Back to Post
| Username | Post: Penn | |
|---|---|---|
|
bradley PhD Student Posts 1842 |
01-06-17 06:22 PM - Post#217506
Tigers appear to be opening as 8 1/2 pt favorite. Miller and Brennan need to stand tall and use their long arms and not let Brodeuer fake them with his moves close to the basket. Would be helpful if they played against him previously. If Tigers lose, Coach H will be criticized by some and if Penn loses, it will probably be the result of bad calls by the refs by some. Life is sometimes so predictable. In all likelihood, it will be competitive and unpredictable like most Penn/Prin games and it will come down to a few critical possessions during the second half. |
|
|
sparman PhD Student Posts 1352 
|
01-06-17 07:33 PM - Post#217512
I hate being a big favorite versus a long time rival whose games, as you say, are always a challenge regardless of record. |
|
|
SRP Postdoc Posts 4921 |
01-06-17 07:53 PM - Post#217514
I'm nervous but actually feeling better about this than usual. The loss of Caruso seems to have weirdly focused the Tigers' minds and they have a lot of guys to throw at Brodeur. If Miller turns out to be the best defensive option I'd give him big minutes (assuming MH doesn't go to a two-bigs lineup). I'm as worried about Brodeur blocking shots when PU drives as anything else. They have one experienced athletic wing defender to cover two athletic wings, so there should be some favorable matchups for either Cook or Stephens (I'm assuming they'll want to guard Weisz with someone who isn't too short). I like Cannady against any of their PGs and perhaps Bell will do to Penn what Nelson-Henry used to do to Princeton--play at a high level against them even when struggling against other opponents. Especially if the Tigers can get some ORs and fast breaks they should challenge the Quakers' newfound defensive prowess. The Tigers need to play rugged, persistent defense without too much fouling and give Penn a chance to indulge its turnover proclivities while continuing to seal off the defensive boards. If they can defend as well as they did against Cal or VCU or Bucknell they should be OK. |
|
|
penn nation Professor Posts 21312 |
01-07-17 07:25 PM - Post#217564
The Tigers need to play rugged, persistent defense without too much fouling and give Penn a chance to indulge its turnover proclivities Hasn't really been the case so much this year. MacDonald in particular has made a big difference here. |
|
|
rbg Postdoc Posts 3068 |
01-07-17 08:05 PM - Post#217566
Brodeur, Howard, MacDonald, Donahue and Betley starting. |
|
|
SRP Postdoc Posts 4921 |
01-07-17 08:15 PM - Post#217571
Nice follow dunk, almost without bending his knees, by Stephens. Tigers just missing on a bunch of plays at both ends of the floor--they need to calm down a bit. Like the early defensive effort, though. |
|
|
rbg Postdoc Posts 3068 |
01-07-17 08:16 PM - Post#217572
2-6 at the first break. Donahue two bad threes pointers. Brodeur 0-2 on free throws. Howard had a possible injury to his left shoulder, but returned after a few minutes. Tigers have 3 offensive rebounds and 3 turnovers. Foreman got the teams opening bucket after Princeton 6-0 run. |
|
|
rbg Postdoc Posts 3068 |
01-07-17 08:26 PM - Post#217576
6-14 at second break. Penn is 0-4 from three (0-3 Donahue). Princeton is 1-5 from three. Cannady and Bell have three driving layups between them. Penn has had multiple subs at PG and SG. |
|
|
SRP Postdoc Posts 4921 |
01-07-17 08:26 PM - Post#217577
Intense start to the game. I haven't seen Penn play this kind of perimeter defense in a long time. Still, Aaron Young manages to knock in a trey and Bell has driven to the rim pretty well. |
|
|
rbg Postdoc Posts 3068 |
01-07-17 08:33 PM - Post#217581
At third break, 10-16. Penn is 0-5 from three and has 8 turnovers! Doing much better job limiting Tigers to one shot. Brodeur has 4 pts and 2 offensive rebounds. Foreman has 4 points on two driving layups. |
|
|
SRP Postdoc Posts 4921 |
01-07-17 08:33 PM - Post#217583
Weisz blows the backdoor layup on a great feed from Miller. Looked like he was pushed, but no replay to tell yet. PU up 6 with 7:50 left in the first half. |
|
|
rbg Postdoc Posts 3068 |
01-07-17 08:47 PM - Post#217594
Under 4 timeout, 14-24. Princeton had a 8-0 run before a Donahue layup. Penn is now 0-6 from three with 9 turnovers. Princeton playing great defense and is controlling the inside on offense. Brodeur picked up 2nd foul with just over 5 minutes to go. He has 4 points, 4 boards, and is 2-5 from the charity stripe. Penn is 2-5 with FT. Princeton is 11-11 with two coming up. |
|
|
SRP Postdoc Posts 4921 |
