HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts: 2691
Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
|
02-28-19 08:35 PM - Post#278479
In response to PennFan10
Uh, recruiting picked up before the Tournament. If they're watching ESPN they won't see us. We don't rate that channel. Do you watch the Atlantic Sun? The Sun Belt?
Again, all the rest of the country cares about is if we compete well in the NCAA tournament. If we have a great tournament and the 4th seeded team makes it and lays an egg in the NCAA's, it's a negative, not a positive.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3584
Reg: 02-15-15
|
02-28-19 08:50 PM - Post#278482
In response to HARVARDDADGRAD
Did ESPN show highlights from our tournament games on Sportcenter each of the last two years? (Hint: yes). Did they show fans storming the courts? (also yes). That only happens when there are highlights to show.
Again, you couldn't be more wrong on this. The tournament and the exposure from it absolutely helps recruiting. Lots of other issues, but that's not one of them.
|
HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts: 2691
Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
|
02-28-19 08:54 PM - Post#278483
In response to PennFan10
I'm sure it does, to some extent. But at a cost, and that cost could be sending the best team to the tournament. #58 KP Princeton (23-7) almost beat ND. There is no statistical way the league fares as well by sending a 13-15, KP #151 squad. Nationally, fans of basketball know that Princeton almost beat ND. Only Ivy fans know what happened in our tournament.
|
bradley
PhD Student
Posts: 1842
Age: 74
Reg: 01-15-16
|
02-28-19 09:32 PM - Post#278492
In response to mrjames
No one should disagree with that statement.
There should be no question that, over the long run, the league would be better off sending its regular season champion. The relevant question is “by how much.†We can answer that question, and the answer is that the “cost†of not sending the regular season champion is decreasing over time (...and dramatically vs 10 years ago).
Then we get into the risk-reward element of this. Some folks here see lots of rewards in the tournament and thus are willing to tolerate more risk. Others see no rewards in the tourney and thus tolerate no risk.
Certainly we’d be better off sending the regular season champion. At the same time, anyone who thinks the parameters of the argument aren’t totally different than 10-15 years ago (when we REALLY used to get after it over this issue) is kidding themselves.
Although I have not researched, the gap may indeed be lessening between the top 1 and 2 teams and the rest of the league over the past 10 to 15 years as you suggest. The converse is that because of that phenomenen it is becoming increasingly more difficult to win the regular season, i.e. this year, therefore whoever survives the slugfest deserves to go to the Big Dance in a one bid league.
For me, the decision is really easy -- just send the team that has earned the right by winning the regular season -- not all that complicated and easily understood by all.
|
Go Green
PhD Student
Posts: 1145
Age: 52
Reg: 04-22-10
|
02-28-19 10:23 PM - Post#278497
In response to bradley
For me, the decision is really easy -- just send the team that has earned the right by winning the regular season -- not all that complicated and easily understood by all.
I'll try this again.
People were saying that 2017 was as pronounced as it got in terms of "best regular season champ" and "least deserving possible qualifying team playing on its own home court." They played close--almost resulting in a NIGHTMARE. The winner was the regular season champ. They did not advance in the NCAA.
Most years, the four tourney teams will be fully capable of representing the league well. What's wrong with sending the "hot" team and/or the team that plays the best under win-or-go-home pressure?
As for the regular season winners--just give them a damn ring and let them win the tournament. If they are really the best team, it shouldn't be a problem.
|
HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts: 2691
Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
|
02-28-19 10:43 PM - Post#278499
In response to Go Green
No one is saying that 2017 is the worst we will see. It was ridiculously bad and close to being a disaster, and that is only in 2 years of experience. So, 1 of 2 years is almost a disaster and the other is influenced by HCA. 2 for 2 - great start to this folly.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6404
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Yale UG Sports Analytics Group Playoff Odds - Men
02-28-19 11:09 PM - Post#278501
In response to bradley
To me, the Kool Aid argument goes the other way. There is such traditional opposition to the Ivy Tournament that I think the pro tournament folks are likely the ones who are thinking about the issue rather than just accepting what we have always done.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6404
Reg: 11-22-04
|
02-28-19 11:20 PM - Post#278502
In response to HARVARDDADGRAD
Is it only because I am a Penn fan that I don’t view 2017 as a near disaster? It was a great game and great theater. Frankly, upsets like that are one of the most compelling things in sports. The first weekend of the NCAAs is probably my favorite four days in sports, and it is because of the possibility of an upset like that.
|
HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts: 2691
Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
|
02-28-19 11:38 PM - Post#278505
In response to SomeGuy
Completely understandable and acceptable perspective. From the perspective of the league, sending a team with a losing record to the Big Dance isn't a positive.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3584
Reg: 02-15-15
|
02-28-19 11:45 PM - Post#278506
In response to HARVARDDADGRAD
We are 2 for 2! Both years we sent our best rep to the NCAA tournament. Tremendous success.
|
HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts: 2691
Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
|
Yale UG Sports Analytics Group Playoff Odds - Men
02-28-19 11:51 PM - Post#278507
In response to PennFan10
Keep playing with fire, and it will burn us all. Of course, I disagree with your characterization of 2018, but you knew that.
