Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1912-12-02
.UND|SPUTED TITLE.
Harvard'S Eleven Is the
Champion.
YALE'S COACHING SYSTEM
Much Displeasure Being Shown as
Result Of Defeat Last
Week.
BY EDWARD R. BUSHNELL.

d
The intercollegiate foot ball champion
ship was settled beyond the possibility of
dispute at New Haven, when Har-
ward beat Yale by the score of 20
to o. Harvard by virtue of its unde-
feated team is entitled to first place. AL
though Princeton and Yale were beaten
by Harvard and played each other to a
standstill. no fair minded critic will deny
Pr1ncetOn'S right to be ranked above Yale.
Probably Dartmouth should be ranked
fourth and Pennsylvania State College
fifth, although the latter team went
through the season without a defeat.
State College. however, did not play any
teams of the strength of Harvard or
Princeton. Ordinarily they would have
found Pennsylvania and Cornell in this
class, but this year both the Quakers and
the IthacansI were far below their usual
standard
Harvard men must have gotten more
satisfaction out of this years victory than
anything they have done in foot ball since
1901. The Crimson's record is almost en-
tirely barren of tOuchdOwns against Yale.
In fact, the touchdown which Storer
scored on Wheelers tumble in the first
period of Saturdays game was the first
touchdown that the Crimson had made
against Yale since 1901. One touchdown
in eleven years is like angels dreams.
The Crimson has had better teams than
\ ale on other occasions since 1901, but
when it was fortunate enough to have
the material it lacked the spirit or some
other quality which had made Yale justly
famous on the gridiron. Both last year
and the year before Harvard should have
won. but was held to to o scores in each
instance.
The fact that Harvard scored every one
of its 20 points directly or indirectly on
Yales fumbles or mistakes should not
detract any from the merit of Harvard's
victory. 1t is true that the first touch
down was made directly on Yales tumble
and that subsequent touchdown and
goal from field followed on the second
play after similar fumbles, also that
Harvard's second touchdown was due to
the ludicrous manner in which Yale at
tempted to use the forward pass.
There was enough disparity between
the two teams to force one to the con-
clusion that even if Yale had played per-
feet foot ball in each of the four in
stances referred to the Crimson would
still have won, though not by the margin
it did. There was hardly a0department
of the game in which Harvard did not
excel. In kicking FELTON, was infinitely
solely by his work in the Princeton and
Harvard games, is a very much over
rated player. He did not prove as good
ground gamer in either of the cham
pionship games as Baker and Pumpelly,
who substituted for him. He was an I'M
usually long punter, but he frequently
lost much ground by Overlooking, in
addition to which he was SO erratic that
many times his kicks went out Of
bounds.
at the kicking game, but there was really
no comparison between the two back
fields. Gardner outgeneraled Wheeler
from start to finish, while Yale did not
have rushing attack which could gain
ground consistently, though in the last
nprind q DIST kC
ried the ball for 30 yards to Harvards
1O-yard line. where it was lost. In ad-
vancing the ball Brickley and Wendell
were unusually good and were not ap-
plungers by any Of the Yale backs.
1t was more of an even battle in the
line, but even here Yale did not have
the advantage from end to end. Bo-
meisler was a better end than either man
Harvard had. but the Crimson tackles
and guards more than held their own.
In the center of the line Ketcham showed
himself a better man than Parmenter.
AS might have been anticipated. there
has been tendency to criticise Yale's
eleven must go down in history as the
one that never ARRIVED" All season the
dispatches from New Haven had prom
Used a wonderful team for the Blue once
the team woke up. 1t was always de-
scribed as an eleven with wonderful pos
sibilities. which would round into its true
form against Princeton and Harvard.
Plenty of excuses were found for its
showing against Princeton, and many
promises were held out as to what the
team would do against Harvard. But the
team failed in each instance to rise above
mediocrity.
Yale's Coaching System.
There were about 100 old Yale players
seated around the gridiron during the
oh
any attempt to conceal their displeasure
at the poor exhibition given by the Blue.
Since that game the suggestion has been
advanced that the Yale policy of select
ing head coach from a member of the
previous years team is a mistake, and
that the man ought to be a player a few
years out of college and one who has
made good as coach at some other In
stitutiOn. However, 1t will take good
deal of argument to make Yale abandon
a system which has turned out so many
winners The fact of the matter is that
the man referred to as head coach is
never supreme. This year. for instance,
Arthur Howe was merely the field coacn
and the spokesman for the board Of
coaches. The Yale team was selected at
conferences which Howe had with a
group of former Yale stars who every
year flock back to New Haven to help get
the team in shape. If there is any friction
in these conferences 1t never gets into the
newspapers, and the Yale machine moves
along so steadily that the rest of the col
lege world never ceases to admire it,
If Yale eventually should put an older
man in charge of the team none would
give the Ellis SO much satisfaction as
Howard Jones, an end Of the 1907 team
Jones coached Syracuse in the fall Of
1908 and was made head coach at Yale
the following year. He developed the 1909
team. universally regarded as one of the
strongest that Yale ever turned out.
Jones. however, had unusual material
with which to work and he might not
have been successful with another squad
The Yale-Princeton and Yale-Harvard
games did not furnish any justification
for a continuance Of the forward pass. In
the Princeton game the Tigers did not
use the play once and Yale used it only
as a last resort and then in such a hap
hazard manner as to make the play look
more ridiculous than it really was. All
told Yale used the play six times against
Princeton. and out of that many attempts
gained just three yards. Yale did not i'm
prove it's method of operation against
Harvard and it failed every time Har-
ward made use of it just once. That time
it gained about five yards and was used as
fake play, Yale men expecting Brickley
to try for goal from tho field.