Untitled Document
Brown Columbia Cornell Dartmouth Harvard Penn Princeton Yale



 Page 2 of 3 ALL<123
Username Post: Voy Board        (Topic#21496)
Dr. V 
PhD Student
Posts: 1403

Reg: 11-21-04
Voy Board
04-25-18 12:38 PM - Post#255862    
    In response to TheLine

Epistemology; common sense and discretion; and shooting ourselves in the foot.

One of the indicators of a good education, which we all supposedly received, is being aware of what we know and what we don't know, more specifically, being able to distinguish between what we actually know, i.e., facts, from suspicions/opinions we may form (on the basis of SOME evidence/information, but not enough to put us in a position to know that something for a fact), and sheer speculation (as when we speculate about whom our team is going to draft).

Do I know that the current coaching staff is going to lead us to winning seasons and challenges for championships? No. Do I know that it won't? No. Why? Simply because, again, two seasons and one recruiting class does not provide enough information/evidence for me or anyone else to know. That is why, e.g., Ivy coaches get 4-5 years to prove what they can do.

Do any of the posters on this board know? No, but they seem to think that their impressions/suspicions/op inions rise to the level of knowing, which they're proud to proclaim in public.

It is near impossible to predict who will turn out to be a successful head coach. Since 1971 I've seen more Columbia football and basketball coaches come and go than I can count. In each case we all got excited by the newcomer and held high hopes, until the next one. Predicting who will be a successful head coach is next to impossible because coaching is hard. You have to be a salesman, manager, strategist, psychologist and a couple of other things, and it's next to impossible to predict who is or is not skilled in all of those areas highly enough to succeed. One of the few, if not the only, indicator of future success is past success as a head coach on the same level.

Engles was an assistant at Columbia, so knows the league and the terrain with all of its peculiarities. He was unusually successful as a D1 head coach in his previous position. That prompts me to believe that he has a better than average chance of being successful at CU now. I've explained before why I think we didn't have a better record.

Now on to common sense and exercise of discretion. If you see an acquaintance across the room with his zipper unzipped or her slip showing, do you shout across the room, "Hey Johnny/Marry, your zipper/slip. . . "? Common sense and discretion dictate that you do not. You walk across the room and tell that person in private. That is doubly so if you have a relationship with that person and/or care about person, as we all claim to care about the success of our program.

How is sharing any of our impressions/suspicions in public helpful to our program? It's fine to share them when they are positive. When they are negative, we are simply shooting ourselves in the foot, or in our case both feet as we seem to want to do it with gusto. Do we really want to engage in self-fulfilling prophesies? Do we really want to make it more difficult to recruit new players or retain and maintain leadership authority
with existing players? All for the price of deluding ourselves into thinking that we know something when in fact we don't?

The criticism cited by CUBball is lack of player development. To repeat yet again, from a year ago to this last year, the only two years of the present regime, two players improved and one regressed; several key players were hurt, so one can't make any judgments there, yet our wise men have definitively concluded that there was no player development.

I agree that Hartman was a very good and effective coach, and I was really sorry to see him leave. That said, the incident involving Meisner and Wood and the presence/absence of cohesion is not as TheLine described. The out of bounds play happened in front of the Penn bench, so it's not surprising that it was the Penn bench that reacted the way it did. The CU bench on numerous occasions during the season when an exciting or momentum shifting play reacted similarly.

Edited by Dr. V on 04-25-18 12:42 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.

 
TheLine 
Postdoc
Posts: 3716

Age: 55
Reg: 07-07-09
04-25-18 01:09 PM - Post#255864    
    In response to Dr. V

I used to believe that.

Then realized my suspension of disbelief at what was going on at Penn under a certain coach was part of the problem. I wasn't helping matters, I was being complicit in the erosion of a program.

I'm now older and wiser.

it bothered me that not one player and not one coach defended Meisner on that play while he got it from every single person on the Penn bench. For crying out loud, you defend your players, and you defend your teammate. That didn't happen. Why? Do you think Rosie or Maodo or Barber or Kyle would have stood for that? Eff no.



 
CUBballFan 
Freshman
Posts: 14

Loc: East Coast
Reg: 04-23-18
04-26-18 06:18 AM - Post#255901    
    In response to TheLine

Dr. V.,

I love the zipper analogy and may have to use it at some point - if you don’t mind.

