DORRELL PULLS RUG OUT FROM WALK-ON....By Yost (8-14-06)

Yesterday, I lost a lot of respect for UCLA head coach Karl Dorrell. And though he probably doesn't even realize it nor would they ever tell him, I bet some members of his team did, too. For he just let each and every one of them know that they're nothing more than cogs in a wheel. That the student part of "student-athlete" is a crock. That the "Bruins family" isn't. All because of the way he handled the case of a walk-on receiver named Andrew Baumgartner.

Baumgartner is a modern Rudy, the Notre Dame walk-on whose story was immortalized on the big screen. Upon graduating from high school with a 4.6 GPA (4.6?!), Baumgartner didn't have the raw skills to interest the big-time schools. So he enrolled at UCLA as an engineering major. Then, after leading his IM flag football team to consecutive flag football championships (I am not making this up, read the LA TIMES article linked above), he called the football office following the 2003 season and asked for a tryout.

Well, at the annual student tryout, the kid made the team as a walk-on but, as luck would have it, a high-ankle sprain forced him to miss the entire 2004 season.

But he didn't quit.

The following spring - after changing his major to math and econ to better fit his football schedule - he began to get noticed. He busted his ass all summer, getting up at 5am to work out with the scholarship players.

The hard work paid off.

At the end of the summer, Baumgartner was given a scholarship for the 2005 season. And still not making any of this up, he got it just in time to tell his mom and stepfather as a sort of a surprise for their 50th birthdays (eat your heart out, Rudy).

Last fall, Baumgartner proved UCLA hadn't made a mistake. This was no "pity" scholarship. Given the chance, he made the most of his opportunity, catching a touchdown pass against Oklahoma as well as a 4th down toss on the winning drive against Washington. For the year, he caught 111 yards worth of passes and led all UCLA receivers with an average of 18.5 yards a catch.

So how did UCLA and head coach Karl Dorrell reward him for his hard work?

He's a walk-on again.

This summer, Baumgartner got a letter informing him that the Bruins would not be renewing his scholarship. According to the LA Times article linked above, the money was needed for top freshman recruits. Eighty-five scholarships to give but not one was available for Baumgartner after all he'd accomplished in 2005.
  < "Hey, way to go Baumgartner! Now give me back that scholarship!"

He goes from walk-on hero to a kid who isn't even allowed to eat with the team at training table this season.

Gee, thanks, Coach K.

What BS.

When players were called to the football offices to sign their scholarships, Baumgartner wasn't one of them. Instead, he got a letter in late spring making it official. Dorrell didn't even personally tell him saying it had already been discussed. Even worse, just months before classes were to start, Baumgartner had to figure out how to pay for his senior year (the answer was a $12,000 loan).
 < "Rudy couldn't hold my jock yet he gets a movie deal and I get my scholarship yanked. Does anyone know where I can get some used text books?"

Yeah, classy move, Karl. Class.

Look, I'm not naive. I know college football isn't just a game played by college students on Saturday afternoons anymore. It's big business. It's luxury boxes and multi-million dollar bowl payouts.

But rarely is it this blatant.

So besides obviously making me think less of Dorrell as a person, it also makes me question him as a coach. Because he doesn't understand the positive impact of guys like an Andrew Baumgartner on the rest of a team. He doesn't realize his contribution is about more than having 4.4 speed in the 40. Most importantly, Dorrell doesn't seem to realize what his actions just told the rest of his players. And the next time he preaches to his players about the importance of being a student athlete or the "Bruins family," they're all going to know it's BS.

"Yost", a Michigan fan, runs one of the funniest, yet insightful, college football websites. Check out www.michiganzone.blogspot.com. Yost will be a guest on The Turf Sunday night September 10 and is also a pollster on the for the Artificial Turf Top 17 poll.

THE JUICE......By Spike (4-29-06)

Steroids have corrupted the game of baseball. Most fans of the game would probably agree that steroid use is rampant, though many may declare that they are not concerned...simply because they just want to see monsterous laser shots ringing off the bat, and out of the ballpark (it would seem that baseball owners don't care either, just so long as the fans come to the ballpark to see their product).

