A few days ago, I reflected on the first half of the basketball season and underscored the importance of developing better team leadership in order to break out of Penn's current funk. Ultimately, as is the case anywhere else, the chief responsibility for wins and losses -- and to a large extent team morale -- falls on the head coach. When a team looks as aimless as Penn has lately, it is both fair and necessary to evaluate not just the players' performance, but also Glen Miller's coaching. I was hardly suggesting in my post that the Quakers need personnel or coaching changes -- in fact, I firmly believe that Penn has the right players and coaches in place to turn this season around and make a run at the Ivy League title.
Clearly, there are fans out there that disagree with this notion. One such fan, through a comment on my post, alerted readers of a blog he created: fireglenmiller.blogspot.com. The author of this blog, who signs off his posts as Justin and seems to be a Red and Blue Crew member, is apparently on a mission to get Miller fired. In his latest post, he discusses my piece and quotes two chunks of it, concluding that the DP and I have joined forces with his blog in pushing for Miller's dismissal. As someone who admires and respects Miller, and as someone whose views and words were taken drastically out of context, I feel compelled to respond to Justin.
1. It would be incredibly irresponsible to even consider firing Glen Miller at this time. Keep in mind that there is a very steep learning curve to coaching at Penn and in the Ivy League, especially when you follow in the footsteps of an iconic Philadelphia coach like Fran Dunphy. Miller inherited two recruiting classes from Dunphy -- the current juniors and the seniors -- that did not pan out nearly as well as expected, largely because of injuries. Miller's two recruiting classes have been outstanding, and the fact that Penn remains competitive at all in these games with a squad full of freshmen and a sophomores is a testament to his recruiting efforts.
2. With the right talent and leadership in place, Miller can and will win. Just look at what he did in his first season at Penn. Surely, most of that was the result of an extraordinary senior class and leadership that had been in place well before Miller arrived in Philadelphia. The challenge now is for him to help foster the kind of leadership that the Quakers saw a few years ago. The fact that no one on the team has truly stepped up to the plate cannot fully be blamed on Miller considering he only recruited the youngest players on the team. But even so, I do think there is a large leadership component missing on the team right now. And yes, as head coach, Glen Miller needs to take responsibility for rectifying that problem. I NEVER said he should be fired or that he doesn't have what it takes for Penn to win, and the DP has absolutely no agenda whatsoever to that effect. Any suggestion or representation to the contrary on the internet is completely baseless and not rooted in any kind of fact.
3. While I actually think healthy dialogue about the responsibilities of both the players and coaches is a good thing, the way the debate is framed on this new blog, which the author refers to as a "hate blog," is unproductive. I find the radical nature of the blog distasteful, as well. It would be great if the Red and Blue Crew could start up a more legitimate blog to help unite fans and facilitate a meaningful discussion about the team.
I am not calling for the blog to be taken down -- fans have a right to their opinions, no matter how extreme they are. As a journalist, I'm not about to attack freedom of speech. But please know that I have absolutely nothing to do with this blog, and I am not happy to be quoted on it as some outrageous form of anti-Miller propaganda.
Tags: basketball, glen miller
An RSS feed of The Buzz is available
December 9th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Andrew, your columns are great. Your takes on the state of Quaker basketball are insightful and accurate. As an '82 alum and big Quaker fan, what I find even more depressing than the team's relative uncompetitiveness is the glaring, really sad, lack of student-body enthusiasm and support. And I agree with you that it's highly premature and unfair to be calling for Miller's head. The kids play hard, and they are well-coached. On the other hand, as you point out, his job is to develop them. Somewhat sobering, however, beyond the problematic lack of leadership, is the really blatant discrepancy in talent-level that I'm afraid really grossly limits Penn's chances to make the kind of noise they could make several years ago, and historically. That talent gap seems to me to be widening, and that, I think, is ominous.
December 9th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Thanks for the comment, Steve. I do agree with you that to a certain extent, the talent gap is widening. This is especially evident between Penn and its Big 5 rivals. Also at play is that other schools in the Ivy League are doing a better job of recruiting than they used to -- it's no longer a conference defined by the Killer P's. Steve Donahue has brought in tremendous talent at Cornell, Tommy Amaker's name has attracted high-level recruits to Harvard, and even Glen Miller and Craig Robinson, before they left Brown, added quality athletes to that program. That said, I still think Penn has a lot of talent relative to their conference foes -- the only team with more right now in my opinion is Cornell.