In pursuit of the common sense you suggest, I’ve recently reached out to and spoken with more than one person currently involved (in one way or another) with the program. I wanted to make sure I had my facts straight. Because these folks truly care about these young men and the program, they’ve confirmed that:

In between our 1 point loss at Cornell (in which Faulds sat on the bench for 40 minutes and watched Gettings scored 25 points) and the Harvard @ CU game, I guess Faulds did respectfully and appropriately ask Coach Engles if he knew that his “zipper was unzipped”. Faulds was allegedly told he didn’t play @ Cornell because he was a “defensive liability”. Interesting explanation given the fact that our individual and team defense was embarrassing. Putting Faulds in the game to guard Gettings seemed like a no-brainer. Was Engles coaching to win or coaching to prove a point?

Anyway, I guess Faulds’ meetings with Engles ended relatively well and led to some productive follow-up meetings with (at least) Smith, Killingsworth, & Castlin. I heard Smith was very candid about things, too. They all confirmed what Faulds had reported to Engles - that his barn door was, indeed, open and they thought it would be wise if he shut it, so nothing got out.

Over the next two days, Engles was more positive, relaxed, and emotionally connected (than usual) and the players were more optimistic that the culture was changing for the better. Maybe it was due to actually listening to and communicating with his players. Maybe it was due to the fact that it was Alumni Weekend and Engles was giving it his best. Regardless of the reason, I was in the stands that weekend and fortunate enough to witness us defeat Harvard by 7 and Dartmouth by 3. Correlation between coach’s attitude/behaviors and the team’s performance?

Unfortunately, I was told that, with each loss, the positivity faded, the two-way communication stopped, Engles became more agitated and detached..... and the team seemed to regress. Although the Ivy League Tourney was within our grasp, we finished the season losing 6 of the next 8 games and watched “Ivy Madness” slip away. Correlation?

In addition to the players’ efforts, “common sense and discretion” were also used by assistant coaches/b-ball personnel to fix things privately because they, too, care about the success of the program. Neither the players, nor the coaches were able to convince Engles that “Together Everyone Achieves More”. Instead, his response was evidently “F*** ‘em! Anyone who doesn’t like it can leave.”

At what point does the “keep things quiet” and “handle things in house” not seem like common sense? At what do those parents, us alumni, and others with a vested interest, start to become more vocal and say “screw discretion, enough is enough”?

So, at the most important levels, it does appear that many people gave Engles an opportunity to “check his fly”. Your analogy goes both ways, Dr. V. The receiver of the information must also be willing to actually hear what others are saying. If they truly respect those trying to look out for them (and the program), they will listen intently and take action. And that is “doubly so if they have a relationship with those people and/or care about them, as we all claim to care about the success of our program.”

But if the receiver continues to leave their zipper undone, private matters will eventually become public. Engles, our Head Coach, could have prevent this indecent exposure a long time ago.

 
Chet Forte 
Postdoc
Posts: 2057

Reg: 03-02-08
04-26-18 01:53 PM - Post#255937    
    In response to CUBballFan

My information is that the administration believes that Engles is the right guy, that he will be back, that we had bad chemistry this year, but that Engles was not the problem. I am just reporting and not editorializing.


 
Silver Maple 
Postdoc
Posts: 3255

Loc: Westfield, New Jersey
Reg: 11-23-04
04-26-18 02:18 PM - Post#255942    
    In response to Chet Forte

If that's really what they're saying, then Columbia fans should probably buckle up for a rough ride over the next couple of years. It's the head coach's job to set the tone. To say that the team had bad chemistry, but that this had nothing to do with the coach, makes no sense to me.

 
CUBballFan 
Freshman
Posts: 14

Loc: East Coast
Reg: 04-23-18
04-26-18 09:27 PM - Post#255969    
    In response to Silver Maple

Agreed. There are way too many people, who have first-hand knowledge and clean track records when it comes to integrity, saying the same things and they almost all lead back to Engles.

Like Dr. V said....... people who truly care about others stand up for them. Wouldn’t it be safe to assume that they would also defend them, especially against false accusations? If the administration (or anyone reasonable) is saying Engles is not the problem, then why haven’t ANY recent players, coaches, parents, or basketball support staff stepped forward and passionately and publicly defended Engles???


