PDA

View Full Version : Harvard's schedule



CameronBornAndBred
02-02-2010, 08:45 AM
For all of the people wondering about Duke's scheduling games close to each other, look at what Tommy Amaker has.
There are 12 games that are played back to back. They beat Columbia on the road on the 29th by almost 30, then lost on the road to Cornell the next day by almost 40. That's a 70 point swing. Their next 10 games are like that, 2 games in 2 days. How common is that? I've never seen it before.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/teams/schedule?teamId=108

CameronBornAndBred
02-02-2010, 08:50 AM
Also...that loss might be the death of Harvard's NCAA hopes.

InSpades
02-02-2010, 08:57 AM
Also...that loss might be the death of Harvard's NCAA hopes.

They still hold their own fate as far as making the NCAAs. I don't think anyone seriously expected them to get an at-large bid (losing by 40 obviously doesn't help that though).

The back-to-back scheduling thing appears to just be an ivy league thing (I had never noticed it before).

duke23
02-02-2010, 09:18 AM
Yup, the Friday night - Saturday night scheduling deal has been an Ivy staple for some time. They do a similar thing to the Pac-10, where teams are paired by location, so one weekend, for instance, Penn and Princeton both play @ both Columbia and Cornell, then another weekend they both play @ Yale and Brown, etc. (Harvard/Dartmouth is the other pair). Cuts travel costs and keeps the students from missing classes.

greybeard
02-02-2010, 09:40 AM
For all of the people wondering about Duke's scheduling games close to each other, look at what Tommy Amaker has.
There are 12 games that are played back to back. They beat Columbia on the road on the 29th by almost 30, then lost on the road to Cornell the next day by almost 40. That's a 70 point swing. Their next 10 games are like that, 2 games in 2 days. How common is that? I've never seen it before.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/teams/schedule?teamId=108

In the Ivy League, it is the way schedules work. Cornell used to play Princeton/Penn Friday/Sat. twice a season, with Columbia usually the weekend before or perhaps mid week. That was when Princeton had Bradley then Petrie, Penn was real strong, Cornell beat no. 3 ranked Kentucky at their place by 30 and had a string on first team All-Ivy players who could have started anywhere, and Columbia had two future pros, and one near pro. Cornell would come into the final weekend, a trip to Princeton/Penn in first place and leave in third. Happened I think twice when I was there. They go to school in the Ivies.:cool:

greybeard
02-02-2010, 10:05 AM
Oh, while they travel by bus in the Ivies, except for an occasional trip to one of the biggies, they try to save money by booking back to backs in the same area, Princeton/Penn; Brown/Harvard/Darmouth; Columbia/Cornell.

Now that the shoe companies and ESPN throw real money everywhere, maybe the economic incentive is less, but the class-time thing still dictates scheduling. One of the things that I find so ironic is that, while sports are deemphasized in the Ivies, for example, no spring practice for football, they now have fall practice, ney a fall schedule for lax. Strange and for me off-putting.

By the way, I thought it was classless for Cornell to run up the score on Harvard the way they did, and yesterday joined a Cornell basketball blog to say so. I think that the Cornell coach will be gone after this season, the next at the latest. "Ambition should be made of sterner stuff." Actually, he is over-the-top ambitious. Has two junior college transfers on his team; never heard of such a thing in the Ivies; and now this classless act to get Cornell ranked, the guy wants to move on to bigger things. Can't wait!

dukelifer
02-02-2010, 10:18 AM
Yup, the Friday night - Saturday night scheduling deal has been an Ivy staple for some time. They do a similar thing to the Pac-10, where teams are paired by location, so one weekend, for instance, Penn and Princeton both play @ both Columbia and Cornell, then another weekend they both play @ Yale and Brown, etc. (Harvard/Dartmouth is the other pair). Cuts travel costs and keeps the students from missing classes.
TV primarily dictates the scheduling for NCAA teams in the major conferences. This has lead to other problems- late games- Sunday night hoops etc. TV is having problems with its revenues - one reason driving the current push to expand the NCAA tourney to more teams- more games means more TV revenue (in theory). If TV was not in the picture (which was not the case 30 years ago), scheduling would be a bit more rational.

