Yea, a second round meeting between Sacramento State and UCLA is likely if they both make the NCAAs, unless Sacramento somehow gets paired in a bracket with UCSB, which would be another tough game.
Watch out for Columbia... a lot of returning starters from a team that finished the Ivy League season unbeaten in their last four games, a transfer from Wake Forest who can score goals and most importantly, a team that has been in the same system for three years now. I may be looking at it from a skewed perspective, but I think they're going to be in the top half of the conference this year and in the hunt for an at-large berth.
It's not that I don't think Columbia will have a good Ivy league team and be able to make the NCAA's, I just can't see them going anywhere. There are too many teams out there without the stringent academic standards that Ivy league schools must abide by.
Re: College Soccer News Check In with their Pre-Season Poll who is FGCU a good pick? No postseason proven record ever. they play an average at best schedule in terms of strength (as well as a weak conference) and they are as high as #14?...wow...who's sleepin in whose bed man.
It's kinda tough to have a good post season record when your school has never been eligible for the post season.
Why not? Penn had a Top 10 recruiting class with these "stringent academic standards". The Ivy League has always had teams that could contend with the top teams in the nation. Soccer is a sport in which these schools can compete.
Because there is no way you beat UNC, Louisville, Akron, UCLA, Duke, Maryland, Furman, SMU, Virginia, Creighton, UCONN, UCSB, ND, Cal, BC, Indiana etc. Penn has a ranked recruiting class off the back of two players and, in my opinion, is overrated as number 9. Still not sure what Penns recruiting class has to do with Columbia's though. If you're really going to argue that it's not harder to get kids into Columbia than a state school then we should probably just agree to disagree.
Not really, at least not in recent years, in terms of competing for a national title. No Ivy League team has made the Final Four since Bob Bradley's Princeton team in 1993 or, put another way, the year most of this year's freshmen were born. The last time an Ivy League school made the quarterfinals was 2000, when Cory Gibbs led Brown that far. In otherwords, it took a future Bundisliga player who'd go on to be named to a World Cup team to get an Ivy League school to the Elite Eight. Here is the top finish in the NCAA Tournament by an Ivy League school the past 20 years. 1991 Yale QF 1992 Dartmouth QF 1993 Princeton SF 1994 Brown QF 1995 Brown QF 1996 Harvard 2nd rd. (Sweet 16) 1997 Dartmouth 2nd rd. (Sweet 16) 1998 Brown 1st rd. 1999 Yale, Brown 2nd rd. (Sweet (16) *2000 Brown QF 2001 Princeton 2nd rd. 2002 Pennsylvania 2nd rd. 2003 Brown 1st rd. 2004 Dartmouth 1st rd. 2005 Brown, Dartmouth 2nd rd. 2006 Brown, Harvard 2nd rd. 2007 Brown 2nd rd. 2008 Dartmouth 3rd rd. (Sweet 16) 2009 Harvard 3rd rd. (Sweet 16) 2010 Brown, Dartmouth 3rd rd. (Sweet 16) *Tournament expanded from 32 to 48 teams with top 16 teams getting a first round bye. With 4 Sweet 16 appearances the past 3 years, it's obvious the better Ivy League schools can stake a claim to be somewhere between 10-20. But one appearance in the QFs the past 15 years and none in the Final Four seems to suggest that an Ivy League school in the Top 10 is a real long shot. Doesn't mean it can't happen. But recent history suggests it won't. It should also be noted that nowhere on that list is Columbia. I don't think the Lions have even made the NCAA Tournament since the early 90s. Let's worry about getting INTO the tournament before we start worrying about Columbia not getting enough love from a preseason poll or two.
This makes me feel old! I was on one of those Ivy League teams back when there was regularly an Ivy league team in the QF and remember watching Bradley's team in the Final Four with my team all bitter after not making the tournament that year. That was before most kids dreamed of going pro, much harder for the Ivy League to get the same talent now with the possibility of going pro on kids minds. We had youth national team players that are harder to get now. Bad for the Ivy League, but good for the game.
The two national players may have more of a resume, but the Kid Duke LaCroix can really play and certainly adds to Penn class recruiting ranking. Where they end up in the polls will figure itself out by the end of the year, but I think they're gonna have a really strong season and showing inside and outside the conference.
You and me both. That must have been a mix of emotions. Pride that you play with and against those guys and anguish at missing your chance to do the same thing. And that's it right there. Pre-MLS, if you're an elite player and you have an Ivy League opportunity, well you and your parents are likely going that direction. Now, with pro soccer as legit career path, most elite prospects are less likely to go the Ivy route. Let's face it, to be regular Final Four contender now, you need pro prospects, the kind that consider leaving early, even if they don't always do so. And with the occassional exception, those players just don't go the Ivy League route. This doesn't mean it can't be done. UMass didn't have any elite prospects and they made the Final Four. They weren't a great team, but they were solid and got on a roll at the right time. If UMass can do it, any good team can, including an Ivy League team. But the odds of it happening are slim, which is why there aren't more UMass type teams in the Final Four very often anymore.