 
Columbia 37P6 
PhD Student
Posts: 1566

Reg: 02-14-06
04-27-18 10:23 AM - Post#256004    
    In response to CUBballFan

Excellent article in the Columbia Daily Spectator about how softball coach, Jennifer Teague, turned things around during her four year tenure at Columbia. Maybe the Columbia Basketball Coaches should read the story. For softball, it's a combination of great teamwork, great coaching, great recruiting and overall smarts. Having watched seven or eight of the Lady Lion softball games this year, I would also say that Teague is an outstanding game coach.



https://www.columbiaspectator.com/sports/2018/04/2...

 
palestra38 
Professor
Posts: 19003

Reg: 11-21-04
04-27-18 10:41 AM - Post#256010    
    In response to Columbia 37P6

You're not seriously comparing softball to basketball, are you?

Look, I know it's frenzy feeding here, but let's get real. Kyle Smith had a 20+ win team with 4 seniors that frankly, underperformed. That team should have won a title. Engles came in having lost 46 points of scoring and 17 rebounds per game. Don't underestimate the impact of losing those guys on Kyle Smith deciding to leave. Engles came in with a pretty bare plate other than Petrasek. He brought in Mike Smith (a player I love) but just doesn't have enough talent yet. You have to give a coach at this level at least 4 years to build a team from scratch, which is what he has to do. Yes, it has to be disappointing that CU lost so many close games, but conjuring conspiracy theories among players who aren't good enough to compete at a winning level really is unhelpful. You have to be patient.

 
mrjames 
Professor
Posts: 5240

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
04-27-18 11:56 AM - Post#256025    
    In response to palestra38

Tough to assign credit for Mike Smith, FWIW. Kyle recruited Mike Smith and got the commitment. Engles definitely did work to keep him with Columbia through the transition, but Mike committed to Kyle not Engles.

I also disagree that the 2016 Columbia team underperformed. It finished third behind a Yale team that was Top 50 in Pomeroy, won a tournament game and nearly pulled off a stunning comeback against Duke for a spot in the Sweet 16 and a Princeton team that got an at-large bid to the NIT, which is not easy. Columbia went 10-0 versus teams not named Yale and Princeton, and while it might have lost two disappointing games to the Tigers, it was outclassed by Yale twice. No shame in that, that Yale team was one of the best in recent memory.

I share the concerns of many of the Columbia posters on this board.

 
palestra38 
Professor
Posts: 19003

Reg: 11-21-04
04-27-18 12:21 PM - Post#256029    
    In response to mrjames

Actually, part of my point was that Smith left late in the cycle, and Engles only has had one year of recruiting from a pretty barren landscape he inherited. He has shown in the past he can recruit to a Godforsaken school without a conference---he has to be given a chance now. The only real possible disagreement we may have is if you believe that there was enough talent there to win last year.

 
TheLine 
Postdoc
Posts: 3716

Age: 55
Reg: 07-07-09
04-27-18 02:30 PM - Post#256046    
    In response to palestra38

You're missing the point of the thread, friend.

Please go back and read from the top.


 
Columbia 37P6 
PhD Student
Posts: 1566

Reg: 02-14-06
04-27-18 05:21 PM - Post#256056    
    In response to TheLine

palestra38, my friend, you are having a very bad day at least on this Board.

First, you stated that Columbia's best basketball player, Mike Smith, was recruited by Jim Engles. Wrong. As Mr. James noted, Kyle Smith recruited him.

Second, you stated that the 2016 Columbia team under performed. Wrong again, per Mr. James.

Third, you stated that Kyle Smith left Columbia for the University of San Francisco because his key players graduated. Wrong again. Kyle made no secret that he and his wife loved Columbia and New York City, but they had very strong family ties to Northern California.

Fourth, you stated that Kyle Smith left Jim Engles a pretty bare plate other than Petrasek. Wrong again. The plate also included Smith, Meisner, Tape, Hickman, Castlin and several others.

Fifth, you stated that Engles is entitled to have a four year honeymoon because he successfully recruited players to NJIT because you consider NJIT to be a "Godforsaken school." Wrong again. Good logic suggests, that if NJIT is indeed a "Godforsaken school," than perhaps his recruiting success there was overrated because believe it or not neither Columbia, Penn, Princeton, Yale, Harvard, Dartmouth, Brown and Cornell are "Godforsaken schools." At this time, there can be no denying that Engles' record at Columbia the past two years speaks for itself and that my friend, speaks volumes, and those volumes don't speak well.



 
rbg 
Masters Student
Posts: 879

Reg: 10-20-14
04-27-18 06:20 PM - Post#256059    
    In response to Columbia 37P6

In reviewing this thread, there are several posts that focus on behavior issues.

Some posts talk about tweets from Coach Faluds that are general comments about coaches that don't serve their players well.

