #1 during the regular season since 2008.

The Tigers didn't necessarily distinguish themselves by beating Western Kentucky last week. Nor will they distinguish themselves when they beat the hapless Ole Miss Rebels this weekend — which they will.

To suggest otherwise would be ludicrous. Ole Miss has lost 12 consecutive SEC games. Just last week, the Rebels were blown out (27–7) at home by Louisiana Tech last week. LSU, meanwhile, is 11–2 in the SEC in the last two years. The Tigers avenged one of last season's losses — to Auburn — earlier this season, and they will have the opportunity to avenge the other one — to Arkansas — next week.

As long as they don't take their eyes off the ball.

I don't think they will. I expect LSU to win.

Georgia Southern at #3 Alabama: To the casual observer, Georgia Southern may not seem like a worthy foe for a team that was considered a potential national champion only a couple of weeks ago.

But, as Lee Corso would say, not so fast, my friend.

Sure, Tuscaloosa is a tough place for a visiting team to play. I've said that before. But Georgia Southern brings a 9–1 record to this game — same as the Crimson Tide.

Well, Alabama plays a tougher schedule, you may say — and that is undoubtedly true. In just their SEC division alone, the Tide must face LSU, Arkansas and Auburn every year — as well as Mississippi State and Ole Miss and, presumably, the Texas A&M Aggies when they join the conference next year.

I do believe Alabama will win the game — but it might not be quite as easy as some people think.

#18 USC at #4 Oregon, 7 p.m. (Central) on ABC: Historically, Southern Cal has the advantage in this series, but there are a couple of points in Oregon's favor.

The series has been much closer when the games have been played in Oregon. The Trojans have a slight edge overall (12–11–1), but the Ducks are 3–2 there in the last 10 years. That's better than the record in Los Angeles, where the Trojans have won nearly four–fifths of the time.

What's more, Oregon has beaten USC the last two times the teams have played in Eugene.

Oregon also has the additional motivation of possibly being back in the national championship game in January — if all the chips fall just so. That would, include, of course, some apparently improbable turns of events — but you really never know what's going to happen in a football game.

I don't know what will happen in this game — but I think I have an idea. I'll pick Oregon to win.

#5 Oklahoma at #25 Baylor, 7 p.m. (Central) on ABC: This will be the 20th time these teams have faced each other in football, and Baylor is still looking for its first victory over the Sooners.

It hasn't been uncommon for Oklahoma to be ranked when the Sooners and the Bears have played, especially since the dawning of the 21st century, but rarely — if ever — has Baylor been ranked. That alone makes this game special, I suppose.

It won't make it exceptional, though. I expect Oklahoma to win handily.

Mississippi State at #6 Arkansas, 2:30 p.m. (Central) on CBS: Mississippi State has never beaten the Razorbacks inside the state borders of Arkansas. The closest the Bulldogs have come to a victory was in 1993, when they fought to a 13–13 tie in Little Rock's War Memorial Stadium.

It's not possible for a college football game to end in a tie anymore, and I don't think Mississippi State will win this time, but I think it might be closer than a lot of people probably expect. I'll take Arkansas by 10 points.

#7 Clemson at North Carolina State, 2:30 p.m. (Central) on ABC: These schools have played each other nearly 80 times (annually since 1971), and Clemson has a winning record over N.C. State wherever they have played — including games that were played at the neutral site of Charlotte, N.C.

N.C. State is a respectable 5–5 and may well be motivated by the knowledge that all NCSU needs to get a bowl bid is one more win — but that win seems much more likely to come against 2–8 Maryland next week than against 9–1 Clemson this week.

I pick Clemson in what could be a very close game.

California at #8 Stanford, 9:15 p.m. (Central) on ESPN: I think this edition of "The Big Game" could be a lot better than the rankings might suggest. After all, 6–4 Cal has the nation's 16th–best defense — far and away the best Stanford has faced.

What's more, the Bears aren't likely to be intimidated by the Stanford crowd. They're 3–1 at Stanford since 2003.

But, with the exception of last week's loss to Oregon, this seems to be Andrew Luck's year so I pick Stanford to win the game.

#10 Boise State at San Diego State, 7 p.m. (Central) on CBSSN: This is the first time these teams have met.

Boise State, of course, is still smarting from its loss to TCU last week, and 6–3 San Diego State appears to have the tools to hand Boise its second consecutive regular–season loss — which is an experience the Broncos haven't had since September 2005.

But the Broncos have the 15th–best offense in the country and the 20th–best defense. San Diego State is 45th and 55th, respectively. They play in the same conference so their numbers have been compiled against roughly the same opponents — the Broncos have just done better than the Aztecs.

For example, last weekend San Diego State barely got past Colorado State, 18–15. Boise State thumped that same CSU team a month ago, 63–13.

There have been some bright spots for the Aztecs. Their margin of victory over Air Force was slightly higher than Boise's; SDSU won by 14, Boise won by 11. And they both lost to TCU, although SDSU went down by 13 while Boise got edged by a single point.

I'll go with Boise State by a couple of touchdowns.

SMU at #11 Houston, 2:30 p.m. (Central) on FSN: Houston has won five in a row against SMU and eight of nine since 1994.

This was something of a rivalry in the last couple of decades of the old Southwest Conference when both schools were contenders — albeit in different seasons — for the national title. SMU had been a member of the SWC since 1918, but Houston didn't join until nearly 60 years later.

As SWC competitors, the schools and their fans just about saw it all in their series — video game–like scores (Houston put 95 points on SMU in 1989), old–fashioned defensive struggles (SMU won a 10–3 decision in 1986, and Houston won a 13–11 game in 1980) — or they thought they did.

Houston has a five–game winning streak against SMU that dates back to 2006. Neither team had ever won more than three in a row against the other before — and now undefeated Houston has a chance to double that achievement with its sixth straight victory.

Like old times, Houston has one of the nation's most prolific offenses, and I expect it to win the day against the Mustangs.

Indiana at #12 Michigan State, 11 a.m. (Central) on the Big Ten Network: Michigan State has every reason to believe the Spartans will win this game. They've beaten the Hoosiers in 16 of the 20 games the teams have played since 1987.

The teams are virtually indistinguishable on offense, but there is a huge gap between Michigan State's third–ranked defense and Indiana's defense, which is ranked 106th.

I'll go with Michigan State.

Kentucky at #13 Georgia, 11:21 a.m. (Central) on SEC Network: A win over Kentucky will clinch the SEC East for Georgia, and the recent history of this series suggests that it is practically a done deal.

The Bulldogs have won all but two of the last 14 games between the schools — and, in true SEC fashion, Georgia has a decided advantage on defense. But Georgia also has a clear edge on offense.

The bad news for the Bulldogs, though, is that Kentucky was the winner the last time the teams played in Georgia two years ago.

But that, as they say, was then, and this is now. I expect Georgia to win this game.

Citadel at #14 South Carolina: This game means nothing in the SEC East race. Citadel isn't even a member of the SEC.

South Carolina, in fact, can have no further influence on the race. The Gamecocks' fate is entirely in the hands of others. If Georgia beats Kentucky, Georgia wins the division. If Georgia loses, South Carolina wins based on holding the head–to–head tiebreaker.

It's been more than 20 years since these teams met on the gridiron — and they never faced each other regularly. No real emotion involved here. Just a bit of a warmup for the postseason.

South Carolina should win with no problem.

#15 Wisconsin at Illinois, 11 a.m. (Central) on ESPN2: The home team tends to win when these teams play, which should favor Illinois.

The home team doesn't always win, though. In fact, the home team has failed to win half of the games played since 1995 — and that should favor Wisconsin.

The Badgers have a Top 10 offense — which figures to be tested by Illinois' ninth–ranked defense.

Wisconsin, though, is even better on defense (ranked sixth) — and that is bad news for Illinois (65th in offense).

If the Badgers aren't distracted, I expect Wisconsin to stay on track for its showdown next week with Penn State.

#16 Kansas State at Texas, 7 p.m. (Central) on FX: Texas has beaten KSU two–thirds of the time the Wildcats have traveled to Austin, and none of the numbers — except maybe the rankings — suggest that anything will be different this time.

The Longhorns have been better — albeit marginally so — on offense and defense.

I'll take Texas.

