Cornell-Ferris State In Progress

I'm intrigued that this game is still in progress. More to the point, I am wondering after only 8 + years on the forum why no one ever changes the subject headings in the threads.

So help a newbie out and tell me does the question mark in the subject for this message warp some elynah continuum of which I have been hereto unaware?

Or welcome to golf season.

marty
I'm intrigued that this game is still in progress. More to the point, I am wondering after only 8 + years on the forum why no one ever changes the subject headings in the threads.

So help a newbie out and tell me does the question mark in the subject for this message warp some elynah continuum of which I have been hereto unaware?

Or welcome to golf season.

The Ferris State game never ended. Cornell did not give up the losing goal immediately after failing to score on a 5 minute power play. It's still 1-1 going into the 100th overtime.

jtn27

marty
I'm intrigued that this game is still in progress. More to the point, I am wondering after only 8 + years on the forum why no one ever changes the subject headings in the threads.

So help a newbie out and tell me does the question mark in the subject for this message warp some elynah continuum of which I have been hereto unaware?

Or welcome to golf season.

The Ferris State game never ended. Cornell did not give up the losing goal immediately after failing to score on a 5 minute power play. It's still 1-1 going into the 100th overtime.

ESPNU must have frozen for you. It's about halfway through the 119th OT. Let's Go Red!!! Frozen Four-bound!!!

jtn27

marty
I'm intrigued that this game is still in progress. More to the point, I am wondering after only 8 + years on the forum why no one ever changes the subject headings in the threads.

So help a newbie out and tell me does the question mark in the subject for this message warp some elynah continuum of which I have been hereto unaware?

Or welcome to golf season.

The Ferris State game never ended. Cornell did not give up the losing goal immediately after failing to score on a 5 minute power play. It's still 1-1 going into the 100th overtime.

Interesting idea because over the last decade I have decided that this is my definition of hell - being at a rink (not Lynah I'm sure) and watching the game go on for eternity - BU vs BC anyone.

Jim Hyla

ajh258

Jim Hyla
So now Union's coach, Bennett, is a finalist for the Spencer Penrose Award, otherwise known as national coach of the year. Since their former coach won it last year, it only seems fair that he gets it this year.

As much as I dislike another ECAC team getting the spotlight, I do not dislike Union, and the program has won my respect over the years I've been here.

On a more relevant note, Bennett definitely deserves the recognition for Spencer Penrose, and it won't be surprising if he wins it in the end.

You see my problem is that how many years in a row is a team supposed to get the award. I generally think of the award as for exceeding expectations, or getting an unusually good result. But once your team has done well, and you've won it a few times, isn't that the expectation? Teams like ours are expected to do well, so are never as likely to get it. When Coach Schafer came we had had losing records for 3 years. He took them to 2 ECAC championships his first 2 years, and who won the awards, SLU and Union. Unions feat was so good they finished last the next year. If Union does well again next year, will he deserve it again? No, in my view Union should have been expected to do well this year, and someone like Casey Jones had to be considered. For the Penrose, Ferris or Lowell are much more deserving.

BTW, given how our season went and how this team developed, let's give kudos to Schafer and his new staff. They did a terrific job.

Jim Hyla

ajh258

Jim Hyla
So now Union's coach, Bennett, is a finalist for the Spencer Penrose Award, otherwise known as national coach of the year. Since their former coach won it last year, it only seems fair that he gets it this year.

As much as I dislike another ECAC team getting the spotlight, I do not dislike Union, and the program has won my respect over the years I've been here.

On a more relevant note, Bennett definitely deserves the recognition for Spencer Penrose, and it won't be surprising if he wins it in the end.

You see my problem is that how many years in a row is a team supposed to get the award. I generally think of the award as for exceeding expectations, or getting an unusually good result. But once your team has done well, and you've won it a few times, isn't that the expectation? Teams like ours are expected to do well, so are never as likely to get it. When Coach Schafer came we had had losing records for 3 years. He took them to 2 ECAC championships his first 2 years, and who won the awards, SLU and Union. Unions feat was so good they finished last the next year. If Union does well again next year, will he deserve it again? No, in my view Union should have been expected to do well this year, and someone like Casey Jones had to be considered. For the Penrose, Ferris or Lowell are much more deserving.

