Like everything else, football has fads. This year’s fad is the run-pass option, or RPO.
A few years ago the zone-read was all the range. Before that it was the no-huddle, the empty backfield, the one-back, the run-n-shoot (no tight end), and the K-gun (three wide receivers plus a tight end). Defensive faddishness has shown everybody wanting a 4-3 then 3-4, or a Tampa 2 or a bump-and-run or a Cover 3 (what Seattle used to win its Super Bowl versus Denver). This year’s fad is the RPO.
Here’s the thing: Tuesday Morning Quarterback is dubious about whether the RPO really exists. Like the Loch Ness monster, everyone claims to see the RPO. Much of the time they don’t.
In theory, on an RPO, the quarterback hasn’t decided yet at the snap whether to hand off or throw. Receiving the center-QB exchange he makes a split-second choice, either giving the ball to the tailback or throwing to a receiver. The option affords an interval in which to see how the defense reacts, while the fact that the quarterback himself doesn’t know what he’s going to do at the snap makes it impossible for the defense to read his body language.
That’s the theory of the RPO, and it can be effective in college, where the offensive line can go a bit downfield before a forward pass. In the NFL, the blockers can’t go downfield before a pass. The result is that true RPOs happen in NCAA play but are rare in the NFL. In the pros, on any snap that an illegible receiver fires out to block, the quarterback cannot (legally, at least) throw, so it’s not an RPO.
Yet Loch Ness monster-style, network announcers and patrons of sports bars keep claiming they’ve seen the RPO. Seemingly every time Chris Collinsworth of NBC observes a quick slant pass, he calls it an RPO. Collinsworth declared an RPO several times during the Giants at Cowboys Sunday night game—though on the plays the Jersey/A offensive line had rocked back to pass block (making a run unlikely) or the Boys offensive line had fired out to run block (making a pass illegal). In the recent Oklahoma State-Texas Tech contest, announcers Brian Custer and Ben Leber of Fox called several plays that were really quick-release passes RPOs. Sunday for Colts-Texans, Adam Archuleta of CBS went all the way to saying of a busted play, “They should have tried something safe and conservative, like an RPO.”
Most of the time what people call an RPO is really a play-fake followed by a quick slant. Watch the tailback—does the quarterback actually offer him the ball (engaging the risk of a fumble) or merely fake in his direction? Watch whether any offensive linemen go downfield. Usually, it’s not a true RPO: if a pass it was really a play-fake then a quick slant, if a run it was really a called rush.
The RPO has taken on a Loch Ness-monster mythology because the Eagles won last season’s championship while saying they loved the run-pass option. Most of the time what the Eagles are doing is the play-fake. Football Outsiders, the top independent sports web site, shows that the play-fake is sufficiently effective that most teams should call it more often. The Eagles’ 2017 insight was not to follow the traditional formula of first establish the run and then play-fake—rather, go play-action from the start.
But constant RPOs? Look, a sea monster rising from the lake!
In science news, James Allison of the University of Texas shared the Nobel in medicine for his role in the discovery of cancer immunotherapy. His research was a major contribution to contemporary life.
A year ago this week your columnist was present at a ceremony in Cambridge, Massachusetts, at which Allison and others were inducted into the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He gave a brief talk about his work and the importance of fact-based thinking in an era in which facts are mocked by the president of the United States while the notion of objective truth is mocked by academics. I commend that talk to you—it’s well worth your time.
Stats of the Week #1. Only a month has been played, yet Chiefs versus Rams on November 19 is the only remaining possible pairing of unbeaten teams in the 2018 season.
Stats of the Week #2. At halftime versus City of Tampa, the Bears had 400 yards of offense. The NFL median is 350 yards for an entire game.
Stats of the Week #3. Ben Roethlisberger and Jared Goff are on a pace to break the NFL all-time record for passing yards in a season. Patrick Mahomes is on a pace to break the NFL all-time record for passing touchdowns in a season.
Stats of the Week #4. Pittsburgh second half possession results, at home versus Baltimore: punt, punt, punt, punt, interception, downs. The Steelers never crossed midfield.
Stats of the Week #5. Recording a touchdown with 17 seconds remaining in overtime, the Flaming Thumbtacks broke the Eagles’ streak of 22 games without allowing a score in the final two minutes.
