Mano-A-Mano: Volume II

We received some positive feedback on our first installment of Mano-A-Mano, so we're going to give the people what they want: Volume II.

This week, sports editors Brian Kotloff and Kevin Esteves debate whether Penn can defeat St. Joe's Friday night and snap the Red and Blue's 16-game Big 5 losing streak.

Brian Kotloff: All the cards are lined up for Penn to finally end its Big 5 losing streak Saturday night against St. Joe’s, right? Struggling team (by all accounts, the Hawks are a mess right now), home game, Eggleston’s last shot at a city win (he’s 0-15 after Wednesday’s loss to Temple), etc. And the truth is, the Quakers have represented themselves well this year in their first three contests, at least by recent standards. My take? Think again. An 0-5 start to the Atlantic-10 season is terrible, but the A-10 is several notches above the Ivy League. St. Joe’s has still defeated the Big East’s Rutgers and played Penn State, Villanova, Minnesota, GW, Dayton and Rhode Island fairly close. I doubt Penn would be able to do the same.

Kevin Esteves: That's all well and good. However, without really getting into statistics and strength of schedule and all that, I honestly am going to go with my gut on this one and say that Penn will snap the streak. This is a huge game for Eggleston and the seniors, and I predict the Quakers are going to come out with much more intensity than St. Joe's. They just have to. You can see how much this losing streak weighs on Rosen and Eggleston in their post game press conferences, and I think that is going to fuel them. You might ask then, why weren't they able to beat La Salle if the disappointment was present then as well? My response: because now really is the final chance for Eggleston and the seniors (except for Darren Smith and Andreas Schreiber) to win a Big 5 game and perhaps just as importantly, a struggling St. Joe's team is a much more favorable matchup for the Quakers than the Wildcats, Owls, or Explorers were.

BK: Trust me, I'm a huge believer in Allen, Rosen and Eggleston as people. But just because I respect the hell out of them and their attitudes toward turning the program around doesn't mean I buy their message. I see them back up the talk with hustle on the court, but the talent is just not their to execute at the level they would like. I think the number one thing we can take from the Temple game is the huge depth disparity between the teams. The Quakers played four guys off the bench and got two total points from them. Temple got 27 just from Khalif Wyatt. Like the Owls, the Hawks recruit much more talented players than Penn. When the teams face off, a number of St. Joe's players have a chance at having a big night, while Penn needs to be carried by Rosen and Eggleston. That's why I think the losing streak has continued on for so long.

KE: Your points about the talent and depth disparity are all well taken, but I'd like to single out one thing you said: "I see them back up the talk with hustle on the court, but the talent is just not their to execute at the level they would like." I agree with that statement, but I would add a key word to the end of your quote: "consistently." Sure, in a seven-game series, superior talent and depth will be hard to overcome on a consistent basis. But we're talking about one game here. This is college basketball where a team like Cornell can advance to the Sweet 16. The point is, on any given night, hard work and effort can beat superior talent (and St. Joe's isn't exactly Duke right now). Coach Allen's mantra throughout his tenure is that his main focus is putting his players in a position to win. I think he does exactly that tonight. These guys will be prepared, they'll run their motion offensive sets, and they're going to come out hungry. I think we'll also see a more aggressive Zack Rosen. He can't take four shots if Penn wants a chance to win.

BK: You're talking about a team that can't even stay consistent for 40 minutes, let alone multiple games. Penn just goes through too many cold spells and makes too many careless mistakes each game to overcome that talent and depth disparity. And don't believe for a second Phil Martelli's team won't match the Quakers' "hard work" and "effort." St. Joe's is a young team with a bunch of guys still fighting to prove themselves and get back to the program's winning ways, just as Rosen and Eggleston are. Young players tend to have high energy levels and in the Hawks' case, they are just as likely to be extra motivated for the game - with so many local kids, they understand the significance of the opportunity to play in the Palestra. Carl Jones and Langston Galloway, St. Joe's two best players who can both fill it up, may not be from the area, but they allow the Hawks to match up with the Quakers' strong backcourt.

KE: I do have concerns about Jones (he poured in 16 points off the bench in last year's matchup) especially because this Penn team has struggled to slow down high-scoring guards (Delaware's Jawan Carter and Drexel's Chris Fouch, to name a few), but I'll tell you this: if Bernardini can keep his recent scoring streak going (four straight games with at least 17 points) and if Miles Cartwright can break out of his shooting funk, this will not have to be a colossal two-man effort by Rosen and Eggleston. If those two things happen, and Rosen turns it up offensively, that may just be enough. And while St. Joe's may be able to come out, hustle, and work hard just like the Quakers, Penn has to win this game more than St. Joe's does. Having a chip on your shoulder can greatly enhance the way you play sometimes. St. Joe's doesn't have that chip (or at least that same-sized chip) on its shoulder, and that will be the difference. If it's not, and Penn comes out lackadaisical, turning the ball over, then I have serious concerns about this team. You have to iron out all the inconsistencies (free throws anybody?) when your back is up against the wall. This will be a really good litmus test for see what this team's made of. And if it results in a win, that's a huge victory. Am I right?

BK: If you're saying Penn's chances come down to the still-rehabbing Bernardini and the freshman, Cartwright, you may as well chalk that argument up for my side. Onto your question, though: regardless of whether you think Penn will win, I would argue that a victory would be an anticlimactic conclusion to the losing streak. I've always imagined the drought ending with a triumphant upset over a more talented but less hard-working team after a classic Big 5 battle (the streamers flying from the stands would only add to the Hollywood atmosphere). But if the Quakers win Saturday, it will be more about taking advantage of a city rival's down year than about rising to the occasion. The victory would be big, of course, because it would take a massive monkey off of the program's back. That doesn't mean it'd be impressive.

KE: Once again, this isn't to say that Bernardini and Cartwright are going to have to dominate offensively for Penn to win. But 10-15 points apiece? I don't feel that is unrealistic to expect. Bernardini's got the confidence going and Cartwright's too talented to stay in his funk for this long. But to get back to your point about the potential "bigness" of a Big 5 win, I believe it would be infinitely more satisfying for the players than the fans. Sure, as a fan, you'd like to see a huge upset, but a win's a win. And from a mental standpoint, a victory here would get guys like Eggleston in a much better mindset heading into the Ivy season.

BK: One things for sure, though: one of us will look stupid come Saturday night. Going Mano-A-Mano was much easier knowing we couldn't be publicly embarrassed until giving Aaric Murray a few years in the NBA.