With Cornell making the NCAAs in the "big three" sports (hockey, basketball & lax) it seems like this year could go down as one of the best performances by an ivy league school in a given year. And when you add to it the fact that we made the quarters in hockey and semis (at least) in lax I'd be curious what other ivy school could top the season we've had.
Princeton is the only school I would think could rival it but when they were winning in hoops and lax in the '90's I think their hockey program sucked. And when we had great lax and hockey teams in the '70's it was our basketball team that sucked. In fact, before this year when was the last time we made the NCAAs in all three?
Let's hope it's a sign of the times!
[quote Germ]With Cornell making the NCAAs in the "big three" sports (hockey, basketball & lax) it seems like this year could go down as one of the best performances by an ivy league school in a given year. And when you add to it the fact that we made the quarters in hockey and semis (at least) in lax I'd be curious what other ivy school could top the season we've had.
Princeton is the only school I would think could rival it but when they were winning in hoops and lax in the '90's I think their hockey program sucked. And when we had great lax and hockey teams in the '70's it was our basketball team that sucked. In fact, before this year when was the last time we made the NCAAs in all three?
Let's hope it's a sign of the times![/quote]In 1997-98 Princeton won the ECAC hockey tournament (lost to Michigan 2-1 at Yost in the first round of the NCAA tournament), won the Ivy basketball title outright (got a 5 seed in the NCAA tournament and won their first round game against UNLV before losing to 4 seed Michigan State in the second round), and won the Ivy lacrosse title outright (their third of seven consecutive titles) and the NCAA tournament (beating Duke, Syracuse and Maryland to do so).
Unless Cornell wins the lacrosse tournament, it'd be tough to compare with that.
You might want remember that sport they play at Schoelkopf in the fall. Many people would consider that as equal to or even more important than hockey and lax as an NC$$ sport.
[quote KenP]You might want remember that sport they play at Schoelkopf in the fall. Many people would consider that as equal to or even more important than hockey and lax as an NC$$ sport.[/quote]
But our league doesn't play in the NCAA tournament in that sport.
[quote KenP]You might want remember that sport they play at Schoelkopf in the fall. Many people would consider that as equal to or even more important than hockey and lax as an NC$$ sport.[/quote]
Yep. We deny or ignore inconvient truths. No matter that Ivy presidents don't allow us in NCAA football playoffs, football is a de facto top sport at any Ivy school. An Ivy football title is an important as an NCAA bid in the school's chosen major sports. Our football history is not overwhelming in the years since formal Ivy League football play began in 1956:
1990 - tied Dartmouth for title (lost head to head)
1988 - tied Penn for title (won head to head)
1971 - tied Dartmouth for title (lost head to head)
The law of averages would have us winning 6+ titles, or sharing perhaps a dozen. We're overdue.
[quote billhoward][quote KenP]You might want remember that sport they play at Schoelkopf in the fall. Many people would consider that as equal to or even more important than hockey and lax as an NC$$ sport.[/quote]
Yep. We deny or ignore inconvient truths. No matter that Ivy presidents don't allow us in NCAA football playoffs, football is a de facto top sport at any Ivy school. An Ivy football title is an important as an NCAA bid in the school's chosen major sports. Our football history is not overwhelming in the years since formal Ivy League football play began in 1956:
1990 - tied Dartmouth for title (lost head to head)
1988 - tied Penn for title (won head to head)
1971 - tied Dartmouth for title (lost head to head)
The law of averages would have us winning 6+ titles, or sharing perhaps a dozen. We're overdue.[/quote]
Same could be said about basketball until 2008. What were our only 2 titles until last year? 1954 and 1988? So to answer Germ's secondary question about "the last time" we made the NCAAs in hockey, lax, and basketball in the same year: Never,
[quote KenP]Many people would consider that as equal to or even more important than hockey and lax as an NC$$ sport.[/quote]
Yeah, but those people are all old, and getting older. No one my age gives a crap about Ivy League football.
Part of the reason why hockey and lax are worth watching is that Cornell can compete at a national level in these sports. In football, they don't even compete in the same league with the top national teams.
[quote RichH]Same could be said about basketball until 2008. What were our only 2 titles until last year? 1954 and 1988? So to answer Germ's secondary question about "the last time" we made the NCAAs in hockey, lax, and basketball in the same year: Never,[/quote]
I'd say that basketball wasn't a law-of-averages sport. Carrill at Princeton and Daly/Weinhauer/Dunphy at Penn were miles ahead of the rest of the conference on the recruiting trail and the chalkboard.
[quote Kyle Rose][quote KenP]Many people would consider that as equal to or even more important than hockey and lax as an NC$$ sport.[/quote]
Yeah, but those people are all old, and getting older. No one my age gives a crap about Ivy League football.[/quote]
No one your age from Cornell gives a crap about Ivy League football.
See Bill's comment on denying or ignoring inconvenient truths. Its not a priority at Cornell because we suck, but if you were look at it from a league-wide perspective on sports dominance, its by far the #1 metric.
