<p>In contrast to the Ivies, there are many top colleges that compete effectively at the highest levels of collegiate athletics. Stanford and Duke are the premier examples of this, followed closely by Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt and Notre Dame. These schools regularly produce teams of national consequence in the most competitive and widely-played sports, eg, football, men’s and women’s basketball, and baseball. </p>
<p>Athletic events can create so much positive energy on a college campus and if anyone has attended major events at places like Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt and Notre Dame (and lots of other Top 25 schools like Georgetown, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and U Virginia), then you know that there is a world of difference between what’s on offer at these schools vs their Ivy peers. </p>
<p>For some students, the availability of these very fun happenings can be important differentiators in the college search process. Athletic life can materially impact the nature of the overall undergraduate experience that one will enjoy, both as a student and for years afterwards as an alum. My guess is that many Ivy undergrads would appreciate the opportunity to see their teams become relevant again. I hope that the Ivies will try to emulate the athletic practices of the colleges that offer the best combination of great academics and great athletics--Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt, and Notre Dame.</p>
<p>Every time I’ve read posts like this on CC, what comes back from the Ivy League alums who respond back is that they really don’t care very much, and by and large prefer the status quo.</p>
<p>As the post above indicates, while they are not highly competitive nationally in football or basketball, they are competitive in lacrosse, also hockey (Cornell and Yale in NCAA this year), various other sports. And they are competitive with each other, in their league. what may be more relevant for the common student who is not a varsity athlete, Cornell, at least, offers a large intramural sports program for its students. In combination, these are enough for most people who attend, evidently.</p>
<p>If the people who actually go there don’t care about this,don’t feel there is any great thing they are missing,all things considered, I don’t know why others who don’t go there should care.</p>
<p>If you are a person who feels a big athletic scene centered around nationally prominent football is an essential element of a college experience, fortunately there are many schools you can choose. Judging by # application levels, many people do not esteem these priorities equally.</p>
<p>Moreover, why pick on Ivies; go complain to Cal Tech & MIT students about what they are missing out on.</p>
<p>mony,
I think you make some very good points and I agree that, for many Ivy students the athletic scene is not a big deal and thus they probably don’t care much if the Ivies improve or not. Ironically, however, some of the biggest sports fans that I encounter in various geographies around the USa are Ivy grads. As you might guess, I’ve had this chat with them a time or two as well. </p>
<p>I’m not sure that there is a consensus on this topic among the Ivy folks, current or past, and that is probably why the new guy is commencing a listening tour. If he talks to some of the same folks that I have, then he’ll hear a lot of positive comment about their Ivy experience and some modest desire to have the schools compete at a more competive and relevant level AS LONG AS THEY DON’T JEOPARDIZE THE ACADEMIC QUALITY OF THE SCHOOL. That sounds reasonable to me and I’ll be curious to see what he comes back with. </p>
<p>As for why I identify the Ivies in this thread, well, the article was on the Ivies. In addition and unlike some Ivy grads that I know, grads from places like MIT and Caltech have no illusions about their athletic programs being of Division 1 quality. </p>
<p>RonPaul,
With a handle like that, you have to know that college baseball is big in Texas (Go Rice!!) and is getting bigger every year across the USA. About 300 colleges compete at the Division I level (while only about 60 do so in Men’s Hockey).</p>
<p>fiyero,
I don’t think that the Ivies need to go that far. They’ll likely never get there in football because of the numbers of players needed for those teams, but it’s easy to envision a few Ivy schools putting together some good basketball teams (men and women) like Stanford, Duke, Vandy and ND seem to do on a regular basis.</p>
<p>We actually had a couple of boys sign to play football at Brown and Yale, and one even at Rhodes. Our team was not the best football team around, but it was great to finally see some boys get a foot in the door at an Ivy because of their athletic ability.</p>
<p>And before you jump on me, I know Rhodes is not Ivy, but it is a school that is not known for its football team.</p>
<p>Along those lines, not many people down here in the South have even heard of Case Western, except for those who attended Division III schools like Millsaps.</p>
