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

Back to Post
Username Post: One foot in the grave
Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts 2366
02-22-18 12:08 AM - Post#248863    

Just as a matter of idle curiosity (and I really don't think it will happen), if the Tigers somehow put everything back together and won their last four games, is there any chance that they could get the last spot in the tournament with a 7-7 record? That would give them (or possibly someone else) the outside chance of knocking the wheels off the tournament by upsetting the rightful recipient of the NCAA bid. It wouldn't be just, but if it were Harvard or Penn, it would certainly be sweet ... and it might start a groundswell to give future bids to the real champion.
palestra38
Professor
Posts 21609
02-22-18 12:12 AM - Post#248864    

I agree with you, but the tournament is not going away.
mrjames
Professor
Posts 5490
02-22-18 08:36 AM - Post#248872    

If the Tigers won out, they’d almost certainly be in. Very tenuous scenarios would leave them out (basically, Cornell and Columbia both winning out - Columbia could lose one but not to Harvard). Realistically, 7-7 is a guarantee.

6-8 is very possible but requires a win over Harvard, Yale to beat Columbia, Yale to be the third place team and Penn to beat Brown, as one of the most likely paths.
sparman
Masters Student
Posts 950
sparman
02-22-18 09:03 AM - Post#248875    

6-8 worked for Penn last year. Yay.
SomeGuy
Postdoc
Posts 4896
02-22-18 09:23 AM - Post#248877    

Correct. I actually think an upset winner will play as a positive for the Ivy tournament and not a negative. I mean that in the macro sense — obviously if Penn loses in the semis I’m not going to view that as positive.
Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts 2366
02-22-18 10:27 AM - Post#248878    

No, the Tournament is not going away. But, in the Court Report yesterday Courtney Banghart said that she felt that the regular season winner should be awarded the NCAA bid. So, next year who makes this decision (i.e. how the bid will be determined in the future)?
palestra38
Professor
Posts 21609
02-22-18 10:46 AM - Post#248881    

About 10 people would show up for a tournament where the bid was not at stake. That ain't happening, either.
bradley
PhD Student
Posts 1149
02-22-18 11:47 AM - Post#248887    

You maybe correct that a 4th bid winner might be a short-term boost for the IL Tournament but a 40 pt loss to Villanova as a 16th seed does not boost the reputation of the League. I thought that one of the goals of the IL tournament was to enhance the IL brand as well as getting a 2nd ncaa bid, increased regular season attendance, assist recruiting efforts etc etc etc. If the primary end game goal of the IL tournament is the IL Tournament, you may be right?????
SomeGuy
Postdoc
Posts 4896
02-22-18 01:00 PM - Post#248890    

I’m not sure — my guess is that more eyeballs on the number one seed’s Game means more publicity even in a blowout. I also think more exposure for somebody who isn’t Princeton, Harvard, or Yale would be good for the league overall. For league recruiting as a whole, giving potential recruits more choices for a potential NCAA appearance is likely a good thing.

That’s just this year though. In recent years, I think even our 4th place team avoids a 16 most of the time.
Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts 2366
02-22-18 02:20 PM - Post#248897    

So what? That's 10 more people than it deserves.
palestra38
Professor
Posts 21609
02-22-18 02:30 PM - Post#248898    

To an extent, I know what you mean. If Saturday's Penn-Harvard game were likely for the title, the Palestra would be a sellout. It will still be a good crowd, but it will not have the same intensity.
Silver Maple
Postdoc
Posts 3467
02-22-18 03:25 PM - Post#248911    

I assuming that there's a major on-campus effort to get the fans in the stands on Saturday, yes? Hopefully? Please?
Go Green
Masters Student
Posts 646
02-22-18 06:09 PM - Post#248941    

  • Tiger69 Said:
Courtney Banghart said that she felt that the regular season winner should be awarded the NCAA bid.



This is not news. Banghart has been vocally against the tourney from the get-go.
Go Green
Masters Student
Posts 646
02-22-18 06:10 PM - Post#248943    

  • sparman Said:
6-8 worked for Penn last year. Yay.



And an 8-6 women's team will likely be left out in the cold this season...
Go Green
Masters Student
Posts 646
02-22-18 06:11 PM - Post#248944    

  • bradley Said:
You maybe correct that a 4th bid winner might be a short-term boost for the IL Tournament but a 40 pt loss to Villanova as a 16th seed does not boost the reputation of the League.



In that situation, the Ivy team has likely won the play-in game and earned the league some big cash.
bradley
PhD Student
Posts 1149
02-22-18 08:31 PM - Post#248953    

The Palestra would be “crazy” if this game decided which team would go to the Big Dance but we have IvyMadness. It still should be a great game. I like Harvard to win but Penn could send a definite message but everyone should beware of Makai in one game if the Bulldogs and Hobes get there.
sparman
Masters Student
Posts 950
sparman
02-23-18 12:10 AM - Post#248970    

So? .500 teams don't belong.
SRP
Postdoc
Posts 3815
02-23-18 11:54 AM - Post#249007    

Of course I'm rooting for the Tigers to beat Harvard, sweep the rest, and steal the NCAA bid. I also take tax deductions that I know are bad public policy.

