ECAC Inferiority

This probably deserves its own thread. It's something that's getting discussed somewhat in the tournament game(s) thread.

Much has been made this week of Cornell's embarrassment at the hands of Yale and what the expectations should be for the Cornell program. The 1-3 showing from the ECAC in the NCAA tournament runs the league Frozen Four drought to at least 9, title game appearance drought to at least 22, and title drought to at least 23, nearly half the league's lifetime.

Why are ECAC teams routinely dispatched in the NCAA tournament? Is it simply a matter of skill, coaching, or level of competition in the league? Is there anything the league itself can do about it? Is the ECAC destined to take its place as the permanent #4, 5, or 6 conference that sends a team or two the the tournament every year to be fodder for hockey factories?

I wonder if the "everyone gets in" playoff format has exacerbated the ECAC pain. The result of this format can lead the top teams in the league to see a lot of bad teams down the stretch (before today, the last t-20 PWR team Yale played was Dartmouth on February 5, for Union you have to go back to January 28, RPI Jan. 29). Would playing off only among the top 8 help at all? It'd be hard to schedule any non-conference games late in the season since every other conference goes insular at that stage of the season too. Since the change only Cornell has made it through and that was in the first year of the format.

Without going into the whys, I'd like to address the whats.

I'd like to see:

(1a) Back to the 8-team ECAC playoffs. Go home, 9 through 12. And no "play-in" BS. (And, since we can't seem to decide on an adequate environment for the semis and championship, let's just make it three weeks of best-of-3 at the higher seed.)

or:

(1b) Back to the 8-team playoffs as above, but all conferences would cede their first-round BS weekend to the national tournament and the first round of the national tournament would go back to best-of-3s at the higher seed.

(2) No more conference tournament quarterfinal (or quintifinal or sexifinal) losers in the NCAAs. Teams that lose in the quarterfinals are, by definition, not strong teams and should hang up the skates for the offseason. Under the current system, they get to rest up and get healthy for a week while the successful teams battle it out in the semis and finals of their conference tournaments. Make consolation games mandatory, especially since they'd be meaningful for selection and seeding purposes. (Dig deep and you'll note that we and RIT would have made a 16-team tournament under this rule.) (I'm also very, very tired of seeing five teams from any conference in the NCAAs. Yawn.)

These proposals would be adopted in my perfect world where we have begun using our nuclear arsenal to effect interstellar travel and Firefly was never cancelled.

Firefly was never cancelled. It's just on hiatus. Like Remember WENN. Do not shake the few foundations of hope I have left.

In my perfect world the top 8 make the ECAC playoffs and the Ivy game limit and schedule are made the same as those of the non-Ivy ECAC. IMHO the challenges in the NCAA tournament will not get easier short of giving scholarships and admitting guys with a total 950 on their SATs.

Not the thread title I would have liked, but I guess it fits the observation I was about to make. North Dakota and Denver will play tonight in a battle of WCHA teams in the NCAA tournament. If Yale and Union had held serve on Friday, we would have seen an all-ECAC NCAA QF last night. I remember that in 1996 we would have played Vermont in the quarterfinals if we'd beat higher-seeded LSSU. It made me realize I couldn't remember an NCAA game between ECAC teams. Looking back at TBRW's NCAA history I confirmed my suspicion that it hasn't happened since the Divorce:

• Last NCAA tournament game between ECAC teams: 1982 consolation game: Northeastern 10, New Hampshire 4
• Last NCAA tournament game between current ECAC teams: 1980 consolation game: Dartmouth 8, Cornell 4
• Last non-consolation NCAA tournament game between ECAC teams: 1978 national championship game: Boston University 5, Boston College 3
• Last non-consolation NCAA tournament game between current ECAC teams: 1970 national championship game: Cornell 6, Clarkson 4

In comparison, the CCHA had Miami and Michigan in the NCAA QF in 2010, and Hockey East had BU and Vermont in the 2009 NCAA semifinals.

(Note that College Hockey America missed out on a chance to have two of their teams meet in the NCAA regionals last year when 2M Bemidji State and 4M Alabama-Huntsville both lost in the first round.)

jtwcornell91
Not the thread title I would have liked, but I guess it fits the observation I was about to make. North Dakota and Denver will play tonight in a battle of WCHA teams in the NCAA tournament. If Yale and Union had held serve on Friday, we would have seen an all-ECAC NCAA QF last night. I remember that in 1996 we would have played Vermont in the quarterfinals if we'd beat higher-seeded LSSU. It made me realize I couldn't remember an NCAA game between ECAC teams. Looking back at TBRW's NCAA history I confirmed my suspicion that it hasn't happened since the Divorce:

• Last NCAA tournament game between ECAC teams: 1982 consolation game: Northeastern 10, New Hampshire 4
• Last NCAA tournament game between current ECAC teams: 1980 consolation game: Dartmouth 8, Cornell 4
• Last non-consolation NCAA tournament game between ECAC teams: 1978 national championship game: Boston University 5, Boston College 3
• Last non-consolation NCAA tournament game between current ECAC teams: 1970 national championship game: Cornell 6, Clarkson 4

In comparison, the CCHA had Miami and Michigan in the NCAA QF in 2010, and Hockey East had BU and Vermont in the 2009 NCAA semifinals.

(Note that College Hockey America missed out on a chance to have two of their teams meet in the NCAA regionals last year when 2M Bemidji State and 4M Alabama-Huntsville both lost in the first round.)

Oh, wait, I forgot a technicality: 2002 NCAA First Round: Cornell 6, Quinnipiac 2. Of course, Quinnipiac was still a member of the MAAC back then, but I guess it satisfies "between current ECAC teams". (Thanks to [www.tbrw.info] which made me realize that with Union's entry this year, every current ECAC team has played in the NCAAs, if you include Q's appearance as MAAC champions.)

Actually,

IMO, none of the three ECAC teams did enough to stop the EZAC comments. In order to justify their seeds, Yale would have had to at least make the FF, Union would have had to win a game, and RPI would have had to keep their game close. We could have gotten away with two of the three.

Rondeau had an off night and probably wasn't as good as some thought he was. He just was much better than Yale's goalies a year ago.

Union seemed to suffer from stage fright.

RPI just didn't have nearly the depth of talent that UND has. Also good big men are better than good little men. It really would have been nice if RPI had scored a goal. They have now gone over 10 periods of NCAA tourney play without one.

From a personal point of view, the experience should serve RPI well for next season assuming that York doesn't turn pro. According to a recent article, the odds are 50-50.

I think I'd mostly like to see more OOC games. The ECAC has become a walled garden with member teams playing at a level that evidently doesn't compare to that played on the national stage. The only solution to this that I can see is to escape it as much as possible, and this goes for every team in the conference. I don't know how you get more OOC games, though: good teams don't want to play scrubs because there's nothing for them to gain, so there may be some hat-in-hand debasement necessary for the first few years in order to get those games.

This is rough: the ECAC has dug itself into a hole that is going to be very difficult to get out of.

Kyle Rose
I think I'd mostly like to see more OOC games. The ECAC has become a walled garden with member teams playing at a level that evidently doesn't compare to that played on the national stage. The only solution to this that I can see is to escape it as much as possible, and this goes for every team in the conference. I don't know how you get more OOC games, though: good teams don't want to play scrubs because there's nothing for them to gain, so there may be some hat-in-hand debasement necessary for the first few years in order to get those games.

This is rough: the ECAC has dug itself into a hole that is going to be very difficult to get out of.

Agree. Sometimes a walled garden situation can be beneficial, like the ACC lacrosse league, or I'm sure the BTHC will prove to be. But in this case, it's just bad. Ivy restrictions can shoulder some of the blame...there's no doubt in my mind that the late starting dates and game limits hurt the league as a whole. Another thing that really bugs me...scheduling precious OOC games vs. other ECAC schools. I don't care if it's Clarkson-SLU in Ottawa, or Cornell-Colgate in Newark or Union-RPI "Halloween Faceoff," this in-league "non-conference" inbreeding should stop. Non-conference games should be against non-conference foes. OOC games are limited, and increasingly important for SOS considerations for at-large bids. Plus, it can only help the league, even if some of those have to be against weaker CCHA or AHA opponents. Pissing away valuable OOC slots is stupid, IMO.

