Scouting the Ivies: Cornell may be better team, but CU not far behind in individual talent

Two weeks ago I wrote a column titled “Basketball just needs a little swagger.” I tried to explain why the Columbia men’s basketball team was struggling, and I arrived at swagger as the answer.

When we published the column, I expected some backlash, particularly over the fact that I called out the team for being soft and hesitant. Instead, my column received some negative comments for a claim that I made at the beginning—that the Lions had talent comparable to the elite teams of the league. I argued, primarily through various statistics, that Columbia could keep up with Cornell and Harvard in terms of individual talent. The first comment that popped up under my column was this: “Lions just as good as a nationally ranked team. ... Can I get some of whatever you’re smoking?” Later comments correctly noted that you can’t judge talent by numbers alone. I admit that I could have done a better job of putting together the stats, but my claim was based primarily on my own observations. The stats were filler.

While watching Cornell and Harvard trounce Columbia here at Levien, I couldn’t help but think that while these teams were good, they weren’t THAT good. In other words, they played solid basketball, but in no way did I feel that our players were outclassed, beaten simply because we lacked the talent to keep up. However, those that posted the comments, primarily Cornell fans, disagreed. So I decided to find someone who is a better judge of talent than I am. Who could possibly have a better basketball eye than me? An NBA scout, of course.

The NBA scout I spoke to earlier this week has been covering the Ivy League for many years, and as a result, has a true understanding of Ivy basketball. I was told that I could not mention his name or the organization he works for, so for the sake of clarity I will refer to him as “The Scout.”

At first we discussed the level of talent in the Ivy League in general, to which The Scout commented, “I don’t think people in the country, especially in the last 10 or 15 years, give enough credit to how good basketball is in the Ivy League. It’s good basketball—the players are good players.” With that in mind, we turned to how these good players are distributed throughout the league.

“In the Ivy League, generally, there is not that big of a difference in talent level. Sure, there’s going to be some team that gets a couple of freshmen that comes in at a little higher level, and over the next three or four years, that team is going to do better. But after watching Ivy League basketball for several years, to say that there is a talent level distribution that’s obvious, I can’t make that comment,” The Scout said.

I have to admit, that statement made me smile. So maybe I was on to something. Maybe the Lions are, in fact, as talented as the rest of the Ivy League. But the argument could be made that while it’s normally true that the talent in the league is balanced, this year could be different, especially considering that Cornell has done better than any other Ivy men’s basketball team in recent memory. So what makes Cornell so good?

“This particular Cornell team is very similar to some of the past Penn teams that won a championship for maybe two years in a row,” The Scout said. “It’s a combination of a couple of guys that as juniors and seniors are a little bit more talented than most of the guys in the Ivy League, but it goes beyond that. … There’s a confidence factor. They were successful last year and most of them were back, and absolutely they play the game at a high level, which you have to give a lot of credit to the coaches—they are very well coached.”

Here is where The Scout gets to what I believe is the heart of the matter. Without a doubt, Cornell has some very talented players, particularly in Jeff Foote and Ryan Wittman. However, the Big Red’s success does not stem directly from the talent of those individuals. As The Scout correctly points out, they’re confident, they have experience playing together, and they’re extremely well coached. In short, Cornell has been very successful at putting together a cohesive and balanced team, as Big Red coach Steve Donahue points out.

“Each school looks for players with their right fit, and we have been able to do a nice job at Cornell finding the type of kids who can be successful in what we do,” he said.

The same is true of Harvard and Princeton. Those teams’ success comes from their ability to play well together and to execute as a unit. So where does that leave Columbia? The Scout pointed out in the interview that the Lions do all the right things, but that unfortunately, they are struggling with the final component.

“Columbia is what we call ‘non-finishers,’” The Scout said. “They do good things—they work the offense, they get somebody a pretty good shot. … But when they go in to complete and finish the play, on a play that they look like they should finish, there are too many times in the game where they don’t score.”

I attributed this inability to finish to a lack of mental toughness, which I explained with swagger. There are probably plenty of other explanations and funny words to go along with them, but the point is that something needs to change. The Light Blue has the pieces to be a successful team in the Ivy League. The issue is getting those pieces to perform as part of a team, which is where Cornell and Harvard have been so successful. Columbia can compete with the elite of the Ivy League—it just needs to take that final step.

Bart Lopez is a junior at Columbia College majoring in economics-mathematics.
sportseditors@columbiaspectator.com