I don't think any outcome this year would sway the powers that be to drop the league folly. Penn looking strong enough to maybe deserve hosting privileges neutralizes the easiest critical talking point, and it would take several years of declining attendance and ratings to even get the issue on the table. So we're doomed to have games like Saturday's matter very little while everyone obsesses on who's the mediocrest of them all.
palestra38
Professor
Posts 21609
02-23-18 11:57 AM - Post#249009    

Isn't that what the Wicked Stepmother asked Robin Harris? Or vice versa?
SRP
Postdoc
Posts 3815
02-23-18 12:07 PM - Post#249010    

Glad you got the fairy-tale reference even without me invoking a mirror.
1LotteryPick1969
PhD Student
Posts 1639
1LotteryPick1969
02-23-18 12:43 PM - Post#249015    

Spieglein Spieglein an der Wand.....
sparman
Masters Student
Posts 950
sparman
02-23-18 02:53 PM - Post#249032    

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleanor_Audley
Go Green
Masters Student
Posts 646
02-23-18 03:30 PM - Post#249038    

  • sparman Said:
So? .500 teams don't belong.



There are plenty of .500 (and worse) teams that made an appearance in Dayton.

Some actually advanced beyond that. See, e.g., Holy Cross (2016).
1LotteryPick1969
PhD Student
Posts 1639
1LotteryPick1969
02-23-18 04:18 PM - Post#249043    

  • sparman Said:


I'm impressed. I should have known her name.
weinhauers_ghost
PhD Student
Posts 1400
02-24-18 08:15 AM - Post#249148    

Both feet in the grave.

We brought shovels. Please allow us to do the honors.
Tiger84
Freshman
Posts 45
02-25-18 02:06 AM - Post#249433    

Like they said in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, they’re not dead yet.

One scenario follows. There may be others but I haven’t worked through the tiebreakers.

Princeton sweeps Brown and Yale.

Harvard and Dartmouth both sweep the NY teams. (*Or Harvard sweeps and Dartmouth beats Columbia)

Princeton would finish 6-8, the C’s at 5-9*, Brown at either 4-10 or 5-9 depending on if they beat Penn.

I am pretty sure Princeton would lose all tiebreakers with Columbia.

*If Cornell beats Harvard they’d have the tiebreak over Princeton with that win. If they lost to Harvard but beat Dartmouth, I think Princeton would have the tiebreak based on a sweep of Yale.

So of the 8 remaining games, 5 would have to break right; Penn-Yale, Penn-Brown and Cornell-Dartmouth would be irrelevant.

Odds are low. But stranger things have happened (often) in this league.

Anyone disagree with my math?
sparman
Masters Student
Posts 950
sparman
02-25-18 11:08 AM - Post#249463    

  • Go Green Said:
There are plenty of .500 (and worse) teams that made an appearance in Dayton.


I understand that's the Dartmouth mind set.

  • Tiger84 Said:
Anyone disagree with my math?


Only the part that has Tigers winning two on the road.

I am surprised, actually amazed, at how bad a team apparently has to be to be officially out of it going into the last weekend.
whitakk
Junior
Posts 277
02-25-18 11:10 AM - Post#249464    

You have it right. Princeton needs to sweep, needs Columbia to be swept and needs Cornell to lose at Harvard.
bradley
PhD Student
Posts 1149
02-25-18 12:38 PM - Post#249473    

Some IvyMadness proponents argued that the 3rd or 4th seeds in most years would be reasonably competitive vs the IL regular season winner. This year, the league has 2 teams that can compete at the Big Dance in all likelihood. 3rd or 4th seeds will be 16 seeds at ncaa tournament and will get blown out. In fairness, penn will best be a 14 seed - Harvard 15 seed. Down year for IL.
SomeGuy
Postdoc
Posts 4896
02-25-18 01:42 PM - Post#249482    

Yes, although the bunching in the middle of pomeroy means that 3rd and 4th will be a lot closer to #1 than last year. So on court in the Ivy tournament, there is an even better chance of competitive games than last year (when the games were competitive). There also won’t be as much of a seeding difference as there would have been last year with an upset. You are probably right about likely seedlings, but I could see Penn as a 15 and Harvard as a 16 if things broke badly for the league. Curious whether Princeton or Yale could help their profiles by winning out, too. Anybody else would be a 16 for sure.

