Archive for lafayettesports.myfreeforum.org This forum is not affiliated in any way with Lafayette College, Lafayette College Athletics, The Maroon Club or any other official organization. Please be respectful of other posters as well as the athletes, coaches and administrators.
Ugly start for both teams 4-2 at the 15 45 mrk.....bad shooting ...sloppy passes. Andrew Brown out at 15 45
--------------
Brown returns and the leopard start hitting threes 16-15 at about 11 min.
Getting good minute from Mintz and marek 20 17 just under 10 minutes
-------------
nice hustle on defense Kari playing well.
24-19 six turnovers by colgate
__________________
38-31
Colgate at the half.....Fran gets a technical with 3 secs left!!
14 turnovers at the half very sloppy passing. We have to be sharper than that.
carney2
Second half is no better. Down by 13 with 6:00 to go. Colgate has kept the lead at 10+ the entire half. Colgate's Kyle Roemer is doing his impression of Larry Bird with a personal best of 32 or more so far. 21 TOs so far. There's still time, but...
carney2
As Gary Laubach would say, OH MY! The Pards have cut the lead to 2 a minute to go.
Smokesdawg
Booo... a great first half to the league season ends in a first round exit....
ballfan
Arghhhh
Well,
Cutting the lead was impressive. It happened because the team went after rebounds and drove to the basket more aggressively and got fouled.
Kudos to the Leopards for that part of the game.
Earlier it was too easy for Colgate players to penetrate and just dribble through the defense for layups/shots in the paint
and at the end... too many missed foul shots and too much circling around hoping to hit a 3.
I feel bad for the seniors...
Pard4Life
Loss is inexcusable. So in other words fran's technical was the difference in the game given the shooter made both shots?
This is the second straight time where we have had a good team and bomb in the second half of the year and get outplayed in round one. What's the deal? Don't look now but we would have been HOSTING bucknell on sunday in front of 3500 fanatical pards.
What went wrong? Clearly it sounds like our inside defense was soft. That killed us at lehigh and vs american at kirby. And our killer instinct seems to have died in the second half. And we relied to much on the three.
Yes it our season seems like a success given our projections, but it was a failure given how we showed what we were capable of. We should have been facing american in the final or dancing.
Xboreturns
Missed fouls shots, a technical foul, turnovers and Kyle Roemer all contributed to the loss.
We made just 14 of 26 second half foul shots (54%) after getting just 2 shots from the charity stripe in the first half. Don't know what Coach O said but it was not a good time to say it. He could have waited 3 seconds and blasted them as he was leaving the court.
Although we had only one more TO than Colgate (22-21), too many of them were forced passes into traffic. Have to give some credit to Davis' preparation - CU was well prepared for the play where we run a guard around a soft screen at the top of the arc and hit him with a skip pass on the wing. They must have intercepted 4 or 5 of them.
We certainly had no answer for Roemer (11 of 16 overall, 3 of 4 on three balls, 7 of 8 from the line) who seemed to score whenever he wanted to.
But once again the team showed a lot of heart as they have all season and played hard until the final shot. Our play may not have been that good at times but they always played hard.
In my mind this season is the end of an era. An era where we were competing with scholarship programs with non-scholarship players. And next season is the start of a new era, an era where scholarship players will begin to build the foundation for a better and more successful program.
There was a very good turnout of CU students at the game, they filled one whole side and I'd estimate there where probably 2200+ in attendance. I was surprised that they reported 727 as attending. I then noticed that Lehigh also reported 727 at their game. What's that all about?
Lafalum
OUr foul shooting was awful..colgate was giving us the game and we couldn't get our shots to fall. Very large number of turnovers and poor passing. The other teams caught on to our long range shooting ability we couldn't adjust our inside game to take advantage.
Kudos to these seniors who were handed a dirty deal by the school as the other PL schools were able to outrecruit us. They hung in there and came within a missed shot here and there of being among the top in the league.
They are a class act and they deserve our respect.
We need a stronger inside game defensively and offensively. Mintz gave us some good minutes this year but we need more. Kari and Viskokas showed promise and Brown started the year on fire but couldn't sustain as defenses caught up with him we we had no answer inside.
