The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1914-01-26

New York, Jan- 26-That St1IaTners
 baseball the most important issue
 in current college athletics, Is not a
 modern sports evil is attested by Parke
 Davis in treatise recently prepared on this subject He wfikeass
 ssThe testimony of experience is
 strongly against the practicabi1it ty of
 summer basebal1s' In the early days lof the diamond, the decade of the rps I eastern college stars were in great ees-
 mand by the professional teanls for | in that period, the college<nfne, pArtic- lu1arly Harvard Princeton and xa.Ies
 were superior to the city mines. For, i a time there was no objection to the collegians playing with the profes- isionals during the summer vacation. iaItnough the former openly were paid for their services In the spring of I 1879, however, two famous college players from the sAl11e irlstitutl 6f1, who after graduation were playing
 with a great city nine, Suddenly left the profes ssionaI team, re-ensered col- llege and by their preAence lifted their 1cptIege nine from the rear to the front lin the collegiate canapai gns
 This spectacular occurrence naturs ally centered alttent ton upon the sub
 ject of professionalism AS a result
 of the agitation which followed, six icol1eges, namely Amherst, Brown iDartmouth. Harvard. Priuceto toti and Yale. met in the old Massasoit House j at sprinsneId, Deceuber 6. 1879. for. the purpose Of draftfng common iengibiIity rule and if possible to fertn Q baseball league. Their delihera- Itions eventually produced both. The irlle adopted on that occasion ran as I follows:
 s'sAny student who has been in rsg- ular attendance for the whole of any tco1lege year in any department shall.
 be eligible in that year Tor the nine
 Any student who after this date shall lplay upon a professional iteaza or who fshaH play for money shall not be eligi- This pioneer rule stra1ck directly lat the grievances as they existed in the simple days of 1879 but g period 1 was on the horizon in which simplicity! Iinf sport was to develop rapidly into ieomplexity- With the decade of the sos came the organized anna teur ath- f1etic club Tir1H the sl1nIr1e er resort mine the manufactory nine, and the isnaH city amateur nine some of which I were so managed that the public un-s las seni-auateur' hines. These orr ! 'Iganizations, likewise chiefly sought the college stars. Again no objec-i ltion was raised at first to the eolle-l gian playing with these teams pro- vided he received only his ekpenses -sIt was not lofEs however bef0re runors were rife of padded expensel accounts, of highly valuaib1e gifts of high salaried con1mercia1 positions in
 which no service was required, and even of secret pay-rolls Not only we're the eo1legians ernbroiled in.
 charges and counter charges but the partiSans of these summer teams Hixe- 1 wise joined the hue and cry. The:
 divided allegiance of some of the latter led them to furnish secretly to their college proofs of the professionalism of rival co1Iegians.
 Cautiously, it was football that suf- fered most from the ensuing storm, due to the double fact that the Haot-l ball season followed baseball and that the star Of the diamond usually WAS a star of the gridiron. Thus the fall l of 1889 found the old American in I t5rcOl1egiate Football Association, i which had founded and nuftur6d the i3nter-colIegiated game locked in a 3bfffer row over charges of profession- alisrn which had arisen in sslin1ner5 baseball row that eventually wreck
 ed the association. This was followed Iby similar controversies among the ivafiaus Institutions forming dual l leagues in athletics ana the brea king, l of intercollegiate relations made a I great din during the early years Of the decade of the '90ss The bitterness of
 the. rival student bodies extended to the alumni and to the facu1tfes Thus the condition became irtolerables Up to this time college faculties
 had regarded competitive athletics as I exclusively a matter of student mar- I agement. They now perceived, how-. lever, that the institution had reached fl a stage of evolution when 1t was as I much matter of faculty supervision as any department of instrlactiota or. ] business administration. With the
 adoption of this theory on the subject Fl The unusual strength developed by the so-called smaller college football teams of last season is still a subject H of much discussion by students Of the game. M. J. Thonpson one of the \ leading officials and authorities on I football in an analysis of the situation Il states: szss
 There are several very satisfactory l reasons that might be offered to ex. plain the footbal1 equality which at present exists between the large and small colleges. The large universities must by reason of their football pof- El icy retain a conservative style of play. N The small colleges on the other hand \ more readily adapt themselves to the quently able to offer more surprises 1 in offensive~play than their big broth- CTS can offset by their more ponder ous team work Then, too. the small institutions have everything to gain and nothing to lose by employing these
 new tactics.
 5sIf they lose it is no discredft to
 them but if they win or even tie, great
 glory is theirs and their victory is nearly always the result Of careful T analysis of the new rules, and often I their reckless application. Their style I Is always characterized by quick, T snappy plays. the frequent use of the l forward pass and, when it was legal the onesids kick. The large utiversi- 1 ties cannot so safely employ these stae- Ifics They nl1ist be conservative, they I can take no chances. they must win as I the result of less brilliant plays and 4 more faultless team work so when an
 ordinarily weaker team offers a good T defense and a bewfldering number Of
 open plays, the rightful victor must 1 lose"