gokinsmen
Postdoc
Posts: 3669
Reg: 02-06-10
|
Rankings, Ratings and Polls
02-18-24 12:41 PM - Post#363453
In response to SRP
And an NET ranking of 53. As Jerry Carino notes...
https://www.app.com/story/sports/college/ 2024/02/1...
That’s better than Northwestern (59) and South Carolina (57), which are considered to be safely in the field. It’s better than Butler (56), which ESPN bracketologist Joe Lundardi has as one of his “last four byes.” It’s better than Providence (58) and Ole Miss (64), which Lunardi has among the last four in. It’s better than four more teams listed in Lunardi’s first 12 out, including Memphis (81!) which has played like garbage for ages now but won some big games quite literally last year.
|
sparman
PhD Student
Posts: 1347
Reg: 12-08-04
|
Rankings, Ratings and Polls
02-18-24 02:54 PM - Post#363461
In response to gokinsmen
All trumped by Lunardi definitively proclaiming no ivy at large this year ......
|
SRP
Postdoc
Posts: 4911
Reg: 02-04-06
|
02-18-24 05:08 PM - Post#363470
In response to sparman
It’s the Quad nonsense. He’s just predicting what the committee will do, and he’s right.
|
TigerFan
PhD Student
Posts: 1890
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: ankings, Ratings and Polls
02-18-24 05:30 PM - Post#363473
In response to sparman
I hate this angsty conventional wisdom setting, which just leads to self-fulling prophesies. Frankly, I wish sportswriters like Jerry Carino would stop affirming this narrative and spin a little our way.
|
Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts: 2816
Reg: 11-23-04
|
02-18-24 06:57 PM - Post#363478
In response to TigerFan
This is simply the unhappy consequence of having a relatively amateur program in a world of big money programs with high paid coaches and other hangers on (recruiters, sports analysts, etc.) looking out for each other.
|
TigerFan
PhD Student
Posts: 1890
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-18-24 07:30 PM - Post#363480
In response to Tiger69
I couldn't agree more, 69. There is a small amount of room for the mid majors to gain respect but to take 2 teams into the tournament from conferences like the Ivy League would mean fewer can make it from the power conferences. Its a zero sum game after all
Interesting to watch the Tigers upswing, though. Sweet 16 appearance brings a lot more exposure and greater fan support (I would guess that ticket sales for the league games may be up 2,000 or so per game on average this year). I'd imagine that both of these things will help with recruiting.
Princeton was on this virtuous cycle in the late 90s until Chris Young signed with MLB and things spun away. Harvard seemed to be on this upwards trajectory in the mid-2010s until they crapped out.
Is it possible for Princeton (or any Ivy) to sustain an upwards trajectory and break through the Ivy wall that keeps them from securing games against power conferences and garnering the respect that it would take for the league to be considered for 2 bids?
|
Bryan
Junior
Posts: 231
Loc: Philadelphia
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-18-24 08:15 PM - Post#363483
In response to SRP
It’s the Quad nonsense. He’s just predicting what the committee will do, and he’s right.
This Princeton team is good, easy to root for and fun to watch. They are currently ranked 66 in KenPom which has no bias for Big Conference versus Small Conference teams. If Princeton needs an at large bid to make the NCAA tournament then they will lose at least one more game --> in that case their Pomeroy rating will be worse than 66. While 66 is very good it is not good enough to get an at large bid. So even if you ignore the Quad system that helps Big Conference schools, Princeton would still not get an at large bid under a fairer system.
|
TigerFan
PhD Student
Posts: 1890
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-18-24 08:38 PM - Post#363485
In response to Bryan
You’re just echoing the same BS. Rutgers, who we beat, and Seton Hall, who Rutgers beat, are considered “bubble” teams by the beacketologists when both have inferior NET rankings to Princeton’s. The NET, not KenPom, is supposed to be the system the NCAA came up with to help with tournament selection and seeding.
|
Dial Lodge
Sophomore
Posts: 170
Reg: 03-08-07
|
02-18-24 10:33 PM - Post#363492
In response to TigerFan
https://www.app.com/story/sports/college/ 2024/02/1...
Artile on rankings and the chances for an at-large bid for Princeton (which this article says are zero).
|
Bryan
Junior
Posts: 231
Loc: Philadelphia
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-18-24 10:54 PM - Post#363495
In response to TigerFan
You’re just echoing the same BS. Rutgers, who we beat, and Seton Hall, who Rutgers beat, are considered “bubble” teams by the beacketologists when both have inferior NET rankings to Princeton’s. The NET, not KenPom, is supposed to be the system the NCAA came up with to help with tournament selection and seeding.
My only source was Pomeroy. You're the one who referenced bracketologists. If a 4 or 5 loss Princeton should get an at-large bid then there should be some measure that shows that. If not, you're wishing with your heart, not your head.
|
gokinsmen
Postdoc
Posts: 3669
Reg: 02-06-10
|
Rankings, Ratings and Polls
02-19-24 12:03 AM - Post#363502
In response to Bryan
My problem with the Selection Committee is that they forget what their own tournament is: neutral-site games against non-conf opponents. Winning away from home against quality non-conf opponents should be the #1 criteria for at-large consideration.