One mentioned a Facebook post from Myles Hanson's mother that noted that the program did not embrace the values and principles that he has sought to embrace and emulate in his life.

CUBballFan had an interesting 4/23 post that discussed the coache's less than positive interactions with his players that supposedly was relayed from people close to the program.

So there are several cryptic posts and some unnamed comments from people more on the inside than most, or all, of us. These comments would seem to go beyond simple comments from many of us of about a particular coach's recruiting or in-game tactical abilities.

Brown has had a number of people leave the program over the last few years, but I cannot recall any cryptic negative comments about the staff. Coach Allen and Coach Courtney were let go by Penn and Cornell, respectively, but it seems that people from both schools spoke highly of both men.

Just yesterday, former Penn women's basketball assistant coach Chris Day resigned from the head coaching position at the University of Vermont. According to the press reports, the school had recently started an investigation of the coach due to his verbal interactions with players.

http://www.wcax.com/content/sports/BREAKI NG-UVM-is...

Columbia football is just a few year removed from having to fire former Coach Pete Mangurian due to questionable behavior towards his players.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/college/report -c...

The comments mentioned from the more-inside people during this thread should, at least, be looked into by the school to make sure that there are no problems with leadership. If everything is good, then all can focus on improving on last year's results and moving up in the conference standings. If all is not good, then school leadership would have some serious decisions to make.


 
palestra38 
Professor
Posts: 19003

Reg: 11-21-04
04-28-18 08:38 AM - Post#256067    
    In response to Columbia 37P6

CU37P6, my friend, one of the benefits of having attended the world renowned Columbia University School of Law was that I learned that talk is cheap when there is an evidentiary record. Well, was I the only one who thought that the '15-'16 team underperformed as you attempt to proffer? Let's look at two posts of a certain poster prior to that season. First, let's look at one just after the prior season had ended:

03-08-15 10:29 PM - Post#185054

"OK, now that the season is completed we can start throwing around some ideas for next year. First, Columbia should have an outstanding team led by its two great senior ballplayers, Maodo Lo and Alex Rosenberg. In my opinion,Lo is a possible NBA draft choice and, Rosenberg is at least a possible Ivy League POY or better; Second, we should be significantly stronger at point guard with the two incoming star quality prospects, CJ Davia and Quinton Adlesh; Third, with this year's probable Ivy League ROY, Kyle Castlin, and the incoming stellar freshman, Rodney Hunter, joining up with Lo, Castlin and one or both of the freshman guards, Columbia should have a wonderful group of guards who will give their opponents nightmares; Fourth, the Lions wills also have Nate Hickman and Kendall Jackson, both of whom improved dramatically this season; Fifth, the 6'7" Rosenberg returns up front at forward, backed up by Issac Cohen, a small, but tenacious rebounder, who, hopefully, will learn to shot much better in the off-seasonn. The Lions will also have the 6'8" Chris McComber, who is an excellent outside shooter, but needs to improve his overall game, and two very promising freshmen, John Sica and Peter Barba. In high school, Sica and Barba mostly received acclaim for their outside shooting, but if they want to see action immediately then they need to think of themselves as power forwards in college and gain about 15-20 pounds each of muscle in the next sixth months; Sixth, the center position is our only problem, and whichever of the four likely candidates--Petrasek, Coby, Voss and Eberle-- works the hardest in the off-season is likely to become the starter; Seventh, I see Coach Kyle Smith changing the offense dramatically so that the Lions will be playing at a much higher tempo, specially in transition, and not relying as much on shooting threes. I would expect the Lions to be a fast-breaking team that will capitalize on the speed and athleticism of its players. Finally, I have omitted Grant Mullins from my little outlook because I am uncertain of his status. However, in my opinion, he is a very good player and I hope to see him return healthy and motivated to win a championship in his senior season at Columbia."

Then, in a thread on the '15-'16 season, that SAME POSTER wrote:

10-24-15 06:35 PM - Post#193789
In response to cc66

"Depth is a wonderful thing as is competition for playing time. Davis, Hunter, Adlesh and Meisner may have to wait their turn, but I suspect they will all play vital roles in our winning the Ivy League Championship this year."


