Yesterday, my colleague Neil Fanaroff asked what we have learned about the men’s basketball team after a season-opening 70-55 loss at Penn State and a blowout 103-65 loss at Villanova — and he concluded that we haven’t learned all that much.
In terms of Penn’s competitiveness in the Ivy League, that may be true, although I certainly haven’t seen anything in the last week to suggest that Penn can overtake Cornell for the Ivy crown.
But regardless of what the Ancient Eight season holds in store, I would argue that we have indeed learned an uncomfortable truth. The talent gap between Penn’s program and those in the big-money conferences may be larger than ever before, and I see no reason to expect that gap to narrow in the immediate future.
There is already evidence that the team has conceded this very point. Before the season opener, junior forward Jack Eggleston said that as a Big Ten school, Penn State isn’t really a rival “because it’s two totally different levels,” and Monday night Penn coach Glen Miller bristled at the suggestion that the loss to the Nittany Lions was “disappointing.”
Some fans might find that kind of attitude self-defeating, especially since history indicates that Eggleston and Miller have it backwards — the Quakers still hold an all-time 31-14 series record over the Nittany Lions.
Or maybe they are willing to accept that the competitive balance has changed, and those with higher expectations are in denial. If that’s true, Penn’s long-term competitiveness in the Big 5 could be at stake.
The challenge Penn faces in recruiting impact players shouldn’t be much of a mystery, especially considering Penn’s pre-professional attitude. The fact is, basketball players at power conference schools, even those with middling histories like Penn State, gain a distinct resume advantage if they plan on pursuing a career in professional basketball.
At the very least, these schools offer more media exposure and ample game tape against the nation’s highest-caliber opponents, not to mention full scholarships. As basketball has exploded in international popularity, and as the demand for professional players has subsequently risen, that difference has been made all the more vital.
Asking a star recruit like Penn State’s Talor Battle or Villanova’s Scottie Reynolds to choose Penn would be like asking a prospective investment banker to forgo a full ride to Wharton and instead pay his or her own way at one of those schools.
I’m not suggesting that returning the program to its former glory is a hopeless cause, or even that a 38-point blowout should be rationalized or considered acceptable, no matter how great Villanova is this year.
Penn won the Big 5 as recently as 2001-02 — when a strong Quakers team coincided with down years and scandals at the other schools — and the fortunes of college programs have an inherently cyclical quality. That year was recent enough that Villanova freshman and Philadelphia product Maalik Wayns cited the history of the Big 5 as a motivating factor in Monday’s game.
With some combination of adjustments by the coaching staff, a moderate dose of luck, and a little help from the administration, Penn could find itself back on top.
I just hope that in 30 years, the thought of Penn as a Big 5 contender won’t be relegated to the same status as the Quakers’ trip to the Final Four in 1979 — as a fond but fading memory.
Ari Seifter is a junior computer and information science major from Ellicott City, Md., and is former Associate Sports Editor of The Daily Pennsylvanian. He can be contacted at dpsports@dailypennsylvanian.com.
Comments
Big 5 is only a fading memory
Realistically speaking, Penn has not been a factor in the Big 5 since the '70's. Winning the 2001-2 Big 5 bragging right was an accident of history that is not likely to be repeated anytime soon. With the 5 teams of the Big 5 going in different directions, and the Big 5 won-loss record with no bearing on Big Dance eligibility, the Big 5 has no relevance to the real world of NCAA basketball except to sentimental Philadelphians stuck in a by-gone era.
Penn's only focus should be on Ivy games, as Villanova should focus on Big East games and Temple on A-10 games, etc. Let the Big 5 rest in peace...
Bigkahuna
I think the Big 5 still is relevant in some respects
Thanks for the comment.
Big 5 play may have no bearing on Big Dance eligibility for Penn, which has basically no chance at ever being an at-large bid, but I'd argue that they matter as much as any other non-conference games to the other schools. Plus, I think the Big 5 is certainly relevant in that it guarantees home matchups against high quality opponents, which is definitely a recruiting tool. Surrendering Penn's place in the Big 5 would be the ultimate white flag, essentially acquiescing relevancy outside of the Ivy League. That may be what you think should happen, but I'm not so sure that others would agree.
What Am I Missing?
Ari & Big K -
With all due respect, at the moment I'd be more concerned about remaining relevant in the Ivy League. Are you factoring Cornell, Princeton & Harvard results of past few days?
