Just so you know, Cali has been asked to join the board of US Lacrosse. Just so you know.
Men's Lacrosse Roster shuffle
- Thread starter rufamily
- Start date
The 13th sounds right but if that is the date, I will not be able to make it as my son has been invited to a prospect weekend out of state
Last edited:
Thx for confirmation...getting info from a 19 year old can be tough sometimes :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:
That's nice. Hope he bone's up on D3 lax programs. You know enough to help him there. Congratulations to him.
Think folks are both right. When I was at OWU we beat TOSU in lax in spring scrimmages (almost 20years ago now) - the rise of the club circuit coupled with the growth of the sport makes recruiting a national exercise now.
Regardless, the programs playing for a NC every year work their asses off regardless of division.
Regardless, the programs playing for a NC every year work their asses off regardless of division.
Roy--My grandson played at a school OWU's in conference & it's coaches went nationwide to recruit. They had guys from Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Oregon, Colorado, Georgia, Florida, Virginia, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, NJ, Connecticut, Massachusetts & I think California & probably other states that I can't remember. RIT, which has become a D3 power, has 19 guys from Canada on its roster of 51. By the way, What is TOSU?
Ha - live out here long enough and it becomes ingrained.
We had mostly kids from the mid-Atlantic states with a few local players.
Now they are all over.
We had mostly kids from the mid-Atlantic states with a few local players.
Now they are all over.
If only 3-4 D3 programs have D1 expectations and commitment Salisbury is one of them.
And apparently you didn't see many D1 programs back in the day. You have badly underestimated the talent at the top of D1 going back even 50 years. Now what is true is that the #15 program would lose to a 2018 #15 by 10 goals (15 is a little hyperbolic, though that could be the margin if you talk about the #20 vs. the #20). The talent pool is MUCH deeper now. But the difference at the top is much more narrow. In fact, I'd put the 1976 Cornell (Mike French, Eamon McAneany) and 1976 Maryland teams (Frank Urso) against the 2018 Final 4 and expect a winning margin of 2-3 goals. And I've seen them both.
Agree about Salisbury. There are only a couple of D3 with that commitment.
I've been to 17 final fours. I have been on the field for two national championship games. Hopkins in 87 and Cuse in 83.
Those teams would be easily handled by a number of D1 teams today, provided they used today's equipment. The speed of the game and the athletes are simply better. The concepts, both offensively and defensively, are much more complex. The game has simply advanced, which is what happens. As Coach Hayes said, it' just a different game today.
I've been to 17 final fours. I have been on the field for two national championship games. Hopkins in 87 and Cuse in 83.
Those teams would be easily handled by a number of D1 teams today, provided they used today's equipment. The speed of the game and the athletes are simply better. The concepts, both offensively and defensively, are much more complex. The game has simply advanced, which is what happens. As Coach Hayes said, it' just a different game today.
Well, I worked under the assumption that the teams of yesterday would have access to today's equipment. Beyond that I think we'll probably have to agree to disagree.
Some additional info in athleticism, however. McEneany didn't play football for Cornell until his senior year, but on the basis of that 1 year he got signed by the Jets as an UDFA. Didn't make the team, but I think that speaks highly of his athletic abilities. Urso got recruited as a RB by Ohio State, but wanted to play lacrosse and NOT compete against Archie Griffin.
Some additional info in athleticism, however. McEneany didn't play football for Cornell until his senior year, but on the basis of that 1 year he got signed by the Jets as an UDFA. Didn't make the team, but I think that speaks highly of his athletic abilities. Urso got recruited as a RB by Ohio State, but wanted to play lacrosse and NOT compete against Archie Griffin.
A number of modern lacrosse players have played football. There are at least two in the NFL right now who played D1 lacrosse.
Having played D1 and been around the game my whole life, while getting to see games from the field level, there's no question in my mind today's athlete's are far superior. Just like they are in every sport. Training methods and commitment is much more professional now.
I have a number of friends who play in the MLL. One who retired and came back after an 8 years (goalie). He confirms this at the pro level too.
Having played D1 and been around the game my whole life, while getting to see games from the field level, there's no question in my mind today's athlete's are far superior. Just like they are in every sport. Training methods and commitment is much more professional now.
I have a number of friends who play in the MLL. One who retired and came back after an 8 years (goalie). He confirms this at the pro level too.
You going to keep repeating that there are only a couple of D3 teams with the commitment of Salisbury, even though that assertion is patently false & has been completely discredited? You really have disqualified yourself from discussing D3 lacrosse with any credibility.
