Untitled Document
Brown Columbia Cornell Dartmouth Harvard Penn Princeton Yale



Username Post: The New Normal        (Topic#18786)
PennFan10 
Postdoc
Posts: 3578

Reg: 02-15-15
03-01-16 01:15 PM - Post#203071    

Mr James has hinted at the Ivy League getting an at-large bid to the NCAA's. The rise of Harvard as a destination school for basketball is well documented. Yale and Columbia are talented at or near all-time levels. Even Princeton is decent. As others have hinted I think we are headed to a new normal in the Ivy League.

I don't think Harvard's success is limited to just Harvard. They have done a great job building their brand as a basketball school such that they are bringing in a nationally ranked class next year. Who is to say Harvard is the only Ivy that can rise to that level? Who is to say the Ivy league can't become a destination league for top basketball recruits? The demographics are changing for top athletes. More and more they are seeing the reality that their athletic career is only 4 years more after High School. For some, the rise of quality overseas basketball gives the Ivy's a distinctive advantage over many other schools. Student-athletes are coming to value the student part of the phrase more than ever. Harvard has capitalized on it and I believe the others are going to follow suit.

The days of HYP competing for the top 3-4 Ivy type elite talent are coming to an end in my opinion. What has to happen for there to be an influx of high major type players that decide to choose top academics with high level basketball that benefits the top schools in the league?

For one, the Ivy's need to start winning these marquee matchups with more frequency. Harvard's 2016 recruiting haul could be the start of a higher profile for Ivy schools. If high major hoopsters begin to see the lure of an Ivy education in addition to the ability to play high level basketball, the league will fundamentally change.

Call me crazy, but I don't think we are that far from this being a reality.

 
mrjames 
Professor
Posts: 6062

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
03-01-16 02:23 PM - Post#203075    
    In response to PennFan10

When it comes to the 2016 class, it's important to note that Yale also pulled in Jordan Bruner (Rivals No. 111, 4-star), Penn picked up consensus 3-star A.J. Brodeur and Princeton nabbed two 3-star guys as well. These are all players that would have been the early favorites for ROY, and that these boards would have been salivating over 10 years ago, and now it's just normal course.

As much as we malign the recruiting rankings... this stuff does predict future success.

 
palestra38 
Professor
Posts: 32680

Reg: 11-21-04
03-01-16 02:26 PM - Post#203077    
    In response to mrjames

So what do you know about any other potential Penn transfer?

 
mrjames 
Professor
Posts: 6062

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
03-01-16 02:52 PM - Post#203078    
    In response to palestra38

I know nothing. I hope the Quakers get a good one, preferably one that is immediately eligible!

 
puband09 
Masters Student
Posts: 782

Reg: 12-19-09
03-01-16 02:58 PM - Post#203079    
    In response to mrjames

  • mrjames Said:
As much as we malign the recruiting rankings... this stuff does predict future success.



I have a question about this. I feel like every year, I read everyone "salivating" or trembling in fear over better-than-ever recruits (almost always Harvard). This was particularly true for Zena E. (I went back and checked old threads); now he's a junior and they are 4-8.

Maybe this is Amaker's fault (I'm still not convinced he's the best strategic coach in our conference), but my point stands.

Sure, Harvard's rising freshmen may look impressive, but do I think they are going to steamroll the League for 4 years? No.

I've gotten to the point where I don't even read the recruiting threads on here anymore because of the outlandish claims.

 
Kit 
Senior
Posts: 380

Loc: Central Massachusetts
Reg: 11-29-04
Re: The New Normal
03-01-16 03:34 PM - Post#203081    
    In response to PennFan10

The only school that's being affected is Harvard.


 
T.P.F.K.A.D.W. 
PhD Student
Posts: 1169

Loc: Our Nation's Capital
Reg: 01-18-05
03-01-16 03:55 PM - Post#203083    
    In response to mrjames

  • mrjames Said:
I know nothing. I hope the Quakers get a good one, preferably one that is immediately eligible!


Concerning transfers that are known knowns (i.e., the ones you go to war with), how does this Matt MacDonald project? Scored (I think) about 9 ppg as a freshman at FDU. Any idea how that might translate going forward?

