picknroll
Freshman
Posts: 38
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Ben, Jerry and the P's
02-10-05 02:26 PM - Post#3733
In response to AsiaSunset
I think the first question that ought to be asked in debating the conference tourney issue is whether the current setup serves the league well.
Argue all you want about the integrity of the regular season, but when the same two teams win as frequently as these two have I think you can only draw one of two conclusions: Either the systems in place at the other six schools are flawed beyond repair, or the league's system is skewed to perpetuate the same two outcomes year after year after year. (Unless, of course, that's the desired outcome, in which case we're all happy campers.)
The evidence that the league system is at fault is pretty compelling, especially in light of the fact that the variables in place at the non-P's do change every now and again, but the outcome rarely does. And let's not forget that there have been some pretty good coaches to come through those schools.
I don't begrudge Penn and Princeton their successes, but it's reached the point where I occasionally wonder what might happen if you wiped the historical slate clean and allowed everyone to recruit in a vaccuum. Would that level the playing field enough to allow the dwarfs to get over the hump with any kind of regularity and put some suspense back into the Ivy League?
The historical record undoubtedly provides the P's with a powerful recruiting tool that makes it a little easier for them to attract numbers of players the caliber of which the others only occasionally get. (The P's enjoy other advantages, to be sure, and they capitalize on them brilliantly.) I would argue that it's the depth of quality compared to the other six teams that separates the haves from the have-nots. Whereas the dwarfs are forced to cut and paste their roster with marginal prospects from the middle to the end of the bench, the P's can dangle that NCAA bid and fill out their roster with guys who can actually play and might start or play significant roles if they went to one of the other six.
Now, I'm pretty sure you can't wipe the slate clean, but you could change the current system by implementing a conference tournament. And while the outcome would probably be the same in most years, it might -- just might -- provide enough of an opening to let a non-P sneak in every once in a while and, over time, lessen that overwhelming historical recruiting advantage and level the playing field just a little...maybe enough to produce a different outcome more than twice every 35 years.
I'm not whining or proposing shortcuts to get the other six into the dance. I just think you can draw a reasonable conclusion after 30 years that the current system produces a certain outcome (to the point that you could cancel the season and just take turns sending Penn and Princeton to the NCAAs and you'd hardly notice the difference.) While the status quo might be great for 1/4 of the league, it's not a stretch to suggest that it might not be the best thing for the league as a whole. I see a conference tourney as one possible way to address that.
Finally, listening to P fans argue against a conference tourney brings to mind the time in the early 80s when Pillsbury -- which had the superpremium ice cream market cornered with Haagan Daaz -- tried to strong-arm its distributors to keep out Ben & Jerry's. The Vermont guys initiated a cute little campaign featuring a bumper sticker that asked, "What's the Dough Boy afraid of?"
Well...
|
SFlaQuaker
Postdoc
Posts: 2427
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Ben, Jerry and the P's
02-10-05 02:51 PM - Post#3734
In response to picknroll
While I'm clearly against a playoff of any sort, why on earth would a 4 team playoff change things so much? If anything, I think there's a pretty good chance of this simply splitting the league in half over time, with 4 "haves" and 4 "have nots". Really, do any of us see Dartmouth or Harvard making that top 4 regularly, let alone winning 2 games to make the tourney? Please.
IF, AND ONLY IF, we end up going to a tournament, I suggest the multiple bye system.
Round one: 5 vs. 8, 6 vs. 7
Round two: 3 vs. lower seed, 4 vs. higher seed
Round three: 1 vs. lower seed, 4 vs. higher seed
Championship game
I'm also very much in favor of some sort of home court advantage, even if only for the earlier rounds with the championship at a neutral site.
|
Howard Gensler
Postdoc
Posts: 4141
Reg: 11-21-04
|
A shocking concept...
02-10-05 03:19 PM - Post#3735
In response to picknroll
The reason the Ps annually fight for Ivy League supremacy is not because they were the best team 30 years ago, but because they're the best team in the present year. And I hate to bring this up, but the idea of competitive sports is for the best to win. It's not to create false parity. It's not to say, Penn was 14-0 but maybe Ugonna Onyekwe we'll turn his ankle and Koko Archibong will get the flu and Andy Toole wil get whistled for two cheap fouls and we'll be able to beat them on a neutral court after tanking the season and "sneak" our 8-6 team into the NCAAs which will then allow us to recruit better players and make a dent in the Ps dominance.
