<p>The Harvard tennis team is the top team in the country among those who do not pay their players.</p>
<p>Stanford is definitely not the model to be followed in these matters. </p>
<p>I doubt it will ever rise again to the top of the USNews rankings while it finds it necessary to have 5-6% of the "student" body on salary, wearing the school colors into battle.</p>
<p>A shame, because it is otherwise an excellent school, with this single, crippling disability.</p>
<p>What is particularly pathetic is the joy people like you take in "winning" a battle no other school is fighting.</p>
<p>The "Sears Cup" formula is designed to boost certain schools which design their program in order to focus on certain sports given a lot of points, and to exclude most sports the factory schools either don't sponsor or don't do well at.</p>
<p>Stanford - which spends more money on "athletic scholarships" (an oxymoron) than any other school in the United States of America (while arguing that it can't afford to waive tuition Harvard/Princeton style for low income "regular" applicants) - is almost unique in lavishing salaries on athletes in certain minor sports where the factory schools don't bother to compete. </p>
<p>Winning the "Sears Cup" is thus, for Stanford, like stealing candy from your kid brother: sure, you can do it, but what does it prove?</p>
<p>Byerly,</p>
<p>Your jealousy is laughable. I'd said it over and over Stanford's athletics is self-funded and doesn't compete with need-based ones. You pretend not to see this and kept misleading others; what's your intention? By the way, if you really care so much about the poor, why don't you go help in the soup kitchen/homeless shelter instead of spending so much time here (almost 8 posts a day!) telling how awesome the wealthiest school on earth is and how it's better than all others. ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
The "Sears Cup" formula is designed to boost certain schools which design their program in order to focus on certain sports given a lot of points, and to exclude most sports the factory schools either don't sponsor or don't do well at.
Stanford - which spends more money on "athletic scholarships" (an oxymoron) than any other school in the United States of America - is almost unique in lavishing salaries on athletes in certain minor sports where the factory schools don't bother to compete.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wow..this is one of the most ridiculous comments I've ever seen. Your cried about the new formula earlier. Do you see that it cuts WP, a sport Stanford had done very well in the past, by half also. The reason that some sports are now given maximum of 50 instead of 100 points in the past is because of the lack of parity and number of teams participating. The new formula is supposed to make it more fair, not less. There's no conspiracy. So chill and stop being hysterical.</p>
<p>So swimming, volleyball, baseball, and tennis are "minor" sports?? LOL! By the way, Stanford were great in all these sports BEFORE there was such thing called Sears Cup. Looks like your jealousy and emotion get the best of you. I wonder how a Harvard graduate would make such comments. But then I realize I never recall you ever said you went to Harvard. ;)</p>
<p>I stand by my comments. Stanford is an excellent university, and you needn't be so defensive - lashing out as you do. It is my opinion (which you obviously do not share) that Stanford's reputation would be enhanced if it stopped lavishing so much money on athletics and redirected those resources more constructively.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The Harvard tennis team is the top team in the country among those who do not pay their players.