The issue really boils down to both talent and leadership. Guys like Mark Zoller and Brian Grandieri were great players, but not the most talented athletes in the world. There's no question that Zoller was a highly skilled forward, but I don't believe he was on the same level as his opponents at major programs. Yet he still found a way to win and step up in the big game. The three game-winning free throws in Dunphy's return to the Palestra two years ago immediately come to mind. Grandieri was rarely the best player on the floor, but he had a way of grinding it out and rising to the occasion when no one else did.
Tyler Bernardini and Zack Rosen have unbelievable talent and potential, and they're both still young. Perhaps they won't be ready to step into the roles that we wished for them by season's end. And even a guy like Jack Eggleston could turn into a special player -- Zoller really improved over his four years at Penn, and he didn't get as much playing time as a sophomore and freshman that Eggleston has gotten. In the same vein, Brennan Votel and Andreas Schreiber will never be a Zoller, Egee will never be a Grandieri, etc. And Ibby Jaaber frequently was the best player on the court, or at least the fastest, even against teams like Texas A&M. You're definitely right; we're not as talented as we used to be, but we aren't compensating for a lack of overall talent like we used to as well. So as I see it, Penn is grappling with a talent issue and a leadership issue, both of which are difficult to resolve in a short amount of time.
December 9th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
I also want to second what Steve said in that I really enjoy reading your columns and insight -- it helps me get my Quaker basketball fix.
It's difficult to remember that Glenn Miller has an uphill battle. He is replacing a Big 5 coaching legend in Fran Dunphy, taking over a Penn team at a time when Cornell's talent is peaking, and trying to replace one of the more talented Penn teams in recent memory (Ibby, Zoller, Danley, Grandieri).
Moreover, the young talent on Miller's team doesn't have the sort of senior leadership that existed here with Ibby and Zoller were developing. There's no Jeff Schiffner or Tim Begley to help keep everyone focused and step up when its needed.
All that being said, everyone is just frustrated with losing and the lack of a smooth transition in replacing Dunphy. We probably need to ride out the storm, and see how the young talent develops. Maybe in two years, we'll believe that a lineup of Rosen, Gaines, Bernardini, and Eggleston can compete with the Big 5 (plus Drexel), some athletic high major-type teams (e.g. Penn State), and the Ivy League. I hope (seriously, I am praying) that when that happens they'll be more campus interest in the program again.
Just two more points --
1. The talent gap between Villanova and the rest of the Big 5 is widing. Jay Wright is an unbelievable recruiter, especially with his ties to New York. He has also proven that he can launch guards willing to spend a few years in college into the NBA. Not to mention the level of competition in the Big East. They were very close to landing Tyreke Evans, which would have made them scary good. Moreover, Villanova as a school is in the midst of determining if it wants to become a more prominent university -- think something like the Notre Dame of the east coast -- which I think can only further cement their status. I think Nova will continue to pull away from the rest of the bunch, but that's not to say that Big 5 games will lack the sort of gritty city-style that has come to define them. I think Nova will probably continue (in most years) to be the class of the Big 5, but that's not to say they'll be a year where Temple, St. Joes, or even Penn again gives them a run for the money.
2. Andrew, you've touched on this before, but I was hoping I could get an answer directly on point -- what's the deal with the lack of enthusiasm from the Penn student body this year? I've heard everything from poor promotion by the AD, the team's competitiveness, a general waning interest, lack of interest because of last year, the new first-come-first-served ticket policy, to changing student demographics (which I guess means that less students are familiar with Penn basketball and the Big 5). I know you don't have the answer and it's probably complex, but any thoughts on what you see as a student/reporter?
December 9th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
This discussion of a lack of enthusiasm and it's cause is ridiculous. Just what is there to be enthusiastic about with this "team"? Lackluster play? Bad coaching? Division II athletes? Enthusiasm comes with something to be optimistic about. I have seen nothing for two years now. And judging from the current state of next year's recruiting class thus far, optimism is not on the horizon either.
