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

Back to Post
Username Post: Thoughts from a curmudgeon
Stuart Suss
Masters Student
Posts 826
03-12-17 07:14 PM - Post#226604    

The Ivy League postseason tournament should not exist.

I did not attend any games of the tournament that should not exist.

I did not attend any games of the tournament that charged $100, $75 and $40 for tickets, not including the $50 food charge added to the $100 tickets and the $40 food option for others.

I am among the group of fans who do not believe that Penn should be flying a championship banner from 1981 or from 1996. Penn lost playoff games to Princeton those years. If you do not make it to the NCAA tournament, your team should not be commemorating the season. It does not matter how the Ivy League defines co-champions.

In 2008, a 13-18, 8-6 (third place) Penn team ended its season with a win at Princeton. At the press conference Coach Glen Miller was asked about the season. “I realize that at Penn there are two places in the standings, first place and last place.” Miller replied. For all of Glen Miller’s failings, he was 100% correct with that statement.

10 years of mediocrity do not change my standards. Nothing should be celebrated except NCAA tournament appearances.

The Hall of Fame football coach, Bill Parcells, famously, and accurately, stated “You are what your record says you are.”

This team’s record was 13-15, 6-8 (fourth place).

There is no accomplishment to finishing in fourth place.

We do not celebrate fourth place teams, even if the Ivy League allows a fourth place team to play an additional game.

That additional game was nothing more than the 28th game that was taken away from each team so that there could be a tournament that should not exist.

We do not celebrate a team that finished 6-8 because they started 0-6. Jerome Allen, in December of 2009, inherited a team which was 0-7. These coaches and these players did not inherit a team which was 0-6; they created a team which was 0-6.

On March 3, 1998, Mitch Henderson and his Princeton teammates arrived at the Palestra for the final game of the regular season. Princeton’s record was 25-1, 13-0. Steve Donahue sat with Fran Dunphy on the Penn bench. Princeton led 37-19 in the final minutes of the first half. Penn rallied to tie the game at 44-44, and took the lead twice in the final two minutes. The score was tied 66-66 with 12.1 seconds remaining as Penn set up its final play. Michael Jordan missed a three point shot at the buzzer. Princeton pulled away in overtime to win 78-72. Penn ended the season at 17-12, 10-4 (second place).

We do not celebrate the 1998 team even though they took an undefeated Princeton squad to overtime in their final game.

On March 2, 2013 a Penn team, which would finish the season at Pomeroy #249, upset #93, and ultimate Ivy League champion, Harvard, 75-72, in the Palestra. That was an even greater upset than this season’s win over Harvard. There was much enthusiasm about the future of the team and its freshmen stars, Darien Nelson Henry and Tony Hicks.

That 2013 Penn team’s final record was 9-22, 6-8 (fifth place).

We do not celebrate the 2013 team for finishing 6-8 even though they defeated Harvard at home. If we remember the 2013 team at all, it is for the unfulfilled potential of those who played on that team.

Next year’s team should be judged based on two standards.
1. At Penn there are two places in the standings, first place and last place.
2. You are what your record says you are.


palestra38
Professor
Posts 15384
03-12-17 07:20 PM - Post#226606    

Love you Stu, but you have to walk before you can run. Steve inherited an utter disaster, made possible by the fraud who used to be our AD. He inherited his first recruiting class as a result of that AD's refusal to fire himself and stay on for a "victory" lap. So this year was his first recruiting class, and what a class it was. His second appears to be even stronger. He tried to bring in transfers to bridge the gap, but it did not work---so he adjusted and we won 6 of 8 before the playoff game he coached brilliantly.

So while I agree that there should not be a tournament, as long as there is one, it showed us just how much we improved.

Even a curmudgeon should admit as much.
Penndemonium
Masters Student
Posts 519
03-12-17 07:25 PM - Post#226608    

Wow.

I get what you are saying, but one of my favorite teams of all time was the 1992 team that finished second behind Princeton. The team was not very talented, but established the winning culture that set up the championship run of the 90's. That team taught a young Jerome Allen how to win. No team before or after worked harder than that team on defense. My favorite moment was when they had to come back from their dressing room to play and win an overtime against Penn State. That team consistently outworked and out rebounded the other team despite being under-resourced. I was very proud to have that team represent Penn.

While I see what you are saying, we owe the 1992 team some appreciation for setting the tone for one of the great Penn championship streaks.

This team showed some flashes of 1992, although we have a much longer journey still ahead to play as champions.



Big R&B Truth
Senior
Posts 349
Big R&B Truth
03-12-17 07:26 PM - Post#226609    

Wow.

I totally disagree with you on the tournament, but I totally agree with you on your standards for Penn next year.
You should add a third standard: Beating Princeton.

Losing to Princeton three times in one year is hard to take especially when we were one free throw away from ruining their season. I am betting you are not that upset about this because you probably refuse to acknowledge the existence of the third game
Tiger69
PhD Student
Posts 1946
03-12-17 07:47 PM - Post#226616    

FWIW, I agree with Mr. Suss about the tournament, although, with some changes, it could be a fine consolation prize event. But, he is pretty tough on a young team that started slowly, but didn't give up. And, I agree with P38 that you have to learn to walk.... As a fan, I found that one of the most satisfying periods of Princeton bball for me was the return to relevance after the lowly Scott era. It is fun to pull for a team on the rise. When you are accustomed to winning all the time, like the Ps in the last century (did I really say that ? :o), it is easy to slip into arrogance and entitlement while it becomes tougher to be satisfied. I enjoyed 2011 and the last second "playoff" victory immensely, just as I enjoyed this year's final climb back to the top.

So give a champ (the 14 game winner) it's due -- the NCAA bid. And then, we can have a tourney for salsa and chips and an NIT bid (or, possibly, a 2nd bid?) to inspire hopes for the next season.
SRP
Postdoc
Posts 3038
03-12-17 07:53 PM - Post#226620    

Let x = Penn's final league ranking. The Suss utility function is 0^(x-1).

Kind of hard to detect trends with that thing.
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts 3384
03-12-17 08:05 PM - Post#226622    

it's adorable that you think we'd put on a tournament to award an nit bid.


generally agree with P38, stu. I'm not particularly happy with 6-8, but for the first time in a long while I can see a path. it'll be tough - we're not senior dominated but no one particularly is (yeah sorta princeton but stephens and cannady are sophs for crissakes).

I will say, circling back to another point, that 40 dollars for lousy seats is just really tough for me. I can't particularly see reducing the cost given you "get" two tickets, but until my kids get more into it, i just can't justify spending 150 dollars to watch one KenPom 150 team play in a game.
penn nation
Professor
Posts 8963
03-12-17 08:25 PM - Post#226625    

I do think that the '96 team is worth celebrating. Didn't we lose like the entire '95 starting lineup to graduation? We still beat Princeton twice, including on the last day of the regular season, and they needed a third game and an OT to finally beat us to advance to the NCAA.
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts 3384
03-12-17 08:26 PM - Post#226626    

ha well i don't think we should hang a banner but I distinctly felt like we should have just been champs with the head to head going 2-0.
besnoah
Masters Student
Posts 562
03-12-17 08:48 PM - Post#226637    

100% on board with Stu, who is undeniably correct (even from the perspective of this fan who went to the game and wished to see Princeton's season ruined and the Ivy humiliated for adding this tournament). I also think there's a difference between appreciating effort, anticipating growth, and celebrating fourth place.
SomeGuy
Postdoc
Posts 4104
03-12-17 09:03 PM - Post#226642    

I really don't see the humiliation for the league in an upset. Part of the reason that you do the tournament is that people tend to like seeing that sort of scenario. Yes, objective people would feel bad for Princeton if it happened, but that's part of the theater of a tournament. To me, it's actually why you do it.

Anyway, as I said in the other thread, I thought the tournament was great, and I suspect it will be here to stay (in some form -- maybe the Palestra doesn't always host, though I think it should). I think Princeton is a stronger team and league rep as a result of the experience. I think Penn got some darn good experience for a young team, too.
11Quakers
Sophomore
Posts 107
03-12-17 09:16 PM - Post#226648    

Stu,

We love you but you really are a curmudgeon.

Why spend so much time in negative land?

Rather than trying to rewrite history (the tournament is now a reality) and live in the present.

It was quite a fun weekend of good hoops and the outcome was perhaps has it should have been with the league winners going to the tournament.

See you next year at the tournament.


PennFan10
Masters Student
Posts 946
03-12-17 10:23 PM - Post#226668    

  • SomeGuy Said:
I really don't see the humiliation for the league in an upset. Part of the reason that you do the tournament is that people tend to like seeing that sort of scenario. Yes, objective people would feel bad for Princeton if it happened, but that's part of the theater of a tournament. To me, it's actually why you do it.