As to the techinical I thought it was a BS call (Fran barely out of the box arguing a call) but by and large it was a well officiated game.
carney2
Truth is that Fran's "T" didn't cause the loss; bad foul shooting didn't cause the loss. This team just wasn't up to the challenge.
Just the opposite on the bad foul shooting. Colgate could not answer the Pete Carrill question: "Who took your SATs for you?" They went brain dead with 6 minutes to go and holding a 10 or 11 point lead. They committed bonehead foul after bonehead foul, allowing the Pards to get back in it without the clock running. Sure, the Leopards could have hit a better percentage from the line, but foul shooting got them back in it. It didn't lose the game for them. Besides, bad foul shooting has been a problem all year.
Betley's 3 at the end was a bad shot and a bad decision. We only needed two. There was time left. He was forced to double clutch - seldom a recipe for a good shot. After being forced to pull it down by a passing defender, he never looked to give it up. So much for senior leadership.
As a casual fan, I tend to take passing for granted. Last night made me think otherwise. Gary Laubach referred repeatedly to "lazy passes." Brown was a human turnover machine. Just take away a couple of his giveaways and this game goes the other way.
In the end, this team lived down to expectations. No inside game and total dependence on the 3 is a recipe for disaster. The remarkable thing is not the 1-8 finish, but rather the two month dream sequence that put us ever so briefly in 1st place. When the crisp passing stopped; when the defenses started consistently challenging people outside the arc; when we started seeing teams for the second time: when the 3s started clanking into long rebounds;...
Let's move on - past Artie Rothkopf and his Don Quixote ban on athletic scholarships - and get some people who can actually play this game.
Andy
I'll refer to the obvious and ask--why do we trail the Lehigh's and even Colgate, for pete's sake, in the recruitment of black basketball players?
Xboreturns
Andy that's a question that you need to ask admissions. We couldn't get Zahir Carrington in, Lehigh did. We couldn't get Torey Thomas in, Holy Cross did. There have been others including one this year.
carney2
Andy wrote:
I'll refer to the obvious and ask--why do we trail the Lehigh's and even Colgate, for pete's sake, in the recruitment of black basketball players?
A valid, if not politically correct, question. I have no information, but best bets seem to be:
Fran's recruiting contacts don't seem to be in urban areas. Even in Philadelphia, he seems to be tuned in on the parochial league. Benbow is an isolated exception, with most of our recruits coming from the outback. The latest group comes from Philadelphia (parochial league), Missouri, Virginia, North Carolina, and (?) for the latest addition. Not much of an urban presence here.
Small campus with not much of a minority presence other than athletes. I am reminded of Rich Congo who transferred to Drexel after only one year for pretty much this reason.
It is baffling, however. Lehigh, and especially Colgate, would not, on the surface, seem to be better suited for minority students than Lafayette.
Andy
carney2 wrote:
Small campus with not much of a minority presence other than athletes. I am reminded of Rich Congo who transferred to Drexel after only one year for pretty much this reason.
It is baffling, however. Lehigh, and especially Colgate, would not, on the surface, seem to be better suited for minority students than Lafayette.
Exactly, carney, and X's answer is very revealing. And I wonder how our admission's criteria for minority footballers compares to the rest of the league as well?
Lafalum
The location arguement is a bogus arguement. We are very close to two major urban centers, so that can not be a reason. Fran's contacts seem to be more of an answer plus the lack of an african american asst.
Our academic criterea for scholarship players is more restrictive than for the non scholarship player limiting our universe of potential recruits. The Ivy League aid changes will not help!!
bison137
Andy wrote:
I'll refer to the obvious and ask--why do we trail the Lehigh's and even Colgate, for pete's sake, in the recruitment of black basketball players?
When it comes to recruiting African-American players, I'm not sure that LC has trailed Colgate by much in the recent years of the scholarship era. By my count, in the past three years (HS classes of 06, 07, and 2008) CU has 1 African-American recruit out of 8 scholarships. LC has signed 2 out of 12, I believe. (Unfortunately 1 of the 2 left after a year however.)
In May, CU will graduate Kendall Chones (non-scholarship), Tim Pounds (non-scholarship), and Daniel Waddy (transfer - scholarhip), plus Kyle Chones (non-scholarship), who quit during the year. Thus, next year it appears they will roster three African-American players, one of whom would have graduated this year except for an injury redshirt.
