The barometer of student reaction in New Haven over the past weekend to the Athletic Association's announcement of Harvard's new football policy fluctuated almost as wildly as New England's unpredictable weather conditions during the same three-day period.

In eight interviews with members of the sophomore and senior classes at Yale, the adjectives used to describe William J. Bingham's package statement to the press last Thursday ranged from "awkward," "amusing," and "untrue" to "inevitable" and "extremely sensible".

Agreement on "Big-time" Football

Seven of the eight students questioned, however, agreed that the abandoning of "big-time" football and the assurance of "job security" to athletes by the University were "the only things to do" under the circumstances

The most violent disagreement came in regard to Bingham's belittling of the Big Three rivalry. Not only did everyone feel that this was untrue, but in most cases it was interpreted as a sign of "poor sportsmanship" on the part of the Crimson. "Hell," one senior said, "just wait until they start winning some of these Big Three games--if they ever do--and then the rivalry will be mighty important!

Some thought that inter-sectional games were extremely desirable both as a means of establishing friendly contact between Universities and as a means of comparing the caliber of football played in different leagues. People of this opinion, as opposed to those who thought that as far as Harvard was concerned inter-sectional football was "pure suicide", felt that Harvard was over-hasty in abolishing this phase of the game merely on the basis of what happened against Stanford this fall.