mountainred
Masters Student
Posts: 513
Age: 57
Loc: Charleston, WV
Reg: 04-11-10
|
03-13-11 04:13 PM - Post#100614
After 2 and a half months of depressing basketball, the month of February offers some hope. You can make a good case that Cornell was playing as well as anyone in the league not named Harvard or Princeton in February. Of course that doesn't get you anything, especially after being swept by Columbia and losing at Dartmouth.
Cornell remained way to reliant on 3 point shooting (#3 in the nation at the end of the year), but was only the #44 shooting team (Unlike last year's #1). The inside game came around a little with Mark Coury down the stretch (happy for his last month) but our "bigs" still like playing out on the wing. The mid-range or penetration game was non-existent except for Peck's good days. Defensive efficiency was #250 in the nation, which is obviously not a winning stat.
Injuries were a factor (Osgood missed half the season, Wrobo was never fully healthy, Tarwater and Gatlin missed most of the year) but every team has to fight through that.
This year's team was remarkably poor in close games: 2-10 in games decided by 5 pts or fewer. I'm sure if the mark was 10-2 I would take it as a sign of great team character. At 2-10, I think it was a combination of inexperience at most positions (including coach) and bad luck.
Still not sure what to make of Coach Courtney. His end of the year starting line-up made no sense, but seemed to work. His bench coaching was a work in progress, but it was his first ever year in the big chair. I'm convinced that Courtney wants to play a style not suited to the personnel he inheriented (Figini, Chermerninksi and Groebe aren't full-court defenders).
Not saying much that isn't well-known, so I guess this season is still too fresh. Courtney has a class of eight (counting the two injured freshman), so I expect every role on next year's team but starting PG to be in play. Tomic and LaMore will have plenty of time available as Cornell's only losses are on the inside.
The more I read about Galel Cancer, the more excited I am to see him play. Seems like a special kid out of a great program. I'm really expecting him to see a ton of action next season.
|
CUJacob
Senior
Posts: 353
Reg: 12-05-04
|
03-13-11 07:43 PM - Post#100714
In response to mountainred
Cornell went 6-3 in its last 9 games, losing only to the co-champs. If not for the meltdown against Yale, it could have been 7-3. That was a pretty huge step forward.
Not super concerned about the poor close game record. Agreed on Courtney's starting lineup-- though it worked at times, I thought it was ridiculous. Matthews, Figini and Asafo-Adjei starting over Ferry, Wire and Coury was bonkers.
I think there's reason for optimism, and think an upper division finish is a realistic goal for next year. Wouldn't rule out a finish as high as 2nd given the way they played down the stretch (count me among those that expect Harvard to dominate next year).
|
EddieAlberto
Freshman
Posts: 9
Age: 73
Reg: 03-21-11
|
03-22-11 12:30 AM - Post#102199
In response to CUJacob
After not following the team for awhile, my interest really peaked after last year's Sweet 16 team so I followed the Big Red this year very closely, especially online video of the games.
Over the course of the season, we got to see glimpses of almost every player on the roster. From the top of the lineup to the bottom, I didn't see much separation in the talent between the players - only experience. I recall that Coach Courtney said the same thing during a few interviews.
When the team was really struggling and it appeared that the Ivy championship was not within reach, I believe that Coach Courtney still wanted to win badly but he also wanted to get his younger players some experience leading into 2011-12 - especially the sophomores. Hence, the 12 man rotation which got the younger guys minutes, but the bulk of the minutes still went to the experienced players. This made perfect sense for 2010-11 and of course the team's record improved when new blood was transfused into the body.
The 2011-12 Big Red could be harder to predict than the 2010-11 Big Red. If the Big Red had finished 18-10 and second or third in the Ivy, then perhaps you just keep doing what you were doing and build on it. But, the Big Red finished 10-18 (5th in the Ivy), even though many had predicted that the team still had enough to make a run at an Ivy title. After a season like that, the competition for meaningful minutes should be wide open for next year. If it isn't, then why carry such a large roster (21 players for next year??)
I think it will come down to which players improve their game the most between now and October, as it always should. Competition is what makes teams better. Also, if indeed it is Coach Courtney's style to play up tempo, then I would not be surprised to see a much different style of play next year which could lead to a whole different look and rotation of minutes.