As for Lehigh, I'd guess that Billy Taylor's presence made it easier to recruit African-American players in the past. FWIW, LU's incoming class for next year has one black player.
BTW, it's interesting that LC had much more of an African-American presence this year than did Holy Cross.
TheTruth
I'm glad you all brought this up because I was going to. It is bothersome that the above mention players were not admitted to lafayette but somehow got into Lehigh and Holy Cross....esp. Holy Cross where we have very similar admission standards (Lehigh being a bigger school has more leeway).
I don't buy the location either. if Colgate and Bucknell can bring in minority players, anyone can. I look at what Frank has done with the football team. He charges the players both black and white to bring in the recruits. many of the black players approached Frank about the lack of black players on the team when he first took the job. Frank agreed with them and the coaching staff has responded as well as the players.
Fran needs to hire a black assistant coach, period. He needs to focus on bringing in players who WANT to play inside and take pride in rebounding and playing defense regardless of the color of their skin. I'm thinking Ted Cole type players. Lots of energy whether shooting well or not; Hustle; willing to bang inside and count how well they played by how often they hit the floor. I'm tired of 6'10" players who want to shoot the 3 pointer. Give me the 6'6" - 6'9" athletic, garbage man that brings energy to the court. With scholarships there are no more excuses. We had one in Jamaal Douglas but.....
If you weren't cognizant of the individual games and looked at our record compared to where we were predicted to finish, you would say this was a successful season. But the fact we lost so many close games the second time around makes me question, "what happpened to the mental toughness of this team? Where is that team that won 5 OT games? Why don't our guys drive to the basket more when theyare overplaying the 3-point shot?" It's like we forgot how to make adjustments. There was no reason for us not to finish second this year (American is simply better us this year).
The positives: We have 5 players already signed for next year and they look promising. The coaching staff is already working on the class of 2013. The young guys are talented. They need more playing time and off season training. I like where we are compared to the last few years but not sure how many league titles we will see in the future if Fran does not change how he does things.
carney2
Again, without any information, statistics, or anything else to support my opinion, I would be absolutely blown away if the Admissions Dept. or any part of the administration was party to excluding minority candidates. Academia has taken a decided left turn over the past 25 years, and every quality institution in the country bends (over backwards), and twists themselves into pretzels to increase the diversity on its campus. It is hard to believe that, overall (I know that one can point to a few specific cases), Fran has a more difficult time getting minority candidates past his admissions staff than does Davis, Flannery, Reed or Willard.
Andy
carney2 wrote:
Again, without any information, statistics, or anything else to support my opinion, I would be absolutely blown away if the Admissions Dept. or any part of the administration was party to excluding minority candidates. Academia has taken a decided left turn over the past 25 years, and every quality institution in the country bends (over backwards), and twists themselves into pretzels to increase the diversity on its campus. It is hard to believe that, overall (I know that one can point to a few specific cases), Fran has a more difficult time getting minority candidates past his admissions staff than does Davis, Flannery, Reed or Willard.
Carney, as always I respect your opinion. Our "bending over backwards", as I understand it, amounts to lowering of admissible SAT score for minorities to 1000 (old system) (supported by that FLA HS coach's statement re admission of his TE, Rose) with an interview system for exceptional hardship. If our competitors bend over to the tune of 950, that can make a major difference. Also, recognizing the small # of minority players we've successfully recruited and considering how just one player can make a difference on a bball team, three specific cases (including two to competitors) over six years is IMO very significant.
If you recall the NCAA recertification self-studies I posted on these boards (Colgate's removed from public viewing about 2 weeks after I posted the URL), despite Colgate's significantly higher general student population SAT scores for the given three year period, the scores for their recruited football players receiving athletically related student aid were only slightly higher than LC's for two of the years and actually lower for the remaining year. (I didn't look at bball #'s) In light of how the AI is calculated in the PL including a supposed "hard floor," doesn't that suggest that Colgate is "bending over" a bit further than us. I'm a cynic who feels that "the Lafayette way" has consistently included the continuation or adoption of policies that hinder the ability of our coaches to compete. For instance, the case cited by Lafalum--grant scholarships and then nullify much of the effect by increasing standards. I love the high standards-- that's what sets the PL apart--but I want a level playing field.
carney2
It must be my ADD, but my demented mind causes me to ask if any of you diaper dandies are aware that Lafayette at one time long, LONG, L O N G ago had a strict unwritten policy of admitting 2 (no more and no less) African Americans per year to its incoming freshman class? I believe that this, and similar, practice(s) was/were not uncommon at the time.
