Back to Post
| Username | Post: Strategy for Next Weekend | |
|---|---|---|
|
Columbia Alum Junior Posts 247 |
02-26-17 09:16 AM - Post#223704
Sorry, reposting this in a new thread because I feel it's important. Hopefully someone in the team or coaching staff sees this and gets it. Strategy: we need to only focus on Brown this week. If penn beat Dartmouth at home, which they certainly will. We must beat Brown away. And strangely, after that the Yale game is becomes 100% irrelevant for us... both penn and Columbia will be 6-7. If penn goes 7-7 by beating H, even if we beat Y, and go 7-7 we're out. If penn goes 6-8 losing to H, even if we lose to Y we're in! So we need to spend this whole week prepping for Brown, who is now eliminated from the tourney race, through tiebreakers. |
|
|
Columbia 37P6 Postdoc Posts 2178 |
02-26-17 09:57 AM - Post#223705
I'm not following your logic. Wouldn't Columbia get the fourth spot if both teams finish 7-7? |
|
|
PennFan10 Postdoc Posts 3585 |
02-26-17 09:59 AM - Post#223706
No. The tiebreakers favor Penn if Penn beats Harvard. Tie breakers are HTH (split). Then record against other seeds in tourney (same in that scenario) then rankings (Penn would win) |
|
|
PennFan10 Postdoc Posts 3585 |
02-26-17 10:01 AM - Post#223707
If Penn doesn't beat Harvard, Columbia owns second tiebreaker by virtue of better record against other tourney teams (because they beat Harvard) |
|
|
Columbia 37P6 Postdoc Posts 2178 |
02-26-17 10:09 AM - Post#223709
What happens in the scenario where Penn defeats Dartmouth and Columbia loses to Brown Friday night and then Penn loses to Harvard and Columbia defeats Yale Saturday night? |
|
|
Chet Forte Postdoc Posts 2972 |
 02-26-17 10:36 AM - Post#223714
The 800 pound gorilla in the room is that the notorious home cooking that Penn has enjoyed for years at the Palestra will reach gargantuan proportions next weekend.
|
|
|
penn nation Professor Posts 21193 |
02-26-17 10:37 AM - Post#223715
Columbia would win the 2nd tiebreaker by having gone 1-1 against the #2 seed (H) while Penn would have gone 0-2 against H. |
|
|
Charlie Fog Masters Student Posts 586 |
02-26-17 10:44 AM - Post#223719
Looked like some good home cooking last night for Columbia |
|
|
Columbia 37P6 Postdoc Posts 2178 |
02-26-17 10:59 AM - Post#223723
Is it correct to say that if Penn loses to Harvard Saturday night, then Columbia will get the fourth spot in the Tournament as long as it defeats either Brown or Yale. |
|
|
penn nation Professor Posts 21193 |
02-26-17 11:03 AM - Post#223725
Yes |
|
|
Tiger69 Postdoc Posts 2814 |
02-26-17 11:45 AM - Post#223728
Crazy, huh? So next year I suggest that we go to 7 team tourney with Champion receiving first round bye - a rather modest reward for its 14 game success.. If there are co-champs, then 6 teams, etc. From there it gets fun. Also, higher seed gets home floor in all games, including the final. Even if games are not played in the vaunted Palestra, there will be more venues with all spectators having skin in the game. If, in a given game, say Dartmouth or harvard has the higher seed, it wins the advantage of its band box gym and an energized crowd. Free peanuts for everyone -- except #8. Well, life doesn't promise everyone second chances 
|
|
|
penn nation Professor Posts 21193 |
02-26-17 12:00 PM - Post#223732
The theory is fine. The devil is in the details. |
|
|
Tiger69 Postdoc Posts 2814 |
02-26-17 12:05 PM - Post#223735
You mean, like, 5 co-champs? |
|
|
TigerFan PhD Student Posts 1888 |
02-26-17 12:33 PM - Post#223741
I think we can go one step better next year: each school is in the tournament but they bring combined men's and women's teams. Seedings are determined by averaging each school's two team's conference rankings as determine by the average of their best and lowest scores in four computer ratings systems. Top four seeded teams must play no more than three representatives from the men's team and no fewer than two members of the women's team at any one time. Lowest four seeds must play no fewer than three members of their women's team and no more than two members of their men's team at any one time. Double or nothing ticket to the NCAA tournaments. |
|
|
penn nation Professor Posts 21193 |
 02-26-17 12:44 PM - Post#223745
If it increases the chances of the Tigers getting shut out I'm all for it Had more than my fill of orange in this country of late 
|
|
|
TigerFan PhD Student Posts 1888 |
02-26-17 12:56 PM - Post#223750
Assume you are referring to the noxious hue of orange in the White House--on that one, I'll buy you a high ball Penn Nation. |
|
|
Columbia 37P6 Postdoc Posts 2178 |
02-26-17 02:03 PM - Post#223762
Great idea Tiger Fan! Having combined men's and women sports teams is indeed the wave of the future. However, at this time, basketball teams composed of an unequal number of males and females would violate Title VII and open up the Ivy League to myriad lawsuits. The only reasonable alternative, therefore, would be to play postseason games with an even number of players of both sexes, which would require some rule changes. Also, there is the further complication of ensuring transgender rights in today's politically charged climate. |
|
|
TigerFan PhD Student Posts 1888 |
02-26-17 02:21 PM - Post#223764
I will accept your suggestion that teams play with an even number of players a friendly amendment to my suggestion. Didn't the Big East try an experiment with 6 player fouls before ejection for a brief period in the 80s? This might just be crazy enough to work sports fans! |
|
|
Go Green PhD Student Posts 1146 |
02-27-17 03:20 PM - Post#223889
If penn beat Dartmouth at home, which they certainly will. Maybe you missed it, but Dartmouth won the first match in Hanover. While Penn should be expected to win, they're hardly a lock for it. |
|
|
Chet Forte Postdoc Posts 2972 |
 02-27-17 03:31 PM - Post#223893
Dartmouth' biggest problem against Penn will be the notorious home cooking at the Palestra.
