charcoal
Junior
Posts: 243
Loc: Dallas
Reg: 11-21-04
|
01-05-06 09:46 PM - Post#13045
For what it's worth in that site is not yet up and running for this time-honored ritual:
Penn 13-1
Harvard 9-5
Cornell 8-6
Columbia 8-6
Yale 7-7
Princeton 5-9
Dartmouth 3-11
Brown 3-11
comments and counter-predictions of course invited
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Predictions on the Season
01-05-06 10:21 PM - Post#13046
In response to charcoal
I hope we do that well.
|
The Lion King
Senior
Posts: 394
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Predictions on the Season
01-05-06 11:31 PM - Post#13047
In response to charcoal
I think all Cornell and Columbia fans would take that in a New York minute. After watching Columbia collapse since the Army debacle, and with Nwachukwu down for who knows how long, I'd be satisfied with 7-7, which would give them a winning overall record (which would be bogus since it would include CCNY).
Penn is far and away the league's best (in what is a below-par year for the Quakers, which gives you an idea of the rest of the league). So I'd say 12-2 for Penn; somehow I think Princeton will manage to pull one out against them, and they'll lose one to an oddball team, probably not Harvard. They just don't look good enough to go 13-1, not even against this year's unusually short dwarves.
Your 9-5 for Harvard sounds reasonable, since they have set themselves apart from the rest of the dwarves. But as for the remaining six, as far as I'm concerned, you can pull them out of a bag. Brown, Dartmouth, and Princeton may be a shade worse, though I'm skeptical even of that--Princeton in particular, because the first two are simply mediocre, whereas Princeton has been either godawful or fairly decent. So here's my prediction:
Penn 12-2
Harvard 9-5
Cornell 7-7
Columbia 6-8
Yale 6-8
Princeton 6-8
Brown 5-9
Dartmouth 5-9
|
SFlaQuaker
Postdoc
Posts: 2427
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Predictions on the Season
01-05-06 11:40 PM - Post#13048
In response to The Lion King
What in the world makes you say this Penn team is below-par? Have you seen them play?
I called it around this time last year, got laughed at, and was almost right. I'll say it again this year.
14-0.
|
The Lion King
Senior
Posts: 394
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Predictions on the Season
01-06-06 12:23 AM - Post#13049
In response to SFlaQuaker
Look, I don't want to get into an argument. I'm not saying that Penn stinks, and I'm not saying that they face any serious challengers in the league. All I'm saying is that they haven't beaten any high-ranked teams yet, and usually by this point in the season, if it's a good year for Penn, they have at least one top-50 scalp.
Perhaps I should have said average instead of below-par, but all I'm saying is that Penn has high standards. So far they've beaten everyone they should have, and they've played respectably against three top-10 caliber teams, but they don't have that signature win yet. That's all I'm saying.
The fourth week in January will tell. Whatever happens, barring an NCAA victory, I think you have to call it sub-par for Penn if they go 0-4 in the Big 5. I would even call 1-3 sub-par by Penn standards without any other major victories. But perhaps I just have too high an opinion of Penn basketball.
|
SFlaQuaker
Postdoc
Posts: 2427
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Predictions on the Season
01-06-06 12:35 AM - Post#13050
In response to The Lion King
Temple should've been a win. Villanova's been our "marquee win" a couple times, but they werent a top 5 team. What win would you count as marquee? Beating Temple wouldn't really count by past standards. Maybe Colorado would have, but they're just a much better team than Penn was that night. Duke's Duke. You don't want to count Drexel or Hawaii, which is fine w/ me.
This is as deep as the Big 5 has been in a long time, and I'd still be surprised if we ended up 0-4.
All I know is what I've seen from this team, and this isn't a below-par team in my mind. And unless you've seen them play, I just don't think it's fair to label them that way. If anything, our top teams of the last 10 years have LOST games to teams they should beat, and only Temple falls there this year (and even that wasn't a Davidson or Delaware type "sure thing").
|
Condor
PhD Student
Posts: 1888
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Predictions on the Season
01-06-06 01:43 AM - Post#13051
In response to SFlaQuaker
I would agree SFQ. To date, this appears to be one of our better post 70’s Penn teams. When was the last time we had a perimeter defense that could compete with top 5 teams? Of course, the season is still early, but based on the early results, I would prefer to compete in the post-season with this team vs. the U/Koko teams.
