Kit
Senior
Posts: 380
Loc: Central Massachusetts
Reg: 11-29-04
|
03-04-16 12:11 AM - Post#203297
Old friend Bill Carmody's Holy Cross Crusaders upset number one seeded Bucknell Bison in double overtime.
This is more proof we don't need an Ivy League tournament.
|
Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts: 2814
Reg: 11-23-04
|
03-04-16 12:31 AM - Post#203299
In response to Kit
Thank you, Bill. 
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6404
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Holy Cross
03-04-16 07:52 AM - Post#203304
In response to Kit
To me, that's exciting and what March is all about.
That said, I think the odds of a 8 over 1 upset in the Ivy right now are much more remote than Holy Cross beating Bucknell. Yale, Princeton, and Columbia are all much better than Bucknell, who would be battling for 4th in our league. Of course, an 8 over 1 upset is even more unlikely if we only let 4 teams in the playoff.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-04-16 08:47 AM - Post#203309
In response to SomeGuy
Amen on all of what you just said. All of it.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32803
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-04-16 09:35 AM - Post#203310
In response to mrjames
Amen to what Kit said. All of it.
I don't care if the odds are low that a superior team loses to an inferior team in a tournament (although it happens all the time---Albany and Bucknell just this week)--the fact is that there is no substantial argument to be made that the Ivies will be more likely to get a second NCAA selection because of a tournament. Indeed, the likelihood is much greater that we send a representative that is relegated to a play in.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-04-16 09:55 AM - Post#203314
In response to palestra38
#NotAFact
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32803
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-04-16 09:56 AM - Post#203315
In response to mrjames
#SoYouSay
|
sparman
PhD Student
Posts: 1345
Reg: 12-08-04
|
03-04-16 10:08 AM - Post#203317
In response to mrjames
#NotAFact
Perhaps. But then, neither is the opposite.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-04-16 10:19 AM - Post#203319
In response to palestra38
the fact is that there is no substantial argument to be made that the Ivies will be more likely to get a second NCAA selection because of a tournament.
Since 2010, the committee has kept only one team out with a KenPom rating under 40 (SMU, 2014 and only because their NCSOS was in the 300s). Since 2010, we have had two teams finish the regular season with KenPom ratings in the 30s. If you believe that we will be able to continue to put teams into the Top 40 of KenPom with some frequency, then if one of those teams happens to lose in the conference tournament, they will have a good shot at getting a second bid. Whereas, losing the bid in the regular season would probably necessitate playing poorly enough to imperil their ability to stay in the Top 40.
I wouldn't let irrational pessimism about the selection process generate incorrect "facts" about the possible benefits of an Ivy tourney.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32803
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Holy Cross
03-04-16 10:35 AM - Post#203320
In response to mrjames
Losing to another Ivy team will send them out of the Top 40. The real question is how many Ivy teams have been in the Top 40 without winning a title. And why would they be excluded from the NCAA's without a tournament? You are creating a scenario that is extremely unlikely to occur....an Ivy team that after losing in the Ivy tournament, would still have a top 40 ranking. Why is that small probability worth sending a team that is .500 or so to the tournament and having it relegated?
Let me add that that is not my only objection to a tournament. I and I think most Ivy fans (and we all know that there aren't that many) think the excitement of playing the last 3 or 4 weeks in a "pennant race" atmosphere is much greater than having the winner have to defend again in a 2 or 3 day tournament at a neutral site.
Edited by palestra38 on 03-04-16 10:38 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts: 2814
Reg: 11-23-04
|
Holy Cross
03-04-16 10:38 AM - Post#203321
In response to mrjames
May we assume that, at least for THIS SEASON, we are spared from a tourney. I want to have a reason to get excited about the outcome of the next two/three games. 
|
HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts: 2691
Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
|
Holy Cross
03-04-16 11:05 AM - Post#203327
In response to Tiger69
YPC are a combined 25-0 against the rest of the league. Shouldn't that be enough?
IMHO, its not how small the risk is of an upset, but rather why there should be one at all. In a one-bid league, I still see little upside compared to the possible downside. Patriot and Atlantic Sun have already lost their top seeds. It can absolutely happen here.
As SB Nation reports:
"Stetson shouldn't even be in the championship game. They went 10-21 in the regular season, and four of those wins weren't against Division I teams. Ken Pomeroy's log5 regression of the conference tournament gave the Hatters just a 0.7 percent chance at winning the tournament. But in March, crazy things happen."
Oh, and Stetson isn't even eligible for the NCAA tournament due to an insufficient Academic Progress Rate.
