<p>How’s Transylvania’s football team doing?</p>
<p>What are the Director Cup standings?</p>
<p>[NACDA</a> Directors’ Cup - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NACDA_Directors’_Cup]NACDA”>NACDA Directors' Cup - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Army and Navy already turned down the Ivy League a long time ago, but it’s weird because we still find all of those teams on our schedules in most every sport besides football.</p>
<p>In track and field, the Army and Navy compete in the heptagonal championships (basically Ivies plus Army/Navy). In most sports, it’s pretty much assumed that the Ivies along with the service academies have a loose affiliation with competition. Had the academies been interested in joining an athletic conference back during the formulation of the Ivy League, you may have seen a different dynamic in college admissions take place.</p>
<p>Prestige,
The discussion has focused on the major sports of football and men’s basketball (I’d be happy to include women’s basketball and baseball as well). I looked at the colleges in the USNWR Top 30 that play Division I sports. Let’s see how well those Ivy athletic teams compare nationally.</p>
<p>Total of Sagarin Football Rank & Basketball Rank, College</p>
<p>79 , Wake Forest
79 , UC Berkeley
80 , Duke
92 , USC
94 , U North Carolina</p>
<p>115 , Notre Dame
128 , Vanderbilt
137 , Northwestern
147 , U Virginia
148 , Stanford
152 , U Illinois
168 , U Michigan
175 , UCLA</p>
<p>236 , HARVARD
253 , Georgetown
274 , CORNELL
345 , PRINCETON
389 , Rice
431 , U PENN
460 , YALE
469 , COLUMBIA
470 , BROWN
553 , DARTMOUTH</p>
<p>Only Georgetown (which competes at the same level as the Ivies in football) and Rice are in the same neighborhood as the Ivies in these two major sports. And if you’re not aware, Rice baseball is in the pre-season Top 5 in the USA. Add that in and Rice is waaaaay ahead of the Ivies.</p>
<p>There is an SAT chasm between Army and Navy and the Ivies. In an all sports league, it would not be fair competition. Also, with only 15% women, the Service Academies would be short handed versus the Ivy women’s teams.</p>
<p>hawkette, </p>
<p>very clever.</p>
<p>first, when it comes to football, the argument is automatically skewed in favor of non-Ivy schools from the outside simply as a matter of strength of schedule –> due to the disparity in both the conference rankings themselves in addition to the rankings of the non-conference opponents that non-Ivy teams play (as an avid football fan, I am certain you know this better than most). As an example, last season Vanderbilt registered a woeful 2-10 season, but still ranked no. 104 due to its high SoS. Conversely, UPenn, last year’s Ivy champions (who went undefeated in Ivy play) and recorded an 8-2 record, only ranked 116 due to its low SoS. </p>
<p>next, why shy away from the Directors Cup results? This is THE standard for ranking collegiate athletic performance. It’s unbiased. You could at least acknowledge that from a complete athletic performance perspective, Princeton, Cornell and Yale are at least if not better than Northwestern, Rice and Notre Dame. The official rankings don’t lie.</p>
<p>finally, if you take a look at the Sagarin basketball rankings (as of 17 Feb 2010):
[USATODAY.com</a> - Sagarin NCAA basketball ratings](<a href=“http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/bkt0910.htm]USATODAY.com”>http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/bkt0910.htm)</p>
<p>- 52 Cornell
- 67 Notre Dame
- 76 Northwestern
- 89 Harvard
- 132 Princeton - 245 Rice</p>
<p>Cornell ranks higher than Notre Dame, Northwestern and Rice
Harvard and Princeton rank higher than Rice</p>
<p>The reason that basketball SoS plays a lesser role vs. football is simply due to the sheer number of out of conference games that you play (in addition to ranked opponents – for example Cornell has at least 2 ranked opponents in its schedule this year – no. 1 Kansas and no. 9 Syracuse – something that would never happen in Ivy football unless a Patriot League team somehow gets ranked which is unlikely) in addition to the overall number of games (10 games in Ivy football vs. ~30 games in Ivy basketball). Frankly, despite Cornell’s weak SoS (after all they still play in the Ivies), its a tribute to their team (and an indirect tip of the hat to Ivy play) that it is ranked near the Top 50. I think that this is awesome and I hope the Big Red make some serious waves in the Tourney.</p>
<p>At the end of the day, we can play games all we want with rankings, hence the phrase “lies, damn lies and statistics”, but its hard to argue with the Directors Cup – the definitive ranking of collegiate sports programs.</p>
<p>prestige - it isn’t so much a matter of shying away from the other sports, except that was clearly not the basis of the discussion, since it involved profile sports and investment in those sports, and whether those investments detracted from their academic pursuits. It is fine to start a new conversation, less fine to change the parameters in the middle of a debate. Two different conversations.</p>
<p>If you now want to argue that some if the Ivies are paying too much attention to these other sports and could be ranked higher if they focused solely on academics…Oh, but you would never make such an argument, would you.</p>