|
The D
goober
Posts: 55
Age: 39
Loc: Philadelphia, PA
Reg: 10-27-05
|
Re: Predictions on the Season
01-06-06 08:31 AM - Post#13052
In response to Condor
Just compare last year's Providence and Wisconsin games to this year's Duke and Villanova games, and it's easy to see the improvement the team's seen at this point in the season. Last year Penn was looking worse at this point, and the rest of the league was looking much better. Penn then went 13-1. I'd say there's no way that 13-1 or 14-0 are out of the question.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Predictions on the Season
01-06-06 08:45 AM - Post#13053
In response to The D
I think 13-1 for Penn is a good estimate judging from the out of conference results thus far. That said, 14-0 and 12-2 would also not surprise me. Re: the quality of this team when compared to other recent Penn teams... that is still to be determined. I think this "could" be one of the better Quaker teams in recent years. Defensively, we have not been this good in a long while, but the offense is still hit or miss. If guys like Oz and Whitehurst can hit 3s more consistantly, and Zoller and Danley stay healthy this team can finish the schedule with a lot of wins. I think we will know more after the La Salle, St. Joes, and Fordham games.
-Mike
|
TomPittsburgh
maximus
Posts: 538
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
Reg: 11-28-04
|
Re: Predictions on the Season
01-06-06 12:16 PM - Post#13054
In response to
Penn wins the league going away with no serious challengers on the horizon. They have the potential to go 14 - 0 but there might well be a slip during one of those weekends on the road. Harvard appears the be the league's second place team. Obviously the leage is extremely weak this year,
|
nix23
goober
Posts: 52
Loc: NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Predictions on the Season
01-06-06 01:01 PM - Post#13055
In response to TomPittsburgh
My prediction for the season is that Joe Scott gets fired or maybe that is just my hope for the season.
|
foehi
Masters Student
Posts: 531
Reg: 12-22-04
|
Re: Predictions on the Season
01-06-06 04:09 PM - Post#13056
In response to The Lion King
This will be a "below par" Penn team only if (God forbid) something happens to Ibby. Otherwise, they are better than that.
|
10Q
Professor
Posts: 23416
Loc: Suburban Philly
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Predictions on the Season
01-06-06 04:48 PM - Post#13057
In response to foehi
This will be a below par Penn team if no one but Ibby can shoot. When the other guys chip in, they are fine. But we've seen it go both ways and there's no way to tell if Ibby is going to keep getting the help he needs to make this a good Penn team.
|
twodown
newbie
Posts: 1
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Predictions on the Season
01-06-06 05:29 PM - Post#13058
In response to Condor
I like this years team, but its a stretch to suggest that this year's Penn team's prospects for advancing in the NCAA tournament are better than the prospects for advancing during the Ugonna/Koko years. This year's team has no reliable 3 point shooter, and no inside go-to player like Ugonna. I would take that team with its seniors and Shiffner and Begley in a rematch with Oklahoma State before I would take this years team against whomever they may draw if they get to the Dance.
|
SFlaQuaker
Postdoc
Posts: 2427
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Predictions on the Season
01-06-06 05:50 PM - Post#13059
In response to twodown
Ugonna did all he could in that game, but they shut down Schiffner and Begley, and their PG ate us alive.
|
pennhoops
Postdoc
Posts: 2470
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Predictions on the Season
01-06-06 05:55 PM - Post#13060
In response to SFlaQuaker
I would take this year's Penn over the team that lost to OK State. Ugonna and Koko might have an advantage up front (but not as much as you'd think) but it wouldn't do the team much good if they never got their hands on the ball.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32848
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Predictions on the Season
01-06-06 06:51 PM - Post#13061
In response to pennhoops
It's still soooo early to compare this team to the U/Koko/Toole team, and nothing has been accomplished yet. However, at this point, this is a MUCH better defensive team---almost at every position. Say what you will about U as an offensive player and talent, he simply did not bring much D on a regular basis. I remember him being eaten alive by the Drexel forward (Battle?) who was about the same size. Similarly, Koko could block shots but didn't stop many people from getting to the hoop. Toole was a fine offensive player, but was limited (especially due to injuries) on defense.
This team lives and dies with "D". It also boxes out well, steals the ball at a clip never seen before at Penn and plays good fundamental hoop. It does not shoot particularly well to date, but Whitehurst is just rounding into shape.
