Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts: 2818
Reg: 11-23-04
|
03-12-11 07:17 PM - Post#100444
Great game by both teams.
|
mmp629
Junior
Posts: 259
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: HARVARD DESERVES NCAA BID
03-12-11 07:19 PM - Post#100448
In response to Tiger69
Agree big time.
|
H78
PhD Student
Posts: 1458
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
Reg: 01-06-11
|
HARVARD DESERVES NCAA BID
03-12-11 07:41 PM - Post#100464
In response to mmp629
I hope you guys are right.
Harvard will need to improve its FT%. 10-16, at 62.5% that's what I think did us in, as much as the strong play of the Princeton team.
|
gokinsmen
Postdoc
Posts: 3677
Reg: 02-06-10
|
HARVARD DESERVES NCAA BID
03-12-11 07:46 PM - Post#100468
In response to H78
As pub said in another thread, it's ridiculous reverse-snobbery that Harvard isn't getting serious consideration. And as I said in that same thread, I'm looking at Last Four Ins and First Four Outs, and I see, what, two teams with clearly better cases? Let's hope the committee sees what 23rd ranked Bracketologist in the nation does not.
It would be a watershed moment for the Ivy.
|
gokinsmen
Postdoc
Posts: 3677
Reg: 02-06-10
|
Re: HARVARD DESERVES NCAA BID
03-12-11 07:48 PM - Post#100469
In response to H78
Harvard will need to improve its FT%. 10-16, at 62.5% that's what I think did us in, as much as the strong play of the Princeton team.
I was kinda shocked by this...a flukey bit of luck in our favor. I wouldn't worry too much about it at all. You guys are still the 2nd or 3rd best FT shooting team in the nation.
|
Howard Gensler
Postdoc
Posts: 4141
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-12-11 08:22 PM - Post#100479
In response to gokinsmen
Let's look at this without Ivy snobbery: Harvard's record against the Top 50: 1-5. The win against Princeton (home).
Against the Top 100: 3-5. Wins against Princeton (home), BC (away) and Colorado (home). BC and Colorado are bubble teams and they beat Colorado in November. They lost to another bubble team (Michigan) on the road.
The Crimson's only bad loss was against Yale, but they have no signature wins. Every other team I've looked at that's also on the bubble has a signature win or has at as many as good wins and has played a much tougher schedule.
I also think it would be weird for the NCAA to invite a team that hasn't been in 65 years when their tournament resume is not a shoo-in. If Cornell, after three straight trips and a Sweet 16 appearance had Harvard's resume, it might be different.
If they're not named Harvard, they're not really in the discussion. In 2002, when the League was also as strong as this year (if not stronger), if Penn had lost to Yale in the playoff, they would have finished 24-7 and no one was considering them for an at-large bid. That team won at Georgia Tech and beat Villanova, Temple, St. Joe's La Salle and Drexel and lost by 7 to a very good Illinois team on a neutral court. And they had no chance at an at-large bid.
Harvard's close, but they needed to beat Michigan or George Mason, or, heaven forbid, UCONN, whom they played much tougher last season.
All that aside, that was a helluva game. After both teams started out tight, the second half was terrific.
|
gokinsmen
Postdoc
Posts: 3677
Reg: 02-06-10
|
HARVARD DESERVES NCAA BID
03-12-11 08:22 PM - Post#100480
In response to gokinsmen
Lunardi finally puts Harvard on the "Next Four Out" update:
http://espn.go.com/blog/CollegeBasketbal lNation/po...
Still not high enough, esp. considering they beat a Last Four In by 16 and the first-one-out on BC's homecourt.
|
gokinsmen
Postdoc
Posts: 3677
Reg: 02-06-10
|
HARVARD DESERVES NCAA BID
03-12-11 08:29 PM - Post#100484
In response to Howard Gensler
I have a problem with "signature" wins that are at home, in-conference, on the second or third time around in a game that means relatively little (vs. a lock playing for mere seeding). Don't you think Harvard could beat, say, WVU or Texas A&M at least once if they played them multiple times (including a road or neutral site)?
Let's not forget that NCAA games are almost all non-conf games away from home. Games that fit either criteria should be weighted a LOT more heavily, and BCS schools that refuse to schedule road games against quality non-conf teams should be penalized.
Also, George Mason didn't have any marquee wins in 2006 (just a nice Bracket Buster against Wichita State), but were given an 11-seed. And Harvard didn't have Kyle Casey against GMU this year. Also, they've been named Harvard all season and they didn't get any real discussion until a few minutes ago (i.e. the Lunardi link), so that theory doesn't add up.
|
mountainred
Masters Student
Posts: 514
Age: 57
Loc: Charleston, WV
Reg: 04-11-10
|
03-12-11 08:45 PM - Post#100488
In response to Howard Gensler
But Howard, have you looked at the "Bubble" this year? Not sure I've seen a less-deserving bunch of flawed teams (Penn State? Clemson? Alabama?), and Harvard does own head to head wins over two teams that have lived on the NCAA cut line for the last month (Colorado and BC, but everyone on this board probably already knows that).
