SRP
Postdoc
Posts: 4911
Reg: 02-04-06
|
10-21-16 06:02 PM - Post#211830
In response to bradley
The coaches and ADs ALWAYS support a system that allows fewer of them to be "losers." Instead of one winner and four losers, now six more people will be able to say "made the conference tournament" and hang onto their jobs longer. But it undoubtedly degrades the regular season and the value of a regular-season championship. In other mid-major leagues some coaches actually say at the beginning of the season that all they are trying to do is prepare for the tourney and that regular-season losses don't matter to them.
|
Okoro Dude
Senior
Posts: 309
Loc: Glen Mills, PA
Reg: 11-24-04
|
10-24-16 10:57 AM - Post#211910
In response to SRP
I doubt that coaching sentiment is common or legitimate. In the hundreds of college games I have gone to in my life, I have yet to see a losing coach look at peace with that result or play the game like they weren't trying to win. I am sure that some have attempted to spin those outcomes as less meaningful so as to postpone judgment. In a 14 games season where only top 4 make the tournament, I will be very surprised to see Ivy coaches shrug off a league loss as just a tune-up for the tournament.
|
SRP
Postdoc
Posts: 4911
Reg: 02-04-06
|
10-24-16 01:09 PM - Post#211918
In response to Okoro Dude
OK, here are all the caveats:
--No, it is normally not politic to treat the conference regular season as a long exhibition tune-up for the conference tourney, but some mid-major coaches are honest. It depends on their institutional reward system as well; more and more, these coaches seem to be judged by number of postseason appearances. High-major coaches have at-large and seeding possibilities that also drive them.
--The issue is only relevant when there is a conflict between winning a conference game and prepping for tournament success. That may not come up for teams with settled rotations and good depth.
--Of course, the IL folly only takes the top half, so it only potentially exhibitonizes the end of the season for teams that clinch. Unfortunately, that means the good teams, like all the Ivy champs and runners-up of the past.
--I do agree that natural competitiveness and program reputation play important roles. I would not want to be the guy assigned to tell Bill Self that he needn't worry about a regular-season contest.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6412
Reg: 11-22-04
|
10-24-16 01:53 PM - Post#211921
In response to SRP
Potentially exhibitionizes. Last year, there wouldn't have been many meaningless games. There was a huge dropoff from #3 to #4, particularly if Harvard didn't finish #4, so there would have been lots of incentive to come in #1. I guess Columbia would have had a meaningless final game once they clinched #3. But having 3 teams playing meaningless final games is a lot better than 6 or 7, which is what we often would've had in the past.
|
Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts: 2814
Reg: 11-23-04
|
10-24-16 04:09 PM - Post#211926
In response to SomeGuy
So, we want to have more "meaningful" games at the end of the season. I've got a better idea. Instead of potentially depriving the regular season League Champ of the NCAA bid by an adverse outcome of the tourney, let's instead continue to give the bid to the regular season champ and free pizzas to the tourney winner. That is, at most, what the post season tourney is worth. 
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
10-24-16 04:26 PM - Post#211927
In response to Tiger69
I have a question for all the anti-tournament folks:
Let's say that the regular season winner loses in the title game of the tourney and ends up getting an at-large to the NCAA Tourney. Would that change your view at all?
How about if the regular season winner/tourney loser gets a First Four at-large bid and loses that play-in game so it never actually makes it into the field?
Or would you want more data - an average outcome set over 10 years or so? Or is it more principle of the matter?
Just curious what everyone is looking for to be persuaded to take the other view. For me, I want to see how we continue to recruit/prioritize basketball as a league and how selection committees define "best" as it pertains to doling out at larges. I don't know that I care as much about outcomes as those underlying factors, but I'm curious what everyone else thinks...
