I Have Mixed Emotions About Ole Miss' Loss

---

---

As a graduate of the University of Arkansas, I enjoyed the Razorbacks' season opener against Tennessee Tech the other day, especially since it helped vault them to #14 in the latest Associated Press poll.

But, as a graduate of the U of A (and a lifelong Razorback fan, on top of that), I must confess that I had mixed emotions over the outcome of the Ole Miss–Jacksonville State game. It matched two former Arkansas coaches — Jack Crowe, who once coached Arkansas in a humiliating season–opening loss to The Citadel (which cost him his job the next day), and Houston Nutt, who led the Razorbacks for about a decade before leaving for SEC rival Ole Miss a couple of years ago.

My friends in Arkansas have a different opinion of Nutt than I have, and perhaps that is to be expected. I've been gone from Arkansas for a long time. My friends see the Arkansas coaches up close and personal, warts and all; I get considerably less Razorback coverage here in Dallas.

Anyway, all of a coach's shortcomings are magnified in a place like Arkansas. From my vantage point, I watched Nutt lead Arkansas to bowl games, which was something that didn't happen very much in the years before he arrived.

And a Razorback was a legitimate candidate for the Heisman Trophy in Nutt's last two seasons at Arkansas. I can't remember the last time a Razorback was a contender for that award — if ever.

Nutt may have had his faults, but I will always be grateful for the success he brought the program. And I don't wish him ill.

Certainly, I didn't wish for what happened on Saturday.

I guess I should be happy for Crowe. But he wasn't at Arkansas long enough for me to develop any kind of loyalty to him. The rest of the college football world has been abuzz about the accomplishment, the way it always is when something like this happens.

For their part, Jacksonville State's Gamecocks are relishing their moment in the spotlight.

This week, Nutt and the Rebels have been in a lot of pain. They lost to Jacksonville State on Saturday. After going to the Cotton Bowl in Nutt's first two seasons there, I'm certain Rebel fans expected better than this.

Well, Ole Miss will bounce back — eventually. And Jacksonville State probably will never have another win like this one. Inevitably, the football world will return to normal.

But I'm guessing that college football won't witness a bigger upset for the rest of the season.

All but one of the teams in the Top 25 will be in action this weekend, and four games actually match two ranked teams. Third–ranked Boise State is idle this week. The Broncos get an extra week to savor their triumph over Virginia Tech on Monday.

All game times are Central.

Today

• #21 Auburn at Mississippi State, 6:30 p.m. on ESPN: In the last 10 years, Auburn has won eight times against MSU. The Bulldogs' most recent glory days in this series came in the late 1990s, when they won four in a row over the Tigers.
  
  Auburn went through a rough spell, but the Tigers seem to be back on track. The Bulldogs are not. I still believe MSU will upset someone in the SEC this year, but it won't be Auburn, not this early in the season.
  
  But later this season, when MSU is about to face a team that's a little dinged up, watch out.

Friday

• #23 West Virginia at Marshall, 6 p.m. on ESPN: Marshall has lost five in a row to West Virginia. Make that six.

Saturday

• #18 Penn State at #1 Alabama, 6 p.m. on ESPN: There was a time when Penn State and Alabama only met in bowl games. Both were usually highly ranked, and even if they didn't meet in a bowl, there was always talk that they might. Bear Bryant and Joe Paterno were roaming the sidelines in those days. I even watched them play in person once.
  
  Some things are different now. For one, Bryant isn't around anymore (although Paterno still is); for another, this isn't a bowl game. Actually, though, the last time the teams faced each other, in 1990, Penn State prevailed, 9–0, in a regular–season clash just before Halloween.
  
  In fact, the teams faced each other every year back in those days. 'Bama won in 1989, 1988 and 1987; Penn State won in 1986 and 1985. And the schools played during the four seasons prior to that.
  
  It's possible that these two teams may face each other in a bowl game again, perhaps this year. But, at this point in the season, I'm inclined to think the home field and a pretty sharp squad will carry the day for Alabama, even if the defending Heisman Trophy winner won't be able to play.


• #12 Miami (Florida) at #2 Ohio State, 2:30 p.m. on ABC: Back in January 2003, these two teams met in a thriller of a national championship game. Ohio State won the game in double overtime.
  
  This will be the first time the schools have met since that night. Prior to that, the teams met in the "Kickoff Classic" in East Rutherford, N.J., to open the 1999 season. Miami won that one. Before that, you have to go back to 1977 to find a time when these teams played each other.
  
  It ought to be a good game, but I'll give the edge to Ohio State.


• Tennessee Tech at #4 TCU: I watched the Arkansas–Tennessee Tech game online last weekend, and I can only reach one conclusion. Tech will get a second straight big payday for showing up, but TCU will get the win.


• Wyoming at #5 Texas, 6 p.m. on FSN: En route to their national championship date with Alabama last January, the Texas Longhorns traveled to Wyoming, where they cruised to a 41–10 victory.
  
  Meetings between the schools have been infrequent, to say the least. You have to go back to 1978 to find their last time the teams faced off in Austin, where Saturday's game will be played. Texas won that one, too, 17–3.
  
  They also played in Austin in 1974. The Longhorns won, 34–7.
  
  Will the fourth time be the charm for Wyoming? No. I expect a result similar to last year's — Texas by a comfortable margin.


• Idaho at #6 Nebraska: I don't think these two teams have played before, but I don't think it matters if we don't have a previous game to use as a comparison.
  
  I expect Nebraska to win with no trouble.


• #7 Oregon at Tennessee, 6 p.m. on ESPN2: I don't think these schools have faced each other in football before. Oregon is in the Top 10; Tennessee is not ranked. That would suggest an advantage for the Ducks.
  
  But the Volunteers are the home team, and, in Knoxville, that means something. Tennessee can pack more than 100,000 people into its stadium, and most of them will be wearing orange. I anticipate an Oregon victory, but it may not be easy.


• South Florida at #8 Florida, 11:21 a.m. on SEC Network: This is another match that has never occurred before.
  
  I've heard that South Florida has a decent program — and might even give Florida a real game of it. But it's mighty tough to win in Gainesville — unless you play for Florida, and I do expect the Gators to win.


• Iowa State at #9 Iowa, 2:30 p.m. on ABC: This series has been going on for a long time, and, historically, Iowa usually wins.
  
  You do have the exceptions, especially in the last decade — 2007 (when ISU won, 15–13), 2005 (a 23–3 win for ISU), 2002 (ISU's last win at Iowa, 36–31), 2001 (a 17–14 win for ISU and the last of four consecutive victories).
  
  The last three games at Iowa have resulted in Iowa victories — but not blowouts. Iowa's average margin of victory has been about 10 points.
  
  It ought to be a good game, but I'll take Iowa.


• #17 Florida State at #10 Oklahoma, 2:30 p.m. on ABC: Do you remember the last time Florida State faced Oklahoma? It was Jan. 4, 2001, and the teams were meeting in the national title game in the Orange Bowl. OU won the game, 13–2.
  
  That was the first time the teams had met since Jan. 1, 1981, when OU beat Florida State in the Orange Bowl, 18–17. The year before that, OU beat FSU in the same bowl game, 24–7.
  
  But you have to go back to Sept. 25, 1976, when Florida State (then competing as an independent) and Oklahoma (then a member of the Big Eight) last met in the regular season. On that occasion, they played in the same place where they will play on Saturday — Norman, Okla. — and OU was the winner, 24–9.
  
