VoyForums is undergoing maintenance today. Expect [hopefully] brief downtime here and there.
Please feel free to test https://beta.www.voy.com/152805/, but know that anything you post will likely be overwritten later.
VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 12345678910 ]
Subject: Re: Empire Cup, Lou Little Trophy, Liberty Cup …


Author:
Washington Lion
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 19:44:32 11/28/24 Thu
In reply to: Washington Lion 's message, "Empire Cup, Lou Little Trophy, Liberty Cup …" on 11:49:09 11/25/24 Mon

This lifelong Catholic agrees with Go Green. The joke, written by a sophomore, was sophomoric. In my genuinely humble opinion, those who choose to get worked up about the jokes, and not the horror that inspires them, are making themselves part of the problem.

Also, it was during the inaugural Liberty Cup game. They met 13 more times before Columbia begged off. It didn't ruin the rivalry.

I don't counsel it, but it's the kind of thing that, in fact, tends to fuel rivalries.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:
[> [> Subject: Re: Empire Cup, Lou Little Trophy, Liberty Cup …


Author:
Old Lion (band)
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 08:00:43 11/29/24 Fri

the band had become an embarrassment—not funny and harmful to morale of the team.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> Subject: Re: Empire Cup, Lou Little Trophy, Liberty Cup …


Author:
Uptown
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 08:46:48 11/29/24 Fri

Remember "Lose, Lions lose?"

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Empire Cup, Lou Little Trophy, Liberty Cup …


Author:
RedWin
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 14:49:06 12/03/24 Tue

The biggest draw is hosting the game in NYC every year. Half the students are gone for Thanksgiving break and who wants to play the game in Ithaca in late November? There has been nearly zero promotion for the Empire Cup game and Cornell still had a nice turn-out. If our joint athletic departments got off their A and promoted the game it could be a nice fund raiser for both programs. The money to support Big Red athletics is in the NYC metro area and not Ithaca. Both teams could do something fun like agree to have their kick-off teams comprised of all seniors, who are not starters, etc.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> Subject: Alternating schedule idea


Author:
voy vey
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 09:28:08 12/04/24 Wed

In the 70's, the Princeton/Dartmouth game was the finale when at Palmer, and the season opener when in Hanover -- presumably for weather reasons.

If "no one wants to travel to Ithaca in November" for the Empire Cup, what about a similar scenario?

In even years, the first Ivy games for each school are:
Columbia @ Dartmouth
Brown @ Cornell
The season finales are:
Dartmouth @ Brown
Cornell @ Columbia

In odd years, the Ivy openers are:
Brown @ Dartmouth
Columbia @ Cornell
Finales would be:
Dartmouth @ Columbia
Cornell @ Brown

The "snowy" schools get a home game every year in September, and travel to (relatively) warmer climes every November. The Empire Cup gets a NYC send-off every other year (as it does now); in the alternate years, Cornell still hosts, but on a late September Saturday.

(Brown/Dartmouth is hardly a "rivalry," so disrupting that finale hardly seems like a drawback to this idea.)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: That arrangement ended because...


Author:
Go Green
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 10:05:56 12/04/24 Wed


Someone (presumably Princeton) complained that Dartmouth got too much of an advantage by opening at home every season.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: That arrangement ended because... Not So Fast, My Friend


Author:
An Observer
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 10:30:31 12/04/24 Wed

Your supposition doesn't make sense, GG. It's more of an advantage to finish at home.

It's like choosing to start on offense or defense in football. For generations, head coaches chose to start on offense, to hopefully seize the momentum early.

Now almost all head coaches choose to start on defense, because they'd rather have the advantage of receiving a kickoff later in the game. Coaches finally realized that advantages compound later in the game when there is more information available. That offsets giving your opponent the chance to strike first.

It's like a home team in baseball always choosing to bat second even though they are entitled to choose to bat first.

It's why, in college football overtime, the team which wins the coin toss always defers starting on offense in favor of playing defense first. There's more information available when you have the ball second.

The same phenomenon is true over the course of a season. You want to stockpile your advantages late in the season, when you have more information about what you need to accomplish to achieve your goal, which presumably is the season-long conference championship.

