Washington College 2020

[Laxmaximus]

After years of self-imposed exile I am re-entering the conversation about WAC Lax. At the risk of being over simplistic in my evaluation of the lacrosse environment at Washington here are my basic observations:

- The administration has decided to deemphasize sports at WAC and the historic Lax program is in dire jeopardy of becoming irrelevant. Alumni need to demand that the school reinvigorate the sporting environment of the school - utilize the power of the purse if need be, i.e. donors specify where the money is to be used or no money will be donated.

- The sad fact is that Coach Shirk has failed miserably during his tenure at WAC; his only successful seasons were with remnants of the previous coaches recruits. While many have blamed the players, I believe the responsibility for the poor record falls squarely on Coach Shirk.

I have watched his teams play for most of his time at WAC and the offense is plain vanilla, the defense has been adequate but asked to do too much when the offense doesn't produce, the extra man offense is non-existent, and unforced turnovers have been a constant problem for this team indicating a need to go back to the basics. The great coach Bob Scott of Hopkins used to say "if you take care of all the little things...scooping,passing, catching,...shooting well, then the big things will take care of themselves." All of these items can be blamed on poor coaching, not teaching fundamentals and a lack of game awareness and developing players.

During the past several years there have been numerous occasions where several of the coaches have been seen arguing with either themselves or players on the sideline during games. It's a wonder morale has not been more of an issue and it speaks to the character of the players that they have continued playing despite leadership from above.

- You cannot coach a modern D3 college with only 3 coaches, one of whom had little or no coaching experience prior to coaching at WAC. This is the Director of Athletics responsibility and he should be held accountable for this. If you look at most of the other D3 programs WAC plays they have 5-8 coaches that cover offense, defense, man down, extra man, face-offs, clearing, riding and other game scenarios. Why does WAC have 2-3 coaches?

- It's time to bring in some new blood, a young coach who doesn't care about the status quo, wants to make a name for himself, and can infuse his players with a "can do" attitude.

- When your in the back yard of a state that arguably produces (still) a plethora of talented lacrosse players in both public and private high schools and clubs you need to recruit more kids from that area. How many kids has the coach recruited from the MIAA(any division) and public schools in Baltimore, Howard and Anne Arundel county?

- You shouldn't have a squad that is overwhelmed with a majority of starters who are freshman, something is wrong with your recruiting philosophy when you repeatedly are "rebuilding" your team .

All of the points that have been mentioned by the contributors above are valid but it is not too late to turn this program around. How many of you remember Loyola College back in the 70"s. It was a struggling program that a few dedicated alumni decided they were going to start to rebuild and with time they have built it into a perennial D1 powerhouse so it can be done!

[BoofMeatShoeBox]

After years of self-imposed exile I am re-entering the conversation about WAC Lax. At the risk of being over simplistic in my evaluation of the lacrosse environment at Washington here are my basic observations:

- The administration has decided to deemphasize sports at WAC and the historic Lax program is in dire jeopardy of becoming irrelevant. Alumni need to demand that the school reinvigorate the sporting environment of the school - utilize the power of the purse if need be, i.e. donors specify where the money is to be used or no money will be donated.

- The sad fact is that Coach Shirk has failed miserably during his tenure at WAC; his only successful seasons were with remnants of the previous coaches recruits. While many have blamed the players, I believe the responsibility for the poor record falls squarely on Coach Shirk.

I have watched his teams play for most of his time at WAC and the offense is plain vanilla, the defense has been adequate but asked to do too much when the offense doesn't produce, the extra man offense is non-existent, and unforced turnovers have been a constant problem for this team indicating a need to go back to the basics. The great coach Bob Scott of Hopkins used to say "if you take care of all the little things...scooping,passing, catching,...shooting well, then the big things will take care of themselves." All of these items can be blamed on poor coaching, not teaching fundamentals and a lack of game awareness and developing players.

During the past several years there have been numerous occasions where several of the coaches have been seen arguing with either themselves or players on the sideline during games. It's a wonder morale has not been more of an issue and it speaks to the character of the players that they have continued playing despite leadership from above.

