tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6457494758573151242024-03-13T00:07:11.276-04:00The 14-Game TournamentMichael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06461922638043769098noreply@blogger.comBlogger123125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-645749475857315124.post-21402964049136581412016-03-23T20:03:00.000-04:002016-03-23T20:03:56.223-04:0014 Game Tournament Podcast: Season 1, Episode 15<a href="https://googledrive.com/host/0Bx1cNBIhE7Yxa3h6TUYtY1ZPZGc/01.15.14GTPodcast.mp3" target="_blank">One thing is clear: The World Is Changing.</a><div>
<a href="https://googledrive.com/host/0Bx1cNBIhE7Yxa3h6TUYtY1ZPZGc/01.15.14GTPodcast.mp3" target="_blank"><br /></a></div>
<div>
<a href="https://googledrive.com/host/0Bx1cNBIhE7Yxa3h6TUYtY1ZPZGc/01.15.14GTPodcast.mp3" target="_blank">The Ivy world, that is. </a></div>
<div>
<a href="https://googledrive.com/host/0Bx1cNBIhE7Yxa3h6TUYtY1ZPZGc/01.15.14GTPodcast.mp3" target="_blank"><br /></a></div>
<div>
<a href="https://googledrive.com/host/0Bx1cNBIhE7Yxa3h6TUYtY1ZPZGc/01.15.14GTPodcast.mp3" target="_blank">Dartmouth firing its most consistently successful coach (across two different stints, no less)???</a></div>
<div>
<a href="https://googledrive.com/host/0Bx1cNBIhE7Yxa3h6TUYtY1ZPZGc/01.15.14GTPodcast.mp3" target="_blank"><br /></a></div>
<div>
<a href="https://googledrive.com/host/0Bx1cNBIhE7Yxa3h6TUYtY1ZPZGc/01.15.14GTPodcast.mp3" target="_blank">Harvard recruiting two Top 5 players in the 2017 class???</a></div>
<div>
<a href="https://googledrive.com/host/0Bx1cNBIhE7Yxa3h6TUYtY1ZPZGc/01.15.14GTPodcast.mp3" target="_blank"><br /></a></div>
<div>
<a href="https://googledrive.com/host/0Bx1cNBIhE7Yxa3h6TUYtY1ZPZGc/01.15.14GTPodcast.mp3" target="_blank">Yale pushing the Ivy League to 4-3 in the last seven NCAA Round of 64 games???</a></div>
<div>
<a href="https://googledrive.com/host/0Bx1cNBIhE7Yxa3h6TUYtY1ZPZGc/01.15.14GTPodcast.mp3" target="_blank"><br /></a></div>
<div>
<a href="https://googledrive.com/host/0Bx1cNBIhE7Yxa3h6TUYtY1ZPZGc/01.15.14GTPodcast.mp3" target="_blank">Makai Mason testing the NBA Draft waters as a sophomore???</a></div>
<div>
<a href="https://googledrive.com/host/0Bx1cNBIhE7Yxa3h6TUYtY1ZPZGc/01.15.14GTPodcast.mp3" target="_blank"><br /></a></div>
<div>
<a href="https://googledrive.com/host/0Bx1cNBIhE7Yxa3h6TUYtY1ZPZGc/01.15.14GTPodcast.mp3" target="_blank">Make sense of this madness on another episode of the 14 Game Tournament Podcast.</a></div>
<div id="spoon-plugin-kncgbdglledmjmpnikebkagnchfdehbm-2" style="display: none;">
</div>
Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06461922638043769098noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-645749475857315124.post-42710450238936248532016-03-14T21:28:00.000-04:002016-03-14T21:28:25.823-04:0014 Game Tournament Podcast: Season 1, Episode 14<a href="https://googledrive.com/host/0Bx1cNBIhE7Yxa3h6TUYtY1ZPZGc/01.14.14GTPodcast.mp3" target="_blank">Postseason play is here. But, umm, first... An Ivy conference tournament!?! #2BidIvy on the women's side!?! Oh yeah, and a breakdown of the three Ivy postseason participants Yale, Princeton and Columbia.</a><br />
<div id="spoon-plugin-kncgbdglledmjmpnikebkagnchfdehbm-2" style="display: none;">
</div>
Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06461922638043769098noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-645749475857315124.post-3406180739009867472016-03-07T20:47:00.000-05:002016-03-07T20:47:39.551-05:0014 Game Tournament Podcast: Season 1, Episode 13<a href="https://googledrive.com/host/0Bx1cNBIhE7Yxa3h6TUYtY1ZPZGc/01.13.14GTPodcast.mp3" target="_blank">Defending Ivy champs (technically true!) Yale finally clinch the bid they had waited so long to attain. A look back at the final Ivy back-to-back weekend and (as a bonus!!!) an even further look back at how the preseason predictions performed.</a><br />
<div id="spoon-plugin-kncgbdglledmjmpnikebkagnchfdehbm-2" style="display: none;">
</div>
Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06461922638043769098noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-645749475857315124.post-84974915026966517642016-03-01T20:59:00.000-05:002016-03-01T20:59:22.296-05:0014 Game Tournament Podcast: Season 1, Episode 12<a href="https://googledrive.com/host/0Bx1cNBIhE7Yxa3h6TUYtY1ZPZGc/01.12.14GTPodcast.mp3" target="_blank">The final weekend is upon us. Will it be Yale? Will it be Princeton? Will it be Columbia... (okay, that one's a no). Maybe this will be the final preview of the year, or maybe, just maybe, we'll be off to The Palestra on Saturday, March 12th.</a><br />
<div id="spoon-plugin-kncgbdglledmjmpnikebkagnchfdehbm-2" style="display: none;">
</div>
Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06461922638043769098noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-645749475857315124.post-43211539287725327052016-02-25T21:04:00.000-05:002016-02-25T21:04:35.810-05:0014 Game Tournament Podcast: Season 1, Episode 11<a href="https://googledrive.com/host/0Bx1cNBIhE7Yxa3h6TUYtY1ZPZGc/01.11.14GTPodcast.mp3" target="_blank">How a simple little metric has fared predicting at-large teams and what that might mean for #2BidIvy... It's a BONUS EPISODE of the 14 Game Tournament Podcast that takes a deeper look at the Easy Bubble Solver and how it might know more about the Ivy League's two-bid chances than the experts.</a><div id="spoon-plugin-kncgbdglledmjmpnikebkagnchfdehbm-2" style="display: none;">
</div>
Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06461922638043769098noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-645749475857315124.post-37158604123733075502016-02-21T20:09:00.002-05:002016-02-21T20:09:33.271-05:0014 Game Tournament Podcast: Season 1, Episode 10<a href="https://googledrive.com/host/0Bx1cNBIhE7Yxa3h6TUYtY1ZPZGc/01.10.14GTPodcast.mp3" target="_blank">A complete attack on the current NCAA Selection Process isn't a good fit for 140 character bursts. Yet no one wants to read a <i>War and Peace </i>length treatise on it either. So, you end up with an hour of this (and some, minimal discussion of the Ivy title race). Enjoy!</a><div id="spoon-plugin-kncgbdglledmjmpnikebkagnchfdehbm-2" style="display: none;">
</div>
Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06461922638043769098noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-645749475857315124.post-41214089368155160192016-02-15T18:41:00.000-05:002016-02-15T18:41:09.387-05:0014 Game Tournament Podcast: Season 1, Episode 9<a href="https://googledrive.com/host/0Bx1cNBIhE7Yxa3h6TUYtY1ZPZGc/01.09.14GTPodcast.mp3" target="_blank">Columbia's loss is Princeton's gain, as the Tigers' dramatic comeback keeps the hopes alive of a tight stretch run and the outside shot of a legit beef about #2BidIvy.</a><br />
<div id="spoon-plugin-kncgbdglledmjmpnikebkagnchfdehbm-2" style="display: none;">
</div>
Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06461922638043769098noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-645749475857315124.post-91319440039817151182016-02-09T20:53:00.000-05:002016-02-09T20:53:25.924-05:0014 Game Tournament Podcast: Season 1, Episode 8<a href="https://googledrive.com/host/0Bx1cNBIhE7Yxa3h6TUYtY1ZPZGc/01.08.14GTPodcast.mp3" target="_blank">The #14GameTournament field is winnowing faster than the Republicans, as we're down to three with the two challengers facing off this weekend. Take a listen for your rooting guide to the weekend.</a><br />
<div id="spoon-plugin-kncgbdglledmjmpnikebkagnchfdehbm-2" style="display: none;">
</div>
Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06461922638043769098noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-645749475857315124.post-32659656960048795112016-02-02T21:10:00.000-05:002016-02-02T21:10:09.689-05:0014 Game Tournament Podcast: Season 1, Episode 7<a href="https://googledrive.com/host/0Bx1cNBIhE7Yxa3h6TUYtY1ZPZGc/01.07.14GTPodcast.mp3" target="_blank">The high-leverage Columbia visit to Yale... ON FS1!!!!, but at 5 p.m. :(</a><br />
<a href="https://googledrive.com/host/0Bx1cNBIhE7Yxa3h6TUYtY1ZPZGc/01.07.14GTPodcast.mp3" target="_blank"><br /></a>
<a href="https://googledrive.com/host/0Bx1cNBIhE7Yxa3h6TUYtY1ZPZGc/01.07.14GTPodcast.mp3" target="_blank">And more on the Ivy race, as it were, and some nits and notes about some early statistical returns from league play.</a><br />
<div id="spoon-plugin-kncgbdglledmjmpnikebkagnchfdehbm-2" style="display: none;">
</div>
Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06461922638043769098noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-645749475857315124.post-67845219044230536692016-01-26T20:59:00.000-05:002016-01-26T20:59:47.997-05:0014 Game Tournament Podcast: Season 1, Episode 6<a href="https://googledrive.com/host/0Bx1cNBIhE7Yxa3h6TUYtY1ZPZGc/01.06.14GTPodcast.mp3" target="_blank">It's finally here. Ivy back-to-back weekends are, well, back. Get caught up with what's happening in college basketball's most unique conference tournament with this week's edition of the podcast...</a><br />
<div id="spoon-plugin-kncgbdglledmjmpnikebkagnchfdehbm-2" style="display: none;">
</div>
Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06461922638043769098noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-645749475857315124.post-63926982867755348172016-01-18T13:08:00.001-05:002016-01-18T13:08:17.464-05:0014 Game Tournament Podcast: Season 1, Episode Five<a href="https://googledrive.com/host/0Bx1cNBIhE7Yxa3h6TUYtY1ZPZGc/01.05.14GTPodcast.mp3" target="_blank">The first set of travel partner games are behind us. Time to take a look at what's transpired thus far, and what might happen in the three return games this coming weekend...</a><br />
<div id="spoon-plugin-kncgbdglledmjmpnikebkagnchfdehbm-2" style="display: none;">
</div>
Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06461922638043769098noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-645749475857315124.post-205444096330758452015-12-29T21:45:00.002-05:002015-12-29T21:45:48.424-05:0014 Game Tournament Podcast: Season 1, Episode 4<a href="https://googledrive.com/host/0Bx1cNBIhE7Yxa3h6TUYtY1ZPZGc/01.04.14GTPodcast.mp3" target="_blank">Game Scores, Narratives and the Ivy League Title Chase</a><br />
<div id="spoon-plugin-kncgbdglledmjmpnikebkagnchfdehbm-2" style="display: none;">
</div>
Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06461922638043769098noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-645749475857315124.post-59871969259721601642015-12-11T22:58:00.001-05:002015-12-11T22:58:08.695-05:0014 Game Tournament Podcast: Season 1, Episode 3<a href="https://googledrive.com/host/0Bx1cNBIhE7Yxa3h6TUYtY1ZPZGc/01.03.14GTPodcast.mp3" target="_blank">How predictive are the recruiting rankings from the popular outlets when it comes to predicting future output? And where do we stand with a full month of play under our belts?</a><br />
<div id="spoon-plugin-kncgbdglledmjmpnikebkagnchfdehbm-2" style="display: none;">
</div>
Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06461922638043769098noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-645749475857315124.post-50137750339448763952015-12-03T21:32:00.001-05:002015-12-03T21:32:41.042-05:0014 Game Tournament Podcast: Season 1, Episode 2<a href="https://googledrive.com/host/0Bx1cNBIhE7Yxa3h6TUYtY1ZPZGc/01.01.14GTPodcast.mp3" target="_blank">Fasten your seatbelts... It's time to discuss why the conference tournament might not be so bad after all...</a>Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06461922638043769098noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-645749475857315124.post-32188029036280525792015-11-29T15:09:00.000-05:002015-11-30T15:26:33.642-05:0014 Game Tournament Podcast: Season 1, Episode 1<a href="https://googledrive.com/host/0Bx1cNBIhE7Yxa3h6TUYtY1ZPZGc/01.01.14GTPodcast.mp3" target="_blank">First podcast of the season: Why Yale is now the favorite, why Harvard might not be that bad and why Columbia's defensive struggles might persist.</a><br />
<div id="spoon-plugin-kncgbdglledmjmpnikebkagnchfdehbm-2" style="display: none;">
</div>
Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06461922638043769098noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-645749475857315124.post-73852421871359172462015-02-20T17:25:00.002-05:002015-02-20T17:25:51.438-05:00An NCAA Selection Process For The 21st CenturyThree Top 50 wins. An RPI of 36. An SOS of 41. A 12-3 road/neutral record.<br />
<br />
Get ready. The college basketball dialogue is about to morph into an endless string of incomplete metrics meant to summarize a team's worthiness to be one of 36 at-large bids to the NCAA Tournament.<br />
<br />
The current selection infrastructure is ripe for mockery, though it's not the RPI's fault. That formula was designed in a different era, when computing power was some trivial fraction of what it is today. For some reason, despite endless evidence to support better metrics, the NCAA has maintained its reliance on that shortcut formula as its method of categorizing team performance for its hard-working selection committee.<br />
<br />
Of course, all that an incomplete metric does is breed mistrust in statistics, providing people with an excuse to substitute even more flawed observational anecdotes to support whatever pre-existing biases with which they walked in the room.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>What I present here today is a new metric that can roll all of the aspects of the familiar historical terminology surrounding bubble teams into one set of numbers that itself controls for all of the things that have previously been addressed separately. These things include average quality of opponent, wins against top teams and location of game.<br />
<br />
The system I will show is a compromise. It is inherently less than perfect. If we define "perfect" as seeding the field where, to the best of our knowledge, each higher rated seed would be expected to defeat those below it, then we should just have Vegas seed the field and be done with it. To be sure, that would keep <a href="http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2014/mar/16/vegas-oddsmakers-scathe-seeding-ncaa-tournament/" target="_blank">disasters like last year from happening in the future</a>, where two four seeds were among the three teams with the best odds to win the title. Or from an Ivy perspective, it would keep a true 9-seed in Harvard from being given a 12, and having to face a true 5- or 6-seed and a true 1- or 2-seed to reach the Sweet 16.<br />
<br />
It's clear, however, that despite the fact that Vegas puts its money where its mouth is every day, the decision makers in the college basketball community, who are never held accountable for their assessments of team quality, would never trust Vegas with such a task.<br />
<br />
So, out of hand, we are doomed to a system that is less than perfect. The good news is that I have a way to get us much closer than the patchwork set of metrics we have today.<br />
<br />
There are a lot of different takes on what the NCAA selection process should reward, but fundamentally, it all boils down to picking at-large teams that have the potential to win games in the Big Dance. That's why Top 50 and Top 100 wins become so vitally important - they are perceived as signals that a team has the capability to win games in March.<br />
<br />
Myriad problems arise with that metric, however. Teams play wildly different numbers of those types of games, making it difficult to compare a team like Harvard, which could wind up needing an at-large with a 2-2 or 3-2 mark against the Top 50, against a team like NC State, which is already 4-7 versus the Top 50 with more such games to come. Then, there's the issue of venue. The Wolfpack have currently played just two of their 11 Top 50 games as true road contests, while Harvard has already played two of its three Top 50 contests on the road.<br />
<br />
There is a simple way to cut through all of that. We can score the outcome of each game, taking the final margin and adjusting for the quality of the opponent and the venue. That score, whether it be ESPN's BPI Game Score or Ken Pomeroy's game Pythagorean Win Percentage, can tell us exactly the quality of team that on average would produce the same result in those circumstances.<br />
<br />
For instance, Harvard's 57-46 win over Dartmouth earned a BPI Game Score of 86.7, which equates to the performance of a roughly Top 10 team in that game. While that might seem shocking to some, it actually checks out quite nicely if we look at a comparable upcoming game. Oklahoma, currently No. 10 in Pomeroy, will be about a 10-point favorite on Saturday at Texas Tech, currently No. 170 in Pomeroy. Dartmouth currently checks in at No. 172 in Pomeroy.<br />
<br />
Aggregating those Game Scores across the season, we can start to get a sense of the percentage of time that a team plays at different levels of quality. Here are the top 10 teams by percentage of games in which they played like a Top 25 equivalent team:<br />
<br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 317px;">
<colgroup><col style="mso-width-alt: 4571; mso-width-source: userset; width: 94pt;" width="125"></col>
<col span="3" style="width: 48pt;" width="64"></col>
</colgroup><tbody>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt; width: 94pt;" width="125">Team</td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64">Top 25</td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64">Top 50</td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64">Top 100</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Kentucky</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">100%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">100%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">100%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Gonzaga</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">96%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">100%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">100%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Wisconsin</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">92%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">92%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">92%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Duke</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">90%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">90%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">90%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Villanova</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">88%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">88%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">92%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Virginia</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">87%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">96%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">100%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Arizona</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">87%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">87%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">91%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Louisville</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">86%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">86%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">90%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Kansas</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">85%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">88%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">92%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Utah</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">84%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">84%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">89%</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Sure enough, this list contains nine of the Top 10 teams in the Pomeroy Ratings and all 10 from the BPI. Then again, these 10 teams were not only locks to get into the tournament, but were also all pretty likely to land on the Sweet 16 seed lines. The fact that this system agrees with those ratings is an important baseline to have as we move down the list to where this can be more useful.<br />
<br />
Looking at the percentage of games for which a team registered a Game Score equivalent to a Top 25, Top 50 and Top 100 team, I decided that any team that ranked in the top 50 of all three deserved to be in the tournament field. Ranking that highly in all three means that not only can this particular team play really well a lot of the time, but it also can play decently well a high percentage of the time when it's not showing itself at its best.<br />
<br />
That cut yielded 42 teams in the NCAA field.<br />
<br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 385px;">
<colgroup><col style="mso-width-alt: 3620; mso-width-source: userset; width: 74pt;" width="99"></col>
<col span="3" style="mso-width-alt: 1828; mso-width-source: userset; width: 38pt;" width="50"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 694; mso-width-source: userset; width: 14pt;" width="19"></col>
<col span="3" style="mso-width-alt: 1426; mso-width-source: userset; width: 29pt;" width="39"></col>
</colgroup><tbody>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt; width: 74pt;" width="99">Team</td>
<td style="width: 38pt;" width="50">Top 25</td>
<td style="width: 38pt;" width="50">Top 50</td>
<td colspan="2" style="mso-ignore: colspan; width: 52pt;" width="69">Top 100</td>
<td style="width: 29pt;" width="39">Top 25 Rank</td>
<td style="width: 29pt;" width="39">Top 50 Rank</td>
<td style="width: 29pt;" width="39">Top 100 Rank</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Kentucky</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">100%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">100%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">100%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">1</td>
<td align="right">1</td>
<td align="right">1</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Gonzaga</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">96%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">100%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">100%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">2</td>
<td align="right">1</td>
<td align="right">1</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Wisconsin</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">92%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">92%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">92%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">3</td>
<td align="right">4</td>
<td align="right">7</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Duke</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">90%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">90%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">90%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">4</td>
<td align="right">5</td>
<td align="right">11</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Villanova</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">88%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">88%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">92%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">5</td>
<td align="right">8</td>
<td align="right">6</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Virginia</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">87%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">96%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">100%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">6</td>
<td align="right">3</td>
<td align="right">1</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Arizona</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">87%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">87%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">91%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">6</td>
<td align="right">9</td>
<td align="right">8</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Louisville</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">86%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">86%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">90%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">8</td>
<td align="right">11</td>
<td align="right">10</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Kansas</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">85%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">88%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">92%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">9</td>
<td align="right">7</td>
<td align="right">5</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Utah</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">84%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">84%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">89%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">10</td>
<td align="right">12</td>
<td align="right">12</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Notre Dame</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">79%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">89%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">89%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">11</td>
<td align="right">6</td>
<td align="right">12</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Northern Iowa</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">74%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">87%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">96%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">12</td>
<td align="right">9</td>
<td align="right">4</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Iowa State</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">74%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">74%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">84%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">13</td>
<td align="right">21</td>
<td align="right">19</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">North Carolina</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">72%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">76%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">88%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">14</td>
<td align="right">18</td>
<td align="right">14</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Baylor</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">71%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">71%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">81%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">15</td>
<td align="right">27</td>
<td align="right">25</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Arkansas</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">70%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">70%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">70%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">16</td>
<td align="right">30</td>
<td align="right">46</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Wichita State</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">70%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">78%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">87%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">17</td>
<td align="right">15</td>
<td align="right">15</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Butler</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">70%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">78%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">83%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">17</td>
<td align="right">15</td>
<td align="right">21</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Dayton</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">68%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">73%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">82%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">19</td>
<td align="right">22</td>
<td align="right">23</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Texas</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">68%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">77%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">82%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">19</td>
<td align="right">17</td>
<td align="right">23</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">VCU</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">68%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">72%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">72%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">21</td>
<td align="right">26</td>
<td align="right">39</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Ohio State</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">65%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">83%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">91%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">22</td>
<td align="right">13</td>
<td align="right">8</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Oklahoma</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">65%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">70%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">74%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">22</td>
<td align="right">32</td>
<td align="right">36</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Michigan State</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">65%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">74%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">74%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">22</td>
<td align="right">20</td>
<td align="right">36</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Maryland</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">65%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">70%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">78%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">22</td>
<td align="right">32</td>
<td align="right">29</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Georgetown</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">64%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">73%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">86%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">26</td>
<td align="right">22</td>
<td align="right">16</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">SMU</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">64%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">73%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">86%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">26</td>
<td align="right">22</td>
<td align="right">16</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">West Virginia</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">63%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">79%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">79%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">28</td>
<td align="right">14</td>
<td align="right">26</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Providence</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">63%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">71%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">71%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">28</td>
<td align="right">29</td>
<td align="right">44</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">NC State</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">61%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">65%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">74%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">30</td>
<td align="right">40</td>
<td align="right">36</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">LSU</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">60%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">65%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">75%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">32</td>
<td align="right">42</td>
<td align="right">34</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Georgia</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">59%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">73%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">86%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">35</td>
<td align="right">22</td>
<td align="right">16</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Purdue</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">59%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">64%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">68%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">35</td>
<td align="right">44</td>
<td align="right">50</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Saint Marys</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">59%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">68%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">77%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">35</td>
<td align="right">37</td>
<td align="right">32</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Old Dominion</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">58%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">68%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">68%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">38</td>
<td align="right">35</td>
<td align="right">48</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">St. Johns</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">57%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">67%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">71%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">39</td>
<td align="right">38</td>
<td align="right">40</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Ole Miss</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">57%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">70%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">83%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">40</td>
<td align="right">32</td>
<td align="right">21</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Texas A&M</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">55%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">70%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">75%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">43</td>
<td align="right">30</td>
<td align="right">34</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">BYU</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">54%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">75%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">83%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">44</td>
<td align="right">19</td>
<td align="right">20</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Florida</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">54%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">67%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">79%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">44</td>
<td align="right">38</td>
<td align="right">26</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Davidson</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">53%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">68%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">79%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">47</td>
<td align="right">35</td>
<td align="right">28</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Indiana</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">52%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">71%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl64">71%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">48</td>
<td align="right">27</td>
<td align="right">40</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div>
In a normal year, roughly 20 of the automatic bids will not come from this group, meaning that there will be somewhere between 5-10 at-large bids left to be claimed after this first step. The next step will be to decide the contenders for those final at-large bids.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Given that the differences between the percentage of games playing like a Top 25 team condense dramatically after allowing that first bulk set of teams in, it's important to expand our discussion to percentages of games playing like a Top 50 and Top 100 team in order to break what are essentially statistical ties. This is where things become more of an art than a science, but it's a discussion that is based on a more comprehensive set of metrics than ever before.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I re-sorted all of the teams by their average rank across the average percentage of games played like a Top 25, Top 50 and Top 100 team and then considered the bubble to be the remaining teams yet to be selected up until I hit 68 total teams. Since there were 42 teams admitted to the field based on being ranked Top 50 in all three categories, I added 26 teams to the bubble. In this example, given that there are 20 automatic bids not a part of the initial 42 team set, that leaves us with six at-large spots for those 26 teams on the bubble.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Let's take a deeper look at those 26 teams:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 358px;">
<colgroup><col style="mso-width-alt: 3803; mso-width-source: userset; width: 78pt;" width="104"></col>
<col span="3" style="mso-width-alt: 1609; mso-width-source: userset; width: 33pt;" width="44"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 1060; mso-width-source: userset; width: 22pt;" width="29"></col>
<col span="3" style="mso-width-alt: 1133; mso-width-source: userset; width: 23pt;" width="31"></col>
</colgroup><tbody>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt; width: 78pt;" width="104">Team</td>
<td style="width: 33pt;" width="44">Top 25</td>
<td style="width: 33pt;" width="44">Top 50</td>
<td colspan="2" style="mso-ignore: colspan; width: 55pt;" width="73">Top 100</td>
<td style="width: 23pt;" width="31">Top 25 Rank</td>
<td style="width: 23pt;" width="31">Top 50 Rank</td>
<td style="width: 23pt;" width="31">Top 100 Rank</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Xavier</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(110, 195, 132); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">60%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(122, 200, 143); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">64%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(219, 239, 226); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">68%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">32</td>
<td align="right">43</td>
<td align="right">55</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">San Diego State</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(99, 190, 123); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">61%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(99, 190, 123); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">65%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(251, 252, 254); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">65%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">30</td>
<td align="right">40</td>
<td align="right">61</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Oklahoma St</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(110, 195, 132); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">60%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(195, 229, 206); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">60%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(251, 250, 253); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">65%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">32</td>
<td align="right">49</td>
<td align="right">64</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Vanderbilt</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(252, 252, 255); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">48%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(160, 215, 176); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">62%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(234, 245, 240); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">67%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">57</td>
<td align="right">45</td>
<td align="right">56</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Cincinnati</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(150, 211, 167); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">57%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(251, 245, 248); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">57%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(251, 252, 254); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">65%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">40</td>
<td align="right">60</td>
<td align="right">61</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Miami (FL)</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(250, 178, 181); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">43%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(160, 215, 176); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">62%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(179, 223, 192); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">71%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">78</td>
<td align="right">45</td>
<td align="right">40</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Murray State</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(252, 252, 255); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">48%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(247, 250, 251); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">57%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(234, 245, 240); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">67%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">57</td>
<td align="right">55</td>
<td align="right">56</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">G. Washington</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(252, 252, 255); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">48%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(247, 250, 251); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">57%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(234, 245, 240); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">67%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">57</td>
<td align="right">55</td>
<td align="right">56</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Bowling Green</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(248, 134, 136); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">40%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(195, 229, 206); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">60%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(196, 229, 206); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">70%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">80</td>
<td align="right">49</td>
<td align="right">46</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Minnesota</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(225, 241, 232); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">50%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(250, 212, 215); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">55%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(251, 250, 253); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">65%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">51</td>
<td align="right">63</td>
