Men's Basketball 22-23

[scoop85]

Thought I would give folks a quick thumbnail on the league now that virtually every out of conference game has been played.

1) Yale (10-3) -- The computers have Yale as the clear league favorite as they are the only league team that is top 100 nationally in both offense and defense.  Yale has a couple of nice wins, though nothing jaw-dropping, and all of the losses were on the road against legit opponents (at Colorado, Butler, Kentucky).  Thrown in the the guy who is IMHO the best coach in the league (James Jones) and Yale is a virtual lock to the make the ILT.

2) Princeton (9-4) -- The computers love Princeton because they have several blowouts, but the resume looks thin to me.  The best wins were at Drexel and at UMBC - meh - and the Tigers' losses don't look nearly as good as Yale's.  Otherwise, this is a standard issue Princeton team which is efficient on offense and holds you to one shot on defense and has a couple of very sold bigs.  Princeton does get to host the ILT this year, so they will be hard to beat if they make it.  And they probably will make it.

3) Cornell (9-3) -- For context.

T4) Harvard (8-5) -- If you had a draft of every player in the Ivy League, Harvard's Senior forward Chris Ledlum probably gets taken first.  Harvard also has two of the league's best wins (v. Loyola (Chi) and at Cal Irvine), but they also have a head-scratching loss to Howard.  I'm not a huge fan of Amaker as a game coach, but his teams play good D and this year's squad follows that trend. If they start hitting their threes, they could be very dangerous, but right now they are 361st (out of 363) in 3pt shooting which is killing their offense.  (So when you get frustrated at our guys, know it could be worse).
 
T4) Penn (6-7) -- The Quakers are the flip side of Harvard in that they have a very good offense (only Cornell's is more efficient) but their D sucks.  Jr. guard Jordan Dingle is Penn's best weapon and maybe the best scorer in in the league.  Penn has four losses to top 100 teams, a couple of nice wins against Colgate and Temple and a "how did they blow that" home loss to LaSalle.  

6) Brown (7-5) -- The Bears lost a number of very good players to graduation, but Mike Martin (another very good coach) does get stud PG Lily back.  Brown started the season 1-4, but they've won 6 of their last 7, with the only loss being at Michigan St.  Brown has been even better than Princeton at holding teams to one shot, but they struggle to score which is highlighted by currently being the worst FT shooting team in the nation.  Sweeping Brown will go a long way to making the ILT, but the Bears will turn both games in rock fights.

7) Dartmouth (4-10) -- The Big Green lost four outstanding players to graduation and have not replaced them.  Dartmouth has only 2 D1 wins, but believe it or not their women's team is even worse.  Cornell opens league play at Hanover and has to avoid the North Country jinx.

Columbia (5-9) -- The Lions were a 4-22 disaster last season and have basically rebooted the entire team.  This year's top six features a junior, a sophomore, and four freshman.  The season started rough, but their last game was a 12 point win at Lafayette.  The Leopards aren't good, but they gave our guys a good scare and took Penn to OT.  I would not be surprised if by the end of the season, Columbia will be playing spoiler (and with the new schedule, Cornell's regular season ends with hosting the Lions).

With the ILT, what matters is finishing in the top 4 since no one is getting an at-large bid.  Pencil in Yale, so you likely have four teams (Princeton, Cornell, Penn, Harvard) fighting for the other three slots, with Brown having an outside shot.  Dartmouth and Columbia are purely playing spoiler.

Nice analysis. I agree Princeton seems overrated to me, as I think Penn is a more dangerous team, and certainly one we haven't matched-up with as well the past several years. Harvard's an enigma, and Brown is a sleeper, primarily because Lilly is so talented. No reason we won't be in the running for the ILT, although given the parity across the league I think only Yale is a lock to make it.

[ugarte]

Thought I would give folks a quick thumbnail on the league now that virtually every out of conference game has been played.

