Untitled Document
Brown Columbia Cornell Dartmouth Harvard Penn Princeton Yale



 Page 1 of 3 ALL123
Username Post: 2020 - Breakthrough Year?        (Topic#22964)
bradley 
PhD Student
Posts: 1842

Age: 74
Reg: 01-15-16
03-25-19 01:44 PM - Post#282673    

Will the IL have two teams representing both the men and the women in 2020 as well as winning 1 or 2 games at the Big Dance by some team? If there is ever a year for opportunity, it may well be next year based on Harvard's men team and possibly, the Tiger's women team. Additionally, if Oni returns or one of the other men's team steps up and either Penn/Harvard step up on the women's side is it possible?

Are the BB Gods finally merciful regarding injuries for several of the teams in 2020?

Looking a the past six years, it is questionable based on what has actually occurred:

Men
2019 Yake 14th Seed 77 RPI Lost by 5 pts
2018 Penn 16th 125 Lost by 16
2017 Prin 12th 58 Lost by 2
2016 Yale 12th 77 Won by 4/Lost 7
2015 H 13th 75 Lost by 2
2014 H 12th 32 Won by 6/Lost 17

For the women which face somewhat less competition, the seedings from 2019-2014 are 11th,12th,11th,8th,12th and 9th. The women did win one game as a 8 seed.

The stage is set for Harvard to jump thru the hoop and send a message that the IL will no longer be primarily a one and done league which may be helpful as to seedings in follow up years. Additionally, IL teams need to continue to improve in non-conference play which took place last year. Will it happen - who knows but the time is right to make a statement. Easier to theorize than actually accomplish a challenging task.

After watching the quality of both NCAAM and NCAAW teams, it will not be easy as many schools have a lot of talent and I am not sure if the Ivies are there yet but hopefully so. We see IL teams improving talent wise but so are many other teams.

Was the Yale team of 2019 more talented than Yale's 2016 team that won a game and battled Duke in the round of 32? Is the competition more or less challenging than 2016? Time will tell.

 
mrjames 
Professor
Posts: 6062

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
Re: 2020 - Breakthrough Year?
03-25-19 04:37 PM - Post#282688    
    In response to bradley

The explanation for what you're seeing is that the Ivies have concentrated their peaks for 2019-20.

Harvard was hitting its peak in 2014 with Yale aimed for 2015 and 2016 and with Princeton geared up for 2016 and 2017. That created a seamless transition of really powerful Ivy winners that were all competitive. But after Princeton hit its peak, the talent in the league was pretty much all aimed at a 2019-20 peak. There were zero seniors on the 2017-18 All-Ivy first two teams (half were sophomores) and two-thirds of the All-Ivy first two teams (plus the injured returnees) were not seniors this year as well. We're going to have ~15 former All-Ivy honorees back next season - can't imagine there have been too many other points in our past where that's the case.

So, while the alternate peak strategy is a good way to consistently hit the 12-13 line, the concentrated peak strategy is the best way to go for multiple bids.

The story can't be about Harvard, alone, though. If Harvard is our only Top 75 team next year (or more generally, if there is just one Top 75 team next year) that's not going to get the job done. There need to be five or six Q1/Q2 win opportunities in league play - best accomplished by having multiple Top 75 teams, where the home/road is worth a Q1 and a Q2.

The other key ingredient to this recipe - I believe all of the Ivy Tourney teams from this year have access to an MTE slot next year (though I've only seen Harvard and Penn announced thus far - and Columbia from amongst the non-tourney crew).

 
PennFan10 
Postdoc
Posts: 3578

Reg: 02-15-15
03-25-19 05:04 PM - Post#282694    
    In response to mrjames

Penn doesn't have an MTE left next year but I believe they are playing in the Wooden Tournament as part of their normal schedule.

 
mrjames 
Professor
Posts: 6062

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
03-25-19 06:05 PM - Post#282703    
    In response to PennFan10

Really??? That’s what I had originally presumed, because they seemed to be out of MTE slots on the rolling four year, but I was told that there are blocks of four years, such that you could play four years in a row, technically, if you played the last two of one block and first two of another.

I had been pushing that “play as part of schedule” idea a ton but kept getting rebuffed that it was against Ivy rules. That’s awesome that it’s not against Ivy rules... definitely worth it for building a resume.

 
PennFan10 
Postdoc
Posts: 3578

Reg: 02-15-15
03-25-19 06:07 PM - Post#282704    
    In response to mrjames

I might be wrong. I don't have any direct information on this but when you originally posted it I thought I had heard it elsewhere.

 
westcoast 
Senior
Posts: 302

Reg: 03-08-16
03-25-19 06:11 PM - Post#282705    
    In response to PennFan10

Penn is playing in the 2019 Wooden Legacy, along with Arizona, Providence, Wake Forest, Central Florida, Pepperdine, Long Beach State, and the College of Charleston.

http://espnevents.com/wooden-legacy/news-an d-updat...

 
penn nation 
Professor
Posts: 21081

Reg: 12-02-04
Re: 2020 - Breakthrough Year?
03-25-19 08:09 PM - Post#282708    
    In response to mrjames

It's also pretty difficult to be Top 75 if you have a bunch of games against sub 300 teams (let alone lose any of them).

 
james 
Masters Student
Posts: 776

Age: 48
Reg: 03-18-19
03-25-19 08:16 PM - Post#282710    
    In response to penn nation

Harvard is unquestionably a top 75 team next year. In terms of talent they are top 30.