But alas they reward power conference teams who refuse to play road games vs good non-conf teams and run for the hills when Princeton wants to join their neutral-site tournament.
That said, I think there's a legit chance for a 2-bid Ivy next season. Princeton should be as good or better and the same could be said of Yale. Harvard and Columbia should improve and Cornell may only take a small step back with the way Earl coaches. I can see Princeton with a NET in the 30s but losing in the ILT.
|
Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts: 2816
Reg: 11-23-04
|
02-19-24 12:53 PM - Post#363534
In response to gokinsmen
I believe that one possible solution to the current selection mess that is arbitrarily and weighted against non so-called power conferences, is to award each conference at least one spot and limit all conferences to no more than say, 25% of their members (or as many as 4 spots to a conference of 16). With the present field of 64 this would allow more non power teams that do not always get the opportunity to play power conference teams and still give a liberal number of spots to runner ups from power conferences.
Of course, the power conferences will whine because the money will likely be more spread out than in the past.
|
iogyhufi
Masters Student
Posts: 681
Age: 27
Reg: 10-10-17
|
02-19-24 01:02 PM - Post#363537
In response to Tiger69
Yup, I'm afraid you're right. The NCAA operates on the Golden Rule - he who has the gold makes the rules.
|
sparman
PhD Student
Posts: 1347
Reg: 12-08-04
|
02-19-24 07:22 PM - Post#363576
In response to iogyhufi
More like he who has the gold takes more.
|
whitakk
Masters Student
Posts: 523
Age: 32
Reg: 11-11-14
|
02-19-24 09:35 PM - Post#363590
In response to Bryan
It’s the Quad nonsense. He’s just predicting what the committee will do, and he’s right.
They are currently ranked 66 in KenPom which has no bias for Big Conference versus Small Conference teams. If Princeton needs an at large bid to make the NCAA tournament then they will lose at least one more game --> in that case their Pomeroy rating will be worse than 66.
Factually this is wrong - KP currently projects Princeton to finish 11-3, so in expectation going 12-2 would increase their rating, probably by significantly more than losing a 60-40 game in the tournament (specifics would depend on margins of course).
I mostly agree with your general point - that finishing in the late 50s to high 60s is a bubble-worthy team but by no means one that's an injustice to leave out. I would especially agree with it if the committee consistently used a Kenpom-like ranking to select the field, which would be a better system than the arbitrary one we have now.
The best system, and the metrics-based case for Princeton, is to use Strength of Record or Wins Against Bubble (Princeton is ~35 in each and would probably be around 40 with winning out until a conference tourney loss). These measure how many games a team won against their schedule, compared to what another good team would have done, using the whole schedule and metrics that actually assess team quality - a real metric of a team's resume, and one that makes the results of every game matter.
Instead the committee is scared of metrics and only trusts numbers they can count on one hand, which is how we get the "Quad 1/2 wins" crap that disadvantages mid-majors.
|
TigerFan
PhD Student
Posts: 1890
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-21-24 09:04 PM - Post#363725
In response to whitakk
College Insider has Princeton #5, Cornell #12, and Yale #13 in its Mens Mid Major Top 25.
https://collegeinsider.com/mens-mid-major-top-25
|
HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts: 2692
Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
|
02-21-24 10:38 PM - Post#363731
In response to TigerFan
And, remarkably, Harvard got votes (#41?)
|
HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts: 2692
Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
|
02-21-24 10:41 PM - Post#363732
In response to HARVARDDADGRAD
For WBB
Princeton #2
Columbia #15
Harvard #42
|
gokinsmen
Postdoc
Posts: 3669
Reg: 02-06-10
|
Rankings, Ratings and Polls
02-22-24 05:08 PM - Post#363777
In response to HARVARDDADGRAD
Not quite a ranking or rating, but Mitch made ESPN's "coaches to watch" feature. It's mostly just speculation based on who's doing well and who's on the hot seat, but it's nice to see the program and the league get positive attention:
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketba ll/insid...
Mitch Henderson, Princeton Tigers: While FAU received most of the Cinderella talk in last year's NCAA tournament, Princeton made a stunning Sweet 16 run as a 15-seed. Henderson has the Tigers one game out of first place in the league. He is likely to get in the mix at Stanford if it opens.
James Jones also got mentioned as a desirable candidate but no possible destination was mentioned. And Dartmouth was included in a list of potential vacancies.
|
Dial Lodge
Sophomore
Posts: 170
Reg: 03-08-07
|
Rankings, Ratings and Polls
02-26-24 10:16 PM - Post#364021
In response to gokinsmen
ESPN Bracketology has Yale in the Tournament as a #13 seed.
CBS Bracketology has Princeton in the Tournament as a #11 seed.
We need to win the next 5 games, and we will have a solid seed. Lose to Cornell (or worse, Columbia or Penn, and taking our arch-rival Penn lightly is something that we can do only at our peril, although Mitch is well aware of that) and win the Ivy Tournament, we probably get a 12 or 13 seed.
Of course, we do have to win the Tournament to get anything but a trip to the NIT.
Edited by Dial Lodge on 02-26-24 10:43 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
