<p>
I’m pretty darn sure it wouldn’t.</p>
<p>I saw in this morning’s WSJ that highly ranked, academically and athletically, Georgetown is playing even more highly ranked Duke in men’s basketball this weekend on national TV. Cue the gladiators…</p>
<p>As for the earlier comments about scholarships/admissions standards, a lot is hidden from view when it comes to Ivy League sports and how the different schools make their admissions decisions, make their financial aid grants and report their graduation statistics. When I see a student coming from a modest financial situation and sporting a modest academic resume and he/she is admitted to an Ivy college with a generous financial package, this may not be explicitly an athletic admit/scholarship, but I believe that the differences with how this student is classified at Stanford, Duke, et al are semantics. </p>
<p>Hunt,
I respect your opinion, but have seen this bandwagon jumping happen numerous times when Ivy teams surprise and achieve notable things that are consequential in the national athletic realm. Sort of like what has gone with Davidson in the last two seasons. </p>
<p>I guess we’ll just agree to disagree.</p>
<p>I personally know of a huge “need” based award made to an Ivy athlete to buy him away from another Ivy school.<br>
Academic standards are lowered quite a bit for the helmet sport (and basketball) athletes at the Ivys. I don’t have a problem with that.</p>
<p>Hawkette - your recurring thesis on this and many other threads appears to be that college sports are wonderful and pretty much all schools should make intercollegiate athletics a central part of the life on campus.</p>
<p>I agree that college sports can be quite exciting for those who want that sort of thing, but why should we have one size fits all? Why is it necessary for Harvard or the Ivy League to put greater emphasis on sports? </p>
<p>We currently have a wide range of choices. For those who want the thrill of the Big Game to dominate campus life we have the PAC-10 Big-10, ACC, and all the other big sports conferences and independent schools. For those who want a school where sports are on the back burner, there is the Ivy League, several other less big-time conferences, and any number of LACs where sports are de-emphasized. What’s wrong with that? Not every school needs to aspire to be USC or Florida. There is no downside to having choices and options.</p>
<p>In fairness, I think Hawkette’s thesis is that improving the quality of sports at Ivies and similar schools would be beneficial with little or no cost in terms of the quality of the school, etc. I think I even agree with this, but only up to a point. Probably campus life would improve, somewhat, with better athletic coaching, better facilities, and a more concerted effort to get the campus involved in supporting sports. Where I think I differ from Hawkette, though, is that I don’t think that improvement would be worth making any changes in recruitment/admissions policies at those schools, and I wouldn’t want to see a great deal of money diverted into athletics.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Right. And that’s the part I’m disagreeing with. This thesis automatically assumes that boosting the profile of sports is <em>beneficial</em>. I’m saying it’s beneficial only if you want that sort of thing. For kids who want big-time sports on campus there are plenty of options available. And for those that don’t there are plenty of options too. That’s the way it should be. Hawkette apparently wants pretty much all schools to follow the first option - even schools that have deliberately chosen not to.</p>
<p>cauyuga,
I appreciate your reply and think that the heat of our exchanges probably overstates our differences. My personal frustration is the categorization by some of the Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame group as institutions marginalized by their participation and success in major college athletics. I think that such comments are far off the mark and that IMO these schools get the balance right better than virtually any other college in the USA.</p>
<p>Your comment about the Ivy tradition is well put. I have read enough here and elsewhere to see the pride that Ivy posters have in their athletic history and in their current belief that their schools strike the right balance of academic and athletic life. I don’t believe that Harvard’s recent efforts to enhance athletic life/achievement jeopardize this, but I think that some here interpret it that way. My personal view is that Harvard’s move can be additive to the undergraduate experience and I hope that they succeed.</p>
<p>coureur,
Of course you are right that each school can and should choose its own path. Despite interpretations to the contrary, I assure you that I do not advocate a one-size-fits-all approach to the question of academics/athletic life balance. However, my interpretations may differ from others when it comes to this as I see the spectrum in terms of academic/athletic purity as something like:</p>
<p>PURE----------less-------------less------------less------------less-------less---------less</p>
<p>Wiliams/Amherst/MIT model----------------Ivy Model—Stanford/Duke model------------Broad distribution of models for other D 1 schools</p>
<p>I also think that some of the stereotypes presented in this thread grossly misunderstand and misrepresent the role of athletic life on a college’s campus and particularly at schools like Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame. Those schools have sterling academic reputations and yet recruit, educate, and graduate very high numbers of their student-athletes. Furthermore, the efforts of these student-athletes, played out in the USA’s most competitive athletic conferences, create a unique entertainment/bonding/school-spirit enhancing experience in the midst of an outstanding private university.</p>
<p>
As Division I schools, the Ivies are required to calculate and document their Academic Progress Rates for individual athletes and for each team, using the exact same rules as any other Division I school. The APRs for all Division I teams at all Division I schools are published by the NCAA. Nothing is hidden there, except for details about individual athletes.
