Lambright, Part III: Letting the coaches coach

     (Part III)
     The first task Maxie Lambright faced in his first college football head-coaching job -- and his last, as it turned out -- was to assemble a coaching staff.
     He did that brilliantly. One of the hallmarks of his 12-year tenure at Louisiana Tech was that the staff stayed mostly intact the whole time. There were only a couple of changes.


The Louisiana Tech football coaching staff, 1971-78: (from left) Pat
 Collins, Wallace Martin, Pat Patterson, Maxie Lambright, E.J. Lewis,
Mickey Slaughter (photo from Tech's sports information office)

     The second task was to turn from a hands-on, do- everything-myself coach and become the general, the organizer, the overseer of a college program, and to trust those assistants.
     There was no doubt who made the final decisions for Tech football, 1967-78, but talking to the people who remember that time, one theme was "he let his coaches coach."
     Lambright's success -- and many with Tech ties think it is worthy of his being in the College Football Hall of Fame -- also was the staff's success.
     There were a couple of difficult seasons -- a 3-7 shakedown in 1967 and an unlucky 2-9 in 1970. Otherwise,  the Bulldogs were consistent winners and champions. The record in the other 10 years: 90-20-2 (.813).
---
      Mickey Slaughter was the first hire. As I recall, the day it was announced that Lambright would succeed Joe Aillet as Tech head coach -- the first change in that position since after the 1939 season -- it also was announced that Slaughter was retiring as a pro quarterback to return to Tech.
     That, eventually, would lead to a change in Lambright's offensive philosophy, and Tech would become known as a potent passing team -- even more than it had been under Aillet.
     In 1960, Slaughter had been the first Tech QB to play when Aillet switched from the then-popular Wing-T offense to a pro-style passing game -- with split receivers, and liberal use of the backs and tight end as pass catchers. Tech was among the first teams in the South, maybe the country, to make the switch.
     Mickey set school passing records and in 1963 was a seventh-round draft pick in the almost-new American Football League by the -- honestly -- awful Denver Broncos.


Mickey Slaughter

      Slaughter started 19 games in his first three seasons and had some productive outings, but injuries got in his way. After his fourth season -- curtailed by a shoulder injury -- he was traded to the Oakland Raiders. But he failed the physical, and never joined them.
     So when he received a call from Huey Williamson, retiring from coaching football after Aillet's retirement and about to head Tech's health and P.E. department, asking if he wanted to join Lambright's staff, it was an easy decision.
        Slaughter had played for Lambright in high school (Bolton, in Alexandria), so he knew the coach. But he had a big influence on a coach who was much more of an advocate of the running game.
     Slaughter had learned pro sets and receiving routes from Aillet and even more from his time in the AFL. And so ...
     "He [Maxie] allowed me to install the passing game at Tech," he recalled. "He had some ideas about the running game. We combined to set up the offense we wanted."
      It took some doing. Lambright's option offense had worked so well for Southern Miss; now, with Phil Robertson and Terry Bradshaw -- both sophomores in eligibility -- at QB for Tech, they started the season running some option plays.
      But, as Slaughter noted, "that's not what our talent prescribed. He [Lambright] got to where he liked the passing game, and that's the direction we went more and more."
      Dropback passing, spread formations, varied pass routes became Tech's offensive hallmark again, as it had been under Aillet with Slaughter, then Billy Laird and finally Robertson and Bradshaw throwing. But it was balanced with the running game Lambright loved.
      Robertson, the future "Duck Commander," and Bradshaw, the future Pro Football Hall of Fame QB, each had talent and some high-yardage games in 1967. But they also remained inconsistent.
      Several other factors -- Tech's overall talent level, either inexperienced or not up to the opponents' level, plus injuries and unfortunate breaks, meant a 3-7 first-year record for Lambright, not much improvement over the 1-9 in Aillet's final season -- a shock considering his consistent success over 2 1/2 decades.
     One other interesting aspect of that first Lambright season: who called the plays.
     "Those were the days when the quarterbacks called their own plays," Slaughter recalled. "Terry Bradshaw called his own plays" (and so did Robertson). 
     But, Lambright wasn't comfortable with that. And -- as would become the trend all over football -- a change was made.
     "Maxie came to me one day out of the blue and said, 'You will call all the plays from now on,' " Slaughter said.
     For the bulk of their coaching time at Tech, through a long string of terrific QBs and receivers, Slaughter called the right plays.
     And here is what else:
     "The thing I most admired about Maxie," he said, "that in 10 years, he never questioned one time the plays I called -- whether they worked or didn't work. It had to be hard for him [Lambright had called plays for years in high school and at Southern Miss]. But I could work without his interruption or his comments.
     "It was a really, really good situation. We had some great athletes to execute those plays. We had some quarterbacks who made us look good."
     Those QBs, after Phil and Terry, included Kenny Lantrip, Denny Duron, Steve Haynes, Randy Robertson and Keith Thibodeaux.
     Robertson quit football before the next season; he wanted to go hunting and fishing more than he wanted to play. Plus -- my opinion -- he could see that Bradshaw, going into the 1968 season was going to be the No. 1 quarterback.
     And in 1968, Bradshaw -- raw, tall and obviously still growing, with the strong right arm that few QBs could match, goofy but upbeat and entertaining, potential untapped -- developed into a talent Tech faithful perhaps had never seen.
     That was a huge reason -- plus, the maturation of seniors and juniors, especially linemen, who had been dominated too often the previous two years -- that the '68 season was the turnaround for the Lambright program.
     It ended with a 9-2 record, seven consecutive victories after a 2-2 start, and Tech's first-ever bowl game -- a 33-13 victory against Akron in the Grantland Rice Bowl, an NCAA Division II regional, on an extremely cold day in Murfreesboro, Tenn.
       In 1967, Tech's offense had set school records with 339.5 total yards per game and 209.2 passing. Those marks were shattered in 1968: 459.1 total yards per game, 316.4 passing.
        How good was that? No Tech team over a 49-year period averaged that many yards passing; it was 1996 before that record was broken. It was 22 years before the total-offense record was topped.
         (Of course, in the past 20 years, those high-volume numbers have become routine.)
---
         That first coaching staff was a nice mix of college coaching veterans and first-timers. Retained from Aillet's staff -- perhaps at Coach Aillet's request/insistence -- were Jimmy Mize (offensive line) and E.J. Lewis (defensive backs). Tony Misita, who had been defensive line coach at Southeastern Louisiana, moved to Tech. The newcomers were all ex-Tech players and graduates: Slaughter, Pat Collins (linebackers) and Pat Patterson (ends/offensive line).
     Collins, from Shreveport (Fair Park High), had been coaching at Airline High in Bossier City; Patterson, from Delhi in northeast Louisiana, had coached at Ouachita High (Monroe) and then Byrd (Shreveport).
     They all recruited the areas they knew, where they had coached. They were personable and diligent, and super salesmen for Tech. Over the dozen years, so many talented athletes chose to compete in Ruston. It had been that way during the Aillet years, too.