[/quote]
No one is forcing Harvard (or any other Ivy) to compete in NCAA Division I, where athletic scholarships are the norm. If you seriously believe that Ivy athletes should be ranked and recognized separately, because they dont get athletic scholarships, then the logical move would be to transfer the Ivy League to NCAA Divisions II or III, where athletic scholarships are limited or banned entirely.</p>
<p>If you want to keep Ivy athletes in NCAA Division I without athletic scholarships, thats OK too. But in that case, please dont whine about the scholarship athletes at other Division I schools. It was your choice to compete against "pros" instead of other "amateurs".</p>
<p>The factory schools are certainly free to emphasize athletics at the expense of scholarship, and to trumpet their consequent "victories" over schools that don't pay salaries to those performing in the school colors.</p>
<p>What they <em>can't</em> do is pretend that this expenditure makes them superior as an allegedly academic institution.</p>
<p>Byerly...We get it. You love Harvard. We all know it's a great school. Now go away.</p>
<p>This issue has nothing to do with Harvard directly - or indeed any of the Ivies. </p>
<p>Rather, it concerns the propriety of an academic institution denying financial aid to worthy applicants with financial need while, at the same, time awarding million$ to marginal applicants on the basis of their ability to kick, throw or hit a ball.</p>
<p>You like to twist things, don't you? Stanford meets 100% of the needs. Just because it doesn't follow Harvard's policy, which has been implemented only in recent years, to automatically give full-rides to families with income under whatever level, doesn't mean it "denies financial aid" to them. </p>
<p>As I said many times, Stanford athletics is self-funded and doesn't draw anything from the funds for need-based scholarships.</p>
<p>So Harvard all of a sudden has become a lot better since it started its policy like just few years ago?? So what about before that? According to your logic, Harvard didn't have athletics scholarships to worry about and that means they had more extra cash than other D-1 schools. Did you criticize them for not doing more than schools like Duke or Stanford??? LOL!</p>
<p>An arguably the most elitist person on this board all of a sudden cares so much about the disadvantaged. Interesting! Maybe you can say something to Harvard about its policy on legacies??</p>
<p>What a turgid post!</p>
<p>Per USNews: </p>
<p>% receiving financial aid grants/cost after aid/% discount from cost for aid recipients</p>
<pre><code> Harvard University (MA) 50% $16,323 62%
Princeton University (NJ) 50% $16,325 61%
Yale University (CT) 41% $16,838 60%
Massachusetts Inst. of Technology 61% $18,456 57%
Stanford University (CA) 44% $18,775 56%
</code></pre>
<p>Byerly, you're a prick. I see you all over these forums, lambasting any school that doesn't rhyme with "ahvad." Seriously man, get A LIFE...the Harvard diploma won't do jack unless you have people skills, and it is quite apparent you have none whatsoever.</p>
<p>I have never "lambasted" any school. Ever. Except, perhaps for Harvard - in the wake of the Summers controversy.</p>
<p>Byerly,</p>
<p>Those numbers simply show what the headings say. It doesn't prove Stanford (or MIT) didn't meet 100% of demonstrated needs. The stats doesn't say anything about family income of those that receive aids either. Maybe the ones at Stanford/MIT didn't demonstrate as much needs? As long as they meet the needs, I don't see any problem. Again, I don't quite get your logic. Stanford's athletics awards are self-funded and doesn't draw funds for need-based scholarships; if you don't think athletes deserve scholarships, that's your opinion. But please don't accuse Stanford of not using Harvard's new policy because the athletes take away those money! They don't.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The other side of the coin from "meeting needs" is affirmatively seeking out those who have them, getting them to apply, and admitting them.</p></li>
<li><p>Saying that athletics at Stanford (or, for that matter, at any school granting millions of dollars in "athletic scholarships") are "self-funded" is a rationalization indeed. Did you see how much of the recent endowment drive was ticketed for more athletic scholarships?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Hey, Harvard's endowment is more than twice the size of Princeton's yet it doesn't give more than Princeton does. Shame on them! Now, I am being ridiculous. But that's exactly the way you pick on others.</p>
<p>FYI: many schools can't say theirs are self-funded the way Stanford's is. What endowment drive? I haven't received any mail from the athletics department asking for money!</p>
<p>Princeton's endowment per student is far larger than Harvard's.</p>
<p>SOMEBODY gave $50,000,000 for more athletic scholarships in Stanford's recent capital campaign; if it wasn't you, then SHAME, SHAME!</p>
