Kit
Senior
Posts: 380
Loc: Central Massachusetts
Reg: 11-29-04
|
03-04-16 03:41 PM - Post#203351
In response to mrjames
I agree 100% about the MTEs, Mike.
|
hoopla
Masters Student
Posts: 486
Age: 49
Reg: 08-28-12
|
03-04-16 04:23 PM - Post#203355
In response to Kit
Okay, I guess it's just a coincidence that most fans from the teams who have won the most titles and who have built in advantages are opposed to an Ivy league tourney, while most fans from the rest of the league are pro tourney.
|
sparman
PhD Student
Posts: 1339
Reg: 12-08-04
|
Holy Cross 03-04-16 04:32 PM - Post#203356
In response to hoopla
Okay, I guess it's just a coincidence that most fans from the teams who have won the most titles and who have built in advantages are opposed to an Ivy league tourney, while most fans from the rest of the league are pro tourney.
Part of your problem is that your assumptions are bad.
What is Penn's built in advantage?
For that matter, what is Princeton's? (and don't tell me fin aid, because fan opposition to an ivy tournament and PU's success long predated any supposed fin aid advantage). And while we may like Jadwin, it sure isn't their fabulous court environment.
Edited by sparman on 03-04-16 04:33 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32683
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Holy Cross 03-04-16 04:46 PM - Post#203358
In response to sparman
Well, in terms of size and financial resources, both Penn and Princeton have advantages over Dartmouth.
I question his assumption that everyone other than P-fans support a tournament, though. It appears to me that the overwhelming majority of Ivy fans oppose it, regardless of school. It may be that there are so few from Dartmouth and Brown, but I see no groundswell of posters here in favor of it other than for the proposition that additional teams could get into the NCAA--a proposition I question.
|
hoopla
Masters Student
Posts: 486
Age: 49
Reg: 08-28-12
|
03-04-16 05:19 PM - Post#203359
In response to palestra38
Exactly. If I'm wrong, what I'm wrong about is that most P fans (and born again H fans) are anti-tourney; and most non-P or H fans are pro tourney. Not all but most.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32683
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-04-16 05:25 PM - Post#203361
In response to hoopla
Well, given that we really are talking about Columbia fans (since there is 1 active Dartmouth fan, 0 active Yale fans , 1 active Cornell fan and a couple of Brown fans), I would like our CU friends to chime in on this.
|
Columbia Alum
Junior
Posts: 247
Age: 38
Reg: 11-15-11
|
03-04-16 05:43 PM - Post#203362
In response to palestra38
I don't like the extra randomness a tourney creates, but from a school very unlikely to win next year and with a shot at the top 4, I'm all for it, bring on the randomness!
It's a self-centered short-term bias. If one day we become front runners I'll be trying to avoid/end the ivy tourney.
Not sure it does the league as a whole much good, it's also not such a big deal if you play at the better record schools home court and only take the top 4 since it correlates well with #1 or #2 getting in. I would guess in this format #1 or #2 goes to the dance 70-80% of the time.
|
TigerFan
PhD Student
Posts: 1871
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Holy Cross 03-04-16 05:54 PM - Post#203364
In response to mrjames
Multi-Team Event Participation Limitation
- Practice Restrictions
- International Events/1-in-4 Trip
Not sure what happened but Princeton used to play a lot more in-season tournaments than they have lately and also took a summer trip to Europe before the great 1998 season.
The following year they participated AND WON a tournament in Hawaii, beating Florida State, Charlotte and Texas on consecutive nights. I assume those games and others against major conference teams helped them secure a high RPI and the NIT bid they received that year (They won their first two NIT games and had a huge lead at Xavier which they reliquished or would have made the NIT Final Four).
Mike, is there a league rule that I don't know about that prevents playing in these kind of tournaments and taking summer trips?
Edited by TigerFan on 03-04-16 05:56 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
whitakk
Masters Student
Posts: 523
Age: 32
Reg: 11-11-14
|
03-04-16 06:07 PM - Post#203365
In response to TigerFan
The Ivy League restricts teams to playing in only two MTEs every four years. (This used to be the NCAA rule, but teams are now allowed to play every year.) As you mention, these events can be great for Ivies, because they get games against major programs (ideally on a neutral floor).
I believe the international rule is that Ivy teams in all sports can take only one international trip every four years, and incoming freshmen can't participate if the trip happens over the summer. (Someone check my facts though.)
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Holy Cross 03-04-16 06:11 PM - Post#203366
In response to TigerFan
Here's the multi-team event history:
For the longest time, there were very few of these events, and they were stocked with all of the best teams (Maui, Great Alaska Shootout, etc.). In 1999, the NCAA instituted a rule that limited participation to "two-in-four" years, where you could participate in an exempt tournament that would allow you to treat the tournament as one of your 28 games.
By 2006, there was a ton of TV value in these tournaments and the promoters wanted to unlock the potential of getting a Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, etc. every single year. So, a deal was struck where teams could play in an exempt event (now called a "multi-team event") every year, plus 27 other games, BUT the 28 game cap was increased to 29 for those teams choosing not to play in an MTE. The Ivy League's response was to hold the line on two-in-four for MTEs AND not to allow teams to play the full 29 game schedule in the off years. Given the explosion of these events and how important they are to getting quality wins and TV exposure, this is one of the most self-defeating of the self-defeating Ivy policies.
As for the summer trips, we're at the NCAA standard of 1-in-4 years, though there are a few Ivy quirks that are stupidly prohibitive.
