The Case For Harvard (Or Other Small Programs) For the Last At-Large Spots

I think they should look at a team like Harvard, who just lost the Ivy League playoff in crushing fashion on a shot at the buzzer. Do I think that Harvard is any better than a handful of other teams that will be in consideration for those spots? No, not on average. But it’s all about confidence, and your philosophy on filling out a bracket.

At the top of the bracket, I would seed teams that have proven they can beat teams, and would favor those with more results over those with less. If they’ve proven it over a larger sample, you can be more certain of your judgment. But the same works in reverse at the other end of the at-large pool. I am less sure about Harvard’s mediocrity than I am about some teams from the Big Ten, SEC, or ACC. Some of those teams have proven to me that they are not really worthy of a run in the tournament.

The committee has historically looked at who you beat. However, that’s a function of opportunity. Michigan State has 5 wins over teams who will likely be in the tournament. Of course, they also have lost 13 games to teams that will be in. So what they have mostly proven is that they can lose to tournament caliber teams (0.278 win pct), and over a large enough sample size we can be confident in that prognosis. Harvard, meanwhile, has losses to George Mason, Michigan, and Connecticut, and a win over Colorado, and another over Boston College. I don’t think BC is in, but that’s either a 1-3 record (.250 win pct) or 2-3 record (.400 win pct) against tournament at-large type teams.

The winning percentages against tournament and non-tournament teams are similar for Harvard and Michigan State. Harvard has just played far fewer, and so we are less certain in our prognosis. I chose Michigan State, but I could just as easily pointed out Georgia (3-11 against tourney at large type teams) or Florida State (2-10) or Clemson (2-7). The committee seems to favor safely taken a below average tournament team, to one that is less certain. There’s probably a reason that some of the largest runs out of lower seeds of the last five years, such as George Mason to the Final Four as an #11 and Davidson to the Elite Eight as a #10, came from teams that had weak schedules and fewer “quality” regular season wins. They hadn’t had a chance to prove they were utterly mediocre. 

Harvard may not be as good as those teams, but I don’t know. I do know they haven’t proven to me they are as mediocre as those teams.

[photo via Getty]