Friday, November 16, 2012

Sports Network Previews/Predicts Cornell vs. St. Peter's

Get all the information you need about the Cornell Big Red's game vs. St. Peter's on Friday, November 16, 8 pm, with The Cornell Basketball Blog's Game Preview Center.  Below, the Sports Network's preview...  



DATE & TIME: Friday, November 16, 8 p.m. (et)

FACTS & STATS: Site: Newman Arena (4,473) -- Ithaca, New York. Television: None. Home Record: Saint Peter's 1-0, Cornell 1-1. Away Record: Saint Peter's 1-0, Cornell 0-0. Neutral Record: Saint Peter's 0-0, Cornell 0-0. Conference Record: Saint Peter's 0-0, Cornell 0-0.

GAME NOTES: The Saint Peter's Peacocks will try to stay perfect on the young season, as they take on the Cornell Big Red on Friday night at Newman Arena in Ithaca, New York.

Saint Peter's, which plays its basketball out of the Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference, is 2-0 after logging narrow wins over Rutgers (56-52) and Central Connecticut State (64-61). The Peacocks are kicking off a three-game road trip with this contest, and then they'll play six straight at home, which includes their MAAC opener versus Iona on Dec. 5.

Cornell is 1-1 here in the early part of the 2012-13 campaign, topping Western Michigan (63-55) in the opener before falling to St. Bonaventure (72-68) four days later. This bout marks the third straight at home for the Big Red, which will play its next four on the road, starting with Sunday's visit to Big Ten Conference foe Wisconsin. Cornell opens Ivy League play at home against Columbia on Jan. 19, 2013.

Desi Washington poured in 23 points and grabbed seven rebounds to lead Saint Peter's to its recent win over Central Connecticut State. Yvon Raymond added 16 points and seven boards as well for the Peacocks, who shot 48.2 percent from the field, which included a 4-of-7 showing from three-point land. CCSU managed just a 38.2 percent shooting effort, and it missed 14 of its 18 long- range tries. Both teams were rather careless with the basketball, combining for 36 turnovers, but a 39-27 edge in rebounding helped pave the way for SP to pick up its second win in as many games this season. Washington scored 18 points in the season opener against Rutgers.

Errick Peck came off the bench to score 17 points, serving as one of four double-digit scorers for Cornell, but the Big Red still wound up on the losing end a 72-68 final against St. Bonaventure on Wednesday night. Devin Cherry added 14 points in 19 minutes of action, while starters Johnathan Gray and Galal Cancer chipped in 11 points apiece for a Cornell team that shot just 40.4 percent from the field and committed 14 turnovers. Nolan Cressler led the Big Red in the season-opening win over Western Michigan, netting 20 points on 7-of-12 shooting, while Cancer and Peck tallied 10 points apiece. Cornell shot an identical 40.4 percent in that contest as well.

Cornell hasn't shown much in the way of consistency just yet, while Saint Peter's has demonstrated a little more cohesiveness. Expect the Big Red to pick up their share of wins this year, but for the Peacocks to strut their stuff tonight.

Sports Network Predicted Outcome: Saint Peter's 66, Cornell 62

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

There is NO WAY we should have lost this game. BC needs to work on running plays and not just running up the floor and playing hot potatoe offense. I am sure he has been around pretty good coaches and I understand his quest to have his own identity but even I know you MUST run plays for players.

I get it...you don't want to single out a player as the "star" okay. So, how about coming up with a play for all of the major players. I think this team has an abundance of talent with no offensive direction. We are too good to lose like this the last two games and if BC doesn't have a major epiphany between today and tomorrow I don't see a different outcome on Sunday.

I am excited about this team but I WANT TO WIN. Just having talent is NOT ENOUGH. Come on Bill, put the EGO in the closet.

Anonymous said...

We lost but I'm not in a bad mood. I was in a bad mood at the beginning, because we looked like a bad mid major that didn't take itself seriously and had no ambition; but I ended in an okay mood because Devin, Shonn, Galal, and Nolan take themselves seriously and are very talented. They made youthful mistakes at the end but they take themselves seriously and their heads are in the game, which is more than I can say for their seniors, whom we can never be sure are going to show up in any given game. The young players still have energy and hope and I'd rather watch them play for 40 minutes than watch others looking lackadaisical.

Anonymous said...

Well, we can debate about this team all night long, but one thing is clear: We're gonna get trounced by Wisconsin. I think a 20 point spread sounds about right. We've only beaten one very bad team and lost to two other teams that aren't anywhere near as good as the badgers.

This is gonna be a rough stretch.

Anonymous said...

Some coaches are not great x- and o- coaches. They can become good x- and o- coaches over time though.