 
Bryan 
Junior
Posts: 231

Loc: Philadelphia
Reg: 11-21-04
03-01-16 03:56 PM - Post#203084    
    In response to puband09

  • puband09 Said:
  • mrjames Said:
As much as we malign the recruiting rankings... this stuff does predict future success.



I have a question about this. I feel like every year, I read everyone "salivating" or trembling in fear over better-than-ever recruits (almost always Harvard). This was particularly true for Zena E. (I went back and checked old threads); now he's a junior and they are 4-8.

Maybe this is Amaker's fault (I'm still not convinced he's the best strategic coach in our conference), but my point stands.

Sure, Harvard's rising freshmen may look impressive, but do I think they are going to steamroll the League for 4 years? No.

I've gotten to the point where I don't even read the recruiting threads on here anymore because of the outlandish claims.



Harvard has won at least a share of the Ivy title for 5 straight years and gone to the NCAA tournament the last 4 years. They have an incoming class with 4 players rated as highly as any of Amaker's Harvard recruits up until now. They might not steamroll the league, but it's hard to believe they won't be very good next year.

Bryan


 
mrjames 
Professor
Posts: 6062

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
03-01-16 04:24 PM - Post#203085    
    In response to puband09

So, I've written extensively about this and recorded a podcast episode about it (Episode 3, I believe).

I'm not going to rehash it all here, but essentially there is far more to fear in a deep class than a shallow class with one headliner. And the model shows that. The last Harvard class that was ranked first in the Ivies in terms of expected win shares was the 2012 class of Siyani, Evan, Agunwa, Steeves and Mike Hall. Since then, Harvard's 2013, 2014 and 2015 classes were all middle of the pack, even though the Crimson did have the clear, best recruit according to the rankings in the 2013 and 2014 classes.

The model identifies these as Tommy's highest rated recruiting classes (also the highest four rated classes in the Ivy League since 2002):

1. Harvard 2016 60 Pred/(TBD Actual)
2. Harvard 2011 40 Pred/55 Actual
3. Harvard 2009 35 Pred/43 Actual
4. Harvard 2012 33 Pred/20 Actual (TBD final)

With 7 WS from Agunwa, Evan and Steeves this year and a solid year from Siyani next season, that 2012 class should finish around where it was predicted to finish and the other two highly rated classes overachieved their lofty targets.

And yet the 2016 class is expected to be about as good as the 2011 class actually was (technically that 2011 class is still racking up WS due to Corbin Miller still adding to that class).

I'll say this again, one of the most underreported aspects of Ivy hoops over the past three years has been how the assistant coaching turnover and some REALLY bad luck with admissions and fin aid had decimated Harvard's normally strong recruiting.

 
Tiger69 
Postdoc
Posts: 2801

Reg: 11-23-04
The New Normal
03-01-16 04:28 PM - Post#203086    
    In response to Bryan

So, Harvard has won 5 titles (2 were split). All were competitive. They never ran the table, unlike several of the P teams of earlier years. Meanwhile, Princeton, Yale and Columbia had competitive teams, Brown had some superlative players, Penn and Cornell are recovering from coaching changes, and Dartmouth is in the midst of rebuilding. This year Harvard sucks and next year they will have a bunch of high rated, but unproved Freshmen. Some players get injured, others fail to live up to billing, still others drop out for various reasons. I see no reason to panic for the rest of the League. Amaker apparently recruits high profile players. He has plenty of them every year including several riding the pine. Several of the most outstanding Ivies had much more modest identities coming out of hs. I, like an earlier poster, believe that harvard will not get a disproportionate amount of the real talent going forward -- especially as the Ivy brand becomes more popular.

 
puband09 
Masters Student
Posts: 782

Reg: 12-19-09
Re: The New Normal
03-01-16 04:59 PM - Post#203088    
    In response to Tiger69

  • Tiger69 Said:
Harvard has won 5 titles (2 were split). All were competitive. They never ran the table...



This is my point. Yes Bryan, I expect them to be "very good," but we're led to expect more than good in these discussions.

 
mrjames 
Professor
Posts: 6062

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
03-01-16 07:34 PM - Post#203093    
    In response to puband09

The quality of the Ivy League this decade isn't really possible to compare to the Ivies of the 80s, 90s & 00s.

