mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
10-27-08 02:19 PM - Post#52656
In response to Condor
I think we're in agreement on 1 and 2, and I wish it were that way. Frankly, I wish we had athletic scholarships and just got the whole thing over with. All I'm saying is that the Ivy League in general is against this - and I don't think that Harvard is in the lead on this, I think all schools feel this way. Another issue is whether we could legally do 1 and 2. Wouldn't that border upon the price fixing that got the Ivies into anti-trust hot water previously?
By No. 3 do you mean separate banding for basketball and hockey and then just using the one standard deviation approach for the remainder of the sports? Remember that the AI is one area where Harvard, Yale and Princeton (and to some extent Dartmouth) are at a rather pronounced disadvantage, given that their one std dev target is a non-trivial amount higher than the other four Ivies.
I also don't understand how Harvard is benefitting from Princeton's decline. I don't really see many of the players that Harvard is recruiting being Princeton-type targets. If anything most of the recruits that Harvard has been pulling in have Penn as common Ivy target much more than Princeton. Also, just over the past two years, the pool that both Harvard and Penn have been pulling from has seemed to expand in terms of numbers and in terms of talent level. Which leads to my next point...
I think that "league benefit" could be gauged by a variety of different metrics. If it's winning postseason tournament games, as is often suggested in conf tourney discussions, then having Harvard make a push that forces Penn to make a further push could make us more likely to have more postseason teams and a better shot at winning some games there. This could bring increased league exposure and expand the talent pool for the league. If it's competitiveness top-to-bottom, I'm not all that sure how any of the changes above would really make the bottom feeders competitive. Are those changes really addressing why Dartmouth can't compete? Or is it the fact that they're focused on hockey and baseball and not as interested in basketball? I'm not so sure.
I guess at the end of the day my points are as follows:
1) Harvard getting stronger and making noise nationally certainly can't hurt the league and probably will help it.
2) I agree with standardizing financial aid packages and athletic scholarships even. I just don't think the league will ever do it, and I don't think that's the Harvard basketball program's fault.
3) Amaker has done nothing wrong in recruiting, but it's fair to ask if he's done everything right.
4) Even I've started to get sucked into to talking about the Harvard program in a way that is highly disproportionate to its eight wins last season. And that needs to stop until they, you know, at least break double digits.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
10-27-08 02:31 PM - Post#52657
In response to SomeGuy
Harvard's got more coming back than people would think. They've probably got four potential All-Ivy Second Team/Honorable Mention talents. Housman, if healthy, is a very good offensive player. Magnarelli and Harris are quality post presences. And Lin can do a little of everything. They've got very little experienced depth, which means a lot more second half collapses and mystifying last-second losses are likely. But I think, talent wise, Harvard's got more than people think.
(Until Magnarelli goes down with his third injury in three years, Housman picks up arthritis or some other nagging ailment, and Lin collapses from exhaustion from having to do everything other than sing the national anthem.)
|
Old Bear
Postdoc
Posts: 4008
Reg: 11-23-04
|
Harvard Slips 2012ers onto Roster
10-27-08 02:53 PM - Post#52660
In response to mrjames
There you go again. Penn has a divine right to be the best and only Harvard has a chance to threaten. Tell me why, then, that Cornell was undefeated last year, and may be again. Brown and Yale have had pretty good records over the last eight years, and anyone who attended the Brown - Penn game at Brown last year would argue it's Penn who needs to do some catching up. Now you have anointed the Penn and Harvard freshmen classes as being superior without benefit of seeing them play. You should recognize that some of the other Ivy's have unique characteristics which are attractive to Ivy-type athletes. Get over yourselves.
Edited by Old Bear on 10-27-08 02:57 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6418
Reg: 11-22-04
|
10-27-08 02:55 PM - Post#52661
In response to mrjames
I agree that you've got an interesting group of returnees with a good deal of experience. Historically, it's always seemed like Harvard manages to have a couple of players who put up good statistical numbers while the team never quite gets over the hump. I'm never sure whether that indicates that the stars aren't as good as their numbers suggest, or if it's the standard Ivy problem of a lack of division 1 talent depth. If it's the latter, maybe Kenyi and a couple of other freshmen can be good enough to give Harvard the necessary depth to compete.
