University of Virginia Library

Viewpoint

Athletic Housing

By Ted McKean

Part of the "secret" for the
creation and maintenance of a big
time college football program today
lies in the housing of athletes
together in one huge complex
tying the tangible (muscle) with the
intangible (team spirit and desire)
to produce that holy goal: victory.
Alabama's Bear Bryant became one
of the first proponents of the
system; now "Jock Hiltons" are
commonplace at universities around
the country.

The ACC, in an effort to plug
holes in an athletic ship which is
sinking fast in national prominence,
has for the most part accepted the
athletic dorm idea as a sound one,
South Carolina, a school whose
athletic program is rising quickly
through phenomenal financial
donations, has recently erected
"The Roost," a million dollar
complex strictly designed to house
athletes. Maryland too has an
athlete's dorm. North Carolina
takes restriction of athletes a step
further by not permitting football
players to join fraternities.

The plan Coach Blackburn
instituted at Virginia prior to the
1967-1968 season varies
substantially from any of these
systems. Basically, the system
requires all football players to live
together in suites throughout the
upper class Alderman Road dorms,
with the exception of various
fourth year players who may live
on the Lawn if so chosen, in their
fraternities if they choose, or with
their wives which is logical. The
object of the whole deal is, simply,
unity.

Since the plan was instituted
with some objection from students,
faculty, alumni, and players, the
modifications with respect to
fourth-year n were necessary. And
when the plan went into effect,
Coach Blackburn made it clear that
it was done so on a probationary
basis. In short, it was an
experiment, with the hope that the
direct improvement of the football
program would be the result.

With the season now concluded,
the coaches should once again
evaluate this decision. For once
again, it does not appear that team
unity, the goal of the whole idea,
has been achieved to such a degree
that it warrants the limitation of an
athlete's freedom to choose where
he might like to live.

Inherent flaws in the Blackburn
system do exist. First of all, a
number of the team leaders both
years have taken the various
fourth-year options to avoid
Alderman Road. This year,
Co-Captain Rick Moschel, defensive
signal caller Boyd Page, three year
starter Pete Schmidt, and Al
Ferrara are on the Lawn. Danny
Fassio resides on the Range, and Al
Sinesky is on Copeley Hill.

Last year, Co-Captain Gene
Arnette was on the Lawn, along
with several other senior players,
and the other Co-Captain, Rick
Brand, was enjoying that blissful
existence on Copeley Hill. Both
years other senior players have
chosen to live in their fraternities.
What, then, is unity without the
leaders to coordinate it?

Also, is it really such a good idea
to force a group of ten players to
live together to build rapport when
the common denominator of these
gridiron gladiators is often more
than merely football? After all,
getting along on the field and
getting along off the field are two
very different things.

Speaking on the subject, a
prominent member of another
Virginia team said, "Sure, I like all
the guys on the team. Seeing them
at practice every day is fine. But
living with them would be another
matter there are probably only
three or four guys I could live with
all the time."

Perhaps the football coaches
have not taken into account the fact
that a reverse effect may be a
product of the forced cohabitation.
Unnecessary off-the-field
resentments can easily build up and
adversely affect performances on
the field when football is the forced
common interest.

The alternative are two: either
go "big time" and establish an
athletic dorm housing all
scholarship players, or abolish the
system entirely by returning to the
plan where all players voluntarily
choose where they would live. (This
would not rule out players taking
suites on Alderman Road if they
liked.)

To go the "big time" route is
doing little more than
professionalizing the college
athlete, who is professionalized
enough already. On the other hand,
to dismiss the regulation forcing
football players to live in the dorms
would in my estimation hardly
hinder the team's performance. In
fact, it might even improve things.

The real question is, then are
our football players students first
or jocks first? They are called
reverently by the athletic
department "student athletes." But
until they are freed from the
restriction binding them to life in
the dorms, they will remain jocks.
The system was worth a try, but it
warrants another close look.