Back to Post
| Username | Post: At-Large Bid | |
|---|---|---|
|
Condor PhD Student Posts 1888 |
10-22-19 09:41 AM - Post#288895
I am curious as to how MrJames would measure success/disappointment in the OOC for the two favorites, but here is my attempt: Success: Penn 8-3 or better Harvard 12-2 or better Disappointment: Penn 6-5 or worse Harvard 9-5 or worse I think anything in-between would be viewed as SOP for the Ivy’s. To persuade the NCAA Tournament Committee to choose an Ivy for an at-large bid, I think Penn &/or Harvard would have to exceed the Success projection with the other minimally matching the success record, and both Penn & Harvard would have to beat up on the other Ivy’s. |
|
|
PennFan10 Postdoc Posts 3584 |
10-22-19 10:49 AM - Post#288899
I think the only chance at an at large bid would be to Have Harvard somewhere near 24-3 with some strong wins OOC, a top 25 ranking, 14-0 in reg season and they lose the ILT championship game to a strong #2 who is 20-7 (Penn hopefully!). Then there may be a conversation. |
|
|
mrjames Professor Posts 6062 |
10-22-19 11:57 AM - Post#288903
As important as the OOC record is, just as important is how many Ivies fall into Tier I or II games. Yale was right near the No. 75 threshold last year, which would have given Harvard a Tier I and Tier II win and Penn was another Tier II win. The league needs a similar (or greater) number of Tier I and II eligible wins available in conference play to have a good shot at an at large. For Harvard this season, I think 11-4 or better could get it done, but it's going to depend on how the schedule breaks (Northeastern, GW, Cal, USF and UC Irvine could all break either way on being Tier II or III) and the Orlando slate. A simple formula to help with what it takes to be considered could be: 3 * Tier I(A) wins + 2 * Tier I(b) wins + Tier II wins - Tier III losses - 2 * Tier IV losses > 4 Harvard's history includes some headscratching losses (even its best team in history lost at FAU). So, let's put Harvard down for a -3 due to bad losses. That means that it will need about 8 points to get to 5 total points. To me, that involves winning two games in Orlando (and hoping one ends up Tier I(A)). Then, maybe you get another couple Tier II games in the OOC. Then, you get lucky like last year and you take a couple Tier II games in the Ivies. That's a tough, tough road to 5 points, which was barely enough to get Belmont to the First Four last year. Penn has a much, much better opportunity to be an at-large team, but it would take a monster campaign like last year (without the bad losses) to do so. |
|
|
HARVARDDADGRAD Postdoc Posts 2691 |
10-22-19 12:13 PM - Post#288905
Encapsulates how I've felt about the Ivy Tournament. Apparently the snub of Yale in 2015 by both the NCAA and the NIT was a major impetus for the Ivy Tournament. That way, a regular season champ is guaranteed a spot in the NIT if it loses the Ivy Tournament. The concept of 2BidIvy appears to be a corollary. Unfortunately, the likelihood of two Ivy squads being among the top 35 (or so) teams in the country is extremely unlikely. Thus, the Tournament does increase the chances of 2BidIvy in that it opens the door for a uniquely qualified squad that loses in the Ivy Tournament to be on the bubble for the NCAA Tournament. As PennFan10 points out, that tournament loss can't come to a decidedly weaker team or the potential at large squad's ranking might have been harmed enough to fatally damage the candidate's resume. Thus, I agree with PennFan10. Not intending any disrespect to any 2020 Ivy squad, here's what I see: 1. it is likely that only Harvard has a shot to be a top 35 squad; 2. the Ivy slate will likely negatively impact a team's SOS so that the 14-0 record (15-0 actually) is necessary; 3. the loss in the Tournament Final must come to a respectably accomplished squad, and Penn may be the only prospect this year; and 4. Harvard must not have any bad losses OOC (the presumed 2 OOC losses in PennFan's scenario). This could be overcome by a win over a top 10 or 20 program over Thanksgiving (Maryland, Marquette). Even then, the anti Mid-major bias - and, in particular, a likely anti Ivy bias - may be too much to overcome. This is a major reason why I see the Tournament as a negative. Harvard could go 13-2 OOC, 14-0 in Ivy regular season play, lose in the final, and not make the NCAA's. Hoping that doesn't happen, but all that the Yale backlash now guarantees is a spot in the NIT for this hypothetical 27-2 2020 squad. The stars would have to align in an incredible way for 2BidIvy. So, in responding to Yale's 2015 snub, I fear the unintended consequence more than I appreciate the guarantee of an NIT bid. |
|
|
mrjames Professor Posts 6062 |
10-22-19 12:47 PM - Post#288914
The funny thing is that I don't know for certain that Yale would have had the auto-bid to the NIT in 2015. By the tiebreakers, they split the H2H and their other losses were the same (Dartmouth) or functionally the same because the two teams were tied (Cornell and Columbia). So, this one would have gone to the old "formula" tiebreaker (Sagarin/KenPom/BPI/RPI). It would have been REALLY close (and I don't have the pre-playoff data for all of them), but Yale was up a bit in BPI (final) and KenPom (pre-playoff), while Harvard was up in Sagarin (final) and they were tied in the RPI (pre-playoff). I think it would have been Yale by a nose, but it's not a safe assumption, to be sure. |
|
|
Naismith Sophomore Posts 149 |
10-22-19 04:49 PM - Post#288933
The 8-team Ivy league is the smallest basketball group in NCAA Division 1. Why should it even think about a 2nd bid? Overall, its teams collectively do not play the kind of OOC schedules that might even put the league in the running for a legitimate shot at what still would be a miracle 2nd bid. Thus instead of rewarding the "14-game tournament" League Champion, a godawful post season event is now in place. It's only hope is to create a scenario where one really-really good team emerges in the regular season, and then everyone else prays they will lose in this godawful post season event and deprive the league with a real chance for national attention. Knowing the NCAA and their "love' for the Ivy League, I'm sure the really-really good team that loses will gain maybe a nice seed in the NIT, while the League's Cinderella champion will enjoy a Monday night Play-in to even get into the main event, or will be sent directly to #16 seed assignment. Granted, there are tournaments in many other sports and that's a good thing. However basketball is the only sport where the Ivy League gets a chance at massive national exposure. Winning a first round March Madness game creates more Ivy national media exposure than all other sports combined. It should always send its best. |
|
|
palestra38 Professor Posts 32803 |
10-22-19 05:12 PM - Post#288936
Well, as it turns out, the last 2 years resulted in the 2 teams that tied for the regular season title playing for the title in the Ivy Tournament. So I suggest to you that your outrage is a bit misplaced. Had there been no formal tournament, there would have been a playoff with the same 2 teams. The only game that has threatened the stability of the universe was the Penn-Princeton game the first year, and a missed foul shot prevented matter from touching anti-matter in that game. So calm down, it's not as drastic as it seems. And the best team (everyone says so so it must be true) has the home court advantage in this year's Tournament. So what can possibly go wrong? |
|
|
HARVARDDADGRAD Postdoc Posts 2691 |
10-22-19 09:12 PM - Post#288951
Yes, but HCA may have influenced the past two events and certainly gave Penn an unearned boost vs Princeton in the inaugural event. That early message was loud, clear and unheeded. |
|
|
penn nation Professor Posts 21193 |
10-22-19 09:49 PM - Post#288952
Yeah, what has transpired is that home court is now much less important when Penn plays Princeton in the league schedule since, at least at Penn, it's when students are off. That doesn't seem right to by far the two most storied teams in the league. |
|
|
HARVARDDADGRAD Postdoc Posts 2691 |
10-22-19 09:53 PM - Post#288953
