The Cavalier daily :: Thursday, October 15, 1970 :: University of Virginia Library

THE FIRST-YEAR FOOTBALL TEAM is undefeated so far
this season. Two weeks ago they beat a Maryland team that was
regarded as the top freshman team in the East. Using this as a
guide, one can say "We're Number One."

IF THIS TEAM IS AS GOOD as it appears, and if it gets even
better when it becomes the varsity team, the University will
probably have its best team in many years. It may even become
the first Virginia team since the late forties to gain national
stature.

THE TEAM and, most importantly, the recruiters who made it
all possible, are a success. But what price does the University pay
for such success? A story in yesterday's Richmond
Times-Dispatch claimed that the University's "new" admission
policy is responsible for the rising football fortunes. Let's take a
look at the admissions policy.

FOR STARTERS, Dean of Admissions Ernest H. Ern said that
less than half of the 28 members on the first-year team would
have been admitted to the University four years ago under the old
admissions standards. Also, 25 of the 28 are on athletic
scholarships.

FOUR YEARS AGO, the Dean of Admissions was Marvin
Perry. He was alleged to have a "numbers man." That means he
weighted an individual's SAT's and high school grades very
heavily in determining admissions. This is, Mr. Ern says, "a sterile
approach." Under the new policy, the judgment is made on "a
variety of factors." It would seem that one of these immeasurable
factors is how well the individual can play football.

MR. ERN SAID; "We are not admitting statistics, but
individuals." He added, "We always ask the basic question: Can
the student, whether he is an athlete or not, do the work here. We
talk to the coaches, look at the class rank, examine board scores,
and sometimes I call the recruit's high school." He also takes into
consideration personal interviews, and the academic reputation of
the student's secondary school with regard to class rank. Mr. Ern
says this is a "most personal type of approach." He and other
admissions officials claim that the University hasn't "relaxed" its
standards, only changed them.

THE CHANGE HAS PRODUCED a winning football team.
That is obvious. What isn't clear is what else it will produce,
especially academically. Although 90 per cent of this year's
entering class was in the first or second fifth in class rank, their
board scores were about 23 points lower on the average than they
were four years ago, although they are still over 1200.

AT SOME SCHOOLS, athletes are students first, and players
second. On the other hand, at schools like Alabama, Texas, etc.
football is a full-time occupation. Here the athletes are beginning
to be segregated from the rest of the student body. They are
forced to live together, eat together, and wind up not really being
a part of the student body. This is unfortunate for both parties.

THERE IS A GROWING ORDER of professionalism creeping
into the University's football program. We are planning to go
big-time. Next year we play Michigan, two years ago we played
Purdue, in 1983 we will play Texas. Plus, the ACC on the whole
is growing big-time. South Carolina's Paul Dietzel threatened to
quit the ACC because the conference wouldn't lower the SAT
requirements. This is what the University is going to have to
compete with in the future. To lick 'em, it will have to join 'em.

RECRUITING 25 FOOTBALL PLAYERS a year may not
ruin this University, nor even lower its academic reputation, but
the antagonism it produces among students who claim that a
double standard is used for admissions, the alienation it produces
between football players and other students is a dangerous
quantity. Success may not be worth the price.