Toughest 2006 schedule

[lil lady lax fan]

Yes, UCSB had played several games before the MIT game and MIT had not.
The facts remain: MIT lost all their recent games against UCSB, some of them by alot. The close ones were after UCSB substituted freely. MIT also did not schedule UCSB in their last trip to Southern California.
Draw your own conclusions.

Keep in mind that MIT was here March 20-27th last year which was UCSB's break between quarters. UCSB was out of town playing at BYU that week. I think in this situation it was probably a scheduling conflict that kept them from playing UCSB.

[AO]

Yes, UCSB had played several games before the MIT game and MIT had not.
The facts remain: MIT lost all their recent games against UCSB, some of them by alot. The close ones were after UCSB substituted freely. MIT also did not schedule UCSB in their last trip to Southern California.
Draw your own conclusions.

The facts remain: MIT lost all their recent games against UC: Actually, they played a grand total of two (2) times -ever.

...some of them by alot.: Actually "some" is just "one" (1, as in "single") game -which for reason is, for you, a huge win -despite the realities surrounding the game.

The close ones were after UCSB substituted freely: "Ones" is actually only "one" (again 1, as in once, a single occurence, etc.). An 8-7 win for SB and the coach emptied the bench/substituted freely with only 8 goals on the board? Sounds more like you're making an excuse for what was, in reality, a close game.

MIT also did not schedule UCSB in their last trip to Southern California.:
Little Lady Lax Fan covered this quite well.

Draw your own conclusions: I conclude that you were on the bench until late in both games, that you exaggerate, distort, and obfuscate what really happened to make yourself feel better for no real reason other than the probability that you carry some kind of grudge against varsity programs, and that you probably suffer from an incurable case of lax-inferiority.

[Bluevelvet]

Draw your own conclusions: I conclude that you were on the bench until late in both games, that you exaggerate, distort, and obfuscate what really happened to make yourself feel better for no real reason other than the probability that you carry some kind of grudge against varsity programs, and that you probably suffer from an incurable case of lax-inferiority.

Your conclusions are as far from the truth as your attempt to spin MIT's losses.
What "really happened" is that MIT lost ALL their games with UCSB. UCSB won them ALL. UCSB was clearly the better team. You can try to find excuses for the results but no amount of spin can negate the facts.
As for me, I was on the sideline. Not on the bench. The last lacrosse game that I played was in 1966 on the east coast.
I have no gripe with MIT. The players were very polite and well behaved. The MIT alumni were hospitable to not only to the MIT players but the UCSB players as well. MIT was just undermanned. On the positive side, their teamwork and inteligence made up for their lack of size, speed and athleticism. They did beat Oregon and/or UCLA one of the years.
If you are trying to defend the California performance of, MIT, a .500 D3 team, it seems that you are the one suffering from from lax inferiority.

[sohotrightnow]

Well, to further illustrate the point that MIT was no match for WCLL teams, I submit to you their game against Cal in 2002 in which they were destroyed on UCSB's field. I am guessing that the reason why UCSB only beat MIT by one goal that year was because they were playing Cal 2 days later and did not want to be burned out for that game between two top 10 teams at the time.

[AO]

My conclusions were about you and your motivation for overdramatizing and overstating 2 games that happened 2 years apart -not annually as you mistated ("MIT came out to play UCSB every year until last year"). Can you at least agree with your own quote or own up to what you claimed? Or, am I "spinning" too much, too fast on your words...

"What "really happened" is that MIT lost ALL their games with UCSB": Did I write to the contrary? Of course not. I basically put facts into a their proper context. So what's your point here other than just repeating yourself

"UCSB was clearly the better team"; Of course they were; they won. I didn't say or imply to the contrary. My point was to bring perspective to the "why" they were a better team -which I did (re-read my original post if you need a refresher).