The big question with any award of this type is what criteria do you use do decide who is deserving? I doubt it's spelled out with any specificity. Different people probably have different ideas and may change year to year.

I did just learn something new. According to the AHCA website/press release, you have to win your conference's COTY award or make the Frozen Four to be nominated for the Penrose. Makes sense I guess.

Johnny 5
A Union win may be great for EZ-AC hockey, but Union will always be just Ivy League wannabees!

Oh, didn't you know? Union was invited to join the Ivy League, but declined.

Just like thirty-seven other schools who claim the same thing.

Beeeej

Johnny 5
A Union win may be great for EZ-AC hockey, but Union will always be just Ivy League wannabees!

Oh, didn't you know? Union was invited to join the Ivy League, but declined.

Just like thirty-seven other schools who claim the same thing.

Do they claim that? I know that Colgate and Colgate fans do.

KeithK
I did just learn something new. According to the AHCA website/press release, you have to win your conference's COTY award or make the Frozen Four to be nominated for the Penrose. Makes sense I guess.

Presumably this was not always the case. Dartmouth's Edward Jeremiah won the award twice. Now, Jeremiah was apparently a well-respected coach; he had a team in the early '40s that went 21-2, and his Dartmouth sqaud did make the first two NCAA championship games in 1948 and 1949. I believe he is the first-ever college hockey coach to win 300 games, or perhaps to win 300 at one school. Also, the Division III Coach of the Year award is named for him. Nevertheless, Jeremiah won the award in 1951 (the first year the award was given) when his Dartmouth squad went 9-10-1.

All right, fine, maybe that was carry-over from the '48 and '49 squads. Jeremiah won the award again in 1967, the year he retired (he died a couple months later). That year should sound familiar; it's the year that Cornell, under Ned Harkness, went 27-1-1 and took their first-ever NCAA championship, also the first won by an Eastern squad in 13 years. And how did Jeremiah's Dartmouth team do that year? Oh, not as well... 4-16.

(Harkness would go on to win the award in 1968)

Aaron M. Griffin

Beeeej

Johnny 5
A Union win may be great for EZ-AC hockey, but Union will always be just Ivy League wannabees!

Oh, didn't you know? Union was invited to join the Ivy League, but declined.

Just like thirty-seven other schools who claim the same thing.

Do they claim that? I know that Colgate and Colgate fans do.

Yup. As do fans/alums from Rutgers, Johns Hopkins, William & Mary, Carnegie-Mellon, and a number of other schools. Mostly the claim comes from people who forget that the Ivy League is, officially, nothing more than an athletic conference.

css228
I think their band is a music group with a drinking problem...

Wait, are we talking about Clarkson or Cornell?

marty
I'm intrigued that this game is still in progress. More to the point, I am wondering after only 8 + years on the forum why no one ever changes the subject headings in the threads.

So help a newbie out and tell me does the question mark in the subject for this message warp some elynah continuum of which I have been hereto unaware?

Or welcome to golf season.

I'd go update the title of the "HARVARD SUCKS" thread, but I'm pretty sure it's still accurate.

Josh '99

css228
I think their band is a music group with a drinking problem...

Wait, are we talking about Clarkson or Cornell?

Damn i wasn't paying attention. Drinking group with a music problem

Beeeej

Aaron M. Griffin

Beeeej

Johnny 5
A Union win may be great for EZ-AC hockey, but Union will always be just Ivy League wannabees!

Oh, didn't you know? Union was invited to join the Ivy League, but declined.

Just like thirty-seven other schools who claim the same thing.

Do they claim that? I know that Colgate and Colgate fans do.

Yup. As do fans/alums from Rutgers, Johns Hopkins, William & Mary, Carnegie-Mellon, and a number of other schools. Mostly the claim comes from people who forget that the Ivy League is, officially, nothing more than an athletic conference.

And at the time that they would have been invited to join, they probably objected on the grounds that the Ivies took sports too seriously.