01-07-17 09:01 PM - Post#217610
Excellent first half for PU, doubling up Penn 34-17, showing great D and forcing TOs, neutralizing Brodeur and Howard for the most part, not too many second shots. On the other end, the Quakers have made treys hard to get, but the inside game and the foul line have been good (all those made FTs have been good for my blood pressure). As I suspected, Bell treats a Penn uniform like Popeye treats a can of spinach. He's looked very good. Miller and Brennan doing what needs to be done, with enough offensive aggression to keep the Quakers honest. Cannady took a couple of optimistic outside shots but otherwise has looked in control. Stephens is doing everything but knock down FGs. Weisz doing his thing, with some great deflection-steals, spot-picking drives, and crisp passes. So far Cook has been doing his job on D but not breaking out on offense. |
|
|
rbg Postdoc Posts 3068 |
01-07-17 09:06 PM - Post#217616
Halftime, 17-34 - Ugh!!! Penn ended up 0-7 from three (Donahue 0-4), 7-15 from two, and 3-7 from the free throw line. 0 assists and 9 turnovers. Princeton was 2-10 from three, 7-13 from two and 14-15 from the free throw line. Princeton has been averaging just over 10 free throws made before this game. 2 assists and 7 turnovers. Brodeur, Rothschild and Donahue have 2 fouls for Penn. Cook and Miller have 2 fouls for the Tigers. Foreman and Rothschild have played well. Brodeur is playing well, but having trouble dealing with Princeton's interior defense. Howard has been a non-entity in the first half - don't know if it has anything to do with the left shoulder issue that occurred in the first few minutes. The substitutions at the 1 and 2 are frustrating, but on the other hand no one other than Foreman has been able to do anything. Cook has 0 points and the team three point shooting is poor, but Princeton has been able to get to the rim. Bell has 10 points, Cannady has 5 and Stephens 5, mostly coming from drives or free throws. While Penn could still come back, it seems that there are too many things to improve for the next 20 minutes of play. |
|
|
SRP Postdoc Posts 4921 |
01-07-17 09:22 PM - Post#217623
PU misses several early opportunities at the rim to start the second half, then pushes the lead to 21 only to give up a 7-0 run to the Quakers. Miller has been a beast on the boards and making plays inside. Tigers just need to keep their foot on the gas on the offensive end. |
|
|
rbg Postdoc Posts 3068 |
01-07-17 09:22 PM - Post#217625
16 minute break, 25-39. Penn got its first three from Betley (1-9). MacDonald now has 3 fouls. Foreman is doing a great job pushing the ball up and getting to the hoop. Cannady is starting to take charge for Princeton. |
|
|
SRP Postdoc Posts 4921 |
01-07-17 09:28 PM - Post#217632
41-33 lead now. Penn making treys, Princeton missing them. Betley for Penn looking a lot better when they stay in a zone and he doesn't have to get abused by his man, as happened repeatedly in the first half. |
|
|
rbg Postdoc Posts 3068 |
01-07-17 09:34 PM - Post#217638
Under 12 break, 36-43! Penn has hit its last 4 three pointers (4-12 overall). Down 7, Foreman has missed two layups in a row. Betley looks like he is getting more confident as the game continues. Princeton is 2-16 from three and the inside shots are not falling. Cook went out with an ankle injury, and will come back after the timeout. The announcers don't think he is at 100%. |
|
|
SRP Postdoc Posts 4921 |
01-07-17 09:45 PM - Post#217650
Game tied at 44 after Princeton once again yaks up a big lead, this time on some bad offensive possessions against the 1-3-1 along with inattention to perimeter shooters. Cook and Weisz both injured and not able to play at 100%, Cannady forcing a shot or two. Time to forget the history and start out as if it were the beginning of the game. |
|
|
rbg Postdoc Posts 3068 |
01-07-17 09:45 PM - Post#217651
Princeton takes an under 8 timeout. 44-44! (I'm gladly eating my words at halftime) Penn has hit 6 of its last 7 three pointers, including 3 from Betley. They continue with the outstanding second half defense. Also, only 2 turnovers this half. Brodeur has hit 2 of his last 4 free throws. Team is 8-15 overall from the line. Cook has 4 fouls and 1 point. |
|
|
SRP Postdoc Posts 4921 |
01-07-17 09:54 PM - Post#217661
Princeton takes my advice and punches out a new 8-point lead with under 3 to play. Stephens blocks Howard, Cannady makes a great underhand layup, then Howard gets a fourth foul on Miller to go to the line. |
|
|
rbg Postdoc Posts 3068 |
01-07-17 09:55 PM - Post#217662
