The Question: Are you in accord with the Ivy League in its ban on spring football practice? (Answers by members of SPORTS ILLUSTRATED'S Silver Anniversary All-America at the Touchdown Club Dinner in Washington, D.C.)

WILLIS M. TATE
President
Southern Methodist University
No. Spring football doesn't do any harm. In fact, spring practice improves the caliber of football. We limit it to 28 days. No one can say that this is overemphasis. Athletes are going to engage in some spring activity. Why not football practice if they like it best?

CHARLES C. TILLINGHAST JR.
New York
Corporation lawyer
Yes. Abolishing spring football practice has taken the emphasis off football and has encouraged other sports. Football players are a bit better rounded if they engage in other sports. They should be able to choose another sport and not be required to report for spring practice.

ROGER W. BLANCHARD
Dean Episcopal Cathedral
Jacksonville, Fla.
No, because I approve of full athletic scholarships. Spring football practice helps a boy. He learns the fine points of the game and is encouraged to keep in training for the regular football season in the fall. There's no doubt that this helps him play a better game and lessens the chance for injury.

DOUGLAS MacARTHUR II
U.S. Ambassador to Japan
Yes, I'm fully in accord with this ban. Football should be played for fun, because the players like it. But they are subject to a great pressure by their coaches. In colleges where there is spring practice, they must report. Abolishing this practice gives them the chance to enjoy other sports.

DR. WILSON H. ELKINS
President
University of Maryland
No. I don't doubt the sincerity of the Ivy League. They think that spring practice puts too much emphasis on football. I disagree. Spring practice does no harm. The boys are going to engage in some sports activity. If they want to practice football, why stop them? It isn't compulsory.

BRIG. GEN. EDWARD W. SUAREZ
Vice-Commander
Central Air Defense Force
No. Football is tough. It takes a lot out of you. Top physical conditioning prevents injury. I believe in spring practice, but it shouldn't be as intensive as that of the regular season. It's good to see what ability the youngsters have, but spring training should not be compulsory.

JAMES W. BAMPTON
Manufacturer
Aerosol Products
Yes. Abolishing spring practice does exactly what the presidents of the Ivy League colleges intended. It takes some of the grind out of football, discourages overemphasis and tends to keep football in its proper proportion within the educational process. This is a move in the right direction.

ERNEST L. MASSAD
Oklahoma
Housing development and oil leases
No. Spring practice is a good weeding-out period. It's a sort of preview for coaches. Furthermore, the players acquire a little more know-how, get into better shape and are less likely to be injured in the regular season. You must remember that it's a big step from high school to college football.

DR. EDWARD M. WINANT
New York
Orthopedic surgeon
I'm in favor of spring football practice only if a student does not participate in other athletic activities. It's good for physical conditioning and the teaching of fundamentals, but football should not be given preference. Overemphasis results when there is a strong preference for football.

TEN PHOTOS

NEXT WEEK:

Who is the better fisherman, you or your mate?