Football Is Back!

College football returns tonight, and I am so ready.

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

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

Thursday

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

Friday

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

Saturday

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

Sunday

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

The Consensus Grows: Pete Rose Deserves His Shot at Cooperstown

---

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And he appears to be at peace with that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enough is enough.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree.

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

The Cheshire Cat Strikes Olympic Gold

---

---

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

So the Games were noteworthy for who was not there.

But it was also noteworthy for who was there.

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

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

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

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

---

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

And she was only 16 years old.

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

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

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

A Memorable Victory

---

---

I'm not a soccer fan. Really. I've been writing this blog for about six years now, and I believe this is only my second entry about soccer. Here is my first — written four years ago. Not too complimentary, is it?

One of my complaints then (as now) was the randomness — and infrequency — of scoring in soccer. If you watched the Germans score seven goals on Brazil in their historic World Cup semifinal, that might be hard to comprehend — although you really don't have to look any farther than the other semifinal, in which Argentina and the Netherlands fought through a scoreless match that was finally won by Argentina in the penalty shootout.

That is the kind of match that comes to my mind when I think of soccer, and it just doesn't appeal to me.

But today is the 15th anniversary of a soccer milestone that I just feel compelled to observe — even though it, too, was quite light on scoring. On this day in 1999, the U.S. women's soccer team won the World Cup. They won the World Cup in 1991, too, but they finished third in 1995. Norway won it that year.

Sixteen teams competed for the 1999 Women's World Cup. When the United States and China met for the championship in the Rose Bowl, more than 90,000 people were there to watch.

It was the highest attendance ever for a women's sports event.

The match went all the way through regulation and two overtimes with neither team scoring a goal so it went to a penalty shootout. On the fifth kick, 30–year–old Brandi Chastain scored to give the United States the victory.

Chastain spontaneously pulled off her jersey — as victorious male soccer players have been known to do — and, clad in a sports bra, waved her jersey in her clenched right fist.

"Momentary insanity, nothing more, nothing less," Chastain explained later. "I wasn't thinking about anything. I thought, 'This is the greatest moment of my life on the soccer field.'"

The image, which landed on the covers of several magazines, is regarded by many as one of the best–known images of a woman celebrating a sports victory.

Early on, 33–year–old Michelle Akers kept the United States in the game by blocking nearly every shot that came her way, but she and the U.S. goalkeeper collided late in regulation, and she had to leave the match.

After two scoreless overtimes, it came down to the penalty shootout, which the U.S. won on Chastain's goal.

As I mentioned four years ago, I'm just not a fan of soccer — and I didn't see the U.S.–China match. July 10 was a Saturday in 1999 so I suppose I could have. I just didn't. I don't remember why.

But I do remember seeing highlights of the match, and Chastain ripping off her jersey in exultation.

The United States has not won the World Cup since.

The Luckiest Man on the Face of the Earth

---

---

"Fans, for the past two weeks you have been reading about a bad break I got. Yet today, I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of the earth. I have been in ballparks for 17 years, and I have never received anything but kindness and encouragement from you fans. Look at these grand men. Which of you wouldn't consider it the highlight of his career just to associate with them for even one day?"

Lou Gehrig
July 4, 1939

---

Seventy–five years ago today, Lou Gehrig delivered what may be the most famous farewell address in history.

For sure, it's the most famous farewell address in sports history.

Diagnosed less than a month earlier with the incurable disease that took his life and now informally bears his name, Gehrig was the subject of a July 4 tribute at Yankee Stadium. New York played a doubleheader with the Washington Senators that day, losing the first game and winning the second.

Between games, Gehrig was honored with "perhaps as colorful and dramatic a pageant as ever was enacted on a baseball field," reported the New York Times. He was reunited with the legendary '27 Yankees, also known as "Murderer's Row," including Babe Ruth.

It was an emotional occasion for everyone.

Yankees manager Joe McCarthy said Gehrig was "the finest example of a ballplayer, sportsman and citizen that baseball has ever known." Openly emotional, McCarthy turned to Gehrig and said, "Lou, what else can I say except that it was a sad day in the life of everybody who knew you when you came into my hotel room that day in Detroit and told me you were quitting as a ballplayer because you felt yourself a hindrance to the team. My God, man, you were never that."

---

---

And, in return, Gehrig gave baseball a moment to savor. Appropriately, the Yankees' publicist recently told USA Today it is "baseball's Gettysburg Address."

