Brian Martin
Masters Student
Posts: 963
Loc: Washington, DC
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: A shocking concept...
02-11-05 02:44 PM - Post#3773
In response to AsiaSunset
In a one-bid league, the regular season champ should at least get home court advantage.
The Patriot tournament this year will have the 1 seed host a 4-5, 1-8 doubleheader and the 2-seed host the 3-6, 2-7 games on March 4 (Friday). The winners play at the same sites on Sunday March 6. Then the final is at the highest remaining seed at 4:30 on Friday March 11, a crappy time dictated by ESPN. The Patriot final is on ESPN2 as the filler between sessions of the ACC quarterfinals. ESPN will show a Conference USA semifinal at the same time, followed by Big East semifinals. So the Patriot final gets a poor TV time and maybe 10 seconds of highlights after all the major highlights.
|
columbia92
goober
Posts: 73
Loc: NYC
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: A shocking concept...
02-11-05 03:27 PM - Post#3774
In response to Brian Martin
Quote:
In a one-bid league, the regular season champ should at least get home court advantage.
The Patriot tournament this year will have the 1 seed host a 4-5, 1-8 doubleheader and the 2-seed host the 3-6, 2-7 games on March 4 (Friday). The winners play at the same sites on Sunday March 6. Then the final is at the highest remaining seed at 4:30 on Friday March 11, a crappy time dictated by ESPN. The Patriot final is on ESPN2 as the filler between sessions of the ACC quarterfinals. ESPN will show a Conference USA semifinal at the same time, followed by Big East semifinals. So the Patriot final gets a poor TV time and maybe 10 seconds of highlights after all the major highlights.
Yes, but they will all point to "being on ESPN".
Given how this board lights up when anyone on ESPN mentions anything Penn without adding State after it (See: Derosa, Mark) perhaps it's not such an anathema.
No recruit outside of Philly watches the Comcast nets. Few outside of the NYC area care about YES. EVERYONE watches ESPN.
That we think "purity" is more important than anything else, spits in the face of ESPN and everything they have done over 25 years.
By the way, the arguments put forward by those who are opposed to an Ivy tournament are the same ones that the BCS conference fans use to denigrate our conference of a whole. I mean, why should Penn, Bucknell and Fairfield even go to the tournament. If they won, it would be a big fluke. After all, North Carolina and Wake Forest commit much more to their basketball programs than Penn. Penn should show more of a committment to basketball to deserve a chance to play for the national title.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: A shocking concept...
02-11-05 03:30 PM - Post#3775
In response to AsiaSunset
Asia, I just don't buy any of these arguments. It seems to me that the reason that Ivy B-ball isn't 'top of the mind' is because its a very mediocre league. For a really talented kid (with the grades/scores that chooses to take a full scholarship from Northwestern or Vandy or Duke or Stanford) is he really likely to change his mind because a goofy tournament is on ESPN2 for a couple of afternoon/evenings? Anyone who thinks that a significant upgrade in talent for the league (overall) would happen as a result of a tourney truly has their head in the sand. About the only possible consequence is that one or two kids that would go to a P would end up at another Ivy. I think that's why C92 likes the idea. Unfortunately, that doesn't help the league... Over time all that it would accomplish is to have all the programs in the league move towards the mean (which is happening anyway). Unfortunately, that mean won't move up. So, instead of having one of the P's beat an occasional powerful opponent the whole league will be condemned to playing the Stony Brook's of the world to get a few non-conference wins.
A few random thoughts:
1)The only purpose I can see for a tournament is if it will either bring more money into the programs and/or open up the possibility of a second NCAA bid. I don't see much likelyhood that a tourney produces significant profits and no chance it helps get a second bid.
2)The Ivies have priced themselves out of contention for many, many academically qualified kids. The family with an $80-100K household income faces a huge financial decision to send a kid to the Ivies no matter how you slice and dice it (as compared to a full scholarship somewhere else). With tuition having risen signficantly faster than average household income this problem will likely continue to widen the gulf that parents/kids have to bridge in order to go Ivy.
3)People who think that the Ivies can improve the overall quality of the league without solving the financial inequities and while playing in D-III quality facilities are the ones that have their heads in the sand. Any changes that don't deal first with bridging the financial gap and then with the facilities is akin to moving the chairs around on the deck of the Titanic.
