rbg
Postdoc
Posts: 3053
Reg: 10-20-14
|
02-07-19 01:49 PM - Post#275354
Look at the last 2 weeks of playoff odds from the Yale Undergraduate Sports Analytics Group
1/27/19
1 Yale
Auto Bid 62.3%, Playoff Probability 99.4%, 1 Seed 81.9%, 2 Seed 12.3%, 3 Seed 3.8%, 4 Seed 1.4%
2 Brown
Auto Bid 14.1%, Playoff Probability 77.0%, 1 Seed 3.8%, 2 Seed 30.7%, 3 Seed 25.2%, 4 Seed 17.3%
3 Harvard
Auto Bid 8.9%, Playoff Probability 68.0%, 1 Seed 5.7%, 2 Seed 21.1%, 3 Seed 21.9%, 4 Seed 19.3%
4 Princeton
Auto Bid 3.5%, Playoff Probability 65.1%, 1 Seed 4.4%, 2 Seed 17.6%, 3 Seed 20.4%, 4 Seed 22.7%
5 Penn
Auto Bid 10.4%, Playoff Probability 62.1%, 1 Seed 4.1%, 2 Seed 15.3%, 3 Seed 20.5%, 4 Seed 22.2%
6 Dartmouth
Auto Bid 0.7%, Playoff Probability 21.0%, 1 Seed 0.4%, 2 Seed 2.7%, 3 Seed 6.2%, 4 Seed 11.7%
7 Columbia
Auto Bid 0.1%, Playoff Probability 4.9%, 1 Seed 0.0%, 2 Seed 0.4%, 3 Seed 1.2%, 4 Seed 3.3%
8 Cornell
Auto Bid 0.1%, Playoff Probability 3.4%, 1 Seed 0.1%, 2 Seed 0.3%, 3 Seed 0.8%, 4 Seed 2.2%
2/3/19
1 Yale
Auto Bid 57.0%, Playoff Probability 99.4%, 1 Seed 61.0%, 2 Seed 26.8%, 3 Seed 9.3%, 4 Seed 2.3%
2 Harvard
Auto Bid 23.5%, Playoff Probability 96.3%, 1 Seed 27.1%, 2 Seed 40.6%, 3 Seed 20.3%, 4 Seed 8.3%
3 Princeton
Auto Bid 6.3%, Playoff Probability 91.1%, 1 Seed 11.5%, 2 Seed 21.7%, 3 Seed 35.5%, 4 Seed 22.4%
4 Brown
Auto Bid 7.9%, Playoff Probability 63.8%, 1 Seed 0.6%, 2 Seed 6.9%, 3 Seed 23.8%, 4 Seed 32.5%
5 Penn
Auto Bid 5.2%, Playoff Probability 38.7%, 1 Seed 0.9%, 2 Seed 3.5%, 3 Seed 8.9%, 4 Seed 25.4%
6 Dartmouth
Auto Bid 0.2%, Playoff Probability 7.5%, 1 Seed 0.0%, 2 Seed 0.1%, 3 Seed 1.5%, 4 Seed 5.9%
7 Cornell
Auto Bid 0.1%, Playoff Probability 3.4%, 1 Seed 0.0%, 2 Seed 0.1%, 3 Seed 0.7%, 4 Seed 2.6%
8 Columbia
Auto Bid 0.1%, Playoff Probability 0.4%, 1 Seed 0.0%, 2 Seed 0.0%, 3 Seed 0.1%, 4 Seed 0.3%
Edited by rbg on 02-07-19 02:00 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
rbg
Postdoc
Posts: 3053
Reg: 10-20-14
|
02-12-19 09:59 AM - Post#276024
In response to rbg
2/10/19
1 Yale (Last Week #1)
Auto Bid 65.1%, Playoff Probability 99.9%, 1 Seed 87.8%, 2 Seed 9.6%, 3 Seed 1.8%, 4 Seed 0.7%
2 Princeton (Last Week #3)
Auto Bid 7.0%, Playoff Probability 85.1%, 1 Seed 6.2%, 2 Seed 36.1%, 3 Seed 26.5%, 4 Seed 16.3%
3 Harvard (Last Week #2)
Auto Bid 11.8%, Playoff Probability 79.2%, 1 Seed 5.3%, 2 Seed 31.4%, 3 Seed 24.5%, 4 Seed 18.0%
4 Penn (Last Week #5)
Auto Bid 10.2%, Playoff Probability 60.9%, 1 Seed 0.7%, 2 Seed 11.1%, 3 Seed 22.2%, 4 Seed 26.9%
5 Brown (Last Week #4)
Auto Bid 4.8%, Playoff Probability 45.0%, 1 Seed 0.1%, 2 Seed 8.4%, 3 Seed 15.4%, 4 Seed 21.1%
6 Cornell (Last Week #7)
Auto Bid 1.0%, Playoff Probability 26.7%, 1 Seed 0.4%, 2 Seed 3.3%, 3 Seed 8.3%, 4 Seed 14.7%
7 Dartmouth (Last Week #6)
Auto Bid 0.1%, Playoff Probability 3.6%, 1 Seed 0.0%, 2 Seed 0.2%, 3 Seed 1.1%, 4 Seed 2.3%
8 Columbia (Last Week #8)
Auto Bid 0.1%, Playoff Probability 0.1%, 1 Seed 0.0%, 2 Seed 0.0%, 3 Seed 0.0%, 4 Seed 0.1%
The group notes that Cornell's low numbers is a reflection of its having the hardest remaining strength of schedule. From their numbers, the hardest to easiest remaining strength of schedules are Columbia/Cornell, Dartmouth/Harvard, Penn/Princeton and Brown/Yale.
|
rbg
Postdoc
Posts: 3053
Reg: 10-20-14
|
02-13-19 10:10 AM - Post#276134
In response to rbg
Luke Benz of the YUSAG posted an article at the Yale Daily News discussing the most recent probabilities.
https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2019/02/13/by-th e-n...
Looking at all the information, his present rankings of the teams are:
1 - Yale (trending up)
2 - Harvard (trending up)
3 - Cornell (trending up)
4 - Penn (trending down)
5 - Princeton (trending down)
6 - Brown (trending down)
7 - Dartmouth (trending neutral)
8 - Columbia (trending down)
|
TigerFan
PhD Student
Posts: 1888
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-13-19 10:14 PM - Post#276298
In response to rbg
Tigers beat your #3 and 4 on their home courts but whatever...
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32819
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-14-19 08:36 AM - Post#276337
In response to TigerFan
I think that is based on all games. Penn has better wins. But your point is well-taken and Penn is in trouble in the League.
|
penn nation
Professor
Posts: 21193
Reg: 12-02-04
|
02-14-19 08:11 PM - Post#276410
In response to palestra38
I think that is based on all games. Penn has better wins. But your point is well-taken and Penn is in trouble in the League.
Yes, in some trouble. The rematch with Cornell is a must win for Penn, IMHO, in order to make the 4 team tourney. Losing to Harvard this weekend would already put us on extremely shaky ground.
|
TigerFan
PhD Student
Posts: 1888
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-14-19 08:14 PM - Post#276412
In response to penn nation
Very interesting weekend. Harvard could sweep or be swept. Same with Cornell and Brown. Quite a race!
|
rbg
Postdoc
Posts: 3053
Reg: 10-20-14
|
02-16-19 06:55 PM - Post#276745
In response to TigerFan
2/16/19
1 Yale (2/10/19 #1)
Auto Bid 63.6%, Playoff Probability 99.7%, 1 Seed 87.2%, 2 Seed 10.5%, 3 Seed 1.6%, 4 Seed 0.4%
2 Harvard (2/10/19 #3)
Auto Bid 17.9%, Playoff Probability 91.4%, 1 Seed 10.0%, 2 Seed 50.6%, 3 Seed 19.7%, 4 Seed 11.1%
3 Princeton (2/10/19 #2)
Auto Bid 4.4%, Playoff Probability 74.0%, 1 Seed 1.6%, 2 Seed 17.2%, 3 Seed 34.9%, 4 Seed 20.3%
4 Penn (2/10/19 #4)
Auto Bid 9.2%, Playoff Probability 60.1%, 1 Seed 0.8%, 2 Seed 12.1%, 3 Seed 19.3%, 4 Seed 27.9%
5 Cornell (2/10/19 #6)
Auto Bid 1.7%, Playoff Probability 46.0%, 1 Seed 0.9%, 2 Seed 7.7%, 3 Seed 14.4%, 4 Seed 23.0%
6 Brown (2/10/19 #5)
Auto Bid 3.2%, Playoff Probability 26.3%, 1 Seed 0.0%, 2 Seed 1.6%, 3 Seed 9.5%, 4 Seed 15.2%
7 Dartmouth (2/10/19 #7)
Auto Bid 0.1%, Playoff Probability 3.0%, 1 Seed 0.0%, 2 Seed 0.1%, 3 Seed 0.7%, 4 Seed 2.2%
8 Columbia (2/10/19 #8)
Auto Bid 0.1%, Playoff Probability 0.1%, 1 Seed 0.0%, 2 Seed 0.0%, 3 Seed 0.0%, 4 Seed 0.1%
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Yale UG Sports Analytics Group Playoff Odds - Men
02-17-19 01:38 PM - Post#276989
In response to rbg
Dusted off the simulator this morning and the number one thing that popped out to me was how likely ties are to be a factor in the Ivy tourney - and not just a simple tie for fourth and fifth.
