HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts: 2691
Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
|
06-26-16 10:50 AM - Post#207952
The League Presidents did Princeton a big disservice by adding a tournament this year.
With everyone returning + Brase, Princeton will easily be the most experienced and consistent team in the league from the start. By tournament time, reloading squads like Harvard and possibly Yale could catch up. Having your possessions running through All-Ivy guards Chambers and Mason should not be underestimated.
Without a tournament, early season success by Princeton combined with the magnitude of the transitions at Harvard and Yale would have given Princeton an early leg up on the league title. Come tournament time, I'm thinking it's HYP + one of Cornell (amazing guard shooting), Dartmouth (two returning FOY's) and maybe Columbia (depth up front). I'm going with Cornell or Columbia.
I see a three tier league this season, with HYP and then a significant drop to CDC. Brown and Penn lost way too much in DNH and Kuakamensah. When you run your offense through a 'center,' it's incredibly difficult to play without him. Rebounding and rim protection (clogging the lane in DNH's case) could drop off significantly. Remember how last year's Harvard team played without Zena?
The size of Harvard and even Princeton is likely way too much for the other six (maybe other than Columbia) to handle. Putting that aside, Princeton is bringing back its uber talented and disciplined guards and forwards and Harvard is adding an all-Ivy senior PG (Chambers) and a lightning quick top 100 recruit in PG Bryce Aiken + three fringe top 100 forwards (Chris Lewis, Seth Towns, Robert Baker, Jr.) and more (Justin Bassey could be a pleasant surprise).
Yale shouldn't be overlooked:
http://www.nhregister.com/sports/20160624/yale- add...
(thanks Mike James)
although the Eli's will likely not be in the final game.
With the league representative having beaten New Mexico, Cincinnati, Baylor and almost North Carolina in recent years, I'm thinking 2bidIvy for Princeton and Harvard.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: 2016-2017
06-26-16 11:25 AM - Post#207953
In response to HARVARDDADGRAD
Harvard is the most talented squad that the Ivy League has seen in the AI era. It's going to take a TON of work to put the pieces together, though, and it might require foregoing some of the pieces that Amaker likes most (perimeter stopper, for instance). I'm also not totally convinced of this team's post play, even though it does have a ton of choices now.
Princeton will be one of the best teams in the AI era. Also super talented, but the advantage the Tigers have is that they have more framework already present than the Crimson does.
Yale should still be sneaky strong. Miye Oni will probably go down as one of the most underrecruited finds in recent history.
Given what I know about the Ivy schedules this year, it's going to take a lot of luck for us to have a shot at 2BidIvy (not that the teams won't be objectively good enough). Just not a lot of opportunity to build a resume (in the way that the selection committee values) and would also require a pair of 12-2 or 13-1 runs through the league, which can be difficult to pull.
|
HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts: 2691
Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
|
Re: 2016-2017
06-26-16 12:48 PM - Post#207955
In response to mrjames
Mike, on post play, I tend to think that Zena is still the strongest in the League and that he has seemed to fare exceedingly well OOC. He was the best Crimson player at FAU and UVA (the largest two teams Harvard played), was all tournament in Hawaii, and was key against Kansas.
I'm thinking Chris Lewis may be the only post player in the incoming class, that's unless Henry Welsh develops. Gotta assume Baker and certainly Towns are PF and SF. Leaves room for Wendell Carter or Mohammed Bamba!
Edited by HARVARDDADGRAD on 06-26-16 12:54 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: 2016-2017
06-26-16 01:49 PM - Post#207956
In response to HARVARDDADGRAD
Yeah, Baker's a year of bulking up away from being a 4 or 5 even in the Ivy League. Welsh is a dead ringer for Cummins - strong defensive presence and good rebounder but seemingly at present limited offensively to finishing when set up well, unlike a Zena who can go to work on the block.
Chris Lewis is the wildcard. Played better and better as the year went on. Still, it always seems to be an adjustment for post players to the physicality of the next level.