- You cannot coach a modern D3 college with only 3 coaches, one of whom had little or no coaching experience prior to coaching at WAC. This is the Director of Athletics responsibility and he should be held accountable for this. If you look at most of the other D3 programs WAC plays they have 5-8 coaches that cover offense, defense, man down, extra man, face-offs, clearing, riding and other game scenarios. Why does WAC have 2-3 coaches?

- It's time to bring in some new blood, a young coach who doesn't care about the status quo, wants to make a name for himself, and can infuse his players with a "can do" attitude.

- When your in the back yard of a state that arguably produces (still) a plethora of talented lacrosse players in both public and private high schools and clubs you need to recruit more kids from that area. How many kids has the coach recruited from the MIAA(any division) and public schools in Baltimore, Howard and Anne Arundel county?

- You shouldn't have a squad that is overwhelmed with a majority of starters who are freshman, something is wrong with your recruiting philosophy when you repeatedly are "rebuilding" your team .

All of the points that have been mentioned by the contributors above are valid but it is not too late to turn this program around. How many of you remember Loyola College back in the 70"s. It was a struggling program that a few dedicated alumni decided they were going to start to rebuild and with time they have built it into a perennial D1 powerhouse so it can be done!

Long time lurker but thought it was about time I made an account. First off I am a huge Centennial Conference fan with a bias toward the Bears. The mayhem that has been going on in this forum absolutely blows my mind. You guys are acting like Wac is getting rid of lacrosse permanently. Yea you haven't had the years you guys have wanted, welcome to being a sports fan of any team. Some of the excuses and blame I've seen in this thread about why Wac is down is hilarious.

To start the Administration??? You guys are telling me Wac is struggling because of the administration... get a grip. You want the alumni to throw money at the school and say " Hey administration make Wac great again." Not how it works. Where the money is used and donated??? Come on every school in the Centennial has the same amenities as each other. Beside F&M and Gettysburg all of the locker rooms are basically extremely outdated and in need of renovation. Wac has an extremely nice venue compared to others in the league.

You seriously just said "not teaching fundamentals". This is D3 lacrosse these guys playing are men, this isn't middle school ball. There is a finite amount of time in the season and fall ball. It is not the coaches job to teach fundamentals. It is his job to recruit players that have the work ethic to hit the wall and keep up with their fundamentals. Recruit some leaders that take charge and organize a captains practice to make sure everyone stays sharp and locked in. However, I do agree with you that it is the coaches job to develop players. I can't comment on if Shirk does a good job of this. A lot of D3 coaches get stuck not developing their players throughout their 4 years, it doesn't have to be astronomical but players should be getting a little bit better each practice and year.

Coaches argue with coaches and players argue with players. It's part of being in a team environment, it happens, and is unavoidable. For you to say it hurts morale is flat out soft. If you can't move past an argument and not go home crying to your mom that embarrassing. Man up and move past it.

"You cannot coach a modern D3 college with only 3 coaches, one of whom had little or no coaching experience prior to coaching at WAC. This is the Director of Athletics responsibility and he should be held accountable for this. If you look at most of the other D3 programs WAC plays they have 5-8 coaches that cover offense, defense, man down, extra man, face-offs, clearing, riding and other game scenarios. Why does WAC have 2-3 coaches?"

^ This statement here is straight up blasphemous. Did you huff paint before writing this? The amount of coaches on a staff correlate to winning??? Look at the other schools in the conference. Gettysburg 3 coaches, Ursinus 3 coaches, Dickinson 4 coaches. Then you have Swat, Muhlenberg, Haverford, McDaniel, and F&M averaging around 5. These other programs have been mid-tier to bottom of the barrel for a while now. F&M is the only outlier in that situation, and I have a feeling that their success has not been due to the amount of coaches they have. Ursinus won the CC ship last year with three coaches and a first year head coach. For you to make the statement that the number of coaches correlates to success is flat out wrong.

Yea your back yard is a state that produces a plethora of talented lacrosse players but Wac's campus has little to offer. It's in boondocks Maryland. Other schools in the conference offer the same experience Wac does but with a way more active surrounding area. You have to remember these are 18-22 year olds. They love lacrosse but it's D3 they want to be able to go out and do other things.

Your right it may be time for a new coach but that won't solve everything that is wrong. You need a bunch of kids that will strap up, bring their lunch pales and put in the work everyday to be successful. I don't mean to come across as attacking you but the statements you've made couldn't be further from the truth. Wac needs a lot of work and a lot of rebuilding. There is not one issue you can point to when a program start to unravel. You can only hope the players and coaches can find a way to move past it. Bears were 0-11 (recently lost there 3 wins) before last year anything can happen.

