1. No recap can do justice to Kevin Egee's long three-pointer that beat the buzzer and Columbia on Saturday. Here, then, is the video evidence for your viewing pleasure.
2. The Quakers were certainly ecstatic after the win. But coach Glen Miller was, as usual, a bit more even-keeled. Here are some of his comments that did not make it into the recap:
- "We're struggling. You win a game - and you win a game in that fashion - and it's very exciting."
- "We kind of wasted a good defensive effort - well, we won, so we didn't - but you got to finish defensive[ly] with rebounds. But we gave up 15 offensive rebounds and some of them were critical. ... If we rebound the basketball even to a reasonable level, we're not coming down to the last shot to win the game." Penn was outrebounded, 38-29, including 15-8 on the offensive glass. A full box score is available here. The Quakers are seventh in the Ivy League in rebounding margin; only Dartmouth is worse.
- On the lack of flow: "We’ve been having trouble scoring all year long, so I don’t mind stoppage of play. We got to the foul line. That’s another area where we came up short, really. … If we hit a few more foul shots, pick up a few more rebounds, and maybe it’s just a more comfortable game for us, margin of victory."
- Penn shot 17-for-28 (60.7 percent) from the line. Zack Rosen, Jack Eggleston, Rob Belcore and Justin Reilly combined to go a perfectly respectable 16-for-20 (80 percent). But Cam Lewis showed off his great hands with two of the worst free throws I've ever seen. He finished 0-for-3, as did Brennan Votel; Harrison Gaines was 1-for-2.
- "The bottom line is that at this point, it’s a good win. Any win’s a good win. The guys were excited into the lockerroom. It’s different than losing, that’s for sure."
3. Columbia did not hit a field goal in the final six-plus minutes of a game that featured nine lead changes. The biggest margin by either side was a mere eight points, although Penn spent most of the second half playing catch-up.
Tags: basketball, kevin egee
An RSS feed of The Buzz is available
March 9th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Great column, David. A nice way for Penn to (almost) end the season and for Egee to (almost) end his puzzingly undistinguished career. One can only hope that his incredible last shot augurs good things ahead for the program.
Regarding Egee, it seems to me he was one of the better athletes the program's had in a long time, athletically on a par with any of Penn's best players in the last 15 years, perhaps Jaaber excluded. He certainly played hard, and had his moments; but strangely, in my view, he barely scratched his potential over his four years.
How much of Egee's flat-line development, incidentally, do we put on Glenn Miller, who presided over three-fourths of his Penn career? And this is the most troubling thing--the lack of development in the last two years of the team's players.
None of last year's freshmen made notable progress this season: Bernadini stepped back, Eggleston at best stood still, and Gaines remains ultimately an illusion (not nearly as good as he's sometimes flashy, nor nearly the athlete he thinks he is).
Only two freshmen saw significant action, one of whom, Rob Belcore, made progress, while Zack Rosen, wisely slotted in all year at the point, made little to no progress. In other words, if Miller is to be judged based on his players' and recruits' progress (factoring in the overall dearth of talent and litany of admittedly brutal injuries), how well does he really fare?
On the other hand, Penn fans, real Penn fans, don't bail. As a Penn alum who saw the glory days up close and personal, I say this: the student body's tepid support of the program is absolutely, unconscionably lame. It's just pitiful and embarrassing, way more embarrassing than the team's performance.
The team has deserved and deserves, going forward, irrespective of Miller's status and the team's immediate prospects, the unqualified, enthusiastic support of its student body, who should be a potent "6th-man" factor at every Palestra home-game.
What a joke: in the final analysis, it is the Penn students who don't deserve this team (or any team!), not the team who doesn't deserve its fans.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Steve -
Your post is terrific and spot on. As has been our wont over the years, my wife and I were again at the Penn-Columbia BB game. Good for Kevin Egee and good for the team. Neither she nor I have any BB expertise per se, but she wondered why Columbia kept out rebounding Penn, and why the foul shooting was so bad. Her points: rebounding and defense are coachable and reflect same. Foul shooting can be practiced and also reflects degree of same.
Re your observations on Kevin Egee's development or lack over the years, I totally agree. Freshman year and since he contributed many clutch points, but his utilization was rarely consistent. That's true for most of Penn's team.