Could see a lot of Seth Towns at the 4 in a small lineup. And if somehow Harvard can defend well with him there (always been the issue when Harvard goes small), that's going to be a nightmare matchup for the rest of the league. I think Seth is Harvard's best NBA prospect just given his size and skills. There are a handful of guys in this class that could easily play professionally after their time at Harvard.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6404
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: 2016-2017
06-26-16 10:09 PM - Post#207957
In response to HARVARDDADGRAD
I'm not at all sold on Cornell. When you get down to the numbers, the guards score a ton but don't shoot well -- both are just over 40% from the floor and just over 30% from 3. Hatter is below average in efficiency -- he gets his shots and points, but there is an argument that Cornell would be better off with somebody else taking the shots. Morgan is much more efficient, but that is mainly because of is free throw rate and percentage -- from the field he's the same as Hatter. Hatter's turnovers hurt too.
As with Tony Hicks, it is possible that the problem is trying to do it all with no support. And like with Hicks, a few of us opponents come away thinking they have the best guards in the league because we saw them on a night when the shots fell. I just don't think the approach is conducive to winning consistently ( might play well in a short tournament though -- I just don't think they'll get there). I also wouldn't presume that Hatter is a favorite with the new staff (I think Morgan will be, and there may only be real room for one of them).
Anyway, I think Columbia and Yale are the clear favorites for 3 and 4 behind Princeton and Harvard.
|
bradley
PhD Student
Posts: 1842
Age: 74
Reg: 01-15-16
|
Re: 2016-2017
06-26-16 10:30 PM - Post#207959
In response to HARVARDDADGRAD
You are right regarding bad timing for the Tigers and the introduction of a tournament but it is what it is. Best solution for Princeton is to being very good in out of conference play and Ivy League regular season play. This year, the Tigers need to beat the St. Joe's and Stony Brook of the worlds and get one win against a top 30 team -- unlikely, but possible. The Ivy League tournament will always be a bit of a wild card for a preseason favorite, especially this year.
With Brase coming back, the team will be very deep with greater height and bulk but Henderson will have to figure out how to divide the minutes. The three wild cards as to taking Princeton to a whole next level may well be the further development of Cannady, improved and consistent play by Cook and Bell. These three players have further upside based on their athleticism; very unlike Princeton players of the past. Cannady may be a real match up problem for many teams.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3584
Reg: 02-15-15
|
06-27-16 10:44 AM - Post#207967
In response to bradley
I wouldn't bet on any Ivy team with a new coach to make the top 4. That leaves Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Penn, Brown as the top 4 candidates. I think Harvard and Princeton are locks and my money is on Yale and Penn for the other two spots.
If one of the other three has a chance it's Dartmouth in my view. They return the best talent among them.
For Penn, I don't see a freshman big more ready to play than AJ Brodeur and I think he will be the best freshman big in the league this year. If the Quakers can get Antonio Woods back they will have a tremendous amount of depth and experience returning to count them out. And DNH held them back last year in my opinion. Steve Donahue system doesn't a big in the post and an immobile big is a liability. Max and AJ are a young version of Sears and Sherrod.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6404
Reg: 11-22-04
|
06-27-16 12:38 PM - Post#207968
In response to PennFan10
Dartmouth could go either way. Sometimes a new coach gives a talented team a fresh boost. I'm guessing it goes the other way, but I could see them responding, too.
|
Old Bear
Postdoc
Posts: 3992
Reg: 11-23-04
|
06-27-16 02:37 PM - Post#207971
In response to SomeGuy
Brown will be better this year.
|
HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts: 2691
Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
|
06-27-16 03:06 PM - Post#207974
In response to Old Bear
OK, it appears that we individually/collectively believe that Princeton, Harvard, Penn, Dartmouth and Brown will be better this year. Cornell returns essentially everyone, so it is fair to assume that the Big Red improves as well. That leaves Yale and Columbia, both of which are likely to have down years, but still remain very competitive after very successful seasons.