[ToastDunk]

"You cannot coach a modern D3 college with only 3 coaches, one of whom had little or no coaching experience prior to coaching at WAC. This is the Director of Athletics responsibility and he should be held accountable for this. If you look at most of the other D3 programs WAC plays they have 5-8 coaches that cover offense, defense, man down, extra man, face-offs, clearing, riding and other game scenarios. Why does WAC have 2-3 coaches?"

^ This statement here is straight up blasphemous. Did you huff paint before writing this? The amount of coaches on a staff correlate to winning??? Look at the other schools in the conference....

Thank you BMSB, someone had to say it.

[richard]

I might agree about the number of coaches.

I do not agree about college administrations affecting what is put on the field or court. Like everything else it is a top down proposition.

I also do not agree that the men coming in have all the fundamentals down. It is not true. Think about all of the box players who have only one hand. In order to play field they have to develop the off hand. That is fundamental. They all have to work on other things as well. How would individuals and teams get any better in their four years?

[DeepPocket]

It certainly is good to have more coaches, however, the quality of those coaches plays a large part in it all. There are teams that do not have a full time paid assistant at all. That certainly limits the quality of an assistant and/or how long they will stick around. And that in turn goes to Administration members (AD etc) who for their own reasons (prioritization of another sport , different $ allocation, etc) choose to not avail this to the team.

Having one high quality paid assistant long term on full time salary and one former player assisting would probably be more advantageous than having 5 former players assisting.

Not sure if this applies here, but it is one scenario where admin choices directly affect team capabilities.

[TommySkids]

- The sad fact is that Coach Shirk has failed miserably during his tenure at WAC; his only successful seasons were with remnants of the previous coaches recruits. While many have blamed the players, I believe the responsibility for the poor record falls squarely on Coach Shirk.

Another lurker here....

I'm curious if the previous coach was employed under a more "lacrosse friendly" administration, and when exactly did that change? If the previous coach had the benefit of a more supporting atmosphere from the administration and Shirk has not....it stands to reason that Shirk would have had more struggles (on and off the field).

For instance, as some have mentioned the amount of financial aid given to prospective lacrosse players. If the former coach was getting more support from admissions and the financial aid office, there would be no doubt that it would be easier to bring in a higher caliber of player. If Shirk has not had the benefit of that support, it severely limits the type of players that he can bring in.

BMSB, you brought up a bunch of good points...however, I do think you are misguided on how much a supportive administration helps a program. If nothing else, being able to "bend" admissions requirements to get kids into a school where they normally would not qualify greatly expands the pool of talent you can draw from. If the administration's Shirk has had to work with have not been as flexible here as some of his competitors in the Centennial...then he has been somewhat hamstrung.

(I'm not giving the guy a total pass, but just saying he may have been fighting a hugely uphill battle from the start.)

[WASHFAN]

I’ll jump in.
1. Administration does matter, for Wash they’ve had a really bad continuity problem with the 2 prior to Landgraff being ambivalent or negative towards sports, however it will take 5-7 years for a friendly Admin to make a difference. It seems to me the current Pres has focused on the total school (raising money, boosting applicants, improving infrastructure) while being positively disposed to Athletics. I
2. The recruiting process has changed sportwide multiple times in the last 5-10yrs, D3 has stratified..recruits are being steered by clubs and parents and although US News Rankings don’t matter...They do. That’s why you see non-traditional schools making up the talent gap cause they get a top 50 ranking. Imagine this, kids a great player, and he gets a 1200 on SAT and has a decent GPA; Although he can’t go NESCAC, he can go to the other top 50 schools like Denison, W&L, F&M, etc. it takes a special kind a kid to go to Wash. Gotta like the country/shore, like tradition, and be willing to invest in a program/school that’s had some serious volatility. I’m not using this as an excuse but the “old ways” just don’t work as well. Salisbury has mastered the art of continuity, they win, reload, win and move on. They have a consistent brand, coaching tree, and Lax is their sport. They keep the momentum and continuity. It would take a bad admin 5-7 years to reduce that program..
3. The program took a huge gut punch, Successful Coach gets cut, experienced assistants leave, Shirk comes into stabilize and has negatively disposed administration. Meanwhile everyone else is ramping up, and the Gulls are getting another ring...the question is, is Shirk pushing to reclaim funding, staff and recruits? I think he is on recruiting. On staff and funding...I don’t know...
4. I’m not sure canning the coach or AD changes anything right now, I can tell you that change without commitment just makes the problem worse. Either this will be the turning point, or the program needs to be totally rebuilt/rebranded..hopefully the former, if the latter, it’ll be 5-7 more years before they improve in the Centennial...it’s a darn tough conference and you have to win it to safely advance.