Beeeej

Aaron M. Griffin

Beeeej

Johnny 5
A Union win may be great for EZ-AC hockey, but Union will always be just Ivy League wannabees!

Oh, didn't you know? Union was invited to join the Ivy League, but declined.

Just like thirty-seven other schools who claim the same thing.

Do they claim that? I know that Colgate and Colgate fans do.

Yup. As do fans/alums from Rutgers, Johns Hopkins, William & Mary, Carnegie-Mellon, and a number of other schools. Mostly the claim comes from people who forget that the Ivy League is, officially, nothing more than an athletic conference.

We all know any one of those schools would jump at the chance to join the Ivy League (especially Rutgers, Colgate, and Union).

jtn27

Beeeej

Aaron M. Griffin

Beeeej

Johnny 5
A Union win may be great for EZ-AC hockey, but Union will always be just Ivy League wannabees!

Oh, didn't you know? Union was invited to join the Ivy League, but declined.

Just like thirty-seven other schools who claim the same thing.

Do they claim that? I know that Colgate and Colgate fans do.

Yup. As do fans/alums from Rutgers, Johns Hopkins, William & Mary, Carnegie-Mellon, and a number of other schools. Mostly the claim comes from people who forget that the Ivy League is, officially, nothing more than an athletic conference.

We all know any one of those schools would jump at the chance to join the Ivy League (especially Rutgers, Colgate, and Union).

The best part of the truth of that statement is that the College of William & Mary and Rutgers are the only two that make sense to join the Ivy League. W&M more so than Rutgers. All of the pre-Declaration of Independence universities except W&M and Rutgers are members of the Ivy League. W&M is very similar in philosophy to the Ivy League institutions and its prioritization of undergraduate education, as well as its reluctance to abandon the title college despite being a functioning university, resembles Dartmouth. I doubt there is a procedure for expansion of the Ivy League in the bylaws of the League.

Aaron M. Griffin
The best part of the truth of that statement is that the College of William & Mary and Rutgers are the only two that make sense to join the Ivy League. W&M more so than Rutgers. All of the pre-Declaration of Independence universities except W&M and Rutgers are members of the Ivy League. W&M is very similar in philosophy to the Ivy League institutions and its prioritization of undergraduate education, as well as its reluctance to abandon the title college despite being a functioning university, resembles Dartmouth. I doubt there is a procedure for expansion of the Ivy League in the bylaws of the League.

There are problems with all of these legends. One is that the alleged, distant past "invitations" almost always predated the actual existence of the Ivy League. Another, particular to Rutgers and to William & Mary, is that the stories often claim the schools declined because they were public institutions and unwilling to privatize in order to meet the Ivy League's "criteria" - forgetting that Cornell is partly public, and the Ivy League had no problem with our membership.

Another problem of course is that none of these "invitations" ever actually happened, but that's almost beside the point.

Beeeej

Aaron M. Griffin
The best part of the truth of that statement is that the College of William & Mary and Rutgers are the only two that make sense to join the Ivy League. W&M more so than Rutgers. All of the pre-Declaration of Independence universities except W&M and Rutgers are members of the Ivy League. W&M is very similar in philosophy to the Ivy League institutions and its prioritization of undergraduate education, as well as its reluctance to abandon the title college despite being a functioning university, resembles Dartmouth. I doubt there is a procedure for expansion of the Ivy League in the bylaws of the League.

There are problems with all of these legends. One is that the alleged, distant past "invitations" almost always predated the actual existence of the Ivy League. Another, particular to Rutgers and to William & Mary, is that the stories often claim the schools declined because they were public institutions and unwilling to privatize in order to meet the Ivy League's "criteria" - forgetting that Cornell is partly public, and the Ivy League had no problem with our membership.

Another problem of course is that none of these "invitations" ever actually happened, but that's almost beside the point.