E.J. Lewis

        Lewis, for instance, worked in southwest Louisiana, where he had coached in high school, and into Texas -- southeast and especially the northeast part. He helped bring in loads of talent for football and track/field, where he assisted Mize. 
     "There was consistency in recruiting," said Wallace Martin, who joined the staff (coaching offensive guards and centers) in 1971 after Misita left for Tulane and the gentlemanly Mize retired from football for the track-only role. "Kids [recruits] felt we would be there."
---
     On the field, the Lambright staff was much different than the Aillet staff had been. The noise level (Slaughter alone could be heard miles away), the enthusiasm and -- yes -- the profanity in some cases ramped up. Practices were much more physical, rugged hitting sessions, than before.
     Aillet's practices were mostly quiet, efficient and clinical, teaching sessions. George Doherty was the most vocal and demanding of the Aillet staff, exhorting his defensive units in an excitable way. Lewis would bark out enthusiastically, mostly in an encouraging way.
      Misita was such an intense character that when his name is mentioned to players from the early Lambright years, they remember that Tony, well, threw up before every game.     

Pat Collins

     Collins was just beginning to develop the aggressive, fast defensive units that characterized the teams he coached. He would become a Louisiana Sports Hall of Fame coach -- inducted last summer -- after a great run of success (including an NCAA Division II national championship) at Northeast Louisiana, where he moved after being passed over for the Tech head coaching job when Lambright resigned before the 1979 season. (That's another story).

      Patterson was the motivational "slogan" guy, creating the banners and signs to remind Tech players. Meticulous and creative and folksy, he talked in clipped bursts. He was a good football coach and loyal to Tech, and he built and coached an NCAA Tournament-level baseball program for a couple of decades.

      But one man united the staff. 
     "In the beginning, he had a bunch of young guys, some with no college coaching experience," Slaughter said. "He had to corral some young coaches who thought they knew more than they did, mainly me."
     "Maxie was the kind of guy you could sit down him and talk to him," said Lewis. "He let you do your thing in coaching. He was a really good teacher, especially teaching running backs to block. Roland Harper [who would star at Tech, then play fullback for the Chicago Bears to team with superstar Walter Payton in the late 1970s] was an example.
     "You could take a chance, do something in coaching and go," Lewis added. "But if he saw something he wanted to change, it was going to be his way."
     Collins was reminded of that one day. He had consulted with several coaching staff on a particular coverage -- I believe it was to walk a linebacker out head-on over the tight end in certain sets. When in a staff meeting, he explained this, Lambright -- in sharp, clear fashion (and we heard tell, not calmly) -- said no, Tech's defense was not going to do it that way.
     And then there was the day when an offense-vs.-defense drill -- Slaughter's unit vs. Collins' -- broke into a full-scale scrimmage. "Two young coaches, both as [bleeping] competitive as anyone in the world, going after one another," Collins remembered.
     Lambright was on another field when he heard the commotion.
     "He charged up that hill [to this practice field]," Slaughter said, "and he was yelling, really giving it to us."
     When practice ended, as the coaches walked toward the dressing rooms, Lambright continued to chew on his top two assistants. "All we could do was keep our mouths shut," Slaughter said.
     And it was not uncommon. Maxie Lambright could be a hard man, with his players and with his assistants.
     "You had to steel your mind," Slaughter said, "that you were going to get your butt chewed out once or twice a day."
     But there was this: "He never took credit when things were going well," Collins said. "He was one of those guys who always knew what he wanted."
     (Next: Not the "designated" choice)
                

Lambright, Part II: The coaching road, through USM

       (Part II of a series)
       Until he became the head football coach at Louisiana Tech University in 1967, Maxie Lambright -- as a young coach -- was very much the "hands-on" type.
       It was that way his first nine years as a high school coach and the next eight years as the offensive backfield coach -- and much more -- at the University of Southern Mississippi.
       That would change somewhat when he became a college head coach, at Louisiana Tech. He would trust and give more responsibility to the coaching staff he put together that stayed mostly intact for 12 years.
       But not entirely. Sometimes the "hands-on" prerogative would return, and everyone would be reminded -- although they always knew -- who was in charge.
       One thing never changed. Throughout his 29-year coaching career, he was a winner.
---

Maxie and Gerry Lambright: Their journey
covered several football stops over 29 years.