Anyway, as I said in the other thread, I thought the tournament was great, and I suspect it will be here to stay (in some form -- maybe the Palestra doesn't always host, though I think it should). I think Princeton is a stronger team and league rep as a result of the experience. I think Penn got some darn good experience for a young team, too.



The only people who don't like/want the tournament are people like Stu, and there are a lot of them.

It is good long term for the league. It will result in a stronger league with more high profile recruits and eventually 2 bids for the worthy teams.

A lot was accomplished this year to head that direction. I thought it was a huge success and will continue to get better.

besnoah
Masters Student
Posts 562
03-12-17 10:35 PM - Post#226671    

I am flabbergasted that anyone could've watched tonight's selection show and come away believing this league will ever have two bids.

Meanwhile, I don't care about the league's profile and I don't care about the league's recruiting. I care about Penn's profile and Penn's recruiting.
PennFan10
Masters Student
Posts 946
03-12-17 10:41 PM - Post#226673    

And I don't care what you care about. Neither does most of the league obviously. Almost every coach on ILDN on Friday talked about getting 2 bids for the league.

I am saving your post for future reference.
caughtinasnare
Senior
Posts 306
03-12-17 10:52 PM - Post#226675    

Frankly, I can see hating the tournament, as I did at first blush as well, but the fact of the matter is that Penn would have probably finished dead last if they couldn't have rallied around the prospect of still being able to make it (sure, we'll never know, but from Coach Donahue's comments I believe this would have been a likely possibility). Therefore, as a result, the sheer existence of the tournament may have helped the returning Penn players, the freshmen in particular, improve far more so this season than they otherwise would have without the tournament. That places those players in better position to improve and make some noise next season, and for that, I am grateful. I got to go to three games this year (all in the last 8 games of the regular season), and they were a fun team to watch, which I have not seen in quite a while, and if the tournament was the reason that was the case, I won't celebrate a fourth place finish, but I will celebrate the improvement and growth they gathered for having had the opportunity.
besnoah
Masters Student
Posts 562
03-12-17 10:53 PM - Post#226676    

Edit: No need for any of this from me.
Chip Bayers
Postdoc
Posts 3731
Chip Bayers
03-12-17 11:39 PM - Post#226680    

  • PennFan10 Said:
And I don't care what you care about. Neither does most of the league obviously. Almost every coach on ILDN on Friday talked about getting 2 bids for the league.

I am saving your post for future reference.



If you can watch Wichita State get a 10 seed and still have the naive hope that an Ivy tournament will be the difference in making this a 2-bid league, I have a large stone and iron structure spanning the East River I would like to sell you.

caughtinasnare
Senior
Posts 306
03-13-17 12:35 AM - Post#226682    

Considering that the lowest at-large bid seeding this year was 11, and Princeton got a 12 seed (although they are the lowest ranked 12 seed overall), I wouldn't call it COMPLETELY out of the question, given the rising quality of the conference. Wichita State was the only mid-major autobid to get a seed above 12 other than Gonzaga out of the WCC getting a 1 seed. Sure, it probably wasn't gonna happen this year, but with the trendline of the league I wouldn't think that in 5 years it won't be a possibility.
gopenngo
Masters Student
Posts 407
03-13-17 01:05 AM - Post#226683    

The Ivy League will NEVER get an at-large bid. NEVER, EVER. Vandy got in this year with 15(!) losses. That averages to one loss a week every week from Thanksgiving to Selection Sunday! Their saving grace? Strength of Schedule, which is a really big deal for The Committee. A big enough deal to give them a 9 seed.

The MVC is now a one-bid league.

As Stu pointed out, by not allowing the extra exempt games, the Ivy League has her head up her tailpipe. We simply don't have as many opportunities to improve our SOS. And how many RPI-improving games, or top-50 wins does our quaint tourney afford anyone?

The "such-a-success" Ivy Tournament is a joke. Except to the bean counters. However, we can all feel better for having participated. There are trophies for that, right?

Even though we're below .500, it's good enough, considering. Really?

Stu is spot on.

Do not send these athletes into the off-season with any thought that this season was a success. Send them off with the bitter taste of failure. Challenge them to come back and not taste that again.
PennFan10
Masters Student
Posts 946
03-13-17 01:16 AM - Post#226684    

I'll take the other side of never.
caughtinasnare
Senior
Posts 306
03-13-17 01:44 AM - Post#226685    

I think we're all here because we enjoy basketball, and Penn basketball in particular, yes? Well, in a season when we would not have gotten to see any exciting Penn basketball, we instead did get that opportunity. Likewise was the case for Columbia fans, Yale fans, and arguably Harvard fans. As such, since the whole reason we watch basketball is because we enjoy basketball, especially exciting basketball, the Ivy tournament was immensely successful because that is exactly what it gave us.

Now, that's a lot different than the example today in the World Baseball Classic of putting men on 1st and 2nd with no outs to start the 11th inning, dooming any hope Colombia had of beating the Dominican Republic. If you want to argue against that, I'll absolutely take up the fight, but the Ivy tournament gave us something to look forward to, both this year and in the years to come, which we otherwise would not have had given where we were just over a month ago, when we were rooting for an 0-6 Ivy team with no hope in sight. I was critical of the concept at first too, because like others think, it devalued the regular season. Looking back, I am able to admit I was wrong.
SomeGuy
Postdoc
Posts 4104
03-13-17 06:43 AM - Post#226690    

Hang on -- do you really think the Penn men feel more of a sense of success as a result of the tournament? I don't think that's the case at all. I think having Princeton on the hook in a winner take all to finish the season and letting them wriggle away is far more disappointing than going 6-8 in the league under the old system. And I don't think it is anywhere close. I am quite confident that the end was far more devastating than having the season end mathematically a month ago and playing out the string.

There isn't a participation trophy involved in this at all. This was a real chance to go to the NCAA's, and regardless of whether we as fans thought of it as house money, I am sure the kids were believing on Saturday, and therefore it hurt to lose, and hurt a lot. And that's what you learn and grow from.


SomeGuy
Postdoc
Posts 4104
03-13-17 06:45 AM - Post#226691    

Ok, but how is the Ivy tournament anything but a good thing for Penn? How could it hurt recruiting? It's purely positive for Penn.
besnoah
Masters Student
Posts 562
03-13-17 07:10 AM - Post#226693    

Right now, the tournament strikes me as a slightly good thing for Penn because it's at the Palestra. If it moves, it's probably a neutral thing for Penn. That's not a good enough reason, in my mind, to completely, fundamentally alter the structure of the best regular season in sports.

To the idea that taking the opposite side of "never" is the right course of action in the "getting two bids" argument, of course that is correct. But if the best argument pro-tournament people can make is that never is always analytically wrong, that also strikes me as an inadequate reason to fundamentally alter the structure of the best regular season in sports.
10Q
Professor
Posts 11475
03-13-17 07:52 AM - Post#226695    

Ivy Basketball Tourney is an abomination.
mrjames
Postdoc
Posts 4564
03-13-17 07:54 AM - Post#226696    

After the second selection debacle in a row, I'd pause the tournament until the committee begins to incorporate real, objective metrics. I believe it will have to at some point, as their pervasiveness will force it, but that day is not today, and tomorrow's not looking good either. We have a real shot at a second bid coming up per an objective system, but the horrible anti-mid bias is still very real (after recent years where it was actually improving) and the odds of doing enough to overcome that bias are extremely low.
SteveDanley
Freshman
Posts 78
03-13-17 08:37 AM - Post#226701    

I was a bit of a skeptic of the tournament (for arguments plenty of folks have discussed -- high stakes of regular season games, some benefits of being "different", sending best team, and most obviously, the system treated me really well).

But I think this year turned me around a bit. Don't think folks realize how miserable the Ivy Season can be for those essentially eliminated. The one year we were mostly out of it (03-04) we ran more than the other four combined. And it's a lot tougher to stand the bus ride to or from Dartmouth if the season is essentially over.

The fact that almost every team was in it on the last weekend, that guys like Matt Howard (a better player than I ever was) got a chance to play meaningful games at the end of his career, in a packed Palestra (or that Dartmouth seniors felt like they had a chance to sneak in and were hyped for the last weekend) seems very important to me.

The saddest thing about the last 10 years has been how few of our guys have had the same experiences I did when I played. If the Ivy Tournament improves that for many of the current players, I can get on board. Even if I don't think we should hang the banners from the tie years, or my standard for program success is still winning the league and the NCAA tourney bid. The biggest plays of Matt Howard's career (Harvard blocks, end of Princeton w/ both the make to go up two, and the missed free throw) happened as a result of the Ivy Tourney.

