Results 1 to 18 of 18
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North Florida & Bozeman, Montana

    Exclamation Can the Ivy League Reverse its Long Decline in Sports Programs?

    Excellent WSJ article. Change may be coming.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...290615534.html

    Best regards--Blueprofessor

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    California
    I think the higher admissions standards will continue to be a major hurdle for Ivy League teams' chances in major sports like football and basketball--there just aren't enough elite high school players that qualify academically. The league itself has strict limits (can't find the link right now, but I think it's 1100 or 1200 combined SAT), and the schools can make the standards even more strict. Some elite prospects meet those standards, but percentage-wise it's gotta be pretty low. And those prospects could also be recruited by schools like Duke.

    But with their huge endowments, schools like Harvard and Yale are slowly moving towards a tuition-free undergraduate experience (http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512382) for students. It's already starting with families making less than $60k, but there's talk that it might be expanded to include all students eventually, since the endowments can more than cover the cost of attendance for the entire student body. This means that previous limits/prohibitions on athletic scholarships become moot, since all students would be attending for free. The current economy has eroded endowments, however, so the process has probably been set back a little bit.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by El_Diablo View Post
    I think the higher admissions standards will continue to be a major hurdle for Ivy League teams' chances in major sports like football and basketball--there just aren't enough elite high school players that qualify academically. The league itself has strict limits (can't find the link right now, but I think it's 1100 or 1200 combined SAT), and the schools can make the standards even more strict. Some elite prospects meet those standards, but percentage-wise it's gotta be pretty low. And those prospects could also be recruited by schools like Duke.

    But with their huge endowments, schools like Harvard and Yale are slowly moving towards a tuition-free undergraduate experience (http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512382) for students. It's already starting with families making less than $60k, but there's talk that it might be expanded to include all students eventually, since the endowments can more than cover the cost of attendance for the entire student body. This means that previous limits/prohibitions on athletic scholarships become moot, since all students would be attending for free. The current economy has eroded endowments, however, so the process has probably been set back a little bit.


    A few comments are engendered by the foregoing post:

    a) ADMISSIONS STANDARDS: I respectfully suggest that Duke and Stanford -- perpetual Sears Directors’ Cup top-tier finishers -- illustrate that superior student athletic achievement and extremely selective acceptance standards do, in fact, coexist. Stanford has won the Director's Cup continuously, every year for the last 15 years (15 of the 16 years it has been awarded), and its undergraduate admissions criteria are as stringent and demanding as ANY university’s -- specifically including the eight Ivy League schools. Further, Duke will likely finish this year's Sears Director's Cup completion near #10 and, arguably, our undergraduate admissions selectivity at least equals Brown's, Cornell's and Dartmouth's while approximating Columbia's and Penn's. Northwestern’s, among several other outstanding universities, academic/athletic performances provide further evidence that extraordinary acceptance selectivity/academic standards and athletic achievement are not mutually exclusive.

    b) SCHOLARSHIP ASSISTANCE: Several first-echelon universities -- Duke certainly included -- have substantially expanded undergraduate scholarship support in recent years, going well beyond long-standing “need blind” admissions principles. You may recall that Duke’s recently-conclude Financial Aid Endowment Campaign (which provided an additional $308.5M for scholarship endowments) was credited (by Christoph Guttentag, Dean of Undergraduate Admissions) for this year's record setting undergraduate admissions accomplishments: Duke's best year ever in both qualitative and quantitative results.

    I am not an expert, but I respectfully suggest two impediments constrain Ivy League athletic performance -- in comparison to academic/admissions peer institutions, such as Stanford and Duke: (1) these university communities are not overwhelmingly passionate concerning athletic performance, especially their senior administrators and faculties and (2) financial assistance provided to student athletes may not be entirely competitive with some of their peer institutions’.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Lewisville, NC
    Wouldn't improvement in Ivy sports teams likely come from the pool of student-athletes who are currently attending Duke, Northwestern, Vandy, Stanford, Rice, etc.? I'm not wishing them good luck in that regard.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    California
    Quote Originally Posted by 4decadedukie View Post
    A few comments are engendered by the foregoing post:

    a) ADMISSIONS STANDARDS: I respectfully suggest that Duke and Stanford -- perpetual Sears Directors’ Cup top-tier finishers -- illustrate that superior student athletic achievement and extremely selective acceptance standards do, in fact, coexist. Stanford has won the Director's Cup continuously, every year for the last 15 years (15 of the 16 years it has been awarded), and its undergraduate admissions criteria are as stringent and demanding as ANY university’s -- specifically including the eight Ivy League schools. Further, Duke will likely finish this year's Sears Director's Cup completion near #10 and, arguably, our undergraduate admissions selectivity at least equals Brown's, Cornell's and Dartmouth's while approximating Columbia's and Penn's. Northwestern’s, among several other outstanding universities, academic/athletic performances provide further evidence that extraordinary acceptance selectivity/academic standards and athletic achievement are not mutually exclusive.

