P Age tiro-

severe.l years hove improved the game; that the molded type basketball has been (and
still is) a godsend to covery high school, Yu.0,4, and smaller college which docs
not have adequate income to produce a new ball for every game or practice sessicn;
and that we cannot justify compelling schools to retain a backboard with half of
its ares. wasted surface am a hindrance to the spreading of play to the sides and
te the end area of the court.

This just about brings the family connections up to date. In the words of Red
Skelton "Thanks for listenint ."

Let's Stick to Facts

The sub-committee report contains some things which are good. For mc, it is weak-
ened by the attempt to castigate (Mister typesetter--pleasc$) the officers of the
Rules Committee, that comaittects policies relative to the annual questionnaire and
the National Collegiate method of choosing representatives. Furthermore, it cons
tains a number of inaccuracies, in statement or implication, and statements which
show little understanding of the purpose of, or the method of making up or distri=
buting the questionnaire. It contains "below the belt" insiniwmtions which are so
grossly unfair that they give the final propose: code of ethics (drafted for some-
one else) a sour taste. Letts be specific.

The report criticizes Floyd Rowe for expressing an opinion (in a private letter)
that majority opinion over the nation is against the outlawing of the molded type
of basketball anc the small backboard. Does Mister God resent freedom of speech?
It would be out of character to become peevish when majority opinion does not coins
cide with personal antagonism toward articles which have proved their worth. By a
rather remarkable type of logic a conclusion is drewm from Mr. Rowets statement,

It is: “Should wo not have the privilege of suggesting items for the rules questiar
naire?" What are the facts? The Rules Comittee has always encouraged ~every
group that has a legitimte interest in the game to submit suggestions for the
questionmire. The questiomaire is made from these suggestions. It is put in
form by 211 members of the Rules Committec, many of whom are prominent members of
the National B,sketball Coxches Association ond 2 of whom wero members of tho Re-
search Committeo of that body.

The report objects to the form of guestims and cites: "The new fan-shaped back-
board is legal where the home management chooses to install it." Of course, it
studiously omits the heading which makes it clear that this question and others in

the same group give each man a chance to vote yes or no omvhether the present rule
is satisfactory. ‘ore is another objection which indicates straining at a gnat.
The case is cited where one question is to be voted on by those who “coached, played,
officiate” or managed games on courts with the small backboard." The report stuci-
ously omits the heading which shows this to be in Part II which deals entirely with
reports on experimentation and observation (rather than abstract opinion). It also
fails to mention that on the same shcet there was a question where everyone (user
or non-user) could record his opinion about the backboard rule. Would tho report
have us believe that tho Rules Committee ms no God-given right to find out what
those who have used and observed an article or rule think of it? Frankly, “ister
Seratch doesn't understand that kind of logic.

The report further frets: "The tabulations of results of the Questionnaire are

questionablo."” As evidence, it shows that the grouping by sections of the country
is not according to National Collegiate districts. To quote: “How can an Nels,
representative determine the rcaction of his cistrict when the research tabulations