And speaking of recruiting, just who are these "outstanding" recruits you speak of? Is Miller saving them for the Ivies? What I see, as do many other long time Penn observers, is a lot of role players with varying skills. There is not one impact player in the lot.
As for your "learning curve". There is and should be none for Miller. He has been an Ivy coach for close to a decade now so I'm not sure what you're point is there. Also, his edict when he chose the job was to in fact elevate the level of recruiting from where Fran had taken it. In my opinion he has failed miserably in both of his classes. Once again, where are the impact players?
That being said, while I too strongly support free speech, I think the web site we're referencing is inappropriate, unnecessary and for true Quaker fans, counterproductive. Given time, Miller will punch his own ticket out of town. He is simply the wrong person for the job.
December 9th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Will, I appreciate your comments. I really would like to address your second point that you asked me about. I could write a ton on what I perceive to be the factors and causes for lack of enthusiasm, and I can assure you that there's more to it than the team being weaker than usual, as Jeff claims.
Jeff, you are right in saying that there is less support because there's less to be optimistic about, but that's not the full story. The full story is more complex, and while my political science thesis is calling my name, I'll do the best I can to throw all of my ideas out there in a short amount of time. I could probably write several columns about this, but here's a less structured and informal overview of what I think the issues are, with a Page 2 Bill Simmons-esque word count to boot.
Please pardon my long-winded preamble to my points -- I just wanted to address what I believe is a common misconception first.
Penn fans had a ton to be enthusiastic about on November 15, less than a month ago, when the Quakers hung with the best team in the country for a solid 14 minutes and tied it in the second half. Bernardini tore it up from the perimeter and created his own shots, even with hands in his face. Rosen ran the offense crisply in his first collegiate game, penetrated against future NBA players (Ty Lawson and Wayne Ellington) with ease and style, and found the open shooter time and time again. If you don't consider Rosen (and Bernardini last year) to be an outstanding recruit, then who is? We're not pulling a Samardo Samuels, 5-star blue-chip to Penn. Based on the UNC performance, if optimism in the team drives student attendance, you would have expected that even a 10 am start wouldn't have deterred loyal Penn fans from showing up to the DAC for Penn's game against Drexel the following Tuesday. Yet student attendance was minimal. At the very least, after the Quakers' poor showing against the Dragons, you would think that Penn fans would have given the team a pass because of its effort in Chapel Hill and come out in big numbers for the HOME OPENER against Monmouth at 7 pm on a Saturday (an ideal time for students). The attendance for that game? 3,129. It has never recovered, either.
Certainly, as the team continues to struggle and play poorly, fans lose optimism and lose interest and stop supporting the team. And without the emergence of a leader or veritable star player (on a consistent basis), you lose enthusiasm. But the turnout at Drexel and Monmouth alone suggests a pattern of fan behavior that goes beyond wins and losses.
On that note, I'll dive into it. In no particular order, here are some things to think about in regard to student attendance.
1. The Quakers' upperclassmen have never been in the spotlight. When they were younger, they rode the bench into the NCAA tournament behind a formidable team. Now, they can't carry the load like Jaaber, Zoller, Danley, et al did as seniors before them. Not only does this hurt the team's performance, but it weakens fan interest in the team among Penn's juniors and seniors. One thing I notice every time I walk through the student section at halftime is how young the fans sitting in it are. In my freshmen and sophomore years, before I covered the basketball team for the DP, a huge group of my friends and I took the line and our tickets very seriously. We took pride in our seats. Of that group of friends (all seniors now), only a couple of them continue to have a vested interest in the team and show up at games. And even those kids don't show up religiously anymore. This is the case across the board among my classmates. We all were spoiled with two unbelievable seasons, but we never felt any real connection to student-athletes our year on the team. Part of the enjoyment of following a team that graduates all of its players is to track players' growth and success over the course of four years. But aside from Egee, none of the current seniors had too prominent of a role on the team last year, and aside from Votel, the same can be said for this year's team as well. Penn's marketing efforts are always geared towards introducing the freshmen to Penn basketball and cultivating interest in the team among them. But I think perhaps a bigger problem is not winning over new, young fans that are likely to explore the Palestra anyway in their first year at Penn, but instead is keeping older students interested in the team.