As for next year's freshmen, there is no comparison between high school basketball and D-1 basketball, especially in the Ivy Leaguie where the talent has improved so much over the years. As Al McGuire used to say, the best thing about freshmen is that they eventually become sophomores. I believe that only one Big Red freshman saw meaningful minutes last season. There is so much for a freshman to adjust to, both on and off the court, but especially on the court. Incoming recruits are always over-hyped at every school, and that's great for the kids and the fans because it builds excitement. But, the hype is so irrelevant. Until they suit it up against 21 and 22 year-olds who are stronger and more experienced, freshmen are a complete unknown. The only thing that truly matters is who produces starting on October 15, and its all speculation until then. If next year's freshmen are playing alot of minutes, that will probably be a sign that it is officially a rebuilding year.
|
IvyBballFan
Masters Student
Posts: 479
Age: 77
Loc: Central Florida
Reg: 11-19-09
|
03-22-11 03:07 PM - Post#102218
In response to EddieAlberto
After not following the team for awhile...
1. I didn't see much separation in the talent between the players - only experience.
2. The team's record improved when new blood was transfused into the body.
3. Many had predicted that the team still had enough to make a run at an Ivy title.
4. I believe that only one Big Red freshman saw meaningful minutes last season.
Welcome to the board. Many of us try to follow all the teams because they are what makes the whole league interesting. Cornell is particularly remarkable because they had the best run in the history of the league for a non-P team over the past few seasons. Some have noted wryly that it coincided with coaching disasters at the P’s. Aaaccchhh! Sour grapes! One cannot yet rule out the possibility that Cornell has figured something out for the long term. They, along with Harvard and Yale, bear watching.
1. Talent Separation. I mostly agree. I think there is parity except for one player. Chris Wroblewski was Ivy ROY two years ago, all-Ivy Honorable Mention last year, and All-Ivy First Team this year. He’s a thoroughbred, a cut above the others all the way along. He was the Big Red team leader this year and will be again next year.
2. Why did the 2010-11 record suddenly improve two-thirds of the way through the season? New blood on the court? OK… Cornell played the toughest non-conference schedule of any league team, explaining some of that 4-10 start. There were only three Ivy W’s over NCAA tournament teams this year; Cornell got one of them (Wofford).
It sure did look as if Coach let up on his insistence that the guys be defense-first oriented, after the game in Hanover. Fouls dropped off, scoring and shot percentages rose noticeably, rebounding held steady. Both Cornell’s and its opponents’ PPG rose, but Cornell’s improved more. I tend to think the experience of a 4-15 start while losing 14 of 16 games finally kicked in. If you are a Cornell alum, that stretch was certainly reminiscent of Bball when you were there. There was also something incredibly difficult about having a decimated crew with a new coach open with five of six league games on the road, too.
When I look at the Big Red’s season, I think one can make a case that the “real†2010-11 Cornell team was 6-3, losing only to the league’s top teams.
3. Few knowledgeable fans thought the Big Red would make a run. That was clearly a big dose of hype and a modest dose of hope. You can’t lose five of your eight rotation players, including three All-Ivy First Teamers, and your coach, play the toughest schedule in the league, open with five of six on the Ivy road, and make a run. It just can’t happen.
4. Frosh with meaningful minutes; only Matthews’ 187 minutes came even close. No Cornell frosh really made a meaningful on-court contribution this year.
You are so right about how to rationally approach freshman playing D-1 ball. When you think about Cornell’s 4-in-6 run of Ivy ROY’s (Collins, Gore, Dale, Wroblewski), it makes you realize that Cornell had more than their share of Year 1 stars over the past eight years. It is going to be awhile before another league freshman averages the 15.1PPG that Ryan Wittman put up.
5. Let's look to next year, based on what type of proven talent is returning around the league. Cornell is as predictable as last year's bunch... just better. I have to think that Cornell is going to be somewhere in the scrum with Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. Penn and Columbia will need to come up with some surprises to join in.
There is a school of thought that stands in awe of Harvard’s six returning double digit scorers. Among the others, only Penn and Cornell even return three double-digit scorers. But things deserve a closer look. IMO, the Crimson has something to prove on the court next season.