RichH
I don't care if it's Clarkson-SLU in Ottawa, or Cornell-Colgate in Newark or Union-RPI "Halloween Faceoff," this in-league "non-conference" inbreeding should stop. Non-conference games should be against non-conference foes. OOC games are limited, and increasingly important for SOS considerations for at-large bids. Plus, it can only help the league, even if some of those have to be against weaker CCHA or AHA opponents. Pissing away valuable OOC slots is stupid, IMO.

Hugely agreed. Considering that teams may be forced to play each other five teams in a season to begin with, it seems incredibly stupid to waste OOC games this way. That "Ivy Shootout" that began this year, one must assume at Yale's behest, wasted two of seven games for four teams. Ridiculous. As far as our scheduling goes, I hope the failure of Colgate-Cornell in Newark put this to rest.

Scersk '97

RichH
I don't care if it's Clarkson-SLU in Ottawa, or Cornell-Colgate in Newark or Union-RPI "Halloween Faceoff," this in-league "non-conference" inbreeding should stop. Non-conference games should be against non-conference foes. OOC games are limited, and increasingly important for SOS considerations for at-large bids. Plus, it can only help the league, even if some of those have to be against weaker CCHA or AHA opponents. Pissing away valuable OOC slots is stupid, IMO.

Hugely agreed. Considering that teams may be forced to play each other five teams in a season to begin with, it seems incredibly stupid to waste OOC games this way. That "Ivy Shootout" that began this year, one must assume at Yale's behest, wasted two of seven games for four teams. Ridiculous. As far as our scheduling goes, I hope the failure of Colgate-Cornell in Newark put this to rest.

To be fair, wasn't the Newark game supposed to be against Northeastern until something fell through? Other than that, the only non-conference games against ECAC teams in the last five years have been in Estero. Unless I'm forgetting some.

Because intra-conference NC games are such a waste I have to wonder whether they're driven by Unpleasant Facts, like the inability to schedule better opposition.

RPI coach Seth Appert claims that extra games against Union are scheduled in order to build a rivalry. The ECAC non-Ivies play more OOC games than anyone except UAH which makes it hard for them to fill the schedule. RPI's OOC schedule for next season, as shown on the season-ticket application, starts off quite well in October with

10/7 MSU Mankato
10/8 MSU Mankato
10/14 @ Ferris
10/15 @ Ferris
10/21 @ Notre Dame
10/28 Colorado College
10/29 Colorado College

The rest is not too good (Bentley, @ Union, RIT, UML@UConn and either UConn or Army @ UConn).

Trotsky
Because intra-conference NC games are such a waste I have to wonder whether they're driven by Unpleasant Facts, like the inability to schedule better opposition.

This is my worry.

ursusminor
The ECAC non-Ivies play more OOC games than anyone except UAH which makes it hard for them to fill the schedule.

This is indeed part of the conundrum for the ECAC: teams in HE, WCHA, and CCHA don't have to play OOC games to toughen their schedules.

The "odd" part to me is the PWR. This isn't college basketball, where huge piles of teams are evaluated by a nebulous and shady committee. There's a rule to who gets in. So if the ECAC is overrated, maybe that's a problem with PWR?

Dafatone
The "odd" part to me is the PWR. This isn't college basketball, where huge piles of teams are evaluated by a nebulous and shady committee. There's a rule to who gets in. So if the ECAC is overrated, maybe that's a problem with PWR?

I think this goes without saying. Part of the issue here is that there aren't enough inter-conference matchups to really determine an accurate SOS for teams that mostly don't play each other. Krach is better than PWR IMO, but even it is dealing with the same problem of limited information. I don't know that there really is a way to make this substantively better: given the limited and uneven scheduling between conferences, any "solution" is mostly going to suck.

Here's an interesting thought: is it possible for teams to play non-NCAA games against each other during the regular season, or is that prohibited by NCAA rules?

Kyle Rose
Here's an interesting thought: is it possible for teams to play non-NCAA games against each other during the regular season, or is that prohibited by NCAA rules?

There are exceptions to the NCAA games limit, like the Ice-breaker tournament, or a game in Alaska. (I think).

Something I'd like to see is the "scrimmage" arrangement that Lacrosse has. We play real teams that don't count in the NCAA criteria. Much better than playing Guelph or some random Canadian school that may or may not represent the same kind of competition & style that we'll see the rest of the season.

RichH

Kyle Rose
Here's an interesting thought: is it possible for teams to play non-NCAA games against each other during the regular season, or is that prohibited by NCAA rules?

There are exceptions to the NCAA games limit, like the Ice-breaker tournament, or a game in Alaska. (I think).

Something I'd like to see is the "scrimmage" arrangement that Lacrosse has. We play real teams that don't count in the NCAA criteria. Much better than playing Guelph or some random Canadian school that may or may not represent the same kind of competition & style that we'll see the rest of the season.

This is exactly what I was thinking. I'd like to see some exhibition games against real teams: it's good for the ECAC teams because it gives them practice against real competition, and it's not bad for the opponents because it doesn't count against them in the PWR if they lose.

Trotsky
Firefly was never cancelled. It's just on hiatus. . . .

I too pray for this truth!

After watching the East regional I have to say That Yale played hard and reasonably well - but ran into a Minn-Duluth team that had the horses and the foot speed to stay with Yale and maybe a bit more. UMD was very hot as was their keeper. Competently handled Union in my mind although Union keeper was pretty good to keep them in the game, UMD was able to be both "fast" and "physical" a rare ability - and their Keeper seemed very wired in and on his game!

Kyle Rose
teams in HE, WCHA, and CCHA don't have to play OOC games to toughen their schedules.

I get your point but if they want to "prove" their schedule is tough in KRACH or RPI a league as a whole has to play and win OOC games.

nyc94

Kyle Rose
teams in HE, WCHA, and CCHA don't have to play OOC games to toughen their schedules.

I get your point but if they want to "prove" their schedule is tough in KRACH or RPI a league as a whole has to play and win OOC games.

Sure, but the post to which I was responding had nothing to do with proof of anything, but rather was about conditioning ECAC teams to play top national competition. There was a later sub-thread about the accuracy of the PWR given that Yale had an early exit despite being the #1 overall seed, but that is an entirely different issue.

Cornell needs revenue from home games. Hence, teams like Niagara and Wayne State come to Lynah, instead of Cornell traveling to Madison or Ann Arbor or BC or whatever for the kinds of games that would really make us better.

ebilmes
Cornell needs revenue from home games. Hence, teams like Niagara and Wayne State come to Lynah, instead of Cornell traveling to Madison or Ann Arbor or BC or whatever for the kinds of games that would really make us better.

Under the present Ivy restrictions, I don't know if the games you suggest would necessarily make us better. With our game and practice restrictions we have limited choices. As evidenced by our UNH game this year, starting with high profile games doesn't help, it hurts. We generally have a weekend in January where we could travel for a set of games, but otherwise we need some lighter games in the beginning to get up and running. Scheduling a set of difficult games to start the season, would likely lead to losses, not improve the team, and hurt our pairwise.

Until, if ever, we get Ivy changes, we are looking at what we've got; some early warm up games, Florida, after Thanksgiving, and when we can schedule them, the occasional January tough game. So if other schools like UND and BU are nice to us, we can get 1-3 "midseason" tough games.

Jim Hyla

ebilmes
Cornell needs revenue from home games. Hence, teams like Niagara and Wayne State come to Lynah, instead of Cornell traveling to Madison or Ann Arbor or BC or whatever for the kinds of games that would really make us better.

Under the present Ivy restrictions, I don't know if the games you suggest would necessarily make us better. With our game and practice restrictions we have limited choices. As evidenced by our UNH game this year, starting with high profile games doesn't help, it hurts. We generally have a weekend in January where we could travel for a set of games, but otherwise we need some lighter games in the beginning to get up and running. Scheduling a set of difficult games to start the season, would likely lead to losses, not improve the team, and hurt our pairwise.

Until, if ever, we get Ivy changes, we are looking at what we've got; some early warm up games, Florida, after Thanksgiving, and when we can schedule them, the occasional January tough game. So if other schools like UND and BU are nice to us, we can get 1-3 "midseason" tough games.

If Cornell keeps an every-other-year series going against BU in NYC, that's one good team, and Cornell needs something else in the even years (not Colgate at the Prudential Center, Newark), maybe a doubleheader in Boston at the Garden.

The lacrosse team schedules tough opponents early and lives with the losses when they come. Though the Ivy spot in the lax NCAAs is a less unsure thing for Cornell than the ECAC berth in hockey.

