"Too Big to Fail?"

Parents Forum
21

The Ivy League has actually done quite a lot to make the game as it is played safer. They are way out ahead of the NCAA in limiting the number of full contact practices, their season is much shorter than in “regular” Division 1 football, they have stricter penalties for helmet to helmet contact, etc. Back in the early 1980s, the Ivys opted out of big time football and have since tried to chart a middle course. They want to play serious, competitive football while trying to keep the players as close to the regular student body as possible. While this decision has cost the Ivy League in terms of attendance at games and in playing high profile games against national powers, the graduation success rate (the NCAA measurement of athletes’ matriculation) is somewhere in the high 90s, while the overall rate for football hovers around 80%. As far as whether football players are “true academic elites”, something more than a third of all rostered football players need to have stats at or above the median stats for the class admitted in the prior year. Another third need to have stats that are no more than one half of one standard deviation from the median stats in the prior year. Of the remaining third, which is ten per year for a total of forty kids, only two per year or eight total can have academic stats as much as two full standard deviations below the median. It’s not like they are just admitting anybody. When you consider that all of these kids are generally coming in as multi year varsity starters and all state or all region type players, and that the kids who are coming in at the very bottom of the academic index are truly among the best at their sport, I would venture to guess that the overall profile of the football team is not very far off from most of the kids on campus.

As far as giving up football overall, I would only say that even with the reduced attendance numbers you see at Ivy games today compared to thirty or more years ago, the games still bring far more people to campus than any other sporting event, and the more people who come to campus, the more opportunities there are to fund raise .

22

At the big time FB schools, it helps pay for scholarships for the non-rev sports, which includes all women’s sports (well, maybe UConn women’s b-ball does ok).

Sure, in total, only a few handfuls (dozens?) of big time D1 programs make a profit, but men’s FB and basketball still offset the bulk of the expenses for the total program. Harvard has plenty of money to field traveling intramurals if it wanted. Public Unis are so well-endowed.

23

@Ohiodad51, thank you for joining the conversation. If I recall correctly, you have a student who will be playing for Princeton this fall. And I’m assuming you live in Ohio so you, no doubt, get the importance of football to the average American.

Please don’t misunderstand the point I’m trying to make, because I do not consider the academic caliber of the average Ivy football player to be remotely similar to the average player in the Big 10 or the SEC. (Or even at Stanford, since they offer athletic scholarships.) But football is accused by many as being a corrupting influence in higher education, and the article I originally linked to about UAB’s program being reinstated was making the case that it’s pretty tough to kill a football program once it gets to a certain size. There are just too many interested parties to allow it to die, thus the headline “too big to fail.”

I guess what you’re arguing is that football isn’t a corrupting influence at the Ivies because it doesn’t operate the same way that it does in the bigger, Div. I conferences. And I pretty much agree with you, but I love football, so I’m hardly objective. Nonetheless, it is one of those sports that, were to die a slow natural death, I probably would accept as being for the best, since it leads to so many catastrophic injuries. I’m conflicted, but it does seem like if any conference could afford to make the sacrifice and intentionally eliminate their football programs, the Ivies make the most sense. (Because, as @bluebayou points out, they can afford to.)

Just a point of clarification: I was a student at a lesser Ivy in the late seventies/early eighties and I don’t recall their playing “big-time football,” just the other Ivies plus a school or two in the Patriot League and maybe Villanova (see here: http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/pennsylvania/1980-schedule.html), so maybe you could define what “big-time” means exactly?

Agreed. Football is a great source of pride and tradition, and it’s good that they’re trying to lesson the risk to the players.

24

Here are some interesting tidbits. There were about 10 players on active rosters in the NFL last season–that is not to shabby a representation given that these are non-scholarship schools. Of the all the schools that play D1 football, less than 20 operate their total athletic budget in the black. To be certain, the really successful ones make tens of millions of dollars, however about 90% of the schools do not. The requirements of title IX, specifically that 44% of scholarships be awarded for women’s sport places a profound burden on the institutions, so much so, that many states, via their legislature subsidize the schools for that amount. (see FL, WA, etc…)

Long story short, while many of the football programs pay for themselves, they also have to support the smaller (non-revenue teams)–my opinion is that the state of college football is dramatically changing, as the business model is most apt for mega-programs, and there will have to be some alignment in the near future.