Sorry. This has nothing to do with the current discussion. Just, as I said, my ADD kicking in.
Lafalum
I don't know how long ago you are talking about about but I am not aware of anything like that in my memory and we had 3 or 4 african americans in my frat pledge class (60's). In the late 40's didn't we refuse to go to a bowl game because we couldn't take an african american player to the game?!!
cr
Andy wrote:
carney2 wrote:
Again, without any information, statistics, or anything else to support my opinion, I would be absolutely blown away if the Admissions Dept. or any part of the administration was party to excluding minority candidates. Academia has taken a decided left turn over the past 25 years, and every quality institution in the country bends (over backwards), and twists themselves into pretzels to increase the diversity on its campus. It is hard to believe that, overall (I know that one can point to a few specific cases), Fran has a more difficult time getting minority candidates past his admissions staff than does Davis, Flannery, Reed or Willard.
Carney, as always I respect your opinion. Our "bending over backwards", as I understand it, amounts to lowering of admissible SAT score for minorities to 1000 (old system) (supported by that FLA HS coach's statement re admission of his TE, Rose) with an interview system for exceptional hardship. If our competitors bend over to the tune of 950, that can make a major difference. Also, recognizing the small # of minority players we've successfully recruited and considering how just one player can make a difference on a bball team, three specific cases (including two to competitors) over six years is IMO very significant.
If you recall the NCAA recertification self-studies I posted on these boards (Colgate's removed from public viewing about 2 weeks after I posted the URL), despite Colgate's significantly higher general student population SAT scores for the given three year period, the scores for their recruited football players receiving athletically related student aid were only slightly higher than LC's for two of the years and actually lower for the remaining year. (I didn't look at bball #'s) In light of how the AI is calculated in the PL including a supposed "hard floor," doesn't that suggest that Colgate is "bending over" a bit further than us. I'm a cynic who feels that "the Lafayette way" has consistently included the continuation or adoption of policies that hinder the ability of our coaches to compete. For instance, the case cited by Lafalum--grant scholarships and then nullify much of the effect by increasing standards. I love the high standards-- that's what sets the PL apart--but I want a level playing field.
Andy, I would love to see those stats if you can find them.
carney2
Lafalum wrote:
I don't know how long ago you are talking about about but I am not aware of anything like that in my memory and we had 3 or 4 african americans in my frat pledge class (60's). In the late 40's didn't we refuse to go to a bowl game because we couldn't take an african american player to the game?!!
I knew when I hit the "send" button that this might cause an unnecessary detour in this discussion. Wish I hadn't.
Anyway, when I arrived (also in the 60s) there were two per class. You could just about name all 8 on campus. I think that I arrived at the tail end of this "policy" or whatever you want to call it. I'm sure that this was a distant memory by the time the school went co-ed (1970?).
Andy
cr, I wish I'd printed the study as the #s make for interesting discussion. My notes are long gone and although I posted some stats on your voy board in response to the anti-LC diatribe of "The Guru," Gary only maintains a two page archive. Pls note, I'm not being accusatory here, rather I'm jealous. I recall 13's mention of a policy at Gate allowing for the admission of individuals deemed desirable who might not have otherwise been admitted. He said "shame on those who don't" have a similar policy and I agree. Xbo's info suggests that other PL members also have an exception mechanism in place and that maybe we don't. Also, I fear that LC is choosing admissions parameters tighter than what the league allows thereby placing themselves at a disadvantage vis-a-vis those members who've deemed athletic success as desirable and who move confidently toward that goal (within the rules, of course).
Getting back to the study, one thing I found interesting was Gate's significantly lower # of admits on football related aid (which would be used as a factor in an explanation for the seemingly low (for Gate) stats) than other PL members and the implications. We know that Gate is granting at least as much football related aid overall as anyone in the league (FU?) so it looks like Coach Biddle employs a unique recruiting strategy--more money to fewer kids. I'd stretch the assumption to say he finds select high-need difference makers and locks 'em in. Maybe it's made feasible by Gate's status/appeal which allows the roster to be filled (more easily than the competition) with quality no-need kids. LC is doing fine thanks with it's more traditional approach of dividing the aid budget among more recruits, but the Gate approach obviously works well for CU. Who knows, wrong I sure could be and nuts I definitely am cause I find this kind of stuff interesting.
