HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts: 2703
Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
|
02-06-22 12:01 PM - Post#335576
Crunch time for the tournament.
Going into this stretch, I wrote that we needed to at least split these 4 games at Brown, Yale (2x) and at Penn. We're certainly in a position to do that, but we need to keep up the intensity. Entering the home stretch at 3-4 (4-5 if we win one of the last two) we are and will be chasing Cornell for the 4th spot.
Cornell, at 4-4, has two games against Columbia left, as well as games at Brown and hosting Dartmouth, both of which may well be realistically eliminated at those points. The game at Harvard on Saturday, February 19th is determinative, and on the second night of back to backs, something certainly favoring Cornell. The Big Red's other game is hosting Yale.
Harvard, on the other hand, plays 5 of 7 games at home, but faces tougher competition in Princeton (2x), Yale, Penn, Columbia, Dartmouth and Cornell.
After next weekend, Cornell, with wins over Columbia and Brown, could be 6-4, with its next game against Dartmouth, leading to a 7-4 record. If Harvard splits its next two games (Yale and Penn), it will be 4-5. Assuming Harvard follows that with a victory against Columbia, a 5-5 Crimson squad could be hosting a 7-4 Cornell team at Lavietes in a must win game.
Of course, if Cornell prevails in that game then kudos to the Big Red for making the tournament. If the Crimson win, then Cornell (7-5) and Harvard (6-5) will be going down the the wire. At that point, Cornell will have Yale at home and Columbia on the road, whereas Harvard will play Princeton (home and away), before closing out with Dartmouth at home.
Assuming Harvard and Cornell tie, I don't have the energy this morning to research older posts to recall how the tie breaker would work.
For Harvard, there is no margin for error any longer.
|
iogyhufi
Masters Student
Posts: 681
Age: 27
Reg: 10-10-17
|
Re: Down to the Wire
02-06-22 12:15 PM - Post#335580
In response to HARVARDDADGRAD
The second tiebreaker is "record against the top team in the league not involved in the tie," and in the event that that proves insufficient, we keep moving down the standings until the tie is broken. The race for first is still extremely tight, but as of right now:
Harvard:
0-1 against Yale
0-1 against Penn
0-0 against Princeton
Cornell:
0-1 against Yale
0-2 against Penn
1-1 against Princeton
|
HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts: 2703
Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
|
02-06-22 01:02 PM - Post#335585
In response to iogyhufi
Thanks!
If Princeton hadn't pulled out a miracle win against Cornell this would be all but over!
|
TigerFan
PhD Student
Posts: 1892
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-06-22 01:07 PM - Post#335588
In response to HARVARDDADGRAD
You're welcome.
|
penn nation
Professor
Posts: 21340
Reg: 12-02-04
|
Re: Down to the Wire
02-06-22 07:20 PM - Post#335637
In response to iogyhufi
I knew our loss to Columbia would come in handy at some point.
The second tiebreaker is "record against the top team in the league not involved in the tie," and in the event that that proves insufficient, we keep moving down the standings until the tie is broken. The race for first is still extremely tight, but as of right now:
Harvard:
0-1 against Yale
0-1 against Penn
0-0 against Princeton
Cornell:
0-1 against Yale
0-2 against Penn
1-1 against Princeton
|
LyleGold
PhD Student
Posts: 1712
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Down to the Wire
02-06-22 10:51 PM - Post#335656
In response to penn nation
I knew our loss to Columbia would come in handy at some point.
In all seriousness, we’ve been saying all along it wouldn’t hurt us in the tiebreaker because we have wins over Yale and Harvard (which doesn’t look quite as great now). Two of them over Cornell could help if it gets that far because Princeton is 1-1 against them. The ultimate tiebreaker will come in the season finale which I predict will determine the #1 seed and the conference championship, with Yale conceivably squeaking in depending on the outcome.
|
penn nation
Professor
Posts: 21340
Reg: 12-02-04
|
Re: Down to the Wire
02-06-22 11:06 PM - Post#335658
In response to LyleGold
Especially if Harvard is shut out, it's going to be a free for all in this year's ILT and no matter who Penn would play it's hard to see Penn being favored by very much if at all.
So I'm less concerned about seeding and more interested in just making the thing and making sure that Harvard is on the Cambridge looking Allston.
|
Naismith
Sophomore
Posts: 150
Loc: RI
Reg: 11-11-18
|
02-07-22 12:49 PM - Post#335704
In response to penn nation
Still a shame the winner of the 14-game tournament on March 5 (all televised) can't take a 7-8 day break, scout potential tournament opponents, heal the bodies, allow fans and families time to plan Round One travel.
(for someone's anticipated "whatabout" comment, yes that would change for a regular season tie playoff.)
