<p>Having seen a fair amount of Ivy League football with my own eyes, I have to say that it is barely on the level of some big football high schools.</p>
<p>Not the case with a few other sports.</p>
<p>The list of schools attempting to play full monty big time college sports (including football) while having very strong academics (USNWR top 30) is short and simple:</p>
<p>Duke, UVA, UNC, BC, Wake and ND in the ACC. </p>
<p>Vandy in the SEC.</p>
<p>USC, Cal, Stanford, UCLA in the Pac 12.</p>
<p>NW, UM in the B10.</p>
<p>Your list will differ if you don’t require BCS level football (Georgetown) or if you point to specific sports (Princeton in lacrosse).</p>
<p>The majority of the schools listed in the USNWR top 10 have one or more football national championships</p>
<h1>1 Princeton University 28</h1>
<h1>2 Harvard University 12</h1>
<h1>3 Yale University 27</h1>
<h1>4Tie Columbia University 1</h1>
<h1>4Tie Stanford University 2</h1>
<h1>4Tie University of Chicago 2</h1>
<h1>7 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 0</h1>
<h1>8Tie Duke University 0</h1>
<h1>8Tie University of Pennsylvania 6</h1>
<h1>10 California Institute of Technology 0</h1>
<p>swimkidsdad…</p>
<p>when is the last time those schools won national championships? Probably not in the last 50 (maybe even 100) years. Except Stanford.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6020&app=cro”>http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6020&app=cro</a>
</p>
<p>heteropatriarchal capitalism… this is a new one for me.</p>
<p>“when is the last time those schools won national championships?”</p>
<p>Soccerguy315,</p>
<p>For the purpose of this discussion why does that make any difference?</p>
<p>The classes taught at UNC were not taught according to department and SACs policy. Because both athletes and regular students were allowed to take this course at its core this is an accreditation problem and nothing more. If further NCAA investigations revels that preferential treatment was given to athletes for registration or grading of this course then the NCAA could sanction UNC under the impermissible benefit rule.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t need further investigations. Read the emails. In some cases advisors refused to tell other students about these classes, even when they asked, and athletes were steered to them. </p>
<p>" Read the emails. In some cases advisors refused to tell other students about these classes, even when they asked, and athletes were steered to them."</p>
<p>During that timeframe non-athlete students were also taking these courses. The following is from the Wainstein report:</p>
<p>“The largest source of referrals for non-athlete students – besides word-of-mouth – was the fraternity network on campus.”</p>
<p>“Although most of the attention over the past three years has been focused on student-athlete involvement in the paper classes, it is important to remember that a majority – 52.9% – of the enrollees in these classes were non-athlete students.”</p>
<p>Currently the NCAA has reopened this investigation (the details can be found in the Wainstein report). The NCAA routinely imposes penalties for violation of the impermissible benefit rule. The NCAA recently suspended the Georgia head swimming coach (who has won 6 NCAA D1 national championships) due to violations of the impermissible benefit rule. I would not be surprised if UNC agreed to take self imposed sanctions to end the NCAA investigation. </p>
<p>UNC will self-impose whatever they think they need to do to placate the NCAA while sheltering the basketball program from any meaningful sanctions. The NCAA will take whatever UNC offers up and go back to policing whether bagels have cream cheese and whether some poor kid took a couple of hundred bucks for autographs rather than face difficult questions about whether the revenue part of the “revenue sports” has grown so much as to render the NCAA impotent as a regulator for those sports.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, it is quite clear…we now need a department of Heteropatriarchal Studies! </p>
<p>That’s the short version I think it’s actually heteropatriarchalanglosaxoncolonialist</p>
<p>Yes, there were non-athletes taking the courses. But as fraternity members and others found out about the classes and enrollment grew, the advisors began hiding the classes from non-athletes. They couldn’t prevent other students from enrolling if they knew about the classes, but they tried to prevent other students from finding out.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>More trouble for UNC. <a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost;
<p>This junk is one of the reasons that, sometimes, able students who are big time athletic talents choose the Ivy League, or Stanford or Northwestern (although those two have the disadvantage of having to play against schools who do this same type of stuff).</p>
<p>You can get a rough feeling for how the school approaches things by looking to see what the players majors are. Some don’t report them. For an example of a smaller program that does report them, take a look on the Lehigh sports website and look at their team rosters. All of the majors are listed next to the names, and many of them are engineers, or accounting or business majors (realizing that some business programs are not the same as others). </p>
<p>The quotes in CF’s post show the classic bigotry of low expectations. The administrators actually expected something from the potential frat guy enrollees, which wasn’t consistent with the course enrollement. </p>
<p>I’m afraid the horse has left the barn decades ago. </p>
<p>“Would you rather the schools not recruit these athletes, just reject them without giving them a chance at college?”</p>
<p>Such a strawman to say that if schools of UNC’s academic caliber don’t recruit them, there is no place for them. There are hundreds of places–including community colleges–where their academic credentials are a lot closer to the non-athlete students’ credentials.</p>
<p>Note to UNC: This is NOT what people have in mind when they mention a “virtual classroom”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>the difference is that things evolve and change.</p>
<p>How much tv revenue did Harvard/Princeton/Yale get the last time they won a national championship? How much money does Texas get right now each year from tv? Alabama? Michigan? Notre Dame?</p>
<p>@CardinalFang, you forgot a portion of the Wainstein report in your quote. A more complete version reads as follows:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thus the NCAA rule for Extra Benefits:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>would not appear to be violated in this circumstance. Note that in this case the “challenged students” included both athletes and non-athletes. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hegemonist and microaggressive should be in there too.</p>
<p>A benefit is not “generally available” to other students if the advisors won’t tell the other students about it when they ask. You know what other benefit was available to student-athletes but nobody else? Tutors and advisors to write their papers for them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well played. </p>