Faculty Prohibits Varsity Ice Hockey From NCAA Tournament Participation

On March 4, 1961, the Harvard varsity ice hockey team—the year’s Ivy League champions—sat in a silent locker room, bewildered by the 1-1 “upset tie” Yale had just handed them to end the season.

But the greatest disappointment was not a result of the team’s play on the ice.

Despite the squad’s posting an 18-4-2 record, the Faculty Committee on Athletics banned the team from taking part in the NCAA tournament for the second straight year. And once again the committee gave no official explanation for its actions.

Some speculated that it was caused by the losses against Boston College days before the prohibition was re-affirmed. And in a telegram message to the hockey team, then Associate Dean of the College and member of the committee Robert B. Watson ’37 bid the team to “prove you are of NCAA calibre.”

But in an unofficial capacity, school officials told the hockey team that the ban was a protest against the “professionalism in spirit” the committee saw in its opponents, particularly the Western Collegiate Hockey Association (WCHA).

In response to the decision, the hockey team formed a special “fact-finding committee” under the Undergraduate Athletics Council to protest against the ban, according to hockey player David G. Morse ’62.

According to an anonymous committee member from a past Crimson interview, however, the faculty felt that it could make more progress on the situation without making its objections public or official.

BEHIND THE BAN

The problem, according to Morse, could be traced to the University of Denver—a member of the WCHA—where the school admitted heavily subsidized semi-professional athletes, many of whom were not full-time students. The NCAA determined that the University of Denver violated recruiting policies, and Harvard took a stance against its opponent’s admission strategy by banning the Crimson team from playing.

“If you look at the roster [of some WCHA teams], they did not have any American players,” says hockey team manager G. Neal Ryland ’63. “It was too much professionalism.”

But for the hockey team members who were motivated to play in the national spotlight, the decision came as a blow.

“I was opposed to it [and] it was a big deal,” says Benjamin B. Baker ’62, a team manager.

“They were tough teams to beat, but why should we shy away from teams that are hard to beat?” Baker adds, citing several instances where Harvard had defeated teams in the Western league.

This faculty’s decision, which Morse called “not very substantiated,” set off a long period of negotiation between the hockey team and administration.

“NCAA was being too judgmental [on the University of Denver],” Morse says, but “our complaints were more towards the University instead of NCAA. Our battle began with Harvard before anyone else.”

It was not until 1962, the third year of the prohibition, that the faculty confirmed the team’s suspicion and cited the “nature of the post-season event” as well as “the length of the season” as the major reasons for its actions. But Morse said the second explanation was weak.

The prohibition itself lasted much beyond the 1961 season. Even the underclassmen on the 1961 squad did not see the ban lifted during their playing careers.

MAKE A CASE

For the hockey team, the unfair recruiting standards at colleges in the WCHA did not constitute a serious problem. Rather, it was Harvard’s stubborn stance to forbid the team from playing at a national level that presented frustrations.

Adding to the annoyance was the reticence from the Faculty Committee, which had allowed all other varsity teams to participate in NCAA tournaments.

It was this lack of information that led team members to found the fact-finding committee.

With the help of some Crimson alumni at the University of Denver, the students tried to collect information on what had really happened there and met at least once a week.

During the hockey team’s campaign, the students found themselves not only dealing with the Faculty Committee, but also with school officials such as their advisors and athletic directors.

“We saw them as stodgy grandfathers,” Morse says.

In Jan. 1962, the hockey team presented its research result—a 29-page request to lift the ban—to the Faculty Committee. But Harvard refused to back down.

When it met the hockey team members for their request, the committee seemed to think of themselves as “very important people,” “looked down” at the team, and said “alright, make a case,” according to Baker.

FINAL RESULTS

By 1963, the fourth year of the ban, hockey players had stopped objecting to the decision and accepted it as a fact of life.

“They made the decision and we accepted. No one wrote letters. No one demonstrated,” says Ryland, who calls the faculty’s decision “disappointing.”

And half a century after the ban, even those who had protested the decision accept it.

“After all these years, it wasn’t the end of the world that we didn’t go,” Morse says.

“But it would have been nice if we went,” he immediately adds.

—Staff writer Sirui Li can be reached at sli@college.harvard.edu.