Harry Hix

Two certainties

Two things are certain for the OSU Cowboys this week: 1-They will be decided underdogs in their game at Kansas State, and 2-Because of the areas in need of shoring up, they are bound to show some improvement, win or lose.

I haven’t seen a point spread yet for Saturday’s game; but, with the Cowboys on a two-game losing streak, no longer in the Top 25 rankings, and playing on the road against the Wildcats, who are crouched atop the Big 12 standings and ranked No. 11 nationally in the AP poll, it seems reasonable to assume that the point spread will heavily favor the ’Cats.

Regardless of their record, the Wildcats under Coach Bill Snyder are always a tough opponent, especially so in Manhattan. This year, KSU is 6-1 with the lone defeat being a close 7-point loss to No. 4 Auburn. The six victories include a win over OU in Norman and a 23-0 shutout last week against Texas, the first shutout ever for a Charlie Strong-coached team. The Wildcats are also a national leader for fewest penalties per game, meaning opponents can expect little to no help from KSU errors in a game.

Clearly, the task for the Cowboys is a formidable one.

Not making the job any easier is that the Cowboys are riding a bit of a slump right now. As the youngest team among the major college conferences, the Cowboys are competing with considerable inexperience in the lineup and it shows. In addition, key injuries and a lack of depth at many positions have added to the challenge.

How did the Cowboys get to be so young? A key part of the answer may be the loss of so many players from the recruiting classes of 2010 and 2011, classes that now are the seniors and fourth-year juniors. Of the 54 signees from those two recruiting classes, only 19 remain. The losses have departed for various reasons or have not turned out to be as talented as expected. So far, 42 of the 48 signees in the 2012 and 2013 classes have been retained, a strong indication that this year is a one-time glitch, not a trend.

Particularly significant among the injuries have been the loss for multiple games of a starting safety and cornerback on defense and on offense the starting quarterback, two running backs, and a veteran lineman. Many of those called on as replacements have been freshmen.

One notable area for improvement is the offensive production. Fans accustomed to high point production have been disappointed in the Cowboys’ inability to generate touchdowns as, I’m quite confident, have been the coaches and players themselves. It’s hard for fans not to be a bit antsy when the norm in recent years has been 20 points or more—quite often double that—per game, but in the last two-plus games (10 quarters) only one touchdown has been scored on offense.

One area definitely in need of improvement Saturday if the Cowboys are to corral a win against the Wildcats is third down-play, both on offense and defense. For the season, the Cowboys have converted only 36 percent of their third-down opportunities. To some extent, that may be the result of too many third-and-long situations, that is third down and four or more yards needed. Those situations most often result from short gains on first down. Against West Virginia last week, the Cowboys managed to convert only twice in 15 attempts. On defense, the Cowboys have limited opponents to 37 percent conversion on third down, a solid effort. However, against West Virginia, OSU stopped the Mountaineers only nine times in 18 opportunities. Unfortunately, several of WSU’s successful conversions were third-and-long situations, including one of 19 yards and it was achieved on a run, not a pass play.

Special pressure for improvement is on quarterback Daxx Garman, who posted great numbers as a high school quarterback through his junior year. He had to sit out his senior year on an eligibility question, signed at Arizona but didn’t play, then transferred to OSU and didn’t play for a couple of years until handed the starting job six games ago when veteran J.W. Walsh was injured and is apparently out for the season. Though not a freshman, he is inexperienced and perhaps somewhat rusty from the layoff.

In an offensive that has clicked well with short and medium-length passes tossed by a quarterback who has released the ball quickly or run with it, Garman is finding it to be an adjustment because his strength seems to be with throwing long passes rather than the short or medium variety, and he is more a pocket passer than a run threat. Plus, he has the pressure of needing to succeed because essentially he has no backup in case of injury or a bad performance day since Coach Gundy is trying to redshirt freshman Mason Rudolph, who is envisioned as the future QB for the Cowboys. Using Rudolph now would toss aside his redshirt year.

So, the Cowboys have a challenge to face Saturday night; and, since they are facing the Wildcats, an old, time-worn cliché about the difficulty of facing this challenge might be appropriate: It will be like herding cats.

They have driver’s licenses?

Texting and driving are not the only requirement for lunatic driving. I figured that out Friday when my guardian angel had to put in some overtime to keep me safe while driving on city streets. Three times in one day drivers pulled low IQ maneuvers that endangered my auto, myself, and my wife, who, despite her skills as a front-seat, back-seat driver, was unable to keep us out of these near-miss (shouldn’t that be near-hit?) situations.

