<p>Great Byerly, Harvard has a consistent record of recruiting football players. Quite the achievement I must admit. I really wanted to go to USC because of their dominant football program, but unfortunately they wouldn't admit me.</p>
<p>nevertheless, Princeton invented football.</p>
<p>
[quote]
For more info, try <a href="http://www.uselessstatistics.com/%5B/url%5D%5B/quote%5D">http://www.uselessstatistics.com/
[/quote]
</a></p>
<p>That's actually a real website. :O</p>
<p>Good point, anonymou5. </p>
<p>As for the football comparison, let's take a hypothetical USC versus Harvard matchup, or, even better, Stanford versus Harvard. In the first game, I'll say it will be around 56-0 before the half and Pete Carroll plays the third string. In the second game, it might be 35-7. </p>
<p>Does that make USC & Stanford better by default? Come on now Byerly, even you know football has no bearing on anything else.</p>
<p>His subject was "A key H v. P comparison." He wasn't claiming that it affected anything else.</p>
<p>Harvard, (and Princeton), unlike Stanford and USC, do not pay their football players.</p>
<p>Oh, and by the by, even though its players are unsalaried, Harvard finished ahead of Stanford in the national football rankings last season. (Harvard #37, Stanford #46).</p>
<p>But there is an egregious error within those rankings given that Harvard rarely plays any team of quality, whereas Stanford confronts formidable opponents on a weekly basis.</p>
<p>This article details Princeton's preeminence within the athletic realm.<br>
<a href="http://goprincetontigers.collegesports.com/genrel/062905aab.html%5B/url%5D">http://goprincetontigers.collegesports.com/genrel/062905aab.html</a></p>
<p>Princeton also led the Ivy League as well, finishing one place and two points ahead of Harvard.</p>
<p>Stanford rolled to the overall championship for the 11th straight year</p>
<p>Harvard Wins Ivy League-Record 14 Championships in 2004-05</p>
<p>Crimson equals all-time league mark to highlight amazing year</p>
<p>May 16, 2005</p>
<p>CAMBRIDGE, Mass. - As they entered the Grand Finals of their respective races Sunday, Harvard's men's heavyweight and men's lightweight crews found themselves not only in position to gain supremacy in the Eastern rowing circles, but with a chance to make Harvard history as well.</p>
<p>And after the lightweights emerged first in a photo finish, and the Crimson heavyweights followed with a narrow victory, history was indeed made.</p>
<p>The championships in men's lightweight rowing and men's heavyweight rowing gave Harvard its 13th and 14th Ivy League titles of the 2004-05 academic year. By comparison, in the 49-year formal history of the Ivy League, only once had one school taken home 14 championships (Princeton in 1999-2000).</p>
<p>For its part, Harvard's previous best haul of Ivy trophies had been 12, which had been accomplished twice. The Crimson first won 12 championships in 1982-83 and duplicated the feat in 1988-89.</p>
<p>The list of champions in 2004-05 is as impressive in its breadth as its number. Seven men's teams and seven women's teams won Ivy championships. Three titles came in the fall, seven in the winter and four in the spring. The champions included perennial winners (men's squash won its 37th title) and first-time titlists (women's volleyball and women's fencing won their first championships). Six teams went undefeated in regular season league play.</p>
<p>"We're so proud of the hard work of our student-athletes and our coaches who have made this year so memorable," said Nichols Family Director of Athletics Bob Scalise.</p>
<p>Harvard's teams amassed a combined record of 122-48-3 against Ivy League opponents (71.4 percent). Cornell was second in the league with eight championships while Princeton was third with five. Columbia, Yale and Dartmouth won three titles each while Penn had two and Brown one.</p>
<p>Harvard's accomplishments in 2004-05 go beyond the Ivy championship picture, however. Teams that compete outside the Ivy League umbrella enjoyed banner years as well, as women's sailing captured the New England championship and men's volleyball won an EIVA division title.</p>
<p>Harvard also enjoyed across-the-board success on the national level. Three teams (women's ice hockey, men's squash, women's squash) played in the final games of their respective national championship tournaments, while fifteen teams sent representatives to NCAA championships. A 16th NCAA tournament team could be named tomorrow when the women's rowing selections are announced.</p>
<p>"We're so proud of the hard work of our student-athletes and our coaches who have made this year so memorable,"
Nichols Family Director of Athletics Bob Scalise</p>
<p>Harvard student-athletes have won significant individual accolades as well. Freshman Emily Cross won an NCAA championship in women's fencing and is one of 29 All-America selections to date in 2004-05. Eight Harvard students were chosen as Ivy League players of the year in their respective sports.</p>
<p>Perhaps the most impressive part of Harvard's accomplishments in 2004-05 is the fact that the year is hardly over. The women's tennis team has advanced to the round of 16 in the NCAA tournament while the baseball team learns its NCAA tournament destination May 30. The men's heavyweight crew is favored to win its third straight national championship, while the men's lightweights are likewise favored at the upcoming IRA regatta. The women's sailing team is a strong contender for the top spot at next month's North American championships as well.</p>
<p>Harvard's 2004-05 Ivy League Champions</p>
<p>Baseball (26-15, 15-5 Ivy)
