Showing posts with label football. Show all posts
Showing posts with label football. Show all posts

Sunday, December 31, 2017

Half a Century Since the Ice Bowl



"I'm going to take a bite of my coffee."

Frank Gifford, CBS color commentator

I have written here before of the legendary Ice Bowl of 1967. I am a lifelong student of history so I often write in my blogs about historic events — but my policy has been not to write about events I have written about before.

As my grandfather would say, I don't like to chew my cabbage twice.

But today is the 50th anniversary of that NFL championship game played between the Dallas Cowboys and the Green Bay Packers at Lambeau Field in Green Bay, Wisc., and on this milestone occasion, it deserves more than a cursory examination.

The game got its moniker from the extreme conditions in which it was played. The game-time temperature was about –15°. Under standards in use at the time, the wind chill was –48°. (National Weather Service standards have since been revised; under those standards, the wind chill would be a comparatively balmy –36°.)

Lambeau Field had a heating system installed beneath the playing surface, which was supposed to keep it in good condition in inclement weather, but the system failed. When the tarp was removed before game time, moisture was left on the field that froze instantly.

That gave rise to the rumor that Green Bay coach Vince Lombardi had manipulated the system in some way so that the brunt of the conditions would be more difficult on the visitors from Texas than the hometown Packers. That rumor was fueled by the perception that Dallas' players were more athletic than the aging Packers.

But it wasn't just the weather that contributed to the game's almost mythical status. In the few short years of the Cowboys' existence, the teams had developed a rivalry that persists to this day, which included a down–to–the–wire battle in Dallas for the NFL championship the year before. That added to the drama going into the game; it was punctuated by a thrilling conclusion.

Once, when I was working on the sports desk of the Denton, Texas newspaper, the sports editor and I had lunch with a friend of his — sportscaster Bill Mercer, a local icon who covered the Ice Bowl for Dallas radio station KLIF. My memory of that lunch conversation is that Mercer was a virtual walking encyclopedia of North Texas sports history. Much of it he had witnessed personally — and much of it focused on the Ice Bowl.

Now retired and living on the East Coast, Mercer reflected on the game for a new documentary about it.

"I can still see that game in my mind," Mercer said. "I'm 91 years old now and it's like it was yesterday. ... I can imagine it's going to go on and on. That game will live forever."

In such brutal weather, many myths gained traction. If they weren't entirely true, they had at least a nugget of truth in them — unlike the allegations about Lombardi.

Most of those allegations were made in jest, though. Even Lombardi's players joked about Vince's influence on the weather and the field conditions.

"I figure Lombardi got on his knees to pray for cold weather," said Green Bay defensive tackle Henry Jordan, "and stayed down too long."

The Packers and Cowboys brought decidedly different histories into the game.

The Packers had been fixtures in the National Football League for nearly half a century. They were two–time defending NFL champions and winners of more NFL championships than any other franchise.

The Cowboys began as an expansion team in 1960, but Dallas coach Tom Landry built them into Super Bowl contenders in less than a decade.

And they had plenty of motivation to win this time. They lost the NFL championship game the previous year in Dallas to those same Packers.

Adding to the intrigue was the fact that Lombardi and Landry had served together on Jim Lee Howell's New York Giants coaching staff in the 1950s.

Dallas had not played in Green Bay since its first year of existence. When the Cowboys arrived in Green Bay a couple of days before the game, the temperature was in the 50s, and quarterback Don Meredith mugged for the cameras, cupping his hands and saying the championship game was going to be "easy money."

The Cowboys knew a cold front was coming, but it was not expected until after the game was over.

It wasn't the first time meteorologists got it wrong.

The Packers scored first, capping a nine–minute drive with an eight–yard touchdown pass from Bart Starr to Boyd Dowler in the first quarter.

The conditions seemed to have put the Dallas offense in the deep freeze as it continued sputtering, but the Packers kept rolling.

In the second quarter, Green Bay took a 14–0 lead when Starr hit Dowler for another touchdown, this time from 46 yards.

It looked like the Cowboys were in trouble. In fact, it looked like the Cowboys would rather be anywhere else than Green Bay. As cold as it was, who could blame them?

And, indeed, the offense continued to struggle against the Packers' defense.

But now the Packers' offense began to struggle, too.

Later in the second quarter, as Starr went back to pass, the Cowboys' pass rush trapped him behind the line and stripped him of the ball. George Andrie picked it up and ran seven yards for a touchdown, cutting the deficit in half with about four minutes remaining before intermission.

After recovering a fumbled punt on Green Bay's end of the field with less than two minutes to play, the Cowboys added a field goal.

In keeping with the freakish nature of the game, Dallas did not get a single first down in the second quarter yet scored 10 points and trailed by only four at halftime.

The Cowboys' offense performed much better in the third quarter but still failed to generate a touchdown. The Packers were the ones who were sputtering, and the third period was scoreless. Going into the final quarter, Green Bay still led 14–10.

That would soon change.

On a halfback option, Dan Reeves hit Lance Rentzel for a 50–yard touchdown strike, and Dallas had its first lead of the game 17–14 with only eight seconds gone from the final period.

Finally staked to a lead, the Dallas defense appeared to have new life while the Green Bay offense seemed to have none.

The score remained 17–14 until the game was nearly over.

With just under five minutes to go, the Packers fielded a punt and started their final offensive possession of the game at their own 32. Field conditions were deteriorating by the minute.

All things considered, the Packers' effort in that final drive may never be matched in terms of execution or heroism.

The drive seemed to stall in the final minute with the Packers in the shadow of the Cowboys' goal post. Green Bay called its last timeout with 16 seconds remaining and the Packers a yard away from the end zone on fourth down.

Green Bay could have kicked a field goal and hoped to win the game in overtime. That would have been in character for Lombardi, who was not known as a gambler — in fact, he was noted for saying that "everybody loves a gambler until he loses" — and the field goal certainly would have been the conservative option. But apparently, it was never seriously considered.

"I didn't figure all those people up there in the stands could take the cold for an overtime game," Lombardi said. There was probably more to it than that, but he told Starr to take it in for the touchdown. And he did.

Fullback Chuck Mercein, a late–season acquisition for the Packers, played a key role in the winning drive — and is the person you can see with his hands raised in the photos of Starr after he scored the winning touchdown (he is number 30 in the photo at the top of this post).

Many people assume Mercein was signaling that Starr had scored, but he said he was trying to show the referees that he hadn't pushed Starr into the end zone. That would have resulted in a penalty, and the Packers almost surely would have had to settle for a field goal.

"I realized that was a singular moment in my career," Mercein, who made some important gains to set up Starr's game–winning play, said. "It means more to me because I was able to pay it forward, the faith that Vince Lombardi had in me. There were plenty of other backs he could have picked up. Seldom does it happen where you can repay someone for their faith in you."

For half a century the Ice Bowl has remained vivid in memories and no doubt would continue to do so with little help, but Meredith's son Michael, who was only a few months old when his father played in the game, has made a film about it that premiered recently on the NFL Network.

Sadly there is no known complete copy of the Ice Bowl telecast in existence. Radio broadcasts do still exist, including the one of Mercer calling the game for KLIF. Meredith used video clips that do exist and interviews with participants to tell the story.

That should heat up those memories of an already memorable day.

Thursday, August 3, 2017

Football Returns, But How Is Texas in the Top 25?

No matter what your thermometer may say, today is an important day for football fans.

For one thing, the NFL's Hall of Fame game is being played tonight between the Dallas Cowboys and the Arizona Cardinals. The game means nothing in the standings, and few starters — if any — will play tonight, but its importance is more symbolic than anything else.

It tells football fans — who have suffered through basketball, baseball, hockey, tennis and golf since February's Super Bowl to get to this point — that football is back.

