Boring?

[onpoint]

Is anyone else tired of seeing these low scoring games? 6-5, 7-6, 5-4 etc. I know CSU won the 2003 national championship 6-4, so I am aware of that fact, but this is getting ridiculous. Anyway, it wasn't like CSU wanted our games to go that way, we just couldn't score any more than that! Our attack was two freshmen and a junior. We weren't trying to be boring, that's just how things ended up turning out. When Michigan scores 12 against Arizona and it's considered an offensive outburst, the only word I agree with in there is "offensive" because that's what it is to the game! Let's start seeing some double digit vs. double digit scores around this league, if for nothing else than a little excitement. We're not playing hockey.

[primetime21]

this might be a little low on the totem pole but we have some pretty good scoring games up here in the NW. last night we played western to a 14-12 win....last week 18-12 vs OSU.....some games up here are hard to find...you either get a quantity of goals....or a good quality game.

[benji]

Maybe if we implemented the two-point line we'd see some higher-scoring games. Then again, that might just increase save percentages for USLIA goalies... yeah the two-point line would be a bad idea.

[CATLAX MAN]

I think that low scoring games can be very interesting so long as the team with the ball is attacking the net. There are 2 main factors that I've noticed over the last few years that have contributed to what Alex is alluding to. (1) Some of the elite teams in the MDIA just play suffocating defense which contributes to low scoring and (2) some teams who don't play that type of defense or are up against one of those defenses tend to very selective in their shot selection which obviously leads to lower scoring games. I don't have a problem with this if, as I said before, the offensive team tries to attack the net. However, I have seen teams who recognize that they can't get into a run & gun game hold the ball with no obvious intention of trying to attack the net. I think the stalling rule is not nearly utilized by the refs enough; perhaps that is what is needed.

[Tim Gray]

I agree that high scoring games are more exciting, but you can't blame teams for playing with their strengths and/or against their opponents. It's done all the time in every sport. The Patriots are a team that week by week will do this (and win). They run the ball and take a lot of time between plays against someone like the Colts. Against a better run D, they'll just keep dropping little 5 yards "dump" passes. The same can be done in lacrosse, a team can keep a high powered offense out of a game by slowing down their offense and "choosing" their shots a lot more carefully. I think the true measure of a team is one who can impose their style of play or adapt to the other team's style and do it better.

[benji]

There's a lot to be said for those intradivisional matchups that are tied 5-5 or so with two minutes left... No better feeling in the world (playing or watching). With that being said, a 23-23 tie with two minutes left would being equally as exciting.

[onpoint]

Another factor is simply the evolution of the college game. In the late 90s, offenses were way ahead of the defenses, especially at the MDIA level. BYU beat CSU 17-10 in the 2000 national championship game. You just don't see scores like that anymore with all the focus on defense nowadays.

[benji]

Exactly. You see this especially in the High School Leagues where the focus of the game is simply scoring as much as you can with little focus on defensive strategy. With the overall improvement of teams, and the USLIA itself, clubs are continuously improving the strength of their programs. With this comes less occurences of unilateral teams, and improved defensive elements. Years ago, few teams were seldom known for thier dominance based upon thier defensive prowess, whereas now it seems many teams are known for having "commanding defenses."

It might take away from the offensive element of the game, but ultimately the quality of games has improved. In some cases it can be a bore where the sport itself isn't a naturally high-scoring one, but I guess it's time where we search within other elements of play to replace the excitement of high scores.

[TrainerDan]

Alex, I agree that higher scoring games usually are more exciting but a lower scoring game can be very enjoyable to watch. The game this past Saturday here in Provo with Michigan was very exciting as it came down to the final possession. I know the score was only 7-6 but it wasn't for lack of trying to score by both teams. The defenses and goalies both played very well. A couple of years ago Arizona came in here and won a game 6-5 and basically ran a slow death offense. Games like that are boring, they were just looking to milk the clock. Everyone loves to see the scoreboard light up but lower scoring games, like this weekend, can be just as exciting at times also. Just my opinion. With that in mind I sure hope we have a low scoring affair with the Rams next week

[CSUalum32]

i agree with evolution of the game contributing to lower scoring games. Just praticing the last couple of years we intigrated D in almost everything we did. granted low scoring games are not as exciting, but it is great to see a match-up between a high pwered offense and a strong defense.