Jim Hyla

ebilmes
Cornell needs revenue from home games. Hence, teams like Niagara and Wayne State come to Lynah, instead of Cornell traveling to Madison or Ann Arbor or BC or whatever for the kinds of games that would really make us better.

Under the present Ivy restrictions, I don't know if the games you suggest would necessarily make us better. With our game and practice restrictions we have limited choices. As evidenced by our UNH game this year, starting with high profile games doesn't help, it hurts. We generally have a weekend in January where we could travel for a set of games, but otherwise we need some lighter games in the beginning to get up and running. Scheduling a set of difficult games to start the season, would likely lead to losses, not improve the team, and hurt our pairwise.

Until, if ever, we get Ivy changes, we are looking at what we've got; some early warm up games, Florida, after Thanksgiving, and when we can schedule them, the occasional January tough game. So if other schools like UND and BU are nice to us, we can get 1-3 "midseason" tough games.

I agree. We played UND in January 2010 and split that series with them at home. Although we did not play that well on the ice, the results would have been much different if the series was scheduled in October. If it weren't for the losses to Princeton and CC, an at-large bid would have been very likely with that split.

Similar to Jim's suggestion, I think our best strategy is to lobby the Ivy League to extend the hockey season, start off with easier teams early and schedule all the tougher games during that December-January stretch. We can play other ECAC teams more than two times a year, but I'd prefer that happen earlier in the season rather than later. A Colgate matchup is super boring during Thanksgiving break, but if it was the first game of the season, I would expect a neutral venue in upstate NY to be sold out.

billhoward

Jim Hyla

ebilmes
Cornell needs revenue from home games. Hence, teams like Niagara and Wayne State come to Lynah, instead of Cornell traveling to Madison or Ann Arbor or BC or whatever for the kinds of games that would really make us better.

Under the present Ivy restrictions, I don't know if the games you suggest would necessarily make us better. With our game and practice restrictions we have limited choices. As evidenced by our UNH game this year, starting with high profile games doesn't help, it hurts. We generally have a weekend in January where we could travel for a set of games, but otherwise we need some lighter games in the beginning to get up and running. Scheduling a set of difficult games to start the season, would likely lead to losses, not improve the team, and hurt our pairwise.

Until, if ever, we get Ivy changes, we are looking at what we've got; some early warm up games, Florida, after Thanksgiving, and when we can schedule them, the occasional January tough game. So if other schools like UND and BU are nice to us, we can get 1-3 "midseason" tough games.

If Cornell keeps an every-other-year series going against BU in NYC, that's one good team, and Cornell needs something else in the even years (not Colgate at the Prudential Center, Newark), maybe a doubleheader in Boston at the Garden.

The lacrosse team schedules tough opponents early and lives with the losses when they come. Though the Ivy spot in the lax NCAAs is a less unsure thing for Cornell than the ECAC berth in hockey.

I still think an early-season HE/ECAC weekend would be a good idea. It could be tuned not to duplicate Cornell/BU in MSG, or the Beanpot in the case of Harvard. It could also be hyped and probably get TV coverage on NESN (for ECAC) and in the middle-Atlantic states for (HE).

Since the thread started with some "in a perfect world" fantasy suggestions, I'll offer one of my own. Lets have the NCAA require that all teams play half of their games on the road. That would prevent the big money teams (Michigan, Minnesota) from insisting on all home OOC games. It's an unfair advantage for those teams and is one of the reasons that Cornell doesn't schedule these teams since we refuse to do one sided agreements (at least with top caliber teams).

Neutral site games would have to be excluded from the count to prevent gaming of the numbers with tournaments.

I think the only Ivy that is really interested in extending the OOC schedule is Cornell though. I don't see why the other schools would insist on it. However it'd be great if we could schedule the UAH's and AHA teams of the world for that first weekend and put the UNH's in the weekend before finals,

css228
I think the only Ivy that is really interested in extending the OOC schedule is Cornell though. I don't see why the other schools would insist on it. However it'd be great if we could schedule the UAH's and AHA teams of the world for that first weekend and put the UNH's in the weekend before finals,

I'm not sure that the athletic departments of the schools don't want it. It seems all the schools are looking to be nationally competitive, but I doubt the whole of the universities want it. I'd see finances as the major stumbling block. Sports are more and more having to fund themselves, and trips out west aren't cheap. HE schools would be easier, and probably mutually beneficial for some. I don't know if schools like Merrimack and Northeastern routinely sell out; a home game with us might draw a lot of fans.

billhoward
The lacrosse team schedules tough opponents early and lives with the losses when they come. Though the Ivy spot in the lax NCAAs is a less unsure thing for Cornell than the ECAC berth in hockey.

The lacrosse team also doesn't have nearly as delayed a start as the hockey team does. I don't know what the practice schedules are like, but the Ivy schools only played their first games a week later than most other schools (2/26 instead of 2/19 or 2/20). And, also, the team started the season with Hobart and Binghamton before playing Army and Virginia (and this has been the case for the past three seasons; in 2010 the season started with Hobart and Canisius, and in 2009 with Binghamton and eventual 6-10 finisher Army).

KeithK
Since the thread started with some "in a perfect world" fantasy suggestions, I'll offer one of my own. Lets have the NCAA require that all teams play half of their games on the road. That would prevent the big money teams (Michigan, Minnesota) from insisting on all home OOC games. It's an unfair advantage for those teams and is one of the reasons that Cornell doesn't schedule these teams since we refuse to do one sided agreements (at least with top caliber teams).

Neutral site games would have to be excluded from the count to prevent gaming of the numbers with tournaments.

Well, in the best of all possible worlds, the NCAA would switch to Bradley-Terry for tournament seeding, and use KASA rather than KRACH to accurately capture the challenge of playing on the road and thereby mitigate the advantage of teams playing extra home games.

THere is no doubt that the ECAC isn't as as strong as the other Division 1 hockey conferences. The "one and done format" does give a weaker squad a better chance for victory. Especially, in hockey, where the importance of a hot goalie (e.g Dadswell in the 1986 ecac tourney or the RIT goalie last year), can increase the chances of an upset. Remember, no one really thinks that 1980 Team USA was a better team than the 1980 Soviet Team. There is a reason why the professional championships are decided in best of seven game series.

Jim Hyla

css228
I think the only Ivy that is really interested in extending the OOC schedule is Cornell though. I don't see why the other schools would insist on it. However it'd be great if we could schedule the UAH's and AHA teams of the world for that first weekend and put the UNH's in the weekend before finals,

I'm not sure that the athletic departments of the schools don't want it. It seems all the schools are looking to be nationally competitive, but I doubt the whole of the universities want it. I'd see finances as the major stumbling block. Sports are more and more having to fund themselves, and trips out west aren't cheap. HE schools would be easier, and probably mutually beneficial for some. I don't know if schools like Merrimack and Northeastern routinely sell out; a home game with us might draw a lot of fans.

I guess that's true. Let's put it this way, I think Cornell is the only Ivy where the administration, not just the AD would be behind OOC schedule expansion. I'd like to see a series with PSU, MSU or Michigan get established on a regular basis if possible. Travel costs wouldn't be too bad for of those, and worse comes to worse, we could schedule neutrally against these teams in places like Philadelphia or Chicago. Miami of Ohio would also be a nice as well as Ohio State and Notre Dame. None of the travel expenses to the Midwest would be that bad. The problem is really going to play WCHA teams or either Alaska Team, or Air Force. I mean we're as close to Ohio as we are Maine.

css228

Jim Hyla

css228
I think the only Ivy that is really interested in extending the OOC schedule is Cornell though. I don't see why the other schools would insist on it. However it'd be great if we could schedule the UAH's and AHA teams of the world for that first weekend and put the UNH's in the weekend before finals,

I'm not sure that the athletic departments of the schools don't want it. It seems all the schools are looking to be nationally competitive, but I doubt the whole of the universities want it. I'd see finances as the major stumbling block. Sports are more and more having to fund themselves, and trips out west aren't cheap. HE schools would be easier, and probably mutually beneficial for some. I don't know if schools like Merrimack and Northeastern routinely sell out; a home game with us might draw a lot of fans.

