Emails in on Tiger, realignment & coaches' lack of honor

The new emails are in, and what a good week. Lots of interesting stuff on Tiger Woods, conference realignment, coaches jumping contracts and the 1981 Sun Bowl. Let's go.

Al: "Good piece today on stealing coaches. You mention the colleges are subject to anti-trust laws and the NFL is not. Why has one of the have-not colleges not filed anti-trust violations against the NCAA and BCS ? These are an extension of colleges, are they not? The NCAA and BCS are controlled by the university presidents. Seems to me and many others that the BCS discriminates against conferences and teams in ways other than performance on the football field. They are a true monopoly and control this entirely: the thing anti-trust is supposed to prevent or at least control to some extent. ESPN takes over the broadcast of the BCS next year, and if anyone wants a playoff or expanded way of determining the champion, it would be ESPN. Do you think they will start a push for changing all of this before our esteemed Congress gets involved and really messes it up?"

I've written about this. Anti-trust law protects consumers from financial harm. It does NOT protect businesses or organizations. It protects consumers. Please show me how consumers have suffered financial harm. Hasn't happened. Consumers have been given more games than ever before. The BCS might be unfair. The BCS might be silly. But the BCS is not illegal, at least not under anti-trust laws. As for ESPN, I wouldn't recommend pushing too hard. The bowls will drop ESPN like a lead football if the world-wide leader starts demanding too much change.

Denice: "I think Jeff Capel might disagree with your line 'honor is for players.' Seems like players are no more 'honor bound' to commitments and their word than coaches."

Oh, Capel probably would disagree. And all the coaches would disagree. But that wouldn't make it any more true. Here is the ultimate outrage. While coaches can come and go, breaking contracts as they like, players, who are under contract, too, in the form of scholarships, are afforded only one-year scholarships, renewable annually at the schools' discretion. And if the scholarship is not renewed, players still must sit out a season upon transferring. That's immoral. I would open all transfers to immediately eligibility.

Jeff: "I think the problem is something the NCAA can fix by doing 2 things. 1. Establish a holiday recruiting freeze; 2. Move national signing day back to mid-March. Recruiting seems to be the primary reason that universities are in such a hurry to fire/hire at the end of the season. This practice is killing the integrity of the game."

Couldn't agree more. There already is a holiday recruiting freeze to some extent, but if football would just adopt the signing schedule for every other sport - November and April - schools wouldn't be in such a frenzy in late November/early December. When we talk about playoffs and trying to get people to reach a consensus, I understand the problem. When we talk about this, I have no idea what's holding us back. Who wouldn't support this, other than the coaches, who are creating the problem in the first place by their lack of honor? Who cares what they say?

Clarence: "You could say the same thing about the kids. They hold a half dozen college hostage, then throw hats at a camera. Then if they don't get the playing time, quit to go to a college for more playing time."

Hold hostage? Hold hostage? You've got to be kidding. Big-time recruiting has become a two-way street in terms of nonsense, but let's remember when it was one-way. It was the colleges assaulting the recruits. And you're saying that a kid who never has been enrolled at a school or has played for that school or has done anything other than visit a few times, is somehow quitting on his team by not going to that school but to some other school? Ridiculous. You see where college sports have gone? The schools exist to serve the coaches. The recruits exist to serve the schools. Who exists to serve the recruits?

Jeff: "I couldn't agree more with your column. To me, there are two issues. One is the coach leaving a school that had given him a contract good for four more years at a fat salary. That alone has distasteful aspects. But what really ticks me off is the coach leaving before the bowl game. This is no doubt the biggest year ever in Cincinnati history. They came within one second (Texas field goal) of possibly being in the national championship game. Can you imagine how the players must have felt when he bailed out on them? Just once, I wish one of these coaches would say 'OK, Notre Dame (or whomever), I'll break my contract with Cincinnati and come to South Bend (or wherever) to run your program. But first, I am going to stick with these kids who have worked their tails off for me and gotten themselves an undefeated season and a primo bowl game. And if you can't accept those terms, you can take your offer and stick it. I am doing just fine at Cincinnati, thank you, and don't have to come to Notre Dame to satisfy my ego and pocketbook.' Just once! At least the Cincinnati folks can take some solace by looking back a few years at West Virginia, which was deserted by its coach, then got some redemption by whacking OU in a BCS bowl. I'll be pulling for them."

