Mano-A-Mano: The Return of M. Hoops

• TWEET
• SHARE
• SHARE

Even though we tried our best, we knew we wouldn't be able to cover Team Philly every week. But alas, the Penn preseason is upon us, so we can now talk Ivy League hoops. The Quakers are coming off a 7-7 Ivy campaign last year that could have been markedly better had they been able to close out those heartbreaking OT games (3 losses in a row to Harvard, Princeton and Cornell). And though they have lost one of their rocks in Jack Eggleston, the Quakers have added a talented group of freshmen and will have a bevy of talent in the backcourt. With that said...

Question: What should the expectations be for the 2011-12 Quakers?

Brian Kotloff: It's easy to say that expectations should always be "title or bust" for this storied program. But college basketball rebuilding efforts aren't that simple — and yes, the Quakers are still rebuilding and recovering from a setback known as the Glen Miller hiring. Remember, this freshman class is the first recruited solely by Jerome Allen, since last year's class included some Miller leftovers. As AD Steve Bilsky told us last month, we still don't know what a "Jerome Allen team" looks and plays like. That's my first expectation for this season: I expect these players to really gel as a group and become a more cohesive, finely-tuned unit.

The results everyone really cares about, of course, lie in the standings. And when I consider where Penn should finish this season, I think back to the comparison Bilsky made last year between Allen and then-Princeton coach Sydney Johnson. Historically, the programs have been remarkably similar (title count: Tigers 26, Quakers 25) and I believe that trend will continue. The numbers are eerily similar -- Johnson turned around the Tigers from 6-23 in '07-'08 to 13-14 in '08-09 to 22-9 in '09-'10, while Allen's team jumped from 6-22 in '09-'10 to 13-15 last season. It would only make sense, then, if Penn finished in second place in '11-'12 with somewhere around an 11-3 Ivy record. In other words, I expect them to continue to follow the natural progression back to the top of the league, but not reach the summit quite yet. Let's just hope Jerome doesn't follow Sydney's path too literally.

Kevin Esteves: I'm with you that this year we'll get a better sense of what a Jerome Allen team looks like. Though this team will be young, I think the culture has changed to a more positive, winning one. The Quakers won't be coming off a 6-22 this time around and the guys got a small taste last year of contending (even if that taste was abruptly soured by the trio of overtime losses).

As far as where I see them landing, the Princeton comparison seems appropriate, but I just wouldn't look too much into that. It seems like in the past two years or so, the Ivy League has really become a different animal. The level of competition has been raised and each of the Ivy teams are loading up on talent for years to come. It's easy to say Harvard will dominate and take the league handily, given that it returns all its players and a stud group of freshmen. But all it takes is a solid 40-minute effort from any of the Ancient Eight squads to upset one of the big dogs. I'd be really surprised to see Harvard, or any team for that matter, go undefeated. Any time that's the case, the door is opened that much wider, so I do think Penn has a chance to be right up there in in the top 3. If the Quakers can find steady, serviceable production down low, they'll be one of the more dangerous teams in the league.

BK: The problem with that logic is that Penn didn't put together too many "solid 40-minute efforts" last season and lost its most "steady, serviceable" big man (apparently he's made a career switch to become an international blogging sensation). We've only really seen the Quakers run on all cylinders once (see: Ranked and Spanked). But so often in '10-'11, they'd click for 5, 10, or 20 minutes at a time and flash their potential, only to fall apart during the final push (see: like every game last season). I think they need to prove that they can perform for the full 40 minutes before we can count them as true title contenders. Otherwise, I could see them beating Harvard or Princeton, yet losing to a lesser Ivy team.

You mentioned the need to find production down low, but where do you think that production will come from? In general, what do you expect from this team on an individual level -- who will break out, who will take a step back, etc.?

KE: Valid points. I am not overlooking the fact that Penn lost Eggleston — Cap'n Jack was much more than serviceable. But the way the roster seems to shape up now, the strength of the backcourt will be what drives this team.  Sure, it would be nice to have a guy who could put up about 12 and 8 down low and match up with Harvard's behemoths, but that steady production I was talking about will more likely come by committee, a possibility Coach Allen mentioned in this ESPN season preview. Senior Mike Howlett, sophomores Fran Dougherty and Cam Gunter and even freshman Greg Louis can all conceivably give that.

But again, I think the potency of the backcourt will make this team what it is. I expect to see Miles Cartwright continue his development and become a more viable three-point threat (he shot 34.7% last year). That will make him that much more dangerous, as he's already arguably the best penetrator and finisher on the team. And I think we'll see an improved Rosen as well. Though he became more of a distributor last year, he had an off-year in terms of shooting the rock. I think his FT% will jump back up to the mid-80s (79% last year) and he'll be more effective balancing when to attack offensively and when to set up his teammates.  Also, it's now or never for this guy. He saw through his buddy Jack what it looks like to go four years without a title. I think we'll see some games where Rosen just plays out of his mind.

BK: Can't disagree with you there — this is Zack's year. We've seen him enter The Zone a few times before, but with the added element of desperation, you're right, we could see some truly special, unconscious performances. I'm very excited to see what he has in store this year — I think after three years of training, he will reach another level as a point guard when it comes to going with the flow of the game.

As for the complementary pieces, I'm hopping on the Belcore bandwagon. Who knows where his jump shot disappeared to the past two years, but as with Zack, I see senior-year light bulbs going off in Rob's head. I believe he will surprise us with a revamped offensive game to supplement his invaluable defensive and intangible contributions. After all, he did shoot 43 percent from deep as a freshman and was once described as having "J.J. Redick-like shooting range."

To me, all of the big men are question marks. Of course Dougherty and Gunter have potential, but I don't envision them taking any huge steps forward. They'll certainly be quality rotation guys. Howlett holds the key to the front court and possibly the entire team, as he gives the team a physical presence inside that no one else can provide (I'd bet that his plus/minus numbers were off the charts). However, I still have doubts in his ability to remain healthy for an entire season. So my bold, completely speculative prediction is that the Quakers play a lot of 'small ball' with slender freshmen Greg Louis (6'7) and Henry Brooks (6'8) inside and 5'11 freshman Patrick Lucas-Perry making a splash in a three-guard lineup. You've got to work with what you have, and I think Jerome will simply give his five best guys the most minutes, regardless of position.