The tenor of Dan Jenkins' article, Punt, John, Punt! (Nov. 13), is exquisite. It clearly captures the essence of John Pont's positive personality, the delirious dilemmas of Indiana's magnificent sophomores and the bubbling, nervous anticipation of Hoosier fans across the nation. Congratulations. Really.
PHILIP M. MCGARR
I thoroughly enjoyed Dan Jenkins' wonderfully entertaining article. His description of the numerous weird incidents that have assisted the Hoosiers was particularly captivating. My reaction, however, is that it is about time the Hoosiers got an assist from fate. During the years I attended Indiana University, the just-as-weird incidents that went against the Hoosiers were myriad. Indiana has built up so large a backlog of bad breaks that we alumni can accept a few fortuitous gifts without making any apologies.
I'm glad the law of averages has finally shown that the IU football team is not being discriminated against. The Supreme Court should be proud.
Rancho Cordova, Calif.
As an addition to Indiana Athletic Director Bill Orwig's poem (SCORECARD, NOV. 6) concerning the plight of John Pont's punter, I propose the following: "Pont pouts as punter picked procedure poorly."
In the future: "Pacify Pont by properly punting when proposed."
GREGORY H. STONE
East Lansing, Mich.
WHAT'S THE POINT?
That "curious California scoring system that allows the maximum of five points to the winner of a round and none to the loser" (They're Still Waiting for Jerry, Nov. 6) is, despite Mark Kram's skepticism, quite equitable and, in essence, quite venerable. This system is simply the reverse of the five-point-must system that has been used in a number of states (e.g., Illinois) for quite some time. The latter method gives the winner of a round five points and the loser four or less, depending on his performance.
The equity of the California point system is easily demonstrated by the first Patterson-Johansson fight in which Patterson was downed seven times in the third round. Assume Floyd won the first two rounds. This would have given him a two-round advantage, to none for Johansson, in New York (where, in fact, the bout was held), a 2-0 point advantage in California and a 10-8 point advantage in Illinois. Assume now that Patterson managed to survive the seven knockdowns in the third round and kept away from Johansson for the rest of the round. In California the three-round totals would have read five points for Johansson, two for Patterson. In Illinois Johansson would have been leading 13-10, but in New York it would have been two rounds to one in favor of Mark Kram's hero.
ROBERT J. CHANDLER
The misguided practice of withholding scores in the last quarter of the NFL telecasts in an effort to hold the viewers over to the postgame score shows (SCORECARD, Nov. 13) has turned many people into AFL watchers. Our Nashville station does not air the score show, preempting it for a program of local news that does not give the scores. Therefore, we here in the Nashville area must watch the AFL game if we are to get the scores before the Monday papers.
Maybe CBS should buy up all the newspapers to keep the scores out of the Monday papers, too. Surely we should not allow the fans' interest to run rampant over advertising revenue.
BERNARD L. VARNEY
Your articles on France and the Winter Olympics in the November 13 issue leave me absolutely breathless. On the other hand, Jack Olsen's article on Grenoble (A Shook-up Town's Great Shape-up) gave me a few shudders, but it, too, is indeed the result of fine research and a twitting sense of humor.
French Government Tourist Office
New York City