Friday, March 22, 2013

News and Notes: Friday Edition

Below, news and notes for Friday...

  • After Harvard's win over New Mexico in the opening round of the NCAA Tournament, the Associated Press wrote, "The Ivy League advanced for the first time since a very good Cornell team made the regional semifinals in 2010. The Mountain West Conference, judged one of the top two leagues in college basketball all season, fell to 1-3 so far this week."
  • Real GM opines, "Harvard didn’t have to execute some unorthodox strategy. This wasn’t Cornell executing yet another version of Carill’s back-cutting offense in their NCAA win. This wasn’t some completely perimeter focused-team."
  • The Ivy League Office writes, "Harvard's win marked the first NCAA Tournament win for an Ivy League school since Cornell's Sweet 16 run in 2010. As a No. 12 seed in East Region, 12th-seeded Cornell beat fifth-seeded Temple (78-65) in the first round and fourth-seeded Wisconsin (87-69) in the second round in Jacksonville, Fla. The Big Red then lost to No. 1 seed Kentucky (62-45) in East Regional semifinals in Syracuse, N.Y."
  • writes of Fran Dunphy's 1-5 NCAA Tournament record at Temple that it, "includes two losses as a No. 5 seed in their tournament opener; in 2010 to Cornell, and, last year, to South Florida."
  • CBS writes, "the Ivy League moves on for the first time since Cornell made the regional semifinals in 2010. This year's standard-bearer is Harvard -- that school we've all heard of, but not usually this time of year."  See also ESPN.
  • The San Francisco Chronicle/Bloomberg writes, "With the win by the Crimson, Ivy League schools improved to 41-76 in NCAA tournament history. The Ivy League is now 3-13 since 2000, with the two previous wins coming from Cornell University in 2010, when the Big Red upset Temple and Wisconsin to reach the final 16."
  • USA Today writes, "Amaker and Harvard, meanwhile, are starting to study Arizona after becoming just the second Ivy League school to win an NCAA tournament game since 2000. Cornell advanced to the Sweet 16 in 2010."
  • Fox Sports reviews the Ivy League teams in the NCAA Tournament and writes:
The most successful Ivy team in recent memory was the 2010 Cornell squad. Those Big Red managed to break the win column for the first time in their history by defeating Temple and Wisconsin to reach the Sweet 16 before losing to Kentucky in a regional semifinal.
  • And... RDS writes, "Harvard signe la première victoire de l'histoire de l'université dans le tournoi de la NCAA. Les champions de la Ivy League avancent pour la première fois depuis que Cornell s’est rendu en finale régionale en 2010."
  • The Valley News remembers some of the great Dartmouth teams and former Cornell player and All American, Robert Gale.


Anonymous said...

To Anon 12:39 in the previous post, I really don't think people are calling New Mexico a "terrific" team right now. If anything talking heads spent all night calling the Mountain West some variation of "fraud" or "overrated".

The situation with the Mountain West was, the league was considered very good and given high preseason KenPom rankings, RPI, etc. At one point all but 3 teams in the MWC was top 100 KenPom, and 4 were top 30. So when they all played each other, this high RPI/KenPom was reinforced. I believe I heard last night that they had a #2 conference RPI or something, and got a whopping 5 teams into the tourney.

But there was a major problem/caveat: they didn't play many BCS tourney teams, so if the entire Mountain West Conference was overrated, it wouldn't be exposed until the NCAAs. New Mexico for example played only one BCS tourney team (Cincy) and beat them by only 1 point.

At the actual tourney, MWC has gone 1-3 so far. And all the losses are to equal or lesser seeds (3-14, 5-12, & 13-13). SDSU still has to play; they have more big-game tourney experience so they might be alright, but in general, last night was considered a major embarrassment for the MWC, & one that might have exposed how RPI can be gamed.

People should not throw their hands up. Harvard is still the team that lost to Penn, Princeton, and Columbia, and that was taken to OT by Brown and Dartmouth. No completely dominant team struggles across the board like that. If anything, I am disappointed that few other teams in the Ivy are gathering themselves enough to challenge such a clearly beatable top of the league.

Anonymous said...

Harvard winning is a win for Harvard, not for Cornell. It helps make them more visible for recruiting their blue chip prospects who are considering PAC 12-caliber schools.

Anonymous said...

It's good for the entire league, both financially and in terms of visibility, when an Ivy teams wins at the tourney. But it's not good for the entire league when one Ivy team wins the league every year.

If one team wins every year, then a recruit will think he'll never see the NCAA tournament if he's on some Ivy other than the team that wins every year. So he'll go to BU or some Patriot League or America East team that at least has a chance in hell in winning their league.

The Cornell Basketball Blog said...

Harvard was able to out-recruit Penn and Princeton when everyone said the Ps were the only two teams that ever win.

Anonymous said...

That "Real GM" line makes me want to smack my head against the wall. What happened to people researching and knowing what they were talking about when writing stories.

Anonymous said...

So now you're saying that Harvard out-recruited Penn and Princeton on a level playing field, following applicable Ivy League rules?

Anonymous said...

I don't know if my comment got lost somehow, but Tommy Amaker's first year was 2008 when the Ps were in decline & Cornell ultimately won. And a known formerly BCS coach coming into a brand-name school to revamp the program is probably a bigger attractant than even schools that dominate a mid-major but are rarely national threats.

Anonymous said...

And Harvard gets routed. Harvard is not that good. They luckily got a Lobos team that was both overrated and started the game too laxly. Even Belmont was not destroyed as badly as Harvard was. In fact this game made me think Belmont was actually a pretty decent team.

Anonymous said...

ANON 3:46AM-

This Belmont/Harvard comparison is no surprise. Belmont's composite rating (Sagarin, Pomeroy, and RPI) was 40-45, while Harvard's was ~100 at season close.

Belmont just pulled a tough Round 2 draw in AZ. Watch the 'Cats give the Buckeyes a good game Thursday night.