Return to the main page

  * Non-conference games

Coming off of their season with the most games played, at 6 total, football prospects at A&M looked bright. Bouncing back from a 1-3 1894 season, the Farmers finished their 1895 season with at least a 2-2-2 record, though there is some evidence that more games may have taken place. Former Harvard football player Bart Gatling had coached the team to that record, and according to school records stayed on for the 1896 season. The same media guide that cites Bartling as coaching the 1896 team also reports a record of 3-2, but the only specific game recorded in the guide is a dateless 6-0 win over Guilford (NC State 2016 Media Guide, p. 130).

Though the 2016 Media Guide wrote that Gatling was the coach of the 1896 team, Douglas Herakovich wrote that Perrin Busbee had returned to coach the team. Herakovich's descrition of the 1896 season, however, is curt, with most of the description of the season being towards the growing mixed feelings towards football in the United States (Herakovich, p. 3). Despite some disagreement about who the coach was, early histories of A&M football all agreed with one thing: "the A. & M team struggled along without a coach, and without money." (Whitaker, p. 155; Harris, p. 176, agrees). Neither Harris, Whitaker, or Herakovich gave a detailed descrition of the 1896 season, with Herakovich and Mumau both being the only historians to mention any games being played that season, writing that one game was played against Guilford at an unspecified date with no details of the game given. A&M reportedly won 6-0.

The reason for the rapid decline in scheduled football games decline a ban from playing football anywhere off the campus grounds and the banning of intercollegiate games. Intercollegiate football matches were forbidden from taking place after June 1st, 1896, after a December 4th, 1895 meeting of the State Board of Agriculture. The description of the meeting in the Board of Trustee's minutes read as follows:

Moved that after this session intercollegiate games between the students of this College and other Colleges or clubs, in or out of the State, be prohibited and that the fact be announced in the forthcoming catalogue; but that it be recommended to the faculty to foster all healthful games and exercises on college grounds.

The substitute was adopted by a vote of seven to six.

(Board of Trustees, Minutes April 1887-March 1899 (Volume 1), North Carolina State University, Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes, UA 001.001, NC State - p. 301; Daily Charlotte Observer, December 6, 1895, p. 1)

The decision was met with mixed reviews by the Raleigh newspapers: while one paper called it a "death blow at the game" at A&M, another remarked that "The Board [of Agriculture] seemingly think [sic] that an old-fashioned natural death is the most fitting for the farmer boy." (The Press-Visitor, December 6th, 1895, p. 1; News and Observer, December 6th, 1895, p. 8).

The decision was met poorly by at least some the students. A clipping from the New York Evening Post reproduced in the Wilmington Messenger wrote that "Some of the foot ball enthusiasts among the students of Wake Forest and the Agricultural and Mechanical colleges retaliated by playing some pretty rough jokes on some of the faculty, and as a consequence several have been expelled from college." The Messenger went on to speculate that "That conduct is perhaps a legitimate product of the brutal game" (The Wilmington Messenger, January 18th 1896, p. 2). It was also reported that two students were expelled from A&M for making a bonfire out of contractor-owned materials in protest of the off-campus football ban (The Progressive Farmer, January 7th, 1896, p. 3). Despite these protests, I could find no evidence that the ban was further addressed by the Board of Agriculture.

The decision to ban football, in addition to all intercollegiate contests, was contentious. The decision, which was spearheded by Daniel A. Tompkins (to whom Tompkins Hall owes its name), was advocated by its proponents to "foster healthful games and exercises on the college grounds." After what was reported to be a long debate by the Board of Trustees during their December 1895 meeting, the 13 of the 15 members of the Board who were present voted 7-6 to abolish intercollegiate athletics. The Athletic Association still received $100 (about $3,050 in 2019) for use in intramural games and a "Field Day" (Beezley, pp. 9-10).

Besides those two games, I have found no formal accounts of games by A&M's football team, though I have found a few references to possible games. Twice UNC's student newspaper wrote "We hear that the Junior team is to play with... the State A. & M." (The Tar Heel, November 7th, 1896, p. 4; The Tar Heel, November 14th, 1896, p. 1). Additionally, The Wilson Times reported that a team from the city of Wilson expected to play A&M's team (The Wilson Times, October 23rd, 1896, p. 3). Neither paper provided a follow-up on either of those supposed games.

Other football teams in the state met similar fates. Wake Forest, whose team began playing in the spring of 1888, was likely the most predictable of the in-state colleges and universities to drop the sport; the Baptists had previously been banned from playing football by their faculty in both 1890 and 1894. Beginning in 1896, the Black and Gold were again prevented from fielding a team; this time, the sport remained out of Wake Forest until 1908. The Trinity (Duke) team faced a similar setback. The Methodists, who began playing at the same time intercollegiately as UNC and Wake Forest (in the short-lived, predominantly student-run North Carolina Inter-Collegiate Foot-Ball Association, 1888-1890), had intercollegiate football contests taken from their campus the year before, in 1895. Football returned to Durham only in 1920. The only colleges in North Carolina with verified seasons in 1896 were Guilford and UNC.

Even the Chapel Hill school faced setbacks. UNC's faculty made rules to remove students whose "chief interest is not in their studies." These rules included removing students who didn't study from football teams, limiting the out-of-state sports-related traveling to players and managers, having athletic students pledge not to gamble or drink during trips, and adding rules about how many days of absence students could accrue and what to do about missed classes (Barrier, p. 25).