This year, there is virtually no battle for the 4th spot while there is one for the top spot. Why make this weekend's Princeton game at Harvard and Yale's visit to Columbia essentially meaningless? Just so we can schedule 'do-overs'?
Edited by HARVARDDADGRAD on 03-04-16 11:05 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Holy Cross
03-04-16 01:05 PM - Post#203334
In response to HARVARDDADGRAD
Just so we get the facts straight:
Losing to another Ivy team will send them out of the Top 40.
Will is the wrong word choice here. Could is more appropriate. If you're KP 30 playing a KP 50 team on a neutral floor, losing close to the KP 50 team wouldn't knock you out of the Top 40.
The real question is how many Ivy teams have been in the Top 40 without winning a title.
Could have easily happened for Harvard 2012. So, there's one. There will be more going forward.
And why would they be excluded from the NCAA's without a tournament?
In 2012, all of the teams in a four-team Ivy tournament would have had Top 100 RPIs, meaning that winning one and losing one would provide another Top 100 win.
You are creating a scenario that is extremely unlikely to occur....an Ivy team that after losing in the Ivy tournament, would still have a top 40 ranking.
Each of Harvard 2012 and 2014 would have remained Top 40 if it had lost a close tournament game. We've only been in this "New Normal" for six seasons, so 1-in-3 is pretty good.
Why is that small probability worth sending a team that is .500 or so to the tournament and having it relegated?
Over the past six seasons, we've had a couple years where our four-seed would have been easily out of the PIG and might have even avoided the 16-line. I mean, this decade our four-seeds would have had the following KP ranks: 181, 156, 224, 123, 165, plus wherever it ends up this season, which will be among the worst. The worst 15 seeds have been in the 125-200 range depending on the year, so you could make an argument that we'd have more four-seeds on the 15-line than in the PIG.
I and I think most Ivy fans (and we all know that there aren't that many) think the excitement of playing the last 3 or 4 weeks in a "pennant race" atmosphere is much greater than having the winner have to defend again in a 2 or 3 day tournament at a neutral site.
I'm fine with this argument. The obvious counters are: 1) Availability bias: We've had some great races recently (mainly due to a hyper-competitive league now), but in the aughts, most of the races were pretty darn boring and 2) Awkward bid clinching moments: A tournament guarantees that you win the bid over an opponent that is there and you win it after playing a game in front of your fans. Recently, we've seen teams clinch bids on nights they didn't even play and on home floors during press conferences after another game finally finished. The two most exciting ones: winner-take-all playoffs where the two teams competing for the bid were playing each other to decide it.
YPC are a combined 25-0 against the rest of the league. Shouldn't that be enough?
Well, they would be three-of-four teams in the tourney and the odds of the fourth winning the four-game tourney would basically be zero (except for the Penn at home oddity that I think the Ivy office would need to reconsider). Do I really value more how the random results happened to fall in four games between YPC in February and early March versus how two games between those three teams will go in mid March? Not really.
In a one-bid league, I still see little upside compared to the possible downside. Patriot and Atlantic Sun have already lost their top seeds. It can absolutely happen here.
Those leagues are garbage and even their 1-seeds would have found themselves on the 16-line and potentially in the PIG.
As SB Nation reports:
"Stetson shouldn't even be in the championship game. They went 10-21 in the regular season, and four of those wins weren't against Division I teams. Ken Pomeroy's log5 regression of the conference tournament gave the Hatters just a 0.7 percent chance at winning the tournament. But in March, crazy things happen."
First, the best KP team is in the final (FGCU). Second, the Hatters haven't won the tourney yet. Their odds have increased from 0.7% to 23%, but they haven't realized the 0.7% yet. That 0.7% doesn't indicate the many more scenarios in which Stetson makes the final and loses.
This year, there is virtually no battle for the 4th spot while there is one for the top spot. Why make this weekend's Princeton game at Harvard and Yale's visit to Columbia essentially meaningless? Just so we can schedule 'do-overs'?
The question isn't where the 4th spot will end up this year, but where it will usually be expected to end up. This will be the widest gap in KP between the 3rd and 4th placed teams in the past six seasons by a wide, wide margin.
But please, yes, throw more anecdotes at this and see if any stick.
|
bradley
PhD Student
Posts: 1842
Age: 74
Reg: 01-15-16
|
Re: Holy Cross
03-04-16 01:06 PM - Post#203335
In response to palestra38
I concur with your thoughts. Why would the Ivies go to a conference tournament format until the League consistently produces a team with a high enough RPI ranking to get selected on merit if it did not win the Conference Tournament. It simply makes no sense to not send a team like Yale, Princeton or Columbia this year to represent the Ivy League. Any 4th place team would be playing in for a 16th seed if they won a post season tournament. Bad for the image and reputation of a League that is improving.
