Washington College 2024

[LaxPundit07]

Dave Cottle was brought in for an “interview” in May of 2010. Bryan Matthews had treated JB Clarke so poorly during his tenure, that he knew he needed a nationally respected coach to sniff around the job and get the word out about putting someone in that chair. (Matthew’s infamously told JB he wouldn’t stand on the tracks for him….because JB didn’t vote for Matthews son as “all conference” that year at Dickinson. When JB explained his votes, Matthews proclaimed “F*** your bull**** virtue.” In year 12, JB had his first losing season, and Matthews fired him immediately. ONE LOSING season in TWELVE YEARS. This was the beginning of the disfunction at WAC. Shirk was a finalist for the job along with Kevin Warne (now head coach at Georgetown, assistant at Harvard at the time), Stan Ross (former Butler coach and Navy assistant), and one other respected name who escapes me at the moment. Warne was the selection, but Tillman got the Maryland job simultaneously and Warne chose to leave Harvard with him and go to Maryland. As Jeff gets the job, the wheels are already in motion from the administration to push for more equity in the department, stop emphasizing lax as the marquis program, etc. WAC would go on to have SIX presidents in the next ELEVEN years. At that point, the train was already so far down the tracks, there was no stopping it. Dysfunction in the athletic department and dysfunction at the highest levels of college were rampant and lead to the demise of program. Fun fact: JB left and has won not one, not two, not three, but four National championships between Limestone and Tampa.

The list of contributors to the demise is long. Matthews, Baird Tipton, the board, etc. And I apologize for being so blunt with recent alums, but the main issue with this program is lack of talent. And the college’s efforts to stop that talent from arriving. Remember the VAST majority of alums over the age of 30 played in conference championships, final fours, and national championships. WAC’s website does a really great job of archiving info. Go to the All American list on their site. And look at the STEEP decline of AA’s post 2010. It is staggering.

A lot more to discuss regarding the current situation, but some of the history in the above is incorrect. Cottle was brought to campus and didn't have any interest in actually coaching in Ctown pretty quickly, but helped in the search and put together an incredible list of finalists. As you note correctly, it was a three horse race with Shirk eventually getting the job.

On the JB point - there is much to that story you are leaving out that I am sure you are well aware of. It is not right to suggest Matthews was the sole problem in that relationship. If you were around JB and the program at the time, know you it was a two-way street with JB having a lot of blame for the issues himself. Some of it was his coaching methods were becoming too old school (sprints in the basketball gym in full sweats with the heat cranked), but most of the problems were due to personal issues. I do not want to publicly share that information - JB has been a class act since and has been great everywhere he has gone afterwards. But it is not fair to Matthews to put the full blame on him as anyone who was around at the end of JB's tenure knows.

On the broader point about college mismanagement, I wholly agree. But that is due mostly to the incredible number of college presidents since Mitchell left in 2014, which I know for a fact destabilized the athletic department (in concunction with Matthews retirement). The end all be all goal has been to increase enrollment at all costs, which has led to some really poor decisions and awful hiring at the executive level. Instead of increasing the profile of students, WAC became a begger for anyone to come, lowering quality and not offsetting costs. The future of small colleges isn't growth, as the demographics across higher education are becoming a problem across all higher education, but instead should be a focus on quality. The liberal arts schools that will survive and thrive into the 2030s, 2040s, and on are the ones that provide great educational value, the highest quality education, and great post-graduate opportunities, regardless of location. These schools are not as reliant on increasing enrollment even with the demongraphic "cliff" as it has been called because they have a strong base of applicants. For example, there is still an incredible demand for NESCAC opportunities, even when some of those schools are truly in the middle of nowhere like Bowdoin or MIddlebury. Those schools offer prestige, a fine education, and opportunities post-graduation. And many of those schools have fantastic athletic departments - Tufts of today, Middlebury/Wesleyan of the 2000s, etc. Most Centennial schools are also situated like that - Haverford and Swat for example. However, the closer WAC gets to something like McDaniel versus something like Dickinson or Gburg, the worse its going to be for WAC in the near future and long-term future. Increasing enrollment at all cost doesn't move WAC closer to a Dickinson or Gburg - only an increase in value and prestige can do that.

Ultimately, WAC really needs to be trying to position itself as providing more value and quality to survive - not flooding the school with an additional 500-1000 students. This also goes hand in hand with the athletic department. We all know D3 schools use athletics to drive enrollment, particularly male enrollment. The lacrosse team at WAC has historically provided students for the college not just from Maryland and NY, but across the U.S. and often from some of the best public and private schools in the country. I think some of this has been lost in the last few years.

I will share more thoughts on the current sitaution and team with Coach Nostrant, but I have been not impressed. He had taken over a program during a harsh time, but every college has faced the same COVID-related issues. Some new coaches in our conference have thrived in the same circumstances - looking at Gettysburg as the best example. Just because the past few years have been difficult across the board is no longer a great excuse, particularly when Toner at Gettyburg hasn't lost a step since his HOF predecessor retired.

I do think its fair to start the comparison between Nostrant's start with Shirk's start. Year one is a wash for both, can't judge either by any coach in their first year I think. In Shirk's second year, the team went 11-6, made it to the finals of the Centennial tournament, and made it to the NCAA's (with an admittedly bad loss to Goucher). Also in year three, WAC beat Salisbury and WAC again was in the CC tournament, and won NCAA games. In fact, I think WAC played that year's national champion Stevenson to its closest game in the NCAA's that year. By year four - Shirk and the team went undefeated in the Centennial regular and post season and made it to the final four. I just think its a shame Shirk and those boys didnt get their national title in 2014 - they certainly were a hell of a team to watch. We can always discuss what happened after 2014, but his first four years speak for themselves.

