Select "print" from your browser's "File" menu.

Back to Post
Username Post: Yale
whitakk
Sophomore
Posts 144
03-10-17 10:47 AM - Post#226040    

My preview:
http://www.nycbuckets.com/2017/03/ivy-league-to urn...
HARVARDDADGRAD
Masters Student
Posts 808
03-10-17 12:14 PM - Post#226063    

Thanks for the analysis. Seems like you see Yale reverting to the norm from 3 resulting in a tight game. I'm just as worried about Aiken's variability. Guess that's why it it seems objectively hard to beat a team 3 times in a year. Harvard may need to find a 3rd way to win.
SRP
Postdoc
Posts 3084
03-10-17 02:24 PM - Post#226114    

Love your shot charts. Harvard 2-13 from mid-range against Yale with two fouls drawn. Those could be forced attempts against the shot clock if Harvard is following the analytics, but I prefer to visualize Aiken just pulling up and letting fly.
HARVARDDADGRAD
Masters Student
Posts 808
03-10-17 03:17 PM - Post#226127    

Aiken lets fly from 3. Usually Siyani and Seth in that area - they shot 4-18 on 2's in first meeting. Both have shot much much better of late.
HARVARDDADGRAD
Masters Student
Posts 808
03-10-17 03:41 PM - Post#226133    

In two games against Yale Crimson other than Aiken only shot 8-30 from 3 (1-10 in second meeting). Zena and Chris in foul trouble throughout.

Yale did shoot poorly from 3, but very well on 2's: 22-43 and 22-38. Copeland 16-21 and Downey 10-17.

Harvard needs to keep the pressure on Yale 3's, especially Oni (40.6%), Dallier (38.9%) and Reynolds (37.4%). Stop Copeland's drives and shots in the lane, force him to take 3's where he shoots only 28.6%. I believe Zena can contain (not shut down) Downey, so it's important for Zena to stay out of foul trouble. Lewis is less physical and I expect Downey can be more effective in that matchup.
Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts 2004
03-10-17 04:08 PM - Post#226137    

Hard to know whom Tigers should pull for in this one. I think that I'd rather root for a second rematch to yale, however. Harvard is only getting stronger with time, despite their letdown loss to the quackers.
bradley
Masters Student
Posts 479
03-10-17 05:36 PM - Post#226152    

Yale has certainly not performed well over the second half of the IL season. They simply have not improved as a group. Harvard should win as they have improved although anything can happen in a game.

Downey and Copeland have enjoyed success against Harvard with Downey's play against Lewis/Edosomwan somewhat of a surprise. The thought that Zena may try to hold his own against Downey is a long way from Edosomwan's play for a segment of last year. He just does not seem to play very tall plus he can be trapped. It did not seem that long ago that Zena was being really hyped but he has still has two IL games to make a statement -- he may well do it.
SRP
Postdoc
Posts 3084
03-11-17 05:15 PM - Post#226363    

It's the Nouveau Riche slot in the Ivy folly, after Princeton won the Old Money contest with Penn. I expect this to be a very intense game with Yale coming in ready to do anything to win.
SRP
Postdoc
Posts 3084
03-11-17 05:43 PM - Post#226374    

Kind of an NBA feel in the first 5 minutes. Teams playing loose and with great athleticism. Harvard's frontline defense has been poor but their shot blocking at the rim is a big factor.
SRP
Postdoc
Posts 3084
03-11-17 06:06 PM - Post#226379    

Yale up 38-30 at the half. Based on the regular season, Harvard has them right where they want them, right? Copeland and Oni are getting where they want, Harvard missing some shots they usually make. Fun game to watch if you like watching guys play above the rim.
SRP
Postdoc
Posts 3084
03-11-17 06:43 PM - Post#226381    

Yale has taken care of the ball much better in this game than in the previous meetings. Only 5 TOs with 10:06 left.
Chip Bayers
Postdoc
Posts 3731
Chip Bayers
03-11-17 06:55 PM - Post#226382    

It was quite the moment a few minutes ago as the Harvard bench erupted in oohs and ahs at a spin dribble move by Seth Towns on the baseline, undressing his defender as he rose for the easy score ... and then he blew the shot.

SRP
Postdoc
Posts 3084
03-11-17 07:03 PM - Post#226387    

Crimson can't buy a trey. Towns and johnson 2-15 between them, although Aiken is a good 4-9.

If Yale could hit a free throw or box out they'd be way ahead.

Bruner has been rising in the second half.
SRP
Postdoc
Posts 3084
03-11-17 07:04 PM - Post#226388    

That Oni blow-by and dunk with and-one was impressive.
SRP
Postdoc
Posts 3084
03-11-17 07:06 PM - Post#226389    

Aiken is playing hero ball very successfully down the stretch. The defense wasn't even that bad the last few times.
SRP
Postdoc
Posts 3084
03-11-17 07:08 PM - Post#226390    

Guess I jinxed Aiken, as he tried one more drive into traffic and turned it over.
SRP
Postdoc
Posts 3084
03-11-17 07:13 PM - Post#226392    

Bruner with the fantastic interception of Chambers and one made FT ices the game. Yale plays Princeton tomorrow.
Old Bear
Postdoc
Posts 3259
03-11-17 09:09 PM - Post#226409    

Aiken displayed why he was first team. However, Jones won Coach of the Game.
whitakk
Sophomore
Posts 144
03-11-17 10:34 PM - Post#226418    

We'll be seeing a lot more games like this over the next few years:

http://www.nycbuckets.com/2017/03/3-yale-73-2-h arv...
HARVARDDADGRAD
Masters Student
Posts 808
03-12-17 01:54 AM - Post#226441    

Not the best played game of the year. Weird feeling with a crowd that would barely fill Payne Whitney or Lavietes. Vacuous feeling imposed by making two NE foes travel 250 and 350 miles to play at Penn and less than an hour from Princeton was surreal. Their regular season games created more energy.

Harvard gutted it out despite awful shooting. Towns/Johnson/Chamber 4 for 30 overall, 2 for 19 on 3's.

Not saying that Yale's defense had no impact, but missed bunnies and wide open 3's were painful. I know this is flawed math, but normal 40% shooting results in roughly 21 additional points. More than enough to overcome a 2 point deficit.

Yale drove the lane with impunity the first half. Harvard did a nice job of adjusting in the second half, holding Copeland scoreless in second half.

Yale freshmen - Oni and Bruner - did just enough for the win down the stretch. Harvard's Aiken carried the Crimson back from a 13 point deficit. Must have felt strange for Coach Amaker who normally eschews hero ball.

Harvard's season low 5 TO's undone by remarkably atrocious shooting.

Good Luck to the Eli's tomorrow.
Chip Bayers
Postdoc
Posts 3731
Chip Bayers
03-12-17 02:08 AM - Post#226444    

182 miles from Payne Whitney to Palestra. So added a good 37% in fake news miles to that trip.

312 miles from Lavietes. Only 12% exaggeration!

HARVARDDADGRAD
Masters Student
Posts 808
03-12-17 02:15 AM - Post#226446    

Find a central location and you can reduce those numbers even further! How would Penn fans feel if the game took place in New Hampshire?

Chip Bayers
Postdoc
Posts 3731
Chip Bayers
03-12-17 02:19 AM - Post#226448    

Name a venue in New Hampshire you think the league should consider.

HARVARDDADGRAD
Masters Student
Posts 808
03-12-17 02:34 AM - Post#226450    

Guess you (choose?) to overlook the entire point. Even if there were a physically acceptable structure at the northern tip of the league's empire, it would similarly be unsuitable, especially for those asked to drive 362 miles northeasterly.

By my rough count on the league's ticketing site, almost 3,500 tix remain unsold for tomorrow's noon tipoff. Could be more empty seats if Harvard, Brown and Penn fans fail to use their tournament package tix. Playoff fever - catch it!
Chip Bayers
Postdoc
Posts 3731
Chip Bayers
03-12-17 03:07 AM - Post#226453    

If it's a quality venue like the Palestra, I'm sure Penn would be ecstatic to go to New Hampshire.

palestra38
Professor
Posts 15890
03-12-17 06:58 PM - Post#226600    

The only thing that made no sense was playing the Penn-Princeton game first. Had it been the other way around, it would have been packed. Probably sold the Penn-Princeton game for that ESPNU spot. But as an event, the Penn-Princeton game should have been the finale.

