While there are still 12 regular season games to be played against non-league opponents, Ivy play begins this weekend with Harvard’s visit to Hanover. In the past we’ve used Division I statistics for these pieces, but the disparate non-league schedules make statistical comparisons very difficult. Consequently, this year we’re using statistics only from games against teams eligible for the Mid-Major Top 25. In addition to adjusting for strength of schedule, a mid-major stastistical filter also should provide a more meaningful idea of what to expect against Ivy opposition.

Here are the numbers, with team-by-team analysis below:

Record 1. Penn 5-0 2. Columbia 8-2 3. Princeton 7-2 4. Harvard 7-5 5. Dartmouth 5-4 6. Brown 4-6 Cornell 4-6 8. Yale 2-6		Opponent win percentage 1. Yale .546 2. Cornell .496 Penn .493 4. Brown .479 5. Dartmouth .443 6. Harvard .422 7. Princeton .397 8. Columbia .309		Possessions per 40 minutes 1. Harvard 69.1 2. Yale 67.1 3. Penn 67.0 4. Columbia 65.4 5. Brown 65.0 6. Cornell 64.6 7. Dartmouth 64.4 8. Princeton 56.8
Offense
Points per 40 minutes 1. Penn 80.6 2. Harvard 73.6 3. Cornell 70.1 4. Columbia 69.6 5. Yale 65.7 6. Brown 61.9 7. Dartmouth 61.7 8. Princeton 54.6		Points per possession 1. Penn 1.20 2. Cornell 1.07 3. Columbia 1.07 Harvard 1.07 5. Yale 0.98 6. Princeton 0.96 7. Dartmouth 0.96 8. Brown 0.95		Effective FG percentage 1. Princeton .643 2. Penn .634 3. Columbia .628 4. Cornell .622 5. Brown .586 6. Yale .575 7. Harvard .534 8. Dartmouth .518		Field goal percentage 1. Penn .493 2. Columbia .477 3. Cornell .471 4. Yale .447 5. Harvard .441 6. Princeton .441 7. Brown .423 8. Dartmouth .420
Three-point percentage 1. Penn .454 2. Cornell .406 3. Columbia .404 4. Princeton .391 5. Brown .382 6. Yale .346 7. Harvard .339 8. Dartmouth .309		Three-point frequency 1. Princeton .517 2. Brown .426 3. Columbia .372 4. Cornell .372 5. Yale .368 6. Dartmouth .318 7. Penn .312 8. Harvard .274		Possessions per FT attempt 1. Brown 2.41 2. Penn 2.62 3. Harvard 2.63 4. Princeton 3.28 5. Cornell 3.34 6. Columbia 3.39 7. Yale 3.45 8. Dartmouth 3.63		Free throw percentage 1. Cornell .770 2. Harvard .742 3. Brown .730 4. Dartmouth .719 Penn .719 6. Columbia .715 7. Yale .690 8. Princeton .673
Assist percentage 1. Penn .721 2. Brown .706 3. Princeton .656 4. Yale .651 5. Columbia .618 6. Cornell .591 7. Dartmouth .569 8. Harvard .473		Turnover percentage 1. Penn .206 2. Dartmouth .209 3. Cornell .209 4. Harvard .221 5. Columbia .242 6. Princeton .249 7. Yale .257 8. Brown .263		Offensive rebounding 1. Penn .377 2. Columbia .356 3. Harvard .351 4. Yale .325 5. Dartmouth .293 6. Cornell .268 7. Brown .236 8. Princeton .213
Defense
Points per 40 minutes 1. Princeton 51.0 2. Columbia 61.2 3. Penn 61.4 4. Dartmouth 62.3 5. Brown 66.1 6. Yale 65.7 7. Cornell 69.7 8. Harvard 75.6		Points per possession 1. Princeton 0.89 2. Penn 0.91 3. Columbia 0.94 4. Dartmouth 0.96 5. Yale 1.01 6. Brown 1.03 7. Cornell 1.06 8. Harvard 1.08		Effective FG percentage 1. Columbia .509 2. Dartmouth .518 3. Princeton .518 4. Penn .518 5. Brown .575 6. Cornell .581 7. Yale .582 8. Harvard .585		Field goal percentage 1. Columbia .398 2. Penn .401 3. Dartmouth .418 4. Princeton .420 5. Cornell .428 6. Brown .444 7. Harvard .463 8. Yale .465
Three-point percentage 1. Princeton .290 2. Columbia .307 3. Penn .330 4. Dartmouth .331 5. Brown .352 6. Harvard .358 7. Cornell .361 8. Yale .373		Three-point frequency 1. Dartmouth .301 2. Yale .313 3. Princeton .338 4. Harvard .338 5. Penn .357 6. Columbia .362 7. Brown .373 8. Cornell .423		Possessions per FT attempt 1. Harvard 4.52 2. Columbia 3.74 3. Penn 3.62 4. Princeton 3.50 5. Brown 3.37 6. Yale 2.95 7. Cornell 2.94 8. Dartmouth 2.64		Assist percentage 1. Princeton .460 2. Dartmouth .492 3. Columbia .493 4. Harvard .540 5. Penn .578 6. Brown .587 7. Cornell .596 8. Yale .615
Turnover percentage 1. Penn .283 2. Princeton .270 3. Brown .241 4. Harvard .222 5. Cornell .221 6. Dartmouth .220 7. Yale .218 8. Columbia .200		Steal percentage 1. Penn .164 2. Princeton .140 3. Brown .106 4. Yale .105 5. Cornell .105 6. Dartmouth .100 7. Harvard .094 8. Columbia .087		Defensive rebounding 1. Yale .742 2. Columbia .708 3. Princeton .669 4. Dartmouth .669 5. Cornell .634 6. Penn .628 7. Brown .626 8. Harvard .613

