The Citadel of Home Rule

A vocal critic of commercialized athletics within the NCAA was small liberal arts colleges. The liberal arts athletic model, in contrast, believed that competitive athletics bred a distinctive masculinity tied to leadership and intellectual development. They decried the commercialized model that defined success by winning games and attracting a paying public, instead calling for athletics to be funded out of the regular college budget and providing opportunities for all interested male undergraduates. Their attempts to take advantage of the NCAA as a reform agency, however, frequently ran up against that organization’s “home rule” principle, which prohibited the organization from enacting any binding legislation. Additionally, the disinterest or inability of most NCAA schools to compete against the big-time programs led them to avoid or be excluded from the NCAA’s governance committees. Thus, though many liberal arts colleges belonged to the NCAA, they really played no role in it, watching with chagrin as it emerged as an organization in thrall to big-time athletics. In response, many smaller schools within the NCAA weighed the possible benefits of dividing the organization or leaving it entirely to found their own organization devoted to smaller colleges. The frustration with commercialized athletics reached their pinnacle with a series of academic, athletic, and gambling scandals in 1951.