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

Back to Post
Username Post: Ivy tournament
Chet Forte
Postdoc
Posts 2958
03-11-18 03:00 PM - Post#251970    

This series convinced need me that it has to be moved to a neutral court. First of all, why would the other ADs permit one school to have an enormous recruiting advantage by being able to say that they host the championship every year? Second, since there is a pronounced home team advantage (statistically easy to demonstrate) why give Penn a built in advantage whenever it is in the tournament? Finally, Although I have no particular interest in seeing Harvard beat Penn or vice versatility, I thought that the officiating was pretty much one-sided. The clincher for me was when Harvard pretty clearly and cleanly trapped Betley, who then stepped out of bounds, but the call went against Harvard.

JadwinGeorge
Senior
Posts 357
03-11-18 03:03 PM - Post#251972    

I thought the foul call was rather obvious, at least on tv.
Old Bear
Postdoc
Posts 3988
03-11-18 03:21 PM - Post#251981    

I agree with Chet on both.
penn nation
Professor
Posts 21086
03-11-18 04:38 PM - Post#252013    

The officials made questionable calls against both teams. There wasn't any clear advantage there. For the most part, they weren't calling a lot of fouls, anyways--against either team.

Home court, obviously a different discussion.
SRP
Postdoc
Posts 4894
03-11-18 10:33 PM - Post#252205    

The worst was the phantom restricted-area charge call against Harvard in the first half. Open and shut. Didn't see too many bad calls go the other way, but the total number of bad calls was small.
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts 3580
03-11-18 10:37 PM - Post#252213    

The flop against Max was ridiculous and at a crucial moment. The officials did not decide the game and it was pretty evenly officiated
Go Green
PhD Student
Posts 1124
03-12-18 08:59 AM - Post#252273    

  • Chet Forte Said:
This series convinced need me that it has to be moved to a neutral court. First of all, why would the other ADs permit one school to have an enormous recruiting advantage by being able to say that they host the championship every year? Second, since there is a pronounced home team advantage (statistically easy to demonstrate) why give Penn a built in advantage whenever it is in the tournament? Finally, Although I have no particular interest in seeing Harvard beat Penn or vice versatility, I thought that the officiating was pretty much one-sided. The clincher for me was when Harvard pretty clearly and cleanly trapped Betley, who then stepped out of bounds, but the call went against Harvard.



The Princeton-Penn women's game served as a pretty good counterargument to all this.
HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts 2685
03-12-18 09:40 AM - Post#252288    

It will come as no surprise that this Harvard fan continues to think that playing the tournament on the home court of one team - a geographical outlier, and the inferior seed - is ludicrous.

For the final game, well over 80%+ and possibly as many as 90% of the fans were home team fans and students. The benefits, penalties, and issues associated with playing at home and/or traveling to play away are well documented and - to some extent - quantified. I can't believe any unbiased person can honestly say that this is the right way to decide the season between two very well matched teams.

I've read one young Penn fan post on the Penn thread about how amazing it is to have the opportunity to muster at home for such an important game. What about the other 7 schools and their students? Cornell students had to be on a bus at 6am and travel over 8 hrs RT in a single day to support their team. When Harvard won Saturday, where were those students going to stay overnight? How many students can afford that. For the second year in a row, the FOLLY became a FARCE.

This is not a complaint against Penn basketball, but what the League has created is plain wrong to the point where it absolutely impacts the outcome. Despite the 'party line', there is no way players and coaches are ok with handing their opponent a 4 point advantage (possibly more under these circumstances). Too bad Penn had not won the semifinal last year, upending 14-0 Princeton. Maybe we could have ended - or at least fixed - this travesty sooner.
palestra38
Professor
Posts 32685
03-12-18 09:48 AM - Post#252295    

I agree it is unfair. "Inferior seed", however, is purely subjective. Penn played better in conference than did Harvard and only the ridiculous tiebreaker went in Harvard's favor.

Problem is that the Ivies don't want to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars renting a building and the only other suitable conference setting is Jadwin, which really does nothing to address these issues. Now maybe if Harvard used some of its billions to build an arena worthy of the money it has spent on the program under Amaker, there would be a rotational argument to be made. I can't believe that after announcing they were going to build a new arena, all it did was renovate Levietes.
HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts 2685
03-12-18 09:59 AM - Post#252305    

Correct on both points.

Teams really tied in my estimation, seeding criteria was established by the league also, although it did have some objective connection to merit, which home court for tournament does not. Playoff on neutral court.

Requiring a school to have to invest in a facility in order to 'buy' home court advantage is troubling for obvious reasons. As I've heard it, Harvard did not think it is appropriate to spend the money on a new arena ahead of refurbishing student dorms. Not sure the Ivy League wants to penalize a school for a decision like that.

By the way, not sure Penn played better than Harvard in conference. Certainly didn't play better head to head in conference.
Go Green
PhD Student
Posts 1124
03-12-18 10:07 AM - Post#252308    

  • HARVARDDADGRAD Said:


Requiring a school to have to invest in a facility in order to 'buy' home court advantage is troubling for obvious reasons. As I've heard it, Harvard did not think it is appropriate to spend the money on a new arena ahead of refurbishing student dorms. Not sure the Ivy League wants to penalize a school for a decision like that.