Also, why should the most important games take place at outlier locations while most students are on break. Yup, let's scrap this tournament concept and get back to the way it should be ... unless the spector of a second bid is so worthwhile that it's best for our athletes to play their most important games where and when their fellow students are unable to attend. Can't even blame this fiasco on the money! |
|
|
PennFan10 Postdoc Posts 3584 |
10-22-19 11:36 PM - Post#288955
HCA had nothing to do with last years blowout win by Yale in the ILT title game. |
|
|
HARVARDDADGRAD Postdoc Posts 2691 |
10-23-19 12:46 AM - Post#288956
I'm not intending to demean a very good Yale team. But I disagree. To say it had "nothing to do with it" = WOW. |
|
|
bradley PhD Student Posts 1842 |
10-23-19 07:43 AM - Post#288959
Way too logical but I am sure that the "Drink the Kool Aid" supporters will disagree. The reality, facts so far, is that IL is 0 for 3 as to receiving a 2nd NCAA bid and it has not been close as to getting a 2ne bid. I remember the logic of some that a second bid was right around the corner when the topic was discussed after IvyMadness was introduced. Time would tell if the supporters were correct in their assessment. It is possible that it will happen one year, maybe even this year, that the league gets two bids - hopefully so. I hope that it happens but time will tell if your analysis is spot on regarding a 2nd bid. |
|
|
PennFan10 Postdoc Posts 3584 |
10-23-19 10:00 AM - Post#288972
Well the empiricists would say HCA is worth 3pts? That may have had an impact in 2018 in a 3pt loss but that's not the difference in a double digit, second half blow out in 2019. So if you want to say Harvard would have lost by 3 pts less on a neutral floor, I would concede that. That's not my opinion, that's the empiricists data. |
|
|
HARVARDDADGRAD Postdoc Posts 2691 |
10-23-19 10:42 AM - Post#288974
Not quite how it worked that day. Harnessing the home crowd for a run worked well for Yale. For 37.5 minutes, Harvard actually outscored Yale, despite having to foul at the end. After beating Yale twice during the regular season (same with Penn and Princeton, the other tournament participants), Harvard trailed by 1 point with just under 11 minutes remaining. For the next 150 seconds, Harvard went cold, Amaker put out an unusual lineup, and Yale went on a run. Harvard's sloppiness and Yale's confidence was absolutely supported loudly (fueled?) by the home crowd. Yale was definitely the better team for that two minutes and 30 second period midway through the second half, going on a 13 point run to take a 60-59 lead up to 73-59. But for that 2:30 second run, Harvard outscored Yale in that game, as well as in both earlier contests. At the game, it certainly felt like Harvard was battling all aspects of the HCA. Absolutely admitting that I am looking through Harvard colored glasses, I can only wonder what would have happened had my Crimson played in neutral site tie-breakers the last two seasons as a league co-champion. Could have meant two more trips to the NCAA's (making it 6 NCAA trips in 8 years), and maybe even a healthy Seth Towns. Wonder if your perspective will change as Penn travels to Lavietes and Jadwin these next two seasons and far off venues in Hanover, Ithaca and Providence thereafter. Get used to it. We've already paid our dues. |
|
|
Naismith Sophomore Posts 149 |
10-23-19 10:53 AM - Post#288975
So what can possibly go wrong? It already has. The announcement that the League would run future tournaments on a rotating basis to all eight locations is inexplicable. Almost appears the Harvard selection in 2020 is a consolation prize for being victimized the last two years. So, America will get to see an actual Division 1 tournament game played in an arena of 1,800 spectators. Even thinking of a 2nd bid within that message is delusion. |
|
|
PennFan10 Postdoc Posts 3584 |
10-23-19 11:05 AM - Post#288977
My perspective won't change (other than I probably won't be able to get seats this year) I can guarantee you that. Where is the science in the idea that "Harvard was battling all aspects of the HCA"? Did Harvard stop being able to play defense during that 2:30 stretch because the crowd overwhelmed them? Was Amaker overcome with noise and unable to communicate with his team? Did HCA account for a top 100 defense giving up 97 points (Yale only made 5 3pters BTW) or was Yale's 51st rated offense just better in this game. As you note, Harvard had already played and won @Yale with a much more partisan crowd than was at the ILT. I was at the game as well. The crowd was much less Yale dominated than the game the Crimson won in New Haven during the round robin. The game is 40 minutes. Whether you get blown out in the first 2:30 or the last 2:30, it all counts and Yale was the better team over 40 minutes, by a lot more than 3pts worth of HCA (which is empirically what its worth). I don't understand why some Harvard folks can't simply admit the better team won. |
|
|
HARVARDDADGRAD Postdoc Posts 2691 |
10-23-19 04:53 PM - Post#288981
Yale played very well. For 2.5 minutes Harvard did not. Was Yale the better team that day, as we define outcomes, certainly. Would Yale have been the better team at Lavietes? They weren't when Harvard beat them there. Would Yale have been the better team on a neutral court? Who knows. But Harvard did beat Yale 2 of 3 contests. I find your descripton of the aspects of HCA strange. No, Harvard didn't have to vanquish Yale's band or cheerleaders. But from where I was sitting the arena was heavily tilted towards Yale and a rocking crowd certainly helped Yale's roll. Travel, familiarity, etc. matter. Even if one uses your modest analytics, an 11 point loss minus the average 3pt HCA is not a blowout - it's an 8 point difference. Did Harvard BLOW OUT Penn the day prior? The neutral court difference was 8 points. Your words and definition, not mine. By the way, Blow Out or not, Yale won 1 of 3 from Yale, Princeton was 0-2 vs Harvard, and Penn lost all 3 vs Harvard. This is why the Tournament stinks. |
|
|
bradley PhD Student Posts 1842 |
10-23-19 05:37 PM - Post#288982
It would be silly to suggest that a team is not adversely effected by playing at the home court of the other team vs. a neutral court when they had identical win/loss records during the regular season. It is also silly to suggest that Harvard has not experienced great challenges in overcoming significant injuries to their two best players over the past two years; significantly more than other IL teams. For someone like you who thought that IvyMadness was indeed IvyMadness, I emphasize with but it is what it is. For other Harvard fans or other fans that have supported IvyMadness you sometimes get what you wish for. My only suggestion is to save your breadth. |
|
|
HARVARDDADGRAD Postdoc Posts 2691 |
10-23-19 05:46 PM - Post#288983
Agreed. |
|
|
mrjames Professor Posts 6062 |
10-23-19 06:17 PM - Post#288985
Yale shot 14-for-24 on 2PT Js (many contested) mainly driven by Alex Copeland who was 9-for-12. Harvard tried to start overplaying those (which I think was a bad decision, though understandable because at a certain point regression to the mean just ain't happening in 40 minutes) and got torched by easy feeds into the post for layups and dunks. Add to that 28-for-30 on FTs where the only guy to miss any FTs was the team's best FT shooter (Cope) and... there was no team in the country beating Yale on that day. The game would have been very different on a neutral floor, but it also would have been very different played at Yale on a different day. The vast majority of the time it would have been different in a way where Yale wins by less or loses, but the Bulldogs would have won more than they lost even on a neutral floor because they were the better team last year. It's possible to both believe that *and* to believe that being the away team the past two years had a substantial overall impact on Harvard's odds to have won at least one of those games. The odds of Harvard winning at least one game as the away team were 50%. The odds on a neutral floor would have been about 2-in-3. |
|
|
whitakk Masters Student Posts 523 |
10-23-19 10:37 PM - Post#288989
