SHADES OF GLORY
In your Jan. 4 SCORECARD section you discussed the various colors of shoes that baseball and other sports teams now plan to wear. You overlooked the ABA's Indiana Pacers, who are already setting the style: they are wearing brilliant blue shoes on the court this season.
In an article last year (Out! Short to Yellow to Red, March 30) Roy Blount detailed Charles O. Finley's and my suggestion that baseball consider using colored bases. The article ended with the question: "Where have you gone, Brian Barsamian?"
This is to inform you that I am still here in Oakland—a year older, a little wiser, but unhappy. I am distressed that baseball has taken no action on this suggestion and has apparently made no arrangements for even a tryout of the idea during this coming spring training. Where were you and the Other reputable sports publications, athletes, sports personalities and color television executives who failed to seriously research this suggestion and instead apparently treated it as a gimmick presented by the colorful and controversial owner of the Oakland A's? Would this suggestion have been given more serious consideration if it had been submitted by a person less controversial than Mr. Finley? Exciting baseball can compete with football for the title of No. 1 national sport, but can it compete against old-fashioned tradition in the hands of individuals who are color-blind?
I'd like to thank you for your recent article on the Cleveland Cavaliers (The Madcap Cavs of Cleveland, Dec. 14) because I have a feeling that they won't be around in a few years. Cleveland fans don't support a losing team. What the fans don't know is that an expansion team is going to lose games during its first few years but, after that, can turn into a great team like Milwaukee. Maybe our first-round draft choice, whether it be Sidney Wicks, Artis Gilmore or whoever, will spark the team like Alcindor did the Bucks.
University Heights, Ohio
Frank Deford tried hard in his article delineating the bores of the world (Who Blew the U.S. Nose Count?, Dec. 21), but he blew it when he concluded that repetitious use of the word "really" is confined to the Ski Bore. It is, of course, a major ingredient in the vocabulary of the Sincere-Young-Person Bore. However, it is not for this that I take Frank to task, but rather for his failure to complete his thesis. He omitted The Nod!
Even a casual observer will attest to the fact that following utterance of the pseudosincere "really" comes an even more phony series of head noddings of no known numerical limitation. Last night, in what formerly was my favorite bar but has recently been invaded by the unwashed, I overheard a stringy-haired creature of undetermined sex punctuate a sentence by The Nod 21 times (actual count).
Author Deford is simply not a student of the art. Really. Nod, nod, nod.
That article was an unnecessary bore!
ALAN J. SCHUTZ
Who Blew the U.S. Nose Count? was a very humorous article and captured the main types of bores.
In answer to Frank Deford's article, if each Ski Bore convinced just one flabby, cigarette-puffing coffee drinker that there was a wholesome, healthy, happy alternative—namely, skiing—to his sitting on his ever-spreading derri�re, complaining about the weather and annually wishing the winter months of his life away, then we would have a much happier population. And probably much less nose blowing.