Streamers
Professor
Posts: 8365
Loc: NW Philadelphia
Reg: 11-21-04
|
06-02-20 06:50 PM - Post#308374
In response to Penndemonium
good point.
|
Quakers03
Professor
Posts: 12533
Reg: 12-07-04
|
06-02-20 10:00 PM - Post#308386
In response to Streamers
Doesn’t Harvard do the league a disservice by not taking OOC as seriously as it could? Don’t we aspire to more as a league?
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6418
Reg: 11-22-04
|
06-02-20 10:09 PM - Post#308387
In response to Quakers03
If it is true, yes, it seems like it hurts the league. I’m not totally convinced it really is true. Seems like the Towns injury was just worse than we realized. Kind of seemed like he was being saved for the league season both years, which I think contributed to the impression Amaker didn’t value OOC, and then it turned out he wasn’t playing at all. Same with Aiken this year.
Amaker does play more guys OOC, and then the rotation tightens in league, but even in conference he plays with his rotations and shows more different looks than Steve does. Some of that is just how Amaker coaches — he tries a wider variation of looks.
|
HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts: 2703
Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
|
06-02-20 10:39 PM - Post#308389
In response to SomeGuy
Amaker has been clear that his priorities are to win the Ivy League Regular season, win the Tournament, and win games in the NCAA. He's been more successful in each of those goasl than anyone else over the last decade.
As for OOC, I believe that had Seth and Bryce been healthy that Harvard would have been playing for a top 25 ranking and a historical record, something like 30-2. When injuries hit, OOC focus shifts to developing players and depth in preparation for the Ivy season. Beating Yale is much better than beating San Francisco or Alabama. Having said that, Harvard had the best OOC win in 2018-19 (at St. Mary's) and played Maryland even to the final minutes in Orlando.
Most seasons, Harvard OOC SOS has been the roughest in the league.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32936
Reg: 11-21-04
|
06-03-20 06:16 AM - Post#308390
In response to HARVARDDADGRAD
Amaker hands down is the highest profile coach in the Ivies and makes at least twice as much as any other Ivy coach (if you include the package deal for his wife, probably a lot more than that). Given Harvard's brand, and ability to offer far more players a free ride, you have a built in advantage in terms of recruiting that no one can match. If you would ask me which coach has done the best job of coaching over that 10 year period, it's hands down James Jones. But I give props to Amaker---he's suffered some crushing injuries to top players and still done well. But in terms of titles, he's lost a few games he probably should have won given everything I acknowledge up above.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
06-03-20 12:07 PM - Post#308397
In response to palestra38
As is frequently the case in conversations like these... you have to define what you mean by "job of coaching." For college coaches, the "job" of coaching is as much program building and recruiting as it is coaching games. Amaker's done the overall job the best, though the coaching games piece, yeah, isn't the league's best.
|
HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts: 2703
Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
|
06-03-20 01:31 PM - Post#308401
In response to mrjames
I agree that Harvard has lost games it should have won. I was merely responding to the concept that Harvard somehow hurts the league's OOC standing.
On the other hand, I find Harvard's coaches to be very good at making adjustments, especially at halftime. Is that "in game?" It should be.
I'd also put out there that Harvard's depth being so strong, it seems to invite Tommy to spread out the playing time. I think that's great, and once the injuries hit or in a unique circumstance it proves to have been a benefit. Forbes vs Princeton this year and Catchings vs Yale last year are examples.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6418
Reg: 11-22-04
|
06-03-20 06:17 PM - Post#308434
In response to mrjames
I totally agree that coaching involves much, much more than Xs and Os. Like running lots of different types of organizations, what matters in the end is that the organization is successful. For basketball, that means you have to be pretty good at Xs and Os as a team — the head coach doesn’t have to be personally. And if the organization is great at recruiting and/or developing players, it may not have to be quite as good at Xs and Os as a competitor in order to win.
I always love the contrast between Donahue and Jones in the huddle. Donahue is the only one talking for the entire timeout. The assistants might have a side convo here or there, but it is all Steve, and it often seems like he doesn’t have time for everything he wants to convey. Jones, on the other hand, spends much of the timeout talking with his assistants (often listening, it appears), and then he steps in and talks to the team. Two very different styles of leadership, and both seem to work.
Where I think there is still room for debate is whether Amaker has so many advantages at Harvard that it makes recruiting much easier for him. If that is the case, I think it becomes less obvious that he has been the “best†of “most successful†among the Ivy coaches. Personally, I think Jones has done the best job, because he moved the program from second division to first division before Harvard and Yale developed the fin aid advantages that they have today. I’d even say that back when Jones started, Yale admissions (and Harvard) was actively trying not to compete.
|
Mike Porter
Postdoc
Posts: 3619
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
Reg: 11-21-04
|
06-03-20 07:50 PM - Post#308441
In response to SomeGuy
Amaker is an elite recruiter. Full stop. If we switched any other coach in the league to Harvard, they would not close at the level he has (and wouldn't be very close). He built it from Harvard never landing even middle of the pack Ivy kids to landing nationally ranked kids.
