Week 8 Games

[Zeuslax]

Don't blame the kids......this is all about the coach or coaches.

[Adam Gamradt]

Let's try another angle on the ethical issue of scoring more than 19 goals.

You're coaching a team who's down by 20 in the third quarter. Would you want to simply stop the game? Maybe I've watched Cool Hand Luke one too many times, but to keep taking punches would build character.

Say you're coaching a team and you're playing a perfect game, winning every face off, every ground ball, every shot is a goal, and every goal is assisted. You've committed no penalties, and the game is almost over. Would you stop shooting? Would you play keep away to preserve your chance at perfection? Does it matter what the score is at this point? Wouldn't this be the epitome of lacrosse, akin to pitching a perfect game in baseball?

[Zeuslax]

Here's a whole other angle. How about trying to execute special situations or plays. What about attempting some things that have been on the shelf that you would like to implement.

[John Paul]

As much as I post on this board, I religiously refrain from posting anything about my team other than information that might be used as advice on organizational or coaching concepts. In this case, however, I think it might be worthwhile to give my viewpoint.

As for the Oakland game specifically, Ron Hebert is one my best friends in the lacrosse world. I would never do anything to purposefully embarrass him or his team.

I certainly know about the Bill Tierney 19 goal rule. I know Coach Tierney (that's two name drops already), and I have tremendous respect for him. I do not, however, remember anyone naming him the official creator of lacrosse ethics. 19 goals is an arbitrary number that he came up with that works for him.

I agree with what some others have said before me here. Lopsided games can be managed by coaches in the right way. They can rest injured players who might have played if it was a bigger game and would benefit from the rest. They can go deeper into their roster or even play only subs. They can form a gameplan that emphasizes ball control, IF that style fits into what their team does regularly. They can instruct their coaches and players to act with class. They can work on some things that need work, assuming the opponent is running things that are appropriate for those things to be run against (you can't run your new zone plays against an aggressive man to man defense, for example).

My personal philosophy is all of the above, but I do not ever tell my guys to do anything that does not fit into our plan for the season. No matter who we have on the field, we expect them to play as hard as they can and to execute (and that includes showing they can finish). A lot of the subs are using a game like that as a chance to prove what they can do in a real game in the hope it might earn them a better look for more playing time. We owe them the opportunity to play as hard and as well as they can.

We've been on the other side of a few blowouts (the great Whittier team of 2002 rolled up 23 goals on us, and we've played enough great D1 teams to know humility). I don't remember any of us ever coming away from one of those games bitter about anything other than our own inability to play better.

[jgratson]

Another point of view is from those on the Michigan Bench. They pay $3000+ a year to be on the team, work hard 5-6 days a week in practice, and rarely get in during games. When I was one of those guys, I'd be begging to get in a game, even if it was a blowout. It would be very tough to finally get in, and have the coach just tell you to kill the clock.

Usually those bench guys provide for good competition, but it's a tough spot to be in if your team is so deep (which I think Michigan might be this year) that even the reserves are better than the opponents starters.

[Zeuslax]

Carnegie Mellon - 7
Grove City - 9

[GCCLAX3]

According to what we have
Grove City-10
Carnegie Mellon-8

Either way a back and forth 2 goal game that was a little sloppy. Grove City had to kill a ton of Penalties and solid goaltending from freshman Andrew Dymski kept them in it. Thanks to Carnegie Mellon for hosting. A pleasure as always

[Zeuslax]

According to what we have
Grove City-10
Carnegie Mellon-8

Either way a back and forth 2 goal game that was a little sloppy. Grove City had to kill a ton of Penalties and solid goaltending from freshman Andrew Dymski kept them in it. Thanks to Carnegie Mellon for hosting. A pleasure as always

You are correct....10 to 8 was the final score.