dperry
Postdoc
Posts: 2214
Loc: Houston, TX
Reg: 11-24-04
|
02-18-05 05:53 AM - Post#4454
The big conferences have tournaments for precisely five reasons:
1.) money
2.) try to sneak an extra team into the NCAA's
3.) money
4.) give the sponsors a big event to schmooze their customers at
5.) did I mention money?
Well, 2 is unlikely to ever be an issue for the Ivies, and we're not that controlled by sponsors, so 4 is not necessary. The only way 1, 3, and 5 would ever happen with a Ivy tournament is if it's held at the Palestra or Jadwin. Of course, that kind of puts a damper on the idea of giving other teams a chance to win, but I won't mention that.
Small conferences have exactly three reasons to hold tournaments:
1.) Again, give sponsors somewhere to do schmoozing.
2.) "Minor league disease," i.e., the fear (whether justified or not) that the league will collapse if every team doesn't have a chance to win the championship until the very last possible moment.
3.) "Well, the big guys do it, so we got to do it too. . ."
Let's look at it differently. Remember the days when every conference was in our situation, only getting one bid to the NCAA's? Very few conferences had a tournament in those days, and only one major one, the ACC--and I suspect the reason they did it was to catch up with the older, more established conferences. It was only when the NCAA tournament expanded and the risk of having your regular-season champion get knocked out was gone that most conferences started having their own tournaments. And by the way, I don't remember the Big and Pac 10's suffering too badly all those years that they held out against tournaments. Ask yourself this question: did people start talking about the West Coast Conference when they started having a tournament, or did they start talking about it when Gonzaga started kicking butt in the Dance? Discuss amongst yourselves.
As far as media exposure goes, I daresay we get a lot MORE exposure nowadays, precisely because we are the only league without a tournament. The classic example was 2002. We were getting a major article on ESPN.com pretty much every week during the league season that year. Could Yale break the P stranglehold? Could Penn come back from the dead? Would there be a 3-way tie? On the other hand, I note in my NCAA record books that there several other small conferences that had ties for the regular-season championship that year. Anyone remember any of those leagues getting a lot of attention for their thrilling pennant races? No? I thought not.
For that matter, even this year, take a look at the recent Penn-Princeton game. With a tournament, there would have been a little mention of the game just because it's such a big rivalry, and afterwards there would have been a medium mention because of the spectacular conclusion. In real life, we got a decent amount of buzz beforehand on the theme of, "Can the Tigers save their season?" and afterwards, we got a whole snotload of buzz because "What a spectacular finish, and OH MY GOD, Princeton's already done for the year in the Ivy League!!!" Put differently, it's unlikely that this game would have made it onto the ESPN highlights if it didn't directly affect (at least in the media's perception) the fate of an NCAA bid. But as it is (and keep in mind that we'll get another mention when the bid is locked up), we've already gotten at least as much exposure as having a championship game at 4:30 on Wednesday afternoon is going to get us. Let me put it this way: I'll let you all have your poll of the players if you'll take another one as well. Ask them, when they were watching Championship Week as kids, how many of them were watching the Big East or the ACC as opposed to the MEAC or America East. If the results aren't at least 98%-2%, I'll eat my Palestra T-shirt.
And with respect to the idea of "experimenting" with things, how many government programs have we heard that about? Even if the tournament turned out to be a bad idea for the league as a whole, there are too many people whose short-term selfish interests would be helped by it. If we put a tournament in, it will never go away regardless of its effectiveness.
But on second thought, maybe we should encourage experimentation. Let's continue our trial program of Dwarves hiring good coaches and taking recruiting seriously. I mean, geez people, in the past five years, the Ivies have had their two best RPI years ever, and there have been three serious runs by non-P's at the title. Yes, this year has been a step back, but I suspect the way Brown, Columbia and Cornell are all developing, there will be several legitimate challenges in the next few years. And of course, all of this has been with only a little change in attitude by the other 6. Imagine what might happen if they really started applying some resources to the problem. The home port is in sight, folks. Let's not abandon ship until we're certain that we're not going to make it. . .
