Isn't IVY League Essentially D-2 Parading as D-1

Did you happen to notice that Princeton was pretty good?

Actually it's a combo of D1 and D3--discuss.

Camoo wrote:

Did you happen to notice that Princeton was pretty good?

Did you happen to notice that Princeton is vastly under performing and should probably regularly be a top-20 or maybe even top-15 team?

too stupid to get in?

Dartmouth finished 2nd in the ncaa's twice in the 1980s. The Ivy League is as strong or stronger than many other conferences. Maybe you should learn some respect.

Princeton came in 4th in their region

Columbia came in 3rd

Dartmouth came in 4th

if these teams arent getting respect I could only imagine what your opinions of the teams below them are.

Princeton women took 5th. They should definitely be in D1.

The Ivy League is one of the stronger D1 conferencesm not on the top 10, but not much below that.

http://ivyleaguesports.com/ivy-alum-pros.asp

the only conferences in america that are better than the ivy league for mens distance running are:

pac 10

big 10

sec

big12

big east - barely

acc - arguable this year

the ivy league is a very good distance running conference.

Baby Conference ~ Baby Nationals

jhgd wrote:

I find it ironic brojos make fun of D-2 when, lets be honest, Ivy League athletics is, at best, a hybrid of D-1 and D-2.

I can tell you that *most* DI t&f/xc programs are, at best, a hybrid of DI and DII/III.

Take a look at the full DI Regional results. For example:

Half of the full teams (17 of 33) *averaged* more than 34 minutes for their scoring five; and 26 of the 33 had at least one scorer who took more than 34 minutes. (Moreover, fully one-third of the teams had at least one scorer who took more than *36* minutes to run 10k on the moderately-difficult course.)

In other words, a guy who ran 5:30 pace for the 6.2 miles was solidly competitive, somewhere in the top 40% of the field, and a guy who ran *5:50* beat nearly 60 guys. A *ton* of DII/DIII guys run at faster paces.

The Ivy League is certainly not one of the VERY top DI xc conferences, but it is just as certainly superior (in quality of top performances and in depth) to the great majority of DI teams and conferences--many of which exist mostly so their school sponsors enough sports so they can play NCAA basketball.

What we see of DI t&f/xc at the Nationals level is truly just the tip of the DI iceberg. Many DI teams in our sports are virtually indistinguishable from decent DIII squads, and light years away from Ivy League level.

I'm sorry, it's simply that you are too stupid to understand. Best of luck to you.

I could have gone to any Ivy league school I wanted to actually.

Results from 2004 Heps.

If you could have won two or more events at this meet easily say I. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!

jhgd wrote:

I find it ironic brojos make fun of D-2 when, lets be honest, Ivy League athletics is, at best, a hybrid of D-1 and D-2.

Rojo,

I run D-1 and have less respect for Cornell than multiple D-2 schools.

Anyone else agree?

Cornell at least has the balls to go up against the D1 schools. They're not ducking the competition. My feeling is that if your going to the baby leagues, your up against people who just aren't as good as a whole, there are still good people there, just not as many. Why you wouldn't want the best competition is beyond me

But you probably didn't need to hit the books as hard as an Ivy Leaguer. More studying, less training at those schools.

Anyone remember the 4x8 at the 2007 Penn Relays? If LSU, Michigan, etc., didn't respect the Ivy League beforehand, they sure did after Columbia beat their asses.

jhgd wrote:

I could have gone to any Ivy league school I wanted to actually.

Barnard?

hondurman wrote:

Dartmouth finished 2nd in the ncaa's twice in the 1980s. The Ivy League is as strong or stronger than many other conferences. Maybe you should learn some respect.

The NCAAs are much better. They ran well when it was at its weakest. That Dartmouth squad would not be top 7-8 now.