Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: Bet You Didn’t Know Author: Two Cents [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 10:51:57 11/22/21 Mon Columbia has a better record than Harvard over the past 4 seasons: Dartmouth 35-5, 23-5 Ivy League Princeton 32-8, 20-8 Yale 28-12, 19-9 Columbia 24-16, 14-14 Harvard 23-17, 14-14 Penn 20-20, 10-18 Cornell 12-28, 9-19 Brown 7-33, 2-26 [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> Subject: Re: Bet You Didn’t Know Author: Ghost of 1961 [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 11:01:11 11/22/21 Mon Harvard will think that's unacceptable, Columbia fans will rejoice. Harvard will ask what's wrong and Columbia will think all is right. Perspectives. But this is how you build it, six recruiting classes and the last four seasons yields tie for fourth, well behind the leaders. [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> Subject: You're right, $00.02, I did NOT know these things.... Author: Valmas (Sizzling) [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 11:10:16 11/22/21 Mon Thanks for the diligent research; and, by the way, you called the Harvard v. Columbia football game; two months before the damned game was played- kudos to you for that, as well. Happy Thanksgiving! [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> Subject: Re: You're right, $00.02, I did NOT know these things.... Author: Ivy Patriot [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 07:56:02 11/23/21 Tue Diligent research deserves a footnote. That came straight from the BGA Premium website. [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> Subject: Re: Bet You Didn’t Know Author: Old Lion (Anger management) [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 12:17:55 11/22/21 Mon Ghost of 1961, are you actually a Columbia guy? I don’t get all the anger and hostility. We have made great strides; hopefully they will continue. So let’s show a little gratitude for how far we have come. And remember, we had a unique handicap in being the only IL team without Spring ball. [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> Subject: Re: Bet You Didn’t Know Author: Lurker [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 12:57:53 11/22/21 Mon A disgruntled dad perhaps? [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> Subject: Re: Bet You Didn’t Know Author: Ghost of 1961 [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 13:41:15 11/22/21 Mon Big Columbia guy, but a realistic one as well. Columbia made a huge investment in Al Bagnoli, probably hamstringing any other major sport coaching changes, and yes, the land of the middle of the pack is where it's landed us. We're not close to winning the Ivy title but if we keep beating up 3 non-conference foes and go 3-4 or 4-3 in the league, that's a winning record. After 6 recruiting classes, when do we close the gap on the top of the league? [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> Subject: Re: Bet You Didn’t Know Author: Bagnoli fan [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 13:32:22 11/22/21 Mon Very interesting statistic! Few people on this board would have ever predicted Columbia having more wins than Harvard over the last four years. In addition, look at the fall of the once dominant Penn after Bagnoli left …. The future of Columbia football is very bright with many starters returning in 2022, a good young QB, and the ability to have students on campus in the spring (with spring ball)! [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> Subject: Re: Bet You Didn’t Know Author: Anonymous [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 13:39:35 11/22/21 Mon This is a really great graphic. And who could ever have imagined Penn sliding like that over the past four seasons. [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> Subject: Minor points, but... Author: Valmas (Sizzling) [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 14:32:28 11/22/21 Mon $00.02 writes of four seasons in a five year period of time; and if someone had informed you, a reasonable sort, in 2016, that these would be the Ivy League football results through 2021, you'd have said, those numbers are obviously a credit to the work Coach Bagnoli's putting in. [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> Subject: Re: Bet You Didn’t Know Author: Washington Lion (Grateful) [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 17:41:34 11/22/21 Mon Great list, Mr. Cents. Columbia’s record in the two years before Bagnoli arrived: 0-20, 0-14 Columbia’s record in Bagnoli’s third through sixth seasons: 24-16, 14-14 That includes three winning seasons after going 20 years without, wins over every team, three wins over Penn (a team they hadn’t beaten in 20 years), three Empire State Bowls and a 2-2 split with Dartmouth, the best team during that stretch. Picked in the preseason media poll this year to finish seventh, the Lions were competitive in nine of their 10 games this year and won seven, including against Dartmouth, Brown and Cornell, all picked higher. It’s been the best stretch for the Lions since they joined the league – and, after decades of futility, a joy to watch. The goal is to field a championship contender every year. They haven’t done that yet, but they’re closer than ever, by far. The program is moving in the right