Should conferences shun TV money and require everyone to simply watch their teams play using some online service? Then the bulk of the online revenues would go directly to the schools. Would the 0.5 million or so Duke fans pay $40 a year to watch Duke hoops online? True the quality of the broadcast may not be as polished but I am sure that could be improved over time.

duke23
02-02-2010, 12:13 PM
By the way, I thought it was classless for Cornell to run up the score on Harvard the way they did, and yesterday joined a Cornell basketball blog to say so. I think that the Cornell coach will be gone after this season, the next at the latest. "Ambition should be made of sterner stuff." Actually, he is over-the-top ambitious. Has two junior college transfers on his team; never heard of such a thing in the Ivies; and now this classless act to get Cornell ranked, the guy wants to move on to bigger things. Can't wait!

I didn't know it was possible to run up the score while playing 18 men. I fully admit to not having watched the game, and knowing next to nothing about Cornell's program, but wow. Seems like you're extremely anxious to impugn a coach/program for absolutely no reason. Junior college transfers. GASP!! I did a quick "juco transfers cornell basketball" and found this:

"Even Ivy-covered Cornell signed a juco transfer, though it should be noted that 6'4" guard Patrick Homer—Hollis's teammate at N.M.J.C.—arrived in Ithaca with a 3.9 GPA and a strong interest in microbiology."

That was in 1987.

Then there's this, from 2007-2008:

"The coaching change could open up some immediate opportunities for the newcomers, particularly 6-7 freshman Kyle Fitzgerald and 6-10 junior Cem Dinc from Marshalltown (Iowa) Community College."

That was Harvard.

greybeard
02-02-2010, 12:48 PM
I didn't know it was possible to run up the score while playing 18 men. I fully admit to not having watched the game, and knowing next to nothing about Cornell's program, but wow. Seems like you're extremely anxious to impugn a coach/program for absolutely no reason. Junior college transfers. GASP!! I did a quick "juco transfers cornell basketball" and found this:

"Even Ivy-covered Cornell signed a juco transfer, though it should be noted that 6'4" guard Patrick Homer—Hollis's teammate at N.M.J.C.—arrived in Ithaca with a 3.9 GPA and a strong interest in microbiology."

That was in 1987.

Then there's this, from 2007-2008:

"The coaching change could open up some immediate opportunities for the newcomers, particularly 6-7 freshman Kyle Fitzgerald and 6-10 junior Cem Dinc from Marshalltown (Iowa) Community College."

That was Harvard.

Not possible to win by 30 plus without playing all out defensively and turning people over. Not possible.

Sorry to say this, but Harvard's program has been converted into trying to go big time too. For me, there are enough such programs. To be sure, they have their place. I like Duke, and Georgetown personally, and root for both. Maryland too.

As for my Cornell teams, I like them to reflect the student body. Yeah, if they land a few blue chippers, and in my 4 years there they had 7 guys who could have started just about anywhere, that's great and adds to the fun. But, junior college transfers, Fall seasons, sorry, I think that that takes sports to a level that is completely unnecessary. Deprives them of a certain charm that is more valuable than all the hoopla that comes from big time sports. Just my view.

The Cornell coach will not stay at Cornell beyond this season, especially if Cornell gets one game in the tournament. He is in it for the money and the stage, neither of which are at Cornell.

When I was at school, Princeton had one of those type guys, a guy who had coached at Hofstra, right near where I went to high shool. Went to coaching clinics and what not he put on. He had a cup of coffee at Princeton, brought them Bradley and Petrie and a couple of other high end players and was off to the Lakers. The guy who took over, Pete Carrill, was the best that college coaching has to offer, at least in my book. Stayed at Princeton like 30 years.

In sum, I see Cornell's beat down of Harvard an attempt to break the top 25; an unsportsmanlike and self promoting act.

BTW, while I loved the ride last year, I was NOT a fan of the choice Cornell's lax coach made to play just 22 players in his regular rotation. Gave them a chance for the big prize, but what about the other guys on the team? Is the big prize really worth it? I don't think so, not at Cornell. At schools that have big-time sports programs, absolutely. They pay that price. I can enjoy rooting for them. But, there needs to be someplace besides the Rugby and ultimate frizbee fields where college sports are more about the guys who play, then making a splash on the national stage. At least that's how I feel about it.