<p>I would like to return to the original topic of this thread, which was that Dartmouth led the Ivies in Directors Cup points after the fall season of 2005-2006.</p>
<p>Dartmouths good showing was not at all surprising. The fact is that Dartmouth had a pretty good fall season, winning or tying for two Ivy championships (mens cross-country and soccer), and finishing second in two others (womens soccer and field hockey). </p>
<p>And Harvard's absence from the rankings was not surprising either. Harvards fall season was, to be charitable, unspectacular. Harvard managed a single second-place finish (in football), but finished fifth in three fall sports, and dead last in three others. </p>
<p>Good sportsmanship is an Ivy athletic tradition, but there hasn't been much evidence of it in this thread. Instead, we've been suffering through rants about NCAA blowhards, or the dirty politics of the Directors Cup, or the absurd, self-serving Ivy all-sports rankings. Not too inspiring.</p>
<p>So I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Dartmouth on the success of their fall sports teams. And I would like to wish Harvard better luck in the winter and spring seasons.</p>
<p>The focus should, indeed, be on success in the Ivy League and on a good overall record, and not on standing in the dubious "Sears Cup" rankings.</p>
<p>The "Sears Cup" standings are based on an extremely narrow slice of the total athletic offerings - and, moreover, only a narrow slice of offerings sanctioned by the NCAA itself.</p>
<p>The "politicking" by the schools that dominate the "Sears Cup" machinations - looking to better themselves by raising the "points" earned for "winning" in some sports, while shaving the points earned for victories in sports where they don't do so well, or to refusing to count sports that aren't NCAA "sanctioned" - is sickening.</p>
<p>Finally, it is revealing that the winner of the major Ivy title - the football championship - gets zero points in the Sears Cup standings - whereas, say, there might be 50 points awarded for getting wiped out in the second round of the women's water polo tourney.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The "Sears Cup" standings are based on an extremely narrow slice of the total athletic offerings - and, moreover, only a narrow slice of offerings sanctioned by the NCAA itself.
[/quote]
<a href="http://graphics.fansonly.com/photos/schools/nacda/sports/directorscup/auto_pdf/0506BracketDefinition.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://graphics.fansonly.com/photos/schools/nacda/sports/directorscup/auto_pdf/0506BracketDefinition.pdf</a>
Doesn't sound "extremely narrow" to me. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The "politicking" by the schools that dominate the "Sears Cup" machinations - looking to better themselves by raising the "points" earned for "winning" in some sports, while shaving the points earned for victories in sports where they don't do so well, or to refusing to count sports that aren't NCAA "sanctioned" - is sickening.
[/quote]
<a href="http://graphics.fansonly.com/photos/schools/nacda/sports/directorscup/auto_pdf/0506D1FinalFallStand.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://graphics.fansonly.com/photos/schools/nacda/sports/directorscup/auto_pdf/0506D1FinalFallStand.pdf</a>
W Field Hockey and M Water Polo were two of the few in which the champions got 50 points instead of 100 points like most others. Look who got those points? ACC, Big10, Pac10 schools--those you call the "FACTORY SCHOOLS" that "dominate the 'Sears Cup' machinations". </p>
<p>
[quote]
Finally, it is revealing that the winner of the major Ivy title - the football championship - gets zero points in the Sears Cup standings - whereas, say, there might be 50 points awarded for getting wiped out in the second round of the women's water polo tourney.
[/quote]
First of all, the champion, not someone wiped out in the 2nd round, got 50 points in water polo. </p>
<p>Ivy league belongs to D-1AA. The champion of D-1AA, Appalachian State got 100 points! So how did they get to be ranked #1 in that division? By playing against "factory schools" like LSU and Kansas ande lost to them. The funny thing is Kansas got zero point. LOL! So apparently Harvard is in much much better position to score points if they want to--just play some "factory schools" and lose to them. It's that easy. So please stop whinning. ;)</p>
<p>You do not understand.</p>
<p>The Ivy League has a longstanding ban on post-season football. Thus, even when a Harvard or a Penn has been ranked as the top non-scholarship-granting school in the country they earn no "Sears Cup" points because they don't play in the NCAA-sponsored post-seasontourney. </p>
<p>It has nothing whatsoever to do with playing and beating/or losing to any particular schools during the regular season .</p>
<p>Interestingly, when Harvard topped the Ivy Leage in 2004 they finished ahead of Stanford in the USA Today consolidated rankings, based on record and strength of schedule - not that that is saying a helluva lot!</p>