NCT
Freshman
Posts: 55
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Good for Penn, Bad for the League
02-09-05 05:37 PM - Post#3713
In response to columbia92
C92,
No matter what the league, no matter what the year, somebody has to finish first. If the only purpose of this thread is to suggest that "certainly this isn't working" then it serves little purpose but to (unsuccessfully) try to make Penn fans act defensive after one of the most memorable nights in the history of the program. It's like bringing up payroll disparity after Brosius' homer against Arizona.
You seem to imply that if the first-place team finished 8-6 and won the league by one game, then we would be having an exciting, down-to-the-wire race that would be good for the league. But if one team goes 14-0 and wins by five games, that's bad for the league and provides more evidence we should manufacture excitement via a tournament. But the logic is backward. The more dominant a regular-season champion is, the MORE we need a tournament to devalue that championship? No way.
|
NCT
Freshman
Posts: 55
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Good for Penn, Bad for the League
02-09-05 05:54 PM - Post#3714
In response to BearWithMe
Yes, we're definitely getting ahead of ourselves. Cornell is only 2 games behind Penn in the loss column and gets to play the Quakers twice. Brown is also 2 games behind.
That's what's interesting about this thread. I'm sure it's not what C92 intended, but his complaint that Penn is turning this season into a boring, yawn-inducing, four-week coronation tour does nothing but inadvertantly reveal his true opinion about the quality of the Brown/Cornell programs.
It's hard to think of another league in which the regular-season title would be conceded at this point in the year, with the standings as they are. The fact that C92 has done so presumably means he doesn't think the two top contenders (Brown and Cornell) are even worth talking about. And if that's the case, then THAT is where he should focus his frustration, not on the structure of the league, the way we award our NCAA bid, etc.
|
columbia92
goober
Posts: 73
Loc: NYC
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Good for Penn, Bad for the League
02-09-05 07:26 PM - Post#3715
In response to NCT
I've seen Brown and Cornell in person. Brown is much more likely to challenge Penn, but they still have their home-and-home with Yale... and they are very young.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Good for Penn, Bad for the League
02-09-05 07:47 PM - Post#3716
In response to columbia92
We've pretty much beaten this subject to death. Put me down as opposed to a tournement. My only fear of domination by one or two teams over time is it's effect on recruiting. We need a salery cap, lilke the NFL, to balance thing out. I remember one long-retired Ivy Coach suggesting that Ivy Coaches randomly change schools within the League every 3-4 years. It's a fun concept.
|
AsiaSunset
Postdoc
Posts: 4361
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Good for Penn, Bad for the League
02-09-05 08:07 PM - Post#3717
In response to
Another way to look at it is that there will probably be 5500 fans in March at Jadwin watching a game which may be meaningless in terms of the title, but not in terms of the P v P traditional rivalry. There was a big crowd at the Palestra in March last year and PU had it wrapped up.
The inability of some of the league schools to fill small gyms is a problem, but you shouldn't need a title shot to address it. Penn played up at Dartmouth last weekend on Sat night, following Dartmouth's big win over Princeton, in front of 1700. It's a bigger problem. Basketball fans should show up. Certainly a 7-9 time commitment doesn't kill a Fri or Sat night for a college kid. I don't have the answer at these schools, but I think a tournament would help.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Good for Penn, Bad for the League
02-09-05 08:10 PM - Post#3718
In response to AsiaSunset
Why would a tournament help? Harvard at home vs. Cornell, Columbia, Brown or Dartmouth just isn't going to draw.
|
columbia92
goober
Posts: 73
Loc: NYC
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Good for Penn, Bad for the League
02-09-05 08:16 PM - Post#3719
In response to
Maybe if there was a 1/4-2/3 tourney and Harvard/Cornell was for the final playoff spot?
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Good for Penn, Bad for the League
02-09-05 08:34 PM - Post#3720
In response to columbia92
Columbia92,
Keep up the good fight. I'd like to register my approval for a 4- or 6-team tournament and a rotation of travel partners by north/south divisions. Penn and Princeton fans will disagree. They have their interests to protect. Just as we have ours to further. Keep chipping away and know that there's a silent majority out there behind you.