In 41% of simulations there's a tie for the last spot, but in only 24% of simulations is the tie exclusively between fourth and fifth place. That leaves 17% of sims where three (or more) teams are tied in a situation where at least one will be left out. The most common is a tie for fourth, fifth and sixth (10%), while a tie for third, fourth and fifth is next most at 6%. There is a 1% chance of a crazy tie between third, fourth, fifth and sixth.
That obviously brings into play the oft-maligned Ivy tiebreaker rules, which despite being widely discussed, haven't actually been used to break a fourth-place tie yet (but were used to break the first-place tie for seeding and NIT purposes last year).
Right now the odds have Yale as having a 97% chance to be a top two seed (I have them at 77% to be the one-seed). And Harvard is at ~80% to be a top two seed. At the same time, Columbia and Dartmouth have essentially zero chance of making the tourney. So, we can focus on what the breakers mean for that middle group of four vying for two spots.
If there's a sweep between two teams, things are pretty simple. From there, we need to analyze top wins.
So, right now, Princeton is in the best shape, having sealed the tie-breaker with Penn (and thus being effectively up three games) and having an early leg up in the tiebreaker with Cornell with the road win. It would need to beat Brown at home to have a shot at that tie-breaker. At the same time, the Tigers have zero wins against Harvard and Yale to help with the second tie-breaker (best win).
Cornell is in the next-best shape with wins over Penn and Brown AND a win over Harvard. That means if the Crimson stays in the top two, the Bears can, at best, tie the Big Red for the first two tie-breakers (beating Cornell AND Harvard to match Cornell's win) and Penn would need to beat Yale or Harvard as well as taking the return from the Big Red. Cornell did have the loss to Princeton at home and is in danger of losing that tiebreak.
Penn is in okay shape. The tiebreaker with Princeton is obviously lost, so it is effectively 3 games behind the top three. And its best shot at the tiebreaker with Cornell would require not only beating the Big Red but taking down Yale at home during the final weekend of the year. That being said, winning a game that would tilt the tiebreak back in its favor is probably necessary to getting into a tie for fourth anyway.
Brown is in the worst shape, needing to win the return by Cornell AND matching its best win to have a shot at that tie-breaker and needing to win at Penn to have a shot at that tie-breaker. It does have the early leg up over Princeton, but if Princeton holds serve at home next weekend, the odds of catching the Tigers even with a sweep that would secure the tie-breaker would diminish greatly.
The race should be pretty wild. Princeton is leaking oil as opponent three-point shooting has regressed to the mean making the Tigers' defense look pretty human, exposing an anemic offense. With the tiebreaker situation, though, if Princeton wins Friday, it'll be hard to catch. If not, Saturday becomes a must win with the closing schedule the Tigers have.
Penn and Brown have to sweep and should be favored in all of their games (Harvard-Brown might be close to a pick).
Meanwhile, Cornell, which won't be less than a 6 or so point dog in any game over the next two weekends could easily find itself at 5-7... BUT it likely only needs one upset over those four games (especially if it's at Penn) to be in very good shape.
Oh yeah... and the tourney odds I got:
Yale - 99.9%
Harvard - 99%
Princeton - 87%
Cornell - 40%
Penn - 35%
Brown - 34%
Dartmouth - 3%
Columbia - 0%
Edited by mrjames on 02-17-19 01:40 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3585
Reg: 02-15-15
|
02-17-19 06:33 PM - Post#277013
In response to mrjames
So many close games in the league. Every night the games are a battle. Dartmouth went to OT @Penn and lost by 1 @Princeton. What a brutal 0-2 for them. Harvard and Penn could have easily been 0-2 this weekend instead of 2-0/1-1.
The league is tough.
|
rbg
Postdoc
Posts: 3053
Reg: 10-20-14
|
02-18-19 02:24 PM - Post#277067
In response to PennFan10
2/18/19
1 Yale (2/16/19 #1)
Auto Bid 64.4%, Playoff Probability > 99.95%, 1 Seed 80.9%, 2 Seed 16.9%, 3 Seed 1.8%, 4 Seed 0.4%
2 Harvard (2/16/19 #2)
Auto Bid 21.3%, Playoff Probability 98.7%, 1 Seed 18.1%, 2 Seed 63.9%, 3 Seed 12.4%, 4 Seed 4.3%
3 Princeton (2/16/19 #3)
Auto Bid 4.7%, Playoff Probability 78.5%, 1 Seed 1.0%, 2 Seed 10.3%, 3 Seed 44.6%, 4 Seed 22.6%
4 Cornell (2/16/19 #5)
Auto Bid 1.4%, Playoff Probability 49.6%, 1 Seed 0.7%, 2 Seed 6.1%, 3 Seed 16.4%, 4 Seed 26.4%
5 Penn (2/16/19 #4)
Auto Bid 4.9%, Playoff Probability 40.7%, 1 Seed 0.0%, 2 Seed 1.5%, 3 Seed 10.9%, 4 Seed 28.3%
6 Brown (2/16/19 #6)
Auto Bid 3.1%, Playoff Probability 29.4%, 1 Seed 0.0%, 2 Seed 1.2%, 3 Seed 12.8%, 4 Seed 15.4%
7 Dartmouth (2/16/19 #7)
Auto Bid 0.1%, Playoff Probability 3.8%, 1 Seed 0.0%, 2 Seed 0.0%, 3 Seed 1.0%, 4 Seed 2.8%
8 Columbia (2/16/19 #8)
Auto Bid 0.1%, Playoff Probability 0.1%, 1 Seed 0.0%, 2 Seed 0.0%, 3 Seed 0.0%, 4 Seed 0.1%
|
HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts: 2691
Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
|
02-21-19 12:30 PM - Post#277382
In response to rbg
So, if Yale runs the table but loses in the Ivy League Tournament, do the 24-5 Eli's (13-1 in conference) get an at large bid to the NCAA's?
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3585
Reg: 02-15-15
|
02-21-19 02:26 PM - Post#277397
In response to HARVARDDADGRAD
they would be a quality candidate but won’t get picked.
|
HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts: 2691
Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
|
02-21-19 02:40 PM - Post#277398
In response to PennFan10
I feared that.
So - is a second Ivy bid ever a realistic option?
|
westcoast
Senior
Posts: 302
Reg: 03-08-16
|
02-21-19 02:46 PM - Post#277399
In response to HARVARDDADGRAD
I don't think their record will be strong enough. Yale is around 70 in most ranking systems, and maybe could move up to 60 if they run the table convincingly. But they will probably not have any Q1 wins, and probably only two Q2 wins (Miami, @Penn).
|
westcoast
Senior
Posts: 302
Reg: 03-08-16
|
02-21-19 02:48 PM - Post#277400
In response to HARVARDDADGRAD
Sure, a second bid is a realistic option. Even this year, Yale had 3 Q1 games (@Memphis, @Vermont, @Duke) and went 0-3. Winning at Duke is probably not realistic, but the other two games were very winnable, and I think Yale would have had a strong case if they had gone 26-3 win two Q1 wins.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-21-19 03:22 PM - Post#277408
In response to westcoast
So, objectively, the answer based on resume would be yes. Yale is currently 0.9 wins above bubble. If they ran the table (and let’s throw in there a semis win for good measure), they’d probably pick up about an extra win.
A loss against a 100-125 team in the finals, even at home, would probably only cost them 0.8ish of a win at most. So, they’d likely end up a full win-plus above bubble.
Now, because narratives are easier than math, that’s not how teams are subjectively judged - even though it’s the accurate way to do so. Illinois St, in recent memory, was nearly two wins above bubble and left out. But in that scenario they would become the Ivy first team since 2011 Harvard to finish with a positive WAB and not make the tourney.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-21-19 04:24 PM - Post#277415
In response to HARVARDDADGRAD
On the “second bid being realistic†front... in both the objective and subjective world, a Penn team that went 12-2 or better in the Ivy and lost at Yale in the tourney, on top of its non-conf resume, would have been a second bid.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3585
Reg: 02-15-15
|
02-21-19 04:27 PM - Post#277416
In response to mrjames
What he said
|
penn nation
Professor
Posts: 21193
Reg: 12-02-04
|
02-21-19 04:53 PM - Post#277418
In response to mrjames
On the “second bid being realistic†front... in both the objective and subjective world, a Penn team that went 12-2 or better in the Ivy and lost at Yale in the tourney, on top of its non-conf resume, would have been a second bid.
Not with that home Monmouth loss.
|
HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts: 2691
Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
|
02-21-19 06:24 PM - Post#277424
In response to penn nation
If Penn, Brown and Princeton each sweep at home this weekend we will have 4 teams within a single game of each other for the 3rd and 4th spots. Not far fetched for those teams to win at home.
|
HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts: 2691
Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
|
02-21-19 06:26 PM - Post#277425
In response to HARVARDDADGRAD
Actually, if Princeton loses to Cornell and/or Columbia we’d have a 5 team quagmire.
|
mobrien
Masters Student
Posts: 402
Loc: New York
Reg: 04-18-17
|
02-22-19 05:50 PM - Post#277547
In response to penn nation
I doubt Yale's nonconference schedule would be considered strong enough for a bid if they did run the table until the Ivy League final. They had three Quad 1 games and one Quad 2 game, and other than that ... a lot of really, really bad teams. They actually played eight games against teams ranked 236 or lower in Kenpom.