The classic fallacy here is attacking the anecdote and ignoring the trend. Yes, Chris Egi thus far has not lived up to his ranking. And a year ago people had doubts about Z (though when healthy this year, he's made a clear statement). And Mike Hall was a Top 150 Rivals kid that ended up transferring out. All are valid anecdotes to which to point.

But at the class level, the projections do a darn good job of projecting the impact a class will have. So, yeah, one of Harvard's 4-star recruits might wind up producing well below expectations, but when you have 4 of them to draw from AND three more 3-stars, the odds that a few will hit are massive.

The way I look at it, those three best Ivy classes since 2002 took Harvard from a 14-14 team to a 20-win team in year one, then lost an NBA player and won a share of a title in year two, then added the best class to that point and won an outright title, then lost two key seniors, but added the third best class to that point and still won an outright title and a tourney game and then put it all together and won another tourney game and came very close to the Sweet 16.

I'm not going to go 10 rounds with people's gut feelings on this, but if you want to hear more, listen to my podcast episode 3.

 
Old Bear 
Postdoc
Posts: 3988

Reg: 11-23-04
03-01-16 08:49 PM - Post#203099    
    In response to mrjames

I recall a Sports Illustrated cover story about Harvard having the top recruiting class in the country. I believe it was in the '70s and Ted Kennedy was credited for making some phone calls(I'm old and my memory fades)and James Brown, from Texas,(now doing mostly Football TV) was one of them. I don't recall they won any titles.

 
bradley 
PhD Student
Posts: 1842

Age: 74
Reg: 01-15-16
Re: The New Normal
03-01-16 09:23 PM - Post#203102    
    In response to puband09

Harvard's best team was probably 2013-14 when the Crimson was 13-1 and 27-5. Extremely talented team that had the benefit of the prior one year suspension return of Curry and Casey in addition to Saunders, Chambers, Rivant, Mondu-Misi, etc. etc. Besides being talented, they were also basketball players who had basketball instincts and a head for the game. I do not believe that these H.S. ratings do a very good job of capturing the intangibles and softer skill sets.

If you go down the name of all 3 and 4 star high school recruits that have played in the Ivies and then put their numbers, actual performance, next to the rating, the correlation is shaky at best.

The probable all Ivy first and second team this year may well be comprised of at least 8 "2 or less star" rated players.

Is it better to have higher rated H.S. recruits in the long run -- of course and next year's Harvard class is truly unusual but when there is a closer correlation to performance vs. rating, one should pay closer attention to the ratings. Yale, Princeton and Columbia have a combined total of 2 "3 star" rated starters and their combined record is 31-4 --- those ratings are a great predictor for this year.

 
mrjames 
Professor
Posts: 6062

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
03-01-16 09:55 PM - Post#203105    
    In response to bradley

I love it when people tell me what the data says when (as far as I know) I'm the only person with an actual dataset here. It covers like 500 Ivy recruits and goes back to 2002. And yet, this is the crap I have to deal with:

Me: I spent a ton of hours cobbling together this data, and here's what it says.

Someone else: I think that's wrong. Look at this data point.

Someone else: Yeah, when I cherry pick four data points, the data says this different thing.

Me: You have to take a comprehensive view to understand the underlying trends here. I have, and here's what the data says.

Someone else: But what about how this one thing that happened once?

Me: (Head hits table)

 
SRP 
Postdoc
Posts: 4894

Reg: 02-04-06
03-01-16 11:07 PM - Post#203113    
    In response to mrjames

The interesting question to me will be how much all this changes when the major conferences start paying stipends to their basketball players. I think people are underestimating the price elasticity starting from zero.

 
whitakk 
Masters Student
Posts: 523

Age: 32
Reg: 11-11-14
03-01-16 11:34 PM - Post#203116    
    In response to mrjames

To fight anecdotes with anecdotes, the highest-rated Ivy recruit from last year's class is averaging 20 and 11 as a rookie (Boudreaux).

 
PennFan10 
Postdoc
Posts: 3578

Reg: 02-15-15
03-02-16 12:13 AM - Post#203117    
    In response to mrjames

  • mrjames Said:
I love it when people tell me what the data says when (as far as I know) I'm the only person with an actual dataset here. It covers like 500 Ivy recruits and goes back to 2002. And yet, this is the crap I have to deal with:

Me: I spent a ton of hours cobbling together this data, and here's what it says.