It is true that Princeton was our champion/NCAA rep this year. Another view of what happened down the stretch was that Harvard failed to close the deal in both their games in New Haven this year. They had 6+ point leads with nine minutes left and allowed both Yale and Princeton to wrestle games away from them in the last minute. Against the Tigers, they shot a paltry 3-6 from the FT line down the stretch. When given opportunities in the post-season, the Crimson have laid big eggs twice in a row.
Harvard is going to have to make a believer out of many of us by doing it on the court, not just at the recruiting trough, through the end of the 2011-12 season. I hope they do. I really hope they do. The league can use that kind of variety in champions. Their league schedule will be harder (maybe they will even choose to toughen up their pre-season schedule). They likely open with five of seven on the road in league play next year and will probably have to make the Philly area road swing on the final weekend of the league season. That's harder. They will have the proverbial target on their backs at every stop in the 14-game schedule.
|
EddieAlberto
Freshman
Posts: 9
Age: 73
Reg: 03-21-11
|
03-22-11 05:43 PM - Post#102222
In response to IvyBballFan
Agree that Wroblewski is a cut above the rest based on ballhandling, shooting and experience.
I also think that it always helps to look back to see what worked before in the Ivy League. No better team to look at than the 2010 team. Even if you cannot replicate the talent, try the formula.
The 2010 formula was a solid post (Foote backed by Coury), a smallish mobile scoring four man who creates matchup problems (Jacques backed by Tyler), a taller knock down shooter at the 3G (Wittman backed by Reeves), and two guards who can both shoot and penetrate to create for themselves and others (Dale and Wroblewski).
So, who do you plug in that formula for 2011-12?
In the post, I like Figini and Chemerisnki to make huge strides physically and with their confidence. They are both very skilled players offensively.
At the four spot, I like Peck who can step out and present matchup problems backed up by perhaps McMillen or even one of the younger guys like Sahota or Tarwater.
At the 3G, I like Groebe backed by Grey or perhaps even play Ferry at the 3G even though he is smaller. Ferry is the tweener. If he were 6ft 5, he would be an easy choice at the 3G. At the 2G, his strength is not penetration and probably deviates from the 2010 formula of two shooting/penetrating guards if you play him as a standstill shooting guard.
At the PG, I think you have to have the ball in Wroblewski's hands. He can shoot, penetrate and create for others.
At the 2G spot, either Ferry improves his penetration or another player such as Asafo-Adjei or Grey or Mathews makes huge strides. Grey and Mathews are probably the two who can both shoot and penetrate but I like Grey better as a tall 3G.
Maybe one of the freshmen is ready, but I wouldn't count on it.
The key is that every player must get better between now and October and be ready to battle and compete against each other so that the team gets better.
|
Penn94
PhD Student
Posts: 1461
Loc: Dallas, Texas
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-22-11 05:57 PM - Post#102223
In response to IvyBballFan
There were only three Ivy W’s over NCAA tournament teams this year; Cornell got one of them (Wofford).
Nice to see BRF talking to himself in the offseason.
Got this one wrong though my friend, as you missed the two wins over NCAA bound Princeton, making the total wins over NCAA tournament teams at 5:
Here are the Ivy wins over NCAA tournament teams.
Bucknell (Princeton)
Boston U (Harvard)
Princeton (Harvard)
Princeton (Brown)
Wofford (Cornell)
|
IvyBballFan
Masters Student
Posts: 479
Age: 77
Loc: Central Florida
Reg: 11-19-09
|
03-22-11 06:25 PM - Post#102224
In response to Penn94
Here are the Ivy wins over NCAA tournament teams.
Bucknell (Princeton)
Boston U (Harvard)
*Princeton (Harvard)
*Princeton (Brown)
Wofford (Cornell)
My bad. Thanks for the help. Forgot that we beat our own rep twice!
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-25-11 09:47 AM - Post#102332
In response to IvyBballFan
Harvard is going to have to make a believer out of many of us by doing it on the court, not just at the recruiting trough, through the end of the 2011-12 season. I hope they do. I really hope they do. The league can use that kind of variety in champions. Their league schedule will be harder (maybe they will even choose to toughen up their pre-season schedule).
I know myths tend to run rampant amongst Ivy fans, but Harvard's non-conference schedule was the toughest in the league in both the Pomeroy Ratings (0.6292/63rd vs. No. 2 Princeton 0.5606/116th) and RPI (107th vs. No. 2 Cornell 120th).
