data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5426c/5426cad2c61075508d3846f030a754798cbb5dae" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/29658/29658cfc23f343339d441e3f1e48dd5b52b1277a" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f4e39/f4e3941022bc8b1254ca6dca39198c88f2765285" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8a58c/8a58c6dbc839d570b5212778916c744e2d1636ea" alt=""
Twelve days ago, something screamed at me. That’s not too odd an occasion around the Lambda Chi house, as I have been known to pick rather inopportune times to visit my brothers. But this occasion was rather odd. I sat on a park bench, unable to see the path that lay at my feet because the moon was no where to be found and the nearest light was a mile away at the Turkey Run Inn. The only sounds that reached my ears were made by frogs and running water, dogs and swaying trees. The only things that I could actually see may not even exist anymore, though their light is just now reaching our eyes. Above me lay the heavens, bits of light hung tenuously on the firmament. Crystal spheres hung with stars shining down to me from a million miles away. At the center of the universe that night was me- hearing a voice that owned no mouth.
Late at night, in that moment after my mind goes clear and before sleep visits me, I hear again those voices. They compete, you know. I hear them too as I sit here at my computer terminal, pouring forth another week’s column, laying aside a lesson plant that I have been working on because I have again been able to draw the muse close to me and beg her to work her magic. They both speak to me from within. One telling me that I have something else due tomorrow, that I must remember to buy wire for my chemistry project, be in lab Tuesday afternoon, do my homework, finish this assignment type that letter, call that person…on and on it drones.
SHUT UP!!!!! The other voice takes over for a second, bursting its own tenor through the madness, across the unending litany of chores. But then it lowers its tone, ceases to scream and instead seduces. This voice owns the charm of John Lennon –“all you need is love”- as well as the beautiful body of an open field where I could lie all day long, thinking nothing but the most beautiful thoughts, caring not one iota about what I need to do, what I have to be doing, what I should get done. This is the voice that I ignore more than is healthy for me.
I should embrace these sweet tones, turning my back instead on the call I hate. The sweeter is the one that draws me to my lover’s bed, that convinces me to drive to Clifty Falls and let the water pour down over me. The harsher is the sound that makes me sit at a desk, type out a paper, worry about a test. Nearly all of my actions are begun with a command from one of these voices. Call them Duty and Desire if you will.
Duty intones me to finish this column before giving in to slumber. She can be a harsh mistress, using every weapon upon me – Responsibility, Fear, Shame. Duty punishes if she does not get her way; she meets out failing marks, broken bank accounts, and reproaches from your superiors. But she can be just as hard a lover as well, for when you give into her alone, you ignore Desire…
…who is beautiful. This is the voice that keeps you sane, that turns you attentions away from the daily responsibilities. Hers are the gifts that give you relaxation, love, freedom. Embrace her often, and you will have no cares. Ignore her wonderful touch, and you invite stress, ulcers, heart attacks, and breakdowns. Keep her only as a mistress, though, and you will find yourself outside society’s walls, unable to play their games and live by their rules. You will be behind and perhaps even unable to catch up. Take neither of these women to the full exclusion of the other. If either of them takes full hold of your affections, then she will cause you only problems – one doles out the punishments from within, the other from without. These are the two voices to which I often have to answer.
I fear that some of you have fallen too far into the clutches of Duty. You wander about the campus, head pointed down at your feet, trudging resolutely from lab to lecture to lunch and to lab again. Your evenings are spent catching up on yesterdays readings, finishing up tomorrow’s problem set, perhaps even working a day ahead so that tomorrow night won’t be quite so bad. When some tiny thing goes wrong for you, it often escalates into a major crisis because your schedule leaves you no leeway for mistakes – or for free time. When you do have a moment –an evening – to breather, you often spend it concentrating all of the fun into two hours, drinking yourself into a stupor, and passing out – praying that you wake in time to begin the cycle again.
You are killing yourselves. These are supposed to be the most carefree years of our lives. We have few responsibilities of the scope that many of us will in a few years, and yet we have as much legal freedom as out society offers anyone. And yet you spend this time bitching about your workload, swigging coffee so you can pull another all-nighter to catch up, and working yourself into the hospital.
Here’s a hint folks. It’s something that Desire whispered into my ear half a fortnight ago. Back off. Take time to do what you want to do. Eat a peach. Head outside tonight and watch the sun burn a crimson path into the sky as it leaves to lighten the world to the west. Drive to a par. Pet a dog. Fall in love.
