An aspiring college football player, this week, Tweeted a photo of a recruiting letter he received from Virginia coach Mike London.

The letter can be seen below. The message is simple, different, maybe even powerful. Others have described it as “cryptic.”

To Jeffery Farrar, the recipient of the letter, its intentions were clear. This is what the UVA commit posted on Twitter:

"You"
Stands for me being apart of a good class coming in, so for you fans who live for this stuff. Relax, i know what that letter meant

— Gods Child (@jeffery_3) December 17, 2013

In the world of recruiting – and advertising – sometimes less can be more, particularly as it relates to young people. As it is, the next Tweet, Facebook post or Kardashian/Jenner/Miley/Bieber selfie is only click or scroll away. Everything after 140 characters is #overkill. LOL

As our attention spans become shorter, advertising – and recruiting – clutter grows larger. Those responsible for sculpting messages, ads, recruiting letters, etc. must be innovative if the goal is to have the message successfully consumed. They must also be different. And they must think outside the box.

And, perhaps most important, they must be cognizant of brevity. After all, a fantastic minute-long commercial loses its fantastic qualities if the viewer flips the channel after 15 seconds.

London’s message was different and to the point. It was also successful (Farrar understood and embraced it). And it was attention grabbing (all the major sports websites expounded on it). The exposure should aid London’s future recruiting efforts.

The simplicity of London’s message reminded me of the “This is your brain on drugs” PSA from the late 1980s. Some 25 years later, I still remember the commercial vividly. I can recall the profound effect its message had on me. Even as a 6- or 7-year old, the message was clear and to the point: drugs are bad for you.

The image of the egg in a frying pan coupled with the firm proclamation: “This is your brain on drugs. Any questions?” added up to a powerful message. That, and a huge budget and various bells and whistles were not needed to produce it.

Indeed, sometimes less can be more. A lot more.

Kids these days …

These three words together usually are accompanied by a sigh and shaking of the head – side to side – in disbelief. They usually are uttered by an older soul, perhaps one, who as a youth, walked 15 miles to school every day, barefoot through a raging blizzard.

Fortunately for kids these days, they don’t often have to – if at all – travel by their shoeless feet through seemingly unnavigable terrains. We are lucky to live in a world blessed with many more planes, trains, automobiles, subways and Segways.

But are kids these days really better off than the kids who had to trek 15 miles to school everyday barefoot through a raging blizzard? Is our world really better off?

I ask because I don’t know. I tend to think technological advancement is a good thing. I also acknowledge the benefits that can be accrued within one from having to walk 15 miles to school – or performing some similarly strenuous task that isn’t necessary today.

I struggle to form an opinion either way.

What I am certain of, however, is my frustrated disposition when one utters those three words:

Kids these days …

Well, kids these days are exactly the same as the kids from days past.

Jay Paterno, in a column posted today on StateCollege.com, wrote it better than I could:

The truth of the matter is that as a person gets older it is human nature for the memory to get hazy at the edges – particularly the less-flattering edges of youthful indiscretion. They tend to look at the successive generations as being ever less virtuous in their behavior than their generation.

Paterno concluded:

No generation ever held a monopoly on virtue – nor has any generation cornered the market on debauchery.

Kids these days …

The only thing that has changed is the world which surrounds kids these days.

Kids these days have greater access to consume violence, sex, drugs, unhealthy foods and poor influences. Many have grown up in single-parent households or parent-less. Many have been left to their own devices. Proper guidance is what’s missing.

Instead of sighing and handing the blame to kids these days, the sigh and shaking of the head – side to side – in disbelief should be directed at the adults these days that allowed it to happen.

Christian Laettner was a two-time national champion at Duke and the easy choice to fill the Dream Team roster spot reserved for a college player.

I’m in the midst of reading Jack McCallum’s book on the original Dream Team that was released last summer. Sometimes it’s hard to put down. No stone is left unturned.

How about this one? The team’s lone collegian, Duke’s Christian Laettner, was an arrogant jerk – at least back then – McCallum wrote.

Or this? McCallum was definitive in his stance that, among college players, Laettner belonged on the roster ahead of LSU’s Shaquille O’Neal.

Upon the presentation of The Dream Team documentary on NBA TV this past June, there seemed to be many – 20 years later – still outraged and/or befuddled by Laettner over Shaq. I noticed that the majority of such opinions came from folks too young to remember or too forgetful or ignorant to be taken seriously.

The 25-and-under crowd cannot possibly fully appreciate Laettner’s glowing achievements as a collegian. The same group grew up with O’Neal’s championship exploits with the Lakers and Heat – never mind his overgrown personality away from the game.

