Untitled Document
Brown Columbia Cornell Dartmouth Harvard Penn Princeton Yale



 Page 1 of 2 ALL12
Username Post: Penn declines post-season tournament        (Topic#22905)
Stuart Suss 
PhD Student
Posts: 1439

Loc: Chester County, Pennsylva...
Reg: 11-21-04
03-16-19 03:51 PM - Post#281682    

Jon Tannenwald reports on his twitter feed that "the program" decided to not participate in any of the lesser postseason tournaments.

Programs do not make decisions. Human beings make decisions. The decision to decline a post-season tournament was known to people last Saturday night and was made prior to last Saturday night. This was not a product of the disappointing result of the tournament game.

So why is Penn not participating in the CBI or CIT.

1. Is Athletic Director Grace Calhoun unwilling to pay the cost? Brown is paying for at least one home game in the CBI. Yale played in the CIT in 2014, paid for one home game, and reached the finals before losing to Murray State after Justin Sears was injured. Columbia paid for four CIT home games in 2016 and won the tournament. Steve Bilsky paid for two CBI home games (Quinnipiac and Butler) in 2012. The cost of a home game is currently in the $35,000 to $40,000 price range.

2. Is declining a post-season tournament some form of gesture to the NCAA? Will this be presented to the NCAA as a self-imposed sanction in response to the Jerome Allen scandal? If so, it is an entirely insincere gesture since Penn had no plans to decline the NCAA bid had it been available.

3. Occasionally, players on a team decline a bowl game or a post-season tournament. Usually that happens when a team has significantly underachieved and the players feel guilty about accepting a consolation prize. Given the injuries to Jelani Williams and Ryan Betley, this Penn Quaker team did not underachieve.

Any players who did not want to play in a post-season tournament because it was not as glamorous as last year's NCAA tournament should have been shamed into changing their mind. One or more extra games can only help in the development of the returning players.


Grace Calhoun and/or Steve Donahue have an obligation to provide candid and truthful reasons for this decision.


Edited by Stuart Suss on 03-16-19 04:14 PM. Reason for edit: Include cost of home game.

 
Quakers03 
Professor
Posts: 12480

Reg: 12-07-04
03-16-19 05:14 PM - Post#281696    
    In response to Stuart Suss

I thought I was going to get a chance to say goodbye to the seniors. This is surprising.

 
Mike Porter 
Postdoc
Posts: 3614
Mike Porter
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
Reg: 11-21-04
Penn declines post-season tournament
03-16-19 05:36 PM - Post#281698    
    In response to Quakers03

Obviously disappointed by the result today, but this is a double whammy. I can think of no good reason NOT to let the seniors get at least one more game, and while we are thin, we could definitely do well in one of the CBI or CIT tournaments and have a really good shot of making this a 20 win season.

Most importantly, this is a chance to keep practicing and playing as a team and use that time to get more from those who are coming back next year. That only will help heading into the off season. Really a shame for the seniors and this team is still good enough to play in some post season.



 
umbrellaman 
Masters Student
Posts: 469
umbrellaman
Reg: 11-21-04
Re: Penn declines post-season tournament
03-16-19 06:06 PM - Post#281700    
    In response to Mike Porter

All things being equal, why wouldn’t a team not want to play more competitive ball? Give Rothschild one more time to go to war with his teammates.

But in the Ivy world, resources are watched closely. Even with a road game, there is going to be expenses. I can see under the usual assumptions that our league operates under why they wouldn’t go. This is a team whose rotation is dominated by juniors and seniors and went to the NCAA tournament last year. In terms of program development, there is a lower return on investment for this team to play in the CBI/CIT.

I think for programs like Columbia and Brown making a run in the CIT can be important for their program and a valuable experience for their players. For a underclassman dominated team the experience can also go a long way for the upcoming years. But if one is going to have to be selective about when to go, I could easily see that this would be a year that you would decline to go.

 
mrjames 
Professor
Posts: 6062

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
Re: Penn declines post-season tournament
03-16-19 06:38 PM - Post#281703    
    In response to umbrellaman

Also worth noting that Penn has no MTEs left to barter - sometimes with the CBI, you can agree to be a pod road team for the Gazelle Group “auto-semifinal” MTEs and get the right to host a CBI game for free.

 
dperry 
Postdoc
Posts: 2211
dperry
Loc: Houston, TX
Reg: 11-24-04
Re: Penn declines post-season tournament
03-16-19 06:57 PM - Post#281705    
    In response to mrjames

If they're saving the money to get a good match-up or two next year in order to build their resume then, I'm for it. If not, then I also don't understand the reasoning.
David Perry
Penn '92
"Hail, Alma Mater/Thy sons cheer thee now
To thee, Pennsylvania/All rivals must bow!!!"


 
palestra38 
Professor
Posts: 32680

Reg: 11-21-04
Re: Penn declines post-season tournament
03-16-19 09:00 PM - Post#281719    
    In response to dperry

All of Penn's seniors played playoff and NCAA ball. The CBI/CIT is useful for a young team that has never experienced these things. For a veteran team, it is a waste of time. I am sure the team was canvassed. This team is beaten up and needs to rest. I certainly understand the decision.

 
Old Bear 
Postdoc
Posts: 3988

Reg: 11-23-04
03-16-19 09:58 PM - Post#281728    
    In response to palestra38

Agreed. The 4 in the Ivy Tourney do not need to play further.

 
penn nation 
Professor
Posts: 21081

Reg: 12-02-04
03-16-19 10:23 PM - Post#281735    
    In response to Old Bear

I think losing this one game may have been the difference between going and not going to another post-season tourney.

