Jump to content

Coaching, coaching, coaching


Recommended Posts

http://www.ncaa.com/history/m-lacrosse-d1.html

Interestingly, they are still listed, but asterisked to note the title was vacated.

I think with basketball getting so much more attention than lacrosse, and Kentucky being such a major program, this would get somewhat more than an asterisk.

Michigan had to take down their banners, and are no longer recognized for their 1992-93 championship game appearances. My guess is in Kentucky's case Calipari gets drawn and quartered at mid-court in Rupp Arena while Ashley Judd is forced to watch.

I've never been to the Carrier Dome, but I'm betting there are no banners hanging declaring themselves the 1990 Lacrosse Champs, and nothing in the trophy case for that season either. But I guess what really counts is that the players on that 1990 team can say that they were the best in the country and they proved it on the field, and that one ineligible player doesn't mean squat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 170
  • Created
  • Last Reply
I've never been to the Carrier Dome' date=' but I'm betting there are no banners hanging declaring themselves the 1990 Lacrosse Champs, and nothing in the trophy case for that season either. But I guess what really counts is that the players on that 1990 team can say that they were the best in the country and they proved it on the field, and that one ineligible player doesn't mean squat.[/quote']

Sure, they can say that. It is a fantasy, but maybe if they believe it hard enough it might come true. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure why this isn't true. Ohio State was a top five program behind Jimmy Jackson and Lawrence Funderburke when Williams left and has been a top 10 program more often than UMd during GW's time in College Park. I think it's a pretty simple statement to say GW would have had more shots at the national championship and more higher ranked teams at OSU.

If you include OSU's years with Gary's recruits and MD's years with Wade's sanctions, your statement is correct. Since Gary's OSU recruits graduated (or ran out of eligibility or went pro or whatever they did) and MD came off the Wade sanctions, MD has spent 55 weeks in the Top 10 while OSU has spent 35 weeks in the Top 10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never been to the Carrier Dome' date=' but I'm betting there are no banners hanging declaring themselves the 1990 Lacrosse Champs, and nothing in the trophy case for that season either. But I guess what really counts is that the players on that 1990 team can say that they were the best in the country and they proved it on the field, and that one ineligible player doesn't mean squat.[/quote']

I believe my 9th grade gym teacher played on that team. Believe me, he would drone on about it every chance he got.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How so? They won on the field' date=' didn't they?[/quote']

If they won by beating the players on the opposing team unconscious until they couldn't field any more players, than scored unopposed goals, would that be legitimate?

Off-the-field rules matter as much as on-the-field rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the problem is they are competing against a lot of other great programs.

The top 5 programs are UNC, UCLA, Kentucky, Duke and Kansas...in whatever order you want to put them.

Those 5 schools suck up a lot of top recruits every year and MD has no chance of breaking into that group.

And then there are a ton of programs, which you could include MD in I guess, that can easily compete with MD.

I guess I can agree the potential is there but I don't think it is realistic potential...at least on a consistent basis.

I don't think anyone is claiming they should be in the top 5 programs. After that, what's the difference between most of the schools in the group of 25 or so after them? Do they have a better location (recruits in the area and desirability of the location) than MD? Better facilities? Better history? Better campus and education? Do they have a company like Under Armour behind them?

Obviously I don't expect you to go through a list of schools and do this, but my point is I doubt many schools beat out MD when factoring all that in. So the difference is coaching and recruiting. Gary does great at the first, but not so great at the second.

I go back to Coach K and Duke. That wasn't a great program when he took over, but he made it into a top 5 program and now Duke will have great prestige even after he leaves. If Coach K and Gary switched places from the start, maybe someone on here would be telling you that you're being unrealistic with your expectations for Duke and you just can't be a Maryland caliber program.

With the right coach, MD can be an elite program, with the wrong one it can easily fade away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How so? They won on the field' date=' didn't they?[/quote']

I'm with you. I'd rather be a player on the team that actually won and later got the title stripped rather than on the runner up who later was given the title.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they won by beating the players on the opposing team unconscious until they couldn't field any more players, than scored unopposed goals, would that be legitimate?

Off-the-field rules matter as much as on-the-field rules.

Huge difference between cheating on the field (which I guess is what you're trying to describe) and having one player on the team that was with you the entire season and then when spring grades were released at the end was suddenly ineligible for the tournament that your team won.

Was the NCAA right to strip the title from Syracuse? Absolutely. Should every player on that 1990 team not named Paul Gait hold his head up high, firm in the belief that he played on the best lacrosse team that season and proved it on the field? Hell yeah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone is claiming they should be in the top 5 programs. After that, what's the difference between most of the schools in the group of 25 or so after them? Do they have a better location (recruits in the area and desirability of the location) than MD? Better facilities? Better history? Better campus and education? Do they have a company like Under Armour behind them?