Under 4 timeout (2:20 to go), 47-55. Princeton on an 11-3 run (7-0 after 44-44). Princeton finally hit a three. Cook with 4 and Cannady with 2 during that time. Brodeur missed another two free throws, 4-10 on the night. Howard will be shooting 2 after the break. |
|
|
SRP Postdoc Posts 4921 |
01-07-17 10:17 PM - Post#217683
Solid 9-point win; the gamblers were close to the spread again. A bunch of stops at the end, combined with much better FT shooting than Penn, ices it for the Tigers. Cannady big down the stretch, and the rebounding was great all the way through--no cheap second chances for Penn. So much for the theory that Princeton had to out-trey Penn to win. 3-19 vs. 7-16 isn't pretty, but 24-28 vs. 11-20 from the FT line eases the pain a lot. Two-point FGs were 14-30 vs. 10-26. This was a game where the defenses dominated, in the sense that assists were very, very low at 5 for Princeton and 4 for Penn. FGs were coming off individual moves and mismatches rather than out of the flow of the offense, for the most part. |
|
|
rbg Postdoc Posts 3068 |
01-07-17 10:24 PM - Post#217684
52-61 Final Tigers went 17-8 over the last 7 minutes. Penn did a great job on three pointers in the second half (7-9, 7-16 overall). They did a poor job at the FT line 11-20 overall and 7-16 for Brodeur (4-10) and Howard (3-6). Penn improved on the turnovers in the second half, 2 over the first 13+ minutes. Unfortunately, they had 4 in the last 6+ minutes after the game was tied. Foreman was really good, 17 points and 7 rebounds. Donahue and Betley both ended with 11 points after strong 2nd halves. Three starters (Brodeur, Howard and MacDonald) combined for 9 points. They did, though, have 17 rebounds between them. Outstanding three point defense all night (Tigers went 3-19) and very good rim protection for almost all of the second half. For Princeton, Cook had an off night, but came through late, after the game was tied. Also, Cannady did a great job taking charge, especially late. I guess this is what SD means when he talked about Princeton competing better than Penn over the last 3 meetings when the game is on the line. While Penn may not be ready to challenge for the top of the league at this time, there are certainly positives going forward. Nothing in tonight's game seems to shake the idea that Penn is a top 4 team and can hold its own with anyone in the league. |
|
|
rbg Postdoc Posts 3068 |
01-07-17 10:27 PM - Post#217685
Congrats on the win. Let's do it again in another month down in Philly and then in another month! |
|
|
SRP Postdoc Posts 4921 |
01-07-17 10:46 PM - Post#217690
Agreed! |
|
|
1LotteryPick1969 Postdoc Posts 2280 
|
01-07-17 11:10 PM - Post#217694
5 points from Cook and 8 from Weisz, yet we win! Penn really defended the 3-ball well; we did a great job against their bigs, doubling on the entry pass. Not sure why the 1-3-1 bothered us so much. Why couldn't Miller do what Gladson did, catching at the elbow and dishing to the corner? |
|
|
bradley PhD Student Posts 1842 |
01-07-17 11:41 PM - Post#217702
"If Tigers lose, Coach H will be criticized by some and if Penn loses, it will probably be the result of bad calls by the refs by some. Life is sometimes so predictable. In all likelihood, it will be competitive and unpredictable like most Penn/Prin games and it will come down to a few critical possessions during the second half." Even though there is chaos at times in the universe, the Penn/Princeton game is a constant. After reading some of the comments on the Penn Board regarding the zebras, there is confirmation that life is somewhat predictable. Penn is on their way back up after several dismal years and the Tigers may see them not once but two more times this year. It is good to know that Princeton could win, albeit at home, shooting for 19 on 3 pointers. |
|
|
bradley PhD Student Posts 1842 |
01-08-17 10:34 AM - Post#217712
Always good to get off to a 1-0 start at home against Penn. Quakers are much improved on defense and Tigers had trouble with 1-3-1 until the score got tied at 44-44 and finally, they started to kick the ball out to the corner(s) for open shots. Foreman gave Cannady all kinds of problems in attacking the rim. Miller took Brodeur out of his game and Bell came to life. Brennan had his first bad game in some time. Princeton did not play great and they won even with shooting 3 for 19 from 3s' and having their best player, Cook, play only 18 minutes. Hopefully, lesson learned is that Coach should not slow down the offense which the Tigers did after having a 21 pt lead -- keep the ball moving! They are at their best when the ball moves. Give Penn credit for their defense but if you keep moving the ball, there will be open shots. Penn did not lose because of the refs who let the players play on both sides. Princeton does appear to be more talented and experienced although Penn will close the gap on experience over time. |
