VoyForums

VoyUser Login optional ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 12345678910 ]
Subject: Daily Pennsylvanian Ranks Ivy Athletic Programs: Harvard Not First


Author:
An Observer
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 14:55:26 09/03/18 Mon

In another thread, The Ghost of Bob Blackman made reference to a feature-length story written by sports writers at The Daily Pennsylvanian. They analyzed the eight Ivy athletic programs across all sports and compiled a ranking.

One of the recurring themes in one of our most regular debates is our fellow poster "Observer" asserting that concern and unhappiness about lowered academic standards in Harvard's men's basketball recruiting is due to "jealousy" from fans of other Ivy teams. "Jealousy" is one of his go-to dismissals concerning posters who are uncomfortable with Harvard's changed academic standards.

Well, I personally don't feel jealous of Harvard, but I acknowledge that a fan could be envious of programs which achieve consistent success. Whether it's the New England Patriots, the New York Yankees or the Alabama Crimson Tide, dynastic teams create a range of emotions among opposing fans.

But as discussed many times on this board and now articulated by The DP, if unaffiliated Ivy fans were to be jealous of any opponent, it would not be Harvard. It would be Princeton.

https://www.thedp.com/article/2018/08/ivy-league-athletics-ten-year-update-brown-columbia-cornell-dartmouth-harvard-penn-princeton-yale-overall-rankings

The DP writers summarize their analysis:

Princeton clearly was the most successful school in the Ivy League over the last decade. On top of an average finish that’s nearly half a place better than the next best school, the Tigers had the most Ivy titles, Ivy postseason titles, NCAAs appearances, and top 25, 10, and 5 finishes. Princeton dominated in several sports, with nine teams earning the top average finish in their respective sports, but that’s not all that made the Tigers the best in the conference.

Princeton's most impressive feature is that it was competitive in almost every sport. 29 of Princeton’s 33 teams took home an Ivy title in the last 10 years, with all but two of those 29 teams winning at least two titles. The Tigers averaged a top-four finish in 25 sports, and their worst overall finish was just 5.2 — just 0.1 less than Dartmouth’s overall average. With a few standout teams and all-around above average performance, Princeton easily earned the top spot.

So I would ask "Observer" to think more dispassionately about why many Ivy fans are uncomfortable with what Harvard is doing with its academic restrictions. We're not jealous of Harvard. We just happen to think that what makes the Ivy League most special is achieving considerable athletic success while setting a shining example for the rest of college sports by setting and maintaining meaningful high academic standards. That's what we do which is most important. Let's not dilute this remarkable aspect of the Ivy League.

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

Replies:
[> Subject: Re: Daily Pennsylvanian Ranks Ivy Athletic Programs: Harvard Not First


Author:
Ally
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 17:39:21 09/05/18 Wed

DP named the most successful Ivy team over the last decade is Harvard women’s squash, beating out Cornell wrestling and Princeton field hockey.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> Subject: Re: Daily Pennsylvanian Ranks Ivy Athletic Programs: Women's Squash, Wrestling, Field Hockey


Author:
An Observer
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 13:15:05 09/07/18 Fri

The Harvard women's squash team got the nod from the DP because they won seven national championships over the past ten years. Ending 70% of your seasons with a national championship is spectacular.

But let's be realistic about what "national" means in women's squash. There are literally only five programs in the country which make a serious, or even a half-hearted, attempt to win the title: HYP, Penn and Trinity. That's it. So a "national" championship really means that you've beaten four other programs. Tellingly, Harvard women's squash won only six CONFERENCE titles over that period.

Conversely, Cornell wrestling won all ten Ivy titles over the past decade and Princeton field hockey won nine. Cornell finished second in the NCAA tournament twice over the decade against a field which was much larger than the five programs in women's squash. Princeton won a national title in a sport which had never before had a champion from the Ivy League.

I would have ranked the top programs as: (1) Cornell wrestling; (2) Princeton field hockey; (3) Harvard women's squash.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> Subject: In a couple of more years of varsity play...


