<p>I think it is shortsighted to assume that Ivy League students chose their schools specifically for their low level of emphasis placed on college spectator sports. Furthermore, my impression (which could be wrong) of Ivy League-calibre students is that they are generally interested in everything (Northstarmom being an exception), and would most likely embrace the opportunity to be a part of a nationally competitive event like the Final Four.</p>
<p>Bay, my point was not that Ivy students chose their schools specifically for their low level of emphasis placed on college sports, but that they easily could have chosen other schools (e.g., Stanford, Duke, Vanderbilt, etc.) that place a higher level of emphasis on sports. And, as has already been pointed out, the Ivies actually don't place a lower level of emphasis on sports, but rather place a lower level of emphasis on spectator sports. In fact, in terms of participatory sports:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sponsoring conference championships in 33 men's and women's sports, and averaging more than 35 varsity teams at each school, the Ivy League provides intercollegiate athletic opportunities for more men and women than any other conference in the country. All eight Ivy schools are among the "top 20" of NCAA Division I schools in number of sports offered for both men and women.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ivy</a> League Sports</p>
<p>The point is that the very raison d'etre of the Ivy League since its formal founding in 1954 was to steer its members away from the types of big-time national intercollegiate spectator sports programs that were developing at other schools:</p>
<p>
[quote]
February, 1954 The Ivy Presidents extend the Ivy Group Agreement to all intercollegiate sports. Their statement also focuses on presidential governance of the league, the importance of intra-League competition, and a desire that recruited athletes be academically "representative" of each institutions overall student body.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ivy</a> League Sports</p>
<p>This is the hallmark of the "Ivy League," and is literally and figuratively what binds these 8 schools together.</p>
<p>"Why can’t Harvard follow the lead of Davidson, not to mention Stanford, Duke, Vanderbilt, and ND in basketball (all are nationally ranked in men’s and women’s basketball)?"</p>
<p>I don't think they could do this without lowering academic standards for athletes even more than they have already done, which I would strongly oppose. If they could do it by hiring better coaches and building better facilities, I have no problem with it, as long as somebody else pays for it.</p>
<p>Well, then, Hawkette, it seems like you have your answer. The Ivy League's formalization was precisely to steer them away from the types of spectator sports programs found at other schools. If that's their guiding principle, then it seems as though it's going to take a heck of a lot more than "but it's fun to watch really top teams!" to cause them to revisit it.</p>
<p>"Furthermore, my impression (which could be wrong) of Ivy League-calibre students is that they are generally interested in everything (Northstarmom being an exception), and would most likely embrace the opportunity to be a part of a nationally competitive event like the Final Four."</p>
<p>MIT students and U of Chicago students are just as smart as Ivy League caliber students. Do you think they are interested in being part of a nationally competitive event like the Final Four? </p>
<p>What is with this projection of "I like spectator sports, so therefore I assume the majority of people at Ivies do too?"</p>
<p>"Second, although I enjoyed the novelty in 1979 of Penn's being in the Final Four, I would not like to see Penn (or the Ivies in general) develop big-time programs in revenue sports that would keep them consistently competitive nationally. And I'm confident that the many Ivy grads I know share my feelings. Having lived as an alum through the excitement of the 1979 tournament, I can tell you that it was exciting precisely because it was a novelty. "</p>
<p>Very well said! I would say the same for NU and the excitement of the 1995/6Rose Bowl. A lot of alums had fun watching it, but the fun was precisely because this wasn't an ongoing event.</p>
<p>"I guess we just disagree on what college sports can be on a college campus. I think it can be a lot of fun and potentially energizing to an entire college community and a nice, additional thing to keep alumni engaged for decades after their graduation."</p>
<p>Is there a reason that anyone suspects that Ivy League alumni are less engaged than other top schools' alumni after graduation?<br>
This is not a perfect proxy, but what are alumni giving rates for the Ivies versus Stanford, Duke, et al? Hawkette, do you happen to know?</p>
<p>(And are you a man or a woman? Not that it matters - I've thought you were a woman from other threads, but someone upthread said "he" so I would rather just know either way!)</p>
<p>"a) students who aren't currently fans of football / b-ball "don't know what they're missing" and would indeed really like it if they were only exposed to it at high levels and that they can't help but be caught up in all the fun, and
b) a highly competitive, winning team is necessary to make fandom be a fun, shared event at a campus.</p>
<p>Tokenadult, Northstarmom, am I missing anything here?"</p>
<p>Nope. You've summarized things perfectly.</p>
<p>It is fascinating to me about how many people who love watching sports assume that everyone's world revolves around the Final Four, Super Bowl, etc. Meanwhile, there are hordes of people who really don't care. What's awesome fun to some people is a big yawn to others.</p>
<p>Another thought I had about this, maybe a silly one: if sports at the Ivies really became big-time, with extreme fandom, etc., it would lose that flavor of irony that supporting Ivy sports has. The scatter bands might be replaced by "real" marching bands (as happened at UVA), "The Game" might cease to become the most "important" game of the year, etc. In other words, when a student goes out the Yale Bowl with a Y painted on his chest to be revealed when the YPMB plays "The Stripper" (assuming they still do that), everybody knows that he doesn't "really" mean it. And they like it that way.</p>
<p>You are right, Hunt. I loved the irony attached to Harvard football. I loved the band's jokes. </p>