Laettner over Shaq? OMG.

Then you have the case made by Jason Whitlock, who classifies Laettner’s selection to the Dream Team – as well as those of John Stockton and Chris Mullin – as an “intentional, calculated, whitening of the roster.”

Whitlock may very well be correct in his assessment as it relates to Stockton and Mullin, but it does not apply to Laettner. Even Whitlock admitted as much without admitting as much.

He wrote last summer:

(Laettner) is one of the greatest college players of all time. Given there was one position set aside for a collegian, his inclusion on the Dream Team is more defensible than Stockton’s or Mullin’s.

Yet, Whitlock quickly backtracked:

Laettner didn’t belong for two reasons: 1. Shaq was a once-in-a-generation force of nature destined for hoop immortality. He was then, and certainly proved to be later, a far superior player to Laettner. 2. Holding one collegiate spot was a ploy to leave the door open for one more white player.

Where Whitlock swings and misses is in the presentation of his first reason for Laettner not belonging. Why would any player be selected to an all-star squad or Olympic team based on possible future success? The Dream Team was selected based on existing body of work, as well it should.

As McCallum wrote in the book, there was never even a Laettner-O’Neal debate among those selecting the Dream Team.

It was Laettner all the way. It was the forward from Duke who had won back-to-back national titles, who played in four Final Fours, who connected on perhaps the greatest shot to win perhaps the greatest college basketball game ever played, who was a near consensus selection as national player of the year in 1992, who was considered one of the best college players ever.

Even O’Neal, who led the Tigers to just one NCAA Tournament victory in three years at LSU, understood why Laettner was on the squad ahead of him. This is what he told Mike Wise of 106.7 The Fan in Washington D.C. during an interview last summer:

“I was pissed off. I was jealous. But then I had to come to the realization that I was a more explosive, more powerful player, but Christian Laettner was a little bit more fundamentally sound than I was. Plus he stayed all four years and graduated. … I just think it helped me grow as a player.”

Of course, it seems ludicrous now that Laettner would come before O’Neal in anything basketball-related.

Laettner had an average NBA career after being selected third overall by the Minnesota Timberwolves. He made one All-Star team and saw action in 45 playoff games. He never scored more than 18.2 points per game in a season. As McCallum wrote in the book, Laettner’s game wasn’t the the same after he ruptured his Achilles’ tendon in a pickup game prior to the 1998-99 season.

Yet, anyone who questions Laettner’s place on the Dream Team need only a quick lesson in hardwood history.

An info graphic I read as a young man some 15 years ago in Reader’s Digest remains vivid. The brief overview provided insight (and prognostication) into what of our popular sporting games  would thrive or fail deep into the future.

What I read made it seem like the game of tackle football would someday soon be on life support, fighting for its last breaths.

This, of course, was before we knew exactly the toll gridiron combat was taking on more than a few of its gladiators. Today, CTE has become as much a part of football lingo as PAT.

CTE – Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy – is a progressive degenerative brain disease in individuals with a history of repetitive brain trauma. It is thought to have contributed to the death of Junior Seau, among other former NFL players.

The position of the Reader’s Digest piece was that football wouldn’t survive because the players would become too big,  too fast and too dangerous for their own good. A lengthy piece from The New Yorker  touches on similar points. Citing bigger, stronger, faster, fiercer, Baltimore Ravens safety Bernard Pollard recently made this dire prediction:

“I hope I’m wrong, but I just believe one day there’s going to be a death that takes place on the field because of the direction we’re going.”

Gridiron casualties were commonplace in football’s early days, when rules were lenient and players often used their helmetless heads as battering rams. In 1904, 18 football deaths and many more serious injuries were reported – pushing president Theodore Roosevelt into action. Roosevelt’s reform ultimately saved the game of football.

In many ways, it feels like the turn of the 20th century all over again. In reaction to the growing cases of brain injuries to former players and subsequent lawsuits against the NFL, commissioner Roger Goodell has made player safety a priority.

It is a fluid process. The next piece of legislation enacted by the league won’t likely banish kickoffs from the game, but it should.

Jacoby Jones’ electrifying 108-yard kickoff return in the Super Bowl has only served to reignite the kickoff debate. Perhaps no act of sport is more exciting than the kickoff return, yet no act of sport is quite as dangerous. The play consists of 250-pound-or-more armored men flying around like missiles, seeking explosive conclusions.

Former NFL executive Andrew Brandt said on ESPN’s Outside the Lines the other day that more injuries occur on kickoffs than on any other play in professional football.