For another, USA Today released its preseason college football poll today.

And that always has a few eyebrow–raising items.

Like, for example, the fact that the University of Texas, 5–7 last year (including a loss to lowly Kansas), is ranked No. 23.

Considering their records last year, I suppose the rest of the Top 25 deserved to be there — at least, most of them did.

But I can't justify the Longhorns being in the Top 25. Admittedly, Sports Illustrated reports that UT is doing better at recruiting than it has in awhile, and that definitely will be a factor in the future. But it won't have an impact on this season — and it may not have much of an impact on the 2018 season, either.

If Texas is ranked in the Associated Press poll, which will come out shortly before the season begins, my guess is it will be short lived. The Longhorns play at Southern Cal (No. 4 in the USA Today poll) on Sept. 16 and host Kansas State (No. 19 in the poll) on Oct. 7 before the annual battle with Oklahoma (No. 8 in the poll) on Oct. 14 — followed by a home game against Oklahoma State (No. 11 in the poll) and a trip to Baylor.

Thursday, August 4, 2016

It's Time Again for the Summer Games



When I started writing this blog, I envisioned writing about sports all year, but it has focused primarily on football, boxing and horse racing with other sports tossed in from time to time. And most of my writing on this blog gets done during football season.

I enjoy watching other sports between football seasons, but I don't always feel compelled to write about them.

As always, I am looking forward to the start of football season, now only about four weeks away, but the Summer Olympics will begin tomorrow, and I am looking forward to that, too. It brings back memories of my childhood — when my family would gather in the living room every night for two weeks to share the Olympic experience via TV. We always got to see many exciting, dramatic moments; in between, we got to take tours of faraway places. All without ever having to leave our living room (and without having to pay so much as a dime for it, either, back in those pre–cable and pre–satellite days — but that's a topic for another time).

My mother has been deceased for more than 20 years, but my father is still living, and I look forward to sharing some of those experiences with him over the next two weeks.

The experience has never been the same for me without Mom, though. She loved watching the Olympics. She was totally absorbed in the drama.

She made a production of it when my brother and I were small. That wasn't unusual, though. She always liked to decorate the house with the appropriate holiday theme — you know, red, white and blue for the Fourth of July, pumpkins for Halloween, turkeys for Thanksgiving, all that stuff.

Mom was very creative, anyway. Speaking of Halloween, Mom used to make my Halloween costumes — and my brother's. She was good at it, too.

Something like the Olympics was perfect for her. In addition to the iconic Olympic rings, Mom could work in things that connected to wherever the Olympics were being held. I think she preferred it when they were held somewhere of which she knew little or nothing — it was like giving an artist a blank canvas — and that wasn't easy because my parents did a lot of traveling when they were young. My father did his Ph.D. work in Scotland, then my parents spent five years as missionaries in Africa. When they returned to the U.S., they kind of took the long way home, traveling through Europe before finally leaving for the United States.

I was with them when they returned to the U.S., having been born about a year earlier. When I was a teenager, my father got a kick out of telling me that I visited two dozen countries before I was 2 years old, then he would ask, "Do you remember that?"

Sure, Dad.

I've seen pictures of myself at different stops we made along the way, including a couple of places where the Summer Games had been held in the past. As an adult, I have visited some American cities where past Summer Games have been held. I have even visited Athens, the ancient cradle of the Olympics. But I've never been to a city that was hosting the Games when I was there.

That isn't an item for my "bucket list." As a matter of fact, I don't really have a bucket list.

If I did, I guess going to the Kentucky Derby would be on it. Or maybe the Super Bowl (when the Packers were playing in it).

In the meantime, I'll enjoy the Games from Rio.

Thursday, November 26, 2015

A Thanksgiving Thrill



I've been a Green Bay Packer fan just about all my life, ever since I started collecting football cards in first grade.

I was born on Thanksgiving so every once in awhile, my birthday falls on Thanksgiving, as it did this year. But the Packers don't always play on Thanksgiving — nor, for that matter, do they always play on my birthday when it falls on a Sunday.

This year, however, they played the Chicago Bears tonight, which is both Thanksgiving and my birthday, in order to honor Brett Favre by inducting him into the Packers' Ring of Honor. (Actually, the game is still in progress as I write this so referring to it in the past tense really isn't appropriate, is it?).

And one of the highlights for me — probably the greatest highlight for me — was to see Bart Starr and Brett Favre embrace each other on the turf of Lambeau Field. My two favorite quarterbacks of all time.

I have known for a long time what a struggle it was for Starr to be able to be in Green Bay. He's been battling the effects of some pretty severe strokes, but he looked pretty good tonight.

The two quarterbacks could hardly be more different, I suppose.

I have always admired Bart Starr, going back to when I was a kid. He was the kind of guy who is worthy of admiration. He didn't seek the spotlight the way so many players do today. He didn't put up gaudy numbers — except on the scoreboard, where he was the perfect captain for Vince Lombardi's offense. Lombardi devised the game plan, and Starr carried it out. All he did was win.

Favre was a free spirit, a winner who made the people around him winners by sheer force of will. Favre was a force of nature, refusing to be benched during his phenomenal consecutive games played streak even if you thought there was no way he could be playing.

I suppose my ideal quarterback would be a combination of Bart Starr and Brett Favre.

But since that will never happen, I'll settle for the next best thing. That was what I got tonight.

For this I am truly thankful.

Tuesday, February 3, 2015

That Was a Boneheaded Call



Sunday's Super Bowl had no real attraction for me — which is ironic, I suppose, since the overnight numbers indicate that it was the highest–rated Super Bowl ever. Obviously, it had an attraction for some people.

But I was a disinterested observer, watching only because there really was nothing else to watch. That is one of the things I remember from my days on the sports copy desk. Super Bowl Sunday was all about the Super Bowl. There might be a few basketball games earlier in the day, but they were just to fill the time. Once the Super Bowl began, nothing else was happening.

I also discovered that nothing competes with the Super Bowl on TV, either. Maybe there was a time in the last 50 years when the networks tried to compete with whichever one had the broadcast rights, but they must have learned quickly that was pointless. People throw parties on Super Bowl Sunday. You can't compete with that.

Once video recorders became a part of American households, it was possible to have quality options. Before that, though, it was the Super Bowl or nothing. On the sports desk, ever mindful of our deadlines, we kept one eye on the game and the other eye on the clock.

I stopped working on sports desks several years ago, and Super Bowl Sunday means something entirely different to me now. Sometimes the Super Bowl has had great meaning for me — like when the Green Bay Packers are playing in it. Most of the time, though, to borrow an expression I heard often when I was growing up, I haven't had a dog in that hunt.

That was the situation in which I found myself Sunday. I didn't really care for either team so I was able to watch with a complete sense of detachment. Being a Packer fan, my attitude would have been entirely different if the Packers had beaten the Seahawks in the NFC championship game. But they didn't so I was free to be just a football fan. That was kind of nice. It meant I could second–guess strategy — which I guess I can do anyway, but it is different when the Packers are playing. I always feel like I am being disloyal if I second–guess the coach's strategy. After all, he works with the players every day. He knows their strengths and weaknesses better than I do — even though I like to tell myself that I know those things, too.

When I have no emotional stake in the outcome, it is easier in some ways to watch the game and more difficult in others.

But I don't have a problem with calling 'em the way I see 'em — and that was a boneheaded call by Seattle's Pete Carroll.

One yard from the end zone. Seattle needed a touchdown to win the game. Carroll has, perhaps, the most punishing running back in the NFL today on his roster, a man who is certainly capable of picking up a single yard. And if he doesn't get it, you've still got time and a timeout to use. You can try again.

