OD – could you break down a class of 30 football recruits and show us what you think the actual math would be like?
The team has to work out to one standard deviation below the campus average. So if the campus average is 230, then the team average has to be like 215 as Al suggests above.
7 or 8 have to be band 4, which is above the campus average. Which means about 25% of the team is above the campus average as compared to (obviously) 50% of the entire campus being above average.
Then 12-13 have to be band 3. Which is below the campus average, but above the team average? So from 215-230.
Then 7-8 at band 2, which is below the team average. So below 215.
And 2-3 at band 1, which is even further below the team average.
Does that sound about right?
I don’t think a first team all state cellist gets that treatment. But Ivy football isn’t top tier college football; so probably a second team all state football player does. Maybe even third team all-state does too?
@northwesty, the numbers in each band vary by year and school, so the data you are asking for is not really knowable.
And while I understand you are being sarcastic, there is a max of 240 football recruits in the Ivy every year. In my own state there are approximately 154 first team all state players (22 per division, 7 divisions) so no, the numbers don’t really work in your example.
@al2simon, I think the difference is I am using average as within the normal statistical distribution for an admitted class, not those kids above the mid point. I believe the complaint that started this whole thing was that seats were set aside for kids who would not otherwise be admitted. Not sure you can say that for kids between the 25/75 stats say. And I am as confident as I can be without looking it up that the AI number is derived from the entire population, not just admitted athletes. Otherwise there wouldn’t really be any point, know what I mean?
@northwesty
Agree that it is tough for unhooked kids at the Ivies. But with regard to your numbers, there is likely to be overlap in your %, i.e. Kids filling 2 buckets
I agree that the AI system is pegged to campus averages for the entire population.
Here’s where I think we disagree. I think Band 4 goes from the campus average down to the campus average minus 1 SD (standard deviation). You think it goes from 240 down to the campus average.
You seem very well informed on this stuff so I am nervous about contradicting you. But I went through this a few years ago with one of my kids and took careful notes that I still have & am looking at. There’s a lot of wrong or old information on some of the recruiting websites. For example, I think the Montclair Academy sheet’s description of the AI band system for football is wrong and has old / incorrect info. Here’s something that describes the Band system right from Dartmouth’s website -
That’s as close to the horse’s mouth as I could find.
So, Harvard calculates the AI over its entire freshman class, not just athletes. Let’s say the average is 229 and the SD is 16. Then
Band 4 = 229 down to 213 (8 kids)
Band 3 = 213 down to 197 (13 kids)
Band 2 = 197 down to 189 (7 kids)
Band 1 = 189 down to 176 (2 kids)
There used to be a rule that said the average AI for each team had to be above the campus average minus 1 SD. That would be 213 for Harvard. They abolished that rule since coaches were just adding high AI ringers who never played to their recruiting lists… Now, instead the average over all recruited athletes has to be at least 213 and the AD has to decide which coaches get how many low AI slots. The average AI of the football team is almost certainly lower than 213. Maybe 207? Just a guess. Football has a separate band system on top of this.
I think people get confused on how the bottom of Band 4 is defined. The 213 is the entire campus average minus 1 SD. However, 213 is also cutoff for the average AI for all athletes, so people think it’s the “campus average”. It’s not.
“And while I understand you are being sarcastic, there is a max of 240 football recruits in the Ivy every year. In my own state there are approximately 154 first team all state players (22 per division, 7 divisions) so no, the numbers don’t really work in your example.”
I took a look at the freshman roster of Harvard football.
The higher kids were like HM all-state, maybe third team all-state. Most were at the level of all district/region/conference.
One kid was first team all-state in Florida. Wow! Although I’d note that he is the kicker… : )
Al – FWIW, this seems to agree with your Dartmouth link. Which is that the highest band (8 of 30 kids) is one SD below the campus average rather than above the campus average.
One standard deviation below the mean would put you at the 16th percentile of the incoming class. Two standard deviations below the mean would put you at the 2.5th percentile.
So for the 30 football players - 8 kids are somewhere above the 16th percentile, 13 kids are between the 2.5th and the 16th percentiles, and 9 kids are below the 2.5th percentile.
And the overall athlete average has to be at the 16th percentile.
“The policy issue is not, of course, whether there should be athletic teams at these great universities and colleges. No one has advocated their elimination. There are many ways in which individuals and universities and colleges benefit from student participation in intercollegiate and club athletics.”
"Given the extraordinary number of exceptionally qualified and superior candidates with diverse interests and talents who apply to the Ivy League schools, over 90 percent of whom are going to be disappointed by the outcome, why in the world are the schools using up 20 percent of their slots on recruited athletes? "
“What then is to be done? First, the Ivy presidents and provosts who recognize the current state of affairs should commit themselves to rolling back the percentage of recruited athletes over a period of the next decade or so. Second, they could leave perhaps two high profile sports - perhaps football and men and women’s basketball - for recruited athletes (and perhaps select one more high profile woman’s sport to move toward compliance with Title IX parity requirements). Over a period of years, the number of football players on a team would be cut from over 100 to perhaps 60. All other sports would gradually become non-recruiting sports.”
