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

Back to Post
Username Post: 2019 Ivy Tournament at Yale?
westcoast
Freshman
Posts 88
05-24-18 01:09 PM - Post#257147    

This is a surprise. Yale Basketball has tweeted that they will be hosting the 2019 Ivy League Tournament.

https://twitter.com/Yale_Basketball/statu s/9996973...
penn nation
Professor
Posts 11368
05-24-18 01:37 PM - Post#257151    

Well, I guess the good news is now there's a greater chance of having sellout crowds at the Ivy Tourney.
rbg
Masters Student
Posts 841
05-24-18 01:37 PM - Post#257152    

Looks like the question mark should be removed from the topic title.

Here is the official announcement:

https://pennathletics.com/news/2018/5/24/mens-b ask...

The setup will be the same as this year -
Saturday March 16th
Men's semifinal #1 (#1 vs #4 seed) at 12:30 pm (ESPNU)
Men's semifinal #2 (#2 vs #3 seed) at 3:00 pm (ESPNU)
Women's semifinal #1 (#1 vs #4 seed) at 6:00 pm (ESPN3)
Women's semifinal #2 (#2 vs #3 seed) 30 minutes after the 1st semifinal (ESPN3)

Sunday March 17th
Men's final at 12:00 pm (ESPN2)
Women's final at 4:00 pm (ESPNU)
84grad
Freshman
Posts 67
05-24-18 01:44 PM - Post#257153    

I didn't think it could get worse. I'm a Harvard fan opposed to any tournament, but fully supportive of a tournament (if it has to be held) at The Palestra (even last year). Disappointing choice and cannot accept the characterization of the "historic John J. Lee Amphitheater". Major step backwards.
Chip Bayers
Postdoc
Posts 4684
Chip Bayers
05-24-18 02:03 PM - Post#257155    

Absurd. Absolutely absurd.

weinhauers_ghost
PhD Student
Posts 1027
05-24-18 02:06 PM - Post#257156    

  • Chip Bayers Said:
Absurd. Absolutely absurd.



I am in full agreement. This is just stupid.

Don't forget this gem from the announcement posted on the Penn Athletics website:

The site for the 2020 Ivy League Basketball Tournaments will be determined at a later date as the League continues to explore various options
PennFan10
PhD Student
Posts 1785
05-24-18 03:18 PM - Post#257160    

Well, some folks get their wish, no Palestra. More of a central location for all those Dartmouth/Harvard/Cornell fans to race down and attend, but clearly neutral floor was not on the menu when choosing relocation spots.
Silver Maple
Postdoc
Posts 3236
05-24-18 03:41 PM - Post#257162    

I suspect neutral floor actually was on the menu, but there just weren't any viable options.
penn nation
Professor
Posts 11368
05-24-18 03:53 PM - Post#257166    

  • Silver Maple Said:
I suspect neutral floor actually was on the menu, but there just weren't any viable free options.



rbg
Masters Student
Posts 841
05-24-18 04:52 PM - Post#257169    

As DPerry has noted, the attendance for the men's semis and finals for the two years have been:
Semis: 5,419 (2018), 6,209 (2017)
Finals: 5,564 (2018), 3,833 (2017)

According to the Yale website, JLA holds 2,800 (1,500 permanent seats and 1,300 pull-out bleachers).

Going from the Palestra's 8,700+ to JLA's 2,800+ will greatly reduce the crowd size but provide a greater chance at a packed house for both days.

By choosing another conference venue, especially one where the men's team has been in the top 4 for the last 19 seasons, the contentious issue of home court advantage will still be in play for year #3.

If the league wanted a smaller venue and a greater chance at a packed house, then Columbia's Levien would appear to be a better option. NYC and its surrounding area is the home to a large amount of alums of all 8 schools. NYC is more easily accessible for those traveling from a distance and the arena can be easily reached by subway. Also, NYC provides a large number of non-basketball activities for those looking to make a weekend vacation out of the Tournament.

Objectively New Haven is not New York. There just does not seem to be the same excitement going from a major city, like Philly, to a smaller metropolitan area, like New Haven. Skipping a free conference facility in the nation's largest market during ESPN's Championship Week seems very shortsighted.

It would seem that this choice is a concession to Yale, Brown, Harvard and Dartmouth for having the first two years down in Philly (FWIW, Cornell is 275 miles from Yale, which is about a 5 hour trip without traffic. NYC is 225 miles and Cornell has a growing footprint there).

While the JLA will have a greater percentage of the arena filled for both tournaments and provide an intense atmosphere, it is a bit disappointing to see the league downsizing to such a degree by year #3. If this is a step towards eliminating the Ivy Tournament, then it is understandable. If the league is trying to actually grow the Tournament, then it is a more surprising choice.
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts 3777
05-24-18 05:00 PM - Post#257170    

As a supporter of the tournament (it's gonna look awesome/intense/be a blast on tv) and acknowledging the Palestra was unfair to other teams, I understand this decision.

If they insist the men and women play at the same venue and thus won't allow for higher seeds to host, this "let everyone have a turn hosting" is ok. I find it preferable to the empty neutral arena deal.

I do agree with rbg about New York. Unlike any of the other towns, you don't have to have Columbia in the tourney to sell out and could probably do that even with a larger venue, though not MSG. Oh well.
sparman
Masters Student
Posts 881
sparman
05-24-18 06:08 PM - Post#257173    

Sounds like we're in for a bumpy ride as the League tries to figure out how to achieve those lofty (and IMO unrealistic) tournament goals.
penn nation
Professor
Posts 11368
05-24-18 06:37 PM - Post#257174    

I think releasing this on the eve of Memorial Day weekend tells us all we need to know about how proud the bean counters at Nassau are about this move.
rbg
Masters Student
Posts 841
05-24-18 10:30 PM - Post#257179    

The writers at the Daily Pennsylvanian weigh in. They are not impressed with the decision.

The Ivy League and the terrible, horrible, no good, very bad decision
http://www.thedp.com/article/2018/05/papaz ekos-pal...

Yale's Lee Amphitheater to host Ivy League basketball tournaments in 2019
http://www.thedp.com/article/2018/05/penn- basketba...
(with choice tweets from Dalen Cuff of ESPN and John Templon of NYC Buckets)
Go Green
Masters Student
Posts 428
05-25-18 06:28 AM - Post#257182    

  • rbg Said:

It would seem that this choice is a concession to Yale, Brown, Harvard and Dartmouth for having the first two years down in Philly



If I had to guess, the choice was more about sticking it to Harvard and Princeton.

"You don't want it at the Palestra? Fine. We'll have it at Yale."



TigerFan
PhD Student
Posts 1131
05-25-18 08:11 AM - Post#257183    

I don’t hate this decision as much as some of you apparently do. Yale’s gym is small, ugly and uncomfortable but the place was electric during the 2011 “playoff” game between Princeton and Harvard. (Although I missed the first five minutes driving around desperately looking for parking). Who knows, maybe this decision will actually pave the way for a future decision to have the league winner host the thing—the only fair way to do this. If Yale can host it, anyone can. And the chaos of 8 teams in that location may convince the league powers that they don’t need to put the men and women in the same location.
PennFan10
PhD Student
Posts 1785
05-25-18 10:46 AM - Post#257191    

  • Silver Maple Said:
I suspect neutral floor actually was on the menu, but there just weren't any viable options.