I guess that's true. Let's put it this way, I think Cornell is the only Ivy where the administration, not just the AD would be behind OOC schedule expansion. I'd like to see a series with PSU, MSU or Michigan get established on a regular basis if possible. Travel costs wouldn't be too bad for of those, and worse comes to worse, we could schedule neutrally against these teams in places like Philadelphia or Chicago. Miami of Ohio would also be a nice as well as Ohio State and Notre Dame. None of the travel expenses to the Midwest would be that bad. The problem is really going to play WCHA teams or either Alaska Team, or Air Force. I mean we're as close to Ohio as we are Maine.

Let's work on getting the Ivies eligible for the Division 1-A-Something football playoffs, too. The Ivy presidents discriminate against football in a way that doesn't cause them any trouble with any federal affirmative action / equal opportunities commission. Right now that benefits Harvard but in a couple years, maybe us, too.

jtwcornell91

KeithK
Since the thread started with some "in a perfect world" fantasy suggestions, I'll offer one of my own. Lets have the NCAA require that all teams play half of their games on the road. That would prevent the big money teams (Michigan, Minnesota) from insisting on all home OOC games. It's an unfair advantage for those teams and is one of the reasons that Cornell doesn't schedule these teams since we refuse to do one sided agreements (at least with top caliber teams).

Neutral site games would have to be excluded from the count to prevent gaming of the numbers with tournaments.

Well, in the best of all possible worlds, the NCAA would switch to Bradley-Terry for tournament seeding, and use KASA rather than KRACH to accurately capture the challenge of playing on the road and thereby mitigate the advantage of teams playing extra home games.

The NCAA thinks Bradley-Terry was one of the basketball play-ins along with VCU-USC.

css228

Jim Hyla

css228
I think the only Ivy that is really interested in extending the OOC schedule is Cornell though. I don't see why the other schools would insist on it. However it'd be great if we could schedule the UAH's and AHA teams of the world for that first weekend and put the UNH's in the weekend before finals,

I'm not sure that the athletic departments of the schools don't want it. It seems all the schools are looking to be nationally competitive, but I doubt the whole of the universities want it. I'd see finances as the major stumbling block. Sports are more and more having to fund themselves, and trips out west aren't cheap. HE schools would be easier, and probably mutually beneficial for some. I don't know if schools like Merrimack and Northeastern routinely sell out; a home game with us might draw a lot of fans.

I guess that's true. Let's put it this way, I think Cornell is the only Ivy where the administration, not just the AD would be behind OOC schedule expansion. I'd like to see a series with PSU, MSU or Michigan get established on a regular basis if possible. Travel costs wouldn't be too bad for of those, and worse comes to worse, we could schedule neutrally against these teams in places like Philadelphia or Chicago. Miami of Ohio would also be a nice as well as Ohio State and Notre Dame. None of the travel expenses to the Midwest would be that bad. The problem is really going to play WCHA teams or either Alaska Team, or Air Force. I mean we're as close to Ohio as we are Maine.

I'm sure this has been asked before, but: if we were to schedule a trip to play at UAF or UAA, would we get an exemption above the 29-game Ivy limit?

Josh '99
I'm sure this has been asked before, but: if we were to schedule a trip to play at UAF or UAA, would we get an exemption above the 29-game Ivy limit?

I don't know but I would assume it wouldn't.

billhoward
Let's work on getting the Ivies eligible for the Division 1-A-Something football playoffs, too. The Ivy presidents discriminate against football in a way that doesn't cause them any trouble with any federal affirmative action / equal opportunities commission. Right now that benefits Harvard but in a couple years, maybe us, too.

Related to this: why is it that the Ivy champion can't play in the FCS playoffs, but lacrosse teams can play in the NCAAs during spring semester exams?

Ben

billhoward
Let's work on getting the Ivies eligible for the Division 1-A-Something football playoffs, too. The Ivy presidents discriminate against football in a way that doesn't cause them any trouble with any federal affirmative action / equal opportunities commission. Right now that benefits Harvard but in a couple years, maybe us, too.

Related to this: why is it that the Ivy champion can't play in the FCS playoffs, but lacrosse teams can play in the NCAAs during spring semester exams?

Sorry if I was unclear. I believe we're both talking about the football playoffs for the teams in the subdivision one level south of LSU, Penn State, and Alabama -- the one tha seems to get its name changed every once in a while so you're never sure which term refers to all-out football and which refers to the group one giant step below. It is a good question and I think the answer is: Just because.

billhoward

Ben

billhoward
Let's work on getting the Ivies eligible for the Division 1-A-Something football playoffs, too. The Ivy presidents discriminate against football in a way that doesn't cause them any trouble with any federal affirmative action / equal opportunities commission. Right now that benefits Harvard but in a couple years, maybe us, too.

Related to this: why is it that the Ivy champion can't play in the FCS playoffs, but lacrosse teams can play in the NCAAs during spring semester exams?

Sorry if I was unclear. I believe we're both talking about the football playoffs for the teams in the subdivision one level south of LSU, Penn State, and Alabama -- the one tha seems to get its name changed every once in a while so you're never sure which term refers to all-out football and which refers to the group one giant step below. It is a good question and I think the answer is: Just because.

Yeah, it's the same division - I was just pointing out that the normal explanation (the FCS playoffs conflict with fall semester finals) doesn't appear to apply to lacrosse.

Ben

billhoward

Ben

billhoward
Let's work on getting the Ivies eligible for the Division 1-A-Something football playoffs, too. The Ivy presidents discriminate against football in a way that doesn't cause them any trouble with any federal affirmative action / equal opportunities commission. Right now that benefits Harvard but in a couple years, maybe us, too.

Related to this: why is it that the Ivy champion can't play in the FCS playoffs, but lacrosse teams can play in the NCAAs during spring semester exams?

Sorry if I was unclear. I believe we're both talking about the football playoffs for the teams in the subdivision one level south of LSU, Penn State, and Alabama -- the one tha seems to get its name changed every once in a while so you're never sure which term refers to all-out football and which refers to the group one giant step below. It is a good question and I think the answer is: Just because.

Yeah, it's the same division - I was just pointing out that the normal explanation (the FCS playoffs conflict with fall semester finals) doesn't appear to apply to lacrosse.

Not that I agree with the policy, but they'd say football is much more intense, further travel, etc. and involves more students. Although with the way lacrosse is going they will catch up in both areas soon.

Ben

billhoward
Let's work on getting the Ivies eligible for the Division 1-A-Something football playoffs, too. The Ivy presidents discriminate against football in a way that doesn't cause them any trouble with any federal affirmative action / equal opportunities commission. Right now that benefits Harvard but in a couple years, maybe us, too.

Related to this: why is it that the Ivy champion can't play in the FCS playoffs, but lacrosse teams can play in the NCAAs during spring semester exams?

It's obvious. Football is a big-time sport, so football players must be dumb jocks. On the other hand,although there is a professional lacrosse league, college lacrosse is pretty much as big as it gets. So lacrosse players must be smarter: "Almost all of us are going to go pro in something else after graduation."

So football players can't afford to miss time from class, but lacrosse players can.

Then there's the case of Jim Brown ....

Swampy

Ben

billhoward
Let's work on getting the Ivies eligible for the Division 1-A-Something football playoffs, too. The Ivy presidents discriminate against football in a way that doesn't cause them any trouble with any federal affirmative action / equal opportunities commission. Right now that benefits Harvard but in a couple years, maybe us, too.

Related to this: why is it that the Ivy champion can't play in the FCS playoffs, but lacrosse teams can play in the NCAAs during spring semester exams?

It's obvious. Football is a big-time sport, so football players must be dumb jocks. On the other hand,although there is a professional lacrosse league, college lacrosse is pretty much as big as it gets. So lacrosse players must be smarter: "Almost all of us are going to go pro in something else after graduation."

So football players can't afford to miss time from class, but lacrosse players can.

Then there's the case of Jim Brown ....

You don't even want to know how much class is missed for the NCAA Basketball tournament. You're required to be at the site of the games 2 days early so if you go to the National championship say good-bye to a month of class.

css228

Swampy

Ben

billhoward
Let's work on getting the Ivies eligible for the Division 1-A-Something football playoffs, too. The Ivy presidents discriminate against football in a way that doesn't cause them any trouble with any federal affirmative action / equal opportunities commission. Right now that benefits Harvard but in a couple years, maybe us, too.

Related to this: why is it that the Ivy champion can't play in the FCS playoffs, but lacrosse teams can play in the NCAAs during spring semester exams?

It's obvious. Football is a big-time sport, so football players must be dumb jocks. On the other hand,although there is a professional lacrosse league, college lacrosse is pretty much as big as it gets. So lacrosse players must be smarter: "Almost all of us are going to go pro in something else after graduation."