Having admitted my lack of BB expertise, I disagree with you on the team's talent, which to my untrained eyes appear to be as good as, if not better than most Ivies. I specifically disagree re Zach Rosen, who has grown over the season to his pre-season hype, and his potential is clearly there. This contrasts with other failures to develop.
As an aside, we were coincidentally sitting behind AD Bilsky, and shared the incredible elation of the Egee shot falling in at the buzzer. I shook his hand, mentioned this performance was unacceptable, and we left.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Hey Ernie,
Thanks for the feeback....
Your comment regarding Penn's talent level, if correct, obviously puts the coaching staff, specifically its culpability for the team's performance, in an even brighter spotlight.
My own sense is that the talent discrepancy between Penn, and especially its non-Ivy opponents, has been widening, not even keeping pace. But even I'm right, this doesn't mitigate your, or your astute wife's, observations, which come back to coaching.
I hope you, and others, are right about Zack Rosen. I expected, perhaps unfairly, a somewhat more dynamic playmaker than I think he is or can be; still, he stepped in this year as a freshman and took over the reins with a mature attitude and high basketball I.Q. However, as I've said, I see him as, at best, a good Ivy point guard--not, unfortunately, as the supra-Ivy talent that Penn has been able to land historically with some regularity (and desperately needs to land again).
Best!
Steve
March 9th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Steve -
It's tough to take issue with a reasonable sounding guy making reasonable points. I'd respond to your sober observations in ascending degree of difficulty:
* Disparity in talent level - No question Penn is a long way from when AD Bilsky & co were ranked #2 behind UCLA. But that's a league phenomena, and I'd be pleased with recruiting superior Ivy caliber players.
* Parity - neither of us spoke of this directly, but every team suffered upsets by teams they shouldn't have, arguably the most I've ever seen in the Ivies. Gone are the days when a trip to Cambridge, Hanover, Providence were automatic wins, that has to be factored in critiques. That said, there is little excuse for looking hapless while losing.
* Zach Rosen - only Cornell's Dale has impressed me more, with the difference being shot making. Rosen's shot making improved over the season, and with continued progress will be just fine. But in fact Penn hasn't had a go-to shot maker since Tim Begley. That's an obvious missing ingredient separating an average team from a dominating one.
* Coaching - I confess to having admired Coach Miller at Brown, and his teams always gave Penn a very spirited over performance, even while losing. I always thought of him as getting "exceeds expectations" results from ordinary teams. I'm inclined to go along with two observations: 1) Andrew Todres's measured assessments as to what ails on his recent blogs; 2) Steve Danley's assessments on their differences rating Miller the superior offensive coach, and Dunphy the superior defensive coach.
I'd like to think this has been an Anno Horriblus where everyone learns important lessons and act on them. Let's look for a Maloney/Begley type shooter, and count me as still hopeful on coach and program - but not unlimited.
Best...E
March 9th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Ernie,
Can't seriously dispute a single point you make. You obviously underestimated, in your first reply, your basketball acumen. Didn't you say you lacked BB experience? Meanwhile I seem to remain an island in my comparatively unenthused assessment of Rosen, and I'm beginning to think, and hope, I'm wrong.
As a season ticket holder living almost two hours from campus, I saw a bunch of games this season, but not all of them, and so it's possible that my scouting views were marred by incomplete exposure.
In any case, as I stressed in my initial comments, the really sorry spectacle isn't the state of the program but the blatant apathy of the student body. Somebody needs to seriously bi*tchsl*p it into showing the loyalty and pride that honor the Penn spirit and institution.
March 9th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Steve -
You are touching on topics beyond BB, and I am trusting the DP will engage them. As a parent of two attending a top NYC school, I was stunned by the # of early decision applicants (40 out of 160) to Penn for the '07 class. If it were a condition of acceptance they had to attend Palestra BB and Franklin Field FB games, they would have signed on. And I'd bet the same could be said about most applicants. So what happens when they hit campus?
Sad to say it's been an impression shared by many alumns that our alma mater takes much for granted, while smugly squandering opportunities and advantages. A pertinent example is the taking for granted students will attend The Line and BB games. The truth is this, as with every activity, requires management and responsible oversight. If attendance wanes, find out why, and do something to correct it.