Jason Lisk of Big Lead Sports presented these galling figures related to high school football injuries:

• 32.7 percent of injuries on kickoffs and punts were “severe” (defined as 21 or more missed days), compared to 19.3 percent on other plays.
• 20.3 percent of injuries on kickoffs and punts were concussions, compared to 10.9 percent on other plays.

It is also important to note that the two most high-profile football paralysis victims in recent memory – Kevin Everett and Eric LeGrand – fell victim while covering kickoffs.

After the NFL moved kickoffs up from the 30 to the 35-yard line before the 2011 season – thus leading to a drastic decline in returned kicks – the league found that players suffered 40 percent fewer concussions on kickoffs that season.

Great. But not good enough.

Buccaneers coach Greg Schiano, who coached LeGrand at Rutgers, proposed a reasonable alternative to the kickoff: The kicking team is given the ball at its own 30-yard line with the option to punt or try to convert a 4th-and-15 to maintain possession.

Goodell appears to be an advocate of the proposal. It could work.

Yet, the idea of eliminating kickoffs has led to plenty of dissention among pundits, analysts, commentators and former players. Mike Ditka and Mike Pereira, to name a couple, are adamantly against it. ESPN polled seven of its NFL analysts (all former players) about doing away with kickoffs. All were against it.

Why?

Among other reasons, the play is exciting, they said. It’s an essential and integral part of the game. Kickoffs provide fringe NFL players a job and paycheck.

Here is a sampling of what Hugh Douglas said:

“It’s fun running downfield and getting a chance to blow somebody up.”

And Marcellus Wiley:

“I know injuries can occur on this play, but that’s the nature of the beast, which is the NFL.”

Sorry guys, that kind of macho thinking might have been acceptable 20 years ago. Now it comes off as ignorant and careless.

What is also bothersome is the argument that the kickoff is such a staple of the game that the NFL cannot possibly survive and prosper without it. But hasn’t pro football undergone several major alterations over the years and only gain in popularity?

To review:

• The field goal post used to be positioned at the goal line.
• Taking a ball carrier down by his facemask was once legal.
• Throwing a forward pass was once illegal.
• NFL teams used to play 14 regular season games.
• Playoff games and overtime periods weren’t part of the game for many years.
• Players used to play both offense and defense.
• A touchdown used to be worth four points, then five points and now six.
• Kickoffs have been moved from the 40 to the 35 to the 30 and back again.
• The two-point conversion wasn’t introduced until 1994.
• Offensive lineman couldn’t use their hands to halt defenders years ago.
• Helmet-to-helmet contact was once acceptable.
• The extent of downfield contact a defender can have with a receiver has been restricted many times over.
• Instant replay reviews were instituted, then banished and now are seemingly back for good.

Certainly, removing kickoffs from the game would drastically alter the fan and player experience. But it is a needed change. Player safety is more essential to the game than the kickoff. Period.

If it isn’t that way, then the NFL – like Reader’s Digest predicted – will one day be MIA.

Dunkirk Observer Photo of Dunkirk Dave

In case you missed it, yesterday was Groundhog Day. By all accounts, Punxsutawney Phil didn’t see his shadow. That means spring is coming early this year.

Or so we’re to believe.

Hard evidence, however, shows us to be careful what we believe in. According to noted forecaster Matt Daniel, our old reliable furry friend Phil doesn’t exactly boast a strong track record, having only accurately predicted the arrival of spring at an unreliable 39 percent rate.

If you wondered, Phil has spotted his shadow 100 times out of 117 (87 percent) dating back to the late 1880s, when someone thought it would be neat to employ a groundhog in forecasting the weather.

At any rate, Daniel recently concluded: “No one should rely on a groundhog to predict the remainder of this winter.”

Fair enough. But who are we to believe in this world filled with hapless weathermen, steroid-using athletes, “online partners”, shady politicians, fraudulent telemarketers and erratic woodchucks?

The answer to our trust issues may lie in the shadows of one Dunkirk Dave.

Dave, according to his website, is the second-longest prognosticating groundhog, with 58 years of weather prediction experience.

Aside from their woodchuck identities, plenty separates Phil from Dave and Dave from Phil – not the least which is the pomp and circumstance surrounding the two animals.

Phil is clearly the most popular of all the groundhogs roaming our fertile grounds. He’s appeared on the Oprah show. He’s co-starred with Bill Murray in a motion picture. He heads the Weather Channel’s rankings of the top 11 groundhogs.

And he is who we direct our gaze each and every Feb. 2.

On the Groundhog Day website, one can sign up for a Groundog E-newsletter, apply for official membership into Phil’s club or you can even start your own club chapter.