[laxfan0165]

...it does if the amount of financial aid offered by the school is less than what their competitors are offering.

My son who enrolled in 2014 was given enough money to cover 1 years worth it cost. Don't lay all the blame on cost! Coaching and recruiting has a lot to do with this skid.

[pucksandbones]

I might agree about the number of coaches.

I do not agree about college administrations affecting what is put on the field or court. Like everything else it is a top down proposition.

I also do not agree that the men coming in have all the fundamentals down. It is not true. Think about all of the box players who have only one hand. In order to play field they have to develop the off hand. That is fundamental. They all have to work on other things as well. How would individuals and teams get any better in their four years?

Box players typically do not develop an off hand or even try to

[MrLax2U]

Wac's campus has little to offer. It's in boondocks Maryland.

Respectfully disagree.I think The campus, Chestertown and environs are bucolic, historic and wonderful.

WAC students always seem happy and enthusiastic. 56% WAC students are female so our male lax athletes need not spend Saturday nights flossing their teeth, studying their Bibles and watching game films.

Then there's WOTS, one of the great D 3 men's lax sports rivalries. Am I missing something?

[BoofMeatShoeBox]

I might agree about the number of coaches.

I do not agree about college administrations affecting what is put on the field or court. Like everything else it is a top down proposition.

I also do not agree that the men coming in have all the fundamentals down. It is not true. Think about all of the box players who have only one hand. In order to play field they have to develop the off hand. That is fundamental. They all have to work on other things as well. How would individuals and teams get any better in their four years?

I can clarify what I mean by fundamentals. In my opinion it is not a head coaches job to teach passing, catching, and ground balls to players. There are certain drills that can be done during practice to reinforce those skill. However, it is the players jobs to find free time to practice the basics. You can disagree but there is only so much time during the year for coach sanctioned practice. Basic lacrosse improvement should be on the players own time before/after practice, during the winter, and during the summer. It is however the coaches job to teach other fundamentals like wing play, off ball movement, working on technique with keepers, etc.

[BoofMeatShoeBox]

Wac's campus has little to offer. It's in boondocks Maryland.

Respectfully disagree.I think The campus, Chestertown and environs are bucolic, historic and wonderful.

WAC students always seem happy and enthusiastic. 56% WAC students are female so our male lax athletes need not spend Saturday nights flossing their teeth, studying their Bibles and watching game films.

Then there's WOTS, one of the great D 3 men's lax sports rivalries. Am I missing something?

I see your point but disagree guess I'm not one for a "bucolic" life. Don't think a lot of 18-22 year old lacrosse players will care much for the historic factor of Chestertown. Extremely blanket statement to be made that students always seem happy and enthusiastic. You could say that about any college campus you walk on. You'll always see smiling students engaged in conversation. You think WOTS is that big of a selling point? I don't think WOTS is a huge selling point at all. To a recruit in high school it is just another game. Sure some might think that is neat to play Salisbury every year, but a lot of kids going D3 don't know the history of the rivalry and are just looking for a balance of social life, academics, and competitive lacrosse. Which is something plenty of other CC schools offer.

[richard]

[quote=richard post_id=118309 time=<a href="tel:1583423024">1583423024</a> user_id=418]
I might agree about the number of coaches.

I do not agree about college administrations affecting what is put on the field or court. Like everything else it is a top down proposition.

I also do not agree that the men coming in have all the fundamentals down. It is not true. Think about all of the box players who have only one hand. In order to play field they have to develop the off hand. That is fundamental. They all have to work on other things as well. How would individuals and teams get any better in their four years?

