Football - College Football, Part 1

If you are interested in football, especially in collegeWoodrow Wilson, who served as a part-time coach
football, read on to learn some interesting insight intoat Wesleyan, an English instructor at Oklahoma who
the roots of the game.had recently come from Harvard, Vernon Parrington,
In the 1890s college football had already createdtaught the fundamentals of football on the windswept
strong emotions of love and hate. Big-time easternpractice field in Oklahoma. At Miami University of Ohio
football had demonstrated that it could draw largethe president called upon all able-bodied members of
crowds, create alumni support, and build an identity thatthe faculty to go out for football. In a game between
would attract new students. The fact that it had little toNorth Carolina and Virginia a member of the North
do with classical education bothered only theCarolina faculty scored the winning touchdown. Often
traditionalists on campus and a handful of crotchetythe faculty proved helpful to the budding football
purists elsewhere who wrote critically of football inprograms in other ways such as giving athletes
magazines, newspaper articles, and official collegepassing grades or writing articles arguing that football
reports.built intellect. Only a handful, like Wisconsin's Frederick
Outward appearances may have changed, but theJackson Turner, made a determined effort to root out
gridiron problems in that era appear remarkably similarthe abuses in the culture of college football such as
to the present. In the 1890s big-time recruiters andthe intense media attention given to the sport and its
alumni contacts scoured the eastern prep schools fortendency to cushion star athletes from academic
talented juniors and seniors ready to entice them torequirements. That was more than a century ago.
Harvard, Yale, or Princeton. Occasionally, unscrupulousWhen we turn to the 1980s and 1990s what do we
alumni convinced students to quit high school beforeencounter? Outward appearances of football may
they graduated in order to enroll at an institution with ahave changed, but the problems appear hauntingly
big-time team. Boosters funneled tuition money to poorsimilar. Big-time football teams induce players to attend
but athletically talented boys from the coal fields oftheir institution with offers of cars and money as well
Pennsylvania and the industrial towns of the Northeastas running booster operations to funnel cash to
to preparatory schools in order to prepare them forblue-chip players. Players who obtain special admission
big-time college athletics. Some of these young menor enter the institution fraudulently do so only to play
were in their mid-twenties when they finally enteredfootball and often leave without graduating. Schools
college. Other athletes went from school to schoolmanage to keep their players eligible by manufacturing
selling their services, phantom players who had nocredits or by easing them into simple courses in which
academic ties with the institution.they are assured of receiving passing grades. Some
Big-time alumni football entrepreneurs-the counterpartcoaches engage in violence toward players in practice
of today's athletic directors-arranged a schedule ofand even try to drive them out of school so that they
games which began with weak teams and worked upcan use their scholarship slot.
to big money games held in New York, Boston, andAthletic departments and institutional officials have
Philadelphia. Gridiron profits supported stadium building,become obsessed with the potential for profits from
sumptuous living quarters and training tables fortelevised big games or bowl games. Big-time teams in
players, as well as Pullman cars for retinues of trainers,the NCAA try to manipulate the organization so that
massagers, alumni coaches, and other hangers-onthey will be able to have more coaches, scholarships,
who followed the team to the big games. What wasand only minimal academic requirements. Players
left over went to support an array of lesser sportscommit acts of violence and brutality, then manage to
that big-time football had eclipsed.avoid the consequences. College presidents whose
At the major football schools critics complained thatsalaries and prominence fall far short of the head
football players became the campus elite, admired byfootball coaches dutifully show up at football games
their fellow students and regarded skeptically by manyand related alumni events, treading cautiously around
faculty. In the absence of professional football, playersthe mire of big-time college athletics.
basked in the attention of the media, and the names ofAll of this has added up to major athletic scandals,
the gridiron stars appeared regularly in the sportsmost of them involving big-time football. Scandals such
pages of big city newspapers. Even college facultyas the pay-for-play violations at Southern Methodist
and presidents had to be properly worshipful ofand Auburn from the late 1970s to the early 1990s
football and its elite because they knew that footballman-aged to create internal disruptions and negative
advertised their schools and helped to retain the loyaltypublicity at numbers of big-name institutions. Yet, in
of alumni. As a result, they often ignored or remainedspite of the obvious flaws in college football, it
blissfully unaware of scams to admit unqualifiedcontinues to enlarge its grip on the major universities.
students, play athletes who never enrolled, or resort toThe athletic foundations persist in enlarging their
stratagems to keep weak players eligible.massive gridiron complexes, selling the rights to buy
Though booster organizations did not exist outside oftickets for upscale luxury boxes and suites, and then
alumni groups, booster alumni and townspeople,collecting additional revenues for the sale of high-priced
student managers, and even faculty engaged intickets. The major teams have created indoor facilities
unethical acts. A Princeton alumnus named Pattersonout of donations that might have gone to deserving but
entertained football players and made every effort toimpoverished non-athletes for scholarships. While
entice them to his alma mater. Authorities atquasi-professional student-athletes play the game,
Swarthmore lured the huge lineman, Bob ("Tiny")ordinary students have little to do with the sport. In an
Maxwell, from the University of Chicago and arrangedatmosphere of highly specialized career coaches,
for the president of the college to pass his bills to apublicists, trainers, and tutors, college football reflects
prominent alumnus. Professor Woodrow Wilson, amore than ever the professionalism that reformers
fanatic Princeton enthusiast, shamelessly used footballlong ago set out to de-emphasize.
