Cornell bball loses @ Princeton

Cornell11 · February 15, 2009, 08:38:17 PM

This is really premature speculation. Cornell was 22-5 last year, with bad losses to Bucknell and Colgate, and still got the highest 14 seed. I don't know if the conference champions from garbage conferences like the Patriot League, NEC, SWAC, etc are going to bump a potentially 23-7 Cornell team down to a 15.

upperdeck · February 16, 2009, 09:20:47 PM

right now the Lunardi stuff has American, nd St vermont and Weber st ahead of cornell as 14 seeds. and you dont really know which other 15 seeds are.

if Cornell can save up a shooting night like the first half vs SU and stay out of foul trouble they have a punchers chance.

interesting in that Lunardi has ND St behind cornell in RPI, vermont even, Weber ahead and American safely ahead.

until Cornell actually takes out a couple of the OC guys in preseason they will never get better than a 14. but if they can avoid the #1 seeds they some day can sneak one.

ugarte · February 17, 2009, 10:54:55 AM

[quote Cornell11]This is really premature speculation. Cornell was 22-5 last year, with bad losses to Bucknell and Colgate, and still got the highest 14 seed. I don't know if the conference champions from garbage conferences like the Patriot League, NEC, SWAC, etc are going to bump a potentially 23-7 Cornell team down to a 15.[/quote]
Premature? The OOC for everyone is over. Things can only get worse for Cornell. I don't know what the future holds but there is definitely enough data for me to give my opinion.

Trotsky · February 17, 2009, 01:58:25 PM

Is the difference between a 14 and a 15 significant? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the difference between losing to a .500 Big 10 school by 30 vs losing to a .500 ACC team by 30.

KeithK · February 17, 2009, 02:46:44 PM

[quote Trotsky]Is the difference between a 14 and a 15 significant? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the difference between losing to a .500 Big 10 school by 30 vs losing to a .500 ACC team by 30.[/quote]
In terms of likely result, probably not. But it is "significant" in the same way that being ranked #5 in the USCHO poll is better than being ranked #11. It looks better and may have some ephemeral positive effect on perceptions.

Jordan 04 · February 17, 2009, 02:52:42 PM

Since the inception of the 64 team field:

The #2 seed has beaten the #15 seed 84 times (95%).
The #3 seed has beaten the #14 seed 73 times (83%).

Cornell11 · February 17, 2009, 03:18:07 PM

Yes, the Out-of-Conference season is over, but no, you don't have enough data to make an informed statement.

As of today, Cornell's RPI is 108. RPI is largely what the selection committee looks at when determining seeding.

As of Joe Lunardi's latest installment of bracketology, Cornell is a 15 seed. When Lunardi puts together his bracket, he assumes that the best team from each traditional, 1-bid mid-major conferences will win their respective postseason tournament and get a bid to the field of 65. However, amongst the 1-bid mid-majors, this assumption is only guaranteed to hold in the Ivy League, where the best team always makes the tournament. In other mid-majors, the number #1 seed fails to win the tournament more than half the time.

So yeah, if the NCAA tournament started today, and the best RPI team won each of their conference tournaments, Cornell would find itself at a 15 seed behind teams like American (RPI: 105), Stephen F. Austin (RPI: 107), Davidson (RPI: 45), and Siena (RPI: 69).

But what happens if, instead of the four teams I listed, the four 2nd place teams won their conferences? That would mean Holy Cross (RPI: 168), Sam Houston (RPI: 110), College of Charleston (RPI: 182), and Fairfield (RPI: 166) would get the automatic bid. This would move Cornell up an entire seed come NCAA tournament time, and its not that unrealistic a scenario. There are about 8-9 teams from traditionally, 1-bid mid majors who are ahead of Cornell in RPI, and not all of them are going to be in the NCAA tournament.

Not to mention, Cornell is very likely to finish the conference season 13-1, having already faced the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th best teams in the conference on the road. If we run the table, we'll be in the top 100 for sure. I'm sure the selection committee will also recognize that we played the majority of the non-conference season without our All-Ivy starting backcourt.

