By Bob Markus
Whenever I make a new acquaintance I wait until asked what I did in my previous life. I used to respond: "I was a journalist," but that sounds a little pretentious and there are those who wonder whether a sports writer is a real journalist. Many who think that way are "real" journalists who disparage sports writers as members of the toy department. In truth, however, the best writers on most newspapers can be found right there amid the Tinker Toys and electric trains. Was there a better writer on the Los Angeles Times than the late Jim Murray? Red Smith could outwrite any "real" journalist at the New York Times with one hand tied behind his typewriter. As for the Chicago Tribune, where I worked for more than 36 years, I leave that judgment to others. But in my heart I knew I could write with anyone else on the paper.
So, in later years when asked the inevitable question I would answer, "I was a sports writer," an answer which, in addition to being less pretentious, was a good deal more specific. The usual followup question was, "what sport did you cover?" The answer I usually gave was: "All of them." While that was, strictly speaking, not true--I never covered badminton or shuffleboard, although I did once write a column about a shuffleboard game--I doubt if any other writer ever covered more fulltime beats than I did for The Tribune. Oddly enough, my first fulltime assignment was as a columnist. That was almost unheard of at the time, the usual progression being from beat writer, most often the baseball beat writer, to columnist. I didn't expect it at the time, but I was destined to reverse the process. When you start out on top the only direction to go is down. I didn't start out as a sports columnist, of course. I had been on The Tribune for seven years before that happened. Like everyone else, at that time, I started out in Neighborhood News, which produced weekly zoned sections and served as the paper's training ground. I was there, reading copy, for about six months when an opening came up on the sports desk. Although I was last in seniority on the copy desk, the other copy readers were all "real" journalists and wanted no part of the toy department. For me it was the dream job. When I took it, I was told by sports editor Wilfrid Smith that I would be, as Alabama Governor George Wallace might have put it, "a copy reader today, a copy reader tomorrow, a copy reader forever." That turned out to be about as prophetic as Wallace's "segregation today, segregation tomorrow, etc."
Although the paper had a large stable of sports writers, at least enough to cover every major beat and some not so major, from time to time there would come an event that needed coverage and no staff writer was available. Then one of the rim men on the copy desk would be given the assignment. For instance, there was at the time no pro basketball team in Chicago, the Stags having folded and the American Gears, led by George Mikan, moved to Minnesota as the Lakers. Then, all of a sudden, there were two pro teams in Chicago and nobody to cover them. George Strickler, the assistant sports editor at the time and eventual successor to Smith, solved the problem by doling out home games to the copy desk slaves. Strickler, a pro football man (and the Notre Dame publicist who came up with the idea of taking a picture of the Four Horsemen mounted on horseback), hated basketball with a passion. His usual method of assigning someone to a pro basketball game would be to say: "Markus, go out to The Amphitheater and cover the short-pantsed bastards." You'd be given six or at the most seven paragraphs to tell the story.
There was a good deal of competition and even animosity among the desk men, most of whom wanted to be writers. I was gradually given more assignments, occasionally filling in for the baseball beat men and, since The Tribune covered every Big Ten team in football, I worked my way into the rotation to the point where, by my fifth year at the paper, I covered a game every Saturday. My biggest break came in the week before the 1966 Notre Dame-Michigan State "Game of the Century," the one that ended in a 10-10 tie. I was not expecting to be a part of the coverage and was sitting on the rim of the copy desk on Monday or Tuesday when Strickler came out of his office and told me: "Dave Condon's supposed to be at Michigan State, but we can't find him. Go home and pack a bag and get to East Lansing." Condon, the sports department's lone columnist, had attended a Muhammad Ali fight in Houston and hadn't been heard from since.
The only thing I can remember about that week was that Spartan Coach Duffy Daugherty, at one of his daily press conferences, sang a ditty called:"My Sister's a Mule in the Mines." My game day assignment was the Michigan State locker room, but the story was in the Notre Dame locker room where Ara Parseghian attempted to explain why he'd run out the final minute and accepted the 10-10 tie. I did not write a memorable story out of the Spartans' locker room and, in fact, I was disappointed in myself. But on Monday afternoon Strickler called me into his office and informed me that The Tribune was breaking its long standing trdition of having a lone sports columnist and that I was going to write the second column. So now you know how I got the column and maybe in a future blog I'll tell you how I lost it. Meanwhile, getting back to the main topic, my subsequent assignments included: Beat writer for the Cubs and White Sox. Backup writer for the Bears. Beat writer for DePaul basketball in Ray Meyer's last year and Joey Meyer's first. Beat writer for Notre Dame basketball. Ditto for Northwestern. Beat writer for Illinois football and basketball. National college sports--football and basketball--writer. And, finally, Black Hawks beat writer. During the entirety of my stay, except when another beat precluded it, I was the auto racing writer and also covered my share of big fights, including Ali-Frazier I and Sugar Ray Leonard vs. Roberto Duran in Montreal. About eight months after being told I was no longer a columnist, I was assigned to the Ali-Leon Spinks rematch in New Orleans. David Israel, the guy who took my place as columnist, also was assigned to the fight and on our first night in New Orleans we had dinner together and ended up at one of the Bourbon Street joints, drinking Sazeracs. It was somewhere between drinks No. 3 and 4, that Israel, who was, I believe, 26 years old at the time, confided that he didn't intend to stay long at The Tribune. "I may go to law school," he said. I could have used a good lawyer about then because I could barely restrain the urge to strangle him.
-30-
Note to readers: No blog next week in honor of daughter Trish's visit. See you in two weeks.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
By Bob Markus
Picking a Heisman trophy winner has always been a little bit like going truffle hunting with a pig or panning for gold. The pig may turn up a few of the expensive delicacies and the gold panner may flush out a few nuggets of precious ore, but don't count on it. There is no defined criterion for choosing a Heisman trophy winner, so each elector must use his own set of standards. some look at gaudy numbers and exclaim: That's my boy. Others look to the top ranked team, single out its best player, and pronounce: You da man. Others still look at the award as a sort of national MVP. Which player meant the most to his team?
I had a Heisman vote for a few years when college sports was my fulltime beat at the Chicago Tribune. I took the job seriously and was seriously upset on the few occasions when I felt a gross injustice had been committed. One of those came in 1987 when Notre Dame's Tim Brown was the winner. Brown was the last of the seven Fighting Irish Heisman winners and a case could be made that only one or two of them deserved it. Brown averaged nearly 22 yards a catch for the 8-4 Irish that year, so I'd have to say he was Heisman worthy. But not in that year. That was the year that Don McPherson led Syracuse to a perfect 11-0 regular season, only the second undefeated season in the Orangemen's history. To me, McPherson was the embodiment of what the Heisman is all about. I voted for him, gave my third place vote to Gordie Lockbaum, the two-way star from Holy Cross, and, though I can't really remember, probably gave my runner-up vote to Brown. Lockbaum was a great story, a Galahad of the gridiron whose main virtue was his virtue.
A few years later I got another chance to sulk when the man I voted for not only didn't win, but finished seventh in the voting. That was Jeff Blake, the quarterback from East Carolina, which lost its opening game to Illinois, then ran the table, winning 11 in a row, including its 37-34 win over North Carolina State in the Peach bowl. Blake was a one-man highlight reel that autumn, turning up almost every Saturday night on the postgame score shows, performing yet another miracle. Mine was one of only seven first place votes he received. Michigan's Desmond Howard was the winner.
It's difficult of course for a player to emerge from almost total obscurity to the Heisman in a single season. Unless, of course, you play for Notre Dame (see John Huarte, 1964, a year that included the likes of Dick Butkus and Gale Sayers, who didn't even crack the top 10). The history of the prized statuette is replete with players who sort of sneaked up on the honor, gaining a spot on the ballot for a year or two before winning. Even Army's great Glenn Davis finished second twice before finally winning it in his final year. Doak Walker was third the year before he won as was Johnny Lujack, the one Irish player who undoubtedly deserved the honor in 1947, although Walker, Charlie Conerly, Bobby Layne and Chuck Bednarik were among the future pro stars who also played that year. Of the five, Lujack probably had the least productive pro career, but then, the Heisman is not meant to be a predictor of NFL potential. In fact, going back to Ricky Williams in 1998, only Carson Palmer, the Cincinnati Bengals quarterback, has had a solid pro career after winning the Heisman. The jury is still out on Reggie Bush.
