Coaching Carousel 2022-2023

[laxfan22]

You’d think that if Brittany read is interested, Oregon would have to take a real long look at her. Denver is rolling, she’s an Oregon alum I believe.

[ProudPapa]

There are several coaches that are bulletproof for the simple reason that they play in crappy conferences that allow them to win lots of games and get a ticket to the tournament. Never mind the fact that they have done nothing (ever) in the tournament once they get there.

It’s a shame, because there are some very smart, young coaches out there that could likely get them over the hump.

[Brownlax]

There are several coaches that are bulletproof for the simple reason that they play in crappy conferences that allow them to win lots of games and get a ticket to the tournament. Never mind the fact that they have done nothing (ever) in the tournament once they get there.

It’s a shame, because there are some very smart, young coaches out there that could likely get them over the hump.

What’s even more surprising are the coaches who just get by every year being mediocre.

[LaxPundit07]

There are several coaches that are bulletproof for the simple reason that they play in crappy conferences that allow them to win lots of games and get a ticket to the tournament. Never mind the fact that they have done nothing (ever) in the tournament once they get there.

It’s a shame, because there are some very smart, young coaches out there that could likely get them over the hump.

What’s even more surprising are the coaches who just get by every year being mediocre.

I brought this up earlier in the thread. If I were a female student athlete at (for instance) Duke or UVA, I would be incredibly frustrated. It is obvious their programs are not held to the same performance standards as their male counterparts. Some will view this as an attack on Julie Meyers or Kir Kimmel personally. It is not. I know them both to be incredible women. But that doesn't change the fact that their programs are underperforming and there is no inclination of a change being made. I use them as an example because it is apparent that the Power 5 schools hold even lacrosse coaches to winning standards, particularly on the men's side.

[ProudPapa]

Sadly, if I’m an AD and my women’s lacrosse coach is winning games and making the post-season, I am probably more than satisfied. I will just spend the other 99.9% of my time focusing on my football and men’s basketball teams.

[Womenslaxxfan]

There are several coaches that are bulletproof for the simple reason that they play in crappy conferences that allow them to win lots of games and get a ticket to the tournament. Never mind the fact that they have done nothing (ever) in the tournament once they get there.

It’s a shame, because there are some very smart, young coaches out there that could likely get them over the hump.

What’s even more surprising are the coaches who just get by every year being mediocre.

I brought this up earlier in the thread. If I were a female student athlete at (for instance) Duke or UVA, I would be incredibly frustrated. It is obvious their programs are not held to the same performance standards as their male counterparts. Some will view this as an attack on Julie Meyers or Kir Kimmel personally. It is not. I know them both to be incredible women. But that doesn't change the fact that their programs are underperforming and there is no inclination of a change being made. I use them as an example because it is apparent that the Power 5 schools hold even lacrosse coaches to winning standards, particularly on the men's side.

Laxpundit. I’ll take the other side of this one. Only 5 teams have won a national championship in the last 15 years. There are 120+ other ones competing every year. Only Cathy Reese, Jen levy, Shelly klaes, acacia Walker Weinstein, Cindy timchal, Julie myers, and Kelly amonte hiller amongst active coaches have ever held one. If winning championships is the lens, then 120 programs should just give up. The point is to compete, to have a chance to win your conference title, or get an aq, or make the quarters—-and have the college lacrosse experience be a huge positive in the growth and maturation of the 3000+ division one players.
Duke beat unc last year and earned an Aq which is the usual for them. Uva beat cuse last year and has never missed the tourney. Gary gait never won. Neither has halfpenny, mundy, O’Leary, Adams etc.

My guess is that some PARENTS at duke or uva or Florida or usc are frustrated….but that very few student athletes are frustrated. Duke and uva for example are programs that I know from friends whose daughters have been part of the program that the players love it….more so than other programs that might win a bit more often. They make the tourney nearly every year, and most years lose mostly to their acc foes rather than non conference opponents
I have been to duke on alumni day. The affection and respect for Kimmel is pretty obvious to see.

