4th MDIA Div. A Poll (4/6/05). Thoughts, Predictions, etc.

[Chuck Norris]

Was jessexy at the game.

[BClax16]

From this discussion, it seems that you all believe "gameplanning" to be a tactic that only less talented teams employ. Do you think Hopkins and Syracuse don't have gameplans for beating one another? Do good teams win (to use a previous statement) by "just beating" the other team? What does that even mean?

If, as a coach, you believe that a lower scoring game gives you a better chance of winning, you should do whatever you can to make that happen. You do what you can to put your team in position to win. If, in the end, you lose by two or three to a good team, so be it. It's better than trying to "just beat" a more talented team and losing by ten.

i don't think that anyone was every impling that "gameplanning" was for lower ranked team - cept possibly jesssexy - seems like the rest of the board was advocating the strategy of offensive possesion.

Welcome to competitive sports, guys.

you think no one in this league has experienced competitve sports?? look at the high school that some of these kids went to - and then come out to the tournament

[slider]

By saying 'welcome to competitive sports', I wasn't trying to throw out a steakhead statement. I was just saying that gameplans and strategy are a necessity in competitive sports. Thanks for the invite to the tournament, though.

[jessexy]

no i wasnt at the game. and dont get me wrong, i like to see offenisve strategy, but it playing keepaway in your zone considered offensive strategy? i dont think so.

im not averse to low-scoring games. c'mon, i love soccer and a 4-3 game would be tremendous each & every week. 4-3 in lacrosse with lots of chances and quick-decisive plays is still exciting. but 4-3 in lacrosse, where you hold the ball for 3 minutes while making fake runs through the attacking zone just to keep from gettting a stall warning is not attractive lacrosse. its boring. and its a tactic used to minimize the goal difference in a game against a stronger team. a team that should lose by 8-9 goals will only lose by 2-3 by using this strategy. this strategy is not geared towards winning the game, which is the whole point of playing the games.

[TMcCourt]

Or it could be a strategy aimed at upsetting the other teams pace, forcing them into coming out to pressure which they are not used to doing and lastly scoring because the other team is playing a style they are uncomfortable with.

[CyLaxKeeper00]

the same strategy that nearly killed basketball before the shot clock.

[Rob Graff]

I've been an avid opponent of the shot clock, believing the game's natural ebb and flow would be sufficient to keep the game interesting. I also like the ability of the teams to play a style and see contrasting style's conflict. But I'm not so sure anymore.

I went to the UNC Duke and UNC Cornell games this spring. Great talent. Great athletes that have worked long and hard on their craft. I'd expect lots of great action. What do we see? Long, boring possessions, punctuated by short moments of excitement. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

I'm now willing to be persuaded that the Shot Clock for lax should at least be CONSIDERED. I'm not yet advocating for it.

But the question should be asked - do we like the 'look" of the product that we and others put on the field right now?

[onpoint]

UNC has been under that type of fire all year. They have arguably the best pure talent in the country (Prossner) and yet they never turn it loose and just play. There is too much "structure" right now in lacrosse and I will be happy when the trend comes back to up and down play. The key is getting athletes who don't mind playing on both sides of the field. Two-way middies are a rarity who can really change the game, but specialization is what is killing it. I love the LSM, don't get me wrong, I think it is probably the most exciting position in lacrosse (witness Georgetown's Brodie Merrill), but the extensive substituting and match-up seeking is tiresome. The problem in our league is that not everyone is smart enough to find their match-up right away, so the ball gets kicked around for a few minutes until someone wakes up and realizes they have a short stick. Also, there are very few attackmen in the MDIA who can beat their defenseman "off the dribble" and take it to the cooker so the only people who dodge are the middies guarded by short sticks. BORING!! But I can tell you from experience that playing in a 6-4 (for example) game and a 13-10 (for example) game are two completely different animals.

[jessexy]

BORING!! But I can tell you from experience that playing in a 6-4 (for example) game and a 13-10 (for example) game are two completely different animals.

THANK YOU!

[Chuck Norris]

If jessexy was not at the game how does he know what went on in the game?

[jessexy]

If jessexy was not at the game how does he know what went on in the game?

i never claimed to know.

[Dan Wishengrad]

In theory this would be great, but this would require electronic scoreboards showing the shot clock on both ends of the field for offensive teams to see easily. This is why the proposed shot clock rule some years back faced fierce opposition from the NCAA membership and died a quick death -- this would be tough for many DII and DIII programs to provide, and all but impossible for (I'd guess) 95% of our MDIA teams. There's the cost (significant!) of the clocks themselves, and also the problem of finding yet another competent person to sit at the table and operate the shot clock.

[Laxer]

Even though michigan is a good team, the lose that Oakland suffered should drop them in the mess with Oregon, UCSD,and FSU. BC will get kicked out of the top ten. This next poll will show 2 of the 3 previously mentioned teams in the top 10. Anyone disagree?

[Rob Graff]

Dan:

I recognize the problems/cost with the shot clock. And I was among many that echoed them a few years ago. Is it an obstacle? Yes. But many "new laxers" come to lax after years of boring baseball. And I can see the day when - due to the continued emphasis on getting the "perfect shot" and keeping the ball from the other team - kids might not see that much division between the two - moments of tension intersperced with long minutes of boredom.

If general fan interest means anything to the lacrosse community, don't you think our most well known programs are going in the wrong direction, scoring wise?

Rob

[TMcCourt]

I disagree laxer, but my disagreement is that BC is in no different catagory that Oakland, Oregon, UCSD and FSU. The BC loss suffered in OT to a ranked team shows the same weakness that an 11-1 oakland loss shows or that the losses Oregon, UCSD and FSU have had show. All of these team have had strong and weak moments and are in the same catagory.