Most years, I would agree that the Crimson's resume is a little thin save for the RPI, which is really evidence of why the RPI is flawed. This year, who knows? And you can see national media types recognizing that by beginning to float Harvard's name.
In the end, the lack of a marquee win will probably keep them out, primarily because the committee won't want to hear it from the media if they pick Harvard and the Crimson lays an egg. A signature win gives them a sound-bite answer as to why Harvard gets in. Maybe the head to head wins over Colorado and BC will suffice, but in the end a 12 loss team from a power conference is safer and less controversial outside of this board.
|
mountainred
Masters Student
Posts: 514
Age: 57
Loc: Charleston, WV
Reg: 04-11-10
|
HARVARD DESERVES NCAA BID
03-12-11 08:47 PM - Post#100489
In response to Howard Gensler
Double post, sorry.
|
Howard Gensler
Postdoc
Posts: 4141
Reg: 11-21-04
|
HARVARD DESERVES NCAA BID
03-12-11 09:25 PM - Post#100496
In response to mountainred
But Howard, have you looked at the "Bubble" this year? Not sure I've seen a less-deserving bunch of flawed teams (Penn State? Clemson? Alabama?), and Harvard does own head to head wins over two teams that have lived on the NCAA cut line for the last month (Colorado and BC, but everyone on this board probably already knows that).
Most years, I would agree that the Crimson's resume is a little thin save for the RPI, which is really evidence of why the RPI is flawed. This year, who knows? And you can see national media types recognizing that by beginning to float Harvard's name.
In the end, the lack of a marquee win will probably keep them out, primarily because the committee won't want to hear it from the media if they pick Harvard and the Crimson lays an egg. A signature win gives them a sound-bite answer as to why Harvard gets in. Maybe the head to head wins over Colorado and BC will suffice, but in the end a 12 loss team from a power conference is safer and less controversial outside of this board.
I agree that the bubble is flawed this year and I also agree with gokinsmen that Harvard could beat some of these BCS teams if they played them multiple times. But that cuts both ways. With their short bench, if instead of a League stretch that featured home 156, home 242, at 210, at 184, at 242, Harvard had to play Alabama's stretch of home 119, at 33, at 25 (L) and home 83, does anyone think Harvard would have had the record it had? And Penn State's RPI SOS is No. 5, so they're playing a completely different level of competition night in and night out and they have two wins over Top 20 Wisconsin. If Harvard played Wisconsin three times, I don't know if they'd beat them twice.
As for the logic that Harvard's marquee wins are against two teams that have been on the cutline, I'm not sure if that's a winning argument.
I think they're close and I won't be stunned if they get one, but I don't think they "deserve" an NCAA bid. I do, however, think they could win the NIT.
Edited by Howard Gensler on 03-12-11 09:26 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
mountainred
Masters Student
Posts: 514
Age: 57
Loc: Charleston, WV
Reg: 04-11-10
|
Re: HARVARD DESERVES NCAA BID
03-13-11 12:49 AM - Post#100533
In response to Howard Gensler
As for the logic that Harvard's marquee wins are against two teams that have been on the cutline, I'm not sure if that's a winning argument.
I think they're close and I won't be stunned if they get one, but I don't think they "deserve" an NCAA bid. I do, however, think they could win the NIT.
I doubt it's a winning argument, and I really only offered it up as evidence that Harvard is not far removed from the bubble teams and has a nice head to head tie-breaker over two of them. Personally, I don't think any of the at-large teams below around a #9 seed "deserve" a bid, but there are brackets to be completed and 67 games to show. Somebody has to go and Harvard would be competitive with the teams in the conversation as it went 2-1 against the others (admittedly a small sample).
At the end of the day, Eamonn Brennan summed up Harvard's problem pretty well on his ESPN blog: "Harvard's gaudy record has been boosted by a disconcerting number of bad wins. Sixteen -- yes, sixteen -- of the Crimson's 21 victories this season have come against teams ranked below 150 in the RPI. Eight of those teams have RPI figures below 240." A 3-2 record over teams with RPIs between 50-100 probably doesn't trump that. But, I've seen stranger things happen.
If the NIT is willing to play games in Bright, despite its size, the Crimson could make a deep run. If not, I don't think Harvard is winning three straight road games as they have not looked nearly as good on the road as at home.
|
Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts: 2818
Reg: 11-23-04
|
Re: HARVARD DESERVES NCAA BID
03-13-11 08:11 AM - Post#100554
In response to mountainred
Harvard deserves it because ... they deserve it! Find me 68 other teams that play as hard and as well as they do and are as successful as they are. Plus, they are great press. Let Amaker get in the Tournament where, in spite of himself, he may win a game or two and then sell his services to the highest bidder. Then, someone else can take his straight flush and play the cards a little better.
Edited by Tiger69 on 03-13-11 08:12 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
pchrystie
Masters Student
Posts: 673
Reg: 03-14-06
|
Re: HARVARD DESERVES NCAA BID
03-13-11 12:15 PM - Post#100581
In response to Tiger69
Harvard deserves it because ... they deserve it! Find me 68 other teams that play as hard and as well as they do and are as successful as they are. Plus, they are great press. Let Amaker get in the Tournament where, in spite of himself, he may win a game or two and then sell his services to the highest bidder. Then, someone else can take his straight flush and play the cards a little better.
