coins
Sophomore
Posts: 195
Reg: 01-16-07
|
02-27-17 06:24 PM - Post#223919
Interesting article about the direction of the NCAA.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2017...
|
Old Bear
Postdoc
Posts: 3992
Reg: 11-23-04
|
02-27-17 07:27 PM - Post#223931
In response to coins
Expand the Tourney to 128.
|
SteveChop
PhD Student
Posts: 1154
Reg: 07-28-07
|
Re: Two bids or why a tourney?
02-27-17 08:02 PM - Post#223938
In response to coins
The article epitomizes what I have been arguing since the Ivy League first raised the idea of a tournament - a second Ivy team is NEVER getting in so a regular season champion that is upset in the Ivy tournament will get screwed. Even if Princeton winds up 14-0 this season and loses in the Ivy tournament, they will not get an NCAA at large bid and will have to (if they so choose) be content with an NIT berth. While I AM excited that the Quakers still have a chance to go to the NCAAs this year, if they do achieve this, it will not make any sense to me (though I will be THRILLED to attend).
|
penn nation
Professor
Posts: 21193
Reg: 12-02-04
|
Re: Two bids or why a tourney?
02-27-17 08:17 PM - Post#223941
In response to SteveChop
The article epitomizes what I have been arguing since the Ivy League first raised the idea of a tournament - a second Ivy team is NEVER getting in so a regular season champion that is upset in the Ivy tournament will get screwed.
I wouldn't say never. If Princeton goes 14-0 in the regular season and loses in the finals, it won't get in, but that's mostly because it didn't win enough key OOC games and alloted one of its OOC slots to a DIII matchup. If it had been a bit more selective in its scheduling, eliminated its non DI game and added a competitive OOC game in its place and won a couple more of these OOC games, it would actually have a reasonable shot at a bid.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-27-17 09:49 PM - Post#223948
In response to penn nation
The non-D-I game actually helps, because it usually comes in the place of a bad low major home-and-home that can hurt the RPI vs a DIII game that has no effect.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6404
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Two bids or why a tourney?
02-27-17 09:53 PM - Post#223949
In response to penn nation
I'm not sure why there is so much certainty that a deserving Ivy team wouldn't get in (or is the theory that no Ivy team could be deserving of an at large?).
|
bradley
PhD Student
Posts: 1842
Age: 74
Reg: 01-15-16
|
Re: Two bids or why a tourney?
02-27-17 10:08 PM - Post#223954
In response to SteveChop
I have obviously expressed my disdain for the IL Tournament from the get go. If the situation was reversed and Penn was 12-0 and Princeton was 5-7, I would feel the exact same way about the IL Tournament. With that said, there is a possibility that the IL could receive two bids in one year down the road but there is absolutely no guarantee -- speculation not grounded based on recent history.
Strategically, the tournament should not have been introduced until prospects were real as to being a two bid league in my opinion.
Based on conference rankings, the IL has taken a step back this year from last year. If you add up the average ranking of the first four teams this year vs. last year, there is a drop off particularly for the probable #2 and #3 seed. One did not have to be a genius to figure out the likelihood of a drop off with the graduation of Maodo Lo, Sears, etc. even with the incoming freshmen class. A second bid obviously becomes more feasible when the RPI average for all IL teams improve and as right now, you need to hit a non-conference home run with road victories against good teams even if you finish 14-0 to get a bid if you do not win the tournament based on the relative strength of the IL.
If Princeton does win the tournament this year, it may help them to get a #12 vs. #13 seed but as Sal Licata, Columbia broadcaster humorously suggested last Friday night, Princeton should ask to be grand fathered into this year's tournament.
|
penn nation
Professor
Posts: 21193
Reg: 12-02-04
|
Two bids or why a tourney?
02-27-17 10:15 PM - Post#223956
In response to mrjames
The non-D-I game actually helps, because it usually comes in the place of a bad low major home-and-home that can hurt the RPI vs a DIII game that has no effect.
My point was that a high quality OOC game should replace the DIII game. And they can always play an "exhibition" like Penn usually does in lieu of the DIII game; the exhibition would not count in the total number of games allowed.
Edited by penn nation on 02-27-17 10:16 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
caughtinasnare
Senior
Posts: 362
Age: 35
Reg: 02-21-09
|
Re: Two bids or why a tourney?
02-27-17 10:16 PM - Post#223957
In response to bradley
Princeton has the opportunity to grandfather themselves in...by winning the Ivy Tournament.
Frankly, we won't be a 2 bid conference unless and until the tide lifts all of the boats. We need not just better talent at Princeton, Harvard, Yale, Penn, and Columbia, but Cornell, Brown and Dartmouth too. Until you can lift everybody up to at least a mediocre level as your base-case 8 seed, with substantial rise from there, the Ivy League will continue to get zero respect in bracketology.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-27-17 10:36 PM - Post#223960
In response to caughtinasnare
I'm pretty sure both the 2012 and 2014 Harvard teams would have gotten plenty of attention in bracketology if it hadn't required multiple losses to need it.
