ATHLETIC COUNCIL REPLIES TO PRESIDENT HOPKINS

The reply of the Dartmouth Athletic Council to the letter addressed to it by President Ernest M. Hopkins when he recommended radical changes in the organization of intercollegiate football was published May 16. The letter of the Council addressed to President Hopkins was as follows:

Hanover, N. H

May 9, 1927

Dear Dr. Hopkins : The Dartmouth Athletic Council has given serious consideration to your letter of March 15th on the subject of Intercollegiate Football and has directed the writer to reply to your letter, stating certain conclusions reached as a result of our discussions.

We recognize the importance of a correct appraisal and solution of the questions which you presented to us, and we frankly admit our inability with available information to determine the exact amount of substance there is in the thought that college football anywhere has been so exploited beyond all other college activities as to seriously and harmfully affect the basic educational purposes of the colleges, creating both in the student body and in the general public a distorted view of the relative values of curriculum and athletic prowess.

Yet, without establishing a fictitious value, we may not ignore the real worth to the colleges of the intense interest that surrounds this game, accepted as the best of college sports, providing valuable physical and character training for the players under competent direction and, as stated in your letter, producing for the college communities certain very vital values and making the game a natural rallying ground for student and alumni loyalties, incidentally producing revenues which chiefly support the entire athletic and recreational programs of the colleges.

We are unable to say that football, with its present organization and absorbing interest, does or does not occupy too important a place among college activities; nor just the'results to the colleges if this intense interest, which we believe is largely spontaneous and real, should be removed, and we do not believe that any representative college conference would attempt to answer these questions categorically.

We feel sure that the final paragraph of your letter, asking our diagnosis as to whether the evils ascribed to the present situation and trend of football are largely imaginary or whether they are real and needful of early treatment, reveals your real purpose in setting before us certain freely expressed opinions and a concrete plan for alleviating these alleged evils. We know, in referring this matter to us, you appre- ciated that we were friendly to football, that we believed in it and that we would be unwilling to attempt to revolutionize or handicap the sport unless we believed that there were inherent evils in the game that could not be divorced from it and that these evils brought the game in direct conflict with the essential educational and character-developing functions of the colleges. This we do not believe.

While we think that the case against college football as at present organized and conducted has been overstated in the opinions to Which you allude in your letter and that there are compensating values that go far towards balancing these expressed evils and while we also realize there has always been a very definite tendency on the part of college authorities to eradicate from the game all evils as soon as they were recognized yet we do belive that most careful consideration should be given to the present situation to determine if there are hazards and weaknesses involved in it which have not been recognized and which should receive treatment.

We devoted our attention to the specific proposals which you submitted after reaching the conclusion that football had not lost its status as a sport for college men, that the educational purpose of the college was not largely ignored or misunderstood within the college and that with the cooperation of other colleges certain modifications in present procedure might well be tried to improve the game as a sport for the players and without detracting from its interest to the undergraduates and alumni.

We do not believe that all coaching should be done by undergraduates and we could see no advantage to any one in this proposal.

There was a decided difference of opinion on the proposal to restrict participation in intercollegiate football to men in their sophomore and junior years, although the Council agrees that it is desirable that the general question of limiting participation in collegiate football to two years should be discussed among the colleges interested in considering these general problems.

We think it extremely desirable that the questions and proposals which you submitted to us be considered and discussed by and with other colleges and we hope that a meeting for this purpose can be arranged.

We believe that college faculties, athletic councils and undergraduates are all interested in these questions and should be represented in any conference.

The Council would be glad to have discussed with other colleges : 1. The desirability of undertaking to remove from the games the intensity at present applied to the development of varsity football teams.

a. By the employment of one resident coach at a salary, limited by rule. b. By all assistant coaches being drafted from first year graduates.

c. By the elimation of the training table as such.

and. By ceasing all artificial stimulation of undergraduates through mass meetings or other related methods.

e. By requiring teams when playing out of town games to leave at the latest time that will permit them to arrive in time ,and in condition to play their scheduled games.

2. The desirability of making the game available to a greater number of men by adopting your second proposal that intercollegiate football contests in the major games of the schedule be arranged on a reciprocal basis by which each college would develop two major teams, one of which should play at home and the other play on the rival's home grounds, with definite stipulations designed to keep the two teams of equal strength.

3. The desirability of restricting undergraduate attention to football to the fall term by eliminating spring or winter practice and training.

4. The possibility and desirability of stimulat- ing a greater sporting interest in the game for the players and undergraduates, a. By doing away with all scouting of rival teams.

b. By letting the captains handle their teams on the playing field with all coaches in the stands.

c. By arranging all games as far as possible with colleges of equal football strength.

Finally, we wish to emphasize our complete subscription to the principle that among college men there should be no special interest whose influence should be allowed to interfere with the welfare of the college as a whole. We recognize the educational purpose of the college as its first responsibility. We do not believe football under proper regulation to be contrary to this purpose, but we recognize the need of regulation, perhaps along such lines as we have suggested, that harmful tendencies may be safeguarded against and that real values in the game may be preserved to the advantage of the college as a whole.

We are quite clear that the initiative of a general discussion of these matters does not rest with us but rather with the college administrations but at the same time we can assure you of our earnest desire to cooperate with you and others interested in any progressive program for the betterment of collegiate athletics.

Very truly yours,

(Signed) L. G. Hodgkins.

Commenting upon the Council's attitude the New York Times said editorially:

College football "reform" is not retarded by the reply of the Dartmouth College Athletic Council to the proposals of President Hopkins. He believes that football has a salutary influence in undergraduate life, and wishes to see "its virtues protected and its vices extirpated by friends of the game before its foes are given justification for demanding and accomplishing its death." President Hopkins conferred with old football players before broaching his plan. The question had to be answered whether football was "greater than all else having to do with the American college." He asked the Dartmouth Athletic Council to give consideration to three proposals. They were that eligibility to play on varsity teams be limited to sophomores and juniors; the development of two teams from the varsity squad, one to play at home, the other on the grounds of rivals; the restriction of coaching to undergraduates, presumably seniors.

In its reply to President Hopkins the Dartmouth Athletic Council sees "no advantage to any one" in undergraduate coaching solely, and finds "a decided difference of opinion" about allowing only sophomores and juniors to play on varsity teams. The Council thinks well of a discussion with other colleges of the whole subject of football. It makes in its turn proposals to remove "the intensity at present applied to the development of varsity football teams." The first will bear quoting:

Employment of one resident coach at a salary limited by rule; assistant coaches drafted from first year graduates; elimination of training table as such; ceasing all artificial stimulation of undergraduates through mass meetings or other related methods; requiring teams when playing out of town to leave at the latest time that will permit them to arrive in condition to play.

The idea of two major teams is approved. Elimination of Spring and Winter practice is recommended. Finally, the view is taken that "sporting interest" would be stimulated by doing away with "scouting" or rival teams, by turning over to captains the handling of their men on the field, and by trying to arrange games with colleges of equal football strength. The Council believes that careful consideration should be given to the present state of football to determine "if there are hazards and weaknesses involved which have not been recognized and which should receive treatment."

When President Hopkins made his suggestions they were received unsympathetically by football officials of Princeton, Pennsylvania, Rutgers, Brown, Pittsburgh and Syracuse. Even Harvard was cold. The Yale officials made no comment, but it was intimated that Yale would not oppose a conference of Eastern universities to consider athletic changes. The Dartmouth Athletic Council having come out strongly for such a there is likely to be a free discussion of the program. It certainly brings football "reform" to the front.