COACHING CAROUSEL 2021

[Drcthru]

Second, Tierney was clearly still a top-20 coach when he left. His last team (2009) was seeded #4 in the NCAAs (but, I'm happy to say, lost to #5 Cornell). After he left, Princeton collapsed pretty much immediately. If only incoming talent matters, why couldn't the new coaches keep the team in the top 20 with its glorious record of success?

You forgot that Tierney was 5-7 in 2005 (Ryan Boyle graduated the year before). And was 7-6 in 2008. And in 2009? Yale blew Tierney's doors off in the QuarterFinals. The decline started before Tierney left.....

Agree to disagree.

Yes. Tierney didn’t forget how to coach at the end of his Princeton tenure. Administrative support makes a huge difference…. Ask the guys at Yale or the guys at Cornell in the early to mid 1990’s.

he was the best at getting ivy administrative support in the 90's. and no one was really even close.

I just remember my buddy telling me in 1996 or so that he couldn’t get kids into Cornell but they were going to Princeton and Harvard. I didn’t know what he meant by that until years laters. Anyway, institutional support can determine how competitive programs are….it ebbs and flows.

Academics?

[Farfromgeneva]

A. Dean Smith is the reason UNC had created latitude. Mack Brown has them in the edge of a title in the early 90s before Butch Davis.
B. Somebody needs to explain John Haus’, and really all those early Breschi teams with the Bitters and all those highly regarded kids who couldn’t get past the quarters.
C. What’s the difference between Seaman, Zimmerman and Petro? I happen to think Zim is as good a coach or even better than Petro which of course will have a bunch of hop acolytes should carry their fandom as part of their personal identity to sh*t bricks I’m sure.

[jrn19]

A. Dean Smith is the reason UNC had created latitude. Mack Brown has them in the edge of a title in the early 90s before Butch Davis.
B. Somebody needs to explain John Haus’, and really all those early Breschi teams with the Bitters and all those highly regarded kids who couldn’t get past the quarters.
C. What’s the difference between Seaman, Zimmerman and Petro? I happen to think Zim is as good a coach or even better than Petro which of course will have a bunch of hop acolytes should carry their fandom as part of their personal identity to sh*t bricks I’m sure.

Zim is one of the best coaches ever. Petro at his peak was probably the best coach in the game. Struggled to adapt as the game changed whereas Zim had success relative to the level he was at for a long, long time. But both are tremendous, HOF level coaches

Seaman was a very good coach who was particularly good at building programs up and helping them reach new heights. He did good at Hopkins too but not to the level of Zim or Petro; I don’t know that that job was truly his wheelhouse compared to his Penn and Towson successes.

All 3 were good coaches; Zim and Petro were great.

[Homer]

which of course will have a bunch of hop acolytes should carry their fandom as part of their personal identity to sh*t bricks I’m sure.

This was like some kind of mad libs where these are all accurate words describing Hopkins but I can't figure out what the literal sentence actually means...

[Homer]

Interesting discussion. I wonder if part of why this topic seems to go around and around without making much progress is that A Fan's argument is actually compressing several distinct claims:

My assertion is that there's no difference between the top 20 D1 coaching staffs. THey're all good, all competent. And if you give them a top roster, every of those coaching staffs will take their teams on a run to the Final Four.

I'd break A Fan's position down into three different assertions:

1. Team success is overwhelmingly determined by player quality.
2. Player quality is overwhelmingly determined by recruiting.
3. Recruiting is overwhelmingly determined by factors beyond the coach's control.

#1 is about minimizing x's and o's: the team that has the more skilled players the moment they take the field is overwhelmingly likely to win, because coaches' tactical competence varies only minimally, at least at the top of the sport.

#2 is about minimizing "player development": the team that has objectively better players the moment said players arrive on campus is overwhelmingly likely to have a better roster down the line, because coaches' ability to encourage and facilitate player growth varies only minimally, at least at the top of the sport.

#3 is about minimizing recruiting, as a repeatable coach's skill: the school that has more features appealing to recruits the moment they hear its name is overwhelmingly likely to gather a more capable group of players, because coaches' ability to identify and attract talent varies only minimally, at least at the top of the sport.

Personally, I think #1 might be mostly right, #2 is probably wildly wrong, and #3 is sort of false and sort of true.

[Drcthru]

A. Dean Smith is the reason UNC had created latitude. Mack Brown has them in the edge of a title in the early 90s before Butch Davis.
B. Somebody needs to explain John Haus’, and really all those early Breschi teams with the Bitters and all those highly regarded kids who couldn’t get past the quarters.
C. What’s the difference between Seaman, Zimmerman and Petro? I happen to think Zim is as good a coach or even better than Petro which of course will have a bunch of hop acolytes should carry their fandom as part of their personal identity to sh*t bricks I’m sure.