One solution could be to run free shuttles from off-campus (around 40th and Locust, near where a majority of upperclassmen live) to save them the 15-20 minute walk in the cold to the Palestra. I know it's picky and shouldn't be necessary, but when attendance is this poor among that student demographic, it might be interesting to try. It's a lot easier to get to the Palestra from Hill than it is from 41st and Pine.
2. On the subject of student demographics, it is also worth noting that there is a much lower fraternity presence at basketball games than there used to be. A lot of alumni write in and say that the lack of student interest is the result of the changing face of Penn's student body -- there are more international students that aren't interested in basketball, and fewer tri-state sports junkies like there were in the 70s. I'm sure this could be valid to a certain extent, but the problem now is that a huge component of Penn's sports fan population -- members of Penn's fraternities -- isn't showing up. It used to be that entire frats or groups of people within frats would do the line together and get a huge block of seats. I don't know for sure why this is no longer the case, but I think it can probably be traced back to the declining interest in upperclassmen as well. I know from experience that younger members of a fraternity tend to follow the lead of the juniors and seniors.
Whether or not that's the cause or there's something else at play, who knows? But I was impressed at the fraternity/sorority mobilization for the Penn-Princeton football game earlier this season. I think that if pre-game events among frats and sororities could be planned for basketball as well, then attendance could be given a boost. Perhaps the athletic department could help out by subsidizing individual tickets for students attending the game in large groups, as well, which wouldn't be limited to Greek organizations. Fans always turn out in larger numbers when they're are a bunch of groups, not a bunch of individuals or smaller groups of friends.
3. Leadership aside, Penn lacks that one electric player, or that one fan-favorite, that puts people in the seats. Ibby Jaaber could send 8700 people into a frenzy in a heartbeat. Students and fans of all ages could identify with a blue-collar workhorse like Brian Grandieri. Currently, no one on Penn's roster brings that kind of flair or excitement to the table. When my friends ask me why they should go to games, I try to sell them on getting a chance to watch Zack Rosen before he explodes onto the scene, because I think he's going to be a truly unbelievable point guard by the time he's done here. But until he becomes that electric pure point guard (I hope I didn't jinx it), people won't be sold.
4. I can't say this with any certainty or real credibility, so take it for what it's worth. But I really feel that, with all due respect, President Gutmann's administration does not have much of an interest vested in Penn's athletic program, the foundation of which is the men's basketball team. When she was new to Penn, Amy Gutmann used to show up at all the games and walk through the student section to shake hands and high-five students to chants of "A-MY GUT-MANN." Where has she been lately? I haven't seen her in the Palestra in ages. I think a real turning point in the administration's approach to the basketball team came a few years ago when it blocked the transfer of Keenan Jeppesen, who Miller wanted to take with him from Brown. If you're going to take a coach from a league rival, you can't take a player too? That whole situation was really bizarre. I don't want to go into the details; I'm sure all of you Penn fans are familiar with the story. But that was very troubling, to say the least. If there is a lack of support from the administration, then I'd imagine that trickles down the students both directly and indirectly.
5. Jeff, there is indeed a learning curve to coaching at Penn, and it is exceptionally difficult to follow in the footsteps of a Philadelphia legend in Fran Dunphy. Dunphy himself was a draw for some students, and certainly for many other Penn fans. Brown may be in the same conference as Penn, and may even be better than Penn right now, but the basketball program there is like a junior high school production compared to Penn. Penn's fan base is much larger, the politics of the athletic department and dealing with alumni are much more complex, the program has a much richer history with tremendous expectations (which is why we're having this conversation to begin with), the school is part of a separate conference with a few celebrity coaches, etc. Sure, the x's and o's and the style of play is the same. But everything else is much, much different.