I can clarify what I mean by fundamentals. In my opinion it is not a head coaches job to teach passing, catching, and ground balls to players. There are certain drills that can be done during practice to reinforce those skill. However, it is the players jobs to find free time to practice the basics. You can disagree but there is only so much time during the year for coach sanctioned practice. Basic lacrosse improvement should be on the players own time before/after practice, during the winter, and during the summer. It is however the coaches job to teach other fundamentals like wing play, off ball movement, working on technique with keepers, etc.
[/quote]

We might be thinking the same thing. A coach has to have his eyes open enough to recognize when a player has mechanical issues with stickwork etc and it is his job to make sure the player knows about it and how to correct it. Like a hitting or pitching coach in baseball. You are right that most of that work has to be done on the players own time. Still during the course of a season the basics need to be kept track of.

[cigslax11]

Another lurker here. In my opinion, I feel like a lot of this has to do with the culture Shirk has created on and off the field. It seems like WAC thinks they will be solid every season due to all of the prior success. There’s comes a point where leadership and coaches have to move on to a new identity for the culture of the team.

As an Ursinus fan, you saw this exact thing happen with the resignation of Steele. Coach Mercadante was able to get his senior class to buy into his culture and it all trickled down from there.

I am not saying they need to can Shirk, but maybe he needs to get these kids to buy into working harder on the field and outside of normal practice times. You’re only as good as your weakest links. This may be biased but I feel like WAC players just always think they’re good cause of the historic WAC name. Maybe recruit some guys that don’t care about the history and want to come in and work their tail off.

[mdline]

There is a lot of youth and they have been hit hard by injuries and illness. No team is immune to those things so I'm not saying WAC is alone in dealing with health challenges, and you can take any number of positions on the youth movement. But the effort is there within the team.

[TommySkids]

Wac's campus has little to offer. It's in boondocks Maryland.

Respectfully disagree.I think The campus, Chestertown and environs are bucolic, historic and wonderful.

WAC students always seem happy and enthusiastic. 56% WAC students are female so our male lax athletes need not spend Saturday nights flossing their teeth, studying their Bibles and watching game films.

Sorry to sound crass here...but there may be 56% female students...but let’s just say there are not a lot of “lookers” on that campus. Don’t believe me...take a walk around and see for yourself.

Also, with the new requirement of students having to live on campus for four years is really going to negatively affect the social scene on that campus. With no other schools close by to road trip to, or much of a town scene, I only see recruiting and retaining quality lacrosse players getting tougher.

[ergit]

I bet you’re a real ‘looker’ yourself...

[ToastDunk]

Wac's campus has little to offer. It's in boondocks Maryland.

Respectfully disagree.I think The campus, Chestertown and environs are bucolic, historic and wonderful.

WAC students always seem happy and enthusiastic. 56% WAC students are female so our male lax athletes need not spend Saturday nights flossing their teeth, studying their Bibles and watching game films.

Sorry to sound crass here...but there may be 56% female students...but let’s just say there are not a lot of “lookers” on that campus. Don’t believe me...take a walk around and see for yourself.

Yikes! Hoping this comment is coming from a 12 year old...

[formerwclaxer]

Holly cow, there are some strange reasons being offered here for the reason shoremen lacrosse has been struggling lately. May I say quite a bit of BS to say the least. Chestertown is in a rural area on the upper eastern shore of Maryland. Has been there for well over 150 years. Maybe not for everyone, sure. But Washington College has managed to recruit quality lacrosse players since the late 1940's. I do not buy the rural reason at all. I believe the primary issue lies with the funding of the overall program by the administration and money available for financial aid. A executive decision has been made, probably gradually over the last decade to simply downplay the value of the once proud legacy lacrosse program. Treat lacrosse like every other sport, focus on participation, less on winning. Hey, like it or not, lacrosse had a special unique culture on the Chestertown campus. I for one, miss that. The Administration and Board can reevaluate their support for the program with some pressure from caring alumni. I believe finances must be very tight at WC and at many small, private college. Things change and time moves on. But asking for the lacrosse program to be respectable nationally , be competitive in the very fine Centennial Conference and occasionally sneak in to the top 20 very few years should be a reasonable goal. Good luck to Coach Shirk and Go Shoremen.

[veryoldgoose]

Worst start in program history? 0-5.