4)the notion that a tournament will likely rearrange the power structure in the league isn't born out by looking at other marginal conferences. Take America East...when Drexel and Delaware were in the conference they won the tourney almost every year. After they left BU/VT/NE won just about every year. Has a tourney helped the conference, overall? I doubt it...or it woudn't have had all the programs leave that did. What helps a league is having several programs that can get national attention. That comes from playing and beating Top 50-100 teams. Even the P's seem largely incapable of winning these kinds of games any longer. Until and unless the Ivies can regularly produce teams that can compete with progams that DO have a high profile the rest of this really is just BS.
|
columbia92
goober
Posts: 73
Loc: NYC
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Asia, what's gotten into your head?
02-11-05 03:35 PM - Post#3776
In response to Howard Gensler
Howard, I see the light.
I guess we should eliminate divisional play in baseball, too. The Steelers should have repped the AFC in the Super Bowl! And whats with the NBA Finals? Jeez, why not just give the hardware to the best record? In fact, the Premiership in England shouldn't even send it's second best team to the UEFA Champions League, because it's just not right. And the FA cup, don't get me started, I mean, who wants to see a 3rd division team have a shot of playing against a premiership squad?
The only athletic organization that does not believe in post-season knockout-style competition is ours. It's anachronistic and only serves to insulate those at the top.
The vituperative nature of most arguments only indicates that those who are against the idea are scared.
|
columbia92
goober
Posts: 73
Loc: NYC
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: A shocking concept...
02-11-05 03:41 PM - Post#3777
In response to
The backhanded comment on D-3 facilities belies the truth.
Most 1-AA football schools have similarly sized basketball facilities. D-3 schools like Macalester College and Williams do not have 3,000 seat basketball facilities. The notion that Penn and Princeton have the only two legit D-1 facilities is bogus and a red herring to the debate.
While people may debate the ability of a tournament to make money for itself, nobody has answered whether apathy on six campi from Mid February on is good for the league as a whole. It isn't, and it plays into the arguments of the Furstenbergs of the world that sports don't belong at our schools.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Asia, what's gotten into your head?
02-11-05 03:51 PM - Post#3778
In response to columbia92
Quote:
Howard, I see the light.
I guess we should eliminate divisional play in baseball, too. The Steelers should have repped the AFC in the Super Bowl! And whats with the NBA Finals? Jeez, why not just give the hardware to the best record? In fact, the Premiership in England shouldn't even send it's second best team to the UEFA Champions League, because it's just not right. And the FA cup, don't get me started, I mean, who wants to see a 3rd division team have a shot of playing against a premiership squad?
The only athletic organization that does not believe in post-season knockout-style competition is ours. It's anachronistic and only serves to insulate those at the top.
The vituperative nature of most arguments only indicates that those who are against the idea are scared.
Boy your arguments are getting weaker and weaker by the minute.
The Ivy does (for hoops purposes, don't get me started on football) believe in postseason knockout competition. We do send our champion to the NCAA tourney, remember, which is just that. And in the NBA, NFL, MLB, etc....the team with the BEST RECORD OVER THE REGULAR SEASON is the one that gets a spot (or spots, but the number of postseason berths is not an issue here) in the playoffs. So thanks for using the professional sports leagues to prove our point.
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Asia, what's gotten into your head?
02-11-05 03:51 PM - Post#3779
In response to columbia92
Actually, yes, that's correct. There shouldn't be playoffs. You know there's no such thing as clutch, and that the Red Sox just happened to be lucky over the course of 7 games. The Yankees were the best team over 162 games and they deserved the title, it should not be based on some ridiculous 7 game series. Now of course, we can't change that, but that doesn't mean we have to adopt that poor idea either. The champion should be the best team in the league. We happen to be the only team that decides things that way. They should follow us, not the other way round.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32835
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Wrong Again, As Usual
02-11-05 04:30 PM - Post#3780
In response to columbia92
Something about your statement objecting to the comparison of the arenas in the non-P schools with Division III gyms struck me as manufactured, so I went and compared facilities at 3 NESCAC Div III schools, Williams, Bowdoin and Hamilton with 3 Ivies, Dartmouth, Harvard and Brown:
Williams: 1561 (plus standing room)
Hamilton: 2000
Bowdoin: 2500
Dartmouth: 2000
Harvard: 2195
Brown: 2800
So while you may be right that few Div. 3 schools have 3000 seat arenas, the fact is that few Ivy schools have arenas bigger than that...in reality, only 2 do. The remaining 6 have gyms that are right on par with Division 3 programs...if anything, the NESCAC gyms are newer and in much better shape. And they don't get the 1/9 share of an NCAA bid payout that one of the P's earns for you guys every year. You want the glory? Show the commitment.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: A shocking concept...