To the point i’ve Made in the past about how more games added by a tourney may provide more information that better determines the league winner and NCAA rep, that will l8kely be true if Harvard or Penn wins the tournament, regardless of who gets the #1 Seed. It probably will not be true if 3 or 4 wins, but to me that’s what makes it fun.
SRP
Postdoc
Posts 3815
02-25-18 04:19 PM - Post#249512    

It's terrible that last night's Harvard-Penn game was not the focal point of attention it should have been, but more of a season footnote. Instead we'll have endless discussion of arcane tie-breakers involving mediocre-to-bad teams. Ivy fever--catch it and die!
penn nation
Professor
Posts 12884
02-25-18 04:22 PM - Post#249513    

6500 fans would disagree. I'm guessing it has been a very long time since we've seen that kind of crowd for a regular season non Big 5 Penn game.
Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts 2366
02-25-18 04:38 PM - Post#249515    

All that for a #1 seed? I wonder how many Penn fans are concerned about it all going up in smoke at the hands of a hot #4 seed before a silent crowd at the Palestra? Of course, you would still be the real Champ -- with an NIT bid . Meanwhile, the tournament "winner" with its bid may suffer the humiliation of a playin game for the privilege of dancing with a #1 seed. My, we've come a long way with our tournament.
penn nation
Professor
Posts 12884
02-25-18 04:43 PM - Post#249517    

All I care about is a chance to play beyond the IL tourney. That tourney will be a true crapshoot.

So yes, the #1 position is very important--not so much for the tourney, but for knowing that at minimum they will be playing after that weekend no matter what.
Silver Maple
Postdoc
Posts 3467
02-25-18 04:45 PM - Post#249518    

The #1 spot also means we can hoist another Ivy Champs banner to the Palestra rafters, regardless of what happens in the conference tournament. That definitely means a lot to me, and I'll bet it means a lot to the players as well.
Go Green
Masters Student
Posts 646
02-25-18 05:02 PM - Post#249519    

  • Tiger69 Said:
Meanwhile, the tournament "winner" with its bid may suffer the humiliation of a playin game for the privilege of dancing with a #1 seed. My, we've come a long way with our tournament.



If this is a "humiliated" team, I wonder what a proud and excited team looks like...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZCxJvkJ3dc
SRP
Postdoc
Posts 3815
02-25-18 05:06 PM - Post#249520    

The issue of attention isn't about the fans of the top contenders--of course they're excited about winning, especially when there's been a drought. It's the conversation and coverage around and outside the league that's the problem. Sportscenter didn't even mention the game, as they used to do pre-folly for similar showdowns. Commentators fill dead time spooling out endless scenarios about how the poor-record teams might sneak in, but no time debating whether Harvard is better than Penn. Don't be surprised if Matt Morgan and Desmond Cambridge get more publicity and discussion over the remainder of the season than Towns or Brodeur.
bradley
PhD Student
Posts 1149
02-26-18 08:50 AM - Post#249550    

You make a valid point but to me, the simple answer to all of the discussion is that Penn earned the right to go to the Big Dance based on their cumulative play over the course of the season if they close it out next weekend. If not the NCAA bid should have gone to the playoff winner at a neutral site if Harvard and Penn tie. Yale and whoever is the 4th seed simply have not earned the right to go if not for IvyMadness. With all that said, Penn probably has less than a 50% chance to go to the Big Dance based on playing at the IL Tournament.

I remember feeling no elation that the Tigers won the IL Tournament only that they survived. The pride was that they won the IL regular season crown, finished 16-0 and scared the daylights out of ND after being down by double digits in the 2nd half.

IvyMadness is a gimmick. The absolute worst argument is that other conferences do it -- I think that was the argument used by steroid users and probably will be an argument as to who pays off college BB players.
SomeGuy
Postdoc
Posts 4896
02-26-18 10:26 AM - Post#249557    

First, both of those things are illegal, against the rules, and morally wrong. Second, I would argue that the reason to do those things is often to achieve an advantage rather than just to keep up — which actually makes them more akin to not having a tournament so as to send a better representative than everyone else does.
palestra38
Professor
Posts 21609
02-26-18 10:36 AM - Post#249558    

I agree on the drugs--not the payments. Let's face it, there is tremendous market value to a potential NBA caliber basketball player, and the "mining" to realize that potential starts at about 10-11 years old. The entire AAU system is a feeder system in which investments are made and they have to be repaid. Moreover, while the coaches get millions to produce winning programs, the players who are not there for a college academic education essentially get nothing. So it isn't a case like PEDs where that is an attempt to gain advantage as much as it is our capitalist system at work. Clearly, the right thing to do would be to get colleges out of the pro basketball business, but that isn't about to happen. But there really is nothing "wrong" (as you put it--legally or morally) about both players's families and the AAU personnel who invest in these players wanting to be paid. The hypocrisy is very hard to take---but if Miller of Arizona was willing to pay $100K for a player, that's because the bidding was at that level, not because he's trying to gain an unfair advantage.
sparman
Masters Student
Posts 950
sparman
02-26-18 10:50 AM - Post#249559    

  • palestra38 Said:
The hypocrisy is very hard to take---but if Miller of Arizona was willing to pay $100K for a player, that's because the bidding was at that level, not because he's trying to gain an unfair advantage.


A bit off point, but I submit that the bidding is establishing the level of what it takes to gain the unfair advantage. Merely matching doesn't guarantee a player, and the object of recruiting is to get players you think will allow you to win - i.e. have an advantage. Unfair, in that it is an advantage procured by circumventing rules.
palestra38
Professor
Posts 21609
02-26-18 10:56 AM - Post#249562    

But why shouldn't the players and people who developed the players at significant cost not share in the huge pool of money being made from big time college athletics?