       The journey, with his new wife Gerry, began in 1950 for five years as an assistant at Mississippi schools, Greenwood and Greenville. With small coaching staffs, he had to learn to coach the entire game, not just the backs.
       It was the same in his first head coaching job, 1955 at Winona, Miss., where his team went 10-1 and won the Delta Valley Conference championship.
      He came to Louisiana as a head coach in 1956 for a three-year stay at Bolton High (Alexandria) -- and a 22-7-1 record, with at least seven victories each year.
      That was in a tough district that included perennial powers Sulphur and Lake Charles High. In 1958, when Mickey Slaughter (soon headed for Louisiana Tech) was the senior quarterback, the Bears went to Lake Charles and beat the state champions-to-be (Tommy Mason, future Tulane and NFL star, was their best  running back). 
      It was an era of power football, run-oriented offenses, with passing mostly on a "need" basis and simple one- or two-receiver options. Lambright's philosophy fit that era, and he knew he could teach the basics of blocking and tackling.
      And it was much the same when he moved to college coaching in 1959 at his school, Southern Miss. Lambright was a proponent of the running game, and USM had an option-type offense with strong, physical teams.
      Head coach  Thad "Pie" Vann, in the 10 years before Lambright joined his staff, had one of the nation's best small-college programs, with winning teams each year (except a 5-5 record in his second season). That included seasons of 10-2, 9-2, 9-1, 7-2-1, 8-3 and the 9-0 small-college national championship team of 1958.
      Maxie moved in -- and took over the offense.
---
      To suggest that Lambright was the "brains" of the USM program from 1959 to 1966 is, said the 1963-65 quarterback star Vic Purvis, "a gross understatement."
      A small high school star QB who came to USM after a tryout with Lambright and a one-year scholarship, Purvis said, "The best thing Coach Vann ever did was hire a guy named Maxie Lambright and turned it over to him."
      Purvis convinced the coach he was going to grow -- and he did. But he showed enough skills, smarts and speed in fall drills as a freshman to quickly be offered a full scholarship. By his third year (after freshman ball and a redshirt year), he recalls being the team's fastest player -- and its option-running starting QB.
      Which meant plenty of meetings with Coach Lambright, including the Sunday day-after-a-game film reviews and later "sessions on the [next] game plans. I dreaded those," Purvis said. "He'd give you down-and-distance situations, and then say, 'Give me a play, quick.' You'd better have the right answers."
      (That's reminiscent of what former Tech quarterbacks Jimmy Orton and Billy Laird, both from Shreveport and both outstanding coaches after their playing careers, recalled about QB meetings with Tech coach Joe Aillet.)
      Purvis recalled being in Lambright's office one football game week when the coach was working on the offensive game plan. After they talked, Lambright said, "All right, you need to get out of here; I have to work on the defensive game plan."
      Purvis was confused. "You do the defensive game plan?" he asked. "Purvis, when you run the offense," Lambright answered, "don't you think you also need to know what the defense is doing? We might have had a defensive coordinator, but Maxie was drawing up the plans."
      On the practice field, though, he saw some scenes he would remember -- Lambright scolding (or worse) offending players. After one particular mad scene, not involving him, Purvis stopped by the office for a meeting.
      "What did you think of my performance?" Lambright asked. Purvis said he could only shrug, afraid to give the wrong reply.
      "I'm a very patient man," Maxie told him. "I will take all the time to explain [to players] what we do and why we do it. But I can't stand players making the same mistakes again. Either way, if they don't understand me or they deliberately defy me, I can't stand it."
      The players and coaches in future years at Louisiana Tech would understand that.
     With Lambright on the USM staff, the Southerners had eight winning seasons -- a 53-23-1 total record -- and the 1962 team (9-1, following an 8-2 season) was declared the small-college national champion.  
     It might not be coincidental that when Lambright moved to Tech, USM had a 6-3 record in 1967, then only one winning season (6-5 in 1971) over the next five seasons.

Vic Purvis

       "Pie" Vann was as highly respected as Coach Aillet at Tech -- their teams faced each other for 18 consecutive years -- and Purvis said Coach Vann was "a father figure. He made football a serious business for us. He taught us to work hard, to be disciplined, and he was a great diplomat." (Again, reminiscent of Tech people's view of Aillet.)
       Lambright, he said, "wasn't beloved. There were times when he scared you, and he was never your best friend."
       But then there was the day when Purvis threw a last-minute TD pass to beat Memphis State and "he kissed me on the cheek."
      Purvis, who had a brief pro football career and then returned to a successful business career in the Hattiesburg area, for 41 years was the analyst on USM football radio broadcasts, retiring at the end of the 2014 season after doing 471 games.
      "I admired him," he said. "I believe if his health hadn't given out, he would have been known nationally as a college legend. I've never known anyone as smart as he was."
      As it was, Lambright certainly would become known as a Louisiana Tech legend.
     (Next: He "let his coaches coach" at Tech)
             
                    
         
 
       

One Louisiana Tech legend followed another

      (First of a series)
      For 26 seasons (1940-66), Louisiana Tech had a College Football Hall of Fame head coach.
      For the next 12 seasons (1967-78), the Bulldogs were led by a coach who should be in the College Football Hall of Fame.
      One legend followed by another: Joe Aillet, Maxie Lambright.
      So for 38 seasons, Louisiana Tech football had ability, stability, leadership, respect and a winning tradition. These were men the players, the people on campus and in town, and the alumni could count on.
       The university's football stadium is named for Aillet, who had the long-range vision for the facility. The Tech recreational center is named for Lambright.
       Coach Aillet was inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame in 1989 -- 23 years after he coached his final game, 19 after his final year as athletic director. 

Maxie Lambright
(his Louisiana Tech Athletics
Hall of Fame photo)