Maybe more importantly, guys like Wood/Jones/Silpe who fell out of the rotation got some joy out of the end of the year. People don't realize how demoralizing playing D1 can be -- everyone at home doesn't understand why you're not a star, and if you're not winning it's even worse. I think (after year 1) that the tourney gives more student athletes something positive to mix in with the struggles. And on any D1 team at any time, about half the guys are definitely struggling (outside the rotation) and another half are close (playing but not well, in the doghouse, missed key plays in a loss).
Go Green
Junior
Posts 235
03-13-17 08:50 AM - Post#226702    

  • Stuart Suss Said:


I am among the group of fans who do not believe that Penn should be flying a championship banner from 1981 or from 1996. Penn lost playoff games to Princeton those years. If you do not make it to the NCAA tournament, your team should not be commemorating the season. It does not matter how the Ivy League defines co-champions.





This is pretty much the Quinn Epperly school of thought.


palestra38
Professor
Posts 15384
03-13-17 09:06 AM - Post#226704    

Quinn Epperly?

So are you going to the wedding next week?

https://www.theknot.com/us/brittany-hoffman-a nd-qu...
Go Green
Junior
Posts 235
03-13-17 09:29 AM - Post#226708    

  • palestra38 Said:
Quinn Epperly?




Yep. If you don't go undefeated, your season is a failure.

Needless to say, I don't agree.

http://goprincetontigers.blogspot.com/2014/11/defe...

  • palestra38 Said:

So are you going to the wedding next week?

https://www.theknot.com/us/brittany-hoffman-a nd-qu...



Had not heard. Congrats and best wishes to the happy couple!

palestra38
Professor
Posts 15384
03-13-17 09:42 AM - Post#226711    

Gotta give you credit for re-posting a piece where you get killed by someone who didn't like a post of yours.

Been there. But I wouldn't have remembered Quinn Epperly if you had shown me tapes of his games.

Now if you referenced Keith Elias.....

http://www.si.com/vault/1993/11/15/1298 86/penn-and...
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts 3384
03-13-17 10:04 AM - Post#226712    

steve, could you elaborate on what being out of it for most of the season have to do with running more that year than all 4 years combined?

are you talking about pushing the pace or Dunphy making you do sprints?

also, regarding that "I don't think people realize how miserable..." no, no, I TOTALLY REALIZE THAT. These past 10 years have been so bereft of entertainment, I've enjoyed this season more than any of the past 10, even 2012.
mbaprof
Freshman
Posts 61
03-13-17 10:22 AM - Post#226717    

Completely agree with Steve. Talked to Coaches and some of the "role" players after the women's game yesterday, everyone feels good about the second half of the IVY slate of season and putting forth such a good effort and most importantly, excited about next year as I am. If you weren't there on Sat you missed something. League did a very nice job with hospitality/food which was included in the expensive tickets. As this tournament grows, it will become more of an annual event with alums. I had one fly down Sat am with his kid for the games. They had a wonderful time and vow to come back for several games next season.
T.P.F.K.A.D.W.
Masters Student
Posts 671
03-13-17 10:27 AM - Post#226721    

  • Go Green Said:
  • palestra38 Said:
Quinn Epperly?




Yep. If you don't go undefeated, your season is a failure.

Needless to say, I don't agree.

http://goprincetontigers.blogspot.com/2014/11/defe...





I stopped reading the moment I realized "Tiger Blog" was referring to himself in the third person.
palestra38
Professor
Posts 15384
03-13-17 10:35 AM - Post#226723    

I hear you, although I think that what we need far more than good treatment for VIPs (mostly those who don't shell out the money all year and do this as a one-timer) is a way to get the students out to this event. The only school with students at the Tournament was Princeton--all the others being on break and in all likelihood, few would have come anyway.

How do we get students interested in Ivy basketball again, given the vast change in student bodies from the period up to the '90s?
Streamers
PhD Student
Posts 1599
Streamers
03-13-17 10:57 AM - Post#226732    

  • caughtinasnare Said:
I think we're all here because we enjoy basketball, and Penn basketball in particular, yes? Well, in a season when we would not have gotten to see any exciting Penn basketball, we instead did get that opportunity. Likewise was the case for Columbia fans, Yale fans, and arguably Harvard fans. As such, since the whole reason we watch basketball is because we enjoy basketball, especially exciting basketball, the Ivy tournament was immensely successful because that is exactly what it gave us.




Thanks for saving me the trouble of typing these thoughts.

Oh Stu, you really stirred something up here... thanks for that. Needed to be done.

My heart is with you. My contrarian traditional soul loved the idea that we in the Ivies bucked the tournament trend and made the regular season count. Yes, Parcells is right about our record. However, as Steve Danley pointed out, that was only true for the contenders in February.

I hate 1-and-done based teams too, but the power programs that resisted it realized you cannot buck the basic direction of the sport and remain competitive unless the rules change. Sometimes, one needs to accept reality and get on board with the trend.

My head says that, on balance, players, coaches, and fans are better served with this format. It is not without risk, as Princeton found out, but the benefits are real, even if you ignore the fantasy of two bids. That would require the ability to schedule better teams OOC, not happening anytime soon as we know.

What might happen, however, is better opportunities in the non-NCAA post-season. For example, a 14-0 Ivy team that gets upset in the Ivy final, likely becomes a high NIT seed. Not a terrible outcome.
T.P.F.K.A.D.W.
Masters Student
Posts 671
03-13-17 11:21 AM - Post#226736    

  • palestra38 Said:
How do we get students interested in Ivy basketball again, given the vast change in student bodies from the period up to the '90s?


Win consistently. Our student body is pretty much identical to Duke's (Sorry—I think I just swallowed some vomit.) They don't have too much trouble attracting students to games.
Silver Maple
Postdoc
Posts 2790
03-13-17 11:31 AM - Post#226737    

I've been conflicted about an Ivy tournament for years and years, but reluctantly concluded that it was worth giving it a try. And while I remain conflicted, I can't deny that having a tournament definitely added a lot to this year's Ivy season for me (and for lots of other fans as well).

It's important to remember that college basketball is (at least in part) an entertainment product. With that in mind, the relevant question to ask is whether the tournament provided a net gain to the entertainment value of Ivy basketball this season. The answer is clearly 'yes.' Furthermore, if you apply that question to the location of the tournament, while I totally sympathize the objections many fans have to it being permanently held at the Palestra, I cannot avoid the conclusion that our venue helps maximize the entertainment value of the event.

Now, if your view is that college BB is not primarily an entertainment product, but rather a crucible in which the characters of young men are forged, then you can throw the previous paragraph out the window, slouch in your Barcalounger next to Stu and mutter things about tradition, mediocrity, coddled youths and Bill Parcells.
palestra38
Professor
Posts 15384
03-13-17 11:31 AM - Post#226738    

Okay, other than being a perennial Top-10 program where there is a long-time waiting list for tickets in a town where nothing else is going on, do you have any realistic suggestions?

Because winning in the Ivies isn't going to do it, unless you're ignoring that Princeton also is way down in attendance.
Go Green
Junior
Posts 235
03-13-17 12:06 PM - Post#226745    

  • T.P.F.K.A.D.W. Said:

Win consistently.



That strategy has not seemed to work for Penn's football team.

I would suggest trying something different in that regard.


palestra38
Professor
Posts 15384
03-13-17 12:19 PM - Post#226746    

For football, it is a completely different issue for the irrelevant 6. Now, all that matters is The Game. The winner of that game gets more attention than the Ivy winner. And that's the way they want it. Unless we eliminate that stranglehold on Ivy football, nothing will ever change.

Accept the FCS tournament bid. It might help Penn if it didn't have a 56,000 seat stadium, because no FCS team draws fans in that number, but you have to make the games meaningful for those other than Harvard and Yale.
PennFan10
Masters Student
Posts 946
03-13-17 01:06 PM - Post#226753    

The Big Ten tournament was very poorly attended in DC this year. The final 4 games were maybe 20% full. The League Tournaments are not going to draw full houses. Very few, if any, do. And if they hold it in a neutral site, attendance will plummet further.

That said, The Ivy Tournament is a huge success.

The league will be much stronger long term as a result of it's implementation.
PennFan10
Masters Student
Posts 946
03-13-17 01:11 PM - Post#226755    

  • besnoah Said:


To the idea that taking the opposite side of "never" is the right course of action in the "getting two bids" argument, of course that is correct. But if the best argument pro-tournament people can make is that never is always analytically wrong, that also strikes me as an inadequate reason to fundamentally alter the structure of the best regular season in sports.