|
|
1LotteryPick1969 Postdoc Posts 2280
|
01-08-17 12:37 PM - Post#217717
Foreman gave Cannady all kinds of problems in attacking the rim. Miller took Brodeur out of his game and Bell came to life. Brennan had his first bad game in some time. I thought Miller had a great game, and I was especially happy to see him make his foul shots. Interesting to see him hug the opposing bigs in the handshake line after the game. I think he is realizing this is is last year. Bell had a GREAT game. That step back 3 off the dribble was timely. He sliced to the rim fluidly, and none of those cheap push off fouls of the past. He just isn't a great shooter off the pass when stationary. I didn't think Brennan had a bad game, just an OK one. His baseline 2-point jump shot was an important basket. Miles Stephens is a talent. I kept asking myself if we felt the loss of Caruso at all. Perhaps a bit. But Stephens is more talented overall, and this chance to start will pay dividends down the road this year and next. Cannady showed his defensive limitations, and a bit of impatience looking for 3 point shots that were not available. But like Bell, he can definitely go to the hoop--Cook, Cannady, Bell and Stephens can all go to the hoop. Love it. |
|
|
HARVARDDADGRAD Postdoc Posts 2702 |
01-08-17 01:56 PM - Post#217724
Stephens is talented, but maybe the loss of a player (Caruso, Brase, Mason) should not be analyzed solely in terms of whether a suitable replacement exists. The dropoff often comes further down the line. For example, Weisz (38 min), Cannaday (37) and Stephens (34) appear to have had to play almost the entire game. Only Bell (24) and Brennan (11) contributed off the bench. Yale has a recent history of having talented teams limited by a lack of depth and based on last night's game Princeton displayed similar usage tendencies. In fact, had Cook not been in foul trouble, I suspect he would have played 35 minutes or so instead of 18. Thus, the real issue is that instead of Stephens backing up Caruso, last night Princeton had Bell/Young/Leblanc spelling all of the guards and forwards. It's a long season with games on consecutive nights and a tournament with a final within 24 hours of the semifinals. No more margin for injuries either, unless you want to rely on the freshmen. Nice win though. |
|
|
1LotteryPick1969 Postdoc Posts 2280
|
01-08-17 03:03 PM - Post#217736
Agreed--I was thinking of addressing the depth issue, but I wanted to focus on the positives. |
|
|
PennFan10 Postdoc Posts 3590 |
01-08-17 03:17 PM - Post#217739
While I generally agree the refs did not decide the game and there were many good and bad efforts that ultimately determined the outcome the sequence in the final minute unfortunately had a disproportionate impact on the outcome. At the :50 second mark Matt Howard gets called for a touch foul against Spencer Weisz with the score 55-50. Ok, fine it could have not been called but it was called. I have no problem with that. Weisz misses the front end and the Quakers run up and Foreman gives it Betley, who had just hit 3 three's and as he rises up to shoot Weisz clearly (and there is no question) hacks him on the forearm (he did not get any part of the ball) and there is no call. Weisz is credited with his 5th steal and Cannaday, after running another 15 seconds off the clock, is fouled and sinks 2 FT. So instead of a chance to cut the game to 1 possession with 40 seconds to go, an obvious foul, which would have resulted in 3 FT's, isn't called and it's a 7 point game with 37 seconds. Again, it's unfortunate that sequence happens in the final minute because there were probably several other fouls and non-calls throughout the game that can be debated but the timing of a non call that ultimately changes possession of a tight game down the stretch was disappointing took away from the players deciding the game on the floor in my view. |
|
|
SRP Postdoc Posts 4921 |
01-08-17 04:00 PM - Post#217744
A couple of Cook's fouls seemed highly questionable to me, and numerous Tiger close-in shots were disrupted by heavy body contact from Penn defenders without getting a call. So I have little concern about that one non-call near the end. On depth, I agree that that could be an issue going forward for the three and four spots, but I'm pretty comfortable with Young and Rayner as pure guard depth. And Princeton now has three bigs with reasonable playing experience since Gladson's non-conference run. |
