consolation games

[GeorgiaLacrosse]

why doesn't every team take consolation games seroiusly? teams should. Its a chance to find out how teams that never play each other match up.
In the Uga vs. Michigan game, the parents of michigan said they played their starters... besides their goalie and a faceoff man. I don't know how accurate this is. But either way teams should want to win consolation games and treat them just as any other game.
I know vs. lindenwood uga didn't start the goalie or one of the best defensemen so that seniors could play. But had we started to lose to them, we would have put those starters back in (we didn't have to).

But can someone please respond... why do teams say that they don't take these games seriously when they should. A lot of teams that aren't completely funded by their schools have their trip paid for by themselves and family members, so its a shame that the highly budgeted teams may take these games for granted.

[nhoskins]

No one is going to Nationals for "the chance to find out how teams that never play each other match up".

They're there to win a National Championship. Once that is no longer possible, who cares? At the end of the year, it doesn't matter whether you beat Georgia or not in a consolation game, all that matters is that you DIDN'T win the championship.

The consolation games are fun and a chance to try a new position, or get some seniors some playing time, or try some trick plays... Are teams still trying to win? Sure... but the players on the field are not the best ones to do that in a consolation game... the players on the field are the ones the coach decided to put out there, for whatever reason.

Georgia might be trying to prove something in consolation games because it's their first time at Nationals, but the teams that are there every year only have one goal, and the season ends when that is no longer possible to accomplish.

[sohotrightnow]

This topic has been discussed ad nauseam. Teams treat it differently for a variety of reasons. Consider the following scenario:

The number 1 seed gets upset in the first round. They were undefeated all year and were a virtual lock for the national title game. Now, they are stuck playing in a consolation game. They are dejected and they feel like their season is a waste. The coach can either decide to play his starters in a consolation game or he can start other players, namely seniors who may have not been a major part of the team throughout their four years at the school. This may be their only chance to play at the national tournament, because if they were in the winners bracket they would not see the field, unless they were blowing teams out.

It's not an issue of taking things for granted. Their season is over. There is nothing they can win. You would like to put your best foot forward, but these matches are fairly ill-conceived. If you win, great. If you lose, no shame either. Even if both sides played their starters, you can guarantee that players from the losing side would cry "foul," and claim that they were not taking it seriously. Yes, you can play for pride, but why not let other players who have sacrificed in practice get a chance to play?

Can you imagine having Princeton play Loyola this week just for the hell of it? I think not.

[bbandlax]

why doesn't every team take consolation games seroiusly? teams should. Its a chance to find out how teams that never play each other match up.
In the Uga vs. Michigan game, the parents of michigan said they played their starters... besides their goalie and a faceoff man. I don't know how accurate this is. But either way teams should want to win consolation games and treat them just as any other game.
I know vs. lindenwood uga didn't start the goalie or one of the best defensemen so that seniors could play. But had we started to lose to them, we would have put those starters back in (we didn't have to).

But can someone please respond... why do teams say that they don't take these games seriously when they should. A lot of teams that aren't completely funded by their schools have their trip paid for by themselves and family members, so its a shame that the highly budgeted teams may take these games for granted.

Well to start, which teams at this tournament do you think are fully funded by their schools? Or for that matter matter half or a quarter funded by their school.

I am not sure if you are a player at UGA or a fan, but to answer your first question I don't think you have been in the position that these players and coaches are in. I have been a player and a coach when BYU lost in the quarter finals. I can not speak for other players or teams, but we have always gone to nationals with one goal in mind, and only one goal. We were not there to see how well we matched up with any other team. In fact I could not care less.

After we lost I did not want to see another game. I felt like my heart was ripped out and I was sick to my stomach. I have been at every championship tournament since the first in 97 and I have only seen 5 final games (the two BYU played in, and parts of 3 others. I could not stomach watching others play where I worked so hard to be). The only reason I ever played in the consolation games was because of family and friends who had traveled to watch us and to be on the field one more time with my teammates. I did not care at all who was on the field with us. In fact I would rather have just scrimmaged with my teammates.

I played and coached because I love the game and those who I played with, but losing in this tournament is the worst experience I have had as an athlete or a coach. Once we lost I had no desire to play the next day. If someone can play with the heart and desire to beat another team after losing at nationals then that person either has much more heart than I, or it didn't matter as much to them in the first place.

Maybe other teams see this different, but I suspect that the players on teams like SB, Michigan, Sonoma, and CU feel the same way. I would include CSU but they have never had to play a consolation game.

[sbyrne9]

I agree with GeorgiaLacrosse in this situation. Yes the agreement may be there because I myself went to Georgia, but looking at everything from this week so far and the messages on the board there are arguments for both sides of this thread. I would have given anything to play at Nationals when I was at UGA... we came up short in the SELC each year but I still played hardest in the Consolation game as well.
We come from a large school at UGA, but we do not get the support from the school that other Universities around the country receive. I know we are not the only players who had to pay our dues and travel expenses but in my mind I think each game at the National level should be taken serious and it is an great chance to match up with teams that you may never get a chance to play again.