But not as well as the Ivies, according to the NCAA’s own APR data.
Yet don’t the APR differences appear to be more than semantic? Number of 2007-2008 NCAA Public Recognition Awards (from Post #103):</p>
<p>28 Yale
24 Dartmouth
21 Brown
20 Penn
19 Princeton</p>
<h2>18 Harvard</h2>
<p>12 Duke
11 Notre Dame
10 Stanford
8 Northwestern
8 Rice
2 Vanderbilt (ouch)</p>
<p>As NCAA President Myles Brand [url=<a href=“http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?ContentID=333]commented[/url”>http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?ContentID=333]commented[/url</a>] on the award winners: "“Congratulations to these teams and their student-athletes for success in the classroom … They are setting a great example for their peers and future student-athletes, as well.”</p>
<p>Maybe the Ivies are setting a “great example” for schools like Stanford, Duke, etc. – not the other way around.</p>
<p>
Some of the top salaries at Notre Dame for the 2006-2007 academic year, as obtained from the school’s publicly-available Tax Form 990 from July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2007:</p>
<p>$ 650,000 L. Tyrone Willingham, Former Football Coach </p>
<h2>$ 598,000 Charles J. Weis, Current Football Coach</h2>
<p>$ 478,299 Michael Brey, Men’s Basketball Coach </p>
<h2>$ 468,781 Muffet McGraw, Women’s Basketball Coach </h2>
<p>$ 432,000 Rev. John I. Jenkins, President and Trustee<br>
$ 300,000 Patricia O’Hara, Dean, Law School </p>
<p>It seems possible that not everyone would perceive the University of Notre Dame’s financial priorities as “balanced”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I completely agree with this in principal, Hawkette. The same could be said of many Ivy teams, and I know from my time at Cornell that many of Cornell’s finest student athletes were more academically impressive than me. </p>
<p>But in practice we know that some of the schools that you trump actively admit athletes who they wouldn’t touch otherwise. Remember, Ivies are strictly regulated in the SAT scores and GPAs of the athletes that they recruit, to the extent that every student-athlete is placed in a “band” and a school is limited to certain numbers within each band. There are hockey players that we would absolutely love to have on East Hill, but we can’t touch them.</p>
<p>Not so at a place like Duke. My understanding is that Duke basketball’s average SAT score is less than 1000, which is less than the average SAT score for all test-takers nationwide! And it’s this phenomenon that I find particularly revolting, and why I will insist on comparing Duke’s basketball team to gladiators – present only to entertain.</p>
<p>[The</a> Chronicle](<a href=“http://www.dukechronicle.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticle&ustory_id=1fcb182b-4405-45f6-96df-bb1e86da7a76]The”>http://www.dukechronicle.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticle&ustory_id=1fcb182b-4405-45f6-96df-bb1e86da7a76)</p>
<p>And the average score is less than 1000! Just imagine what the average score is for the starting five! Hell, even Michigan’s football team approaches an average SAT score of 1100.</p>
<p>What really kills me about Duke is that aside from Duke basketball, Duke’s athletics aren’t all that impressive relative to the Ivies. Just looking at Cornell, we’re always competitive at a national level in lacrosse and hockey, and we field a lot of national championships in crew, wrestling, track, and the like. That’s about the same experience that Duke has had outside of basketball, and we don’t offer any scholarships. So what we have is a school blatantly disregarding its academic mission to enroll unqualified athletes who serve as promotional entertainers for the school. And that’s hypocritical, if you ask me.</p>