According to the site, a groundhog’s life is normally six to eight years. But Phil is different. He receives a drink of a magical punch every summer during the Annual Groundhog Picnic, which allegedly gives him seven more years of life.

Sound corny?

Also consider this: You might have noticed that each Feb. 2, Phil is surrounded by group of men wearing black top hats and bow ties. The group calls itself the “Inner Circle.” The president of the group consults with Phil before the woodchuck is unveiled to the tens of thousands who descend upon the western Pennsylvania outpost for the occasion.

Sound really corny?

Dunkirk Dave has been 93 percent accurate about the weather over the years, according to his handler.

Dave, on the other hand, goes about his business with far less fanfare. While Phil’s exploits are covered each year by national media outlets such as USA Today and The Associated Press, this short story about Dave is what appeared on the Dunkirk Observer newspaper website on Saturday night.

The birth of Dunkirk Dave seemingly was just as uneventful. Dave, more or less, came from a young man’s passion to care for animals, most notably woodchucks. Bob Will, Dave’s handler, claims he’s nursed thousands of the animals back to health.

Will wrote on the Dunkirk Dave website that “one Groundhog day” editors from the local newspaper “scheduled pictures, wrote the article, and named the groundhog, ‘Dunkirk Dave’.

“After the original story was published,” Will added, “our local Dunkirk Dave groundhog became more well known.”

Certainly not as well known as Phil. But maybe more accurate. Will told Buffalo Business First that Dave has been right about the weather 93 percent of the time over the years.

But how can Phil fail so much and Dave be so precise?

“Ours is on the ground and Punxsutawney Phil is not,” Will explained. “Our method is more authentic.”

Look no further than last year for proof. While Phil saw his shadow – an indicator of six more weeks of winter – Dave did not. What transpired was one of the warmest Februarys ever recorded in the United States.

For what it’s worth, Dave didn’t see his shadow this year either. That must mean spring is coming early.

Follow Dave

Official Website: Dunkirk Dave

On Facebook: Dunkirk Dave

You will hear, watch or read about the Harbaugh family, Ray’s last ride and Colin Kaepernick’s arrival so much over the next few days that you’ll be rushing to barricade yourself in a phone booth in Iran by the time the football is kicked off on Super Bowl Sunday.

But have no fear. I bring to you the top five Super Bowl storylines you won’t be inundated with this week.

—-

5. Watch out for Tandon Doss. Yes, Tandon Doss.

He is a reserve wide receiver and special teamer for the Ravens. And he played his college ball at Indiana. While Indiana isn’t exactly a football power, you might be surprised to know that Doss’ appearance in the big game marks the fourth straight a year a Hoosier has played in the Super Bowl.

In fact, a pair of former Hoosiers have produced two of the more noted plays in recent Super Bowl history: Tracy Porter’s interception return for a score clinched the Saints’ Super Bowl XLIV triumph, while Antwaan Rande El’s gadget touchdown pass to Hines Ward propelled the Steelers to victory in Super Bowl XL.

What might Doss have up his sleeve Sunday?

—-

Garrett Celek and his model girlfriend, Sarah Hinton

4. San Francisco’s Garrett Celek has overachieved in the NFL and in life … mostly in life. As a tight end for four seasons at Michigan State, he caught a mere 14 passes and wasn’t selected in the 2012 draft. But Celek caught on with the 49ers and made four catches for 51 yards in 13 games this season. He is listed as San Francisco’s third tight end heading into the big game.

As an aside, Celek dates Hooters Dream Girl Sarah Hinton. That’s some catch for a guy who has made just 18 of them on the field over the past five years. By the way, Garrett is the lesser known of the Celek brothers (Brent is Philadelphia’s starting tight end).

—-

3. Talk about bad karma. The Ravens should be the underdog for the simple fact that they employ James Ihedigbo.

As a backup safety with the Jets in 2009 and 2010, Ihedigbo was part of New York teams that faltered in AFC championship game losses. As a starter with New England last season, Ihedigbo and the Patriots lost to the Giants in the Super Bowl.

Is Ihedigo due or is he just doomed?

To note, Ihedigbo was a walk-on in college at the University of Massachusetts and hooked on with the Jets as an undrafted free agent in 2007. He was cut by the Patriots during the 2012 preseason. If you plan on rooting for anyone Sunday, Ihedigbo is a good player to start with.

—-

2. The 49ers signed linebacker Nathan Stupar to their practice squad on Jan. 8. What does that have to do with anything? Nothing much – except for those choosing to compare Kaepernick to former Giants quarterback Jeff Hostetler.

