COLUMN: Ivy football is all about defense

The secret to winning in Ivy League football is returning more defensive starters than the competition. The secret to winning in Ivy League football is returning more defensive starters than the competition.Marc Edelman, Commentary Harvard returned all 11 defensive starters this season. And an undefeated Ivy League campaign -- which requires victory this Saturday over the hapless Yale -- stands as probable as a winter snowstorm in Boston. Since Yale hasn't won an Ivy League game since the opening week of 1996, it is safe to assume that Harvard football extends the streak to a fourth year. "In my first year, when I finished last in the Ivy League in defense," Harvard coach Tim Murphy said, "I knew that we'd have to build our defense first and our defense second." In the spring of 1993, Murphy recruited defensive linemen Brendan Bibro, Chris Smith, Jason Hughes, Chris Schaefer and Tim Fleiszer, along with safety Jeff Compas. Since the frosh arrived four seasons ago, things have turned around. While Bibro and company were horrendous in their first two seasons -- allowing a league-high 25.4 points per game in 1994, 25.8 in 1995 -- the Crimson defense has come of age. In 1996, Harvard held opponents to 16.4 points per contest, and this season, opponents manage a league-low 12.9 average against Harvard. "Our first priority is to put our best athletes on the defense," Murphy said. Not surprisingly, Dartmouth and Penn, which will finish right behind the Crimson in the Ivy League standings, also directly followed the Crimson in number of defensive players that returned, with eight and nine, respectively. That this building strategy has worked for the Crimson should come as little surprise, however, given that Penn in '94, Princeton in '95, and Dartmouth in '96 have all won using the same approach. The undefeated 1994 Quakers led Division I-AA in total defense, pass efficiency defense and defensive scoring behind the leadership of nine returning defensive starters, including All-American linebacker Pat Goodwillie and cornerback Michael Turner. Even though Penn had lost star linebacker Andy Berlin to graduation after the 1993 championship season, the strength of the returning mass outweighed Berlin's loss. In 1995, champion Princeton fielded a defense that had every starter seeing significant game-time action in '94. Dominated by seniors like Bushnell Cup winner Dave Patterson, Princeton allowed opponents just 12.4 points per game, two less than any other team in the Ivies. And even despite the Tigers' offense finishing fourth overall in the league, Old Nassau had little trouble earning its first solo championship since 1964. The 1996 Big Green, like the Ivy League champions preceeding them, fielded an experienced core on the far side of the ball. The Dartmouth defense -- composed of juniors and seniors recruited by Big Green coach John Lyons in his first two offseasons -- limited the opposition to a league-low 10.4 points per game. These Ivy League trends show that, for the most part, defense means more than offense and game-time experience counts more than raw talent when forecasting who will win games. "This group of seniors when we recruited them," Murphy said, "were told this is what we were going to do and this is how we will do it. Our first priority is athletes on defense." Given this simple approach to success, there is no reason why schools like Columbia should be waiting 36 years without a championship when they could follow the lead of Penn, Princeton, Dartmouth, and now Harvard -- building a dominant defense instead of an unspectacular, well-rounded attack. By the same token, Brown coach Mark Whipple must question his team's chances if he continues to surround his stellar passing offense with a mediocre defense. But as for the chances for a Harvard repeat in 1998 -- don't count on it. The Crimson will return just six Ivy League starters next season.