<td align="right">64</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Boise State</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(225, 241, 232); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">50%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(250, 212, 215); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">55%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(251, 250, 253); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">65%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">51</td>
<td align="right">63</td>
<td align="right">64</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Seton Hall</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(225, 241, 232); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">50%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(250, 194, 197); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">54%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(234, 245, 240); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">67%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">51</td>
<td align="right">72</td>
<td align="right">56</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Colorado State</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(225, 241, 232); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">50%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(248, 105, 107); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">50%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(217, 238, 225); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">68%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">51</td>
<td align="right">81</td>
<td align="right">50</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Stanford</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(250, 188, 190); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">43%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(249, 151, 154); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">52%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(99, 190, 123); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">78%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">74</td>
<td align="right">79</td>
<td align="right">29</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Syracuse</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(251, 218, 221); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">45%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(250, 202, 205); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">55%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(217, 238, 225); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">68%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">67</td>
<td align="right">68</td>
<td align="right">50</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Cent Michigan</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(251, 243, 246); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">47%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(216, 238, 224); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">59%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(251, 245, 248); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">65%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">65</td>
<td align="right">51</td>
<td align="right">70</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Oregon</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(252, 252, 255); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">48%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(247, 250, 251); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">57%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(250, 197, 199); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">62%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">57</td>
<td align="right">55</td>
<td align="right">75</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Harvard</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(251, 248, 251); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">47%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(233, 245, 239); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">58%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(251, 218, 221); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">63%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">64</td>
<td align="right">54</td>
<td align="right">73</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Kansas St</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(248, 105, 107); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">38%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(249, 156, 158); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">52%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(124, 200, 144); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">76%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">84</td>
<td align="right">76</td>
<td align="right">33</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Florida St</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(150, 211, 167); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">57%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(251, 245, 248); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">57%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(248, 105, 107); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">57%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">40</td>
<td align="right">60</td>
<td align="right">96</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Rhode Island</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(250, 211, 214); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">45%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(250, 212, 215); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">55%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(251, 250, 253); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">65%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">69</td>
<td align="right">63</td>
<td align="right">64</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Alabama</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(250, 211, 214); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">45%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(250, 212, 215); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">55%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(251, 250, 253); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">65%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">69</td>
<td align="right">63</td>
<td align="right">64</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Green Bay</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(250, 203, 205); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">44%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(174, 221, 188); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">61%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(250, 183, 186); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">61%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">72</td>
<td align="right">47</td>
<td align="right">77</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">SF Austin</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(225, 241, 232); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">50%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(247, 250, 251); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">57%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(248, 115, 117); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">57%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">51</td>
<td align="right">55</td>
<td align="right">91</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Iowa</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(198, 230, 208); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">52%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(249, 156, 158); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">52%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(250, 197, 199); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">62%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">48</td>
<td align="right">76</td>
<td align="right">75</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Illinois</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(225, 241, 232); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">50%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(250, 202, 205); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">55%</td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background: rgb(249, 148, 151); font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt;">59%</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">51</td>
<td align="right">68</td>
<td align="right">81</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Clearly Xavier, San Diego State and Oklahoma State should be three of the next six teams admitted. The general consensus in the Bracketology community agrees, as at Bracketmatrix.com, those three teams are averaging a 10-seed, an 8-seed and a 6-seed, respectively.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
That's where things get interesting, though. Teams like Illinois and Iowa are solidly in most people's brackets, yet this Game Score metric shows that roughly 40 percent of the time, they don't even play like Top 100 teams. Even more interesting are teams like UCLA and Temple - also in most people's brackets - which didn't even make this broader bubble list, as they have failed to play like Top 100 teams roughly 43 percent of the time. Potentially most interesting are the teams generally agreed to be barely on the wrong side of the bubble, like Pitt and Tulsa, which have worse Game Score profiles in each of the levels of quality than basically every team listed on the bubble above.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Then, there's the other side of things - teams that have actually played quite consistently well, but are tremendously undervalued by the incomplete metrics used today. Teams like Murray State, Bowling Green, Central Michigan, Harvard, Green Bay and Stephen F. Austin aren't really on anyone's bubble, but have recorded as high if not a higher percentage of strong performances than other teams in that discussion.<br />
<br />
And that's where this methodology drastically outperforms the current RPI Top 50/100 metrics. The opportunities for any of those six mid-major programs to earn "wins that matter" according to the current system mostly dried up once conference play began in earnest in January.<br />
<br />
From that perspective, no one can tell how well they're playing, given that a team like Harvard is 0-0 against Top 50 competition and 1-0 against the Top 100 in January and February combined. The Game Score metric, however, can reveal that the Crimson has played like a Top 25, Top 50 and Top 100 team in 40%, 50% and 60% of its last 10 games, respectively. Those marks are good enough for ranks in the 60s in all three, which isn't necessarily at large worthy, but is easily bubble conversation worthy, given the performance of the other teams in the conversation.<br />
<br />
Now, I know the instant reaction of some folks to this concept will be that you shouldn't count the performance of a team in games that it should easily win. Who cares if you win by 20, 25 or 30? I'm willing to concede this point, so long as we all agree on what constitutes an easily winnable game. Lots of pundits want to draw this line at No. 150 (usually irrespective of location, home/road). That's crazy, as it is roughly as difficult to win at a No. 150 team as it is to beat a No. 50 team at home. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
For this discussion, I have defined an easily winnable game as one in which a bubble team would be expected to win 95 percent of the time. Thus, I eliminated all home wins against teams ranked in the bottom 100 and all road wins against teams in the bottom 20 nationally. (If you lose one of these games, however, it still counts against you). All of the data above contains these exclusions, so the mid-majors shown above haven't earned their place by destroying awful teams.<br />
<br />
While this methodology isn't as perfect as letting Vegas seed the field, it is at least a simple-to-understand, ideological cousin of the way in which teams are rated by the linesmakers. With just those three simple categories above, we can easily process all of the information that RPI, SOS, records vs. Top 50/100 and road/neutral record are trying to solve for on an ad hoc basis separately.<br />
<br />
What's more is it provides a fair way to understand what is going on in the 80-90 percent of games currently not being considered at all for teams from traditional one-bid conferences. That will go the longest way toward leveling the playing field in terms of vying for at-large bids in March.</div>
Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06461922638043769098noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-645749475857315124.post-13747455503548610842014-12-20T15:16:00.000-05:002014-12-20T15:16:10.898-05:00Fun With My Ivy Games Database (Back to 1980)Having recently completed my update to the Ivy Games Database, dating back to the 1979-1980 season (the start of College Basketball Reference's Simple Rating System "SRS"), I have decided to share some of the more interesting nuggets here.<br />
<br />
From looking at the data, it is undeniable that the Ivy League is at its strongest point since the 1970s - and by a considerable margin, I might add.<br />
<br />
Speaking of the 1970s, the Massey Ratings for college basketball extend all the way back to 1950, so my next project will be to add those 30 seasons to the database to provide for the first true comparison of league strength from the glory years to today. Even those incredible years where Penn finished in the top five of the ratings, the league as a whole still had no luck cracking the stranglehold of the top conferences that still dominate the top of the ladder today.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
But back to the data we have going back to 1980. How has the league trended over that timeframe?<br />
<br />
Let's start by looking at all non-conference games as a whole.<br />
<br />
While the simplest way to measure the performance of the league each season might be to look at the non-conference record, that fails to adjust for three important indicators of quality: 1) who you played, 2) where you played them and 3) by how much you won or lost.<br />
<br />
There is a relative simple set of formulas to adjust for opponent quality, venue and margin of victory that can allow us to score each game on a scale of 0 to 100. (50 would indicate that the average Ivy team would be even odds against an average Division I team on a neutral floor).<br />
<br />
Here are the Top 10 best years the league has had since 1980:<br />
<br />
1) 2013-14 - 49<br />
2) 2011-12 - 45<br />
3) 2010-11 - 44<br />
4) 2014-15 (thus far) - 42<br />
5) 2012-13 - 41<br />
6) 2001-02 - 41<br />
7) 1996-97 - 40<br />
8) 2002-03 - 40<br />
9) 2004-05 - 39<br />
10) 1986-87 - 38<br />
<br />
Here are the worst 10 seasons the league has had since 1980:<br />
<br />
1) 1988-89 - 26<br />
2) 1984-85 - 29<br />
3) 1985-86 - 30<br />
4) 1994-95 - 30<br />
5) 1983-84 - 30<br />
6) 1979-80 - 31<br />
7) 2008-09 - 31<br />
8) 1980-81 - 31<br />
9) 1987-88 - 32<br />
10) 1999-00 - 32<br />
<br />
The first thing that pops out is how unprecedented what happened last year was. The 2013-14 season is roughly as far clear of the best year prior to this current run (8.6 points over 2001-02) as that 2001-02 campaign was over the 1999-00 edition of the Ivy that cracked the Bottom 10 list.<br />
<br />
That four-year span from 2001-02 to 2004-05 previously had set the high-water mark for the Ivies in the Academic Index era with an average Game Score of 39. Compare that to the past five years which are hovering near 45 on average.<br />
<br />
What's also clear is how far we've come since the 1980s. The average game score for that lost decade was 31 with seven seasons cracking the Bottom 10 list.<br />
<br />
The 1990s showed marked improvement with the average game score rising to 35 with just one Bottom 10 season and one Top 10 campaign with two more (1992-93, 12th; 1998-99, 13th) that would have been up until this recent run bumped those seasons from the list. The 2000s continued on that progression with that aforementioned strong burst from 2001-02 to 2004-05, but the end of the decade was hampered by a shift from the traditional two-team power structure to a more equitable rising tide being pushed by policy changes in financial aid and concerted effort to improve from traditionally dormant programs.<br />
<br />
What the common college basketball fan cares more about, though, is how a team or a league plays in the biggest moments. It's nice to take care of your sub-200 opposition in dominating fashion, but those performances don't generate tons of media coverage.<br />
<br />
So, let's segment the opposition into tiers. The three tiers we'll choose are teams with SRS ratings above 4 (roughly Top 100), 10 (roughly Top 50) and 15 (roughly Top 25). Since we've mostly controlled for quality with the tiering and rarely does an Ivy host such a high-caliber opponent, winning percentage alone can be more instructive than it is for the overall sample, so I'll provide that here along with Game Scores. Let's take a look by decade:<br />
<br />
Games Vs. SRS 4+ Rated Opponents (Top 100)<br />
<br />
1980-89: 7% Win Pct; 38 Game Score<br />
1990-99: 15% Win Pct; 47 Game Score<br />
2000-09: 12% Win Pct; 48 Game Score<br />
2010-present: 20% Win Pct; 55 Game Score<br />
<br />
Games Vs. SRS 10+ Rated Opponents (Top 50)<br />
<br />
1980-89: 3% Win Pct; 39 Game Score<br />
1990-99: 7% Win Pct; 47 Game Score<br />
2000-09: 3% Win Pct; 52 Game Score<br />
2010-present: 14% Win Pct; 59 Game Score<br />
<br />
Games Vs. SRS 15+ Rated Opponents (Top 25)<br />
<br />
1980-89: 0% Win Pct; 36 Game Score<br />
1990-99: 2% Win Pct; 47 Game Score<br />
2000-09: 0% Win Pct; 56 Game Score<br />
2010-present: 8% Win Pct; 50 Game Score<br />
<br />
For many, though, the true quality of a league is less in having a couple standard bearers that can put up a fight while the majority of teams remain cupcakes and more in having a conference with tough outs top-to-bottom.<br />
<br />
In the 1980s, Ivies combined to defeat 15 opponents with SRS Ratings of 4 or higher. Of those victories, 14 came from Penn and Princeton with Dartmouth registering the lone other one. In the 1990s, the number of wins rose dramatically (35), but the distribution remained roughly the same - Penn and Princeton combined for 33 of those with Brown and Cornell each taking one.<br />
<br />
By the 2000s, though, things had begun to change. The number of such victories plateaued (32), but Penn and Princeton combined for just 22, while Yale picked up 5, Brown and Cornell added 2 and Harvard picked up one.<br />
<br />
That leads us to where we are today. Just five and a half seasons into this decade, the Ivy League has already recorded 33 wins over SRS 4+ opponents. Harvard leads the way with 13, but four more Ivies have at least two (Princeton - 7; Cornell - 6; Brown - 2; Columbia - 2; Yale - 2) and only Dartmouth has yet to nab one.<br />
<br />
There are a variety of other ways to look at the 36 Ivy seasons in the database, but all will pretty much come to the same conclusion. What we've seen over the past five or six seasons has been nothing short of remarkable, both in the heights that have been achieved and the manner in which such performance has been consistently sustained.<br />
<br />
For the parochial fan, more interested in his or her team's performance in the dis-aggregated game-by-game view, I'll have the "bests" and "worsts" from individual games over the past 36 seasons in a follow-up post.<br />
<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06461922638043769098noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-645749475857315124.post-58716272471197984612014-12-16T11:21:00.001-05:002014-12-16T11:21:45.190-05:00Luck-Adjusted College Basketball Scores: (Or How I Intend To Take Most of the Fun/Mystery/Excitement Out of Sports)As many of you have noticed, I've been working on a new pet project recently.<br />
<br />
It's no secret that I am an ardent opponent of attributing all of an outcome to skill when it is partially (or sometimes mostly) driven by luck. My vociferous opposition has nothing to do with a desire to argue for argument's sake, nor is it because I want to be the annoying pebble in the shoe.<br />
<br />
The reason I care so deeply about separating luck from skill is that what I find interesting about sports is the predictive pursuit. Once you know what is luck and what is skill, you can account for both in your predictions in different ways, but failing to admit that much of what happens on the playing surface is driven by luck is essentially conceding any ability to predict outcomes with a reasonable level of accuracy.
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>We know a lot about sources of luck in college basketball. Here's a quick list:<br />
<br />
1) Free throw defense is pretty much all luck.<br />
<br />
2) For the vast majority of players and teams, two-point jumpers on both ends of the floor are pretty much a crapshoot, and it's hard to deviate far from the 35-36 percent national average in either direction.<br />
<br />
3) Three-point defense is a mixed bag. You can try to scare opponents off the three-point line with some causal success, but forcing three-point misses is a much more random game.<br />
<br />
Notice that this list contains basically all shots taken from outside the low block.<br />
<br />
There is a corresponding list of the things that are driven either by skill or by conscious tactical decisions:<br />
<br />
1) Offensive rebounding tends to be a replicable skill (top three teams from 2013-14 are still in the top five in 2014-15), as much of offensive rebounding has to do with size (a constant) and the effort permitted by the coaching staff in pursuing rebounds on that end (as opposed to getting back to stop transition buckets - a hotly debated tradeoff in its own right).<br />
<br />
2) Getting to the free throw line tends to be a skill, as the same players and teams tend to have success year-over-year. Keeping opponents off the free throw line also seems to be a conscious decision of coaching staffs, though having the personnel to guard without fouling can make sometimes make this tactical decision difficult to execute.<br />
<br />
3) Scoring around the rim and defending the basket tend to be replicable skills. Unlike jumpers, players seem to be more consistent with their conversion rates on layups, and shot blockers tend to post high block rates year-over-year.<br />
<br />
4) At the extremes, turnover rates remain decently consistent both on the offensive end (there are really bad teams at handling the ball and really good ones) and on the defensive end (the decision to apply heavy pressure or the decision to apply no pressure), but through the middle, there is a decent amount of luck and regression to the mean in turnover rate stats.<br />
<br />
Given those guiding principles, we now have a roadmap to start separating the elements of the game that are determined by behavior or skill and those that are guided by randomness or luck.<br />
<br />
That roadmap has led to the model that you have been seeing referred to as "luck-adjusted" scoring.<br />
<br />
To explain the model, let's start with the simplest of cases one might see in a play-by-play:<br />
<br />
Player X makes Two Point Jump Shot<br />
<br />
Now, on the scoreboard, Alpha Team will get two points for Player X's made jumper. As we saw above, though, on average, that jumper will fall about 35 percent of the time. So, in the luck-adjusted model, Alpha Team gets 0.7 points.<br />
<br />
If that seems silly, let's take a look at a few more possessions:<br />
<br />
Player X makes Two Point Jump Shot<br />
Player X misses Two Point Jump Shot<br />
Player X misses Two Point Jump Shot<br />
<br />
Player X is really into two-point jumpers (Player X isn't meant to be Yale's Matt Townsend, but it's okay if that's who you're envisioning here), and this run of performance is about what we'd expect on average. Sure enough, the luck-adjusted model would have Alpha Team at 2.1 points, while the scoreboard would have them at 2 points.<br />
<br />
But what if Player X truly does make 40 percent of his two-point jumpers. This "luck-adjusted" model is selling him short, no?<br />
<br />
The answer is yes, but the difference is inconsequential versus not adjusting for luck at all. Some simple math can prove this out.<br />
<br />
Player X misses Two Point Jump Shot<br />
Player X makes Two Point Jump Shot<br />
Player X makes Two Point Jump Shot<br />
Player X misses Two Point Jump Shot<br />
Player X misses Two Point Jump Shot<br />
<br />
In this case, Player X and his 40 percent shooting from two would "deserve" four full points, while the luck-adjusted model would only give him 3.5 points. That's an overattribution of 0.5 points to luck.<br />
<br />
Think about what happens, though, when we attribute nothing to luck. Roughly 9 percent of the time, Player X will make four or five out of five two-point jumpers. The scoreboard would show 8 or 10 points from that flurry, which is 4 or 6 points more than what Player X and Team Alpha deserve. Another 8 percent of the time, Player X would make none of the two-point jumpers. In this case, Team Alpha got four fewer points than it deserved. In fact, two-thirds of the time, Player X will fail to make two and miss three for the appropriate four points, meaning that in two-thirds of cases Player X's actual output will deviate from the expected by at least two points. Meanwhile, the "luck-adjusted" model only deviates half a point for getting his real two-point jumper hit rate wrong by five percentage points.<br />
<br />
Or, in other words, adjusting for an expected value for a shot taken, even if that expected value is off by a decent margin, has far, far less risk than failing to adjust for the expected value of the shot type at all.<br />
<br />
The same logic applies for three-point shots and free throws, and the model makes the same average expected value adjustment for those.<br />
<br />
Layups, however, have to be treated a little bit differently.<br />
<br />
On both ends of the floor, a team's ability to convert and to stop opponents from converting around the rim tends to be a demonstrated skill that can differ by a sizeable amount. Defensively, a team's block rate can have a massive impact on the percentage of layups made and block rates tend to be pretty stable over time down to the player level. For instance, Harvard's Kenyatta Smith would have ranked second in the nation in block rate a couple years ago, had he played a very small additional number of minutes to qualify, and has returned after a year's absence to rank eighth nationally.<br />
<br />
The higher the block rate a team records, the more likely that team is altering shots around the rim as well.<br />
<br />
On the opposite end, having skilled finishers at the guard position and lots of size in the post can make a team very prolific on a sustained basis at the rim.<br />
<br />
Thus, in the model, a team's expected value from layups is dependent upon the opponents ability to prevent conversions around the rim and the team's own ability to produce them. The same thing goes on the opposite end of the floor as well. The expected value credit is given for the "unblocked" field goal percentage around the rim, because all blocked attempts are given an expected value of zero in the model.<br />
<br />
So, that's how the model handles all of the possessions for which there is a shot that is either made or missed and rebounded by the defense. There are three other ways a possession can go, though. Here's a brief explanation of how we handle each of those:<br />
<br />
1) Turnover - Any possession ending in a turnover is given zero credit with one notable exception highlighted below.<br />
<br />
2) Offensive Rebounds - Any possession containing one or more offensive rebounds will be credited the expected value of the highest attempted shot. For instance, if a team shoots a two-point jumper, gets an offensive rebound and shoots a three, then the team will get the expected value for the three (just north of 1pt) rather than the expected value of the two-point jumper (0.7pts) for that possession. If the three is missed, but the team gets another offensive rebound and turns it over, the team still gets the expected value of the three pointer, rather than a 0 for the turnover (this is the exception to the turnover point above).<br />
<br />
3) Free Throws - Any possession ending in free throws will receive 0.7pts per free throw. In the case of an and-one, the 0.7pts for the free throw are added to the expected value of the shot itself. One minor note here is that currently the model is calculating one-and-ones incorrectly. The correct expected value for a one-and-one is 1.2 pts (the 1.4pts expected for two free throws less the 30 percent chance you miss your opportunity for 0.7pts on the back end due to missing the front end). I'm working on coding the model to catch those, as now a team is getting 1.4pts when it hits the front end and just 0.7pts when it misses the front end. This really doesn't affect the overall luck-adjusted scores that much, <a href="http://espn.go.com/ncb/playbyplay?gameId=400589288" target="_blank">even if you decide to miss multiple front ends in a row</a>, because it's only a half-point difference in expected value and can only happen a handful of times a game.<br />
<br />
Finally, the model also recognizes that offenses are more likely to score at the rim in transition shortly after forcing a live-ball turnover. Thus, any un-blocked layups taken within a short span after a forced turnover are given a higher expected value.<br />
<br />
Quite simply, those adjustments are all that comprise the luck-adjusted model. If you've been following closely, you can see that the model is going to like teams that take a lot of threes and keep opponents from doing so. It will also favor teams that are both good finishers around the basket offensively and great at protecting the rim defensively. Teams that can keep possessions alive through offensive rebounds will benefit by getting another opportunity for a higher expected value outcome. The model will also favor those teams that spend a lot of time at the free throw line.<br />
<br />
The behaviors that the model does not like include two-point jump shots and turnovers, especially giveaways that lead to transition baskets coming back the other way.<br />
<br />
To a great extent, this model merely adds the stability of math around heuristics we've already come to hold dear. The traditional thought around upsets is that the underdog limits their turnovers and knocks down a ton of threes, while preventing the favorite from getting easy baskets on the other end. All this model does is merely show you mathematically why that is the case.<br />
<br />
Right now, the model is in the hypothesis stage, though I have done some preliminary testing by comparing the predictive ability of the luck-adjusted and actual halftime margins on the actual outcomes from Ivy games thus far this season. Taking the actual halftime margins for a particular game, I either added the luck-adjusted margin from the first half or the actual halftime margin to "predict" the final margin. The luck-adjusted first half margin plus the actual first half margin was a better predictor of the final outcome than the actual first half margin doubled with the former producing a standard deviation of outcomes that was two-thirds the size of the latter.<br />
<br />
This model represents my first real attempt to take various luck factors that I've played around with in a vacuum (two-point jumpers and three-pointers, free throw defense and so on) and apply them over an entire game. While this can do a great job to tell you how a game should have played out, given the tactics employed, there is a also second logical phase to this study, which includes adjust lucky or unlucky game-level factors which could have influenced even the luck-adjusted outcome.<br />
<br />
For instance, what if Harvard's Siyani Chambers randomly finds himself in foul trouble in a game and the Crimson's turnover rate balloons to 35 percent? Chambers has committed roughly two fouls per 40 minutes for his career, so it's unlikely to happen very often, but how should we address the game where it does? Currently, the luck-adjusted model would ding Harvard for the extra turnovers and the luck-adjusted game outcome would look quite poor. A strong argument could be made, though, that the game should be re-evaluated using the Crimson's normal turnover rate of just under 20 percent, as that is a more reliable and predictive indicator.<br />
<br />
There are other potential confounding factors as well. Teams could change strategy in the second half due to the margin on the scoreboard in ways that would affect the luck-adjusted view of the world. Extended end-of-game scenarios can give the team leading on the scoreboard many high expected value possessions that, while logical given the actual score, can skew the luck-adjusted outcome.<br />
<br />
I'll leave those types of questions to further study, but in the interim, the best way to handle them is to treat a team's true quality as its luck-adjusted (and quality of opponent) game scores that are in the 25th-to-75th percentile range, rather than getting too caught up in outlier performances. Here is that view for the 2014-15 Ivy campaign thus far:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdS21l9nn6fjHooyxKTtjR6p0ZebpDZ6SpGLRjy6xZHPiTrYMyk5AFYbKomH0nLrtSlYjW1a4NH9Szl1_aNqdPJWxVfiajMe5xmQkcmMgZglvcofqt0MgO3m9Y1kNpNnqcuelTws4evIM/s1600/Luck+Adj+Pythags.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdS21l9nn6fjHooyxKTtjR6p0ZebpDZ6SpGLRjy6xZHPiTrYMyk5AFYbKomH0nLrtSlYjW1a4NH9Szl1_aNqdPJWxVfiajMe5xmQkcmMgZglvcofqt0MgO3m9Y1kNpNnqcuelTws4evIM/s1600/Luck+Adj+Pythags.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
It's still early, so this metric will be bouncy (taking quartiles of 7-10 games is really dicing a limited data set too fine), but at this point, the graphic above shows what the luck-adjusted scoring system would indicate about the Ivy landscape.<br />
<br />
Some of the results are unsurprising. The Crimson has the highest ceiling and the highest average performance. That Cornell has the second-highest ceiling or that Princeton has been so consistently solid but unable to turn that into wins are more interesting findings, however. And while some Ivy followers continue to spread their prophesy that Brown or Dartmouth is a darkhorse contender, the luck-adjusted model shows a clear delineation between the top five and teams six through eight.<br />
<br />
I hope that this will encourage some interesting discussion, and I will continue to ponder updates to the model and provide the model outputs throughout the season, so that together we can all observe how it performs.Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06461922638043769098noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-645749475857315124.post-76648038091588728542014-11-02T11:11:00.000-05:002014-11-02T11:19:52.451-05:002014-15 Ivy Preseason Projection Uber Post<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The Ivy League has
quickly become a mid-major freight train.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Sure, finishing 2013-14
with the <a href="http://kenpom.com/conf.php?c=Ivy&y=2014">highest rank and average pythagorean winning percentage of
the Pomeroy era </a>was nice, as is Dan Hanner's 2014-15 projection
of the Ivy <a href="http://basketball.realgm.com/article/235040/College-Basketball-Preview-14-15-The-Rest">as the 12th-best league in the country</a> (which
would set another record). But the most impressive part of the league is how
its best teams closed out the campaign last season, establishing a momentum
that carries far beyond Harvard, and <a href="https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=harvard+preseason+top+25">its summer of Top 25 praise</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Five Ivy League teams
made the postseason, and four of them won at least a game. Yale played all the
way into April, notching four victories (including the first Ivy vs. Ivy
postseason battle against Columbia) on its march to the CIT Championship Game.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">All told, five Ivy teams
finished among the top half of Division I, and none of those five squads
returns less than 60 percent of its minutes from last season. In fact, Columbia
brings back everyone, Brown loses "just" four-year starter and perennial
All-Ivy guard Sean McGonagill and Yale's only significant loss is Brandon
Sherrod, who has reminded us all of the true nature of the Ivy experience
by <a href="http://collegebasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/05/13/yales-brandon-sherrod-to-join-prestigious-a-cappella-group-will-miss-2014-15-season/">taking a year off to pursue his passion of a cappella</a> -
something with which I can't argue, given that I've watched <i><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1981677/">Pitch
Perfect</a></i> about a billion times.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
</div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The league's two regular
season Top 100 teams (Harvard and Princeton) each lost nearly 40 percent of its
minutes, but both have recruited so well in recent years that potential answers
abound that could keep each from skipping a beat.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">And then, there's
Dartmouth. Yes, the Big Green endured a seven-game Ivy losing streak, including
being the only Division I victim of hapless Cornell last year, but that was all
after losing All-Ivy center Gabas Maldunas. Even without him (which Dartmouth will likely be again, at least through December), however, the Big
Green still posted some bizarrely prosperous Ivy weekends, including a home
sweep of Penn and Princeton and a road sweep of Brown and Yale. With him, the
team peaked at No. 175 in Pomeroy in early January and posted an entertaining
seven-point loss at Illinois.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">In accordance with
custom, Penn and Cornell will also be participating in varsity basketball this
season.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">This is the point when I
normally share my projections for Ivy and overall records, as well as odds of
finishing in particular places within the league. I've moved that to the end
this year, as I want to be more transparent with the process first through the
discussion of each team. The projection doesn't just materialize out of thin
air, but is a combination of a variety of factors (returning minutes, outcomes
from random events vs. outcomes from consistent events, historical bounds of
possible outcomes for new players, etc.). These will pop up again and again as
we walk through each team's section.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">So, without further adieu,
we'll take on each team in the order of last year's Ivy finish.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>HARVARD (2013-14: 27-5,
13-1 Ivy; Round of 32 NCAA Tournament)</b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Returning Minutes: 62.5%</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Adjusted Returning
Minutes: 73.4%</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Since 1990, observing
Adjusted Returning Minutes and a team's finish the year prior can help explain
roughly a third of the deviation in performance observed the following
season.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">There are many
explanations for this, but two are paramount:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">1) For as much as we
like to highlight breakout players or surprising slumps, once a player is on
the court for a sufficient number of minutes, that player is more likely to
continue to produce at a similar level than he is to deviate in any significant
way.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">2) Basketball is a team
game, so increasing the number of unfamiliar faces on the floor has a somewhat
exponential negative effect on the team's output.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Both of these
explanations can, at their core, explain why Adjusted Returning Minutes is
primarily a negative factor. In most cuts of the data, it was hard to isolate a
positive effect of returning the bulk of a team's minutes - beyond that which
would be expected by pure regression to the mean. The negative effect that
losing an above average or greater percentage of team minutes was quite
evident, however.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">That makes Adjusted
Returning Minutes a nice first step in the projection process. The effect is
strongest if you return less than half of your team's minutes (accounting for a
drop between .14 and .28 off last year's Pomeroy Pythagorean Win Percentage)
and persists until you approach the historical average for ARM, which has
hovered around 65 percent for the Ivy League. Anything above that mark, and
there isn't much predictive power in ARM for Ivy teams.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">So far, Harvard appears
to be last year's team with a little regression to the mean.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>2013-14 Pomeroy Ratings:
(112 ORAT, 97 DRAT; Pythag - 0.8435, Rank - 32)</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">To get our starting
point, we need to take the Pomeroy numbers from last year and make some
important (but somewhat minor) adjustments to mitigate the impact of luck (yes,
luck can persist for 32 games).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">First, I want to adjust
for any wild deviations in free throw percentage allowed. In 2012, Harvard
"allowed" opponents to shoot 65 percent from the line, and in 2013,
that figure ballooned to 73 percent. That alone accounted for about 1.5 points
per 100 possessions or about 25 percent of the difference between the Crimson's
staunch defense in 2012 and its average showing in 2013.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Next, I want to take a
look at percentage of two-point jumpers made. Hawaii sure doesn't think this
stat is very random, as it has finished as one of the top three best shooting
teams in the country from that distance each of the past three years. The Rainbow
Warriors are far more the exception that the rule, as most teams vacillate
wildly around the Division I average of 35 to 36 percent. What doesn't change
nearly as much is the percentage of shots taken as two-point jumpers. So, a
quick fix here is to adjust the team's shooting percentage down toward the
average while maintaining their percentage of jumpers taken as constant
(modifications can be made to this depending on the shot selection of departing
personnel - though we'll try to save personnel-based changes for the next
section).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The same adjustment has
to be made on the defensive side of the ball, but in even a more aggressive
way. Both the percentage of shots taken as two-point jumpers and the percentage
of makes are far less correlated year-over-year on defense than they are on
offense. The best approach is merely to adjust every team to the national
average for both.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Getting back to
Harvard's case, we'd probably make no adjustments to the base from last season.