So football players can't afford to miss time from class, but lacrosse players can.

Then there's the case of Jim Brown ....

You don't even want to know how much class is missed for the NCAA Basketball tournament. You're required to be at the site of the games 2 days early so if you go to the National championship say good-bye to a month of class.

While I totally agree with the underlying sentiment, to be fair, most schools have a spring break sprinkled in there somewhere. That doesn't excuse all the days of class missed by college basketball players going all over the nation to play mid-week games for the benefit of tv.

Chris '03

css228

Swampy

Ben

billhoward
Let's work on getting the Ivies eligible for the Division 1-A-Something football playoffs, too. The Ivy presidents discriminate against football in a way that doesn't cause them any trouble with any federal affirmative action / equal opportunities commission. Right now that benefits Harvard but in a couple years, maybe us, too.

Related to this: why is it that the Ivy champion can't play in the FCS playoffs, but lacrosse teams can play in the NCAAs during spring semester exams?

It's obvious. Football is a big-time sport, so football players must be dumb jocks. On the other hand,although there is a professional lacrosse league, college lacrosse is pretty much as big as it gets. So lacrosse players must be smarter: "Almost all of us are going to go pro in something else after graduation."

So football players can't afford to miss time from class, but lacrosse players can.

Then there's the case of Jim Brown ....

You don't even want to know how much class is missed for the NCAA Basketball tournament. You're required to be at the site of the games 2 days early so if you go to the National championship say good-bye to a month of class.

While I totally agree with the underlying sentiment, to be fair, most schools have a spring break sprinkled in there somewhere. That doesn't excuse all the days of class missed by college basketball players going all over the nation to play mid-week games for the benefit of tv.

Yeah, but the be there 2 days prior for media obligations is just totally unnecessary. It means if you have a Thursday game, depending on where you're going, you attend Monday's class at most. If it's a Friday then its a Monday and maybe a Tuesday you attend.

css228

Swampy

Ben

billhoward
Let's work on getting the Ivies eligible for the Division 1-A-Something football playoffs, too. The Ivy presidents discriminate against football in a way that doesn't cause them any trouble with any federal affirmative action / equal opportunities commission. Right now that benefits Harvard but in a couple years, maybe us, too.

Related to this: why is it that the Ivy champion can't play in the FCS playoffs, but lacrosse teams can play in the NCAAs during spring semester exams?

It's obvious. Football is a big-time sport, so football players must be dumb jocks. On the other hand,although there is a professional lacrosse league, college lacrosse is pretty much as big as it gets. So lacrosse players must be smarter: "Almost all of us are going to go pro in something else after graduation."

So football players can't afford to miss time from class, but lacrosse players can.

Then there's the case of Jim Brown ....

You don't even want to know how much class is missed for the NCAA Basketball tournament. You're required to be at the site of the games 2 days early so if you go to the National championship say good-bye to a month of class.

I was going to make a snarky comment about how players on teams that go to the Final Four don't go to class anyway, but I guess maybe that isn't the case for VCU and Butler.

I wonder if Calipari has improved on his UMass graduation rate (zero point zero) in his more recent travels.

I wonder if Calipari has decreased his NCAA Violation rate (major violations at both his last 2 jobs) in his newest job

Jim Hyla

Ben

billhoward

Ben

billhoward
Let's work on getting the Ivies eligible for the Division 1-A-Something football playoffs, too. The Ivy presidents discriminate against football in a way that doesn't cause them any trouble with any federal affirmative action / equal opportunities commission. Right now that benefits Harvard but in a couple years, maybe us, too.

Related to this: why is it that the Ivy champion can't play in the FCS playoffs, but lacrosse teams can play in the NCAAs during spring semester exams?

Sorry if I was unclear. I believe we're both talking about the football playoffs for the teams in the subdivision one level south of LSU, Penn State, and Alabama -- the one tha seems to get its name changed every once in a while so you're never sure which term refers to all-out football and which refers to the group one giant step below. It is a good question and I think the answer is: Just because.

Yeah, it's the same division - I was just pointing out that the normal explanation (the FCS playoffs conflict with fall semester finals) doesn't appear to apply to lacrosse.

Not that I agree with the policy, but they'd say football is much more intense, further travel, etc. and involves more students. Although with the way lacrosse is going they will catch up in both areas soon.

Here's my theory. The Ivy League made a big political statement against the "professionalization" of college football back in the day by refusing to participate in Bowl Games. Even though the later D-IAA playoffs were a whole different beast, the league didn't want to step back from it's political statement. By now, of course, it's largely just inertia. Ivy football is irrelevant, the FCS playoffs are largely irrelevant (who outside of the schools involved actually pays attention to it?) so there isn't much of an impetus to change the rule, even if it is silly and inconsistent.

KeithK
the FCS playoffs are largely irrelevant (who outside of the schools involved actually pays attention to it?)

Which is too bad, actually, because it can be a really interesting playoff.

KeithK
The Ivy League made a big political statement against the "professionalization" of college football back in the day by refusing to participate in Bowl Games. Even though the later D-IAA playoffs were a whole different beast, the league didn't want to step back from it's political statement. By now, of course, it's largely just inertia. Ivy football is irrelevant, the FCS playoffs are largely irrelevant (who outside of the schools involved actually pays attention to it?) so there isn't much of an impetus to change the rule, even if it is silly and inconsistent.

It's not inertia. There is a lot of prestige in the Ivies' "above it all" attitude. It's to their (er, our) detriment to get good in football or, to a lesser extent, basketball, because being competitive with factory programs fuels speculation that you're no better than they academically (which is entirely appropriate -- e.g., Duke basketball, Northwestern football, and Stanford everything).

The Ivy emphasis on the student-athlete is both laudable and a gold mine.

KeithK

Jim Hyla

Ben

billhoward

Ben

billhoward
Let's work on getting the Ivies eligible for the Division 1-A-Something football playoffs, too. The Ivy presidents discriminate against football in a way that doesn't cause them any trouble with any federal affirmative action / equal opportunities commission. Right now that benefits Harvard but in a couple years, maybe us, too.

Related to this: why is it that the Ivy champion can't play in the FCS playoffs, but lacrosse teams can play in the NCAAs during spring semester exams?

Sorry if I was unclear. I believe we're both talking about the football playoffs for the teams in the subdivision one level south of LSU, Penn State, and Alabama -- the one tha seems to get its name changed every once in a while so you're never sure which term refers to all-out football and which refers to the group one giant step below. It is a good question and I think the answer is: Just because.

Yeah, it's the same division - I was just pointing out that the normal explanation (the FCS playoffs conflict with fall semester finals) doesn't appear to apply to lacrosse.

Not that I agree with the policy, but they'd say football is much more intense, further travel, etc. and involves more students. Although with the way lacrosse is going they will catch up in both areas soon.

Here's my theory. The Ivy League made a big political statement against the "professionalization" of college football back in the day by refusing to participate in Bowl Games. Even though the later D-IAA playoffs were a whole different beast, the league didn't want to step back from it's political statement. By now, of course, it's largely just inertia. Ivy football is irrelevant, the FCS playoffs are largely irrelevant (who outside of the schools involved actually pays attention to it?) so there isn't much of an impetus to change the rule, even if it is silly and inconsistent.

But the same can be said about all of hockey, and we still like our playoffs. FCS playoffs are for the athletes, not the consumer. That's the way it should be, and that makes it more relevant to the purpose of athletics.

Trotsky

KeithK
The Ivy League made a big political statement against the "professionalization" of college football back in the day by refusing to participate in Bowl Games. Even though the later D-IAA playoffs were a whole different beast, the league didn't want to step back from it's political statement. By now, of course, it's largely just inertia. Ivy football is irrelevant, the FCS playoffs are largely irrelevant (who outside of the schools involved actually pays attention to it?) so there isn't much of an impetus to change the rule, even if it is silly and inconsistent.

It's not inertia. There is a lot of prestige in the Ivies' "above it all" attitude. It's to their (er, our) detriment to get good in football or, to a lesser extent, basketball, because being competitive with factory programs fuels speculation that you're no better than they academically (which is entirely appropriate -- e.g., Duke basketball, Northwestern football, and Stanford everything).

The Ivy emphasis on the student-athlete is both laudable and a gold mine.