Make no mistake, I think college sports should be for student athletes. But we're kidding ourselves if we think that is happening at almost any level with the exception of the Ivies and Patriot League. And it isn't illegal for the players and AAU people to want some of that pot, nor is it immoral. It just violates NCAA rules written in another era.
bradley
PhD Student
Posts 1149
02-26-18 11:52 AM - Post#249575    

I could you plenty of examples of universities doing foolish things by simply following others which are not illegal. The proposition that other conferences do it therefore that it makes it right for the IL to do it is at best intellectually lazy. I better like the "fun" argument vs following what others do.
SomeGuy
Postdoc
Posts 4896
02-26-18 01:03 PM - Post#249590    

I don’t disagree, P38. Just a rule follower, so more concerned about what the rules are. But as for what they should be — it’s tricky, and I lean toward where you are. Definitely not a fan of some parties justifying keeping the whole pie for themselves on the basis of some argument about integrity.
SomeGuy
Postdoc
Posts 4896
02-26-18 01:10 PM - Post#249593    

Agreed that whether following makes sense or not depends upon the character of the action. On the intellectually lazy part, I think my argument is a little more complex than just we should do it because everyone else does. Maybe not the most intricate argument in the world, but not the laziest either. Heck, I could say that it’s intellectually lazy to just support what we’ve always done.
mrjames
Professor
Posts 5490
02-26-18 01:36 PM - Post#249599    

Yeah, I’ve always found the anti-tourney folks to be more intellectually lazy than the pro-tourney side. That’s not to say all 14GT supporters are intellectually lazy, just that many refuse to engage with this argument as a set of tradeoffs rather than as a moral imperative that the 14GT always leads to the right outcome because the only right outcome is the outcome of the 14GT.

Some arguments from the anti-tourney side have held water over time:

- The Ivy League office would screw up the logistics from a fairness perspective
- The league isn’t good enough to get an at large right now
- It’ll take the focus away from a really exciting title race

But what all of those have in common is that they are probabilistic statements and one’s sentiment about the tourney should be set through how you weigh those odds moving forward, rather than your absolute belief that one side is “right.”

I believe there are non-trivial odds that a first-place team could have a late season injury that drastically changes its competitiveness in the NCAA tourney. I believe there are non-trivial odds that the timing of key injuries could change the quality of the opponents that each of the teams in the title chase play based on the schedule that make the SOS different from a true round robin. I believe there are non-trivial odds that in a sample size as small as 14, a significantly inferior team could win the regular season and the tourney could select for the better team.

For me, the upside from these odds outweigh the expect value of the negatives from a perfectly executed conference tourney. But our current iteration isn’t perfect executed, and is instead repeating the same error that dogged the America East for years (and kept some REALLY good teams out of the tourney at the expense of some 15s and 16s). I’m in the anti-tourney camp for now, but as the expected values change, I expect my stance to do so as well...
Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts 2366
02-26-18 01:53 PM - Post#249603    

"I'm in the anti-tourney camp for now ...".

Welcome aboard. The tide is turning. My feelings have been expressed too often already. I emphasize, however, that my position about the existence of a tournament has changed over the last couple of years. I'm willing to concede that there may be a suitable time for one -- possibly soon. But, we aren't ready for it until we are a 2 bid conference.
Go Green
Masters Student
Posts 646
02-26-18 02:07 PM - Post#249605    

  • Tiger69 Said:
But, we aren't ready for it until we are a 2 bid conference.



I presume that you're on board with a tournament for the women, then?

http://www.ivyleague.com/news/2016/3/15/3_15_2 016_...
sparman
Masters Student
Posts 950
sparman
02-26-18 02:21 PM - Post#249607    

  • palestra38 Said:
But why shouldn't the players and people who developed the players at significant cost not share in the huge pool of money being made from big time college athletics?

Make no mistake, I think college sports should be for student athletes. But we're kidding ourselves if we think that is happening at almost any level with the exception of the Ivies and Patriot League. And it isn't illegal for the players and AAU people to want some of that pot, nor is it immoral. It just violates NCAA rules written in another era.


This is a different point from the "unfair advantage" concept. Perhaps the rules should, or will, be changed to allow payments. (IMO we are then not talking about college sports, we have morphed entirely into the pro team sponsored by a school likely using tax-exempt funds, but that is a different point as well).

But for the moment, it IS illegal under current rules, thus efforts to circumvent the rule before it is changed - as opposed to actively advocating and working to change the rule through the normal process - are by definition seeking unfair advantage.

mrjames
Professor
Posts 5490
02-26-18 03:16 PM - Post#249623    

The women definitely should be doing this. Top at No. 33. Three in the RPI Top 75, five around the Top 125, seven at Top 200ish or better. That changes the cost-benefit dramatically.
SomeGuy
Postdoc
Posts 4896
02-26-18 03:27 PM - Post#249625    

Is the issue the location of the tournament? Or something else with execution?

You’ve said that the plan is to do something else next year — is your change of position related to how that issue will be resolved?

