What the Press Thought

These sources are from a variety of newspapers and journals and are in chronological order. The publication will be linked to the article, and a summary of the article follows the publication name.

Birmingham Age-Herald.  Recount of the game with detail to injuries. Says that brutality was caused by hard feelings between the lines.

The Philadelphia Inquierer.  Account of the game, tells of unintentional rough play. Also mentions that Yale beat Harvard due to luck.

Daily Charlotte Observer. Account of the game; game progressed slowly because of the amount of injuries. Entire column about injured players.

The Philadelphia InquiererPennsylvania/Princeton game crippled Princeton, prompting major lineup changes, are not expected to succeed against Yale.

The Philadelphia Inquierer. Account of the game and the crowd, stated Harvard played much better but luck was just against them.

Dallas Morning News. Account of the game, recalls injuries but no mention of excessive brutality.

The State. None of the injuries to the Yale players are as serious as reported, and Harvards injuries were also greatly exaggerated.

The Sun. Harvard team recieved an ovation on returning home, team in good condition save Wrightington and Hallowell.

Kansas Semi-Weekly Capital. The harvard/yale game "degenerated early in the play," cited Hinkey as having unduly injured opposition before.

The Philadelphia Inquierer. States Harvard would have won but for the bad referees. Says the game was very brutal, and people want to see football not prizefighting.

The State. Account of Harvard v Pennsylvania game, states that the team had been crippled by the Harvard/Yale game.

The Philadelphia Inquierer. All players have recovered, and Captains Hinkey and Trenchard have met and come to an understanding.

Outlook. Overall negative report of the game, speaking of the slugging and brutality that occured. Numerous boxing comparisons.

The Philadelphia Inquierer. An English man who saw the game compared it to rugby, and the opinion is that the rules must be changed to prevent injuries.

The Philadelphia Inquierer. Dr. Brooks says that his comment about slugging at the game was misunderstood, and the only vicious play was made by Hinkley.

The Independent. Criticism of modern football saying its too rough, cites Yale/Harvard game and speaks of serious injuries that did not happen as fact.

Christian Advocate. States that football is dangerous and needs banned, cites Harvard/Yale game. Also states that too many people have their hand in the business of football

New Haven Evening Register. "It is too bad that the game of football must past for review before such a severe judge as the 'Hartford Times."

Outlook Football ought to regulate the games more, or prohibit them until the players can behave in a more professional manner.

Outlook. Scathing review of previous article, runs two testimonies of the game- one to the danger and one to the decency.

The Independent. Football needs reformed and taken less seriously by colleges. Cites brutatlity in Yale/Harvard and Yale/Princeton game.

Congregationalist. All the debate on if football is or isnt too rough is absurd, football is good for young men although the money part has gotten out of hand.

The New York Times. Football is too violent for college athletes, and extravagent expenditures disgust many people.

Outing For November. Summary of the new rules added to football during 1894.

Boston Medical and Surgical Journal. Football is attractive to intellectual men because of the skill requried. Current playing style limits skill plays for brute force.

Boston Medical and Surgical Journal. Discourse on whether athletics are good for college men, cites injuries and wasted time, also cites health benefits.