#17 Nebraska at #20 Michigan, 11 a.m. (Central) on ESPN: This will be the first regular–season game between these two teams since John F. Kennedy was president.

In fact, this will be the seventh time these teams have faced each other, but the first three games were played before the end of World War I.

Their last two meetings were in bowl games — the Fiesta Bowl in January 1986 and the Alamo Bowl in December 1995.

This season, Michigan has been more successful on both offense and defense than Nebraska, and the Wolverines have the advantage of playing before the home crowd.

I'll pick Michigan to win.

Colorado State at #19 TCU, 2:30 p.m. (Central) on CBSSN: Colorado State was the winner when these schools met for the first time in 1998.

But TCU won the next seven contests and appears likely to win this one as well.

All the numbers suggest it.

TCU (8–2) has a far better offense and defense than Colorado State (3–6). What's more, CSU hasn't won since September. TCU is coming off a huge victory over Boise State.

Unless the Horned Frogs allow themselves to be distracted by their own success, I expect TCU to win the game.

#21 Penn State at Ohio State, 2:30 p.m. (Central) on ABC: Considering that Penn State narrowly lost to Nebraska after a week of almost incomprehensible distraction, I think the Nittany Lions showed considerable resiliency.

And, even though this week's game is on the road (where Ohio State is 9–6 in its series with Penn State), I have a feeling the Nittany Lions might win. They have a Top 10 defense going against an offense that isn't ranked in the Top 100.

Win or lose, Penn State's postseason fate won't be sealed this Saturday. The Leaders Division will be decided the following weekend, when Penn State and Wisconsin, both currently 8–2, meet in Madison.

If both teams take care of business this weekend, that showdown will guarantee a 10–win season for the victor. And I think Penn State will take care of business against Ohio State.

Virginia at #23 Florida State, 6:30 p.m. (Central) on ESPN2: These teams have played 16 times since 1992, and Virginia has won only twice.

Even more ominously for the Cavaliers, both of those wins came in Virginia. They have never beaten the Seminoles in Florida.

Despite the lopsided nature of the outcomes, though, many of the games have been close. But almost all of those games were played in Charlottesville. The eight games that have been played in Tallahassee have been far more decisive — with the exception of a game played in 1996, Florida State has won every game there by at least 21 points.

In fact, the margin in both of the last two games played in Tallahassee was 33 points.

I don't think it will be quite that lopsided this time. Both teams are 7–3, and Virginia is still in the race for a berth in the ACC Championship Game. The Cavaliers have a season–ending game with Virginia Tech, the team they must overtake to win their division. Holding the head–to–head tiebreaker could do the trick.

The Seminoles, meanwhile, lost to Clemson, the team they trail by a single game in the ACC's Atlantic Division — but, with only one conference game left for each to play, there simply isn't any way for FSU to win it.

Both teams have been pretty good on defense, fairly average on offense. Virginia may have more to play for, but that could work against them, almost distracting them from the task at hand. I think Florida State will play a more stable game and make fewer mistakes.

Boston College at #24 Notre Dame, 3 p.m. (Central) on NBC: Between 1999 and 2008, Boston College won seven out of eight contests with Notre Dame.

But the last two games have belonged to Notre Dame and I think this one will, too.

Last week: 14–6

Season: 174–43

Taking Sides

2011-11-12T19:16:00.005-06:00

The Penn State story — and it really isn't necessary for me to elaborate on that at this point, is there? — is one that will not go away.

I was talking about it with my father yesterday. A lifelong sports fan, he reminded me during our conversation that, when choosing sides in a game, he ordinarily prefers to support a team rather than oppose one.

It's kind of like voting, really. My parents preferred to vote for someone they admired rather than against someone they despised, but they didn't always have a choice. Sometimes, they had to select "the lesser of two evils."

Dad said that, until the middle of last week, he hadn't decided whether he would root for Nebraska or Penn State in today's football game.

He's always been relatively neutral about both football programs. There are some football teams he just doesn't like, for one reason or another (and some of them go back to things that most people either never knew or forgot long ago), and he pulls against them on a regular basis, but, as I say, he's always been neutral about Nebraska and Penn State.

Maybe it's a regional thing. Dad respects Nebraska and Penn State and their accomplishments. But he was born and raised in the South, and he prefers to pull for a good Southern team any day. Once, when I was in high school, my family went to New Orleans during the Christmas break, and we attended the Sugar Bowl football game. Penn State was playing Alabama, and my father pulled for Alabama. It was a Southern team, and, even though my father was opposed to the governor of Alabama, George Wallace, he didn't hold that against the football team.

Anyway, when we spoke yesterday, he still wasn't speaking about pulling for either team today — but he said he had decided which one he would pull against. Penn State, of course.

I understand his anger and frustration, and there probably were millions of football fans who watched the game and pulled for Nebraska because of what happened at Penn State. (Those who did surely were pleased with the outcome.)

But that wasn't really fair.

Joe Paterno deserves to be the target of people's anger. He is no longer the coach. But he isn't the only guilty party.

The headline writer in me kind of wishes that the perpetrator of the child abuse, retired assistant coach Jerry Sandusky, had been a basketball coach — because the evidence of his guilt is so great that the case against him appears to be a slam dunk for the prosecution.

He, too, is no longer on the Penn State coaching staff.

But pulling for the team to lose, it seems to me, amounts to punishing the team and the students — and that is guilt by association.

The incident that led to the unraveling of the Penn State coverup took place nearly a decade ago when the victim was 10 years old. Most of the players who took the field today are the victim's contemporaries. Any one of them could have been — and, when all the details are known, it may be revealed that some were — assaulted around the same time.

It may have been blind luck if some or all of them were spared.

If we do not blame the victim — and I have heard no one who has — it is not fair for us to blame his teammates, either (that is, if he became a member of Penn State's football team).

Or his classmates, for that matter. There are roughly 45,000 students on Penn State's flagship campus. At a major university like that, which recruits athletes from across the country, the likelihood that any of your high school classmates would also be your teammates in college is probably very small — but there are bound to be some of your high school classmates in the general university population.

I grew up in Arkansas, in a town that was more than a bump in the road — but it wasn't a city, either. My graduating class set a school record — which is bound to have been eclipsed, probably on more than one occasion, since then — with slightly more than 300 graduates.

I went to college at the University of Arkansas, the largest campus in the state, and its enrollment at the time was about one–third of Penn State's on–campus enrollment today. I encountered at least one–tenth of my high school classmates there, either in class or in the campus bookstore — or at a Razorback football game.

I even knew some of the people who played in the band at the football games — so I know it is more than possible that the young man has run into people from his hometown if he is part of the Penn State student body.

Whether that young man is now a student at Penn State or not, though, his contemporaries there held a candlelight vigil last night for him and the other victims.

Well, they did it for themselves, too. There can be no doubt that, after the week they have endured, the students desired closure — and a return to semi–normalcy. Some also probably wanted to relieve any feelings of guilt they may have.

But I think they also wanted to express their solidarity with the victims in some way.

They weren't to blame for what happened — or what was done to cover it up. They should not be made the scapegoats.

Role Models

2011-11-11T10:08:00.036-06:00

Everyone has an opinion on the tragedy at Penn State.

I've been trying to avoid jumping in because, frankly, the pool seems pretty crowded.

But, when you get past the posturing and the judging, it still comes down to one thing, even though that one thing often seems to get lost.

Children were victimized by adults — in the original assault and in the effort to cover it up.

They are the victims — not Joe Paterno, not Jerry Sandusky, not Graham Spanier, not anyone in Penn State's administration — although, in true football fashion, there's been plenty of misdirection.

And even some who have defended the actions — or inactions, if you prefer — of the adults.

I have known about this matter for only a few days, and my conscience won't permit me to remain silent any longer.

But silence has been the problem at Penn State, as it has been in other organizations, for a long time.

In fact, until Penn State dismissed Paterno for not doing anywhere near enough after he became aware of his assistant's crimes, it seemed that the university would do as others have done — and conclude that protecting the institution is more important than justice for children.

Our society talks a good game when it comes to protecting children — but it is rare when a mafia mentality of circling the wagons and protecting one's own, even when one's own is clearly guilty, does not take over, and the code of silence descends on all.

In schools. In churches. In athletic locker rooms.