The main thing in the way for these guys, though, is Cornell. They return virtually everyone, and even without Gore for a while making up 11 games in the league just doesn't look possible to me. A lot of teams could make some noise for 3rd place, but winning the league this year (or even coming close) strikes me as difficult for everyone but perhaps Penn. And even there I think it only happens if everything breaks right for us.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
10-27-08 10:47 PM - Post#52665
In response to SomeGuy
Yeah, Harvard's problems have always been with depth and defense. This year it'll be quite the same. Harvard's stars are usually as good as advertised on the offensive end, but a lot of the times the D is lacking. Any talk about competing with Cornell or even competing for 3rd is probably premature. My point is more that they have the talent to compete with anyone in the league, but probably lack the depth and D to string together anything approaching consistency in league play.
|
Condor
PhD Student
Posts: 1888
Reg: 11-21-04
|
10-27-08 11:46 PM - Post#52666
In response to mrjames
There is no doubt that the majority of Ivy’s have opposed athletic scholarships. However, Harvard’s new financial aid plan has changed the playing field. At the very least, the league knows it has a problem. Whether it chooses to ignore this issue or proactively respond remains to be seen. Regardless, this will be difficult unless Harvard becomes engaged, and they have the least to gain.
As to the AI, I would like to see all the schools use the same index. Further, I would like to see the index flexible enough to accept the same kids we see at Duke and Stanford. I suspect I might be in a minority on this one. For me, if someone has intellectual curiosity, decent credentials, and is a great BB talent, I do not need a perfect SAT score.
As to the impact of Princeton’s decline, if they are not tapping into the limited pool of qualified players, then that creates opportunities for others, including Harvard. I can’t prove this. I just believe it to be true. The fact that Harvard and Penn have been competing for the same players, and Princeton is not is a reflection of Princeton’s current malaise. Were Thompson still coaching at Princeton, I believe he would be competing with Penn and Harvard for those same players.
Regarding “league benefit†generated by an ascendant Harvard, this all depends on how you define benefit. If Harvard becomes a top 40 team as suggested by at least one poster, then that certainly helps the league image. However, I do not believe it will foster better recruiting at the other schools. Penn and Princeton have been in that league for years, and it has not benefited the rest of the league.
I presume that Yale and Princeton will offer similar packages to Harvard. While Penn will have a lesser version, it will still be competitive and able to match. As I noted before, I expect the other four schools to be unable to compete financially. This does not make sense to me and overwhelms any benefit provided by Harvard’s potential for success on the court. To Old Bear I would add that this has nothing to do with the near term. I already noted that I think Brown has some good players and should be taken seriously this year. However, I fail to see how they can continue to compete if they don’t stand on equal ground financially.
Responding to your summary points:
1) Agreed, but it will not help the individual teams that can’t compete financially.
2) History supports your position re financial aid. Regardless, I hope you are wrong. As to culpability, I would start by noting that Harvard is the elite of the elite. Sorry, but when you are number 1, you automatically assume some responsibility to lead, and that ignores the troubling contradictions.
3) Only in a technical sense, i.e. he did not violate NCAA rules by strict interpretation. By Harvard’s standards, I would not agree.
4) I personally do not have a problem with some Harvard hype.
|
Howard Gensler
Postdoc
Posts: 4141
Reg: 11-21-04
|
10-28-08 01:15 AM - Post#52667
In response to mrjames
The not offering the same kids argument is certainly fair. If Penn goes out alone after a kid and doesn't have the benefit of an Ivy package to match against, then yeah, that's a problem. I think that waiting for Harvard (or Princeton or Yale) to make the first move is a disadvantage but not a huge one - a simple "Ivy rules dictate that we match the best offer so choose the right school for you" should close that gap.
The financial aid topic in general is a difficult one. I don't think Harvard is alone in objecting to offering athletic recruits a certain package and all other students of similar financial background a different one. Maybe I'm wrong on that. If accurate though, that would mean that all Ivies would have to increase their financial aid packages to all students to the same level. That's not going to happen either, but clearly every school has the option to do so if they so choose.
Whether meaning to or not, you have perfectly summarized exactly what's wrong.
So that Old Bear's complex doesn't act up, let's say Harvard and Brown are both recruiting a player from a family that makes $89,000 per year.
Under the Harvard plan, Harvard is free. Under the Brown plan, Brown isn't.
