PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3586
Reg: 02-15-15
|
03-01-16 01:15 PM - Post#203071
Mr James has hinted at the Ivy League getting an at-large bid to the NCAA's. The rise of Harvard as a destination school for basketball is well documented. Yale and Columbia are talented at or near all-time levels. Even Princeton is decent. As others have hinted I think we are headed to a new normal in the Ivy League.
I don't think Harvard's success is limited to just Harvard. They have done a great job building their brand as a basketball school such that they are bringing in a nationally ranked class next year. Who is to say Harvard is the only Ivy that can rise to that level? Who is to say the Ivy league can't become a destination league for top basketball recruits? The demographics are changing for top athletes. More and more they are seeing the reality that their athletic career is only 4 years more after High School. For some, the rise of quality overseas basketball gives the Ivy's a distinctive advantage over many other schools. Student-athletes are coming to value the student part of the phrase more than ever. Harvard has capitalized on it and I believe the others are going to follow suit.
The days of HYP competing for the top 3-4 Ivy type elite talent are coming to an end in my opinion. What has to happen for there to be an influx of high major type players that decide to choose top academics with high level basketball that benefits the top schools in the league?
For one, the Ivy's need to start winning these marquee matchups with more frequency. Harvard's 2016 recruiting haul could be the start of a higher profile for Ivy schools. If high major hoopsters begin to see the lure of an Ivy education in addition to the ability to play high level basketball, the league will fundamentally change.
Call me crazy, but I don't think we are that far from this being a reality.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-01-16 02:23 PM - Post#203075
In response to PennFan10
When it comes to the 2016 class, it's important to note that Yale also pulled in Jordan Bruner (Rivals No. 111, 4-star), Penn picked up consensus 3-star A.J. Brodeur and Princeton nabbed two 3-star guys as well. These are all players that would have been the early favorites for ROY, and that these boards would have been salivating over 10 years ago, and now it's just normal course.
As much as we malign the recruiting rankings... this stuff does predict future success.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32837
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-01-16 02:26 PM - Post#203077
In response to mrjames
So what do you know about any other potential Penn transfer?
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-01-16 02:52 PM - Post#203078
In response to palestra38
I know nothing. I hope the Quakers get a good one, preferably one that is immediately eligible!
|
puband09
Masters Student
Posts: 782
Reg: 12-19-09
|
03-01-16 02:58 PM - Post#203079
In response to mrjames
As much as we malign the recruiting rankings... this stuff does predict future success.
I have a question about this. I feel like every year, I read everyone "salivating" or trembling in fear over better-than-ever recruits (almost always Harvard). This was particularly true for Zena E. (I went back and checked old threads); now he's a junior and they are 4-8.
Maybe this is Amaker's fault (I'm still not convinced he's the best strategic coach in our conference), but my point stands.
Sure, Harvard's rising freshmen may look impressive, but do I think they are going to steamroll the League for 4 years? No.
I've gotten to the point where I don't even read the recruiting threads on here anymore because of the outlandish claims.
|
Kit
Senior
Posts: 380
Loc: Central Massachusetts
Reg: 11-29-04
|
Re: The New Normal
03-01-16 03:34 PM - Post#203081
In response to PennFan10
The only school that's being affected is Harvard.
|
T.P.F.K.A.D.W.
PhD Student
Posts: 1173
Loc: Our Nation's Capital
Reg: 01-18-05
|
03-01-16 03:55 PM - Post#203083
In response to mrjames
I know nothing. I hope the Quakers get a good one, preferably one that is immediately eligible!
Concerning transfers that are known knowns (i.e., the ones you go to war with), how does this Matt MacDonald project? Scored (I think) about 9 ppg as a freshman at FDU. Any idea how that might translate going forward?
|
Bryan
Junior
Posts: 232
Loc: Philadelphia
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-01-16 03:56 PM - Post#203084
In response to puband09
As much as we malign the recruiting rankings... this stuff does predict future success.
I have a question about this. I feel like every year, I read everyone "salivating" or trembling in fear over better-than-ever recruits (almost always Harvard). This was particularly true for Zena E. (I went back and checked old threads); now he's a junior and they are 4-8.
Maybe this is Amaker's fault (I'm still not convinced he's the best strategic coach in our conference), but my point stands.
Sure, Harvard's rising freshmen may look impressive, but do I think they are going to steamroll the League for 4 years? No.
I've gotten to the point where I don't even read the recruiting threads on here anymore because of the outlandish claims.
