Dartmouth athletics ranked first in the Ivy League

Colleges and Universities A-Z Dartmouth College
61

<p>
[quote]
I conclude that you are wrong. The "Sears Cup" ranking process is misguided, misleading and fundamentally corrupt.

[/quote]
Why? You need to be more specific. For example: </p>

<p>Do you agree with my previous conclusion that the Ivies would do very well in the present Cup system, if they were ranked against Division I-AA (or lower division) schools?</p>

<p>If so, then doesn't it follow that that the problem is not with the Cup process itself, but with NCAA Division I, which lumps the Ivies with the I-A athletic "factory schools?</p>

62

<p>Corbett,</p>

<p>I don't think we can expect any logical argument from Byerly anymore on this thread. I think arguing with him is a waste of time. First he gave out bunch of false info, thinking none of us would expose him. Then he posted totally irrelevant links. This guy isn't making any sense anymore. He's usually much better in other threads but he's here trying to prove something that doesn't exist and it's getting silly.</p>

63

<p>Lee, your specialty on CC is ad hominem attacks on those who do not share your prejudices. </p>

<p>"Discussion" with you is fruitless, as I have long since learned. </p>

<p>My purpose on this thread is simply to show that the thesis proclaimed by the OP is absurd: namely, that the so-called "Sears Cup" rankings - particularly after 1/3 of the year - show anything whatsoever about "which Ivy school has the best athletic teams."</p>

<p>The "Sears Cup" rankings are a closely-held franchise run for the sole benefit of athletic directors of the powerhouse factory schools - presumably showing those pouring money into their programs that they are getting bang for the buck.</p>

64

<p>Byerly,</p>

<p>
[quote]
Lee, your specialty on CC is ad hominem attacks on those who do not share your prejudices

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Isn't that ad hominem attack? If I'd done any, it's on this particular thread, not all over the board--hence not my "specialty".</p>

<p>Is it not true that the Sears Cup covers most of the sports NCAA or Harvard has (like 33 of the 37)? This is a fact, NOT some kind of subjective "prejudice". Yet, you at first referred it as "extremeley narrow". AFTER I posted the link showing how most of the sports are included, you used "minor fraction" to describe it. Do you live in a different universe that has different definition for "minor" and "narrow"? When others gave you sound arguments like Corbett did, you kept saying they were wrong without being specific. When you behave this way, you are open to have your motive questioned.</p>

65

<p>
[quote]
The "Sears Cup" rankings are a closely-held franchise run for the sole benefit of athletic directors of the powerhouse factory schools - presumably showing those pouring money into their programs that they are getting bang for the buck.

[/quote]
If this is true, then one of the principal conspirators must be the athletic director at Williams College, which has won 9 Cups so far. Is Williams -- which is known for small size, no athletic scholarships, high academic standards, and limits on postseason play -- a "powerhouse factory school" ?</p>

66

<p>Williams may not give athletic scholarships, but it has an absolutely HUGE emphasis on sports, admits an eyepopping fraction of its class as athletic recruits, and whups up on a lot of much smaller schools with far fewer recruited athletes in the course of a season. It takes the same kind of pathetic and unjustified pride in its "Sears Cup" "wins" as Stanford does.</p>

<p>Further, as a Div III school, it is not going up against the factories relying on salaried athletes, but rather against smaller schools with far fewer "recruits".</p>

<p>Having "high academic standards" (at least for non-athletes) is not inconsistent with over-emphasis on athletics. Stanford, for example, is an excellent school academically, and yet more than 5% of its students are salaried athletes who are held to far lower standards for admission than "ordinary" applicants.</p>

67

<p>
[quote]
Further, as a Div III school, it is not going up against the factories relying on salaried athletes, but rather against smaller schools with far fewer "recruits".

[/quote]

Congratulations...I think you're finally starting to catch on. </p>

<p>Now, don't you think the Ivies -- like Williams -- would do well in the Cup standings if they didn't have to compete with factory schools ? This seems self-evident to me (and, I imagine to most other readers of this thread), but you seem to be struggling with the idea.</p>

<p>Quite simply, the Ivies should not be ranked with Division I-A schools. The Ivies themselves have admitted this, as far as football goes, because they have withdrawn to Division I-AA. Currently the I-A/I-AA distinction only exists in football, but if this distinction were to expand to other sports, then the Ivies would do very well, both on the field and in the Cup standings. You apparently disagree, but I don't understand why.</p>

68

<p>
[quote]
Williams may not give athletic scholarships, but it has an absolutely HUGE emphasis on sports, admits an eyepopping fraction of its class as athletic recruits, and whups up on a lot of much smaller schools with far fewer recruited athletes in the course of a season. It takes the same kind of pathetic and unjustified pride in its "Sears Cup" "wins" as Stanford does.

[/quote]

As usual, I checked into Byerly's claims, specifically the one about the "eyepopping fraction" of athletic recruits at Williams. And as usual, they didn't stand up.</p>

<p>According to the Chronicle</a> of Higher Education, the "Little 3" schools (including Wesleyan and Amherst, as well as Williams) currently allow athletic coaches to "tip" a total of 66 athletes in each class. For most teams, this represents 2 or 3 players. As the Chronicle notes: "Of course, this means that the majority of Williams athletes don't get any special help in the admissions process."</p>

<p>Let's compare with Ivy League rules. According to the Crimson:</a> "the Council of Ivy Group Presidents limited the number of recruited athletes who may matriculate to 1.4 times the number needed to fill the travel squads for the 33 'Ivy Championship' sports." In other words, under the "1.4 Rule", the Ivies are allowed to recruit enough athletes to competely fill each of 33 varsity teams, plus another 40% for reserves. Now that's eyepopping.</p>

<p>I did confirm Byerly's assertion that Williams has "an absolutely HUGE emphasis on sports". Williams does seem to attract student-athletes, and has very high rates of sports participation (possibly there is nothing else to do in Williamstown). Of course, most people would find it natural - not unfair - for an athletically-oriented school to do well in athletic rankings.</p>

<p>If Williams' Cup awards are "unjustified", then I would be genuinely curious to know which Division III schools are more deserving of recognition. So far, the only specific criticisms that have been offered about the Cup system are (1) it does not include all possible college sports, and (2) it does not give points to schools that forego football playoffs. But if we "corrected" these two points, Williams would do even better, since (1) it does well in non-NCAA sports like squash, and (2) it stays out of the DIII football playoffs.</p>

69

<p>
[quote]
Williams...whups up on a lot of much smaller schools with far fewer recruited athletes in the course of a season.

[/quote]
Looks like this claim falls down too. I found the 2003 numbers on "athletic slots" or "tips" for 10 of the 11 NESCAC teams. As noted above, Williams, Amherst, and Wesleyan have 66 athletic slots for each class. But this is low by NESCAC standards: Hamilton = 69, Trinity = 71, Middlebury, Bates, & Tufts = 75, Bowdoin & Colby = 79. </p>

<p>I don't have the number for the remaining NESCAC, Connecticut College, but I will grant that in this case, it is probably less than 66. Connecticut College is a former women's college that doesn't play football.</p>

70

<p>
[quote]
As usual, I checked into Byerly's claims..... And as usual, they didn't stand up.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's what I'd learned too. ;)</p>