To be fair Copeland was 50% on 2PJs last year (and like 47% for his career) so regression wouldn't have taken him far. I don't think the league's had a better pull-up mid-range shooter this decade. But the larger point still holds that Yale was absurd in that game. |
|
|
SRP Postdoc Posts 4910 |
10-25-19 12:01 PM - Post#289080
Yeah, I have to chime in for the underrated Copeland. That dude was one of the hardest guys to guard I’ve ever seen in the league. (Agree with Mike about the HCA issue.) |
|
|
palestra38 Professor Posts 32803 |
10-25-19 02:27 PM - Post#289087
I said that last year that he was by far the best player at the Tournament and had the best first step in the League. |
|
|
james Masters Student Posts 789 |
10-26-19 08:59 AM - Post#289114
most impressively he was nasty against LSU. Cold blooded. |
|
|
bradley PhD Student Posts 1842 |
10-26-19 03:58 PM - Post#289120
The 8-team Ivy league is the smallest basketball group in NCAA Division 1. Why should it even think about a 2nd bid? Overall, its teams collectively do not play the kind of OOC schedules that might even put the league in the running for a legitimate shot at what still would be a miracle 2nd bid. Over the past several years, a number of individuals on this forum have been overly optimistic as to the prospects of the league and or their team. It is understandable that a fan begins the season optimistic for the league and their team but there is the reality of becoming a 2 bid league on a regular basis. Injuries and other factors are often cited but that happens to many teams and other league. Schedules to be upgraded but more importantly, IL teams need to win non-conference games against legitimate competition. Maybe this year???? |
|
|
GoBigGreenBasketball Masters Student Posts 806 |
11-04-19 09:41 AM - Post#289614
Please go subscribe to The Athleticfor more great coverage of your favorite sports. this-week-in-mid-major-cr eative-scheduling-ideas-d o-exist-and-here-are-some -of-them College basketball tips off Tuesday, and for nearly two months we’ll be treated to high-profile nonconference matchups. Casual fans might not start paying close attention until the new year, when the power-conference showdowns and races take center stage. Teams in those leagues can afford some stumbles early on while they iron things out, as long as they take care of business later on. But for mid-majors, these next eight weeks are critical. Without great showings in the nonconference portion, few paths exist to an at-large bid. “We don’t have the luxury of waiting until January and February to turn it on,†Mid-American Conference commissioner Jon Steinbrecher says. “We have to get the story painted right out of the gun. And that’s hard to do. It’s additional pressure on our programs because of that, but that’s the way it is.†Mid-majors aren’t getting their shots at the big boys at home, of course. That’s the way it’s always been. Leverage is everything, after all. But it’s becoming increasingly difficult for schools outside the non-power leagues to find worthy nonconference home games, period. Take the Mountain West Conference. By mid-October, the league still had two schools looking for games to finish out their schedules. Another pair of teams got into a bidding war to play the University of Denver for a six-figure guarantee. “This is the worst we’ve ever seen it in terms of getting quality games,†senior associate commissioner Dan Butterly says. One reason for the difficulty is the trend of power leagues going to 20 conference games. When the Pac-12 did that, it eliminated 24 potential dates for the Mountain West, which is already challenged geographically by the lack of teams west of the Rockies. Throw in cross-conference events such as the Big Ten/ACC Challenge and the Big 12/SEC pairing, and there’s even less room for power teams to take on mid-majors. “We’re getting squeezed out,†Boise State coach Leon Rice says. What are mid-major leagues to do, besides hope their teams can get in some high-quality exempt tournaments (and pray that they get good matchups in those events)? They can buy guarantee games against low-majors, but as the Denver bidding war shows, that can get expensive. It also hurts the NET ratings of the entire conference. Some mid-major conferences, including the Mountain West, are considering going to 20 league games themselves, to at least make sure they get interesting games for their fans. The MAC has talked about it in each of the past three offseasons. The West Coast Conference went the opposite way in 2018, cutting its league games from 18 to 16 and requiring its schools to schedule better in the nonconference. Saint Mary’s has embraced that directive; the Gaels open the season Tuesday against Wisconsin and also play Utah State, Dayton, Arizona State, Nevada and Cal. Notably, however, only one of those games is on Saint Mary’s home floor: the Nov. 29 matchup against Utah State, another strong mid-major that looked hard for high-profile matchups this offseason and got none in Logan. And maybe that Utah State-Saint Mary’s game provides a way forward. Mid-majors aren’t going to get programs from power leagues in favorable settings. But they can play each other more often and in home-and-home deals while still building their tournament résumés with Quad 1 and Quad 2 games. The Mountain West and the Atlantic 10 are beginning a challenge series next season. More collaborations like those could be on the way. “I’m a big proponent of those type of agreements,†WCC commissioner Gloria Nevarez says. “The issue is finding the right partner, geographically and strength-wise. Eventually, you’re going to get some really anemic matchups when the bottom plays the bottom, and who does that help?†Butterly suggests blocking out a weekend somewhere in the middle of the country — say, St. Louis — and holding a series of mid-major crossover games. Think the Bracket Busters but on a much smaller, more efficient scale. Of course, that means finding the time in an already-stuffed schedule and identifying the right matchups. Steinbrecher says the idea falls apart for him because “I want to get some home games out of this.†The MAC has been trying to find a partner league for a crossover challenge for the past five years. Steinbrecher says maybe the solution is to get three to five of the best mid-major leagues together and schedule home-and-homes. “At the upper end, you’d have some really meaningful games,†he says, “and then you’d have nice matchups with like programs all the way through.’ Such a plan would require lots of organization in a very decentralized sport, plus a TV partner willing to work out the kinks. But it does have some merit. For now, things are the same as ever for mid-majors: win these neutral-site and road games in the next several weeks or you might have to win your conference tournament. Oakland feels the sting of transfers For years, the blueprint for building a mid-major team capable of making a dent in the tournament was simple: assemble a roster of veterans. As Oakland’s Greg Kampe found out first-hand this summer, that is getting harder to do. Kampe had witnessed the transfer epidemic hit other schools in his conference and around the country but hadn’t experienced it much in his 35 years at the Michigan school. Then a team he thought was positioned for success lost six players in less than a year to transfer, including unexpected departures by starting guards Jaevin Cumberland and Braden Norris. Now Kampe has 10 newcomers, including seven freshmen, to work with. Not surprisingly, he’s not a big fan of the ubiquitous transfer portal and what it’s doing to mid-majors. Last Dec. 1, after big man Xavier Hill-Mais scored 30 points in a loss to Xavier, Kampe says, three power schools called Hill-Mais’ mom to ask about him becoming a grad transfer at the end of the year. He stayed, but Cumberland — who barely played his first three years with the Golden Grizzlies — left after breaking out as 17.2 points per game scorer last season. Kampe says Virginia, Kentucky, Kansas, Michigan, West Virginia and Kansas State all called him this spring about Cumberland, who decided to join his brother, Jarron, at Cincinnati. “Those teams would rather have a guy like that than a freshman they don’t know about,†Kampe says. “If they’re wrong on that guy and he can’t play, it’s just a one-year rental.