Underneath the façade of stock predictions and banal results, however, lurks an interesting subplot:

Harvard is better than Dartmouth.

Which brings me back to the law of averages.

“Dartmouth has had a lot of close ballgames,” Delaney-Smith said. “A lot of teams have played them closer than they’ve played us.

“But you don’t want to get into that game.”

That game—by which Delaney-Smith means “the numbers game”—can be deceptive in measuring a team’s value.

It can also be useful. And Harvard’s 71.05 points per game scoring average—and the 8.1 points per game by which it outscores opponents—are easily the best in the Ivy League.

Dartmouth, by comparison, barely outscored its competitors heading into the weekend. Blowout wins against Yale and Brown helped the Big Green’s scoring differential—it rose to plus-2.12 from plus-0.3—but did not bring it within range of Harvard’s number.

Meanwhile, the Crimson maintained Ivy leads in scoring, passing, shooting, and just about every turnover ratio metric in existence.

Dartmouth improved upon its numbers, but does not lead the Ivies in any significant team category.

So when should the law of averages kick in? Hell if I know.

But if you believe that stat sheet, then you must audaciously believe that Harvard embraces a sliver of a chance.

And with seven games remaining this season—a full half of the Ivy slate—including rematches against all seven of Harvard’s Ancient Eight competitors, there remains plenty of time for the Crimson to do the bidding of higher forces—like, say, the law of averages.

Most importantly, a relatively unimpressive Dartmouth squad has plenty of time to slip up.

“I want total control of our destiny,” Delaney-Smith said. “That’s all I want. I don’t want to have to have someone else beat someone else.