| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66936
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
 Posted: 03/14/08 7:25 am ::: Happy anniversary, Stanford fans |
Reply  |
|
It was 10 years ago today that the Harvard Crimson pulled off the first, last, and only upset of a #1 seed by a #16 seed, beating the Card 71-67.
Somewhere, Allison Feaster is smiling.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
CalwbbFan
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 1474
Back to top |
|
njjosh
Joined: 07 Nov 2004
Posts: 1458
Back to top |
|
insidewinder
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 240
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/14/08 11:06 am ::: Re: Happy anniversary, Stanford fans |
Reply |
|
| njjosh wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
It was 10 years ago today that the Harvard Crimson pulled off the first, last, and only upset of a #1 seed by a #16 seed, beating the Card 71-67.
Somewhere, Allison Feaster is smiling. |
Explosion by angry Stanford fans in five...four...three......  |
As I said in another thread, if people think it's fun to needle (and that is what the OP was doing, since he addressed Stanford fans and not Harvard fans) about a loss that involved players suffering severe knee injuries days before the tournament, have fun, but think how you'd feel in that situation and if you would like 10 years worth of crap about it. Less fun from that end. Not angry and not wishing something similar on you and yours, but it's sort of tempting, just to wipe the off your face.
|
|
hoopfan24
Joined: 09 Oct 2006
Posts: 896
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/14/08 11:21 am ::: Re: Happy anniversary, Stanford fans |
Reply |
|
| insidewinder wrote: |
| njjosh wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
It was 10 years ago today that the Harvard Crimson pulled off the first, last, and only upset of a #1 seed by a #16 seed, beating the Card 71-67.
Somewhere, Allison Feaster is smiling. |
Explosion by angry Stanford fans in five...four...three...... |
As I said in another thread, if people think it's fun to needle (and that is what the OP was doing, since he addressed Stanford fans and not Harvard fans) about a loss that involved players suffering severe knee injuries days before the tournament, have fun, but think how you'd feel in that situation and if you would like 10 years worth of crap about it. Less fun from that end. Not angry and not wishing something similar on you and yours, but it's sort of tempting, just to wipe the off your face. |
pilight is, and always will be a punk.
|
|
five_to_the_third
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 695
Back to top |
|
PRballer
Joined: 18 Apr 2007
Posts: 2544
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/14/08 12:37 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I'm over people hating on Stanford. Great team, great program, one of the top 5 all-time - consistently get no love from the media.
And yeah, it's lame to poke at what was a devastating turn of luck for the program due to some 21 year old's kid's knee injury.
|
|
CamrnCrz1974
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18371
Location: Phoenix
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/14/08 12:55 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| PRballer wrote: |
| I'm over people hating on Stanford. Great team, great program, one of the top 5 all-time - consistently get no love from the media. |
Stanford has not made a Final Four since 1997. That isn't "hating on" Stanford. That is a fact. For Stanford to get more love from the media, the team needs to make the Final Four.
|
|
CalwbbFan
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 1474
Back to top |
|
hoopfan24
Joined: 09 Oct 2006
Posts: 896
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/14/08 3:56 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| CamrnCrz1974 wrote: |
| PRballer wrote: |
| I'm over people hating on Stanford. Great team, great program, one of the top 5 all-time - consistently get no love from the media. |
Stanford has not made a Final Four since 1997. That isn't "hating on" Stanford. That is a fact. For Stanford to get more love from the media, the team needs to make the Final Four. |
Cam, it is not about hating for 10 years for not making it to the final four, but pilight (and the media) making their annual dig about the H game without giving credence to the facts that we lost 2 AAs days before the game.
here's a good recap of the events in March '98
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=90890
As far as not making the F4 the other years, I would say season and careern ending injuries to King and Carey were huge impedements to getting to the F4. And let's not forget the hree straight E8's appearances, two of which came to the final plays. Stanford has the toughest admin rates of any school, much tougher than Duke's, but they still manage to put a good product on the floor.
|
|
PRballer
Joined: 18 Apr 2007
Posts: 2544
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/14/08 5:18 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
This is has nothing to do with whether or not Stanford has made a Final Four since 1997. I never mentioned Final Four.