Brown
The main surprise for the Bears is that they’re playing at a moderate pace (65.0 possessions per game) after some slow-down games early on this year. As expected, Brown is very three-point reliant — only Princeton attempts a higher percentage of its shots from outside the arc than Brown’s 42.6 percent. As we’ve discussed in previous pieces, the free throw line also is a big part of the Bears’ offensive attack, as they’re first in free throw frequency and third in free throw shooting. Craig Robinson has brought with him the Princeton indifference to offensive rebounding, as evidenced by the terrible 23.6-percent rebounding on offense. But the defensive rebounding also has been poor at 62.6 percent, which makes sense given the lack of size on the roster. At 1.03 points per possession, the defense is subpar, with much of the damage coming from three-point range. Brown is forcing turnovers (24.1 percent), but also fouling a lot (3.37 possessions per free throw attempt), possibly a result of aggressive defense.

Columbia
Even after limiting the statistics to mid-majors, Columbia has played an extremely weak schedule relative to the rest of the league, which raises some concerns about the legitimacy of the Lions’ numbers. But strength of schedule aside, the stats generally look good for Columbia, as it’s one of only two teams in the top half the league both in offensive and defensive efficiency — 1.07 and 0.94, respectively. Turnovers are a problem yet again this year (24.2 percent), but the Lions are taking a lot of threes (37.2 percent) and hitting a healthy number of them (40.4 percent). The rebounding has been very strong at both ends — probably the best overall in the league. Defensively, effective field goal percentage is great (50.9 percent) and fouling is way down (3.74 possessions per free throw attempt), but Columbia is dead last in opponent turnovers (20.0 percent).

Cornell
The Big Red has been very good offensively this season (1.07 points per possession), but has given up nearly as much defensively (1.06 points per possession). Strong three-point shooting (40.6 percent) and a low turnover percentage (20.9 percent) are a big part of this, as is stellar free throw shooting (77.0 percent) and a reasonable free throw rate (3.34 possessions per free throw). After being such a strong rebounding team a few years ago, Cornell continues to get weaker and weaker on the boards with each successive season. This year the Big Red is almost Princetonian in its disregard for the offensive boards at just 26.8 percent, but the defensive rebounding also is weak at just 63.4 percent. The main problem for Cornell defensively has been the three-point arc. Not only are Big Red opponents taking a huge percentage of their shots from the outside (42.3 percent), they’re also getting very good looks and knocking them down (36.1 percent). There’s also too much fouling going on (2.94 possessions per free throw attempt), and a relatively modest opponent turnover percentage (22.1 percent).