Instead ESPN stuffs an Ivy tournament final between two teams playing for an, at best, #15 seed on the absolute March 13 final day of Madness, allowing maybe 2 days off, little rest from the back-to-back games, travel and little preparation for a far superior opponent.
Suspect ESPN pressure makes this happen, and Ivies will always play with the worst cards dealt.
|
bradley
PhD Student
Posts: 1842
Age: 75
Reg: 01-15-16
|
02-07-22 01:08 PM - Post#335705
In response to Naismith
How true but remember we are talking about IvyMadness and IL Presidents' decision making.
Right now, Yale and Princeton are #15 seeds with all others being #16 seeds regarding the men. That will probably change with the likelihood that Yale would be the only non-16 seed. On the women's side, Princeton is #10 or #11 with an upside of getting to #9.
On the men's side, it will be one and done unless a miracle takes place and the scheduling of IvyMadness certainly does not help as you suggest but we are talking about Dumb and Dumber regarding sports and IL.
|
LyleGold
PhD Student
Posts: 1712
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Down to the Wire
02-07-22 01:12 PM - Post#335706
In response to Naismith
The Ivies play with the worst hand dealt because they choose to deal themselves the worst hand in every way possible.
I was dead set against the ILT when it was first proposed because it would devalue the regular season. Instead, the regular season is more interesting than ever, especially this year. My concern is the prospect of expanding it to allow all eight schools in. That would effectively kill the regular season except for jockeying for seeding. That's not good enough for me.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3590
Reg: 02-15-15
|
02-07-22 01:14 PM - Post#335707
In response to bradley
the 16 seed possibility has a lot more to do with not playing last year and an abysmal non conference performance than it does with the existence of an ILT. If any of our top teams had played better in some marquee non conference games we would be in line for a higher seed, as we have been in past years. The ILT has little to nothing to do with the NCAA seed unless a 4 seed upsets our 1/2 seed, which has never happened to date.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32947
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-07-22 01:16 PM - Post#335708
In response to bradley
It's all because they changed the concept entirely since it was first proposed. Initially, it was to play in an arena big enough for all Ivy fans to gather as a social event, and put the best image forward of the Ivies as a successful basketball conference. That didn't necessarily mean the tournament was to be at the Palestra or Jadwin, but certainly, not on campus where the arenas cannot support the goal of bringing everyone together. In Boston, BU's arena is perfect for an Ivy-style tournament. And with Princeton changing it's post-vacation exam policy, that would allow moving the tournament up a week to not conflict with Spring Break and allow the teams time to rest up before the NCAA's and/or NIT tournaments. Everything changed when certain schools demanded the right to host the tournament and TV time was harder to get a week earlier. So we play in a high school gym with each set of ticket holders getting booted between games so no one meets or socializes with anyone else right up against NCAA selection, so we get screwed there as well. Leave aside the issue of not having a tournament--it's been decided and whether we agree with it or not, it is happening. But the way this is being done is just ridiculous.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32947
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-07-22 01:18 PM - Post#335710
In response to PennFan10
It does affect seeding in that the tournament ends a couple of hours before the seeding is announced and we are far more likely to be adversely affected by the fact all other spots are taken by the time our tournament is done---that's why Penn got screwed and given a 16 seed at Kansas when it was clearly better than a lot of 15s that year.
|
bradley
PhD Student
Posts: 1842
Age: 75
Reg: 01-15-16
|
02-07-22 02:22 PM - Post#335721
In response to palestra38
It would be good for the league if Harvard gets in as there is no good optics for a half empty arena. I think that Amaker will find a way. There were so many unrealistic expectations made by IvyMadness proponents - just has not come to fruition as to 2 bids, recruiting, much greater visibility etc. Hopefully, many changes will be made but I doubt it.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32947
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-07-22 02:26 PM - Post#335722
In response to bradley
Agreed, as "fairness" among the league members takes precedence over everything else. Frankly, if we're going to do it this way, might as well just play in home buildings of higher seed so there are no doubleheaders and the buildings are more likely to be filled.
But that was not the concept of "Ivy Madness", the name itself connoting a raucous mass gathering.
|
LyleGold
PhD Student
Posts: 1712
Reg: 11-22-04
|
02-07-22 02:54 PM - Post#335725
In response to bradley
There were so many unrealistic expectations made by IvyMadness proponents - just has not come to fruition as to 2 bids, recruiting, much greater visibility etc. Hopefully, many changes will be made but I doubt it.
I think the first two years at the Palestra, as well as the amazing Harvard-Yale playoff that went down to the final second the year before, were exactly what the league expected. There was tremendous atmosphere and lots of friendly rivalry being expressed in the packed stands and the corridors. I’m not sure a second bid was high on the expectations list, although it made for some good discussion. As a recruiting tool and PR vehicle, the Ivy League could not have put forth a better package.