|
|
1LotteryPick1969 Postdoc Posts 2280
|
01-08-17 04:28 PM - Post#217752
On depth, I agree that that could be an issue going forward for the three and four spots, but I'm pretty comfortable with Young and Rayner as pure guard depth. And Princeton now has three bigs with reasonable playing experience since Gladson's non-conference run. Agreed; OK at guard, OK with bigs. Now we are short where we thought we had a logjam to start the season. I guess in a pinch we go big with Miller or Gladson on the floor with Brennan, although when this was tried earlier, ball movement stalled. |
|
|
PennFan10 Postdoc Posts 3590 |
01-08-17 08:13 PM - Post#217775
A couple of Cook's fouls seemed highly questionable to me, and numerous Tiger close-in shots were disrupted by heavy body contact from Penn defenders without getting a call. So I have little concern about that one non-call near the end. It's not as if these events are equal. Cook not getting calls "a couple of times" does not make it ok to miss a game changing foul in the final minute. Of course there were fouls both ways that were missed. My point is if we are gonna "let em play" at the end then lets do that. Don't call a touch foul on Howard that puts Weisz at the line (he missed), miss the clear hack on Betley and then almost immediately call a foul on Foreman that could just have easily been a jump ball. If we are gonna let em play none of those three should have been called, which I am fine with, but the timing (in the last minute) of the inconsistency changed the game in Princeton's favor. |
|
|
bradley PhD Student Posts 1842 |
01-08-17 08:43 PM - Post#217778
Assuming no further injuries - always a big if, it does not appear that the Tigers have an issue with minutes as they normally get 30 to 35 minutes from Cannady, Weisz, Cook and Stephens with 20 to 25 minutes from Bell. Between Miller, Brennan and Gladson, they get 25 to 35 minutes dependent on the opponent with Young getting 5 minutes. If need be LeBlanc, Morales and Arirguzoh can come off the bench and play competitively. Stephens is a better defender and rebounder than Caruso and his skill set probably better complements Cook, Weisz and Cannady but what Caruso brought to the table was instant offense especially during the first 10 minutes of a game and being fearless plus he has been through the wars. If Bell or anyone else played badly, they would get less minutes. Different but similar issues with losing Brase. At the end of the day, there was simply not enough minutes for Tiger players with Brase and Caruso and Coach was going to have to make tough decisions and put the best performers on the floor with plenty of choices. The good thing was that Stephens and now Brennan, to a lesser degree have stepped up. Henderson found Stephens who was a local kid prior to transferring in high school but he kind of fits the mold of Cook and Caruso who were athletic kids but not heavily recruited. Either Henderson finds these guys and/or knows how to develop them. Stephens and Cannady will be major contributors for the next two years. |
|
|
SomeGuy Professor Posts 6418 |
01-09-17 10:51 AM - Post#217799
Note that the touch foul on Weisz helped Penn (though only b/c he missed the front end). It stopped the clock and gave us the ball. Overall, I thought the fact that they let them play worked in Penn's favor (I always think the best strategy against Princeton is to be physical with them). Yes, the missed call on Betley was lousy, but it also looked to me in real time like he was out of control and got himself in an awkward position. Sometimes, that can impact whether you get the call. I'd be more inclined to bellyache if it happened in a 1 point game. When you're down 55-50, you've created a hole where I have trouble casting blame on the refs. If you don't want to be in a position where you absolutely have to get that call, don't get that far behind. |
|
|
palestra38 Professor Posts 32916 |
01-09-17 02:40 PM - Post#217824
Agreed. We had the chance to win it on our own. Once tied, the refereeing did not make the difference. |
|
|
sparman PhD Student Posts 1352
|
01-09-17 03:00 PM - Post#217829
"the timing (in the last minute) of the inconsistency changed the game in Princeton's favor." I did not see the game and I am not opining as to which, if any, of the calls or non-calls were right. It would be a rare ivy game to have had no reffing errors and we all see calls go against our teams. But speaking generically, while a last second call obviously has a dramatic impact on outcome, the problem with your argument is that a wrong call/non-call earlier in the game could mean the score would have been different later, such that the late call/non-call would not have had the same crucial effect you describe. |