Its free throw defense was slightly below average, but its two-point jumper
defense was slightly above average - a veritable wash. The Crimson also shot a
roughly average percentage of two-point jumpers and converted at a roughly
average rate, so no adjustment is needed on that end of the floor either.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Now that we know both
Harvard's "true" quality from last season, and the top-level expected
change from an ARM perspective, we can dive into the personnel analysis to see
how the Crimson will be different on a micro level and how that is likely to
affect Harvard's output this season.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Personnel</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i><br />
</i>Over the final five
games of the 2013-14 season, the most frequent Harvard lineups all included
Siyani Chambers, Wesley Saunders, Steve Moundou-Missi and then two of three of
the seniors (Brandyn Curry, Laurent Rivard and Kyle Casey).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">That consistency is very
valuable, despite the two gaping holes left to fill.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">On the offensive end of
the court, what we care most about is usage rates ("percent of team's
possessions used") and efficiency (points per 100 possessions used). It is
much easier to find ultra efficient players who use a low percentage of a team's
possessions than it is find high usage players who post above average
efficiency. In fact, only the top two most efficient players to use at least 28
percent of team possessions (Billy Baron and Doug McDermott) cracked the list
of the Top 100 most efficient players in the country, and only the 10 most
efficient players to use at least 24 percent of team possessions (a list that
was led by Princeton's T.J. Bray) did the same.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">In that respect, Harvard
is in great shape. Moundou-Missi has consistently used about 21 percent of team
possessions with above average efficiency, while Chambers has hovered around
the same usage rate with slightly less efficient, but still above average
results. In fact, Chambers' unlucky run on two-point jumpers last year (26
percent - worst on the team) overshadowed the fact that he cut his turnover
rate five percentage points between his freshman and sophomore years.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Then, there's reigning
Ivy Player of the Year Wesley Saunders, who has shown himself capable of
handling 25 percent of the possessions with above average efficiency. If those
three use 67 percent of the available possessions, that leaves roughly 16-17
percent a piece for the final two guys on the floor - a workload that its top
two returning options in terms of minutes played in their previous season
(Corbin Miller and Jonah Travis) would be comfortable handling with efficiency
in the one-teens.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The interesting question
is what happens when any of those three high usage guys goes to the bench (and
even more interesting... what if one misses sustained time with injury).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The frontcourt would
likely be just fine. Travis has demonstrated the ability to deliver a similar
usage rate to Moundou-Missi with high efficiency (though it would come at a
cost defensively), and sophomore Zena Edosomwan proved he isn't shy about
consuming possessions in limited time as a freshman. Guard play is a completely
different story. There is no other player at the 1-2-3 spots that seems
remotely comfortable with a Saunders-level usage rate, meaning that Harvard
should become very post-oriented when its 6'5 senior swingman is off the floor.
While it has more of a chance of absorbing Chambers' usage rate, it doesn't
have anyone that can match his ability to lead the Crimson in transition, where
Harvard took 26 percent of its shots (57% eFG).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">My model does not
attempt to forecast injuries for a variety of reasons, some of which has to do
with the fact that gap between the output of the replacement player and the
injured player isn't large enough to swing a teams fortunes all that greatly
over the long run. In the case of the Crimson's guards, that gap would likely
prove to be quite significant, making it noteworthy to remember when
considering the model's output - as there will be massive downside risk to the
results.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Assuming Chambers and
Saunders can provide roughly 35 minutes per game when needed, that leaves at
most 10 minutes where both aren't on the floor at the same time. Presumably,
senior point guard Alex Nesbitt or Miller will snap up Chambers' five minutes
and any combination of folks could take Saunders' five, leaving a full 40
minutes open at one of the wings. That's the spot formerly shared by Curry and
Rivard, who combined to hit 110 threes at better than a 40 percent clip. Along
with any potential duty backing up Chambers, Miller is likely the frontrunner
to consume most of the minutes at that open wing spot. While Tommy Amaker might
be tempted to go bigger at the three with Travis or Agunwa Okolie, the pair
have combined to take all of four threes in their careers, which would leave
Chambers as the only threat from long range on the floor. The result would
either be a spacing nightmare with the opponents opting for a sagging man
defense or a 2-3 zone. That potential outcome likely makes playing Miller or
freshman shooter Andre Chatfield an imperative at that final wing position.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The Crimson's search for
offensive answers at that final wing spot will likely have huge ramifications
on the frontcourt pairings chosen for defensive purposes. A perimeter lineup of
Chambers, Saunders and Okolie would be able to lock down opponents, allowing
Harvard to go with its more offensively oriented post players, while adding
Miller or Chatfield to one of the guard spots would likely require a Kenyatta Smith-type
inside to deter drives to the basket.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>What Does It All Mean?</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Now that we've filtered
through the individual personnel, we can start making individual-level
predictions within the context of building to an overall Pomeroy Rating. Let's
start with the biggest blocks of minutes first.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Saunders has put
together two consecutive years with steady efficiency numbers, really only
varying by his hit rate on three pointers. The same can be said for Chambers.
Moundou-Missi has consistently been above average in his efficiency, though
maybe a marginal haircut is necessary off of last year's stellar numbers.
What's more is that those three players were the key members of a defense that
posted a 34th-best 96.5 efficiency rating last year. So we can lock those
numbers in for those players and the team's defense.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Next are the likely
players. Miller is a strong favorite to grab another 60-80 percent chunk of
minutes in the backcourt. His efficiency rating will be highly variable based
on his ultimate three-point shooting percentage (he's not taking twos, getting
to the line, rebounding or turning the ball over much). He shot 46 percent on a
decent sample as a freshman and looked to be in solid game shape at Crimson
Madness. Given his low usage, hitting an efficiency rating in the low one-teens
as he did as a freshman shouldn't be too hard.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Most of the rest of the
backcourt minutes will be eaten up by Okolie, who has steadily posted an
efficiency rating in the 90s in small sample - so that's a good start for him.
The one tradeoff to consider here is that the defensive rating needs to improve
as Okolie gets more minutes and worsen as Miller gets more minutes.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Finally, the frontcourt
poses a tricky set of tradeoffs. Smith looks poised to get a bunch of minutes
starting along side Moundou-Missi. His efficiency rating was better down the
stretch as a sophomore, but shouldn't be projected to be above average. His defensive
rebounding and block rates were obscene, so Harvard's defensive rating should
improve as he spends more time on the floor. Travis will also see a block of
time this season and will present the exact opposite tradeoff. The remainder of
minutes will go to Cummins and Edosomwan at their previous year averages.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Roll all of that up and
Harvard looks like a team that will be very similar to last year's squad with
the primary point of differentiation being what the Crimson can get out of the
spot vacated by Rivard and Curry.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>2014-15 Projected
Pomeroy Ratings: (110 ORAT, 96 DRAT; Pythag - 0.8068, Rank - 38)</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>YALE (2013-14: 19-14,
9-5 Ivy; Reached CIT Finals)</b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Returning Minutes: 89.4%</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Adjusted Returning
Minutes: 78.9%</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i><br />
</i>If you skipped the
Harvard preview, flip back to it for a full explanation of why returning
minutes matter.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Yale was slated to
return every major contributor from a team that advanced all the way to the
finals of the CIT before getting narrowly edged by Murray St. in a game it
played without Justin Sears.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Then, it lost Brandon
Sherrod for a year <a href="http://www.whiffenpoofs.com/roster/">to the Whiffenpoofs</a>, and its adjusted returning
minutes fell back to the middle of the Ivy pack. That being said, bringing back
nearly 80 percent of team minutes is plenty to avoid any necessary adjustments
to its 2013-14 finish.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>2013-14 Pomeroy Ratings:
(102 ORAT, 101 DRAT; Pythag - 0.5358, Rank - 144)</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i><br />
</i>Now that the adjusted
returning minutes tell us we can rely on last year's Pomeroy figures as a
start, let's go ahead and strip out the luck factors.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Yale shot roughly the
national average on two-point jumpers and took only a slightly higher
percentage than average from that range. No change will be necessary on the
offensive side of the ball.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Defense is a different
story. Yale allowed opponents to shoot just 32 percent on two-point jumpers,
three to four percent lower than the national average on a higher than average
percent of shots from that range. The data shows that we should revert these to
the national average, which would mean fewer two-point jumpers (a shot you want
opponents to take) and a higher percentage made. Opponents shot a little better
than the national average from the line, but not enough to counteract the
two-point jumper effect.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Thus, Yale's defensive
rating would likely worsen a bit as a baseline expectation, while its offensive
rating would remain unchanged.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"> <i>Personnel</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i><br />
</i>As a team, Yale lived
and died by its ability to dominate the glass and bully its way to the free-throw
line. Only four players on the team took more than 40 threes last season, and
they shot 27, 30, 32 and 35 percent.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">A huge part of that
board-and-bully strategy was Sherrod, who in 53 percent of team minutes grabbed
10 percent of the offensive boards and posted a 64 percent free throw rate. The
other half of the power forward minutes went to Matt Townsend, who is a nice
role player offensively, but doesn't rebound, block shots or get to the free
throw line as well as Sherrod. And he likely won't be able to take on more than
half of Sherrod's minutes, leaving about 10-15 minutes a game to be absorbed by
Greg Kelley. Kelley is Sherrod's polar opposite, as the 6'8 senior operates
mostly as a stretch four (62 of his 81 shots last year were from three) and is
far more likely to foul (5.8 per 40) than to be fouled (2.2 per 40).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Yale does have the
option of sliding senior Armani Cotton over to the four, but despite being 6'7,
215, that's not really Cotton's natural position even though he was the best
defensive rebounder on the team last year. The bigger issue is that it would
create problems in the backcourt that we'll address in a bit.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Luckily, the Bulldogs
have a legitimate Ivy Player of the Year candidate in Justin Sears providing
some stability in the post. As we said about Harvard's guard situation, though,
if Sears misses extended time with an injury, this team will struggle mightily.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Maybe not as mightily as
it would struggle without its lead guard Javier Duren, though.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">When Sears missed Yale's
finale at Pomeroy No. 115 Murray State, the Bulldogs lost by just eight despite
shooting 24 percent from two and 31 percent from three. Yale grabbed 25
offensive rebounds in the contest without Sears and owned the defensive glass
as well, securing nearly 80 percent of the boards on that end. When Duren was
slowed by a nagging ankle injury over the final six games of the Ivy campaign,
shooting just 6-for-41 in the four games he toughed out over that stretch, the
Bulldogs went 2-4 with double-digit losses to Columbia, Princeton and Harvard -
all of which it had beaten the first time through - and an embarrassing
eight-point loss to Dartmouth to close out the Ivy campaign.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">A lot of that has to do
with what else the Bulldogs have at the guard spot. Nick Victor provides a
bigger presence at a guard spot defensively but was the least offensively
efficient regular in the Ivy League last season. Armani Cotton provides an even
bigger frame to guard the perimeter along with a stronger offensive output -
primarily via the free-throw line. Neither is a strong three-point shooter,
leaving Duren as the only consistent three-point threat.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The Bulldogs could slot
in Jack Montague at the off guard, as the junior hit 18-of-40 shots (45
percent) from behind the arc last season, but he also turned the ball over on
nearly two-in-five possessions and couldn't be further from Yale's free throws
and rebound mold. Anthony Dallier didn't quite live up to the freshman hype,
posting an 33 eFG shooting percentage for his rookie campaign, though if he
finds the stroke he had at Northfield Mount Hermon, he would be a perfect fit
for this team's system.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>What Does It All Mean?</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">It's hard to imagine
Sears having a much better season than he did given that his turnover rate was
exceptionally low for someone doing anything more than just launching threes
and that his two-point jumper shooting percentage was already in the low-40s.
Something in the one-teens on nearly 30 percent possessions seems right. Duren
and Cotton should improve a bit, and we know enough about Townsend to pencil
him in for above average offensive efficiency. That leaves just under half the team
minutes to be eaten primarily by guards. Victor won't get to play 62 percent of
team minutes at a 79 efficiency rating again, but how much can that be expected
to improve, when known quantities Montague and Dallier posted 87 and 93 and of
the unknown quantities, freshman Makai Mason seems like the only one capable of
posting significant minutes.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">In these situations
where there are no clear answers, my research shows that something near Ivy
replacement level (90 offensive rating) is the best bet, but that depends on
the percentage of possessions required of the players. Given that Sears and
Duren alone could eat up somewhere between 55 and 60 percent of team
possessions, those unknown guards might not even need to contribute a usage
rate in the teens. That allows us to project a much higher offensive rating for
those possessions. Also, some minutes will also be assigned to Kelley at the
forward spot at his decently consistent 104 rating.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Defensively, the lineup
alterations should put some stress on last year's stellar rebounding numbers
(52nd nationally on the offensive glass and 10th nationally on the defensive
side), which will result in fewer Yale possessions offensively and more
opponent possessions on the other end. The Bulldogs' 49th-ranked block rate
will also take a hit, which will inflate its two-point percentage allowed a
bit.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>2014-15 Projected
Pomeroy Ratings: (105 ORAT, 101 DRAT; Pythag - 0.6152, Rank - 109)</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>PRINCETON (2013-14:
21-9, 8-6 Ivy; Reached Second Round of CBI)</b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Returning Minutes: 59.8%</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Adjusted Returning
Minutes: 67.4%</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i><br />
</i>The Tigers get a little
bit of a bump from the full return of Denton Koon from a knee injury that
slowed him all last season. During the brief span of six games when both Koon
and T.J. Bray were able to play 30-plus minutes a contest together, Princeton ran
its Pomeroy Rating all the way from 123rd to 65th. It remains an open question
whether a full season of Koon and Bray would have been enough to make #2BidIvy
happen, but that debate can wait for a different day.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The reality is that
Princeton still has over 30 percent of team minutes to replace and
uber-efficient ones at that. In fact, Bray was the most efficient player in the
nation (yes, the whole nation, <a href="http://www.theonion.com/articles/south-postpones-rising-again-for-yet-another-year,377/">including the South</a>) to use more than 24 percent
of his team's possessions. And all Will Barrett did was make over 100 threes as
a junior and senior on better than 40 percent shooting.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The model would be wary
at the 67 percent ARM level, but probably wouldn't force a haircut off the top.
That being said, it would be impossible to replace Bray's production either
with one person alone or an increase in efficiency from a group of players.
Well, for any normal team that is. Princeton is by no means normal, as it has a
history of <a href="http://ivybasketball.blogspot.com/2011/01/even-ken-pomeroy-hates-joe-scott.html">thumbing its nose at the best laid plans</a>...<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>2013-14 Pomeroy Ratings:
(104 ORAT, 100 DRAT; Pythag - 0.6339, Rank - 101)</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i><br />
</i>Nothing is easy with
Princeton, because, as I mentioned before, Princeton is not normal. The average
team takes about 30 percent of its shots as two-point jumpers. The Tigers took
10 percent (leading the nation). Also, they had the eighth lowest percentage of
assists nationally on such shots, which basically means that their offensive
strategy was to pass up a two-point jumper unless the immediate result would be
a turnover. <a href="http://grantland.com/the-triangle/trio-grande-valley-daryl-moreys-d-league-plan-to-do-away-with-midrange-shots/">Eschewing the midrange shot is a fantastic strategy</a>,
but I don't know if they could go lower than 10 percent without a Draconian
threat from the coaching staff.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">My guess (welcome to the
art side, folks) is that without Bray to eat up possessions, they're going to
struggle a little bit to avoid having to take some two-point jumpers and that
share will rise a bit. Also, Koon's career two-point jumper rate was in the low
20s, which would have led the team last year, so I expect that to put a little
upward pressure on the share as well. All told, expect the offensive rating to
fall slightly to start due to Princeton taking a few more of the worst shots in
basketball.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">On the other hand, the
luck factors would point to the defensive end improving. The Tigers allowed an
average rate of two-point jumpers and opponents connected on an average
percentage of those shots. Princeton's free-throw defense, however, was among
the Top 25 worst in the nation, so expect some efficiency improvements as
regression to the mean occurs from the stripe.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"> <i>Personnel</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i><br />
</i>Princeton coach Mitch
Henderson had a very clear offensive strategy last season, but what is unclear
is whether he has the personnel to execute it in 2014-15.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The Tigers led the
nation in three-point shot rate with five different players hoisting at least
88 attempts from long range. Of the five, though, the two that shot the best
(Bray - 41%, Barrett - 37%) are gone, leaving stretch-five Hans Brase (32% on
102 attempts) and guards Spencer Weisz (34% on 92 attempts) and Ben Hazel (35%
on 88 attempts). Granted, five more Princeton players took between 25 and 45
threes last season with four of those returning including Steven Cook (50% on
26 shots) and Clay Wilson (38% on 45 shots).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Given the insertion of
Koon into the lineup and the potential addition of freshman Amir Bell to the
rotation - a heralded rookie, but not for his pure shooting stroke - though,
this probably won't be a Princeton team that benefits from leading the nation
in three-point attempt rate again in 2014-15.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">What this Tigers team
will be is big. Very big. The 6'8 Koon is athletic enough to play the three,
which could allow Princeton to trot out the 6'8 Brase and 6'10 Pete Miller
along with him, and to surround those players with a stable of guards who all
range from 6'3 to 6'6. While Yale put up impressive rebounding numbers on both
ends of the floor, it was actually the Tigers that led the Ivy League in
defensive rebounding (and finished third nationally). Just don't expect
Princeton to crash the boards on the other end, where they ranked among the 25
worst teams in the country in offensive rebounding.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">What else the Tigers
will be is far more balanced. Brase and Koon will shoulder a marginally greater
than average share of the offensive load, but not at an eye-popping efficiency
rate that would doom the team when one of them had an off night. Compare that
to last year, where in the seven games that Bray either posted an efficiency
rating below 100 or didn't play, Princeton went 3-4 (wins were over FAMU, a
squeaker over Lafayette and the epic, Barrett-led comeback at Penn State).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The rotation is replete
with intriguing options. Miller's 31% shooting from the line was the only thing
keeping him from being a decent option in the post. Hazel provides solid
perimeter defense with timely outside shooting. Cook and Weisz provided similar
games from the off guard spot down the stretch, though Weisz adapted to the
college game a little faster. Add to that arguably the league's best recruiting
class (from a talent and depth perspective), and Princeton should have even
more weapons at its disposal. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">If there's one glaring
issue with this team, it's that it can't always find points consistently.
Shooting can fall victim to a string of bad luck, and Princeton is neither
adept at creating second chances (as discussed earlier) nor getting to the free
throw line (246th nationally). What's more is that the Tigers lost their best
weapon in terms of getting to the stripe (Bray) and their second best weapon
(Miller) shot just 31% when he got there. I'm not saying we're in <a href="http://kenpom.com/team.php?team=Princeton&y=2006">for a repeat of the 2005-06 season</a>, but there
aren't a ton of bad offensive rebounding teams which don't get to the line that
frequently that live to tell about it.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>What Does It All Mean?</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Bray had the fifth best
Offensive VORP season in my Ivy database that spans back to the 1989-90 season.