†Jaevin Cumberland left as a graduate transfer under a rule that has broad support publicly. But Kampe says people don’t understand the investment the program made in Cumberland for four years, including redshirting him behind Kendrick Nunn, who’s now on the Miami Heat. Or the time and cost of having to go find recruits at the last minute after Cumberland bolted. This experience has changed the approach for a guy who has won more than 600 games. Kampe is recruiting for next year even though he has no scholarships; he now figures he’ll lose at least three players every year. Oakland also brought in some transfers of its own to fill out the roster. “Eventually, kids won’t have to sit out a year, and it will be total free agency,†he says. “We’ll be stealing low-major and Division II kids, and Division II will be stealing Division III kids, and Division III will be stealing from NAIA schools.†Kampe has a sign in his office that reads “Adapt or die,†so he’s going to roll with this new reality. He’s not angling for rules changes. But he says it will make for younger mid-major teams across the country — and perhaps fewer veteran ones who can make a dent in March. “There are going to be a lot more freshman and sophomore (led teams),†he says. “And the good teams will be the lucky ones who get to keep their kids for four years or develop them. I’m redshirting our best freshman (center Yusuf Jihad), and it will probably come back to kill me.†Opportunity knocks Each week, the Mid-Major notebook will pick a handful of big games involving mid-major teams that could be crucial to their NCAA Tournament résumés. We are counting every team outside the power six (ACC, Big East, Big 12, Big Ten, SEC, Pac-12) or the AAC and not named Gonzaga as a mid-major. (All times ET) No. 20 Saint Mary’s vs. Wisconsin, 9 p.m. Tuesday (ESPNU): The Gaels get a big matchup on opening night (though seeing them ranked and the Badgers not is wild). Of course, the game is not in Moraga. But it’s also not in Madison. It’s in … Sioux Falls, S.D. Wherever you can get ‘em, I guess. This should be a fun one between two well-coached teams with deliberate but precise styles of play. No. 24 Auburn vs. Davidson, 6 p.m. Friday (CBS Sports Network): The Wildcats are expecting big things thanks to their star-studded backcourt. We’ll find out how good Bob McKillop’s team is right away with this game against a Final Four team from last season. Expect lots and lots of 3s. UNC-Greensboro at No. 3 Kansas, 9 p.m. Friday (ESPNU): Isaiah Miller and the Spartans are coming off a 29-win season. A trip to Allen Fieldhouse is always treacherous, but maybe they can catch the Jayhawks on a downslope after the Champions Classic. Rhode Island at No. 7 Maryland, 9 p.m. Saturday (FS1): The Rams are a sleeper in the A-10, with all five starters back including a trio of fifth-year seniors. This is the first of many nonconference tests for David Cox’s club. Boise State at No. 15 Oregon, 11 p.m. Saturday (Pac-12 Network): The Broncos went 13-20 last year, but 10 of those losses came by three points or fewer or in overtime. A more experienced group, led by emerging star Derrick Alston, could be better at finishing this time around. And this might be the right time to catch a Ducks squad with lots of new pieces. Mike Rhoads has a loaded VCU team returning this season. (John Gutierrez/USA Today Sports) The Mid-Major Top 10 Every week, we’ll rank the best of the mid-majors. Here’s our preseason top 10. 1. VCU: Just about everybody’s back for a team that roared through the A-10 last year and had one of the nation’s best defenses. A fully healthy Marcus Evans will make this team even harder to handle. 2. Utah State: The defending Mountain West champs have an All-America candidate in Sam Merrill but need to get big man Neemias Queta (knee) back before too long. 3. Saint Mary’s: We’ll learn a lot about the Gaels against Wisconsin. We already know this: Jordan Ford is a stud. This could be Randy Bennett’s best team. 4. Davidson: Jon Axel Gudmundsson and a healthy Kellan Grady are as good as it gets for a mid-major backcourt. If the supporting cast steps up, watch out. 5. New Mexico State: The Aggies won 30 games a year ago and very nearly beat Auburn in the first round. Four starters return, led by Terrell Brown. They should rule the WAC. 6. Vermont: Anthony Lamb is a national treasure. This is a deep and veteran team that no one will want to see in its pod in March. 7. Western Kentucky: The Hilltoppers beat Arkansas, Saint Mary’s, Wisconsin and West Virginia last year but couldn’t take care of business in C-USA. With Charles Bassey back for a second year, they should remedy that. 8. Harvard: The top nine scorers are back, including star guard Brady Aiken. Could the Crimson steal an at-large bid? How ‘bout them apples? 9. Dayton: A potential superstar in Obi Tobbin and four impact transfers should help the Flyers improve on last year’s 21-win season. 10. East Tennessee State: The top seven scorers came back for the Buccaneers off a 24-10 campaign. They’ve got two 7-footers and a deep and talented backcourt. Waiting room: New Mexico; San Diego State; Bowling Green; Missouri State; Belmont.
|
|
|
Condor PhD Student Posts 1888 |
12-03-19 09:20 AM - Post#293333
Using this the following Tier System: Tier……..Home vs RPI….Neutral vs RPI….Road vs RPI ..1…………..1-30…………….1-50………………..1-75 ..2…………..31-75…………..51-100……………76-135 ..3…………..76-160…………101-200………….136-240 ..4…………..161+…………….201+………………241+ the current point standing for the top 4 teams is as follows (assuming I chose the right scale for MrJames’ point system): Team…………Tier 1……Tier 2…..Tier 3…..Tier 4….Points Penn…………..1-1……….2-0………1-2………..1-0……..+5 Yale…………….0-2……….0-1………2-0………..3-0……….0 Dartmouth..…0-0……….1-1……….0-0………..3-1……….0 Harvard………0-1……….0-2………1-1………..3-0………-1 Penn has one Tier 1 and one Tier 2 game left in OOC. Yale has one Tier 1 and one Tier 2 game in OOC, as well. Harvard has one Tier 2 game left in OOC, as does Dartmouth. In conference, it looks like there will be two to three Tier 2 games for each team assuming that @Penn, @Yale, and @Harvard will be ranked accordingly. A second bid seems very unlikely, but it looks like a very competitive season to see who gets the auto bid. |
|
|
palestra38 Professor Posts 32803 |
12-03-19 01:52 PM - Post#293389
It ain't happening, nor is it likely to happen in our lifetimes. Even as the Ivies improve, it makes it harder to have 2 teams essentially undefeated in the League, which is what it would take given the effect of losing Ivy games in the rankings. Even then, we would get screwed by the Committee. |
|
|
bradley PhD Student Posts 1842 |
12-03-19 02:45 PM - Post#293393
Using this the following Tier System: A second bid seems very unlikely, but it looks like a very competitive season to see who gets the auto bid. If you are correct, a 2nd bid does seem highly unlikely this year but I guess anything can happen. I remember well the optimism as to IL getting a 2nd bid. I would add to your post is that it may be somewhat competitive for the fourth spot to get into IvyMadness but the real competition will be IvyMadness with home games for Harvard rather than the regular season --- makes so much sense. |
|
|
mrjames Professor Posts 6062 |
12-03-19 03:05 PM - Post#293403
Umm, if Penn beats Nova tomorrow, it probably would need double-digit Ivy wins plus a home win over Temple to be a solid at large. |
|
|
palestra38 Professor Posts 32803 |
12-03-19 04:01 PM - Post#293412
My view is that while objectively, you probably are right, they would find a way to screw us. |
|
|
penn nation Professor Posts 21193 |
12-03-19 04:19 PM - Post#293413
I thought the IL basically blew its chance this year once Harvard lost to both Buffalo and Northeastern. |
|
|
bradley PhD Student Posts 1842 |
12-03-19 06:00 PM - Post#293423
You would hope that the selection committee would not stick it to the IL but you certainly raise a legitimate concern. In fairness, the IL has not presented the tournament committee much of a challenge during the past few years even with the introduction of IvyMadness. The men's league still has a ways to go but there has been some minor progress. |