Sure, it's playing the odds. Sure, it's predictable. It's even boring — except that it probably would have worked. The Seahawks had the top–rated rushing game in the NFL this season. New England had the ninth–best run defense in the entire NFL — good but not great. How can it be great when the New York Jets were rated ahead of the Patriots in run defense?

Fact is, the Patriots were worse against the pass than they were against the run. They ranked 17th in the NFL. But when you're talking about the passing game, New England's pass defense has the edge against Seattle's pass offense, which ranked 27th in the entire NFL.

"You dance with who brung you," Darrell Royal used to say. The Seahawks relinquished their NFL title because they forgot to dance with who brung 'em.

Sunday, December 21, 2014

The End of Miami's Reign



In the early '70s, the team of the decade seemed to be the Miami Dolphins. Mostly, that was due to the Dolphins' perfect season in 1972. It seemed to set them up for a long stretch of success, one that might extend through the entire decade.

As great as the '72 team was, though, I always thought the '73 team was better because it had to defend the '72 team's legacy. The '73 team came into the season with a gigantic target painted squarely on each player's chest. For every team that played the Dolphins in '73, that was the game of the year.

The '73 team stood up to that challenge, going 12–2 and returning to the Super Bowl and winning. Thus, over that two–year span, Miami won 32 of 34 games.

So, when the 1974 season began, Miami was a two–time defending Super Bowl champion with a .941 winning percentage over the previous two seasons. The Dolphins started the season with a loss to New England, then won 11 of the next 13 games. It looked like the Dolphins might get the chance to win their third straight Super Bowl.

Standing in their way, though, were the Oakland Raiders, the same bunch who snapped their legendary winning streak in the second week of the season after the history–making 17–0 campaign. In the AFC semifinals on this date in 1974, the 11–3 Dolphins took the field against the 12–2 Raiders in Oakland.

It was widely assumed that, with the winner slated to face either the Pittsburgh Steelers or the Buffalo Bills in the AFC championship game the following week, the winner of this game would represent the AFC in the Super Bowl. At halftime, it appeared it would be Miami. The Dolphins led, 10–7.

But the Raiders outscored the Dolphins, 21–16, in the second half and won on Clarence Davis' eight–yard touchdown run in the fourth quarter.

The Raiders advanced to the AFC title game against the Steelers. Everyone thought the Raiders would win. The Steelers had never been to a Super Bowl before. Of course, the Raiders had only been to one at that time, but they had come close frequently. Their time had come. That was what the conventional wisdom said.

But times changed. The Raiders lost to the Steelers, and Terry Bradshaw went on to lead Pittsburgh to the first of four Super Bowl titles in six years.

Friday, November 28, 2014

The Incredible Comeback



Like many other Americans, one of my most cherished Thanksgiving traditions is watching football.

And what happened 40 years ago is as vivid in my memory as anything that happened five minutes ago — because it was the fulfillment of every young boy's fantasy, and I was a young boy.

The Dallas Cowboys have been playing home football games on Thanksgiving since the '60s. On this day in 1974, they had been doing it for less than a decade. In 1974, they had a really special matchup planned — with the Washington Redskins, a rival and the NFC's representative in the Super Bowl two years earlier.

There have been some great games played on Thanksgiving, but none had such an improbable story line.

The Cowboys were losing to the Redskins, 16–3, when quarterback Roger Staubach was knocked out of the game in the third quarter, and Clint Longley, a rookie, was summoned off the bench to fill in.

That particular Thanksgiving, my parents had invited some friends of theirs to come to our house in the country. They came, along with their son who was a few years older than I was. After we all ate dinner, the men gathered in front of the TV to watch the Cowboys and Redskins. I wasn't a Cowboys fan, but I was a Staubach fan as was our visitors' son.

However, when Staubach was knocked from the game and an unknown rookie was called in to run the offense, we lost interest and excused ourselves. I think we went outside to shoot some baskets, but we were soon drawn back inside by the sound of our fathers whooping. Clint Longley was leading a comeback.

He threw a 35–yard TD pass to tight end Billy Joe Dupree to cut the deficit to six points, then Walt Garrison's one–yard TD run gave the Cowboys a one–point lead going into the fourth quarter.

Ex–Cowboy Duane Thomas scored his second touchdown of the game, giving the Redskins the lead again, then Longley connected with Drew Pearson for a 50–yard TD pass to win the game.

It was probably the best Thanksgiving a rookie quarterback ever had.

Saturday, May 24, 2014

Hail to the Beothuks

What's in a name?

Shakespeare asked that question in "Romeo and Juliet" more than 400 years ago. His answer ("That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet") may have mollified folks in his own time, but it isn't adequate for most modern discussions on the subject.

(I have long believed that George Carlin made an excellent point about a company's name needing to be appropriate for the product it makes. "If Janitor in a Drum made a douche," he pointed out, "no one would buy it" — and, I might add, with good reason.)

Case in point would be the current debate over whether the Washington Redskins should change their team nickname. (I italicize the word current because this really isn't a new debate. I've heard it all before.)

Incredibly, in an election year in which polls clearly indicate that Americans are focused on the economy and jobs, 50 senators signed a letter to team owner Daniel Snyder urging him to change the nickname.

Really? Don't they have more important things to do — like passing legislation that encourages job creation and doesn't restrict it? Or maybe figuring out a way to make the health care policies they are forcing all Americans to buy truly affordable — and making sure Americans don't die while waiting for the care they need, like the veterans in Phoenix? Or coming up with plans that really do make America less dependent on foreign oil?

And that just scratches the surface.

If I were a politician running against one of the senators who signed the letter, I would be sure to point out that, with all the problems facing this country, my opponent had been obsessing about a football team nickname — and, unless he/she represented Washington, D.C., in the Senate (which is impossible because D.C. has no senators), the nickname has no bearing on his/her constituents (unless, of course, they happen to be Redskins fans).

This obsession is a knee–jerk reaction because, unlike the word nigger or similar words that are known to offend most members of a demographic group, there exists considerable doubt about whether redskin really does offend native Americans.

The knee–jerk reaction is that Redskins is a racial term and/or a reference to the blood that was spilled. The latter is a little closer to the truth, but it isn't precise. In fact, it was a reference to the red paint that the warriors from a particular tribe put on themselves prior to battle.

Not really different from the colonists' use of the term redcoats to describe British soldiers — which is much less offensive, in my opinion, than some of the terms that were used by soldiers in 20th–century wars to describe their foes.

Why not tell the Kansas City Chiefs to change their nickname?

That one is a little tricky. While their onfield mascot is an Indian, and they play their games in Arrowhead Stadium, the fact is that the Chiefs got their name because the Kansas City mayor, Harold Roe Bartle, was instrumental in getting the team moved there from Dallas. The mayor's nickname was Chief (a name he acquired, apparently, from his habit of responding to all two–alarm fires wearing firefighter's garb — hat, coat and boots — when he was mayor).

Can you handle a little more history? I'm talking about the real stuff here, not the stuff that folks have manufactured to support their political biases, and I know that most people have an aversion to history (i.e., facts) so, if you need to take a breather, feel free to do so. Get yourself a cup of coffee. Take a deep breath. Then come back. I'll still be here.

Ready? Good. Let's proceed.

It is ironic to me that the term redskin is believed to be offensive to native Americans — because it doesn't refer to a tribe that lived on American soil. It referred to a tribe called the Beothuks, who lived in Canada on the island of Newfoundland.

Their story really is a sad one. When the Beothuks came in contact with European settlers in the 15th and 16th centuries, they relocated to other coastal areas on the island to avoid contact with the Europeans, who set up their fishing camps in ever–increasing numbers.

Eventually, the Beothuks moved to inland Newfoundland, which created new problems. The biggest one was that their main sources for food were fish, seals and caribou. Moving inland robbed them of two, and the caribou population declined due to overhunting. That, in turn, led to a severe food shortage.

