Ipayforlax wrote: ↑Fri Jul 30, 2021 11:15 am
Kwolek from Richmond.
She did a good job at Richmond, made them a real contender in the A10, although I thought they underperformed this past year. Good gig for her, and an opening in Spiderville.
I think we will see Richmond decline from its recent success. Good Hire.
had to go back and check - but Richmond was 17-2 the last 2 years, pretty impressive until you check the SOS. I like the hire, anytime you have a chance to be a head coach in the ACC - you take it.
Really? THE ACC...you take it! Why? So if you don't take an ACC JOB, then you should feel shame? Worthless? Consider yourself not a good coach?
I'm surprised at how snooty that actually sounded...or am I being a bit sensitive. Coaching the game at any of the 3 levels should be considered an honor. If you are who I think you are, then you know exactly what I mean. Being a snob is not going to grow the game, but only succeed in keeping it stagnant.
Would love to hear your thoughts and others as well.
Maybe it's just me but you're definitely being a bit sensitive on this one. I'm sure she was honored to be the head coach at Richmond. I'm sure most coaches are happy to be where they are. The point was if you have the opportunity to go coach in the ACC you don't turn that down. You don't see the coach of UCF football saying no to Nebraska and Tennessee(who they lost their last two coaches to). The resources available at the higher level schools make your job easier and typically they are able to pay you(and more importantly your assistants) more money. As was said, if you're offered a job in the ACC you take it. If you're the coach at Army and are offered the Va Tech job you take it. If you're the head coach at Canisius and you're offered the Louisville job you take it. This isn't surprising stuff and shouldn't be offensive to anyone. No one is belittling Richmond, Army or Canisius but those are just facts.
I thought it was a no-brainer, but you laid it out very well. Coaching is a profession and it's matter of climbing the ladder just like any other profession. I think it's great that AK was able to be so successful at Richmond and use that experience and track record to get a HC job at the best conference in women's lacrosse - those opportunities rarely come available so you go for it when they do become available.
My 2 cents. Sure the ACC is the best women's lacrosse conference. But Clemson isn't one of the best universities in the country (subjective I know). For what it is worth, USNews has them ranked #74 in the country. I find it hard to believe that in the next 10 years they will be competitive in the ACC, but who knows.
I think it will be a hard sell for a coach to attract top talent. What does Clemson offer that's better than the top ACC schools? Why would a top player choose Clemson over BC, UNC, Duke, Virginia, Syracuse? If I am a high school girl and want to play college lacrosse, do I really want to play for a team that has little to no shot of making their conference tournament, and no chance of making the NCAA's?
I have never been to Clemson, but I hear it is a lovely school and a beautiful campus. But no matter how much money the athletic department may throw at the women's lacrosse team and no matter how much swag they have for their players, I just can't see them being competitive. I wish the best for the program, but I always see the glass half full
I'm sure softball people thought the same when Clemson started their softball program last year. In their first full year as a program they won the ACC with a record of 29-5 which is a good softball league(4 top 20 teams). Clemson is a HUGE draw to kids from the NE. One thing they offer that the other ACC schools don't is a national championship level football program which creates a whole different dynamic on campus and is a draw socially.
Can I be a complete snob here, I think the demographics of the softball family is different than the demographics of the traditional lacrosse family from NE. That is probably one of the things the Clemson board look at when they decided to add women's lacrosse. They may have wanted to try to get more students from NE going to their school.
You can be...and were. This may be the case when all the talent was centralized in one place, the NE. That is no longer the case. Certainly if you want to contain your recruiting effort in a single area your best bang to the buck would be the NE. My guess, and it is a complete guess, is that Clemson will have a large enough recruiting budget to spread out and concentrate on players and not an area. Lots and lots of great talent not located in the NE. Certain teams seem to throw a wider net. Syr has 6 non NE players on the Roster with Karney and Cooper(Tx) a pair or Canadians and some reserves (Widner was a nice piece at the x but after her injury seems to have stepped into a reserve role). Northwestern has 12 non NE players on their roster most notablely Gilbert and Scane and McKone. Heck, even the national champion BC eagles rode the backs of two non-NE players to a National Championship but everyone already knows this.
You cold very well be right, the NE player may not flock to Clemson SC. Time will tell. My guess, a complete guess, is that athletics at Clemson is important enough that they will spend the money on the recruiting budget to get talent from more than just the NE. It appears that they certainly have the money. Will they win the Natty in 10 years? I would not take that bet. Will they be competitive in the ACC and make the Tournament in 10 years? That one I would take......DMAc's gummies?
Ipayforlax wrote: ↑Fri Jul 30, 2021 11:15 am
Kwolek from Richmond.
