There is no need to look outside the Ivy League for examples of a sound mix of scholarship and sports. In basketball, Princeton of course provides the prime example, with a program that is respected nation-wide. Penn is much the same. And Dartmouth took exactly one season to turn its program around, racking up a fine 17-9 record after a disastrous year in 1974-75.
It is not as if all Harvard athletes have too much on their study-oriented minds to perform well in their sports. Mel Embree is a case in point, albeit an exceptional one. As for team sports, what of Joe Restic's spectacular success with the football program (none of whose participants can really count on professional careers) and Bill Cleary's annual miracle-working with the Harvard hockey program? In sum, what makes the basketball program different?
All Bottled Up
The answers to this question are bottled up in a season of dissension, unhappiness, and lost ballgames. Harvard's basketball team was far from talentless this past year, yet it could not even once get it together on the court for an effort it could really be proud of.
The second game with Boston College came close to fulfilling expectations, and indeed at the time seemed to be a turning point in the season. With 20/20 hindsight, it is easy now to see that B.C. was suffering from the same problems of disunity which have plagued Harvard all season. Harvard's 79-65 victory, by far its best performance of the year, is washed down with the honest realization that the Eagles were equally to blame for bad basketball on that night in the IAB, that the Crimson's finest showing must be swallowed with the proverbial grain of salt.
If Harvard's basketball program is in severe trouble, it is nowhere better reflected than in the incredible number of close games the team has lost both this year and in recent history. It is a constant point of debate as to whether tight losses reflect bad luck or a lack of heart in a team, but with Harvard the frequency has become alarming to the point of realizing that there is indeed something very wrong.
For most teams, a game well played results in a victory of some kind: for Harvard, good performance begets a one-or two-point defeat. Yale turned the trick by a 63-62 score. Dartmouth by a 66-64 count. Brown, 58-56. Fordham, 70-68. B.C., 72-71. Tack on a few five-point defeats, and either Harvard is very unlucky or something else is wrong.
How many close ballgames did the Crimson win this year? The answer is one: a 66-63 number against Cornell in the IAB.
There is no question that the Crimson basketball team is ravaged with internal problems, as a losing season with a number of walkouts will quickly point out. There are very few ballplayers on the team who are really pleased with the way the program is handled, and some who are prepared to say they will not play next year if conditions do not change.
Piles of Problems
The team is confronted with a myriad of minor problems, ranging from bent rims in practice, which are not fixed, to equipment which must be paid for by the individual players, and on to a communication problem which is quickly reflected in the style of play on the court.
Harvard's basketball team is in a good deal of trouble these days, and the Crimson fans are tired of watching a team with absolutely no desire to go through the motions on the fifth floor of the IAB, playing its games with the spirit of a last-pace finisher.
The problems are numerous, and they cannot be ironed out with a coach who is as ready to say "No comment" to his own ballplayers as he is to ignore the inquiries of outsiders.
It's time for the Harvard basketball team to sit down and have a nice long talk. Without some communication and honest discussion, it should prepare for a few more seasons which fit right into the history of Harvard basketball: non-descript, losing efforts.