Sometimes coaches do stay. Not often, but some do. And sometimes they do say, you'll have to wait, and the school decides not to wait. I'm convinced that's what Michigan did with Les Miles. The coaches are only half the problem. If schools had integrity, they wouldn't steal a coach from a team or a school, which is two different things. By the way, what if ol' Les is actually one of the guys with integrity? I know OSU fans were livid that he was talking with LSU during Alamo Bowl preparation, but at least he stayed with the Cowboys through the game. He didn't bolt on his team.

Chris disagreed with the majority: "Today's article strikes me as a little silly. If you or I have not dissected the Kelly-Cincinnati contract, we do not know what kind of buyout provisions there were. Maybe Kelly or Notre Dame bought out the contract according to its provisions. Maybe Kelly had a Notre Dame clause in the contract that allowed him to walk if Notre Dame offered him the head coaching job. Lou Holtz had the provision in his Minnesota contract. Without knowing all the facts it really isn't right to imply Notre Dame or any college 'stole' a coach. If Notre Dame had somehow convinced Bob Stoops to leave OU and he followed the buyout provisions of his contract (assuming there is such a thing), then would Notre Dame be stealing the coach? Or if OU decides they do not want a coach that is not dedicated to OU and just lets the coach go, is the coach then stolen? Isn't this what happened at Michigan in basketball a few years ago? My point is that you and I do not know what happened between Cincinnati and Brian Kelly. In the end it looks to me that it comes down to a legal question and for some reason Cincinnati decided not to pursue it, at least at this time. I suspect they did not pursue it because they know they do not have a leg to stand on."

You could be right, that there was a buyout. But if so, that's not why UC chose not to pursue it. It's like the lawyer said, schools just don't want to go through the hassle. And the one thing I've tried to do in recent years is draw attention away from the contractual elements of this question and focus on the moral points. How can any coach run out on his team? That blows my mind.

Rob: "You are right on point with the lack of loyalty and commitment shown by many of today's college coaches. There seems to be a definite double standard in light of the penalties levied against players who decide to change schools (employers). Maybe we should make coaches sit out a year when changing schools, like we do players."

That would be nice, but again, that would illegal. That would be in violation of the anti-trust laws, because there would be financial harm to the public (coaches). That's why I say give the players the same rights as coaches. Let them transfer immediately. That's where I think anti-trust laws might come into play.

Craig: "I read with interest your blog regarding the Big 10 expansion and possible implications upon the Pac-10. First and foremost, the refusal of Notre Dame to join a conference (and their sweetheart deals with the BCS and NBC) is a slap in the face to all schools that are members of conferences, especially those that have a conference championship game. It is partly this arrogance that leads to so many fans' hatred of the Golden Dome. I cannot think of any other major teams that remain independent, save Army and Navy. I would love to see all the former CFA schools boycott Notre Dame and refuse to schedule them so long as they remain independent. Admittedly, this could backfire in the short term, but allowing Notre Dame an easy trip to the BCS championship, if all they can schedule is cupcakes, but I think this message needs to be delivered. As for the Pac-10, I do think they should take Boise State but make as a condition of acceptance removal of that ridiculous blue turf. Not only does it make them appear bush league, it also affords them a significant home field advantage, as they wear all-blue uniforms. As you astutely pointed out, the Pac-10 has delusions of all their members' academic superiority, which may render such a move impossible. I doubt Utah and BYU would jump. The Mountain West schools cling very tightly to their traditional games with Colorado State, Wyoming, New Mexico, etc. Having lived in that area for a long time, I know this to be true, no matter how illogical it might sound to us. I think the Pac 10 should take Boise and either Hawaii or Fresno State."

