Evening public ledger. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1914-1942, 1915-12-04

ELIGIBILITY CODE IN COLLEGES
is ABSURD, DECLARES KENDRICK
Former President of Intercollegiate Association SAYS
Present Rules Can Be Interpreted to Fit Any
Case-Urges Elimination of Distinction
By MURDOCH KENDRICK

as ONE who for 10 years was actively
~ Interested in the administration OF
,ho affairs Of the intercollegiate Ath-
,.,ic Association of Amateurs OF America,
III ~ some experience In the manage
zen, Of athletic affairs at the University
- pennsylvania I have followed the
newspaper reports in regard to the eligi-
blItty rules discussed recently.
practically every year some question
,rises with regard to the amateur stand
Inc Of one or more contestants on the
larger university teams, and generally
,ba facts connected with each particular
case are aired in the newspapers, and the
final decision as to the eligibility of the
narticular individual is not made by the
authorities of his own college or univer-
sity. but by the action or inaction in the
form of a protest by the authorities who
control the rival team.
THESE annual discussions have not led
IN any better definition of the rules or
any solution of the difficulties, and it
seems to me that the present abused eli
eibIlity rules show n lack on the part of
those interested in taking a sufficiently
broad view of the questions involved.
RULES ARE ABSURD.
That some solution should be found is
clearly shown by the absurdity to which
Interpretation of the present rules may
lty-Brlckley case. have received let
ter from one of the most prominent off,
cals In the I. G. A. a. \. A. and i'm the
A. a. u. which contains the following:
There Ia but little doubt that the
fellow members of Brickley on the
Trinity football team knew that he
was an out-and-out professional, and,
therefore, when they competed with
him, they themselves became profess
sionals. Trinity very pertinently
asked the question, What would have
happened to the Columbia football
team II they had competed against the
Trinity players other than Brickley?"
Any rules which permit any doubt as
to the answer to this last question GER
tainly need review and revision.
The principal difficulty In the legislation
and the Interpretation of the rules arises
from a vague understanding of the pur-
pose of such athletics.
Intercollegiate athletic contests are not
now conducted so as to represent the
average athletic strength of the varioGs
educational institutions. They are con-
Quoted for the purpose of developing a
certain definite number of higher special
lied athletes In the various sports, which
athletes represent very small proportion
OF the total number of students.
DEVELOP STAR ATHLETES.
II is not expected that every under
graduate should participate in every sport
II the average athletic ability of eacn
Institution were to be ascertained, then
10 different football teams of Pennsylvl-
MIA should play against 10 different foot
ball teams of Cornell; or 10 different base
ball teams of Yale should play against
Is different baseball teams of Harvard.
and the college which has the greatest
number OF victorious teams would be rec
ognized as the winner in the particular
branch of sport.
We fail to remember that the purpose
Is to obtain athletes who represent cdu-
cational institutions. We have been too
anxious to protect and insist upon the
amateur standing of the athlete and have
forgotten that the principal purpose OF
the institution is to spread education.
For this reason we have, therefore, en-
deavored to adopt certain distinctions be-
tween professionals and amateurs which |
have no logical basis. That distinction |
was originally based on two grounds:
First-The professional. devoting his
entire time to athletics, could neces-
sarily more readily and easily become 4
more proficient in the sport; and,
Second-The social reason that an !
amateur was a higher type of ath-
lete and assumed a higher social tone
than the professional.
This first distinction does not apply to
college athletes, for the reason that the !
professional is compelled to pass his ex-
In his scholastic work, which
must require as much, and probably
more. of his time to acquire his scholar
hip. and he has only limited amount
'f time to give to sport
GENTLEMEN" ARE AMATEURS.
The second distinction Is largely his
orical. II Is indicated by the rule that
'xisted In England that only gentlemen"
were amateurs, and those who were en-
'aged In any vocation. for a livelihood
we're Ineligible for amateur contests.
subsequently, the rule was broadened
md recall that within recent years the
shsibility of the Philadelphia crew to
compete In an international regatta de-
pended upon whether or not some of the
members were engaged in manual labor
Tor a livelihood.
And now, apparently in England. the
'niy distinction between an amateur and
professional in cricket games is whether
'r not Mr." shall be placed before the
lame In the reports of the games.
We know now that this social distinc-
Ion is Of no practical effect In this coun-
ny. We have had professional ball play
RS elected to the highest position in the
state. Men like George Woodruff. OF
pennsylvania; Houghton. of Harvard;
sharpe. of Yale, and Brooks. of Swarth-
nore' are received. admired and respected
n every vocation in life.
Like many others, 1 know of a num-
Der o. men who solely by reason of their
sthletic ability were assisted in obtain
ng an education, and who have since
'een elected or appointed to positions OF
espeet and responsibility in public and
lFiyate business.
The present rules have led to ridicu-
Gus distinction between amateurs and
Professionals by referring to some as
There is not now
lnd never has been any such class that
an be termed "semiprofessionaIs." Any