The Crimson’s first loss since Nov. 15, 2003 didn’t even come on the football field. Rather, it came in the minds of the Ivy voters, who slotted Harvard second behind Penn in the league’s preseason media poll.

Two schools of thought predominate here. Either the electors have an astounding level of respect for departed Crimson signal caller Ryan Fitzpatrick, or they’re just guessing. Poorly.

Harvard, the reigning league champions, returns an All-American tailback, two game-breaking wide receivers and the heart of the nation’s second best defense last season. It also faces both of the other members of the Big Three, Penn and Brown, at home. The Quakers meanwhile must cope with the loss of the league’s premier receiver, Dan Castles, who shouldered most of the offensive burden during the squad’s undefeated 2003 campaign and its 8-2 run last year. While the Crimson must also replace a first team All-Ivy wideout in Brian Edwards, it has two of the league’s top talents at the position.

Continuing down the roster, it’s hard to find a position where Penn has a decided advantage. The Crimson has more talent at every skill position, a more imposing offensive line, better special teams, and lost less of its stellar defense than the Quakers did.

And back to the Fitzpatrick theory. No one will deny that the Crimson has a huge gap to fill under center. It’s hard to say, however, that the Quakers are in much better shape in that department—returning starter Pat McDermott generated less buzz in almost a full season than Harvard’s Liam O’Hagan did in one half of the team’s spring game.

While it’s hard to draw too many conclusions from his four-touchdown explosion against the Crimson’s second team defense, the intangibles were easy to pick up. O’Hagan was poised beyond his years, and his command of the offense was downright scary. Where he picked up these qualities is up for debate, since he spent most of his time freshman year running plays designed to get his team to the bus faster.

Lost in the whole Penn-Harvard debate is the fact that, while the Quakers and Crimson split the 16 first-place votes, Brown walked away with zero. The Bears, which led Harvard by 21 at half and came within a desperation drive of topping Penn, lost none of its key skill position players and returns a solid defense anchored by Zak DeOssie.

Brown graduated over 1,000 pounds of its offensive line, meaning that first team All-Ivy running back Nick Hartigan could spend his senior season running for his life, but if the Bears can plug that hole, there’s no reason that they shouldn’t be mentioned in the same breath as Penn and Harvard. The Ivy voters apparently didn’t agree with that analysis, placing Brown 28 and 29 points behind those teams, respectively.

Yale filled in the fourth spot in the preseason rankings, 25 points behind the Bears. After waiting his turn behind Alvin Cowan, quarterback Jeff Mroz takes the Bulldogs’ reins on a full-time basis. With the loss of the squad’s best wideout, running back and offensive lineman to graduation, however, Mroz doesn’t have much with which to work. Over recent years, Yale has chronically underachieved, leading many to call for coach Jack Siedlecki’s job. If the Bulldogs fall to the lower half of the league this season—a strong possibility—look for the pressure to rise exponentially.

Yet, to be fair, the voters made a few accurate picks. In the eighth spot with 24 points—24 more than it deserved—sits Columbia. The Lions were terrible last season. Ostensibly, they spent the off-season getting worse. Columbia graduated its top quarterback, running back and tight end from a team that managed just 99 points in seven Ivy games last year. With just one All-Ivy caliber skill position player, the Lions might be lucky to hit half of that this season.

So while the debate will rage over which team will rule the Ivy roost this season until Harvard meets Brown in 43 days one thing remains the same:

The voters agree—Columbia sucks.

—Staff writer Michael R. James can be reached at mrjames@fas.harvard.edu.