I'll never understand this attitude about Notre Dame. If you don't like Notre Dame, fine. But to blame the Irish for its exalted status and try to organize a protest, that's silly. If there is an advantage to being independent, go be independent. Same with all this conference title game stuff. Nobody put a gun to the head of leagues that have conference championship games. As for BYU and Utah, they would jump in a heartbeat. Let's see. Do we still want to keep playing Wyoming and Colorado State, or do we want to play USC and Oregon? But I'm with Craig on the blue turf at Boise.


Jack: "Sounds like Notre Dame should go ahead and join the Big Ten Conference. Of course we all know why they haven't over the years, but it really would make sense. The Irish fans and the university will just have to learn to adjust in due time and realize that Knute Rockne isn't going to rise from the dead and coach them to multiple national championships anymore. Those days are long gone. And so is the patience of the mighty Irish community which thinks firing coaches left and right is going to find them instant success. You can thanks Stoops for setting the tone, winning the national title after two seasons. Don't be surprised if Brian Kelly lasts only four years as well. As far as the Pac-10, losing Colorado would seriously hurt the Big 12. It's just like Arkansas, Geographically it sounds great, but the Buffs aren't going to gain anymore ground by joining another conference. I like the idea of Utah and BYU and perhaps of letting Nevada and Hawaii in the mix, but Colorado needs to be with us in the Big 12, right?"

I've always thought Colorado is sort of irrelevant. Back when the Buffs were good in football, they were valuable to the conference. But what exactly do they bring to the league? Some eyeballs on TV sets, which is significant. But competitively, not much else. Fallen on their face in football and facing huge financial problems. Never any good in basketball except for pockets when Cliff Meely or Chauncey Billups shows up, and that's over 40 years. The problem with losing Colorado is not losing Colorado. It's finding someone decent to replace Colorado. The problem with losing a Texas is losing a Texas. As for the Pac-10, it's not going to add Hawaii or Fresno State. Let me ask you this. Would the Big 12 be fired up about Hawaii or Fresno State? Heck no, and the Pac-10 has a lot higher opinion of itself than does the Big 12.

Josh: "I read your blog about the Big Ten's potential upcoming expansion. My personal feelings are that Nebraska, if given the opportunity, would bolt for the Big 10 in a second. Its no secret that the athletic department in Lincoln is not happy with the current situation (TV deal, Texas $$, etc). Nebraska after all, was the only school to vote against the Big 12 back in the '90s. However, my real question is this. Any chance that some of the schools might view the northern schools as dead weight (especially if NU left) and decide to go their own way? Addition by subtraction. The Big 12 South + the Kansas schools + Colorado/Missouri. Consider it the rebirth of the Southwest Conference."

So what you're really saying is, kick out Iowa State. Go to 10 teams, with no conference title game? Make yourself susceptible to other conference hoarding. Can someone please explain the fascination of the Southwest Conference? If you grew up in Texas 30 years ago, OK, you've got some romantic notions. But the Southwest Conference was the goofiest league in sports. Four private schools that over the long haul could not compete, one public school with limited resources and four major universities that kept trying to balance modern demands with Sammy Baugh memories. When Arkansas went to the SEC, those four big-time schools became three, and the SWC was a goner. Anyone who wants a modern SWC doesn't have a clue.

Michael: "In this age of conference championships games and their related financial rewards, I would imagine that the Big 12 Conference honchos would search high and low for a replacement if Mizzou left. However, I think it would be much more interesting if the conference decided to move forward with just 11 teams. Football could play a full round-robin conference schedule. That would be 10 games apiece against relatively solid competition, reducing the cupcake limit to two for everyone. With the rising cost of bringing in those out-of-conference weaklings for guaranteed home wins, this might provide some financial relief, too. And the round-robin schedule would also resolve the issue of conference realignment and rivalry maintenance that you discussed several weeks ago. OU-Nebraska every year! Basketball could work the same way. A home-and-home, round-robin schedule would give everyone 20 conference games. The teams already play 16, so it's not that big of an increase and there is still room for a half-dozen or so warmup games for teams to work out the kinks against lesser competition. Personally, I think 11 teams is the ideal number of members for any conference - as long as the members commit to playing round-robin schedules."

