Good changes that were resisted

[godwulf]

Re: Good changes that were resisted

Went to the movies on Sunday, and saw a trailer for a new film coming out soon. It's called "42", and is the Jackie Robinson story. Harrison Ford as Branch Rickey. Kind of hard to believe (and correct me if I'm wrong), but there hasn't been a movie about Jackie Robinson since he starred as himself in "The Jackie Robinson Story" in 1950!

[coxfan]

Re: Good changes that were resisted

Aaron's autobiography is "I had a Hammer" (with Lonnie Wheeler, Published by Harper, 1991). I wasn't home when I typed my post, and mentally inserted the "If" in its title.

My memory on the Redskins was correct. Their last all-white season was 1961, when they went 1-12-1 and simultaneously came under pressure to integrate from the newly-installed JFK administration (since the US government owned their playing facility.)

[JDubbs73]

Re: Good changes that were resisted

In the early 1960's the Washington Redskins wanted to court a Southeastern fan base by keeping an all-white team. After they went 1-12-1 one year, they soon abandoned this all-white policy.

I just learned something today, did not know this as a 'Skins fan.

[MLB~NUT]

Re: Good changes that were resisted

On MLK Day, it's good to recall how slow was desegregation in sports. At least a decade after Jackie Robinson, an average or utility MLB player had to be white; desegregation was limited to star-caliber players. Anyone who reads Aaron's autobiography "If I had a Hammer" will be chilled by reading the innumerable racist death threats sent to him and his family-(including an apparent kidnapping plot against his daughter)-in the early 1970's.

In football, it was also slow in places. In 1966, UGA athletic officials said the alumni weren't "ready" for UGA teams that weren't all white. In the early 1960's the Washington Redskins wanted to court a Southeastern fan base by keeping an all-white team. After they went 1-12-1 one year, they soon abandoned this all-white policy.

Cool, a new book for me to read!!!

[coxfan]

Re: Good changes that were resisted

On MLK Day, it's good to recall how slow was desegregation in sports. At least a decade after Jackie Robinson, an average or utility MLB player had to be white; desegregation was limited to star-caliber players. Anyone who reads Aaron's autobiography "If I had a Hammer" will be chilled by reading the innumerable racist death threats sent to him and his family-(including an apparent kidnapping plot against his daughter)-in the early 1970's.

In football, it was also slow in places. In 1966, UGA athletic officials said the alumni weren't "ready" for UGA teams that weren't all white. In the early 1960's the Washington Redskins wanted to court a Southeastern fan base by keeping an all-white team. After they went 1-12-1 one year, they soon abandoned this all-white policy.

[coxfan]

Re: Good changes that were resisted

I agree with godwulf regarding instant reply, and I'd add one thing: Umpires should be trusted with reasonable discretion when they want to check a video replay for any reason. The lost perfect game, with all its negative consequences for pitcher, umpire, and fans could have been corrected on the spot. But umpires feel they wouldn't be allowed to look at a replay even if they wish.

It would be no different from allowing them to reverse a call after they confer, as is done occasionally now. Bud Selig has done many very good things, but his biggest weakness is an excessive love of tradition within the game on the field. ( As opposed to his forward-thinking on organizational issues.)

[godwulf]

Re: Good changes that were resisted

How about what would be a great change that is still being resisted? An expansion of the types of calls that are subject to instant replay review in Major League Baseball? The review of "boundary calls" is a positive first step, but it needs to go farther. In recent years, we've seen teams eliminated from the post-season, and at least once instance of a perfect game being stolen, because of an umpire's failure to do his job correctly.

[coxfan]

Re: Good changes that were resisted

Women's college sports. When the NCAA first recognized women's basketball in the 1970's, I was one of the first fans at a UGA women's basketball game. There were only two fans there (seriously), though the Coliseum seated about 13,000. The other fan seemed to be a boyfriend of a player. I went to about three other games, but the "crowd" never got past about five of us.

Last weekend my wife and I returned to the UGA Coliseum for the South Carolina-UGA women's game. ( It the first time I'd been inside the Coliseum since the 70's, though I've seen UGA baseball games next door). The crowd was well over 2,000 screaming fans, including about 150 South Carolina ones who traveled there. The South Carolina Women's team is averaging nearly 3,000 fans/game this year here in Columbia.

In the 1970's, most "girls" teams used special rules to minimize their exertion. They had six players on a team, but three of those were forwards who had to stay in the half-court near their basket. The other three were guards, who had to stay in their defending half-court. Thus, each player was idle for the half of the game played at the other end of the court.

But NCAA women's basketball has used regular five-player rules for women's teams. Anyone seeing the high degree of athleticism shown by top NCAA women's teams will laugh at the idea that they needed to minimize their extertion!

[jppopma]

Re: Good changes that were resisted

Lights....in the case of Wrigley.

[godwulf]

Re: Good changes that were resisted

The Reserve Clause in baseball. I just got Curt Flood's book "The Way It Is" and am looking forward to reading about his battle against it.

The argument was that players would be jumping around from team to team, and that fans would grow tired of seeing their favorite players moving all over the place. But when I think of the 1960s, there were a lot of trades. My Minnesota Twins, for example, only had 5 players last from 1963-1970 with the club: Killebrew, Kaat, and Allison, Oliva, and Perry.

As a fan, I sort of preferred the old system, but looking at it objectively, I think a player has the right to work for the best compensation package he can find, so I favor the current system.

I wonder if anyone has done a study comparing the pre-free agency era to post, in terms of players moving from team to team. My guess is that there isn't that much difference in that regard, while the real concern owners had at the time, which has certainly happened, is that salaries have gone dramatically higher. The free market at work.

