BUZZ ANDREWS, Brown University, first Rose Bowl game, 1916
"I don't like the ban on spring practice. This conditioning period helps cut down injuries in the fall. But I do favor de-emphasis in the Ivy League. A ban on bowl games is proper. Our players are not solicited, paid athletes. They can't compete against lax-eligibility teams."
This is an article from the Jan. 3, 1955 issue
ALEX SARKISIAN, Northwestern, 1949
"No. If you win, football fans flock to the games. If you lose, the university loses money and the coach is fired. This year Ivy League football hit rock bottom. I'll admit that bowl games may interfere with studies. Anyway I would have traded our Rose Bowl victory in 1949 for the Big Ten title."
PAUL J. REIDER, University of Pittsburgh, 1933
"No. Banning spring practice acts as subterfuge to satisfy alumni for loss of games. That's easier than giving coaches good material. As for bowl games, one of the high lights of my life was the Rose Bowl trip. The way we were treated there was almost beyond the average boy's comprehension."
H. R. (Peter) PUND, Georgia Tech, 1929
"Emphatically no. Football is a tough game, but not dangerous for a properly coached boy. The few weeks of fall practice are too short to absorb fundamentals and get into 'safe' condition. It's a unique honor to play in bowl games. Eliminating them will harm football in the long run."
NEWSH BENTZ, Penn State, 1923
"Yes. Ivy League teams that played in the Rose Bowl were Brown, Columbia, Harvard and Penn. They feel this ban will have no ill effect, but will put the game on a purely collegiate basis. Ivy League teams will play in their own class. Other colleges are undoubtedly watching for the results."
ADAM WALSH, Notre Dame, 1925
"No. If football is of educational value in the fall, why does it lose its value in spring? Why eliminate bowl games and sanction competition in other sports? We need re-emphasis of football values, not de-emphasis. Eliminating spring practice and banning bowl games won't cure football ills."
FRANK SINKWICH, University of Georgia, 1943
"There must be good reasons for the ruling of the Ivy League. Myself, I believe bowl games and spring practice benefit everyone. The boy, the school, the alumni, the merchants and the cities benefit. I consider it a privilege to play in any bowl game. It's a wonderful experience."
JERRY DALRYMPLE, Tulane University, 1932
"No. Spring practice is necessary for perfection. Captaining the Tulane Rose Bowl team was one of the greatest experiences of my life. It was a wonderful reward for our team's play. Properly controlled, bowl games will be as good for college football as the World Series is for baseball."
ROBERT P. BARNETT, Duke University, 1942
"No. Mastery of fundamentals, blocking, tackling, must be perfected in spring practice. Fall sessions are chiefly devoted to sharpening team play. Sophomores, particularly, need spring practice. Ivy League ban on bowl games will have no effect. Their teams are rarely bowl material."
R. A. (Bones) HAMILTON, Stanford, 1936
"Quite the contrary. Football is the heart of collegiate life. Dismembering it, bit by bit, in the elimination of spring practice and the ban of bowl games, is only going to cripple the finest form of collegiate Americana. Can debating groups or intramural sports give America an equal lift?"
CHUCK STUDLEY, University of Illinois, 1952
"Yes. This is part of an over-all educational program to de-emphasize football. Spring practice is as hard as fall. Its elimination will help de-emphasis. Even though the ban on bowl games will help de-emphasis, it is unpopular. How else can a boy get a three weeks' vacation in sunny California?"
STAN WILLIAMSON, University of So. California, 1932
"No. Spring practice is necessary for the safety of players. As regards the ban on bowl games, our democratic system is based on competition. Bowl games play their part. The individuals, the school, the community—all gain something from these games. They help make America what it is."