The Unfinished Season - 2020 in Review

[Dr. Tact]

I'm choosing UC Davis over Georgetown.

Agree

[Snog]

Davis over Gtown hands down !

[Cletus]

The Watcher is curious that Dartmouth only has 1 player on this list ... while lower ranked teams in the IL poll (Michigan, JMU, MD, Princeton, UVa, Duke, Denver, Va Tech, Penn) all have multiple players honored. Florida, who Dartmouth dominated head to head, has 3 players honored, 2 first team. Who exactly do the powers that be at IL think played those games for the Big Green? Highlights here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5TvMcXN-G4 if you are interested.

I guess politics are still politics. And lazy media are still lazy media. For sure these kids would trade this and any and all accolades to be back on the field with their teammates and coaches.

I just thought of this--no matter when any list of "best players" is published, there are always disputes. The only thing that makes this list different from the ones that usually come out in May or June is fewer games.

You make a good point about the media being lazy in women's lacrosse (among other arenas). I have seen examples of it in this sport frequently. I know the writers who do are trying to err on the side of being enthusiastic, but they end up way overhyping things, like calling a mild upset "stunning!" or "shocking!" and ultimately watering down the article. I think some of what gets written here on these boards is just as good if not better in some cases than anything being published nationally.

[njbill]

I understand the points of the antis, but this is a unique situation. The available information is incomplete, but it is all we got. I see no problem with putting out the lists. If you want to attach an asterisk to it, fine. Why not spread a little cheer though? What’s the harm?

[Dr. Tact]

https://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/ ... 6-55983785

[Lax247]

I don't see how you can publish this list. There are some teams who played as few as 5 games. Not enough games to give someone the honor, or not give them the honor. The conference play still had not started, some of the better teams had stacked their wins and stats against their "easier opponents" before heading into conference play. I am all for getting back to normal, but this is a bit silly. Just my opinion.

Agree, it's nonsense. Recognizing AAs and the like (where's the T Award winner?) for the season that wasn't is the kind of stuff fairytales come from.

It is odd....not the choices of the individual ladies, but the awarding (or not awarding) of AA status to players who completed 5 games? They should just have left it for next year. Sometimes your pedigree means more than your field performance.

Let’s see if IWLCA comes out with a list. To me that one is the most meaningful... (as it comes from Coaches). If they do then I would say that lends a little more credibility ?

[LaxGuy17]

I don't see how you can publish this list. There are some teams who played as few as 5 games. Not enough games to give someone the honor, or not give them the honor. The conference play still had not started, some of the better teams had stacked their wins and stats against their "easier opponents" before heading into conference play. I am all for getting back to normal, but this is a bit silly. Just my opinion.

Agree, it's nonsense. Recognizing AAs and the like (where's the T Award winner?) for the season that wasn't is the kind of stuff fairytales come from.

It is odd....not the choices of the individual ladies, but the awarding (or not awarding) of AA status to players who completed 5 games? They should just have left it for next year. Sometimes your pedigree means more than your field performance.

Let’s see if IWLCA comes out with a list. To me that one is the most meaningful... (as it comes from Coaches). If they do then I would say that lends a little more credibility ?

If you ask any player, you are correct, the IWLCA one is the only one they pay attention to and it means more.

[Cletus]

https://www.uslaxmagazine.com/college/u ... tournament

[Cletus]

https://www.uslaxmagazine.com/college/u ... tournament

Starting Monday, US Lacrosse Magazine has a welcome distraction for us fans. I'm looking forward to it. Anyone else planning to participate?

Below is a recent tweet.

"There won’t be a Championship Weekend in May, but that doesn’t mean there can’t be a champion.

Well, a virtual champion.

Tomorrow, US Lacrosse Magazine will reveal virtual NCAA Division I tournament brackets for both men and women, and we need your help to choose each winner.

Starting Monday, fans will be able to vote in Twitter polls to help determine the winner of each virtual matchup. Here’s how it will work:

The fan choice will count for 50 percent of the result

US Lacrosse Magazine experts will account for the other 50 percent of the result

Winners and the next round of matchups will be revealed once each round finishes

Be sure to head to USLaxMagazine.com each day and follow along on Twitter (@uslacrossemag) to participate in the voting and help select the virtual NCAA champions."