I was discounting that factor a bit. I agree that there is some of that in play when it comes to football. but it's really an anachronistic response when we're talking about postseason football today. Playing in the FCS playoffs will not put us on the level of the factory schools. It won't get us any national attention for sports. It won't dilute our student-athlete approach any more than participating in lax or hockey playoffs do.

In the end, football is different than the other sports because of the history - it's where the Ivies made their big stand against factory athletics. Staying out of the FCS playoffs is at least a symbolic nod to that history, even if it's not comparable. So maybe more symbolism than inertia.

Jim Hyla

KeithK
Here's my theory. The Ivy League made a big political statement against the "professionalization" of college football back in the day by refusing to participate in Bowl Games. Even though the later D-IAA playoffs were a whole different beast, the league didn't want to step back from it's political statement. By now, of course, it's largely just inertia. Ivy football is irrelevant, the FCS playoffs are largely irrelevant (who outside of the schools involved actually pays attention to it?) so there isn't much of an impetus to change the rule, even if it is silly and inconsistent.

But the same can be said about all of hockey, and we still like our playoffs. FCS playoffs are for the athletes, not the consumer. That's the way it should be, and that makes it more relevant to the purpose of athletics.

You are absolutely right. But the history and the symbolism (see post in response to Greg) of staying out football postseason keeps the Ivies from participating.

That's true, though that history is reinforced every time a program at any level commits another outrage. Football continues to be radioactive because it continues to be uniquely, astoundingly corrupt.

Trotsky
That's true, though that history is reinforced every time a program at any level commits another outrage. Football continues to be radioactive because it continues to be uniquely, astoundingly corrupt.

Compared to basketball?

Jeff Hopkins '82

Trotsky
That's true, though that history is reinforced every time a program at any level commits another outrage. Football continues to be radioactive because it continues to be uniquely, astoundingly corrupt.

Compared to basketball?

Historically, yeah I think so. Basketball is like high school sports -- you know the perennial contenders are cheating but there is also dependably that 25-33% of teams that crest every few years and win legitimately. Football on the other hand is the market scene in Casablanca. "Vultures, everywhere vultures." Even the teams that are losing are habitually cheating; just not well enough.

PBS had a good show about the NCAA last night. Its premise was that the NCAA's purpose is to channel the revenues generated by college sports from college atheletes to the administrators of college athletic programs and to coaches. This is so obvious it's hard to believe they felt a show was needed to expound upon it.

Not only can players not be paid while they are performing, they are required to sign over to the NCAA all their rights to the use of their images and recordings of their performances in perpetutity. They are excluded from all the revenue generated by ESPN Classic rebroadcasts, use of their images in games, etc. All of it goes to the NCAA and to the athletic departments of its members.

In exchange for this they are given free tuition, board, books and whatever, most of which their own lack of preparation and the demands of their athletic endeavors prevent them from exploiting anyway. And, just to be sure they don't sacrifice their athletic preparation to their academic, their scholarships, by NCAA rule, are limited to 1 year. i.e., an athletic scholarship is subject to annual renewal.

As much as intercollegiate athletics exploits the atheletes, it corrupts the wider student body even more. The experiences of students as fans of winning atheltic teams are so intense and passionate that they in too many cases overwhelm the academic ones.

I've worked with Notre Dame alumni, a great university. Their primary relation to the school is through its football team. They learned their profession there, but emotionally, their formative experience was directed by Touchdown Jesus, as opposed to just Jesus. I'd venture that many of the Lynah Faithful share a experience similar to theirs, myself included.

At the SEC, Big 10 schools it's even worse. As are the perversions those universites must endure to keep their fans happy and their contributions flowing.

I'd probably feel differently if the hockey team were better, but maybe it's time for CU to go the way of UC, The University of Chicago. Intercollegiate competition is an escalating arms race. What made Cornell successful 40 years ago or even 10 will not do anymore. If we hope to compete with Notre Dame, Michigan, BC, great universities that offer atheletic scholarships, we must up our ante then see them when they raise. And that's not even counting the lesser academic lights who are even less constrained.

cu722001, good post but I disagree with a few points.

The corruption of the wider student body is, I think, overstressed, and this coming from an old fogey who thinks it's all been downhill since we stopped requiring classical languages. And at any rate, it's nothing new. Obsession with how the football team did long pre-dates the NC$$: "I will not permit twenty-two young men to travel 1,500 miles for the purpose of agitating a pig's bladder." -- Andrew Dickson White.

The primary bone I have to pick is with the sentence "I'd probably feel differently if the hockey team were better." Sometimes I feel like we're in Opposite World. People do realize that the hockey team is VERY good, don't they? Over the last decade they have been more competitive than at any time since the Harkness Golden Age.

cu722001
PBS had a good show about the NCAA last night. Its premise was that the NCAA's purpose is to channel the revenues generated by college sports from college atheletes to the administrators of college athletic programs and to coaches. This is so obvious it's hard to believe they felt a show was needed to expound upon it.

Not only can players not be paid while they are performing, they are required to sign over to the NCAA all their rights to the use of their images and recordings of their performances in perpetutity. They are excluded from all the revenue generated by ESPN Classic rebroadcasts, use of their images in games, etc. All of it goes to the NCAA and to the athletic departments of its members.

In exchange for this they are given free tuition, board, books and whatever, most of which their own lack of preparation and the demands of their athletic endeavors prevent them from exploiting anyway. And, just to be sure they don't sacrifice their athletic preparation to their academic, their scholarships, by NCAA rule, are limited to 1 year. i.e., an athletic scholarship is subject to annual renewal.

As much as intercollegiate athletics exploits the atheletes, it corrupts the wider student body even more. The experiences of students as fans of winning atheltic teams are so intense and passionate that they in too many cases overwhelm the academic ones.

I've worked with Notre Dame alumni, a great university. Their primary relation to the school is through its football team. They learned their profession there, but emotionally, their formative experience was directed by Touchdown Jesus, as opposed to just Jesus. I'd venture that many of the Lynah Faithful share a experience similar to theirs, myself included.

At the SEC, Big 10 schools it's even worse. As are the perversions those universites must endure to keep their fans happy and their contributions flowing.

I'd probably feel differently if the hockey team were better, but maybe it's time for CU to go the way of UC, The University of Chicago. Intercollegiate competition is an escalating arms race. What made Cornell successful 40 years ago or even 10 will not do anymore. If we hope to compete with Notre Dame, Michigan, BC, great universities that offer atheletic scholarships, we must up our ante then see them when they raise. And that's not even counting the lesser academic lights who are even less constrained.

This is a very good, insightful post. I'd just add two things.

1. The low academic standards that allow athletes at factory schools to stay in school are not confined to just athletes. At most of these schools, tuition is a major source of revenue, and there is little incentive for administrators to push for high academic standards. Instead they push for "retention" and faculty "productivity" but do little to prevent, and much to encourage, lower standards as being the central way for faculty members to achieve these goals. This culture has infected all of higher education. RateMyProfessor.com even has a category for how easy a professor's courses are.

2. While all of us have connections to Cornell through sports, I don't think that's all or even the main thing for most alumni who feel connected. This forum is a biased, self-selecting sample, but I don't think even most of us have sports as the main thing. Cornell prides itself on its academic standards, and we all have fun poking at the easy A's at Harvard. Cornell is "the easiest Ivy to get into, the hardest to graduate from," and I have to think that most of us take great pride in this. We also feel pride when we read about things like our football coach landing a blue-chip recruit who asked recruiters from other schools, "I know how many other Samoans you have on your team, but how many of your players graduate majoring in civil engineering?" I think all of us agree, we'd rather maintain the academic standards and culture, even if it means winning a national championship only once or twice in our lifetimes.

Trotsky
cu722001, good post but I disagree with a few points.

The corruption of the wider student body is, I think, overstressed, and this coming from an old fogey who thinks it's all been downhill since we stopped requiring classical languages. And at any rate, it's nothing new. Obsession with how the football team did long pre-dates the NC$$: "I will not permit twenty-two young men to travel 1,500 miles for the purpose of agitating a pig's bladder." -- Andrew Dixon White.

The primary bone I have to pick is with the sentence "I'd probably feel differently if the hockey team were better." Sometimes I feel like we're in Opposite World. People do realize that the hockey team is VERY good, don't they? Over the last decade they have been more competitive than at any time since the Harkness Golden Age.

Dixon? From someone who mourns the passing of classical languages? Sacrilege. It's Dickson.

