Started By
Message
re: GOAT CFB programs, according to the AP Poll
Posted on 2/22/22 at 8:27 pm to RD Dawg
Posted on 2/22/22 at 8:27 pm to RD Dawg
quote:Most of them have memberships at elite clubhouses and have fantastic toys to stay in shape. They definitely know if their team won or lost against another IVY team,
No it isn't and their attendence and lack of facilities reflects that lack of passion.
Men love sports and have as long as written history. Of course, not all men but the percentage is very high. It doesn't matter if they are dirt poor or extremely wealthy.
Top sports the wealthy love
LINK
This post was edited on 2/22/22 at 8:31 pm
0
Posted on 2/22/22 at 9:24 pm to RD Dawg
quote:
Sure but it doesn't mean a "academic" scholarship and they aren't above recruiting kids who wouldn't get in unless they were good athletes.
That is simply not true. An Excerpt and link from an article titled the evolution of Ivy league football.
quote:
The Ivy League began to coalesce as the eight presidents signed on to the Ivy Group Agreement in 1945, which set the standards for the schools’ football programs, including the provision of prohibiting athletic scholarships.
“The members of the Group reaffirm their prohibition of athletic scholarships,” the agreement read. “Athletes shall be admitted as students and awarded financial aid only on the basis of the same academic standards and economic need as are applied to all other students.”
This agreement extended to other sports starting in 1954. Over time, the conference continued to dig its heels in relation to scholarships. This ultimately hurt the Ivy League’s prominence as it struggled to compete with other major conference programs that morphed into national powerhouses.
LINK
And a new problem deciding where to go to an Academic school to play football.
Prestige and rubbing elbows with other students that can fund your business plan, but Playing with less National publicity helping fuel that false stereotype
Or going to Stanford, Vandy, and ND and get some National recognition and still have a chance of meeting that friend.
Oh and the bit about your brother is called anecdotal evidence, IT is pointless, I have my own pointless story, I lived In Princeton a couple of years and had a handful of neighbors and friends.
It is possible for NIL to improve the Ivy leagues, and I think it is likely
This post was edited on 2/22/22 at 9:26 pm
Posted on 2/22/22 at 9:44 pm to subotic
Oklahoma GOAT Football Program
You all bow down to greatness
You all bow down to greatness
Posted on 2/22/22 at 9:55 pm to NorthPark
quote:
That is simply not true. An Excerpt and link from an article titled the evolution of Ivy league football.
It simply is true.I can tell you from 1st hand experience from brother who went to Penn or my cousin who played at Brown.OF COURSE athletes get in who wouldn't ordinarily be accepted.Not saying the kids are prop 48 and they obviously have good grades and scores but getting accepted into a Ivy League is a completely different level.Sorry,Ivies have special admits for athletes as does Army,Navy,Air Force,GT,Northwestern,etc
quote:
The members of the Group reaffirm their prohibition of athletic scholarships,” the agreement read. “Athletes shall be admitted as students and awarded financial aid only on the basis of the same academic standards and economic need as are applied to all other students.”
LMAO.Here is the reality Acceptance rate for athletes vs non athletes Harvard
quote:
Athletes with the first or second highest academic ratings on the admissions scale have an 83 percent acceptance rate, the Harvard Crimson reported. Non-athletes of comparable ratings have a 16 percent chance at acceptance. Princeton likely has similar statistics.
Coaches can’t guarantee admissions to athletes. But the schools can send out Likely Letters months ahead of regular applicants. They say that “a candidate is ‘likely’ to be admitted,” according to the Ivy League’s website.
Ivy Coach, a private college consultant, said on its website, “a Likely Letter is the equivalent of an offer of admission.” While they’re not limited to athletic recruits, they undeniably play a significant role in securing their spots.
Former University President William Bowen GS ’58 concluded in “Reclaiming the Game: College Sports and Educational Values” that the Ivy League often lowers academic standards to recruit players.
Please learn something as opposed to spouting the party line from 70 years ago.
This post was edited on 2/22/22 at 9:59 pm
Posted on 2/22/22 at 10:51 pm to RD Dawg
Well,
You should have posted actual evidence previously as this changes this conversation, but it also verifies my position that it is possible NIL can change their programs AND that they love sports. If they have changed their position this much it is a pretty sure bet we will see a 5star getting a million a year and an internship at a huge corporation.