02-11-05 04:59 PM - Post#3781
In response to columbia92
Quote:
Most 1-AA football schools have similarly sized basketball facilities. D-3 schools like Macalester College and Williams do not have 3,000 seat basketball facilities. The notion that Penn and Princeton have the only two legit D-1 facilities is bogus and a red herring to the debate.
Possibly you should rephrase that to "most marginal 1-AA football programs have..."
Care to compare BU, Nova, Delaware, SIU, Montana, Hofstra, Lehigh, W&M, JMU, WKU, etc.'s b-ball facilities with the 2500-2800 seat gym's that the non-P's have? Those are the successful 1-AA football programs and they all have arena's that are 2-4x the size of the dingy gyms that most Ivy teams play in. I think that the non-P facilities are much closer to those at schools like NYU than they are to any of the programs listed above.
If your point is that bad football programs also have bad basketball programs and bad basketball facilities I'd agree with you. Though, I'm not sure that's what the Ivies should be aspiring to.
Lastly, we could always compare resources among the various schools and certainly all of non-P's would end up at the bottom of any ranking that takes into account the financial resources available versus the quality of facilities provided to basketball.
|
Howard Gensler
Postdoc
Posts: 4141
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Asia, what's gotten into your head?
02-11-05 05:54 PM - Post#3782
In response to columbia92
Quote:
Howard, I see the light.
I guess we should eliminate divisional play in baseball, too. The Steelers should have repped the AFC in the Super Bowl! And whats with the NBA Finals? Jeez, why not just give the hardware to the best record? In fact, the Premiership in England shouldn't even send it's second best team to the UEFA Champions League, because it's just not right. And the FA cup, don't get me started, I mean, who wants to see a 3rd division team have a shot of playing against a premiership squad?
The only athletic organization that does not believe in post-season knockout-style competition is ours. It's anachronistic and only serves to insulate those at the top.
The vituperative nature of most arguments only indicates that those who are against the idea are scared.
Yeah, we're scared. We're scared that you think you deserve championships you don't earn.
There is one reason - and only one reason - why pro leagues and major conferences have expanded playoffs and tournaments. BIG $$$. That's why they keep adding rounds and games. More games equals more commercials which equals more $$$. It has nothing to do with the quality and fairness of the competition.
Most small conference tournaments LOSE money. Some of them have to pay to get their championship game on ESPN.
You get ESPN to sign a multi-million dollar contract with the Ivy League and get us three nights of TV from the Garden and I'll be right there with you, cheering on the Quakers.
Or let me rephrase this: You believe a tournament will help the non-Ps better compete witht he Ps. I don't buy the premise but let's pretend it's true. You therefore want the Ps to give up something (the notion that winning the most games in the regular season makes you the champion) in order to help make your team more competitive. So what are you prepared to offer in this negotiation? It seems to me that you don't like the present set-up,not because it's unfair (what could be more fair than a 14-game round-robin tournament), but because your team hasn't had the success you desire.
Since 1993, five or six times the P winner has gone undefeated. Two times there was a playoff (essentially a small tournament). In a one-team bid conference how could it possibly be fair to make an undefeated team play two more games? In a tie year, you're already getting your championship game.
So pretend I'm the Penn AD and you're the Columbia AD and make me a proposal (other than the system now stinks) that shows how agreeing to a tournament is going to raise the level of your play (and the League's play) and also allow me to play at the level I want to play at.
(And lastly, the lack of a tournament is hardly our fine League's most anachronistic trait. You might want to put that into your proposal.)
|
columbia92
goober
Posts: 73
Loc: NYC
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Competitiveness
02-11-05 07:44 PM - Post#3783
In response to Howard Gensler
Quote:
Or let me rephrase this: You believe a tournament will help the non-Ps better compete witht he Ps. I don't buy the premise but let's pretend it's true. You therefore want the Ps to give up something (the notion that winning the most games in the regular season makes you the champion) in order to help make your team more competitive.
Funny how people will read things into comments that haven't been said.
This thread was about the impact on the league from the standpoint of interest not competitiveness.