It's pretty difficult to get much higher than that, given return games that are locked in and the oft difficult task of getting BCS teams to play you anywhere, while still balancing the need for at least 4 or 5 home games.
It can be done, but usually requires an MTE to add games to the schedule - and games that are usually against the Top 100 or so NCAA teams.
|
IvyBballFan
Masters Student
Posts: 479
Age: 77
Loc: Central Florida
Reg: 11-19-09
|
03-25-11 03:32 PM - Post#102361
In response to mrjames
Maybe they will even choose to toughen up their pre-season schedule).
It's pretty difficult to get much higher than 63, given return games that are locked in and the oft difficult task of getting BCS teams to play you anywhere, while still balancing the need for at least 4 or 5 home games.
I see what you're saying. You probably have some inside knowledge on return game commitments. Harvard has played sub-250ish Holy Cross, Bryant, and Seattle two years running. If these really were two year deals, there might be a chance to replace them with upgraded D-1 opponents. There also may be an opportunity to replace one of the D-3's with a D-1, too.
It does look as if Harvard and Princeton's overall strength of schedule was pulled down (as expected) by their lower-ranking Ivy opponents.
The point is that we know that, come tournament time, a weak SOS is going to hurt both during at-large evaluation (St. Mary's) and at seeding time (Belmont and Utah State). Harvard ought to consider seriously doing a little something schedule-wise in a year like 2011-12, when they project to be really good.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-25-11 04:06 PM - Post#102368
In response to IvyBballFan
Harvard will try. But, as I've always said, short of the NCAA passing more rules incentives to force BCS teams to schedule quality mid-majors, there's limited headway you can make on that front.
|
mountainred
Masters Student
Posts: 513
Age: 57
Loc: Charleston, WV
Reg: 04-11-10
|
03-27-11 10:56 AM - Post#102424
In response to mrjames
Mike (can I call you Mike, if not, Mr. James) -- Wasn't Harvard's non-conf. SOS bumped significantly because of the Princeton play-off (I don't think KenPom treats that as a conference game) and the NIT game with Oklahoma State, neither of which Harvard scheduled? I really have a memory of Cornell having the hardest out of conference schedule during the league slate, becuase I pointed out tough it was for Cornell to be playing up like that in a transition year.
That said, it seems like Harvard's non-conference schedule is either a quality game (5 teams in the top 70) or someone in the bottom half of D-1, which probably colors most of our memories.
And, how did we turn a Cornell wrap-up into a discussion of Harvard?
|
mountainred
Masters Student
Posts: 513
Age: 57
Loc: Charleston, WV
Reg: 04-11-10
|
03-27-11 11:25 AM - Post#102428
In response to EddieAlberto
Eddie -- I admire your optimism, but expecting players like Figini, Eitan, Grey, Sahota, McMillan, MAA and Matthews to make a big jump seems unlikely. Maybe one will, and if we are lucky two, but all them? That's like playing poker and hoping to fill an inside straight flush.
I began this season expecting Peck, Wire, Coury and Groebe to make the transition from role player to regular. All four had demonstrated more potential in the 2010 season than any of the guys in my first paragraph did this year. Of the four, Wire mysteriously disappeared after starting the season well, Groebe was a non-factor, Peck was maddeningly inconsistent, and Coury needed half the season to become a workmanlike post.
That's why I am looking to the freshman. I readily admit I don't know enough to know which of them If any) will make the jump from high school to D1. Still, I think the odds are much better that Galel Cancr or Devin Cherry will be a player out of the gate than of MAA developing a jump shot as a college junior. And, without trying to sound too critical of Cornell's returnees, if Cornell wants to be a factor in the Ivy race, I think we need better players than what most of our returnees project to for next season. When Courtney was hired, they said he was an ace recruiter; I hope they were right.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-27-11 11:31 AM - Post#102429
In response to mountainred
Ha. The Mr. James thing is a misconception. My middle name begins with an "R" and since mjames is usually gone as a username, I've always included the R.
Pomeroy does appear to be adding both into his SOS formula - though it's hard to duplicate, because he privately adds in the HCA component to the SOS. Without those teams, Harvard would probably be about as far ahead of Cornell as it is in the RPI.