[DG]

Alex, I agree that higher scoring games usually are more exciting but a lower scoring game can be very enjoyable to watch. The game this past Saturday here in Provo with Michigan was very exciting as it came down to the final possession. I know the score was only 7-6 but it wasn't for lack of trying to score by both teams. The defenses and goalies both played very well. A couple of years ago Arizona came in here and won a game 6-5 and basically ran a slow death offense. Games like that are boring, they were just looking to milk the clock. Everyone loves to see the scoreboard light up but lower scoring games, like this weekend, can be just as exciting at times also. Just my opinion. With that in mind I sure hope we have a low scoring affair with the Rams next week

True, Dan...the game was very exciting. But at one point, Michigan held the ball for 6 minutes and attempted 2 shots. That's been the formula for beating BYU in the last 5 years, so I'm not begrudging Michigan anything here.

One of the problems is that you also see too much specialization creeping into the game. Case in point...The Offensive team (insert any team name here) clears the ball. The get the ball to X, and rotate it to the far side attackman. He backs up to the edge of the box, and waits for the offensive middies to sub on to the field. The ball rotates around the offensive perimeter a couple of times, and then the team runs a play. That whole sequence has taken at least 1-2 minutes before the first shot is launched. Assume that the goalie makes the save, but the Defensive team doesn't have a fast break opportunity. The Defensive team then clears the ball and runs through the exact same substitution sequence as the Offensive team did. That means that you could end up with as little as 12 shots COMBINED per period. I know that's extreme, but it isn't too far off. And that's assuming that the offensive team goes into its offense and attacks relatively quickly after gaining possession and making their substitutions.

As a coach, if I have a line of middies that can play both defense and offense, then I can leave them on the field in transition. That forces the other team's offensive specialists to play defense. As I see it, that would be a huge advantage to my team. I wish more teams would play their middies both ways, and put pressure on the other team to adjust.

DG

[slider]

The specialization issue and the general slow down of the game has been addressed at the NCAA level for the last 5 years or so by the rules committee. The idea of a shot clock has been voted down repeatedly and there's really not too much else that can be done. Coaches are wise to use all of the athletes they have in certain situations to take advantage of depth. I personally love the college game as is. There are still a variety of styles present in college lacrosse. If you need to use strategy and discipline to win, do it. If you can use speed and slick sticks to win, do it. Let's not take the game completely out of the coaches' hands. Football is the most micromanaged sport around, and people still love it. I think it is a sign of overall improvement in the USLIA that we see these sort of games. If you want two-way middies and 20-19 scrores, support the MLL.

[dv]

You're forgetting what a wise man once said: Defense wins championships. Anyone who disaggrees probably hasn't won one. I would love to play for that only allows 4 goals in a championship game, because that means the offense only has to score 5. Anymore over 5 is just to look good.

[OAKS]

You're forgetting what a wise man once said: Defense wins championships. Anyone who disaggrees probably hasn't won one.

I think Syracuse disagrees with you. They gave up an average of just over 10.9 goals a game last year. but yes, defense wins most championships.

[DG]

Football is the most micromanaged sport around, and people still love it. I think it is a sign of overall improvement in the USLIA that we see these sort of games. If you want two-way middies and 20-19 scrores, support the MLL.

Football is perfectly designed to be micromanaged because of the breaks between plays. We're talking apples and oranges if we are comparing the two.

I don't want 20-19 scores, but is it too much to ask for the occasional 12-10 game?

Why do two-way middies have to equate to more poorly played defense?

DG