Mano-A-Mano: The End of the Streak

• TWEET
• SHARE
• SHARE

Saturday's Snow Bowl of sorts against Brown saw the end of Penn football's 18-game Ivy winning streak, which dated back to Nov. 15, 2008, as Penn lost by a putrid count of 6-0. Now, the Quakers' quest for a third straight Ivy title hangs in the balance, with still-undefeated Harvard now solely atop the League. A 6-0 loss is a 6-0 loss, but was the result mostly due to the weather, as our esteemed columnist Ethan Alter argues? Let's tango.

Question 1: Was Saturday's volatile weather to blame for Penn's loss?

Brian Kotloff: I thought Ethan brought up some important points in his column, but I have to disagree a bit. He called the Quakers the more "athletic" team and as a result, said they were more affected by the awful playing conditions. I actually think the rain and mud should've helped Penn more than Brown. After all, the Bears have the air-it-out offense, led by QB Kyle Newhall-Cabellero, while the Quakers have the old-school, pound-it-down-your-throats mentality. And what says old-school football more than a battle in the mud? It's true that the elements can act as "the equalizer," neutralizing one team's physical advantages over the other. But outside of Billy Ragone's juke-and-cut scrambling, Penn actually runs a pretty vanilla brand of offense. Theoretically (and historically based on other rainy/snowy games I've seen), the Quakers should have been able to let power backs Brandon Colavita and Jeff Jack go to work all day, while defense should have been easier with Newhall-Cabellero and his quick receivers struggling in the rain. The passing game was the Bears' biggest advantage heading into the game, considering how much Penn's young secondary has struggled this season. Give Brown credit for adjusting and beating the two-time champs at their own game.

Kevin Esteves: Well, Brown didn't exactly beat Penn at its own game — the Quakers rushed for 119 yards to the Bears' 53 — but your point remains a valid one. If the weather were nice and sunny, I don't think we'd see a 6-0 game, but at the same time, I wouldn't necessarily say Penn would win, anyway. Despite the team's admirable, late-game comebacks against Dartmouth, Columbia and Yale, the blood has been in the water for this team a little bit. The Quakers, and coach Al Bagnoli has acknowledged this, still have some issues they have to address, including their pass defense (Brown still managed 140 yards in the air despite the elements). And like you said, let's give Brown some credit. The Bears weren't some vastly outmatched team. They have the number one defense in the league in terms of touchdown and points allowed per game and they take care of the ball (2nd in the League in turnover margin), something Penn has struggled with recently.

Moving onto another controversial column...

Question 2: With the streak over, has a weight really been lifted from the Quakers?

BK: Here I go again, disagreeing with another one of our hard-working football beats (thanks for braving the ugly weather, ugly game, and 10+ hours of driving, guys!). But even though Bagnoli will (and should) try to spin it to his players that way, I just don't buy into the notion that suddenly there will be less pressure on Penn. As disappointing as it was to see the streak come to an end, there shouldn't be a feeling of finality to this loss. There are three weeks left in the Ivy League football season, and the team is right in the thick of the race -- the Quakers control their own destiny, in fact. They are still the two-time defending champs and a historic powerhouse, and they still have a target on on their backs as a result. I would also argue that while this group spoiled its chance to complete an unprecedented run, it still has a shot at a huge piece of history. Only two other Ivy teams have won three straight titles: Dartmouth in the '70s and Penn in the '80s. So this team still has a ton to play for and will be under immense pressure to perform.

KE: I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. No team can go on a streak like that and not feel the pressure, no matter what anyone says. So that pressure is taken off and it can't be as much as what they had to deal with before (which was to win and keep the streak alive). There is a new pressure that will be applied though, and that is to take care of Princeton and then take out Harvard. You could argue that pressure is huge as well considering a single loss slashes title hopes, but the Quakers can counter that added pressure by having a newfound motivation. A team that loses 6-0 does not need a pre-game speech the following week, or two. Assuming the Quakers take care of Princeton, they just need to have one thing on their minds: beat Harvard.