DIVIDED CONTROL

The announcement that Coach Stevens will have this year final and practically absolute authority on all matters pertaining to crew is further indication of a healthy attitude toward rowing. Critics have no longer any reason to expect a repetition of the lack of decision and clash of authority of former years.

There is much to be said for a system of divided control which places at least part of the responsibility for a sport in the hands of the undergraduates and graduates most concerned and which prevents the development of extreme professionalism in the person of an athletic dictator. Such a system has been the keystone of athletic policy at Harvard and has saved the College from the evil of abject submission to an all-powerful coach, which has been common in other colleges. But when the system of divided control encroaches on the efficiency of coaching and leads to a long string of defeats, it is time to call a halt and to readjust the emphasis And this, apparently, is what the rowing authorities intend to do this year. Consciously or unconsciously most of the leading colleges in the East have adopted a system in which, although ultimate responsibility remains divided, the coach has sufficient authority to insure his best work; Harvard is following good examples in adopting a similar attitude.

The 1924 crew season has hardly begun. Aside from the fact that Coach Stevens has still to prove his ability to handle a University crew successfully, there are many difficulties ahead. The task of coordinating the work of the old coaches with the new system is naturally hard, while the problem of securing the desired emphasis on the power of the coach is more easily expressed than satisfactorily solved. But Coach Stevens record is one to inspire confidence and the fact that almost 200 men reported yesterday for hall crew is proof of undergraduate support. Taken as a whole the College can look forward to the coming season with more confidence than for many years.