LaxTV Forums | A Forum About The MCLA

Just a thought question for this thoughtful board.

I've been traveling for work the last three weeks - boring - but has given me an opportunity to peruse a number of teams websites and two things are showing up.

1. There are are more and more coaches and assistant coaches in the USLIA who have D1/2/3 playing experience (and coaching experience). As an example, check out USC's new coaching staff.

2. And there are more and more players from traditional hotbeds - and new hotbeds - going to school outside their geographic region. And it's not just kids going to Florida. For example, St. Cloud State has a player from Missouri who played HS in Missouri. Mankato State in minnesota has a goalie from New York.

Many people have suggested that this year's final four will look very similiar to years previous. I'm not commenting on that. But I will put to the readers -- Will parity arrive in the MDIA as a result of the improved coaching that these dedicated athletes now received and the increased willingness to spread talent around? And if so, when will parity arrive in the USLIA?

And by Parity I mean the following - when will it no longer be unbelievably rare for a #20 or below seed to beat a top 10 team?

In college hoops, it is not surprising for a #20 or higher seed upsetting a #1 or#2 seed in the regular season - see this past week's Maryland v. Duke upset. But when was the last time such an upset/close game happened in the USLIA Division A?

Utah v. CSU ? Yeah, but if I recall, CSU was without their coach, and may have been playing the second game in one day.

UMD v. Sonoma - CLose game - but UMD lost to a great Sonoma team in OT. UMD didn't win. So it doesn't count.

Am I missing some games so as to defeat my premise? Or if not, what are your thoughts on the two questions I pose.

Before Simon Fraser's season was washed out that year due to eligibility issues, the Clansmen were actually beaten on the field by an unranked Lute squad, in overtime. This was SFU's first PNCLL loss since 1997.

I think that eventually, if nothing happens to engender growth on the men's varsity level, you will see more and more talented players on team you might not expect (Combs at Lindenwood). Parity on par with say, the NFL is difficult to predict because of the sheer size of the MDIA. I think a more realistic scenario is that#8-25 will be more competitive and could close the gap a bit.

I think parity is already coming - witness FSU, Oregon and Oakland the past couple of years. Just like in D1, however, where their quarterfinals have become close games, it still seems to be the same 5 or 6 teams with a ligitimate national title shot at the end of the year. When we have a completely new final four, parity will have arrived.

Coaching (and dedication along with it) are huge factors at any level, but especially at ours where there is a huge range in both. Varsity playing experience for coaches can help, but it's only one potential factor in the growth of a coach and doesn't necessarily indicate coaching ability (or again, dedication).

With the growth of the game, and more people playing in high school, all levels are getting better. I know that there are many guys who played here at Michigan 15 years ago who would not make the current team, and the same is true at most D1 schools. However, the fact that IA schools are drawing more players from traditional hotbeds won't have a big impact for now, in my opinion. Other than BYU one year, all of our national champions have had "home grown" teams from the West. Those teams are still consistently at the top of our rankings. More important to our evolution than kids coming West, is the rise in talent in our own states, and the number of kids who are staying home to play. Even those of us who've always depended on out of state rosters to be competitive (BYU, Michigan, Arizona, etc.) are now depending much more on in-state talent than before.

The simple fact of the matter is USLIA is growing faster than NCAA and lacrosse is growing faster than the NCAA can handle. Therefore, players that should go to D1 can't because there is too much talent so they go D3. Players that should go D3 can't because there is too much talent so they consider USLIA. The lack of NCAA growth benefits USLIA.

JP,
Your first point, regarding coaches, was right on. The influx of coaches with NCAA coaching/playing experience is less important to parity (the improvement of teams in the 10-25 ranks) than is increasing the dedication of the the coaches who are there. NCAA coaching or playing experience is not necesarily indicative of coaching ability. I have personal knowledge of several NCAA coaches who are staying in their jobs only because they are otherwise unemployable. I also have personal knowlege of several MDIA coaches who are staying in the MDIA because they have amazing non-lacrosse careers (and the MDIA allows them to coach and keep their careers). The difference between the coaching in the NCAA and in the MDIA is that NCAA coaches do their jobs full-time, not that there is a difference between the personell. That leads to the second half of this equation. The difference between the top tier MDIA teams and the second tier MDIA teams is that the top tier MDIA teams have coaches who are full-time or nearly-full-time. More teams with more dedicated coaches means more great lax in the MDIA

Your second point was only half right. It' great that there's a lot of great players coming from non-trditional lax states. That'll definitely have an impact in the long run. But I think it's more important that when these guys come to MDIA schools, they come out for the lax team and keep playing for the whole 4 years. I'll go out on a limb and say that retention is a huge problem for the 10-25 ranked teams (it's probably a problem for the whole league). I'll bet that there's not a 10-25 ranked coach out there who can't name 10 guys who attend his school that would start or contribute on his team, but that have quit or didn't come out to begin with.

The challnge for the league is to get teams to put 2+2 together and see that the key to retaining players is to increase the quality of their product (not necessarily their quality of play on the field, but the quality of the experience for the players). AND that the key to increasing the quality of their product is to bring in great coaches (or more likely to get more commitment from the coaches they already have), by paying them. This will bring in more athletes, who pay dues, to pay coaches...

Rob Graff wrote:Just a thought question for this thoughtful board.

1. There are are more and more coaches and assistant coaches in the USLIA who have D1/2/3 playing experience (and coaching experience). As an example, check out USC's new coaching staff.

In case anyone is curious, here you go:

Nate Watkins, Head Coach: http://www.usclacrosse.com/httpwww.uscl ... tkins.html

Kevin Meyran, Assistant Coach: http://www.usclacrosse.com/KevinMeyran.htm

Having such a talented coaching staff has already made a tremendous impact over the last 4-5 months and I agree with Rob Graff's analysis. We're optimistic that it will translate into a better season for us this year, last year was brutal...

We'll see on Sunday vs. Cal

Perhaps the coach's experience DOES matter! UMD, while located in one of the coldest and snowiest outposts of lacrosse in the country has always had a great lacrosse program and often wins the UMLL. Could the fact that their coach was a standout defenseman at Harvard, and can show by example have anything to do with their success?? (Besides being a big dude that you wouldn't want to mess with, and will pay attention to!)

The coach is a huge part of the team. How is that even questioned? Look how Billechik runs his team or Joe Torre or Flip? All winning coaches who deal with major personalities.