There seems to be a more or less clearly defined feeling that the present method of selecting assistant managers of University teams is open to criticism. An apparently open competition is usually held, but the successful candidate must, as a rule, be picked by the manager. Last year a check was placed upon him by the agreement among the managers of the major teams that the manager in question must nominate three candidates for election by the "H" men of the sport and the other captains. It is perhaps too soon to determine the actual value of this provision, but we believe that, even if successful as a check, it has not obviated all of the unfairness complained of.

We assume that some competitive system is desirable, for popular election or direct appointment are open to much greater abuses than the existing practice. But the qualifications required of a manager give rise to one serious objection. No defeated candidate can feel dissatisfied if he is beaten by a man who has proved more efficient, but if he himself has been clearly in the lead in the actual competition and is defeated because he is not the sort of a man who would be popular with the players or represent the University creditably, his work seems worse than useless.

Custom, aided by natural reluctance to speak plainly, has prevented managers from telling the truth at the beginning of a competition to men who are obviously not possibilities for election. It has been thought kinder to let them work, dropping them as early as occasion arose, or, if this were not possible, nominating them as dummies for election. We believe that within a few days after the opening of the competition a manager should, after careful consideration and personal interviews with each man, drop all whom he knows to be unfit for the position. In doubtful cases, he should tell, the candidate how his case stands, so that, if he elects to continue in the competition, he does it with his eyes open.

As a further check upon the election, we suggest that the manager submit to the Athletic Committee the names of three nominees, together with the result of a canvass of the men entitled to vote. These voters should in each case state the reason for their choice, whether it he based upon personal friendship or upon actual or second hand knowledge of the candidate's ability. With these data the Athletic Committee would be able to pass intelligently upon the recommendations of the manager. The adoption of this suggestion might not result in securing better managers, but we believe that it would make the competitions fairer and more satisfactory to the unsuccessful candidates.