Ivy League Meets Today...

[CornellFan]

...to discuss March Madness.  Will the Ivy League add a conference tournament?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/07/sports/ncaabasketball/07ivy.html?em&ex=1165640400&en=3da5c760d02a3662&ei=5087%0A

[ugarte]

Cornell Coach Steve Donahue added that it could benefit the league on the national stage; Ivy League teams have won only three N.C.A.A. tournament games in the last decade. "We haven't done well in the N.C.A.A. tournament," he said. "Maybe this will enable the team that's hot, the best team at the time the tournament comes about, to give us a better showing."

Donohue's reason for a playoff is pretty awful. Hot team? We've typically sent a team with one or fewer conference losses of late. Sounds pretty hot to me.

If either Penn or Princeton choked in the conference tournament in the years that they won NCAA tournament games we would have zero NCAA tournament wins instead of three. In each case we would have had a lower seed (probably a 16) - which means a worse team playing a better opponent. Maybe we would have won the PIG 4 times...

This isn't a vote for or against a tournament (this is: against) but I think Donohue is trying the "throw-it-all-against-the-wall" strategy here.

[CornellFan]

Why the Ivies Should Create a Postseason Tournament?

The Answer is simple folks. Adding a postseason tournament will create
parity in the Ivy League and make each season exciting. I am not talking
about making the month of March exciting for a 1-13 Ivy team. I am talking about making the entire year exciting, year after year. Let me explain...

As the Ivy League stands today, when a top caliber high school basketball
recruit has to select an Ivy League school, he will generally choose either
Penn or Princeton, that is if he hopes to one day play in the NCAA
tournament. Certainly kids may choose Cornell over the Ps if they
want playing time immediately. Other kids may choose Harvard or Yale over
the Ps if they value historical "academic reputation" over basketball
program success. But still, the majority of today's top level high school
recruits will on the whole choose attending Penn or Princeton over the
other six Ivy schools because of the HUGELY increased chance of playing in
the postseason tournament. Throw in a comparable Ivy education to the
other six schools and it is a great deal for the recruit. I mean, is an
education at Penn really that inferior to Harvard? Of course not. So, why
not get that Penn degree AND play in the NCAAs? Easy choice for most top
basketball recruits.

So—how do we change the recruiting landscape and create a bit more parity
where Penn and Princeton do not get their pick and choose of the best Ivy
prospects?

Add a conference tournament and suddenly the recruiting playing field
becomes more level for the eight member schools. Why? Well, as soon as a
non-P clinches that first ever elusive NCAA bid via conference tournament,
the ultimate result is that high school recruits realize there are alternative routes outside of Penn and Princeton in getting to the NCAAs. Now the recruiting playing field is balanced and the lure of playing at Penn or Princeton begins to dwindle.

The Ps will no longer be your ticket to a guaranteed ride to the NCAA
tournament via 14 games. Instead, they will now have to avoid upset year
after year over a 3 day weekend.  The resulting balance in recruiting will further result in more exciting regular seasons—where Penn and Princeton will not be expected to go 12-2 let a lone 14-0 each season.

Finally, if basketball conferences such as the CAA, Missouri Valley, and Horizon can get two or more teams to the big dance, then so can the Ivies.

[KeithK]

I vote against.  We've got a balanced schedule in the Ivy League.  The team that wins the most games after a 14 game home and home round robin has shown that it is the best team in the conference that year (or at least has played best on the court). That team deserves to be the champion.  That team also probably has the best chance of winning in the NCAAs, if that is a goal for the league.

If Princeton and Penn are consistently the best teams, why shjould they lose the championship because a mediorce Harvard team had a couple of good games at the right time?

Conference tournaments just strike me as a bunch of egalatrian "let everyone have a chance to win" hogwash, coupled with greed the few extra dollars.  I say get rid of 'em or keep 'em away when you haven't fallen into the trap yet. (I have said this on the hockey side too, lest anyone try to catch me there.)

[CornellFan]

If Penn and Princeton are the best-- then lets see them win 3 in a row in a playoff situation.

If they can't do that... then they don't deserve to go to the BIG dance.

[KeithK]

[quote CornellFan]If Penn and Princeton are the best-- then lets see them win 3 in a row in a playoff situation.