The really heinous part of this is the betrayal of the faith that children place in authority figures — like parents, coaches, pastors and teachers. Children don't always outgrow that absolute allegiance, either. Some adults continue to revere the authority figures from their childhoods long after those authority figures are revealed to be less than superheroes.

(My understanding is that the assistant who witnessed the assault waited a day before taking it to Paterno. He had to consult with his real father first.)

Those relationships have lives of their own, and so do violations of that trust. They live on, influencing others in due course. Whether one prays or not, the victims deserve whatever support we can give them. Most, if not all, will struggle with this for years.

Paterno, in an attempt to appear gracious after his dismissal, urged everyone to pray for the victims, and, on the surface, that does seem to be generous and compassionate.

But "JoePa," the father figure for countless young men, was not being selfless. He was being selfish.

It was face–saving misdirection.

A football coach to the end, he tried to fake out everyone with a little play–action that would give the appearance that he still called the shots. He would leave when the season was over — which, presumably, would have included the Big Ten Championship Game (if the Nittany Lions qualified for it) and perhaps the Rose Bowl.

That would have been the proper way for college football's winningest coach to exit.

He was still trying to exercise control in a situation where he had no more. He lost his credibility when he abandoned his responsibility.

And it is to the credit of Penn State's trustees that they were not faked out.

I have heard it argued by some that it is not always easy to know what to do, that Paterno may have believed he did what was expected of him, and I will concede that point. But JoePa was obliged to do more than the minimum. He occupied a special place in the state of Pennsylvania, not just Penn State.

In most places, a coach does not have more power than the school president, but coaches like Paterno do. With such authority comes an obligation to go beyond the very least that you can do. There may have been acceptable reasons for his actions — and, more significantly, his inactions — but that does not excuse the fact that, when he was told that a member of his staff had assaulted a child, he was obligated to do more than pass the buck, and he did not.

Maybe there was a time when he understood the special role he played in molding the lives that were placed in his care — perhaps, early in his tenure at Penn State, when he watched Woody Hayes strolling the Ohio State sidelines in three encounters in the 1970s.

I thought of Hayes when all this surfaced about Penn State. Hayes was another role model from an earlier era whose career came to an abrupt end under less than ideal circumstances — when he punched an opposing player whose interception secured a bowl game victory for his team.

Everyone always knew that Hayes was a volatile drill sergeant kind of guy, a human volcano, barking out orders and demanding that his players give every ounce of energy to the cause. His bark may have been worse than his bite, but nobody wanted to hear his bark.

Even so, Hayes was considered the kind of man that young men could look up to, and countless fathers wanted their sons to play football for him.

That changed in the blink of an eye.

A role model is expected to do more than talk the talk. He is expected to walk the walk, too.

I guess I first thought of Hayes' case in relation to Paterno's when I heard people say — as I have been saying for years — that Paterno should have retired a long time ago. I was reminded of something I read when Hayes was dismissed.

"People keep saying that Woody Hayes is a great football coach who overstayed his time," wrote the great Red Smith in 1979. "This implies that there was a time when slugging a member of the opposing team was proper coachly deportment."

Or that there was a time when it was OK for a coach to pass the buck when his assistant — who was, for a time, regarded by many as his hand–picked successor — sexually assaulted a child in the locker room.

Oregon-Stanford Showdown Set

2011-11-10T15:51:00.017-06:00

College football fans may be feeling something of a letdown with the LSU–Alabama game reduced to a memory, but there's another major showdown this weekend — the Pac–12 battle between #3 Stanford and #6 Oregon.

Stanford is unbeaten and boasts the front runner for this year's Heisman Trophy. But the Ducks, who beat Stanford by three touchdowns last year, have only lost once — to currently top–ranked LSU on Labor Day weekend.

And, while Stanford may have the top candidate for the Heisman on its roster, Oregon's offense has been just as productive.

If there is one thing that is clearly in Stanford's favor, though — besides the fact that the game is being played in California — it is that Stanford's defense has been so much better — and, consequently, may prove to be the difference.

The winner will almost certainly be the champion of the Pac–12 North and will play USC, Arizona State or UCLA for the conference crown in December.

Idle: #7 Oklahoma

Thursday

#10 Virginia Tech at #20 Georgia Tech, 7 p.m. (Central) on ESPN: This is the ninth time these teams have played each other, and the first eight games have followed a recognizable pattern.

Georgia Tech won the first encounter, then Virginia Tech won the next two. Georgia Tech won their fourth encounter, then Virginia Tech won the next two. Georgia Tech won their seventh meeting, then Virginia Tech won last year.

Consequently, Virginia Tech should win this time, right? But two of Georgia Tech's three victories over Virginia Tech have come when it was the host team, as it is this week.

The numbers favor Georgia Tech, though. The Yellow Jackets have a far better offense, and their defense is close to Virginia Tech's.

So I'm going to take Georgia Tech.

#11 Houston at Tulane, 7 p.m. (Central) on CBSSN: Most teams can only wish they dominated another the way Houston dominates Tulane.

The teams have been conference rivals since 1996. Houston has won 10 of their 14 meetings, including the last eight (in five of those games, UH has scored more than 40 points; Tulane has exceeded 30 points only once in that time — and lost on that occasion).

Houston's best–in–the–nation offense is light years ahead of Tulane's. Tulane has a slight edge on defense, but it isn't nearly enough to make up for the gap on offense.

I pick Houston to win.

Saturday

Western Kentucky at #1 LSU, 7 p.m. (Central) on ESPNU: What a time for Western Kentucky to be making its first–ever trip to Baton Rouge — the week after LSU's dramatic overtime victory over Alabama.

Not much else to say, really. It would be an enormously shocking upset if Western Kentucky won, but I don't think that will happen. I pick LSU.

#2 Oklahoma State at Texas Tech, 11 a.m. (Central) on ABC: Most people probably don't realize it, but these teams were playing each other long before the refugees from the old Southwest Conference (of which Texas Tech was one) joined the old Big Eight Conference to form the Big 12.

They played each other for the first time during Franklin Roosevelt's first term as president. They even played in Japan once — during Ronald Reagan's last year in the White House.

This will be the 39th meeting in the series and the 20th to be played in Lubbock. The Red Raiders are 13–3–3 against the Cowboys in Lubbock — but Oklahoma State won there last year, snapping a winless streak in Lubbock that went all the way back to the days of World War II, and Oklahoma State, with its third–ranked offense, looks too powerful.

Historically, it would be much better for OSU to be playing this game in Stillwater, where the Cowboys are 10–8 against Texas Tech.

Nevertheless, I pick Oklahoma State.

#6 Oregon at #3 Stanford, 7 p.m. (Central) on ABC: In addition to being the marquee matchup of the week (probably nationally, certainly in the Top 25), this is an old series that began a few days before Warren Harding was elected president.

This is the 72nd meeting between these schools, and Stanford holds a decisive edge, 41–29–1 — but Oregon has been far more successful in their head–to–head meetings in recent years. In fact, Oregon has won nine of the last 11 and handed Stanford its only loss last year.

The Pac–12 is known as an offense–oriented conference, and both teams have top–notch offenses. Oregon is seventh in the country, and Stanford is eighth.

Thus, the key to victory may be with the better defense, and that would be Stanford, ranked 18th nationally while Oregon is 62nd.

I'll pick Stanford to win at home.

#4 Alabama at Mississippi State, 6:45 p.m. (Central) on ESPN: These schools have been playing each other since a few years after the turn of the last century, and Alabama almost always win.

The Tide has rolled over the Bulldogs in both Tuscaloosa and Starkville, but the percentages are slightly more favorable for Mississippi State at home.

I don't really think that will mean anything this time, but you never know. The SEC is the kind of conference in which the team with the worst record can beat the team with the best on, as they say, "any given Saturday."

But Alabama won't be giving away anything this time, and I expect Alabama to win.

TCU at #5 Boise State, 2:30 p.m. (Central) on Versus: All three of the previous meetings between these schools came in bowls so all were neutral sites — technically.

However, their first meeting was in the 2003 Fort Worth Bowl, which was played in Fort Worth, home of TCU. TCU won that game by a field goal, then lost the rematch in the 2008 Poinsettia Bowl, then won the third game in the next season's Fiesta Bowl.

