bradley
PhD Student
Posts: 1842
Age: 74
Reg: 01-15-16
|
02-28-18 09:47 AM - Post#249814
In response to dperry
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.
|