Yes, I'm opposed to a tourney because it punishes the good for the sake of the bad.
Forget the excuses of the travel partners (granted traveling to the Ps is a nightmare, but the other teams don't win at home when the Ps come to visit). And the reason it's a nightmare to visit the Ps is because the Ps are better. Your teams, traditionally, are bad. Not almost good enough, not one player away, not unlucky - bad. Bottom 75 bad. Under .500 against crappy non-League teams bad. (In non-League play, the C's best win is against #238 Lehigh, Dartmouth beat #232 New Hampshire, Brown beat #146 Central Florida, Yale beat #124 Santa Clara and Harvard beat #82 Northeastern. Meanwhile 1-4 Princeton beat #s 38, 71 and 74 and Penn beat #s 72, 74 and 84.)
That has nothing to do with the Ps alleged unfair advantages.
If the non-P Ivies weren't bad they would win some decent non-conference games. They would fill their gyms early in the season, before they were eliminated from the race. They would try to improve their non-League schedules and thus improve their RPIs.
Frank Sullivan at Harvard is a darn good coach. You don't think Harvard could compete if Harvard as an institution cared to compete. It's not important to the people who run the school if Harvard has a good basketball team so why should the Ps help enable them.
I'll be all for an Ivy tournament when it means the Ivies have a chance of getting a second team in to the NCAAs. That will mean that some other Ivy teams besides the Ps will occasionally have to crack the Top 100. (For most it would be an accomplishment to crack the Top 200.) Until the other teams start fielding teams that play in the same non-league League as the Ps, their teams are never going to be as competitive in League.
It's nice that Columbia fans are a little excited about their team this season, but their record has come at the expense of one of the weakest schedules in D1. And you want the Ps to allow you to fill your schedules with Sacred Hearts and Keenes and then say "We kicked your ass twice during the regular season but let's play again on a neutral court so maybe you guys would get a chance to drag your 12-15 record into the NCAA Tournament.
You want to play with the big boys, GET BETTER. And hey, I want you to get better. I see all of your teams twice a year and I'd much rather see Penn lose an occasional game to a good team than lose an occasional game to a bad team.
Right now, the Ps fill your gyms, give your programs any basketball respectability they have and keep the Ivies from losing their automatic NCAA bid. When you start bringing something to the table we can happily talk about a conference tournament.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32835
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: A shocking concept...
02-10-05 04:07 PM - Post#3736
In response to Howard Gensler
Here's my two cents...and like most of us here, something I have written before. Columbia could join the P's simply by building the 7500 seat arena/convocation center on Riverside Drive I have clamored for for years. They did the right thing by the coach...he cannot compete for recruits on a consistent basis against Jadwin and the Palestra. If they built it, instantly CU would have a chance to win the league. The same is true with Harvard---if it built a legitimate mid-major facility, what academic candidates wouldn't consider it? Can you imagine Miller recruiting with such a facility? What else is there to do in New Haven, which is desperately looking for a mixed-use facility in light of the closing of the Coloseum?
Please don't expect fans of the P's to agree to go to a tournament in a one-bid conference when the other schools (which have plenty of money, but no will) won't attempt to compete on the same level. All that a tournament does is introduce the element of having a lucky day. When the committment to compete is there, the Ivies will get at large bids and then a tournament can be discussed.
|
light blue heavy
maximus
Posts: 164
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: A shocking concept...
02-10-05 04:19 PM - Post#3737
In response to Howard Gensler
Howard,
Honestly, trying the 'chicken and the egg' argument is nice, but how can the rest of the league get better without some success to point at? How can a program recruit well when it is historically terrible?
This is like blaming the poor for their predicament. Yes, its true the bottom of the league is usually made up of bad teams. And yeah, you might be able to find a program or three that has not had a consistent investment. However, how would these teams, with no winning tradition, try to improve their station?
One way is to hire notable coaches. Coaches that recruit and coach in-games well. I think we are all fairly impressed with the improvement in the level of coaching at the non-P's over the last five years, and we should be. 5 of these schools have made substantial upgrades here.