A brand–new chapter will be written in the series' history in Boise, and I pick Boise State, ranked 13th in both offense and defense, to prevail.

Tennessee at #8 Arkansas, 5 p.m. (Central) on ESPN2: Tennessee has won 10 of its last 12 games against Arkansas, but those two losses came in their last three trips to Fayetteville.

What's more, Tennessee is winless in five SEC games while Arkansas' only SEC loss came against Alabama in September.

The Razorbacks have the 23rd–best offense in the nation (easily superior to Tennessee, ranked 97th). Tennessee's defense is 31st and may be able to keep pace with Arkansas' offense, but the 55th–ranked Arkansas defense appears more than capable of stopping the Volunteers.

I'll take Arkansas.

Wake Forest at #9 Clemson, 11 a.m. (Central) on ESPNU: Clemson has owned Wake Forest in this series, winning more than 75% of the time, and the dominance has been even more pronounced in the games at Clemson, where the Tigers are 34–7 against the Demon Deacons.

In fact, Wake Forest has won only one of the last eight games it has played in Clemson.

Is there any reason to think Wake Forest will be competitive in this game? Well, no, not really. Clemson is 15th in the nation in offense, far ahead of Wake Forest. On defense, Wake Forest has the edge, but it is so slight that it is hard to see the Deacons' defense turning things around.

I'll take Clemson.

#19 Nebraska at #12 Penn State, 11 a.m. (Central) on ESPN: These teams are meeting as conference rivals for the first time, but they are hardly strangers to each other.

However, no one has really been talking about that.

The first–ever conference clash between these two perennial powers has been overshadowed by the sex scandal that has rocked Penn State — and resulted in the firing of Joe Paterno — even though the Nittany Lions are the top contenders for the Leaders Division's berth in the Big Ten title game — and, with a record that is currently 8–1, could snare a spot in a BCS bowl game.

That speaks volumes about the priorities in Happy Valley.

There is no question that what has been unfolding at Penn State is a tragedy of immense proportions.

These teams seemed to be permanently entrenched in the Top 10 when I was growing up, and they even played in the very first edition of the now–defunct Kick–off Classic in East Rutherford, N.J., but, oddly enough, they've never met in a bowl game.

Nevertheless, this will be the 14th time they've played.

Historically, the series is quite close. Nebraska has won six, Penn State has won seven. Typically, the home team wins. Nebraska is 4–2 at home against the Nittany Lions, and Penn State is 5–1 at home against the Cornhuskers.

That would appear to favor the Nittany Lions — were it not for the distraction caused by this scandal.

I don't know, at this point, who will be running the team on Saturday, but my personal guess is that Nebraska will buck the historical trend and win at Penn State.

#13 Michigan State at Iowa, 11 a.m. (Central) on ESPN2: Since 1990, Iowa is 10–5 against Michigan State and has won four of the last five.

And a victory could put Iowa right smack in the middle of the Legends Division race. A loss would just about seal the currently 6–3 Hawkeyes' fate — and perhaps all but clinch the division title for the Spartans.

Neither team has been terribly impressive on offense so defense may be decisive. If so, the advantage appears to belong to Michigan State, which is second only to Alabama in total defense. Iowa is 72nd in defense.

I pick Michigan State to record a rare win in this series.

#24 Auburn at #14 Georgia, 2:30 p.m. (Central) on CBS: South Carolina's loss to Arkansas last week put Georgia in the SEC East driver's seat, but the Bulldogs are hardly home free.

Speaking of home, the defending national champion Auburn Tigers will be coming to visit on Saturday. They can't possibly win the national title again, but they are ranked and there is a lot of history in this series that doesn't work in Georgia's favor.

For one thing, the home team loses more often than it wins. Auburn is 22–15–2 at Georgia, and Georgia is 14–12–2 at Auburn. (Between 1916 and 1958, the teams played on neutral fields 39 times.)

However, the Bulldogs have been much better on both sides of the ball, so I will pick Georgia to win at home — even though the home team doesn't usually win this game.

Florida at #15 South Carolina, 11 a.m. (Central) on CBS: These teams have met 31 times, and Florida has won 23.

But times may be changing in this series. South Carolina won at Florida last year for the first time — ever. Before that, Florida was 18–1 against South Carolina since 1964.

This year's game is in Columbia, where the Gamecocks have beaten Florida four times, most recently on Nov. 12, 2005. But you have to go back to the 1930s to find the only time when South Carolina won consecutive games against the Gators.

That's the kind of history South Carolina is chasing this weekend. And if the Gamecocks can do it — and Georgia loses to Auburn — South Carolina could well be on its way to its second straight SEC Championship game.

Neither offense has been impressive, and both teams have Top 20 defenses. South Carolina has an edge in both categories so I'll pick South Carolina in what should be a competitive game.

#16 Wisconsin at Minnesota, 2:30 p.m. (Central) on the Big Ten Network: The series that eventually became known as the battle for Paul Bunyan's Axe is in its third century, but only slightly more than half of the games between these two schools have actually been for that particular prize.

The rest of the time, I suppose, it has been about pride and bragging rights.

The Badgers appear to be significantly better on both sides of the ball so I'll take Wisconsin.

Texas A&M at #17 Kansas State, 2:30 p.m. (Central) on ABC: There are two ways of looking at this series, I guess.

On the one hand, it's been pretty competitive. The teams have played 14 times. A&M has won eight, Kansas State has won six.

On the other hand, Kansas State has fared better — slightly — at home against the Aggies.

The Aggies have a Top 10 offense (KSU's is 86th). The Wildcats are better on defense, but that really isn't saying much.

If Texas A&M can manage to keep up its intensity in the second half — something the Aggies have struggled to do this year — I'll pick Texas A&M to win a mild upset.

Washington at #18 USC, 2:45 p.m. (Central) on FX: Over the years, USC has had a decided advantage in this series.

But, in recent years (well, the last two, anyway), it has been Washington that has been the winner.

From 2002 to 2008, USC won every year, sometimes by ridiculous margins (56–0 in 2008, 51–24 in 2005) and sometimes by heart–stoppingly close ones (27–24 in 2007, 26–20 in 2006).

Since the series began in the 1920s, USC has won more than 60% of the time. And I expect USC to get back on the winning track on Saturday.

#21 Texas at Missouri, 11 a.m. (Central) on FX: Like most of the schools Texas has played, Missouri has compiled a losing record in its series with the Longhorns.

This will be the 19th time the teams have played, and Texas has won all but three. But the bad news for Texas is that all three of those losses came in Columbia, where Saturday's game will be played.

But Missouri hasn't beaten Texas since 1997 and has lost the last three games the two have played in Columbia. Since Missouri is heading for the SEC, this might be the Tigers' last chance to defeat Texas at home.

The numbers say Missouri is marginally better on offense and Texas has a significant advantage on defense. That being the case, I will take Texas.

#22 Michigan at Illinois, 2:30 p.m. (Central) on ABC: These schools have been playing since 1898, and Michigan has won about three–quarters of the time — no matter where the game has been played.

Michigan has a much better offense, and Illinois has a marginally better defense.

I'll take Michigan to win.

West Virginia at #23 Cincinnati, 11 a.m. (Central) on ABC: This game will test Cincinnati's legitimacy as a Top 25 team.

For one thing, the Bearcats are facing a formerly ranked team that would certainly like to return to the rankings — and beating a currently ranked team is probably the quickest route.

For another, West Virginia has owned Cincinnati in this series. The Mountaineers have gon 7–1 in Cincinnati, but they lost there for the first time in their last visit (it was by only a field goal).

This has the potential to be the most entertaining game of the weekend. West Virginia is better on both sides of the ball, and I think West Virginia will win the game.

#25 Southern Miss at UCF, 7 p.m. (Central) on CBSSN: These teams have only been playing each other since 2005, but it's been a lopsided series in Southern Miss' favor.

Southern Miss has won three in a row against UCF and is 5–1 overall. UCF is 0–3 at home in the series. That's dominant — albeit limited.

Southern Miss has a much better offense, but UCF has a pronounced edge on defense, where it is ranked fifth.

This will probably be considered an upset, but I'll take UCF.