Stats of the Week #6. Jon Gruden and Chip Kelly, the two highest-paid new coaches in the NFL and NCAA, are a combined 1-7.
Stats of the Week #7. Aaron Rodgers is 61-15-1 at home.
Stats of the Week #8. For the fourth time in their last five games, the Falcons went down to the final snap, and lost.
Stats of the Week #9. Since kickoff of the NFC Championship, the Vikings are 1-3-1.
Stats of the Week #10. The week after becoming the first quarterback in NFL history to throw for 400-plus yards in three straight games, Ryan Fitzpatrick was benched.
Sweet Play of the Week. The Rams are scoring 35 points per game and just ran up 556 yards of offense versus the Vikings, who last season had the league’s number-one defense. The leading factor in LA/A’s success is a fabulous offensive line. The Rams offensive line pass-blocks well and zone-blocks (everybody leans either left or right) well, creating cutback runs when opponents over-pursue. The Rams’ play design is also excellent, especially, varying a lot from week to week.
Rams leading the Vikings 31-28, wearing their pretty throwback uniforms that recalled classic Rams-Vikings contests of the past, LA/A reached 1st-and-10 on the Minnesota 31. Most of the game the Rams had been fielding multiple wide receivers. Now they came out with three tight ends and a heavy set that showed power-run. Then the whole team shifted, and all three tight ends lined out wide. The Vikings were confused, pointing at each other and shouting. Quarterback Jared Goff knew that somewhere in the Vikes’ defensive alignment would be a mistake, and presnap, he found the mistake—linebacker Anthony Barr across from wide receiver Robert Woods, who shot up the field on a fly pattern, easily beating Barr for the touchdown that put the home team in command. Sweet.
Seeing an unexpected alignment followed by a shift they’d never practiced for, why didn’t Vikings’ defenders call time out? Most teams give the quarterback on offense free reign to signal time out, but do not grant to the same latitude to the playcaller on defense, who’s usually the free safety or the middle linebacker. Minnesota had all three time outs and would have been much better off to spend one in response to an unusual set than to allow the touchdown that put the opponent in command. But defenders either are told, or believe, that they should never use time outs.
Sour Play of the Week. Atlanta leading Cincinnati 36-31 with 12 seconds remaining, the Bengals had the ball on the Falcons’ 13. It was not a wild guess that Andy Dalton would look for A.J. Green in this situation. He lined up alone on the right; there were three receivers on the left, which moved the safeties toward the left, away from Green. Atlanta responded with a Cover 2, showing cornerback Isaiah Oliver shallow and cornerback Brian Poole in the end zone above Green.
When Green ran a z-out (that’s a zed-out in Canada), Oliver, the shallow man, simply let Green go, covering no one. This would make sense in the middle of a game if Atlanta was worried about a running play. But there were 12 seconds remaining, Cincinnati had no time outs, and the pass absolutely had to go to the end zone! Poole reacted slowly, and Green caught the winning touchdown. Very sour—especially for Falcons head coach Dan Quinn, a former defensive coordinator. Atlanta had two time outs. Quinn should have called one before the snap to make sure his players knew the pass absolutely had to go into the end zone, and that short gains didn’t matter.
Sweet ‘n’ Sour Overtime Series. Trailing the defending champion Eagles in overtime, Tennessee faced 4th-and-15, and converted on a pass completion. Four snaps later, facing 4th-and-4, the Titans converted on a defensive penalty. Sweet and sweet!
Another four snaps later, facing 4th-and-2 at the Philadelphia 32, rookie Titans’ head coach Mike Vrabel could have played for the tie by sending out the field goal unit. But a 49-yard kick is no sure thing on their field’s Bermuda grass. And at that juncture, there was 1:17 remaining and Philadelphia held two time outs, which would have given the Nesharim a decent shot of a field goal the other way. So Vrabel went for it and the Titans converted. (On the play-by-play, it looks as though Philadelphia only had one time out when Vrabel made this decision—that’s because head coach Doug Pederson called time when he saw the Tennessee offense stay on the field.) Then with 17 seconds showing, Tennessee’s Marcus Mariota threw the winning touchdown to Corey Davis. Sweet and sweet! Four sweets!