25

@ohiodad51, you must have a very generous definition of “among the best in their sport”. No Ivy football team gets more than a handful of 3-star recruits a year. They pretty much never get 4 and 5 star recruits.
Those types of player who want to attend an elite academic institution choose among Stanford, Northwestern, and Duke (and ND, UMich, Vandy, Rice, Cal, and UVa among others). They pretty much don’t give the Ivies a look.

@LucieTheLakie, why the fallacious assumption that the academic caliber of football players at Stanford and Northwestern aren’t remotely similar to the academic caliber of Ivy football players just because scholarships are given in FBS? You can not fathom that there are kids who are extremely smart yet still terrific at football? Those kids, as I noted above, would not give the Ivies a look. They have better options.

26

re#20:
"Back in the early 1980s, the Ivys opted out of big time football and have since tried to chart a middle course. They want to play serious, competitive football while trying to keep the players as close to the regular student body as possible. While this decision has cost the Ivy League in terms of attendance at games and in playing high profile games against national powers, the graduation success rate (the NCAA measurement of athletes’ matriculation) is somewhere in the high 90s, while the overall rate for football hovers around 80%. "

Maybe some further measures along these lines happened in the 80s, but if so, to my mind these would have been just further steps towards their longer-standing goals. The Ivy League has not permitted athletic scholarships since its inception. They wanted to play competitive sports. But on the terms they were all comfortable with.

I did not get so much as a whiff of any “big time football” a decade earlier, when I attended.

“As far as giving up football overall, I would only say that even with the reduced attendance numbers you see at Ivy games today compared to thirty or more years ago, the games still bring far more people to campus than any other sporting event, and the more people who come to campus, the more opportunities there are to fund raise”.

If the numbers are really reduced from 30+ years ago that’s just sad. Because I was there 30+ years ago and the stands were .more empty than not most of the time, the few times I popped in anyway, At my school, anyway. I can’t imagine anybody attended a game at Columbia, they didn’t win any. And I mean none.

I also can’t imagine any serious fundraising came out of that. Except perhaps from alumni connected to the football program somehow, Homecoming events typically featured a football game, as something to do, but the alums were there for the school, not the game. .

Some people did show up for the games. Because, like I said, it was something to do, sitting outside on a beautiful fall day. But it was not because they cared deeply about the football team. For the most part. I guess they do get some townie ticket sales. For the same reason.

I imagine most people on campus never went to a single football game, and could care less.

Most people don’t care about track & field either. That doesn’t mean they should get rid of track & field.
Then there’s polo.
Or wrestling.
Lots of sports that even fewer people care about than football. And the schools are also not getting rid of.

22 :

“I guess what you’re arguing is that football isn’t a corrupting influence at the Ivies because it doesn’t operate the same way that it does in the bigger, Div. I conferences.”
+1
It really isn’t a big deal there. At all. If the school newspaper failed to report the score of last Saturday’s game, most people on campus wouldn’t even notice. It’s just another sport there. Like track.

27

@PurpleTitan, I could be wrong (if you have stats to back up your claim, I’d love to see them), but I cannot imagine that the entire football teams at Stanford or any of the other schools you list (Cal??? Please. Two words: DeSean Jackson) can rival the academic profiles of the Ivies. Individual players a la Richard Sherman and Andrew Luck? Of course. But the entire team? Really? I’d love to see the proof of that.

Hard to find any recent data on Stanford, but here’s a link to a story about “Cal’s shockingly low athletic admission standards” from 2013: http://www.sfgate.com/collegesports/article/Cal-s-shockingly-low-athletic-admission-standards-4984721.php

28

re@11:
“The Ivies are supposed to be the thought leaders and game-changers (pardon the pun), but even they (apparently) have too much to lose to consider eliminating the sport.”

