Red Blades

I think a lot of teams underperfomed a bit, which is why Cornell as able to slip in at 2nd place; Cornell actually scored more team points at third place last year. Here is the top 5 from the 2023 tournament: 1 Penn State 137.5 2 Iowa 82.5 3 Cornell 76.5 4 Ohio State 70.5 5 Missouri 64.5 This year's race for second was much closer. That said - as a Cornell fan, I'm pleased they put themselves into a position where they could finish so high. I think it says a lot about the contribution from the entire team - every point counts!

I was laughing out loud when that happened! My wife looked at me as if to say WTF? (and then went right back to her romcom).

Yeah, he just hasn't been right...

I guess it helped working out with Vito, Yianni, and Meyer!

^^^ I'll bet you had your hall pass taken away for a year.

Have to say, that would be fun!

So it seems the battle lines have been drawn on this issue: Dartmouth says it won't bargain with basketball players' union (msn.com)

Be forewarned - Benny Baaker is the Bad Draw in this bracket!!

It is derived by a mathematical formula involving NO irrational numbers. Doesn't get any more rational than that. But that doesn't make it right.

Kevin LaValley 4-2 OT - 2011 EIWAs.

Trainspotting?

I'm rooting for Jordan Leen & Co. to pull that program up. And while we are at it - how about Zach Tanelli's Columbia team?! 90.5 team points, two champs, and finished tied with Penn for 4th. Not too bad!

We should keep the "Scribe" emoji.

WANTED FOR GRAND LARCENY

Assuming Ragusin wins his final match at B1Gs (no guarantees the way that tournament is going!), I expect: Crookham Fix Ragusin Vito I don't think Orin jumps Vito (but I've been wrong before!) Top 4 here is pick-um, IMO. Seeding at 125 is going to be a mess. No telling where Stanich will end up.

(Insert ax-grinding emoji here.)

I'm calling it now - Ayzerov is the bad draw in Kansas City.

I think this cuts more to the issue - if student athletes are considered "employees", then who is considered the "employer"? The university? or should it be the NCAA? ESPN? These are the people deriving benefit from the athletes, through media contracts. Absent of that - the mere fact that an athlete participates in a varsity sport does not seem to me to create an employer / employee relationship. The participation is an accommodation provided by a school, until someone starts to monetize it, but at that point - I think there is an argument to be made that the athletes SHOULD be paid.

Clearly, you haven't been to many Ivy League football games.

And the trombone player in the marching band said, "Blowhard!"

Another poster on here (and on the Lehigh Forum) has been involved with the EIWA seeding in the past, and has relayed stories of epic seeding arguments - alas, you would think common sense should prevail, but far too often politics and protection of individual interests rules. As a result, as I understand, the conference went to a strictly metrics-based system, with very limited opportunity for adjustment. Last year and the year prior, some of the results seemed just nutty. This year, it appears they made some good corrections. A big part of the difficulty is that there is such a huge disparity in scheduling throughout the conference, and too little head to head matches - many EIWA teams do not face each other during the dual season - so identifying appropriate and sufficiently universal metrics is hard.

I'm not disagreeing- but I'm not the person you need to convince! You gotta take it up with the EIWA Seeding Committee. In their defense - I think they did a much better job this year than recent past years. And their job will be much simpler starting next year.

That is surprising. What I saw elsewhere is that the EIWA uses a very broad based point system, and so while DePrez does have the head-to-head and CR advantage, Cardenas likely scored higher based on overall resume. Still it's a head scratcher, but effectively a distinction without a difference. They should still meet in semis.

As I said above - if you make this argument for athletes, you can make the same argument for any student who receives financial aid. It will be interesting to see what the courts do with this.

Given that Dartmouth athletes do not receive any scholarships money for playing (as is the case with all Ivy League athletes), I'm not sure I understand how they can be considered employees - at least not any more so than any other students on campus. As such, I wouldn't be surprised if this does not hold up in court. But then again, it's a crazy world we live in, so I guess - wait and see!