The fact that Michigan landed in the Top 30 to make that three top 30 opponents Harvard faced and that some of the teams initially thought to be "bad" wound up being average (BU and GW finished mid 100s, Mercer cracked the Top 200) gave the Crimson's SOS a strong push.
|
mountainred
Masters Student
Posts: 513
Age: 57
Loc: Charleston, WV
Reg: 04-11-10
|
03-27-11 12:16 PM - Post#102433
In response to mrjames
Now that I look, most of Harvard's non-conference opponents close strong (UConn and Colorado maybe strongest of all) while Cornell's (Minnesota, Seton Hall, to some extent Syracuse) did not. So, the numbers probably passed each other somewhere in the season when I wasn't paying any attention.
I like ripping on Harvard as much as the next guy, but it's hard to say the Crimson played a qualitatively different regular season schedule than Cornell did in 2010. Cornell had Toledo and Bryant (and 2 DIII games, man I hope those are gone) and five teams in the top 72 (as opposed to Harvard's five games in the top 68). I could probably argue that Harvard got a little lucky in their schedule and Cornell a little unlucky, but that's more fan than analysis.
|
cornellfan4
Masters Student
Posts: 543
Reg: 12-09-09
|
03-27-11 01:07 PM - Post#102438
In response to mountainred
Harvard should try to get into one of those tournaments because I bet fewer majors will want to play them than usual given their success this year and lack of seniors, I already saw the one assistant tweet and then later remove it that they tried to schedule St Johns but they said no
|
mountainred
Masters Student
Posts: 513
Age: 57
Loc: Charleston, WV
Reg: 04-11-10
|
03-27-11 01:37 PM - Post#102439
In response to cornellfan4
But, if they get into one of those pre-season tourneys, make it one where you can advance if you win. Cornell was "cheated" out of some good games when it beat UMass, but still got stuck in the loser's bracket with Toledo, Vermont and Drexel.
Harvard is in that mid-major no mans land of being recognized as good by the coaches, but not the public at large. If you are St. John's, you can't sell a Harvard loss to your fans as a good loss, even though statistically it is. So why risk it?
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-28-11 09:37 AM - Post#102535
In response to mountainred
If you are St. John's, you can't sell a Harvard loss to your fans as a good loss, even though statistically it is. So why risk it?
Bingo.
|
Silver Maple
Postdoc
Posts: 3770
Loc: Westfield, New Jersey
Reg: 11-23-04
|
03-28-11 10:41 AM - Post#102539
In response to mrjames
What's more, you'll never get much credit for the win. The fan's will just say, "of course we should have won. It's Harvard for God's sake."
Put another way, playing Harvard is all risk and no reward for a coach and an AD.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-28-11 11:00 AM - Post#102545
In response to Silver Maple
Yup. I've said this a number of times, but I recall a TON of jokes about Michigan when it was on the wrong side of the bubble in February that it's best RPI win was Harvard. Chuckle, chuckle, chuckle.
If I were a BCS school - I'd much rather schedule a terrible BCS school than a good mid-major.
|
Old Bear
Postdoc
Posts: 3992
Reg: 11-23-04
|
03-28-11 11:10 AM - Post#102551
In response to mrjames
Scheduling for the Ivies is no easy task.
|
Silver Maple
Postdoc
Posts: 3770
Loc: Westfield, New Jersey
Reg: 11-23-04
|
03-28-11 11:22 AM - Post#102553
In response to Old Bear
I remember when Jerome Allen et al. beat Michigan in Ann Arbor in 1994. Prior to the game, despite the fact that we were considered to have one of the top 5 backcourts in the country and Michigan had lost four of the fab 5, the Michigan student paper was saying that this would be an welcome break for the team from what had been a very challenging schedule, and making snarky predictions about just how bad an a$$-whipping their boys were going to lay on us. After we beat them the criticism of the coach (Steve Fisher?) was unbelievable.
|
EddieAlberto
Freshman
Posts: 9
Age: 73
Reg: 03-21-11
|
03-28-11 12:55 PM - Post#102571
In response to mountainred
Mountainred:
Well, I can't say I agree with the logic of your argumant that "admittedly" unknown freshmen are more likely to contribute to the success of the 2011-12 team than improved returning players out of the best two recruiting classes in Cornell history (as described by the Donahue staff). But, if blind faith works and the incoming freshmen immediately push those guys out of the way and substantially contribute to an Ivy title in game action, I am all in favor.