In comparison, year two for Coach Nostrant didn't see the team get over .500. They beat up a bunch of terrible teams early in the season, then only won 2 Centennial games and no post-season. Year three is off to a terrible start, but it is still early in the season. But I have seen nothing so far to indicate this team will reach .500 this year, let alone start getting back to the post-season. Just in comparison, the difference is striking. Certainly has time to turn it around this year, but we as alum should be honest that his tenure is not off to the start Shirk had. The answer is not an NIL collective - but really a conversation about the future of WAC, the lacrosse program, and whether we have the right coach. I know some of the other candidates from the search a few years ago and some of them are having incredible success elsewhere. Not saying they would be in a different boat from the current situation, but there are some hungry coaches out there that really wanted this job as well.

No matter what - let's go WAC. This might not be the team to turn it around, but I wish all the boys on the shore the best. Out work and out hustle everyone and good things will happen.

It sounds like you have a pretty strong connection to the program. To be clear, my history is not incorrect. It seems as if we are sharing perspective from two different camps. Your’s seems to be skewed by way of Dr. (lol) Matthews and my perspective was shaped by being in the trenches with JB. Bottom line: I witnessed abhorrent behavior by a “man” that was supposed to be leader of the athletic department. He would have been fired by 99% of HR directors if you shared his actions and polled them. JB lived a lot of life during his time at WAC. But to sling mud by calling out “personal issues” just isn’t fair. He was respected and revered in the department by his colleagues and players. And he deserved better on his way out.

Your analysis of enrollment, recruiting, profile is really astute and I hope the other alums on here take time to read it.

I also value your take on Coach Nostrant. Don’t take my reverence for him as blind loyalty. If leaps and bounds aren’t made this season I have no problem moving on. Albeit, the thought of Thad Moore trying to lead another search for this job is laughable. But I digress. Three seasons in the era of portal and a COVID fifth year is plenty. I thought his 2022 and 2023 teams would have been loaded with transfers and fifth year guys to help with an infusion of talent. Although the schools pathetic decision to shut down the graduate school (which I hold a masters from!) certainly didn’t help. Hard to get a fifth year guy when there is not graduate school to offer him.

My expected path when he took over was:
Year one and two: immediate infusion of talent by way of transfer portal to bring life to the program and shows club coaches and recruits “WAC is back”
Year three: down year as transfers leave but talented freshman take their lumps
Year four and five: sprinkle in a few transfers to supplement your homegrown talent and start competing nationally, high school recruiting should be humming!

None of this has happened.

[veryoldgoose]

It sounds like you have a pretty strong connection to the program. To be clear, my history is not incorrect. It seems as if we are sharing perspective from two different camps. Your’s seems to be skewed by way of Dr. (lol) Matthews and my perspective was shaped by being in the trenches with JB. Bottom line: I witnessed abhorrent behavior by a “man” that was supposed to be leader of the athletic department. He would have been fired by 99% of HR directors if you shared his actions and polled them. JB lived a lot of life during his time at WAC. But to sling mud by calling out “personal issues” just isn’t fair. He was respected and revered in the department by his colleagues and players. And he deserved better on his way out.

Your analysis of enrollment, recruiting, profile is really astute and I hope the other alums on here take time to read it.

I also value your take on Coach Nostrant. Don’t take my reverence for him as blind loyalty. If leaps and bounds aren’t made this season I have no problem moving on. Albeit, the thought of Thad Moore trying to lead another search for this job is laughable. But I digress. Three seasons in the era of portal and a COVID fifth year is plenty. I thought his 2022 and 2023 teams would have been loaded with transfers and fifth year guys to help with an infusion of talent. Although the schools pathetic decision to shut down the graduate school (which I hold a masters from!) certainly didn’t help. Hard to get a fifth year guy when there is not graduate school to offer him.

My expected path when he took over was:
Year one and two: immediate infusion of talent by way of transfer portal to bring life to the program and shows club coaches and recruits “WAC is back”
Year three: down year as transfers leave but talented freshman take their lumps
Year four and five: sprinkle in a few transfers to supplement your homegrown talent and start competing nationally, high school recruiting should be humming!

None of this has happened.

On the JB point, I always have been and continue to be a big JB fan. I have no intention of slinging mud towards JB. But I think we all can agree there were issues both ways and it was time for JB to depart. He has proven himself a million times over since he has left WAC and I am so happy for his success. Matthews also had issues, but I agree that we are describing the same thing from two different perspectives. I would add as a final note that not all of JB's players near the end were sad of his exit, but I would agree that some weren't pleased at his leaving either.

On the broader college environment, I would suggest people read up on the college enrollment cliff. Just google and you will find plenty of articles. The upshot is that we have less high school students than 20 years ago and that number is going to continue to decline as people have less kids. On top of that, more students aren't going to college, particularly men. Last time I looked, the only schools enrolling more men than women are the service academies and some extreme engineering schools like Ga Tech and Cal Tech. Otherwise, particularly at the liberal arts size, female students make up more of the student body and applicant pool. This cliff has already had painful results - see Cabrini as a recent example. This is going to get worse, particularly for smaller liberal arts schools that aren't immediately doing one of two things: providing a top tier education that is prestigious (think NESCAC, Haverford, Swat, Hopkins) or is a more regional school that provides a good education for cheap. The problem that WAC particularly faces and has struggled with in the past 10 or so years is that it doesn't know what it is - is it a school that increases standards (thus decreasing enrollment) in an attempt to become a more prestigious academic institution, or is it a cheap school that services its region (like Frostburg state). It is the schools in the middle that will wither and fade out due to financial constraints and declining enrollment, which is my fear for WAC.

