Advertisement

Faculty Prohibits Varsity Ice Hockey From NCAA Tournament Participation

After being kept from the national tournament for the second straight year without an official explanation, team members and other undergraduates reacted with frustration

It was not until 1962, the third year of the prohibition, that the faculty confirmed the team’s suspicion and cited the “nature of the post-season event” as well as “the length of the season” as the major reasons for its actions. But Morse said the second explanation was weak.

The prohibition itself lasted much beyond the 1961 season. Even the underclassmen on the 1961 squad did not see the ban lifted during their playing careers.

MAKE A CASE

For the hockey team, the unfair recruiting standards at colleges in the WCHA did not constitute a serious problem. Rather, it was Harvard’s stubborn stance to forbid the team from playing at a national level that presented frustrations.

Adding to the annoyance was the reticence from the Faculty Committee, which had allowed all other varsity teams to participate in NCAA tournaments.

Advertisement

It was this lack of information that led team members to found the fact-finding committee.

With the help of some Crimson alumni at the University of Denver, the students tried to collect information on what had really happened there and met at least once a week.

During the hockey team’s campaign, the students found themselves not only dealing with the Faculty Committee, but also with school officials such as their advisors and athletic directors.

“We saw them as stodgy grandfathers,” Morse says.

In Jan. 1962, the hockey team presented its research result—a 29-page request to lift the ban—to the Faculty Committee. But Harvard refused to back down.

When it met the hockey team members for their request, the committee seemed to think of themselves as “very important people,” “looked down” at the team, and said “alright, make a case,” according to Baker.

FINAL RESULTS

By 1963, the fourth year of the ban, hockey players had stopped objecting to the decision and accepted it as a fact of life.

“They made the decision and we accepted. No one wrote letters. No one demonstrated,” says Ryland, who calls the faculty’s decision “disappointing.”

And half a century after the ban, even those who had protested the decision accept it.

“After all these years, it wasn’t the end of the world that we didn’t go,” Morse says.

“But it would have been nice if we went,” he immediately adds.

—Staff writer Sirui Li can be reached at sli@college.harvard.edu.

Tags

Advertisement