Dartmouth
Dartmouth’s numbers are skewed by the three games early on before Leon Pattman and the other wounded players returned to action, but the majority of the games are with Pattman. The offense hasn’t been much fun to watch, both in terms of pace (64.4 possessions per 40 minutes) and effectiveness (0.96 points per possession). The Big Green has had shooting issues, ranking dead last in field goal percentage, three-point percentage, and — unsurprisingly — effective field goal percentage. Getting to the line also has been a problem (3.63 possessions per free throw attempt), but Terry Dunn has to be happy with the low turnover percentage (20.9 percent). The rebounding has been weak offensively (29.3 percent) and mediocre defensively (66.9 percent), but many of these games were played without some key bigs. The defense is much improved this season at 0.96 points per possession. Dartmouth opponents have shot poorly both from the outside (33.1 percent) and overall (41.8 percent), but this has been canceled out by a lot of fouling (2.64 possessions per opponent free throw attempt) and a fairly low opponent turnover rate (22.0 percent).

Harvard
The Crimson’s numbers reflect what anyone who has watched Harvard this year could tell you: Frank Sullivan’s team scores a lot of points (1.07 per possession) and gives up even more (league-worst 1.08 points per possession). The Crimson makes up for poor shooting (53.4-percent effective field goal percentage) by getting to the line a ton (2.63 possessions per free throw attempt), where it shoots 74.2 percent. Harvard’s offense isn’t generate many assists (47.3 percent), but turnovers are down to a healthy 22.1 percent. Rebounding is interesting, as the Crimson has been good on the offensive glass (35.1 percent), but terrible at the opponent’s end (league-worst 61.3 percent). Defensively, opponents are shooting very well (58.5 effective field goal percentage), and the Crimson isn’t forcing turnovers like a typical Sullivan-coached team (22.2 percent). The only good news on defense is that opponents very rarely get to the free throw line (4.52 possessions per free throw attempt).

Penn
If Penn’s performance against non-major opponents so far this season is any indication, the rest of the league is in for an unpleasant time. The Quaker offense has been simply unstoppable (1.20 points per possession) and ranks first in the league in field goal shooting (49.3 percent), three-point shooting (45.4 percent), assist percentage (72.1 percent), turnover percentage (20.6 percent), and offensive rebounding (37.7 percent). Penn also has attempted free throws at a very high rate (2.62 possessions per attempt) and is shooting 71.9 percent from the stripe. The defense isn’t quite as suffocating as last season, but Penn still is second in the league in defensive efficiency (0.91 points per possession). Opponents are shooting just 33.0 percent from three and 40.1 percent overall, and the Quakers aren’t fouling much (3.62 possessions per free throw attempt). The worst news for a league that has struggled with turnovers this season, however, is Penn’s 28.3-percent opponent turnover rate and 16.4-percent steal rate. The Quakers’ only visible weakness is the poor 62.8-percent defensive rebounding.

Princeton
Princeton’s offense is better than last year’s non-league performance, but still rather poor at 0.96 points per possession. The Tigers do have all the typical statistical trademarks of their legendary offense: the slow pace of play (56.8 possessions per 40 minutes), a heavy reliance on perimeter shooting (51.7 percent), good three-point marksmanship (39.1 percent), and a healthy assist percentage (65.6 percent). Joe Scott still cedes rebounds at his team’s offensive end (21.3 percent), but this year the Tigers are getting to the line a healthy amount (3.28 possessions per free throw attempt). Unfortunately, they’re only shooting 67.3 percent at the line, and turnovers are alarmingly high (24.9 percent). Princeton’s defense has been excellent at just 0.89 points per possession, and most of this is due to an excellent job of defending the three-point arc (29.0 percent) and a decreased foul frequency (3.50 possessions per opponent free throw attempt). The Tiger matchup zone is forcing a lot of turnovers (27.0 percent), they’ve been decent enough on the defensive glass (66.9 percent).

Yale
The Bulldogs are tough to get a handle on statistically, as they don’t really stand out in either direction in most categories. The offense has been below average at 0.98 points per possession, which might be due primarily to the disappointing three-point shooting (34.6 percent). Yale isn’t using the free throw line very effectively, averaging a free throw attempt every 3.45 possessions. The offense has generaged a lot of assists (65.1 percent), but also a lot of turnovers (25.7 percent). The Bulldogs aren’t much to speak of on the offensive boards (32.5 percent), but they’ve been an absolutely outstanding defensive rebounding team at 74.2 percent. That might be the main reason the defensive efficiency is respectable (1.01 points per possession), despite opponents shooting 37.3 percent from three and 46.5 percent overall, plus a lot of free throws given up (an attempt every 2.95 possessions), and a low opponent turnover percentage (21.8 percent).