Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: ILT suggestions Author: Ivy Inquisitor (Improved Ivy Madness?) [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 21:17:36 03/16/24 Sat First of all I love the “Ivy Madness “ brand. Also having four bids is great because other conferences are playing for seeding Ivy is playing for bids. It’s exciting to see Brown (12-17) upset Princeton (24-3). Given today’s excitement this tournament can be improved. Last year Columbia WBB was robbed and it’ll almost certainly happen again. Granted, the WNIT is a suitable compromise given what Lions have proven the last three years they’re worthy of a NCAA at large bid. Tomorrow the same thing will happen to the Tigers MBB. Should the Ivy top seed have the same amount of obstacles as the four seed? How about revising the Ivy tournament to mitigate the obstacles for the top teams by a QF game #3 and 4#, # 2 gets the QF bye and # 1 is AQ spot in the league championship game? [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> Subject: Re: ILT suggestions Author: M3 [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 11:33:10 03/17/24 Sun There needs to be a better reward for winning the regular season championship than playing the #4 seed.

[> [> Subject: Re: ILT suggestions Author: Ivy Rules? [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 12:25:48 03/17/24 Sun How about this? Keep rotating sites but have 4 play 3 on Friday for the right to play 2 for the right to play 1. Top seed gets an earned double bye and second seed gets a bye. This would ensure that the regular season matters.

[> [> [> Subject: The Wheel of Fortune Author: An Observer [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 12:45:52 03/17/24 Sun This idea (#3 plays #4 for the right to play #2) is reasonable, but probably too "out of the box" for the people who run our tournament. That's not idle b--ching; our administrators have a pretty clear, pretty firm conception of the box they want to stay within. And let me be clear: It's not a bad box. Our four-team tournaments are so much better than the "everybody in the conference in the field" that everybody else runs, I am so grateful for that basic philosophical decision made on the heels of Bill Tierney's precedent that I can live with a lot of other decisions being wrong or suboptimal. Random observation: Our conference is perhaps the only one in the country where we can fit every school's name on the center court logo. What are the keys? A very short conference name, only eight members in the conference, two schools with extremely short names (Penn, Yale) and one close to it (Brown). That allows us to squeeze everybody onto the court. I wonder how much arguing went into giving Princeton, Yale, Brown and Columbia the better location on the wheel of names. Location, location, location.