So yeah, your speculation is premature. Bracketology is useless for automatic-bid mid-major teams until we know who wins the conference postseason tournaments.

Cornell11 · February 17, 2009, 03:28:42 PM

The difference between a 2 vs 15 and a 3 vs 14 is marginal, at best. You can account for that 11% difference by saying that typically 14s are better than 15s, and therefore are more likely to beat their competition. The difference between a 2 and 3 is almost non-existent.

The more useful analysis would be to look at one team, and see how they fared against an opponent if they were the 14 seed vs. if they were the 15 seed. If you just compare the numbers like was done above, you're not isolating variables.

At the end of the day, its all about matchups. Stanford could have been ranked a 4 seed, and Cornell a 13, and it would have made no difference because we had no answer to the Lopez twins. Cornell could have been a 15 and competed with #2 Duke; they could have competed with #3 Xavier; they couldn't have competed with #4 UConn. Seeding doesn't matter when you're talking about the difference between a 13 and a 12, 14 and 15, and 1 and 2 (as opposed to if we were talking about an 11 vs a 14, 2 vs a 4). Having said all that, as a Cornellian and fan of the basketball team, for the integrity of the program, I'd rather have a higher seed

Chris '03 · February 17, 2009, 03:52:52 PM

[quote Cornell11] I'm sure the selection committee will also recognize that we played the majority of the non-conference season without our All-Ivy starting backcourt.
[/quote]

I think it's much much more likely the committee couldn't name Cornell's All-Ivy backcourt than it is that they would give a rat's ass about injuries during the first half of the year.

Might they factor that sort of subjective issue in for a traditional power? Sure, it's better for them and their broadcast partners to have teams like Duke, UNC, and Connecticut playing deep into March and April than Cornell, Siena, American, or any other team that is irrelevant as far as winning the tournament is concerned. It matters not who issues the annual beatdown of the Ivy team or what seed they're given. If RPI makes the Ivy champ a 15, they're a 15 whether they lost to Indiana with the entire conference all star team or five chemical engineers they picked up on the way to the airport.

Finally, I really don't think the "integrity" of the program is at issue with what number seed the team is given. They could be a 10 or they could be in the PIG, they still get to say they made the NCAA tournament, something the other 7 teams in the league can't.

And for that matter, I'm not ready to pencil in 13-1 quite yet. I've seen too many Cornell teams choke away promising seasons. I get a sense we'll all be pulling for Penn hard March 10 at the Palestra when Cornell is sitting on 12-2 and Princeton is either 11-2 or 12-1 (speaking of which Penn @ PU tonight on ESPNU). There's a lot of bus ride ahead of this team yet and as PU found, it's not easy to travel anywhere.

Jordan 04 · February 17, 2009, 04:16:33 PM

[quote Cornell11]The difference between a 2 vs 15 and a 3 vs 14 is marginal, at best. You can account for that 11% difference by saying that typically 14s are better than 15s, and therefore are more likely to beat their competition. The difference between a 2 and 3 is almost non-existent.

The more useful analysis would be to look at one team, and see how they fared against an opponent if they were the 14 seed vs. if they were the 15 seed. If you just compare the numbers like was done above, you're not isolating variables.

At the end of the day, its all about matchups. Stanford could have been ranked a 4 seed, and Cornell a 13, and it would have made no difference because we had no answer to the Lopez twins. Cornell could have been a 15 and competed with #2 Duke; they could have competed with #3 Xavier; they couldn't have competed with #4 UConn. Seeding doesn't matter when you're talking about the difference between a 13 and a 12, 14 and 15, and 1 and 2 (as opposed to if we were talking about an 11 vs a 14, 2 vs a 4). Having said all that, as a Cornellian and fan of the basketball team, for the integrity of the program, I'd rather have a higher seed[/quote]

I don't think that 95% success rate vs. 83% success rate is "marginal" at all. That said, obviously our chances of winning depend on the matchup and how we shoot the trey that day, and not on where we are slotted -- the %'s are simply an intended consequences. The 15 seeds will on average be worse than the 14's and the 2's will be better than the 3's.

