Untitled Document
Brown Columbia Cornell Dartmouth Harvard Penn Princeton Yale



 Page 1 of 2 ALL12
Username Post: The Message Of the Monmouth Snub        (Topic#18874)
palestra38 
Professor
Posts: 32685

Reg: 11-21-04
03-15-16 10:24 AM - Post#204533    

..is that losses to league teams in a traditional one-bid conference are more significant than wins over top 100 on the road. This means, as I see it, that an Ivy tournament is actually LESS likely to produce a 2nd bid (the main benefit according to its supporters) because no wins in an Ivy tournament will be truly significant and a loss could be catastrophic. The fact that we got 2 bids for the women's without an Ivy tournament is due to the fact that Penn had one bad league loss and Princeton had none. If there were a tournament that Princeton wins, does Penn get in with that loss to Cornell? I doubt it. Now no one is sure that the selection committee has the same criteria from year to year, but if this year is a guide, I don't know that a tournament helps us in any way in getting 2 teams in.

 
SomeGuy 
Professor
Posts: 6391

Reg: 11-22-04
Re: The Message Of the Monmouth Snub
03-15-16 02:40 PM - Post#204561    
    In response to palestra38

Well, that is theoretically possible. But this year there weren't any sub top 200 teams in the Ivy tournament. Monmouth's problem, and why I don't think they should have even been given much consideration, is that they lost to Manhattan, Army, and Canisius. None of those catastrophic losses could have happened in an Ivy tournament this year. If it happens once, ok, upsets happen. But when you go down 3 times to teams like that, you shouldn't be an at-large. None of the play-in teams had even one loss like any of those.

By definition, losing in the Ivy tournament will hurt the resume of the #1 seed. However, if Yale lost to Princeton in a tournament this year, there wouldn't be much impact on the overall profile. Hopefully, we're headed toward having a regular season champ with an even better profile (which is likely a prerequisite to two bids).

 
PennFan10 
Postdoc
Posts: 3580

Reg: 02-15-15
03-15-16 03:21 PM - Post#204566    
    In response to SomeGuy

Yeah, I don't think the tournament is the main factor in getting a 2nd bid. Ivy teams need to play and beat top 50 teams. If they do that on a regular basis, bids will follow in my opinion. Now that will require more than just Harvard bringing in some 4 star type recruits. But I think that will happen too.

 
SRP 
Postdoc
Posts: 4894

Reg: 02-04-06
03-15-16 03:26 PM - Post#204568    
    In response to SomeGuy

Come on, SG. You're going to lose some conference road games, even to bad teams, if you have to play enough of them. Syracuse lost to St. John's, for crying out loud. In any case, if the message to a mid-major is that Monmouth's non-conference and road/neutral performance must also be combined with a near-perfect regular-season conference record, then they're basically saying forget an at-large bid ever. The only way out would be to have a second team in your conference that also has a stellar non-conference record beat you in the conference tourney.

 
SomeGuy 
Professor
Posts: 6391

Reg: 11-22-04
03-15-16 05:18 PM - Post#204585    
    In response to SRP

Monmouth didn't necessarily have to be near perfect in conference. They had to be near perfect against teams like Canisius and Manhattan. I don't believe that there is any team in the tournament that would have dumped three games at that level. Princeton certainly didn't. Which is why I think they had a better resume (and were a better team) than Monmouth. Yale didn't either. Those are schools that were a lot closer to perfect than Monmouth.

 
palestra38 
Professor
Posts: 32685

Reg: 11-21-04
03-15-16 05:45 PM - Post#204587    
    In response to SomeGuy

Those 2000 seat bandboxes are hard places to play in---I remember seeing Temple blow one years ago at St. Francis (NY). Even really good teams would blow games playing 2-3 games a week in those kinds of places.

You are right that Monmouth shouldn't have lost 3 of them. But they beat teams that teams at their level NEVER beat on the road, and it wasn't enough. Remember, teams like Notre Dame don't play at places like Monmouth or St Francis. So it's not like top 50 teams really ever are in a position to lose games to sub-200 teams on the road.