Someone else: I think that's wrong. Look at this data point.

Someone else: Yeah, when I cherry pick four data points, the data says this different thing.

Me: You have to take a comprehensive view to understand the underlying trends here. I have, and here's what the data says.

Someone else: But what about how this one thing that happened once?

Me: (Head hits table)



I think you highlight a good point as most people don't have all the data and tend to curve fit what data they have into their world view (read: the team they cheer for).

But some of what you describe could also be standard deviation, which happens far more than we care to admit. The mean distribution for next year says it's likely Harvard is pretty good, but injuries and other things (suspensions) happen and change those distributions.

The point of this thread is to say that the success of Harvard is contagious and the rest of the league is likely to benefit rather than be bifurcated to those outcomes. I think in 5-10 years we will come to see an at large bid for the Ivy's as a new normal and the league will be a top 10 conference overall. That's because of the changing demographics and values of today's athlete and the adjustments by (some) of the Ivy League schools to capitalize on those demographics.

 
Kit 
Senior
Posts: 380

Loc: Central Massachusetts
Reg: 11-29-04
03-02-16 12:22 AM - Post#203119    
    In response to PennFan10

Harvard's success will not be contagious, just as Gonzaga's success has not benefited San Francisco or Loyola-Marymount. It is up to the individual institutions to ensure that they succeed.

 
hoopla 
Masters Student
Posts: 486

Age: 49
Reg: 08-28-12
03-02-16 12:50 AM - Post#203120    
    In response to mrjames

Very funny play by play Mike

 
PennFan10 
Postdoc
Posts: 3578

Reg: 02-15-15
03-02-16 01:04 AM - Post#203122    
    In response to Kit

  • Kit Said:
Harvard's success will not be contagious, just as Gonzaga's success has not benefited San Francisco or Loyola-Marymount. It is up to the individual institutions to ensure that they succeed.



That's your opinion but the Ivy league is a long way more attractive than the West Coast Conference. Better basketball overall and far better academics. The elite academics is what give the Ivy's a chance to become a top 10 conference. That's not happening in the West Coast conference.

 
Tiger69 
Postdoc
Posts: 2801

Reg: 11-23-04
03-02-16 01:41 AM - Post#203124    
    In response to PennFan10

Unlike Mike, I keep no data. He is out of my league. I read and try to learn from his analyses.

I merely watch my own team, hope for high recruits and am often disappointed. (Have we EVER recruited a 4 star? Even Ian Hummer was only a 3). But then along comes someone like Henry Caruso or Spencer Weisz or Pete Miller, all 2* or less, and things work out just fine. It would be nice to have a squad full of 3 and 4 star players. But good coaches have made winners from players with less glitter. There still seems to be a fair amount of under publicized talent coming out of high school for the observant recruiter.

 
Kit 
Senior
Posts: 380

Loc: Central Massachusetts
Reg: 11-29-04
03-02-16 01:48 AM - Post#203126    
    In response to PennFan10

Has the Ivy League ever been a multi-bid conference? The WCC has three teams that are perennial tournament participants (Gonzaga, St. Mary's, and BYU) If you think the Ivies will become a top ten conference, you obviously are disconnected from reality.

 
mrjames 
Professor
Posts: 6062

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
03-02-16 08:39 AM - Post#203127    
    In response to Kit

People have thought I've been nuts since I started espousing these growth views a little less than a decade ago. At that point, the thought of getting out of the 20s as a conference was ambitious, and the thought of doing it six years in a row was borderline nuts. The thought of winning four NCAA games in a decade was sheer insanity.