    b) SCHOLARSHIP ASSISTANCE: Several first-echelon universities -- Duke certainly included -- have substantially expanded undergraduate scholarship support in recent years, going well beyond long-standing “need blind” admissions principles. You may recall that Duke’s recently-conclude Financial Aid Endowment Campaign (which provided an additional $308.5M for scholarship endowments) was credited (by Christoph Guttentag, Dean of Undergraduate Admissions) for this year's record setting undergraduate admissions accomplishments: Duke's best year ever in both qualitative and quantitative results.

    I am not an expert, but I respectfully suggest two impediments constrain Ivy League athletic performance -- in comparison to academic/admissions peer institutions, such as Stanford and Duke: (1) these university communities are not overwhelmingly passionate concerning athletic performance, especially their senior administrators and faculties and (2) financial assistance provided to student athletes may not be entirely competitive with some of their peer institutions’.
    I'm not saying it can't happen. Obviously Duke and Stanford are two shining examples of academics and athletics coexisting successfully. However:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/sp...r=2&ref=sports

    If Harvard is constrained to an academic index of 202, as this article says, then they quite frankly are handicapped in recruiting. For example,

    3.09 GPA, 600/600 SAT = 183 index
    3.59 GPA, 650/650 SAT = 199 index
    3.79 GPA, 650/650 SAT = 201 index

    What's the minimum index allowed to play in the NCAA? 125? I don't know what index Duke and Stanford are limited to (or how many academic exceptions our administration allows), but I'd be willing to bet that it's not as high as 202. So you can say we're in the same league academically, but when it comes to athletics, we have some wiggle room that schools like Harvard simply don't have.

    I agree with your point about the Ivy League schools' commitment to big time sports, though. If they change that, then they can loosen their eligibility requirements. So I think we actually agree about the root cause here.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Durham, NC
    A bigger issue may be that Duke, Stanford, NW, etc. all have the benefit of the exposure that comes with being a part of a major conference. I don't believe that these teams would have nearly the same ability to bring in elite talent if they didn't have a number of games on national television every year and get to compete against the UNCs, UCLAs, and Michigan States regularly. Elite players want to prove that they are the best and look for opportunities to play against the best in front of millions of eyes. Those opportunities just are not available to the Ivy League.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by El_Diablo View Post
    I agree with your point about the Ivy League schools' commitment to big time sports, though. If they change that, then they can loosen their eligibility requirements. So I think we actually agree about the root cause here.
    Well, the Ivy League already has pretty looser requirements than you think. The league requirement is an academic index of 171. Anything higher than that (such as the 202 number quoted in the article for Harvard) is strictly voluntary. And from all appearances, it is a thing of the past, too.

    Most of the Ivy League schools operate on sort of a sliding scale. A coach is given a certain number of slots on the academic index scale that he can fit his kids into. What usually happens is that a coach reserves the lower slots close to 171 for better athletes. As you move up the scale (toward the 200-210 range) the coaches can get pretty desperate to find good enough athletes that fit.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    New York, NY
    Quote Originally Posted by 4decadedukie View Post
    A few comments are engendered by the foregoing post:

    a) ADMISSIONS STANDARDS: I respectfully suggest that Duke and Stanford -- perpetual Sears Directors’ Cup top-tier finishers -- illustrate that superior student athletic achievement and extremely selective acceptance standards do, in fact, coexist...
    Stanford wins the Cup because of its nonrevenue sports, many of which are widely played in middle class suburbs. Recruiting for tennis, golf, and swimming is very different from recruiting for basketball and football.

    From what I've recurrently read, Stanford's athletic admissions are more stringent than ours, at least for the revenue sports.

    Sports admissions don't have much to do with overall admissions. Duke is more difficult to get into than, say, the U of Chicago, but I'd guess the average SAT of their basketball team (yes, they have one) is at least 250 pounts higher than ours.

    Ivy League athletes that come from middle/lower-middle class families get full scholarships--there may be a group of athletes whose parents combine to make $100,000 who would get full rides at Duke and who'd have to pay something at Harvard, but I think that's a small group.

    I'm comfortable with the balance that we've struck, especially since the revenue coaches have annually recruited athletes who stick around and graduate, thereby proving that grades and SAT's are not always what they're cracked up to be. Nevertheless, I can certainly see why the small schools like Swarthmore or Amherst would be worried that by fielding large sports teams, a significant percentage of their university has been selected based on sports--ironically, the "sports factories" like Texas or Florida may have some questionable student athletes walking the corridors, but a few hundred athletes out of 40,000 undergrads is a tiny percentage.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    New York, NY
    Being a team player, I didn't even recognize that I'd shifted from 6th man to starter. My mother would be so proud--well, she'd be proud if she weren't more likely to say, "500 posts??? are you out of your mind? you should be working!"