On the 4th-and-15, the Eagles showed a “stick” defense—five defensive backs forming a row at the line-to-gain. It ought to be impossible to complete a pass near the sticks against a stick alignment, but Tennessee did exactly this as the closest Eagles defender simply stood and watched. Then on the winning play—Tennessee at the Philadelphia 10, out of time outs, the pass has to go into the end zone!—the Eagles lined up with a press defense, no safety in the end zone. No safety in the end zone! The intended receiver had only a cornerback to beat. Sour and sour.
Sweet ‘n’ Sour Overtime Bonus. On the snap before the Tennessee winning touchdown, Corey Davis dropped a pass at the Philadelphia 5. This looked sour for the hosts but actually was sweet. Had Davis caught the pass he would have been tackled inbounds; out of time outs, Tennessee would have spiked to set up one final snap. Instead, Davis’s drop stopped the clock, allowing Tennessee a shot to the end zone before having to decide whether to kick and accept a tie.
The Legal-Reasoning Reason to Oppose Kavanaugh. There’s a misconception the Senate must confirm a Supreme Court nominee unless he or she is unqualified or has some shame in his/her past. If this is the standard, character assassination—the search for past ignominy—is part of the game. But the advice-and-consent clause does not mandate that court nominees must get the nod unless either is unqualified or shamed. Senators are free to say, “I will vote aye because I approve of his/her politics” or “I will vote nay because I don’t approve.” This is perfectly respectable, and in keeping with the Constitution.
On many levels, for senators to say of Kavanaugh, “I don’t like his legal philosophy therefore I am voting nay” is preferable to bizarre questions about 35-year-old high school slang. But if a senator says, “I am voting nay because I don’t like the cut of his jib,” that senator takes responsibility for a decision. If the same senator says, “I had no choice because of the shocking discovery about the beach kegger in 1982,” the senator acts as if he or she had no responsibility about the decision. Evading responsibility is what nearly all modern members of Congress desire.
Contrast that with former Rep. Mickey Edwards, who said he would reject Kavanaugh on principle—the grounds being the nominee’s stated view that the president of the United States cannot be indicted for a crime.
There is unsettled legal history to Kavanaugh’s view, and it does not mean the president is above the law. (Kavanaugh seems to think the president must be impeached, then convicted by the Senate, then indicted, then taken to criminal trial; some legal scholars suppose this, too.) But if this interpretation holds, the White House has total fiat up to the final act of an all-out Constitutional crisis.
Kavanaugh’s support of presidential fiat is the last thing democracy needs under Donald Trump. His beliefs regarding this matter are grounds for a conscientious senator to say no.
No to Kavanaugh. Historians will scratch their heads about how the United States became obsessed with knowing what happened at a prep school party in July 1982; at this writing it’s unclear if the answer will be found. But we can be certain what happened in September 2018—and that is that Kavanaugh did not tell the truth to the Senate on numerous points.
Confronted with Spanish Inquisition-style questions, a person can either tell the truth, or refuse to answer and let the chips fall where they may. Kavanaugh would not have invoked the Fifth Amendment, only said, “That question crosses the line, so I refuse to answer.” Truth or silence were his honorable options. Lying under oath, or giving answers that are literally true but intended to deceive, should disqualify a Supreme Court candidate.
It borders on impossible to believe Kavanaugh told the truth last week, however uncouth some questions were. The lies mean senators should vote nay.
No to Everyone—As the Job Is Now Described. Any life, if put under a microscope, contains some aspect that can be made to sound worse than it was. Every person—every person—did something he or she would squirm to discuss in public. Doesn’t that mean no one in the United States is qualified for a lifetime of unaccountable power on the Supreme Court?
That is exactly the situation—no one in the United States is qualified for a lifetime of unaccountable power on the Supreme Court. So let’s have a Constitutional amendment to end the Supreme Court until-death premise.
The Framers, who left the description of the High Court studiously vague, could not have anticipated how much power would accrete to the Supreme Court because of the 1803 declaration of judicial review; the 1868 extension of the Bill of Rights from controlling only federal action to controlling state and local action; and the administrative state that evolved after the New Deal and World War II. Nor could the Framers have anticipated the incredible extension of human lifespan. Of course there were longed-lived, mainly upper class persons in the Framers’ day. But now long life is the typical outcome.