Author:
Go Green
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 13:18:59 09/07/18 Fri


Dartmouth women's rugby is sure to join this list.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> Subject: Yes, yes, yes But who is the best at Tiddlywinks..?!!!


Author:
Ivy wanna be
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 13:33:19 09/07/18 Fri

Good for those programs.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Yes, yes, yes But who is the best at Tiddlywinks..?!!!


Author:
Calvin
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 13:55:50 09/07/18 Fri

Yes, the article clearly states which teams they counted:

"We considered all sports where at least half of the Ivy League competes at the varsity level. This means that we did not include certain sports in which only a few Ivies compete, such as sprint football, men’s and women’s skiing, men’s volleyball, men’s and women’s water polo, etc. We felt it unfair to judge a team’s success in a sport relative to the rest of the league in cases where most of the league doesn’t compete."

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> Subject: Dartmouth women beat defending NC Quinnipiac


Author:
Go Green
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 17:06:32 09/08/18 Sat


https://dartmouthsports.com/news/2018/9/8/womens-rugby-dartmouth-takes-down-defending-national-champion-quinnipiac.aspx

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> Subject: Re: Daily Pennsylvanian Ranks Ivy Athletic Programs: Harvard Not First


Author:
Ivy Patriot
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 13:57:35 09/07/18 Fri

Go Green, after the entire Ivy League goes varsity we can talk.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> Subject: Re: Daily Pennsylvanian Ranks Ivy Athletic Programs: Harvard Not First


Author:
Go Green
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 14:57:46 09/07/18 Fri


Based on the DP's standards, all we need is one more Ivy to sponsor women's rugby, and Dartmouth immediately becomes the most dominant Ivy team.

C'mon Princeton, Yale, Penn, Columbia, and Cornell! Rugby is a heck of a lot more fun than squash!

:)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> Subject: Re: Daily Pennsylvanian Ranks Ivy Athletic Programs: Harvard Not First


Author:
M3
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 15:58:10 09/07/18 Fri

There are 3 varsity women’s rugby programs in the Ivy League
Dartmouth/Brown/Harvard
5 varsity programs are needed to become an official Ivy League varsity spiort

Princeton women are going to petition to become a varsity
sport this fall

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> Subject: And in addition to a fifth team


Author:
Calvin
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 16:17:42 09/07/18 Fri

10 years of results are needed to qualify for the DP survey, in its current format.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> Subject: I thought you said


Author:
Go Green
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 16:24:30 09/07/18 Fri


That participation by "at least half" the Ivy teams was sufficient for the DP.

Why is a fifth team needed?

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> Subject: No, read it again


Author:
Calvin
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 10:12:17 09/10/18 Mon

That was M3's point about ivy status. Mine was about the 10 years for DP consideration.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: If you and M3 were talking about two different things


Author:
Go Green
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 10:18:51 09/10/18 Mon


Probably not a good idea to use the words "And in addition to."

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: For the editorially challenged


Author:
Calvin
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 11:25:25 09/10/18 Mon

In addition to needing 5 teams to qualify as an ivy sport, you need 10 years of results to qualify for the DP methodology.

I trust most readers understood this point.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> Subject: Re: Daily Pennsylvanian Ranks Ivy Athletic Programs: Harvard Not First


Author:
joiseyfan
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 10:46:04 09/08/18 Sat

Princeton Rutgers already have fine facilities. Any recruiting slots would be a real tough sell.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Daily Pennsylvanian Ranks Ivy Athletic Programs: Harvard Not First


Author:
joiseyfan
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 10:48:02 09/08/18 Sat

Ruggers, obviously. The Apple spellcheck will be the death of me.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> Subject: Yep


Author:
Go Green
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 11:13:29 09/08/18 Sat


Can't imagine admissions will be happy about having to give another 10 or so slots to athletic teams.