  1976 was a comparatively down year for the Sooners, who had put together a record of 53–3–1 between 1971 and 1975. And, while they've enjoyed some success in the past decade, it hasn't really come close to what they achieved in the 1970s.
  
  And, while the Sooners come into this game ranked ahead of the Seminoles, I am more impressed by how unimpressive OU was in its season opener against Utah State.
  
  I agree with the Miami Herald that both teams have a lot to prove. But I think Florida State is ready to win. I'm not sure about Oklahoma.


• San Jose State at #11 Wisconsin, 11 a.m. on ESPN: I don't think San Jose State and Wisconsin have ever faced each other in football.
  
  So there is no historical comparison to be made. But all you really need to know is that SJSU — which plays in the WAC — has a record of 25–35 in the previous five seasons while Wisconsin — which plays in the Big Ten — has a record of 48–17.
  
  I pick Wisconsin.


• James Madison at #13 Virginia Tech: Virginia Tech last played James Madison in 2003, when Tech rolled to a 43–0 triumph. Before that, they met in 1999, when Tech prevailed, 47–0.
  
  Prior to that, they faced each other in two straight season openers (1992 and 1991). Tech won both games, 49–20 and 41–12. And Tech concluded its 1987 season with a 27–6 win over JMU.
  
  There was one other meeting before that, in 1980, which Tech won, 38–6.
  
  I see no reason why Virginia Tech should not make it seven in a row.


• Louisiana–Monroe at #14 Arkansas, 6 p.m. on FSN: Louisiana–Monroe played Arkansas two years ago and almost escaped with a win (but lost, 28–27). The teams met three straight years from 2004 to 2006, and Arkansas won by lopsided margins each time.
  
  Before the start of the new millennium, the teams squared off four other times, and the Razorbacks won each time, giving Arkansas an 8–0 mark against Louisiana–Monroe. Can Louisiana–Monroe win this encounter? I don't think so. Give me Arkansas.


• #15 Georgia Tech at Kansas, 11 a.m. on FSN: Georgia Tech–Kansas might be an intriguing match in basketball, but they haven't met in football since the Orange Bowl on New Year's Day in 1948.
  
  Kansas went 5–7 last year while Tech has gone to a bowl game 13 years in a row. I'll pick Georgia Tech.


• Virginia at #16 USC, 9:30 p.m. on FSN: These teams play on opposite coasts. They seldom face each other.
  
  But they did meet two years ago in the season opener, which USC won, 52–7.
  
  I think that is the only time the schools have faced each other on the gridiron — which means this weekend's trip to Los Angeles to face USC will be a first for Virginia.
  
  The Cavaliers went 3–9 last year. USC has had its troubles during the offseason, but I still think the Trojans will win the game.


• #19 LSU at Vanderbilt, 6 p.m. on ESPNU: LSU and Vanderbilt play in different divisions in the SEC so they don't meet every year.
  
  In fact, you have to go back 20 years — to a time when the teams in the SEC weren't split into divisions — to find Vandy's last victory over LSU. The Tigers have won the last six meetings. And they've won 25 of their last 30 games in Baton Rouge.
  
  I expect LSU to prevail this time as well.


• UNLV at #20 Utah: Utah and UNLV have faced each other every year for the last 11 years. Utah has won all but one.
  
  And I expect Utah to win again.


• #22 Georgia at #24 South Carolina, 11 a.m. on ESPN2: Georgia and South Carolina are in the same division in the SEC so they play each other every year. Most of the time, it is a close game, no matter who wins.
  
  And the rankings suggest another down–to–the–wire finish this year.
  
  It's been 10 years since Georgia lost at South Carolina. And I'm going to predict that Georgia will make it five straight wins at South Carolina.


• #25 Stanford at UCLA, 9:30 p.m. on ESPN: The times they may be changing in this series.
  
  In the last 30 years, UCLA beat Stanford 19 times, including five in a row before Stanford beat UCLA last year, 24–16. But UCLA is coming off a 31–22 loss to Kansas State on the road last weekend. Stanford, meanwhile, is favored in some quarters to win the Pac–10. I'll go with Stanford to make it two in a row against UCLA.

Last week: 21–1.
Season: 21–1.

Utah Will Beat Pitt in Mild Upset

Every team in the Associated Press Top 25 is in action this week — although, in most cases, that doesn't seem to mean very much.

Four ranked teams will be playing today, but none will face each other.

Today

• Marshall at #2 Ohio State, 6:30 p.m., Big Ten Network: These teams met on the same field nearly six years ago to the day and Marshall came close to winning, losing by 24–21. Based on current rankings, I would expect Ohio State to cruise to victory.
  
  But Marshall has never been shy about taking on big–name foes, even if the prospects for victory were slim. In recent years, Marshall has played Virginia Tech, Wisconsin, Miami (Florida), West Virginia, Georgia and others. Marshall seldom wins those games, but occasionally it comes close. Still, I'll pick Ohio State.


• Florida A&M at #13 Miami (Florida): Based on recent history, this should be the closest match yet in their sporadic series.
  
  Miami whipped Florida A&M, 48–16, last year. Before that, the teams met in 2006, and the result was an even bigger triumph for the Hurricanes, 51–10. Prior to 2006, they met in the 2002 season opener, with Miami winning, 63–17. In 1999, the two played and Miami rolled to a 57–3 win.
  
  In fact, last year's game was the first time A&M held Miami under 50 points since 1995, when Miami won, 49–3. And it's been nearly 20 years since A&M held Miami under 40 points.
  
  But it's been even longer since Florida A&M defeated Miami (1979). I don't think that streak will be snapped tonight. Florida A&M may find a way to hold Miami under 50 points again — but I expect Miami to win.


• #14 USC at Hawaii, 9 p.m., ESPN: These two teams faced off in the season opener in Hawaii five years ago, and USC rolled, 63–17. They faced each other in California two years earlier, and USC was the winner on that occasion as well, 61–32. In fact, USC always seems to be scoring in the 60s when it faces Hawaii. The Trojans won in 1999, 62–7, and you have to go back to the late 1970s to find a time when Hawaii's defense put a lock on USC's defense.
  
  My best guess — at this early stage of the season and knowing the turmoil that has surrounded the USC program in the offseason — is that USC will prevail, but those 60–point performances are history. The Trojans will need to be satisfied with half that, considering that Hawaii hasn't surrendered more than 60 points since the last time these teams played, and USC has cracked the 60–point barrier only once since the 2005 season.


• #15 Pitt at Utah, 7:30 p.m., Versus: These teams are meeting for the first time since the Fiesta Bowl on Jan. 1, 2005. Utah won that meeting, 35–7, en route to a 12–0 record.
  
  I don't think they have played on any other occasion, and Pitt is the more highly regarded program today, but it is worth remembering that Utah was 10–3 last year, with losses to three teams that were in double digits in wins last season. I'll take Utah in a marginal upset. After all, Utah had some support in AP's poll, just not enough to crack the Top 25.

Nineteen teams in the Top 25 will be playing on Saturday. Most will be facing unranked foes, but there will be two clashes between ranked teams.