To provide a recent comparison: Penn guard Zack Rosen's craps dice run through
the Ivy League in 2012 was only the 11th best season in the database.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The stress of his
departure won't be felt by the high usage guys like Brase and Koon. Penciling
Brase for another slightly above average efficiency season with a usage rate in
the mid-20s seems reasonable, as does a similar figure with a slightly lower usage
rate for a fully healthy Koon. When those two are on the floor together, the
remaining Princeton role players can contribute like role players do -
sparingly, but with high efficiency. Even if both go 75 percent of team
minutes, though, that still leaves somewhere between 25-50 percent of team
minutes without one or both on the floor.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">That vacuum of
possession usage will put heavy pressure on guys like Weisz, Cook, Wilson and
Hazel to shift from a more comfortable usage rate in the teens to a figure above
the 20 percent threshold. There is a general tradeoff between efficiency and
usage, and while some players can handle the extra workload better than others,
it would be foolish to expect efficiency to increase as the percentage of
possessions consumed rise.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Weisz, Hazel and Cook
will get penciled in for similar minutes as last year at slightly higher usage
rates and slightly lower offensive ratings.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Miller will be a notable
exception in all of this, as we can pencil him in for more minutes at a higher
efficiency rate, given that he couldn't possibly repeat his 9-for-29
performance from the free throw line, could he?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">That leaves a little
more than one full spot on the floor for freshmen to fill. For the Tigers, this
hasn't always been the easiest thing to do well, as, up until last season,
Princeton hadn't had freshmen eat up more than 20 percent of team minutes since
2009 (Doug Davis and Patrick Saunders).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Rookies do have a
history of success in the Ivy League, especially in situations where playing
time is competitive and spots on the floor are earned, rather than given by
default. The incoming class is good enough to post national average efficiency
numbers, but likely one of the rookies will try to consume more than the
average rate of possessions (someone has to) which will cause the overall
freshman efficiency rating to fall short of that national average goal.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Defensively, the
interior height will help Princeton defend the rim while allowing its perimeter
players to scare opponents off the three-point line without the fear of leaving
open lanes to the hoop. That's important for a team that struggles at times to
keep more dynamic perimeter threats in front of it. The Tigers went just 4-6
last year when allowing opponents to post a free throw rate above 40 percent,
including the two shocking losses at Penn and Dartmouth.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>2014-15 Projected
Pomeroy Ratings: (103 ORAT, 99 DRAT; Pythag - 0.6174, Rank - 107)</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>COLUMBIA (2013-14:
21-13, 8-6 Ivy; Reached Third Round of CIT)</b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<b><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<b><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">(NOTE: This section was written prior to Alex Rosenberg's injury. Given that it was unclear at the time of publishing whether he would play the Ivy season or take off the full year and save his eligibility for 2015-16, we are treating him as if we will play this year's Ivy campaign.)</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Returning Minutes:
100.0%</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Adjusted Returning
Minutes: 86.2%</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i><br />
</i>It wouldn't be Columbia
without something throwing cold water on burgeoning enthusiasm. This time it
was the announcement of the departures of guard Meiko Lyles and forward Zach
En'Wezoh just a month or so before the season is set to begin.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Lyles is the big loss
here, as he started the final nine games of the year, providing important
defensive contributions as well as valuable floor spacing with his 41 percent
career three-point shooting always in the back of the opponents' minds.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Luckily the guard spot
is a position of strength for the Lions, as the player he replaced in the
starting lineup - Grant Mullins - is fully healthy and ready to go for the
2014-15 campaign.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Regardless, returning 86
percent of team minutes is plenty to consider last year's Pomeroy Ratings a
very good starting point.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>2013-14 Pomeroy Ratings:
(107 ORAT, 104 DRAT; Pythag - 0.5878, Rank - 123)</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i><br />
</i>It makes sense that
Columbia and Princeton should be back-to-back in this preview, as they are
kindred spirits when it comes to offensive philosophy. The Lions took just 15
percent of their shots as two-point jumpers last season, fourth-best nationally
behind Iona, Eastern Kentucky and, of course, the Tigers.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The Lions also took the
18th highest percentage of threes in the nation, and they return three
different players that took over 100 treys last season as well as Steve
Frankoski, who hasn't ever seen a three-pointer he hasn't liked, as evidenced
by his 48 attempts in under 200 total minutes played last year. Also, much like
Princeton, only two rotation players even took more than 20 percent of their
shots as two-point jumpers, so Columbia clearly has communicated its strategy
of avoiding the worst shot in basketball to its guys and has enough weapons to
keep from being forced into shots it doesn't want to take.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Defensively, the Lions
were a little lucky in terms of free throw defense, and they forced a
slightly-higher-than-average percent of shots as two-point jumpers. That means
that its defensive rating last season might appear a little better than it
should have been due to luck factors.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Personnel</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i><br />
</i>Alex Rosenberg became
just the third player in Ivy history to use 20 percent of his team's total offensive
possessions for the season while posting an offensive rating over 120 (Kit
Mueller 1990 and 1991; Ibby Jaaber 2006). The good news for Columbia fans is
that over the course of that many possessions, a player shows what he really is
- that is to say, the luck factor or noise starts to cancel itself out. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">At the same time, there
isn't a ton of room for improvement. In fact, both Mueller and Jaaber declined
a bit in their final season, as Ibby took on slightly more of a possession load
but saw a nearly 10-point drop in offensive rating, while Mueller lowered his
usage rate and saw a marginal decline in efficiency as well. While both
technically declined, they still easily played at a level necessary to defend
their Ivy Player of the Year titles and to lead their teams back to the NCAA
Tournament.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">What's important to
consider is that what we're looking for is not absolute performance, but rather
changes, year-over-year. For Rosenberg, any change is likely to be a
regression, so anything that will propel this team forward needs to come from a
different source.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br />
Maodo Lo probably isn't the answer either. The junior guard should be getting
more Player of the Year buzz than he is based on just last season alone. Lo's
offensive VORP was 86th highest in the 25 years of the database and comparable
to Jeremy Lin's junior season, Dartmouth swingman Alex Barnett's Ivy POY
campaign and Chambers' freshman campaign in which he played nearly 95 percent
of Harvard's minutes. Much like Rosenberg, the good news is that Lo will
probably turn in similar production this season, but the bad news is that it
would be hard for him to improve substantially on his 2013-14 campaign.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br />
Taking a look at Columbia's Four Factors from last season, turnovers were a big
concern. That stat leads us to our first area of potential improvement - guard
Isaac Cohen. In the last 25 seasons, only Brown's Tyler Ponticelli was the only
Ivy regular to take a lower percentage of his team's shots when on the floor.
Cohen compounded the problem by turning the ball over on 31 percent of his
possessions. While the 6'4 junior provided a lot of value on the defensive end,
the stress he put on the offense might have been an overall net negative. With
relative depth at the guard spot, and the addition of heralded freshman Kyle
Castlin, the Lions could benefit from exploring more potent offensive options
and gambling on the defensive end.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br />
Along with that Columbia should see some gains from general health and
experience, as a full season of Mullins and Frankoski as well as the general
progression of post players like Luke Petrasek and Jeff Coby should show
increasing gains on the offensive end.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br />
At the same time, there's little reason to believe that the Lions will be any
better defensively than they were in 2013-14, and that was already three points
per 100 possessions away from finishing in the top half of the Ivies. Lyles and
Cohen were two of the three best defensive rebounders under 6'6 in the league,
and with Lyles leaving the team and Cohen posing real offense-for-defense
tradeoffs, one-and-done trips could be a little less frequent for Columbia
opponents this season.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>What Does It All Mean?</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">As mentioned above,
Rosenberg and Lo will at best combine to be what they were last season, meaning
that we can feel good about our projections for about a third of Columbia's
overall minutes.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br />
Assuming that Mullins and Frankoski are fully healthy, we can feel confident in
our projection for another 20-25 percent of team minutes. The remainder of the
guard minutes will be divided between Castlin and Cohen but with divergent
results. If we project more Castlin minutes, the Lions should see an increase
in offensive rating at the expense of the defensive end and vice versa.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br />
That leaves the frontcourt, where Rosenberg will likely get pushed to the four
due to the extreme guard depth that Columbia has. The remaining 25 or so
percent of team minutes should easily be eaten up by Cory Osetkowski and some
combination of Petrasek and Coby. Each of the three presents different issues.
Osetkowski is the best of the bunch offensively, though is hardly consistent on
that end. He's also decent defensively, aside from his defensive rebounding
allergies, which are particularly problematic when paired with another weak
defensive rebounder in Rosenberg.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br />
Petrasek and Coby are better defensive rebounders, but Coby was a fouling
machine as a freshman and Petrasek was very poor offensively after stripping
out his relatively ambitious performance in two-point jumper shooting
percentage - something which he is unlikely to repeat.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br />
Coach Kyle Smith has lauded the talents of sophomore forward Chris McComber,
who becomes a wild card at a position that otherwise could be the difference
between making the Top 100 and not.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>2014-15 Projected
Pomeroy Ratings: (109 ORAT, 106 DRAT; Pythag - 0.5835, Rank - 126)</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>BROWN (2013-14: 15-14,
7-7 Ivy; Reached First Round of CIT)</b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Returning Minutes: 81.2%</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Adjusted Returning
Minutes: 84.2%</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i><br />
</i>If only Mike Martin got
to face the same caliber of Ivy as Craig Robinson did back in 2007-08, maybe he
too would be the number one contender challenging for the league crown.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br />
That was the best Brown team since the one that claimed the Ivy title in 1986,
and Martin has put together an edition of the Bears that could best them both.
The problem is that the 1986 Ivy League might have been the worst in the
64-team era, while the 2008 version wasn't much better. The present day
editions of the Ivy, on the other hand, have been shattering records for quality
over the past four seasons and 2014-15 looks to be a continuation of the trend.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br />
We've given Brown credit for more minutes out of a fully healthy Rafael Maia,
but otherwise, both the returning and adjusted returning minutes are pretty
much the same. The "only" loss was Sean McGonagill, who finishes his
career with the 25th highest cumulative VORP of any Ivy player, essentially
even with fellow Brown alums Damon Huffman and Alai Nuualiitia.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br />
So, while the model would indicate that Brown shouldn't expect any regression
based on lost minutes, replacing the quality of minutes that McGonagill
provided won't be an easy task.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br />
<i>2013-14 Pomeroy Ratings: (101 ORAT, 101 DRAT; Pythag - 0.4986, Rank - 160)</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i><br />
</i>Brown was pretty even on
luck factors during the 2014-15 campaign. The Bears both took and allowed an
average percentage of two-point jumpers, while making less than average and
holding opponents to roughly the same. That could indicate some marginal upward
pressure both on the offensive and defensive ratings, but nothing that really
requires an adjustment.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br />
On the free throw defensive front, Brown's opponents shot only marginally above
the national average, so no adjustment is necessary there as well.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br />
For the first time, though, we need to take a deeper look at the defensive
three-point field goal percentage. The Bears held opponents to 30.6 percent
shooting from deep, roughly four percentage points better than the national
average and 19th best nationally. The problem with three-point shooting defense
is that its very weakly correlated year-over-year, especially among the teams
posting very good defensive numbers in a given year (bad teams are more likely
to remain bad the following season than a good team is to remain good).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br />
If Brown had allowed an average conversion rate from long range, it would have
conceded over 20 more threes during the season, which would have implied a
defensive rating that would be about three points per 100 possessions higher
than its actual outcome. That would knock the Bears down toward the fringes of
the Top 200 to start, which is important to consider for a team only expected
to improve this season.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br />
<i>Personnel</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i><br />
</i>Of all five returning
postseason teams, Brown is easily the most difficult to figure out. It has one
player to see the floor for more than 40 percent of team minutes in a season
and post an offensive rating above 100 (Steven Spieth). Its presumed starting
point guard (Tavon Blackmon) fell just shy of 42 percent effective shooting
last season, while its starting power forward (Cedric Kuakumensah) has posted
identical 40 percent marks over each of his first two years in Providence. Oh
yeah, and Sean McGonagill isn't walking back through that door.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br />
What exactly are the Brown fans so excited about?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br />
Sophomore Leland King could be one answer. He finished his rookie campaign with
a flourish, posting an offensive rating over 100 on at least 20 percent of team
possessions (and a couple times over 30 percent) in eight of Brown's final nine
games. His 27-point, seven-rebound, four-block performance in the overtime loss
to Harvard in the regular season finale merely whetted the Brown faithful's
appetite for what is expected to be a monster sophomore season.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Combining King with
Kuakumensah and Rafael Maia in the frontcourt should keep the Bears as one of
the best rebounding teams and rim defending squads in the nation, while
providing a bit more of an offensive punch than Brown has had from that
position in recent years. Throw in senior Dockery Walker, who has been a
rebounding specialist during his four years in Providence, and the four and
five spots should be a source of great stability for the Bears this season.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">That's great news,
because Brown has a ton of work to do at the guard spots. McGonagill played 93
percent of his team's minutes last season, using 23 percent of the team's
possessions and taking the 45th highest percentage of his squad's total shots
of any Ivy player in the past 25 years.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">And he did all that
while posting an uber-efficient offensive rating in the one-teens, including a
turnover rate of just 12 percent.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Brown will have no
trouble replacing his 226 three-point attempts, as the Bears have always been
able to find low-usage shooters to space the floor and knock down threes when
needed. Finding a guard to create when no one else can, however, will be the huge
chore.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The last backcourt
player or swingman to post a higher usage rate than McGonagill in any season
was Peter Sullivan during Sean's freshman campaign. Before him, you'd have to
go all the way back to Mark McAndrew territory to find a guard who gobbled up
as high a rate of possessions as McGonagill.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The rookie Blackmon
posted the highest assist rate on the team last season and came the closest to
an above-average usage rate, consuming 19 percent of possessions. The 6'0 point
guard turned the ball over on more than 1-in-4 possessions, though, and wasn't
much of a scoring threat. Spieth saw even less of the ball on offense, despite
his efficient use of it, and benefited from a bulk of shots at the rim, most of
which were assisted.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The Bears do have four
guards in their freshman class, any of which could be the high-usage slasher
that they need. Failing that, though, Brown has the look of a team which will
struggle at time to find an offensive rhythm, especially against opponents that
have the bigs necessary to battle on the interior and the athletic guards
required to scare the Bears' shooters off the three-point line.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>What Does It All Mean?</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i><br />
</i>Brown will continue to
be an incredibly difficult team to score on in the paint and should maintain
its pronounced advantage on the defensive glass. Between Walker, King,
Kuakumensah and Maia, the Bears should be able to handle their frontcourt
minutes with slightly below national average offensive efficiency and an above
average usage rate.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br />
At the same time, they should be able to support a perimeter defensive unit
that will struggle to keep opponents from penetrating into the paint,
especially when Kuakumensah (the 10th best shot blocker in the nation last
season) is on the floor.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br />
The rest of the defensive numbers will likely be in decline this season.
Opponents should shoot much better from three than they did during the 2013-14
campaign, and the loss of McGonagill, who rarely fouled, will likely lead to a
slight inflation in the opponents' free throw rate. Both of those factors
should cause Brown's defensive rating to worsen.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Then, there's the enigma
that is the backcourt. The Bears could try to steal some minutes with King at
the three, but that could put pressure on an otherwise thin frontcourt. Having
King, Kuakumensah and Maia on the floor all at once - each above average
possessions eaters - would allow Brown to throw two low-usage guards on the
floor and still have a market clearing allocation of possessions. There would
still be at least 20 minutes a game when all three weren't on the floor
together, leaving a guard to fill the possession vacuum. That could be J.R. Hobbie launching more threes (a good thing) or Blackmon trying to force the
action, creating more assists and more turnovers (probably not so good a
thing).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">There might be a
freshman ready to play 20 minutes a game and use 20+ percent of team
possessions at reasonable efficiency, but those don't exactly grow on trees in
the Ivy League.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The safest projection is
a backcourt which predominately features Hobbie, Spieth and Blackmon all at
higher usage rates than last season and lower efficiency ratings (except for
Blackmon, who was below replacement level already). The Bears badly need to
find a potent combination offensively, because any combination is likely to be
a liability on the other end.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>2014-15 Projected
Pomeroy Ratings: (101 ORAT, 103 DRAT; Pythag - 0.4410, Rank - 182)</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>DARTMOUTH (2013-14:
12-16, 5-9 Ivy)</b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Returning Minutes: 87.8%</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Adjusted Returning
Minutes: 87.8%</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i><br />
</i>We may finally be
approaching that moment where the Big Green can have actual needs that extend
beyond recruiting as much Division I talent as possible.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br />
This was a Dartmouth team that touched 175th in the Pomeroy rankings in
January, before losing star center Gabas Maldunas to a torn ACL for essentially
the entire Ivy campaign. Turns out they will likely lose him for the
non-conference portion of the 2014-15 campaign as well, which is the only
reason why the Adjusted Returning Minutes aren't higher.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br />
Still, despite the doom and gloom surrounding the loss of Maldunas, the
remaining parts bound together to go 5-8 during the 13 games for which the 6'9
junior was absent, including a home sweep of Penn and Princeton for the first
time since coach Paul Cormier was in Hanover for his first tour of duty 25
years earlier.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br />
While the model treats all minutes as roughly equal, for a team like Dartmouth,
which is so bereft of size, losing Maldunas puts a ton of stress on the
forwards that remain on the active roster. For that reason, these projections
will struggle to peg the Big Green to a season-long average, as so much will
depend on when Maldunas can return to action and be effective.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br />
<i>2013-14 Pomeroy Ratings: (103 ORAT, 109 DRAT; Pythag - 0.3452, Rank - 236)</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i><br />
</i>The luck factors for the
Big Green might be the most concerning of any of the eight Ivies.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br />
Dartmouth took 38 percent of its shots (34th highest nationally) from the
Bermuda Triangle that is two-point jumper range, making it the Big Green's most
popular shot. While Dartmouth made an above-average 37 percent of those attempts,
that shot selection produced a major drag on the team's offensive efficiency.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br />
That issue will likely only be exacerbated by the absence of Maldunas, as he
took 68 percent of his shots at the rim. The next highest rate of shots at the
rim among those to have taken at least 50 shots was Connor Boehm, who posted 37
percent of his attempts from close range. The presumed replacement for
Maldunas, Brandon McDonnell, let a whopping 65 percent of his shots fly as
two-point jumpers.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br />
Dartmouth could get some help from its guards turning a higher rate of jumpers
into three-point shots. Failing that, it looks like a minor downward adjustment
to the Big Green's offensive efficiency would be necessary to compensate for
its declining two-point jumper shooting percentage. Any concerted effort to
avoid such shots, however, would lead to a huge opportunity to improve its
offensive efficiency out of the gate.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br />
On the other end, Dartmouth should get some help from the regression of the
luck factors. Big Green opponents shot 75 percent from the line - fifth-best
nationally - and given that Dartmouth sent opponents there a lot (31st highest
rate nationally), the Big Green would have been expected to give up about 40
fewer points last season or close to two points per 100 possessions. Dartmouth
did force a slightly higher than average rate of two-point jumpers, but
opponents made a slightly higher than average percent of them. Thus, the Big
Green shouldn't see much of an effect from two-point jumpers.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br />
Dartmouth was also horrendously bad at defending the three, but given its
interior issues and need to collapse to protect the paint, that effect could
very well continue in 2014-15.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br />
<i>Personnel</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i><br />
</i>You almost have to look
this stat up for yourself, but in the 13 years of the Pomeroy era, the highest
offensive efficiency rating that Dartmouth posted prior to last season was 95.5
(270th nationally). Even the year that Alex Barnett carried the Big Green on
his back to a 7-7 Ivy mark, Dartmouth couldn't crack the Top 300 in offensive
rating.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br />
Last year, then, was a remarkable turnaround. The Big Green finished with an
offensive rating of 103 (203rd nationally), powered by the 45th-best
three-point shooting percentage in the nation (38 percent). Much of that talent
returns, too. Alex Mitola brings his 128 career made threes (at a 41 percent
clip, mind you) back for his junior season, while flanked by Kevin Crescenzi
and Eli Harrison, each of which took at least 40 threes and made 40 percent of
them last season. Harrison even did so while taking two of every five Dartmouth
shots while he was on the floor. That doesn't even include three-year starter
John Golden, who struggled mightily from long range last season, but did have a
freshman campaign with 38 percent shooting on 94 attempts from three.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br />
While this all rolls up into the most offensively talented backcourt Dartmouth
has had since Barnett took home Ivy POY honors in the late aughts, it leaves a
lot to be desired on the other end of the court. At 5'11, Mitola doesn't have
the size to match up with other Ivy guards, and the 6'3 Crescenzi and 6'6
Harrison commit five fouls per 40 minutes, sending opponents on a parade to the
free throw line. Dartmouth's peskiest defender is Malik Gill, who during his
two-year career in Hanover has consistently recorded steals on a whopping seven
percent of opponent possessions, but Gill turns the ball back over on 25
percent of possessions and has shot too poorly to carve out a consistent role
on the floor.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br />
What's more is that some Dartmouth guards have inflated their offensive
efficiency numbers with strong offensive rebounding rates, while the Big Green
allowed the 25th highest percent of transition field goal attempts off
rebounds. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br />
Those defensive issues in the backcourt could easily be covered up by the
frontcourt presence that Maldunas provides. If qualified, the 6'9 center would
have ranked in the Top 60 nationally in block rate, while Boehm, who moved to
the five to fill most of those minutes, did block a single shot last year. In
the 15 games with Maldunas, Dartmouth yielded a median free throw rate of 44
percent, while in its 13 games without him, that ballooned to 52 percent.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br />
The Big Green has had a summer to find a more consistent frontcourt rotation to
compensate for not having Maldunas to start the season. While it has a chance
to find decent offensive production from its four and five spots, Dartmouth
should face a huge challenge defensively until it can get Maldunas back on the
floor.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>What Does It All Mean?</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i><br />
</i>A lot of the answer to
this question depends on the team you're trying to project. Since we use the
ultimate rating to project the Ivy odds, we're going to judge Dartmouth as the
team it will be with Maldunas during league play, rather than the one that will
be much weaker without him in the non-conference. Thus, we can reasonably
expect the Big Green to fall well short of this projection on a season-long
basis.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Barring foul trouble,
Maldunas can go about 30 minutes a game, but given the Ivy back-to-backs and
his potentially shaky conditioning, we'll put him down for 25 per. Boehm can
likely go 30 minutes, but the question becomes how to allocate those minutes.