1) Yale (10-3) -- The computers have Yale as the clear league favorite as they are the only league team that is top 100 nationally in both offense and defense.  Yale has a couple of nice wins, though nothing jaw-dropping, and all of the losses were on the road against legit opponents (at Colorado, Butler, Kentucky).  Thrown in the the guy who is IMHO the best coach in the league (James Jones) and Yale is a virtual lock to the make the ILT.

2) Princeton (9-4) -- The computers love Princeton because they have several blowouts, but the resume looks thin to me.  The best wins were at Drexel and at UMBC - meh - and the Tigers' losses don't look nearly as good as Yale's.  Otherwise, this is a standard issue Princeton team which is efficient on offense and holds you to one shot on defense and has a couple of very sold bigs.  Princeton does get to host the ILT this year, so they will be hard to beat if they make it.  And they probably will make it.

3) Cornell (9-3) -- For context.

T4) Harvard (8-5) -- If you had a draft of every player in the Ivy League, Harvard's Senior forward Chris Ledlum probably gets taken first.  Harvard also has two of the league's best wins (v. Loyola (Chi) and at Cal Irvine), but they also have a head-scratching loss to Howard.  I'm not a huge fan of Amaker as a game coach, but his teams play good D and this year's squad follows that trend. If they start hitting their threes, they could be very dangerous, but right now they are 361st (out of 363) in 3pt shooting which is killing their offense.  (So when you get frustrated at our guys, know it could be worse).
 
T4) Penn (6-7) -- The Quakers are the flip side of Harvard in that they have a very good offense (only Cornell's is more efficient) but their D sucks.  Jr. guard Jordan Dingle is Penn's best weapon and maybe the best scorer in in the league.  Penn has four losses to top 100 teams, a couple of nice wins against Colgate and Temple and a "how did they blow that" home loss to LaSalle.  

6) Brown (7-5) -- The Bears lost a number of very good players to graduation, but Mike Martin (another very good coach) does get stud PG Lily back.  Brown started the season 1-4, but they've won 6 of their last 7, with the only loss being at Michigan St.  Brown has been even better than Princeton at holding teams to one shot, but they struggle to score which is highlighted by currently being the worst FT shooting team in the nation.  Sweeping Brown will go a long way to making the ILT, but the Bears will turn both games in rock fights.

7) Dartmouth (4-10) -- The Big Green lost four outstanding players to graduation and have not replaced them.  Dartmouth has only 2 D1 wins, but believe it or not their women's team is even worse.  Cornell opens league play at Hanover and has to avoid the North Country jinx.

Columbia (5-9) -- The Lions were a 4-22 disaster last season and have basically rebooted the entire team.  This year's top six features a junior, a sophomore, and four freshman.  The season started rough, but their last game was a 12 point win at Lafayette.  The Leopards aren't good, but they gave our guys a good scare and took Penn to OT.  I would not be surprised if by the end of the season, Columbia will be playing spoiler (and with the new schedule, Cornell's regular season ends with hosting the Lions).

With the ILT, what matters is finishing in the top 4 since no one is getting an at-large bid.  Pencil in Yale, so you likely have four teams (Princeton, Cornell, Penn, Harvard) fighting for the other three slots, with Brown having an outside shot.  Dartmouth and Columbia are purely playing spoiler.

Nice analysis. I agree Princeton seems overrated to me, as I think Penn is a more dangerous team, and certainly one we haven't matched-up with as well the past several years. Harvard's an enigma, and Brown is a sleeper, primarily because Lilly is so talented. No reason we won't be in the running for the ILT, although given the parity across the league I think only Yale is a lock to make it.

thx guys. so mad that we don't have 2 ACC wins in the resume!

[Trotsky]

The Colgate broadcasters (laughably) referred to Colgate as "the best team in the region" (they're not better than Syracuse, sorry guys).

I've always felt Colgate has had a bit of a regional inferiority complex by the way they insist to be called 'Gate the way Syracuse is called 'Cuse.

But is there a Swinging Cuses?

Presumable there is an alumnae Excuses.

[mountainred]

Scoop, completely agree we should be in the running for a spot in the IOLT and frankly I'd be disappointed if this team didn't make it.  