Basically, the other thing they can do is boost their record by playing bad teams, or get a signature win. I feel confident in saying a hs senior would rather play for a team that starts 12-7 than one that starts 4-11, and I think that schools would rather keep a coach that goes 12-7, even knowing they did it against weaker competition.
Maybe you see what I'm getting at. Without any winning history, a team is at a recruiting disadvantage. This disadvantage makes for consistently weaker teams. It is in the best interests for coaches of weaker teams to play other weak teams, since it gives their teams a better chance to win. I think you saw these concerns reflected in the Cornell schedule last year and the last columiba schedule under Hill. And its difficult for such programs to schedule games against better mid-majors, who are scuffling for qualitiy oponnents themselves.
I think a tourney would mean the occasional NCAA bid for a non-p. And this would help their recruiting of both players and coaches.
Listen. I'm not necessarily for a tourney. But if you honestly WANT the league to get better or to see at-large bids, there has to be one. We all know that with the RPI a rising tide lifts all boats in this league. In the long term, a tourny would increase the level of competition. Success builds on success. Everyone seems to realize this except for you. Most importantly, I think, is that the empirical evidence is all on this side of the table. No other conference is without a tourney. No other conference has the same type of statis on top. Is your argument that this is a coincidence?
Its hard to understand how you spend time looking up how bad the non-P's are and ripping on Columbia's schedule, and then turn around and say that the P's "give your programs any basketball respectability they have and keep the Ivies from losing their automatic NCAA bid. When you start bringing something to the table we can happily talk about a conference tournament."
Well, what is 'bringing stuff to the table?' Define it. What would it take for us to 'talk tourney'? I want to hear what you think counts as competitive. And how are the P's giving up respectability?
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Good for Penn, Bad for the League
02-10-05 04:21 PM - Post#3738
In response to
I know the arguments for and against. I've been involved in the same argument twice before on this board, and that's why I didn't want to do much more than just throw my opinion back out there. In the end, it's probably good to face the fact that possession is 90 percent of the law, and that currently possession is in the hands of the anti-tournament faction. It's okay though. I'll be too busy on conference tournament week anyway keeping tabs on the other 30 conferences that have the tourney, as well as all the college hockey conferences that have a tourney. Thank goodness the unique nature of the Ivy League can save me some time during those extremely busy periods.
-mrjames
P.S. Here's a tournament format that hasn't been mentioned yet. What about a four-team tourney where 3 plays 4 to open. Then the winner plays 2. Then, the winner of that plays one. That'd be some interesting stuff.
|
TomPittsburgh
maximus
Posts: 538
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
Reg: 11-28-04
|
Re: Good for Penn, Bad for the League
02-10-05 04:24 PM - Post#3739
In response to mrjames
I'm waiting for someone to suggest the Ivy basketball champion should be decided after the season ends, and without regard to the season's record, by simply drawing names out of a hat. I, on the other hand, subscribe to the theory that we have a 14-game tourney called the regular season and that puts pressure on all the games.
|
columbia92
goober
Posts: 73
Loc: NYC
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: A shocking concept...
02-10-05 04:38 PM - Post#3740
In response to palestra38
Quote:
Here's my two cents...and like most of us here, something I have written before. Columbia could join the P's simply by building the 7500 seat arena/convocation center on Riverside Drive I have clamored for for years. They did the right thing by the coach...he cannot compete for recruits on a consistent basis against Jadwin and the Palestra. If they built it, instantly CU would have a chance to win the league. The same is true with Harvard---if it built a legitimate mid-major facility, what academic candidates wouldn't consider it? Can you imagine Miller recruiting with such a facility? What else is there to do in New Haven, which is desperately looking for a mixed-use facility in light of the closing of the Coloseum?
Please don't expect fans of the P's to agree to go to a tournament in a one-bid conference when the other schools (which have plenty of money, but no will) won't attempt to compete on the same level. All that a tournament does is introduce the element of having a lucky day. When the committment to compete is there, the Ivies will get at large bids and then a tournament can be discussed.
