Harvard gets first Ivy League top 100 player.

[jimsumner]

PS Greybeard ... just one small correction. Rudy Tomjanovich played for Michigan, not Dartmouth. I was lucky enough to make the try to Ann Arbor on Dec. 10, 1970 when Randy Denton (27 pts, 12 rebounds) overpoerwed Tomjanovich (20 points 10 rebounds) and led Duke to a victoru over the Wolverines.

Rudy LaRusso played at Dartmouth a decade or so before Rudy Tomjanovich played for Michigan.

[greybeard]

Rudy LaRusso played at Dartmouth a decade or so before Rudy Tomjanovich played for Michigan.

That sometimes happens to oloder guys. By the way, and while duke professor might well have a point to make, others who have posted clearly were going the way that I addressed--that the game in the 60s somehow that they don't mention was inferior to the game as it is played today. As a general proposition, throughout college basketball in both eras, the proposition is indefensible by any measure. Three of the Ivy league players I mentioned played on teams that would have won NBA Championships in this era, and many other NCAA and pro teams of the 60's, 70's, 80s of that era would have rocked the best of the best on both levels. In addition to the Wilt-West Championship team--it is difficult to see any "modern" team matching them--and the Knicks, I forgot to say that Bilsky played on two Net ABA Championship teams, that last lead by a tamdom of forwards, a Carl Malone equivolent in George McKinnis and some guy that was simply referred to as Doc.

You need to remember that the era I'm talking about produced great teams lead by those two UCLA guys, Kareem and Bill Walton, a State team lead by a guy named Thompson, Duke teams lead by guys named Heyman and Mullins, and scores of other names and teams that would have rocked the current college basketball world. Bradley's Princeton went to the final four, as did the great Penn team in the 60s, and, as I pointed out, only because I am intimately familiar with it, Cornell beat the best of the best in two out of the four years I was there, including Bradley's great Princeton team that in addition to Bradley contained the Hummer brothers who was easily the equivolent as college players as the Plumlee brothers.

The Cornell team that I spoke of, by the way, produced at least one player who has and probably will continue to play in the pros, Foote, and who was probably the best passer and smartness in terms of what everyone likes to call "basketball smarts" in the college game. He was the guy that Cornell went to when the clock was closing down.

A few other points, the Ivy League only permits the League's Champion to go to the Dance; many of the best Ivy League teams, lead by many great players, never make the dance. Who can say how those teams would have faired in the Dance had they been allowed to compete for sports. Also, the Ivies play back-to-back on weekends, travel by bus, and suffer the disadvantages of being thinner beond the starting five because of no-scholorship rules. That is often where they fall short of other non Ivies (recall the Cornell Duke game that was of course played at Cameron).

This ratings of recruits I think is of little consequence. Sports magazine had the same type ratings system. The best of the best, top 20 so, everyone could agree were likely to succeed at a high level in College. Beyond that, especially today, the lesser "athletic" players and those with terrific "basketball smarts" and those from the tiny obscure Hamlets are, I would bet, are often overlooked by this rating organization. They often are the guys that the Ivies grab up, particularly if they are interested in a high level education (there are few such players who can get to play for teams like Duke and I would suspect many who do not want to.

Hey, this was quite an enjoyable go round for me. I trust it was for the rest of you guys. I'm done in a nice way.

[budwom]

Can't really buy the "things have changed" argument too much either.

By some scouting services (there weren't many back then) James Brown of DeMatha (now the sportscaster) was the top rated recruit in the entire country, and he went to Harvard (circa 1970).

As Grey mentioned, Brian Taylor went to Princeton (Hubie Brown tried to recruit him for Duke) but his SAT scores were too low for ACC admittance.

Sure, lots of things have changed (like black players dominating the sport) but both Brown and Taylor are black...

The point is that Scout should have said "Harvard gets first Ivy League top 100 player since we began our rankings", a qualifier which would be considerably more accurate.

[johnb]

In regards to comparing generations of college basketball teams, the systematic exclusion of black players is at least somewhat mitigated by the loss of almost every NBA-ready player after 1 or 2 years of college ball. The hyperspecialization of teen athletes and the development of all-star high school teams like Oak Hill probably ratchets up the skillset of top 100 players, but the best college teams may be less able to load up since the presence of ESPN allows mid-level teams to advertise that their players will still be on tv and that they'll get more air time as a star at a mid major than as the 8th man at Duke or Kentucky.

I'd still tend to say that this year's Olympic team would crush any individual all star team from the 50's or 60's--the earlier team would never have seen players as athletically dominating as Durant, Griffin, Bryant, and James though this year's team might not fare well against an all-time, at-their-best team cherry picked from 1955-1985.

Having said that, I looked up the players from a random All Star game (I happened to pick 1960). The roster includes such marginal talents as Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell, Bob Cousy, and Elgin Baylor, and a total of a dozen guys who made the Hall of Fame. I stand corrected.