Lafalum
A level playing field is what everyone should be assured of. The question is level with what? For me I am content to be level with the rest of the league and our tradional opponents (Ivies and some others). You start with the league and the only true way to assure a level playing field is to make AI compliance transparent through public release of the data. If no one violates the standards then there is no embarasment..right??? However, we know that standards do get violated..we knew that during the scholarship debate when Rothkopf sanctioned it to compensate for not giving scholarships. We suspect it during the recruiting process when there are egregious differences in standards.
The change in Ivy aid policies will also make us review our scholarship policies in other sports to remain competive. I am hearing there is another PL school that will add scholarships in other sports next year( not football)
Scholarships have somewhat leveled the field and they are regulated and transparent for all practical purposes...the AI is not transparent and invites cheating. Basketball is the likely candidate, small numbers of players can make a huge difference while not disturbing averages school wide.
carney2
Lafalum wrote:
A level playing field is what everyone should be assured of. The question is level with what? For me I am content to be level with the rest of the league and our tradional opponents (Ivies and some others). You start with the league and the only true way to assure a level playing field is to make AI compliance transparent through public release of the data. If no one violates the standards then there is no embarasment..right??? However, we know that standards do get violated..we knew that during the scholarship debate when Rothkopf sanctioned it to compensate for not giving scholarships. We suspect it during the recruiting process when there are egregious differences in standards.
The change in Ivy aid policies will also make us review our scholarship policies in other sports to remain competive. I am hearing there is another PL school that will add scholarships in other sports next year( not football)
Scholarships have somewhat leveled the field and they are regulated and transparent for all practical purposes...the AI is not transparent and invites cheating. Basketball is the likely candidate, small numbers of players can make a huge difference while not disturbing averages school wide.
Enjoyed your post, but was particularly intrigued with the highlighted area. If you truly see us on a level playing field with the Ivys I would love to hear your reasoning. Historically it has not been true in football, and the new free lunch program at HYP and Brown threatens to widen the gap even further. If you are talking hoops, you could, I guess, point to this year's one year wander when we went 3 for 3 against the Ancient 8, but to say that we have gone toe to toe with Penn and Princeton over the past 30 years is ludicrous. Further, a front page article (sports section) in last Sunday's New York Times indicates that Harvard has come out of hibernation and is using its household name, money, national clout and some questionable tactics to bring in a Top 25 recruiting class this year. Level playing field? Not in my lifetime, and I'm betting that I'm older than you.
CHC8485
Lafalum wrote:
I am hearing there is another PL school that will add scholarships in other sports next year( not football)
Do you have a name of the PL school associated with what you are hearing?
If so, are you willing to share that name?
And if you are not willing to share it, can you at least give me a hint?
Like will the Crossports board be happy at the name of that school or will we plunged into more angst vis-a-vis our administration relative to sports?
Lafalum
I am hearing from a very good source (inside your school) that yes indeed HC will add scholarships in some "non-revenue high emphasis" sports next year. They were not willing to say which ones. As to the other post I agree it has not been a level playing field with the Ivies because they do not operate their AI the same as we do. They have a band system. Also, as I indicated their aid packages are changing therefore we will have to compensate in some way. In addition, although the PL basketball programs all have scholarships they seem to applying the AI in uneven manner. My main point is that there should be some transparency to the process (the Ivies and the Patriot League) so we can truely say we are competitive. The myth that the Ivies were like us (pure as to academic requirements and need only aid) served only those who had their own agenda and ignored reality. The recent Harvard BBall allegations highlight that.
TheTruth
I can say with confidence that there was an unwritten policy about the enumber of black and Jewish students admitted to the college. Carney you ar right it was ver low in the 60's and bumped up to about 25 or so in the late 60's. It had something to do with the black students marching on the President's House during a Trustee meeting inside. it was a peaceful meeting and the students were well dressed. I was told it led to some "changes" on campus like the ABC, increasing minority population, etc. Those days are gone and Lafayette was not the only school to have such a policy.