The first indication my guardian angel was on duty came at the intersection of Husband Street and Main Street/Boomer Road, whichever it is at that point. I was southbound on Husband and stopped at the traffic light. Of course, I was stopped. If you ever go through that intersection on Husband Street, you know the odds are infinitesimally close to 100 percent that you will encounter a red light and have to stop. I noticed that the traffic approaching from my left on Main/Boomer was starting to slow down. I took that to be a clue that the cross traffic now had a yellow light and I was about to get a green light. Glancing to the right at the oncoming traffic, I observed a white Mustang approaching, traveling at what appeared to the speed limit.

Intuition, instinct, common sense, anticipation of a comment from my wife, my guardian angel clicking on a link to my brain, or whatever the reason, a thought flashed into my brain: “He ain’t stoppin’! He’s goin’ through whether the light is yellow, green, red or purple.” Sure enough. Just as I saw the light turn green for me, I heard the engine of that Mustang rev and it surged forward as if the driver had kicked it into passing gear.

Had I been determined enough to go immediately on green, even my van would have had enough get up and go to have been in the intersection in time for a crash. At one point in time, I might have yelled a less-than-friendly road rage comment at the driver. Of course, if I had, it would have been useless since he could not have heard me above the roar of his car’s engine. Shaking a fist would have been a fruitless effort since the driver never looked my way. Instead, I made some remark about his idiotic driving and accepted my wife’s kind remark about how observant and careful I had been to see and anticipate a potentially dangerous situation.

Later in the day, apparently still accompanied by our guardian angel, we were driving north on Duck Street between 30 and 35 mph and approaching the Hall of Fame intersection. The driver in front of me, again in a white car, slid into the left-turn only lane, apparently planning to turn left onto Hall of Fame. That seemed to pose no danger and the signal light was green, so I continued straight ahead with no change of speed or lane.

Just as the white car reached the intersection and having slowed down a bit to be able to turn properly, the driver, for reasons only he knows, decided not to turn left. Instead, he gunned his motor, whipped back into my lane, and went straight ahead through the intersection. Carol gasped and sucked in enough air to create a mini-vacuum in the car. I yelped something to the effect, “What are you doing?,” and blew out some air to replace that which Carol had sucked away.

We looked at each other with the thought creeping into our minds that maybe we weren’t supposed to be on the road that day. Nonetheless, we would venture out that evening, only to encounter another driver with a questionable driving IQ.

Sometime after 7 p.m., we left the house with plans to attend Walkaround at OSU. Our goal was to seek a parking place in the lot by the Journalism Building and the Student Union. Driving west on University Avenue, the car in front of us switched to the left-turn-only lane. Maybe that should have triggered an alert based on our experience earlier in the day. Apparently, the driver was undecided because she almost immediately signaled a right turn back into our lane. Once there, perhaps wanting to exercise her woman’s prerogative to change her mind, she flipped on her flasher, signaling a desire to return to the left-turn-only lane. I’m not sure, but I think I mumbled, “Make up your mind, lady.”

Unfortunately, she couldn’t slide back into the lane until there was sufficient clearance between her car and one already in the left-turn lane. So, we’re all moving ahead and closing in on the intersection where I need to turn right and she, at least for the moment, wants to turn left, but can’t yet. Adding to the need for action is that University Avenue was closed to straight-through traffic just beyond the intersection, and a police car parked sideways with lights flashing emphasized that we must turn.

I don’t know what the woman was thinking, if anything; but, instead of just slowing down slightly so that the car to her left could move ahead far enough for her to slip into the left-turn lane, she maintained the same speed, thus keeping her abreast of the car’s bumper and prohibiting her from moving left. She may have thought my car was going to rear-end her, but she finally realized I had slowed down and she had ample room to ease up and then move into her desired lane. She accomplished the maneuver just in time to turn left at the intersection.

In pondering these moments, I had a scary thought—these people could be reproducing themselves.

Lawyers are not jokes, but there are lawyer jokes

While you might not be full agreement with the first half of the statement above, you will have to agree on the last half. No doubt, lawyers often are unfairly the brunt of jokes—some light-hearted, some less than light-hearted. So, what prompted this musing? Two news stories I read today on the Internet.

One was about settlement of a lawsuit and the other about what some folks would consider to be obnoxious behavior. The lawsuit was filed by a man now serving a 20-year sentence for attempted murder which stemmed from his running over a police officer during a chase in which he hit a school bus and a patrol car. A video showed the man being hit and kicked by police as he lay on the ground after the chase. The man sued and in the settlement with the city of Birmingham received $1,000 and his attorneys were awarded $459,000 in expenses and fees.

