M. Spikers Beaten By Rutgers-Newark

Much has been said about how Ivy League sports teams cannot compete at the highest level of collegiate sport because of the league's lack of athletic scholarships. While this often seems true, the Harvard men's volleyball team put this proposition in temporary abeyance by giving top 20 Rutgers a visceral scare before falling, 3-2 (15-10, 15-17, 15-12, 13-15, 15-9). Rut. Newark  3 Harvard  2

By losing to Princeton last weekend, the Crimson (9-7 overall, 2-4 EIVA) lost any chance to make any real noise in the EIVA, to which Rutgers belongs. This might have been seen as a cause of motivational concern for Harvard entering today's game--for all intents and purposes, the Crimson are now focusing on winning the Ivy League Tournament on April 1. Instead, however, the Crimson's deflated EIVA expectations engendered a constructively loose atmosphere among the players.

"We really didn't have anything to lose going in," middle-hitter Ned Staebler said. "Rutgers is a top 20 team. They have scholarships and the works. They beat George Mason, the third best team in the east last night, 3-0."

"No one expected us to score five points against them," freshman setter Evan Beachy said.

Of course, Harvard did lose the game. But that has not diminished the positive aspects of the contest, facets that the players feel can set the stage for a successful completion of the year.

"We have lived and died with our passing and defense all year," Staebler said. "Our defense was good, but our passing was really great."

Beachy, who recently assumed the role as the team's primary setter, echoed Staebler's praise of passing.

"As a setter, I'm especially happy we passed well," Beachy said. "That has really been a problem all year."

Unlike last weekend's losses against Princeton and Vassar, Harvard played consistently throughout the match.

"Today, all aspects of our game worked," Beachy said. "We were much more consistent than we were last week."

In all three games that Rutgers won, it opened up big leads that Harvard was unable to surmount. Similarly, in the two games the Crimson won, the Scarlet Knights made furious comeback attempts that were ultimately unfulfilled.

"In game two, we were up by five or six, and they came back to take a 15-14 lead," Staebler said. "It would have been easy for us to fold at that point, and be satisfied with taking 14 points from them."

But Harvard did not fold. Rather, with ice running through its collective veins, it took three straight pressure-packed points to win the set 17-15 and even the game at one set apiece.

After Rutgers took the hard-fought third set, Harvard once again shocked the volleyball cognoscenti by taking a bid lead against the Scarlet Knights in set four. But Rutgers, in a perversion of the classic no State '83 underdog formula, rallied back. Again, though, the Crimson refused to be the Boston Red Sox, and held on to win the set, 15-13, and even the match at 2-2.

Set five, however, would not go Harvard's way. Like sets one and three, Rutgers jumped out early, and the Crimson could not respond, losing 15-9.

"Game five was mostly rally scoring," Stabler said. "We probably didn't get the middle involved enough."

And Rutgers star Jose Louis Estrada, who had 46 kills for the game, was especially hard to contain.

Regardless of the outcome, Harvard plans to build on the game for the rest of the season.

"We can use this as a springboard for the Ivy Tournament in three weeks," Peachy said.

"Last week, we handed the match to Princeton [Harvard led 8-0 in set one before falling apart and losing 3-0 in sets]," Stabler said. "After the game against Rutgers, we know we can beat Princeton [which is currently the Ivy League favorite.]"