Eventually, many of the Beothuks starved to death, but many also fell victim to diseases they acquired through exposure to the Europeans, and others were killed in violent conflicts with the Europeans — conflicts in which, no doubt, many of the Beothuks painted themselves with red war paint.

I've heard some people argue that Redskins is an offensive word. Such an argument needs proof to support it. America, after all, is a land of laws, one of which is that proof is necessary to support an allegation. While it doesn't qualify as the kind of proof that could be offered in a courtroom, the only proof of whether the term offends native Americans seems to be available through surveys.

Surveys aren't 100% reliable, I know, but, nevertheless, last year CBS conducted a survey of native Americans asking them if they were offended by Redskins; nine out of 10 were not.

In the current debate, I suppose it would be a good idea to find out how the Beothuks feel about the Redskins nickname, but that isn't possible. The last known living member of the tribe died of tuberculosis almost 185 years ago.

What I and anyone else may think — or even what those 50 senators may think — has no real bearing on it. As far as I know, none is descended, even partially, from native Americans (Elizabeth Warren's claim notwithstanding).

Team nicknames are typically things that evoke pride in fans. Sometimes it is a name that has historic or regional significance — nicknames like Seminoles, Utes, Warriors, etc., fall in this category.

Granted, sometimes nicknames are absurd; sometimes they make no sense (unless you know the whole story behind them).

But, unless the name is truly offensive, this is carrying political correctness to an extreme.

Save your outrage for teams called the Terrorists or the Klansmen.

Friday, January 31, 2014

Elway's Swan Song



When the Broncos enter New York's MetLife Stadium for the Super Bowl two days from now, it will be the franchise's seventh appearance in the big game.

For awhile, the Broncos' record for Super Bowl futility was matched only by the Minnesota Vikings. For nearly eight years, both stood at 0–4. In the mid–1990s, the Bills joined them.

But then the Broncos broke the deadlock with a dramatic, last–minute triumph in Super Bowl XXXII, and then Hall of Fame quarterback John Elway led the Broncos to a second consecutive championship 15 years ago today with a more comfortable 34–19 victory over the Atlanta Falcons.

Consequently, the Broncos will be going into Sunday's game with a two–game Super Bowl winning streak.

Elway, now the executive vice president of football operations for the Broncos, was named the game's Most Valuable Player after completing 18 of 29 passes for 336 yards and a touchdown, but I always thought the MVP should have been shared by the Denver defense. In the first half, the Denver defenders stuffed Atlanta when the Falcons went for it on fourth–and–one, then forced the Falcons to attempt a field goal from 26 yards out (the Falcons missed the attempt).

It was after that missed field goal that Elway hit Rod Smith for an 80–yard touchdown strike.

In the second half, Denver intercepted three Atlanta passes, snuffing out drives that appeared to be headed for scores of some kind. If they had resulted in scores, the Falcons would have at least beaten the spread if not the Broncos.

When I was growing up, the Falcons were seen as an expansion team that seldom made the playoffs and even more rarely accomplished anything when they got there. But the 1998 season was an exception. The Falcons had the fourth–best offense in the entire NFL that year, and it led them to a 14–2 record. In fact, they had only lost once since dropping the season opener at San Francisco.

In spite of their excellent record, though, the Falcons had to travel to the NFC Championship, which was in Minnesota in January 1999. The Vikings were 15–1 and favored to return to the Super Bowl for the first time in more than 20 years, but the Falcons beat them in overtime.

Atlanta had met every challenge, but the Falcons still came into the Super Bowl as 7½–point underdogs. Turned out that was optimistic.

I've heard it speculated that, if the Broncos win on Sunday, Peyton Manning (who was a rookie during the 1998 season and will be 38 in March) will retire, but I think it is just as likely that Manning will stay on for another year and, like Elway, try to retire as a two–time defending Super Bowl champion. He might also have his second — or even his third — Super Bowl MVP by that time.

And why shouldn't he think he could do it? Under Manning's on–field leadership, the Broncos were 13–3 and had the top–rated offense in the NFL in 2013. If he returns for another season next fall, he will be the same age as Elway was when he played in Super Bowl XXXIII 15 years ago today.

Thursday, January 30, 2014

When Parity Arrived and Jimmy Departed



Twenty years ago today, Jimmy Johnson coached in his final Super Bowl, guiding the Dallas Cowboys to their second straight championship.

Johnson's relationship with team owner Jerry Jones had been deteriorating that season. Jones' ego resented the attention Johnson had received since winning Super Bowl XXVII, and he wanted to have more say in football decisions, which had been Johnson's exclusive domain.

About two months after Johnson led the Cowboys to a second consecutive Super Bowl championship for the first and (so far) only time in their history, Johnson left the Cowboys. I don't think it was ever established whether Johnson resigned or was fired.

Dallas had hammered Buffalo the year before. In fact, it was the first (and, so far, only) time that two teams met in consecutive Super Bowls, and it was the fourth–ever Super Bowl rematch.

It wasn't much of a surprise that the Cowboys were 10½–point favorites in the rematch, considering they had beaten the Bills by 38 points the year before, but the point spread was a bit of a surprise. It was only the fourth time a team was favored by 10 points or more in a Super Bowl since the last time the Cowboys won one with Tom Landry as coach more than 15 years earlier.

As it turned out, the Cowboys covered that spread. But it didn't look too promising at halftime when the Bills led, 13–6.

"[T]hat only gave their fans false hope," writes Justin Tasch of the New York Daily News about Buffalo's second–half collapse, hastened by the emergence of Emmitt Smith.

In the second half, Dallas' Smith earned the Most Valuable Player award, scoring two touchdowns to lift the Cowboys to a 30–13 victory.

He finished the game with 132 yards on 30 carries. His longest run — for 15 yards — resulted in the touchdown that put Dallas ahead to stay in the third quarter.

In hindsight, Super Bowl XXVIII is an example of NFL parity. Some might even say it is a cautionary tale — but of what?

On this day 20 years ago, it was hard to imagine that both of these teams would be missing from most of the Super Bowls in the next two decades. Dallas did return a couple of years later — with former Oklahoma coach Barry Switzer at the helm — but Buffalo has rarely even won its division in the last 20 years.

Perhaps it is a reminder that, for good or ill, time marches on.

Wednesday, January 22, 2014

Black Sunday



You'd think that a city the size of Los Angeles would have won several Super Bowls over the years.

But L.A., which has had as many as two NFL franchises at one time but now has none, has only won a single Super Bowl — 30 years ago tonight, when the Raiders, who had only made Los Angeles their home for a couple of seasons, defeated the defending Super Bowl champion Washington Redskins, 38–9.

It was the first time the Super Bowl had been played in Tampa. Nine future Hall of Famers participated in it. Bronko Nagurski, a charter member of the Hall of Fame, tossed the coin before the start of the game. It drew the fourth–highest Super Bowl TV viewership to that time.

But it is remembered for Marcus Allen's record–setting 74–yard touchdown run.

Frankly, it is odd that the game should be remembered for that. Granted, it was an electrifying play, but a good case can be made that the Redskins were already a beaten bunch by that time. When it happened, I thought the Redskins looked like they were shell–shocked and going through the motions.

It was in the closing seconds of the third quarter. The black–clad Raiders held a 28–9 lead. Allen had already scored once that quarter. His second score took whatever wind was left completely out of the Redskins' sails.

It really seemed, at first, as if the play would be nothing spectacular. Allen started to run to the left, ran into a wall of Redskins defenders, reversed field and ran back to the right, found a hole and slipped neatly through the Washington defense, and he was off.