Obviously I don't expect you to go through a list of schools and do this, but my point is I doubt many schools beat out MD when factoring all that in. So the difference is coaching and recruiting. Gary does great at the first, but not so great at the second.

I go back to Coach K and Duke. That wasn't a great program when he took over, but he made it into a top 5 program and now Duke will have great prestige even after he leaves. If Coach K and Gary switched places from the start, maybe someone on here would be telling you that you're being unrealistic with your expectations for Duke and you just can't be a Maryland caliber program.

With the right coach, MD can be an elite program, with the wrong one it can easily fade away.

And they would be right...and I am not sure I would have the expectations so many of you have anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huge difference between cheating on the field (which I guess is what you're trying to describe) and having one player on the team that was with you the entire season and then when spring grades were released at the end was suddenly ineligible for the tournament that your team won.

Was the NCAA right to strip the title from Syracuse? Absolutely. Should every player on that 1990 team not named Paul Gait hold his head up high' date=' firm in the belief that he played on the best lacrosse team that season and proved it on the field? Hell yeah.[/quote']But Paul Gait was the best player on the team, right?

What if Memphis had won the title two years ago? Should Chris Douglass-Roberts still get to keep his ring? Should Calipari? Should a Memphis fan still be able to consider that team the champion?

If you vacate a championship, you can't consider yourself the champion, because you're not. You cheated, deliberately and knowingly. The players can still consider themselves the best team all they want, their fans can't consider that team a champion, because they obviously aren't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huge difference between cheating on the field (which I guess is what you're trying to describe) and having one player on the team that was with you the entire season and then when spring grades were released at the end was suddenly ineligible for the tournament that your team won.

Was the NCAA right to strip the title from Syracuse? Absolutely. Should every player on that 1990 team not named Paul Gait hold his head up high' date=' firm in the belief that he played on the best lacrosse team that season and proved it on the field? Hell yeah.[/quote']

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990_NCAA_Division_I_Men%27s_Lacrosse_Championship

Syracuse was found to have violated rules when coach Roy Simmons' wife Nancy Simmons co-signed a car loan with Paul Gait.

And the reference...

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/06/11/sports/syracuse-loses-lacrosse-title.html

That's not grades. That's as big a violation as cheating on the field. And if you win playing with an ineligible player, than you can't say you won since there is no way to know if you would have WITHOUT that player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And they would be right...and I am not sure I would have the expectations so many of you have anyway.

Well we don't have top 5 expectations.

You didn't answer the other part of my post though, what makes other schools in the 6-20 range better than MD? Or what about MD keeps their potential or realistic expectations out of the top 20 to you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well we don't have top 5 expectations.

You didn't answer the other part of my post though, what makes other schools in the 6-20 range better than MD? Or what about MD keeps their potential or realistic expectations out of the top 20 to you?

I am no really sure...I agree that MD could be on the level of schools like arizona, Mich St, UCONN, etc...the list goes on and on.

But for whatever reason, they aren't...Those programs just seem to be consistently better and even though MD may have better resources, perhaps they just aren't looked at, by recruits, as highly as many of the other basketball schools.

As i said, I think you could expect a 20-30 range on a consistent basis...Some years worse, some better...Can they break into the top 20 on a consistent basis? I guess they could..as they showed in early 2000s...But I just don't see that being a consistent thing.

How many coaches in this country are truly great recruiters AND great coaches?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am no really sure...I agree that MD could be on the level of schools like arizona, Mich St, UCONN, etc...the list goes on and on.

But for whatever reason, they aren't...Those programs just seem to be consistently better and even though MD may have better resources, perhaps they just aren't looked at, by recruits, as highly as many of the other basketball schools.

As i said, I think you could expect a 20-30 range on a consistent basis...Some years worse, some better...Can they break into the top 20 on a consistent basis? I guess they could..as they showed in early 2000s...But I just don't see that being a consistent thing.

How many coaches in this country are truly great recruiters AND great coaches?

Or perhaps Gary just doesn't recruit well and/or a lot of players don't want to play for a coach that they see yelling at his players on the bench throughout the game.

So if you agree MD has the resources to be a program like UCONN, Mich St, etc, than you should agree with us. But then you go back to the 20-30 range for some reason.

To answer your last question, probably not that many, but great recruiting and decent to good coaching results in a top 20 program. Or great coaching and good recruiting. Gary brings great coaching and mediocre recruiting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...