columbia92
goober
Posts: 73
Loc: NYC
Reg: 11-22-04
|
02-09-05 02:16 PM - Post#3693
By the end of the first half of round robin play, Penn may have a 4 game lead on the pack. With one bid, determined only by round robin play, it's Penn's year (again).
How will this affect attendance around the league, and/or ratings on the YES network for non-Penn games?
Is diminished interest this early in the conference season something that is good or bad for the conference in the long run?
Discuss.
|
Warrior
newbie
Posts: 49
Loc: Philadelphia, PA
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Good for Penn, bad for the league.
02-09-05 02:24 PM - Post#3694
In response to columbia92
I'll answer your question with a question...
For the 6 non-P's, what are the goals for the fans? Over .500 in league play? Top 3 finish? Win 5 home games?
At this point, there's little chance of winning the league, but don't most teams have a very good chance of reaching progress-type goals? I mean, the Eagles clinched the NFC East by about week 3, but I still wanted to see the Redskins win, or do something. Anything.
|
columbia92
goober
Posts: 73
Loc: NYC
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Good for Penn, bad for the league.
02-09-05 02:30 PM - Post#3695
In response to Warrior
The goal always is, and should be, to win.
For fans, there's always the carrot to to see how well your team can play against the team that will win, or how well the team that will rep the conference in the NCAAs is playing.
With only one contender left on the slate, it makes for some boring evenings on campus. The CU^2/NNE weekend will max out at 2000 attendance for all 4 games. The P^2/YB weekend which may have been of interest to many now faces a huge loss of appeal.
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Good for Penn, bad for the league.
02-09-05 02:41 PM - Post#3696
In response to columbia92
Ah well, at least it's no worse, and probably better, than the number of people you'd get at regular season games if there were a tournament.
|
columbia92
goober
Posts: 73
Loc: NYC
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Good for Penn, bad for the league.
02-09-05 02:43 PM - Post#3697
In response to Jeff2sf
A thoroughly untested hypothesis to be sure.
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Good for Penn, bad for the league.
02-09-05 02:53 PM - Post#3698
In response to columbia92
Please.
If these games are so meaningless, then surely the games preceding a tournament are equally meaningless. You tellin me Yale fans are going to pay big money to see Harvard come to town to figure out who's the 5th seed?
Please note, this isn't an attack on the tourney, because while I lean towards being against the tourney (And playoffs in general due to their small sample size for all sports), I'm not hugely against it. I'm just not going to let you get away with what you're trying to imply.
|
Anonymous
|
Good for Penn, Good for the League
02-09-05 02:58 PM - Post#3699
In response to columbia92
It is best for the league when Penn, or whoever the Ivy winner is, does damage in the tournament. Maximizing the chances of having the Ivy winner make a splash in the tournament is what is best for the league long term. Which means that if Penn truly is the best team in the league, having them go to the tournament (whether it be by a one-game margin or five-game margin) is best for the league.
It's not Penn's fault that Columbia got swept at home, PU choked at Dartmouth and Harvard, Yale has failed to meet expectations yet again, etc. What is best for the league is to have its best team represent it in the tournament. Period. Also would be nice to see the others try and focus on winning games instead of blame other things for the lack of interest.
|
columbia92
goober
Posts: 73
Loc: NYC
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Good for Penn, bad for the league.
02-09-05 03:01 PM - Post#3700
In response to Jeff2sf
I am not advocating anything.
If anything, I question the league's schedule with YES - it now plays out like Monday Night Football does annually.
Long-term, if we want the league to be more visible to the population at large (not necessarily nationally, but at least locally and regionally), is this a good scenario?
I think of the Big East, and the fact that when the power was conference-oriented (i.e. Gavitt and Tranghese held more power than the ADs at the schools) the league was much better than it is today.
The Big East has lost its ability to control member institutions - when it added football to appease Syracuse and BC. Then it became a free for all.
This league seems to be as decentralized in its administration as the schools themselves. I don't know if this helps the product.
|
columbia92
goober
Posts: 73
Loc: NYC
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Good for Penn, Bad for the League
02-09-05 03:11 PM - Post#3701
In response to
Quote:
It is best for the league when Penn, or whoever the Ivy winner is, does damage in the tournament. Maximizing the chances of having the Ivy winner make a splash in the tournament is what is best for the league long term. Which means that if Penn truly is the best team in the league, having them go to the tournament (whether it be by a one-game margin or five-game margin) is best for the league.
It's not Penn's fault that Columbia got swept at home, PU choked at Dartmouth and Harvard, Yale has failed to meet expectations yet again, etc. What is best for the league is to have its best team represent it in the tournament. Period. Also would be nice to see the others try and focus on winning games instead of blame other things for the lack of interest.
Once again, an unproven hypothesis.
Nobody's looking to denigrate Penn and her fans. The point is that the results have been bad for the conference in toto.
If Penn goes 14-0 in a league where 2nd place is a 4-way tie for 8-6, that won't help Penn's seeding, nor will it help the Ivy when the tourney comes around:
I can hear Clark Kellogg now:
"Penn won the Ivies again, but they had no real competition..."
