ECAC Inferiority

[css228]

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.

[Josh '99]

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.

[Trotsky]

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

[css228]

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

[KeithK]

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.

[Josh '99]

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.

[Trotsky]

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.

[Jim Hyla]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

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?  :-O

[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?  :-O

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.

[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.

[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 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.