The Lion Continues to Sleep

Mistakes, it's said, are great teachers. If so, the people who make decisions about Columbia football have been asleep in class.

Their decision two years ago to lower admission standards for football players, made in an effort to revamp the Columbia football program, was a bad risk.

For the first time last Saturday, players admitted to Columbia under the relaxed admissions standards took part in a varsity game. For the 42nd straight time, Columbia lost.

The Lions' 41-7 loss to Harvard at The Stadium should have been expected. Columbia's propensity for losing--and losing big--is legendary. But since Columbia implemented its new admissions policy, with permission from the Ivy League, greater expectations have been built around the football team.

Now, people expect victories. Or at least one victory.

Two years ago, the people who make decisions about Columbia football--the president of the university, the athletic director and other university officials--agreed that something had to be done to stop the slide. Too much losing is not good. Twenty-six years of losing (Columbia has not had a winning season since 1962) is outright disastrous.

Instead of admitting the inevitable (i.e. "We cannot compete at the level we are now competing at and expect to win"), Columbia decided to lower its admissions standards for football players. This measure was approved by the Ivy Group, a body that represents Ivy League schools.

A more lenient admissions policy would presumably lead to better results on the field. This year, Columbia is testing the results of that policy. Columbia's sophomores are the first to be admitted under the new admissions standards.

Saturday, it was obvious that policy will not have an immediate impact. And the guess here is that this year Columbia again will go without a win.

Sophomores, of course, cannot be expected to spice up a program immediately. But they should have some impact.

Harvard's margin of victory over Columbia this year--34 points--was the same as it was last year.

Saturday's result hints at a frightening possibility. What if Columbia's admissions policy has little, even no, effect on the fortunes of the football squad? Should Columbia continue losing two years from now, when its entire team will be composed of players admitted under the new policy, what then would the Columbia administration do? Lower academic standards further?

Columbia's football woes extend beyond the 42-game losing streak. In the past nine years, the Lions have gone 5-79-2. Their best season during that span was 1983, when they went 1-7-2.

The Lions have not had a winning season since 1962, when they went 5-4.

Columbia is not only bearing the burden of a humiliating losing streak, but, like most college football programs, the financial burden of supporting a football team. Running a big-time college football operation is not cheap. Salaries are high. Expenses--for travel, for upkeep of the stadium--are numerous.

Although no Ivy League school will reveal how much it spends on its football team, it's safe to say that supporting a college football program such as Columbia's costs more than half-a-million dollars a year.

Gate revenues do not cover those expenses. The rest of the deficit is made up in donations and student fees.

If Columbia continues its losing ways, how willing will alumni be to keep donating to the football program?

Columbia should reconsider not only its admissions policy, which may prove useless, but its commitment to support a football program.

People who make decisions about Columbia football should ask whether continuing to field a team is worth the price. Or, given the losing streak, the pain.