[quote Kyle Rose][quote KenP]Many people would consider that as equal to or even more important than hockey and lax as an NC$$ sport.[/quote]
Yeah, but those people are all old, and getting older. No one my age gives a crap about Ivy League football.[/quote]
The world seems more in tune when Kyle and I are not in agreement. Whew.
[quote DeltaOne81]No one your age from Cornell gives a crap about Ivy League football.[/quote]
I have friends from every Ivy League school except Penn, and none of them give a crap about Ivy League football.
Even the big Ivy games, like the Harvard-Yale game, are much more about school rivalry than about the game happening on the field: most of the people who go to that game don't know or care about any of the other games during the season, as evidenced by relative attendance.
[quote ugarte]The world seems more in tune when Kyle and I are not in agreement. Whew.[/quote]
Well, to be fair, you're not "my age," old man. ;-)
[quote Kyle Rose][quote KenP]Many people would consider that as equal to or even more important than hockey and lax as an NC$$ sport.[/quote]
Yeah, but those people are all old, and getting older. No one my age gives a crap about Ivy League football.
Part of the reason why hockey and lax are worth watching is that Cornell can compete at a national level in these sports. In football, they don't even compete in the same league with the top national teams.[/quote]
The best Ivy team would probably be competitive in the "NCAA Division I Football Championship Subdivision (formerly Division I-AA)" whose recent finalists have included Colgate, UMass, Richmond, Delaware, and Appalachian State. Would that the Ivy presidents let the football players have the same opportunities as the rest of Cornell's varsity teams.
Finalists:
http://www.rauzulusstreet.com/football/college1aa/college1aachampions.htm
[quote billhoward]The best Ivy team would probably be competitive in the "NCAA Division I Football Championship Subdivision (formerly Division I-AA)"[/quote]
You're right: they probably would compete... in the scrubdivision created only to protect perpetually non-competitive teams from the indignity of being designated "Division 2." Bleh.
[quote Kyle Rose][quote ugarte]The world seems more in tune when Kyle and I are not in agreement. Whew.[/quote]
Well, to be fair, you're not "my age," old man. ;-)[/quote]
*shakes cane and shits himself*
[quote ugarte][quote Kyle Rose][quote ugarte]The world seems more in tune when Kyle and I are not in agreement. Whew.[/quote]
Well, to be fair, you're not "my age," old man. ;-)[/quote]
*shakes cane and shits himself*[/quote]
Typical.
[quote Kyle Rose][quote billhoward]The best Ivy team would probably be competitive in the "NCAA Division I Football Championship Subdivision (formerly Division I-AA)"[/quote]
You're right: they probably would compete... in the scrubdivision created only to protect perpetually non-competitive teams from the indignity of being designated "Division 2." Bleh.[/quote]
Was Ivy football already dead on the national scene when they created DI-AA? Probably but I can't remember. Being relegated to the lower division certainly guaranteed it.
The Ivies were never going to be designated Division 2. Classifications are for all sports (aside form playing up in one).
While I might be inclined to agree with those that want to dismiss Ivy football as less significant for whatever reason, it's tough to think of hockey and lacrosse as universally more significant in view of the fact that not all the Ivy schools play those sports.
[quote Josh '99]While I might be inclined to agree with those that want to dismiss Ivy football as less significant for whatever reason, it's tough to think of hockey and lacrosse as universally more significant in view of the fact that not all the Ivy schools play those sports.[/quote]
It's a hockey board so clearly hockey is more significant.
[quote Josh '99]While I might be inclined to agree with those that want to dismiss Ivy football as less significant for whatever reason, it's tough to think of hockey and lacrosse as universally more significant in view of the fact that not all the Ivy schools play those sports.[/quote]
Which is one of the reasons why the Ivy "title" in hockey is crap.
But since the OP talked about NCAA tournament appearances, not Ivy League titles, I think hockey is more germane to the discussion than football, for which Cornell would have to (a) get the Ivy presidents to pull their heads out of their asses and (b) move to Division 1-A in order to have a chance at a bowl game appearance.
[quote KeithK]The Ivies were never going to be designated Division 2. Classifications are for all sports (aside form playing up in one).[/quote]
I'm aware of the NCAA's policies on divisions. Arbitrary rules can be changed arbitrarily: the NCAA could let Michigan play D3 hockey if it wanted to.
[quote KeithK][quote Kyle Rose][quote billhoward]The best Ivy team would probably be competitive in the "NCAA Division I Football Championship Subdivision (formerly Division I-AA)"[/quote]
You're right: they probably would compete... in the scrubdivision created only to protect perpetually non-competitive teams from the indignity of being designated "Division 2." Bleh.[/quote]
Was Ivy football already dead on the national scene when they created DI-AA? Probably but I can't remember. Being relegated to the lower division certainly guaranteed it.[/quote]
Didn't Dartmouth have a top 10-15 team right around the time the split occurred?
[quote Kyle Rose][quote Josh '99]While I might be inclined to agree with those that want to dismiss Ivy football as less significant for whatever reason, it's tough to think of hockey and lacrosse as universally more significant in view of the fact that not all the Ivy schools play those sports.[/quote]
Which is one of the reasons why the Ivy "title" in hockey is crap.