[pfrduke]

A few other points, the Ivy League only permits the League's Champion to go to the Dance; many of the best Ivy League teams, lead by many great players, never make the dance. Who can say how those teams would have faired in the Dance had they been allowed to compete for sports.

I'm pretty sure this is not true. The Ivy does not hold a conference tournament, but if an Ivy League team was ever good enough to be selected for an at large spot, the conference would let it go. In any event, it's been a moot point over the past 20+ years, because the Ivy League has not had a team good enough to be an at large selection.

[greybeard]

Great Post John B. That said, I think that you will find that the All Star teams from 66 through 73 would likely, and in some instances, certainly, have beaten the current All Stars that you refer to who now lead the pack.

There are a number of guys during those years whose games you are almost surely unfamiliar: To name just a few, Connie Hawkins, who had been kept out of the league since the mid 60' based upon some nonsense, Bob Pettitt, Spensor Heyward, to name a few (there are many more, like Rick Barry (there was a scoring machine to be reckoned with), Elvin Hays, Unseld, Thurmon, Sam Jones--he played behind several white guys Sharman and Ramsy whom he was much better than or he would have been a perenial All Star). The list goes on.

Be, aware, the league during this era was stocked with great centers (almost all of whom would have killed the Griffins and Howards of today, and also was stocked with great shooters who followed the logical paradigm of the closer the better. I'd have to think many would have been great three ball shooters (some actually were great shooters from considerable distance), and there were probably many players in the league who were not all stars but would have killed the three ball and might have been.

In the end, who knows how often even the supreme finishers of todays game would have been able to pull off their dazzling moves and high-wire finishes against the many great centers of yesterday. But then again, who knows how great many of the great defensive centers would have faired the way the game is called today and the extraordinarily gifted finishers lead by MJ, Kobe, and LeBron. Who knows.

But, I do know that the game and players of today surpass and eclipse the game and players of "back then" is just that, a myth.

Of all the innovations, the three point shoot has changed the game, for the worse I believe, simply to sell it. First, it was explained on the need to unclog the middle and take all the pushing and shoving among the bigs out of the game. I see much more pushing and shoving, climbing on guys' backs in inside play than existed or would have been tolerated back then. Back then they called that kind of play, fouls. Then they said that the three ball made the game more exciting by permitting more comebacks. I do not believe that that is so. It simply permits a team that has justly been beat to defeat that reality. What the three does, however, is wow people, and take the passing game, that went through true PIVOT players to get the best percentage shots possible away. That paridigm, however, informs every other sport that I know of.

That said, today's game is terrific to watch, and the great shooter, penetrator, finishers of today, lead by Kobe, LeBron, and of course MJ, what can you say about them. As great as anything the world of basketball has produced.The second tier, the Wades and Pippins, also are terrific in any era.

Gosh this has been fun, the past and the present, are they different realities or of one piece. Like Bagger Vance told the seemingly washed up great golfer who had lost himself in booze upon returning from WWI, "You have to remember, it might seem like a thousand years ago, but it was really just a second, you have to remember you were on this very field fightinhg the fiercest battles imaginable, yadayadayada."

Well, I don't go as far as the Bagger thing, but at times, for me, the worlds we are discussing are simply on different plans, they seem to be happening at once, and it is just that we are labeling them past and present. The writings of Joyce and Borges (credit my son here) have given voice and painted pictures of just such a reality, if only we would see it. Who knows, but one thing is for sure--we are today built in large part of who we have always been to which pieces are added but partake of the person for whom time, direction, movement (the building blocks of life) were without reality as we conceive it. How a reality with those qualities is formed, and then the further essential blocks that we insist comprise what is real develop stay with us always.

Pretty far out. I better stop before they send the wagon.

[tommy]

A few other points, the Ivy League only permits the League's Champion to go to the Dance; many of the best Ivy League teams, lead by many great players, never make the dance. Who can say how those teams would have faired in the Dance had they been allowed to compete for sports. Also, the Ivies play back-to-back on weekends, travel by bus, and suffer the disadvantages of being thinner beond the starting five because of no-scholorship rules. That is often where they fall short of other non Ivies (recall the Cornell Duke game that was of course played at Cameron).

I'm pretty sure this is not true. The Ivy does not hold a conference tournament, but if an Ivy League team was ever good enough to be selected for an at large spot, the conference would let it go. In any event, it's been a moot point over the past 20+ years, because the Ivy League has not had a team good enough to be an at large selection.

I'm more than pretty sure it's not true. Here's the facts about the Ivy League's NCAA tournament performance in the last 25 years:

1. In the last 25 years, the Ivy League's representative has won a total of five games, those being in 1994, 1996, 1998, and then the two games that Cornell won in 2010. The league's overall record is therefore 5-25.

2. The Ivy team has always been seeded anywhere from 11 through 16, with two exceptions. One was the very good Princeton team of 1998, which was seeded #5, beat #12 UNLV, and then lost in the second round. The other was in 1991, when Princeton received a #8 seed but lost a close one to Villanova in the first round.

