Once receiving an opponent’s shirt, it was important to treat it with great respect. Every year my college coach used to eye the freshman crews after their first wins to make sure that they all carried the shirts away in their hands (or, if their hands needed to be free handed them to the cox or put them gently over their shoulders). Never were the opponents’ shirts to be casually tucked into the waistband or chucked unceremoniously onto the ground. The sweat-soaked trophies were symbols of the opponent’s hard work. Just as we had to train and race hard in order to win, so did our opposition just to be there, and we needed to respect their efforts as much as we knew how hard we had had to work in order to vanquish them.
Given the expense to less-successful programs of making up racing jerseys every week, some programs simply raced in cheapo t-shirts. What was important to me was not how nice the shirt I won was, but that it was the shirt the opponent raced in and a token of his effort in that race. The most coveted shirts were indeed from the top programs which raced in their best jerseys, and of those the well-worn ones which showed that the shirt had been on the opponent’s back for many weeks (a sign of a winning crew). But at the smaller programs, it did become acceptable to race in a nice jersey but have a t-shirt ready in case of loss - certainly a cheaper option which still permitted the crew to race in an expensive shirt.
I do not know the origins of this tradition, but it dates back a long way. The tradition understandably does not exist for women’s crews (although I’m sure Liz Leach would have no objections, most women are more modest - right Liz?). Women traditionally traded shirts (usually cheap t-shirts and not their racing jerseys) with crews they raced against afterwards. However, while I was away in England, some women’s crews apparently started to give their shirts over to crews which beat them after they had safely changed into something else. For women, the tradition is new and not at all wide-spread, but it is popular with those who do it.
Last year, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, a bureaucratic monstruosity which regulates many collegiate sports in the United States (and which I will certainly write about in a future Letter), took over women’s rowing (but thankfully not men’s rowing). It decided that all this business with shirts constituted gambling, and would therefore be illegal for all athletes under NCAA jurisdiction. Since the NCAA tries to meddle in as wide an area as possible, it put pressure on the athletic directors of US universities to ban the tradition for men’s crews as well. Some athletic directors buckled last year, and the rest looked set to do the same for the upcoming racing season. This despite popular outcry from men’s coaches and rowers across the country. Even some who did not like the tradition opposed the ban because they did not want to see the NCAA impose such restrictions from the outside. At the end of November, the NCAA backed down for the time being, and reinterpreted its rules to allow an exemption in this case.
But the NCAA’s misguided paternalism stems from a failure to understand the nature of the tradition. Winning shirts is no more gambling than winning medals. What's more, I don't see the tradition as one of gambling, but rather as one of respect. It is not really "betting" per se, but really "giving," a sort of gift after the race. Crews want to win, of course, but if they don't they should want to give up their shirts out of respect for their opponents.
This does not always happen anymore. This is a shame, but better to come from crews breaking the tradition than from a prohibition by the evil bureaucrats of the NCAA. When I returned to the US last year, I found that my crews did not always get shirts from crews they vanquished last year. Some crews cited the expense of betting shirts, which is at least understandable given how much the sport already costs (although our betting shirts, which are relatively nice, only cost $6 to make and even if we were to lose every race that would cost each rower under $50 for the season). But at least that is a reason. Some crews had other reasons, and although I do not agree I can accept their reasons. Most annoyingly, though, some crews feigned ignorance of the tradition and did not give shirts. But whether the opponents choose to give or not, I strongly believe my crews should indeed participate in the tradition, and if they lose they give up their shirts.
At the Occoquan Sprints last Spring, when it became clear that not everyone was giving shirts, my crews which lost did indeed have an excuse if they did not wish to give theirs up either. But they, independently of me, decided that they wanted to do so out of respect for the traditions of the sport and out of respect for the crews which beat them. This was a decision they made as crews, and one which I very much support. Actually, I was glad to see that I have gotten them thinking this way without me having told them my opinion on the matter.
The next week at the GW Invitational, they were of the same mindset. However, the regatta organizers made a point of telling us from the outset that if any crew was not betting shirts then no one was to give them shirts under any circumstances. Navy, which won all the men's events, was not betting (lame excuse on their end), and it took some convincing to keep my guys from giving shirts and to stay in accordance with the express instructions of the regatta organizers.
Without any tradition at all around here, I want to make my crews feel like they are part of the greater rowing world, to make them love the sport and respect its traditions. I guess I do sort of agree with some critics of the tradition that this is something which a crew should want to observe as opposed to feeling like it is forced to observe.
My men's crews will most definitely continue to put their shirts on the line, as always, whether or not the opposition does. As for my women, I leave that decision up to each crew and their opponents, because a tradition does not exist there.
It is not about gambling, as anyone who has thought about the tradition (whether they like the tradition or not) understands.
I am fond of this tradition. I am fond of this sport. I am not fond of the NCAA. That is one bureaucratic monstruosity that should stay out of things it does not understand and stick to the revenue sports where it (arguably) does some good. But my diatribe on the NCAA will have to wait for another month.