The culmination of a series of stories in metropolitan papers picking flaws in Harvard's football coaching regime, was one which appeared yesterday and reported proposed visits by two former coaches, in a thoroughly misleading fashion. The writer frankly intimated that the coaches had been called to recoup Harvard's failing forces before the team was submerged under avalanches from West Point, Providence, and New Haven. Misinterpretation of the facts and a false idea of what support the undergraduate owes the coach contributed to produce a journalistic abortion, typical of the press's attitude toward Harvard football this season. "It is no secret that there is general dissatisfaction with the team at Harvard," the writer blandly asserts.
It has been a policy of the B.A.A. to emphasize the importance of football because it furnishes the money for almost the entire athletic program. And it cannot be denied that winning teams make money. However little this policy may be reconciled with Mr. Bingham's assertion that coaches are not dismissed for a poor season, the fact remains that the coach's future depends on the team, and that the team is not helped by allusions to a general dissatisfaction."
The merits or faults of a coach as they affect his continuance in office, are matters for the employer, the H.A.A., and dissatisfaction fostered by a carping press is not the best encouragement for him. While holding his position, he has a claim to the support of the undergraduates, which should be recognized. The graduates, however much they may fill up the Stadium, are an unorganized body. If they are the ones who are dissatisfied, the press should consider their cause and refrain from idle talk about "dissatisfaction at Harvard."