Let's say the kid really wants to go to Brown - and why shouldn't he? Brown could CHOOSE to match Harvard, although they are under no obligation to and since Harvard's fin aid plan works differently from Brown's, there's no guarantee that Brown would even know what they have to match. Harvard's plan can be a verbal between the coach and the family until the kid commits.
But let's say the kid REALLY wants to go to Brown and tells Brown that Harvard's plan is $8,000 better and if Brown matches, he'll come to Brown.
Brown has two choices: They can either not match and decide they're no longer going to compete financially for players with H-Y-P (and possibly other Ivies who choose to match); or They can match Harvard and thus give a package to an athlete that is not available to all other students in their incoming class, thereby making a mockery of the Ivy mission statement that athletes are treated just like non-athletes.
Harvard has the money to make their packages available to all students, the non HYPs don't. So if they want to compete with matches they have to violate their own rules.
One can only hope that Jeff Orleans' replacement has an ounce of common sense, some imagination and some stones.
|
AsiaSunset
Postdoc
Posts: 4371
Reg: 11-21-04
|
10-28-08 07:29 AM - Post#52668
In response to Howard Gensler
Miller said at Media Day that "Penn will do what it has to do". I believe him. I think the aid disparity will be more evident in minor sports, but not basketball.
As for Amaker - he definitely did certain "unethical" things last year, at least unethical by Ivy standards. It's generally understood you don't build your class on commitments from kids who've yet to make AI. Every team team recruits kids who are under minimum AI. You need to keep them interested and retesting, but you also need to tell them you don't want to see any announcements on Scout or Rivals until they are admissible. But - I trust Amaker now knows the rules the Ivy plays by and this is not an ongoing issue.
As for lower standards than Sullivan was allowed, almost all schools hiring new coaches in sports they are looking to turn around give coaches this curtesy. It's no big deal and it's short term.
So - let's just play ball and stop all the bitching and moaning. I agree with posters who have concluded that a stronger Harvard program is good for Penn and the League.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
10-28-08 09:19 AM - Post#52671
In response to Howard Gensler
Brown has two choices: They can either not match and decide they're no longer going to compete financially for players with H-Y-P (and possibly other Ivies who choose to match); or They can match Harvard and thus give a package to an athlete that is not available to all other students in their incoming class, thereby making a mockery of the Ivy mission statement that athletes are treated just like non-athletes.
Conceptually, though, couldn't this happen with a normal student? Doesn't the choice to match apply to all applicants?
Upon all this discussion though, I agree that this is definitely something to address. How they'll do it while maintaining something close to the Ivy principles is beyond me. Especially, since the manifest destiny of the H-Y-Ps is to, one day, make education free for all undergrads.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6418
Reg: 11-22-04
|
10-28-08 02:23 PM - Post#52683
In response to Howard Gensler
Isn't the big logical question what happens to a kid who wants Brown to begin with and just doesn't get involved with Harvard? Then he doesn't have an offer to match. Do those kids have to pay while a kid who does get involved with Harvard gets a free ride at Brown? It's all well and good that Miller can say that Penn will match any offer. That still gives Harvard, Yale, or Princeton a foot in the door with every kid who is dealing with Penn if they want the chance for us to match. Or am I missing something about how this works? This basically takes away what Brown has done really well under Miller and Robinson, which is recruit outside of the usual Ivy pipeline.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6418
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Harvard Slips 2012ers onto Roster
10-28-08 02:31 PM - Post#52685
In response to Old Bear
I'm not sure who this was intended for, but probably not mrjames, who isn't much of a penn fan. Since I'm the one who annointed the recruiting classes, I guess I'll respond. Nobody knows what will happen with the recruits. What we do know is how they were rated by the services and what kind of recruiting interest they drew. Looking at those factors, I don't think there's any question that Penn and Harvard did best this year -- and I don't think it's close. That's all any of us are saying or can say. The kids still have to work hard and the staffs have to coach them up, and we'll see where they end up.