I will say that MAA does not have to develop a jump shot to contribute. He probably never will develop a jump shot at this point, but he can do many other things, especially defend, to help the team be successful.
Grey has already improved to the point of being a contributor.
Big men always tend to take longer in the Ivy League (witness.... Jeff Foote), so Chemerinski and Figini as juniors will not look anything like they did as freshmen and sophomores. They both have very good athleticism for the Ivy league, and their offensive skills are their strengths. Don't take my word on that, Wroblewski said that Chemerinski was unstoppable in practice, and Figini had several very good games late this past season in limited minutes. They need what most young players need, strength and minutes.
Without a doubt, Peck has the ability to be All Ivy. He is a perfect example of how even talented freshmen take time to get acclimated to the college game. My guess is that his light bulb goes off in 2011-12.
Sahota showed flashes of talent and potential, but did not get the minutes to prove much of anything. Same for Mathews - his skill level and athleticism are definitely there, he just needs strength and minutes. Tarwater was in the rotation early in the season, but then I think he got sick or hurt.
McMillen may have been the odd man out last year, but he has a really nice shot. And, he has two years under his belt practicing against competition that far exceeds high school competition.
Just for kicks, if the incoming six freshmen were to play last year's sophomore and freshmen classes in a 40 minute game on the first day of practice, October 15, 2011, and you had to bet your mortgage on the game, which team would you pick to win?
|
mountainred
Masters Student
Posts: 513
Age: 57
Loc: Charleston, WV
Reg: 04-11-10
|
03-28-11 07:27 PM - Post#102643
In response to EddieAlberto
Look, can we please stop talking about how Donahue's staff called the class of '13 his best recruiting class at Cornell? They may have said it, but it is clearly not true. Seriously, it's not like Dale, Witt, Tyler, Jacques, and Reeves were all that long ago.
I have no desire to rip on Cornell players by name, let the Quaker boards eat thier own, but I didn't see a lot of progress from the Sophomore class this year. MAA plays solid defense, no question, but he reminds me of those defensive whiz shortstops who hit .190 and needed to steal first to get on base. You don't see them much anymore because you can't survive their automatic out in the line-up. If MAA can't improve that jump shot, and in two years he has not, his role is very, very limited.
You also say Ivy bigs develop more slowly, which is true, but there is no analogy between Jeff Foote and Josh Figini and Eitan Chemerinski. First, neither will have Jeff's physical presence unless they grow a couple of inches. Second, as a Sophomore Foote was a vastly better post player than either Josh or Eitan and he was very much a work in progress. I've watched Figini play for two years and agree he has some skills, but he has shown no desire to play the post; he wants to be the next Jon Jacques instead. And maybe he can be a useful 4, but this team needs help at the 5. And even though Courtney clearly wanted him to be an inside presence, he just wasn't. Not sure why that would change over the summer.
You talk about so-and-so (McMillen, Sahota, etc.) showed flashes of talent, which is true. They all earned spots on a DI roster. But flashes of talent is not much to go on. I played that game coming into this season. After all, how much time could any freshman get on the Sweet Sixteen team? Maybe they were really good, I told myself, but not as good as Foote, or Dale or Witt, or Tyler -- guys who had started for three or four years. A year later, we are still talking about so and so showing flashes of talent, but this time after a 10-18 season where there buckets of minutes waiting to be earned and not being earned.
Some returnee will develop; they always do. Maybe Peck becomes the consistent all-Ivy stud he has to tools to be and should be, but isn't yet. Eitan's stides considering the project he was when he enrolled and the awful high school league he played in have been remarkable. I like Grey though his on-floor decision-making is dicey. Maybe it is one of those guys, maybe two, maybe someone else. But not everybody; it just doesn't work like that. Make no mistake, I would love for Grey and Peck and Figini and McMillen to take a big jump and become all-Ivy standouts. But, I've watched enough basketball to know that's a sucker's bet.
