Football - College Football, Part 1

If you are interested in football, especially inaddition to Woodrow Wilson, who served as a
college football, read on to learn some interestingpart-time coach at Wesleyan, an English instructor
insight into the roots of the game.at Oklahoma who had recently come from
In the 1890s college football had already createdHarvard, Vernon Parrington, taught the
strong emotions of love and hate. Big-timefundamentals of football on the windswept
eastern football had demonstrated that it couldpractice field in Oklahoma. At Miami University of
draw large crowds, create alumni support, andOhio the president called upon all able-bodied
build an identity that would attract new students.members of the faculty to go out for football. In
The fact that it had little to do with classicala game between North Carolina and Virginia a
education bothered only the traditionalists onmember of the North Carolina faculty scored the
campus and a handful of crotchety puristswinning touchdown. Often the faculty proved
elsewhere who wrote critically of football inhelpful to the budding football programs in other
magazines, newspaper articles, and official collegeways such as giving athletes passing grades or
reports.writing articles arguing that football built intellect.
Outward appearances may have changed, but theOnly a handful, like Wisconsin's Frederick Jackson
gridiron problems in that era appear remarkablyTurner, made a determined effort to root out
similar to the present. In the 1890s big-timethe abuses in the culture of college football such
recruiters and alumni contacts scoured theas the intense media attention given to the sport
eastern prep schools for talented juniors andand its tendency to cushion star athletes from
seniors ready to entice them to Harvard, Yale, oracademic requirements. That was more than a
Princeton. Occasionally, unscrupulous alumnicentury ago. When we turn to the 1980s and
convinced students to quit high school before1990s what do we encounter? Outward
they graduated in order to enroll at an institutionappearances of football may have changed, but
with a big-time team. Boosters funneled tuitionthe problems appear hauntingly similar. Big-time
money to poor but athletically talented boys fromfootball teams induce players to attend their
the coal fields of Pennsylvania and the industrialinstitution with offers of cars and money as well
towns of the Northeast to preparatory schools inas running booster operations to funnel cash to
order to prepare them for big-time collegeblue-chip players. Players who obtain special
athletics. Some of these young men were in theiradmission or enter the institution fraudulently do
mid-twenties when they finally entered college.so only to play football and often leave without
Other athletes went from school to school sellinggraduating. Schools manage to keep their players
their services, phantom players who had noeligible by manufacturing credits or by easing
academic ties with the institution.them into simple courses in which they are
Big-time alumni football entrepreneurs-theassured of receiving passing grades. Some
counterpart of today's athletic directors-arrangedcoaches engage in violence toward players in
a schedule of games which began with weakpractice and even try to drive them out of school
teams and worked up to big money games heldso that they can use their scholarship slot.
in New York, Boston, and Philadelphia. GridironAthletic departments and institutional officials have
profits supported stadium building, sumptuous livingbecome obsessed with the potential for profits
quarters and training tables for players, as well asfrom televised big games or bowl games. Big-time
Pullman cars for retinues of trainers, massagers,teams in the NCAA try to manipulate the
alumni coaches, and other hangers-on whoorganization so that they will be able to have
followed the team to the big games. What wasmore coaches, scholarships, and only minimal
left over went to support an array of lesseracademic requirements. Players commit acts of
sports that big-time football had eclipsed.violence and brutality, then manage to avoid the
At the major football schools critics complainedconsequences. College presidents whose salaries
that football players became the campus elite,and prominence fall far short of the head football
admired by their fellow students and regardedcoaches dutifully show up at football games and
skeptically by many faculty. In the absence ofrelated alumni events, treading cautiously around
professional football, players basked in thethe mire of big-time college athletics.
attention of the media, and the names of theAll of this has added up to major athletic scandals,
gridiron stars appeared regularly in the sportsmost of them involving big-time football. Scandals
pages of big city newspapers. Even college facultysuch as the pay-for-play violations at Southern
and presidents had to be properly worshipful ofMethodist and Auburn from the late 1970s to the
football and its elite because they knew thatearly 1990s man-aged to create internal
football advertised their schools and helped todisruptions and negative publicity at numbers of
retain the loyalty of alumni. As a result, theybig-name institutions. Yet, in spite of the obvious
often ignored or remained blissfully unaware offlaws in college football, it continues to enlarge its
scams to admit unqualified students, play athletesgrip on the major universities. The athletic
who never enrolled, or resort to stratagems tofoundations persist in enlarging their massive
keep weak players eligible.gridiron complexes, selling the rights to buy tickets
Though booster organizations did not exist outsidefor upscale luxury boxes and suites, and then
of alumni groups, booster alumni and townspeople,collecting additional revenues for the sale of
student managers, and even faculty engaged inhigh-priced tickets. The major teams have
unethical acts. A Princeton alumnus namedcreated indoor facilities out of donations that
Patterson entertained football players and mademight have gone to deserving but impoverished
every effort to entice them to his alma mater.non-athletes for scholarships. While
Authorities at Swarthmore lured the huge lineman,quasi-professional student-athletes play the game,
Bob ("Tiny") Maxwell, from the University ofordinary students have little to do with the sport.