With Barry Bonds on the cusp of eclipsing Babe Ruth, needing only three more long shots to tie the universally revered "Sultan of Swat," it seems that many folks are eager to see the national pastime's most sacred record challenged, and surpassed.

The fact that he is one of several reknown players over the last 10 years, whose exploits on the field have been suspected of chemical enhancement, doesn't appear to bother many San Franciscans; who have been interviewed at AT&T Park so far this season.

All seem eager to be on hand for the making of history, regardless of the moral issue that Bonds' quest for 715, has conjured up for baseball, sports writers (who will have to ponder his selection into Cooperstown), and for the young men around the globe, who seek to play the game professionally.

That issue being the decision to seek physical growth through the use of banned substances. Growth which results in a player achieving the current physical composition to be considered to play in the major leagues, for some older players the ability to remain in the major leagues (for a few seasons past their prime, to continue to receive a pay check), and for one giant of the game, the incredible strength to hit the ball longer than just about every other player in the major leagues.

The decision to use a banned substance is a difficult one. One has to accept the (unknown) risks of damage to one's health, in the search for physical development that may be the factor that gets them a big league contract, conceivably worth millions of dollars.

Needless to say, the pressure to thousands of aspiring ballplayers around the world, must be enormous. More so to those who live in severe conditions of poverty such as in Latin America. To a young teen living in poverty, the decision to use steroids/banned substances (once he has been contacted by scouts who marvel at his ability, but suggest doubt about his making it due to a lack of size) may actually not be one that is too challenging. It might just be a "no brainer."

The issue of steroids is now one that the baseball writers of America will have to wrestle with as well. Several players suspected of the use of banned substances are now entering their first year of eligibiity for selection into the National Baseball Hall of Fame.

It will be interesting to see how Mark McGwire fares, if he will receive a phone call stating that he's made the grade, been approved as worthy of the standards of conduct required for entry into Cooperstown?

It must also be recognized as a nightmare scenario for the commissioner of baseball. How to resolve an issue objectively and impartially, that will secure some semblance of integrity for the game, damaging as it may be to the individuals who are publically confirmed as abusers of steroids (stanozolol), like the case of Rafael Palmiero last year.

Absolute truth is too much to hope for. Definitely too much. Most likely we will see partial truth, half truth, a slight semblance of truth.

The corruption of the game is so great, that the fact that baseball wants to investigate itself is laughable. The powers that be would not accept a fair investigation that could actually make public the full truth of the cancer that has emasculated the game. Absolute truth would require the owners and executives of baseball to accept responsibility, for they were aware of the changes happening before their very eyes.

This moral decay, in the pursuit of financial reward, has corrupted the game of baseball from the inside. It has made liars out of many men who play the game, those who manage the game (and owners too) as well as those charged with oversight of the playing of the game.

This state of corruption is a reflection of our society unfortunately. We accept and value the end result of this corruption of the game. We condone it. We praise and worship it. We flock to the ballparks of America in record numbers to see the games, and we fail to challenge the corruption.

In essence, we are corrupt as well, for failing to take exception to the way the game has changed. Our voices for the most part silent, not wanting to confront the corruption of the game, our game, our national pasttime.

(Spike, a.k.a. Cameron Matheson, runs a terrific, must visit baseball website. Go to www.spikesballparks.com)

First, I was a young boy when Koufax was pitching, no, dominating and embarrassing National League hitters for my home team the Los Angeles Dodgers. I once talked to Sandy Koufax when I was 8 years old but that’s another story altogether.

Later, as a teenager, Joe Namath became my hero partly because he was a great quarterback who led the New York Jets to a huge upset over the Baltimore Colts in Super Bowl III. But Namath was my hero mostly because he was a ladies man. When you are 17 that is an unbeatable combination for hero status.

Strangely enough, as I got a little older I adopted a cartoon character as my third and maybe most interesting hero, Bugs Bunny.  Why Bugs? Simple. He always wins and he rarely, if ever, has to resort to violence. He just out talks and out smarts everyone and he does it with a sense of humor. 