On the positive front, I think the recent news about the Hodson Trust is a game changer for WAC. For those who don't know, the Hodson Trust was dissolved and with the lump sum, the college is now promising at least 30k in scholarships per year for every applicant that has over a 3.3 GPA. Obviously a 3.3 is much different than the GPA requirement to get into a Haverford, but it is a great step in correcting from the we will admit anyone to increase enrollment to hopefully becoming more selective and lean. More selective means eventually, years from now, a hopeful increase in prestige and reputation. This is an amazing opportunity for the college if they don't screw it up.

On the grad school point, I know the college has been spending money on trying to bring it back. It was dumb getting rid of it, and I hope they bring it back. If nothing other than it really helps with attracting good assistant coaches. While the pay is absolutely miserable, being able to get a master's and a few years coaching was not a bad deal. Once WAC got rid of its master's programs, it lost the most attractive reason for potential assistant coach hires. Almost every other college or university helps its assistant coaches get an inhouse master's degree, and WAC became one of only a handful of schools across the country that couldn't provide that benefit to its coaches. I really hope it comes back.

On the Shirk/Nostrant comparison, I have a few additional observations. The biggest complaint against Shirk I heard for years, which I personally think was undeserved, was that he was not the best recruiter post-2014. One can view the Nostrant hire as a direct result of that criticism - bring in an all time great high school coach who could surely recruit the hell out of the MIAA and Eastern PA, his stomping grounds. I don't think Nostrant has lived up to that billing so far, particularly given he was chosen over coaches who were coaching in D1 and D3 and having success on those teams. This also connects back to my point about recruiting student athletes from a broad range of places. WAC has always been at its best since the 80s with a strong MIAA contigent, but an equally strong contigent of guys from outside the MIAA. One thinks of all the greats from Virginia and Conneticut over the past thirty years, on top of the guys from the MIAA and Long Island. During the late JB and early Shirk years, there were fantastic players from California, Florida, and other states that aren't the classic hotbeds. We all know JB overrecruited like Berkman still does, but it meant that he would take chances on players from anywhere if he thought they had a chance of being great. There would be the crop of MIAA guys that all knew each other, but then a crop of guys from everywhere betting on themselves to prove they could play as well. In my view, that was always an important key in recruiting and team building - if there was one contigent of guys that knew each other from HS more than the other contigents, those teams always failed to live up to expectations. And this is not WAC specific, this goes for other Centennial and regional teams. I know Nostrant isn't relying solely on MIAA guys, but there is something to be said in having a former MIAA coach recruiting the MIAA hard and yet no success on the field as of yet.

I will also add that I am not blaming alums for the current predicament, but the 2021 hiring process was dominated by a few alums from the Baltimore area that obviously have a strong connection with Nostrant. Not saying that is good or bad, but again I think WAC is at its best when its not MIAA dominant over all else. Go get those athletes from out of the mid-atlantic and long island that desparately want to work hard and compete.

This year will be the key year for me as far as the future of this coaching staff. Does the team show signs that it can win and compete, or is WAC a bottom feeder in the Centennial again. I think its unacceptable for WAC to be outside the Centennial playoffs, let alone NCAA playoffs. That is my standard for that program. If Shirk could do that in two years, can Nostrant do it in three or four? If not, the results speak for themselves. I personally like Nostrant from what I have gathered and seen and I really hope he is the guy. But I don't think we should assume he is because he coached at some great high schools until he can prove the results.

[MVPiccoli]

OldGoose, that was a phenomenal read and a prime example of why I enjoy these forums.

Regarding the college enrollment cliff, I was completely unaware. Enlightening and terrifying. Seems like we'll reach a tipping point rather quickly. Cabrini had steady enrollment numbers. I thought our problem was over investment and the lack of donor relationship building by the previous President, Donald Taylor. But, maybe he saw this years ahead and was trying to create a more robust offering (new nursing school, science building, parking garage, field house, etc.) and just didn't have the chops to sit down with the real money out there are make a connection. IDK.

The last time I was on WAC's campus was admittedly in the early 2000's. We played the Berger/Spivey team in 2002. I thought it was stunning. Back then, seeing the Natty signs also created a feeling of awe. I even remember their pre-game warm-ups being so organized and unique. I've been to Chestertown as recently as last summer though. Just an overwhelmingly beautiful place.

You all have some complicated problems with complicated people.

Nostrant never struck me a complicated man. He's a natural leader. He did coach for decades at a nationally competitive high school that attracted scores of local D1 talent. That used to annoy me. My public high school saw kids that would have made a real difference for us head their way. He seemed to be in the recruiting game, and successful at it, for all those years. His schemes were fun to watch. He's got a great in-game feel for adjustments. I expected/still expect him, if given the freedom and resources, to make you all successful again.

[GoTerriers8]

Sorry for the confusion, was Shirk a good coach? Was he a good coach at first but then faded out quickly?

[ChopMan23]

Sorry for the confusion, was Shirk a good coach? Was he a good coach at first but then faded out quickly?

No. There is a reason he’s not coaching at all anymore period.

[veryoldgoose]

Sorry for the confusion, was Shirk a good coach? Was he a good coach at first but then faded out quickly?

No. There is a reason he’s not coaching at all anymore period.

Strong disagree. A bad coach doesnt get to 3 NCAA tournaments in his first 4 years at WAC, nor goes undefeated in the Centennial and gets to the final four. You might have had a bad experience yourself, but to say categorically Shirk was not a good coach is just empirically wrong.

