Untitled Document
Brown Columbia Cornell Dartmouth Harvard Penn Princeton Yale



 Page 1 of 2 ALL12
Username Post: Season in Review or Where do we go from here        (Topic#11774)
mountainred 
Masters Student
Posts: 509

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

  • EddieAlberto Said:
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

  • IvyBballFan Said:
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

  • Penn94 Said:
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

  • Quote:
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

  • mrjames Said:
  • Quote:
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: 509

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: 509

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: 509

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: 509

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

  • Quote:
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: 3765

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: 3988

Reg: 11-23-04
03-28-11 11:10 AM - Post#102551    
    In response to mrjames

Scheduling for the Ivies is no easy task.

 
 Page 1 of 2 ALL12
Icon Legend Permissions Topic Options
Report Post

Quote Post

Quick Reply

Print Topic

Email Topic

17477 Views




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.
FusionBB™ Version 2.1 | ©2003-2007 InteractivePHP, Inc.
Execution time: 0.396 seconds.   Total Queries: 16   Zlib Compression is on.
All times are (GMT -0500) Eastern. Current time is 10:49 AM
Top