Draw your own conclusions: I conclude that you were on the bench until late in both games, that you exaggerate, distort, and obfuscate what really happened to make yourself feel better for no real reason other than the probability that you carry some kind of grudge against varsity programs, and that you probably suffer from an incurable case of lax-inferiority.

Your conclusions are as far from the truth as your attempt to spin MIT's losses.
What "really happened" is that MIT lost ALL their games with UCSB. UCSB won them ALL. UCSB was clearly the better team. You can try to find excuses for the results but no amount of spin can negate the facts.
As for me, I was on the sideline. Not on the bench. The last lacrosse game that I played was in 1966 on the east coast.
I have no gripe with MIT. The players were very polite and well behaved. The MIT alumni were hospitable to not only to the MIT players but the UCSB players as well. MIT was just undermanned. On the positive side, their teamwork and inteligence made up for their lack of size, speed and athleticism. They did beat Oregon and/or UCLA one of the years.
If you are trying to defend the California performance of, MIT, a .500 D3 team, it seems that you are the one suffering from from lax inferiority.

[univduke21]

It seems to me that any team in the WCLL or RMLC has a tougher strength of schedule than many of the other teams, minus Michigan and their ability to draw top competition with their tournament. Teams like UCSB, Sonoma, CSU, BYU and CU all have to play each other in the regular season, conference tournament, and then national tournament to win a national championship. Not only do these teams play each other in conference they usually play each other outside WCLL v. RMLC. They all also schedule hard varsity teams, ie Whittier and so on. It seems that teams in other conferences have a tough time even coming close to as hard of schedule. And on the MIT/UCSB discussion it seems that they only played twice with UCSB winning both of them a long time in the past! So it really doesn't matter either way.

[Bluevelvet]

"UCSB was clearly the better team"; Of course they were; they won. I didn't say or imply to the contrary. My point was to bring perspective to the "why" they were a better team.

Good. We agree. I don't need you or anyone to tell me why UCSB was better than MIT. I saw the games. UCSB was bigger, faster & more athletic. MIT was out classed.
AO-You are correct. UCSB and MIT did not play every year. Good thing for MIT.

univduke21- You are right. The MIT games were in 2002 and 2004, so the entire discussion is a lot of quibbling over nothing. I think AO may be one of those east coast elitists who object to any comment that MDIA lacrosse may have already overtaken certain mediocre east coast D2 & D3 programs.

The point has been made. I see no reason to comment further.

[Ken Lovic]

Blue- watch one thing, UCSB did not "out-class" MIT as you stated. UCSB beat them and were probably a better team. But don't use out-class to describe them or any team/coach, that is a harsh. Coach Alessi is a great guy and fine coach who has done a nice job at MIT over his 30 plus years at the helm.

just a small side note

[Bluevelvet]

Ken-
"Out-class" in the context that I used it does not mean that MIT was not classy. "Out-class" meant that UCSB was playing at a higher level, in a different class. Maybe "out-manned" is a better word, less likely to be misinterpreted.
As I said before:

I have no gripe with MIT. The players were very polite and well behaved. The MIT alumni were hospitable to not only to the MIT players but the UCSB players as well.

[onpoint]

"UCSB was clearly the better team"; Of course they were; they won. I didn't say or imply to the contrary. My point was to bring perspective to the "why" they were a better team.

Good. We agree. I don't need you or anyone to tell me why UCSB was better than MIT. I saw the games. UCSB was bigger, faster & more athletic. MIT was out classed.
AO-You are correct. UCSB and MIT did not play every year. Good thing for MIT.

univduke21- You are right. The MIT games were in 2002 and 2004, so the entire discussion is a lot of quibbling over nothing. I think AO may be one of those east coast elitists who object to any comment that MDIA lacrosse may have already overtaken certain mediocre east coast D2 & D3 programs.

The point has been made. I see no reason to comment further.