Hostetler won Super Bowl XXV in his seventh career start, the fewest for a Super Bowl-winning QB. Kaepernick will be making his 10th start on Sunday. Both players took over as starters during the regular season.

They’re connected by Stupar, who is Kaepernick’s teammate and Hostetler’s nephew.

Like Jim, John, Garrett, Brent, Peyton and Eli, Stupar had a brother whom was employed by an NFL team. Like Garrett, and Brent, Jonathan Stupar made his living as a tight end. The elder Stupar appeared in 30 games, made five starts and caught 18 passes during the 2009 and 2010 seasons for Buffalo.

For the sappy types, Nathan Stupar is also known for a romantic Valentine’s Day engagement proposal.

—-

San Francisco long snapper Brian Jennings is a certified yoga instructor.

1. At age 36, Brian Jennings will be one of the oldest players on the field Sunday. If he does his job well, you probably won’t hear Jim Nantz or Phil Simms utter his name.

Jennings is the 49ers’ long snapper and he is in his 13th year with the team. He played on the 2002 NFC West champion 49ers club that included Jeff Garcia, Garrison Hearst and Terrell Owens and was coached by Steve Mariucci. He has also survived the putrid coaching stints of Dennis Erickson, Mike Nolan and Mike Singletary in San Francisco.

Jennings played tight end at Arizona State and caught four passes … not too bad when compared to Garrett Celek’s contributions at Michigan State. He also enjoys yoga.

Phil Hansen brought his lunch pail to work every day for the Bills for 11 seasons.

Something got me thinking about Phil Hansen the other day. It was when I was packing my peanut butter and jelly sandwich into my lunch pail.

Year after year, game after game, his contributions to the NFL and the Buffalo Bills were described in the same clichéd way by football broadcasters and their sidekick analysts: “Hansen is the best defensive end you’ve never heard” or “Hansen is the most underrated defensive end in the game,” they’d say.

But how can a player be unheard of or under-appreciated when, week-after-week, millions of viewers are being informed of his undervalued, yet virtuous deeds on the gridiron? Yet, that was Hansen. Despite racking up 61.5 career sacks – second in Bills history when he retired – and anchoring the left side of the Bills defensive line for more than a decade, the North Dakota State product continuously flew under the radar.

Hansen was one of those players that occupied the territory of better than average at his position, but not good enough to reach the level of top tier defensive end during his 11-year career from 1991-2001. The second-round pick never played in a Pro Bowl and only once recorded double digit sacks in a season (10 in 1995).

Hansen was solid and dependable. He wasn’t a star. He wasn’t flashy. He wasn’t flamboyant. He wasn’t Bruce Smith.

On a team lined with Hall of Fame talent and Hall of Fame showmen, recognizing the contributions of Hansen was similar to the challenge of spotting Waldo in one of those books. You had to squint your eyes for a few minutes and look closely.

As a young football fan, I was too wrapped up in the Bills’ high-powered offense and the exciting defensive play of Smith, Cornelius Bennett and Darryl Talley to see Hansen’s worth to the Bills’ success throughout the ’90s. To me, Hansen was just another player, a piece of the puzzle. Maybe even expendable.

It’s interesting how our outlook on life and what we value changes as our lives undergo alterations. I wouldn’t overlook Hansen and his blue collar work ethic and never-ending motor today. If he was playing now for the Bills, he would be among my favorite players.

Hall of Fame quarterback Jim Kelly summed up Hansen this way: “He was a guy you’d want your child to emulate, on the field and off the field. Always gave 100 percent. Never took a down or a practice off. You knew you’d get it all from him. He deserves to be among all of us.”

It says a lot about Hansen’s seemingly indistinguishable career that he was inducted into the Bills’ Wall of Fame in 2011 (video). To be certain, mention of his name may have been met with quizzical expressions in other NFL cities throughout the ’90s, but Hansen’s impact in Buffalo will never be forgotten.

The Phil Hansen File

Jersey Number: 90

Playing Height: 6-foot-5

Playing Weight: 275 pounds

Date of Birth: May 20, 1968

Place of Birth: Ellendale, N.D.

College: North Dakota State

Drafted: 1991, Second Round, 54th overall

After Football: Owns a small landscaping and snow plowing company, works as a color commentator on North Dakota State football radio broadcasts, and runs youth fitness camps.

Did You Know?: Hansen ran as a Republican for election in Minnesota’s state senate in 2012 but lost a close race.

The “real” Lennay Kekua, according to GlobalGrind.com.

Each of us who follow sports closely enough has felt like Manti Te’o does now.

Duped.

Fooled.

Deceived.

Conned.

Cheated.