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by johnb View Post
    Stanford wins the Cup because of its nonrevenue sports, many of which are widely played in middle class suburbs. Recruiting for tennis, golf, and swimming is very different from recruiting for basketball and football.

    From what I've recurrently read, Stanford's athletic admissions are more stringent than ours, at least for the revenue sports.

    With respect, I am not sure I understand your emphasis on "revenue sports." This thread concerns all intercollegiate sports and all STUDENT ATHLETES. With profound admiration for Duke's basketball and football programs, non-revenue athletics dominate Division I intercollegiate sports, although their visibility is obviously not as high as these three "significant revenue spots programs." My Iron Duke’s annual funding appeal (July 2007) indicated – if my memory is correct – that between 10 and 20 percent of our undergraduates compete at the varsity level; the number who are members of the Football and the Men’s and Women’s Basketball programs are quite small, in comparison to the remaining, non-revenue student athletes at Duke. Moreover, the lifelong lessons in leadership, discipline, team selflessness, and so forth that permeate student athletes’ values – and that are the real payoff for most Division I competitors – are taught just as effectively in the soccer, lacrosse, cross-country, swimming/diving, tennis, golf, etc. programs as in the revenue sports.

    The NCAA current advertisements that highlight “Most of us will go pro in something others than sports” is (in my opinion) precisely on-target.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by DevilBen02 View Post
    A bigger issue may be that Duke, Stanford, NW, etc. all have the benefit of the exposure that comes with being a part of a major conference. I don't believe that these teams would have nearly the same ability to bring in elite talent if they didn't have a number of games on national television every year and get to compete against the UNCs, UCLAs, and Michigan States regularly. Elite players want to prove that they are the best and look for opportunities to play against the best in front of millions of eyes. Those opportunities just are not available to the Ivy League.
    I agree, but that with the advent of espn360 and 8 million sports channels on cable/satellite, that could easily change if the Ivy League gave a better product on the field/court. Duke football is barely ever on national TV (although some games were on ESPNU this year, which Comcast doesn't even offer no matter how much you pay, blech) and hardly ever on local TV, but obviously we have an advantage of being a part of the ACC, which is your more specific point and I agree with. In fact, a bunch of Ivy League football games were on national TV on Versus last year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_Football_on_Versus

    So, TV can evolve as long as there's a product. But competing with schools that offer scholarships is VERY difficult and an admissions staff that isn't as flexible when it comes to athletes makes it even more difficult. I don't see the Ivy League returning to prominence anytime soon (except for sports with mostly upper class participants, lacrosse, hockey, fencing, etc.).

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    San Diego, California
    Since our family recently dealt with these issues, I might have a bit to add to the discussion. My son's final choice was between Princeton and Cal (Berkeley) and he was recruited by most of the schools mentioned. The key issues for him in the end were (1) Playing at the top level (the PAC-10 trumped the Ivy League in competition level); (2) Academic program and related opportunity (Berkeley has the exact program he's interested in); (3) Diversity (Princeton is much more homogenous); and (4) Cost (we'd have had to pay full fare at Princeton). But I think that the Ivies could be more competitive more readily than the concensus here assumes. To start with, a free HYP education would be a real draw, even for those with playing ambitions that extend beyond college. If that could have been offered, it would have been a much tougher decision.

    That said, in the "revenue sports" there is a major difference in the level of play, student and fan interest (TV is mentioned a lot, and it matters; but it matters more to play in front of 70,000 fans and tons of students as opposed to 12,000 with tepid student interest), and overall program support. But my son expects to have eligibility left for grad school and he surely will consider the Ivies then too. I think they could become a factor again.

  13. #13
    Don't forget, the new executive director of the Ivy League, Ms. Robin Harris, is one of our own. If anyone can fix the problems with Ivy League athletics, surely it's someone steeped in the academic and athletic excellence that is Duke University.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Boston area, OK, Newton, right by Heartbreak Hill
    Isn't lacrosse Final Four participant Cornell in the Ivy League? Harvard has had some really good hockey teams too. It's been awhile since their NC but I don't think they are the only Ivy that has good hockey teams. Do those sports count?

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Bostondevil View Post
    Isn't lacrosse Final Four participant Cornell in the Ivy League? Harvard has had some really good hockey teams too. It's been awhile since their NC but I don't think they are the only Ivy that has good hockey teams. Do those sports count?
    Is that a rhetorical question? I assume so. But yeah, it's clear that there are select sports (relatively low profile ones typically participated in by the wealthy) the Ivy can be competitive in. They've won recent national championships in rowing, ice hockey, fencing, lacrosse and squash. But that's about it. The question is if they can become competitive in revenue sports (namely football and basketball). They also used to be more competitive at golf and tennis, but recently haven't had as solid teams.