This is another way of saying "neutral floor was NOT on the menu"


PennFan10
PhD Student
Posts 1785
05-25-18 10:56 AM - Post#257192    

There is only 1 reasonable complaint from anyone on here or anywhere for having the tournament at the Palestra:

Home court advantage

This choice does nothing to solve that issue so clearly that is not a priority in the decision making.

A distant 2nd reason is location/distance for travel. This does address that issue so that may have become more of a priority than in past years.

With this decision we can eliminate some of the "perceived" priorities of the IL brass such as ticket sales and HCA.


sparman
Masters Student
Posts 881
sparman
05-25-18 10:59 AM - Post#257193    

Reading those articles, the words "alternative facts" keep popping into my mind.
weinhauers_ghost
PhD Student
Posts 1027
05-25-18 11:25 AM - Post#257197    

  • sparman Said:
Reading those articles, the words "alternative facts" keep popping into my mind.



It's pretty easy to draw the conclusion that the IL administration exists in an alternate reality other than the one we alumni and supporters are in.
Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts 2272
05-25-18 12:30 PM - Post#257202    

For all the crap we take about Jadwin, it is a vastly better venue than the Cathedral, or whatever Yale calls their tight little gym. So, how is it that Jadwin wasn't the next choice? Hell, old Dillon Gym is better than the Cathedral. We could have both semis simultaneously. Or, the men at Jadwin and the women in Dillon for the semis and a double header for the finals at Jadwin. Any way you look at it, Princeton has the most ample and best facilities.
PennFan10
PhD Student
Posts 1785
05-25-18 01:43 PM - Post#257207    

Well the only benefit to Yale vs the Palestra is location, new haven being more central so that excludes Jadwin. Having it at the Palestra for two years probably hurt Princeton’s chances.
palestra38
Professor
Posts 18825
05-25-18 06:58 PM - Post#257217    

As I have said consistently, there was no way that the Ivy Presidents were going to approve spending $100K or more to rent a facility. So it had to be a campus location, and if not Penn or Princeton, they all suck in terms of capacity. My question is whether it is possible to install a larger bleacher in the non-permanent seats at Yale. If not, we're talking about season ticket holders at Penn not all getting seats if Penn gets in. But I understand the decision in terms of the reality of the northern schools feeling jobbed over last year (read Harvard)
section110
Masters Student
Posts 750
05-25-18 08:49 PM - Post#257222    

If Harvard doesn't want to get "jobbed" then the world's richest university should build a decent (say 6500 seat) facility.
bradley
Masters Student
Posts 792
05-26-18 10:14 AM - Post#257227    

Robin and her merry men are simply demonstrating that there was never a thought thru strategy behind IL Madness. You reap what you sow so none of this is all that surprising.

Although Harvard and Penn will probably be the favorites next year, it would be ironic is Yale has the home court advantage this year and advances to the Big Dance without the best record in the regular season -- it is indeed possible with their big man returning from injury. Without IL Madness, the Tigers would have gone to the Big Dance undefeated and Penn/Harvard would have played a dramatic game at a neutral court.

We remember all the so called arguments for the tournament -- increased regular season attendance, recruiting, league profile, etc etc. It is always good to match reality vs. promises.

The tournament may now rotate to each team's home court including Hanover, Ithaca, etc. but as you point out the geniuses behind IL Madness may head off to another direction. Time will tell.
PennFan10
PhD Student
Posts 1785
05-26-18 12:02 PM - Post#257229    

could be the existence of the Ivy tournament helped each team land some pretty solid recruits over the past 2 years. You can't dismiss that logic just because you can't see it. The quality of recruiting is higher across the league and the visibility of the league tournament is probably part of that.

I have had dozens of people tell me they watched the IL championship game on ESPN, in many different cities away from the east coast.

The visibility of the league has never been higher nationally.
bradley
Masters Student
Posts 792
05-26-18 01:06 PM - Post#257230    

If you are interested, Robin and IL Madness is also willing to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.

If and when the league is "truly" a 2 bid league, there is a legitimate argument -- other than that fantasy land.
SRP
Postdoc
Posts 3521
05-26-18 03:21 PM - Post#257231    

No big deal. A packed house in a central location may be better than a non-packed house at the southern end. The whole thing is too stupid to get worked up about.
PennFan10
PhD Student
Posts 1785
05-26-18 03:42 PM - Post#257232    

A legitimate argument about what? It would be hard to argue our league hasn't benefited from the visibility of the IL tournament nationally. That has nothing to do with a 2 bid league.
Cvonvorys
Postdoc
Posts 2191
05-26-18 04:25 PM - Post#257233    

  • PennFan10 Said:
A legitimate argument about what? It would be hard to argue our league hasn't benefited from the visibility of the IL tournament nationally. That has nothing to do with a 2 bid league.



I'll believe that when I read an article about a kid who decided to attend an Ivy League School over (fill-in-the-blank school) because he watched said Ivy League School in the IL Tourney. Anyone have one to share?
PennFan10
PhD Student
Posts 1785
05-27-18 10:30 AM - Post#257237    

Can you find an article from any school in the country where the kid says they made their decision based on a conference tournament? Recruits don't decide on schools just because of (fill-in-the-blank conference tournament).

I know when I was travelling on the west coast and Florida last month I had over a dozen people come up to me (while wearing Penn gear) and tell me they watched the ILT on ESPN.

And if you poll the players around the league whether the ILT is a plus/neutral/negative for them I would be shocked if it was less than 90% in favor.

I don't think it's a debate that the ILT raises the profile of the league across the country. And what High School Basketball kid doesn't want to do what Darnell Foreman did at the end of the half vs Harvard? Did ESPN show the final seconds of Yale beating Penn in New Haven? Nope. Did they show Cambridge going off at Princeton or Harvard losing @Columbia or the OT game at Cornell v Princeton on the last weekend? Nope. But they showed Darnell making that three and the highlights/final seconds of the ILT championship game over, and over, and over that day.

Any recruit who watched the ILT on ESPN (and I am quite sure many of them did) saw Towns, Lewis, Brodeur, Caleb, Betley, Juzang, etc and I'd be surprised if the level of play, athleticism, and competitiveness was a negative for their impression of Ivy League Basketball.

bradley
Masters Student
Posts 792
05-27-18 11:39 AM - Post#257238    

  • PennFan10 Said:
Can you find an article from any school in the country where the kid says they made their decision based on a conference tournament? Recruits don't decide on schools just because of (fill-in-the-blank conference tournament).


You just made our point that recruits do not make their decision based on a conference tournament and we agree.

SRP
Postdoc
Posts 3521
05-27-18 01:21 PM - Post#257239    

The tournament has reduced attention to the IL. ESPN used to cover pivotal regular season moments, as did others. Attention was focused on the top teams and their players. Now nobody cares.
Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts 2272
05-27-18 02:20 PM - Post#257241    

Recent IL success and near success in the NCAA Tounament has done much more for league stature than the stupid tourney. Prospects see a league on the rise, athletically, that has always had academic prestige. Now a top prospect can have both the top academics and exposure to elite levels of competition.
GoBigGreenBasketball
Masters Student
Posts 490
05-27-18 03:11 PM - Post#257243    

See the posts in the Graduate Transfer thread...we're not there just yet.
"...no excuses - only results!”