As a Penn fan, I thought the location was great, and is the only venue that really showcases the league. But from a fairness perspective, it doesn’t work. 6-8 Penn getting to play a home game against 14-0 Princeton is one thing. But if Penn is the #2 seed and ends up with a home game against #1 Harvard, that seems like a big advantage that matters.
mrjames
Professor
Posts 5490
02-26-18 03:42 PM - Post#249628    

For me - the biggest issue is location, which is worth a few points and affects the odds of a top seed getting the bid in a significant way (except in the case of Penn being the top seed). That changes the calculation for sure.

The second biggest issue is the timing. I don't love a smaller league having its tournament final on a Sunday. The committee will obviously deal with bigger leagues doing so, because it has to, but I feel like there could be a situation in the future where we are adversely impacted due to the difficulty the different scenarios the Ivies could raise, such that we'd pay for it with seeding (or even a two-bid scenario).
bradley
PhD Student
Posts 1149
02-26-18 05:59 PM - Post#249651    

You raise some valid points although I am a little confused about the comments as to probabilistic statements. As you rightly point out, several of the anti-tourney initial concerns have held over time although in fairness, it will probably take five years or more to see if the anti-tourney people were worry worts or had legitimate long-term concerns.

As to the three expaples of non-trivial odds, they are all stated as could be's -- problematic??? It is possilbe that injuries at the end of the season or players returning from injuries could impact results as it may this year -- Aiken, Mason, etc. It will be interesting over time to see if a significantly inferior team will win the regular season and the tourney could have selected a better team. It seems highly unlikely other than a rare occurrence but time will tell. At the end of the day, results will provide us answers as to what is probabilistic or not.
mrjames
Professor
Posts 5490
02-26-18 06:38 PM - Post#249660    

I would argue, for instance, that we have had a couple teams this decade good enough to be an at large if they lost in the Ivy Tourney (2012 and 2014 Harvard - probably 2012 Harvard had the strongest case).

The "significantly inferior" question hasn't happened recently, but it happened in 2004 and was only narrowly avoided in 2002 and 2012. I assign that a lower probability than the others, but it's still possible.

I do disagree that results will lead us to the answer here - at least within any reasonable timeframe. If we had 50 years with the same system to examine, maybe we could start feeling confident about the outcomes we're seeing, but for me, the actual outcomes of the tournament will be less instructive than some of the underlying evidence along the way. For instance, we may label last year's tournament a success, but I see it as a massive danger sign. If Matt Howard makes the front end (or even worse, both), year one would have been a disaster. At that point, Princeton was 5.9% to win. The result of that tourney is far less instructive than that data point and should have caused us to take a LONG look at where the tourney is hosted.
Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts 2366
02-26-18 07:52 PM - Post#249673    

I suppose. As long as the real Champ gets a bid.🐅
Old Bear
Postdoc
Posts 3581
02-26-18 09:00 PM - Post#249689    

Does a bid to the NIT count?
SomeGuy
Postdoc
Posts 4896
02-26-18 09:08 PM - Post#249692    

There are two different questions here though (aren’t there?). Wouldn’t you say that a number 4 beating a number 1 eventually is inevitable and an expectation you would have to have for our tournament? When you were for the tournament, didn’t you recognize that? Now, if Penn had won last year, you view that as a problem. But that is about location and fairness, right? It isn’t just that a 4 beat a 1 — it’s that a 4 beat a 1 while playing on the 4’s court. Right?
SomeGuy
Postdoc
Posts 4896
02-26-18 09:16 PM - Post#249695    

We’re still a little ways from this scenario, but suppose Penn and Harvard both win out to the Ivy final, and then Harvard wins. At that point, both teams are 14-2, and Harvard is 2-1 head to head with the second win at the Palestra. Who is the “rightful” champ then? Why is what happens over 14 games a better indicator than what happens over 16 with an extra game between the teams?
SRP
Postdoc
Posts 3815
02-26-18 09:17 PM - Post#249696    

Going to be so embarrassing when Princeton sweeps its last two, Columbia slips on all the available banana peels, and the Tigers win the tournament from the Fortunate Fourth position on an upsurge in three-point percentage and FT percentage. Play-in, baby!
Silver Maple
Postdoc
Posts 3467
02-26-18 10:21 PM - Post#249701    

The only plausible thing in that post is the whole Columbia/banana peels bit.
SomeGuy
Postdoc
Posts 4896
02-27-18 12:27 AM - Post#249709    

It’s not inconceivable that Princeton would avoid the playin in that scenario.
SRP
Postdoc
Posts 3815
02-27-18 12:31 AM - Post#249710    

Oh ye of little faith. I am betting all my Bitcoin holdings on this scenario.
bradley
PhD Student
Posts 1149
02-27-18 10:04 AM - Post#249722    

I agree with you that it is inevitable that a #4 seed wins IvyMadness and it was identified as an issue by some of us who were opposed to the IL Tournament. One of the objections was that #4 regular season teams have been historically weak for many of the past 10+ years. For examples. this year Columbia may finish 6 and 8 in the league and 9-18 overall. They surely will be a #16 seed and might have a play-in game at the Big Dance. The argument by some of us would be that whatever little jolt that would come out of the IL Tournament would be quashed by getting crushed by Virginia/Villanova or whoever. Same holds true as to last year where it almost happened with Penn but at least Penn was 12-15 and a better team than this year's version - Columbia or Cornell. Who wants to watch their alma mater crushed??