Zim is one of the best coaches ever. Petro at his peak was probably the best coach in the game. Struggled to adapt as the game changed whereas Zim had success relative to the level he was at for a long, long time. But both are tremendous, HOF level coaches

Seaman was a very good coach who was particularly good at building programs up and helping them reach new heights. He did good at Hopkins too but not to the level of Zim or Petro; I don’t know that that job was truly his wheelhouse compared to his Penn and Towson successes.

All 3 were good coaches; Zim and Petro were great.

Scott>Cicc=Zim>Petro imho

[ggait]

Dave Cottle @ UMD. 3 FFs in 8 seasons.

John Tillman @ UMD. 8 FFs in 10 seasons.

Exact same school, brand, facilities, tradition, location, academic profile, etc. etc. etc.

Explain the difference.

[10stone5]

A. Dean Smith is the reason UNC had created latitude. Mack Brown has them in the edge of a title in the early 90s before Butch Davis.
B. Somebody needs to explain John Haus’, and really all those early Breschi teams with the Bitters and all those highly regarded kids who couldn’t get past the quarters.
C. What’s the difference between Seaman, Zimmerman and Petro? I happen to think Zim is as good a coach or even better than Petro which of course will have a bunch of hop acolytes should carry their fandom as part of their personal identity to sh*t bricks I’m sure.

Zim is one of the best coaches ever. Petro at his peak was probably the best coach in the game. Struggled to adapt as the game changed whereas Zim had success relative to the level he was at for a long, long time. But both are tremendous, HOF level coaches

Seaman was a very good coach who was particularly good at building programs up and helping them reach new heights. He did good at Hopkins too but not to the level of Zim or Petro; I don’t know that that job was truly his wheelhouse compared to his Penn and Towson successes.

All 3 were good coaches; Zim and Petro were great.

Ciccarone is the best I ever saw, by far.

Although I could make arguments for Simmons Jr.
and Zimmerman.

[Farfromgeneva]

which of course will have a bunch of hop acolytes should carry their fandom as part of their personal identity to sh*t bricks I’m sure.

This was like some kind of mad libs where these are all accurate words describing Hopkins but I can't figure out what the literal sentence actually means...

“Should” was supposed to be “who” but my fat fingers on phone and spellcheck decided should was the superior word for the sentence. I figured suggesting Zim was as good or better than Petro would light up a bunch of super fans here.

[Farfromgeneva]

Interesting discussion. I wonder if part of why this topic seems to go around and around without making much progress is that A Fan's argument is actually compressing several distinct claims:

My assertion is that there's no difference between the top 20 D1 coaching staffs. THey're all good, all competent. And if you give them a top roster, every of those coaching staffs will take their teams on a run to the Final Four.

I'd break A Fan's position down into three different assertions:

1. Team success is overwhelmingly determined by player quality.
2. Player quality is overwhelmingly determined by recruiting.
3. Recruiting is overwhelmingly determined by factors beyond the coach's control.

#1 is about minimizing x's and o's: the team that has the more skilled players the moment they take the field is overwhelmingly likely to win, because coaches' tactical competence varies only minimally, at least at the top of the sport.

#2 is about minimizing "player development": the team that has objectively better players the moment said players arrive on campus is overwhelmingly likely to have a better roster down the line, because coaches' ability to encourage and facilitate player growth varies only minimally, at least at the top of the sport.

#3 is about minimizing recruiting, as a repeatable coach's skill: the school that has more features appealing to recruits the moment they hear its name is overwhelmingly likely to gather a more capable group of players, because coaches' ability to identify and attract talent varies only minimally, at least at the top of the sport.

Personally, I think #1 might be mostly right, #2 is probably wildly wrong, and #3 is sort of false and sort of true.

Excellent deconstruction.

[Farfromgeneva]

Dave Cottle @ UMD. 3 FFs in 8 seasons.

John Tillman @ UMD. 8 FFs in 10 seasons.

Exact same school, brand, facilities, tradition, location, academic profile, etc. etc. etc.

Explain the difference.

Tillman is from upstate NY and Cottle is a mid Atlantic guy.

Upstate NY lacrosse > Mid Atlantic.

It’s science.

[steel_hop]

For those assuming Petro will completely overhaul the defensive philosophy he's been using for 20+ years...I wouldn't hold your breath.