You know, an 11-team league has some merit, though losing the conference championship game is a blow to the finances and the status. The Big Ten wants to add a school primarily to stage a league title game. In fact, despite all the griping about the Big 12's title game, we've got another year in which a Big 12 team has made the national title game. In the 10 years of this decade, it's seven times the Big 12 has made the Big Bowl. Only exceptions: Miami-Ohio State in 2002, Florida-Ohio State in 2006 and LSU-Ohio State in 2007. So the title most assuredly is not keeping Big 12 teams out of the national title game.

Michael: "Saw you mentioned New Mexico at the end of your blog as a potential replacement for Mizzou. Of course, being from Albuquerque, that made me smile. The Lobos would definitely have to expand the football stadium if it did happen - the longest of long shots, to be sure. I think it only seats about 35,000 or so, and rarely is it full even when they're good. Of course, if OU and Texas and Nebraska were coming to town instead of San Diego State and UNLV, that would make a difference. They've beaten Tech, Baylor and A&M at home in the last decade or so. But I don't know if they could come up with the donor money to pull off an expansion project. When it comes to The Pit though, you're right on about the Lobos being capable of big-time basketball. I've only seen Bedlam wrestling at Gallagher-Iba and I've never been to Phog, but The Pit is a hell of a place to see a basketball game. The last game I saw there was when I was home for a college winter break, and Chris Paul came in with Wake Forest to play Danny Granger's best Lobo team. Paul and Justin Gray kept draining 3s to quiet the crowd and eventually pulled it out, but The Pit was rocking. There were some classic battles with Keith Van Horn and Utah when I was growing up as well, and a crazy triple-OT game with Fresno State during the WAC Tournament. There's even still a guy from those teams in the NBA (barely), Kenny Thomas in Sacramento. If Big 12 fans think Hilton Coliseum is a tough place to play even when the Cyclones are mediocre, they'd want no part of The Pit, especially if the Lobos can get better recruits with a better conference affiliation. It was ranked highly (No. 16 if I remember right) by Sports Illustrated in the '90s on some greatest American sports stadiums/arenas list, so I have to avoid the temptation to call The Pit underrated. The Jim Valvano game was there. And it hosted a regional final in the men's NCAA tournament as recently as when Pitino took Louisville to the Final Four. It's even getting a renovation to add luxury suites so it can get more regionals. So clearly, it's still on the map as a big-time arena for college hoops. I even had my high school graduation there, so it has that going for it as well. If you've never seen a big game at The Pit when the Lobos are decent, you really ought to."

I would love to go to the Pit. But like I said, I think New Mexico would be an absolute last-ditch fallback position to replace a Missouri. If the Big 12 has to take a New Mexico, then worry about the league. Craig: That's certainly an idea, that OSU could move North. The only downside would be what to do with the schedule - whether to play Bedlam annually or not - but otherwise, it would work nice.

Craig: "Rumors are that Missouri wants to leave the Big 12 and join the Big 10. If that were to happen, who do you think the conference would ask to join the Big 12? As an OSU grad and fan, I am always looking for ways to get us out of the South and into the North. If Mizzou leaves, I would think the Big 12 would go after Houston, TCU or Arkansas, putting OSU as the most northern member of the South, hence moving to the North, where we do not have to play the two monsters, Texas and OU, in football every year."

I don't think that's the kookiest thing I've heard. I think it's possible that if the Big 12 lost a North school, and replaced it with someone South, OSU could swap divisions. And it might be a case where the Bedlam Series would stop being annual. I think OU might say whatever. OSU would say something like we want to switch divisions but play OU every year, but rather than tinker with the league's scheduling formula, it might be a take-it-or-leave-it offer. And OSU might just take it. I don't know. I could be wrong.