-mrjames
|
AsiaSunset
Postdoc
Posts: 4361
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Good for Penn, Bad for the League
02-09-05 08:38 PM - Post#3721
In response to mrjames
It's important to note that Fran Dunphy speaks for Penn bb and he favors a tournament.
Joe Scott has gone on the record in opposition.
|
AsiaSunset
Postdoc
Posts: 4361
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Good for Penn, Bad for the League
02-09-05 08:41 PM - Post#3722
In response to
Because there are plenty of Cinderella stories that support the notion that your team has a chance until the very end. i think a four team tourney might make sense because it limits the thing to only two games, addressing an Ivy concern.
|
Redfish
Masters Student
Posts: 767
Loc: under a bridge in Phoenix...
Reg: 11-26-04
|
Re: Good for Penn, bad for the league.
02-09-05 09:12 PM - Post#3723
In response to Warrior
Quote:
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.
Or at least to see the Cowgirls lose. 
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Good for Penn, bad for the league.
02-09-05 09:30 PM - Post#3724
In response to Redfish
Still waiting for that to happen against the Redskins, huh?
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Good for Penn, Bad for the League
02-09-05 09:55 PM - Post#3725
In response to mrjames
mrjames --
hey, i normally love your posts and enjoy reading your Crimson articles, but you are way off here.
Harvard, for example, already had its tournament. Instead of a game against top-seeded Penn in March on a neutral court or at the Palestra to "advance", it got a home and home vs. an awful Dartmouth team. Seems like a more favorable "first-round matchup" to me. All you had to do was sweep to advance in the 14 game tournament. You didn't. You're out. Same thing for Dartmouth. No sweep of a bottom-level team? You're out.
Columbia also had their chance. Instead of a game on a neutral court vs. a 3rd or 4th seed, it got two chances, AT HOME, to advance last weekend in the 14 game tournament. They blew both chances. They're out. Imagine the excitement on Columbia's campus if they were 5-1 heading into this weekend? Certainly, C92, it must be the league's fault or the P's fault for Columbia blowing its games at home this weekend, right?
Cornell is still alive, even though they blew their "first-round game" (the 2-7 matchup) at home v. Harvard. If they battle hard and work a split this weekend (especially if that split is a win at the Palestra), they are smack dab in the middle of the race with 3 losses.
Brown is still in it also, and it won its "first-round game" vs. Princeton but lost the "second-round game" vs. Penn the next night. I bet the Bears are happy that there are 10 games left in the season with Penn still yet to come to their house instead of being eliminated for the Penn loss...or their loss at Cornell.
It's unfortunate that this "silent majority" seems to be one that is in favor of shortcuts, laziness, gift second and third chances that aren't earned, success even if it isn't deserved, etc. and apparently isn't in favor of earning the spoils of victory.
Perhaps this has something to do with legacy admits? Maybe these schools are used to getting something without having to work for it? It has always boggled my mind.
|
charcoal
Junior
Posts: 243
Loc: Dallas
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Good for Penn, bad for the league.
02-09-05 09:59 PM - Post#3726
In response to
hey, i am just happy to see anyone taking Cornell even quasi-seriously as the result of two down-to-the-wire victories last weekend; i don't think the Red gets beyond a backs-to-the-wall, fired up Tiger five or a clearly superior Penn squad but, as they say, that's why they play the games...it would be nice not to have to concede this season to the Quakers and it was fun to use the sports cliches...
|
light blue heavy
maximus
Posts: 164
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Good for everyone... if there's a tourney
02-09-05 10:42 PM - Post#3727
In response to charcoal
As someone who cares a lot about the league, but doesnt really care about whether there is a tourney (honestly: I root for Columbia whether the game has implications or not, and it isn't particularly important to me how many people are there) I think it would definitely be better for the level of competition in the league if there was a tourney.
Why is this good? Isn't it better to have a team go deep into the tourney (See: Gonzaga and WCC?
Well, I would argue that it is unlikely that an Ivy will get anything above an 11 seed in the tourney, and likely worse than that. This will make it difficult to make the aforementioned run through the tourney.
I say we get a low seed because ivies, because of obvious recruiting problems, tend to have trouble getting 5 really athletic, talented guys that could go 1-on-1 with guys from top-50 teams. Even Penn and Princeton have only 2 guys apiece I'd put 1-on-1 with guys on major conference teams.