David Perry
Penn '92
"Hail, Alma Mater/Thy sons cheer thee now
To thee, Pennsylvania/All rivals must bow!!!" |
|
AsiaSunset
Postdoc
Posts: 4361
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Let's Get Real
02-18-05 09:09 AM - Post#4455
In response to dperry
David - this is pretty arrogant and, as such, typically Ivy. If you ever find yourself in a room with 33 graduates of other non Ivies and they all have one opinion and you hold another, stop and consider that you just might be out of the mainstream and it's likely that you are the one that isn't thinking correctly. We are out of the D1 mainstream. We don't have to compete in D1, but most of us want to stay here. We ought to revisit anything we do singularly when 300+ other teams, representing all different types of schools, have made a different decision
As for all that stuff trying to distinguish all the other sports on technical grounds, understand we could choose to decide the Ivy swim title based on round robin only. We choose not to. Instead we hold a 4 day multi school swim meet to make that determination. Wrestling doesn't have to participate in EIWAs. We don't need the Heps. All these titles could be decided through regular season events. We choose to organize these sports with year end multi school championships to pick our winner. These are great events. They truly are celebrations of Ivy sport.
If you believe Orleans (I know that's difficult sometimes) we don't do a bb tourney because of time commitment and scheduling issues. He doesn't raise any of the issues you do. But - time commitment and scheduling all seem like solvable problems, especially when you see how we stretch seasons for spring sports.
Heck - let's eliminate participation in lacrosse and baseball championships. They don't work very well with our school calendar. Afterall - we don't do football, supposedly for the same reason. There is precedent. Definitely kill the Yale-Harvard crew race. That takes place so many weeks after the end of school.
None of these are reasons not to have a bb tournament.
OK -we know I'm for it and you're against it. Let's let all the player's in the league, the coaches and ADs go on the record. We should keep the President's out of it. Collectively they represent the lowest common denominator and always will.
The league is broken. BB results over the past 40 years are a testament to that. Sure - the issue is a complex one to fully address. However - status quo arguments from a handful of Ant Hill King Fans shouldn't carry much weight. The tournament is an idea worth testing if the schools want it. And- there are 8 schools in the league - not two.
Lastly - a tournament clearly increases the value of each regular season game. It's no different than battling to get into the hockey playoffs or trying to be the wildcard team in baseball or football. Hey - the Red Sox won this year. That's great for baseball. But my team, the Yankees, won the regular season. I can handle it. They're the champs. It's about more than money. It's about keeping millions more fans involved.
|
Phil
Freshman
Posts: 75
Loc: Princeton
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Let's Get Real
02-18-05 01:04 PM - Post#4456
In response to AsiaSunset
"We don't need the Heps. All these titles could be decided through regular season events."
We don't have 'Heps' other than in name only since Navy were kicked out. There's no real way to decide the title based on regular season, it's completely antithetical to the nature of the sport.
|
Howard Gensler
Postdoc
Posts: 4141
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Let's Get Real
02-18-05 01:55 PM - Post#4457
In response to Phil
"OK -we know I'm for it and you're against it. Let's let all the player's in the league, the coaches and ADs go on the record. We should keep the President's out of it. Collectively they represent the lowest common denominator and always will."
And while we're at it, let's ask the students how they feel about tuition. Maybe we should give them a say on grading also. As fun as it is to propose the inmates running the asylum, why apply that only to basketball?
I completely agree with you that the Ivies are out of step with DI athletics. For some, that's their entire charm. Now I'm not one of those 1950s tweed-and-bowtie guys but I still don't see how a tournament addresses any of the problems.
As we head into the League's 4th weekend, are any of these game meaningless? No. Every team is still playing for something, either to get back in the race or to spoil the race, or to improve their young team for next year, etc.
