mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-26-18 06:38 PM - Post#249660
In response to bradley
I would argue, for instance, that we have had a couple teams this decade good enough to be an at large if they lost in the Ivy Tourney (2012 and 2014 Harvard - probably 2012 Harvard had the strongest case).
The "significantly inferior" question hasn't happened recently, but it happened in 2004 and was only narrowly avoided in 2002 and 2012. I assign that a lower probability than the others, but it's still possible.
I do disagree that results will lead us to the answer here - at least within any reasonable timeframe. If we had 50 years with the same system to examine, maybe we could start feeling confident about the outcomes we're seeing, but for me, the actual outcomes of the tournament will be less instructive than some of the underlying evidence along the way. For instance, we may label last year's tournament a success, but I see it as a massive danger sign. If Matt Howard makes the front end (or even worse, both), year one would have been a disaster. At that point, Princeton was 5.9% to win. The result of that tourney is far less instructive than that data point and should have caused us to take a LONG look at where the tourney is hosted.
|