It wasn't an argument anymore than saying we will NEVER GET TWO BIDS is an argument. Mathematically, as an investor, I will usually take the other side of NEVER and ALWAYS because there is little risk and high reward.

But neither are arguments that serve any good purpose. I would like to go back and find all the NEVER and ALWAYS statements from 10 years ago and bring them up now. So saying there will NEVER BE TWO BIDS, is just irrational. It can happen. It may be a less than 5% chance currently, but it's not impossible.

palestra38
Professor
Posts 15384
03-13-17 01:16 PM - Post#226756    

You're far too young to make such a statement---we've been hearing from the "Two Bid Ivy" crowd for over 30 years. Your investment strategy is pretty analogous to playing the Powerball. There's about a one in a billion chance that the Ivies will get an at-large bid. My guess is that even if they went to 96, the Ivies would not get one of the at-large bids--they would all go to majors with 15 losses.

But I think I'll still be around in 10 years so I hope you have the right to crow within that time---just doubt that will be the case.
T.P.F.K.A.D.W.
Masters Student
Posts 671
03-13-17 01:23 PM - Post#226757    

  • PennFan10 Said:
Mathematically, as an investor, I will usually take the other side of NEVER and ALWAYS because there is little risk and high reward.




Ha! Reminds me of an annoying coworker claiming, emphatically, many years ago that Phil Mickelson will NEVER win a major.

I didn't (and still don't) know a damn thing about golf. Nor do I care to. But I gladly took him up on that.
Silver Maple
Postdoc
Posts 2790
03-13-17 01:30 PM - Post#226758    

I agree that the position that the league will NEVER get a second bid is risky at best. That being the case, the relevant question is how frequently can the league expect to get that second bid, even with a conference tournament. PF10's 5% estimate is probably a good one, meaning once every 20 years, suggesting that that's a pretty lousy reason to have a tournament.

However, if your reason to have a tournament is to increase the entertainment value of Ivy hoops (see above post), I'd say that this season indicates you've achieved your goal.
PennFan10
Masters Student
Posts 946
03-13-17 01:34 PM - Post#226760    

  • palestra38 Said:
You're far too young to make such a statement---we've been hearing from the "Two Bid Ivy" crowd for over 30 years. Your investment strategy is pretty analogous to playing the Powerball. There's about a one in a billion chance that the Ivies will get an at-large bid. My guess is that even if they went to 96, the Ivies would not get one of the at-large bids--they would all go to majors with 15 losses.

But I think I'll still be around in 10 years so I hope you have the right to crow within that time---just doubt that will be the case.



Actually it's not even close to playing Powerball. That game is a net loser. So is craps and blackjack. The house knows the odds and all they need is volume and table limits and they win.

The house in Powerball band Craps doesn't say NEVER, they just limit their losses to quantifiable, winning outcomes.

Even you say "...I doubt that will be the case". That's entirely different than NEVER. I wouldn't bet against "..I doubt" but I am a big fan of going against "NEVER". As for Powerball, I would prefer to be the house on that bet.

And BTW, you have no idea how old I am but I appreciate the compliment.
palestra38
Professor
Posts 15384
03-13-17 01:44 PM - Post#226761    

Just thought that you are a fairly recent addition to our bunch (at least under this name) and use the digit 10 that you were in that class. My "38" goes back to my age at the time I started posting in a different time and website. I'm about to be (gasp) 60!.....so many years of not having 2 bids. It's true--I never say never, but it's never to date. I think 5% is an inflated chance because it essentially requires a loser in the tournament to have a top 40 ranking (and given the big conference bias, even higher).
PennFan10
Masters Student
Posts 946
03-13-17 02:05 PM - Post#226764    

Agree. Under the current format and rules (lack of) 5% is generous.
Tiger69
PhD Student
Posts 1946
03-13-17 02:06 PM - Post#226765    

Given all their valid alternatives, is it really necessary to try to draw in students? If they come, fine. The better the team, the more likely the students show up. Sure, I like the loud,loyal, and enthusiastic support. But, these are no longer "gentleman C" students. The sun does not rise or set based on the success of their athletic teams. Thank god that Ivy students have their perspectives more in order than some others.
palestra38
Professor
Posts 15384
03-13-17 02:12 PM - Post#226766    

Yes, it is important to have students at the game---otherwise, what is the point to having Division 1 sports. Go Division 3, where it's all about participation.

And sure, it's great that today's students have different perspectives, but are you really suggesting that only bad students enjoy school spirit and the game of basketball?
Okoro Dude
Junior
Posts 256
03-13-17 02:17 PM - Post#226767    

Stu,

Having met you many times and enjoyed your commitment to the team over the years, I wish I could agree with you about the tournament. I attended all of the games except for the last women's semi-final and thoroughly enjoyed it.

1) Regular season was far more interesting for both players and fans as they fought in second half of season to get in to the tournament. Don't know why you would begrudge the team the joy they felt beating Harvard last Saturday and the chance to play past the end of the regular season instead of one more boring non-conference game against (pick one - Lehigh, Colgate, Howard, Delaware St, Monmouth, Rider . . .) I'll take the third game with Princeton any day.

2) Quality of the games (particularly Saturday) was tremendous - really showcased the young talent this league has

3) Crowd seemed very good. While I will acknowledge that many Penn/Princeton fans left - those who estimated only about 2,000 for Harvard/Yale were smoking crack - it was more than that and the second half had a great atmosphere as you don't need a full house at Palestra to make it noisy and fun.

4) While no one can expect the women's games to draw much when they are on either end of a 4-game day or two hours after the conclusion of the men's championships, I thought they got more attention and focus than they would have ever gotten had it been a separate (or no) tournament. Kudos for the league putting an emphasis on inclusion and (relative) equality for the women's teams.

In terms of problems:
1) I do think they outpriced the event and underpublicized by selling it by themselves. Pricing a bit lower and allowing a Ticketmaster to promote would have filled the building as more Big 5 "locals" without a dog in the fight would have come to see the good basketball.

2) Spring Break timing with no students does suck (though I am not sure how many would come if they weren't on break - seems like that day has come and gone for Penn and Princeton at least).

3) Not sustainable to give Penn home court every year, but I can't see the tournament succeeding in another building to be honest. Combo of locating in big city, room enough to host all the fans, atmosphere, etc. isn't easily solved anywhere else. Other alternative is home games at higher seeds and those tournaments aren't really tournaments at all in any real sense.
Tiger69
PhD Student
Posts 1946
03-13-17 02:32 PM - Post#226770    

P38, you know that I didn't mean that only bad students have school spirit. It is much more nuanced than that. There is the time, the money, the alternatives available, the connection to the particular sport or players, the interest, etc. You and I are big college bball fans. But, that is not a criterion for admission to an Ivy. Rather, it is some form of exceptional potential in leadership in some field. (I know THAT remark will get parsed!). The draw to other much more numerous alternatives is a lot stronger today when I am 70 and you are 60, than when we were in our salad days

Besides, now we can catch the game on ILDN
palestra38
Professor
Posts 15384
03-13-17 02:36 PM - Post#226772    

My suggestion would be to really market the tournament with hotel and restaurant tie-ins and have the men play a doubleheader at 7 pm Friday, the women play Saturday afternoon, and the finals on Sunday as currently scheduled. 4 games is too much for one day and the quality of the men's final would be better with a day off (the women's selection is a day later so there is more time to get that in).

Expecting people to drive in with nothing scheduled around the tournament is not a winning marketing strategy.
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts 3384
03-13-17 02:40 PM - Post#226774    

the thing is, a lot of the students are big college basketball fans. just not penn fans. can't speak to what princeton is doing. and maybe 100% of students were back in the 70s and now the number definitely <> 100%. but there are plenty of college basketball fan students who aren't going.
westphillywarrior
Sophomore
Posts 125
03-13-17 02:49 PM - Post#226776    

The one thing I definitely agree with Stuart Suss about is that no matter how the league defines champion or co-champions,
there is only one real champion, the team that wins the prize. The team that wins the NCAA berth.

And the best way to earn that championship is the 14 game tournament.

But if there has to be a league tournament, let's play the two semi-final games on the higher seeds home courts. This will guarantee well attended games and excited crowds. It will also make the 14 games more meaningful by giving the top two finishers and their fans a significant reward.

The two semi-final games could be middle of the week. Then have a men's and women's championship doubleheader on the weekend at a decent sized neutral court. Hopefully, the neutral court could rotate around the league's geographic area. To make things fair, next year's should be in New England.