<p>To people who love big college sports, the Ivy irony/humor would probably seem boring or elitist, but it was one of the things that made Harvard, Harvard. I'd hate for it to be one of those places where the students lived an died based on how their college's big sports did. I'd hate for it to be a place where students painted themselves school colors to attend their big games.</p>
<p>"It is fascinating to me about how many people who love watching sports assume that everyone's world revolves around the Final Four, Super Bowl, etc. Meanwhile, there are hordes of people who really don't care. What's awesome fun to some people is a big yawn to others."</p>
<p>Right. I have no idea who played in this last Super Bowl. If I needed to know that information, that's what google is for. The only reason I'm even remotedly aware of March Madness is that my niece goes to Davidson (as a scholarship athlete, no less) and so the mention of that school catches my eye / ear.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm probably coming at this from a different perspective from most of y'all. I'd like to see the Ivies be competitive in these events as I think that the athletic life at a college is a positive influence and does not necessarily have to damage the academic reputation of a college. As I see it, the choice of great academics/great athletics need not be either/or.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What is it that people don't understand about "Different schools are different"?</p>
<p>At MIT, we would have revolted if administrators had tried to bring big-name sports in. Not because it would necessarily mean that the academic standards would decline (Stanford seems like a good example of a school that has both big-name sports and top academics). But because OUR culture is OUR OWN, and we do not believe that it should be dictated by admins, or, for that matter, by sports team coaches. One of the easiest ways to infuriate the entire MIT student community is to say that we should change our culture to be like some other college. We are not some other college.</p>
<p>We have our own traditions and outlets and ways to make the college experience fun. We don't need to borrow.</p>
<p>Which is not to say that we don't enjoy sports. Between varsity teams (most of which allowed complete novices to join), club teams, and intramurals, MIT has one of the highest sports participation rates in the country. Of course, if we had big-name sports, this would fall apart, at least at the varsity level, since those spots would be taken up by people we could never compete with.</p>
<p>Edited to add: Also, some MIT students enjoy watching sports, as well! But there are plenty of opportunities to do that already (Red Sox, anyone?). All of the hardcore sports fans that I know/knew at MIT would have agreed that they didn't want big time athletics there.</p>
<p>45 percenter,
I was under the impression that there are several non-Penn games at the Palestra each season and that the intra-Philly competition is what makes for much of the history of the Palestra. Sure, U Penn is the most frequent player in that arena, but I don't think that the building is famous as a result of those big games against Columbia or Brown or Dartmout.</p>
<p>IOng,
Sometimes the best fun at major college sporting events takes place in the parking lot tailgates. But it often is the excitement of the event that attracts the crowd in the first place. It's hard to have much of a party or an exciting atmosphere when attendance is low or a stadium is only 25% (or less) filled. Do you know what the nickname is for the annual football game between U Georgia and U Florida? </p>
<p>Quality of athletic life, to me, is BOTH the ability to participate (teams, clubs, intramurals) AND the opportunity to attend high-caliber events with national consequences. I believe that the Ivies may have an advantage in "varsity" participation, but that there is no clear advantage on participation opportunities when all activities are considered. I think it's clear that you don't value the second aspect of athletic life. </p>
<p>Hunt,
Given that Stanford, Duke et al can compete effectively at the highest levels athletically, do you believe that they have compromised their academic standards? This is really a key element of my original question because I am not advocating the sacrifice of academic integrity for big-time sports and a fun athletic scene. If Stanford, Duke et al, can do it (provide great academics and great athletic life), can the Ivies? </p>
<p>pizzagirl,
I don't usually endorse alumni giving as a proxy for alumni support and think such a measurement likely overstates support at some schools where there is a long history of solicitations and giving (eg, the Ivies) compared to those without it and it particularly underrates support among graduates of public universities.</p>
<p>As for your other question, female.</p>
<p>northstarmom (with an assist to pizzagirl),
"Nope. You've summarized things perfectly." With a perfectly inaccurate recital of my postiions. Nice try, but lame and unhelpful.</p>
<p>45 Percenter,</p>
<p>I have read and reread your links, but no where did I see mentioned that the Ivies are not interested in or "steering away from" being nationally competitive. To the contrary, the first link reports extensively about their athletic success on a national level (including basketball). Am I missing something?</p>
<p>From today's NY Times obituary of Robert Goheen, president of Princeton (1956-1972):</p>
<p>
[quote]
When the Rev. Theodore Hesburgh, early in his tenure as president of Notre Dame, asked Dr. Goheen in 1987 how his school, much the same size as Princeton, could go about getting Princetons reputation for scholarship, Dr. Goheen answered, "First, fire the football coach."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
You're correct that the Palestra's storied history is not solely dependent on Penn's playing there, but Penn basketball has certainly played a major part in it:</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestra%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestra</a></p>
<p>Incidentally, in case you weren't aware, a feature-length documentary about the Palestra was released last year, and was premiered on ESPN. It was made by a Penn alumna who had been co-captain of the Penn Women's Basketball team. More info on the film, including a trailer, can be found here:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.filmbaby.com/films/1930%5B/url%5D">http://www.filmbaby.com/films/1930</a></p>