Putting those two on the floor together for 20 minutes a contest would leave
five minutes with neither on the floor. McDonnell and junior Matt Rennie are
good enough to keep the curtain up, but having both on the floor together isn't
the ideal scenario.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Boehm's numbers should
decline a bit due to his strong performance on two-point jumpers last season,
and McDonnell and Rennie's efficiency should take a hit as well as they're
called upon to do a little more than in the past.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The backcourt is a
little easier to project, as Mitola and Golden should take care of over half
the minutes available there with each providing a stable range of production
from which to project. Crescenzi should claim a fair amount of minutes as well,
though his production will be projected to decline, as we fade his three-point
shooting numbers a bit. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">That leaves the Big
Green with about 70 percent of team minutes at one guard spot. Gill is a
possibility due to his perimeter defense, but, at 5'9, having him and Mitola
(5'11) on the floor at the same time makes Dartmouth a very small team. Other
possibilities include 6'4 freshman Miles Wright, who was recruited at a higher
level to be a college quarterback than basketball player but is a lockdown
defender, and 6'1 Cam Smith, who brings more of an offensive game to Hanover.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Cormier has been
recruiting at a high enough level that it's hard to bet against one of those
freshmen contributing in a significant way, but only Jvonte Brooks was able to
eat an above average percentage of possessions while posting a (marginally)
above average offensive rating as a rookie, so something between replacement
level and average seems reasonable for the remaining backcourt minutes.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The good news is that
Cormier will have 14 pre-Ivy games to give every possible combination a try, as
he waits for his all-league center to recover fully from his torn ACL.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>2014-15 Projected
Pomeroy Ratings: (102 ORAT, 106 DRAT; Pythag - 0.3858, Rank - 209)</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>PENNSYLVANIA (2013-14:
8-20, 5-9 Ivy)</b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Returning Minutes: 53.8%</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Adjusted Returning
Minutes: 36.7%</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Before we start with
what is going to be a painful section, it is important to note that there is
talent remaining on this Quakers roster. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">At the same time,
history is very, very against good things happening to teams that lose over 60
percent of their minutes.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Some recent comps
include 2002-03 Columbia, 2003-04 Harvard, 2007-08 Penn, 2010-11 Cornell and
2012-13 Harvard - all of which dropped at least .1670 in the Pomeroy's
Pythagorean Win Percentage, and two of which (Cornell and Penn) tumbled over
0.4000. We can guarantee the latter won't happen to Penn, but only because its
end of season Pythag from 2013-14 was just 0.2864.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The light at the end of
the tunnel might be 2008-09 Princeton, which lost 59 percent of its minutes,
but managed to rebound by about 0.1300 from what was arguably the worst Tigers
squad in the program's history. That Princeton team managed to go 13-14 and 8-6
in league play - records Quaker faithful would gladly take at this point - but
it did so against a league that was one of the worst of the modern era. Yale
2010-11 made even a stronger push after losing 53 percent of its minutes,
rising from 260th nationally to 183rd, while finishing third in a much tougher
Ivy League.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Yale wasn't all that
much of a surprise, however, as it had a bevy of lightly used rotation options
who had all performed well in their limited minutes (Reggie Willhite, Greg
Mangano and Austin Morgan). At the same time, the 2008-09 Tigers were so bad
the year prior (315th in Pomeroy) that it would have been hard for what was a
highly-rated freshman class (Douglas Davis and Patrick Saunders) not to
outperform.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">For all the heartburn
among Penn fans, the Quakers weren't bad enough last season that we'd expect
that they could easily replace their losses with decent bench players (which
they didn't have) or impact freshmen (which the ratings don't indicate).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>2013-14 Pomeroy Ratings:
(98 ORAT, 107 DRAT; Pythag - 0.2864, Rank - 266)</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i><br />
</i>For Penn, the offensive
luck factors should take care of themselves. None of the Quakers' four best
shooters of two-point jumpers (Fran Dougherty, Miles Cartwright, Henry Brooks
and Tony Bagtas) are with the team for the 2014-15 campaign, leaving just guard
Tony Hicks and center Darien Nelson-Henry - both of whom connected at about
average rates.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Penn's new wave of
personnel will likely have a whole new shot selection pattern making projecting
based on last year difficult, but any adjustment to the squad's baseline
offensive performance would be marginal and in the slight downward direction.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Defensively, the luck
factors are a wash. The Quakers held opponents to well-below the national
average in two-point jumper conversion percentage (30.6 percent vs. 35-36
percent), but at the same time yielded 38.3 percent shooting from three. It is
unlikely that Penn will be as bad at defending the three or as good at forcing
misses on two-point jumpers.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br />
<i>Personnel</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i><br />
</i>There are two ways to
look at the fact that Hicks and Nelson-Henry are the only two returning players
who have logged more than 20 minutes per game in their Penn careers, and they
revolve around your knowledge of the performance of the Quakers bench last season.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Outside of the big four
of Miles Jackson-Cartwright, Dougherty, Hicks and Nelson-Henry, nine Penn
players got between 10 and 42 percent of the teams minutes last year. None of
those players used 20 percent of team possessions and none posted an offensive
rating over 100. In fact, seven of the nine posted efficiency marks that were
below Ivy replacement level (considered to be an offensive rating of about 90).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">From arguably the worst
bench in the modern era of the Ivy League, three Quakers players return joined
by three seniors who quizzically played less than 10 percent of team minutes
last season after playing between 30-40 percent of minutes during Penn's
marginally better 2012-13 campaign.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">So, prior to diving into
the Penn rookies, this is your 2014-15 Quakers team: a high variance All-Ivy
caliber guard, a nearly unstoppable All-Ivy caliber center when he's actually
healthy and can play 70 percent of team minutes, three players that couldn't
distinguish themselves in one of the worst rotations in league history and then
three players that couldn't crack one of the worst rotations in league history.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">How about those
freshmen?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">It's not unheard of for
an Ivy team to get meaningful, productive minutes from multiple players in one
freshman class. Dartmouth managed the feat with Maldunas, Golden and Jvonte
Brooks combining for roughly 80 minutes a game in 2011-12. Harvard got roughly
the same percentage of total minutes from Kyle Casey, Christian Webster,
Brandyn Curry and Dee Giger in 2009-10, after having done basically the same
thing with Keith Wright, Oliver McNally, Peter Boehm and Max Kenyi the year
prior.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Dartmouth 2011-12 only
crept up to 304th after having been 321st the year before, while Harvard's
first solid freshman class only moved it from 282nd to 243rd. Stacking two
solid freshman classes back-to-back - and the explosion of an NBA-level talent
in Jeremy Lin - was what it ultimately took for the Crimson to see the progress
that Penn fans ultimately want, as the 2009-10 Harvard team jumped from 243rd
to 112th.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">New Hampton school
product Mike Auger is the most highly heralded rookie in Penn's 2014 class, and
he has an opportunity to see a lot of minutes with the departures of Brooks and
Dougherty. That would still leave a healthy amount of minutes for either
returning forwards Dylan Jones and Greg Louis to share or for rookies Sam Jones
and Dan Dwyer to step in and nab.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The backcourt presents
some opportunities as well, though Penn conceivably has more of a chance to
fill those slots with players already in house. Hicks has one of the off-ball
guard slots wrapped up, leaving room for a point guard, a wing and a few
rotation players. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The returning point
guard options are Jamal Lewis, who has turned the ball over on roughly one out
of every three possessions in his career, and Cam Crocker, who has turned the
ball over on a little more than two out of every five possessions in his
career. That leaves a ton of opportunity for freshmen Antonio Woods or Darnell
Foreman to have a shot at a lot of playing time, if they can make smarter
decisions than the incumbents.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The wing spot is Matt
Howard's to lose without much of a clear picture as to whom he could even lose
it. With the departures of Julian Harrell and Dau Jok, Penn now only has two of
seven guards competing for time in the rotation who are taller than 6'2.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>What Does It All Mean?</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i><br />
</i>The Quakers are going to
spend their third-consecutive year (and sixth in the last eight seasons)
outside the Top 200 nationally.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The bigger question is
whether Penn finds itself outside the Top 300 for the first time in the Ivy
era.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Even if Hicks has a
first team All-Ivy year, playing 30 minutes a game, and Nelson-Henry is fully
healthy and can chip in 25-30, this Quakers team needs to get all the breaks
just to build a replacement-level squad around those two. Since we don't
consider injury risk here, those minute totals are what we'll work off of, but
given that Nelson-Henry sat out Penn's scrimmage, there's already some concern
that he's not going to be able to hit such an ambitious playing time target.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">That leaves roughly 90
backcourt minutes and 50-55 frontcourt minutes a game. And it's not even that
simple.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Hicks and Nelson-Henry
are the only two returning players to use an above-average percent of
possessions - something which could allow Penn's other players to maintain
their light usage rates without stressing the offense. However, if they only
play 30 minutes a game, that likely means about 20-25 minutes a game with both
on the floor, 5-10 minutes with one of the two on the floor and potentially
another five minutes with neither out there.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">That puts a premium on
finding another option that can handle a high usage rate with decent
efficiency. Failing that, the Quakers are going to have somewhere between 15-20
minutes a game of an absolute struggle offensively.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Given that the options
are clear at all, all we can do is to fall back on placeholders bounded by
historical averages. We'll put in 50-55 replacement-level minutes in the
frontcourt and 90 replacement-level minutes in the backcourt. Penn fans might
argue that it drastically underestimates the talent on this roster, but keep in
mind that last year the Quakers failed to find even replacement-level options
with which to flank its big four.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Defensively, it's hard
to see things getting better either. Penn lost its best defensive rebounder off
a team that was already 300th nationally in that category. It lost two of its
better shot blockers. Finally, it lost two of its best foul-avoiding defenders
from a squad that finished 317th in free-throw rate allowed. It could be a very long year for the Quakers on that end of the floor.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>2014-15 Projected
Pomeroy Ratings: (97 ORAT, 109 DRAT; Pythag - 0.1963, Rank - 301)</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>CORNELL (2013-14: 2-26,
1-13 Ivy)</b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Returning Minutes: 72.2%</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Adjusted Returning
Minutes: 78.5%</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The only question is how
far Cornell will rise this season.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">That's the good news for
a program that finally hit rock bottom last year, after a slow decline from
the heights of its Sweet 16 appearance to the depths of finishing
2013-14 as the 11th-worst team in college basketball.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Actually, rock bottom
might really have occurred just after the season ended with All-Ivy guard Nolan
Cressler departing Ithaca to transfer to Vanderbilt and starting forward Dwight
Tarwater opting to take his post-grad year at Cal.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">How can a team that was
as bad as Cornell lose two players to BCS schools and somehow improve?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The answer to that
question is Shonn Miller. Miller was an All-Ivy forward in 2012-13 before
missing all of last season with a shoulder injury. The 6'7 junior
would be a very high-profile BCS target himself, if he ultimately decides to
graduate from Cornell after this season and spend his final year of eligibility
as a post-grad, much like Tarwater and Errick Peck did before him.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Also returning along
with Miller is electric point guard Galal Cancer, who took a year off from the
team last season, but showed flashes of dominant play during the 2012-13
campaign.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">While Cressler's
production will be extremely difficult to replace, Cornell could see a boost
from a fit perspective. Bill Courtney loves to play a high-pressure, gambling
defense which could benefit more from having a quick point guard and an
impressive shot blocker than it might from having two options who
were much more valuable on the offensive end.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>2013-14 Pomeroy Ratings:
(100 ORAT, 121 DRAT; Pythag - 0.1006, Rank - 341)</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">For a team that was as
terribly as Cornell was, it's often hard to distinguish between what
was unlucky and what was just a function of being bad.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Nothing went right
defensively for the Big Red, as opposing teams made a living scoring at the
rim, from three and from the stripe. Cornell opponents shot 54 percent from two (bottom 25 nationally), as the Big Red blocked just 7.7 percent of opponent shots (bottom 100 nationally). Cornell allowed opponents to shoot 41
percent from long range - second-worst nationally - and sent opponents to the
line at rate that ranked among the 50 highest last season. Once there,
opponents shot 73 percent, which made Cornell's "free-throw defense"
among the 50 worst in the nation as well. The Big Red forced a well-below-average percent of two-point jumpers - not a surprise given that opponents could score so easily from other areas of the floor.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">No matter how bad the
Big Red's defense is this season, it would be hard to repeat that futility
merely from a luck perspective. There could be as many as five points per 100
possessions wrapped up in an average free-throw conversion rate and a more
reasonable three-point shooting percent allowed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Offensively, though, the
return of Cancer and Miller in place of high volume three point shooters
Tarwater and Cressler could lead to a shift to more two-point jumpers, which
would hurt Cornell's baseline offensive efficiency from the start.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Personnel</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Let's start by properly
framing the value of adding Miller to the lineup. It's important to note that
the 6'7 junior probably won't play more than 30 percent of team minutes and
hasn't historically used more than 22 percent of team possessions.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">First of all, that
leaves 50 frontcourt minutes unaccounted for and second, it means that
replacing Cressler with Miller star-for-star leaves a lot of possessions
unaccounted for on the offensive end.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">That's important because
it dictates who you can pair with Miller in the frontcourt. For instance, a
Miller-Onuorah pairing might look like a defensive dream but with Onuorah using
just 12 percent of the team's possessions offensively, that would put a ton of
stress on the guards to produce.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Deion Giddens and
Braxston Bunce are even lower usage guys, leaving just Ned Tomic as a returning
forward who has ever displayed the ability to eat an average percent of
offensive possessions.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">This is where a dynamic
freshman like Jordan Abdur-Raoof could help, if he is ready to bear that kind
of offensive burden. Failing that, Cornell's scoring looks like it will need to
be heavily guard driven.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The Big Red does have
some decent options there, as Robert Hatter wasn't shy about using a bulk load
of possessions with above replacement-level efficiency while Devin Cherry did
the same at a slightly lower but still well-above-average usage rate. Throw Cancer
into the mix and you have a trio of guards who could use nearly 70 percent of
team possessions while on the floor together, allowing Miller to play with a
low-usage frontcourt counterpart.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The
two problems are 1) that Cherry-Hatter-Cancer won't play 100
percent of team minutes, and the other guard options all have much lower usage
rates and 2) Cherry-Hatter-Cancer aren't incredibly efficient meaning
that while they *can* eat a ton of possessions, it's unclear that you
would want them to do so.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Again, there is a real possibility that a freshman could come in and provide efficient offensive
production. It's unlikely, though, that such production will be paired with a
high usage rate - the part of the equation that Cornell is most desperate to
solve.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>What Does It All Mean?</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">It really hard to have such
a high percentage of adjusted returning minutes and to have as different a
team as Cornell will have this season.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Miller immediately adds
25-30 minutes a game of a dominant interior presence that the Big Red struggled
to find on a consistent basis. The frontrunner to join him on the interior is
Onuorah, who should get a bulk of the minutes assuming that the offense can
handle his light usage rate. Between Cornell's freshmen and its existing
frontcourt depth, it should be able to muster replacement-level or better
minutes to round out the rotation.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The three backcourt
spots are the much bigger wildcard, due to the offensive production they will
be required to replace. Cressler was the anchor that could bail out the offense
when it struggled. Hatter proved he was willing to consume the level of
possessions that Cressler did, but not as efficiently as Cressler could.
Hatter's performance in 2014-15 will be the key to how easily the Big Red
can overcome the loss of Cressler to Vandy.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Cherry will join Hatter
on the wings, as the 6'2 slashing guard has the ability to beat any perimeter
defender off the dribble and at times can be a deadly finisher.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Despite his season-long
break from the team, Cancer is easily Cornell's best returning option as a pure
point guard. While Hatter and Cherry can both handle the ball if needed, Cancer
has proven himself as a dynamic playmaker who is best suited to directing the
offense. Whether or not he can provide steady production remains to be seen,
but Cancer can provide enough moments of brilliance to deserve a lot of
the team's minutes at the point.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Even assuming 70-75
percent of team minutes per player, that still leaves about 70-75 percent
more that need to be claimed. What's more is that they need to come from a
"high usage" guard, lest they put stress on the low-usage
frontcourt.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Given Cornell's lack of
high-usage returning players, penciling in the remainder of the minutes at
replacement level is the safest call.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i><span style="line-height: 115%;">2014-15 Projected Pomeroy Ratings: (102 ORAT, 109 DRAT; Pythag -
0.3095, Rank - 255)</span></i><span style="line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; line-height: 115%;"><b>THE 2014-15 IVY LEAGUE RACE</b></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; line-height: 115%;">Once we have
a reasonable estimate of each team’s Pomeroy Ratings, based on an analysis of
the likely lineups and production, we can use those predictions as an input to
a predictive model that will ultimately simulate thousands of seasons to
provide us with the expected “fair” odds for total number of victories, final
place within the league and chance of winning the Ivy title.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; line-height: 115%;">To recap the
Pomeroy Ratings predictions:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 115%;">1.<span style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="line-height: 115%;">Harvard - 110
ORAT, 96 DRAT; Pythag - 0.8068, Rank – 38<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 115%;">2.<span style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="line-height: 115%;">Princeton -
103 ORAT, 99 DRAT; Pythag - 0.6174, Rank - 107<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 115%;">3.<span style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="line-height: 115%;">Yale - 105
ORAT, 101 DRAT; Pythag - 0.6552, Rank – 109<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 115%;">4.<span style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="line-height: 115%;">Columbia -
109 ORAT, 106 DRAT; Pythag - 0.5835, Rank – 126<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 115%;">5.<span style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="line-height: 115%;">Brown - 101
ORAT, 103 DRAT; Pythag - 0.4410, Rank – 182<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 115%;">6.<span style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="line-height: 115%;">Dartmouth -
102 ORAT, 106 DRAT; Pythag - 0.3858, Rank – 209<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 115%;">7.<span style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="line-height: 115%;">Cornell – 102
ORAT, 109 DRAT; Pythag - 0.3095, Rank - 255<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 115%;">8.<span style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="line-height: 115%;">Penn - 97 ORAT, 109 DRAT; Pythag - 0.1963, Rank - 301<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<i><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">IVY LEAGUE OVERALL: .4880, 14th of 32 Division I leagues</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; line-height: 115%;">Here
are the expected average Ivy wins by team (with 95% confidence intervals – the
range of wins within which 95 percent of simulations fell):<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; line-height: 115%;">Harvard
- 11.6 (9 - 14)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; line-height: 115%;">Yale
- 8.5 (5 – 12)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; line-height: 115%;">Princeton
- 8.5 (5 – 12)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; line-height: 115%;">Columbia
- 8.1 (5 – 11)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; line-height: 115%;">Brown
- 6.3 (3 – 10)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; line-height: 115%;">Dartmouth
- 5.6 (2 – 9)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; line-height: 115%;">Cornell - 4.4 (1 – 8)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; line-height: 115%;">Penn
- 3.0 (0 – 6)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; line-height: 115%;">Finally,
here are the odds of each team finishing in first with ties and without:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; line-height: 115%;">Harvard
- 87.9% (with ties) / 74.5% (solo)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; line-height: 115%;">Yale
- 10.4% / 4.2%<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; line-height: 115%;">Princeton
- 10.2% / 4.0%<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; line-height: 115%;">Columbia
- 7.0% / 2.5%<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; line-height: 115%;">Brown - 1.0% / 0.2%<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; line-height: 115%;">Dartmouth
- 0.3% / 0.0%<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; line-height: 115%;">Penn
- 0.0% / 0.0%<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; line-height: 115%;">Cornell
- 0.0% / 0.0%<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; line-height: 115%;">While
Harvard is a huge favorite in the race, it’s important to note that 1-in-4
times it failed to win the title outright. In fact, overall, the model predicts
a playoff in roughly 1-in-7 simulations.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; line-height: 115%;">One
thing to keep in mind, however, is that the more Ivy challengers that suffer
significant injuries, the more of a boost the Crimson gets as the prohibitive
favorite, especially in terms of solo titles. For instance, if Columbia loses
Rosenberg for the season and looks like more of a 200ish team than a 100ish
team, Harvard’s solo title odds could rise all the way to about 80 percent. The
reason is that while none of Yale, Princeton or Columbia is likely to catch the
Crimson on its own, the odds that any one of the three will be able to track
down Harvard are much higher. Losing one of those potential challengers means
one fewer team that could get hot and chase down the Crimson. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><b><br /></b></span></i></div>
</div>
Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06461922638043769098noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-645749475857315124.post-45565019107870167882014-04-05T12:51:00.001-04:002014-04-05T13:12:02.285-04:00The Ivy League's RPI ProblemThat simple formula, born in 1981, remains the most influential tool in college basketball today.<br />
<br />
If you don't agree, just ask SMU or Utah. Each of those two teams came into Selection Sunday with a body of work that would have <a href="http://msn.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/vegas-bracketology-5014.php">merited a seed in the 7-9 range</a>, according to Vegas, which hopefully most will agree retains expert status in judging team quality.<br />
<br />
Due to a pair of legitimately awful non-conference schedules, however, SMU became 2014's biggest snub, while Utah didn't really get serious consideration at all. Both the Mustangs and Utes would have been solid favorites over multiple at large teams (NC State, UMass and Colorado come to mind), but the poor scheduling dragged down their RPI, pushing SMU into the 50s and Utah all the way down to the 80s.<br />
<br />
One might feel strongly that SMU and Utah deserved to be punished for their poor schedule strength. The problem is that the RPI isn't the best arbiter of such claims. SMU's non-conference strength of schedule ("NCSOS") checked in at 298th in Pomeroy and finished around 295th in the RPI's calculation. That area of Pomeroy's NCSOS ranking was littered with AAC teams, though. Cincinnati was just four spots ahead, and Louisville slotted in just a couple more away. In the eyes of the committee, the Bearcats and Cardinals looked nothing like SMU, as Cincinnati and Louisville had RPI NCSOS rankings of 95 and 149, respectively.<br />
<br />
All three were deserving tournament teams, at least as far as the best available measures of team quality are concerned. Two of them played the RPI game, either knowingly or unknowingly, and sat solidly within the NCAA field, while the last was left to make a run in the NIT.<br />
<br />
The dirty secret is that for most BCS teams, gaming or not gaming the RPI is merely the difference between being judged fairly or in a more positive light. For mid-major leagues like the Ivy, failing to consider the effects of the RPI invariably leads to a squad looking much worse than it otherwise would.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
For those who aren't familiar with the RPI formula, it is calculated in three (overly-)simplistic parts, and you can <a href="http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/entry/rpi_help">read more about it here</a>.<br />
<br />
In general, the RPI would do a decent job if schedules were assigned randomly. It's essentially performing the first few steps of what would ultimately be an iterative process to rank order the quality of teams - a process that can be taken to its logical conclusion (and with more data like margin of victory added) given the leaps and bounds that technology has taken since 1981.<br />
<br />
Schedules aren't assigned randomly, however, and this creates a massive advantage for coaches who understand the fundamental flaw of the RPI: The opponents' strength of schedule weighting of 25 percent doesn't nearly make up for the benefit of playing teams which have win-loss records that are inflated based on their decision to schedule lightly.<br />
<br />
If you take each conference's difference between its average NCSOS in the Pomeroy ratings and its average NCSOS in the RPI, you'd find a pretty stunning correlation between the best conferences and the best gaming of NCSOS. In fact, nine of the top 10 conferences in the Pomeroy ratings are among the top 10 best conferences at playing a much weaker schedule in reality than it appears in the RPI. Conference USA (14th in Pomeroy) supplanted the West Coast Conference (9th in Pomeroy) in the top 10 best NCSOS gamers, and that is actually quite logical. Being able to game NCSOS requires being able to dictate terms of scheduling - something which requires the resources necessary to purchase the games you need.<br />
<br />
On average, Ivy League teams played a non-conference schedule rated 202nd in Pomeroy. That was ninth weakest in Division I, but the eight leagues it bested were among the best in college basketball: Big Ten, Big 12, ACC, American, Pac 12, SEC, Mountain West and Conference USA. It also turns out that those were eight of the ten best NCSOS gamers, so while the Ivy League's NCSOS according to the RPI was 238 on average, those conferences all finished with an NCSOS average in the Top 200, while the most egregious offender - the Big Ten - started with a Pomeroy NCSOS average 40 spots WORSE than the Ivies only to finish with an NCSOS average in RPI terms that was 90 spots BETTER than the Ivies.<br />
<br />
So, how do the big conference schools do it? They press their advantage in two distinct ways: 1) They play most or all of their games at home and 2) If they play on the road it's against an RPI boosting team. The NCSOS in Pomeroy accounts for the true quality of the opponent and where you play the opponent, whereas the NCSOS in the RPI considers only straight winning percentage (leaving the where question to the weighting of the wins in your team's adjusted winning percentage). This means that the average home game creates a wedge between the NCSOS in Pomeroy and in the RPI, and that wedge can be driven even wider if you schedule the right teams (those with a winning percentage that is far better than their true team quality).<br />
<br />
While the adjusted winning percentage helps correct for the site issue, it doesn't do enough, especially given the extra weight that SOS and quality wins are given by the NCAA selection committee. It is roughly as easy to beat a No. 50 team at home as it is to beat a No. 150 team on the road. Yet, one of those wins is considered to be an elusive Top 50 victory while the other one lands in a throwaway pile. That creates a massive problem for mid-majors, which can land road games against teams between 100 and 150, but can rarely get a Top 50 opponent to visit, while BCS teams can host multiple Top 50 teams non-conference and would only venture to the venue of a team ranked 100-150 if it happened to be a fellow power conference team having a very down year.<br />
<br />
It's not all doom and gloom for the Ivy League and other mid-major conferences, though. While half of the Ivies had NCSOS rankings that were 60 or more spots worse in the RPI calc than in Pomeroy (including Penn's whopping 151 spots worse), one team managed to game NCSOS quite nicely: Columbia.<br />
<br />
The Lions finished with a Pomeroy NCSOS rank of 255, third-worst in the league. But their RPI NCSOS rank of 139 was in a virtual tie for best in the Ivies with Cornell, and the 116 spot improvement was greater than the average improvement for the best NCSOS gaming conference in all of college basketball - the Big Ten. Understanding how Columbia successfully gamed the system should be a priority for all coaches at the mid-major level. Here are some simple, easily executed rules to follow:<br />
<br />
<b>Rule 1) Play as few Division I teams with horrible expected winning percentages as possible, regardless of location, and always try to replace those games with a non-Division I opponent that doesn't count toward the RPI.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Columbia's worst non-conference opponent was Maryland Eastern-Shore, which checked in at 5-23 (.179). The Lions played no other teams below .300, and just three more below .460. That left 12 of their 16 non-conference opponents with winning percentages of near .500 or better, allowing Columbia to finish with a NCSOS above .500 and one which ranked 158th nationally. If the Lions had merely replaced their game with Maryland Eastern Shore with another non-Division I opponent, their NCSOS would have risen to roughly 100. Kill the home games against UMass Lowell and Fairleigh Dickinson and the Lions would have seen that NCSOS rise into the Top 50.<br />