Last week: 13–4

Season:160–37

Rest in Peace, Joe Frazier

2011-11-08T03:34:00.009-06:00

If you were a sports fan in the 1970s, there were certain athletes, certain teams, certain events that will remain in your memory forever — Muhammad Ali, the Pittsburgh Steelers, the tragedy of the 1972 Summer Olympics, the list goes on and on.

You can't think of those Olympic Games without seeing, in your mind's eye, hooded terrorists and a somber Jim McKay telling viewers that the Israeli athletes had been killed.

You can't think of the Steelers of that time and not think of the team they beat in two classic Super Bowls, the Dallas Cowboys.

And you can't think of Ali without thinking of his three epic fights with Joe Frazier.

Frazier died of liver cancer late Monday. He was 67 years old.

He was an intense battler in the ring, a great champion in his own right, but he will always be remembered for those three fights he had with Ali. Smokin' Joe actually won the first one, much to the delight of right–wing boxing fans who felt Ali should have gone to Vietnam, and survived their grueling finale in the Philippines, dubbed "the Thrilla in Manila."

I suppose it's that first Ali–Frazier fight that people think of the most when they think of Frazier — and that is ironic, I guess, because, as I say, that is the only fight of the three that Frazier won. But it was the third fight that Ali said was the closest he ever came to death.

I always felt that first fight was too mired in politics. The two men became political symbols, whether that was what they desired or not. Supporters of the Vietnam War gravitated to Frazier, opponents gravitated to Ali. Very few seemed to be interested in the fight from a purely athletic perspective, and, consequently, relatively few recognized it for its boxing brilliance. It was called the "Fight of the Century," and many fights have been called that, but that first Ali–Frazier duel really lived up to it.

Frazier took a lot of abuse from Ali in public, and he resented it for much of his life. But those who should know say that he forgave Ali for everything in recent years, and the two apparently became friends.

Much will be said about Joe Frazier in the days ahead, and he deserves all the accolades he will receive. I'm sure some of the warmest will come from Ali, who is forever linked to Frazier — like Affirmed and Alydar, they were thoroughbreds whose legends would have been incomplete without the other.

Smokin' Joe Has Cancer

2011-11-05T19:51:00.003-05:00

"Ali always said I would be nothing without him, but who would he have been without me?"

Joe Frazier

Smokin' Joe Frazier has liver cancer, so they say.

It was diagnosed a few weeks ago.

I don't have any medical training. I don't even know what type of liver cancer Frazier has. But I know that people rarely survive such diseases.

I'm hoping for the best for Smokin' Joe. I was a fan of Muhammad Ali when I was growing up, but I always admired Joe Frazier.

And his contemporaries literally feared him. George Foreman may have been the most powerful fighter on the planet when I was a teenager, but, more than 15 years after Foreman took the heavyweight title from Frazier in two rounds, he confessed to Johnny Carson that Frazier was "the toughest guy I'd ever seen."

Frazier was tough, no doubt about it. If anyone can beat liver cancer through sheer force of will, it's Joe Frazier. He was always scrappy. He stood 5'11½" in the ring, but he looked short when he was up against Ali (6'3"), Foreman (6'4"), even Jimmy Ellis (6'1").

If you look at tape of his fights, he looks like someone's little brother trying to persuade people he was one of the big kids.

He always stood tall, though, physical appearances notwithstanding.

Good luck, Joe.

At Last, LSU and Alabama Face Off

2011-11-04T05:52:00.012-05:00

I guess it was to be expected that, with the two top–ranked teams facing each other this Saturday, attention quickly would focus on the occasions when such a confrontation has occurred during the regular season.

As Richard Rothschild observes for Sports Illustrated, games pitting #1 and #2 against each other were "as rare as full solar eclipses in the pre–BCS era — even in the bowls."

Some people have even suggested that these teams should meet again in January for the national title. Chris Dufresne of the Los Angeles Times opposes the idea. Dufresne says it wouldn't be fair to the other conferences.

Of course, the whole BCS concept was devised to simultaneously appease people like me (who have favored an actual playoff system for a long time) and people who wanted to preserve the bowl system with the two top–ranked teams playing each other at the end of the season for the national title.

One of the beautiful things about a playoff system is that conference rivals could meet in such a rematch if they both take care of business. It's happened in the NCAA Tournament, and no one complained that a certain conference got special breaks, as Dufresne suggests might well be alleged if LSU and Alabama are paired off in New Orleans. The talk at the Final Four was how the conference had proven on the court that it was superior to the others.

If the NFL followed a similar approach in determining who played in the Super Bowl, last February's game would have been played between New England and Atlanta (both of whom went down in the second round) — not Green Bay and Pittsburgh.

That is the advantage I have found in a playoff. Teams that make it to the championship game (or series) have really earned the right to participate in it – on a big stage before a very big audience.

Not to mention that all the postseason games or series that precede it have meaning as well. One of my biggest gripes with the BCS arrangement is that it has rendered all other bowl games virtually meaningless — except to the participating teams and their fans.

All of which is not to say that the winner of the LSU–Alabama game won't deserve to play for a national title in January. I am of the opinion that, if a team wins the Southeastern Conference, that team must be regarded as one of the best in college football.

And they certainly appear to be evenly matched.

Most football fans agree that LSU and Alabama are remarkably similar on the field, and some — Steve Eubanks of Fox Sports South, for one — are saying the difference could come down to the coaches. David Climer of The Tennessean says LSU's Les Miles is the wild card.

"He might fake a field goal," Climer writes. "He might fake a punt. Heck, he might fake a heart attack if he thought it would give his Tigers an edge."

The winner of Saturday's game has to be seen as being in the SEC West driver's seat — but it won't be over for either one when the final whistle blows. LSU must still play Arkansas, and Alabama must still face Auburn — two truly intense rivalry games. And neither can afford to overlook the Mississippi schools each must face this month.

Clearly, there will be hurdles yet to be leaped by both teams. To prematurely crown either SEC champ when neither has clinched even the SEC West title would be eerily reminiscent of the December day in 1969 when #1 Texas edged #2 Arkansas, and President Nixon proclaimed Texas the national champion — even though Penn State was also undefeated, and none of the bowl games had been played yet.

LSU and Alabama are playing a full month before one of the two — presumably — will be playing in the SEC title game — against either 10th–ranked South Carolina or 18th–ranked Georgia.

And whoever represents the West will, in all likelihood, be the favorite to prevail.

But that's why they play the games, isn't it? And, in the SEC, anything can happen.

Idle: #11 Clemson, #12 Virginia Tech, #16 Penn State, #22 Georgia Tech, #25 Auburn

Friday

#21 USC at Colorado, 8 p.m. (Central) on ESPN2: These teams have played each other five times before, and Colorado has won every encounter.

In fact, USC has seldom scored against Colorado, even the last time they met, in 2002.

They will be playing more often, now that they are in the same conference, and I expect the Trojans to end their drought against Colorado soon — this weekend, in fact.

But it appears that USC coach Lane Kiffin's propensity for blaming the officials when things go sour is running out of steam.

Southern California should win this game, but, win or lose, Kiffin needs to accept what happens on the field with grace.

Saturday

#1 LSU at #2 Alabama, 7 p.m. (Central) on CBS: By college football standards, this is an ancient rivalry.

It dates back to 1902, and this will be the 73rd time these teams have faced each other.

Alabama holds the historical edge, 44–23–5, and the Tigers have struggled in Tuscaloosa, as just about everyone does. But, although the Tigers lost the last time they visited Alabama, they won their four previous trips there.

I wouldn't advise offense enthusiasts to watch this game. Defense figures to be dominant. Alabama's defense is first in the nation; LSU's is fourth.

In fact, as this showdown has approached, the talk in Louisiana has been of the opportunity it offers to LSU's linebackers, according to Les East of the Baton Rouge (La.) Advocate.

The game is a sellout — officially, but there are tickets available for those who are prepared to part with "from several hundred dollars up to $2,500 per ticket," reports Amy Wold of the Advocate.

My living room isn't fancy, but I'll take it. I can watch the game in reasonable comfort. I can get something to eat or go to the bathroom without having to stand in line. I don't have to mess with traffic after the game.

And I will predict that LSU will win a close one.

#17 Kansas State at #3 Oklahoma State, 7 p.m. (Central) on ABC: This is another old series, although it is rarely recognized as such because most people probably think of KSU as a basketball school.