Saturday

• San Jose State at #1 Alabama: Hmmm. Let's see. Alabama is the defending national champion and the home team. San Jose State has broken .500 twice in the last decade and is coming off a 2–10 season. I don't think I'm going out on a limb to pick Alabama.


• Miami (Ohio) at #4 Florida, 11 a.m., ESPN: Likewise, I don't think it is a reach to pick Florida to win its opener against Miami (Ohio). Miami went 1–11 last year. OK, Tim Tebow is gone, but I still think the Gators should cruise in this one.


• #5 Texas at Rice, 2:30 p.m., ESPN: Texas and Rice used to play each other every year in the old Southwest Conference. There was a time, I am told, when Rice was competitive with Texas. It hasn't been that way in a long time, and it won't be competitive this time. I pick Texas.


• #24 Oregon State vs. #6 TCU at Dallas, 6:45 p.m., ESPN2: This actually should be a pretty decent game if the weather cooperates.
  
  Lately, the weather here has been cooler. Not cool — but it is cooler than it's been. Currently, the forecast calls for a high around 90° in Arlington on Saturday. By the time Saturday actually gets here, it might be cooler. Or it might be warmer. This is Texas. And it is early September.
  
  From that perspective, TCU has the advantage. I'll take TCU


• Utah State at #7 Oklahoma: Utah State traveled to Oklahoma two years ago and lost big, 54–3.
  
  Before that, Utah State last came to Norman in 1991 and lost by the (comparatively) closer score of 55–21.
  
  Before that, you have to go back to 1974, when Utah State got hammered, 72–3.
  
  I think a trend has been established. I'll take Oklahoma


• Western Kentucky at #8 Nebraska: Western Kentucky was 0–12 last year. Nebraska narrowly lost the Big 12 title game to Texas.
  
  'Nuff said.
  
  Give me Nebraska.


• Eastern Illinois at #9 Iowa: I think this is Eastern Illinois' first–ever visit to Iowa. It shouldn't be too memorable.
  
  I'll take Iowa.


• New Mexico at #11 Oregon: I don't think New Mexico and Oregon have played each other before.
  
  And, when you consider that New Mexico is 5–19 in the last two seasons, it's hard to imagine Oregon losing this game. Give me Oregon


• #12 Wisconsin at UNLV, 10 p.m., Versus: UNLV played host to Wisconsin in 2007 and almost came away with a victory.
  
  Can UNLV pull it off this time? Nah. I'll take Wisconsin.


• South Carolina State at #16 Georgia Tech: I can't imagine South Carolina State winning this game. Give me Georgia Tech.


• Tennessee Tech at #17 Arkansas: I grew up in Arkansas, and I can't recall a time when these schools ever faced each other.
  
  Maybe they did, but Arkansas certainly must have won the game. If the Hogs had lost, I'm sure I would remember it.
  
  Anyway, the game is being played in Fayetteville, and I have heard nothing that would lead me to believe that Arkansas might lose. So I will predict an Arkansas victory.


• #21 LSU vs. #18 North Carolina at Atlanta, 7 p.m., ABC: This may be the most intriguing matchup of the weekend, in large part because these teams so seldom face each other.
  
  In fact, I have found no evidence that the teams have met in football in nearly a quarter of a century. They played each other a couple of times in the mid–1980s, with LSU winning both times. Prior to that, they hadn't met since 1964, when LSU prevailed en route to a Sugar Bowl victory over Syracuse and an 8–2–1 record.
  
  In 1961, LSU opened the season with a loss to Rice, then ran off 10 straight wins, including a victory in the Orange Bowl. One of those wins was over North Carolina. Before that, you'd have to go back to the days of the Truman administration to find the next game between these schools.
  
  I guess you could say North Carolina is due for a win, and a neutral field might work in the Tar Heels' favor. But I've been watching SEC football ever since my alma mater (Arkansas) joined the conference, and LSU is almost always good. So I'll pick LSU to win, even though I expect it to be a close game.


• Youngstown State at #19 Penn State, 11 a.m., Big Ten Network: Youngstown State's last visit to Penn State came in 2006, when Penn State won, 37–3.
  
  I don't know if the schools faced each other before that, but, really, does it matter? I expect Penn State to win this one, easily.


• Samford at #20 Florida State, 11 a.m., ESPNU: The post–Bobby Bowden era begins. It won't begin with a loss. I'll take Florida State


• Arkansas State at #22 Auburn, 6 p.m., FSS: Since Arkansas State last traveled to Auburn in 2005 (and lost, 27–0), ASU has won 16 games and lost 23. One of those wins was a win against a decidedly down Texas A&M squad in 2008, but the rest of its wins were against struggling programs.
  
  I think it is safe to say that, after a down year in 2008, the Tigers are back in form and are not likely to be struggling, at least not in their opener. I'll take Auburn


• Louisiana–Lafayette at #23 Georgia, 11:21 a.m., SEC Network: I think this is the first time these schools have played each other in football so there's no historical comparison to make. But is it really necessary? I mean, come on. This is Georgia we're talking about. Non–SEC opponents almost never win between the hedges. I'll take Georgia.


• Coastal Carolina at #25 West Virginia: Quick. What is Coastal Carolina's team nickname? OK, I didn't know, either. And it really doesn't matter, does it? Here's a much more relevant question. Why should I pick Coastal Carolina to do what very few teams have been able to do (i.e., win at West Virginia) in the last several years? I see no compelling reason to pick the Chanticleers. So I'll take West Virginia.

The remaining two ranked teams will face each other in a Labor Day game.

Monday

• #3 Boise State vs. #10 Virginia Tech at Landover, Md., 7 p.m., ESPN: I don't think these teams have played each other before, but it's certainly a good primetime test for the potentially BCS–busting Boise State football team. Boise went 14–0 in 2009 and has lost only four times in the last four seasons.
  
  Virginia Tech is a worthy challenger, ranked 10th in the nation this season and winner of at least 10 games a season in nine of the last 11 years.
  
  And the game is apt to be a showcase for some of the talent that should be in the running for this year's Heisman. Cory McCartney observes, for SportsIllustrated.com, that Boise QB Kellen Moore is one of the leading contenders going into the season — but he may need a spectacular performance to overcome his team's non–BCS status.
  
  Meanwhile, Virginia Tech running back Ryan Williams is a longshot, McCartney writes — not because of a lack of talent but because of a lack of touches.
  
  "[W]ith the return of 1,000–yard rusher Darren Evans to the Hokies' lineup and the pair expected to split carries," writes McCartney, "Williams' production could suffer."
  
  Boise State has played and beaten some big–name teams in recent years, including Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl a few years back. And Boise is coming off another Fiesta Bowl triumph, its 17–10 win over TCU in January,
  
  But the last time Boise played a 1A team after winning the Fiesta Bowl, the opponent won the game. And that is what I'm predicting here — Virginia Tech to win.
  
  On the other hand, the last team to open the season at Virginia Tech — Alabama, last year — won and went on to win the national championship. So, if Boise wins, watch out!

Note: All times are Central.

Arkansas Anticipation

Here in Dallas, the official start of the NFL season is about two weeks away, and the complaints about the Cowboys, from whom much is expected, already have begun.

"The Cowboys' first–team offense, which had been anything but sharp in the first three preseason games, looked even worse Saturday night in a 23–7 loss to the Houston Texans," writes Tim Cowlishaw in the Dallas Morning News.