Competitiveness is not about winning the title, but rather the appearance of it. We live in a short-attention span universe. Call it the MTV generation or the Entertainment Economy or whatever, but people expect more than watching boys try hard for the sake of trying when they go to a basketball game. Ever notice how many kids love the Phanatic more than Jim Thome? Having something to play for provides compelling drama and storyline to the games. When the league is a runaway, that disappears. When the drama disappears, people lose interest.
For students and alumni of six schools in this conference there has been no reason to pay attention to Ivy basketball for the better part of 30 years.
How do we change that? Obviously the Penn fans here don't think it's important that league-wide interest is generated. So does the league office. It's confounding to many alumni as to why this conference, with terrific brand equity, can't leverage itself to generate more revenue.
People can talk about facilities all they want, but it's much more than that. There's no interest in 80% of the league games. Why? The league's system and philosophy.
We may be "real" basketball fans and understand the difference between a box-and-one and a matchup 2-3. Most people on this planet don't. They do understand the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat. Victory becomes much less thrilling for spectators if it is meaningless to the story. Nobody gets all pumped up to see their team finish 5th instead of 6th.
The reason the Olympics succeed on TV is because they're very heavily edited to create pathos. In person, it's verrry boring. Our league tries to eliminate the entertainment portion of spectator sports. Based on the opinions of many here, the league would do well to play the games in empty gyms and report the scores afterwards. After all, it's only about winning games, and rewarding the players.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32835
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Come On
02-11-05 08:03 PM - Post#3784
In response to columbia92
Time and time again, your solution for what we all agree is apathy and non-competitiveness for the non-Ps is to have a tournament so there is a lottery's chance of winning (and embarrassing the League in the NCAA tournament if they win that tournament). How can you not see that there are 6 Ivy schools in areas with significant populations of real basketball fans? If you improve the product, PEOPLE WILL COME. You are too smart to keep ignoring the facts---make a committment, spend some money, promote your product and your school, and it will be a worthwhile investment. IF you disagree with this, you really agree with Furstenberg and your school should drop to Division III. There is no reason why we should go with you. We are going in circles with this now----as a CU law alum, I know how many people would go nuts at a truly competitive CU program and how many would get season tickets if they didn't have to go to as woeful a facility as Levien. Frankly, having "listened" to you for several years now, and knowing your affiliation with the University, I am surprised that you are so "unplugged" to what is going on. CU will make a committment, they will invest in their school and the interests of CU lie with Penn and Princeton---not against them.
Now let's let this dog lie and have it out on the court tonight.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Competitiveness
02-11-05 08:19 PM - Post#3785
In response to columbia92
The arguements here seem to be that a league tourney will some how help the non-P's become more competitive with the P's. I don't buy that; whatever recruiting advantages that the P's enjoy are the result of some combination of geography, basketball history/tradition and institutional commitment. I don't see how a tourney would address any of these issues, not do I think a new 7500 seat facility would do great things for any of the non-P's, unless it signaled some significant new level of institutional support. URI could have done a lot more for it's program by hanging on to Al Skinner rather than building a very expensive building (2-7 A-10, 4-16 overall). I don't think major changes in cirriculum, financial aid or admissions are in the near term future in the Ivy League. I think we should be spending our time enjoying what we have.
|
light blue heavy
maximus
Posts: 164
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Come On
02-11-05 08:19 PM - Post#3786
In response to palestra38
i agree that its time to let this one go. I do think it makes more sense FINANCIALLY for the league to make a relatively minor and reversable investment in a tourney and a commitment to giving schools a better chance to win the league before any school without a basketball tradition should invest in an arena. I think that the converse of what you say, p38, is true too: the interests of the P's lie with everyone else in the league. Your conservatism is understandable, but I strongly disagree with it,
Of course, this has nothing to do with the question of does a tourney improve league basketall, which apparently is not as clear-cut as I thought it would be. I will forego any further comment on it at this time, in consideration of my own sanity.
Independant of this, I wholeheartedly agree that Columbia should build an arena. Though there is so much conflict over the westside expansion as-is that I doubt the administration has the type of freedom that some of the other posters might assume. Hopefully can develop some type of relationship with MSG and get some more games down there, which would be fantastic. I have no idea how this stuff works though.
|
|
|
Report Post
Quote Post
Quick Reply
|
|
Print Topic
Email Topic
4270 Views
|
|
|
|
|
