<p>
I’ll give credit wherever it’s due. For example, I would also like to call attention to the high number of NCAA Academic Performance Awards collected last year by many Patriot League schools:</p>
<p>17 Bucknell
14 Holy Cross
13 Lafeyette
13 Lehigh
12 Colgate
11 US Naval Academy</p>
<p>Do these schools also have higher academic standards for athletes than, say, Northwestern, Rice, or Vanderbilt? Yes, they apparently do. It’s not just the Ivies.</p>
<p>I know of a Harvard hockey player, Columbia wrestler and a Penn soccer player all with ~1700 SATs. Hockey, wrestling and soccer are upper middle class (predominantly white) sports. I believe that the ivies accept substantially lower SATs for football and basketball recruits.</p>
<p>So for the ivies to seek more “relevance” in athletics, they would have to lower their Academic Index (AI) for individuals and/or teams. I don’t think the ivies are going to do this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Duke/Georgetown basketball players remind me of Notre Dame football players.</p>
<p>[Debunking</a> the myth of ND admissions standards](<a href=“http://www.ndnation.com/boards/showpost.php?b=football;pid=49335;d=this]Debunking”>http://www.ndnation.com/boards/showpost.php?b=football;pid=49335;d=this)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Somebody please pick on Georgetown for only having 12 teams on the NCAA Public Recognition thing. Tell the Columbia guy that its is 2 better than the guys and gals with cute baby blue uniforms and 3 better than Cornell.</p>
<p>And as for Notre Dame-they might as well just recruit smarter football players since everything they have been doing in the post above hasn’t helped the past decade or so.</p>
<p>meangirl-with the Iran crisis going on at this very moment, a former Georgetown basketball letterman, who heads the National Security Council, James Logan Jones of the class of 1966 is the second most important man in the world next to the President. We can only pray that what he learned in the classroom and on the hardwood guides him in this time of crisis. Even if you think he is a dimwitted basketball jock, all our lives depend on him now.</p>
<p>corbett,
In case it was not clear, my comments were meant for the major sports of football and men’s basketball and, to a lesser extent, baseball and women’s basketball. The rest of college sports have low impact and nationally aren’t particularly relevant. Harvard and the other Ivies have been a complete non-factor in the majors and the level is more akin to Div 3 than nationally competitive/relevant Div 1. </p>
<p>Re your comment,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>of course not. I posted on women’s lacrosse only to demonstrate that, in these minor sports where both sets of schools participate on a similar level, the academic record of the schools is not much different. Sorry, but your argument is False. </p>
<p>Look at sports where the schools are true peers (like women’s lacrosse) and then compare. Harvard is now playing a major sport at a legitimately competitive level when measured on a national scale. Compare their future academic performance with Stanford, Duke et al. If Harvard outperforms, then your plaudits would be appropriate. </p>
<p>coureur,
I gave you my answer in # 67. </p>
<p>If Harvard can build a nationally competitive and relevant men’s basketball team via its admission standards, ie, in the same manner that it and every other Ivy now stretches to admit athletes, then I don’t understand your objection…unless you just don’t like basketball or the people who play it/watch it.</p>
<p>coureur,
As I’m sure you know, all prospective players must go through the same admissions process as everyone else at Harvard. That some disgruntled former coaches complained about a couple of recruits doesn’t prove anything, what matters is whether Harvard’s admissions committee believes a student can succeed if admitted. Of the two admitted players mentioned in that article, one was a Commended NMS and Nat’l Ach. Scholar Candidate; the other was an NHS member at a private independent high school. (You can look all this up on the GoCrimson website). Both are now sophomores at Harvard. Obviously, they are not exactly academic slouches.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Yeah, you gave an answer to a different question - one you felt more comfortable answering. By repeatedly dodging whether it’s a good thing that that Harvard has been recruiting players that are not up to Harvard’s own academic standards and that the Harvard coaches have behaved unethically and may have violated NCAA rules in the recruiting of these players, you give at least tacit approval to these shady tactics. </p>
<p>Approving or saying nothing against this sort of behavior by schools seeking to boost their athletic success is the main reason why big time college athletics is such a cess pit today. Too many people are willing to wink or look the other way for the sake of another win in a ball game</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>They go through the same process, but they are held to a much lower academic standard. And the current shame is that the standard is getting even lower for the sake a few wins in basketball.</p>
<p>What happened to Alexandre?</p>
<p>^ I heard he’s looking at a highrise condo in the Burj Khalifa…</p>
<p>What hawkette fails to mention is that sports arms race in the Ivy League (granted, not as bad as for say, the BCS conferences) has also resulted in increased off the field incidents such as brawls, etc. by Ivy League athletes (particularly FB players) and with regard to Harvard, in particular, the coldhearted dismissal of the bulk of its men’s BB roster so that Amaker could load the team w/ his recruits.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Other Ivies (like Cornell) certainly have raised issue w/ Harvard’s recruiting advantage of basically being able to offer what amounts to be merit-aid athletic “schollies.”</p>