Expanded Supreme Court power, coupled to longer lives, have turned the Supreme Court justice’s robe into a grant of decades of aristocratic excess. This would horrify the Framers.
The first nine justices to serve on the Supreme Court departed after an average of 9 years. The most recent nine to depart served an average of 23 years. Several current justices are older than the maximum age for judges in most states and older than the mandatory retirement age for top judges in most Western nations. Modern justices do what aristocrats have always done—cling to their unaccountable lordship and ladyship. This would horrify the Framers.
The nomination battle over Kavanaugh is so intense, partisan, and bitter because both sides know he would be transformed into a nobleman who can lord it over the masses however long he pleases. If instead he were to receive, say, a 10- or 15-year position that cannot be renewed, the frantic sense on both sides would diminish.
A Constitutional amendment to impose a term limit on Supreme Court justices would go a long way toward ending the preposterous confirmation battles of recent lore. Such an amendment would make the United States more democratic and republican in their lower-case meanings—and that is sorely needed. And partisan rancor would decline.
If there were a 10-year limit on the justice’s robe, then roughly one seat on the Supreme Court per year would open up—about what the pace was in the initial decades of the United States. More choices would make the composition of the Court younger and more diverse. There would be no dread of appointing a young justice and thus investing someone with unaccountable power for far too long. There also would be no fear of appointing an older, wiser justice and thus “wasting” a seat on someone who can’t serve for far too long. The whole situation would improve.
Supreme Court term limits would mean most justices would leave under their own power, not on a gurney. One of the many reasons to admire David Souter is that he departed the Court voluntarily at age 70, before his mind began to dull and when he was still young enough to enjoy the natural beauty of the wonderful state of New Hampshire. It would be healthy for the system, and for the justices, if such departures were customary rather than rare. And term limits would create a class of former justices who could take cabinet posts, be university presidents, or travel the country explaining to audiences how the legal system works.
Whatever happens to the Kavanaugh mess, it is time for a national conversation on a Constitutional amendment to end life tenure on the Supreme Court.
Always Bear in Mind About Sports: The Agent Doesn’t Make the Contract, the Market Makes the Contract. Le’Veon Bell’s agent must be a happy man. The Steelers seek a trade for the disgruntled tailback. They ask a hefty price, plus the acquiring team must agree to pay Bell a king’s ransom in bonus money. Normally NFL teams are reluctant to pony up millions of dollars and draft choices for a moody star. But doing this just worked out spectacularly well for the Chicago Bears—making Bell’s agent a happy man.
Don’t Say Washington, D.C. Cannot Look Any Worse—It Can. Last week was yet another low in American politics. Dictators the world over must have smiled that the United States Senate could not comport itself in a stately manner, making democratic institutions look ridiculous. There are 21 members on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and only three—Chris Coons of Delaware, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, and Mike Lee of Utah—emerged from last week with their dignity preserved. Most behaved like circus clowns.
It’s not an illusion that tempers have gotten shorter regarding candidates for judgeships and justiceships. There seem a few basic reasons.
One is the ever-increasing national emphasis on blame-game politics. Things no longer happen to Americans, all of us, together. Now things happen to identity groups and interest groups: Someone must be blamed. With their dark robes and mysterious powers, Supreme Court justices can be made into devil figures.
Next is the evolution of Congress. We shouldn’t romanticize the past, but at most prior junctures, many in the House and Senate were motivated primarily by the public interest. Now members of both houses, from both parties, seem motivated by little more than publicity, donations, and finding targets to denounce. Republican Mark Hatfield, Democrat Philip Hart, and others once filled the Conscience of the Senate role. Nobody fills that role today.
Third is that as Congress has become less concerned with the public trust, it has delegated decisions to federal agencies and courts. Delegating the details to federal agencies and the big choices to the Supreme Court enables members of the House and Senate to wag their fingers round the clock about mistakes by others, while absolving themselves of responsibility.
Both parties keep looking for new ploys to shaft the other regarding the Supreme Court. In 2008, when President George W. Bush was president and Justice David Souter—a great guy!—was about to retire, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and other Democratic senators declared that under no circumstances would they allow a Bush Supreme Court nomination to proceed. (Then, filibuster was an option.) Souter waited to retire until Obama was sworn in, so a showdown never occurred.