What made the issue even more unique is that Penn had the home court advantage last year.

The thought that this year's version of the Tigers playing Virginia/Villanova/Kansas is not very appealing to me but fortunately, it will not happen.
HARVARDDADGRAD
PhD Student
Posts 1614
02-27-18 11:20 AM - Post#249725    

Why not?

Hard Knocks became Hard Cuts, so Hard Cuts would simply have a final episode entitled something like Blunt Force Annihilation. It's all marketing anyway.
Go Green
Masters Student
Posts 646
02-27-18 11:49 AM - Post#249726    

  • bradley Said:
For examples. this year Columbia may finish 6 and 8 in the league and 9-18 overall. They surely will be a #16 seed and might have a play-in game at the Big Dance. The argument by some of us would be that whatever little jolt that would come out of the IL Tournament would be quashed by getting crushed by Virginia/Villanova or whoever. Same holds true as to last year where it almost happened with Penn but at least Penn was 12-15 and a better team than this year's version - Columbia or Cornell. Who wants to watch their alma mater crushed??



This situation happens almost every year. Can't recall who it was in 2017, but in 2016 it was Holy Cross who played conference tourney spoiler, Dayton winner, and #1 seed fodder.

Best I could tell, they'd happily do it again this season if they can...
SRP
Postdoc
Posts 3815
02-27-18 12:42 PM - Post#249729    

Except Carmody apologized in the press conference after they won the Patriot tournament and said Lehigh deserved to go.
sparman
Masters Student
Posts 950
sparman
02-27-18 01:07 PM - Post#249735    

Of course they're happy they won. Any team that wins and gets to keep playing is happy they won. This is not an argument in favor of a tournament unless your objective is to give teams that failed to produce during the regular season a second chance to be happy.

You are not creating or increasing "happiness," you are merely substituting one team's happiness for another's. The team that was excellent during the entire year and lost in the tournament is not happy.

dperry
PhD Student
Posts 1560
dperry
02-27-18 10:55 PM - Post#249785    

  • Silver Maple Said:
The #1 spot also means we can hoist another Ivy Champs banner to the Palestra rafters, regardless of what happens in the conference tournament. That definitely means a lot to me, and I'll bet it means a lot to the players as well.



It means a lot to you and them because you both started in the days when the regular season championship was everything. Based on how other one-bid leagues behave, my suspicion is that as time goes by and memory fades, the regular-season championship will mean less and less.
David Perry
Penn '92
"Hail, Alma Mater/Thy sons cheer thee now
To thee, Pennsylvania/All rivals must bow!!!"

dperry
PhD Student
Posts 1560
dperry
02-27-18 11:12 PM - Post#249789    

  • Go Green Said:
  • Tiger69 Said:
But, we aren't ready for it until we are a 2 bid conference.



I presume that you're on board with a tournament for the women, then?

http://www.ivyleague.com/news/2016/3/15/3_15_2 016_...



It's happened once. Call me back when it happens every year because the top two teams are always good enough to get in, abomination or no abomination (which, of course, is precisely what happened two years ago.)
David Perry
Penn '92
"Hail, Alma Mater/Thy sons cheer thee now
To thee, Pennsylvania/All rivals must bow!!!"

dperry
PhD Student
Posts 1560
dperry
02-27-18 11:16 PM - Post#249791    

  • mrjames Said:


The second biggest issue is the timing. I don't love a smaller league having its tournament final on a Sunday. The committee will obviously deal with bigger leagues doing so, because it has to, but I feel like there could be a situation in the future where we are adversely impacted due to the difficulty the different scenarios the Ivies could raise, such that we'd pay for it with seeding (or even a two-bid scenario).



Not to mention that the big leagues completely suck all of the air out of the room publicity-wise that weekend, which in the long run is much more important.
David Perry
Penn '92
"Hail, Alma Mater/Thy sons cheer thee now
To thee, Pennsylvania/All rivals must bow!!!"

dperry
PhD Student
Posts 1560
dperry
02-27-18 11:45 PM - Post#249793    

  • SomeGuy Said:
We’re still a little ways from this scenario, but suppose Penn and Harvard both win out to the Ivy final, and then Harvard wins. At that point, both teams are 14-2, and Harvard is 2-1 head to head with the second win at the Palestra. Who is the “rightful” champ then? Why is what happens over 14 games a better indicator than what happens over 16 with an extra game between the teams?



The problem here is that what is officially happening is not that we are adding more information; instead, we are throwing out the old information and replacing it with new information. There are some years, like this one, where there may not be much difference, but there are some years where there is an enormous difference.