when he spoke to alumni organizations and vigorouslyNo one would deny that football constitutes one of the
opposed football reform in the 1890s and early 1900s.most entertaining and enjoyable spectator sports. In
In contrast, Theodore Roosevelt, a Harvard graduate,the early days some faculty believed that the student
who gloried in the strenuous life and strongly supportedenthusiasm for football would enable the institutions to
Harvard football, turned against football brutality in 1905alleviate the pervasive antisocial behavior of
and initiated the first efforts in his capacity as presidentundergraduates. Being aware of its appeal, most
to reform the spirit in which big-time football teamsathletic critics and reformers attempted to change
competed.football rather than to abolish it. The few colleges that
We know that the prototype for athletic organizationdropped football did so it because the school had no
began at eastern institutions in the 1880s and 1890s.choice or, occasionally, because a college president
Yale's Walter Camp, "the father of American football,"happened to wield unusual power at a critical moment
became the model for the coach and athletic director.in football's history. Far and away the largest group of
While pursuing a business career, he also acted asthoughtful gridiron critics have attempted to reform
Yale's de facto vice president for athletic operations,football and to reshape it in such a way that it fit more
who dominated the rules committees and ceaselesslyreasonably and appropriately into the spirit and life of
publicized the game. From the profits of big games inthe university. Why have they not succeeded?
Boston and New York, Camp created an ampleBeginning in the 1890s and continuing into the 1990s,
reserve fund that supported lesser sports, affordedreformers have spent tens of thousands of hours
lush treatment for athletes, and provided the moneyattending meetings and conferences, devising new
that eventually went toward building Yale Bowl, therules to solve the latest problems that have cropped
first of the modern football stadiums. By making Yaleup, and generally trying to work out better systems for
into an athletic powerhouse, Camp built the school'stheir own institutions; in the early 1900s moderate
reputation, making it second only to Harvard. Becausereformers founded the NCAA to deal with deaths and
he succeeded so well, Camp became the firstbrutality and to put football securely under the thumb
big-name foe of sweeping football reforms-and anof the faculty and college presidents. Again in the early
especially hard-core opponent of the forward pass.1950s, in a groundswell of outrage against cheating,
By the turn of century the deaths of players in footballgambling, and subsidies for athletes, college presidents
led state legislators to introduce laws banning theand faculty members tried to create stricter standards
gridiron game. Players for big-time teams, criticsto reduce the greed and professionalism in football
charged, were coached to injure their opponents orrather than to drop it altogether. In the 1980s and early
"put them out of business." The nature of the game,1990s an outbreak of scandal in big-time football
with its mass formations and momentum plays, maderesulted the same response of temporary uneasiness
football less an athletic contest than a collegiateand halting reforms which had become by then a
version of warlike combat. Eventually the violence inpattern in the history of college football.
football led to attempts to reduce its brutality throughThe outbreak in the 1980s once again clearly
reforms. New rules put a strong emphasis on betteremphasized the failure of reform to bring about real
officiating and on less dangerous formations, but theychange. In three major periods of gridiron upheaval the
did not necessarily improve the athletic environment.colleges have been unable or unwilling to eliminate the
The deaths and brutality presented an excellentcauses of chronic cheating. While political reforms by
opportunity to root out the worst excesses of theCongress and the states have achieved some
runaway football culture. In the 1890s and early 1900s,enduring success, football and big-time athletics
responding to public opinion, professors and presidentsgenerally have had to face the same issues again and
spent a great deal of time talking about theagain-much like Sisyphus repeatedly pushing the stone
overemphasis of intercollegiate athletics-and, in someuphill. Why does big-time football manage to be almost
cases, passing rules at the conference and institutionalconstantly in a state of crisis? Is there some quality
level to regulate college sports. Why, then, did collegeabout football, or college sports generally, or a flaw in
presidents and faculty, who had far more authorityhigher education which causes this turmoil? If the
over their students than their modern counterparts, failGreek ideal of education stands for the training of
to control the gridiron beast? Put differently, why didbody, spirit, and mind, why have the colleges failed so
school presidents and faculty often themselvesabysmally at their mission?
become part of the athletic problem?Good question, isn't it? But the answer is beyond the
. One problem might be that faculty members playedsubject of this article - and, unfortunately, beyond the
major roles in introducing early football. In addition toexpertise of the college football experts.