"I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of the earth," he said, and he meant it. He knew he had been given a "bad break," but he practically bubbled over with gratitude for his career and the people in his life.

"I've got an awful lot to live for," he said. And he meant that, too.

It's hard not to admire a guy like that.

Pitcher Bob Welch Dies at 57

---

---

Imagine being 21 years old, a rookie pitcher playing for the Los Angeles Dodgers, and you're in the World Series against the New York Yankees.

That was the situation in which Bob Welch found himself on the night of Wednesday, Oct. 11, 1978, when he came in to close out a 4–3 victory for Los Angeles. Starter Burt Hooton had gone six innings and staked the Dodgers to a one–run lead when he left; then reliever Terry Forster pitched 2⅓ solid innings but left after serving up a single and a walk in the ninth.

In came Welch.

In front of more than 55,000 fans in Dodger Stadium — and millions more watching on TV — Welch nailed down the save. He got Thurman Munson to fly out to right, then won an epic showdown with future Hall of Famer Reggie Jackson. Jackson had driven in all of the Yankees' runs that night, and he came to the plate with two outs and runners at first and second.

This was at the time, it should be noted, that Jackson was gaining his reputation as "Mister October." A year earlier, he hit three consecutive home runs to lift the Yankees to their World Series–clinching triumph over those same Dodgers and won the series MVP in the process.

He could have evened the game with a well–hit ball, but the young Welch gunned him down. Jackson struck out swinging, and Welch had preserved the victory for the Dodgers.

Los Angeles would lose the next four games — and the Series — to the Yankees.

The Dodgers ended up trading Welch to Oakland following the 1987 season. The A's faced the Dodgers in the World Series in 1988, and Welch pitched in the only game Oakland won. He didn't get the win — another ex–Dodger, Rick Honeycutt, got the win in relief after Mark McGwire hit a one–out home run in the eighth.

A couple of years later, Welch won the Cy Young Award. He won 27 games that year and remains the last pitcher to win 25 games or more in a single season.

Welch died yesterday at the age of 57. At this point, his cause of death remains undisclosed.

No Triple Crown. Again.

---

---

Once again, horse racing enthusiasts were disappointed by the Belmont.

It's frustrating, this 36–year drought — the longest dry spell ever since the last Triple Crown winner. If you're 40 years old, you weren't even in grade school yet when Affirmed claimed the last Triple Crown — you probably had not even been born when Secretariat ended a then–record 25–year drought in the Triple Crown.

It's so frustrating that Steve Coburn, owner of California Chrome, the latest Triple Crown hopeful to falter in the Belmont, called the owner and trainer of the winner (Tonalist) "cowards" for not running their horse in all three Triple Crown races, as he had done.

That's been an issue with the Triple Crown for a long time. To win the Triple Crown, a horse must win three races in three different states within five weeks' time. The winner of the Kentucky Derby is not compelled to run in the Preakness two weeks later. And, if a horse wins both of those races, he is not compelled to run in the Belmont, either.

But the lure of the Triple Crown almost always brings 'em.

I wouldn't call myself an expert on horse racing, but there are a few things I know, mostly from trying to fall back on my training as a journalist and listening to what others (most of whom are experts) have to say — and most trainers say they prefer to give a horse five weeks (at least) between races. Usually, they will lean more toward six or seven weeks.

Three races in five weeks is an unbelievably grueling pace in horse racing. If that is still hard for you to understand, look at it this way.

We live in an age of sports specialization. In my father's day, there were lots of guys who played both offense and defense in football; I don't know if I can recall such a two–way player in my lifetime. Maybe there has been one, possibly two, probably born more of necessity than of skill.

When I was a boy, it wasn't unusual for pitchers to go the distance in baseball. There were a couple of relievers on most staffs in case the starter really got into trouble. Now, teams have staffs of relievers who have been trained to come in and give an inning or two before giving the ball to the closer. If a starter goes longer than six innings, he's probably pitching a no–hitter — and most likely will be yanked the minute a player from the other team gets on base.

Asking a horse to run in — and win — three races in 35 days is like asking a pitcher to throw three complete games in the space of a week.

That's why winning a Triple Crown is such an impressive accomplishment. Well, it is part of the reason.

The other part is what we saw on Saturday.

The Belmont is longer than either the Kentucky Derby (1¼ miles) or the Preakness (1 3/16 miles). The first two races are much shorter than the Belmont (1½ miles), which is justifiably called the "Test of the Champion." To win the first two races, a horse must possess speed. To win the Belmont, a horse must possess endurance.

