sparman
PhD Student
Posts: 1346
Reg: 12-08-04
|
Re: One foot in the grave
02-26-18 10:50 AM - Post#249559
In response to palestra38
The hypocrisy is very hard to take---but if Miller of Arizona was willing to pay $100K for a player, that's because the bidding was at that level, not because he's trying to gain an unfair advantage.
A bit off point, but I submit that the bidding is establishing the level of what it takes to gain the unfair advantage. Merely matching doesn't guarantee a player, and the object of recruiting is to get players you think will allow you to win - i.e. have an advantage. Unfair, in that it is an advantage procured by circumventing rules.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32811
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: One foot in the grave
02-26-18 10:56 AM - Post#249562
In response to sparman
But why shouldn't the players and people who developed the players at significant cost not share in the huge pool of money being made from big time college athletics?
Make no mistake, I think college sports should be for student athletes. But we're kidding ourselves if we think that is happening at almost any level with the exception of the Ivies and Patriot League. And it isn't illegal for the players and AAU people to want some of that pot, nor is it immoral. It just violates NCAA rules written in another era.
|
bradley
PhD Student
Posts: 1842
Age: 74
Reg: 01-15-16
|
02-26-18 11:52 AM - Post#249575
In response to SomeGuy
I could you plenty of examples of universities doing foolish things by simply following others which are not illegal. The proposition that other conferences do it therefore that it makes it right for the IL to do it is at best intellectually lazy. I better like the "fun" argument vs following what others do.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6412
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: One foot in the grave
02-26-18 01:03 PM - Post#249590
In response to palestra38
I don’t disagree, P38. Just a rule follower, so more concerned about what the rules are. But as for what they should be — it’s tricky, and I lean toward where you are. Definitely not a fan of some parties justifying keeping the whole pie for themselves on the basis of some argument about integrity.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6412
Reg: 11-22-04
|
02-26-18 01:10 PM - Post#249593
In response to bradley
Agreed that whether following makes sense or not depends upon the character of the action. On the intellectually lazy part, I think my argument is a little more complex than just we should do it because everyone else does. Maybe not the most intricate argument in the world, but not the laziest either. Heck, I could say that it’s intellectually lazy to just support what we’ve always done.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-26-18 01:36 PM - Post#249599
In response to SomeGuy
Yeah, I’ve always found the anti-tourney folks to be more intellectually lazy than the pro-tourney side. That’s not to say all 14GT supporters are intellectually lazy, just that many refuse to engage with this argument as a set of tradeoffs rather than as a moral imperative that the 14GT always leads to the right outcome because the only right outcome is the outcome of the 14GT.
Some arguments from the anti-tourney side have held water over time:
- The Ivy League office would screw up the logistics from a fairness perspective
- The league isn’t good enough to get an at large right now
- It’ll take the focus away from a really exciting title race
But what all of those have in common is that they are probabilistic statements and one’s sentiment about the tourney should be set through how you weigh those odds moving forward, rather than your absolute belief that one side is “right.â€
I believe there are non-trivial odds that a first-place team could have a late season injury that drastically changes its competitiveness in the NCAA tourney. I believe there are non-trivial odds that the timing of key injuries could change the quality of the opponents that each of the teams in the title chase play based on the schedule that make the SOS different from a true round robin. I believe there are non-trivial odds that in a sample size as small as 14, a significantly inferior team could win the regular season and the tourney could select for the better team.
For me, the upside from these odds outweigh the expect value of the negatives from a perfectly executed conference tourney. But our current iteration isn’t perfect executed, and is instead repeating the same error that dogged the America East for years (and kept some REALLY good teams out of the tourney at the expense of some 15s and 16s). I’m in the anti-tourney camp for now, but as the expected values change, I expect my stance to do so as well...
|
Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts: 2814
Reg: 11-23-04
|
02-26-18 01:53 PM - Post#249603
In response to mrjames
"I'm in the anti-tourney camp for now ...".
Welcome aboard. The tide is turning. My feelings have been expressed too often already. I emphasize, however, that my position about the existence of a tournament has changed over the last couple of years. I'm willing to concede that there may be a suitable time for one -- possibly soon. But, we aren't ready for it until we are a 2 bid conference.
|
Go Green
PhD Student
Posts: 1146
Age: 52
Reg: 04-22-10
|
02-26-18 02:07 PM - Post#249605
In response to Tiger69
But, we aren't ready for it until we are a 2 bid conference.
I presume that you're on board with a tournament for the women, then?
http://www.ivyleague.com/news/2016/3/15/3_15_2 016_...
|
sparman
PhD Student
Posts: 1346
Reg: 12-08-04
|
Re: One foot in the grave
02-26-18 02:21 PM - Post#249607
In response to palestra38
But why shouldn't the players and people who developed the players at significant cost not share in the huge pool of money being made from big time college athletics?
Make no mistake, I think college sports should be for student athletes. But we're kidding ourselves if we think that is happening at almost any level with the exception of the Ivies and Patriot League. And it isn't illegal for the players and AAU people to want some of that pot, nor is it immoral. It just violates NCAA rules written in another era.
This is a different point from the "unfair advantage" concept. Perhaps the rules should, or will, be changed to allow payments. (IMO we are then not talking about college sports, we have morphed entirely into the pro team sponsored by a school likely using tax-exempt funds, but that is a different point as well).