[FellowGoose]

Referring back to my previous comment. Nostrant has not really once “coached” this team. The bulk of the responsibility has been placed on his staff. Nostrant is a great admin, but he is far out of his wheelhouse in the current realm of trying to revitalize a program. He would best serve this team in a director of operations role. During the hiring process, the players who were involved in the interview did not have Nostrant in their top 2 & that was communicated very strongly to those above us. Yet, like mentioned alumni who have strong pull outweighed the decision and ultimately hired him. This team needs young energy.

[veryoldgoose]

OldGoose, that was a phenomenal read and a prime example of why I enjoy these forums.

Regarding the college enrollment cliff, I was completely unaware. Enlightening and terrifying. Seems like we'll reach a tipping point rather quickly. Cabrini had steady enrollment numbers. I thought our problem was over investment and the lack of donor relationship building by the previous President, Donald Taylor. But, maybe he saw this years ahead and was trying to create a more robust offering (new nursing school, science building, parking garage, field house, etc.) and just didn't have the chops to sit down with the real money out there are make a connection. IDK.

The last time I was on WAC's campus was admittedly in the early 2000's. We played the Berger/Spivey team in 2002. I thought it was stunning. Back then, seeing the Natty signs also created a feeling of awe. I even remember their pre-game warm-ups being so organized and unique. I've been to Chestertown as recently as last summer though. Just an overwhelmingly beautiful place.

You all have some complicated problems with complicated people.

Nostrant never struck me a complicated man. He's a natural leader. He did coach for decades at a nationally competitive high school that attracted scores of local D1 talent. That used to annoy me. My public high school saw kids that would have made a real difference for us head their way. He seemed to be in the recruiting game, and successful at it, for all those years. His schemes were fun to watch. He's got a great in-game feel for adjustments. I expected/still expect him, if given the freedom and resources, to make you all successful again.

Thank you for the kind words.

Glad you are reading up on the cliff. It truly is scary and is already having huge impacts on all higher education. I must confess I have no inside knowledge of Cabrini other than what has been reported, but I use them as an example because I think there are a lot of parallels between the schools. I think your comments about what happened at Cabrini is exactly emblematic of this cliff and the consequences for liberal arts schools - the school knows it needs to increase enrollment, so it spends a ton of money trying to build new programs and new infrastructure, but the necessary enrollment increase doesn't come yet the debt comes due. That formula over the past decade and into this decade will only fail and cause more schools to close. Private liberal arts colleges need to offer a counter-point to the cheaper state universities. They need to sell themselves as providing an accessible, prestigious educational experience as mini ivy league schools. Now obviously WAC cannot due that overnight, but the closer one gets to that, a la a NESCAC or Hopkins or Haverford/Swat, the more chance the school has of survival long term. In my view, this cliff is going to cause only four types of schools to survive - 1) community colleges and other localized, cheap schools at both AA and BA/BS level; 2) state universities that obviously get subsidized by the state that offer prestige or great value (often times both, including some examples like UNC, UVA, and Maryland, but could also include at the d3 level smaller state schools that are subsidized like the SUNY schools or Frostburg); 3) highly prestigious larger schools that offer prestige and great work opportunities (schools like the ivy league, Duke, Notre Dame, etc. where the demand will always be greater than supply of seats available); and 4) strong, prestigious liberal arts schools that fill the void for a smaller, more intimate educational experience (NESCAC, Haverford/Swat, etc.). Particularly for the fourth bucket in my list, these schools can survive even if expensive often because they provide great educational value and opportunities, particularly for students who have strong academic credentials but may not have gotten into a Duke, an Ivy, etc. There is a reason why the NESCAC is full of both great students and great athletes that choose to play there rather than a mid-D1 that doesn't offer the same educational value and opportunities. The Centennial has schools that also fit this profile, mostly Hopkins (although larger than a traditional liberal arts school), Haverford, and Swat. The only real outlier in Centennial has been McDaniel, but WAC's executives in the last decade have made WAC's profile much closer to McDaniel than Dickinson.

Ultimately, there are a lot of "liberal arts schools" that don't neatly fit into one of those buckets in the near and long term future, and those are the schools that will be most at risk due to the educational cliff. Demanding increase enrollment to offset spending in areas like nicer dorms or a new theater isn't going to help the school survive. Those are great things to have, and students should have them, but not at the cost of requiring increased enrollment in an environment where enrollment is down and will only continue to go down more.

Edit: I will add that I personally see three tiers of schools in the Centennial, leaving lacrosse to the side for the moment (within the tiers the schools aren't ranked). Tier 1 - Hopkins, Haverford, Swarthmore. I think these schools will survive and thrive regardless of the cliff. Tier 2 - Dickinson, Gettysburg, F&M, and WAC (at least from 2014 and before). I think these schools can survive the educational cliff and may not only survive, but thrive. I think Dickinson has been the best positioned in the last 10-15 years. They have continued to invest in the right places, the academic profile of the students has increased in an effort to be more like the Tier 1 schools, and athletics have been supported and done very well across lacrosse and other sports. Gettysburg is right behind in also doing some of these things. Tier 3 - WAC (of today), Muhlenburg, Ursinus, and McDaniel. These are the schools I think either figure out how to be more like the Tier 2 schools or they will probably not survive 20 years from now. I think WAC and Ursinus are schools that are more likely to either be or become Tier 2 schools that survive and even thrive into the future, as long as the right executive decisions are made. As I said earlier, the new Hodson scholarships are an AMAZING tool for WAC to really survive the enrollment cliff if the right decisions are made. I also didn't rank Bryn Mawr because it is its own thing and is unique for many reasons, so I have no good way to categorize it in my head.