The story on determined behavior was about a lawyer from Miami (some might suggest that this would explain a lot) who paid $8,000 for a seat behind home plate for the first game of the World Series in Kansas City. He is not a Kansas City Royals fan; he’s a Florida Marlins fan. “So what?” you might ask. Does that disqualify him from attending and enjoying the World Series game? No, but it did not sit well (pun intended) with certain people.

According to the news story, the lawyer makes a point of getting expensive seats to sporting events and wearing his Marlins gear. In Kansas City, the owner of the Royals was not pleased—“extremely upset,” the lawyer said—and asked the man to change his clothes. He even offered the man a private suite if he would move and tried to entice him with free World Series goodies if he would just get rid of the orange jersey. No way, the man said. He paid $8,000 for that prime seat and wasn’t about to give it up.

In a way, I can’t blame him. But, at the same time, I have a bit of a problem understanding why anyone would spend that amount of money and then go dressed in a way likely to stir up some folks. However, it is equally difficult for me to understand why so much effort would be made to move the man or to change his attire. Probably the public relations people thought it was a negative image for the Royals to have TV viewers seeing a fan wearing Marlins’ orange. I saw him in the background, but it never occurred to me to think negatively of the Royals because of it. Frankly, I just thought he was another of those nut cases often seen at a major sporting event and I ignored him.

Perhaps because I sometimes see humor where others don’t, reading the two stories involving lawyers brought lawyers mind. In turn, that stirred the pot on lawyer jokes.

• You know you need a different lawyer when the prosecutors high-five each other when they see who your lawyer is.
• Two small boys, Billy and Tommy, are talking. Billy: “My dad’s an accountant. What’s your dad?” Tommy: “He’s a lawyer.” Billy: “Honest?” Tommy: “No, just the regular kind.”
• A lawyer has an inoperable brain tumor and his doctor offers the choice of having a brain transplant. He can choose from jars with nuclear scientist brains at $10 per ounce, chemist brains at $15 per ounce, and lawyer brains at $800 per ounce. Outraged, the lawyer says, “This is a ripoff, why are lawyer brains so expensive?” The doctor replies, “Do you know how many lawyers it takes to get an ounce of brains?”
• A truck driver often amused himself by running over lawyers. He would swerve to hit them and enjoy the loud THUMP when he hit one. As he was driving one day he saw a priest hitchhiking and stopped to offer a ride. The priest thanked him and hopped into the cab. The truck driver saw a lawyer walking along side of the road and instinctively swerved. At the last second, he remembered the priest and swerved back, narrowly missing the lawyer. Still he heard a THUMP, but didn’t understand where the noise came from. He turned to the priest and said, “Sorry, Father, I almost hit that lawyer.” “That’s okay,” the priest replied, “I got him with the door.”
• A plumber presented a lawyer a bill, charging $500 an hour. Outraged, the lawyer said, “I’m a lawyer and I don’t make that kind of money.” The plumber replied, “That’s what I thought when I was a lawyer.”

Oops, now plumbers, too, are going to want to flush me down the drain. So, it is best to close the lid on this. However, please know that, as a retired journalist, I know that journalists rank right up there with lawyers in polls showing least-liked occupations and regularly are the butt of jokes similar to what lawyers put up with. So, here’s this one:

• If you see a journalist and a skunk dead in the highway, how do you know which one is the skunk and which one the journalist? Easy, the skunk will be the one where there are skid marks.

I’m not worried about journalists getting upset with me about this and not taking it as a joke. By the time most of them figure it out, they will have forgotten where they read it and who wrote it.

Is SI a loser?

The anxiously awaited report on the NCAA and OSU-supported investigation of the allegations contained in the Sports Illustrated hatchet job last year on supposed NCAA violations in the OSU football program was released this week and, as OSU loyalists anticipated, it contained no findings in support of the SI allegations.

Apparently, this came as a surprise to virtually no one—perhaps even SI, though we’ll never know that for sure.

As an OSU graduate, I’m pleased with the findings. As a career journalist, I’m not surprised at the report findings because my initial reaction to the SI series was that it was built on a foundation of weak and questionable sources. What surprised me most was what I perceived to be journalistic shortcomings of the series of the five articles when they appeared on SI.com. In my years as a newspaper editor and then publisher, I don’t think I would have approved publishing them in my newspaper. The only reason I make this statement with a slight hedge is that I am not privy to the behind-the-scenes information one would need to offer a more informed opinion.