This matters because Ivies get their chances for quality wins early in the season, when systems mean a little less and athleticism means a little bit more. I think this is a major problem for the ivies: they play good teams before we have time to gell, and we take longer to gell because of the high turnover rates (with kids quitting). I know other schools have lots of early entrants to the draft, but I don't think most teams with early entrants are regularly beatable by ivies anyways because of their high talent level (usually). So the good teams we play earlier in the season will have gelled a little bit more. This is also true because being on scholarship makes it almost mandatory to stay on campus and practice during the summer at a lot of programs. Our guys go get jobs.
Since ivies play these good teams early and have been losing most of these gamesrecently, they have low RPIs that can't be made up because of us 'dwarves'. We pull down the P's RPI, and we know it.
With low NCAA seeds, you obviously tend to have stronger opponents. this makes the payoff run less likely.
I think if there is a 4-team tournament, this would be beneficial in 2 ways.
1) it would be an extra two games (potentially neutral site or away) against decent ivies. This would hopefully boost the league winner's RPI, increasing their seed, and therefore their chances
2) It would allow other (non-P schools) to recruit more effectively. I think the most devastating aspect of recruiting in this league is the fact that non-P coaches can't point to their team getting to the tourney since prehistoric times (the 80's). Removing this would slowly raise the overall level of play in the league. This would, over time, feed back into the RPI of teams in the league, allowing a higher seed in the NCAA's...
So in my mind, if you want to see a tourney run by any ivy team or an at-large bid, you should be for the tourney. No arguments about other conferences have much resonance on this issue for me, since they all have tourneys but us. I sort of like being different like this, but let's not pretend it's the best for the league. The aforementioned Gonzaga, for all its dominance, has only won its conference tourney 5 times in the last 15 years at least: not even close to the P's dominance.
I make no claims that this is a waterproof argument, but it certainly makes sense to me. As for this season, though I dislike watching Penn run away with this thing, they certainly have been having a hell of a season. Hats off.
|
Brian Martin
Masters Student
Posts: 963
Loc: Washington, DC
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Good for Penn, Bad for the League
02-09-05 10:49 PM - Post#3728
In response to
Penn still has 5 road games left and I would still say the odds favor 2 losses.
Cornell's 4-2 record is the 2nd most shocking development in the league, but they will struggle to finish over .500 with all the road games in front of them. Columbia has the same schedule and a worse record, but either Cornell or Columbia could hang a loss on Penn.
Brown is in the best position to challenge. They still have all 7 home games ahead. If Brown can win the four home games coming up: Harvard, Dartmouth, Penn, and Princeton, it would be a two-team race, and Penn would have the tougher closing schedule.
I don't think Brown will do it, but one thing about Princeton's woes is that it will make Penn the primary focus of P weekends.
|
Howard Gensler
Postdoc
Posts: 4141
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Good for Penn, bad for the league.
02-10-05 12:48 AM - Post#3729
In response to charcoal
Quote:
hey, i am just happy to see anyone taking Cornell even quasi-seriously as the result of two down-to-the-wire victories last weekend; i don't think the Red gets beyond a backs-to-the-wall, fired up Tiger five or a clearly superior Penn squad but, as they say, that's why they play the games...it would be nice not to have to concede this season to the Quakers and it was fun to use the sports cliches...
You think the Tigers are going to be fired up this weekend? Why?
|
charcoal
Junior
Posts: 243
Loc: Dallas
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Good for Penn, bad for the league.
02-10-05 02:10 AM - Post#3730
In response to Howard Gensler
if out of red-faced freekin' embarrassment if nothing else...
|
10Q
Professor
Posts: 23404
Loc: Suburban Philly
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Good for Penn, bad for the league.
02-10-05 11:20 AM - Post#3731
In response to charcoal
I believe the word is spelled "freakin'". 
|
charcoal
Junior
Posts: 243
Loc: Dallas
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Good for Penn, bad for the league.
02-10-05 12:43 PM - Post#3732
In response to 10Q
MSN search results:
freekin' 20,465 freeking 11,783
freakin' 1,060,366 freaking 1,220,546
guess it is the secondary usage, but still in the webtionary...
lo siento mucho
|
|
|
Report Post
Quote Post
Quick Reply
|
|
Print Topic
Email Topic
4267 Views
|
|
|
|
|
