mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-25-19 04:37 PM - Post#282688
In response to bradley
The explanation for what you're seeing is that the Ivies have concentrated their peaks for 2019-20.
Harvard was hitting its peak in 2014 with Yale aimed for 2015 and 2016 and with Princeton geared up for 2016 and 2017. That created a seamless transition of really powerful Ivy winners that were all competitive. But after Princeton hit its peak, the talent in the league was pretty much all aimed at a 2019-20 peak. There were zero seniors on the 2017-18 All-Ivy first two teams (half were sophomores) and two-thirds of the All-Ivy first two teams (plus the injured returnees) were not seniors this year as well. We're going to have ~15 former All-Ivy honorees back next season - can't imagine there have been too many other points in our past where that's the case.
So, while the alternate peak strategy is a good way to consistently hit the 12-13 line, the concentrated peak strategy is the best way to go for multiple bids.
The story can't be about Harvard, alone, though. If Harvard is our only Top 75 team next year (or more generally, if there is just one Top 75 team next year) that's not going to get the job done. There need to be five or six Q1/Q2 win opportunities in league play - best accomplished by having multiple Top 75 teams, where the home/road is worth a Q1 and a Q2.
The other key ingredient to this recipe - I believe all of the Ivy Tourney teams from this year have access to an MTE slot next year (though I've only seen Harvard and Penn announced thus far - and Columbia from amongst the non-tourney crew).
|
