Needless to say, following Saturday night's football game, I had a plethora of subjects to address in this week's column — a loss to Columbia at home for the first time in 58 years, a seeming lack of coherent strategy in play-calling, a defensive secondary that fails to play the short stuff tight.because it is too afraid of getting beat down the field on the long ball.
But instead I am going to address a problem that I see at the root of all of these — lack of leadership.
Leadership — both on the field and on the sideline — is of utmost importance. On a team that is as large as the football team (in sheer numbers as well as in the number of players on the field), defined leaders are pillars on which the rest of the team will stand.
On Saturday night, the football team stood on pillars made of sand.
The loss proved that instead of having a solid base on which it could rely, the Tigers are instead a team whose foundations are made by the turning of the tides.
It was true that coming out of the tunnel, the Tigers seemed relaxed and in control of themselves — they seemed ready to play. However, once the excitement of kicking off the Ivy League schedule and almost certainly picking up a win at home — I mean let's face it, Columbia was picked to finish dead last in the Ivy League — wore off, Princeton found itself in the same position that it faced against Lehigh and Lafayette. The Tigers could get nothing going.
Sure, they built up a 20-point lead, but it was a lead produced entirely by a momentum the Tigers were able to grab in the game's opening minutes. When that momentum began to wane, however, and Columbia woke up, Princeton gave up 27 points over nearly three quarters — without posting a single point of its own.
Why?
This is the same question that I have been asking all week. How could a team blow a 20-point shutout against a very-beatable Lions team? Did no one step up in the huddle and say to the others or to themselves "I'll make the play?"
The only answer I could come up with was "No."
While I've resisted making comparisons to last season's team because this year's Tigers are vastly different than last year's, a very salient point must be made.
Three names — Cam Atkinson; Chisom Opara; Drew Babinecz.
These were the goto guys who could always be counted on to make the plays and to bend the momentum to the Tigers' will. When the chips were down, these players stepped up, hit the hole, made the catch or produced the big tackle that picked the team up and put it back on track.

The question this season is not one of talent. Let's face it — Princeton has the best defensive ends in the league, two running backs who each posted 100-yard games (well, one had 99 and the other 102) on Saturday and a receiver who can't be left open because he's a threat no matter where he is on the field.
The problem concerns a lack of leadership.
On Saturday night, when momentum began to shift in Columbia's dirrection, who stepped up and said "I'm going to make the play" and then did it? While I don't presume to know what went on during the huddle, I know one thing — if anyone did say that, he certainly didn't have the conviction to follow through. Leadership is more than simply words; it must be followed by action. And while many would argue that this type of leadership is something that comes from within, I believe it can be taught.
It is also true that leadership on the sideline is just as important as leadership on the field itself. Each time a coach sends a team out on the field, he must motivate it so that each player believes that he will succeed. It's not a matter of saying "you can do it"; it's that the coach has faith in each player that he will do it.
But after listening to head coach Roger Hughes' assessment of his team at the beginning of the season, and the apparent lack of leadership that failed to step up when the Lions made their comeback on the field Saturday night, I'm simply not sure that Hughes believes his team can win.