<p>How did Brown and Georgetown do at squash, and sailing? The day I see a Brown athletic event on national TV I will be impressed. When we talk about athletic relevance we are speaking about the great events that enter the national psyche and dominate the national conversation like the NCAA tournanment and the BCS championship.</p>
<p>^ I saw the Yale V Brown football game for the Ivy League Title on national TV this year…</p>
<p>I am impressed, who won?</p>
<p>As a Columbia man, I remember Ivy football, looking at the 240-250 pound linemen that looked like undersized pygmies compared to the 300 pound BCS teams.</p>
<p>“As a Columbia man”
This is evident from your posts, if one means district of, location of Georgetown.
If you were a real Ivy football fan you would have realized that the true competition was the insult-fests between the bands at halftime. Regarding football the actual sport, virtually nobody cared. In particular, hopefully they did not care at Columbia or that would be really sad.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think this has changed, at least for some of the Ivies and some of the match-ups. The increasing geographic diversity of the student body could explain a more vibrant appreciation of college football than was traditionally associated with the Northeast.</p>
<p>Harvard -Yale is chest-thumping, they could just as easily be playing tiddlywinks.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Goody for you. I would be disappointed in my children if they chose schools significantly below the caliber of what they could get into simply for the opportunity to watch a sport. There’s no dearth of sports that can’t be watched on TV. </p>
<p>But, it’s a good thing that places exist for everybody. The conclusion that Harvard et al “should” be equal academic and athletic powerhouses is tiresome.
And why is it said only for the Ivies? I mean, if it would only enhance the HYP experience, wouldn’t it enhance the MIT experience? The Caltech experience? The UChicago experience? How about the Swarthmore experience? Maybe everybody should be Division I!</p>
<p>Not much of a game last night as the Big Red made mincemeant of Harvard. </p>
<p>But a rematch is coming on Feb 19, so the Ivy title chase isn’t over yet.</p>
<p>Hopefully a good time was had by all who attended. </p>
<p>Coureur,
Your statement in # 25 about my support for a strong athletic life is incorrect,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is NOT my belief. Plenty of schools, especially Div III schools, are not big athletic scenes and yet they are wonderful college choices. And plenty of colleges that are Division I in name only for the major sports (like the Ivies and the NESCAC) are obviously also wonderful college choices. </p>
<p>However, I do think that athletic life can provide an important difference in the quality of one’s undergraduate life. If you like a good social life, college sports can have a large and positive effect. If you like good competition in major sports, college sports can be fun to watch. And if you like staying in touch with your college as an alum, college sports are a commonly used lifeline. </p>
<p>For all of the above, for the student who might enjoy these things, I think that the current profile of the Ivies is a less attractive package than what is on offer at the schools with the best combinations of great academics, great social life, great athletic life, ie, Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt and Notre Dame.</p>
<p>Monstor,
If you want good baseball and great academics, the premier names are Rice and Stanford and Vanderbilt. The Ivies aren’t close to any of these. Probably because these schools play in major conferences and probably also because the weather is a lot better. </p>
<p>Mony,
There are always new readers for whom this is a fresh topic. </p>
<p>It always amuses me that the Ivy folks are the ones most eager to shut down these comparisons. I wonder why…. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>the prestige,
Brown averaged 6033 fans for its home games last year. </p>
<p>Compare that scene to any of Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt and Notre Dame and I think the difference in the vibrancy of the offering is obvious. </p>
<p>Only Rice (avg of 13,551) could be considered close to Brown and the Owls low 2009 attendance was partly due to the quality of their team as they only won one game. A year ago, Rice averaged over 20,000 per game and went to a bowl game.</p>
<p>The_prestige, Georgetown may not be great at Basketball now, but it has a strong Baskebtall tradition. In the 80s, they made it to the finals of the NCAA Basketball tournament three times, winning it onces and losing twice by 1 and 2 points respectively. They also won the Big East tournament 7 times since 1980.</p>
<p>Admittedly, Georgetown has not done much over the last decade and a half, but they did win the Big East Tournament and made it to the Final Four in 2007. Even then, Georgetown has made it to the final game of the Big East tournament 5 times in the last 15 years. </p>
<p>Now Brown on the other hand has not done much in Football or Basketball. Even in Hockey, Brown has done virtually nothing. Yes, the ECAC is a strong conference, but Brown has never won the conference title in its 47 year history. </p>
<p>The schools I mentioned typically have a strong tradition in either Football or Basketball.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, then, they’ll apply to those schools, then, hawkette. The existence of Stanford, Duke, NU, Rice, Vandy and ND is hardly unknown among top students. If they find those things appealing, they’ll apply there. If they don’t, they’ll apply to the Ivies only. If they’re indifferent, they’ll apply to both. What is the problem that needs to be solved here?</p>