The neutral court for the championship final makes sure that no one gets an unearned home court advantage, makes sure the championship games are in a good sized arena and accomplishes the league's goal of having the men's and women's championships together.

And, as long as the tournament keeps getting debated, I'm going to keep posting this.
SRP
Postdoc
Posts 3038
03-13-17 02:55 PM - Post#226778    

All this talk about how great the tournament is for the fans and players angling for the fourth spot ignores the huge loss in entertainment and engagement and attention for the good teams. There was none of the near-playoff atmosphere leading up to and through the previously critical head-to-head matchups among leaders--you could even see on these boards how much more blasé the Harvard fans were throughout the season than in previous years. Everybody rooting for the leader to be upset--gone. The players are all competitors so they care at some basic level, but the lower stakes in the top teams' games was palpable. And of course publicity and attention was drained away from the season and the good teams in-conference and nationally.
Old Bear
Postdoc
Posts 3222
03-13-17 02:57 PM - Post#226782    

Amen.
caughtinasnare
Senior
Posts 306
03-13-17 02:57 PM - Post#226783    

I remember a few years ago, during the Cornell run, they were ranked at one point. It's not completely out of the question to think it can happen, but it will take some league-building. We need to league, as a whole, to get better. That said, it has been doing just that.

Furthermore, we need to schedule more OOC games with higher quality opponents. Frankly, Penn has the good fortune of having the Big Five give them some higher quality opponents, but we struggle to get more than that these days. However, as the quality improves, we will hopefully get back to the place where we can get UNC to come to the Palestra like we did almost 10 years ago.

It surely will not happen overnight. However, with strong freshman classes at several schools and several strong recruiting classes coming in, with the trend continuing, in a few years the league might have 3 or 4 top 100 teams, at which point it'll start getting some real attention. Once that happens, we might be well positioned to sustain a higher recruiting profile as a league, plus get some better OOC games to boost our tournament profile. It's all a building process, and right now we're working on the foundation. Let them build the house.
SteveDanley
Freshman
Posts 78
03-13-17 03:03 PM - Post#226787    

  • Jeff2sf Said:
steve, could you elaborate on what being out of it for most of the season have to do with running more that year than all 4 years combined?

are you talking about pushing the pace or Dunphy making you do sprints?




Without getting too far into details, coaches are competitive, and when you lose, you run wind sprints / have a lot more grinding practices.

This has been true at every level I played, but coaches are generally constrained by the need to save a players legs. That's less true in the Ivies where teams have little to play for after being eliminated.

Our program rule was that if we were in 1st place in the Ivies we got Sundays and Tuesdays off (as opposed to just Sundays). That was heaven. Anything less was hell. Losing without a coach thinking he needs to save your legs was a 7th level (Freshman year, we had a few practices after Ivy season was over while we waited to hear about the NIT -- but the coaches heard through the grapevine we likely weren't getting a bid -- we didn't even get through 3-man weave without being on the line for wind sprints. Hardest practices of my life, and we still talk about them over drinks when teammates get together).

In talking to other Ivy players, I think it's generally true that once eliminated, things go haywire. More running, tougher to be mentally into it, the crowds are sparse, and little things (like the much debated on this board issue of playing younger guys) can be brutal for individuals players.

Some of this stuff has gotten better, as there is more research on back-to-backs and rest. The old school stories of getting off the plane and practicing upon landing at 1 in the morning after a bad loss seem to be happening less.

But 7am practices before class as punishment for losing, and scheduling mandatory 7am lifting in the offseason after a poor season, remain common "motivational" techniques. And it doesn't make for a fun February of your spring semester when you're juggling classes (even good students struggle and fall behind in season), falling asleep in classes b/c of am workouts, playing at Dartmouth in front of 800 people, and you can no longer dunk because your legs are so wooden from running wind sprints instead of playing the game (there's surprisingly little "playing" of basketball if you're not playing big minutes -- lots of walking through sets, some teaching, drills etc).

I do think this year gave a little more life to teams in the mid/bottom of the division, and that struck me as more important and valuable than I expected, as someone who was a tourney skeptic.
SRP
Postdoc
Posts 3038
03-13-17 03:04 PM - Post#226788    

  • mrjames Said:
After the second selection debacle in a row, I'd pause the tournament until the committee begins to incorporate real, objective metrics. I believe it will have to at some point, as their pervasiveness will force it, but that day is not today, and tomorrow's not looking good either. We have a real shot at a second bid coming up per an objective system, but the horrible anti-mid bias is still very real (after recent years where it was actually improving) and the odds of doing enough to overcome that bias are extremely low.



Is there a link to your critique or could you elaborate? Inquiring minds and all that. Personally I was stunned at the Stone Age approach to "scrubbing" the seeds that was described by the committee reps.
Tiger69
PhD Student
Posts 1946
03-13-17 03:07 PM - Post#226790    

I believe that we must face the fact that the Power Six have NOTHING to gain be either scheduling us or giving us another seat (bid) at the table. To me that says, time to switch tables.

We just have to convince the other screwed mid majors to join us.
caughtinasnare
Senior
Posts 306
03-13-17 03:15 PM - Post#226792    

  • Jeff2sf Said:
the thing is, a lot of the students are big college basketball fans. just not penn fans. can't speak to what princeton is doing. and maybe 100% of students were back in the 70s and now the number definitely <> 100%. but there are plenty of college basketball fan students who aren't going.



Never thought I'd agree with you, Jeff, but here we are. I remember sitting in the back row of an Econ 102 class during the opening weekend of March Madness (my junior year, so 2009) and seeing at least 5 computers sprinkled throughout the room live-streaming a game during class. There were also several conversations about what was going on both before and after class. A lot of students care about college sports, they just have no excitement associated with Penn's teams. That problem, in and of itself, is multifaceted.

First of all, the lack of real TV coverage is a part of it. Fans are grown by watching teams on TV at a young age, and frankly, there's a significant synergy created when some of these players go pro, because that serves as a validation of quality. There's a reason UNC and Duke have fans around the country with no other connection to the school.

Second of all, a problem that we can actually address more easily, is community involvement. From what I have heard, it has gotten somewhat better, but the amount of time that athletes need to devote to their sports, in addition to their studies, leaves many of them fairly isolated from the community at large. If Penn could do a better job of getting the athletes connected with more people outside of Penn Athletics within the Penn community, you'll have a much stronger network of friends to come to games in which their friends are competing. We also need leadership among the (now seemingly defunct) Red & Blue Crew to get people up and moving.

The third problem, one that will surely not be resolved, is the amount of coursework that is assigned with such regularity as to limit people's free time that they could devote to coming out and supporting a team at a game, as opposed to watching college basketball on ESPN while working on an assignment. Also, along with this is the number of other extra curricular activities that exist pulling students in different directions that toward 33rd Street, as well. With a supremely high ranked school made up of a very widely diverse population, these issues will absolutely not go away.

Therefore, as the league itself hopefully improves, getting better opponents (and being able to stay competitive with those opponents) might bring about more TV opportunities to grow the Ivy and Penn sports brand. However the thing that we really can address is the community involvement to try to generate a network of fans out of the friends of athletes. Hopefully by doing that, we can bring back some of the excitement we haven't really had for 10 years.
umbrellaman
Senior
Posts 353
umbrellaman
03-13-17 07:05 PM - Post#226841    

SRP - the proposal that westphilly describes is the right one - they might not go for the neutral site - but at have a rotation for the championship game.

With the home game semis - the games at the top matter as well. A team fights for the #1 spot - champion and NIT bid - you could also play their semifinal a day before the other one, so they get a day off between the final. A team fights for #2 to get the home game in the semi. A team fights for #3 to avoid the #1 team in the first round. A team fights for #4 to get in.
mrjames
Postdoc
Posts 4564
03-13-17 07:30 PM - Post#226850    

Ranted a lot about this on Twitter, but I can summarize here.

Regardless of whether "best" means "best resume" or "best quality" or both - something that the principles need to better define - the RPI is not only a bad metric for determining it, but it is crowding out really good metrics for doing so (KenPom, BPI, Sagarin on quality, and WAB or SOR on resume).

If those metrics were used (and they were proposed at the analytics meeting in January), we'd see a more objective selection process that would have the net effect of benefitting mids, but would also have an impact on certain high major programs in a positive direction as well (while really punishing those, mainly, that live on home wins and avoiding tricky road games that currently are mislabeled as bad losses). More on the Twitter feed, but that's the high level.
SRP
Postdoc
Posts 3038
03-13-17 07:49 PM - Post#226855    

Thanks, Mike. I thought the commentators were even more pusillanimous than usual this year in criticizing the committee, probably because (as noted by everybody) there were fewer midmajor regular-season champs who lost in their conference tourneys, and so some glaring injustices were avoided by luck.