If you look at major athletic programs with huge student fan support, you realize that the head coach is an incredibly important figure in helping to generate that support. And it takes time for a coach to build up a certain personality and image to attract fans, especially if he's a relative unknown making the jump from a smaller program. Dunphy didn't start out as an iconic figure, but overtime, he did a very nice job of cultivating relationships with people in Penn's community, even people that might not have been the most traditional die-hard fans. Miller has a long way to in terms of building up relationships of his own with students, faculty, administrators, alumni, and other local supporters of the team. I think it is fair to say, from talking to people ranging from faculty that had relationships with Dunphy to students that Miller hasn't been making as much of an effort to do so as he probably should be. People have an image of Miller as a short-tempered, intense basketball coach with a rather closed personality. That's what he projects on the court, and that's fine. But off the court, he has some work to do. In a one-on-one setting, he is actually a very nice, open, and friendly guy when he's in a good mood (at least from my personal experience). If that side of him were on display more often, he could be helpful in rejuvenating the fan base. People need to get it through their heads that he's not going anywhere in the immediate future. And if he's not so popular with the fans right now, then he should try to make himself more visible to them and win over their favor. Then we might seem some people holding up Glen Miller signs in the stands like they used to do with Dunphy...
If you made it this far, you're a trooper. That's enough finals week procrastination for me for one day. I have some other thoughts, but I'll save those for the weeks to come. As always, your comments are most appreciated.
December 9th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Free shuttles? Forget about it. He wont spend a dime on something like that.
There is also some juicy scuttle-butt inside the hallowed halls that Bilko and President Amy Guttman have clashed over some admissions standards now that Lee Stetson is gone. I cannot emphasize this enough.
Finally, also hearing rumblings about a riff between Bilsky and Miller. Coach doesn't like the micro-managing styles of the AD.
December 9th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Really interesting conversation. One quick thought to add:
Andrew, I think that you are overvaluing Miller's recruiting. He did a decent job at Brown (admittedly in a much more difficult position), but I think the two recruiting classes that have come in during his tenure at Penn are still the work of Fran Dunphy. At the D-I level, recruiting starts early. According to someone I know who was very involved in the Penn basketball program, Dunphy had courted guys like Rosen and Bernardini for years, and all Miller had to do was maintain their interest. I think we will really see his recruiting meddle this season. Until then, I see him as untested at best.
After a full four years, we can probably make a real determination on whether he can be the next Dunph (a guy who can help define the program for a decade or more) or just a mistake.
December 9th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
If Penn were 5-2, I submit that we would not be having this discussion.
In 53 years of Ivy basketball, Penn fans have had to take this type of loyalty test only during the Schneider era. We may be about to learn whether the five words, "...winning is the only thing" apply to the way Penn fans relate to their basketball team.
December 9th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Amy Gutmann showed up for a little while at the Nova game, and the student section really appreciated it with their usual chants/catcalls. But she probably didn't even know who was playing and when the Quaker point to her to look up at the dismal-looking score, she actually applauded.
We need a president who actually knows Penn basketball. But having Amy Gutmann show up more often would be enough for now.
December 9th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Earlier this week Miller was quoted as saying "he really doesn't know what he is doing" about a player.....thoughts?
December 10th, 2008 at 1:33 am
I'd love to weigh in on this conversation in-depth, but I'll just respond to a few points mentioned towards the end of the thread.
I hear all this talk about Amy Gutmann not caring. Did Judith Rodin care that much? I never was a student under Rodin, so I don't exactly what she did or didn't do, but was she drastically that much more involved than Gutmann?
To respond to "Curious," Miller said that about Andreas Schreiber, who is playing with a torn labrum. I wasn't at the press conference, but I was at that game. He did look somewhat clueless, in the way that a player would if he hadn't played a game since March.
December 10th, 2008 at 7:39 am
I don't think we should confuse a lack of leadership with a lack of experience. I think there are a couple of very competitive young kids on the court who have strong leadership traits. The seniors are also trying. They are not lead players, but they are good kids and they've been good leaders. If you want to say we have no seasoned scorers that we can consistently rely on to make the big shot, I think that's entirely accurate. However, I think players like Bernardini, Rosen, Gaines and Eggleston will make their share as the season progresses.
The team obviously misses older players with skill sets that exceed those of the younger kids. A lot of that is a function of some injury issues that have decimated Fran Dunphy's last two recruiting classes. Hopefully Darren Smith and Andreas Schreiber can get healthy soon and mask some of the early season deficiencies.
Right now the court balance isn't great. With Schreiber and Howlett hobbled, there is no post presence that concerns opponents enough to draw double teams. No motion offense can exceed without a post presence. The defense is also experiencing a similar problem.