        It has been 38 years since Coach Lambright coached his final game. But, for an inexplicable reason, he was never even nominated for the College Football Hall of Fame until 2015.
        Perhaps only a dozen years as a college head coach is not enough of a qualification for those who vote on this honor. But what a 12 years it was.
        Seven conference titles, in a 10-year period. Three national championships in NCAA Division II -- two awarded by poll voters, one won officially (on the field). Two Independence Bowl (Division I) appearances. A final record of 95-36-2 (.722). 
        And, over four seasons (1971-74), the "golden era" of Tech football -- an overall 44-4 record, one "perfect" season, a 23-game winning streak, a 37-1 stretch, four conference titles, the national titles.
        (Plus, before he came to Tech, Lambright for eight years was the offensive backfield coach at his alma mater, the University of Southern Mississippi. Those were all winning seasons, with one national small-college championship team.)
        As consistent a winner as Coach Aillet's teams were -- 21 winning seasons, 12 conference titles -- there was never a "perfect" season (three near-misses, 9-1 records) and never a national poll or a playoff at Tech's level of play (NCAA small-college).
         But that certainly is no criticism of "The Smooth Man." Dating to the 1930s as a high school coach and advocate for athletics in Louisiana, he had an impeccable reputation. And Tech's record under him -- 152-85-8 (.637) -- included 12 conference championships.
         He was a big winner, a tough act to follow. But the man who followed him at La. Tech, a controversial choice for the job early in 1967 (but through no fault of his own), proved he was up to it. He, too, was a big winner.
          Aillet and Lambright: different men, different styles. But also much in common.
---
          Joe Aillet was, most everyone agreed, a brilliant man, one of the smartest on the Tech campus, a professorial type -- if he had chosen, he could have taught English, or chemistry, or psychology, or engineering. But he chose to teach athletics, especially football and golf.
           He was a coach who stressed the student part of student-athlete, and he was a disciplinarian, in a quiet way.
           He was a compelling and popular public speaker  when time permitted (in the football off-season), one of Tech's top spokesmen.
           Soft-spoken but his Cajun upbringing not all that evident as he spoke, he rarely raised his voice -- even in football practices, meetings or in game situations.
           He knew practically all there was to know about football techniques, strategy, trends. His Tech teams often were among the first college teams to change offensive formations, for instance the pro-style passing game in the early 1960s.
           He had a large loyal following of Tech people -- especially his former players but also among the university  administrators, faculty and staff.
           His coaching staff, the athletic staff, had stability -- offensive line/track and field coach Jim Mize was with him    for 25 years (the last four when Aillet remained as athletic director), ends coach Huey Williamson for 16 years, defensive coach George Doherty for 10, and defensive backs coach E.J. Lewis for four.
           Plus, Cecil Crowley -- who dated to Haynesville High days with Coach Aillet -- was on the football staff and head basketball coach for 16 years, then basketball-only for another nine, and Berry Hinton was the baseball coach for 23 years and also the Tech alumni director.
           And, although Tech was not a "major" school, Coach Aillet was well-known among coaches nationally -- and had been for three decades.
---
           Few people knew who Maxie Lambright was when Tech president Dr. F. Jay Taylor -- with the athletic council's approval -- named him to succeed Aillet. It was a surprise to many who thought Doherty was the heir apparent.
           Lambright had spent 14 coaching years in Mississippi, but had made a previous coaching stop in Louisiana, three years (1956-58) as head coach at Bolton (Alexandria) High School. This is where he first encountered a young quarterback named Mickey Slaughter.
           At that time, Dr. Taylor had been across the Red River in neighboring Pineville as a dean at Louisiana College. Maybe they had met, maybe not. But Dr. Taylor likely took  notice of the success Lambright's teams had at Bolton. 
           Temperament-wise, Lambright away from football mostly was cool, calm, calculating and caring -- like Aillet. He was that way at times, too, in football, but -- unlike Aillet -- he often was intense.
           That's a nice way to put it. As one person told me, "He had a hair-trigger temper. He could rage."
           This is a repetitive point made in the interviews in which Coach Lambright was the subject.
           His assistant coaches and his players, simply put, feared him. Perhaps he wasn't as well liked as Aillet, but -- no question -- he was just as respected.
            And here's what he had in common with Coach Aillet:     
            (1) A stable coaching staff -- one much younger and more aggressive than the previous one. The staff he assembled was, most everyone agrees, one of the real keys to the program's success in the Lambright era.
            Four coaches -- Slaughter, Lewis, Pat Collins and Pat "Gravy" Patterson -- were with Lambright for all 12 years. Wallace Martin, who replaced Jimmy Mize in 1971,  was with him for eight years. All but Lewis were Tech graduates and ex-players. And his assistants were as loyal to him as he was to them.
             "He was a great guy. He was like a second father to me," said Collins. "I was very close to him, on and off the field. He didn't make mistakes. If he did, I don't remember them."
            "He let everyone do his job," said Martin. "He was extremely fair and very understanding. I thoroughly enjoyed coaching for him."
            "With all the [coaching staff] egos sitting around the table, it took a man like Maxie Lambright to hold it together," said Lewis, now 88 and living in Ruston. "He had his finger on everything." 
             (2) He was, as various people described him, "highly intelligent" with a "terrific memory" and more talents, more history, than most people would have realized.

A young Maxie Lambright, Navy pilot

             He had been a Navy pilot in World War II (as had Dr. Taylor); like Coach Aillet could -- and would -- quote classic literature, such as segments from Shakespeare -- Lambright would recite poetry; he could entertain his coaches by playing the piano.
               "He amazed you all the time with the things he could do," Collins said.
              (3) There was no doubt about his football intellect.
              It was a Southern Mississippi person who put it best. Vic Purvis was perhaps Lambright's best quarterback there, playing in 1963-65, a much better runner -- in an option-based offense -- than passer. He thought he had learned a lot of football from the backfield coach; he knew it after he went to the Boston Patriots in 1966.
             "There was no one up there in his league," Purvis said. "The way he saw the game, the way he taught it, the way he analyzed it. The thought process of the game. He knew what plays would work, and he was always thinking 2-3 plays ahead. 
             "He could see the entire alignment, what everyone did -- the quarterback, the backs, the offensive line. And he could do the same with the defense.
            "He was the most amazing coach. I've never seen anyone who could do what he could do."
             (Sounds much like his ex-players and coaches would have said about Coach Aillet.)
---
             But one of the differences between Aillet and Lambright was the public persona.
             Where Aillet was comfortable and visible and accessible to the outside world -- the campus personalities, fans, media -- Lambright was reserved. 
              Meeting boosters, raising funds were not as crucial to athletic programs in those days because the state of Louisiana supplied much of the funds not raised through ticket sales. Lambright, while certainly not incapable of speech-making, didn't relish it.
             "I don't think he cared that much about being part of the community," said Keith Prince, Tech's sports information director for the last 10 years of the Lambright era. "I think his mindset was, 'I'm coaching football; this is my deal, this is who I am.' I think others, like Dr. Taylor, wanted him to be more involved with the public."
             Prince, though, was very much a Lambright fan (as pointed out in a later chapter). 
             "He was a marvelous coach," Prince said. "He took care of the details. He let his coaches coach, but he had the final word."
             "I wouldn't say he was shy," Collins said, "but he was very modest. We were very blessed to have known him and coached with him. I loved and worshipped the guy. He wasn't a guy, though; he was a man's man."
            (Next, Part II: The coaching road, through USM)
             
