Sunday, Nov. 25, 2001

A 2-minute media drill for Dave Campo

By Randy Galloway
Knight Ridder Newspapers
(KRT)

IRVING, Texas _ Coaching the coach. Memo to Dave Campo:

Dave, you have a negative perception problem. And twice last week, you also flunked Postgame Explanation 101. This allowed
another media/fan pile-on, which was the same as feeding a sack of cheeseburgers to the already-bloated negative-perception
situation.

Famous first words in 1994 from Barry Switzer, before he had ever coached the Cowboys in a regular-season game:

``I don't give a damn about perception.''

This came after Switzer was told how the ``puppet'' tag took life in the fourth quarter of an exhibition game in Mexico City. TV
cameras honed in on Jerry Jones, invading the ``coaching box'' for the first time as the owner, chatting intensely with Barry on the
sidelines. With The Jimster, Jerry had been visiting the sidelines during games, but he had always stayed outside the area marked for
game personnel.

``It's OK with me if Jerry wants to call a play,'' said Switzer, who was joking. But at the same time, he made it very clear he could
not care less how his head-coaching authority would be portrayed by the media or anyone else.

Big, big mistake, of course, even though Barry probably wouldn't admit it even today. He did become, however, a local and
national target as the Valley Ranch houseboy.

Since then, this has mushroomed into a huge occupational hazard for working under the Jones cloud. It is, fair or not, a part of the
job a head coach must endure. Chan Gailey, who followed Switzer, managed to keep some form of coaching dignity in this area, at
least much more so than Switzer or Campo. But Gailey was also an outsider when he was hired. Campo, of course, was not.

Again, fair or not, Campo was a branded man the second he said his ``I dos'' to Jerry, because he had been here 11 years as an
assistant coach, and no national candidate had displayed even a hint of interest in working for Jerry.

But the past week was worse than ever in this perception area for Campo.

Coaching the coach:

On the not-going-for-two flap in the postgame interview session on Thursday evening, Campo torched himself by getting into such
areas as ``onside kick'' and ``odds.'' Neither was necessary at all.

Hey, Dave. Simply walk into the media room and say, ``There were 7½ minutes left to play, and the one point put us down by
nine. We had a defense that, although worn out, was playing its butt off and I thought with that much time left they'd get the ball back
for us twice. We can win it on a touchdown and a field goal.''

Of course, the Cowboys did get two possessions. The key here was time remaining, which in an NFL game was an eternity.

There should have been no mention by Campo of an onside kick, not with 7½ minutes to go. And in talking about the ``odds'' involved
between going for two and recovering an onside kick, Campo dug himself a deeper hole. The percentages favor the successful 2-point
conversion in the NFL.

But despite all the local screaming, going for one was not that bad a decision by Campo. Me, I'd have gone for two, being 10
down. The second-guessing of Campo is certainly in order. To say, however, that Campo was an idiot for his call is overdoing the
hysteria. Again, however, it came down to how well Campo explained it. A poor job in that area whipped up the critics.

The percentages were actually on his side, as was the clock. From the starting point of going for two or kicking the PAT while 10
points down, Campo would have been asking Ryan Leaf to lead four scoring ``possessions.'' In essence, a 2-point try is a possession.

The Cowboys needed the first 2-point conversion, another touchdown, the second 2-pointer just to tie, and then a field goal in
overtime to win. Going for two also meant they had to score twice from the 2-yard line with a quarterback who is unable to create on
his own. Talk about percentages; the Cowboys' chances this season of finding the end zone from the red zone has ranked right up
there with winning the lottery.

And remember, that two-touchdown ``explosion'' in the fourth quarter on Thursday was fueled by two pass interference calls in
the end zone against Denver. It wasn't like the Cows had suddenly become an end zone-seeking missile.

By kicking the point when he did, the Cows needed two ``scores,'' as opposed to four, to win the game. And while I don't agree
with not going for two, there was nothing dumb about Campo's choice. Look at the time remaining.

Now, go back to the postgame comments from Campo after Sunday's loss to Philadelphia. The key media focal point was the
last play of the first half, a Leaf interception that was returned for a touchdown. Talk about dumb. Leaf threw a short sideline pass for
no reason at all.

At first, Campo misspoke by saying he wanted that sideline route to try to get enough yardage for a field goal. Later, it was
learned he was talking about the pass attempt ``before'' the interception. But that explanation made him appear foolish. Then, Campo
totally took the blame for calling the play.

OK, it was admirable to ``protect'' Leaf and offensive coordinator Jack Reilly. But frankly, Campo should be more concerned
with covering his own tail. He had nothing to do with that call. In fact, David Moore, a local sportswriter with a long history of
covering the Cowboys, quoted sources in his national Foxsports.com column on Tuesday saying that a livid Campo privately chewed
out Reilly in the locker room at halftime.

It's funny, but 10 minutes after a game, Campo has a rare trait _ he can give the media a statistical breakdown, pro and con, on
every key point that happened for four quarters. But when it comes to defending himself, and explaining himself, he's just experienced
one very awful week.

All this simply added to the perception. For Campo, that's the last thing he needed, and the first thing he needs to change.
___
© 2001, Fort Worth Star-Telegram.
Visit the Star-Telegram on the World Wide Web: www.star-telegram.com.
Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services.