 
Chip Bayers 
Professor
Posts: 6997
Chip Bayers
Loc: New York
Reg: 11-21-04
The Message Of the Monmouth Snub
03-16-16 01:33 AM - Post#204610    
    In response to SomeGuy

  • SomeGuy Said:
Monmouth didn't necessarily have to be near perfect in conference. They had to be near perfect against teams like Canisius and Manhattan. I don't believe that there is any team in the tournament that would have dumped three games at that level. Princeton certainly didn't. Which is why I think they had a better resume (and were a better team) than Monmouth. Yale didn't either. Those are schools that were a lot closer to perfect than Monmouth.



Andy Glockner explains why you're wrong about Monmouth's road losses:

  • Quote:
Simply put, if you play enough of these kinds of games against teams in the 200–250 range, you’re going to lose some. It’s nearly inevitable if you’re of bubble-team quality. So, it’s therefore implausible to expect Monmouth to go 19–1 or whatever against its league schedule (plus have everything else they accomplished out of league, to boot).



Edited by Chip Bayers on 03-16-16 01:36 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.

 
SomeGuy 
Professor
Posts: 6391

Reg: 11-22-04
Re: The Message Of the Monmouth Snub
03-16-16 08:44 AM - Post#204617    
    In response to Chip Bayers

Well, I think that there is a major fallacy in the "Fallacy of 'bad' losses" section. The problem is that Monmouth isn't that good in Pomeroy's ratings. They're in danger against Canisius and Army largely because they're only ranked around 70 in Pomeroy. If they were better, they'd have a better win expectation.

By my count, there were 16 schools ranked ahead of Monmouth on Pomeroy who did not get in. Temple is the only at large who was ranked worse. Would Tulsa have lost those 3 games to sub 200 teams? I don't think so. But if they did have that on their resume, I would leave them out.

Let's turn this a little differently though. Why is Monmouth a better choice for an at large than Princeton? Princeton played those types of games too, and they didn't lose any of them.

 
palestra38 
Professor
Posts: 32685

Reg: 11-21-04
Re: The Message Of the Monmouth Snub
03-16-16 09:02 AM - Post#204620    
    In response to SomeGuy

Princeton didn't beat the teams Monmouth beat. And while Harvard is clearly better (especially when Princeton played there) than the league teams Monmouth lost to, it still is a "bad" loss by major conference team standards.

What it really comes down to is that anyone can lose playing in 1500 seat gyms after traveling 5 hours on a bus. When a team at Monmouth's level can travel to and beat UCLA (when they were ranked), Notre Dame, split with USC and beat Georgetown, the fact that they lost at Canisius and Army after a string of 13 games, only one of which was at home, is not at all hard to explain. Moreover, the MAAC is not a bad conference---losing 3 conference games out of 20 (11 teams, full round robin) is pretty good. They were utterly screwed.

 
bradley 
PhD Student
Posts: 1842

Age: 74
Reg: 01-15-16
Re: The Message Of the Monmouth Snub
03-16-16 09:17 AM - Post#204621    
    In response to SomeGuy

It is somewhat interesting that Vegas has both Yale (+5) and Princeton (+3 1/2) as the closest point spread versus all other #12 seeds (Yale) and #6 seeds (Princeton). I believe that the Ivy League teams get 4 pts less than the next closest team with the same seed. Many different reasons regarding establishing point spreads but maybe Vegas thinks more highly of Ivy League teams than the NCAA and NIT committees. Obviously, it will be a good thing for the Ivies if Yale (especially), Princeton and Columbia achieve some level of success this year. Princeton's women success last year and improper seeding may well have helped them this year in getting a bid.

Princeton annihilated FDU earlier in the season and unfortunately FDU took a beating last evening from Florida Gulf Coast. FDU's hope would have been to play Stetson who was 12-21 but lost to Florida Gulf Coast by two in OT at their post-season conference final. Stetson was the 7th seed in their conference - FGCU was #2 seed.

 
HARVARDDADGRAD 
Postdoc
Posts: 2685

Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
03-16-16 09:23 AM - Post#204623    
    In response to bradley

I believe Stetson was not eligible for post season play this year (post-conference tourney). Conference and NCAA dodged a bullet.

 
mrjames 
Professor
Posts: 6062

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
Re: The Message Of the Monmouth Snub
03-16-16 10:11 AM - Post#204632    
    In response to bradley

  • Quote:
Many different reasons regarding establishing point spreads but maybe Vegas thinks more highly of Ivy League teams than the NCAA and NIT committees.



Maybe!?!