    
        

One more time: the media and politics

       So here is my challenge for the readers today: When you say "mainstream media" or "liberal media," be specific. Tell me -- by name -- who you are talking about.
       Not by network (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CNN, MSNBC, whoever else you consider the main ones), not by just a newspaper name (The New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, etc.).
       Give me the TV reporters/analysts/and, well, entertainers you watch -- or don't watch. Give me the newspaper reporters/columnists you like -- and don't like.
       In other words, where do you get your news? Where do you get the information to confirm your opinions?    
       Don't just say the "liberal media" or the "conservative media." That's too easy. That's too general.
       I am not promoting any cause here, or criticizing one. I'm just curious to know what you think.
       I welcome the feedback to my blogs -- positive, negative. Whatever. I will post the comments ... if I think they're decent. If they cross the line into name-calling or if they're ugly, most often I will not post them. I might leave them on Facebook for a while, but not forever.
       The lack of civility in this campaign the past year and a half was the most galling aspect to me. Not only from the politicians, but all over social media. Disgusting. Enough already.
       So no bashing Mr. Trump, or President Obama, or Hillary.
--- 
       Before I return to the media scene, we interrupt our beginning message for a few thoughts:
       I keep seeing the Hate Hillary comments; I received a couple. Here is my view: She lost. She is no longer relevant. She is history. You don't have to keep beating a beaten candidate. It's piling on.
       On the other side, stop whining about the popular vote and 2.5 million. It doesn't matter; it's not what really counts. The Electoral College counts, and there's no reversing that. It wouldn't be right. And can you imagine the chaos in the streets if it was reversed?
       And when I see "sore losers," count me out.
       I was involved in athletics long enough to know that it's a competition; one side wins, one side loses. If you win, don't gloat too long. There is another game coming. If you lose, don't let it linger. Life goes on.
       An inside joke with some of my friends is that I am "a bitter man." I'm only bitter for a few moments, believe me. But if you want a list of the most painful sports losses, I did a blog on that.
       There are a thousand, ten thousand, games I wish would have come out differently. That doesn't happen.
       So this election is done, and as I wrote four years ago after President Obama's re-election, "get over it and move on." We have a President-elect, and we should wait and see what happens.
       Even if you're a Trump supporter, you might not  particularly like him, you might even admit that he is  unpredictable. You don't know what's coming next, what he's tweeting about at any moment. But you probably also believe his administration can fix what needs fixing.
       I was told by one friend that I must be a "Trump Hater." Nope. I try not to hate anybody; it's a waste of time.
       Didn't support Candidate Trump, but now that he's President-elect Trump, I wish him well. The Presidency should be respected, and if he and the Congress improve health care and immigration and veterans' needs, schools/education, inner-city issues, violence in the streets,  rising terrorism and its threats, etc., etc., we're all for it.
 ---
       Back to our regularly scheduled message ... 
       I believe that many people lose sight that many media people are paid to offer their opinions, whether in print or on television and radio. So you should not expect them to be unbiased. 
       You might expect reporters to be more straight-laced, factual. But they are human; they slant their stories through their own filters. And journalism/the media has changed over the years. It is more analysis-based now.
       This hit home with us as we listened to our latest audio book Tuesday. Early in This Town by Mark Leibovich (of The New York Times), published in 2013 and based on life and politics in Washington, D.C., he writes, "Punditry has replaced reporting as journalism's highest calling. ... " 
       After my most recent blog about Mr. Trump and his "war" with the media, one comment in particular triggered the idea for this blog.

Chuck Todd photo from nbcdfw.com

    John Dittrich, a baseball lover like me and a former Fort Worth resident, wrote: "Like you, I watch the Sunday morning political talk shows religiously (no church-related wisecrack intended). Although I continue to record and watch Meet The Press, it seems to me that [host] Chuck Todd is not very objective. He takes a very obvious hostile approach to the conservatives, particularly to anyone affiliated with Mr. Trump.
       "While I do not like President-elect Trump and consider myself left-leaning, I do feel that Todd gives credence to those in the right who accuse the media of being too liberal. He is so obviously argumentative toward certain guests that it actually makes me uncomfortable. This approach is exactly what damages the credibility of the mainstream media."
       We want to like Chuck, but I must add that I agree with John.
       I will stick with my contention that PBS has the best-balanced newscasts. I'd like to think that Meet The Press is also balanced, that Chuck Todd can be as tough with questions directed at Democrats, or left-leaning people -- as he was last Sunday with U.S. House minority leader Nancy Pelosi -- and that the panel discussions always have both sides represented.
       Same for Face The Nation, where host John Dickerson also asks the hard questions of both sides, but is more congenial than Todd.
       We do miss the late beloved, respected Tim Russert.
       We still see the old anchors from time to time. From left to center to right -- Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Fort Worth's Bob Schieffer. They are venerable.
       I think today's network news anchors -- Lester Holt (NBC), David Muir (ABC), Scott Pelley (CBS), Wolf Blitzer (CNN), Judy Woodruff (PBS) and, say, Brian Williams (MSNBC) --  play it pretty straight down the middle, they don't take positions. You might not agree. They ask tough enough questions to people from both ends of the political spectrum.

