[HOOPS]Cornell 62 vs Cornell Rejects 67

37-34 Syracuse, 2 minutes into the second half.

Gore with 5 treys, and we're tied 44-44, 12:30 to go.

His 6th. 47-44 Cornell!

having problems with the CSTV feed....

OK over here, try a reboot.

10:15, 47-46.

52-50 Cornell.

Their crowd is getting into it.

and Cornell with 2 free throws after the commercial break

7:07, 53-52 Cornell.

6:30, foul on Ney.

54-52.

we're on espnnews! from their espnu film!
whoa! color me surprised!

edit: nothing on actual espnu. but i'm watcing this as it happens on espnnews...

Grrr...make your free throws!

56-55 'Cuse.

damn. espnnews stopped now. boo.

TV timeout... 58-55 'Cuse, 3:58 left

60-57.

62-57...need some stops...

64-57, 1:17 to go.

At least we covered.

64-59, timeout, 1:02 left

2nd missed rebound on a Syracuse free throw in the final couple minutes...

35.9 seconds, 66-59. Miracles can happen.

67-62 final

wow, who woulda thunk it... that's a hell of a game, very impressive for a team picked to finish 4th in the Ivy league

Well it was fun while it lasted. Maybe this'll finally get people fired up about bball.

Just got back from the game... few things to note:

Atmosphere:
-Had to move my seats because an unknown Syracuse fan was throwing nails at me because I was vocally rooting for the Red (honestly, who brings a box of nails to a sporting event)
-Couldn't figure out who it was, they all looked pretty suspicious
-I walked around the entire stadium and saw probably 20-30 recognizable Cornell fans, rather disappointing considering the magnitude of the game
-A group of fans in the upper deck yelled "RED" during the national anthem, very nice
-Student section chanted "Harvard Rejects" as time was winding down (their only Cornell taunt of the night besides generic player introduction jeering)
-Fans looked absolutely mortified and were pretty silent for the majority of the second half as Cornell lead for an 8-10 minute stretch.
-They sell beer at the Carrier Dome. Absolutely remarkable

Game Notes:
-The refs were calling ticky-tack nonsense, but Cornell definately benefitted more than Syracuse (though when said BS went against us, it was very frustrating)
-Cornell had no chance when it came to rebounds. Syracuse was much bigger and much more athletic. The only rebounds they got were fortuitous bounces.
-Several players were in early foul trouble, which may have hindered their performance on defense. The severity was lessened by the fact that Cornell played zone exclusively, but on breakaways (of which there were a number), Cuse was given baskets rather than being put on the FT line.
-Offense: Cornell's ball movement was unbelievable, they were able to get outside shots and made most of them.
-Freshman Adam Gore was absolutely lights out from outside, they were definately hurt by the fact that he got his 4th foul very early in the second half
-Defense: Cornell's parimeter defense was amazing as well, Cuse had almost no 3-pointers though they have many capable shooters
-Cornell could not stop anyone at all inside. They were overmatched physically, and if the ball got inside at all, it was 2 points. Ball denial was pretty good though to counteract that.
-Cornell has about a 7 man rotation, which may have cause fatigue at the end
-The crowd seemed to get to the team at times. There were a few possesions late that players mishandled the ball or made stupid decisions while the crown was screaming (prompted by the scoreboard).
-For the most part, they handled it well. Gore was unbelievably composed for a Freshman, and didn't committ turnovers.




Though I was incredibly dissapointed that we didn't get the big time upset, Cornell's gameplan and execution was spectacular. Kudos to Coach Donahue. Looks very promising for the upcoming season.

[Q]CM cWo 44 Wrote:

-Student section chanted "Harvard Rejects" as time was winding down.
[/q]

Syracuse students were chanting that? Too bad there was more of them and they bring boxes of nails to the games or else "Cornell Rejects" or "Safety School" would've been a nice retort.

Kudos to the b-ball team for a great performance.

