We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
O N THE DAY when the Notre Dame-Oklahoma game monopo¬ lized the interest of most football fans, it was a rabbit hunt involving Dartmouth and Holy Cross that met their eyes. On Nov. 26 when the great American public flicks turkey stuffing off its vest and switches on the tele¬ vision set, the heroes of Utah and Brigham Young University will ap¬ pear on the screen. That’s an item of absorbing interest to practically everyone resident on Pike’s Peak. In between these dates, the Na¬ tional Collegiate Athletic Association’s television program has a couple of Saturdays when viewers don’t even get one dull game in one dreary piece. Instead they are offered some¬ thing which the N.C.AA. calls a “panorama,” meaning pieces of four indifferent spectacles. Picture an Ivy League fan—if such there be—who tuned in happily to see Princeton en¬ gage Cornell on Oct. 24, or a Big Ten follower who discovered that Iowa and Indiana appeared on his set on that date. He saw maybe one quarter of the game of his choice, just enough to titillate him. Then the picture faded out and in its place came a fragment of the Arkansas-Mississippi match. College football authorities used to worry about television killing their game. As the N.C.A.A. schedule is rigged this year, football seems in a fair way to kill television. This situation has been brought about by a nice blend of fear and avarice. Athletic directors demanded restrictions on live football telecasts because they feared the competition would cut into their gate receipts. At the same time, they all wanted a slice of the swag put up by sponsors for such television as would be permitted. Trying to meet both demands, the N.C.A.A.’s television committee set up its rules. There would be only one live telecast on a National network on any Saturday, and no team could share in the swag more than once during the season. In order to spread the grift as widely as possible, each of the N.C.A.A.’s eight geographical sectors would have to be represented at least once. The Utah-Brigham Young thing, for example, has to be foisted upon Eastern viewers so that the Rocky Mountain area could get its cut. The “panorama” dodge is simply a device enabling eight schools to feed at the t television trough instead of two. Bound by their own inelastic rules, the committee members should not be blamed for an unsatisfactory sched¬ ule. Just the same, they are going to be abused, because the policy of re¬ striction violates a basic principle of entertainment. It ignores the tastes and preference of the consumer; it supplies where there is no demand. Almost surely this will be the last season for the plan in its present form. If Federal authorities don’t for¬ bid further combinations in restraint of entertainment, public opinion will force drastic changes by next year. 23