That astute poster? You. This is the problem I continually identify when Mike James and others attempt to use Pomeroy ratings AFTER THE FACT as some kind of evidence that other teams were objectively better going in (and thus the losing team did not underperform). All that rating indicates is the play on the court after the fact, not how they were predicted to play before the fact. Anyone can look at KenPom and say Yale and Princeton were better teams and indeed they were. But clearly, YOU expected a championship and frankly, I thought CU would be right there with all those returning seniors. So while I can understand someone who AT THAT TIME predicted CU to finish third and losing all four games to Yale and Princeton criticizing my post, you were not the right guy to do it.

You're a great fan, but let's stay consistent.

 
palestra38 
Professor
Posts: 19003

Reg: 11-21-04
04-28-18 08:41 AM - Post#256068    
    In response to palestra38

Let me also add that Engles had to convince Smith to come to CU after the coaching change--many recruits go elsewhere after a coaching change. Smith did not. He has to get credit for that recruit, after all, Smith could have followed Smith (Kyle that is).

 
Columbia 37P6 
PhD Student
Posts: 1566

Reg: 02-14-06
04-28-18 10:58 PM - Post#256074    
    In response to palestra38

palestra38, wow, I am incredibly impressed by your research which indeeds shows conclusively my inconsistency on the point of Columbia's alleged underperformance in the year 2015-15. I am humbled, humiliated, but also quite flattered that anyone would so brilliantly go to the record to prove his point in this computer age. I admit defeat by you, accept your wisdom on this most crucial of points in mankind's history. However, the irony is that having admitted defeat, I take some solace that the person who I lost to graduated from the same world renowned law school did, namely Columbia Law School. I hope one day to have the pleasure of meeting my colleague in person!

 
Chet Forte 
Postdoc
Posts: 2057

Reg: 03-02-08
04-29-18 08:43 AM - Post#256075    
    In response to Columbia 37P6

Re the ‘15-‘16 season, we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in the Princeton game when we let a big lead slip away and then when the Princeton SG hit on a long, long three pointer as time expired. That tied the game and after racing to a lead in OT we let that one slip away. We were calling for the now-sainted Kyle Smith’s scalp for not foulingPrinceton before they could get off the three pointer. Had we won that Princeton game we had a good chance of taking the league.


 
palestra38 
Professor
Posts: 19003

Reg: 11-21-04
04-29-18 10:19 AM - Post#256078    
    In response to Columbia 37P6

LOL---it's no different searching this site than using Westlaw to identify a case supporting your point. It only took a couple of minutes to find your predictions.

I would be happy to meet sometime and bring together a group of supporters of all the Ivy teams (Indeed, I initially thought that was the idea of the Ivy Tournament). Having attended CU for law school (and playing a regular twice weekly game on center court at Levien at noon), it always was my second choice--just that I called the games when at Penn as an undergrad (can't believe my 40th reunion is coming up in 2 weeks!). I always enjoy the almost unabashed optimism of the Columbia fans--which is why I find the current topic somewhat upsetting given I don't think Engles has been given a chance to recruit his own guys yet.

 
HARVARDDADGRAD 
PhD Student
Posts: 1139

Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
04-29-18 12:25 PM - Post#256080    
    In response to Chet Forte

As for the the thrust of this topic, Columbia peaked in 2015-16 largely on 4 very good seniors. Hard for any coach to follow that up. Mitch Henderson just suffered through a similar phenomena and Amaker will face the same obstacle when the 7 rising Juniors graduate.

Without going too far off base, the 2016 home implosion against Princeton was crushing. But Princeton didn't win the league. 13-1 and top 50 Yale finished three games above Columbia (13-3 vs 10-4).

 
SomeGuy 
Postdoc
Posts: 4617

Reg: 11-22-04
04-29-18 08:24 PM - Post#256086    
    In response to CUBballFan

Admittedly, I only saw one Columbia game in person this year, at the Palestra. But what struck me in that game was how Faulds could not guard AJ Brodeur, and how my impression was that Columbia arguably lost the game because of that specific matchup. Based on that match, I would expect that he would have worlds of trouble with Stone Gettings, who can play outside better than Brodeur can. To me, Faulds needs to be on the floor against centers who are more rooted to the middle (or aren't threats away from the basket). He should be in the floor against a Chris Lewis. Or against Penn if Rothschild is on the flloor. But Gettings to me looks like a brutal matchup for him.



 
 Page 2 of 3 ALL<123
Icon Legend Permissions Topic Options
Report Post

Quote Post

Quick Reply

Print Topic

Email Topic

5378 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: 0.191 seconds.   Total Queries: 16   Zlib Compression is on.
All times are (GMT -0500) Eastern. Current time is 08:29 PM
Top