ZI am answering your good letter of April 22nd regard-
ing the M.C.A.A.'s operation. Yes, the organization does have and
has had for years sufficient income to keep it fumetioning without
any financial difficulties. .The organization charges every college
in the United States that is a member of the N.C.A.A. outfit $25.00
per yoer. CL
& sizeable sum in the treasury.

dics acl aa balealae Wika Ge en ck therefore

pie

you cen see that there is no great need for a large income. You state —
f they did not have « source of income “it seems the setup is

ef

£
"
a3
oo!
5

t® keep it alive as e governing body." Don't
t would be better to take it from #hl sports
produces the greatest revenue, would
be better even if they did not have the

ie
tf

88
e
;
!

with you thet any parent body has the right
its subsidiaries. I believe the parallel that
likely one because the athletic association at a
Se ee ee
athletic association has the right to spend this money for the up-

$
A
gg
hf

I would not be selfish enough to want to feel that
basketball shouldn't pay its way. But when the N.C.A.A. sold basket~
ball dom the river to the A.A.U. for the purpose of nominating the
coaches in the Olympics in track, crew, wrestling and swimming, and
then when they levied on all the income from these tournaments in the
N.C.AA. national, it would be just as logical to levy on a certain
_ amount of income from the Rose Bowl and other bowl cames.

Our committee of Bum, Olsen and I settled on 20% of
the ineome from the N.C.A.A. tournament going to the organization and
80% to the competing teams. I am sure that you have enough confidence
in us that we would not be foolish enough to want the N.C.A.A. to get
nothing. However, in track and all other tournaments conducted by the
N.C.A.A. it was never more than 10% taken from these meets or tourna-
ments for the governing body. Why would they now take 55% of one sport
and only 10% of all other sports?