[veryoldgoose]

Referring back to my previous comment. Nostrant has not really once “coached” this team. The bulk of the responsibility has been placed on his staff. Nostrant is a great admin, but he is far out of his wheelhouse in the current realm of trying to revitalize a program. He would best serve this team in a director of operations role. During the hiring process, the players who were involved in the interview did not have Nostrant in their top 2 & that was communicated very strongly to those above us. Yet, like mentioned alumni who have strong pull outweighed the decision and ultimately hired him. This team needs young energy.

I will add the alumni were split on the candidates. A lot of the alumni from the past 10-15 years were pushing for some of the "young energy" so to speak coaching candidates from D1 and D3, but the decision was really driven by a small group of alumni and supporters in the Baltimore area. Again, I see the attraction to Nostrant by admin and some alumni if the complaint against Shirk was he was not recruiting well at the end of his tenure. If that is the case, then one hopes Nostrant is doing something in recruiting those coaches couldn't do, but I have yet to seen results on the field that suggest that is taking place yet. Also, if another complaint against Shirk was that his coaching methods were too old school for the current generation of players, I don't see any evidence that Nostrant is different on that front. I don't agree with "old school" coaching criticisms against Shirk or other coaches, but it was something talked about during Shirk's tenure that other posters have brought up. The only way that concern will ever be addressed is through the younger generation of coaches now who approach development, practice, and gameplanning differently. Not suggesting one approach is better than the other myself.

[LaxPundit07]

It sounds like you have a pretty strong connection to the program. To be clear, my history is not incorrect. It seems as if we are sharing perspective from two different camps. Your’s seems to be skewed by way of Dr. (lol) Matthews and my perspective was shaped by being in the trenches with JB. Bottom line: I witnessed abhorrent behavior by a “man” that was supposed to be leader of the athletic department. He would have been fired by 99% of HR directors if you shared his actions and polled them. JB lived a lot of life during his time at WAC. But to sling mud by calling out “personal issues” just isn’t fair. He was respected and revered in the department by his colleagues and players. And he deserved better on his way out.

Your analysis of enrollment, recruiting, profile is really astute and I hope the other alums on here take time to read it.

I also value your take on Coach Nostrant. Don’t take my reverence for him as blind loyalty. If leaps and bounds aren’t made this season I have no problem moving on. Albeit, the thought of Thad Moore trying to lead another search for this job is laughable. But I digress. Three seasons in the era of portal and a COVID fifth year is plenty. I thought his 2022 and 2023 teams would have been loaded with transfers and fifth year guys to help with an infusion of talent. Although the schools pathetic decision to shut down the graduate school (which I hold a masters from!) certainly didn’t help. Hard to get a fifth year guy when there is not graduate school to offer him.

My expected path when he took over was:
Year one and two: immediate infusion of talent by way of transfer portal to bring life to the program and shows club coaches and recruits “WAC is back”
Year three: down year as transfers leave but talented freshman take their lumps
Year four and five: sprinkle in a few transfers to supplement your homegrown talent and start competing nationally, high school recruiting should be humming!

None of this has happened.

On the JB point, I always have been and continue to be a big JB fan. I have no intention of slinging mud towards JB. But I think we all can agree there were issues both ways and it was time for JB to depart. He has proven himself a million times over since he has left WAC and I am so happy for his success. Matthews also had issues, but I agree that we are describing the same thing from two different perspectives. I would add as a final note that not all of JB's players near the end were sad of his exit, but I would agree that some weren't pleased at his leaving either.

On the broader college environment, I would suggest people read up on the college enrollment cliff. Just google and you will find plenty of articles. The upshot is that we have less high school students than 20 years ago and that number is going to continue to decline as people have less kids. On top of that, more students aren't going to college, particularly men. Last time I looked, the only schools enrolling more men than women are the service academies and some extreme engineering schools like Ga Tech and Cal Tech. Otherwise, particularly at the liberal arts size, female students make up more of the student body and applicant pool. This cliff has already had painful results - see Cabrini as a recent example. This is going to get worse, particularly for smaller liberal arts schools that aren't immediately doing one of two things: providing a top tier education that is prestigious (think NESCAC, Haverford, Swat, Hopkins) or is a more regional school that provides a good education for cheap. The problem that WAC particularly faces and has struggled with in the past 10 or so years is that it doesn't know what it is - is it a school that increases standards (thus decreasing enrollment) in an attempt to become a more prestigious academic institution, or is it a cheap school that services its region (like Frostburg state). It is the schools in the middle that will wither and fade out due to financial constraints and declining enrollment, which is my fear for WAC.

On the positive front, I think the recent news about the Hodson Trust is a game changer for WAC. For those who don't know, the Hodson Trust was dissolved and with the lump sum, the college is now promising at least 30k in scholarships per year for every applicant that has over a 3.3 GPA. Obviously a 3.3 is much different than the GPA requirement to get into a Haverford, but it is a great step in correcting from the we will admit anyone to increase enrollment to hopefully becoming more selective and lean. More selective means eventually, years from now, a hopeful increase in prestige and reputation. This is an amazing opportunity for the college if they don't screw it up.

On the grad school point, I know the college has been spending money on trying to bring it back. It was dumb getting rid of it, and I hope they bring it back. If nothing other than it really helps with attracting good assistant coaches. While the pay is absolutely miserable, being able to get a master's and a few years coaching was not a bad deal. Once WAC got rid of its master's programs, it lost the most attractive reason for potential assistant coach hires. Almost every other college or university helps its assistant coaches get an inhouse master's degree, and WAC became one of only a handful of schools across the country that couldn't provide that benefit to its coaches. I really hope it comes back.