|
|
PennFan10 Postdoc Posts 3590 |
01-09-17 08:23 PM - Post#217870
No, you missed my point. It was the inconsistency of the 3 calls (let em play on all 3 or call all 3) that created the disparity. The timing of it in the last minute insured Penn wouldn't be able to come back from it. |
|
|
Old Bear Postdoc Posts 4008 |
01-09-17 08:59 PM - Post#217880
Sounds like Penn "got f#@* in the a*#). (Sorry I couldn't help myself). |
|
|
1LotteryPick1969 Postdoc Posts 2280
|
01-09-17 09:32 PM - Post#217885
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZV_vpkVTNA |
|
|
bradley PhD Student Posts 1842 |
01-09-17 09:33 PM - Post#217886
Way back when, a BB coach jumped on our team when we tried to use the refs as an excuse as to why we lost a close game. His simple solution was that you had the opportunity to win the game with or without a bad call(s) -- that ended the excuse game from that point going forward which was good for the team. Someone mentioned earlier that Cook played only 18 minutes and a few of the calls were questionable but at the end of the day, it is what it and is irrelevant. Players/teams need to deal with it and overcome it as there will always be missed calls as took place at the end of the Princeton game. I would imagine that is the attitude of Coach Donahue and Henderson. It does seem that some Penn fans based on comments were jumping on the refs as per the norm over the years. Best solution is to get separation so that you are not trying to come back from a 5pt deficit. |
|
|
palestra38 Professor Posts 32916 |
01-09-17 11:11 PM - Post#217892
Naw, that game was one where Miller actually had an argument that a call cost him the game. And his feisty attitude got him a job at Penn (whether that was a good thing for either is a subject of debate). |
|
|
PennFan10 Postdoc Posts 3590 |
01-10-17 11:03 AM - Post#217899
Way back when, a BB coach jumped on our team when we tried to use the refs as an excuse as to why we lost a close game. His simple solution was that you had the opportunity to win the game with or without a bad call(s) -- that ended the excuse game from that point going forward which was good for the team. Someone mentioned earlier that Cook played only 18 minutes and a few of the calls were questionable but at the end of the day, it is what it and is irrelevant. Players/teams need to deal with it and overcome it as there will always be missed calls as took place at the end of the Princeton game. I would imagine that is the attitude of Coach Donahue and Henderson. It does seem that some Penn fans based on comments were jumping on the refs as per the norm over the years. Best solution is to get separation so that you are not trying to come back from a 5pt deficit. The unfortunate thing about your comments is we aren't players or coaches so we don't have any impact. Our only outlet as crusty old basketball fans is to come on here and voice our views, save for the few of us who may still try our hand at lunchtime hoops with the guys. That said, the point isn't whether referee calls decided the outcome, generally the refs are consistently bad or consistently good and they either let them play or call it tight. But in this instance, the refs were unquestionably inconsistent at an inopportune time and it had an impact on the flow of the game in the waning moments. |
|
|
JadwinGeorge Senior Posts 357 |
01-10-17 11:44 AM - Post#217901
Princeton broke the zone when the score was tied on a Cannady jumper. Next possession Brodeur loses the ball (one of 5 steals by Weisz), which Stepehens then converts into a gorgeous three from the right corner. Penn got no closer than 4 after that and it wasn't due to inconsistent officiating. Quakers forced to foul and the Tigers made them at the end. |
|
|
PennFan10 Postdoc Posts 3590 |
01-10-17 12:16 PM - Post#217903
Fixed this for you
Princeton broke the zone when the score was tied on a Cannady jumper. Next possession Brodeur loses the ball (one of 4 steals, and one egregious foul that wasn't called, by Weisz), which Stepehens then converts into a gorgeous three from the right corner. Penn got no closer than 4 after that and it wasn't due to inconsistent officiating. Quakers forced to foul and the Tigers made them at the end. |
|
|
GoBigGreenBasketball Masters Student Posts 806 |
01-10-17 12:20 PM - Post#217904
I've always told the kids I've coached that they should win the game outright. Don't allow the game come down to whether the ref makes a good or bad call.
