Untitled Document
Brown Columbia Cornell Dartmouth Harvard Penn Princeton Yale



 Page 4 of 9 « First<4567>» Last
Username Post: Yale UG Sports Analytics Group Playoff Odds - Men        (Topic#22597)
HARVARDDADGRAD 
Postdoc
Posts: 2685

Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
02-26-19 02:13 PM - Post#278076    
    In response to SRP

Exactly!

Aside from a banner, all at stake is a guaranteed NIT slot if you win the regular season but lose the tournament.

Yale can't even back into HCA. It's doesn't even need to leave the parking spot.

 
palestra38 
Professor
Posts: 32685

Reg: 11-21-04
02-26-19 02:17 PM - Post#278078    
    In response to SRP

So you guys might as well lose out and miss the playoff, because, after all, it's a folly.

 
bradley 
PhD Student
Posts: 1842

Age: 74
Reg: 01-15-16
02-26-19 02:24 PM - Post#278080    
    In response to SRP

  • SRP Said:
Re interest in the games: The first-place-race shaking Harvard win over Yale went by like a footnote. We have all kinds of convoluted tie-breaker discussions about potential 7-7 teams but not one about the tiebreakers for first place. Pre-folly, we would have had exciting possibilities for ties and playoffs with a Yale loss or two. Now, even if Princeton were to win out, nobody's even discussed who gets the first seed under what scenario, because it really doesn't matter. Yale still gets in and still gets home-court.




Simply truthful as to what you have just said. As Banghart said the other day, IvyMadness is what matters when you are a one bid league and tonight's game with Penn really does not matter other than bragging rights.

For IvyMadness opponents, we are basically fine if there is a two bid league on a fairly regular basis not just once in umpteen years like Saunder's Harvard team may have been for their one great year. The introduction of the IvyMadness based on reality vs. make believe theories was obviously a minimum of three years too early if one uses the two bid argument for the Tournament.

My biggest objection is whoever survives the regular season, especially this year, deserves to go. If there is a two way tie, play it off to decide who goes. It would be a joke if Princeton goes to the Big Dance if they finish let's say 8-6 and get swept by Yale, Harvard and Brown. It would be simply embarrassing and not right. Anything can happen over two games on a weekend as we have already seen this year.

IvyMadness remains absurd until the league is in actuality a two bid league.

 
Go Green 
PhD Student
Posts: 1124

Age: 52
Reg: 04-22-10
02-26-19 02:29 PM - Post#278081    
    In response to HARVARDDADGRAD

  • HARVARDDADGRAD Said:
Exactly!

Aside from a banner, all at stake is a guaranteed NIT slot if you win the regular season



In case you care what I think, I'm totally fine with giving rings to the regular season champs as well.

My understanding is that they only go to the tournament champ, though.

 
Go Green 
PhD Student
Posts: 1124

Age: 52
Reg: 04-22-10
02-26-19 02:32 PM - Post#278082    
    In response to bradley

  • bradley Said:


It would be a joke if Princeton goes to the Big Dance if they finish let's say 8-6 and get swept by Yale, Harvard and Brown. It would be simply embarrassing and not right. Anything can happen over two games on a weekend as we have already seen this year.





Worse things have happened in the world.

 
mrjames 
Professor
Posts: 6062

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
02-26-19 06:54 PM - Post#278128    
    In response to bradley

I’ve always been curious about this line of argument...

Let’s say that Team A finishes one game behind Team B, BUT Team A swept Team B while Team B was three games better against the other six Ivies than Team A.

Then, in the Ivy Tourney, Team A beats Team B in the final.

What do you think of that outcome? Should Team B still have the bid for surviving the regular season OR does Team A deserve the bid because it beat Team B three times?

By the way, I’m stealing this argument from SomeGuy.

 
bradley 
PhD Student
Posts: 1842

Age: 74
Reg: 01-15-16
02-26-19 08:54 PM - Post#278135    
    In response to mrjames

The answer is a relatively simple one as some of us believe that the team that has won the challenging IL regular season has earned the right to go to the Big Dance when your league is one bid league. A 8-6 team has not earned the reward of playing at the Big Dance by winning against two games in one weekend -- not really all that complicated.

