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