This article has not been written because of outside pressure; it has been written because of the authors' conviction that the current complaints over Harvard football can hurt the wrong people. We are not after anybody's scalp. We intend no slur on the current Harvard team, which played through a gruelling schedule to the top of its abilities, but which was outmatched almost every week. We have no reservations about Arthur Valpey, who probably is not perfect but who is certainly a very fine coach. We advocate neither installing athletic scholarships nor giving up football.

One week ago, 20,000 loyal alumni choked with rage as they saw the Harvard varsity football team decisively beaten by a mediocre Yale eleven. It was merely the last chapter in the history of Harvard's worst season, a season in which the Crimson compiled a record of eight losses and one win. The alumni, drawing upon their years of grandstand quarterbacking and television football, decided something was definitely wrong and further decided it was the coach.

Certain alumni have had the colossal gall to demand the resignation of Arthur Valpey only one year after he had beaten Yale and the Boston sportswriters had labeled him the best coach in New England since Frank Leahy.

The wiseacres cited two grounds for their criticism of Harvard coaching: 1. Valpey should have installed the T-formation instead of the single wing, and 2. He didn't "bring the boys up for the Yale game." We believe this is rubbish.

This worship of the T formation shows a complete abandonment of rational evaluation. Dick Harlow used the single wing for seven years at Harvard before the war, and nobody complained. Fritz Crisler and Benny Oosterbaan use the single wing at Michigan and have collected three straight conference titles. Art Valpey used the single wing last year, won four games, and nobody squawked. Yet now after Harvard has had a dismal season, everybody thinks the single wing is no good.

Don't Blame the Single Wing

The single wing is just as good a football system as the T-formation; otherwise, nobody would use it. Art Valpey was brought up in Fritz Crisler's single wing system, one which has proved itself in the toughest football league in the country. Valpey knows the single wing thoroughly, so why should he switch to the T? When Harvard scored two touchdowns against Army--and gained more points than any other Army opponent this season, incidentally--it was not the excellence of the players that did it. Harvard had but two first-string men on the field during these drives; the rest were substitutes. The Crimson subs scored against Army's second stringers because they had fine plays, well-conceived and well-installed.

There are those who say that Valpey ought to adapt his system to fit his players, the way "good old Dick Harlow used to do." But Harlow never changed his basic patterns in his system; he only adjusted the razzle-dazzle from year to year to fool the opposition and fit his players.

You can change the frosting, but you can't change the cake. For Valpey to shift now from the single wing to the T would be to undo all the work on fundamentals that his staff has developed in two years.

Harvard Still Hits Hard

One thing that this year's opponents are consistently willing to admit is that Harvard players can block and tackle as hard as any team around. The reason they haven't done so more consistently is that they are slow. No coach can do anything about slowness any more than they can teach a poor player football instincts.

The reason why Harvard won only one game this fall was because it lacked material. Most of the veterans from last year's squad were hopelessly handicapped by recurrent injuries which slowed them while they played, and often prevented them from playing at all. Yet Valpey had to use these semi-injured players because there was nobody else. Harvard had less depth, fewer able-bodied and capable men, than any of its 1949 opponents. When the first team got hurt, there just weren't any more players. Mean-while Princeton, Yale, Dartmouth, Brown. Columbia, Army and Cornell had two platoons.

It Takes More Than Guts

Now about "bringing the team up for the games." In these days of two platoon football, they just don't go out and "win one for the Gipper" any more. It is far more important to hire a sound football coach than one who can sound like Pat O'Brien in the locker room between the halves. There is, of course, something to the theory that the team which is up for the game plays better than it ordinarily does. But we feel that this point is over-emphasized, and that 49 times out of 50 the fundamentally sound team will beat the poorer one.

Once again we are back to the problems of weak personnel. Most good football players just don't go to Harvard.

Why should the personnel be so weak? Harvard has as large a student body to draw from as most of its rivals. Its academic standards are substantially the same as those of Yale and Princeton. Its financial standing and academic position should rebound to Harvard's advantage.

Yet a glance at future schedules and future squads makes it look as though this season's fiasco will be the pattern for several years to come. Someone is to blame, and it isn't the law of averages. It is the alumni.

The Paunch and Flash Experts

These distinguished members of the company of educated men feel that their Harvard diplomas qualify them as expert football critics. Consequently they come with a flask on Saturday afternoons and spend two hours impressing their wives by second-guessing the quarterback. Then they go to a cocktail party and slander the coach. Then they go home and sleep it off. And that's all.

Yet they expect Harvard to go out and beat Dartmouth, Yale, and Princeton, all of whom have vigorous alumni who do more than talk.

A simple perusal of squad lists will reveal some significant facts about Harvard in relation to its three biggest rivals. In the first place, the sons of the old grads aren't staffing Crimson football teams any more. On this year's squad seven men on the first three teams are prep school graduates, although 40 percent of the college is still composed of private school students.