Yale has to replace 3 key guys but I like their chances of being top 75. Will depends on development of a few guys and where we stand with the 2018 class in terms of development. Those guys didn’t play as much as I anticipated so hard to say.

Penn should be in a similar position as Yale and could be in a better spot.

Then the questions start though I am optimistic on Columbia is brown and Princeton being quite solid.



 
mrjames 
Professor
Posts: 6062

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
Re: 2020 - Breakthrough Year?
03-25-19 08:38 PM - Post#282713    
    In response to penn nation

To be fair, with the new NET formula, it’s actually better to play some really bad teams you can pound, because RAW efficiency is a big component of the formula, so running up a bunch of +30-50 margins in a handful of games can really boost your NET.

NET perfection is to find teams that are going to be around .500 that are still pretty bad (way worse than their record) so you can beat them by a ton without recording an egregiously bad SOS.

 
Naismith 
Sophomore
Posts: 148

Loc: RI
Reg: 11-11-18
03-25-19 08:56 PM - Post#282714    
    In response to mrjames

Educate those of us from peach basket era. Clarify MTE. I know it has something to do with tournament participation.

 
mrjames 
Professor
Posts: 6062

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
03-25-19 09:39 PM - Post#282718    
    In response to Naismith

Ha - yeah, acronyms are all over the place now.

MTE = Multi-Team Event

Used to be that there were only a few (Preseason NIT, Maui, Great Alaska Shootout), and a team could only participate in one every four years. When you did, you got to play three or four games for the price of one.

It became clear, though, that these events could provide valuable live sports content during some dead zones in the calendar while people were off and willing to tune in (Thanksgiving and Christmas breaks). So, the NCAA relaxed the rule to one every year, and a bunch of promoters, including ESPN Events, started creating either these 8-team bracketed events at one site or “auto-semifinal” events, where four teams would play on a big stage like MSG and the other teams in the field would get one shot at a big name and play three other games in regional pods. Again, the benefit is that you got to play up to four games, and it only counted as one game against your scheduling. And ESPN, Fox, CBSSN could be chalked full of college basketball all day during those holidays.

When the NCAA went from one-in-four year participation in MTEs to every year, the Ivies went from one-in-four to two-in-four. The prohibition on the other two chances to participate every four years severely handicaps the league’s ability to get quality opponents on neutral floors to have a better chance to rack up good wins. It also, in a self-defeating manner for academics, causes teams to have to chase quality opponents across the country to play at often inconvenient times to get those chances, when three could be had in the course of four days over a break.

 
Naismith 
Sophomore
Posts: 148

Loc: RI
Reg: 11-11-18
03-25-19 10:33 PM - Post#282727    
    In response to mrjames

Thank you. I suspected it was something along those lines. Maybe that's too logical for a league that figures a silly tournament is the way to get exposure. I'd suggest games on neutral courts against challenging competition is the Ivy path to moving up the food chain as it's related to any hope of multiple NCAA bids. Penn and Princeton are the only teams capable of drawing OOC games to their own arenas. The other six are at a disadvantage due to that. Every league team should be playing an MTE every year. Your points should be in front of the ADs and coaches right now.

 
Streamers 
Professor
Posts: 8141
Streamers
Loc: NW Philadelphia
Reg: 11-21-04
03-26-19 08:34 AM - Post#282777    
    In response to james

  • james Said:
Harvard is unquestionably a top 75 team next year. In terms of talent they are top 30.



Sounds like an indictment of their coaching, no?

 
Chip Bayers 
Professor
Posts: 6997
Chip Bayers
Loc: New York
Reg: 11-21-04
2020 - Breakthrough Year?
03-26-19 10:51 AM - Post#282790    
    In response to Streamers

  • Streamers Said:
  • james Said:
Harvard is unquestionably a top 75 team next year. In terms of talent they are top 30.



Sounds like an indictment of their coaching, no?



It will be interesting to see how the possessions get distributed. The way the injuries shook out the last couple of years, Amaker resorted to having one guy eat a third of all the shots when they were healthy and on the floor—Aiken this year, Towns last year. That’s pretty extreme. A second heavy possession eater backed them up—last year Lewis, this year Kirkwood.

Mike probably has the raw numbers on this, but Towns and Aiken really haven’t spent a ton of time together on court, and when they did as freshmen they had a classic senior PG in Chambers distributing the ball to them, so their possession & shot distribution was pretty even.

One outcome of Aiken taking over in the second half of the year in ‘18-‘19 was that Lewis saw his offensive numbers decline across the board from last year—ORtg, %minutes, %possessions, %shots, eFG% were all down, while his turnovers on a very turnover-prone team rose dramatically, and he was at his worst on offense in conference play. I know injury may have played some part in that, but it was a pretty big falloff for the most highly-rated player in his recruiting class.