Edited by HARVARDDADGRAD on 02-28-19 11:52 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
TigerFan
PhD Student
Posts: 1885
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-01-19 12:25 AM - Post#278508
In response to HARVARDDADGRAD
Go Green, Princeton was a #12 seed in 2017 and came within a few inches of advancing to the second round when it came up just short against Notre Dame. Highlights of that game were played over and over again, no doubt advancing the league’s reputation. Had Penn won the ILT in a home court assisted fluke they would have likely been a #16 seed and been burried in a first round game that could have set the league’s reputation back years.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3584
Reg: 02-15-15
|
Re: Yale UG Sports Analytics Group Playoff Odds - Men
03-01-19 12:45 AM - Post#278510
In response to HARVARDDADGRAD
Keep playing with fire, and it will burn us all. Of course, I disagree with your characterization of 2018, but you knew that.
Who was the best Ivy team for the NCAA last year? Harvard without Aiken and Towns or Penn? I don't think you disagree that a wounded Harvard who got beat soundly in round 1 of the NIT would not have been the best foot forward for the league.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3584
Reg: 02-15-15
|
Yale UG Sports Analytics Group Playoff Odds - Men
03-01-19 12:49 AM - Post#278512
In response to PennFan10
And while we are at it, Penn's picture cutting down the nets at the ILT was on the front page of the Wall Street Journal last year and had articles there and in the New York times featuring Penn as the possible first 16 seed set to beat a 1 seed. A lot of non Ivy people followed and watched that NCAA game and rooted for Penn to win.
The ILT win for Penn last year got a lot of press nationally.
Edited by PennFan10 on 03-01-19 12:50 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
SRP
Postdoc
Posts: 4910
Reg: 02-04-06
|
03-01-19 05:20 AM - Post#278514
In response to PennFan10
It is just not true that the conference tournament increases Ivy League exposure on ESPN. It decreases, it based on the last several years. They used to report all the pivotal regular season games down the stretch and really covered the occasional playoffs to break ties. These occurred while everybody else was playing meaningless games, and being the first conference to choose a champion also guaranteed extra attention--the IL was the Dixville Notch of March Madness.
Now we get tossed in for a brief report mixed in a quick rundown of all the other one-bid leagues. The semis will only get covered in the bad scenario where there is an upset or near-upset of a clearly better top seed.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3584
Reg: 02-15-15
|
03-01-19 08:58 AM - Post#278516
In response to SRP
Well if you say “it’s just not true†you must be right. I disagree.
|
rbg
Postdoc
Posts: 3050
Reg: 10-20-14
|
03-01-19 09:45 AM - Post#278517
In response to PennFan10
I'm not exactly sure how this fits into the discussion, but I found it interesting in terms of conference visibility.
From this weekend's Harvard preview:
https://www.gocrimson.com/sports/mbkb/2018-19/r ele...
- Aiken set a new career-high with 44 points on Feb. 8 against Columbia, which is the second-highest point total in a single game in program history, and the 15th most in a game this season around the country. His streak of late-game heroics – against Columbia, Penn and Yale - have been viewed around the world by more than three million people on Twitter and Instagram. Additionally, the clips have generated nearly 300,000 likes, shares and retweets. -
|
bradley
PhD Student
Posts: 1842
Age: 74
Reg: 01-15-16
|
Re: Yale UG Sports Analytics Group Playoff Odds - Men
03-01-19 10:04 AM - Post#278519
In response to SomeGuy
If memory serves me correctly, IvyMadness opponents suggested that it was at best premature to introduce IvyMadness as one of the KoolAid major arguments was that the IL was on the door step of being a 2 bid league.
Needless to say the opponents of IvyMadness were delusional to make such a sugguestion as after all Penn was a #16 seed with a KenPom ranking of #125 and either Penn or Harvard (#141). In 2017-18, IL non-conference record was 53-67 with a fair number of lay ups as to opponents. Even this year with the league having improved, Yale is the only top #100 team at #74 with Priceton being #58 in 2016-17
Literally, every argument for IvyMadness other than the players "like it" has not panned out - yet. If reality and facts turn out to support the KoolAid drinkers, the label would no longer fit but for the first three years of IvyMadness, the hat appears to fit squarely on rectangular heads of the proponents.
The best PR for the IL is to make a great showing at the Big Dance and win non-conference games. At least, this year improvement was made regarding non-conference games.
|
Go Green
PhD Student
Posts: 1145
Age: 52
Reg: 04-22-10
|
Yale UG Sports Analytics Group Playoff Odds - Men
03-01-19 11:21 AM - Post#278527
In response to TigerFan
Go Green, Princeton was a #12 seed in 2017 and came within a few inches of advancing to the second round when it came up just short against Notre Dame. Highlights of that game were played over and over again, no doubt advancing the league’s reputation. Had Penn won the ILT in a home court assisted fluke they would have likely been a #16 seed and been burried in a first round game that could have set the league’s reputation back years.
Can I assume that the fact that you don't seem to mind that the Ivy rep was a #16 seed in the 2018 tourney means that nobody else does either? Is our reputation back where it should be?
Or is getting a #16 seed THAT MUCH BETTER than a Dayton appearance?
Edited by Go Green on 03-01-19 11:24 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
sparman
PhD Student
Posts: 1345
Reg: 12-08-04
|
Re: Yale UG Sports Analytics Group Playoff Odds - Men
03-01-19 11:34 AM - Post#278528
In response to Go Green
Or is getting a #16 seed THAT MUCH BETTER than a Dayton appearance?
In fact, it is.
(Maybe not, for a team that hasn't been to the tournament since Moses parted the sea.)
|