The first game in the series was played when Woodrow Wilson was president, and OSU has been winning regularly, wherever the game has been played. But the Cowboys have been particularly successful in Stillwater, where they have won the last two.

Nevertheless, both victories were by narrow margins, and the Wildcats won the previous four times they played there so home field may not be that much of an advantage, even for this high–octane OSU team.

But because the Cowboys are such a high–octane team, I will pick Oklahoma State to win by 20 points.

#4 Stanford at Oregon State, 2:30 p.m. (Central) on ABC: Stanford has dominated this series, and its domination has been pretty consistent no matter where the two have played.

In Corvallis, Oregon State has been marginally more likely to beat Stanford than if the game is played in California, but Stanford has won more than 60% of the time in both places.

In the last four years, though, the home team has won — which would appear to favor Oregon State. Even though Stanford is the one that has been in the mix for the national title of late.

As Michael J. Fox asserted in "Back to the Future," history — well, recent history, anyway — is going to change. I pick Stanford to win by three touchdowns.

#5 Boise State at UNLV, 9:30 p.m. (Central) on CBSSN: This is the first meeting between these two schools, which means a new chapter in collegiate athletics is being written in Las Vegas this weekend.

And UNLV has had its moments in athletics — mostly in basketball but occasionally in football, too — so one might think this could be an intriguing game. More intriguing than the numbers would suggest.

But those numbers are compelling. In total offense, Boise State ranks 12th. UNLV is 116th. In total defense, Boise State is 16th. UNLV is 110th. Any questions?

I'll take Boise State by five touchdowns.

#6 Oregon at Washington, 9:30 p.m. (Central) on FSN: Oregon has won seven straight against Washington, and the Ducks haven't lost in Seattle since 2003.

I can't say that the winning streak is misleading. The closest score in all that time was 34–14; the widest was last year, when Oregon won, 53–16.

And things don't necessarily look like they will be any better for UW fans this time, even though Washington is the host team. Oregon has the nation's sixth–rated total offense (Washington is #41). Defense is hardly the strength of either squad — Oregon is 72nd in the country, Washington is 95th.

The Eugene (Ore.) Register–Guard reports that LaMichael James is "100 percent" and ready to return to the lineup after missing two games with an elbow injury — which would suggest that Oregon's offense could be on the brink of its most productive game of the season.

Perhaps it is. But I'm going to wager that it will be much closer than that — closer than it's been in more than 10 years. I pick Oregon to win by 10 points.

Texas A&M at #7 Oklahoma, 2:30 p.m. (Central) on ABC: John Shinn of the Norman (Okla.) Transcript writes that Texas A&M, which fell from the rankings recently, poses an unusual challenge for Oklahoma, which is back in the top 10 after a one–week hiatus.

"Texas A&M cannot be described as a passing or running team," Shinn writes. "It does both very well."

My guess is that the Sooners will be able to solve the mystery. Being at home will help.

The Aggies and Sooners had been playing each other off and on since 1903 when they became conference rivals in 1996 — but they had not played recently. They had only played twice in nearly 50 years.

Texas A&M won the first three games it played with Oklahoma in the Big 12 Conference, but then a pattern emerged — Oklahoma won 10 of its next 11 encounters with the Aggies.

I remember that exception. It came in 2002, and it was the source of many conversations with a friend and co–worker who had graduated from A&M and had been dreading that game.

The game was played in College Station that year, as was the one that was played last year. Those are the only Aggie victories in the series since 1998 — and A&M hasn't won in Norman since 1997.

Wins in Norman have been exceedingly rare for the Aggies. Historically, they've handled OU at home (9–5) but they have been practically incapable of winning in Norman (2–13). Prior to 1997, A&M's only win in Norman came in 1945.

I just can't see the Aggies reversing that trend this year — and, since A&M is bound for the SEC next year, this may be Texas A&M's last chance. Oklahoma's offense is ranked second in the nation; A&M's defense is ranked 90th. When the Aggies have the ball, it will be in the hands of the nation's seventh–ranked offense, but Oklahoma's 34th–ranked defense seems better equipped to handle it.

Give me Oklahoma by a couple of touchdowns.

#10 South Carolina at #8 Arkansas, 6:15 p.m. (Central) on ESPN There's going to be a lot on the line in Fayetteville.

For one thing, the host team will be trying to keep up with the winner of the LSU–Alabama game in the SEC West.

It seems so strange to me that these teams should be playing in such an important SEC matchup — because, until these schools joined the Southeastern Conference in 1992, they had never faced each other in football.

As the conference newcomers, they were assigned to face each other in annual non&ndsh;divisional contests — while their games with all their other non–divisional rivals have been played on a rotating basis.

With no history prior to 1992, this series has been establishing its trends in the last couple of decades — and one clear trend is that where the game is being played does matter.

If it is being played in South Carolina, the Gamecocks are more likely to win than they are if the game is being played in Arkansas — which probably isn't saying much. The teams have played in South Carolina 10 times, and each team has won five games.

Nevertheless, that's better than the Gamecocks' record in Arkansas, which is 2–7. And South Carolina has only won once in Arkansas since winning there in 1997.

That doesn't mean Arkansas can depend on a victory, though. Arkansas' offense is 25th in the nation, but it will be facing the best defense it has faced since it played Alabama in September. South Carolina is sixth in the country in defense, but its 64th–ranked offense might be evenly matched with Arkansas' #71 defense.

South Carolina still has a realistic hope of playing in its second straight SEC championship game. It holds the head–to–head tiebreaker with Georgia, the team with which it currently shares the SEC East lead, but a loss to Arkansas could ruin that. Georgia still has SEC games with Auburn and Kentucky, but the Bulldogs have enjoyed success against both in recent years and could slip past the Gamecocks if they stumble in Fayetteville.

I expect a close game, but home field advantage will provide just enough of an edge for the Razorbacks. I pick Arkansas by a field goal.

Northwestern at #9 Nebraska, 2:30 p.m. (Central) on Big Ten Network: These teams haven't played since the Alamo Bowl in December 2000 — and they only played three times prior to that, but the Cornhuskers have won three of the four games.

This will be the third time the teams have played in Lincoln — the first two were in 1902 and 1974 — and Nebraska is 2–0 at home against Northwestern.

Lincoln is one of those places where it really is tough for the visiting team to win. In the future, Northwestern may be more competitive there. But not this year. I expect Nebraska to win by a couple of touchdowns.

#13 Michigan at Iowa, 11 a.m. (Central) on ESPN: The first game in this series was played in Detroit in 1900.

Since that day, Michigan has dominated the series with Iowa, winning more than 70% of the time. But the Hawkeyes have won the last two meetings, and both teams have won two of the last four played in Iowa.

Six of their last 10 meetings have been decided by a touchdown or less. I'll pick Michigan to win by a margin that is consistent with that trend — a field goal.

#14 Houston at UAB, 6 p.m. (Central) on CBSSN: Houston trails this series by one game, mostly because the Cougars have struggled to beat Alabama–Birmingham on the road.

I think that is likely to change, though. Behind the receiving of Patrick Edwards and Tyron Carrier and the passing of Case Keenum, Houston has the nation's top–ranked offense (UAB's is 95th).

Since defense is not a priority at either school, I am inclined to think that Houston should win this game with its potent offense.

Minnesota at #15 Michigan State, 11 a.m. (Central) on Big Ten Network: It's too bad, from the Gophers' point of view, that this game isn't being played in Minnesota.

The teams are dead even there with 11 wins apiece, and Minnesota has won four of the last five, whereas MSU holds a 15–6 edge in Lansing (and Minnesota has only won twice there since 1976).

Aside from the record of past seasons, though, the record from this season benefits the Spartans, too. Minnesota is 2–6. For awhile there, things were looking up for the Gophers. They were going to bowl games every year, but it looks like this will be their third bowl–less season in the last five.

Michigan State, meanwhile, is 6–2 — and was unbeaten in the Big Ten until being strangled at Nebraska last week. Now it is anyone's guess who will win the Legends Division — but Michigan State has no games to give away since the Cornhuskers hold the head–to–head tiebreaker.

Everything favors Michigan State in this one.

New Mexico State at #18 Georgia, 11:30 a.m. (Central) on CSS: These teams have played three previous times. All three games were played at Georgia, and the Bulldogs won all three games.