But adding women's rugby as a varsity sport should make Title IX compliance pretty easy.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Yep


Author:
joiseyfan
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 15:32:40 09/08/18 Sat

With the number of women rowing on two squads plus all the other teams, I would think Princeton would already have as little problem as anybody with a football team, if not less. Besides, they will have a very difficult time making the women’s team varsity without the men’s as well. The men’s alums are the source of the vast majority of funds for the facilities and current team operations.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Yep


Author:
M3
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 16:10:18 09/08/18 Sat

Men are not seeking varsity status

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I wonder


Author:
holtsledge
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 16:27:07 09/08/18 Sat

(semi-serious) when the first transgender team will be approved, or doesn't that matter because they can identify with the team they want to play on

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Dartmouth men ruggers aren't either


Author:
Go Green
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 16:46:30 09/08/18 Sat


They don't want to give up the after-game kegs.

I suspect that the Princeton men may feel the same way.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> Subject: Re: Daily Pennsylvanian Ranks Ivy Athletic Programs: Harvard Not First


Author:
Ally
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 02:45:01 09/17/18 Mon

The DP compiled another list, this time choosing the best Ivy single seasons of the past decade. The top nod went to a women’s team, the 2012 Princeton field hockey squad.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> Subject: Re: Daily Pennsylvanian Ranks Ivy Athletic Programs: Harvard Not First


Author:
joiseyfan
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 11:10:53 09/17/18 Mon

Link?

You can certainly cite other good candidates, but you can’t argue against the 2012 team, which blew through everyone who was ranked to a 21-1 record and an N.C. Intriguingly, the 2011 team may have been more remarkable. Four All-Ivy Tigers from 2010 skipped the season to play for the national team in the Olympics, and the remaining team lost early games including 2-1 to Dartmouth, then regrouped to win the Ivies and its first NCAA game. Which of course set the table for 2012, when the four returned.

In recent memory, I would say the only Princeton teams comparable were the 2006 women’s N.C. heavyweight crew, arguably the best college women’s team in history, and the frightening 1997 men’s N.C. lax team(Hubbard, Hess, Massey et al.) which won the championship game 15-7.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> Subject: Re: Daily Pennsylvanian Ranks Ivy Athletic Programs: Harvard Not First


Author:
joiseyfan
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 16:44:14 09/17/18 Mon

Two addenda.

Typo, the men’s lax final in 1997 was 19-7 over Maryland; Tierney invoked his mercy rule with about 3 minutes left.

And yes, I know I didn’t include the 27-2 1998 men’s basketball team, the best at Princeton since 1967. I really thought about it, and also the 31-1 women’s team of 2015. I think one more tourney win by either would have tempted me....

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> Subject: Re: Daily Pennsylvanian Ranks Ivy Athletic Programs: Harvard Not First


Author:
John Harvard
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 17:10:57 09/17/18 Mon

Seems to me that the opening post here doesn't understand the AI. Yes, with regard to Harvard basketball, Tommy Amaker enjoys more leeway than his predecessor, Frank Sullivan did. On the other hand, I have heard that under the AI Harvard can't recruit/admit certain men's basketball candidates that some other Ivies - including Penn - can. This is because the AI does correlate in a fashion to the qualifications of the rest of the student body.

Thus, to suggest that Harvard is somehow lowering the standards of Ivy recruiting is true to a limit, that limit still being higher than the standards of some of its brethren.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> Subject: Re: Daily Pennsylvanian Ranks Ivy Athletic Programs: Harvard Not First


Author:
joiseyfan
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 17:25:54 09/17/18 Mon

JH —

Rather than rehash ten years of AI discussions, let’s just say that your statement as it stands is inaccurate and leave it at that.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> Subject: Harvard Basketball Recruiting Not Constrained By AI Distribution Pattern


Author:
An Observer
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 00:15:28 09/20/18 Thu

Hi there, John Harvard. As Joiseyfan suggests, there is a risk that revisiting this topic will lead to us rehashing ten years of AI discussion. But your post reflects some common misconceptions.

For example, you say that, because Harvard has a higher AI distribution among its overall student body than Penn does, therefore Harvard cannot recruit some men's basketball players that Penn can. That is not how the AI system works for men's basketball.

