This dissertation has been microfilmed exactly as received 69-11,671

MARTINELLI, Fred Marion, 1929- A BRIEF HISTORY OF SUBSIDIZATION AND A FOLLOW-UP STUDY COMPARING GRANT-IN-AID AND NON-GRANT-IN-AID ATHLETES AT THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY 1957-1962.

The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1968 Education, physical

University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan A BRIEF HISTORY OF SUBSIDIZATION AND A FOLLOW-UP STUDY

COMPARING GRANT-IN-AID AND NON-GRANT-IN-AID

ATHLETES AT THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY

1957-1962

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

.0 ° By

Fred M. Martinelli, B.A.# M.A.

The Ohio State University 1968

Approved by

Adviser Department of Physical Education ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer wishes to express his sincere appreciation to

Dr. Bruce L. Bennett for his constant encouragement* enthusiastic guidance and valuable assistance not only during the course of this study but throughout the entire graduate school program.

Sincere gratitude is extended to Dr. Simon Dinitx* Dr. Lewis Hess and Mr. Richard Larkins for their patient guidance* valuable assistance and sincere friendship in assisting with this study.

Appreciation is also extended to the Ohio State University athletes who made this study possible.

ii VITA

February 15, 1929 .... Born - Columbus, Ohio

1947 ...... High School Diploma, Westerville High School, Westerville, Ohio

1951 ...... B.A. in Physical Education and History, Otterbein College, Westerville, Ohio

1951-1956 ...... Teacher-Football Coach, Bellville High School, Bellville, Ohio

1956-1959 ...... Teacher-Football Coach, Bryan High School, Bryan, Ohio

1959-19 1 ...... Assistant Professor of Physical Education, Head Football Coach, Ashland College, Ashland, Ohio

1960 ...... M. A. in Physical Education, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1964 ...... Associate Professor of Physical Education, Head Football Coach, Ashland College, Ashland, Ohio

1968 ...... Chairman, Division of Health, Physical Education, Athletics and Intramurals, Ashland College, Ashland, Ohio

iii CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... ii

VITA ...... iii

TABLES ...... vii

Chapter

I. NATURE* PURPOSE AND DESIGN OF STUDY ...... 1

Introduction ...... 1 Purpose of the S t u d y ...... 6 Design of the S t u d y ...... 8 Definition of Terms ...... 15

II. SPORTS IN AMERICA PRIOR TO 1906 ...... 17

American Attitude Toward Winning ...... 17 British Influence ...... 19 Influence of the Protestant Ethic ...... 19 Growth of Intercollegiate Sports ...... 20 Subsidization in the Late 1800's...... 21 Early Control of Athletics...... 22

III. THE ORIGINATION OF THE N.C.A.A. AS AN EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATION AND ITS EFFECT ON SUBSIDIZATION 1906 - 1940 ...... 27

Formation of the N.C.A.A...... 27 Subsidization in the First Constitution ...... 32 The Baseball Problem ...... 34 Amateurism Defined ...... 35 Subsidization 1906-1920 ...... 36 Pseudo-Rhodes Scholarship ...... 37 World War I ...... 38 Constitution Revision in 1922 ...... 39

iv CONTENTS (Contd.)

Chapter Page

Subsidization in the 1920* s ...... 39 Carnegie Foundation Studies of College Athletics...... 41 Following the Carnegie Reports ...... 44 The N.C.A.A. Code of 1934 ...... 45 Increase in subsidization ...... 46 Adoption of the Term* Grant-in-Aid ...... 48 Pressures for Enforcement ...... 49

IV. THE N.C.A.A. AS A REGULATORY ORGANIZATION AND ITS EFFECT ON SUBSIDIZATION* 1940-1966

Constitutional Revision in 1940 ...... 54 Additions to the Revision* 1 9 4 1 ...... 56 Effects of the W a r ...... 57 Post War B o o m ...... 57 The Sanity Code...... 59 Reaction to the Sanity C o d e ...... 64 Sanity Code on T r i a l ...... 65 Death of the Sanity C o d e ...... 67 Constitutional Revision 1952 67 Basic Constitution Revision ...... 6 8 Infractions Since 1954 71 Regulations Since 1952 72 Recent Developments Affecting Subsidization ...... 75 Current Practices in Athletic Subsidization ...... 78

V. ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

Characteristics of the Study Population ...... 83 Socio-Economic Background of the Athletes' Parents...... 86 The Athletes* Academic Background and Achieve­ ment in Higher Education ...... 89 Factors Which Led to the Athletes Decision to Attend The Ohio State University ...... 98 Nature of Financial Aid Received and Personal Opinions Relating to this Matter ...... 106

v CONTENTS (Contd.)

Chapter Page

Support of the University Through the Alumni Association and Related Activities ...... 112 Present Status in Society ...... 116 Factors Related to the Athletic Experience ...... 125 Personal Impressions Regarding the Athletic Experience...... 140

VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 147

Summary4 Historical Development ofSubsidization . . . 148 Summary* Follow-up Study of Ohio State University Athletes ...... 152 Conclusions ...... 160

APPENDIX...... 166

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 172

vi TABLES

Table Page

1. Questionnaires Sent out, Returned and Usable .... 84

2. Questionnaires Sent Out and Returned According to Sports Participation ...... 85

3. Socio-Economic Position of Respondents' Father According to the North-Hatt Scale ...... 87

4. Fathers' Educational Background ...... 88

5. Mothers* Educational Background ...... 89

6. Graduated From The Ohio State University ...... 91

7. Graduated from Some College or University Other Than The Ohio State University ...... 91

8. Major Field of S t u d y ...... 92

9. Source for Selection of Major Field of S t u d y ...... 93

10. Received Tutorial Assistance Through the Athletic Department...... 94

11. College Degrees Received ...... 96

12. Military Service ...... 97

13. Offer of Financial Assistance ...... 99

14. Athletic Status of O.S.U...... 100

15. Influence of O.S.U. Coaching Staff ...... 101

16. Influence of A l u m n i ...... 102

17. Influence of High School C o a c h ...... 103

vii TABLES (Contd.)

Table Page

18. Proximity to H o m e ...... 104

19. Status as State University ...... 105

20. Influence of P a r e n t s ...... 105

21. Academic Status of O.S.U...... 106

22. Influence of Students on C ampus...... 106

23. Sport in Which Grant-in-Aid Was Received ...... 108

24. Financial Assistance Through Sources Other Than the Grant-In-Aid...... 109

25. Would Grant Recipients Attend Ohio State Without Benefit of a Grant-In-Aid...... 110

26. Did Respondents Develop Athletic Ability in High School with the Thought of Securing Financial Assistance for this Ability in College?...... Ill

27. Opinion Regarding the Extent of Financial Aid which Should Be Permitted to Athletes ...... 112

28. Alumni Association Membership ...... 113

29. Financial Contributions to the University ...... 114

30. Contribution to the Development Fund on an Annual Basis ...... 115

31. Other Contacts with the University...... 116

32. Present Socio-Economic Position of Respondents as Determined by the North-Hatt Scale and Divided Into Highv Middle and L o w ...... 118

33. Socio-Economic Status of Fathers ...... 119

viii TABLES (Contd.)

Table Page

34. Comparison of Socio-Economic Status of Respondents and Fathers ...... 120

35. Gross Income for 1966 ...... 121

36. Conposite Response Regarding Membership in Various Organizations ...... 123

37. Leadership in Various Organizations ...... 124

38. Annual Contributor to Political Party ...... 125

39. Served on Political Party Committee or Held Political Office ...... 125

40. Intercollegiate Sports Participated in by Respondents...... 127

41. Number of Varsity Letters Received in Each S p o r t ...... ‘...... 129

42. Professional Sports Participation ...... 130

43. Specific Sports Played on the Professional Level . . . 131

44. Years Participated in Professional Athletics ...... 132

45. Injuries from Intercollegiate Participation ...... 133

46. Opinion of Level of Prestige as a Varsity Athlete ...... 134

47. Level of Satisfaction in Varsity Athletic Participation ...... 135

48. Sons' Participation in Varsity Athletics ...... 136

49. "Did Athletic Participation Restrict your Campus or Social Life?" ...... 137

ix TABLES (Contd.)

Table Page

50. Number of Sports Attended as Spectator,, Watched on TV or Followed with Interest...... 139

51. Number of Activities Pursued on a Recreational B a s i s ...... 140

52. Frequency of Participation Per W e e k ...... 140

53. Analysis of Replies to Open Q u e s t i o n ...... 141

x CHAPTER I

NATURE, PURPOSE AND DESIGN OF STUDY

Introduction

This study concerns a vital and much debated aspect of inter­ collegiate athletics - the subsidization of college athletes. Various aspects of subsidization will be discussed, especially the effect of the grant-in-aid program on former varsity athletes at The Ohio State

University.

The value of intercollegiate athletics and its effect on student participants have been subjects of great debate and concern since their

beginning on the American college scene. The entire history of inter­

collegiate athletics has been beset by problems and issues of major pro­ portions. This has been true both in their philosophical or theoretical

derivations and in their practical implementation.

From the beginning of athletics in America the very fundamental of

play itself was challenged by the principles of Puritanism and the

Protestant ethic. Later controversies centered around the wide perspec­

tive of issues relating to organization, finance, eligibility, subsidi­

zation, amateurism, facilities, local, regional and national affiliation,

television, the need principle, the 1.6 rule and many others. That

athletics has withstood the heated controversies related to these issues

in the past century is an indication of its influence and acceptance within the national framework of the American college and university

life. Nevertheless, its merits have been heatedly and passionately

debated.

The individual athlete has been the object of much of this

controversy. Due to the central position he has occupied in the scheme

of American college athletics, much attention has been directed to him

ranging from petty discussions to scholarly writings. Who is he? How

has he compared with other students on campus academically and otherwise?

What have been the immediate and long range effects of athletic partic­

ipation?

The ramifications of these questions have added much interest.

While the literature is saturated with personal testimonials from those

serving in the military, business, education or politics, scholarly

attempts at more objective treatment of these subjects can also be found.

For example, the academic competence and status of college athletes

as compared to non-athletes has been the subject of much study especially

during the formative years of college athletics. Early writings on the

i 9 Q subject can be found by Williams and Hughes,1 Cooper, Rarick, Davis,^

1Jesse F. Williams, and William L. Hughes, Athletics in Education, (Philadelphia, W. B. Saunders Co., 1930), p. 85. o John A. Cooper, ’’The Effect of Participation in Athletics Upon Scholarship Measured by Achievement Tests,” (unpublished Ph.D. disserta­ tion, Pennsylvania State College, 1933). 3 Lawrence Rarick, "Survey of Athletic Participation and Scholastic Achievement," Journal of Educational Research. XXXVII (November 1943), 174-180.

^Elwood Davis, and John Cooper, "Athletic Ability and Scholarship," The Research Quarterly, V (December, 1934), 69-78. 5 6 7 Kissell and more recently by Kirshner and Steuck. Perhaps the most comprehensive treatment of the subject was done by Stecklein and

Dameron.® A survey of literature on the relationship of athletic partic­ ipation to academic performance yields conflicting and inconclusive results. There are just about as many authors who conclude that athletes are academically superior to non-athletes as there are who believe there is no difference or that non-athletes are superior.

The effect of intercollegiate athletic participation upon the individuals* personal life and socio-economic status has been the focal point of a number of follow up studies. Among the studies reported in periodicals which attempted to compare athletic groups or athletes and non-athletes were those by Kunkel,^ Tunis,1** Edey,11

5 Howard Kissell, "A Comparative Study of the Scholarship of Athletes and Non-Athletes,” (unpublished Master*s thesis. The Ohio State University, 1936.

^Richard Kirshner, "Participation in Athletics and its Effect on Academic Success at Central Michigan University." (unpublished dis­ sertation, Michigan State University, 1962), from Dissertation Abstracts, 1962, p. 2000. 7 R. H. Steuck, "A Comparison of Scholastic Performance of Athletes and Athletic Participants with Non-Athletes at Wisconsin State College at LaCrosse," (unpublished dissertation, Colorado State College 1963)| from Dissertation Abstracts, 1964, 275-276. 8 John Stecklein and Logan Dameron, Intercolleoiate Athletics and Ar.ariemic Progress,. (Minneapolis, Bureau of Institutional Research, University of Minnesota, 1965).

^B. W. Kunkel "Undergraduate Activities of Leading Alumni," School and Society. XXV (February, 1927), 259-260.

l0John R. Tunis, "Men of Harvard Twenty-Five Years After," Readers Digest, December, 1936, pp. 57-60.

iiMaitiand Edey, "The Class of '32," Life Magazine, June 16, 1947, pp. 51-60. 4

Husband,*^ Coughlan1^ and Bennett.1^ Raizk1'* and Altman1^ recorded their findings in masters theses. In 1965, the American Football Coaches Asso­ ciation*^ conducted a superficial followup type study on the subject and distributed the finding to its members.

In addition to debate regarding the worth and value of the athletic experience, another related subject has attracted much attention. The matter of subsidization with all of its moral, ethical and practical complications has been a focal point of controversy throughout inter­ collegiate athletic history. While critical issues in intercollegiate athletics have changed with the times, problems related to subsidization have remained and at times athletic administrators probably feel they are no closer to solutions than were their predecessors at the turn of the century.

■^Richard Husband, "What Do College Grades Predict?** Fortune, June, 1957, pp. 157-158.

^Robert Coughlan, "What Happens to Football Players," Snorts September 24, 1956, pp. 109-115.

*^Bruce L. Bennett, "Ex-Athletes Comment on their Varsity Experi­ ence." Journal of Health, Physical Education and Recreation- XXIX April, 1958, 16, 26, 44. 15 Fred Raizk, "A Study of Vocational Status of a Selected Group of Wilmington College Graduates," (unpublished Master's thesis, The Ohio State University, 1954).

*^James Altman, "A Comparative Study of the Status of Selected Athletic and Non-Athletic Graduates of Capital University," (un­ published Master's thesis, The Ohio State University, 1959).

l7American Football Coaches Association, "What Becomes of College Football Players, Other Athletes and Non-Athletes 10, 15, 25 Years After Graduation, A National Survey." 1965. (Mimeographed.) Perhaps there are several reasons for this predicament. First, for a variety of reasons, the American people have placed a high premium on winning. Second, colleges and athletic administrators have demon­ strated divergent viewpoints regarding the practice of subsidizing college athletes. Third, the commercialized aspects of aggressive athletic programs have periodically tempted college administrators to use athletics for overall college or university purposes. The last and possibly the most significant factor confusing the issue has been the partial recog­ nition and acceptance of the English model of the amateur ideal. The fact that this concept has roots in a system and way of life different from what we have experienced and accepted in the United States has re­ sulted in much confusion, especially in the development of a criteria of acceptable and unacceptable practices in several areas of intercollegiate athletics.

The failure of colleges and universities to reach agreement on subsidization policy and practice has left much room for criticism.

Institutions in the South have been noted for their practical approach to athletic problems while those in the Northeast and Midwest have attempted a more idealistic approach.

With this background of confusion concerning subsidization and its relation to the educational and commercial value of athletics, it is little wonder that today's system incites much criticism. The matter comes to the foreground when one reviews the various conference and National

Collegiate Athletic Association problems of recent years. For instance,

in 1966 the Western Conference was rocked by the slush fund scandal at the University of Illinois while at the University of Pennsylvania the athletic director of this Ivy League school claimed he was being fired for refusing to condone a slush fund for football players. One wonders whether subsidization in intercollegiate athletics has developed to the 1 ft degree that adds validity to the contentions by such critics as Morris 19 and Shaara that college athletics are professional and that the athletes should be paid accordingly for their services.

This brief introduction has attempted to focus on the interest that has been directed to the American college athlete. His scholarly and vocational achievements have been the subjects of comparison with non-athletes. Also* the matter of subsidization and of its controversial relationship to college athletics has been briefly discussed.

Purpose of the Study

This investigation has a dual purpose. First an attempt will be made to trace the historical development of subsidization of American college athletes particularly as influenced by the legislation and action of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (hereafter referred to as the N.C.A.A.). Secondly, a follow up study will be conducted of former lettermen and grant-in-aid athletes who participated in the varsity athletic program at The Ohio State University from the fall quarter of

1957 through the spring quarter of 1962. The grant-in-aid is of central importance to this study and consequently this group of athletes will be

^M. H. Morris, "Some Amateur Athletes are Underpaid," Phi D^ita Kappan, XXXIX (October, 1957), 19-22.

^Michael Shaara, "Colleges Short Change Their Football Players," Saturday Evening PostT November 5, 1966, pp. 10-14. studied by comparing this component to the following!

1. Socio-economic status of the athlete's parents.

2. Personal information regarding the athlete's academic background and factors related to their achievement in higher education.

3. Factors related to the decision of the athlete to attend The Ohio State University.

4. The nature of financial aid provided by the University and personal opinions relating to this matter.

5. The support that has been given to the University by athletes through the activities of the Alumni Asso­ ciation and other related activities.

6. The athlete's sociometric status and community activities.

7. Factors related to the athletic experience.

a. Extent of varsity athletic participation.

b. Physical injury resulting from athletic parti­ cipation.

c. Direct vocational benefits.

d. Some personal opinions and reactions to the athletic experience.

e. The extent of interest in sports as a spectator, follower or participant.

The follow-up portion of this study is unique in several respects.

Other studies have attempted to compare athletic groups, athletes and non-athletes or to just gather gross data on athletes graduating from a certain institution. This study is different in that an attempt is being made to compare grant-in-aid and non-grant-in-aid athletes. Also, an attempt will be made for more objectivity. While other studies have used a simple frequency and percentage distributions for statistical analysis, in this study statistical significance of the data will be determined by use of the chi square test.

The five year period from which athletes were selected also is «■ significant for this study. During this period, 1957-1962, the rules of the Western Conference of which The Ohio State University was a member recognized the allocation of financial aid according to the

"need principle." Therefore, this dissertation could shed some light as to effectiveness of this program.

Design of Study

A dual type study seemed appropriate since the purpose of this project was to report on the development of subsidization of athletes

and to investigate the present status of grant-in-aid as conpared with

non-grant-in-aid athletes. Information for the first portion of this

study was gathered by the historical method of research and for the

second part descriptive research was used.

Historical research. The characteristics of historical research

identified by Best is as follows:

Historical research is the application of the scientific method of inquiry to historical problems. It demands standards of careful methodology and spirit comparable to those which characterize other types of research. Histor­ ical research involves identification and limitation of the problem; formulation of the hypothesis; collection, organi­ zation, verification, validation, and analysis of data; testing the hypothesis; and writing of the historical account. All of these steps lead to an understanding of the past and its relevance to the present and the future. 0

20 John W. Best, Research in Education, (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1959), p. 86. 9

In order to present historical data concerning the development of legislation pertaining to financial aid to athletes on the national

level, it was imperative to secure the proceedings of meetings held by

the N.C.A.A. The complete set of these proceedings from 1906 to 1967

is very rare. This fact is verified by Paul Stagg^1 who in 1946 0 acknowledged the existence of only three complete sets. However,

through the cooperation of the Oberlin College Library and the Director

of Athletics at The Ohio State University, a set of proceedings with

exception of the 1949 yearbook was made available. Oberlin College is

in possession of the rare collection of the minutes of the proceedings

for the years 1906 to 1943. For various reasons, several of the later

editions were difficult to locate. In addition to these, other sources

such as books, dissertations, reports, and periodicals were accessible

from the library at The Ohio State University.

Descriptive research. Due to the nature of this report and of

the group under consideration, the descriptive data were secured by

using the follow-up and survey methods. Best defines these terms as

follows:

Descriptive research describes and interprets what is. It is concerned with conditions or relationships that exist; practices that prevail; beliefs, points of view or attitudes that are held; processes that are going on; effects that are being felt; or trends that are developing.22

2lpaul Stagg, "The Development of the National Collegiate Athletic Association in Relationship to Intercollegiate Athletics in the United States, 1906-1942." (unpublished PH.D. dissertation, New York Univer­ sity, 1946), p. 7.

22Best, op. cit.T p. 102. The survey method gathers data from a relatively large number of cases at a particular time. It is not concerned with char­ acteristics of individuals as individuals. It is concerned with the generalized statistics that result when data are ab­ stracted from a number of individual cases. It is essentially cross sectiona. 3

The follow up study investigates individuals who have left an institution after having completed a program, a treatment, or a course of study. The study is concerned with what has happened to them, and what has been the inpact of the insti­ tution and its program on them. By examining their status or seeking their opinions, one may get some idea of the adequacy or inadequacy of the institution's program. Which courses, experiences or treatments proved to be of value? Which proved to be ineffective or of limited value? Studies of this type enable an institution to evaluate various as— pects of its program in light of actual results.24

This phase of the study necessitated the identification of a specific group for study consideration, the development of an in­ strument to secure information from a large number of individuals and appropriate analytical procedures to interpret the data.

The study population consisted of all athletes who won a varsity letter or received an athletic grant-in-aid from the Ohio State

University commencing with the fall semester of 1957 and extending through the spring semester of 1962. Athletes who did not receive a varsity award or grant-in-aid were not a part of this study. Also excluded were student equipment managers or trainers. This group of athletes will be referred to as the "study population" throughout the remainder of this report.

23Ihid, p. 107.

24IhidT p. 120. The names of the study population were secured from two sources.

Lettermen were obtained from lists which were available through the

Secretary of the Varsity "0M Association. Names of grant-in-aid recipients were made available from files in the office of the Director of Athletics. After eliminating duplications a master list of names was obtained.

Addresses for the study population were secured from several sources. The master list secured above was first submitted to sec­ retarial personnel in the office of The Ohio State University Alumni

Association. After they had exhausted their files for addresses, the master list was then turned over to the Secretary of the Varsity ”0" who was able to make additions to the list. Perhaps it should be pointed out that the above sources contained only those names in the study population who had graduated or received a varsity athletic award. The addresses of those who did not fall into either catagory were obtained from files in the office of the Registrar. After this involved screening process, a master list was compiled containing 710 names and addresses.

These athletes from whom information was solicited were located throughout the entire nation and, to some extent, the world. Since it was inpossible to make personal contact, the only practical means of collecting the desired information was by means of a questionnaire.

In developing the questionnaire instrument the nature of this study was discussed with male members of the Department of Physical

Education and Athletics at Ashland College and with former college athletes now residing in the Ashland community. These men had the opportunity to participate in athletics on the college level and their experiences ranged from the small college to the large univer­ sity. Several had lettered at The Ohio State University. Questions related to alumni support of the University were discussed and devel­ oped with several officials in the office of The Ohio State Alumni

Association. These pilot testings resulted in many of the specific

items appropriate for inclusion in the final instrument.

The first questionnaire consisted of seventy-five questions on five pages. It was readily apparent that this instrument was too

lengthy. Therefore, several revisions dealt with the matter of re­ ducing the questionnaire. This was accomplished in conferences with

members of the dissertation committee held individually and collec­

tively. Also, suggestions emanating from a departmental colloquium

contributed greatly to the development of the final instrument. There

were five revisions of the questionnaire.

The final form of the questionnaire consists of thirty-eight

items on two pages. The essay question concerning reactions of the

athletic experience was taken verbatim from Bennett's*^ study of

Ohio State University lettermen conducted in 1957. The complete

questionnaire appears in the Appendix.

During the month of April 1967, 710 questionnaires were prepared

and mailed to the study population. Included in the mailing of each

questionnaire was a cover letter from Mr. Richard C. Larkins, Director

25Bennett, o p . cit.T 16. 13 of Athletics at The Ohio State University. A copy of this letter is found in the Appendix. Also enclosed was a self-addressed envelope.

Prior to this mailing, the questionnaire forms were coded so as to facilitate follow up procedures.

By May 1, 1967, a total of 339 completed questionnaires or approximately 47% had been returned. In addition, 38 had been returned by the postal department because the respondent had moved without leaving a forwarding address. A second mailing of the questionnaire with a letter from the writer was prepared and forwarded on May 10, 1967, to those who had not returned the original. A copy of this letter is found in the Appendix. As a result of this follow-up procedure an additional 70 responses were received. Added to the original number of 339, the returns from the study population totaled 409 or approx­ imately 57 percent.

It was decided to organize the data collected from the question­ naire for computer treatment. Since the grant-in-aid was the significant factor under consideration, the design for computer processing initially divided respondents according to whether they had received an athletic grant. Thus, in the tables those receiving athletic grants are referred to as "G" while those not receiving athletic grants are referred to as

"NG." Since the socio-economic background of the parents might have had some bearing on the replies, a further subdivision was needed. Socio­ economic status was established on the basis of the father's occupation p/L 9 7 as determined by the North Hact Scale and of its revised version.

Initially this factor of occupation was subdivided into catagories of high, medium and low status. However, the small number of responses occurring in the high and middle catagories forced us to combine them into one catagory. Thus, the responses were computerized to record data into the catagories of grant low, grant high middle, non-grant low and non-grant high middle.

The data were tabulated for each item under consideration and subjected to appropriate statistical treatment of frequency, percentage and/or chi square distribution. The chi square test is a simple and direct test of significance in cases where the frequencies can be observed in more than two events. It indicates the significant dif­ ference between observed and expected frequency. Acceptance of the significance of data was set at the .05 level.

The Computer Center at The Ohio State University provided consultation for the transfer of data from the questionnaire to data sheets. Next the Center transferred the information from the sheets to computer cards. The cards were then programmed to provide frequency and chi square computation of the data according to the study design.

Percentages and expected frequencies for each table were then determined by the use of a smaller computer.

26cecil North and Paul Hatt "Jobs and OccupationsS A Popular Evaluation," Opinion Newst (September, 1947), 3-13.

^ R e v i s i o n of the North-Hatt Scale, Department of Sociology, The Ohio State University, 1967. (Mimeographed.) 15

Definition of Terms

Subsidization. Providing financial aid or other assistance to athletes in consideration of their services on college teams or squads.

Recruiting. The solicitation of school athletes with a view to inducing them to attend a college or university.

Proselvtina. The solicitation of athletes who have already established academic affiliations.

The need factor. The principle of allotting a scholarship or grant in aid on the basis of demonstrated financial need. This need is generally determined by an impartial body after reviewing the parents* statement of financial status.

Parents confidential statement or Princeton Form. A sworn state­ ment of income and assets filed by the guardian of an applicant for financial assistance from a college or university. This completed form is generally forwarded to the College Scholarship Service which has offices in Princeton, New Jersey, Evanston, Illinois, and Berkeley,

California. In the period that the Big Ten operated on the need basis, the statements were forwarded directly by the parents to conference offices in Chicago. The computations were returned directly from this office to each institution.

Academic Scholarship. A form of financial assistance given by the

University to a student strictly on the basis of proven academic compe­ tence. This competence is determined by class rank, classroom grades

and national test scores. Job Grant. The job grant program was initiated at The Ohio State

University in 1947 and terminated in 1957. Athletes were assigned jobs by interested businessmen in local concerns and by the State of Ohio through its various departments.