When the league produces a team on a regular basis that could be selected by the Committee even if they do not win the post-season tournament, there is logic to go to a tournament format.
One of the interesting arguments has been that it is very unlikely that a 4th place team would win a Conference tournament. It is totally baffling as to the rationale that has been given to go to a Conference Tournament at this time. It will not be an easy task for a Ivy team to consistently have a RPI ranking under 40 but it is possible if the League keeps improving.
|
hoopla
Masters Student
Posts: 486
Age: 49
Reg: 08-28-12
|
03-04-16 01:54 PM - Post#203339
In response to bradley
Just an observation:
It seems to me that the only folks who don't want an Ivy tourney are fans from the institutions that traditionally win the league. Mainly Princeton and Penn fans. These days--excluding the objective Mr. James--we have an increasing number of Harvard fans who also don't like the prospect of a tournament. I could be wrong, but I would venture to guess that Harvard fans during the Sullivan era would've supported a tournament.
I think that a tournament might be the ONLY way for "the rest of the league" to *partially* overcome the built-in advantages that the Penn, Princeton, Harvard (and probably Yale) programs have. The advantages I speak of are advantages in BRAND, facilities, and financial resources...
Fans associated with every other team want a tournament.
All 8 coaches want a tournament, as do the players.
|
westphillywarrior
Sophomore
Posts: 196
Age: 43
Reg: 01-08-11
|
Re: Holy Cross
03-04-16 01:59 PM - Post#203340
In response to bradley
I like the Ivy current 14 game tournament. It seems the best way to crown a champion and give that champion the great prize of an automatic berth in the NCAA tournament.
But if we go to an end of the season tournament to try to get an extra team in the NCAA tournament once in a while, here's what I would suggest. Allow all eight teams into the end of season tournament, and play each game on the court of the lower seeded team. That will make for better games and give us the best chance for defeating the regular season champion.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32803
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-04-16 02:52 PM - Post#203346
In response to hoopla
Well, you are talking about 95% of dedicated Ivy basketball fans, then, opposing a tournament. Shouldn't they have a voice.
I admire your fandom from Dartmouth, but I never thought of it as the Dartmouth ethic to "give everyone a chance." Indeed, the very fact that Dartmouth, a school different from the other Ivies and far more resembling the Williams and Amherst's of the world, than the other Ivies, chooses to compete in a League where there are built-in disadvantages, suggests that they are willing to mix it up with the big boys (certainly kicked our butts in football this year and could win a title there). Remember, Penn has not won now in 9 years and yet its fans overwhelmingly want to keep the current system. It really goes to the sense of true competition that is the basis for the League. Some would have it decided on other bases--such as the incremental chance of getting another team into the NCAAs. I would rather have a clear winner every year.
|
SRP
Postdoc
Posts: 4910
Reg: 02-04-06
|
03-04-16 02:56 PM - Post#203347
In response to westphillywarrior
Not only has Bill Carmody notched a big upset in the Patriot League, but Mike Brennan's American has been a tournament terror over the past few years. They just took out BU. So at least we know that Princeton-connected coaches can thrive in a tourney environment.
|
sparman
PhD Student
Posts: 1345
Reg: 12-08-04
|
03-04-16 03:22 PM - Post#203349
In response to palestra38
Remember, Penn has not won now in 9 years and yet its fans overwhelmingly want to keep the current system. It really goes to the sense of true competition that is the basis for the League.
Ditto for Princeton and its fans. The notion that Penn and PU fans only oppose a tournament because they win in the regular season is a canard. And given how Harvard is claimed to be winning the recruiting wars for seasons to come, wouldn't one think Penn and PU fans would have changed their tune, if in fact they were merely trying to protect their competitive position?
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-04-16 03:23 PM - Post#203350
In response to palestra38
While I too disagree with the "give everyone a chance" argument, I do think it's worth noting that this proposal passed the coaches, AD and policy committee with a combined 23-1 vote.
I always hate how I get boxed into being a pro-tournament voice. I'm not all that much. I'm in the "it's a red herring, but let's at least debate facts, not attempts to fearmonger" camp. I would much prefer to see any of the following addressed first:
- Multi-Team Event Participation Limitation
- Practice Restrictions
- International Events/1-in-4 Trip
- Unpaid 3rd asst
- Redshirting policies
- Fin Aid disparities
etc. etc. etc.
|