Newton_14
02-02-2010, 01:57 PM
For all of the people wondering about Duke's scheduling games close to each other, look at what Tommy Amaker has.
There are 12 games that are played back to back. They beat Columbia on the road on the 29th by almost 30, then lost on the road to Cornell the next day by almost 40. That's a 70 point swing. Their next 10 games are like that, 2 games in 2 days. How common is that? I've never seen it before.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/teams/schedule?teamId=108

Actually in the early 90's Duke did this a couple of times. Would have to look to see the exact years but there was a weekend in Feb where Duke played Iowa on Saturday afternnoon in Cameron and then UVA on Sunday afternoon in Cameron. There was also another year in the same time range where they did the same thing.

Now they only did that once in those years, but did have the back to back games without it being any type of tournament.

Newton_14
02-02-2010, 02:15 PM
I tried to edit my previous post after looking up the data but was too late. Here is the info:

Edit:The Iowa/UVA back to back was Jan 16/17 in 1993. In Feb 1991 there was a back to back with Maryland/LSU..

91devil
02-02-2010, 02:24 PM
I tried to edit my previous post after looking up the data but was too late. Here is the info:

Edit:The Iowa/UVA back to back was Jan 16/17 in 1993. In Feb 1991 there was a back to back with Maryland/LSU..

I think we had THREE home games during that FOUR day stretch in February, 1991. Believe it was Virginia on Thursday night, Maryland on Saturday afternoon and LSU on Sunday afternoon.

allenmurray
02-02-2010, 02:30 PM
Not possible to win by 30 plus without playing all out defensively and turning people over. Not possible.

Sorry to say this, but Harvard's program has been converted into trying to go big time too. For me, there are enough such programs. To be sure, they have their place. I like Duke, and Georgetown personally, and root for both. Maryland too.

As for my Cornell teams, I like them to reflect the student body. Yeah, if they land a few blue chippers, and in my 4 years there they had 7 guys who could have started just about anywhere, that's great and adds to the fun. But, junior college transfers, Fall seasons, sorry, I think that that takes sports to a level that is completely unnecessary. Deprives them of a certain charm that is more valuable than all the hoopla that comes from big time sports. Just my view.

The Cornell coach will not stay at Cornell beyond this season, especially if Cornell gets one game in the tournament. He is in it for the money and the stage, neither of which are at Cornell.

When I was at school, Princeton had one of those type guys, a guy who had coached at Hofstra, right near where I went to high shool. Went to coaching clinics and what not he put on. He had a cup of coffee at Princeton, brought them Bradley and Petrie and a couple of other high end players and was off to the Lakers. The guy who took over, Pete Carrill, was the best that college coaching has to offer, at least in my book. Stayed at Princeton like 30 years.

In sum, I see Cornell's beat down of Harvard an attempt to break the top 25; an unsportsmanlike and self promoting act.

BTW, while I loved the ride last year, I was NOT a fan of the choice Cornell's lax coach made to play just 22 players in his regular rotation. Gave them a chance for the big prize, but what about the other guys on the team? Is the big prize really worth it? I don't think so, not at Cornell. At schools that have big-time sports programs, absolutely. They pay that price. I can enjoy rooting for them. But, there needs to be someplace besides the Rugby and ultimate frizbee fields where college sports are more about the guys who play, then making a splash on the national stage. At least that's how I feel about it.

I find your stance curious. It is okay for Duke and Georgetown (programs that are similar in size of student body and that have similar, and sometimes superior, academics to the Ivy Legue schools) to compete on a national stage and put forth the effort (and $$) that is required to do so, but when Cornell or Harvard does the same it somehow is not okay?

What is the difference? Tradition? Schools that historically have not focused on athletics can not do so now? I too like the schools that have true student athletes, (though more and more frequently they are D-II or D-III) but if a school, its student body, leadership and alumni want to compete on a higher level I'm not sure what the difference is. Schools like Duke, Georgetown, Wake Forest, and other private schools are more similar to these Ivies than they are to public schools like UCLA, Michigan, and Maryland - yet you seem to have no probelm with them having strong (and expensive) athletic programs.

I really am curious - other than tradition, why your objection to Cornell and Harvard, but not to Duke or Georgetown?

duke23
02-02-2010, 02:39 PM
Not possible to win by 30 plus without playing all out defensively and turning people over. Not possible.

Sorry to say this, but Harvard's program has been converted into trying to go big time too. For me, there are enough such programs. To be sure, they have their place. I like Duke, and Georgetown personally, and root for both. Maryland too.