A major question with the series was the sourcing. The articles relied heavily on sources with serious credibility issues, sources who should have raised a red flag about the information being supplied. Numerous allegations and a dearth of facts to substantiate them paved the way for the oft-heard complaint that the articles were agenda driven. Compounding that was relying on a reporter widely perceived to have a strong anti-OSU bias. SI had to be aware of this, yet used the reporter for the investigation and subsequent series of articles.

Was SI a loser in all this? Almost certainly yes in the opinion of most OSU fans and supporters. But among folks outside that circle and among journalists, I can’t say. In retirement I am no longer in regular contact with my peers in journalism, so I haven’t had the opportunity to hear their viewpoints.

Cowboys favored Saturday

What may be a surprise to many is that the OSU Cowboys are the favorites going into Saturday’s homecoming clash with West Virginia in Boone Pickens Stadium. Yep, today at least the Cowboys are favored by 3½ points over the Mountaineers.

The Cowboys by 3½? Quite possible, but they have a rough row to hoe. So, why do the oddsmakers favor OSU?

Both teams are 5-2 for the season and are tied for second in the Big 12 Conference. Both teams like to throw the ball, though OSU’s heavy reliance on the pass is more necessity than desire since it has had problems with running the ball. WVU likes the pass because it has a top-notch receiver, but the Mountaineers have also shown an ability to run.

Not only is Saturday homecoming for the Cowboys, it is a homecoming of sorts for WVU Coach Dana Holgerson, who was the Cowboys’ offensive coordinator before going to West Virginia. His familiarity with the Cowboys’ system should be an asset for the Mountaineers.

In addition to identical records, the two teams have similar losses. The Cowboys lost a close game to then No. 1-ranked Florida State in their season opener, and the Mountaineers lost by 10 points to then No. 2-ranked Alabama. In their second losses, the Mountaineers were beaten 45-33 by then No. 4-ranked OU, and the Cowboys were bucked out of the rankings last week 42-9 by No. 15 (now No. 10) TCU, a team that had defeated OU the week before.

What about the wins by OSU and WVU? The Cowboys have defeated University of Texas at San Antonio, Missouri State, Texas Tech, Iowa State and Kansas. Not a murderer’s row. WVU has also beaten common foes Texas Tech and Kansas, as well as Towson State, Maryland and Baylor. Towson was a cupcake, but Maryland and Baylor are significant victories. Maryland, a newcomer this year to the Big Ten, has been surprisingly strong and the Baylor Bears were ranked No. 4 in the country last week when the Mountaineers treated them more like Bearskin rugs than fearsome bears.

How does all that add up to the Cowboys being favored rather than being a pick ’em game? Perhaps, it is because the Cowboys are recognized as a strong home-team performer while the Mountaineers seem to lose frequently on the road. However, this year the Mountaineers defeated both Maryland and Texas Tech on the road.

Seems to me the Cowboys have their work laid out for them Saturday.

Some things just are not meant to be

Having an opportunity to go to the World Series this year might be considered a Royal or Giant opportunity, depending on whether one views it in terms of its majesty or its size, I suppose. If you are a Kansas City Royals fan, it might even be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity since that is how often the Royals get there. It’s been 29 years since last time, right?

So, the opportunity arises, and all I can do is console myself with the age-old cliché that some things just are not meant to be. You might want to wait a bit before bursting into tears of sorrow for me. Though the opportunity isn’t as bogus as those telemarketer calls you receive day in and day out, taking advantage of it is about as likely as winning the Publisher’s Clearing House prize of however many millions it is now.

Actually, the opportunity to plant my buns on a seat in Kaufman Stadium in Kansas City has its roots in our family DNA of finding humor where others might not. In this instance, my daughter and son-in-law are the agents of opportunity.

Son-in-law Art received an e-mail in which a woman is offering for sale a ticket in “Amazing Seats” for game one and a ticket in “Great Seats” for game two. The e-mail suggests contacting her husband (phone number listed) or herself (phone number also listed), but says not to reply to the e-mail as “I am gone for the day.” Apparently not gone to scout out the seats, though, since their location is given and she is trying to sell said tickets.

Oh, I suppose you might want to know the ticket prices. The one in “Amazing Seats” is available for only $1,250, no more than the cost of a good hammer or saw in a government construction project. And the one in “Great Seats” is available for a mere pittance, $900 even.

