Untitled Document
Brown Columbia Cornell Dartmouth Harvard Penn Princeton Yale



 Page 2 of 2 ALL<12
Username Post: The Mitch Henderson Era: A Preview Thread        (Topic#11968)
Jeff2sf 
Postdoc
Posts: 4466

Reg: 11-22-04
04-22-11 05:07 PM - Post#104621    
    In response to Tiger86

On one hand you've got athletic scholarships, a nationally prestigious university and playing in the Big 10.

On the other hand you have a more prestigiousy university.

It's no contest, it should be, and generally is, much easier to recruit at Northwestern.

 
1LotteryPick1969 
Postdoc
Posts: 2262
1LotteryPick1969
Age: 73
Loc: Sandy, Utah
Reg: 11-21-04
04-22-11 05:31 PM - Post#104629    
    In response to Howard Gensler

Very thoughtful analysis, as always.

If you get right down to the bottom line, all of the Ivy's are recruiting from the same pool of talent; it's only a matter of how many good ones you have at one time, and how you develop them. Historically, Penn and Princeton have more good ones at the same time, and typically develop them well.

So Harvard has truly stepped it up a notch, and the others have a difficult job trying to keep up.
It would also seem improbable that Henderson will be able to effect a sea change at Princeton.

And then the only remaining question, how long does Amaker last at Harvard?

 
gokinsmen 
Postdoc
Posts: 3634

Reg: 02-06-10
The Mitch Henderson Era: A Preview Thread
04-22-11 06:01 PM - Post#104636    
    In response to Jeff2sf

  • Jeff2sf Said:
If the best you can do are "Harvard/Penn" classes when you have scholarships and the Big Ten, that's the opposite of good.



That's flattering Harvard and yourself. NW's average recruiting class is similar to an Ivy's best classes.

Also, considering NW has NEVER been to the NCAAs, even calling it a mediocre Big 10 team is a stretch. Depaul's in the Big East...and I'd still consider Bucknell over them. Unless you're going to the NBA, a recruit's big dream is playing in the Big Dance on national tv. And while NW is a great school, it's no match for the prestige of top Ivies (esp. Harvard, Yale, Princeton).

 
Jeff2sf 
Postdoc
Posts: 4466

Reg: 11-22-04
04-22-11 06:39 PM - Post#104640    
    In response to gokinsmen

I was quoting Howard and I thought you, but you're right, I certainly wouldn't include the last 4 or 5 years of Penn classes as good.

Let's break this down just using your definitions - Henderson/Northwestern have demonstrated being unable to recruit as well as their conference opponents. If you'd like, we'll say that their recruiting matched the best an Ivy school had every year. Now you're removing his ability to offer a free education for only a slightly more prestigious university? And they get to play very small time schools and rarely appear on TV?

The same level of recruit he was bringing in is now asking themselves why they'd want to be involved in that.

About the only mitigating factor, such as it is, is that N'western LIKELY has more stringent standards for its recruits than the rest of the Big Ten, but Princeton has higher standards than some schools in the Ivies AND it's not clear that at these schools they clamp down quite as hard as the Ivies do. If Ivies scholar admits are allowed a std. deviation from the average student, it's very possible (likely?) that N'western, Cal, Stanford are allowed 1.5 or 2 devs.


Hmmm, now that I type all of the above facts, maybe you SHOULD have stuck with Earl.

 
gokinsmen 
Postdoc
Posts: 3634

Reg: 02-06-10
The Mitch Henderson Era: A Preview Thread
04-22-11 06:53 PM - Post#104645    
    In response to Jeff2sf

Well, I admit there's no real way of knowing -- recruiting is as behind-the-scenes as it gets. I'm just trying to give Henderson and Walters experience the benefit of the doubt. You work 11 years in a Big Ten (Lite) assistant gig, and you're bound to learn things that a four-year Ivy assistant -- no matter how brilliant -- simply hasn't.

But yeah, unless there was a candidate clearly better than Earl (esp. with recruiting), I saw no reason to choose otherwise.