It is always confusing when I am right despite my ignorance.
PS, When was the book published?
quote:
LMAO.Here is the reality Acceptance rate for athletes vs non athletes Harvard
You should have posted actual evidence previously as this changes this conversation, but it also verifies my position that it is possible NIL can change their programs AND that they love sports. If they have changed their position this much it is a pretty sure bet we will see a 5star getting a million a year and an internship at a huge corporation.
It is always confusing when I am right despite my ignorance.
PS, When was the book published?
This post was edited on 2/22/22 at 11:01 pm
Posted on 2/23/22 at 6:20 am to NorthPark
quote:
Nick Bunn has already opened a NIL community for all Harvard athletes. They will not play for natties in the major sports but they can reach the top 25 and a bowl game
LOL.You do know the Ivy League doesn't permit its teams to participate in post season play in FB,correct?
Now you're just tripling down on your idiocy.
You ever been to Harvard Stadium? I have.Even by FCS standards it's a dump.Hell,they didn't even have lights til 2006.The Yale Bowl didnt have have lights til 2015.Franklin Field is another dump.(been to that one as well)
No conference in the NCAA has more billionaire alumni (Its not even close) yet they have some of the worst facilities in FCS.Not one stadium is ranked in the top 25 in FCS stadiums
Northwestern is really the only school I can think of with a Ivy League reputation that had its wealthy alumni step up and donate the millions it took to have one of the top athletic facilities in DI.
Basketball is the one sport where NIL MIGHT make an impact in the Ivy League but even that will be difficult.
This post was edited on 2/23/22 at 9:40 am
Posted on 2/23/22 at 8:33 am to SidewalkTiger
Where's little brother?
Posted on 2/23/22 at 9:04 am to NorthPark
quote:
The final AP ratings are significant as they also count your finish when you are not off winning a Natty
This ranking methodology has been posted here before and I've said this about it before, but I'll say it again. Using this method, a program that finishes #2 five years in a row would be considered more successful over that time frame than a program that wins the NC four times and finishes #7 once. In no possible reality is that remotely true.
Posted on 2/23/22 at 9:10 am to tissle
quote:
UGA is trending up. UT looks like they found their coach for the future.
UGA is primed to pass both Tennessee and USC in total wins over the next decade. Which would have been unimaginable in the late 90s
Posted on 2/23/22 at 9:28 am to tylerdurden24
OU NEEDS TO BEAT SOME SEC SCHOOLS BEFORE THEY RUN THEIR MOUTH! 
Posted on 2/23/22 at 9:39 am to RD Dawg
quote:
LOL.You do know the Ivy League doesn't permit its teams to participate in post season play in FB,correct?
Actually, I had forgotten that primarily because they rarely have a team rated high enough. But they clearly have had the teams to be rated number one.
The NCAA didn't allow teams to receive nil money until the Supreme court made their decisions either but here we are entering a new age.
This post was edited on 2/23/22 at 9:44 am
Posted on 2/23/22 at 10:10 am to 1badboy
quote:What does that have to do with the Ivy but more to the point OU's record versus the SEC isn't limited to the last decade or so.
OU NEEDS TO BEAT SOME SEC SCHOOLS BEFORE THEY RUN THEIR MOUTH
OU football has a winning record against almost every SEC team OU'S RECORD versus the SEC
Overall record vs. Crimson Tide: 3-2-1
Overall record vs. Razorbacks: 10-4-1
Overall record vs. A Tigers: 2-0
Overall record vs. Gators: 1-1
Overall record vs. Bulldogs: 0-1
Overall record vs. Wildcats: 2-1
Overall record vs. Tigers: 2-1
Overall record vs. Ole Miss: 0-1
Overall record vs. M Tigers: 67-24-5
Overall record vs. Aggies: 19-12
qverall record vs. Volunteers: 3-1
Overall record vs. Commodores: 2-0-1
OU has never played S Caralina and Miss Si
This post was edited on 2/23/22 at 10:12 am
Posted on 2/23/22 at 10:23 am to TheTideMustRoll
quote:
In this same tread it was pointed out by several posters
quote:( myself included) the AP poll had two versions. The second version added natties to the mix and Bama bounced over OU.