Letterman. One who received a Varsity "0" for accomplishment in a recognized varsity sport.

Grant in aid recipient. For the purpose of this study, a recip­ ient was an athlete who received some form of financial assistance for his skills. At The Ohio State University this was administered through the athletic department.

Grant in aid. The nature of financial aid given to an athlete.

The basis for this award is proven or potential athletic skill and established minimum academic standards. The term "grant in aid" as differentiated from "scholarship" was recommended for adoption at 28 The Ohio State University in 1957.

2®J. E. Fullington, Chairman, "Report of the Faculty Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics at The Ohio State University," The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, May 7, 1957. p. 29. (Mimeographed.) CHAPTER II

SPORTS IN AMERICA PRIOR TO 1906

The purpose of this chapter is to briefly examine some of the underlying causes of subsidization and to trace the development of college sports in America prior to 1906.

Subsidization in American college athletics has probably been the result of the following sequence. First, a major American value has been the desire for success in any activity or undertaking be it work, play or athletic games. Second, in athletic games that group or team possessing the best physical skills or talents is most likely to win. The desire to win coupled with the loser's feeling of dissatis­ faction with the talent available led to recruiting and to subsidization.

American attitude toward winning. In attesting to explain the

American desire to win, Tunis1 took his cue from historians and related the development of the frontier to sports by identifying the character­ istics possessed by the frontiersman. The traits of optimism, the necessity of competition, the ability to overcome unsurmountable prob­ lems, recognition of the equality of man and the desire to succeed were readily noted and could be related to sports.

^ohn R. Tunis, The American Wav in Snorts. (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1958), pp. 9— 19.

17 18

The must win attitude by competitors and spectators alike was o recognized by early leaders in athletics such as Grantland Rice,

Alonzo Stagg and Dudley Sargent.^ This attitude was severely criti- 5 cized and questioned by Ade Christensen in the 1950's. In our present

day, Cowell and Schwehn^ identify it as a significant social trend

affecting the American culture.

In order to win, a team must attract players possessing the

unusual skills and reactions that are so highly correlated in per­

forming unusual physical feats. Dr. Dudley Sargent whose prophetic writings are becoming realities in our day recognized this when he

wrote, "The basis for athletic success is to secure at the start an

athlete of acknowledged ability, one who possesses the natural

proclivities to perform on a high level.Because of the demand,

the superior performer is a highly sought commodity. Sargent also rec-

2 John R. Tunis, SnortsT Heroics and Hysterics.. (New York; The John Day Company, 1928), p. 2.

^Debatei Should Anv Student in Good Cnlleniate Standing Be Permitted to Plav in Intercollegiate Baseball Contests. Reprinted from Intercollegiate Athletic Association, (January 2, 1908), p. 11.

^Dudley Sargent, Physical Education, (Boston: Ginn and Company, 1906), p. 106.

5Ade Christensen, Verdict of the Scoreboard. (New York: The American Press, 1958).

^Charles Cowell and Hilda Schwehn, Modern Principles and Methods in High School Physical EducationT (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1958). p. 14. 7 Sargent, o r ., cit»t P* 106» 19 ognized this condition at the turn of the century when he noted that

"if the prospective athletes means of living do not incline him toward the institution that most desires his athletic abilityt then superior social advantages* indirect assistance or even pecuniary inducements are sometimes held out to him."

British influence. The American interest in sports and games comes mainly from English sources. English life for generations had been marked by participation in games and the desire for play and conpetition. In Savage's study* his general summary concluded that games and sports in England were characterized by (1) their importance to the educational process, (2) their casualness in the college environment* (3) enphasis upon academic work with sports in an ancillary position, (4) dependence upon social and economic status for participation,

(5) participation and interest in sports throughout life* (6) enphasis on general rather than precision development of skill and (7) a clear g line of distinction between the amateur and professional.

Influence of the Protestant ethic. While sports in America were

influenced by the traditions of sport in England* there were other

factors which determined its status in our setting. The Puritans of

New England were not sport loving people and frowned on games and

recreation in any form. According to Piper1® this Puritan asceticism

^Ibid, p. 166.

^Howard Savage* Games and Snorts in British Universities Bulletin Number 18* (New Yorks The Carnegie Foundation* 1929)* p. 199.

l0John Piper, "Puritanism: Its Effect on American Recreation," The Ohio High School Athletet XXVI (May 1967), 207— 210. 20 coupled with Calvinist traditions did much to inhibit the development of sports and recreation in America. It should be noted that early

settlers in the South took a more liberal point of view toward sports and gambling.

While the American college provided the background for sports

development in America9 it afforded little stimulus to this movement.

It conceived of education primarily in terms of training the mind.

Though very limited provision was made in the first half of the 1800's

for the inclusion of physical activitiest the programs were character­

ized by work and discipline. As students initiated games of a more

expressive naturet historical data attest to the outlawing of these

activities at various colleges.

Athletics in American colleges started as a student centered and

student sponsored activity. Since the dominating philosophy of the

1800's excluded sports as part of the curriculum, students were left

on their own in the organization and conduct of these activities. This

resulted in a number of problems and abuses which led to the gradual

inclusion of athletics under the auspices of the college or university.

growth Of iBtfirCflUeqiate sports.. Though intercollegiate athletics

actually started before the Civil War* the movement accelerated following

this event. The following record is chronicled by Stagg.11 The first

intercollegiate contest on record was rowing* a race between Yale and

Harvard in 1852. The first intercollegiate game of baseball is reported

11Paul Stagg, "The Development of the National Collegiate Athletic Association in Relationship to Intercollegiate Athletics in the United States," (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. New York University, 1946) p. 20. 21 to have occurred between Williams and Amherst in 1859. The third sport played on an intercollegiate basis was football which had its beginnings

in a game between Rutgers and Princeton in 1869. The first championship

track event was conducted in 1873. Lacrosse was initially played on an

intercollegiate basis in 1881 when Harvard* New York University* Columbia

and Princeton formed teams and played a series of games. The first inter­ collegiate tennis championship was held at Trinity College in 1883. The

first intercollegiate basketball game probably occurred in 1893* while

ice hockey started with a game between Harvard and Brown in 1896. Swimming

appeared in 1897 with a meet between Pennsylvania and Columbia.

Intercollegiate sports suffered from many problems and abuses

during this period of student control. Rules of play were inconsistent.

Contests were marked by rough play especially where body contact was a

part of the game. Fighting during and after games was commonplace.

Leadership was poor and those in charge were not overly concerned with

the welfare of the individual participant or of higher education.

Eligibility standards were loose or non-existent. Reports of gambling

were frequent. On the matter of subsidization* Rice reports that in

the very first baseball contest between Williams and Amherst in 1859,

"rumor of unfair advantage lifted its ugly head.Ml^

Subsidization in late 18001s. Open subsidization and proselyting

of athletes was quite prominent during this era. Actually* teams were

conposed of college students and town residents playing either under

12 Emmett Rice, John Hutchinson and Mabel Lee, A Brief History of Physical EducationT (New York: The Ronald Press Co., 1958), p. 196. 22 the name of the college or community. Each group hired from the other to ensure their chances of winning. Consequently talented athletes sold their services to the highest bidder causing much fluctuation as to the rosters of teams. The terra "ringer1* was an outgrowth of this period.

The following accounts are indicative of the subsidization activity during this period. Kiracofe writes that "it was a familiar spectacle to watch the seasonal migration of bird like athletes. They went from college to college, proselyted, cajoled, flattered, tempted and paid by false athletic leaders and false friends of athletics.

Woerlein recounts that "during the 90*s the co-captains and managers of football teams openly hired and solicited skilled athletes. Direct offer of money, promise of part time employment, athletic success, social favor and joys of college life seem to have been the most power­ ful attraction to the prospective recruit."1^ In 1889, Harvard faced the season with limited material. Stagg reflects that "this position was inproved by the acquisition of three players, two from the profes- nl5 sionals and another veteran.

Early control of athletics. Due to the growth of intercollegiate

*%dgar Kiracofe, "An Historical Study of Athletics and Physical Education in the Standard Four Year Colleges of Virginia," (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Virginia, 1932), p. 54.

14George W. Woerlein, "Intercollegiate Athletic Conferences, Their History and Significance," (unpublished Master's thesis, The Ohio State University, 1938), p. 36.

l5Stagg, on. cit.- p. 25. 2 3 sports with its associated problems it was obvious that some type of control was needed to curtail the bitterness and chaos that had developed. According to one sourcet the formation of Associations in different sports was the first step in establishing a uniform basis for the conduct of intercollegiate athletics.1^* Rowing, the first intercollegiate sport, was also the first sport to organize with the formation of the Rowing Association of America in 1870. Associations for other sports were formed in the period from 1870 to 1895. The early associations were conposed of student representatives and they were primarily concerned with securing agreement on rules for the respective sports. From this beginning, the responsibilities of these associations gradually broadened to include other problems in an effort to ensure the desired equalization.

Another form of athletic control came with the formation of the

Amateur Athletic Union. The enthusiasm that was generated by the growth of sports following the Civil War led to the rise of sports clubs or athletic clubs. Each club sponsored amateur athletics. By

1879, participation in sports had grown to such proportions that a

need for standardization, control and nation wide promotion was felt.

The New York Athletic Club took the lead in 1879 by forming the

National Association of Amateur Athletes of America.1? Its aims were

^Deobold Van Dalen, Elmer Mitchell, and Bruce Bennett. A World History of Physical Education (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall Inc., 1953), p. 400.

l7Ihid.t p. 401. 2 4 to check on the evils of professionalism# keep athletics on a respect­ able level, promote legitimate sports, define rules and conduct corape- iQ titions in a fair and orderly manner. Out of this organization developed the Amateur Athletic Union (A.A.U.) in 1888, which assumed control over all sports, including college sports, by forcing the registration of all athletes to declare their amateur standing. From the beginning there was much disagreement between this organization and the colleges. This difference has been so pronounced that it has created a schism between these two groups, and this has led to major problems relating to our past and present Olympic efforts.

A third method of athletic control came through the development of institutional regulations by the college faculties. This movement occurred between 1880 and 1890. Faculty control of athletics came about under different circumstances in each institution as is evidenced by a review of the literature. 19 20 21 Harvard was one of the earliest

institutions to develop this type of control. In 1882 a three man

18 Rice, Hutchison and Lee op. cit., p. 228.

^Denton Elliott, "A Historical Study of the Development of Physical Education at Otterbein College," (unpublished Master's thesis. The Ohio State University, 1949).

2®George W. Woerlein, "Intercollegiate Athletic Conferences, Their History and Significance," (unpublished Master's thesis. The Ohio State University, 1938).

^Wesley Fesler, "A Brief History of Physical Education at Harvard College," (unpublished Master's thesis, The Ohio State University, 1939). 25 faculty committee was set up following faculty complaints that students 22 were missing too much school because of their games.

Another method of intercollegiate athletic control came with the organization of athletic conferences. Conferences came about when faculty committees realized that the problems of athletics were so formidable that each individual institution could not solve these alone. Due to the leadership of Dudley Sargent and the Harvard faculty committee, the first joint attempt to extend faculty control to the conference level came with the proposed organization of the Intercollegiate Athletic Conference in

O ' i 1883. Nine colleges met for the purpose of improving college sports.

A minority of this group wanted to restrict college athletic practices of that time and made specific proposals for this purpose. Since a majority of the colleges present would not agree to these proposals the conference failed to materialize.

Perhaps some differentiation between the terms, association and conference, should be made. Association was commonly used when colleges grouped together to control problems related to one sport, and this dealt primarily with the standardization of rules. Also, the associ­ ations were primarily controlled by students. On the other hand, conferences were controlled by the faculty and actually represented the extension of the principle of faculty control of athletics to a group

22 Van Dalen, Mitchell, and Bennett, op. clt.t p. 400.

23lbijl.« p. 400. 2 6 of colleges. ^ Conferences were composed of colleges in the sane geo­

graphic area and they acted on matters of a broader nature for all

sports.

The first conference organized was the Southern Intercollegiate

Conference founded in 1894. This was closely followed by the organization

of the Western Conference in 1895. The latter conference stated its

objectives to "insure faculty control, the regulation of intercollegiate

athletics as institutional activities, and to develop harmonious inter- 25 collegiate relationships with member institutions."

24Harry Scott, Coroetitive Sports in Schools and Colleges. (New York; Harper and Brothers, 1951), p. 231.

25Van Dalen, Mitchell, and Bennett, on. cit., p. 401. CHAPTER III

THE ORIGINATION OF THE N.C.A.A. AS AN EDUCATIONAL

ORGANIZATION AND ITS EFFECT ON

SUBSIDIZATION 1906 - 1940.

Now* we will follow those events that led to the organization of

the National Collegiate Athletic Association and to chronicle the leg­

islation of this body related to the subsidization of college athletes

up to 1940. No single agency has been as influential in guiding the

destinies of American intercollegiate athletics as this organization.

Through its philosophy* legislation and subsequent interpretation by

the leadership of its officers and members, it has exerted a profound

influence on college sports. Its attitudes toward subsidization has

changed periodically and this has been reflected by the practices

adhered to and followed by the majority of colleges throughout the

United States.

Formation of the N.C.A.A. Since the early 1 8 7 0 ' s football has

been the most popular sport connected with college life. It has also

been the most controversial. Rice states that it has been the "most

opposed and condemned; it has caused more college conferences and

agreements than all other games combined."1 Also* the professional

1Rice, Hutchinson and Lee op. cit.t p. 224.

27 2 8 spirit and gambling that has frequently been reported has left the game open to harsh criticism. One can readily observe how the game was responsible for the early adoption of regulations regarding subsidization in the development of the N.C.A.A.

In 1876, the Intercollegiate Football Association was founded for the purpose of regulating football rules in the United States. Columbia,

Harvard and Princeton were the original members with Yale, Chicago, Cornell,

Pennsylvania and Annapolis joining at later intervals. The proceedings of the conventions and sessions of the rules committee from 1876 to 1910 are o included in the appendix of a book entitled Foo^bpll..*

The problems of subsidization in that day led this group to adopt

one of the earliest codes of agreement on the matter. At the meeting of

November 4, 1889, the following motion was made by Walter Canj> and adopted

by the group:

No professional athlete shall take part in any contest of this association, nor shall any player of any university or college be paid or receive, directly or indirectly any money or financial concession or emolument as present or past compensation for, or as a prior consideration or inducement to playing, whether the same be received from or paid at the instance of the football association, athletic committee or faculty of such college or university or any individual whatsoever.3

At the turn of the century problems related to athletics in general

and to football specifically reached such serious proportions that the

sport was abolished at several institutions. The accusations against

^k'arke Davis, Football, (New York: Charles Scribner and Sons, 1911).

^Howard Savage, American College Athletics Bulletin Number 23, (New York: The Carnegie Foundation 1929), p. 25. 2 9 athletics at that time included charges of demoralization of the college and of academic work, dishonesty, betting and gambling, pro­

fessionalism, recruiting and subsidizing, the employment of the wrong kind of men as coaches, the evil effects of college athletics upon

school athletics, the extravagant expenditure of money, the roughness and brutality of football, and the general corruption of youth by the 4 monster of athleticism.

The control of athletics went from one extreme to another during

this period. At one extreme, the athletic program was controlled by

students and as Scott points out, "this in effect meant no control at

all.At the other extreme, athletics came under the jurisdiction

of faculty conmittees. Their direct and associated problems were

entirely new to the educators of that period since nothing like ath­

letics had previously been a part of the educational curriculum. All

this contributed to an uneasy state of affairs.

The focal point of irritation for administrators of this period

was the conduct of football. The game had reached a chaotic condition

because of the constant squabbling among the members of the rules com­

mittee and the nature of the game devised through their efforts. The

bodily danger of the game was attested to by the fact that between 1901

and 1904 68 deaths and 804 incapacitating injuries were recorded.6

4Ibid.t p. 25.

Sscott, QP. ell.t P. 90.

6Charles Hackensraith, History of Physical Education. (New York: Harper and Bow Publishers, 1966), p. 398. 3 0

By 1905 the feeling toward football had become so widespread that it attracted the attention of President Roosevelt. He called several meetings with representatives of Yalev Harvard and Princeton to discuss the brutality in football and the possibility of rules changes to al-

7 leviate the situation. Prior to a second meetingt the death of a Union

College athlete was widely publicized and this resulted in the dropping of football by Columbia. These events rekindled the great controversy surrounding the sport.

On December 9, 1905, Chancellor H. M. McCracken of New York

University called a meeting of the nation's colleges to "determine whether (1) college football was worth keeping, and (2) if so, what could be done to improve it."8 A number of representatives from the twenty-eight colleges attending the meeting had a strong desire to abandon the game. However, due to the oratorical ability and efforts of

Palmer Pierce of West Point, the game was saved and future efforts were made to rid the game of its undesirable features.

A second meeting for this purpose was called for on December 28,

1905. This meeting was attended by delegates from 62 institutions and

Its purpose was to set up a new football rules committee. In spite of

the fact that none of the members of the old rules committee was present

at the meeting, provisions were made to bring about an amalgamation of

the two groups. The actual joining together of these two groups took

Tstagg, op. cit., p. 30.

8Van Dalen, Mitchell and Bennett, op. cit.T p. 437. 31 place at a later meeting and this group9 called the Football Conferencet Q began to function.

At the first meeting of the Football Conference it was decided to establish a permanent organization to be known as the Intercollegiate

Athletic Association of the United States.1** At their first meeting officers were elected and an executive committee was selected. During the year, a constitution and by-laws were drawn up by the new officers of the association. Thirty-eight institutions became members of this organization and Palmer Pierce became its first president.11

The name of the organization was changed in 1910 to the National

Collegiate Athletic Association. It was felt that the new name was more distinctive and appropriate in view of the national character of the

organization.12 Perhaps the old name had been confused with the Inter­

collegiate Amateur Athletic Association of America (I.C.A.A,A.)# an

association of eastern colleges.

The N.C.A.A. was organized with the idea that its basis and

influence would be national in scope. The guiding principles in establish­

ing its first constitution were the concept of faculty control and compe-

9 Intercollegiate-Athletic Association. Proceedings of the First Convention* (December 29* 1906)* p. 22.

10Stagg, op, cit.* p. 34.

UVan Dalen* Mitchell and Bennett* op. cit.* p. 437.

l2Palmer Pierce* "Address*" The National Collegiate Athletic Association^ Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Convention, New York, (December 28* 1911), p. 48. 3 2 tition by amateurs. There were divergent points of view as to how these goals should be accomplished.

The first constitution provided for a stringent set of eligibility rules with strict methods of enforcement. This proposal was hotly debated and was eventually rejected by a majority of members as im­ practical. Consequently the constitution was rewritten and provided for neither legislative nor executive powers. In this concept* the

N.C.A.A. was conceived as an educational body organized with the intent of accomplishing its purposes by supporting the ideals of amateur sports by college students* establishing well defined notions of the associ­ ations* principles* writing rules of play for college sports and sug- 13 gesting eligibility rules and regulations. Thus its purpose was not to act as a national regulatory and supervisory body for college athletics but as an agency to educate the colleges to strive for high

ideals in their own individual programs.

Subsidization in the First Constitution. The first legislation related to subsidization is found in the by-laws of the constitution,

Article VI* Principles of Amateur Sport* and Article VII* Eligibility

Rules. Because subsidization is related to the matters of eligibility

and amateurism* it is imperative to also examine statements concerning

the subject in these areas. Though the first constitution did not

define an amateur* it set forth its stand on amateurism in Article VII

of its by-laws:

3Palraer Pierce* "Address" The Intercollegiate Athletic Association, Proceedings of the Third Annual Convention* New York* (January 2, 1909)* p. 28. Each institution which is a member of this Association agrees to enact and enforce such measures as may be necessary to pre­ vent violations of the principle of amateur sport such as:

a. Proselyting 1. The offering of inducement to players to enter colleges or universities because of their athletic abilities and of supporting or maintaining players while students on account of their athletic abil- itiest either by organizations* individuals* alumni or otherwise directly or indirectly.1^

The statement on eligibility included the following reference to subsidization:

No student shall represent a College or University in any intercollegiate game or contest who has at any time received* either directly or indirectly* money* or any other consider­ ation* to play on any team* or for his athletic services as a college trainer* athletic or gymnasium instructor* or who has conpeted for a money prize or portion of gate money in any contest* or who has competed for any prize against a professional.

In applying this rule the constituted authorities shall discriminate between the deliberate use of athletic skill as a means to a livelihood* and technical* unintentional* or youthful infractions of the rule.

No student shall represent a College or University in any intercollegiate game or contest who is paid or receives* directly or indirectly* any money* or financial concession* or emolument as past or present condensation for* or as prior consideration or inducement to play in* or enter any athletic contest* whether the said remuneration be re­ ceived from* or paid by* or at the instance of any organi­ zation* cownittee or faculty of such College or University* or any individual whatsoever.

This rule shall be so construed as to disqualify a student who receives from any source whatever* gain* or emolument* or position of profit* direct or indirect* in order to render it possible for him to participate in college or university athletics.

1 Constitution*1* InteiCQllfidiaie Athletic Association* Proceedings of the First Annual Convention. New York, (December 26* 1906), p. 33. 3 4

In case of training table expenses* no organisation or Individual shall be permitted to pay for the board of a player at said table more than the excess over and above the regular board of such a p l a y e r . *5

The baseball problem. The most controversial issue facing the

N.C.A.A. in its early years was the baseball problem. College athletes were playing baseball for pay during the summer vacation and then re­ turned to the campuses in the fall to compete in amateur athletic games. The relationship of this participation to the amateur code provided the focal point of the early convention meetings. The asso­ ciation made several attempts *7 to clear the air on the problem but this only served to identify the differences of opinion that ex­ isted. One report indicated that "the number of college players taking part in organized summer ball is so great* that it is inpossi­ ble to enforce the amateur rule without disqualifying the major portion of those engaged in that sport.The problem became so unmanageable in the Western Conference that baseball was discontinued as an inter­ collegiate sport in 1915.

The influence of the N.C.A.A. had a beneficial effect on col­ lege sports from the date of its inception to 1920. Among the many

l5Ibid.r p. 34.

16"Report of the Committee on Summer Baseball*” The Inter­ collegiate Athletic Association. the Sssani Annual Convention- New York* (December 28* 1907)* p. 23.

1^Questionnaire on Baseball*" The National Collegiate.Ath­ letic Association- EmfifltUiifls of the Sixth Annual, Convention* New York, (December 28* 1911)* pp. 12-16.

18IU A * « p. 17. 35 reforms, competition was restricted to full time students, limited to four and eventually to three years, the year's residence for transfer students went into effect and there was a general strengthening of eligibility rules.

In the area of subsidization improvement was not as pronounced or accepted by the idealists. Perhaps two factors influenced this condition. First, the concept of the amateur had been identified and defined along the lines of the British oriented Athletic Amateur

Union. Secondly, the methods of disbursing the subsidy had included the use of scholarships in addition to the across the board approach that had been previously used.

Amateurism defined. The matter of amateurism and of its sub­ sidiary problems is quite evident when reviewing the minutes of the early proceedings. In 1907 the Association appointed a committee on amateurism to study the problem. Under the leadership of Clark

Hetherington considerable effort was directed to identifying and dis­ cussing the many ramifications of this matter. A number of reports in the proceedings covered the broad topic of amateurism and its re­

lation to education. An outstanding report on the subject was de­

livered by R. Tait McKenzie1^ in 1910.

The definition of the work "amateur" was approximately ten years in the making. This was largely the work of the N.C.A.A., the

A.A.U. and the Athletic Research Society, an organization in-

^R. Tait McKenzie, "The Chronicle of the Amateur Spirit," National Collegiate Athletic Association Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Convention, New York, (December 29, 1910), pp. 40-55. 36 terested in athletics and physical education. The A.A.U. defined an amateur as:

One who engages in sport solely for the pleasure and the physicalt mental or social benefits he derives therefrom, and to whom sport is nothing more than an avocation.20

The definition developed by the Athletic Research Society read:

An amateur athlete is one who participates in competitive physical sports only for the pleasure, and the physical, mental, moral and social benefits directly derived there­ from. 21

This latter definition of an amateur was adopted by the N.C.A.A. at their convention in 1916 and became part of Article VI of the by­ laws.^ This caused the complete removal of Article VII, an elaborate set of eligibility rules.

Subsidization 1906-1920. The problem of subsidization was a mat­ ter of great concern to delegates in the formative years of the N.C.A.A. as evidenced by a review of the early proceedings. C. W. Savage of

Oberlin College reported that uthe subsidizing of college athletes by the bestowal of so-called scholarships was one of the four influences retarding the progress of college athletics.Also, other reports

20 Arnold Flath, A History of delations Between the National Colleeiate Athletic Association and the Amateur Athletic Union of the United States. 1905-I963t (Champaign, Illinois, Stipes Publishing Co., 1964), p. 35.

21Ihid- 22 "Constitution," National Collegiate Athletic Association- Proceed­ ings of the Eleventh Annual Convention, New York, (December 28, 1916) p. 53.

23q. w. Savage, "Fourth District Report," Tlte National Colleaiate Athletic Association ErPCSeflinflS. flt.lllft.Fifth flnniULLCQnYCntioa« New York, (December 29, 1910), p. 4. 3 7 from university administrators indicated great difficulty in preventing persons from raising money from alumni and other interested parties for the purpose of paying athletes.

Pseudo-Rhodes Scholarship. The term Scholarship” began to appear in the literature in the early 1900*s. By the 1920's the term was in wide use throughout the nation. Basically it denoted a form of subsidy allotted to a college student presumably because of his all around ability of which academics was a prime consideration. Howard Savage explained the relation of the term to athletics when he identified the existing practices in subsidization in the Carnegie Report in 1931. He

stated:

No single factor has contributed more directly in athletic scholarships in the United States than the second qualification set by the will of Cecil Rhodes for recipients of the Oxford scholarships that bear his name. In the so-called "all around" basis of award, the four qualifications set by Hr. Rhodes really reduce themselves to two: (1) academic success and promise, especially at football. This method of subsidization has been widely used in athletics.2d

Since the entire Rhodes criteria was listed by many colleges in

evaluating their scholarship selections, they should be enumerated:

1. Literary and scholarly attainment.

2. Fondness for and success in outdoor sports such as cricket, football and the like.

3. Qualities of manhood, truth, courage, devotion to duty, sympathy for and protection of the weak, kind­ liness, unselfishness and fellowship.

24Howard Savage, Current Developments in American College Sport«T Bulletin Number 26, (New York: The Carnegie Foundation, 1931), p. 41. 3 8

4. His exhibition during school days of moral force of character and of instincts to lead and take an in­ terest in school mates.