<p>OMG, Harvard updates its stadium lighting and garners more pages of CC comment than the day it appointed a female president.</p>
<p>
Would it spoil anything if I pointed out that the Georgetown men’s basketball team is currently ranked in the bottom 20-30% of NCAA Division I athletes, based on their 4-year Academic Progress Rates?</p>
<p>Or would you continue to regard the game as a matchup of the “academically highly ranked” ?</p>
<p>Would I spoil anything if I pointed out that Dook basketball is overrated and will be handed 2 ACC losses by the 'Heels this year?</p>
<p>Off topic, I know, but I couldn’t resist. </p>
<p>And not many people care about how smart D1 basketball players are or how well they do in school. They care about how good they are on the court.</p>
<p>
Yet the Duke men’s basketball team posts substantially higher APRs, according to the NCAA statistics, than the Georgetown team.</p>
<p>In fact, Georgetown [url=<a href=“Urlacher, Cutler showcase at College's camp - Flat Hat News”>Georgetown recruit scores 600 on SAT - Flat Hat News]recently[/url</a>] recruited a men’s basketball player with SATs in the 600s. In this light, hawkette’s use of Georgetown basketball as an example of a “highly ranked, academically and athletically” program is wholly unconvincing.</p>
<p>On the other hand, a former Georgetown student body president commented that most students and teachers were not concerned with the basketball recruiting situation: “To be honest with you, I think as long as they win, that’s the most important thing for most people.” Or, as Cuse0507 stated in the previous post “not many people care about how smart D1 basketball players are or how well they do in school. They care about how good they are on the court.”</p>
<p>I think these comments probably do reflect the predominant attitude towards major Division I sports. But the Ivy League – and many of the posters here – have different priorities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Frankly, can’t the APRs be manipulated a bit by excessive hand holding and slotting into preferred majors?</p>
<p>
It certainly wouldn’t surprise me. But probably only up to a point. I suspect that when it comes to basketball players, the difference between Ivy SATs, Duke SATs, and Georgetown SATs can’t be completely masked.</p>
<p>Last year, 7 of the 8 Ivy men’s basketball teams were honored with NCAA Public Recognition Awards for their outstanding APRs. Neither Duke nor Georgetown managed to win such awards, in spite of whatever manipulations they may have attempted.</p>
<p>Corbett,
I think that actual graduation data (known in the NCAA as the Graduation Success Rate or GSR) is better and more concrete and probably a more accurate reflection of the academic outcomes for the student-athletes at these schools. But you brought up the Academic Progress Rates and so, let’s look a little closer at the APR data and compare the Ivies and the Great Combination Group (Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame) as well as some of the most prominent publics (UC Berkeley, U Virginia, UCLA, U Michigan) and a few national athletic powers that also are considered as good publics (U Wisconsin, U Texas, U Florida, Penn State). </p>
<p>Of all of the sports, the differences in APR between the Ivies and the others are most pronounced in football. No surprise there. But the Ivies are in a different division and it’s really an apples and oranges comparison. Probably a more appropriate comparison group is the Patriot League schools or even the NESCAC.</p>
<p>Below is the APR data for a few sports. I don’t see big differences in the results, but I know that there are big differences in the quality of the play and, more importantly, the nature of the athletic scene surrounding these sports. </p>
<p>Football </p>
