Wednesday, October 3, 2012

News and Notes: Wednesday Edition

Below, some news and notes for Wednesday...

  • Texas Prep Report (subscription required) reports that Kimani Jackson, a 67" 220 lb. forward who played at Plano West High School last season in Texas, committed to Louisiana-Lafayette.  Texas Prep Report notes, "He averaged 2.3 points and 2.2 rebounds while playing behind college-bound senior forwards Holt Harmon (Cornell) and T.J. Cline (Niagara). Plano West went 26-9, finished second in District 8-5A to eventual Class 5A state champion Flower Mound Marcus."


Anonymous said...

How do you think the loss of Camden McRae will affect Harvard's chance of repeating?

I heard that he is now considering MIT, Cal Tech and the Zurich Institute of Technology.

Anonymous said...

Amaker is obviously running an AI numbers game, which CBB has convincingly demonstrated. But Harvard has pulled in a number of high level recruits (which doesn't necessarily translate to wins) and won the Ivy crown last year. Harvard doesn't seem to be doing much internally despite the negative press, so what are other Ivies doing to counteract?

The Cornell Basketball Blog said...

Maybe as a fan you have your finger on the panic button, but not sensing that anyone in the league is worried.

Anonymous said...

It's not a panic button thing -- it's called playing on the same level field. If Harvard wants to try to tip things in its favor, and its not expressly prohibited by the league, then why not do something similar? The AI sucks; Harvard recognizes it and is taking advantage.

The Cornell Basketball Blog said...

At Harvard, each of their coded kids is clearing the league floor on the AI.

So this is not an issue about Harvard violating league rules.

Harvard is within the rules on this issue.

However... there are those at Harvard within the administration that do not want their teams at the league's AI floor.

After all, "they are Harvard. They are supposed to be academically better than the league floor."

So, as an internal compromise, the Harvard athletic teams (which have friction with admissions) try to "average" their AIs for each recruiting class to demonstrate that the team as a whole has not reduced its standards.

So, if you take a booster kid and average his numbers with a floor kid like Zena, you can sell it internally to the old guard that your program has not reduced any standards.

Reality is that 10 years ago, kids like Zena would not have been taken by Harvard admissions (even if he barely cleared the league floor).

Anonymous said...

How are they "taking advantage?" They may play AI games internally, but they have the same floor as they other Ives.

Anonymous said...

". . . Not sensing that anyone in the league is worried."

Please, enough with the tough guy talk. You're the one tweeting every detail of every Harvard infraction, large and small. I've learned more about Harvard AI boosters and roster losses from your blog than any other source.

We're all worried -- all seven schools, fans and coaches. If Courtney isn't watching what's going on in Cambridge with great wariness, then he's a fool. And I don't think he's a fool.

That doesn't mean the rest of us won't show up on the first weekend of League competition, but there isn't a program in the conference which isn't extremely concerned with Harvard's aggressiveness at the admissions office, and I think you know it.

The Cornell Basketball Blog said...

Here is where you miss the mark.

I was posting and tweeting quite a bit about Harvard even back in 2008 when they were just terrible. If you want links, I can provide them.

This attention is not about being worried about Harvard's recent winning. This attention is about a school doing things the wrong way (regardless of their final record).

Princeton is a big threat to Cornell each year.

Penn is a big threat to Cornell each year.

CBB barely mentions them. This is because their conduct is far less controversial.

In fact, Princeton may win the league this year without ever modifying its admissions policies and without using booster kids.

And again, having talked to many coaches, nobody is worried about Harvard.

There is definitely a "respect" for Harvard in that they are competing and working very hard, but that respect is not to be confused with fear or concern.

Anonymous said...

Okay, Mr. Tough Guy, if nobody's worried about Harvard, then what *are* they worried about? The collapse of the euro? Global warming?

Seriously, if you're a coach in this league who isn't worried about a competitor which has brought in the top ranked recruiting class *every* year that the coach has been there, you're not acknowledging reality.

Thank goodness Amaker is a terrible game day coach because, empirically, most winning programs are built upon better Jimmy's and Joe's, not X's and O's.

The Cornell Basketball Blog said...

You are swayed a bit much (in the wrong direction) by some of the hype that is out there on the internet.

Case in point. The Harvard Crimson newspaper announcing Harvard's class of 2010 recruits and the player that would "be a force in the Ivy League for years to come."

Anonymous said...

Anon 2:38, he sadly tweeted about every Harvard infraction ad infinitum even back when Cornell was whipping Harvard by 36 points. We are all tired of it, and have been tired for years, but he persists and does not realize that it bores and irritates his audience.

