I'm kinda in the middle on the nailbiter loss. Even if they had won, it wouldn't prove that Cornell is "for real" and is capable of being an Ivy darkhorse. That honor belongs to Yale thus far.
On the other hand, it does show that they're more than capable of playing spoiler by stealing one from Princeton or Harvard. Especially with the Tigers' FT shooting being frequently face-palm inducing. Hummer should expect hack-a-Shaq treatment.
I basically agree with this sentiment. I imagine there's a lot of chest thumping going on in Cornell circles, but the performance was really nothing more than an underdog taking a high variance approach and cashing in.
If the Big Red had done something well or improved in one of its weak areas, it would be one thing, but Cornell just shot a ton of threes and hit at a high rate. Big Red still got dominated inside and couldn't make a two pointer to save its life.
I don't think there's much chest thumping in Cornell circles at all. I think most people agree this team could finish anywhere from 3rd to 7th and would have to improve a lot in terms of rebounding and non-3-pt-shooting-offense to mount any kind of challenge to Harvard and Princeton.
My take is that if Errick Peck can play like he does against BCS teams against non-BCS teams, the Wroblewski-Wire-Peck-Ferr y group can be pretty effective and lead Cornell to 7-8 Ivy wins-- and there are plenty of folks on the Cornell blog who think that's too optimistic. There are also some people that think Cornell has a shot to win the league, but those people have been thinking that all season, not just after the Minnesota game.
Edited by CUJacob on 12-06-10 01:43 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.