The experience at Yale was alright, but not as good. At least semifinal tickets were for both games, so supporters of all four squads (+ some interested fans of the other schools) could share the arena.
Obviously, this year’s edition precludes much of what made the first couple so successful. It could very well come across as a public embarrassment, not that it would bother the league that much.
Staging an ILT at Jadwin would likely recapture some of what will be lost this year, although it could never match the atmosphere of a full Palestra. All other host schools (besides Pn, Pr, Y) should opt for a larger, nearby neutral arena.
|
bradley
PhD Student
Posts: 1842
Age: 75
Reg: 01-15-16
|
02-07-22 05:03 PM - Post#335744
In response to LyleGold
Reality is that a number of IvyMadness supporters claimed that the introduction of the Tournament would provide the push to send two teams on a somewhat regular basis to the Big Dance. There were countless numbers/projections thrown about to provide empirical evidence that this would occur yet we obviously have witnessed something very different. Many of the non-supporters would have taken a different view if they believed that two bids was going to be a reality. There were many suggestions that it would improve the level of recruits coming into the league which was wishful thinking as well and IL regular season arenas would somehow magically fill up for regular season games. COVID certainly had an effect in the past two years but then again, the IL Presidents decision to cancel last season is another issue other than IvyMadnesss.
As to location, the IL schools would never agree, understandably so, to the Palestra or Jadwin on a yearly basis based on home team advantage. There were other alternatives than what they decided upon. IL schools are loaded with money yet they act like The Summit League.
Fortunately, Harvard Women should qualify for IvyMadness so hopefully, the stands will be filled for at least the women's game but to avoid embarrassment, it would be helpful for Amaker's team to qualify as well.
The A-10 regularly sends more than 1 team to the Big Dance so to have an A-10 Tournament is fine. They rotate their Tournament between several cities including Brooklyn and DC at big arenas. It all makes sense.
What the IL does -- does not make sense.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32947
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Down to the Wire
02-07-22 05:14 PM - Post#335745
In response to bradley
I don't think the League ever touted the Madness as a means to obtain an at large berth in the NCAAs. I think that was a function of some of the pro-tournament posters here. The League wanted it as a grand social and branding event....somewhat more the latter, but the social aspect was significant. For branding, the Palestra was chosen and yeah, I understand the complaints from other schools. But to move it to clearly substandard arenas and play it at 11 in the morning ...with the finals on Selection Sunday so as to forfeit any serious consideration of the League's actual winner, is just ridiculous. Everything has become a compromise upon a compromise and there is no reason for any of it. But we all know they aren't getting rid of it--just put someone in charge that can make a decision based on a set of criteria---such as minimum 5000 seats so people can come and see the entire tournament and get the women some publicity rather than have their own private tournament in the same location. Then market the hell out of it to Ivy League alumni and make the trip an attractive one. Price the tickets at an appropriate amount for Ivy League games---there are other ways to make money.
|
Old Bear
Postdoc
Posts: 4008
Reg: 11-23-04
|
02-07-22 05:56 PM - Post#335750
In response to palestra38
I believe they did because most, if not all, of the players, ADs and coaches wanted to do it. I don't believe appealing to the fans is at the top of the League's priorities.
|
Naismith
Sophomore
Posts: 150
Loc: RI
Reg: 11-11-18
|
02-07-22 07:58 PM - Post#335766
In response to bradley
Unless there were some quirky happenings in the 1940's before a formal Ivy League, the IL has NEVER had two entries in the NCAA basketball Tournament. What makes everyone think it will happen in this era, with over 350 teams playing for a shot at glory.
|
SRP
Postdoc
Posts: 4922
Reg: 02-04-06
|
02-08-22 12:03 AM - Post#335787
In response to Naismith
Of course the coaches wanted an IL tournament; it's natural to want more chances at a lottery ticket in a zero-sum profession where injecting randomness actually is a form of insurance with respect to fluctuations in recruiting and development. Of course players say they like it; they are not residual claimants on the long-term viability of the league, and many of them also would prefer a chance to get lucky over having to win the league.
I'm pretty sure, though, that none of that, for good or ill, had any bearing on the schools' decision to set up the folly of a tournament. They were looking for an image boost and maybe two bids.
In any case, alleged polling of coaches and players has not improved recruiting, quality of play, effort during the regular season, getting two bids, improving the league's image, etc. We have a dumb strategy of partial imitation of rivals rather than a clear differentiation that enhances the brand of IL hoops. Getting rid of the back-to-back travel partner schedule is of a piece with this--that policy actually made sense given the academic positioning of the league.
In-season discussion and coverage has shifted from focus on the best teams to the most mediocre. If any team really got good in a season to the extent that it dominated the IL, its motive to try hard in all regular season games has been vaporized, as unlike a Gonzaga, say, its in-conference performance wouldn't do much for tournament seeding, while it would still get cut if it were upset in the folly at the end.