Each and every word applies. So don’t many others.

I was hoodwinked in November 2011. In a journal entry for my sports ethics class, I argued that – despite the growing number of scandals and instances of cheating in big-time college athletics – such occurrences were isolated, rare and overly populated the news cycle in a way that shed the rest of college sports in a bad light. I, ultimately, wrote that the rewards resulting from college sports far outweighed any negative consequences.

As an aside, I still hold onto this belief, though it is fleeting. I tend to believe that more damning evidence of cheating, scandal and hypocrisy in college athletics is swept neatly under the rug than what is actually revealed. As the old saying goes: If you’re not cheating, you’re not trying. We shouldn’t be so naïve to believe that corners aren’t being cut – to varying degrees – in every sport at every level of the NCAA.

Back to the journal entry, which was dated Nov. 1, 2011. To help support my theory that college athletics – for the most part – were righteous in their ways, I cited the successful on-and-off-the-field tenure of Penn State football coach Joe Paterno.

This is what I wrote:

Since 1966, coach Joe Paterno has been able to run a clean program while also competing on the field at the highest level.  Paterno is well known for conducting what he calls, the “Grand Experiment,” which closely melds academics and athletics in the college environment.  As a result, Paterno’s players have continually graduated at a high rate and have often benefited greatly from Paterno’s guidance in their post-athletic careers.

I went on to conclude:

When it comes to college athletics as a whole, I’m more apt to believe Paterno is the rule rather than the exception, even at the highest levels.

Only four days after I handed in this masterpiece, former Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky was arrested on 40 counts of sexual abuse. Three days after that, Paterno was fired for his perceived role in the Sandusky cover-up.

In the midst of it all, the professor had to be laughing his ass off as he read and graded my assignment the week the Penn State scandal played out.

Paterno? Virtuous? Yeah, not quite.

I learned my lesson. We all have. Sports are filled with more villains and crooks and con men than our most dangerous alleyways.

We may as well put greater trust in Lennay Kekua than our noted sports figures.

The 69-cent dinner: Beef & Bean Burrito, Corn, Ramen Noodles and Water.

Running out of cash? Living on a tight budget? Saving for a trip to Cancun?

The answer to the money question often comes through cutting back and making sacrifices … downgrading the cable/satellite package, renting a movie instead of going to the cinema, vacationing at the nearby lake instead of Lake Tahoe, consuming generic products instead of brand names …

And the list goes on.

For me, I tend to resist putting my money where my mouth is. In other words, I eat nickels and dimes instead of ones and fives. In other, other words, I usually don’t spend a lot of money on food.

Cutting back this way is easy for me. First, I don’t appreciate a good steak much more than I do a good burger. Second, I view food as simply a means of survival. I eat to live, not for enjoyment or pleasure.

That isn’t to say I don’t enjoy eating. I do, even in spite of the fact I often indulge in food most wouldn’t necessarily find indulging.

In fact, I enjoyed quite a pleasurable dinner tonight, and all it cost was 69 cents. Here’s how I did it.

Ramen Noodles

Ramen Noodles are often at the heart of many meals constrained by budget. I frequently eat them as a main course, though they also can be utilized quite effectively as a side. I frequently eat them plain, though there are any number of recipes out there for the creative types who may desire to add meats, cheeses, sauces, pastes, spices, chives, etc. to their noodles. I frequently eat chicken and beef flavored Ramen, though a trio of shrimp flavors also are available – plain shrimp, lime shrimp and lime chili shrimp, Bubba said.

Ramen Noodles produced by Maruchan can be purchased individually or in packages. Recently, I found a package of a dozen going for $2.19. Thus, an individual serving represented 18 cents of tonight’s 69-cent dinner.

Beef & Bean Burrito

This was my main course, and a fine main course it was. Toss one in the microwave after a long day, and a minute-and-a-half later, a Mexican delicacy is served. Muy bueno.

These can be found in your supermarket’s freezer section. The brand I purchase – Casa Mamita – also offers a bean and cheese burrito. They are sold individually and go for 35 cents. Now, that’s really thinking outside the bun.

Corn

Nothing goes better with a burrito and Ramen, than a mound of Maize. Can you imagine a world without corn? According to a website containing corn quick facts, “Your bacon and egg breakfast, glass of milk at lunch, or hamburger for supper were all produced with U.S. corn.” So was my burrito, of course.

My corn preference is Season’s Choice Super Sweet Whole Kernel Corn (it does indeed live up to its billing of being “Super Sweet” but only after a few spoons of butter and salt are added). I’ve seen this retail anywhere from a dollar to a buck-fifty for 16 oz. One can achieve 10 solid servings from one bag. Adding a few extra cents for butter, salt and pepper, corn made up approximately 15 cents of tonight’s dinner.

