Untitled Document
Brown Columbia Cornell Dartmouth Harvard Penn Princeton Yale



 Page 5 of 7 « First<4567
Username Post: Bracketology watch        (Topic#21291)
jadwinjungle 
Freshman
Posts: 42

Age: 20
Reg: 10-02-17
Re: Bracketology watch
03-12-18 01:00 AM - Post#252247    
    In response to penn nation

Penn wins the league championship and you guys still can't get Princeton off your mind…

 
PennFan10 
PhD Student
Posts: 1785

Reg: 02-15-15
03-12-18 01:59 AM - Post#252250    
    In response to jadwinjungle

Why would we want to forget about Princeton? Part of the jo6 of this season is knowing how bad they sucked and remembering that. There will be no forgetting.

 
10Q 
Professor
Posts: 14648

Loc: Suburban Philly
Reg: 11-21-04
03-12-18 06:07 AM - Post#252256    
    In response to PennFan10

I could not care less about the seeding.

Ivy champs!!!

 
palestra38 
Professor
Posts: 18825

Reg: 11-21-04
03-12-18 07:51 AM - Post#252260    
    In response to 10Q

As I said, I'm not complaining about playing Kansas as it is about as favorable a matchup as we would get if we had finished 15 (although I probably would rather face Cincy).

But seriously, there is a reason all the minor conferences finish their tournaments early. And we should find a way to do it, Princeton exams (which are the reason we play our season so late) or no exams.

 
mbaprof 
Sophomore
Posts: 132

Age: 61
Reg: 12-24-11
03-12-18 07:54 AM - Post#252262    
    In response to PennFan10

There was a great visual yesterday of the Princeton's mens team filing into the Palestra as SPECTATORS for the women



 
HARVARDDADGRAD 
PhD Student
Posts: 1112

Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
03-12-18 09:21 AM - Post#252280    
    In response to penn nation

Agreed.

Next best alternative is playing tournament at top seed's gym or neutral site. Tournament final dropped Penn's KenPom rating.

 
Jeff2sf 
Postdoc
Posts: 3777

Reg: 11-22-04
03-12-18 09:34 AM - Post#252284    
    In response to HARVARDDADGRAD

I'm just not convinced the Sunday at 2 p.m. thing was a cross off Harvard, insert Penn thing:

1. It's really not that hard to have two scenarios with the software available. Hell, it's fairly easy by hand.

2. While we are better than Harvard by KenPom, my understanding is KenPom isn't used at all and that what IS used would have Harvard basically at parity with us.

3. Harvard still would have had an edge on Lipscomb and Cal State Fullerton for a 15 seed yet those guys got it.

The committee sucks. The committee's against mid majors and the Ivies. That's an easy argument to make. But the cross off just seems very opposite of Occam.

 
Go Green 
Masters Student
Posts: 428

Age: 47
Reg: 04-22-10
03-12-18 09:44 AM - Post#252292    
    In response to Jeff2sf

  • Jeff2sf Said:

The committee sucks. The committee's against mid majors and the Ivies.



They have a bias against teams under FBI investigation as well.

https://www.theringer.com/2018/3/12/17108724/nc aa-...

 
bradley 
Masters Student
Posts: 792

Age: 69
Reg: 01-15-16
03-12-18 09:52 AM - Post#252299    
    In response to mrjames

  • mrjames Said:
Hopefully seeds would be scrubbed after the game, but Harvard would add a Quad2 win with a victory today, which should change the picture dramatically. The winner today should end up with an RPI rank that is in the 100-110 range, which would be crazy for a 16-seed in a year when there have been so many upsets. Smells like a solid 15 either way.




It has been a challenging year for IL men's basketball as reflected in the 16 seed for the co-champ and IvyMadness winner. There are many reasons for the poor performance of the league this year, including injuries, but there are legitimate questions. From the outset of non-conference play this year, IL teams had performance issues both from a record and visual perspective. Hopefully, significant improvement will be realized next year and beyond -- time will tell.

The track record of #16 seeds is well established but perhaps, Coach Donahue will pull off a history making event or at least keep the game competitive with tough defense.

The goal of the league should be to at least produce #12 and #13 seeds which they have done in prior years. Let's see how far away that we are from a 2 bid league. Not sure if the introduction of IvyMadness will accelerate the process.

 
HARVARDDADGRAD 
PhD Student
Posts: 1112

Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
Bracketology watch
03-12-18 10:09 AM - Post#252309    
    In response to bradley

Mike, isn't there an inherent inconsistency or hurdle incurred due to the tournament? As I understood it, the narrative is that if the Ivy has a qualified at large team that doesn't win the tournament then we might get a second bid (at large). However, that presupposes a loss in the tournament, presumably to a lesser ranked squad. That loss can't possibly help in this anti mid-major selection process. Possibly worse, I would expect that a Sunday 'upset' would put the committee in the position of having to jettison a Power 5 team in favor of an Ivy squad that couldn't even beat a lower regarded Ivy squad in it's final game. Who really thinks the committee wants to do that, especially for an Ivy squad already guaranteed an NIT bid?

This pipe dream is internally inconsistent and, thus, our Folly.

Edited by HARVARDDADGRAD on 03-12-18 10:11 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.

 
Jeff2sf 
Postdoc
Posts: 3777

Reg: 11-22-04
03-12-18 10:11 AM - Post#252310    
    In response to bradley

It's definitely not the direction I expected the league to go. To fall this far is a big argument against mine and others optimism.

But look at our All Ivy, not a senior on either team. The Ivy champ, Penn, was powered with its two best players being sophomores. This is usually a good sign (Cornell '08, Penn '05, Princeton '96, Penn '93) as to a champ improving its ranking/seeding. If Penn is beaten out, and there are certainly many reasons that could happen, one would think that's because someone overtook them as opposed to Penn falling back. I would expect that to mean at least two Top 100 teams, so seeding would be much improved.