Bill, based on his resume there is a chance that Earl is an Ivy League lifer, though he would almost certainly bolt for the Princeton job when it opens up.

[billhoward]

... based on his resume there is a chance that Earl is an Ivy League lifer, though he would almost certainly bolt for the Princeton job when it opens up.

Exactly and exactly squared.

Part of the equation for jumping to the next level is setting up yourself and your family for lifetime security. When Steve Donahue left Cornell basketball and the 2010 Sweet 16 appearance for BC, he went from Cornell's sub-$200,000 (closer to say $150,000) to about $900,000, and even when he was dismissed after year three of his six-year contract, he got at least one annual BC payout of $600,000 plus.

Within the Ivy League, you have alumni athletes on Wall Street who can help steer a coach's investments. Maybe Coach can salt away enough that after 10 years of Ivy or better coaching, you could invest wisely, then draw down a quarter-million a year and not touch the principal. That's not obscenely rich but it's second-home-in-Naples (Fla.) and your kids' education paid for rich.

Remember that we got ten years from Steve Donahue. This is Earl's sixth year, last year was his first winning year, plus a near-.500 year in year three. He's mid-40s now.

He could also jump to a lesser (academics) school for much more money. Shaheen Holloway was making $300,000 at St. Peter's, took a Covid-era pay cut, made the Sweet Sixteen in the spring, and jumped to Seton Hall and $2.4 million.

Aside (thread drift alert): The Donahue salary info was reported by The Heights, BC's Cornell Daily Sun. Read this about hockey coach Jerry York circa 2015-2016. https://www.bcheights.com/2016/04/24/bc-irs-990-jim-christian-jerry-york-steve-addazio-salary/#:~:text=Donahue%2C%20however%2C%20still%20appears%20on,first%20year%20on%20the%20books.

The biggest jump in compensation went to men's hockey head coach Jerry York, who signed a contract extension in December 2013 that kicked in after 2013-14 and will last until the 2019-20 season. York earned a base salary of $491,259, yet received $677,311 in "other reportable compensation." That, combined with other figures, led to a final total of $1,249,617. That total represents a 100 percent increase from his 2013-14 compensation of $626,953.

[mountainred]

This message made me think "Ivy coaches have been pretty steady lately."  The last coaches hired were Earl, Engles at Columbia and McLaughlin at Dartmouth before the '16-17 season.  Penn hired Steve the season before and everyone else has over a decade of tenure (James Jones has been at Yale for over twenty years). That is crazy. Since 2010, there have been only five coaches fired (or non-renewed) in the league.  Two of those were at Penn, a school that values hoops at a different level than any other Ivy. None of the five was a huge surprise.

Earl seems to have found his groove and his own version of the Princeton offense.  I wouldn't blame him if he wants to test his ability -- and get a bigger paycheck -- somewhere else. He played with and coached under Sydney Johnson, who left Princeton for eight mediocre years at Fairfield and is now back to being an assistant.  Maybe Earl decides the safe option at Cornell is better for his family.

[Swampy]

This message made me think "Ivy coaches have been pretty steady lately."  The last coaches hired were Earl, Engles at Columbia and McLaughlin at Dartmouth before the '16-17 season.  Penn hired Steve the season before and everyone else has over a decade of tenure (James Jones has been at Yale for over twenty years). That is crazy. Since 2010, there have been only five coaches fired (or non-renewed) in the league.  Two of those were at Penn, a school that values hoops at a different level than any other Ivy. None of the five was a huge surprise.

Earl seems to have found his groove and his own version of the Princeton offense.  I wouldn't blame him if he wants to test his ability -- and get a bigger paycheck -- somewhere else. He played with and coached under Sydney Johnson, who left Princeton for eight mediocre years at Fairfield and is now back to being an assistant.  Maybe Earl decides the safe option at Cornell is better for his family.

Does anyone know the kind of work his spouse does and the ages of their kids, if any? Moving K-12 kids is more difficult than preschoolers or college-age. A partner-in-a-law-firm-or-medical-practice spouse may be harder to move than, say, one who coaches women's volleyball.