|
|
Quakers03 Professor Posts 12530 |
12-03-19 06:43 PM - Post#293428
We've already seen that playing the game on Sunday means the committee doesn't care about correctly seeding the league. |
|
|
mrjames Professor Posts 6062 |
12-03-19 08:01 PM - Post#293433
I agree - I'm pretty sure they'd find a way to keep a deserving Ivy team out. For as much as we talk about #2BidIvy, we've already had a team that had a positive WAB on Selection Sunday (Harvard 2011) and didn't really get a sniff. Numerous mids (and to be clear, POWER CONF teams as well) have had +1, +2 WAB finishes and not gotten bids. The selection committee is (maybe trying to be?) riddled with textbook behavioral psych biases, so its decisions are vastly inferior to what objective metrics would advise. The lucky thing for Penn is that with wins over Alabama, Provy and (in this hypothetical case) Nova, they'd have the "name brand" wins that carry far further in the room than "generic mid major with similar quality" X would carry. That's why I think Penn would have such a unique chance with the resume it currently has plus a Nova win. Harvard scheduled itself into a corner and has no one to blame but itself. Injuries didn't help, nor did the awful jumper luck it's faced. |
|
|
bradley PhD Student Posts 1842 |
12-03-19 08:22 PM - Post#293437
True but 2011 is almost 10 years ago. The new norm, post IvyMadness, is to let two games in mid-March decide who represents the IL at the Big Dance versus a 14 game slugfest to decide the league representative but it is what it is. It now seems like the main goal for the regular season is to simply finish in the top half of the league - quite an achievement especially if you are effectively knocked out as to getting a second bid to the Big Dance by the end of non-conference play. The hope for Ivy men would have been the Crimsom had everyone healthy with a very special season that would have caught everyone's attention but that seems unlikely. The league needs a special team for one year in the not too distant future to start changing the perspective of the NCAA selection committee. Hopefully, the women will get a 2nd bid but there will probably be a bias against them as well. |
|
|
HARVARDDADGRAD Postdoc Posts 2691 |
12-03-19 09:47 PM - Post#293464
The reference to the Ivy Madness final being on Selection Sunday further correctly recognizes the likelihood that the committee won't welcome the prospect of jettisoning a Power 5 squad just because the Ivy's best resume loses in our tournament. Continuing the focus being given to Penn, do we really think that Penn - even if it beats Nova - would get the second bid if it gets beaten by Harvard or Yale in the Tournament final just a few hours before the Committee announces its selection? Worse so if Penn loses in the Friday semi's. If the Committee is willing to underseed us because it doesn't want to make last second adjustment, it won't cure that by accepting two teams. |
|
|
Mike Porter Postdoc Posts 3618 
|
12-03-19 11:08 PM - Post#293478
Penn is +14 and has a 10% chance to win per Kenpom, and will be a VERY difficult game to win even if we play our best game. I hope we can give them a game, but let’s not even bother counting any chickens when it is a long shot to hatch! |
|
|
palestra38 Professor Posts 32803 |
12-04-19 10:03 AM - Post#293503
Given that Penn has never beaten Villanova out there, yes, it would be nothing shy of a miracle to do so. https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/play-index/ma... |
|
|
Mike Porter Postdoc Posts 3618
|
12-04-19 10:15 AM - Post#293509
I saw in game notes that the last time we had a 7 game win streak in the Big 5 was at the end of 1975 season, so seems like a heck of a lot going against us, haha. Let's see what the guys can do, and hopefully keep it interesting throughout. |
|
|
HARVARDDADGRAD Postdoc Posts 2691 |
12-04-19 12:34 PM - Post#293546
Good Luck to Penn tonight and to Yale on its upcoming challenging schedule. Unless either of those teams get through this stretch decisively I presume that 2bidIvy is dead for 2019-2020. In that event, we'll be where we've been for the past few years, focusing on the 4th seed. Assuming that Harvard, Penn and Yale are favorites to make the Ivy Tournament, the inspired play of Dartmouth, Brown, Columbia and, more recently, Princeton will dominate our attention as they battle to crack the top 4, or better. Sure, it will be interesting to see HYPenn battle for the regular season title, but it comes down to Ivy Madness. There might be changes in this balance, with the key variable being: - Harvard returning Seth Towns; - Columbia returning Gabe Stefanini; and - Princeton's level of improvement upon the return of Ryan Schwieger. Of course new injuries could influence things as well. This season is shaping up as an exciting one, with two tiers and goals: (1) the regular season title, and (2) the 4th spot and entry into the Tournament. The strength of the second group of teams and the variability of the top tier suggests there will could be a range of "upsets." Personally, I'm preparing for more OT's when my Crimson play Columbia. Also, hopefully, Harvard can figure out how not to split with Dartmouth to start its season. I'd like to think that my Crimson have a lot more upside than we've seen, but I'm still waiting for it to evidence itself for a full game. |
|
|
palestra38 Professor Posts 32803 |
12-04-19 12:48 PM - Post#293551
Penn getting a healthy Wang would fit equally into the missing guys analysis |
|
|
HARVARDDADGRAD Postdoc Posts 2691 |
12-04-19 12:56 PM - Post#293555
Agreed. Omission noted. |
|
|
HARVARDDADGRAD Postdoc Posts 2691 |
12-11-19 10:31 AM - Post#294442
Just glanced at KenPom and was shocked to see the gap within the league: 85. Yale 90. Harvard 108. Penn 205. Columbia 211. Dartmouth 217. Princeton 236. Brown 284. Cornell Bad losses by Columbia (Duquesne) and Princeton (Monmouth) this week don't bode well for this gap tightening. Brown played tough vs St. Johns and supposedly has freshman Dan Friday close to returning. In the top tier, Yale continues to be the most consistent squad while Penn and Harvard have played reasonably well of late, hanging tough with teams like Arizona/Nova (Penn) and Maryland/USC (1st half)(Harvard). Crimson played its best game of the year last time out vs UMass. Successful return of Stefanini, Wang and (dare I say it) Towns could propel their squads further upwards, perhaps propelling Columbia out of the lower tier and into the 4th spot (despite looking just awful against Duquesne). |
|
|
iogyhufi Masters Student Posts 680 |
12-11-19 11:14 AM - Post#294447
I've seen this suggested elsewhere, but I must admit that I don't think that the return of Michael Wang will move the needle for Penn. I mean to suggest neither that Wang isn't a good player nor that he wouldn't make Penn better, but his particular strengths aren't in a place where Penn is currently weak. Based on what I've seen of Penn (and I would welcome corrections from people who've seen more of them), their greatest weaknesses are rebounding, perimeter defense, and lack of depth in the frontcourt. Although Wang is tall, my recollection is that he is in no way a post player - he's not particularly strong nor long and he prefers to avoid contact. What he's good at is ball-handling and outside shooting; he's really more of an unusually tall wing player. Penn also doesn't really seem to be lacking for outside shooting, or if they are, it certainly doesn't seem to be borne out in their play on the court (they've shot at least 38% from 3 in 4 of their last 5 games). Now, of course Wang is a good player and his return would make Penn better, I just think that the improvement wouldn't be paradigm-changing in the way that Stefanini returning would be for Columbia or Towns returning would be for Harvard. |
|
|
penn nation Professor Posts 21193 |
12-11-19 11:28 AM - Post#294449
Here are the Torvik rankings: Yale 75 Penn 84 Harvard 94 Next best Ivy: Princeton 156 |
|
|
HARVARDDADGRAD Postdoc Posts 2691 |
12-11-19 11:40 AM - Post#294450