Of all the Heisman trophies that have been presented since Chicago's Jay Berwanger won the first one in 1935, the one that has me most puzzled was the one given to Paul Hornung in 1956. Hornung became a Hall of Fame running back with the Green Bay Packers and also a friend, so I hope he'll forgive me for saying this. But Hornung was the quarterback of a Notre Dame team that finished 2 and 8. Runner-up Johnny Majors starred for a 10-1 Tennessee team and a guy named Jim Brown was finishing his college career at Syracuse.
I no longer, of course, have anything to do with voting for the Heisman, although I probably have about as good a handle on it as the current writers, since they see only one game a week and I can see a dozen of them, or parts thereof, on any given Saturday. When this season began, it appeared pretty certain that the trophy would go to one of the three players who finished one-two-three last year--Oklahoma's Sam Bradford, Texas' Colt McCoy, and Florida's Tim Tebow. Bradford didn't even make it out of the starting gate before his season imploded with an opening game injury. McCoy and Tebow are still alive since their teams are unbeaten and figure to meet for the national championship. But neither has had the kind of season they anticipated. Tebow admits his performance is down from the last two years and nine interceptions thrown by McCoy speak for themselves.
According to an ESPN poll of 15 experts, the current leader is Alabama running back Mark Ingram, who drew 10 of the 15 first place votes. Kellen Moore, the quarterback of unbeaten and unappreciated Boise State got two votes, while Tebow, McCoy, and Houston's Case Keenum got the other three votes. Keenum, the Houston quarterback, has piled up some unreal numbers for the 8-1 Cougars. In his last two games alone he's thrown for close to 1,100 yards and eight touchdowns. He has 28 touchdown passes for the season. Almost matching that is Boise State's Moore with 27 touchdown passes and only three interceptions.
I admit I haven't seen too much of Alabama's Ingram and I suspect he is a candidate because someone on the Crimson Tide offense has to be partly responsible for the defense-oriented team's unbeaten record. Talent-wise, receiver Julio Jones should be the man, but he has underachieved for the most part this year. As for my own choice, I think I'm going to surprise you. After all my Notre Dame bashing, if I had a Heisman vote I think I'd spend it on Irish quarterback Jimmy Clausen. The Irish may be struggling a bit, but without Clausen (and his marvelous receiver Golden Tate) the Irish could be 1-8 and there would be no speculation about Coach Charlie Weis' fate. Clausen has repeatedly brought the Irish from behind and four of their victories and all three defeats have been by seven points or less. I'd probably vote Keenum second and Moore third. But that's just me. What do you think?
Picking a Heisman trophy winner has always been a little bit like going truffle hunting with a pig or panning for gold. The pig may turn up a few of the expensive delicacies and the gold panner may flush out a few nuggets of precious ore, but don't count on it. There is no defined criterion for choosing a Heisman trophy winner, so each elector must use his own set of standards. some look at gaudy numbers and exclaim: That's my boy. Others look to the top ranked team, single out its best player, and pronounce: You da man. Others still look at the award as a sort of national MVP. Which player meant the most to his team?
I had a Heisman vote for a few years when college sports was my fulltime beat at the Chicago Tribune. I took the job seriously and was seriously upset on the few occasions when I felt a gross injustice had been committed. One of those came in 1987 when Notre Dame's Tim Brown was the winner. Brown was the last of the seven Fighting Irish Heisman winners and a case could be made that only one or two of them deserved it. Brown averaged nearly 22 yards a catch for the 8-4 Irish that year, so I'd have to say he was Heisman worthy. But not in that year. That was the year that Don McPherson led Syracuse to a perfect 11-0 regular season, only the second undefeated season in the Orangemen's history. To me, McPherson was the embodiment of what the Heisman is all about. I voted for him, gave my third place vote to Gordie Lockbaum, the two-way star from Holy Cross, and, though I can't really remember, probably gave my runner-up vote to Brown. Lockbaum was a great story, a Galahad of the gridiron whose main virtue was his virtue.
A few years later I got another chance to sulk when the man I voted for not only didn't win, but finished seventh in the voting. That was Jeff Blake, the quarterback from East Carolina, which lost its opening game to Illinois, then ran the table, winning 11 in a row, including its 37-34 win over North Carolina State in the Peach bowl. Blake was a one-man highlight reel that autumn, turning up almost every Saturday night on the postgame score shows, performing yet another miracle. Mine was one of only seven first place votes he received. Michigan's Desmond Howard was the winner.
It's difficult of course for a player to emerge from almost total obscurity to the Heisman in a single season. Unless, of course, you play for Notre Dame (see John Huarte, 1964, a year that included the likes of Dick Butkus and Gale Sayers, who didn't even crack the top 10). The history of the prized statuette is replete with players who sort of sneaked up on the honor, gaining a spot on the ballot for a year or two before winning. Even Army's great Glenn Davis finished second twice before finally winning it in his final year. Doak Walker was third the year before he won as was Johnny Lujack, the one Irish player who undoubtedly deserved the honor in 1947, although Walker, Charlie Conerly, Bobby Layne and Chuck Bednarik were among the future pro stars who also played that year. Of the five, Lujack probably had the least productive pro career, but then, the Heisman is not meant to be a predictor of NFL potential. In fact, going back to Ricky Williams in 1998, only Carson Palmer, the Cincinnati Bengals quarterback, has had a solid pro career after winning the Heisman. The jury is still out on Reggie Bush.
Of all the Heisman trophies that have been presented since Chicago's Jay Berwanger won the first one in 1935, the one that has me most puzzled was the one given to Paul Hornung in 1956. Hornung became a Hall of Fame running back with the Green Bay Packers and also a friend, so I hope he'll forgive me for saying this. But Hornung was the quarterback of a Notre Dame team that finished 2 and 8. Runner-up Johnny Majors starred for a 10-1 Tennessee team and a guy named Jim Brown was finishing his college career at Syracuse.
I no longer, of course, have anything to do with voting for the Heisman, although I probably have about as good a handle on it as the current writers, since they see only one game a week and I can see a dozen of them, or parts thereof, on any given Saturday. When this season began, it appeared pretty certain that the trophy would go to one of the three players who finished one-two-three last year--Oklahoma's Sam Bradford, Texas' Colt McCoy, and Florida's Tim Tebow. Bradford didn't even make it out of the starting gate before his season imploded with an opening game injury. McCoy and Tebow are still alive since their teams are unbeaten and figure to meet for the national championship. But neither has had the kind of season they anticipated. Tebow admits his performance is down from the last two years and nine interceptions thrown by McCoy speak for themselves.
According to an ESPN poll of 15 experts, the current leader is Alabama running back Mark Ingram, who drew 10 of the 15 first place votes. Kellen Moore, the quarterback of unbeaten and unappreciated Boise State got two votes, while Tebow, McCoy, and Houston's Case Keenum got the other three votes. Keenum, the Houston quarterback, has piled up some unreal numbers for the 8-1 Cougars. In his last two games alone he's thrown for close to 1,100 yards and eight touchdowns. He has 28 touchdown passes for the season. Almost matching that is Boise State's Moore with 27 touchdown passes and only three interceptions.
I admit I haven't seen too much of Alabama's Ingram and I suspect he is a candidate because someone on the Crimson Tide offense has to be partly responsible for the defense-oriented team's unbeaten record. Talent-wise, receiver Julio Jones should be the man, but he has underachieved for the most part this year. As for my own choice, I think I'm going to surprise you. After all my Notre Dame bashing, if I had a Heisman vote I think I'd spend it on Irish quarterback Jimmy Clausen. The Irish may be struggling a bit, but without Clausen (and his marvelous receiver Golden Tate) the Irish could be 1-8 and there would be no speculation about Coach Charlie Weis' fate. Clausen has repeatedly brought the Irish from behind and four of their victories and all three defeats have been by seven points or less. I'd probably vote Keenum second and Moore third. But that's just me. What do you think?
Monday, November 2, 2009
By Bob Markus
As any college football fan could tell you, the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) has one too many letters in its acronym. It should drop the middle letter and what's left (BS for those of you who are acronymically challenged) would just about describe it. The presumed purpose of the BCS is to ensure that the best two college football teams in the land meet at the close of the bowl season to determine which is truly the No. 1 team in the country. Trouble is, they haven't yet figured out a sure fired way of determining who the top two are. Every year, it seems, somebody is flashing Winston Churchill's famous V sign and insisting: We're No. 2. There are certain instances, you see, when it's good to be Avis. Last year it was Texas, which was left out of the national championship game in favor of Oklahoma, which it had beaten. Another year it was Southern Cal, which had been named No.1 in both wire service polls, but deemed no better than No. 3 by the complex melange of computers and human pollsters the BCS entrusted with the task.