The very fact that we are comparing this team with a 2 time Ivy champ, however, is telling in a weak Ivy season. I see Penn losing at most 2 games, and just as likely, 0. Thus, I see the season as follows:
Penn 13-1
Harvard 10-4
Yale 8-6
Cornell 7-7
Brown 7-7
Columbia 6-8
Princeton 5-9
Columbia 4-10
Dartmouth 3-11
|
foehi
Masters Student
Posts: 531
Reg: 12-22-04
|
Re: Predictions on the Season
01-06-06 07:25 PM - Post#13062
In response to pennhoops
They do have one thing in common; neither could make free throws especially well.
|
The Lion King
Senior
Posts: 394
Reg: 11-21-04
|
crank up that adding machine
01-06-06 07:46 PM - Post#13063
In response to palestra38
By my calculations, you would have to eliminate both entries for Columbia and make them 3-11 instead for your prediction to balance out.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32848
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: crank up that adding machine
01-06-06 07:54 PM - Post#13064
In response to The Lion King
A long week after the New Year's break. Let's try that again:
Penn 13-1
Harvard 10-4
Yale 7-7
Brown 7-7
Cornell 6-8
Columbia 5-9
Princeton4-10
Dartmouth4-10
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Predictions on the Season
01-06-06 08:00 PM - Post#13065
In response to pennhoops
As much as I like this year's team (and the way Dunph is approaching things) I think that when they play a big, quick team they have and will continue to struggle on the offensive end. A superior defensive team is great, but you still have to score. Without consistent 3 pt shooting I don't see how Penn competes with a Top 25 type team. If the shooting improves dramatically and the can maintain the intensity and focus on D, lots of things are possible.
|
foehi
Masters Student
Posts: 531
Reg: 12-22-04
|
Re: Predictions on the Season
01-06-06 08:42 PM - Post#13066
In response to
This is a good...very good by today's Ivy standards....team which has comported itself pretty well against a very tough schedule to date. But you are right. They cannot compete against top 25 scholarship programs. They simply are deficient in three important areas, size, quickness and shooting versus big time teams. On a given night they can compensate for two of these shortcomings by excelling in the thrird (though it's a bit difficult to excel in size if you don't have it). They can shoot lights out and compete, they can play quick agressive D for 40 minutes (they have the depth to do this) and compete but bad shooting nights accompanied by less than all out defensive effort (Colorado perhaps) will be fatal. Citadel was their best shooting night of the season but the shots cames easier than they would against a better team....
|
bobmed
Sophomore
Posts: 129
Loc: Skillman, NJ
Reg: 09-03-02
|
Re: Predictions on the Season
01-06-06 08:46 PM - Post#13067
In response to charcoal
Penn 14-0
Harvard 10-4
Columbia 9-5
Cornell 9-5
Yale 8-6
Dartmouth 3-11
Brown 2-12
Princeton 1-13
|
bobmed
Sophomore
Posts: 129
Loc: Skillman, NJ
Reg: 09-03-02
|
Re: Predictions on the Season
01-06-06 08:47 PM - Post#13068
In response to bobmed
Princeton beats Brown at Princeton only.
|
bobmed
Sophomore
Posts: 129
Loc: Skillman, NJ
Reg: 09-03-02
|
Re: Predictions on the Season
01-06-06 08:49 PM - Post#13069
In response to nix23
Not going to happen
|
Streamers
Professor
Posts: 8269
Loc: NW Philadelphia
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Rest of the regular season:
01-06-06 10:08 PM - Post#13070
In response to palestra38
3-1 against the rest of the outside schedule (lose a close one at the FT line to SJU or LaSalle)
Ivies:
Penn 13-1 (lose to either Columbia or Harvard on the road)
Harvard 10-4
Columbia 7-7
Cornell 7-7
Yale 6-8
Brown 5-9
Princeton4-10
Dartmouth4-10
(hard to believe that PU is even worse than last year)
|
The Lion King
Senior
Posts: 394
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Predictions on the Season
03-08-06 01:28 PM - Post#13071
In response to The Lion King
Well, I was right about Penn. This is the first time in history that I have ever made a correct sports prediction. (Don't look too closely at the other teams.)
I guess it was inaccurate to call this a below-par year for the Quakers, but barring an NCAA upset, I would not call it above-par either. As for the league as a whole, I know Jake has stats showing that this was the league's best year since 1979, or some such thing, and figures don't lie and all that, but consider:
--The league has only one good team this year, not two or three as usual.