As for Penn's divine right to win, I don't see it that way. I seem to be a bit in the minority, but I welcome any challenge Harvard manages to bring. I am still quite skeptical as to whether they turn into a player. Seems to me that Cornell should be everybody's concern for the next two years. Unlike a lot of the Penn folks, I don't think Penn (or anyone else) catches them for the next two years unless a whole lot of things break right. They're a good team, and they'll get better.
|
Old Bear
Postdoc
Posts: 4008
Reg: 11-23-04
|
10-28-08 03:01 PM - Post#52686
In response to SomeGuy
We all are convinced that our recruiting class is the best until proven otherwise. I don't remember that three or four years ago many Penn fans were touting Cornell as having the best incoming frosh in the league. Let's weight a year or two before we evaluate their impact.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6418
Reg: 11-22-04
|
10-28-08 05:06 PM - Post#52700
In response to Old Bear
There certainly have been years when I said that Princeton got a better class than Penn at the time. As for Cornell's soph class, you started to hear it early in the fall that Donahue thought he had a couple of immediate starters in there. That's pretty unusual.
As for evaluating the classes later, sure, at some point in the future we'll know what the impact is. That doesn't make for a very interesting board, though. We might as well just look at the standings every year and skip the dialogue then.
As for everyone always thinking they got the best class, I don't buy that historically, mainly b/c Penn and Princeton almost always win out against the other Ivies recruiting head to head. It's why I'm curious as to what the ultimate deal was with Kenyi getting an offer from Penn -- if he did, he's the first player since Nwachukwu to choose a non-Princeton Ivy over Penn that I'm aware of. That would be a potentially meaningful change.
|
AsiaSunset
Postdoc
Posts: 4371
Reg: 11-21-04
|
10-28-08 05:49 PM - Post#52701
In response to SomeGuy
My understanding is that Coach Miller visited Kenyi at his home the afternoon of the the actual day Kenyi committed to Harvard. Kenyi called Amaker that very night.
Kenyi was below minimum AI at the time but Penn was actively recruiting him.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
10-28-08 10:29 PM - Post#52706
In response to SomeGuy
Yeah, that's certainly the one that needs to be addressed. We need something like a "most favored fin aid package" for Ivy athletics.
|
Howard Gensler
Postdoc
Posts: 4141
Reg: 11-21-04
|
10-28-08 11:49 PM - Post#52708
In response to mrjames
Conceptually, though, couldn't this happen with a normal student? Doesn't the choice to match apply to all applicants?
No.
I guess theoretically any of the thousands of students who apply to multiple Ivies can try to play one against the other, but there's a supply and demand issue. Brown doesn't need to match Harvard for Joe Student because their yield of admits to matriculants allows for and expects kids to choose other schools. There might be 500 students all basically the same in an admit pool so if a few go to Harvard and Brown gets a few others it's not a big deal.
In athletics, there might be only three game-changing players available in basketball each year that have Ivy interest. There might be only a couple QBs or RBs who can elevate a team. Recruiting them becomes much more important to a team's success (and a coach's job security) than getting a particular 1600 SAT kid is to the university's success.
More importantly, there's no one lobbying fin aid for the average student and fin aid offices are not set up to take calls from hundreds of parents who all want to play "Can You Top This?"
I think it's great that Penn will match for basketball players but that is without question a violation of the spirit of the original Ivy Agreement (which the Harvard plan blew up). And matching still implies there's something to match. It would be an absolute recruiting joke if coaches from B-C-C-D-P start telling kids to apply to H-Y-P so they can get better fin aid packages to match.
|
Howard Gensler
Postdoc
Posts: 4141
Reg: 11-21-04
|
10-29-08 12:07 AM - Post#52709
In response to AsiaSunset
So - let's just play ball and stop all the bitching and moaning. I agree with posters who have concluded that a stronger Harvard program is good for Penn and the League.
As has been stated on these boards numerous times, there has never been any evidence that stronger P teams did anything to make the League better top to bottom. It seems unlikely that a stronger H team would accomplish this, but it is possible that improving fin aid packages could help make it happen.
The ONLY way the League improves is if the recruiting pool gets deeper. The only way the pool gets deeper is if the schools become more affordable and the recruiting expands to different areas and doesn't just cannibalize itself with everyone going after the same kids.
2002 was the best the League has been in ages, with both Ps in the Top 75, Yale at 102 and Brown at 120. Even Harvard came in at 175.
Three years later, in 2005, Penn was 88, Princeton was 154 and no other Ivy was in the Top 200.
Three years later in 2008, Cornell finished at 135 (although they really were significantly higher for most of the season), Brown came in at 151 and no other Ivy was in the Top 235.
So in each of the three year cycles, largely due to the decline of the Ps, the League has gotten worse. I expect Penn to make big strides over the next few years and Cornell should remain formidable. If Brown can maintain its level and Harvard can make a serious run at being a Top 100 team, maybe the League can return to its 2002 glory and actually stay at that level for a few years.