I will admit that I sometimes find myself responding more to the whips and chains of Duty than to the loving caresses of Desire, but I know that I am occasionally able to hold off Duty while I embrace Desire. She is beautiful, you know. I just wish that each of us would take the time to look…
Let me drop a phrase on you just to see what your reactions are: collective memory. Just take those couple of words and mull them over a bit before you give me an answer; no pressure involved here; just a columnist wondering what a couple of words mean to you. Okay, guess time’s up. I might as well wander into my column now, hope you like, here it goes…
I came to Wabash, just over three years ago, as a fairly impressionable freshman. I wanted to fit in, to what everybody else does and has done for years now. I joined a fraternity – partially because most of the guys who came here do that too. I screamed my lungs out at chapel sing, a bit because all of my associate brothers were doing it too. And the next year, I encouraged the new freshmen to do things just like I had done them, because what I did was right for me. Not that I knew them at all, not that I had any idea of what they should do based on who they were, just because I did those things, and they should too. Seems pretty average, fairly easy to understand, doesn’t it?
Well, in these last few days, I’ve been wondering about why something that someone did in the past should have any influence on what you do today or tomorrow. More specifically, what I’ve been wondering is why anything that somebody calls a “tradition” should influence my behavior. Here at Wabash, we seem to pride ourselves on traditions, on things that we do or believe that tie us into some sort of cosmic past. It is these things that I have come to call into question this week.
There are actually three things that I’ve been pondering. First, I am not too sure that we should be followers. Then I’m having questions about the people who put those footsteps there in the first place. And last, my eyesight is a little bad, and I’m not sure I can see those footsteps all too clearly.
The world needs ditch-diggers and phone sanitizers and even ice cream scoop girls. If someone enjoys their job and performs it well, then they should hold no shame in what they do. Some people were born to lead, like the man who pointed the direction as the elephants marched across the Pyrenees, and some were born to shovel up behind them. That just is. I will not question that. What I am pondering is whether I should be a pointer or a shoveller. One of those men gave the orders, told everyone where to go, and made the rules - the traditions. The other did what he was told, got to play with manure, and followed those rules.
Each of us has a choice, a choice that we have been making for roughly twenty years each: are we to sit above the shitor are we to play in it? Here at Wabash, I would hope that we are becoming men who will lead our country, who will forge new paths where the old have become overgrown or obsolete. Some of us, I am sure, will find our calling by walking where others have walked before, but I would like to think that we can do better than that. I would claim that we should be leaders – not followers.
We, the Wabash students, are a community of men. I say that because somebody said that to me a few years ago when they wanted me to come here. We have one rule, and one rule only: to act as a gentleman at all times. Again, somebody told me that, but I’ve forgotten his name, so I’ll not be quoting my source this time. Heck, it’s a tradition that we say this to each new prospective when he tours our fraternity house. “One rule…treated as an adult…lots of studying…some partying…busloads of women every weekend.” Well folks, I was lied to in at least one of these areas, and I’ve been a little hacked off ever since.
But, I’m going to give that now-departed Wally the benefit of the doubt. I will assume that he was merely following a tradition that had lied to him before and to his liar before that. Does this mean that some of our past Wallies haven’t been totally honest, haven’t been fully truthful, haven’t followed the Gentleman’s Rule to the letter of the ‘law?’ Dare I question the choices made by those who have gone before my? Hell yes, I dare. I doubt whether that lie is worth getting another student next year. I doubt whether it makes any sense to dress a freshman p as a woman and parade him around the track. I doubt whether we should be all male. Do I dare to say every act gone before me was wrong? No I don’t. Quite a few of them were excellent deeps, done fore the right reasons and at the right time. Heck, I’m not even saying that those three doubts should fall either way for me. All I am saying, is that just because someone does something, it doesn’t mean that you should do it. It’s as simple as when my mom asked me “If Wayne jumped off a bridge, would you?” And it’s as simple as the tradition that I will likely continue by asking that of my children someday.
Now I return to the idea of collective memory. We, now we are ‘the seniors,’ have been around this place longer than any of the students, and we know what things should be like around here. We know that tradition says we’ve always had comps in January, that Wallies have always partied on Saturdays, and that the Phi Psi’s always win the IM crown. We know these things because they’ve been true since we came to Wabash…since three years ago. That’s it. Our only basis for claiming things as traditions is three years of Wabash’s hundred-thirty-four. Well, freshman, I’m here to tell you that we don’t know that much at all. If this senior class were to decide ‘tradition’ demands that every one of us come to commencement naked, then in it would be tradition on less than half a decade. Three classes have only us left to learn from, and we are the ones who are left to pass along the ‘traditions.’ Remember that.