Let's posit winning teams outdraw losing teams. But even Penn's winning teams have failed to draw up to potential. Given the advantages of the Palestra, Franklin Field, and the sports hungry Philadelphia area, I'd be curious to know what attempts have been made to attract the broader community?
Any creative solutions such as giving away tickets to Seniors, inviting high schools to celebrate on campus etc. to fill seats? It is damaging marketing to have televised events, and notice the unavoidable mass of empty seats. It's not rocket science to treat empty seats much like empty hotel rooms or plane seats that need to be filled or be lost opportunities.
BTW - My daughter's class voted a form of #1 classmate by the class to someone who had been a leader since kindergarten, and a Penn legacy. His yearbook pictures had him in Penn sweatshirts, and Penn had the judgment to reject his early decision application- not even waiting list - even as Columbia and others accepted him. Let's please be spared the "...increased applications and many otherwise worthy etc. etc." I'd buy it were it not part of the aforementioned pattern.
Re my BB knowledge, it's not false modesty. I know football and wrestling, but I can recognize who's playing hard, who's making shots, and simple BB stuff. Did I tell you Zach Rosen played the full 40 minutes at Columbia at full speed?
Best...E
March 9th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Ernie, i hear you, and you're right...attendance and student body enthusiasm for men's basketball have been weak even during more prosperous times.
Pride in the Penn tradition, of which the storied basketball program has been a vital component, may be a larger issue here?
A final thought on Rosen: I agree completely that he's a "warrior mentality" who should anchor the point very nicely for the next three years. He's the last guy anyone should be worried about.
Best to you, my man.
Steve
March 12th, 2009 at 10:42 am
Guys, this was a fantastic exchange about the current state of Penn basketball. I have followed the team since the days of Neuman, Pavlak, Burgess, Wolfe, and Mallison. There is every reason to believe that this can turn around. However, to facilitate that turnaround, we need to recognize potential causes.
When one looks over many years, I find more to the situation than you note. I submit that it realtes to relative coaching stability/longevity around the league. One can make the case that three uncommon occurrences have coincided to bring about the current state of affairs in Ivy basketball. Please excuse my lumping of Penn and Princeton together for this discussion.
If you check Penn basketball through the years, you’ll see that they experienced coaching inconsistency only through the ‘80’s, essentially between McCloskey/Harter/Daly/Weinhauer (impressive record stability) and Dunphy. In 50 years, the program was spotty only during that hiatus. Remarkable! Princeton never really suffered consistency/continuity breaks, considering that they went from von Breda Kolff to Carril to Carmody to Thompson, Jr, with minimal hiccups.
Oddly, the story revolves around the departure of two non-Penn coaches named Thompson.
#1- When John Thompson went to Georgetown, Princeton made a bad call in bringing Joe Scott back. His record of success at Air Force was short and definitely not built in an Ivy League atmosphere with typical Ivy athletes. He appeared to forget all the little things that he [should have] learned during his playing days, and ultimately could neither coach existing Ivy players well, nor recruit new talent effectively in the Ivy environment. Disaster from Day 1.
#2- When Fran Dunphy went to Temple, Penn turned to an Ivy-seasoned coach with a Big East pedigree. Miller’s record at Brown was somewhat above .500, acceptable for someone coaching at one of “the other six.” The bulk of his good years at Brown were built with inherited players. He has never shown the ability to recruit talent and then build winning teams with that talent. Miller had losing records his last two years at Brown! Again, at Penn, he coached Jaaber, Zoller, and Danley to a championship season. Then, two 18-loss seasons in Years 2 and 3 ensued. At this point, the jury is out on whether they have been character-building (see below). I assert that it would be a mistake to judge too quickly.
These two factors alone go a long way in paving the way for both P/P programs to have lean years. It may be that the customary, continuous mediocrity on the part of the other six programs had buffered P/P from painful public record declines in the past. There were only three seasons between the two schools over 50 years when more than 16 losses occurred! Amazing! In other times of coaching instability (e.g., the ‘80’s at Penn), no non-P program came firmly to the fore. In addition to Princeton, Brown and Cornell earned titles during that period.
