Delaysmanship

The intolorable handling of the National Collegiate Athletic Association hockey tournament situation by the Faculty Committee on Athletics has been not only a public relations blunder but the start of a poor precedent. It now looks like an annual affair.

The Committee decided last year, after a 17-7-1 season ended with some embarrassing losses, that Harvard should boycott the NCAA playoffs that led to the national tournament. No reason for the action was given; the press was left to supply the creditable but "unofficial" explanation that the Administration objected to the unfair recruiting of Canadian-dominated Western opposing teams. Because the Crimson team would have had it rough in the tourney, the tardy and unexplained decision looked like sour grapes.

This year, Committee members and the Director of Athletics admit "the situation has improved" in reference to Western recruiting. Playoff eliminations, given by one Athletic Department official as the real reason behind Harvard's withdrawal, have been abolished. Why has no decision come yet from the Committee on the advisability of entering the 1961 tourney?

At first the Administration line was that an early denial would hurt team morale, but this was abandoned when it was pointed out that any team that needs a tournament bid as an incentive to win games isn't worth much anyhow. Now the line has changed: the varsity really doesn't give a hang about playing in the championships (a gross error), and to announce a "premature" decision either way on an unreceived invitation would be presumptuous.

The Faculty, in fact, has decided that playing in the tourney per se is permissable. What bothers the Committee now is that the 1961 Harvard team might not last three periods on the same ice with a Western opponent.

Before Christmas when the hockey team was having its troubles, we heard all about those big mean boys from Denver and Michigan Tech. After the varsity's second-place ranking in the East and a nine-game winning streak, we learned that "the situation has improved" (in 12 short months yet). The HAA, incidentally, did nothing since last year to take its complaint to the NCAA.

The Athletic Committee's senseless delays and ludicrous justifications mean that the Faculty now judges on whether a Harvard team can play a formidable opponent in post-season tournaments. According to the Committee, we shouldn't enter if we may get smeared by a good team. The Faculty's prerogative was to decide on the ethics and competitive value of the tournament and the decision has been made in the affirmative. Now it is up to the players and their coach to determine whether they can make a decent showing against tough competition.

Before the season began the Committee should have announced, "The situation in NCAA hockey has improved, and we have no objections to the tournament." This is hardly presumptuous or premature. Instead the Committee waited to make a decision on the basis of Harvard's performance.