What needs to happen to make it an event is scheduling spring breaks around the tournament. As long as all but one school are on break, the tournament will be missing the key factor for good atmosphere---students.
HARVARDDADGRAD
Masters Student
Posts 808
03-12-17 07:51 PM - Post#226618    

Top seed was scheduled to have more time between rounds.
Old Bear
Postdoc
Posts 3259
03-12-17 08:39 PM - Post#226632    

So, next year, Quarters played Fri. at the higher seed. Finals at neutral site on Sunday. The Cathedral was wonderful and the League acknowledged the anniversary, but the attendance was mediocre. No reason to give Penn the home team edge.
digamma
Junior
Posts 231
03-12-17 09:21 PM - Post#226651    

Honestly, the atmosphere Saturday was fantastic. Of course the Penn-Princeton game was the highlight because of the local draw, but still, that was a great day of basketball showcasing the league. Despite the poor shooting and gut wrenching defeat, it was one of the more fun experiences I've had watching sports (Harvard vs. Vandy at the Pit ranks up there too).
digamma
Junior
Posts 231
03-12-17 09:25 PM - Post#226652    

I get keeping both tournaments together. That's cool, but the noon Sunday tip was an absolute killer. Arena was dead and teams were tired. First ten minutes were brutal.


H78
PhD Student
Posts 1415
H78
03-16-17 02:50 AM - Post#227192    

  • Old Bear Said:
So, next year, Quarters played Fri. at the higher seed. Finals at neutral site on Sunday. The Cathedral was wonderful and the League acknowledged the anniversary, but the attendance was mediocre. No reason to give Penn the home team edge.


This makes a lot of sense. In fact, so much sense, they'll probably not do it. Great idea, though.
palestra38
Professor
Posts 15890
03-16-17 10:48 AM - Post#227212    

Actually, the attendance was pretty good--from what I understand, they sold about 6500 tickets. Had the students been in session and they reduced the ticket price about 1/3, I'm sure it would have sold out. I do not believe it was marketed well for the live event--you obviously do not play the premier game first. The way I would do it is play two double headers on Friday (with the women's during the day-we love them, but that's not the reason people buy the tickets) and a night men's doubleheader. Then the finals in a doubleheader Sunday afternoon.

You'll never get people from all the schools to come to a tournament unless you put all the schools into it. Otherwise, people will make their plans last minute, as happened here.
Go Green
Junior
Posts 261
03-16-17 12:17 PM - Post#227216    

  • Chip Bayers Said:
Name a venue in New Hampshire you think the league should consider.



http://www.snhuarena.com/

Other than being in New Hampshire, it's as good a venue as any as others being listed.
Go Green
Junior
Posts 261
03-16-17 12:19 PM - Post#227217    

  • Old Bear Said:
No reason to give Penn the home team edge.



Many, many reasons have been given for having it at the Palestra.

Again, the league wants to have both the men's and women's tourneys together. So why are we talking about having a game "at the higher seed's home court"?
palestra38
Professor
Posts 15890
03-16-17 12:44 PM - Post#227226    

Any place that has 38 draft beer towers should be considered.
Old Bear
Postdoc
Posts 3259
03-16-17 03:37 PM - Post#227343    

  • palestra38]Actually, the attendance was pretty good--from what I understand, they sold about 6500 tickets. Had the students been in session and they reduced the ticket price about 1/3, I'm sure it would have sold out. I do not believe it was marketed well for the live event--you obviously do not play the premier game first. The way I would do it is play two double headers on Friday (with the women's during the day-we love them, but that's not the reason people buy the tickets) and a night men's doubleheader. Then the finals in a doubleheader Sunday afternoon. /quote Said:

If both the Men's and Women's Quarters were played at the home of the higher seed on Fri. and the Finals in a doubleheader at a neutral site, I would expect many more than 6500 tickets would be sold.
(Sorry, I screwed up the quote)
palestra38
Professor
Posts 15890
03-16-17 03:57 PM - Post#227352    

You really think that more than 6500 people will arrange to come to a neutral site between Philadelphia and Hanover NH with 1 day's lead time? I doubt it.
bradley
Masters Student
Posts 479
03-17-17 08:54 AM - Post#227441    

"Many, many reasons have been given for having it at the Palestra.

Again, the league wants to have both the men's and women's tourneys together. So why are we talking about having a game "at the higher seed's home court"



Interesting thought that because the league and others have provided "many many" reasons, the IL should leave the game at the Palestra. There are good reasons and bad reasons to keep the game at the Palestra. Giving Penn a 3.7 or so pt advantage at the beginning of a game if they participate in the IL Tournament meets the definition of a bad reason. Do good reasons overcome a bad reason?

This year, an improved Penn team had an opportunity to pull off the perfect storm and if not for a missed FT by a wonderful player with 12 seconds to go, probably a different story. Penn as a #16 seed if they beat Yale has the challenge of being the 10th team out of 126 prior #16 seeds to lose by less than double digits.

I am not sure why some folks are adverse to giving a competitive edge or at least neutrality for the team that earns the regular season IL Championship. It is almost like let's see if we can make it more difficult for the best team to go to the Big Dance -- fascinating.
Go Green
Junior
Posts 261
03-17-17 10:22 AM - Post#227451    

  • bradley Said:


Interesting thought that because the league and others have provided "many many" reasons, the IL should leave the game at the Palestra. There are good reasons and bad reasons to keep the game at the Palestra. Giving Penn a 3.7 or so pt advantage at the beginning of a game if they participate in the IL Tournament meets the definition of a bad reason. Do good reasons overcome a bad reason?



That is an entirely different question.

The original poster said that there was "no reason" to keep the game at the Palestra.

If people want to debate whether the pros outweigh the cons of having the tourney at the Palestra, then go to town. But to simply cite Penn's home court advantage and ignore everything else doesn't strike me as very convincing advocacy.
palestra38
Professor
Posts 15890
03-17-17 01:56 PM - Post#227475    

The unfairness of playing on a home site of one of the teams and the risk that we don't send our best team are the two good arguments not to have a tournament at all.

I see no good argument to have a tournament that is played at home courts. Zero. You don't do that just for the 3.7 point (I don't know if it's even that high--it's the perception more than anything else). Playing on a neutral court is a possibility, but you pay much more and no matter what the love may be for a casino (I hate them myself), it's no substitute in atmosphere for the Palestra. Only NYC makes any sense to me, for marketing sake.
bradley
Masters Student
Posts 479
03-17-17 02:40 PM - Post#227484    

The unfairness issue of having the tournament at the Palestra every year is real. If Robin and her merry men continue on with the notion of having an IL Tournament, they are going to have rotate the tournament site within the IL, play at conference winner's home court or find a neutral site if they have any common sense at all -- questionable.

When they conduct a pre-season poll next year, Penn will probably be projected as the four seed, possibly third seed, so there is a possibility that the IL could be heading down a similar road as this year with the possible exception that Harvard or Yale might be the #1 seed.

A possible solution if the tournament is held at the Palestra every year is for the scoreboard to reflect a 3-0 or 4-0 lead for the opponent before the opening tip. A better solution is to can the tournament but that will not happen for at least several years.


Go Green
Junior
Posts 261
03-17-17 02:58 PM - Post#227488    

  • bradley Said:


When they conduct a pre-season poll next year, Penn will probably be projected as the four seed, possibly third seed, so there is a possibility that the IL could be heading down a similar road as this year with the possible exception that Harvard or Yale might be the #1 seed.





Is there REALLY going to be that much sympathy for an Ivy regular season champion that can't beat #4 Penn at the Palestra?

I mean, bitching about Penn's HCA is not exactly the type of "Anyone! Anytime! Anyplace!" attitude that most winning programs want to project.


bradley
Masters Student
Posts 479
03-17-17 03:53 PM - Post#227495    

Confucius rhetorically replies:

"Is there really going to be that much sympathy for a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th place team that can't win the regular season IL Championship in order to receive the automatic bid.