1) Ivies can't bring freshmen on their August international trips, meaning that whatever class enters the year that the team is doing its international trip will NEVER get to go on one if they graduate on a normal schedule.
2) Pre-trip practices are limited relative to the number permitted by the NCAA (I believe Ivies get about half of the allowed amount).
3) If an Ivy wants to play in an international game, it MUST use that game as its international trip, even though that's not how the NCAA sees it. For instance, Harvard's game against Stanford in China to kick off next season will count as its 1-in-4 international trip in the Ivies eyes, even though it isn't considered such in the NCAA's eyes. That leaves Harvard in a tricky spot to potentially have to take its kids out of school for a much longer period of time than it had planned to in order to take full advantage of the international trip. The good news, though, is that it would at least be able to bring freshmen.
|
Old Bear
Postdoc
Posts: 3988
Reg: 11-23-04
|
03-04-16 06:38 PM - Post#203368
In response to mrjames
I think if the coaches and players want a tourney, let them play.
|
dperry
Postdoc
Posts: 2211
Loc: Houston, TX
Reg: 11-24-04
|
03-04-16 11:48 PM - Post#203430
In response to Old Bear
Here's a snapshot of the ESPN scoreboard page at the moment:
ESPN Scoreboard (You may need to use the zoom on your browser.)
Notice which conference gets more mentions than any other, despite the fact that several conference tournaments are in progress? The one with a Yale logo at the bottom is a preview of the entire weekend, with a link to the league standings.
Folks, not only do people not think we're arrogant for doing it differently than everyone else, they think the way we do it is cool. They love seeing a different, "old-school" approach, if you will. It's interesting, and it gets us attention for SIX WHOLE WEEKS.
Gee, anyone think this weekend is a lot more interesting than it would have been if it were just the top four teams tuning up for the tournament? Either Harvard just put their biggest rivals into the NCAA's (major irony, that), or else Columbia is going to put the Bulldogs's season in jeopardy at the last minute for the second year in a row--and of course, if the latter happens, that gives Penn a shot to ruin their rivals's season in turn.
Let's put it this way: I abandoned my wife to eat her dinner alone this evening so I could sit at the computer and watch the Penn women live against Dartmouth (she's cool; she was binge-watching Sex and the City ), and I also pulled up the Harvard women's Twitter for updates on their game against Princeton (because ESPN doesn't update the women's scores live ) I ain't doing any of that if all we're fighting for is the number one seed.
David Perry
Penn '92
"Hail, Alma Mater/Thy sons cheer thee now
To thee, Pennsylvania/All rivals must bow!!!" |
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32683
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-09-16 06:18 AM - Post#203866
In response to dperry
Just woke up to see that in the 9 mid-major or below conference tournaments that have been completed, the top seed is 1-8! With the exception of St. Mary's, which may get in as an at large, everyone else is gone as local teams that had great years such as Monmouth and Wagner are out. What is the purpose of that great regular season for those teams?
|
Kit
Senior
Posts: 380
Loc: Central Massachusetts
Reg: 11-29-04
|
03-09-16 02:35 PM - Post#203960
In response to palestra38
The purpose of those great regular seasons is...
to play in the NIT!
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32683
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-09-16 02:45 PM - Post#203963
In response to Kit
You'll always have me on your side on this argument. Those supporting a tournament essentially take the view that the odds of a significantly worse team winning a tournament are small. But it happens every year and the odds of the No. 1 seed winning are less than 50%. We do it in a way that rewards the best team through the season. It should stay that way.
|
sparman
PhD Student
Posts: 1339
Reg: 12-08-04
|
03-09-16 03:06 PM - Post#203966
In response to palestra38
It should stay that way. But as the Participation Award Generation assumes greater seniority, query whether it will.
|
bradley
PhD Student
Posts: 1842
Age: 74
Reg: 01-15-16
|
03-09-16 03:24 PM - Post#203970
In response to palestra38
If you are a Ivy League fan, does anyone think that Yale is not the best and most deserving representative at the big dance vs harvard, columbia, or princeton. Better yet how about sending one of the other four teams so that the reputation of the league will be "enhanced "with a 16th seed play in game. I know someone will opine that it is unlikely. Tell that to some other conference winners - Dartmouth loses by one pt. Please spare me -- $$$$ drives decisions not right or wrong.
|
Kit
Senior
Posts: 380
Loc: Central Massachusetts
Reg: 11-29-04
|
03-09-16 03:36 PM - Post#203971
In response to palestra38
That is precisely the reason South Carolina left the ACC ages ago. Their teams would consistently win the regular season crown and subsequently lose in the ACC tournament and miss out on the NCAAs.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32683
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-09-16 03:44 PM - Post#203973
In response to Kit
Number 1 teams are on a hot streak---they've now only lost 9 of 11 tournaments so far.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6391
Reg: 11-22-04
|
03-09-16 04:44 PM - Post#203975
In response to bradley
Well, let's play out a quick tournament scenario here. Suppose we played an Ivy tournament this year. 4 teams are: Yale, Princeton, Columbia, and Harvard. In the first round, Harvard upsets Yale, and Princeton beats Columbia. In the final, Princeton beats Harvard.
At this point, Princeton would be 14-2 in the conference, and Yale would be 13-2. Both teams would have lost a game head-to-head and lost once to Harvard. Is Yale still the best team in that scenario? I think the deserving team at that point is Princeton -- the tournament winner.
|