The collective memory of this student body is something around four years. I can only tell you what Wabash was like three years ago. Heck, our president can’t do more that from his personal memory. The only people around here who can recount what Wally World was like longer ago than that are the professors and the custodians. They are the ones who know what the traditions of this place really are. They can tell of oral examinations twice weekly for every student, of Saturday classes, and of a day long in the past when the Lambda Chi’s won intramurals. Wabash’s memory lies with them, and often that fact is overlooked. We turn, instead, to the members of our fraternities for guidance, to tell us what we should do, how we should be. Is that right? I can only tell you the traditional answer.
Now comes the hardest part for me: telling you what I think you should do about all of this. Am I condoning mass over-throw of anything denoted ‘tradition?’ Do I want Chapel Sing, Homecoming, and the senior Bench demolished? Should you spit in the face of convention and take only the path un-traveled? No, that’s not quite it. Those well-trod paths were traveled by amazing people, and we ach need the opportunity to walk there ourselves. My charge for you is a more complicated one, a more difficult one, I think. I want you to think about your traditions and about ours. Take what is right for you and discard what is wrong for you. Adapt the trappings of the past to your todays, not to those of your processors. And, if need be, burn the bridges built by those who went before you. Be not scared to take a leap if faith and try something different, you never know when you can do something better than your idols could…
TREND 3: Now for some good news. There's a high school in Arkansas that has made the most significant football innovation we've seen since the veer option. This high school is tearing up its state and is on the verge of revolutionizing the way football is played. TMQ suspects that within a few years, the phrase "Pulaski theory" will be as widely known as the phrase "shotgun spread." In a copycat sport, Pulaski Academy of Little Rock has devised an offensive philosophy that is genuinely new, and it's winning games left and right.I'm all down with innovation in sports, especially if it's backed up with stats.
Pulaski Academy does not punt.
I first heard about Pulaski from Peter Giovannini of Morrilton, Ark., a high school football official who wrote me to report in astonishment that he had just worked a conference championship game in which the winning team never punted, even going for a first down on fourth-and-6 from its own 5-yard line early in the game. "As a devotee of TMQ, I thought you might like to know at least one coach in the vast football universe has experienced the epiphany and refuses to punt the ball away," Giovannini wrote.
That team was Pulaski -- 9-1-1 after having just won its opening-round game in the Arkansas 5A playoffs. Coach Kevin Kelley reports that he stopped punting in 2005 -- after reading an academic study on the statistical consequences of going for the first down versus handing possession to the other team, plus reading Tuesday Morning Quarterback's relentless examples of when punting backfires but going for the first down works. In 2005, Pulaski reached the state quarterfinals by rarely punting. In 2006, Pulaski reached the state championship game, losing by one point -- and in the state championship game, Pulaski never punted, converting nine of 10 fourth-down attempts. Since the start of the 2006 season, Pulaski has had no punting unit and never practices punts. This year, Pulaski has punted just twice, both times when leading by a large margin and trying to hold down the final score. In its playoff victory Friday night, Pulaski did not punt, converting three of four fourth-down tries.
"They give you four downs, not three," Kelley told TMQ. "You should take advantage. Suppose we had punted from our own 5. The odds are the opposition will take over at about the 35, and from there the stats say they have an 80 percent chance of scoring. So even if you only have a 50 percent chance of converting the first down, isn't that better than giving the other side an 80 percent chance of scoring?" For fourth-and-short attempts, the odds of converting are a lot better than 50 percent.
As TMQ endlessly notes, NFL teams convert about 75 percent of fourth-and-1 tries. Yet highly paid professional coaches endlessly send in the punt unit on fourth-and-1, handing a scoring opportunity to the opposition. In the 2006 edition of my annual don't-punt column, I summarized the odds this way: "Nearly three-quarters of fourth-and-1 attempts succeed, while around one-third of possessions result in scores. Think about those fractions. Go for it four times on fourth-and-1: Odds are you will keep the ball three times, and three kept possessions each with a one-third chance of a score results in your team scoring once more than it otherwise would have. Punt the ball on all four fourth-and-1s, and you've given the opponents three additional possessions. (It would have gotten one possession anyway when you missed one of your fourth-and-1s.) Those three extra possessions, divided by the one-third chance to score, give the opponent an extra score."
