Monday, February 16, 194

by Jim Need

HAROLD Keith, director
of sports publicity at Okla-
homa University, wrote a

_ resume of the Gerald Tucker
case in the current issue of
the. Sooner alumni magazine.
‘In order to gi
the case as
we are reprinting parts of
Keith’s article: ;

Manhattan, Kan, ©
Jan...2, 1942.

BIG SIX ELIGIBILITY COM-
MITTEE UNANIMOUSLY
RULES GERALD TUCKER IN-
ELIGIBLE FOR ATHLETIC
PARTICIPATION AT OKLA-
HOMA. RULE MADE ON ARTI-
CLE ELEVEN. RULING RE-
QUESTED BY 4. MEMBER_IN-

~ STITUTION, Di! H. H. KING,

“The, aboye telegram, sent to
Prof. Waltes Kraft, Oklahoma’s
faculty ‘representative, bluntly no-
tified Sooner athletic authorities
that Gerald Tucker was ineligible
for athletics at O oma, for life
because * Oklahoma had violated
the migrant rule, which is rule
eleven in»thé Big Six Conference
code. hy

“The rence eligibility com-
mittee represented to have made
the § is composed of Mr.}.

_.King,’ the Kansas State faculty |:

" ‘representative, W. W. Davis of|:

‘ansas, and H. B. Bergman of|
Iowa State.
“Mr: Kraft quickly put in long} :
distance telephone calls to both|:
‘Mr. King and Mr. Davis and dis-}:
_ covered several irregularities con-|:
cerning the decisions which he ex-
ed to the Oklahoma - Athletic! :

: Rearend de Sun-| :

‘day afternoon, J. anuary: 4, Ame; |
them were:

(1) Oklahoma had not been given a|:
hearing by the eligibility committee, nor
an opportunity to present its: side of the| -
argument on the migrant rule question. | :
The wisdom of such a hearing was evi-|:
dent at a later meeting before the entire
conference when Oklahoma presented new|:
eviaence that speedily killed the migrant}:
rule charge. :

(2) Two of the three members of the
conference eligibility committee that pro-| :
nounced Tucker ineligible were from what} :
turned out to be complaining schools and|:
this raised a serious question of propriety. | :

(3) Mr. King misrepresented the vote of |:
one of the committee members, Mr. Davis]:
of Kansas, who told Mr. Kraft that he|:
had never voted to disqualify Tucker on|:
the basis of the migrant Tule, but because |:

-of the residence rule. Mr. Davis repeated | :
this at the Kansas City meeting, assert-|:
ing that ‘‘Mr. King sppeerntly misunder- | :
stood me over long stance telephone.’’
Yet Mr, King’s original telegram had
stated that the three-man eligibility com-
mittee had unanimously disbarrred Tucker
because of the migrant rule. Mr. Davis is
one of the three members of the commit-
tee, therefore the migrant rule and life
disbarrment decision wasn’t unanimous
and even appears to.hsve been confused
during the hasty long distance telephone
poll Mr. King made to ascertain it,

 

yee