The following is a guest contribution and reflects the author’s views alone. For information on how to submit a piece to the Opinion section, click here.
The field is nearly set for the 2025 Ivy League Women’s Basketball Tournament. No. 2 Princeton will face No. 3 Harvard in a semifinal matchup Friday at Brown in Providence, R.I.
Both teams are fighting for a berth in the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) tournament, and the winner of Friday’s matchup will advance to the championship game of the Ivy tourney with a chance to earn the Ivy League’s automatic bid to March Madness.
But what happens to the team that loses that semifinal?
The conventional wisdom is that the NCAA Selection Committee will find room for two Ivy bids to the field of 68. That was the case last year, when Princeton snatched the automatic bid by winning its fifth consecutive Ivy League Tournament championship and runner-up Columbia earned a second bid as one of 37 at-large invitees.
This year, Princeton deserves a bid regardless of what happens at Ivy Madness, even if they lose to Harvard in their semifinal matchup. Carla Berube’s Tigers have already built a strong enough resume to merit a bid, beating out Harvard in several key metrics.
Put simply, the Tigers are the better team. They proved that by beating Harvard twice during the regular season.
In early January, Princeton sharpshooter Ashley Chea hit a long range buzzer-beater to defeat Harvard 52–50 at Jadwin Gymnasium. Then, on Feb. 28, the Tigers invaded Lavietes Pavilion in Cambridge and dominated the Crimson, 70–58, to sweep the season series. Head-to-head competition is a key factor in the NCAA’s list to evaluate teams for the tournament.
It’s also hard to overlook the fact that Princeton finished ahead of Harvard in the Ivy standings. At 12–2, the Tigers secured second place, while 11–3 Harvard finished third.
Other factors also point in favor of Princeton. The NCAA has always emphasized the importance of strength of schedule (SOS) and according to metrics used to measure SOS, Princeton played a much harder non-conference schedule than Harvard. One website that aggregates this data rates Princeton’s non-conference SOS at 22 compared to 155 for Harvard.
Admittedly, both teams notched impressive wins in the non-conference season. Harvard turned heads when it beat Indiana of the Big 10, 72–68, in overtime.
But Princeton’s non-conference accomplishments were even more impressive. The Tigers scored wins over Seton Hall, DePaul, and Villanova of the Big East, Rutgers of the Big 10, Rhode Island of the Atlantic 10, Temple, and Middle Tennessee State, the Conference USA champion. And the Tigers accomplished this in the immediate aftermath of losing their best player, Madison St. Rose, to a season-ending injury.
Harvard supporters will point to a single metric in their favor, the so-called NET rankings. The NET is the NCAA’s “primary sorting tool for evaluating teams.” The current NET rankings favor Harvard, with the Crimson coming in at 38 compared to 48 for Princeton.
But the NET factors in something the NCAA calls Adjusted Net Efficiency, which evaluates teams according to how many points they score per possession and how few points they allow per possession. In other words, running up the score on your opponent can boost a team’s NET ranking. As the NCAA explained in FAQs they made available to me, “[T]he more points the better.” I’ve spoken with many head coaches about this and they all agree that wins and losses are the primary factor that should matter, not a team’s so-called “efficiency.”
This season, Harvard has blown out many of its weakest opponents. For example, the Crimson pummeled Northeastern 89–37, Maine 83–41, and Boston University by an astounding 86–26. But those three opponents have a combined record of 30–57 and are among the lowest ranked teams in college basketball.
Princeton has also been dominant this season, out scoring its opponents by an average margin of 10.5 points. Harvard’s margin is admittedly higher at 18 points per game. But why should Harvard be rewarded for running up the score against inferior opponents, especially when it played a much easier schedule than Princeton and lost the head-to-head battle with the Tigers?
It’s worth pointing out that the other premier sorting tool, the Ratings Percentage Index (RPI) favors Princeton at 29 over Harvard at 51. The RPI was employed as the NCAA’s primary evaluative tool until it was replaced by the NET four years ago. Like the NET, the RPI takes into account strength of schedule, but unlike the NET, it places a primary emphasis on actual wins and losses rather than a team’s efficiency.
Ostensibly, the NCAA replaced the RPI with the NET to improve its method of comparing team strength, but some coaches I’ve spoken with believe the real motivation for creating the NET was to improve the prospects for middle-of-the pack teams from the Power 4 conferences. Hence, Washington, with a record of 19–13, has a NET ranking of 43 compared to an RPI of 76, and Virginia Tech at 18–12 has a NET of 47 compared to an RPI of 80.
To be fair, this same analysis applies should the choice come down to Columbia versus Princeton. The Lions swept the season series from Princeton and finished ahead of Princeton in the Ivy standings. As a result, they would deserve an at-large berth over Princeton.
In reality, all three of the Ivy powers deserve a bid to this year’s Big Dance, but that’s not likely given the politics of the selection process. The Ivy League is the 10th highest-ranked league within the landscape of women’s college basketball, below the Big East, the Atlantic 10, and the Mountain West. Given how much money and prestige is at stake, it’s not realistic to expect the Selection Committee to hand out three tickets to Ivy schools and two or fewer to several higher-rated conferences.
So that means the big three Ivy teams are likely competing against each other in a game of musical chairs. Two spots are available for three teams. And when the music stops, if it comes down to Princeton versus Harvard, the Tigers should be the choice.
Steve Silverman ’83 is a lifelong follower of Princeton basketball, an adjunct Professor of Law at the University of Colorado Law School, and a frequent contributor to IvyHoopsonline and The Next. He can be reached at steven.c.silverman[at]gmail.com.
Read More
Keep Princeton in Estonia
Astor Lu and William AepliWe strongly disagree with Veronika Kitsul’s recent Opinion piece, in which she argues that the Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures must end its Russian language program in Estonia and refrain from sponsoring programs in any post-Soviet states. In attempting to cancel Princeton in Estonia, we damage access to Baltic culture, Russian language study, and ultimately, the world’s chances for peace in the region.
We strongly disagree with Veronika Kitsul’s recent Opinion piece, in which she argues that the Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures must end its Russian language program in Estonia and refrain from sponsoring programs in any post-Soviet states. In attempting to cancel Princeton in Estonia, we damage access to Baltic culture, Russian language study, and ultimately, the world’s chances for peace in the region.
Princeton’s role in combating the drug crisis must start on campus
Lizbeth ReyesTo maintain a healthy and safe community, Princeton must do more to inform students of the risks of substances and substance abuse. This includes making information about drug use and use prevention accessible to students—and not just through a website.
To maintain a healthy and safe community, Princeton must do more to inform students of the risks of substances and substance abuse. This includes making information about drug use and use prevention accessible to students—and not just through a website.
Why the Resources Committee is not recommending dissociation from Israel
John T. GrovesI want to use this opportunity to explain how the Resources Committee arrived at its decision to not recommend dissociation from Israel, and to anticipate and answer some questions members of our community may have.
I want to use this opportunity to explain how the Resources Committee arrived at its decision to not recommend dissociation from Israel, and to anticipate and answer some questions members of our community may have.