As for my Cornell teams, I like them to reflect the student body. Yeah, if they land a few blue chippers, and in my 4 years there they had 7 guys who could have started just about anywhere, that's great and adds to the fun. But, junior college transfers, Fall seasons, sorry, I think that that takes sports to a level that is completely unnecessary. Deprives them of a certain charm that is more valuable than all the hoopla that comes from big time sports. Just my view.

The Cornell coach will not stay at Cornell beyond this season, especially if Cornell gets one game in the tournament. He is in it for the money and the stage, neither of which are at Cornell.

When I was at school, Princeton had one of those type guys, a guy who had coached at Hofstra, right near where I went to high shool. Went to coaching clinics and what not he put on. He had a cup of coffee at Princeton, brought them Bradley and Petrie and a couple of other high end players and was off to the Lakers. The guy who took over, Pete Carrill, was the best that college coaching has to offer, at least in my book. Stayed at Princeton like 30 years.

In sum, I see Cornell's beat down of Harvard an attempt to break the top 25; an unsportsmanlike and self promoting act.

BTW, while I loved the ride last year, I was NOT a fan of the choice Cornell's lax coach made to play just 22 players in his regular rotation. Gave them a chance for the big prize, but what about the other guys on the team? Is the big prize really worth it? I don't think so, not at Cornell. At schools that have big-time sports programs, absolutely. They pay that price. I can enjoy rooting for them. But, there needs to be someplace besides the Rugby and ultimate frizbee fields where college sports are more about the guys who play, then making a splash on the national stage. At least that's how I feel about it.

Again, I didn't see the game - if they were pressing up to the end and running fast breaks, then I'd certainly agree with you, even with the 12th guy off the bench in the game. If not, though, I don't know that you can bring these guys in and tell them not to try.

As for the jucos, I would say that as long as these guys are admited legitimately and continue to keep up academically, it seems a little elitist to say that they don't belong there, just because it's an Ivy. Juco-to-Ivy transfers do happen, even outside athletics, despite being uncommon. As you say, just my view.

As far as the coach goes, it just sounds like you're slandering this guy without any facts to back it up - this is my main point of contention with your post. All I can see is the guy was an assistant at Penn for 10 years and the head coach of Cornell for another 10. When he began, they were the worst team in the Ivy, and now they're on their way to their 3rd straight tournament. And if he does choose to leave after 10 seasons, to advance his career, I certainly wouldn't begrudge him that opportunity, and I don't see how that makes him classless.

greybeard
02-02-2010, 04:02 PM
I find your stance curious. It is okay for Duke and Georgetown (programs that are similar in size of student body and that have similar, and sometimes superior, academics to the Ivy Legue schools) to compete on a national stage and put forth the effort (and $$) that is required to do so, but when Cornell or Harvard does the same it somehow is not okay?

What is the difference? Tradition? Schools that historically have not focused on athletics can not do so now? I too like the schools that have true student athletes, (though more and more frequently they are D-II or D-III) but if a school, its student body, leadership and alumni want to compete on a higher level I'm not sure what the difference is. Schools like Duke, Georgetown, Wake Forest, and other private schools are more similar to these Ivies than they are to public schools like UCLA, Michigan, and Maryland - yet you seem to have no probelm with them having strong (and expensive) athletic programs.

I really am curious - other than tradition, why your objection to Cornell and Harvard, but not to Duke or Georgetown?

First, Ivy League Schools do not give scholarships. Therefore, except for sports in which scholarships are relatively scarce, and LAX is one of them (I read that Syracuse, for example, has 12 1/2 scholarships to divide amongst all its players), Ivy League teams really do not have a chance.

Second, once the toothpaste is out of the tube, it is difficult, if not impossible to put it back in. I can enjoy the professional game that big time college basketball is without wishing that it exists. I wish that it didn't. Wishing won't make it so. Since pro college ball exists and some programs are classier and play the game in a way that tickles my mind more than others, I root for them. Otherwise, I don't watch.

Harvard might someday be able to offer free rides to everyone who gets in; I think I read somewhere that that day is approaching. If it does, than Amaker might make them into a Duke rival. If not, he might a serious run one time, (see Penn when it reached the semis as the favorite and lost, under Daley before he left for the pros, or Princeton before Van Bredakoff left for the pros), but he will not do it on a regular basis.