The only school to invest post World War II dollars into building a large basketball facility is Princeton. Penn can point to the Palestra all it wants, but it was built a long time ago, and it remains a significant advantage. You really think that it's more equitable for a school to pony up $50 million "to better compete with" Penn than to think about a different bid system?
|
AsiaSunset
Postdoc
Posts: 4361
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: A shocking concept...
02-10-05 04:43 PM - Post#3741
In response to light blue heavy
I'm not sure a tournament would create parity. I do think it would help Penn recruit and improve against its non league schedule. The kids are watching TV in March. They notice we are not on the tube.
Plus - I think the opportunity for multiple Ivies to come together in a big event is a terrific thing for all fans of the league. It would be a blast even if the league champ got picked off. I'd rather have a stronger program, a better league and a March "happening" in an East Coast venue as opposed to an opportunity to get to play a number 3 seed in some remote NCAA location.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: A shocking concept...
02-10-05 04:51 PM - Post#3742
In response to light blue heavy
Here's my thought process, for what it's worth.
What we're talking about is doing something that is best for the entire league.
My contention is that SUCCESS in the NCAA tournament is best for the league. Every conference gets an auto bid. In the one-bid conferences that have conference tournies, the only time that conference really makes news is either a) when that team's NCAA entrant pulls an upset, or b) when that team's NCAA entrant is on some sort of a ridiculous tear (like, say, Vermont will be heading into the NCAAs this year).
WINNING, or having the best chance of winning, in the tournament, is the most important goal to me. No one can tell me that MEAC, SWAC, etc schools are helped by getting a bid to the play-in game or even the chance to tangle with a No. 1 seed and lose by 30. However, everyone knows who Coppin State is because they WON in the tournament.
So if the goal is winning in the tournament, then as a conference we should want to send our best team. A conference tournament does not accomplish this. I cannot conceive of any argument that could convince me that the way to find a conference's best team is to play some sort of conference tournament and essentially eliminate a team's hard work from October to February.
I would also contend (and this is where my memory gets a little hazy), that when you think about mid majors having success in the tournament, that success is overwhelmingly achieved by regular season champions. Specifically, I would bet that the NCAA record of teams that were not reg season champs but managed to win the conference tournament is poor to awful. Just take the WCC....Gonzaga has won the regular season and postseason tourney every year the last 4-5 years except 2 yrs ago, when they lost to San Diego in the finals. Did San Diego have any NCAA success? No way. But it is Gonzaga's success that he helped raise the WCC's profile. Meanwhile, San Diego has shrunk back into medicority in the middle of the WCC. So much for an NCAA appearance helping them sustain success.
Anyway. Like everyone has been saying.....the non-Ps should focus on getting better (both inside and outside of conference) and perhaps once people feel that the non-P schools will not completely embarass themselves and the League in the NCAAs, then we can talk tournament. Until then, it is vital for the league's continued vitality for the best team to advance. Last year, that was Princeton. And while Penn certainly would have had a good chance to advance in a conference tourney, I was not clamoring for one then.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32835
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: A shocking concept...
02-10-05 04:51 PM - Post#3743
In response to columbia92
That's ridiculous and you know it....Columbia realized "post WW II" capital dollars from the sale of the land under Rockefeller Center and spent some of those dollars buying the tract of land (which you said, at the time, no one would ever go to so it was a bad idea) across 125th Street. CU would easily be able to raise the kind of money needed to build the arena (David Stern...are you there?) IF it had the institutional will to declare that athletics are important to its mission. Moreover, it would be an incomparable advertisement for the institution---IF CU had the institutional will to manage and utilize such a structure. I simply don't want to hear that CU doesn't have the money or that the "neighbors" won't let it proceed. It does have (or can easily raise) the money and compromises (as well as the fact that it is mostly in a former warehouse district)with the "neighbors" allowing use will overcome the other issue.
BTW, while Penn's facilites are old, they have pumped more than $20 million into refurbishing both Franklin Field and the Palestra. They both are first class facilities, and the argument that Penn is lucky to have old facilities is weak.
Finally, the real issue is that you agree that CU could compete if it built a first class facility...that was my point. You want the P's to compete with an arm tied behind their backs simply because there is no will on behalf of the other Ivies to do what it takes to compete? Come on.
|
Brian Martin
Masters Student
Posts: 963
Loc: Washington, DC
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: A shocking concept...