I mean, bitching about Amaker/Harvard, Yale and Princeton is not exactly the type of "Anyone! Anytime! Anyplace! attitude that most winning programs want to project"
Old Bear
Postdoc
Posts 3259
03-17-17 03:57 PM - Post#227498    

I was assuming you were referring to the total attendance for all 6 games played. Does anyone know how many buts were in seats for each of the games? I was opining that 4 games at the home of the higher seed and 2 at a neutral site, would, cumulatively, draw more fans.
Old Bear
Postdoc
Posts 3259
03-17-17 03:58 PM - Post#227499    

It seems to me that the Penn Women may have benefited from 2 home games.
whitakk
Sophomore
Posts 144
03-17-17 10:34 PM - Post#227519    

Listed attendance was 6,209 for Saturday session; 3,833 for Sunday

My very rough estimates for crowds per game:

PENN-BRWN (W): 1750 (at end; much less at tip)
PRIN-PENN (M): 6000
HARV-YALE (M): 4000-4500 maybe?
PRIN-HARV (W): 800-1000?

PRIN-YALE (M): 3800
PENN-PRIN (W): 1000-1200?

Chime in if anything looks off
HARVARDDADGRAD
Masters Student
Posts 808
03-17-17 10:39 PM - Post#227520    

Harvard-Yale estimate too high.
I'd estimate 3,000 to 3,500

Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts 2004
03-18-17 12:10 AM - Post#227525    

Frankly, I'm fine with the tournament at the Pennestra AS LONG AS THE REGULAR SEASON CHAMP GETS THE NCAA BID. Tournament winner gets NIT bid, or better (as Ivy improves), a SECOND NCAA bid.

Otherwise, we have set the table in future years for a Penn team to edge out a higher seed/better team for the NCAA bid. And wasn't MR James' argument (bogus IMHO) for a tourney that we should choose the strongest team at the end of the season to carry the Ivy in the NCAA? I hope that he has since realized the glitch in that argument If he hasn't, may his Cantabs lose the tourney to Penn when/if they win another regular season title.
Go Green
Junior
Posts 261
03-18-17 09:06 AM - Post#227531    

  • Tiger69 Said:
Tournament winner gets NIT bid.



Again, why would the NIT agree to that?
PennFan10
Masters Student
Posts 981
03-18-17 10:49 AM - Post#227534    

Because we would tell them they have to.
Go Green
Junior
Posts 261
03-18-17 12:22 PM - Post#227544    

  • PennFan10 Said:
Because we would tell them they have to.



Just like Penn told the NCAA to go screw in 1966?

That worked out well, didn't it?
Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts 2004
03-18-17 02:04 PM - Post#227553    

Well, for one, they would be taking the team that would otherwise get an NCAA bid. Frankly, I don't give a sh!t what the NIT does. If they pass up an obviously outstanding Ivy team (even though they routinely take one bid conference champs who drop in their tourneys), that is their loss, too.
Go Green
Junior
Posts 261
03-18-17 02:16 PM - Post#227554    


So just so I have this straight--

You want a tournament where the regular season champion either sits out or plays their scrubs because they have nothing to gain (as they are already locked in the NCAA), and the winner may or may not get an NIT bid.

I have to tell you--I think that’s a hard sell.

Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts 2004
03-18-17 02:30 PM - Post#227555    

My focus is the NCAA bid. Any way you think you can improve the competition for what should be the consolation prize, fine. The season winner would have plenty of motivation, as well as pride, to perform well in the tourney as it might affect its seeding at the Dance. As the Ivies continue to strengthen, there should be additional pressure for a second bid -- especially if there is a tight race for the championship followed by an upset in the tourney by a close runner-up.

As I implied before, the NIT should be an afterthought. It is a CONSOLATION tournament to extend a team's season and perhaps sharpen it for the following season. For Ivies, some may wish to pass it up after say, a disappointing season or for personal concerns (ahh...they are busy students, too).
bradley
Masters Student
Posts 479
03-18-17 02:55 PM - Post#227556    

Two of the arguments for the IL Tournament winner getting an automatic bid that I have enjoyed the most are: 1. Harvard will receive a bid no matter what next year and/or subsequent years therefore the IL can send the IL #4 seed to the Big Dance if they win the IL Tournament and no one will really notice when they lose as Harvard will reach the round of 16. 2. The IL sucks so it does not matter which team that you send to the Big Dance.

Go Green
Junior
Posts 261
03-18-17 03:24 PM - Post#227559    

I do not share your optimism that the regular season winner would take a tournament seriously if that team already is locked into the NCAA. I also think it would be rather odd if a longshot “got hot” to win the Ivy tournament…. and didn’t receive a postseason bid anywhere.

Seems to me that having a half-assed tournament is the least-palatable of the options. If we're going to have a tournament, let's do it the right way.


bradley
Masters Student
Posts 479
03-18-17 07:54 PM - Post#227579    

The point is that some of us just think that the IL Tournament is foolish and does not support the overarching objective of the IL continuing on its upward trajectory.

Most of us accept that the tournament will exist for a number of years unless a "perfect storm" hits more than one time over the next few years. This year, Robin and her merry men dodged the first bullet.

Many of us also believe that the initial IL Tournament was a testament to amateur hour and hopefully, some lessons have been learned to improve the format, location, etc. but it is doubtful based on what we have seen so far.
Old Bear
Postdoc
Posts 3259
03-18-17 08:33 PM - Post#227582    

Fans have to get over it. The Tourney exists because the players, the coaches and the ADs wanted it.
Go Green
Junior
Posts 261
03-18-17 11:10 PM - Post#227648    

  • bradley Said:

Many of us also believe that the initial IL Tournament was a testament to amateur hour and hopefully, some lessons have been learned to improve the format, location, etc. but it is doubtful based on what we have seen so far.



Those of us who are content with the status quo keep waiting for people to come up with better alternatives that fit within the parameters of what the league wants to accomplish.

Until the league says that it’s fine with holding the men’s and women’s tournaments at separate venues, "opinions" along the lines of "the games should be played at the top-seeded school" are not helpful. Unless, of course, you’re talking about rotating between the venue of the men’s and women’s regular season champion....


PennFan10
Masters Student
Posts 981
03-19-17 11:02 AM - Post#227675    

  • bradley Said:
Two of the arguments for the IL Tournament winner getting an automatic bid that I have enjoyed the most are: 1. Harvard will receive a bid no matter what next year and/or subsequent years therefore the IL can send the IL #4 seed to the Big Dance if they win the IL Tournament and no one will really notice when they lose as Harvard will reach the round of 16. 2. The IL sucks so it does not matter which team that you send to the Big Dance.




I have not seen either of these arguments anywhere prior to your mention here. Can you show us where these "arguments" have occurred?
PennFan10
Masters Student
Posts 981
03-19-17 11:05 AM - Post#227676    

  • bradley Said:
The point is that some of us just think that the IL Tournament is foolish and does not support the overarching objective of the IL continuing on its upward trajectory.

Most of us accept that the tournament will exist for a number of years unless a "perfect storm" hits more than one time over the next few years. This year, Robin and her merry men dodged the first bullet.

Many of us also believe that the initial IL Tournament was a testament to amateur hour and hopefully, some lessons have been learned to improve the format, location, etc. but it is doubtful based on what we have seen so far.



The idea that the IL tournament is the product of a conspiracy backed by a small group of people is lunacy. The vast majority of people want this tournament (Players, coaches, AD's, fans). The people on this board are decidedly in the minority. So this isn't Robin Harris' and her merry men.

As Old Bear said, get over it.

Tiger81
Freshman
Posts 84
Tiger81
03-19-17 12:33 PM - Post#227684    

I did not take that reference as a Trumpian "deep state" paranoid fantasy, but rather as a clever (to me at least) play on words by an anti-tourney advocate.