No, it's about experts and the public not thinking Stanford is deserving of a number one seed THIS YEAR. It's about saying "The Top 5 coaches in Women's Basketball are...." and not mentioning Tara. It's about saying the "Top WCBB programs are..." and not mentioning Stanford. (See Beth and Debbie)
Stanford is a storied women's college basketball program.
Gosh, I'm not even a Stanford fan.
|
|
CamrnCrz1974
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18371
Location: Phoenix
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/14/08 5:25 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| hoopfan24 wrote: |
| Cam, it is not about hating for 10 years for not making it to the final four, but pilight (and the media) making their annual dig about the H game without giving credence to the facts that we lost 2 AAs days before the game. |
Well, here is a newsflash...you lost the game. That is a fact. I don't care if Janet Jackson's mother on "Good Times" went after the entire Stanford starting five. The point is it remains the ONLY time in men's or women's basketball history where a #16 defeated a #1. It will be mentioned every time the NCAA Tournament rolls around because of its novelty and the fact it has not happened before or after. So get used to it, until it happens again.
| hoopfan24 wrote: |
| As far as not making the F4 the other years, I would say season and careern ending injuries to King and Carey were huge impedements to getting to the F4. And let's not forget the hree straight E8's appearances, two of which came to the final plays. Stanford has the toughest admin rates of any school, much tougher than Duke's, but they still manage to put a good product on the floor. |
Much tougher than Duke's? Interesting, considering several Duke players turned down Stanford and both schools regularly recruit the same ones.
And during Stanford's absence from the Final Four, Duke made the Elite Eight SEVEN times and the Final Four a total of FOUR times.
Every program has injuries. Other top programs have overcome critical injuries to make the Final Four. And last year, Stanford lost on its home floor to the fourth place team in the ACC.
As much as you claim Pilight makes his annual dig, you make your annual speech about the two injured AAs, the admission standards, etc.
|
|
bballfan2005
Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 25315
Location: Somewhere here and there
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/14/08 6:12 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| CamrnCrz1974 wrote: |
| I don't care if Janet Jackson's mother on "Good Times" went after the entire Stanford starting five. |
Oh snap... 
| CamrnCrz1974 wrote: |
| The point is it remains the ONLY time in men's or women's basketball history where a #16 defeated a #1. It will be mentioned every time the NCAA Tournament rolls around because of its novelty and the fact it has not happened before or after. So get used to it, until it happens again. |
X________________________
| CamrnCrz1974 wrote: |
| Much tougher than Duke's? Interesting, considering several Duke players turned down Stanford and both schools regularly recruit the same ones. |
Hard to say. I've had friends who were accepted by Stanford but not by Duke, and friends who were accepted by Duke and not Stanford. I've never met anyone who was accepted by both universities, but I'm sure it's happened before.
| CamrnCrz1974 wrote: |
| And during Stanford's absence from the Final Four, Duke made the Elite Eight SEVEN times and the Final Four a total of FOUR times. |
This tidbit seems to get lost whenever discussing the "lack of respect" for Stanford's program.
| CamrnCrz1974 wrote: |
| And last year, Stanford lost on its home floor to the fourth place team in the ACC. |
It was the fifth-place team, but the point still stands... 
| CamrnCrz1974 wrote: |
| As much as you claim Pilight makes his annual dig, you make your annual speech about the two injured AAs, the admission standards, etc. |
X____________________________
_________________
Avatar: The King has his ring!
Mathies to LA 2013
|
|
hoopfan24
Joined: 09 Oct 2006
Posts: 896
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/14/08 7:05 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| bump, double post
Last edited by hoopfan24 on 03/14/08 7:39 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
hoopfan24
Joined: 09 Oct 2006
Posts: 896
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/14/08 7:25 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| hoopfan24 wrote: |
| CamrnCrz1974 wrote: |
| hoopfan24 wrote: |
| Cam, it is not about hating for 10 years for not making it to the final four, but pilight (and the media) making their annual dig about the H game without giving credence to the facts that we lost 2 AAs days before the game. |
Well, here is a newsflash...you lost the game. That is a fact. I don't care if Janet Jackson's mother on "Good Times" went after the entire Stanford starting five. The point is it remains the ONLY time in men's or women's basketball history where a #16 defeated a #1. It will be mentioned every time the NCAA Tournament rolls around because of its novelty and the fact it has not happened before or after. So get used to it, until it happens again.
| hoopfan24 wrote: |
| As far as not making the F4 the other years, I would say season and careern ending injuries to King and Carey were huge impedements to getting to the F4. And let's not forget the hree straight E8's appearances, two of which came to the final plays. Stanford has the toughest admin rates of any school, much tougher than Duke's, but they still manage to put a good product on the floor. |
Much tougher than Duke's? Interesting, considering several Duke players turned down Stanford and both schools regularly recruit the same ones.
