Untitled Document
Brown Columbia Cornell Dartmouth Harvard Penn Princeton Yale



 Page 2 of 2 ALL<12
Username Post: 2016-2017        (Topic#19106)
SomeGuy 
Professor
Posts: 6391

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: 2685

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: 3578

Reg: 02-15-15
06-28-16 11:52 AM - Post#207989    
    In response to HARVARDDADGRAD

  • HARVARDDADGRAD Said:
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: 2685

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: 2685

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: 6391

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: 2801

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: 2685

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: 2685

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: 6391

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: 6391

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: 3578

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: 6391

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: 2201

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: 6391

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.

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

Quote Post

Quick Reply

Print Topic

Email Topic

5577 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: 0.22 seconds.   Total Queries: 16   Zlib Compression is on.
All times are (GMT -0500) Eastern. Current time is 03:19 AM
Top