<p>The article in the original post was about student-athletes, something the Ivies have in abundance. Most of this thread is about spectators, couch potatoes who waste their time and energy watching other people engaging in a socially useless and silly activity. The Ivies do not have many students who overindulge in being a spectator.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I hear you on Rice and concede that its athletic offering (and perhaps also that of Northwestern) would be at a different level than what one would experience at Stanford, Duke, Vanderbilt and Notre Dame.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hogwash.</p>
<p>THE sport in college is FB and since 1995, Northwestern has had, by far, the most success out of Stanford, Duke and Vandy - w/ THREE conference titles and a winning record against 6 out of the 10 conference foes.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In the Ivy League, sports is still all about playing the game, not marketing and merchandising. The Ivy League adheres to academic standards.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not as much as they used to - even the Ivy League has gotten "corrupted" to a certain degree.</p>
<p>k&s,
Could you please coordinate with pizzagirl who regularly insists that Northwestern has not got much sports flavor on its campus. I have previously posted as you have above with the view that Northwestern has a good athletic scene and one certainly a far cry better than anything available at the Ivies. I actually leaned to your POV until pizzagirl repeatedly insisted that this is a mischaracterization of student and athletic life at Northwestern.</p>
<p>As for other mischaracterizations, maybe you might also want to respond to collegehelp's descriptions of students at a school like Northwestern as:</p>
<p>"couch potatoes who waste their time and energy watching other people engaging in a socially useless and silly activity"</p>
<p>colleghelp,
Hah! If the Ivies had anything worth watching, the students and the community would turn out in droves. The reality is that, with very, very, very few exceptions, they don't.</p>
<p>If a student is interested in having top level academics and watching national level and relevant collegiate athletics (which you describe in miserly terms as "a socially useless and silly activity" :rolleyes: ) in major sports like football, basketball and baseball, then it is clear that he/she would be better off at Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Rice, Notre Dame.</p>
<p>
[quote]
k&s,
Could you please coordinate with pizzagirl who regularly insists that Northwestern has not got much sports flavor on its campus. I have previously posted as you have above with the view that Northwestern has a good athletic scene and one certainly a far cry better than anything available at the Ivies. I actually leaned to your POV until pizzagirl repeatedly insisted that this is a mischaracterization of student and athletic life at Northwestern.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I feel that they both can be correct. The Northwestern football team has enjoyed some recent success since 1995, but that doesn't necessarily change the campus culture that much as it traditionally has been a doormat with only 2 winning seasons in the prior 31 years and no bowl appearances in the previous 47 seasons.</p>
<p>Northwestern</a> Yearly Totals</p>
<p>
[quote]
"couch potatoes who waste their time and energy watching other people engaging in a socially useless and silly activity"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't find playing football a "silly activity" and anything where many people gather together I wouldn't regard as socially useless. Much of the tradition around these games are the tailgate parties. Do you find house or fraternity parties or going out to the bars as socially useless too?</p>
<p>There are a few strongly supported Ivy sports- Penn basketball is one. The kids camp out in line to get tickets just like at Duke. Cornell hockey.....
I have experience with Rice and Penn, and I would say Penn has more focus on athletics, despite Rice's baseball success. I also have experience with Vanderbilt and Vanderbilt has 50 times the athletic focus of either Rice or Penn (which to me is a good thing).</p>
<p>"I feel that they both can be correct. The Northwestern football team has enjoyed some recent success since 1995, but that doesn't necessarily change the campus culture that much as it traditionally has been a doormat with only 2 winning seasons in the prior 31 years and no bowl appearances in the previous 47 seasons."</p>
<p>Exactly. Hawkette, a lot of what you talk about is how you personally find watching football/bball/etc. a unifying experience for a campus. It can be great fun and unifying for the students who already like that kind of thing ... but it's not of any interest to the many bookish students on NU's campus who value more space in the library on Saturdays or who wouldn't attend a homecoming rally down Sheridan Road if their lives depended on it. </p>
<p>But, it's not NECESSARY for every single student in a campus to be engaged in a shared activity simultaneously for them to feel connected to the campus. I daresay the nerds in the sub-basement at Tech are just as bonded to their NU experience as the sorority girls in the quads. (Of which I was one, LOL) </p>
<p>The tradition of football at NU has a lot of irony around it, because we know we're a different type of school than our traditional Big 10 opponents -- much smaller and with a far different focus. And there is a difference between enjoying a football game with friends on a pleasant Saturday in beautiful Evanston, and screaming oneself hoarse, taking what goes on the field seriously and being truly upset if the team didn't win and being rude and boorish to fans of the opposing team, which was described on these boards as how Duke does it and wasn't-that-grand.</p>
<p>"colleghelp,
Hah! If the Ivies had anything worth watching, the students and the community would turn out in droves. The reality is that, with very, very, very few exceptions, they don't."</p>