Look at this murder's row: vs Albany (287th), at Monmouth (296th), vs Iona (236th), vs Kennesaw State (340th), at Cal State Northridge (272nd), and vs Skidmore (NR). It's fine to have a few easy games, but when over half your nonconference schedule is against teams worse than the Ivies...
|
whitakk
Masters Student
Posts: 523
Age: 32
Reg: 11-11-14
|
02-23-19 12:35 AM - Post#277647
In response to mobrien
Don't forget a neutral with the crappy #283 (Cal)! (A few of the other teams there weren't expected to be so bad either.)
But Yale's more or less scheduled that way for at least a few years now -- a bunch of challenging games and a bunch of really bad opponents, without much in the middle. Given how the committee seems to operate (it doesn't really matter what your games that aren't Q1/Q2 are, unless you lose them) it's probably close to optimal.
If not for the three-point foul at Memphis they'd have a real at-large shot even with meh computer numbers (though it would be tough this year in a crowded mid-major field).
|
rbg
Postdoc
Posts: 3053
Reg: 10-20-14
|
02-23-19 12:44 AM - Post#277649
In response to whitakk
2/22/19 (after Friday's games)
Princeton solidifies its #3 spot and closes the gap with #2 Harvard; Brown moves from #6 to #4; Cornell drops from #4 to #5 and Penn drops from #5 to #6
1 Yale (2/18/19 #1)
Auto Bid 66.5%, Playoff Probability 100.0%, 1 Seed 92.7%, 2 Seed 6.8%, 3 Seed 0/4%, 4 Seed 0.0%
2 Harvard (2/18/19 #2)
Auto Bid 19.0%, Playoff Probability 97.1%, 1 Seed 6.5%, 2 Seed 66.3%, 3 Seed 17.7%, 4 Seed 6.5%
3 Princeton (2/18/19 #3)
Auto Bid 5.6%, Playoff Probability 94.0%, 1 Seed 1.0%, 2 Seed 19.9%, 3 Seed 45.4%, 4 Seed 27.7%
4 Brown (2/18/19 #6)
Auto Bid 5.7%, Playoff Probability 59.1%, 1 Seed 0.0%, 2 Seed 4.4%, 3 Seed 26.4%, 4 Seed 28.2%
5 Cornell (2/18/19 #4)
Auto Bid 0.9%, Playoff Probability 31.1%, 1 Seed 0.0%, 2 Seed 1.9%, 3 Seed 7.3%, 4 Seed 21.9%
6 Penn (2/18/19 #5)
Auto Bid 2.1%, Playoff Probability 18.5%, 1 Seed 0.0%, 2 Seed 0.5%, 3 Seed 2.5%, 4 Seed 15.4%
7 Dartmouth (2/18/19 #7)
Auto Bid 0.1%, Playoff Probability 1.1%, 1 Seed 0.0%, 2 Seed 0.0%, 3 Seed 0.2%, 4 Seed 0.9%
8 Columbia (2/18/19 #8)
Auto Bid 0.1%, Playoff Probability 0.2%, 1 Seed 0.0%, 2 Seed 0.0%, 3 Seed 0.0%, 4 Seed 0.2%
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-24-19 05:46 PM - Post#277854
In response to rbg
Here's where I have things heading out of the weekend:
Harvard and Yale haven't clinched, but both are in the "statistically" clinched range. Yale would have to lose out, have Brown beat Cornell, have Cornell win out otherwise AND have Harvard stay ahead of Princeton. So, Yale is in.
Harvard has more disaster scenarios to consider, but as long as Yale is the top seed, the only tiebreaker Harvard can lose is to Cornell. That would mean that either both of Brown and Penn would have to get to 8-6 (possible, but they'd have to have Penn beat Brown and those two teams win every other game they play) OR one of Brown and Penn would have to get to 8-6 with Cornell at 7-7 (more possible). Harvard's only 1% to lose out, so the 8-6 scenarios are more realistic, and those would require Brown beating Cornell AND Cornell winning out otherwise. So, Harvard is in.
Princeton is in a weird zone. Basically clinched, but with a non-zero chance (7%) of losing out. It would have two of the three important tiebreakers (Cornell and Penn), so it would have to get passed by one of those teams plus matched by Brown to miss out. So, Princeton is *essentially* in (but check back in if it gets swept and Cornell or Penn sweeps).
The battle for fourth is where things get really interesting.
Brown is in the best shape, but that's heavily dependent on this weekend's schedule. In other words, Brown needs to hold serve this weekend and have other expected outcomes occur (Cornell loses at Yale and Penn loses at Harvard) to feel good about its chances. Exiting the weekend even a game up on Penn or Cornell is not a good situation for Brown, because Penn could grab the tiebreaker with a win the next weekend or Cornell could have the tiebreaker with a win over Yale. The odds vary by outcome, but anything less than Brown sweeping this weekend and being up two games with two to play would likely flip the odds to Cornell or Penn.
Cornell just needs to split either way this weekend to be in good shape. A win against Yale would secure the tiebreak with Brown even with a loss on Saturday, and a win on Saturday would secure the tiebreak just the same AND do a little damage to a direct competitor.
Finally, Penn can only watch and take care of business. The odd thing is that it probably doesn't need the Harvard win to have a chance. Unless Cornell wins at Yale, beating Harvard pretty much becomes irrelevant for the best win tiebreaker (obviously an extra win in the standings is helpful in and of itself). The main competitors (Brown and Cornell) have a Harvard win and Penn doesn't have a Princeton win to back it up, so what it really needs to win the tiebreakers is a win over Yale (best win tiebreak) and a win over Brown (head-to-head). If it gets those and a win over Dartmouth, really all it needs is a Yale sweep this weekend, and it'll probably have enough to get in at 7-7 regardless of the Harvard result.
My odds at present for the Ivy Tourney say:
Yale 99.9%
Harvard 99.6%
Princeton 97%
Brown 60%
Penn 25%
Cornell 19%
Dartmouth ~0%
Columbia ~0%
|
Okoro Dude
Senior
Posts: 309
Loc: Glen Mills, PA
Reg: 11-24-04
|
02-25-19 10:54 AM - Post#277926
In response to mrjames
I think Penn needs to win out. I understand your point about the Harvard game potentially not mattering, but my fear is that if Penn doesn't beat Harvard (but does beat Yale in your scenario), there is a pretty good chance Harvard wins the regular season by tying Yale in standings and getting the sweep tiebreaker over them. In that case, the Harvard wins by Brown and Cornell would trump a potential Penn win over Yale.
|
Naismith
Sophomore
Posts: 149
Loc: RI
Reg: 11-11-18
|
Yale UG Sports Analytics Group Playoff Odds - Men
02-25-19 11:39 AM - Post#277933
In response to mrjames
Those of us alive before the pre-analytic and everyone-gets-a-trophy era would relish the final two weekends as a tremendous battle among three teams to survive the 14-game-tournament and secure the right to represent the league in the NCAA Tournament. This has been taken away for no rational reason.
Edited by Naismith on 02-25-19 11:42 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
Bruno
PhD Student
Posts: 1419
Loc: Brooklyn, NY
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Yale UG Sports Analytics Group Playoff Odds - Men
02-25-19 01:00 PM - Post#277947
In response to Naismith
Except there being six fan bases that are pumped up and showing up at the games because something is at stake. Instead of there being three. And in many seasons, two.
| LET'S go BRU-no (duh. nuh. nuh-nuh-nuh) |
|
sparman
PhD Student
Posts: 1346
Reg: 12-08-04
|
Yale UG Sports Analytics Group Playoff Odds - Men
02-25-19 01:24 PM - Post#277950
In response to penn nation
On a partially-related, partially-tangential point, for anyone still dreaming about a second IL bid, the articles have started about how to squeeze in more .500 (and sub-.500 in conference play) Big Conference teams into the tournament.
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketba ll/story/...
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Yale UG Sports Analytics Group Playoff Odds - Men
02-25-19 03:22 PM - Post#277955
In response to Naismith
The funny thing about this argument is that we’re rapidly approaching to scenario where everyone agreed a tournament might be a good thing. Heck, if Penn were to sneak in to the 4-seed, we’d have a situation where every Ivy Tourney team had a non-conf Tier A win (the Quakers would have 2) and the conference touched 10th nationally.
I have mixed feelings about the tournament, as have been well documented here, but I think it’s important to note that circumstances have changed dramatically from the arguments we were having over this 10-15 years ago when our conf was garbage.
|
sparman
PhD Student
Posts: 1346
Reg: 12-08-04
|
Re: Yale UG Sports Analytics Group Playoff Odds - Men
02-25-19 04:33 PM - Post#277961
In response to Bruno
Not much at stake for Yale - they're in and playing at home regardless.
Harvard and Princeton pretty much assured they're in, too.
Not to reignite the interminable and repetitive arguments, IMO all that's happened is that the "fan excitement ban" has slid down to the three teams fighting for 4th instead of for 1st.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3585
Reg: 02-15-15
|
02-25-19 05:31 PM - Post#277967
In response to sparman
Pretty sure the Harvard, Princeton and Yale fan bases are engaged as much as ever. Did you see that finish between H and Y Saturday?
