RumorMill wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2023 4:41 pm
youthathletics wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2023 1:34 pm
RumorMill wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2023 10:26 am
youthathletics wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2023 9:26 am
RumorMill wrote: ↑Sat Dec 09, 2023 8:36 pm
youthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Dec 09, 2023 6:35 pm
wgdsr wrote: ↑Sat Dec 09, 2023 5:09 pm
youthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Dec 09, 2023 2:32 pm
Laxdad3 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 09, 2023 12:59 pm
Laxbuck wrote: ↑Sat Dec 09, 2023 6:52 am
Elite clampers get paid well. College coaches would rather spend that money on players who are on the field all of the time. Proposal was supported by a significant majority of D1 coaches
I would refer back to my original post, the majority of college coaches voted to ban the faceoff in 1979 and it was a disaster. They should read their lax history.
As for being paid well, most college lax players actually get very little money. The majority of the conferences split 12 scholarships among 40-50 players. It is not a money thing.
No matter how much they tinker, you can’t regulate one team having a better player than another team. It never works. The FO is a great part of the game,
a close game that requires a FO win is not replicated in any other sport…mess with it at your peril.
Shortsighted view, IMO. I have coached for decades and officiated. The F/O is likely the most challenging event to officiate, next to the stupid ass goal mouth debacle.
But your last part speaks volumes and is the reason 'WHY' all the attention. No single game/point, should come down to earning possession based off of a poorly / inconsistent officiated dead-ball restart by two single players where there is often a clear advantage/disadvantage and no other players on the field can support that effort. You can't use the goalie as a counter-argument, because he has 6 guys in front of him, and you cant argue a lefty attackman b/c you still have 6 defenders and a goalie that collectively impact that sequence of events.
Again.....the game still needs the F/O and I'm not advocating against it, just simplify the damn thing to allow two men to to fight it out w/out too much concern for the mechanics of the setup (leaning, hands, illegal bent head, etc-etc).
Just my 2 cents....
bad take, ya. it doesn't come.down to 1 v 1. wings and disrupting disadvantaged fogo is WAY undercoached. plus... you now have the shot clock as a defender.
[YA --> It is 1v1, if the clamper can possess in a split second of the whistle before a wing even gets two steps underway]
disrupt the fogo. win gbs. beat your man in and double. pressure the worst offensive player on the field. cut off outlets. recruit better. care about winning them back and coach for it. officiating on it for college seems to be fine.
[YA --> 1st you are not allowed to contact the FOGO and stick unless they are up with the ball, so closer-in wings only come into play IF the FOGO first wins the clamp or they allow contact on stick while in the FO scrum...which is the point we are discussing, no?. 2nd. And I agree 110%, far too many coaches are clueless or are just neutral and would rather just play 6v6, recruit better is a lame excuse IMO, you know full well the handful/top list of FOGO's are not going to mid majors and less, unless they have some rare exceptions to do so....its often out the coaches control. 3rd --> I'll concede the officiating for D1...thereafter and HS, luck of the draw.]
have 2 state titles and would likely have 4-5 if not for faceoffs, so it's not like i'm biased.
[YA -->have 1 and likely 3, and then short an additional chance by 1 game and a 1 point...so I feel ya]
this smacks of politicians. the people want it and are sick of coaches sticking their nose in. instead of doing what the people want, they do what they think gets them re-elected. every coach voting for this ish is remembering the game or 2 that ended their season because their genius wasn't allowed to change the outcome... while conveniently forgetting all the games they had the upper hand. it's dumb, lazy and weak.
bring the wings in 5 yards and you solve all the whining. a clamp vs a rake is a few people raising the white flag for the whole lacrosse community. lame.
[YA --> I'd be okay with giving this a shot as well, I'd just be concerned we'd end up w/FOGO's getting blown up as they turn/pivot to exit, like a defenseless receiver, then wings are in closer in full sprint.]
Appreciate the convo. Tough loss for Navy today...but expected.
Just to address the “recruit better” topic, youthathletics, what do you have to say about this list?
https://www.ncaa.com/stats/lacrosse-men ... vidual/410
Read Section 6, the way the stats are scored is not as clear as one may think. The stats for FO players are rather ambiguous and not as clear as one my think. For instance see A.R. 9. This only elevates the FO players states when clearly his wingman picked it up. In the example below, B1 could have won the clamp, performed a reverse exit to his wing but A2 picks up the GB, A1 gets credit when he did nothing...strange, right?
