mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-28-17 09:46 AM - Post#223989
In response to SomeGuy
The Ivy Tourney can help get us a second bid because it requires fewer losses (1) than it takes to lose the 14GT (at least 2). It essentially means you only need one team of at large quality instead of two.
The Ivy Tourney is hardly the most efficient way to get two bids - that would be opening up MTE restrictions which would allow for our teams to play more neutral site games versus multi-bid league competition.
Amaker won't stay at Harvard a moment longer than he has to. The rising tide isn't a rising tide because it only benefits one team. Ivy teams can't get Top 100 recruits. Ivy teams can't have Top 25 recruiting classes. Ivies can't consistently win R64 NCAA games. At what point do I get credit for having had a theory over the past decade that pretty tidily explains what's been happening. Do we really think that "2 bids" is where the line is drawn? The women got two last year and they had way MORE reason to be cynical after the way an undefeated Princeton team was seeded the year before.
I need a better argument against 2 bids than "that's how the NCAA operates." Yes, last year was a bloodbath for mids, but that's just recency bias. Other years going back have been relatively more kind to deserving mids.
|
TheLine
Professor
Posts: 5597
Age: 60
Reg: 07-07-09
|
02-28-17 10:01 AM - Post#223993
In response to SomeGuy
Ironically the IL has benefited somewhat from this.
As mid majors have been decimated there's less competition for the type of athlete the IL focuses primarily on - players who have are not lock starters at good majors and now have to weigh the options of fighting for a rotation spot at whatever good major offers (but doesn't prioritize) them, a possible offer at a lesser major (who's thrilled at battling for a starting position at Rutgers and still not going to the dance?), offers at mid-majors where the chance of going to the dance is slim, or likely starting at the IL, getting reasonably good FA and earning an IL diploma?
I've been opposed to the tournament all these years. However if a tournament helps to uptick recruiting then I'm reluctantly for it. I don't think a tournament will help get an at-large bid but it will every so often bounce a good Ivy team into the NIT where maybe it make a run. Plus the tournament has made more games exciting this year.
I do think it's important to have the tournament in the right venue. We'll see how things play out at the Palestra this year. I'm hoping the tournament is exciting enough to get the league noticed more than it typically is this time of the year.
|
bradley
PhD Student
Posts: 1842
Age: 74
Reg: 01-15-16
|
Re: Two bids or why a tourney?
02-28-17 10:38 AM - Post#223995
In response to palestra38
You raise a good question as to what does the IL aspire to be in 2017 and what is the best strategic way to achieve the end goal. Mr. James and others have raised some practical, common sense initiatives to increase the performance of teams, especially the teams that have struggled over recent years. To me, the initiation of the IL Tournament is a gadget move to create some hope, albeit maybe false hope (i.e. this year), for these teams. The real solution for the long haul is the steps that have been suggested to increase the performance of the conference. The Ivy League's main appeal is and should be the educational opportunities provided to its' student athletes.
I have seen advocates for the IL Tournament use the words "exciting" "fun" etc and it is. Dinosaurs, like myself, see beauty in the traditional weekend struggle to EARN the right to represent the league. The debate represents different perspectives, maybe different values, at the very least. Personally, I believe that it is about money/changing values and reflective of what drives the modern day. I plan on reading about the results of the tournament after completion of the IL Tournament.
|
TheLine
Professor
Posts: 5597
Age: 60
Reg: 07-07-09
|
Re: Two bids or why a tourney?
02-28-17 11:06 AM - Post#223996
In response to bradley
Mr. James and others have raised some practical, common sense initiatives to increase the performance of teams, especially the teams that have struggled over recent years.
Number 1 is to not shoot yourself in the foot, which Penn did with 2 successive bad hires.
But beyond that, what initiatives are you talking about?
The easiest way to 'increase performance' is to introduce scholarships so all teams are on the same footing with financial aid.
The second easiest way is to either abolish AI or overhaul it. The current AI serves to provide HYP yet another advantage.
And yet all we hear from certain people is how unfair it is to hold the tournament at the Palestra. I'd understand if holding it at the Palestra was impacting the other 4 elves but the non-HYPs are essentially competing for the 4th slot for the foreseeable future (it's been a long time since a HYP finished out of the top 4).
So you can proceed to lecture us on what practical and common sense actions we elves should take.
|
AsiaSunset
Postdoc
Posts: 4358
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Two bids or why a tourney?
02-28-17 11:55 AM - Post#224009
In response to TheLine
Not sure H,Y and P would agree that they benefit from the AI.