Jones maybe could get close but it took him like decades to figure it out, and he still doesn't have the track record as a coach and player as Amaker did.
P.S. please stop making me defend Amaker.
|
UPIA1968
PhD Student
Posts: 1122
Loc: Cornwall, PA
Reg: 11-20-06
|
06-03-20 08:56 PM - Post#308447
In response to Mike Porter
Of the several themes this year with Penn, one of the more interesting for the long term is the ability of the injured Junior and Senior players to contribute. We have been excusing the lack of production from those two years because of injuries. Should any of the two of three important players contibute, then our evaluation of Steve's recruiting goes up. Moreover, should the Sophs keep developing along with contributions from Jonah, then their year goes down as an exceptional recruiting year.
As to the HYP recruiting advantages. Every Ivy school is an attractive option for the kids they recruit. Plus, doesn't playing in a real gym count for anything? Even if they have an advantage, is Penn to give up? Keep in mind that an injury-free team the last two years would have been a true contender for the title.
I am looking forward to a very interesting year.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6418
Reg: 11-22-04
|
06-03-20 09:55 PM - Post#308452
In response to Mike Porter
For the record (again), I think Amaker is a tremendous coach. Just saying I might take Jones over him among the current crop. I think HYPP all have very good coaches right now. No disrespect intended.
|
HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts: 2703
Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
|
06-03-20 11:34 PM - Post#308454
In response to SomeGuy
Good observation about 4 good coaches. Mike Martin is clearly very strong as well, and Cornell and Dartmouth could be considered as outperforming their talent.
Engles is likely the only league coach on the ropes, but had Tape and Stefanini played the Lions might have battled for 4th place
A strong group
|
Mike Porter
Postdoc
Posts: 3619
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
Reg: 11-21-04
|
06-04-20 12:33 AM - Post#308455
In response to SomeGuy
SG - fair enough and sorry if I misinterpreted.
That said, I’m not even saying I think Amaker has been the best coach over last decade over Jones (though clearly one of them can make that claim). I only took umbrage with the sentiment that somehow Harvard’s recruiting advantages are more the reason for Amakers recruiting hauls. From a competitive standpoint, I’m not as altruistic as Mike James is - I do like a higher quality of teams in for sure, but I’d happily see Tommy Amaker off to another job because his overall package/history/recruitin g would be DIFFICULT to replace/replicate.
For the record, my P.S. was a general P.S. to a lot of our Penn people who say he is overrated, not just to you, haha. He isn’t the best in game or X’s and O’s guy for me, but a very good program builder and a next level recruiter. If his guys were healthy this year, it would have been a historic season for them and I suspect it would be harder to talk about him being overrated around here.
A little unrelated, but I also take issue with idea that Harvard holds all the recruiting advantages. Does Harvard have some recruiting advantages being “Harvard†and good financial packages? Sure. But I think Penn has a hell of a lot to sell... Palestra, Big 5, Wharton, fantastic training facilities, history, etc. Here’s to hoping our 2021 targets are buying!
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6418
Reg: 11-22-04
|
06-04-20 07:46 AM - Post#308457
In response to Mike Porter
Certainly agree we have lot to sell. Harvard and Yale always struck me as sleeping giants during the years of P dominance because of their brands. But at that time the Ps were where you wanted to go in the Ivy if basketball was your focus. We lost the recruiting edge in part because Harvard and Yale woke up, but we also lost it in part because Dunphy left and we stopped playing good basketball. I am curious what the landscape would be like in an alternate reality where Dunphy stuck around (or we hired a stronger replacement). Maybe we never would have ceded the advantage.
We still have the advantage of playing in a big (for our league) historic building in a great basketball city, the Big 5, etc. So we don’t have to be behind Harvard and Yale recruiting. But the advantage is hard to get back once lost. Some of it is what Penn can do, but as with the shift away from P dominance, it helps a lot if the schools in front of you stumble. So agreed — I hope Amaker finds a big conference opportunity. And then Harvard hires Joe Scott.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32936
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Dev Goodman piece
06-04-20 08:00 AM - Post#308459
In response to Mike Porter
Just about all our advantages were tossed in the garbage can by Bilsky when he first hired and later secretly gave Jerome a big second contract to condemn us to 10 terrible years of losing basketball (yes, he had one good year with Miller's players--demonstrating that had it not been for injuries, Miller probably would have been successful here). But the other factors you mention are old news--today we have an empty Palestra, a Big Five in which the games are just games these days, a history which is ancient history. Wharton is not that much of an attraction to anyone but prep school kids. You give me Harvard and its brand and I will out-recruit you. You give me Harvard and its Brand, a big time Big East and Big 10 coach with his AAU connections and free rides to anyone whose family makes under $150,000 and I will beat you in every head to head matchup. I think anyone who does not realize this is completely unrealistic. Steve is doing a great job with what he can do. We have 2 choices---hire an equally big time coach with similar recruiting connections as Amaker, or wait him out and hope to win a title in our best year by outcoaching him on the floor. But we will not win most years with the current landscape.
|
Stuart Suss
PhD Student
Posts: 1439
Loc: Chester County, Pennsylva...