Chicago and arranged for the president of theIn an atmosphere of highly specialized career
college to pass his bills to a prominent alumnus.coaches, publicists, trainers, and tutors, college
Professor Woodrow Wilson, a fanatic Princetonfootball reflects more than ever the
enthusiast, shamelessly used football when heprofessionalism that reformers long ago set out
spoke to alumni organizations and vigorouslyto de-emphasize.
opposed football reform in the 1890s and earlyNo one would deny that football constitutes one
1900s. In contrast, Theodore Roosevelt, aof the most entertaining and enjoyable spectator
Harvard graduate, who gloried in the strenuous lifesports. In the early days some faculty believed
and strongly supported Harvard football, turnedthat the student enthusiasm for football would
against football brutality in 1905 and initiated theenable the institutions to alleviate the pervasive
first efforts in his capacity as president to reformantisocial behavior of undergraduates. Being aware
the spirit in which big-time football teamsof its appeal, most athletic critics and reformers
competed.attempted to change football rather than to
We know that the prototype for athleticabolish it. The few colleges that dropped football
organization began at eastern institutions in thedid so it because the school had no choice or,
1880s and 1890s. Yale's Walter Camp, "the fatheroccasionally, because a college president happened
of American football," became the model for theto wield unusual power at a critical moment in
coach and athletic director. While pursuing afootball's history. Far and away the largest group
business career, he also acted as Yale's de factoof thoughtful gridiron critics have attempted to
vice president for athletic operations, whoreform football and to reshape it in such a way
dominated the rules committees and ceaselesslythat it fit more reasonably and appropriately into
publicized the game. From the profits of bigthe spirit and life of the university. Why have
games in Boston and New York, Camp createdthey not succeeded?
an ample reserve fund that supported lesserBeginning in the 1890s and continuing into the
sports, afforded lush treatment for athletes, and1990s, reformers have spent tens of thousands
provided the money that eventually went towardof hours attending meetings and conferences,
building Yale Bowl, the first of the modern footballdevising new rules to solve the latest problems
stadiums. By making Yale into an athleticthat have cropped up, and generally trying to
powerhouse, Camp built the school's reputation,work out better systems for their own
making it second only to Harvard. Because heinstitutions; in the early 1900s moderate
succeeded so well, Camp became the firstreformers founded the NCAA to deal with deaths
big-name foe of sweeping football reforms-and anand brutality and to put football securely under
especially hard-core opponent of the forwardthe thumb of the faculty and college presidents.
pass.Again in the early 1950s, in a groundswell of
By the turn of century the deaths of players inoutrage against cheating, gambling, and subsidies
football led state legislators to introduce lawsfor athletes, college presidents and faculty
banning the gridiron game. Players for big-timemembers tried to create stricter standards to
teams, critics charged, were coached to injurereduce the greed and professionalism in football
their opponents or "put them out of business."rather than to drop it altogether. In the 1980s and
The nature of the game, with its massearly 1990s an outbreak of scandal in big-time
formations and momentum plays, made footballfootball resulted the same response of temporary
less an athletic contest than a collegiate version ofuneasiness and halting reforms which had become
warlike combat. Eventually the violence in footballby then a pattern in the history of college football.
led to attempts to reduce its brutality throughThe outbreak in the 1980s once again clearly
reforms. New rules put a strong emphasis onemphasized the failure of reform to bring about
better officiating and on less dangerousreal change. In three major periods of gridiron
formations, but they did not necessarily improveupheaval the colleges have been unable or unwilling
the athletic environment.to eliminate the causes of chronic cheating. While
The deaths and brutality presented an excellentpolitical reforms by Congress and the states have
opportunity to root out the worst excesses ofachieved some enduring success, football and
the runaway football culture. In the 1890s andbig-time athletics generally have had to face the
early 1900s, responding to public opinion,same issues again and again-much like Sisyphus
professors and presidents spent a great deal ofrepeatedly pushing the stone uphill. Why does
time talking about the overemphasis ofbig-time football manage to be almost constantly
intercollegiate athletics-and, in some cases, passingin a state of crisis? Is there some quality about
rules at the conference and institutional level tofootball, or college sports generally, or a flaw in
regulate college sports. Why, then, did collegehigher education which causes this turmoil? If the
presidents and faculty, who had far moreGreek ideal of education stands for the training of
authority over their students than their modernbody, spirit, and mind, why have the colleges
counterparts, fail to control the gridiron beast? Putfailed so abysmally at their mission?
differently, why did school presidents and facultyGood question, isn't it? But the answer is beyond
often themselves become part of the athleticthe subject of this article - and, unfortunately,
problem?beyond the expertise of the college football
. One problem might be that faculty membersexperts.
played major roles in introducing early football. In