Probably mostly not enough to gain. But to the extent that it is “too much to lose”, it would probably not be the identical reckoning that a UAB would be doing. They would probably be more concerned about losing additional cross-admits to other good schools that keep their football programs. And of course it is almost a certainty that whatever you decide to cut, some high-donating alum will have been the captain of it, and will cut you off. Even if most other alums truthfully really don’t care about it.

29

@LucieTheLakie, note that I did not say that all of the football teams I listed would have high minimum standards but that kids who are both smart and great at football may choose them. Key difference.

Among FBS football schools, Stanford and Northwestern have the highest minimum standards for athletes (and consequently the highest average SAT scores among top-level football teams). They may be worse than HYP but probably not much worse than Cornell/Brown/UPenn.

If anyone can find the average SAT scores for the Ivy football teams, we can compare.

Finally, as @Ohiodad51 pointed out, because the Ivies are allowed a few kids who are several standard deviations below the average, the entire football team at any Ivy won’t rival the academic profile that most associate with the Ivies either. Please try not to hold others to stricter standards than your own school does.

30

Well I was referring to the “average” football player on any of these teams. You were the one who took umbrage with that. But, yes, I’d love to compare the average stats of Stanford and Northwestern to Cornell/Brown/Penn.

31

@LucieTheLakie, you used the term “entire football teams”. To me, that’s a different concept from “average”.

In any case, I can’t find the average test scores for Ivy football teams. @OhioDad51, would you know?

I saw the Stanford and Northwestern ones before so probably can find them again.

32

@purpletitan, I know a scholarship football player at Northwestern who scored a 19 on the ACT. All of the high academic big football schools, with the possible exception of Stanford, bend far more than people realize. And there are kids sprinkled thru Ivy rosters who had big time, FBS offers coming in. Just among last year’s freshmen, Princeton got a D end who had a number of big offers including Stanford, FSU and Wisconsin. Yale had an offensive lineman with several big ten offers, including Wisconsin and Michigan State if I remember, Harvard had one as well with a couple pac 10 offers. The kid who will probably be the QB at Princeton next year was a Vandy commit until very late, Etc. There are not many true, but there are a few. I have no idea what those kids’ academic stats were, but the offer lists would certainly put them in the blue chip category.

@monydad, yeah I guess my math skills are showing. I meant the early 60s. I played in what is now the Patriot League in the 80s and you are right, Ivy football was not great. It is supposedly a bit better now with the introduction of the AI and the increased financial aid. We will see.

@luciethelakie, see above re my numerical acumen, but generally I agree with you about the danger inherent in the game. Kids are so much bigger, and stronger and faster today that something will eventually have to give in how the game is played. I am just saying credit where credit is due, the Ivy League is doing far more than most in trying to protect their players. Also, I am not trying to imply that football is an unqualified good at the Ivys. I just think it is one of the very few places left where the tail truly does not wag the dog. Probably because, as you say, they have obscene amounts of money. And yes, my son will play for Princeton next year, which likely makes me biased. But after watching him go through the recruiting process last year, I can only say that the Ivys operate very differently than other schools, and they should get credit for that.

33

@purpltitan, no I wouldn’t even know where to begin to look to find the average SAT/ACT for Ivy football players. There is a absolute minimum Academic Index floor, which roughly translates to a 3.0 on a 4.0 scale and an 1800 SAT. In addition to the AI floor, as I understand it no school can admit someone whose stats are more than 2 standard deviations below the preceding class average, so some schools assumedly can not dip down even that low.

34

Early in the thread there is an inference that schools should just play D3. They can’t do that unless the entire athletic department decides to play down, which is one of the reasons some schools don’t have a football team or lacrosse team. If the school plays at D3 level, it can have one men’s, one woman’s team play up at the D1 level, which is what Hopkins does for lax and Colorado College does for Hockey. Even big schools do this, and for example CU doesn’t have a varsity men’s lacrosse team and Air Force doesn’t have a varsity women’s lacrosse team, only club.

I’m not familiar with U of Chicago dropping football and if the entire school switched to D3 teams or not.