I don't disagree with you completely. But, I think Gait is going to force him, if he is the DC, to play more aggressively. The game has changed over the last decade. Teams that are more aggressive have been more likely to win games. Further, I also think defenses that limit slides have shown to be more fundamentally sound and better over the last decade. Obvious reason for little slides is that you have athletic SSDM, LSM and Dmen than can run hip to hip with an offensive player.

Because it is inherently better (as a strictly defensive strategy or as a way to ignite run-and-gun) or because it is easier to recruit athletic defensemen to that system?

This is a all a general statement.

I think it is a matter of a way to generate quick offense and to recruit athletic defensemen with good stickwork. Think of it as the antithesis of attackman. Attackman want to be in a fast pace offense where they can score a ton of goals. Dman want to be able to make checks that dislodge the ball where they can start a fast break and potentially score. Now, not all defensemen can do this but the top guys are going to be attracted to that type of defense.

I also think because of the changes in the game players, in general, have become more bigger, stronger, faster, etc. This has translated into defenses being more able to clamp down on offenses. Was a defense gets settled it becomes much harder to score on. So teams should want to score in transition. Yes, I realize that is somewhat a contradiction on the above but if you look at the most recent past champions over the last decade. Most have been high octane offenses. If you can get 3-4 quick/fast break/transitional type scores in a game 2 scores on EMO, all things else being equal, you are probably going to be right around 15-16 goals a game - figuring you are at a decent normal offensive efficiency rate. This will be especially true for the top end teams. You make a game have more possessions, it will generally favor the better team.

Some of it is driven by FO wins but they still mix in a ton of getting the ball down the field quickly on fast breaks, riding really hard to generate offense, etc. Some of the riding has been driven by the 80 second shot clock. Team realize that making a team take 20 seconds to get across the mid-field line means a team might be on offense for only 60 seconds.

I said when UVA hired Tiffany that he saw where the game was going and reacted accordingly. He wanted lots of guys on offense to play every position. You want more two-way middies. The days of specific fogos, true SSDM, and the like are probably going to go away. This isn't to say teams won't have specific SSDMs or offensive middies but teams are going to want their guys to be able to play both ways. With the shot clock era (and it is likely going to drop at some point to 60 - just like bball started at 45 seconds and is now at 30 seconds), middies are going to have to play more two ways because you can't wait for subs.

[youthathletics]

For those assuming Petro will completely overhaul the defensive philosophy he's been using for 20+ years...I wouldn't hold your breath.

I don't disagree with you completely. But, I think Gait is going to force him, if he is the DC, to play more aggressively. The game has changed over the last decade. Teams that are more aggressive have been more likely to win games. Further, I also think defenses that limit slides have shown to be more fundamentally sound and better over the last decade. Obvious reason for little slides is that you have athletic SSDM, LSM and Dmen than can run hip to hip with an offensive player.

Because it is inherently better (as a strictly defensive strategy or as a way to ignite run-and-gun) or because it is easier to recruit athletic defensemen to that system?

This is a all a general statement.

I think it is a matter of a way to generate quick offense and to recruit athletic defensemen with good stickwork. Think of it as the antithesis of attackman. Attackman want to be in a fast pace offense where they can score a ton of goals. Dman want to be able to make checks that dislodge the ball where they can start a fast break and potentially score. Now, not all defensemen can do this but the top guys are going to be attracted to that type of defense.

I also think because of the changes in the game players, in general, have become more bigger, stronger, faster, etc. This has translated into defenses being more able to clamp down on offenses. Was a defense gets settled it becomes much harder to score on. So teams should want to score in transition. Yes, I realize that is somewhat a contradiction on the above but if you look at the most recent past champions over the last decade. Most have been high octane offenses. If you can get 3-4 quick/fast break/transitional type scores in a game 2 scores on EMO, all things else being equal, you are probably going to be right around 15-16 goals a game - figuring you are at a decent normal offensive efficiency rate. This will be especially true for the top end teams. You make a game have more possessions, it will generally favor the better team.

Some of it is driven by FO wins but they still mix in a ton of getting the ball down the field quickly on fast breaks, riding really hard to generate offense, etc. Some of the riding has been driven by the 80 second shot clock. Team realize that making a team take 20 seconds to get across the mid-field line means a team might be on offense for only 60 seconds.

I said when UVA hired Tiffany that he saw where the game was going and reacted accordingly. He wanted lots of guys on offense to play every position. You want more two-way middies. The days of specific fogos, true SSDM, and the like are probably going to go away. This isn't to say teams won't have specific SSDMs or offensive middies but teams are going to want their guys to be able to play both ways. With the shot clock era (and it is likely going to drop at some point to 60 - just like bball started at 45 seconds and is now at 30 seconds), middies are going to have to play more two ways because you can't wait for subs.