<p>I struggle with Georgetown (and many of the highly ranked publics) in this conversation as their graduation rates in the prominent sports STINK. Maybe a great tradition, but at what price?? I’m looking for balance and Georgetown’s Academic Progress Rates (an NCAA measurement for progress toward a degree) in basketball is dubious. </p>
<p>I love the fun and the hoopla and the energy and the games that you’ll find on these campuses, but it’s a shame that the school administrators aren’t a little tougher about this. Some of the numbers (like at USC) are just shameful. Given that, I completely understand the folks who are objecting to a lot of this discussion as protecting the academic reps of these institutions is FAR more important.</p>
<p>Columbia man -proud holder of MBA from Columbia Business School and former International Fellow. You might do some detective work to ascertain where I might have gone undergrad.</p>
<p>Loved the baby-blue uniforms!</p>
<p>pizza,
Just because your mind is made up does not mean that everyone’s else’s mind is made up.</p>
<p>Two years ago Harvard played its first night football game EVER in its 125 year history. Why? I guess their administration thought that it might be a good thing.</p>
<p>Harvard hired a high profile basketball coach and now their games are quite popular in Cambridge. Why? I guess their administration thought that it might be a good thing.</p>
<p>If a student is accepted to Columbia and Rice or Duke and Dartmouth or Vanderbilt and Cornell, the athletic life comparison could very easily be a factor in their decision. IMO, for students who might care about such things as part of their overall undergraduate experience, comparing these colleges on this metric might be a good idea.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, in other words, you’d be disappointed in your kids if they chose a lower-ranked school that they would be happier at?</p>
<p>Why go to Harvard or Yale and be miserable, when you can go to Stanford, Vandy, UNC, Michigan, Berkeley etc and actually be happy?</p>
<p>One of my running friends is a lecturer at Vandy and taught the starting point guard in class. He said he is really smart and a great guy. I was glad to hear that. The Vandy basketball players all seem like they actually care about their education and are a little less like thugs than some of the public school players (noting issues in my home state in this regard…).
I agree that there are plenty of choices for everyone and the Ivy League sports experience isn’t going to change anytime soon. My daughter IS enjoying the Vandy athletic scene as a grad student (unless she has to drive somewhere on a football Saturday) after being a Rice undergrad.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>And Harvard has also apparently decided to recruit and admit basketball players that are below the school’s own academic standards in order get more talented players. Do YOU think that is a good thing? I don’t. I think it’s a big mistake.</p>
<p>"Well, then, they’ll apply to those schools, then, hawkette. The existence of Stanford, Duke, NU, Rice, Vandy and ND is hardly unknown among top students. If they find those things appealing, they’ll apply there. If they don’t, they’ll apply to the Ivies only. If they’re indifferent, they’ll apply to both. What is the problem that needs to be solved here? "</p>
<p>Exactly. And exactly as stated in the other 9 threads.</p>
<p>“The conclusion that Harvard et al “should” be equal academic and athletic powerhouses is tiresome.”</p>
<p>At this point, that is possibly the most humongous understatement I’ve read on CC. It was tiresome the third time. </p>
<p>"And why is it said only for the Ivies? I mean, if it would only enhance the HYP experience, wouldn’t it enhance the MIT experience? The Caltech experience? The UChicago experience? How about the Swarthmore experience? Maybe everybody should be Division I! "</p>
<p>Exactly. Another point that is no doubt to be found elsewhere in these 9 prior threads. Too bad you have been forced to repeat it yet again, because the thread has been repeated yet again.</p>
<p>“You might do some detective work to ascertain where I might have gone undergrad.”</p>
<p>Yes, I definitely should do that, because you are, as a unique individual, so very important to us all…</p>
<p>But an MBA is basically an onlooker to the undergrad experience,at best, whatever “man” you are, it is clearly not Columbia. IMO.</p>
<p>This thread again? Really? Hawkette, you’re getting very stale.</p>
<p>vienna - Brown killed Yale, unfortunately. </p>
<p>I don’t see whats so wrong with this thread.
I feel that having strong athletic teams can be to the advantage of the school when attempting to attract prospective students, even in the Ivy League. Aside from recruits, I know many that will base their decision (given schools with near-equal academics) off of student life and sports. Why is that a bad thing? I would probably do the same if given the option.</p>
<p>^^What’s wrong with this thread is that it’s been done so many times before - all of them started by Hawkette. She cannot accept that the Ivy League wouldn’t much improved if it transformed itself into the Big-10 or SEC. It bothers her that there are universities, even Div. I universities, where sports are not emphasized. She wants sports to be a Big Deal at those schools too and will keep posting the same thing over and over again until they come around to her view. Which means we are in for many decades of of the same tiresome point being made over and over and over and over and over…</p>