Your understanding would apply solely to football. For the other 32 Ivy championship sports, all recruited athletes are put into a single pool. So Harvard basketball does not have its own AI distribution curve. Neither does Penn basketball.

Harvard's basketball players are combined into the same pool as the lacrosse and hockey players. So when Tommy Amaker wants low AI players, he can get all he wants, subject to two conditions: First, any recruits coming directly from high school must clear the minimum AI threshold which applies to all recruited Ivy athletes. Second, Amaker must get approval from AD Bob Scalise insofar as all varsity sports at any single school are competing for a finite number of low AI slots.

So when you say that Harvard basketball has a higher academic standard than Penn does, that is solely subject to the discretion of Bob Scalise and Grace Calhoun. If Scalise wants to recruit very aggressively in men's basketball, it is quite possible that Amaker would have lower academic standards than those imposed upon Steve Donahue.

Apart from the fact that all 32 non-football sports are merged into a single pool, there are some other relevant facts.

When Amaker recruits a transfer player like Cem Dinc from Marshalltown Community College, Amaker can circumvent the AI restrictions completely.

Amaker can also inflate the AI average of his roster for appearance's sake (relevant both for appearance in the eyes of other Ivy schools and other sports within Harvard) by aggressively recruiting AI boosters such as Camden McRae. A guy like McRae can be averaged into the team score and then dismissed before the season starts.

Lastly, while HYP formerly had materially higher distribution curves than the other five Ivies, that is no longer true. After the SAT scale was re-centered in 1995, it ceased to clearly distinguish between highly qualified students because now their scores all bunch near the top of the scale. So now HYP have scores much closer to the other schools.

All of which is to say that Amaker is not constrained in the fashion which you believe.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> Subject: Re: Harvard Basketball Recruiting Not Constrained By AI Distribution Pattern


Author:
John Harvard
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 11:14:35 09/20/18 Thu

Thanks for your detailed response.

Certainly there are ways to be strategic, however, you seem to suggest that these are employed only by Tommy Amaker. Of course, they are equally available to Steve Donahue and all others. Admissions ethics - as evidenced by the recent bribery allegation - has most recently reared its head at Penn. I think it is unfounded to suggest - as you do - that Amaker is the worst transgressor. Although not dispositive, recent Harvard basketball players not only all graduate, but the team has earned more NABC academic awards recently than anyone other than Yale. Harvard succeeds in both of these to objective levels not attained by Penn.

The Campus AI is relevant, putting Harvard at a disadvantage relevant to Penn as HYP and likely Columbia are understood to have the highest Campus AI's. No matter how you spin it, that is empirically a disadvantage for Harvard, and an advantage for Penn.

No school can accept a student below the threshold AI. Thus, when combined with the Campus AI disadvantage that Harvard faces, it is likely that any Harvard basketball admit could have been admitted by all competing Ivies. For instance, I have read fans criticize Harvard for taking game changers like Wes Saunders, conveniently omitting that Saunders was heavily recruited (along with Kenyatta Smith that year) by Penn.

For what it's worth, I have heard behind the scenes explanations to the effect that Harvard had to pass on a player because of AI issues where that player ended up elsewhere in the Ivy League. I have never heard it the other way around.

In sum, your analysis must concede that Harvard starts at an AI disadvantage to Penn and certain others. Certainly, any AD and coach has ways that this can be abated, but to suggest that Amaker has such unique expertise and leeway as to turn this obstacle into an advantage is unfounded and, in my estimation, wrong.

I thought Mike James put this to bed over the past few years over on the basketball board.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Harvard Basketball Recruiting -- And A Highly Coincidental Poker Game!


Author:
An Observer
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 17:23:09 09/21/18 Fri

John Harvard,

I fear that we are talking past each other. I will try to be more clear about what I am and am not saying.

First, I make no assertions about what the other seven Ivies are doing. You infer than I am "suggesting" (your words) that Amaker is "the worst transgressor." I am not saying that Harvard is worse or better than the other Ivies. What I am describing is what we see Harvard doing. No more or no less.