Losing a football game to Houston — even in the preseason — has never gone down easily in Dallas. Over the years, the Cowboys have had intense rivalries with many teams — but losing to an instate rival, even (or, perhaps, especially) when not much is expected from that rival, is just downright intolerable.

Texas, like most Southern states, has a reputation for being religious. But the real religion around here is football.

And Dallas may be the most egregious offender. In the nearly 40 years of its existence, Texas Stadium's distinctive rectangular hole in the roof was said to be there so God could watch his football team play.

(The first time I heard that, I wondered what was keeping God from watching the teams that played in stadiums that had no roof or anything else that might obscure the view from on high.)

I even read an obituary once in a Texas newspaper that said the deceased would be enjoying seats on the 50–yard line for God's football games. (The assumption, of course, was that heaven has a football team. But no mention was ever made concerning who that team would play. Hell's Angels, perhaps?)

I'm not a Dallas native, and I'm not a Cowboys fan so it really doesn't matter to me if Dallas doesn't live up to its fans' expectations.

But I do understand the almost religious fervor that accompanies the start of football season here. I grew up in it — in Arkansas.

Now, there is no professional sports team in Arkansas (other than the minor league baseball team that plays in Little Rock). But the statewide devotion to the University of Arkansas Razorbacks has always put the fan bases of many NFL teams to shame.

When I was a child, the Razorbacks were always ranked going into a season. They didn't always finish the season in the then–Top 20 — in fact, they seldom won the Southwest Conference, the now–defunct conference in which they once competed — but the fans still went into every season convinced the Hogs would win them all.

And, then, with each loss, even when the loss was expected, the anguish in Arkansas was excruciating.

Nevertheless, in spite of some brutal setbacks, the Hogs always seemed to come through when you least expected it.

---

---

One of the most astonishing was the day in 1981 when the Razorbacks took on their old rivals, the top–ranked Texas Longhorns, two weeks after losing to TCU for the first time in more than 20 years.

At that time, TCU was not the nationally recognized football program it is today. The Horned Frogs were regarded as one of the weakest teams in the conference in those days, and a loss to TCU was devastating for a program as proud as Arkansas'.

I was a student at Arkansas at the time, and I can assure you that there was little enthusiasm on the campus for that game with Texas. But the Razorbacks surprised everyone with a 42–11 rout.

Half a dozen years earlier, there was a similar feeling as the Razorbacks prepared to face Texas A&M in the regular–season finale. The undefeated Aggies had beaten the rival Longhorns the week before; Arkansas was in the midst of a seven–year losing streak to Texas and had already lost to the Longhorns.

The winner of the game would be bound for the Cotton Bowl — which may not sound like much now, but in those days, it was the reward for winning the Southwest Conference.

And the winner was Arkansas, 31–6. So the Hogs came to Dallas to face Georgia in the Cotton Bowl on Jan. 1, 1976, and won that game, too, 31–10.

A few years later, Arkansas came close to winning the SWC but came up short — thanks to another loss to Texas. The Razorbacks were invited to play #2 Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl on New Year's night, a game that didn't attract much attention in the days leading up to it, in large part because coach Lou Holtz had suspended three starters for rules violations.

The Vegas oddsmakers took the game off the board, assuming that OU would crush Arkansas. But, instead, it was Arkansas that won the game in a romp, 31–6.

---

---

Well, there have been great moments — and crushing defeats — in the years since.

But it seems the Razorbacks have been making fewer appearances in the rankings than they used to. They seemed to be on an upward trajectory a few years ago, when Darren McFadden was the runnerup in the Heisman Trophy voting two years in a row, but they slipped back when McFadden left and Arkansas went through a coaching change.

Now, however, all is right with Razorback Nation again.

The season begins this week, and the Associated Press has Arkansas ranked 17th. Five other Southeastern Conference teams are in the AP's Top 25 — but only two are ranked ahead of the Hogs, and only one of those teams (defending national champion Alabama) will face Arkansas during the regular season.

I've got to admit I've been fantasizing about an SEC title and maybe even a berth in the national championship game, but I'm far from the only one. It really is nice to be able to eagerly anticipate a football season again, but I think we all need to take a minute or two and remember that there are many obstacles to overcome.

For one, the Razorbacks may be playing in the most competitive division in the most competitive conference in the nation. Two other schools from their division — LSU and Auburn — are in the Top 25, and another one (Ole Miss) got some votes in the poll. The only school in the division that seems likely to be a "breather" — at least by comparison — is Mississippi State, but anyone who watches SEC football knows there are no breathers in that conference.

At some point, I believe MSU will be the "spoiler" for someone. It might well be Arkansas.

---

---

And, while there is a lot of talk among Arkansas fans these days about the Heisman prospects for strong–armed quarterback Ryan Mallett, people do get hurt playing football, and many good football teams have seen their hopes go down in flames because a key player was injured.

I hope the Razorbacks can successfully negotiate the mine field that the SEC schedule can be. And I hope no one crucial to the team — least of all its Heisman prospect at QB — gets hurt.

All I can do is hope.

Crunching the Numbers

Lists — and I'm speaking of "best of" lists here, the ones that are based on the personal preferences of the individual or group who compiled them — are meant to provoke arguments.

It's really why they exist.

If, for example, I say that I think "Citizen Kane" is the greatest movie ever made (which I do), I am sure to encounter arguments from others — from people who don't share my appreciation for the pioneers or the historical context of motion pictures, from viewers who think that any film that is devoid of "action" and/or splashy special effects (and thus must depend on dialogue) is inferior, even from folks who refuse to watch a black–and–white film (and consequently deprive themselves of many of the greatest movies ever made — talk about being color blind).

Such people might recommend some worthy alternatives for consideration. Others might not. But the point is that it's all opinion. No one is right. No one is wrong.

In almost every such debate, there are just far too many variables to consider. And the value I will give to one variable almost certainly will not be the same value that others will give to it.

Sports are particularly vulnerable to this kind of debate that no one can win.

It seems, for example, as if I have heard people debating the merits of different generations of baseball players all my life. When Hank Aaron was about to surpass Babe Ruth as all–time home run king, I heard people arguing about which one was a better home run hitter.

It was tougher in Ruth's day, I heard some say. The ballparks were bigger, and the leagues were smaller. The talent wasn't as diluted, which meant the pitching was almost always tough, no matter who you played.

Besides, the schedule was shorter. Who knows how many home runs Ruth might have hit if he had been able to play in eight more games per year?

Yes, the Aaron supporters would say, the league was smaller — and road trips were shorter. At the most, Ruth might have to travel half the length of the continent, but Aaron, who spent most of his career in Atlanta, played in a division that required him to travel to the Pacific coast frequently. That much travel is bound to take its toll, yet Aaron played in the majors for more than 20 years.

Well, this flight of fancy was inspired by a recent pair of posts on the Sports Illustrated web site.

These posts were dedicated to the best pro football players ever to wear each number, and they were divided in two lists because a single list of every jersey number from 00 to 99 was just too bulky.

Actually, it was pretty big at 00–49 and 50–99, too. Frankly, I would have preferred four lists. At least. But it wasn't my call.

Nor was it my call which players were named the best to wear their numbers. I agreed with many of the choices, but I disagreed with some.

For example:

• At #5, Donovan McNabb was listed as the best to wear that number. He's had a great career, but how on earth can anyone take him over Paul Hornung, who didn't just play in NFL championship games but won four of them and was on the team that won the first Super Bowl?


