There is an important question that will have to be decided soon for intercollegiate, amateur football. Is it to be played for the benefit of the players and their immediate collegiate cohorts, or is to be a spectacle staged for the entertainment of the public? The Tournament of Roses officials are now being seriously criticized for nominating Duke to play the University of Southern California in the floral classic. Apparently some feel that the public would prefer Texas Christian University to the Blue Devils. This opinion has been crystallized in the words of certain Californian sports writers, one of whom, Bill Henry, of the Los Angeles Times, says, "The Trojans apparently don't give a whoop who or what the public wants . . . a good many people are going to be of the opinion that the Trojans ignored their civic responsibility, in rushing to the decision to ask Duke."
The public wants T.C.U.; the college wants Duke. The question of who is right makes no difference, but the question of whose desire shall be followed makes a good deal of difference. Football may still be free from "civic responsibility." It all started between Princeton and Rutgers as a friendly rivalry. It was thought that it would be nice for colleges to play each other. It was nice, and still can be today, but just what John Q. Public, his wife, and his kids want should be gently ignored. It would be pleasant to keep college football, amateur or semi-pro as it may be, a strictly collegiate thing. If it doesn't stay that way, our blessed Chambers of Commerce will take over and we'll finally be able to call it professional. But until then we want to yell "Hurray Hahvud" or "Yay Yayul" blissfully unaware of the fact that the ivy-clad tradition is boosting the business index. Football should still be of, for, and by the colleges.