<br />
Better yet, replace those three games with expected winning percentages of .700 or better (a good BCS team or top flight mid-major), and Columbia's NCSOS would have risen to the Top 10 nationally. Sure, maybe the Lions would have finished 7-9 against Division I opponents non-conference, but maybe they'd steal one of those games. Or maybe we assume a world where they finish off Manhattan at home or St. John's at the Barclays Center. Now you take that 8-8 or 9-7 non-conference record and pile on an 11-3 Ivy run to push the overall mark to 19-11 or 20-10 with an NCSOS in the Top 10. If you don't think that profile gets a long look on Selection Sunday, then you're missing what's really going on in that committee room.<br />
<br />
<b>Rule 2) Beg, borrow or steal home games (or at least neutral ones) against Top 100 RPI teams, and if you're going to go on the road to play the big boys, play the biggest big boy you can find.</b><br />
<br />
Columbia hit the scheduling jackpot during its 2013-14 season. It got a visit from RPI No. 60 Manhattan and a shot at No. 67 St. John's on a neutral floor. Those were much more winnable games than visiting either, and they count as quality Top 100 wins regardless of where they're played. That's the dirty secret of the RPI. Getting games against Top 50 and Top 100 teams are doubly beneficial. First, they boost your NCSOS. But then they get counted AGAIN in the Top 50 and Top 100 record column, which is somehow considered separately despite the credit being baked into the RPI in the first place.<br />
<br />
So, the Lions fulfilled part one of this rule beautifully, but did an even better job with part two. Columbia wanted to schedule a name and looked to the Big Ten. It could have taken a wimpy approach and tried to pick one that it felt it could beat like a Penn State or a Northwestern. If it had, it would have cost itself nearly 50 spots in its NCSOS. Instead, the Lions went big and scheduled Michigan State and its .758 winning percentage (as part of the Coaches vs. Cancer multi-team event). The result was a nice NCSOS boost, and ultimately Columbia actually had a decent chance of taking the game as well.<br />
<br />
<b>Rule 3) If you can't get enough games under Rule 2, at least schedule teams that schedule weakly themselves (possibly in weak conferences that they will destroy) or those that nab victories with copious home games and thus are likely to post gaudy W-L records that aren't commensurate with their true talent.</b><br />
<br />
If there's a rule that Columbia nailed most, it might be this one. Remember that for strength of schedule the RPI only cares about an opponent's winning percentage. Nothing else. Not who the opponent played (that's captured in opponent's strength of schedule, which has a much diminished effect), not where the opponent played its games, but rather just the opponent's win percent.<br />
<br />
So, when the Lions played Pomeroy No. 174 Stony Brook at home in January, it looked like the Lions were playing at team which was nearly as good as Manhattan or Michigan St. and a team that was actually a bit better than St. John's. While that's obviously not the case in reality, it is those games upon which true RPI gaming is born. Columbia's three opponents in the Portland pod of the Coaches vs. Cancer Classic all finished with roughly the same winning percentage in the eyes of the RPI calculation. The host Pilots finished at 112th in Pomeroy, while the visiting teams from Idaho and North Texas were in the mid-200s.<br />
<br />
<b>Rule 4) Focusing on building a gaudy non-conference record instead of scheduling wisely doesn't fool anybody, and it actually benefits all of your in-league competitors while hurting you (especially if they're gaming the RPI by focusing on SOS over wins and losses).</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
The biggest impediment that coaches can put in the way of the growth of their program is a focus on racking up bogus victories for optics. Scheduling the dregs of Division I in order to go 10-4 non-conference instead of 4-10 in search of "confidence building wins" won't change the ultimate outcome of the league race, but it guarantees a finish in the RPI that is lower than the true quality of the team (see: Brown 2013-14), gives the team few chances for a statement win but plenty of chances for an embarrassing loss (see: Harvard at FAU) and ensures that your league opponents will get some nice Rule 3 games in conference play (thanks Princeton!).<br />
<br />
In 2007-08, Harvard went 8-22. In 2008-09, it went 14-14. Yet arguably the most publicized games for the Ivy League in each of those seasons was the Crimson's home upset of Michigan and its road win at a ranked Boston College squad. The 14-17 games that each Ivy team controls are a precious commodity. Precious few of the predetermined league contests will capture the general public's imagination. Squandering the opportunities that a team does have to capture the national spotlight is an abdication of the duty that a coach has to the program that employs him.<br />
<br />
So far, we've viewed these rules through the lens of a team that followed them well: 2013-14 Columbia. A fair objection might be that no matter what the Lions did with their schedule, they would have had no shot at an at-large bid to the NCAA Tournament, so likely none of this applies to Ivy League teams. Leaving aside the idea of better postseason positioning of all kinds (NIT vs. CIT or CBI; first option to host CIT semis and finals due to better RPI, etc.), the overwhelming message from fans, media and recruits is that many mid-major teams are making the wrong tradeoff between winning five extra games and having five extra opportunities to make a splash on the national stage. If that's not compelling, however, let's discuss the one that got away, and how following these simple rules could have changed #2BidIvy from an aspiration to an already banked achievement.<br />
<br />
During the 2010-11 season, Harvard went 9-3 against the 59th toughest non-conference schedule in the nation according to Pomeroy. It played three teams seeded No. 8 or better in the NCAA field (George Mason, Michigan and UConn) and two more that were among the first left out (Boston College and Colorado), going 2-3 in those games. To its credit, the Crimson really nailed Rule 2 above. Harvard even got some of Rule 1 right by scheduling two Division III opponents, avoiding the massive SOS hit that would have come with playing a 300ish opponent instead.<br />
<br />
It flunked the rest of the scheduling rules so badly, however, that it eroded any hope of presenting an impressive profile to the committee. Harvard played four of its 12 Division I non-conference games against teams with winning percentages at .300 or below. If it had merely replaced those teams with squads that finished at .500 for the season, it would have posted a Top 10 NCSOS, but instead, it finished with a NCSOS rank in the 130s, nearly 80 spots worse than its true schedule strength.<br />
<br />
It also put together a slate of opponents that finished with the 27th toughest strength of schedule in the nation, meaning that the Crimson's NCSOS suffered because its opposition played brutal schedules that hurt their winning percentages. While some of that is captured as a benefit in the opponent's strength of schedule portion of the RPI formula (a reason why Harvard finished the regular season with an RPI in the 30s), it's not given the bonus look that the committee always provides in singling out the NCSOS metric.<br />
<br />
Finally, the Crimson could have achieved the similar effect of getting a Top 10 NCSOS, if it had kept two of the four teams with winning percentages at or below .300 and replaced the other two with teams with winning percentages of .700 or above. The desire to feast on easy victories (and they really weren't - Harvard barely slipped past three of the four opponents) may have guided the Crimson to a 23-6 regular season record, whereas sacrificing a couple wins to efficient scheduling probably would have left Harvard at 21-8, but solidly in the NCAA field as the Ivy League's first at-large bid.<br />
<br />
***************************<br />
<br />
Someday soon, none of this will really matter. The antiquated and easily gamed RPI formula will be replaced with any one of (or a combination of) the myriad algorithms that provide stunningly accurate estimations of team quality. The NCAA committee will understand the relationship of luck and opportunity in basketball and that a team that gets 15 shots at Top 100 teams and wins five shouldn't be given more credit than a team that got five shots and won three. Some mid-major upsets will remain, but even more will no longer be upsets, as those teams will have been properly seeded in the first place.<br />
<br />
This all will be the reality some day.<br />
<br />
In the short term, however, there exists a massive market inefficiency. Louisville and Cincinnati actively or passively exploited it, while SMU didn't. Columbia posted an RPI NCSOS that was over 100 spots better than it deserved, while Penn saw its Pomeroy non-conference schedule ranking of 112 fall to 263rd in the RPI NCSOS. Finally, the Ivy League's first real chance at being a two-bid league fell just short in 2011 simply because Harvard failed to schedule effectively.<br />
<br />
On average, Ivy League teams were saddled with a NCSOS that was 36 spots worse in the eyes of the RPI than the true schedule strength, as its RPI NCSOS as a league checked in at 32nd out of 32 conferences. The Big 12, which had an average Pomeroy NCSOS of 209 - just behind the Ivy League, checked in with the Top RPI NCSOS of any league in college basketball.<br />
<br />
It's simply shocking to watch such an intelligent league consistently do something so stupid.Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06461922638043769098noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-645749475857315124.post-78211855039444610892013-11-03T15:01:00.000-05:002013-11-03T15:01:01.132-05:00Ivy League DynastiesThe best Ivy team ever won't be this year's edition of the Crimson.<br />
<br />
Let's just keep repeating that to counterbalance the myriad national writers who have suggested or even predicted that Harvard would go down as the best Ivy team in the league's 60-year history. The 1970s saw Penn have two different teams that finished third in the final Associated Press poll and a third which made the Final Four. When it comes to great teams and great dynasties, that Quakers run will be nearly impossible to beat, unless the Ivies get far more reasonable about their athletics admissions policies. Consider that Penn won eight out of 10 Ivy titles during that decade (making the Top 10 in an AP poll during five of those seasons), while losing one of the two times to a Princeton team that rose to No. 15 in the AP poll itself.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>To cut the national writers a break, let's assume that they're just talking about the modern, 64-ish team era. Two years ago, I explored the <a href="http://ivybasketball.blogspot.com/2011/08/bests-worsts-of-last-15-years-what-it.html">best and worst team performances of the digital box score era (since 1997)</a>, but here's a simple chart to provide a refresher of the best seasons (with data that now spans all the way back to the institution of the Academic Index in 1980).<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxz4ZlPq60rETQIp_qMxrnc3y_STeKTcmBxi75qz7yxEsKjsPpX9i8j-hFIDwr6XpZDab67KSYxacXq0iPfBpeENtuRE_VSARxr3q7igSAcgqpJ_3zGI-NFECqTcTSGiBBli2QCyOB3r0/s1600/Table1Ivy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="228" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxz4ZlPq60rETQIp_qMxrnc3y_STeKTcmBxi75qz7yxEsKjsPpX9i8j-hFIDwr6XpZDab67KSYxacXq0iPfBpeENtuRE_VSARxr3q7igSAcgqpJ_3zGI-NFECqTcTSGiBBli2QCyOB3r0/s400/Table1Ivy.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
The data here includes both the Pomeroy-style Adjusted Pythagorean Win Percentage and the College Basketball Reference "Simple Rating System" (SRS). Both systems are based upon calculating the adjusted margin of victory controlling for opponent quality.<br />
<br />
While the two systems differ slightly in their rankings, it is a tidy outcome that both have the same overall Top 10 teams.<br />
<br />
While it bears noting that it is incredibly unlikely that the 2013-14 Crimson will catch the 1998 Tigers in either the Pomeroy or SRS systems, that really isn't the purpose of this examination. Rather, we're discussing Ivy Dynasties - specifically, whether Harvard deserves to be discussed among them, and those that currently comprise the list.<br />
<br />
People will vary on the definition of dynasty, but the relevant metric here will be sustained success beyond one recruiting cycle. Taking a look at the five-year rolling averages of every Ivy team back to the 1980s, the standard bearers pop out immediately.<br />
<br />
Princeton's five-year rolling average Pythag score was above 0.6500 every year from 1991 (1986-87 season through 1990-91) to 2002. That essentially means that the Tigers averaged being the No. 100 team in the country over a span of 16-straight seasons, and their peak at 0.7746 in 2000 meant that for 5-straight seasons, the squad was roughly No. 50 in the nation on average.<br />
<br />
Quickly keeping this in perspective, however, while Princeton's ascension to as high as No. 8 in the AP poll in 1998 was an impressive anchor to its run as the preeminent Ivy dynasty, Penn reached or surpassed that ranking in each of the first four seasons of the 1970s and followed it up by cracking the Top 20 in four of the next six seasons as well.<br />
<br />
The Tigers' run might have lasted the longest and reached the greatest heights during the Academic Index era, but the Quakers came quite close to catching Princeton. Starting in 1995 (1990-91 season to 1994-95), Penn posted a five-year rolling average Pythag score above 0.6000 in all but two of the next 13 seasons. It also reached its peak of 0.7531 in 2005-06, just prior to the departure of legendary coach Fran Dunphy.<br />
<br />
Penn and Princeton had the same number of seasons from their dynasty years crack the Top 10 best teams of the AI era (4 each), but the Tigers always seemed to have a little extra, as their best seasons finished higher on the list and they had a little more luck in March.<br />
<br />
Until Harvard cracked the 0.6000 five-year rolling average last season, no other Ivy team than those Quakers and Tigers squads of the 1990s and 2000s had done it. The closest potential dynasties were the recent Princeton squads (0.5880 average from 2008-09 to 2012-13) and the three-peat Cornell teams (0.5791 average from 2007-08 to 2011-12).<br />
<br />
That puts the Crimson third on the AI era dynasty list, but it's a very distant third. Princeton was great for 16 years and Penn was very good for most of a 17 year span. Harvard just posted its first dynasty-like five-year rolling average. That just gives it 11 or 12 more to go.<br />
<br />
Much like the discussion of the best Ivy team of all time, this analysis isn't meant to belittle the Crimson's efforts, but rather to remind folks of what this league has accomplished in the past. The perception of the league is accurate through most of the curve, but memory seems to fade at the extreme right tail. It's understandable that people would forget that Ivy teams were mainstays in the polls in the 1970s, but more and more, it seems like they've forgotten that the league wore white in the NCAAs twice in the 1990s and had two more teams crack the Top 25.<br />
<br />
This 2013-14 Harvard team likely won't be the best Ivy ever. It also has a long way to go to become the best Ivy dynasty, even of just the modern era. That's just the reality that everyone else seems to have forgotten.Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06461922638043769098noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-645749475857315124.post-22582599068158480442013-10-23T09:18:00.000-04:002013-10-23T09:18:42.874-04:00The 2013-14 Ivy Pre-Season Projection Uber PostThere has been an undeniably strange structure to the questions posed this offseason.<br />
<br />
Will Harvard become the first team to win a share of four-straight Ivy titles since Penn and Princeton both accomplished the feat in the early-to-mid 1990s?<br />
<br />
Will Harvard spend most of the year in the Top 25?<br />
<br />
Will Harvard make a deep run in March?<br />
<br />
Will Harvard be the best Ivy team ever?<br />
<br />
In the world of rhetoric, these might be derisively exposed as instances of begging the question or in the world of law, potentially labeled as leading the witness. For these questions wantonly assume the conclusion to the examination undertaken in this piece - that Harvard is a lock to win the Ivy title and the only race is for spots two through eight.<br />
<br />
No, the ultimate finding of the preseason projection model wasn't that your 2013-14 Ivy favorite is the Princeton Tigers (<a href="http://ivyleaguesports.com/sports/mbkb/2013-14/releases/Mens_Basketball_Collects_Numerous_Preseason_Honors">quite bold, Sporting News...</a>). But the Crimson doesn't take home 100 percent of the solo titles either, nor does it even claim a share of the crown in every simulated season.<br />
<br />
Like most stories in life, reality comes up a little short of the associated hyperbole.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=645749475857315124" name="more"></a><br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
<b>2013-14 Ivy Projection Record & Odds</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 311px;">
<colgroup><col style="mso-width-alt: 3254; mso-width-source: userset; width: 67pt;" width="89"></col>
<col span="5" style="mso-width-alt: 1353; mso-width-source: userset; width: 28pt;" width="37"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 1353; mso-width-source: userset; width: 28pt;" width="37"></col>
</colgroup><tbody>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td class="xl319" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt; width: 67pt;" width="89"></td>
<td class="xl342" colspan="2" style="mso-ignore: colspan; width: 56pt;" width="74"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> League </span></td>
<td class="xl325" colspan="2" style="border-right: .5pt solid black; mso-ignore: colspan; width: 56pt;" width="74"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> 95% High</span></td>
<td class="xl321" colspan="2" style="border-right: .5pt solid black; mso-ignore: colspan; width: 56pt;" width="74"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> 95% Low</span></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td class="xl319" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"></td>
<td class="xl329" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> W </span></td>
<td class="xl322" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> L </span></td>
<td class="xl325" style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">W</span></td>
<td class="xl327" style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">L</span></td>
<td class="xl321" style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">W</span></td>
<td class="xl331" style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">L</span></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td class="xl319" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Harvard</span></td>
<td class="xl332"><span style="font-size: x-small;">13</span></td>
<td class="xl333"><span style="font-size: x-small;">1</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl334"><span style="font-size: x-small;">14</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl335"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl336"><span style="font-size: x-small;">11</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl335"><span style="font-size: x-small;">3</span></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td class="xl319" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Penn</span></td>
<td class="xl330"><span style="font-size: x-small;">9</span></td>
<td class="xl323"><span style="font-size: x-small;">5</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl326"><span style="font-size: x-small;">12</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl328"><span style="font-size: x-small;">2</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl324"><span style="font-size: x-small;">6</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl328"><span style="font-size: x-small;">8</span></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td class="xl319" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Yale</span></td>
<td class="xl330"><span style="font-size: x-small;">9</span></td>
<td class="xl323"><span style="font-size: x-small;">5</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl326"><span style="font-size: x-small;">12</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl328"><span style="font-size: x-small;">2</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl324"><span style="font-size: x-small;">6</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl328"><span style="font-size: x-small;">8</span></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td class="xl319" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Princeton</span></td>
<td class="xl330"><span style="font-size: x-small;">9</span></td>
<td class="xl323"><span style="font-size: x-small;">5</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl326"><span style="font-size: x-small;">12</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl328"><span style="font-size: x-small;">2</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl324"><span style="font-size: x-small;">6</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl328"><span style="font-size: x-small;">8</span></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td class="xl319" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Brown</span></td>
<td class="xl330"><span style="font-size: x-small;">4</span></td>
<td class="xl323"><span style="font-size: x-small;">10</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl326"><span style="font-size: x-small;">7</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl328"><span style="font-size: x-small;">7</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl324"><span style="font-size: x-small;">1</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl328"><span style="font-size: x-small;">13</span></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td class="xl319" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Columbia</span></td>
<td class="xl330"><span style="font-size: x-small;">4</span></td>
<td class="xl323"><span style="font-size: x-small;">10</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl326"><span style="font-size: x-small;">7</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl328"><span style="font-size: x-small;">7</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl324"><span style="font-size: x-small;">1</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl328"><span style="font-size: x-small;">13</span></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td class="xl319" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Cornell</span></td>
<td class="xl330"><span style="font-size: x-small;">4</span></td>
<td class="xl323"><span style="font-size: x-small;">10</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl326"><span style="font-size: x-small;">7</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl328"><span style="font-size: x-small;">7</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl324"><span style="font-size: x-small;">1</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl328"><span style="font-size: x-small;">13</span></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td class="xl319" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Dartmouth</span></td>
<td class="xl337"><span style="font-size: x-small;">3</span></td>
<td class="xl338"><span style="font-size: x-small;">11</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl339"><span style="font-size: x-small;">6</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl340"><span style="font-size: x-small;">8</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl341"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl340"><span style="font-size: x-small;">14</span></td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 453px;">
<colgroup><col style="mso-width-alt: 3108; mso-width-source: userset; width: 64pt;" width="85"></col>
<col span="8" style="mso-width-alt: 1682; mso-width-source: userset; width: 35pt;" width="46"></col>
</colgroup><tbody>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td class="xl318" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt; width: 64pt;" width="85"><b>Total</b></td>
<td class="xl319" style="width: 35pt;" width="46"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> 1 </span></td>
<td class="xl319" style="width: 35pt;" width="46"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> 2 </span></td>
<td class="xl319" style="width: 35pt;" width="46"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> 3 </span></td>
<td class="xl319" style="width: 35pt;" width="46"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> 4 </span></td>
<td class="xl319" style="width: 35pt;" width="46"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> 5 </span></td>
<td class="xl319" style="width: 35pt;" width="46"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> 6 </span></td>
<td class="xl319" style="width: 35pt;" width="46"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> 7 </span></td>
<td class="xl319" style="width: 35pt;" width="46"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> 8 </span></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td class="xl318" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Brown</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.0%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.1%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.8%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">6.7%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">35.7%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">26.1%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">19.6%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">11.0%</span></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td class="xl318" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Columbia</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.0%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.1%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">1.1%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">5.7%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">31.1%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">28.7%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">21.5%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">11.8%</span></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td class="xl318" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Cornell</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.0%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.3%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">1.2%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">3.8%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">27.0%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">25.8%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">26.0%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">15.9%</span></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td class="xl318" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Dartmouth</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.0%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.1%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.7%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">2.0%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">17.7%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">24.2%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">22.7%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">32.6%</span></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td class="xl318" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Harvard</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">96.3%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">3.4%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.3%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.0%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.0%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.0%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.0%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.0%</span></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td class="xl318" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Penn</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">3.9%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">43.6%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">31.5%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">19.3%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">1.2%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.4%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.0%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.0%</span></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td class="xl318" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Princeton</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">1.9%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">35.9%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">32.9%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">25.7%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">3.3%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.3%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.1%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.0%</span></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td class="xl318" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Yale</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">3.3%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">39.3%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">30.4%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">23.6%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">2.6%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.5%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.3%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.0%</span></td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 453px;">
<colgroup><col style="mso-width-alt: 3108; mso-width-source: userset; width: 64pt;" width="85"></col>
<col span="8" style="mso-width-alt: 1682; mso-width-source: userset; width: 35pt;" width="46"></col>
</colgroup><tbody>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td class="xl318" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt; width: 64pt;" width="85"><b>Solo</b></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318" style="width: 35pt;" width="46"><span style="font-size: x-small;">1</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318" style="width: 35pt;" width="46"><span style="font-size: x-small;">2</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318" style="width: 35pt;" width="46"><span style="font-size: x-small;">3</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318" style="width: 35pt;" width="46"><span style="font-size: x-small;">4</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318" style="width: 35pt;" width="46"><span style="font-size: x-small;">5</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318" style="width: 35pt;" width="46"><span style="font-size: x-small;">6</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318" style="width: 35pt;" width="46"><span style="font-size: x-small;">7</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl318" style="width: 35pt;" width="46"><span style="font-size: x-small;">8</span></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td class="xl318" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Brown</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.0%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.0%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.3%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">2.6%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">19.4%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">12.4%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">9.1%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">11.0%</span></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td class="xl318" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Columbia</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.0%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.0%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.1%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">1.5%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">15.8%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">12.0%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">11.4%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">11.8%</span></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td class="xl318" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Cornell</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.0%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.0%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.3%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.8%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">13.0%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">11.0%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">13.5%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">15.9%</span></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td class="xl318" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Dartmouth</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.0%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.0%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.1%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.5%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">8.4%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">9.6%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">8.6%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">32.6%</span></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td class="xl318" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Harvard</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">91.2%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">2.7%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.3%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.0%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.0%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.0%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.0%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.0%</span></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td class="xl318" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Penn</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">1.4%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">24.9%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">17.3%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">16.4%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.7%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.3%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.0%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.0%</span></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td class="xl318" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Princeton</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">1.1%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">20.1%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">17.4%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">20.5%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">2.4%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.1%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.1%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.0%</span></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td class="xl318" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Yale</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">1.1%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">22.1%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">16.7%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">20.7%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">2.2%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.3%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.1%</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl319"><span style="font-size: x-small;">0.0%</span></td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