+1
@3:19 "Your defense is an offense". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBUxLK8TxmA&t

[Typical Lax Dad]

For those assuming Petro will completely overhaul the defensive philosophy he's been using for 20+ years...I wouldn't hold your breath.

I don't disagree with you completely. But, I think Gait is going to force him, if he is the DC, to play more aggressively. The game has changed over the last decade. Teams that are more aggressive have been more likely to win games. Further, I also think defenses that limit slides have shown to be more fundamentally sound and better over the last decade. Obvious reason for little slides is that you have athletic SSDM, LSM and Dmen than can run hip to hip with an offensive player.

Because it is inherently better (as a strictly defensive strategy or as a way to ignite run-and-gun) or because it is easier to recruit athletic defensemen to that system?

This is a all a general statement.

I think it is a matter of a way to generate quick offense and to recruit athletic defensemen with good stickwork. Think of it as the antithesis of attackman. Attackman want to be in a fast pace offense where they can score a ton of goals. Dman want to be able to make checks that dislodge the ball where they can start a fast break and potentially score. Now, not all defensemen can do this but the top guys are going to be attracted to that type of defense.

I also think because of the changes in the game players, in general, have become more bigger, stronger, faster, etc. This has translated into defenses being more able to clamp down on offenses. Was a defense gets settled it becomes much harder to score on. So teams should want to score in transition. Yes, I realize that is somewhat a contradiction on the above but if you look at the most recent past champions over the last decade. Most have been high octane offenses. If you can get 3-4 quick/fast break/transitional type scores in a game 2 scores on EMO, all things else being equal, you are probably going to be right around 15-16 goals a game - figuring you are at a decent normal offensive efficiency rate. This will be especially true for the top end teams. You make a game have more possessions, it will generally favor the better team.

Some of it is driven by FO wins but they still mix in a ton of getting the ball down the field quickly on fast breaks, riding really hard to generate offense, etc. Some of the riding has been driven by the 80 second shot clock. Team realize that making a team take 20 seconds to get across the mid-field line means a team might be on offense for only 60 seconds.

I said when UVA hired Tiffany that he saw where the game was going and reacted accordingly. He wanted lots of guys on offense to play every position. You want more two-way middies. The days of specific fogos, true SSDM, and the like are probably going to go away. This isn't to say teams won't have specific SSDMs or offensive middies but teams are going to want their guys to be able to play both ways. With the shot clock era (and it is likely going to drop at some point to 60 - just like bball started at 45 seconds and is now at 30 seconds), middies are going to have to play more two ways because you can't wait for subs.

I am hoping the shot clock stays just were it is. I have not seen anything that says to me, the clock needs to be shorter.

[HooDat]

A few relevant points above that relate to the following observations and pointing out that a lot of folks aren't actually listening to what afan is saying.

1. Team success is overwhelmingly determined by player quality.
2. Player quality is overwhelmingly determined by recruiting.
3. Recruiting is overwhelmingly determined by factors beyond the coach's control.

Personally, I think #1 might be mostly right, #2 is probably wildly wrong, and #3 is sort of false and sort of true.

Excellent deconstruction.

And adding to Homer's excellent deconstruction:

A) D1 talent already knows the game.

B) Every top coach can make the refinements that are missing.

C) On the MARGIN a great coach can have a meaningful impact on recruiting, but a team's baseline and ceiling are both set by the school's pedigree and the administration's support of the program - which to me answers ggaits question

Dave Cottle @ UMD. 3 FFs in 8 seasons.

John Tillman @ UMD. 8 FFs in 10 seasons.

Exact same school, brand, facilities, tradition, location, academic profile, etc. etc. etc.

Explain the difference.

D) I think afan's cut-off of top 20 is too high. I don't think there are 20 coaches that can take their teams to the final four on a regular basis even at the optimally aligned school. I would set the number closer to 10 that can be identified and maybe 5 more that we don't know but will get there (Keagan at Marist is my lead candidate for that latter bunch).

E) I do think there is a need for coaches to keep up with the game and some of the great ones can fail at it, and we have recently witnessed some of the legends do so. My question is are they legends because they are truly great, or did they happen to be in the right place (historically top programs) at the right time (emergence of the sport with limited competition). Tto be clear, I am talking about: Desko, Starsia, Petro, Cottle. Tierney seems to be able to keep winning with the "required ingredients", and he was savvy enough to move to seek out those ingredients for success.

I said when UVA hired Tiffany that he saw where the game was going and reacted accordingly.

