Good changes that were resisted

[coxfan]

In my 64 years, I've seen huge changes in the sports world. Yet these came one change at a time, which many good changes being strongly resisted. So I'm starting this thread to discuss some of those.

The shot clock in basketball was fiercly resisted in the 1960's when I entered college. The "freeze" was part of the game: teams leading near the end would just dribble for minutes at a time, near midcourt, forcing the opponents to foul or steal. The "freeze" tactic was carried to an extreme in a UGA home game vs Adolph Rupp's Kentucky around 1967. While their own fans booed, UGA just dribbled almost the entire first half. The halftime score was 8-6 Kentucky. UGA switched to a modified freeze called a "slowdown" in the second half, winning 49-40.

Despite the absurdity of these "freeze" tactics, many coaches argued that the "freeze" was part of the game and that there should be no shot clock. Thank goodness they soon lost their argument!

[coxfan]

Another fiercely-resisted change was the expansion of MLB baseball. When I learned the game in 1957, there 16 MLB clubs. They played a 154-game schedule ( 22 games vs each of the 7 opponents in their League.) But many US cities were growing, as was transportation (commercial jet service, mainly.)

So expansion was inevitable, but actively resisted. The Yankees, for example, had to best only four real AL rivals usually, as the old St. Louis Browns (now Orioles), Senators, and A's were rarely competitive. They didn't relish the thought of more competing clubs going for the same resources and outcome.

Of course their publicly-given reason for resisting expansion was that it would dilute the talent pool. That argument ignored the huge growth in the number of young American males, and thus of potential MLB talents, due to population growth, and to integration. Expansion was finally forced by Branch Rickey, who started to form a third major league. That prompted the NL and AL to trump him by adding some of his planned clubs to themselves. Now, of course, baseball is a truly national game with 30 clubs in all regions.

[WadeInBmore]

Not sure if this really counts, but I know this was a topic on the Baltimore airwaves during the football season..."the kneel."

I'm a child of the 80's and didn't really have football in my life until the mid 90's but with under two minutes to go in a game and the winning team would take a knee once the ball was snapped to let the clock run and to preserve the "w". It's always been a part of "my football" but it was interesting to learn where that play came from and why.

After learning that, I kind of dont like seeing it used as frequently as it is presently. Just my .02. Even though I'm just into my 30's now, it is interesting watching sports change OR hearing about suggestions to "make them better."

Wade

[rufusandherschel]

Not sure if this counts either, but an obvious would/should be the use of "Instant Replay" because the controversy is still ongoing in sports today.

[coxfan]

As late as 1960, football players were expected to play both offense and defence. If memory serves, Fran Tarkenton was both a quarterback and safety at UGA. When the "platoon" system came in, the NCAA tried to inhibit it by introducing rules limiting the number of substitutions that could be made at one time. That experiment was short-lived. I believe Chuck Bednarik was the last NFL player to play both ways (as a Center and a Linebacker.)

The idea of place-kicking specialists came later. Paul Horning, a running back, was also the field-goal kicker. When he missed a year, an offensive guard (Kramer) kicked the field goals and PAT's.

[joelsabi]

what comes to mind when saying fiercely resisted is the steroid testing policy. no one wanted it when attendance and popularity of baseball was returning after the baseball strike.

[Mark17]

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.

[WadeInBmore]

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

[NEFAN]

As late as 1960, football players were expected to play both offense and defence. If memory serves, Fran Tarkenton was both a quarterback and safety at UGA. When the "platoon" system came in, the NCAA tried to inhibit it by introducing rules limiting the number of substitutions that could be made at one time. That experiment was short-lived. I believe Chuck Bednarik was the last NFL player to play both ways (as a Center and a Linebacker.)

The idea of place-kicking specialists came later. Paul Horning, a running back, was also the field-goal kicker. When he missed a year, an offensive guard (Kramer) kicked the field goals and PAT's.

Troy Brown, 2004 (I believe) played WR and DB, though only for one season.

[coxfan]

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.