PennFan10
PhD Student
Posts 1785
05-27-18 03:39 PM - Post#257247    

  • bradley Said:
  • PennFan10 Said:
Can you find an article from any school in the country where the kid says they made their decision based on a conference tournament? Recruits don't decide on schools just because of (fill-in-the-blank conference tournament).


You just made our point that recruits do not make their decision based on a conference tournament and we agree.




Great. Glad we cleared that up!

PennFan10
PhD Student
Posts 1785
05-27-18 03:43 PM - Post#257248    

  • SRP Said:
The tournament has reduced attention to the IL. ESPN used to cover pivotal regular season moments, as did others. Attention was focused on the top teams and their players. Now nobody cares.



So your argument is that if we eliminate the ILT (and therefore ESPNs coverage of it) there would be more attention on the league and ESPN would cover IL regular season more?

bradley
Masters Student
Posts 792
05-27-18 05:39 PM - Post#257249    

The transfer list says a lot. I guess that the opportunity to go to the Big Dance by winning the IL Tournament did not sway minds as to players of the quality of Boudreaux and Gettings. Both of these guys plus other transfers are quality players.

The "real" opportunity to enhance the reputation of the league is not a gimmick like the IL Tournament but meaningful actions by all schools to improve the quality of the squads across the board.
PennFan10
PhD Student
Posts 1785
05-27-18 07:38 PM - Post#257250    

It’s not a gimmick. Anyone who says that isn’t interested in a discussion. I’m out
HARVARDDADGRAD
PhD Student
Posts 1112
05-27-18 10:03 PM - Post#257251    

The IL is like the Patriot League. Outside of us, no one cares about the regular season or the league tournament. IL notoriety increased based on NCAA performance. Wins and near misses do something, otherwise, we’re just playing with ourselves (uh, literally and figuratively).
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts 3777
05-28-18 07:15 AM - Post#257256    

My two criteria for supporting the tourney are:

1. Do the players want it? Overwhelmingly
2. Do I have fun when I watch it? Hell yes. Might be different if Penn doesn't play in the tourney though.

The argument that it removes meaning from the regular season is absurd and is akin to saying you don't watch the regular season of any league, football baseball whatever. Does it reduce the intensity? I mean, sure, I guess. But when Penn played Harvard and Penn played Princeton, my mind wasn't thinking about how the game didn't mean anything. I wanted to win, the players wanted to win. A loss wasn't the end of the world, but heck, a loss in the sacred "14 game tournament" wasn't the end of the world either. You'd just catch them on the other half of the round robin.

Having said that, a few nitpicks with you PF10:

1. Your focus on espn showing "the last few minutes of x game". ESPN always showed that and we usually got credit as the first team to enter the dance. Further, in years where there was a playoff game, I'd argue the exposure was more than in the tournament. You can't rely on having a tie for first of course.

2. Besides the decision to keep it at 4 teams, virtually every decision the IL office makes has been to make the tournament worse, most of the time due to sheer cheapness. It's really reduced my confidence in them:

a. Most importantly, the idea to couple the men and women's tournament to "bring together" the ivy league is stupid and makes things so much more complicated. Initially I thought it was just a way to support the women so I grudgingly put up with it. To find out the women's coaches don't want to have a joint event, makes the decision inexplicable.
b. They really botched the idea of fairness by having it at a lower seed's venue in year 1 and then to double down the next year (though they were saved by Penn unexpectedly being the 1 seed). Now they'll triple down by putting it at an expected lower seed while more than halving the seating. And will they show any sort of forward thinking by posting that this is a round robin that each venue will get to host? No, they want to make up the rules as they go along.
c. They need to either spend some money to have it at a neutral site (which I'm not convinced they can pull off to be anything other than 1K people in a 6k arena but at least would show me they can spend money) or put this in the higher seed's venues.

bradley
Masters Student
Posts 792
05-28-18 08:37 AM - Post#257258    

  • Jeff2sf Said:
My two criteria for supporting the tourney are:

1. Do the players want it? Overwhelmingly
2. Do I have fun when I watch it? Hell yes. Might be different if Penn doesn't play in the tourney though.



You make a number of good points on both ends of the spectrum. I have a somewhat different perspective in that I enjoy the regular IL season and will continue to watch it with great joy even though the regular season has been diminished with the concept that you can get to the Big Dance even though you finish in 4th place with a 6-8 record -- just not right.

Unlike you, I have no interest in watching a single moment of IL Madness and that includes two years ago when the Tigers won the IvyMadness. Try to avoid hypocrisy if at all possible.

The truth is that the IL Tournament has done little, if anything, to enhance the image of the League. Most non-IL fans think that the league is not very good but they will waver for a few days if the IL representative gives a scare to a power team in round 1.

What will really change the perception? If Harvard over the next two years goes on a tear and makes the NCAA tournament as a result of their performance or if IL team does something similar over the next few years. The other possibility is that the IL recruits a great player, i.e. the Bill Bradley of the world, and the national media follows the player in non-league and league games. IvyMadness is a mirage to the real issues in the league and the administration of the tournament is laughable.

SRP
Postdoc
Posts 3521
05-28-18 01:13 PM - Post#257259    

Not an opinion. It's an observation. The league got more coverage when it was the first in the country to "punch a ticket" and when important regular-season games that might affect that ticket happened. Moreover, it wasn't lumped in with all the other tournaments.
Go Green
Masters Student
Posts 428
05-28-18 01:24 PM - Post#257260    

  • SRP Said:
The league got more coverage when it was the first in the country to "punch a ticket" and when important regular-season games that might affect that ticket happened. Moreover, it wasn't lumped in with all the other tournaments.



The flip side to this argument is that the league got zero coverage during championship week because we were already done with our season.
SRP
Postdoc
Posts 3521
05-28-18 07:41 PM - Post#257264    

Yes, you have to take the integral under the daily coverage curve to see the total impact. My observation, as a person who watches SportsCenter almost every day and sees other sources as well, is that the IL got more and higher-quality coverage pre-tournament. If someone has data on this it would be interesting to test the accuracy of that observation, but I'm fairly confident.
Silver Maple
Postdoc
Posts 3236
05-29-18 10:13 AM - Post#257273    

I'm sure you're right that the conference got more coverage on programs like SC pre-tournament. However, while that specific type of exposure might have diminished in the last two years, now the league is getting its conference tournament games broadcast in their entirety on ESPN (and they've been great games). Which coverage is more valuable, and how does that vary by audience segment? I don't know, but it's a fairly straightforward question from a market research standpoint. I wonder if the league does any sort of regular tracking research to see how awareness of the conference, and the quality of that awareness, has changed since the institution of the conference tournament.
HARVARDDADGRAD
PhD Student
Posts 1112
05-29-18 10:45 AM - Post#257275    

I love Ivy League Basketball. But I see increased exposure as a double edged sword. I went to the Barclays Center for some of the ACC tournament and watched teams seeded in the teens in that tournament's early rounds. As much as I love Harvard basketball, 0-18 Pitt would have likely played in our tournament, maybe even winning it (especially if it was played at the larger arena - in Pittsburgh).

