Although our primary aim in advocating the abolition of competitions for managerships is negative--avoiding unfairness to competitors and doing away with athletic subscriptions--the change would not be without its positive advantages. There would be a distinct gain from the fact that men abler and more representative than those ordinarily attracted by a competition, would be available. In every class there are a certain number of men, whose executive ability has been tested in other connections, whose personality has given them prominence; men too busy to undergo a long, tedious competition, but who would perform gladly and excellently the duties of a proffered managership. No less than five such men, holding office by direct appointment, are now doing their part in managing major teams; they are known to be among the most fitting.

The one real objection to such a scheme--beyond the "vested industries" argument--appears to be the difficulty of choosing a manager for a Freshman team "upon his past record," of giving reputations made at schools their true measure. One way of meeting this is the appointment of upperclassmen to manage Freshman teams, a practice in vogue at Yale. It would not be without its attendant advantages, since it would make for greater efficiency. Vagarles of Freshman managers are not unknown: we need only mention that during the past season the fun-loving Freshman track team found itself booked for the same private car with a funeral party; a member of the Freshman hockey team was not notified of the desirability of his presence on the occasion of the game with the Yale freshmen, etc., etc. The other and most obvious way of meeting the objection is by allowing a short competition in actual management of the team, calculated to sound a man's real capacity. In our opinion such an objection should not be allowed to outweigh the real benefits to be derived from the abolition of a system rotten to the core.