THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Wednesday, July 27, 1994 TAG: 9407270530
SECTION: SPORTS PAGE: C1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BOB MOLINARO
LENGTH: Medium: 71 lines
The other night on Letterman, Philadelphia Phillies first baseman John Kruk was drawn into a conversation about the corked bat of Cleveland Indians outfielder Albert Belle.
Not surprisingly, Kruk didn't seem very interested in the subject. The ability to look and sound disinterested at all times is part of Kruk's goofball charm.
When Kruk had had enough about the Indians' problems, he said to Dave: ``I don't even know who's on their team.''
Later, I saw Kruk's comment reprinted in an out-of-town newspaper notes column. The writer of the column seemed surprised by the quote. I got the impression he thought Kruk should have taken the opportunity to whip out his own Top 10 List: Top 10 Cleveland Indians players and their hat sizes.
But why should Kruk, who plays in a different league, know the Indians? Most of the time, he can't even remember to get a haircut.
Besides, how can anybody keep track of all the players these days?
SportsWorld has gotten too big. Too many players. Too many names (but not enough worth remembering). Too many expansion franchises. Too many free agents jumping teams and leagues. Too many transactions to digest.
Unless you are the sort who glues box scores to the inside of your eyelids, you have no chance.
Baseball has been this way for several years now. More recently, pro football has begun to take on the look of baseball, which is to say jumbled and confusing.
The current NFL labor agreement is good for the best players, not as good for those who must sacrifice for the sake of the salary cap, and terribly disconcerting for anyone who doesn't carry around a complete set of up-to-date rosters.
I'm not against free agency in the NFL. Athletes should have the same freedom to take the best deal, to move from job to job, as any of us.
Players' interests aside, though, free agency is no good for pro football. No good for the fan. I think we can agree on that.
Pro football is now just one more sport that offers us instability and uncertainty on a yearly basis. Except the situation may be worse for football because it is supposed to be the ultimate team game.
No longer do NFL franchises have the luxury of planning for the future with a group of hand-picked young prospects. If the team is lucky, the prospects will develop into fine players. And then they will be gone, lost to free agency.
Most NFL clubs don't build anymore. They patch. Meanwhile, fans scramble to keep up - to match this player with that team.
Redskins fans will never again see anything approaching a unit like the lovable ``Hogs,'' an offensive line that stayed together for years.
Today, every player eligible for free agency is a potential hog (for money), who has his bags packed. Theoretically, for every team hurt by free agency, another is helped. That's the way it is supposed to work, though I'm not sure it always does.
In any case, when players change jerseys so often, it makes it more difficult for fans to create lasting attachments. Pro football, already a far too impersonal game, is becoming even colder and more mercenary.
It isn't necessary to be middle-aged to see that football is worse off. A boy of 12 can look back nostalgically and lament the passing of an NFL that he knew and loved.
Maybe that boy has a home computer on which he keeps a record of the comings and goings of athletes, and which stars are most likely to jump teams next.
It's easier to be like Kruk and admit you don't know who plays where. It's easier to remember a time when following a sport wasn't such hard work. by CNB