I have been in that camp too and am now resigned and ready to move on but hope that the league can come up with a format to award the regular season champ more of a built-in advantage. A bye to the title game makes sense to me with a 2/3 play-in. And since they have placed a big emphasis on co-locating the men and women then a neutral court is the best outcome (although I would prefer the 1 seed's home court).
SRP
Postdoc
Posts 3084
03-19-17 01:41 PM - Post#227694    

No is going to "move on" from this idiocy until it is fixed. The PR talk about how wonderful everything is should be taken for what it is--people whose words would actually attract attention if they dissented choosing to "move on" rather than create a distraction for themselves and their teams. (No-filter Bangheart was the only honest voice I heard about the devaluing of the regular season.) But the near-death experience of that first-round 1-4 game this season as well as the poor attendance, compressed schedule, and shambolic tie-breaking rules may concentrate some minds even if the basic folly can't be admitted in public.
Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts 2004
03-19-17 01:42 PM - Post#227695    

PennFan: When/IF Penn wins the real title and faces a tough 4 seed at the tourney, held that hypothetical year in Jadwin, you'll change your tune.

The tourney is a consolation prize for the losers and should be regarded and rewarded as such -- a chance for Penny and Harry and Yolanda ---and Billy (sorry, I nearly overlooked you, OB) to build their self esteem and keep them interested in play time. They should all get a little prize for that.
mrjames
Postdoc
Posts 4617
03-19-17 02:01 PM - Post#227709    

From the impressions I'm getting, this is unlikely to take place in The Palestra next year. It does seem like it will happen again, though.
PennFan10
Masters Student
Posts 981
03-19-17 02:23 PM - Post#227714    

Tiger69,

I can assure you I will not change my tune. The IL tourney is a good thing for the league and college basketball. I encourage them to tweak it.

SRP,

Poor attendance is a fact in just about every regular season and post season game in most college basketball leagues not in the power conferences. That has nothing to do with the existence of a conference tourney. Compressed schedule? The Big Ten teams played 4 games is 4 days. Not a unique problem to the IL. Tie breaker rules definitely need more clarity.

The Tournament is great for everyone but a few of you.
bradley
Masters Student
Posts 479
03-19-17 03:11 PM - Post#227723    

Ironically, Howard's missed FT and Stephens tip in will keep the IL Tournament alive for the time being. I always thought that it would take two perfect storms in a row or 2 out of 3 years to possibly kill the IL tournament and I am happy that the perfect storm did not take place. Seems likely that the league will move the tournament location.

I agree with your thoughts that the IL is on an upward trajectory and the IL Tournament will be probably be less risky over time if the same format is maintained although time will tell.

In retrospect, it was a risky play to introduce the IL Tournament with four teams at the Palestra this year. It turned out that this year's 4th seed had an 18% chance to win the IL Tournament and represent the league as a 16th seed. Two good players, Howard and AJ would have tried to fend off the Polish kid and Collins in the post or some other #1 seed and probably lose by 20 points or more based on historical stats over the past 20+ years. Yale probably would have played Kentucky or UNC and been trampled in all likelihood -- very tough being a #15 or #16 seed. Nothing good for the league's reputation would have come out of it.

Some of us who objected to the IL tournament were predicting this risk way back when. Did the IL Tournament really think through the format and location?? -- you would hope so. If anyone objectively looked at the quality of the IL team that have finished in 4th place over the past 10 years, I do not think that you would have recommended the format. As a professor once stated, you better think through the consequences of what you recommend.

Let's hope as you suggest that the IL will be on an upward trajectory if the league continues on with the tournament.
TigerFan
Masters Student
Posts 871
03-19-17 03:24 PM - Post#227724    

Any comparisons of the IL to a "Power 5" conference are absurd. There is very little riding on the outcome of those power conferences' post-season tournaments. The IL has constructed a two-day tournament with everything (i.e. the NCAA tournament bid) riding on it. The league needs to find an appropriate way to provide an advantage to the regular season champion if it is going to persist with this folly.

PS I don't understand the obsession with having the men's and women's tournaments in the same location. Do the Ivies do this for any other sport? Lacrosse tournaments are held at home of the regular season champions.


Go Green
Junior
Posts 261
03-19-17 03:55 PM - Post#227725    

  • mrjames Said:
From the impressions I'm getting, this is unlikely to take place in The Palestra next year. It does seem like it will happen again, though.



Ok.

Where then?
Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts 2004
03-19-17 03:59 PM - Post#227727    

I HATE to paraphrase Wharton's most famous alumnus, but the tourney is for LOSERS.
Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts 2004
03-19-17 04:24 PM - Post#227729    

Power conferences:
--Regular conference season is for tournament seedings.
--Tournament games for lifting EVERYONE's RPI for NCAA seeding and extra bids for mediocre teams. (9, that's NINE .. to the ACC this year!)

We get 1, that's ONE, bid We are different. Better? What the hell is the tourney for, except to shoot ourselves in the face? Unless, of course, we use it to award a consolation prize to the runners up to the champion.

Tail wagging dog: our circumstances don't match multi bid conferences. Just because other single bid conferences are foolish enough to cave to NCAA and possibly place an inferior team in the Dance through a tourney upset doesn't mean we have to ape their timidity. We simply send our champ and then have a tourney to showcase our runners up. Will the winner get an NIT bid? Let's take our chances and not get jerked around by the NCAA like a bunch of pussies. If a tourney winner from a single bid is good enough for the NCAA, it is certainly worthy of the less distinguished NIT (or, TAR --Tourney of Also Rans).

Come on, Ivies. Get some cajones.
Go Green
Junior
Posts 261
03-19-17 04:34 PM - Post#227731    

  • Tiger69 Said:
Let's take our chances and not get jerked around by the NCAA like a bunch of pussies.



We tried that in 1966.

We lost. http://www.phillyvoice.com/fifty-years-ago-penn- wa...

What makes you think this time will be different?
Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts 2004
03-19-17 04:48 PM - Post#227734    

That's the dark ages.
bradley
Masters Student
Posts 479
03-19-17 05:30 PM - Post#227740    

Some of the pro IL Tournament supporters have suggested that individuals that have different perspectives are "loose" with facts, fear mongers, etc.

There has been little if any commentary from the pro IL supporters as to being 12 seconds away from concerns that were raised by a number of us -- why?? It does not fit their soliloquy?? I am sure that there have been errors made by each side as to facts but the major difference has been the interpretation of facts. Looking back at to what actually occurred is a good way to reassess the format and location of the tournament putting aside the issue if the tournament is right or wrong. For me, it was not that mind boggling to identify the risks and build a format that made sense if the IL was going to go down this crazy road.

When all else fails, Penn/Dartmouth and some other fans will pull out the infamous "get over it" rather than let's make it better or get it right.
Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts 2004
03-19-17 05:47 PM - Post#227742    

GoGreen ironically refers to the 1.6 controversy in which the NCAA tried to tell the Ivies about academic standards (I know, stop laughing). The IL would not be bullied. Sadly, the Penn bball team was a victim of this tiff and sacrificed the Ivy bid to the Dance as a consequence. But, a year later, point made, the Ivies were back in the tournament. I'm assuming that GG is not an atty as I wouldn't have much confidence in him to represent me in anything. Sometimes it is necessary to push back rather than roll over.
PennFan10
Masters Student
Posts 981
03-19-17 07:23 PM - Post#227746    

  • TigerFan Said:
Any comparisons of the IL to a "Power 5" conference are absurd. There is very little riding on the outcome of those power conferences' post-season tournaments. The IL has constructed a two-day tournament with everything (i.e. the NCAA tournament bid) riding on it. The league needs to find an appropriate way to provide an advantage to the regular season champion if it is going to persist with this folly.

PS I don't understand the obsession with having the men's and women's tournaments in the same location. Do the Ivies do this for any other sport? Lacrosse tournaments are held at home of the regular season champions.





Who compared the IL to power 5? The only thing I did was point out none of the issues raised here are unique to IL.

And you guys talk like there is some small group of decision makers in a room deciding the details about this tournament and no one else agrees. The reality is the anti-IL complainers on here are in the definitive minority. Almost everyone wants the tourney.
Go Green
Junior
Posts 261
03-19-17 08:23 PM - Post#227754    

  • Tiger69 Said:
Sometimes it is necessary to push back rather than roll over.



Tell that to the 1966 Penn team.
mrjames
Postdoc
Posts 4617
03-19-17 08:50 PM - Post#227758    

I assume this refers to me, and I stand by the fears being overblown.

