EVASHEVSKI (CONT.): IS HE RIGHT?
When SPORTS ILLUSTRATED came out with its article on Coach Evashevski (Special Football Issue, Sept. 23) and his supposed philosophies on recruiting, the college president and football sportsmanship, I was too angry even to get off a coherent letter to the editors.
Now two weeks have passed, and my thoughts, having had a chance to mature, have changed. To sum them up: so what? Far from being a maverick among coaches and professional athletes in general, is not Mr. Evashevski the only honest man (practically) among them, the only non hypocrite? And furthermore, is he not right, absolutely, 100% right?
Is Evashevski not right in saying that when a boy reaches college it is too late to instill the spirit of sportsmanship into him and that if he does not have it by then, he never will? And that, furthermore, it is not the coach's job, but the parents' job to do that? Is Evashevski not right in saying that the only reason boys play football is for the fun and to win, win, win, and that nothing else matters? And is that not the very best training for life? How much have the editors of SPORTS ILLUSTRATED ever gotten for nothing out of this sad world? In my book Coach Evashevski is a better man than ever and a real educator of men.
ELMER C. LANGREN
? SPORTS ILLUSTRATED fully shares Mr. Langren's admiration for Coach Evashevski's pedagogy on and off the football field. The majority of scores of Iowans who wrote SPORTS ILLUSTRATED felt that in allowing Coach Evashevski to assail some of football's cherished beliefs (which inspired Mr. Langren to call Coach Evashevski a non hypocrite and SPORTS ILLUSTRATED to call him an iconoclast), SPORTS ILLUSTRATED did Iowa and Mr. Evashevski in particular and the game in general a disservice. But football, autumn's venerated institution, cannot continue to flourish without an occasional critical examination by a respected iconoclast such as Mr. Evashevski.—ED.
FOOTBALL: WHAT'S IN A NAME?
ALL HAIL TO THEE, MR. NASH, THOU LEFT US OUT:
Mr. Ogden Nash, speaking poetically in Sports Illustrated, says that collegians are guilty of intellectual laxity.
Because in giving names to their athletic teams they show no originality and as a result create a lot of perplaxity.
He says that when he reads that the Tigers are good this year he has to go through the whole Tiger storehouse—
"Which Tigers is it—Auburn, Clemson, Colorado College, DePauw, Doane, Grumbling, Louisiana State, Memphis State, University of Missouri, Occidental, College of the Pacific, Princeton, St.Paul's Poly, Sewanee, Tennessee, A&I, Trinity, or Morehouse?"
Knowing his way with rhymes, I'm just as glad Mr. Nash didn't think of our lynx,
Because I don't know what he might have said, but if he ever gets personal about our team, I hope he'll say it—ah—thinks.
DR. JOHN QUINCY WOLF