No explanation for Tigers' loss

PHILADELPHIA — Around 9:30 p.m. last night, with the men's basketball team cruising towards victory, I started to write my column about how Princeton saved its season.

Half an hour later, as overtime tipped off, I highlighted a few hundred words and hit delete.

The Tigers, on the other hand, don't have the luxury of a delete button. When head coach Joe Scott '87 sits down to watch a film of the game today — if he hasn't already spent a sleepless night watching it — he'll undoubtedly wish he could erase the final seven and a half minutes of regulation from the tape.

Up until that point, Princeton (10-9 overall, 1-4 Ivy League) had played its best basketball off the season. The Tigers ran their offense and made shots, moved well on defense and grabbed loose balls.

"That's my vision of Princeton basketball," a miserable-looking Scott said afterwards. "The first 20 minutes — I don't know if Princeton's ever played better at The Palestra."

And then everything fell apart.

By the time the final buzzer of overtime sounded and Penn (12-7, 5-0) walked off the court with a 70-62 victory, the Quakers had completed a comeback to match the Tigers' famed "Miracle at the Palestra" of 1999.

Frankly, I'm not sure what happened, and I'm not sure anyone else in the building really understood either.

It's hard to explain a complete and utter collapse, hard to explain how a team could score 35 points in the first 33 minutes and another 35 points in the final 12.

Yes, Penn's press contributed. But, as Scott pointed out, the Tigers did the hard part — getting the ball in bounds — only to make bad decisions.

Yes, Penn got a few lucky breaks. Eric Osmundson somehow drained a three despite being tackled and Tim Begley managed to bank in another shot from beyond the arc. But while those plays whipped the crowd into a frenzy, they weren't the difference in the game.

This was something else, something more. One minute everything was working, the next nothing all.

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

"There was no technical aspect to it," Scott said. "I never thought, with the experienced team we had on the court, that we'd be worried about the last five minutes of the game."

Translation: Princeton choked.

"We don't know how to finish a game," senior guard Will Venable admitted, but he could not verbalize why not.

Last year, the Tigers — especially Venable — seemed to have sixth sense for winning close games down the stretch. This year, that knack has completely vanished.

The Tigers choked against Dartmouth on Friday night, choked against Harvard on Saturday night.

"It was the same game," Scott said, but if anything, this one was worse.

Regardless, the fact that Princeton's problems are recurring ones don't make them any easier to explain.

Scott has talked lately about the Tigers needing to improve in the "life" aspects of the game. What he's referring to, I think, is poise and toughness.

I'm not sure I buy that argument. Poise and toughness is what propelled Princeton to the NCAA tournament last year, so I have trouble believing those traits mysteriously vanished over the summer.

Scott implies sometimes, in classic coach-speak, that perhaps his team didn't want to win badly enough. I don't buy that argument either. Looking at the players' faces last night as they came out of the locker room, listening to their downcast voices, I know they wanted it.

So what's left? I'm not sure.

I know the Tigers should have won against Dartmouth and Harvard last weekend, and that they should have won last night given how well they played for 33 minutes. I still truly believe that Princeton is the most talented team in the Ivy League this year, and that the Tigers should be heading back to the NCAA Tournament.

But I guess the final answer is that sports don't always work out as they should. Orange and Black fans are learning that the hard way.