We'll see.

 
Jeff2sf 
Postdoc
Posts: 3777

Reg: 11-22-04
Re: Bracketology watch
03-12-18 10:14 AM - Post#252312    
    In response to HARVARDDADGRAD

  • HARVARDDADGRAD Said:
Mike, isn't there an inherent inconsistency or hurdle incurred due to the tournament? As I understood it, the narrative is that if the Ivy has a qualified at large team that doesn't win the tournament then we might get a second bid (at large). However, that presupposes a loss in the tournament, presumably to a lesser ranked squad. That loss can't possibly help in this anti mid-major selection process. Possibly worse, I would expect that a Sunday 'upset' would put the committee in the position of having to jettison a Power 5 team in favor of an Ivy squad that couldn't even beat a lower regarded Ivy squad in it's final game. Who really thinks the committee wants to do that, especially for an Ivy squad already guaranteed an NIT bid?

This pipe dream is internally inconsistent and, thus, our Folly.



Do you not read anyone else? Even Mike? This is basically a prime reason he's flipped on the tournament's appropriateness.

My reason - IT'S FUN! - is still applicable.


 
palestra38 
Professor
Posts: 18825

Reg: 11-21-04
Re: Bracketology watch
03-12-18 10:17 AM - Post#252314    
    In response to Jeff2sf

Other than it was a great showcase for the League. I cannot deny that--having it on noon on Selection Sunday at the Palestra compared with the dreck that was the AAC tournament before a cavern of empty seats.

In terms of the Ivy ideal or promoting the selection of a 2nd team getting a bid, no.

 
HARVARDDADGRAD 
PhD Student
Posts: 1112

Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
03-12-18 10:24 AM - Post#252317    
    In response to Jeff2sf

I absolutely see where Mike has changed his position. My point is that 2 bid concept is hurt by the tournament, an internal inconsistency that always puzzled me. Mike had been more optimistic about the committee's willingness to use better metrics. I believe he flipped when he gave up on the bona fides of the committee.

Sure, more games can be fun, and if they were held in my town, in my home, and with my fans and friends I'd think it was the funnest thing ever. It's just as 'fun' at the top seed's location, or at a neutral site, unless you are from Penn.

 
Jeff2sf 
Postdoc
Posts: 3777

Reg: 11-22-04
03-12-18 10:26 AM - Post#252318    
    In response to HARVARDDADGRAD

right and that's mike's contention too, i just, nevermind.

I'm totally fine with moving the tournament to other places. There are pluses (fairness) and minuses (less people at neutral site, no 'magical Ivy gathering' at higher seed) to both situations. But watching on tv was fun this weekend as I learned due to some babysitting mishaps.

 
HARVARDDADGRAD 
PhD Student
Posts: 1112

Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
03-12-18 10:31 AM - Post#252319    
    In response to Jeff2sf

We're good.

I'm not a fan of the tournament, but if it's here to stay I just think we need some changes.

 
TheLine 
Postdoc
Posts: 3644

Age: 54
Reg: 07-07-09
03-12-18 10:53 AM - Post#252324    
    In response to HARVARDDADGRAD

I've evolved.

"not fan of the tournament" = "my team is a favorite to win the league and I'm afraid of getting screwed" or "I'm old school and am against change"

I get the "our best team may get beat in the conference tournament" argument but also think the "our best team at the end of the season may not be the one who wins the 14 game tournament" the Mike has made in the past is also valid.

I had been a tournament skeptic up until last year. I now get it. It's fun. It makes the season more meaningful for all teams / players / coaches. And I refuse to be an old man throwing old school objections against change.


 
Go Green 
Masters Student
Posts: 428

Age: 47
Reg: 04-22-10
03-12-18 10:55 AM - Post#252325    
    In response to TheLine

  • TheLine Said:
I've evolved.



I had been a tournament skeptic up until last year. I now get it. It's fun. It makes the season more meaningful for all teams / players / coaches. And I refuse to be an old man throwing old school objections against change.




Good for you! Hopefully others follow your example!




 
10Q 
Professor
Posts: 14648

Loc: Suburban Philly
Reg: 11-21-04
03-12-18 11:05 AM - Post#252330    
    In response to Go Green

I enjoyed yesterday's game immensely. It's one of my all time favorites. But I'm still anti-ILT. I just think the 14 game tournament makes us special and cool, and not in an elitist way.

 
SRP 
Postdoc
Posts: 3521

Reg: 02-04-06
03-12-18 11:52 AM - Post#252356    
    In response to 10Q

The argument from "modernity" is stupid. Conference tournaments are old-hat anyway. Mike has the radical idea:

"The time has come for mids to stop playing into this and chasing the brass ring of an extra bid. Enough with the conference tourneys. Send the regular season champ. Even if the NCAA adds more objectively accurate metrics to the team sheets, it will just ignore them when it wants."

 
 Page 5 of 7 « First<4567
Icon Legend Permissions Topic Options
Report Post

Quote Post

Quick Reply

Print Topic

Email Topic

4499 Views




Copyright © 2004-2012 Basketball U. Terms of Use for our Site and Privacy Policy are applicable to you. All rights reserved.
Basketball U. and its subsidiaries are not affiliated in any way with any NCAA athletic conference or member institution.
FusionBB™ Version 2.1 | ©2003-2007 InteractivePHP, Inc.
Execution time: 0.104 seconds.   Total Queries: 16   Zlib Compression is on.
All times are (GMT -0500) Eastern. Current time is 03:03 PM
Top