<p>fallenchemist, with respect, who appointed you the arbiter of what, where and in what manner a conversation (thread) goes?</p>
<p>With due respect, no one. It was you who actually stated clearly in the earlier posts that we were focusing on the sports that would be a drain (in theory) on resources thus taking away from the academic focus of the universities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It pretty much set the parameters for the rest of the discussion, actually. Most schools don’t pump much $$ into those other sports, so while the Ivies and others might outshine Big State U in overall sports, I fail to see how it furthers the original discussion. Therefore it is another discussion, but let’s please be clear if we are going to change the discussion. It seems to me it would make more sense to start a new thread about it. Otherwise it is even more confusing than this already is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>are you really this obtuse? a thread, by its very definition, starts in one place and can go in multiple directions. have you even read the title of this thread we are posting in? Southern Ivy League. Geez, how in the heck did we get from there to here? You are fine taking that leap it seems – you are either being obtuse or a hypocrite… i’d give you the benefit of the doubt, but you haven’t earned any.</p>
<p>besides, do you think you are the only one who i’m addressing or having discussions with? GTFOHWTBS.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>you do sound like a very confused person, but i’m afraid i can’t help you with that. perhaps it’s best to go back to more one-dimensional or linear subjects – thinking on multiple levels or beyond the initial scope of a single topic doesn’t seem to suit you very well.</p>
<p>Very respectful of you. Thanks for being so kind. However, you are the one being obtuse when you cannot keep straight what the parameters under discussion are when we were using the term “athletics”, which was clearly shorthand for “money sports”. Threads may go in multiple directions, but it is fairly stupid of someone to change the definition of terms already under discussion rather than address the point that was being made, as you did when you answered Hawkette’s post #103 with your post #139. It was quite clear to everyone but you, apparently, that hawkette was continuing in the same vein as all the other posts, athletics=football and basketball. You took an illogical turn into something that truly fits the definition of a straw man argument.</p>
<p>I have no problem with threads going in other directions, they do all the time. I have less patience for false arguments and changing definitions. Sorry you have been caught so often making ridiculous arguments, but I am fine with you continuing to make a fool of yourself.</p>
<p>
Sorry to be obtuse, but I have no idea what that has to do with anything. I was simply pointing out that your post 139 did not actually respond to the quote you put in it, since you changed the definition of what was being discussed.</p>
<p>So with respect to your entire port #151, I have to repeat: Chill.</p>
<p>Let’s see, I point out logical inconsistencies in your posts, and you respond with name-calling, bigoted blasts, and general idiocy. I guess we know who is actually running from the “fight” (although you were the only one fighting, apparently). Anyway, I think that last post of yours showed the world your entire intellectual capacity.</p>
<p>don’t look now, but fallenchemist has now successfully hijacked the thread because his feelings got hurt.</p>
<p>(p.s. you didn’t point out jack, and people like hawkette can respond on their own without you presuming to post on their behalf… and name calling? like you are above name calling? i’ve lost count of the number of posts where you name call, so spare me your sanctimonious bs you hypocrite)</p>
<p>fallen,
Don’t worry about it. I’m used to the Ivy League folks trying to have it both ways. I think that that’s part of the Ivy League curriculum. :)</p>
<p>prestige,
I’m certainly not anti-Directors Cup and I’m glad that some of the Ivies can actually do ok in some sports, but recognize that your bragging rests on sports like field hockey, water polo, cross country, etc. If you want to hang your hat on sports like that and claim that Princeton, Cornell & Yale are stronger than Northwestern, Rice & Notre Dame, then be my guest. Most folks outside of immediate family could not care less about these sports.</p>
<p>In addition, while I don’t know, I doubt that there is any difference at all in the quality of the student-athletes being recruited by the Ivies for these sports and those that are being recruited by places like Stanford, Duke et al. </p>
<p>As fallen points out, the charges that are often lobbed at the non-Ivy colleges that happen to play nationally relevant games in major sports is that their student-athletes are inferior students to those in the Ivy League. Graduation data shows that the differences are slight, and certainly less so than the differences in quality of competition that these schools face.</p>