EN
Of course Ivy play is most important...
and that is what Neil was focusing on in his column yesterday. I just think there are some larger competitive issues at play outside the conference that people should be worried about over the long haul. Or maybe fans don't care as much about out-of-conference games as I thought, which is a certainly reasonable opinion. I don't think Penn will beat Cornell this year, but I think over the long haul Penn can easily get back on top within the league.
Ivy & Big 5 Importance
Ari -
Both Big 5 & Ivy League are important elements that make Penn BB "Penn BB". The point I was trying to make was, why the energy expenditure debating Big 5 relevance, when Penn BB is losing its Ivy relevance. On what do you base your, "...but I think over the long haul Penn can easily get back on top within the league."?
For credibility, please share your vision, so we too can hope and enjoy fact based optimism. In addition to Cornell and a resurgent Princeton, my vision includes a determined Harvard to do whatever it takes, including Amaker recruiting adventurism, to be an annual competitor for the Ivy title. Yale and Columbia aren't standing still either.
EN
My vision
Basically I think the Ivy League teams are all facing similar challenges, and while a school like Harvard might be able to put more money into the team and provide better financial aid, I'd expect all of the schools to stay in the same baseline stratosphere (as opposed to the bigger conferences that have advantages orders of magnitudes above Ivy programs).
I think right now Cornell is in an up-cycle and Penn is in a down-cycle, but I think Penn has more selling points, which should make its competitiveness higher at "equilibrium," per se. The Palestra, the Big 5 history (and the strong opponents it provides), and the city location should all be better draws than what Cornell has to offer.
Amaker seems to only be at Harvard as a last-ditch effort to revive his career, so I don't think he will bring sustainable gains. If he actually starts winning, which he hasn't yet, then he will leapfrog to a bigger basketball school as soon as he can.
Princeton could return to its former glory, but that wouldn't be anything new as Penn and Princeton have historically battled for the top spot.
All of this is of course contingent on the relative commitments of Ivy League administrations. If a school like Harvard decides to go crazy and funnel money into the basketball program -- and Penn decides not to follow suit -- then the balance will change. Based on the general missions of Ivy League schools, I just don't think a long-term Athletic Department arms race is going to happen. If that's the case, I think Penn should be at or near the top of the League in baseline drawing power for recruits.
Maybe "easily" was a bit strong, but it isn't particularly difficult to envision.
Giving Bilsky & Miller a Pass?
The assertion that Penn cannot compete outside the Ivies may be true TODAY but it is by no means is an indication that it can not in the future. Penns basketball decline is a direct and tragic result of the egotism of Steve Bilsky and the ineptness of Coach Miller.
Bilsky could not stand the success and popularity of Fran Dunphy. He deluded himself into thinking that Penn's success under Dunphy was not due to Dunphy recruiting and coaching abilities but rather to the competitive advantage that Penn's basketball tradition and history provided him in recruiting. Bilsky was undeniably wrong!
Penn has has the good fortune of having a series of excellent basketball coaches, going back to Dick Harden, Bob Wienhauer and most recently Fran Dunphy. Just last night Dunphy's team was two missed foul shots away from defeating Georgetown. When Bilsky offered Fran an insulting contract, after Fran had turned down a job at his alma mater, Bilsky made a tragic mistake. He compounded that mistake by hiring Miller, a relative flash in the pan, who had experienced recent success based on one or at most two good recruiting classes. As a coach and as a recruiter Miller is not qualified to hold Dunphy's jockstrap.
Bilsky's ego has unilaterally brought Penn from the glory days he experienced as a player to the depths of mediocrity we saw against Nova.
Saturday Night Will Tell Us A Lot....
In the 70s, we would hear the "old guard" talk about the 40s and the early 50s, when Penn was a national football power.It seemed like quaint history. I'm sure current undergrads feel the same way, when they hear about Penn basketball in the Final Four, and with Top Ten rankings.
Nonetheless,it is one thing to say that the team can't be competitive with a top 5 Villanova team, and something entirely different to suggest that the team can only compete in the Ivies. Saturday night's oppponent ( Delaware) is expected to be in the bottom third of its conference. Another non-competitve ( more then 10 points) loss would be a severe indictment of the current coaching staff.
Another Seventies Grad
Another Seventies, I do not
Another Seventies,
I do not suspect we will ever likely return to the glory days of the 70s. There is no reason, however, why we cannot return to the competitive and excellent level of basketball Penn played in first half of this decade under Fran Dunphy.
Football is a completely different animal given the huge dollars required to fund a major college football power. The formation of the Ivy League was the death knell of Penn's football power days. Tradition carried us for a few years but then reality caught up.