This year there seems to be little doubt about who will play in the national championship game. It will be Texas, the undefeated Big 12 champion which already has defeated its most significant adversaries, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, and the winner of the SEC championship game--either Florida or Alabama. The only other team with even a whisper of a chance is Louisiana State, which, if it can upset Alabama this week-end and win the rest of its games would win the SEC West and play the Gators, to whom they have already lost once. There is a chance that the BCS will actually get it right with this pairing, but there is also a chance you'll run into a flying pig some day. These same three teams have been at the top of the leaderboard since even before the season opened and that is one of the problems.
For a number of years in the mid-1980s I was a voter in the Associated Press poll. While not a total maverick, I did tend to have some ideas that were thought to be, well, a little odd. For instance, I thought a team's performance on the field should outweigh my preconceived notion of who's No. 1. That's why I thought they should do away with preseason polls and wait until the games are played before trying to sort it out. Under the system that prevailed then--and the one that prevails now--many of the voters seemed to think their ballots were cast in stone and could not be dislodged without, as the sportscasters of today love to say, "indisputable evidence." That evidence would not include, say, a team like Alabama beating unranked Arkansas 12-10 by blocking a potential season-destroying field goal. Nor would it include a team like Florida losing at home to Mississippi, which hasn't been a national powerhouse since Peyton and Eli Manning's father was playing there, as happened last year. These voters, and I believe they are in the majority, decide who is No. 1 in August and will not change their minds until that team is beaten and sometimes not even then. I always voted by the theory that my preseason vote was merely my best guess and that changing one's mind is allowed and even ought to be encouraged.
It well could be that Texas, Alabama, and Florida, in whichever order you chose to rank them, are indeed the three best teams in the country. But if I were voting today I'd probably rank two teams ahead of them. Now, don't laugh. Snickering is okay, but please no raucus outbursts of laughter. I think the best team in the country at the moment is Oregon, which dismantled a good, but admittedly not great, USC team Saturday night, 47-20. I mean this was an old-fashioned A No. 1 butt stomping of a team that has ruled its conference for nearly a decade under Pete Carroll and rarely finishes out of the top five. And it was no fluke. Previously, Oregon had walloped California, which at the time was in the top 10 or so in the rankings, 42 -3. The week after that the Ducks quacked all over Washington State, 52-6 and only the week before their demolition of the Trojans had laid the wood to Washington, 43-19
I watched most of the Oregon-USC game and here's what I saw. I saw quarterback Jeremiah Masoli rush for 164 yards and pass for 222 more. I saw halfback LaMichael James run for 183 yards. In all, Oregon rolled up 613 yards against a team reputed to have one of the best defenses in the country. It was simply an awesome display. So I'd vote Oregon No. 1? No, I wouldn't. It's not because the Ducks lost their season opener. I've seen Notre Dame do that and still win a national title. No, it's not the fact that they lost, but who they lost to--Boise State.
That's not a rap at Boise State. Au contraire, the reason I wouldn't make Oregon No.1 is because that's where I'd have Boise State. I know, I know, Boise State has played a one-game season. But what a game! The Broncos literally strangled Oregon in a 19-8 season opening victory. The team that got 613 yards against Southern Cal? It had 14 yards in the first half--and no first downs--against Boise State . Its star runner, La Garrette Blount, carried eight times for minus five yards and those numbers have yet to change, since Blount was suspended for the rest of the season after slugging a Boise State player in the jaw after the game. Blount, with the help of mentors like Tony Dungy and his coach, Chip Kelly, reportedly has tried hard to make amends and there is a good chance he will be reinstated for this week-end's game at Stanford. With or without Blount, Oregon should beat Stanford and everyone else on its schedule. Boise, too, will likely run the table. But finish one-two in the BCS standings? Not a chance. Football writers, no matter what their personal politics, are as conservative as Rush Limbaugh when it comes to voting in the polls. It'll be Florida and Texas in the Rose bowl Jan. 7. Book it.
As any college football fan could tell you, the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) has one too many letters in its acronym. It should drop the middle letter and what's left (BS for those of you who are acronymically challenged) would just about describe it. The presumed purpose of the BCS is to ensure that the best two college football teams in the land meet at the close of the bowl season to determine which is truly the No. 1 team in the country. Trouble is, they haven't yet figured out a sure fired way of determining who the top two are. Every year, it seems, somebody is flashing Winston Churchill's famous V sign and insisting: We're No. 2. There are certain instances, you see, when it's good to be Avis. Last year it was Texas, which was left out of the national championship game in favor of Oklahoma, which it had beaten. Another year it was Southern Cal, which had been named No.1 in both wire service polls, but deemed no better than No. 3 by the complex melange of computers and human pollsters the BCS entrusted with the task.
This year there seems to be little doubt about who will play in the national championship game. It will be Texas, the undefeated Big 12 champion which already has defeated its most significant adversaries, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, and the winner of the SEC championship game--either Florida or Alabama. The only other team with even a whisper of a chance is Louisiana State, which, if it can upset Alabama this week-end and win the rest of its games would win the SEC West and play the Gators, to whom they have already lost once. There is a chance that the BCS will actually get it right with this pairing, but there is also a chance you'll run into a flying pig some day. These same three teams have been at the top of the leaderboard since even before the season opened and that is one of the problems.
For a number of years in the mid-1980s I was a voter in the Associated Press poll. While not a total maverick, I did tend to have some ideas that were thought to be, well, a little odd. For instance, I thought a team's performance on the field should outweigh my preconceived notion of who's No. 1. That's why I thought they should do away with preseason polls and wait until the games are played before trying to sort it out. Under the system that prevailed then--and the one that prevails now--many of the voters seemed to think their ballots were cast in stone and could not be dislodged without, as the sportscasters of today love to say, "indisputable evidence." That evidence would not include, say, a team like Alabama beating unranked Arkansas 12-10 by blocking a potential season-destroying field goal. Nor would it include a team like Florida losing at home to Mississippi, which hasn't been a national powerhouse since Peyton and Eli Manning's father was playing there, as happened last year. These voters, and I believe they are in the majority, decide who is No. 1 in August and will not change their minds until that team is beaten and sometimes not even then. I always voted by the theory that my preseason vote was merely my best guess and that changing one's mind is allowed and even ought to be encouraged.
It well could be that Texas, Alabama, and Florida, in whichever order you chose to rank them, are indeed the three best teams in the country. But if I were voting today I'd probably rank two teams ahead of them. Now, don't laugh. Snickering is okay, but please no raucus outbursts of laughter. I think the best team in the country at the moment is Oregon, which dismantled a good, but admittedly not great, USC team Saturday night, 47-20. I mean this was an old-fashioned A No. 1 butt stomping of a team that has ruled its conference for nearly a decade under Pete Carroll and rarely finishes out of the top five. And it was no fluke. Previously, Oregon had walloped California, which at the time was in the top 10 or so in the rankings, 42 -3. The week after that the Ducks quacked all over Washington State, 52-6 and only the week before their demolition of the Trojans had laid the wood to Washington, 43-19
I watched most of the Oregon-USC game and here's what I saw. I saw quarterback Jeremiah Masoli rush for 164 yards and pass for 222 more. I saw halfback LaMichael James run for 183 yards. In all, Oregon rolled up 613 yards against a team reputed to have one of the best defenses in the country. It was simply an awesome display. So I'd vote Oregon No. 1? No, I wouldn't. It's not because the Ducks lost their season opener. I've seen Notre Dame do that and still win a national title. No, it's not the fact that they lost, but who they lost to--Boise State.
That's not a rap at Boise State. Au contraire, the reason I wouldn't make Oregon No.1 is because that's where I'd have Boise State. I know, I know, Boise State has played a one-game season. But what a game! The Broncos literally strangled Oregon in a 19-8 season opening victory. The team that got 613 yards against Southern Cal? It had 14 yards in the first half--and no first downs--against Boise State . Its star runner, La Garrette Blount, carried eight times for minus five yards and those numbers have yet to change, since Blount was suspended for the rest of the season after slugging a Boise State player in the jaw after the game. Blount, with the help of mentors like Tony Dungy and his coach, Chip Kelly, reportedly has tried hard to make amends and there is a good chance he will be reinstated for this week-end's game at Stanford. With or without Blount, Oregon should beat Stanford and everyone else on its schedule. Boise, too, will likely run the table. But finish one-two in the BCS standings? Not a chance. Football writers, no matter what their personal politics, are as conservative as Rush Limbaugh when it comes to voting in the polls. It'll be Florida and Texas in the Rose bowl Jan. 7. Book it.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
By Bob Markus
They tell me there's more than one way to skin a cat. I've never had any desire to skin a cat and if I ever did, I doubt that I could figure out even one way to do it. Where would I start?