F) There are four other places coaches make a meaningful impact:
i) building their depth charts and putting the talent in the right roles
ii) setting team culture
iii) working the administration to get their support
iv) most importantly (and back to recruiting) - understanding what kind of player will fit the three points above

[HooDat]

I am hoping the shot clock stays just were it is. I have not seen anything that says to me, the clock needs to be shorter.

I believe the shorter clock is only for re-starts. The rule change eliminates the 20 seconds that was meant for clearing.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I am hoping the shot clock stays just were it is. I have not seen anything that says to me, the clock needs to be shorter.

I believe the shorter clock is only for re-starts. The rule change eliminates the 20 seconds that was meant for clearing.

http://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes. ... 04.22.html

One thing I don’t like about lacrosse is the constant tinkering for no good reason really. Why not speed up football…everyone should go to no huddle and shorten the play clock. The game will move faster.

[Typical Lax Dad]

A few relevant points above that relate to the following observations and pointing out that a lot of folks aren't actually listening to what afan is saying.

1. Team success is overwhelmingly determined by player quality.
2. Player quality is overwhelmingly determined by recruiting.
3. Recruiting is overwhelmingly determined by factors beyond the coach's control.

Personally, I think #1 might be mostly right, #2 is probably wildly wrong, and #3 is sort of false and sort of true.

Excellent deconstruction.

And adding to Homer's excellent deconstruction:

A) D1 talent already knows the game.

B) Every top coach can make the refinements that are missing.

C) On the MARGIN a great coach can have a meaningful impact on recruiting, but a team's baseline and ceiling are both set by the school's pedigree and the administration's support of the program - which to me answers ggaits question

Dave Cottle @ UMD. 3 FFs in 8 seasons.

John Tillman @ UMD. 8 FFs in 10 seasons.

Exact same school, brand, facilities, tradition, location, academic profile, etc. etc. etc.

Explain the difference.

D) I think afan's cut-off of top 20 is too high. I don't think there are 20 coaches that can take their teams to the final four on a regular basis even at the optimally aligned school. I would set the number closer to 10 that can be identified and maybe 5 more that we don't know but will get there (Keagan at Marist is my lead candidate for that latter bunch).

E) I do think there is a need for coaches to keep up with the game and some of the great ones can fail at it, and we have recently witnessed some of the legends do so. My question is are they legends because they are truly great, or did they happen to be in the right place (historically top programs) at the right time (emergence of the sport with limited competition). Tto be clear, I am talking about: Desko, Starsia, Petro, Cottle. Tierney seems to be able to keep winning with the "required ingredients", and he was savvy enough to move to seek out those ingredients for success.

I said when UVA hired Tiffany that he saw where the game was going and reacted accordingly.

F) There are four other places coaches make a meaningful impact:
i) building their depth charts and putting the talent in the right roles
ii) setting team culture
iii) working the administration to get their support
iv) most importantly (and back to recruiting) - understanding what kind of player will fit the three points above

The last part if key….and one of the coaches you mentioned said that “is one of the problems with early recruiting”….. pushing the timetable back is better for the pedigree programs now.

[ggait]

On the MARGIN a great coach can have a meaningful impact on recruiting, but a team's baseline and ceiling are both set by the school's pedigree and the administration's support of the program - which to me answers ggaits question

Please explain this one to me.

I understand how UMD Tillman is going to be more successful than Harvard Tillman. Not because of Tillman but because in mlax UMD >> Harvard.

But why is UMD Tillman so much better than UMD Cottle?

UMD only started to get serious about mlax when it hired Tillman? So they would have gotten the same results if they had just kept Cottle and given him the extra resources? So they were willing to resource Tillman, but for some reason refused to resource Cottle?

I'm listening.

P.S. Alabama Saban is obviously more successful than LSU Saban or MSU Saban. But why is Alabama Saban soooo much better than the 7 Alabama HCs that came between Bear Bryant and Saban?

P.P.S. UVA hoops Tony Bennett is better than WSU Tony Bennett. But why is UVA Bennett sooo much better than all previous UVA hoops coaches in history?

[youthathletics]

I am hoping the shot clock stays just were it is. I have not seen anything that says to me, the clock needs to be shorter.

I believe the shorter clock is only for re-starts. The rule change eliminates the 20 seconds that was meant for clearing.

http://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes. ... 04.22.html

One thing I don’t like about lacrosse is the constant tinkering for no good reason really. Why not speed up football…everyone should go to no huddle and shorten the play clock. The game will move faster.

Agreed, 12-16 minutes of actual playing time takes 3 plus hours.....insane.