Rarely is there reason to care about Ivy League football, but the recent Yale football scandal adds fuel to the already-impassioned debate over the future American amateur athletics. Quarterback Patrick Witt faced the ultimate golden boy problem: either don his Yale uniform and play against Harvard in the annual game, or interview for the Rhodes Scholarship. Witt, advised by his coach Tom Williams who had coincidentally been in the same situation years ago, chose football over his Rhodes interview.It turned out that the coach’s decision was made easier by the fact that he wasn’t actually a Rhodes finalist—that line had been “inflated” on his resume. Now, the NYT alleges that Witt did not face the dilemma either; his candidacy had been revoked due to sexual assault charges.Regardless of the resolution of the he-said, she-said, the scandal may ultimately mark another stage in the death of amateur athletics. The Olympics, which once insisted that participants be amateurs, gave up the fight long ago. Will American colleges be next?Historically, American institutions, from the Boy Scouts to the Ivy League, taught values like tenacity, teamwork, and leadership on the “fields of friendly strife.” Yet the continuous barrage of college sports scandals, exposing the shortcomings of institutions and athletes alike, makes it difficult to claim that the scholar-athlete ideal is alive and well. In the coming weeks, Yale will have to answer many questions, including whether it knowingly allowed a student facing unresolved accusations of sexual assault to play in its biggest game. In the coming years, colleges, particularly those that don’t come close to BCS championships, will need to ask whether the NCAA remains a good steward of the scholar-athlete ideal.