Gotta think this bodes exceedingly well for the League.
This seems to comport with the fact that of the 21 players who received some form of All-Ivy mention for 2015-16, 12 return (13 if you count Siyani Chambers; not to mention Hans Brase). Of the 9 such honorees who have graduated, 3 are from each of Yale and Columbia.
Thus, it appears the question could be whether Yale and Columbia fall far enough to open up a playoff spot for another team.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3584
Reg: 02-15-15
|
06-27-16 03:36 PM - Post#207975
In response to HARVARDDADGRAD
Cornell does not have everyone returning. They lost their coach and they hired a rookie coach. Well thought of rookie, but a rookie nonetheless. That's a big piece of non-returning personnel and it absolutely will have an impact. It's hard to say if it will be good or bad in the short run. Most of us would see it as good long term, but this is a rookie head coach. At least Dartmouth's and Columbia's head coach have some HC experience.
|
HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts: 2691
Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
|
2016-2017
06-27-16 04:19 PM - Post#207976
In response to PennFan10
Fair enough.
On the other hand, I'm not so sure how much coaching went into Morgan's 30 foot 3's early in possessions or Hatter's creativity. In conference, Cornell went 2-2 without Hatter and then 1-9 with him. Together, those two usually took 50% of Cornell's shots, and that was with very little ball movement. If a new coach can install an offense that results in open looks for those two, Cornell will score. Fallas can shoot from 3 as well and Smith was the most efficient shooter in the league at 59.5%.
Onourah and Gettings are being joined by two 6'9" freshmen forwards. I believe interior defense and rebounding will be the key to Cornell's season.
Edited by HARVARDDADGRAD on 06-27-16 04:20 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: 2016-2017
06-27-16 04:35 PM - Post#207977
In response to HARVARDDADGRAD
Probably more accurate to say that Cornell didn't have a coach last season and now it does than to assume Earl will necessarily be a downgrade from Courtney. I'd argue that any growing pains for Earl will be on establishing relationships on the recruiting front (much easier to recruit to Princeton than to Cornell), but I'd expect the personnel with the program to demonstrate much better execution next season.
Cornell is my fourth playoff team right now, but I'd concede that beyond HYP, plenty of good arguments could be made for myriad teams in that fourth spot.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3584
Reg: 02-15-15
|
06-27-16 05:47 PM - Post#207978
In response to mrjames
I didn't say Earl was a downgrade to Courtney. I said I am not willing to say they are going from last to 4th next year. They likely will have better execution but I don't like their depth nearly as much as Penn and Dartmouth.
|
Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts: 2814
Reg: 11-23-04
|
06-27-16 07:27 PM - Post#207979
In response to PennFan10
Cornell's gain was Princeton's loss. I'm not sure how Earl's move will affect Princeton. 
|
bradley
PhD Student
Posts: 1842
Age: 74
Reg: 01-15-16
|
06-27-16 09:06 PM - Post#207980
In response to PennFan10
Earl will be a very good coach for Cornell. When Johnson left for Fairfield, the players made a strong pitch to have Earl as the replacement. He has very good rapport with players and a bit of a character with a dry sense of humor. Would be very surprised if he does not bring order and focus at Ithaca. Like all new coaches, there will be a learning curve but suspect that it will be for a short period of time.
His challenge will be getting very good players to go to Ithaca vs. Cambridge/Philadelphia/et c.
|
HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts: 2691
Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
|
06-27-16 09:20 PM - Post#207981
In response to PennFan10
Columbia seems to have the most depth after H & P. Columbia has six players 6'7" or taller who have significant experience plus some big front court recruits. 6'10" Patrick Tape comes in after averaging 8 blocks per game last year. Although Columbia loses Lo, Mullins and Cohen in the back court, it brings back five guards who saw time as well plus recruits. Rodney Hunter finally suits up as well.
