Three weeks ago I wrote an article about designating the football team as a club sport. Since then, the paper published two different letters in response to the article. I am pleased to know people read the article and cared enough to voice their thoughts about it. I would like to respond to those thoughts with some of my own. First, all of the statistics in the original article were provided by Guilford College to the federal government as required by law. Ask Guilford administrators to explain any discrepancy between what you think is right and what was published on the website (www.ope.ed.gov/athletics).

In response to the first letter by Melissa McKallagat, I think defining the football team as a club team would emphasize the best parts of Guilford’s traditions. Students would be seen as special people first and football players last. They would play out of love for the game.

Guilford’s tradition of community would come before that of any sports team, and fans could still watch club games during those beautiful autumn days. The difference is that the pressure to succeed would be replaced by the lack of pressure that accompanies having fun.

Many of these same ideas apply to the second letter, written by T.J. Beroth. A club sport instills characteristics in an athlete (man or woman) such as a strong work ethic, leadership, and the idea of unity.

A club sport would not detract from the quality of life, though it may add to it with lighter afternoon practices and zero morning ones.

If, as a football player, your opinion of the sport would change should it become a club, I suggest you seriously re-analyze your priorities.

And if the quality of your written work or the number of incoherent sentences in your letter are any indication of your academic standards that supposedly come first, I suggest you seriously re-analyze your priorities.

Cory Williams
Staff Writer