At the head? The tail? I imagine I'd start by calling a taxidermist. What brought about this odd musing was the news that Mark McGwire has been named batting coach by the St. Louis Cardinals. McGwire has avoided the spotlight ever since his non-testimony before Congress four years ago. He has done no interviews. Now it is going to be nearly impossible to avoid them. I'll guarantee you that on opening day of spring training next February there will be a record number of media members flying down to Florida, all wanting to know: did he or didn't he?
How McGwire responds--if he responds at all--could go a long way towards determining if he ever gets in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Because the men asking the question are the same men who vote for or against enshrinement and McGwire at the moment has a long way to go to win the 75 per cent approval he needs. In his first two years on the ballot, the former major league home run single season record holder has garnered less than 25 per cent.
There have been players in the past who have been left at the post in their early years of eligibility. The time honored way to gather support has been to go to the radio or TV booth and mingle with the electorate. It worked for Ralph Kiner; it worked for Lou Boudreau; it worked for Phil Rizzuto, all of whom were voted into the Hall of Fame after years of cozying up to the baseball beat writers. I don't mean to imply there was anything phony about their relationships with their fellow media members. It's just that, try as one might to remain objective, it's difficult to remain objective about someone you know and like.
I can't recall an example of a player gathering Hall of Fame votes by becoming a coach, but the possibility is there, just the same. McGwire will be in daily contact with many of the men who hold his fate in their hands. Whether he takes advantage of the opportunity remains to be seen. If he refuses to answer any questions about his alleged use of performance enhancing drugs, he can forget about the Hall of Fame. If he refuses to talk to reporters at all, he can forget about the Hall of Fame. I'm not saying that's right, I'm just saying that's the way it is. There are many voters, probably a majority, who believe that any records set while under the influence of artificial enhancement are invalid. To them, McGwire's rookie record of 49 homers for the Oakland A's back in 1987, his 70 homers in 1998 when he beat Sammy Sosa in their epic race to to erase Roger Maris' record of 61, his 583 career home runs all are tainted by his presumed use of steroids.
I personally doubt that McGwire was drugged up all the way back in 1987. There seems to be little doubt that he was using a steroid named androstenodione in '98 during the duel with Sosa. In fact, he left packages of the drug in his open locker where anyone could see them and he has admitted that he took the drug. But at the time androstenodione was neither illegal nor a banned substance in major league baseball. It wasn't until 2004, three years after McGwire had retired, that the United States government declared the drug a steroid and made it illegal.
It seems to me that McGwire's wisest course would be to tell anyone who asks that, yes, I did take androstenodione back in '98, but I didn't know it was a steroid and it wasn't a banned substance. Even if he 'fesses up, he's not going to get into the Hall of Fame within the next year or two. But eventually, if he stays around the game and gets more comfortble with the writers--and they with him--his time will come. Although their cases may all be different, there are three other players who should be watching the McGwire situation with interest. As it stands now, Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa and Rafael Palmeiro share McGwire's plight. All of them are suspected steroid abusers, none has admitted it, and Palmiero explained away his one positive test by claiming he had been given a tainted B12 injection. He passed a lie detector test and never failed another drug test before or since so there is the possibility that he told the truth when he said, "I have never knowingly used steroids. Never."
Palmeiro will be the first of the three eligible for the Hall of Fame and as it stands now, he won't make it, despite the fact he is one of only four players ever to amass 3,000 hits and 500 homers. The other three, Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, and Eddie Murray, are all Hall of Famers. Next up will be Sosa with his 609 career homers balanced against his embarrassing corked bat fiasco, which muddies the water when considering whether he's telling the truth when he denies using steroids. Bonds will be the most difficult choice of all, since many consider him the greatest hitter in baseball history (I'll stick with Babe Ruth), but in the current climate the steroids issue outweighs any statistics, no matter how gaudy.
It won't be easy, but Mark McGwire has been given the opportunity to change all that. Meanwhile there are approximately 100 ball players who have yet to be outed after failing a drug test in 2003. Until we know more about them, I'm throwing the problem back in baseball's lap. As a Hall of Fame voter I don't think it's my responsiblity to determine who is or is not eligible for the Hall. That's baseball's responsibility and if baseball sees fit to put Mark McGwire's name on the ballot, I'm going to vote for him. Bonds, Sosa and Palmeiro, too.
They tell me there's more than one way to skin a cat. I've never had any desire to skin a cat and if I ever did, I doubt that I could figure out even one way to do it. Where would I start?
At the head? The tail? I imagine I'd start by calling a taxidermist. What brought about this odd musing was the news that Mark McGwire has been named batting coach by the St. Louis Cardinals. McGwire has avoided the spotlight ever since his non-testimony before Congress four years ago. He has done no interviews. Now it is going to be nearly impossible to avoid them. I'll guarantee you that on opening day of spring training next February there will be a record number of media members flying down to Florida, all wanting to know: did he or didn't he?
How McGwire responds--if he responds at all--could go a long way towards determining if he ever gets in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Because the men asking the question are the same men who vote for or against enshrinement and McGwire at the moment has a long way to go to win the 75 per cent approval he needs. In his first two years on the ballot, the former major league home run single season record holder has garnered less than 25 per cent.
There have been players in the past who have been left at the post in their early years of eligibility. The time honored way to gather support has been to go to the radio or TV booth and mingle with the electorate. It worked for Ralph Kiner; it worked for Lou Boudreau; it worked for Phil Rizzuto, all of whom were voted into the Hall of Fame after years of cozying up to the baseball beat writers. I don't mean to imply there was anything phony about their relationships with their fellow media members. It's just that, try as one might to remain objective, it's difficult to remain objective about someone you know and like.
I can't recall an example of a player gathering Hall of Fame votes by becoming a coach, but the possibility is there, just the same. McGwire will be in daily contact with many of the men who hold his fate in their hands. Whether he takes advantage of the opportunity remains to be seen. If he refuses to answer any questions about his alleged use of performance enhancing drugs, he can forget about the Hall of Fame. If he refuses to talk to reporters at all, he can forget about the Hall of Fame. I'm not saying that's right, I'm just saying that's the way it is. There are many voters, probably a majority, who believe that any records set while under the influence of artificial enhancement are invalid. To them, McGwire's rookie record of 49 homers for the Oakland A's back in 1987, his 70 homers in 1998 when he beat Sammy Sosa in their epic race to to erase Roger Maris' record of 61, his 583 career home runs all are tainted by his presumed use of steroids.
I personally doubt that McGwire was drugged up all the way back in 1987. There seems to be little doubt that he was using a steroid named androstenodione in '98 during the duel with Sosa. In fact, he left packages of the drug in his open locker where anyone could see them and he has admitted that he took the drug. But at the time androstenodione was neither illegal nor a banned substance in major league baseball. It wasn't until 2004, three years after McGwire had retired, that the United States government declared the drug a steroid and made it illegal.
It seems to me that McGwire's wisest course would be to tell anyone who asks that, yes, I did take androstenodione back in '98, but I didn't know it was a steroid and it wasn't a banned substance. Even if he 'fesses up, he's not going to get into the Hall of Fame within the next year or two. But eventually, if he stays around the game and gets more comfortble with the writers--and they with him--his time will come. Although their cases may all be different, there are three other players who should be watching the McGwire situation with interest. As it stands now, Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa and Rafael Palmeiro share McGwire's plight. All of them are suspected steroid abusers, none has admitted it, and Palmiero explained away his one positive test by claiming he had been given a tainted B12 injection. He passed a lie detector test and never failed another drug test before or since so there is the possibility that he told the truth when he said, "I have never knowingly used steroids. Never."
Palmeiro will be the first of the three eligible for the Hall of Fame and as it stands now, he won't make it, despite the fact he is one of only four players ever to amass 3,000 hits and 500 homers. The other three, Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, and Eddie Murray, are all Hall of Famers. Next up will be Sosa with his 609 career homers balanced against his embarrassing corked bat fiasco, which muddies the water when considering whether he's telling the truth when he denies using steroids. Bonds will be the most difficult choice of all, since many consider him the greatest hitter in baseball history (I'll stick with Babe Ruth), but in the current climate the steroids issue outweighs any statistics, no matter how gaudy.