The notion of the tournament helping the weaker teams, is, I believe, flawed. It would help the better teams because they'd be the ones getting the TV exposure.
The notion of there being some celebration of Ivy basketball at the end of the season? Come on. Where could you possibly hold the tournament that would be available, large enough and centrally located so that the Ps didn't completely overwhelm the attendance? In fact, you could hold it in New England and the Ps would overwhelm the attendance.
The fact will still remain that Penn is going to play its games in the 8700 seat Palestra in Philadelphia with local games against the Big 5 and Drexel. And Dartmouth is going to play in 2100 seat Leede Arena in Hanover with local games against New Hampshire and Keene. Princeton is still going to be a media darling with the "System" and Columbia is still going to play in a 4,000 seat fire trap accessible by a walk under exposed piping.
The League is fundamentally imbalanced. And the only thing that changes it is Penn and Princeton having bad years.
Of course, the League's response has been backwards - continually shrinking the the numbers of recruitable hoopsters via a higher AI and higher costs - even as the regionally and academically competitive Patriot League has gone to scholarships.
A tournament is putting the cart before the horse. Improve the depth of quality players in the League, force some of the bottom schools to improve their schedules, improve home attendance for the non-P games and that would do more for the League than a a 5 pm Championship Game on YES or ESPN2 ever could.
As I've said ad nauseum, the two Ps generally field Top 100 caliber teams.
When I last checked, RPI teams ranked between 101 and 199 had 143 wins against the Top 100. Teams ranked below 200 had 40 wins against the Top 100. By increasing financial aid enough to bring the talent pool up enough to get more Ivy teams into just the Top 200, you substantially increase their chances of knocking off the Ps. That's the way to make the League better. A tournament would either lead to more first round NCAA blow outs or (more likely) "Today on Championship Week, one of the most storied rivalries in college sports. Live from the historic Palestra, with the Ivy League crown at stake, it's Penn vs. Princeton! Next on ESPN2"
|
AsiaSunset
Postdoc
Posts: 4361
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Let's Get Real
02-18-05 01:59 PM - Post#4458
In response to Phil
Why do you say that? Track and Cross country have teams. There are scoring mechanisms for both sports when team A competes against team B. Teams can compete against each other head to head. The winner of head to head wins the title. All Ivy is based on best performances over the course of the year by individuals in the head to heads. Exactly what is the problem? In swimming we actually hold many tri school events but we produce head to head scores for each of the participants. We could do the same in track.
The Ivy championships are great. Believe me I'm not arguing we get rid of the Heps. Or the IC4As or the NCAAs. But - they are no more logical in these sports than in any others. Remember the objection to the bb tournament is logistics and time commitment (or at least that's the company line). Why is Yale rowing against Harvard in June? Why is Princeton playing lacrosse on Memorial Day weekend? Where's the consistency?
Scholarships represent policy. The Presidents need to decide policy issues and everyone agrees it's not happening. But an 11th game, a bb tourney. These are administrative. Honestly who cares what you think or what I think? The players, coaches and ADs ought to decide this stuff. I'm pretty sure what the majority would settle on in this case although format/location/time would all be variables that might differ from what any one of us might think as optimal. The Presidents will probably never give this anything but 30 seconds of disinterested attention. As a result Coach Sullivan probably reflected reality in his post game comments the other week.
Hey - we're going to the dance in all likelihood. Why should I care? It's over for everybody else (unless something very improbable happens this weekend). But - I actually think that's a sad result for the league.
|
AsiaSunset
Postdoc
Posts: 4361
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Let's Get Real
02-18-05 02:06 PM - Post#4459
In response to Howard Gensler
Howard - you know I respect your opinion, but this post is mostly specious. What the players feel is important, does impact recruiting and importantly effects outside perception of the league. I said poll the players, not let them determine the outcome. The ADs with input from both players and their coaches should make this decision. Clearly the Presidents should not.