I am probably wearing rose colored glasses when I watch Harvard games, and maybe even other Ivy games. But when I watch other midmajors play, it is painfully evident that there is usually a gap between a middling Power 5 game and even a top midmajor game. Sure there are exceptions (Gonzaga, St. Mary's, Wichita St.), but this season our league was mediocre nationally. No team was very good on a national basis. Under such circumstances, increased exposure could merely serve to confirm the bias against us that already exists.
Quakers03
Professor
Posts 7786
05-29-18 01:33 PM - Post#257290    

I just have two questions on all of this.

1. How in the world is the league not able to "afford" a neutral site venue. Where is all the money??

2. So again we're stuck dealing with a noon game on a Sunday meaning the seeding will probably already be locked in, no matter who wins. Worked out really well this year...
palestra38
Professor
Posts 18825
05-29-18 01:45 PM - Post#257297    

I cannot imagine that it would have cost all that much money to hold the event at the Webster Bank Arena---which is a half hour from Yale. But there is no way they would fill more than half of it in the current format.

BU or Monmouth would have been fine size-wise and cost even less. But a 5000 seat arena is pretty much the minimum size that makes sense.
mountainred
Junior
Posts 277
05-29-18 02:50 PM - Post#257304    

  • palestra38 Said:

BU or Monmouth would have been fine size-wise and cost even less. But a 5000 seat arena is pretty much the minimum size that makes sense.



The optics of holding the ILT on the campus of BU or Monmouth would be terrible and, IMHO, would be worse for the league's brand than having the event in a venue that is too small (i.e. Yale).
palestra38
Professor
Posts 18825
05-29-18 03:34 PM - Post#257307    

I agree with you---but then the tournament should simply be at the Palestra, for it is the only Ivy arena with the optics. Of course, they could do home court of top team, but that would eliminate the fiction that it brings us all together. Fairness and optics are simply not parallel.
Local Observer
Junior
Posts 228
Local Observer
05-29-18 06:28 PM - Post#257320    

You Penn guys are having a devil of a time wrestling with this, aren't you? From the beginning I said we didn't need the stupid tournament. Then the idea of having it in your own backyard, with the concomitant home court advantage kind of crept up on you guys, didn't it? All of a sudden the stupid tournament had a sort of appeal! If we HAVE to have it, the home court of the regular season winner is the only sensible solution. Who needs some .500 4th place team lucking out to "win" the tournament, aided by home court advantage?
As I recall, the rationale is that it would help the odds of getting not-one-but-two teams into the NCAA's - both the regular season winner and the tournament winner. Hasn't worked yet, and it won't ever. The only way the Ivies get two teams in the NCAA's is when they start recruiting better players and beating better teams out of conference.
Silver Maple
Postdoc
Posts 3236
05-29-18 07:17 PM - Post#257322    

  • Local Observer Said:

The only way the Ivies get two teams in the NCAA's is when they start recruiting better players and beating better teams out of conference.



I doubt even that will do it. The NCAA tournament is an event by and for the major conference teams. The only reason the seeding committee even lets the mid-major conferences continue to have one automatic bid each is that they feel they have no choice. At large bids for mid-major teams will remain rare.

sparman
Masters Student
Posts 881
sparman
05-29-18 08:07 PM - Post#257323    

Yes, the "ILT helps with a second bid" narrative was always incredibly naive and unrealistic.

But then I always thought most of the narratives advanced for the tourney were naive and unrealistic.
bradley
Masters Student
Posts 792
05-29-18 09:49 PM - Post#257324    

It is possible that the Crimson could get a 2nd bid if they lose IvyMadness this year or more likely next year but a 2nd bid will be an aberration going forward. If Harvard cannot get a 2nd bid with the recruiting class of two years ago the likelihood of a two bid league is highly questionable to put it mildly.

If Robin and the administrators were only focused on image, they would have kept the tournament at the Palestra as it is clearly recognized as being a top ten collegiate basketball arena but the switch was made based on the legitimate grumblings as to fairness. Quaker fans are naturally disappointed in losing home court advantage. 2nd tier league fans like the concept of IvyMadness as it gives them a puncher's chance, i.e. Cornell last year.

The proponents of IvyMadness have tried their best to "slap" things against the wall to see if anything sticks. It would have been great if IL administrators had the courage to maintain the rich tradition of the IL regular season but .....


palestra38
Professor
Posts 18825
05-29-18 10:14 PM - Post#257326    

You either don't read or you're intentionally obtuse. More Penn fans than any other group opposed the idea of a Tournament. We have 1 or 2 posters who love it---just about everyone else sees the same things you do and the Princeton guys. It's just we take the League officials at their word---they want a spectacle and a gathering of the alumni--there is only one place to do that in the Ivies. But of course that is not fair. If we want fairness, Penn should have been playing Harvard at a neutral site as has been the case for 60+ years. That's fine with us. But the idea of a tournament didn't arise with Penn nor do we have the bulk of its supporters.

Quakers03
Professor
Posts 7786
05-30-18 12:17 AM - Post#257333    

  • Local Observer Said:
You Penn guys are having a devil of a time wrestling with this, aren't you?


What a pathetic and completely uninformed post. That axe to grind with Penn fans, as evidenced by this little gem in the thread on the Penn board...

  • Local Observer Said:
Could we hold the door?


...isn't showing so well.

#IvyChamps
Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts 2272
05-30-18 03:28 AM - Post#257336    

The record is stuck. Is there anything new to say? Or should we vote our preference?

1). No tournament -- return to old format of "14 game Tournament" with possible playoff for bid in case of tie(s).
2). 4 team playoff at Palestra
3). 4 team playoff at regular season champ's court
4). None of the above

I vote 1).
84grad
Freshman
Posts 67
05-30-18 07:51 AM - Post#257339    

I vote 1.
HARVARDDADGRAD
PhD Student
Posts 1112
05-30-18 09:21 AM - Post#257348    

I vote 1 as well.

Interesting that the current format - League choosing/rotating/experim enting with location isn't one of the options.
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts 3777
05-30-18 09:27 AM - Post#257349    

your votes don't matter and don't count. but also, it's important that it's 1 vs everything else. Because yeah, I don't love the way the current tourney is set up, but if it's simply binary tourney v no tourney I and many others vote tourney.
palestra38
Professor
Posts 18825
05-30-18 09:32 AM - Post#257350    

I like how you say "your votes don't count" and then not only vote for yourself but "many others".

I vote 1 but recognize that ain't happening. But a double men's and women's tournament with 4 teams each at a 2500 seat arena is ridiculous.
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts 3777
05-30-18 10:27 AM - Post#257354    

it was done for effect. i think this whole "let's have a bunch of old white guys decide what happens with teenagers playing sports" is absurd, but if we're gonna vote, let's vote right.

no argument that the way they've done this is dumb/unfair to better seeds/seemingly inequitable to women.

i do really like limiting it to 4 teams though. i wouldn't have thought of that, but it's worked nicely.
palestra38
Professor
Posts 18825
05-30-18 10:29 AM - Post#257355    

As long as you understand you committed voter fraud. I agree with the rest of your post.
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts 3777
05-30-18 10:33 AM - Post#257358    

i don't see how it counts as voter fraud. i have five different burner screen ids, that counts as 5 votes.
Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts 2272
05-30-18 12:40 PM - Post#257372    

So, I got 4 1s
0 2s
0 3s
0 4s, and
1 Jeff

Anyone else?🐅
weinhauers_ghost
PhD Student
Posts 1027
05-30-18 01:06 PM - Post#257374    

I'd vote #1 also, with p38's caveat that we know the option is off the table.
TheLine
Postdoc
Posts 3644
05-30-18 01:20 PM - Post#257378    

  • Jeff2sf Said:
i don't see how it counts as voter fraud. i have five different burner screen ids, that counts as 5 votes.


