whitakk
Masters Student
Posts: 523
Age: 32
Reg: 11-11-14
|
02-09-16 12:08 AM - Post#201217
In response to dperry
I don't disagree. Only a playoff loser at 13-1 would really have a chance.
I think Princeton would have an RPI around 35-40 in that position (Penn's would be a bit lower, since it would need two more losses). All their losses would be road/neutral to top-50 RPI teams, and they'd have two top-50 wins. They're in the 30s in the Sagarin ratings, and maybe have some leftover name recognition from last year, FWIW.
I still don't know if that team gets in, but it would be the best at-large case we've seen on either side.
Seems to me they got hurt by non-league opponents having down years (Marist, Fordham, Michigan). If some of those teams had been stronger, Princeton might have been able to get its RPI up around the high 20s (as similar teams did in 2012/13), and then it would've been really hard to leave them out.
|
Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts: 2801
Reg: 11-23-04
|
02-09-16 01:33 AM - Post#201221
In response to whitakk
Given the disrespect the NCAA has for the Ivies as reflected by the 8 seed it gave to the UNDEFEATED (30-0) Tigers in its region last year, I don't see a second bid to the Ivies anytime soon.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3580
Reg: 02-15-15
|
02-09-16 12:19 PM - Post#201230
In response to Tiger69
The Ivies will get a second bid when they start consistently playing and beating top 50 teams.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-09-16 12:52 PM - Post#201233
In response to PennFan10
They've taken care of part A there. Only Dartmouth failed to play 3 Tier A (Top 50) games this season. And when you look at Tier A and Tier B games (Top 50 and Top 100), every Ivy played at least three and a couple (Harvard and Yale) played 5. Combine that with the fact that the average Ivy team gets about 4 Tier A or Tier B shots per year in conference play now, and we're starting to get to critical mass on building a profile.
Part B has been pretty good recently too. This year was a disappointment with so many near misses, but we've racked up a ton of scalps over the past five years or so. Wins are correlated with both skill and total number of opportunities, so as both increase, I would expect to see more.
|
hoopla
Masters Student
Posts: 486
Age: 49
Reg: 08-28-12
|
02-09-16 01:04 PM - Post#201236
In response to mrjames
Dartmouth played Seton Hall who is #31 on Kenpom.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3580
Reg: 02-15-15
|
02-09-16 05:32 PM - Post#201257
In response to mrjames
And part B probably has to be a team that wins more than just one of those games in a given season. They have to show they can beat other top 50 teams, that seems to me how other at large teams build a resume for the NCAA's.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-09-16 09:59 PM - Post#201270
In response to PennFan10
The answer to that might be getting more Top 50 games at home, where the games can be easier than non-Top 100 road contests, but count toward the Top 50 record.
The only thing that will keep us from getting the necessary Top 50 wins will be not scheduling enough games - a trend that has been good recently, but needs to continue. Also, allowing MTE participation every year will give us better shots at good teams on neutral floors.
The resistance I'm getting to this when I talk about it really makes me wish that this prop was open for betting. It's hard to recruit as well as this league is recruiting right now and not fall something-backwards into a two-bid situation. This is happening, folks.
|
bradley
PhD Student
Posts: 1842
Age: 74
Reg: 01-15-16
|
02-09-16 10:46 PM - Post#201271
In response to mrjames
They've taken care of part A there. Only Dartmouth failed to play 3 Tier A (Top 50) games this season. And when you look at Tier A and Tier B games (Top 50 and Top 100), every Ivy played at least three and a couple (Harvard and Yale) played 5. Combine that with the fact that the average Ivy team gets about 4 Tier A or Tier B shots per year in conference play now, and we're starting to get to critical mass on building a profile.
Part B has been pretty good recently too. This year was a disappointment with so many near misses, but we've racked up a ton of scalps over the past five years or so. Wins are correlated with both skill and total number of opportunities, so as both increase, I would expect to see more.
Yale, Harvard and Princeton played competitive games against several top 25 teams -- Oklahoma,Kansas, Miami, SMU and USC but the reality is that no Ivy League team has beaten a top 50 team this year currently based on KenPom rankings. As a matter of fact, I believe that the top rated KenPom team that lost to an Ivy team is Princeton at #70 to Yale at #55. There will not be a second bid for an Ivy team until there are victories on a more regular basis than what has occurred over the past few years.
I agree with the thought that Ivy League teams should play at neutral sites, tournaments, like Harvard does. It certainly improves the odds. Also, the scheduling of games against good teams is very important but having winnable games against good opponents is also important.
Strength of schedule as measured by KenPom as of today is:
Cornell 54
Princeton 52
Harvard 51
Columbia 45
Yale 45
Brown, Dartmouth and Penn below 41
Coaches really need to think thru and work thru the scheduling of games. There is a possibility that Harvard and Princeton will have a chance next year to get bids if they schedule games well but more importantly win some of those games. Moral victories (losses) will not get a bid.
|
SRP
Postdoc
Posts: 4894
Reg: 02-04-06
|
02-09-16 10:53 PM - Post#201273
In response to dperry
Mr. James doesn't believe that the fix is in on these things at the NCAA level. Many of us don't agree. The WCC or the Missouri Valley Conference might be allowed to get a second team in on merit, but the Ivies--not likely, although I'd be glad to be proven wrong.
|
HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts: 2685
Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
|
02-09-16 11:09 PM - Post#201275
In response to bradley
I think BYU might have been top 50 (or thereabouts) when they lost to Harvard.
|
bradley
PhD Student
Posts: 1842
Age: 74
Reg: 01-15-16
|
02-09-16 11:42 PM - Post#201276
In response to HARVARDDADGRAD
I think BYU might have been top 50 (or thereabouts) when they lost to Harvard.