As I said let's try it. We don't even need to make the NCAA bid go to the winner during the trial.
|
Howard Gensler
Postdoc
Posts: 4141
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Let's Get Real
02-18-05 03:31 PM - Post#4460
In response to AsiaSunset
Hey, if you can get the eight schools to agree to a post-season Ivy tourney that will NOT affect the NCAA birth (but could help a second or third team perhaps get another win to get an NIT birth) I'm all for it. But don't expect too many people besides you and me to be there.
|
AsiaSunset
Postdoc
Posts: 4361
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Let's Get Real
02-18-05 03:45 PM - Post#4461
In response to Howard Gensler
Howard - We might both be pleasantly surprised. Hey - I'm shut out for the 26th, a game which in all likelihood is going to be fairly meaningless as we've tossed about that term in this thread.
|
Phil
Freshman
Posts: 75
Loc: Princeton
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Let's Get Real
02-18-05 05:13 PM - Post#4462
In response to AsiaSunset
"Why do you say that? Track and Cross country have teams. There are scoring mechanisms for both sports when team A competes against team B. Teams can compete against each other head to head. The winner of head to head wins the title. All Ivy is based on best performances over the course of the year by individuals in the head to heads. Exactly what is the problem?"
Because the whole point of the sport is maximizing individual performance, which it is only possible to maintain for a short period of time (typically a few weeks, maybe 3 times a year). Consequently training and competition is periodized to achieve a peak at a certain time of the year (the championship seasons). A succession of dual meets (or tri-meets) which were all equally important to deciding the championships doesn't make sense. In the context of the Ivies only the ones between Princeton, Penn and Cornell would be meaningful anyway. Also in a scored dual meet system you end up with a different hierarchy, depth counting for more than individual excellence (this becomes more so the higher up the ladder you go, Stanford won NCAAs a few years ago with 5 athletes doubling up, no throwers, no sprinters and one jumper. Heps (now really the Ivies) isn't as extreme as that but it is still different from dual meets. Also the National championships closely follow the Heps and it is possible to maintain performance, if say the Penn/Cornell/PU tri-meet was held early in the season you'd have to peak then and not be in shape for Nationals etc. This is a sport where Ivy athletes do compete at the highest level (Olympics) if you had the structure you suggest that would be over.
|
AsiaSunset
Postdoc
Posts: 4361
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Let's Get Real
02-18-05 06:03 PM - Post#4463
In response to Phil
Phil - I understand the distinction you are making, but I don't see why this is necessarily any different than other sports where individual performance is highlighted but a full round of duals are held. Take swimming for example.
I think peaking for the Heps does make sense and I think the winner should be called the Ivy champ. I agree an Ivy swim meet makes sense as well. Yet - one could argue that the team playing the best basketball in March might best represent our league and in all cases that wouldn't necessarily be the league leader. If Princeton beats up all our closest competitors and we come into the final weekend, dump two games and get blown out in Jadwin, we'd be dancing, but not for long.
Yet - I think the stronger argument is to broaden this thing beyond Penn and Princeton. The league results over the years clearly tell the story. Your season is basically over, but it wouldn't be if you were still fighting for 4th place in a 4 team Ivy tourney and had a legitimate shot at the Ncaas with a terrific late season run.
Track and swimming seem to be organized differently but both in a manner best suited to optimize the experience of Ivy athletes. With bb, if you believe the Ivy Council's office, it seems to be a logistics/time commitment issue. The fundamental disagreement on this board is what's best for the league and our athletes. I'm simply saying the wrong people are making the decision on this one. It shouldn't be us and it certainly shouldn't be the Ivy Presidents.
