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: 12345[6]78910 ]
Subject: Ivy Presidents slow to adapt to common practices in football


Author:
IvySportsJunkie
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 14:08:23 04/10/24 Wed
In reply to: Go Green 's message, "Harvard AD says "no" to NIL collectives" on 07:04:01 04/10/24 Wed

The Ivy League has a very long history of being overly cautious in how it follows common practices that are being used by the Power 5 conferences, especially as it applies to varsity football. Let’s look at three important components of college football: spring football practices and scrimmages, allowing freshmen to play varsity football, and allowing teams to participate in bowl games.

College football spring practices and scrimmages first started with University of Oregon in 1894 with most major college teams holding regular spring football practices by the 1950s. The Ivy presidents first allowed multiple spring practice sessions and a spring scrimmage in 1993.

The NCAA first allowed freshmen to play varsity football and basketball in 1972. The Ivy presidents first allowed freshmen to be able to play varsity football and basketball in 1992.

The Ivy League participated in three of the first six Rose Bowls commencing with Brown playing Washington State in 1916. The last time, an Ivy League school participated and won a bowl game was in 1934 when Columbia won the Rose Bowl. Yet, we all know too well that the Ivy presidents continue to restrict our football teams from participating in any form of end of year college football bowl games.

Clearly, the Ivy League presidents seem in no hurry to adapt to common practices among other major powers in football and basketball, especially if they deem it may interfere with the Ivy League’s relatively unique student athlete culture.

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

Replies:
[> [> Subject: Re: Ivy Presidents slow


Author:
observer
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 16:59:28 04/10/24 Wed

At least the front end of the headline checks out.

In case you haven't noticed, the current athletes have figured out the most impressive thing about the Ivies these days is getting in. Not what you learn. Nor whether you graduate. It's all about getting in that's hard.

If you can put on your resume that you have been ACCEPTED to Harvard, then you can go after the NIL money and have both the halo effect of being one of the select few to gain admission, plus an opportunity to play "real" college sports.

This is only the beginning of the end unless the schools wake up.

Keep in mind that the only way the Ivies rebounded after the 1-AA/AI double whammy of the early 1980s was the government mandated consent decree which blew open the financial aid wars. The increased aid made attending and competing in the league much more palatable for the better athletes. This was a forced hand - one that the athletics directors and presidents didn't plan for - which actually made Ivy sports better.
[> [> [> Subject: Raise your hand if...


Author:
Go Green
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 17:46:08 04/10/24 Wed


.. you've ever reviewed a resume where someone said that he was "accepted to Harvard."

I certainly haven't.
[> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Raise your hand if...


Author:
observer
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 18:00:38 04/10/24 Wed

OK, Boomer.

What's a resume?
[> [> [> [> Subject: Getting Into An Elite University, But Not Going


Author:
An Observer
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 19:28:03 04/10/24 Wed

Two professors at, I think, Princeton did a famous study in which they tracked the career outcomes of applicants who decades earlier had been accepted to a variety of highly selective and less selective colleges. Their conclusion was that GETTING INTO a highly selective college was more predictive of later success than actually attending that college.

I once had a professor tell my entire classroom at the beginning of an academic year that our school could send half the class to a Caribbean island for an extended vacation while the other half stayed on campus and worked very hard. His assertion was that, over the course of our lives, both halves of the class would be equally successful because actually attending our elite university was, well, worthless.

In his view, ALL the work was done by the admissions office when the selected who would be let in. Specifically, he said, "If you have the drive and ambition to be successful, spending time here is irrelevant." Our success as a class was due entirely to the admissions office picking the right kids.

Decades later, I invited him to one of our reunions where the still working professor surveyed our class, some of us thriving and some of us not, while I reminded him of his words those decades ago. He said that he did not remember saying that, but he stood by the sentiment.

I've said on many occasions that I would like to compare the career success of those high school applicants who got into Harvard and matriculated with those who got in and opted to go elsewhere.

For many decades, before admit rates plunged to their current ridiculously low levels, there were a lot of cross-admits between elite universities. It takes more courage or independence to turn down Harvard than it does to turn down Swarthmore or Carnegie Mellon. I want to see if the 25% of kids who got into Harvard but went elsewhere actually OUTPERFORM the 75% of lemmings who showed up in Harvard Yard for freshman orientation. The kids who turn down Harvard feature the normal attributes which please admissions office, but they also have the special personality element of not feeling compelled to follow the crowd.
[> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Getting Into An Elite University, But Not Going


Author:
observer
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 15:10:01 04/11/24 Thu

someone who gets it.


[ 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.