The Raiders' triumph is their last — so far — in Super Bowl competition. They returned to the Super Bowl nearly 20 years later and lost.

Few who witnessed the Raiders' success in the 1970s and '80s would have guessed 30 years ago tonight that they would not be back as Super Bowl champions.

Tuesday, January 21, 2014

A Truly 'Super' Super Bowl



In its first 12 years of existence, the Super Bowl was a blowout more often than not.

A few games were relatively close (i.e., victory margins in single digits). The New York Jets beat the Baltimore Colts by nine points in Super Bowl III; the Colts turned back the Dallas Cowboys with a last–second field goal in Super Bowl V; the unbeaten Miami Dolphins topped the Washington Redskins by a touchdown in Super Bowl VII; and the Pittsburgh Steelers defeated the Cowboys by four points in Super Bowl X.

But those were the exceptions.

That made what happened 35 years ago today in Miami so remarkable.

There was no shortage of compelling storylines. The game was the first–ever Super Bowl rematch. The winner would be the first franchise to win three Super Bowls. The Cowboys were the defending Super Bowl champions, looking to repeat.

The Steelers were favored by 3½ points. The oddsmakers clearly expected a close game.

And the oddsmakers were right. The Steelers prevailed, 35–31, inspiring more than one sportswriter to observe that Super Bowl XIII lived up to the hype. It really was super.

Pittsburgh's Terry Bradshaw threw four TD passes and was the game's MVP. Roger Staubach had three TD passes, but he would have had four if Jackie Smith hadn't dropped a sure touchdown in the end zone in the third quarter. Staubach wouldn't let Smith take all the blame. "The play was wide open, so I tried to take a little off the ball and I think I threw it too low," he said after the game.

Perhaps the pass was a little low, but Smith knew that wasn't the whole story. "I just was wide open and I missed it," he said.

That dropped pass forced Dallas to settle for a field goal instead of scoring a game–tying touchdown, and the Cowboys never led again. They only led once all afternoon as it was — and briefly at that — after Mike Hegman stripped the ball from Bradshaw and rambled 37 yards to give Dallas a 14–7 advantage early in the second quarter.

The Steelers tied it up about a minute and a half later when Bradshaw hit John Stallworth for a 75–yard touchdown strike. They seized the lead in the closing seconds of the half when Bradshaw hit Rocky Bleier for a touchdown, capitalizing on Staubach's only interception of the day.

Dallas' Tony Dorsett led all rushers with 96 yards, but Pittsburgh's Franco Harris had the game's only TD run.

The victory — and the one the following year — sealed the Steelers' place as the team of the decade. They, along with Miami and Dallas, had two Super Bowl championships to their credit when the game began. They finished the decade with four Super Bowl titles in six years.

When did the Steelers wrap it up? I think an argument can be made that, when Smith dropped the pass and the Cowboys had to take a field goal instead of a touchdown, that was when the Steelers began to believe they would win, and the Cowboys began to believe they would lose.

Then Pittsburgh broke it open with two touchdowns in a 19–second span midway through the fourth quarter. Harris scored his touchdown run, then Pittsburgh recovered a fumbled kickoff and built the lead to 35–17 with 6:57 to play on Bradshaw's 18–yard strike to Lynn Swann.

Dallas managed two late touchdowns, but the deficit was simply too great to overcome.

Monday, January 13, 2014

Defending Perfection



Over the years, people have come to speak of the Miami Dolphins' perfect 1972 season in hushed tones.

I don't quibble with that. The 17–0 season was a remarkable achievement, accomplished, to a great extent, with a backup quarterback (starter Bob Griese went out with an ankle injury midway through the season) and a "no–name defense" that put the clamps on the best quarterbacks of the day — Len Dawson, Fran Tarkenton, Joe Namath, Johnny Unitas — and then beat an emerging Hall of Famer, Terry Bradshaw, in the AFC championship game.

But I have long believed that what the Dolphins did 40 years ago, in their followup season of 1973, was even more impressive. (Incidentally, until next month's Super Bowl in New Jersey, Super Bowl VIII stands as the third–coldest Super Bowl ever played.)

Heading into the 1973 season, the Dolphins had an enormous bull's eye on their chests. In the eyes of all their rivals, they were the 17–0 Dolphins of the previous year who hadn't lost in a game that counted since Super Bowl VI, when Roger Staubach and the Dallas Cowboys beat them, 24–3.

Every team that faced the Dolphins in 1973 was hoping to be the one to knock them from their lofty perch.

The '73 Dolphins managed to stay up there in the season opener, beating a declining San Francisco team, but they lost to Oakland in the second week. They only lost once more that year, in a meaningless game with Baltimore in the next–to–last week of the regular season, then hammered Cincinnati in the first round of the playoffs and avenged their second–week loss to Oakland in the AFC championship game.

Then, in Super Bowl VIII 40 years ago today, the Dolphins pounded the Minnesota Vikings to become the second team to win back–to–back Super Bowls.

(That's still a relatively rare achievement, by the way. Pro football will play its 48th Super Bowl next month, and teams have won back–to–back Super Bowls only eight times.)

In spite of the constant pressure they faced all season, even after losing that game to Oakland, the Dolphins followed their 17–0 campaign with a 15–2 season. That's 32 wins in 34 games over a two–year period. That's a two–year record that few Super Bowl champions have come close to matching.

For a long time, I thought I was the only one (or at least one of the few) who recognized the accomplishment of the '73 Dolphins.

I remember a conversation I had with my friend Steve. He was a great admirer of the '72 Dolphins, and we often discussed that team. Once, I mentioned to him that I thought the '73 Dolphins were better, and his jaw just about hit the ground. After I explained my reasoning to him, he seemed to agree with me — or, at least, he agreed that I had a convincing case.

Anyway, recently, I read a retrospective article in the New York Daily News by Joe Belock that said what I have been thinking all these years: "Is it possible," Belock asked in his opening paragraph, "for a Super Bowl championship team to be underrated? Underappreciated?"

It's hard to imagine a Super Bowl champion being underrated, isn't it? Yet, that is precisely what the '73 Dolphins were — and still are, to an extent, as Belock's article suggests.

As Belock observes, they were better than the bunch that went unbeaten. "The schedule was tougher," he writes, yet the defense yielded fewer points.

Many coaches have won Super Bowls, but only a few have won two or more — and fewer still have won them back to back. It is so difficult — more difficult now, it seems, than it used to be — to repeat as champions in any sport. (We don't know yet who will play in this year's Super Bowl, but we do know that last year's winner, the Baltimore Ravens, will not be in it.)

I believe the Super Bowl that was won by Miami 40 years ago today was what secured Don Shula's spot in football history.

What happened in the following years added to his reputation, of course — most career wins (347), most Super Bowl teams (six) — but he was already regarded as a coaching legend by sundown 40 years ago.

Shula never won another Super Bowl. His '73 Dolphins were the last to achieve that for him.

Sunday, January 12, 2014

Namath's Guarantee



On this day 45 years ago, Broadway Joe Namath made good on his famous guarantee, and Namath's underdog New York Jets became the first members of the old AFL to win the Super Bowl, defeating the Baltimore Colts, 16–7.

It was also the first time that the name Super Bowl was used officially.

Before the game, there was a widely held belief that the AFL was inferior to the NFL in every possible way. Baltimore was favored by 18 points — and that was surely seen by many as too few. The Colts, they would have told you, were certain to beat the Jets by more than that. They had outscored their opponents by more than 18 points in more than half of their regular–season games that year (and came within a point of an 18–point victory margin in three other games), and they had won the NFL championship two weeks earlier by nearly five touchdowns.

And, with a defense that was coached by future Hall of Famer Chuck Noll and featured players like Bubba Smith, Billy Ray Smith and Mike Curtis, it was easy to imagine the upstart Jets being manhandled as the Chiefs and Raiders had been in the previous two Super Bowls.