Thanks! Princeton has a strong nucleus in Llewellyn, Aririzugoh and Schwieger. Schwieger returned recently and has yet to round into form. Un-Princetonian poor shooting has to improve - 29.9% 3 point shooting combined with 66.2% FT shooting won't cut it. Maybe a healthy Schwieger helps those numbers. |
|
|
HARVARDDADGRAD Postdoc Posts 2691 |
12-11-19 12:34 PM - Post#294451
As much as I think Seth Towns would help Harvard, after watching Mike Smith try to lead Columbia, I think that the Lions need Stefanini right now more than any other squad needs an injured player. Not considering Dartmouth's Barry as he is apparently out for the season. Without Stefanini (and excluding game vs Central CT St which was a Columbia blowout and thus an outlier), in Columbia's 10 other games Smith has averaged 37.2 minutes, taking 17.7 shots and scoring 35% of Columbia's points. Concerned that he's coming off injury last year and also the grind of the back to back Ivy nights. Without Stefanini there isn't anyone consistently able to shoulder the load. |
|
|
Mike Porter Postdoc Posts 3618
|
12-11-19 03:24 PM - Post#294477
Disagree with your read here on how much Mike Wang could help Penn. Wang is 6’10†and 220, was Penn’s second best rebounder last year per Kenpom (after AJ of course), is an excellent passer, shoots 3’s, and is a good FT shooter. If he can get back healthy and is in any kind of athletic shape, he will help in multiple ways and give coach Donahue a lot more options: - He would give Donahue an actual option for 2 big lineup (he can play outside so wouldn’t clog the lane for AJ). - He would give an option for AJ to rest and play as big in 4 guard lineup. He is much better suited than Jarrod Simmons to play an “AJ-lite†roll because he can play back to basket and is a good passer. - He displayed a good array of back to basket moves as a frosh, so while he isn’t close to AJ in that regard, he is second best on team and above average. - He will help on rebounding. Ultimately his impact might depend on how ready he is to defend and if he has progressed there, but hopefully we’ll get to see it. Worth noting frosh Jonah Charles is also expected to provide minutes (is prob best 3 point shooter not named Betley on team). He made 89 3 pointers in senior HS season and was second leading scorer in Penn’s early scrimmages before injury. I think both will add something to offense, Wang will add to rebounding, and we’ll have to see on defense (need to see what they can do against some D1 competition this year before judging that). |
|
|
mrjames Professor Posts 6062 |
12-12-19 01:01 PM - Post#294547
Don't look now, but Yale's got a Top 50 resume. If it can split with Clemson and UNC (and not lose to the non-D1 or Howard), it'll finish the non-conf with a bubble resume. Pretty amazing stuff. |
|
|
HARVARDDADGRAD Postdoc Posts 2691 |
12-12-19 01:35 PM - Post#294549
Yale dodged a bullet last night. Trailed UMass (6 consecutive losses and missing a key starter) the entire second half before tying with 49 seconds left in regulation and prevailing in OT. |
|
|
JDP Masters Student Posts 575 |
12-12-19 01:57 PM - Post#294554
Mike – Is it safe to assume that the Princeton women’s resume is strong enough (projected RPI of 15) (and assuming no falloff in current performance levels) to result in an at large bid if they won / finished tied for the regular season championship and lost the championship game? Penn and Yale are projected by realtime RPI to have RPIs of 55 and 69 respectively … but would wins at Nova, UNC and Princeton move them into the 40s? Do either have a possibility to be in the final 8 discussion, like Princeton was last year? Given the projected RPI of Harvard (89), Penn (55) and Yale (69) – they all would likely receive an NIT bid – which I believe would be a record for the Ivies men or womens’ game. So putting mid-major basis aside, what would you recommend to the league in strength of scheduling to get a second or dare I say third NCAA bid. |
|
|
iogyhufi Masters Student Posts 680 |
12-12-19 02:27 PM - Post#294558
The defensive 3P% luck regressed hard in that game. UMass had a guy go 8/12 from 3 and shot 44% from 3 as a team. I suppose it's hard to dislike a road win under any circumstances (and Yale only underperformed KP by 1 point despite UMass hitting a meaningless 3 at the buzzer fwiw), but this wasn't exactly Yale's best effort. Fortunately, they cobbled together enough stops and buckets to pull it out down the stretch despite allowing a massive UMass run to end the first half with Monroe out with an ankle injury. |
|
|
welcometothejungle Masters Student Posts 788 |
12-16-19 12:14 PM - Post#294715
Yale debuts at #60 in the first edition of the NCAA's NET rankings. Other Ivies: Penn - 115 Harvard - 150 Dartmouth - 168 Princeton - 207 Columbia - 218 Brown - 256 Cornell - 277 |
|
|
james Masters Student Posts 789 |
12-16-19 08:35 PM - Post#294738
Strongly disagree. Yale’s win at umass was impressive. Umass was a caged tiger which got huge confidence in their late first half run and with shots falling. Freshman big played great. But Yale willed themselves to victory through timely big shots by swain and steady post play. And yes overcame great shooting. What’s not to like? |
|
|
mrjames Professor Posts 6062 |
12-23-19 09:09 AM - Post#295160
Yale now has a Top 40 resume. A win at UNC, and it would probably crack the Top 30. |
|
|
westphillywarrior Sophomore Posts 196 |
12-24-19 05:17 PM - Post#295262
Three bids. |
|
|
Old Bear Postdoc Posts 3992 |
12-24-19 09:08 PM - Post#295270
When Brown beats Duke on the 28th they will get consideration. |
|
|
penn nation Professor Posts 21193 |
12-24-19 10:56 PM - Post#295271
When Penn and St Johns did it in 1979 it was Black Sunday. If Yale and Brown do it 40+ years later, it'll be Yuletide Hangover. |
|
|
Streamers Professor Posts 8220 
|
12-25-19 09:50 AM - Post#295276
I wonder what the odds wi=old be on that parlay? |
|
|
mrjames Professor Posts 6062 |
01-27-20 12:23 PM - Post#297565
On a pure resume basis, Yale's resume is ~40th nationally (including 39th in the only resume metric on the team sheets - ESPN SOR) and Harvard's resume is in the 60s (68th in ESPN SOR). Yale will stay pretty much right there with a 10-2 mark down the stretch, but it likely needs an extra win to buffer their best non-Ivy Tourney winning outcome (L at Harvard). But 13-1 plus a L at Harvard in the Ivy Tourney would have them (objectively) solidly in. The math is tougher for Harvard. Break-even for a bubble team would be 9.6-2.4, but Harvard's starting a full win behind Yale in the strength of record metric AND it has to account for a bigger hit to its strength of record because any tourney loss would be at home. 14-0 would be plenty to go SOR positive even with a tourney loss, BUT the odds of that are less than 1%. So, Yale's likely the only shot. Weird to think that if Penn St. doesn't close with every last drop of a 16-2 run, the Bulldogs are probably more likely in than out. |
|
|
sparman PhD Student Posts 1345 
|
01-28-20 04:49 PM - Post#297700
I know I'm a broken record on this topic, but you will notice the discussion below is how to get a 12th Big 10 team, not a second ivy: https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2020/01/28/n... I will not believe the NCAA will faithfully apply "metrics" to add a second ivy at the expense of a big conference team unless and until it happens. |
|
|
mountainred Masters Student Posts 513 |
01-28-20 07:43 PM - Post#297720
Bubble Watch over at The Athletic did list Yale: https://theathletic.com/1564554/2020/01/28/bu bble-... But they were literally the last team discussed and included this tidbit "there’s not a whole lot on this résumé to suggest it has much of a chance of an at-large bid" I'm not saying I endorse this thinking. But the first Ivy at-large is going to have to overwhelmingly obvious and impossible to leave out. Or the field will have to expand to 128. |
|
|
rbg Postdoc Posts 3050 |
01-29-20 09:09 AM - Post#297730
https://collegebasketball .nbcsports.com/2020/01/28... - YALE (NET: 53, NBC: 12): The Elis are in this conversation because they don’t really have a bad loss to speak of. Their “worst†loss was a road game at San Francisco (95), and if North Carolina (93) gets Cole Anthony back, then that loss is not going to look nearly as bad by Selection Sunday. Their problem is a lack of quality wins. They won at Clemson (81), which is their only Quad 1 or 2 win. That’s not going to change in the Ivy. I think they need to win out and lose to Harvard in the Ivy title game to have a real at-large chance. - |
