COACH HERRICK'S REPLY.

Replying to the CRIMSON'S recent suggestions for a change in the policy of the University crew, Coach Herrick has written a communication which appears in another column. Mr. Herrick's letter, rather general in the numerous comments it breifly makes, seems to bring out four points, with three of which the CRIMSON is in hearty accord.

Mr. Herrick first states that the only harm that could come from such a discussion as is now under way, is the possible inference that such discussion may wrongly lead a few to believe that "some actual question has arisen or is likely to arise" between Coach Herrick and Captain Morgan. Such an inference would indeed be deplorable, and the CRIMSON in its first editorial on this subject tried to dispel all doubts of co-operation between Coach Herrick and Captain Morgan. It must be admitted, however, that even though such an unfortunate inference should occur, its harm would be negligible when compared to the great and lasting good obtainable by the suggested change in policy.

Mr. Herrick's second point seems to be that the Athletic Committee could, but has not defined the powers of any coach. Of this fact the CRIMSON has long been aware. But because the Athletic Committee has not done so in the past is scarcely an argument against such action now.

As for Mr. Herrick's statement--his third point--that "college sports are for the undergraduates and should be managed, so far as possible, by them,"--that is exactly the point of the present discussion. Undergraduates apparently object to the manner in which the crew captain has exercised the coach's powers, and as it is their sport, their voice should be heard.

Mr. Herrick concludes his letter with an encomium on Harvard captains, deploring the fact that their powers may be usurped by professional coaches. Unstinted praise is due all Harvard captains (and to Mr. Herrick as one of the best of them all) whose splendid deeds are immortal in the history of the University.

The proposal to define the functions of the coaches does not aim, nor will it have the effect, as Mr. Herrick appears to believe, of causing coaches to take "the place of undergraduate leadership and skill." Everyone will recognize that both Coach Haughton and Captain Mahan had a part in last fall's football victory, but the roles played were of a different order. Haughton's was of instruction, Mahan's of execution.

The present crew situation has arisen from an incomplete conception of the respective duties of captain and coach. Mr. Herrick says, "The captain of the crew is elected by the crew as its leader," and he states the situation exactly as it should be. The captain should be a leader, but he is not qualified to select the make-up of his crew or to prescribe the amount of work necessary to bring his colleagues to the highest efficiency. These last functions belong to the coach.

In no point which he makes does Mr. Herrick answer the CRIMSON'S main contention,--that it is injurious to have a captain exercise control over the coach.

The policy that gives complete authority to the coach should be inaugurated in the University crew by a vote of the Athletic Committee at its next meeting.