Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About flaBigRedfan

  • Rank
    Bronze Member
  1. I would love to see it. Been waiting months for the release. But it's not showing down here in the Ft Lauderdale/Miami area anywhere. I can't seem to find out whether it plans to be released down here at all. The most I can find out is that it is a rolling release where it will be released at various locations through Jan 2015.
  2. I wish I wouldve known about the tree climbing class when I was there. Cornell offers so many great classes like that - it's a shame that varsity athletes can't actually take them because those types of classes are only good for PE credits, which the athletes are exempt from.... But, admittedly, I did take a class about the "Biology in the Rainforest" to fulfill some science credits - which turned out to basically be about the different herbal hallucinogens that the Brazilian native tribes use to get high. Totally useless info, but had my attention from day one!
  3. I don't know all the specifics, but there many "ranking" reasons that Cornell is (nearly) always ranked as the "worst" Ivy. I think the biggest reason is the size of the school. One major factor in ranking schools is the acceptance rate. Cornell is the largest of the Ivies by a large margin. The class sizes, and overall number of undergraduate students are much larger. Consider that Cornell accepts over 6,000 students each year, but Harvard accepts only 2,000. Since Cornell and Harvard receive approximately the same number of applications each year (Cornell receives only about 10-15% more - not 3X as many), Harvard has a much lower acceptance rate (approximately 6% - Cornell's is approximately 15%). Based solely on the acceptance rate, Harvard is more difficult to get into, and more selective. Also, another ranking factor is endowment. Harvard is entirely a privately endowed school. Cornell is not - it is part state-funded. Another ranking factor is average SAT/ACT score. Because Cornell is partly state funded, it is required to accept a certain percentage of New York residents. So, in many cases, a more qualified student from out-of-state is not accepted because the admissions office was required to provide that slot to a New York resident. The academics at Cornell are not easier, and Cornell's ranking has nothing to with athletics. Cornell's consistently "lower" ranking has everything to do with the way the ranking system is designed and the factors considered.
  4. JB - I like your idea on the survey for all incoming full-time, potentially eligible freshman. And I believe it would be step in the right direction, and would give potentially realistic data on the true opportunities that a school needs to provide for all extracurricular activities. I believe this has been done before back in the early 70s after the law was passed, but for one reason or another this method was deemed insufficient and the U.S. Courts (Supreme or Circuit, I dont remember), basically held that the only way to comply with the law was proportionality. But, perhaps, if an interested group really looks into it, they could come up with a survey method that would be acceptable and better geared to achieve the intent of the law. It's been about 15 years since I comprehensively studied Title IX (I had to write a thesis and make a presentation to a panel when I was in school), so I don't remember all the details anymore. Actually, the biggest thing I remember about that presentation was my shock and fear when i realized I had been assigned to present my presentation to an all-women panel.
  5. Since they are both "elite" in my book, I will defer to Customfitch's measurement system to determine which one is more "elite" and then go with that.
  6. Agree completely. That was my point, but I cut myself because I was trying to write a post, not an essay. But you are exactly right, the survey system is fatally flawed. But so is the proportionality metric. They both assume too much, yet neither is accurate (or even close). And, people choose schools based on opportunities. If the University of Miami started a wrestling program today and hired DT and Ruth as the co-head coaches, the interest from wrestlers across the country to attend UM would skyrocket. But, as it currently stands, the interest of the current student male population at UM to have a wrestling program is probably non-existent. the State of Florida doesnt have a single D1 wrestling program, and that's not because the interest for Florida high school wrestlers isn't there. But the Florida high school wrestlers that want to wrestle in college, go out of state - where the opportunity is. Title IX should stay - but the law should be amended drastically so that it could actually achieve the goals for which it was intended.