Spot on...this is why it's tough to argue and compare eras and different decades in ANY sport. Athletes and training have evolved so much so it's just not comparable...look at golf as an outlier example. Many die hards don't like calling golf a sport...but...even golf has evolved starting with Tiger, and now every young guy trains hard...look at DJ or Brooks Koepka...those guys are crazy athletes...it wasn't like that in the 80's
My point is each era can stand on their own...they're all great teams in the times they competed...take nothing away from the past...but at field level, these kids playing lacrosse today are fast, big, strong and smart...And I'm not saying previous eras players were not all that...but technology, training methods...it's just better now
Last edited:
You just have to stop. The two people you are arguing with have more athletic, historical and experiential knowledge than you on the subject. In following the thread the only person supporting your argument is you. You basically list a few notable exceptions to the general rule and expect that to prove your point. I generally enjoy your perspective, especially on soccer, but you are polluting the thread at this point. Please drop it.
this isn't the first time either ... be like elsa ...learn when to let it go
I am a guy from another era. It was a great era. We had incredible athletes and players. But today's players are better. They train differently, they prepare differently, they lift and practice differently, and they are just better. I am not afraid to say it. And the players in another 15 years will be better than the players today. It's evolution of the game, and how it should be.
If this wasn't happening, it would be a problem for the game. But it is, and it's very obvious if you've been around the game for 40 years. Or even the last 10.
And please identify what you believe to be the subject. And please explain the general rule to which you're referring.
Last edited:
I am a guy from another era and I know someone who played against Eamon and Mike French and Frank Urso. Most if not all of the great players back then played multiple sports and while I know that there are lacrosse guys that also play football there are far more kids today that simply play lacrosse. Plus, the training that they receive now if far more than back then, the defenses are more complex as are the offense's. I know for us we have (in HS) a base man defense and a base zone as well has 3 to 4 adjustments that we can make for each game or even in game. That being said I would love to see what Eamon and that era of guys could do with the equipment we use today, as well as the change of rules to make it less violent because frankly, that era of lacrosse was a man's game. The game was also based on ball movement instead of dodging because the ball would come out of the stick if a defenseman through a good check where as now it is nearly impossible to dislodge the ball from a stick.
The game I would pay to see is the 1976 Cornell team playing 2018 Yale using 1976 equipment. I feel that the sticks would be the great equalizer.
Great perspective. And I'd also pay money to see Cornell - Yale using today's equipment. I've been watching the game for 50 years, and during that time, even with 70's equipment, Eamon had the quickest change of direction of anyone when possessing the ball. He was fast as well, but was lightening quick. It's scary to think what he could have done with today's equipment.
Of course, I think the FOGO's should have us digging through our closets to see if any sticks of that era are still around. They would absolutely crush today's sticks and provide an advantage. That actually happened when STX came out with the first superlights and the old Brine sticks left them still twisted out of shape when possession was established.
The equipment would definitely make modern teams vs older teams more interesting, that's for sure.
Just got back from practice. Look for an email sometime today
Heard from a few of the guys, seems like they really like the new coaches.
Any new guys stand out?
Any new guys stand out?
Ugh...The subject initially was a discussion/speculation as to why a particular gifted but allegedly less committed RU player chose to transfer from RU to a D2 or D3 school (I don’t remember which). A very knowledgeable poster (former player and coach) explained that the rigors/time commitment/grind/competition of D1 lacrosse isn’t for everyone and that generally speaking a D3 program will require less time from the athlete. The general rule is that most D3 programs dedicate less ie. training regimen/have less resources ie. facilities to dedicate towards athletics and therefore the D3 programs require less from their athletes than a fully funded D1 program. You responded by relating the college lacrosse experiences of your children/grandkids and their friends to refute this. You also then picked apart his posts using semantics (it was a casual post, not a legal document) to “strengthen” your anecdotal argument. Then, when another poster (a former player and current high level NJ HS coach) supported the previous poster based on his expertise and considerable experience, you attacked his posts based on your limited, anecdotal experience and, of course, using semantics again. In my limited experience as former D1 wrestler the biggest difference I experienced in D1 vs D3 was the day to day level of competition in practice. There were no easy outs and no way to coast especially because I was on the lower end of the D1 talent spectrum. I’m sure your kids worked just as hard/put just as much effort in as any player on any level of competition but that doesn’t make D1 and D3 athletics comparable, generally speaking. The only reason I have put this much effort in responding to you is because I think your heart is in the right place. Go RU.