But if you saw the underlying trends, you knew that it was all possible. The flattening of the media landscape, the massive increase in financial aid and the increased support behind traditionally dormant programs all contributed to a stepwise increase in the level of play in this league. And none of those three things has stopped improving. Bet against a Top 10 and/or two-bid league at your own peril.

 
palestra38 
Professor
Posts: 32680

Reg: 11-21-04
The New Normal
03-02-16 10:22 AM - Post#203134    
    In response to mrjames

The real reason for Ivy improvement is the invention of the "One and Done." It sucks experience out of the major programs. The George Mason and VCU runs showed that mid-major programs with experience have a distinct advantage come tournament time. This year, in particular, there is no great team to blow away the competition. Whether the Ivy representative is Princeton or Yale, I expect it to be very competitive in NCAA play.

 
mrjames 
Professor
Posts: 6062

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
Re: The New Normal
03-02-16 10:31 AM - Post#203137    
    In response to palestra38

Well, here's a counterpoint... The one-and-done should have done nothing to our relative standing among other mid- and low-major leagues. While it could be assumed to draw all leagues closer together, it can't really explain why we used to average somewhere in the 20-25 range and now we average 15th.

In fact, you could make an argument that it should hurt us a little bit relative to other mid-major leagues, because having talented, experienced players is now relatively more valuable in a one-and-done world, and we artificially restrict our access to talented, experienced players through our policies regarding redshirting and graduate players.

The real reason for the Ivy improvement is financial aid. Ask all eight staffs to rank the reasons why we're at a different level than a decade ago, and I'd be shocked if anyone ranks anything other than fin aid first. And if we had full scholarships, we'd easily be a top 10 league. It's a shame how many good kids we lose because the $10K per year they'd have to pay is just too much relative to a free ride from a high-academic, high-major school, but hey, that used to be $20-30K before the financial aid expansion, so it has helped.

 
T.P.F.K.A.D.W. 
PhD Student
Posts: 1169

Loc: Our Nation's Capital
Reg: 01-18-05
Re: The New Normal
03-02-16 10:41 AM - Post#203139    
    In response to mrjames

  • mrjames Said:
Well, here's a counterpoint... The one-and-done should have done nothing to our relative standing among other mid- and low-major leagues. While it could be assumed to draw all leagues closer together, it can't really explain why we used to average somewhere in the 20-25 range and now we average 15th.

In fact, you could make an argument that it should hurt us a little bit relative to other mid-major leagues, because having talented, experienced players is now relatively more valuable in a one-and-done world, and we artificially restrict our access to talented, experienced players through our policies regarding redshirting and graduate players.

The real reason for the Ivy improvement is financial aid. Ask all eight staffs to rank the reasons why we're at a different level than a decade ago, and I'd be shocked if anyone ranks anything other than fin aid first. And if we had full scholarships, we'd easily be a top 10 league. It's a shame how many good kids we lose because the $10K per year they'd have to pay is just too much relative to a free ride from a high-academic, high-major school, but hey, that used to be $20-30K before the financial aid expansion, so it has helped.


Mike, is your data set deep enough to do some kind of regression analysis on experience/age vs. success? I'm thinking an average of minutes played weighted against class vs. wins/KenPom/what have you.

So Team X has 3 freshmen who collectively average 12 mpg, 2 sophs who average 18 mpg, 2 juniors who average 20 mpg, etc. (I'm too lazy to figure out the senior class.) Team X ends the season at #110 in KenPom. Compare to Team Y, Team Z, etc.

Seems this would be testable.

 
palestra38 
Professor
Posts: 32680

Reg: 11-21-04
Re: The New Normal
03-02-16 10:42 AM - Post#203140    
    In response to mrjames

Agreed, although I would chalk it up to relative value more than mere dollars. The Ivies are more competitive (admissions-wise) than ever even among those paying full freight. The value of an Ivy diploma simply is viewed as greater than 30-40 years ago which, combined with better financial aid, gets us more good players. But Amaker is the real factor in turning that pitch into talent. That's why I wanted Penn to hire a similar big name coach---although SD is no slouch, he also is not a draw of big time talent as is Amaker.

 
1LotteryPick1969 
Postdoc
Posts: 2260
1LotteryPick1969
Age: 73
Loc: Sandy, Utah
Reg: 11-21-04
03-02-16 11:15 AM - Post#203144    
    In response to hoopla

  • hoopla Said:
Very funny play by play Mike



Almost as good as Jon Solomon:

http://www.princetonbasketball.com/?p=49

 
mrjames 
Professor
Posts: 6062

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
Re: The New Normal
03-02-16 11:32 AM - Post#203149    
    In response to T.P.F.K.A.D.W.