A.R. 9. If player A1 and opponent B1 face off, and teammate A2 is the first player to get clear possession, credit A1 with a faceoff win and A2 with a ground ball.
Meaning, our stats for FO men are rather skewed and not truly telling, we really should have a stat that recognizes a 'clean' or 'initial' FO win w/out wing support.
Got it, so you are saying wings play an extremely important part in winning the FO possession? And that the majority of the top 10 FO middies in win percentage last year relied heavily on wing play?
Sisselberger, Burke and Cole? Would you consider Lehigh, Vermont and St Joseph’s mid majors?
We are talking past one another and conflating a couple things.
1st - the FO stats do not tell the entire story on a singular (my point on your ncaa stat link) FO player....yes, the wings matter a ton. FOR STATS.
2nd - Not going to get into talking about players, other than to say, each of them contributed immensely to their teams success and had they NOT had them, the argument would be their team may not have been as successful. And referring back to item 1, we just do not have a way to measure their whistle to possession stat.
I'm not "talking past" you at all. You state you don't like the fact that there is or can be a dominant 1v1 faceoff specialist, then won't except FO win percentage stats because they are biased due to wing play and wings winning the possession.
You state:
"1st - the FO stats do not tell the entire story on a singular (my point on your ncaa stat link) FO player....yes, the wings matter a ton. FOR STATS."
FOR STATS? What does that even mean? So wing play only matters a ton for STATS? Not for actually getting your team possession of the ball and an opportunity to score and/or win? If you gave a coach two options... Your FO specialist can go 60% every game but 10% of those wins will be by his wings... or he can go 50% every game and all wins will solely be to himself... which option is the coach going to pick? Which option is the FO middie going to pick?
You stated:
"recruit better is a lame excuse IMO, you know full well the handful/top list of FOGO's are not going to mid majors and less, unless they have some rare exceptions to do so."
When presented with facts (statistics), that 6 or arguably 7 of the top ten FO specialists from last year were playing at "mid-major" programs you're not going to talk about players? Why because it defeats your statement about the handful of top FOGO's not going to mid majors?
You want the FO to be more like ice hockey? Fine, let's have a faceoff every time the ball goes out of bounds (kidding, i wouldn't want that), but that's what you get when you try to compare it to other sports. Women's draw, again pointed out facts (statistics) which counters your argument.
I will agree with those talking about how it is difficult to officiate, but from the little bit of college lacrosse I watched last spring I thought they did a decent job... and if they would keep the rules consistent for a few years my assumption is the officials would get better at it. Also would like to note I'm pretty sure the officiating in every sport gets severely criticized.
I also don't mind the suggestions about mandating the FO middie needs to stay on through the whole possession, etc.
I don't like the argument to get rid of the FO or neuter it because some teams have a more dominant player at that position than others. If it's about money, tv, whatever, so be it.
This is why the FO stats do not tell the entire story.....I'll try to explain in this 'hypothetical'.
Scenario 1:
If you and I faceoff vs. one another 10 times in a game and the final score of the game is if 10-0, we win. In that game, I won every clamp (I never gained possession) and pulled it behind me of a clamp, but your wings picked up the ball every time, by stat rules, the FO stats would award you 10 FO wins and me 0. Wings matter and each awarded with a GB. Although I am clearly better than you at the initial Clamp. My FO% is now 0%, your FO% is 100%, You get all the credit and did nothing to earn that.
Scenario 2: We then play again, faceoff another 10 times and the final score 10-0, yet again, we win. In that game, I won every clamp and gained possession every time, wings never touched the ball. By stat rules I am awarded the 10 FO wins, you are awarded Zero. My FO% is now 50%, your FO% is 50%....yet you still have not 1 faceoff against me.
Scenario 3: We then play a third time for the playoffs, faceoff another 10 times and the final score 10-0, yet again, we win. In that game, I won every clamp but never gained possession, your wings got every ground ball. By stat rules I am awarded 0 FO wins, you are awarded 10. My FO% is now 33%, your FO% is 66%.
We are now 3-0 vs your team, we could play make-it-take-it, b/c you are really not as good as me clamping at facing-off, but your stats make you look like a rock star and make me look like I stink. And b/c I am good and didn't want to embarrass you, I only pulled the pull behind me to give your team a chance.
Now, run that same 3 game scenario back with the clamp no being legal....you can not 'control' the ball in to your stick nearly as simple as you could with your clamp.