She did a good job at Richmond, made them a real contender in the A10, although I thought they underperformed this past year. Good gig for her, and an opening in Spiderville.
I think we will see Richmond decline from its recent success. Good Hire.
had to go back and check - but Richmond was 17-2 the last 2 years, pretty impressive until you check the SOS. I like the hire, anytime you have a chance to be a head coach in the ACC - you take it.
Really? THE ACC...you take it! Why? So if you don't take an ACC JOB, then you should feel shame? Worthless? Consider yourself not a good coach?
I'm surprised at how snooty that actually sounded...or am I being a bit sensitive. Coaching the game at any of the 3 levels should be considered an honor. If you are who I think you are, then you know exactly what I mean. Being a snob is not going to grow the game, but only succeed in keeping it stagnant.
Would love to hear your thoughts and others as well.
Maybe it's just me but you're definitely being a bit sensitive on this one. I'm sure she was honored to be the head coach at Richmond. I'm sure most coaches are happy to be where they are. The point was if you have the opportunity to go coach in the ACC you don't turn that down. You don't see the coach of UCF football saying no to Nebraska and Tennessee(who they lost their last two coaches to). The resources available at the higher level schools make your job easier and typically they are able to pay you(and more importantly your assistants) more money. As was said, if you're offered a job in the ACC you take it. If you're the coach at Army and are offered the Va Tech job you take it. If you're the head coach at Canisius and you're offered the Louisville job you take it. This isn't surprising stuff and shouldn't be offensive to anyone. No one is belittling Richmond, Army or Canisius but those are just facts.
I thought it was a no-brainer, but you laid it out very well. Coaching is a profession and it's matter of climbing the ladder just like any other profession. I think it's great that AK was able to be so successful at Richmond and use that experience and track record to get a HC job at the best conference in women's lacrosse - those opportunities rarely come available so you go for it when they do become available.
My 2 cents. Sure the ACC is the best women's lacrosse conference. But Clemson isn't one of the best universities in the country (subjective I know). For what it is worth, USNews has them ranked #74 in the country. I find it hard to believe that in the next 10 years they will be competitive in the ACC, but who knows.
I think it will be a hard sell for a coach to attract top talent. What does Clemson offer that's better than the top ACC schools? Why would a top player choose Clemson over BC, UNC, Duke, Virginia, Syracuse? If I am a high school girl and want to play college lacrosse, do I really want to play for a team that has little to no shot of making their conference tournament, and no chance of making the NCAA's?
I have never been to Clemson, but I hear it is a lovely school and a beautiful campus. But no matter how much money the athletic department may throw at the women's lacrosse team and no matter how much swag they have for their players, I just can't see them being competitive. I wish the best for the program, but I always see the glass half full
I'm sure softball people thought the same when Clemson started their softball program last year. In their first full year as a program they won the ACC with a record of 29-5 which is a good softball league(4 top 20 teams). Clemson is a HUGE draw to kids from the NE. One thing they offer that the other ACC schools don't is a national championship level football program which creates a whole different dynamic on campus and is a draw socially.
Can I be a complete snob here, I think the demographics of the softball family is different than the demographics of the traditional lacrosse family from NE. That is probably one of the things the Clemson board look at when they decided to add women's lacrosse. They may have wanted to try to get more students from NE going to their school.
You can be...and were. This may be the case when all the talent was centralized in one place, the NE. That is no longer the case. Certainly if you want to contain your recruiting effort in a single area your best bang to the buck would be the NE. My guess, and it is a complete guess, is that Clemson will have a large enough recruiting budget to spread out and concentrate on players and not an area. Lots and lots of great talent not located in the NE. Certain teams seem to throw a wider net. Syr has 6 non NE players on the Roster with Karney and Cooper(Tx) a pair or Canadians and some reserves (Widner was a nice piece at the x but after her injury seems to have stepped into a reserve role). Northwestern has 12 non NE players on their roster most notablely Gilbert and Scane and McKone. Heck, even the national champion BC eagles rode the backs of two non-NE players to a National Championship but everyone already knows this.
You cold very well be right, the NE player may not flock to Clemson SC. Time will tell. My guess, a complete guess, is that athletics at Clemson is important enough that they will spend the money on the recruiting budget to get talent from more than just the NE. It appears that they certainly have the money. Will they win the Natty in 10 years? I would not take that bet. Will they be competitive in the ACC and make the Tournament in 10 years? That one I would take......DMAc's gummies?