Swampy
Cornell is "the easiest Ivy to get into, the hardest to graduate from," and I have to think that most of us take great pride in this.

Is this still true? I know that my freshman year, the first thing we were told was 'look left, look right... one of you three will not make it to graduation.' This is no longer the case. When I compared Cornell's Freshman retention rate and 6 year graduation rates to schools my son is deciding between, I was shocked to see Cornell's numbers around 95% for freshman retention, and 90% for 6 year graduation.

University of Chicago's unofficial motto is "Where fun goes to die." On behalf of every current student that chose Cornell specifically because it has a great balance of fun bigtime state school atmosphere and serious academic study, that's not who we are. We take our studies seriously but we still have a good time. Its like a more studious Big Ten school in a lot of ways. If I really wanted to go to a school that viewed itself like uchicago and had very little school spirit, I probably would have applied to uchicago...

Al DeFlorio
Dixon? From someone who mourns the passing of classical languages? Sacrilege. It's Dickson.

OK, I officially suck.

Cornell's freshman retention and graduation numbers are now higher than those stated above, and pretty comparable to the other Ivies.

css228
On behalf of every current student that chose Cornell specifically because it has a great balance of fun bigtime state school atmosphere and serious academic study

Um... either our ideas of bigtime state school atmosphere are very different, or, like Rick Blaine, you were "misinformed."

(Link: the University of Arizona's annual "Jungle Party." )

Trotsky

Al DeFlorio
Dixon? From someone who mourns the passing of classical languages? Sacrilege. It's Dickson.

OK, I officially suck.

Hey ADW! Yo' momma's so horny that in tribute they put her name on a dorm where there's banging in every room all day and all night.

(Sorry, I struggled and still failed... I had to say something about where I lived for four years, though.)

Trotsky

css228
On behalf of every current student that chose Cornell specifically because it has a great balance of fun bigtime state school atmosphere and serious academic study

Um... either our ideas of bigtime state school atmosphere are very different, or, like Rick Blaine, you were "misinformed."

(Link: the University of Arizona's annual "Jungle Party." )

I probably chose the wrong words, but my point stands that unlike the rest of the ivies or schools like uchicago we balance the greek party scene with a spirited athletic life, and and serious academics. I'm not trying to say we party like Arizona or PSU, (except the track team when they throw down) but I am saying that we probably have one of the best balances of state school style greek driven social scene, athletic life, and academics of any school in the country and we shouldn't because a funless vaccuum like chicago.

I dunno. Things have changed or we traveled in different circles (both likely true), but aside from the occasional SCA event at Risley I don't remember too many moments of "party scene" at Cornell.



Artsy GDIs may simply be more studious.

Trotsky
I dunno. Things have changed or we traveled in different circles (both likely true), but aside from the occasional SCA event at Risley I don't remember too many moments of "party scene" at Cornell.

banquet2_1.JPG

Artsy GDIs may simply be more studious.

If you consider SCA events to be "the Cornell party scene" then you and css228 are speaking entirely different languages altogether.

Josh '99

Trotsky
I dunno. Things have changed or we traveled in different circles (both likely true), but aside from the occasional SCA event at Risley I don't remember too many moments of "party scene" at Cornell.

banquet2_1.JPG

Artsy GDIs may simply be more studious.

If you consider SCA events to be "the Cornell party scene" then you and css228 are speaking entirely different languages altogether.

Yes most of the people I know are greeks and athletes. To each their own though. Great thing about Cornell is it can be whatever you want it to be. Just like at a student at Arizona could never leave the library, I know a few students here who seem to be unable to find their way to class.

cu722001
As much as intercollegiate athletics exploits the atheletes, it corrupts the wider student body even more. The experiences of students as fans of winning atheltic teams are so intense and passionate that they in too many cases overwhelm the academic ones.

I've worked with Notre Dame alumni, a great university. Their primary relation to the school is through its football team. They learned their profession there, but emotionally, their formative experience was directed by Touchdown Jesus, as opposed to just Jesus. I'd venture that many of the Lynah Faithful share a experience similar to theirs, myself included.

At the SEC, Big 10 schools it's even worse. As are the perversions those universites must endure to keep their fans happy and their contributions flowing.

I understand the arguments about big time athletics taking advantage of athletes. But why exactly is athletics fandom "corrupting"? It helps create a community, brings enjoyment (mostly) and doesn't really have negative consequences. Are you just arguing that schools have to spend money on athletics (and exploit athletes) to keep the fans happy? Or is it more an aesthetic statement that students/alums don't appreciate academics because they focus on athletics?

From my perspective the whole business model of higher ed - relying on massive, continuing contributions from previous customers - is flawed. But I don't see how you change that now.

KeithK

cu722001
As much as intercollegiate athletics exploits the atheletes, it corrupts the wider student body even more. The experiences of students as fans of winning atheltic teams are so intense and passionate that they in too many cases overwhelm the academic ones.

I've worked with Notre Dame alumni, a great university. Their primary relation to the school is through its football team. They learned their profession there, but emotionally, their formative experience was directed by Touchdown Jesus, as opposed to just Jesus. I'd venture that many of the Lynah Faithful share a experience similar to theirs, myself included.

At the SEC, Big 10 schools it's even worse. As are the perversions those universites must endure to keep their fans happy and their contributions flowing.

I understand the arguments about big time athletics taking advantage of athletes. But why exactly is athletics fandom "corrupting"? It helps create a community, brings enjoyment (mostly) and doesn't really have negative consequences. Are you just arguing that schools have to spend money on athletics (and exploit athletes) to keep the fans happy? Or is it more an aesthetic statement that students/alums don't appreciate academics because they focus on athletics?

From my perspective the whole business model of higher ed - relying on massive, continuing contributions from previous customers - is flawed. But I don't see how you change that now.

But my problem is that in scholarship schools, too much of that money goes to the athletic department and not to the school itself. At least in the Ivys, I think most of those that donate to sports, donate more to the academic side.

Jim Hyla

KeithK

cu722001
As much as intercollegiate athletics exploits the atheletes, it corrupts the wider student body even more. The experiences of students as fans of winning atheltic teams are so intense and passionate that they in too many cases overwhelm the academic ones.

I've worked with Notre Dame alumni, a great university. Their primary relation to the school is through its football team. They learned their profession there, but emotionally, their formative experience was directed by Touchdown Jesus, as opposed to just Jesus. I'd venture that many of the Lynah Faithful share a experience similar to theirs, myself included.

At the SEC, Big 10 schools it's even worse. As are the perversions those universites must endure to keep their fans happy and their contributions flowing.

I understand the arguments about big time athletics taking advantage of athletes. But why exactly is athletics fandom "corrupting"? It helps create a community, brings enjoyment (mostly) and doesn't really have negative consequences. Are you just arguing that schools have to spend money on athletics (and exploit athletes) to keep the fans happy? Or is it more an aesthetic statement that students/alums don't appreciate academics because they focus on athletics?

From my perspective the whole business model of higher ed - relying on massive, continuing contributions from previous customers - is flawed. But I don't see how you change that now.

But my problem is that in scholarship schools, too much of that money goes to the athletic department and not to the school itself. At least in the Ivys, I think most of those that donate to sports, donate more to the academic side.

Not to mention people who don't need scholarships receive them all the time. Tyler Hansbrough's dad was a surgeon. I'm sure they could have afforded North Carolina's expensive OOS Tutition that costs less than Cornell's in state tuition.

Jim Hyla

KeithK
I understand the arguments about big time athletics taking advantage of athletes. But why exactly is athletics fandom "corrupting"? It helps create a community, brings enjoyment (mostly) and doesn't really have negative consequences. Are you just arguing that schools have to spend money on athletics (and exploit athletes) to keep the fans happy? Or is it more an aesthetic statement that students/alums don't appreciate academics because they focus on athletics?

From my perspective the whole business model of higher ed - relying on massive, continuing contributions from previous customers - is flawed. But I don't see how you change that now.

But my problem is that in scholarship schools, too much of that money goes to the athletic department and not to the school itself. At least in the Ivys, I think most of those that donate to sports, donate more to the academic side.

So is the complaint that people who would otherwise donate money to the academic side of institutions are instead giving it to athletic programs, thus starving academics? That assumes that it's an either or proposition, that those who donate specific gifts to athletics would give the money to academics (or general funds) in the absence of the sports culture. I'm not sure that's true.

