University of Virginia Library

The publication of the rules of
conduct for members of the
football team should open a few
more eyes to the real nature of the
Blackburn barony and of the Sebo
satrap. Who is watching the
watchmen? Quite justifiably, you
concluded that nobody was.

As a member of the Student
Council Committees on Athletics
and the Comprehensive Fee I
Interviewed the Budget Officer of
the University, Mr. Darryl W.
Bierly, Mr. Bierly, in the course of a
long and amicable discussion, noted
that he was streamlining accounting
procedures in the Comptroller's
Office. Under the new streamlined
procedure, the Athletic Department
has merely to submit a general
request for funds. If the request is
not above a half-million dollars, no
particular questions are asked about
how the money is disbursed. This
deliberate ignorance gives the
Athletic Department a free hand
with University - and our - funds.
But other interesting facts came
out.

Mr. Bierly, an admitted football
enthusiast, was unwilling to
dispense with the athletic fee as
part of the comprehensive fee and
to substitute cut-rate tickets for
students in its place. His reasons
were several: 1) the students now
have the equivalent, want it or not,
of a general cut-rate ticket; 2) the students, even if they never attend
an interscholastic athletic event,
receive more than their money's
worth from use of such facilities as
the tennis courts and the gym; 3)
although the football team supports
itself and the other sports through
the gate receipts that it takes in, the
athletic fee is essential for the
survival of the football team. (Sic!)

Now not only did Mr. Bierly
admit under further questioning to
not being able to prove that
football was more than, or even
just, self-supporting, he admitted
that he had no way of knowing
whether football did not really cost
more than it took in. He was not
even interested in pressing such an
investigation. He also had no figures
available to support his contention
that the athletic fee went for the
upkeep of the tennis courts or the
gym, etc. Indeed, the upkeep of
these facilities is more often than
not carried by Buildings and
Grounds and not by the Athletic
Department which pays little more
than bargain rates for use of
University Hall. Whether, indeed,
the intramural program costs even a
little more than a pittance is a
question whose answer lies buried
in the Athletic Department. What is
clear, however, is that the real
financial cost of interscholastic
athletics at UVa is larger than the
published figures. It is quite
probable, moreover, that the cost
of intramural athletics is even less
than it is generally made out to be.

It is also clear that, de facto, the
Athletic Department is financially
accountable, at present, to no one
at UVa, not even to the Budget
Officer of the University - it pays
to have a fan in the right place. The
smokescreen that the satrap and his
barons have thrown up around their
operations and the runaround
accorded by them to those seeking
straight answers to questions of
public interest lead one to wonder
whether these men especially are fit
to govern the public, let along the
private, lives of UVa's gladiators -
if indeed there should be such
control, and if indeed there should
be gladiators at all.