Two managers of University teams, who have had practical experience both in competition and in office, have outlined for the CRIMSON their views on the proper method of selecting assistant managers. Both are agreed that in the details of the present system there are obvious faults, but neither considers election by the class as a possible alternative.

Certainly if a competition is to be held at all, its terms must be strictly adhered to. When the amount of money collected is made a factor, this is frequently impossible, both because of the inequality of conditions under which the candidates work, and because a good collector is frequently a most unacceptable sort of a manager. As a result unfounded rumors of favoritism have been freely circulated, and the outcome has been unfair to managers and competitors, and a downright injury to the College.

Other forms of competition have been worked in some instances successfully, but in other cases the choice has devolved upon the manager without adequate proof of the candidate's fitness for the office. This the CRIMSON believes is absolutely wrong and is not fair to the College, in which every man has a right, if so inclined, to be considered in the choice.

Competition under present conditions has proved anything but satisfactory. The committee of ratification has not, as its advocates expected, done much toward solving the difficulty. As stated earlier in the year, the CRIMSON strongly favors election by the class, as the only alternative. The method, it must be admitted, is open to serious objections, but could, we believe, be regulated so as to exclude men who are popular but inefficient. A committee of athletes and managers could select several possibilities at large, the winner to be decided by the class. Thus would the individual managers be relieved of the responsibility of making the choice, and the College of its usually groundless, but inevitable, doubts as to the wisdom of the selection.