Yale has balked a new Harvard-Princeton agreement to start football practice the fourth Friday before the first big game instead of September 15, the date determined by the 1923 Big Three pact, it was announced over the weekend. Since October 1 falls on a Saturday this year, the Crimson and Tiger gridmen will have a five-day practice advantage over the Elis.

The release, which was dated for yesterday and which was broken by a New York newspaper Friday, stated that the Presidents of Harvard and Princeton made the change on the advice of medical authorities, who belived the old date allowed sufficient time for conditioning the players.

According to President Seymour, Yale will retain the September 15 starting date believing that any extension of preseason practice "will be regarded as implying undue emphasis on football training."

Pond, Frank Back Seymour

While newspaper columnists chided the Elis' "unexpected holier-than-thou attitude," Yale coaches and players came to the support of their Alma Matand all-American Clint Frank stressed er's decision. Both Coach Ducky Pond the monotony of early training.

Asked to comment, Frank said: "Well, I'm only one man and an explayer at that, but I talked this thing over with the boys on the squad and they think September 15 is about right. Ducky is right about Gales Ferry (Yale's practice gridiron). The first time a fellow goes there he's thrilled. But the second and third times the boys are--well they don't hold back when it's time to climb into the bus and go to New Haven (where the college is located)."

Gridmen Here Like Early Start

Varsity gridmen here hailed the earlier starting date. Captain-elect Green was of the opinion that the harder schedules taken on by the Big Three brought the starting date situation to a crisis. "We start with Brown and Cornell next year," he said, "and we need the extra time for conditioning."

President Seymour's complete statement follows:

"Yale would regard favorably a uniform day of the week as a starting date for football practice. But we believe that any extension of the average length of pre-season practice is unnecessary and will be regarded as implying undue emphasis upon football training, especially an extension which in three years out of eight would bring the players back during the week of Labor Day.

"We belive that football offers important values to undergraduate life during the college term, that it should not be played in such a way as to demand an increase in the period of prep-

"We have received from the Yale Department of University Health the opinion that it is not necessary to lengthen the pre-season practice in order to protect the physical welfare of the players. Extension is not favored by the Board of Athletic Control. So far as we have been able to test the opinion of undergraduate players, they do not advise or desire the extension of the pre-season practice period."

With the exception of the date modification by Harvard and Princeton, all three schools reaffirmed the 1923 agreement.