There is more, not less, interest in the IL as a result of the ILT
|
BrownAlum
Freshman
Posts: 73
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Yale UG Sports Analytics Group Playoff Odds - Men
02-25-19 05:33 PM - Post#277968
In response to Bruno
And this isn't just about fan bases, it's about the players. I was the student manager at Brown from 1988-92 and an assistant coach from 93-98 and let me tell you, it is no fun going to practice in early February when you've already been eliminated. It's nice to see so many teams with something to play for this time of year.
|
mobrien
Masters Student
Posts: 402
Loc: New York
Reg: 04-18-17
|
02-25-19 05:41 PM - Post#277971
In response to BrownAlum
Harvard, Yale, and Princeton all have potential NCAA tournament seeding to play for. There's a meaningful difference between getting a 13 or a 14 or especially a 15 seed. Every team that's in contention for the ILT crown should care about that. They all have the talent to make some noise in March — if they get some fortunate seeding.
The whole "the end of the regular season doesn't really matter for the teams that have clinched spots in the ILT" only makes sense if you think the ILT is the end of things. But as we've seen multiple times in the last 8 years, the Ivies can aspire to much more than that now.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3585
Reg: 02-15-15
|
Re: Yale UG Sports Analytics Group Playoff Odds - Men
02-25-19 05:41 PM - Post#277972
In response to BrownAlum
Good point. I don’t think there is a player in the league that doesn’t want the ILT. They all like it. More games, bigger stage, more intensity.....just....more basketball.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6413
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Yale UG Sports Analytics Group Playoff Odds - Men
02-25-19 07:32 PM - Post#277980
In response to Bruno
Yes, besides the 3 way tie back in ‘02, I don’t have a lot of memories of a 3 team race. In fact, a lot of years it wasn’t even a 2 team race.
|
rbg
Postdoc
Posts: 3053
Reg: 10-20-14
|
02-25-19 09:39 PM - Post#277991
In response to SomeGuy
2/24/19
1 Yale (2/22/19 #1)
Auto Bid 62.7%, Playoff Probability 99.1%, 1 Seed 69.1%, 2 Seed 27.7%, 3 Seed 3.1%, 4 Seed 0.1%
2 Harvard (2/22/19 #2)
Auto Bid 20.8%, Playoff Probability 99.6%, 1 Seed 27.1%, 2 Seed 59.5%, 3 Seed 11.3%, 4 Seed 1.7%
3 Princeton (2/22/19 #3)
Auto Bid 6.8%, Playoff Probability 97.4%, 1 Seed 4.0%, 2 Seed 11.4%, 3 Seed 52.5%, 4 Seed 29.5%
4 Brown (2/22/19 #4)
Auto Bid 6.4%, Playoff Probability 63.0%, 1 Seed 0.0%, 2 Seed 1.6%, 3 Seed 28.5%, 4 Seed 32.9%
5 Penn (2/22/19 #6)
Auto Bid 2.8%, Playoff Probability 21.2%, 1 Seed 0.0%, 2 Seed 0.1%, 3 Seed 1.9%, 4 Seed 19.3%
6 Cornell (2/22/19 #5)
Auto Bid 0.5%, Playoff Probability 19.5%, 1 Seed 0.1%, 2 Seed 0.1%, 3 Seed 2.1%, 4 Seed 17.3
7. Dartmouth (2/22/19 #7)
Auto Bid 0.1%, Playoff Probability 0.1%, 1 Seed 0.0%, 2 Seed 0.0%, 3 Seed 0.0%, 4 Seed 0.1%
8 Columbia (2/22/19 #8)
Auto Bid 0.1%, Playoff Probability 0.1%, 1 Seed 0.0%, 2 Seed 0.0%, 3 Seed 0.0%, 4 Seed 0.1%
|
bradley
PhD Student
Posts: 1842
Age: 74
Reg: 01-15-16
|
02-25-19 10:20 PM - Post#277994
In response to PennFan10
Pretty sure the Harvard, Princeton and Yale fan bases are engaged as much as ever. Did you see that finish between H and Y Saturday?
Come on now. I have a feeling that you might be selling the Brooklyn Bridge next.
The interest level in finishing in first place for most Princeton and I assume Harvard fans is nothing like it would have been pre-IvyMadness as it would be the guarantee to go to the Big Dance. Probably Harvard and Princeton fans are more focused on avoiding a collapse to miss IvyMadness that be the regular season champ - sad but true.
Look at the number of responses on this forum about fourth place vs first place -- not remotely close. It is a statiscian's dream talking about the probabilities of accomplishing a great achievement of finishing 4th place in a one bid league.
There are other arguements than this one that has at least some credibility.
|
HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts: 2691
Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
|
02-25-19 10:52 PM - Post#277996
In response to bradley
Schweiger's shooting accuracy garners him POW. (40pts, 8rbs, 3assists)
I can't see how there aren't at least Co POW's.
Stefanini- 38pts, 16rbs, 13 assists - buzzer beater for win over Penn
Aiken - 45pts, 5rbs, 10 assists - buzzer beater for win over Yale
|
HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts: 2691
Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
|
02-25-19 11:08 PM - Post#278000
In response to HARVARDDADGRAD
Also,
Copeland 44pts, 9 assists, 7 steals
Wonder if any thought was given to Harvard frosh Kale Catchings for his incredible performance against Yale, subbing in for the injured Justin Bassey
16 pts
4 rbs
2 assists
3 steals
1 block
Harvard loses to Yale without this performance.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3585
Reg: 02-15-15
|
02-26-19 01:20 AM - Post#278015
In response to HARVARDDADGRAD
Ellis hit the game winner v Penn not Stefanini. Point still valid though
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3585
Reg: 02-15-15
|
02-26-19 01:26 AM - Post#278016
In response to bradley
Pretty sure the Harvard, Princeton and Yale fan bases are engaged as much as ever. Did you see that finish between H and Y Saturday?
Come on now. I have a feeling that you might be selling the Brooklyn Bridge next.
The interest level in finishing in first place for most Princeton and I assume Harvard fans is nothing like it would have been pre-IvyMadness as it would be the guarantee to go to the Big Dance. Probably Harvard and Princeton fans are more focused on avoiding a collapse to miss IvyMadness that be the regular season champ - sad but true.
Look at the number of responses on this forum about fourth place vs first place -- not remotely close. It is a statiscian's dream talking about the probabilities of accomplishing a great achievement of finishing 4th place in a one bid league.
There are other arguements than this one that has at least some credibility.
This is just your opinion. There is not empirical evidence that Harvard and Princeton fans are less interested in their teams now that there is an ILT. To the contrary, i think there is compelling evidence that many more people, including the fans of the leading teams, are now interested in meaningful basketball well into the Ivy season.
It’s a lot harder to believe the old guard has given up on their teams because of the ILT than to realize the IL has never been more popular and, as a league, is at it’s height from a talent and quality perspective. It’s really only a matter of time before we get a 2nd bid as a league.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32819
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-26-19 06:44 AM - Post#278020
In response to PennFan10
" It’s really only a matter of time before we get a 2nd bid as a league"
Well, everything but that.. The trends is towards giving the power conferences more places, not giving current 1-bid leagues more bids.
Certainly, the League is better. I don't know about more interest, since I don't see many sellouts or other indicia of that, other than posts here. And it's pretty much the same people posting here as always. But it's a good race for 4th.
|
Streamers
Professor
Posts: 8247
Loc: NW Philadelphia
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-26-19 08:54 AM - Post#278023
In response to palestra38
Indicia?? That must be attorney-speak for ‘signs’. Looking forward to using it when I’m feeling more pompous than usual.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32819
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-26-19 09:08 AM - Post#278026
In response to Streamers
Hey, this is an Ivy League board....I expect people understand that word.
|
HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts: 2691
Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
|
02-26-19 10:13 AM - Post#278037
In response to PennFan10
Correct, about final bucket, my bad. Stefanini scored 7 of Columbia's final 9 points to send the game to OT and my memory must have assumed that - like Aiken - he seems to always take the last shot for Columbia (post Mike Smith's injury).
|
sparman
PhD Student
Posts: 1346
Reg: 12-08-04
|
02-26-19 10:43 AM - Post#278042
In response to HARVARDDADGRAD
Pretty sure the Harvard, Princeton and Yale fan bases are engaged as much as ever. Did you see that finish between H and Y Saturday? There is more, not less, interest in the IL as a result of the ILT
Dartmouth and Columbia are out of any contention for the ILT or a non-NCAA post season tournament too, but they put on major efforts last weekend. Not the sign of dispirited teams without hope. I believe teams want to win, and ESPECIALLY against major rivals, no matter the record - like Yale versus Harvard, Penn versus Princeton.
The whole "the end of the regular season doesn't really matter for the teams that have clinched spots in the ILT" only makes sense if you think the ILT is the end of things. But as we've seen multiple times in the last 8 years, the Ivies can aspire to much more than that now.
I gather you are referring to the NIT and other lesser events, including “pay to playâ€. The ILT doesn’t make that possible, the team’s record does, which provides incentive to keep winning in the regular season. It can easily be argued that losing in the ILT actually reduces the team’s attraction to such a tournament because it lowers their rating. And if you are willing to pay the tournament entry fees, nearly anyone can be “invited†to some of those lesser events.
