Friday, November 30, 2012

A Date in Cornell Basketball History, 110 Years of Cornell-Colgate Basketball

Above, a Date in Cornell Basketball History. The Cornell Daily Sun recaps Cornell's first ever meeting with Colgate on Saturday, March 8, 1902, a 31-29 Big Red win in Hamilton, NY before 1,200 spectators. Now 110 years later, the series continues. The Big Red leads the rivalry 70-53. Get all the information you need about the Cornell Big Red's game vs Colgate, Saturday, December 1, 2012, 6 pm, with The Cornell Basketball Blog's Game Preview Center.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Harvard is going to be a force next year when they get back Curry and Casey and add in Zena E. Not good.

They're extremely young this year -- relying heavily on Chambers, Saunders, and Travis -- and are already arguably the best team.

AI boosting matters, big time.

Anonymous said...

Am I the only one whose RedCast video doesn't have a volume control? I can't mute the RedCast video while listening to something else, for example.

The Cornell Basketball Blog said...

Casey and Curry have not been cleared to return yet.

Anonymous said...

Cleared by whom?

Seriously, whose permission is Casey and Curry going to need to play in 2013-14?

Don't forget. The cheating scandal and its subsequent denouement is an internal Harvard matter. As far as the Ivy League and the NCAA are concerned, Casey and Curry dropped out of school this year to study for their MCAT's.

When the two of them return next fall, a year bigger and stronger, the adjudication of their alleged cheating and the administration of any academic penalties will be known only to Harvard administrators.

Who needs to sign off on Casey and Curry taking the floor next fall? I'm guessing nobody.

The Cornell Basketball Blog said...

We all know that there is no red-shirting in the Ivy League. Athletes that take a year off from school must show a reason to the Ivy League why they are playing a 5th year. Hunch is there will be some outrage around the league in this situation.

As for internal matters, Harvard admins could issue an academic suspension or an expulsion. This is another wildcard issue.

The fact that these Harvard athletes took a year off suggests they are concerned about the final outcome.

Finally, even if these athletes return to Harvard, it just further illustrates the questionable means by which this program wins. Taking 5th year players who ran away for a year because of a cheating scandal. Just violates the core principles of the Ivy League.

Anonymous said...

The reporting on the cheating scandal in The Crimson repeatedly suggested that the informal ceiling for penalizing an academic infraction is one year's withdrawal from school. Unless Casey and Curry did something uniquely worse than the other 125 accused students, I doubt that they will receive more than one year in purgatory. Of course anything is possible, but it does sound like you can cheat or plagiarize pretty egregiously at Harvard and still only get a year.

That's a good point you make about the League office needing to approve a red-shirt. I had forgotten about that requirement because it seems to be a formality these days. If Rob Pannell can drop out of school after he's already been fitted for a cap and gown, I don't think anybody's actually expecting the League office to stand in the way of any red-shirt.

Now Pannell had been injured early in his senior season and Casey/Curry were caught cheating. That's a big difference. But as I said in my previous post, officially Casey/Curry will probably have taken a year off school for undisclosed personal reasons. There are a lot of university privacy policies which they could hide behind in any application to the Ivy office, not to mention at least one federal law.

That leaves only "outrage around the League" to keep them coming back next year. I seriously doubt that the other seven Ivies will muster the gumption to attempt to block Casey and Curry from the court. It's just not the genteel Ivy way.

However, if there ever were a situation which SHOULD provoke some soul-searching around the conference, this is it. Harvard men's basketball in 2013-14 is shaping up like Princeton field hockey in 2012. Four field hockey players took the year off in 2011 and the rest of the team won the Ivy championship in a very close race. Then the missing veterans players came back and, because their other younger teammates had developed ahead of schedule in their absence, the reconstituted team was an absolute force and achieved unprecedented success for an Ivy team.

The Princeton field hockey team just won the NCAA championship a year after four players took off the 2011 season to train for the Olympics. If Casey and Curry are allowed back next year, which I fully expect, the Harvard men's basketball team will dominate the conference in a similar fashion and probably make a run in the NCAA tournament as well.

Anonymous said...

I'm skeptical Harvard will take meaningful action. Maybe they get suspended a couple games to start the season. Big deal.

We all know that Harvard uses questionable recruiting methods. But it's paying off for them on the court, possibly with a league title this year and almost certainly next year. It's BS.


The Cornell Basketball Blog said...

It will be an academic penalty, not a sports penalty.

So... let's say they are suspended one academic semester... you get the point as to what the implication would mean in basketball.

Anonymous said...

I don't see Harvard doing anything -- these kids already will have given up a year away from campus and faced public ridicule. They'll almost certainly be back next year when Harvard will be the overwhelming favorite to win an Ivy title.

Wanna stay competitive with Harvard? Stop complaining about AI and get some game changing recruits. Develop them once they get here and get them into a winning atmosphere. Easier said than done, of course, but others have been able to do it and Cornell has no excuse for not keeping up.

Anonymous said...

A couple ANONs state above that they think Harvard is "possibly or arguably" the best team in the league this year.

Objectively, I can't see it. Like the 2009-10 Cornell team, Harvard lost five guys out of its nine-man championship rotation. The Crimson have noone in their current rotation over 6-7 and, considering how Smith has been playing, they have only 6.5 able guys when an eight-man rotation is generally needed to secure a title.

Princeton, OTOH, returns five solid performers from last year's team that won eight of its last nine league games. They have added a healthy Will Barrett, playing at an upgraded level over the graduated Patrick Saunders. Clay Wilson and Chris Clement are doing a credible job of filling the void created by the graduation of Douglas Davis.
Sure, TJ Bray is recovering from surgery and Mack Darrow has been sub-par so far, but you have to believe they will be their old selves for the league season unless something really goes awry. Furthermore, the Tigers have five guys of 6-8 or more in their rotation. And, they get out of the gate this year with five straight league home games.

Sure, both teams have losing OOC records so far, but the level of competition is somewhat similar.

I'm wondering what you're seeing in the Crimson that I am missing. The Tigers seem to have the inside track, not in blow-out fashion, but I can see space between Princeton and the next-best team, and it might not even be Harvard.