Since the players and the coaches seem to almost unanimously embrace a year end tournament, it seems the better approach is to let it run for a few years before reaching ironclad positions. Their opinion should hold more weight in the short term than any of ours.
Evolution and change appears to be an inevitable result of the human condition over time and it is happening at an increased pace with each passing year. The Ivy League has decided that trying this approach makes sense if they want to be a part of the Division 1 landscape. I happen to agree that it probably does come with the territory. After all - we all know what happened to the dinosaurs; and, modern day dinosaurs, whether in business or in sports management, seem destined to suffer a similar fate.
Personally - I feel pretty uncomfortable saying we have the right answer, when every other league, whether a power 5 league or a one bid league, have reached a different conclusion. So - for the moment, I embrace our giving this approach a try.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Two bids or why a tourney?
02-28-17 12:12 PM - Post#224010
In response to TheLine
The current AI definitely benefits Penn over HYP, though if you mean relative to not having an AI at all or going back to the original 169, then, yes, Penn would be even better off in both of those circumstances. At the same time, you're also right that if the AI keeps going up, say, to the 190s from what I've been told will be 183 next year, then Penn will be continually more disadvantaged relative to others.
As for FA, I still think this is really becoming a non-issue. As it continues to expand league-wide, we're going to continue to all see gains, but the teams being disadvantaged relative to each other angle is less and less an issue.
I'll go ahead and throw out another one. For all the hand-wringing, I actually like the ILDN product. Putting it behind a paywall seems ridiculously penny-wise, pound-foolish. And if you care about recruits perceiving their ability to reach a wide audience playing for you, you want every effing game on the WatchESPN platform...
|
TheLine
Professor
Posts: 5597
Age: 60
Reg: 07-07-09
|
02-28-17 12:45 PM - Post#224016
In response to mrjames
Sure, there's a HYP benefit to AI, especially for a sport like basketball which has a limited roster and even more limited number of impact players. Everyone can fish at the bottom of the pond. Everyone can find AI boosts for the top of the pond. Limiting the pond impacts the elves.
HYP holds the cards with name recognition and FA to tilt things in their favor, either when competing against big name scholarship schools or within the league.
And when Penn does something right - like invest in facilities - we're told it's an unfair advantage that Penn has the one arena in the league that's excellent for a tournament. Because, you know, unfair.
Yet we're lectured (not talking about you, Mike).
I'd like to use this as an opportunity to thank the Penn alums who contributed to refurbishing The Palestra and vastly improving the training facilities. You don't get enough credit. And for all the flak we give Steve Bilsky, he deserves credit for his role. I hope the tournament is a great success whether or not Penn makes it in.
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
02-28-17 12:48 PM - Post#224018
In response to TheLine
you're not a penn alum, theline? i assumed you were like p38 and a dual of both penn and columbia.
|
TheLine
Professor
Posts: 5597
Age: 60
Reg: 07-07-09
|
02-28-17 12:49 PM - Post#224019
In response to Jeff2sf
I am a Penn and Columbia alum.
|
AsiaSunset
Postdoc
Posts: 4358
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-28-17 12:51 PM - Post#224020
In response to TheLine
"Sure, there's a HYP benefit to AI, especially for a sport like basketball which has a limited roster and even more limited number of impact players. Everyone can fish at the bottom of the pond. Everyone can find AI boosts for the top of the pond. Limiting the pond impacts the elves."
There's is a bit of truth in this but it's led you to a conclusion which is clearly inaccurate.
|
TheLine
Professor
Posts: 5597
Age: 60
Reg: 07-07-09
|
02-28-17 12:59 PM - Post#224023
In response to AsiaSunset
How so?
If I understand correctly, you can't solely fish at the bottom of the pond. HYP can fish less at the bottom than non-HYPs but we're talking about a sport where one or two really big fish make a huge difference. We all know how the AI averages can be gamed. We also all know which direction AI is going.
I'm failing to see how the current system doesn't tilt towards the HYPs.
If your argument is that there are other factors that the elves do control (like making wise hiring decisions) and those factors are more important than the factors favoring the HYPs, then OK.
|
Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts: 2814
Reg: 11-23-04
|
Re: Two bids or why a tourney?
02-28-17 01:24 PM - Post#224029
In response to SomeGuy
SG, I always read, and usually agree with, your reasonable and inquisitive posts. Unlike me and some others, you always avoid the temptation to be snarky.
I have only one quibble with your post above. You implied that the tourney determines the "champ". That is not my understanding nor do I believe that it is correct. The champion is still the winner of the 14 game season. The tourney winner wins only the bid. So if, for example, Columbia or Penn surprises us and wins the tourney, it receives the Bon Voyage to the Dance. But, Princeton and, possibly, Harvard is/are still the Champ(s). 