--In fact, only one team besides the champion finished above .500 overall, and that by a single game.
--The league champion will need help from a bunch of schools with names that sound like irrigation districts to avoid a 15 seed.
--The second-place team lost to Carnegie-Mellon.
--The champion's signature win came against Hawaii, unless it was Drexel.
--The top three finishers all lost to Columbia.
--Did I mention that the second-place team lost to Carnegie-Mellon?
I don't know. If this was a good year for the Ivy League, I'd hate to see a bad one.
|
The Lion King
Senior
Posts: 394
Reg: 11-21-04
|
further explanation
03-08-06 02:47 PM - Post#13072
In response to The Lion King
In case you didn't catch my drift, the comment about "best year since 1979" was an exaggeration. I'm sorry if I seemed to misstate Jake's views; that was not my intent.
The comments from our Administrator that I was referring to can be found here:
http://ivy.basketball-u.com/index.php?p=126
And without going into detail, I'll say briefly that Jake's Myth #1 ("the Ivy League is at some sort of low ebb") is stated imprecisely enough that you can correctly call it false (if "low ebb" means "absolutely positively the worst ever") or true (if "some sort of" means a temporary recession, like an ebb tide). According to our standings page, the league's current overall RPI is 25, down from 24 when Jake wrote the item and a couple of notches below the historical average he cites.
The same goes for Myth #2 ("The Ivy League is caught in an overall downward trend"). As with the dead-horse debates about whether Penn or Princeton is historically better, this depends on when you start the comparison. If you begin in 2001-02, or in 2004-05, it sure looks like a downward trend to me, though not strictly monotonic. If you start in 1998-99, it's just fluctuation.
As for Myth #3 ("this will be Fran Dunphy's weakest championship squad"), Jake's explanation goes deeper into the differences between Old RPI and New RPI than I am prepared to follow. Penn's current RPI on our standings page is 100, which, if I understand properly, would work out to somewhere around 80 in the Old RPI that is the basis for the historical statistics Jake cites. If you look at the previous years' ratings, the 1995-96 team looks clearly worse, but this year's squad seems to be a strong contender for second-worst.
Of course, Jake made his analysis based on the information he had available--historical RPI ratings, with all their well-known flaws. That's a decent rough-and-ready tool for tracking Penn's performance from year to year, but I'm not convinced that it works as well for evaluating the league's performance as a whole. To me, counting how many other bargain-basement conferences had even worse years (perhaps by razor-thin margins) is less important than seeing how the Ivy League stacked up against other conferences with aspirations of being "mid-major." For this sort of analysis, the *size* of the gap between the Ivy League and conferences in, let's say, the 15-20 range is more important than the league's overall ranking. The fact that that this year's bottom feeders are merely bad instead of dreadful is also less of a consideration. So it all depends on how you define your terms.
Look, this whole dispute turns on people summarizing other people's views. If I seemed to be saying that Jake actually called this an above-average year for the league, I apologize--he didn't say that. But Jake's analysis only makes sense if you assume the existence of a widespread opinion that this is Dunphy's ABSOLUTE WORST championship team and that the Ivy League is having its ABSOLUTE WORST year ever. For the record, here is what SportsProf said in the article Jake cites (which I was finally able to read through Google cache; the link doesn't work for me, for some reason):
"1. The Ivies are at a low tide, their lowest in years, perhaps ever."
"2. This team is perhaps the worst of Fran Dunphy's title teams."
Note the use of "perhaps." (And by the way, the professor went on to say:
"7. I would surmise that Penn will be a #14 seed in the NCAA Tournament."
"8. Ibby Jaaber of Penn clearly is the Ivies' Player of the Year.")
So as far as I'm concerned, there is enough wiggle room in all these statements for everyone to be correct--Jake, me, SportsProf, and probably the rest of our posters too. This is indeed a below-average year for the league--not the worst ever, but more than slightly below par. And going into the tournament, this Penn team does look like one of Dunphy's weakest; whether it's the absolute worst or second-worst or third-worst or whatever depends on how you define those terms. None of these statements are meant to be numerically precise, so I don't think they can be disproved with statistics, and I have already explained my reasoning in an impressionistic way. So I'm content to leave it at that.
|
