Category Archives: Advanced Blogs

Ivy League Men’s Basketball, not that Athletic? Not True.

Posted on by

There’s a perception that Ivy League men’s basketball players, while talented, are on the low end of the athleticism scale among D1 basketball players. It’s often said that prospects with marginal D1 athletic ability “might be able to play at the Ivy level”. There’s also the old inference that non-scholarship schools can’t reasonably expect to recruit the same level of talent as scholarship schools, so they have to settle for less athletic kids.

Here are eight recent examples, including six from this year, that will probably surprise most people. All eight players started and/or contributed significantly at schools and in leagues most perceive to have more athletic players and higher levels of ball. Seven of the eight are graduate transfers, having used up their Ivy academic eligibility before their athletic eligibility (the Ivys don’t allow redshirting). They opted to transfer in order to play their final year instead of doing what some, including Columbia’s all-Ivy selection Alex Rosenberg, have done and withdraw from school for a year.

  • Cancer, Galal. Cornell / Kent State University. 6’2″, 185 lbs. Graduate Student. Cancer played in every game, averaging 25 minutes per game for a 19-13 Mid-American Conference team. He was not an all-Ivy selection, although some of his teammates were.
  • Cressler, Nolan. Cornell / Vanderbilt. 6’4″, 210 lbs. Redshirt Junior. Vanderbilt is a member of the SEC, where Cressler plays regularly against teams like Kentucky, Florida, LSU etc. He’s the 7th man, playing 14 minutes/game on a team that made the NCAA tournament. At Cornell, he played two years and was honorable mention all-Ivy after averaging 17 pts, 4 rebounds and 2 assists his sophomore year.
  • Koon, Denton. Princeton / Hofstra University. 6’8″, 210 lbs. Graduate student. Koon has started every game for Hofstra, averaging 35 minutes per game along with 12 points and 7 rebounds for a team that’s 18-8 overall and second in the Colonial Athletic Association. He did not make any all-Ivy teams last year, although two of his Princeton teammates did.
  • Maia, Rafael. Brown / University of Pittsburgh. 6’9″, 245 lbs. Graduate student. Pitt is in the ACC, by any accounting one of the top few leagues in the country. Maia has started 17 out of 25 games for an 18-7 ACC team that goes to the tournament almost every year. He was honorable mention all-Ivy 2015, while one of his Brown teammates was second team all-Ivy.
  • Miller, Shonn. Cornell / University of Connecticut. 6’7″, 220 lbs. Graduate student. UConn, formerly of the Big East and now in the AAC, has won 4 national championships in the last 18 years. Miller has started every game while leading the team in scoring and is second in rebounding. He was a 1st team all-Ivy selection.
  • Mitola, Alex. Dartmouth / George Washington University. 5’11”, 170 lbs. Graduate student. Alex plays about 15 minutes a game for one of the top teams in the Atlantic-10, a conference that regularly puts 3-4 teams in the NCAA tournament. At one point this year GW was ranked in the Top 25. A second team all-Ivy pick, as was one of his teammates, Alex was known as athletically limited by Ivy standards, yet here he is, a key part of a very good team in a very athletic league.
  • Peck, Errick. Cornell / Purdue University. 6’6″, 225 lbs. Graduate student, 2013-2014. Peck played 19 minutes per game for Purdue, a team that plays in the Big 10, a league that has seven teams in the NCAA tournament this year. He was an honorable mention all-Ivy selection as a Cornell senior, averaging 10 pts., 5 rebs and 2 assists, while starting 11 out of 29 games.
  • Tarwater, Dwight. Cornell / University of California at Berkeley. 6’6″, 230 lbs. Graduate student, 2014-2015. Cal plays in the PAC-12, a league that just put seven teams in the NCAA tournament, tying it for most of any conference this year. Tarwater played in all 33 games for Cal, starting 13. At Cornell, he was not a starter until his senior year, on what were some deep and talented teams. Yet they never finished above .500 in the league, or even close to it overall. He was never an all-Ivy selection at Cornell, although some of his teammates were.

The major roles being played on successful teams by all of these former Ivy athletes eliminates any possible arguments that they are just sitting on the bench on more athletic teams or getting playing time for really bad teams. Size and/or position can also be eliminated as factors, as these players cover the range of size (5’11” to 6’9″) and position (guard to center). Finally, if measured by all-Ivy honors, only 1-2 of these eight were even the best players on their own Ivy League team. Clearly, athleticism in Ivy League men’s basketball is much better than many give it credit for.

Aside from proving the perception of low Ivy League athleticism is false, these examples also raise an interesting question. Is the league hurting itself by forcing nearly all of these players to leave when they still have NCAA eligibility? On the surface, certainly. Is the rule obsolete? Maybe. Would they have left anyway? Is this year is an anomaly? Perhaps. But in this country where we’ve completely lost our perspective when it comes to sports, there’s plenty to be said for the dog still wagging the tail in the Ivys, and not the other way around, as at most schools. On the other hand, even the Ivys have adjusted with the times every once in a while. Their recent addition of a post season tournament is a good example.

Finally, as five of the eight are from Cornell alone, you’ve got to feel for recently fired Cornell coach Bill Courtney, who must have felt like the basketball gods were not on his side. Who could blame him if he occasionally wondered what might have been.