Sure, I get upset when a favorite player bails, for greener pastures. However, it seems as though about 90% of the time, it wasn't the player's decision to leave - he was traded or released because the team was able to bring someone up from the farm to do a comparable job for a tenth the salary. Management is still firmly in control of things, however much they may whine to the contrary. Perhaps Flood's assessment of the Reserve Clause as having caused him to be "a well-paid slave" is a bit of an overstatement, but it's not that far off.

[coxfan]

Re: Good changes that were resisted

The expansion of pro football was initially resisted more by fans than by owners. In the late 1950's, the NFL was the only pro league and had only 12 teams: six in an Eastern Division and six in the Western Division. Each team played 12 games, 10 of which were home-and-home against the others in its own division. Then the two Division regular-season winners played a Championship game that attracted major national interest. There were no other playoffs except a meaningless consolation game between the two Division runners-up that had no bearing on the Championship.

That was soon expanded to 14 teams and 14 games with no other changes. When the American Football League was formed to provoke expansion, most fans treated it with contempt as a minor league. The AFL Championship Game drew very little interest; everybody waited for the NFL Championship Game, which they saw as the true football championship.

But the owners showed rare foresight by merging the NFL with the AFL, announcing that there would now be a "Super Bowl" game (a new term.) And the rest is history.

[joelsabi]

Re: Good changes that were resisted

Joel...

At a conference and don't have time to give specifics, but a quick google search will bring up a bunch of hits. In 95, after the strike I know Thomas tried to organize some sort of testing in the sox organization.

Here's a recent video...

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=25549041

I believe Griffey jumped on the wagon in the late 90's when steriod talks escaladed and he was winning he Darby's and the like. I believe by early 2000's Schilling jumped in verbally in the media as he was establishing his voice.

Again, basic and general, but other national reporters have been talking the same talk. Thomas has always been adamant/supportive about testing...heck, if testing existed, he would've won his 3rd al MVP award in 2000 which would've instantly linked his name to mantle. But, we all know what Giambi did.

Quite frankly, I'm not surprised by the apathy in mlb of solving the problem because it wasn't a problem until it effected a large enough body to be a problem.

People spoke out and spoke up...just it wasn't wanted. Most recently Thomas was interviewed and talked about how steriod use was like a secret society that he was pretty sure people shut up about when he was around.

Not much to lead you to specifically, but it's out there, especially with everyone chiming in on the HoF shut out yesterday.

Wade

thanks Wade,

the search is so broad that time period when they spoke out helps. much appreciated.

[WadeInBmore]

Re: Good changes that were resisted

Joel...

At a conference and don't have time to give specifics, but a quick google search will bring up a bunch of hits. In 95, after the strike I know Thomas tried to organize some sort of testing in the sox organization.

Here's a recent video...

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=25549041

I believe Griffey jumped on the wagon in the late 90's when steriod talks escaladed and he was winning he Darby's and the like. I believe by early 2000's Schilling jumped in verbally in the media as he was establishing his voice.

Again, basic and general, but other national reporters have been talking the same talk. Thomas has always been adamant/supportive about testing...heck, if testing existed, he would've won his 3rd al MVP award in 2000 which would've instantly linked his name to mantle. But, we all know what Giambi did.

Quite frankly, I'm not surprised by the apathy in mlb of solving the problem because it wasn't a problem until it effected a large enough body to be a problem.

People spoke out and spoke up...just it wasn't wanted. Most recently Thomas was interviewed and talked about how steriod use was like a secret society that he was pretty sure people shut up about when he was around.

Not much to lead you to specifically, but it's out there, especially with everyone chiming in on the HoF shut out yesterday.

Wade

[joelsabi]

Re: Good changes that were resisted

Joel...

Lets not forget Schilling, Griffey Jr, and Thomas speaking out. Not sure who stood up first saying that baseball needed the testing, but there was a voice from some stars, just no one wanted to listen.

Wade

can you give me quotes on what they said and the year they said it? direct me where to search. thanks.

[coxfan]

Re: Good changes that were resisted

Replying to Mark17: I recall the Reserve clause well. It bound players to their current club forever, even without a current contract, unless the club traded or sold them. It applied to minor-league clubs also, though MLB clubs could "draft" minor-leaguers by paying a fixed price. (Most monior-league clubs weren't affiliated with specific MLB clubs way back then.)

The theory of the Reserve Clause differed greatly from its reality. The theory was that it would keep richer clubs from raiding poorer ones. But the reality was that the poorer clubs often had to sell players (for cash) to richer clubs to stay afloat. Also, Branch Rickey pioneered a huge farm system for the Cardinals, which was soon emulated by the Yankees. The two clubs had the money to buy minor-league clubs and absorb their losses, when other MLB clubs couldn't afford that. They tied up lots of prospects, because their outright ownership allowed them to circumvent the "draft" rules for minor-league clubs.

Commisioner Landis fought unsuccessfully against the Rickey farm system. These days, of course, the system is regulated to allow all MLB clubs a fair farm system.

The Reserve Clause also kept player salaries ridiculously low, which actually made it harder for clubs like the St Louis Browns to change cities. The AL clubs were happy to keep weak teams like the Browns, and they'd just tell them to cut salaries to pay their bills where they were.

The Yankees had an interesting ploy they used to corner top prospects into signing their first pro contracts. They pointed out that MLB rookies might make only $6,000 a year, but a World Series winners' check was $12,000!

So things are better in many ways now that the Reserve Clause is dead.