With all the guys mentioned back, plus at the very least Ledlum among the new faces (and with only Corey Johnson subtracted from the old faces) I’m assuming we will see a reversion next year to the more even distribution of past Harvard teams, and certainly not one that was as hero-ball oriented as this year’s (#300 nationally in A/FGM). But how the ball ultimately gets shared will be the thing to watch in the early going of the non-conference schedule.


Edited by Chip Bayers on 03-26-19 10:54 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.

 
james 
Masters Student
Posts: 776

Age: 48
Reg: 03-18-19
03-26-19 11:22 AM - Post#282792    
    In response to Chip Bayers

i agree with this. I am not looking at stats in writing this but harvard was generally not a good assist team especially when contrasted with yale.

Aiken played hero ball, quite well i might add but to the detriment of their overall talent level really.

My guess is Aiken missing the first half of the season and Towns being out hurt the integration of the offense. they all switched lineups 25x. You add in a couple of young guys playing real minutes and its more understandable.

Next year should be different. So if Aiken can distribute better or play off the ball, either really. Then this integration should be better.

it appears Kirkwood is playing some point. that is the step in the direction of Aiken playing off the ball. Either way its a scary setup given 7 top 150 recruits with more than half seniors.



 
SRP 
Postdoc
Posts: 4894

Reg: 02-04-06
03-26-19 02:36 PM - Post#282799    
    In response to james

The Kirkwood comparison I fear is not the Wesley Saunders one popular on the Harvard board but rather T.J. Bray, a tall, robust, skilled PG who could pass, drive, post, shoot, and rebound (and happened to lead all of DI in efficiency his senior year). It would be a fascinating twist to have a tall point guard and a short shooting guard; I'm not sure if Amaker would have the nerve to take the ball out of Aiken's hands so much, but a balanced three-headed monster with Lewis as a low-post threat could be very challenging to defend.

 
mobrien 
Senior
Posts: 389

Loc: New York
Reg: 04-18-17
2020 - Breakthrough Year?
03-26-19 02:55 PM - Post#282804    
    In response to SRP

Harvard fan here. Very much agree that Kirkwood is more of a natural point than Aiken. The way I'd put it is that Kirkwood passes as a first resort, while Aiken mostly does it as a last resort. In other words, Aiken will get some pretty nice assists, but they're kick-outs or dump-offs when the defense has collapsed on his drives and he can't get a shot up himself. Kirkwood will attack with the intention to pass all along.

In that regard, Kirkwood might be the perfect player to pair with Aiken: a big point guard who allows us to play Aiken at the two without giving up any mismatches on the defensive end. The question, as you say, is whether Aiken would be willing to play that much off the ball.

Maybe the way to sell it is Kirkwood as the point for the first 20 seconds when we're moving the ball and looking for easy looks, and Aiken at the point for the last 10 seconds when we go to a pick and roll as a last resort. (I wish our offense had more looks than that, but that's generally the way we do things).

 
mrjames 
Professor
Posts: 6062

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
Re: 2020 - Breakthrough Year?
03-26-19 03:34 PM - Post#282812    
    In response to mobrien

So, Bryce Aiken had the 43rd-highest efficiency for any player to use above 28% of possessions. He used the 16th highest percentage of possessions nationally and took the 14th highest percentage of shots. In conference play, he was 8th in the league in assist rate. His skill curve (the degradation of efficiency as usage rate increases) is essentially flat - he's a freak of nature. (Meanwhile, Seth and Noah's skill curves both collapse at around 25% usage and Chris's steadily declines from 15% usage on).

If I could sign up for that exact performance over 30+ games next season, I'd do that right now.

Why exactly do people want to take the ball *out* of his hands? If he can comfortably handle 30-35% usage, that can allow Harvard to play Lewis at 15% usage and a low usage stopper (Bassey), while keeping Noah and Seth just north of 20%. There's no reason to ask a player that can handle 30+% usage to step that back...

 
palestra38 
Professor
Posts: 32680

Reg: 11-21-04
Re: 2020 - Breakthrough Year?
03-26-19 03:45 PM - Post#282814    
    In response to mrjames

To use your logic, because a lot of what he did this year involved luck. No chance he would hit every buzzer beater as he did this year.

But he's really good--just not THAT good.

 
mrjames 
Professor
Posts: 6062

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
Re: 2020 - Breakthrough Year?
03-26-19 04:12 PM - Post#282822    
    In response to palestra38

Yeah, not referring to the buzzer beaters, which were just a crazy, seemingly unrepeatable run. More just the overarching efficiency stats. Definitely would take 110 on 33% usage - that's insane.

 
 Page 1 of 3 ALL123
Icon Legend Permissions Topic Options
Report Post

Quote Post

Quick Reply

Print Topic

Email Topic

4895 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: 0.162 seconds.   Total Queries: 16   Zlib Compression is on.
All times are (GMT -0500) Eastern. Current time is 05:31 AM
Top