For example, a 6-8 Penn team, did not deserve the opportunity to knock off a 14-0 Tiger team in 2016-17 and if it was not for the all just Basketball Gods, it would have happened. The same belief would apply if the Quakers and Tigers had switched records that year.

Our belief is that you earn the right and clearly the regular season champ has demonstrated a high level of performance. Every team has the opportunity from the first game of the IL season to be the regular season champ so the solution is to have the best record.

As stated many times, most of the IvyMadness opponents would be fine when the league is actually not theoretically a two bid league, not every year but on a relatively consistent basis and I would be ok if all 8 teams were included if this theorey becomes reality.

We are waiting for this to become a reality rather than a theorey. Let's hope that the reality starts next year.



 
Naismith 
Sophomore
Posts: 149

Loc: RI
Reg: 11-11-18
02-26-19 09:08 PM - Post#278141    
    In response to Go Green


Seriously, they really don't give these 2-game tournament winners rings, do they?
It's offensive enough watching a team carrying around a Madness trophy as big as the Stanley Cup while the real season champion gets some modest token in comparison.

 
SRP 
Postdoc
Posts: 4894

Reg: 02-04-06
02-26-19 09:32 PM - Post#278146    
    In response to Naismith

Obviously, in the scenario Mike raises the injustice is minimized. But that is exactly why, in the round-robin format, you have to take every game seriously and make sure you take care of business if you want the championship and the bid. Losses matter.

 
mrjames 
Professor
Posts: 6062

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
02-26-19 09:56 PM - Post#278151    
    In response to bradley

I get the strawman of under-.500 team taking on undefeated team. Clearly not ideal.

What’s the answer to the scenario I proposed? That’s one of the ones that certainly has me thinking.

A lot of the arguments surrounding the tournament are overly dogmatic, IMO, while the issues require a little more willful exploration of nuance to weigh the options appropriately.

 
mobrien 
Senior
Posts: 390

Loc: New York
Reg: 04-18-17
02-26-19 11:15 PM - Post#278155    
    In response to mrjames

I think the fact that the players and coaches both seem to want a tournament so much is a pretty strong point in its favor. The relevant questions are: 1) how do you balance the regular season still mattering, 2) what, if any, advantage should the top seed get, and 3) the venue.

Those first two questions really boil down to this: how many teams should make it. In strong years, like this one, four seems like a good number in that there really are four (or more) deserving teams, and it keeps the regular season interesting for a lot of them without devaluing things too much for the top teams. But in weak years, like the previous two, there's a decent chance you'll get a sub-.500 team that really "shouldn't" be there.

I could see the argument, then, for changing it to just the top three, and giving the top seed a bye to the final. That'd give the teams at the top a good reason to really go for the regular season crown, and guarantee that the teams in the final are pretty deserving. The problem is that this would leave out some good teams in top-of-the-cycle years, and it might do so based on best-win tiebreakers.

So the three-versus-four question, for me, comes down to how strong you think the conference is going to be going forward — are there more often going to be three or four (or more) good teams — and whether you think the top seed deserves a little extra credit for that.

As for venue, the Palestra is clearly the top choice based on its size and history. That said, it's pretty unfair for Penn to get home games in cases where they aren't the top seed, and it's not a centrally-located site. New York makes the most sense geographically, not to mention that there are a lot of alums of all the schools there. Levien isn't that big though — but neither is Yale's gym, and it's going to be there this year.

Since it doesn't look like the league wants to pay for a neutral site — Carnesecca Arena is about the right size in the right location — it seems like the best choices are either to always have it at the Palestra, always have it at Levien, or rotate it (which kind of sucks).

 
whitakk 
Masters Student
Posts: 523

Age: 32
Reg: 11-11-14
02-27-19 12:26 AM - Post#278164    
    In response to mobrien

My problem with a three-team tournament is the tiebreakers. Last year Harvard would've gotten a massive advantage over Penn based on a totally arbitrary criterion (where did the other team you lost to finish, which is irrelevant in a fully balanced schedule).