[Dr. Tact]

The fan choice will count for 50 percent of the result

US Lacrosse Magazine experts will account for the other 50 percent of the result

This will skew it to traditional powers, in my mind. You wont see a Loyola win a popularity contest against a 'Cuse or ND.

that said, it will be interesting

[seacoaster]

Yep, no one is picking JMU over BC in this online championship. Pick a final four, seed them, and then talk about matchups. UNC was beatable.

[Cletus]

Yep, no one is picking JMU over BC in this online championship. Pick a final four, seed them, and then talk about matchups. UNC was beatable.

Maybe we could do our own. I've already suggested it to one of the powers that be.

I agree with you about UNC, but more because of their reputation than this years team. I don't think anyone could have taken them down this year--but that's just one fellow's opinion.

[Cletus]

US Lacrosse will unveil the brackets for their virtual NCAA Division I tournaments for both men’s and women’s lacrosse later today.

A welcome distraction indeed...

[Dr. Tact]

Yep, no one is picking JMU over BC in this online championship. Pick a final four, seed them, and then talk about matchups. UNC was beatable.

yeah, I could live with a 75% - 25% weighted to the "Experts" who would hopefully see past the reputations.

[seacoaster]

Yep, no one is picking JMU over BC in this online championship. Pick a final four, seed them, and then talk about matchups. UNC was beatable.

yeah, I could live with a 75% - 25% weighted to the "Experts" who would hopefully see past the reputations.

I'll give you an example:

Who is talking about No. 7 on Loyola? Seventeen goals in five games, 65% shooting percentage. Did she show up on the IL "All-American" list? Nope.

[Cletus]

UNC was beatable.

Please expound. What do you see as the '20 team's weaknesses? Which teams could have defeated them?

[Dr. Tact]

Yep, no one is picking JMU over BC in this online championship. Pick a final four, seed them, and then talk about matchups. UNC was beatable.

yeah, I could live with a 75% - 25% weighted to the "Experts" who would hopefully see past the reputations.

I'll give you an example:

Who is talking about No. 7 on Loyola? Seventeen goals in five games, 65% shooting percentage. Did she show up on the IL "All-American" list? Nope.

Agreed! Highly ranked for midfielders in the Laxbytes impact ratings.

http://www.laxbytes.com/binwomstats20/playermx01.php

[seacoaster]

UNC was beatable.

Please expound. What do you see as the '20 team's weaknesses? Which teams could have defeated them?

I think Loyola and Syracuse both had a good chance to have beaten them. I am not sure -- and confess I have always been a doubter -- about Notre Dame, but UND certainly had the kids to compete with UNC. Let me be clear: UNC is the favorite in all of these now-pretend games.

I am supposed to be working, so let me start with this short narrative.

UNC's principal weakness was defense; they had three elite or good pieces in my (stupid) opinion: No. 23, Trenchard, a terrific on-ball defender and player in transition; No. 16, Woodruff, a very skilled player, probably better than Trenchard in transition and nearly as good as a defender; and No. 30 Moreno in the goal. But they had yet to find themselves on defense, and Northwestern showed that one could score goals on them. They were playing freshmen on defense -- Nalls and Dorsey -- and both were inexperienced at this level and it really showed in that game. Both will likely be great players, and may have rounded into Division 1 championship form by the end of the year, but that's an unknown.

Against that defense, let's look at Loyola's offense. Five credible threats at any given time -- No. 4, No. 7, No. 9, No. 13 and No. 24 -- with exceptionally (repeat, exceptionally) complimentary skill-sets, righties and lefties, working both power alleys off the elbow and from GLE. Nos. 4, 7 and 13 are all excellent dodgers in isolation. No. 24 just a deadly finisher in small spaces. No. 9 -- the freshman of this bunch -- was just finding her groove as a member of this elite unit. There are just too many, and too varied a body of weapons here for virtually any defense.

So that's a start. I think Syracuse had a very good chance against UNC, and those two teams would possibly have played three times this year.

[Dr. Tact]

UNC was beatable.

Please expound. What do you see as the '20 team's weaknesses? Which teams could have defeated them?

I think Loyola and Syracuse both had a good chance to have beaten them. I am not sure -- and confess I have always been a doubter -- about Notre Dame, but UND certainly had the kids to compete with UNC. Let me be clear: UNC is the favorite in all of these now-pretend games.