Penn ended up finishing the year under .500 (7-8) in the IL. Does that really justify going to another tournament?

OTOH, with another win they're guaranteed to finish no worse than .500 and have 20 wins.

 
Stuart Suss 
PhD Student
Posts: 1439

Loc: Chester County, Pennsylva...
Reg: 11-21-04
03-16-19 11:07 PM - Post#281741    
    In response to penn nation

Princeton has also turned down a post-season tournament.

Let's see if Yale turns down a post-season tournament if they lose and let's see if Harvard turns down its automatic NIT bid if they lose.

Last year Harvard accepted their automatic NIT bid.

 
palestra38 
Professor
Posts: 32680

Reg: 11-21-04
03-17-19 06:38 AM - Post#281750    
    In response to Stuart Suss

There is no equivalence between an NIT bid and a CIT bid. It's like the difference between Simon and Schuster and self-publishing.

 
mbaprof 
Senior
Posts: 342

Age: 66
Reg: 12-24-11
03-17-19 07:45 AM - Post#281752    
    In response to palestra38

I'm so glad we are NOT doing this. Time to move on to next year with thoughts of being strong in the league and the real tournaments (including NIT)



 
pennsive 
Junior
Posts: 200

Reg: 11-21-04
03-17-19 10:56 AM - Post#281761    
    In response to mbaprof

Agreed. We looked worn out, and remember, the kids played played summer ball in Italy as well. Also, given the Jerome Allen fiasco, a statement by the administration and coaching staff to the Penn, Ivy, and NCAA communities that Penn is still about integrity and prioritizing the other non-athletic components of our undergraduates' experiences, is the best message to send right now.

 
Streamers 
Professor
Posts: 8141
Streamers
Loc: NW Philadelphia
Reg: 11-21-04
03-17-19 11:43 AM - Post#281767    
    In response to pennsive

Good points.

 
LyleGold 
PhD Student
Posts: 1712

Reg: 11-22-04
03-17-19 12:44 PM - Post#281773    
    In response to mbaprof

  • mbaprof Said:
I'm so glad we are NOT doing this. Time to move on to next year with thoughts of being strong in the league and the real tournaments (including NIT)





It's over for this year. What's the point of dragging it on for no apparent reason?

This group played as hard as it could, gave us some thrills, and kept us interested until the very last moment despite finishing 7-8 against Ivy opponents. Nothing to be ashamed of and only disappointing because we hoped for more. Nonetheless, they gave us plenty.


 
Mike Porter 
Postdoc
Posts: 3614
Mike Porter
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
Reg: 11-21-04
03-18-19 03:43 AM - Post#281870    
    In response to LyleGold

Yeah after some time and reflection you guys are right. A team a year off an NCAA appearance, who are really beat up, may not have even wanted to go to a lesser tournament and I respect that decision. The guys who would most benefit Washington and Wang wouldn’t be available in any case and need rest.

And Lyle you are right on... team battled hard and gave us plenty especially as injuries piled up. Definitely defined by grit like they said.

 
pennhoops 
Postdoc
Posts: 2470

Reg: 11-21-04
03-18-19 01:08 PM - Post#281926    
    In response to Mike Porter

A CBI berth /may/ have been worth it, depending on cost. The CIT is just gross.

 
Naismith 
Sophomore
Posts: 148

Loc: RI
Reg: 11-11-18
03-18-19 03:38 PM - Post#281941    
    In response to pennhoops

Hard to imagine any college actually paying for a home game. However, it does appear attractive if you have a team with a ton of underclassmen to get some good experience against a decent 1 or 2 teams for a head start into next season. I'd leave the seniors home.

It's like the football garbage bowls. All those participants get 3-5 extra weeks of "spring training", a major advantage over your non-qualified rivals.

 
mrjames 
Professor
Posts: 6062

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
03-18-19 03:55 PM - Post#281942    
    In response to Naismith

Frankly I'd rather see the NIT expanded to 64. I know this flies in the face of the narrative out there, but there are a lot of good major programs that still get left out of the NIT that would play in that tournament. They then (mostly) refuse to play in the CBI (and can't play in the CIT) along with the top mid major programs (BYU/USF/Penn/Fresno St/etc), creating a pretty sizeable gap between the last at large NIT selection and the average CBI/CIT participant.

I'd love to see very deserving mids get more shots at still pretty good major programs. An expanded NIT could provide that and bring some merit back to a college basketball postseason that has shifted rewards from teams in the 75-125 space to those in the 125-250 spot.

 
palestra38 
Professor
Posts: 32680

Reg: 11-21-04
03-18-19 04:01 PM - Post#281943    
    In response to mrjames

Problem is that there is no money in it. The NIT would be dead if it were not for the fact that the NCAA purchased it and swung both money and publicity its way (I doubt it still makes money on its own). Expanding a money losing tournament to 64 makes no sense.

The other tournaments only exist because they can extort money from the schools to cover the profit of the organizers. They are a joke. I understand why teams like Brown and Cornell would want to appear, as I did with Penn when Zack was a senior and they had no recent success. But these games are akin to pre-season travel events. I would just as soon that they disappeared and when we fall short, get ready for next season.

 
 Page 1 of 2 ALL12
Icon Legend Permissions Topic Options
Report Post

Quote Post

Quick Reply

Print Topic

Email Topic

2677 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: 0.215 seconds.   Total Queries: 16   Zlib Compression is on.
All times are (GMT -0500) Eastern. Current time is 09:59 AM
Top