Now, certainly there has always been poor pitching in baseball…it’s just there’s more of it today. This comes from several factors, one being sheer numbers. As you mentioned, 30 teams now as opposed to 16 prior to 1961. With an average of 10 pitchers on most major league teams today, we’re looking at roughly 300 pitchers in the bigs, versus probably around 125 back in the 40s, 50s, and 60s. As you stated, pitchers back then went the distance. No long or short relievers, set-up men or closers. That fact in itself is a testimony to quality pitching. In a nine inning game a starting pitcher of yesterday had to face a hitter at least three and maybe four or five times. Today, maybe two to three times, assuming he’s pitching well, and if he sees him more than that he’s probably getting hammered, because as we all know five or six innings is the norm today (re: long-short relievers, set-up men and closers). Any starting pitcher past or present will tell you the most difficult thing to do is get by hitters that third or fourth time they’ve seen you. It is in fact one of the key differences between pitching and throwing.

The next factor in this scenario is that very thing; pitching vs. throwing. Scouts today look for two things, how big is he and how hard does he throw. We’ve all seen them at games gunning kids - to see what? Not how effective they are at getting hitters out, but HOW HARD CAN HE THROW! A caveat here, a pitcher has to have a good enough fastball, that hitters must honor it. But, with the average fastball in the majors last year being 88 mph, we’ll use that as the measuring stick. There have always been pitchers who could touch 100 mph, dating from Satchel Paige in the 1930s to Bob Feller in the 1940s, to Nolan Ryan. But even those men had more than just a heater. They could in fact pitch. When you talk about the unreal sliders and breaking pitches of today you must also consider the spitters and balls scuffed up to point they made noise, back in the day. It would be interesting to see how Todd Helton and Alex Rodriguez would deal with those conditions. Correct me if I’m wrong but don’t they throw out every ball that hits the dirt now. Hitters today see nothing but pristine new baseballs. I’m sure Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb and Rogers Hornsby would have loved to constantly see a new baseball every swing.

Now you might say, well there you have it. Pitchers today can’t do that illegal stuff, doctoring up baseballs, while the hitters, at least some of them, can self medicate, so to speak. And that would certainly be true. But your argument was that the "old-timers" never had to face a staff that threw 90+ milers per hour and hit against guys with unreal sliders and breaking pitches. My point is they not only had to face big time fastballs and great breaking pitches, but "other" pitches as well. It’s funny, 20 game winners are fewer and fewer and .300 hitters are fewer and fewer, but today’s athletes are bigger, stronger and faster…go figure.

When you talk about 300 inning pitchers then, and none now, that again is verification that they were pitchers and not throwers. No one can just go out and throw hard for nine innings. Hitters, past, present or future would not allow it. You’d be gone by the third or fourth inning with an ERA of…well, BIG NUMBER!

I will agree with you that Roger Clemens would be as dominant then as he is now, but 20 no-no’s – no, no! Great pitchers are eminent. Paige, Young, Feller, Koufax or Carlton, they’d all be great no matter the era. As for Jason Jennings being a Hall of Famer…NOT!!! If he can’t throw strikes now, what makes you think he could have thrown them back then? Which brings me to another point, pitching is predicated on the pitchers ability to throw all his pitches for strikes, not just his fastball. I think you’ll find all great pitchers, which includes Hall of Famers and Cy Young winners, including Cy Young, threw strikes. If you can’t find the plate you find another job.

The final factors are that today mechanics are not being taught, i.e. arm surgeries are at epidemic proportions (even down to 8 year olds), because all the emphasis is put on size and how hard you can throw. And finally, young pitchers today aren’t learning how to pitch. Coaches from little league on up are calling the pitches and pitchers are no longer required to read hitters, consider circumstances and get a feel for what pitching truly is; throwing off the hitters timing with pitch selection and location.

It will be interesting to see the evolution of pitching given the trends of today. There is hope, however, the Chicago White Sox proved, as is always the case, good pitching beats good hitting, and it can be done with starting pitchers (not throwers) going the distance. In the climate of baseball today, they were an aberration.

Sorry, Bill, but I beg to differ with your assessment.

(A frequent guest on Artificial Turf, Jan Sumner is an author, pitching coach and former Rockies batting practice pitcher. This essay is in response to Bill Rogan's essay on 2-15-06)