University of Virginia Library

the sports scene

Running
'Em Off

by bob cullen

DURING THE 1930'S, NYU used to field some pretty good
football teams. The Violets had a coach named Chick Meehan
who had a talent for building winning football teams in a hurry.
The key to Meehan's success was his use of football scholarships.
If a player was injured, or failed to produce on the field, the
amiable Meehan simply took away his scholarship and imported
another player to use it. The non-productive athlete usually had
to leave school.

Coaches like Chick Meehan eventually forced the NCAA to
protect the recipients of athletic scholarships. As the rules
evolved, the cardinal principle became the student-athlete's right
to remain on scholarship for four years, whether he played or
not. The only exceptions were athletes who went on academic or
disciplinary probation.

PROTECTION OF ATHLETES led inevitably to the other side
of the scholarship abuse coin. Many schools have signed players
to grants-in-aid who had no intention of trying to participate in
sports, who took the four year ride and gave nothing in return.
Some schools responded by "running off" such students through
various and often unsavory means of persuasion. They did this at
their own risk, however, for the NCAA rules still held to the
principle that an athlete's scholarship was inviolable.

That was the situation until last month's NCAA convention in
Los Angeles, when a new interpretation of the strictly limited
circumstances under which an athletic scholarship may be
revoked was introduced and passed over the clamor of many
dissenting voices. Under the new rule, and athlete may lose his
scholarship if he is judged, by the regular scholarships awards
authorities of the institution," to be guilty of "manifest
disobedience through violation of established athletic department
policies applicable to all student-athletes."

THE FUROR AND FEAR this regulation set off have yet to
die away. The general opinion of the national press was that the
rule was a license for any coach so inclined to adopt the methods
of the Chick Meehans. Negroes felt that the rule was implicitly
designed to prevent Afro haircuts and other expressions of Black
cultural identity which have occurred at several schools in recent
years. The opposite view was expressed by Walter Byers, NCAA
president, who must share the services of the AAU's public
relations consultant. Byers dismissed all fears, saying, Hogwash!
Nothing like that goes on in our colleges."

While the possibilities of wholesale abuse of the new rule by
the nation's athletic departments are slim, we are not about to
believe that they are hogwash, either. Two prevalent
misconceptions should first be cleared up. The first is that a
coach or athletic director could decide the fate of a student's
scholarship. Any revocation of athletic scholarship must be
approved by the school's scholarship committee, and the Athletic
Department isn't even represented on the University's. A coach
would have to ask the committee, chaired by Dean Williams, to
act, and Mr. Williams would expect reasons more substantial than
long sideburns or poor performance on the field before revoking a
scholarship.

On the other hand, there will be circumstances where the
athlete's guilt or innocence will not be so clear. There is no way
of telling what "established athletic department policies" could
result in the termination of a scholarship and it would be a
misconception to think that there will never be any disagreement
or confusion as to what they are. The Scholarship Committee
ought to consult with Mr. Sebo and the coaches to define and
publish the specific offenses which could be covered by the new
ruling. Furthermore, they ought to guarantee that no
student-athlete will ever lose his scholarship for violation of any
but those rules.