ONCE AND FOREVER
For shame! Dan Jenkins writes an article on traditional football rivalries in your September 9 issue and the only mention of Stanford-California is a slight to the effect that USC no longer considers either of them suitable competition!
It is true that in recent years USC and UCLA have had the stronger nationally ranked teams, but the article was focusing on traditional rivalries of long standing. Mention of Harvard-Yale was typical, and certainly legitimate, copy, but the USC- UCLA contest is an upstart compared to the rivalry of Stanford-California which began in 1892—just 17 years after Harvard-Yale—and has been going strong ever since. In earlier days Stanford or California, or both, would have eaten USC or UCLA for breakfast.
J. DONALD McCREADY
USC is not a "stuffy private school." It is many things—dynamic, vibrant, progressive, great, historic, traditional, a major private university—but not stuffy! Although Dan Jenkins wrote an otherwise interesting satire on college football, I certainly want to call attention to this very poor word selection in his reference to the 1967-68 national and Rose Bowl champion.
W. G. SHEQUEN
La Crescenta, Calif.
Your accounts of the various intense traditional rivalries that have become an integral part of college football and its popularity were quite enjoyable, but to overlook the Syracuse-Penn State feud was certainly an oversight. The games between these perennial Eastern powers have produced some of the most exciting and hard-fought battles anywhere in sports.
Also, in your explanation concerning UCLA and its No. 14 national ranking, you state that, except for Penn State, the Bruins' first six games would be no problem. Indeed! Consider UCLA's third opponent. Syracuse, at Archbold Stadium. Think back a short year ago—a week after USC defeated the Bruins by one point to win the national championship—when Syracuse all but demolished The Great One and Co., 32-14, at Los Angeles! Think, too, about the facts that the Orangemen have virtually the same unit that ranked second in rushing defense in the nation last year and that UCLA must contend with it again. No problem, huh?
NOT SO LITTLE
I was extremely disappointed that SPORTS ILLUSTRATED did not present an article on the Little League World Series. Certainly this event is more important than the habits of tourists camping in national parks (Boondock Heresy, Sept. 2). In the minute article appearing in FOR THE RECORD, you even left the Virginia off of Richmond.
We of Richmond, Virginia are extremely proud of the Tuckahoe Nationals, especially Roger Miller. Miller pitched nine no-hitters, five in tournament play, and set a World Series record by hitting three consecutive home runs in a game against Canada.
You should have had an article, not so much to honor the team representing the U.S., which finished second, but to honor the Japanese team that won the series.
? SI's stylebook lists certain cities that are assumed to need no identification other than their names. Paris is on it, and New York, and San Francisco and London. So is Richmond.—ED.
Boy, am I disappointed! You mentioned a score in FOR THE RECORD—Wakayama 1, Richmond 0. You did not mention that the Tuckahoe Nationals are the Western Hemisphere champs, the American champs, Virginia State champs, etc. You did not mention that Tim Reid, the catcher, received the Sportsmanship Award for the game. Nor did you mention that the pitcher, Roger Miller, had pitched nine no-hitters before losing the championship game. What's the matter? Don't you like Little League baseball?