But there was a strong implicit critique in that practically everybody on both CBS and ESPN has Wichita State favored over Dayton and Middle Tennessee State favored over Minnesota, two teams that the committee and the bracketologists made clear would have been left out had they messed up in their conference tourneys.
SomeGuy
Postdoc
Posts 4104
03-13-17 08:29 PM - Post#226862    

The problem with this analysis for me is that, if the goal is to put the best teams in the tournament, then Vanderbilt appears to me to belong. There aren't any mids who are close to them in kenpom. This isn't just strength of schedule -- it's the way they've actually played on the court. The metrics are good enough at this point that we know how a mid compares.

Despite the seeding, I think Wichita State was a lock even as an at large. And the metrics make it clear that they are the one kid who was clearly on par with the big conference schools this year.
SRP
Postdoc
Posts 3038
03-13-17 08:31 PM - Post#226863    

Great Twitter rant. And hey, don't feel bad about joining the dark side "conspiracy" (more like public-choice) theorists. Think of it as a different kind of analytics--reverse-engine ering committee incentives to predict their behavior.

And Gregg Marshall was hilarious in that press conference video, even noting how the committee seems to schedule as many non-power-five teams as possible against each other early on.
SomeGuy
Postdoc
Posts 4104
03-13-17 08:38 PM - Post#226865    

I guess I need to defer to you on this (I was busy rooting for my 4th place team), but I don't understand how this could possibly be the case for Princeton. You guys were going for an undefeated season -- something that just doesn't happen in the league anymore. Harvard was in it for first literally until the final weekend head to head match, which sure looked like a great game to me. And first mattered this year -- Penn snuck in and made it less advantageous to be #1, but if things just go differently at Brown on the final Saturday, Princeton is playing a 5-9 Columbia team in what would probably play as a home game for Princeton. No question Harvard or Yale would be a much tougher match. I just don't see how the tournament didn't make the season better for Princeton.

Same holds true for Harvard. If they get the #1 and Columbia gets in, Harvard could have avoided playing a comparable Yale team in the 1st round. Should be clear at this point how that would matter. I also think you are letting one Harvard poster (albeit a great poster and fan) speak for all of Harvard in saying they were blasé.

Maybe Yale didn't have much to play for, but they sure had enough to beat an opponent in a must win situation on the last Saturday of the season.
mrjames
Postdoc
Posts 4564
03-13-17 08:50 PM - Post#226867    

That point, SomeGuy, gets to the heart of "best." I lean toward "best" as quality (i.e. KenPom) but I'm fine with either that or resume (i.e. WAB or Strength of Record). It sounds like most want it to be resume vs. quality - the primary difference being that MOV will have no impact on resume but will drive quality.

Some years resume benefits mids more. Other years quality does. Some years it's the same number of mids in both but different ones.

This year Illinois State would have easily been in on resume (WAB or SOR), but was right on the cut line for quality. Vandy had the opposite case - in easily on quality but on the cut line for resume.

The first step is for the committee to clarify the meaning of best. Either one would help the mids, as the lack of definition currently allows the committee to search for any meaning of best that could support selecting a power conf team and will search for any meaning of best a mid DOESN'T meet in order to keep them out.
SomeGuy
Postdoc
Posts 4104
03-13-17 09:02 PM - Post#226868    

Agreed that Illinois State had the best argument this year.

I also agree that whether we want to send the "best" teams is an open question. I'm all for getting more mids in there. Vanderbilt had enough chances against big conference teams. So I'm fine leaving them out. But if we're really trying to put the best 68 schools out there, well, I think Vandy is clearly better than Illinois State. Or Princeton.

Anyway, I finally agree that clarity as to what the committee is looking for is a good thing. I think the big conferences mostly win in a fair fight anyway. So be transparent and make the fight fair.
mrjames
Postdoc
Posts 4564
03-13-17 09:53 PM - Post#226872    

By pure resume, Illinois State was considerably better. By quality, Vandy was considerably better. All depends on whether MOV should matter or not. And I guess it could be both, but in a defined way, not a nebulous, choose-whatever-fits-high -majors-better-when-conve nient, kind of way.
Ted
Sophomore
Posts 190
03-14-17 12:08 AM - Post#226885    

As a Penn fan, I of course would love for the tournament to be played at the Palestra every year, but if that can't be, I'm thinking that there must be some venue/arena in the NYC area that would fill the bill (other than at Columbia's gym, which for starters is too small). This location would be pretty centrally located for all of the schools, could easily accommodate everyone, and provide other activities as well, especially if the tournament was changed to a Friday & Sunday schedule, as suggested by P38 (good suggestion P38, by the way). Maybe this (NYC venue) was suggested in another thread, but if so I missed it.
Finally, like some others on this board, I initially had some real negative views about this tournament, but after this weekend, those views have vanished, for many reasons, not the least of which is that it almost certainly helped to make my 5 grandkids (ages 4-13) Penn Basketball and Palestra fans for life.
My only complaint = the same as many others here have indicated - the ticket prices were WAY too high. I bit the bullet there, but I wonder how many locals who may have considered attending were turned off by the exhorbitant prices.
Tiger69
PhD Student
Posts 1946
03-14-17 12:37 AM - Post#226888    

If you think this was an expensive weekend, imagine 2 nights in the Big Apple with meals, even if someone GAVE you the tickets.
westphillywarrior
Sophomore
Posts 125
03-14-17 12:44 AM - Post#226889    

You don't have to stay in NYC.
westcoast
Freshman
Posts 28
03-14-17 01:06 AM - Post#226890    

But the distinction between resume and quality is not the issue the selection committee has. I am sure that they feel that Vanderbilt also has a better resume, and they would point to their wins over Florida (three times), Iowa State, South Carolina, and Arkansas, who are Top 50 teams by almost all measures. True, only one was a true road game.

Illinois State's resume is mostly built by beating a lot of teams ranked in the 100-150 range. Now, one can reasonably argue that a team like Vanderbilt would have lost more of those games if they had Illinois State's schedule, but that is a step that the committee is not ready to commit to. They can see Vanderbilt's big wins (ignoring that they more than 25 chances against Top 100 teams), while Illinois State only had 5 or 6 chances and as a result much fewer "big" wins. In the committee's eyes, I think Illinois State's resume is not particularly strong.
caughtinasnare
Senior
Posts 306
03-14-17 03:02 AM - Post#226891    

  • Ted Said:
As a Penn fan, I of course would love for the tournament to be played at the Palestra every year, but if that can't be, I'm thinking that there must be some venue/arena in the NYC area that would fill the bill (other than at Columbia's gym, which for starters is too small). This location would be pretty centrally located for all of the schools, could easily accommodate everyone, and provide other activities as well, especially if the tournament was changed to a Friday & Sunday schedule, as suggested by P38 (good suggestion P38, by the way). Maybe this (NYC venue) was suggested in another thread, but if so I missed it.
Finally, like some others on this board, I initially had some real negative views about this tournament, but after this weekend, those views have vanished, for many reasons, not the least of which is that it almost certainly helped to make my 5 grandkids (ages 4-13) Penn Basketball and Palestra fans for life.
My only complaint = the same as many others here have indicated - the ticket prices were WAY too high. I bit the bullet there, but I wonder how many locals who may have considered attending were turned off by the exhorbitant prices.


As a NY'er, I've wondered a few times what would be a suitable location to play such a tournament in the NY area, seeing as it is so centrally located. I struggled for the longest time to come up with a suitable spot. Levien is clearly a no-go. Nor would Fordham or Manhattan College be suitable due to size. Not gonna even bother thinking MSG or Barclays would be reasonable, either. Perhaps doing it at the Prudential Center would work, though it's in Newark, so you're taking your life in your hands at that point. It's also probably a bit big at 18,711 capacity for basketball, according to Wikipedia, which is actually more than Barclays holds. Could go with the Westchester County Center, the home of the D-League Westchester Knicks, but that only seats 5000, which is less than the Palestra or Jadwin, though twice that of Levien or Payne Whitney.

Really, there's no obvious answer in the NYC area, as great as it would be to make it centrally located. As such, it should probably go to the best arena in the league, which is still The Palestra.
palestra38
Professor
Posts 15384
03-14-17 04:13 AM - Post#226892    

The closest appropriate venues in the NY Metro area are the RAC (8000), Alumni Hall at St. John's (5600) and the Webster Bank Arena in Bridgeport (10,000). Sun Bank Arena in Trenton (10,500) also would work. Although I hear Barclay's would love to host this event, I can't imagine that that would be a good spot given its size and location (same for St. John's for the opposite reason). Getting onto and off of Long Island sucks.
Old Bear
Postdoc
Posts 3222
03-14-17 11:38 AM - Post#226938    

Mohegan Sun Arena in CT.
penn nation
Professor
Posts 8963
03-14-17 11:47 AM - Post#226941    

We had this thread not long ago in (was it the Ivy board)?