02-10-05 05:47 PM - Post#3744
In response to AsiaSunset
Have any of you ever been to a small conference tournament? I have been to a few (Sun Belt, SWAC, old Metro) and they are dead except when the host team plays. They may have one or two favorites whose fans travel to the semifinal and final, but otherwise there are just corporate sponsors and university suits partying on expense accounts. The final is exciting, but it is not worth rendering the regular season meetings between the upper division teams meaningless. Would Tuesday's game outcome be as big if it mattered only for seeding? Would Brown's upcoming four-game homestand be nearly as dramatic?
Look at the Patriot League. Has a league tournament done anything at all for them?
|
Ugokoko
newbie
Posts: 7
Reg: 02-06-05
|
This ESPN article addresses many of your posts
02-10-05 05:54 PM - Post#3745
In response to Brian Martin
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/columns/story?id=1988555
|
charcoal
Junior
Posts: 243
Loc: Dallas
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: This ESPN article addresses many of your posts
02-10-05 06:29 PM - Post#3746
In response to Ugokoko
2 cents, and some generalizations:
When Cornell won in '87-'88, it got dumped 90-50 in first round and Mike Dement got out of dodge, parlaying that success by moving to, if I recall correctly, East Carolina (and then on to SMU and then oblivion). Mike Cingister stayed around a bit after the 16-10 Bears got stomped 101-52 two years earlier (I don't know his post-Providence history). On other hand, P jobs are not only inherently desirable as just under the majors(i.e., JTIII goes to Georgetown, but Scott comes to Princeton from AFA; Dunphy able to flirt with Big 10 and be offered presumably big bucks by his alma mater).
Otherwise, a young coach (and esp. so for Cornell and Dartmouth I think) can only see his Ivy tenure as a way station. If you can grab a good year, move to a better mid-major and leave program in the lurch. Too many bad years and you're out of major college basketball altogether.
Second point, look at those crappy scores when a non-P has gone on to NCAA's. Shows, I think, the gulf between the "other six" and the P's and part of the reason why Cornell and Brown were not able to parlay the Ivy title into platform of sustained quality, whether coach leaves or not. Is it better to go and get your pants pulled down, or stay at home? Probably better to go, but the national embarrassment can't be a great recruiting boost.
|
columbia92
goober
Posts: 73
Loc: NYC
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: This ESPN article addresses many of your posts *DELETED*
02-10-05 07:11 PM - Post#3747
In response to Ugokoko
Post deleted by columbia92
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Ben, Jerry and the P's
02-10-05 07:17 PM - Post#3748
In response to SFlaQuaker
Quote:
Really, do any of us see Dartmouth or Harvard making that top 4 regularly, let alone winning 2 games to make the tourney? Please.
I don't know the exact stat (though I should) but I believe Harvard has the third most league wins (behind the P's) over the last nine years and would have finished in fourth or better in six of those nine seasons.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: This ESPN article addresses many of your posts
02-10-05 07:19 PM - Post#3749
In response to columbia92
I would think that Andy wrote this article after Joe Lunardi completed his research (which is linked in the Glockner column) as to whether a regular season title or a conference tourney win was a harbinger for NCAA tournament success.
So much for your "unproven hypothesis" argument.
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: This ESPN article addresses many of your posts
02-10-05 07:26 PM - Post#3750
In response to columbia92
Given you work for the Columbia sports department, I would tend to think you're more biased than a reporter for a major website. But that's me.
|
columbia92
goober
Posts: 73
Loc: NYC
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: This ESPN article addresses many of your posts
02-10-05 08:44 PM - Post#3751
In response to Jeff2sf
My views are my own.
|
SFlaQuaker
Postdoc
Posts: 2427
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Ben, Jerry and the P's
02-10-05 08:53 PM - Post#3752
In response to mrjames
I'm talking about the league as it stands today. A four league tournament does even more to segregate the league, as you've now reduced the chance of the best team getting the bid, while still keeping half the teams out of the running.
|
|
|
Report Post
Quote Post
Quick Reply
|
|
Print Topic
Email Topic
4271 Views
|
|
|
|
|