That you bring up the very unfortunate situation with Jerome Allen is, if you'll excuse any confrontational tone, deflection on your part. It's very unfortunate and no less than pathetic that Jerome Allen is taking money to put an entirely unqualified athlete in Morris Enformes on his formal list of preferred recruits submitted to the admissions office. But it's not relevant.

The topic at hand is the questionable academic standards of the Harvard men's basketball program. A reasonable query is what should we conclude when Tommy Amaker puts an entirely unqualified athlete in Camden McRae on his formal list of preferred recruits submitted to the admissions office?

It's fantastic that Harvard and Yale are earning NABC academic awards. That is a relevant data point. So is the fact that, in 2015, Harvard's men's basketball NCAA Academic Progress Rate was so low that, had it continued unchanged for two more years, the Ivy League would have been put into the uncomfortable position that, had the Harvard won the conference, the Crimson would have been ineligible to participate in the NCAA tournament.

Getting back to the broadest and most important topic of our dialogue, the campus AI at all eight Ivies is relevant *ONLY* to the extent that the campus AI sets the mandated AI distribution curve for (A) football; and in a separate calculation, (B) all other 32 Ivy championship sports, collectively (that is, treated as one pool of 32 rosters combined).

So the disadvantage that you describe for HYP is absolutely true for HYP football although, as I described, the disadvantage has narrowed because the SAT scale was re-centered in 1995, rendering the top of the distribution of student scores truncated and thus not informative.

For the other 32 Ivy-championship sports, any recruiting advantage or disadvantage is entirely determined by how aggressive each school's athletic director wants to be in each of the 32 sports.

I am surprised that you say Harvard has a disadvantage relative to Penn "no matter how I spin it." That is patently untrue. If Bob Scalise wants to be aggressive in men's basketball, and it appears that he does, he can permit Tommy Amaker to recruit all of his players right down to the minimum AI threshold of 176. Because basketball has a relatively small roster of 14-18 players, it's actually reasonably painless for any athletic director to recruit aggressively in hoops because you can always get the school average back up using the 31 other sports.

Have you ever noticed that certain Ivy sports have rosters which are jam-packed with Asians? I'm thinking golf, tennis and squash. Those are convenient sports in which to squirrel away high AI athletic recruits to compensate for low AI recruits elsewhere.

I like it when you point out that some Harvard basketball recruits are pursued by other Ivies. That is good news. I would actually frame the sentence in the opposite direction logically. It's bad news when any Ivy pursues any recruit who is not recruited by any other Ivy. Harvard seems to have a lot of those.

I am confident that all Ivy coaches like to point out to their fans a given recruit who was passed up because of AI issues that subsequently ended up at a different Ivy. But any individual recruit must be considered in the context of the other players in his recruiting class and the overall roster.

To provide a more tangible example, suppose player John Doe is of average ability and average AI. John Doe might be passed up at Harvard because, given his average AI, Tommy Amaker can recruit a much better player for his AI slot. But what if the coach at Dartmouth or Brown can't recruit a better player at that AI score or *AT ALL*? John Doe will wind up at Dartmouth or Brown. That does not necessarily mean that Dartmouth or Brown have lower academic standards. It only means that Tommy Amaker aims higher in athletic ability for a given AI score.

While we're on the topic of arguably irrelevant hearsay, I'll pass along a story solely because it reflects a remarkable coincidence. Last night--that's right, just last night--I played poker with a group of gentlemen previously unknown to me including one older guy whose son is a current long-time men's basketball coach at an Ivy.

I didn't know this fact until after a couple hours had passed. We had already talked about personal topics such as his medical condition and his obvious pride and love for his children. Seriously, when the topic of children came up, he stopped and almost began tearing up.

May all of us someday be that proud of our children, and may all of our parents be that proud of us.