[George64]

Does anyone know the kind of work his spouse does and the ages of their kids, if any? Moving K-12 kids is more difficult than preschoolers or college-age. A partner-in-a-law-firm-or-medical-practice spouse may be harder to move than, say, one who coaches women's volleyball.

Earl and his wife Jennifer have three sons, Dylan (, Owen (6) and Cooper (5) and reside in Ithaca.
.

[billhoward]

Earl and his wife Jennifer have three sons, Dylan (, Owen (6) and Cooper (5) and reside in Ithaca.

And Ithaca schools are a pretty fair matchup for Princeton's, if not quite Lawrenceville Prep and Princeton Day.

[semsox]

Perfunctory win over Binghamton, 86-70.

I have to admit, I have no idea how to feel about this team. I can still remember the feeling of momentum going into the 2007-2008 year, and we all know how that eventually turned out. Last year was such an abrupt about face from Earl's previous results, and this year seems to be similarly promising, but is the style too gimmicky? Is this the start of something that can be built on with more and better recruiting, or just the natural result of playing a somewhat unique style that will never afford the ceiling of that golden generation of Cornell basketball? I could believe either outcome.

[mountainred]

A bit sloppy late, but the Big Red close the out of conference slate with an 86-70 win over Bingo.  Williams with a career high of 23 and Manon was very solid with 16 points and 7 steals.  Freshman Josh Baldwin earned quality minutes as the 10th man.  This was a 20 point game with 12 minutes to go, so Cornell was in control almost the entire way.

On the down side, Boothby's shooting slump continues and he's starting to force things.  And Ragland took a hard fall late and never returned -- though it could have been precautionary because of the double digit lead.

On defense the guys forced 20 turnovers, but Binghamton shot 27 of 41 from inside the arc because if there wasn't a steal they got a very good look at the hoop.  That's an astounding number.

Ivy play starts Sunday at Dartmouth.

[mountainred]

Perfunctory win over Binghamton, 86-70.

I have to admit, I have no idea how to feel about this team. I can still remember the feeling of momentum going into the 2007-2008 year, and we all know how that eventually turned out. Last year was such an abrupt about face from Earl's previous results, and this year seems to be similarly promising, but is the style too gimmicky? Is this the start of something that can be built on with more and better recruiting, or just the natural result of playing a somewhat unique style that will never afford the ceiling of that golden generation of Cornell basketball? I could believe either outcome.

IMHO this style is creative, but not really gimmicky -- it's just an uptempo version of the Princeton offense with a ball-hawking D.  If Earl stays, it should differentiate us and be appealing for recruits.  The ceiling is probably "be an ILT regular, win the league occasionally and maybe steal an NCAA win, while being fun to watch."  Which is probably the best you can do in this league.  Remember, that 2010 team is the only Ivy squad to make the sweet 16 in over four decades; that's just not a realistic expectation, as great as it would be.

[semsox]

Perfunctory win over Binghamton, 86-70.

I have to admit, I have no idea how to feel about this team. I can still remember the feeling of momentum going into the 2007-2008 year, and we all know how that eventually turned out. Last year was such an abrupt about face from Earl's previous results, and this year seems to be similarly promising, but is the style too gimmicky? Is this the start of something that can be built on with more and better recruiting, or just the natural result of playing a somewhat unique style that will never afford the ceiling of that golden generation of Cornell basketball? I could believe either outcome.

IMHO this style is creative, but not really gimmicky -- it's just an uptempo version of the Princeton offense with a ball-hawking D.  If Earl stays, it should differentiate us and be appealing for recruits.  The ceiling is probably "be an ILT regular, win the league occasionally and maybe steal an NCAA win, while being fun to watch."  Which is probably the best you can do in this league.  Remember, that 2010 team is the only Ivy squad to make the sweet 16 in over four decades; that's just not a realistic expectation, as great as it would be.