Hypothetical: Say that the automatic bid was decided by a committee, and that each team played each other team three times. The two best teams at the end of the season are Team A and Team B. Team A won the first game by 15 on the road and the second by 20 at home; Team B won the third game at home by two. No-brainer that the committee will pick Team A, right?

Guess what? The first two-thirds of the hypothetical have already happened in the women's season. If part three happens, it's Penn that's got the automatic bid and Princeton that's biting their nails during the selection show, despite the fact that the Tigers have ventilated us twice and have performed better overall. Under that scenario, you've actually lost information. We won't even get into the fun possibility that Princeton could get knocked off in the first round by Harvard or Yale (both of whom they've lost to) and then Penn, with the home advantage, wins easy.

I'll also remind you all that this is the Ivy League championship, not just the top two or three teams championship. Every game in the regular season provides some information, quite a bit of which you lose in the abomination (although admittedly not quite as badly as if all eight teams were in.) If Harvard lost to Columbia as well as to Penn, that says something important, even if the Lions don't make the cut.
David Perry
Penn '92
"Hail, Alma Mater/Thy sons cheer thee now
To thee, Pennsylvania/All rivals must bow!!!"

dperry
PhD Student
Posts 1560
dperry
02-27-18 11:53 PM - Post#249795    

  • penn nation Said:
All I care about is a chance to play beyond the IL tourney. That tourney will be a true crapshoot.

So yes, the #1 position is very important--not so much for the tourney, but for knowing that at minimum they will be playing after that weekend no matter what.



Last year, I would have been ecstatic to have been in the NIT. This year, however, it's going to be a serious disappointment. I suspect most of the rest of the Penn fans feel the same way.
David Perry
Penn '92
"Hail, Alma Mater/Thy sons cheer thee now
To thee, Pennsylvania/All rivals must bow!!!"

penn nation
Professor
Posts 12884
02-28-18 12:00 AM - Post#249796    

Would not be disappointed at all. Would be thrilled to see Penn in either the NIT or NCAAs.

I would, however, be quite disappointed if Penn did not have the opportunity to play in either of these.

  • dperry Said:
  • penn nation Said:
All I care about is a chance to play beyond the IL tourney. That tourney will be a true crapshoot.

So yes, the #1 position is very important--not so much for the tourney, but for knowing that at minimum they will be playing after that weekend no matter what.



Last year, I would have been ecstatic to have been in the NIT. This year, however, it's going to be a serious disappointment. I suspect most of the rest of the Penn fans feel the same way.




dperry
PhD Student
Posts 1560
dperry
02-28-18 12:51 AM - Post#249799    

  • mrjames Said:
Yeah, I’ve always found the anti-tourney folks to be more intellectually lazy than the pro-tourney side. That’s not to say all 14GT supporters are intellectually lazy, just that many refuse to engage with this argument as a set of tradeoffs rather than as a moral imperative that the 14GT always leads to the right outcome because the only right outcome is the outcome of the 14GT.

Some arguments from the anti-tourney side have held water over time:

- The Ivy League office would screw up the logistics from a fairness perspective
- The league isn’t good enough to get an at large right now
- It’ll take the focus away from a really exciting title race

But what all of those have in common is that they are probabilistic statements and one’s sentiment about the tourney should be set through how you weigh those odds moving forward, rather than your absolute belief that one side is “right.”

I believe there are non-trivial odds that a first-place team could have a late season injury that drastically changes its competitiveness in the NCAA tourney. I believe there are non-trivial odds that the timing of key injuries could change the quality of the opponents that each of the teams in the title chase play based on the schedule that make the SOS different from a true round robin. I believe there are non-trivial odds that in a sample size as small as 14, a significantly inferior team could win the regular season and the tourney could select for the better team.

For me, the upside from these odds outweigh the expect value of the negatives from a perfectly executed conference tourney. But our current iteration isn’t perfect executed, and is instead repeating the same error that dogged the America East for years (and kept some REALLY good teams out of the tourney at the expense of some 15s and 16s). I’m in the anti-tourney camp for now, but as the expected values change, I expect my stance to do so as well...



My moral outrage comes more from the fact that if this thing continues, we will never have a season like the 2002 men or the 2016 women again. Both of those years are among the most precious of my sports memories, and the Ivies were one of the few places I could experience such things anymore, particularly since baseball f'ed itself up. I would trade ten abominations, even really good ones, for one year like those.

I will also note that some of us have different estimates of the probabilities behind the tradeoffs than others. We may disagree on how much more likely the 14GT is to produce the real champion than the abomination, but I think we do agree that it is more likely. On the other hand, my estimate of how likely it was that the league would not only screw up the logistics, but also the timing, ticket prices, network, etc., was 99.5% (and as I've pointed out before, the irony is that most of the pro-abomination folks would completely agree with me if we were discussing any other aspect of the league's performance, but somehow they thought that this was magically going to go swimmingly.) My estimate of how likely it is that the league will get a second bid in any given year going forward is also much lower than yours, not so much because I don't think we'll continue to improve (I'm a bit more skeptical about that than you are, but not much), but because I do not believe that the NCAA has any plans to be fair in this area--and there's been plenty of evidence the past few years to back me up on that. The loss of our uniqueness has already had negative effects, as we pretty much completely fell off the media radar during championship week last year. It also costs six teams more class time, and probably hurts the two first place teams more than the old system did as well. Add all of that up, and I don't need the 14GT to be too much better to conclude that the other way ain't worth it.