The only reason to think that this game will be any different is if one expects Georgia to have some sort of letdown after its win over Florida last week. True, the two are rivals, but I think a letdown might be more likely if Florida had been undefeated and the defending national champion going into last Saturday's game.

As it is, though, I expect Georgia to win easily.

Purdue at #19 Wisconsin, 2:30 p.m. (Central) on ABC: How quickly things change in college football.

Only a few weeks ago, there was talk of Wisconsin sneaking into a national championship game against LSU, Alabama or Oklahoma. But in recent weeks, not only has OU gone down to defeat, but Wisconsin now finds itself mired in a two–game conference losing streak, and all such national title talk has evaporated.

Heck, even a berth in the Rose Bowl seems like a longshot now.

The Badgers haven't lost three consecutive Big Ten games since 2008 (when they actually lost four in a row), and I don't think they will match that dubious achievement this time, either.

It doesn't seem fair, does it? Wisconsin lost two road games by a total of 10 points against two traditional conference powers and nearly lost its spot in the rankings yet the Badgers have the 10th–best offense and the 11th–best defense in the land. Purdue (4–4) isn't in the top 50 in either category.

Wisconsin leads this series, almost entirely on the strength of the Badgers' dominance at home. Actually, Wisconsin has been successful against Purdue both at home and on the road, but the Badgers' record at home (23–13–5) has been much more impressive than their record at Purdue (18–16–3).

But Wisconsin has won its last five against Purdue so the location hasn't really mattered, I guess — except for the fact both of Purdue's wins over the Badgers since 1997 have come in Wisconsin.

I don't think that will happen this time. Give me Wisconsin by three touchdowns.

#20 Arizona State at UCLA, 6:30 p.m. (Central) on Versus: Stanford's Andrew Luck gets all the reviews, but Arizona State's Brock Osweiler is every bit as important to his team.

He has completed nearly two–thirds of his passes (he's thrown more passes than Luck has) and has a rating of 146.41. In fact, he seems so focused on football it's hard to believe that not too long ago he approached his collegiate career with considerable ambiguity, "shuttling between Arizona State's football and basketball programs," writes Chris Foster in the Los Angeles Times.

But it was last year's Arizona State–UCLA game that tilted things in football's favor for the 6–foot–8 Osweiler, Foster reports.

And Bruins fans may be kicking themselves for that this weekend.

This series leaned to UCLA from the first time the schools played in 1976 until the early 1990s, then ASU dominated things in that decade.

Then it appeared that UCLA was taking control of the series again — but Arizona State has enjoyed a slight edge since 2004, including a 3–1 advantage in the last four years.

About the only thing in the overall historical record that favors UCLA is the fact that the game is being played in Los Angeles. The Bruins are 9–5–1 against the Sun Devils there, but I don't think that will help. I'll take Arizona State.

#23 Cincinnati at Pittsburgh, 6 p.m. (Central) on ESPNU: Cincinnati lost its first four games at Pitt but won the last time the teams played there in 2009.

Cincy returns as the #23 team in the nation, thanks mostly to its 34th–ranked offense. The teams are about even on defense so the difference may well be Pitt's rather lackluster offense.

I'll go with Cincinnati.

Louisville at #24 West Virginia, 11 a.m. (Central) on Big East Network: Louisville hasn't beaten West Virginia on the road since 1990.

And the odds don't favor the Cardinals this time, either.

Louisville does have the 12th–best defense in the nation, but West Virginia't too shabby (#25). Louisville's defense should be an even match for West Virginia's 13th–ranked offense, but Louisville's offense (103rd in the nation) ought to be overwhelmed.

So I'll go with West Virginia by 10 points.

Last week: 13–5

Season: 147–33

A Preview of Coming Attractions?

2011-10-31T06:55:00.004-05:00

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.

I found it compelling. Wimbledon champ Petra Kvitova defeated Victoria Azarenka to clinch her first WTA title.

The match also decided who would be ranked second in the world behind Caroline Wozniacki — who won no Grand Slams this year and, in fact, lost to Kvitova last week.

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.

JoePa Makes History

2011-10-30T12:37:00.013-05:00

You wouldn't think that there would be anything left for Joe Paterno to accomplish at Penn State.

He's been coaching the Nittany Lions since 1966. Paterno has said that, when he told his father of his occupational decision, his father replied, "For God's sake, what did you go to college for?"

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."

What Grieves Us

2011-10-30T07:54:00.014-05:00

"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.

And, in the end, St. Louis prevailed.

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!

This year, the Rangers took it seven games — and were actually one strike away from winning it all — not once but twice — in that sixth game.

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.

And grief, as Twain knew, is not a small thing.

The Game That Wouldn't End

2011-10-28T07:20:00.019-05:00

Epic.

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.

Holland nearly threw a complete–game shutout at the Cardinals on Sunday. If Game 6 had been played on Wednesday as scheduled, Holland probably wouldn't have had enough rest to start a Game 7 on Thursday.

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.

Which it has.

In his last appearance, Harrison had time to take his shower, get into his street clothes and find a bar to have a beer and watch the end of Game 3, in which Albert Pujols became only the third man to hit three home runs in a World Series game.

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.

Let's get it on.

Redemption Saturday

2011-10-27T06:15:00.019-05:00

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.

Idle: #1 LSU, #2 Alabama, #5 Boise State, #24 Cincinnati

Thursday

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.

Last week: 12–6

Season: 132–28

Billy Buck's Boo-Boo

2011-10-25T05:41:00.012-05:00

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.

"I really had to forgive, not the fans of Boston, per se, but I would have to say in my heart I had to forgive the media for what they put me and my family through," he said.

And now, Billy Buck's boo–boo is a part of baseball lore.

One For The Ages

2011-10-23T08:22:00.009-05:00

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.

That really seems remarkable to me in hindsight, though, because Stark wrote that before Albert Pujols did something that no other non–New York Yankee had ever done.

He hit three home runs in a single World Series game.

Babe Ruth did it twice for the Yankees in the 1920s. And Reggie Jackson did it once for the Yankees in 1977.

Ruth, of course, achieved it in the days before television — so, other than the fans sitting in Sportsman's Park on Oct. 6, 1926 or the fans sitting in Sportsman's Park on Oct. 9, 1928, no one saw it.

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.

Well, the experts were saying that the warmer temperatures and the hitter–friendly park would lead to more runs.

Maybe that is what it was.

But I'm more inclined to think it was Albert being Albert.

He's a difference maker.

A New Attitude

2011-10-22T07:16:00.023-05:00

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.

Not too surprisingly, the Rangers went down in five games.

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.

Let's get it on.

BCS Projections Coming Too Early

2011-10-21T15:45:00.015-05:00

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.

Idle: #14 South Carolina, #18 Michigan, #24 Arizona State, #24 Georgia

Friday

#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.

Last week: 12–5

Season: 120–22

The Debate Over Top Ranking Intensifies

2011-10-14T06:19:00.007-05:00

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.

But speaking of Florida ...

For the first time in nearly 30 years, no team from Florida is in AP's rankings.

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.

Last week: 19–3

Season: 108–17

Lighting Up the Night

2011-10-13T05:54:00.000-05:00

If you've been watching the baseball playoffs, you have undoubtedly seen several games played at night — even some that weren't intended to be at night but slipped into prime time thanks to rain delays.

Night games are routine — in both regular season and postseason play — now.

But it was done for the first time in the World Series 40 years ago today.

Night games weren't new in 1971. Major league baseball had been playing night games since 1935, and the first night All–Star game was played in 1943, but postseason games continued to be played during daylight hours.

Then, on this night in 1971, everything changed. The lights came on in Pittsburgh, and baseball fans across the nation watched the World Series in prime time.

Baseball continued to play some World Series games during the day — primarily the games that were played on Saturdays and Sundays — but, by 1987, every World Series game was played under the lights.

Thus, a modern baseball fan under the age of 30 probably would have no memory of a time when some World Series games were played during the day — as they were when Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth and Mickey Mantle played the game.

While it has meant greater access to the games for more people, I always felt something was lost when they stopped playing World Series games during the day.

