A
*1:
SPORTS
Page 8 Wednesday, January 14, 1981 The Michigan Daily
Frosh1
By STAN BRADBURY
A Daily Sports Analysis
'Each August they arrive at South
Quads across the country, loaded down
with bags, suitcases and inflated egos
biilt up and supported by a shelf of
awards and trophies in their parent's
cozy family room.
They are this year's hot shot football
recruits, reporting for two-a-days and
the most trying four months of their
lives. Some people, Bo Schembechler
and Don danham included, feel that it is
too much for an 18-year-old to handle.
They, are college freshman and
dedicated athletes, expected to make
the jump to big time academics and
football at once.
Last fall a wave swept the country in
favor of eliminating eligibility for
freshmen. Schembechler, at that time,
went as far as to say that he was con-
)ay divid
fident that when the NCAA convened in
Miami Beach this week that freshman
eligibility would be abolished.
But as the NCAA's annual convention
goes by this week, not a single word has
been spoken on the subject. And for a
good reason - the freshman eligibility
rule has paid great dividends to inter-
collegiate athletics.
The present rule governing the ap-
pearance of freshmen on the athletic
field has given us Herschel Walker, and
Georgia a national championship. It is
the major reason that the gap between
the best and worst of the collegiate
ranks is narrowing.
Its benefits are numerous, its
drawbacks few. Opponents rarely cite
anything other than an easier high
school-to-college transition as a reason
for doing away with the rule. They add
that aspiring freshmen who enter
[ends for NCAA
school expecting to play immediately
often wind up with deflated egos. For-
mer Michigan tailback Mike Cade
illustrates their point; Cade was a
promising runner who came to the
Wolverines from Eloy, Ariz. After
seeing little game time his initial
season, Cade returned home. Opponen-
ts of the rule might contend that if Cade
had known he could not play his fresh-
man year, he would still be on the
squad.
If freshmen desire the opportunity to
play, they should be granted that oppor-
tunity. Ever since the inception of the
rule nearly 10 years ago, freshmen
have made valuable contributions in
every sport. While improving the
overall quality of competition, the in-
clusion of freshmen on intercollegiate
teams serves as an incentive for older
players to perform at their maximum
ability.
The elimination of freshman
eligibility would not eliminate much of
the time constraints commonly
associated with football. The players
would still have to practice almost
every day, play in junior varisty
games; in other words, they would have
to work almost as hard. Additionally,
the cost of the football program would
increase because they would need ad-
ditional scholarships and would have to
go back to a strong JV program.
This is why Michigan wants to abolish
the freshman rule, which has been at
work since the early 1970s. Michigan,
like other "big time" schools of the in-
tercollegiate athletic world, can afford
to make the switch. Smaller schools
can't afford it and that would add to the
imbalance - making the rich
richer.. .
High school seniors this decade have
frequently chosen to attend schools of
lesser stature, where they have been
promised a lot of playing time in the fir-
st year as opposed to the traditional
powerhouses where they would have to
play apprentice for at least the same
amount of time.
That is why major college athletics
have evened out so much in the past
decade that the freshman rule has been
in effect. Football to~ms like Pit-
tsburgh with Tony Dorsett and Purdue
with Mark Herrmann, and basketball
teams like DePaul with Mark Aguirre
and Earvin Johnson at Michigan State,
have turned around programs by using
the freshman rule.
It is obvious that Michigan would
prefer to return to the days when
freshmen were not to be seen or heard,
even though that would deprive
Michigan fans of future Phil Hubbards
or Rick Leachs.
But for now, all seems safe. What ap-
peared to be a tidal wave of sentiment
last fall hassubsided to the point where
opposition to the freshman rule does not
amount to enough to even bring the
matter before the NCAA.
full court
C.PRESS
Cagers ranked 8th .
M*
The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
The Bush Program in Child Development and Social Policy'
Winter 1981 Public Lectures'
CURRENT ISSUES IN EDUCATION
WORK WITH KIDS AT
CAMP TAMARACK IN 1981
Brighton & Ortonville, Michigan
Positions for bunk counselors, specialist counselors,
supervisors, service staff and many other positions.
INTERVIEWING JANUARY 20 & 29
SUMMER PLACEMENT bFFICE
Call 764-7456 for appointment
. Hard to believe?
By MARK FISCHER
Who would have believed it?
Two months ago, who would have believed that the Michigan cagers
would be 10-1? Most of all, who would have even hypothesized, let alone
believed, that Michigan would now be ranked eighth in the nation, and over
all the other teams in the power-packed Big Ten?
Not Bill Frieder, for one. Then again, the first-year coach doesn't pay
much heed to the polls anyway.
"Sure, we're ranked eighth," he conceded. "But we're one point away
from being tenth in the league, so what's that tell you?"'
More than anything else, it tells me of the modesty - perhaps caution is
the better word - that the coach exercises when he talks about his team,
especially in relation to the rest of the Big Ten.
And until the Minnesota game last Saturday, I would have wholehear-
tedly agreed with his modest approach. After all, the 1979-80 cagers ended up
8-10 for seventh place, and the only major change in the makeup of that team
came in the addition of 6-10 freshman Tim McCormick. What's more, the
Blue b-ballers are neither tall nor exceedingly quick.
So, although before the season I myself optimistically picked Michigan
to finish fourth, I didn't disagree vehemently with the so-called 'experts' who
picked them to wind up sixth, seventh, or even eighth in the Big Ten, which I
considered and still consider to be the toughest conference in the country.
I kept this attitude through the non-conference season even as the cagers
rolled over the likes of Kansas and Arkansas. After all, I figured Kansas and
Arkansas aren't in the Big Ten.