Harvard has won at least a share of the Ivy title for 5 straight years and gone to the NCAA tournament the last 4 years. They have an incoming class with 4 players rated as highly as any of Amaker's Harvard recruits up until now. They might not steamroll the league, but it's hard to believe they won't be very good next year.
Bryan
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-01-16 04:24 PM - Post#203085
In response to puband09
So, I've written extensively about this and recorded a podcast episode about it (Episode 3, I believe).
I'm not going to rehash it all here, but essentially there is far more to fear in a deep class than a shallow class with one headliner. And the model shows that. The last Harvard class that was ranked first in the Ivies in terms of expected win shares was the 2012 class of Siyani, Evan, Agunwa, Steeves and Mike Hall. Since then, Harvard's 2013, 2014 and 2015 classes were all middle of the pack, even though the Crimson did have the clear, best recruit according to the rankings in the 2013 and 2014 classes.
The model identifies these as Tommy's highest rated recruiting classes (also the highest four rated classes in the Ivy League since 2002):
1. Harvard 2016 60 Pred/(TBD Actual)
2. Harvard 2011 40 Pred/55 Actual
3. Harvard 2009 35 Pred/43 Actual
4. Harvard 2012 33 Pred/20 Actual (TBD final)
With 7 WS from Agunwa, Evan and Steeves this year and a solid year from Siyani next season, that 2012 class should finish around where it was predicted to finish and the other two highly rated classes overachieved their lofty targets.
And yet the 2016 class is expected to be about as good as the 2011 class actually was (technically that 2011 class is still racking up WS due to Corbin Miller still adding to that class).
I'll say this again, one of the most underreported aspects of Ivy hoops over the past three years has been how the assistant coaching turnover and some REALLY bad luck with admissions and fin aid had decimated Harvard's normally strong recruiting.
|
Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts: 2816
Reg: 11-23-04
|
The New Normal
03-01-16 04:28 PM - Post#203086
In response to Bryan
So, Harvard has won 5 titles (2 were split). All were competitive. They never ran the table, unlike several of the P teams of earlier years. Meanwhile, Princeton, Yale and Columbia had competitive teams, Brown had some superlative players, Penn and Cornell are recovering from coaching changes, and Dartmouth is in the midst of rebuilding. This year Harvard sucks and next year they will have a bunch of high rated, but unproved Freshmen. Some players get injured, others fail to live up to billing, still others drop out for various reasons. I see no reason to panic for the rest of the League. Amaker apparently recruits high profile players. He has plenty of them every year including several riding the pine. Several of the most outstanding Ivies had much more modest identities coming out of hs. I, like an earlier poster, believe that harvard will not get a disproportionate amount of the real talent going forward -- especially as the Ivy brand becomes more popular.
|
puband09
Masters Student
Posts: 782
Reg: 12-19-09
|
Re: The New Normal
03-01-16 04:59 PM - Post#203088
In response to Tiger69
Harvard has won 5 titles (2 were split). All were competitive. They never ran the table...
This is my point. Yes Bryan, I expect them to be "very good," but we're led to expect more than good in these discussions.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-01-16 07:34 PM - Post#203093
In response to puband09
The quality of the Ivy League this decade isn't really possible to compare to the Ivies of the 80s, 90s & 00s.
The classic fallacy here is attacking the anecdote and ignoring the trend. Yes, Chris Egi thus far has not lived up to his ranking. And a year ago people had doubts about Z (though when healthy this year, he's made a clear statement). And Mike Hall was a Top 150 Rivals kid that ended up transferring out. All are valid anecdotes to which to point.
But at the class level, the projections do a darn good job of projecting the impact a class will have. So, yeah, one of Harvard's 4-star recruits might wind up producing well below expectations, but when you have 4 of them to draw from AND three more 3-stars, the odds that a few will hit are massive.
The way I look at it, those three best Ivy classes since 2002 took Harvard from a 14-14 team to a 20-win team in year one, then lost an NBA player and won a share of a title in year two, then added the best class to that point and won an outright title, then lost two key seniors, but added the third best class to that point and still won an outright title and a tourney game and then put it all together and won another tourney game and came very close to the Sweet 16.