I got a bunch of response on my Tiger Woods column. Let's get to it. Bob: On the money regarding Tiger Woods. Ridiculously talented golfer; pathetic loser and dysfunctional role model for the young people of the world and those who need idols. I could care less if he screwed 15 women a day in the middle of Times Square, just his life of lies and fraud and hypocrisy and deception and contempt are what they are. Guy is a freak at golf who likes to screw strange women and lie to the public so he can get paid $900 million. Really a sham when you realize 90% of his earnings are generated from his dishonest image and not golf."

Hey, listen. Anybody that was a Tiger fan and feels betrayed, fine. Anybody who begrudges Tiger's millions, that's on us. Not Tiger. How in the world did we get, as a society, to where Buick or Nike or whoever feels like it's worth it to pay one guy $10 million to endorse a product? I'll bet Buick's sales didn't go down when Tiger was their pitchman. Who hit a Nike golf ball before Tiger? That's all on us.

Cory calls himself an Elvis historian and consultant, and I thought uh-oh. I threw Elvis under the bus, this guy must be ticked. But no. "I couldn't agree more with your recent article on Tiger Woods. I'm always surprised at the amount of time that goes into media outlets when it comes to celebrities and affairs. In a strange, twisted way, it almost seems like a right of passage that there is an affair involved sometime during their career. Not that it makes it right but we should not be shocked by any of these infidelities no matter who it involves."

I actually read up on Elvis' philandering while researching my Tiger column. Just to be blunt, Elvis Presley was one weird dude.

John: "I read your piece about Tiger. Very well written. The paragraph about the locations on the course that we will expect to see Tiger in and the paragraph following it was the first time I had heard that angle, or had that image brought to my mind. Very interesting point to make. It definitely will be a very different experience watching Tiger dominate the field on the last day of a tournament, if that is ever to happen again. I've written you in the past about your writing style, a lot of 'when on this field of battle walked 11 men of steely nerves ' etc. You know, making it almost painful to finish reading a column. But none of that here. Just straight forward journalism, expressing some new ways to look at an already exhausted subject. Gotta ask though. You call Tiger a degenerate. I'm not attacking you in anyway, but when is someone involved with WWLS going to address the fact that Jim Traber is one of the biggest degenerates in the Oklahoma City radio market? Are we not all guilty by association in our lives? I mean, can Berry Tramel really comment on someone being a degenerate when he participates in the degeneration of Oklahoma sports radio? What gives you the right to stand and call Tiger or anyone else a degenerate while you associate with OKC's version of the Jerry Springer show?"

I've never written "when on this field of battle walked 11 men of steely nerves." But I sort of like. That's s really not the issue here. Let me get this straight. You listen to Jim Traber all the time (by evidence of a bunch of examples you wrote about but which I edited out for length), but you are upset with me for, well, for reasons I don't understand. You want me to do something about Traber? Jim has a job and great ratings for one reason and one reason only. He gets great ratings. People like you listen to him. Don't get mad at me if you don't like yourself for listening to Traber.

James: "May I give you my take on the Tiger thing? I'm reminded of the great line in Patton when George C. Scott talks over the camera at the end and tells the old story about the slave whispering in the victorious
gladiator's ear upon return to Rome: All glory is fleeting. I, for one, overdosed on Tiger years ago. He'd be seven back and the television crew focused exclusively on him, ignoring the leader. Then, everywhere you turned, Tiger would be endorsing something. I frankly reached the point where I really didn't care if Tiger switched his underwear endorsement from
Hanes to BVD's. That's how I feel now: I'm numb and don't care how many more bimbos come out of the woodwork and claim dalliances with him. He's toast. What is truly interesting to me is that there is a strong rumor circulating that the golf media knew all along what Tiger was doing and winked at it. As Hillary Clinton would say, there's the real story."

On one hand, you say you don't care about Tiger and particularly his personal side, but on the other, you indict the golf media for not digging up dirt. Well, which is it? I don't think Tiger is the only guy on tour who is out tomcatting. It's just that no one cares about anyone else.