I know for a fact that Rutgers refers to itself as a member of the "Ancient Eight." William and Mary might too. Depending on who you ask, the Ancient Eight is the Ivy League or it's the 8 of the 9 colleges founded before the signing of the Declaration of Independence (All of the Ivies except Cornell plus Rutgers and W&M. I'm not sure which one of the other 7 Ivies gets left out. Probably Dartmouth since after Cornell they're the "youngest." )

jtn27

Beeeej

Aaron M. Griffin
The best part of the truth of that statement is that the College of William & Mary and Rutgers are the only two that make sense to join the Ivy League. W&M more so than Rutgers. All of the pre-Declaration of Independence universities except W&M and Rutgers are members of the Ivy League. W&M is very similar in philosophy to the Ivy League institutions and its prioritization of undergraduate education, as well as its reluctance to abandon the title college despite being a functioning university, resembles Dartmouth. I doubt there is a procedure for expansion of the Ivy League in the bylaws of the League.

There are problems with all of these legends. One is that the alleged, distant past "invitations" almost always predated the actual existence of the Ivy League. Another, particular to Rutgers and to William & Mary, is that the stories often claim the schools declined because they were public institutions and unwilling to privatize in order to meet the Ivy League's "criteria" - forgetting that Cornell is partly public, and the Ivy League had no problem with our membership.

Another problem of course is that none of these "invitations" ever actually happened, but that's almost beside the point.

I know for a fact that Rutgers refers to itself as a member of the "Ancient Eight." William and Mary might too. Depending on who you ask, the Ancient Eight is the Ivy League or it's the 8 of the 9 colleges founded before the signing of the Declaration of Independence (All of the Ivies except Cornell plus Rutgers and W&M. I'm not sure which one of the other 7 Ivies gets left out. Probably Dartmouth since after Cornell they're the "youngest."

But they were chartered by the King... and as a result own about half of New Hampshire.

Beeeej

Aaron M. Griffin
The best part of the truth of that statement is that the College of William & Mary and Rutgers are the only two that make sense to join the Ivy League. W&M more so than Rutgers. All of the pre-Declaration of Independence universities except W&M and Rutgers are members of the Ivy League. W&M is very similar in philosophy to the Ivy League institutions and its prioritization of undergraduate education, as well as its reluctance to abandon the title college despite being a functioning university, resembles Dartmouth. I doubt there is a procedure for expansion of the Ivy League in the bylaws of the League.

There are problems with all of these legends. One is that the alleged, distant past "invitations" almost always predated the actual existence of the Ivy League. Another, particular to Rutgers and to William & Mary, is that the stories often claim the schools declined because they were public institutions and unwilling to privatize in order to meet the Ivy League's "criteria" - forgetting that Cornell is partly public, and the Ivy League had no problem with our membership.

Another problem of course is that none of these "invitations" ever actually happened, but that's almost beside the point.

Yeah, I was just making the point that random additions (RPI (yes, I've heard that one among my peers in the Southern Tier of Upstate New York), Colgate, and Union) have no historical connection with the League. There are historical connections between the eight universities that became the Ivy League. So, it makes sense that were there to be any additions, the new members would align with that trend. The College of William and Mary is perhaps one of few schools that would continue that trend even though no such invitation ever occurred.

I am still curious if the Ivy League does have an expansion protocol. Most athletic conferences do. I am curious if from the creation in 1954, the group was viewed as a hermetic group. I am curious what the voting procedure would be if there is one. The Big Ten requires 70% of current members to add a new member (8/11 when Nebraska was added (I am not sure about the rounding with the 12 current members if 9 or 8 members would be needed)).

css228

Josh '99

css228
I think their band is a music group with a drinking problem...

Wait, are we talking about Clarkson or Cornell?

Damn i wasn't paying attention. Drinking group with a music problem

I'm still not sure which we're talking about or why it's a bad thing.

jtn27

Beeeej

Aaron M. Griffin
The best part of the truth of that statement is that the College of William & Mary and Rutgers are the only two that make sense to join the Ivy League. W&M more so than Rutgers. All of the pre-Declaration of Independence universities except W&M and Rutgers are members of the Ivy League. W&M is very similar in philosophy to the Ivy League institutions and its prioritization of undergraduate education, as well as its reluctance to abandon the title college despite being a functioning university, resembles Dartmouth. I doubt there is a procedure for expansion of the Ivy League in the bylaws of the League.