[Q]CM cWo 44 Wrote:
-I walked around the entire stadium and saw probably 20-30 recognizable Cornell fans, rather disappointing considering the magnitude of the game
[/Q]

The magnitude of the game? Intending to be used as a patsy for a national poweron a weekday night and you expected people to come out in droves? Hey, the more the better, but I'm sensing and unrealistic idea of our chances on this board.

Now, we almost pulled it off which would have been amazing, but the fact remains that Syracuse picked those 3 teams would be like Cornell hockey playing Ithaca College club, Ithaca High, and a team from the local adult league (alright, not quite, but pretty close). Now an upset wouldn't be impossible, but that does mean that only fans of those teams considering it a big game, and not a setup to be embarrassed, are a bit confused.


[Q]-Fans looked absolutely mortified and were pretty silent for the majority of the second half as Cornell lead for an 8-10 minute stretch.[/Q]

Excellent


[Q]-The refs were calling ticky-tack nonsense, but Cornell definately benefitted more than Syracuse (though when said BS went against us, it was very frustrating)[/Q]

That's called basketball

I agree with the rest of your comments and they match pretty well what the ESPNU guys were saying, or at least what I was seeing. We were definitely outmatched, but we had a killer night from 3 point range, and Cuse was 1 for 17 at one point late in the game (and probably ended up 1 for something-near-there). We had no business being in that game, but they played well, got a lot of luck, and nearly pulled it off.

Highlights of the game are online through ESPN motion, not sure how to link to it though...

[Q]The magnitude of the game? Intending to be used as a patsy for a national poweron a weekday night and you expected people to come out in droves? Hey, the more the better, but I'm sensing and unrealistic idea of our chances on this board. [/Q]

If we won we it would have been a HUGE story. Not to mention we would be headed to NYC next weekend to play another ranked team, on national television, at Madison Square Garden. A respectable performance in that game would have likely landed us in the Top 25.

I know that's a lot of "ifs" but were weren't that far away from all that happening. For Cornell basketball, that was about as big as it gets.

I know this is a hockey school (I will be leaving for Boston in a few hours), but considering the scale of that game, and the fact that it was less than an hour away, I think that 20-30 people is rather pathetic. There were 15,000 Cuse fans, we didn't have any presence in the dome at all. There's just really no support for Cornell sports outside of hockey (and don't even talk to me about the football attendance, students could care less, and its mostly a social event for alumni).

Sure, it woulda been a huge story, but you're asking people to drive 2 hours round trip, on a work/school night, to witness a 90% chance of us getting beaten 85-40. Now, it didn't happen that way, but no one planning their day out would have had any idea.

I wouldn't mind seeing our other sports get some more attention from the fans - i did go to a few football games each year (well, most years) - but the reason is pretty straight forward - in basketball and football, the Ivys don't have even a pipe dream of any great success - other than an Ivy title. Success breeds interest.


[Q]A respectable performance in that game would have likely landed us in the Top 25.[/Q]



I think you're thinking way too much like hockey here. The top 15 in college hockey is the top 1/4 of teams. The silly top 20 right now is the top 1/3rd. Basketball is a different animal. There are right around ~330 D-I basketball schools. The top 25 represents only about the upper 7.5% of schools - not the top 25 to 30%.

So the hockey equivalent is like saying "if Bentley beats North Dakota and has a decent showing against DU the next night, that would likely land them in the top 4!" No, it would be looked at as a total fluke, and maybe get them some 'others receiving votes.' Yes, the top 25 in basketball is roughly equivalent to the top 4 or 5 in hockey!

And even the best Ivys are probably around number 300 most years. The difference from top to bottom in hockey is probably an order of magnitude less than that in basketball. The winners of the AHA and CHA can play with the big boys (and they've proved it). The winner of the Ivy is usually blown out in the first round by someone towards the bottom of the top 25.

There's a serious difference between sports.

[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:


And even the best Ivys are probably around number 300 most years. The difference from top to bottom in hockey is probably an order of magnitude less than that in basketball. The winners of the AHA and CHA can play with the big boys (and they've proved it). The winner of the Ivy is usually blown out in the first round by someone towards the bottom of the top 25.