I remember when I was in elementary school, and my friends and I were very interested in the World Series that was being played. The Series was between two baseball powerhouses of that time, the Baltimore Orioles and the Cincinnati Reds, and my friends and I were following it as closely as we could, but the weekday games were all in the afternoons — when we were in school.

Our principal must have been a baseball fan because he sympathized with us and told us we could watch the games on the TV that was in the cafeteria as long as we remained silent and did not chatter among ourselves. We were on our best behavior, and we got to watch the games — while our classmates spent those afternoons in the dull pursuits we baseball followers had escaped. It was a delicious feeling — like being allowed to play hookey with the principal's blessing.

Perhaps he was the one who monitored us during the games. I don't recall. I only remember that I was totally engrossed in watching future Hall of Famers Brooks Robinson (a local hero, having come from nearby Little Rock) and Frank Robinson lead the Orioles against Pete Rose, Johnny Bench and the Big Red Machine.

As long as I can remember, there has been something special about the sight of a baseball field bathed in sunshine — even if your lungs couldn't relish the smell of the dirt and the freshly cut grass.

The picture in my mind from that World Series is of sun–drenched fields, even though the games were being played in northern cities, and crisp baseball uniforms. Well, it seemed that way on a black–and–white TV.

It is a cherished memory and experience for me — the kind of pleasure 21st century boys will never know. Too bad.

Oh, and just for the record.

Pittsburgh beat Baltimore in that first World Series night game.

A Memorable Start

2011-10-10T13:31:00.012-05:00

I grew up in the South — in the heart of what was Dallas Cowboys territory when I was young — but, as long as I can remember, I've been a fan of the Green Bay Packers.

My memory of watching football games on TV doesn't go back before I was in elementary school because we didn't get our first TV until I was in first grade. But I remember watching football games with my father on Sunday afternoons (there were no Sunday or Monday night games in those days — except on rare, special occasions), and I got to see Vince Lombardi in his last years as the Packers' coach — even if it was on our rather small black–and–white set.

(I've seen color footage of Lombardi, and it never looks quite right to me. Images of Lombardi only look right in black and white!)

Since that moment when I first saw the Packers play, I have been a Packers fan. You can believe me when I tell you there have been many painful seasons for Packer fans since Lombardi's day.

Modern fans probably look at today's Packers and see an organization that has been largely successful for the last 20 years. The Packers, after all, have been to three Super Bowls in the last two decades and won two of them, and they've come close on other occasions. They've only missed the playoffs a handful of times.

But that isn't the whole story, at least not for those of us who have been following the Packers longer than that. After Lombardi led the Packers to victory in those first two Super Bowls, the Packers went to the playoffs — wait for it — twice in 25 years.

Talk about a long dry spell.

The pendulum seems to have swung the other way. Not only have the Packers been enjoying success since quarterback Brett Favre came along in the early 1990s but his successor, Aaron Rodgers, has led Green Bay to a 5–0 start this season. That's a better start to a season than Favre ever had in Green Bay.

For that matter, the Packers haven't started a season 5–0 since the autumn of 1965 — the year before my family got its first TV — when I was in kindergarten. The Packers actually began that season 6–0 — which means Green Bay must defeat winless St. Louis this Sunday to match that gang from '65 and then must beat 1–4 Minnesota the following week to surpass them.

The Packers have their bye week the week after that, but if they beat the Rams and Vikings, they can go into their break with a record of 7–0 for the first time since 1962. They went 13–1 that year and won their first 10 games before losing to the Detroit Lions, who were pretty good in 1962 as well. The Lions were 8–2 on Thanksgiving 1962, the day they beat the Packers, and would have been in the playoffs if the NFL allowed anyone other than the winners of the two divisions that existed at that time to participate in the postseason.

That's kind of ironic because the Lions, who are also undefeated as they prepare to face the Chicago Bears tonight, will be hosting the Packers this Thanksgiving. And, to make things even more interesting, if the Packers are undefeated when they travel to Detroit in late November, their record will be — wait for it again — 10–0.

Just like that squad from 1962.

I don't know if the Packers will get through the season without a loss. In my lifetime, only one team has gone all the way through the regular season and the postseason without losing a game so you have to figure that duplicating that achievement is highly unlikely — especially since modern NFL teams play two more games in the regular season than they did in '62.

But I'm not even thinking about that right now. I guess I was conditioned too well by all those losing seasons. With the Packers, I take it one step at a time. First, secure a playoff spot. It's OK if it's a wild card. The Packers were wild cards last year and won it all.

If they can win the division, that's even better. And if their record is good enough to earn a first–round bye, that's better still. But just get into the playoffs. The late Al Davis used to say, "Just win, baby." I say, "Just get into the playoffs."

Once the Packers are in the playoffs, I focus on the immediate opponent, and I have to hope the Packers do, too. Sometimes they get ahead of themselves.

Don't look past anyone. If a team is in the playoffs, it is usually because that team has done something well during the regular season. I take all playoff teams seriously, and I expect my favorite team to do so as well.

Last year, the Packers remained focused and won it all.

When you combine their record so far this season with the four consecutive playoff wins that included their Super Bowl triumph and the two season–ending wins that got them into the playoffs last year, the Packers have won 11 games in a row. That's nearly as many wins as the Packers compiled in two or three consecutive seasons when I was growing up.

Times have changed, and I'm enjoying this flirtation with perfection while it lasts.

But I remember what it was like, and I don't want to go back there.

I want to see the Packers win the Super Bowl again.

Righting a Wrong

2011-10-08T09:20:00.009-05:00

Occasionally, presidents have the opportunity to right wrongs — and they usually act upon them.

Their motivations for doing so may be suspect, but, most of the time, the legitimacy of the need cannot be questioned.

Such was the case yesterday when President Obama greeted the 1985 Chicago Bears and honored them for their Super Bowl victory in January 1986.

Football fans know that it is traditional for a Super Bowl–winning team to pay a visit to the White House, and the Bears were supposed to visit President Reagan — but their trip to Washington was canceled in the wake of the national tragedy that was the space shuttle Challenger disaster.

As I have written here before, I am a Green Bay Packers fan. They've won four Super Bowls, and, while I was much too young to be aware of whether those first two Super Bowl–winning teams paid visits to the Johnson White House, I know the third one visited the Clinton White House and the one that beat Pittsburgh in February was honored by Obama in August.

The Packers have been recognized for their achievements. The NFL's championship trophy is named for the coach who led Green Bay to victory in those first two Super Bowls.

But the Bears only have that single Super Bowl victory to their credit. True, they annoyed many football fans with their smugness and bravado — and their "Super Bowl Shuffle" — but, in the end, those fans had to admit that the Bears made good on their promise.

And they had earned the recognition that every other Super Bowl winner received.

Anyone who witnessed the Challenger explosion knows that event overshadowed everything for weeks, if not months. It grounded the space shuttle program for nearly three years. It forced Reagan to reschedule his State of the Union address.

It was a time for mourning, not celebrating.

Consequently, it isn't surprising that "Da Bears," as they were known, got lost in the (pardon the expression) shuffle.

And, even though I am a Packers fan, I am glad the Bears finally received the recognition they deserved. I'm just sorry, as I wrote earlier this year on the 25th anniversary of their victory, that Walter Payton did not get to share it with his teammates and coaches.

Payton, as I mentioned in January, toiled through many difficult seasons for the Bears. In the 1970s, he and Dick Butkus were the only stars on lackluster teams. Things got better in the 1980s as coach Mike Ditka assembled the team that would annihilate the New England Patriots in the Super Bowl.

When the Bears got to the Super Bowl, Payton put in his usual workmanlike effort. New England was focusing on him all day and held him to only 61 yards, but that was enough to lead Chicago in rushing.

Nevertheless, when given the opportunity to punch in a score from a single yard out, Ditka opted to give the ball to William "the Refrigerator" Perry, a defensive lineman who had been brought in a couple of times during the regular season when the Bears faced goal–line situations.

I felt it was a disgrace. Ask just about any pro football fan to identify the top five running backs in the history of the NFL, and nearly all will include Payton in that list. He deserved to score a touchdown in his only Super Bowl.

He also deserved to be recognized yesterday, and I am sure that Obama, a resident of Chicago in his adult years, would have welcomed him to the White House. But Payton died nearly 12 years ago.

For Payton, it is a wrong that can never be righted.