Well played

westphillywarrior
Sophomore
Posts 178
05-30-18 01:21 PM - Post#257380    

I vote #1.

But if there must be a tournament, what would be most important to me, is that any competitive game advantage, such as byes, home court, etc., would have been earned during the 14-game season.
TheLine
Postdoc
Posts 3644
05-30-18 01:38 PM - Post#257384    

  • Tiger69 Said:
The record is stuck. Is there anything new to say? Or should we vote our preference?



I'm only responding because I respect you. But I don't get the point. It's quaint in a uniquely Ivy way to think that a vote of (mostly) old dudes on a board would hold any importance. Not because we shouldn't have a voice but because this whole debate is antiquated in a Make Ivy Basketball Great Again kind of way.
  • Tiger69 Said:
1). No tournament -- return to old format of "14 game Tournament" with possible playoff for bid in case of tie(s).


LOL. The time is past. No one but old dudes staring at a message board would go back to this.
  • Tiger69 Said:
2). 4 team playoff at Palestra


Not happening either. And I said this months ago - the league won't tolerate The Palestra as a permanent site if Penn returns to being a good team
  • Tiger69 Said:
3). 4 team playoff at regular season champ's court


Which champ, men's or women's? Oh, you want 2 tournaments? LOL. And how is this not an effective downgrade from option 2) if Harvard (or any other team) reels off 5 straight in season championships? Because then we're just trading The Palestra for Lavietes. Wonderfully bad idea that won't happen because the powers that be want a combined tourney anyway, making this option moot.
  • Tiger69 Said:
4). None of the above


Given the constraints we have, I'm OK with a rotating tournament provided every college gets a shot to host. I'm also OK with Yale getting next years - Jones is the dean of coaches, why not give it to him? This is mostly better than hosting it at some sterile "neutral" location though I have no idea how to shoehorn all the fans into the 2000 seat arenas that most of the Ivies call home.



Silver Maple
Postdoc
Posts 3236
05-30-18 01:38 PM - Post#257385    

The whole tournament thing is just silly. So, if we're going to have one, in order to highlight the absurdity of the event, it shouldn't be a basketball tournament. So here's the poll: what game should determine who gets the NCAA bid?

a) Team handball
b) Ulama (including human sacrifice)
c) Trampoline dodgeball (televised on The Ocho)
d) Team ferret legging
sparman
Masters Student
Posts 881
sparman
05-30-18 03:25 PM - Post#257396    

In other words, IL approach is: Ready, Fire, Aim.

Or maybe: Fire, Aim, Ready.
rbg
Masters Student
Posts 841
05-30-18 04:15 PM - Post#257402    

This year, the Southern Professional Hockey League, the minor league conference that started the 3-on-3 overtime concept, did something new for its playoffs. For its 8 team opening round, it allowed the top seed to pick its opponent from seeds #5-8. Afterwards, seed #2 picked from the remaining group and then #3 made its choice.

Why not have the IL go all-in with this concept? If the league is going to continue having both tournaments at the same location, in each of the non-neutral conference arenas, with 4 participants each, why not have the #1 seeds choose which of the other seeds it wants to play.

If they want to make it a bit more interesting, the #1 seeds don't have to make its choices known until 48 hours before game time.
Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts 2272
05-30-18 04:29 PM - Post#257403    

All valid points. I was simply curious about individual sentiments. I suspect that we all realize that our opinions plus 3 bucks won't even get us a large coffee at Starbuck's.
TheLine
Postdoc
Posts 3644
05-30-18 05:03 PM - Post#257407    

I suspect the overwhelming majority of Princeton, Harvard and (yes) Penn posters would like to do away with the tournament and see the conference winner advance. I'd also suspect the B-C-C-D posters are more open to a tournament. From my understanding the players, coaches and ADs are all for it.

Sparman, I get your point. However, holding the first tournament at The Palestra was an easy decision, and keeping it there for the 2nd one was a reasonable one given the success of the first tournament. Moving it to Yale is also reasonable. Yes, they are clearly making decisions from year to year but it's likely warranted.

I was all prepared to hate the tournament. I've liked the first two, not that my voice matters.

Old Bear
Postdoc
Posts 3440
05-30-18 05:21 PM - Post#257408    

I vote 20 3s.
SRP
Postdoc
Posts 3521
05-30-18 07:50 PM - Post#257409    

If we're going to have this thing, I still like the N+1 format. If the regular-season champ goes undefeated, they get the automatic bid. If they have one loss then they play the second-place team in a one-game playoff at home. If they have two losses then there's a three-team playoff with the champ getting the bye. If the champ has three losses, we have a four-team playoff like the current one. And so on.

This format guarantees that everybody cares about how strong the regular-season leader is and all the fans of the opposing teams root for the leader to lose, which I find satisfying. And when the regular-season champ is a lot better, they get rewarded by not having as hard a path to the auto bid.
bradley
Masters Student
Posts 792
05-31-18 11:26 AM - Post#257442    

i am not sure if I understand the basis of how the site locations are based on reasonableness, logic or better yet, good judgement.

I agree with the premise that selecting the Palestra made reasonable sense year one based on the historic reputation of the Palestra and the expectation that the Quakers were not going to be very good if Robin and crew considered in not giving a team a home court advantage. In year 2, the selection of the Palestra did not make sense if fairness was a major consideration and selecting Yale this upcoming year is not reasonable if fairness was an important factor. Selecting Yale also is not reasoned if image as to site selection is a very important factor.

The selection of Yale makes sense as to reducing overall drive time if fans were coming from different locations - maybe -- or if Robin and crew do not believe that Yale will be very good this year -- unlikely.

A legitimate question would be what is the criteria being used for site selection and has it changed. It is hard to decide on reasonable if the criteria is not known.

I think getting out of the Palestra was a function of Penn's performance of the last two years and let's throw a "bone" to teams north of NYC. Another possibility is that Robin throws names in a hat and closes her eyes -- reasonable???


palestra38
Professor
Posts 18825
05-31-18 11:43 AM - Post#257447    

I agree that I cannot fathom what the thought process is other than (1) Thou shall not pay for an arena and (2) Thou shall play all the games, both for men and women, at a single site.

The appropriateness of the site, either in terms of capacity or fairness, does not seem to be a factor.
HARVARDDADGRAD
PhD Student
Posts 1112
05-31-18 02:22 PM - Post#257453    

What a shame.

As the league gets more competitive within itself, the administration has influenced things, in my opinion, in a negative way.

We had a perfectly fair contest - 7 common opponents, home and home, with a tie breaker at a neutral site. Instead of enjoying the impressive resurgence of Penn and the dark horse strengths at Cornell, Brown and Columbia, we've suffered two years focusing on the ground rules.

Again, what a shame.
Streamers
Postdoc
Posts 2556
Streamers
05-31-18 02:24 PM - Post#257454    

I have been avoiding this topic as it has been beaten to death only to be revived by the curious decision to move the ILT to Yale. The downside of this has been well documented. The upside? A central location. Not very convincing.