It won't be easy, but Mark McGwire has been given the opportunity to change all that. Meanwhile there are approximately 100 ball players who have yet to be outed after failing a drug test in 2003. Until we know more about them, I'm throwing the problem back in baseball's lap. As a Hall of Fame voter I don't think it's my responsiblity to determine who is or is not eligible for the Hall. That's baseball's responsibility and if baseball sees fit to put Mark McGwire's name on the ballot, I'm going to vote for him. Bonds, Sosa and Palmeiro, too.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
By Bob Markus
If the deaths of three runners in Sunday's Detroit Marathon proved anything, it might be that life is a crapshoot and sooner or later you're going to roll snake eyes. There seems to be no logical explanation for the sudden deaths of Daniel Langdon, 36, Rick Brown, 65, and Jon Fenlon, 26, all within a 16-minute span. All three were entered in the half marathon, just over 13 miles, a distance that, while daunting to your average couch potato, is not beyond the imagination of any reasonably fit runner. In my own running days I once ran 10 miles in Los Angeles' Griffith Park and felt I could go farther.
But 26.2 miles? On the face of it that has always appeared to me to be a sure sign of insanity. If it doesn't kill you, it will certainly wreak havoc on some of your body parts, in particular your knees. Actually, the chances of it killing you are minimal, statistically almost nonexistent. A marathoner is more likely to be hit by a car during a training run than drop dead during a race. But it happens. It happens to one in about 75,000 marathon runners. That doesn't include those who die during training, most notably Dr. Jim Fixx, who became a millionaire extolling the health benefits of running in three best-selling books, but succumbed to a heart attack, at 52, just after completing his daily run.
That running a Marathon may prove to be dangerous to your health was proved by the very first marathoner, a Greek named Pheidippides. Shortly before he won the Marathon gold medal at the 1972 Olympics in Munich, Frank Shorter was musing about the distance, precisely 26 miles and 385 yards. "The guy who invented the marathon got the distance just right," Shorter told me, "because he knew exactly how much the human body can stand." Actually Pheidippides might have been better off walking those final 385 yards. Because after blurting the glorious news of a major military victory at Marathon to the people of Athens, the swift soldier collapsed and died on the spot.
Shorter won that gold medal in only his fifth marathon. He was basically a middle distance runner, whose finishing kick was good, but not quite good enough . But in the Marathon, he said, there is no finishing kick. "It's a question of who's decelerating the least over the last six miles."
Even for a great champion like Shorter there was a price to be paid. "Pain? Sure there's a pain factor. But there's a pain factor in every race beyond 200 meters, but each race has its own kind of pain. Actually, you can't describe it unless you've done it." But why do it? Probably for the same reason you'd climb Mt. Everest or swim the English Channel. It's a challenge, but one that is more reachable than Everest's 29,000 foot summit or the vast expanse of ocean between Dover and Calais. I'm reasonably certain there is also at least a modicum of addiction involved. I can vouch for that from personal experience.
I came late to running, not starting until I was well into my 30s. I started after a routine visit to a new doctor, Dr. Smith, who listened to my heartbeat for a few seconds and asked me: "What are you taking?" I named a drug meant to revive a comatose thyroid and he advised, "You don't need those pills. Throw them away and start exercising." Until then, I had led a mostly sedentary life except for eight weeks of Army basic training more than a decade earlier. But inspired by Dr. Smith I set a goal of running a mile in 15 minutes. Serendipitously, I was scheduled to go on a two week assignment to the Kansas City Chiefs training camp in Liberty, Mo. The Chiefs, as Super bowl champions, were preparing to play the College All-Stars in the season opening exhibition game sponsored annually by my newspaper, the Chicago Tribune. It appeared to be the perfect opportunity to get myself in shape. Accordingly, on my first morning in camp, I arose early and went to the quarter mile dirt running track and set out to run my first mile. I had just finished my first lap, however, when a short, thick-set man jumped in front of me with his arms in the air.
"What are you trying to do," he asked me. When I told him, he said, "You're going about it the wrong way. Let me help you and I guarantee you'll run that mile." For the next 10 days, Alvin Roy, the Chiefs' strength coach, worked with me every morning. His training regimen consisted of lifting weights and interval running. At no time did he let me run more than one lap until the last day, when he took out his stop watch and sent me out for my final exam. I don't remember what my time was but it was under 10 minutes and I was satisfied with that. From then on, I was hooked on running. I usually ran three miles before breakfast. Often I would run with Andy McKenna, who was on the board of the Cubs, White Sox, and Bears, with whom he had a minority ownership stake. The White Sox were up for sale at the time and rumors were flying all over town, but with my morning runs with Andy I had a pretty good grasp of what was going on. It was especially neat to find good running trails on out of town assignments. I think of all the runs I've had, the one I enjoyed the most was at a park in Syracuse, N.Y. the morning of a Syracuse-Penn State football game. The run was through a woods on a carpet of autumn leaves with a lake on my right hand side. It was an exhilerating moment.
The beginning of the end came one morning in Laramie, Wyo. I had just finished my morning run and sat down on the bed to take off my socks when a jolt of pain shot through my left knee and almost dropped me to the floor. Several cortisone shots and an arthroscope later the knee felt better, but that didn't last. I kept breaking down. Either my knees would get sore or my back would go out and I finally figured somebody or some thing was trying to tell me something. Today both knees are shot through with arthritis and the pain is constant, though bearable. Oddly enough, the knees don't hurt as much when I walk so that's how I get my exercise now. But I do miss running and if you were to ask me: Knowing what you know now would you do it over again, I'd reply, Damned right.
If the deaths of three runners in Sunday's Detroit Marathon proved anything, it might be that life is a crapshoot and sooner or later you're going to roll snake eyes. There seems to be no logical explanation for the sudden deaths of Daniel Langdon, 36, Rick Brown, 65, and Jon Fenlon, 26, all within a 16-minute span. All three were entered in the half marathon, just over 13 miles, a distance that, while daunting to your average couch potato, is not beyond the imagination of any reasonably fit runner. In my own running days I once ran 10 miles in Los Angeles' Griffith Park and felt I could go farther.
But 26.2 miles? On the face of it that has always appeared to me to be a sure sign of insanity. If it doesn't kill you, it will certainly wreak havoc on some of your body parts, in particular your knees. Actually, the chances of it killing you are minimal, statistically almost nonexistent. A marathoner is more likely to be hit by a car during a training run than drop dead during a race. But it happens. It happens to one in about 75,000 marathon runners. That doesn't include those who die during training, most notably Dr. Jim Fixx, who became a millionaire extolling the health benefits of running in three best-selling books, but succumbed to a heart attack, at 52, just after completing his daily run.
That running a Marathon may prove to be dangerous to your health was proved by the very first marathoner, a Greek named Pheidippides. Shortly before he won the Marathon gold medal at the 1972 Olympics in Munich, Frank Shorter was musing about the distance, precisely 26 miles and 385 yards. "The guy who invented the marathon got the distance just right," Shorter told me, "because he knew exactly how much the human body can stand." Actually Pheidippides might have been better off walking those final 385 yards. Because after blurting the glorious news of a major military victory at Marathon to the people of Athens, the swift soldier collapsed and died on the spot.
Shorter won that gold medal in only his fifth marathon. He was basically a middle distance runner, whose finishing kick was good, but not quite good enough . But in the Marathon, he said, there is no finishing kick. "It's a question of who's decelerating the least over the last six miles."
Even for a great champion like Shorter there was a price to be paid. "Pain? Sure there's a pain factor. But there's a pain factor in every race beyond 200 meters, but each race has its own kind of pain. Actually, you can't describe it unless you've done it." But why do it? Probably for the same reason you'd climb Mt. Everest or swim the English Channel. It's a challenge, but one that is more reachable than Everest's 29,000 foot summit or the vast expanse of ocean between Dover and Calais. I'm reasonably certain there is also at least a modicum of addiction involved. I can vouch for that from personal experience.
