[ Edit | View ]
Date Posted: 08:47:36 09/14/17 Thu
Since the year 2000, has any other Ivy coach been cited by the NCAA for recruiting violations?
Not sure what you mean by "cited" but teams self-report secondary or inadvertent violations to the NCAA all the time. The Ivy League and its teams have a policy not to disclose these reported violations but took the unprecedented step to do so in the Harvard case due to the previous publicity it received. If you're looking for a published list of all the Ivy secondary violations, though, you're going to be disappointed. Do a quick search though, and you'll see that it's common for athletic departments to report double-digit numbers of these a year and normally nothing comes of them.
Has any other Ivy program been sanctioned by the NCAA with recruiting restrictions as punishment?
I don't believe any other secondaries have yielded penalties from the NCAA, but NCAA violations can happen anywhere. Right around the beginning of this decade, I think Princeton Women's Tennis was hit with a major (not secondary) violation for paying a player. But you wouldn't normally ever hear about a secondary violation.
Has any other Ivy coach done something questionable like the Zack Rosen "Shop Rite" recruiting incident?
The New York Times has not bothered to report about other similar incidents. Or you can ignore Chris Lincoln's book Playing The Game and assume that was the first time any Ivy coach has ever said more words than "Hello" when he or she was supposed to only say that.
Are you aware of any other Ivy coach recruiting a high AI player off a high school junior varsity team and then immediately dismissing him?
A little history here. Prior to the establishment of roster sizes that could count toward the AI average (early 2000s - traveling size times 1.4), you could literally count anyone that checked the box indicating interest in a sport on the application toward your AI average. It's only recently that AI boosters are highly scrutinized as actual recruits. And here's the issue: you want either an AI booster that can actually play (not all that common - though coaches around the league will jokingly refer to them as "AI All Stars")) or an AI booster that clearly couldn't play for any D1 school. If you pick someone in the middle, they're likely to be a cancer on your team for not getting playing time and to ultimately transfer or otherwise be a nuisance. I hate AI averaging (as do many administrators across the league), but if it must exist I'd rather see booster slots given to kids who know they won't ever play than ones given to kids who have fringe D1 skills but will be planted on the bench for four years.
Are you aware of any other Ivy basketball player being recruited in eighth grade?
If you think that the first exploration of a kid's ability and desire to attend your institution happens on a call on June 15th following their sophomore year, you've lost your mind.
Are you aware of any other Ivy basketball player who has publicly disclosed lower SAT scores than Wesley Saunders did?
Wes Saunders' publicly disclosed scores were over 1800 (or over 1200 on the two part). When Wes Saunders was coming into the league the floor was still 171. He'd be solidly clear of that. Even today with the floor at 183 now, he'd be darn close to okay, and Ivy coaches will continue to recruit and wait for re-tests on kids 100 points lower or more. I'm not going to malign any specific kids (that's exclusively for people to do to Harvard basketball recruits), but if you do your research, you'll find articles about kids in NE prep schools talking about raising their SAT scores to get into an Ivy.
Which other Ivy programs have recruited a junior college transfer?
Brown, Cornell, Penn just in the last couple years.
Ultimately, I don't blame people for coming to these conclusions. Between confirmation and availability bias, and the Ivy League's nature of not admitting anything unless external reporters break a story and force them to, I can understand how you've arrived at your conclusions. If I were covering the league as a reporter, I'd work really hard to get info on the record to share with others. But I really only cover the league for my own interest. To the extent it's totally fine to share something, I do (AI increases, the Ivy tourney, etc). There's always going to be a big gap between what I know and what media outlets bother to report about this league, though.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]