    In fact, in 2002 (the most recent I can find) the Ivy League ranked 6th in its average rank per member school in the Director's Cup standings, behind the ACC, Big Ten, Pac 10, Big 12, and SEC (huge gap after these five) but actually ahead of the Big East. And ahead of all other mid-major conferences (MAC, MWC, WCC, Big West, Colonial).

    http://www.ivyleaguesports.com/article.asp?intID=1747
    Last edited by Bluedog; 06-03-2009 at 02:33 PM.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Boston area, OK, Newton, right by Heartbreak Hill
    Why does the Ivy League need to be competitive in football and basketball? Do they want to? I love Duke sports and I'm glad the basketball team is competitive. But I also admire the Ivy League's lower level of attention on the 'revenue' sports. My feeling is that in many ways Duke has needed the attention brought by it's stellar athletic reputation. Havard? Doesn't need it at all.

    Without big time sports, Duke is Emory or Rice, perfectly fine universities but with limited national appeal, not just in sports. You ask any kid from Boston if they are considering Emory and the first question is, "Where is it?" If they already know, there is an Emory grad in the family.
    Last edited by Bostondevil; 06-03-2009 at 04:01 PM.

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by El_Diablo View Post
    I'm not saying it can't happen. Obviously Duke and Stanford are two shining examples of academics and athletics coexisting successfully. However:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/sp...r=2&ref=sports

    If Harvard is constrained to an academic index of 202, as this article says, then they quite frankly are handicapped in recruiting. For example,

    3.09 GPA, 600/600 SAT = 183 index
    3.59 GPA, 650/650 SAT = 199 index
    3.79 GPA, 650/650 SAT = 201 index

    What's the minimum index allowed to play in the NCAA? 125? I don't know what index Duke and Stanford are limited to (or how many academic exceptions our administration allows), but I'd be willing to bet that it's not as high as 202. So you can say we're in the same league academically, but when it comes to athletics, we have some wiggle room that schools like Harvard simply don't have.

    I agree with your point about the Ivy League schools' commitment to big time sports, though. If they change that, then they can loosen their eligibility requirements. So I think we actually agree about the root cause here.
    before getting too bowled over by what constitutes a 201 index, ie, 1300 math verbal, i think it helpful to remember that the math verbal portion of the SAT was recurved in the early 90s. In the early 80s for example, 1200 math verbal was at the 90th percentile threshold, maybe 91st percentile. after the early 90s, 90th percentile became 1400 or a little over. 1200 math verbal is about 80th percentile today. 1300 is about 84th percentile. I have posted links before; some of this is in wikipedia.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAT

    The premise behind the academic index is to ensure that the academic qualifications of Ivy athletes, overall - mean/average, for all athletes at a given school, are within one standard deviation of the mean of the student body.

    http://home.comcast.net/~charles517/ivyai.html

    In 2002 preferred football admits at Ivy schools were reduced to 30 from 35. http://hsbbweb.com/ivy_admission_bar.htm

    http://media.www.dailypennsylvanian...-2157338.shtml

    Only a couple of preferred Football admits may be more than 2.5 standard deviations below the student body. I have posted an article which goes into this in greater detail - its out there in google land. will post the link if i find it.

  18. #18
    more on football admissions from the Datmouth News (scan down the article)

    http://www.dartmouth.edu/~news/releases/2004/12/27.html

    In the past Duke has recruited against Harvard in Football. And, among the top football recruits each year, a fair number are excellent students who face the decision of whether to go to an Ohio State, USC for the football program, or a Harvard for the education, discounting football in the equation.

    Here is an article about the growing presence of Ivy grads in the NFL

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/sp...all/20nfl.html

    I think the answer to the question is that the Ivies will continue to provide competition with Duke in Football recruiting, and, also in other sports. Part of the answer is to increase athletic scholarships at Duke to the NCAA allotment in each sport in which we field a varsity team. This requires funding, and raising of endowment funds dedicated for this purpose. I see this, as well as facilities enhancements, such as fixing Wade Stadium, as endeavors of greater importance than, say, spending a billion or more on rebuilding Central Campus, which imo can wait a bit longer.

Similar Threads

  1. Gary Williams vs. AAU / MD Program decline
    By Smitty1911 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 02-15-2009, 10:47 PM
  2. The Decline of Maryland??
    By BlueintheFace in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07-04-2008, 09:46 AM
  3. Maryland... NIT...decline bid?
    By gep in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 03-14-2008, 03:29 PM
  4. King Taylor Reverse Slam?
    By SilkyJ in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 11-27-2007, 08:21 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •