How come Ivy's don't seem to do well?

[eeytennis]

How come Ivy's never seem to fare as well as non-Ivy League schools? They consistently get good recruits, but you rarely hear about any Ivy League schools being dominant?

[CTennis11]

I think the problem may be that they dont give out scholarships. Of course they will get a number of good recruits that want to go there based on academics, but its tough to get some players to pass out going to school for almost free.

[CTennis11]

pass up****

[Fedace]

Originally Posted by eeytennis

How come Ivy's never seem to fare as well as non-Ivy League schools? They consistently get good recruits, but you rarely hear about any Ivy League schools being dominant?

Academic standards for incoming recruits are much higher. Sam Querry for example, if he decided to go to college, it would have been much more difficult for Sam to be accepted into Stanford or Cal tennis programs because academic requirement standards are much higher. but USC was happy to take him. I am not saying Stanford was Sam's first choice here, cause i don't know which school was Sam's 1st choice. but it would have been much harder for Sam to get into Stanford or Cal and get the tennis Scholarship.

[eeytennis]

Originally Posted by CTennis11

I think the problem may be that they dont give out scholarships. Of course they will get a number of good recruits that want to go there based on academics, but its tough to get some players to pass out going to school for almost free.

I was thinking that, but you can't tell me that 5 star or blue chip recruits aren't going to get ANY money at all to go to an Ivy. Obviously they won't get an athletic scholarship, but strings can be pulled by the coaches.

[tennismom42]

Originally Posted by eeytennis

How come Ivy's never seem to fare as well as non-Ivy League schools? They consistently get good recruits, but you rarely hear about any Ivy League schools being dominant?

because they are getting an education

[eeytennis]

Originally Posted by tennismom42

because they are getting an education

But it's not like they are playing any less tennis than their non-Ivy League opponents...their schedules are packed, just like any other D1 team.

[eeytennis]

And non-Ivy League schools do give educations, good ones at that.

[Lindsay]

Originally Posted by Fedace

Academic standards for incoming recruits are much higher. Sam Querry for example, if he decided to go to college, it would have been much more difficult for Sam to be accepted into Stanford or Cal tennis programs because academic requirement standards are much higher. but USC was happy to take him. I am not saying Stanford was Sam's first choice here, cause i don't know which school was Sam's 1st choice. but it would have been much harder for Sam to get into Stanford or Cal and get the tennis Scholarship.

Those aren't Ivys.

[killR4hand]

Originally Posted by eeytennis

How come Ivy's never seem to fare as well as non-Ivy League schools? They consistently get good recruits, but you rarely hear about any Ivy League schools being dominant?

Let me take a guess. I'm sure there may be many factors why Ivy League schools seem to underachieve with the talent they have, but here are 3 of my explanations.

1. Maybe those that are willing to play in the Ivy Leagues without a tennis scholarship have the No. 1 goal of getting into the Ivy Leagues. Once they get in and their No. 1 goal is accomplished they may start to lack motivation. On the other hand those that want a tennis scholarship maybe their No. 1 goal is to win an NCAA championship or to turn pro and they have more motivation in college to get better not having reached their No. 1 goal yet.

2. Many of the highly-ranked players who play at Ivy League schools come from home or online school environments. This allows them to spend many hours a day playing tennis. By the time they get to college maybe they had already reached their peak back in the juniors. On the other hand maybe those who went to high schools and had more extra curricular activities may just be starting to peek in college when they start to practice more.

3. Maybe the players that came from home or online school environments aren't used to the academic rigors that they face in the Ivy Leagues and the demanding academics stumps their development as players. But then again UCLA, Stanford, Cal and other elite tennis & academic universities don't have this problem.

The Ivy Leagues should be dominant especially in women's tennis with the advantage of not being limited to 8 scholarship players on their roster. They have the luxury of stockpiling talent every year.

[bluetrain4]

Are tough academic standards really the culprit?

Stanford has Ivy-level admissions standards.

Cal for out of state residents has Ivy-level admission standards (and pretty damn tough for in-staters as well).

And, there are a whole host of schools that while not quite as stringent as the Ivies have incredibly tough academic standards, such as Northwestern and Duke.

I recall that Harvard is almost always in the Top 20 or 25. Of course, that's not really dominant.

[Coach Carter]

they do get premier players, but MOST realize that they aren't going pro at tennis. with tht realization they start prioritizing their tennis and may miss matches here and there, and just may not quite "push" the way a "regular school" grinds.

[ClarkC]

Before answering, can anyone document that Ivy League schools underperform other schools, based on their average recruit rankings, for example?

Accepting this premise without proof seems like a good way to waste time theorizing. Let's find Ivy schools and non-Ivy schools at the same recruiting success level and compare.

[Wondertoy]

For one thing, you have to get into the Ivy's academically which is quite a reach for many of the top recruits. Probably 35% of the top 100 kids are either home/online/schooled or academy kids. The Ivys are less forgiving than Duke, Northwestern and Stanford academically for athletes. Ivy's operate on need based financial aid whereas the others have athletic scholarships. A lot of players use the tennis card to get into the Ivy's and realize that they are not going to be pros so their motivation tappers off. I will be playing for an Ivy next fall by choice. I had the opportunity to pursue many other schools (including the others) with stronger nationally competitive teams but I wanted a strong academic experience because the chances of me going pro is very slim albeit possible (I'm more realistic than the home schooled kids). I usually end up in the top 35 in the country when in the USTA National rankings and was ranked #2 in doubles when they had doubles rankings. Tennis wise, I know that I can contribute right away in the core of the lineup at an Ivy rather than work my pants off to fight for that #6 spot at Stanford. So to each his own, it you understand a lot about yourself, then you will make appropriate choices. If you are delusional, you will only set yourself up for frustration and disappointment. I know a lot of kids who go to schools that they really will not get a chance to start and will only be another set of fresh legs, fodder to work out the top six. Harvard is#52 in the nation. The strong Ivy's tend to gravitate between #50-80 in the country. You will get good matches playing #1 or #2 in the strong Ivy's as they play strong schedules. In the Pac10 you get good matches throughout the lineup.

[dora_75]

I did chat with the Princeton men's coach about 3 years ago and he said that in tennis Ivy schools don't not give tennis scholarships and that they can do very little (he said nothing) to help very good players to get in if their academics are not on par with the other students. If academically you're not good tennis will not help ( and for that matter all sports are equaly treated from what I understand).

[Fedace]

Wondrtoy, i know what you mean by Northwestern being more forgiving academically. but as far as Stanford goes, their admission standards are pretty high even for the athletes. Of course, you don't have to belong to that elite group of students academically, but students like Thacher and Klahn were very strong students in the classroom as well as out of it.

[NickC]

Originally Posted by Wondertoy

For one thing, you have to get into the Ivy's academically which is quite a reach for many of the top recruits. Probably 35% of the top 100 kids are either home/online/schooled or academy kids. The Ivys are less forgiving than Duke, Northwestern and Stanford academically for athletes. Ivy's operate on need based financial aid whereas the others have athletic scholarships. A lot of players use the tennis card to get into the Ivy's and realize that they are not going to be pros so their motivation tappers off. I will be playing for an Ivy next fall by choice. I had the opportunity to pursue many other schools (including the others) with stronger nationally competitive teams but I wanted a strong academic experience because the chances of me going pro is very slim albeit possible (I'm more realistic than the home schooled kids). I usually end up in the top 35 in the country when in the USTA National rankings and was ranked #2 in doubles when they had doubles rankings. Tennis wise, I know that I can contribute right away in the core of the lineup at an Ivy rather than work my pants off to fight for that #6 spot at Stanford. So to each his own, it you understand a lot about yourself, then you will make appropriate choices. If you are delusional, you will only set yourself up for frustration and disappointment. I know a lot of kids who go to schools that they really will not get a chance to start and will only be another set of fresh legs, fodder to work out the top six. Harvard is#52 in the nation. The strong Ivy's tend to gravitate between #50-80 in the country. You will get good matches playing #1 or #2 in the strong Ivy's as they play strong schedules. In the Pac10 you get good matches throughout the lineup.

Are you from the Northeast by any chance? You sound very similar to a good friend of mine, who is playing Ivy league ball next season, has damn good academic credentials, and even uses the same stick (I think, last time I saw the kid play I think his frame was the Ozone Tour) as you.

[tlimster]

I thought Stanford was dominant in college tennis, and Cal is also pretty strong, so they should not really be grouped with the Ivys tennis-wise because they are really in a different league. I can say that while academic standards are slightly lower if you want to recruit someone for sports (coaches do have some say), if a recruit is not within range of the averages then it likely will not help them. James Blake went to Harvard, btw, so they have some good players every now and then. I can also verify that some kids drop off the team once they arrive because trying to make decent grades and play on a Div. 1 athletic team is really difficult, especially if your peers are spending their free time at the library and you are not.

[socaltennnis]

in response to the OP: also, i dont think ivy's are allowed to give athletic scholarships for any sport. this is what i think, but im not 100% sure if i remember correctly though.

Originally Posted by Wondertoy

For one thing, you have to get into the Ivy's academically which is quite a reach for many of the top recruits. Probably 35% of the top 100 kids are either home/online/schooled or academy kids. The Ivys are less forgiving than Duke, Northwestern and Stanford academically for athletes. Ivy's operate on need based financial aid whereas the others have athletic scholarships. A lot of players use the tennis card to get into the Ivy's and realize that they are not going to be pros so their motivation tappers off. I will be playing for an Ivy next fall by choice. I had the opportunity to pursue many other schools (including the others) with stronger nationally competitive teams but I wanted a strong academic experience because the chances of me going pro is very slim albeit possible (I'm more realistic than the home schooled kids). I usually end up in the top 35 in the country when in the USTA National rankings and was ranked #2 in doubles when they had doubles rankings. Tennis wise, I know that I can contribute right away in the core of the lineup at an Ivy rather than work my pants off to fight for that #6 spot at Stanford. So to each his own, it you understand a lot about yourself, then you will make appropriate choices. If you are delusional, you will only set yourself up for frustration and disappointment. I know a lot of kids who go to schools that they really will not get a chance to start and will only be another set of fresh legs, fodder to work out the top six. Harvard is#52 in the nation. The strong Ivy's tend to gravitate between #50-80 in the country. You will get good matches playing #1 or #2 in the strong Ivy's as they play strong schedules. In the Pac10 you get good matches throughout the lineup.

robert,
are u sure u can contribute high in the line up right away at penn? their lineup is pretty deep. how r the other recruits penn got this year?