红杏直播app

A Gettysburg professor and a Dickinson sports historian compare notes on long-standing football foes.

by Matt Getty

Ever wonder why the campus gets more excited for the annual Gettysburg football game than the others on the schedule? If you think the excitement just goes back to the Red Devils鈥� rousing 29-28 victory in 2000, you鈥檙e off by a century. And if you think it鈥檚 just a result of the schools鈥� close proximity, you鈥檙e missing more than half the story.

According to a new book by Gettysburg history professor Michael Birkner鈥攁ided by the research of former Dickinson football, basketball and lacrosse coach Wilbur 鈥淕oby鈥� Gobrecht 鈥�52鈥攖he roots of the rivalry twist back to the early 1900s and feed on a deep history of ambition, envy, friendship, pride and humiliation.

鈥淭he way people feel about the games today really shows that history is alive,鈥� says Birkner, who also consulted the Archives & Special Collections extensively to assemble Dickinson鈥檚 side of the story in Building Men: Hen Bream and the History of Gettysburg College Athletics.

Dickinson and Gettysburg met on the gridiron for the first time in 1892, appropriately splitting two games that season. But the rivalry didn鈥檛 take off until the turn of the century, says Birkner, when football became a 鈥渘ational craze鈥� especially popular in Pennsylvania. With the colleges close enough for Dickinson students to tramp up to Mount Holly Springs and hop a train to Gettysburg, each student body embraced the friendly competition, which became an annual event in 1909.

鈥淚n the early 20th century it was common for Gettysburg students to go up to Dickinson and paint the Gettysburg colors on the grass or on the walls, and it was common for Dickinson to do the same at Gettysburg,鈥� explains Birkner. 鈥淪ometimes these pranks got out of hand, and the presidents had to step in and get the students to apologize, but it was not meant maliciously.鈥�

Malicious feelings didn鈥檛 surface, says Birkner, until Boyd Lee Spahr, class of 1900, became Dickinson鈥檚 board of trustees chair in 1931. Driven to elevate Dickinson鈥檚 academic prestige, Spahr pushed the college to embrace a stricter spirit of athletic amateurism. Colleges then frequently hired 鈥渞ingers,鈥� who were enrolled only during football season, but in the 1930s Dickinson officially ended that practice and stopped awarding athletic scholarships.

Gettysburg, on the other hand, did not. Though their legendary head coach Henry Bream built great teams because he built great men, says Birkner, he also got some recruiting help through contributions from alumni and local boosters.

鈥淗en Bream had a slush fund,鈥� says Gobrecht, who was recruited by Bream before coming to Dickinson. 鈥淚f he wanted a guy bad enough, he鈥檇 go to the limit to get him. So they could get a little bit better brand of kid there to play.鈥�

That edge sharply tipped the balance of power in the rivalry, with Gettysburg winning 12 out of 16 games from 1932 to 鈥�53 and stirring mixed emotions at Dickinson. Some, like trustee Walter Stauffer, class of 1912鈥攚ho teamed with Gettysburg trustee George Hummel to create the Little Brown Bucket tradition in 1938鈥攙alued the rivalry and credited Gettysburg鈥檚 winning ways to superior coaching. Others, like Spahr, accused Gettysburg of running an unethical program and fought to cut the Bullets out of the schedule.

鈥淭he purity of Gettysburg鈥檚 team has been open to question 鈥� [due to] some instances of paying football players,鈥� Spahr said in a letter to Dickinson President William Edel, class of 1915, that Birkner unearthed. Claiming that Gettysburg was 鈥渋nferior to Dickinson in historic background, plant, and in endowment,鈥� Spahr said, 鈥渢here is no elation to beating colleges of that type in football and it is depressing to be beaten by them as we usually are.鈥�

This sentiment peaked following three embarrassing losses by a combined 87 points from 1951 to 鈥�53. 鈥淭hat 1951 game was just humiliating,鈥� says Gobrecht, a running back on the 1951 and 1952 teams. 鈥淲e went over there, and they just kicked us all over the field.鈥�

After 1953鈥檚 32-0 shutout, Spahr convinced the college to drop the annual Gettysburg game, and the two schools didn鈥檛 play for more than two decades.

After Gettysburg eventually eliminated 鈥減rogram funds鈥� and athletic scholarships, the two colleges returned to regular play in 1978, laying the groundwork for what would eventually become today鈥檚 Centennial Conference. Though those feelings of animosity have mellowed considerably since Spahr鈥檚 time, Birkner argues that this history of friendly competition mixed with bitter feelings of both superiority and inferiority still color the annual contest.

鈥淗istory connects to the present,鈥� he says. 鈥淎nybody who has any sense of tradition recognizes that the Gettysburg-Dickinson rivalry has some meaning greater than rivalries between Dickinson and other schools.鈥�

Since that 25-year hiatus, Dickinson has turned the tables, winning 21 out of the last 31 contests, but if you doubt that Gettysburg鈥檚 history of dominance resonates beyond those games in the 鈥�30s and 鈥�50s, just ask Gobrecht if he can recall that 1978 game, when he coached the Red Devils to their first win over Gettysburg since 1937.

鈥淚 can remember it like it was yesterday,鈥� he says, eyes flashing. 鈥淭heir new head coach [Barry Streeter] came flying in here like, 鈥業 don鈥檛 know what the heck we鈥檙e doing playing these guys.鈥� He just gave you the feeling that they were so superior ... and we wiped the field with them."

Originally published October 1, 2009

Published November 5, 2014