|
|
HARVARDDADGRAD Postdoc Posts 2691 |
02-08-20 10:38 AM - Post#298961
TeamRankings.com has Yale as the favorite to win the regular season ahead of Harvard (50% to 28.4%) but Harvard the favorite to win the Tournament (42.1% to 41.0%). HCA lives on! Yale drops in KenPom from #43 to #51. Am I correct to assume that losses to Harvard last night and a loss in the tournament final would knock Yale out of position for an at large bid? Had Harvard been healthy (Towns and Aiken), we'd be looking at two top 50 teams! I guess that's the once in a [decade?] situation the 2bid crowd has been waiting for. |
|
|
Bryan Junior Posts 231 |
02-11-20 02:45 PM - Post#299564
I don't know a lot about the NET ratings but have followed both Pomeroy and Sagarin for many years. As of today those 3 rankings for the 5 leading contenders for the Ivy playoff are as follows (NET, then Pomeroy, then Sagarin): Yale 58,50,69 Harvard 106,108,98 Penn 153,146,141 Princeton 188,185,179 Brown 230,218,183 A Pomeroy ranking in the 50's does not usually get a team an at-large bid into the NCAA tournament. If Yale doesn't win the Ivy playoffs then they're unlikely to improve their ranking by the time the field is selected. No one else has a chance at an at-large bid. It's a very limited data set but these ranking suggest NET is producing ranking results which are at least similar to Pomeroy and Sagarin 2/3 of the way through the season. This is a big improvement over the RPI. |
|
|
PennFan10 Postdoc Posts 3584 |
02-11-20 03:29 PM - Post#299570
For the ILP I think Harvard is in the drivers seat but this weekend could change that entirely. The historical formula for getting the top seed is win your home games and then win 4+ road games. Harvard is done with all their tough road games (only @ C's) and if they protect home court (6 of 8 at home) would easily win the 1 seed. In other words, they have the easiest road to winning out and finishing 11-3. Princeton is next, having protected home court so far and with the next best road win @Penn (4 road/4 home left) Penn has 2 road wins and 1 home loss (4 road/4 home left) Yale and Brown could jump into the picture with a sweep or even a split this weekend. My ILP rankings, based on the win your home games/split your road games formula is currently: Harvard Princeton Penn Yale Brown |
|
|
HARVARDDADGRAD Postdoc Posts 2691 |
02-11-20 03:47 PM - Post#299573
Very interesting. Yale at 5-1 ending up in 4th place is most interesting. I'd add that Bruner's health matters there. Hope that my Crimson can win out at home and at C's, but I fear that this squad is more of a counterpuncher, winning on tenacity and strength. The best play of Bassey, Djuricic and Kirkwood seems to come when behind. That's a dangerous formula. |
|
|
iogyhufi Masters Student Posts 680 |
02-11-20 04:44 PM - Post#299577
Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and wager that, barring a serious injury to a starter (presuming that such a thing hasn't already happened to Bruner), Yale will not be finishing fourth. Geez, Harvard trots out its best performance in a month by far (and follows it up with a lemon) and now the sky is falling for the Bulldogs and the Crimson are king of the hill. I'd agree that Harvard has the easiest road forward of any team, but they've also banked two more league losses than Princeton or Yale have. That static disadvantage will be hard to overcome, especially since it would require Harvard to do at least 2 of the following (in my opinion) 1. Sweep the NY roadtrip 2. Sweep the Ps at home 3. Sweep Yale/Brown at home and none of those will come easy. It's entirely possible that Harvard is the best team in the league, but they've got a pretty steep hill to climb to get back to the top. |
|
|
HARVARDDADGRAD Postdoc Posts 2691 |
02-11-20 05:11 PM - Post#299578
Agreed. Yale and Princeton have the inside track to the regular season championship. As we've learned, the regular season means little. Last year Harvard was 7-0 vs Tournament participants but couldn't win that final road game. Harvard has now won 7 regular season contests vs Yale, but lost 2 tournament contests vs the Eli's. Sadly, all that matters is figuring our which of HYPPB is the odd team out. After that it's a crap shoot, although I'm rooting for HCA to prevail! |
|
|
PennFan10 Postdoc Posts 3584 |
02-11-20 05:32 PM - Post#299580
Though the empiricists may scoff, my simplistic formula, which is highly accurate historically is as follows: 0 points for a home win or a road loss. +1 for a road win and -1 for a home loss. EVERY year the past dozen or so, the regular season champion is at least +4, which means they win all their home games and 4+ road games or, in the case they lose a home game or 2, they win 1-2 extra road games. This has been the case for every regular season league champ. What you guys are arguing is based on what has happened to date, but not all schedules are created equal. Harvard and Princeton are +2 against their schedule, Penn is +1 and Yale is 0 with Brown -1 (a home loss). Harvard has the easiest path but the lowest margin for error (they have to win out to get to +4). Yale has the biggest upside but the hardest schedule (6 of final 8 on road). Yale could get to +6 if they win out but they have to play at all 3 of the other contenders. Harvard has done that already. Penn and Princeton still have to play @ the other contenders. Harvard's path is definitely the easiest to the 1 seed. Just another way to look at it. |
|
|
mrjames Professor Posts 6062 |
02-11-20 05:53 PM - Post#299584
If Yale wins out and loses at Harvard (if it loses a neutral-site game, it's toast), it would have a true resume ranking around 40. That would be an at-large resume, but with the way the committee looks at the world, that would probably be an NIT 5 or 6 seed. Here's how the teams currently rank by Adj Eff Margin in Ivy play: Yale +12 Princeton +8 Harvard +3 Penn -1 Brown -4 Cornell -6 Columbia -8 Dartmouth -8 And here's the schedule strength each has left: 1/2) Cornell/Columbia .5407 3/4) Penn/Princeton .5060 5/6) Yale/Brown .4965 7/8) Harvard/Dartmouth .3963 Given Dartmouth's 0-6 start and the Cs .5407 SOS remaining (Cornell has a 4% chance of getting to 7 wins), it's pretty safe (98-ish percent) to say those teams won't be in the Ivy Tourney. My guess among those five teams: Yale 11-3 Princeton 9-5 Harvard 8-6 Penn 8-6 Brown 7-7 I'll buy Harvard's dominance against the C's when I see it. Harvard hasn't gone 4-for-4 against the C's since the dominant 2014 team. Schedule is weak enough that it'd be hard to bet on 4-4 down the stretch, and while all the systems seem to be saying 6-2, I foresee there being a lot more close games in Harvard's future. Penn and Princeton both host the C's in their final weekend, and the Tigers' loss to the Big Red aside, I find it hard to believe they'll drop one to either with a tourney spot on the line. Thus, you're asking them to go 2-4 against Y/B home and away and H/D away. TOUGH but should be do-able. Brown's the wildcard. Probably won't be better than a one- or two-point favorite the rest of the way. But should be within a few points either way for five of the final eight. Problem for Brown is that it has a tough tiebreak situation having already been swept by Yale. Assuming Yale wins the title, it has to win at Harvard to have that tiebreak. In a situation where it sweeps Penn or Princeton, it probably wouldn't need the tiebreaker with that team at that point and a split wouldn't likely be favorable. Thus, I think Brown's performance this weekend is probably the most interesting thing to watch (though I *guarantee* Harvard will stub its toe and find itself in an entertaining battle in at least one game this weekend). Brown getting swept would start to crystallize the tourney picture, but if it can grab a game (or sweep), things would get CRAZY down the stretch. |
|
|
mrjames Professor Posts 6062 |
02-11-20 05:59 PM - Post#299586