Few horses possess both. It takes a special horse to win a Triple Crown. Only 11 horses have done it since 1875, the first year that all three races were run.

Secretariat was the greatest horse I ever saw, but there were those who questioned whether he could win a long race like the Belmont. His answer was a 31–length victory. Now that is a horse that combines speed and endurance.

Some people say a Triple Crown can't be won again. I say it can. I just can't say when.

Coburn has apologized for his outburst.

And he was right — to an extent. It isn't fair that a rested horse like Tonalist (or Commissioner, the second–place finisher) can run against a horse that has run in the Derby and the Preakness — but it happens nearly every year.

For that matter, Coburn didn't have to enter California Chrome in the Preakness and the Belmont, but he did. That was his choice.

That was his gamble — and it didn't pay off.

If you've ever placed a bet at a race track that didn't pay off, you might know how he felt — except that he didn't lose a mere $2 wager. He lost what may be his only chance to win a Triple Crown.

I understand that he felt it was unfair that Tonalist was able to get the rest Coburn's trainer believes is essential for a horse to give his best performance — while California Chrome was running not one but two races.

But that is the special challenge of the Triple Crown, isn't it? Most horses can't do it.

On the Eve of History?

It is the night before the Belmont.

California Chrome apparently is still scheduled to run for a Triple Crown tomorrow — unlike the last horse to win the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness, I'll Have Another, yanked at the last minute, to the frustration of horse racing fans.

I'll admit it. I would like to see a Triple Crown winner — not the way some folks do, the ones who say they want to see one more Triple Crown winner before they die, but because I think it would be good for horse racing. And I like horse racing.

Forty years ago, the great Secretariat ended a 25–year Triple Crown drought. He breathed new life into his sport, and there were two more Triple Crown winners (and nearly a third) before the decade ended. The drought is much longer this time, and California Chrome is the 13th horse to win the first two jewels of the Triple Crown since Affirmed won the last Triple Crown in 1978.

It has been noted often that attendance at America's tracks has been declining for years — and suggested that even a Triple Crown winner won't be enough to bring those patrons back. The longer fans stay away, the harder it is to bring them back. It isn't impossible, as baseball demonstrated after a strike wiped out the 1994 World Series, but it is difficult to achieve.

Maybe too much time has passed. That happens in sports — and in life. There are windows of opportunity; when they slam shut, it is awfully difficult to open them again. Baseball was fortunate to have two charismatic players, Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa, dueling to set a single–season home run record in 1998. Their battle brought fans back to the ballparks, but attendance had been down in the years since the strike.

I have often wondered if baseball had reached a critical point when the McGwire–Sosa home run race captured the public's imagination. If the McGwire–Sosa duel had not materialized, would baseball have remained America's pastime?

Team sports are different from individual sports, though, and a horse is, after all, an animal, not a person who may be able to use his charisma to get back in the public's good graces. Animals have no real charisma — at least none of which they are aware, just the charisma that is generated by a picture or video.

I don't know if winning a Triple Crown can reverse horse racing's fortunes. I get the feeling, though, that, with California Chrome, I have seen this before, and I really expect to see the same kind of outcome tomorrow as we have seen nearly a dozen times since 1978.

This is how it generally seems to play out. A horse wins the Kentucky Derby (OK, that happens every year; nothing special about that, right?), but there are doubts about the horse that persist until he wins the Preakness two weeks later. Most of the time, the Preakness win is convincing enough that the questions about the horse disappear, and momentum for the two–time winner starts to build.

The horse looks great in training and is greeted with lots of hesitant–yet–hopeful hype when he arrives in New York. Now, that kind of attention has been known to turn many an athlete's head. But an animal doesn't have human emotions and can't feel the pressure of high expectations. As time passes, the conventional wisdom becomes the horse is a lock to win. Confidence begets overconfidence; overconfidence begets a belief that it will be different this time.

But it never is.

There are all kinds of ways for this to happen. I thought I had seen them all — until I'll Have Another was pulled out the day before the Belmont in 2012. When that happened, I figured that I hadn't seen them all.

It could be a repeat of something we've seen before. Smarty Jones faded in the stretch in 2004. War Emblem broke badly in 2002 and never recovered. In 1998, Real Quiet looked like he would win it, then lost at the wire. Big Brown, so dominating in the first two races in 2008, was eased out of the money in the third.