And during Stanford's absence from the Final Four, Duke made the Elite Eight SEVEN times and the Final Four a total of FOUR times.
Every program has injuries. Other top programs have overcome critical injuries to make the Final Four. And last year, Stanford lost on its home floor to the fourth place team in the ACC.
As much as you claim Pilight makes his annual dig, you make your annual speech about the two injured AAs, the admission standards, etc. |
Really, no shit. We lost the game. I must have dreaming when I was there, glad you reminded me. No shit again, there are injuries Cam. We've had more ACLs than our share. You missed my point about the lack of mentioning the facts WHY we lost the game- the timing and type of players we lost. You think Harvard wins if we have EITHER or BOTH Folkl or Nygaard.
We've had 2 ACLs again this year, but NO team has EVER lost 2 AAs days before a NCAA game. UNTIL, that happens, you cannot say make the comparison that all teams lose players to injuries.
Yep, remember the FSU game last yr, we again had 2 guards out with ACLs, simple facts people forget.
Regarding admissions, simple fact that you know, Stanford admit rate is 11%, Duke is at best 18%, more like 25%. Oh yea, Brooke Smith who transferred from Duke to Stanford said the admission process at Duke was much easier than Stanford's. In fact. Stanford does not offer schollies, or paid visits until they have been accepted by the school, just like every other applicant. Duke does not follow that criteria.
I also ecall a 60 min piece on Dukes' men's bball program years back when some of the school's admission staff never heard of some of the men on the team. hmmm.
Finally, let recap whose done what in the NCAA
Final Fours
Duke 4 (edited from 7, my mistake)
Stanford 6
National Championships
Stanford 2
Duke O- as in ZERO. |
|
|
CamrnCrz1974
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18371
Location: Phoenix
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/14/08 9:00 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| hoopfan24 wrote: |
You missed my point about the lack of mentioning the facts WHY we lost the game- the timing and type of players we lost. You think Harvard wins if we have EITHER or BOTH Folkl or Nygaard.
We've had 2 ACLs again this year, but NO team has EVER lost 2 AAs days before a NCAA game. UNTIL, that happens, you cannot say make the comparison that all teams lose players to injuries. |
No, we get your point. We have been been getting your point for years. It doesn't chance the outcome of the game. It doesn't change the fact that Stanford is the only team in the history of men's and women's basketball that lost as a #1 seed to a #16 seed...and did so on its home court.
| hoopfan24 wrote: |
| Yep, remember the FSU game last yr, we again had 2 guards out with ACLs, simple facts people forget. |
You lost to the fifth place team in the ACC. On your home court...again.
| hoopfan24 wrote: |
| YDuke does not follow that criteria. |
And?
| hoopfan24 wrote: |
| YI also ecall a 60 min piece on Dukes' men's bball program years back when some of the school's admission staff never heard of some of the men on the team. hmmm. |
And that is true...for MEN'S basketball, not women's. Next.
| hoopfan24 wrote: |
YFinally, let recap whose done what in the NCAA
Final Fours
Duke 4 (edited from 7, my mistake)
Stanford 6
National Championships
Stanford 2
Duke O- as in ZERO. |
Those two titles are great. Point is, none of those accomplishments have been done in the past ten years...whereas ALL of Duke's accomplishments have been done in the past ten years.
|
|
hoopfan24
Joined: 09 Oct 2006
Posts: 896
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/14/08 9:26 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Quote: |
| No, we get your point. We have been been getting your point for years. It doesn't chance the outcome of the game. It doesn't change the fact that Stanford is the only team in the history of men's and women's basketball that lost as a #1 seed to a #16 seed...and did so on its home court. |
Really again? No, you missed my point that I simply want all facts reported when the game is mentioned. Of course the record is set and the outcome cannot changed. Doh again. The more you and pilight mention the 16 vs. 1 seed history over and over again makes you look 5 yr olds. We know the record.