• At #9, I have a problem with taking Sonny Jurgensen, who had some great numbers but never won the Super Bowl, over Jim McMahon, who actually won a Super Bowl.

---

---


• I really have issues with #12.
  
  Sports Illustrated picked Tom Brady over Terry Bradshaw because Brady allegedly won in a "tougher era."
  
  Really? Tougher than beating the Dolphins of the early '70s? Or the Raiders throughout the decade? Or the Oilers, who mounted serious challenges from within the division after Earl Campbell joined the roster? Or the Buffalo Bills when O.J. Simpson was in his prime?
  
  Or Dallas' Doomsday Defense in two Super Bowls?
  
  Or Minnesota's Purple People Eaters in one?
  
  In all, Bradshaw won four Super Bowls in six years. How many has Brady won?
  
  There were other great players who wore #12, too — Roger Staubach, Bob Griese, Joe Namath. I'm sure you could get arguments in several NFL cities. But I'm convinced that Bradshaw deserves to be 12's representative in this list.


• I live in Dallas, but I wasn't born and raised here so I don't feel any special attachment to the Cowboys, least of all Deion Sanders. And I really don't think he deserves to be listed as the greatest to wear #21. I'd rather list the runnerup, LaDainian Tomlinson, or Cliff Branch or even Jim Kiick.
  
  Maybe that's just personal preference, though.


• I can live with the choice for #32 — Jim Brown — even though I'm sure it was a tough call. After all, guys like O.J., Marcus Allen and Franco Harris wore that number, too.
  
  But Brown was the best.


• Now, #33 is a real generational clash. SI went with Sammy Baugh and listed Tony Dorsett as the runner–up. I hadn't been born when Baugh was playing, but I remember watching Dorsett on TV.
  
  I know Baugh was probably the best passer of his era, but all I've seen of him are film clips.

And in the second group ...

• At #52, I think I would replace Ray Lewis with Mike Webster. If it's about the numbers, I'm more impressed by Webster's four Super Bowl rings — a noteworthy achievement for a man who played a position as physically demanding as center.
  
  And some people would tell you he was the best ever to play his position.


• As good as Otto Graham was, I don't really think he deserves to be listed at both of the numbers he wore in the NFL — first #60 and then #14. Give #60 to Chuck Bednarik or Tommy Nobis. Or give #14 to Y.A. Tittle or Ken Anderson.

---

---

• It had to be a close call in selecting #74.
  
  Sports Illustrated went with Merlin Olsen, but, really, I think I would have gone with Bob Lilly. I saw both of them play on TV when I was a child, and I thought Lilly had more of an impact. Heck, even Sports Illustrated chose him as one of the 10 most revolutionary defensive players ever.


• Another close call at #75.
  
  SI went with Deacon Jones, a decent choice. But I would have preferred the runnerup, Mean Joe Greene.
  
  Must have been a tough choice. Howie Long also wore #75, as did Jethro Pugh and Forrest Gregg, who played an important role in the success of Green Bay's power sweep in the 1960s.


• At #85, I'm baffled why Jack Youngblood got the nod over Nick Buoniconti.
  
  Sure, Youngblood was a great player. But why take him over Buoniconti, the middle linebacker for Miami's great No–Name Defense that quietly kept the Dolphins undefeated in 1972?

---

---

• And #99 is purely a personal choice.
  
  Warren Sapp got the nod from SI. And that's fine. But Dan Hampton wasn't even the runnerup. Jerome Brown was.
  
  And Mark Gastineau wasn't even mentioned!
  
  I know, Gastineau never played in a Super Bowl. And Sapp and Hampton each won one. But Gastineau and his sack dance breathed new life and energy into the NFL after its strike–shortened 1982 season. Some people didn't like it. But it sure got people's attention.
  
  Some people thought he was a jerk. But he was never as bad as Brian Bosworth.

Well, that's the kind of argument these lists are designed to provoke.

Running to Daylight

---

---

Friday will be the 40th anniversary of the death of Vince Lombardi.

Lombardi died of colon cancer. While there have been many improvements in the fight against cancer in the last four decades, colon cancer remains one of the most common causes of cancer–related deaths.

A relentless perfectionist, Lombardi probably would be disappointed that, in 40 years, medical science hasn't conquered the thing that killed him. Medical science has made great strides against other forms of cancer, including the variety that killed Bears fullback Brian Piccolo less than three months earlier, but colon cancer remains a formidable adversary.

I guess that's fitting. During his life, Lombardi also was a formidable adversary.

In the 1960s, Lombardi may have been the most respected coach in the NFL. He became the first coach to lead his team to three straight NFL titles, and he was the winning coach in the first two Super Bowls.

Today, his memory is not so vivid in most minds. He is remembered by some for saying things that are generally considered cliches now — things like "Winning is the only thing" and urging his players to "run to daylight."

My personal memories of Lombardi are still vivid, though, and they are in black and white. That's because our TV was a black and white in those days — and the screen wasn't very big so Lombardi, who was not a tall man to begin with, looked even smaller to my elementary school eyes.

Actually, my family got its very first color TV in 1970, a few months before football season was scheduled to begin. Then as now, I loved football, and I was looking forward to seeing football games in color.

And one of the things I was looking forward to the most was finally seeing Lombardi, who was coaching the Washington Redskins by that time, in color.

In hindsight, I probably didn't miss much. Even in the color film I have seen of the Lombardi Packers, Lombardi was a black–and–white figure, almost always wearing dark pants and a white shirt, occasionally wearing a tan overcoat. He always appeared somewhat colorless, with his salt–and–pepper hair and his dark–rimmed glasses.

But appearances can be deceiving. Lombardi was far from colorless.

I was — and still am — a Packers fan. Lombardi was the reason for that, but, as much as he did for the Packers, he seems to have done even more for the Redskins in 1969, laying a foundation for the franchise's future success in the 1970s and 1980s.

But even though he took a team that was unaccustomed to winning and molded it into a contender, Lombardi worried that he hadn't been as tough as he should have been. Sonny Jurgensen said that, before he was stricken with cancer, Lombardi told him he had been "too easy" on the players after taking a year off from coaching and pledged to be tougher.

In the spring of 1970, it seemed all but certain that, with Lombardi at the helm for the second year, the Redskins would be televised beyond their local viewing area. That was good news for a young Lombardi fan living in Arkansas.

And, in that spring of 1970, there was no ESPN where football fans could get offseason news, but the sports writers I read in the Arkansas Gazette in those days all seemed to feel the Redskins were poised to make a real run for the playoffs.

That was an unfamiliar feeling, even though Washington could have been in the playoffs in 1969 if the Redskins had defeated the Dallas Cowboys in their two meetings (in fact, they didn't really come close to winning either game).

The old NFL and its upstart rival, the American Football League, merged earlier in 1970, then divided into the NFC and AFC, and folks expected big things from the Redskins (who actually would have been in the running for a wild–card playoff spot in 1969 if such a thing had existed at that time).

But it was not to be. Lombardi was stricken with cancer that summer. The oncologist who treated him called it the most aggressive he had ever seen, and Lombardi died about 10 weeks after his diagnosis.

