University of Virginia Library

Viewpoint

Phys. Ed. Department??

By Ted McKean

The annual meeting a week ago
in Greensboro, N.C. of the ACC
athletic directors indicates a serious
split developing between various
schools concerning athletic aspirations.

South Carolina announced that
by 1973, it plans to add 20,000
seats to its football stadium, boosting
capacity to 70,000. Also, a
Gamecock proposal was aired
which would raise from 35 to 40
the number of grants-in-aid to be
offered in any one year, and would
do away with any maximum limit
on the number of grants in effect in
a particular year.

The executive committee of the
conference also proposed that all
teams do away with ACC-required
800 total point score on the College
Boards for prospective athletes.
Instead of the 800 total, the
executive committee suggested that
ACC teams conform to the NCAA
regulation of maintaining at least a
1.6 scholastic average.

Fortunately for Virginia's sake
neither of these proposals passed,
although Athletic Director Steve
Sebo said that by the tone of the
meetings prior to the voting, it
sounded as if they might.

The inherent faults in the
proposal to increase the number of
grants-in-aid is fairly obvious. To
recruit quantity instead of quality
is foolish; and to administer a total
of 160 football players could be
very difficult. Even Paul Dietzel,
South Carolina's football coach and
athletic director, acknowledged
these facts.

It was surprising however that
the motion to go by the NCAA 1.6
grade point average instead of the
800 total SAT rule did not pass.
Although Virginia and Duke are
definitely on the rise academically,
South Carolina, Clemson, North
Carolina State, and Maryland seem
to be fairly static academically, and
the rules alteration could help
them. This is clearly indicated by
the mere presence of that motion
to dismiss the 800 SAT qualification.

What does all this mean at
Virginia? First, it indicates a great
divergence of opinion on the part
of various conference schools on
the question of compromising academies
for athletics. And second, it
indicates that at least some schools
in the conference must be operating
on a budget that vastly exceeds
Steve Sebo's.

It also means that the University
will soon have to make some
adjustments if the Cavaliers are not
destined to be the future ACC
doormat.

To conclude that, due to the
high academic standards of the
University, the field of prospective
athletes is drastically and necessarily
smaller than the same field
for some of our rivals, is not
difficult.

A way to increase the range of
prospective athletes would be to
re-establish a Physical Education
department with a four year program.
According to Mr. Sebo, there
once was such a program leading to
a degree, however it was suspended
because "A" grade gifts to athletes
had become common and blatant.

To implement a full physical
education program could substantially
improve athletics without
necessarily compromising the University's
academic standing. First, it
would provide a program which
would be attractive to a significant
number of athletes who come to
college to play football with aspirations
to either go on to the pros or
go into teaching and coaching.
Second, it would enable the hiring
of coaches to teach as well and
thereby assume a dual role.

If the new department were to
remain small and selective, and
divorced from the College, then it
could not seriously jeopardize the
University's academic standing.
And coupled with the University's
good, established reputation, such a
department would attract good
people.

Spokesmen in the athletic department
have been on record as
favoring such a move for years.
Now then is the time to consider
the establishment of a four year
physical education program.

Not only would such a program
satisfy the needs and interests of an
element of the student body, but it
would substantially increase our
ability to field competitive teams in
a conference with such a wide range
of academic standings.