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: Re: Of course, in other contexts... Author: Bengal [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 11:25:28 05/22/24 Wed In reply to: Go Green 's message, "Of course, in other contexts..." on 10:55:39 05/22/24 Wed Such a team may or may not fit that bill, but so what? That definition is largely a dodge, easily illustrated. That definition would require a philosopher-king in the sport in question. Back when Princeton men's basketball played the full Carril style, and even as late as into the 2000s as the style was slowly tweaked, one could make the case that in some years when P come in second, or worse in the League, it would have fared better in the NCAAs than the League winner. Why, because more talented teams who had not seen this style of play would have been more susceptible to an upset than to a more conventional style League winner. So what? You play 14 games, a one game playoff on a neutral site if there is a tie, and you earn your bid. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Of course, in other contexts... Author: observer [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 14:42:58 05/22/24 Wed The team that "deserves" to go is the one that wins the games required to qualify. Ask the Carolina Hurricanes if their superior Corsi made them deserve to reach the Eastern Conference Finals this year. Or the 1981 Cincinnati Reds about being the most deserving. The teams knew the stakes going in. You have to win the games that count.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Of course, in other contexts... Author: Bengal [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 17:50:20 05/22/24 Wed Thanks. But the issue I have been addressing, which your statement evades, is what games should be required to qualify for the NCAAS in various Ivy sports, i.e. which games should count? Just the regular season record? A playoff or tiebreaker in tie situations where there is no Ivy tournament? An Ivy tournament? What do you think? BTW, I am unaware that any Ivy championship eligible sport uses a divisional system today with different or more games played against some Ivy rivals than others, as Ivy baseball once did, which necessarily presented a different scenario. I might be missing something there. Or where strike induced adjustments impacted post-season bids.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Most Valid Way of Determining Best Team Author: Boston Lion [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 15:50:38 05/23/24 Thu Fully concur. The issue really IS, as stated by Bengal, "which games should be required to qualify for the NCAAs in various Ivy sports, i.e. which games should count? Just the regular season record? A playoff or tiebreaker in tie situations where there is no Ivy tournament? An Ivy tournament?" Examining that, one way of looking at this is to ask, holding all other things (e.g., injuries) equal, which of the of the following is likely to reveal which team is better: 1. Having two teams play each other 1,000 times; or 2. Having two teams play each other only once. IMHO, the question answers itself. And by holding all other things equal, I don't mean to disregard the effect of injuries. What I mean is that if one seeks to determine, in the purest way, which team is best, assuming for the sake of that determination that all contenders had either no injuries or were dented equivalently by injuries, what would the result be?

[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Of course, in other contexts... Author: observer [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 17:58:22 05/23/24 Thu I guess you guys hate March Madness and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Of course, in other contexts... Author: Boston Lion [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 20:10:43 05/23/24 Thu What we like is having our semester’s grade being based on an entire semester’s body of work and not just a 10-minute pop quiz. As was stated by Bengal earlier, if the games that determine Cup playoff or March Madness eligibility are sufficiently well chosen, then those kinds of playoffs are fine. The rub occurs if teams with decidedly inferior win-loss records scrape into a playoff only to play a couple of title-determining games before carting off the hardware.