Once I found out who his son was, we started to talk Ivy League basketball in earnest. I couldn't resist asking him whether he thought Harvard was cheating academically in basketball because literally a few hours early I had been posting in this thread. To his great credit, it was clear that he did not want to discuss the topic. Naturally, I wouldn't let it go and continued to press him. Finally, he sighed and said that there had been "shenanigans" early in Amaker's tenure at Harvard, but that he didn't know what was or was not happening now. And that's all he would say.

I guess the big picture regarding Tommy Amaker is exactly as described by my new poker playing friend. We have a number, indeed a large number, of data points which strongly suggest or reflect that Amaker has at least at one time committed "shenanigans."

We don't know what he is or is not doing now, and we don't know what the other seven Ivy programs are doing in an attempt to keep up.

But what we have already seen is very troubling. The incriminating evidence known for sure should give all Ivy fans, coaches and administrators reason to think about how seriously we want to maintain what we wear as a badge of pride in this conference, that we will at all times maintain the highest of academic standards for varsity athletes.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> Subject: To John Harvard, Another Low Probability Event


Author:
An Observer
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 16:14:37 10/01/18 Mon

John Harvard,

These days, I don't expect to convince anybody of anything on any forum.

But have I at least explained the mechanics of the AI system to the point where we can agree that no Ivy basketball team (or any Ivy team in any sport ex-football) has their average team AI score evaluated against a school standard?

That is, Tommy Amaker does not have to maintain a higher score than Steve Donahue and, if permitted by Bob Scalise, Amaker can go lower. Harvard is not by rule at a disadvantage relative to Penn in basketball.

Do we at least agree on how the mechanics work?

Following up on my story about the father of the Ivy basketball coach, he got into a poker hand where the flop was Ace-Queen-Ten with no flush draw. The father bet, his opponent raised all-in and then the father called for his entire stack, flipping over his hand to show King-Jack, the nut straight.

The opponent flipped over Ace-Four, for top pair with a terrible kicker. Fortunately for him, the turn and river went Four-Four, giving him the full house. When all the chips went into the pot, this guy was less than a 1% probability to win.

Low probability events happen all the time, much more than our intuition believes. Our minds underestimate the likelihood of low probability events. Just something to consider when people talk about the inevitability of Princeton winning the title this year.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> Subject: I like the poker reference


Author:
holtsledge
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 16:44:08 10/01/18 Mon

last time I played at Foxwoods I had straight flush draw after the flop so I went all in, thinking of opened ended straight draw, flush or straight flush would likely appear and I would clean up, obviously I went down in flames

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: I like the poker reference -- Straight-Flush Stories


Author:
An Observer
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 20:39:54 10/02/18 Tue

Holtsie,

Later in the same game with the father of the Ivy basketball coach, I folded Ace-Five of Hearts pre-flop after somebody raised before me. That's the kind of hand I'll often call with, but the table was so aggressive I was afraid it would be re-raised after me.

The flop included Ten-Nine of Hearts. Then the turn came Eight of Hearts. There was a bet, a raise, a re-raise all in and a call. There was not a pair on the board, so I was starting to really regret not playing my Ace-Five of Hearts. Had I stayed in, this would have been nearly a thousand dollar pot. Just as the sadness started to really seep deep into my "heart," I thought to myself, "With all that aggressive betting, is it possible that one of these two guys has the Jack-Seven of Hearts?"

Sure enough, one of the players flipped over the straight-flush. That is only the third straight-flush that I've ever personally seen in my life.

The first two took place within one week of each other back in 2006 at the weekly game at my company. I held Ten-Six of Clubs and filled it on the river. A week later, there was another one, prompting one of my co-workers to shout, and I quote verbatim, "Oh my God, a straight-flush! I have never seen a straight-flush in my entire life! Well, except for the one An Observer got last week."

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> Subject: Re: Daily Pennsylvanian Ranks Ivy Athletic Programs: Harvard Not First


Author:
joiseyfan
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 10:41:40 09/20/18 Thu

AO —

You are generous and patient, almost to the point of sainthood. Thanks.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> Subject: You want the most dominant Ivy season ever? It's happening now.