It’s really only a matter of time before we get a 2nd bid as a league.
And in the words of Ira Gershwin, in time the Rockies may crumble, Gibraltar may tumble, they're only made of clay. I admire your optimism, but it’s not borne out by any current evidence.
|
HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts: 2691
Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
|
02-26-19 11:00 AM - Post#278045
In response to sparman
The only way we get a second bid is if an unusually strong team (e.g., 14-0 Princeton or maybe Harvard next year) loses in our tournament.
I don't see us with two top 40 teams, and that's usually what it takes to secure an at large bid.
In that instance, I suspect that my hypothetical unusually strong team gets bumped from at large consideration by virtue of having lost our tournament.
|
Old Bear
Postdoc
Posts: 3995
Reg: 11-23-04
|
02-26-19 11:06 AM - Post#278047
In response to HARVARDDADGRAD
We need the NCAA to expand the Tourney to 128.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-26-19 11:26 AM - Post#278051
In response to HARVARDDADGRAD
Ironically, if we were still in the RPI world, the Ivies would be in two-bid league discussion *this* year.
Four Ivies in the top 100. Yale at 44, Harvard at 57. And the Crimson is 2-3 vs. Q1 and 3-1 vs. Q2.
Regardless, Harvard, Princeton, Yale and Penn have all done enough, for different reasons, to be 14 seeds or better (and frankly 12 or 13 would be more of a fit given the strong wins). This was one of the major fears of the anti-tourney crowd... that some team would get hot for a weekend and land us in Dayton. Maybe if Cornell makes the top 4 and wins it that would be true, otherwise, none of the other six teams would likely even land on the 16 line...
|
Go Green
PhD Student
Posts: 1149
Age: 52
Reg: 04-22-10
|
02-26-19 11:41 AM - Post#278053
In response to mrjames
This was one of the major fears of the anti-tourney crowd... that some team would get hot for a weekend and land us in Dayton...
Such a disgrace.
https://www.courant.com/sports/college/hc-nca a-fir...
Remind me again- how much did Holy Cross pocket in NCAA $$$ from that victory?
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32819
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-26-19 11:44 AM - Post#278054
In response to mrjames
Well, how did Penn get placed an Angstrom above Dayton last year? Underseeding is not unheard of for the Ivies.
|
sparman
PhD Student
Posts: 1346
Reg: 12-08-04
|
Yale UG Sports Analytics Group Playoff Odds - Men
02-26-19 11:54 AM - Post#278056
In response to Old Bear
That may be coming. But it won't be to address inequities for leagues like ours, it will be primarily to squeeze in more Big Conference losers. Like the family pet hanging around the table, we may get a few scraps they neglect to control.
|
Streamers
Professor
Posts: 8247
Loc: NW Philadelphia
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-26-19 12:14 PM - Post#278057
In response to palestra38
Angstrom, huh. Is that part of the indicia that this is an Ivy League board? BTW I had to add indicia to my browser dictionary.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-26-19 12:45 PM - Post#278061
In response to palestra38
For the 13-16 lines, what matters most is the Tier I and II wins. They are huge separators at that level. Last year, neither Harvard nor Penn had any. And while I think a 15 would have been the right line for both Harvard and Penn, the lack of any Tier I and II wins made a 16 something the committee could do.
This year, Harvard and Princeton (and Penn) have those wins. And while Yale doesn’t because the NCAA is treating the win at American Airlines as neutral, it has zero bad losses and a really strong performance in a Q1 loss at Memphis.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3585
Reg: 02-15-15
|
Yale UG Sports Analytics Group Playoff Odds - Men
02-26-19 01:31 PM - Post#278062
In response to mrjames
Ironically, if we were still in the RPI world, the Ivies would be in two-bid league discussion *this* year.
Four Ivies in the top 100. Yale at 44, Harvard at 57. And the Crimson is 2-3 vs. Q1 and 3-1 vs. Q2.
Regardless, Harvard, Princeton, Yale and Penn have all done enough, for different reasons, to be 14 seeds or better (and frankly 12 or 13 would be more of a fit given the strong wins). This was one of the major fears of the anti-tourney crowd... that some team would get hot for a weekend and land us in Dayton. Maybe if Cornell makes the top 4 and wins it that would be true, otherwise, none of the other six teams would likely even land on the 16 line...
You guys can all continue to ignore the empirical evidence but the "trend" is toward more analytics and not less. While that, for now, hasn't translated fully to the selection process, the objective criteria say the Ivy League is as strong as it ever has been and is trending up.
I think the Ivy league is like a free agent in the NBA. A player who is not a draft pick has to work harder and show more than a draft pick but eventually talent wins and he gets on a team. Jeremy Lin, John Starks, Avery Johnson...etc. If the Ivy League keeps improving it's talent level and coaching quality (which is also at an all time high) then our top teams (plural) will get wins against Tier A teams that make it impossible to leave a 2nd team out.
If the case is borderline, no question we get left at the altar. But as Mr James has said, if Penn was 12-2 in Ivy league with multiple tier A wins and Tier B wins, or if Harvard had a healthy team and got those kind of wins against their schedule, we would all be having a very different conversation this year.
Next year may actually be the year you guys all get to eat crow.
Edited by PennFan10 on 02-26-19 01:33 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
sparman
PhD Student
Posts: 1346
Reg: 12-08-04
|
Re: Yale UG Sports Analytics Group Playoff Odds - Men
02-26-19 01:37 PM - Post#278064
In response to PennFan10
And you are ignoring the fact that the NCAA tournament is BIG $$ for the Power conferences, and they have no incentive to give up any by letting some poor wretch, not in their club, share in the bonanza if they can get more.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3585
Reg: 02-15-15
|
02-26-19 01:47 PM - Post#278067
In response to sparman
Not ignoring it at all. In fact my post acknowledges the fact that an ILT team has an uphill battle to climb to be a 2nd bid. But I think the empirical evidence will have to rule the day at some point.
Taken to an improbable extreme in order to illustrate my point, if Harvard, with top 90 SOS, had gone undefeated in its non conference slate (defeating @UNC, @USF, @URI, @Northeastern etc) and then went 12-2 in the IL, losing in the championship game, I think they would be ranked in the AP top 25 and would be hard to leave out of the NCAA tournament.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I believe we are headed that way. We have a strong headwind, but if we are a top 10 league and consistently beat top 25 teams, the case will eventually be too compelling. And there are of plenty of big money donors on these boards with influence who will be making that case!
|
SRP
Postdoc
Posts: 4911
Reg: 02-04-06
|
02-26-19 02:09 PM - Post#278073
In response to PennFan10
Re interest in the games: The first-place-race shaking Harvard win over Yale went by like a footnote. We have all kinds of convoluted tie-breaker discussions about potential 7-7 teams but not one about the tiebreakers for first place. Pre-folly, we would have had exciting possibilities for ties and playoffs with a Yale loss or two. Now, even if Princeton were to win out, nobody's even discussed who gets the first seed under what scenario, because it really doesn't matter. Yale still gets in and still gets home-court.
|
HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts: 2691
Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
|
02-26-19 02:13 PM - Post#278076
In response to SRP
Exactly!
Aside from a banner, all at stake is a guaranteed NIT slot if you win the regular season but lose the tournament.
Yale can't even back into HCA. It's doesn't even need to leave the parking spot.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32819
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-26-19 02:17 PM - Post#278078
In response to SRP
So you guys might as well lose out and miss the playoff, because, after all, it's a folly.
|
bradley
PhD Student
Posts: 1842
Age: 74
Reg: 01-15-16
|
02-26-19 02:24 PM - Post#278080
In response to SRP
Re interest in the games: The first-place-race shaking Harvard win over Yale went by like a footnote. We have all kinds of convoluted tie-breaker discussions about potential 7-7 teams but not one about the tiebreakers for first place. Pre-folly, we would have had exciting possibilities for ties and playoffs with a Yale loss or two. Now, even if Princeton were to win out, nobody's even discussed who gets the first seed under what scenario, because it really doesn't matter. Yale still gets in and still gets home-court.
Simply truthful as to what you have just said. As Banghart said the other day, IvyMadness is what matters when you are a one bid league and tonight's game with Penn really does not matter other than bragging rights.
For IvyMadness opponents, we are basically fine if there is a two bid league on a fairly regular basis not just once in umpteen years like Saunder's Harvard team may have been for their one great year. The introduction of the IvyMadness based on reality vs. make believe theories was obviously a minimum of three years too early if one uses the two bid argument for the Tournament.
My biggest objection is whoever survives the regular season, especially this year, deserves to go. If there is a two way tie, play it off to decide who goes. It would be a joke if Princeton goes to the Big Dance if they finish let's say 8-6 and get swept by Yale, Harvard and Brown. It would be simply embarrassing and not right. Anything can happen over two games on a weekend as we have already seen this year.
IvyMadness remains absurd until the league is in actuality a two bid league.
|
Go Green
PhD Student
Posts: 1149
Age: 52
Reg: 04-22-10
|
02-26-19 02:29 PM - Post#278081
In response to HARVARDDADGRAD
Exactly!
Aside from a banner, all at stake is a guaranteed NIT slot if you win the regular season
In case you care what I think, I'm totally fine with giving rings to the regular season champs as well.