World War 1. In the period 1916-1920, normal operations of the colleges and the national association were disrupted by the war.

Schedules and programs were curtailed as part of the overall war effort.

While the value of athletics in preparedness for the war effort was ex­ tolled, there appeared to be considerable concern over the high rejection rate of those young men eligible for military duty.

The end of the war marked the beginning of an era which Danzig^ describes as the golden age of sports. The 1920's were characterized by outstanding individual performances on the college and professional

levels, enthusiasm of spectators, increase of interest in football and completion of huge stadiums.

While the whr effort minimized activity of the N.C.A.A., its com­ pletion brought forth new problems which added to the national scope of

the organization. Among the major problems attracting national attention

was the conflict with the Amateur Athletic Union, concern over the fitness

of American youth which resulted in national legislation requiring phys­

ical education in the high schools, and that age old problem of subsidi­

zation.

District reports at the national convention indicated deep concern

over the problem of subsidization. In the opinion of college presidents,

2$Savage, American College Athletics, p. 254.

26Allison Danzig, and Pete Brandwein, Sports Golden AaeT (New York: Harper and How, 1948). 39 deans and athletic directors, the problem had intensified and become 2 7 more serious than before the war. 1

Constitution revision in 1922. In 1922 the N.C.A.A. Constitution was again revised. This was probably due to the Association's continuing effort to define the amateur and to strengthen its position in dealing with this matter. Article VI of the By-Laws, Principles of Amateur

Sport, was removed in its entirety. A similar statement under the title of "Amateurism" was added to the main body of the Constitution under

Article VII. This article was divided into three parts. Section 1

defined the amateur as "one who engages in sport solely for the physical,

mental, or social benefits he derives therefrom, and to whom the sport

is nothing more than an avocation.2® This definition was similar to

that previously adopted by the A. A. U. Section 2 clarified the prin­

ciples of amateur sport while section 3 specifically enumerated vio­

lations of amateurism.

Subsidization in the 1920's. There were several developments con­

cerning subsidization to athletes which took place in the 1920's. In

1922, Yale, Princeton and Harvard formed an Athletic Agreement focused 29 on the matter of scholarships. The principles of this agreement

27ExerptS from letters, The National Collegiate Athletic Asso­ ciation, Proceedings of. the.,Fifteenth Annual Convention, Chicago, (December 29, 1920), pp. 90-96. 28 "Constitution," National Collegiate AthIeti£-Association» Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Convention- New York, (December 28, 1922), pp. 98-99.

29Ibid.T p. 15. 4 0 provided for faculty committee approval of all loans or scholarships and catalog publication of such awards along with the names of their recip­ ients. Perhaps this was an attempt to justify the pseudo-Rhodes approach in distributing financial aid to athletes. These basic premises were adopted by other colleges and even by some conferences. Some went to extremes in prohibiting the use of athletic ability in any form as a basis for allocating financial aid.

The distribution of funds by outside sources had been largely eliminated. Howevert in some areas this problem was still prominent.

The Southwest Conference attempted to curb this practice by bringing 30 it under the jurisdiction of conference regulations.

The most sweeping changes on the matter was taken by the Western

Conference. In January, 1927, a "Committee of Sixty" consisting of

presidents, faculty representatives, athletic directors, coaches and

alumni met to discuss recruiting and subsidization. This meeting resulted

in Conference adoption of a stringent set of regulations based on the

following principles. First, no financial aid was to be allocated to a

participant solely on the basis of athletic skill either by the univer­

sity or its alumni. Second, there were severe restrictions placed on

recruiting. For instance, coaches, and athletic directors were not per­

mitted to initiate contact with athletes and alumni, students, student

clubsS and alumni association officials were to refrain from improper

recruiting activities. And third, each athlete had to verify his ad-

3°"Sixth District Report," The National Collegiate Athletic Asso- elation, Proceedings of the Xweaty-Elrst.Annual Convention, New York, (December 30, 1926), p. 32. 41 herence to conference rules by signing a sworn statement.3* That the conference was initially serious in enforcing the above was evident by the near expulsion of Iowa from its membership in 1930.

The efforts of Major John Griffith in the above is in evidence.

Major Griffith had been appointed Western Conference Commissioner in

1923 with the understanding that his main task was to "educate the public to appreciate the ideals of collegiate and amateur sport."32

This, added to the fact that he was considered a leading figure in the

N.C.A.A. makes it likely that he would want his own conference to adhere

to the principles of the parent organization.

These attempts for stronger adherence to the existing amateur

concept were not followed as closely by institutions in the southwest

and southeast. For the most part they recognized athletic ability as a

criterion for financial aid. Their efforts at this time were directed

to bringing this problem within the sphere of college influence.

Carnenle Foundation Studies of College Athletics. Even before

World War I, trustees of the Carnegie Foundation, a philanthropic

organization, had become interested in intercollegiate athletics.

Hackensmith33 reported that in 1923 the Carnegie Foundation allocated a

3l"Fourth District Report," The National Collegiate Athletic AssociationT Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Convention. New York, (December 29, 1927), p. 25. 32 "Fourth District Report," The National Collegiate Athleiic Association- Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual ConvenlioiL. Atlanta, (December 28, 1923), p. 15

33Hackensmith, History of Physical Education, p. 426. 42 grant to a committee of the Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools of Southern States to study the place of intercollegiate athletics in twenty-three colleges and universities. According to this report many

questionable practices in those colleges were revealed.

Perhaps the above study was instrumental in the foundation's con­

tinued interest in the problems of intercollegiate athletics and of its

impact on our society. A study, Bulletin Number 18C Games and Sports in

British.iSchaola and MTCIlitifi&t was published in 1927. This was

followed by similar studies on athletics in American colleges and univer­

sities and published as Bulletin Number 23, American Colleae Athletics-

and Bulletin Number 26, Current Developments in American College Snorts.

American College Athletics, Bulletin Number 23, published in 1929,

was a result of the N.C.A.A.*s desire to have an inpartial group study

the conditions of athletics in American colleges and universities. As

far back as 1916, a resolution was offered by Amos Alonzo Stagg that one

of the large foundations be petitioned to make a survey of intercollegiate

athletics in the United States.**4 Similar requests followed and as a

consequence, the N.C.A.A. formally requested the Carnegie Foundation to

conduct a study. As a result of this request and because of pressures

from other sources, the trustees of the Foundation formally authorized 35 this inquiry at their meeting of January 8, 1926.

The report which followed, American College Athletics, is the most

34Stagg, fl|u filt-t P* 75.

35savage, American College Athletics, p. 3. 4 3 comprehensive treatment of problems in intercollegiate athletics. One hundred thirty high schools and institutions of higher education rep­ resenting all sections of the nation were involved. Of this total, there were one hundred and twelve colleges and universities, both publicly and privately controlled. The phases of the study were determined by ana­ lyzing the suggestions of qualified men facing these problems and of those areas receiving the greatest criticism by the press.

The matter of subsidization was dealt with in Chapter X. Subsidi­ zation in various degrees was found to exist at 81 of the 112 institutions studied. These subsidies were allocated by one of several agencies in the institution such as administration, cafulty committee, the athletic department, the athletic association, athletic staff and alumni. The athletes were subsidized through employment loans and scholarships of all forms and in other miscellaneous ways.'**’

Savage covered the subject in a most penetrating manner and this brought forth factual and meaningful information on the conduct of the subject. Even though the report is considered in many quarters to be an expose of the abuses in college athletics, its greatest contribution was in uncovering the facts pertinent to the subject. Whether these facts are then judged as abuses depends on the individual and on his criteria for judgement.

A follow up study. Current Development in American College Soortst

Bulletin Number 26, was completed in 1931. Its basic purpose was to evaluate the significant changes that had taken place since the publication

36Ibid.t pp. 242-265. 44 of Bulletin Number 2 3 . ^ All but one of the colleges and universities previously studied were revisited and data were collected in a like manner.

Chapter IV dealt with the matter of recruiting and subsidization

The general information included in this chapter indicated a decline in athletic subsidization. Where athletes were subsidized, it was found that colleges were adhering to accepted standards. Also, the chapter suggested a set of guidelines for institutions to use in alloting all forms of financial aid. Basically, these called for the elimination of payment of subsidies in cash; the awarding of all forms of financial aid on the basis of need, scholastic ability, promise, and character; and lastly to administrate and distribute all financial aid through OO proper institutional channels.

Following the Carnenie Reports. The findings of Anefjfiaa fallfiBft

Athletics added inpetus to the critics of intercollegiate athletics and especially to those who used the strict amateur concept as a criterion for judgement. Whether because of this criticism, the financial woes brought on by the depression or possibly that individual institutions and conferences used the report as a criteria for self study and evalu­ ation, there were notable nationwide changes regarding subsidization policies. Perhaps the active role and responsibility being assumed by accrediting agencies such as the North Central Association also had an effect on this trend.

37Howard Savage, Current Development in American College Sport. Bulletin Number 26, (New York: The Carnegie Foundation, 1931), p. 3.

^ Ibid., pp. 34-45. 45

An assessment of district reports of the Association Proceedings from 1930 to 1933 strongly indicated that athletic programs throughout the nation were being re-evaluated and this resulted in legislative action and constitutional revisions on the conference levels. On the matter of financial aids the following principles were often incorporated in con­ stitutional changes. First, there were to be no athletic scholarships.

5econd, all financial aid was to be administered by the institution.

Third, all aid was to be allotted on the basis of financial need, authen­ ticated scholarship, and character as evidenced by testimonials.39

Actual evidence indicates that subsidization of athletes decreased between 1929 and 1933. In reply to questionnaires distributed by district representatives to the N.C.A.A. convention in 1934, 75% of the returns indicated a general decline.4** Also, fewer problems and com­ plaints were reported on the subject. Perhaps this condition was due to more stringent conference regulations that had been adopted and to improved communications resulting from these deliberations. The depres­ sion and its impact on American society would certainly be another factor.

The N.C.A.A. Code of 1934. At the convention meeting of 1933, a committee with Z. G. Clevenger of Indiana University as Chairman, was appointed to study the question of recruiting and subsidization. This

39"District Reports,” The National Collegiate Athletic Association^ Proceedings, fli-ilie IwefltY-fiitti..Annual ConTention* New York, (December 31, 1930), pp. 22-29.

40"District Reports,” The -National Collegiate Athletic Associating Proceedings- ef^the Twentv-Eiohth Annual Convention, Chicago, (December 30, 1934), pp. 21-44. 46 group was to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate subsidizing and submit a statement to the next convention. As a result, a nine point code was developed and adopted in recommendation form at the convention in 1934.^ The code basically encompassed Savage's previous recommen­ dations that (1) athletic ability not be considered in allocation of financial assistance and (2 ) that colleges be represented athletically by normal matriculating students.

It is important to note that the code was adopted in the form of

a recommendation. Therefore, there was no compulsion for membership

conpliance except as their attitude and conscience dictated.

Increase in subsidization. Despite the apprehension aroused by

the Carnegie Reports and the implications of the N.C.A.A. Code of 1934,

the middle 1930's was characterized by increased activity and resulting

concern over the subsidization problem.^ Perhaps the legislation

patterned after the Carnegie reports and the 1934 Code and adopted by

institutions and conferences was too unrealistic for practical appli­

cation and adherence. The fact that law enforcement provisions had been

enacted compounded the problem. Consequently, there were increased

accusations and finger pointing on the part of college officials and

critics of intercollegiate athletics. There were also sensationalized

41"Report, Committee on Recruiting and Subsidization,” The National CQllettiatfi-AtilleUfi ASMfiiatiflflt Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Annual Convention, New York, (December 27, 1934), pp. 7D-71.

42lbid., pp. 101-116. 4 7 stories attracting nationwide attention. All of this cast a shadow of suspicion on the integrity of the institutions involved and on college sports in general.

That regulations were difficult to enforce is indicated by the following opinions from district representatives on the matter. "It is impossible to enforce regulations against recruiting and subsidization and it is best for the morale of the students to remove from the statute books all regulations which cannot be enforced.A representative from the West coast stated that "faculty representatives display a certain reluctance to prosecute a vigorous campaign against the so called evils of subsidizationv until those evils which are consequent to inadequate, short sighted and possibly unfair conference regulations which can be separated from those which may be attributed to the natural cussedness 44 of alumni and others."

Unable to control the situation several conferences initiated changes in their legislation and constitutions. The Southeastern

Conference was an outspoken leader in this reversal of policy. Many of this group contended that the greatest evil in existing codes was their failure to recognize general tendencies and practice and the resulting subterfuge. In the words of one of their representatives, "it was time to cast aside any vestige of hypocrisy and look upon the matter in an

^ Ibid.t District Report, p. 35.

44"Eighth District Report," National Collegiate Athletic Asso­ ciation. Proceedings of the Thirty Second_Annual Convention^ New Orleans, (December 28, 1927), p. 45. 48 4 5 impartial light.” Their subsequent action on subsidization encompassed the following principles:

1. Athletic ability should be considered in allocation of scholarships9 loans and jobs.

2. Financial aid should not exceed cost of room, board, tuition, fees and books.

3. Financial aid should be granted by the regular faculty committee granting aid to all students.

4. Athletes shall maintain the same scholastic require­ ments established by the institution for other scholar­ ships.

Adoption of the term, grant in aid. The term "grant-in-aid” signifies a form of athletic financial assistance given by a college or university. The term came into being because of a need to differentiate between the allocation of financial aid for academic or athletic pro­ ficiency. It will be recalled that the term scholarship previously de­ noted a form of financial assistance to the athlete. Though the criteria in selection of the Rhodes Scholarship recipients was widely used in allotting scholarships, there were actually few athletes who could actually qualify under academic standards strongly established. Yet, any form of financial allocations was referred to as a scholarship even in cases where the recipient's sole qualification was his possession of athletic skill.

Thus the term scholarship had a confusing and rather ambiguous meaning.

According to one source the term, grant-in-aid, was first used by

45"Third District Report,” National Collegiate Athletic Association Proceedings of the Thirty First Annual Convention. New York, (December 27, 1936), p. 24.

46Ibtt.. P. 25 49 the Southeastern Conference in 1935.*7 The term was used by this group to identify the nature of financial aid allotted to football players and later to athletes in other sports. Though some conferences and insti­ tutions have established certain minimum academic standards to grant in aid recipients* they are far less than that required for regular scholar­ ship awards. The use of the term spread rapidly after World War II and in the early 1950*s many colleges and universities adopted the term in the reorganization of various areas of institutional life.

Pressures for.enforcement. The matter of the N.C.A.A.*s adoption of enforcement powers was debated from the time of its inception. This matter provided the format of discussion with each ‘"’expose" on college athletics* legislative crisis or major constitutional revisions. The adoption of the amateur concept in 1916, discussions on extending the influence of the Association in 1920* the shock of the Carnegie Report in

1929* and the adoption of the Code in 1934* all provided heightened inter­ est for discourse. During his tenure as president of the Association from 1906 to 1929* Palmer Pierce defended the home rule concept.How­ ever* the pressures in favor of enforcement were to intensify in the

1930's and these eventually changed the basic nature of the N.C.A.A.

Undoubtedly matters pertaining to subsidization were focal in this change.

During his term as president of the N.C.A.A. from 1932 to 1936*

John Griffith encountered considerable pressure from several groups to

*7Bernie Moore* "Faculty Representatives Round Table Discussion*" The National Collegiate Athletic Association 1956^57 Yearbook. p. 207.

^Palmer Pierce* "The President's Report*" The Intercollegiate Athletic .ASJSflfiiatifla. Proceedings of the Third Annual Convention. New York* (January 2* 1909)* p. 28. 50 make the N.C.A.A. a regulatory and enforcement organization. Perhaps this was the aftermath of the Carnegie Report which had inflamed the critics and extreme purist of intercollegiate athletics. Nevertheless* he was forced to take a position on this issue throughout his entire administration. The following reflects his sentiments on the subject:

If the N.C.A.A. were to assume the role of a regulatory or governing body it would be necessary to limit membership to such colleges as would subscribe to the code that was prescribed. It would mean that a corps of investigators would be necessary to ascertain whether or not the members respected the standards which the Association adopted. Whatever the merits or demerits of a Sovietized system of industry or education may be* I hold that in athletics responsibility to a localized constituency is to be preferred to responsibility to some remote association. Furtberff I believe that we will make more lasting progress by and through educational methods than by coercion.4*?

Due to the controversies aroused by constitutional revisions* the

N.C.A.A. code and sensationalism depicted by the newspapers* there were requests from different quarters as to the feasibility of another

Carnegie study. Regarding this matter perhaps many echoed the senti­ ments of James McConaughy* President of Wesleyan University. He stated:

I hope I am not being impudent or imprudent if I say that I hope the Carnegie Foundation will not investigate college athletic standards as the papers tell us is proposed. I am not unappreciative of the earlier report* when I say that I do not think a second would do any good. Indeed it is my own impression that the first resulted in a tremendous lot of publicity and talk* and very little positive action. The "Immaculates" soon got bored by being praised as the Purity League* and alumni* after the team took another drubbing* urged that no mention be made by our fine standing in the

^Address" John J. Griffith* The National Collegiate Athletic Association* Proceedings of the Twenty Eighth Annual ConventionT Chicago* (December 30* 1933)* p. 68. 51

Carnegie Report. Some colleges felt that they had been misrepresented and treated unfairly. Others* frankly said that they did not care what comment the Carnegie Foundation or others made on the way in which they carried on their athletic activities.50

Thus, by the latter part of the 1930's the position of the

N.C.A.A. regarding subsidization was at the crossroads. Pulling in

one direction was the influence of the Carnegie Reports and the

organization's adoption of the amateur code in which it viewed

American college sports along the same guidelines as conducted under

the English ideal. A number of athletic conferences, notably the

Western Conference, changed their constitutions to conform with the

amateur ideal and the Carnegie recommendations. Pulling in the

opposite direction were those institutions and conferences who

viewed athletics in more realistic terms. To them outright finan­

cial aid for the athletic ability was considered acceptable according

to the American way of life. The Southeastern Conference was the

first to adopt this approach and we shall see how this came to be

adopted by the N.C.A.A.

5°James McConaughy "Address," The National Collegiate Athletic Association, Proceedings of the Thirty First Annual Convention, New York, (December 27, 1935), p. 100. CHAPTER IV

THE N.C.A.A. AS A REGULATORY ORGANIZATION AND

ITS EFFECT ON SUBSIDIZATION 1940-1966

The N.C.A.A. was organized for the purpose of promoting high

ideals in college sports. Its stated objective was "the regulation i and supervision of college athletics throughout the United States in

order that the athletic activities of the colleges and universities

may be maintained on an ethical plane in keeping with the dignity and

high purpose of education."1 More specifically it attempted to es-

/ tablish the principle of institutional control, broaden programs for

physical education and athleticst establish a uniform law of amateurism,

encourage the adoption of strict eligibility rules, formulate and pub­

lish rules of play for various sports, supervise standards for and pre­

serve collegiate athletic records and to develop some common standards

for the recruitment and allocation of financial aid to athletes. Its

instrument for accomplishing these purposes was the dissemination of

information for the purpose of educating member institutions as to the

highest ideals in each of these areas. In essence, the N.C.A.A. was an

educational organization in the nature of its organization and procedures.

^Scott, P* 33.

52 53

An assessment of the development of college sports in the period

1906-1939 would be positive in the progress made toward fulfilling the major objectives of the Association. Many of the problems and recog­ nized evils of early day college athletics related to matters of eli­ gibility, control, leadership, finance and proselyting were reduced or eliminated. In some of these areas the N.C.A.A. has achieved outstand­ ing success in improving college athletics.

However* in the areas of recruiting and subsidization, the N.C.A.A. did not achieve the high degree of success realized in other spheres.

Many problems of recruiting and subsidization that had been experienced in the formative years of the Association were still present in the latter part of the I930*s. This is especially true when judged against the amateur ideal and associated criteria which it had vigorously de­ fended. Because of these problems, we can now trace the events whereby the N.C.A.A. passed from an organization performing its functions through educational means to one which became regulatory in nature.

The 1938 convention was marked by a sense of uneasiness and dis­ satisfaction with the general condition of intercollegiate athletics 2 and with matters of subsidization and recruiting. The 1934 Code was not performing its intended function and this resulted in lying, cheating and hypocrisy. The importance and urgency of this matter was evident in various sessions of the convention. The theme of the speakers was that athletics were at the crossroads, the necessity for constitution-

AtlUalic Association, Proceeding of th« Thirty-Third Annual Convention Chicago, (December 28, 1938). 54 al revision, adopting enforcement procedures, basic purposes of the

N.C.A.A. and subsidization. The tone of the speakers and delegates strongly indicated that radical change would be forthcoming.

Constitutional revision 194Q. The constitutional revisions adopted at the 1940 convention resulted in sweeping changes.^ The most evident alterations were noted in the physical characteristics of the constitution itself. The by-laws of the previous constitution were not included except in revised provisions that were made part of the main body of the new constitution. Matters relating to subsidization were more clearly spelled out. Another inportant change was in the establishment of a set of Executive Regulations. An executive body was to run the business of the N.C.A.A. between yearly meetings and provisions were made for its operation. It is through this body that increased executive functioning of the Association was noted.

The most important change effecting subsidization was in the elimination of Article III, "Amateurism." This rather general state­ ment was replaced by a more specific provision entitled "Declaration of Sound Principles and Practices for Intercollegiate Athletics." The article contained four sections. Section I, defined the amateur in the same terms as adopted in 1922 and clarified the meaning of the spirit of amateurism. Section 2, discussed the control of athletics, while Section

3 established the principle of institutional responsibility in treating athletes and regular students alike. Section 4 was more specific and

^"Constitution," The National Colleoiate Athletic Association., Proceedings of the Thirtv-Fifth Annual Convention- New York, (December 29, 1940), pp. 148-157. 55 established the principles regulating financial aid to athletes. They were stated as follows *

a. In the award of student aid, an athlete shall not be discriminated against.

b. The award of any scholarship or student aid to an ath­ lete shall be made through the regular agency super­ vised by the college for the granting of such aid to all students, and fttllletic.Pflrtifiiflatiflll shall not be. a condition for such aid.

c. No athlete shall receive aid other than payment for legitimate employment from athletic funds, directly or indirectly.

d. No athlete shall be deprived of scholarship or student aid because of failure to conpete in intercollegiate athletics.

e. Aid extended by colleges to athletes shall be awarded on the basis of neefl without regard to the proportion such awards represent in the total amount of aid ex­ tended to all students.

f. An athlete shall be required in employment to give full and honest return for pay received.

g. In case of an athlete who receives financial aid from any source other than (2 ) persons on whom he may be naturally dependent for support, or (b) the regularly constituted source of such aid shall be approved or disapproved by the proper college authorities.4

In essence, the above provisions replaced the 1934 Code by a reg­ ulation of constitutional stature. Basically this was an attempt to outlaw scholarships based on athletic ability. The provision did permit the allocation of jobs to athletes and also permitted other financial assistance based on the need principle.

Provisions were made to insure close adherence and enforcement of

4l b M . . P. 149. 56 the new revisions. To inprove adherence, the Association forwarded informative material to the presidents of member institutions and requested their approval of and willingness to abide by the new reg­ ulations by signing a written statement.'’ For enforcement, the Asso­ ciation authorized its Executive Committee to establish the machinery and solicit the funds necessary to conduct investigations.^

There was violent opposition to these revisions in certain sec­ tions of the country. As previously noted, the Southeastern and South­ western Conferences enacted legislation recognizing athletic ability as a basis for financial aid. On the other hand, conferences in the North­ east, Middle West and the Pacific coast strongly supported the action of the N.C.A.A. The battle lines drawn on the issue approximated those of the Civil War. Had it not been for the catastrophic events of 1941, it is likely that a similar outburst would have occurred in the N.C.A.A.

Additions to the revision 1941. The adoption of the revised con­ stitution in 1940 provoked much thought and discussion on the institu­ tional and conference level. As a result, the Executive Committee of the N.C.A.A. was barraged by requests for clarification and interpre­ tation of the new constitution. Most of the questions were directed to

Article III, Section 4, Aid to Athletes. Consequently, the Executive

Committee drew up a series of interpretations governing aid to athletes and requested that these statements be included in the main body of

5 Ihid.t p. 128.

6Ibid., p. 28. 5 7

the constitution. These were adopted by the Association at the annual

meeting in 1941.^

Effects of the War. By the time the revised constitution was

adopted* the nation was at war. All normal concepts and conditions of

collegiate competition were soon upset. Many of the smaller schools

gave up sports. Some institutions used Navy enlistees on their teams.

These trainees* where used* were under government subsidies* and were

assigned in most cases to institutions which they had not previously

attended or intended to attend. Eligibility rules were suspended or

revised to allow for the abnormal situation. Coaches in uniform found

themselves often with the strange assignment of training teams to

compete against their own former players. Perhaps this aided training

and recruiting for the armed forces. However* it confused the issue

of sound programs of intercollegiate athletics and retarded reform.

Certainly* it was difficult to judge the effectiveness of the reg­

ulations on subsidization as adopted in 1940 and 1941.

Post War Boom. The effects of the post war boom on college

athletics was as great as on other phases of American life. Money was

abundant and those intent on building strong college athletic teams

were not without resources. Undoubtedly, the relaxation of eligibility

rules* especially the transfer rule* led to the problems which followed.

The service teams which had dominated college football during the war

uncovered outstanding talent. This source provided an open market for

^Constitution*" The National Collegiate Athletic Association- Proceedings of the Thirty Sixth Annual Convention^ Detroit* (December 29* 1941)* pp. 142-145. 58 collegiate recruiters. The fact that the All-American Football Confer­ ence had organized in direct competition with the established National

Football League and was signing players with collegiate eligibility remaining often created situations where colleges found themselves competing with professional teams for personnel.

Even though the N.C.A.A. proceedings made little mention re­ garding the effect of the G.I. Bill on recruitinga this factor merits

some mention at this time. The most talented "amateur" athletes avail­

able for colleges after the war were those who had matured through com­

bat service or by playing football with one of the service teams. The

stars were highly sought after by the college recruiters. When normal

means of persuasion failed, the recruiter used finances as a means of

convincing the star that his college was the place to go. In light of

the N.C.A.A. constitution this was considered illegal since servicemen

received financial assistance through the G.I. Bill.

These circumstances provided the background for what is perhaps

the most abusive era in college athletics regarding the matter of sub­

sidization. Critics of college football had a field day and possibly

their oft-reported incidents whereby the colleges were outbidding the

professionals might have some substance. Time magazine reported that

Georgia halfback Charlie Trippi was receiving $5,000 plus car, apart­

ment and other considerations. This was to meet the competition of

the pros who had offered him $17,500. It was also rumored that star

players in the Big Ten were receiving as high as $12,000.8

8"Crusaders and Slaves," Time, October 14, 1946, p. 66. 59

The competition among colleges was just as fierce. The same Time report stated that "North Carolina and Duke located just 12 miles apart were out to hijack each other's squads as if they were fighting yan- kees."9 Stories of high pressured recruiting tactics for high school stars during this period were quite common. These sometimes flagrant incidents probably insured that stern measures would be forthcoming.