There are problems with all of these legends. One is that the alleged, distant past "invitations" almost always predated the actual existence of the Ivy League. Another, particular to Rutgers and to William & Mary, is that the stories often claim the schools declined because they were public institutions and unwilling to privatize in order to meet the Ivy League's "criteria" - forgetting that Cornell is partly public, and the Ivy League had no problem with our membership.

Another problem of course is that none of these "invitations" ever actually happened, but that's almost beside the point.

I know for a fact that Rutgers refers to itself as a member of the "Ancient Eight." William and Mary might too. Depending on who you ask, the Ancient Eight is the Ivy League or it's the 8 of the 9 colleges founded before the signing of the Declaration of Independence (All of the Ivies except Cornell plus Rutgers and W&M. I'm not sure which one of the other 7 Ivies gets left out. Probably Dartmouth since after Cornell they're the "youngest."

I studied a year at the College of William & Mary. They don't refer to themselves or their institution as a member of the Ancient Eight. The president of the College referred to the College as "ancient by all standards on our side of the Atlantic" when Queen Elizabeth II visited in 2007 (during the celebration of the quadricentennial of Jamestown), but other than that W&M students are preoccupied with the intellectual rivalry with UVa ("Mr. Jefferson's Alma Mater" vs. "Mr. Jefferson's University" ). They do not associate with the Ivy League.

css228

jtn27

Beeeej

Aaron M. Griffin
The best part of the truth of that statement is that the College of William & Mary and Rutgers are the only two that make sense to join the Ivy League. W&M more so than Rutgers. All of the pre-Declaration of Independence universities except W&M and Rutgers are members of the Ivy League. W&M is very similar in philosophy to the Ivy League institutions and its prioritization of undergraduate education, as well as its reluctance to abandon the title college despite being a functioning university, resembles Dartmouth. I doubt there is a procedure for expansion of the Ivy League in the bylaws of the League.

There are problems with all of these legends. One is that the alleged, distant past "invitations" almost always predated the actual existence of the Ivy League. Another, particular to Rutgers and to William & Mary, is that the stories often claim the schools declined because they were public institutions and unwilling to privatize in order to meet the Ivy League's "criteria" - forgetting that Cornell is partly public, and the Ivy League had no problem with our membership.

Another problem of course is that none of these "invitations" ever actually happened, but that's almost beside the point.

I know for a fact that Rutgers refers to itself as a member of the "Ancient Eight." William and Mary might too. Depending on who you ask, the Ancient Eight is the Ivy League or it's the 8 of the 9 colleges founded before the signing of the Declaration of Independence (All of the Ivies except Cornell plus Rutgers and W&M. I'm not sure which one of the other 7 Ivies gets left out. Probably Dartmouth since after Cornell they're the "youngest."

But they were chartered by the King... and as a result own about half of New Hampshire.

...and New York and Virginia extend to the Pacific.

Josh '99

css228

Josh '99

css228
I think their band is a music group with a drinking problem...

Wait, are we talking about Clarkson or Cornell?

Damn i wasn't paying attention. Drinking group with a music problem

I'm still not sure which we're talking about or why it's a bad thing.

Drinking group with a music problem refers to Clarkson. Nothing wrong with their drinking, plenty wrong with their being allowed to touch musical instruments.

Aaron M. Griffin
I am still curious if the Ivy League does have an expansion protocol. Most athletic conferences do. I am curious if from the creation in 1954, the group was viewed as a hermetic group. I am curious what the voting procedure would be if there is one. The Big Ten requires 70% of current members to add a new member (8/11 when Nebraska was added (I am not sure about the rounding with the 12 current members if 9 or 8 members would be needed)).

There is no provision in the Ivy Group Agreement for expansion.

[www.archives.upenn.edu]

Beeeej

Aaron M. Griffin
I am still curious if the Ivy League does have an expansion protocol. Most athletic conferences do. I am curious if from the creation in 1954, the group was viewed as a hermetic group. I am curious what the voting procedure would be if there is one. The Big Ten requires 70% of current members to add a new member (8/11 when Nebraska was added (I am not sure about the rounding with the 12 current members if 9 or 8 members would be needed)).

There is no provision in the Ivy Group Agreement for expansion.