If the ranking list signifies that they would make the tournament and advance than never having had any history or tradition of making the tournament should weigh in because you have players who have never had NCAA experience or a coach with none either (as a head). Im not saying they shouldnt be in top 25...I just think #14 is freakin stretch.
I never said I thought an Ivy team would make the Final Four (or an elite 8) this year. I never said I thought Columbia would, either (I think they'll be happy with a bid into the tournament this year). But I will say that I think it's absolutely possible for a team from the Ivy League to make a run. Sweet 16 is an impressive run for any team, in any conference. Last year the league had two. I don't disagree that on a consistent basis, it will be hard for an Ivy League team to be a Top 5 squad. But on any given year, with a senior-laden, talented team with the right newcomers, it could absolutely happen.
New NSCAA rankings (8/9/11). I don't think this has been posted yet. http://www.nscaa.com/seniorRes.php?it=1569
Was bitter sweet at the time (mostly bitter, because we thought we were good enough to make the tourney at the time) we wanted Princeton to do well though for league pride/rep. But, in the end it served as motivation to get ourselves in the tourney thereafter, which we did. I now count it as one of the better learning experiences in my life about perseverence. Great memories. Agree with you completely on the issue for Ivy League success, but if everything aligns just right, an experienced team with the right new talent and a run at the end of the year can make it back to the final four. I think it will happen again, but not very often. Also, there's nothing like the feeling of being a bunch of non-scholarship kids with restrictive recruiting, practice and # of game rules, beating big conference teams at their place. We did it several times during my years, and it was so much fun!
Much easier to be competitive in basketball as a couple of players can carry a team....not a good analogy.
Actually, the analogy works, in basketball I'd say it's even harder than soccer probably given the amount of talent the 'major' schools get. Cornell had no scholarships, no standout recruits, mid-major school, and worked with the facilities they had in men's basketball, just like they can in soccer. However in soccer, there isn't so much of the 'major' schools winning a lot (UCSB champions, Akron champions, etc). My point was that if it can happen in one sport that is traditionally strong with the power conferences, then it can happen in soccer, which it has.
But the "major" schools win 99 percent of the time. Akron last year and UCSB however many years ago and that's it. If one player is unguardable he can carry a whole team. Look at Stephen Curry or Jimmer Fredette or any number of great one-man-team college players.
No doubt the 'major' schools win most of the time, but those few times that they have won in soccer in the last twenty years, a midmajor school hasn't won in basketball. That doesn't account for the deep NCAA runs midmajors have had and the multiple finals they've made.
Whereas in soccer you can put everybody behind the ball and pray for a counter to steal a 1-0 win. We've all seen it happen more than once. The difference between a good mid-major and a good major basketball team is that while a mid-major has one or two "good" players, the major has 5 or 6, and often times a great one. Yeah, one player can carry a team a whole lot easier in basketball than in soccer, but those players do not generally pick to play at a mid-major, and a one-dimensional team falls apart when the star doesn't produce (and everybody runs into cold streaks). Being a mid-major basketball fan, it's very sobering to see your team play another with almost infinitely more resources, and when you win, yeah, it's a big deal. There's a site that tracks mid-major land, and it seems that when a team from a power conference plays a mid-major, the mid-major wins around 15% of the time - with a handful of good mid-majors garnering a number of those wins. It makes you really, really appreciate a Butler. It is an apples to oranges comparison, but an underdog is an underdog, regardless of sport, and they should be applauded for shocking the world.
Another thing to consider in this analogy is that Ivy League basketball schools are at an even great disadvantage, given that every other Division I school can offer full athletic scholarships to top players -- and even second-tier players. The Ivy League has to get a kid with great grades that qualifies for full need-based aid, in order to fully compete with a top D1 school. In men's soccer, as well as other Olympic sports, scholarships are not even close to 100% full aid. The NCAA allows 9.9 scholarships for a fully funded D1 men's soccer team. For a team. As we all know, a team is 11 players, so even if a coach decided to fill his team with 9 kids with full rides, one kid with 90% scholarship, and the rest walkons, if he has one or two injuries to key guys he's in a lot of trouble. Also, a lot of schools are not fully funded. I don't have a list, but while most D1 programs that compete at the national level are fully funded, a few are not. This evens the playing field even more.
Anybody know if the Louisville v. UCLA game is being televised? (or if there's a way to watch via internet?) Great season opener for two teams at the top end of all the rankings.