What is different now is that a third program has stepped up during the current weakness/disarray at the P Schools and convincingly take a couple titles. And, not surprisingly, everyone is noticing. Titles, not just great efforts, are afterall what gets noticed. The story of the third program deserves to be recognized, because its formula may be something that can be repeated elsewhere.
#3- In 2000, Scott Thompson had to resign at Cornell due to unfortunate medical problems at an awkward time in the flow of basketball seasons. Cornell turned to Steve Donahue, a guy who knew how to win at Ivy basketball (the Allen-Maloney era!) and committed big-time to him. Any coach and athletics administration will tell you that back-to-back 20-loss seasons build more character than the recent back-to-back 20-win seasons. Cornell backed a nationwide recruitment effort to find Ivy-type athletes in places where the Ivy League was essentially unknown. When no one was looking, he found Cody Toppert (New Mexico). When Joe Scott was struggling, Donahue was landing Adam Gore (Indiana). While Dunph was replacing John Chaney, he was scouring the Midwest for Ryan Wittman (Minnesota) and Geoff Reeves (Kansas) and the South for Louis Dale (Alabama). With all these guys in place, how could Jeff Foote not find a fit ten miles from home? Why did Mark Coury write Cornell, rather than Penn or Princeton, a letter saying that he a) had a 4.0 GPA, b) was interested in attending Cornell and, by the way, c) had played a little basketball for Tubby Smith and Billy Gillespie? Success breeds success!
I suggest that the normal ups and downs of Ivy basketball at the P-schools that would have seen P/P win titles or finish second with 10-4 and 11-3 records, rather than 13-1, has been upset by the emergence of a third powerful program. Cornell’s decade-long commitment to sustained excellence and doing things the right way, grabbing talent from Ivy-unmined regions, and rising up at an opportune moment, has made them the first non-P team to bag consecutive, unshared league titles for the first time in 50+ years. Ivy basketball has in many ways reverted to the profile of the ‘60’s when five teams competed year in and year out for titles. All it takes is a few extra losses below the unavoidable coaching instability cycle and it actually looks like losing.
From a Penn fan’s perspective, it is uncertain how long this annoying situation will persist. I grant you that it looks and feels worse on a backdrop of 50 years of success. Princeton, Yale, and Harvard had a little something to say about Cornell’s dominance this year. Even Dartmouth took them to double OT in their own gym. Next year is a new year. Who knows which team(s) will “speak up?” Recruiting is in full swing. Columbia could put two seven-footers and a healthy Brian Grimes on the court next year. Cornell graduated the senior class that arguably started the final phase of their upswing. There is always opportunity.
The Penn and Princeton programs must respond in kind. It may take a couple seasons. The difference is that this time it is not building from a few years in which they lose 3-4 league games, while still in serious title contention, but now from a series of years where the championship has securely landed outside the Philly region. At this point, Cornell may win another title or two. It’s going to be very interesting to see whether the uncommon 50-year P/P cycle of dominance has indeed been broken. One need only look at Notre Dame/Nebraska in college football, Kentucky/UCLA in college basketball, and Arizona State/USC in college baseball, to know that long cycles of athletic dominance permanently dissipate. I suggest that we stay tuned, supportive, and patient.
March 12th, 2009 at 11:59 am
great post, IvyBBallFan. great points across the board.
March 15th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
IvyBBallFan, outstanding post! So many painful points you raise. In the end Ivy sports is about recruiting, and as you say success begets success. Cornell BB success results have been achieved by Dunphy's head recruiter Steve Donahue. Note when Donahue left, it resulted in two lean years at Penn - the last two senior classes.
I'd like to get you and Mr. Becker to weigh in on the Klitzman 3/12 blog re Cornell wrestling. There again, Cornell's coach has done a marvelous recruiting job, restored the program to national champion contender, even as Penn's recently dominating program has been sliding in the opposite direction.
April 13th, 2009 at 2:33 am
[...] Athletics Department. See for yourself: The original link to the clip, which had been posted on The Buzz, now just gives a message reading “This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim [...]
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:53 am
Очень понравился ваш блог! Подписался на rss. Буду регулярно читать.
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:55 am
CrypeAttitorithem