My understanding is that they only go to the tournament champ, though.
|
Go Green
PhD Student
Posts: 1149
Age: 52
Reg: 04-22-10
|
02-26-19 02:32 PM - Post#278082
In response to bradley
It would be a joke if Princeton goes to the Big Dance if they finish let's say 8-6 and get swept by Yale, Harvard and Brown. It would be simply embarrassing and not right. Anything can happen over two games on a weekend as we have already seen this year.
Worse things have happened in the world.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-26-19 06:54 PM - Post#278128
In response to bradley
I’ve always been curious about this line of argument...
Let’s say that Team A finishes one game behind Team B, BUT Team A swept Team B while Team B was three games better against the other six Ivies than Team A.
Then, in the Ivy Tourney, Team A beats Team B in the final.
What do you think of that outcome? Should Team B still have the bid for surviving the regular season OR does Team A deserve the bid because it beat Team B three times?
By the way, I’m stealing this argument from SomeGuy.
|
bradley
PhD Student
Posts: 1842
Age: 74
Reg: 01-15-16
|
02-26-19 08:54 PM - Post#278135
In response to mrjames
The answer is a relatively simple one as some of us believe that the team that has won the challenging IL regular season has earned the right to go to the Big Dance when your league is one bid league. A 8-6 team has not earned the reward of playing at the Big Dance by winning against two games in one weekend -- not really all that complicated.
For example, a 6-8 Penn team, did not deserve the opportunity to knock off a 14-0 Tiger team in 2016-17 and if it was not for the all just Basketball Gods, it would have happened. The same belief would apply if the Quakers and Tigers had switched records that year.
Our belief is that you earn the right and clearly the regular season champ has demonstrated a high level of performance. Every team has the opportunity from the first game of the IL season to be the regular season champ so the solution is to have the best record.
As stated many times, most of the IvyMadness opponents would be fine when the league is actually not theoretically a two bid league, not every year but on a relatively consistent basis and I would be ok if all 8 teams were included if this theorey becomes reality.
We are waiting for this to become a reality rather than a theorey. Let's hope that the reality starts next year.
|
Naismith
Sophomore
Posts: 149
Loc: RI
Reg: 11-11-18
|
02-26-19 09:08 PM - Post#278141
In response to Go Green
Seriously, they really don't give these 2-game tournament winners rings, do they?
It's offensive enough watching a team carrying around a Madness trophy as big as the Stanley Cup while the real season champion gets some modest token in comparison.
|
SRP
Postdoc
Posts: 4911
Reg: 02-04-06
|
02-26-19 09:32 PM - Post#278146
In response to Naismith
Obviously, in the scenario Mike raises the injustice is minimized. But that is exactly why, in the round-robin format, you have to take every game seriously and make sure you take care of business if you want the championship and the bid. Losses matter.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-26-19 09:56 PM - Post#278151
In response to bradley
I get the strawman of under-.500 team taking on undefeated team. Clearly not ideal.
What’s the answer to the scenario I proposed? That’s one of the ones that certainly has me thinking.
A lot of the arguments surrounding the tournament are overly dogmatic, IMO, while the issues require a little more willful exploration of nuance to weigh the options appropriately.
|
mobrien
Masters Student
Posts: 402
Loc: New York
Reg: 04-18-17
|
02-26-19 11:15 PM - Post#278155
In response to mrjames
I think the fact that the players and coaches both seem to want a tournament so much is a pretty strong point in its favor. The relevant questions are: 1) how do you balance the regular season still mattering, 2) what, if any, advantage should the top seed get, and 3) the venue.
Those first two questions really boil down to this: how many teams should make it. In strong years, like this one, four seems like a good number in that there really are four (or more) deserving teams, and it keeps the regular season interesting for a lot of them without devaluing things too much for the top teams. But in weak years, like the previous two, there's a decent chance you'll get a sub-.500 team that really "shouldn't" be there.
I could see the argument, then, for changing it to just the top three, and giving the top seed a bye to the final. That'd give the teams at the top a good reason to really go for the regular season crown, and guarantee that the teams in the final are pretty deserving. The problem is that this would leave out some good teams in top-of-the-cycle years, and it might do so based on best-win tiebreakers.
So the three-versus-four question, for me, comes down to how strong you think the conference is going to be going forward — are there more often going to be three or four (or more) good teams — and whether you think the top seed deserves a little extra credit for that.
As for venue, the Palestra is clearly the top choice based on its size and history. That said, it's pretty unfair for Penn to get home games in cases where they aren't the top seed, and it's not a centrally-located site. New York makes the most sense geographically, not to mention that there are a lot of alums of all the schools there. Levien isn't that big though — but neither is Yale's gym, and it's going to be there this year.
Since it doesn't look like the league wants to pay for a neutral site — Carnesecca Arena is about the right size in the right location — it seems like the best choices are either to always have it at the Palestra, always have it at Levien, or rotate it (which kind of sucks).
|
whitakk
Masters Student
Posts: 523
Age: 32
Reg: 11-11-14
|
02-27-19 12:26 AM - Post#278164
In response to mobrien
My problem with a three-team tournament is the tiebreakers. Last year Harvard would've gotten a massive advantage over Penn based on a totally arbitrary criterion (where did the other team you lost to finish, which is irrelevant in a fully balanced schedule).
I'd be down for a three-team tournament if we skip the "second tiebreaker" and go to the power rankings instead. But given how the tournament has evolved, I'd be totally stunned if the league reduced the number of teams participating.
|
Go Green
PhD Student
Posts: 1149
Age: 52
Reg: 04-22-10
|
02-27-19 07:52 AM - Post#278170
In response to Naismith
Seriously, they really don't give these 2-game tournament winners rings, do they?
It's offensive enough watching a team carrying around a Madness trophy as big as the Stanley Cup while the real season champion gets some modest token in comparison.
Check out the "XXL" rings here. Specifically, the second from the top row left.
https://www.championshipawardrings.com/gallery/
|
Condor
PhD Student
Posts: 1888
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-27-19 09:32 AM - Post#278176
In response to Go Green
At the end of the day, the tournament seems to be a success. It appears that we have created reasonably equitable rules that gives everyone an opportunity to succeed. There will never be perfect rules, perfect referees, or perfect venues. More importantly, the overall league is improving, we are recruiting better athletes, and the Ivy’s are competitive with all the other NCAA teams. I am happy with the results to date, and it seems to me that trying to determine the best team in March makes sense in this environment.
|
SRP
Postdoc
Posts: 4911
Reg: 02-04-06
|
02-27-19 06:29 PM - Post#278306
In response to Condor
It's a success except for reducing the league's unique branding and special attention, devaluing the conference championship and drastically reducing interest in who wins it, creating more arbitrariness in who gets the NCAA bid, and flopping as an event (with no logical venue). A real winner.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3585
Reg: 02-15-15
|
02-27-19 06:58 PM - Post#278308
In response to SRP
None of which is true and only your opinion.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6413
Reg: 11-22-04
|
02-27-19 07:58 PM - Post#278313
In response to SRP
While the branding may have been unique, I think it may have been working against the league in terms of recruiting. Everything I hear in terms of the players is that they are unanimously for it. Yes, it was unique not having a tournament, but if you are the only league in the country that isn’t providing something that the players want, then you are going to be at a disadvantage.
|
Go Green
PhD Student
Posts: 1149
Age: 52
Reg: 04-22-10
|
02-27-19 08:03 PM - Post#278315
In response to SomeGuy
While the branding may have been unique, I think it may have been working against the league in terms of recruiting. Everything I hear in terms of the players is that they are unanimously for it. Yes, it was unique not having a tournament, but if you are the only league in the country that isn’t providing something that the players want, then you are going to be at a disadvantage.
Bingo.
I've been baffled for a long time that supposedly bright people can't grasp this painfully obvious point...
|
westcoast
Senior
Posts: 302
Reg: 03-08-16
|
02-27-19 08:04 PM - Post#278316
In response to SomeGuy
While the branding may have been unique, I think it may have been working against the league in terms of recruiting. Everything I hear in terms of the players is that they are unanimously for it.
This is exactly right. Recruits and current player all want a conference tournament. Having a tournament increases the quality of players in the league.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3585
Reg: 02-15-15
|
02-27-19 08:31 PM - Post#278325
In response to westcoast
You guys better stop making sense or this entire house of cards may crumble.
|
bradley
PhD Student
Posts: 1842
Age: 74
Reg: 01-15-16
|
02-27-19 10:02 PM - Post#278345
In response to SRP
Remember-never forget that the players want IvyMadness therefore let's have it. Now, I heard that a significant number of players want to get paid so let's do it as they want it.
After all, the Ivy Presidents voted IvyMadness in due to the player's wishes.
The next time that I see Jaelin, I am going to confirm that he decided to forego the ACC Tournament at MSG with his dad's former college, Wake Forest, as IvyMadness was just impossible to turn down.
You just don't get it as to the logic behind IvyMadness.
|
westphillywarrior
Sophomore
Posts: 196
Age: 43
Reg: 01-08-11
|
02-27-19 10:14 PM - Post#278347
In response to westcoast
"Having a tournament increases the quality of players in the league."
None of which is true and only your opinion.
|
HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts: 2691
Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
|
Yale UG Sports Analytics Group Playoff Odds - Men
02-27-19 10:27 PM - Post#278349
In response to westphillywarrior
Many of our best players are playing in other leagues (Gettings, Mason, Boudreaux, Castlin, etc.). Maybe the winner of our tournament can play our graduates/transfers who have eligibility remaining.