I came late to running, not starting until I was well into my 30s. I started after a routine visit to a new doctor, Dr. Smith, who listened to my heartbeat for a few seconds and asked me: "What are you taking?" I named a drug meant to revive a comatose thyroid and he advised, "You don't need those pills. Throw them away and start exercising." Until then, I had led a mostly sedentary life except for eight weeks of Army basic training more than a decade earlier. But inspired by Dr. Smith I set a goal of running a mile in 15 minutes. Serendipitously, I was scheduled to go on a two week assignment to the Kansas City Chiefs training camp in Liberty, Mo. The Chiefs, as Super bowl champions, were preparing to play the College All-Stars in the season opening exhibition game sponsored annually by my newspaper, the Chicago Tribune. It appeared to be the perfect opportunity to get myself in shape. Accordingly, on my first morning in camp, I arose early and went to the quarter mile dirt running track and set out to run my first mile. I had just finished my first lap, however, when a short, thick-set man jumped in front of me with his arms in the air.
"What are you trying to do," he asked me. When I told him, he said, "You're going about it the wrong way. Let me help you and I guarantee you'll run that mile." For the next 10 days, Alvin Roy, the Chiefs' strength coach, worked with me every morning. His training regimen consisted of lifting weights and interval running. At no time did he let me run more than one lap until the last day, when he took out his stop watch and sent me out for my final exam. I don't remember what my time was but it was under 10 minutes and I was satisfied with that. From then on, I was hooked on running. I usually ran three miles before breakfast. Often I would run with Andy McKenna, who was on the board of the Cubs, White Sox, and Bears, with whom he had a minority ownership stake. The White Sox were up for sale at the time and rumors were flying all over town, but with my morning runs with Andy I had a pretty good grasp of what was going on. It was especially neat to find good running trails on out of town assignments. I think of all the runs I've had, the one I enjoyed the most was at a park in Syracuse, N.Y. the morning of a Syracuse-Penn State football game. The run was through a woods on a carpet of autumn leaves with a lake on my right hand side. It was an exhilerating moment.
The beginning of the end came one morning in Laramie, Wyo. I had just finished my morning run and sat down on the bed to take off my socks when a jolt of pain shot through my left knee and almost dropped me to the floor. Several cortisone shots and an arthroscope later the knee felt better, but that didn't last. I kept breaking down. Either my knees would get sore or my back would go out and I finally figured somebody or some thing was trying to tell me something. Today both knees are shot through with arthritis and the pain is constant, though bearable. Oddly enough, the knees don't hurt as much when I walk so that's how I get my exercise now. But I do miss running and if you were to ask me: Knowing what you know now would you do it over again, I'd reply, Damned right.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
By Bob Markus
The Oakland Raiders may have forgotten how to win, but they haven't forgotten how to handle the media--with disdain bordering on contempt. The Raiders are the most p.r. disfunctional organization in all of sports and have been so almost since their inception in 1960. Ever since Al Davis, then a 33-year-old assistant coach with the Los Angeles Chargers, became head coach and general manager of the Raiders in 1963, there has been an attitude of suspicion surrounding the team that makes Georgetown basketball's Hoya paranoia look like glasnost. The latest manifestation was on display last week, when Davis tried to keep Rich Gannon, a CBS analyst, out of his headquarters building, where the network was holding production meetings. Apparently, Gannon, who was the Raiders' quarterback the last time the team went to the Super Bowl, has been too critical of his old team. Of course, there is much to be critical about. The once potent Raiders have suffered six consecutive losing seasons since that 48-21 Super Bowl loss to Tampa Bay, a team coached by Jon Gruden, who had been Oakland's coach the three previous years. They may have reached rock bottom Sunday when they were blown away by the New York Giants, 44-7, in a game in which many of the Giant stars were given the second half off. Davis, once a superb judge of talent--there are 11 former Raider players in the Pro
Football Hall of Fame--squandered the first pick in the draft three years ago when he chose LSU quarterback JaMarcus Russell, who has been beyond terrible. While other young quarterbacks like Joe Flacco, Matt Ryan, Mark Sanchez and Chad Henne are leading their teams to victory, Russell is leading the Raiders on the road to ruin.
There are other indications that Davis is out of touch with NFL reality. He hired Lane Kiffin, a 31-year-old assistant coach at Southern Cal, to be the Raiders' head coach in 2007. Four games into the next season, he fired Kiffin, saying he had made a huge mistake. He compounded that mistake by replacing Kiffin with Tom Cable, whose head coaching experience consists of four years at Idaho, his alma mater, where he delivered an 11-35 record. Cable will finish the season, but he could finish it in jail or a courthouse after one of his assistants accused him of breaking his jaw in a blind side attack a few months ago. "He was screaming, 'I'll f---ing kill you! I'll f. . .ing kill you,'" according to the assistant, Randy Hanson. Hanson said he thought the attack was inspired by something he had said the previous day. While Cable was in a meeting with the Raiders' underachieving defensive backs, Hanson reportedly was telling the other assistants: "You know what's going to happen. Tom's gonna come out of that meeting and say I'm the problem. I'm the one confusing them and blame it all on me." The NFL and the Napa, Cal., police department are conducting separate investigations into the incident. Good luck to them. Prying information out of the Oakland Raiders has always been as difficult as prying the first pickle out of the jar.
My first dealing with the Raiders was pretty typical. I was on the West Coast covering the Rose bowl for the Chicago Tribune and the Raiders were getting ready to play the Houston Oilers for the AFL championship and the right to go to Super bowl II. I flew up to Oakland to cover the game and get a pregame column. After checking into my hotel I called the Raiders' publicity director, Lee Grosscup, a former quarterbacik from Utah who was famous for his white shoes. I told Grosscup I was there to do a pregame column and wanted to go to practice and interview one of his players. "Who do you want to talk to?" Grosscup asked. "Billy Cannon," I replied, referring to the former Heisman trophy winning halfback from LSU, who had made the transition to all-pro tight end. "My God," Grosscup exploded, "you can't talk to Billy Cannon. Nobody can talk to Billy Cannon." I then requested George Blanda, a former Bear and winner of the first two AFL championships as quarterback and kicker for the Oilers.
"No, you can't talk to Blanda," said Grosscup. "Then who can I talk to?" "Jim Otto," replied Grosscup, who added that practice started at 1:30 and gave me directions. When I arrived at 1:30 the practice field was empty and so was the locker room--except for one lone figure staring into his locker. Of course, it was Jim Otto, the Raiders' Hall of Fame center, who obviously had been told to wait for me.
That was the way the Raiders were, controlling, secretive, mistrustful. Recalls Ted Hendricks, the Hall of Fame linebacker who spent the last nine of his 15 pro seasons as a Raider: "The joke around here always used to be that if anyone was in the stands during a practice, he had to be a spy. Of course, everybody assumed Al (Davis) was using a spy, too. " Even though the Raiders usually made life difficult for me, I came to have a grudging admiration for them. In the early years of the AFL, many papers more or less ignored the upstart league, none more so than The Tribune, which was more or less in bed with the Bears' George Halas. But when I went out to cover my first Rose bowl after the 1965 season, the Buffalo Bills were playing the Chargers, who by then had moved to San Diego, in the league championship game. Except for Paul Zimmerman of the New York Post I might have been the only national writer covering that game. Zimmerman, of course, became the famous Dr. Z for Sports Illustrated, but back then he was more known for the elaborate charts he kept of each play, a system I never could understand, and for running the writers' pool at the Super Bowl. I once won it two years in a row and after the second time, Paul informed me that his pocket had been picked in the rush to the dressing room. Nevertheless he ponied up the money without much resistance. For those of you wondering where Dr. Z's predictions have gone, I'm sorry to report that Paul has suffered a series of strokes beginning last October and as far as I know he is still unable to speak. I spent many a night in his company--he was a wine connoisseur and the first one to point out to me the merits of Ridge Zinfandel. I certainly wish him well.
If you covered the AFL in those days you were bound to run into the Oakland Raiders frequently. I covered their loss to the Jets in Shea Stadium, the game in which Joe Namath threw through a biting wind to Don Maynard to send the Jets to the Super bowl. I was one of the few writers who did not expect the Baltimore Colts to blow away the Jets in the Super bowl, although I admit I wasn't brave enough to pick the Jets to win it. I covered the "Immaculate Reception" game in Pittsburgh and remember attending a late press conference the night before in which John Madden, the Raiders' coach, revealed that the team had watched the movie "Jaws" on the flight to Pittsburgh and, "Boy, I wish I could have that guy as a linebacker."
I think my favorite Raiders game was the famous "Ghost to the Post" playoff in Baltimore when Raiders tight end Dave Casper (the ghost), not only set up the tying touchdown with a 42-yard reception, but caught the game-winner in overtime. If that wasn't enough, when I got back to the football press box after doing the locker room interviews there was a small craft airplane lodged in the nearby baseball press box, the dare devil pilot having attempted to fly through the goal posts.