I also think you are mistaken on men’s coaching “pressure”. See brescchi, Corrigan, myers, Meade, etc

If I were an ad, my lens for a non revenue sport would be:
1). Is my head coach a High quality and character leader?
2). Are we competitive relative to my conference?
3). Are the players and alums happy?. (Not parents). My guess is that men alumni are more vocal than women about win loss record….perhaps because men and women weight various aspects of their athletic programs slightly differently.

I’m any event, Kimmel and myers and O’Leary etc will someday move on. But I don’t think that it will because the vast majority of their players over the last 10 years think they have been shortchanged.

[Madlax59]

There are several coaches that are bulletproof for the simple reason that they play in crappy conferences that allow them to win lots of games and get a ticket to the tournament. Never mind the fact that they have done nothing (ever) in the tournament once they get there.

It’s a shame, because there are some very smart, young coaches out there that could likely get them over the hump.

What’s even more surprising are the coaches who just get by every year being mediocre.

I brought this up earlier in the thread. If I were a female student athlete at (for instance) Duke or UVA, I would be incredibly frustrated. It is obvious their programs are not held to the same performance standards as their male counterparts. Some will view this as an attack on Julie Meyers or Kir Kimmel personally. It is not. I know them both to be incredible women. But that doesn't change the fact that their programs are underperforming and there is no inclination of a change being made. I use them as an example because it is apparent that the Power 5 schools hold even lacrosse coaches to winning standards, particularly on the men's side.

Laxpundit. I’ll take the other side of this one. Only 5 teams have won a national championship in the last 15 years. There are 120+ other ones competing every year. Only Cathy Reese, Jen levy, Shelly klaes, acacia Walker Weinstein, Cindy timchal, Julie myers, and Kelly amonte hiller amongst active coaches have ever held one. If winning championships is the lens, then 120 programs should just give up. The point is to compete, to have a chance to win your conference title, or get an aq, or make the quarters—-and have the college lacrosse experience be a huge positive in the growth and maturation of the 3000+ division one players.
Duke beat unc last year and earned an Aq which is the usual for them. Uva beat cuse last year and has never missed the tourney. Gary gait never won. Neither has halfpenny, mundy, O’Leary, Adams etc.

My guess is that some PARENTS at duke or uva or Florida or usc are frustrated….but that very few student athletes are frustrated. Duke and uva for example are programs that I know from friends whose daughters have been part of the program that the players love it….more so than other programs that might win a bit more often. They make the tourney nearly every year, and most years lose mostly to their acc foes rather than non conference opponents
I have been to duke on alumni day. The affection and respect for Kimmel is pretty obvious to see.

I also think you are mistaken on men’s coaching “pressure”. See brescchi, Corrigan, myers, Meade, etc

If I were an ad, my lens for a non revenue sport would be:
1). Is my head coach a High quality and character leader?
2). Are we competitive relative to my conference?
3). Are the players and alums happy?. (Not parents). My guess is that men alumni are more vocal than women about win loss record….perhaps because men and women weight various aspects of their athletic programs slightly differently.

I’m any event, Kimmel and myers and O’Leary etc will someday move on. But I don’t think that it will because the vast majority of their players over the last 10 years think they have been shortchanged.

Pretty sure it’s why North left Duke for BC

[Womenslaxxfan]

She’s the exception. Glad it worked out for her.
When you are an avalanche of transfers from duke, uva, Florida, etc let me know.

[Lax101]

There are several coaches that are bulletproof for the simple reason that they play in crappy conferences that allow them to win lots of games and get a ticket to the tournament. Never mind the fact that they have done nothing (ever) in the tournament once they get there.

It’s a shame, because there are some very smart, young coaches out there that could likely get them over the hump.

What’s even more surprising are the coaches who just get by every year being mediocre.

I brought this up earlier in the thread. If I were a female student athlete at (for instance) Duke or UVA, I would be incredibly frustrated. It is obvious their programs are not held to the same performance standards as their male counterparts. Some will view this as an attack on Julie Meyers or Kir Kimmel personally. It is not. I know them both to be incredible women. But that doesn't change the fact that their programs are underperforming and there is no inclination of a change being made. I use them as an example because it is apparent that the Power 5 schools hold even lacrosse coaches to winning standards, particularly on the men's side.

