Bud Grant, man of restraint in his manic world

How I remember him

A picture of someone's face covering the entire page 1 of the Star Tribune: who might warrant that? Was this the passing of the Pope, maybe? No, but the person had standing that called for the utmost reverence. America loves a winner. Bud Grant gave us the thrill of winning for so long. Never mind the misfires in the Super Bowls, four of them. 

Losing in the Super Bowl still meant we had to climb a mountain to get there. For every Super Bowl there was a league or conference championship game that had a climactic air. Certainly we all felt that air at the time, but before long we had forgotten the details of those games. The Super Bowl was the big enchilada. 

Grant held the reins of the Vikings over a long time. He was a brass tacks guy, not flamboyant. His essential character was one of maturity, stability and understated wisdom. He must have been the prime "organization guy." He knew how to establish a system where the parts worked in concert in an optimal way. He was like a father figure for my generation of young boys. 

I had the opportunity to meet him once at the entry area of the old Sunwood Inn. That's the hotel in Morris that is now taking on the name "Hudson Inn." I seem to recall the occasion being a Pheasants Forever gathering - most apt considering Bud's sportsman's reputation. I remember the moment when I shook hands with the icon. I remember the ingratiating spark in his eyes. I was there as a press person to cover the event. A nice "perk" of the job: getting to meet well-known people. 

I was only a marginal fan when the Vikes had their first Super Bowl. And that was because my neighborhood on the edge of Morris was not yet getting the TV network for access. For a long time on Northridge Drive we only got KCMT out of Alexandria, an NBC station. No watching "Gilligan's Island." We did watch "Bonanza" and "The Virginian." A 90-minute Western? That's what "the Virginian" was. 

The first Super Bowl was the one with someone other than Fran Tarkenton as quarterback of the Vikings. It was Joe Kapp, a guy with charisma even though he threw passes that were wobbly. I called a friend of mine that weekend, thinking we might do a little snowmobiling together. He was incredulous: How could I suggest such a thing on the weekend of the Super Bowl? Was I not attuned to the mania? I guess I was not. We postponed our snowmobiling for another time. 

The Vikes were supposed to win that first Super Bowl for us. I did not have to share in the punishment of watching the ordeal of that game, a game in which opposing coach Hank Stram was recorded on the sidelines describing our defense as "a Chinese fire drill." Political correctness not enforced as much then. The Chiefs beat the Vikings. 

The Vikings' popularity went nowhere but up in the seasons following. I could finally start watching them on TV. I think the emotional attachment of so many fans became excessive. I was in that category myself. I was like this for the Twins in the 1960s too. It is not good for one's mental health. This is a carefully crafted entertainment product. 

We follow sports to try to erase boredom/ennui. It can sure do the job. But it's an illusion if we think it really makes us happy. Shall we say it's a "sugar high?" There's a letdown after that. And I'd argue this happens even if we win the overall championship. Our real lives are not at all affected by how these teams do. 

The Vikings played in three more Super Bowls after the debacle vs. the Chiefs. We were totally carved up by the Raiders. Is that what you'd call the "nadir" of our experience? Some fans would have a more earthy word. We probably had our best chance to win when we played the Steelers. I remember one play as breaking all our hearts: Bill Brown's fumble on a kickoff. The Steelers had Mike Webster at center, the guy whose awful health repercussions from playing football would inspire the movie "Concussion" with Will Smith. 

The Vikings also lost their Super Bowl against Miami. 

Most of the time the Vikings gave us exhilaration with their regular wins. 

 

Cannot blot this out

I cannot think of pro football today without immediately thinking of the tragedy of players with broken bodies and brains from having played the sport. This is absolutely not something we should have to put up with as a consequence of us enjoying the sport. 

Football exploded in popularity starting in the mid-1960s due to improvements in TV technology. The nice sharp color picture was the catalyst for football becoming a preoccupation for so many. I had my own reverence, would be captivated by the NFL draft for example. I put those days behind me some time ago. 

I wonder to what extent the estimable Bud Grant was aware of the health dangers of his sport. He had to be aware to a degree. Players got taped up and medicated so they could just keep going out there, provided they could still perform better than others on the "depth chart." So Darwinian, football is. 

Money and fame await the young men who can forge their way to the top. They have been hearing the cheers since they were quite young. The adulation can become like a siren song. I covered high school sports banquets where the coach would get up and speak about how he hoped the players would "lift weights" in the off-season. My, these are just high school kids. And we want them to lift weights so as to inflict jarring punishment on opposing players? Well, whatever it takes to win - that's the credo, right? This is America. 

Any doubt about football still having primacy among sports in America? Just consider the Star Tribune front page with the photo of Bud covering the whole thing. We continue to worship at the altar. I won't diminish Bud because if he hadn't done what he did, someone else would have. 

So you might suggest Grant was an example-setter with his character, his values? Simply because he was steady, temperate and measured all the time? Is that such a high bar to achieve? In the manic world of sports, maybe yes. Surely Bud has his niche carved out in Minnesota history. He did his part. 

So RIP Harry Peter "Bud" Grant. I still remember the moment when I met you.

 

Addendum: I cannot buy the strict definition of "ingratiating." Technically speaking there is a negative suggestion about it. In my reading I have sensed a more general or forgiving definition: connecting with someone, welcoming contact with someone. Not necessarily with manipulation in mind. Anyway that's my take. Our language evolves. "Couldn't care less" is technically correct, but through usage we have seen "could care less" come to mean the same thing!

 

- Brian Williams - morris mn minnesota - bwilly73@yahoo.com