I have always questioned the notion that home court is a huge deal. I have research ed what the gamblers (generally the best source for such things) think HCA means in real terms. The consensus is that across D1, it runs somewhere in the 3-4 point range. In the Ivy, it is somewhat less. One source pegs it at more than 2.5 with PU being the top at 3 and Penn at 2.6. It is debatable whether post-season changes these estimates materially.

There are a couple of things that generate the perception of HCA. One being the idea that you get an officiating advantage. I doubt any observer here thinks there was much in the way of home cooking in the first 2 ILTs. The other is crowd support. That one is hard to judge. Players I have talked to say that can work both ways. Certainly, for example, Darnell Foreman must have been buoyed by how the crowd was reacting to him this year, OTOH I have seen quite a few players over the years wilt under the pressure of post-season ball intensified by a crowd.

I can't help but conclude the Palestra is the only appropriate home for an ILT if we have to have one; but I also believe the ILT is a lousy idea in this format. If it were up to me, top 2 teams only play at #1 home court; same for the women. Need to make sure there are enough tie-breakers for 2nd though.
PennFan10
PhD Student
Posts 1785
05-31-18 03:51 PM - Post#257463    

Two things I'll say as I jump back in and then leave this conversation again:

1-It's really getting old to have the same people say the same thing the same way over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. The ILT is not going away anytime soon so please just deal with it.

2-The decision to go to Yale is mysterious and makes me think, not that the goals have changed, but that the people we thought were making the decisions are not. E.G. (and I have no idea here) it could be that ESPN is deciding the location and they want it in CT because the HQ is there, or because Yale is an iconic Ivy institution and they want to showcase the place (no one watching on TV will likely know that the capacity is a third of the Palestra).

I think more than anything else it's at Yale for a branding exercise. The ILT is, at it's core, an effort at re-branding the league (for any number of arguable reasons) and we can all disagree with the efficacy of the desired outcomes but from my point of view every decision the administration has made seems consistent with that goal when I look at through that lens.


bradley
Masters Student
Posts 792
05-31-18 09:44 PM - Post#257491    

Reality is that the Qaukers had a competitive advantage against Harvard last year especially in light of the final score. Yale will have a similar competitive advantage this upcoming year. The historical point spread established by Vegas for homecourt is well established over many many years. Does it diminish the Quakers win last year? -- time will tell.

As to next year's tournament, the only explanation provided by Robin so far is that the Yale gym is iconic. There is really no other explanation that she has provided and unfortunately that leads to conjecture and speculation.

The better approach for the IL might be to speak honestly as to the reasons behind these decisions. Everyone would understand if Robin speaks in measured terms but shee might gain some credibility if truthful information is provided, i.e. coaches stepped up and opposed a third year at the Palestra, etc. or whatever.

People who not drink the Kool-Aid of IvyMadness would welcome an explanation as to the thought process behind these decisions which appear to be illogical without a rational explanation. I have my doubts that Robin will pick up on the suggestion.
Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts 2272
06-01-18 02:02 AM - Post#257499    

True. The Tournament is Ivy "Madness".
TheLine
Postdoc
Posts 3644
06-01-18 10:37 AM - Post#257520    

I'll state my opinion again before leaving the thread, not because I disrespect differing opinions (I have great respect for for Tiger69, SRP, sparman, bradley, HARVARDDADGRAD, etc.) but because I see no merit in continuing. I agree largely with PF10 that there's not any more to be said. And I too was reluctant to weigh in at all as it's the same people offering the same opinions. Which I'm now also guilty of.

1) I was vociferously against an Ivy tournament going back to the beginning of conversations about it. At the time it was Penn and Princeton voices vs. the rest of the league. mrjames posted an article way back when that opened my eyes - it made a compelling argument that the winner of the conference 14 game championship was not necessarily the team most likely to excel in the NCAA's. It didn't entirely sway me at the time but it did catch my attention.

2) I kept an open mind the 1st tournament year. I found myself caught up in the drama of which team would land the fourth bid. It made every game matter. It didn't hurt that my 2 teams were in the hunt, but I also noticed how hard other teams (Dartmouth, looking at you in particular) were also playing. I thought the tournament itself was a great success for the league - well played games throughout. It changed my opinion.

3) Besides voices on this board, who is against a tournament? I've haven't heard any. Have any of those of you who are well connected heard anything negative? If no, then those of you who want to turn back the clock are in a distinct minority about this. I'm particularly skeptical of old people forcing their opinions onto the younger generation. I resented it when I was younger and promised myself not to become a bitter know-it-all old man. Although many would say I haven't been entirely successful avoiding bitter old man syndrome, I believe I've been more successful at it than others have been!

4) I acknowledge there are logistical issues for a tournament that the league is going to have to work through because there's only one on-campus arena that checks off all boxes and it's unfair to make that the permanent home. I think we're going to have to be patient. Right now I'd favor rotating the tournament across all campuses provided that's feasible - let's see how next year goes. Having the tournament at the #1 seed's home court has some merit though it probably requires the league to split into separate men's and women's tournaments (and what happens if the same college is 1st seed for both?) . A neutral court has its own issues - I'm not sold on Bridgeport or Mohegan being better venues than on-campus arenas.

5) My opinion stems a lot from being a very proud owner of a Columbia degree and a proud follower of Lions basketball - sometimes to the annoyance of my Penn basketball friends. I've attended more games at Levien than the Palestra for the last few years. I like that the tournament has put more on the line for B-C-C-D games - that's good for the league IMO.

6) I'm not sure whether I'm going to be hit with any gratuitous accusations (LO - looking at you) but I'm unlikely to return to respond. I don't feel like I have to justify my opinion any more than I already have. I hope we know each other well enough to not always question motivations. I understand the feeling of those who do not like the conference tournament and respect your opinion . I just happen to disagree. No hard feelings.

palestra38
Professor
Posts 18825
06-01-18 10:57 AM - Post#257528    

I certainly understand your opinion and also understand the tournament is here to stay. What I don't understand is the rhetoric that this is old guys trying to force their opinion on younger people. Where on earth does that come from? This entire site is simply a group of people--the only ones who really care about Ivy basketball to a large degree other than the players and families themselves--expressing their opinions about Ivy basketball as a couple of people might do at a bar about LeBron. No one is forcing any opinions upon anyone else and there is no need to leave because you disagree.

One thing though---did you go to CU or Penn as an undergrad? For to me, who went to Penn undergrad and CU law school, it is the undergrad experience that rules.
mbaprof
Sophomore
Posts 132
06-01-18 11:04 AM - Post#257532    

I think you hit it on the head re Yale, being an iconic campus and building (as well as central location). Im sure ESPN was at least consulted in the process. I'm good with it, great pizza, easy to dive up and back on weekend. Poker only 50 minutes away.

I've always thought the small venue solution was to "sweep" the gym between games and sell split tickets.Even Palestra empties out very quickly after a game. Hell we are Ivy guys, how many people are going to hide in the bathrooms like we did when we were kids. Have an active online marketplace for ticket trading for Sunday games. Have a nice viewing area/party for those who want to stick around. With a central location many more folks will probably just come for their teams game anyway.
TheLine
Postdoc
Posts 3644
06-01-18 11:29 AM - Post#257543    

This board doesn't get much of the opinions of the players, coaches (who are more hooked into the opinions of the players) and students - though I acknowledge there are far fewer who follow the team than when we were students. I'd surmise the younger voices are more into a tournament then the predominantly older voices on this board. Also the Penn, Princeton and Harvard voices tend to drown out all others.

