KUSH'S METHODS (CONT.)
Regarding the editorial "A Victory for Kush, Not for His Methods" (SCORECARD, May 4), I worked with Frank Kush at Arizona State for 15 years as Sports Information Director. Yes, he slapped players alongside the helmets; and, yes, he grabbed face masks; and, yes, he was a tough coach. Those were not everyday tactics, but, as you said, methods that were wrong.
However, I think you might be surprised to know how his players reacted to Kush. Listed on a questionnaire I had all players fill out every year was the question: "Who has been your primary inspiration in athletics?" A majority of the freshmen and sophomores named their father or high school coach. A majority of the juniors and seniors said " Coach Kush."
A good coach is one who wins a majority of the games he is supposed to win. A great coach is one who wins a majority of the games he isn't supposed to win. Frank Kush was and is a great coach.
DICK (MOON) MULLINS
I take exception to your SCORECARD item (May 18) on "All-America losers." Although I agree that many possible All-America candidates are overlooked because they play on losing teams, I object to your implication that the NFL draft proves the worth of All-America picks. All-Americas are judged on their college performances, not on their NFL potential. To equate the two is a mistake. Many players who have had outstanding college careers are considered poor pro prospects because of factors that go beyond their play in college. These include size, speed, injury potential, etc. I hope we never start judging college players by how they might perform in the NFL. Consider your own example: Although Mark Herrmann may never be a top-notch NFL star, there are few people who would argue with his being selected as an All-America based on his record at Purdue.
Twelve Mile, Ind.
MICHIGAN'S PROWESS (CONT.)
As a footnote to the letter from Virginia S. Nicklas on " Michigan's prowess" (19TH HOLE, May 25), I played a little statistical game with that 1977 Ladd-Lipset Survey when it came out. I treated it as though it were the AP football poll and awarded a school 10 points for each top-ranked academic department, down to one point for a 10th-rated department. The results were: Harvard 142 points; California 121; Stanford 106; Yale 84; Michigan 68; Chicago 63; Wisconsin 61; Princeton 50; MIT 46; Illinois 42; Columbia 30; and Cornell 24.
Everett Carll Ladd Jr. and Seymour Martin Lipset surveyed only 12 departments and seven professional schools. Thus there was some anguish among academic Wolverines when dentistry, public health, library science and social work—in all of which Michigan has been accorded either a No. 1 or a No. 2 standing in various deans' surveys—were left out. They also didn't survey creative writing as such, although English was included.
Anyone appraising the top rankings awarded might observe that the Middle West did much better than insular Easterners might have been led to believe. In fact, there are only two Ivy League institutions among the top seven.
The argument about whether football players are dumber now than they were then goes on. In the early '50s, I was one of 12 managers for a Michigan football team whose starting line had, if memory serves, something like four pre-meds, a pre-law, an engineer and a pre-ministerial student. The team lost to Cornell and Northwestern on successive Saturdays.
New York City
MONDAY NIGHT GAMES
May I suggest that NFL broadcasting director Val Pinchbeck, who apparently cannot see a riot for the bundles of money involved (SCORECARD, May 18), also cannot count teams very well. It may indeed be true that Monday Night Football is "a 28-team thing," but recently some other team must have been replacing the Detroit Lions.
BERNARD A. O'HORA, M.D.
If Monday Night Football is "a 28-team thing," why haven't the Kansas City Chiefs been on since 1977?
DAVID D. SMALE