I am supposed to be working, so let me start with this short narrative.

UNC's principal weakness was defense; they had three elite or good pieces in my (stupid) opinion: No. 23, Trenchard, a terrific on-ball defender and player in transition; No. 16, Woodruff, a very skilled player, probably better than Trenchard in transition and nearly as good as a defender; and No. 30 Moreno in the goal. But they had yet to find themselves on defense, and Northwestern showed that one could score goals on them. They were playing freshmen on defense -- Nalls and Dorsey -- and both were inexperienced at this level and it really showed in that game. Both will likely be great players, and may have rounded into Division 1 championship form by the end of the year, but that's an unknown.

Against that defense, let's look at Loyola's offense. Five credible threats at any given time -- No. 4, No. 7, No. 9, No. 13 and No. 24 -- with exceptionally (repeat, exceptionally) complimentary skill-sets, righties and lefties, working both power alleys off the elbow and from GLE. Nos. 4, 7 and 13 are all excellent dodgers in isolation. No. 24 just a deadly finisher in small spaces. No. 9 -- the freshman of this bunch -- was just finding her groove as a member of this elite unit. There are just too many, and too varied a body of weapons here for virtually any defense.

So that's a start. I think Syracuse had a very good chance against UNC, and those two teams would possibly have played three times this year.

I would also say, I think UNC was beatable...not because of individual players, scheme or groups.It is very hard to run the table all the way to the championship. NU showed that a good team can compete with UNC. It sounds funny to say it, but if UNC had lost near the end of the season, it might have helped them to refocus. Being undefeated and taking each next opponent seriously is very hard. Complacency tends to creep into the situation. Would Levy et al be able to give it the "one game at a time" speech every week? Possibly....we will find out next year when they will be even bigger favorites.

Plus. I liked the way a certain team was beating expectations and embracing an underdog role. Could Loyola beat UNC with all their stars? Quite possibly.

[seacoaster]

UNC was beatable.

Please expound. What do you see as the '20 team's weaknesses? Which teams could have defeated them?

I think Loyola and Syracuse both had a good chance to have beaten them. I am not sure -- and confess I have always been a doubter -- about Notre Dame, but UND certainly had the kids to compete with UNC. Let me be clear: UNC is the favorite in all of these now-pretend games.

I am supposed to be working, so let me start with this short narrative.

UNC's principal weakness was defense; they had three elite or good pieces in my (stupid) opinion: No. 23, Trenchard, a terrific on-ball defender and player in transition; No. 16, Woodruff, a very skilled player, probably better than Trenchard in transition and nearly as good as a defender; and No. 30 Moreno in the goal. But they had yet to find themselves on defense, and Northwestern showed that one could score goals on them. They were playing freshmen on defense -- Nalls and Dorsey -- and both were inexperienced at this level and it really showed in that game. Both will likely be great players, and may have rounded into Division 1 championship form by the end of the year, but that's an unknown.

Against that defense, let's look at Loyola's offense. Five credible threats at any given time -- No. 4, No. 7, No. 9, No. 13 and No. 24 -- with exceptionally (repeat, exceptionally) complimentary skill-sets, righties and lefties, working both power alleys off the elbow and from GLE. Nos. 4, 7 and 13 are all excellent dodgers in isolation. No. 24 just a deadly finisher in small spaces. No. 9 -- the freshman of this bunch -- was just finding her groove as a member of this elite unit. There are just too many, and too varied a body of weapons here for virtually any defense.

So that's a start. I think Syracuse had a very good chance against UNC, and those two teams would possibly have played three times this year.

I would also say, I think UNC was beatable...not because of individual players, scheme or groups.It is very hard to run the table all the way to the championship. NU showed that a good team can compete with UNC. It sounds funny to say it, but if UNC had lost near the end of the season, it might have helped them to refocus. Being undefeated and taking each next opponent seriously is very hard. Complacency tends to creep into the situation. Would Levy et al be able to give it the "one game at a time" speech every week? Possibly....we will find out next year when they will be even bigger favorites.

Plus. I liked the way a certain team was beating expectations and embracing an underdog role. Could Loyola beat UNC with all their stars? Quite possibly.

Trying to get some work done here man!