Readers take shots at basketball writer, letter
Don’t blame Bargen
for basketball loss
Mike Kluck’s account of the Ne
braska-Athletes in action basketball
game (DN, Nov. 11) was a “night
mare” itself to those attending the
game, those who understand the
game, and those who support what
Comhusker coach Danny Nee is
trying to accomplish. It appears that
Kluck may not fit into any of those
categories.
Worse, those who were not able to
attend the game were given a misrep
resentation of what really happened.
To Danny Nee’s credit, he used the
exhibition as an opportunity to im
prove the depth on his squad. Thanks
to incompetent reporting, whatever
confidence Jed Bargcn may have
gained from being called on by Nee
was probably negated.
Blaming Bargen for this loss, and
one play in particular, is akin to blam
ing Michael Dukakis’ loss on the fail
ure to carry South Dakota. In fact, itis
similar to condemning The Daily
Nebraskan as worthless reading on
the basis of this one article.
Kluck, we are not looking for a
journalistic Dick Vitale — especially
one with little insight into the great
roundball sport. Do us a favor and
give us facts, statistics and quotes —
and leave it at that.
Jim Boeve
graduate student
mathematics and statistics
Editor’s note: Although Mike
Kluck did the reporting for the bas
ketball story, it was written by DN
senior reporter Jeff A pel. Apel’s
byline was left off because of space
reasons.
Former NU player
blasts sports writer
This is in reference to the article
that Mike Kluck wrote about the
Nebraska basketball team’s loss to
Athletes in Action (DN, Nov. 11).
I find it very hard to fathom any
body, let alone a so-called sports
writer, to hiftimple-mindcd enough
to believe that a basketball game can
be lost because of the play of one
athlete.
People like Kluck who believe a
game is lost because of the one play
are so ignorant of the game that it
doesn't even warrant discussion. I’m
going to say what I think, anyway.
As many people know, there are 40
minutes in a college basketball game
(that's 20 minutes in each half, in case
you didn’t know, kluck). During the
com se of a game there arc many plays
and many shots, and to say that any
one of the possessions lost a game is
idiotic.
It is a combination of plays that
either wins or loses a game, not a
single possession. If other players
wouldn’t have made some turnovers
or missed some shots earlier in the
Athletes in Action game, it would
never have gone into overtime.
If you have any trouble under
standing anything you have just read,
Kluck, feel free to give me a call.
Jeff Rekcweg
former Nebraska basketball player
Get a clue
Mike Kluck
This is in regards to Mike Kluck’s
article on the Nebraska basketball
team ’ s loss to Athletes in Action (DN,
Nov. 11). First of all, I would like to
commend you for quoting the score
(104-102 in overtime) correctly.
Good work! As for the rest of your
article — how can you honestly say
the loss came as the result of one
player’s (Jed Bargen’s) missed shot?
By looking at the statistics, you
will see that as a team, the Com
huskers shot 41-of-87 from the field
for 47.1 percent. There were a total of
46 missed shots by the nine players
who took them. So, how can you
consistently refer to one missed shot
as the one that “lost the game” in your
‘‘editorial ?” Bargen was l-of-2 from
the field, which was a better shooting
percentage than the rest of the team.
Wake up, Kluck! There were
many mental mistakes that went unre
ported in your article: Bad passes, a
charge and numerous other missed
shots in the final seconds of regula
tion. It just might have been the over
time that contributed to the loss.
In an article about the Huskers’
Eric Johnson earlier in the week, he
said something that Kluck could use
in his future writings; “We win and
lose as a team.” Take it to heart and
use it the next time you decide to
report sports.
Lisa Hollestelle
sophomore
actuarial science
UNL grad chastises
reader’s definition
Andrew Meyer cites a law that
bans women from combat duty in the
armed forces in a letter (DN, Nov. 14)
and pretends that this proves that
women demand equal rights but re
ject equal responsibilities.
First, his facts are confused. This
legislation was passed at a lime when
the (first) Equal Rights Amendment
was being debated in stalchouses
across the country; it was introduced
by conservatives as an attempt to
squelch public support for the ERA.
Most women’s groups opposed the
bill.
More importantly it’s just wrong
to say that women don’t accept re
sponsibility. If Meyer insists on de
fining “responsibility” as willing to
die for others, I suggest he count the
* lumber of women through history
who died in childbirth so that their
husbands would have big strong sons
to help them. That, however, is not the
point
Responsibility doesn’t entail
masochism. A responsible person is
one who does what she knows is right
and does it for the right reasons. It’s
contemptible to pretend that respon
sibility is something that can be be
stowed on some and removed from
others by an act of Congress, just as
it’s wrong to withhold civil rights
from 51 percent of the people just
because a lot of politicians say it’s
OK.
Jim Johnson
Lincoln
UNL class.of 1979
Meyer’s argument
contested as limited
In response to the letter by Andrew
Meyer (DN, Nov. 14) about equal
rights and equal combat in the mili
tary: Meyer, what’s your military
experience? Obviously, it is very
limited.
As a female and a member of the
military. I must point out that it would
take an act of God and Congress to
place women in an “actual” combat
situation.
I didn’t join the military to prove
anything. I wanted to take an active
pan in serving my country and as a
result of that I have achieved a tre
mendous sense of accomplishment
and satisfaction.
During the course of my training, I
have been shot at, gassed and attacked
by terrorists. But after all, that was
only simulated combat. Do you want
me to feel cheated?
Carry on, Meyer. I think your
ship’s gone out to sea.
Andrea Taylor
junior
human developmenl/rehabilitaiion
lette^ I
The Daily Nebraskan welcomes
brief letters to the editor from all
readers and interested others.
Letters will be selected for publi
cation on the basis of clarity, original
ity, timeliness and space available.
The Daily Nebraskan retains the right
to edit all material submitted.
Readers also are welcome to sub
mit material as guest opinions.
Whether material should run as a let
ter or guest opinion, or not to run, is
left to the editor’s discretion.
Everything 1
and we mean everything
is on sale!
Our Biggest
Sale of the
Fall.
Don't Miss It.
*
I This is our BIG sale of the fall. DON’T MISS IT! I
r- " ' ""
Mens Specials
Long Sleeue Shirts
values to $55 $ 19.90-24.90
Sweaters
values to $47.50 $19.90-29.90
large group orig. $75-90 1/2 off
Sweatshirts and knits
turtles, mocks, and polo's __
values to $49.50 $24.90-29.90
Pants
values to $55 $ 19.90-29.90
Shoes 30-50% off
Leathers.
values to $375 $ 198 279
Suits 100% Worsted Wools
values $285$475 $149-279
Womens Specials
Sweaters „
(Designers included) 5060% Off
Knits
values to $64 $39.90
Blouses
values to $62 $19.90-49.90
Suafuis to $100 $29.9049.90
Pants .
values to $110 $29.90-49.90
Skirts
values to $98 $29.90-49.90
Shoes and Boots 50-60% Off
Jeans
values to $56 $19.90-29.90
Dresses c\Q-roO% Off
1-HPost^Nicket— 1
». i in;* \ •»* <* ••» i'Downtown bincoln at) 1441s!. 14th