3. On five other occasions, the Ivy team got as high as an 11 seed, where the opportunity to actually win a game is reasonably thought to be higher than when you're say, a 14 or 15 going up against a 3 or a 2. Those five years were in 1992, 1994, 1999, 2002, and 2003. In four of those five years, the 11th seeded Ivy team (usually Penn) lost in the first round, while in 1994 Penn did beat Nebraska before losing in the second round.

4. In looking at the four years in which an Ivy won a game, in none of those years does it appear that the Ivy League runner-up was tournament-worthy, or even close, especially considering their schedules. In 1994, second place Princeton was 18-8 overall. In 1996, second place Penn was 17-10. In 1998, second place Penn was 17-12. And in 2010, second place Princeton was 22-9.

5. In 1991, the year Princeton got an 8 seed, the Ivy League runner up was Yale at 17-9, not tournament-worthy either.

So given the fact that the top Ivy teams have won tournament games so infrequently, added to the fact that the runners-up in the league have essentially never had the qualifications to make the tournament, if the question then is: who can say how additional Ivies would have fared had they been extended at-large bids to the tournament? I think the answer is pretty clear. Not well. Not well at all.

[greybeard]

Look, the Cornell team that slaughtered the Kentucky team lead by Riley and Dampier came in third in the Ivy league. I repeat, case you didn't hear me, third. Princeton and Penn, whom Cornell always played at their courts during the last weekend of the season with the title up for grabs, always in my years at Cornell lost out, losing both (we won on our court, they did on theirs--they had better coaches). Here's a little tidbit I think you will find interesting and perhaps informative to the instant discussion..

Cornell in '64 landed one of the top players in the nation, Greg Morris, because his parents, both school teachers, were tremendously impressed with the freshman coach. The next year Cornell grabbed another top ten recruit also Black, Walt Esdale, a huge guy with a terrific, off the charts basketball IQ who had great hands, quick feet, terrific dribbling skills and inside moves, and went 260 and 6'7". Esdale was joined the same year with yet another top 10 recruit, Hank South, 6'5", muscled, a great leaper with a great jump shot and moves to the basket. They were the fountainhead of the team that smashmouthed no. 1 ranked Kentucky. Morris was the first Black to make All Ivy first team, having scored 37 in Lexington.

Cornell, which had great teams leading up to the 66-67 team, seemed to be rising, although all those teams went one, maybe two deep into the bench. Coumbia had two top ten recruits in Dotson and McMillian, and my senior year Penn landed Calhoun, drafted 4th, and Littlepage.

It happened in the Fall of 1968. Two years before Cornell had become the hot bed of the antiwar movement and the antiwar and radical group, SDS. The next year was the first year that Cornell opened its doors to meaningful numbers of American black students. Until then, their number was so limited as to astound. Around 67, perhaps 68, Harry Edwards arrived at Cornell to study for a PHD in sociology (yes, that Harry Edwards, who was in the forefront of a near complete boycott by black athletes from the Olympics, you do recall the pictures of Smith and the other guy wearing black gloves on the victory stand, Edwards. This was about the time that the Black Power movement reached Amrican College campuses. What happened at Cornell, brought black issues with respect to higher education to the covers of Time and Newsweek in a way that no one could ignore. The campus woke up one morning to the news that members of the Black Student Union had taken over what was the centerpiece of student life on the Hill, Willard Straight Hall, and announced that they would sit in and keep everyone out until their demands were met by the colleges's administrators. Rumors spread that a bunch of hulking jock types were preparing to lead a charge that would take back the Straight, armed with bats that they were prepared to use if necessary. Were the rumors true. It didn't matter. The leaders of the occupiers were prepared. Pictures of them and a number of their brothers, with rifles held in the ready and amunition belts slung over their shoulders, all wearing olive army fatigue jackets, made headlines across the country, the covers of Time and Newsweek.

While the Straight takeover undoubtedly lead to meaningful change for the better with respect to racial issues throughout higher educational institutions throughout the land. As far as I know, it also put an end to what portended to be a flow of high-end black student athletes to Ivies, Cornell certainly, for who knows how many years, even while the flow of black students to those universities grew, and the black experience and educational experiences bore lush fruit. Why did big-time black student athletes, and not stellar black students, shun these places, one can only speculate. My guess, the big time black student athletes were not only interested in receiving a great education but also being left to their pursuit of possible futures as professional athletes. For a wonderful discussion of those times, but not the Straight takeover because Greg had already graduated, Google, Greg Morris and Cornell Basketball, and pick the article honoring Greg in a Black History publication (there is also a wonderfully written piece on Cornell's trip to Lexington that makes wonderful reading.

At any rate, whether the Straight takeover, and the pictures of guns and banderlaros, had anything to do with the slide of basketball in the Ivies I really cannot say. It is an interesting piece of history, and perhaps to the why of how that slide might have begun, and I thought it worth sharing it.