 
SRP 
Postdoc
Posts: 4894

Reg: 02-04-06
04-22-11 08:40 PM - Post#104647    
    In response to gokinsmen

Howard has figured it out. Princeton doesn't succeed as a program by getting known "studs." Actually, I'm not sure anyone in the Ivies does, but Princeton admits it and focuses on getting players who fit the style and are willing to work hard to get better.

With all the raving about Harvard's talent, Curry is the only guy who really scares me (and improved a little bit last year). The rest of them looked the same to me this year as the year before (although I only saw them play three times this year). They're fine players and can do a lot of good things, but I don't think overall they're as good as the recent Cornell teams or the Onikyewe/Archibong Penn teams. No need for MH to pull recruiting magic out of his behind--if he can maintain at SJ's level we'll be fine.

 
Silver Maple 
Postdoc
Posts: 3765

Loc: Westfield, New Jersey
Reg: 11-23-04
04-22-11 09:46 PM - Post#104651    
    In response to SRP

  • SRP Said:
No need for MH to pull recruiting magic out of his behind--if he can maintain at SJ's level we'll be fine.



Possibly, although I have a hunch that one of the reasons Johnson departed was that he wasn't sure he'd be able to maintain the level of talent that he had enjoyed to that point. I'll also point out that no Princeton coach-- not Carril, not Carmody, not Thompson, certainly not Scott and not Johnson-- has succeeded in the league without superior athletes ( the 'system' notwithstanding).

(If you think about it, Scott kind of throws all this thinking into a cocked hat. He actually managed to fail spectacularly in the conference, with the purest variant of the system since the 80's, despite having tremendous athletes. Go figure.)

 
penn62 
PhD Student
Posts: 1053

Reg: 11-27-05
04-22-11 11:14 PM - Post#104658    
    In response to Silver Maple

I think the Princeton "system" is becoming a bit of a cliche. PU is recruiting better athletes and can now play to its strengths and many other teams have the so called system in their quiver. Nothing unique about it anymore. Coaches now know how to defense it better. Dunphy was good at it.
If you hire a coach who can only coach your "style" (not saying MH is one), it would be a mistake. Princeton's real strength is taking good players and making considerably better and team oriented.

 
Howard Gensler 
Postdoc
Posts: 4141

Reg: 11-21-04
04-22-11 11:52 PM - Post#104662    
    In response to penn62

I think the presence of Maddox the last couple years made people think Princeton was recruiting better athletes, but I don't think that's the case. They don't have a Will Venable on this team (nor do they have a Ray Robins, Harrison Schaen, Spencer Gloger or Andre Logan - and Mitch Henderson as a player was a much better athlete than either Davis or Mavraides.) Maddox's versatility covered a lot of that up. The other guys are not going to stun anyone with their quickness, speed or jumping ability. They're just good, skilled, smart, basketball players who played well together.


 
gokinsmen 
Postdoc
Posts: 3634

Reg: 02-06-10
The Mitch Henderson Era: A Preview Thread
04-23-11 02:22 AM - Post#104666    
    In response to Howard Gensler

  • Howard Gensler Said:
The other guys are not going to stun anyone with their quickness, speed or jumping ability. They're just good, skilled, smart, basketball players who played well together.


That describes 95% of all Ivy players...including most of Harvard's highly touted studs.

And Hummer looked pretty darn athletic swatting away Kentucky dunk attempts. He also shares Maddox's ability to guard inside and out. Speaking of Maddox-like qualities, Barrett is said to throw down dunks in practice that outdo Kareem's. Let him and Hazel and Clement (and Bray with his strength) see a little more action before you definitively say Princeton doesn't have any above-average Ivy athletes.

 
1LotteryPick1969 
Postdoc
Posts: 2262
1LotteryPick1969
Age: 73
Loc: Sandy, Utah
Reg: 11-21-04
Re: The Mitch Henderson Era: A Preview Thread
04-23-11 07:28 AM - Post#104670    
    In response to gokinsmen

  • gokinsmen Said:

And Hummer looked pretty darn athletic swatting away Kentucky dunk attempts. He also shares Maddox's ability to guard inside and out. Speaking of Maddox-like qualities, Barrett is said to throw down dunks in practice that outdo Kareem's. Let him and Hazel and Clement (and Bray with his strength) see a little more action before you definitively say Princeton doesn't have any above-average Ivy athletes.



