Full text of USG resolution endorsing Ivy Council resolution on postseason football ban
Be it resolved that the USG endorses the "Resolution to End Ivy League ban on Football Postseason" as proposed by Jordan Jones, Harvard '07 as follows:
Resolution to End Ivy League ban on Football PostseasonJordan Jones (Harvard '07)
Whereas the Ivy Council is the appropriate forum to act as the unified voice of students across the Ivy League; and
Whereas there is a remarkable consensus from students across the Ivy League against the ban on football postseason play; and
Whereas there is a remarkable consensus from football players across the Ivy League against the ban on football postseason play; and
Whereas coaches and athletic directors across the Ivy League are against the ban on football postseason play:
Comments by Brown head coach Phil Estes: "I don't think the ban on postseason play is fair. The presidents make all those decisions, and until they feel it's an injustice or that it's not fair, or they feel there could be some benefit to us playing in it it's just not going to happen.
Comments by Cornell head coach Tim Pendergast: "We are the only sport in the NCAA variety [in the Ivy League] that cannot compete for the gold medal. There is a thing called equity and right now football is not receiving equitable treatment.
Comments by Harvard head coach Tim Murphy: "On our campus, there are 41 division I-A sports. Forty are allowed to go to postseason competition, and one isn't. Obviously that isn't an easy thing to justify."
Comments by Penn head coach Al Bagnoli: "From the outside looking in, it doesn't make sense. It's an unusual situation when you have all the players and all the coaches in agreement, and virtually all the Athletic Directors. And the people who spend the least time on athletics are making the decisions ... We'd all feel better if we knew the rationale. Because when I get asked the question when I'm in somebody's living room, I can't answer it."
Comments by Princeton head coach Roger Hughes: "I just don't see how they can justify not having it when every other sport in the league can go. If they want football to be treated like all the other sports, they should treat it like all the other sports and have post season play. I just don't see a logical reason why not to have it."
Whereas the objections of the Council of Ivy Group Presidents to permitting Ivy League schools to compete in football postseason play are largely irrelevant, inconsistent, and baseless:
The objection that NCAA Division I-AA football playoffs conflict with fall exams is largely irrelevant:
The first round of the 2005 NCAA Division I-AA football playoffs occurred on November 28.
Subsequent rounds occurred on December 3, 9 or 10, 16.
Brown's fall exam dates: December 12-20 Columbia's fall exam dates: December 15-22 Cornell's fall exam dates: December 8-16 Dartmouth's fall exam dates: December 3-6 Harvard's fall exam dates: January 14-24 Penn's fall exam dates: December 14-21 Princeton's fall exam dates: January 18-28 Yale's fall exam dates: December 10-17
Potential conflicts for first round on November 28: None Potential conflicts for second round on December 3: Dartmouth Potential conflicts for third round on December 10: Cornell, Yale Potential conflicts for championship game on December 16: Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Penn, Yale
The objection that NCAA Division I-AA football playoffs conflict with fall exams is inconsistent with policies for other Ivy League sports:
The first round of the 2005 NCAA Division I-A men's soccer playoffs occurred on November 18.
Subsequent rounds occurred on November 22, 27, December 3, 9, & 11.
Potential academic conflicts for the final three rounds are similar to those for the football postseason.
The first round of the 2005 NCAA Division I-A women's volleyball playoffs occurred on December 3.
Subsequent rounds occurred on December 10, 15, & 17.
Indeed, these playoffs occur later than those for football and potential academic conflicts are almost identical to those for postseason football.
The objection that NCAA Division I-AA football playoffs would upset the balance between academics and athletics is baseless:
The Ivy League football season is currently limited to 10 games, making it the shortest football season of any conference in the NCAA. Without the ban, only the conference champion would see an extension to their season, which would, in most years, still rank among the shortest.
Other conferences that place a premium value on academics, such as the Patriot League, have no ban on football postseason play.
The objection that NCAA Division I-AA football playoffs would decrease academic standards is baseless:
The NCAA Division I-AA playoffs were established in 1978 to enable colleges with high academic standards to compete for an NCAA championship.
The Patriot League ended its postseason ban in 1997, and has since seen no adverse effects on academic standards.
Whereas the chances that football players of the Ivy League will be drafted by the National Football League are adversely affected by the ban on postseason play; and
Whereas all athletes of the Ivy League deserve the right to excel on a national level and compete for intercollegiate championships;
Be it therefore resolved that the Ivy Council formally recognizes that a remarkable consensus between students, athletes, and coaches stands against the ban on football postseason play;
Be it therefore further resolved that the Ivy Council, acting as the unified voice of students across the Ivy League, formally alert the Council of Ivy Group Presidents that their policy of banning a football postseason stands contrary to the remarkable consensus between students, athletes, and coaches;
Be it further resolved that the Ivy Council opens an active discourse with the Council of Ivy Group Presidents on ending the ban on football postseason play;
Be it further resolved that the Ivy Council use its resources to make this issue more prevalent on all its campuses.
Reader Comments (0)
No comments yet. Be the first to post your opinion on this article.