There's a serious difference between sports.



Edited 2 times. Last edit at 11/10/05 01:03PM by DeltaOne81.[/q]


To be fair Ivy basketball is actually a higher level than a bunch of the crap conferences out there. Of 330 teams last season, Ivy RPIs were:
Penn- 42
Cornell- 200
Princeton- 115
Brown- 227
Yale- 178
Dartmouth- 240
Harvard- 183
Columbia- 267

Of course that has a good bit to do with OOC scheduling, but I think it's a bit of a put down to say that the best of the Ivies is #300. On the whole they are better than that (which is not to say Cornell hasn't competed for 330 a few times in recent history). Though I will concede that college basketball and hockey are two completely different animals.

As far as the magnitude of the game last night, I'd say that a win would have been great. A big shock. I probably would have gone to MSG to see the spectacle of Bobby Knight vs. Cornell.
But when push comes to shove, I'd rather beat Penn.

Actually, I wrote that when I first thought that there were 400 teams. Then I found out it was only 330. So the equivalent would be me saying that the Ivies don't get much above 200-250.

Other than Penn & Princeton, I wasn't far off, although I did underestimate the Ivies a bit, I admit. Then again, I'm sure the insular schedule helps, and we all know the flaws of RPI. I have a tough time seeing Penn as the #42 team in the country , after losing to BC by 20 points.

This is not to take away from the great game we had yesterday, but just to put it in perspective of a lot of luck, against a team that was having an off night, and to put in perspective how very difficult getting close to the top 25 in basketball is, versus the "come one, come all" nature of the top 20 in hockey.

Mention on ESPN's Daily Quickie...

Cornell gives Syracuse a game, only loses 67-62. Perhaps these early-season cupcakes are finally giving the Orange a stomachache?

Seeing as how there are over 300 NCAA basketball teams, the top 25 represents an much higher class of team than the top 15 in college hockey. To beat a top 25 team on the road, and to play another tough early in the season when no one else has played any games, would certainly garner top 25 interest.
You can site a number of examples of teams that have made a cindarella run in the Preseason NIT, and found themselves in the top 25 early. Since no one else has played any teams, to make a statement against top competition makes you stand out in the eyes of the media.
Also, the comparison to a hockey upset isn't a comparison at all. It is monumentally easier for a lesser hockey team to upset at top flight team due to the low scoring nature of the games, and the fact that top tier college basketball teams have a huge advantage in athleticism. Not to mention the parity of talent in college hocket caused by having 1/5 as many teams.

Not that any of this matters cause we lost, but the very fact that there are so many teams in college basketball makes big wins more valuable, and much more likely to garner national attention. So do not scoff at my previous contention.

[Q]CM cWo 44 Wrote:You can [c]ite a number of examples of teams that have made a [C]ind[e]rella run in the Preseason NIT, and found themselves in the top 25 early. Since no one else has played any teams, to make a statement against top competition makes you stand out in the eyes of the media.[/q]Those teams were (1) major conference schools (or at least mid-major with recent NCAA tourney success) and (2) at least made the finals of the preseason tournament. They didn't crack the top 25 by beating the #16 team on the road and then losing respectably in a neutral site game.

Cornell will make the top 25 in bball the day after never.

I gotta agree with UGarte. There's a difference between a hockey school like QU or Mercyhurst or Bemidji doing well, cause they've done well in the past are are a 'mid-major' kinda team. Compared to someone like Bentley or AIC. The more you need to change people's mind, the more you need to prove it.

Also not to mention that it was obvious that Syracuse played awful yesterday. We didn't hang with a top 25 team playing well, we hung with one playing and shooting like crap. That wouldn't escape the notice of the pollsters

[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote: That wouldn't escape the notice of the pollsters[/q]Here I have to disagree. All that voters/pollsters seem to notice are the easiest things to notice. Here it would just be the final score.