mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-10-16 08:39 AM - Post#204059
In response to bradley
You're missing the point. The odds that Yale, Princeton, Columbia or Harvard would win the 4-Team Tournament would be roughly the same as their odds of winning the 14-Game Tournament. Heading into the final weekend, Princeton had slightly better seeding hopes than Yale (before losing at Harvard) and if it had held serve and Yale lost, we'd be having the exact same argument except with Princeton being the team destined for a 12, while Yale would potentially be a 13. And if Cannady doesn't hit that shot, Columbia might head into that final game of the season with Yale with something huge to play for.
You can't take that the team with the best R64 odds won as an indication that the team with the best R64 odds would always win. They just happened to win this trial. Like they'd happen to win many trials in the 4-Team Tournament. But there are also many trials where Yale does not win the 14-Game Tournament. Just like there would be many where it wouldn't win the 4-Team Tournament.
Let's focus on the arguments that are actually interesting, like, how skewing would it be to have a four-seed Penn team get two home games for a shot at the bid. That's probably the reason I'd ultimately vote against the tourney if I had a vote, not because of scaremongering over baseless hypotheticals.
|
dperry
Postdoc
Posts: 2215
Loc: Houston, TX
Reg: 11-24-04
|
03-10-16 09:30 AM - Post#204062
In response to mrjames
All right, I've been trying to hold myself back, because Lord knows I have enough on my plate right now, but at this point I'm just going to have to give in and do it; somewhere between now and the end of the summer, I'm going to put together a database on what actually happens in conference tournaments, so we can have some empirical data on which to base this discussion.
David Perry
Penn '92
"Hail, Alma Mater/Thy sons cheer thee now
To thee, Pennsylvania/All rivals must bow!!!" |
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-10-16 09:39 AM - Post#204063
In response to dperry
Back when I was in college, I wrote a junior economics paper on this and (somewhere) I have a dataset with all small conference results that spans from 1990-2004. I wrote a smaller version of that paper as an article for this site. Maybe things have changed since I did that 10 years ago, but the story back then was that a ton of 1- and 2-seeds win their conference tourneys and that the outliers we all remember are indeed outliers.
I'll see if I can dig those up as a place for you to start. I can't search the article on this site anymore (at least easily).
|
bradley
PhD Student
Posts: 1842
Age: 74
Reg: 01-15-16
|
03-10-16 11:17 AM - Post#204070
In response to mrjames
There is no sense debating the subject anymore as we simply have a different view as do a number of other Ivy League fans. You just never address the reality of a given year like this year because it does not fit your theory but please do not try. Coach Smith said it all after in his post game interview after the Yale/Columbia game.
It sometimes sounds like political talk -- "you just do not understand" -- rather condescending. People can have different views and that is all right.
|
Stuart Suss
PhD Student
Posts: 1439
Loc: Chester County, Pennsylva...
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-10-16 11:59 AM - Post#204073
In response to bradley
Even Bill Carmody agrees:
Bucknell (the regular season champion) should be in the NCAA tournament
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6415
Reg: 11-22-04
|
03-10-16 12:25 PM - Post#204077
In response to palestra38
To me, it's not a do-over at all. It is more information and a bigger sample size to determine the winner. Why is 14 games to determine the champion better than 16? You are always going to have more information with more games. I think adding the tournament on top of the regular season actually increases the odds (slightly) that we send the "best" team to the tournament.
I totally agree that there will be an occasional year where the Harvard in my scenario wins the tournament, and there really isn't any reason to believe that a .500 team (even after winning the tournament) is the "best" team. But that will be a one out of 100 type of occurrence. That one could be too much for some, but I'm willing to chance it (and think it will be pretty exciting when it does happen).
To bradley's related point, yes, i'm asking a what-if, and there are other what-ifs (Harvard or Columbia winning) that will not result in the team with the best 16 game record going to the dance. However, last year had a similar setup, only it was mathematically possible for 3 teams to emerge from the tournament with the best record (instead of only 2 this year). In an increasingly competitive league, this scenario will be a lot more common than it would have been during the Penn/Princeton dominance of the old days.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-10-16 12:58 PM - Post#204084
In response to SomeGuy
It's not condescension so much as exasperation. I have made it very clear that I think there are a number of good arguments to make against having a conference tournament. After considering the facts, you can still decide that the tradeoffs aren't worth it and that you'd prefer to stick with the 14-Game Tournament for aesthetic or other reasons.
The problem is that many arguments portray the facts incorrectly. That's where I stand firm.
Here are the facts:
1) For a league of the Ivies' current caliber, the expectation is that the 14-Game Tournament's likely outcomes are very similar to a 4-Team Tournament's likely outcomes. This differential changes depending on the quality of the league and such quality must be considered when contemplating the tradeoffs. In the mid-2000s, the Ivies were at peak conference tourney damage levels and would have been advised not to have one.
2) Having Penn host every game introduces potential for a significant departure from those 14-Game Tournament outcomes and should receive strong consideration in how you view the tourney.
3) We have had now 3 of the last 6 Ivy champions in the Top 40 of Pomeroy. The odds of a Top 40 Pomeroy team missing the tournament are low, especially when backed up by a similarly strong RPI (see my EBS podcast).