His memory is honored, of course, in the name of the trophy that is awarded annually to the team that wins the Super Bowl — a fitting tribute to the man who coached the winning team in the first two Super Bowls, even though those victories had none of the drama of the legendary "Ice Bowl."

I still remember when I heard that Lombardi was dying. It was a week night in early September 1970. My father, a college professor, had been spending the previous eight weeks taking continuing education courses in Chicago, and he was returning that night.

My mother took my brother and me, along with some family friends, to the Little Rock airport to meet his plane — only to be told at the airport that Dad had called. He had missed his flight — I think he got stuck in Chicago traffic — and was booked on another flight. He would be arriving late that evening, we were told.

So we turned around and drove back to our small hometown about 30 miles away to have some dinner and kill a few hours. I clearly remember, on that drive home, hearing reports on the radio that Lombardi was near death. And, by that time the next day, he was gone.

The year after he died, Lombardi was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

After Lombardi died, one of his former players from his glory days in Green Bay, Jerry Kramer, put together a book about Lombardi that was primarily transcriptions of interviews he did with people who were influenced by the legendary coach.

He had had some experience with this kind of thing. In 1967, he kept a diary of the football season, which, as it happened, was the last season Lombardi coached the Packers. The diary was published as a book called "Instant Replay" and became a best seller.

Kramer played one more season, then retired, publishing another book titled, "Farewell to Football."

Most of the people he interviewed for his book on Lombardi were men who played for Lombardi. One was his brother. Another was a college teammate who became, along with Lombardi, one of Fordham's "Seven Blocks of Granite." Kramer also interviewed legendary Army coach Red Blaik, who hired Lombardi as an assistant coach in the late 1940s.

And the final entry came from Kramer's conversation with Sonny Jurgensen, a talented quarterback who was trying to come back from rib and elbow injuries at the age of 35 when Lombardi arrived in Washington. They had one season together.

When Jurgensen met with Kramer, he told him, "I envy you ... all you guys from Green Bay. You had him for nine years. We only had him for one — just long enough for him to educate us as to what it takes to win."

When the transcription was finished, Kramer wrote, "I think I felt sorrier for Sonny than I did for any other man affected by Vince's death. He'd waited so long to be a winner. He'd waited so long to find a Vince Lombardi."

Some people never find a Vince Lombardi, and others, like Jurgensen, don't have their Lombardi long enough.

On the surface, his lessons were about football, but they were really about life.

"If you believe in yourself and have the courage, the determination, the dedication, the competitive drive," he said, "and if you are willing to sacrifice the little things in life and pay the price for the things that are worthwhile, it can be done."

And, while there was no way he could have known it at the time, he had good advice for those people in the 21st century who find themselves in a poor economy and working at a job for which they have no passion.

"If you aren't fired with enthusiasm," Lombardi said, "you will be fired with enthusiasm."

Lombardi. His wisdom still rings true 40 years after his death.

Do The Hustle

---

---

Mark Kriegel writes, for FOX Sports, that Brett Favre has turned his now annual public agonizing over whether to retire into some kind of racket.

Favre's Hamlet act, which is now in at least its third incarnation (who knows what kind of maneuvering he may have been up to when he was still wearing the green and gold of Green Bay?), seems to be wearing a bit thin. More and more people appear to be thinking, "Retire already!" And Kriegel is one of them.

"It's not wrong for him to get more money," Kriegel writes. "I'm just sick of the guy pretending he's so damn pure."

Does that seem harsh? I don't really think so. I mean, you'd probably have to look long and hard to find someone who admired Favre more during his Green Bay days than I did. I've been a Packer fan all my life, and Favre is the most exciting thing I've seen wearing a Packer uniform since the Lombardi days of my childhood.

I will take a backseat to no one in my admiration for Favre. Even after he left Green Bay. You really do have to admire a man in his late 30s (now early 40s) who keeps going out there to face defensive players who are nearly half his age. And he can still play at a time in life when nearly all the men who played pro football hung it up long ago.

He's always been kind of the NFL's Peter Pan, forever young (in spirit if not in body), the kind of guy who seems like he would play even if he didn't get paid.

But he does get paid — and quite handsomely, too — as Kriegel points out.

"In 2007, Favre was making about $11 million in base salary," he writes. "After retiring, un–retiring and reporting to the Jets in late August 2008, he went up to $12.8 million. Last summer, he came out of retirement again and got a two–year deal worth $25 million.

"Now he's become the first 40–year–old in America to get an extra $3 mil guaranteed for taking another month off from work."

I understand Kriegel's frustration — especially when Favre says things like "it's not about the money."

As H.L. Mencken said, "Whenever someone says, 'This is not about money' — it's about money."

That certainly seems to be true in Favre's case, all protestations to the contrary. And Kriegel gets that by reading Favre's own words — between the lines, that is.

Favre admitted that he was getting a lot of money from Minnesota to come back for one more year, but, he said, "that in itself was not the biggest factor."

Therefore, concluded Kriegel, "it was a factor."

And, thus, he writes, Favre has made retirement "one hell of a business."

As long as he continues to produce the way he did last season, it may be awhile before he has a going–out–of–business sale.

Bobby Thomson Dies

---

---

Bobby Thomson did a lot of things in the major leagues, and he would be deserving of a place in baseball history even if he hadn't fired the shot heard 'round the world that sent the New York Giants to the World Series after a dramatic playoff against the Brooklyn Dodgers at a time when playoffs (other than the World Series) only occurred if two teams tied for first place in either league.

But he did — on Oct. 3, 1951.

Anyway, Thomson died the other day at his home in Georgia. He was 86 years old, and his daughter said he had been in failing health in recent years.

"Partly because of the fierce rivalry between the Giants and the Dodgers; partly because it was broadcast from coast to coast on television; and partly because it was memorably described in a play–by–play call by the Giants radio announcer Russ Hodges," writes the New York Times' Richard Goldstein, "Thomson's three–run homer endures as perhaps the most dramatic moment in baseball history."

If you've ever heard children fantasizing aloud about being at the plate with two on and two out and a two–run deficit to make up in the ninth inning, they could be describing that October afternoon when Thomson hit a three–run home run to complete what had been a truly remarkable comeback at the end of the regular season.

In mid–August of that year, the Dodgers led the Giants by 13½ games, but New York won 16 in a row and pulled even with Brooklyn on the final weekend, setting up a best–of–three playoff.

And when Thomson fired his historic shot, he gave generations of boys something to emulate. Like Harry Truman's famous political upset only a few years earlier, it was proof that, as Yogi Berra said, it ain't over 'til it's over.

Football Memories

---

---

I've been writing at my other blogs of my friend Phyllis, who died last week.

I think it shall be hard for me, this fall, to watch a football game without thinking of Phyllis.

Last night, I was on the phone with a mutual friend, also named David, who is in my hometown making preparations for Phyllis' memorial service. We only recently reconnected through Facebook — largely because of Phyllis' illness and death — and much of our conversation focused on people and places and things I really hadn't thought much about since I was in high school.

Sports played a modest role in my relationship with Phyllis. She was in the marching band for many years so she was always performing at football games. I wasn't in the band, and, to be honest, I rarely went to my high school's football games when I was a sophomore or a junior — but I will admit that my attendance rate did go up considerably when I was a senior and I was dating a girl who also was in the band.

