Why does Cornell football have such little success?

At one time Cornell was a national football power, beating the likes of Michigan, playing in packed stadiums, and claiming 5 national championships. In 1956 it affiliated with the Ivy League, and since then it has shared the Ivy football championship three times, but never winning it outright. Only Columbia (1 shared championship in 1961) has done worse. This is despite having several HOF-calibre coaches (e.g., George Seifert 1975-6, Bob Blackman 1977-1982).

Along with Brown, which has won 4 championships, Columbia and Cornell football are the dregs of the Ivy League. Other than these three, every other Ivy has won at least 11 championships (Princeton) and as many as 18 (Penn).

So what's the explanation for why Cornell football sucks so much?

Columbia went 8-2 last year. They turned it around by devoting greater resources to the program & hiring an outstanding coach.

H/Y/P have more generous need-based aid and better academic reputations (particularly in the courses of study that better accommodate an athlete's schedule). That we routinely finish ahead of them in hockey and wrestling (and other sports, I assume) says a lot about the strength of those coaching staffs but doesn't exactly prove that Archer sucks.

Swampy
So what's the explanation for why Cornell football sucks so much?

HYP has a higher number of Monty Burns alumni who live or die by "The Big Game."




Cornell does have its own well-heeled Upper Class Twits of the Year, but they seem far less invested in the football team (and goddamnit the hockey team). The result is less cough "development" (vanity donations).

It could likewise be that HYP physically lie within the geographical stomping grounds of Sauron Partners Limited, Evil Corp., and the other hateful legal and financial firms populated by the douchebags HYP pumps out, while Ithaca is a long Cessna flight from where our comparatively fewer (and poorer) douchebags bilk the proles.

Or maybe we're just smarter and intuitively understand football is dumb.

Trotsky
HYP has a higher number of Monty Burns alumni who live or die by "The Big Game."

Cool! Do they watch it on TV, or occasionally fly out west to see it in person?

French Rage

Trotsky
HYP has a higher number of Monty Burns alumni who live or die by "The Big Game."

Cool! Do they watch it on TV, or occasionally fly out west to see it in person?

With the exception of the murder victim in The Postman Always Rings Twice, it's safe to say that nobody has, does, or will ever care about a derby between two insufferable left coast also rans.

CAS
Columbia went 8-2 last year. They turned it around by devoting greater resources to the program & hiring an outstanding coach.

But in part my point is that Cornell has had outstanding coaches and still lost (cf. e.g., Seifert's record). I don't know what resources they were given, but presumably someone like Blackman would bargain for the resources he needed before he would agree to come to Ithaca.

So I think there must be more to explain our woeful record. Is there?

ugarte
H/Y/P have more generous need-based aid and better academic reputations (particularly in the courses of study that better accommodate an athlete's schedule). That we routinely finish ahead of them in hockey and wrestling (and other sports, I assume) says a lot about the strength of those coaching staffs but doesn't exactly prove that Archer sucks.

IIRC, the exceptional need-based aid is relatively recent. And to protect themselves, the other 5 Ivies adopted various counter strategies. So what explains the HYP schools' relative dominance since the late 1950s?

And what about Dartmouth & Penn!!!! Outside of the HYP group, I don't think the other Ivies are significantly different in their reputations. Maybe one can attribute Dartmouth's relative success to Bob Blackman's exceptional record. But surely Penn is not unquestionably more prestigious than Cornell. This ranking has Penn tied for 10th in the world (ahead of Yale & Columbia) with Cornell 19th. (Dartmouth is #99.) But this ranking, only for the U.S., has Cornell at #8 and Penn at #35. (Dartmouth didn't make the list.)

Also, the fact that both Penn & Dartmouth are among the winning programs demonstrates that urban/rural locations are not particularly germane.

From 1987 - 2000, Cornell football had 10 winning & only 4 losing Ivy seasons. If Columbia can turn football around, I don’t see why we can’t.

Trotsky

Swampy
So what's the explanation for why Cornell football sucks so much?

HYP has a higher number of Monty Burns alumni who live or die by "The Big Game."

True, no doubt. (Not to mention Supreme Court & Politician Twits.)

Trotsky
Cornell does have its own well-heeled Upper Class Twits of the Year, but they seem far less invested in the football team (and goddamnit the hockey team). The result is less cough "development" (vanity donations).

So let's say, for the sake of argument, that this is true. It still doesn't explain why their twits are more likely than ours to support their respective football teams.

Trotsky
It could likewise be that HYP physically lie within the geographical stomping grounds of Sauron Partners Limited, Evil Corp., and the other hateful legal and financial firms populated by the douchebags HYP pumps out, while Ithaca is a long Cessna flight from where our comparatively fewer (and poorer) douchebags bilk the proles.