The fire behind the skeptical attitude was of course fanned by the hoop-
sters' road loss to the 75 percent shooting, Russell Cross-led Boilermakers in
the conference opener. I told you they were too short, I said. Hey, they
couldn't even stop a 6-11 freshman from shooting nine out of 11.
But during the game in Minneapolis, I watched the Blue-clad visitors
from Ann Arbor overcome obstacle after obstacle. I watched Thad Garner
sink two foul shots late in regulation despite derisive, purposefully timed
clapping of the crowd during his warm-up dribbles, and saw how the
Wolverines ignored the vigorously partisan throng of over 17,000. The;
crowd's every sound was amplified and reflected back down to the hardwood,
by the huge metal roof of 'The Barn', Minnesota's Williams Arena, but Gar-
ner swished his shots.
I saw the Wolverines operate coolly under the hinderance of extreme
pressure., as I watched McGee sink both ends of a one-and-one with 1:14 left
in the game after going one-for-two from the line on his last trip; and as I
watched Marty Bodnar's off-balance, do or die shot with four seconds left.
And I saw Michigan overcome the officiating of crowd-influenced
referees. Among other miscues, the officials called McGee for pushing
Darrell Mitchell on a loose ball after the latter had merely tripped over the
former's foot. There were 14 seconds left in the second overtime (and in the
game), and the call allowed Mitchell to put his team ahead with a pair of free
throws.
I also saw the cagers neutralize the Gophers' obvious. height advantage
with a hustling man-to-man defense and none other than McCormick, who
played the best game of his young college career.
As I watched all these things, I saw in the Wolverines a somewhat in-
definable quality: the ability and the desire to come back and come out on
top in the face of a multitude of obstacles. How the cagers acquired this
quality - whether it was from Frieder, who is in his first season after taking
over for Johnny Orr; whether it was from experience (five starters retur-
ning from last year's squad); from the players' attitude, which Frieder says
has been "excellent all year - they play hard together, compete hard every
day and play as a team," or from something else - is hard to say, but the
quality is there.
This quality is often hard to come by, but in order to be a winner; it has to
Lois-Ellin Datta, NationalInstitute of Education
eQue Pasa? Language Proficiency Assessment
Asa H'illiard, Georgia State University
Is School Integration Possible?
January 15-
January 22
0
r
Wallace Lambert, McGill UniversityCanada January 29
Language in Intergroup Relations: The Canadian Experience
V
Jerome Bruner, Harvard University
Under Five in Britain
Urie Bronfenbrenner, Cornell University
The Ecology of Education
February 5
March 5
Note our other
INTERVIEW DATES
February 6
February 16}
March 10
March25
Apri7
April 16
YOUR SUMMER JOB-MORE
THAN JUST EMPLOYMENT
Tamarack is the Jewish
Residential camp spon-
sored by the Fresh Air So-
ciety of Metropolitan De-
troit, since 1903.
Schorling Auditorium, School of Education
Thursdays at 4 p.m.
Cosponsored by The University of Michigan School of Education
!4
Lie down and be counted.
I
be there.
It just might be the time to start believing
basketball team.
in the 1980-81 Michigan
G-S FG-FGA
M cGee .............................................11-11 113-207
Johnson ...........................................11-11 76-132
Garner ..........r..................................11-11 44-84
Heuerman............................. ............11-11 27-60
Bodnar, Mk ............................ .........11-8 24-43
McCormick ........................................11-0 25-49
Bodnar, Mt .........................................11-3 28-47
Person .............................................10-0 8-14
Hopson ............................................. 5-0 2.13
Jam es..............................................11-0 10-21
Burton ............................................ 8-0 5-15
Antonides......... .......................... 5-0 2-3
Brown.............................................. 5-0 2-6
Pelekoudas ......................................... 8-0 3-6
Pct.
.546
.576
.524
.450
.558
.510
.596
.571
.154
.476
.333
.667
.333
.000
FT-FTA
39-58
17-23
20-30
43-51
12-15
18-21
12-15
- 4-7
7-11
2-3
2-8
1-4
0-1
2-5
Pct.
.672
.739
.667.
.843
.800
.857
.800
.571
.636
.667
.250
.250
.000
.400
Avg.
24.1
15.4
9.8
8.8
5.4
6.4
6.2
2.0
.2.2
2.4
1.5
1.0
0.8
1.0
HI
35
-29
15
1$;
1-7
IQ
16
5
6
6.
3
2'
4
40
MICHIGAN ..........................................11
OPPONENTS.......................................11
369-700 .527 179-252 .710 83.4 102
309-628 r .456 137-214 .640 68.6 84'
BLOCKED SHOTS: McCormick 9; Heuerman 5; Johnson 3; Garner 2; Person 1.
TOTALS: Michigan 20; Opponents 35
TURNOVERS: Michigan 171; Opponents 199
DEADBALL REBOUNDS: Michigan 27; Opponents 26.
RECORD: (10-1); Home (5-0); Away (3-1); Neutral (2-0)*
*Joe Jouis Arena
1. I
President Jimmy Carter signed up 51 times.
In America, 3% of the people give 100% of all the
blood that's freely donated.
Which means that if only. 1 % more people-
maybe you-became donors, it would add
over thirty percent more blood to America's
voluntary bloodstream. Think of it!
But forget arithmetic. Just concentrate
on one word.
The word is Easy.
Giving blood is easy. You hardly feel it (in fact,
some people say they feel better physically after
a blood donation).
And, of course, everybody feels better emotionally.
Rpnnmp oit'c a nroot fPPlinn knCMAinn uni t na ancv hlnnH
0
I
5