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6412
Reg: 11-22-04
|
10-24-16 04:45 PM - Post#211929
In response to mrjames
There's actually a reverse fairness issue that doesn't get talked about. Some of the anti-tourney folks argue that we put our best team forward if we send the regular season winner, and that may give us an advantage in the NCAAs. It certainly gets brought up when we lament the possiblity of a 4th place team representing the league and getting a 16 seed. While choosing such an advantage as a league is perfectly within the rules (each conference chooses whether or not to have a tournament determine the NCAA rep), when literally every other league in the country uses a tournament, our advantage is based upon that difference. It's like walking into Wendy's, seeing that a single line has formed for the 3 cash registers, and deciding to go up and form a new line at register #3.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6412
Reg: 11-22-04
|
10-24-16 04:50 PM - Post#211930
In response to mrjames
My guess is that there isn't much that will change minds among the anti-tourney crowd, other than the passage of time. For the anti-tourney crowd, any instance where the regular season winner gets knocked off is too many. Eventually, though, we'll forget the old system (or die off).
|
GoBigGreenBasketball
Masters Student
Posts: 806
Age: 52
Reg: 05-19-16
|
10-24-16 04:54 PM - Post#211931
In response to SomeGuy
Sound like the evolution route to acceptance. Evolve or perish.
| "...no excuses - only results!†|
|
bradley
PhD Student
Posts: 1842
Age: 74
Reg: 01-15-16
|
10-24-16 08:22 PM - Post#211933
In response to SomeGuy
Results should and will change my mind over the next five years or so. If the Ivies get two bids in a given year(s) or a 2,3 or 4 seed who wins the IL tournament does well in the NCAA tournament or the Ivies get a boost in recruiting or a boost in the reputation of the league, I would be more than happy to change my line of thinking.
One would also hope that pro IL supporters would simply take a look at what has occurred over the past 5 years without a tournament.
Simple Fact: Tournament teams have a far better chance to win a 1st round game as a 11 or 12 seed vs.13-16 seed.
Fact: Ivy League has sent the highest rated rpi team in each of the past five years to the NCAA tournament. All five teams have represented the league very well in the tournament. All 2nd-3rd-4th place teams would have been seeded less favorably than the regular season IL champ.
Fact: There have been no two bid in a given year due to RPI ranking of 2nd place IL team.
Opinion: According to the experts, the League has been recruiting at a higher level over the past five years.
Past history does not necessarily determine the future but I would enjoy seeing facts to support an argument vs. theory--I really enjoyed the reverse discrimination argument. An objective person merely needs to go back over the past five years to draw a fact based conclusion. The best argument for the IL tournament may well be more teams get a chance to go the Big Dance and that is far more important than NCAA tournament results but let's hope that future results support the pro IL tournament advocates. Time will tell!
|
SRP
Postdoc
Posts: 4911
Reg: 02-04-06
|
10-24-16 09:53 PM - Post#211934
In response to bradley
I don't like the folly in principle, but if it gets more teams into the tourney than the league otherwise would, I could live with it. I am not sure that that would be the case, however, even if a second team gets in this year. If the IL improves as much as mrjames hopes no tourney would be needed for a second bid. If the Big 12 got rid of its tourney they'd still get more than one team in and the same could be true for the Ivies, just not with as many entries.
But in practice I do not believe that it will get extra bids and the faith that others have about this is baffling to me. What more does the committee have to do to make it clear that extra mid-majors, and non-Harvard Ivies, are not really wanted? Bill Carmody was quite honest after Holy Cross got its bid last year--the process by which that happened was fundamentally unfair and completely devalued the regular season of the Patriot League.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
10-24-16 09:58 PM - Post#211936
In response to bradley
Well, as I've pointed out in the past, in 2011, 2013, 2015 and 2016, the first and second place teams probably would have earned about the same seed. In 2012 and 2014, any upset of the one-seed would have been significant.
What's always been interesting to me is that of the three recent R64 wins, two involved teams that needed help to clinch the bid during the final weekend and our two R64 buzzer-beater losses involved the winners of a tight playoff game.