Hmm... I want to make sure I totally get this, because I'm intrigued... You mean to compare the recruiting rankings with the minutes that each class winds up earning against the wins they produce? I'm interested to hear more...

 
T.P.F.K.A.D.W. 
PhD Student
Posts: 1169

Loc: Our Nation's Capital
Reg: 01-18-05
Re: The New Normal
03-02-16 12:22 PM - Post#203153    
    In response to mrjames

  • mrjames Said:
Hmm... I want to make sure I totally get this, because I'm intrigued... You mean to compare the recruiting rankings with the minutes that each class winds up earning against the wins they produce? I'm interested to hear more...


Well, I wasn't even considering recruiting rankings, but now that I think about it I guess that's an integral part of setting initial expectations....I was more responding to P38's assertion that "experience" correlates with success. I was thinking "success" as defined by wins/KenPom/whatever. P38 was thinking more along the lines of NCAA tourney success.

  • palestra38 Said:
The real reason for Ivy improvement is the invention of the "One and Done." It sucks experience out of the major programs. The George Mason and VCU runs showed that mid-major programs with experience have a distinct advantage come tournament time.



Shouldn't this be testable? Is it possible to compare "experience" (I'm thinking some metric of aggregate career minutes played) against "success" (however you wish to define it)? So, can we expect a mid-major starting four seniors and a junior to overperform against a high-major starting three five-star freshmen and two five-star sophs?

 
Dr. V 
PhD Student
Posts: 1536

Reg: 11-21-04
03-02-16 05:30 PM - Post#203171    
    In response to T.P.F.K.A.D.W.

Who is similar to an Amaker and would be willing to coach in the Ivies? Amaker is a fluke. A great player who played at a top school, won a national championship and then was an assistant coach to the best college coach in this era, all of which gave Amaker a huge amount of exposure and, thus, celebrity status. Then add to that his having coached in the Big East and Big Ten, but having been fired from the Big Ten job. He has celebrity and contacts as few do. That he was also available just when a bit of his shine had worn off when H was looking was just the right confluence of circumstances.

Saying that Penn or any other Ivy should hire another Amaker reminds me of a Columbia fan who asked why we had not hired a Bagnolli a lot earlier. Right, very successful Ivy coaches who happened to retire and then want to un-retire just when another Ivy is looking for a head coach can be found on every street. corner.

 
mrjames 
Professor
Posts: 6062

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
03-02-16 05:43 PM - Post#203172    
    In response to Dr. V

It's hard to say whether or not Amaker's hiring was a fluke. I'm not sure how I feel about that statement.

What we know is this: There are plenty of "name" coaches getting fired every year, so for every Ivy opening there's usually one or two Amaker types available. At the same time, most Ivies probably don't have the resources to make these coaches a competitive offer. These also happen to be the Ivies most likely to experience more of the coaching turnover.

I will say that we're probably only talking about two schools that could make such a play right now: Harvard and Penn. Princeton has historically had a cap on coaching salaries, and none of the other Ivies seem to have the resources/appetite to go to $500K+ with their offers.

So, yeah, maybe it was a fluky confluence of factors, but that might be a different question than whether it would be fluky going forward.

 
palestra38 
Professor
Posts: 32680

Reg: 11-21-04
03-02-16 05:44 PM - Post#203173    
    In response to Dr. V

Actually, there are coaches in the Amaker mold who are available all the time. Just last year, I was asking why we wouldn't talk to Ben Howland, a guy who had tremendous success at the very top of college basketball (much more so than Amaker--3 Final Fours) and had Eastern Basketball connections (Pitt). If Penn had offered an Amaker type contract, might he have been interested? Who knows. But there is almost always a big time coach between jobs. If the Ivies offer the equivalent of scholarships in their financial aid programs and a certain cachet, why wouldn't they want to come here? But as I understand it, Penn is paying Donahue less than half of what Amaker is getting. You won't get a Ben Howland for that.

 
Stuart Suss 
PhD Student
Posts: 1439

Loc: Chester County, Pennsylva...
Reg: 11-21-04
03-02-16 07:18 PM - Post#203177    
    In response to palestra38

We discussed Ben Howland multiple times, here and here.

