HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts: 2691
Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
|
03-12-18 10:54 PM - Post#252636
In response to PennFan10
Thanks for the summary.
I do still think that the Tournament is not a good idea for a single bid league. It is filled with landmines (Penn taking Princeton to OT, Towns getting hurt), likely kills any chance for a second bid by adding another loss to all but one team, and simply increases the chance for a bad result (e.g., best team doesn't make the NCAA Tournament - see 2017 OT).
Hopefully, you can read my points objectively. This is not anti-Penn. These objections apply mainly because home court is not earned and it happens that the Palestra is incovenient to most of the league.
The Tournament as currently constituted is:
- unfair: one school has a distinct home court advantage which absolutely impacts the competitiveness of the entire competition;
- inconvenient: the Palestra is the southernmost location in the conference - why pick a geographical outlier?;
- does not deliver as a purported Ivy gathering. Thus far, the tournament and its host has not delivered as an Ivy League meeting venue, it's a smallish old fashioned arena with no common spaces or amenities. There is no central location and there are no social events, just a poor excuse for refreshments. Might as well be in Bridgeport once you leave the arena. There is NOTHING planned or offered. Outside the area, the only thing evidencing what was going on at all was an ice sculpture - and only for Saturday as it was apparently vandalized after the first day. I was wondering why there were no social events or mixers planned like I've attended in the nearby Gordon track and tennis facilities at Harvard. Do the facilities not exist? Or is it because no visitors make the trek to Philly?
- I was at every game for two years and saw very few non-Penn students. This event is not friendly to students of most schools who must travel hours each way (e.g., Cornell 6AM bus, RT in one day!). Again, this is because Philadelphia is a distant locale for most. How many Penn students travel to Hanover, Ithaca or even Cambridge for games? Other than Penn students, very few others showed not because they don't want to cheer their team and watch a sport they love, but because the location is prohibitive (time, logistics and expense). As the father of a current Ivy student, and based on personal experience, I know this is a FACT.
- overnight accommodations are not great. If you don't drive, local hotels ran $250 - $400/night. Penn was on break and so the dorms seemed to be closed (so students can't even stay with friends at Penn).
Bottom line: if you host a gathering of 8 supposedly equal partners and roughly 90% of the attendees are the host itself, you've done something dramatically wrong. If in the first two years (a) the 6-8 home team almost beats the (14-0) league champion, and then (b) in year two that same home team can't cover the statistical home court advantage but wins anyway, then you KNOW that the decision to have Penn host the tournament is influencing the outcomes. HCA is proven: Penn lost to Harvard and Yale on the road, only able to beat them at home.
These kids start practicing in October with one thing in mind - to go dancing. Seems awfully wrong to make non-Penn teams prove they can beat Penn on the road to reach their goal. How can this possibly be justified?
Footnote: I have no idea what would have happened at a neutral site, but both games at the Palestra were one possession games. There was no such close contest at Lavietes (9 points - cut from 16 midway through the second half). Did the better team win? Now, we will never know.
Yes, the Palestra means something to many, but not me. Maybe that's why I see things differently (objectively?).
Edited by HARVARDDADGRAD on 03-12-18 10:58 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
