President Trump Will Have 'Real Legacy in College Football,' U.S. Historian Says

Historian Nicholas Sarantakes, who has written extensively on presidents and sports, calls President Donald Trump's impact on the Big Ten a "tangible achievement."

More than 50 percent of college football fans credit President Donald Trump for the return of Big Ten football, according to a new poll, and an historian who has written about presidents and sports said the argument has merit.

"When it comes to Trump, he is going to have a real legacy in college football," Nicholas Sarantakes, associated professor of strategy at the U.S. Naval War College, said in an email interview. "He got the Big Ten to reverse its decision to suspend the football for the year. That is a substantive, tangible achievement."

Trump was part of a wave of politicians who entered the Big Ten's return process, having called Commissioner Kevin Warren in early September to urge reconsideration and to offer testing assistance. In announcing the Big Ten's decision to return Sept. 15, Warren last week called that conversation with Trump "productive."

According to Morning Consult, which polled 1,110 self-identified college football fans, 53 percent said Trump was "completely responsible" or "somewhat responsible" for the Big Ten's return. Seventeen percent said the president was "not responsible at all."

Sarantakes underscored the poll's results but added that "there's a real danger in this achievement, though," particularly as it concerns COVID-19.

"The problem is, the disease is the disease," Sarantakes said. "It does not care about these issues. When the virus reaches the athletes - and it will reach them, the only question is to what degree - there is a real danger that Trump's tangible achievement might get him a lot of blame rather than credit."

Sarantakes, who also has taught at Texas A&M University and the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, has written extensively on the subject of presidents and sports. His book "Dropping the Torch: Jimmy Carter, the Olympic Boycott and the Cold War" explored the United States' boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympics.

His most recent book "Fan in Chief: Richard Nixon and American Sports" detailed President Richard Nixon's love of, and influence on, the American sporting scene.

Penn State fans recall Nixon's foray into the 1969 college football season, when he declared Texas the national champion over undefeated Penn State. That decision still resonated at Penn State four years later, when Joe Paterno said during his 1973 commencement speech, "I’d like to know, how could the president know so little about Watergate in 1973 and so much about college football in 1969?"

What are the parallels between 1969 and 2020? We asked Sarantakes for his perspective, which he said are personal and "do not reflect the policy of the U.S. Navy, the Naval War College or the U.S. government."

What, if any parallels, do you see between President Trump becoming involved in college football today and President Nixon doing so in 1969?

Sarantakes: There are significant parallels between Presidents Nixon and Trump and some significant differences. Nixon was a real fan.  There was nothing fake about his interest in football. He was a workaholic, and football was one of his few hobbies. Baseball was another. He went to games and sat in the stands like any other fan. There was some political theater to this but only a little. His interest was real and genuine.  

With that said, there was an element of political theater associated with him going to the games. Trump has certainly figured that out in a way that no one since Nixon has. The South was Nixon territory and is Trump territory as well. Both attended games that pitted schools from two different states from the region, maximizing the publicity they got.

The presence of the President of the United States at any sporting event a win-win situation. It enhances the prestige of the event and it is a good way for the president to get good media coverage without having to do anything political. That was the case for Nixon at Texas-Arkansas [in 1969] and for Trump at the games he has attended.

What lasting impact did President Nixon's involvement have on college football? And what might President Trump's?

Sarantakes: As a fan, Nixon had very little impact on college football.  His presence at the 1969 Texas-Arkansas game made it an event of legend. How many teams have ever had the President of the United States come into their locker room and award them a national championship? Or go into the locker room of the defeated and offer them some words of comfort? Those actions obscured Penn State's impressive season on a massive scale. Very few people outside of Pennsylvania remember that Penn State went undefeated that year.  The story was in Arkansas. End of discussion.

Nixon as president had a huge impact on college sports. He signed the Education Amendments of 1972, which includes Title IX, into law. He was a smart guy and he knew that Title IX would have a powerful effect on college sports. It did. He was right on that. It led to the massive increase in women's sports in the 1970s and 1980s. Nixon expected that, but he also believed that it would come at the expense of college football and kill the sport.

That did not happen, but there is a legitimate argument that many schools met their Title IX obligations by killing minor men's sports programs rather than increasing women's programs. Football was largely untouched, because it generates so much revenue in a way that other programs do not, and helps pay for everything else. Either way, 1972 was an election year and he was not going to veto a civil rights bill.

There were limits to what Nixon would do. There was not an NCAA national championship in college football in 1969. Nor is there today. The College Football Playoff system is an invitational tournament designed to preserve the bowls. It is better than simply declaring whoever is No. 1 in the final college poll is the national champion.  That system was subjective with a capital 'S.' The polls generally favor established programs. That worked against Penn State in 1969. It was not an established power back then.

There was talk in Nixon's time of trying to get the president involved in creating a playoff system. Nixon refused. He was a fan and enjoyed watching the game. Being president gave him the opportunity to meet players and coaches and talk football. He had a lot, and I do mean a lot, of phone conversations with Washington head coach George Allen, and all they did was talk football. Nixon often gave Allen a lot of advice on gameday operations that I am sure the coach would have ignored from any other fan. Nixon getting involved, though, in the structure of college football, a non-political issue was just not going to happen.

When it comes to Trump, he is going to have a real legacy in college football.  He got the Big-10 to reverse its decision to suspend the football for the year. That is a substantive, tangible achievement.

It will have important ripple effects in other sports. Football makes the big bucks and pays for all the other sports. Men's basketball makes money but almost all others are money losers. Without football, there would have been no hockey, women's basketball, baseball, and so on for an entire year. It is not all about the money, but it is a big part of the story. Trump getting the Big 10 to reconsider is a big deal with a noticeable ripple effect.

He is going to get a lot of credit with his base, with sports fans, and a lot of small business owners that service big events. All are good to him politically. I know what you might be thinking, that voters are rational and make their electoral decisions based on the issues. Nope, not really. There are plenty of political science studies that show that voters make their decisions based on a lot of stupid reasons. These include partisanship, influence of friends, influence of a spouse, media image, and so on. People vote according to their economic interests and ideological values too, but not everyone.

There is a real danger in this achievement, though. I expect the disease is going to ravage teams that try to play, and that many schools are going to call it quits after four, five or six games. A lot of schools across the country are already discovering they just cannot operate with in-person classes. Students, parents, and faculty are blaming college administrators for pushing forward plans that were/are reckless in a public health sense.

The insistence of these administrators to return to their normal educational format was driven by a lot of things. Those issues include political pressure, prestige, a desire to retain their students, overconfidence in their own managerial skills and money (many colleges need the tuition checks, but dorms and meal plans are big money makers also). But the disease does not respect those issues.  All those issues are present in deciding to go forward with football.

The problem is the disease is the disease. It does not care about these issues.  When the virus reaches the athletes - and it will reach them, the only question is to what degree - there is a real danger that Trump's tangible achievement might get him a lot of blame rather than credit."

Get the latest Penn State news by joining the community. Click "Follow" at the top right of our AllPennState page. Mobile users click the notification bell. And please follow AllPennState on Twitter @MarkWogenrich.