The AFL began to gain some grudging acceptance when the Jets managed to sign Namath, who played his college ball at Alabama for Bear Bryant. In fact, it was due in large part to Namath's decision that the NFL agreed to merge with the AFL a few years later. The NFL feared bidding wars for the top collegiate talent and felt that bringing the AFL into the fold and subjecting its teams to the annual draft would prevent such wars from happening.

The merging of the two leagues didn't happen until 1970, more than a year after Namath's Jets beat the Colts in what has come to be regarded as one of sports' greatest upsets.

Namath's guarantee was the result, perhaps inevitably, of accumulated frustration from suggestions that the AFL was inferior. Some analysts had suggested that, if they had played in the NFL, the Jets would not have qualified for the playoffs, let alone made it to the Super Bowl.

Three days before the game, Namath appeared at the Miami Touchdown Club. A belligerent Colts fan heckled Namath and taunted him with claims that the Jets would lose. Exasperated (and intoxicated), Namath said, "We're gonna win the game. I guarantee it."

Without question, there have been times — in the histories of all sports — when players for one team believed they didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning a certain game. Sometimes it happens in championship games.

On this day 45 years ago, there might even have been a few Jets players who believed they would lose to the mighty Colts. But Joe Namath was not one of them.

The year before he led the Jets to the Super Bowl, Namath was the first pro quarterback to throw for 4,000 yards, and he is still the only one to accomplish the feat in a 14–game regular season.

Ironically, Namath was the MVP of Super Bowl III in spite of the fact that he didn't throw a touchdown pass in the game. In fact, he didn't attempt a single pass in the final quarter.

Sunday, November 24, 2013

And the Teams Played On


About a month later, the Chicago Bears won the NFL championship, but, 50 years ago today,
they observed a moment of silence for John F. Kennedy, then played Pittsburgh as scheduled.


"It was a day of sunshine but immeasurable gloom. There was a stadium filled with nearly 63,000 fans too subdued to generate much excitement for a crucial late–season NFL game where the outcome seemed secondary to the staggering events of the past two days."

Richard Rothschild
Sports Illustrated

Those who are old enough to remember will tell you that everything — or nearly everything — stopped on this weekend 50 years ago.

John F. Kennedy had been assassinated in Dallas two days earlier. Nearly all of the college football games that were scheduled for the next day were postponed.

But not so the NFL games that were scheduled for Sunday.

From the vantage point of 50 years after the fact, it must be said that 1963 was not a year of smooth sailing for NFL Commissioner Pete Rozelle. Earlier in 1963, he indefinitely suspended Green Bay's Paul Hornung and Detroit's Alex Karras for gambling on their own teams. They wound up missing the whole season. Other players were fined $2,000 each for betting on a game in which they did not participate.

Then came the Kennedy assassination.

The still–new American Football League postponed its games that weekend to show its respect. The NFL could have done the same, but Rozelle had been in college with Kennedy's press secretary, Pierre Salinger, and the two spoke following the assassination. Rozelle told the Washington Post that Salinger encouraged him to play the games. They agreed that Kennedy loved competition and would have wanted the games to go on.

So the games went on.

No NFL games were televised that weekend. Network TV was providing uninterrupted coverage of events in Dallas and Washington throughout the weekend so none of the NFL games played 50 years ago today were seen by anyone other than those in attendance — which, by the way, was not affected by the assassination.

But, as Richard Rothschild observed in Sports Illustrated, the crowds were subdued that day, and that was understandable.

Rozelle often said he regretted permitting the games to proceed that weekend, but I have often wondered if the NFL games didn't serve a much–needed purpose that weekend.

I recall that, for nearly a week after the September 11 terrorist attacks, no sports events were held — no baseball games (and the pennant races were heating up), no college football games on that Saturday or pro football games that Sunday. When the games finally resumed, there was a real sense that the nation was rising from its grief and embarking on the long journey to return to normalcy.

Of course, the circumstances were different, but the effect was the same. It's like the advice that George Burns (as God) gave to John Denver in the 1977 movie "Oh, God!"

Denver said he felt strange having a conversation in his bathroom with God. Burns told him to shave. He said that, when you're not feeling normal, doing something normal helps you feel normal. Denver started to shave and agreed that he was beginning to feel normal again.

Playing football that weekend may have been like that, at least for those who had tickets to the games. There were those who protested the decision; even some of the players wanted to postpone the games out of respect for the fallen president.

But afterward, the general sensation seems to have been that the games helped people begin their journey back to normalcy. The Washington Redskins, who recorded their third and final win of the season that afternoon, voted to send the game ball to the White House and thanked Rozelle for permitting the games to be played.

It was the football players' way of paying tribute to the president. It was said that they were "playing for President Kennedy."

And, while Rozelle may have regretted the decision, it led to his selection as Sports Illustrated's Sportsman of the Year.

Sunday, November 17, 2013

It Ain't Over Until It's Over



Yogi Berra was credited with saying "It ain't over until it's over."

Yogi played — and then managed — in major league baseball, but the saying is appropriate for football, too.

It certainly was appropriate 45 years ago today.

On this day in 1968, the New York Jets and the Oakland Raiders were playing a football game. Joe Namath and the Jets went on to play in — and win — the Super Bowl in January. And, late in the game that was played 45 years ago today, it sure looked like the Jets were going to beat the Raiders.

Except that they didn't.

It had been a back–and–forth affair in Oakland that day, but, with 1:05 remaining, the Jets took a three–point lead. Worried NBC executives cut away from the game, and the network began its regularly scheduled broadcast of a made–for–TV movie that was based on the children's book "Heidi."

What happened next changed the relationship between professional football and television.

The Raiders scored not one but two improbable touchdowns and won the game, 43–32. The western half of the United States saw the full game; the eastern half was watching a little girl on a Swiss mountain and had no idea the Raiders had won.

"Television missed one of football's most exciting and exhausting minutes of emotion," wrote Bob Valli in the Oakland Tribune. "In that minute, Oakland fans saw despair turn to delirium."

Football fans were enraged when they learned what they missed. Viewers who tuned in for the movie were enraged when NBC ran the score on the screen in the middle of one of the movie's most dramatic moments. "Short of pre–empting Heidi for a skin flick," wrote sportswriter Jack Clary, "NBC could not have managed to alienate more viewers that evening."

As a result, television changed its football broadcast policy.

Future contracts would include explicit language pledging that all games would be shown to their completion. If a game ran long, regularly scheduled programming would be delayed.

NBC implemented that policy immediately. It is standard procedure with all commercial networks today.

To its credit, NBC poked fun at itself over the incident. Three weeks later, when the network was scheduled to show "Pinocchio" on a Sunday night, NBC's promotional advertising showed Pinocchio assuring football fans that he would rather cut off his nose than "have them cut off" the game before it was over.

And a week after that, when a game ran late, NBC announced that the regularly scheduled program, an episode of The New Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, would be delayed.


Wednesday, September 11, 2013

The Bear Centennial



"If we had been more vigilant, September 11 would still be known as Bear Bryant's birthday."

Actor Fred Thompson

If Bear Bryant still lived, today would be his 100th birthday.

But, as I observed in January, he's been dead for 30 years.

In Alabama, they've been working on plans for the centennial birthday celebration for more than a year. It hasn't been an easy task. The director of the Paul W. Bryant Museum lamented last year that the problem was deciding what could be omitted.

Bryant's life story really was like that. Every moment seems to be so significant that to leave out anything is to somehow diminish the life.

Frankly, it reminds me of the disclaimer at the start of the movie "Gandhi""No man's life can be encompassed in one telling."

And so it is with the Bear Bryant story.