Phyllis enjoyed sports, but we didn't always share the same passions — in her later years, for example, she apparently became a NASCAR fan, which seems to be a very Southern thing even though it is a sport I've never really been able to appreciate. Phyllis tried to tell me about it, and I'm going to try to watch it in the future. And, when I do, I will pull for Jimmie Johnson — Phyllis' favorite driver — but I doubt I will ever be able to work up the kind of enthusiasm for NASCAR that Phyllis had.

At one point, our conversation turned to Phyllis' mother, who told David to ask me if I remembered staying at their house one New Year's Eve when I was in college. I had been visiting my grandmother in Dallas during the Christmas holidays, and an ice storm came through at the end of December.

My parents were living in northwest Arkansas. Before the year was over, I made the decision to transfer there, but on this occasion, I was going to college in my hometown, and, when the dorms were closed, I had no place to stay.

That put a lot of pressure on me because the dorms were set to reopen the day after New Year's. At some time on New Year's Eve, I made the decision to drive to Conway (with my car loaded down with my stuff) and spend the night at Phyllis' house.

(I figure I must have had at least one phone conversation with Phyllis before I left my grandmother's home, but that memory escapes me now.)

As I recall, it was a pretty low profile New Year's Eve. I didn't drink any champagne — guess I was still too young to buy alcohol in those days, and I was tired from my 300–plus mile trip, anyway. I don't think any of us stayed up to see the new year in.

But the next day, I remember watching the Cotton Bowl game on TV with Phyllis' mother — and marveling that I had driven from Dallas to Conway the day before.

The game was a classic. Joe Montana led Notre Dame to a stirring come–from–behind victory over Houston. Notre Dame scored 22 points in the final quarter, including a touchdown on the final play, and I remember watching it all with Phyllis' mother — and yelling until we were practically hoarse.

---

---

A year later, I was living in Fayetteville, Ark., where I finished work on my bachelor's degree.

But, before I left Conway, I returned to Phyllis' home that fall to watch the Arkansas–Texas game with Phyllis, her mother, and a friend and high school classmate named Ellen. Others may have been there, too. I simply don't remember.

We were all Arkansas fans, and the Razorbacks had lost to Texas for seven straight years. But they prevailed that afternoon.

The way we all yelled and hugged, you would have thought we were on the sidelines or at least in the stands and not watching in Phyllis' living room.

Those are memories I will always cherish.

Will He or Won't He?

As I have mentioned before, I've been a Packers fan since I was a little boy.

Consequently, for some 15 years, I was a big fan of Brett Favre. He did what no one had done since I was a child — take the Packers to a Super Bowl. And he did it in back–to–back seasons.

Along with being a Packers fan, I'm just a fan of football in general. When I see someone having as much fun as Favre had playing for the Packers — and then for the Jets and then, even for the loathed division rival Vikings — it reminds me of when I was a kid.

It's hard not to have fun watching someone else have that much fun.

But, writes Jay Glazer for FOX Sports, that fun might be coming to an end.

Glazer reports that a "source" has said Favre (who turned 40 last fall) is going to retire.

Given his history, though, what can you believe? This is the third summer that Favre has lapsed into his Hamlet shtick. The first two times, he came out of retirement and played — pretty well, too, for a man in his age bracket.

It is the perpetual drama of Brett Favre in recent years. He is an exciting — but flawed — quarterback to watch who long ago reached the age when most pro athletes are thinking about hanging it up. I've seen some who just couldn't accept the verdict of nature at first, but they became persuaded when they realized they weren't capable of what they once were.

Favre's problem is that he thinks these thoughts, but he can't bring himself to follow through on them. And I suspect that the main reason is he is a freak of nature. Even at the age of 40, he was still capable of putting up impressive numbers. Perhaps they weren't quite as gaudy as they had been when he was winning MVP awards, but they were numbers that many quarterbacks half his age would envy.

Not to mention the fact that he damn near got to the Super Bowl again. And I suspect that, if he had, we might not be having this conversation. Because, if he had made it to the Super Bowl at the age of 40, I think he would have retired, win or lose.

But he came up short, just like he did two years earlier in his final game with Green Bay. That's just too tantalizingly frustrating for a guy like Favre. He is not the sort who tends to be satisfied with making it to the conference championship game.

Glazer insists, though, that "this is the strongest indication yet that the legendary quarterback could, in fact, retire for good."

Maybe so. Not everyone agrees, though — and, at this stage, it's probably wise to be skeptical of any suggestions from anyone that Favre's career is, indeed, over.

But, if it is, the Vikings seem likely to face a problem I wrote about last year — a crisis of confidence among the quarterbacks who remain.

Actually, on that occasion, I was agreeing with something that Sports Illustrated's Peter King had written: "I'd have waited until [quarterback] Sage Rosenfels struggled — if he struggled — and then made the call to Favre. By doing it now, [head coach Brad] Childress loses Rosenfels and [quarterback] Tarvaris Jackson; how can they ever trust anything he says now?"

The problem was deferred — but now, having to deal with it may be unavoidable. Jackson only got a handful of snaps in relief of Favre last season. A year he could have spent polishing his skills was squandered, and, unlike Favre, Jackson (who turned 27 in the offseason) has never seemed like the kind of quarterback for whom time was on his side.

So far in training camp, he's reportedly taken most of the snaps with the first team, which may be a sign the Vikings are trying to prepare him to take Favre's place. Too little too late?

I'm inclined to think the Vikings will pay a price for rolling the dice on Favre last season and will slip from the lofty 12–4 regular–season record (and relatively easy 5–1 mark in their division) they had last year.

If Favre calls it quits, I look for the NFC North to be more competitive in 2010.

Chasing 600

---

---

It's ironic, isn't it?

Baseball media has been holding its collective breath — when it wasn't temporarily distracted by the impending trade deadline — waiting for Alex Rodriguez, nicknamed "A–Rod" in the fashion of the day and then dubbed "Pay–Rod" for his relentless pursuit of ever larger paychecks, to join the 600 Home Run Club for ... how long?

To be honest, I've lost track of how long he's been stuck on 599 home runs. And, actually, it's kind of a relief to me that it's been taking him this long to break that barrier.

It sort of revives my faith in what Annie called the "church of baseball" in the movie "Bull Durham."

In an odd way, it's kind of a confirmation that baseball is finding its way out of the steroids wilderness. When steroids fever was really raging in major league baseball, Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa seemed to be hitting at least one home run each on a daily basis. They didn't, but it seemed that way.

It's not that way now, though, is it? If you're looking for evidence that performance–enhancing drugs are being purged from baseball before you decide you can worship at its altar again, the evidence may be right there before your eyes, on the field, where pitching seems to be staging a comeback and the stratospheric hitting numbers we were seeing as recently as three or four years ago appear to be declining. The natural order is being restored.

Anyway, home runs seem to be harder to come by — which means, I guess, that things are becoming more the way they used to be and less the way they were just a few years ago.

About a week ago, I was reading that there was considerable optimism among longtime sportswriters that A–Rod would swat No. 600 during a series against Kansas City — especially since the guy who served up his 500th homer was scheduled to pitch.

But that series came and went, and we're still waiting for A–Rod to join the 600 Club.