There is no redeeming this blunder via arena locations or any other form of giving aphrodisiacs to a dead man.
|
ToothlessTiger
Senior
Posts: 341
Age: 76
Reg: 03-28-15
|
02-08-22 11:03 AM - Post#335816
In response to SRP
What I take from this post: coaches were wrong, players were wrong, AD's were wrong, Presidents were wrong. Schedule revision, wrong. Tournament, horrible.
|
bradley
PhD Student
Posts: 1842
Age: 75
Reg: 01-15-16
|
02-08-22 02:10 PM - Post#335844
In response to SRP
Well said! The branding has gone from one of a kind to a compromised homogenized version that has done nothing to increase the profile of the IL.
The regular season is only meaningful as to getting into the top 4 out of 8. If any IL coach had the choice of playing an injured player for the final game of the season for the IL regular season championship versus sitting them in order to get them at full health for IvyMadness, I think that we know the answer.
The irony is that with the performance of Carla's teams in 2019-20 and probably this year, a two bid NCAAW Tournament is indeed possible if someone else wins IvyMadness. I suspect that Carla will have the team play at 100% no matter what game, regular season or IvyMadness as that is her style.
On the men's side, if Amaker had built a program upon the great recruiting class of Towns/Aiken/Lewis and continued on with subsequent classes, there would be a far better argument on behalf of IvyMadness as the other 7 teams would have the opportunity to go to the Big Dance but they would have to knock off a superior team during ivyMadness.
I questioned Berube as to playing such a difficult non-conference schedule but she obviously realized that it is better to go for a very tough non-conference schedule to see if you can get a NCAAW bid in case you lose at IvyMadness. I suspect that she will continue on with this approach but you better win a number of those games. It certainly helps Berube or an Amaker type men's coach to have the IL improve their overall non-conference performance as the women did this year for seeding purposes.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3590
Reg: 02-15-15
|
02-08-22 04:37 PM - Post#335858
In response to bradley
First this:
If any IL coach had the choice of playing an injured player for the final game of the season for the IL regular season championship versus sitting them in order to get them at full health for IvyMadness, I think that we know the answer.
Then this:
I suspect that Carla will have the team play at 100% no matter what game, regular season or IvyMadness as that is her style.
And all in the same post. Hmmmm. Not sure I understand.
|
LyleGold
PhD Student
Posts: 1712
Reg: 11-22-04
|
02-08-22 04:54 PM - Post#335860
In response to PennFan10
Just in case, they’re proactively conceding the men’s title while going all out for the women’s. Only the ILT matters, but every game matters no matter what. What’s the matter with that?
|
Naismith
Sophomore
Posts: 150
Loc: RI
Reg: 11-11-18
|
02-08-22 05:26 PM - Post#335864
In response to LyleGold
The most galling graphic of all this came in the first year's tournament. The Executive director walked out and handed Princeton a trophy the size of the Stanley Cup.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3590
Reg: 02-15-15
|
02-08-22 05:36 PM - Post#335867
In response to LyleGold
There are also a lot of other things that have happened that affect the league far more than the existence of an ILT
Recruiting: One of the most damaging decisions in IL history is the cancelling of the 2021 season making us the only D1 conference that didn't play. That set recruiting back years. Recruits want to play meaningful games in March, which is a draw for the ILT. For Ivy players, they just want to play games period, which is no longer a given for our league.
Graduates: Our transfer student list of players that are now playing for other big schools is long and distinguished. If we had figured out a way to keep those players in the league, we would likely be a top 10 league. Instead, we went from 11th a few years ago to 18th now.
Results: The 2 issues above have had the impact of draining our overall talent level as a league. Our out of conference results have been largely non competitive in accordance with our decline in talent. Our path to 2 bids (distant as it may seem) centers around getting top 100 talent to come to our schools by selling the 40 year decision (which is increasingly appealing generally) so we can compete with top 25 teams. If our league has enough talent to win our non conference games, we will get more attention from media and recruits and then we would draw even more talent. That is the cycle we were on pre-covid and that's why the ILT made sense to me.
The cancelling of our season, the inability to create an opportunity for our grad transfers, and our tepid OOC results have all set us back for the foreseeable future.
|
SRP
Postdoc
Posts: 4922
Reg: 02-04-06
|
02-08-22 10:11 PM - Post#335885
In response to ToothlessTiger
Yes, TT, collective folly--it's a thing. The tournament has been a failure on all the terms for which it was advanced, except for the fig leaf of "unsystematic surveys of non-incentive-aligned players and coaches like it." Of course, the season cancellation last year made everything worse, but the obvious train wreck that the tournament has become for the conference in terms of profile, likely NCAA seeding, etc. can't be wished away.
|