In 2016, Republicans refused to bring the Merrick Garland nomination to committee, let alone to the floor. This was a graceless tactic. If Garland had a vote up-or-down and lost, that would have been that. Refusing Garland a vote left a bad taste in every mouth.
When Neil Gorsuch was nominated for the seat Garland might have taken, there was a brief spate of decorum: Donald Trump was still in his honeymoon period, and Gorsuch has impeccable credentials. Now it’s 2018, the president is damaged, and Kavanaugh drags political baggage. All the suppressed anger over the Garland nomination is unleashed on Kavanaugh.
Democrats and their MSM allies have been much meaner to Kavanaugh than Republicans and their media supporters have been to any Democratic court nominee in the present generation. If a Democratic judicial nominee were treated for one day the way that Kavanaugh has been treated for a month, Democrats, CNN, and the New York Times editorial page would be livid. But even given ignoble actions against him, if Kavanaugh wants a lifetime of unaccountable Supreme Court power, he must show that he can take the heat—and he has not shown that.
Why have Democrats focused ad hominem attacks against Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, Robert Bork, and others while Republicans have not showered Democratic nominees with low blows? It’s the parties’ relationship to their central goals.
In the current generation, the central goal of the Democratic party has been social engineering, while the central goal of the Republican party has been favoritism for the rich. Republicans have been able to achieve their central goal via the ballot box; Democrats have not.
So Democrats want the Supreme Court to impose the outcomes that voters (in the main) will not support, while Republicans have been able (rightly or wrongly) to win their central goal in November. That, not questions of inherent personal worth, is why contemporary Supreme Court nominations become vicious for the Democrats but not for the Republicans.
Hidden Play of the Week. Sometimes what doesn’t happen is as important as what does. Vikings at Rams, Minnesota wide receiver Stefon Diggs went deep, covered by cornerback Sam Shields with safety Lamaracus Joyner coming over at an angle. As the pass approached, Shields knocked it away.
Diggs’s outstretched body was exposed. Five years ago, Joyner would have, legally, taken a free shot by slamming into Diggs; 10 years ago Joyner would, legally, have blasted Diggs with a deliberate helmet-to-helmet hit. This time as Joyner saw the pass deflected, he pulled back and deliberately missed Diggs.
This was a huge, if unseen, moment of progress for football, because youth and high school players—never forget, most football in the United States is played by those under age 18—emulate what they see on TV in the NFL. When what they saw on TV was helmet-to-helmet hits, that’s what boys emulated. Now they are seeing reduction of dangerous contact.
Offensive Line Confidential. In recent years, Pro Bowl left tackle Nate Solder has protected Tom Brady’s blindside well. In the offseason, Solder, a free agent, jumped to the Giants for a megabucks bonus. Bill Belichick made a discount-priced trade to acquire little-known tackle Trent Brown from the 49ers, who in turn promoted Garry Gilliam to starting left tackle.
What happened Sunday? Solder was awful, in one series versus New Orleans allowing a TFL (tackle for a loss) of Saquon Barkley, then a sack of Eli Manning. Gilliam was awful, surrendering the late sack-strip that sealed the contest for the Los Angeles Chargers. Brown played a near-perfect game for the Patriots.
What If Gutenberg Invented the Blog? It made my day to learn that even in the era of PDFs and books-on-tablet, there is a publication called Stationery News, devoted to quill pens and letterhead. One recent issue reported strong sales for the traditional graphite pencil. Another noted development of the “dishwasher proof keyboard.” At first I thought, “How silly.” Within five minutes I thought, “Maybe I should get one.”
Error in Last Week’s Column. Parents who live in the many places where public schools are terrible may have no choice but to seek out for their children prep, parochial, magnet or charter schools. In places where public schools are great, it’s another matter.,
Last week’s column proposed that parents in Bethesda, Maryland—location of the Brett Kavanaugh/Cristine Blasey Ford dispute—don’t need to send their children to expensive private schools (Georgetown Prep for Kavanaugh, Holton-Arms for Blasey Ford) because Montgomery County Public Schools are excellent. Bethesda parents who pay extra for prep schools, I said, are not buying education, they are buying status. I got pushback that boiled down to, “Oh yeah, how would you know?”