Think about your favorite example of all time, 1995.

With seconds left in the game against Dartmouth, Princeton coach Steve Tosches made the correct and unassailable decision to kick a field goal for the tie, instead of going for a touchdown and the win.

As a result, Princeton was the outright Ivy League champion for 1995.

That's the advantage of more information. There's more information available later in a game and later in a season.

Go Green, you were very quick to point the finger of blame at Surace when Princeton seemed to switch season finale opponents from Dartmouth to Penn several years ago. You whined and complained that Surace didn't want to face Dartmouth at the end of the season with a championship on the line.

It turned out of course that, not only were you wrong, you were completely wrong. When Princeton, Penn, Dartmouth, Brown, Columbia and Cornell all shuffled their season finale opponents, the initiative came from *YOUR OWN* alma mater. It was Dartmouth that requested the change, inconveniencing five other schools.

(That Dartmouth would prefer to end every campaign against Brown instead of Princeton boggles my mind. Forget what the football coach wanted; I'm surprised that the admissions department didn't resist the optics being changed. If I'm running the admissions department in Hanover, the one institution in America that I most want to be associated with is Princeton University. Who doesn't want to finish the season against the #1 university in the country which kind of looks like Dartmouth in terms of undergraduate focus? What an epic mistake.)

I suspect the same is here. I'll bet your boys bitched about always finishing the season on the road. That explanation makes much more sense than an opponent complaining about you starting the season at home. Logic, my boy, logic. Try to use more of it.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: That arrangement ended because... Not So Fast, My Friend


Author:
sparman
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 11:04:03 12/04/24 Wed

"Someone (presumably Princeton) complained that Dartmouth got too much of an advantage by opening at home every season."

You will notice he's big on "presumptions" and "guesses". Perhaps Tony Reno is distressed to find out he wasn't recently actually finalizing the details of his contract with Rice.

Here are some additional facts taken from the Dartmouth athletics website: https://dartmouthsports.com/sports/football/opponent-history/princeton-university/76

The teams switched from always playing in NJ starting with the 1964 season. From 1964 through 1976, games between the two schools played in Hanover were in October in what was typically not only the third game of the season for Dartmouth, but also typically not its home opener. During that period the cumulative results were 3-3 for games played in Hanover.

Beginning in 1977 through 1988, the teams opened their seasons in September at Dartmouth. During this period, the cumulative results were 3-4 (i.e., Dartmouth under .500).

Beginning in 1990, the teams played their games at the end of the season regardless of location.

So, Princeton won more games than Dartmouth when opening the season at Hanover. While I don't have copies of correspondence or telephone transcripts from this era, this information does not exactly compel the conclusion (presumptive or otherwise) that PU might have complained about an unfair advantage for Dartmouth.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: (Corrected)


Author:
sparman
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 11:08:55 12/04/24 Wed

"Someone (presumably Princeton) complained that Dartmouth got too much of an advantage by opening at home every season."

You will notice he's big on "presumptions" and "guesses". Perhaps Tony Reno is distressed to find out he wasn't recently actually finalizing the details of his contract with Rice.

Here are some additional facts taken from the Dartmouth athletics website: https://dartmouthsports.com/sports/football/opponent-history/princeton-university/76

The teams switched from always playing in NJ starting with the 1964 season. From 1964 through 1976, games between the two schools played in Hanover were in October in what was typically not only the third game of the season for Dartmouth, but also typically not its home opener. During that period the cumulative results were 3-3 for games played in Hanover.

Beginning in 1977 through 1988, the teams played in September at Dartmouth. During this period, the cumulative results were 3-4 (i.e., Dartmouth under .500) for games in Hanover.

Beginning in 1990, the teams played their games at the end of the season regardless of location.