Art, not a sports fan and therefore probably unaware of the real value of such a treasure as a ticket to a World Series game, especially a game in which one team hasn’t been to the series in the lifetime of many fans who will be watching, forwarded the e-mail to Cindy, his wife and my daughter (if she still claims me after reading this), with his reaction: “All I can say is ‘Mercy.’”

To which she responded: “Indeed! Yikes! (I tried to raise her right, but obviously she, too, does not have full appreciation of the importance of the World Series and the historic significance of the 2014 Series. And she lives in suburban KC!) You should forward that to Dad and see if he’s interested—ha! J”

Am I interested in attending a World Series game? Does the sun rise in the East?

So, Art zips the e-mail through cyberspace to me with the comment: “Interested? J”

First, I took note of the ticket prices and came to the immediate realization that any resemblance between those prices and my bank account was purely coincidental. However, I did a little Google search and discovered that the $1,250 ticket in “Amazing Seats,” Section 240, Row JJ is for a seat second level up right behind first base. I don’t know that I would go so far as to classify that seat as amazing, but it would be in the “right-good” category.

How about the cheap $900 ticket labeled as being in “Great Seats”? It is for Section 251, Row BB. Where’s that? Second level up in right field. At my age, I might find it difficult to walk that far to get to the seat, and I would need my binoculars to see the batter. I would probably just have to assume that there was actually a ball being used in the game.

Desiring to answer my son-in-law’s inquiry as to whether I was interested, I responded: “Will let you know as soon as I have time to check my pocket change. J”

To which, he said: “Well, if it matters at all, I could drop you off at the stadium as I couldn’t afford the parking…”

Well, as I said, some things just are not meant to be. I have to pass on this opportunity, but there is some consolation.

While I won’t be in the stadium, I won’t have to drive all the way to Kansas City and sit in a hard stadium seat, scrunched between beer drinkers. I’ll sit in my easy chair and have an unblocked view of the TV set. My snack won’t be a $7.50 hotdog, and I won’t be interrupted by having to pass a drink or a sack of peanuts down the row.

Oh, and I can visit the bathroom during commercial breaks and not miss a pitch. Can the person in the $1,250 “amazing seat” do that?

Beware Horned Frogs

My mom and dad liked fried frog legs, a delicacy I never developed a taste for. Mostly, I think, it was the bland taste I didn’t like. And, perhaps, the sight of frog legs sizzling in the pan and occasionally jerking like they were trying to jump out of the skillet may have influenced my dislike.

Although I didn’t particularly care to eat frog legs, I confess to having enjoyed going frog hunting with my dad. Going frogging, we called it. Frog legs were not something we could afford to buy, but hunting your own frogs was not costly. Besides, in Texas frogs were plentiful. Dad and I would go out at night to a nearby pond (tank as a pond was called in Texas) armed with a gig and a sack to carry the captured frogs. Wading around in the murky water and spotting frogs was big fun for a young boy.

But frogs gathered for supper were not horned frogs, or horny toads as most Texans called them. These land creatures were plentiful, but they were not components of one’s meat diet.

As you may know, horned frogs are ugly suckers. They don’t really have horns. They have ridge-like growths on their body that resemble horns. The ones I remember were rock-like in appearance and could easily hide in rocky terrain. They could flatten to the ground to hide or puff up to twice their normal size to scare off predators.

Why think about horned frogs? Because the OSU Cowboys are playing the TCU Horned Frogs Saturday; and, while horned frogs in the wild are really nothing to fear—they just look fearsome—the Horned Frogs of TCU are something to fear. They can do more than flatten themselves to the ground to hide or puff up to twice their size in hopes of frightening the enemy.

Playing two weeks ago on their home field, site of Saturday’s clash between OSU and TCU, the Horned Frogs knocked No. 4 ranked OU from the ranks of the undefeated. Last week, they almost claimed a victory over undefeated Baylor on the Bears’ home field.

The manner in which the Horned Frogs lost may provide additional incentive this week in their attempt to lasso the 5-1 Cowboys. The Horned Frogs held a 21-point lead with just under 12 minutes remaining in the game before the Bears rallied to scored three touchdowns and kick a game-winning field goal as time ran out to win 61-58.

I watched the game against OU and part of the game against Baylor. What I saw tells me that TCU is back to being a Big 12-quality football team and is one the Cowboys need to beware of. Yes, the Cowboys are on a five-game winning streak, but the Horned Frogs are a step up—actually more than a step up—in quality from the teams OSU has defeated. The Cowboys lone loss was to then No. 1 ranked Florida State, and TCU is more in FSU’s category than in that of OSU’s other opponents so far.