[www.archives.upenn.edu]

Thank you.

I think that should put to rest a lot of the fallacious myths from the other institutions. I know that they will continue saying it despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Beeeej

Aaron M. Griffin
I am still curious if the Ivy League does have an expansion protocol. Most athletic conferences do. I am curious if from the creation in 1954, the group was viewed as a hermetic group. I am curious what the voting procedure would be if there is one. The Big Ten requires 70% of current members to add a new member (8/11 when Nebraska was added (I am not sure about the rounding with the 12 current members if 9 or 8 members would be needed)).

There is no provision in the Ivy Group Agreement for expansion.

[www.archives.upenn.edu]

But there must be further MOUs or other documents since then. At least dealing with freshmen playing varsity. Even so this has to be the shortest athletic conf agreement ever. What's the matter Beeeej, weren't you around to set them straight back then.

Jim Hyla

Beeeej
There is no provision in the Ivy Group Agreement for expansion.

[www.archives.upenn.edu]

But there must be further MOUs or other documents since then. At least dealing with freshmen playing varsity. Even so this has to be the shortest athletic conf agreement ever. What's the matter Beeeej, weren't you around to set them straight back then.

They wouldn't listen to me because I was wearing gray with red lettering instead of red and white.

Beeeej

Jim Hyla

Beeeej
There is no provision in the Ivy Group Agreement for expansion.

[www.archives.upenn.edu]

But there must be further MOUs or other documents since then. At least dealing with freshmen playing varsity. Even so this has to be the shortest athletic conf agreement ever. What's the matter Beeeej, weren't you around to set them straight back then.

They wouldn't listen to me because I was wearing gray with red lettering instead of red and white.

Well good for them then. They were a smarter group than I would have imagined.

Aaron M. Griffin

Beeeej

Aaron M. Griffin
I am still curious if the Ivy League does have an expansion protocol. Most athletic conferences do. I am curious if from the creation in 1954, the group was viewed as a hermetic group. I am curious what the voting procedure would be if there is one. The Big Ten requires 70% of current members to add a new member (8/11 when Nebraska was added (I am not sure about the rounding with the 12 current members if 9 or 8 members would be needed)).

There is no provision in the Ivy Group Agreement for expansion.

[www.archives.upenn.edu]

Thank you.

I think that should put to rest a lot of the fallacious myths from the other institutions. I know that they will continue saying it despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

There is another roadblock preventing most Division I members from even considering membership in the Ivy League - NC$$ regulations. Bylaw 20.9.1 of the Division I Manual details minimum financial aid requirements for membership in the division. It also contains the following clause (20.9.1.2.7): "Member institutions that did not award any athletically related financial aid in any sport as of January 11, 1991, shall be exempted from the minimum requirements." Thus, it seems that no Division I member outside the Ivy League (except the three service academies?) could adopt the League's prohibition on athletic scholarships without jeopardizing its Division I status.

EDIT: The clause I quoted makes no mention of schools who did not award scholarships in 1991 but have subsequently changed that policy (i.e. most members of the Patriot League).

kingpin248
There is another roadblock preventing most Division I members from even considering membership in the Ivy League - NC$$ regulations. Bylaw 20.9.1 of the Division I Manual details minimum financial aid requirements for membership in the division. It also contains the following clause (20.9.1.2.7): "Member institutions that did not award any athletically related financial aid in any sport as of January 11, 1991, shall be exempted from the minimum requirements." Thus, it seems that no Division I member outside the Ivy League (except the three service academies?) could adopt the League's prohibition on athletic scholarships without jeopardizing its Division I status.

That's just mind boggling. I understand why you wouldn't allow scholarships in D3 because that provides an unfair advantage. but if a school wanted to play up why in the world would you stop them?

Beeeej

Aaron M. Griffin
The best part of the truth of that statement is that the College of William & Mary and Rutgers are the only two that make sense to join the Ivy League. W&M more so than Rutgers. All of the pre-Declaration of Independence universities except W&M and Rutgers are members of the Ivy League. W&M is very similar in philosophy to the Ivy League institutions and its prioritization of undergraduate education, as well as its reluctance to abandon the title college despite being a functioning university, resembles Dartmouth. I doubt there is a procedure for expansion of the Ivy League in the bylaws of the League.

