How did Oregon build such a successful program in 4-5 years?

[TrojanLaxman5]

When I was in my junior year of HS in the fall 2000 or spring of 2001, I went to visit U of Oregon and went to the club sports department to ask about lacrosse. They told me that no team existed; that they were kicked off for some drunk driving incident.

I don't know much about their program, but I'm curious as to how they built such a successful program in less than 4 year's time?

I'm interested in hearing from anyone within the program or who knows anything about their program and their recent top 25 climb.

[Kyle Berggren]

Not being a part of the program, but playing against them when they were good and bad, I'd say the growth of Oregon Lax helped a lot. In one year, they had the Most Valueable Midfielder in the league, and the next, he was just another player on a team loaded with talent. The other big factor would be the coaching. If you ever get to talk to their coaches, you'll see the dedication and commitment, and they get the same back from the players. I remember them always having a big team, but they actually had a full B team last year or the year before (this year do they?). Regardless of how they got there, they've built a more than solid program, that shouldn't see a decline in level of play for many years to come. I'm sure some Oregon players will be on here soon to give you their insight...

[jtlax]

I am now in my senior season at Oregon, and what I have seen happen is pretty remarkable. The main reason for our current and future success is our coaching. It started with Josh one or two years before I got there, and he has been amazing for our program. In addition to Josh, we are now on our third year with a second head coach, Joe. These two coaches are more dedicated than anyone could possibly ask. They NEVER miss a single practice, and are constantly on us players to improve our game. They set the highest goals for us, and expect us to reach them. Like you said, the team before I got here was in chaos, with no leadership or direction. However, these two coaches have set down very strict guidelines by which the team must follow, and through the actions of our coaches, the team has matured immensely. Players that aren't willing to put all of their effort toward the betterment of the team are asked to leave. We are not a team that likes to go on road trips to drink. We play the game to win, and that attitude starts with our coaches, and trickles down through all of the players. We as players now have full confidence in the system and are dedicated to the team.

[Another Dumb Jock]

What allowed Oregon to establish a top-notch program?

Feeder Schools:
Lacrosse in Oregon is growing at a rate of 48% a year-
California lacrosse players can attend Oregon and still be close to home-
Idaho is now producing top-notch players-
Oregon is on the map, drawing top talents from across the US-

Program Building:
Seniors acclimating the freshmen to college lacrosse-
A turf field supplied by the school and everything else they do for us-
Our coaching staff is far more than we could have asked for!!!

History of:

In 2002, 8 out of our 40+ freshmen were starters, comprised of 5 Oregon all-stars and a whole slew of fresh young talent. Under the leadership of sophomore midfielders Josh Waldman and John Opet, we lost in the finals after a surprising semi finals overtime victory agianst PLU. Oregon goes from 8th to 2nd in the PNCLL.

In 2003, with our reputation building, we pulled together another strong freshman class, lead by all-American attackman Chris Nelson and goalie Nate Cordova. Their addition secured us a seat in the PNCLL finals far the second time, Simon Fraser by 1.

2004 was an amazing recruiting year for Oregon. Our reputation as an up and coming team had spread like wild fire. We received a continued flow of top Oregon players, a top recruit out of Cali in the form of Julian Coffman, a transfer in Matt C, and many more. Our third trip to the finals produced the greatest victory of my lacrosse carrier and a position as national contenders. GO DUCKS!!!

All I can say is 2005 will be a season of hard hits and intensity. I assure you the team we field this season will be more mature and fighting harder than ever to maintain national recognition as top contenders. See you all, very soon.

[neil]

Like Kyle, I also played against UO during their "transition" period from your average club team into a nationally ranked program. Looking back on the last several years of lacrosse in the PNCLL, I would say that the growth and success of UO's team (and the PNCLL as well) is hardly surprising. 4 years is a very short period of time to change around established programs in sports that aren't growing, or like some sports now seem to be losing ground (baseball?). Although 2002 is (and should be) considered a very successful year for the Ducks- as ADJ noted going from 8th to 2nd and one game away from Nationals- I think the 2004 UO squad probably beats the 2002 UO team by 15+ and the same could probably be said about some other teams in the PNCLL as well. Right now, in the lacrosse world, 4 years is an eternity.

