THE COACH, THE CAPTAIN, AND THE CREW.

Heeding not a few complaints that have come forth lately, the CRIMSON has undertaken to find who, if anyone, is to bear the responsibility for the glory or the ignominy of this season's University crew. The CRIMSON has hesitated to offer suggestions on the delicate adjustment between the coach and the captain of a major sport, in the hope that Mr. Herrick, like Mr. Haughton, would inaugurate a system wherein the coach takes supreme control.

It now seems, however, that the crew policy this year is liable to follow last year's as regards the captain's exercise of authority over the coach. At present the captain has complete control theoretically; it is unfair to saddle him with this responsibility and it is unjust to deny complete authority to the coach, whom the public holds responsible. This injustice can be righted by a vote of the Athletic Committee.

Any adverse criticism of the crew does not come from distrust of the present captain or the present coach. The CRIMSON, for one, has the utmost confidence in Coach Herrick as a teacher of oarsmen, and the sincerest faith in Captain Morgan as a courageous and able leader. Through no fault of his own, Captain Morgan is the victim of a long-continued system that has now reached its climax. And there seems to be no friction between the present coach and the captain; they say that they can foresee no cause whatever for conflict between themselves. It is in order to bring about a final definition of Harvard's crew policy, in order to remove from every captain the chagrin of adverse criticism, and in order to put responsibility where it belongs--on the coach--that the CRIMSON is now seeking a solution of this problem.

For the following reasons, the supremacy of a crew captain over the coach is injurious to the best interests of the sport:

(1) Mature judgement is lacking in an undergraduate because of: (a) age; (b) inexperience as compared to a coach; (c) inability to observe his own and other crews because of his personal participation in practice.

(2) The coach is free from and above all undergraduate friendships and social affliations.

(3) In all other major sports the captain has in practice no authority over the coach. There is no reason to believe tha crew is an exception, since the general principles of administration are the same for all.

(4) If the captain is the more efficient director of the sport, it is absurd to employ a coach at all.

The CRIMSON believes that the time has come when the Athletic Committee should by vote designate the coach in every major sport as the absolute director of the squad. If the Athletic Committee will say that the coach and not the captain is responsible and in complete charge, the Committee will follow the logical tendency of the Harvard system; will remove from any coach the embarrassment of asserting his authority; will lift from every captain the burden of such onerous responsibility, and will probably accomplish great good for the University crews of future years.