Katy Tur photo from mediamatters.org

      But it's different for reporters. We mostly watch NBC, so Andrea Mitchell, Hallie Jackson and Katy Tur were following the Clinton and Trump campaigns. My view was that they were demanding of the candidates they covered, but I had to feel for Katy, only 33, when Mr. Trump named her  specifically in a rally or two, and she needed security at events and afterward after receiving threats.
       We like the CBS 60 Minutes regulars, especially the venerable Lesley Stahl. Anderson Cooper (also on CNN) is clearly slanted toward more liberal position.
       Maybe so are Jake Tapper (CNN) and fast-talking, loud Chris Matthews (MSNBC). They can be tough and argumentative interviewers. Matthews is a small-dose guy, but I loved his reverent commentary when Pope Francis visited his hometown, Philadelphia.
       If you want to go right, go FOX. We don't watch it often, but Chris Wallace seemed like a fair moderator in the first Republican debate and even better in the third Presidential debate, and I wasn't familiar with Megyn Kelly until she squabbled with Mr. Trump in that debate, and he helped make her famous.
       Then there's Bill O'Reilly. Read a couple of his books we liked. Funny guy, at least when he banters with Stephen Colbert on The Late Show. His politics? Not for me, but he's entertaining. 
       You really want to go right, here's some names: Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, George Will, Thomas Sewell. We think Mr. Will is an outstanding columnist (Washington Post), and I loved his baseball book Men at Work, but seldom agree with his viewpoint. He also did not back Trump or Clinton. 
       Step to the right with FOX anchor Sean Hannity and to the left with Keith Olbermann wherever he is. Neither one appears on my TV; they are too much. Didn't like Olbermann in the sports arena, either.
       And then there is -- spare me -- Rush Limbaugh ... ultra-right. Is he "media" or "entertainment" or "human?" 
       (Of course, in the sports world, I feel the same about Skip Bayless and Mark May, and a hundred others. You could not pay me enough to watch them. Rarely watch or listen to any TV/radio talkfests. I've blogged on this, too.)
       Two conservative "pundits" who we did not pay attention to before, but impressed us in this campaign with their reason and their calm: Hugh Hewitt and -- surprisingly -- Glenn Beck. Hewitt wasn't enthused about Mr. Trump; Beck flat-out rejected the idea.
       Columnists to the left: No one more left, more critical of the right, than Paul Krugman (New York Times). Leonard Pitts (Miami). We like the very smart Thomas Friedman and the acerbic, rip-'em-all Maureen Dowd (both NYT).
       Also far left: MSNBC's nightly hour shows -- Chris Hayes, Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnell. We watch regularly because they give us perspectives (yes, liberal) that we think are well-researched.
       And even farther left: Jon Stewart. Master of satire and The Daily Show on Comedy Central for all those years. Outspoken liberal. Generous benefactor of so many comedians/show hosts/commentator.
       Stewart, of course, is more entertainer than politician. So is Bill Maher. If you are a conservative, either Stewart or Maher might be Public Enemy No. 1 (outside of politics). Think we know who No. 1 and 1A are in politics.
       We don't watch the morning TV shows; too early. So we're strangers to Morning Joe, but it must have balance with Mika Brzezinski (Democrat) and Joe Scarborough (Republican). Do they have verbal battles?
       But have there been better verbal battles than those between Whoopi Goldberg and Elizabeth Hasselbeck -- political/social opposites -- on The View a couple of years ago? Sorry, I missed those (sounds good, but not really).
       Our favorite "pundit" is David Brooks, a New York Times columnist. He and syndicated columnist Mark Shields are regulars for us on the PBS NewsHour each Friday and for big political events.
       Brooks is conservative, but not overly so, and his columns are complex. On television his analysis is usually spot-on, but this campaign, he kept admitting that he was so wrong so often (as were the polls and so many other "experts). David consistently was not happy with either Presidential candidate.

Amy Walter, PBS photo

       Shields has been around forever and he's a liberal who seldom comes out of a left lean.
       Here is who I think provided the best, most balanced analysis of this Presidential race: Amy Walter, national editor of The Cook Political Report. She was a PBS regular, a political-panel regular who seemed to be on 25 hours a day. She is knowledgeable and insightful -- and cautioned to the very end that the Presidential race was wide-open. She was as correct as anyone we heard.
       Our favorite reporters/TV pundits are the Washington Post's veteran Dan Balz and young star Robert Costa (who covered the Trump campaign). They were often on talk/news shows. Two words for them: factual and fair.
       Away from politics: Mitch Albom, a sports columnist who ventures off into books and movies and plays on the real world, is always a good read. Dave Barry is the funniest read.
---
       My feeling is that all the honest/dishonest, fair/unfair, lying/truthful perceptions about media just depends on each individual and how they perceive it. There's no right or wrong.
       I don't like the attacks on the media -- especially from politicians. Media positions are jobs, and there are different ways to do the job.
       It is just people's opinions, and you know what they say about opinions.
       If you are right-leaning, you likely think the media is mostly liberal. If you are left-leaning, you think the conservatives are off-base. If you're independent -- and I have friends who are -- you don't agree with the media, period.
       So I've given you a lot of names, and there are many more. If you've read this far, you're tired. And so am I.
       Here's a rule I try to live by: Don't let politics spoil friendships. Friends -- true friends -- are valuable.
       I welcome responses and your favorites/least favorites. Tell me who influences your thoughts. Just be civil about it. 

        

A war that's "rigged": Mr. Trump and the media

     A few days ago, I "shared" a post on Facebook and sent out the following message with a link to a speech by Washington Post editor Marty Baron.

Marty Baron, in the Washington Post newsroom, 2013
(photo by Steven Voss/Redux)

     I am converting this to a blog format, and adding a few thoughts about the media and the President-elect who has spent much time badgering it.
     OK, I am a former media person -- or still am, if certain blog pieces qualify for that.
     So honestly, I can't agree with Mr. Trump when he rails about the "dishonest, lying media."
     In my career, I never had anyone accuse me of that -- at least to my face. Had some people express their displeasure to me, directly or on the phone or in a letter or note, but it was rarely ugly. There was one shouting match I remember (no details necessary), and there was one well-known man who yelled at me (I've written about it).
     Look, I made some mistakes in judgement and had my share of fact errors. But if I had heard someone call me "dishonest" or "lying," I don't think I would have been so cool.
     Above all, my goal was to be as fair as I could.
     I was not unbiased when it was a school or team from my newspaper's coverage area playing a team from another area; you are trying to present the story from your area's viewpoint.
     I knew I was doing OK in the "fairness" department when in the early 1970s, a couple of people associated with Woodlawn High School in Shreveport -- my alma mater -- told me, based on what they'd read, how I "hated Woodlawn." True story.
---
     Here is the note I posted earlier ...
         I have had several friends tell me they thought that the media played a huge role in Mr. Trump's rise to President-elect, that they were not tough enough on him early on, that he was given too much "free" time by the media, or, if they were Trump supporters, he was exactly correct in his portrayal of the "crooked" or "rigged" media.