  7. What was great about the article is that it was written by a woman. The argument is the same argument that male athletes have been making for nearly 40 years - but coming from a well-informed woman, the argument may have more validity and cause more people to listen. (One can only hope). What the article didn't touch on was the other ways in which school can be in compliance with Title IX. Perhaps the easiest alternative compliance method to understand is that a school can be in compliance simply by offering equal opportunities to male and female athletes that have the desire to compete in athletics. For example, take a student population of 1000,where the school is 60% female and 40% male, but only 30% of females have the desire to compete in sports, and 75% of males have the desire to compete.Then the school's goal, under Title IX, should be to provide opportunities to 180 females to compete, and 300 males to compete. This way, all women desiring to compete have the opportunity, and all males desiring to compete have equal opportunity. Due to funding, this may not be possible, so the school may only be able to provide an opportunity for 75% of the athletes to compete. In that case, the school must offer an opportunity to 135 females and 225 males. That way, the school is offering equal opportunities to the males and females based on the desire to compete and the budgetary constraints. BUT, early on in the history of Title IX, schools realized that there were too many difficulties with compliance in the way described above because the schools would constantly be required to poll their students' interest in competing in athletes, and adding/dropping sports regularly based on a changing student body. SO - school administrators found it was easier to simply assume that males and females had equal desire to compete in athletics, and offer equal opportunities based on the proportion of males-to-females in the student body. The article doesnt get into any of that, which is really the heart of the issue (imho). I think the intention of the law is great, and I think women should be offered the opportunity to compete in in college athletics, just as men are. But, there are more dynamics to consider than simply the "proportion of male-to-female student population." The original text of the law considered all of this, but the enforcement of the law has been flawed since day one.
  8. That's a funny clip. I had forgotten the Ropers were landlords there before Don Knotts. Great show.
  9. ^^This. I thought this topic was dead after Superold belligerently argued himself in circles last week. Everyone: look for a "Koll has failed as a coach because he hasn't won a national championship yet" thread to be posted by Superold within the next week or so. I (unsurprisingly) notice that Superold has yet to answer the question as to whether Cael would have won any NCAA titles at Edinboro. Of course he hasn't answered it. Superold doesn't answer questions that would possibly undermine his point (#trolling). He first refused to answer because it was "off topic." then, after being pressed to answer, Superold stated he "had no idea what would happen in that hypothetical situation." The question is not off-topic. In fact, it is THE essential question. If Superold believed Cael could win at Edinboro, he would have answered "yes." But Superold is not dumb. Superold won't answer because the answer is clearly "no." Superold knows it. Even Cael knows it. And, since Superold is trolling rather than trying to have a legitimate discussion, he refuses to answer the essential question of the thread. Now, I'm back to watching the World Cup. Peace out.
  10. Also Cornell. That website doesnt look like its been updated for about 3 years. It's missing Simaz and Bosak, bringing Cornell's total to 11.
  11. Wasn't Jeff Buxton an AA at Rhode Island before they dropped the program?
  12. I highly doubt Cael is throwing in the towel for 2015. A champion like Cael doesn't even know what that means. If Mega and Retherford redshirt, it is probably because it is best for those guys, and Cael still feels the team is strong enough to compete for a title - and get stronger for years to come. And - with Conaway and the other "backups" in the PSU room, they will likely still be in hunt for the team title. But, with that said - Go Cornell!
  13. Have you cherrypicked not to answer me, superold?
  14. Just so we're clear since I'm not 100% certain about your answer. We'll do it your way. True or False flaBigRedfan: It's not necessary for a coach to win an ncaa team title in order to be go down as the greatest ncaa D1 coach of all time. True or False: It's absurd to consider any D1 coach with 0 ncaa titles the greatest coach of all time no matter what else they accomplish during their careers. I'll answer your true/false questions after you answer mine
  15. No. I had no idea we were talking about the title of the greatest NCAA D1 coach of all time. But, yes, it is safe to assume that I believe winning a team title is not necessary to define a great NCAA D1 wrestling coach. And, it is also safe to assume that I do not believe Cael has yet proven himself to be the greatest NCAA D1 wrestling coach of all time. He needs to do a lot more to earn that title.
  • Create New...