I am a Penn undergrad, Columbia grad. I agree that the undergrad experience makes a larger impression. That said, I love Columbia basketball and when I post on the Columbia boards it's solely as a Columbia alum and as a defender of my fellow Columbia posters. And of the Columbia players, as Q03 can attest to even though he's one of my absolute favorite posters on the Penn board. My opinions about the league are quite likely different from the average Penn alum due to also being a Columbia alum. The resurgence of Columbia basketball during Smith's Rosenberg-Lo-Barbour teams was a great pleasure for me. I also recognize it's a long uphill climb for Columbia to compete against the leagues big boys year in and year out. Having a 3rd or 4th seed on the line towards the end of the year is a big boost.

Streamers
Postdoc
Posts 2556
Streamers
06-01-18 11:37 AM - Post#257547    

I've got the solution! Award the ILT to the school at the bottom of the pre-season poll to minimize the chance of HCA.

Seriously, I think all the old farts on the board like myself who dislike the ILT, in part because of the logistical issues, accept that it is here to stay unless you see a slew of conferences start to give it up for lack of interest (a possibility given the sparse crowds at many of them.) I think we also know that the players and coaches are pretty much in universal favor of it, and that is reason enough to tolerate it.

That does not in any way mean that we think any less of those who disagree or that we are trying to impose our opinions on others. That is what the OTB is for.

Pretty soon, this issue will give way to a far more interesting one: How the 1-done rule will change and the potential impact on mid-majors in general and the IL in particular;ar. Looking forward to that debate.


TheLine
Postdoc
Posts 3644
06-01-18 11:46 AM - Post#257552    

  • Streamers Said:
Pretty soon, this issue will give way to a far more interesting one: How the 1-done rule will change and the potential impact on mid-majors in general and the IL in particular;ar. Looking forward to that debate.


Agree!

And that debate is going to require a lot of nuance considering the league has had a bunch of highly successful dropouts with good reason (Gates and Zuckerberg to name 2).

To me it comes down to whether the student is in strong standing to achieve a degree anyway or whether they aren't. The latter type of one-and-done will poison the well. Fortunately we've been blessed with far more true student athletes than knuckleheads. Would Dau Jok be a Penn graduate if not for basketball? He's a man on a Time Top 100 Most Influential People trajectory.

Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts 2272
06-01-18 01:50 PM - Post#257571    

Hey, Line,

Beware. They are sucking you back into the discussion! I agree with you -- we've beat this one up and there are no new thoughts.
Go Green
Masters Student
Posts 428
06-01-18 02:23 PM - Post#257573    

  • TheLine Said:

3) Besides voices on this board, who is against a tournament? I've haven't heard any.



Courtney Banghart was very vocal about her opposition to a tournament, and has done nothing but criticize it since its inception.
penn nation
Professor
Posts 11368
06-01-18 05:00 PM - Post#257597    

The regular season would be a lot more interesting if the 8th place finisher was relegated.
PennFan10
PhD Student
Posts 1785
06-01-18 05:32 PM - Post#257598    

Steve Donahue didn't want it at first and now is a big supporter of the ILT.

Players love it and it is a factor in recruiting vs other conferences.

This board is about the only place you can to hear it bashed....though Mike Greenberg on now defunct Mike and Mike show, ripped the IL for changing to a tournament. He hated it, as did Mike Golic, his sidekick.
SRP
Postdoc
Posts 3521
06-01-18 07:05 PM - Post#257605    

The current coaches are pretty much forced to say they like the tournament no matter what they really think. Only someone as outspoken as a Bangheart is going to stick her neck out. This bandwagon appeal on these boards, as well as the "move on" appeal, for something that is obviously not working very well is silly. The Pac-12 had no tourney, then had a tourney, then dropped it, now has it. Nothing is set in stone.

I'm sure players like to play more games, but if we dropped the tourney and let them go to more regular season tournaments they'd like it as much or better. Heck, maybe even the regular-season contenders prefer the lesser pressure on each game that the tournament provides--slip-ups are less consequential. That's what sucks about it for the rest of us of course. Not as much reason to care about any of the games when you're pretty sure of being in the top four.
Old Bear
Postdoc
Posts 3440
06-01-18 07:36 PM - Post#257607    

As one of the older farts on these boards, I am still for the ILT. The League is, and should be, for the players, not the “fans”.
HARVARDDADGRAD
PhD Student
Posts 1112
06-01-18 07:57 PM - Post#257610    

How can a 4 team tournament be a factor in recruiting vs other conferences when every other conference has a fully inclusive tournament?

TheLine
Postdoc
Posts 3644
06-01-18 08:13 PM - Post#257613    

  • SRP Said:
Not as much reason to care about any of the games when you're pretty sure of being in the top four.


That thought process didn't work so well for Princeton last year.

I'm confident Harvard and Penn played hard throughout even though both clinched early.

Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts 3777
06-01-18 08:42 PM - Post#257614    

every one of the coaches that made the tournament on the men's side is fully empowered to say they don't like the tournament. don't be absurd. I suppose Mike Martin could fear speaking out as a not very successful Brown coach because the president of Brown might be reminded that Mike Martin hasn't been fired yet and try to rectify that.

The idea that Tommy Amaker would fear something that Courtney Banghart is ludicrous.

Glen Miller didn't get fired when he said he felt referees jammed him up the a$$. Jammed. him. up. the a$$.

What are the Ivy Presidents going to do, fine James Jones or Steve Donahue for criticizing a tournament they keep making? What?

When there wasn't a tournament, and other non-P coaches wanted a tournament, were coaches fined for calling for one?
sparman
Masters Student
Posts 881
sparman
06-01-18 08:49 PM - Post#257615    

Everything is irreversible, until it's reversed.
PennFan10
PhD Student
Posts 1785
06-01-18 11:40 PM - Post#257618    

I am pretty sure Steve Donahue actually does like the ILT and didn't originally.

HarvardGrad: You think recruits care if its all inclusive or 4 teams? I think they care a little more than not at all that there is a tournament they can play in at the end of the season and it's on ESPN. Every player thinks they will take their team to the top and make the tournament. What is an added benefit to an Ivy program is the existence of a tournament. Now they get to feel and play like big time programs.


SRP
Postdoc
Posts 3521
06-02-18 03:41 PM - Post#257623    

There is huge peer pressure as well as AD pressure to promote the "brand" and the tournament. Unless one's AD were against the tournament and were also happy about controversy, there would be obvious reasons to bite one's tongue.
Chip Bayers
Postdoc
Posts 4684
Chip Bayers
06-09-18 10:49 AM - Post#257755    

  • Streamers Said:
I've got the solution! Award the ILT to the school at the bottom of the pre-season poll to minimize the chance of HCA.





Bottom of the women’s poll, or bottom of the men’s poll?

rbg
Masters Student
Posts 841
06-22-18 09:44 AM - Post#258143    

I posted a link to in-depth Crimson article on the renovation of Lavietes Pavilion at the Harvard board. I am placing it here, as well, since there is a part of the article that focuses on the Ivy Tournament.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/5/24/c18 -f...