On the Shirk/Nostrant comparison, I have a few additional observations. The biggest complaint against Shirk I heard for years, which I personally think was undeserved, was that he was not the best recruiter post-2014. One can view the Nostrant hire as a direct result of that criticism - bring in an all time great high school coach who could surely recruit the hell out of the MIAA and Eastern PA, his stomping grounds. I don't think Nostrant has lived up to that billing so far, particularly given he was chosen over coaches who were coaching in D1 and D3 and having success on those teams. This also connects back to my point about recruiting student athletes from a broad range of places. WAC has always been at its best since the 80s with a strong MIAA contigent, but an equally strong contigent of guys from outside the MIAA. One thinks of all the greats from Virginia and Conneticut over the past thirty years, on top of the guys from the MIAA and Long Island. During the late JB and early Shirk years, there were fantastic players from California, Florida, and other states that aren't the classic hotbeds. We all know JB overrecruited like Berkman still does, but it meant that he would take chances on players from anywhere if he thought they had a chance of being great. There would be the crop of MIAA guys that all knew each other, but then a crop of guys from everywhere betting on themselves to prove they could play as well. In my view, that was always an important key in recruiting and team building - if there was one contigent of guys that knew each other from HS more than the other contigents, those teams always failed to live up to expectations. And this is not WAC specific, this goes for other Centennial and regional teams. I know Nostrant isn't relying solely on MIAA guys, but there is something to be said in having a former MIAA coach recruiting the MIAA hard and yet no success on the field as of yet.

I will also add that I am not blaming alums for the current predicament, but the 2021 hiring process was dominated by a few alums from the Baltimore area that obviously have a strong connection with Nostrant. Not saying that is good or bad, but again I think WAC is at its best when its not MIAA dominant over all else. Go get those athletes from out of the mid-atlantic and long island that desparately want to work hard and compete.

This year will be the key year for me as far as the future of this coaching staff. Does the team show signs that it can win and compete, or is WAC a bottom feeder in the Centennial again. I think its unacceptable for WAC to be outside the Centennial playoffs, let alone NCAA playoffs. That is my standard for that program. If Shirk could do that in two years, can Nostrant do it in three or four? If not, the results speak for themselves. I personally like Nostrant from what I have gathered and seen and I really hope he is the guy. But I don't think we should assume he is because he coached at some great high schools until he can prove the results.

This was a super thoughtful response. Again, I am hopeful other alums are reading your responses. They provide a lot of valuable insight.

[LaxPundit07]

Referring back to my previous comment. Nostrant has not really once “coached” this team. The bulk of the responsibility has been placed on his staff. Nostrant is a great admin, but he is far out of his wheelhouse in the current realm of trying to revitalize a program. He would best serve this team in a director of operations role. During the hiring process, the players who were involved in the interview did not have Nostrant in their top 2 & that was communicated very strongly to those above us. Yet, like mentioned alumni who have strong pull outweighed the decision and ultimately hired him. This team needs young energy.

I will add the alumni were split on the candidates. A lot of the alumni from the past 10-15 years were pushing for some of the "young energy" so to speak coaching candidates from D1 and D3, but the decision was really driven by a small group of alumni and supporters in the Baltimore area. Again, I see the attraction to Nostrant by admin and some alumni if the complaint against Shirk was he was not recruiting well at the end of his tenure. If that is the case, then one hopes Nostrant is doing something in recruiting those coaches couldn't do, but I have yet to seen results on the field that suggest that is taking place yet. Also, if another complaint against Shirk was that his coaching methods were too old school for the current generation of players, I don't see any evidence that Nostrant is different on that front. I don't agree with "old school" coaching criticisms against Shirk or other coaches, but it was something talked about during Shirk's tenure that other posters have brought up. The only way that concern will ever be addressed is through the younger generation of coaches now who approach development, practice, and gameplanning differently. Not suggesting one approach is better than the other myself.

Right, wrong, indifferent… Alumni with money in their pockets will have the most impact on a coaching search. With all due respect to any current players that were on the “ search committee”, their input was the least regarded from those actually making the decision. And that tends to be the case with any coaching search. Administrators can only weigh the opinions of 18 to 22-year-olds so heavily. There are just so many factors that play that folks that age can’t competently weigh in on. I know that may sound harsh, but it is the truth . This was about alumni who donate to the program, are part of the endowment, or serve on the board. They selected Nostrant. The feeling was only someone in the family could right this ship. I was on board with that line of thinking. Would I have liked for Nostrant to have more collegiate coaching experience? Of course. But given all the factors, we felt like he was the best option. Like I said in a previous post, that does not mean he is immune from criticism. This program should be making significant gains this year. And if they aren’t, his job security should be up for discussion. Ultimately, we need to get this thing figured out. And despite our looking so fondly on yesteryear, if someone in the family can’t get it done, we can’t be afraid to move on.

[AbeFroeman]

as an outsider. this seems like an over reaction to losing the first game of the season. Eastern is a very good team and could compete to win the MAC (York and Stevenson)

maybe i don’t have all of the info.

[veryoldgoose]

as an outsider. this seems like an over reaction to losing the first game of the season. Eastern is a very good team and could compete to win the MAC (York and Stevenson)

maybe i don’t have all of the info.

Agree it is just one game into the season, but getting smashed by Eastern at the start of the season doesn't bode well, particularly with a much better W&L team up next. Of course a lot of time available to turning it around and they still can! I have just been speaking of historical comparisons - I think it is appropriate to judge the current coach in in years two and three against the previous regime.

[oglaxgod420]

Not sure Nostrant was the right hire. Hearing morale in Chestertown is LOW and has never been up since he arrived.

[PAdad102]

Referring back to my previous comment. Nostrant has not really once “coached” this team. The bulk of the responsibility has been placed on his staff. Nostrant is a great admin, but he is far out of his wheelhouse in the current realm of trying to revitalize a program. He would best serve this team in a director of operations role. During the hiring process, the players who were involved in the interview did not have Nostrant in their top 2 & that was communicated very strongly to those above us. Yet, like mentioned alumni who have strong pull outweighed the decision and ultimately hired him. This team needs young energy.

