All writers who touch the subject of intercollegiate athletics say that the coach is the one factor making the difference between the team which plays in a fine spirit and uses intercollegiate games as real educational tools and the team which plays only to win and exemplifies sportsmanship at its lowest level. It is interesting, therefore, to turn to the reports from the land-grant institutions and study the training, ranking, and salary of the coach. Among the football coaches in the land-grant institutions 7 have no degree, 24 have a bachelor's degree, 3 hold a master's degree, 2 the degree of doctor of medicine, and 2 the Ph. D. degree. In one of the institutions reporting the coach has the title of director of athletics; in 25 he is given the rank of professor; in 5, associate professor; in 2, assistant professor; in 2, instructor; and in 9 he has no academic status. He is appointed directly by the president in 24 of the institutions, by the president and governing board in 11, by the students in 4, and by the athletic board in 4. He is held directly responsible to the president in 26 of the land-grant institutions; to the director of athletics in 10; to the athletic council in 4; and to the associated students in 4. Although he may sometimes fail to attain faculty rank, his salary rarely ever fails to out-rank faculty salaries, and frequently it is greater than that of his own direct head. The highest salary listed was $10,000, made up $4.500 from the administration funds and $5,500 from athletic receipts. Two football coaches in other institutions were listed at $8,000. In one institution a nice balance was kept by giving the head of the department and director of athletics the salary of $8,000 and the head football coach the salary of $7,950, thus keeping them apart by the discreet distance of $50. One might expect to find football coaches in the lowest age group of the faculty members, but this is strikingly not so. The age range is from 26 to 51, and the median in the 27 schools submitting these data is 38. The coach is given a number of assistants, the maximum number in any single institution being 12 and the minimum 1, with the average about 4.

One of the evils frequently charged to intercollegiate football is the subsidizing of players in order to attract them to a certain school. The land-grant institutions all protested ignorance of any practices. of this sort within their doors. None had any loan funds available to athletes only, none awarded scholarships to athletes only, none awarded fraternity scholarships to athletes only, and none maintained any aids which were available to athletes only. One institution was aware of one alumni scholarship awarded to athletes only, and one had a few service scholarships available to athletes only. The phrases we know of none," "not to our knowledge," and “not so far as we are aware" came in again and again as disclaimers.

66

The institutions were asked to discuss the problems which arise with intercollegiate football. The first one that came up for consideration was its overemphasis. Most of the schools felt that this overemphasis comes very largely from the newspapers and professional sports writers rather than from the institutions themselves. But, a study made of the space in college papers devoted to intercollegiate football shows that a large proportion of the space is given to this single interest in comparison to all the other interests of the institution and of the community.?

The count was made for the period from October 5 to October 17, 1924. A measurement of the space devoted to the various aspects of college life in the papers published by four universities showed that no other single interest ranked as high as did football. The chief complaints of the officials who replied to this question in the survey were that the sports writers in order to make a good story, either disregard or garble facts; that their exploiting of the individual player "gives the athletes the big head" and makes them disregard their real college work; that sports writers insist on playing up the individual athlete to the detriment of the team; that they continually paint too rosy a view of the prospects, thus leading to disappointment when the team loses; that they expect good teams with poor material; that they encourage student migrations; and that they continually criticize the penurious athletic policy of the institution. One school complains that they persistently release information prematurely.

The student group tends to overemphasize athletics in a different way. The student migrations at the time of great out-of-town games cause most worry to the administration. The distractions that such a migration necessarily creates, the missing of classes, and the frequent attendant misbehavior of students away from home, were given as the major criticisms against the student body. The overemphasis on the importance of football by alumni takes still another form. Alumni can hardly be prevented from attempting proselyting and recruiting. One president reported that they caused insomnia in the athletic and administrative offices. Several mentioned the embarrassment created by their demanding the resignation of coaches when teams lose. In one instance they had assisted an ineligible man to cover up the facts; in another their relentless criticism had caused retirement of the whole athletic staff.

When it came to a discussion of the domination of football by business men, the situation seemed less serious. This domination took the form mostly of free advice, attempts to influence the administration, and again some proselyting. It is apparently much easier,

2 Fisher, Edwards Artman, Undergraduates, p. 91.

however, for the administration to ignore the pressure brought by the business man than that by the alumnus. Only one institution reported any real embarrassment from this source.

Another problem mentioned was the adjustment of class schedules. Few institutions admit that they make any difference for their athletes in this respect. Only five reported special adjustments for participants in major sports and of these four were in military drill. All the land-grant institutions reported that they enforce the same rule for cuts on varsity players as on other students. While 11 institutions feel that football is distracting in respect to class work, 29 are not especially concerned. One of the latter remarked that it was not more distracting than many other extracurricular activities; 12 felt that the overemphasis was being gradually eliminated; but 31 institutions could see no diminution.