Water

The Mayo Clinic recommends that men consume 13 cups and women nine cups of H2O per day. What better time to check one cup off the list than at dinner. It’s cheap, refreshing and doesn’t suck. And, as Momma said, Gatorade isn’t better.

For the sake of this blog post, I’ll say my eight ounces of water at tonight’s dinner cost approximately one cent.

And there you have it, the 69-cent dinner: 

Former Buffalo Bills wide receiver Andre Reed has been a Pro Football Hall of Fame finalist since 2007.

Andre Reed belongs in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Cris Carter and Tim Brown probably do too.

Each of the three is again finalists for selection on Feb. 2. Reed has been a finalist since 2007, Carter since 2008 and Brown since 2010. Each again will cause divisive debate among the voters.

Each deserves to be enshrined. With Terrell Owens, Marvin Harrison and Randy Moss coming to the ballot soon, the time is now – or it may never come.

Since Reed is a personal favorite, he will be the main focus of this post.

Let’s start with the bare bones numbers. When Reed retired in 2000 – with the NFL still transitioning to a passing-driven game – he ranked third in career receptions (951), fifth in receiving yards (13,198) and sixth in receiving touchdowns (87).  Currently, Reed ranks 11th in receptions and 12th in yards and touchdowns. Each of the 10 players with more receptions than Reed retired after him.

Reed was a seven-time Prow Bowl selection and was voted a Pro Bowl starter four times. He also played in four Super Bowls and was part of 11 playoff teams over a 16-year NFL career (1985-2000) that finished with a nondescript season in Washington.

Now let’s compare Reed to two wide receiver contemporaries who are enshrined in Canton. The careers of Reed and Art Monk overlapped for 11 seasons. The careers of James Lofton and Reed overlapped for nine seasons. By all major statistical measures, Reed had a better career than Monk, who played from 1980-95. Compared to Lofton, Reed finished with more catches and touchdowns, while Lofton, who played from 1978-1993, had more receiving yards and a better yards per catch average. Monk made three Pro Bowls, Lofton made nine.

One can reason that Monk’s edge over Reed is in Super Bowl titles – two more than Reed. Lofton, meanwhile, stands as one of the great deep threats of the modern era, in addition to playing on three Super Bowl teams while a teammate of Reed’s in Buffalo. Lofton was also fortunate to hit the ballot in the early 2000’s, before receiving numbers really began to pop in the NFL.

As for Reed, he was a key cog for one of football’s most productive offenses ever and fearlessly worked the middle of the field – perhaps with more savvy and guile than any receiver in NFL history – at a time when defensive backs were given much more freedom to harass wideouts. Yet, Reed was not merely a possession receiver. Evidenced by his nearly 14 yards per reception, he always posed the threat of turning a short pass into a long touchdown.

So what exactly distinguishes Monk and Lofton from Reed in the minds of the hall voters?

The Pro Football Hall of Fame includes 21 receivers from the modern NFL (since 1950). Broken into eras, seven of those receivers played in the ’50s and/or ’60s, six had careers that bridged the ’60s and ’70s, five had careers that bridged the ’70s and ’80s and the last three played in the ’80s and ’90s.

Reed fearlessly worked the middle of the field for 16 NFL seasons.

In other words, the ’80s and ’90s group – which includes Monk, Jerry Rice and Michael Irvin –  is underrepresented compared to those from the ’50s to ’70s-’80s. But why?

I have two theories.

First, the numbers of Reed, Carter and Brown have been cheapened by today’s NFL. Teams now use short passes as an extension and substitute for running the ball. Additionally, rules are geared toward aerial football. Quarterbacks are throwing more and completing a greater percentage of their passes. And receivers are catching more balls, gaining more yards and scoring more touchdowns.

Over the course of Reed’s career, the game changed from one dominated by three-yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust offenses to those that found greater success employing five-yard-outs, swing passes, wide receiver screens and the like. For example, Reed caught 57 passes in 1987, which ranked eighth in the NFL that season. By 1994, when Reed registered a career-best 90 receptions, that amount was only good for sixth in the league. Fifty-seven receptions in 2012 would have tied Reed for 51st in the NFL with Philadelphia tight end Brent Celek.

When comparing the last four NFL seasons (2009-2012) to Buffalo’s four Super Bowl seasons (1990-1993), it was found that today’s teams complete about three more passes a game than those of 20 years ago (20.6 to 17.7). While that may not seem like a big difference, think of how many more catches, yards and touchdowns Reed – over a 234-game career – might have achieved with the opportunity for three more receptions a game.