I give a pass to the Freshman. Tarwater battled mono and missed a lot of the season to try to save some eligibility; Scelfo was out the entire year. I think both have talent. Matthews was a pleasant surprise, though he was little more than a change of pace guard. Who knows about Sahota, but I've been routinely disappointed by Cornell's Canadian recruits. Honestly, the skill level of the Class of '14 is every bit the mystery as the Class of '15; we have little evidence either way.
So, to get back to your question, who would I bet on? Do I take the known quantity of the Class of '13, who have shown little thus far, or what is behind the curtain (the Class of '15)? While its an unfair question -- one group has played with each other for two years and the other would basically be a pick-up team -- I take the Class of '15 because it had better increase the talent level at Cornell or the Quaker fans who predicted Cornell will fade back into hockey oblivion will be right.
|
mountainred
Masters Student
Posts: 513
Age: 57
Loc: Charleston, WV
Reg: 04-11-10
|
03-28-11 07:35 PM - Post#102644
In response to mountainred
Or, short version, I have no idea if the incoming freshman are good enough to force their way into the line-up. None. Nada. Zilch. But, if Cornell wants to challenge for a league title soon, they had better because based on what I have seen from the guys currently on the roster, the current team is not good enough.
|
EddieAlberto
Freshman
Posts: 9
Age: 73
Reg: 03-21-11
|
03-28-11 11:54 PM - Post#102669
In response to mountainred
Ok, so you have no desire to rip on the players on the current Cornell roster by name, but........
If you feel like my argument was a bit more persuasive than yours, no need to lash out at the players in frustration. 
Seriously, every player that you ended up ripping on by name is an under the radar talent who was brought into the program to be developed. They are kids who have already shown that they are willing to commit to getting better or they would not be one of the approximate 35-40 kids from across the country every year who have the rare combination of academics and basketball talent to be recruited onto an Ivy League roster. And, they have all proven the naysayers wrong their entire young careers. That includes next year's freshmen class, who should also be permitted some time to mature and develop before they are over-hyped and then rejected as well.
With these truths in mind, I guess I would prefer to judge the success of last year's freshmen and sophomores after they are juniors and seniors who are no longer playing behind experienced seniors and after they are further down the learning curve of a brand new staff which, until the end of the 2010-11 season, had not one year of head coaching experience - combined.
Finally, the Wittman/Dale/Reeves/Foote class was undeniably the most successful class in Cornell history. But they did not start out as Ivy League champs. Even Coach Donahue called Foote the worst player in D-1 basketball after he transferred to Cornell. Each of those players got better every year and were able to develop their games without being prematurely evaluated. And, each of the players from that historic class got far more minutes as freshmen and sophomores to learn and make mistakes on the job than did last year's freshmen and sophomores, mainly because their team situations were just different.
Therefore, I am afraid that I am unable to value your anonymous opinion over Donahue's opinion (formed after his 20 years in the Ivy league) that his last two recruiting classes were his best two classes ever at Cornell. Perhaps that is why I might give those two recruitng classes a bit more time to develop, but perhaps I am too patient??
|
cornellfan4
Masters Student
Posts: 543
Reg: 12-09-09
|
03-29-11 12:15 AM - Post#102671
In response to EddieAlberto
The problem was Donahue thought they were the best classes he recruited for him and his system. Donahue isnt here anymore and Courtney seems to have a much different philosophy. Courtney said when he came in that he wanted to have a 40min of hell type team that full court pressed you the whole game. Towards the end of the season he started to press more and while still fouling too much the press did contribute toward our success. If anything next year's class is one of the more athletic classes we have had and will fit into Courtney's 40min of hell system. It is hard to expect much from freshman but the minutes are surely there for them next year. If this class is as good as advertised I expect at least one freshman to be a major contributor next year
|
Howard Gensler
Postdoc
Posts: 4141
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Season in Review or Where do we go from here
03-29-11 09:14 AM - Post#102679
In response to EddieAlberto
Finally, the Wittman/Dale/Reeves/Foote class was undeniably the most successful class in Cornell history. But they did not start out as Ivy League champs.
No, but they were Ivy League champs as sophomores and then dominated the League for two more years. The class they most resemble in terms of Ivy success is Jerome Allen's freshman class, which didn't win the League but then (with the addition of Matt Maloney the following year) went 42-0 over the next three years. The Dale/Wittman/Foote class was special. You don't get "special" often.