I think that trying to diminishes the game.

When I was at Cornell, they had a guy who was stupendous to watch perform, I mean stupendous. He played both soccer and lax, and was a multiple first team All American in both. Bruce Cohen was his name. Max Seibald was an All County four year starter in both soccer and lax in high school. He played only lax in college because they had a Fall season in lax. I met Max's family and they are thrilled that he has a career as a professional athlete. I'm happy for the kid. Like I said, Trambone, as good a coach as he is, is not for me, not for my view of what lax was when I first encountered it--before the shoe companies and now ESPN got their hooks in.

Look, you give these kids wooden sticks, the game would be much more interesting, take much more skill, and be much less exciting. No one would be shooting 90-100 mile an hour shots, no one would be running out against pressure with a long stick the way they now can because of these cavernous pockets, and the sport would not get 50-60K per game at the final four. It would not be on television. I like the old game better.

I also like the game of basketball without the dunk; I hate it when guys hang on the rim because they made a play that if they did not hang on the rim they'd fall on their head, which is to say, they used a prop to make a play that will be replayed forever on the talking head shows but to me is cheating and ain't basketball.

I get it that all college sports now are money; even in the lesser sports, coaches get free product, get paid to run camps, get assistants for g-ds sakes, have kids training year round, and live larger than I probably do in some pretty idealic settings. I do not think that they advance the lives of the participants in these sports as much as participation in more lower key environments did, and think that is a shame.

Taking things to the next level in the Ivies is not really possible except perhaps in lax, at least for a little while, and, for those of us who remember, Hockey--Go Red! Nevertheless, the charm of the game, the emphasis on players getting a chance to represent their schools in competition, well, I prefer it.

Let me end with a story, When Harvard Beat Yale, 29-29. I take it you've seen the documentary. If not do, it is beyond great. The guy who was responsible for bringing Harvard back from a huge half time deficit was a junior quarterback whom the coach decided to sub into the game, after he hadn't played a meaningful down his entire career at Harvard. How does that happen? A guy with all that ability, who can perform on the big stage no less, and not a minute of meaningful time the entire season. Some of that I suppose is impossible to eliminate from organized sport. To me, it's a damn shame.

allenmurray
02-02-2010, 04:19 PM
First, Ivy League Schools do not give scholarships. Therefore, except for sports in which scholarships are relatively scarce, and LAX is one of them (I read that Syracuse, for example, has 12 1/2 scholarships to divide amongst all its players), Ivy League teams really do not have a chance.

Second, once the toothpaste is out of the tube, it is difficult, if not impossible to put it back in. I can enjoy the professional game that big time college basketball is without wishing that it exists. I wish that it didn't. Wishing won't make it so. Since pro college ball exists and some programs are classier and play the game in a way that tickles my mind more than others, I root for them. Otherwise, I don't watch.

Harvard might someday be able to offer free rides to everyone who gets in; I think I read somewhere that that day is approaching. If it does, than Amaker might make them into a Duke rival. If not, he might a serious run one time, (see Penn when it reached the semis as the favorite and lost, under Daley before he left for the pros, or Princeton before Van Bredakoff left for the pros), but he will not do it on a regular basis.

I think that trying to diminishes the game.

When I was at Cornell, they had a guy who was stupendous to watch perform, I mean stupendous. He played both soccer and lax, and was a multiple first team All American in both. Bruce Cohen was his name. Max Seibald was an All County four year starter in both soccer and lax in high school. He played only lax in college because they had a Fall season in lax. I met Max's family and they are thrilled that he has a career as a professional athlete. I'm happy for the kid. Like I said, Trambone, as good a coach as he is, is not for me, not for my view of what lax was when I first encountered it--before the shoe companies and now ESPN got their hooks in.

Look, you give these kids wooden sticks, the game would be much more interesting, take much more skill, and be much less exciting. No one would be shooting 90-100 mile an hour shots, no one would be running out against pressure with a long stick the way they now can because of these cavernous pockets, and the sport would not get 50-60K per game at the final four. It would not be on television. I like the old game better.

I also like the game of basketball without the dunk; I hate it when guys hang on the rim because they made a play that if they did not hang on the rim they'd fall on their head, which is to say, they used a prop to make a play that will be replayed forever on the talking head shows but to me is cheating and ain't basketball.

