University of Virginia Library

The Athletic Future

With the dismissal of George Blackburn,
head football coach at the University, and the
earlier hiring of Gene Corrigan as Director of
Intercollegiate Athletics the University is
presented with the rare opportunity to assess
and completely alter the thrust of the athletic
program here. We have never been outspoken
exponents of the policies directed by Coach
Blackburn during his six years in his effort to
bring big time football to the Grounds of the
University. His athletic record as far as wins
and losses are concerned has already been
examined and condemned as unsatisfactory;
we are much more interested in the attitude
that now appears to dominate the thinking of
officials in the Athletic Department and in
the Administration.

We believe that this attitude is one which
advocates bringing the business of
professional athletics within the confines of
the University. It is most clearly embodied in
the statement made by Vice President
Williams on the day of Coach Blackburn's
unseemly firing: "This decision to change was
made because it was felt that the University
needs to revitalize its position in Atlantic
Coast Conference football." We do not want
to "revitalize" the athletic program in a way
which will be detrimental to the health of this
institution which is based upon educational,
not business foundations. The revitalization
to which Vice-President Williams refers is
winning, not only winning but winning
against better and better teams. This has
resulted in professional sports at countless
other universities.

The athletic program at the University
should be an educational and enjoyable
experience for a great number of its students,
not just a few professionals who have to live
and eat with each other. It should be aimed at
giving the majority of students here more
than just admission to athletic events to see
the professionals battle.

Those students who participate in athletics
on an intercollegiate level should not be
alienated from the rest of the University
community; in big time athletics, especially
football, they are.

The University has by no means reached
the level of South Carolina with their million
dollar "roost" or Alabama with the Bryant
Hilton, but we are slowly, clumsily plodding
in that wrong direction. Next year the
football schedule includes the University of
Michigan and we will play Texas in the future.
We believe that now is the time to stop this
trend. We want the distinction between
athlete and student erased: to change the
image of the athlete as a "jock" and the
student as a "weenie."

Undoubtedly the alumni served as the
pressure behind Mr. Blackburn's sudden
dismissal, since there was no organized
movement on the part of students or faculty.
We agree with his removal, as we have stated
previously, but not for the reasons that
motivated the alumni dissatisfaction. The
athletic program should benefit the students
primarily; it should be directed to attract the
most students possible; it should not
concentrate its efforts on a few recruits in an
attempt to turn them into professionals to
please the alumni's taste for big time victory.

The next coach for football should be a
man who is aware of the educational
principles upon which this University was
founded, the spirit of the University. His
football players should be students, not
pushed away from the mass of their fellows to
become professional athletes. He should push
for a football program that does not have as
its primary goal, winning the ACC, but rather
developing the participating students by a rich
athletic, educational experience.