You might be worried, but you might be speaking for yourself. Harvard is not a particularly frightening team, and it's fact, not "tough guy talk". COLUMBIA took those fancy recruits you speak of into overtime at home and down the wire on the road. Many of their games, including the one in Ithaca, were nail-biters. Penn was in the title hunt until their very last game. I hope other teams look at how well Penn and Princeton did last year -- DESPITE NEW-ISH COACHES -- and realize that they shouldn't write themselves off. As you say, Amaker simply isn't very talented... he isn't enough to warrant fears of domination.

The Cornell Basketball Blog said...

The CBB stopped posting about Harvard on the Blog. CBB commentary re: Harvard (or other Ivies) now is generally limited to Twitter and these comment sections.

Anonymous said...

Harvard is the only Ivy that's pulled in a Zena E., i.e. an unquestionable Top 100 kid. So to say that game-changing recruiting and admissions don't matter and don't make competitors cringe, that's silly. Successful recruiting if the lifeblood of college basketball.

This blog previously hinted about "game-changing" recruits coming to visit Cornell, but that hasn't come to fruition (at least so far, and i hope that changes, although i'm skeptical). Anyone can offer a kid; getting them to commit is a whole different ballgame. Harvard has gotten it done, regardless of their questionable practices.

The Cornell Basketball Blog said...

Zena is really good, but truly believe David Onuorah is just as good.

They are both very similar players--- around 6'9" -- elite athleticism, bouncy, high motors. Neither is more polished than the other.

Zena had a lot of offers, but he stayed on the board his entire senior year.

David had BCS schools all over him and committed to Cornell in June.

Zena is highly ranked, but frankly, rankings are pretty meaningless. You look at the scholarships.

Both are really, really good players for the Ivy League (and so is Henry Brooks at Penn if he ever fully recovers from his ACL).

Braxston Bunce is also very special. Here is a guy who committed early. He effectively had 3 BCS offers, comes in at nearly 7 feet tall and 250-260 lbs. He is unique in the Ivy League and can also be a game changing type of recruit (like Jeff Foote).

Anonymous said...

Right, but this blog said homecoming could be a game-changing weekend b/c of the pedigreed recruits visiting; it wasn't in reference to already committed players. Sounds like some have already committed to other programs, but hope that a couple of the "game-changing" players are still in the works.

The Cornell Basketball Blog said...

None have committed elsewhere.

The Cornell Basketball Blog said...

"How are they 'taking advantage?' They may play AI games internally, but they have the same floor as they other Ives."

Each Ivy is supposed to field a team that is representative of its student body. Read the Ivy principles.

Harvard is not doing this anymore. It is now fielding teams that are representative of the AI floor. Thus, they are in compliance with the express rules of the league, but not with its values.

Yale and Princeton continue to recruit well above the AI floor and do not use academic booster kids. Princeton has still won and Yale isn't bad.

Harvard is toying with the spirit of the rules.

Should Harvard handicap itself and hold itself to academic standards above Cornell and Penn?

Well, first Yale and Princeton do it. And Princeton has done quite well. How many Ivy titles do they have?

And Stanford, Northwestern and Vandy hold themselves to higher standards within their own leagues.

Harvard has opted to be at the floor within the Ivy. Not a bit above the floor. At the floor.

Which is fine by the CBB (even though it effectively violates the core Ivy principles).

But, let's not allow Harvard to pretend (or flat out lie) that they have not reduced their academic standards. They have. They are at the floor.

They have not been forthcoming or honest about it. And they should at least acknowledge it.

Harvard refuses to admit it, because they don't want to tarnish their academic selectivity reputation. They pride themselves on being the most selective school in the nation.

The reality is that Harvard is the least selective in the Ivies for basketball. They will recruit at the floor as much as the league rules permit.

If Amaker could go lower, he would.

Further, more attention should be paid to the practice of the using of booster kids. It is just unfair to cut these kids 2 weeks after they show up on campus. Even if they are D-III caliber. These kids deserve better treatment.

At Cornell, the program rewards its team managers and makes them part of the program and team (Kevin App, Jonathan Gray, Jamal Cherry). And Cornell does not "code" them as part of the recruiting class. They are purely midseason walk-ons.

At Harvard, it is the opposite. The program "codes" them then cuts and loses them off the roster.

Princeton has dominated the Ivies for decades. And there is very little that they've done that is highly controversial. Harvard, however... well, the record speaks for itself.

-Hiring Amaker in 2007
-18 players off the roster since 2008
-NCAA violation in 2010
-3 players (including both captains) allegedly involved in a cheating scandal in 2012

Is this the worst we've seen in college sports? No. But it is not what the Ivy League is all about and it makes the rest of the league look dirty.

How many more incidents do we need?

Anonymous said...

Every summer there is constant moaning and groaning in the comment section about this and that recruit Harvard just landed. What defeatists. If recruits determined everything, then Cornell would never have made it to the sweet 16.