Jason wrote about the Dallas Cowboys: "Since the game had a 3D screen, you could have entitled your column '3D: Dallas' December Demise.' I know the Cowboys have not been good in December for a while, and a lot of the sports media has used this. This is a fine fact to use except when they deduct that it is some sort of character flaw or an inability to handle the pressure. The Cowboys lost because they are a mediocre team, and the Chargers are a good team. The Cowboys have beaten every team they have faced that currently has a losing record. They have lost every game they have played against a team that currently has a winning record, except Philly (record of opponents in wins 37-67, record of opponents in losses 41-24). If we flipped the Giants and Chargers dates with the Redskins and Raiders dates, I don't think who they beat and who they lost to would change because of the calendar."

I don't know. Dallas very easily could have lost to Washington, and give the Cowboys two or three more weeks of pressure - playing in December - they might have lost to Washington. The problem is, it's been going on for 13 years. And 'besides Philadelphia' is no small thing. Winning at Philly is a sign that this Cowboy team is anything but mediocre.

Aaron was at the Cowboy game and wrote about the video board, which I blogged about: "Hilarious turn of events. Best thing about the experiment? As I didn't get any glasses, it forced me to break the habit of looking at the video board instead of watching the action on the field. Also funny: the guy next to me who had his glasses on for at least ten minutes after they turned the 3D off."

Like I said, to my dying day, I'll never understand what's the big deal about three-dimensional video. Looks the same to me.

Joe: "I agree with you that Woods may not suffer from his whoremongering, just as Ali did not suffer from his refusal to defend his country and Clinton got by with being a trifling, lying draft dodger. Why? I think it's because most of the media is basically liberal. No doubt Woods is one of the all-time best golfers, maybe the best. But golf existed big-time for a long time before Woods and it will exist quite well for a long time after he's gone."

My alternator belt went out on my Nissan the other day. Our oven door won't close all the way. My 3-year-old granddaughter sleeps sideways when she spends the night with us, kicking me in the ribs. I blame it all on the liberal media.


William: "I liked your piece on sports' latest known lecher. It was insightful and did not touch on race."

What if it should have touched on race? What if that deserves to be in the discussion, how this story would be viewed differently is Tiger was white? Or had a white athlete of this magnitude done something similar. Peyton Manning or Tom Brady? Of course, no athlete is the magnitude of Tiger, and part of that magnitude is because he is a black man in a white sport, which gets us back to race. I think race has to be included in deep analysis of the Tiger story. I'm just not sure how.

Mona: "Love your article about Tiger Woods. You hit the nail on the head. It truly was a shame, but like you said, why were we noticing him anyway? I certainly don't approve of what he did off the course, but he is great to watch."

Do you realize that Tiger's antics are everyday stuff in Hollywood? This kind of thing goes on all the time with actors. Maybe even to the degree. And we don't care. It has to be the endorsements. We are miffed at that image. Probably mad at ourselves, for falling for the ruse.

Arthur: "When are professional athletes going to realize they are both predator AND prey?"

When their girlfriends show up on the cover of US Weekly.

Brad: "I have read the Oklahoman since moving from Tulsa in 87 and over the years I have learned bits and pieces of what you have let us in on about your family and your life. Probably about as much as we knew about Earl Woods and Tiger's family. Short of finding out you molested children or killed nuns I would read what you had to write about sports, especially during college football season. I don't think Bob Stoops would be a good guy to play poker with, but I watch Bob because he wins football games. When I watch golf, I watch Tiger or Phil mainly because they are so good. Mike Tyson I watched because he was what I wanted in a fighter, not what I wanted in a date for my sister or daughter. I liked what you said about Tiger being an American original, taking his sport to a new level of awareness among the general public. How true. I know I have things that I do or have done that are not me at my best, and unless I am drunk, I usually don't want people to know about them. That is the way I look at the fall of public figures, they were caught being human. I am one of those that believe humans are basically bad, not good, original sin and all. I don't mean that excuses bad behavior, it means we strive to overcome bad behavior and the harder you work at something else like being the best golfer in the world the less energy you may have to fight off those human urges such as lovely women who are not wearing your wedding ring. I myself learned a long time ago don't put people, any person on a pedestal because not one human being belongs on one. Great golfers, coaches, football teams, sports writers are for my entertainment if I have paid the price of admission or the price of a newspaper, not somebody to look up to or emulate."

