newjerseynewsroom.com

But a 58-44 victory looks nice for the Scarlet Knights

BY MIKE VORKUNOV

NEWJERSEYNEWSROOM.COM

At this point in each program's development, there is little that can bind together Rutgers and Princeton. They may be searching for parallel arcs in their progression, as each tries to climb from the depths of their conference's standings towards respectability — although that has been going better for the Tigers than the Scarlet Knights.

But when the two teams meet on the hardwood, as they did last night at the RAC for the 116th time in the rivalry's history, there seems to be something between them that brings out the same result on the court year after year while the players and coaches keep changing.

For the last seven years, no matter where each program stood, they have combined to produce basketball that can only be described as aesthetically unappealing, if not repugnant. Year after year, they have come together to play a brand of basketball that seems as if each team willingly plays up or down to the other's abilities to meet in a middle ground of sorts.

A middle ground that is littered with missed shots, offensive possessions gone astray and run down shot clocks. The sound of jumpers clanking off the iron and infrequent applause that makes for a not-so-sweet harmony for the ears.

Last night was no different. A 58-44 victory by Rutgers was at times many things, but never picturesque. The numbers reflect as much.

Princeton shot 28.8 percent for the game, the Knights beat them by shooting 37 percent. Combined the two teams shot 10-31 from behind the three-point line and turned the ball over 28 times.

But at least it was a numerical improvement from last season's meeting, where the final score was 49-44 in Rutgers' favor.

It started in December 2003 when the two met in what turned out to be a 51-49 Rutgers victory. The cumulative 100-point total was levels below the 131.6 points per game the two teams combined for that year.

Since then, little has changed. In only two of the next five years did they combine for a triple-digit point total, topping out at 104 in 2007 in a 54-50 Knights win.

The reasons for these seemingly random but continued confluence of events is that the two programs are as close in preparation as they are in proximity.

There's familiarity there, its much like a conference game," said Princeton coach Sydney Johnson. "If you look at the bulk of those, both teams know each other so well and they have to go to that third or fourth option to score and scouting reports are so much better. I think that has a lot to do with it. Just guys know each other and staffs know each other. You have to kick it into extra gear and grind it out. I think it is true that maybe it was a little bit sluggish, but if you grind it out you can win one."

Grinding it out means a style of play that does not resemble the way both teams would probably prefer it to.

The Tigers have always preferred their Princeton Offense, which has been their backbone since the days of the legendary coach Pete Carril. Predicated on three-pointers and back cuts, against Rutgers it has seldom looked as smooth as idealized.

The Knights, conversely have had differencing philosophies. From the days of the offense revolving around Quincy Douby to the current version which tries to mesh together a half-court offense with the occasional transition basket.

But according to Rutgers coach Fred Hill, that has a way of changing when Princeton is the opponent. The Tigers' style of play has a way of changing the game's aesthetic.

Then again, for all insolent talk towards these games, and sometimes the box scores can speak for themselves, it can miss out on the point of view of the minority, those actually with a say in its outcome.

"I thought it was beautiful so I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder," said Hill. "It's not going to be a thing of artistic beauty... It's going to look a little tough, physical and ugly to you. But I thought it was a thing of beauty."

For more Rutgers and Seton Hall basketball coverage follow Mike Vorkunov on Twitter at @Mike_Vorkunov