Hopefully we can get healthier over this long lay off. A couple of the teams we've played so far are just better than us. But - I think most everybody feels Drexel, Albany and Navy were all winnable games. Each of those teams are actually decent, but the bottom line in each of those losses is that Penn didn't play very well.
December 10th, 2008 at 8:32 am
Torn rotator cuffs heal extremely slowly without surgical repair. Even with surgery, it takes time. Schreiber could play at 70% this year, have surgery in March, and hope six-seven months' healing time is enough to be at 100% for 2009-10. He could also decide to sit out 2008-09, have surgery now, and be virtually certain of playing at 100% his senior year. Interesting choice.
December 10th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Where did you see Andreas' injury described as a torn rotator cuff? I've seen torn labrum and dislocated shoulder mentioned (which often occur simultaneously). Without knowing the exact nature of the damage to the labrum, it's not a foregone conclusion that surgery will even be required; however, unless it heals properly one way or the other, that shoulder will probably remain susceptable to further dislocations. Importantly though, the team hasn't made the kind of detailed medical information available that supports reaching a conclusion about his playing prospects for 08/09 or even beyond.
December 10th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Andrew, thanks for your response (and the many other interesting ones to your column). You make, as usual, excellent points. Please keep up the great coverage of the team. I look forward to your columns. No question, the kind of leadership that guys like Zoller and Grandieri provided would be helpful. And I agree that Zoller was really an exceptional mix of skills and head. The three free throws you refer to, in which he iced that Temple game, really defined what he brought consistently to the court. There really was ice in that guy's blood. Interestingly, I remain intrigued by Eggleston's "upside" and impressed by his skills, despite his somewhat tepid development. But I'm not ready to concur with you that Rosen has major talent; apart from his shooting problems, for which patience is indicated, he doesn't strike me as having particularly special court vision or even a special "handle." He's obviously mature for a freshman and makes good decisions; his basketball IQ is high, no question; but he dribbles a lot with his head down, limiting his vision. I've noticed this in any number of games: except in the open court, he pretty much has his head down when he's dribbling. Clearly he's going to be good, but I question how good. Regarding Bernadini, he can obviously play, but then again he doesn't make anyone around him better, his rebounding and defense are undistinguished, and, most problematic, he largely depends on open looks (in other words, he's ultimately pretty limited, which is why opponents, should they continue to focus on him, will have little trouble shutting him down). My own take is that Egee is actually the best athlete on the team, yet he's always been strangely underproductive. Gaines isn't nearly the athlete one hoped he'd be; he's not nearly as quick and explosive as he thinks he is, though I give him props for showing up against Villanova, etc.
Votel, meanwhile, gives you everything he's got, game in, game out--which is to say, he busts his *ss.
December 11th, 2008 at 8:50 am
JH...
A physical therapist described torn "labrum" and "rotator cuff" to me as synonymous. Even if they are not, the labrum is made mostly of fibrocartilage (pardon technical term), a tissue that has poor bloodflow and is slow to heal when injured. Surgery to clean up and repair tears generally speeds healing.
While we will never know all the details of Schreiber's current injury, he put in 14 minutes against 'Nova in his season debut, but then played only five minutes against Navy, a game in which one might have expected a healthy returning player to play 20-25 minutes to shake off more rust. Maybe all this means nothing, but...
Though the main concern is for his personal health, one should also legitimately wonder about the health of the Quakers' inside game this season if Schreiber cannot ever go at 100%. They rely heavily on him at 5.
December 11th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Yes - but it seldom is the same injury and most labrum tears associated with shoulder dislocations not only don't impact the rotator cuff, they don't require surgery. Nevertheless, the degree of this particular tear/separation is a key missing ingredient. If he had a torn rotator cuff, I'd be much more worried.
I agree with you about the importance of having a bigger, stronger player at the 5
and hopefully Andreas will fill that role. I'm not sure his limited time against Navy is an indication of his long term health prospects, as much as an indication of his ability to contribute a lot right now. He can really use the 24 days we have in between games this exam break, as can several others of that walking wounded group.
February 10th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
[...] these two months. The transition toward being a more serious site came after the initial wave of publicity and criticism, because we saw that fans really cared about our message, regardless of whether they agreed with it. [...]