(Last night, on the eve of Bryant's 100th birthday, I saw a post from the Huntsville (Ala.) Times about Bryant's last letter. "Bryant would frequently reply to fan mail," writes Melissa Brown, "even in January 1983, the month he passed away."

(Apparently, many of those fans believe they received the last letter Bryant wrote.)

It was just as hard, I suppose, to decide what the most appropriate salute should be.

About the only thing that would be truly appropriate on this occasion would be if Alabama or Texas A&M, the schools where Bryant left his mark as a coach, could play a game today. But this is Wednesday, and college football teams rarely play games in the middle of the week.

However, college football teams do play on Saturdays, and Alabama and Texas A&M will be playing each other in College Station this Saturday.

That is so perfect that it almost certainly was planned. Considering the stature Bryant has in this game, it might well have been planned even if the two schools were not competing in the same conference.

Let me say right now that I have seen no evidence that it was planned — but Alabama and Texas A&M are conference rivals now (they weren't in the Bear's day), and the modern Southeastern Conference is so big now that it has two divisions. Members of a division always play each other — they alternate their games against teams in the other division, but they always play the teams in their own division.

Alabama and Texas A&M are in the same division. Last year, they played in Alabama, and A&M handed Alabama its only loss of the year (en route to its second consecutive national title). The Aggies' quarterback also became the first freshman to win the Heisman Trophy.

There's enough intrigue surrounding that game to entice even the Bear — and that would have taken some doing in his lifetime. He must have faced off against just about every major football coach in the country at one time or another.

I know for a fact he faced Joe Paterno at least once because I was there. My family and I went to New Orleans to see the Sugar Bowl one year, and Alabama was playing Penn State.

In a quarter of a century as the head coach at Alabama, Bryant faced and defeated Bob Devaney, Ara Parseghian, Bud Wilkinson, John McKay, Lou Holtz, Woody Hayes, Tom Osborne, Barry Switzer. He never faced Bo Schembechler, and he never managed to beat Darrell Royal in four tries.

And Bryant once faced Frank Broyles, the longtime head coach at my alma mater, the University of Arkansas. Bryant won, and I've always been struck by an irony. After the 1941 season, during which Bryant was an assistant coach at Vanderbilt, he was offered the head coaching job at Arkansas.

I guess a little historical background is needed here. Fred Thomsen had been Arkansas' coach since 1929, and he had done some good things for the Razorbacks. He won the Hogs' first Southwest Conference title in 1933 — when Bryant was playing end for Alabama — but the title was forfeited when it turned out he had used an ineligible athlete.

Thomsen also popularized the forward pass at Arkansas. He even had different quarterbacks, depending on conditions — one for wet weather and another for dry weather. He had good years and bad years through 1937, and if he had left after that season, his name probably would be revered today on the Arkansas campus and, indeed, throughout the state.

But the Hogs went 13–25–2 from 1938–41, and there were rumblings among the fans (according to a book on the Razorbacks that was co–written by one of my former Arkansas Gazette colleagues) that the program needed a "name" coach to revive it.

Thomsen had enlisted in the service after Pearl Harbor, and it came as a surprise to his wife that the Board of Trustees, authorized by the state legislature, arranged to cut him a check — and, in the process, cut the school's ties with him — while he was serving his country abroad.

At the same time, apparently, the school was pursuing Bryant (who was born in Arkansas) to lead the team, but Bryant had enlisted in the Navy. So Arkansas endured some misfires at the head coaching position before finally getting a long–termer in Broyles in 1958, the same year Bryant went to Alabama.

Arkansas fans can only wonder what might have been if the war had not interfered. Broyles had some great years at Arkansas — he even shared a national title with Bryant once — but his career was not even close to Bryant's. In all honesty, no one's was.

When Bryant died 30 years ago, the people of Alabama lined the highway overpasses in respectful silence to watch the funeral procession go by.

I can think of no other figure from Alabama who commanded that kind of respect — not firebrand politicians, not Supreme Court justices, no one.

The Bear was one of a kind.

Thursday, August 29, 2013

College Football Kicks Off


Fifth–ranked Georgia and #8 Clemson
face each other in Saturday's season opener.


College football returns tonight, and, as is usually the case in the first week or two, predictions are largely based on reputation.

At least until the teams show us what they can do on the field. Until then, it's really all on paper.

To be fair, you won't learn much about most of the Top 25 teams from the games they play. Not naming any names, but most of the games look like foregone conclusions. The ones that get out of hand early are likely to resemble an NFL preseason game — with the starters sitting on the bench for most of it.

(Every college football fan can tell you about an upset or two that happened in the first few weeks of a season, though. It does happen.)

To be sure, there are some intriguing matchups on this weekend's schedule — which starts tonight and continues through Labor Day. There are even a couple of head–to–head battles between Top 25 teams. Fifth–ranked Georgia and #8 Clemson will play on Saturday night, as will #12 LSU and #20 TCU.

But, unless we see an upset or two, you can expect next week's Top 25 to look a lot like this week's.

Idle: #4 Stanford

Today
  • North Carolina at #6 South Carolina, 5 p.m. (Central) on ESPN: These border rivals have played each other 55 times in the last 110 years, but this will be their first encounter since 2007, when South Carolina prevailed 21–15.

    And that was their first meeting since 1991.

    They played each other fairly regularly in the years before 1991. In fact, there were long stretches in which they played every season.

    Anyway, in the absence of any recent history in this series, I have to look at what the teams have done recently.

    North Carolina has had five straight winning seasons. South Carolina, on the other hand, hasn't lost more than it won since 2002, and the Gamecocks have now had two straight 11–win seasons. I pick South Carolina.
  • #24 USC at Hawaii, 10 p.m. (Central) on CBS Sports: This will be the ninth time these schools have faced each other in football, and the Trojans have won all eight of the previous meetings. No reason to expect anything different this time.

    Southern California should prevail.
Saturday
  • Virginia Tech vs. #1 Alabama in Atlanta, 4:30 p.m. (Central) on ESPN: Alabama has dominated this series, winning 11 of 12 meetings.

    But Virginia Tech's only victory over the Crimson Tide came when the teams met at a neutral site — as they are doing this year.

    Virginia Tech could be a deceptive opponent. Tech went 7–6 last year but won 10 or more games in each of the eight previous seasons. I think Alabama will win, but the Crimson Tide cannot afford to be complacent.
  • Buffalo at #2 Ohio State, 11 a.m. (Central) on ESPN2: This is the first meeting of these schools.

    Buffalo is coming off a 4–8 year. It was the school's fourth straight losing season, but it did indicate steady improvement. Buffalo was 3–9 in 2011, 2–10 in 2010.

    Ohio State, meanwhile, was 12–0 last year but ineligible for a bowl. The Buckeyes are eligible this year, and many folks are predicting that Ohio State and Alabama will meet for the national title in January.

    What's more, Ohio State has only lost 11 times at home since 2000. And those home losses usually come against acknowledged powerhouses from the Big Ten.

    I pick Ohio State.
  • Nicholls at #3 Oregon, 3 p.m. (Central) on Fox Sports: There can be no reason for most sports fans to watch this game.

    There will be other games being televised at the same time, and Oregon's starters should be on the bench by halftime.

    Oregon should win this one hands down.
  • #5 Georgia at #8 Clemson, 7 p.m. (Central) on ABC: There was a time when Georgia and Clemson played each other almost every year.

    Between 1902 and 2003, they met 57 times. Georgia leads the all–time series, 38–15–4, and the Bulldogs have won the last five meetings. In fact, the Tigers haven't won since 1990 — which also happens to be the last time the Tigers won at Clemson.

    Historically, Clemson has done better at home than on the road when playing Georgia. But that isn't really applicable, is it? These teams haven't played in a decade.