There is no denying that Harvard is the heavy favorite in the Ivy title race. The Crimson checks in with the best preseason odds to win the league crown in the four years of this model's existence.<br />
<br />
Lost in that message, however, is that being an overwhelming favorite does not guarantee winning in a romp. Setting aside the roughly 1-in-27 times that Harvard misses out on a piece of the title entirely, the Crimson still only takes the NCAA bid by what one would consider to be a comfortable 3-or-more game margin 56 percent of the time. A full 20 percent of the time Harvard is left in the same situation it faced in 2011-12, teetering between a playoff or a narrow, one-game margin.<br />
<br />
Speaking of that 2011-12 Crimson squad, there are a lot of parallels between it and the current edition of the team. Harvard was a 91 percent favorite to claim at least a share of the Ivy title (versus 96 percent this season) and had three teams with an outside shot to chase it down (Penn, Princeton and Yale - same as this year). The media spent the entire season lauding the 2011-12 squad's invincibility, only to express shock when the Crimson stumbled at home to the Quakers and lost control of its own destiny for an outright bid with just one weekend to play.<br />
<br />
One of the undercurrents of that race, which made it possible for Penn, Princeton and Yale all to contend, was how easily the top four teams beat up on the bottom four. The Crimson and Quakers both went 8-0 against the lower division, while the Tigers and Bulldogs each went 7-1, splitting with Cornell. Essentially guaranteeing seven or eight wins in those eight games turned the Ivy race into a six-game season and crazy things can happen with such a small sample of contests.<br />
<br />
Fast forward to 2013-14. As will be shown later in this piece, the projected Pomeroy rankings for the lower division teams are all clumped around the 300 mark. The individual game win odds for a top four team at home against a bottom four team are almost all north of 85 percent, while the same odds for a upper division team visiting a lower division team are primarily 70 percent or higher. If there's a way to take down Harvard this year, 2011-12 provided the blueprint and the landscape has set up nicely for a repeat.<br />
<br />
Over the past three seasons, Harvard, Penn, Princeton and Yale have finished first through fourth twice and would have accomplished the feat for the third consecutive time last season, if Brown hadn't overcome a six-point deficit with two minutes to play against the Quakers in the final weekend of the season. The odds of the H-Y-P-P crew making it three top four finishes in four years are incredibly high in 2013-14, as the Bears, Lions, Big Red and Big Green all deal with varying levels of personnel losses off of teams that only averaged five Ivy wins in the first place. In fact, the gap between fourth and fifth in terms of average projected Ivy victories is over four, a chasm between two non-title teams which hasn't been seen since Harvard finished third at 10-4 in 2010 and Yale finished fourth at 6-8.<br />
<br />
Much like Penn, Princeton and Yale, which could finish in any order in the upper division, there's no clear pecking order in the lower division race either. Brown and Columbia have the slight edge, and the best (though meager) odds of cracking the top four, but all of the Bears, Lions, Big Red and Big Green are between 92 and 97 percent to finish in spots five through eight.<br />
<br />
<b>Team-By-Team Projections</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<i>Brown - 92 ORAT, 103 DRAT; 0.2393 Pythag; No. 288 Nationally</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
It's hard to fault onlookers for bestowing the sleeper tag upon the Bears. After all, second-year coach Mike Martin brought in a deep class of kids who could contribute on the Ivy level to build upon a season which saw Brown knock off cross-town rival Providence and single-handedly dash Princeton's Ivy title hopes en route to a fourth-place finish.<br />
<br />
Dig a bit deeper, though, and the Bears have the look of a team that hit their momentary peak. The loss of Tucker Halpern for the season to injury combined with the graduation of guards Matt Sullivan and Stephen Albrecht, leaves almost two full backcourt spots worth of minutes to be filled with no returning players who have every played more than 30 percent of team minutes in a season. Sullivan might be the toughest to replace, as he ate up 90 percent of team minutes, took 23 percent of his squad's shots and was the most adept finisher at the rim, converting 65 percent of his attempts from in close. He was also opportunistic with thefts on the other end, leading a Brown team which has historically struggled to create turnovers by ending three percent of opponents' possessions with a steal.<br />
<br />
Martin did a great job to bring in four guards in his 2013 class, but for this Brown team to be successful, he'll likely have to get starters minutes out of some combination of two or more of them. There have been 89 freshmen over the past 17 seasons to play at least 50 percent of their teams' minutes (a little over five per season), and there's even some precedent to get a pair or more from the same team (Dartmouth in 2012 and 2013; Cornell in 2012 and Brown and Harvard in 2010). Of those five, however, only Dartmouth 2012 (Jvonte Brooks) and Harvard 2010 (Kyle Casey, Brandyn Curry and Christian Webster) have had any players post an offensive rating over 100, hinting that playing multiple freshman for many minutes doesn't lead to robust output on the offensive end.<br />
<br />
If Brown can somehow flank its All-Ivy point guard Sean McGonagill with two capable backcourt partners, the Bears should be in great shape to outperform the model's projections. With junior Dockery Walker returning to join rookie sensations Rafael Maia and Cedric Kuakumensah and heralded incoming freshman Aram Martin in the frontcourt, Brown should have one of the best frontlines in the league.<br />
<br />
In the 36 percent of team possessions for which both Maia and Kuakumensah were on the floor last year, Brown's defensive rating was 92, compared to 100 when off the floor. Given that the Bears were already the league's third best defense last season, more minutes for the two bigs would seem to be the recipe to yield the fewest points per possession in the Ivies.<br />
<br />
If that's the case, then why did Tyler Ponticelli get over 20 minutes a game for Brown? Quite simply, the pairing of Maia and Kuakumensah was a train wreck offensively, as the team scored registered an offensive rating of just 88 with the two on the court together, and actually played marginally better (+2 vs. -26) with the duo split up or neither playing at all. Flip out Kuakumensah for Ponticelli and the pairing with Maia saw Brown have a 100 ORAT while maintaining a 94 DRAT. Do the same with Maia on the bench and Kuakumensah and Ponticelli on the floor and the Bears' ORAT balloons to 104 (though that duo was horrible defensively with a DRAT of 105). The big question for Brown is whether Kuakumensah and Maia can put up good enough offensive numbers together to be able to take advantage of their considerable defensive skills.<br />
<br />
If not, Walker has the ability to be a productive offensive player, so its possible that he could fill that Ponticelli role for Brown this season. That's before getting to Aram Martin, who racked up many mid-major offers and might be able to step in and provide some production right away.<br />
<br />
The Bears have stacked up two solid recruiting classes in this year's freshman and the class of 2014, which should pay dividends for Brown over the next few seasons. For the 2013-14 campaign, though, the Bears might be in for a momentary step back.<br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Columbia - 96 ORAT, 107 DRAT; 0.2289 Pythag; No. 292 Nationally</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
After spending three straight years hovering around the 200 mark in the national rankings, the Lions enter rebuilding mode, as guard Brian Barbour and post players Mark Cisco and John Daniels all graduated this past spring.<br />
<br />
Cisco's departure is the one that might hurt the Lions the most. Despite seemingly having a disappointing season and receiving a great deal of the blame for Columbia's collapse in league play, Cisco's presence on the court made other players better. When forward Alex Rosenberg was on the floor with Cisco, the Lions posted ridiculous splits of 112 ORAT and 100 DRAT. Without Cisco, those numbers fell to 102 ORAT and 100 DRAT. Cisco's most likely replacement, Cory Osetkowski, played well with Rosenberg in relatively limited minutes (101 ORAT and 94 DRAT), but didn't quite provide the boost that Cisco did.<br />
<br />
Let's get back to Cisco's decline for a second. The 6'9 center loved taking two-point jumpers throughout his career in Morningside Heights. By his junior and senior seasons, he was taking over half of his shots from that range. As a junior he made 40 percent of his jumpers - a very strong mark. As a senior, that rate dipped to a far more pedestrian 29 percent. Shooting percentage on two-point jumpers is inherently volatile, and it takes an incredibly adept shooter to stay around even 40 percent consistently (see: Rosen, Zack). With Rosenberg shooting 43 percent from there and Osetkowski knocking down 53 percent of his tries, some regression from those two might be in the cards.<br />
<br />
Even if Osetkowski can provide similar production to Cisco, frontcourt depth remains a huge concern. The Lions return just Zach En'Wezoh, whose inability to play defense without fouling limited him to just 24 minutes after November last season, and otherwise will have to rely on production from four freshmen. Finding a consistent interior presence will be vital in keeping the Lions competitive, as Columbia is very likely to throw out guard combinations that will struggle to keep opponents from attacking the paint off the dribble. With offensively-minded Rosenberg slotted in for starters minutes at the four, that puts more pressure on the five to be an active shot blocker and rebounder, which might force the Lions to select personnel that will be a major offensive liability.<br />
<br />
The guard situation for Columbia is a little clearer and should allow for the Lions to continue their pattern of surprising results - both good and bad. Barbour might not have been the best shooter, but he consistently posted Free Throw Rates of around 50 percent as a starter, meaning that for every four field goals he attempted, he got to the line for two shots as well. As a 90-percent shooter for his career, that meant a steady stream of points even on nights when he struggled to locate his shot.<br />
<br />
With Barbour's departure, however, the complexion of the backcourt changes. Meiko Lyles, Grant Mullins and Steve Frankoski are all strong three-point shooters and are joined by Maodo Lo, who despite being quite capable of creating his own shot inside the arc, still managed to take a majority of his shots from three last season. The Lions already took the 84th highest percentage of threes in the nation last year, and that was with Barbour taking a relatively high percentage of twos. Columbia won't reach uncharted territory for an Ivy (Princeton spent three years at No. 3 nationally under Joe Scott taking roughly half of its shots from three), but the higher teams have climbed up that ladder, the more stunningly high variance they have become.<br />
<br />
Variance is a great thing for a below-average team, as it should provide some thrilling results - like the road win at Villanova and home win over Harvard last season. At the same time, the shaky perimeter defense combined with a cold shooting night will lead to a fair share of disappointing outcomes, likely leading to Columbia's fifth-straight season with a league record under .500.<br />
<br />
<i>Cornell - 92 ORAT, 104 DRAT; 0.2127 Pythag; No. 299 Nationally</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
For a brief, fleeting moment, the Big Red had everything for which to play. At 5-3 in the Ivies, with four of its final six at home, it had reason to believe it could hang around in the title chase. At 13-12 overall, it needed just a .500 finish to be eligible for the postseason for the first time since making it to the Sweet 16 in 2010.<br />
<br />
Then, Penn launched a 24-9 second-half run to hand the Big Red its fourth Ivy loss, and everything unraveled quickly from there. Point guard Galal Cancer, who had been struggling offensively himself but demonstrably pushed Shonn Miller and Nolan Cressler's ORAT/DRAT lineup splits much higher, left the team, and Miller, Devin Cherry and Johnathan Gray couldn't complete the season due to injury.<br />
<br />
The result was a six-game losing streak, and despite that being in the past, it's what has been carried forward to the present that has done the most damage. Cancer never returned to the team, senior swingman Errick Peck chose to play as a graduate at Purdue rather than take a fifth undergraduate season, and Miller's injury will likely keep him out for the entire 2013-14 season. That leaves Cressler, Cherry and senior guard Dom Scelfo as the only three returning players to see more than 10 percent of team minutes for Cornell last season.<br />
<br />
Cressler has the makings of an offensive star, as his top Ivy comps are to the freshman and sophomore seasons of Ryan Wittman and Laurent Rivard. The Big Red was clearly better off with him on the floor than off, as Cornell posted a 104 ORAT and 105 DRAT with Cressler on court versus a 93 ORAT and 107 DRAT with him on the bench. Digging deeper, however, things get a little bit troubling. Cressler spent almost 60 percent of his possessions on court with Miller. On those possessions, the Big Red posted splits of 109 ORAT and 94 DRAT. In the other 40 percent of Cressler's on floor possessions, the Big Red had an ORAT of 98 and a DRAT of 119.<br />
<br />
Wading into the world of small samples is a dangerous game, but looking at Cressler and Cherry together with and without Miller, an even more stark difference occurs. In 330 Cressler-Cherry possessions, Cornell scored and allowed 1.01 points per possession (101 ORAT and DRAT). In the 119 of those possessions that didn't include Miller, the Big Red scored 0.89 points per trip while yielding 1.29. To put that in perspective, the worst team in Division I last season (Grambling St.) scored 0.76 points per possession while allowing 1.21.<br />
<br />
Some of that might fall on the shoulders of Cherry, who took a boatload of shots but struggled to score from everywhere on the floor. He took 40 percent of his shots at the rim and made just 44 percent of those tries, while 31 percent of his shots were two-point jumpers and he made just 28 percent of those. There might be room for growth in his jumper strike rate, both inside the arc and outside it, but finishing at the rim tends to be a more consistent skill. That's where Cherry needs to show what would be relatively surprising improvement if he ever wants to be an efficient scorer.<br />
<br />
Including sophomore center Braxston Bunce, Cornell has brought in a deep class of six rookies to plug some of the holes left by the loss of four starters and three more rotation players. While the extra experience might serve these players well down the road, the issue of today is a scary one. The Big Red will either have to start a lightly used senior or one of four completely unrrated freshman recruits at the point, and have no players above 6'6 who have ever seen more than 12 percent of team minutes in a single season. At least in the post, Cornell has both Bunce and freshman David Onuorah, who each come in with solid interest from quality Division I programs. That being said, the list of successful rookie post players in the Ivy League isn't exactly a long one (only of the 167 players over 6'7 to see some time as freshman since 1997, only 12 have seen 50 or more percent of team minutes).<br />
<br />
The result is likely to be an incredibly ugly season for the Big Red, and it's not one that having Miller would have necessarily fixed. If the rookie bigs are as good as advertised, and Cornell can find a serviceable point guard, the Big Red might be able to forge some hope from this lost season, but the odds are against even that beacon serving as a silver lining to an otherwise forgettable campaign.<br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Dartmouth - 93 ORAT, 106 DRAT; 0.2026 Pythag; No. 304 Nationally</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
In a league with so many deeply flawed teams, it is shocking that many people's favorite sleeper program should appear so comatose in these rankings.<br />
<br />
The disconnect is one of judging a team by its peak performance or its average, and specifically for Dartmouth, judging one player by his peak or his average.<br />
<br />
Last season, sophomore swingman Jvonte Brooks was slowed by an injury that prematurely ended his season and led him to quit the basketball team in favor of trying his hand at football. That presented junior reserve guard Tyler Melville, who for his career to that point had an eFG shooting percentage barely north of 40, with an opportunity to receive starter's minutes in Brooks' place.<br />
<br />
Melville started each of the Big Green's final 11 games and finished the season as the only regular with an offensive rating over 100 (110) and with an eyepopping eFG rate of 56 percent. He finished second on the team in Free Throw Rate, second in Assist Rate and scored 23 points on 9-of-11 shooting in a narrow 68-63 loss to Princeton at Jadwin Gym. Prior to Melville becoming a regular in the lineup, Dartmouth sank to 301st in the Pomeroy Ratings. By the end of the season, the Big Green had settled at 275th.<br />
<br />
The problem is that 2013 Melville shared similar seasons with Columbia's Patrick Foley and Yale's Alex Gamboa and Austin Morgan. But 2012 Melville's sim scores revealed commonalities with the 2011 version of himself and players like Harvard's Jim Goffredo and David Giovacchini and Columbia's Corey Barnes. The 2011 and 2012 versions of Melville shot 30 and 32 percent on two-point jumpers, respectively, while 2013 Melville shot up to 46 percent. Given that the 6'2 senior takes about half his shots from that range, he'll need to avoid a decline to a more reasonable hit rate in order to remain a catalyst for the Big Green offense. Since the model likes regression to the mean, it's heavily discounting Melville's odds of a repeat, something which has sent Dartmouth back down to familiar ranking territory.<br />
<br />
Star center Gabas Maldunas scored much deserved second-team All-Ivy honors while posting a 97 offensive rating on a hefty 27 percent usage rate. When on the floor, Dartmouth's team splits were a 95 ORAT and 99 DRAT, while they ballooned to 97 and 112 with him off the court. But without Melville on the floor with him, Maldunas and Dartmouth posted just an 89 ORAT and a 100 DRAT, meaning that it was Melville's offensive outburst that was making even the Big Green's stars look better.<br />
<br />
Add to that the fact that Dartmouth returns just six rotation players from last year's squad and the importance of every contribution gets magnified further. Sure, coach Paul Cormier did another nice job assembling an unheralded but possibly productive five-person freshman class. For this team to take the step forward that most expect, however, the rookies need to be bolstering the output that already exists, not replacing production that has suddenly vanished.<br />
<br />
That places the spotlight squarely on the team's lone senior. If Melville can deliver like he did down the stretch in 2012-13, there's no reason Dartmouth wouldn't become the favorite for that fifth place finish. If he reverts to his previous form, the Big Green will likely be left scrambling to avoid getting mired in the 300s.<br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Harvard - 109 ORAT, 96 DRAT; 0.8007 Pythag; No. 44 Nationally</i><br />
<br />
The Crimson nearly lost the Ivy title last year because it couldn't grab a defensive rebound, and yet the best defensive rebounder in the country (yes, country) played just eight minutes per game over the first six contests of the league slate.<br />
<br />
There's both a specific and a general point to be made about that statement above. First, Harvard won't come close to being the Top 25 team that some expect if it continues letting opponents post an Offensive Rebounding rate that is five percentage points (or nine as it was in Ivy play) higher than its own. That's just too many extra possessions to overcome, no matter how efficient your offense and defense is.<br />
<br />
More importantly, however, is the general question of whether the Crimson can adequately diagnose problems and leverage its substantial personnel advantage to solve them before they result in additional losses. For instance, the Jonah Travis and Laurent Rivard frontcourt somehow worked over the early part of the season, but it was plain to see it falling apart as Harvard struggled to control the paint against any team with the semblance of a post presence. Sure enough, over the second half of the year, Harvard had a 106 ORAT and 98 DRAT with Travis off the floor versus 100 ORAT and 110 DRAT with him on it.<br />
<br />
That's not Travis's fault. He's not a center, and putting him out there as one was begging for disaster. He does have quality post moves and could be a successful four man, but he got very few possessions with a true center in Kenyatta Smith and only slightly more with a credible big in Steve Moundou-Missi, making it hard to discern whether he could have been a value add at that other spot.<br />
<br />
From an analysis perspective, last year was kid's stuff compared to the upcoming season. There wasn't really any need to study the backcourt - Wesley Saunders and Siyani Chambers were going to play until they drop, leaving only the question of whether to split time for Webster and Rivard at the other wing or to move Rivard to the four to provide both with more minutes. This year, though, Harvard will have to figure out whether Brandyn Curry is really a value add as an off guard with Siyani Chambers running the point, or whether Rivard really should be playing the four with an insane amount of frontcourt depth on the bench, or whether Saunders and Casey - both of whom want 25+ percent of the on-floor possessions - can share the rock in a way that enhances the production of both.<br />
<br />
There is no doubt that this Harvard team will be very good. A significant majority of the rotation has consistent Free Throw Rates of 40 percent and up, meaning that the Crimson will get a steady flow of points from the line all season. In fact, the lowest Harvard has ranked in Free Throw Rate since Amaker's second season with the team is 67th nationally (the Crimson was second nationally last year). Combine that with efficient shooting (Harvard has been Top 20 nationally in eFG% three of the past four seasons), and it's clear that the Crimson will find a way to score points in bunches.<br />
<br />
The problem is that Harvard's best offensive lineup will almost certainly not be its best defensive lineup. There will be a fair amount of value to unlock in knowing which players provide the most advantageous trades in offense-for-defense terms, and that will likely be the difference in a binary sense between a few wins in the recordbooks and in a ratings sense between being a Top 50 team and a challenger for the Top 25.<br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Penn - 99 ORAT, 98 DRAT; 0.5392 Pythag; No. 151 Nationally</i><br />
<br />
There is no team for which an injury caveat rings more true than for the Quakers.<br />
<br />
At its core, this is a four-person Penn team, and any hopes of reaching the precipice of the Top 150 for the second time in three years or even the Top 200 for the third time in four years rest upon approaching 30 or more minutes per game from each of Miles Cartwright, Tony Hicks, Darien Nelson-Henry and Fran Dougherty. Cartwright has delivered that consistently for his career and Hicks did the same down the stretch, but Dougherty and Nelson-Henry share the same career apex for minutes played per game at around 16. If the latter duo can't get closer to doubling that than matching it, the decline off this projection could get rather steep, rather quickly.<br />
<br />
There is plenty of reason for optimism in West Philadelphia. Dougherty performed like an Ivy Player of the Year candidate, until injuries forced him to the sidelines for almost all of the final 21 games last season. In 421 possession on the floor with Cartwright, the Quakers posted an ORAT of 97 and a DRAT of 85, while Penn recorded 92/104 splits with one or more of the pair on the sidelines. Those two seniors will be joined by sophomores Hicks and Nelson-Henry, who each came alive during the second half of last season. While neither was a consistent offensive force, the pair did play much better defense during league play, as their 102 DRAT in 167 possessions during the non-conference slate fell to just 92 in 372 Ivy possessions.<br />
<br />
The problem for Penn will be finding any production outside of those four stars. The Quakers have plenty of experience on the bench, but little proven quality. Henry Brooks and Greg Louis return as frontcourt depth, but both players posted offensive ratings south of 90 and the team as a whole played much better with them on the bench than it did with them on the floor (90/106 for Louis on floor vs. 95/98 off and 90/101 for Brooks on court vs. 97/100 off). The same goes for last year's starting point guard Jamal Lewis, whose value on defense was supposed to make up for his poor offensive rating, yet the defense was actually worse with him on the floor (102 on court vs. 99 off) than the offense was (93 on court vs. 94 off).<br />
<br />
That's before even getting into the detrimental effects of combining these bench options. Patrick Lucas-Perry had an insane offensive year, posting an eFG of 58 percent and an offensive rating of 122. In 803 possessions, though, his lineup splits were a 95 ORAT and a 105 DRAT, meaning that the Quakers were better off with him sitting on the bench (92 ORAT, 98 DRAT). The problem is that Lucas-Perry had to play 295 of those possessions with Greg Louis, and Penn posted an 84 ORAT and 103 DRAT for those trips. In the 508 other possessions, the Quakers scored 1.02 points per possession and yielded 1.06, which is essentially tied with Dau Jok for the best mark outside the top four.<br />
<br />
If that seems confusing, don't worry, it is. And imagine trying to figure out all of those combinations with eyes alone and no benefit of numbers. It becomes almost a Sisyphean task to fill out a rotation of complementary players with what the Quakers return.<br />
<br />
That being said, Penn brings in one of the best and deepest recruiting classes with more than a couple players that could potentially provide immediate help. One star guard and one quality big could unlock a little upside and push the Quakers even further toward that elusive Top 100 mark. At the same time, one key injury could send Penn tumbling.<br />
<br />
That's the high stakes game the Quakers will be playing during their 2013-14 campaign.<br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Princeton - 99 ORAT, 101 DRAT; 0.4433 Pythag; No. 198 Nationally</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
If only leaving this section blank were an option.<br />
<br />
In 1428 possessions with Ian Hummer on the court last season, Princeton recorded a 112 ORAT and a 96 DRAT. In the 256 trips down the floor with him on the bench, those figures flipped dramatically to 82 and 100, respectively. Looking at the key returnees for the Tigers with and without Hummer yields the same result:<br />
<br />
TJ Bray - 114/96 with; 85/105 without<br />
Will Barrett - 112/97 with; 84/96 without<br />
Hans Brase - 115/94 with; 83/100 without<br />
Denton Koon - 115/99 with; 90/100 without<br />
<br />
Clearly, Princeton's offense ran through Hummer, and it struggled mightily without him on the floor as the focus of the opposing defense. Somewhat as evidently, however, Koon had figured something out that the others hadn't. It didn't take long to figure out what.<br />
<br />
Looking at the past two Tigers seasons, Koon was the only player other than Hummer to have taken at least 100 two-point shots and he was the only Princeton player to shoot over 50 percent from inside the arc both years. When Hummer went to the bench and spacing wasn't as readily available, Koon could still create his own shot in a way that the Tigers' perimeter-oriented players could not. Most players create their own shot off the dribble, but that wasn't quite the 6'8 junior's specialty. Almost 75 percent of his baskets last year were assisted, meaning that it was his savvy cutting ability more than his athletic moves with the ball that provided him the space to be a deadly 63 percent finisher at the rim.<br />
<br />
Obviously, there was almost no way for Princeton to remain afloat with Hummer taking 30 percent of the possessions and a quasi-double-team with him to the bench, but Koon managed to keep the Tigers respectable in a way that none of the other returning stars could. While a usage rate of 20.5 percent isn't going to be enough to compensate, Koon posted a usage rate of at least 27 percent of on floor possessions five times during Ivy play and finished with an offensive rating above 100 in all of them. The question is whether he can be as successful without the 79th best assist man in the nation (Hummer) rewarding his cuts with a nifty feed for the bucket.<br />
<br />
If Koon can't step up his usage rate, the offensive burden will likely fall on Bray - the only other player with a demonstrated ability of getting to the rim and finishing efficiently. The 6'5 senior guard has come a long way from the player that consumed just 11 percent of the on-court possessions and took just eight percent of the shots as a freshman, but at just 18 percent in each as a junior, he still hasn't advanced beyond role player status three years into his college career. That 20 percent threshold can be a difficult one to cross with every marginal possession being of poorer and poorer quality. If Bray winds up being the man for Princeton, the title might come at the expense of his 113 offensive rating, which ranked him among the top 300 players nationally last season.<br />
<br />
While there is reason to be hopeful, Princeton fans must keep in mind that the last player to lead the Tigers in usage rate not named Hummer was Zach Finley. It might take Princeton awhile to figure out things on the offensive end. By the time Ivies roll around, however, expect the Tigers to be a thorn in the side of the contenders if they don't have an outside shot at the title themselves.<br />
<br />
<i>Yale - 100 ORAT, 100 DRAT; 0.5014 Pythag; No. 170 Nationally</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
Quick: Which Ivy team has won the most league games over the past seven seasons - Penn, Princeton or Yale?<br />
<br />
The answer is all of the above, as the trio finished tied for third over that span with 56 Ivy victories, just three games behind Harvard and nine behind Cornell. That stat becomes all the more surprising when you consider that of the five, Yale is the only one not to win a title during that timeframe and hasn't even crept closer than three games back during any of those seven campaigns. The Bulldogs brilliance lies not necessarily in excellence, but rather consistently being good. It's the hallmark of a team that has finished in fourth place or better in the Ivy League for an astounding 13 straight seasons.<br />
<br />
But last year, that streak seemed all but dead. A desperate rally at Harvard had fallen short and a disappointing loss at Dartmouth had followed, dropping the Bulldogs to just 1-3 in Ivy play. Over its final 10 games, though, Yale would rise from the ashes, grabbing a season sweep of Princeton among its seven victories during that span, matching Harvard for the best record over the final five Ivy weekends.<br />
<br />
While it might have seemed like the usual sneaky James Jones third- or fourth-place finish, nothing was ordinary about last year's edition of the Bulldogs. In the 11 years of the Pomeroy era, only one Jones team shot worse from the field and none shot worse from inside the arc. Yale grabbed two full percentage points more offensive rebounds than it had ever corralled before and it made it to the free throw line at a record clip. On the other end, it never issued so many free passes to the charity stripe nor did it ever allow such proficient shooting from beyond the arc. All told, it was Jones' second-best offensive team of the Pomeroy era and his fourth-worst defensive team.<br />
<br />
Despite the strong close to the season and the clear evidence that this Bulldogs squad is unlike the typical Jones offering, most pundits seem to discount Yale's chances for reasons that don't hold up under examination.<br />
<br />
The Bulldogs lack of a point guard is the most common noted flaw, as they lost both Austin Morgan (not really a point guard) and Michael Grace to graduation. But Yale actually played worse with either player or both players on the court last year that it did with them off of it. Morgan hoisted up two-thirds of his shots from three, and 87 percent were off of a pass, so he was hardly creating shots, while Grace was creating shots for himself and others, but half the time the shots he took were of the very low percentage two-point jumper variety.<br />
<br />