You can't assail any individual or group for not choosing to play football, but nevertheless this points up the fact that the College's already seant supply of material is further reduced by the progeny of those who do the most complaining.

Where Do They Come From?

A more significant reflection on the alumni may be found by comparing the geographical statistics of Harvard's squad with those of its closest rivals. This year the Crimson's varsity roster contains men from 11 states, a fair average until you break it down further.

Of the 11 states represented, only four place more than one player on the squad. Of these four, Connecticut and Ohio each send two, New York sends five. Massachusetts has 29 representatives.

Now look at Yale. With a squad of approximately the same size, 21 states are represented. More important, with the exception of Connecticut no single state has more than five representatives, while nine send more than one apiece.

The Princeton and Dartmouth teams show similar diversity, each drawing their players from 14 states, with no local preponderance such as Harvard's. Dartmouth has as many football players from Hawaii as Harvard does from Connecticut.

Other Alumni Do Some Work

It should be perfectly obvious what this means. It means that Yale men, and Princeton men, and alumni of almost every other college in the country, are getting boys interested in going to their school.

If Harvard is going to get back on an equal basis with the above-named schools, it is clear that our alumni are going to have to do something a little more concrete than complaining.

The attitude of the University in this whole matter is remarkable. Harvard's top officials are perfectly aware that, whether they like it or not, football has come to be the public identification tag on American universities. Harvard put football on a big-time basis--with the first high-pressure coach, the first big stadium, the first "big game"--and now tht other schools have developed this technique far beyond us, Harvard cannot escape at least some of the consequences.

The admissions office and the scholarship office and the Provost's office knew that a good Harvard showing in the Stanford game would boost our stock immeasurably on the Coast. They added their blessing to the expedition. But they now feel that the loss in that game has cost us years of quiet propagandizing.

Football-Harvard

Football can certainly do a lot for public relations--in fact, the football team in the fall and Valpey in the winter are Harvard's two biggest ambassadors. But football cannot do much for public relations unless we either win or make an excellent losing showing.

The Administration also likes football for its money value. This one sport supports virtually all the others, varsity and intramurals alike, and keeps Harvard's fine "athletics for all" program alive. Without gate receipts at the Stadium, there would be no money to pay for wherries and shells or for squash and tennis courts. Therefore, the people who have to sign checks for upkeep and replacements on Harvard's colossal athletic plant want big names in the Stadium, for big names mean big crowds. There is one flaw in this line of reasoning, however: big name opponents will not draw big crowds as long as Harvard teams lose by large scores. This season's attendance records prove that decisively.

Still, big name opponents that beat us badly draw more people than little schools which we can beat. So the people who sign the checks continue to want big name opponents.

Something for Nothing

If the football team is to fulfill these two functions it means that the players must put in a lot of time and effort which directly benefits Harvard University. But the University is not reciprocating. It is leaning over backwards not to reciprocate, on the apparent premise that any help at all would be subsidization.

This is ridiculous. One non-scholarship student, a member of the Varsity first-string lineup for two years, puts it thus: "Why doesn't Harvard give athletes an even break?" Not athletic scholarships, mind you, nor lowered entrance requirements, nor easy courses: just an even break. The H.A.A. and the Student Employment Office will not guarantee a job--a real job, where you work for the money you get; and the Housing Office will not guarantee a room in the same price bracket throughout a man's college career. Neither of these steps can be called "subsidizing."

Yale, which cannot be accused of "subsidizing" any more than Harvard, does both these things. A member of the Minneapolis Harvard Club told one of the authors this fall that the Yale Club of the same city could offer a prospective Yale student both a steady job and a room at one price during his four years in New Haven. This relatively small guarantee means a lot to a boy who is not sure just how far his finances will go towards paying for college, and who does not know how much college will cost him in toto in the first place. Neither of these aids include any provisions that force a man to play football.

All-Around Loss

We feel that the present football policy at Harvard is unsound, for both financial and prestige reasons. If the administration continues its present policies, we will merely continue to pile up $100,000 deficits and losses to powerhouse teams around the country.

There seem to be two solutions to the present football confusion. The first is to abandon all pretexts that we are a major college football team and play purely New England schools and one or two traditional rivals. The second is to take a positive attitude toward the game which supports all other athletics at Harvard, and do enough promotion work to at least produce a team which is halfway up the Ivy League scale.

If the Administration decides to continue its hyper-hands-off football policy, then certain things must be done. First, we should play only the three traditional Ivy rivals, Yale, Princeton, and Dartmouth, and pad the rest of the schedule with Amherst, Connecticut, and N.Y.U. Under this system we could easily achieve a season record which could always be better than .500. Unfortunately, since Dartmouth, Princeton, and Yale are already out beating the bushes for young football players, we suspect that our traditional rivals will win about 75% of those games.

What the Traffic Will Bear?

Second, the H.A.A. should lower the ticket prices. It seems hardly a justifiable business practice to charge $4.20 or even $3.60 to see Harvard play an obviously poor football opponent. The quality of the football played should be reflected at least to some extent in the price of admission.