Back to basketball, i don't think the Admissions Office is holding us back on this issue. With scholarships and a level playing field (a least on the surface), we should not have problems attracting qualified, minorities to our program. Personally, i can care less what other schools are doing. LAFAYETTE IS NOT GETTING IT DONE! The days of "dumbing" down our Admissions process to admit minorities is a product of folks who are not knowledgeable of the current demographics that exist. Not all black athletes come from the ghettos and poor areas. Most tha are intersted in schools like Lafayette, Colgate, etc. live in the suburbs and none of us would have a problem walking at night through their neighborhoods. Some of their parents probably went to college themselves. Not all are poor and need financial aid. It's myths and perceptions like this that hinder Lafayette diversifying the campus. I've heard this from faculty members who are suppose to be intelligent and care about diversity as well as from administrators who are charged with diversifying the campus (thank God they are not there anymore). What you need is the desire to do it. If Fran is having problems, he should talk to Frank T and ask how he did and ask for his help.
Fran needs to be more flexible in his coaching style. Right now, if a player isn't 100% on board with the system, he is in Fran's doghouse; probably won't play and gets frustrated. We have lost several good players over the years because of this. Fran coaches from his comfort zone and needs get "uncomfortable". I still believe we need an assistant coach with more experience ( a black assistant would help address recruiting issues). Love the exisitng coaches. Great people and great guys to be around. Ever since Pat and John left, we've struggled.
Our team does not get better as the season goes on. We seem to peak about halfway through league play. This happened a few years ago. We need to make more adjustments on defense. I love man to man but when you only have 1 or 2 guys who have the foot speed to play man to man, you have to adapt. Toss some zone in there. We ran 1-2-2 match-up zone several years ago that worked great. How about full court zone pressure just to change things?
If things stay the same, expect more seasons like this. Better then expectatoins but very disappointing.
Andy
Lafalum wrote:
A level playing field is what everyone should be assured of. The question is level with what? For me I am content to be level with the rest of the league and our tradional opponents (Ivies and some others). You start with the league and the only true way to assure a level playing field is to make AI compliance transparent through public release of the data. If no one violates the standards then there is no embarasment..right??? However, we know that standards do get violated..we knew that during the scholarship debate when Rothkopf sanctioned it to compensate for not giving scholarships. We suspect it during the recruiting process when there are egregious differences in standards.
The change in Ivy aid policies will also make us review our scholarship policies in other sports to remain competive. I am hearing there is another PL school that will add scholarships in other sports next year( not football)
Scholarships have somewhat leveled the field and they are regulated and transparent for all practical purposes...the AI is not transparent and invites cheating. Basketball is the likely candidate, small numbers of players can make a huge difference while not disturbing averages school wide.
I agree, however, the excellent GPA and low SAT score of the HC admit were known to the whole world because they were published by Rivals with the concurrence of the S/A. I've not heard talk of any sanction or citing of HC by the Council of Presidents, so I assume HC operated within the rules. So I have to further assume then that the rejection of the S/A by our admissions dept was one of choice not mandated by AI rules. Lehigh's last self-study showed exemplary credentials overall for their recruits (after having been cited by the PL for being substandard in football). I'd be surprised to learn that Carrington's creds were below standard. Can anyone confidently predict LC's beating Carrington again in his career? Commitment to winning demands compromise within the rules. There are only so many impact Div-1 bball players out there who fit the academic bill, I doubt there are many "hidden gems." This ain't football. I'd be all for raising league wide standards and enforcement. Within the rules, admissions has to get with the program. What is it now, six straight quarter-final exits?
carney2
Interesting story in today's Alientown Mourning Crawl about a girl who was a D-I recruit (over 2,000 career points; 94% free throw shooter in her senior year) who chose D-III Muhlenberg because she wants to do other things with her life besides just play basketball. Also, that running back from CT who turned down the Florida Gators to enroll at Princeton. Fran and Tammy just need to keep turning over rocks until they get lucky.
On the other hand, every inside guy that we are currently recruiting (Koltun - who is very quickly running out of time - and Pelham who appears to be in the same boat) is a "project." Did we really have a shot at Carrington? If so, it is a disastrous loss.