This ranking methodology has been posted here before and I've said this about it before, but I'll say it again. Using this method, a program that finishes #2 five years in a row would be considered more successful over that time frame than a program that wins the NC four times and finishes #7 once. In no possible reality is that remotely true.
GOAT CFB programs, according to the AP PollPosted on 2/22/22 at 4:45 pm to Whentheleveebreaks
What you failed to point,m is how having a season unrated is also a reflection of your success or lack of,
The Poll the OP started had it OU, Bama,
the second link had it listed.
1. Ohio St
2. Bama
3. OU
4. Notre Dame
5. USC
6. Michigan
7. Nebraska
8. Texas
9. UF
10. LSU
The reason the results are different is the addition of Natties while still using the final AP ratings.
This post was edited on 2/23/22 at 10:35 am
Posted on 2/23/22 at 10:31 am to SidewalkTiger
I'd like to see those numbers since integration.
Posted on 2/23/22 at 10:40 am to NorthPark
quote:
Actually, I had forgotten that primarily because they rarely have a team rated high enough
They're in FCS and had teams good enough to make the 16 team playoff field but the conference didn't allow teams to participate.
Tad hypocritical considering they have no problem with sending basketball teams to the NCAA's in March.
Posted on 2/23/22 at 10:40 am to wadewilson
quote:
I'd like to see those numbers since integration.
Fair enough but I am not going to take the time to do that as I do not share your interest or the point. Missouri and A and m didn't suddenly morph into a new school merely because they joined the SEC. Both are pretty much doing what they always have. In fact, Missouri is doing better. The Tigers won two big 12 division titles, they won the same number in the SEC within 2 or 3 years,
This post was edited on 2/23/22 at 10:41 am
Posted on 2/23/22 at 11:00 am to NorthPark
NorthPark, you are a great OU fan, and quite knowledgeable. But, the only record of relevance for OU against the SEC is (0-5).
2004 Sugar vs. LSU
2009 BCSNCG vs. Florida
2017 Rose vs. Georgia
2018 Orange vs. Alabama
2019 Peach vs. LSU
Three of those five were winnable for Oklahoma. Just imagine what the perception would be like now if those were wins. There would be more respectability on a national level.
2004 Sugar vs. LSU
2009 BCSNCG vs. Florida
2017 Rose vs. Georgia
2018 Orange vs. Alabama
2019 Peach vs. LSU
Three of those five were winnable for Oklahoma. Just imagine what the perception would be like now if those were wins. There would be more respectability on a national level.
Posted on 2/23/22 at 11:13 am to Oklahomey
quote:
NorthPark, you are a great OU fan, and quite knowledgeable. But, the only record of relevance for OU against the SEC is (0-5
quote:
NorthPark, you are a great OU fan, and quite knowledgeable. But, the only record of relevance for OU against the SEC is (0-5
I Disagree, some of the people on this board are griping about the methodology of this poll. Every game in CF matters and even more so 20 years ago. You lose a couple of games in the season and you had no chance of winning a natty for decades. That reflects your success or lack of. For an objective view, you have to take the good with the bad and History is almost the same word as tradition.
If we used your suggestion, OU has zero natties and I suspect Bama is not going toss out Bear's success any more than I will toss Buds.
This post was edited on 2/23/22 at 11:18 am
Posted on 2/23/22 at 11:49 am to NorthPark
quote:
What you failed to point,m is how having a season unrated is also a reflection of your success or lack of,
So? There's no such thing as an anti-NC. Either you win the championship or you don't. Differing grades of not winning it don't matter nearly as much as the gap between the winner and everyone else. The gap between #1 and #2 is qualitatively different and larger than the gap between #2 and any unranked team you care to choose in terms of how successful their season was.
quote:
The reason the results are different is the addition of Natties while still using the final AP ratings.
So when taking only rankings into account OU is first, Bama is second, and OSU is third, but after adding in some arbitrary amount for NCs OSU passes both OU and Bama, two programs that each have more NCs than the Buckeyes? I am confused even more now.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News