That being said- here's the big "clues" from the last few years on why UO would be where they are now.

1) Coaching- no brainer, and it was already mentioned, but its a huge factor. I think UW could be rivaling UO right now if they werne't going through coaching changes every year. (I'm not comparing quality per se, but rather continuity). Of course it helps to have a quality staff like UO as well.

2) Depth- UO has always had the largest bench. Obviously a large bench isn't by itself going to win games, but UO seems to bring out more players than other teams in the PNCLL. Some reasons for this: Large state school with a large student body, growth of NW lacrosse, and of course Barber and the coaches are doing a good job of recruiting and/or convincing current students to play. One of UW's (and WSU) biggest hurdles in the past was getting lacrosse players already at the school to join the team. Leadership of current players I'm sure has a role in this as well.


3) Attitude- as much as many people have probaby wanted to drop the gloves after the game and square off with a few select individuals on UO's team- they come out with an attitude that they're going to win and they'll do anything to do it. At GU in 2001-2003 we always had 5 or so guys that all we did was eat sleep and breathe lacrosse. But that doesn't win many games. It seems to me as if UO's entire team has this attitude, which is tough to foster in Club lacrosse. When kids aren't getting $ to play and don't have the repurcussions of missing practice or not taking it as seriously as they should, its tough to motivate an entire team. I don't know the exact reasons UO has been successful at this, but it is apparent that they have. In fact, I think it would be good to hear from Josh or another UO player on how they maintain that chemistry and keep guys hungry to get better and win all the time.

4) Talent- to be honest, I think talent has had little to do with UO's success. Thats starting to change as they have gotten some very good players in the last year and recruits will continue to come in better and better. In 2003 a lot of their players were upset that they didn't get the individual recognition they deserved in League and All-American Honors. I for one don't really think they were snubbed, but more importantly, thought that should have been something the team should have been proud of- They really didn't have "superstars" that carried the team or anyone that drastically stood out more than their teammates. They had the capability to win games on both ends of the field, and had a number of solid of players to go to in the clutch. Also, I really think its more the work ethic and chemistry that made them a team over raw talent. That may change in the next few years as it does seem that their younger guys are better than the classes they are graduating.

I don't think there is a better rival to have than UO- a fun team to compete against.

[Timbalaned]

Neil - Like you said, that attitude is hard to foster, and I do think that it has had a big part in our growth the past couple of years. It has been there because we actually do have harsh reprecussions for missing practice and screwing around and stuff like that, even for school related issues. Which also goes back to our coaches. They run the program as if we were a varsity team and they take role, if you don't show even if it is for a school issue, you will be benched for a quarter in the next game, no questions. They have made it clear to the us, the players, that if you want to play lacrosse at a high level, then you have to come to practice and show it and then we convert that to showing it on the field. That attitude has helped us a lot in becoming more of a team and in making us more organized and legit. But once again, that goes back to the coaches.

[ZagGrad]

Since UO has so many guys coming out, they can afford to take a more severe approach towards benching guys who don't show. There is enough talent on the team and they can easily fill a spot for a guy who is not making the necessary dedication towards school or practice. There are guys fighting for playing time and if a player has a starting spot, they're going to do everything they can to show up to practice and retain their spot, thus creating tons of dedication. I wish I had that turnout in my high school team.

[neil]

Kinda like how we couldn't bench you Chris even when you would show up to practice late cause you were walking your dog.

[ZagGrad]

Walking the dog...flirting with Freshmen chicks...or pre-game Kennel festivities...etc...yep, pretty much. Hahahahha....good times. I did have to sit the 1st quarter of the Montana game, though.