That's all fair, and believe me, I understand the 2010 team is not a realistic benchmark. I guess my main wonder though is the bolded. To me, those three outcomes (ILT participants, ILT champs, NCAA W) are radically different for assessing the team, particularly with respect to ceiling. I guess what I'm ultimately getting at is, is the the ultimately ceiling of Earl's team a realistic expectation of an NCAA W (not even expecting two W's like in 2010), or is it the 2008 or 2009 squads, excellent Ivy League teams that were clearly a notch below their eventual NCAA matchup, or is it even lower than that, good Ivy League teams that due to their style could surprise and win 2 games in a weekend and become tournament fodder for whatever 15-2 or 14-3 seed matchup they get.

(All of the above is meant in the context of true talent, not accounting for any wild variance Virginia-UMBC outcomes)

[mountainred]

I guess what I'm ultimately getting at is, is the the ultimately ceiling of Earl's team a realistic expectation of an NCAA W (not even expecting two W's like in 2010), or is it the 2008 or 2009 squads, excellent Ivy League teams that were clearly a notch below their eventual NCAA matchup, or is it even lower than that, good Ivy League teams that due to their style could surprise and win 2 games in a weekend and become tournament fodder for whatever 15-2 or 14-3 seed matchup they get.

Most years would be your third option - a good team that could get hot at the ILT, but I could see a likely ceiling of a league title and a trip to the NCAAs as a 13 or 14 seed(as opposed to a sacrificial 16).  In terms of the entire NCAA, this system should reasonably result in a team that bounces around in the second quartile (teams 90-180) and peaks every so often in the 70s (give or take).

For context, the current team is in the 2Q, as was the '08 and '09 team.  2010 was top 50.

[abmarks]

Perfunctory win over Binghamton, 86-70.

I have to admit, I have no idea how to feel about this team. I can still remember the feeling of momentum going into the 2007-2008 year, and we all know how that eventually turned out. Last year was such an abrupt about face from Earl's previous results, and this year seems to be similarly promising, but is the style too gimmicky? Is this the start of something that can be built on with more and better recruiting, or just the natural result of playing a somewhat unique style that will never afford the ceiling of that golden generation of Cornell basketball? I could believe either outcome.

IMHO this style is creative, but not really gimmicky -- it's just an uptempo version of the Princeton offense with a ball-hawking D.  If Earl stays, it should differentiate us and be appealing for recruits.  The ceiling is probably "be an ILT regular, win the league occasionally and maybe steal an NCAA win, while being fun to watch."  Which is probably the best you can do in this league.  Remember, that 2010 team is the only Ivy squad to make the sweet 16 in over four decades; that's just not a realistic expectation, as great as it would be.

That's all fair, and believe me, I understand the 2010 team is not a realistic benchmark. I guess my main wonder though is the bolded. To me, those three outcomes (ILT participants, ILT champs, NCAA W) are radically different for assessing the team, particularly with respect to ceiling. I guess what I'm ultimately getting at is, is the the ultimately ceiling of Earl's team a realistic expectation of an NCAA W (not even expecting two W's like in 2010), or is it the 2008 or 2009 squads, excellent Ivy League teams that were clearly a notch below their eventual NCAA matchup, or is it even lower than that, good Ivy League teams that due to their style could surprise and win 2 games in a weekend and become tournament fodder for whatever 15-2 or 14-3 seed matchup they get.

(All of the above is meant in the context of true talent, not accounting for any wild variance Virginia-UMBC outcomes)

I'd think this style makes an NCAA game win more probable than many other systems.  "All" it takes is one of those nights where shooters are hotter than usual across the board.  Feels like shooting the lights out with this style is much more likely to generate a W than a more plodding style would at the same shooting percentage.

To semsox's questions, Earl's interview in the Syracuse paper (posted earlier in this thread) addresses a lot of them.   It's been a few weeks since I read it, but my recollection is that he talks about switching to this system because he realized he already had players on the team with  the skill/ability to run it.  He further noted that it's a recruiting advantage because players enjoy this style and it gives everyone a lot more touches than more traditional offenses (and probably ups ppg for most players?)

And iirc, said something like "it's the system lots of teams would love to sell recruits, but there aren't that many that actually commit to and successfully run."