The brilliance of Pete Rozelle is that he looked out for the confederation first. That's how the NFL gained traction in all its markets, even though Green Bay won 5 titles in a row. A rising tide lifts all boats
Once again, I ask, how can the league be best off? Certainly this isn't working...
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Good for Penn, Bad for the League
02-09-05 03:18 PM - Post#3702
In response to columbia92
I guess if all of your responses are "an unproven hypothesis" it's really not worth discussing with you...as any suggestion you could ever come up with for change can be met with the same lazy response.
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Good for Penn, Bad for the League
02-09-05 03:19 PM - Post#3703
In response to columbia92
The conference tourney has done wonders for the Patriot, SunBelt and other one bid conferences eh? Look, I hate arguing against the tourney because I'm not THAT against it, but your hypotheses are as unproven as ours, and, if anything, lean against being true based on the results of other conferences around our conference RPI. What is an absolute fact is that 14 games is more likely to prove who the best team is than an 8 team, 3 day, one and done tournament. It's also a fact that the best team is most likely to perform best at the tournament (though admittedly, it may increase from a 5% chance of victory to a 7% chance of victory). If Penn goes 14-0, that will help it's seeding a lot more than if it goes 12-2, with Brown going 10-4. Further, Clark Kellogg isn't saying "Bucknell won the Patriot League, and that has a lot of tough competition".
So again, if you want an Ivy tournament, fine, but don't bring weak logic and whining into it.
|
columbia92
goober
Posts: 73
Loc: NYC
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Good for Penn, Bad for the League
02-09-05 03:27 PM - Post#3704
In response to Jeff2sf
Not whining.
No logic involved...
Just calling it like I see it. Runaway league champs are bad for our league, if only because we are the only reg season autobid. I don't know if an 8-team tourney in an 8-team league makes sense, myself. I think that regular season success has merit. I'm just commenting on particulars of this season, as it stands. Bad for the league.
|
SFlaQuaker
Postdoc
Posts: 2427
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Good for Penn, Bad for the League
02-09-05 03:33 PM - Post#3705
In response to columbia92
Would you prefer a 9-7 league champion with all 8 teams in the hunt or a 14-0 champion that is clearly the league's best team? I'll take the latter.
|
columbia92
goober
Posts: 73
Loc: NYC
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Good for Penn, Bad for the League
02-09-05 03:35 PM - Post#3706
In response to SFlaQuaker
As a fan (especially if I am neutral), I'll take a close finish.
|
SFlaQuaker
Postdoc
Posts: 2427
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Good for Penn, Bad for the League
02-09-05 03:39 PM - Post#3707
In response to columbia92
Okay, now what if your team is the one that's 14-0? I bet you're opinion changes if we're being honest.
|
Chip Bayers
Professor
Posts: 7001
Loc: New York
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Good for Penn, Bad for the League
02-09-05 03:40 PM - Post#3708
In response to columbia92
Yeah, that sure made football in the NFC West exciting to watch this season.
|
columbia92
goober
Posts: 73
Loc: NYC
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Good for Penn, Bad for the League
02-09-05 03:40 PM - Post#3709
In response to SFlaQuaker
Right, but the league isn't one team.
As I repeat, Good for Penn. Bad for the League.
|
SFlaQuaker
Postdoc
Posts: 2427
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Good for Penn, Bad for the League
02-09-05 03:51 PM - Post#3710
In response to columbia92
Okay, here's the problem I have with this argument, and not just from you, but from many non-P fans:
It seems that rather than bemoaning the fact that your program cannot compete at the level of the P's, you bemoan the fact that they are too good compared to the rest of the league.
I'm a huge Penn fan, and I would have loved for them to beat Princeton in that final game of 2001, but I can't exactly say it was a good season for the league.
This is going to sound elitist, but it really isn't meant to be. I hope one day you can experience what it's like to have your team go 14-0. It's unbelievable to know that you are without question the best team in the league.
|
Chip Bayers
Professor
Posts: 7001
Loc: New York
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Good for Penn, Bad for the League
02-09-05 04:21 PM - Post#3711
In response to columbia92
That hasn't been true in the WCC. Gonzaga separated themselves from the rest of the league in the late 90s, despite having a conference tournament to devalue the regular season and enforce an ersatz parity. Now they're expected to be a top 25 team every year, they've built a big new arena, and they can recruit nationally because of TV exposure in a way the rest of the conference can't.
But the rest of the conference didn't sit around and whine about Gonzaga's dominance being bad for the league. They tried to match them. And their perennial one-bid mid-major conference now has a shot at getting 3 teams into the field.
|
BearWithMe
newbie
Posts: 10
Reg: 12-07-04
|
Re: Good for Penn, Bad for the League
02-09-05 04:44 PM - Post#3712
In response to Chip Bayers
This is an interesting conversation, but aren't we getting ahead of ourselves? Penn almost lost last night at home.
It's conceivable that they could drop a road game at Brown, Yale, Cornell or Columbia, and lose on the last day at Princeton. They could also get surprised at home by Cornell or Columbia this weekend, although that seems less likely. It's also conceivable that a team like Brown, with all its home games remaining and its toughest four road games over, could win out, including a win against Penn at home.
Let's see what happens this week with Penn-Cornell and next week at Brown before we assume that we have a walkaway, undefeated league champ.
|