We're sitting on the best frosh class ever, a strong soph class and a deep 2017 incoming class. The past doesn't really matter. There is absolutely zero precedent for what we are about to see in the AI era. Zero.
|
bradley
PhD Student
Posts: 1842
Age: 74
Reg: 01-15-16
|
02-27-17 10:45 PM - Post#223961
In response to mrjames
Interesting -- so last year when the IL decided on having a tournament introduced for the 2016-17 season, they considered the likelihood of two bids for the 2016-17 season? If so, they did an outstanding job of projecting the overall success of the league this year.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6404
Reg: 11-22-04
|
02-27-17 11:44 PM - Post#223968
In response to bradley
I don't think Mike is saying that.
|
SteveChop
PhD Student
Posts: 1154
Reg: 07-28-07
|
02-28-17 12:10 AM - Post#223970
In response to SomeGuy
What the Ivy League said is we don't give a s__t about who wins the 14 game tournament - we want TV money! We're about "student"-athletes - so what if we invented the AI that no one really understands?
|
Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts: 2814
Reg: 11-23-04
|
Two bids or why a tourney?
02-28-17 01:08 AM - Post#223972
In response to SteveChop
I think I am with Mr Chop on this. The NCAA is all about $ and the Power Six run the NCAA. Mid majors are allowed in token numbers into the tournament gravy train for entertainment and publicity value. But, they won't be allowed to take any more spots from the P6 than absolutely necessary. We are naive enough to believe that our chances for another bid are enhanced by the Tourney. That is really the only justifiable argument for making a regular season champ win a second, much shorter and potentially more biased tournament in order to receive what is now only a single bid to the NCAAs. How many of us really believe that the Ivies will get a 2nd bid (other than a play- in or unless the field is expanded) any time soon?
|
SRP
Postdoc
Posts: 4910
Reg: 02-04-06
|
02-28-17 06:31 AM - Post#223974
In response to Tiger69
As expressed many times before, the second bid is unlikely ever to happen unless the potential at-large team has a high media profile. They screwed Monmouth last year, despite a stellar road OOC performance. Bad losses in conference, they said, despite a strong overall record. But if you have no bad losses they will say not enough strong wins. And for an Ivy, where the committee knows that no one gets fired for missing the Big Dance, to nose out somebody's buddy or buddy's buddy who really needs the slot--forget it. The only force working in the other direction is the CBS honchos, who know that upsets are good business, but who have only indirect influence.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6404
Reg: 11-22-04
|
02-28-17 07:15 AM - Post#223976
In response to SRP
I don't think Monmouth was anywhere close last year. Kenpom had them #95 in the country. There were literally about 40 teams left out that were probably better last year (including Princeton).
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6404
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Two bids or why a tourney?
02-28-17 07:24 AM - Post#223978
In response to Tiger69
I don't think the second bid thing has much to do with having a tournament. It certainly has nothing to do with why I support the idea. For the league, money may have something to do with it, but again, i don't think that's why it got voted for (almost unanimously) either. The main reason is that this is what kids get in every other league in D1. This is what the competitors themselves want.
And frankly, I think this is great fun. Are there "fairer" ways of determining a champ? Sure, but that's true of almost every sport. What the players want is a system that produces a winner take all game every year, not just some years. That's what we've got now, and I am enjoying the season more than I have in years.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32803
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Two bids or why a tourney?
02-28-17 08:35 AM - Post#223980
In response to SomeGuy
The way I have always looked at it is to ask the question: "Is the Ivy Agreement a true expression of where we want to be in 2017?" If it is, then clearly, there should be no tournament because we want our student-athletes to be challenged in a system that best rewards the team that out-competes the others over the course of a grueling season. If not, and we're really trying to be relevant as athletic powers, recruiting the best athletes and getting a second bid, then we certainly should have a tournament. We also should finally allow for athletic scholarships, give schools like Dartmouth and Brown a chance to compete, and make admissions standards for athletes like everyone else (where a special skill counts for more than grades). Obviously, two of our schools have a decided advantage under the current system because of their greater financial resources and brand (well, one of them anyway since the other chooses not to compete quite at that level). So my question is why not take a look at revising the Ivy Agreement if we are going to go to a playoff system in basketball that appears to be contrary to the Ivy ideal? Why change that one feature?
|
Go Green
PhD Student
Posts: 1145
Age: 52
Reg: 04-22-10
|
Re: Two bids or why a tourney?
02-28-17 08:52 AM - Post#223982
In response to penn nation
I wouldn't say never.
Especially since the women did it last year.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6404
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Two bids or why a tourney?
02-28-17 09:08 AM - Post#223985
In response to palestra38
I'm not opposed to those things. I don't know if scholarships ultimately help Dartmouth, Cornell, and Brown or not, but we know the current system is pretty well set against them. I wonder if there is a way to use the AI to help. What those schools need is a greater pool of players to draw from than HYP. Hard to justify if there isn't a formula that supports it, though. Not sure it fits the league ideal to say that certain schools can deviate further from their standard academic profile for incoming students simply because the school isn't very good at basketball. But it could help. Seems like the AI is flattening now, which only helps HYP.
|