<p>993 U Penn
991 Yale
988 Brown
987 Dartmouth
986 Stanford
986 Cornell
983 Harvard
982 Princeton
978 Columbia
977 Duke
969 Northwestern
969 Notre Dame
967 UC Berkeley
964 Penn State
962 U Florida
961 Georgetown
959 Vanderbilt
951 U Virginia
951 U Michigan
944 U Wisconsin
942 U Texas
941 UCLA</p>
<p>In basketball, the Ivies compete in Division I, but are not really competitive with the teams from the major conferences and I don’t think anyone is confusing the quality of the Ivy teams with those at Duke, Notre Dame, Vanderbilt, and Stanford. </p>
<p>M Basketball </p>
<p>1000 Columbia
996 Yale
991 Princeton
987 Harvard
986 Brown
985 Vanderbilt
984 Duke
984 Dartmouth
984 U Penn
972 Northwestern
971 Notre Dame
968 UCLA
966 Cornell
964 Penn State
954 Stanford
945 Georgetown
942 UC Berkeley
941 U Virginia
938 U Wisconsin
929 U Texas
927 U Michigan
919 U Florida</p>
<p>Women’s lacrosse might be the best “test case” because there is a large competitive overlap and the teams play regularly each other. </p>
<p>W Lax </p>
<p>na UCLA
na U Michigan
na U Wisconsin
na U Texas
na U Florida
1000 Northwestern
1000 Dartmouth
1000 U Penn
1000 Princeton
1000 Penn State
998 Notre Dame
997 Vanderbilt
997 Brown
995 Cornell
995 U Virginia
993 Stanford
992 Duke
991 Yale
991 UC Berkeley
989 Georgetown
989 Columbia
985 Harvard</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wow. Georgetown’s football team is bad both on and off the field.</p>
<p>I’m also surprised that Cornell’s basketball team APR is so low. We just had a Rhodes Scholar finalist in Graham Dow '07, but we’re considered to be worse than UCLA?! Maybe transfers or injuries are affecting the APR?</p>
<p>
C’mon. If the school wants athletes to graduate, they graduate. But do they know anything? What happens to them after that?</p>
<p>The new GSR measure is a total scam designed by the NCAA to hide the really dismal graduation rates of athletes at most Div 1 schools.</p>
<p>Quoting the Scout, one the best sources of information on intercollegiate sports:
[Scout.com:</a> The Bootleg’s Graduation Rate Analysis](<a href=“Cardinal 247 - Stanford Cardinal Football Recruiting”>Cardinal 247 - Stanford Cardinal Football Recruiting)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you compare graduation rates between athletes in revenue sports such as football, basketball or baseball, the difference in graduation rates is simply astounding with the lone exception of Stanford.</p>
<p>For the 2005 data, the latest reported under the old system we have;</p>
<pre><code> All students Football Basketball Baseball All Athletes
</code></pre>
<p>Stanford 94% 85% 92% 79% 87%</p>
<p>Notre Dame 94% 77% 53% N/A 87%</p>
<p>Duke 95% 85% 58% 95% 90%</p>
<p>Vanderbilt 84% 88% N/A 47% N/A</p>
<p>Rice 90% 88% N/A 58% 82%</p>
<p>USC 76% 58% 20% 54% 62%</p>
<p>NU 93% 83% N/A 78% 87%</p>
<p>Among Div 1A publics</p>
<p>Cal 84% 48% 0% 48% 66%</p>
<p>Michigan 84% 57% 27% N/A 74%</p>
<p>UCLA 83% 55% 33% 43% 61%</p>
<p>Virginia 92% N/A 46% 60% 82%</p>
<p>Clearly, basketball is the worst offender with schools like Cal not graduating a single player, Michigan with 27% grad rate, USC 20%, UCLA 33% . Even Duke at 58% actually has a lower basketball grad rate than some other major programs, including Kansas, Michigan St., and North Carolina.</p>
<p>In baseball, Vanderbilt graduates less than half of its players at 47% and Rice only 58%. In football, ND graduates only 77% of its players and USC 58%. </p>
<p>Some general conclusions:
- In revenue sports, the more competitive a team, the fewer players it graduates.<br>
- Most schools have higher graduation rates in non-revenue sports than in football, basketball and baseball.
- All schools have significantly lower graduation rates for athletes in general, with the biggest differential among publics.</p>