A few of us thought Webster Bank Arena made the most sense--close to the geographical midpoint of all Ivy schools, easy to get to (right off I-95 and a short walk to the Metro North/Amtrak station) and the arena itself is nice, modern, roomy and with great sightlines.
weinhauers_ghost
Masters Student
Posts 786
03-14-17 12:54 PM - Post#226955    

  • palestra38 Said:
The closest appropriate venues in the NY Metro area are the RAC (8000), Alumni Hall at St. John's (5600) and the Webster Bank Arena in Bridgeport (10,000). Sun Bank Arena in Trenton (10,500) also would work. Although I hear Barclay's would love to host this event, I can't imagine that that would be a good spot given its size and location (same for St. John's for the opposite reason). Getting onto and off of Long Island sucks.



Are you kidding? Barclays Center sits atop perhaps the densest collection of subway lines in the entire city, plus the Long Island Railroad's Atlantic Terminal. Size-wise it might be too big, but for public transportation in NYC, you can't beat it. Just don't expect to be able to drive there and find parking.
penn nation
Professor
Posts 8963
03-14-17 12:58 PM - Post#226956    

It's too big. Way too big.

But yes, a breeze for subway and commuter rail connections. A fairly quick subway ride to Manhattan.
caughtinasnare
Senior
Posts 306
03-14-17 01:32 PM - Post#226964    

Frankly, I went to a game in the Barclays Center 2 years ago for the A-10 tourney (George Mason vs Fordham, if I recall correctly). They had the entire upper bowl blacked out, which made it obviously a much smaller venue both seating wise and feel-wise, so that could conceivably be a solution. However, considering the ACC tourney is there again next year, followed by the next three years having the A-10 tourney return, it isn't really an option we should be considering...
10Q
Professor
Posts 11475
03-14-17 01:46 PM - Post#226967    

Isn't there an arena in the Lehigh/Lafayette area that would be ok?
Old Bear
Postdoc
Posts 3222
03-14-17 03:32 PM - Post#226994    

How would that help anyone beside the Ps?
Streamers
PhD Student
Posts 1599
Streamers
03-14-17 04:57 PM - Post#227006    

I think something north of NYC would be favored if they move the tourney next year. The Westchester County Center is not a bad choice, although a bit small. I think one of the CT suggestions is likely the best bet. Mohegan Sun has the benefit of the hotel/casino on site.
penn nation
Professor
Posts 8963
03-14-17 05:12 PM - Post#227012    

I live 6 minutes away from the County Center. Plusses are that it's easy to get to by car or train, with ample parking.

Minusses--the facility itself is a drab one. On the smallish side as mentioned and if capacity is needed many of the temporary seats are less than ideal. Some hotel space in White Plains, although one could just as easily stay in Manhattan--it's a 31 minute ride up to White Plains on the Metro North express train.
HARVARDDADGRAD
Masters Student
Posts 792
03-14-17 05:19 PM - Post#227013    

Since when is 5,000 seating (Westchester County Center) capacity small? The only game that might have exceeded that this year was Penn vs Princeton and that was likely in part due to being a home locale.

Still love Mohegan Sun. There are hotels in the area and it's INSIDE! At Penn, I found that the mingling experience was compromised by frigid weather, parking challenges, and no single indoor location - other than the game itself. Only saw other schools once inside.

For an early March event, the pedestrian malls, restaurants, convention spaces, free parking, etc. is most conducive to a "League" gathering experience:
"More than 300,000 square feet of gaming excitement within three casinos - Casino of the Earth, Sky & Wind, including smoke-free areas. Two luxury hotel towers with a total of 1,563 rooms. Two world-class spas. The Shops at Mohegan Sun, a 130,000 square-foot retail shopping experience."

The casino floor is off limits to anyone under 21 so that would not be an issue. The buffet's might be though! Other college teams play there so I wouldn't worry about sports betting. Too high a variability anyway.

The indoor exhibition/performance venues can be used to host college entertainment (Whiffenpoofs, etc.). Possible to entice even non-basketball students for the festivities. A real "Ivy Fest" - for what ever that would mean. Imagine bringing recruits to a veritable Ivy Winter Festival! I'm booking my reservations right now!
penn nation
Professor
Posts 8963
03-14-17 05:38 PM - Post#227016    

For County Center, they only get to the 5,000 by having temporary bleachers up on the stage well behind one of the end lines. You don't want to be sitting there, believe me.

I've also been to Mohegan Sun. Clearly night and day from anything else--the question is does the IL want to promote that kind of environment, including gambling, for its tourney?
HARVARDDADGRAD
Masters Student
Posts 792
03-14-17 05:38 PM - Post#227017    

I have awful Westchester County Center memories.

Somehow, my 5th grade suburban rec all star team was entered (inadvertently I hope) in a county wide 6th grade tournament. Despite the flu (I missed two weeks of school) I played for an overmatched suburban squad that was pummeled something like 51-10 by a much bigger, stronger and older neighboring town team. It's not as pitiful as it sounds though, as I ended up starting for that opposing town's JHS team just and played on their HS varsity squad. (I lived in the smaller town and participated in that rec league but was zoned into and attended the neighboring larger town's schools.)

I never went back to the County Center.

penn nation
Professor
Posts 8963
03-14-17 05:42 PM - Post#227018    

The County Center was the site of one of the most incredible finishes to a championship game you'll ever see:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZGLEY42SNY
caughtinasnare
Senior
Posts 306
03-14-17 08:35 PM - Post#227030    

Didn't realize we had so many Westchester folks on here. That makes me really happy.
UPIA1968
Masters Student
Posts 674
UPIA1968
03-14-17 11:15 PM - Post#227040    

The simple solution from a basketball FAIRNESS standpoint is to play the tournament at the home court of the regular season winner. The Palestra is the obvious choice from a MARKETING standpoint. I vote for the fairness idea.


Streamers
PhD Student
Posts 1599
Streamers
03-15-17 12:16 PM - Post#227100    

  • UPIA1968 Said:
The simple solution from a basketball FAIRNESS standpoint is to play the tournament at the home court of the regular season winner. The Palestra is the obvious choice from a MARKETING standpoint. I vote for the fairness idea.




The tournament itself is a marketing exercise. The old system was more fair. Leave it at the Palestra if we must have it, although I like the idea of the regular season winner getting the bye in a 3-team format.
Cvonvorys
Masters Student
Posts 886
03-15-17 12:26 PM - Post#227102    

So a three-team tourney with the first place team receiving a bye played at Mohegun Sun. I can get behind this. Anyone else?
Go Green
Junior
Posts 235
03-15-17 12:31 PM - Post#227103    

  • UPIA1968 Said:
The simple solution from a basketball FAIRNESS standpoint is to play the tournament at the home court of the regular season winner. The Palestra is the obvious choice from a MARKETING standpoint. I vote for the fairness idea.





The league also wants to host the men's and women's games together.

So unless you're proposing alternating the venue between the site of the men's and women's regular season champion...
mbaprof
Freshman
Posts 61
03-15-17 12:57 PM - Post#227105    

Personally Id love Mohegan Sun, especially if we could also have the "Ivy League" Poker tournament. League would never go for it.
NYC would be good as there are SO many PENN alums there who might come out for a tournament game. I think they have to try a NY venue and see what happens.
Streamers
PhD Student
Posts 1599
Streamers
03-15-17 01:28 PM - Post#227114    

  • Cvonvorys Said:
So a three-team tourney with the first place team receiving a bye played at Mohegun Sun. I can get behind this. Anyone else?



Alert the media; Colin and I agree on something ;-)

I wish there were a really good NYC based option, given the IL alum (not just Penn) concentration there, but all those sites have real flaws.
westphillywarrior
Sophomore
Posts 125
03-15-17 02:17 PM - Post#227122    

  • Cvonvorys Said:
So a three-team tourney with the first place team receiving a bye played at Mohegun Sun. I can get behind this. Anyone else?



If we can't have first round games at higher seeds home courts, then I like this format. Like that it gives significant reward to 14 game tournament winner and does not give anyone an unearned home court advantage. I would suggest rotating to other neutral sites.

penn nation
Professor
Posts 8963
03-15-17 02:21 PM - Post#227123    

  • Cvonvorys Said:
...the first place team receiving a bye played at Mohegun Sun. I can get behind this.