Indeed! So does this post indicate that we can finally start thinking (fantasizing?) about next year?

 
Howard Gensler 
Postdoc
Posts: 4141

Reg: 11-21-04
Re: The Mitch Henderson Era: A Preview Thread
04-23-11 01:14 PM - Post#104696    
    In response to gokinsmen

  • gokinsmen Said:
  • Howard Gensler Said:
The other guys are not going to stun anyone with their quickness, speed or jumping ability. They're just good, skilled, smart, basketball players who played well together.


That describes 95% of all Ivy players...including most of Harvard's highly touted studs.

And Hummer looked pretty darn athletic swatting away Kentucky dunk attempts. He also shares Maddox's ability to guard inside and out. Speaking of Maddox-like qualities, Barrett is said to throw down dunks in practice that outdo Kareem's. Let him and Hazel and Clement (and Bray with his strength) see a little more action before you definitively say Princeton doesn't have any above-average Ivy athletes.



If Princeton has above average athletes playing on the court next season, then I will amend my statement. This past season, aside from Maddox (who next year may be replaced by Barrett), they did not put out a team with above average athletes, even by Ivy league standards.

That Barrett throws down monster jams in practice is somewhat irrelevant, don't you think? I've seen plenty of Penn guys dunk in practice that I never saw dunk in a game. And athleticism is about more than dunking - but I'll concede that Barrett looks like an above average athlete.


 
SRP 
Postdoc
Posts: 4894

Reg: 02-04-06
04-23-11 04:36 PM - Post#104713    
    In response to Howard Gensler

"Athleticism" is one of those terms that always bothers me a bit. I kind of get what people mean by it, but it often seems to take on an additional glamour that has little to do with winning basketball games. If unusual physical talent is focused into specific forms of execution, that's great. But a) focusing it is not so easy and b) there are often other ways of executing that can substitute for some of that talent.

For example, Will Venable had an unusual ability to drive by people (in a number of games against high-major opposition, nobody could stay in front of him consistently). That ability was partly based on native quickness and coordination but I suspect working on his first step and his crossover had something to do with it too. Dan Mavraides's quickness deficit compared to Venable was a lot bigger than his dribble-penetration deficit because he worked hard on his upper-body strength and often got his shoulders past the man guarding him.

Was Nate Walton a great athlete? Obviously in some sense, but not the one people mean when they talk in this context about "athleticism." That didn't stop him from controlling the game and cutting people to pieces. Or for a non-Ivy example, Adrian Dantley was a not-too-tall guy without much lift who scored a ton of points on spin moves under the basket.

That doesn't mean it isn't great to have the Petries and Venables and Wallaces and Maddoxes on your side, but you can get pretty far with the Waltons and Mavraides's too. (Penn fans can substitute their own heroes as appropriate.) It requires intense focus on skill development, a team orientation, and a system that can harness those skills and cover up individual weaknesses.

 
Chip Bayers 
Professor
Posts: 6997
Chip Bayers
Loc: New York
Reg: 11-21-04
04-23-11 08:43 PM - Post#104719    
    In response to SRP

  • Quote:
Or for a non-Ivy example, Adrian Dantley was a not-too-tall guy without much lift who scored a ton of points on spin moves under the basket.



His natural gift was having a big butt for a guy his size - as big as Shaq's, or so it seemed, in a man nearly a foot shorter. That's what gave him the low center of gravity that made all those spin moves work. Also made him tough to move off the block when he anchored down there.


 
SRP 
Postdoc
Posts: 4894

Reg: 02-04-06
04-25-11 01:15 AM - Post#104739    
    In response to Chip Bayers

The Sir Mixalot approach to recruiting is one I hadn't considered, but visualizing him I think that's right. Gotta respect the booty.

 
 Page 2 of 2 ALL<12
Icon Legend Permissions Topic Options
Report Post

Quote Post

Quick Reply

Print Topic

Email Topic

8956 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: 0.24 seconds.   Total Queries: 16   Zlib Compression is on.
All times are (GMT -0500) Eastern. Current time is 08:51 PM
Top