The evils most generally inveighed against in intercollegiate athletics are scouting and proselyting, and yet 40 of the land-grant institutions defend scouting when practiced openly as a legitimate part of intercollegiate procedure. Most of them make definite provision for this observance of a rival's plays in games preceding their own and, as one expressed it, "open scouting is preferable to bootleg and gumshoe tactics." Open scouting does away with subterfuges and mutual suspicion on the part of coaches. Proselyting is a different matter, and not 1 of the 44 land-grant institutions reporting has been guilty of any infractions, according to their own reports; neither had any of them indulged in professional football. Recruiting of seniors from high schools, however, was admitted by 11. If these reports can be taken at face value, these evils are in a fair way to be wiped out.

Another problem confronting some of the schools is that of playing games on neutral ground, i. e., on playing fields not owned by the institution of either of the competing teams. Twenty-five of the 44 land-grant institutions which replied to this question had played such games in 1927-28. In a few cases it was because there were no adequate facilities on either campus; in several, because the neutral ground was centrally located for both teams and its use cut down expenses. In most cases, however, the game was played on neutral ground for the money and advertising, and frequently this was also because of alumni pressure. Only one expressed complete dissatisfaction with this situation, the others felt that while it was not always advantageous it had proved expedient.

While betting and drinking were mentioned as two other problems in connection with intercollegiate football, both seemed to be confined largely to the alumni and business men who attend, rather

than to the faculty and student body. It was interesting to discover also that the alumni were more of a problem than were the business men, even though the latter outnumbered the former heavily in attendance at games. Betting is a less serious problem for the institution itself than is drinking. A number of the institutions mentioned the use of both local and Federal police forces at their games in order to curb drinking. In several institutions the student governing board in its disciplinary function handled student offenders. Probation, suspension, and expulsion were some of the punishments mentioned, and one institution reported expulsion and "direct publicity." Every institution indicated that control of this situation was improving.

The most interesting section in the whole discussion of intercollegiate athletics proved to be the rather brief one on suggestions which would help to reduce the evils of intercollegiate athletics. Some of the suggestions were quite drastic. Two institutions suggested that participation of players in all intercollegiate games should be limited to one college year or at the most two, instead of the three that are now allowed. Several indicated that the first step in improvement of the situation would be to lighten the load on athletic receipts, since this is depended on so largely to support the whole intramural department also. Another institution suggested the elimination of all championships. Several pointed out that the development of intramural sports might eventually materially cut down the emphasis on the intercollegiate games. On the other hand, three institutions insisted that there was no overemphasis and that in fact intercollegiate athletics should be more highly developed in their particular sections than it now is. A check with the financial reports of these three institutions revealed that in one intercollegiate athletics is supported by a compulsory fee of $10 per year paid by every student; in a second, the net receipts from intercollegiate football had been less than $3,000; and in the third, an actual deficit had been incurred. These facts may have something to do with the opinions expressed. The most drastic suggestion, although probably the least practical, was that intercollegiate games should be played with no paid admissions, the game made an invitation affair, and the game expenses paid from the regular funds of the competing institutions. One pessimistic official said that the two worst evils, proselyting and the student exodus, had no possible remedy. Another institution recommended that practically all the games should be played on the home field of the institution—an obvious impossibility.

The main hope seemed to lie in the creation of better attitudes on the part of the student body and the development of intramural

sports and second teams, more complete control of the entire situation by the faculty, and stronger stress on the scholastic standards of the competing players.

The whole question of financial support of the physical education and athletic programs of land-grant institutions is inextricably involved with the receipts from intercollegiate athletics. The facilities provided for intramural sports depend largely upon the intercollegiate program of the institution. In many cases, too, the receipts from intercollegiate football are depended upon to finance practically all of the athletic activities conducted by the institution.

The domination of intercollegiate athletics is again clear from the replies to the questions concerning the stadia. Twenty-seven out of the 44 institutions report that they have a stadium; 14 of these stadia cost more than $100,000. The use of them for college exercises other than football matches was sporadic. Some of the events mentioned other than athletic contests were farmer's week, opening convocation in the fall, commencement, military exhibitions, Memorial Day exercises, pep meetings, open-air opera, alumni gathering, sunset festival, Fourth of July fireworks, and agricultural club meetings. It is clear that the stadia are probably not used for more than three or four occasions in any one institution in any one school year except for intercollegiate games.

The field house is a recent development in athletic equipment. It is a structure with floor space large enough to provide real playing fields under cover, and its erection marks a definite step forward in the intramural sports program of the institutions. Thirteen of the land-grant institutions report such structures.

Twenty-eight institutions have swimming pools, either indoor or out; 6 of the land-grant institutions have golf courses, while 15 have water courses adequate for various water sports. Only two out of all the institutions reporting had no tennis courts, and only two failed to maintain a cinder track. The number of football fields ranged from one to eight and baseball diamonds from one to nine. Of the 44 land-grant institutions reporting on this section of the survey, 3 had no gymnasium for men.

It would seem that far more adequate provision is made for the physical education and recreation of the men students in the landgrant institutions than is made for the women students. On the other hand, it must be kept in mind that the women, where separate facilities are provided, may use them at all times, while a more extensive list of facilities for the men students may not mean that the majority of men are free to use them to anywhere near so large an extent. Attention was called earlier in this report to the fact that the intercollegiate teams of all sorts hold first call on all the facilities and that in particular the intercollegiate teams have the use at the best and most popular hours. It means little to the average man in