To the Sports Editor:

It seems that two Crimson sports columnists recently have seen fit to criticize just about everyone who attends a hockey game at Watson Rink.

Mr. Aronson blames Harvard's 5-4 loss to Dartmouth on the lack of "something special" in the Harvard Band; Mr. Stedman singles out Section 18. Mr. Aronson cannot find fault with the team, however, because for the first two and a half periods Harvard skated circles around their opponents, building up a two goal advantage. A "quiet" crowd did not seem to affect their performance then. The team proceeded to quickly squander their lead, which according to Mr. Aronson, was the band's fault. Would Mr. Aronson have praised the band if Harvard had hung on to win? I think not! For that matter, how often is the band, Section 18 or the loyal fan given even a share of the credit for a victory?

Perhaps Mr. Stedman hit upon the problem without realizing it. Even if Section 18 did win the Stedman seal of approval, would that excuse the behavior of "the politely applauding Hahvahd alums, parents and administrators?" How many of these fans voice their disgust at a penalty to a Harvard defenseman? How many join in singing a chorus of "Yo-Ho" (how many even know the words)? How many cannot even muster up enough enthusiasm to yell "Go Harvard!"? Despite numerous efforts by the band at the Cornell game to enlist the cheering support of the Harvard fans, many seemed incapable of cheering and watching at the same time. Maybe we ought to hold try-outs for Section 18 or get some Big Ten cheerleaders.

Nevertheless, to blame the fans for a loss is simply absurd. The hockey team lost to Brown here but beat them in Providence without a band, without Section 18, and, I suspect, without a very large contingent of fans. They beat nationally-ranked Michigan State twice under similar conditions over the Christmas break. Harvard's squash team is the best in the country; yet they draw only a small fraction of the number of people who go to watch hockey. In short, a good team should not need a boisterous crowd to win! Art Powell '77

THE LOUNGE REPLIES:

The bottom line of both columns in question referred not to the fact that the fans [and the band] are directly responsible for wins or losses, but rather that they have a potential effect on a team's performance. Mr. Powell fails to take into account the universally accepted importance of the "home court [ice] advantage" and the part it can play in winning and losing. What does he suppose this advantage consists of?

To blame fans for a loss is absurd, and neither columnist is guilty of doing that. Both emphasized the failure to add that "something special" which is so much a part of the home ice edge. And indeed, a good team would not need a boisterous crowd to win, but such a crowd can be of immense help when the going gets rough.

Before the Cornell game, Harvard's home ice advantage was rapidly deteriorating, though hopefully the tide is shifting again. Could more fan support play a part in Harvard hockey success? Only Coach Cleary and hii players know the answer.

[The Sports Editor invites coaches, players, and all readers to offer their opinions on this subject and any others which arise on the sports page.]   --T.L.A.