Unsportsmanlike Conduct

TWICE THIS PAST YEAR, Harvard had the opportunity to have a professional football team. Twice it passed up the chance for prestige and community respect. Now it seems that the United States Football League's Boston Breakers are leaving the area for good--and taking easily accessible, quality football with them. The University should reconsider its decision, if it is not already too late.

The Breakers turned to Harvard for one reason. The list of stadiums in the Boston area with a capacity of 40,000 is very short: Soldiers Field To stay within reach of local fans, the team spent last year at Boston University And though the school, proud to have the Breakers in their inaugural season, increased seating capacity by 40 percent. Nickerson Field still only holds 21,000 The National Football League's Patriots play in Sullivan in [ace Schaefer] Stadium But a well-thrown pass from the Foxborough facility can almost reach Rhode Island that is why they go as the New England Patriots Without a suitable home, the Breakers may move against their wishes to Indianapolis, Seattle, or some other city.

But Harvard said no to the Breakers, citing potential community opposition and the belief that the team's use of the Stadium could disrupt Harvard's own sports program. This is reasonable, until one considers the Breaker's whole plan According to George Matthews, owner of the Breakers the team was "willing to double security" for the games and have a clean-up crew go through the Business School area afterwards. In addition, he believes that an agreement could have been reached with the USFI, on scheduling to avoid any particular conflicts such as the Olympic soccer scheduled for Harvard's field next July. The Breakers also offered to refurbish the locker rooms under the stadium to avoid using Dillon Field House, and they promised to raise the scoreboard in the open end of the stadium. The Breakers didn't even intend to use Harvard as a major practice facility; they currently have access to City College (about which Matthews says "we couldn't have asked for more").

Matthews thinks he have Harvard a "fair deal." So the decision was based on the question: Did the University went professional sports on campus at all? By answering no, Harvard may have acted too hastily.

First, the USFL is not "pro football" in the sense of the NFI. At this point, it is more like professional college football, and the similarities don't end with the two-point conversion rule. That does not necessarily mean that the quality is bad, but both the atmosphere and the type of football played do differ from the NFL., Gary Gillis, director of public relations for the Breakers, points out that fans like the Breakers' type of football "a little bit more wide open, a little more risk-taking." Matthews says that at Breakers games there is "more of a college atmosphere" and "a younger crowd." Not surprisingly, then, the USFL has found its greatest support in areas where college football is strong and the NFL relatively weak, such as the South and the Midwest. The NFL may continue to attract many of the superstars from larger and more visible college football programs, but the USFL will attract many who simply enjoy playing football and do it well. Further, the USFL, can ill afford the "glamor" of a pro football associated on occasion with gambling and drugs.

THE USFL ALSO APPEALS, or can appeal, to a different clientele: the fan who simply cannot get into an NFL game. In Washington, for example, even when a fan could afford a ticket, he often could not buy one. The stadium is filled with Redskins season-ticket holders, and the waiting list is several years long. Now, the fan can go to a Washington Federals game. So the USFL plays the commendable role of bringing profootball, a good family entertainment, those who often reach the NFL only through television. It is similar to those who often reach the NPL only through television It is similar to professional baseball by far the most inexpensive of major professional sports to attend.

If Harvard were to permit the Breakers on play at the stadium, it would help make quality entertainment accessible to a new group of people. Perhaps a child who came to Harvard Stadium for a Beakers game night be inspired to work hard in school so he could someday study here. That would certainly raise Harvard's stature in the com-unity.

Mathews believes that Boston University felt it was a community obligation to let the Breakers play. For Harvard the primary concern should not be with whatever traffic comes through to go to the games--its "community" does not end at the Larz Anderson bridge. On that point, Mr. Gillis believes that because of Harvard's accessibility, people would be inclined to ride the T to Harvard and walk to the stadium.

Harvard is not simply acting mean spirited in keeping the Breakers from playing in the stadium. Having professional football at Harvard would certainly be a major undertaking. But given the paucity of large stadiums in the Boston area, it is hard to see how Harvard could ever become dominated by the Breakers. The two sides could have reached a fair agreement, allowing Harvard to continue its own sports activities with a minimum of interruption. Perhaps Harvard would be thought of as a place to go for a family outing, rather than as a closed enclave on the other side of the river, as is all too often the case. When the Red Sox this year revived an old custom of having the Harvard Band play on Opening Day, the band was booed. With the Breakers playing in Harvard Stadium, this would probably not be the case.