TCU is a 9-point favorite, which you would not find surprising if you have seen the Horned Frogs play. That doesn’t mean the Cowboys can’t win, but they will need to cinch that saddle on a bit tighter for this ride.

If they haven’t found a way to run the ball more effectively, a win is more problematic. The Frogs can be beaten by effective passing, but for OSU to achieve success in throwing the ball it will be necessary to provide more solid protection for the quarterback. TCU showed a definite ability to strike through the air against OU and Baylor, which is likely a concern for the Cowboys. Plus, the Horned Frogs have a quarterback who is proficient at running and who will put pressure on the defense.

This needs to be a coming-out party for the Cowboys’ offense if they are to ride away with a win.

Baseball at its best

Wow! The baseball playoffs have been fun and exciting. How anyone could not find these playoffs exciting is beyond me.

And how about those Kansas City Royals? What a fun story they have become.

Here they are in the playoffs for the first time in 29 years, and it appears that, if there were such a thing as baseball gods, they have granted the Royals a special anointing. Going into this afternoon’s game against the Baltimore Orioles, the Royals have, seemingly, miraculously won seven straight games and can clinch a World Series berth with a win today. Unbelievable.

They have come from behind, have struck for runs late in games to win, and played a record four straight extra-inning games, winning all of them. They have stolen bases and made incredible defensive plays. Surprisingly, after being last in the American League in homeruns during the regular season, the Royals have won playoff games with late-inning or extra-inning homeruns. Go figure.

The Royals are probably my favorite team in the American League—right behind whoever is playing the Yankees. So, I hope they finish the job today and make the World Series, where I will cheer for them if they are playing the Giants.

As a sports fan, I am more prone to have teams I cheer against than teams I cheer for. This results in far less high blood pressure, anger, exasperation and other negative emotions suffered while cheering for a favorite team. But, I do have a favorite baseball team I cheer for—the St. Louis Cardinals. As a kid, I could get the Cardinals’ games on the radio and I became a fan. For night games, I would put the radio next to my pillow and listen with the volume down low in hopes my mom would not hear it and remind me I needed to be going to sleep, not listening a baseball game.

If I were not a Cardinals fan, the ending of last night’s game with the Giants would have little to no effect on my blood pressure, anxiety level, anger level, or overall bedtime disposition. It would have just been an exciting game (I enjoy exciting games regardless of who is playing) and I might have reacted by muttering something like, “Wow, a tough way to lose,” or “How lucky can you be?” Needless to say, neither of those was my reaction. It’s much easier to watch a game without the emotional investment of being a locked-in fan of one of the participants.

So, if the Cardinals, who, like the Royals, hit the fewest homeruns in their league but are winning with homeruns in the playoffs, come from behind and beat the Giants; er, make that, when the Cardinals regroup and beat the Giants, I’ll have to cheer for them in the World Series. First, because I’m a long-time fan. Second, because they will be representing the National League. And, third, because the Royals won last time the two met in the World Series.

However, should the unthinkable happen and the Giants go to the Series, I’ll be pulling for the Royals. They are just too great a story this year—as in, Go, Cinderella!

Where’s the strike zone?

If you’ve ever been to a baseball game, whether at the Little League, high school, college or Major League Baseball level, you, no doubt, have heard fans yell disparaging remarks at the home plate umpire.

Something like this, perhaps: “C’mon, man! You’re blind. No way that was a strike.”

When it comes to the umpires for the on-going American League Championship Series and the National League Championship Series, the first allegation would be wrong, but the second might have some basis in fact.

According to rankings published recently by Bloomberg Businessweek, the umpires working the playoff series are not the top-ranked umps in the two leagues for accuracy of calls on balls and strikes. You might say that Major League Baseball struck out on its call on choosing umps.

For example, The Bloomberg Businessweek rankings list Joe West, crew chief for the ALCS, as the second least accurate umpire behind home plate in the 2014 season. He was ranked 83^rd out of 84 umpires who made at least 1,000 total calls. West was deemed to be right 83.91 percent of the time. The rest of his crew ranked from 44^th to 75^th in accuracy, though all had accuracy ratings in the mid-80s.

The best ball-and-strike umpire working either series is Gerry Davis, crew chief for the NLCS. He ranked 14^th among 84 umps with an accuracy percent of 87.38. The remainder of his crew ranked from 16^th to 61^st.

