(Ed. Note--The Crimson does not necessarily endorse opinions expressed in printed communications. No attention will be paid to anonymous letters and only under special conditions, at the request of the writer, will names be withheld.)

To the Editor of the CRIMSON:

The editorial in the Monday CRIMSON concerning football and overemphasis can be called no less than thought provoking. In fact, it was so much so that the writer has risked the humiliation of being thought behind the times in thinking it over carefully before risking an answer--an answer in fact given in anger. The thoughts provoked by this polished article were unfortunately all of a disputations nature even after counting ten.

First I should like to give the lie direct to the article and then set forth a theory of my own which has apparently escaped the notice or at least the approval of the writer. It is not at all true that Harvard football stands in danger of overemphasis. What it lacks is any emphasis at all. The position taken by the CRIMSON and by the University in it's stiff-shirt capacity is entirely untenable and corresponds not one whit to the logie of the given situation. The facts, not the theories are what we at Harvard face. We are in the big college class. Consequently we must abide by our good repute and play the other big colleges. Every Harvard man would hide his face in confusion if our schedule should resolve itself into well-matched tilts with Connectient Aggle and Springfield Polytechnic. Admitting, then the necessity of saving face, we must play the big leaguers. And there is only one prerequisite to that necessity. We must be able to play them so that our men will not be slaughtered and so that our spectators will continue to pay money for the support of other athletic activities not so profitable, for the sake of the student body, collectively and individually. In order to play them in this capacity, we must have earlier practice, longer practice, better coaching, and less interference and puerile idealism from the H.A.A. Not only is this the only honest policy, but it is the only consistent policy, and the policy that meets with the approval of the majority of the University.

There is only one other thing to be said--the presentation of an old St. Mark's motto, "Agi quod agis" is the way it reads, "Do well what you do." This, I realize, is a heresy among Harvard men; and yet it has a certain truth in it. If we are going to play football, and if we are going to charge large prices for the privilege of watching it, and if we intend to combat teams of superior calibre, we must do it well. Speaking from personal experience, I never objected to rigorous training rules, long practices, early returns in the fall, and superior coaching. At least I felt that I could be proud to play on the team. And, strangest of all, I never enjoyed higher marks in my school career than I did when playing on the team. The overemphasis which the CRIMSON deplores and hopes to avoid, is simply giving to something all that we have. We ought to give it. J. Patterson '35.