Ben Howland is being paid at least 2.05 million dollars annually. There is no way that this President and this chairman of the Board of Trustees would have offered a sufficient salary to have lured Ben Howland away from an SEC job, even a lower level one.


 
JadwinGeorge 
Senior
Posts: 357

Age: 75
Reg: 12-04-15
03-02-16 08:35 PM - Post#203181    
    In response to Stuart Suss

Oh dear, mrjames is confused about how he feels. Amaker got a boatload of money and perks that other Ivy schools will not consider. The booster club contributes to his compensation to a degree unfathomable elsewhere in the league. The Ivy schools are not going "to make a play" because they probably have no idea what that means. The least endowed Ivy school is worth something over $3 billion. I don't think $$$ is the issue here.

 
mrjames 
Professor
Posts: 6062

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
03-02-16 08:59 PM - Post#203183    
    In response to JadwinGeorge

Well, that's the money that the school has, not the basketball program. At present, money is very much the issue here. While the games are fun for fans, Ivy programs are playing guarantee games not to line their pockets but to make a budget work. It might not always be that way, but it is for now. Also, to be fair, I don't believe Tommy got that money from the start, but rather secured greater commitments when he was nearly pried away for the Miami job.

 
Old Bear 
Postdoc
Posts: 3988

Reg: 11-23-04
03-02-16 10:15 PM - Post#203189    
    In response to mrjames

Miami has a better coach, IMHA.

 
palestra38 
Professor
Posts: 32680

Reg: 11-21-04
03-03-16 12:17 AM - Post#203193    
    In response to Stuart Suss

Miss. State overpaid for him. Penn is a much better job. He will lose there. He cannot win. An Amaker package of about $1.3 total would be competitive.

 
JadwinGeorge 
Senior
Posts: 357

Age: 75
Reg: 12-04-15
03-03-16 08:04 AM - Post#203194    
    In response to palestra38

The Ivy schools enforce budget discipline based on a set of operating priorities. Intercollegiate athletics is far from the top of that list, and that is as it should be. I am reasonably sure that Princeton is not going to make any offers of "An Amaker package..." I suspect Sydney Johnson learned this the hard way. Henderson may not be from the "Amaker mold" but he and Brian Earl have done a nice job establishing a recruiting process that has yielded an abundant crop of positive contributors. He has had staff turnover every year, too, but finds hard-working assistants to fill vacancies.

 
palestra38 
Professor
Posts: 32680

Reg: 11-21-04
03-03-16 09:53 AM - Post#203197    
    In response to JadwinGeorge

I'm not saying you can't be successful going the traditional Ivy route, but had Harvard not suffered a key injury in a re-tooling year, Princeton may have been facing a Harvard 6 in a row. Say what you will, but in this era, 5 in a row is more impressive than when Penn and Princeton dominated and everyone else was terrible. Don't forget, Princeton is 2 plays away from being an also-ran this year. I give them tremendous credit, but I don't believe that if you played out this season 10 times, they would win more than twice. When you have Harvard's ability to get talent, those odds increase dramatically.

 
mrjames 
Professor
Posts: 6062

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
03-03-16 10:25 AM - Post#203199    
    In response to palestra38

So, I haven't been paying super close attention to these boards recently... But when the hell did P38 start talking in terms of simulating seasons and probability distributions???

 
palestra38 
Professor
Posts: 32680

Reg: 11-21-04
03-03-16 10:45 AM - Post#203201    
    In response to mrjames

That's the part of what you do that actually makes sense to me. What else have I had to do in the last 8 years, anyway? That, and there must be something in the water.

 
SomeGuy 
Professor
Posts: 6391

Reg: 11-22-04
03-03-16 12:11 PM - Post#203215    
    In response to palestra38

Does Montague disappear half way through every simulation?

Without Montague, I think Princeton wins more than any other Ivy if you play the season 10 times. That might not be more than 4 out of 10, but i think they win the most.

 
palestra38 
Professor
Posts: 32680

Reg: 11-21-04
03-03-16 12:30 PM - Post#203217    
    In response to SomeGuy

That's a good point, but of course by the time that happened, Princeton already had escaped disaster twice. That would not happen in most simulations. Columbia would win a bunch of them.

 
mrjames 
Professor
Posts: 6062

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
03-03-16 12:53 PM - Post#203218    
    In response to palestra38

So... I went back to look at my feed from around the start of the Ivy season. Looks like Princeton was about 30% share, 20% solo, so you're talking somewhere in the 25% range to win the bid via a playoff and 20% outright.