- Another factor that may affect hopes at hosting larger competitions: seating capacity. The current renovated Lavietes Pavilion has downsized from around 2,050 to 1,636 seats in order to facilitate the inclusion of new amenities, such as cushioned seating in the upper rows. The renovated Lavietes Pavilion, with the smallest seating capacity in the Ivy League, now seats 464 fewer people than the next smallest Ancient Eight basketball facility, Dartmouth’s Leede Arena.

With the newly cemented Ivy League Tournament raising discussions about future host sites, the decision to downsize may significantly impact the odds of hosting this tournament on Harvard’s campus. The postseason tournament in its first two years of conception have been played inside the hallowed halls of the Palestra, which seats a maximum of 8,722 people. With the conference final between Harvard and Penn this past season filling around 5,500 seats, it would seem highly unlikely for Lavietes Pavilion to be able to fulfill attendance demand. This was one significant downside, according to Delaney-Smith, of the renovation proposal.

“The one consideration that was negative, was when talking about the Ivy Tournament, the capacity they want facilities to have in order to be a host school,” Delaney-Smith said. “I would say we fall short, and that is upsetting. I don’t know what [is] the right capacity we need to have.” -

It would be interesting to know if that quote from Coach Delaney-Smith came before or after the selection of Yale (2,800 seats) for next year's Tournament. If the league is sticking with conference sites and has gone to a much smaller venue for next year, it would be hard to think they will let a 1,600 seat arena stand in the way. If they did, then they would be avoiding 2 of the 8 schools (Harvard and Dartmouth). In leaving Harvard out of the mix, they would be giving up an event in the conference's third largest city and ticking off one of the most powerful/successful programs (for both men and women) in the league.
bradley
Masters Student
Posts 792
06-24-18 08:28 AM - Post#258188    

If Harvard performs at a very high level over the next two years and Amaker keeps the Crimson program at a very high level, it seems very hard to believe that Robin and crew would deny them home court advantage for a year but who knows what will be the criteria for IvyMadness site selection in the future.
PennFan10
PhD Student
Posts 1785
06-24-18 08:11 PM - Post#258203    

14-0 didn’t matter so I am guessing whatever “very high level” is won’t matter either.
Quakers03
Professor
Posts 7786
06-28-18 11:44 AM - Post#258328    

  • TheLine Said:
That said, I love Columbia basketball and when I post on the Columbia boards it's solely as a Columbia alum and as a defender of my fellow Columbia posters. And of the Columbia players, as Q03 can attest to even though he's one of my absolute favorite posters on the Penn board.



Right back at you, even if you were off-base on that one ;).

As for the overall topic, I was someone who wasn't in favor of a tournament at first because I didn't like some of the arguments being used to defend it (increased media exposure, etc) but as a Penn fan who experienced the year 1 comeback, it's hard not to agree that it's better for the league as a whole. I only have two issues at this point. The first issue is this idea that Harvard really got screwed this year. The fact that they even had "home court" advantage was a joke (for a number of reasons) and if you want to look at the difference in that game, look at the injury to the star player. I do wholeheartedly agree that playing consistently at the Palestra is unfair and something has to be done to better award a true number 1 seed.

My other major gripe, and one that has yet to be remedied, is playing on that final Sunday. I waited 10 years to see my team back in the tournament and then I get stuck watching them play as a 16-seed purely because our final ended too late to be taken into seeding scenarios?! 3 months later and it's still not ok.
palestra38
Professor
Posts 18825
06-28-18 08:23 PM - Post#258335    

Once Princeton enters the 20th (much less 21st) Century and has its exams before Winter Break in 2 years, we can move our tournament up a week.
PennFan10
PhD Student
Posts 1785
06-29-18 10:05 AM - Post#258342    

Not sure I agree Harvard got "screwed" in any way. Injuries happen. High volume players probably get injured more often.

3 coaches voted "Yes" to the Palestra remaining as host to ILT...SD, MM and Tommy. #facts


TheLine
Postdoc
Posts 3644
06-29-18 10:21 AM - Post#258344    

Coaches have a say in this? I'm surprised.

Amaker is a stand-up guy. Voted consistent with his public stance. Lots to admire in that.

PennFan10
PhD Student
Posts 1785
06-29-18 05:05 PM - Post#258353    

That's who they asked first, then on to the AD's. Coaches were 5-3 to move it. Interestingly, they weren't given a vote as to where to move it, that was decided on by the AD's.
westphillywarrior
Sophomore
Posts 178
06-30-18 10:12 AM - Post#258360    

So SD voted for the Palestra. What a shocker.
The other shocker is you make it sound like the women didn't get a vote.

Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts 2272
06-30-18 01:32 PM - Post#258362    

If that's the case we should keep things as is -- ANYTHING to cripple the Tournament!
PennFan10
PhD Student
Posts 1785
07-01-18 03:34 PM - Post#258384    

I merely reported what I know. I have no idea how the women coaches voted.
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts 3777
07-02-18 11:17 AM - Post#258416    

it's not a surprise at all to me about Tommy. There was no need to toe a line. I'm sure there can be pressure about financial aid or even potentially academics (but hell didn't Sullivan complain? he wasn't fired for the complaining) to not speak out against the company line. Those are fundamental, core values.

But it's easy as pie to say you're not wild about a tournament being hosted at another team's venue every year in perpetuity. If Courtney Freaking Banghart can say it, then Tommy Amaker, the guy getting multi-million dollar offers to bolt, can say it too.


PennFan10
PhD Student
Posts 1785
07-17-18 09:41 AM - Post#258984    

Ivy Hoops Online had an interview on Ivy Madness with assistand IL director Trevor Rutledge-Leverenz and received unsurprising lack of detail in the answers:

http://ivyhoopsonline.com/2018/07/16/talking-iv y-m...
palestra38
Professor
Posts 18825
07-17-18 09:57 AM - Post#258987    

OMG. It's as if they are interviewing a politician on a Sunday morning news show. Not a single responsive answer.

You have to assume that they have no idea how to manage the tournament in such a small setting. The fact that it worked for a single men's Harvard-Princeton playoff game is, if anything, proof that it will be a disaster if we try and make it single entry for all the games as it was in Philadelphia. They will have to make it individual entry (which makes the entire concept a joke) or deny entry to at least half the fan base of each school that is willing to travel.
PennFan10
PhD Student
Posts 1785
07-17-18 10:53 AM - Post#258998    

yea, the notion of making it a more central location for fans to attend all the while limiting seating to 1/3rd of the historical attendance is comical.


Local Observer
Junior
Posts 228
Local Observer
07-17-18 11:56 AM - Post#259006    

"... the historical attendance" ? do you mean attendance in Philly when the home town team was contending?
PennFan10
PhD Student
Posts 1785
07-17-18 12:12 PM - Post#259009    

I don't think there is any ambiguity about what "historical attendance" means with only 2 years of data in one location.

But your question was rhetorical I'm sure.
Streamers
Postdoc
Posts 2556
Streamers
07-17-18 12:36 PM - Post#259018    

That 'interview' is embarrassing. They should take it down as it says absolutely nothing other than question the competence of League office.
SRP
Postdoc
Posts 3521
07-20-18 01:09 AM - Post#259189    

I had to read it after those reviews. I think IBM's Watson would have outperformed.



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: 0.277 seconds.   Total Queries: 15   Zlib Compression is on.
All times are (GMT -0500) Eastern. Current time is 06:03 PM
Top