I am referencing the Kenpom rankings now not the ranking when the game was played much earlier in the season. The rankings now are more credible unless a team suffered major injuries, ie. BYU has now played 25 games vs. the Harvard game which was their 11th game of the season. The true color of a team comes out over the long haul in my opinion.
The overall point is that Ivy League teams have not been able to close the deal against the better teams in the country and I believe that the selection committee will look at strength of schedule and results against good competition to let a 2nd Ivy League team in.
|
JadwinGeorge
Senior
Posts: 357
Age: 75
Reg: 12-04-15
|
02-10-16 12:17 PM - Post#201289
In response to bradley
I don't believe the Ivy ever gets a second bid nor do I believe it's a big deal. Unless, of course, the Ivy tournament, assuming it's a fait accompli, is lost by a team like Harvard two years ago or Cornell's sweet 16 entry. Then you might see the Ivy champ seeded 15 or 16 and the loser seeded 8 or 9. Bids are bestowed upon teams that need the money
|
Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts: 2801
Reg: 11-23-04
|
02-10-16 12:55 PM - Post#201291
In response to JadwinGeorge
Need the money???
|
dperry
Postdoc
Posts: 2211
Loc: Houston, TX
Reg: 11-24-04
|
02-16-16 12:34 AM - Post#201854
In response to whitakk
Well, things getting a bit more interesting on the women's side; as of today, Penn is 36 and Princeton 38 in the RPI. At that rate, if they both win out against the rest of the league and their NC opponents keep doing well, it's not inconceivable that they could both be in the 20's going into the return match.
David Perry
Penn '92
"Hail, Alma Mater/Thy sons cheer thee now
To thee, Pennsylvania/All rivals must bow!!!" |
|
SRP
Postdoc
Posts: 4894
Reg: 02-04-06
|
02-27-16 05:08 AM - Post#202771
In response to dperry
Just heard Roy Williams, of all people, say that he wished the ACC would award the automatic bid to the regular season champion. Heresy from an old-school ACC guy, the conference that invented the post-season tournament.
|
sparman
PhD Student
Posts: 1339
Reg: 12-08-04
|
02-27-16 10:42 AM - Post#202789
In response to SRP
Just heard Roy Williams, of all people, say that he wished the ACC would award the automatic bid to the regular season champion. Heresy from an old-school ACC guy, the conference that invented the post-season tournament.
Doubly interesting because the winner of the ACC (known locally as the "All Carolina Conference") tournament, if team other than Duke or UNC, has always made a point about telling the media that the real ACC champion is the tournament winner, not the regular season winner. Issue usually comes up when UNC or Duke win the regular season but another team wins the tournament and the media refers to the other team as the "Tournament winner" and the Duke/INC as the ACC champ.
As you know, Williams came to UNC as coach from a long stint at Kansas, so maybe he had a chance to understand the world from a non-ACC perspective. Or maybe he's just tired of ACC tournament pressure.
|
Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts: 2801
Reg: 11-23-04
|
02-27-16 02:38 PM - Post#202805
In response to sparman
If the Tournament crowd must be appeased, then give the guaranteed bid to the regular season Champion and let the 2-5 also-rans strut their stuff in a 4 team elimination for the right to play against the real Champ. Then, the NCAA can decide whether any also-ran is worthy of an additional bid. The regular season Champ also gets a tune up game for the NCAA first round out of this arrangement regardless of the outcome of its game against the best of the also-rans. The Tournament can be called The AR Tourney.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-27-16 04:21 PM - Post#202830
In response to Tiger69
Not sure if you meant this in jest, but actually... if you tweak this a bit and say... the No. 1 team gets the bid, but 2-5 play a four-team, three-game tourney for an NIT auto-bid, that would actually be very interesting.
The Ivy League could easily have 4-5 Top 100 teams going forward (we already had 4 in 2012) and giving the 2-seed a chance to earn one or two more Top 100 wins could be an important boost toward an NCAA at-large bid. It won't happen, but it's a really cool and potentially effective proposal.
|
SRP
Postdoc
Posts: 4894
Reg: 02-04-06
|
02-27-16 04:32 PM - Post#202833
In response to mrjames
I agree with Mike. That would be cool.
|
westphillywarrior
Sophomore
Posts: 196
Age: 43
Reg: 01-08-11
|
02-27-16 05:32 PM - Post#202839
In response to mrjames
If "the Ivy League could easily have 4-5 Top 100 teams going forward" and all you seem to care about is getting more teams into the tournament, why not just push for a 128 team tournament?
The Ivy League 14 game tournament is a wonderful thing with the championship prize the automatic tournament bid. Don't screw that up.
|