     You have to judge that for yourself.

     My opinion is -- whether you supported him or not -- Mr. Trump used the media brilliantly. He knew from the start that they could not afford to not cover him. So if he said or did something outrageous, it was going to play.

     I know a lot of media people -- some who are liberal-leaning; I know a lot that are conservative-leaning. I have friends both ways.

     (We regularly watch PBS NewsHour, Face The Nation and Meet The Press, and I think the balance between "liberal" and "conservative" viewpoints on those shows is very fair.) 

      But from years in newspapers, the media people I know (or knew) were very conscientious and tried to be objective, and they worked hard. And they were simply doing their jobs, with the intent of being fair.

      Sure there are some "self-promoters" in the business, but I would say those people are in the great minority.

      We all take stances that might not be popular, and we receive criticism. That's part of the job. Not many people like to be criticized, but you deal with it best you can.

      Here is the link to the speech by Baron, who was editor of the Boston Globe featured in the movie Spotlight when its investigative team uncovered the Catholic Church's coverup of children being sexually abused by priests.

      Read this speech. Maybe it will give you a different view of the media's role. Maybe not.

      It is, as Coach Adams used to say, "all in the way you hold your mouth."

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/11/washington-post-editor-marty-baron-message-to-journalists

--- 
      OK, suppose I concede that most of the "mainstream media" -- say The New York Times and Washington Post columnists and reporters, and the major, traditional television networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) -- are left-leaning.
      I would say that's because those people are smarter, more studied than the rest of us. Maybe they can figure this out better. So there.
      Think about this, though: Mr. Trump received, what, a total of four newspaper endorsements across the country and the TV media mostly was critical of him. And he won. So much for media influence making a difference.
      The public decided the election. The public decided they wanted change from eight years of the Obama administration, and they didn't want Hillary.
      Change is, my opinion, the major reason Mr. Trump was elected. The desire for change is why JFK was elected in 1960, and Nixon in 1968, Carter in 1976, Reagan in 1980, Clinton in 1992, G.W. Bush in 2000, Obama in 2008.
      Only one of those Presidents had a consistent "war" with the media. Care to guess? He had to resign because the media investigated and found he really was a crook.           
---
      Also, I am adding a link to another Washington Post piece regarding the media and Mr. Trump: 
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/11/28/trump-has-already-defeated-the-news-media-and-its-unclear-what-we-can-do-about-it/?utm_term=.1e09c6c0ace6
      It is an analysis of the Trump movement in total and his use of the media in particular. Fair warning: If you are a Trump supporter, you probably won't like it.
      It is not right when -- with Mr. Trump's anti-media rhetoric stirring up people -- reporters on his campaign, trying to do their jobs, are threatened by crowds. Read another story on that this morning.
      Don't believe everything The Man tells you.
      I post these articles, not as sour grapes -- the election is done; Mr. Trump won it, and no recount or Electoral College flip-flop should change that. I post them because I think they're interesting reads.
       But, please, don't think that all or most people are "dishonest" and/or "liars." That's not right. That is a dishonest appraisal.   

          

 

Geaux time for Coach O

Coach O -- Ed Orgeron -- is the man in charge for LSU football.
 (photo from nola.com).