Columbia's depth and Cornell's offensive prowess - to me - make them the most likely contenders for the 4th spot.
Brodeur is a great recruit for Penn, but to expect him to be best freshman this year is conflicted by all the rating services. Almost a year ago I heard that Harvard passed him over in favor of Towns, Lewis and Baker. Yale's Bruner is also rated higher. Given the loss of DNH and now Augur, the absence of front court strength at Penn could mean that Brodeur is more valuable to his squad, but that doesn't mean he is better or more ready to play than a bevy of other higher regarded freshmen. It instead reflects Penn's lack of front court depth.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6404
Reg: 11-22-04
|
06-27-16 11:16 PM - Post#207982
In response to HARVARDDADGRAD
I don't think Cornell has much offensive prowess. They were a better defensive team than offensive team last year. Their scoring totals were a function of pace, not prowess. Once you take pace out, they were one of the 50 worst offensive teams in the country according to college basketball reference.
|
HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts: 2691
Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
|
06-27-16 11:26 PM - Post#207983
In response to SomeGuy
Interesting.
I'm basing my perspective on watching Cornell play twice against Harvard. Morgan shot lights out at times in both games. Guess I'm remembering them pushing the pace, hitting 3's and making free throws at a pace of 75.5ppg (over those two games).
|
Silver Maple
Postdoc
Posts: 3770
Loc: Westfield, New Jersey
Reg: 11-23-04
|
06-28-16 08:06 AM - Post#207986
In response to HARVARDDADGRAD
Morgan is a great player. Cornell is a TERRIBLE team. That's why they now have a new coach. I think Earl has the ability to improve the program significantly, but only if the institutional commitment is there, and I'm highly skeptical of that. It's likely that Earl will take Cornell from being horrible to being decent and then depart for someplace where greater success is possible.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6404
Reg: 11-22-04
|
06-28-16 10:58 AM - Post#207987
In response to Silver Maple
It's going to be tough to break through now -- Harvard, Yale, and Princeton are all operating at a pretty consistent high level. Columbia is interesting -- some of the numbers say they won't drop off quite as much as you'd think, and I think they brought in another good coach. The rising tide may lift all boats, but i think Columbia and Penn rise before Cornell and Brown. So i think Cornell has a very tough road to even get into the top 4, let alone compete for a title.
That's not a knock on Earl at all. I just think he's coming into a very difficult situation. Bill Courtney looked like a good hire with his experience as an assistant, too.
|
HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts: 2691
Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
|
2016-2017
06-28-16 11:44 AM - Post#207988
In response to SomeGuy
As the rising tide comes in there are early movers (Harvard, Yale, Princeton) followed by a second "wave" (Penn, Columbia) and then a third (Dartmouth/Cornell). Brown will hopefully start to move up as well. (By the way, if Brown had been able to hold onto Leland King and Justin Massey, and if Dartmouth had retained Mitola last year, things would already be looking up). That's why I see three groupings this year.
The trigger appears to be a coaching upgrade (Amaker, Donahue) or simply a financial impetus.
Eventually, like Ivy Football, a late mover will become a recruiting destination just as Columbia has in football. It's far far easier in basketball where a two or three person recruiting class (or consecutive classes) can build an Ivy champ (i.e., Cornell circa 2010).
As for Cornell, I am merely saying that this team may be in the running for the 4th spot, although whoever gets that spot is likely a degree of magnitude out of the top three - at least this year.
Edited by HARVARDDADGRAD on 06-28-16 11:49 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3584
Reg: 02-15-15
|
06-28-16 11:52 AM - Post#207989
In response to HARVARDDADGRAD
Columbia seems to have the most depth after H & P. Columbia has six players 6'7" or taller who have significant experience plus some big front court recruits. 6'10" Patrick Tape comes in after averaging 8 blocks per game last year. Although Columbia loses Lo, Mullins and Cohen in the back court, it brings back five guards who saw time as well plus recruits. Rodney Hunter finally suits up as well.