The fact that A–Rod has not hit his 600th homer with the routine ease of the first 599 may not be good news for him — like anyone approaching what has long been regarded as an historic milestone, the pressure will build the longer it takes him to get there — but, for those of us who believe (and, I think, most of us do) that steroids have cheapened what were once respected athletic achievements, this may be a sign that we are on the cusp of a great era in baseball (and, perhaps, other sports as well) that could rival the days when Hank Aaron and Willie Mays electrified fans with long balls that were the products of hard work, not chemicals.

Since his major league career began in 1994, A–Rod has often been called one of the best all–around baseball players of all time — which, to me, really seems like an oxymoron for someone who started as a shortstop. I mean, when I was growing up, major league shortstops were great athletes — swift, sure–handed, talented in many ways — but rarely were they power hitters.

Power hitters were Bunyanesque figures who were usually seen playing in the outfield. Sure, they needed speed to chase down fly balls, but they also needed considerable arm strength and accuracy for making throws to infielders.

If power hitters played the infield, they were usually at the corners, at first and third, or behind the plate, where they usually didn't have to do much running. Middle infielders, the shortstops and second basemen, needed catlike reflexes, because they were the anchors of a team's defense. They might have to dive in almost any direction with less than a split second's notice in order to snag a liner or stop a grounder, then leap to their feet and make a throw to catch a runner off base — and they frequently did so off balance.

They were graceful, with the moves and stamina of ballet dancers. They weren't expected to hit home runs, and most of them didn't.

I guess that is what I have always liked about baseball. I mean, there are times when a baseball game can be so pedestrian that it can put you to sleep, but baseball has always been an equal opportunity sport. Other sports demanded that you be at least a certain height or a certain weight or able to run a certain distance in a certain time before you could play, but baseball took what you brought to the table and found a place for you.

Sometimes, you hear football fans speak wistfully of the old–timers who used to play offense and defense. To hear them talk, one could easily conclude that it was normal in those days for people to "play both sides," but the guys who did were always the exception to the rule, even then. The truth is that almost no one can excel at both offense and defense in any sport. And baseball has always been better than other sports at using specialization as an excuse for a player's shortcomings.

Pitchers, for example, have long been excused from the responsibility of batting because they needed to focus on their pitching. Thus, it has been noteworthy when a pitcher has been able to contribute at the plate as well.

It's also noteworthy that the phrase "power hitter" — perhaps not in all usages but certainly in the context of hitting home runs — is relatively new, given that records have been kept in baseball since the 19th century.

When my parents were children, only one man in the history of baseball — Babe Ruth — had hit 600 (or more) home runs in a major league career.

And he remained the only member of the so–called 600 Home Run Club for more than two decades after his death. For years, the men who followed him immediately on baseball's all–time home run list had half as many homers as Ruth did — if that many.

Most of the fans of Ruth's day probably believed his career home run total was untouchable. And students of the game will give you several good reasons why they would have believed that — there were fewer teams so the talent wasn't as diluted as it is now; ballparks in the first half of the 20th century were much larger than the ballparks that replaced them; the regular season was shorter.

Those are valid reasons, but expansion and smaller ballparks and longer schedules can't completely explain why other guys, like Joe DiMaggio, Mickey Mantle, Ted Williams, Frank Robinson, Mike Schmidt, Willie McCovey and Ernie Banks, never reached that 600–home run plateau.

Nevertheless, when I was in my youth, two players — Mays and Aaron — joined the most exclusive club in sports. And, in 1974, Aaron caught Ruth and surpassed him on the all–time list.

Then things got sort of quiet. No one joined the 600–homer fraternity until nearly three decades after Aaron replaced Ruth as baseball's home run king. But in the last couple of decades, the pace has picked up considerably, and steroids certainly seems to have played a major role in that.

First, Barry Bonds hit his 600th home run in 2002, then Sammy Sosa did it in 2007. And then Ken Griffey Jr. did it in 2008.

And now that club, which for decades consisted of only one member, has six members, three of whom have joined since 2002. When A–Rod hits his next homer, whenever that may be, there will be four new members since 2002.

What's more, there may well be further additions to the club in the years ahead. Minnesota designated hitter Jim Thome needs 23 to reach 600. He's 39 so he might not make it — but many DHs keep playing into their 40s. The Dodgers' Manny Ramirez, who needs 46 homers to reach 600, is a year younger than Thome, but since he plays in the National League, that means he must field as well as hit. That puts more wear and tear on his body; consequently, his career could easily end before Thome's does.

Free agent Gary Sheffield is just barely past 500 home runs. At the age of 41, it seems unlikely that he will find a place to play, so he seems like an unrealistic prospect for 600.

But if steroid use was still unchecked in baseball, you could expect a virtual stampede (by historical standards) of new members of the 600 Club in the coming years. And, I suspect, it would lose what is left of its significance.

If that had come to pass, would baseball still celebrate a player's 600th home run the way it has been poised to do for A–Rod? Or would 700 be the new 600? The 700–Homer Club, after all, is still exclusive, with only three members.

Well, for now, it is still an impressive achievement to hit 600 home runs or more in a major league baseball career. But the shadow of steroids hangs over those who have reached that milestone in the 21st century — including A–Rod — and many fans will always wonder how many of those home runs were the result of the use of performance–enhancing drugs.

Does it seem that I am gloating over the prolonged wait for A–Rod's 600th tater? That is not my intention. Believe me, it isn't. Not really.

Oh, sure, there's that anti–Yankee thing, but just about every baseball fan (except, of course, for Yankee fans) is anti–Yankees.

And there's a certain amount of anti–A–Rod stuff going on, but I'm not anti–A–Rod, not even with all the money he gets to play ball. He's signed contracts with three different clubs in his career, and each new one was willing to give him more money than the one before. If a team is willing to pay that kind of money, a player would be a fool to pass it up.

What's more, it seems to me that to turn down such an offer would have been a betrayal of all the baseball players who were virtual slaves before Curt Flood challenged the reserve clause in the 1970s and launched free agency.

There's even some residual resentment for inactive players like Bonds, who was never particularly popular with most fans, and Jose Canseco, who has admitted to extensive steroids use, fueling a certain bitterness that gets transferred to others.

But I don't feel that way about A–Rod. Sure, there have been times when I have been sympathetic to those who have called him "A–Fraud," largely because his enormous reservoir of talent has seldom led a team to a championship.

No, I don't hold it against him that he's getting all that money. Personally, I think many of the complaints about A–Rod's contract stem from nothing more than jealousy. After all, who wouldn't like to get that kind of money for doing whatever it is that they do well?

And I can understand how fans can feel betrayed when so much is invested in a player and so little return is seen. But it doesn't seem fair to me to blame one player, no matter how talented he may be, for not dragging his teammates to a title. Baseball really is a team sport.

But neither do I think that it's a tragedy that he's been mired at 599. Home runs are exciting to watch (although I knew a guy who asserted that a triple was actually the most exciting play to watch in baseball — and, from a dramatic perspective, I have to admit he was probably right), but they've always been part of the game. Not all of it.

Slumps, it should be remembered, have always been part of the game, too. Just because the man is on the brink of an accomplishment that only seven others in baseball's long history could claim doesn't mean it should be handed to him. And it hasn't been.

A–Rod was the youngest man to hit his 500th career major league homer. Unless this dry spell goes on much longer than anyone believes it will, he is likely to be the youngest man ever to hit his 600th homer as well.

And, after he retires, few will remember that he struggled to get his 600th dinger.

But, in the long run, baseball may be better off because he did.