Laxpundit. I’ll take the other side of this one. Only 5 teams have won a national championship in the last 15 years. There are 120+ other ones competing every year. Only Cathy Reese, Jen levy, Shelly klaes, acacia Walker Weinstein, Cindy timchal, Julie myers, and Kelly amonte hiller amongst active coaches have ever held one. If winning championships is the lens, then 120 programs should just give up. The point is to compete, to have a chance to win your conference title, or get an aq, or make the quarters—-and have the college lacrosse experience be a huge positive in the growth and maturation of the 3000+ division one players.
Duke beat unc last year and earned an Aq which is the usual for them. Uva beat cuse last year and has never missed the tourney. Gary gait never won. Neither has halfpenny, mundy, O’Leary, Adams etc.

My guess is that some PARENTS at duke or uva or Florida or usc are frustrated….but that very few student athletes are frustrated. Duke and uva for example are programs that I know from friends whose daughters have been part of the program that the players love it….more so than other programs that might win a bit more often. They make the tourney nearly every year, and most years lose mostly to their acc foes rather than non conference opponents
I have been to duke on alumni day. The affection and respect for Kimmel is pretty obvious to see.

I also think you are mistaken on men’s coaching “pressure”. See brescchi, Corrigan, myers, Meade, etc

If I were an ad, my lens for a non revenue sport would be:
1). Is my head coach a High quality and character leader?
2). Are we competitive relative to my conference?
3). Are the players and alums happy?. (Not parents). My guess is that men alumni are more vocal than women about win loss record….perhaps because men and women weight various aspects of their athletic programs slightly differently.

I’m any event, Kimmel and myers and O’Leary etc will someday move on. But I don’t think that it will because the vast majority of their players over the last 10 years think they have been shortchanged.

If my Ad used the lens you outline, I would fire them. Completely agree with your first requirement, but the goal of being competitive in my conference is weak and unacceptable. You need to meet or exceed expectations relative to your talent and Duke has certainly not done that. The same
can be said of ND and UVA to a lessor extent. Before this year ND had underperformed relative to ability. They underperformed for years. Start winning and you will draw even more talent at top schools like ND and Duke just like they do on the mens side. The player give everything to the sport year round, at times 4-5 hours per day. Mediocrity should not be accepted at schools like this. The players, parents and alumni deserve better. The Ad's at these school need to raise the bar a bit. Also, everyone including the players are happier when they have success on the field.

[Womenslaxxfan]

Lax101. The programs you are referring to DO have success on the field. Duke had a very uncharacteristic down year. Uva seems to be headed on the upswing this year notwithstanding the Albany meltdown.

The coaching ranks are FULL of poor quality people who will ruin a players experience. When you have head coaches that field nationally competitive programs and run high quality no drama programs, switching coaches to try and get to the final tier is a very risky proposition.

You, however, are free to run your athletic department the way you want to!

[TNLAX]

IMHO, where are the replacement coaches? With more than 120 D1 programs, not to mention all the D2 and D3 programs, there just are not enough good coaches to go around.

If you want to play college lacrosse, find a school you love that has a lacrosse program you can play on. I love Vanderbilt and my daughter had a tremendous experience there on the field and off the field. They never went to a final 4 while she was there, but they played a nice schedule and she committed herself to the academics and the program. I think she came out ahead and is a very successful women in the business world now because of her experiences at Vanderbilt.

Would it have been fun for me as a parent to be cheering her and her teammates on in the NCAA's, sure. But it was more important to me that she was happy and was preparing herself for life.

Just my two cents #anchordown

[LaxThoughts]

IMHO, where are the replacement coaches? With more than 120 D1 programs, not to mention all the D2 and D3 programs, there just are not enough good coaches to go around.

If you want to play college lacrosse, find a school you love that has a lacrosse program you can play on. I love Vanderbilt and my daughter had a tremendous experience there on the field and off the field. They never went to a final 4 while she was there, but they played a nice schedule and she committed herself to the academics and the program. I think she came out ahead and is a very successful women in the business world now because of her experiences at Vanderbilt.

Would it have been fun for me as a parent to be cheering her and her teammates on in the NCAA's, sure. But it was more important to me that she was happy and was preparing herself for life.