| Quote: |
| You lost to the fifth place team in the ACC. On your home court...again. |
see 5 yr old comment
[
| Quote: |
| quote="hoopfan24"]YDuke does not follow that criteria. |
And?[/quote]
it's fine by me if Duke offers schollies to athletes before they are officially admitted to the school. Stanford doesn't. Not pt needed.
| Quote: |
| And that is true...for MEN'S basketball, not women's. Next. |
if that was true in men's bball, then it's not hard to imagine it wouldn't happen in women's.
| Quote: |
Those two titles are great. Point is, none of those accomplishments have been done in the past ten years...whereas ALL of Duke's accomplishments have been done in the past ten years. |
well, glad Duke finally supported their women's program, but obviously not enough to keep Gayle or maintain their program. You made more trips to the F4 in the last 10 yrs and we made more than you the decade before. So...?
Let's make it interesting. I'll bet you $100 Stanford makes it a F4 before Duke, and will double down that Stanford will win a NC before Duke.
|
|
LadyDevilFan
Joined: 19 Mar 2006
Posts: 405
Back to top |
|
CamrnCrz1974
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18371
Location: Phoenix
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/15/08 12:15 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| hoopfan24 wrote: |
| Really again? No, you missed my point that I simply want all facts reported when the game is mentioned. Of course the record is set and the outcome cannot changed. Doh again. The more you and pilight mention the 16 vs. 1 seed history over and over again makes you look 5 yr olds. We know the record. |
No, we got your point. We get it every year. You keep proffering the same explanation. It doesn't change the outcome.
Announcers will mention it. Fans will mention it. It is the only time it has happened. What you aren't saying, and what we all can see, is that you are pissed it happened to YOUR school.
| Quote: |
| if that was true in men's bball, then it's not hard to imagine it wouldn't happen in women's. |
Except it isn't, not that it matters to you.
| Quote: |
| Let's make it interesting. I'll bet you $100 Stanford makes it a F4 before Duke, and will double down that Stanford will win a NC before Duke. |
If Gail were still at Duke, yes. Funny how you only make that bet now that she is gone.
|
|
hoopfan24
Joined: 09 Oct 2006
Posts: 896
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/15/08 12:40 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Quote: |
Announcers will mention it. Fans will mention it. It is the only time it has happened. What you aren't saying, and what we all can see, is that you are pissed it happened to YOUR school. |
nope. If you've followed my posts over the years as you say, I predicted we'd lose after Folkl went down and I wasn't surprised when it happened because our team was still in shock. You want to blame Tara or the team, fine. I don't. I knew Feaster was all that, and then some. Ask any women's bball Stanford fan, and they'd tell you the ODU loss was more disheartening than any loss in the school's program, including the historical H game.
| Quote: |
| If Gail were still at Duke, yes. Funny how you only make that bet now that she is gone. |
nope, I saw Gail choke too many times not to bet against her. On the other hand, Joanne P. has beaten Stanford twice, once at Maine and the other at MSU. However, if we meet now or in the future, my $ is on Stanford has more heart and talent.
|
|
TheWildJacko
Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 301
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/15/08 5:49 am ::: |
Reply |
|
I'm a Stanford fan, and typically I'd be annoyed about people bringing up the Harvard game, but...this debate is lame. Like, really lame. Has anybody accomplished anything?
The Harvard game DOES have historical value. It's the only game of its kind. Harvard fans SHOULD be proud, and Stanford fans can gripe (and we do), but there's no changing the fact that we lost that game. There WERE mitigating circumstances, but there were mitigating circumstances for just about every event in history. It's all a matter of degree. You are arguing as if you are somehow trying to either prove or disprove that the game in fact happened. That argument will go nowhere, as there is nothing to debate. Do we really care which team or which coach has pulled the biggest choke jobs in the past decade? Are we 13 year olds? Hm, wait, this is a message board, after all...
What is more relevant to today is, Does this year's Stanford team relate in any way to the team that lost the Harvard game? NO. Does anyone think it likely that this year's Stanford team will repeat the Harvard game? Honestly? I doubt it. Does anyone wish such injuries upon Stanford before the tournament? I'd be shocked if anyone on this message board did, no matter what they may think of the Stanford program. Does anyone think that when the media brings up the Harvard game, it will do anything more than fuel another argument on this message board or another one like it? Again, probably not.