|
|
|
PennFan10 Postdoc Posts 3590 |
01-10-17 12:27 PM - Post#217906
Good advice. I agree. |
|
|
westphillywarrior Sophomore Posts 196 |
01-10-17 02:17 PM - Post#217912
No point in getting upset about a refs call now. The world has changed. These games are virtually meaningless (at least for Penn, Princeton, Harvard and Yale). The only games that count are March 11 and 12, and lets hope we get the biggest homer refs in history. |
|
|
PennFan10 Postdoc Posts 3590 |
01-10-17 02:22 PM - Post#217913
they aren't meaningless at all if you are the projected 3,4 seed. The line between being in the top 4 and being out of the top 4 could well come down to record against the rest of the league. |
|
|
westphillywarrior Sophomore Posts 196 |
01-10-17 04:08 PM - Post#217923
Relax. Penn, Princeton, Harvard and Yale will be first four. The fans are already lining up to buy their tickets. |
|
|
SRP Postdoc Posts 4921 |
01-10-17 04:42 PM - Post#217926
The highest possible 5th place record is 11-3. 12-2 guarantees a seed in the folly. One down, eleven to go. |
|
|
mrjames Professor Posts 6062 |
01-10-17 04:50 PM - Post#217927
I believe the highest a 5th place team could be is 10-4 (in a tie) and 9-5 solo, but maybe I don't have the math right. |
|
|
SRP Postdoc Posts 4921 |
01-10-17 04:54 PM - Post#217928
Let's see. 56 total wins in an Ivy season, five times 11 is 55 (top team wins 12), bottom teams go 0-14 apiece. What am I missing? |
|
|
westcoast Senior Posts 302 |
01-10-17 05:43 PM - Post#217934
Those 0-14 teams have to play each other, and someone has to win. That reduces the wins available for the top teams. |
|
|
SomeGuy Professor Posts 6418 |
01-10-17 05:57 PM - Post#217935
I also try to model for the kids (and the parents) that you shouldn't let the calls impact you at all. If you're getting upset about whether or not you're getting a call, you're focusing on something other than trying to win the basketball game. Focus on the next play. Of course, as fans we should feel free to throw our televisions through the wall, tell Princeton fans that they only won because Weisz cheated, etc. |
|
|
mrjames Professor Posts 6062 |
01-10-17 06:24 PM - Post#217937
Bingo. Yeah, if the bottom 3 go 2-12 (or some other combo of the six wins they have to share), then you've got a +30 W total to spread amongst the top 5. All five could go 4-4 against each other, which would put them all at 10-4 - one of the five would lose out in some super-odd tiebreaker. Or one of the five could go 5-3 with three going 4-4 and one going 3-5. I think that 9-5 is the best you can do and still finish solo fifth. And, of course, the odds of 9-5 being solo fifth require such a specific sequence of results that 8-6 is probably the realistic best you could do and still miss out. I've never been good at these types of problems, though, so my logic could be off somewhere. |
|
|
PennFan10 Postdoc Posts 3590 |
01-10-17 06:28 PM - Post#217938
. Of course, as fans we should feel free to throw our televisions through the wall, tell Princeton fans that they only won because Weisz cheated, etc. This! |
|
|
JadwinGeorge Senior Posts 357 |
01-10-17 06:55 PM - Post#217939
Penn gets bad refs on the road and at home. Same old tired story. Thanks for the edit. How ironic would it be if penn misses its own tourney??? If you can't beat Yale at home you may have some issues. |
|
|
SRP Postdoc Posts 4921 |
01-10-17 07:01 PM - Post#217940