Just my two cents #anchordown

Yes, this. Defining "success" as only winning a national championship or making the final four is a recipe for unnecessary misery for the vast majority of the student athletes. There are plenty of programs that underachieve, and it is reasonable to contemplate changes there (with Womenslaxxfan's apt caveat of being careful what you wish for), but forcing everyone to use the top few programs as the barometer of "success" loses the forest through the trees. Coaches and parents too often forget that what is most important -- and what will leave the longest legacy in the hearts and minds of the players -- is the quality of the experience they have at the schools and as members of their teams.

[crazyhorse]

Duke has only made the NCAA tournament twice going back to 2017. If you look at recent records, making the tournament last year with a 16-4 record is the uncharacteristic year. Not making the tournament is more typical. Last year, they did not beat UNC. They lost 18-4. They did beat BC by 1. In contrast, UVA has never missed the tournament (though Julie Myers gave up some distance from her detractors with the loss to Albany) and ND appears to be on an upswing. When it comes to the player experience, I would imagine there's a big difference between winning championships and not even participating in the post season. I would suggest that women committing to Duke have much higher expectations in that regard than Vandy, given the history of the two programs.

[EasyRider]

A poster above mentioned that AD's view coaching changes as a risk-reward, cost-benefit analysis -- could not agree more.

I can't speak to the specific schools mentioned in this thread, but it is apparent that MANY schools treat their women's program as a Title IX offset. So long as the players graduate on time and stay out of trouble, the coaching staffs are secure. Regardless of win %, poor organization, poor recruiting, complaints from parents, complaints from graduating captains, complaints from departing assistant coaches.

These same schools are quick to swap out underperforming coaches in revenue sports.

Unless there is booster pressure or the risk of a mass roster exodus, it seems likely that AD's want nothing to do with the expense, risk, and headache of overhauling their WLAX staff, even if it means the chance of significant improvement on the field. Financially, it feels like there's little incentive for it.

.02

[Can Opener]

IMHO, where are the replacement coaches? With more than 120 D1 programs, not to mention all the D2 and D3 programs, there just are not enough good coaches to go around.

If you want to play college lacrosse, find a school you love that has a lacrosse program you can play on. I love Vanderbilt and my daughter had a tremendous experience there on the field and off the field. They never went to a final 4 while she was there, but they played a nice schedule and she committed herself to the academics and the program. I think she came out ahead and is a very successful women in the business world now because of her experiences at Vanderbilt.

Would it have been fun for me as a parent to be cheering her and her teammates on in the NCAA's, sure. But it was more important to me that she was happy and was preparing herself for life.

Just my two cents #anchordown

Very thoughtful post. Thanks for putting college lacrosse in perspective.

And congrats to your daughter. She sounds like a well-rounded go-getter. You should be very proud.

[Sunnylax]

There are several coaches that are bulletproof for the simple reason that they play in crappy conferences that allow them to win lots of games and get a ticket to the tournament. Never mind the fact that they have done nothing (ever) in the tournament once they get there.

It’s a shame, because there are some very smart, young coaches out there that could likely get them over the hump.

What’s even more surprising are the coaches who just get by every year being mediocre.

I brought this up earlier in the thread. If I were a female student athlete at (for instance) Duke or UVA, I would be incredibly frustrated. It is obvious their programs are not held to the same performance standards as their male counterparts. Some will view this as an attack on Julie Meyers or Kir Kimmel personally. It is not. I know them both to be incredible women. But that doesn't change the fact that their programs are underperforming and there is no inclination of a change being made. I use them as an example because it is apparent that the Power 5 schools hold even lacrosse coaches to winning standards, particularly on the men's side.

Laxpundit. I’ll take the other side of this one. Only 5 teams have won a national championship in the last 15 years. There are 120+ other ones competing every year. Only Cathy Reese, Jen levy, Shelly klaes, acacia Walker Weinstein, Cindy timchal, Julie myers, and Kelly amonte hiller amongst active coaches have ever held one. If winning championships is the lens, then 120 programs should just give up. The point is to compete, to have a chance to win your conference title, or get an aq, or make the quarters—-and have the college lacrosse experience be a huge positive in the growth and maturation of the 3000+ division one players.
Duke beat unc last year and earned an Aq which is the usual for them. Uva beat cuse last year and has never missed the tourney. Gary gait never won. Neither has halfpenny, mundy, O’Leary, Adams etc.