The Sanity Code. Perhaps some background as to how the Sanity

Code was conceived and developed is necessary. In Julyt 1946, an in­ formal group of men representing N.C.A.A. institutions met in Chicago to consider the status of college athletics.1® Invited to the meet­ ings were members of the N.C.A.A. Council and administrative officials of various athletic conferences and associations holding affiliation with the national association. At these meetings, problems relating to financial aid to athletes were thoroughly discussed. Consequently, a proposed code regarding subsidization and recruiting was drafted and this along with a questionnaire was mailed to member institutions. The purpose was to determine a consensus of opinion regarding the matter.

The questionnaire returns were tabulated and a proposal was drawn up which presumably reflected a consensus of membership thinking.

The proposals were presented to the 1947 convention and discussed at length. As there appeared to be considerable agreement regarding its general implications, this was subsequently referred to a Constitutional

9 Ibid.,

l0"General Business 5ession," National Collegiate Athletic Association 1346,Xearbook, p. 78. 6 0

Revision Committee whose responsibility was to prepare the proposal for constitutional inclusion. Alsot the committee was instructed to provide the necessary enforcement procedures.11

The tone of the delegates attending the annual convention was a strong indication that drastic action was to be taken on matters re­ lating to recruiting and subsidizing. Perhaps J. L. Morrill, President of the University of Minnesota, reflected the thoughts of the majority in his stirring address opening the 1947 convention. He stated:

This association is on record rightly in its revised con­ stitution for sanity and soundness, for "satisfactory stan­ dards of scholarship, amateur standing and good sportsman­ ship." 12

Specific provisions of the code were included in Article III, entitled, "Principles for the conduct of Intercollegiate Athletics."

This article was formally adopted to the Constitution at the Forty

Second Annual Convention held in New York City on January 1, 1948.^

This is commonly referred to as the "Sanity Code" and it follows in its entirety:

Section 1. Principle of Amateurism. An amateur sportsman is one who engages in sports for the physical, mental or social benefits he derives therefrom, and to whom the sport is an avocation. Any college athlete who takes or is promised pay in any form for participation in athletics does not meet this definition of an amateur.

n l h M . * P. 87.

12Ibid.. p. 107.

l3"Constitution," The National Collegiate Athletic Association 1948 Year Book, p. 193. Section 2. Principle of Institutional Control and Re­ sponsibility. The control and responsibility for the conduct of both intercollegiate and intramural athletics shall in the last analysis be exercised by the institution itself.

Section 3. Principle of Sound Academic Standards. Athletes shall be admitted to the institution on the same basis as any other students and shall be required to observe and maintain the same academic standards.

Section 4. Principles Governing Financial Aid to Athletes. Financial aids in the form of scholarships* fellowships or otherwise* even though originating from sources other than persons on whom the recipient may be naturally or legally dependent for support* shall be permitted without loss of eligibility.

(a) If approved and awarded on the basis of need by the regular agency established in the recipient's in­ stitution for granting of aids to all students* pro­ vided* however, that the aid thus awarded shall not exceed the amount of tuition for instruction and for stated incidental institution fees, or

(b) if approved and awarded on the basis of qualifica­ tions on which high scholarship on the part of the recipient is the major factor and such award is made by the regular agency established by the award­ ing institution for the making of such awards, pro­ vided* however* that the existence of such scholar­ ship* fellowship or other aid and its terms are announced in an official publication of such in­ stitution* or

(c) if awarded on the basis of qualifications of which athletic ability is not one* and the existence of such scholarship* fellowship or other aid and its terms are announced in an official publication of the institution.

Any student receiving aid permissible under (b) or (c) shall* however* not be awarded aid under (a) except to the extent that the aid awarded him under (b) or (c)* or both* falls short of that permissible under (a).

In all cases the agency making the award of aid shall give the recipient a written statement of the amount* duration* conditions and terms thereof. 6 2

The acceptance of financial aid not permitted by the pro­ visions of this section shall render the recipient ineligible for intercollegiate athletic competition.

(d) Any scholarship or other aid to an athlete shall be awarded only through a regular agency approved by the institution for the granting of aid to all students.

(e) No athlete shall be deprived of financial aids per­ mitted by paragraphs (a) (b) and (c) of this section because of failure to participate in intercollegiate athletics.

(f) Compensation of an athlete for employment shall be commensurate with the service rendered.

(g) No one shall be denied student aid because he is an athlete.

(h) Nothing herein shall, however, be construed as a disapproval of indirect aids in the form of benefits reasonably incidental to actual participation in intercollegiate athletics, such as medical attention, meals on sanctioned trips, and during officially- sanctioned practice periods while the institution is not in session, and one meal per day while on the home campus during the season of the sport in which the recipient is engaged.

Section 5. Principle Governing Recruiting. No member of an athletic staff or other official representative of athletic in­ terests shall solicit the attendance at his institution of any prospective student with the offer of financial aid or equiv­ alent inducements. This, however, shall not be deemed to pro­ hibit such staff member or other representative from giving information regarding aids permissible under Section 4.14

The constitutional revisions in 1948 included the machinery for the enforcement of the Sanity Code. Article IV, "Regulations for

Determining Qualifications for Membership or Continued Membership in the Association," was added to the body of Executive Regulations. This

Article established two committees for the execution of action, the

Constitutional Compliance Committee and a Fact Finding Committee. Also,

14Ibid.# PP. 193-194 6 3 included was a nine point administrative procedure to be used following the registration of a complaint of non-compliance. *5 The basis of this procedure was for each case to be reviewed by the Constitutional

Compliance Committee with assistance of the Fact Finding Committee.

If sufficient evidence was revealed to indicate non-conf>liance, then the case would be brought to the attention of the entire membership at the next meeting. Each institutional member was to vote on the guilt of the institution involved. Guilt established by a two-thirds majority of the members present meant automatic expulsion from the

N.C.A.A.

Perhaps the N.C.A.A. position on financial aid under the Sanity

Code as compared to the constitutional revision in 1940 should be clarified. Under the 1940 revisions, outright financial aid for athletic ability was considered illegal. Only jobs based on financial need was recognized by the N.C.A.A. Under the Sanity Code, athletic ability was recognized and aid for this could be given up to the limits of tuition and institutional fees provided the athlete could demonstrate financial need. Attempts to justify and/or coordinate the allocation of financial aid for scholarship and athletic ability are somewhat con­

fusing as a review of Principles Governing Financial Aid on pages 60,

61, and 62 will show.

The basic purpose of the Sanity Code was to control recruiting

and subsidization. The adoption of this legislation by the N.C.A.A.

l5Ihid.T p p . 203-205. convention in 1947 was one of the most controversial acts in the history of the organization. Its implications were of a most revolutionary nature. First, it reflected approval by the N.C.A.A. of the principle of outright financial assistance on the basis of athletic ability.

Secondly, the lines were clearly drawn as to what was "legitimate or illegitimate." Possibly its greatest impact was in the establishment of the procedures necessary for the enforcement of these provisions.

Thus, the establishment of the N.C.A.A. as an enforcement body was now complete.

The chain of events which followed provided the most anxious times in the history of the organization. This period was marked by increased criticism of college sports, accusations and counter accu­ sations by individual institutions and by conferences, and questioning the status of the N.C.A.A. as an organization. Confidence and respect of the Association hung in balance over this issue and that it was able to exist is due to the compromises of all parties concerned.

Reaction to the SanitvCode. The Sanity Code brought mixed re­ actions from different groups. There were some who held that it would be the savior of college athletics. Coaches, especially those in "major" institutions felt it worked an unjust hardship on athletes. A college president stated, "this Sanity Code will make liars of us all."1^ A faculty member from a large university observed, "the Compliance Com­ mittee will find itself engulfed in a varietyof problems sufficiently 65 complicated to tax even the high ability of so talented a committee."17

And, "to attempt strict enforcement may produce the same results that

lO was produced by another prohibition law in recent history."

On the operational level the Sanity Code was objected to on sev­ eral counts. First, there were those who objected to the growing power of the national organization. Many of these felt that matters of this nature should be handled on the institutional or conference level.

Second, some felt that it was impractical to expect an athlete to work for part of his expense due to the time involved in sports participation and to the growing academic pressures. The last major objection centered around the "need clause," whereby a student had to tangibly demonstrate financial need in order to qualify for tuition assistance.

In the first year of operation the Compliance Committee met on three occasions for the purpose of issuing interpretations and receiving complaints. Of the twenty complaints received, investigations proved several groundless while others resulted in situations being corrected.

Sanltv Code on trial. The convention of 1950 stands to be one of the most tense affairs recorded in the history of the N.C.A.A. During the year, the Compliance Committee had received official complaints concerning thirty-nine institutions. While many of these were dismissed, there appeared to be ample evidence that seven of these institutions had violated the stipulations set forth in the Sanity Code. This constituted 66 non-compliance and consequently the offenders were to Hstand trial” and their continuing membership was to be voted on by the membership at the annual convention. The seven institutions involved were the

University of Virginia, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Virginia

Military Institute, The Citadel, University of Maryland, Villanova

College and Boston College.

The historic occasion for this matter came at the business session 19 scheduled on the last day of the 1950 convention. In a packed room charges against each institution were read separately and aloud to the

delegates. A spokesman from each school was given the opportunity to defend itself, but none was more eloquent or persuasive than Harry C.

Byrd, President of the University of Maryland. When the issue was finally brought to a vote, the delegates acted on all seven of the

schools. The count was 111 to 93 for expulsion, but, since the re­

quired two thirds majority vote necessary for expulsion was not met,

the motion was declared lost. This signified the beginning of the end

for the Sanity Code.

Immediately after the loss of the above motion. President Byrd

of Maryland moved for the adoption of a resolution which in part called

for the appointment of a special committee to study N.C.A.A. problems.

This committee was to make a complete survey of practices on the matter

of subsidization and recruitment of athletes by member institutions and

to recommend needed legislation at the next convention. This action not

l9”Business Session,” The National Collegiate Athletic Asso­ ciation 1949 Yearbook, pp. 100-207. 6 7 only meant the death of the Sanity Code, but also, resulted in far reaching changes effecting the operation of the N.C.A.A. in the present day.

Death of the Sanity Code. Specific provisions for the annulment of the Sanity Code came at the N.C.A.A. convention of 1951 held at

Dallas, Texas. While the major conferences and universities spearheaded the battle for its defeat, it was generally conceded that such a code was unworkable and inpracticable on a national scale.

The year 1951 was a critical year for intercollegiate athletics in general and for the N.C.A.A. in particular. The embarrassments re­ sulting from the adoption, the impractical implementation, and the in­ ability to enforce the Sanity Code were evident. Added to this, gambling in college sports had been reported with increasing frequency since the end of the war and it finally showed its ugly head in several episodes.

Team members from the University of Kentucky and New York University were involved in the basketball bribery scandals. Members of the foot­ ball squad at West Point had been involved in the cribbing scandals which resulted in wholesale dismissals. Added to these were problems related to length of practice seasons, limitation of games, television, and outlandish reports concerning recruiting and subsidization. To say that the moral tone of college athletics was under question would be a gross understatement. It was in this climate that the N.C.A.A. set about the task of revising its constitution and this task involved more than just concern over subsidization.

Constitutional revisions 1952. In considering revision to the constitution at the 1952 convention, many groups interested in college 68 athletics were consulted. At no other time in its history had the

N.C.A.A. requested or received assistance from as many quarters. The

American Council on Education took an active part through its Special

Committee on Athletics chaired by Dr. John A. Hannah, President of

Michigan State University. The thinking of all presidents, faculty members and athletic directors of all member institutions was objective­ ly collected, tabulated and analyzed. All of this led to the drawing up of a twelve point program which was adopted at the N.C.A.A, Council

Meeting of September 11, 1951.^°

In drawing up the constitutional revisions, the N.C.A.A. Council recognized the urgency to properly identify the problems of college athletics, eliminate the mistakes of the past and to develop a workable instrument which would permit the Association to function in an effec­ tive manner. Using the twelve point program as a basis, sweeping changes 2i were made in constitutional proposals.

As a part of this overhaul, the Association saw the need to place a full time employee in charge of the national office and to consolidate affairs in one location. Mr. Walter Byers was appointed to the position of Executive Director by the Council in 1951, and the national office 22 was moved from Chicago to Kansas City, Missouri.

Basic constitutional revision. Basic to the constitutional re­ visions was the concept that the N.C.A.A. should concern itself only

^Statement of the N.C.A.A. Council, August 19, 1951, The Na­ tional Collealate_Athletic Association 1951 Yearbook, pp. 105-107.

21Ibid., pp. 190-193.

22lbid.T p. 192. 6 9 with nutters of a broad nature, thus leaving specifics to each insti­ tution or conference. Major revisions were made in the areas of re­ cruiting and subsidization. Since constitutional change was arduous and time consuming, a set of by-laws was established which enabled the convention to meet with immediate problems. Change of by-laws required a majority vote of members present. The Compliance Committee was elim­ inated and enforcement procedures were more discreetly placed under jurisdiction of the Council. This Council of eighteen members consisted of the President and Secretary of the N.C.A.A. and sixteen members elected from the membership at the annual convention. This group was to establish and direct general policy of the organization and to act as official interpreter of questions arising in the interim between Con— ventions.

Article III of the Constitution, Principles for the Conduct of

Intercollegiate Athletics, was changed to some degree. Section 1,

Principles of Amateurism, remained the same. However, Section 4,

Principles Governing Financial Aid, received the most extensive face

lifting. In places of the previously detailed legislation the new re­ vision singly stated that "any college athlete who receives financial

assistance other than that administered by his institution shall not be

eligible for intercollegiate competition; provided however, that this principle shall have no application to assistance received from anyone 23 upon whom the athlete is naturally or legally dependent."

^Constitution," The National Collegiate Athletic Association 1951 Yearbook^ p. 254. In essence* the N.C.A.A. recognized the existence of financial aid to athletes on the constitutional level. The matter of implement­ ing the specifics of this provision was left to the discretion of the individual institution or conference. Whether they wanted to give any part or all of tuition* fees* room* board* laundry and books was in accordance with N.C.A.A. regulation. Financial aid must be administered by an agency of the institution and the total amount must not exceed normal cost was all that was stated or implied by the N.C.A.A. Any violation of these principles would make the offender subject to dis­ ciplinary action by the Association.

Provision was made to maintain the N.C.A.A.'s enforcement power after the dissolveraent of the Conpliance Committee which had operated under the Sanity Code. By action of the N.C.A.A. Council in 1952* a

Committee on Infractions was created.24 This group was to serve as a fact finding agency for the Council. All complaints relative to member violations were to be channeled to this committee. After gath­ ering all the facts* each case was to be presented to the Council. If guilt was established by a two-thirds vote of Council membership* cor­ rective and disciplinary action was then taken.

The Council did not have the power to terminate membership and did not threaten to do so except in cases of flagrant abuse. Lesser punishment which is listed later was used under the new revisions. As

24"Council Meeting*" Chicago, May 7-8* 1954* The National Collegiate Athletic Association 1954-1955 Yearbooks p. 121. a contrast, under the Sanity Code, all violators were presented to the entire delegation and their membership in the organization hung in bal­ ance.

Infractions since.1954. The need for the N.C.A.A. to assume en­ forcement action is apparent when one reviews the record of the In­ fraction Committee since 1954. From 1954 through 1959, the committee received 130 cases.25 The total number approximated two hundred in

1966.

The nature of violations has varied, but a consistent factor is that "major college" institutions have bern primarily involved. Most of the violations occurred in the area of subsidization and recruiting: financial aid not administered by the institution, cash payment in form of a bonus for signing, transportation home at intervals during the academic year, aid in excess of that permitted by conference or

N.C.A.A., the establishment of outside organizations for the purpose of providing excess funds or improper jobs for athletes, lending money

in an unauthorized manner, provision of fringe benefits in the form of clothes and availability or use of automobiles and organized tryouts.

Perhaps several miscellaneous items regarding violations should

be noted. Four schools. Southern California, Auburn, Texas A. & M.

and Oklahoma were found guilty and penalized on two occasions. The

year 1956 had an unusual number of cases. Within a several year peri­

od, four Pacific Coast Conference schools were found guilty of vio­

25"Business Session," The National Collegiate Athletic Association 1958-1959 Yearbook, p. 243. 7 2 lations and this undoubtedly led to the breakup and eventual reorgan­ ization of that group. The best single source regarding these in­ fractions is the I95(rrl957 Yearbook.2 6

Penalties for violators came from two sources the N.C.A.A. Council and the Conference in which the violating institutions held membership.

In the administration of the N.C.A.A. enforcement program, the Council

utilized the following penalty structure:

1. Reprimand and censure.

2. Probation.

3. Ineligibility to appear on the national football tele­ vision series.

4. Probation and ineligibility for a particular N.C.A.A. event and those invitational anti like events of the same sport which cooperate with the N.C.A.A. enforce­ ment program.

5. Probation and ineligibility for all N.C.A.A. events and those invitational and like events which coop­ erate with the N.C.A.A. enforcement program. 7

Conferences barred violators from participation in Conference spon­

sored events or receiving any share of monies if the Conference were

involved in a bowl agreement. In some cases fines ranging from $1,000

to $25,000 were imposed.

Regulations since 1952. Since 1952, there has been little change

in the philosophical basis of the regulations governing the N.C.A.A.

^Council Meeting, New Orleans, April 30-May 2, 1956, The National Collegiate Athletic Association 1956-1957 Yearbook- pp. 144-172.

2 ^Report of Committee on Infractions,” The National Collegiate Athletic Association 1961-1962 Yearbook, p. 174. 73

The rules and regulations governing the Association have come from various sources. Where before, the organization was strictly governed by a constitution, its regulative powers have been broadened to permit a more functional operation. A glance at the latest Bulletin^ shows that today, the Association is governed by a regulations section which includes the constitution, by-laws, official interpretations, executive regulations, recommended policies and practices and procedure for the enforcement program.

The philosophy and policy on the matter of subsidization is covered in the main body of the constitution and by its official in­

terpretations. Article III, Sections 1 and 4, focus on the subject.

Article III Section 1, on amateurism, was enlarged to clarify

the concept of an amateur as related to a participant of intercollegiate

sports and recognized so by the N.C.A.A. This position is clarified by

the following revision approved in 1960:

An amateur student-athlete is one who engages in athletics for the physical, mental, social and educational benefits he derives therefrom, and to whom athletics is an avocation. One who takes or has taken pay, or has accepted the promise of pay, in any form, for participation in athletics or has directly or indirectly used his athletic skill for pay in any form shall not be eligible for intercollegiate athletics, it being under­ stood that a student-athlete may accept scholarships or edu­ cational grants in aid from his institution provided such aid is not in conflict with the governing legislation of this asso­ ciation.^

Regulations Section," Bulletin for the Sixty First Annual Convention, (Houston, January 9-11, 1967), The National Collegiate Association, Appendix IV, p. 1.

29Ibili.. p. 4. 7 4

In the official interpretation of this section commonly accepted expenses are tuitionv fees* room* board* required course related books and supplies and incidental expenses not to exceed $15 per month. Other areas of interpretations cover the matters of gradation and cancellation of institutional aid* professional rulings* job income* awards and any connection the athlete may have in the endorsement of commercial prod­ ucts.

Article III* Section 4, Principles Governing Financial Aid* has been revised on several occasions. Paragraph (b) was added in 1957 and states:

When unearned financial aid is awarded to a student and athletic ability is taken in to consideration in making the award* such aid combined with other aid the student- athlete may receive from employment during semester or term time* other scholarships from grant in aid (including governmental grants for educational purposes)* and the like sources may not exceed commonly accepted educational expenses.

Paragraph (c) was added in 1959 and stated:

In all cases the institutional agency making the award of aid shall give the recipient a written statement of the amount* duration and terms thereof.3*

Official interpretation of these principles established that all athletic subsidies must be administered by that committee or agency which allocates financial aid to all students and clarified minute details as to sub- OO sidiary income from the government* jobs and scholarships.0*

30Ihid., P. 6.

31Ihtt., P. 7.

32Ibid.* pp. 20-21. 75

Recent developments affecting subsidization. Though most of the

N.C.A.A. policies concerning financial aid are dealt with in the main body of its constitution there have been recent developments in local conference and other Association legislation directly influencing this

matter. Use of the "letter of intent" has remained a conference matter and affects financial aid on that level. The 1.6 rule has become a part of the N.C.A.A. by-laws and is effective primarily by controlling participation in N.C.A.A. sponsored events.

The letter of intent was first used in the Southeastern Con­

ference in the latter 1930*s . I n the early 1950*s it was adopted

by the Southwest Conference and eventually spread to every major college

conference in the nation. In essence* it was an application for and an

agreement relating to financial aid. In general* the rules adopted in

regulating this plan are best explained by a faculty member of the

Southwest Conference:

When a prospective student by the submission of an appli­ cation for financial aid signed by him and his parents or guardian indicated his preference for a Southwest Conference school* his decision will be accepted as final by other member schools. Should the student change his indicated preference he will not be allowed to participate in ath­ letics in another Southwest Conference institution during his freshman year and/or his first varsity year in which he would otherwise be eligible.34

The use of the letter was intended for several purposes. First*

it hoped to curtail or eliminate the last minute raiding of prospective

33"General Round Table Discussion*” The National Collegiate Athletic Association^ l95a-l959__rearboiik» p. 195.

34Ibid.t p. 192. 76 athletes. Second, it contributed to solidifying the decision by an athlete to attend a certain institution, thus minimizing the pressures associated with personal indecision and recruiting. Though not often mentioned by its adherents, it has also assisted institutions and conferences in matters related to the allocation of grant-in-aids to incoming students*

Very few small colleges or small college conferences use the letter of intent. Perhaps Ralph Furey of Columbia best reflects this point of view:

The admissions situation and financial aid situation are more tightly tied together than are situations discussed by the major colleges. They talked about tenders and letters of intent which were definitely tied to offers of financial aid as opposed to a combination of aid and admission. To make it completely clear in regard to what our problem is, I should say that with the exception of the special schools, the largest group of Eastern schools use the College En­ trance Examination Board as one of the major methods of evaluation in regard to financial aid and need is a basis for allocating aid.35

While there has been some movement to adopt a national letter of intent, there appears little likelihood this will happen. This is due to the varying points of view indicated in the above discussion. Con­ sequently, many of the conferences sharing similar beliefs are adopting interconference agreements in the letter of intent.

The 1.6 rule was first used in the Western Conference in 1962, and the influence of this group led to its adoption by the N.C.A.A.

The basic purpose of the rule was to provide minimum grade point standards and a minimum criteria for awarding grants in aid to athletes. In brief,

35Ibid.* P. 196. 7 7 the rule adopted by the Big Ten stipulated that "aid may be awarded only to students who demonstrate an ability to do college work on the basis of achievement scores on S.A.T. or A.C.T. examinations, coupled 3 6 with class rank in their high school graduating classes."

The possibility of such a rule had been proposed to the N.C.A.A. at various times but with little results. In 1961 a special committee.

Financial Aid Limitations - Academic Floor, was appointed with Robert

F. Ray, of the University of Iowa as chairman.®? This committee studied the matter very thoroughly. With assistance from personnel representing the College Entrance Examination Boards and the American

College Testing Service, a nationwide study was conducted. This re­

sulted in the adoption of a predictive table to determine the prob­ ability of college success by entering freshmen. The criteria used was exactly the same as that utilized by the Big Ten: class rank and either S.A.T. or A.C.T. examination results. On the basis of their findings the committee then proposed a resolution which was adopted by the Council in July of 1964.

Legislation on the matter was prepared in the form of a By-Law,

Article IV, 5ection 6, and presented to the N.C.A.A. membership for

final action. The delegates voted in favor of the proposal at their

^"Fourth District Report," The National Collegiate Athletic Association 1961-1962 Yearbook- p. 64.

37lhiiL>s

^Council Meeting, Denver, July 18, 1964, Bulletin for the Fiftv-Ninth Annual Convention. Chicago, January 11-13, 1965, p. 126. 78 meeting of January 1965, and stipulated that it should become effective 39 on January 1, 1966. It read as follows:

(b) A member institution shall not be eligible to enter a team or individual competitors in an N.C.A.A. sponsored meet unless the institution

(1) Limits its scholarship or grant to aid awards (for which the recipient's athletic ability is considered in any degree) to incoming student athletes who have a predicted minimum grade point average of 1.600 based on a maximum of 4.000 as determined by demonstrable institutional conference or national experience tables and,

(2) Limits its subsequent scholarship and grant-in-aid awards and eligibility for participation to stu­ dent athletes who have a grade point average, either accumulative or for the previous academic year of 1.600.40

Though the 1.6 rule was generally accepted, opposition came from unexpected quarters. The Ivy League led a movement to defeat the issue and was supported in its stand by a number of small colleges. They opposed it on the grounds that this action violated the principle of institutional control and that the athletes* participation was con­ sidered one phase of the educational experience at their institutions and therefore, was not subject to control by the national body.

Current practices in athletic subsidization. Even though the

N.C.A.A. has established limits on athletic subsidies, the practices and policies of member institutions and allied conferences have not been nor are they uniform today. For obvious reasons no two in-

^Prepared amendments. Ibid. t p. 144.

40lbid., p. 145. 79 stitutions or conferences view athletic financial aid in a like manner.

In fact, some conferences find variance of practices within their own membership. By focusing on the factor of subsidization as it relates to the athlete, an assessment of past and current practices condoned by conferences strongly indicate that the approach to financial aid falls into one of three general catagories.

At one extreme we have those institutions who view athletic ability as a primary factor in allocating financial aid up to the limit permitted by the N.C.A.A., namely tuition, fees, room, board, books and $15 per month for laundry. Among some of the conferences sub­ scribing to this approach are the Southeastern, Atlantic Coast, South­ western, Southern, Big Eight, Big Ten and the Border Intercollegiate

Conference. In fact, all institutions classified as "major colleges" with the exception of Ivy League members and Stanford fall into this category.

The adherents to this position claim that all out aid is the only way to realistically face the many ramifications of a "major college"

athletic program. The Southeastern Conference was the first conference

to outwardly recognize and allocate financial aid for athletic ability

and has been influential in its wide adoption today. Perhaps Joe Kaplan,

faculty representative on athletics from U.C.L.A.t who headed the nation's

program in launching the earth's first satellite, supports this view­

point more precisely when he stated!