Good to hear on the new middies. It's the last piece of the puzzle for us. Those big, athletic, downhill dodging middies that dominate between the lines. With our style, they key. Good to hear about Coyne. Still crazy to think he was playing D1 high level lacrosse as a 17 year old.
Curious to see how Peterson has developed at midfield. He has a lot of potential. He could have played last year as an 18 year old who skipped his senior year, like Coyne. Brecht was close to playing him.
Curious to see how Peterson has developed at midfield. He has a lot of potential. He could have played last year as an 18 year old who skipped his senior year, like Coyne. Brecht was close to playing him.
FoxRU, certainly commendable that you responded thoughtfully & thoroughly. You are essentially correct on the subject but far less so on the general rule concept which is more of a widely held opinion by many former D3 lacrosse players, & others with less experience & knowledge than the D1 guys on the subject, all of whom have posted.
My knowledge, & it is not limited, is that a very large percentage of D3 lax programs require every bit as much time & commitment from the athlete as is done on the D3 level. One of the former D1 lax players agreed that some D3 lax programs required comparable commitment & work, but felt that the number was more limited, maybe quite a bit more limited, than I had argued. The other former D1 lax player contended that perhaps 3 or 4 D3 programs require as much as a D1 program, but wasn't even sure that they did. He further contended that basically all of the D3 lax programs are no more than club teams & are run that way. It is these later contentions that I know to be incorrect to which I took strong exception. I don't want to necessarily ascribe motive, but I believe that many D1 lax guys don't have an intimate knowledge of D3 lax, while I also suspect that they are partial to D1 lax & really loath to admit or believe that many, many of the 236 D3 lax programs are on a par with D1 programs in terms of time commitment & requirements & all else that the D1 programs demand. In some ways it can be argued that the demands are even tougher for the D3 athlete, in that they don't have the benefit of tutors or team advisers to help with course scheduling & test prep, etc. I did & do acknowledge that in the travel requirements on the D1 level are greater[ more overnights than one day bus trips & late night home returns]. And I never contended that the level of play on the D3 level equaled that on the D1 level, but rather acknowledged that it did not. I trust that I have not resorted to semantics in this response, and have taken the time to respond at length in view of your thoughtful & lengthy post. I don't wish to prolong a debate, however, I am not going to accept or agree with an assertion on the subject, or the refutation of the knowledge that I have on the subject, which is patently false. In this regard I am referring to the second example that I cited.
Glad you enjoy the soccer posts. I like following that team & going to the games.
PS- one of the posters, a former D3 lax player from Ohio Weselyn, agreed with me on the time, commitment & other demands of D3 vs D1.
My knowledge, & it is not limited, is that a very large percentage of D3 lax programs require every bit as much time & commitment from the athlete as is done on the D3 level. One of the former D1 lax players agreed that some D3 lax programs required comparable commitment & work, but felt that the number was more limited, maybe quite a bit more limited, than I had argued. The other former D1 lax player contended that perhaps 3 or 4 D3 programs require as much as a D1 program, but wasn't even sure that they did. He further contended that basically all of the D3 lax programs are no more than club teams & are run that way. It is these later contentions that I know to be incorrect to which I took strong exception. I don't want to necessarily ascribe motive, but I believe that many D1 lax guys don't have an intimate knowledge of D3 lax, while I also suspect that they are partial to D1 lax & really loath to admit or believe that many, many of the 236 D3 lax programs are on a par with D1 programs in terms of time commitment & requirements & all else that the D1 programs demand. In some ways it can be argued that the demands are even tougher for the D3 athlete, in that they don't have the benefit of tutors or team advisers to help with course scheduling & test prep, etc. I did & do acknowledge that in the travel requirements on the D1 level are greater[ more overnights than one day bus trips & late night home returns]. And I never contended that the level of play on the D3 level equaled that on the D1 level, but rather acknowledged that it did not. I trust that I have not resorted to semantics in this response, and have taken the time to respond at length in view of your thoughtful & lengthy post. I don't wish to prolong a debate, however, I am not going to accept or agree with an assertion on the subject, or the refutation of the knowledge that I have on the subject, which is patently false. In this regard I am referring to the second example that I cited.
Glad you enjoy the soccer posts. I like following that team & going to the games.
PS- one of the posters, a former D3 lax player from Ohio Weselyn, agreed with me on the time, commitment & other demands of D3 vs D1.
Last edited:
