Fantasy Football

After recording a 10-0 overall record in 2003 and coasting through conference play, the Penn football team finished the year ranked 12th in Division I-AA by the Sports Network.

The Quakers recorded just the fourth undefeated season in Penn football history, and they would have easily qualified for a postseason berth in the I-AA playoffs, if not for one rule holding them back: Ivy football cannot compete in postseason play.

This restriction is one of many historic aspects to Ivy League athletics, many of which are widely excepted and some of which are quite controversial.

Founded in 1954 as a football conference, the Ivy League is now a collection of eight elite academic institutions. But as a testament to the effective balance between academics and athletics in the Ivy League, Ancient Eight teams continue to achieve great success on the fields and the courts.

The Ivy League is currently the only non-Division I-A conference with players from each of its schools on an active NFL roster. This statistic is particularly impressive considering the fundamental principle around which the Ivy Group Agreement was signed in 1945 -- offering no athletic scholarships.

This founding concept will likely never be changed. It is what separates the Ivy League from other conferences and what makes it truly unique.

But there are two other debatable principles in Ivy League football that many Ivy coaches and athletic directors believe need to be amended.

While the Ivy League is one of the most competitive divisions in I-AA football -- Harvard is currently ranked 19th, and Penn received 49 points in the most recent poll -- Ancient Eight teams do not compete in the Division I-AA playoffs. Additionally, the Ancient Eight plays a shortened 10-game schedule, compared to the 11 games that other I-AA teams play.

Of the three rules, two -- not offering athletic scholarships and the postseason ban -- have been around since the League's inception.

And in a conference as historic and unique as the Ivy League, it is understandable that many policy-setters prefer to maintain the status quo than risk bearing the consequences of any major changes.

Here is what we know for sure: On several occasions -- every year, in fact, for a number of years -- Ivy League coaches have voted unanimously to lift the postseason ban and to add an eleventh game to their schedules. Each time, their proposals have been rejected, either by the Ivy League policy committees or by the Ivy League presidents. The question is why.

When asked to justify the lack of postseason play and the 10-game season, Ivy League presidents, such as Yale's Richard Levin, often point to possible conflicts with final exams. This year, however, the I-AA football playoffs are slated to begin Nov. 26 and continue until Dec. 16. Penn final exams are scheduled to begin on Dec. 13, which would only create a problem if an Ivy League team advanced to the semifinals of the playoffs -- om Dec. 9 and 10.

While Quakers football players would certainly have difficulty balancing postseason play and final exam preparation, they would not be the only student-athletes at Penn who compete in postseason play in the midst of final exam preparation.

The NCAA Division I women's volleyball tournament begins Dec. 1 but the championship is not until Dec. 17. Even if an Ivy League team did not reach the final round, it is quite possible that the tournament could conflict with reading days.

The Division I men's basketball tournament is scheduled to begin March 14 and continue until April 3, and the women's tournament will conclude on April 4. While this would not conflict with final exams, a successful Ivy League team would have to forego a significant amount of class time. Is that any worse than missing reading days?

"I'm not really sure what the presidents' rationale is for why 31 teams can go [to the postseason] and one selected team cannot," Penn coach Al Bagnoli said.

Jeff Orleans, the Executive Director of the Council of Ivy Group Presidents, explains that the reason behind not competing in the I-AA playoffs extends far beyond missing class time.

"The presidents were trying to very clearly maintain the uniqueness to Ivy League football," Orleans said. "It's very competitive within the league."

Penn President Amy Gutmann did not answer directly about the postseason ban, instead deferring questions to Orleans.

In addition, Cornell President Hunter Rawlings declined to answer questions, as did Princeton Athletic Director Gary Walters and Harvard Athletic Director Bob Scalise.

"There's a 60-year tradition in football, and every sport has got different traditions," Gutmann said.

According to Orleans, the Ivy League presidents feel very strongly about trying to avoid the negative aspects of big-time college athletics, which are particularly apparent in major I-A football programs.

"The presidents see it not as football being different," he said, "but as the Ivy League being continuous since the 1950s."

For Columbia coach Bob Shoop, it is unreasonable to preserve a rule simply because it is 50 years old.

"The postseason ban is an archaic rule dating back to when the Ivy League was I-A, to protect Ivy League teams from going to bowl games," Shoop said. "The rule seems outdated today, with all other Ivy League teams allowed to play in postseason tournaments.

"Football should be allowed the same opportunity."

For Orleans, using the word "outdated" to describe deep-rooted Ivy policies is misleading.

"It is another way of saying the rest of the country is doing something different," he said. "A lot of what occurs around the country in football, though, no one involved in Ivy League athletics wants that."

The debate over the postseason ban largely boils down to two contrasting views. From Levin's perspective, Ivy League football teams should be concerned with intra-league rivalries and maintaining a high level of competition within the league. From the perspective of coaches like Shoop, Ivy League football teams should also aspire to compete successfully against non-conference I-AA opponents.

"The coaches have voted unanimously for the 11th game and for postseason play every time it has been brought forward at our meetings," Yale coach Jack Siedlecki said. "It then has to go to the athletic directors, the policy committee and then the presidents. Neither proposal has ever gotten approval from all groups."

Bagnoli mirrored Siedlecki's sentiments.

"It does not appear to be logical," he said. "From a coaching perspective, it is on our agenda every year."

Harvard coach Tim Murphy shares the belief that lifting the ban would be beneficial, but with a slight twist.

"I think it would be a great opportunity for our team to be able to play for a national championship, as the other 40 teams at Harvard have a chance to do," he said via e-mail. "But that said, I think Harvard is in a unique position in that we essentially have a bowl game at the end of our season when we play Yale."

"The Game," an annual matchup between Harvard and Yale dating back to 1875, is widely considered to be one of the greatest and most historic collegiate football rivalries.

"The game is on national television with a sellout crowd in our stadium and more than 50,000 at Yale," Murphy said. "So we still have an opportunity to compete in a playoff-type atmosphere."

Levin believes that the current system is working, and the Ivy League should focus on competition within the conference.

"One of the founding propositions of the Ivy League in the 1950s was to focus on intra-league competition in football and deliberately cease to compete on a national level," the Yale president said in an e-mail. "The model has worked. There is intense rivalry within the league, and no longer much concern about the inability of Ivy League teams to compete with teams like Army, Navy, Boston College and Michigan, as they once did."

Orleans argues similarly that the Ivy League has always been different in football, and that some of the founding principles -- such as the absence of athletic scholarships -- persist today.

Shoop agrees that the Ivy League should remain distinctive, but he believes that lifting the postseason ban in football will not compromise the League's uniqueness.

"Offering no scholarships, that policy will never change, and I don't think that it should," he said. "Students should be admitted based on their entire person, with financial aid based on need.

"The other things don't compromise these issues," he said. "Adding an 11th game, having more practice time, playing in the I-AA playoffs -- these don't compromise the fundamental principles of the Ivy League."

Still, Ivy League presidents are hesitant to make significant changes to the league's well-established policies, Orleans noted.

Shoop admits that despite the fact that many Ivy coaches and athletic directors desire to play in the postseason, it may not happen anytime soon.

"It's been proposed on several occasions, but I don't think it will be changed," he said. "The presidents and policy-setters think that the product is good as it is."

Bagnoli is more optimistic about the chances to see an Ivy school in the 16-team field some day and an additional game on the schedule.

"I feel strongly that the eight coaches feel that these are two things that have merit and that the presidents will consider it," he said.

Penn Associate Athletic Director Earl Cleghorn is less adamant about changing Ivy League policies.

"Watching the I-AA playoffs on TV, I say to myself, 'you know what, we could play with those guys.' But I have to put that in perspective. I like the model we have now with 10 games. Our kids have a good competitive experience, and they're enjoying it, and I'm not so sure that change is the best for us."

That is not to say, though, that Cleghorn is necessarily opposed to the idea of lifting the postseason ban.

"We've had some very good teams in this league -- certainly Harvard and Penn recently -- that could have had significant success in the I-AA playoffs," he added. "We are on the fence.

"We could be sold if we heard the right arguments."

It may not help the coaches' cause significantly, but they may find comfort in the fact that the Ivy Council -- comprised of representatives of Ivy League student governments -- is on the verge of passing a resolution urging Ivy presidents and athletic directors to amend their football policies.

Jordan Jones, a Harvard student and Vice President of Policy for the Ivy Council, believes that the postseason ban should be lifted.

"I have been preparing a resolution that would urge for an end to the ban on postseason play," he said. "Not only is the ban inconsistent, as all other Ivy League sports are allowed to participate in NCAA playoffs, but also the ban places a great disadvantage to our fellow student athletes who may desire to continue their football careers."

Jones added that playing in postseason games provides players with national exposure at the highest level of competition, which could potentially help them receive attention from professional teams.

According to the Ivy Council's research, Ivy League students are strongly opposed to the postseason ban.

"Support for the ban amongst students appears to be as absent as desire for change is abundant," Jones said.

In May 1980, the Ivy League Council of Presidents adopted the "Parry-Ryan" report, attempting to ensure that the "scope of scheduling, competition and practice opportunities" were consistent with athletes' academic priorities, according to the Ivy League's official Web site. This same basic structure is in effect today.

Over the past three years, the spirit of the "Parry-Ryan" report has been readily apparent in Ivy League athletics legislation. In 2002, the Council of Ivy League Presidents voted to reduce the maximum number of Ivy football recruits from 35 to 30 per year, as well as to reduce the amount of permissible practice time.

Changes to the Ivy League athletic policies are rare, and the recent trend has been to cut back rather than to expand Ancient Eight athletics.

"They are very conservative," Orleans said of the Ivy League presidents, "because they want to maintain a very good experience for our student-athletes."

Coaches around the Ivy League are growing concerned over

speculation that Ivy presidents may vote to further reduce the number of recruits from 30 to 25.

"Every admission spot in the Ivy League is precious," Yale's coach, Siedlecki said. "Reductions will limit our ability to compete. Athletic scholarships would reduce the number of spots needed, but the League is philosophically opposed to scholarships.

"This is a balancing act that will be discussed and adjusted forever."

Shoop believes that 25 recruits per year would not significantly affect the level of play on the field. Any number below 25, however, would necessarily change the character of Ivy League football.

"Below 30 recruits would be a minor problem," he said. "But below 25 would be a bad idea and it would affect the product on the field."

When Penn and Columbia square off against Duquesne and Fordham, respectively, this weekend, both Ivy teams will be at a disadvantage, as their opponents already have two games under their belts. Not only does the Ancient Eight football season end early, with no postseason play, but also it begins two weeks later than other Division I-AA conferences.

To make matters worse, both Ivy teams practiced less than their non-Ivy opponents last spring, because of the Ivy presidents' reductions in permissible practice time in 2002.

"It hurt us with only 12 spring practices," Shoop said. "Our non-league opponents had more practice, and they now have played two more games than us.

"But when you're dealing with apples and apples, in the Ivy League, it is equal."

Levin believes that Ivy League football should only be concerned with apples and apples. Competing outside of the conference should not be a high priority.

"The presidents are trying to preserve the right character of Ivy League football," Orleans said. "It should not be taken as a negative view on football.

"Rather, it's an endorsement of the type of success we've had."

Levin believes that the classic Ivy League model continues to work today. But there remains the question of why football should be treated differently.

Why is it approached as a separate entity from other Ivy League sports?

According to Orleans, there are two factors which distinguish football: its visibility, and the large number of athletes engaged in it.

For Shoop, however, this approach is inherently hypocritical. He believes that the 10-game schedule, for example, should be expanded to 11 games. NCAA I-AA rules permit teams to schedule 11 regular season games.

Whereas Ivy League soccer teams and other fall sports teams competed all over the country on Labor Day weekend, football teams were practicing on campus. If the season had begun last weekend, it could have helped Ivy League teams to be better prepared for their non-conference schedules.

"The 10-game schedule is a weird rule," Shoop said. "Some say it's a safety issue, but in reality the main issue is costs."

Levin disagrees, pointing to the strenuous physical contact that occurs more in football than in other sports.

"Ten weeks of football competition is plenty," he said. "Football is extremely demanding physically."

Practices begin in mid-August, and competition continues until Thanksgiving break. Levin emphasizes the importance of the season ending then, in order for student-athletes to prepare for December final exams.

"This is a schedule that makes sense for schools that aspire to an appropriate balance between academic and athletic achievement," Yale's president said.

Shoop raised the possibility of having a bye week after the fourth or fifth week of the season, in mid-October, when student-athletes are busy studying for midterms. He explains that most major I-A teams have bye weeks for their athletes to recoup and for their coaches to reevaluate strategies.

"Having a bye week is especially important in the Ivy League, because our student-athletes have very demanding course loads," he said. "In mid-October, when midterms come around, I see guys dreary-eyed in the team meetings.

"They're tired from studying, and it affects the level of play on the field."

Still, regardless of whether or not a bye week is added, the larger issue remains the addition of an 11th game to the schedule.

For now, the Ivy League presidents appear to be clinging steadfastly to the league's current structure, in which teams can play only 10 regular season games.

For Shoop, this is simply nonsensical. If Ivy League presidents truly care about enhancing the student-athlete experience, he believes they should re-evaluate the postseason ban and the 10-game limit.

"To allow postseason play and to add an 11th game would be a major benefit," Shoop said. "As for the costs argument, I think it's an investment into the student-athlete experience."

Orleans does not rule out the possibility of adding an 11th game to the schedule.

"It would be considered on its merits if proposed," he said. "We're trying to find the best overall way to play football.

"But we will be different no matter what."

Ironically, that is the very point that Shoop presents when arguing to lift the postseason ban and to expand the schedule to 11 games.

So long as athletic scholarships are not offered, the Ivy League will continue to be different. Any changes to other policies, Shoop argues, will not compromise what makes the Ivy League unique.

Perhaps the two sides are not as far apart as it may seem.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.