So, Princeton won more games than Dartmouth when played early in the season at Hanover. While I don't have copies of correspondence or telephone transcripts from this era, this information does not exactly compel the conclusion (presumptive or otherwise) that PU might have complained about an unfair advantage for Dartmouth.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: (Corrected)


Author:
An Observer
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 11:41:44 12/04/24 Wed

In a world which seems to have lost its moorings with regard to facts, it's good to see that, somewhere, someone still responds to suppositions with facts.

sparman, you are a candle of light in a world increasingly dark.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Just going by a contemporaneous SI article


Author:
Go Green
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 12:29:58 12/04/24 Wed


Entitled "A Late Season Homecoming" that covered the 1991 Dartmouth-Princeton finale (which was for all the marbles).

They said a "malcontent" (that's a direct quote) complained about Dartmouth's (supposed) advantage of opening at home every year--even though the evidence didn't back that up. (Of course, we were generally lousy in the 1980s whereas Penn and Princeton were strong).

Can't find the article on the internet anymore, but if anyone wants to go hunting for it...

I surmised that it was Princeton because the league stuck us with them as the finale. "You guys don't want Dartmouth to open at home every year? Fine--you guys go to Hanover for the finale every other year."

Again, if anyone else wants to guess who the complainant was, I'm happy to entertain theories!

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Just going by a contemporaneous SI article


Author:
An Observer
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 17:52:49 12/05/24 Thu

GG,

I'll give you two responses:

(1) We live in an era in which public leaders routinely say, "I've heard. . ." or "People say. . ." and then go off in a direction which cannot substantiated in any other way other than that initial "People say" preface.

Don't do that. Every time that you make a supposition you present as reasoned which has no foundation in fact, you diminish the conversation and you diminish yourself. You're better than that.

I've searched for your purported Sports Illustrated article and I can't find it despite having its verbatim title and details of its contents. I'm not saying that it doesn't exist, but your referring to a specific article which can't be found easily on the internet raises the usual questions. Would love a link.

(2) Nobody here really needs to read that SI article to know that, from any incomplete set of facts, your knee jerk reaction is to blame somebody at Princeton.

I personally don't have any problem with that whatsoever. As I said in the thread about Michigan-Ohio State, rivalries are the cherries on top of the sundae of the regular season. We love them. Sometimes we define ourselves by whom we choose to hate.

So all that's cool.

But you, personally, are in a unique position. You have an impressive encyclopedic memories for all things Dartmouth, most things Princeton and many things Ivy League. That gives you a credibility which many of us do not have.

That you marry an unsurpassed knowledge of facts with a knee jerk, fantasy-based, reality-unhinged suspicion of Princeton as some kind of all-knowing, all-powerful behind the scenes manipulator of the Ivy League diminishes your otherwise credible knowledge.

I'll grant you that, collectively, HYP carry much much much more weight than the other five members of our conference. But the fact that the League office issued its infamous press release after the 2021 Harvard-Princeton game suggests that Princeton is not at the top of the power structure. It's probably H-P in that order. I'll give you that.

I actually find your Princeton diatribes very entertaining, but at a time in this country's history when the line between facts and fantasy has become increasingly blurred, those who know facts have an obligation to present them accurately when possible.

Aim higher. You don't owe it to us as much as you owe it to yourself.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I have an idea!


Author:
Go Green
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 18:32:12 12/05/24 Thu


Bear with me--I may have a way to prove the article exists!

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Many thanks to BGA!


Author:
Go Green
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 10:32:07 12/06/24 Fri


BGA posted the SI article in today's entry.

I kept a scrapbook of my football days. That SI article--and other noteworthy articles of big Dartmouth wins are fading, but still there. I sent a picture of it to BGA.

But the mystery remains as to who the "malcontent" was. I say Princeton and gave my reasons.

Anyone else want to take a stab at it?

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: As for Princeton...


Author:
Go Green
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 18:41:16 12/05/24 Thu


If you (or anyone) have theories as to who complained about Dartmouth having an unfair advantage of opening up at home every year, I'd love to hear them.

I think we can safely cross off Brown and Columbia from the list. They had better things to worry about in the early 1990s.

Would anyone have cared what Cornell thought? Probably not--even though they were competitive in those days.

That leaves HYPP.

Princeton got stuck with having to go up to Hanover every other year in mid-November. So.... perhaps they were the ones who complained?

If anyone has anything better, I'm listening!