It would be ray hope that intercollegiate athletics be recog­ nized in its true role. In this day of increased leisure, ath­ letics render a service to the community. However, I feel that this service rendered, should be devised and carried out with complete integration into the university academic program with 80

frank recognition of the fact that athletic ability, like ability in my field of chemistry or physics, is a kind of ability which is at a premium, which is in demand.41

At the opposite extreme are those institutions where athletic ability is not considered in any way in the allocation of financial aid. High academic standards are adhered to and financial aid is awarded strictly on the basis of academic ability. There is no recognized premium on athletic ability. There are relatively few

"purist" institutions operating under this point of view.~ The most prominent are Johns Hopkins, Oberlin, Swarthmore, Hobart, Haverford,

Emory, Reed, and Carleton.

The adherents to this "purist" point of view represent the highest ideals toward athletics and of its relationship to higher education.

The amateur concept of athletics emanating from our British forefathers and the idealistic point of view toward athletics taken by some leaders in physical education and athletics provide the basic principles in the operation of their programs. The slogans, "education first and foremost," and "athletics for education," would underlie their point of view.

The third group of institutions utilize a pragmatic approach to the matter of financial aid and consequently they are more difficult to categorize. In essence, athletic ability, academic ability and financial need are all utilized in establishing principles for the allocation of financial aid. Each factor is considered more or less depending on the situation. While many utilizing these factors would like to consider

41"0pen Business Session," The National Collegiate Athletic Asso­ ciation 1956 YearbookT pp. 208-204. 81 themselves as falling within the purist group, they are forced to recog­ nize the factor of athletic ability with all of its ramifications. The most prominent adherents following this middle of the road course are The

Ivy League, a number of colleges in the Eastern College Athletic Confer­ ence, the Ohio Athletic Conference and other small college conferences throughout the nation.

Institutions falling into this middle category have a difficult time in identifying their positions and in developing defensible prin­ ciples for the functioning of their programs. Noting the developments in the Western Conference which at one time followed this middle of the road policy might clarify this point.

From 1957 to 1962 the Western Conference financial aid program utilized athletic ability, academic ability and financial need in distributing subsidies to athletes. According to Paul Brechler, former

Athletic Director at the State University of Iowa, an athlete could qualify for aid in one of three ways!

(1) If his high school academic ranking would qualify him for coiqpetitive scholarship, he could receive all ex­ penses without demonstrating financial need.

(2) If he ranked in the upper quarter of his graduating class and maintained a "B" average in studies he could receive full tuition without demonstrating need.

(3) With less than the above mentioned academic ability, the athlete would have to demonstrate need. On this basis he could receive up to room, board, books and tuition, with a job and grant in aid.42

42ihid., p. 188. 82

A close look at these provisions prove their inconsistency as to principle. The recognition of athletic ability as a factor throughout is recognized. However, the need factor was considered only in granting assistance to those with less than outstanding academic ability. M/here athletic and academic ability was apparent, need was not a factor in financial consideration. Perhaps George Young, Faculty Representative from Wisconsin pointed to the folly of this middle of the road approach

in the Western Conference when he stated:

It seems that our Big Ten rules which permitted unearned aid to be given only to athletes who could qualify for it on the basis of superior scholarship were not enabling us to attract very many superior scholars with athletic ability. All these good scholars were going to the Ivy League where superior scholarship is more anqsly rewarded than it is in the Big Ten. So the net effect was that the majority of our athletes who were unable to get help from home and ineligible for unearned aid for scholasticism were supposed to work their way through school. Those average and lower than average students, of course, are the ones least able to carry the triple burden of a job, participation in athletics and making satisfactory academic progress. It somehow didn't seem to us appropriate for an educational institution to in any way, espouse a sys­ tem which operated as a brake on satisfactory academic progress and our system as we looked at it, not only in theory but in actual operation invited us into subterfuges and e v a s i o n s . 43

Recognition of this inconsistency eventually led the Big Ten to utilize

principles recognizing basic academic minimum standards and athletic

ability in the aid program. Similar problems are faced by all institu­

tions following the middle of the road course.

43Jfcid., p. 200. CHAPTER V

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

The follow-up portion of this study was organized according to procedures outlined in Chapter I. A questionnaire was devised and mailed to seven hundred and ten letterraen and grant-in-aid recipients who attended The Ohio State University from the fall of 1957 through the spring quarter of 1962. The responses were classified according to grant-in-aid and socio-economic factors and subjected to computer treatment. An analysis of the findings will be presented in this chapter.

Tables will be presented showing chi square* simple frequency and/or percentage dist ibutions of the respondents according to the major categories previously outlined. Significance of the data will be determined by comparing grant low and grant high-middle with non­ grant low and non-grant high-middle. Where chi square is used in making this comparison* the statistical significance will be accepted at the .05 level. When a chi square difference is detected from this data the expected responses will be placed in parenthesis. An anal­ ysis and interpretation will supplement the findings of the tables.

Characteristics of the Study Population

Response to questionnaire. In order to observe any differences in the study population as to questionnaires mailed* returned and

83 8 4 usable according to the grant-in-aid conponent, the information found

in Table 1 was necessary. Out of 710 questionnaires which were mailed,

409 were returned which represented a 57.6 per cent response. However

since 30 of these returns did not list their father's occupation they were eliminated from consideration. Thus, 379 or 53.5 per cent of the

original study population is used for this report, 52.6 per cent of

those who had received grant-in-aid and support and 47.4 per cent of

those who had not received such financial help.

TABLE 1

QUESTIONNAIRES SENT OUT, RETURNED AND USABLE

Type SfiHLlhjJL Beturned Usable No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent

Grant 376 53.0 220 53.8 200 52.6

Non-Grant 334 47.0 189 46.2 179 47.4

Total 710 100.0 409 100.0 379 100.0

Per Cent of Total 57.6 53.5

Table 1 also shows a very slight difference in the percentages

of usable questionnaires according to the grant and non-grant factor.

This slight variation of .8 per cent is a strong indication that the

data used for this report is not biased in terms of the grant-in-aid

available.

Sports participation of the study population. The sports par­

ticipation of the study population is considered inportant even

though this factor is not central to the study. This information was 85 necessary to determine any difference in questionnaires mailed and re­ turned according to sport participation. Table 2 shows this infor­ mation.

TABLE 2

QUESTIONNAIRES SENT OUT AND RETURNED ACCORDING TO SPORTS PARTICIPATION

Seat, Out Beturaefl Sport No. Per Cent No. Per Cent

Football 205 28.9 116 28.4

Baseball 78 11.0 49 12.0

Swimming 72 10.3 40 10.0

Basketball 55 7.9 30 7.4

Track 53 7.4 28 6.9

Lacrosse 53 7.4 37 9.0

Soccer 43 5.9 18 4.4

Wrestling 32 4.5 15 3.7

Gymnastics 29 4.0 17 4.0

Golf 28 4.0 16 4.0

Tennis 22 3.0 16 3.8

Fencing 21 3.0 14 3.4

Riflery 19 2.7 12 3.0

Total 710 100.0 408 100.0

The variation in questionnaires sent out and returned according

to sports participation while in college is very slight according to

percentage calculations. Differences ranging from 1 to 1.6 per cent were recorded in only three sports* baseball* lacrosse and soccer.

Variations in the returns in other sports were less. Thus* it could be concluded that no difference exists in questionnaires sent out and returned according to sports background.

Snf.

Socio-economic status is perhaps more closely related to occupation and education. Therefore, information was secured relating to the occupation of the respondent's father and to the level of education achieved by both parents.

Father's occupation. Socio-economic background is one of the major factors used in the organization and analysis of data in this chapter. The occupation of the respondent's father was the main criteria used in determining this status. As previously mentioned* the revised version of the North Hatt Scale was used for this purpose.

Initially* the respondents were divided into three categories* high* middle and low. However* due to the few number of replies falling into the middle and high categories* it was decided to combine these two groups. Consequently the following North Hatt index numbers were used to classify the occupational groups. Occupations given a rank order score from 33 to 74 were classified into the low category while those numbered from 75 to 99 were considered high middle. The re­ sults of this classification are found in Table 3. 87

TABLE 3

SOCIO-ECONOMIC POSITION OF RESPONDENTS’ FATHER ACCORDING TO THE NORTH HATT SCALE

North Hatt Index Grant Non-Grant Total Per Cent

75-96 High Middle 50 (65) 74 (59) 124 32.7

33 - 74 Low 150 (135) 105 (120) 255 67.3

Total 200 179 379 100.0

No response of socio-economic position - 30.

X2 = 11.46 df = 1

The computed chi square of 11.46 is significant well past the .05 level of confidence. This lends support to the conclusion that a dif­ ference exists between grant and non-grant athletes regarding the socio­ economic status of their father. A closer examination of the data re­ veals the greatest difference to exist in the grant high middle category where fewer than the expected number of responses are found. About a third of the athletes were in the high middle category and some 40 per cent of them received grants. On the other hand over two-thirds were of lower socio-economic status but of these athletes only about 59 per cent were awarded grants. Looked at a little differently, however, 25 per cent of the grants went to persons in the high category and 75 per cent to those in the low. This deviation from the need principle were those athletes who received grants because of actual scholarship standing.

This was part of the Big Ten legislation from 1957 to 1962.

Educational level of parents. In order to secure more information regarding the socio-economic background of the study population, data 88 was collected to determine the educational levels achieved by both parents. Responses relating to the educational level of the respondents father is found in Table 4 while that of the mother is found in Table 5.

TABLE 4

FATHERS* EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

Level of Grant Non-Grant Total Education L HM LHM No. Per Cent

College 6 (47) 40 (19) 19 (33) 57 (23) 122 31.4

High School 64 (56) 14 (22) 55 (39) 11 (27) 144 37.0

Less than High School 80 (47) 6 (19) 31 (33) 6 (23) 123 31.6

Total 150 60 105 74 389 100.0

X2 * 179.90 df * 6

The large chi square of 179.90 is a strong rejection of the null hypotheses and this indicates a great difference in the educational level of the father of the grant and non-grant respondent. The great­ est variation appears to be in the grant low group. There are fewer than the expected number of responses in the college category and more than the expected number of frequencies in the less than high school category. It should be noted that the opposite is true in the non­ grant high middle in both of the same groups. In summary9 it can be

said that the fathers of grant respondents possess a lower educational

level and this is related to their lower socio-economic status. 8 9

TABLE 5

MOTHERS* EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

Level of Grant Non-grant Total Education L HM LHM No. Per Cent

College 16 (35 ) 20 (14) 17 (24 ) 38 (17) 91 23.4

High School 79 (77) 31 (31) 62 (54) 27 (38) 199 51.2

Less than High School 55 (38) 9 (15) 26 (27) 9 (19) 99 25.4

Total 150 60 105 74 389 100.0

X2 = 59.58 df = 6

The data in Table 5 dealing with the level of education by the respondents mother is found to be highly significant even though it is not as high as the chi square of Table 4. The same general conclusion can be reached in that the educational level of the mothers of the non­ grant respondent is higher than that of the grant athlete and this is tied to socio-economic status. The main difference in Table 5 comes from the greater than expected frequencies found In the non-grant high middle group who attended college.

The Athletes Academic Background and Achievement in Higher Education

The many facets of an athlete's academic background and of his achievements in higher education have been the subjects of discussion or have been used in the comparison of athletic and non-athletic groups.

This portion of the study is concerned with matters related to this area 90 and comparing grant and non-grant respondents. The specific subjects analyzed relate to the athletes graduation from The Ohio State Univer­ sity or elsewhere, year of graduation, major field of academic prepara­ tion, factors leading to the selection of a field of study, the extent of tutorial assistance, academic degrees earned and of his military experience.

Graduated from The Ohio State University. The data in Table 6 reveals that 344 or 88.7% of the respondents graduated from The Ohio

State University. The chi square of 11.75 is significant and this in­ dicates a variation in the distribution of the data. The greatest dif­ ference is found in the grant high middle where the observed number of

MNo" responses are greater than expected. Also in the non-grant low group, the number of observed "No" responses are fewer than expected.

Thus, it can be concluded that while the greatest number of those not graduating came from the grant category, this was influenced by the surprisingly large number of ”NoM responses found in the high middle socio-economic group.

Although the total number of respondents who indicated they graduated from the University is surprisingly high no claim is made for the validity of this item. This study probably attracted a greater number of responses from those subjects who could reply more favorably regarding their educational experiences. Perhaps this could be viewed as a weakness in the study. 91

TABLE 6

GRADUATED FROM THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY

Grant Non-Grant Total Response L HM L HM No. Per Cent

Yes 131 (133) 46 (52) 100 (93) 67 (66) 344 88.7

No 19 (17) 13 (7) 5 (12) 7 (8) 44 11.3

Total 150 59 105 74 388 100.0

X2 = 11.75 df 3

Graduated from another university. It was considered important to determine if those not graduating from The Ohio State University did eventually complete their degree. A question securing the information found in Table 7 was included. Since the chi square of this table is not significant, it is concluded that no difference exists regarding this matter.

TABLE 7

GRADUATED FROM SOME COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY OTHER THAN THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY

R a ' n o n c o faaflt flflfl-faflllL XOlflJ----- Response L HM L HM No. Per Cent

Yes 7 7 9 6 29 7.5

No 143 52 95 6 7 357 92.5

Total 150 59 104 73 386 100.0

X2 = 3.60 df = 3 92

Maior field of study. The selection of a major field of study by the respondents is reviewed in Table 9. The chi square of 48.33 is highly significant and strongly indicates a difference in athletes completion of work in a major field. The greatest differences in this table are in the pre-professional and physical education areas. In the pre-professionaly the most conspicuous category is the non-grant high middle which has a greater number of responses* while the grant low is characterized by its few number of responses. In physical education just the opposite is observed. The grant low has a higher number of responses while the non-grant high middle shows fewer responses than expected. In conclusion* there is a difference in the selection of a major field of study* especially in the pre-professional and physical education area. However* this difference is related to socio-economic background.

TABLE 8

MAJOR FIELD OF STUDY

Grant, KflttrfiiaBL latai____ Field of Study L HM L HM No. Per Cei

Pre-Professional 36 (57) 23 (22) 41 (41) 49 (29) 149 38.7

Commerce 36 (38) 19 (15) 29 (27) 19 (19) 98 25.5

Physical Education 51 (33) 10 (13) 20 (23) 4 (16) 85 22.0

Education 25 (20) 6 ( 8) 15 (14) 7 (10) 53 13.8

Total 148 58 105 74 385 100.0

X2 = 48.33 df * 9 Influences in the selection of a maior field. In an attenpt to determine what factors were foremost in the selection of a major field of study by the study population, data for Table 9 was collected. The chi square of this distribution was not significant. Perhaps this is due to the number of cells showing fewer than five responses. It is interesting to notice that 326 t * 84.9 per cent of the respondents indicated that the selection of their major field of study was their own decision.

TABLE 9

SOURCE FOR SELECTION OF MAJOR FIELD OF STUDY

Factors Grant Non-Grant Total _ LHM L HM No. Per Cent

High School Coach 3 1 2 1 7 1.8

College Advisor 3 0 4 2 9 2.4

Parents 4 3 8 8 23 6

O.S.U. Coaching Staff 9 1 2 0 12 3.1

Own decision 127 53 86 60 326 84.9

Other 1 1 3 2 7 1.8

Total 147 59 105 73 384 100.0

X2 » 18.54 df = 1 5

Tutorial assistance from the.Athletic. Department. The data recorded in Table 10 shows the relationship of those athletes receiving 94 tutorial assistance through the auspicies of the athletic department.

It is interesting to note that of the total number of respondents, 116 or 30.1 per cent recorded "Yes" replies. Of this number, 101 or 87 per cent were grant athletes. The computed chi square of 86.76 is highly significant and a closer analysis will clearly point out the major dif­ ferences. The most conspicuous category is the grant low which shows a greater than expected number of "Yes" responses. On the other hand, both of the non-grant categories reported fewer than the expected number of responses. It is evident that grant athletes are more likely to re­

ceive tutorial assistance. This is especially true of the low socio­

economic group.

TABLE 10

RECEIVED TUTORIAL ASSISTANCE THROUGH THE ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT

Grant Non-Grant Total Response L HM LHM No. Per Cent

Yes 83 (45) 18 (18) 11 (32) 4 (22) 116 30.1

No 66 (104) 41 (41) 94 (73) 69 (51) 270 69.9

Total 149 59 105 73 386 100.0

X2 = 86.76 df = 3

Degree earned. Information relating to the highest college degree

held by the respondents is classified in Table 11. The chi square in

this table is not significant. This is understandable due to the many cells in the table which show less than five responses. Consideration was given to the possibility of regrouping the data for chi square

computation. However, this might have destroyed the profile of the

entire group relating to this matter.

In assessing the total returns, the degree Bachelor of Science

in Education was awarded the largest number of respondents 7B or

21.7 per cent. A further breakdown of this total by grant and non­

grant reveals the following: the grant group was overrepresented in

this degree category (32.5 per cent) while the non-grant group was

underrepresented with 16 per cent receiving the Bachelor of Science

in Education degree. The degree Bachelor of Science in Business

Administration showed the next largest number of responses with 74 or

20.6 per cent of the total. A similar breakdown revealed a differ­

ence of just 4 per cent. The non-grant group showed greater frequen­

cies in replies of those receiving the degrees. Bachelor of Science,

Master of Science, Doctor of Veterinary Medicine, Doctor of Dental

Surgery and Doctor of Philosophy. In other words, there is a relation

ship between receiving a grant-in-aid and type of academic degree re­

ceived. Perhaps more than grant-in-aid, however, this degree distri­

bution reflects the lower socio-economic status of the grant recipient 96

TABLE 11

COLLEGE DEGREES RECEIVED

,.Slant Mfljsfitant la t a l. Degree LHM L HM No. Per Cent

Bachelor of Arts 8 5 8 7 28 7.8

Bachelor of Science 7 2 15 6 30 8 .4

Bachelor of Science in Education 50 9 13 6 78 2 1 .7

Bachelor of Science in Business Admin. 29 16 19 10 74 2 0 .6

Bachelor of Archi— tecture 2 1 0 0 3 .9

Bachelor of Engineer­ ing 8 5 5 10 28 7.8

Bachelor of Pharmacy 2 0 0 1 3 .8

Master of Arts 9 0 6 3 18 5 .0

Master of Science 2 0 7 3 12 3 .3

Master of Education 5 1 3 2 11 3 .1

Master of Library Science 0 0 0 1 1 .3

Master of Business Administration 0 2 1 2 5 1.4

Master of Science in Engineering 2 0 2 2 6 1 .7

Doctor of Veterinary Medicine 1 1 5 5 12 3 .3

Doctor of Dental Surgery 3 4 7 5 19 5 .3 Doctor of Jurisprudence 3 4 5 3 15 4 .2 Doctor of Philosophy 2 2 6 2 12 3 .3

Doctor of Medicine 1 1 0 2 4 1.1 Total 134 53 102 70 359 100.0 X2 * 91.06 df * 51 97

Military service. Although the original intention of the question regarding military service was to secure information regarding regular military service it is evident that the type of military service experi­ ence referred to by the responses in Table 12 came from participation in Reserve Officer Training Corp program conducted at the University.

The absence of war and of military conscription during the period covered by the study lessens the chances of respondents serving in a regular branch of the armed forces.

The chi square of 20.72 is rather significant. Closer analysis reveals fewer than the expected number of "Yes" responses in the entire grant category. In the non-grant categories, the exact opposite is true. Therefore, it could be concluded that fewer grant athletes possessed military experience or training. This is true regardless of socio-economic background. This conclusion is understandable in light of the educational pressures and demand for practice time and excellence in performance expected from the grant athlete.

TABLE 12

MILITARY SERVICE mmmmrniBammmmmmmmmmmmmammmmmmmmmmmmasmmmammmmmmmammmmmmmmmammmamnmmmmat Response grant flaa-grant Xsi&I_____ L HM L HM No. Per Cent

Yes 50 (66) 20 (26) 58 (46) 43 (33) 171 44.1

No 99 (83) 40 (34) 47 (59) 31 (41) 217 55.9

Total 149 60 105 74 388 100.0

X2 * 20.72 df = 3 98 Eastflis Jhich ted to-Uie Athlete*s Ttecision to Attend The Ohio State University

In this section an attempt will be made to analyze those factors which influenced the study population's decision to attend The Ohio

State University. Since the beginning of intercollegiate athletic competition in this nation, a high premium has been placed on winning.

The matter of winning has been related to the quality of performers

representing each institution. This fact led to the open recruitment

and even proselyting of athletes. At first both were frowned upon and

even considered illegal in some quarters. The N.C.A.A. even took a

strong position on these matters in its formative years. However*

their position has changed and today the open recruitment of athletes

within an elaborate framework of rules is acceptable.

The study population has performed some of the outstanding in­

dividual and team accomplishments in the history of The Ohio State

University athletics. This helps establish the fact they were ath­

letically talented and consequently were exposed to the pressures of

modern day recruiting. Why did they select The Ohio State University?

The responses to this were secured by a series of closed end questions

to be answered on a "yes" or "no" basis. The following will shed some

light on this matter.

Offer of financial assistance. The most significant data re­

porting the chi square distribution is found in Table 13. One hundred

sixty-one or 41.4 per cent of the respondents indicated that the offer

of financial assistance was a reason for their decision to attend The

Ohio State University. The chi square of 108 clearly indicates the great variance in the responses. The greatest differences are found in the more than expected responses in the grant low category and the fewer than expected responses in the non-grant high middle category.

This clearly shows that while there is a difference between the grant and non-grant responses9 it is related to socio-economic status.

TABLE 13

OFFER OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

Responses ■ filflilt Han-grant. lata]____ LHM L HM No. Per Cent

Yes 101 (62) 36 (25) 15 (44) 9 (30) 161 41.4

No 49 (88) 24 (35) 90 (62) 65 (43) 228 58.6

Total 150 60 105 74 389 100.0

X2 = 108 df - 3

Athletic status of O.S.U. One hundred ninety or 48.8 per cent of the respondents chose to attend the University because of its ath­ letic status. This represents the highest number and percentage of responses in this section. The chi square of Table 14 is 65 and this indicates a significant difference between grant and non-grant re­ spondents. A closer analysis shows there are more than the expected number of "yes" responses in the grant low category and fewer than the expected number of "yes" responses in non-grant low category.

Thus* a significant number of grant respondees selected the University because of its athletic status and this selection is not affected by socio-economic background. 100

TABLE 14

ATHLETIC STATUS OF 0. S. U.

Grant Total Responses L HML HM No. Per Cent

Yes 104 (73) 38 (29) 28 (51) 20 (36) 190 48.8

No 46 (76) 22 (31) 77 (54) 54 (38) 199 51.2

Total 150 60 105 74 389 100.0

X2 = 65 df * 3

Influence of 0. S. U. coaching staff. How influential was the coaching staff in the respondent's decision to attend the University?

While there were only 111 or 28.5 per cent of the respondents who re­ plied to the affirmativec the chi square of 59.4 in Table 15 is very significant. An analysis of each category clearly shows that the grant low and the non-grant low are the most significant categories.

There are more than the expected number of responses in the grant low category and fewer than the expected number of responses in non-grant low. Consequently, it can be stated that the influence of the coaching staff in the selection of the University was most significant among grant respondents. 101

TABLE 15

INFLUENCE OF O.S.U. COACHING STAFF

29E53SR8

Response Ifltal _____ HM HM No. Per Cent

Yes 69 (43) 25 (17) 9 (30) 8 (2l) 111 28.5

No 81 (107) 35 (43 ) 96 ( 75 ) 66 (53 ) 278 71.5

Total 150 60 105 74 389 100.0

X2 = 59.4 df - 3

Influence of alumni. Table 16 contains the data relevant to the influence of the alumni in the respondent's selection of O.S.U. There were 76 or 19.5 per cent of the respondents answering "Yes" to this question. While this is lowv the chi square of 24 shows a difference between the grant and non-grant respondents. The pattern of responses is the same for each group in that there are greater than the expected number of responses in both grant low and grant high middle while the responses are fewer than expected in both non-grant categories. The most noticeable differences are found in grant low and non-grant low categories. Thus grant athletes are more significantly influenced by the alumni than non-grant athletes in their affirmative responses. 102

TABLE 16

INFLUENCE OF ALUMNI

Grant Non-Grant Total Besponse L HML HM No. Per Cei

Yes 43 (29) 17 (12) 8 (20) 8 (15) 76 19.5

No 107 (121) 43 (48) 97 (85) 66 (59) 313 80.5

Total 150 60 105 74 389 100.0

X2 = 24 df = 3

Influence of hioh school coach. The influence of the high school coach in the selection of The Ohio State University was re­ corded by 52 or 13.3 per cent of the respondents. The chi square of

24 indicates a significant difference between grant and non-grant replies. The greatest difference in this data is in the greater than expected number of replies in the grant low group and the fewer than expected replies in both of the non-grant categories. There is also a difference in the replies of the data found in Table 17 by

socio-economic background. 103

TABLE 17

INFLUENCE OF HIGH SCHOOL COACH

Grant Response Non-Grant Total L HUL HM No. Per Cent

Yes 34 (20) 8 (8) 7 (14) 3 (10) 52 13.3

No 116 (129) 52 (52) 98 (90) 71 (64) 337 86.7

Total 150 60 105 74 389 100.0

X2 - 24 df = 3

Proximity to home. There were 171 or 44 per cent affirmative replies to the question regarding the proximity of the University to the respondent's home. The chi square of this data in Table 19 is 25 and this is statistically significant. It should be noted that the nature of the replies is different than what we have already observed in this section. The grant groups have fewer than the expected number of replies* while the non-grant groups have more than the expected number of responses. The greatest differences are found in the low socio-economic categories for both grant and non-grant respondents.

Thust more non-grant athletes selected the University because of its proximity to home. 104

TABLE 18

PROXIMITY TO HOME

Non-Grant Total Besponse Grant L HML HM No. Per Cent

Yes 49 (66) 20 (26) 65 (46) 37 (33) 171 44.0

No 101 (84) 40 (34) 40 (59) 37 (42) 218 56.0

Total 150 60 105 74 389 100.0

2 X = 25 df * 3

Status as a state university. Table 19 records the data from those who selected The Ohio State University because of its status as a state university. The chi square of this data is 12 which is significant.

The most conspicuous category is the non-grant high middle which shows greater than the expected number of responses. This is followed by the grant low category which shows fewer than the expected number of re­ sponses. While it can be said that non-grant respondents have a greater tendency to attend The Ohio State University because of its status as a state university, this is due to their socio-economic background. 105

TABLE 19

STATUS AS STATE UNIVERSITY

Grant Nnn~Grant. Total Response L HM L HM No. Per Cent

Yes 30 (38) 10 (15) 31 (27) 28 (19) 99 25.5

No 120 (112) 50 (48) 74 (78) 46 (55) 290 74.5

Total 150 60 105 74 389 100.0 II II II 03 IO 03

Others. The data of resoonses relatina to the influence of parents* the academic status of the University and the influence of students on campus are found in Tables 20, 21, and 22. The chi square of each distribution was found to be non-significant. While there are some slight differences between the observed and expected responses, these are not so great as to warrant any analysis of the table.