Penn's Basketball Future
Penn's basketball future is in the hands of Steve Bilsky which troubles me greatly. Moreover, it will not improve materially under Coach Miller.
A change is needed, from the top down.
Other posters aptly note that the landscape of college basketball has changed. There are more opportunities for players to play professionally given the expansion of basketball in foreign markets. The fact that Penn has several relatively recent players who have estblished professional careers in Europe, i.e., Zoller, Jabber and Onykwe should provide an effective recruiting tool.
Likewise, Penn's involvement in the Big 5 provides recruits seeking to play professionally an opportunity to get exposure and experience playing agaist quality non Ivy competition. With the addition of a one or two additional quality out of conference games and the overall improved competitiveness of the Ivies recruiting quality recruits is very possible.
The recent success of Cornell formerly an Ivy door mat is evidence that the critical success factor is a coach who is an effective recruiter,teacher and motivator. Another factor is the support of the university's administration. Sadly, both elements are missing at Penn today.
St Francis - Another Point of View
70s Grad -
I take a back seat to no one in my critique of AD Bilsky et al at Weightman Hall, but I have to offer the other side of your case on this one. Shortly after Steve Donahue left for Cornell, I began to notice previous recruiting "gets" were now being lost. Too late, I heard him described as Penn's primary recruiter, did I connect those two points.
Fran Dunphy left after at least two fallow recruiting classes, and an equally fair conclusion can be that he was smart enough to read the handwriting, and got out while still on top. I'll give AD Bilsky a pass on Dunphy. When Coach Miller arrived, other than the incredible Senior class, the stable was bare.
In filling the opening AD Bilsky went against many well-informed warnings (alas, not mine), and selected Coach Miller. True confession: I thought based on his record of turning Brown into competitive over-achievers, with the Penn program's resources he'd have Penn competing with the big guys. I failed to realize this logic was akin to speculating Israel's legendary one-eyed General Moshe Dyan would have been even greater with two eyes.
Mea Culpa! I'm not the AD, but Steve Bilsky is. And that's where the responsibility lies and questions directed re the current state of Penn BB. Especially Penn BB!
EN
Penn's Basketball Future
EN,
I do not disagree entirely. Every good basketball program depends more heavily than many understand on the effectiveness of the Assistant Coaches as recruiters. Donahue did and still does an excellent job. Its an important part of the Head Coach's job to stay in the mix but as importantly to train and recruit capable assistants to replace others. Very good assistant coaches have to be viewed as fairly short term employees on their way to a head coaching job. Consider what Jay Wright has had to contend with loosing one top assistant after another. The legacy of a great coach is developing and replacing great assistants who go on to be succesfull head coaches. Fran did that with Donahue. Replacing great assistants in the Ivies is not easy. Assistants would prefer not having to recruit subject to the admissions/scholly constraints posed by Ivy schools.
I am confident that Fran would have straightened the situation out had he stayed. He sure has done a respectable recruiting job at Temple. I know from very reliable sources that Fran wanted to stay and that the reason he left was his dislike for Bilsky. The insulting contract offer that Bilsky made to Fran was the last straw.
I'm Sorry
Any university that strives to be ranked #1 in the US News academic rankings should strive to be #1 in the AP basketball rankings. You want higher average SAT scores? Start winning basketball games and get more national attention.
Those who forget their history....
This exact same article could have been written in 1988 during the glory years of Coach Schneider (and post the glory that was Coach Littlepage)...then, only 9 years removed from a final 4, we had slipped to the point where we were consistently getting blown out in Big 5 games, losing home Ivy games regularly and being told that it was because the $16K/yr tuition was too onerous to allow decent recruiting. When we get a more effective coach, a supportive AD, and a President that sets a tone (like Judy Rodin did), a better team will return to the Palestra just as it has before.
If Navy can beat Notre Dame in football...
...clearly Penn can be competitive in any game.
I've said it before, Coach Miller has accomplished what no other Ivy League institution could do for more than a generation: make Penn Basketball irrelevant.
Does anyone know when Miller's contract expires? Is there recent precedent for "firing" rather than "not rehiring" at Penn? One might say my desire for a new coach (and AD) may be premature—after all, we are only two games into the season--but really, this has been several years in the making.
That scoundrel of a man Bill Bradley (Princeton '64) once remarked that the most important question is politics is "compared to whom?" And that leads to my last question. If Miller is bad, who would be a better fit? Would Donohue actually come back? Bill Lange? Someone else? Who are potential candidates?