Five seconds on the clock. The yellow light reflected off the court and spotlighted my housemate, Blake Austin. She is taking the last free throw, one that would determine our team’s fate. After being fouled by number 10, a seemingly hypercompetitive law school student, Austin prepares to take her shot. The room vibrates with silence and good luck because of the way we — the fervent fans — wiggle our fingers straight-armed in front of us. Austin casts the ball forward and, as if our sideline wish was granted, the white crossed pattern of the net hugs the ball as it passes through, signaling our win. And for the first time, I finally understood why my dad enjoys watching sports. The previously static room raged into an electric boom. Supporters and teammates jumped up and down while “All I Do Is Win” by DJ Khalid played on a black, handheld JBL speaker at its maximum volume. From that moment, I decided to spend most of my Monday nights like this, courtside with the intramural team featuring most of my housemates. 

Intramural sports have a long history that predates my Monday nights spent at the Student Recreation Center. In “A Brief History of the Intramural Movement”, Ralph E. Stewart explains that intramural sports officially date back to the appointing of intramural directors at the University of Michigan and Ohio State University in 1913. Although there had been demand for recreational sports, this also required organizing equipment, facilities, and more, demanding structure. For this reason, the university’s appointing directors created a framework for other schools to implement. They built the core of intramural sports from scratch. Stewart explains that, at the University of Michigan, Latin Professor A.S. Whitney, was the one who coined the term. He used Latin words: “Intra,” meaning within, and “muralis,” meaning walls, resulting in the word “intramural” referring to competitive sports within an institution’s “walls.” This term went on to label the programs which would promote physical education to this day.

According to The College of William and Mary: A History by Susan H. Godson, the first mentions of intramural sports were after 1918. But how does the program work in the present day? Here at the College of William and Mary, teams designate their captains, whose role is registering players. There are four leagues. The men’s, the women’s, the co-recreational (co-rec), and the fraternity league. There are also a wide range of sports available to play, depending on the season. Once registered, teams play four pool play games which determine their positions in their respective bracket. The winners of the brackets win the renowned “T-shirts,” a symbol of their success and an access key to bragging rights.

This detailed system is meant to support students in their physical and mental well-being. In Stewart’s article, he explains how intramural sports were developed in the late 19th century after professors of physical education noticed the boosted interest brought by the competitive nature of the program. They believed that it was imperative that organized sports were not restricted to varsity athletes. Basing teams off clubs, classes, Greek Life, and other social groups provides camaraderie that champions the competitive spirit. It is because of this enthusiasm that students are more inclined to participate in physical activity. This participation also benefits students by teaching them about new sports. Here on campus, new players have reported that learning about a sport encourages their activity levels outside of the intramural setting. One example is Danny Maloney ’26. Maloney started playing volleyball on a co-rec team for the first time last spring as a freshman. Learning the rules led him to play once or twice a week with guys in his fraternity. “It was a really fun brain break from studying,” he said. Maloney’s experience demonstrates that intramural sports are not only supportive of learning new sports, but also a way to take a break from the demanding schedule of a college student.

For many players, intramural sports do not only serve to improve physical well-being, but also to improve mental health. There is no question of the links between physical and mental well-being, but what intramural sports offer is an inclusive community. The games are casual and therefore become social events. Cristian Charette-Lopez ’25, manager of the Latin American Student Union team Los Tornados, touches on the lively spectatorship that goes on during games. He loves to embrace his managerial role to the fullest, which on occasion even means attending the games in a full suit. “It's really entertaining for me, but also really amusing for my peers and it's always great to put smiles on people's faces, especially around exam periods,” he said. What Charette-Lopez points out is that these games are a structured time to take joy in being around others, easing the pressures of the world beyond the campus recreation walls. Grace Lorch, a referee and player, emphasizes this pillar of intramural sports when recounting her favorite memory with her flag football team. One day, they had to forfeit their game, but stayed to play on their own. Although they forwent a win, the team realized that it brought them together in a way they “didn’t necessarily expect,” she said. In that moment Lorch realized that intramural was a space where she could spend time with those she cares about. This, she believes, speaks to the “wonders about the role it serves in our community.”

Intramural sports not only build friendships, but for some has been a place to find love. Hannah Potts ’25 tells the anecdote of her roommate and her roommate's boyfriend, an intramural love story. She explains that the two joined the same team as a way to meet new people the spring of their freshman year. By the end of the season they began dating and Potts added that “they have been together ever since!” Between new friendships or potential significant others, the quality time spent together in intramural creates a space for new relationships to flourish and solidify.

Stewart’s observations about the “why” behind student involvement in intramurals focus less on the social components and more on the competitive spirit that energizes students to be active. But what happens when that competition is not so friendly? Students have noticed that intramural sports have the potential to reinforce social barriers between clubs and organizations, due to the cutthroat nature of some of the players. Julia Beverly ’26 revealed that, although within one’s own team, playing can be a major morale booster, in competition “it can get really competitive and rough sometimes, and some teams can take it really seriously and start being pushy.” 

Although these “pushy” players are infrequent, they can be quite impassioned. I have seen how one fiery fight with a referee can lead to a team’s loss of temper and tempo, ultimately causing the game to be scrapped altogether. In addition to the intensity of select players, intramural sports can cause polarization of groups due to its barriers to entry. Some of the clubs and organizations require members to pay dues and oftentimes paying members are the only ones allowed to play. Fortunately, the vast amount of teams available counters this barrier. Students who cannot play on one team can find another, but it is the importance of being on a winning team that is often left to be desired. 

Much of this rough competition and exclusivity can be found in the fraternity league. Because of the high cost of fraternity dues, being a member is a large financial decision which restricts some students from being a part of this league. In addition to the monetary hurdle, there is the obstacle of an inferred athleticism when registering. Andrew Jones ’25 discloses that he mainly plays for co-rec teams because he feels that the fraternity leagues “are blocked off by the more traditionally athletic members.” But why does the fraternity league exist if members with a higher level of athleticism are socially obligated to play? Why wouldn’t these players play club sports instead? When asked about the relationship between fraternities and intramural sports, Oliver Sun ’25 explained that, “with a frat’s ego on the line, it is a total war!” Although Sun’s comment affirms the intensity of the fraternity league, he simply reiterates the ideas from Stewart about the innate rivalry caused by the program. Sun, like many students, believes that the intramural programs are a non-exclusive environment for everyone “despite social class, clubs, or Greek Life organizations.” His description of the program highlights the distinction between intramurals and other sports teams on campus. He reveals the dichotomy between the tension defined by the social construction of teams, and yet the equal opportunity for students to play.

These social constructions can be polarizing, but as a consequence of the basis of intramural organization, these constructs are necessary for the program to function. Kenly Howerter ’26, who is both a referee and player, stresses how her roles have allowed her to learn about clubs she was not aware of. Through her unique job opportunity on campus, Kenly observed how the social structures embedded in intramural sports become fluid on the court. Although groups are in competition, it is the rivalry that drives the clash of clubs and organizations. This brings the wider community together, hence making intramural sports the crux of the campus’ interrelations.