RIP Harvard / Yale rivalry

<p>Not to pile on, but I had occasion to attend the HYP track meet last weekend and Yale finished last in both Men’s and Women’s meets… by a lot. The thing that bothered me was that I have no doubt the Yale kids are working just as hard in practice as their competitors, making the same commitments and sacrifices, but because of the policies of the administration - they just don’t have the horses. Who wants to work that hard without the occasional taste of victory?</p>

<p>^
The swimming HYP meet was a joke as well–it should have been the HP meet for both the women and men–Y wasn’t even in the same league as the other two. </p>

<p>I too have heard from friends of my D’s how the student athletes are looked down as lepers at Yale, but that isn’t the case at either H or P. (and at Williams where she is going over 50% play either JV or V sports so the ethos is that of the smart student-athlete). This wasn’t the case at the outset of Levin’s term of office but it is getting worse each year. Very sad.</p>

<p>Wow, judging from the comments you’d think Yale was dropping all its sports. Actually what they are doing is reducing the reliance on recruits, and allowing students the novel (nowadays) chance to try out for a varsity team. You know, like the amateur ideal Ivies are supposed to represent. And the one they used to represent. It’s only recently even Ivies need to stalk barely pubescent kids because of sports. Maybe if more colleges did it this way, teenagers wouldn’t need to get burned out to even have a chance to play in college. Do squash and fencing need to be highly recruited sports?</p>

<p>oh, and look at records, Yale football was 4-3 in the Ivy league this year. Basketball is 7-3. Hockey is 9-10 in the ECAC. Soccer was 4-3, women’s soccer 4-2, volleyball 12-2! </p>

<p>Not much evidence that Yale is noncompetitive - all those teams are close to .500 or better.</p>

<p>^ Thanks for pointing that out. I think it’s terrific that Yale is still managing to achieve some success in a handful of sports.</p>

<p>Redman995, I do appreciate the reminder of the “amateur ideal Ivies are supposed to represent”–wasn’t that the major impetus for the formation of the Ivy League way back when? And why there are no athletic scholarships in the league? However… </p>

<p>Let’s say I’m a high school athlete being recruited to Stanford, Harvard, Princeton and Yale. Stanford offers a full ride, tempting as my parents will not have to delay retirement, but I don’t care for the school or coach. I go on officials to Harvard and Princeton, and have the lure of a likely letter in view. Yale is interested, but due to relative restrictions on recruiting cannot invite me for an official, or offer a likely letter (I’m not saying all of this is fair, just the way it would play out). </p>

<p>Wouldn’t my judgment come into question were I to choose Yale? </p>

<p>Point being, for fairness’ sake, if recruiting is to be limited, the Ivy League should agree to do so across the league–in the same vein as the initial policy barring athletic scholarships, . Otherwise, the school that unilaterally opts to restrict recruiting will be at a distinct disadvantage, one which cannot be made up by walk-ons, valuable as they may be. A disproportionate number of top athletes will have already been siphoned off by other schools.</p>

<p>NWIslander
Totally agree w / you - Point being, for fairness’ sake, if recruiting is to be limited, the Ivy League should agree to do so across the league–in the same vein as the initial policy barring athletic scholarships, . Otherwise, the school that unilaterally opts to restrict recruiting will be at a distinct disadvantage, one which cannot be made up by walk-ons, valuable as they may be.</p>

<p>That will not happen–Harvard and others such as Penn, Princeton and Cornell are very happy, thank you very much with how recruited athletes enhance their admitted classes and that they are accepted–not looked down upon–by students and faculty–and good for them</p>

<p>But, hey, if Yale and Brown want to alter the ground rules they have a way to do so and still be competitive. There is no problem…DIII is right there–just apply to join NESCAC. Of course I guess the Small College moniker would have to go…</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Actually athletic recruiting is already limited in the Ivy League. By mutual consent, Ivy schools can only offer so many likely letters and of course the students who receive those letters must meet a predetermined academic standard.</p>

<p>If Yale chooses to further restrict those numbers, I don’t think the rest of the league should be forced down to the lowest common denominator for ‘fairness sake’.</p>

<p>Agree completely, danstearns and etondad. I made the statement about fairness and league-wide changes simply to illustrate:</p>

<p>1) the extreme, unlikely and undesirable condition (ie additional league-wide restrictions) in which Yale’s hobbling of its athletic program would make sense and be “fair”, and</p>

<p>2) how much current restrictions will erode/are eroding Yale’s quality and attractiveness–as an Ivy athletic program, and ultimately as an Ivy school.</p>

<p>I neither expect nor desire that other Ivies will follow suit, and sink to the lowest common denominator. Rather the contrary!</p>

<p>[Danstearns, I was under the misconception that the number of likely letters is limited by the individual school/athletic program/administration. Clarification appreciated!]</p>

<p>Etondad, is Brown also limiting recruiting?</p>

<p>Have to say, every time you mention DIII and Yale in the same sentence I experience a little frisson of apprehension!</p>