I know people think Vegas lines are some sort of black box voodoo, but they're actually really easy to explain and predict (as I've demonstrated on here many times).

I know I'm alone in saying that if I were committee chair, I would use a blend of resume metrics and actual power metrics (i.e. Vegas-line type metrics), but I just don't understand how it's fair for a team that earned a top 5 or 6 seed to have wildly different odds of beating their opening round opponent than other teams on the same line. There are a number of examples, in recent seasons, of Ivies being closer in the odds than other matchups on the same line due to massive underseedings. Harvard was in the 1.5/2 range vs. Cincy in 2014 before settling around 3 at close. This year, Wichita State should be nearly even (maybe a little worse due to the extra game and travel) with Arizona in the 6-11 matchup and Arizona was UNDERSEEDED as a 6.

The committee is given poor metrics that are even more poorly contextualized. The result is a high variance mess.

 
Chip Bayers 
Professor
Posts: 6997
Chip Bayers
Loc: New York
Reg: 11-21-04
Re: The Message Of the Monmouth Snub
03-16-16 10:12 AM - Post#204633    
    In response to SomeGuy

  • SomeGuy Said:
Well, I think that there is a major fallacy in the "Fallacy of 'bad' losses" section. The problem is that Monmouth isn't that good in Pomeroy's ratings. They're in danger against Canisius and Army largely because they're only ranked around 70 in Pomeroy. If they were better, they'd have a better win expectation.

By my count, there were 16 schools ranked ahead of Monmouth on Pomeroy who did not get in. Temple is the only at large who was ranked worse. Would Tulsa have lost those 3 games to sub 200 teams?

I don't think so. But if they did have that on their resume, I would leave them out.



As Andy explains, the odds are yes, Tulsa would have a similar road record against sub-200 teams if forced to play that many games against them.

  • Quote:
Let's turn this a little differently though. Why is Monmouth a better choice for an at large than Princeton? Princeton played those types of games too, and they didn't lose any of them.



Well actually, both would have been better at large candidates than the major dreck who made it. It wasn't a Monmouth vs. Princeton choice that was made. It was crap like Vanderbilt, Tulsa, and Syracuse who were chosen over them.

The major difference between the Monmouth and Princeton resumes is that Monmouth challenged itself more on the road, with exactly one non-conference home game. And Princeton's best road win was what, Columbia? Monmouth had at least 4 road wins better than that - and according to the committee's stated criteria, quality road wins are supposed to earn you super special extra cred. Except when they don't.


 
mrjames 
Professor
Posts: 6062

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
Re: The Message Of the Monmouth Snub
03-16-16 10:42 AM - Post#204636    
    In response to Chip Bayers

I personally enjoyed the true 3 seed Wichita State beating the hell out of Vandy last night (ironically enough, a massive underseed as well).

My biggest issue with Monmouth is that everyone missed the point (which I believe SomeGuy is raising). The troubling part of Monmouth is NOT that it lost three road games that are equivalent to losing to an 80-120ish team at home (depending on which system you use). The bigger issue is that it didn't post the highest efficiency differential in the 19th best conference in the nation (+.13 finished behind tourney winner Iona +.14 and just ahead of a +.11 Siena team that lost at Cornell).

I know all of that is far beyond the comprehension of the committee, but for me, it justifies the decision to keep Monmouth out.

 
bradley 
PhD Student
Posts: 1842

Age: 74
Reg: 01-15-16
Re: The Message Of the Monmouth Snub
03-16-16 10:59 AM - Post#204639    
    In response to mrjames

Good point regarding Monmouth. It is interesting that Monmouth took the mantle as the mid-major team that got screwed by the media and so called experts vs. St. Mary's or Valpariso. Kenpom has St. Mary's as #35 and Valpariso as #37 while Monmouth is #69 and Princeton is #67.

Hopefully, maybe unlikely, the NCAA committee will reconsider their approach as to the selection process.

 
SomeGuy 
Professor
Posts: 6391

Reg: 11-22-04
Re: The Message Of the Monmouth Snub
03-16-16 11:12 AM - Post#204640    
    In response to Chip Bayers

Personally, I think Vanderbilt beats Monmouth decisively if they play 100 times. I think Tulsa would beat Monmouth more than they would lose. Syracuse is somewhere in between.