Third, the University might as well stop trying to have football pay for everything else. It might as well look upon further football income as a pleasant surprise and decide to pay for all athletics out of the funds of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, on the grounds that physical training is as much a part of a college education as scholastic work.

This will pose a difficult financial problem for the University, cutting off a large source of income without replacing it. But if Harvard wishes to continue doing literally nothing about football, it should also be honest to its undergraduates and to the public by playing average teams and charging fair ticket prices.

We don't believe that anybody wants Harvard to go big time. Harvard doesn't need the kind of reputation that goes with beating Michigan and NorthCarolina--it already has an academic reputation, which is far more valuable.

We do think, however, that Harvard should be able to make a good showing in the East, and certainly in the Ivy League. But even putting the Crimson back on a par with its hallowed rivals is going to take a lot of doing. And the alumni are the only ones who can do it.

The first thing they can do is interest boys from their own localities in coming to Harvard. It is doubtful whether this can be counted on to produce results if it remains unorganized, of course. Some systematic plan will have to be undertaken to pull bright athletes out of the bushes and send them here.

There for the Asking

The Harvard clubs are admirably suited to do this. There are upwards of 120 of them in the United States, and most are far enough away from Soldiers Field so that the members won't be watching Harvard play on Saturday.

There must be two or three alumni in each state who would be willing to spend their Saturday afternoons looking for talent among the high schools in their area. Some of this talent will want to go to Notre Dame, some of it will be bought up and sent to the big Southern schools. Harvard can't get these boys, and Harvard probably doesn't want many of them, for football players should never be allowed to come here unless they can pass entrance exams in equal competition with their less agile contemporaries.

But it seems hard to believe that, somewhere in this counry, there aren't 50 or 60 boys who want to come to Harvard, who are bright enough to get here, and who can also lug a football with enough finesse to make Harvard an Ivy League power once again. For every football player who comes to Dartmouth from Hawaii there must be another who would come to Harvard if he got the chance.

It would not be too elaborate or expensive an undertaking to outfit the College with football players. The Administration will not have to resort to subsidization. The H.A.A. will not have to organize a flying squad of scouts to blanket the country.

All that is needed is a few active graduates in each state, ready to get boys interested, and ready to put them in touch with the admissions office. Probably the Associated Harvard Clubs will have to hire one man to co-ordinate activities and to keep alumni active and interested. That's all.

But the Alumni cannot present a case to prospective students unless the University takes certain steps. We repeat: The authors are completely opposed to athletic scholarships at Harvard. But if a man can pass the entrance examinations on his own, there are some things which the University could do without compromising admittedly sound principles.

When in Rome . . .

Harvard might well take a lead from Yale. It would not be "unclean" to assure an athlete of a job here. This would eliminate the necessity for any athletic scholarship, and would mean only that a man could earn some of his expenses.

Harvard could also, with a minimum of effort, guarantee athletes the same rent rating for four years. This would not mean free rooms; it would mean that a man could eliminate this one variable from his college budget and know just how much money would be needed beyond what he could earn in an outside job.

After all, Harvard should not need athletic scholarships to entice men to Cambridge. The University not only offers an A.B. degree of unmatched prestige value, but also has as good a range of courses as any other college, better taught than in almost any other college.

Even It Up

If we are to continue to play Ivy League football, we must broaden the personnel at Valpey's disposal. It might be nice to upset Stanford or Army or Cornell with a team playing strictly for fun, but it is not morally justifiable to ask such a team to expose itself to a steady stream of almost inevitable injuries. Such a casualty list as this year's is a direct result of playing a schedule composed exclusively of teams which are not only deeper in talent but also deeper in numbers. One group of eleven men playing against two groups of eleven men gets tired; when it gets tired, it is very likely to get hurt.

Nor is it morally justifiable to charge upwards of five dollars admission to see Harvard get walloped by a series of "big name" opponents. The Alumni, of course, are the first to shout cheat about this, and here they are right. If we are to continue with the present philosophy of scheduling, we should play five-dollar football; if we cannot play five-dollar football, we should admit it and charge $1.80 for games with teams in our class. Harvard cannot attempt to pay for its athletic program with expensive football tickets unless it produces football worth that price of admission.

The current situation neither gains prestige nor pays for the athletic program. It is unfair to customers, players, and coaches.

The Middle Course

It need not be corrected by a revision of Harvard's schedule, if some changes are made in the attitude towards athletes here. It must not be corrected by a program of athletic scholarships--that we believe most firmly has no place at Harvard. We can play respectable football by merely loosening the stranglehold that the Administration has on any move to give athletes an given chance. But the crucial concern right now is that no attempt to change the situation involve the firing of Arthur Valpey, who may not be the genius he was hailed as last year but who is certainly doing his best--and a definitely competent best--with what material he has.They Squawk Most Loudly Who Do the Least