<p>From the article, [UP</a> CLOSE | Elis beat recruiting cap | Yale Daily News](<a href=“http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2011/sep/22/close-elis-beat-recruiting-cap/]UP”>http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2011/sep/22/close-elis-beat-recruiting-cap/)</p>

<p>“The Ivy League also regulates the number of recruits each school is allowed. Once again, football is regulated with one set of rules, and all the other sports are regulated with another, Campbell-McGovern said. According to Levin, Yale recruits fewer non-football athletes than it is allowed.”</p>

<p>But the Ivy Manual says,
“The Committee will do an annual evaluation of the
use of likely letters for recruited athletes, including how many likely letters each
institution issues to athletes…” which sounds a like each institution has a little more leeway. From what I’ve read, most fully staffed Ivies offer around 200 LLs for athletes</p>

<p>NWIslander–President Simmonds (sp?) announced that the number of likely letters would be reduced by 20 (or 10%) because the athletic representation in the admitted class was too high. She also tried to cut off several sports and while that decision has been reversed the reduction of LLs has not.</p>

<p>Thank you etondad and varska. I had no idea about Brown–apparently there is at least somewhat effective pushback to their President’s measures in that there is a partial reversal.</p>

<p>I do wonder if other Ivies might be contemplating similar changes, though from your comment, etondad, likely not:</p>

<p>“Harvard and others such as Penn, Princeton and Cornell are very happy, thank you very much with how recruited athletes enhance their admitted classes…”</p>

<p>I was more than a little surprised to discover, when I searched for background on President Levin’s stance towards Yale athletics, that he was reportedly influenced by a single book based on an unreplicated, though large, study co-authored by his daughter, Sarah (sp?) Levin. There’s a fair amount of back and forth about the study, book, and President Levin’s policy changes amongst Yale alumni online. </p>

<p>I’ve read a couple of reviews of the book/study, but not the original, and don’t know the size, methodology or quality of the study, but surely President Levin did not make a significant policy change based on an unreplicated social sciences study, one conducted by a close family member, no less? </p>

<p>That would fly in the face of accepted scientific practice, but I am admittedly very underinformed. I hope someone here can educate me further, and tell me I am wrong.</p>

<p>The book: “Reclaiming the Game: College Sports and Educational Values”, by William G. Bowen and Sarah A. Levin</p>

<p>One interesting review of the book and the Yale issue in particular appeared in the Yale Alumni Magazine Sep/Oct 2003:</p>

<p>[Yale</a> Alumni Magazine: Ivy League athletics (Sept/Oct 2003)](<a href=“http://www.yalealumnimagazine.com/issues/03_09/steiger.html]Yale”>http://www.yalealumnimagazine.com/issues/03_09/steiger.html)</p>

<p>Levin has a HUGE ego (Yale, c’est moi)–I would not in the least be surprised that he changed Yale’s policy based upon his daughter’s book.</p>

<p>And his daughter was captain of the 2000 Harvard sailing team and collegiate All-American! Expect she didn’t need that athletic recruit push…</p>

<p>I would’ve liked to be a fly on the wall during their discussions en famille about the topic at hand. I read–and don’t know if it’s true–that Pres Levin instituted some changes based on his daughter’s work before it was even published.</p>

<p>The possibility of undue influence on his decision-making is troubling. If he had not recognized and adopted his daughter’s findings and recommendations, would her work stand on its own merits to the extent that it has? Is her book considered to be—by others in her field–a seminal text, and a worthy, sound basis for change?</p>

<p>Not rhetorical questions, I really don’t know. Regardless, at this level, even the appearance of favoritism or cronyism is certainly best avoided.</p>

<p>I have never heard it cited, but there are data bases to check the cites–and by whom (quality publications or not…) I don’t have access to this data base on my home computer…if someone does, it is a simple matter to check.</p>

<p>Again, it isn’t a book I have ever heard discussed–except negatively by Yale alumni/ae.</p>

<p>Basically it showed how the admissions advantage for athletic recruits has shot up in the Ivy League and other selective schools within the last few decades. This has implications for these universities and the issue is whether these admissions are the best way for schools to allocate resources. The authors are pro-athletics, just pro-athletics in the more amateur, traditional way.</p>

<p>The athletic recruiting process seems to be getting more expensive and formal and starting earlier and earlier. It’s not really the best for the kids or the schools. I love sports too but these schools are educational institutions first. As far as I’m concerned, football, bball and hockey should be able to dip a bit academically, but the other sports should be very close to the student body average. Anyway the evidence as of now doesn’t show Yale sports are noncompetitive.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>And fortunately, they are (at Harvard and Princeton, anyway)</p>

<p>"…over the past four admitted classes, Brown has had seven teams with AIs under 200, “while Dartmouth and Penn had five, Columbia three, Yale one, and Harvard and Princeton none,” Simmons wrote in the report. (Ruth Simmons, President of Brown)</p>