Although Neil Austrian brought up the consensus policy in his protest over the Board's action, I think the College should face this issue squarely in order to explain what it has done. I would argue that football has survived the past 30 years at Swarthmore because of the policy of consensus, but it has necessarily survived most of those years in a compromised form that was too weak to be a positive force. If the College is admitting that it would not have been able to maintain what it perceives as an extraordinary level of admissions support for football, and that the program would necessarily recede from this year's small successes, then it is to be commended on its honesty. To borrow from Barry Goldwater, consensus in the service of mediocrity is no virtue. If one looks at the records of all the teams since 1970, it is clear that most of the players who played football endured losing records and the pain that goes with them.
Many negative pathologies develop on losing teams.
We were perceived as bad coaches when saddled with out-manned teams. All members of the Board should also be honest concerning their role in the deterioration of traditional team sports at the College. When the Board hired Al Bloom, and approved his policies to increase diversity while increasing the academic rigor of the entering class they set in motion the demise of football. By the time four classes had been admitted under Bloom's presidency almost all team sports were laughably bad, and the traditional male team sports were anemic. The new administration made clear that its mission was to make Swarthmore more uniquely Swarthmorean.