Ivy League Basketball: Week 4 Conference Notes and Recaps
While college basketball continues to throw fans for a loop as once-dominant Kentucky remains unranked, the Ivy League has been just as unpredictable.
As these small conference programs face off against opponents from the dominant conferences, it has been clear that the Ivy League is deliberately continuing to define itself as the more dominant squads slowly take form.
Here are the Week 4 conference notes:
Harvard (4-4) had a tough schedule this week, taking on both Boston College (3-4) and Connecticut (6-2) on the road. Against the Golden Eagles, the Crimson was stellar and used a 48-point second half to propel them to victory. Against the Huskies, Harvard was expected to get blown out but was able to stay in the game, falling by a score of only 57-49.
Brown (3-5) took on #22 Notre Dame (7-1) and was absolutely manhandled. In the 84-57 defeat, Brown had a hard time controlling the basketball, as the Fighting Irish picked up eleven steals throughout the evening. Senior guard Matt Sullivan continued to lead the way for the Bears with 18 points and six rebounds.
If Brown has any hope to turn their season around, Sullivan's play must continue to impress.
Columbia's 54-42 win over American (4-5) propelled them to a 5-4 record, while Yale's 64-62 win over Bryant (4-2) brought them to a 3-7 mark.
These were the only two other victories by teams in the Ivy League, as the remaining members of the Ancient Eight had a hard time earning a victory throughout the week.
Despite Penn's 2-7 record, they continue to play solid basketball. But they just do not seem to be able to win any games. In a brutal, foul-plagued affair against Villanova (4-4), the Quakers played incredibly tough basketball. As a team, however, they were not able to take advantage of free-throw opportunities. This was the main reason why they ultimately lost, 68-55, to the Wildcats.
However, junior guard Miles Cartwright did shoot a perfect 10-for-10 behind the line.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?