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-28-17 01:29 PM - Post#224031
In response to TheLine
I mean, every Ivy can fish at the bottom end of the pool. That's accurate. But HYP definitely can't do what Penn did this year. I don't want to get into specifics, but... it's an advantage that Penn has that was exploited (admirably) this year.
HYP have to worry about getting every opportunity right when they get to fish there and even still getting admissions on board. I know there's a common joke that "admissions" is just a rubber stamp, but they actually do stop kids from coming who are over the AI bar. Each of HYP have had very, very high hit rates on their low AI chances, which has helped mitigate the advantage, but it's a definite advantage for schools that get more draws from that end of the pool (as we all know, there are no guarantees on individual players in recruiting but with enough players, you can feel good that some will pan out).
|
SRP
Postdoc
Posts: 4910
Reg: 02-04-06
|
02-28-17 04:39 PM - Post#224038
In response to mrjames
Playing in more tournaments and such OOC, as Mike suggests, would make so much more sense than the conference tournament. But I have never subscribed to any of the claims he cites other than that there are huge barriers to a second Ivy bid, on top of the growing barriers (a causal trend, not a recency effect, as the Post article noted) for all mid-majors. The high majors actively and passively act to cut the others out over time unless opposed by the TV people--it's a tropism, like plants turning toward the sun.
|
Old Bear
Postdoc
Posts: 3992
Reg: 11-23-04
|
02-28-17 05:31 PM - Post#224048
In response to SRP
Some us have our boats moored in a part of the pond which has less tide. The fishing isn't very good there either. Scholarships might help against non-Ivies, but the AI chases fish to other parts of the pond.
|
Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts: 2814
Reg: 11-23-04
|
02-28-17 06:13 PM - Post#224058
In response to Old Bear
I think that the best thing for ALL the Ivies is the image projected on ILDN broadcasts of a league of extraordinary academic institutions that also offer great atletics -- the best of both worlds and an education for a lifetime. There are plenty of excellent prospects who may have, in past years, gone outside the IL, but now see better opportunities, AND MORE FINANCIAL AID, going to the Ivies. I believe that universities throughout the league will benefit from our association, not just HYP.
|
SRP
Postdoc
Posts: 4910
Reg: 02-04-06
|
02-28-17 07:41 PM - Post#224067
In response to Tiger69
I'm afraid that those repetitive ads, almost a form of torture outlawed by the Geneva Conventions, would make anyone hate the very words "Ivy League." They're not as annoying as the "ring around the collar" Wisk ads were, but they also get played seemingly 1000 times during a two-hour broadcast. Even Brian Dennehy's soothing voice quoting Herman Wouk on behalf of Columbia becomes the sound of a circular saw cutting through a knotty board by late in the second half.
|
penn nation
Professor
Posts: 21193
Reg: 12-02-04
|
02-28-17 08:09 PM - Post#224071
In response to SRP
On the other hand, for those living in crowded NYC, that ad does make Columbia seem like a veritable oasis or Garden of Eden. That overhead shot of campus is gorgeous.
|
Old Bear
Postdoc
Posts: 3992
Reg: 11-23-04
|
02-28-17 08:47 PM - Post#224073
In response to Tiger69
Clearly the schools benefit, the athletic competition, not so much.
|
UPIA1968
PhD Student
Posts: 1120
Loc: Cornwall, PA
Reg: 11-20-06
|
02-28-17 11:26 PM - Post#224085
In response to Old Bear
In the end the success of Ivy league basketball is first, the success of the students who play and second the interest the games generate in the schools.
As to the first arbiter, a largely free Ivy Education and the pleasure of playing college basketball are very high returns as college experiences go.
As to the second, the tournament has clearly increased interest, but going to the dance is not the main interest generating aspect of the season.
As to the big conferences dominating things. Money talks! Isn't that what they teach at Wharton and HBS.
As to the HYP dominance. Is it any different from Kentucky's success in the SEC or THE Ohio State in the Big Ten. The advantage is reputation or snob appeal if you like. That why I went to Haaaavard for grad school. I will point out that The Arm Pit of the Ivy League, Mr. Trump's alma mater, know leads the league in football championships, despite winning one prior to 1982 and has twice the BB titles of H and Y combined. Looks like something more than prestige and endowment counts.
For total championships H and P dominate, but after them it's pretty balanced. let's keep in mind that Princeton strongly emphasizes in athletics as does Harvard. In contrast, it is clear that A. Guttman does not do that. Maybe we should just congratulate them on their excellence and figure out how to do it better.
|
