IMMEDIATELY after the Yale-Princeton game, there appeared an editorial in the New York Tribune on the subject of football. The tone of the article was against football in general, which is considered by the writer to be a "rude, not to say brutal" sport. Then the writer goes on to complain of the large number of men engaged in the game, and suggests "that reform is necessary in the direction proposed by some of the colleges, which is to restore the number of contestants on either side to eleven." This is on the ground that there would be more goals made on either side, and that the game would require more skill. That there would be more goals and touchdowns made on either side is safe to acknowledge, but that there would be more chance for skilful playing is extremely doubtful. Skill in dodging would scarcely be of use at all, for if a man once got the ball it would be far easier for him to get through the opposing team than at present; and there would be no use for a light, agile player, as, on account of the small team, it would be absolutely necessary to pick men for their ability to stop a rusher. A slip on a muddy spot at a critical moment, or a thousand other accidents, would be far more influential in determining the result of a game than they are at present, and therefore the skill on either side would not be fairly tried. The writer would probably discover by a trial that eleven men are barely sufficient to cover a field, and that if each man performs all that is expected of him, the game would be far more injurious in its effects than the writer thinks it is now. As to its being "a rude and brutal" game, it certainly is a rough game, but practice at lawn tennis will not raise American physique, now so much decried, up to the English standard. But before criticising any further the expression "brutal," we must remember that Yale was one of the contestants in the game mentioned; and if that team played in its usual style, the expression is perhaps allowable.