Or it might be something new — or, at least, something we have not seen in a long time.

So, in spite of all the enthusiasm about California Chrome, put me down as skeptical.

Perhaps I am wrong. Frankly, I hope I am. It would be nice to see a Triple Crown winner. And I am sincere when I say it would be good for horse racing. I do believe that.

Well, we'll find out in 24 hours.

By the way, if you're looking for something to kill some time between now and post time, USA Today reprinted a Belmont Stakes horse name generator that apparently originated in the Reno Gazette–Journal.

Give it whirl. My Belmont Stakes horse's name was Reno Prince.

There's No Such Thing as a Sure Thing

---

---

When I worked on a sports copy desk in Little Rock, I became friends with the sportswriter who covered horse racing for us.

I learned a lot from him. I remember most of the things he told me, and I will never forget what may have been the most important thing he told me: There is no such thing as a sure thing. That's why they call it gambling.

In a week and a half, California Chrome will become the 12th horse to enter the Belmont Stakes with a chance to win the Triple Crown since Affirmed became the most recent Triple Crown winner in 1978. (Well, I presume he will run in the Belmont. He might not have if he hadn't been permitted to wear the nasal strip that helped him breathe easier in the first two races — and he still might not compete. I guess we won't know for sure until the Belmont is run on June 7.)

Obviously, we've been here before — and, just as obviously, success in the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness does not mean success in the Belmont Stakes.

It's a point every Triple Crown winner must reach en route to achieving the goal, of course, and 11 horses have won all three races for 3–year–old thoroughbreds that comprise it.

That's 11 Triple Crown winners in 95 years — since Sir Barton won the first Triple Crown back in 1919. But we's have had that many horses win the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness and fail to win the Belmont since Affirmed's Triple Crown in 1978 — starting with Spectacular Bid in 1979.

There had never been three consecutive Triple Crown winners when Spectacular Bid ran in the Belmont, but, if Spectacular Bid had won that race, it would have made three straight Triple Crown winners.

On the morning of the 1979 Belmont, it was discovered that Spectacular Bid had stepped on a safety pin, and it was lodged in his hoof. He didn't appear to be lame, though, so he was allowed to run the race, and he appeared to be doing well, holding the lead at the midway point. However, he began to falter and finished third.

---

---

Since then, 10 other horses have won the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness but failed to win the Belmont — and it might have been 11, but we'll never know. I'll Have Another won the first two races in 2012 but did not run in the Belmont.

Winning the first two races and losing the third wasn't a new thing in 1979. In the years before Spectacular Bid's Triple Crown attempt, eight other horses won the first two races but came up short in the third and last one. But it has been happening with greater frequency in the last 35 years.

Why is that? Well, I could be wrong, but I think it is because of the age of specialization that permeates sports these days.

Take baseball, for example. When I was growing up, it wasn't uncommon for a pitcher to throw a complete game. In fact, it was routinely expected that starting pitchers would go the distance — and relievers were called upon only when things got out of hand.

Now, baseball teams carry staffs of relief specialists who are called on (ideally) when the starter has gone six or seven innings, long enough to receive credit for the win, starting with the middle reliever and (again, ideally) proceeding to the closer.

I don't breed horses, but I gather — from my own observations and comments from those whose evaluations on such things I trust — that horses are bred for either speed or endurance, not both. To a degree, I suppose it has always been that way; I have always heard certain horses referred to as speed horses and other horses referred to as endurance horses.

I've heard some people suggest that, based on the times of the first two races, California Chrome is an endurance horse. I'm not sure about that. These assessments are made on the basis of times that differ by fifths of seconds. Sports are often described as being games of inches, though, so judging distances by fifths of seconds may not be all that different. I'm just not entirely sure it is the way to differentiate between a speed horse and an endurance horse.

Essentially, I suppose, a horse that can win all three races of the Triple Crown is both.

They call the Belmont the "test of the champion," and it really is. It is the longest of the three races by at least a quarter of a mile, thus emphasizing endurance over speed. If a horse can win the Triple Crown, he really has proven himself as an all–around champion.

In an interesting piece in The Atlantic last week, Henry Fetter wrote that even a Triple Crown winner won't be enough to save horse racing.

"[H]oping that a Triple Crown for California Chrome can jump–start a turnaround in the fortunes of the erstwhile sport of kings is almost certainly a hope too far," Fetter wrote.

I hope he's wrong.

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.