And it probably doesn't matter a whole lot this year. I am no college basketball expert, but there seems to be an awful lot of parity at the top this year, so a 2 matchup could end up being pretty similar to a 3 matchup.

ugarte · February 17, 2009, 04:54:25 PM

[quote Cornell11]Yes, the Out-of-Conference season is over, but no, you don't have enough data to make an informed statement.[/quote]
Your argument is not that my conclusion is premature: Your argument is that my conclusion is incorrect. I hope that you are right.

Your discussion of other mid-major tournaments is an interesting one, but I doubt that all of the upsets in non-Ivy conferences will lead to having those teams slotted behind Cornell. The RPI is a good guide but they diverge from it in sometimes mysterious ways - if they never did, who would give a shit about Lunardi? Some of the more obvious diversions would benefit Cornell - notably factoring in the early season injuries - but some are going to hurt us - most importantly, the fact that the Ivies were (Harvard - BC aside) total shit in OOC play. It will also hurt if and when Cornell runs the table if they win the conference by 3 games as the Princeton loss comes to look uglier and uglier. I'm also less sure that Cornell will end up top-100 in any event.

Josh '99 · February 17, 2009, 05:13:04 PM

[quote Chris '03]And for that matter, I'm not ready to pencil in 13-1 quite yet. I've seen too many Cornell teams choke away promising seasons. I get a sense we'll all be pulling for Penn hard March 10 at the Palestra when Cornell is sitting on 12-2 and Princeton is either 11-2 or 12-1 (speaking of which Penn @ PU tonight on ESPNU). There's a lot of bus ride ahead of this team yet and as PU found, it's not easy to travel anywhere.[/quote]Definitely agree. We have seven chickens and six eggs, not thirteen chickens.

scoop85 · February 17, 2009, 05:48:44 PM

[quote Chris '03][quote Cornell11] I'm sure the selection committee will also recognize that we played the majority of the non-conference season without our All-Ivy starting backcourt.
[/quote]

I think it's much much more likely the committee couldn't name Cornell's All-Ivy backcourt than it is that they would give a rat's ass about injuries during the first half of the year.

Might they factor that sort of subjective issue in for a traditional power? Sure, it's better for them and their broadcast partners to have teams like Duke, UNC, and Connecticut playing deep into March and April than Cornell, Siena, American, or any other team that is irrelevant as far as winning the tournament is concerned. It matters not who issues the annual beatdown of the Ivy team or what seed they're given. If RPI makes the Ivy champ a 15, they're a 15 whether they lost to Indiana with the entire conference all star team or five chemical engineers they picked up on the way to the airport.

Finally, I really don't think the "integrity" of the program is at issue with what number seed the team is given. They could be a 10 or they could be in the PIG, they still get to say they made the NCAA tournament, something the other 7 teams in the league can't.

And for that matter, I'm not ready to pencil in 13-1 quite yet. I've seen too many Cornell teams choke away promising seasons. I get a sense we'll all be pulling for Penn hard March 10 at the Palestra when Cornell is sitting on 12-2 and Princeton is either 11-2 or 12-1 (speaking of which Penn @ PU tonight on ESPNU). There's a lot of bus ride ahead of this team yet and as PU found, it's not easy to travel anywhere.[/quote]

Hard to see how Princeton will be 12-1, considering they already have two losses:-P

upperdeck · February 17, 2009, 09:37:08 PM

princ lost again tonight to Penn.. cornell can life much easier on itself by winning the next couple of weeks.

ugarte · February 17, 2009, 11:15:28 PM

[quote Chris '03]And for that matter, I'm not ready to pencil in 13-1 quite yet. I've seen too many Cornell teams choke away promising seasons. [/quote]
Really? How many promising seasons did Cornell choke away? I've been following the team since 1990. There are individual games that could have been won that weren't but the number of potential Ivy league champion teams in that time - prior to last year, obviously, was zero. The first team capable of winning the conference not only won the conference, they ran the table.

That said, this year's model has lost to Princeton by 20 and blew a 19 point second half lead against Dartmouth so another conference loss isn't inconceivable. It would, however, be a surprise. Cornell is clearly the class of the league this year and any loss would be a major upset.