<p>So what, though? Is there a shortage of opportunities to watch sports in this country or something? Has ESPN been banned from the airwaves? What's the big deal? The students who value big-time nationally relevant D1 sports will choose the schools you mention, and the ones who don't will choose the Ivies. What's the problem? Why should they all be the same? </p>
<p>And BTW Hawkette I'm going to NU's homecoming game and tailgate next week!</p>
<p>p'girl,
For those who enjoy a strong and nationally relevant athletic life and want it as part of their undergraduate experience and want to enjoy its benefits far into the future, then they are better served at Stanford, Duke, Vanderbilt, and Notre Dame (I'll let others interpret Northwestern and Rice as they see fit) than at any of the Ivies. That's it. This is true in the same way that theater/arts won't be important to all students, but vitally important to others, as they consider various college alternatives. I'm not making a value judgment for you, but I am making a comparison with the Ivy colleges and, for those who care about a strong and nationally relevant athletic life, the differences are stark. </p>
<p>I also think that the list of schools with a vibrant athletic scene and which will have sizable cross applications with some Ivies include Georgetown, USC and Wake Forest among the privates and UC Berkeley, U Virginia, UCLA, U Michigan and U North Carolina among the publics. </p>
<p>Re your comment, </p>
<p>"The students who value big-time nationally relevant D1 sports will choose the schools you mention, and the ones who don't will choose the Ivies. What's the problem? Why should they all be the same?" </p>
<p>I'm not saying that they should all be the same. Heck, I like the differences as different folks will be attracted to different things. But this thread is about academics and sports and for students who like highest level academics AND highest level athletics, then he/she is far better served at Stanford, Duke, et al. </p>
<p>I also think that at least one of the Ivy colleges (Harvard) is trying to improve their athletic offering and I think that there is an appetite for this fun environment among some of their students and alumni. </p>
<p>Enjoy the tailgates this weekend in Evanston good luck to the Wildcats vs Purdue.</p>
<p>"For those who enjoy a strong and nationally relevant athletic life and want it as part of their undergraduate experience and want to enjoy its benefits far into the future, then they are better served at Stanford, Duke, Vanderbilt, and Notre Dame (I'll let others interpret Northwestern and Rice as they see fit) than at any of the Ivies. That's it."</p>
<p>I don't think that anyone has ever disagreed with this statement.<br>
I think where we have disagreed is that you think there is a large group of people who don't THINK that they value a strong, nationally relevant, spectator scene, but if they were only exposed to it, they would know what they're missing and they really would value it highly. That the scene is so compelling and pleasurable that people who don't think they like it wind up really liking it. And that may be to some people -- just like people who don't think they'll like Greek life, for example, go to a campus that has Greek life and they wind up liking it and pledging. Or people who don't think they'll like a small town wind up in a small town and liking it. But it's not a reason to find one campus inherently superior over another, nor is it a reason to say that it's a shame not all campuses are the same, since the value is ultimately in the eye of the beholder. </p>
<p>I will enjoy catching up with friends, thanks!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Most of this thread is about spectators, couch potatoes who waste their time and energy watching other people engaging in a socially useless and silly activity.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Lol. My H says that people who don't appreciate football are not smart enough to understand it.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl wrote, in response to Hawkette: "I think where we have disagreed is that you think there is a large group of people who don't THINK that they value a strong, nationally relevant, spectator scene, but if they were only exposed to it, they would know what they're missing and they really would value it highly. That the scene is so compelling and pleasurable that people who don't think they like it wind up really liking it."</p>
<p>There are I suspect an equally large number of students who think they are supposed to like such a scene, make a genuine attempt to enjoy large public spectator events, but just don't get the quid pro quo of the whole thing. Getting to the stadium, parking, finding an uncomfortable seat in generally uncomfortable weather, knowing one or two people around you, trying to understand the intracacies of the plays, formations and strategic choices of the game -- all while occupying anywhere from six to nine hours in the heart of the day. All that investment, and puzzlement over the paucity of the psychic, intellectual and/or social return.</p>
<p>For some, I've just described heaven. For others, hell!</p>
<p>dunnin,
I wouldn't present the experience in quite the same way as you have above, but I concur that not all will come away with the same impression. But I bet a lot of folks will come away with a positive impression of the experience (and most keep coming back for more!). And I would argue that there are different degrees of understanding among high school students about what role athletic life plays at a college and how that impacts a colleges's social life and also one's connections to the school as an alum. </p>
