News
Amid Boston Overdose Crisis, a Pair of Harvard Students Are Bringing Narcan to the Red Line
News
At First Cambridge City Council Election Forum, Candidates Clash Over Building Emissions
News
Harvard’s Updated Sustainability Plan Garners Optimistic Responses from Student Climate Activists
News
‘Sunroof’ Singer Nicky Youre Lights Up Harvard Yard at Crimson Jam
News
‘The Architect of the Whole Plan’: Harvard Law Graduate Ken Chesebro’s Path to Jan. 6
[We invite all men in the University to submit communications on subjects of timely interest.]
--
To the Editors of the CRIMSON:
The present football situation in Harvard University, emphasized by the stinging defeat of last Saturday, if bound to cause much adverse criticism from both graduates and undergraduates. The responsibility for the defeat must be mainly with those in control of football, although at least a part must be borne by Harvard men themselves. This lesser responsibility is due to the general spirit of resignation which was shown, immediately after the Yale game, to have pervaded the University. Being resigned to defeat, coupled with the sentiment so generally expressed: "Well, they played ever so much better than was expected and did mighty well to hold Yale to so low a score," is not consistent with successful football, and if the College as a whole has that spirit it is certain that the team also will feel its influence.
The direct responsibility for constantly falling short of success should be placed rather on the general scheme of management than on the head coach of each particular season. It is generally admitted that the principal fault of our football policy is lack of permanence. This will continue as long as the selection of the head coach rests upon the judgment of the captain alone. It is fundamental that change in control brings change of policy, and the first step in the direction of permanency in coaching is to procure permanency in appointment. Now it has been suggested that a permanent committee composed of five prominent football men, qualified to select and recommend a head coach, be appointed by the Athletic Committee. This committee would have power to appoint the head coach and to reappoint him if advisable, but would not have power to interfere with the work of the coach after he had been appointed. A coach feeling that his efforts and motives were understood by those capable of appreciating them from a technical as well as a general point of view would be in a far better position than one at the mercy of a captain, influenced, possibly, by many outside considerations. FISHER H. NESMITH
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.