The Raiders in all their arrogance were fun to cover in those days. But those days are gone. Al Davis seems to have lost his way. His famous utterance: "Just win, baby," seems more like a prayerful plea than the unconditional demand it used to be.
The Oakland Raiders may have forgotten how to win, but they haven't forgotten how to handle the media--with disdain bordering on contempt. The Raiders are the most p.r. disfunctional organization in all of sports and have been so almost since their inception in 1960. Ever since Al Davis, then a 33-year-old assistant coach with the Los Angeles Chargers, became head coach and general manager of the Raiders in 1963, there has been an attitude of suspicion surrounding the team that makes Georgetown basketball's Hoya paranoia look like glasnost. The latest manifestation was on display last week, when Davis tried to keep Rich Gannon, a CBS analyst, out of his headquarters building, where the network was holding production meetings. Apparently, Gannon, who was the Raiders' quarterback the last time the team went to the Super Bowl, has been too critical of his old team. Of course, there is much to be critical about. The once potent Raiders have suffered six consecutive losing seasons since that 48-21 Super Bowl loss to Tampa Bay, a team coached by Jon Gruden, who had been Oakland's coach the three previous years. They may have reached rock bottom Sunday when they were blown away by the New York Giants, 44-7, in a game in which many of the Giant stars were given the second half off. Davis, once a superb judge of talent--there are 11 former Raider players in the Pro
Football Hall of Fame--squandered the first pick in the draft three years ago when he chose LSU quarterback JaMarcus Russell, who has been beyond terrible. While other young quarterbacks like Joe Flacco, Matt Ryan, Mark Sanchez and Chad Henne are leading their teams to victory, Russell is leading the Raiders on the road to ruin.
There are other indications that Davis is out of touch with NFL reality. He hired Lane Kiffin, a 31-year-old assistant coach at Southern Cal, to be the Raiders' head coach in 2007. Four games into the next season, he fired Kiffin, saying he had made a huge mistake. He compounded that mistake by replacing Kiffin with Tom Cable, whose head coaching experience consists of four years at Idaho, his alma mater, where he delivered an 11-35 record. Cable will finish the season, but he could finish it in jail or a courthouse after one of his assistants accused him of breaking his jaw in a blind side attack a few months ago. "He was screaming, 'I'll f---ing kill you! I'll f. . .ing kill you,'" according to the assistant, Randy Hanson. Hanson said he thought the attack was inspired by something he had said the previous day. While Cable was in a meeting with the Raiders' underachieving defensive backs, Hanson reportedly was telling the other assistants: "You know what's going to happen. Tom's gonna come out of that meeting and say I'm the problem. I'm the one confusing them and blame it all on me." The NFL and the Napa, Cal., police department are conducting separate investigations into the incident. Good luck to them. Prying information out of the Oakland Raiders has always been as difficult as prying the first pickle out of the jar.
My first dealing with the Raiders was pretty typical. I was on the West Coast covering the Rose bowl for the Chicago Tribune and the Raiders were getting ready to play the Houston Oilers for the AFL championship and the right to go to Super bowl II. I flew up to Oakland to cover the game and get a pregame column. After checking into my hotel I called the Raiders' publicity director, Lee Grosscup, a former quarterbacik from Utah who was famous for his white shoes. I told Grosscup I was there to do a pregame column and wanted to go to practice and interview one of his players. "Who do you want to talk to?" Grosscup asked. "Billy Cannon," I replied, referring to the former Heisman trophy winning halfback from LSU, who had made the transition to all-pro tight end. "My God," Grosscup exploded, "you can't talk to Billy Cannon. Nobody can talk to Billy Cannon." I then requested George Blanda, a former Bear and winner of the first two AFL championships as quarterback and kicker for the Oilers.
"No, you can't talk to Blanda," said Grosscup. "Then who can I talk to?" "Jim Otto," replied Grosscup, who added that practice started at 1:30 and gave me directions. When I arrived at 1:30 the practice field was empty and so was the locker room--except for one lone figure staring into his locker. Of course, it was Jim Otto, the Raiders' Hall of Fame center, who obviously had been told to wait for me.
That was the way the Raiders were, controlling, secretive, mistrustful. Recalls Ted Hendricks, the Hall of Fame linebacker who spent the last nine of his 15 pro seasons as a Raider: "The joke around here always used to be that if anyone was in the stands during a practice, he had to be a spy. Of course, everybody assumed Al (Davis) was using a spy, too. " Even though the Raiders usually made life difficult for me, I came to have a grudging admiration for them. In the early years of the AFL, many papers more or less ignored the upstart league, none more so than The Tribune, which was more or less in bed with the Bears' George Halas. But when I went out to cover my first Rose bowl after the 1965 season, the Buffalo Bills were playing the Chargers, who by then had moved to San Diego, in the league championship game. Except for Paul Zimmerman of the New York Post I might have been the only national writer covering that game. Zimmerman, of course, became the famous Dr. Z for Sports Illustrated, but back then he was more known for the elaborate charts he kept of each play, a system I never could understand, and for running the writers' pool at the Super Bowl. I once won it two years in a row and after the second time, Paul informed me that his pocket had been picked in the rush to the dressing room. Nevertheless he ponied up the money without much resistance. For those of you wondering where Dr. Z's predictions have gone, I'm sorry to report that Paul has suffered a series of strokes beginning last October and as far as I know he is still unable to speak. I spent many a night in his company--he was a wine connoisseur and the first one to point out to me the merits of Ridge Zinfandel. I certainly wish him well.
If you covered the AFL in those days you were bound to run into the Oakland Raiders frequently. I covered their loss to the Jets in Shea Stadium, the game in which Joe Namath threw through a biting wind to Don Maynard to send the Jets to the Super bowl. I was one of the few writers who did not expect the Baltimore Colts to blow away the Jets in the Super bowl, although I admit I wasn't brave enough to pick the Jets to win it. I covered the "Immaculate Reception" game in Pittsburgh and remember attending a late press conference the night before in which John Madden, the Raiders' coach, revealed that the team had watched the movie "Jaws" on the flight to Pittsburgh and, "Boy, I wish I could have that guy as a linebacker."
I think my favorite Raiders game was the famous "Ghost to the Post" playoff in Baltimore when Raiders tight end Dave Casper (the ghost), not only set up the tying touchdown with a 42-yard reception, but caught the game-winner in overtime. If that wasn't enough, when I got back to the football press box after doing the locker room interviews there was a small craft airplane lodged in the nearby baseball press box, the dare devil pilot having attempted to fly through the goal posts.
The Raiders in all their arrogance were fun to cover in those days. But those days are gone. Al Davis seems to have lost his way. His famous utterance: "Just win, baby," seems more like a prayerful plea than the unconditional demand it used to be.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
By Bob Markus
Florida Marlins owner Jeffrey Loria made his millions as an art dealer. I'm sure he can tell a Monet from a Manet and a Pollock from a Picasso. But as a baseball owner he apparently has no clue. Loria's the man who fired Joe Girardi as manager after only one season, a season in which Girardi was named National League Manager of the Year. Now come reports that Loria is considering firing Fredi Gonzalez and replacing him with Bobby Valentine. Gonzales was LAST year's N.L. Manager of the Year and this season led the Marlins to an 87-75 record and had them in playoff contention until the last week. All of this despite having the smallest payroll in major league baseball. I don't know Gonzalez, never met him, but I know his players play hard for him and in many cases overachieve.
Girardi's firing was personal. There are two versions of the reason and you can chose the one you like best. Either Girardi told Loria to shut up after the owner, seated in his box yelled at an umpire over a call or Loria chastized Girardi for not arguing the call, sparking an ongoing feud between employer and employee. If Gonzalez is fired it will be for an even dumber reason. Loria thought the Marlins should have made the playoffs. That's as unrealistic as expecting to buy Van Gogh's Starry Night for a hundred bucks. I know, I know. Early in the season, caught up in the hysteria of the Marlins' 11-1 start, I wrote that the Marlins were contenders. But that was not the prevailing opinion. Of course, they didn't make the playoffs, but the few fans who bothered to come out to support them got their money's worth. They got National league batting titlist Hanley Ramirez. They got rookie Chris Coghlan, who arrived late, but simply tore up National league pitching in the second half of the season. If Coghlan isn't N.L. Rookie of the Year it will be the biggest crime since Willie Sutton pawned his safe cracking tools. They got pitcher Josh Johnson, whose rebuilt arm provided a 15-5 record. But most of all they got a team that would not quit.