Still, I’m under the impression that hall voters get caught up in comparing the stats of Reed, Carter and Brown to those of Moss, Owens and Harrison – when they instead should be assessing their accomplishments relative to era.

I also wonder if hall voters hold a false perception of the Bills’ no-huddle K-Gun offense of the Super Bowl years as one that tossed the ball all over the stadium. Even though the Bills moved up and down the field quickly, they ran the ball more than passed it, and Hall of Fame running back Thurman Thomas was the offense’s primary weapon as both a runner and receiver. During the Bills’ four Super Bowl seasons, they averaged 486.8 passing attempts compared to 509.5 rushes per season.

My second theory is that Reed, Carter and Brown are taking votes from one another. Just as it is difficult to differentiate the career accomplishments of Reed, Monk and Lofton, it is the same for Reed, Carter and Brown. It’s unfortunate that the three have been on the ballot together.

Both Carter and Brown – whose NFL careers began two and three years after Reed’s and benefited from playing deeper into the 2000’s –   have more receptions, receiving yards, receiving touchdowns and Pro Bowls than Reed, but Reed’s postseason numbers are by far superior. Among all-time playoff leaders, Reed ranks fifth in receptions (85) and receiving yards (1,229), is tied for seventh in receiving touchdowns (9) and is eighth in games started (21). Carter and Brown fail to crack the top 10 in any of those categories.

In Super Bowl history, Reed ranks second to Jerry Rice in receptions (27) and third to Rice and Lynn Swann in receiving yards (323). Carter never played in a Super Bowl. Brown played in one during the twilight of his career.

But the debate isn’t between Reed and/or Carter and Brown. They all deserve to be fitted for one of those snazzy yellow Hall of Fame jackets soon. Unfortunately, circumstances my dictate otherwise.

Andre Reed At a Glance

Playing Height: 6-foot-2

Playing Weight: 190 pounds

Born: Jan. 29, 1964 in Allentown, Pa.

College: Kutztown University (Pa.)

Drafted: Fourth Round (86th overall) in 1985 by the Buffalo Bills.

Interesting Fact: Reed was a high school quarterback at Allentown’s Dieruff High.

On Twitter: @Andre_Reed83 

Attend graduate school or not? That seems to be a question many are pondering these days, from recent college grads to professionals facing the grim reality of our latest recession.

Individuals choose to pursue graduate schooling for any number of reasons. It may be required to maintain employment. It may be used as a means to enhance marketability and earning power in our dog-eat-dog job market. It may be needed to advance in a given field.

And, it may be that one has no other legitimate options. The job market is rough and can be depressing. Breaking into worthwhile employment can seem impossible and daunting. Grad school offers a glimmer of hope.

Of course, it doesn’t guarantee anything.

I recently earned a Master’s degree and throughout the process I often questioned my decision to jump head first into graduate school. I left behind a full-time job with benefits for a return to the classroom and the late-night cramming sessions, exhaustive projects and stresses over exams and presentations that go with it. It was a risk with which I was comfortable. I felt I had nothing to lose.

Two years after leaving a job that I enjoyed – for the most part – I find myself searching for what’s next. At age 31, I don’t have a full-time job. I don’t have a lot of money. But I feel as if I have a bright future.

If I knew two years ago what I know now about grad school, I never would have pursued a Master’s degree. Doing so requires sacrifices I wasn’t initially ready to make and, quite frankly, would not want to make again. I spent too many weekends with my head buried in books. My social life – not extravagant to begin with – disintegrated. I lived in my parents’ basement. I worked a job I despised. I pored over assignments for hours that I otherwise wouldn’t deem worthy of my time. I paid thousands of dollars – and will have to repay thousands more in the future – for the experience and diploma.

I clenched my jaw in anxiety and with determination through it all. I pushed through. I’m thankful for the last two years.

While I’m not certain just yet the effect a Master’s degree will have on my job marketability and earning potential, I am far better for having experienced the demands of graduate school. I now possess many vital professional skills and competencies that I was either short on or lacking altogether. I’ve found that my writing and communication skills have greatly improved. I manage my time better. I’m more organized. I feel more innovative. I think and analyze critically. I give into instant gratification much less. I am far more dedicated and persistent.

Even though I currently lack full-time employment and have no clear vision of the future, going back to school was worth it. When the next job does come around, I will now be equipped to prosper and advance.

The following are resources for those considering graduate school:

A Guide for Potential Grad Students: Should You Go To Graduate School?

How is Graduate School Different From College?