Columbia's depth and Cornell's offensive prowess - to me - make them the most likely contenders for the 4th spot.
Brodeur is a great recruit for Penn, but to expect him to be best freshman this year is conflicted by all the rating services. Almost a year ago I heard that Harvard passed him over in favor of Towns, Lewis and Baker. Yale's Bruner is also rated higher. Given the loss of DNH and now Augur, the absence of front court strength at Penn could mean that Brodeur is more valuable to his squad, but that doesn't mean he is better or more ready to play than a bevy of other higher regarded freshmen. It instead reflects Penn's lack of front court depth.
I suppose we should clarify the difference between depth and experience. Recruits don't add to the experience of a team but they may add to their depth.
Based on the facts Columbia is bringing back just 42% of minutes played and 38% of their scoring from 2015-16. They return 6 players who averaged 10+ minutes in conference play and 5 who started at least one conference game.
Penn is bringing back 85% of their minutes played, 75% of their scoring with 7 players who averaged 10+ minutes and 8 who started at least one conference game.
As far as Brodeur, let me clarify, I did not say he would be the best freshman next year, I said I thought he would be the best freshman big. That of course is subjective and hard to prove in advance. Auger was a non factor last year. We will see what happens without DNH. I think the team is better as they will be more athletic on both ends.
I am sorry if I don't put much stock into the theory that Harvard passed on a recruit so he must not be good. I think you can understand why someone outside of Cambridge might not think that's the absolute measuring stick for talent. And parsing the difference between a recruit based on ratings services (a 3.3* vs a 3.7*) is about as valuable as my opinion.
|
HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts: 2691
Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
|
06-28-16 12:36 PM - Post#207994
In response to PennFan10
I don't think we disagree significantly, although I'd like to make a couple of observations.
Experience: The fact that Columbia graduated four starters skews their returning "experience" numbers. I don't put much credence in the returning minutes or points statistics in most circumstances. There was someone on this board last year who insisted that Yale would not be as strong because when calculating returning minutes/points he refused to consider that Mason hadn't begun his freshman year as a starter and he also wouldn't count any contribution from Sherrod who had taken a year off. Thus, using the metric of experience you are using, Yale's returning points/minutes were deceiving. How about Harvard this year? Harvard looks awfully "experienced" or unimpressive at PG based on McCarthy/Miller, but I'll bet the combo of the recently "inexperienced" Chambers/Aiken ends up being the best PG option in the league. Remember, Penn's "experience" numbers are skewed upwards by the absence of Hicks and the suspension of Woods. Experience is useful when comparing a player against himself, not when comparing different players who don't start out as equals. For instance, I don't think Calipari is concerned about the lack of "experience" numbers at Kentucky.
Brodeur: Again, I think he's a great get for any Ivy team and will be a key building block for Penn. I was merely responding to your confidence that he is the "most ready" of all freshman "bigs." Bruner (6'9"), Lewis (6'8") and Towns (6'7") are as big and awfully well prepared. Guys like Baker (6'9") and Tape (6"10") from Columbia come from less competitive programs and may not be as prepared, but they have some great athleticism and skills. In your defense, Brodeur (6'8") just graduated from Northfield/Mt. Hermon, not sure if it was a PG year which would make him a year older than the others.
|
HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts: 2691
Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
|
06-28-16 12:41 PM - Post#207995
In response to HARVARDDADGRAD
Observation: It's June and we're already focused on the 4th playoff slot. The Ivy Presidents have succeeded in making 6-8 teams relevant in a year when it is likely only 2 might have been.