Edited by Howard Gensler on 03-29-11 09:15 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
IvyBballFan
Masters Student
Posts: 479
Age: 77
Loc: Central Florida
Reg: 11-19-09
|
03-30-11 12:11 PM - Post#102763
In response to mountainred
I have no desire to rip on Cornell players by name, but I didn't see a lot of progress from the Sophomore class this year.
You also say Ivy bigs develop more slowly, which is true...
So, to get back to your question, who would I bet on? Do I take the known quantity of the Class of '13, who have shown little thus far, or what is behind the curtain (Class of '15)? I take the Class of '15 because...
Ah! The world of Ivy bigs. All of us want an Eggleston, Maddox, Mangano, Hummer, or Wright to patrol our boards, but the truth is that such “standouts†are few and far between. It is is a little more realistic to look around the league and recognize what constitutes a credible, positive performance and realize what any big man does relative to that. These comments actually apply to all eight teams. The “standard†for bigs is surprisingly modest. There are a number of Ivy front court players who perform steadily in an under-the-radar manner that helps their team. In some way of thinking, their main job is to get hold of the ball for their backcourt mates.
Let’s define an Ivy big man as someone who is at least 6’7†and weighs at least 215lbs. Guys smaller than this generally are unable to camp effectively in the paint for long periods without getting hurt or into repeated foul trouble. Let’s see what such guys contributed in 2010-11, and how many return.
44 big men suited up during 2010-11. Only about twenty contributed in a way that positively affected their clubs’ on-court fortunes. Moreover, only about a dozen played more than 20 min/g. Cornell’s Coury, Osgood, and Wire (Wire played very “bigâ€) were loosely among the twenty, but not in the dozen. A minimum positive performance appears to be about 4R, 6P in 18 min/g over the course of the season. Bigs who produce this for their teams, hang onto the ball (e.g., Darrow or Connolly), and play defense, stay out there because they are positives in this league.
41 big guys are already on rosters for 2011-12. There are a couple more borderline guys who may try to play in the frontcourt, who cannot be evaluated right now. Let’s see who looks ready. Of the 41, only ten played ~18 min/g in 2010-11, and have proven that they are ready to contribute at or above the 4R,6P level. Yes, it’s not many. Many are juniors. Room for a few more, for sure. Loosely-arranged, based on number of returning players and what they did last year, the frontcourts appear to rank in this order: Harvard, Yale, Brown/Princeton, Columbia (barring recurrent injury), Cornell, Penn, and Dartmouth. There will be big individual jumps. Remember, one player with a ~4R,6P profile in 2009-10 (Mangano) put up Ivy POY-like numbers in 2010-11.
If things play out like last year, there will be about two dozen bigs who contribute positively to their teams. There are now about 12-15 guys around the league who played in the 100-250 minute range in 2010-11 and showed enough to make one think that they could join the above ten at the steady 4R,6P or better level in 18 min/g. Cornell’s Chemerinski, Figini, and Gatlin are in this group. Somewhat surprisingly, if two of the three reach or exceed this level, Cornell will get more production from its frontcourt than last year. What strikes me on the downside is that none of the three really have the bulk right now to bang hard and effectively and stay healthy and foul-free, on an ongoing basis. Save for Barrett and Gunter, they are the lightest bigs in the league and seem headed for trouble mixing it up with wide bodies like Cisco, Connolly, Hummer, Kreisberg, Mangano, and Wright, among others. Ampim, Cisco, Daniels, Howlett, Osgood, and PSullivan are examples of how hard it is to stay healthy for a season, when you are somehat undersized for the Ivy frontcourt. An additional ten to fifteen lbs of muscle on any or all of Cornell’s three returning big men really increases the chances of success.
Like Eddie, I think relying on the bigs in the Class of 2015 for this year doesn’t look like the way to go. In the future, OK, but not for this year. Of ten Ivy frosh bigs last year, only two, Kreisberg and Walker, provided value. Could Cornell’s LaMore or Giddens contribute? They, like the Cornell incumbents, are probably somewhat undersized. They will have a chance, but it’s not this year’s high probability outcome. In 2011-12, the odds of Chemerinski, Figini, and Gatlin elevating their respective games into the 4R, 6P group of positive bigs are greater than the odds of having a frosh reach that level.
|
|