There was no evidence, when Courtney was hired, that he was a good x- and o- coach. Andy Noel simply asked us to take his word for it.

It is now clear as the team looks un-fluid and messy on the court that Bill Courtney is absolutely not a good x- and o- coach.

Sometimes, like with Donahue, it takes years for a coach to become a good x- and o- coach.

Sometimes, as we often see with Princeton early in a coach's career (2009 & 2010, 2012), the team looks like a bad high school team early in the season but markedly improves over the course of the season and are in good shape by league play. In such cases, the coach really is a good coach but the players are in the process of learning his system.

In some cases, as with Agel or Glen Miller, it has been four years and the team still looks amateur. In such cases the coach is probably just not a good coach, and is fired.

With Courtney, for the past two years, we often see the start of league play come and go without even being certain that he's decided on a rotation. This year, with a more athletic roster, maybe what we are seeing right now is the team trying to learn his system. Maybe not, and he is, like Donahue, going to take years to get good. We don't know yet. We hope he eventually becomes good. Opinions vary on how long he should be given.

Call us "bad fans" if you want. Through-out history, there have been people who believe that the way to be faithful is to deny the existence of problems and explain away seeming problems as purposeful or non-existent. They view admitting flaws as being traitors. There are people who cleave to this philosophy, and they are who they are.

Anonymous said...

Guys,

The even worse news is Cornell IS FAITHFULLY running their offense.It's a dribble-drive offense in which all shots come off the dribble on sliding screens by the big guys. In other words, no one on the team, including the big guys, ever receives the ball in a catch and shoot position. They are expected to dribble to get open to shoot. This is a good offense for someone like Syracuse with pros-in-waiting who can execute it. It's a horrible offense for an Ivy League team.

The rest of the bad news is the very thing that is supposed to be so great - their "high-energy" awesome defense - is being executed incredibly poorly. They are generating no more steals or blocks then they would if they ran a traditional half-court D, and they are out of position so often on the overplays that the other team gets easy buckets. Plus the freneticism and disorganization leads to really crappy sped-up offense once they do get the ball.

This coupled with the random, knee-jerk substitution pattern (supposedly to rest them from running around on defense), never lets players get comfortable enough to have effective offensive performances. Do we really need to play 12 guys? Trust me, they aren't that good.

BC's sideline demeanor is also awful. He is so intense, that it clouds his judgement, and makes the players too nervous about getting yelled at and yanked to develop any confidence on the floor.

I live on the west coast, so St. Bonnies was the first game I've seen in awhile, and it was an eye-opener.

Honestly the talent is not really that amazing. They are all hard-working guys who care so I don't want to be too hard on them, but from what I saw: The guards are essentially interchangeable and none can free himself from his man off the dribble (aka run the offense). Cancer could run an offense if they had a good one. Cherry is the only one with the balls (excuse me) tools to execute the current one. Some of them (I won't name anyone) can't guard, because they have zero lateral quickness (in other words they play in the Ivy League).

Errick Peck is actually 6'4" Who knew? and need I say more? He hustles though and can play the 3. Miller is the best athlete but is not involved in the offense, which is both his and BC's fault. At center, EC is actually decent (at maybe 6'8") and is just being used all wrong. Figini is very limited. The glimpse I caught of Harmon was not encouraging, and his height is extremely exaggerated also. He looked maybe 6'7". I like Cressler, but he needs off-ball screens run for him like Ray Allen (not currently in the Offense) or he can't score either. So I guess we can all hold out hope for Bunce. Can he dribble? Because there is no post-up offense.

Meanwhile I would be supremely surprised if Cornell finishes above 4th (ok maybe tied for 3rd) in the Ivy's during Courtney's (possibly brief) tenure.

Welcome to Cornell basketball - the way it used to be. I'm having a Ben Bluitt flashback.

Anonymous said...

Good point about Bill's ego. All he had to do was stay with the zone against Bona and Cornell wins by 6. Not his thing though, and he just had to go back to man-to-man.

That being said, Cornell just got beat my two teams that are indeed better than them - since the quality of the team is determined by both talent AND coaching.

Anonymous said...

Once they actually started posting MIller up in the second half, he went off. He was completely ineffective in the first half when he was loafing around the perimeter like in the first two games.

Cherry continues to show why he should have a starring role. Gray is completely MIA.

Anonymous said...

I think that Anonymous 11/17 6:35 AM (four posts above) put it aptly.

A fan can support any team, in any sport, and still be realistic and observing of its shortcomings without becoming traitorous or a "bad fan."

Being a "good fan" does not mean blindly repeating that all is well. What's the point in that?

Nobody wants to be too critical of college students in a non-scholarship environment who play hard and represent our university well. But on the other hand, this isn't elementary school field day where everybody is slated to receive a trophy for just showing up.