Saturday, November 24, 2007


Woodling: Tiger recalls ‘60 game



The Border War 2007

video thumbnail

¢ 6Sports video: Beaten but still in top 5<br /> ¢ 6News video: Fans cheer on Hawks from Lawrence<br /> ¢ 6News video: Crowds brave cold for ESPN's Gameday<br /> ¢ 6News video: Broken dreams<br />

For nigh onto four decades now, Jim Carothers and I have been transplanted Tigers in the Land of the Jayhawks.

Both of us graduated from Missouri in the spring of 1963, yet he witnessed arguably the most depressing defeat in MU football history, and I didn't.

For those of you who don't know Carothers, he is a KU professor of English who specializes in William Faulkner, baseball literature and American humorists - an eclectic combo, to say the least.

Carothers was an MU sophomore on Nov. 19, 1960, when, for the first time in history, the Tigers were approaching a game as the No. 1-ranked football team in the country.

Oh, the joy. Oh, the delight. The Tigers had won handily the week before, stunning Oklahoma, 41-19, in - of all places - Norman, Okla., where the Sooners lost about as often as rain fell in Death Valley.

That No. 1 ranking, coupled with the fact Mizzou would be meeting arch-rival Kansas, placed a premium on procuring a seat. Moreover, it was homecoming.

"I was offered $25 for my student ticket," Carothers recalled, "which would have bought me a working automobile at that time."

At that time, I may have considered selling my student ticket for 25 bucks, too, but I went to junior college for two years and didn't enroll at MU until the fall of 1961.

In those days, a student ticket for five home games cost $10, so Carothers was passing up a $23 windfall which indeed may have been enough to buy an auto that ran, although probably not for long.

All the Mizzou faithful expected the Tigers to mop up on the Jayhawks that afternoon. After all, KU already had lost twice. What the MU fans ignored, however, was the fact KU lost to Syracuse when the Orangemen were ranked No. 2 in the country and to Iowa when the Hawkeyes were ranked No. 1.

Kansas 23, Missouri 7.

"It was devastating," Carothers said. "Every true son was not so happy-hearted that night, nor for a long time afterward."

In retrospect, the Missourians may have felt a little better if the game had been close, if Kansas had won by a touchdown or less. As it was, though, KU stuffed one of the nation's most potent running attacks. The Tigers failed to post a first down until 10 minutes had elapsed in the third quarter.

In the meantime, John Hadl had thrown a touchdown pass to Bert Coan, and Roger Hill had kicked a field goal. Later, Coan would score again, and Sam Simpson would catch a TD pass with just :37 remaining for the final insult.

Never before had Kansas defeated a team sitting on top the national polls. Never since, either.

A month or so later, Kansas was stripped of the victory when Missouri ratted out the Jayhawks for using an ineligible player. Coan, it was proven, had accepted a flight to an all-star game that was judged to be an extra benefit.

Missouri claimed a 1-0 forfeit victory and, for a while, KU listed the game as a defeat, but later came to its senses and now goes with the original 23-7 score with an asterisk.

Much of the animosity Kansas harbors toward Missouri was fostered by MU beseeching NCAA vengeance for that whupping. And that's exactly what it was. An a**-kicking.

"Nobody who was there had any doubt at the time, or since, about who really won," Carothers said. "Nobody since has ever, to my knowledge, claimed that Mizzou won and KU lost."


Highland76 13 years, 2 months ago

"Never before had Kansas defeated a team sitting on top the national polls. Never since, either." - - Didn't the 76 Jayhawks defeat Oklahoma at Norman in 1976 when OU was ranked number 1?

dughawk 13 years, 2 months ago

Where is Bert Coan? I bet he is rooting against MU about as hard as anyone can. What a way to be punished for a bonehead teenage decision. Glad no one knows about all the ones I made!

Joe Ross 13 years, 2 months ago

Seems that you WANT the LJW to show you the door, Chuck. I dont believe in holding people against their will. If writing for the Hawks doesnt quite put the wind in your sails, I say its time to exit stage left.

Joe Ross 13 years, 2 months ago

Im REALLY TRYING to be fair to you Mr. Woodling. Im trying REAL HARD.

Consider the following:

1.) Its the nature of sports fans to be critical of writing that APPEARS to fault or focus on negativity with respect to their team. Id think being a sports journalist, the cardinal rule would be to "know your audience". How a journalist would write in Missouri or Illinois or wherever will naturally be different than the way one would write in Kansas. And if you subscribe to a philosophy of objectivism in journalism, I think it's time to own up to reality: all sports columnists pander to their audience. Can we admit to that much? They dont have to hide the truth, granted. But we have seen examples of ill-timed articles or ones which were out-an-out unfairly critical elsewhere in the country. Consider Gundy's tirade to a silly article earlier in the season as exhibit A. In fairness, your own responses in these comments seem to indicate that you have negative attitude. Do you believe (and Im willing to accept your honest response either way) that your dissatisfaction does NOT show in your writing? Or is this a question of the chicken and the egg?

2.) You stand at an historic moment in sports journalism with the Kansas and Missouri game looming this evening. Why waste time being angry about negative reactions to what you say? Jason Whitlock has gotten lots of flack over the years, especially early on at his tenure at the KC Star, but has he not come out the better? What's more, is he forced to stymie the truth? No! If you think you have the courage to pen an article, then stand by it in the face of criticism! But please...PLEASE...dont begrudge the readers' reactions no more than you begrudge your own journalistic freedom. Would you rather you were able to pen anything you wanted and have those stories not be subject to reaction?

3.) Just between you and me (wink, wink...ala Connie Chung), do you have any animousity toward the readership? Do you have loyalties to Missouri yet? Again, I am prepared to accept your answer either way, Im just curious.

WisconsinJayhawk 13 years, 2 months ago

Um, jross, I'm sure you know, that the above comments by the cyber "Chuck_Woodling" are not written by the actual Chuck Woodling. Knowing that you know this, what "anti-KU" comments has the real CW made that have irritated you? And would it not have been better to respond to those alleged anti-KU remarks wherever they were made, as opposed to here? Because it almost makes it appear that you don't know that the guy saying "fire me" is not Chuck but a Chuck hater. Which of course, you DO know. Or else you'd be a naive bumpkin just toppled off the back of the turnip truck into a semi-liquid pile of BS. Which of course you're not.

Joe Ross 13 years, 2 months ago

If thats the case, then my apologies to the Chuck.

Will the REAL Chuck Woodling please stand up...please stand up...please stand up.

And please, if anyone has seen a truck carrying white veggies with purple tops, tell them they lost some cargo off the back of it.

Jason Hohman 13 years, 2 months ago

Get over it. You may not like everything you read, and guess what... that's your problem. The constant complaining about the writing is too damn negative.

Joe Ross 13 years, 2 months ago


I was responding to what I thought was a poster posing as Chuck Woodling. I have been accused of being the great defender here, so make a stab at fairness if you please. And to WisconsinJayhawk, I didnt mention this earlier because I was attempting to strike a conciliatory tone: other writers post here with their real names. Both Tom Keegan and Ryan Greene have done so, so when I saw "Chuck Woodling" as a poster and assumed it was he, I was not too naive.

Operating with that assumption then, it wouldnt be too absurd to arrive at the conclusions in my above post. Again, I dont have so much an issue with what is written as long as the writer stands by what he writes without complaint as to the responses generated.

Fair? Good.

There are more crucial things to discuss right now than to bicker back and forth over this, but I hope I have clarified my position.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.