TABLE 20

INFLUENCE OF PARENTS

Response Grant Non-Grant Total L HM L HM No. Per Cent

Yes 37 15 18 23 93 24.0

No 113 45 87 51 296 76.0

Total 150 60 105 74 389 100.0

X2 * 4.8 df - 3 106

TABLE 21

ACADEMIC STATUS OF 0. S. U.

Grant Non-Grant Total Response L HM LHM No. Per Cent

Yes 47 15 39 20 121 31.0

No 103 45 66 54 268 69.0

Total 150 60 105 74 389 100.0

X2 a 3.4 df = 3

TABLE 22

INFLUENCE OF STUDENTS ON CAMPUS

Total Response Grant Non-Grant LHM L HM No. Per Cent

Yes 16 5 13 9 43 11.0

No 134 55 92 65 346 89.0

Total 150 60 105 74 389 100.0

X2 = .75 df = 3

Nature of Financial Aid Received and Personal Opinions Relating to this Matter

This section of the study will attenpt to focus on matters re­ lating to financial aid and thus add to the profile of the study popu­ lation. Though not important to the comparative aspects of this par­ ticular study, information was gathered concerning the sports in which 107 the grants were allocated. Data relative to other forms of financial assistance and of opinions regarding the matter have also been collected and tabulated.

Snorts received arant-in-aid. Table 23 does not provide a com­ parison of grant and non-grant athletes. However* it does show which sports received the greatest support through the grant program from

1957 to 1962. Out of a total of 200 grant respondents* 99 or 49.5 per cent indicated they had received a grant for participating in the football program. These figures were followed by athletes who re­ ceived grants in baseball* basketball* swimming and track. A con­

siderably small number and percentages of grants were awarded golf* wrestling* gymnastics and tennis.

This data also shows the possibility that certain sports such as football* baseball, basketball* swimming and track are selective of

athletes in the low socio-economic class. For instance 74 of the 99

grant football players came from this group.

An analysis of the total according to socio-economic background

shows that 150 or 75 per cent of the respondents fell into the low

group. Perhaps this reflects the main criteria of financial need for

allocating athletic grants. The remaining 50 or 25 per cent belonging

to the high middle category probably reflects those individuals meeting

the academic standards for financial aid without regard to the need

principle. 108

TABLE 23

SPORT IN WHICH GRANT-IN-AID WAS RECEIVED

Sport L HM Total Per cent of Total Number

Football 74 25 99 49.5

Baseball 21 3 24 12

Basketball 18 6 24 12

Swimming 15 8 23 11.5

Track 14 2 16 8

Golf 3 2 5 2.5

Wrestling 3 2 5 2.5

Gymnastics 2 1 3 1.5

Tennis 0 1 1 .5

Total 150 50 200 100.0

Other forms of financial assistance. Information regarding financial assistance secured by athletes through sources other than grant-in-aid is found in Table 24. This data was subjected to chi square computation, but did not produce significant results. The validity of this statistical finding is questioned due to the number of categories in the table having less than five responses. Therefore, the table is analyzed in terms of its total frequencies.

There were 147 responses to this question. From this total,

103 or 70 per cent were found in the non-grant group. It could be 109 concluded that when other forms of financial assistance were secured, it was most likely to be by the non-grant group.

TABLE 24

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE THROUGH SOURCES OTHER THAN THE GRANT-IN-AID

Other Sources Grant IfotefiraniL. X a ia l L HM L HM No. Per Cent

Academic scholarship. Employment loan 0 0 2 1 3 2 .0

Academic scholarship 8 3 15 8 34 2 3 .1

Academic scholarship, Employment 7 4 3 5 19 12.9

Academic scholarship, loan 0 2 3 0 5 3 .4

Employment, loan 1 0 5 1 7 4 .8

Employment 10 4 30 19 63 4 2 .9

Loan 2 3 5 3 13 8 .8

G. I. Bill 0 0 2 0 2 1.4

Music Scholarship 0 0 0 1 1 .7

Total 28 16 65 38 147 100.0

X2 = 28.64 df = 24

Attendance to The Ohio State University without a arant-in-aid.

Responses to the question, "would you have attended The Ohio State

University without benefit of a grant-in-aid are found in Table 25.

It should be noted that data was collected only from grant recipients. 110

An analysis of the total responses shows that 140 or 71.4 per cent indicated they would not have attended the University without the grant-in-aid. This clearly shows the importance of this factor in attracting athletes to the University.

The data in the table was also subjected to chi square compu­ tation to determine if socio-economic background influenced the re­ plies. The chi square of 4.67 is not significant and it can be con­ cluded that socio-economic status did not affect these results.

TABLE 25

WOULD GRANT RECIPIENTS ATTEND OHIO STATE WITHOUT BENEFIT OF A GRANT-IN-AID?

Grant Tot?l Response LHM No. Per Cent

Yes 38 (42) 18 (14) 56 28.6

No 108 (104) 32 (36) 140 71.4

Total 146 50 196 100.0

X2 = 4.67 df = 3

Development of athletic ability in high school for purpose of securing a arant-in-aid. Data regarding the question of whether the respondents attempted to develop their athletic ability in high school with the thought of securing financial assistance for this ability in college was found to be highly significant according to the chi square confutation. Table 26 shows there were 149 "Yes" responses. Of this number, 122 or 82 per cent fall in the grant category. The responses were most conspicious in the grant low group where the frequencies were far greater than expected and in the non-grant high middle where they were fewer than expected. Thus it can be concluded that there is a difference in the number of affirmative replies by grant and non-grant groups. However, it is most significantly related to socio-economic background.

TABLE 26

DIO RESPONDENTS DEVELOP ATHLETIC ABILITY IN HIGH SCHOOL WITH THE THOUGHT OF SECURING FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THIS ABILITY IN COLLEGE

Response Ito rfira a__ i la t a______] L HM L HM No. Per Cent

Yes 94 (58) 28 (24) 18 (39) 9 (29) 149 39.2

No 53 (89) 32 (36) 81 (60) 65 (45) 231 60.8

Total 147 60 99 74 380 100.0

X2 = 80.21 df * 3

Opinion regarding financial. aid-Ifl athletes-Table 27 records the data from a five point scale opinion type question concerning the amount of financial aid that should be allotted to athletes. The chi square of this table is very significant. The categories making the greatest contribution to this significance are those recording replies of "None" and "Tuition only." The pattern of replies in both groups is the same. The grant group recorded fewer than the number of expected 112 replies* while the non-grant group reported more than the expected number of replies. This pattern of responses was most significant in the low category for both grant and non-grant. Therefore* fewer grant low athletes than non-grant low athletes favor the allocation of tuition only or of no financial aid for athletes.

TABLE 27

OPINION REGARDING THE EXTENT OF FINANCIAL AID WHICH SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO ATHLETES

Amount of _ Grant Non-Grant Total..... Aid L HM L HM No. Per Cent

None 4 (16) 3 (6) 21 (11) 14 (8) 42 11.1

Tuition only 10 (25) 7 (10) 33 (19) 18 (13) 68 17.9

Room* board* tuition fees* books* laundry 92 (76) 35 (30) 41 (53) 27 (37) 195 51.5-

All of the above plus monthly allow­ ance 36 (25) 11 (10) 6 (17) 10 (12) 63 16.6

More than this 6 (4) 2 (2) 1 ( 3) 2 (2) 11 2.9

Total 148 58 102 71 379 100.0

X2 = 73.77 df = 12

Support of the University Through tho Alumni Association and Related Activities

How well does the athlete support his college or university after graduation? This question has provided the focal point of many dis­ cussions concerning the American college athlete. Since the grant 113 athlete receives more in the way of financial supportv personal atten­ tion, publicity and opportunities for vocational advancement it would be reasonable to assume that he would demonstrate more tangible support of the University after graduation. In this section an attempt is being made to compare the grant and non-grant athletes relative to their support of the University through the activities of The Ohio State

University Alumni Association. The questions for this were developed with the assistance of several officials of the Alumni Association.

Alumni .Association Membership., in Table 2 0 , we find that 163 or

42 per cent of the respondents were members of the Alumni Association.

The chi square of .25 showed there is no difference in the data regarding the responses of grant and non-grant athletes. Due to the many advan­ tages received by the grant athlete from the Universityff it would be expected that more of them belong to the Alumni Association.

TABLE 28 ALUMNI ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP

Grant Non-Grant Total Responses L HM LHM No. Per Cent

Yes 62 27 43 31 163 42.0

No 87 33 61 43 224 58.0

Total 149 60 104 74 387 100.0

X2 = 0.25 df = 3 Financial contributions to the University. In response to the question regarding financial contributions to the University, there were a total of 124 or 31.9 per cent "Yes" replies. The chi square of this data in Table 29 is 9.03 which is significant at the .03 level.

There are fewer than the expected number of responses in the grant low category while in the non-grant high middle category the number of responses are more than expected. Thus, while more non-grant re­ spondents made financial contributions to the University, this is more closely related to their socio-economic background.

TABLE 29

FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE UNIVERSITY

Grant Non-Grant Tota) Response L HMLHM No. Per Cent

Yes 36 (48) 20 (19) 36 (33) 32 (24) 124 31.9

No 114 (102) 40 (41) 69 (72) 42 (50) 265 68.1

Total 150 60 105 74 389 100.0

X2 - 9.03 df * 3

Contribution to the Development Fund on an annual basis. The question for the data in Table 30 was included to determine the contri­ bution of the respondents to the University's Development Fund on an annual basis. Just 60 or 18 per cent of the respondents checked a "Yes" to this question. Although the chi square of the data is not significant, the number of "Yes" responses found in the non-grant group exceeds that 115 of the grant group. This is surprising since one would expect the grant athlete to be more anxious to return the financial support accorded to him by the University.

TABLE 30

CONTRIBUTION TO THE DEVELOPMENT FUND ON AN ANNUAL BASIS

Grant Non-Grant Total Responses L HM L HM No. Per Cent

Yes 16 10 17 17 60 18.0

No 134 50 88 57 329 82.0

Total 150 60 105 74 389 100.0

X2 = 5.95 df - 3

Other contacts with the University. It was decided to combine the responses for other circumstances which brought the respondents in contact with the University. There are two reasons for this. First, the chi square for each was found to be non-significant. And, with the exception of one item, there were few responses to this set of questions.

The one item related to encouraging prospective students to attend the

University received affirmative replies from 150 or 38.5 per cent. Re­ gardless of this high response, the chi square was not significant. The number of "Yes" responses are recorded in Table 31. 116

TABLE 31

OTHER CONTACTS WITH THE UNIVERSITY

Yes Responses Grant Non-Grant Total L HM LHM No. Per Cent

Attendance at Alumni Meetings 9 2 8 6 25 6.4

Assist in solicitation of funds 9 2 2 5 18 4.6

Encourage prospective students to attend 0. S. U. 64 23 37 26 150 38.5

Providing transportation for students to canpus 11 2 4 2 19 4.8

Serving on committees related to Univ. 1 0 2 1 4 1.0

Officer of Alumni Association 1 0 0 1 2 .5

♦Other 26 12 12 14 64 16.4

Total respondents 389

o X = on all not significant

♦Other = fraternities, ball games, teaching or staff.

Present Status in Society

In this section an attempt is being made to determine the present societal status of our study population by examining factors related to their present socio-economic status and service to their community.

Socio-economic status was examined through their present occupations and gross income for 1966. Community service will be analyzed through 117 their membership and leadership in various organizations and of their participation in political affairs.

Present socio-economic status. The North-Hatt Scale was again used to determine the present socio-economic status of the respondents.

This scale assigns a numerical figure to occupations ranging from 33 to

96. For Table 32, the respondents occupations were classified into three groups: low, middle and high. The low group included those occupations numbered from 33 to 74; the middle group from 75 to 81;

and the high group from 82 to 96.

The chi square of the data in Table 32 is 17.94 and this indicates

a significant difference between grant and non-grant athletes regarding

their vocational status after graduation. The major difference is found

in the grant low category where the observed responses in the high socio­

economic group are fewer than expected. In the non-grant group, the

high middle category has more than the expected number of responses of

those securing high socio-economic positions and fewer than expected

responses of those securing employment classified in the low category.

The conclusion from these data is that non-grant athletes achieve a

higher vocational position than grant athletes, but this is due prin­

cipally to their socio-economic background. 118

TABLE 32

PRESENT SOCIO-ECONOMIC POSITION OF RESPONDENTS AS DETERMINED BY THE NORTH-HATT SCALE AND DIVIDED INTO HIGH* MIDDLE AND LOW

Socio-economic Grant Non-Grant Total status L HMLHM No. Per Cent

High 34 (49) 25 (20) 37 (34) 31 (24) 127 32.6

Middle 89 (79) 28 (31) 48 (55) 39 (39) 204 52.4

Low 27 (22) 7 (9) 20 (16) 4 (11) 58 15.0

Total 150 60 105 74 389 100.0

X2 I 17.94 df « 6

Comparison of socio-economic status. While not directly related to this study* the following observations comparing the socio-economic status of the respondents with that of their fathers' show considerable difference. By conparing Table 32 with Table 33 we can note these differences. Table 33 shows that 127 responses fell into the high group, 204 in the middle group and 58 in the low group. This is a great improvement over the parents responses in Table 34 which showed

47 in the high group* 77 in the middle group and 255 in the low group. TABLE 33

SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS OF FATHERS

Xftt&L North Hatt Index Grant Non-Grant No. Per Cent

82-96 High 16 (24) 31 (24) 47 12.4

75-81 Middle 34 (40) 43 (36) 77 20.3

33-74 Low 150 (134) 105 (121) 255 67.3

Total 200 179 379 100.0

X2 = 14.46 df - 2

The comparison of socio-economic status of son and father is also demonstrated by the data in Table 34. The data in this table were organized into a frequency distribution from which the mean for each group was determined by use of the guessed mean formula. The mean score of the fathers' group was 70.4 while that of the respon­ dents' was 79.6. This represents an average inprovement by the re­ spondents of 9.2 over their fathers' by using the North Hatt Scale. 120

TABLE 34

COMPARISON OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS OF RESPONDENTS' AND FATHERS'

North Hatt Index Fathers' Respondents'

93-95 4 6

90-92 0 0

87-89 6 12

84-86 26 66

81-83 23 68

78-80 36 160

75-77 29 36

72-74 68 28

69-71 48 13

66-68 38 15

63-65 14 0

60-62 38 1

57-59 8 0

54-56 14 0

51-53 5 0

48-50 17 0

45-49 3 0

42-44 2 0

Totals 379 407

Mean 70.4 79.6 121

Gross income for 1966. Information relative to the respondents* gross income of 1 9 6 6 is shown in Table 35. It was decided to compute the median income for each grouping and to make a comparison on this basis. The median incomes recorded in Table 35 show the income of non­ grant athletes to be higher than grant athletes. The highest median income of $ 9 , 7 5 0 is recorded for the non-grant low category while the lowest income of $ 8 , 3 2 5 is recorded in the grant low group.

TABLE 35

GROSS INCOME FOR 1966

Grant Non-Grant Total Income L HMLHM No. Percentage of

5 0 , 0 0 0 and over 0 1 1 1 3 .8 37,500 - 49,999 5 0 2 2 9 2 . 3 25,000 - 37,499 1 4 1 1 7 1.8 20,000 - 24,999 4 1 0 2 7 1.8 15,000 - 19,999 6 2 7 2 1 7 4 . 5 12,500 - 14,999 13 6 12 8 39 1 0 . 0 10,000 - 12,499 18 5 2 6 15 6 4 1 6 . 4 7,500 - 9,999 4 5 2 2 36 2 2 125 3 2 . 1 5,000 - 7,499 39 9 16 11 75 1 9 . 3 Under 5 , 0 0 0 19 10 4 10 43 11.0

Total 150 6 0 10 5 74 38 9 1 0 0 . 0 Median Income $ 8 , 3 2 5 9 , 0 0 0 9 , 7 5 0 9 , 3 1 5

X2 = 42.45 d f - 2 7 Membership to various organizations. The responses to questions

regarding membership to various community organizations is found in

Table 36. These responses have been placed in a composite table because

the chi square computations for each table were found to be non-signif­

icant.

I would like to comment briefly on the total of "No" responses

recorded in reply to the questions regarding membership in a religious

organization. The inplication here was for church membership. Per­

haps the respondents interpreted this to mean membership to other

forms of religious organizations. This might have led to the large

number of "No" responses. 123

TABLE 36

COMPOSITE RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS REGARDING MEMBERSHIP IN VARIOUS ORGANIZATIONS

Organization grant. Non-Grant XatAjl Membership L HM L HM No. Per Cent Religious Yes 72 35 63 34 204 5 2 . 6 No 78 2 5 42 3 9 18 4 4 7 . 4

Total 150 60 105 73 388 1 0 0 . 0

Social Yes 56 30 46 38 170 4 3 . 8 No 9 4 3 0 59 35 2 1 8 5 6 . 2

Total 150 60 105 73 388 1 0 0 . 0

Professional Yes 89 30 71 50 240 61.9 No 61 30 34 23 148 3 8 . 1

Total 150 60 105 73 388 1 0 0 . 0

Service Yes 38 10 25 18 91 2 3 . 5 No 112 5 0 8 0 5 5 2 9 7 7 6 . 5

Total 150 60 105 73 388 1 0 0 . 0

Business Yes 35 18 32 22 107 2 7 . 6 No 11 5 42 73 51 2 8 1 7 2 . 4

Total 150 60 105 73 388 1 0 0 . 0

X* - not significant for each table

Leadership in community organizations. Table 37 records the respondents' replies concerning their roles of leadership in various organizations. The chi square of this data is 10.87 and this indicates a significant difference in the responses of grant and non-grant ath­

letes. Generally, the findings show there are greater than the ex­ pected number of responses in the non-grant group with the opposite

being true in the grant groups. When the socio-economic factor is

considered, the greatest difference in the data is found in the few

number of "Yes” responses found in the grant low group and in the high

number of "Yes” responses found in the non-grant high middle category.

Thus, while non-grant athletes exercise a greater role of leadership

in community organizations this is largely due to socio-economic

background.

TABLE 37

LEADERSHIP IN VARIOUS ORGANIZATIONS

Grant Non-Grant Total Response L HML HM No. Per Cent

Yes 45 (57) 19 (23) 47 (40) 36 (28) 147 38.0

N o 104 (92) 41 (37) 58 (65) 3 7 (45) 240 6 2 . 0

Total 149 60 105 73 387 1 0 0 . 0

X2 = 10.87 d f « 3

Political interest. The few "Yes” responses in Table 38 and

Table 39 indicate a general lack of interest by respondents in

political matters. In conparing grant and non-grant groups, the chi

square of computations revealed no significant differences. 125

TABLE 38

ANNUAL CONTRIBUTOR TO POLITICAL PARTY

Grant Non-Grant Total Response L HML HM No. Per Cent

Yes 13 7 12 12 44 11.3

No 137 53 93 61 344 88.7

Total 150 60 105 73 388 100.0

X2 = 2.96 df = 3

TABLE 39

SERVED ON POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEE OR HELD POLITICAL OFFICE

Response -Scant- Non-Giant Tola] L HM L HM No. Per Cent

Yes 4 6 6 4 20 5.0

No 146 53 99 69 367 95.0

Total 150 59 105 73 387 100.0

X2 = 5 df = 3

Factors Related to the.Athletic Experience

In this section an attempt was being made to objectively analyze a number of factors related to the athletic experience. What was the extent of the respondents* participation in the intercollegiate program at The Ohio State University? What physical injury resulted from 126 athletic participation? What direct vocational benefits such as par­ ticipation in professional sports were derived? What are the re­ spondents personal opinions regarding the athletic experience? And what has been the extent of the respondents interest in sports as spectator, follower or participant? One can see that many of these questions have provided the background for much controversy re­ garding the outcomes of intercollegiate participation.

Intercollegiate sports participation. In Table 40 we can observe the intercollegiate sports participated in by the respondents.

It was decided to treat the data numerically and percentage wise rather than by chi square computation.

In comparing grant and non-grant athletes, one can observe the greater number of grant frequencies found in the sports of football, baseball, swimming, track and basketball. The greater non-grant frequencies are found in lacrosse, golf, gymnastics, soccer, tennis, wrestling, fencing and riflery. This breakdown generally reflected the stated athletic departmental policy concerning allocation of grant- in-aid funds.

In total participation, the grant supported sports of football with 99 or 25.5 per cent and baseball with 45 or 11.6 per cent are the leaders. The leading non-grant sport was lacrosse which actually showed 33 or 8.8 per cent of the respondents.

In examining sports participation, it is interesting to observe that none of the respondents participated in three sports and only 37 or 9.4 per cent of the respondents participated in two sports. From this total, 25 were grant athletes while 12 were non-grant respondents. 127

TABLE 40

INTERCOLLEGIATE SPORTS PARTICIPATED IN BY RESPONDENTS

Sport fir,ant, Non-grant T o ta ls______L HM L HM No. Per Cent

Football 67 23 4 5 99 2 5 .5 Baseball 22 4 15 4 45 11.6 Lacrosse 0 1 18 15 34 8 .8 Swimming 12 9 3 7 31 7.9 Track 14 2 6 3 25 6 .7 Basketball 10 4 3 2 19 4 .9 Golf 2 2 7 5 16 4 .1 Gymnastics 2 0 6 6 14 3 .6 Soccer 0 1 12 1 14 3 .6 Tennis 0 2 4 8 14 3 .6 Wrestling 3 3 6 2 14 3 .6 Fencing 0 1 8 5 14 3 .6 Riflery 0 0 5 7 12 3 .1 Football, baseball 5 2 1 0 8 2 .1 Swimming, gymnastics 2 3 0 1 6 1 .5 Soccer, lacrosse 0 0 2 3 5 1 .3 Basketball, baseball 3 1 1 0 5 1 .3 Football, track 2 1 1 0 4 1 .0 Basketball, track 2 1 0 0 3 .8 Swimming, soccer 1 0 1 0 2 .5 Football, lacrosse 1 0 1 0 2 .5 Basketball, golf 1 0 0 0 1 .2 Tennis, soccer 0 0 0 1 1 .2

Totals 149 60 105 74 388 100.0

KarsUY. letters, received* Table 41 records the data to the question regarding the number of varsity letters received by the re­ spondents in each sport. In analyzing the totals of this table, 343 or 94 per cent of the respondents indicated they had received one or 128

more varsity letters. From this, 169 were grant, while 174 were non­ grant respondents. Thus more non-grant athletes received varsity awards

than grant athletes.

The chi square computation of this data resulted in significant

findings well past the .05 level. The most conspicious differences

occurred among those who had received either "None” or "Two” letters.

Of those indicating they had received no letters, significantly more

were found in the grant category. Of those receiving two letters,

the most significant differences were found in the grant high middle

category which recorded fewer than expected responses and in the non­

grant low category which recorded greater than the expected number of

responses. Thus more grant athletes reported receiving no varsity

letters while more non-grant athletes received tro varsity awards.

Perhaps there is a reason for the significant number of grant

athletes receiving no varsity awards. Undoubtedly many of them stayed

out for the sport even though they were not good enough to win a

varsity award in order to maintain their grant-in-aid. 129

TABLE 41

NUMBER VARSITY LETTERS RECEIVED IN EACH SPORT

Grant Non-Grant Total Letters L HM L HM No. Per C*

Three 57 (53) 25 (21) 37 (40) 23 (28) 142 38.9 Two 27 (32) 6 (13) 35 (25) 18 (17) 86 23.6 One 34 (43) 20 (17) 32 (33) 29 (22) 115 31.5 None 18 (8) 3 (3) 0 (6) 1* (4) 22 6.0

Total 136 54 104 71 365 100.0

X2 = 35.94 df - 9 * Mistaken record

Professional snorts participation. The 1960*s might well be considered the "boom" decade in the development of professional sports.

This factor has provided many opportunities for college athletes to secure direct vocational benefits from physical skills they developed on the college level. Because of thisa the study population was asked several questions regarding their participation in sports on the pro­ fessional level.

In Table 42* 47 or 12.5 per cent of the respondents indicated they participated in professional sports. The chi square of 31.7 is very significant and the observation that 43 of the replies were in the grant group and only 4 in the non-grant group substantiates the difference between the two groups. 130

TABLE 42

PROFESSIONAL SPORTS PARTICIPATION

Professional Grant Non-Grant Total. Participation No. Per Cent

Yes 43 (24) 4 (21) 47 12.5

No 157 (164) 175 (156) 332 87.5

Totals 200 179 379 100.0

X2 = 31.7 df - 1

Sport olaved. In Table 43t data showing the sport played on the professional level has been recorded. The totals show that football

leads the list with 27 or 57.4 per cent of those playing professional

sports. While the chi square of this data does not indicate any

difference between grant and non-grant groups* this is due to the number

of categories showing fewer than five responses. It should be noted that

30 or 64 per cent of the total were in the grant low category.

From tables 42 and 43 it could be stated that more grant athletes

play professional sports. Also* most of them are likely to come from

the low socio-economic group. TABLE 43

SPECIFIC SPORTS PLAYED ON THE PROFESSIONAL LEVEL

■ Grant Non-Grant Total Sport L HM LHM No. Per Cent

Football 17 10 0 0 27 57.4

Baseball 8 2 1 0 11 23.4

Golf 3 1 1 1 6 12.8

Basketball 2 0 1 0 3 6.4

Total 30 13 3 1 47 100.0

X2 = 15.72 df = 9

Years participated ia professional athletics. While the chi square of Table 44 is not computable, some observations will be made regarding the totals of this data. The greatest frequencies in years of participation were by those 17 respondents who indicated they had participated in professional sports for one year. The fewest frequen­ cies were by those who indicated two years of participation. 132

TABLE 44

YEARS PARTICIPATED IN PROFESSIONAL ATHLETICS

Grant Non-Grant Total. Years L HM L HM No. Per Cent

Four 3 1 1 0 5 10.6

Three 6 2 1 0 9 19.1

Two 2 1 0 0 3 6.4

One 11 6 0 0 17 36.2

Less than One 8 3 1 1 13 27.6

Total 30 13 3 1 47 100.0

Injury from intercollegiate athletics. Information concerning bodily injuries directly related to the college athletic participation was secured by an open ended question. The purpose of this question was to secure information as to the nature of the injury received and of its effects in later life. Those replying to this question ade­ quately described the parts of the body receiving injury. However, there appeared to be little significance to the information concerning the later life effects of the injury. A rather amusing response was forwarded by one athlete who stated that "I'm too tough for that baby.H

The injuries described were categorized as to parts of the body.