Where I absolutely agree and always have agreed is that the fears are on point as it pertains to a road game for the top seed. That's crazy, and it bit the AmEast so many times that they finally changed it. It bit the MAAC this year too. It actually does shift the odds to the point that it's hard to justify the tourney even with the most liberal of extra bid assumptions. It needs to be corrected moving forward.
Go Green
Junior
Posts 261
03-19-17 08:53 PM - Post#227759    

  • mrjames Said:


That's crazy ... It needs to be corrected moving forward.



Again, where then?
Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts 2004
03-19-17 09:28 PM - Post#227760    

You really can't get over that 1966 penn team. Did your grandfather play on it?
mrjames
Postdoc
Posts 4617
03-19-17 10:01 PM - Post#227762    

That's not for me to decide. I just suspect that the votes will lineup against The Palestra hosting again. From there, if the league can't find a suitable venue within the polygon created by our footprint, they probably shouldn't be entrusted to put on a tournament. My presumption is they'll come through.
SRP
Postdoc
Posts 3084
03-20-17 06:41 AM - Post#227768    

Perhaps we should look at the convex hull rather than a polygon.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1CP G5LYol...
Go Green
Junior
Posts 261
03-20-17 06:45 AM - Post#227770    

  • mrjames Said:
That's not for me to decide. I just suspect that the votes will lineup against The Palestra hosting again. From there, if the league can't find a suitable venue within the polygon created by our footprint, they probably shouldn't be entrusted to put on a tournament. My presumption is they'll come through.



IMHO, it seems a bit odd for anyone to vote against the Palestra if they don't have someplace better in mind already...
mrjames
Postdoc
Posts 4617
03-20-17 07:58 AM - Post#227773    

There are plenty of reasons to vote against The Palestra other than liking a specific different venue more. It's not odd at all. You're thinking about the tournament like a fan and not like a competitive actor viewing things from an asset perspective.
Go Green
Junior
Posts 261
03-20-17 08:15 AM - Post#227775    

  • mrjames Said:
There are plenty of reasons to vote against The Palestra other than liking a specific different venue more. It's not odd at all. You're thinking about the tournament like a fan and not like a competitive actor viewing things from an asset perspective.



I would hope that competitive actors think things through.

It would REALLY be odd to vote against the Palestra, begin the search for another venue, conclude that nothing else makes sense (wrong size for Ivy tourney, inconvenient location, too much $$$ to rent, not available Selection Sunday weekend, etc.), and return to the Palestra after all.
westphillywarrior
Sophomore
Posts 131
03-20-17 12:36 PM - Post#227784    

Sounds like you really love the Palestra. I do too. We all love it.

But it's just flat out wrong to ask teams to put their entire season on the line and then give one of the teams an unearned home court advantage.

I'm confident that the league can find a suitable neutral court for either the entire tournament or for a championship day men's and women's double header.

If the league can't manage that, then as mrjames says, there just shouldn't be a tournament.
Go Green
Junior
Posts 261
03-20-17 12:46 PM - Post#227785    

  • westphillywarrior Said:


If the league can't manage that, then as mrjames says, there just shouldn't be a tournament.



Disagree with this. If the powers that be can't come up with a good neutral site, keep it at the Palestra.

The two top seeds *did* win and performed admirably in the NCAA. Junking the entire tournament just because Princeton didn't spank Penn as much as they should have is the worst possible result, IMHO.
Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts 2004
03-20-17 01:06 PM - Post#227786    

GG. I don't follow your engagement in all this. You reject all the serious points made, not simply by Princeton fans, that are critical of the Palestra venue. As an apparent Dartmouth fan, you probably won't have any skin in this game anytime soon. And, you harp on a league dispute with the NCAA that affected Penn, the league champ that year, over half a century ago. Are you a Palestra troll or simply a mischievous fan with nothing better to do with your time? (I wonder that about myself as I type this! )
bradley
Masters Student
Posts 479
03-20-17 01:17 PM - Post#227787    

Your comments are spot on. Tournament should not be held at the Palestra even though it is truly a grand old place for exactly the reasons that you have stated.

An alternative is to hold it at the Barclays Center - Brooklyn. ACC will returning to North Carolina after next year's tournament. Mass transportation options exist for six of the eight teams. Certainly not centrally located for all teams, but less distant than Philadelphia. NYC is the media capital of the world etc.

Cost may be an issue but does the IL really want to make a major commitment to the tournament?? A challenge may be having enough fannies in the seats but it might give them the excuse to expand to eight teams.

The other option is to bag the tournament as the Ivies cannot agree on a location -- that will regrettably not happen.
Go Green
Junior
Posts 261
03-20-17 01:28 PM - Post#227788    

  • Tiger69 Said:
GG. I don't follow your engagement in all this. You reject all the serious points made, not simply by Princeton fans, that are critical of the Palestra venue.



No real mystery here.

People know that I've been a pro-tourney person for a long while.

Personally, I take the league at its word that it wants to hold the men's and women's tournament together. So that means having it in one location. (If the league reverses course on this and holds it at the higher seeded team's court, then fine).

Thus, the only "criticism" to having it at the Palestra that holds any currency with me is that a better and/or more appropriate venue exists.

Come up with such a place, great!

If not, let's have it at the Palestra next year again and the year after.

Really not sure what else needs to be cleared up here...
CrimsonWest
Sophomore
Posts 106
03-20-17 02:26 PM - Post#227794    

Based on the Convex Hull drawing, it seems Springfield or Hartford fall somewhere in the middle.
Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts 2004
03-20-17 02:27 PM - Post#227795    

So, we have the#%?£€ tournament Finals (m&w) Sunday afternoon at a neutral arena in the NYC area (plenty suggested). All prelims the previous Friday at home courts of higher seeds. Addressed issues:

-- Neutral court for finals at reasonably central location
-- M and W together in double header
-- Higher seeds get HC advantage in semis on Friday
-- Rest day before finals

The only open Q Is the tourney prize. I'm sticking with NCAA for League Champ; NIT (or, MAYBE, 2nd NCAA bid) to tourney winner.
If same team wins both, everyone else is on his/ her own.

WHAT's the problem with that, Robin (and ADs, players and fans of runners up)? This is a vast improvement on the mess created for the first tourney.

Go Green
Junior
Posts 261
03-20-17 03:05 PM - Post#227798    

  • Tiger69 Said:


WHAT's the problem with that, Robin (and ADs, players and fans of runners up)?




As you wish, my friend...

In no particular order for your format:

1) Tourney winner has no guaranteed post-season slot. The NIT would never agree to take a tournament winner without knowing who the winner is beforehand. The NCAA is structured to accommodate blowouts (there are two other games for ticketed fans to watch that should be more competitive than the 1 v. 16 games). The NIT is not. Tickets aren't going to sell if the game is not viewed as potentially competitive. Moreover, the NIT requires teams to have a .500 record or better.

And please don't respond that the Ivy can dictate terms to the NCAA/NIT. That's not the way it works...

2) Costs to rent the "neutral" venue.

3) Increased travel costs to teams fans to potentially make two trips instead of one. It's really a tall order to ask fans of the #3 & #4 seeds to be prepared to hightail it to NYC (or wherever) if they get the upset on Friday night.

4) Turns the "Ivy Showcase" into just one day rather than a weekend.

I'm sure others can come up with more.


digamma
Junior
Posts 231
03-20-17 03:16 PM - Post#227800    

I'll just say I haven't been to Mohegan Sun since after the Brown game my senior year. We were staying outside of Providence at my roommate's house and his very observant mother questioned how he could have only lost $20 despite his claim that he lost "15 blackjack hands in a row."

As an aside, I note they have something called the Mohegan Sun Arena.
Go Green
Junior
Posts 261
03-20-17 06:20 PM - Post#227824    

  • Go Green Said:

3) Increased travel costs to teams fans to potentially make two trips instead of one. It's really a tall order to ask fans of the #3 & #4 seeds to be prepared to hightail it to NYC (or wherever) if they get the upset on Friday night..





And this assumes that the Northeast doesn't get slammed by a blizzard on that travel Saturday.
westphillywarrior
Sophomore
Posts 131
03-20-17 06:38 PM - Post#227825    

  • Go Green Said:
  • Go Green Said:

3) Increased travel costs to teams fans to potentially make two trips instead of one. It's really a tall order to ask fans of the #3 & #4 seeds to be prepared to hightail it to NYC (or wherever) if they get the upset on Friday night..