|
|
|
PennFan10 Postdoc Posts 3585 |
02-27-17 03:34 PM - Post#223894
Dartmouth' biggest problem against Penn will be the notorious home cooking at the Palestra. If it's anything like Columbia last Saturday Penn should win going away. |
|
|
palestra38 Professor Posts 32815 |
02-27-17 04:00 PM - Post#223898
Let's not go overboard. Yes, there were a few brutal calls (most notably the 3 shot foul), but Penn had its chance to win. The refs didn't decide it. |
|
|
penn nation Professor Posts 21193 |
02-27-17 04:02 PM - Post#223899
They didn't decide it, but they made some very questionable foul calls on Rothschild in the first half that put him in the hole. One of them seemed like a clear cut tie up for a jump ball, too. Meanwhile concurrently there were times where we were getting hacked and nothing was called. There was one point in the game where after such a play SD leaped from his seat and really laid into an official. |
|
|
Chet Forte Postdoc Posts 2972 |
02-27-17 05:24 PM - Post#223904
Rothschild could have been arrested for assault and battery. The number of fouls called was virtually identical. And the three shot foul was confirmed after the refs reviewed the video. In any event Smith only made 2 of the 3.
|
|
|
palestra38 Professor Posts 32815 |
02-27-17 05:49 PM - Post#223912
Wait a sec Chet--foul calls are not reviewable. They were checking to see if it were a 2 or 3 shot foul. But the foul call was outlandish---he launched himself into the defender, who was not moving, and pushed off. Let's get the rules right before making the categorical statement that the foul was confirmed. |
|
|
PennFan10 Postdoc Posts 3585 |
02-27-17 06:42 PM - Post#223921
Look at the video on all 3 of Rothschild's foul calls. Not one of them was a good call. There were missed calls against Columbia as well. Defenders are allowed to jump vertically with hands in the air and not be called for a foul. The Euro step for Petrasek's andone was ridiculous. Rothschild was set, outside the circle, for 3 steps and then Petrasek traveled. Again, give us the Penn version of those refs this weekend and we sweep easily. |
|
|
TheLine Professor Posts 5597 |
02-27-17 07:14 PM - Post#223927
I thought the refereeing was acceptable. Nothing really awful. They didn't decide the game, which is all you can ask. It was funny how the refs at the Cornell-Penn game were calling the palming while the refs at the Columbia-Penn game should have called a couple they didn't - both on Columbia and Penn. The positive to having a tournament was that both teams played at a high intensity level. |
|
|
Old Bear Postdoc Posts 3995 |
02-27-17 07:23 PM - Post#223929
Ivy refs. are almost uniformly awful. Bad calls tend to be both ways, though the favored or home teams seem to generally get the worst of it, IMO. The Brown - Dartmouth game last weekend was among the worst I have seen, I think 32 fouls against Brown, 23 against Dartmouth, 55 in all. Neither team played differently from earlier games. Now, if we are still talking Columbia strategy for the weekend, I suggest the Lions should start Faulds and bring Stefanini and Hanson in off the bench. |
|
|
SomeGuy Professor Posts 6413 |
02-27-17 09:28 PM - Post#223943
I never understand getting overly focused on the refs. They make good calls and bad calls. The calls are the calls. I've literally never walked away from a game thinking that the refs determined the outcome. Might be the youth basketball coach in me -- I never even question a call, because I never want the kids focused on anything other than the next play. |
|
|
PennFan10 Postdoc Posts 3585 |
02-27-17 10:34 PM - Post#223959
For the record I don't think the refs decided the outcome of the game either, I just enjoy complaining about stuff. |
|
|
Old Bear Postdoc Posts 3995 |
02-28-17 05:12 PM - Post#224044
I can think of one or two of the hundreds I have seen. |
|
|
 |
|
| Copyright © 2004-2012 Basketball U. Terms of Use for our Site and Privacy Policy are applicable to you. All rights reserved. Basketball U. and its subsidiaries are not affiliated in any way with any NCAA athletic conference or member institution. |
|