Table 45 shows these categories and compares their frequencies on the basis of grant and non-grant respondents. The totals of this table

show that of 69 injuries indicated by the respondents, 55 or 78.2 per

cent were received by grant athletes. A further observation is noted 133

as to the susceptibility of the knee and shoulder to injury especially

by the grant athlete.

TABLE 45

INJURIES FROM INTERCOLLEGIATE PARTICIPATION

Part of the Body Grant Non-Grant Total

Head 6 1 7 Fingers 2 0 2 Wrist Arm 3 0 3 Shoulder 11 3 14 Hip 1 0 1 Back 4 1 5 Knee 24 8 32 Ankle 4 1 5

Totals 55 14 69

In the next four tables, an attenpt is being made to conpare

personal opinions regarding the athletic experience at The Ohio State

University between grant and non-grant athletes. Responses from

Tables 46, 47, and 48 are arranged on a five-point scale while Table

49 indicates "Yes" and "No" responses.

Level of prestige as an athlete at 0. S. U. The responses to the

question regarding the level of prestige of athletes at the University

are recorded in Table 46. The chi square of this data is 39, and this

indicates significance past the .05 level. Generally, the data showed

a tendency for grant athletes to record a greater than the expected 134 nuober of replies in the "Extremely high" and "High" categories. Their responses in the "Low" and "Extremely low" categories were less than expected. Exactly the opposite tendency occurs among the non-grant respondents. From this, it can be assumed that the grant athlete attaches greater prestige to his participation in the University's athletic program than the non-grant athlete.

TABLE 46

OPINION OF LEVEL OF PRESTIGE AS A VARSITY ATHLETE

Slant Non-Giant. Tala!_____ rrestige L HM L HM No. Per Cent

Extremely high 20 (16) 12 (6) 8 (11) 1 (8) 41 10.6

High 52 (43) 23 (17) 19 (30) 18 (21) 112 28.9

Average 67 (72) 21 (29) 57 (51) 41 (35) 186 48.1

Low 9 (16) 4 (6) 18 (11) 10 (8) 41 10.6

Extremely low 1 (3) 0 (1) 3 (2) 3 (1) 7 1.8

Total 149 60 105 73 387 100.0

X2 = 39 df ■ 12

Satisfaction in athletic participation. What was the level of satisfaction by athletes regarding their experience at the University?

Replies to this matter are recorded in Table 47. The chi square of

28.24 is significant. The totals of this table indicate a favorable response to the question by respondents. Nevertheless, the most con- spicious variation between grant and non-grant replies is found in the "Highly dissatisfied" category. Here, there are greater than the ex­ pected number of replies in the grant low category. In both non-grant groups there are fewer than the number of expected replies. From this, it could be said that those who reported they were highly dissatisfied in their athletic experience came from the grant low category.

TABLE 47

LEVEL OF SATISFACTION IN VARSITY ATHLETIC PARTICIPATION

Level of Grant Non-Grant Total Satisfaction LHM L HM No. Per Cei

Highly satisfied 46 (55) 24 (21) 42 (39) 30 (27) 142 36.9 Satisfied 55 (59) 17 (17) 49 (42) 32 (29) 153 39.7 Undecided 10 (9) 3 (3) 4 (6) 6 (5) 23 6.0 Dissatisfied 23 (19) 12 (8) 9 (13) 6 (10) 50 13.0 Highly dissatisfied 14 (7) 2 (3) 1 (5) 0 (3) 17 4.4

Total 148 58 105 74 385 100.0

X2 = 28.24 df = 12

Participation of son in college athletics. The responses to the question, "suppose your son becomes an outstanding athlete where would you want him to participate in varsity athletics?" are recorded in

Table 48. This question attempted to assess the satisfaction of re­

spondents to the athletic experience at The Ohio State University as

compared with the possibility of participating at another "major"

university, a small college or to forget athletics altogether. The

totals of the data in Table 48 show that 234 or 61.2 per cent of the 136 respondents indicated they wanted their son to follow in the footsteps of their experience at Ohio State. While the sons' choice was a write in response, it received the second highest number of replies. Only 4 or 1 per cent indicated they wanted their son to forget athletics conpletely.

The chi square treatment of this data resulted in an answer of

8.0 which is not significant. Therefore, we must conclude there is no difference in data when comparing grant and non-grant respondents.

TABLE 48

SONS' PARTICIPATION IN VARSITY ATHLETICS

Response -grant___ Mofl-Crant... Io.tal_____ L HM L HM No. Per Cent

The Ohio State University 91 36 65 42 234 61.2

Son's choice 21 6 15 12 54 14.2

Another major university 18 7 16 8 49 12.8

A small college 13 9 9 10 41 10.8

Forget athletics 3 1 0 0 4 1.0

Total 146 59 105 72 383 100.0

X2 = 8.0 df * 12

Athletic restriction of social life. The replies to the question

"did athletic participation restrict your campus or social life?" re­ sulted in an interesting response. In assessing the totals of this 137 question9 only 45 or 11.6 per cent Indicated that athletics interfered with their social life on campus. This is rather surprising when one considers the time and energy expended in varsity participation.

The chi square of 3.56 was not significant. Thus, there were no significant differences in the response of grant and non-grant athletes.

TABLE 49

"DID ATHLETIC PARTICIPATION RESTRICT YOUR CAMPUS OR SOCIAL LIFE?"

Response Grant Non-Grant Total L HM L HM No. Per Cent

Yes 23 6 10 6 45 11.6

No 125 54 95 66 340 88.4

X2 = 3.56 df = 3

Interest in sports after graduation. Information relative to the interest in sports by respondents after graduation was secured by the use of two closed form questions. Through these, an attempt was made to determine spectator interest and recreational participation in sports by the study group.

Table 50 shows the respondents' spectator interest in sports as indicated by the number of different type of sporting events they attended, watched on television or followed with interest through other communication media. Even though there are some numerical differences in the grant and non-grant groups, the chi square of data is not significant. In Tables 51 and 52t information was secured regarding the rec­ reational participation of the study group. Table 50 records data as to the number of activities pursued by the respondents on a rec­ reational basis while Table 52 is concerned with the frequency of weekly participation in recreational activities. The chi square of the data in both tables was not statistically significant at the .05 level.

Thus, the results of these tables strongly support the following as related to this study group. There is no difference between grant and non-grant athletes as to their interest in sports after graduation, either as a spectator or as a participant. 139

TABLE 50

NUJBER OF SPORTS ATTENDED AS SPECTATOR, WATCHED ON TV OR FOLLOWED WITH INTEREST

Grant Non-Grant Total. Number L HM L HM No. Per Cent

1 3 0 3 2 8 2.0 2 2 3 7 3 15 3.5 3 15 4 9 9 37 9.6 4 21 13 11 12 57 14.8 5 22 10 20 60 15.7 6 22 11 9 10 52 13.6 7 24 6 14 7 51 13.2 8 17 4 8 9 38 9.8 9 9 2 12 5 28 7.2 10 3 2 5 1 11 2.8 11 6 3 5 4 18 4.7 12 5 2 0 0 7 1.8

Total 149 60 103 70 382 100.0

X2 = 32.96 df = 33 140

TABLE 51

NUMBER OF ACTIVITIES PURSUED ON A RECREATIONAL BASIS

Grant Non-Grant ..Total Number L HM LHM No. Per Cent

1 12 8 16 10 46 12.0 2 27 12 13 10 62 16.0 3 41 7 21 13 82 22.0 4 22 11 24 13 70 19.0 5 14 9 16 7 46 12.0 6 or more 28 13 12 17 70 19.0

Total 144 60 102 70 376 100.0

X2 = 21.00 df = 15

TABLE 52

FREQUENCY OF PARTICIPATION PER WEEK

Frequency per Grant Non-Grant Total week L HML HM No. Per Cent 1 70 30 60 32 192 51.0 2 55 20 31 22 128 34.0 3 11 7 4 10 32 9.0 4 2 1 3 3 9 2.0 5 or more 6 2 3 3 14 4.0

Total 144 60 101 70 375 100.0

X2 = 11.33 df » 12

Earsonal Impressions Regarding the Athletic Experience

In an attempt to secure the respondents personal reaction to their athletic experience at the University* an open form-type question 141 was used. Specifically the question was stated as follows:

On the attached page would you indicate your feelings regarding your varsity experience at Ohio State? Was it worthwhile or not? Has it contributed in any favorably or unfavorablyff to your post-college life? Do you have suggestions which would have improved your athletic experience at the University?

It can be readily observed that the purpose of this question was to give the respondent wide latitude in answering this series of questions* identify those facets of the program which were most worthwhile to him during and after college and present an opportunity to elicit any positive or negative criticisms toward the program.

The response to this series of questions was good as many re­ plied in part or to the entire set of questions. Some of the replies were short while others elaborated on several typewritten pages. £ven though more depth was secured in these responses* the need for orderly presentation was apparent. Therefore* it was first decided to group the replies in tabular form.

TABLE 53

ANALYSIS OF REPLIES TO OPEN QUESTION

Grant Non-Grant Totals Replies No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Favorable 152 69.2 127 67.2 279 68.2 Unfavorable 14 6.3 4 2.1 18 4.4 Mixed 23 10.4 18 9.5 41 10.0 No Comment 31 14.1 40 21.2 71 17.4

Totals 220 100.0 189 100.0 409 100.0 142

In Table 53 the replies were categorized into favorable, un­ favorable, mixed and no comment. The data shows that 338 or 82.6 per cent of the 409 respondents returned some type of reply to this question.

Of this, 68.2 per cent indicated a favorable experience, 4.4 per cent

unfavorable while 10.0 per cent were mixed in their reactions to the

athletic experience.

The comparison of grant and non-grant responses showed some

differences in the MunfavorableM and "no comment** categories. Slightly

more grant athletes made unfavorable responses while more non-grant

athletes did not bother to answer the question.

The written replies provide some interesting information from

athletes participating under the grant program as conducted from 1957

to 1962. Because of this some excerpts will be presented. They will

be divided according to their replies and whether or not the respondent

received a grant.

Favorable responses. Following are responses which were favorable

to the athletic experience.

The education I obtained at Ohio State could have been obtained at a number of universities, but the athletic experience could only happen at O.S.O. I can still reflect on those experiences with a great deal of pleasure and pride. (Grant, basketball)

The time and effort required in participation of athletics have been well worthwhile and very rewarding. I participated in athletics as a means of securing financial aid in deferring the expense of a college education. (Grant, football)

The education I received in addition to the baseball experience has given me the tools as well as experience necessary for qy present vocation. (Grant, baseball) 143

My participation in athletics at O.S.U. was one of the most worthwhile endeavors I've undertaken. I would not have been able to attend O.S.U. without the athletic scholarship. There­ fore, athletics have directly contributed to my education, character, and financial well being, both during college and after. (Grant, swimming)

My varsity ejqaerience at Ohio State was most rewarding for a number of reasons. First, it prepared me for my present occu­ pation as a professional athlete. (Grant, football)

I am very pleased having participated in athletics at Ohio State. The experience was enriching academically and athletically. It gave me the feeling of being a more integral part of the Uni­ versity by being a participant rather than an observer. (Grant, baseball)

I might have lost interest in higher education had it not been for athletics. I found Big Ten athletics very stimulating and worthwhile. The high level of conpetition in the Big Ten drives one to surpass his apparent abilities. (Grant, track)

I enjoyed my varsity experience at O.S.U. and feel that my relationship with the coaching staff has helped change my attitude toward life. (Grant, football)

Definitely a worthwhile and maturing association which con­ tributes to complete growth. It tied the band between the scholastic and social worlds. (Grant, swimming)

Varsity athletics have a tremendous carry— over value in life and this was true in my case. I was able to compete with and meet men of different backgrounds, to accept defeat and dis­ appointment, to abide by the rules of the game, and to appreciate the value of discipline. Taking this from the field of athletic competition and putting it into practice in the community in which I live has made my past athletic experience at Ohio State most worthwhile. (Grant, football)

My athletic experience at The Ohio State University was definitely worthwhile since the grant-in-aid provided the means for me to secure a college education. (Grant, basketball)

Playing lacrosse was a chance to compete in athletics and engage in a contact sport. I played high school football in Columbus and missed the contact. Conditioning, challenge, fellowship and competition since I was not good enough to play football at Ohio State. (Non-grant, lacrosse) 144

Participation in varsity athletics was very worthwhile from the standpoint that it provided an avenue for a level of competition which would have been difficult to find outside intercollegiate circles, provided motivation to excell in the classroom, afforded immeasurable educational value through the many trips to other cities, provided recognition from youth, peers, faculty and townspeople which helped increase my aware­ ness of my responsibility to live up to their expectations. (Non-grant, baseball)

I personally feel that my varsity experience at Ohio State was a very worthwhile one. I think this is largely due to the fact that I was not on athletic scholarship. (Non-grant, gymnast)

I feel that being a member of a varsity team gave me a sense of belonging. Ify school interest picked up over my freshman year and most important of all, my grades improved. (Non-grant, fencing)

I participated in the so called minor sports, but received much more from these than I would have gotten in the major ones. In other words, I participated because I loved it rather than the fame or money I could have received in other ones. (Non-grant, soccer, lacrosse)

A summary of the favorable responses indicates that the program contributed to the respondents' personal satisfaction, gave them an opportunity to secure a college education, provided an avenue for a high level of athletic conpetition, provided an opportunity for travel, gave them a sense of belonging or being a part of the University, brought them under closer influence of the University through its coach­ ing staff and provided vocational opportunities.

Unfavorable responses. Following are some of the unfavorable responses to the athletic experience.

I look now, and did the, upon my varsity football experiences as a boring and unproductive job that I put up with in order to get an education. I gave it all I had in order to earn my pay, but the long hours, brutal work and narrow-minded coaches at times made the whole thing nearly intolerable. Had I possessed the finances, I would never have stayed with college athletics. (Grant, football) 145

I was highly dissatisfied because of the coaching staff. I feel I was not given a fair shake. (Grant* football)

Not playing on a varsity level was hard to swallow* especially after my high school career. (Grant* basketball)

I am critical of the athletic department for taking my grant away from me after three years. This to me was a breach of contract. (Grant* baseball)

On the negative side* looking back on my experiences* I can now see that too much fuss* attention and help was paid to me and other stars* if I may include iqyself in that group. So much was given to me that 1 didn't appreciate all of the favors and help. Instead of feeling an obligation to the University I began to expect special treatment and take it for granted. (Grant* track)

I attended Ohio State University during my freshman year only. I did not attend Ohio State on a football scholarship. Therefore* I felt the frustrations of a non-scholarship athlete trying to make the squad, (non-grant, football)

The only way my athletic experience at Ohio State might have been improved would be to have had my sport better advertised and supported by the University* and* of course* better understood and enjoyed by the masses. (Non-grant* lacrosse)

I feel that my athletic experience could have been better with more organized coaching procedures and with better equipment. I got the feeling that our particular sport was at the bottom of the totem pole in the athletic department and to some degree it was also reflected in the attitude of the participants on the team. (Non-grant* soccer)

The unfavorable responses can be summarized as follows. Grant respondents replied negatively due to lack of rapport with the coaching staff, the amount of work and effort required by athletics* loss of personal pride and practices as to the allocation of athletic grants.

Non— grant respondents were critical of the basic structure of the grant program as related to "major” and "minor” sports.

Mixed responses. Following are responses which were mixed in their assessment of the athletic experience. Varsity experience was worthwhile for various reasons. It was enjoyable, provided travel opportunities to meet people, etc. However, it affected my grades as participation was for three quarters a year. I honestly feel that my point average would have been higher with more time to study. This low accurae is in turn affecting my acceptance to graduate school. (Grant, track)

My feelings on my varsity experiences at Ohio State University are thoroughly mixed. Some of these experiences were enjoyable and fulfilling while others left me with feelings of disgust and agony. Football participation was especially difficuK not because of the physical part, but due to the tremendr 'in­ volvement of the constant psychological battle between layers and coaches. (Grant, football)

Although I am dissatisfied with my personal athletic career, I feel very fortunate to have been in close contact with the great coaches at Ohio State. (Grant, swimming)

I did enjoy my soccer playing at Ohio State but did not appreciate the attitude toward this sport. The treatment of athletes at O.S.U. is determined by what seems to be his financial worth to the athletic department. Thus, a football player who helps bring in millions of dollars is treated as big by the department while a soccer player or a tennis player, who is only an expense, gets what is left over. (Non-grant, soccer)

It was worthwhile. But as usual we were not the big money makers for O.S.U. and so we were given the hand me downs in equipment from football (old jerseys and shoes) and basketball (shorts), as well as a budget that allowed team members to travel to away games in their own car (about half the time) due to lack of funds. No one on the team had a grant-in-aid or athletic scholarship and we got whipped badly a number of times but we were a team, playing under the colors of a great Univer­ sity. Our benefits were that we enjoyed playing, we were a Varsity Team and competed with some of the best lacrosse teams in the nation. (Non-grant, lacrosse) CHAPTER VI

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This research investigation was basically a follow-up study of varsity athletes who attended The Ohio State University from 1957 to

1962. Its main purpose was to conpare grant-in-aid and non-grant-in- aid athletes. The nature of the problem suggested that a dual ap­ proach to the subject be taken. Firsts since the grant-in-aid was central to the study, an attenpt was made to trace the historical developioent of subsidization of American college athletes and policy legislation and action of the National Collegiate Athletic Association on the issue. Second, a follow-up study of lettermen and grant-in- aid athletes attending The Ohio State University was conducted and comparisons of grant and non-grant athletes were made in the following areas:

1. Socio-economic status of the athletes* parents.

2. The athletes* academic background and factors related to their achievement in higher education.

3. Factors related to the decision of the athlete to attend The Ohio State University.

4. The nature of financial aid provided by the University and personal opinions relating to this matter.

5. The support given to the University by athletes through the activities of the Alumni Association and other re­ lated activities.

6. The athletes* present sociometric status.

147 148

7. The athletic experience in retrospect a. Extent of varsity athletic experience. b. Physical injury resulting from athletic participation. c. Direct vocational benefits. d. Personal opinions regarding the athletic experience. e. The extent of interest in sports as a spectator, follower, or participant.

8. Personal reactions to the athletic experience.

Data used in the follow-up portion of the study were obtained from questionnaires mailed to subjects included in the study pop­ ulation.

Historical Development of Subsidization

The historical findings of this study were based on a thorough evaluation of the proceedings of minutes conducted by the National

Collegiate Athletic Association and from related literature.

The historical development o. financial aid to athletes in

American colleges and universities owes much to the initial practices of institutions of higher education and later to the legislation of the N.C.A.A. At its inception, the N.C.A.A. accepted the concept of the amateur ideal which frowned upon remuneration to athletes under any circumstances. Today, a half century later, the N.C.A.A. approves of the subsidization of athletes in the form of room, board, tuition, fees, books and fifteen dollars per month for laundry within the frame­ work of its constitution and its newly adopted concept of the amateur athlete. The following will summarize the events leading to this change.

The very beginning of intercollegiate competition in America was characterized by the outright and open payment of athletes. This was in direct opposition to the amateur concept of sports participation which originated in England and was adopted by various groups in the

United States. Eventually, attempts to halt this practice were made by the formation of associations* conferences and national organ­ izations such as the Amateur Athletic Union. A concentrated effort to curtail and eliminate the practice was made by attempts to bring intercollegiate athletics under the control of faculties and by the formation of a national body governing the conduct of intercollegiate sports.

The N.C.A.A. was organized for this purpose in 1906. The guiding principles of this organization were to foster the ideals of amateur sports and the control of college athletics by the faculty.

It had hoped to accomplish these objectives through educational means.

The first constitution of the organization explicitly adhered to the amateur concept that it was illegal for member athletes to receive

direct or indirect payment for athletic skills.

From 1906 to 1920 institutional practices circumvented this

legislation by allocating financial assistance to athletes under the

guise of scholarships. They justified this approach by pointing to

the criteria established by Cecil Rhodes in granting Rhodes scholar­

ships on the basis of all around ability which included athletics.

The period from 1920 to the early l930*s was marked by a gradual

reduction in the allocation of aid by the scholarship approach. This

was due to several factors. First, some minor changes were made in the

N.C.A.A. constitution in 1922 which restricted scholarships and more 150 clearly spelled out the violations of amateurism. Secondc the results of the Carnegie reports gave much impetus to the critics of inter­ collegiate athletics and to those who adhered to the strict amateur concept for the conduct of intercollegiate sports. And, third, in­ dividual institutions and conferences reevaluated their programs to bring them closer to N.C.A.A. regulations.

The middle 1930*s were marked by increased activity in the subsidization of athletes by individual institutions and conferences.

The Southeastern Conference came out strongly for open subsidization and initiated the use of the term, grant-in-aid. This increased activity led to the constitutional revisions of 1940.

The constitution revisions of 1940 did not become effective because of Worlu War II. However, the pattern was initiated for the

N.C.A.A.*s recognition of financial aid to athletes and for the develop­ ment of policing and enforcement procedures which changed the entire concept of the N.C.A.A. as a national body. Where before it had been an educational organization, it now became regulatory in nature with the proper machinery for enforcement procedures.

Basically, the 1940 revisions attenpted to outlaw scholarships based solely on athletic ability, one of the recommendations of the

Carnegie reports. However, it did permit the allocation of financial assistance and jobs on the basis of the "need principle."

The confusing nature of the constitutional revisions of 1940 ei'.d of the post war boom led to the N.C.A.A. *s adoption of the Sanity

Code in 1948. The code reaffirmed the principle of amateurism, the principle of institutional control and responsibility, and approved 151 the awarding of financial aid to athletes for tuition, fees and stated incidental expenses. This was based on athletic ability and the need principle. This represented the first step of the N.C.A.A. in recog­ nition of outright financial aid on the basis of athletic ability.

Also, the membership voted itself legislative and executive powers and this clearly established the N.C.A.A. as a regulatory body.

The unenforcibility of the Sanity Code was a forgone conclusion.

This was due to the lack of consensus of the membership, the contra­ dictory and confusing provisions of its legislation itself and a

series of unfortunate events which resulted in poor publicity for

college athletics and the N.C.A.A.

The Sanity Code was revoked in 1952. At this time constitu­

tional revisions were made with the advice and assistance of many

groups having an interest in college athletics. This led to basic

changes within the N.C.A.A. itself as well as to its attitude re­

garding financial aid to athletes. In its 1952 revisions, the

national body recognized athletic ability as the main criteria for

allowing financial aid covering room, board, tuition, fees, books and

fifteen dollars per month for laundry. The nature of this assistance

was increasingly identified as an athletic grant-in-aid which followed

the pattern initiated by the Southeastern Conference in 1935.

Since 1952 the major legislation concerning subsidization has

been the adoption of the 1.6 rule in 1964. The purpose of this rule

was to limit athletic participation and financial aid to those students

who demonstrate the ability to do college work. Thus, the colleges and

universities would be represented by bona-fide degree candidates. 152

A most important revision adopted by the N.C.A.A. occurred in

1960 when it redefined its concept of the amateur athlete. Since its inception* the N.C.A.A. constitution stated that an amateur was one who played for the sake of enjoyment and did not receive pay directly or indirectly. This seemed like pure hypocrisy when compared to actual practices. The contradiction left intercollegiate sports wide open to its critics. In 1960 the amateur statement was changed. In essence* it stated that a college athlete who receives pay for ath­ letic participation from sources outside the university and in con­ flict with the N.C.A.A. rules* endangers his amateur status. Con­ sequently* there is a greater agreement between the N.C.A.A. rules and the actual practices of its member institutions.

EflllQgfcm Study of Ohio Stale, University Athletes

In securing information for the follow-up portion of this study

710 questionnaires were mailed to varsity lettermen and grant-in-aid recipients who attended The Ohio State University from 1957 to 1962.

Of this total* 376 or 53 per cent went to grant athletes and 334 or

47 per cent went to non-grant athletes. There were 409 or 57.6 per cent of the questionnaires returned. Of these* 220 or 53.8 per cent came from grant athletes and 189 or 46.2 per cent from non-grant athletes. Following is a summary of the findings from this data.

Socio-economic background of, the athlete's parents

The socio-economic background of the athlete's parents was determined by use of the North Hatt Scale to classify the father's occupation and by securing information as to the highest educational 153 achievements of both parents. The data revealed that fathers of grant athletes tend to come from a low socio-economic background while the fathers of non-grant athletes came from a high middle background. As to educational background* both fathers and mothers of grant respon­ dents showed a lower educational level. This was* however* closely related to their economic status.

Academic background,, and achievement in biator education

Over 88.7 per cent of the respondents indicated they had grad­ uated from The Ohio State University. Obviously this unusually high percentage is a distortion of the entire study population regarding this matter and could be considered a weakness in the study. The greatest proportion of those who failed to graduate were grant ath­ letes. It was interesting to note that greater than expected number of failures came from the-grant high middle socio-economic status category.

In the selection of a major field of study the most significant differences between grant and non-grant players were in the choice of a pre-professional or physical education major. Significantly more grant athletes selected a physical education curriculum. Most of these majors* regardless of grant status* came from a lower socio­ economic background. The greatest number selecting a pre-professional course of study came from the non-grant high middle category.

In analyzing the factors which led to the selection of a major field of study 84.9 per cent indicated this was their own decision. 154

There were no differences in the responses of grant and non-grant athletes.

There was a very significant difference by grant status in the proportion of athletes receiving tutorial assistance. More grant than non-grant athletes received tutorial helpa especially those in the grant low category.

Single frequency and percentages were used to determine the difference between grant and non-grant respondents as to the highest degree earned. Grant athletes showed a greater tendency to receive the degrees Bachelor of Science in Education and Bachelor of Science in Business Administration. Non-grant athletes received a greater number of the following degrees: Bachelor of Science9 Master of

Sciencev Doctor of Veterinary Medicine* Doctor of Dental Surgery and

Doctor of Philosophy.

There was a significant difference between respondents as to the military service. Fewer grant athletes had military training and experience than non-grant athletes. This should be expected since the military experience indicated was probably service with the

R.O.T.C. unit on canpus. Time spent in this conflicted with athletic participation.

Factors which led to the athleto’s decision_tfl aUend-Qhifl State

The following is a summary of those factors which led the athletes

to select The Ohio State University as a place to further their higher

education goals. There were a significant number of grant athletes who

selected the University because of its athletic status* the influence 155 of the coaching staff and the influence of the alumni. Grant athletes

from the lower socio-economic group tended more often to select the

University because of its offer of financial assistance and the in­

fluence of their high school coaches. Non-grant athletes selected the

University more often because of its proximity to home. Where socio­

economic background was a factor, non-grant athletes from the high

middle group chose Ohio State University because of its status as a

state university. There were no statistical differences recorded in

the selections attributable to the influence of their parents, the

academic status of the university or to the influence of students on

campus.

