view raw text
Doubt Big 10-PCC I Rose Bowl Renewal May OK Pact If Coast Will * Accept One-in-Three Years Appearance by Same School By ED SAINSBURY United Press Sports Writer Repeal of the National Collegiate Athletic Association sanity code last January has influenced Big Ten opinion against renewal j of the Rose Bowl pact T?ith the Pacific Coast Conference," it was learned today. Five schools have expressed opposition to renewal of the "five-year-old agreement. They believed generally that renewal might further inflame a growing trend toward over-emphasis of football. The final Big Ten decision will be made Thursday or Friday at the annual spring meeting here. It appeared that only renewal -on the old terms — including the provision that no team may compete more than once in three years — has a chance for approval. But it was understood that the Pacific Coast Conference would reject this plan. A spokesman for Wisconsin, which voted against renewal on any terms, said, "It might be the general college situation" was responsible for the Big Tens attitude. "The balloon is rising pretty high and we think that maybe it would be a good thing to let some air out of it now. Its not because of any feeling about our relationships with the Pacific Coast or any reaction from our, games in the Rose Bowl." • Wisconsin believes, he said, that the "basic conference rule against post-season games is a good one and that now is the time to return to it."" Like Intersectional Competition "We like intersectional competition," a Purdue spokesman said, "but wed like to keep it in the regular season. College sports have gotten back to bidding for players, and its close to dog-eat-dog with recruiting and subsidization. "Wed like to minimize this, and one way to do it is to take the heat off. I feel that we have bigger stakes in this, than just the Rose Bowl. Were almost fighting for the survival of amateur athletics. "The conference has rules against postseason games," the Purdue official said. "These games are getting bigger and bigger, with bigger financial stakes involved, and were hesitant to add to that program and build the fire higher." Illinois feels that renewing the pact with the provision that no team may go to the Bowl more than once in three years "will not be harmful," faculty representative Robert B. Browne said. "I would not hit one school more often than that," he said. "No athlete could go twice, and thered be no point in recruiting athletes on the basis that they could go to a Bowl game every year. As it is, the long trip has to be made every year by the Big Ten, and, of course, the players and the students who go cant get back for the opening of classes. "We can tolerate it once in three years, but that does not mean we favor postseason games. I like our relations with the Pacific Coast and I believe we think much alike on standards of competition." Another opponent of renewal, Northwestern, believes the Rose Bowl extends the football season too long - and overemphasizes the game. Northwestern, one of the four Big Ten teams which has competed, also found the game had an affect on students and players involved in the contest. Minnesota, the fifth opponent of renewal, has been outspoken against the Bowl agreement from the first discussions. "The school is simply opposed to extending the football season into the next calendar year," a spokesman said. Minnesota and Illinois voted against the Bowl agreement when it first became effective. The other three schools voted for the pact.
