The reference to "one-sided" contracts was an early shot across the reserve clause's bow; however, Murphy declined to make a frontal assault on the provision because he feared "over-reaching." Wrote The Harvard Crimson in August 1946: "[Murphy] doesn't believe that the much discussed reserve clause can be completely done away with without benefiting the more affluent clubs. Murphy does not feel, however, that the contract, in its present form, would stand up in a court of law, since it is completely one-sided, binding a player to one team for life, while the club must give him only ten days notice before releasing him."