On the other hand, my schedule prognosticating has Harvard at Princeton the final weekend. What could have been expected to be a decisive sold-out matchup of the two best post-AI Ivy teams for all the marbles is now likely a relatively meaningless tune up for the Palestra a week later.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6404
Reg: 11-22-04
|
06-28-16 12:55 PM - Post#207998
In response to HARVARDDADGRAD
Columbia obviously doesn't have a Sears, Mason, or Sherrod returning next year, but they do return 9 kids who had ORATs over 100 last year in various amounts of time. While some of that will drop due to guys shouldering more of the burden, chances are that they can remain relatively efficient even without all the important departures. So they won't win the regular season this year like Yale did last year, but they have a good chance to prove the "lost too many minutes" analysis wrong. Like last year, the question will probably be whether they can play defense.
As for Brodeur, he may have the best opportunity this year among the incoming bigs. I'm not going to say Harvard made the "wrong" choice, but recruiting is not exact -- the Harvard bigs may have the better chance of becoming stars, but that doesn't mean they necessarily will. Brodeur could get a good head start this year while Harvard's guys sit behind Zena and Egi.
As for Bruner at Yale, Jones will have a 4/5 who is a significant contributor -- he always does, even if it isn't evident coming in who it will be. It could be Bruner immediately, though it also might be that Downey is the main guy for a year as a senior.
My guess is that Tape will play more limited minutes behind Petrasek, Meisner, Coby, and McComber.
|
Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts: 2814
Reg: 11-23-04
|
06-28-16 02:35 PM - Post#207999
In response to HARVARDDADGRAD
I wouldn't worry about the interest level of P-H even though we now have the silly tournament. We always take great pleasure in beating the Cantabs. 
|
HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts: 2691
Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
|
2016-2017
06-28-16 04:39 PM - Post#208002
In response to Tiger69
Certainly, H-P has becoming quite a basketball rivalry. P owned H for decades, but H has now won 5 of 6/7 of 9. Quite a turn of events.
There were many in Lavietes who took pleasure in eliminating Princeton last year.
Edited by HARVARDDADGRAD on 06-28-16 04:39 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
section110
Masters Student
Posts: 847
Loc: south jersey
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: 2016-2017
06-28-16 05:00 PM - Post#208004
In response to HARVARDDADGRAD
Love ya man; but, by definition, there can't be many in Lavietes.
|
HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts: 2691
Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
|
06-28-16 05:16 PM - Post#208005
In response to section110
You are correct.
I was watching from Florida - couldn't even sell my tix!
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
06-28-16 08:53 PM - Post#208011
In response to HARVARDDADGRAD
I think Columbia's going to have a really rough year. History is not kind to the teams with the Lions's level of losses (see: Harvard 2015-16, which started in a higher place than Columbia).
I need to do a lot more digging before I hop into this but I could see this coming year shaping up a lot like last year with Harvard bumping Yale down to Columbia's role and Columbia falling back to the morass. Just don't see a team from amongst the other five that can make the jump. Want to dig in before I really lock in my thoughts though.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6404
Reg: 11-22-04
|
06-28-16 09:17 PM - Post#208013
In response to mrjames
Well, I'll immediately hedge some on this -- Right now, I'd pick Columbia for 4th, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if 7-7 gets them there. So there's probably room for both of us to be kind of right here. I don't think Columbia will collapse, but there is also an argument that 7-7 is back to the morass.
More importantly, I think only Princeton and Harvard have a legit shot at the regular season title this year. And both are deep enough for that to be true even with a major injury.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6404
Reg: 11-22-04
|
06-28-16 09:21 PM - Post#208014
In response to SomeGuy
Also, note on Harvard last year that they lost minutes, and that meant elevating low ORAT guys to more minutes. So Harvard both had guys taking on more burden AND needed those guys to be more efficient. Columbia has lots of returnees who were efficient in varying sample sizes (and one guy in Petrasek who has shown that he can eat more than his share of possessions efficiently). So I'm not sure the comparison of lost minutes is apples to apples, even if both teams lost the same amount of fruit.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3584
Reg: 02-15-15
|
06-28-16 10:44 PM - Post#208015
In response to SomeGuy
I think Mike Smith is goi g to be a special player for Columbia and will help right away but I just don't see the. Replacing the production of those other seniors next year. I could be wrong and younger guys with more opportunity could certainly step up. I feel a lot better about Penn's chances vs Columbia this year with those guys gone.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6404
Reg: 11-22-04
|
06-29-16 08:25 AM - Post#208018
In response to PennFan10
I like Penn's chances better than last year, too. I'd say Columbia is a .500ish team next year, and Penn is a shade below that. A couple of bounces, and Penn is in that 3rd or 4th spot instead of Columbia or Yale. Of course, a couple of bounces the other way, and Penn could be down at the bottom of the league at 4-10.