And this assumes that the Northeast doesn't get slammed by a blizzard on that travel Saturday.



Those seem like valid concerns. Maybe we can play those semi-final games on Wednesday evening.

Old Bear
Postdoc
Posts 3259
03-20-17 07:18 PM - Post#227829    

Let's take the Tourney discussion over to the League Board, we can keep it going all summer.
bradley
Masters Student
Posts 479
03-20-17 09:22 PM - Post#227837    

I would be very surprised if the tournament returns to the Palestra. If I sat on the IL Tournament committee, I would have been sweating bullets with 12 seconds left at the end of the Penn/Princeton. If Penn won that game and then beat Yale, there would have been a hail of criticism coming down on the IL Committee especially if Penn got hammered as the 16th seed -- Ken Pomeroy follow up commentary, Mike & Mike commentary, ESPN personalities, etc. The League probably would have been harshly criticized for selecting the Palestra as well as some "experts" taking shots at the format. The optics are just bad let alone the right and wrong as to the Palestra site selection. The criticism would have been muted if somehow Penn played competitively against a #1 seed.

Committee will probably go for a neutral site. Why take the risk again? That assumes that they are not living in a cocoon. But then again, they took a knowing or unknowing risk the first time.


Go Green
Junior
Posts 261
03-20-17 09:47 PM - Post#227838    

  • bradley Said:
I would be very surprised if the tournament returns to the Palestra. If I sat on the IL Tournament committee, I would have been sweating bullets with 12 seconds left at the end of the Penn/Princeton. If Penn won that game and then beat Yale, there would have been a hail of criticism coming down on the IL Committee especially if Penn got hammered as the 16th seed -- Ken Pomeroy follow up commentary, Mike & Mike commentary, ESPN personalities, etc. The League probably would have been harshly criticized for selecting the Palestra as well as some "experts" taking shots at the format. The optics are just bad let alone the right and wrong as to the Palestra site selection. The criticism would have been muted if somehow Penn played competitively against a #1 seed.

Committee will probably go for a neutral site. Why take the risk again? That assumes that they are not living in a cocoon. But then again, they took a knowing or unknowing risk the first time.





Maybe you’re right. Or maybe you’re wrong. Upsets happen in conference tournaments every year and the world seems to go on just fine. Is there a reason why we shouldn't expect the same reaction here?

Also, had Penn pulled off the miracle, they would have gone to the First Four game. Just like Holy Cross last year.

And Holy Cross seemed to have fun.

http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/a rticle/20...



bradley
Masters Student
Posts 479
03-20-17 11:18 PM - Post#227840    

You are missing the point. If you were in Robin'shoes or a member on the IL Tournament committee, are you going to take the risk after what just occurred? I would not be the least bit surprised if she silently sang "Hallejuah" after the overtime as she and the committee dodged the bullet. As you may remember, Pomeroy urged the IL to move the game just prior to this year's Tournament on an emergency basis.

The Committee is in a very tough situation whether you want to believe it or not.
Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts 2004
03-21-17 01:29 AM - Post#227841    

Ha! And, really, just how interested are you in this Ivy "showcase"? I surrender. You are stuck on the Palestra and won't listen to any improvements on this year's flop.

You can go back and blow some more smoke up the NCAA's butt.
Go Green
Junior
Posts 261
03-21-17 06:14 AM - Post#227842    

  • Tiger69 Said:
You are stuck on the Palestra and won't listen to any improvements on this year's flop.





So you don't believe me when I said "come up with a better neutral venue and I'm on board" yesterday?


Go Green
Junior
Posts 261
03-21-17 06:16 AM - Post#227843    

  • bradley Said:
As you may remember, Pomeroy urged the IL to move the game just prior to this year's Tournament on an emergency basis.

The Committee is in a very tough situation whether you want to believe it or not.



Feinstein disagrees with this.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/ivy...

H78
PhD Student
Posts 1415
H78
03-21-17 07:36 PM - Post#227863    

  • SRP Said:
Perhaps we should look at the convex hull rather than a polygon.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1CP G5LYol...


I like this idea.

Points to a possible Bridgeport (mrjames) or Mohegan Sun (Old Bear) venue? Both neutral sites, both have facilities. Just not sure on the price.
Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts 2004
03-22-17 12:54 AM - Post#227872    

It would only be for one day if the semis are played on higher seed home courts on Friday. If the Ivies feel this tournament is so important there shouldn't be a problem coming up the $ for one MW Sunday double header. Advantage also is that teams making finals will have a travel/rest day. Comments from anyone beside GG whose views are already well known?
Go Green
Junior
Posts 261
03-22-17 06:08 AM - Post#227874    

  • Tiger69 Said:
Comments from anyone beside GG whose views are already well known?



So well-known that I have already specifically addressed the arguments that you raised here the other times you raised them.


PennFan10
Masters Student
Posts 981
03-22-17 10:23 AM - Post#227884    

  • Tiger69 Said:
Comments from anyone beside GG whose views are already well known?



My comments? I agree with Go Green.

The tournament is a great addition and, while they should tweak it, the league, coaches, players and fans will continue to embrace it.


palestra38
Professor
Posts 15890
03-22-17 10:30 AM - Post#227885    

I don't think it matters what we think. The Powers that be believe that having a tournament and letting it take place at the Ivies' signature venue is valuable for branding. This is all about branding. IF they feel another venue could have similar value for the Ivy brand, it will be played there---but certainly, Bridgeport and Uncasville will not be the locations. Brooklyn could be, Boston could be, but it's not going to be in the middle of nowhere or along a freeway in a depressed former manufacturing town.

My view remains that a tournament detracts from the very Ivy idea of fairness in competition and honoring the true winner. So we shouldn't have one. But if we do, branding is the measure by which location will be determined.
bradley
Masters Student
Posts 479
03-22-17 11:03 AM - Post#227889    

I agree that it is very unlikely that the Tournament will be held in Bridgeport, Mohegan Sun or some other less known location. It needs to be in a major city for some of the reason outlined by you. Brooklyn and/or Boston are probably the most realistic options. I would not be surprised if they opt for Boston or possibly the Palestra for next year and then move it to Brooklyn. Boston could create a similar issue to the Palestra relative to Harvard but if it is not at Harvard that lessens the debate.

With Mr. James initial projections for next year, will Robin and crew decide on going back to the Palestra and/or keep the same format for IL Tournament for year 2? It reminds me of the story that someone fell asleep at the wheel and almost got hit by a freight train crossing the railroad tracks. They found the experience so exciting that they decided to do it again. I doubt that the Committee will do it again if they have common sense but nothing would surprise me.
PennFan10
Masters Student
Posts 981
03-22-17 11:21 AM - Post#227892    

  • palestra38 Said:

My view remains that a tournament detracts from the very Ivy idea of fairness in competition and honoring the true winner.



And this view has been repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and.......not only by you but by every opponent of every conference tournament in every D1 league in the country. We get it. That's your view, and it's not wrong, it's just not what a vast majority of people value in the decision making process. Continuing to say it doesn't help your view or change anyone else's view.



palestra38
Professor
Posts 15890
03-22-17 11:41 AM - Post#227893    

WTF are you ranting about? I acknowledged right off the top that the decision makers have made the decision to have a tournament and that where it will be played is based on the value to the Ivy brand. You don't disagree with that. You simply don't want to hear my opinion?

Fine, stop posting yours 20 times a day. Otherwise, I'll let you have your say and you let me have mine...and I guarantee you that most Ivy basketball FANS oppose a tournament.
mrjames
Postdoc
Posts 4617
03-22-17 11:59 AM - Post#227896    

I don't know where the tournament will be next year. I like Bridgeport's arena, but I'm not sure that's the best town to hang around in (to put it nicely).

I just sense that there's building momentum against The Palestra - enough so, that they might be forced to try another option. I think the fairness issue extends beyond the simple 4-seed getting a home game argument.

