Robin Harris
-This was the first game of the season where Columbia truly dictated the pace and tone of the game. In every other game, its opponents set the tone. Teams typically can't have very successful seasons playing to the other guy's music.
-This was also the first win of the season without any serious nagging worries to go along with it. After the win over Marist, there was still real concern about CU's slow start. After the wins over Georgetown and CCSU, there were worries about how the Hoyas and Blue Devils made it too close. After the win over Penn, the Lions red zone offense and special teams looked suspect. This was just a strong win all around.
-The postgame reports and especially the quotes from junior DT Mitch Moyer revealed a key change in strategy that may have made the difference in the game. Columbia used three DTs on its front four, instead of the usual two DEs and two DTs. Not only did this apparently disrupt the Dartmouth offense all game, it was truly an example of how far Columbia has come in recent years. DT is the hardest position to recruit in the Ivies. I can't remember a time when CU had two very good DTs at one time on the whole roster, let alone three the Lions could put on the field at once.
-Columbia played the game without sophomore WR Wills Meyer, who has apparently become QB Joe Green's favorite target. Getting him back will help the Lions, but remember that the Big Green secondary is very good and it's not clear Green & Co. would have had a 250-yard+ game with or without Meyer.
-In the midst of their no-huddle, high-powered offense days of early 1990s, Buffalo Bills Head Coach, (and Harvard graduate school alum) Marv Levy used to say: "In my 40 years of coaching football, I've always thought that if you can run the ball and stop the run, you'll win a lot of games. Nothing has changed." With that in mind, note that Columbia is now just a hair behind Harvard for the #1 team rushing spot in the Ivies, and 3rd in overall rush defense. So, there you go.
-This weekend's game at Yale will be a very tough challenge, but the Lions may have caught a break from the fact that the Elis made their big adjustment on offense this past week against Penn. Yale switched to sophomore QB Nolan Grooms as the new starter and he piled up 283 passing yards and 113 yards on the ground in a 42-28 win. At least Columbia will have plenty of video footage of Grooms to prepare for him in a way Penn could not.
-It may seem like a stretch to consider Columbia a true contender for the Ivy title this year. But the fact remains; if the Lions win out they will likely at least share the title. How many opportunities like that after week 6 of the season has Columbia had over the last 50 years? The answer is four, (1971, 1996, 2017, and now). So, why the heck not?
-Around the league, the abomination of a game called by the officials at the Princeton vs. Harvard game on Saturday seems to finally be the massive event that wakes people up to the refereeing problem in the Ivies. Naturally, it took a game involving two of the "Big Three" to do it. If I were Ivy League Executive Director Robin Harris, I would convene a committee made up of some of the coaches and respected, retired refs from other conferences to fix this before someone gets seriously hurt as a result of missed calls or extreme frustration in response to them.
8 comments:
The officiating has been abominable all year; we have been the victim of at least 6 abominable calls in our three IL games-and arguably three in the Princeton game alone. With all of the money that all of the schools spend on football we are entitled to competent officials. I would also drop the new OT rules and either go back to the tie or use the NFL format. Finally, Eisgruber should offer to forfeit the Harvard game-otherwise the “win” will live in infamy.
I read in the Harvard Crimson that Harvard was going officially to protest the egregious call during the Princeton game and thus nullify the Princeton win.
Hope that call will be overturned. Obviously, if it is, Columbia would have a direct shot at least of tying for the Ivy championship if they beat Harvard.
TOD HOWARD HAWKS
First of all, there's no way that the call will be overturned. It's in the books, so to speak, and Harvard (and anyone else) can complain, but the result is final. Princeton is now 6-0, even if we can all agree, which we can, that Harvard won the game.
My guess is that the officials involved will face no serious disciplinary action. They may get a talking-to, but that will really just be a pro forma gesture. I agree with oldlion and others who've pointed out that the Ivy officiating this year has been atrocious; I really do think that this same crew that cost Harvard made it virtually impossible for us to win when we played our first Ivy League game. At the time, I said that I thought we would have beaten Princeton on a neutral field, and I still believe that.
If I were in charge, those refs would not officiate any more games for at least the rest of the season. But more than likely, in the coming days the Ivy League Office will say simply that the issue "has been addressed" or some such. I'd be shocked if there were suspensions.
The erroneous call that was not merely misjudgment but had to be deliberately bogus was the unsportsmanlike conduct against Roussos for spiking. The two pass defenders had turned their backs and were walking away--no one else was nearby-- when Roussos stood up and softly released the ball downward
The ball didn't even bounce and was unnoticed except on the TV screen. If he he was even mimicking
a spike, it was a baby one, and again, no one on Dartmouth saw it. It was a great TD and I immediately
thought DON'T SPIKE IT bccause I immediatelty thought of the refs' bias. Sure enough, out came the flag for taunting the grass.
Brown, Cornell showed they can score. So, even after the Yale game, the Lions face tough opposition.
Oh please. Surace called the timeout, the league apology was for allowing the mistake by the refs to be overturned on procedure. Doesn't change the facts. Tigers won a crazy grinder of a game.
Besides, Harvard still owed us after acting like jerks a century ago:
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1961/11/10/princeton-a-second-class-power-ptheres-nothing/?page=
InwoodTiger, if by "facts" you're referring to NCAA rule 5-2-9, then yes, you're correct that the result--a Princeton victory--should and will stand. After all, once an NCAA game is over, the result cannot be changed, and Harvard AD McDermott acknowledged as much. But the reality is that the game should have ended a bit earlier than it did. By rule Harvard's two-point conversion in the third OT should have counted. The statement from the Ivy League Office concedes as much when it states that "[Surace's] timeout should not have been granted and the play should have resulted in a successful two-point conversion."
Do refs sometimes miss timeout (and other) calls? Absolutely, and I think most understand that that's part of the game. Now when it happens repeatedly and/or seems to be directional (i.e., not random), it's obviously a problem. But here, the issue isn't really a missed call or a pattern of missed calls. It's actually to do with the fact that the refs disregarded a rule that does not allow for timeout calls to be reviewable or to be made post facto. The fact that the the rule regarding the non-reviewability of timeout calls was disregarded (or more charitably, simply forgotten) is what many on this site are pointing out is unacceptable. If the rules can be disregarded--on a potentially game-winning play, no less--then we have the most literal of examples of the rules not applying to one team, which very much goes against fairness in competition.
I dislike Harvard as much as anyone, but rules are rules. Personally, I wouldn't mind making all potentially game-ending plays reviewable for any reason, but until that happens, the truth is that Princeton should not have won that game.
NJ Lion... Best on the board.... For a long time...
Post a Comment