I almost hate to post this but I think some of our West coast "pots" better be careful what they are calling the East coast "kettles." Elitism is not excluded to the East coast. Statements like this are more polarizing for our game than they are helpful to its growth and homogeny. And yes, I know I am the same person who cried foul due to another DIII team's insistence that they were playing an "exhibition game" when they lost to CSU over the past two years when clearly neither team played it as such. I do however think that these statements are unnecessary. To return to the original point of this topic, on CSU's schedule this year:

UCSB
Whittier (DIII)
Colorado College (DIII)
Sonoma
NDNU (DII)
Arizona State
Oakland
Utah
BYU
Colorado

[DG]

"UCSB was clearly the better team"; Of course they were; they won. I didn't say or imply to the contrary. My point was to bring perspective to the "why" they were a better team.

Good. We agree. I don't need you or anyone to tell me why UCSB was better than MIT. I saw the games. UCSB was bigger, faster & more athletic. MIT was out classed.
AO-You are correct. UCSB and MIT did not play every year. Good thing for MIT.

univduke21- You are right. The MIT games were in 2002 and 2004, so the entire discussion is a lot of quibbling over nothing. I think AO may be one of those east coast elitists who object to any comment that MDIA lacrosse may have already overtaken certain mediocre east coast D2 & D3 programs.

The point has been made. I see no reason to comment further.

I almost hate to post this but I think some of our West coast "pots" better be careful what they are calling the East coast "kettles." Elitism is not excluded to the East coast. Statements like this are more polarizing for our game than they are helpful to its growth and homogeny. And yes, I know I am the same person who cried foul due to another DIII team's insistence that they were playing an "exhibition game" when they lost to CSU over the past two years when clearly neither team played it as such. I do however think that these statements are unnecessary. To return to the original point of this topic, on CSU's schedule this year:

UCSB
Whittier (DIII)
Colorado College (DIII)
Sonoma
NDNU (DII)
Arizona State
Oakland
Utah
BYU
Colorado

Not to be flip here (pun intended), but will CC be playing the next game as a real game, or will they treat it as a scrimmage?

[DG]

"UCSB was clearly the better team"; Of course they were; they won. I didn't say or imply to the contrary. My point was to bring perspective to the "why" they were a better team.

Good. We agree. I don't need you or anyone to tell me why UCSB was better than MIT. I saw the games. UCSB was bigger, faster & more athletic. MIT was out classed.
AO-You are correct. UCSB and MIT did not play every year. Good thing for MIT.

univduke21- You are right. The MIT games were in 2002 and 2004, so the entire discussion is a lot of quibbling over nothing. I think AO may be one of those east coast elitists who object to any comment that MDIA lacrosse may have already overtaken certain mediocre east coast D2 & D3 programs.

The point has been made. I see no reason to comment further.

Here's what I see from these posts...

Blue: UCSB kicked the crap out of MIT a bunch of times, and so now MIT is ducking them.
AO: UCSB beat them twice, and it was close one time. Don't twist the facts.

...and the thread spins out of control from there.

AO is new to the boards, so he doesn't have the benefit of the past few years of threads. He doesn't know about the "spinning" that has gone on to explain various varsity losses to MDIA teams. Also, Blue could have made his point in a more subtle way. For a second there, I thought JUMBO had joined the conversation...clearing the crease, and taking candy.

DG

[Danny Hogan]

you are getting a lot of mileage out of that jumbo thing dg

[DG]

you are getting a lot of mileage out of that jumbo thing dg

Actually, it was Bluevelvet that brought JUMBO back into the mix...I was making a reference to his post in another thread.

I did enjoy my JUMBO, though he was somewhat of an acquired taste.

DG

[univduke21]

Colorado's Schedule:
@ Colorado College (Scrimmage)
Big XII Championship
University of Texas
Texas A&M
Baylor University
University of Florida
University of Missouri
Williams College (DIII)
Utah State University
#24 Arizona State University
@Whittier College (DIII)
@ #3 UCSB
#12 University of Utah
#11 Oakland University
@Colorado College (DIII)
#5 BYU
#2 Colorado State Univesity (neutral)