KeithK
From my perspective the whole business model of higher ed - relying on massive, continuing contributions from previous customers - is flawed.

Brilliantly said. I have always been Pissed Off about paying for private school, and being solicited to contribute EVEN MORE. I was also amazed that most families (according to the school) did contribute beyond tuition.

nshapiro

KeithK
From my perspective the whole business model of higher ed - relying on massive, continuing contributions from previous customers - is flawed.

Brilliantly said. I have always been Pissed Off about paying for private school, and being solicited to contribute EVEN MORE. I was also amazed that most families (according to the school) did contribute beyond tuition.

Although interestingly (I'm sure Beeeej has concrete numbers for this) private school alumni have both higher giving rates and give larger amounts than public school alumni. I don't know whether that's still true if you adjust for wealth of the donor -- it may be that private schools have that much higher a concentration of wealthy alumni -- but the dime store sociologist reason I've heard is private school = greater sense of community. For that matter, it may not withstand adjusting for size, either -- it may simply be a matter of smaller schools fostering a greater sense of belonging.

I have always been impressed by how strong an allegiance Cornellians have for our school even though it is both relatively large and "relatively public."

Edit: from this source quoting the USNWR rankings:

% of Alumni Giving , National Universities
60% , Princeton
53% , Dartmouth
51% , Notre Dame
43% , Yale
41% , Harvard
40% , Duke
40% , Brown
38% , U Penn
37% , MIT
37% , Wash U
36% , Stanford
36% , Columbia
36% , Emory
34% , Cornell
34% , Rice
33% , Johns Hopkins
32% , U Chicago
30% , Northwestern
29% , Caltech
28% , Georgetown
25% , Vanderbilt
24% , U Virginia
22% , Carnegie Mellon
14% , UC Berkeley
14% , UCLA


% of Alumni Giving , Liberal Arts Colleges

64% , Carleton
61% , Amherst
60% , Williams
58% , Middlebury
55% , Bowdoin
54% , Davidson
51% , Wesleyan
50% , Swarthmore
50% , Wellesley
49% , Haverford
48% , W&L
48% , Colby
47% , Pomona
45% , Claremont McK
43% , Grinnell
43% , Colgate
43% , Hamilton
43% , Bates
42% , Bryn Mawr
42% , Macalester
41% , Oberlin
38% , Harvey Mudd
38% , Smith
35% , Vassar
34% , US Military Acad
23% , US Naval Acad 

Trotsky



% of Alumni Giving , Liberal Arts Colleges

64% , Carleton
61% , Amherst
60% , Williams
58% , Middlebury
.
.
.
.
.

34% , US Military Acad
23% , US Naval Acad

??


I thought of these two as more or less engineering schools. Interesting categorization.

As an aside, I give more (and regularly) to the University of Michigan than to Cornell or my other Alma Mater (U of Ill.). Michigan arranged for a fellowship with a stipend and I will be finished paying my debt when I breath my last. Until then U of M and eLynah get annual donations.

marty
I thought of these two as more or less engineering schools. Interesting categorization.

Good point. I think they just didn't have a place for them.

The moral of the story is soldiers, engineers and New Yorkers are free loaders.

KeithK

Jim Hyla

KeithK
I understand the arguments about big time athletics taking advantage of athletes. But why exactly is athletics fandom "corrupting"? It helps create a community, brings enjoyment (mostly) and doesn't really have negative consequences. Are you just arguing that schools have to spend money on athletics (and exploit athletes) to keep the fans happy? Or is it more an aesthetic statement that students/alums don't appreciate academics because they focus on athletics?

From my perspective the whole business model of higher ed - relying on massive, continuing contributions from previous customers - is flawed. But I don't see how you change that now.

But my problem is that in scholarship schools, too much of that money goes to the athletic department and not to the school itself. At least in the Ivys, I think most of those that donate to sports, donate more to the academic side.

So is the complaint that people who would otherwise donate money to the academic side of institutions are instead giving it to athletic programs, thus starving academics? That assumes that it's an either or proposition, that those who donate specific gifts to athletics would give the money to academics (or general funds) in the absence of the sports culture. I'm not sure that's true.

I certainly don't know the answer. But at least I would think it would be easier to solicit for academics if they weren't also being pitched heavily by athletics. Certainly in Syracuse there are friends that I know who give substantial amounts to SU to get good seats, etc. They don't do nearly as much to the academic side as many of my CU friends do. None of that proves anything, maybe someone has studied it, but I don't care enough to search it.

Trotsky
% of Alumni Giving , Liberal Arts Colleges

34% , US Military Acad
23% , US Naval Acad

Nitpick: I would assume that those figures exclude the fact that virtually all of us give money to those schools via the IRS?

Josh '99

Trotsky
% of Alumni Giving , Liberal Arts Colleges

34% , US Military Acad
23% , US Naval Acad

Nitpick: I would assume that those figures exclude the fact that virtually all of us give money to those schools via the IRS?

Don't remind me. I just did my taxes last night

Trotsky

Al DeFlorio
Dixon? From someone who mourns the passing of classical languages? Sacrilege. It's Dickson.

OK, I officially sux.

FYP. (Thanks for the freebie)

Josh '99

Trotsky
% of Alumni Giving , Liberal Arts Colleges

34% , US Military Acad
23% , US Naval Acad

Nitpick: I would assume that those figures exclude the fact that virtually all of us give money to those schools via the IRS?

I hope that a greater % of military grads than that pay taxes.

nshapiro

Swampy
Cornell is "the easiest Ivy to get into, the hardest to graduate from," and I have to think that most of us take great pride in this.

Is this still true? I know that my freshman year, the first thing we were told was 'look left, look right... one of you three will not make it to graduation.' This is no longer the case. When I compared Cornell's Freshman retention rate and 6 year graduation rates to schools my son is deciding between, I was shocked to see Cornell's numbers around 95% for freshman retention, and 90% for 6 year graduation.

You've got two different things going on here. Low retention could be due to high academic standards OR due to students unprepared for college, low financial aid, not being able to get classes, 60% of courses taught by part-time lecturers, a physical plant resembling Hiroshima in 1946, etc. On the other hand, if a school is attracting extremely well-prepared, serious students, can control costs and financial aid so that students can work for money at most a limited number of hours per week, and keep partying confined to alternate weekends, it can have high academic standards AND high retention and 4-year graduation rates.

This is why the Ivies do so well. It's also why things like SAT scores are such poor predictors of student success in the Ivies: the scores are so similar among students that there's not enough variation to make much of a difference.

How would a Ivy League split from ECAC work out? You have 6 Ivy schools, so you would play the other schools 4 times each for a total of 20 league games. That would free up 2 extra games from the current ECAC format for a total of 9 non conference games.

NYBIGred80
How would a Ivy League split from ECAC work out? You have 6 Ivy schools, so you would play the other schools 4 times each for a total of 20 league games. That would free up 2 extra games from the current ECAC format for a total of 9 non conference games.

It wouldn't work. What will is a merger of WCHA and CCHA.

NYBIGred80
How would a Ivy League split from ECAC work out?

I'm imagining it would result in the Ivy League schools' eventual national irrelevance. Also see: football.

Kyle Rose

NYBIGred80
How would a Ivy League split from ECAC work out?

I'm imagining it would result in the Ivy League schools' eventual national irrelevance. Also see: football.

Probably though we'd stand a better chance of relevance in hockey. Still, best not tempt fate.

Yeesh, I enjoy games against Harvard as much as the next Cornell fan, but four scheduled per year would be a bit much, plus would we have anybody left healthy after four games against Brown?

Plus then you'd need to use some of those NC slots to schedule at least Clarkson and RPI and Colgate. I don't really think it works as a separate conference.

We already have trouble filling the seven non-conference games with decent opponents (see non-conf games against Colgate, UAH). Now you're going to add more non-confs? Oh wait, we can just fill the slate with games against our old ECAC opponents! So you end up with a schedule that looks sort of similar to what we had before except that instead of a few decent non-conf games we get more games against Brown and Dartmouth! Yeah, that sounds appealing.

KeithK
We already have trouble filling the seven non-conference games with decent opponents (see non-conf games against Colgate, UAH). Now you're going to add more non-confs? Oh wait, we can just fill the slate with games against our old ECAC opponents! So you end up with a schedule that looks sort of similar to what we had before except that instead of a few decent non-conf games we don't play anybody, just Brom and Darmouth! Yeah, that sounds appealing.

FYP