I will add the alumni were split on the candidates. A lot of the alumni from the past 10-15 years were pushing for some of the "young energy" so to speak coaching candidates from D1 and D3, but the decision was really driven by a small group of alumni and supporters in the Baltimore area. Again, I see the attraction to Nostrant by admin and some alumni if the complaint against Shirk was he was not recruiting well at the end of his tenure. If that is the case, then one hopes Nostrant is doing something in recruiting those coaches couldn't do, but I have yet to seen results on the field that suggest that is taking place yet. Also, if another complaint against Shirk was that his coaching methods were too old school for the current generation of players, I don't see any evidence that Nostrant is different on that front. I don't agree with "old school" coaching criticisms against Shirk or other coaches, but it was something talked about during Shirk's tenure that other posters have brought up. The only way that concern will ever be addressed is through the younger generation of coaches now who approach development, practice, and gameplanning differently. Not suggesting one approach is better than the other myself.

[veryoldgoose]

Referring back to my previous comment. Nostrant has not really once “coached” this team. The bulk of the responsibility has been placed on his staff. Nostrant is a great admin, but he is far out of his wheelhouse in the current realm of trying to revitalize a program. He would best serve this team in a director of operations role. During the hiring process, the players who were involved in the interview did not have Nostrant in their top 2 & that was communicated very strongly to those above us. Yet, like mentioned alumni who have strong pull outweighed the decision and ultimately hired him. This team needs young energy.

I will add the alumni were split on the candidates. A lot of the alumni from the past 10-15 years were pushing for some of the "young energy" so to speak coaching candidates from D1 and D3, but the decision was really driven by a small group of alumni and supporters in the Baltimore area. Again, I see the attraction to Nostrant by admin and some alumni if the complaint against Shirk was he was not recruiting well at the end of his tenure. If that is the case, then one hopes Nostrant is doing something in recruiting those coaches couldn't do, but I have yet to seen results on the field that suggest that is taking place yet. Also, if another complaint against Shirk was that his coaching methods were too old school for the current generation of players, I don't see any evidence that Nostrant is different on that front. I don't agree with "old school" coaching criticisms against Shirk or other coaches, but it was something talked about during Shirk's tenure that other posters have brought up. The only way that concern will ever be addressed is through the younger generation of coaches now who approach development, practice, and gameplanning differently. Not suggesting one approach is better than the other myself.

I will chime in because my son was recently recruited to Washington College but chose another school.

We were communicated with by the assistant coach via text, phone call, and email. There was never any outreach from the head coach. When we visited, we sat down with Coach Nostrant for about 20 minutes but that was about all our interaction was with him. The 2 assistants toured us around and had some players on the team eat lunch with us which was great. We never heard from Coach Nostrant again in the recruiting process, only from the assistants. At the other schools we visited, the assistants did much of the same but the Head Coach was much more involved with communication. The head coach at the school my son chose called him about once every 2 weeks until he committed. Also when we watched practice, the assistants took the lead and ran the entire practice. I didn't see Coach Nostrant do much. The assistants were doing the majority of the heavy lifting in everything I saw.

I will say though, when we sat down with Coach Nostrant, he was nice as can be. Clearly very passionate about his love for Washington College and wanting to get the program back to being competitive.

Congrats to your son! Sorry to hear about the experience with coach Nostrant, both on the personal interaction level and at practice. That is a real bummer to hear and I think is representative of what many of us have heard. Thank you for sharing!

I hope your son has an excellent experience in school and has a wonderful time!

[LaxPundit07]

I am disappointed to hear that as well. But I think we can all acknowledge that type of interaction is only a problem because they are losing. I know a few coaches that operate that way with national championship rings. If they were winning, people would say he is a CEO type that empowers his assistants.

[veryoldgoose]

I am disappointed to hear that as well. But I think we can all acknowledge that type of interaction is only a problem because they are losing. I know a few coaches that operate that way with national championship rings. If they were winning, people would say he is a CEO type that empowers his assistants.

100% agree. But Nostrant has not proven he can even get over .500 yet, so if this is how he is interacting with recruits (again bringing him in because of his recruiting potential), then this shows really poorly.

[RollShore82]

The concerns about the athletic department and administration in general are valid and certainly play a major role in holding this program back. Hard to win when the alums cannot donate exclusively to men's lax, no grad program, the president carousel doesn't care about athletics, admissions won't work with the coaches, the administration forces students to live on campus all four years, etc. However being that most of these factors are beyond the control of the coach, I'd like to focus specifically on the lacrosse the last five years.

Under Shirk

2019: 7-9 with 7 of those losses against top 20 opponents.

#11 W&L: Lost 14-8 - tough matchup for 2nd game of season but really were not in it from the start.
Stockton: Loss 16-11 - bad loss probably overlooked a solid stockton squad.
#15 CNU: Loss 11-10 (3OT) - Heartbreak loss against a top ranked CNU team playing at CNU. Need to finish these OT games.
St Mary's: Loss 11-14 - Inexcusable loss to a team that simply was not as talented as Wac. Sure there was likely some emotional hangover from the previous 3OT game, but this is on the coaches to get the team ready for the next one. Really bad loss.
#10 Dickinson: Loss 19-14 - Wac up 7-2 after 1st quarter and showed they can play with a top ranked devils squad, but then a complete collapse to allow a 10-8 deficit going into the half. Still very much in the game and could have made adjustments at half, but did not.
#9 Ursinus: Loss 10-7 - Another great opportunity to "steal" a conference game. Down 5-4 at half. Ursinus makes better adjustments.
#1 Salisbury: Loss 15-14 (2OT) - After no one gives them a chance, Wac comes to play at WOTS and goes up 12-6 after 3 quarters. Complete collapse in 4th quarter, but who cares still have a chance to win in 2OT. Salisbury completes comeback.
#16 F&M: Loss 18-10 - Not a very close game from the start.
#9 Gettysburg: Loss 12-8 - Down 8-7 after 3 quarters. Gettysburg makes better adjustments and wins.