4) Earning two bids without a conference tournament is more difficult than earning two bids with one.
5) Many notable recent Cinderellas were NOT the one-seed in their conference tournaments. This shouldn't be read as an anecdotal argument for non-1-seeds being better reps (in fact, in most cases, they should be expected to have less of a chance to win R64 games), but rather a visualization of the fact that the odds of winning an R64 game don't go to 0 just because your top seed doesn't claim the bid.
6) In four years this decade already, the top two teams in the Ivy would have likely found themselves on the same line (or the loser might have actually been a higher seed). In some years the top three teams or even top four would have avoided the 16 line. The mid-2000s fears of a 4 seed winning and being the worst team ever to make a tournament and losing in the PIG are LONG behind us.
These are facts. Just like it's a fact that if the Patriot League handed its bid to its regular season champion, the only difference in outcome would have likely been that Bucknell would have been a normal 16-seed instead of a PIG 16-seed. How is that or the A-Sun or any other low major tourney relevant to our situation? The ones that are relevant (Horizon, MAAC, WCC) all have regular season champs that are getting LONG looks for a 2nd bid.
I'm not a massive pro-tourney guy. I think it's a red herring when you consider many other rules that could be changed to help our league. I just want everyone to be arguing from the same set of facts and not slinging anecdotes without actually doing the real data analysis work behind what's being discussed.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32879
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-10-16 01:08 PM - Post#204085
In response to mrjames
Well, it appears to be moot:
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/college/on_cam p...
|
Old Bear
Postdoc
Posts: 4006
Reg: 11-23-04
|
03-10-16 05:03 PM - Post#204134
In response to palestra38
Nice win for Carmody, he needed to leave NW to get to the Dance. Also a nice quote about Bucknell, he might even believe it,
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32879
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-10-16 05:05 PM - Post#204135
In response to Old Bear
If you go back to the thread on Penn choosing a new coach, I liked Carmody better than Donahue. Thought his style of defense (and offense for that matter) would work better in the Ivies than Steve's. Only time will tell, but I always thought he was a really good coach.
|
Old Bear
Postdoc
Posts: 4006
Reg: 11-23-04
|
03-10-16 05:07 PM - Post#204136
In response to palestra38
Me too. I thought his D was better that Pete's.
|
westphillywarrior
Sophomore
Posts: 196
Age: 43
Reg: 01-08-11
|
03-10-16 05:15 PM - Post#204140
In response to palestra38
Yesterday I was 100% against a conference tournament. Yesterday I also would have bet a lot of money that no current Penn player would win an Ivy championship and play in the NCAA tournament.
Today I hear that all Penn has to do is figure out a way to finish fourth in the league and then win two games in the Palestra. I kind of like our chances.
|
SRP
Postdoc
Posts: 4919
Reg: 02-04-06
|
03-10-16 07:48 PM - Post#204151
In response to westphillywarrior
They're also shortening the regular season? No round robin? Or just schedule compression and fewer nonconference games? Hate both of those.
|
TigerFan
PhD Student
Posts: 1892
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-10-16 08:18 PM - Post#204155
In response to SRP
So what do the Tigers do with their schedule? End the season Friday, Saturday, Tuesday, (hopefully) Saturday, Sunday? Push second Penn game between two weekend doubles like they used to? Or push second Penn game before finals? The new tournament will be most disruptive to Princeton
|
Old Bear
Postdoc
Posts: 4006
Reg: 11-23-04
|
03-10-16 10:04 PM - Post#204165
In response to TigerFan
So Harvard has to give up a game with MIT and Brown and Yale won't play Lynden State. So what.
|
bradley
PhD Student
Posts: 1842
Age: 74
Reg: 01-15-16
|
03-11-16 12:03 PM - Post#204192
In response to TigerFan
What will also be interesting is what strategy is utilized for scheduling out of conference. For next year, the tigers probably want to have a strong out of conference schedule so that you get into the tournament in case you do not win the ivy tournament. The challenge will be that you better win out of conference. Gives a team two bites at the apple.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6415
Reg: 11-22-04
|
03-11-16 12:35 PM - Post#204196
In response to palestra38
What has happened with the top seeds is complicated though. Sure, Monmouth had a great year. Are they really more deserving than Iona at this point, though? We now have some more information. Why should Monmouth be chosen over a smaller sample size, if Iona now looks like the better team overall for the season as a whole?
This has gone on in a number of the conference tournaments. Most obvious is the Big South, where I think UNC-Asheville has clearly had the best year overall (though they were a very close 3rd in the conference regular season).
So, in about half the instances where the #1 seed went out, I think the team that won the tournament arguably has the better profile anyway. A couple others ought to make the NCAAs anyway (Wichita St, Valpo).
Wagner and Belmont are the worst case scenario that we've talked about -- a superior regular season champ and the conference's highest potential seed. However, these teams are significantly worse than any Ivy winner, so it isn't straight apples to apples (not that any of these examples are perfect -- Valpo losing might be the closest comparison to Yale losing).
|