Going back to the ORATs, though, Columbia's entire team had higher numbers than everyone on Penn but Donahue, Howard, and Sam Jones (plus McManus and Dylan Jones in very small sample sizes). Matt MacDonald should be a high ORAT addition. But Penn still will need to fill more minutes with guys who haven't been efficient. Columbia's question will be whether their guys can continue to be as efficient without Lo, Mullins, and Rosenberg drawing all the defensive attention (and without Cohen, Lo, and Mullins distributing). My guess is that Petrasek is first team all-Ivy knowing that he is the first option, but we'll see.
Penn's problem is that our four efficient players (Donahue, HOward, SJones, MacDonald) arguably play two positions. You certainly can't play all 4 together unless Donahue becomes a PG, Howard grows 4 inches, or Jones puts on 50 pounds. So Penn will need Brodeur to be a star from go or a big leap from Max, plus a big leap from one of the PGs (Woods, Silpe, Foreman).
|
cc66
Postdoc
Posts: 2203
Reg: 10-09-09
|
06-29-16 09:18 AM - Post#208021
In response to SomeGuy
7-7 and third or fourth place is my guess, too (0-4 against Harvard and Princeton; 4-1 against the rest of the league at home; 3-2 against the rest of the league away)This is admittedly a risky projection if you are just calculating minutes lost. Nevertheless, the players behind the just graduated seniors did maintain fairly high ORATs while gaining some significant experience. It's then just a question of who besides Petrasek can make the jump--most probably Meisner, but maybe Coby as well. That would make for quite a respectable front line. With a variety of options at guard including Mike Smith as second in the voting for Illinois basketball player of the year, I just don't think we are going to plummet as much as the stats would otherwise suggest.
Finally, it should noted that Engels' teams have a history of surprising people. Although we will probably take our lumps early on, I think we'll come together enough to make it into the four team tournament.
|
bradley
PhD Student
Posts: 1842
Age: 74
Reg: 01-15-16
|
06-29-16 04:52 PM - Post#208032
In response to SomeGuy
Although Yale lost 4 very good players to graduation, I would not rule them out as Mason can score as we witnessed in the NCAA tournament. He has a very quick first step and creates on his own. He needs at least one or two scorers, Downey and a freshmen, but he plays with fire.
Jones needs to get guys to play very strong defense and then put the ball in Mason's hands. He may well be Ivy League player of the year.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6404
Reg: 11-22-04
|
06-29-16 11:23 PM - Post#208037
In response to bradley
Well, I think Yale just has less room for error than Princeton and Harvard. They only return 5 guys who had ORATs above 95 (and only 6 above 90), and only Mason and Copeland have usage rates above 16%. So they lack depth (as we saw at times last year), and what depth they do have may be stretched very thin.
I'm a big fan of Mason (and called both his season and Yale's in these types of discussions last year), but it will be much harder without Sears, Sherrod, and Montague. I think you're right to question the defense, too -- they may have a harder the figuring things out than last year, when their strongest 7 on offense and defense were the same group. This year they may have to make some choices that expose them more on one end or the other.
Yale may have a very good class coming in, and the returnees may be good enough to allow the new players to shine without carrying too much burden. So i could see it working. But the most likely scenario is that they are 3rd next year.
|
