VoyForums
GIVE FREE FOOD
www.TheHungerSite.com
-> Click Here <-
Fund Free Mammograms with a Click
www.TheBreastCancerSite.com
-> Click Here <-
Non-profit ad served by VoyForums...

VoyUser Login optional ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 12345678910 ]
Subject: Unfair


Author:
Diogenes (Go Green)
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 08:19:15 03/08/17 Wed
In reply to: Go Green 's message, "I thought it was obvious, but..." on 06:49:07 03/08/17 Wed

Agree with you. I've never understood the volleys of criticism directed at Harvard's athletic recruiting. If someone is qualified for admission, how can their admission be criticized?

The real problems with Ivy admissions involve discrimination between and amongst qualified applicants because almost all the applicants are qualified. Discrimination against Asian-Americans and discrimination in favor of non-AI minorities are subsisting problems. One of the solutions--one I favor--is to impose an AI on all applicants, not just athletes.

Athletes, along with Asian-Americans, are subject to invidious discrimination because of their abilities and who they are. As they say on Twitter: "Unfair".

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: All second (or third) hand stuff. but


Author:
Go Green
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 08:39:42 03/08/17 Wed


These are not my opinions, but only what I'm remembering from the Ivy BB (mostly Penn) board, the criticisms of Zena's admission were as follows (apologies in advance for any inaccuracies at all levels):

1) Harvard let him take the boards numerous times, and he barely qualified on his final attempt. Harvard generally didn't do that previously.

2) Harvard "recruited" a guy who did not have D-I basketball talent, but had excellent SAT scores to balance out Zena's score. The other "recruit" never suited up for the Crimson.

3) Even then, Harvard basketball ran into academic compliance issues with the NCAA (they got out of it eventually).

4) Harvard basketball "took" some low-band AI spots away from their other sports. Those sports lost competitiveness whereas basketball gained competitiveness. Again, something they hadn't done previously.

In essence, the argument was that while Harvard was following the letter of the law, they were violating the spirit of the AI/Ivy admissions with respect to athletes. At a minimum, Harvard never did anything even remotely close to this for Amaker's predecessor.

All that being said, I haven't seen much griping about Harvard's basketball admissions lately. So all this is water under the bridge...

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Also part of the discussion


Author:
Go Green
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 09:00:44 03/08/17 Wed


Another part of the problem was that Penn felt that Harvard was the one that imposed the AI on the Ivy League as a way to muzzle Penn's success in basketball in the late 1970s.

So there were some hard feelings among Penn alums based on a perception that Harvard was succeeding in basketball by playing games with the AI.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: All second (or third) hand stuff. but


Author:
Diogenes (Go Green)
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 09:26:02 03/08/17 Wed

You listed all the criticisms I've heard. But if the rules weren't broken--they weren't broken. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Perhaps I'm being simplistic, but to my ears it all sounds like losers whining about winners.

One thing I find interesting is that while Harvard has enjoyed better teams, they haven't been a whole lot better than the usual powers in the League and, by their performance the NCAA's, have helped out the League as a whole.

Subjectively, it seems to me that Harvard has raised the standards of play in the League--and, if true, that's a good thing.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: All second (or third) hand stuff. but


Author:
joiseyfan
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 10:44:11 03/08/17 Wed

Not to be too picky, but Harvard has certainly raised the standards of RECRUITING in the league; the standards of play are a different question.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: All second (or third) hand stuff. but


Author:
Diogenes (joiseyfan)
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 11:33:57 03/08/17 Wed

Excellent point.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: To be fair to Penn


Author:
Go Green
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 10:53:30 03/08/17 Wed


There were indeed Penn fans on the boards expressing the same sentiments that you articulated above.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Anyone who cares


Author:
Go Green
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 11:09:47 03/08/17 Wed


This thread was pretty typical of the "Harvard Debates" on the Penn Board from several years ago.

http://boards.basketball-u.com/showtopic.php?tid/14705/fromsearch/1/hl/sour/tp/1/

Many other such threads existed...

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: All second (or third) hand stuff. but


Author:
mrjames
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 13:35:57 03/08/17 Wed

Very little of what has been said in this thread is actually true.

"1) Harvard let him take the boards numerous times, and he barely qualified on his final attempt. Harvard generally didn't do that previously."

Harvard had let recruits take the SAT/ACTs many times in the past. He actually DIDN'T qualify on his final attempt, which is why he had to take a post grad year in order to get qualified.

"2) Harvard "recruited" a guy who did not have D-I basketball talent, but had excellent SAT scores to balance out Zena's score. The other "recruit" never suited up for the Crimson."

Harvard had been using AI boosters for a long, long time. You never noticed before because the non-AI-boosters weren't good enough to be distinguishable.

"3) Even then, Harvard basketball ran into academic compliance issues with the NCAA (they got out of it eventually)."

I assume you're talking about the APR, which is a ridiculous calculation that got adjusted back up (not that they were in any real danger to begin with) once the kids involved in the cheating scandal returned to school and finished their degrees. As for that, Harvard had academic issues with players under previous coaches and other Ivies have had such issues as well. This was not unique.

"4) Harvard basketball "took" some low-band AI spots away from their other sports. Those sports lost competitiveness whereas basketball gained competitiveness. Again, something they hadn't done previously."

You can't really "take" low band spots away from other sports, because all sports outside of football are averaged, not banded, so as long as you're hitting your average, your sport has no impact on other sports in the department. There used to be a conspiracy theory that Harvard Hockey got bad all of a sudden when Amaker joined because Harvard shifted "low" spots to basketball. That never made sense, because Donato was raking in big time recruiting classes, even when the team was bad. No one seems to talk about that theory anymore.

It's exhausting to continue to combat all of the misinformation out there. I covered Sullivan's teams toward the end of his tenure at Harvard. The academic standards to which he had to adhere were tougher than what Amaker faced when he started (though with the continuing hikes to the AI floor aren't really...) but the academic standards to which he had to adhere weren't static throughout his tenure. Toward the end they were very rigorous, though that happened after having academic issues on the team.

Harvard hasn't ever had the lowest standards in the league. There was a moment there when Princeton and Yale could claim Harvard was fishing a little deeper in the AI pool than they were, but that's evened up now too. There are definitely teams (this year especially) that did things Harvard (or Princeton and Yale) couldn't remotely touch.

What's a shame is that all of these baseless rumors take away from one of the greatest program builds I have ever seen. I don't just mean on court. I mean the program as a whole. That doesn't happen without Tommy Amaker, and it's a shame that people don't appreciate it for what it is.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Not my fight


Author:
Go Green
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 14:09:49 03/08/17 Wed


But I appreciate (as always) the time you took to address the criticisms as I recalled them.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]


VoyUser Login ] Not required to post.
Post a public reply to this message | Go post a new public message
* HTML allowed in marked fields.
* Message subject (required):

Name (required):

  Expression (Optional mood/title along with your name) Examples: (happy, sad, The Joyful, etc.) help)

  E-mail address (optional):

* Type your message here:


Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.

[ Contact Forum Admin ]


Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2016 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.