My guess is that some PARENTS at duke or uva or Florida or usc are frustrated….but that very few student athletes are frustrated. Duke and uva for example are programs that I know from friends whose daughters have been part of the program that the players love it….more so than other programs that might win a bit more often. They make the tourney nearly every year, and most years lose mostly to their acc foes rather than non conference opponents
I have been to duke on alumni day. The affection and respect for Kimmel is pretty obvious to see.

I also think you are mistaken on men’s coaching “pressure”. See brescchi, Corrigan, myers, Meade, etc

If I were an ad, my lens for a non revenue sport would be:
1). Is my head coach a High quality and character leader?
2). Are we competitive relative to my conference?
3). Are the players and alums happy?. (Not parents). My guess is that men alumni are more vocal than women about win loss record….perhaps because men and women weight various aspects of their athletic programs slightly differently.

I’m any event, Kimmel and myers and O’Leary etc will someday move on. But I don’t think that it will because the vast majority of their players over the last 10 years think they have been shortchanged.

Duke did not beat unc last year.....

[wlaxphan20]

There are several coaches that are bulletproof for the simple reason that they play in crappy conferences that allow them to win lots of games and get a ticket to the tournament. Never mind the fact that they have done nothing (ever) in the tournament once they get there.

It’s a shame, because there are some very smart, young coaches out there that could likely get them over the hump.

What’s even more surprising are the coaches who just get by every year being mediocre.

I brought this up earlier in the thread. If I were a female student athlete at (for instance) Duke or UVA, I would be incredibly frustrated. It is obvious their programs are not held to the same performance standards as their male counterparts. Some will view this as an attack on Julie Meyers or Kir Kimmel personally. It is not. I know them both to be incredible women. But that doesn't change the fact that their programs are underperforming and there is no inclination of a change being made. I use them as an example because it is apparent that the Power 5 schools hold even lacrosse coaches to winning standards, particularly on the men's side.

Laxpundit. I’ll take the other side of this one. Only 5 teams have won a national championship in the last 15 years. There are 120+ other ones competing every year. Only Cathy Reese, Jen levy, Shelly klaes, acacia Walker Weinstein, Cindy timchal, Julie myers, and Kelly amonte hiller amongst active coaches have ever held one. If winning championships is the lens, then 120 programs should just give up. The point is to compete, to have a chance to win your conference title, or get an aq, or make the quarters—-and have the college lacrosse experience be a huge positive in the growth and maturation of the 3000+ division one players.
Duke beat unc last year and earned an Aq which is the usual for them. Uva beat cuse last year and has never missed the tourney. Gary gait never won. Neither has halfpenny, mundy, O’Leary, Adams etc.

My guess is that some PARENTS at duke or uva or Florida or usc are frustrated….but that very few student athletes are frustrated. Duke and uva for example are programs that I know from friends whose daughters have been part of the program that the players love it….more so than other programs that might win a bit more often. They make the tourney nearly every year, and most years lose mostly to their acc foes rather than non conference opponents
I have been to duke on alumni day. The affection and respect for Kimmel is pretty obvious to see.

I also think you are mistaken on men’s coaching “pressure”. See brescchi, Corrigan, myers, Meade, etc

If I were an ad, my lens for a non revenue sport would be:
1). Is my head coach a High quality and character leader?
2). Are we competitive relative to my conference?
3). Are the players and alums happy?. (Not parents). My guess is that men alumni are more vocal than women about win loss record….perhaps because men and women weight various aspects of their athletic programs slightly differently.

I’m any event, Kimmel and myers and O’Leary etc will someday move on. But I don’t think that it will because the vast majority of their players over the last 10 years think they have been shortchanged.

Duke did not beat unc last year.....

Must have meant BC

[Womenslaxxfan]

Yes I did. Unc didn’t lose last year

[Brownlax]

Another issue with coaching in women’s lacrosse is the influx each year of new coaches who played the year before without any experience. It is rare that it happens like this in other sports.

[cltlax]

Another issue with coaching in women’s lacrosse is the influx each year of new coaches who played the year before without any experience. It is rare that it happens like this in other sports.

UNC Field Hockey hired a graduating senior to replace an outgoing 42-year head coach.