I think as a whole the Big Name schools attract players whose academic stats aren’t as high as their football stats, but there are many top students on football teams. A guy on our team (I think he was 2-3 years after me) was a Rhodes scholar. In fact, all Rhodes scholars must be some type of athlete.

35

@ohiodad51, Stanford bends as well. In terms of the academic profile of the football teams, Stanford and Northwestern are almost identical.

However, as you noted yourself, the Ivies also bend, going several standard deviations below their average for some kids.

BTW, I looked through HYP’s recruiting classes. 3 3-stars total and some 2-stars. A 3-star is average at an average program and below-average at a power program. 2-stars usually become benchwarmers (but some are still recruited by decent programs). So you’re talking about kids who would most likely be benchwarmers at an average Power-5 program but would be one of the top 5 most talented players on the field in any Ivy League game.

36

@purpletitan, I know this isn’t the athletic board, but I am not a fan of star ratings, especially after kids commit. I have seen too many kids bump up or down based on whether the scouting services think the kid’s commitment is at the right level. For that reason, I think offer lists are more telling. That said, yeah, kids who are looking to compete at Alabama, Ohio State, etc rarely if ever end up in the Ivy League. I guess it depends on what our respective definitions are of “among the very best”. Even going by star ratings, there are very few three star players relative to the number of kids playing high school football.

As far as non Ivy high academic schools, the only thing I can say definitively is that Stanford is the only school outside th Ivys who actually make their recruits apply. What that means in the grand scheme of things, who knows. But they at least nod to the admissions committee having some role in the process. I hear anecdotally that Notre Dame doesn’t bend as far as you would think all the time. I also know that Northwestern and Vandy recruit kids who could not get in the Ivys. The kids I know who either played or were recruited there, excluding my kid, were all very solid students, just outside the profile of what you would expect at highly selective colleges.

I do not in any way mean to be disparaging by the way. What Stanford, Notre Dame, Northwestern, Duke and even Vandy are doing to maintain some focus on academics while still competing at the highest level is pretty freakin amazing. But they are doing something far different than what is going on in the Ivy League.

37

@Ohiodad51, I agree that it’s a different game for the academic elites in FBS.

However, considering that NU’s adcom has rejected football recruits who have already committed to NU, I think it’s fair to say that NU makes their athletes apply as well (as you can imagine, when that happens, some alums tear their hair out, though I’ve noticed that it’s typically old dudes who went to NU in the '60’s). NU must also have something like the Ivy system (or maybe the adcom is just holistic) because we’ve seen them reject a kid with a good (for a football player) SAT but mediocre grades from a good school but take a kid with good grades but a poor test score from an inner-city school.

38

“…yes, they’ve done a great job branding, but the branding works only because lemmings (some would call them unsophisticated lemmings) are willing to attach those connotations on to an athletics conference.”

That might be a convincing point if it weren’t for the fact that the schools that comprise the Ivy League had connotations of academic excellence, selectivity in admissions, and social elitism attached to them LONG before the athletic league came into existence in 1954.

Going to Harvard, or any of the other Ivies, didn’t suddenly become desirable due to some branding efforts in recent decades by the Ivy League athletic office. Developing those brands has been a much longer process that had nothing to do with belonging to some Johnny-come-lately athletic league. When the United States came into existence in 1776 it had exactly nine colleges. Seven of those nine colleges are now in the Ivy League. Of the Ivies only Cornell is not older than the USA itself. The Ivy League colleges themselves have built their own brands over literally centuries.

39

Someone mentioned the Harvard-Yale game. I know (or have read…) that the Princeton/Penn game is also a big deal.

Out of curiosity, what is each Ivy League team’s/school’s main rival within the league? Which annual game do the most fans attend?

40

“Out of curiosity, what is each Ivy League team’s/school’s main rival within the league?”

I don’t know for sure, but one way to guess the intra-Ivy rivalries is to see who each school plays on their final game of the football season. Last year the season finale match-ups were:

Harvard v. Yale
Columbia v. Brown
Penn v. Cornell
Dartmouth V. Princeton