Javier Duren provided a little better assist rate than Grace, while also posting a much better shooting percentage on both two-point jumpers (a mark that will likely decline) and shots at the rim (which should continue to be excellent). It's unclear why he's not considered a logical choice at the point, as he might even be a slight upgrade. Armani Cotton and Justin Sears can attack the rim and finish at rates that former All-Ivy Yale swingman Reggie Willhite only touched in his best seasons in New Haven. Those guards and combo forwards can also rebound at astounding rates, meaning that Yale's undersized post players won't be as exposed as they might otherwise be.<br />
<br />
That's not to say the Bulldogs are without flaws. Of the six players to take more than 40 threes last season, four made over a third of their tries and three of those have graduated. Yale could struggle mightily against teams that can keep the Bulldogs from getting to the rim without sending them to the free throw line and might even wind up seeing more zone than most if opponents do the proper scouting. The Bulldogs were 7-4 in games where they posted a Free Throw Rate over 50 percent last season (and won all but one while posting an eFG under 54%). They were 7-13 otherwise (and only won two while posting an eFG under 54%).<br />
<br />
In essence, that pretty much makes Yale Harvard without the same shooting and depth. The way the Ivy League is shaping up this season that should be plenty good enough for an upper division finish, and quite possibly even the role of the number one contender.Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06461922638043769098noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-645749475857315124.post-40479471079489476452012-12-02T11:53:00.001-05:002012-12-02T11:53:19.632-05:00Where Does The Ivy League Really Stand?Anyone who has looked at the RPI realizes that the Ivy League had fallen from its recent perch, squarely in the teens, first to the absolute bottom of the list before rebounding to the high 20s.<br />
<br />
While the league has struggled this season, the binary win-loss nature of the RPI is currently punishing the Ivies far too much for their close losses, something which should even out and lead to the league's rise over the next month.<br />
<br />
Pomeroy tells a different story, as the league sits 15th nationally, primarily on the strength of the overly generous preseason rankings, which are still biasing the team ratings in his system.<br />
<br />
The ultimate answer likely lies in between the two. Massey's composite rankings, which look at a wide ranging group of ranking systems, have the Ivy League in 21st, and Sagarin's predictive model has the league 25th. If forced to pick a narrow range within which the Ivies would be likely to fall, those boundaries sound as good as any.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
In my own personal Pomeroy-style model, I have the league's average Pythagorean Win Percentage at .3745, which would place the league 24th in Pomeroy's rankings. That happens to fit quite nicely with the range discussed above.<br />
<br />
From a historical perspective, that would still rank the league ninth best of the 33 seasons of the Ivy Academic Index Era. If that seems high by the eye test, keep in mind that the last three seasons of Pythagorean averages were 2010 (.3804), 2011 (.4228) and 2012 (.4631). It may just be that we Ivy fans have become so accustomed to solid play that we've forgotten how horrible the league's bad teams were many years.<br />
<br />
The same potential deception applies to this season's Ivy race as well. Over the past three seasons, the league has boasted some very powerful squads that seemed to punish non-conference opponents, notching intimidating wins with very few no-show performances. Cornell won at Alabama and St. John's in 2010. Harvard and Princeton combined to beat Colorado, Boston College, Rutgers and Tulsa - all Top 100 teams - in 2011. Last year, the Crimson won the Battle 4 Atlantis taking down Florida St. and beat St. Joseph's.<br />
<br />
Sure, this season, Columbia has already posted a signature win at a Top 100 Villanova squad, but the frequent missteps (the Lions losing at home to Marist, for instance) have grabbed more of the headlines. The result is a thesis that the league is comprised of eight flawed teams, making the title chase wide open.<br />
<br />
A deeper look at the numbers reveals that it, indeed, is not.<br />
<br />
First of all, the Ivies have three bad teams that have no chance of winning the league - Brown, Dartmouth and Yale (all in the 290s nationally in my model). The Bears have played better defense this season, probably due both to new coach Mike Martin's instance that they do such and to the addition of a true interior defensive presence in Rafael Maia. For its part, the Big Green has locked opposing offenses down for vast stretches as well, but Dartmouth has absolutely no offense of which to speak. The Bulldogs weren't expected to fall quite this far after losing Greg Mangano and Reggie Willhite to graduation, but Yale has been horribly inconsistent and generally awful on both ends of the court thus far.<br />
<br />
Then, there's the middle crew of Cornell and Penn, which both sit in the 240s nationally in my model. The Big Red's offense has been the highest variance of any in the league by far, and its defensive variance ranks in the league's upper half. That means a different Cornell team every night, which is great for springing a random upset, but horrible for winning a test of consistency like the 14-Game Tournament. The Quakers have been exactly the opposite - consistent, but consistently bad. Penn has had six of its eight individual game Pythagorean Win Percentages between .1700 and .2600. Teams don't win a lot of games playing that poorly.<br />
<br />
Finally, there are the league's contenders: Columbia (194th), Harvard (111th) and Princeton (104th).<br />
<br />
The Lions' two losses to Marist and San Francisco reminded everyone of how this team can play remarkably poorly just when you think they might be really, really good. In fact, Columbia did that within the same game last night, hopping up by 17 on Bucknell before having its entire frontcourt land in foul trouble and ultimately losing the game by eight.<br />
<br />
Similarly, the Crimson has shown its relatively unknown bench players, who have been pressed into service after losing four of five starters from last year, are very talented, but very raw from a game management perspective. A new problem has popped up every night for Harvard, as poor coverage of pick and rolls yielded too many open shots against Vermont and overzealous help defense led to multiple layups and offensive rebounds for Fordham.<br />
<br />
The Tigers miss shooters Douglas Davis and Patrick Saunders greatly, as Princeton's offense has struggled for vast stretches of time and turnovers have resulted from the lack of comfort on that end.<br />
<br />
So, the Ivy League does have eight flawed teams. Focusing on those flaws, though, misses the positives from each squad that ultimately separate two or three of the squads from the other five or six.<br />
<br />
Princeton's defense has been way better than expected, almost on par with that 2009-2010 squad that shut down a high-octane Cornell team twice. Harvard has four of the league's top seven players in offensive rating (allocated points per possession). Columbia has the best inside-out duo in the league in Brian Barbour and Mark Cisco, not to mention the fact that Barbour can take over a game like a Zack Rosen.<br />
<br />
Those are strong statements to make in a weak league. Thus, it should be no surprise that four of the league's top five performances to this point (and nine of the Top 15) have come from the Columbia, Harvard and Princeton trio. The only other team with at least two Top 15 games thus far is Cornell, but the Big Red also has three of the league's worst 11 showings.<br />
<br />
While it's been hard to grasp where the league truly stands through the noise of this opening month, hopefully the analysis above provides a little clarity. In reality, we're not far from where we started. The Ivies are likely a low-to-mid 20s league. Princeton is no longer the prohibitive favorite it seemed in the preseason, but all that's done is to bring the presumptive second and third place teams (Harvard and Columbia) closer to the title chase. With youth driving the league's production for better or worse this season, what is quite clear is that this lull will likely be a short one, as the Ivies should improve greatly over the next couple of seasons.Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06461922638043769098noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-645749475857315124.post-24240481361093825862012-10-05T09:57:00.000-04:002012-10-05T09:57:43.715-04:00The 2012-13 Ivy Basketball Projection PostIt was going to be <a href="http://ivybasketball.blogspot.com/2010/11/previewing-2010-2011-14-game-tournament.html">2010-11 all over again</a>.<br />
<br />
A talented Harvard team, full of potential, against a gritty, veteran Princeton unit with the league's best two-way player (Kareem Maddox, then, and Ian Hummer now) in a showdown for another Ivy title. The Crimson appeared to be the slight favorites in that hypothetical horse race, boasting a much stronger reservoir of young talent to fill out its rotation than the Tigers had accumulated over the past couple years.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/basketball/ncaa/09/10/harvard-casey/index.html">Then, this happened.</a><br />
<br />
Harvard lost its best player (Kyle Casey) and its most important player (Brandyn Curry) in one 24-hour news cycle, which when combined with the graduation losses of Keith Wright and Oliver McNally left the Crimson down four starters from last year's NCAA tournament squad. Oh, and throw in rotation guard Corbin Miller, who left the team to fulfill his two-year religious mission obligation. Those five players accounted for 62 percent of last year's total offensive possessions and included three of Harvard's four best defenders by Adjusted Plus-Minus. Most importantly, that list also included the only three Crimson players to see any time at point guard last season (Curry, McNally, Miller).<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
Ivy League teams just can't recover from such a talent drain, which would apply if Harvard were an ordinary Ivy team. But this Crimson team has been rather loudly stockpiling quality prospects like no other squad over the past 15 years.<br />
<br />
From 1997 to 2008, 37 freshman were able to crack the rotation and post an offensive rating of over 100 (national average, and above average for an Ivy player). Penn led the charge with eight such players (22% of total). Cornell followed with seven (19%), and Princeton was third with five (14%).<br />
<br />
Now, fast forward to the Amaker era. Over the past four years, there have been 15 freshman to meet the qualifications above. Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Penn and Yale have each had one. Princeton had two. Harvard has had the other seven (47%).<br />
<br />
This superficial view obviously glosses over a number of factors, but the magnitudes are important. The Crimson has managed to bring in almost as much talent in four years as the Quakers did in 12 and almost as much talent as the rest of the league has as a whole. Even if we include the players that are clearly wrongly excluded by this analysis (Brown's Tucker Halpern and Sean McGonagill, Cornell's Shonn Miller, Harvard's Keith Wright, Princeton's Doug Davis and Ian Hummer, Penn's Zack Rosen and Miles Cartwright and Yale's Jeremiah Kreisberg - all of whom either were very close or missed due to an insane usage rate for a freshman), the Crimson would still have eight of the 24 talented rookies (33%) and the nearest competitor would have four.<br />
<br />
This isn't the first time the league has experienced an insane talent gap for incoming players. In the early 2000s, Penn coach Fran Dunphy dominated the relatively shallow pool that defines the Ivy recruiting landscape. He nabbed six freshmen in five years who posted offensive ratings over 100 as rookies, while no other team mustered more than three.<br />
<br />
His 2002-2003 squad remains one of the 10 best of the AI era and torched through the Ivy League en route to an 11 seed. But after the disappointing first round loss to Oklahoma State, Dunphy had to face a startling reality - only 36 percent of his team's possessions were returning next season.<br />
<br />
The average Pythagorean Win Percentage drop for a team returning fewer than 40 percent of its possessions has been 0.272. The 2003-2004 Penn team fell just 0.072 points and remained the best team in the league by Pythag (though the Quakers did lose the Ivy race to Princeton, possibly a manifestation of the common theories about experience).<br />
<br />
If that comp is heartwarming to Crimson fans, a more recent one won't be. The only other Top 10 Ivy team of the AI era to return fewer than 60 percent of its possessions was 2010-11 Cornell, and that Big Red squad tumbled 0.426 Pythag points finishing way back in the league race. Unlike the 2003-2004 Penn squad, however, Cornell lagged far behind its Ivy brethren in the recruiting race over the years immediately preceding the mass graduation departures.<br />
<br />
While the Harvard discussion is fascinating from the perspective of adding a data point to the talent versus experience argument, ultimately the question that this analysis ponders is who is likely to win the league and just how likely. And the answer to those questions are Princeton and very.<br />
<br />
After stumbling to a 2-3 Ivy start, the Tigers were essentially written off, especially since Penn and Harvard were two and three-games clear, respectively. So, I'll forgive you for not noticing when Princeton closed 8-1 and posted the second-best Ivy Pythagorean Win Percentage (0.728) behind Harvard (0.797). With the Tigers returning an above-average percent of total possessions (73 percent) and the Quakers and Crimson down in the 30s and 40s, Princeton almost becomes the default choice. That's before considering that it has the preseason frontrunner for Ivy Player of the Year and nearly has twice the home court advantage of the next closest Ivy over the past 20 years.<br />
<br />
Harvard and Penn weren't the only teams to suffer graduation losses or adverse postseason news that dropped them from contender status. Columbia had a remarkable 2011-12 campaign even after losing its presumed star Noruwa Agho for the year, as it managed to finish as the third best Lions team in the AI era. Agho was supposed to be back with the team for a second shot at his senior season, but despite being back on campus finishing up his degree, he decided not to return to the basketball team, a crucial blow to a squad that had the makings of a potential contender.<br />
<br />
The past is nice, but let's take a gander at the future. First, we'll start with the basics: Ivy title odds and projected wins and losses.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidsqUpeNWspHrfPJIlZ4uO_YPdCtvZ1pEgsjpoyzZbMLYB-pxbO6ABBwzbn7HGaRj-Zyblc_EiQzLjwJ86i2O-d-7C1_6uaRY0wi-710KZ5GyWYcPGDkYdO58Ayo32JLTaId3HSmwIvzo/s1600/Title+Odds.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidsqUpeNWspHrfPJIlZ4uO_YPdCtvZ1pEgsjpoyzZbMLYB-pxbO6ABBwzbn7HGaRj-Zyblc_EiQzLjwJ86i2O-d-7C1_6uaRY0wi-710KZ5GyWYcPGDkYdO58Ayo32JLTaId3HSmwIvzo/s1600/Title+Odds.JPG" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
If there’s one thing the model has been good at thus far, it’s
picking winners. In 2010-11, it liked a Harvard-Princeton tie, with the Tigers
as slight favorites in a playoff. In 2011-12, it heavily favored a stacked
Crimson squad, which it had sitting on the cusp of the Top 50 nationally
(Harvard finished 44th).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This year, the scales have swung back toward Princeton,
which the model prefers in a rout – though not quite as strongly as last year’s
Crimson team. A decimated Harvard squad still has a fair chance of cobbling
together a three-peat and its second-straight NCAA berth, but that’s pretty
weak consolation for a team that was the betting favorite just a couple months
back.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Don’t count out Columbia and Cornell, either. As happened
last year with Penn, in a 14-game season, aligning a few positive bounces at
key moments can be the difference between finishing a few games back and having
a shot at the title in the season’s final game. If Princeton stumbles in a few league
games and makes 10-4 or 11-3 the record to beat, it’s very possible that one of
the Lions or Big Red could match that mark.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2qtu5PWkhtNlasvacCgsFcTuuhe5Tf2COG5Hq-MoN7D6l3pwXPTADAkEC0AIcp-nsJVF3rFdAR0XfKfT82aY-7ovJW8l7PpJcs-lSBNX0PF9GwV0IOZJHFjf0pt95uk4glhGhChbLHfA/s1600/W-L+Ivy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="185" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2qtu5PWkhtNlasvacCgsFcTuuhe5Tf2COG5Hq-MoN7D6l3pwXPTADAkEC0AIcp-nsJVF3rFdAR0XfKfT82aY-7ovJW8l7PpJcs-lSBNX0PF9GwV0IOZJHFjf0pt95uk4glhGhChbLHfA/s400/W-L+Ivy.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Please note that the Overall W-L only includes scheduled games and does not project yet to be determined matchups in "multi-team events." Another caveat is that all of the figures have been rounded, which leads to some minor issues. For one, Princeton is projected to finish 2.2 wins ahead of Harvard and just 3.1 wins ahead of Columbia.<br />
<br />
The model projects Dartmouth to finish last, a place it has occupied every year since Alex Barnett went crazy on the league in 2009.<br />
<br />
Along with the average, it's important to look at the projected variance of Ivy wins to get a sense of the probable range one can expect for any team.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj34gPUAKcHzPz9w77I1H47hgpfs4bb3cBMIU0jOHSckLSBfubs420btZwd_vDMofJNIdO47fOydJEUDX8OsOx1ux0Bxm9pzrQVFsQJEbnJlWcWMnluh1yvPIS8cGHfBEjZN9-VsH0FByM/s1600/Ivy+Win+Distribution.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="66" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj34gPUAKcHzPz9w77I1H47hgpfs4bb3cBMIU0jOHSckLSBfubs420btZwd_vDMofJNIdO47fOydJEUDX8OsOx1ux0Bxm9pzrQVFsQJEbnJlWcWMnluh1yvPIS8cGHfBEjZN9-VsH0FByM/s400/Ivy+Win+Distribution.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Much like last year, while no individual team other than Princeton is projected to post double-digit Ivy wins, it's very likely that at least one from the group of Columbia, Cornell and Harvard will. Dartmouth is the only team at a remote risk of losing every league game, and the Tigers have an outside shot at posting the first 14-0 campaign since 2007-2008 Cornell.<br />
<br />
While the Lions, Big Red and Crimson seem to have the inside track to the remaining upper division spots, the variance analysis makes it clear that it should be no great surprise if Penn or Yale sneaks in there, as both are 15 to 20 percent to finish with eight or more league wins.<br />
<br />
The final thing to note is the general width of the spreads. With just 14 games, a lot of craziness can happen. Columbia's projection based on its actual Ivy performance last year was 6.2-7.8, but it went 2-7 in games decided by five points or less or in overtime and wound up finishing 4-10. Penn went 5-0 in the same type of games and turned a 9.4-4.6 expectation into an 11-3 mark. That's why almost every Ivy team is at least 10% to finish at five different win totals - a string of bad bounces in a short 14-game format can knock a team far off its true W-L expectation.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimtVflDhcaWIVuGySLOv2ygRIH3DF5I4cTb2VfEph5fovx4-cPGHbAbXDhNPzDRaYseXHnr2aifNFcLCbcg_rDjFqYg9GPPAeurVsHlqauLSlfV39XQbr2-gO6iHGjmlYJBSsptOniR48/s1600/Pomeroy+Rank.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="182" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimtVflDhcaWIVuGySLOv2ygRIH3DF5I4cTb2VfEph5fovx4-cPGHbAbXDhNPzDRaYseXHnr2aifNFcLCbcg_rDjFqYg9GPPAeurVsHlqauLSlfV39XQbr2-gO6iHGjmlYJBSsptOniR48/s320/Pomeroy+Rank.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
For those who inhabit the tempo-free world, here are the Pomeroy numbers for each team and the implied Pomeroy rank (based on a generic distribution of teams). The Ivy League has had at least one team finish in the Top 100 during each of the last three seasons and five teams total during that span. That stretch followed up three years of no Ivy cracking the Top 100.<br />
<br />
Princeton is the league's best hope for extending the streak, but a lot rests on it bouncing back defensively. After boasting the 36th stingiest defense in the nation during Ian Hummer's freshman season, the Tigers have slid back over the past couple seasons, all the way back to 121st last year. That's not a huge concern if the Ivy's best offense in league play last season keeps humming along, but serious questions loom after graduating 120 three-pointers converted at over a 40 percent clip. Princeton still has plenty of offensive weapons, but it just won't be as equipped to win 95-86 shootouts like it did over Evansville in the CBI last season.<br />
<br />
Overall, the league's defense was very good last season, with five teams ranking above average nationally. That trend should continue this year, as many of the league's teams have gotten more athletic, bigger or both. In league play last season, Ivy teams corralled 73 percent of the defensive boards, which was the second-highest rate of any Division I conference. Harvard, Columbia, Dartmouth and Yale all finished in the Top 50 nationally in defensive rebounding, generating tons of stops that can quickly drop an opposing team's points per possession.<br />
<br />
The offense is quite a different story. Of the 14 players to use at least 20 percent of their teams' possessions and post an offensive rating of over 100 during the last campaign, just four will be playing this season. That doesn't even include various glue guys like Oliver McNally, Rob Belcore, Drew Ferry and Patrick Saunders - all of whom didn't hit the possession usage target. Top-to-bottom, the league is as well positioned to replace the lost talent as it ever has been during the AI era, but with so many key players to replace, it will still take time for the skilled newcomers to get adjusted to playing significant minutes at the Division I level.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<b>TEAM BY TEAM BRIEFS:</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Brown - </b>With Tucker Halpern returning to a squad which was also adding two key frontcourt newcomers, the Bears looked poised to make a huge jump in the Ivy pecking order. Then, Brown lost Andrew McCarthy and Dockery Walker - two of its three most experience post players - in short order this offseason, severely damaging the Bears' interior depth. Now, Rafael Maia and Cedric Kuakumensah must provide quality minutes alongside Tyler Ponticelli for Brown to take a step forward in Ivy play.<br />
<br />
The starting guard play will be solid, but not spectacular, while the backcourt depth will be quite the opposite. The Bears can win some games if they play slow and get hot from behind the perimeter, but if they get lured into track meets, the lack of depth will bury their chances.<br />
<br />
<b>Columbia -</b> It was about to be the Lions' year. Well, to contend, at least. With Noruwa Agho's puzzling decision not to return for his senior season, though, Columbia lost a crucial piece at guard - a position where it already lacks serious depth. The Lions do have two quality All-Ivy pieces in Brian Barbour and Mark Cisco, as well as promising young guard Meiko Lyles and forward Alex Rosenberg.<br />
<br />
Beyond that, though, there's just potential. But lots and lots of potential.<br />
<br />
Sophomores Steve Frankoski and Noah Springwater and junior Van Green are the key pieces in providing the backcourt depth necessary to contend. At the very least, some strong output from those three could have the Lions looking at their first postseason appearance since 1968.<br />
<br />
<b>Cornell -</b> The slow rebuilding process should take another step forward this year. Errick Peck returns to the lineup after missing a year with injury, joining sophomore Shonn Miller to give the Big Red an embarrassment of riches at the combo forward spot. Combined with some serviceable and intriguing big men, Cornell has cobbled together a pretty solid group at the 3-4-5.<br />
<br />
The guard spots are a complete mess, however. Chris Wroblewski and Drew Ferry, who combined for 126 and 132 threes in consecutive seasons, each graduated leaving the Big Red with a hodge podge of shooting guards who can't shoot and ball handlers with no handle. Cornell has been bringing in guards by the bushel over the last couple seasons, so there should be plenty of options from which to choose in order to find a solution. If the Big Red can find two good ones, it might hang around in the Ivy race longer than most would expect.<br />
<br />
<b>Dartmouth - </b>A couple years ago, the Big Green staged a coup shortly before the Ivy opener, deposing its then-coach Terry Dunn and officially hitting rock bottom as a program. Dartmouth sank to 340th in the Pomeroy Rankings, beating out just seven Division I teams (a few of them programs transitioning to the higher level).<br />
<br />
The Big Green went back to the well, hiring Paul Cormier for a second go-around in Hanover. Cormier got to work immediately, focusing exclusively on bringing in many, many players who could potentially have Division I talent. Last season, his first full recruiting cycle, he brought in six guys and found three that could produce above replacement level. This year, he brought in seven more with as many as four looking like potential positive VORP guys in this league.<br />
<br />
There will come a time when Dartmouth will think about filling spots or improving at certain positions, but for now, Cormier is doing the right thing. He's indiscriminately throwing talent at the problem. And that just might be enough to get his squad out of the Ivy cellar this season.<br />
<br />
<b>Harvard -</b> Five freshmen. Five sophomores. Five juniors and seniors combined.<br />
<br />
Those five juniors and seniors played a combined 40 minutes per game last year, while the five sophomores joined together to log 34. Yet despite all of the losses, there's still an incredibly interesting core to work with here.<br />
<br />
Laurent Rivard and Christian Webster have each posted two years of three-point shooting percentages above 38. Wesley Saunders, who found himself among Rivals' Top 100 recruits coming out of high school, led the Crimson in scoring in Italy, while Kyle Casey and Brandyn Curry were still with the program. Steve Moundou-Missi ranked top five in the Ivy League in Adjusted Defensive Plus-Minus last year.<br />
<br />
While those individual highlights are impressive, the sum total is not a team (even aside from the fact that only four players were mentioned). Harvard will have to rely on true freshman Siyani Chambers at the point. It will likely need starter's minutes from talented, but raw, Kenyatta Smith. Finally, it will need a few freshman to provide meaningful depth, since all of the quality rotation players the Crimson had expected to employ will now be starting. That's a lot of pieces to fall into place. Maybe the talent can smooth over some of the rough edges, but to fill all the gaps is probably asking too much.<br />
<br />
<b>Penn -</b> There are many ways to express the enormity of what Zack Rosen accomplished last year, but here's is my favorite, by far:<br />
<br />
Rosen used one out of every four Penn possessions last year and producing 1.13 points per. The other 75 percent of the Quakers' possessions resulted in an average output of just 0.99 points. Merely replacing Rosen's possessions with that average would have cost Penn roughly 30 Pomeroy Ranking spots. So, it should be of no surprise that Rosen's 2012 campaign was the fourth-best offensive showing of any Ivy player since 1997.<br />
<br />
Add to the list of necessary replacements Tyler Bernardini and Rob Belcore, and its easy to see why few pundits have the Quakers cracking the Ivy's upper division, much less repeating as first runner-up. It's Miles Cartwright's turn to be the man now, and an above average frontcourt will be there to support him defensively. Whether or not Penn can be competitive at all, though, comes down to the development of its promising freshman guards.<br />
<br />
<b>Princeton -</b> While there is no doubt that the Tigers are the prohibitive Ivy favorite (barring further backcourt injuries), Princeton is shaping up to be the weakest champion since Cornell took home its second of three-straight titles in 2009.<br />
<br />
Much like Zack Rosen, Ian Hummer used one out of every four offensive possessions for Princeton last year (again, that's total, not just during the time he was on the floor). With Douglas Davis bombing with precision early and often from outside, the Tigers' role players found themselves with tons of space and relatively little urgency to contribute on the offensive end. In fact, no one else on the Princeton team took more than 20 percent of the team's shots when on the floor, as Hummer and Davis were chewing up 57 percent of the attempts when out there together.<br />
<br />
That raises some obvious questions. Can T.J. Bray's 40 percent accuracy from deep hold up when instead of taking one in every nine shots for his team, he has to take closer to one in five? Which reserve guard will step up to chew up minutes at the off guard spot, and will he struggle without the safety net of a low usage rate? These questions are relatively minor compared to what all of the other Ivies are currently facing, which is why Princeton is a strong favorite. They're still much stronger questions than an Ivy favorite has faced recently, though, making it likely that this year will be a step back for the league.<br />
<br />
<b>Yale -</b> Greg Mangano and Reggie Willhite would have been huge losses for their offensive contributions alone, as they ate up over 40 percent of Yale's possessions at a well above average efficiency rate. The problem is that those two guys were also among the league's Top 10 defensive players, as well.<br />
<br />
It will be a different league without the villainous Mangano roaming in the paint, going back-and-forth not only with fellow players, but also opposing fans. For that matter, the Bulldogs will be a different team, too.<br />
<br />
Coach James Jones is a cagey veteran, though. With Austin Morgan draining threes, Jeremiah Kreisberg anchoring the paint and point guard Michael Grace making plays (when he holds onto the ball), Yale still has a solid core with All-Ivy talent. As usual, Jones has done a great job of stockpiling productive Ivy players who flew a bit under the radar and now can unleash guys like Jesse Pritchard, Brandon Sherrod and Justin Sears to fill the gaping holes left by Mangano and Willhite.<br />
<br />
In a weaker edition of the league, Jones might still be a lock to guide his squad back to the upper division, as he has done every year since 2000. In the "new Ivy League," however, it takes two dynamic two-way players just to finish fourth. It's hard to see him hitting that mark again with significantly less talent this year.Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06461922638043769098noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-645749475857315124.post-38304857832479469152011-11-13T22:25:00.000-05:002011-11-13T22:25:35.049-05:00Noruwa Agho Takes 25 Shots, And Other Things That Happened This WeekendHard to argue that the most surprising performances of the weekend came in Ivy showdowns with the Big East, of all conferences.<br />
<br />
The league's No. 7 seed, Columbia, waltzed into Gampel and gave the defending champion UConn quite the battle for 40 minutes. Meanwhile Ivy No. 8 seed Dartmouth was within a possession of Rutgers before ultimately falling by six.<br />
<br />
The rest of the weekend was a combination of okay and downright scary results. Brown and Harvard took care of their Division III opponents with relative ease. Penn pulled away late to coast to a win in an ugly game against UMBC. Yale used an 18-1 run to open up a commanding lead on Central Connecticut, only to have the Blue Devils close a 14-point deficit to one with under two to play before the Bulldogs closed out a 73-69 victory.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
Cornell and Princeton were the biggest losers of the weekend, as the Big Red had no answers for Andrew Nicholson and St. Bonaventure in a 21-point defeat and the Tigers looked lost in their first game under Mitch Henderson, committing 28 turnovers while getting steamrolled at home by Wagner.<br />
<br />
<b>ON THEIR WAY UP</b><br />
<br />
<ul><li>As suspected, Dartmouth's freshman can at the very least hold their own in a Division I basketball game, which is a huge development for the Big Green. But let's hold off on effusive praise just yet. John Golden went 3-for-12 en route to his eight points, and J'Vonte Brooks' team-leading offensive efficiency is a little less surprising when you consider that he used just 10.8% of possessions and took just 5.3% of his team's shots.</li>
<li>Tickets went on sale today for the Blaise Staab bandwagon. He was the Lions best player against the Huskies, but skepticism is the prevailing feeling here. Might be worth picking up an option for a first class seat, but I wouldn't board just yet.</li>
<li>And the best Harvard rookie is... Steve Moundou-Missi? The 6'7 Montverde product got 25 minutes against MIT and was a rebounding machine on both ends of the floor. Wesley Saunders logged just 10 minutes in the opener, though his solid performance probably earned him more time going forward.</li>
<li>Zack Rosen showed up to play basketball on Friday. That shouldn't be too much of a surprise to Ivy followers. But Mike Howlett logging 21 good minutes with high quality production is positive news for the Quakers. Howlett deserves a full, healthy season after all he's been through.</li>
<li>Greg Mangano used over 30 percent of his team's possessions and took 37 percent of its shots, knocked down a couple threes, grabbed 13 rebounds, blocked two shots and rescued a kitten from a tree en route to his 350th career double-double. He's your 2011-2012 Ivy POY. It's just going to happen.</li>
<li>Reggie Willhite had a monster day as well (9-of-14 shooting, six rebounds, six steals) and could be a dangerous 'X' factor in Yale's quest for an Ivy title.</li>
</ul><div><b>FREE FALLING</b></div><div><ul><li>The top five players by minutes for Princeton all turned the ball over at least four times each. Ian Hummer, for some reason, launched three treys (he actually made one). Will Barrett had a nice offensive outing, but managed to foul out in just 17 minutes on the court. The Tigers shot the ball well when they actually held onto it, but this was the worst Ivy performance of the weekend.</li>
<li>Barely edging Cornell's, that is. Chris Wroblewski had an uncharacteristically poor performance, despite his eight assists. Johnathan Gray and Drew Ferry combined to go 5-for-17 from the field. St. Bonaventure also was able to dominate the glass, as was expected, given Nicholson's status as a NBA draft prospect.</li>
<li>Noruwa Agho dropped 16 points on UConn. On 25 shots. Here we go again.</li>
<li>Penn's defense was stifling, but its offense struggled. Aside from Rosen, the team shot 11-for-35 from the field, had six offensive rebounds and turned the ball over 11 times.</li>
</ul></div>Michael Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06461922638043769098noreply@blogger.com1