As far as odds go:
1. There are also non-trivial odds that the best team in the league could suffer a major injury in the abomination that would greatly lower their competitiveness in the NCAA's.
2. Any injuries that affect the competitiveness of the round-robin are just as likely to help the best team as anyone else, so in the long run that should be a wash.
3.) There will also be times when a significantly inferior team wins both the regular season AND the postseason, and others when the two championships will be won by two DIFFERENT significantly inferior teams, which need to be factored in when considering the relative merits of the formats.
David Perry
Penn '92
"Hail, Alma Mater/Thy sons cheer thee now
To thee, Pennsylvania/All rivals must bow!!!"

Go Green
Masters Student
Posts 646
02-28-18 09:07 AM - Post#249806    

  • dperry Said:


It means a lot to you and them because you both started in the days when the regular season championship was everything. Based on how other one-bid leagues behave, my suspicion is that as time goes by and memory fades, the regular-season championship will mean less and less.



Fairness dictates that this work both ways.

If people's memories will dull over time what a regular season championship means as time passes, then the same should necessarily happen to any suggestions that a conference tournament is an "abomination."
bradley
PhD Student
Posts 1149
02-28-18 09:47 AM - Post#249814    

Needless to say, I agree with the vast majority of points that you have raised. IvyMadness is just that. The non-trivial justification as to the role of injuries, and many other pro IL Tournament arguments are interesting but are not good reasons for change. The goal of change is to improve something and if IvYMadness improved the situation, current opponents would endorse change. The implementation of the IL Tournament has demonstrated the inability of Robin and her Court to effectively implement change and indeed, that is no great surprise and was predictable back when.

Steve Pikiell, Rutgers coach, was interviewed last evening prior to the Big Tenn championship at MSG. He has a perspective based on being at small schools (Stony Brook) one bid leagues and multiple bid leagues, Big Ten/UConn. He clearly differentiated between the two. The introduction of IvyMadness would have been at least rational if the Ivies were really a two bid league. It was simply too early to introduce IvyMadness until the league reached this threshold - the league has actually taken a step back this year although partially due to injuries. Pikiell did not talk about the joy of going to the NIT if Stony Brook failed to win their league tournament. He talked about having a 18 game winning streak and being nervous as hell that SB would not be the league's NCAA representative.

The fans who advocated for IvyMadness because they thought that their team could not beat H, Y or P may be disapointed such as Penn this year.

The arguments over the past tow years have been many -- improve the chances of getting two bids, improved IL attendance, greater exposure for the league, recruiting, injuries, etc. sounds like grasping for straws.

I am no fan of Penn but I hope they win IvyMadness if they are the regular season champs.
sparman
Masters Student
Posts 950
sparman
03-02-18 01:40 PM - Post#250162    

  • dperry Said:
My estimate of how likely it is that the league will get a second bid in any given year going forward is .... because I do not believe that the NCAA has any plans to be fair in this area--and there's been plenty of evidence the past few years to back me up on that.


This is true only you believe the NCAA and the major conference teams only care about maximizing their $$ and winning at all costs, including paying players regardless of rules. I mean, who could believe that?

Speaking of miraculous comebacks, anyone see UVA pull out a W last night over Louisville being down 4 points and under 1 SECOND to play?
palestra38
Professor
Posts 21609
03-02-18 01:47 PM - Post#250164    

It was a 2 point lead. Lousiville's inbound man took steps behind the baseline and got called for it. Then UVA inbounded for a winning bank that clearly was not intended as a bank.

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketba ll/game?g...
sparman
Masters Student
Posts 950
sparman
03-02-18 01:51 PM - Post#250166    

It was a 4 point lead when L'ville fouled a UVA 3PT shooter at 0.9 seconds to play.

"And then Louisville made the one more to go up by four! But Virginia’s Ty Jerome got fouled shooting a desperation three-pointer with 0.9 seconds left — down four, remember, which is probably a moment when you don’t need to foul the guy shooting a three-pointer — and then Jerome made the first two free throws to draw his team within two, which set up the final insanity."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dc-sports-bog/...
penn nation
Professor
Posts 12884
03-02-18 01:53 PM - Post#250167    

And the third foul shot was waved off because of a foul line violation in Virginia.

Which was dwarved by the subsequent end line violation by Louisville.
sparman
Masters Student
Posts 950
sparman
03-02-18 01:57 PM - Post#250168    

You'd like to think at least one event from this perfect storm sequence couldn't happen in an IL game.
penn nation
Professor
Posts 12884
03-02-18 03:46 PM - Post#250196    

How quickly we forget what happened to the Penn women.



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: 0.259 seconds.   Total Queries: 15   Zlib Compression is on.
All times are (GMT -0500) Eastern. Current time is 11:16 AM
Top