Eighteenth Ivy title for NCAA tournament-bound Crimson</p>
<p>Women's Basketball (20-8, 12-2 Ivy)
Won share of ninth Ivy title in regular-season finale</p>
<p>Men's Heavyweight Crew (6-0)
Won 24th title and third straight at Eastern Sprints</p>
<p>Men's Lightweight Crew (10-1)
Photo finish at Eastern Sprints gave crew its 23rd Ivy title</p>
<p>Men's Fencing (6-1, 3-1 Ivy)
Team won third Ivy title and first since 1977</p>
<p>Women's Fencing (9-0, 5-0 Ivy)
Team won first Ivy title in program history</p>
<p>Field Hockey (11-7, 6-1 Ivy)
Harvard's third Ivy title and first since 1991</p>
<p>Football (10-0, 7-0 Ivy)
Eleventh Ivy title; First 10-0 season since 1901 team went 12-0</p>
<p>Women's Ice Hockey (26-7-3, 8-1-1 Ivy)
Team won sixth title on its way to NCAA championship game</p>
<p>Men's Squash (11-2, 6-0 Ivy)
Team won its school record 37th Ivy championship</p>
<p>Men's Swimming & Diving (8-0)
Team won 20th Ivy title at EISL championships</p>
<p>Women's Swimming & Diving (10-0)
Eighth Ivy title and first since 1996 for Crimson</p>
<p>Women's Tennis (19-6, 7-0 Ivy)
Team won 16th Ivy title and is currently in NCAA round of 16</p>
<p>Women's Volleyball (15-10, 10-4 Ivy)
Team gained a share of its first Ivy title </p>
<p>yes but the un-biased accurate data shows:</p>
<p>Athletics, Harvard 3, Princeton 4</p>
<p>Higher the better.</p>
<p>Apparently. your alleged "accurate" data is simply not accurate!</p>
<p>how do you know? any rebuttal proof (besides the rant)?</p>
<p>Not only does it have more Division 1 varsity teams, and more Division 1 varsity athletes, than any other college or university in the United States of America, but they do it without having to "hire" players and put them on the payroll, or admitting people far beneath the standards applicable for "normal" students.:</p>
<p>SEE: Cover Story 3/18/02: </p>
<p>Athletics for all</p>
<p>"Harvard tops the scoreboard with a sporting smorgasbord to foster sound bodies and minds"</p>
<p>what about those sucky professors and that darn COEFHE study?</p>
<p>How the Professors are ranked</p>
<p>item, % Harvard, % Princeton</p>
<p>very knowledgeable, 94%, 96%
Interesting, 45%, 52%
keep me awake, 42%, 44%
Makes me space out, 6%, 0</p>
<p>Profs. outside of class</p>
<p>very friendly,33%, 56%
inimidating, 9%, 0
They ignore me, 6%, 0</p>
<p>How often the class is related to real world</p>
<p>All the time, 24%, 33%
some time, 18%, 33%
Not too often, 6%, 0
Not at all, 6%, 0</p>
<p>and the high unemployment figures for Harvard graduates (almost twice the national average) and second tier ranking in NIH grants, and many of the freshman classes the size of several foot ball teams combined and taught by graduate students and the faculty ratio of 11:1 versus Princetons 8:1.</p>
<p>who cares about sports? I certainly don't want to spend 45 grand a year for that. For the sports raah raah he could have gone to state school for no money.</p>
<p>You can use this. Doormat almost bench warmer of a player and academic student from my son's school will be playing foot ball at Harvard this fall.</p>
<p>There are reasons that "study" is of limited value. Like the silly Princeton Review rankings of libraries, party schools, etc, it has no legitimate <em>rankings</em> at all ... students are assessing their <em>own</em> school - with no comparative rankings at all involved.</p>
<p>If Harvard students, for example, are more demanding, expecting more from their school, that fact distorts the "rankings" (which are not comparative rankings at all).</p>
<p>For example, PR lists the BYU library as the "greatest" college library - based on the enthusiasm registered by BYU students oblivious to the attractions of libraries elsewhere.</p>
<p>Presumably. BYU students are not agitating for library access 24/7 as might be the case at some libraries. (The Yale library, tellingly, is not even listed in the top 20 libraries in this "ranking".</p>
<p>This is why the USNews finds the COEFHE "study" of dubious value for comparative purposes.</p>
<p>(I assume I'm wasting my time trying to explain these points to you, since you probably don't understand what I'm saying, and don't really care.)</p>
<p>yes you are. you have no points......no re-buttal data.</p>
<p>''I think we have to concede that we are letting our students down," said Lawrence Buell, an English professor and former dean of undergraduate education</p>
<p>But right now, students can go through four years on campus with limited contact with professors. They often take large lecture classes, divided into sections headed by graduate student ''teaching fellows." Small classes are frequently taught by temporary instructors instead of regular, tenure-track professors. And in many cases, advisers are not professors, either, but graduate students, administrators, or full-time advisers</p>
<p>Princeton is a very fine school, and simply because top applicants are more likely to prefer Harvard does not change this fact. </p>
<p>It simply happens that the college admissions game has a bit of the "winner take all" aspect to it. </p>
<p>A school can be very high on the academic food chain and still not do well - head to head - versus the top-ranked school.</p>
<p>Chevy brand is the most well known brand. GM is l# 1 manufacturer of automobiles.</p>
<p>But are their cars better (do you get your $'s worth)?</p>
<p>WALMART is the largest retailer, should everyone purchase from Walmart?</p>
<p>So I'll concede that you do in fact have more players but that is similar to arguing that the University of Texas is better than Harvard simply because it has more students. Quantity is a poor correlator or quality.</p>