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: As for Princeton...


Author:
sparman
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 19:11:52 12/05/24 Thu

And some people continue to think the moon landing was faked or that weather is controlled by the CIA.

Conspiracists gonna conspire.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Here you go


Author:
sparman
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 20:22:43 12/05/24 Thu

Although I don't know why we would take an unattributed comment (which I did not see) as fact, if you promise not to spend time looking for a certain annual article:

https://vault.si.com/vault/archives/1990s/1991

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I assure you the article exists


Author:
Go Green
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 21:46:21 12/05/24 Thu


Feel free to ask anyone about Berube's niece's stats from this week's game if you doubt my word.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: I assure you the article exists


Author:
SpuytenDuyvil76 (verily)
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 06:32:49 12/06/24 Fri

Sumbody touchy 'bout Princeton...whole lotta agida right there

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: I assure you the article exists


Author:
sparman
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 14:57:05 12/06/24 Fri

The "unattributed" comment was regarding how this claim by "some malcontent" was stated in SI back in 1991 without attribution. That could have been anything, including a writer repeating a rumor or campus myth (such as Princeton demanding a switch in season finale opponents from Dartmouth to Penn, hmmm). I would love to see you argue to a judge that such an article statement is even admissible into evidence as to the truth of the assertion, much less credible.

If there was a complanaint as SI reports, it could have been anybody. You are demanding someone disprove your claim. Given your comically unshakable predilections, that would be a fool's errand.

Meanwhile, we can wonder who the "loyal BGA reader" was.

This is my last word on the topic.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Then what do you think happened?


Author:
Go Green
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 06:59:15 12/07/24 Sat


If you don’t agree with my reasoning, what’s your theory as to why the schedule got changed in the early 1990s?

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: That arrangement ended because...


Author:
Ivy Patriot
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 10:34:35 12/04/24 Wed

No one at Dartmouth wanted to end with Brown. The schedule was changed because the Dartmouth academic schedule changed and exam week conflicted with the end of the season. The idea was a quick trip to Brown every other year was less of a grind than traveling to New Jersey. If they could get a do-over the vote to finish with Princeton would be unanimous.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I hate to admit it, but...


Author:
Go Green
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 12:33:31 12/04/24 Wed


I'm actually warming up to closing with Brown.

While I loved closing with Princeton, there *is* something to be said for letting the seniors end their careers with a win, and the underclassmen starting the offseason on a high note.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: I hate to admit it, but...


Author:
Lurker
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 14:54:32 12/04/24 Wed

Beware football karma GG

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: If you throw out...


Author:
Go Green
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 08:53:18 12/06/24 Fri

...the lost years of 1998-2009 (when Dartmouth was lucky to beat anyone), I'd guess that Dartmouth's winning percentage against Brown is around .900.

Could Brown turn it around? Sure. But it doesn't look like it will happen anytime soon.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: If you throw out...


Author:
Brook
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 23:13:08 12/06/24 Fri

If you throw out the losses, Princeton has a 1.000 winning percentage over Dartmouth.

Your illogical way of thinking and arguing confounds everyone on this board.

I’m surprised you’re employed.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Hope you’re not a Fourth Circuit judge


Author:
Go Green
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 06:51:44 12/07/24 Sat


I’m going to Richmond to argue next week.

:)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Hope you’re not a Fourth Circuit judge


Author:
Brook
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 06:58:23 12/07/24 Sat

To argue a case or is he an Ivy sports fan?

If the former, I congratulate you for keeping a job. I just don’t see it.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: A case


Author:
Go Green
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07:19:35 12/07/24 Sat

Although once Richmond formally joins the PL and starts regularly playing Ivy teams, I’m sure my office will send me down to Richmond if the judges want to talk about Ivy football.

:)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]


Login ] Create Account Not required to post.
Post a public reply to this message | Go post a new public message
* HTML allowed in marked fields.
* Message subject (required):

Name (required):

  Expression (Optional mood/title along with your name) Examples: (happy, sad, The Joyful, etc.) help)

  E-mail address (optional):

* Type your message here:


Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.

[ Contact Forum Admin ]


Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.