I’ve lived in Bethesda for 20 years—and must say that it is disorienting to behold this staid, politically liberal but socially conservative community depicted in the national press as the world capital of teenage debauchery. My three children graduated from this excellent regular public school (racially diverse, street address Potomac but many students from Bethesda) and all three were admitted to elite colleges or universities that neither I nor my wife graduated from or donated to. The key was great education at a regular public school.
There may be special-needs children who benefit from private schools, and of course it’s your money—spend it as you please. My point is that parents who live in Bethesda, Maryland, are not compelled to place kids into expensive private environments for educational reasons, and this had been true in Bethesda for some time. As prep school kids, Kavanaugh and Blasey Ford grew up in a milieu of purchased status and entitled snobbery. Is this really good for children?
It can’t be good for the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh enjoyed purchased status in prep school, then inherited status at Yale. That’s the sort of upbringing that can generate the how-dare-you-question-me attitude Kavanaugh displayed to the Senate.
Beyond that, as a YLS grad, Kavanaugh would join a Supreme Court that consists entirely of Yale or Harvard law products. No one on the highest bench is from Stanford, UVA, NYU, or Columbia law schools; no one from the magnificent law school of the University of Chicago. (And I commend to readers the important new book The Schoolhouse Gate by Justin Driver, a rising young professor at University of Chicago law.)
A century ago, it could have been argued that to get the best legal minds, one had to tap Harvard or Yale. In the current generation this is not true: Admission to Yale, Stanford, Harvard, Chicago, Columbia, NYU, Penn, Michigan, Berkeley, and UVA law schools (the current USNews top 10, in order) has the same degree of difficulty and educational achievement required, while all of these law schools offer the same quality of education.
Endlessly tapping Harvard and Yale means the Supreme Court is endlessly dominated by a the-world-owes-me-deference point of view. It’s not Kavanaugh’s fault that he would add to this defect of the Supreme Court. But it is an argument against his confirmation.
Last week’s column went on to complain that all current Supreme Court justices attended either private prep schools or parochial or magnet schools with admission examinations that made them exclusionary.
Many alumni flagged me that Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s high school is today a magnet facility with an admission exam—but at the time she walked the halls, was a regular public school. I regret the error.
Elite College Donations Should Not Be Deductible. I am glad my three kids got into elite colleges. I don’t buy the theory that the existence of elite colleges is a sinister conspiracy against average people. Teens from low-income backgrounds may need to work harder than teens from privileged backgrounds to gain admission to any top university or college. But it’s always been the case that the underprivileged have to work harder, and it will be until such time as a better world may be achieved. The existence of elite colleges and universities, most now offering extensive financial aid regardless of legacy status, benefits average teens who work hard.
But should average families be subsidizing the elite colleges? That’s a horse of a different color.
Last week Harvard said its endowment had grown to $39.2 billion—more than the GDP of Bolivia. (Okay, Harvard did not add the Bolivia part.) Your columnist has contended for years that the affluent should not give money to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and other megabucks schools. Top colleges don’t need more money—Yale has $27 billion, Stanford has $22 billion. More money may actually be bad for them!
Donations to the Ivy League or Stanford or Duke won’t do the slightest good for the world—the sole benefit will be the donor’s plaque—while donations to colleges for average people will change lives. Give $10 million to Northwestern and no student there will care in the slightest. Give to Berea College and you’ll change lives! Wouldn’t that be a lot more rewarding—a lot more fun—than a donor’s invitation to some supercilious dinner party at MIT?
“It’s my money to give as I please”—true. But donors to the megabucks colleges actually give only about two-thirds of the amount they are credited for: Taxpayers provide the balance. The rich person who donates $10 million to an elite university pays about $7 million, with taxpayers covering the other $3 million. Average families who can only dream of a child at Stanford or Cornell are taxed—or the national debt is increased, effectively the same thing—so the rich can stroke their own egos via donation size.
How about this: Once a college or university has $1 million in endowment funds per student, further donations cease to be tax deductible. Donors could still give as they please—they’d just have to pay the true cost themselves, rather than fobbing a third off onto the public.
