Anonymous
|
11-03-05 06:28 PM - Post#10630
Has anyone else read the new Blue Ribbon. Usually I love the guide (if not the predictions) purely for the level of detail and program knowledge it has vs. other sources. That said, this year's is terrible and full of mistakes:
1. No team is predicted to do worse than about 6-8. If you add up the collective "seems about right" comments for all the teams, you wind up collectively about 25-30 games over .500 for league play.
2. Ryan Pettinella is still listed as "the most likely fifth starter" for Penn. Pettinella transferred in April!
3. Even pointless comments like "Ivy attendance was up" are flat out wrong. According to the NCAA records, attendance fell last year vs. the previous for every school except Harvard which saw a whopping increase of 75 fans per game. In fact, average game attendance last year for the league was its lowest since 1998.
There are almost too many other mistakes to list. I hoped for better from my favorite preseason guide.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Blue Ribbon
11-03-05 07:30 PM - Post#10631
In response to
My favorite line is that in the last 13 years, only Kentucky has won its conference tournament more often than Penn. I'm sure there are a lot of happy people here knowing now that the Ivies have conducted a tournament all these years.
|
Bill Lewis
Senior
Posts: 304
Reg: 12-23-04
|
Re: Blue Ribbon
11-03-05 10:28 PM - Post#10632
In response to
Per Blue Ribbon - "We say Penn drops three Ivy games and at 11-3, finishes in second place and earns an NIT invitation."
Without a subscription to ESPN Insider or possessing the Blue Ribbon book, the only W/(L) prediction we know is for Penn to finish 11-3. Could someone please post the W/(L) predictions for all of the teams?
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Blue Ribbon
11-04-05 02:59 PM - Post#10633
In response to Bill Lewis
Don't know about other records, but they pick Princeton to win the league at 13-1 or 14-0 and say Cornell is "all but guaranteed to win 9 or 10 league games."
I want some of what the Blue Ribbon guys are smoking.
|
charcoal
Junior
Posts: 243
Loc: Dallas
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Blue Ribbon
11-04-05 04:22 PM - Post#10634
In response to
With the requisite caveat of a "homer alert:"
I don't think ESPN is picking Cornell to win the league, just stating that it has a legitimate shot to do so. A top 3 finish seems a reasonable position given addition of a stronger center, the ongoing improvement of Lenny Collins and Ryan Rourke, the return to health of Graham Dow at point (2 or 3 leauge losses last year might have been averted if he were healthy), the addition of a strong freshman class lead by Brian Kreefer (an early ROY candidate) and increased depth. This is Donahue's first team where all on board are his recruits. I think we will see a very competitive Ivy season, with continued high level play from Penn, the return of the Tigers and an improved Crimson team. Still, it is not "smoking" anything to think that Cornell will be competitive for the title.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6415
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Blue Ribbon
11-04-05 06:10 PM - Post#10635
In response to charcoal
Dow only missed 5 Ivy games last year. They were 5-4 with him, 3-2 without him. The two losses were a 17 point loss to Penn and a 16 point loss at Yale. I don't think he'd have been the difference in either of those games.
Will Hartford, assuming he starts, be stronger than Taylor? If so, then you may be right about Cornell's competitiveness this season. I think Toppert's contributions are more easily replaced.
|
charcoal
Junior
Posts: 243
Loc: Dallas
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Blue Ribbon
11-04-05 08:56 PM - Post#10636
In response to SomeGuy
RE: Dow--your figures are right, but important point is that Dow was hurt in several of the games he played.
Do think Hartford and Naeve (when a "true center" is used) are going to prove a better fit than Taylor was. In particular, Taylor's free throw (li)ability hurt in several games. He was far and away the most-fouled Cornell player and his barely 50% from the line brought out the "hack-a-Shaquers" in tight games. Naeve shot nearly 80% and Hartford is reputedly a decent ft shooter. Naeve averaged over 10 rebounds per 40 minutes played and Hartford had over 7 per game on the juco level so there should be no real drop off there. Although Taylor had a strong rb year as a junior, his senior season was a disappointment on the boards and he averaged just over 5 a game.
Your take on Toppert is well placed.
|
Howard Gensler
Postdoc
Posts: 4141
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Blue Ribbon
11-04-05 11:19 PM - Post#10637
In response to charcoal
Your Taylor FT point is interesting statistically, but I wonder if it's true. Of Cornell's 14 losses last year, only 4 of them were by 7 points or less and none of those came after Dec. 28.
However, of Cornell's 13 wins, 8 of them were by 5 points or less and I believe 5 of those came in Ivy play. So Cornell was pretty good when they got you in close game, which is generally a sign of good FT shooting and good leadership.
What I think will be interesting for Cornell this year is do they miss Taylor and Toppert's grit and experience more than they miss Taylor's terrible FT shooting.
While it's hard to see Cornell being much better than least season, it's equally hard to see them being any worse. But they could also be a little better and lose one or two of the close Ivy games they won last year. Definitely should be a first tier team, but there are a lot of ifs.
|