Edited by HARVARDDADGRAD on 02-27-19 10:27 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
dperry
Postdoc
Posts: 2214
Loc: Houston, TX
Reg: 11-24-04
|
02-27-19 11:24 PM - Post#278352
In response to mrjames
I’ve always been curious about this line of argument...
Let’s say that Team A finishes one game behind Team B, BUT Team A swept Team B while Team B was three games better against the other six Ivies than Team A.
Then, in the Ivy Tourney, Team A beats Team B in the final.
What do you think of that outcome? Should Team B still have the bid for surviving the regular season OR does Team A deserve the bid because it beat Team B three times?
By the way, I’m stealing this argument from SomeGuy.
a.) As I have had to remind people on the Penn board in the past, it's the Ivy League championship, not the Penn-Princeton championship (or nowadays the Harvard-Yale championship or whoever our two theoretical teams actually end up being.) The other 12 games provide information as well.
b.) It's late, so I will do the actual research later, but off the top of my head, I can't think of any year where that sort of situation occurred in the Ivies pre-abomination. I think in general that that's a pretty unlikely scenario, and it is certainly no more likely than having a mediocre 4th-place team knock off the #1 seed, which we know will happen sooner or later.
David Perry
Penn '92
"Hail, Alma Mater/Thy sons cheer thee now
To thee, Pennsylvania/All rivals must bow!!!" |
|
dperry
Postdoc
Posts: 2214
Loc: Houston, TX
Reg: 11-24-04
|
02-27-19 11:32 PM - Post#278353
In response to mobrien
Carnesecca Arena is about the right size in the right location
While there are some neutral arenas that would probably work pretty well for us, I've been to Carnesecca recently and it ain't all that.
David Perry
Penn '92
"Hail, Alma Mater/Thy sons cheer thee now
To thee, Pennsylvania/All rivals must bow!!!" |
|
HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts: 2691
Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
|
02-27-19 11:41 PM - Post#278356
In response to dperry
See inaugural tournament.
#4 Penn (6-8) took #1 Princeton (14-0) to OT
|
westcoast
Senior
Posts: 302
Reg: 03-08-16
|
02-28-19 12:44 AM - Post#278360
In response to westphillywarrior
"Having a tournament increases the quality of players in the league."
None of which is true and only your opinion.
Obviously, there are many factors in choosing a university and a basketball program. But I am sure that virtually every single current player and incoming recruit would rather play in a league with a tournament that in one without one. Just ask the current and recent players - almost all of them are already on the record saying how much they love the tournament.
|
dperry
Postdoc
Posts: 2214
Loc: Houston, TX
Reg: 11-24-04
|
Yale UG Sports Analytics Group Playoff Odds - Men
02-28-19 12:50 AM - Post#278361
In response to PennFan10
None of which is true and only your opinion.
--Unique branding: SRP is actually quite correct that we were literally unique; we were the only conference that didn't have a tournament. You may not think that was a good thing (we'll get into that below), but he is right.
--Special attention: To take merely one example, the last year pre-tournament, in what was not a incredibly exciting pennant race, Yale was all over ESPN's web site the Friday night they clinched; there were a couple of preview articles, several commentators were talking about it frequently on Twitter, and there was a big writeup after the game. There was also fairly frequent commentary during the season, as well. On the other hand, last year, all they had was a short writeup and the highlights, and you had to scroll way down the page to find that--and, of course, this was the network that showed the tournament. Again, in 2002, I saw commentary about the race in at least a couple of outlets every week, whereas so far pretty much the only thing I've seen about us in the national news is the Aiken shot against Columbia making the top 10--and again, there wasn't much about the rest of the game or it's implications for the league race.
--Devaluing the conference championship: Again, going by the league's own definition, which says that the regular season winner is the official champion, then that statement is quite true; now all it gets you is first seed in the tournament. Heck, this was even true sometimes pre-abomination; I do not look back with fondness on Penn's "championship" in 1996, and I suspect the Princeton and Yale fans are similarly unenthused by their shares of the championship in 2002 (well, maybe James Jones is, but besides him.  ) ESPN's coverage of the tournament final referred to it as "the Ivy League championship." Not the tournament championship, the championship. This will only increase as we get further and further away from the old format, as has happened in every other conference.
--Drastically reducing interest in the championship: Again, going by the league's definition, there is no question that finishing first is not as big a deal as it once was. If you want to make this more general and talk about interest in the regular season, "drastically" may be an overstatement, but it's not clear that it's any more than what it was before. We'll find out more when this year's attendance figures are complete, but spoiler alert: in the first two years, there's only been one team that unequivocally did better in attendance strictly due to the tournament (as opposed to getting a lot better, like Penn did last year.)
--Arbitrariness in NCAA bid: Head on back up to here where the Yale analytics folks tell us that Princeton, Brown and Penn combined have only a 4% chance of finishing first but a 16% chance of winning the tournament. I'd call that at least a somewhat significant increase in arbitrariness, and before Yale clanged that game to Harvard, it was even bigger; the difference in their odds of finishing first and winning the tournament. was over 25%.
--Flopping as an event: The tournament is now less than three weeks away. It is being played in a gym that seats slightly more than 2,500 people. The host team will require a collapse of Biblical proportions to miss the cut, and Princeton and Harvard are fairly sure bets at this point as well. In spite of this, according to the official ticket site, there are 600 seats remaining for the semis, and almost 700 for the
finals--and I'm pretty sure this doesn't account for the team allotments or the student sections. At this point, it's not unreasonable to ask whether all of the tickets will actually be sold, and it's certainly not unreasonable to ask whether we will even come close to actually filling all of the seats for the finals, particularly if Yale does get knocked off. The best you can say about this is that there isn't a gigantic sense of urgency for people to buy tickets. Again, even at Penn, only one of the four men's sessions exceeded the Harvard-Yale playoff of '15, which had much less warning and was much less convenient to both schools. As far as ratings, last year's ratings definitely did not exceed 0.35 (and, by the way, this list tells you that even the Power 5 conference championships aren't all that popular--they all got their butts kicked by a nondescript golf tournament, for crying out loud.)
So to sum up, yes, some of SRP statements actually are true, and they all have at least some evidence.
David Perry
Penn '92
"Hail, Alma Mater/Thy sons cheer thee now
To thee, Pennsylvania/All rivals must bow!!!" |
Edited by dperry on 02-28-19 12:51 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
dperry
Postdoc
Posts: 2214
Loc: Houston, TX
Reg: 11-24-04
|
Yale UG Sports Analytics Group Playoff Odds - Men
02-28-19 01:19 AM - Post#278364
In response to westcoast
While the branding may have been unique, I think it may have been working against the league in terms of recruiting. Everything I hear in terms of the players is that they are unanimously for it.
This is exactly right. Recruits and current player all want a conference tournament. Having a tournament increases the quality of players in the league.
OK, I'm going to cut and paste my list of factors by which recruits make their college choices from the last time this came up:
--Get along well with coach
--Get along well with other players
--Likelihood of playing
--Likelihood of starting
--Likelihood of playing on a winning team.
--Level of competition the college plays at (forgot this one last time!)
--Likelihood of making the pros.
--Likelihood of getting a good job when my athletic career ends.
--Overall academic quality of the institution.
--Academic quality of the institution in the fields I am interested in.
--Campus social life.
--Academic setting (i.e., small liberal arts college, large research university) suits my needs/interests/psyche.
--Location/activities in area.
--Fan/community support.
--Availability/type of financial aid/need to take out loans. (forgot this one, too!)
--League has tournament.
Now, I want all of you who are asserting that the tournament really helps us in recruiting to look me straight in the eye and without laughing--without even the slightest upturn of your lips--tell me that you seriously think that "League has tournament" finished any higher than next-to-last on this list for any player the Ivies recruited in the 20 years or so pre-tournament, or that they gave it more than a few seconds' thought. If, somehow, you can do it, then I want you to answer these questions:
1.) Why is it that we were never the worst league in Division 1, or the most poorly attended league, all those years that we were the only conference without a tournament?
2.) Why is it that the marked increase in the quality of our recruits began several years before the possibility of a tournament was even broached?
3.) How did the Big 10 and Pac-10 stay competitive at the highest levels during the time they didn't have tournaments?
The reason us "supposedly bright" people can't wrap our brains around this "painfully obvious" assertion is that it isn't painfully obvious; there is no reason to believe that the tournament makes any more than a trivial difference to recruits.
David Perry
Penn '92
"Hail, Alma Mater/Thy sons cheer thee now
To thee, Pennsylvania/All rivals must bow!!!" |
Edited by dperry on 02-28-19 01:48 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3585
Reg: 02-15-15
|
Re: Yale UG Sports Analytics Group Playoff Odds - Men
02-28-19 02:13 AM - Post#278365
In response to dperry
This completely misses the point. No one is picking Duke, Kentucky, UNC or any Big Ten school because of their conference tournament either. Last year when Penn beat Harvard at the Palestra and the students stormed the floor, the entire thing was on ESPN multiple times. I had people from all over the country texting me they saw it on TV and it looked awesome. Michael Wang sat and watched it with his friends in Los Angeles. Recruits aren’t picking schools because they have a tournament but if you think the ILT hasn’t turned some heads in the past two years (Princeton’s win was covered throughout the day two years ago) you have your head in the sand.