<p>As for your comment about the relative strength of football in the SEC (Vanderbilt) with that of the Ivy League and its champion (U Penn), are you serious? Vandy may not have had much of a year, but 9 of their 10 losses were to teams that were ranked in the Sagarin Top 50 and all went to bowl games. Meanwhile, U Penn was playing Ivy foes (highest rated opponent was Harvard at # 147) and losing to Lafayette. I think it’s apples and oranges to compare Vanderbilt football and U Penn football. IMO, Vanderbilt would have won comfortably…and by an even greater margin in the more important battle of the tailgates!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>hawkette, my point about SoS was not to argue that Penn would have beaten Vandy, it was to point out that combining football AND basketball rankings is like comparing apples to oranges. The differences between football and basketball are important.</p>
<p>1) as you know, the Ivy League competes in the Football Championship Subdivision (formerly I-AA) alongside the Patriot League, etc. vs. Vandy which plays in the Bowl Subdivision (formerly I-A). In other words, the ability for any Ivy team to be ranked highly will always be capped.</p>
<p>2) Ivy football teams play a total of 10 games. Strip away conference games (7) leaves you with a grand total of 3 non-conference – and mostly vs. teams in the Patriot League (give or take).</p>
<p>3) now, and here was my point, conversely, in basketball, the NCAA doesn’t differentiate between Division I programs as it does for football (in fact, football is the only sport that NCAA makes this distinction between DI programs – they did back in '78 I believe when it was split into I-A and I-AA)</p>
<p>4) this means that in any given basketball season, an Ivy team can and does play ranked opponents (e.g. Cornell which played no. 1 Kansas and no. 9 Syracuse this year). This would never occur in football.</p>
<p>5) also, the number of basketball games played (~30) by Ivy teams gives it ample opportunities (via a larger number of non-conference games played vs. the shorter football schedule of 3 non-conference games) to overcome their inherently weaker SoS.</p>
<p>That was my point. It wasn’t to suggest that Penn could beat Vandy’s football team it was to merely to point out that your combined football and basketball ranking had stacked the deck against the Ivies from the outset.</p>
<p>And the proof is right back in post #147:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, that’s the basketball rankings. Not “some sport which no one cares about”. And this is the point that would have been entirely missed if one were to simply take your combined rankings prime facie.</p>
<p>Hawkette - lol, I am not worried about it in the least. If it makes him feel better to think he hurt my feelings, so be it. What a pitiful life that must be. But for someone that railed about who put who in charge of who can post what, he certainly seems to be telling me what I should and should not be posting. Ah well, just another contradiction among many he has displayed. I think there is no way he was an Ivy school student. I know they are brighter than that.</p>
<p>fallenchemist, you not take your own advice and get back to discussing anything remotely related to the topics instead of whining like a 5 year old bed wetter?</p>
<p>prestige,
I thought that the discussion was about the strength of athletic performance in marquee sports. Football is college’s marquee sport. It’s not my fault that the Ivies don’t have a team that’s nationally competitive-that’s their choice and, as I’m frequently reminded, the people there are perfectly happy with their Division III-like product. But I still believe that most Ivy folks don’t get the whole idea of a good college football scene (particularly in the South, Midwest, Southwest, or West) and the great impact that it can have on a college campus as all the Ivy folks have to compare it to is things like Dartmouth-Brown or the NFL games. Not the same experience. Anyway, no biggie to me about the Ivy’s choices, but I think that they’re missing out on a lot of fun. </p>
<p>As I think you know, I am a bigger fan of the hoopla surrounding the sports events than the games themselves. I like the positive energy that envelops a campus before a fall football game or a big basketball or baseball game. It’s fun and it’s a palpably different experience when you compare a U Penn or any of the Ivies for that matter to a Vanderbilt or any of the group that I frequently praise. Football is probably the best example of this as there is a world of difference, both in the pre- and post-game partying and the crowds who care and in the quality of the contests being played. </p>
<p>As for Cornell and this year’s basketball, no one will be rooting harder than me for the Big Red in the NCAA tournament. I think it would be fun to see an Ivy team do well…and I think it will be even more fun to see the Ivy folks, who pretend not to care, get all excited if Cornell wins a few games.</p>
<p>I’ve never pretended not to care. I root for the Ivy team every March.</p>
<p>From my perspective, whatever athletic success that an Ivy team enjoys is merely a cherry on top. It’s never going to be the “be all and end all” – not even close. And knowing that whatever success Ivy teams enjoy didn’t come at the expense of its academic reputation makes it all the more sweeter.</p>