Nature of financial aid and opinions Efilatsd.Jft the nattei The sports of football, baseball, basketball, swimming and

track received the greatest number of athletic grants. Of the total

number of grant respondents 99 or 49.5 per cent were football players.

One hundred-forty seven respondents received financial assistance

other than the athletic grant-in-aid. Of this total 103 or 70 per

cent were from the non-grant group.

In a question directed only to grant recipients, 140 or 71.4

per cent indicated they would not have attended the University without

the benefit of a grant-in-aid.

One hundred-forty nine or 39.2 per cent of the respondents

indicated they had attempted to develop their athletic ability in

high school with the thought of securing financial assistance for this 156

ability in college. Of this total, there was a significant number of replies in the grant low category.

An analysis of the opinions as to the amount of financial assis­

tance athletes should receive indicated that in general and as might

have been expected, non-grant respondents favored less financial aid for athletes.

Support of the University through the alumni association., and related activities

An analysis of factors relating to the support of the University

after graduation through the alumni association showed few differences

in replies by grant and non-grant respondents. Actually, there were

no significant differences in the replies regarding alumni association

membership, contribution to the development fund on an annual basis, and in other activities which brought the respondents in contact with the University. There was a difference in those who had made financial

contribution to the University. The greatest significance was found

in the non-grant high middle category. Thus, giving was related to

socio-economic background and not to grant status while in school.

Since grant athletes had received more benefits than the non­

grant athletes from the University, it stands to reason that they would

want to reciprocate or demonstrate their gratitude after graduation.

Certainly it is reasonable to assume they would support the Alumni

Association and related activities more than the non-grant athletes.

The facts of this study show this is not the case. 157

Eresent status in society

The present socio-economic status of the respondents was deter­ mined by the North Hatt Scale. According to thist the respondents were diyided into three groups of high9 middle and low based on their occupation. In the grant low category there were fewer respondents achieving a high socio-economic status. In the non-grant high middle group there were more respondents achieving a high socio-economic

status. The non-grant athletes showed a higher median income for 1966.

The non-grant low group showed the highest median income of $9t750 while the grant low group showed the lowest of $89325.

There were no significant differences in the responses of grant and non-grant athletes regarding their membership to various organi­ zations. Some 147 or 38 per cent of the respondents indicated that they had assumed roles of leadership in community organizations. A

significant number of this total were found in the non-grant high

middle group. This indicates that community leadership like better

income and status is related to socio-economic background.

In assessing the study populations' interest in political

affairst information was secured as to their monetary contribution to political parties and their service by holding a political position.

The entire group was conspicious by its lack of participation in either.

Alsot there was no statistical difference between grant and non-grant

groups.

Factors related to the athletic experience

The intercollegiate sports participation of the respondents

generally reflected the departmental philosophy concerning the financial 158 aid program. There were more grant athletes participating in football, baseball, swimming, track, and basketball. Greater numbers of non­ grant athletes were in the other sports. It is also noted that more grant than non-grant athletes participated in more than one sport.

In the number of varsity letters received for one sport there was a difference between grant and non-grant athletes in the receipt of "none" or "two" letters. More grant athletes reported receiving no varsity awards while fewer than expected reported the receipt of two letters. It is evident that grant athletes tend to stay out for a sport even though they may not play enough to earn a varsity award.

They stay out for the sport presumably so that they will continue to receive their financial aid. On the other hand, non-grant partici­ pants quit the squad if they cannot play. Perhaps their talents are then directed in more personally useful endeavors.

Of the 47 athletes who reported they had participated in pro­ fessional sports, 43 were grant athletes. Twenty-seven of these had played professional football and the rest baseball, golf and basketball in that order.

Injuries from intercollegiate participation were reported by 69 respondents. Fifty-five or 78.2 per cent of these were received by grant athletes.

The level of prestige of the athlete was considered to be higher by grant than non-grant athletes. A greater number of replies were

recorded in the "extremely high" and "high" categories while there were

fewer responses in the "low" and "extremely low" categories. 159

A five point scale was used to determine the level of satis­ faction with athletic participation. The most conspicious variation was found in the greater than expected number of replies found in the

"highly dissatisfied" category by grant athletes.

The response to the question, "Suppose your son becomes an out­ standing athlete, where would you want him to participate in varsity athletics?" showed no difference between grant and non-grant athletes.

In response to the question, "Did athletic participation restrict your campus or social life?" 45 or 11.6 per cent replied in the af­ firmative. However, there was no variation in the replies of the grant and non-grant athletes.

Information relative to interest in sports after graduation was secured by collecting data as to spectator interest, activities pur­ sued on a recreational basis and frequency of participation in recrea­ tional activities on a weekly basis. There was no differences between grant and non-grant athletes as to their interest in sports after graduation either on the spectator or participant levels.

Personal impressions regarding the athletic experience

The responses to the open ended question which requested per­

sonal impressions regarding the athletic experience revealed that

279 or 68.2 per cent of the total favored the experience. These re­

plies did not reveal any noticeable differences between grant and

non-grant replies. There were some differences in grant and non­

grant replies in the unfavorable and mixed categories. Grant re­

spondents pointed to the misunderstandings related to grant alio- 160 cationsv problems with coaches* the competitive demands of the sport*

the attention given to athletes and their own inability to reach

certain goals. Most of the comments from the non-grant group related

to the "second class citizenship" of their sport due to lack of grant-

in-aid* their inability to win, lack of equipment and facilities and

lack of public interest.

Cflncltt&um Subsidization of the college athlete. The main issue related

to the subsidization of the American college athlete has been the

conflict of belief in the English amateur concept and various attempts

to justify the subsidization of college athletes under this code. The

college athlete has been subsidized in some manner since the first

intercollegiate contests were played. Due to the early adoption of

the English concept of the amateur by some colleges and universities

and by the N.C.A.A., there have been many problems and misunderstand­

ings on this matter. It is quite evident that the American society and a majority of the college communities have never really accepted

the English concept of the amateur as related to intercollegiate ath­

letics.

Institutions of higher learning who have actually followed the

original amateur concept were in the minority. They formed the "con­

servative" wing of the N.C.A.A. and have always insisted on the Asso­

ciation's adherence to this founding principle.

However, a majority of colleges and universities attempted to

reconcile the amateur and pay-for-play issues. This is noted by the 161 devious and often circuitive methods used to subsidize college ath­ letes. The inconsistencies arising from this led to much conflict and criticism. As a consequence, these "liberals" began to look at college athletics in a different light.

The adoption of the grant-in-aid program by the Southeastern

Conference in 1935 was the first outright attempt to adopt the play- for-pay concept on the college level in favor of the original amateur principle. This was gradually followed by other institutions and athletic conferences and eventually led to wholesale changes in the philosophy and operation of the N.C.A.A. Perhaps the major issues leading to this transition are best discussed in parts of the Fulling- ton Report:

Amateurism is being modified in our society today because of discernable changes in the economic and social setting out of which the original concepts of the amateur grew, namely, 18th Century English class society. The "gentleman"; i.e., one who was under no need to work for his living, was the amateur. He played for no gain, "direct or indirect". He was the aristocrat, the land owner. He was cited as "Mr." on the entry lists. All others, tradesmen, merchants, laborers, were not so listed because they worked for a living and were not adverse to using sport as either a direct or in­ direct means of livelihood.

We make no such class distinction today. A laborer may also be a gentlemen. So may be a banker— or a merchant. The asso­ ciation between "gentleman" and "amateur" is no longer binding.

Likewise, we admire skill and we will pay to see it. Skill in any form is marketable in our society. Skill on the trom­ bone, or the trapeze, or on the athletic field can be turned to material gain. We pay more than a half billion dollars a year to watch the expert, and we have no objection to paying him for his efforts if they can be sold.

Because of these two circumstances and because college sport as we know it here is a two million dollar a year enter­ prise, whether we like it or not, it is foolish to expect that the program can continue at that level without letting the 162

athlete in for some portion of the gain either as an induce­ ment to come or as aid to him as a resident student. We have been facing the new day rather poorly, and it is high time we faced It fully and with intelligence. We should realize that it is no longer shameful not to be an amateur and that a college athlete can be a gentleman and scholar and at the same time receive aid because a t his athletic activity. The shame involved is only in the pretense we develop when we lu tg claim itai. college athletics strictly, amateur when, actually aam. a t them are. Mt . We must recognize that it makes little difference today whether they are, or are not. The important matter is the extent to which we lie about our status and expect young athletes to lie. We must accept this point of view and go on from here or live on in a state of hypocrisy and deception.!

The changing concept of the college athlete as recognized by the Southeastern Conference, The Ohio State University and other similar groups forced the N.C.A.A. to reconsider its position on the amateur definition in 1960. That a change was needed is also evi­ denced by the following factors. From 1906 athletic subsidization practices found in many colleges and universities were contrary to this principle. Actually, from 1940 to i960, N.C.A.A. legislation that was adopted in its own constitution, by-laws and interpretations violated its stated amateur rule. Because of this, the amateur was redefined in an effort to remove inconsistencies.

Thus, while the subsidization of college athletes was contrary to the amateur concept as originally adopted by the N.C.A.A., the re­ definition of this principle in i960 more fully accommodated the

!j. E. Fullington, Chairman, "Report of the Faculty Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics at The Ohio State University," The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, May 7, 1957, p. 29. (Mimeographed.) 163

American's concept of intercollegiate athletics and the college's subsidization of athletes through the grant-in-aid.

Eollowup of 0. S. U. athletes. The significant data from tables in the follow-up portion of this study were used to develop the following profiles of the grant and non-grant athlete.

The grant athlete generally came from the lower socio-economic background and the educational level of both parents were lower than non-grant athletes. Grant athletes received the ' grees Bachelor of

Science in Education and Bachelor of Science in Business Administration, and majored in physical education or business administration. While in college, they were most likely to receive tutorial assistance through the auspices of the athletic department. Also, they were less likely to serve in the armed forces or be a member of the B.O.T.C. units on campus. As to the factors which led the grant athletes to select

O.S.U., more acknowledged the offer of financial assistance, the ath­ letic status of O.S.U., the influence of O.S.U. coaches, the influence of alumni and the influence of their high school coaches. Grant ath­ letes developed their ability in high school with the idea of securing financial remuneration for performing this skill on the college level and indicated they would not have attended O.S.U. had financial assis­ tance not been offered. At O.S.U. grants were allocated primarily for the sports of football, basketball, baseball, swimming and track. As to opinions regarding financial assistance to college athletes, grant athletes felt that the University should pay the full cost of room, board, tuition and books. In assessing their support of the University 164 through the Alumni Association, it was found that fewer grant athletes gave financial support. As to the athletes' present status in society, it was found that fewer grant athletes were in the high middle socio­ economic class. Also, they received a lower gross income and assumed fewer positions of community leadership than the non-grant athletes.

A review of the factors related to the athletic experience showed that grant athletes were more likely to stay out for a sport even though they did not letter. More grant athletes received direct vocational benefits by their participation in professional sports, especially football. And, grant athletes were more likely to receive bodily injuries. As to opinions regarding the athletic experience, grant athletes felt a greater prestige for participation. Of those who were dissatisfied with the experience, most came from the grant group.

The non-grant athlete generally came from the high middle socio­ economic background and his parents had a higher educational level than the grant athlete. He more likely majored in a pre-professional curricula and this was also evident by the type of degrees received by this group. He did not receive tutorial assistance while in col­

lege. He served in the armed forces or was a member of the University

R.O.T.C. unit. The non-grant athlete selected O.S.U. because of its proximity to his home and because of its status as a state university.

He participated in the sports of lacrosse, soccer, wrestling, gym­ nastics, golf, tennis, fencing and riflery. Though he received no athletic grant, he was more likely to receive other forms of financial assistance such as scholarships, loans and jobs. On the matter of financial aid to athletes, the non-grant group favored no help, to tuition only. In support of the University through the Alumni Asso­ ciation, non-grant athletes were more likely to make financial con­ tributions. As to the athletes present status in society, it was found that more non-grant athletes were in the high-middle socio­ economic group. Also, they received a higher gross income and assumed more positions of leadership in community affairs. A review of factors related to the athletic experience showed that non-grant ath­

letes had a tendency to drop a sport if they did not have the skill to play. They did not play professionally and were less likely to receive an injury. As to their opinions regarding the athletic ex­ perience, they received less prestige for participation, but indicated an overall satisfaction in their varsity participation. APPENDIX

Cover Letter from Ohio State Athletic Directorff Richard Larkins

Follow-up Letter from Author

Questionnaire

166 THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY

Area of Student Relations Intercollegiate Athletics St. John Arena 410 West Woodruff Columbust Ohio 43210

Office of Director

March 28t 1967

To: Former Varsity "0" Athletes

From: R. C. Larkins, Director of Athletics

Subject: Research Survey

Fred Martinelli of Ashland College is doing his Ph.D. dissertation on a subject that holds a great deal of interest to Athletic Administrators. His questions have been carefully selected and are keyed to computer analysis. While it is lengthy, it is entirely anonymous and your co-oper­ ation in this venture will be greatly appreciat­ ed. Please make every effort to return the questionnaire to Mr. Martinelli as soon as possible.

RCL/pc

167

\

I 1011 Jackson Drive Ashland, Ohio 44805

Tot Grant in Aid recipients and Varsity Lettermen

As a candidate for an advanced degree from The Ohio State Univer­ sity, I am in the process of conducting a research project entitled "A Follow-up Study Comparing Grant in Aid and Non Grant in Aid Athletes at The Ohio State University 1957-1961." Being either a grant in aid recipient or varsity letterman, you have had the opportunity to partic­ ipate in athletics and because of this first hand experience are in a position to reflect on its affect in your life and of its place in our society. In this, you are a unique individual and can contribute much to a study such as this.

A short time ago, you received a copy of the enclosed question­ naire along with a letter of explanation from Athletic Director, Richard Larkins. Perhaps you are one who completed and returned this form. If so, disregard this letter. While the response to this pro­ ject has been gratifying, I felt that another attempt would be made to secure additional returns thus adding to the validity and importance of this study. If you did not return the previous questionnaire, would you take a few minutes of your time to conplete the one enclosed and return as soon as possible.

Many of the returns which I have received thus far have requested information regarding the conclusions of this study. This material will be placed at the disposal of the athletic department and they have informed me that excerpts from the study would be distributed through the Varsity 0 Newsletter.

Might I assure you that the information received from your reply is strictly anonymous and confidential and that only composites of the survey will appear in my original report or in subsequent writings.

I hope that you will give of your unique background and experi­ ence by participating in this project.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Fred Martinelli

168 A FOLLOW-UP STUDY COMPARING GRANT IN AID AND NON GRANT IN AID ATHLETES AT THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY 1957-1962

1. If you graduated from The Ohio State University, what was the year? ...... 2. From which college at The University did you graduate? ... . 3. Did you graduate from some college other than O.S.U.? Yes No ______4. What was your major field of concentration? - - 5. What main factor led to your selection of a major field of study? vour own decision influence of coaching staff influence of parents _influence of college advisor Other, specify 6. Did you receive tutorial help through the athletic department? Yes _____ N o ______7. What academic degrees do you now hold? 8. Have you been in the military service? Yes . No _ _ _ 9. Father*s occupation at the time of your entrance to O.S.U.

10. Check the level of education attained by your parents: Mother: College. high school : less than high school Father: College : high school : less than high school 11. Check those factors that led to your decision to attend O.S.U.: Offer of financial assistance Athletic status of O.S.U. _ Influence of Alumni _ Influence of coaching staff Influence of High School coach Status as State University Influence of students on campus _ Proximity to home Influence of parents Other, specify Academic status of O.S.U. . 12. Did you receive an athletic grant in aid at O.S.U.? Yes No 13. In what sport? ... 14. Would you have attended O.S.U. without the benefit of a grant in aid? Yes _____ No______15. If you did not receive an athletic grant but received financial assistance through other sources at the University check those sources: _ Academic scholarship Loan Other, specify Enployment _ Endowed Award 16. Did you try to develop your ability in high school with the thought of securing financial assistance for this ability in college? Yes _ No «___ 17. Are you presently a member of the Ohio State Univ. Alumni Association? Yes ____ NO_ ____ 18. Have you made financial contributions to the University? Yes __ No 19. Do you contribute to the Development Fund on an annual basis? Yes _ No ____ 170 20. Check any of the following circumstances which has brought you in contact with the University: Attendance at alumni meetings Assist in the solicitation of monies for the Development Fund Encouraging prospective students to attend the University Providing transportation for prospective students to campus Serving on committees related to University or alumni affairs Serving as an officer of the Alumni Association _0thert specify — _ 21. What is your present occupation? 22. Check your approximate gross income for 1966: .Under $5,000 $15,000 - $19,999 ___ $5,000 - $7,499 — — .$20,000 - $24,999 $7,500 - $9,999 $25,000 - $37,499 $10,000 - $12,499 $37,500 - $49,999 $12,500 — $14,999 $50,000 and over 23. In how many of the following organizations do you hold membership: Religious Social Service Business Professional or vocational 24. In how many of the above organizations have you been an officer?_ 25. Are you an annual contributor to one of the political parties? fas — No . 26. Have you served on a political party committee or heldpolitical office? Yes - . No - 27. List those intercollegiate sports in which you participated. How many varsity letters did you receive in each sport? 28. Did you receive any injuries in intercollegiate sports participation which have affected you since? If so, please describe.

29. Complete if you participated in athletics on the professional level: a. What sport did you play?. b. How many years did or have you played? c. Are you still actively playing on this level? Yes No 30. What level of prestige did you have as an athlete in school at O.S.U. ■ Extremely high Low - High Extremely low Average 31. Think only of your participation in athletics at O.S.U., then check the space which best indicates your level of satisfaction: _ Highly satisfied .. Dissatisfied Satisfied — Highly dissatisfied Undecided 171

32. Suppose your son becomes an outstanding athlete, would you want him to participate in varsity athletics at: The Ohio State University - _ A small college - Another major university Forego athletic partic­ ipation in college 33. Did athletic participation place undue restrictions on your social or campus life? Yes No ... 34. What financial assistance should athletesreceive: None A ll of the above plus monthly allowance _ Tuition only More than this Boom board, tuition, fees, books and laundry 35. Check any of the spectator sports you now attend, watch on television or follow with interest: Baseball Golf _____Swimming Basketball - Horse racing — Tennis Boxing . Ice Hockey Track _ JFootball . Soccer Wrestling None - ... Other, specify - 36. Underline those activities you now pursue on a recreational basis; also indicate your frequency of participation during the season by indicating the number of times per week you are involved with the activity: — Archery . Football Ice skating Baseball .. Golf Riflerv Basketball _ _ _ Handball Skiing Boating Horseback riding Swimming _ _ _ _ Tennis _ _ Volleyball Other, specify

On the attached page would you indicate your feelings regarding your varsity experience at Ohio State?

Was it worthwhile or not? Has it contributed in any way, favorably or unfavorably, to your past college life? Do you have any suggestions which would have improved your athletic experience at the University? BIBLIOGRAPHY

172 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Best* John W. Research in Education. Englewood Cliffs* New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.* 1959.

’Christenson* Ade. Verdict of the Scoreboard. New York: The American Press* 1958.

Cowell* Charles* and Schwehn, Hilda M. Modern Principles and Methods in Hioh School Physical Education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon* Inc.* 1958.

Danzig* Allison and Brandwein* Peter. Sport's Golden Age. New York: Harper and Brothers* Publishers* 1948.

Keith* Harold. Oklahoma Kickoff. Norman* Oklahoma: Harold Keith Publisher* 1948.

Davis* Parke. Football. New York: Charles Scribner's and Sons* 1911.

Fiath, Arnold. A, Histoiy of. Relations.,Between the National Col Isolate,., Athletic Association and tJie Amateur AthletlcJJnion of the United States* 1 9 0 5 - 1 9 6 3 . Champaign* Illinois: Stipes Publishing Co.* 1964.

Hackensmith* Charles. History of Physical Education. New York: Harper and Row* Publishers* 1966.

Levy* Bill. Three Yards and a Cloud of Dust. Cleveland* Ohio: The World Publishing Co.* 1966.

Rice* Emmett A.* Hutchinson* John L.* and Lee* Mabel. A Brief History of Physical Education. Fourth edition. New York: The Ronald Press C o . * 1958.

Sargent* Dudley. Physical Education. Boston: Ginn and Co.* 1906.

Scott* Harry A. Competitive Snorts in Schools and Colleges. New York: Harper and Brothers* Publishers* 1951.

173 174

Tunis, John. Snorts, Heroics and Hysterics. New York: The John Day Company, 1928.

Tunis, John. The American Wav in Snorts. New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1958.

Van Dalen, Deebold, Mitchell, Elmer D., and Bennett, Bruce L, A ttflrld flintoiy..of Physical, Education. Englewood ciiffs. New Jersey: Prentice— Hall, Inc., 1953.

Williams, Jesse, and Hughes, William Leonard. Athletics in Education. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders C o . , 1930.

Articles and Periodicals

Bennett, Bruce. "Ex Athletes Comment on their Varsity Experience," Journal of Health, Physical Education and Recreation. XXIX (April, 1958), 16, 2 6 , 44.

Coughlan, Robert. "What Happens to Football Players," Snorts Illus­ trated, September 24, 1956, pp. 109-115.

Coughlan, Robert. "What Happens to Football Players, Part II," Sports Illustrated, October 1, 1956, pp. 35— 38.

"Crusaders and Slaves," Time Magazine* October 14, 1946, pp. 6 6 - 68.

Davis, Elwood and Cooper, John. "Athletic Ability and Scholarship," Research Quarterly, V (December, 1934), 69-78.

Edey, Maitland. "The Class of *32," Life Magazine. June 16, 1947, pp. 51-60.

Hickman, Herman. "The College Football Crisis," Sports Illustrated. August 6, 1956, pp. 7-11.

Husband, Richard. "What Do College Grades Predict?" Fortune Magazine, June, 1957, pp. 157-158.

Kunkel, B. W. "Undergraduate Activities of Leading Alumni," Sfihflfl.1 and Society^ XXV (February, 1927), 259-260.

Morris, M. H. " S o m e Amateur Athletes Are Underpaid," Phi Delta Kannan. XXXIX (October, 1957), 19-22.

North, Cecil and Hatt, Paul. "Jobs and Occupations: A Popular Evalua­ tion," Opinion News. (September, 1947), 3-13. 175

Piper, John. "Puritanism: Its Effect on American Recreation," Zb& Ohio Hioh School Athletflf XXVI (May, 1967), 207-210.

Rarick, Laurence. "Survey of Athletic Participation and Scholastic Achievement," Journal of Educational Research, XXXVII (November 1943), 174-180.

Shaara, Michael. "Colleges Short Change Their Football Players," Salmday-£TBttiRg.EaaAe November 5, 1966, pp. 10-14.

Tunis, John. "Men of Harvard Twenty-Five Years A f t e r , " Readers Digest, December 1936, pp. 57-60.

Reports

American Football Coaches Association. What Becomes of College Football Players, Other Athletes and Non Athletes 10, 15, 25 Years After Graduation. A National Survey. Durham, North Carolina: The American Football Coaches Association, William Murray, Executive Secretary. 1965. (Mimeographed.)

Fullington, J. E., Chairman. Report of the Faculty Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics at The Ohio State University. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, May 7, 1957. (Mimeographed.)

Savage, Howard. Games and Snorts in British Universities^ Bulletin Number 18. New York: The Carnegie Foundation, 1927.

Savage, Howard. American College Athletics, Bulletin Number 23. New York: The Carnegie Foundation, 1929.

Savage, Howard. Current Developments in American CoIleae^Snorta^ Bulletin Number 26. New York: The Carnegie Foundation, 1931.

Stecklein, John and Dameron, Logan G. Intercollegiate Athletics and Academic Progress. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bureau of Insti­ tutional Research, University of Minnesota, 1965.

Unpublished Material

Altman, James. "A Comparative Study of the Status of Selected Athletic and Non-Athletic Graduates of Capital University." Unpublished Master's thesis. The Ohio State University, 1959.

Cooper, John Andrew. "The Effect of Participation in Athletics Upon Scholarship Measured by Achievement Tests." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, 1933. 176

Elliott* Denton. "A Historical Study of the Development of Physical Education at Otterbein College." Unpublished Master's thesis* The Ohio State University* 1959.

Fesler* Wesley. "A Brief History of Physical Education at Harvard College." Unpublished Master's thesis* The Ohio State University* 1939.

Kiracofe* Edgar. "An Historical Study of Athletes and Physical Edu­ cation in the Standard Four Year Colleges of Virginia." Un­ published Doctoral dissertation* University of Virginia* 1932.

Kirshner* Richard. "Participation in Athletics and its Effect on Academic Success at Central Michigan University." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University* 1962. In Pissgrtatiflfl Abstracts* l962<

Kissell* Howard. "A Comparative Study of the Scholarship of Athletes and Non-Athletes." Unpublished Master's thesis* The Ohio State University* 1936.

Raiak* Fred. "A Study of Vocational Status of a Selected Group of Wilmington College Graduates." Unpublished Master's thesis* The Ohio State University, 1954.

Stagg, Paul. "The Development of the National Collegiate Athletic Association in Relationship to Intercollegiate Athletics in the United States* 1906-1942." Unpublished Doctoral dis­ sertation* New York University* 1946.

Steuck* R. H. "A Comparison of the Scholastic Performance of Athletes and Athletic Participants with Non-Athletes at Wisconsin State College at LaCrosse." Doctoral dissertation* Colorado State College* 1 963, In PissertatioiL Abstracts. 1964.

Woerlein* George W. "Intercollegiate Athletic Conferences* Their History and Significance." Unpublished Master's thesis* The Ohio State University, 1938.

Other Sources

"Revision of the North-Hatt Scale." Department of Sociology* The Ohio State University* 1967. (Mimeographed.)

The Intercollegiate Athletic Association. Proceedings of the Annual Meetings* 1 9 06-1910. Kansas City, Missouri: The National Collegiate Athletic Association. Copies may be found at the Oberlin College Library. The Intercollegiate Athletic Association. Debate: Should Any Student in Good Collegiate Standing Re Permitted to Plav in Inter- Cflllfifllatfi.BaaehaJI.SftBtfiAU. Kansas Cityv Missouri: The National Collegiate Athletic Association, 1908.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association. Proceedings of the Annual ConventionsT 1911-1943. Kansas City, Missouri: The National Collegiate Athletic Association. Copies for the years 1911-1944 may be found at the Oberlin College Library.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association. The National Collegiate Athletic Association Yearbooks^ 1 9 4 4 - 1 9 6 6 . Kansas City, Missouri: The National Collegiate Athletic Association.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association. Bulletins for the Annual ConventionsT 1 9 6 1 - 1 9 6 7 . Kansas City, Missouri: The National Collegiate Athletic Association.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association. 1966 N.C.A.A. Manual. Kansas City, Missouri: The National Collegiate Athletic Association.