direction. [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> Subject: Re: Bet You Didn’t Know Author: Old Lion (COY) [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 06:37:14 11/23/21 Tue Al deserves COY; tremendous coaching job; masterpiece at Hanover; unique in not having Spring ball; and development of excellent staff. [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> Subject: COY? Author: Bengal [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 10:59:36 11/23/21 Tue Old Lion, I think you are judging COY based on Columbia's performance this year compared to its performance in previous years. You know I have expressed highest regard for Bagnoli. But I think you need to compare its performance this year versus other coach's performance this year. That usually should mean that the League champion's coach merits that award. I think Teevens is the most worthy, followed closely by Surace. [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> [> Subject: Re: COY? Author: Old Lion (Perhaps) [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 13:29:30 11/23/21 Tue You may be right, of course, but the implication of what you are saying is that the COY designation should automatically go to whoever wins the league. And if there is a tie, perhaps then there might be some subjective analysis which would determine the winner. I respectfully disagree; to me the coach of the year means who actually did the best coaching job. Meeting expectations versus exceeding expectations is the issue. We were picked for the bottom of the league; Dartmouth and Princeton were picked for the top. Teevens and Surace, both of whom are fine coaches, met expectations. Bagnoli exceeded them. Of course I recognize that my view here is not unbiased. [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: COY? Author: An Observer [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 13:44:29 11/23/21 Tue This is why I am not a fan of the Ivy League even naming a coach of the year. 95% of the time, it is simply the coach of the champion team. There's nothing wrong with that and, in most seasons in most sports, there's really no other reasonable choice. Then in 5% of the cases, a reasonable argument can be made for somebody like Bagnoli, who did more with less. But COY is not defined. Is it for the guy who did more with less, or is it for the guy who did the most, regardless of whether he had more or less? So you've probably got different people voting with different criteria in mind. And I assume for the time being that, as with the POY and ROY awards, it's actually the coaches themselves who are voting for COY. That just seems stupid. Eight guys voting amongst themselves for the guy who did the best job? [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: COY? Author: Bengal [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 13:52:57 11/23/21 Tue Good point and I agree with you. If Bagnoli had gone from 1-9 2 years ago to 7-3 now maybe he should get it. This year, not so much. We'll see what the voters think. [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> Subject: Wow - What happened to Harvard Author: PennLB [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 09:54:51 11/30/21 Tue "Columbia’s record in the two years before Bagnoli arrived: 0-20, 0-14 Columbia’s record in Bagnoli’s third through sixth seasons: 24-16, 14-14 That includes three winning seasons after going 20 years without, wins over every team, three wins over Penn (a team they hadn’t beaten in 20 years), three Empire State Bowls and a 2-2 split with Dartmouth, the best team during that stretch" Thanks for that research - makes us miss AB that much more in West Philly. What is equally shocking to Columbia's success (yes, I am well aware of Penn's fall from the rafters) but for Harvard to be in the bottom half of the league the last 4years is incredible. Has there ever been a more blatant "do less with more" situation in college football? (Texas?) I really think there are ties to losing valuable assistant Ryan Cranford. He was Harvards secondary coach and special teams coordinator and left 5 years ago. Since then all down hill. Not on defense so much, my impression is Harvard has remained salty on D and as long as they keep recruiting the best DL they will always be good on that side of ball. Losing Cranford left a hole on special teams. Harvard use to win games with special teams and now it appears that those units are not just a non factor but helping to contribute to losses. I am not sure who is running Harvards Special Teams but it is hard not to notice the extreme drop off since Cranford left (I believe for a Power 5 position) [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> Subject: Part of the problem... Author: Go Green [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 10:25:16 11/30/21 Tue During Harvard's glory days, you could pencil in Harvard's starting QB onto the All-Ivy team. It's been a while since Harvard has had the best QB in the league. Who was Harvard's best QB since its last title in 2015? Stewart? He was ok... Whether that's a recruiting problem or a development problem, I do not know. Maybe Charlie Dean is the answer. He looked pretty good before he got injured. [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> Subject: Should also mention... Author: Go Green [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 10:32:00 