I'd be down for a three-team tournament if we skip the "second tiebreaker" and go to the power rankings instead. But given how the tournament has evolved, I'd be totally stunned if the league reduced the number of teams participating.

 
Go Green 
PhD Student
Posts: 1124

Age: 52
Reg: 04-22-10
02-27-19 07:52 AM - Post#278170    
    In response to Naismith

  • Naismith Said:

Seriously, they really don't give these 2-game tournament winners rings, do they?
It's offensive enough watching a team carrying around a Madness trophy as big as the Stanley Cup while the real season champion gets some modest token in comparison.



Check out the "XXL" rings here. Specifically, the second from the top row left.

https://www.championshipawardrings.com/gallery/

 
Condor 
PhD Student
Posts: 1888

Reg: 11-21-04
02-27-19 09:32 AM - Post#278176    
    In response to Go Green

At the end of the day, the tournament seems to be a success. It appears that we have created reasonably equitable rules that gives everyone an opportunity to succeed. There will never be perfect rules, perfect referees, or perfect venues. More importantly, the overall league is improving, we are recruiting better athletes, and the Ivy’s are competitive with all the other NCAA teams. I am happy with the results to date, and it seems to me that trying to determine the best team in March makes sense in this environment.

 
SRP 
Postdoc
Posts: 4894

Reg: 02-04-06
02-27-19 06:29 PM - Post#278306    
    In response to Condor

It's a success except for reducing the league's unique branding and special attention, devaluing the conference championship and drastically reducing interest in who wins it, creating more arbitrariness in who gets the NCAA bid, and flopping as an event (with no logical venue). A real winner.

 
PennFan10 
Postdoc
Posts: 3580

Reg: 02-15-15
02-27-19 06:58 PM - Post#278308    
    In response to SRP

None of which is true and only your opinion.

 
SomeGuy 
Professor
Posts: 6391

Reg: 11-22-04
02-27-19 07:58 PM - Post#278313    
    In response to SRP

While the branding may have been unique, I think it may have been working against the league in terms of recruiting. Everything I hear in terms of the players is that they are unanimously for it. Yes, it was unique not having a tournament, but if you are the only league in the country that isn’t providing something that the players want, then you are going to be at a disadvantage.



 
Go Green 
PhD Student
Posts: 1124

Age: 52
Reg: 04-22-10
02-27-19 08:03 PM - Post#278315    
    In response to SomeGuy

  • SomeGuy Said:
While the branding may have been unique, I think it may have been working against the league in terms of recruiting. Everything I hear in terms of the players is that they are unanimously for it. Yes, it was unique not having a tournament, but if you are the only league in the country that isn’t providing something that the players want, then you are going to be at a disadvantage.





Bingo.

I've been baffled for a long time that supposedly bright people can't grasp this painfully obvious point...

 
westcoast 
Senior
Posts: 302

Reg: 03-08-16
02-27-19 08:04 PM - Post#278316    
    In response to SomeGuy

  • SomeGuy Said:
While the branding may have been unique, I think it may have been working against the league in terms of recruiting. Everything I hear in terms of the players is that they are unanimously for it.


This is exactly right. Recruits and current player all want a conference tournament. Having a tournament increases the quality of players in the league.


 
PennFan10 
Postdoc
Posts: 3580

Reg: 02-15-15
02-27-19 08:31 PM - Post#278325    
    In response to westcoast

You guys better stop making sense or this entire house of cards may crumble.

 
 Page 4 of 9 « First<4567>» Last
Icon Legend Permissions Topic Options
Report Post

Quote Post

Quick Reply

Print Topic

Email Topic

6083 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: 0.554 seconds.   Total Queries: 16   Zlib Compression is on.
All times are (GMT -0500) Eastern. Current time is 06:20 AM
Top