The Montague point is a good one, given Yale's (lack of) depth. Princeton's odds would clearly have risen if Yale had to go its final eight games without Montague. Four in ten doesn't seem like a crazy guess.

The odd part in all of this is how 13-1 or 12-2 is almost certain to be the winning number. Coming into the Ivy campaign, I'm pretty sure 11-3 was most likely and that 10-4 might have been slightly ahead of 12-2. Some of this can be attributed to Harvard's injuries that collapsed a credible fourth option and Columbia's inability to steal a game or two. But it's clear, as well, that both Yale and Princeton were underestimated coming into the #14GameTournament, as their efficiency margins are, indeed, befitting teams that go 12-2/13-1.

 
dperry 
Postdoc
Posts: 2211
dperry
Loc: Houston, TX
Reg: 11-24-04
Uh-oh
03-03-16 02:33 PM - Post#203227    
    In response to mrjames

Speaking of Montague, for those who haven't already seen the posts on the Columbia and Yale boards, take a look. Let's just say that whatever the truth is, the situation is not a pretty one.
David Perry
Penn '92
"Hail, Alma Mater/Thy sons cheer thee now
To thee, Pennsylvania/All rivals must bow!!!"


 
SomeGuy 
Professor
Posts: 6391

Reg: 11-22-04
03-03-16 02:48 PM - Post#203231    
    In response to palestra38

Well, that presumes that Princeton is going to get into a 50/50 late game situation with Penn. I think that's a game that Princeton wins 8 out of 10. We happened to get one of those few games out of 10 where Penn has a chance.

At Columbia, I think you are looking at Princeton winning around 4 or 5 out of 10.

Also, as mrjames points out, the odds tend to say that Yale, Princeton, and Columbia all should dump a game here or there, which hasn't happened. So if you played the season 10 times, I suspect you'd see more margin for Princeton to go belly up at Penn and still compete.

 
SRP 
Postdoc
Posts: 4894

Reg: 02-04-06
03-03-16 07:14 PM - Post#203260    
    In response to SomeGuy

Two factors that have helped the Tigers this season that might be second-order in the sims but squeeze out an extra win or two are 1) having more scoring options than other teams and 2) Henderson's getting ruthless adherence to his play-the.percentages strategies in terms of what shots to take and refuse what shots to deny and concede, And he's done it without turning his players into robots,

 
mmp629 
Junior
Posts: 259
mmp629
Reg: 11-22-04
03-03-16 09:50 PM - Post#203275    
    In response to palestra38

2 plays away from being 11-0, too.


 
bradley 
PhD Student
Posts: 1842

Age: 74
Reg: 01-15-16
03-03-16 11:01 PM - Post#203291    
    In response to mrjames

The loss of Montague was and is a big blow to Yale. A senior, fourth leading scorer, who gave Yale another very good 3 point option. Played very hard and surprisingly good defense -- held Weisz in New Haven with a distinct height disadvantage by fighting and keeping Weisz from setting up close to the basket as a point forward.

I would not be the least bit surprised if Sears and crew come together this weekend and win out the remaining two games. Sears, Sherrod, and Victor are seniors and Mason acts like a senior. Yale will probably be either very good or poor this weekend based on how they react as a team considering the Montague controversy --- I suspect very good.

Yale and Princeton have a 12+ point scoring differential this season against Ivy teams with only Cornell "Sweet 16" (2009-2010) surpassing them and Harvard (2013-2014) second --- two very good teams. I believe that Cornell had almost a 17 pt differential and Harvard 14 pt. Certainly, the quality of the other teams in the league will be a significant factor as to point differential.

 
Icon Legend Permissions Topic Options
Report Post

Quote Post

Quick Reply

Print Topic

Email Topic

16397 Views




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.
FusionBB™ Version 2.1 | ©2003-2007 InteractivePHP, Inc.
Execution time: 0.766 seconds.   Total Queries: 16   Zlib Compression is on.
All times are (GMT -0500) Eastern. Current time is 06:46 AM
Top