But having Top 100 Ps for a decade never made the bottom of the League better so there would need to be some type of cosmic shift for a better Harvard to make such a difference.
|
AsiaSunset
Postdoc
Posts: 4371
Reg: 11-21-04
|
10-29-08 06:19 AM - Post#52712
In response to Howard Gensler
Howard - I strongly disagree.
Princeton is on the way back. The commitment of Ian Hummer and the addition of several players this year and last who should fit their system bodes well for their regaining a level of competitiveness. Cornell is already there. Whether this is a temporary blip is uncertain. A strong Harvard program with that powerful brand and a recogizable African American coach with Duke pedigree makes them an instant player. I think you know better than every other poster on this board the power of that combination and how Amaker is not only getting kids to think about the league who previously might not have, but how that process actually helps Penn. Once a kid opens up to the concept of playing at an Ivy, our program often has the crack it needs to get our foot in the door. Penn can't be a player by itself. We need a competitive league. Maybe we'll never have 8 strong members in bb, but I can see a league with at least 4 two years down the road.
And importantly - I think the fin aid situation at Harvard is a big positive for Penn in bb. I think there is no doubt we will compete on fin aid with them for bb players. Can't say we'll do the same in many other sports like field hockey etc. But - that's because we will choose not to.
|
Howard Gensler
Postdoc
Posts: 4141
Reg: 11-21-04
|
10-29-08 12:09 PM - Post#52725
In response to AsiaSunset
Over the past (pick a number) years, 2002 has been the only year the Ivies had four teams in the Top 120. That is not the type of historical precedent that says it's going to happen again anytime soon.
Of the present teams in the League, only two of them have coaches (Miller and Donahue) who have won a title. And at least for the next couple years that seems unlikely to change.
Harvard has definitely picked up its recruiting, I'll concede that, but they have a long way to go and after they lose Hausman and Harris after this year they are going to be very young next year, while Cornell is senior-dominated and Penn is going to be deeper and more experienced.
The addition of Hummer is HUGE for Princeton, but he was a double legacy - if they didn't get him they were in deep trouble. Johnson still hasn't won a recruiting battle against Penn or Harvard and hasn't proven he can coach. Plus following the loss of Koncz, Savage and Gunn, this season could be another long one for the Tigers.
The jury is obviously out on Brown's new head coach but at least he has some experienced returning talent.
So here's how I see the League, barring some unanticipated injuries or transfers:
This year, Cornell is the team to beat but Penn will make big strides. Brown, Dartmouth and Harvard should be battling for third and maybe one can surprise, and Yale, Columbia and Princeton should be fighting for sixth. (Is there any evidence to suggest that the Jones brothers are not in the treading water stages of their Ivy careers?)
The following year, Cornell should be at the peak of its cycle, fielding the best Cornell team maybe ever. If Penn improves as much as I think they can, the Ivies have a shot at two Top 100 teams for the first time in awhile. Harvard should be next best but how good will they really be dominated by freshmen and sophomores. Brown should be okay. Dartmouth loses Barnett. Princeton starts to get better but they're not a contender. The others, who knows.
Then the year after that, Penn should be the team to beat with Harvard thinking they're the team to beat them. Brown and Princeton should be decent. Cornell will have huge rebuilding. The others, who knows.
All this prognosticating is just a way of saying I'm not sure when the League, as a League, gets appreciably better. I don't see four Top 120 teams anytime soon. I hope I'm wrong.
|
Old Bear
Postdoc
Posts: 4008
Reg: 11-23-04
|
Harvard Slips 2012ers onto Roster
10-29-08 01:54 PM - Post#52741
In response to Howard Gensler
Howard, I have been a broken record about the vagaries of trying to evaluate recruiting classes before they show up on campus, but I like what I hear about Brown's Halpern, Sullivan, McCarthy and ..., as much as what I have heard about any of the other groups of recruits. I have little faith in the recruiting service relative ratings, except for, perhaps, the top 5 or 6 in each region of the country. Agel can coach and recruit. Brown will be competitve.
I'm not sure that most, if not, all of the Ivy Administrations could care less about how many Ivy Teams reach the Top 120. Would that it were otherwise, I agree it could be achieved without sacrifice to standards.
Edited by Old Bear on 10-29-08 01:56 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
|