<p>
</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Pizzagirl - these incidents had nothing to do w/ the school athletic dept. or administration.</p>
<p>If anything, it shows that having an administration that cares nothing about its sports program results in players who don’t care as well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Otoh, most of these schools allow in recruits for the $$-making programs w/ dubious academic backgrounds.</p>
<p>The Kinesiology program at UM has long been a backdoor for recruits w/ lower than the already normal lower standards for recruits (granted, UM does still have stricter recruiting standards than the SEC schools, but that’s not saying much).</p>
<p>The average SAT score for the men’s Duke BB team during the mid to late 1990s was in the **mid 800s, placing it in the middle of the ACC<a href=“w/%20the%20average%20GPA%20being%203.1”>/b</a>.</p>
<p>Duke’s administation, in the quest for a winning FB program (or more accurately, a non-losing program) has repeatedly lowered its standards for FB recruits where today, 1/3 of the players only have to meet the minimum NCAA standards for academics.</p>
<p>Before tipping the hat to Georgetown (which is a fine school) note that it accepted Allen Iverson when had been convicted of rioting and, given his subsequent gun-related incidents, did not necessarily change his life there before leaving early. It is much easier to keep a dozen basketball players from flunking out or getting arrested than 100 football players (although many colleges fail even at that).</p>
<p>Unfortunately, at many of these schools, the commoitment to academics is strong only for non-athletes (or athletes in minor sports): jocks are virtually in a separate university, with athletes being steered to the few known gut classes; tutors being caught periodically writing papers for them; separate dining halls and workout facilities; etc.</p>
<p>coureur,
You want me to condemn Harvard for trying to improve their basketball team. I’m not going to do that and frankly, I think you’re a bit over the line in your charges. </p>
<p>Harvard has explicitly stated that they are enrolling only student-athletes who qualify academically. Do you think that they are lying? I don’t. </p>
<p>The ethics charges are likely used by other coaches to recruit against Harvard. Remember, Ivy coaches can get fired when they lose too many games. What coach wants to see a competitor be more aggressive in their recruiting and possibly get an edge? Do you have any information to support your ethics charges other than the NYT article from 2 years ago?</p>
<p>Overall, I think that you have isolated on Harvard because they were the original source for this thread. But the reality is that Ivy athletics and admissions already compromise relative to the rest of their student body. Regularly. There are scores of stories about athletes getting admitted who otherwise would have had zero shot at Ivy acceptance. </p>
<p>I think you’re picking on the basketball players because they’re more visible and….???</p>
<p>hawkette, what’s with the “???”
Are you implying that coureur is racist because he wants the Ivies to maintain ethical admissios policies? If so, that is a low point for you.</p>
<p>^ Where in the world did you find that implication in her post?!?!</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>They are not my charges. They are the charges from the New York Times. I don’t have any data of my own. And I’m “picking on” basketball because that’s the program talked about in the NYT article and the one you are praising. </p>
<p>I personally don’t think that shady, questionable, or ll-gotten success is something to celebrate.</p>
<p>I am right here the_prestige. I have been reading intently, but I do not have a strong opinion on this matter one way or the other. I think both sides have made valid points. College sports are what they are…no more, no less.</p>
<p>And UCBChemEGrad, I would never buy property in Dubai! hehe! Seriously, I have always expressed my dismay at the faith people put in Dubai and its future. To me, this area has always been merely a free-trade zone and will never amount to much more.</p>
<p>Alexandre, </p>
<p>So you are continuing to stick by your earlier view that Brown athletics should be in the same category as Caltech, MIT and NYU?</p>
<p>Even though:</p>
<ul>
<li>Brown supports 37 Varsity teams</li>
<li>Brown has won multiple National Championships recently</li>
<li>Has been named by USNWR as one of the Top 20 best schools for scholar athletes</li>
<li>Second best Ivy only to Yale in the NCAA progress report</li>
<li>Has taken home multiple Ivy Titles recently</li>
</ul>
<p>And if you DO want to single out Brown, why not Dartmouth? Pound for pound Brown has produced more national titles recently, as many if not more Ivy titles, fields more Varsity teams (Dartmouth fields 34), Brown ranks higher than Dartmouth in recent Director Cup rankings. Brown ranks higher than Dartmouth in the NCAA progress report. And finally, according to your own definition of “relevant” athletics, take the ultimate metric – football – Brown football has taken home the Ivy title 3 times in the last 5 years, and Dartmouth hasn’t won one in 14 years.</p>
<p>So why Brown and not Dartmouth? I’m not picking on Dartmouth, I just want to know why you are singling out Brown.</p>
<p>Please explain why Brown should be looped in with a Caltech, MIT and NYU in terms of athletics (a ridiculous notion frankly), I’d like to know your specific reasons.</p>