If they can't do that... then they don't deserve to go to the BIG dance.[/quote]I have a different philosophy. You earn the championship over the long season, not in three games at the end.  Some day I will convince the world that I'm right!!! (This will be right after I make my fourth or fifth billion and am appointed benign dictator...)

[ugarte]

[quote KeithK][quote CornellFan]If Penn and Princeton are the best-- then lets see them win 3 in a row in a playoff situation.

If they can't do that... then they don't deserve to go to the BIG dance.[/quote]I have a different philosophy. You earn the championship over the long season, not in three games at the end.  Some day I will convince the world that I'm right!!! (This will be right after I make my fourth or fifth billion and am appointed benign dictator...)[/quote]4 or 5 billion will get you benign dictator of New York City. I hate to burst your bubble, but you are going to have to keep working after that first 5 billion.

[ugarte]

[quote CornellFan]If they can't do that... then they don't deserve to go to the BIG dance.[/quote]Bah. If you want a tournament, have a tournament. The final will be shown at ESPN2 on Tuesday at midnight. It might make some money. Don't pretend that you are getting a "hot" team or the best team or deciding who "deserves" anything.

The tournament champion 'deserves' to go to the tournament if everyone agrees that the prize for winning the conference tournament is a trip to the NCAA tournament, but it doesn't prove anything else.

And for god's sake, man, don't start talking about at-large bids when Keith is reading the thread! You might as well head over to the other hot JSID thread and suggest that a government committee should choose the best teams for the postseason.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

Frankly if they want a tournament to make more money, let the football champion play in the D1-AA tournament.  Basketball is working fine.

[ugarte]

[quote Jeff Hopkins '82]Frankly if they want a tournament to make more money, let the football champion play in the D1-AA tournament.  Basketball is working fine.[/quote]Seconded.

[KeithK]

[quote ugarte]And for god's sake, man, don't start talking about at-large bids when Keith is reading the thread! You might as well head over to the other hot JSID thread and suggest that a government committee should choose the best teams for the postseason.[/quote]Deep down everyone knows how tournament bids should in fact be decided - by the whim of yours truly, the benign dictator of NYC!

[Al DeFlorio]

[quote CornellFan]If Penn and Princeton are the best-- then lets see them win 3 in a row in a playoff situation.

If they can't do that... then they don't deserve to go to the BIG dance.[/quote]
Harvard hockey has won three [series] in a row a number of times recently in the ECACs.  Hasn't meant crap in the BIG dance.

[Chris '03]

I can see the Ivy presidents doing something dumb like saying there will be a tournament but it will be the week of the first round of the NCAAs. The Ivy League will give up its NCAA bid so the student athletes can focus on spring break.

[billhoward]

A playoff increases the odds of two Ivy teams going to the tournament: the playoff winner and the regular season champ which, if upset in the playoffs, will argue it also deserves a shot since it's as good as the third-best team in another conference that got three bids.

More playoff games mean more time away from class. They also mean chances for your best players getting hurt and for the team as a whole to be worn down further.

It would be exciting, at least for Ivy Leaguers.

Then there's location. Odds are it's not going to be in Newman or Barton Hall. Palestra? Madison Square Garden (it would be centrally located)? Or just on the campuses of the higher-seeded teams?

A basketball playoff might shine some light on the odd prohibition of the Ivy football champ not being in the playoffs.

[Rita]

[quote billhoward]A playoff increases the odds of two Ivy teams going to the tournament: the playoff winner and the regular season champ which, if upset in the playoffs, will argue it also deserves a shot since it's as good as the third-best team in another conference that got three bids.

More playoff games mean more time away from class. They also mean chances for your best players getting hurt and for the team as a whole to be worn down further.

It would be exciting, at least for Ivy Leaguers.

Then there's location. Odds are it's not going to be in Newman or Barton Hall. Palestra? Madison Square Garden (it would be centrally located)? Or just on the campuses of the higher-seeded teams?

A basketball playoff might shine some light on the odd prohibition of the Ivy football champ not being in the playoffs.[/quote]

Probably not MSG...They have the Big East Men's Tourney, and I think some years, the Women's tourney too.

I think it would be a tough sell to get 2 Ivy League teams into the big dance, and if that were to come to fruition, it is likely the "underdog tourney winner" would get a trip to Dayton, Ohio and the play-in game for the right to be a #1 seed's first round cupcake.