But for the moment, it IS illegal under current rules, thus efforts to circumvent the rule before it is changed - as opposed to actively advocating and working to change the rule through the normal process - are by definition seeking unfair advantage.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-26-18 03:16 PM - Post#249623
In response to Go Green
The women definitely should be doing this. Top at No. 33. Three in the RPI Top 75, five around the Top 125, seven at Top 200ish or better. That changes the cost-benefit dramatically.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6412
Reg: 11-22-04
|
02-26-18 03:27 PM - Post#249625
In response to mrjames
Is the issue the location of the tournament? Or something else with execution?
You’ve said that the plan is to do something else next year — is your change of position related to how that issue will be resolved?
As a Penn fan, I thought the location was great, and is the only venue that really showcases the league. But from a fairness perspective, it doesn’t work. 6-8 Penn getting to play a home game against 14-0 Princeton is one thing. But if Penn is the #2 seed and ends up with a home game against #1 Harvard, that seems like a big advantage that matters.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-26-18 03:42 PM - Post#249628
In response to SomeGuy
For me - the biggest issue is location, which is worth a few points and affects the odds of a top seed getting the bid in a significant way (except in the case of Penn being the top seed). That changes the calculation for sure.
The second biggest issue is the timing. I don't love a smaller league having its tournament final on a Sunday. The committee will obviously deal with bigger leagues doing so, because it has to, but I feel like there could be a situation in the future where we are adversely impacted due to the difficulty the different scenarios the Ivies could raise, such that we'd pay for it with seeding (or even a two-bid scenario).
|
bradley
PhD Student
Posts: 1842
Age: 74
Reg: 01-15-16
|
02-26-18 05:59 PM - Post#249651
In response to mrjames
You raise some valid points although I am a little confused about the comments as to probabilistic statements. As you rightly point out, several of the anti-tourney initial concerns have held over time although in fairness, it will probably take five years or more to see if the anti-tourney people were worry worts or had legitimate long-term concerns.
As to the three expaples of non-trivial odds, they are all stated as could be's -- problematic??? It is possilbe that injuries at the end of the season or players returning from injuries could impact results as it may this year -- Aiken, Mason, etc. It will be interesting over time to see if a significantly inferior team will win the regular season and the tourney could have selected a better team. It seems highly unlikely other than a rare occurrence but time will tell. At the end of the day, results will provide us answers as to what is probabilistic or not.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-26-18 06:38 PM - Post#249660
In response to bradley
I would argue, for instance, that we have had a couple teams this decade good enough to be an at large if they lost in the Ivy Tourney (2012 and 2014 Harvard - probably 2012 Harvard had the strongest case).
The "significantly inferior" question hasn't happened recently, but it happened in 2004 and was only narrowly avoided in 2002 and 2012. I assign that a lower probability than the others, but it's still possible.
I do disagree that results will lead us to the answer here - at least within any reasonable timeframe. If we had 50 years with the same system to examine, maybe we could start feeling confident about the outcomes we're seeing, but for me, the actual outcomes of the tournament will be less instructive than some of the underlying evidence along the way. For instance, we may label last year's tournament a success, but I see it as a massive danger sign. If Matt Howard makes the front end (or even worse, both), year one would have been a disaster. At that point, Princeton was 5.9% to win. The result of that tourney is far less instructive than that data point and should have caused us to take a LONG look at where the tourney is hosted.
|
Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts: 2814
Reg: 11-23-04
|
02-26-18 07:52 PM - Post#249673
In response to Go Green
I suppose. As long as the real Champ gets a bid.ðŸ…
|
Old Bear
Postdoc
Posts: 3995
Reg: 11-23-04
|
02-26-18 09:00 PM - Post#249689
In response to Tiger69
Does a bid to the NIT count?
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6412
Reg: 11-22-04
|
02-26-18 09:08 PM - Post#249692
In response to mrjames
There are two different questions here though (aren’t there?). Wouldn’t you say that a number 4 beating a number 1 eventually is inevitable and an expectation you would have to have for our tournament? When you were for the tournament, didn’t you recognize that? Now, if Penn had won last year, you view that as a problem. But that is about location and fairness, right? It isn’t just that a 4 beat a 1 — it’s that a 4 beat a 1 while playing on the 4’s court. Right?
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6412
Reg: 11-22-04
|
02-26-18 09:16 PM - Post#249695
In response to Tiger69
We’re still a little ways from this scenario, but suppose Penn and Harvard both win out to the Ivy final, and then Harvard wins. At that point, both teams are 14-2, and Harvard is 2-1 head to head with the second win at the Palestra. Who is the “rightful†champ then? Why is what happens over 14 games a better indicator than what happens over 16 with an extra game between the teams?
|
SRP
Postdoc
Posts: 4911
Reg: 02-04-06
|
02-26-18 09:17 PM - Post#249696
In response to SomeGuy
Going to be so embarrassing when Princeton sweeps its last two, Columbia slips on all the available banana peels, and the Tigers win the tournament from the Fortunate Fourth position on an upsurge in three-point percentage and FT percentage. Play-in, baby!
|
Silver Maple
Postdoc
Posts: 3775
Loc: Westfield, New Jersey
Reg: 11-23-04
|
02-26-18 10:21 PM - Post#249701
In response to SRP
The only plausible thing in that post is the whole Columbia/banana peels bit.
|
