Big Red Football @ Bucknell Sept. 18

Ben Rocky '04 · September 17, 2004, 05:03:51 PM

I am in Harrisburg, about an hour from Lewisburg and may go to the game. Anyone else going, or would I be the only one in Carnellian and white there?

Tub(a) · September 17, 2004, 07:25:56 PM

The Pep Band will be there.

A-19 · September 17, 2004, 08:37:32 PM

way to be, ben

-mike

Avash · September 18, 2004, 10:26:13 PM

Bucknell won, 15-9

Tom Pasniewski 98 · September 19, 2004, 08:26:40 AM

Well, there goes our hopes of a DI-AA National Championship ;-)

jtwcornell91 · September 19, 2004, 10:27:57 AM

[Q]Tom Pasniewski 98 Wrote:

Well, there goes our hopes of a DI-AA National Championship [/q]

Considering that we're not allowed to participate in the playoffs (not that there's anything wrong with that), our hopes were already gone.

Scott Kominkiewicz · September 19, 2004, 08:52:20 PM

Has anyone ever explained why the Ivies are eligible for post-season tournaments in all sports except football? Is this a vestige of Ivy pigskin conservatism? Over the last 15 years we've seen the Ivies allow freshmen to play varsity and spring practice. Allowing football teams to participate in post-season play sounds reasonable to me. Heck, individual players can play in college all-star games, why not let entire teams play past November?

Jim Hyla · September 19, 2004, 09:44:05 PM

[Q]Scott Kominkiewicz Wrote:

Has anyone ever explained why the Ivies are eligible for post-season tournaments in all sports except football? Is this a vestige of Ivy pigskin conservatism? Over the last 15 years we've seen the Ivies allow freshmen to play varsity and spring practice. Allowing football teams to participate in post-season play sounds reasonable to me. Heck, individual players can play in college all-star games, why not let entire teams play past November?[/q]
Ivy presidents have always said no. Silly but their belief.

KeithK · September 19, 2004, 09:56:04 PM

I would guess that it's based on Ivy conservatism or just simply stubborness.

OTOH, it seems likely that the Ivies would not do well in the I-AA playoffs and in fact might very well get blown out. Why subject the league to that? Everyone knows that Ivy football is not what it once was so why rub it in? It's not like the BBall tournament where low end teams are happy to get in just for the spotlight/prestige of making the tourney (please take discussions about the impact of MArch Madness appearance to another thread :-) ).

Ben Rocky '04 · September 19, 2004, 10:09:27 PM

Wouldn't a post-season help recruit more talent to the rosters, therefor allowing for a better post-season performance?

Tom Pasniewski 98 · September 20, 2004, 12:36:00 AM

I know...that was what the smiley face was for.

billhoward · September 20, 2004, 08:47:23 AM

The Ivies at least in some years would be competitive in I-AA. We're not talking about Cornell or Columbia going to the finals this year. But Penn, perhaps? The Ivy presidents do have other things on their mind, like parking for the faculty, avoiding stories about professors harrassing female (heck, all) students, and the occasional concern about the quality and cost of education.

Unless Jeff Lehman is blowing smoke up our backsides the past year, he seems to be as normal and level-headed a college president as one could imagine. Maybe it's us getting older and him being relatively young and also youthful looking, but it's a refreshing change from partrician Ivy League presidents with the Cambridge accent and Bill Bradley height. If any Cornell president would be inclined to give the football team a chance at a post-season playoff (no real danger of that happening in 2004 or 2005, one suspects, but beyond that, who knows), or the Ivy hockey teams to play more than 29 non-Alaska, non-post-season games, it would be him. He also would make a good baseball commissioner, and presumably he'd be healtier and longer-lasting than Bartlett Giametti. It's a shame that man didn't have two decades to reshape MLB.

Hillel Hoffmann · September 20, 2004, 09:24:21 AM

Excellent new uniforms. Their retro-badassness (minimal decoration, over-the-shoulder stripes, monochrome white pants) is enhanced by the black shoes thang. Glad they didn't mess with the helmets. I don't think this particular old-school look is a faithful recreation of any real Cornell look from the past, but I like anyway.

Al DeFlorio · September 20, 2004, 09:48:09 AM

[Q]Hillel Hoffmann Wrote:

Excellent new uniforms. Their retro-badassness (minimal decoration, over-the-shoulder stripes, monochrome white pants) is enhanced by the black shoes thang. Glad they didn't mess with the helmets. I don't think this particular old-school look is a faithful recreation of any real Cornell look from the past, but I like anyway.[/q]

The "UCLA" shoulder stripes go back to the Tom Harp early 1960s era.

There's a long tradition of having two contrasting stripes on the jersey sleeves. Best as I can tell, they were at the forearms back in the twenties and worked their way up the sleeve until Harp put them at the shoulders in 1961. Then they moved back to the biceps and remained there for a good while (at least through Hofher).

Simpler is always better in uniforms, to my eyes. I still prefer the Marinaro-era unis. Looked great on the SI cover.

Hillel Hoffmann · September 20, 2004, 10:03:16 AM

Yes, those Tom-Allen-period uniforms were the best ever, and I don't it's just because of happy associations. I especially dug the helmet with the vertically compressed C.

In general, I like simple too. But I gotta admit that some of the quirky excess of traditional Ivy opponents' uniforms gives me the warm-n-fuzzies too, like those goofy stripes on Princeton's sleeves (and Penn's too, once upon a time) and Dartmouth's revival of their totally bitchin' Blackmon-era (Blackman?) helmets. Ahhhhhhh.