But since the OP talked about NCAA tournament appearances, not Ivy League titles, I think hockey is more germane to the discussion than football, for which Cornell would have to (a) get the Ivy presidents to pull their heads out of their asses and (b) move to Division 1-A in order to have a chance at a bowl game appearance.[/quote]
Yes, but we'd have to stay in I-AAFCS to have a chance at an NCAA Tournament appearance. B-]
We're due for an Ivy football title.
[quote Josh '99][quote Germ]With Cornell making the NCAAs in the "big three" sports (hockey, basketball & lax) it seems like this year could go down as one of the best performances by an ivy league school in a given year. And when you add to it the fact that we made the quarters in hockey and semis (at least) in lax I'd be curious what other ivy school could top the season we've had.
Princeton is the only school I would think could rival it but when they were winning in hoops and lax in the '90's I think their hockey program sucked. And when we had great lax and hockey teams in the '70's it was our basketball team that sucked. In fact, before this year when was the last time we made the NCAAs in all three?
Let's hope it's a sign of the times![/quote]In 1997-98 Princeton won the ECAC hockey tournament (lost to Michigan 2-1 at Yost in the first round of the NCAA tournament), won the Ivy basketball title outright (got a 5 seed in the NCAA tournament and won their first round game against UNLV before losing to 4 seed Michigan State in the second round), and won the Ivy lacrosse title outright (their third of seven consecutive titles) and the NCAA tournament (beating Duke, Syracuse and Maryland to do so).
Unless Cornell wins the lacrosse tournament, it'd be tough to compare with that.[/quote]
Uhhh....wait a minute, I'm changing my criteria...when was the last time an Ivy School (men's) made the NCAAs in 4 sports in the same year? I say that because our wrestling team made it this year and did fairly well.
[quote dietlbomb]We're due for an Ivy football title.[/quote]
So's Columbia.::cheer::
Quote from: GermUhhh....wait a minute, I'm changing my criteria...when was the last time an Ivy School (men's) made the NCAAs in 4 sports in the same year? I say that because our wrestling team made it this year and did fairly well.
Let's not forget about Polo::wank::
[quote Kyle Rose][quote KenP]Many people would consider that as equal to or even more important than hockey and lax as an NC$$ sport.[/quote]
Yeah, but those people are all old, and getting older. No one my age gives a crap about Ivy League football.[/quote]
And you're not old, but are you getting older? Most people who read this forum or go to football games are getting older. It's just the right thing to do.
And yes, I'm old but like hockey better. As has been said, we are a biased group. Looking at my local Cornell club, most of all ages prefer football.
[quote KeithK][quote Josh '99]While I might be inclined to agree with those that want to dismiss Ivy football as less significant for whatever reason, it's tough to think of hockey and lacrosse as universally more significant in view of the fact that not all the Ivy schools play those sports.[/quote]
It's a hockey board so clearly hockey is more significant.[/quote]More significant to us, certainly. Not more universally significant among the entirety of the league.
[quote Jim Hyla]And you're not old, but are you getting older? Most people who read this forum or go to football games are getting older. It's just the right thing to do.[/quote]
And so many tasty ways to do it, too.
QuoteAs has been said, we are a biased group. Looking at my local Cornell club, most of all ages prefer football.
Yeah, but are Cornell clubs representative of each class? I'd be willing to bet there's selection bias there. Given the crap the administration puts hockey fans through, I suspect a much larger percentage of hockey fans are anti-administration and therefore less likely to want anything to do with the official Cornell clubs. (I, for instance, have no affiliation with the CCOB, and have never donated Cornell a penny outside of hockey and the Pep Band.)
[quote KeithK]Was Ivy football already dead on the national scene when they created DI-AA? Probably but I can't remember. Being relegated to the lower division certainly guaranteed it.
The Ivies were never going to be designated Division 2. Classifications are for all sports (aside form playing up in one).[/quote]
I was in school when the split was made. There was never any discussion about going Div.2 that I was aware of. Most of the discussion was around justifying the split, not about trying to relegate weaker schools.
It actually had something to do with football revenues. A significant issue was the seating capacity of a school's football stadium. Most of the Ivy league didn't have big enough stadia to satify the requirement, but in fact, Yale could have stayed D1-A, because the Yale Bowl is so huge, and so could have Penn, I think. I think Schoellkopf was borderline, I don't remember for sure.
People, Kyle was using "Division 2" as "not Division I," not making a specific reference to "Division II".
[quote ugarte]People, Kyle was using "Division 2" as "not Division I," not making a specific reference to "Division II".[/quote]
That's right: the indignity of putting in writing the fact that the Ivy schools are no longer D1 caliber in football.
Oh.
That's different.
Never mind.
[quote grizzdan24]
Quote from: GermUhhh....wait a minute, I'm changing my criteria...when was the last time an Ivy School (men's) made the NCAAs in 4 sports in the same year? I say that because our wrestling team made it this year and did fairly well.
Let's not forget about Polo::wank::[/quote]Polo (the kind Cornell excels at, as opposed to water polo) is not an NCAA sport. ::deadhorse::Like Ultimate Frisbee.