I get it that all college sports now are money; even in the lesser sports, coaches get free product, get paid to run camps, get assistants for g-ds sakes, have kids training year round, and live larger than I probably do in some pretty idealic settings. I do not think that they advance the lives of the participants in these sports as much as participation in more lower key environments did, and think that is a shame.

Taking things to the next level in the Ivies is not really possible except perhaps in lax, at least for a little while, and, for those of us who remember, Hockey--Go Red! Nevertheless, the charm of the game, the emphasis on players getting a chance to represent their schools in competition, well, I prefer it.

Let me end with a story, When Harvard Beat Yale, 29-29. I take it you've seen the documentary. If not do, it is beyond great. The guy who was responsible for bringing Harvard back from a huge half time deficit was a junior quarterback whom the coach decided to sub into the game, after he hadn't played a meaningful down his entire career at Harvard. How does that happen? A guy with all that ability, who can perform on the big stage no less, and not a minute of meaningful time the entire season. Some of that I suppose is impossible to eliminate from organized sport. To me, it's a damn shame.

I appreciate your response, but you didn't answer my question. Why is it okay for Duke and Gtown, but not for Cornell and Harvard? Other than the toothpaste-out-of-the-tube argument (which I accept, but think is insufficient). It would make more sense for the Ivies to drop to D-III than to say they shouldn't try to compete at D-I.

greybeard
02-02-2010, 04:20 PM
Again, I didn't see the game - if they were pressing up to the end and running fast breaks, then I'd certainly agree with you, even with the 12th guy off the bench in the game. If not, though, I don't know that you can bring these guys in and tell them not to try.

As for the jucos, I would say that as long as these guys are admited legitimately and continue to keep up academically, it seems a little elitist to say that they don't belong there, just because it's an Ivy. Juco-to-Ivy transfers do happen, even outside athletics, despite being uncommon. As you say, just my view.

As far as the coach goes, it just sounds like you're slandering this guy without any facts to back it up - this is my main point of contention with your post. All I can see is the guy was an assistant at Penn for 10 years and the head coach of Cornell for another 10. When he began, they were the worst team in the Ivy, and now they're on their way to their 3rd straight tournament. And if he does choose to leave after 10 seasons, to advance his career, I certainly wouldn't begrudge him that opportunity, and I don't see how that makes him classless.

Havard was undefeated and has some very strong players. You don't beat them by 36 without really trying. If I am wrong, I should be shocked. Sorry.

As for Juco transfers, again I'm going to have to disagree with you here, big time. When I was at Cornell, my junior year they beat Kentucky by 30; one of Cornell's two black starters dropped 37 on Pat Riley's head. We came in 3d in the Ivies because under the top 6 maybe 7 were walk ons. Cornell was damn fun to watch and could play with anybody. Some of the guys I knew and used to play in the gym with were getting playing time on that team. I like it that way.

Maybe there are non-athlete JUCO transfers to Cornell; I seriously doubt it, but maybe there are. I do not see any value in a Cornell coach recruiting a JUCO transfer to make Cornell's basketball team better. None. Ranks right behind Calipari's school of one and done, but strikes closer to home.

greybeard
02-02-2010, 04:49 PM
I appreciate your response, but you didn't answer my question. Why is it okay for Duke and Gtown, but not for Cornell and Harvard? Other than the toothpaste-out-of-the-tube argument (which I accept, but think is insufficient). It would make more sense for the Ivies to drop to D-III than to say they shouldn't try to compete at D-I.

I don't pay any attention to D anythings and my boyz from Cornell when they didn't recruit JUCOs beat no. 3 Kentucky one year, Bill Bradley's Princeton another, Petrie's Princeton and Ohio State another, and Jim McMillian (Lakers), Shorty Newmark's (pro somewhere), and Heyward Dotson's (a cup of coffee I think) Columbia at least 4 times. Oh, I forgot Syracuse and Bing and Bayheim, we beat them twice when I was there I believe.

I am sure that those three teams would have had winning records had they played all non Ivy division I teams. So, I think your premise about its all or nothing is simply misplaced.

Why is the toothpaste argument insufficient? Because you would opt for big time sports even if the tooth paste was yet to be evacuated? I can respect that. I just don't agree with it. I could do without big time college sports, with the cost of them, with all the money thrown at them, and with the pressure it puts on other programs to go into overdrive mode, which they all seem to be doing. See, for example, my boy T's alma mater, Harper College now Binghamton which recruited a bunch of hoodlums to turn its program around.