For the record, I'm assuming in all this that the goal is to get the best teams in the at large spots. I think in most cases (and in this case specifically), a lot of mediocre big conference teams are simply better than the top mid majors. There is an argument that Syracuse has had their shots against the best teams and come up short, so why give them another bite at the apple. Give the bite to a mid major who won't have as good a chance of winning. That is reasonable to me, though it could mean, for an example, that UCONN and Kentucky shouldn't have even been in the field in 2014.

 
palestra38 
Professor
Posts: 32685

Reg: 11-21-04
Re: The Message Of the Monmouth Snub
03-16-16 11:47 AM - Post#204643    
    In response to SomeGuy

"I'm assuming in all this that the goal is to get the best teams in the at large spots"

With that statement, you put yourself firmly in the camp of our esteemed moderator. Of course, he goes even further by suggesting that metrics (i.e., something more than simply winning and losing, who you play and where you play) should figure into the calculus.

I'm admittedly a simple man. I think this should not be overcomplicated. The term "best" to me doesn't mean the team that wins 88 out of 100 or has the highest efficiency rating---it is the team that had the best record against the best competition, home and away. I look purely at the scoreboard. If I have a team that should lose 88 of 100 to a particular team but beat them anyway, I take that team. In my view, metrics as to efficiency or Las Vegas odds, all are predictive and really helpful when you write a blog or bet on games. They should have little influence on who gets into the NCAAs. Just my opinion.

 
bradley 
PhD Student
Posts: 1842

Age: 74
Reg: 01-15-16
Re: The Message Of the Monmouth Snub
03-16-16 11:49 AM - Post#204644    
    In response to SomeGuy

Key words "I think" -- what you think and somebody else thinks are probably two different results. There should be agreed upon metrics in place to make the selection process more credible and would help teams make decisions as to scheduling.

I "think" that the 1st 68 teams rated by Kenpom is more credible than the selection process currently in place but there is probably a better metrics system than just using Kenpom.

 
SomeGuy 
Professor
Posts: 6391

Reg: 11-22-04
Re: The Message Of the Monmouth Snub
03-16-16 12:06 PM - Post#204647    
    In response to palestra38

Then why don't you want an Ivy tournament? It seems to me that you care about who wins 88 out of 100 (or the most out of 14) except when you don't. Moreover, there isn't anything in the wins and losses that says Monmouth should be in and Tulsa should not. You're basically just announcing that I like team x because they best team y on the road, and ignoring the fact that team z beat more good teams on the road and didn't lose to as many bad teams. How is that deciding it based on the results? Pomeroy gives us a way of adding it all together, but if you go through game by game and really think about it, you get the same result. Tulsa is better than Monmouth because they were better on the court, in terms of results or Pomeroy, this season.

Also, the point of my last post was not that I favor getting the best 68 in the tourney. It was that I assume that to be the endeavor. I might well favor a system that puts fewer majors in the tournament and gives the Monmouths of the world a shot.

As I've said before, I'd dispense with a lot of this arbitrary stuff and play down from 256 (or give 95 teams a bye and let all 351 in). We could still do the selection show and argue about seeding, but everyone would get their shot to prove it on the court in the NCAA tournament.

 
palestra38 
Professor
Posts: 32685

Reg: 11-21-04
Re: The Message Of the Monmouth Snub
03-16-16 01:20 PM - Post#204652    
    In response to SomeGuy

You misinterpreted what I said. I said that the teams that win the games should go. The Ivy winner after the regualar season won the games. Why should we do a do-over to allow a team that didn't win the games to have a second chance? The main argument that was made for it was that it would increase the chances of 2 tournament teams. The selection of Princeton in the women's tournament and snubbing of Monmouth shows this theory is false...indeed, it appears to be the reverse.

And how does Tulsa get in compared with Monmouth? Tulsa lost to Ark Little Rock and Oral Roberts, while beating only Oklahoma State out of conference on the road (like many, Tulsa played 10 of 12 nonconference games at home). Monmouth clearly deserved to go over Tulsa.

 
 Page 1 of 2 ALL12
Icon Legend Permissions Topic Options
Report Post

Quote Post

Quick Reply

Print Topic

Email Topic

7873 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: 0.296 seconds.   Total Queries: 16   Zlib Compression is on.
All times are (GMT -0500) Eastern. Current time is 01:16 AM
Top