Author:
Go Green
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 22:10:04 09/22/18 Sat


Top ranked Dartmouth women's rugby beats #2 Harvard 55-13.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> Subject: Naah


Author:
Calvin
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 18:16:05 09/23/18 Sun

An "ivy season" has to include more than 3 games against ivy opponents, played by a varsity team.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> Subject: Yep


Author:
Go Green
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 19:28:23 09/23/18 Sun


I'm sure if Penn and the rest had a women's rugby team, Dartmouth wouldn't be kicking the **** out of everyone.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Yep


Author:
M3
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 21:10:22 10/02/18 Tue

Dartmouth (varsity program) has 4 recruiting slots per year for the past 2 or 3 years and has recruited extremely well. Has a great team. Top 5 nationally.

Brown (varsity program) has had no recruiting slots until this year.

Harvard (varsity program) has 3 recruiting slots for 2 or 3 years and is behind Dartmouth.
Lets see what happens there in a few more years.

All the other Ivies have women's rugby teams and have no recruiting slots.
They are not varsity programs.
They are club teams that practice on average 3 days a week and play on Saturdays.

Of course Dartmouth would kick the crap out of them, big surprise.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> Subject: I think that Dartmouth Women's Rugby Now...


Author:
Go Green
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 22:13:40 10/02/18 Tue


Could be the closest we have to what HYP football was in the 1880s.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Probably so


Author:
Calvin
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 09:53:26 10/03/18 Wed

But one would expect that; their players are bigger.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: And faster and stronger and better


Author:
Go Green
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 09:56:28 10/03/18 Wed


Mrs. Go Green was extremely impressed with Dartmouth's younger players when she saw them play against Harvard.

She's convinced that some of them will end up playing in the Olympics.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: And faster and stronger and better


Author:
An Observer
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 10:10:34 10/03/18 Wed

Does the missus know whether any of the Dartmouth players are transgender who are transitioning to female? Recall that we were talking about a couple of the players after Dartmouth was on television.

That is currently a big deal locally here in high school sports. The top two girls' high school sprinters in the state are both boys who identify as girls. Because they are still minors, they have not begun any sort of hormone therapy and certainly no surgery. So at least in the basic mechanics of physiology, they are boys sprinting against girls.

It seems that the advantage would be similar in rugby. If you've got bigger, faster biological men on your team, that's a huge advantage. Although if they are at least 18, they might have at least begun hormone therapy to reduce their advantage in strength.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: She did not


Author:
Go Green
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 10:40:30 10/03/18 Wed


And just eyeballing the younger players from the roster, it doesn't look like that's an issue.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> Subject: To M3, Interesting Info on Recruiting Slots


Author:
An Observer
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 16:32:48 10/03/18 Wed

M3, that is very interesting information on the varsity status of each school's team and especially the number of recruiting slots. Is there a place to find that data for other or even all sports?

I ask because it seems that, in some sports, different Ivy teams have material differences in roster size.

Specific to women's rugby, do you know if all three varsity programs (D, B & H) have coaches and funding for recruiting, travel and uniforms?

I assume that some or most of the club teams do not have coaches, pay for their own uniforms and carpool at their own expense, crashing on the floor of hosting teams. Is that right?

That's what it meant to be a club team back in my day. Have things changed on that front?

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Dartmouth continues to romp


Author:
Go Green
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 12:53:11 10/06/18 Sat


Women ruggers beat #6 AIC 53-17.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> Subject: Re: You want the most dominant Ivy season ever? It's happening now.


Author:
M3
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 19:30:16 10/03/18 Wed

Ivy Rugby has changed dramatically from our day (I'm a 70's guy).

All the men's programs are club but all have coaches and depending on the school admissions considerations.

The varsity women's programs (H/D/Br) have coach's slots and bus travel for local and jet travel for national tournaments or games.

Women's club programs all have coaches but variable funding.


5 keg post game parties in Blair Arch at Princeton sadly no longer exist.

[ 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 © 1998-2017 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.