Kelley says that when he began to shun the punt, people thought he was crazy: "It's like brainwashing, people believe you are required to punt." Players and the home crowd needed to get acclimated to it. "When we first started going on every fourth down," he says, "our home crowd would boo and the players would be distressed. You need to become accustomed to the philosophy and buy into the idea. Now our crowd and our players expect us to go for it, and get excited when no punting team comes onto the field. When my 10-year-old son sees NFL teams punting on short yardage on television, he gets upset because he's grown up with the idea that punting is usually bad."
Preparing the players for the no-punting future of football is a practical concern. If a coach unexpectedly kept his offense in on fourth down in his own territory, and failed to convert, the crowd would boo and the defensive players become demoralized. If the defensive players understood that a no-punting philosophy occasionally would hand great field position to the other side but overall would keep the other side off the field, they would buy into the idea. Imagine, in turn, the demoralizing effect on the opposition if its defense stops its opponent after three downs, only to realize that no punt will follow. For the 2007 edition of my anti-punting column, the stats service AccuScore did thousands of computer simulations based on 2006 NFL games and found that, on average, rarely punting added one point per game to the score of the teams that didn't punt, while not adding any points to their opponents' final scores. Computer simulations showed that rarely punting amounted to roughly one additional victory per season at the NFL level. At the college and high school levels, the bonus might be even higher.
Why do coaches punt on fourth-and-short -- and worse, when trailing or in opposition territory? "Most punting is so the coach can avoid criticism," says Kelley, who has coached Pulaski for five years and got his start in high school coaching in football-crazed Texas. "If you go for it and fail, the first question in the postgame press conference will be, 'Aren't you to blame for losing the game because you didn't punt?' If the coach orders a punt, the media will blame the defense." TMQ has always speculated that the desire to shift blame explains why big-college and NFL coaches send in the punting team. But take note, these days, the media and the postgame news conference are factors even at the high school level.
Pulaski Academy is providing real-world evidence of the future of football. The most important innovation in years is being field-tested by the Pulaski Bruins, and the test is going quite well. But don't just take Kelley's word for it. The decisive snap of Illinois' upset of No. 1 Ohio State on Saturday came when the Illini, leading 28-21 with six minutes remaining, went for it on fourth-and-1 in their own territory. Sports radio generally called this a huge gamble. Actually, it was playing the percentages; Illinois converted and held the ball for the remainder of the game. Had Illinois boomed a punt, the Buckeyes would have been in business. On Sunday, while trailing at Washington, Philadelphia went for it on fourth-and-1 in its own territory in the second half -- Fox television announcer Daryl Johnston called this "a huge gamble!" It was playing the percentages; the Eagles converted, and they scored a touchdown on the possession, igniting a comeback. Trailing 10-2, Buffalo went for it on fourth-and-1 from the Dolphins' 24 in the fourth quarter: a conversion, followed by a touchdown on the possession, keyed the Bills' comeback. Leading defending champion Indianapolis 16-0, San Diego went for it on fourth-and-2 at the Indianapolis 37, converted and scored a touchdown on the possession, going on to win by two points. Three times Jacksonville went for it on fourth-and-short in Tennessee territory, all three times converting and going on to score touchdowns; the Titans went for it on fourth-and-short twice in return, once failing and once scoring a touchdown. As noted by reader Rene Derken of Leuth, the Netherlands, Green Bay went for it twice on fourth-and-short in Minnesota territory, both times scoring on the possession -- but Minnesota punted from the Green Bay 42. Carolina went for it on fourth-and-1 from the Atlanta 20, and the play reached the Falcons' 2 before the Panthers' runner fumbled. Yes, New Orleans failed on a fourth-and-1 attempt in its own territory and went on to lose, and San Francisco failed on a fourth-and-1 on the Seattle 2-yard line when trailing big. But of the high-profile fourth-down tries in the NFL and in the Illinois-Ohio State game this past weekend, 10 were a total success, one a qualified success and three a failure. Not too shabby, compared with passively punting the ball.
And consider the punts that boomed when a play should have been run. Trailing 10-0, San Francisco (2-6) punted on fourth-and-1 from their 48-yard line and several minutes later was trailing 17-0. When the game was still tied, the Giants punted on fourth-and-2 from the Dallas 45. Not coincidentally, by game's end they were desperate for points.