<p>Hawkette - I'm from Philly and 45 percenter is correct. The Palestra is Penn's facility, owned and operated by them, and I guarantee everyone in the city of Philadelphia associates the Palestra with Penn. </p>
<p>You also said: "Sometimes the best fun at major college sporting events takes place in the parking lot tailgates. But it often is the excitement of the event that attracts the crowd in the first place. It's hard to have much of a party or an exciting atmosphere when attendance is low or a stadium is only 25% (or less) filled."</p>
<p>Aha, now we're getting somewhere. It seems as though part of the fun is, <em>for you,</em> a social event taking place in a big crowd, and the big crowd is what makes it exciting for you. <em>For me,</em> the only reason to go to a tailgate would be to see my friends and maybe meet a handful of new people (friends of friends type of thing) -- so the size of the crowd doesn't make it "more exciting" -- if anything, it just makes it more of a hassle since it's easier to get lost. It surely isn't the crappy food served off someone's vehicle. Neither is right or wrong, of course, but these are personal preferences -- not absolutes that "most people will find being at a tailgate fun" and "the bigger the crowd, the more fun they'll find it." Those are your personal preferences, which of course you're entitled to.</p>
<p>"It's hard to have much of a party or an exciting atmosphere when attendance is low or a stadium is only 25% (or less) filled."</p>
<p>You don't think that students at schools that don't have large spectator sport programs, tailgating, etc. can't find party fun elsewhere? Why is party / exciting atmosphere being defined as lots and lots of people?</p>
<p>Frankly, I'm surprised you don't argue that Ivies should double their enrollment -- after all, the more people around, the more fun!</p>
<p>Hawkette, how did I misstate your position? You have SAID that you think that the students who say that they wouldn't enjoy a spectator sport simply haven't been exposed to it and don't know what they're missing.</p>
<p>Here's the quote: "Frankly, I suspect that most of the Ivy folks have no idea what a Vanderbilt-U Tennessee football or basketball or even baseball game looks like and the fun that goes with these types of events and thus they have no idea what they are missing." You also said the same when you made the point that many NE prep kids wouldn't have attended a college football or b-ball game (I personally think the majority of kids ANYWHERE in the US haven't ever attended a college football or b-ball game!) and that if all they saw were H/Y, they wouldn't know the excitement they were missing.</p>
<p>Is it or is it not your contention that many / most students would indeed find tailgating and spectator sporting fun; they just don't know it if they haven't seen it?</p>
<p>
<p>I have read and reread your links, but no where did I see mentioned that the Ivies are not interested in or "steering away from" being nationally competitive. To the contrary, the first link reports extensively about their athletic success on a national level (including basketball). Am I missing something?
Bay, I didn't say that the Ivies were interested in steering away from being nationally competitive, but instead said that they were interested in steering away "from the types of big-time national intercollegiate spectator sports programs that were developing at other schools." This is strongly implied, if not directly stated, in this passage from the first link I posted:</p>
<p>
[quote]
This successful competition in Division I national athletics is achieved by approaching athletics as a key part of the student's regular undergraduate experience: with rigorous academic standards, the nation's highest four-year graduation rates (the same as those for non-athletes), and without athletics scholarships. Ivy athletic programs receive multi-million-dollar institutional support as part of each institution’s overall academic programs, independent of win-loss or competitive records and together with extensive programs of intramural and recreational athletics.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In other words, in formalizing the Ivy League, these eight schools specifically rejected the recruiting tools (athletic scholarships, significantly relaxed admissions/academic standards, etc.) used by other schools to build consistently strong, nationally competitive, big-revenue spectator sports programs. This is further reinforced by the statement from the second link I posted that the formalization of the Ivy League embodied "a desire that recruited athletes be academically 'representative' of each institution’s overall student body."</p>
<p>The effect of this fundamental principle around which the Ivy League was formally organized, in terms of the Ivies' inability to mount consistently competitive national spectator sports programs (i.e., football and basketball), is well summarized here:</p>
<p>
[quote]
In the time before recruiting for college sports became dominated by those offering athletic scholarships and lowered academic standards for athletes, the Ivy League was successful in many sports relative to other universities in the country. In particular, Princeton won 24 recognized national championships in college football (Last Div I-A championship in 1911), and Yale won 19 (Last Div I-A championship in 1927). Both of these totals are considerably higher than those of other historically strong programs such as Notre Dame, which has won 12, and USC, which has won 11.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ivy</a> League - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p>
<p>So by the middle of the 20th century, these eight schools were forced to make a choice: they would either adopt the emerging recruiting practices of the growing national football/basketball powers (athletic scholarships, relaxed academic admission/performance standards, etc.) in order to compete successfully with those other schools in the big revenue spectator sports, or they would foreswear those practices and the national spotlight and be satisfied with a lower level of athletic competition among themselves with teams comprised of true scholar-athletes not generally headed for professional sports. They chose the latter.</p>