FWIW, I think Harvard and Yale were only +3 last year, though unless the C's and Dartmouth have a huge second half, I do think it'll take +4 at least to get it done this year (as it almost always does). |
|
|
iogyhufi Masters Student Posts 680 |
02-11-20 05:59 PM - Post#299588
That makes a certain amount of sense, I grant, but it also presumes that all games within a certain category are created equal (e.g., losing at home to Princeton gets treated the same as losing at home to Cornell). I generally prefer to line corresponding games up when comparing where teams are in the standings. For example, Harvard has one loss where Yale has a win (@BRN) and one win where Yale has a loss (@Yale). So they're even in that respect, but Harvard has banked two losses and a win that Yale has yet to play (@PENN, @PRI, @DRT respectively), whereas Yale has banked three wins that Harvard has yet to play (vs. BRN, vs. COR, vs. COL). By this model, Harvard and Yale are currently even in shared games, but Yale is 3-0 in non-shared games whereas Harvard is 1-2 in non-shared games. This means that the best that Harvard can do is match Yale on those games (and could possibly do worse), whereas Yale has the potential to pick up games that Harvard did not. In my model, Yale's got better future potential than Harvard does when the two are compared. |
|
|
PennFan10 Postdoc Posts 3584 |
02-11-20 06:11 PM - Post#299589
FWIW, I think Harvard and Yale were only +3 last year, though unless the C's and Dartmouth have a huge second half, I do think it'll take +4 at least to get it done this year (as it almost always does). Yes you are right, wacky year. (Blasted empiricists ruining my attempt at data scrubbing) |
|
|
PennFan10 Postdoc Posts 3584 |
02-11-20 06:14 PM - Post#299590
That makes a certain amount of sense, I grant, but it also presumes that all games within a certain category are created equal (e.g., losing at home to Princeton gets treated the same as losing at home to Cornell). I generally prefer to line corresponding games up when comparing where teams are in the standings. For example, Harvard has one loss where Yale has a win (@BRN) and one win where Yale has a loss (@Yale). So they're even in that respect, but Harvard has banked two losses and a win that Yale has yet to play (@PENN, @PRI, @DRT respectively), whereas Yale has banked three wins that Harvard has yet to play (vs. BRN, vs. COR, vs. COL). By this model, Harvard and Yale are currently even in shared games, but Yale is 3-0 in non-shared games whereas Harvard is 1-2 in non-shared games. This means that the best that Harvard can do is match Yale on those games (and could possibly do worse), whereas Yale has the potential to pick up games that Harvard did not. In my model, Yale's got better future potential than Harvard does when the two are compared. Yea but my model has historical accuracy and your's is just now created with a stick in the dirt no? Ha. Actually, I said as much as Harvard at +2 can only get to +4 (or worse if they stub their toe as Mike says) and Yale can get to +6 so has more upside. Yale's road to +6 is harder than Harvard's road to +4 but Yale also has more margin for error than Harvard.....which is effectively the same thing you said in your post |
|
|
iogyhufi Masters Student Posts 680 |
02-11-20 07:31 PM - Post#299594
Sure, but your model is only useful for post-hoc evaluation because teams don't play the same games at the same time. If you'd like to place a wager on your model's predictions being correct (i.e., that Yale finishes fourth), I'm sure you'd find plenty of takers. EDIT: Missed the bit about future potential in your model. That makes things make a lot more sense to me. I should also clarify that I use this to compare teams mid-season, not after the season (because at that point it'd be silly to use). |
|
|
SomeGuy Professor Posts 6404 |
02-11-20 08:07 PM - Post#299595
Doesn’t this basically assume all teams are equal? Yale may have a more “difficult†path, but they will be favored in every game the rest of the way, while Harvard will not. Won’t your model almost always presume that a good team that plays its early season games on the road is in better shape than the team that played at home? |
|
|
HARVARDDADGRAD Postdoc Posts 2691 |
02-11-20 09:34 PM - Post#299597
Harvard may well be favored in each remaining game. |
|
|
SomeGuy Professor Posts 6404 |
02-11-20 09:42 PM - Post#299598
As of today, Yale would be favored even at Harvard. Of course that could change, but there is enough gap between them that I think it is more likely than not to stay that way. Harvard would be a favorite in the rest of their games. Of course, both teams were Pomeroy favorites in each of the four total games they’ve lost, so who is favored isn’t everything. I think Yale is a clear favorite to win the regular season, but Harvard is neck and neck with Princeton for the next best chance. |
|
|
Bryan Junior Posts 231 |
02-11-20 11:12 PM - Post#299604
If Yale wins out and loses at Harvard (if it loses a neutral-site game, it's toast), it would have a true resume ranking around 40. That would be an at-large resume, but with the way the committee looks at the world, that would probably be an NIT 5 or 6 seed. Yale is rated nowhere close to 40 by NET or Pomeroy or Sagarin. What metric are you using to conclude they can get to a "true resume rating" around 40? How does that true resume rating differ from NET? If it's a better metric then shouldn't we see a similar result in at least one of Pomeroy or Sagarin as well? |
|
|
mrjames Professor Posts 6062 |
02-11-20 11:28 PM - Post#299605
Resume and quality metrics like KenPom, Sagarin, NET are different. Resume, as measured by WAB or ESPN’s SOR are based solely on wins and losses and are decently predictable in advance because the only variable is whether teams you’ve played get better or worse. The quality metrics are tougher to predict because it depends on how much you win by. Technically, Yale could win out and scrape by in every game and go *down* in KenPom and similar metrics. But if it finishes 13-1 in the league KenPom and similar metrics will likely rise, because it has some difficult road games remaining. The NCAA is silent on whether “best†is best resume, best quality or both. Thus, it’s unclear whether metrics like SOR or WAB (resume), KenPom or Sagarin (quality) or both are what the NCAA is aimed at to answer their charge of selecting the “best†remaining teams. |
|
|
PennFan10 Postdoc Posts 3584 |
02-11-20 11:52 PM - Post#299608
Doesn’t this basically assume all teams are equal? Yale may have a more “difficult†path, but they will be favored in every game the rest of the way, while Harvard will not. Won’t your model almost always presume that a good team that plays its early season games on the road is in better shape than the team that played at home? In a sense yes, at the start of the season everyone is at 0. If the home teams win the first 6 games, everyone will still be at 0. The reality is the regular season winner is almost always going to get to +4. Theoretically Cornell still has a path to do that. Yale could get to +6. Harvard’s ceiling is +4 right now. THe model isn’t meant to rate the teams today. It’s really meant to show what kind of road they have ahead of them. Yale is currently at 0 and Harvard is +2. Harvard got to +2 by playing all their tough road games now while Yale is about to play those games. Really the model tells me Harvard is not in as bad of shape as 1-3 over the past 4 games might lead someone to believe. And Yale at 0 hasn’t really given up any ground yet either, despite the home loss to H. Negative numbers at this point aren’t that good and anyone at 0 or better is holding serve or better. The 4 likely candidates are currently 0 to +2. |
|
|
HARVARDDADGRAD Postdoc Posts 2691 |
02-12-20 05:33 AM - Post#299619
Having played each of the 4 other tournament contenders on the road, Harvard could be considered to be in a matter position than had it played the C’s on the road. All road games are not equal. |
|
|
 |
|
| Copyright © 2004-2012 Basketball U. Terms of Use for our Site and Privacy Policy are applicable to you. All rights reserved. Basketball U. and its subsidiaries are not affiliated in any way with any NCAA athletic conference or member institution. |
|