Not one umpire in either crew was among the top 10 percent in most-accurate strike zone. Two were ranked in the top 19 percent. The rest were below that level.

Based on what I’ve seen watching playoff games on TV, I’m not ready to suggest seeing-eye dogs for the umps, but I wouldn’t oppose an eye checkup for some.

Actually, the real need, I suspect, is not so much a vision check for umps as it is a need for agreement on what constitutes the strike zone. Is the strike zone really what is laid out in the rulebook or is it what each umpire decides is his strike zone?

Kindness counts

Kindness counts; count on it.

It was just a simple act of kindness, a young man helping an old man. But, more than that, it was a heart-warming reminder that, despite the pervasive self-indulgence and self-centeredness that have swept into our society in the guise of self-esteem, there remain untold numbers of people who gladly and willingly focus on the needs of others rather than the wants of self.

The act of kindness occurred about five weeks ago in the Publix supermarket in Ormond Beach, FL. At least, I assume it was in Ormond Beach since the man who took a picture of the act is from Ormond Beach and ABC News in reporting on the act said the man was shopping in the local Publix.

What the man, Keith Kiel, saw and quickly snapped a picture of was Gage Boucher, 20, an employee of the store, stopping to tie a shoelace for an elderly man. Mr. Kiel, himself a senior citizen at age 64, told ABC News he thought to himself, “Aw, that’s neat. Let me take a picture of this.”

So, he did, barely snapping it in time to get the picture. He decided to post the picture on Facebook, saying, “I’ve never hit 100 likes on anything, but I figured people would resonate with this.”

He figured right.

The photo was posted on August 9, and four days later, when the ABC report aired on Good Morning America, the photo had received nearly 200,000 likes and had been shared more than 15,000 times. Who knows how many likes have been received since then or how many times the photo has been shared.

Kindness counts. That response beats the stew out of any response I have heard about to any of the millions of me-centered selfies being posted, texted, or e-mailed.

Young Mr. Boucher seemed matter-of-fact about what he had done. “I saw him struggling to tie his shoe. So, of course, I offered to help him out. Stuff like this happens every day and people don’t get recognized for it. This one just happened to get recognized.”

I’m impressed that Mr. Boucher feels this way, but I’m not convinced this type of kind action is as everyday an occurrence as he seems to believe. Nor, apparently, does Mr. Kiel. He thought it was enough out of the ordinary that it was worthy of taking a picture.

As a senior citizen, I can understand how the elderly man might have struggled with getting his shoelaces tied, perhaps because of arthritic hips or back that make bending over difficult or fingers robbed of suppleness by arthritis. That struggle might have been accompanied by embarrassment and frustration. To have a young man stop and kindly tie the shoelace instead of indifferently walking by and possibly even staring in the process would be appreciated more than could ever be expressed in saying, “Thank you.”

The assistance you rendered may not have seemed like much to you, Mr. Boucher, but I assure you it meant much to the man you aided—and to many, many of us hearing about it.

Kindness counts. It really does.

Off, not running

Unfortunately, instead of being off and running the OSU Cowboys are off in their running.

Through their first five games, the Cowboys are averaging only 3.9 yards per rushing attempt, the lowest average since an identical 3.9 in the 2005 season. Between the bookend seasons of 2005 and 2014, the Cowboys averaged more than five yards per carry except for two years in which the average was 4.4.

Chances are, if the Cowboys, now 4-1, are to continue winning this season, the running game will have to improve.

The yards per carry is but one bit of evidence that the Cowboys’ ground game is somewhat below what fans have come to see as par for their performance. Additional evidence is the lack of a 100-yard rushing game by any of the backs so far this season. This is the first season under Coach Mike Gundy that the Cowboys have not had a 100-yard game by a back this far into the season.

Long runs—gains of 20 yards or more—have been at a premium. Through the first five games, the Cowboys have had only five such runs, with four of them coming in the game against Missouri State. Thus, in the other four games, they have achieved only one such run; or, stated another way, in three games they have had no gains of 20 yards or more via the run.

The concern, then, is that teams can concentrate less on stopping OSU’s ground game and devote more personnel and focus to stopping OSU’s effective use of long passes where multiple gains of 20 yards or more are regular occurrences. Actually, another part of the concern has to be that the Cowboys’ short passing effectiveness is also somewhat in question at this point.

Since the Cowboys have not been as strong in rushing, it seems fair to wonder how they will fare after Saturday’s game against underdog Kansas because they will move into the heart of their schedule facing such teams as TCU, ranked 18^th nationally in defense against the run; Kansas State, ranked fifth; and Baylor, ranked 14^th.