<p>There are too many money issues in higher education right now for the Ivy league schools to worry about athletics. </p>
<p>Dartmouth is running at a loss and had its debt downgraded recently, Harvard and Yale are cutting back…all the Ivy league schools are cutting. I just don’t think the Ivy league schools are going to cut or freeze academic programs and expand athletic ones. (Brown did just finish a money raising program early and successfully). </p>
<p>I’m pretty sure the students who go to these schools aren’t expecting athletic powerhouses.</p>
<p>Baseball is pretty relevant at UNC (our team has been ranked in the top 5 nationally all season), as is lacrosse. The big sports though are basketball (obviously) and football. There is no reason why an academically prestigious university can’t field competitive teams for most sports. UNC is a prime example of a school that is able to enjoy athletic success while maintaining its academic reputation. </p>
<p>Anyways, to get back on topic, Harvard’s basketball team did beat BC’s last year, so maybe they are doing something right.</p>
<p>Baseball is probably my favorite sport, but college baseball gets literally no attention where I’m from (St. Paul). College hockey, at least at the schools I’m looking, is huge.</p>
<p>So I guess:</p>
<p>Sports that matter:
Football
Basketball
Hockey (In the north)
Baseball (In the south)</p>
<p>I think iveys should actually try and raise their athletic level a bit though. I might actually be interested in them then. Maybe they should raise their conference to D1 Bowl Championship Series.</p>
<p>Silly me, I didn’t realize that the Ivy League was hurting because they had crappy football teams!</p>
<p>Well, let’s hope they don’t turn things around, otherwise College Confidential will be flooded with students and parents obsessing over getting into the Ivies.</p>
<p>My issue with Ivy League sports is not that they cannot compete with the nation’s top scholarship programs. It is that some Ivy schools don’t seem to make much of an effort with some of their sports. Some of them have coaches who do not recruit, or make very little effort to recruit, or are not effective in developing their athletes.</p>
<p>Anything worth doing, is worth doing well, no? So if the Ivies are going to participate in Div. 1 athletics, their administrations ought to mandate that their programs, at the very least, have a reputation for developing, managing and producing top scholar athletes.</p>
<p>“some modest desire to have the schools compete at a more competive and relevant level AS LONG AS THEY DON’T JEOPARDIZE THE ACADEMIC QUALITY OF THE SCHOOL.”</p>
<p>AND as long as they don’t give athletic scholarships. My alma mater will never see another dime from me if they give a tuition break to football players that the chemists, ballerinas, and poets in the class don’t get.</p>
<p>If they can beat Alabama without violating those rules, I’ll show up at the game and cheer. But I won’t hold my breath.</p>
<p>I’d have to agree with Derek Bok, they can’t be good at everything. The friendly rivalry between the schools adds a sports presence for those who want it. But as an ivy grad and current parent, I would HATE to see them spend more money on sports and with all the qualified students they have to turn away from their phenomenal academics, I’d hate to see them bend the standards to get athletes good enough to do well like so many other schools do.</p>
<p>“I’m not sure that there is a consensus on this topic among the Ivy folks, current or past…”</p>
<p>There certainly seems to be a preponderant concensus among the Ivy folks who post on CC, based on the past similar threads. The alums who’ve posted here on this same topic overwhelmingly did not see a problem and do not want anything changed.</p>
<p>“Maybe they should raise their conference …”
“There is no reason why an academically prestigious university can’t field competitive teams …”</p>
<p>(etc)</p>
<p>As far as I’m aware, schools that are national powers in football and basketball all pay their athletes, via barter (“athletic scholarships”). The Ivy League by choice does not offer athletic scholarships, and this alone pretty much takes them out of contention in these sports. There is also the matter of academic standards for admission, but these could be “managed” more if national predominance in these sports was a big priority with them. But it just isn’t. But the scholarships issue makes this a secondary point anyway.</p>
<p>“…top scholar athletes…”</p>
<p>They do have, and develop, some top scholar athletes, to the extent they can get them without paying them to come there. That pretty much cuts out football and basketball, but they’re up there in some other sports. Admissions standards are undoubtely also an issue. But they do have some good teams, in some sports. And I imagine they must do something to get those good scholar athletes in. Maybe not as much as you would like? But they may see their mission regarding athletics differently than you do.</p>