There are problems with all of these legends. One is that the alleged, distant past "invitations" almost always predated the actual existence of the Ivy League. Another, particular to Rutgers and to William & Mary, is that the stories often claim the schools declined because they were public institutions and unwilling to privatize in order to meet the Ivy League's "criteria" - forgetting that Cornell is partly public, and the Ivy League had no problem with our membership.

Another problem of course is that none of these "invitations" ever actually happened, but that's almost beside the point.

And of course, at one time Yale, Brown, and Dartmouth were partly "public" in the sense that they were designated as land-grant institutions. Harvard was public in that tolls on the bridge between Cambridge and Boston went to support Harvard. In fact, most of the older "private" institutions had some form of public subsidy.

KeithK

kingpin248
There is another roadblock preventing most Division I members from even considering membership in the Ivy League - NC$$ regulations. Bylaw 20.9.1 of the Division I Manual details minimum financial aid requirements for membership in the division. It also contains the following clause (20.9.1.2.7): "Member institutions that did not award any athletically related financial aid in any sport as of January 11, 1991, shall be exempted from the minimum requirements." Thus, it seems that no Division I member outside the Ivy League (except the three service academies?) could adopt the League's prohibition on athletic scholarships without jeopardizing its Division I status.

That's just mind boggling. I understand why you wouldn't allow scholarships in D3 because that provides an unfair advantage. but if a school wanted to play up why in the world would you stop them?

Can you imagine what might happen if one of those schools started to win? Afterall it is all about money. Speaking of which, has anyone read Josh Luch's new book on college athletics and the NCAA, "Illegal Procedure"? I caught part of an inteview on Terry Gross's show "Fresh Air". It sounded interesting. His way of solving the pay players question, was to let agents legally loan them money. I guess if your destined for the pros that would help, but the other 99% would get nothing. About par for the course I guess.

Jim Hyla

Beeeej

Aaron M. Griffin
I am still curious if the Ivy League does have an expansion protocol. Most athletic conferences do. I am curious if from the creation in 1954, the group was viewed as a hermetic group. I am curious what the voting procedure would be if there is one. The Big Ten requires 70% of current members to add a new member (8/11 when Nebraska was added (I am not sure about the rounding with the 12 current members if 9 or 8 members would be needed)).

There is no provision in the Ivy Group Agreement for expansion.

[www.archives.upenn.edu]

But there must be further MOUs or other documents since then. At least dealing with freshmen playing varsity. Even so this has to be the shortest athletic conf agreement ever. What's the matter Beeeej, weren't you around to set them straight back then.

Thank you Beeeej for the link to the two documents.
I especially like the end of the original 1945 agreement:

In all phases of this agreement, as well as in the work of the proposed Committees, no important and enduring results are likely to be obtained except as the relationship of the subscribing institutions is genuinely cooperative. Rigid application of set rules is almost certain to doom the undertaking to failure. On the other hand, wise and flexible administration in the setting of mutual respect and good faith among the subscribing institutions should produce results of great benefit to the game and well as to the institutions participating. It is firmly believed that the undertaking as a whole has large promise and should be given every available support.

The more formally structured 1954 agreement has plenty of flexibility built in.

It is expected that the Committee on Eligibility will keep all matters coming within the purview of this agreement, including eligibility questions, under constant review and shall from time to time make recommendations to the Presidents' Policy Committee with respect to any changes in policy deemed to be advisable.

The Presidents' Policy Committee ... shall have full and final responsibility for the determination of all agreed policies of the Group ...

The Presidents' Policy Committee shall take decisions on all matters within its responsibility by the affirmative vote of six members of the Group.

A subscribing member may withdraw from the Group upon giving written notice of such intention two years in advance. Amendments of the agreement pertaining to membership shall be made only with the approval of all the institutions acting through their respective governing boards."