Every coach other than Joe Scott whom I've heard speak on this issue favors a tournament. That kind of says it all for me.
|
SFlaQuaker
Postdoc
Posts: 2427
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Let's Get Real
02-18-05 06:28 PM - Post#4464
In response to AsiaSunset
If I was coaching a team that hadn't gone to the tourney in decades and didn't look to be going anytime soon, I'd sure as hell be in favor of a tourney as well.
|
AsiaSunset
Postdoc
Posts: 4361
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Let's Get Real
02-18-05 06:34 PM - Post#4465
In response to SFlaQuaker
So I guess you readily understand that the selfish interests of two programs wouldn't probably control outcome especially when the head coach of one of the two understands and has publicly stated that he feels it's a good thing for the league.
|
SFlaQuaker
Postdoc
Posts: 2427
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Let's Get Real
02-18-05 06:42 PM - Post#4466
In response to AsiaSunset
As usual, I just don't agree with Dunphy. I also don't see it as selfish. We've earned each and every tourney bid by being the best team over a 14 (or 15) game schedule.
|
AsiaSunset
Postdoc
Posts: 4361
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Let's Get Real
02-18-05 06:49 PM - Post#4467
In response to SFlaQuaker
I understand and you are not alone on this. But - if it were up to the key bb people at our schools and not the Ivy Council, we'd have one, just like the other 30+ leagues
|
SFlaQuaker
Postdoc
Posts: 2427
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Let's Get Real
02-18-05 07:04 PM - Post#4468
In response to AsiaSunset
By no means do I disagree with you that the wrong people are making the decision. If the coaches and ADs were, even if I didn't agree, I would respect it.
My disagreement with you is that you believe there should be a tourney, and I don't. But at this point, the chances of either of us changing our minds seems pretty slim. So I guess we're going to just have to agree to disagree.
|
AsiaSunset
Postdoc
Posts: 4361
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Let's Get Real
02-18-05 07:46 PM - Post#4469
In response to SFlaQuaker
We do disagree and my read of the majority of Penn fans on this board is that they agree with you. Yet - getting a proper perspective on this bb issue from Penn or Princeton fans is a bit like asking Walmart it's opinion on what's good for small town America.
|
Howard Gensler
Postdoc
Posts: 4141
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Let's Get Real
02-18-05 07:50 PM - Post#4470
In response to AsiaSunset
Quote:
But - if it were up to the key bb people at our schools and not the Ivy Council, we'd have one, just like the other 30+ leagues
You seem to think Bilsky supports this idea but the only time I've ever heard him say anything even remotely supportive of a tournament was when he tied it to the other schools first improving their programs and their schedules.
His behind-the-scenes anti-tournament stance also allows Fran his populist pro-tournament view with no fear that he actually may have to deal with the ramifications of a tournament.
|
AsiaSunset
Postdoc
Posts: 4361
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Let's Get Real
02-18-05 08:08 PM - Post#4471
In response to Howard Gensler
Howard - here's a pretty good article dated 2001 on the subject/process http://www.dailypennsylvanian.com/vnews/display.v/ART/3af972569f7f1?in_archive=1
I think you see a splintering of opinion between coaches and ADs. I think the ADs might think differently if the Presidents were taken out of the loop. They tend to avoid battles they no they can't win.
Anyway - it's a pretty comprehennsive discussion of the issues.
|
SFlaQuaker
Postdoc
Posts: 2427
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Let's Get Real
02-18-05 08:25 PM - Post#4472
In response to AsiaSunset
And asking fans of the non-P's is like asking the peasants in czarist Russia if the upper class should share their wealth....we all know how that turned out.
Maybe the Big Red should spearhead the movement...
|
Bob S.
newbie
Posts: 25
Loc: New York
Reg: 11-26-04
|
Re: Let's Get Real
02-21-05 03:44 AM - Post#4473
In response to SFlaQuaker
In the 12 school ECAC Hockey League which includes six Ivy League schools they play a two game round-robin with one another plus and end of the season playoff culminating in Albany. The college hockey season is seemingly endless with the season starting for most schools the first week of October and for the Ivies the last week of October with season going into mid-March and even further with the NCAAs. Contrast this with the basketball situation.
|