Some may believe the above suggestion to be preferable to the current state of affairs, but it likely won’t satisfy talented students or alumni and the latter’s displeasure will be evidenced by the level of their donations. Athletics produce clear winners and losers in a way many other EC’s do not. The art museum and student galleries at University A might be far superior to those of University B, but the comparison is seldom quantified and publicized. However, when A’s men’s basketball team loses miserably to B’s on national TV, people do take notice. And winning is so much more fun than losing for both athletes and spectators! However, even losing in style can be profitable to the college. When Lafayette and Lehigh made a bigger deal out of their annual football rivalry by moving the game to Giants Stadium, they elevated alumni interest in the event and raised record contributions. And Patriot League football is not exactly big-time sport. Further, if a talented student athlete plans to dedicate several hours a day at college to training and practice, he really doesn’t want to lose all the time. He would like decent coaching and good teammates around him, and modern, well-maintained athletic facilities with up-to-date equipment would be also be desirable. When that talented athlete makes it to the pros or the Olympics, or even just the national championship, the college’s name receives positive publicity since sporting events can have a national audience in a way the debate time will not.
Last post, but @DoyleB how do you calculate the standard deviation without knowing dispersion? I am not a math guy, but I thought I knew enough statistics to understand that standard deviation is more than a simple percentage formula, I would think this is especially true when your formula shows such a huge drop from the mean in one deviation and then a far smaller drop in the second? Again, just a question.
@alsimon, I don’t really know. I too went through this with my kid a few years ago, and have since helped a fair few through the process. What information I have is gleaned from 1)discussions with several Ivy coaches, in particular very long and detailed discussions with Buddy Trevins, the head coach at Dartmouth and Kieth Clark, the then offensive coordinator at Yale 2)reading everything publicly available I could find on the topic including the most currently available Ivy Common Agreement and Coaches handbook and 3)some direct correspondence with the Ivy offices - who by the way, are very forth coming on certain topics and completely mum on others. One of the things the league was mum on was the specific band distribution both by athlete and score, so I do not have access to the granular detail many of you seem to. FWIW, I agree the MKA worksheet is outdated as to specifics, but it does generally lay out how the band system works
On the topic of the band system, there is no real team averaging requirement with the band system. Instead all that matters is the number of recruits in the specific band. So in football, basketball and men’s hockey at least things could work a lot like @northwesty assumes, and all the recruits could be at the very bottom of their respective bands. This was done specifically to avoid an issue called dumbbelling where some recruits are near the AI floor and others are near the top. By reputation Amaker used to do a lot of that.
One last thing. Obviously some Ivy administrators have been critical of recruiting. Bart Giomatti and the Dartmouth president who wrote the infamous letter being the most well known. But far more seem at least content with the system. At the end of the day I guess I tend to rely on the specific statements from the league that the system functions to ensure that athletes are representative of their class, rather than some anecdotal statements that they are a wad of kids at the bottom of the barrel.
" Athletics produce clear winners and losers in a way many other EC’s do not. The art museum and student galleries at University A might be far superior to those of University B, but the comparison is seldom quantified and publicized. "
Absolutely. I made this point a few pages back. They don’t keep score at the glee club or orchestra concert. So that’s why these schools don’t feel much/any need to recruit cellists with breaks on admission. But once you have a field hockey team (even if hardly anyone attends the games or pays attention), you can’t lose every game 10-0.
The Ivies overall have done a great job in their rules to balance their priorities so that there is a level playing field among the Ivy schools. But as the Columbia guy asks, is their current level of investment/seat allocation consistent with where those schools are today with sub-10% acceptance rates and global reputations. If I were running one of these schools, I’d probably dial it back some from where it is now, but reasonable minds can differ.
You missed the larger point of the article and focused on a small point. Football and basketball are the driving sports and the reasons are explained in detail as to why. So back to the original question…no they’re aren’t too many athlete students. The colleges determine that and know exactly what and why they are doing it. If they felt like you(too many) and it benefited their school, then they would certainly do it…that’s not the case.
I don’t think Mr. Cole understands Title IX very well. If there are 100 football spots (or even only 60) taken up by men, he’s going to need 3 or 4 women’s teams to offset that football team. I can’t think of a women’s team that has 100 members, or even 60.
NESCAC seems to have a good balance, but more importantly, athletic scholarships would be great if they did what they purport to do: get athletes educated. The reality at big-time sports schools, though, is that the “scholar”-athletes aren’t really students in any meaningful sense.
^^Absolutely disagree. My athlete is in engineering. She takes the same courses as non-athlete engineers, has the same requirements. She is not going to be a professional lax player (and yes, there is such a thing), she’s going to be an engineer. Everyone on her team is graduating as scheduled or even early. They go to classes, their coach gets copies of their grades before they do, even reports of them missing classes (my daughter was listed as missing a class when she hadn’t). The coach will hold the bus for an out of town game so students can take quizzes on Friday mornings. There are no practices on Thursday nights as that’s when the math tests are given. School comes first.
I agree there are some ‘one-and-done’ athletes (Kentucky basketball) but the majority are in college for the education and go to school for 4 years, graduate, and get a job. Christian McCaffrey is leaving Stanford early to go pro but I’ll bet he’ll get a Stanford degree, since both his parents have them. Tiger Woods left early. Maybe it’s just Stanford athletes that don’t take school seriously?