But that's pretty much the exact argument that Princeton and Penn fans were telling the rest of us when they had a stranglehold on Ivy (men's) play. "You guys want to get better players? Stop playing in a high school gym and build a real arena like we do."

As for Lavietas, posters here said that the new venue didn't go forward because of NIMBY opposition.
palestra38
Professor
Posts 32685
03-12-18 10:12 AM - Post#252311    

How many OT games did Harvard play?

But I agree that there is no debate about fairness under the former format. However, given that there is a tournament, we both know that while Bridgeport (as an example) would be fairer, there would be a significant cost to rent a facility for 2 days. There is no rent for use of the Palestra--so the League makes money and puts on a helluva show (BTW, if they want to host in Jadwin, they would have to install a modern videoboard, which was an integral part of the program).

I just don't see any of the schools wanting to shell out $100K or more for a neutral site. But I wait to see what happens.
HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts 2685
03-12-18 10:16 AM - Post#252313    

Harvard and Yale have obviously debunked the concept that the size of the gymnasium begets championships.

As for the refurbishment of Lavietes instead of a new 6,000 arena, I reported what I've heard. If you've been to Allston recently, that entire 'backyard' is under construction. Even the Mass Pike is being moved to facilitate it!
Chet Forte
Postdoc
Posts 2958
03-12-18 10:38 AM - Post#252321    

I think the other ADs got outsmarted by Penn in agreeing to have the tournament in the Palestra. It gives Penn a huge recruiting advantage insofar as they can tell all recruits that they play in the cathedral of Ivy basketball. And it is pretty well documented that there is on average around a six point advantage to being at home. So I would have the 1 and 2 seeds host the first game, with the highest remaining seed hosting the final. And if the other venues aren’t as large as the Palestra, so be it. Otherwise, just rename the tournament the Penn Invitational. PS, I do think that Betley was pretty clearly trapped by Harvard, although I was indifferent as to the outcome of the game.

Go Green
PhD Student
Posts 1124
03-12-18 10:51 AM - Post#252323    

  • Chet Forte Said:
So I would have the 1 and 2 seeds host the first game, with the highest remaining seed hosting the final.



The league has repeatedly said that it wants to hold the men's and women's tournament at the same venue.

Until that changes, the options are 1) having it on an Ivy campus, or 2) having it at a neutral venue.
HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts 2685
03-12-18 11:15 AM - Post#252333    

GG, you keep saying that. The league has also said that the current structure was an experiment. Things can change, and things need to be improved/fixed.



Go Green
PhD Student
Posts 1124
03-12-18 11:21 AM - Post#252336    

  • HARVARDDADGRAD Said:
GG, you keep saying that. The league has also said that the current structure was an experiment. Things can change, and things need to be improved/fixed.






Glad to see you follow my posts!! And I will keep saying it until it sinks in to the Board's collective thinking. I went through something similar on the Voy Board consistently telling people to google the "Dayton Rule" when someone said he was afraid that Ivy football would go to D-III. Took years of perseverance, but I think everyone on the Board finally got it. No one has made the D-III prediction in a long while.

If you want my opinion, if we ever do the "higher seed" thing, it will be because the women feel that they are being shortchanged by being paired with the men's tournament, and want to go off and do their own thing. It won't be because a higher seed thinks it got screwed playing Penn at the Palestra. The latter is not a winning argument (literally, in fact).
LionFan
Senior
Posts 398
03-12-18 11:25 AM - Post#252341    

If the Big Ten and the ACC can have their tournaments in New York, why shouldn't the Ivy League hold its tournament in Indianapolis or Raleigh-Durham? Just sayin'.
Chip Bayers
Professor
Posts 6997
Chip Bayers
03-12-18 11:44 AM - Post#252346    

  • Quote:
So I would have the 1 and 2 seeds host the first game, with the highest remaining seed hosting the final.



For example: you want a four seed to play in Philadelphia on Saturday, then when they get the upset, travel to Ithaca for a game Sunday. Which has to be an early game because of the selection process.

The league has said part of the purpose of having the dopey thing in one place, on a weekend, and for both men and women, is to minimize travel time for the student-athletes. Guess that’s right out the window.


HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts 2685
03-12-18 12:49 PM - Post#252388    

If you want to minimize travel, find a central location- not the southern outlier
Chet Forte
Postdoc
Posts 2958
03-12-18 12:52 PM - Post#252390    

Play game one on Friday evening and the championship on Sunday afternoon. I just don’t see how it makes sense for the rest of the league to allow Penn this sort of advantage, both in recruiting and in having the home court advantage.

SomeGuy
Professor
Posts 6391
03-12-18 02:51 PM - Post#252462    

The Palestra will still be the cathedral and part of the recruiting pitch whether the tournament is there or not. The extra publicity can’t hurt, of course, but the fact the tournament is there doesn’t make the place. The Big Five and the history of the venue have always been part of the pitch.





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: 0.271 seconds.   Total Queries: 15   Zlib Compression is on.
All times are (GMT -0500) Eastern. Current time is 08:10 AM
Top