       So LSU is going to geaux with Coach O, and I'm not surprised. I'm OK with it.
       All right, Bebe. Prove your doubters wrong.
       Is Ed Orgeron -- Coach O -- the right guy to head the LSU football program for good? We'll see, won't we?
       He's been very good, but not perfect, as the interim head coach since we (happily and unhappily) said goodbye to Les Miles after game 4 this season.
        (Happily because Les' time as a gambling, successful, kind-of-wacky coach for the Tigers had run out. Unhappily because no program needs or particularly wants a coaching change early in the season.)
        Except for four too-conservative, no-creativity play calls near the Florida goalline at the end of that game two weeks ago, and a stilted offensive performance -- again, no risk taking -- against mighty Alabama, you can't find much fault with the job Orgeron and interim offensive coordinator Steve Ensminger have done.
        Their biggest fault was letting Miles and deposed OC Cam Cameron phone in those plays at the end of the Florida game.
        If one of those inside-the-tackles runs had succeeded, LSU and Orgeron probably would be Sugar Bowl-bound right now. Instead, they'll go bowling with a 7-4 record, a what-might-have-been look at this season ... and a new permanent head coach.
         As soon as word of the announcement came this morning, my Facebook news feed was covered with posts from Orgeron boosters ... and Orgeron detractors.
         You'd think this was a Presidential election. But this is LSU football. This is more important.
         We're paying the LSU head football coach a helluva lot more than The President makes. Even the President-Elect isn't campaigning for this much salary (he doesn't need it).
         Reportedly LSU was willing to pay $6 million or $7 million for Jimbo Fisher to leave Florida State and come back to LSU, and apparently Tom Herman wanted as much or more to leave University of Houston and choose LSU over an offer from Texas.
          (More on the salary aspects in a moment.)
          I never thought Jimbo would leave FSU. I have told friends all along that Texas would outbid LSU (or anyone) for Herman. 
          What really surprised me -- and I couldn't believe it when I saw it on the ESPN crawl early in the LSU-at-Texas A&M game Thursday night -- was that hornsdigest.com (a U. of Texas outlet) was reporting that Herman and LSU had a deal in place that looked to be finalized on Saturday (today).
          Too good to be true. It wasn't.
          In the next 24 hours, more rumors/reports: The Texas university president didn't want to fire Charlie Strong. Herman would wait for a Texas offer. Jimbo had talked to LSU people; he had his offer, and he wasn't coming.
          Meanwhile, the Houston football team was playing at Memphis ... and losing badly, then winning, then finally losing on a late Memphis TD (some teams can do that). What were all these rumors doing mentally to the Houston players?
          "Where does all this come from?" one of my friends asked on Facebook. My smart-aleck answer: "The rigged media." 
          I had inside information about Jimbo and Herman. No, I didn't; I'm kidding. But that's a lead-in to my real answer to my friend's question.
         The public wants to know what's going on. The media wants to tell them. Media people have "sources," usually close to a program or the administration or the boosters. So they talk to someone who has the "inside," has the "scoop," and they trust that source, and they report it online or in the paper or on TV or radio.
          Sometime the source think they know, but they really don't know. Solid reports also might be erroneous reports. And there you have it (or you don't).
---
           Orgeron, with his Cajun background, is the perfect fit that way for an LSU coach. He speaks the language in South Louisiana; he grew up in Lafourche Parish, in the Larose-Cutoff area. I've known some guys, Louisiana Tech football players, from there. Loved hearing them talk.
            The players love Coach O; they've responded to him. He's a motivator, a loud, gruff character. The players told everyone they could, after that 54-39 debacle-of-defense victory against A&M, they wanted Coach O for the job.
             Players are loyal to the coach they know. Look how they carried Miles off the field after last season's victory at home against A&M. And Miles was "embattled" then. We've all seen cases of players sticking up for their coaches who are under fire.
             Orgeron has a stellar background as an assistant coach and recruiter in high-profile programs such as Miami and Southern Cal, and he's been in the NFL (Saints, for one season), and he twice now has been a fairly successful interim college head coach.
             But he was a flop as a college head coach (10-25 in three years at Ole Miss) -- and that is one item that his critics always mention. Saw it again repeatedly this morning.
              Two points: (1) It was a decade ago (2005-07). Orgeron says he's learned from that, grown a lot, learned to delegate more. (2) Bill Belichick was fired from his first head coaching job, a so-so tenure with the Cleveland Browns (1991-95). Now he's the NFL's resident genius, certainly one of the most greatest coaches ever, whether you like him or not. I can cite baseball managers who were from fired multiple times to World Series champions/Hall of Famers. Start with Casey Stengel and Joe Torre.
            So as I've heard many times this week about President-Elect Trump, let's give him a chance.
            No doubt, Orgeron will have to find an offensive coordinator who can teach and guide quarterbacks and call the right, most effective plays. We all know that offensive staleness and limitations, good-to-average (not great) QBs, and screw-ups have kept LSU from Alabama-level type success the past few years.
             But, except for the Alabama game, LSU's offense looked much more versatile and efficient with Orgeron and Ensminger in charge. They discovered that tight ends are eligible receivers more than once a game. And the LSU offensive line -- suspect at times -- has done a better job, although running backs Leonard Fournette (when not injured) and Derrius Guice don't always need a lot of help.
             The shame of the Florida game was that QB Danny Etling managed the game well and Ensminger called good plays ... except at the end. But Florida's defense should be given credit, too.
             Don't know what Ensminger's role will be now. People keep mentioning bright-boy Lane Kiffin -- Orgeron's coaching buddy -- as a possibility for offensive coordinator at LSU. I would be shocked if he left Alabama for LSU in the same position. Why would he?
           Money? Outside of Texas, who is willing to pay more money in college football than Alabama?
            My buddy Glenn Guilbeau, who does a great job covering LSU athletics for the Gannett newspapers in Louisiana, repeatedly made the case for LSU hiring Jimbo Fisher, no matter what the cost. He also thought LSU should have paid whatever for Herman. He thinks LSU "settled" for Orgeron and has to pay him a mere $3 million per year.
             I don't think it's "settling" and I certainly think that all the coaching salaries are obscene when education in general is in such financial need everywhere. But that's a different topic.
             Long-range, national championship potential year after year, I can't blame Tom Herman for picking Texas over LSU. Florida State is at least equal, if not a better spot, than LSU.
            But those of us from Louisiana love our state, our schools and our Tigers (split allegiance for me with Louisiana Tech). We've got pride in our programs.
             So maybe Orgeron is a risk. Nick Saban wasn't a special coach before his five years at LSU. 
            The last time LSU elevated a defensive line coach to head coach, that guy had the job for 19 years, took the Tigers to six major bowls (two victories each in the Sugar and Cotton Bowls, two Orange Bowl losses) and 13 bowls overall (his best team, 9-1 in 1969, didn't go to a bowl), and he now has a football practice facility named for him.
            "Cholly Mac" -- Charlie McClendon -- had been a nine-year LSU assistant when promoted in 1962 after Paul Dietzel joined the Army.     
             The last time a Louisiana native son was named LSU head coach, one of the school's greatest players, he lasted four years. Jerry Stovall's 1982 Tigers went to the Orange Bowl; he was fired after the next season.
            The last time an LSU assistant coach was promoted to head coach, defensive coordinator Mike Archer, he lasted four years. The program was somewhat in disarray after that, and two what proved to be mediocre hires later (Curley Hallman and Gerry DiNardo), it took a then-big money hire (Saban) to eventually bring LSU back to yearly football prominence as it had been in the early McClendon years.
              Les Miles, for all his foibles, kept it there. He was entertaining and the players and even media appreciated him. But his last five seasons, watching his Tigers also was exasperating.
              And so we have Coach O. From a media standpoint, for what it's worth, he's not smooth or polished, pretty stilted actually. But he is charming, in a way. His media presence doesn't really matter if he can he recruit, get his kids to play and to behave properly on and off the field, and get them to go to class and prepare for their futures (in or out of football). 
              And ... and ... and ... if the Tigers can win a lot -- most -- of their football games.
              We'll see. He has his chance, and it's his dream job. "It's bigger than life," he said today.