I'm not going to go 10 rounds with people's gut feelings on this, but if you want to hear more, listen to my podcast episode 3.
|
Old Bear
Postdoc
Posts: 3998
Reg: 11-23-04
|
03-01-16 08:49 PM - Post#203099
In response to mrjames
I recall a Sports Illustrated cover story about Harvard having the top recruiting class in the country. I believe it was in the '70s and Ted Kennedy was credited for making some phone calls(I'm old and my memory fades)and James Brown, from Texas,(now doing mostly Football TV) was one of them. I don't recall they won any titles.
|
bradley
PhD Student
Posts: 1842
Age: 74
Reg: 01-15-16
|
Re: The New Normal
03-01-16 09:23 PM - Post#203102
In response to puband09
Harvard's best team was probably 2013-14 when the Crimson was 13-1 and 27-5. Extremely talented team that had the benefit of the prior one year suspension return of Curry and Casey in addition to Saunders, Chambers, Rivant, Mondu-Misi, etc. etc. Besides being talented, they were also basketball players who had basketball instincts and a head for the game. I do not believe that these H.S. ratings do a very good job of capturing the intangibles and softer skill sets.
If you go down the name of all 3 and 4 star high school recruits that have played in the Ivies and then put their numbers, actual performance, next to the rating, the correlation is shaky at best.
The probable all Ivy first and second team this year may well be comprised of at least 8 "2 or less star" rated players.
Is it better to have higher rated H.S. recruits in the long run -- of course and next year's Harvard class is truly unusual but when there is a closer correlation to performance vs. rating, one should pay closer attention to the ratings. Yale, Princeton and Columbia have a combined total of 2 "3 star" rated starters and their combined record is 31-4 --- those ratings are a great predictor for this year.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-01-16 09:55 PM - Post#203105
In response to bradley
I love it when people tell me what the data says when (as far as I know) I'm the only person with an actual dataset here. It covers like 500 Ivy recruits and goes back to 2002. And yet, this is the crap I have to deal with:
Me: I spent a ton of hours cobbling together this data, and here's what it says.
Someone else: I think that's wrong. Look at this data point.
Someone else: Yeah, when I cherry pick four data points, the data says this different thing.
Me: You have to take a comprehensive view to understand the underlying trends here. I have, and here's what the data says.
Someone else: But what about how this one thing that happened once?
Me: (Head hits table)
|
SRP
Postdoc
Posts: 4914
Reg: 02-04-06
|
03-01-16 11:07 PM - Post#203113
In response to mrjames
The interesting question to me will be how much all this changes when the major conferences start paying stipends to their basketball players. I think people are underestimating the price elasticity starting from zero.
|
whitakk
Masters Student
Posts: 523
Age: 32
Reg: 11-11-14
|
03-01-16 11:34 PM - Post#203116
In response to mrjames
To fight anecdotes with anecdotes, the highest-rated Ivy recruit from last year's class is averaging 20 and 11 as a rookie (Boudreaux).
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3586
Reg: 02-15-15
|
03-02-16 12:13 AM - Post#203117
In response to mrjames
I love it when people tell me what the data says when (as far as I know) I'm the only person with an actual dataset here. It covers like 500 Ivy recruits and goes back to 2002. And yet, this is the crap I have to deal with:
Me: I spent a ton of hours cobbling together this data, and here's what it says.
Someone else: I think that's wrong. Look at this data point.
Someone else: Yeah, when I cherry pick four data points, the data says this different thing.
Me: You have to take a comprehensive view to understand the underlying trends here. I have, and here's what the data says.
Someone else: But what about how this one thing that happened once?
Me: (Head hits table)
I think you highlight a good point as most people don't have all the data and tend to curve fit what data they have into their world view (read: the team they cheer for).
But some of what you describe could also be standard deviation, which happens far more than we care to admit. The mean distribution for next year says it's likely Harvard is pretty good, but injuries and other things (suspensions) happen and change those distributions.
The point of this thread is to say that the success of Harvard is contagious and the rest of the league is likely to benefit rather than be bifurcated to those outcomes. I think in 5-10 years we will come to see an at large bid for the Ivy's as a new normal and the league will be a top 10 conference overall. That's because of the changing demographics and values of today's athlete and the adjustments by (some) of the Ivy League schools to capitalize on those demographics.
|
Kit
Senior
Posts: 380
Loc: Central Massachusetts
Reg: 11-29-04
|
03-02-16 12:22 AM - Post#203119
In response to PennFan10
Harvard's success will not be contagious, just as Gonzaga's success has not benefited San Francisco or Loyola-Marymount. It is up to the individual institutions to ensure that they succeed.
|
hoopla
Masters Student
Posts: 486
Age: 50
Reg: 08-28-12
|
03-02-16 12:50 AM - Post#203120
In response to mrjames
Very funny play by play Mike
|
