I would like to respond to President Eisgruber ’83’s very thoughtful perspective on the Ivy athletics model in the President’s Page of the September issue.
The prescience of the Ivy League presidents in 1954, when Ivy athletics were formally deemphasized, is remarkable. The fact that it took 70 years to reach this reckoning point is equally remarkable.
Those of us who chose to participate in Princeton athletics 50 years ago were well aware of the ramifications. The letter of admission was the first and most relevant reward; participation thereafter was voluntary and carried with it the sometimes-subtle rewards of such participation: decent equipment, a locker, periodic road trips to other campuses, and in the case of the 1970s football teams, an occasional victory. That was sufficient.
Institutions that chose the different path, hoping that major college athletics would be increasingly remunerative, are now facing a form of chaos that would have been difficult to anticipate. While I don’t begrudge an athlete at one of those institutions receiving some portion of those monetary benefits, Eisgruber’s declaration that the prospect of paying Princeton athletes is a “nonstarter” is comforting, and as it should be. We can all sit back and watch this madness play out, hopefully with quiet detachment and a minimum of schadenfreude.
If the prevailing legal entanglements ultimately forbid Ivy League athletes from participating on a national level, then so be it. It would be, as Eisgruber states, “a shame.” We have more important things to do.
I would like to respond to President Eisgruber ’83’s very thoughtful perspective on the Ivy athletics model in the President’s Page of the September issue.
The prescience of the Ivy League presidents in 1954, when Ivy athletics were formally deemphasized, is remarkable. The fact that it took 70 years to reach this reckoning point is equally remarkable.
Those of us who chose to participate in Princeton athletics 50 years ago were well aware of the ramifications. The letter of admission was the first and most relevant reward; participation thereafter was voluntary and carried with it the sometimes-subtle rewards of such participation: decent equipment, a locker, periodic road trips to other campuses, and in the case of the 1970s football teams, an occasional victory. That was sufficient.
Institutions that chose the different path, hoping that major college athletics would be increasingly remunerative, are now facing a form of chaos that would have been difficult to anticipate. While I don’t begrudge an athlete at one of those institutions receiving some portion of those monetary benefits, Eisgruber’s declaration that the prospect of paying Princeton athletes is a “nonstarter” is comforting, and as it should be. We can all sit back and watch this madness play out, hopefully with quiet detachment and a minimum of schadenfreude.
If the prevailing legal entanglements ultimately forbid Ivy League athletes from participating on a national level, then so be it. It would be, as Eisgruber states, “a shame.” We have more important things to do.