I can tell you right now, Bob DeLuca ('66) was as good as Bob Verga and had a very similar game; no one could guard Greg Morris (6' with the highest vertical you ever saw); no one but Wes Unseld could outrebound Walt Esdale, all state Conneticut, who was the best big man passer you ever saw and dribbled it up on the press and NOBODY even thought about trying to stop him; Hank South, think Gerald who could go either way and was stronger; Davy Bliss (Oops better leave him out); and my personal fav, Steve Cram, a lithe center who could hook with either hand going to the baseline and middle and had timing like Jerry Lucas. Nope, these dudes could play; and packed Cornell's fieldhouse whenever they did which was good enough for me.

In those days, you read your Street and Smith's at the beginning of the season and watched the final two games, maybe caught a game at the holiday festival at the Garden. Nobody I knew cared about national rankings or knew how the good teams were doing week in and week out. We went to games and rooted for our guys. It was great!

dukegirlinsc
02-02-2010, 05:37 PM
I, for one, can not STAND a 9:00 start, no matter what day of the week it's on, or how many days are in between games. It throws my entire schedule off, I'm old and go to bed at 8:00, it's a struggle for me to stay up to 11:00 or later.

So, barely having 48 hours in between games isn't a brilliant idea to me. But is it possible to have a perfect basketball schedule?

allenmurray
02-02-2010, 05:44 PM
Why is the toothpaste argument insufficient? Because you would opt for big time sports even if the tooth paste was yet to be evacuated? I can respect that. I just don't agree with it. I could do without big time college sports, with the cost of them, with all the money thrown at them, and with the pressure it puts on other programs to go into overdrive mode, which they all seem to be doing.

Because for the sake of tradition and your own personal preference you are holding Cornell and Harvard (and others like them) to a different standard than Duke and Georgetown (and others like them) and have yet to make an argument as to why (again, other than your own personal preference and tradition).

By the way, for the most part I agree with you regarding the appropriate place of sports at universities - I just don't agree to having different standards for some schools than for others.

greybeard
02-02-2010, 06:01 PM
Because for the sake of tradition and your own personal preference you are holding Cornell and Harvard (and others like them) to a different standard than Duke and Georgetown (and others like them) and have yet to make an argument as to why (again, other than your own personal preference and tradition).

By the way, for the most part I agree with you regarding the appropriate place of sports at universities - I just don't agree to having different standards for some schools than for others.

I would change Duke's standards if I could but then I'd have no place to write. What did Woody Allen say about the chicken; something about the eggs. I guess I'm of two minds; my friends would say "at least." Cheers, and you got me here, except that I don't think Cornell can compete on the big stage on a regular basis in basketball and wouldn't want it to try, which this guy will do for as long as he is around, which might change the culture forever. Frankly, I do not follow Cornell basketball, and am not thrilled by their drubbing of Harvard. I wouldn't be thrilled if Duke drubbed Maryland. Oops.

sagegrouse
02-02-2010, 06:12 PM
I, for one, can not STAND a 9:00 start, no matter what day of the week it's on, or how many days are in between games. It throws my entire schedule off, I'm old and go to bed at 8:00, it's a struggle for me to stay up to 11:00 or later.

So, barely having 48 hours in between games isn't a brilliant idea to me. But is it possible to have a perfect basketball schedule?

Ah, yes! The benefits of living in a Western time zone.

sagegrouse

allenmurray
02-02-2010, 06:47 PM
I would change Duke's standards if I could but then I'd have no place to write. What did Woody Allen say about the chicken; something about the eggs. I guess I'm of two minds; my friends would say "at least." Cheers, and you got me here, except that I don't think Cornell can compete on the big stage on a regular basis in basketball and wouldn't want it to try, which this guy will do for as long as he is around, which might change the culture forever. Frankly, I do not follow Cornell basketball, and am not thrilled by their drubbing of Harvard. I wouldn't be thrilled if Duke drubbed Maryland. Oops.

I concede your point - Cornell won't be able to do it regularly, so they will be sacrificing a lot for short-term success. That is what makes their situation different from Duke or Georgetown, and I can't argue that point.