Simon- Pure Decision

This decision led Trinity to cut all of their athletic scholarships in order for the institution to focus their funds strictly on academics and the renovations to all athletic efforts.

Of all the aspects involved in this drastic change, none were more prominent than the controversial Simon-Pure decision. This decision was not a person, but a movement; a movement for the abolishment of all athletic scholarships at Trinity effective immediately after the 1971-1972 season. After first, the majority of the voices speaking out were concerned about the future of Trinity’s athletic success. A Trinitonian article written by Brett Hall sat down with the head football coach at that time, Gene Offield, and suggested that he did not necessarily agree with the initial decision. In the interview, he states how, “[he doesn’t] believe this negative attitude about football is the true attitude of the majority of Trinity students. I think it’s a vocal minority that got heard in the right places” (Hall 10). He goes on to explain that the future of Trinity athletics can be classifiable as a “guessing game” with all the uncertainty surrounding the upcoming decisions. Julie Jenkins also agreed that “students and alumni protested” the transition that Trinity undertook, yet her stance on the whole situation revealed she “was for it and how it gave more emphasis to other teams promising to get them in a new conference given the appropriate funds because they were underfunded”. People within a higher authoritative position began to expand on what the main benefit of this Simon-Pure decision would provide to Trinity.  In 1973, a woman named Claudia White posted an article in the Trinitonian detailing some of the major aspects of the decision to cut all athletic scholarships with the transition to a Division III institution. At this point, according to the document, all the frustration and ambiguity have died down to implement these new changes into Trinity’s philosophies. Former Trinity University president, Duncan Wimpress, implies that, “This was not a moral decision or an anti-athletic decision. It was an economic decision” (White 7). During this time, inflation was proving to be the enemy for Trinity’s budget in what many called the “the Great Rip-off”. So, for Trinity to stay afloat and not have to make sufficient cuts from their tuition or fundraising campaigns, they decided that their athletic department would be the most viable solution.