19th Hole: The Readers Take Over

BEST FEET FORWARD
Sirs:
I take offense at your statement that USC's Anthony Davis is "the country's most electrifying running back" (Undefeated but Improving, Oct. 1), as any Buckeye fan would. This is not because of traditional loyalty, but because I have seen the metamorphosis of another fine athlete from one September to the next. Davis rates a nine on any scale of 10, but Ohio State's Archie Griffin is the best hip-swiveler I have ever seen.
BOB KLAGES
Troy, Ohio

Sirs:
I have sat back long enough. First, ABC-TV comes out with a show predicting USC's Anthony Davis as the next Heisman Trophy winner, then SI gives him a cover story. As an Arizona State fan, I can only say poor Woodrow Green. After a slow start against Oregon and injuries that caused him to miss the Washington State game, Woody was ready for Colorado State. Although he played little (ASU put the game away early), he still gained 96 yards in nine carries and scored two touchdowns. Green definitely has the credentials of a true candidate for the Heisman award but ASU's exposure nationwide is minimal.
ROGER WEINBERG
Tempe, Ariz.

Sirs:
You have yet to say anything about 5'8", 181-pound Don Reynolds of Oregon. He has been leading the Pacific Eight in rushing and now is averaging 4.6 yards a carry and 113 yards per game. He may not be the best, but he sure is better than Anthony Davis.
JOHN GRAY
Eugene, Ore.

Sirs:
You have made up your mind that Anthony Davis is "the best of the best." But after three games A.D. perhaps ranks among the top 200 rushers in the country. So how about letting the 1973 statistics speak, rather than past glories and opinion? And while you seek the true "best of the best" you might veer your attention toward one D. C. Nobles of the University of Houston ( Veer Meets Son of Veer, Oct. 1).
GORDON BRIGMAN
Memphis

Sirs:
I was glad to see your cover of USC's Anthony Davis, who, in my opinion, is the best college rusher since O.J. Simpson.
KENNETH SCHMIDT
San Jose, Calif.

STUDENT ATHLETES
Sirs:
In answer to your SCORECARD item ("Work Ethic," Oct. 1) on the proposed Eastern College Athletic Conference postseason basketball tournament:

1) The primary objective of our member colleges has been, and always will be, the enhancement of the total educational experience, in which athletics play a vital and important role for the participants, regardless of the varied financial-aid policies administered by our member institutions.

2) We continue to be proud of the classroom records and athletic successes of our member colleges and students, and have every intention of continuing to pursue these educational objectives through promotion of intercollegiate athletics under the guidelines established by member-college faculty representatives.

3) Unfortunately, financial problems beset everyone in higher education, including intercollegiate athletic departments and the ECAC. However, the basic reason for fostering ECAC basketball competition is our genuine belief that this type of program is a justified and much sought-after goal for our participants and member colleges.

4) For 34 years the ECAC traditionally has encouraged and promoted postseason-championship competition for its 213 member colleges. We were never under the impression that the ECAC was exploiting the participants.