This hypothesis would likely cover Penn too. But then it doesn't explain the two anomalies: Dartmouth (also located in the north woods but having a strong winning record) and Columbia (located at the heart of the beast but with a long-term record even worse than ours).

Trotsky
Or maybe we're just smarter and intuitively understand football is dumb.

Smarter, no doubt. But then why are we having this conversation?

CAS
Columbia went 8-2 last year. They turned it around by devoting greater resources to the program & hiring an outstanding coach.

That's all it takes! David Archer's win/loss record which currently stands at: (15-43 overall, .259; 11-29, Ivy, .275). If Cornell doesn't make a change at the end of this season, you'll know how little they care about the sport,

Swampy
Smarter, no doubt. But then why are we having this conversation?

Because we're at work and hockey hasn't started yet.

Swampy

CAS
Columbia went 8-2 last year. They turned it around by devoting greater resources to the program & hiring an outstanding coach.

But in part my point is that Cornell has had outstanding coaches and still lost (cf. e.g., Seifert's record). I don't know what resources they were given, but presumably someone like Blackman would bargain for the resources he needed before he would agree to come to Ithaca.

So I think there must be more to explain our woeful record. Is there?

One issue I've heard from coaches is the difficulty of having to deal with six or seven undergraduate admissions departments.

Al DeFlorio

Swampy

CAS
Columbia went 8-2 last year. They turned it around by devoting greater resources to the program & hiring an outstanding coach.

But in part my point is that Cornell has had outstanding coaches and still lost (cf. e.g., Seifert's record). I don't know what resources they were given, but presumably someone like Blackman would bargain for the resources he needed before he would agree to come to Ithaca.

So I think there must be more to explain our woeful record. Is there?

One issue I've heard from coaches is the difficulty of having to deal with six or seven undergraduate admissions departments.

Didn't they create an athletics-admissions "clearing house" sort of structure several years ago to deal with that problem? That's what I'm remembering, anyway - and I'm remembering some discussion of it here.

Beeeej

Al DeFlorio

Swampy

CAS
Columbia went 8-2 last year. They turned it around by devoting greater resources to the program & hiring an outstanding coach.

But in part my point is that Cornell has had outstanding coaches and still lost (cf. e.g., Seifert's record). I don't know what resources they were given, but presumably someone like Blackman would bargain for the resources he needed before he would agree to come to Ithaca.

So I think there must be more to explain our woeful record. Is there?

One issue I've heard from coaches is the difficulty of having to deal with six or seven undergraduate admissions departments.

Didn't they create an athletics-admissions "clearing house" sort of structure several years ago to deal with that problem? That's what I'm remembering, anyway - and I'm remembering some discussion of it here.

You are correct on that admissions clearing-house change. The lack of facilities is another factor. Look at the Ivy schools having indoor practice facilities as another factor in attracting, and then developing those athletes. Al Bagnoli the Columbia coach as a condition of his hire required that Columbia commit to build an indoor practice facility which they now have. Princeton and Harvard also have them now, and Dartmouth is building theirs with funding and design approved. No coincidence that those schools also have a record of winning in football.

Swampy
But in part my point is that Cornell has had outstanding coaches and still lost (cf. e.g., Seifert's record). I don't know what resources they were given, but presumably someone like Blackman would bargain for the resources he needed before he would agree to come to Ithaca.

So I think there must be more to explain our woeful record. Is there?

This discussion prompted me to reread the chapter "The Hiring and Firing of George Seifert" in Bob Kane's book Good Sports. Interesting read on the forces at play at the time. I thought then, and still do, that Seifert was fired largely because Blackman was canned at Illinois and became available. He never achieved anything like the success he had in his 15 years at Dartmouth and was gone after six. Seifert, of course, went on to bigger and better things.

George64

Swampy
But in part my point is that Cornell has had outstanding coaches and still lost (cf. e.g., Seifert's record). I don't know what resources they were given, but presumably someone like Blackman would bargain for the resources he needed before he would agree to come to Ithaca.

So I think there must be more to explain our woeful record. Is there?

This discussion prompted me to reread the chapter "The Hiring and Firing of George Seifert" in Bob Kane's book Good Sports. Interesting read on the forces at play at the time. I thought then, and still do, that Seifert was fired largely because Blackman was canned at Illinois and became available. He never achieved anything like the success he had in his 15 years at Dartmouth and was gone after six. Seifert, of course, went on to bigger and better things.

Possibly, it was also a factor of a Cornell hiring a new athletic director who inherited Seifert as the existing football coach.