I'm sort of the opposite. I tend to think most people are basically good and are led astray. Lots of things can do it, but fame and power are near the top of the list.

David: "You mentioned in the blog that your favorite line of the week was the one about the worst clock management 'since Cinderella.' Actually, I only ranked that third of your recently written one-liners. Calling the bowl system the 'peculiar institution' made me laugh even louder. Clara Luper taught my American History class at John Marshall in the late 70s, and she rarely mentioned slavery without calling it 'the peculiar institution' in a highly stilted voice, mocking the southern slave-owners who invented the term. Reading it in your column, I imagined the words in Mrs. Luper's voice and broke out in a smile. She'd have approved of your usage of the term as a way to describe something ludicrous. But best recent line had to go to your description of a potential Oklahoma-USC Sun Bowl matchup as being 'like seeing Al Pacino and Meryl Streep together in community theater.' That got the best laugh of all. You're on a roll, dude."

I'm on a roll? You were taught American History by Clara Luper. Dude, you're the one on a roll, through life. Think about that. You were taught American history by someone who lived and made American history. Clara Luper is one of my all-time heroes. An Oklahoma giant, that's what she is. And if you don't know who Clara Luper is, go look it up. Right now.

Ed wrote about my 1981 Sun Bowl piece, in which Freddie Sims and Darrell Shepard expressed regrets about their careers: "My grandmother used to refer to the follies of youth as 'going over fools' hill,' and I think she was right for the most part. I'd like to think today's squad would read your column and take it to heart, but I doubt it will happen that way. Oh, well. I never have been able to keep the Shepards straight, I guess because I was in Alabama when they played here. I can't even remember which one of them died. And which one threw that pass that got us out of a desperate hole at Nebraska."

OK, your Shepard primer lesson. The oldest, Woodie, came out of Odessa as a halfback in the great recruiting class with Billy Sims and Kenny King. Darrell followed two years later. Then Derrick was a walk-on, about three years behind Darrell, who became the best of the bunch, making the NFL, then later died of a heart attack.

John: "Love your articles. Could you please tell me where I could go to get DVDs of old Sooner games with Barry Switzer and the wishbone? Like the 1981 Sun Bowl you were talking about. I have had to go to the Nebraska website to get some OU-NU games. Could you help a Sooner fan out that would like to reminisce about the glory days and the wishbone?

Well, I've found a bunch of OU DVDs on Amazon.com. But I've got to tell you. This is a little out of my expertise. I try to be the answer man here, but the ins and outs of American commerce, even if it is football-related, I'm a little out of my element. I have been IN more DVDs than I've purchased.

Wes: "Nice article on Shepard and Sims. By the way, Darrell Shepard's nephew plays QB at Heritage Hall handing the ball off to Barry Sanders' son. Sterling Shepard is the son of the late Derrick Shepard. He's a great kid."

Wow. I didn't know that. Which reminds me of Kevin Shepard, who is Woodie Shepard's son. Kevin was a tailback at Norman High in 1989-90, back when I was on the Tiger beat. That made me feel really old, thinking that Woodie Shepard, the hero of the 1976 OU-Nebraska game, already had a son playing high school football. Now it's been 20 YEARS since I covered Woodie Shepard's son. Which means Woodie Shepard, who seems like just yesterday was throwing that halfback pass to Steve Rhodes, could have a GRANDSON somewhere playing high school football.
Berry Tramel can be heard Monday through Friday from 4:40-5:20 p.m. on The Sports Animal radio network, including AM-640 and FM-98.1. You can e-mail him here