Princeton's fundamental problem is talent

Penn guard Don Moxley, who has been called erratic so many times you would think that is his first name, did score a career-high 19 points, 17 of which came in the second half, to lead Penn to victory. The Quakers surely needed Moxley's 19 points to overcome their 18 missed free throws, a facet of the game that, to be gentle, needs work. With the Quakers' two stars, Ira Bowman and Tim Krug, only contributing 22 points combined, Moxley's work was certainly appreciated. The Tigers had a great chance to knock the Quakers' off, and end Penn's embarrassing -- for the rest of the league, that is -- 43-game winning streak. But at the end, Princeton, like it has done for the last three years, came up short. It did not matter that all five of Penn's starters had graduated, while all five starters of the Tigers had returned; that the time keeper was awfully friendly to Princeton in the final few minutes; that Penn, coming into the game sporting a 1-5 record, has had a shaky start. The Tigers can not beat Penn, and it is not because they do not play smart, disciplined basketball nor is it that they do not have heart. Indeed, Princeton -- playing in front of the rare (and somewhat raucous for Princetonians) packed crowd at Jadwin Gym -- seemed to want to win this game more than the Quakers. They had a 32-26 rebounding edge and, more significantly, turned a 55-44 laugher with 50 seconds remaining into a two-point squeaker -- making the final score a very respectable, if somewhat misleading, 57-55. So what is wrong with the Tigers and why has has Penn beaten Princeton to the prize in recent years? After all, Princeton had been a dominant team just a few years back, capturing the Ivy titles from 1989 to 1992. The 1989 Tigers came within one point of knocking off No. 1 Georgetown in the NCAA tournament. Two years later, Princeton went undefeated in Ivy play and garnered a No. 17 national ranking. Carril received much of the credit for the success. Specifically, it was his innovative offensive strategy -- first, lull the opponent asleep, then hit the open three-pointer -- that was lauded. And Carril is definitely a good coach if not "quite possibly the best college basketball coach in the country" as the hyperbolic Princeton media guide claims. But the reason for Carril's success is quite simply he had good players. The 1989 team had sophomore Kit Mueller and senior Bob Scrabis, second and fifth on the all-time Princeton scoring list, respectively, running the show. In 1991, Mueller, as a senior, averaged 14.3 points a game, shot a sparkling 60 percent from the field and 45 percent from behind the three-point arc. Said Carril at the time: "God blessed me the day that kid walked in my life." Unfortunately for Carril, his recent prayers have not been answered as kindly. Currently, the Tigers' best player is the silky-smooth guard, Sydney Johnson. But for all of Johnson's talents, his career numbers -- 10.7 points and 3.7 assists per game -- indicate he would be ideal for a supporting role, not a starring one. Brian Earl, a highly-promising freshman, may be the answer in a few years. But he is not ready to take over the role as team leader as his performance against Penn -- eight points and no assists -- indicates. The rest of the team is made up of players who hustle and shoot the three, but do not do much else. The reason the Tigers can not beat a struggling, inexperienced Penn team that can not hit its foul shots is that the Tigers simply have mediocre talent, even in Ivy League terms. None of Carril's X-and-O wizardry can work on players who can not execute the master plan. Penn may no longer have a superstar player the likes of Jerome Allen and Matt Maloney. But Princeton does not have a Bowman or Krug so it does not matter much. The Tigers and Carril are learning the hard way: You need the horses to win.