Can we move on?
|
|
dukemayo
Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 696
Location: Durham, NC
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/15/08 9:23 am ::: |
Reply |
|
I'm not a fan, or an anti-, of either program, but the information about the two Stanford players suffering ACL's just before the tournament was news to me. I'd always thought it was a case of Harvard being underseeded. I'll now hear the "only time ever" mentions in a different way and be annoyed if the Stanford injuries aren't mentioned at least occasionally.
On another point that came up: The claim that Ivy League schools don't offer athletic scholarships has to be only technically true, which is to say essentially untrue. The scholarships may be academic, or maybe just plain unlabelled, but I think the admissions process must give heavy points for athletic ability to certain applicants that the athletic department has flagged. Are we to believe that kids apply to the Ivies and are admitted willy-nilly and then open tryouts are held? For fencing maybe, but not football or basketball. But I'll admit I don't have hard evidence on this, so correct me up one side and down the other if my common sense on this is way too "common."
Not to be taken as anti-Ivy and pro-Stanford, do I understand that the Cardinal coddles its trust-funders by allowing those with horses to keep them on campus for $500/month? In what other ways do they allow the future beneficiaries of inherited wealth to set themselves apart?
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66936
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/15/08 10:10 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| PRballer wrote: |
| It's about saying the "Top WCBB programs are..." and not mentioning Stanford. (See Beth and Debbie) |
In the present tense, it's debateable whether Stanford belongs. If they were saying something like "When Maya Moore was born, the top WCBB programs were..."; then Stanford certainly should be included.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
CalwbbFan
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 1474
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/15/08 10:18 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| dukemayo wrote: |
On another point that came up: The claim that Ivy League schools don't offer athletic scholarships has to be only technically true, which is to say essentially untrue. The scholarships may be academic, or maybe just plain unlabelled, but I think the admissions process must give heavy points for athletic ability to certain applicants that the athletic department has flagged. Are we to believe that kids apply to the Ivies and are admitted willy-nilly and then open tryouts are held? For fencing maybe, but not football or basketball. But I'll admit I don't have hard evidence on this, so correct me up one side and down the other if my common sense on this is way too "common."
Not to be taken as anti-Ivy and pro-Stanford, do I understand that the Cardinal coddles its trust-funders by allowing those with horses to keep them on campus for $500/month? In what other ways do they allow the future beneficiaries of inherited wealth to set themselves apart? |
It's a fact, the Ivy League doesn't offer athletic scholarships. The money a student receives to go to the colleges is based on financial need. Now of course students are judged by the admissions office on various merits. Perhaps they are an accomplished pianist or writer or athlete--those are all considerations when factored into the admissions process. But the advantage given athletes (with maybe the exception of football and ice hockey) cannot be compared to the process at most Division 1 schools that do offer schollies.
I have done alumni admissions interviews for Harvard, have a very good friend who's a coach at another Ivy (who has won an NCAA title or two) and have been involved as a supporter for the women's athletic program at Harvard since my graduation......so, I do know a little about the subject.
Now, just recently BOTH Harvard (and a few other Ivy schools) along with Stanford just announced that NO ONE who's family makes under a certain amount annually will have to pay tuition (for Harvard the amount it's families with income below $60,000 per year) : http://www.piqe.org/Assets/Home/Harvard.htm
Stanford will waive tuition under $100,000 and room and board for those who make less than $60,000......
Here's an article that explains it, sort of: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080221/us_nm/education_stanford_tuition_dc
The schools are doing this to attract the middle class since the rich and the poor (who received substantial aid) could easily attend, while families in the middle were being priced out....these schools have HUGE endowments and can easily afford to do so, so it's a win-win for prospective students, athlete or not....
Also, as far as athletes go, they do hold tryouts--really. Of course it's predetermined that a number of students will make the team, but a good example is Harvard lacrosse---a new coach came in and last fall held open tryouts and actually cut several players who'd been on the varsity in prior years and some new recruits because she wanted to start fresh--not typical, but not unheard of....
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=519836
As for recruitiing, sure the coach do recruit players, they watch tape, go to games, etc. and then tell the admissions office who'd they'd like to get accepted--Sometimes athletes are accepted and sometimes not, but whether they receive money totally depends on their family's income level--nothing more, nothing less. And there is NO guarantee that they will play on the team...just ask those Harvard lacrosse "recruits" that were cut from the team.