 

 

Share

Defining Types of Improvement

Posted on by

Improvement is an important part of sports. Coaches, parents and players often like to say that a particular athlete is only going to get better. But what does that really mean? It seems obvious, right? It’s not. Let’s look at what it really means and why it matters.

There are really two categories of improvement, arithmetic and geometric. (There’s actually a third, no or negligible improvement. We’ll ignore that, as it speaks for itself). For the purpose of this blog, arithmetic is defined as a straight line with a gradual upward direction. Geometric is a line that goes up more quickly or even curves upward.

If an athlete is improving arithmetically, that’s important, but it’s not saying that much. In a competitive world, it’s a given. Most athletes are going to get better arithmetically, so this really just means an athlete is keeping up with the competition. If athlete’s are not improving, they’re falling behind.

Geometric improvement is what catapults some athletes past others. It’s that really surprising type of improvement, a transcendent improvement that is sometimes out of the control of the athlete, regardless of effort and time spent on improving. It’s the type of change in ability that causes everyone around to reexamine and reassess players, teams, even leagues. That’s the type of improvement that’s really worth talking about.

Failing to understand and differentiate between arithmetic and geometric improvement leads to the inability to accurately understand and predict why certain athletes will have more success than others.

 

 

Share

How to Get Playing Time as a Freshman

Posted on by

Most athletes, parents and high school coaches don’t understand what it takes to get playing time as a college freshman. When they talk about playing time they usually start breaking down an athlete’s game or the returning players on the team, and it gets complicated and confusing in a hurry. It’s really pretty simple. In most instances, playing time as a freshman comes down to two factors  – not making mistakes and physical strength. This is particularly true in the high profile sports.

Most outsiders think college coaches are inclined to not play freshman. In fact, it’s the opposite. Coaches want to play freshman. Generally, freshman don’t have to give them a reason to play. The trick is to keep from giving them a reason not to. That means not making mistakes. It sounds simpler than it is, of course. All else being equal, a younger player gets time over an older player. It’s a time honored truth.

Almost every college athlete, especially those at the scholarship level, was a standout or star in high school. In order to be a star they had to do great things. That usually meant producing lots of great stats that generated attention and lead to college recruitment. Once they get to college they quickly see everyone else is as good or better than they are. Their natural instinct, and it’s a hard one to fight, is to try to stand out by doing what got them there. Because the level of play is so much higher than high school, that reaction often results in the athlete trying to do too much. That’s rarely a good thing. All they really need to do is not make mistakes. That is usually more than enough to generate praise, which leads to playing time.

The physical aspect of college is different than high school. The athletes are no longer kids, they’re adults, making strength a huge factor that affects virtually all aspects of play. Lack of physical strength keeps the majority of college freshman from any significant playing time. Ironically, this weakness is easily fixed while in high school. Compared to improving individual skills, learning to understand offenses and defenses, or adjusting to the speed of the college game, improving strength is so simple. It’s also easy to measure and compare yourself to others. For example, if you’re a boys’ basketball player and can bench over 200 lbs., you are ahead of the curve. Most can’t. It doesn’t matter if you’re from a big city with a high level of play or a small, under recruited town in the middle of nowhere. Everyone and anyone can know if they are physically ready to play at the college level and they can do what it takes to be ready. There is some knowledge involved, but it’s easy to access. The real keys are desire and dedication. It sounds simple, and in many ways it really is. Doing it is another story. If it were easy most athletes would not arrive in college physically unready to compete.

Figuring out what it takes to be successful at the college level is a process that takes time for most incoming athletes. How quickly the athlete figures things out and makes the transition can be the difference between having a good career and never getting off the bench. Some incoming freshman simply are not even close to ready. A small percentage have talent that transcends mistakes and physical strength. Certain teams are just loaded with talent, so even the most college ready freshmen have no choice but to wait and be patient. In most situations the opportunity for playing time is there, if you know how to take advantage of it. Any athlete who doesn’t make mistakes and is physically ready is going to have a great chance to play right away.

 

 

Share

“My Kid Can Play at That Level”

Posted on by

We all compare ourselves to others. It’s human nature. Most of us also want to play at the highest possible level, whether it’s adults in the workplace (“I can do a better job than that guy”) or athletes competing for recruitment and scholarships.

The phrase “I can play at that level” or “my kid can play at that level” is regularly invoked by players, coaches, and parents as a way of promoting a player in an effort to be recruited at a level higher than they currently are. We’ve all got a bias. Consequently, this is usually not an accurate statement. Even when it is accurate, it’s the answer to the wrong question. The question isn’t can you play at that level, it’s can you get recruited at that level. Some kids are good enough to be on the field, the rink or on the court with players of a higher caliber and not look out of place. That doesn’t mean they have the same level of talent. There’s a big difference between being playing at that level and being good enough to be recruited at that level. To be recruited at that level a coach must generally believe you will make the team better. Understanding this difference is an important part of understanding recruiting. This is a hard thing for parents, athletes and coaches. Those who get it and are able to be realistic with themselves will avoid setting themselves up to fail, and the confusion and disappointment that goes with it.

 

Share