I'm not a fan of prioritizing a tourney over other actual improvements (paid 3rd asst, every year MTE participation, loosening of practice restrictions, etc), so I see this as a red herring. I don't know how it will play out but it could be a positive or a negative. We'll see...
|
Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts: 2814
Reg: 11-23-04
|
10-25-16 01:11 AM - Post#211938
In response to mrjames
My sole criterion is MERIT. The team that prevails over 14 games deserves the bid more than the one that gets hot for two games (possibly even on its home court!), To me, merit trumps (oops,sorry!) whoever might be a stronger representative of the IL at the end of the season due to some unpredictable factor like a critical injury or illness on the regular season champion. Now, if the day comes when the league can expect a second bid, then I can live with a tournament provided that the regular season champion is guaranteed a bid. I think that we had it right before we created a tournament and every other league with a single bid had it wrong in the endless quest for a few additional tournament $.
|
JadwinGeorge
Senior
Posts: 357
Age: 75
Reg: 12-04-15
|
10-25-16 07:40 AM - Post#211939
In response to Tiger69
This discussion reflects the attitude that reaching the NCAA tournament is the goal for college basketball teams. For those of us of a certain, let's say, vintage, winning the 14 Game Tournament was the goal, playing post-season was the bonus. That is why many of us opposed the Ivy Tourney. (I freely acknowledge that I made a hotel reservation a block from The Palestra on the day the announcement was made.) No one can argue that the big conferences hold tournaments for any reason other than revenue. To the extent the Ivy League moves closer to the revenue-model culture I believe it should be very, very careful. Clearly, the coaches and the players are excited about it and that's a good thing. If the tournament helps recruiting that's another good thing. And if a 13-1 regular season team loses the tourney but gets a second bid that's a wonderful thing. But the tournament ship has sailed and we might as well enjoy the voyage, wherever it may go. See you in March, I hope...
|
bradley
PhD Student
Posts: 1842
Age: 74
Reg: 01-15-16
|
10-25-16 10:44 AM - Post#211941
In response to mrjames
I have a somewhat different perspective than yours as to the regular season #1 and #2 probably receiving the same seed in the NCAA tournament over the past 5 years based on their RPI and record. Looking back over the past five years, the #1 and #2 IL regular season finisher probably would have received the same seed in 2013 and 2015. 2016 is a question mark but 2012 and 2014, the 2nd placed team would have received a higher seed, one or two seeds based on their RPI. The 3rd and 4th placed regular season teams would obviously receive a significantly less advantageous seed than 1 or 2.
The rankings as per Kenpom are as follows going from the 1st placed team thru 4th placed team by year.
2016 -- 46,70,103,179
2015 -- 75,77,159,168
2014 -- 32,153, 100,119
2013 -- 93,87,196,233
2012 -- 41,100, 139, 158
The good news is that it is less likely that a third or fourth seed IL team getting blown out in the NCAAs than the past although they may well receive a 15 or 16 seed. We know the track record of 16 seeds at the Big Dance.
If we look at preseason Kenpom this year, we should have two Ivy bids if the Tigers get beaten at the IL tournament. All will be well if the NCAA committee does not diss a #35 rpi -- only kidding.
Time to move on and hope for the best!
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
10-25-16 11:47 AM - Post#211943
In response to bradley
I actually think we agree on this, aside from 2016. I was assuming what a second-placed team would look like given that it won the tournament, which would have narrowed the 2016 gap to the point that Princeton would have likely been a 12 as well. I also added 2011 to the mix where Harvard and Princeton were neck-and-neck.
That means that four of the past six years, it would have taken a 3- or 4-seed winning twice to have an adverse effect on the league's chances in the tourney. Aside from Penn getting an HCA bump as a 3- or 4-seed, it's pretty unlikely to win twice (somewhere between 2-10% for each depending on the caliber of the 1- and 2-seeds relative to the 3s and 4s).
Also, when it comes to next year, I'd wager that if Princeton ends up at 35 at Pomeroy, it'll be even higher in the RPI. Pomeroy made some changes to his formula this year among which is the dampening of a team's ability to rise up the rankings against lower D1 opposition. So, if Princeton gets to 35 at Pomeroy, it will either require a bunch of tough-luck, razor-thin losses to the best teams on its schedule or it will require Princeton to win some of those games, boosting its RPI. On average, the formula modification should make it a bit tougher for really strong mids to have a KP rating that is higher than the RPI.
|