Disappointing record for a Shoremen team that showed time and time again it had the talent to compete with top 20 teams, but could not play a complete game. Bad losses here are Stockton and St. Mary's. Maybe if they got up for every game like the CNU and Salisbury games, could have made some noise.

2020: 0-6, covid cut this one short (maybe a good thing). Really bad year not worth going through.

2021: 2-6 in shortened season with 4 losses against top 20 opponents.

#11 CNU: Loss 18-4 - Bad loss, never close
#14 Ursinus: Loss 18-6 - Same thing
#16 F&M: Loss 12-5 - Tied 4-4 at half. F&M makes necessary adjustments and Shoremen do not.
#7 Gettysburg: Loss 16-8 - Wac up 5-4 after 1, down 8-6 at half. Gettysburg adjusts better and wins. Sound familiar?
Muhlenburg: Loss 14-3 - Bad.
Dickinson: Loss 10-9 (OT) - Wac up 7-3 at half in Shirk's last game. Guess which team made better adjustments. Dickinson outscores Wac 7-2 in 2nd half.

In a shortened weird Covid season the Shoremen show signs of life but repeatedly have slow starts to 2nd half and allow teams to close them out.

Under Nostrant

2022: 4-10 with 4 losses against top 20 opponents

W&L: Loss 17-7 - Never in it
Stockton: Loss 12-9 - Wac up 6-4 at half, tied 7-7 going into 4th. Stockton closes it out.
Randy Mac: Loss 12-8 - Another bad loss but Wac was in it.
St Mary's: Loss 15-12 - Wac up 7-6 at half. Blows lead and St Mary's makes better adjustments.
Muhlenburg: Loss 13-8 - Muhles led the whole way but Wac cut it to 8-6 in 3rd.
#13 Gettysburg: Loss 11-4 - Wac down 6-2 at half. Held bullets scoreless in the 3rd, but offense cannot capitalize. Very much in the game but collapse in 4th quarter.
#1 Salisbury: Loss 22-8 - Not close
#16 F&M: Loss 16-8 - Cut it to 8-5 in 3rd, but F&M runs away.
#8 Dickinson: Loss 18-10 - Tied 3-3 after 1, down 9-5 at half.

New year, new team, new coach, same problems. Not expecting Nostrant to turn the program around in 1 year, but disappointing to see the same mistakes as the past few years. Wac shows it has some talent, but for whatever reason other teams are better at in-game adjustments and run away with it.

2023: 8-9 with 6 losses against top 20 teams. Wac starts off 8-2 and lose next 7 games to finish the season.

#11 W&L: Loss 15-10 - Tied 8-8 in 3rd, down 11-9 going into 4th. Had a chance early to knock off a top team but a bad second half and better adjustments from W&L gives them the win.
Cortland: Loss 21-4 - Not sure what happened here, maybe the quick turnaround Friday-Sunday impacted them. Bad loss.
#18 Muhlenburg: Loss 12-9 - Down 7-6 at half, muhles close it out.
#13 Dickinson: Loss 15-12 - Wac up 9-3 at half. Dickinson comes back with a 7-0 3rd quarter.
#16 Swat: Loss 14-13 (OT) - Back and forth game, but Wac loses heartbreaker.
#2 Salisbury: Loss 23-9 - Never close against the ncaa champs
F&M: Loss 13-11 - down 9-8 in 3rd but dips pull away.
Ursinus: Loss 16-12 - 14-11 going into 4th. Ursinus closes it out.
#7 Gettysburg: Loss 26-13 - never close.

This team had the chance to make the centennial playoffs and would have been a great 2nd year showing from Nostrant. However, the 2nd half continues to haunt the Shoremen and they go 2-6 in conference.

Although it's way too early to make any determinations about the 2024 season, the loss to eastern especially after beating them last year is concerning. If the past 5 years show anything its that there is some talent, maybe more some years than others (2019 and 2023 seemed to have more promise), but when Wac is in a close game the other team seemingly always finds a way to get the win. I'm not sure if its a stamina, in-game adjustments, or not knowing how to stop a run issue (more likely a combo of the 3), but something is wrong when every other team beats us in these situations. What is even more concerning is that the same issues arise under Nostrant's first couple of years.

Wac is far away from the national contender that we hope it will get back to, but by looking game by game they have had chances to crack the centennial playoffs. This is the first step in bringing Wac back and the way to do this is to figure out how to close teams out and make the adjustments to win the close ones.

Another issue that hasn't been discussed much is the retention of players from Freshman-Senior year. Every program is going to have their fair share of transfers and kids that quit, but since 2019 Wac has graduated 5, 7, 4 (with Temple staying for 5th year), and 13 seniors respectively. the higher number of seniors in 2019 and 2023 may have contributed to the more potential I mentioned before, but a run of 5,7, and 4 graduating seniors is troubling. This is a problem that needs to be addressed, especially as Wac has had to deal with the 5th and 6th years on other teams. Experience matters.

Good luck to Nostrant and the team the rest of the way. Hopefully they don't let one game set the tone for the rest of the season.

[westernbestern]

I did not see Garrison out there on Saturday. Hopefully he's back soon.