I think all schools would be in favor of the first place team getting a bye to be played at Mohegan Sun.

caughtinasnare
Senior
Posts 306
03-15-17 02:56 PM - Post#227131    

How about 3 and 4 play, then winner plays 2, then winner of that plays 1?
palestra38
Professor
Posts 15384
03-15-17 02:58 PM - Post#227134    

That's it! The bowling tournament set-up. 8 vs. 7, winner plays 6, winner plays 5 and so on.
caughtinasnare
Senior
Posts 306
03-15-17 03:01 PM - Post#227136    

Actually, how about this: Play the 3/4 game at the 3's home court. Then play the semi-final and final at The Palestra. If Penn is the 4 seed like the men were this year, they go on the road for the first game. If they win, you could at least argue they "earned" something by advancing, with the tradeoff and advantage for the 2 seed being that they would then be more rested. Maybe do Wednesday, Friday, Sunday for the tournament?
Silver Maple
Postdoc
Posts 2790
03-15-17 03:08 PM - Post#227139    

Anybody have a sense of the cost differential between a neutral site (like Mohegan Son) and The Palestra? I'm sure the league is thinking about that.
HARVARDDADGRAD
Masters Student
Posts 792
03-15-17 05:37 PM - Post#227155    

The League has maintained that this is not about money. We'll see.

By the way, letting Penn as a 3 or 4 seed host a higher seed at the Palestra is always going to be a problem.

How about Friday night (either at the home campus or at Mohegan Sun) and then Sunday noon at Mohegan Sun? Play was sloppy Sunday, possibly due to the quick turnaround.
Big R&B Truth
Senior
Posts 349
Big R&B Truth
03-15-17 09:45 PM - Post#227177    

  • palestra38 Said:
That's it! The bowling tournament set-up. 8 vs. 7, winner plays 6, winner plays 5 and so on.




The outdoor courts next to Gimbel Gym would have been a good location for the 7-8 game. To bad they don't exist anymore.
final479
Freshman
Posts 12
03-15-17 09:52 PM - Post#227178    

  • Big R&B Truth Said:
  • palestra38 Said:
That's it! The bowling tournament set-up. 8 vs. 7, winner plays 6, winner plays 5 and so on.




The outdoor courts next to Gimbel Gym would have been a good location for the 7-8 game. To bad they don't exist anymore.




... the sad part is that some of the guys from outside @ Gimbel could beat this Penn team
caughtinasnare
Senior
Posts 306
03-15-17 11:46 PM - Post#227187    

It appears to only be a problem to the fans, if the coaches of the #1 seed and #2 seed in the first tournament both said that it should only be played in the Palestra...

That said, as a NYer, I'd love it to be closer to home for me, however having attended the Penn vs Harvard game to end the regular season, I say that strictly for selfish reasons. The Palestra really is a magical place and the only place that this should happen if we want it to mean anything beyond just a few basketball games.
HARVARDDADGRAD
Masters Student
Posts 792
03-16-17 12:08 AM - Post#227189    

I agree that the Palestra has the most character, but:
1. It is inconvenient for some as the southernmost locale; and
2. Giving any team a perpetual home court advantage isn't acceptable in any way.

I'm sure the coaches you reference were very complimentary, but coaches are not paid to lose, especially when that loss costs them the league championship and NCAA slot. When they get to voice their true feelings, don't expect guys like Henderson and Amaker - or any coach other than Donahue - to gleefully volunteer to give up home court advantage ... forever.
PennFan10
Masters Student
Posts 946
03-16-17 12:34 AM - Post#227190    

  • HARVARDDADGRAD Said:
I agree that the Palestra has the most character, but:
1. It is inconvenient for some as the southernmost locale; and
2. Giving any team a perpetual home court advantage isn't acceptable in any way.

I'm sure the coaches you reference were very complimentary, but coaches are not paid to lose, especially when that loss costs them the league championship and NCAA slot. When they get to voice their true feelings, don't expect guys like Henderson and Amaker - or any coach other than Donahue - to gleefully volunteer to give up home court advantage ... forever.



But that's excactly what Amaker did. He was authentic and passionate about his comments that the tournament should be at the Palestra.
weinhauers_ghost
Masters Student
Posts 786
03-16-17 09:50 AM - Post#227202    

Speaking of that one NCAA slot, here is clear evidence that mid-majors are screwed to the benefit of underperforming teams from power conferences.

Face it, the Ivy is a one bid league, and that's not going to change. Just wait until the first time the regular season champion loses in the tournament and winds up going to the NIT.
Go Green
Junior
Posts 235
03-16-17 12:09 PM - Post#227215    

  • weinhauers_ghost Said:

Just wait until the first time the regular season champion loses in the tournament and winds up going to the NIT.



Like this?

http://www.und.com/sports/m-baskbl/recap s/031505aa...
Tiger69
PhD Student
Posts 1946
03-16-17 12:36 PM - Post#227221    

Bid deal. Who cares about the NIT any more?
Go Green
Junior
Posts 235
03-16-17 12:42 PM - Post#227224    

  • Tiger69 Said:
Bid deal. Who cares about the NIT any more?



These guys look happy...

http://www.gwsports.com/sports/m-baskbl/recap s/033...
Old Bear
Postdoc
Posts 3222
03-16-17 03:23 PM - Post#227339    

Has an Ivy Team ever turned down the NIT?
palestra38
Professor
Posts 15384
03-16-17 03:41 PM - Post#227344    

No. I believe only Georgetown and Louisville have declined NIT bids (although interestingly, Indiana turned down a home game this year and then fired their coach).
Go Green
Junior
Posts 235
03-16-17 06:54 PM - Post#227400    


Louisville turned it down the year after winning the title.

Georgetown ostensibly wanted to focus on academics, but in reality wanted to create the illusion that they were too good for the NIT. It didn't work. I think Alabama did the same thing one year and the coach was also fired not long afterwards.
SRP
Postdoc
Posts 3038
03-16-17 07:22 PM - Post#227402    

Chris Mooney left Air Force largely because the administration blocked him from postseason play against his wishes.
SecS3
Freshman
Posts 26
03-16-17 09:11 PM - Post#227415    

Princeton turned down the NIT in '68.
penn nation
Professor
Posts 8963
03-16-17 09:16 PM - Post#227416    

Penn turned down the NCAAs in 1966.
Go Green
Junior
Posts 235
03-17-17 06:19 AM - Post#227429    

  • SecS3 Said:
Princeton turned down the NIT in '68.



If so, that doesn't appear to be particularly widely-known.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967%E2%80%9368_ Prin...
Go Green
Junior
Posts 235
03-17-17 06:23 AM - Post#227430    

  • penn nation Said:
Penn turned down the NCAAs in 1966.



That's not really telling the whole story...

http://www.phillyvoice.com/fifty-years-ago-penn- wa...
Old Bear
Postdoc
Posts 3222
03-17-17 04:08 PM - Post#227501    

Perhaps Indiana turned the NIT down because they were firing their coach.
Tiger69
PhD Student
Posts 1946
03-18-17 12:03 AM - Post#227524    

I guess that the Big Ten will want 10 bids (or more?) next season on the grounds that no coach should lose his job?
palestra38
Professor
Posts 15384
03-19-17 08:25 AM - Post#227663    

They didn't turn it down--they turned down a home game and then lost on the road.
Tiger69
PhD Student
Posts 1946
03-19-17 02:58 PM - Post#227721    

Maybe they couldn't afford the price tag of the home game purchase
palestra38
Professor
Posts 15384
03-19-17 04:44 PM - Post#227732    

I don't think you have to pay to get an NIT home game. However, the costs of the event are yours. Their excuse, that the students were on break, was pretty lame considering that 6 or 7 other schools took home games with the school on break. Bloomington,Indiana is not a place which has a helluva lot else going on to compete with an Indiana home game.

It's pretty clear they already had decided to fire the coach (who was Big Whatever coach of the year the year before) and wanted to lose this game.
mrjames
Postdoc
Posts 4564
03-19-17 08:45 PM - Post#227757    

I had thought that the AD went on record saying that he didn't want to sully Assembly Hall with an NIT game. That's why they declined. I never say the quote, but that was supposedly a thing that was said.

Feel like this was a segment on Mike and Mike this week (I get up early with the little ones before work, and hey, what else is on?).
coins
Sophomore
Posts 193
03-20-17 03:45 PM - Post#227803    

Marquette turned down the NCAA in 1970 (and won the NIT).



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: 0.092 seconds.   Total Queries: 15   Zlib Compression is on.
All times are (GMT -0500) Eastern. Current time is 03:19 AM
Top