Loria appears to be one of the breed of owners who takes a hands on approach. Instead of hiring a baseball man and letting him make the decisions, they take matters into their own hands. That's not necessarily bad. Charley Finley did it and put together one of the all-time best teams in Oakland, although I never could understand how an insurance salesman could do it. George Steinbrenner did it even better, building the Yankeees' second dynasty (after the Ruth-Gehrig-DiMaggio-Mantle era winked off). In his early years, Steinbrenner changed managers as often as he changed his socks, but he knew talent when he saw it and was willing to pay for it. And when he finally found the right man, Joe Torre, he let Torre manage the team. Steinbrenner spent more money on Alex Rodriguez's contract than Loria did on the entire team he handed to Girardi. The Yankees had a general manager, but I can't remember who it was.
Baseball's not the only sport with mettlesome owners. All of them had the right to mettle, but only a few had the background. George Halas was player, coach and owner of the Chicago Bears from their inception in 1919 and remained coach for most of the period until his retirement in 1968. Even then he continued to be the puppetmaster until finally acknowledging that the game was passing him by. He had intended to pass the reins to his son Mugs, but when Mugsy died the leadership passed to Jim Finks, an established football man. The Halas family, through daughter Virginia McCaskey, still owns the Bears, but football men run the team.
Paul Brown not only was coach and part owner of the Cleveland Browns, but the team was named for him. When Brown, who built a post World War II powerhouse on the shores of Lake Erie, was fired as coach by majority owner Art Modell, he simply moved to the southern part of the state and started over with the Cincinnati Bengals.
Halas and Brown came close to overstaying their welcomes. Some men have the grace to know when it's time to go. Some men don't. Connie Mack was one such, although it hurts me to say it. Mack, after all, was baseball's Grand Old Man, managing the Philadelphia Athletics for 50 years before retiring at the age of 87. Mack holds the records for most managerial wins--3,731--and losses--3,948--and nobody else is even close. Although he was a player himself, once he went to the bench he dressed in civilian clothes. I remember as a teen-ager going to Comiskey Park by myself just to see Mack. And there he was, immaculate in suit and tie, waving his scorecard to position his players. But by that time the A's, who had won nine pennants and five world series under Mack, were a pathetic team. As Wayne Huizenga was to do with the Marlins many years later, Mack sold off many of his star players after his last World Series win in 1931. Starting in 1934, after selling off the contracts of the last of his super stars, slugger Jimmie Foxx and pitcher Lefty Grove, Mack watched his beloved A's finish in the American league's second division 14 years in a row and 16 of his final 17 seasons as manager. There is one big difference between Mack and Huizenga. Mack sold his stars because he needed money. Huizenga traded his because he wanted more money.
The Marlins have gone through two owners who have dismantled World Series winning teams for the want of money and if Loria wants to know why the Marlins were last in the majors in attendance he need only look in the mirror. Fans are afraid to commit to the Marlins because they fear the Marlins won't commit to them. And they're right. Even after getting the domed stadium they had been seeking for years, the Marlins have given no indication they are about to open the purse strings. There is even speculation that Johnson will be traded before arbitration can rear its budget-busting head. If that happens, the Marlins will lose even more of its fan base. Which is a shame, because the Marlins, under Fredi Gonzalez, really are fun to watch.
My advice to Loria: Keep Gonzalez. And in the words of Joe Girardi:"Shut up."
Florida Marlins owner Jeffrey Loria made his millions as an art dealer. I'm sure he can tell a Monet from a Manet and a Pollock from a Picasso. But as a baseball owner he apparently has no clue. Loria's the man who fired Joe Girardi as manager after only one season, a season in which Girardi was named National League Manager of the Year. Now come reports that Loria is considering firing Fredi Gonzalez and replacing him with Bobby Valentine. Gonzales was LAST year's N.L. Manager of the Year and this season led the Marlins to an 87-75 record and had them in playoff contention until the last week. All of this despite having the smallest payroll in major league baseball. I don't know Gonzalez, never met him, but I know his players play hard for him and in many cases overachieve.
Girardi's firing was personal. There are two versions of the reason and you can chose the one you like best. Either Girardi told Loria to shut up after the owner, seated in his box yelled at an umpire over a call or Loria chastized Girardi for not arguing the call, sparking an ongoing feud between employer and employee. If Gonzalez is fired it will be for an even dumber reason. Loria thought the Marlins should have made the playoffs. That's as unrealistic as expecting to buy Van Gogh's Starry Night for a hundred bucks. I know, I know. Early in the season, caught up in the hysteria of the Marlins' 11-1 start, I wrote that the Marlins were contenders. But that was not the prevailing opinion. Of course, they didn't make the playoffs, but the few fans who bothered to come out to support them got their money's worth. They got National league batting titlist Hanley Ramirez. They got rookie Chris Coghlan, who arrived late, but simply tore up National league pitching in the second half of the season. If Coghlan isn't N.L. Rookie of the Year it will be the biggest crime since Willie Sutton pawned his safe cracking tools. They got pitcher Josh Johnson, whose rebuilt arm provided a 15-5 record. But most of all they got a team that would not quit.
Loria appears to be one of the breed of owners who takes a hands on approach. Instead of hiring a baseball man and letting him make the decisions, they take matters into their own hands. That's not necessarily bad. Charley Finley did it and put together one of the all-time best teams in Oakland, although I never could understand how an insurance salesman could do it. George Steinbrenner did it even better, building the Yankeees' second dynasty (after the Ruth-Gehrig-DiMaggio-Mantle era winked off). In his early years, Steinbrenner changed managers as often as he changed his socks, but he knew talent when he saw it and was willing to pay for it. And when he finally found the right man, Joe Torre, he let Torre manage the team. Steinbrenner spent more money on Alex Rodriguez's contract than Loria did on the entire team he handed to Girardi. The Yankees had a general manager, but I can't remember who it was.
Baseball's not the only sport with mettlesome owners. All of them had the right to mettle, but only a few had the background. George Halas was player, coach and owner of the Chicago Bears from their inception in 1919 and remained coach for most of the period until his retirement in 1968. Even then he continued to be the puppetmaster until finally acknowledging that the game was passing him by. He had intended to pass the reins to his son Mugs, but when Mugsy died the leadership passed to Jim Finks, an established football man. The Halas family, through daughter Virginia McCaskey, still owns the Bears, but football men run the team.
Paul Brown not only was coach and part owner of the Cleveland Browns, but the team was named for him. When Brown, who built a post World War II powerhouse on the shores of Lake Erie, was fired as coach by majority owner Art Modell, he simply moved to the southern part of the state and started over with the Cincinnati Bengals.
Halas and Brown came close to overstaying their welcomes. Some men have the grace to know when it's time to go. Some men don't. Connie Mack was one such, although it hurts me to say it. Mack, after all, was baseball's Grand Old Man, managing the Philadelphia Athletics for 50 years before retiring at the age of 87. Mack holds the records for most managerial wins--3,731--and losses--3,948--and nobody else is even close. Although he was a player himself, once he went to the bench he dressed in civilian clothes. I remember as a teen-ager going to Comiskey Park by myself just to see Mack. And there he was, immaculate in suit and tie, waving his scorecard to position his players. But by that time the A's, who had won nine pennants and five world series under Mack, were a pathetic team. As Wayne Huizenga was to do with the Marlins many years later, Mack sold off many of his star players after his last World Series win in 1931. Starting in 1934, after selling off the contracts of the last of his super stars, slugger Jimmie Foxx and pitcher Lefty Grove, Mack watched his beloved A's finish in the American league's second division 14 years in a row and 16 of his final 17 seasons as manager. There is one big difference between Mack and Huizenga. Mack sold his stars because he needed money. Huizenga traded his because he wanted more money.
The Marlins have gone through two owners who have dismantled World Series winning teams for the want of money and if Loria wants to know why the Marlins were last in the majors in attendance he need only look in the mirror. Fans are afraid to commit to the Marlins because they fear the Marlins won't commit to them. And they're right. Even after getting the domed stadium they had been seeking for years, the Marlins have given no indication they are about to open the purse strings. There is even speculation that Johnson will be traded before arbitration can rear its budget-busting head. If that happens, the Marlins will lose even more of its fan base. Which is a shame, because the Marlins, under Fredi Gonzalez, really are fun to watch.
My advice to Loria: Keep Gonzalez. And in the words of Joe Girardi:"Shut up."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