On a side note, there was just an article a week or so in the NY Times about mbb in the Ivy league and how Harvard was lowering its standards, etc to attract good male players.....and so perhaps mbb will follow the path ice hockey has long taken, but the other sports, including women's sports, are handled generally handled the way I described.
|
|
dukemayo
Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 696
Location: Durham, NC
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/15/08 11:24 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| CalwbbFan wrote: |
| dukemayo wrote: |
On another point that came up: The claim that Ivy League schools don't offer athletic scholarships has to be only technically true, which is to say essentially untrue. The scholarships may be academic, or maybe just plain unlabelled, but I think the admissions process must give heavy points for athletic ability to certain applicants that the athletic department has flagged. Are we to believe that kids apply to the Ivies and are admitted willy-nilly and then open tryouts are held? For fencing maybe, but not football or basketball. But I'll admit I don't have hard evidence on this, so correct me up one side and down the other if my common sense on this is way too "common."
Not to be taken as anti-Ivy and pro-Stanford, do I understand that the Cardinal coddles its trust-funders by allowing those with horses to keep them on campus for $500/month? In what other ways do they allow the future beneficiaries of inherited wealth to set themselves apart? |
It's a fact, the Ivy League doesn't offer athletic scholarships. The money a student receives to go to the colleges is based on financial need. Now of course students are judged by the admissions office on various merits. Perhaps they are an accomplished pianist or writer or athlete--those are all considerations when factored into the admissions process. But they advantage given athletes (with maybe the exception of football and ice hockey) cannot be compared to the process at most Division 1 schools that do offer schollies.
I have done alumni admissions interviews for Harvard, have a very good friend who's a coach at another Ivy (who has won an NCAA title or two) and have been involved as a supporter for the women's athletic program at Harvard since my graduation......so, I do know a little about the subject.
Now, just recently BOTH Harvard (and a few other Ivy schools) along with Stanford just announced that NO ONE who's family makes under a certain amount annually will have to pay tuition (for Harvard the amount it's families with income below $60,000 per year) : http://www.piqe.org/Assets/Home/Harvard.htm
Stanford will waive tuition under $100,000 and room and board for those who make less than $60,000......
Here's an article that explains it, sort of: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080221/us_nm/education_stanford_tuition_dc
The schools are doing this to attract the middle class since the rich and the poor (who received substantial aid) could easily attend, while families in the middle were being priced out....these schools have HUGE endowments and can easily afford to do so, so it's a win-win for prospective students, athlete or not....
Also, as far as athletes go, they do hold tryouts--really. Of course it's predetermined that a number of students will make the team, but a good example is Harvard lacrosse---a new coach came in and last fall held open tryouts and actually cut several players who'd been on the varsity in prior years because she wanted to start fresh--not typical, but not unheard of....As for recruitiing, sure the coach watches tape, goes to games, etc. and then tells the admissions office who'd they'd like to get. Sometimes they are accepted and sometimes not, but whether they receive money totally depends on their family's income level--nothing more, nothing less. |
Thanks for the information. I can see that Harvard (and I guess the other Ivies) are different in not offering financial support to top athletes from well-off families. And there are a certain number of such kids around--like the current athletes whose fathers starred in the NFL or NBA. As far as I know, Gerald Henderson here at Duke or Stephen Curry at Davidson are on full rides.
But you must see my point that for most good athletes, coming from more typical circumstances, there's no real difference between Harvard and, say, Boston College in how and why they're admitted and supported.
And I'm fine with it. The Ivies would have to do it to be competitive. I just object to the pretense that I've heard some put up that the Ivies are all that different from schools that label some of their scholarships "athletic."
Plus unlike for a gifted young writer or pianist, admissions for gifted athletes have to be pretty organized. How are you going to be competitive in football if you end up with all wide receivers and no defensive line? The football coaching staff at Harvard has to be recruiting and shepherding applications through the admission process with micro attention to detail or they'd never beat Yale.
Regarding my non-sports digression, I'm aware of the full scholarships for the majority of accepted applicants. Didn't mean to imply that the Ivies and Stanford are only for the rich. It's a good use of the surplus wealth that's been funnelled to those endowments. I was just tweaking Stanford for offering expensive amenities sort of quietly while leading with their equalitarianism.
|
|
|
|