11/30/21 Tue ... that this also applies to Penn. It's hard to finish in the upper division if you only have mediocre quarterback play. [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> Subject: Re: Wow - What happened to Harvard Author: Joe Friday [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 11:02:23 11/30/21 Tue Doing less with more is the very definition of a development problem, and that goes directly to the coaching staff’s effectiveness in one or more aspects of the game. There is definitely a good straight-faced argument for AB for CoY given what’s he’s produced with what he had to work with, but you have to give it to BT given that he (has consistently, including in 2021) did more with less as has become the trend up there. If you look at the strength of the recruiting classes over the past five years - and granted there is some subjectivity there for sure within the recruiting service ratings - Dartmouth consistently has classes that are usually ranked in the bottom half of the League - comprised mostly of a bunch of zero-star kids…as opposed to Harvard which consistently ranks near or at the top and is comprised of two and three star kids - many of whom as we know wisely spurned the FBS offer for the Harvard degree - who then don’t perform up to expectations. Barring injury and or a confidence issue, that’s coaching first and last along with all of the little things that go along with that - culture, accountability, staff support, etc. [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> Subject: Speaking of which... Author: Go Green [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 12:10:52 11/30/21 Tue I'm surprised that nobody has committed to Dartmouth in a few weeks. We've had guys visit campus. While the Columbia game was unfortunate, I can only presume the atmosphere was festive for the other games. My recollection is that in the past we'd get a few commits during successful seasons. That didn't seem to be the case this year. Hopefully some good guys will announce eventually. [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> Subject: Re: Wow - What happened to Harvard Author: Hanover Plain [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 15:05:57 11/30/21 Tue We got our 10 ED guys, which compares favorably to the last few years. We always take fewer commits early versus the rest of the league and more later. This year, everyone’s numbers will be lower due to the new league limit of 27 annual football admissions slots and swollen rosters because of COVID. Our campus is shutdown (no students) after Thanksgiving until January, so no official visits during that period. I would say that we are right on track, unless Hanlon’s cuts of 20 athletics admissions slots impacts football. [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> Subject: Re: Wow - What happened to Harvard Author: Bandit [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 20:56:26 11/30/21 Tue I think you mean Ryan Crawford, former Harvard db coach who is now at Wake Forest [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> Subject: Re: Bet You Didn’t Know Author: Acob (Who would you want) [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 14:12:05 11/30/21 Tue The test for any of us is which of the current coaches you would select if you were chosen to fill a Head Coaching vacancy at your School with the underlying assumption each is available. Red you do not have to consider Archer in coming to a response. You have endured enough pain. There is no prohibition barring selection of the current Coach at your school and no inference of rejection in not selecting him. You are privileged To like yours but like any of the others better. You may apply any criteria you choose and no criteria is unacceptable. Yours is yours. As for me, pondering a response leads to a possibility somewhat remote: filming a documentary titled, “ The Faces and Moods Of The Little Sicilian “. Yes there would be sub titles. These created by Bengali, Grin and Go Green. The Director is the imminent Holtsledge,he the master of creativity. [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> Subject: Re: Bet You Didn’t Know Author: Bengali a/k/a Bengal [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 17:39:10 11/30/21 Tue Acobber: Bagnoli is a logical choice. But for turning around a program, Surace would be an interchangeable selection in my view. Bagnoli inherited a significantly worse situation at Columbia, of course, his record at Penn speaks for itself, and Columbia is now a respectable program. But Surace took a three year second division program and won a title in his fourth season, with just three classes of his recruits. The revamp started poorly as we know, but he stamped his vision on the program and has it in a good place, hopefully to be maintained. Either guy would be a good choice. [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> Subject: Re: Bet You Didn’t Know Author: PennLB [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 19:01:41 11/30/21 Tue I will go on a limb and say that despite Archer's less then stellar record. The Cornell football team has performed closer to their potential then Harvard or Penn and therefor the Cornell football staff >>> Harvard football staff who has done the worst at playing to their potential in my opinion (as well as Penn) [ Post a Reply to This Message ]