Somebody's archives must have correspondence that would confirm or refute the claims of invitations.
The Wikipedia entry for Ivy League has a long discussion of the norigins and quotes Cornell's Rym Berry in 1936

I can say with certainty that in the last five years—and markedly in the last three months—there has been a strong drift among the eight or ten universities of the East which see a good deal of one another in sport toward a closer bond of confidence and cooperation and toward the formation of a common front against the threat of a breakdown in the ideals of amateur sport in the interests of supposed expediency. Please do not regard that statement as implying the organization of an Eastern conference or even a poetic "Ivy League". That sort of thing does not seem to be in the cards at the moment.

[Emphasis added.]

Jim Hyla
His way of solving the pay players question, was to let agents legally loan them money. I guess if your destined for the pros that would help, but the other 99% would get nothing. About par for the course I guess.

The agents then become a sort of athletics venture capitalist. I kind of like it.

David Harding
Somebody's archives must have correspondence that would confirm or refute the claims of invitations.
The Wikipedia entry for Ivy League has a long discussion of the norigins and quotes Cornell's Rym Berry in 1936

I can say with certainty that in the last five years—and markedly in the last three months—there has been a strong drift among the eight or ten universities of the East which see a good deal of one another in sport toward a closer bond of confidence and cooperation and toward the formation of a common front against the threat of a breakdown in the ideals of amateur sport in the interests of supposed expediency. Please do not regard that statement as implying the organization of an Eastern conference or even a poetic "Ivy League". That sort of thing does not seem to be in the cards at the moment.

[Emphasis added.]

The most common and sensible explanation for that comment that I've heard is that West Point and Annapolis regularly competed in football with the eight eventual Ivies on a regular basis, and were therefore included in early discussions of the league, but nothing came of their participation.

I love it. We need to keep this game going till next October. It never ends, we never lost.

Beeeej

David Harding
Somebody's archives must have correspondence that would confirm or refute the claims of invitations.
The Wikipedia entry for Ivy League has a long discussion of the norigins and quotes Cornell's Rym Berry in 1936

I can say with certainty that in the last five years—and markedly in the last three months—there has been a strong drift among the eight or ten universities of the East which see a good deal of one another in sport toward a closer bond of confidence and cooperation and toward the formation of a common front against the threat of a breakdown in the ideals of amateur sport in the interests of supposed expediency. Please do not regard that statement as implying the organization of an Eastern conference or even a poetic "Ivy League". That sort of thing does not seem to be in the cards at the moment.

[Emphasis added.]

The most common and sensible explanation for that comment that I've heard is that West Point and Annapolis regularly competed in football with the eight eventual Ivies on a regular basis, and were therefore included in early discussions of the league, but nothing came of their participation.

I have heard that too. I've also heard that Rutgers was included at one point because it had a well-established and heated rivalry in football with Princeton during that era. This explanation is often accompanied with the inclusion of Army and Navy, and the exclusion of Brown. That gets one to the total of ten. The late addition of Brown to the Ivy Group discussion lends credence to the notion that Brown might have been an afterthought at that time.

The famous quoted editorial that began the movement toward the current Ivy League states:

The Ivy League exists already in the minds of a good many of those connected with football, and we fail to see why the seven schools concerned should be satisfied to let it exist as a purely nebulous entity where there are so many practical benefits which would be possible under definite organized association. The seven colleges involved fall naturally together by reason of their common interests and similar general standards and by dint of their established national reputation they are in a particularly advantageous position to assume leadership for the preservation of the ideals of intercollegiate athletics.

The editorial ran simultaneously in the Columbia Daily Spectator, The Cornell Daily Sun, The Dartmouth, The Harvard Crimson,The Daily Pennsylvanian, The Daily Princetonian, and the Yale Daily News in 1936. Note the exception of Brown at this earliest stage but the inclusion of all other current members.

Jim Hyla
So now Union's coach, Bennett, is a finalist for the Spencer Penrose Award, otherwise known as national coach of the year. Since their former coach won it last year, it only seems fair that he gets it this year.

He might have been nominated but he didn't win.

Ferris State's Bob Daniels wins Spencer Penrose Award as national college hockey coach of the year. #FrozenFour #ECACHockey #UnionHockey

— Ken Schott (@slapschotts) April 4, 2012