[Campbell]

I bet just about every team takes their consolation games seriously. You don't get into a national tournament without having pride in how you perform on the field in any game. But, as so-hot said each team will approach it differently and that is fine.

[CATLAX MAN]

We come from a large school at UGA, but we do not get the support from the school that other Universities around the country receive.

Why don't people understand this point? NO TEAM IN THE MCLA GETS ANY SIGNIFICANT HELP FROM THEIR UNIVERSITY.

[RealisticObserver]

It is a double edge sword. The new comers are excited about playing and even in a consy bracket, they want the best a team they would never play has got.
But the fact that teams like Mich, BYU, CSU etc... that go there to win it all, and don't, whether they played their starters or not, you are still not going to get their best. The players just won't be into it.

I think the funding is irrelavant. I see your point, you don't pay good money to shut it down after 1 game, but I don't think, regardless of who funded a trip, that a losing team that expected to win it all is going to go balls out in a meaningless game just cause they paid alot to get there. Pride is pride, but when you go to win it all and don't, that is that.

Not only is a coach going to play seniors, but it is an excellent chance to get freshmen in their for a taste of it.

You see this in every sport. To ask the question is borderline rediculous.

[BB]

Funding is irrelevant because it is pretty much equal across the board.

Some teams do more fundraising and put more effort forth to get where they want to and plan ahead.

[bste_lax]

Someone on here once had a great analogy for the consolation games, but they are like the NBA All-Star game. Everyone gets in minutes and it is a fun game that is not taken seriously until about mid-way through the fourth quarter if the score is close.

I saw some teams playing bench players and I also saw a very good competitive game which featured most of the starters in the NU-UMD game (I could be wrong but it seemed like the starters were in there for most of the time).

[dtrain34]

BB, you are way off on the funding issue. In our league it will never be irrelevant and is not nearly equal. Money is always a major concern with our programs. As I said, way, way off my friend. I apologize, but it is not the same playing field and funding at different schools is completely different.

I will spare all of us the time of just comparing the schools that I know about the funding (CAL, U of A, UCSB, SDSU, UCSD, etc.), or what I have heard of funding (Michigan, BYU, Lindenwood)....

You are right, some schools are able to garnish more from their efforts and fundraising. And some teams do a better job administratively planning ahead. This definitely helps these teams. But some schools are allocated an amount in support just from their school and/or alumni funds, than entire schools are able to get from their school, fundraising, parent contributions, and player dues combined.

I will not even get into the differences in coaching salaries here....that is private information anyways. But again, some coaching salaries are entire teams competing in the tournaments budget.

[RealisticObserver]

BB, you are way off on the funding issue. In our league it will never be irrelevant and is not nearly equal. Money is always a major concern with our programs. As I said, way, way off my friend. I apologize, but it is not the same playing field and funding at different schools is completely different.

I will spare all of us the time of just comparing the schools that I know about the funding (CAL, U of A, UCSB, SDSU, UCSD, etc.), or what I have heard of funding (Michigan, BYU, Lindenwood)....

You are right, some schools are able to garnish more from their efforts and fundraising. And some teams do a better job administratively planning ahead. This definitely helps these teams. But some schools are allocated an amount in support just from their school and/or alumni funds, than entire schools are able to get from their school, fundraising, parent contributions, and player dues combined.

I will not even get into the differences in coaching salaries here....that is private information anyways. But again, some coaching salaries are entire teams competing in the tournaments budget.

I second this. This is a discussion that has no good end, and there is no equal playing field on funding. However it should not be used as an excuse, I think at the very least, most programs, no matter how old or established or whatever, all started from the ground up. Where they are now is beyond discussion of equal.

[John Paul]

There are also a lot of assumptions made out there that are not accurate. I think a lot of people would be surprised at the level of funding we get a Michigan for example (it's not much) or the amount our coaches get paid (until this year - not a penny, and still very little). Their are advantages and disadvantages at every school, and there are some programs that have created very good situations for themselves and others that have not taken advantage of some of things available to them.

As for the consolation game discussion...every team has to decide on their own how to approach a game. We (MCLA) require teams to show up, play the games we tell them to play and act with class. We do not make gameplan suggestions or require them to play certain players. Hopefully they play hard, no matter who is in (I know we do, even if we are playing non-starters in a consolation game).

My personal philosophy is that dues has nothing to do with it. Our players pay dues (if they can afford them, otherwise we help them) to help the team operate at the level it does. That's it. It does not have a thing to do with playing time. We choose to play our subs in consolation games for three reasons: 1. for the reasons bbandlax (my man Scottie) explained, and 2. because we see that part of the tournament as a transition into the next season, and 3. to reward players who have worked hard all year and had little or no chance to play against the better teams.

Unfortunately for us, we've had quite a few opportunities to come up with our consolation game philosophy. Most, if not all, of the A teams that are at the tournament every year approach it the same way.

[NomaBlueCollar]

Also, with the tournament moved back a week this year, it creates an interesting situation due to many schools having finals next week. So Im sure that after getting knocked out of the winner's bracket, many players might then shift their focus to their studies rather than seemingly meaningless conso games

[Beta]

IMO, if team A (coaches, players) isn't going to give 100% into a game...then they shouldn't care about someone saying "we beat team A".