    This game may turn out to be more interesting than the LSU–TCU game. Clemson had a Top 10 offense last season; Georgia's offense was good, but it didn't even finish in the Top 20. Statistically, Georgia's defense was much better, and it may be prepared to make a season–opening statement, but only three starters return from last season.

    Some observers pick Georgia to play for the national title in January, but I am inclined to think that Clemson will win this game, perhaps ending such talk.
  • Rice at #7 Texas A&M, noon (Central) on ESPN: These two old Southwestern Conference foes meet for the first time since 1995. The Aggies own a 15–game winning streak over the Owls dating back to 1981, but Rice's last victory over A&M came at College Station in October 1980.

    There are lots of story lines surrounding the Aggies this season, and most of them have at least a connection to the SEC. It is taken for granted that A&M will win this game, even with Heisman winner Johnny Manziel on the bench for the first half — and next week's game against Sam Houston State — before the early season showdown with Alabama on Sept. 14. It will be a major upset if the Aggies lose either game.

    I think Texas A&M will win this game — and probably the one next week, too — but I need to give that third one some thought.
  • Toledo at #10 Florida: These schools have never played each other in football, but here's guessing Toledo will remember its trip to The Swamp.

    Unofficially the toughest place for a visiting team to play, The Swamp is known for the incredible noise generated by Gator fans. Not counting Florida's rivalry with Florida State, the Gators haven't lost at home to a nonconference foe since losing to Miami (Fla.) on Sept. 7, 2002 — and Miami went on to play for the national championship that year.

    If Toledo wins, it will be a huge upset. I don't think that will happen. Give me Florida.
  • #12 LSU vs. #20 TCU in Arlington, Texas, 8 p.m. (Central) on ESPN: TCU faces a considerable challenge in this game. LSU hasn't lost a regular–season nonconference game since falling to Virginia Tech in the 2002 season opener.

    That's 34 consecutive regular–season nonconference wins for LSU — so far.

    These teams have faced each other eight times, including once in the Sugar Bowl, but they haven't faced each other since Lyndon Johnson was president. In the absence of any recent history between these two teams, I have to go with my gut, and I expect LSU to win.
  • Mississippi State vs. #13 Oklahoma State in Houston, 2:30 p.m. (Central) on ABC: These teams have met four times in the past, and the winner of this game will take the lead in the series.

    It will also be the first time they have played in a truly neutral site. They played once in Jackson, Miss., which is about 100 miles from Mississippi State's campus, but that isn't much, considering it is nearly 500 miles from Oklahoma State's campus. Houston is another matter.

    This could be a really close game. I pick Oklahoma State.
  • Temple at #14 Notre Dame, 2:30 p.m. (Central) on NBC: When last we saw them, the Fightin' Irish were being destroyed by Alabama in the BCS Championship Game in Miami on Jan. 7.

    The crowd in South Bend should be much friendlier, and Temple, which went 4–7 last year and lost five of its last six games, should be easier to handle than the Crimson Tide.

    I've heard a lot of people say that Notre Dame wasn't the most appropriate foe for Alabama in that game, and the outcome of the game would tend to support that. The Irish will have a lot of work to do to prove themselves in 2013. I expect Notre Dame to win the opener, but I doubt the Irish will prove much by doing so.
  • New Mexico State at #15 Texas, 7 p.m. (Central) on Longhorn Network: These teams have met four times — always in Austin — and the Longhorns have won all four.

    I suspect their ranking is based on history — and not recent history, either. Texas is 22–16 in the last three seasons. But it's taken New Mexico State nearly a full decade to win 22 games.

    And I don't think these Aggies will be able to leave Austin with a win. The Longhorns have a lot to prove, but they won't prove anything in this game. I pick Texas.
  • Louisiana–Monroe at #16 Oklahoma: I'm inclined to be skeptical of Oklahoma and Texas when I see them in the rankings these days.

    Well, not so much Oklahoma. The Sooners have had 10 wins or more in every season but two in the last 13 years.

    I guess it's their postseason record that is the cause for concern. The Sooners have barely won more bowls than they've lost in those 13 seasons.

    Consequently, I suppose, Sooner fans should be concerned in December or January — not August.

    Besides, it's hard to see Louisiana–Monroe causing much trouble in Norman. I have to go with Oklahoma.
  • Central Michigan at #17 Michigan, 2:30 p.m. (Central) on Big Ten: The Wolverines won their first two games against Central Michigan, both of which were played in Ann Arbor.

    Historically, Michigan beats Central Michigan by about 30 points. That sounds about right to me. I pick Michigan.
  • Wyoming at #18 Nebraska, 7 p.m. (Central) on Big Ten: These teams have played each other half a dozen times in the last 80 years, and Nebraska has won them all.

    Most of the games have been, like this year's, at Nebraska. But the teams did meet in Wyoming two years ago. Nebraska prevailed, as usual. And I don't expect Wyoming, which has had nine losing seasons since the start of the 21st century, to reverse that this week.

    Nebraska will win.
  • #19 Boise State at Washington, 9 p.m. (Central) on Fox Sports: This is a rematch of last year's Las Vegas Bowl, which Boise State won, 28–26.

    I think it will be another close game, but I'm going to give the edge to the home team, Washington. Not so long ago, the Huskies were hard pressed to win a handful of games each season (they even went winless one year), but they've put together three straight winning seasons.

    I think they're ready to move to the next level.
  • Nevada at #21 UCLA, 9 p.m. (Central) on Pac–12 Network: These schools are only about 400 miles apart. You'd think they would play each other if not frequently then at least with some regularity.

    But the truth is the two have never met in football.

    I'll give the advantage to UCLA.
  • #22 Northwestern at California, 9:30 p.m. (Central) on ESPN2: These teams have only faced each other once — in the Rose Bowl on New Year's Day 1949.

    Obviously, there isn't much insight you can gain when two teams are about to meet for the first time in more than 60 years, but last year's numbers aren't much help, either. Northwestern was better than California on both sides of the ball, but neither team was terribly impressive. Cal went 3–9 and lost its last five games. Northwestern was 10–3 and won five of its last seven games, including the Gator Bowl.

    I'll take Northwestern.
  • Massachusetts at #23 Wisconsin, 11 a.m. (Central) on Big Ten: These teams have never faced each other in football.

    Last year, UMass was 1–11, its only win coming against Akron (also 1–11). Wisconsin was 8–6, destroyed Nebraska in the Big Ten championship game and lost to Stanford in the Rose Bowl.

    I'm comfortable picking Wisconsin to win.
  • Eastern Washington at #25 Oregon State, 5 p.m. (Central) on Pac–12 Network: I don't know much about either team, but I saw some of Oregon State's games near the end of last season, and I was impressed.

    I have to go with Oregon State to win this one.
Sunday
  • Ohio at #9 Louisville, 2:30 p.m. (Central) on ESPN: Next Sunday, the NFL will be back.

    But this week, the only football game in town will be the first–ever meeting between Ohio and Louisville.

    Ohio has enjoyed some success in recent years, but it really can't compare with what Louisville had in 2012. Louisville beat Florida in the Sugar Bowl last January, finishing the season 11–2.

    And Louisville did things the old–fashioned way last season — with a defense that was ranked 23rd in the nation.

    Ohio actually had a higher–ranked offense than Louisville last season, but its defense was ranked 55th.

    I'll give the edge to Louisville at home.
Monday
  • #11 Florida State at Pittsburgh, 7 p.m. (Central) on ESPN: Historically, this should be an interesting game.

    These two teams do have a limited history. They've played eight times, and Pitt has won five of them.

    On the other hand, this will be their first meeting in 30 years — so Pitt's three–game winning streak doesn't mean a lot.

    I pick Florida State.