I'm pretty solidly in the anti-tourney camp now, until the committee sheds the anti-mid bias (hopefully those modern metrics are coming soon). The math just doesn't work without the possibility of a second bid, and if Illinois State couldn't get one this year with a +1.5 WAB... I mean, it's gonna take some doing to get one of our teams there.
palestra38
Professor
Posts 15890
03-22-17 12:19 PM - Post#227897    

I've long felt that a second bid was not in the cards. Hell, a good Yale team that beat some good competition this year and made a good showing in the NCAA's the prior year could not get an NIT bid. We're in the situation where the majors simply figure that they're giving us plenty with an auto bid. So yes, I don't think there's any real competitive reason to have a tournament.

Except for marketing.
Go Green
Junior
Posts 261
03-22-17 12:30 PM - Post#227899    

  • bradley Said:
I agree that it is very unlikely that the Tournament will be held in Bridgeport, Mohegan Sun or some other less known location. It needs to be in a major city for some of the reason outlined by you. Brooklyn and/or Boston are probably the most realistic options.



My own gut (for anyone who cares) is that if they opt for a neutral venue, cost considerations will trump convenience. I would predict we rent out another college's gym rather than a professional arena.

Obviously, the PL schools will need their gyms for their own potential home tournament game. SO I think we'd go cheap and would be making calls to places like Fordham, CCSU, or Delaware.

But we will see. Maybe the league does indeed open its wallet...
bradley
Masters Student
Posts 479
03-22-17 12:36 PM - Post#227900    

Many IL fans oppose the IL Tournament as you suggest although you can understand why 2nd half division teams embrace the concept. I also believe that many non-IL fans are not big fans of conference tournament winners getting the automatic bid.

When the IL Tournament was announced, a Northwestern grad Mike Greenberg said it best as follows: " I cannot stand that the IL is going to a conference tournament. The IL has been the lone hold out and the last conference doing it right. Up until this year, they gave the NCAA automatic bid to the regular season champion ... And you know why? ... They didn't need the money. Have you seen the endowments that these schools have? Harvard's endowment is bigger than the GNP of most countries. But next year, the team that has two good days in a row can undo all that happened in the preceding three months. I understand why many smaller conferences have a tournament -- they need the money. They might not even be able to field a team without the added revenue ... but you are talking about Harvard, Princeton and Yale! I hate it! Every conference should give the automatic bid to the team that finishes first in the regular season.


Unfortunately, the "cat is out of the bag" and it is too late to change it.
Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts 2004
03-22-17 01:40 PM - Post#227904    

I feel the momentum shifting (about the tourney and its many problems). (Welcome aboard MR James!). This discussion has been going on in at least two threads. Forgive me for repeating from the other thread, where there is much talking and little listening,

I am hearing many issues:

-Cost of Tourney
-Location (fairness and accessibility to fans of all schools)
-Reasonable reward to regular season champ
-Joint locale for M and W.

-Cost to the IL, joint locale and fairness to finalists can be addressed by scheduling only the M and W. finals in a neutral arena as a double header.
-Accessibility to all suggests a location in the NYC metro area.
-Reasonable reward to champ and to higher seeds is to locate semis in gyms of higher seeds. This also helps keep costs down.
-Reasonable reward to reg champs is problematic. In part the location of semis addresses this concern. But, I still believe the big prize, NCAA bid, belongs to champ. Tourney should be an inducement for the also-rans, but to a lesser prize I.e. NIT. Some folks, notably Go Green and PennFan, think that the Ivies have 0 say with the NIT and NCAA and we should behave ourselves and do whatever they tell us to; i.e. copy the sorry pecedent that other one bid conferences have set.

I disagree. Ivies are better than that. We owe the big prize to the champ. If the Tourney winner (if not the reg season champ) doesn't rate an NIT bid, that is the NIT's oversight, not ours. The NIT bid is not worth potentially depriving the 14 game champ of a field of eight teams the NCAA bid in favor of a two game season winner over a field of four. THE NIT IS A CONSOLATION PRIZE FOR RUNNERS-UP, NOT FOR CHAMPIONS. Ask any team which tournament it would rather be in.



PennFan10
Masters Student
Posts 981
03-22-17 01:43 PM - Post#227905    

  • palestra38 Said:
WTF are you ranting about? I acknowledged right off the top that the decision makers have made the decision to have a tournament and that where it will be played is based on the value to the Ivy brand. You don't disagree with that. You simply don't want to hear my opinion?

Fine, stop posting yours 20 times a day. Otherwise, I'll let you have your say and you let me have mine...and I guarantee you that most Ivy basketball FANS oppose a tournament.



DEAL! If you and everyone else will stop posting the exact same argument against the IL tourney every single day, I will also also stop. Agreed?

And I definitely want some action on your guarantee. I am pretty sure I can comfortably find more fans who like the tournament than you can find that don't like it. As long as the definition of fan isn't the same as poster on these boards. It's on....

PennFan10
Masters Student
Posts 981
03-22-17 01:48 PM - Post#227906    

I also believe the IL Tourney has a big impact on recruiting and longer term, the competitiveness of the league. The players are decidedly pro tournament and the more schools in the league that are playing meaningful games into March, the more attractive the IL option is for recruits. If Penn had recruites at the final game against Harvard, that has a much bigger affect than last years meaningless final home game against Columbia.
sparman
Masters Student
Posts 782
sparman
03-22-17 02:18 PM - Post#227914    

  • Go Green Said:
  • Tiger69 Said:
Comments from anyone beside GG whose views are already well known?



So well-known that I have already specifically addressed the arguments that you raised here the other times you raised them.:)


Perhaps you did not realize he was asking for OTHER opinions, yours having been stated so often.

Silver Maple
Postdoc
Posts 2830
03-22-17 02:19 PM - Post#227915    

I'm just going to say this:

Stop considering the "fairness" factor. It's a nonissue for the decision makers. Once they opted for a tournament, fairness went over the side. As P38 says, this is about branding. It's about creating the most compelling entertainment product possible. Keeping those factors in mind, the Palestra is almost certainly the best location. Is that "fair?" Not even a little bit. Does that matter? Nope. Am I asking and answering my own questions like a famous Princeton alum who helped break the Middle East? You bet.
Go Green
Junior
Posts 261
03-22-17 02:29 PM - Post#227916    

  • Tiger69 Said:
The NIT bid is not worth potentially depriving the 14 game champ of a field of eight teams the NCAA bid in favor of a two game season winner over a field of four.





Every other one-bid league has lost its regular season champ to the NIT at some point, and survived. So will the Ivy when it happens to us.

You say you want to "improve" the tournament. You don't. Every "improvement" you suggest either:

Devalues the tournament (allow the winner to plead its case with the NIT)

Makes it more inconvenient for teams and fans (play semis on Friday night, and hightailing it to NYC on Saturday in early to mid-March in the Northeast...and you call Saturday a "rest" day).

Makes it more expensive for the league (rent a neutral court in NYC).

Limits "hobnobbing"/social events (breaking up venues).

I'm sorry, but these are not ways to "improve" the tournament. Whatever your suggestions will accomplish, they are aimed at the opposite goal.
Go Green
Junior
Posts 261
03-22-17 02:33 PM - Post#227917    

  • sparman Said:

Perhaps you did not realize he was asking for OTHER opinions, yours having been stated so often.




Fine, I'll rephrase:

Pot, meet kettle.
Go Green
Junior
Posts 261
03-22-17 02:43 PM - Post#227918    

  • Silver Maple Said:


Stop considering the "fairness" factor. It's a nonissue for the decision makers.



Translation: the other seven told Princeton to suck it up and stop being such a chicken about playing at the Palestra.


Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts 2004
03-22-17 02:53 PM - Post#227919    

Ooooff. That hurt, SM. I promise not to cherry pick certain unmentionable Whart alums if you will promise the same about Tiger alums with whom some of us would prefer not to be lumped
Bill Lewis
Junior
Posts 239
03-22-17 02:54 PM - Post#227920    

Add to Go Green's list.

If ESPN doesn't compensate the league for the telecast, please disregard my comment below.

Multiple sites increases ESPN's production costs which decreases the revenue stream to the league.
palestra38
Professor
Posts 15890
03-22-17 03:00 PM - Post#227921    

Actually, SM, I slept well after that tough loss to Princeton in the playoff because I thought fairness won out. In my mind, Howard intentionally missed the FT that would have put away the game because Penn showed it had the game won but fairness dictated that Princeton be the NCAA rep.