Okay, I forgot about the three bottom-feeders having to play each other. That's six wins out of the total 56 (imagine all teams going .500 to get that) that must go to the bottom three. That leaves 50 wins for the top 5 to split up. Each starts with six wins from beating the assumed bottom-feeders twice each. 50-30 = 20 wins available in games among the top five, with a maximum of 8 and a minimum of 0 for a single team. We want to maximize the record of the fifth-best team to find out what we need to be sure of making the folly under these constraints. If each top-five team goes 4-4 against the other top five teams, that seems to yield five teams at 10-4. I don't see any problem with the wins adding up under that scenario. So the best possible fifth-best record is 10-4. So: One down, and ten to go for Princeton. |
|
|
1LotteryPick1969 Postdoc Posts 2280
|
01-10-17 07:05 PM - Post#217941
I've never been good at these types of problems, though, so my logic could be off somewhere. You are kidding, aren't you? |
|
|
sparman PhD Student Posts 1352
|
01-10-17 08:24 PM - Post#217951
So, the assessment that outcomes are rigged seems to be a default Penn attitude. |
|
|
PennFan10 Postdoc Posts 3590 |
01-10-17 11:40 PM - Post#217967
So, the assessment that outcomes are rigged seems to be a default Penn attitude. I believe I highlighted 3 plays where officials made calls in the last minute (foul on Howard, no call on Betley and foul on Foreman) that were inconsistent. No one is arguing the fouls or the inconsistency. I also said that because this inconsistency happened in the final minute, it had an impact on Penn's ability to come back from a 5 pt deficit. Noah Savage, on the broadcast, said exactly what I have just said. I admitted (more than once) that Penn had other chances, that other calls were made and missed, that it was a rough game. Rigged? Bad refs? Sour grapes....No one has said anything like this. |
|
|
SomeGuy Professor Posts 6418 |
01-11-17 08:43 AM - Post#217975
I don't think the game Friday is a must win by any stretch. Saturday is the must win. |
|
|
bradley PhD Student Posts 1842 |
01-11-17 10:40 AM - Post#217983
I agree. As long as Penn comes out of this weekend, 1-2, they should be ok. A win against Brown would be a big plus as Brown may be possible competition for the 4th spot. Even if Penn goes 0-3, they are not out of the hunt for the 4th spot although it will be challenging. For the Tigers coming into the season, they needed to come out of the first 3 home games with at least or 2-1 record if they want to compete for the 1st seed. This upcoming weekend may be their most challenging home weekend of the season with Brown and Yale. Yale has veteran experience and their non-conference stats are slightly better than the Tigers. They actually look like Princeton on offense with very good ball movement plus they play tough hard nosed defense. Best win of last year was when Yale came to Jadwin and the Tigers stepped up and beat Sears and company by 12 points. Unfortunately, Caruso who terrorized the Bulldogs in the prior 2 years will not be there. |
|
|
palestra38 Professor Posts 32916 |
01-11-17 12:07 PM - Post#217987
If "default" means one (younger) Penn poster who is pretty much alone in that view. |
|
|
penn nation Professor Posts 21312 |
01-11-17 12:31 PM - Post#217990
I think our friend from Nassau was referring to the incoming President. |
|
|
PennFan10 Postdoc Posts 3590 |
01-11-17 03:32 PM - Post#218008
If "default" means one (younger) Penn poster who is pretty much alone in that view. There were NO Penn posters with that view. |
|
|
sparman PhD Student Posts 1352
|
01-12-17 08:58 PM - Post#218128
I think our friend from Nassau was referring to the incoming President. Or as he is sometimes known (and at the risk of going over the head of some of your younger colleagues), the Siberian Candidate. |
|
|
 |
|
| Copyright © 2004-2012 Basketball U. Terms of Use for our Site and Privacy Policy are applicable to you. All rights reserved. Basketball U. and its subsidiaries are not affiliated in any way with any NCAA athletic conference or member institution. |
|