There are no more than 20 colleges and universities with more than $1 million in endowment per student—it’s not that many. The Ivies, Amherst, Cal Tech, a few others. They’re gonna be fine on their own. Donations to such well-heeled schools should no longer be deductible. If the rich want to give, fine—but pay the true cost.
If donations to the endowments of top-money schools were no longer deductible, some would still give because that’s what they want to do. Others would look toward the hundreds of colleges and universities that need capital and that serve average people. This would be a tremendous social benefit.
Fortune Favors the Bold! (Didn’t Work). This column extols aggressive tactics. With 27 seconds remaining in overtime, the Colts faced 4th-and-4 on their 43. New head coach Frank Reich was at the Eagles last season and observed how Philadelphia’s aggressive fourth down tactics helped bring the Lombardi to Philly. He went for it and the pass fell incomplete.
That gave Houston possession at the Indianapolis 43, and a moment later, the Moo Cows’ winning field goal boomed. So the try backfired. But if Reich keeps going for it—or doesn’t get fired right away—the next time may be different.
Icing update: As the Houston placekicker attempted the last-tick winning field goal, Reich called an icing time out. The Houston kicker missed. Granted a second attempt, the Houston kicker hit.
Fortune Favors the Bold! (Did Work). This column extols going for two, not punting on fourth down, and the surprise onside. Human nature dictates that coaches who have just tried one without success will not gamble again in the same contest: “I just tried that and it blew up in my face, I’m not doing that again!” But the previous try tells us nothing about the next, in the same way that if a coin comes up tails 10 straight times, that tells us nothing about the next flip.
Tulane at 1-3 hosting heavily favored Memphis, the Green Wave scored first, then surprise onside kicked. Memphis recovered and got a quick touchdown. The gamble backfired!
Game now tied at 7, Tulane faced 4th-and-1 in its own territory. Head coach Willie Fritz—a football coach’s name if ever there was one—had his charges go for it. The result was a 53-yard fourth-down touchdown. Fortune favors the bold! Two tries—the first failed, the second succeeded—set an aggressive tone for Tulane’s victory, one of the major upsets of the young college football season.
Fashion statement note: This column supports the athletic truism, “Looks good, plays good.” Memphis looked good in gray and white; Tulane looked even better in new helmets with bright blue splashes and a green guy who was supposed to be an angry wave. Whether waves can be angry is a question for another day. Tulane players must have felt really sweet putting those helmets on.
Adventures in Officiating. In the third quarter of Vikings at Rams, Jared Goff threw a 56-yard screen pass to Todd Gurley, setting up an LA/A field goal. Wait, there’s a flag—officials called illegal block in the back, which would have negated most of the gain. Then they huddled and picked up the flag. But the foul was obvious and occurred at the point of attack. Originally the call was correct, then a review changed it to wrong.
Earlier in the game Minnesota’s Adam Thielen caught a pass near a Rams defender, tumbled to the ground, realized he had not been touched, got up and began running for what should have been a long touchdown. But zebras sounded the infamous inadvertent whistle, which cannot be reviewed. All in all yet another poor performance by an NFL officiating crew, this one run by referee Brad Allen. Now that many NFL officials are full-time, the league is paying more but not getting improved results—just like U.S. infrastructure projects!
Tom Brady’s 55-yard touchdown pass to Cordarelle Patterson triggered the 21-point third quarter that put the Patriots in control at Miami. The action was a pick play: Tailback James White cut in front of Patterson. But White executed an obvious wham block on the Dolphins defender who was supposed to cover Patterson. The play looked like Fuzzy Thurston leading a Packers’ power sweep in 1966—yet no flag floated.
Sunday at Oakland, zebras signaled Browns’ first down with 1:41 remaining and the lead. The Raiders had one time out, so Cleveland would have gone into victory formation. Replay review began; the network announcers, and a network officiating expert, declared they were totally, utterly positive it was a first down. Review reversed the call to 4th-and-1, Cleveland punted, and the Raiders went on to win in overtime.
Should Cleveland fans and patrons of sports bars be outraged? The Browns did not get the first down; in this case, replay fixed a wrong call. Now, Cleveland might have simply gone for the first, and the victory, on 4th-and-inches. I’m just sayin’.
Next Week. The Loch Ness monster hires an agent.