<p>My comments and impressions generally derive from my interactions over several decades with hundreds of folks in the Northeast (and much of the Mid-Atlantic) who have had longtime exposure to the undergraduate life at Ivy, NESCAC and similar private colleges in the Northeast. Very few colleges in this geography play major collegiate sports (Penn State, Boston College, U Connecticut, Syracuse and who else??) and almost none that have the elite colleges of the Northeast as their primary competition for students. As a result, I believe that many of the "elite college" folks who are in these regions and who attended high schools in these areas lack a full understanding of what goes on and how it truly feels at a major college sporting event at peer schools like Stanford, Duke, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame (and I would add Northwestern and Rice). </p>
<p>People who have attended a basketball game at Stanford or Duke or a football/basketball game at Notre Dame or Vanderbilt get it. It's fun. There is a ton of passion and excitement and hoopla and parties and students can't help but notice the positive energy that such events bring to their campus. And it's a gift and an entertainment value that keeps on giving as alumni will watch their college compete on national TV and they will return for games and fun tailgates for years and years to come. </p>
<p>Will this athletic life have great appeal and value for all students and alumni? No, as pizzagirl has often pointed out. But for those who might like it or for those who haven't seen it first-hand at one of these top schools, I would argue that it can be a major and positive differentiating feature in the undergraduate experience.</p>
<p>
[quote]
k&s,
Could you please coordinate with pizzagirl who regularly insists that Northwestern has not got much sports flavor on its campus. I have previously posted as you have above with the view that Northwestern has a good athletic scene and one certainly a far cry better than anything available at the Ivies. I actually leaned to your POV until pizzagirl repeatedly insisted that this is a mischaracterization of student and athletic life at Northwestern.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What do you mean by "sports flavor"?</p>
<p>Compared to large state schools, NU certainly doesn't have students who think about collgeiate sports as being an integral part of their lives, but when the 'Cats win, it does comes to life.</p>
<p>The key here is winning - for the MSU game last Saturday, the student section was packed. That's about 6,000 students which is 75% of the student body (back in the mid-90s when NU won back to back conference crowns, the student section was packed and th stadium was over 90% capacity).</p>
<p>And take Stanford and Duke - do you really think the students at those schools are all hyped about their respective football teams (even tho they are seeing an improvement this year)?</p>
<p>Otoh, the students at those schools are regularly hyped about BB (Duke more so than Stanford; Stanford, tho, is going to have a tough season this year - this year, NU should beat Stanford) b/c those teams win on a consisent basis.</p>
<p>But it wasn't always that way. Before Coach K arrived in Durham, the student didn't care about basketball nearly that much.</p>
<p>The same before Coach Montgomery arrived in Palo Alto during the mid/late 1980s.</p>
<p>(Note - Duke's and Stanford's biggest successes in BB is relatively recent).</p>
<p>Otoh, when Penn State went thru a rough patch earlier this decade, the students still showed up in strength and Beaver Stadium (while not always sold out) still regularly had 100k+ in the stands.</p>
<p>Winning is the key - which is why nonrevenue sports such as NU lax and men's soccer (currently ranked no.2) get crowds as big as 1,500+ for their home games.</p>
<p>Now, if I were to rate student enthusiasm for college basketball btwn the 3 schools - I would place Duke first (by far), then Stanford and NU (pretty far back).</p>
<p>W/ regard to FB, (right now and in recent history) I would give NU a bit of an edge over Stanford and Duke.</p>
<p>The one thing that you seem to overlook is how Duke managed to get where they are - basically, for BB Duke pretty much has no academic standards for recruits (and for FB, the standards were lowered a couple of times, in attempts to get the team more competitive).</p>
<p>Stanford, otoh, has managed to win and keep its academic integrity w/ regard to recruiting (Montgomerty got that one blue-chip recruit to add to his core of solid players in the late 1980s - which was enough for Stanford to make it to the Tourney and thus, be able to build a pretty solid program from there).</p>
<p>NU, otoh, came close 3-4 times, but transfers/injuries always seemed to prevent the team from making the Tourney (like when Rex Walters and 2 other starters transferred during the late 1980s).</p>
<p>Despite, its recent successes in FB, small, private university like Northwestern is going to have an easier time maintaining a successful BB progam (since it doesn't take nearly as many good recruits to be competitive) - however NU, unlike Duke or Stanford, has never gotten over the "hump" (getting into the Tourney) in order to attract better recruits.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, barring injuries, it seems that NU's BB team, once again, has the pieces in place for a Tournament team (should make the NIT this year and make a run at the Tourney next year).</p>
<p>
[quote]
But it wasn't always that way. Before Coach K arrived in Durham, the student didn't care about basketball nearly that much.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Duke has pretty much always had a basketball tradition; in fact, they got to the championship game only three years before Coach K's arrival.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I feel that they both can be correct. The Northwestern football team has enjoyed some recent success since 1995, but that doesn't necessarily change the campus culture that much as it traditionally has been a doormat with only 2 winning seasons in the prior 31 years and no bowl appearances in the previous 47 seasons.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The bowl appearance thing is a bit misleading, since in those days, only the conference champ went to a bowl (unlike today, where 6-8 teams from a conference goes bowling).</p>