Or maybe I dreamed that Joe Restic told me that.
Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts 2004
03-22-17 03:02 PM - Post#227922    

GG Let's just settle our differences on the bball court in a game of 21.

But, no matter how badly I lose (I'm 70, arthritic and clumsy to boot), I get to shoot one foul shot to WIN.

Fair enough?
bradley
Masters Student
Posts 479
03-22-17 03:04 PM - Post#227923    

I understand that Dartmouth, Brown and Cornell fans might advocate for the IL Tournament even if they know that it is wrong deep down but there is another approach, i.e. like Northwestern -- hire two good coaches in a row and make a meaningful commitment to the basketball program. N/W gets rewarded after 72 years by EARNING IT -- congrats to N/W.

It is sad that Penn has to resort to a gimmick, IL Tournament at the Palestra, to try to get back to the NCAA Tournament. It says a lot about where the program has been for the last decade.

Suggestion: Man Up!
Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts 2004
03-22-17 03:05 PM - Post#227924    

PS. You must live in Philly, since any chance of your teams making, much less winning, either the M or W tourney for the next few years are pretty remote.
Go Green
Junior
Posts 261
03-22-17 03:15 PM - Post#227925    

  • Tiger69 Said:
PS. You must live in Philly,



Nope.

I'm just an Ivy sports fan who, along with P38 and SM think that this is about branding and creating the most compelling entertainment product possible for the league. I've been arguing for a tournament ever since these Boards existed. I think the Palestra is a great venue and should be the permanent site for the tournament.

But if the league buys into Princeton's "this is so unfair" argument, and elects to hold it at The Bob, Detrick, or Rose Hill (the most viable neutral sites, IMHO), then I can live with that.

{Should also make clear that I'd be delighted to be wrong about my prediction that the league would go cheap on the neutral venue. If they secure a first-class arena, great! But that's not the way I see it playing out...)

And if this would give me credibility in your book, I own three Ivy League Championship rings.


westphillywarrior
Sophomore
Posts 131
03-22-17 03:22 PM - Post#227926    

  • Tiger69 Said:
PS. You must live in Philly, since any chance of your teams making, much less winning, either the M or W tourney for the next few years are pretty remote.



Not only lives in Philly. Works in the Penn Athletic Department.

Silver Maple says:
"Stop considering the "fairness" factor. It's a nonissue for the decision makers."

It sounds like you you think that Amaker, Jones and Henderson will have no say in the future of the tournament.
And that all they are going to care about is entertainment value.

Silver Maple
Postdoc
Posts 2830
03-22-17 03:43 PM - Post#227927    

I would definitely say that. I seriously doubt the Presidents and ADs give a damn what the coaches think. They've certainly never done anything in the past to indicate otherwise.
Silver Maple
Postdoc
Posts 2830
03-22-17 03:47 PM - Post#227928    

  • bradley Said:
It is sad that Penn has to resort to a gimmick, IL Tournament at the Palestra, to try to get back to the NCAA Tournament. It says a lot about where the program has been for the last decade.



Sorry. I must have missed something. Since when has Penn 'resorted' to anything? Do you seriously think having a tournament was Penn's decision? If so, you have no understanding whatsoever as to how our conference works.
Old Bear
Postdoc
Posts 3259
03-22-17 03:51 PM - Post#227929    

I doubt the Presidents give a rat's butt about the tournament or the cost. I suspect the ADs and the Coaches think more about fairness than branding.
westphillywarrior
Sophomore
Posts 131
03-22-17 04:42 PM - Post#227930    

  • Old Bear Said:
I doubt the Presidents give a rat's butt about the tournament or the cost. I suspect the ADs and the Coaches think more about fairness than branding.



I suspect you're right, Old Bear. Call it fairness or as HARVARDDADGRAD calls it, "competitive integrity". It's unfair to Robin Harris to say that she is going to care more about "branding". Let's see what happens. I think they're going to find an appropriate neutral site.


mrjames
Postdoc
Posts 4617
03-22-17 05:16 PM - Post#227932    

The ADs care. And I'd bet that's why the tourney doesn't end up at The Palestra next year.
PennFan10
Masters Student
Posts 981
03-22-17 05:45 PM - Post#227935    

I bet it is at the Palestra next year. That's what I am hearing. I could be wrong, but I think there is an undercurrent that believes the branding of the IL tourney is most attractive to partners like ESPN and others, at an historic venue like the Palestra
SRP
Postdoc
Posts 3084
03-22-17 07:48 PM - Post#227937    

Put it on a ship like some of those early-season tourneys. Moor it in the preferred harbor or river based either on rotation, travel convenience to the four teams, or favoring the league champion. If you set up a good sailing schedule to a warm place beforehand, you could get some vacationers to make a holiday of it.
Old Bear
Postdoc
Posts 3259
03-22-17 08:31 PM - Post#227938    

Well finally, SRP, you have changes my mind. Let's have the Tourney in Cancun or Daytona Beach during Spring Break! We will have maximum student participation, though may maybe not attendance. Let's add Ft. Lauderdale to the list for the older alums. Better yet, So. Cal. so T69 can host us all.
Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts 2004
03-22-17 08:37 PM - Post#227939    

The ILDN ads are about as much institutional "branding" as I can take! Reasonably informative and tasteful, but really repetitive. But, does the Ivy League really need to market itself to a bunch of bracketologists who sound barely bright enough to pack groceries? Ivy sports, I naively believed, were supposed to be for students, not marketing opportunities for the universities. I'm all for tournaments and such if that is what the players (students who play athletics) want. But, cut the snake oil, huckstering and branding talk. Who are these games supposed to be for, anyway? I hope not for the benefit of the ESPNs or John Feinsteins (he's from Dook, no?). They are welcome to watch and write about our sports. But, if they try to set the agenda for us, we need to get them straight on priorities. Otherwise, they can bug off.
bradley
Masters Student
Posts 479
03-22-17 08:55 PM - Post#227940    

I believe that it is 50/50 if the tournament is at the Palestra next year if the plan will be to move to Brooklyn in 2019. If they decide not to go to Brooklyn, I doubt that it will be at the Palestra next year. Highly unlikely that the Palestra will be the site beyond this year or next year.

Why? It is simply the wrong to have the tournament permanently at the home court of any team. My suggestion to the IL is do the right thing and THINK unlike what you have done so far about the tournament -- location and format. Pretty sad!
Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts 2004
03-23-17 12:39 AM - Post#227945    

Amen, Bradley. As President and Wart Alum DT would say, "SAD!"

We need to think "brand", market share, sell the product to ESPN, and blow smoke up Jon Feinstein's exalted a$$,...(Thank you God and this bottle of tequila in my right hand that I am retired and will NEVER have to attend another meeting and listen to bs like that with a straight face again!).


H78
PhD Student
Posts 1415
H78
03-23-17 03:05 AM - Post#227946    

  • Silver Maple Said:
Am I asking and answering my own questions like a famous Princeton alum who helped break the Middle East? You bet.


Ha!

Thanks for this!
Go Green
Junior
Posts 261
03-23-17 06:13 AM - Post#227947    

  • bradley Said:


Why? It is simply the wrong to have the tournament permanently at the home court of any team. My suggestion to the IL is do the right thing and THINK unlike what you have done so far about the tournament -- location and format. Pretty sad!



It can be the wrongest thing that ever happened. But if you can't come up with a suitable alternative venue, it will stay at the Palestra.

I really don't see the league spending $1M to rent out Barclay's for the weekend. And the guess here is that having it at Fordham would dampen the enthusiasm for the event
Silver Maple
Postdoc
Posts 2830
03-23-17 09:37 AM - Post#227958    

  • H78 Said:
  • Silver Maple Said:
Am I asking and answering my own questions like a famous Princeton alum who helped break the Middle East? You bet.


Ha!

Thanks for this!



Thank you Maurice. I'm here through Thursday. Be sure to tip your waitress. (OTOH, my wife requests that you please no longer respond to my "lame attempts at humor," as "that only encourages him.")





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.
FusionBB™ Version 2.1 | ©2003-2007 InteractivePHP, Inc.
Execution time: 0.187 seconds.   Total Queries: 15   Zlib Compression is on.
All times are (GMT -0500) Eastern. Current time is 03:34 PM
Top