Well, except that they don't. Only one team ranked ahead of Harvard in the RPI has as few wins over top-50 teams as Harvard, Utah State with one.
And here's some text from Rivals projected bracket. Note that they are trashing all the 12 seeds - which are the last at large teams - and yet all have a better case than Harvard:
"None of the 12 seeds are all that imposing. Illinois has 11 top-100 wins, but the Illini have 13 losses overall and are 5-11 away from home. Clemson has zero top-50 wins - zero - and is just 3-7 in true road games, but the Tigers do have nine top-100 wins. Virginia Tech - which lost its only matchup to Clemson - has just two top-50 wins and has three losses to teams outside the top 100. Georgia is just 3-9 against top-50 teams, and nine of its 21 wins are against teams who are outside the top 200. Colorado's RPI is 65th, and while the Buffs have five top-50 wins, they are 12-13 against teams in the top 200, are 3-9 in true road games and played a pitiful non-conference schedule. Finally, Alabama won the SEC West in a cakewalk. But the Tide would set a record for worst RPI for an at-large team (they're 80th), have just five top-100 wins and played a weak non-conference schedule."
11 top-100 wins
9 top-100 wins
2 top-50 wins
3 top-50 wins
5 top-50 wins
5 top-100 wins
All better than Harvard.
(I should also note that, prior to the updating of the RPI, Alabama, the weakest of that bunch, has 4 wins better than Harvard's best win, including a win over #10 and a win on the road over #33.)
Also, if Princeton is a 13-seed with no at-large teams behind it, with roughly the same record as Harvard, probably roughly the same RPI (realtime RPI is not yet updated, revealing itself to in fact not be real time), with more top-100 wins, and took the season series, including the neutral site game, how do you put Harvard in when you'd have to seed them ahead of Princeton to do so?
This discussion is happening only because of two names: Harvard and Amaker. Do you think there'd be serious discussion if you replaced those names with Brown and Agel? There's no pre-packaged story in Brown and Agel, so there's no chance they're in the discussion.
Whether Harvard getting in is good for the league or not, I don't know. Does it give the league a leg up when it recruits against teams in one-bid conferences? Theoretically, although during their runs of NCAA appearances Penn and Princeton consistently lost recruits to schools that had little chance of making the NCAA, so I'm not sure how "theoretically" would translate into reality.
Given that the NCAA money is divvied up based on how many teams are in the tournament and how far they progress, having two teams in a year after having a team go to the Sweet Sixteen would provide financial benefits to the league and all its schools.
Finally, not sure how Amaker could win a game or two "in spite of himself" when he couldn't win the league in spite of himself.
Edited by pchrystie on 03-13-11 12:22 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
Silver Maple
Postdoc
Posts: 3781
Loc: Westfield, New Jersey
Reg: 11-23-04
|
03-13-11 12:20 PM - Post#100582
In response to pchrystie
If Harvard were to get the league's first at large bid since God knows when (never?), and get it over some clearly more deserving big-conference teams, and then get destroyed in the first round, I can't imagine that would do much good for the league.
|
Howard Gensler
Postdoc
Posts: 4141
Reg: 11-21-04
|
HARVARD DESERVES NCAA BID
03-13-11 01:50 PM - Post#100594
In response to Silver Maple
I've made the case that I I don't think Harvard should get an at-large bid, but if they did, I don't think they'd get destroyed, although there are a couple potential four seeds who could destroy any team at the Harvard-Princeton level.
Lunardi's 4s at the moment are Syracuse, Louisville, Purdue and Wisconsin and the team I would least want is Louisville, with Wisconsin being the team which could lay another egg. His 5s are Texas A&M, Vandy, Arizona and Xavier and I think those are games in which Princeton or Harvard could hang in there. There's a pretty big drop from the 4s to the 5s.
It would be sort of twisted if Harvard did get a bid at 12 and had a somewhat winnable game and Princeton got a 13 and had an unwinnable game.
Edited by Howard Gensler on 03-13-11 01:51 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
mountainred
Masters Student
Posts: 514
Age: 57
Loc: Charleston, WV
Reg: 04-11-10
|
Re: HARVARD DESERVES NCAA BID
03-13-11 03:25 PM - Post#100603
In response to pchrystie
This discussion is happening only because of two names: Harvard and Amaker. Do you think there'd be serious discussion if you replaced those names with Brown and Agel? There's no pre-packaged story in Brown and Agel, so there's no chance they're in the discussion.
Possibly, but I think the main reason this conversation is taking place is because the bubble is so very ordinary. I think Harvard's case is better than BC or Missouri State, two teams thave been talked about as bubble teams for weeks, although both appear to be (deservedly) on the wrong side of the cut line.
The Crimson would probably be competitive if they made it, depending on the match-up. But that's just a guess as their lone game against a likely top four seed (UConn) was not that close. Not a rip of Harvard, just an observation that there isn't much data to consider.
|
|
