According to the letter printed in the adjoining column, the platform in regard to football published in the CRIMSON Friday, is all wrong. Al suggestions there made are impractical and border on the inane; the whole method of attack is unsound. In spite of the fact that the Presidents of three important Eastern Universities, as well as innumerable other interested, have seen danger in the present athletic situation, our correspondent fails to see that there is "such in great evil anyway".

As to his refutation of the six points outlined in the platform, we fear that Mr. Reynal has a very different idea of the purpose of football from our own. We have always thought, perhaps incorrectly, that football and all other sports were to provide exercise and enjoyment for those participating. The purpose is not to develop a machine, as such, or to provide revenue, or to advertise the college. It is difficult to see how the spirit of "friendly rivalry" is dependent upon the length of the season, the degree of mechanical perfection of the team, or the gate receipts. If this is so then indeed is any feeling of "friendly rivalry" very superficial, and the best thing to do would be to cut out anything in the form of a contest. The truth of the matter is however that the spirit of rivalry must have been present before there could have been any desire to have contests.

The question of intersectional games is a matter of opinion. "The trouble comes when they are overdone". Absolutely correct, But, as we have frequently remarked before, the danger of their being over done is real. And rather than have the Harvard football team sent hither and thither to help "destroy the ideas of Harvard snobs and dudes", we would limit intersectional contests more than they are limited now.

It is not claimed that the plan for a committee on eligibility is absolutely practical. And the fact remains that there are many cases wherein the eligibility standards have not been lived up to, and are not being lived up to. Of course the more effective way is to change the present attitude; but this is not easy; the suggestion was designed as much to cause a change of attitude as actually to remedy the situation.

As was said in our editorial Friday, the purpose of requiring that all transfer students pass entrance examinations before competing in sports, was to avoid the necessity of making the transfer totally ineligible. These are the two alternatives for eliminating the "tramp" athlete; the less drastic of the two was chosen.

To a certain extent the criticism of the suggestion that coaches be not allowed to sit on the bench with the players during a game is sound. Of course it would not be possible for the captain, playing in the game, to make substitutions. But, as is now done in some school games, a members of the team who is on the sidelines, could be put in charge of them; this would make the team, during a game entirely a unit by itself. Except for the talk given by he coach between the halves, no one outside the team would have anything to say regarding the play and its management. And after all, is the contest to be between the teams or the coaches?

We are acquainted with the methods used in organized scouting; but we feel that as a means of over-systematizing the game, it should be done away with. Why "suspicion and misunderstandings" would follow its abolition, is not altogether clear. Graduates now write to the coach about games that they see, which is only to be expected when the game it no important.

As a remedy for a situation which is not "such a great evil anyway" Mr. Reynal suggests that publicity be limited. To do this arbitrarily is an impossibility; a few years ago the sport writers of Boston papers were offered $100 apiece to refrain from mentioning the Yale game until the week immediately preceding it; they refused, claiming, in effect, that the importance of the Yale game was largely due to them. Nor would any benefit result from restricting the information given out daily after practice; the only result would be that the papers would print a large amount of football news regardless of its authenticity.

As for restricting the sport writers from the press stand, is it necessary to point out that it would also require that they be restricted from the Stadium as well? This would not be easy; it would require that everyone except undergraduates and alumni be excluded. And even then the practicality of such a measure is to be questioned, seriously. No, the only way of cutting down on publicity is to make football of less importance; the tremendous amount of space given in metropolitan dailies to the sport now is the result, primarily, of the stress which colleges lay on the game.

At the cost of boring by repetition, let it be said again that it is the colleges that are responsible for the present situation, and that only by making football less of a business in the college is publicity going to be cut down in the daily press. And the method of taking away this over-emphasis, is the method which our correspondent attacks so vigorously; at least, it is the opinion of the "Yale News", the "Daily Princetonian", and the CRIMSON, that some such measures as these are necessary. To repeat what was said on Friday:

"Needless to say, none of these measures will be of very great value if they are taken in the wrong spirit. If the spirit of the game were absolutely right now there would be no need for any change; if the disgrace of losing a game were understood to be no disgrace at all, much that is now wrong would automatically right itself. The thing of importance is to play the game for it sown sake; many game such as tennis are played very largely for the purpose of enjoyment. And just so far as any sportsman begins to feel that he must win, will the game lose some of its enjoyment; and just so far will he become less of a sportsman."