The Daily Princetonian's well-publicized editorial which appears in this morning's issue comes to us as a distinct surprise. We had understood that the attitude of the Princeton Athletic Association was not unfriendly to the methods of "big-time" football and we are astonished to find that undergraduate opinion as expressed by The Princetonian does not agree with it.

The editors of The Princetonian assume that the Bingham proposal will have the force of law and in their excitement have overlooked the difference in conditions which prevail in the Tiger's den and at Cambridge. The major premise that Harvard has abrogated an agreement in regard to practice dates is without basis since the proposal must be ratified before it is effective.

It is unjust to link Mr. Bingham's proposal to eliminate the minor sports with the expense involved in an extra week of pre-season training. Unlike the practice at Princeton, a player's expenses are not paid from an A.A. fund but out of the individual's pocket. The additional incidental cost of the proposed extension, since the coaches are paid by the year, would not equal the charges for later medical care of injuries caused by poor physical conditioning.

Perhaps the additional week of training does not seem important to Princeton with her array of "set-ups" at the beginning of the season. It has been decided at Cambridge that practice games prove nothing to the players and are of no interest to the undergraduates. The Crimson schedule next fall opens with Amherst, Brown, and Army, all three of which start practice at least a week before the Harvard squad.

If the mutual opponents of Harvard, Yale, and Princeton would agree to start practice on September 15, it is to the advantage of all to observe that date but as a practical matter both Army and Dartmouth refuse to do so. When it is a question of the health of the players and their ability to go through a season unmaimed, tradition is not a bond strong enough to prevent reform.