From the view of a fan in the stands, whether that be in the stadium or watching on TV, it appears that a key to improvement in the rushing game is the offensive line. Let’s remember that this is a young unit. Three of the five starters are first-year starters. That means the line is inexperienced, and experience is integral to successful line play.

Aside from being short on experience, the line is working with a new coach. Usually, this means a new way, or, at least, an altered way of doing things, which, in itself, is a learning process.

All of these combined add up to a process of developing to the point that the rushing game regains its position as an equal partner with passing in OSU’s overall offensive effort and output. Fortunately, the first half of the season has provided a schedule conducive to development while still winning games. That should continue through Saturday’s battle against the Jayhawks.

But, after that, the friendly schedule ceases to be so friendly and becomes a proving ground. TCU, West Virginia, KSU, Texas, Baylor and Oklahoma present, as the old saying goes, a rough row to hoe. Adding to the difficulty of the schedule is that five of the last seven games, beginning with Kansas, are on the road.

So far, the Cowboys, the youngest team in the nation among major colleges, have found a way to win despite a less-than-desired rushing performance. Those of us in the stands are hoping that the Cowboys continue to find ways to win and that part of doing so is discovering ways to bring the ground game up to the accustomed level.

Burger: Eat it right side up or upside down?

What?

If that’s your response, right away I know you have a problem with this concept. Or, possibly, you line up with my wife, Carol, who thinks I’m a bit eccentric when it comes to some things, among them being that proper consumption of a burger—or a sandwich, for that matter—is to eat it right side up, that is, holding it so that the bottom half of the bun is on the bottom and the top half of the bun on the top.

Eating it otherwise is to eat it upside down and thereby eating it in the wrong manner. How crass! Besides, if eaten upside down, the burger or sandwich likely will not have the same flavor as when eaten properly, which is right side up.

For those of you who know this, what I’ve said is perfectly clear and sensible. You readily accept and understand that when burgers and sandwiches were invented the intention was that they be eaten right side up. I think that was written in stone; you just have to find the right cave wall to see it for yourself.

However, those of you who, like my wife, shrug your shoulders, affix a smirk on your face, and mutter some off-handed comment like, “Well, whatever…,” it’s time to sink your teeth into a little burger-and-sandwich enlightenment. Some of this will be self-evident or simply stating the obvious, but that doesn’t take away from the validity of the truth being here presented.

With burgers, the first necessity is the bun. Of course, you know that a bun has a top and a bottom. The bottom is the flat portion, and the rounded part is the top. When the bun is sliced and separated into two parts, the bottom is the portion with the flat side. Actually, the bottom now has two flat sides, the one created in the baking of the bun and the one created when the bun was severed into two parts. The baked bottom flat side remains the bottom of the burger, and the new flat side of the bottom bun portion becomes a key part of the inside of the bun and a foundation on which the inside of the burger is built. Is that clear? If not, perhaps reading it again more slowly will help.

The severed portion of the bun that was the rounded part before the bun was sliced is the top. Of course, it now has a flat side, which is the bottom part of the top half of the bun and is key to topping off the top of the burger when the insides are in place. Clear? If not, repeat instructions above.

A sandwich, like a burger, has a top and a bottom, a truism that some of you may never have thought about. Whereas the initial form of a bun makes the top and bottom clear, the same is not true for a sandwich—at least, not for sandwiches made with two slices of bread rather than on a bun, as is sometimes the case in a restaurant. For a sandwich made with two slices of bread, the top and bottom are determined by the sandwich maker, who has the right to designate which slice is the top and which the bottom. From there, though, top and bottom become critically important.

Not only are burgers and sandwiches intended to be eaten right side up and not upside down, they are to be made with the meat—burger patty, sliced turkey or chicken, tuna salad, whatever—placed on the bottom bun portion or bottom slice, not on the top. If cheese is a component, it goes on top of the meat. Then come the other ingredients: onion (a necessity for any real burger or sandwich), tomato, pickle, and lettuce.

When those are in place, the top half of the bun or the top slice of bread is placed on top, and the burger/sandwich is ready to eat. Notice, at this point the burger or sandwich is right side up, the natural order. One then picks up the burger or sandwich maintaining its right-side-up status and eats.

Obviously, that’s the proper and intended order of building and pattern for eating burgers and sandwiches. Why would one be considered eccentric for holding to a firm conviction that this is the intended manner of eating these two life staples?