People are noticing the caliber of basketball the Ivy League is playing and the ESPN coverage of the ILT is definitely a part of that. There are (past and present) certainly recruits who become more interested in Ivy League Schools after seeing our schools featured on ESPN in the ILT the last two years. It creates exposure and players want to be a part of it, or at a minimum, want to look into it more than they might have otherwise. The quality of our league has never been higher and the current players are telling every recruit how much fun it is to play in the ILT. The exposure is helping put IL schools on the menu for recruits, who are then using “your list†to make their choices and the IL is grading out pretty high recently
As far as interest among fans and alums, we should be careful not to mistake The talk on here about the top 4 teams and who will get the fourth seed as watered down interest in the league champion. To the contrary, these are ADDITIONAL fans watching our league, coming to the games and paying attention because there are more than just 1 team in the mix. Just because there are more people in conversations doesn’t empirically mean the interest in the top spot is diminished. That’s a presumption some are making but I don’t think it’s necessarily true.
Edited by PennFan10 on 02-28-19 02:25 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
bradley
PhD Student
Posts: 1842
Age: 74
Reg: 01-15-16
|
Re: Yale UG Sports Analytics Group Playoff Odds - Men
02-28-19 08:55 AM - Post#278368
In response to dperry
You make valid points but IvyMadness proponents struggle with reality vs. theorey as they want to simply believe -- drinking the Kool Aid. I understand that most Dartmouth, Cornell, Brown and Columbia fans want to support IvyMadness as they see it as the only way to get to the Big Dance. There are even a fair number of Penn fans who are advocating for IvyMadness as a result of Jerome Allen era and the losing that took place. It is like taking a shortcut to success rather than earning it the hard way.
Like any event, there is some residual benefit of a weekend of IvyMadness as to getting on ESPN in a tournmanet setting but the upside is offset in my opinion by a number of downsides that you have identified. Being on ESPN+ which is a good thing is a plus and is a function of an improving league with a rich tradition.
At the end of the day, the IL is improving, slower than some people want to believe. Performing better in non-conference play and especially at the Big Dance is the best advertisement in the world. Every time Makai Mason hits the floor for Baylor, IL gets great press and has nothing to do with IvyMadness. Fortunately, Yale did not have to deal with the idiocy of IvyMadness as they were the best seasoned team to represent the IL that year and did some damage in the NCAA Tournament.
The simple truth is that if you want to go to the Big Dance, get a great coach, recruit hard, develop players and have some luck. Banghart has achieved success and recruited Alarie by the old fahion way -- hard work and having some brains-Tigers were not very good prior to her arrival for a number of years.
The gimmickry behind IvyMadness and what has been traditionally been a one bid league is somewhat a reflection of the times that we live in but is surprising that people who have achieved a IL education would support but it is what it is. Making things up to support IvyMadness is also disappointing as well.
|
HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts: 2691
Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
|
Yale UG Sports Analytics Group Playoff Odds - Men
02-28-19 01:23 PM - Post#278410
In response to penn nation
The concept that Makai Mason or the league gets noticed because of our tournament is a farce. The only time we are noticed is when we are a trendy NCAA first/second round upset pick. Makai Mason never played in an Ivy Tournament. The only reason he is at Baylor is because of this performance against Baylor in the NCAA tournament.
Michael Wang watched the tournament in March because he had committed to Penn! How many of the top 100 recruits who are not already committed to an Ivy school do you think watch our tournament? Could be none.
Recent NCAA upsets by Harvard (2x) and Yale put us on the current landscape. Obama did more for this league than the Tournament has!
No one other than us cares about our tournament. Others do, however, like us as a trendy NCAA upset opportunity. The tournament jeopardizes that by restarting the competition for the NCAA bid and determining it over a smaller sample with unearned HCA implications.
Edited by HARVARDDADGRAD on 02-28-19 01:25 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
Go Green
PhD Student
Posts: 1149
Age: 52
Reg: 04-22-10
|
Re: Yale UG Sports Analytics Group Playoff Odds - Men
02-28-19 01:50 PM - Post#278413
In response to HARVARDDADGRAD
The tournament jeopardizes that by restarting the competition for the NCAA bid and determining it over a smaller sample with unearned HCA implications.
Cue the examples of non-regular-season-but-co nference-tourney-winners making noise in the NCAA.
I'll start with Florida Gulf Coast.
Edited by Go Green on 02-28-19 02:08 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts: 2691
Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
|
02-28-19 01:52 PM - Post#278414
In response to Go Green
Maybe the regular season champ would have done well also. Exceptions aren't the rule.
|
Go Green
PhD Student
Posts: 1149
Age: 52
Reg: 04-22-10
|
02-28-19 02:00 PM - Post#278417
In response to HARVARDDADGRAD
Maybe the regular season champ would have done well also. Exceptions aren't the rule.
But they do disprove the theory that just because you're sending someone other than the regular season champ means you're going to get blown away by 40 by Duke--which is exactly what we heard CONSTANTLY from tourney opponents throughout the years.
There is no shortage of examples of teams that would not have made the NCAA but-for their conference tournament that performed admirably (even sometimes winning) at the big stage.
And even if say our #3 seed slips though and lays an egg in the NCAA, our rep will be more than repaired if our league does well against Power 5 OOC teams year-in and year-out.
|
HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts: 2691
Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
|
02-28-19 02:07 PM - Post#278421
In response to Go Green
You are using outliers to argue your point. Why can't you just admit that the 14 game home and home tournament is more likely to produce the true best representative as opposed to a weekend on someone's home court? Variable like injuries, HCA, hot/cold streaks, stomach viruses, colds, exams, etc. have more of a chance to skew the tournament than the regular season.
|
Go Green
PhD Student
Posts: 1149
Age: 52
Reg: 04-22-10
|
Yale UG Sports Analytics Group Playoff Odds - Men
02-28-19 02:13 PM - Post#278423
In response to HARVARDDADGRAD
Variable like injuries, HCA, hot/cold streaks, stomach viruses, colds, exams, etc. have more of a chance to skew the tournament than the regular season.
Your enumerated list doesn't mention player suspensions. The "old system" defenders were awfully quiet after the Cannady affair earlier this season.
And if the Ivy presumptive MVP of the first place team breaks his leg the final weekend of the regular season, then I'd imagine that the "old system" defenders would be similarly quiet.
Edited by Go Green on 02-28-19 02:17 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-28-19 02:18 PM - Post#278424
In response to HARVARDDADGRAD
Man, I wish we had a "fact sheet" we could reference every time this argument comes up. I don't have the time to pull everything back up.
A few quick hitters:
The Harvard team that kicked off the recent NCAA win fest (2013) was a game behind heading into the final weekend with no control over its destiny. The Yale team that beat Baylor in 2016 needed a Harvard upset of Princeton to avoid a playoff. Two near misses (2011 and 2015) where Ivies lost R64 games at the buzzer were teams that won their playoff games at the buzzer. The notion that there is frequently one clear "best" team and that's the only team that will have success in NCAAs is more the minority case than the majority case recently (2010 Cornell, 2014 Harvard and 2017 Princeton).
The humorous thing about these arguments is that they end up in circles based on unfalsifiable aesthetic preferences. Meanwhile, the most important issue gets a less rigorous review than it should. Namely, we will end up screwing ourselves by awarding home floor to a team in the tourney that is not the one-seed.
Even if we feel handcuffed to home Ivy sites, there is still a way to do this correctly. Namely, every Ivy gym should have to have open dates for the tournament dates. Then, the tournament gets rewarded to one of the gyms that has neither a team in the men's or women's tournaments (either on the basis of size or time since hosting - preference for the former). If we end up in a situation where the men's and women's fields are completely different, such that all eight are in one side or the other, the women's one seed hosts (to keep the men's side neutral site).
That fix would go a LONG way toward putting me into the pro-tourney camp. But we will screw ourselves someday soon by giving HCA to the non-one-seed (we nearly did already).
|
sparman
PhD Student
Posts: 1346
Reg: 12-08-04
|
Re: Yale UG Sports Analytics Group Playoff Odds - Men
02-28-19 02:20 PM - Post#278425
In response to Go Green
Cue the examples of non-regular-season-but-co nference-tourney-winners making noise in the NCAA. I'll start with Florida Gulf Coast.
You regularly cite such games as supposed examples of what an ivy upset winner can do. They are usually irrelevant (to quote another poster, "red herrings")- apples and bicycles.
In 2013, FGC was rated #84 by Sagarin. A win over #5 ranked U Miami. Highest ivy team that season was Harvard, regular season winner and ranked below FGC at #88. I don't have the RPI or other ratings at hand.
Cite a 3d or 4th place ivy team, that was remotely ranked that high, and with a win nearly as impressive.
|
Go Green
PhD Student
Posts: 1149
Age: 52
Reg: 04-22-10
|
Re: Yale UG Sports Analytics Group Playoff Odds - Men
02-28-19 02:26 PM - Post#278427
In response to sparman
Cite a 3d or 4th place ivy team, that was remotely ranked that high, and with a win nearly as impressive.
Just this very season, a full strength Penn would come close.
Edited by Go Green on 02-28-19 02:27 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
|
