In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Hanford Report, Rejected Reform, and Proposition 48 | 131 lege summarized the major arguments against the 1.600 rule, noting that it discriminated against special students (principally inner-city blacks), it violated institutional autonomy (the old Home Rule), and the SAT and ACT tests were of questionable validity. He predicted a lawsuit might overturn the 1.600 rule if the NCAA did not soon do so.38 Nevertheless, when a motion to abolish the 1.600 rule came up again in 1973, Alan Chapman of Rice University, a longtime champion of the rule, believed it would be “a serious mistake for this Association to remove any academic standards at all; and when one couples that with the present freshman eligibility rule, the opportunities for the abuse of the young man grow enormously .”39 Before a vote was taken, Robert Behrman of City College of New York summed up the opposition and asked for a clean break with the rule, for it was “a source of confusion, embarrassment, frustration and hostility for ever-increasing numbers of member institutions.” In a close vote, 204–187, Behrman won.40 Walter Byers, executive director of the NCAA, lost. He later recalled: “Losing the 1.600 rule was one of the most painful experiences in the 22 years I had then served as executive director. It was a terrible day for college athletics.”41 The result was that not only were freshman eligible to compete in all sports, including football and basketball, but there were no minimal academic standards once the individual was admitted to college. The only requirement for varsity competition was a high school 2.0 grade point average in any high school curriculum.42 The future could look to chaos in the sports yard as increased money was funneled into intercollegiate athletics with the growth in gate receipts, football bowls, the ever-morepopular basketball tourney, and lucrative television contracts. The drive to recruit the best athletes, with or without academic credentials, increased accordingly, and with it, of course, the call for intercollegiate athletic reform. 14 The Hanford Report, Rejected Reform, and Proposition 48 In the same month the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) convention decided to remove all national academic requirements for athletes to participate as freshmen and throughout their college years, the January 1973 peace agreement was reached, theoretically ending the Vietnam War. The war had brought social 132 | Chapter 14 and economic turmoil, a conflict that began in 1959 and soon involved U.S. troop support and recognized combat troops beginning in 1965. Along with social unrest, a tremendous period of inflation resulted in America, and with it came the rising costs of running intercollegiate athletic programs. Inflation was the major reason why freshmen were allowed to compete in most sports beginning in 1968 and four years later in football and basketball. Further cost reductions in expenditures for athletics were expected from the NCAA decision to award athletic scholarships for only one year, when previously the intent was for four years.1 Of course, the one-year athletic scholarship was much more than a financial decision. It was brought about to threaten with the loss of scholarships those athletes who were not obedient to coaches. At the time, there were numerous protests by African American athletes, especially in the North, for social justice as well as protests from all athletes as part of the rampant opposition to the Vietnam War.2 Another cost-cutting measure was not considered: the elimination of free substitution (platooning) in football. A limit on special teams for offense and defense would eliminate the need for many of the expensive athletic scholarships and other expenses and would require fewer coaches.3 Nevertheless, financial stability was threatened during the Vietnam War, and university academic standards were being jeopardized by open enrollments, allowing anyone who graduated from high school to attend many colleges. The combination of deficits caused by inflation with the passage and costly mandates of Title IX of the Educational Act of 1972, providing women with equal opportunities in athletics and other areas, did not create the best conditions for reforming intercollegiate athletics from an academic standpoint. Yet that is exactly what George Hanford, the vice president of the College Board and the organization administering the SAT exams, was asked to do. Shortly after the 1973 NCAA convention, when, according to Executive Director Walter Byers, “supposedly responsible educators had voted for sports expediency,”4 George Hanford was in a discussion with Alden Dunham of the Carnegie Foundation...

Share