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Dev Goodman piece
06-04-20 11:23 AM - Post#308492
In response to palestra38
My friend, P38, has set forth an eminently defensible analysis:
Harvard, with its brand, its coach and its financial aid/endowment advantages, will beat Penn in "every head to head [recruiting] matchup." Therefore, "Steve is doing a great job with what he can do."
P38, may I ask you to extend your analysis to Penn vs. Yale and Penn vs. Princeton in the recruiting wars. Do Yale and Princeton have comparable recruiting advantages over Penn (albeit to a lesser order of magnitude than Harvard's advantages)? Do you see Penn's finishing behind Yale and Princeton in the standings (more often than not) as equally inevitable, absent the effect of injuries?
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32936
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Dev Goodman piece
06-04-20 11:40 AM - Post#308494
In response to Stuart Suss
No. I don't think Yale and Princeton have had better personnel than Penn over the last 3-4 years...especially Princeton. We've played Yale very tough and been terrible against Princeton. There is really not enough data to conclude anything---my opinion (not scientific) is that we have made major scheduling errors by agreeing to play Princeton coming off long breaks before they go on theirs. Let's see what happens now that Princeton has changed its finals schedule. But we've had better records overall than Princeton and have won many more games against top 150 teams in that time. Yale is very very well coached. I would agree Jones has done better than Donahue, but he had 15 years to build up his program, so give Steve time. No matter how you look at it, there is Harvard and then Y-P-Pr in terms of recruiting. And it is not close, for the reasons I mentioned.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Dev Goodman piece
06-04-20 12:23 PM - Post#308497
In response to palestra38
I think a lot of folks here are shortselling Amaker's own abilities as a recruiter and over-attributing his success to institutional factors. It's not like he suddenly became an amazing recruiter at Harvard - he brought in top-tier talent to Seton Hall and Michigan, both of which were in disadvantageous spots relative to the rest of their conferences.
As an aside, while some folks continue to complain about FA, which with matching (and all Ivies' growth there) isn't as big a deal as some make it out to be, the last thing any non-Harvard fan should want is a universal, aggressive (which is what it would need to be given the anti-trust suit) FA policy for the league. There are a LOT more prospects that would have to pay than you think, and the recruiting classes with de facto scholarships for all would be utterly insane.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6418
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Dev Goodman piece
06-04-20 12:38 PM - Post#308498
In response to Stuart Suss
Adding onto P38’s response, over the past 3 years we have had a better overall record than Princeton all 3 years (on average, we have won more than 5 more games than them per season). We have finished ahead of them in Pomeroy every year (by an average of about 40 spots). We have made more Ivy tournaments than they have in that span (3-2), as well. And of course we have made more NCAA appearances as well (1-0). Heck, we’ve even won 5 more Ivy games than they have over the last 3 years.
Also, I am not immediately aware of instances where we are losing out to them on recruits in the last couple of years. We’ve had a few players pick Yale over Penn recently, but I don’t think that has been happening with Princeton.
There are facts you can come up with to support Princeton as well. They’ve won head-to-head (4-2), and they’ve finished ahead of us in the Ivy standings (by a single game) the last two years. But the overall picture has been better for Penn over the last three years, I think by a significant margin.
|
Stuart Suss
PhD Student
Posts: 1439
Loc: Chester County, Pennsylva...
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Dev Goodman piece
06-04-20 12:44 PM - Post#308500
In response to mrjames
P38's analysis was as follows:
Harvard, with its brand, its coach and its financial aid/endowment advantages, will beat Penn in "every head to head [recruiting] matchup." Therefore, "Steve is doing a great job with what he can do."
1. I agree with P38, and would add that Harvard's advantages apply to Yale and Princeton as well as to Penn.
2. Harvard's advantages over the rest of the league would have been more clearly evident but for a) injuries to Harvard's best players, and b) Harvard's having to play two consecutive Ivy championship games on the road (Penn in 2018 and Yale in 2019).
The following question is posed to Mike James:
You posted here the following comments:
Harvard won 9 more Ivy games over four years than Penn - more than two games better per year. Penn was fourth in wins over than span - three behind Princeton and six back of Yale. Those are the far more concerning and relevant stats than NCAA appearances. The question isn’t whether being “part of the Top 4†is a problem. The question is whether being clearly fourth is the problem.
AND
My thoughts have been made clear on this, but while I believe Steve is a great coach, his recruiting is consistently fourth-best, so it’s not surprising that his team is consistently fourth-best. Being the coaching equivalent of a card-counter at a casino isn’t enough to overcome those odds.
Mike James, let's put Harvard aside for the moment:
1. Are Yale's and Princeton's recruiting success compared to Penn the product of structural and institutional advantages (school brand, better financial aid packages, the loss of Penn's cachet because of two consecutive head coaching failures), or should a Penn head coach be able to successfully recruit head to head with Yale and Princeton?
2. At the level at which Yale, Princeton and Penn are recruiting, are there enough available prospects to fill the rosters of Yale, Princeton and Penn with equivalent talent?
|