<p>As for a "doormat" - that certainly was true, but that was for a 20-25 year period from '72 to '94, where the university's administration didn't care for sports and basically starved the programs.</p>
<p>Prior to that, NU was competitive and from time to time, had runs of glory.</p>
<p>For instance, Ara Parseghian (the ND coaching legend) had the 'Cats competitive (and at one time ranked no.1 in the country before he ran out of O-linemen due to injuries and finished 7-2).</p>
<p>But of course, Ara got frustrated w/ the lack of support from the admin and bolted for ND.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Duke has pretty much always had a basketball tradition; in fact, they got to the championship game only three years before Coach K's arrival.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No doubt Duke had some great successes under coaches like Eddie Cameron during the 1930s and Vic Bubas during the 1960s, but still, the student body wasn't overly-hyped about BB as they are now under Coach K.</p>
<p>DunninLA's description above was great. </p>
<p>
[quote]
But I bet a lot of folks will come away with a positive impression of the experience (and most keep coming back for more!).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Do you really know that all the students in the stands are there because they love the scene and love football/basketball? Don't you think that some are there because it's just a thing to do and a way to hang out with friends? Think of a Cubs game. People don't necessarily go because they are all rabid, die-hard Cubs fans who care passionately who wins; many of them go because it's a thing to do and it's nice to hang out with friends in an appealing setting -- oh, and yes, there's a game going on on the field, too.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And I would argue that there are different degrees of understanding among high school students about what role athletic life plays at a college and how that impacts a colleges's social life and also one's connections to the school as an alum.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But the athletic life only has to play a big role in your connection to your school if you <em>want</em> it to, Hawkette. That's the part you keep missing. Plenty of alums of schools that don't have big-time spectator sports are very tied to their alma maters, because of other experiences they had on campus. You seem to believe that the ties are <em>better</em> or <em>stronger</em> if they emerge from shared spectator sports experience versus any other experience a student might have on campus. </p>
<p>
[quote]
As a result, I believe that many of the "elite college" folks who are in these regions and who attended high schools in these areas lack a full understanding of what goes on and how it truly feels at a major college sporting event at peer schools like Stanford, Duke, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame (and I would add Northwestern and Rice).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, I agree that students who attend hs in the northeast may not fully get what it's like to have the type of spectator sport experience you refer to. Just like students who attend hs in the midwest may not fully get what it's like to have a prep-school culture. Just like students who attend hs in California may not fully get what it's like in other states where there is typically one state flagship instead of a whole bunch of really good schools. That's life; you don't understand these things until you move out of your comfort zone. Are Stanford, Duke, Vandy et al hurting for applicants? Hardly. </p>
<p>
[quote]
People who have attended a basketball game at Stanford or Duke or a football/basketball game at Notre Dame or Vanderbilt get it. It's fun. There is a ton of passion and excitement and hoopla and parties and students can't help but notice the positive energy that such events bring to their campus. And it's a gift and an entertainment value that keeps on giving as alumni will watch their college compete on national TV and they will return for games and fun tailgates for years and years to come.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Which is great, for people who enjoy that kind of thing. We just disagree about how universal the enjoyment of these things are, and how compelling and life-changing they are to the people who may go to these games. I don't know if you attended school or if your children (if you have any) attended school at any of these colleges, but I sense that you would find attending these kinds of games to be a highlight of being associated with that kind of school. I think it's quite possible that many attendees <em>enjoy</em> them, but don't necessarily consider it the <em>highlight</em> of their affiliation with their school.</p>
<p>k&s: "That's all right, that's ok, you're going to work for us some day!"</p>
<p>Hawkette, part of why DunninLA's post was so good is that it captured what for YOU is a good time (lots of people -- you have often posted # attendees at games in multiple threads) and what is for OTHER PEOPLE not a good time at all. When I'm at my NU vs Purdue game this weekend, the only people I particularly care about or pull energy from will be my group of friends that my spouse and I will be sitting with. Whether there are 5,000 other people there or 20,000 other people there won't make a difference, since I'm not talking to them, and I don't consider myself "tied" to them nor do I consider it a shared bonding experience just because we're sitting in the same stadium together. If anything, they're just a hassle to me in terms of getting in and out of the stadium, parking, etc. I think you would do well to remember that while athletics can contribute to a social scene, more is NOT necessarily better for everyone. It would be like arguing that larger campuses are better than smaller ones, or that cities are better than smaller towns. It's truly in the eye of the beholder, and I just think you tend to overlook that not everyone grooves on big crowd spectator sporting events the way you do, or wants to.</p>