I am with you. I will take the bet and hope we are both around and healthy 10 years from now
Bart wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 7:45 am
This may be the case when all the talent was centralized in one place, the NE. That is no longer the case. Certainly if you want to contain your recruiting effort in a single area your best bang to the buck would be the NE. My guess, and it is a complete guess, is that Clemson will have a large enough recruiting budget to spread out and concentrate on players and not an area. Lots and lots of great talent not located in the NE. Certain teams seem to throw a wider net. Syr has 6 non NE players on the Roster with Karney and Cooper(Tx) a pair or Canadians and some reserves (Widner was a nice piece at the x but after her injury seems to have stepped into a reserve role). Northwestern has 12 non NE players on their roster most notablely Gilbert and Scane and McKone. Heck, even the national champion BC eagles rode the backs of two non-NE players to a National Championship but everyone already knows this.
You cold very well be right, the NE player may not flock to Clemson SC. Time will tell. My guess, a complete guess, is that athletics at Clemson is important enough that they will spend the money on the recruiting budget to get talent from more than just the NE. It appears that they certainly have the money.
So true— More and more great players aren’t from traditional hot beds. Izzy Scane is from Michigan. One thing I picked up from listening to the podcasts this past season is that so many players had to play on their brothers team or the boys team because there was no girls lacrosse in their area. It’s well documented that women’s lacrosse is exploding all across the country. I’m sure if we started researching the top 5-10 players on each team, we’d find more and more players who aren’t from the Northeast. That’s a great thing.
Ipayforlax wrote: ↑Fri Jul 30, 2021 11:15 am
Kwolek from Richmond.
She did a good job at Richmond, made them a real contender in the A10, although I thought they underperformed this past year. Good gig for her, and an opening in Spiderville.
I think we will see Richmond decline from its recent success. Good Hire.
had to go back and check - but Richmond was 17-2 the last 2 years, pretty impressive until you check the SOS. I like the hire, anytime you have a chance to be a head coach in the ACC - you take it.
Really? THE ACC...you take it! Why? So if you don't take an ACC JOB, then you should feel shame? Worthless? Consider yourself not a good coach?
I'm surprised at how snooty that actually sounded...or am I being a bit sensitive. Coaching the game at any of the 3 levels should be considered an honor. If you are who I think you are, then you know exactly what I mean. Being a snob is not going to grow the game, but only succeed in keeping it stagnant.
Would love to hear your thoughts and others as well.
Maybe it's just me but you're definitely being a bit sensitive on this one. I'm sure she was honored to be the head coach at Richmond. I'm sure most coaches are happy to be where they are. The point was if you have the opportunity to go coach in the ACC you don't turn that down. You don't see the coach of UCF football saying no to Nebraska and Tennessee(who they lost their last two coaches to). The resources available at the higher level schools make your job easier and typically they are able to pay you(and more importantly your assistants) more money. As was said, if you're offered a job in the ACC you take it. If you're the coach at Army and are offered the Va Tech job you take it. If you're the head coach at Canisius and you're offered the Louisville job you take it. This isn't surprising stuff and shouldn't be offensive to anyone. No one is belittling Richmond, Army or Canisius but those are just facts.
I thought it was a no-brainer, but you laid it out very well. Coaching is a profession and it's matter of climbing the ladder just like any other profession. I think it's great that AK was able to be so successful at Richmond and use that experience and track record to get a HC job at the best conference in women's lacrosse - those opportunities rarely come available so you go for it when they do become available.
My 2 cents. Sure the ACC is the best women's lacrosse conference. But Clemson isn't one of the best universities in the country (subjective I know). For what it is worth, USNews has them ranked #74 in the country. I find it hard to believe that in the next 10 years they will be competitive in the ACC, but who knows.
I think it will be a hard sell for a coach to attract top talent. What does Clemson offer that's better than the top ACC schools? Why would a top player choose Clemson over BC, UNC, Duke, Virginia, Syracuse? If I am a high school girl and want to play college lacrosse, do I really want to play for a team that has little to no shot of making their conference tournament, and no chance of making the NCAA's?
I have never been to Clemson, but I hear it is a lovely school and a beautiful campus. But no matter how much money the athletic department may throw at the women's lacrosse team and no matter how much swag they have for their players, I just can't see them being competitive. I wish the best for the program, but I always see the glass half full
I'm sure softball people thought the same when Clemson started their softball program last year. In their first full year as a program they won the ACC with a record of 29-5 which is a good softball league(4 top 20 teams). Clemson is a HUGE draw to kids from the NE. One thing they offer that the other ACC schools don't is a national championship level football program which creates a whole different dynamic on campus and is a draw socially.
Can I be a complete snob here, I think the demographics of the softball family is different than the demographics of the traditional lacrosse family from NE. That is probably one of the things the Clemson board look at when they decided to add women's lacrosse. They may have wanted to try to get more students from NE going to their school.
You can be...and were. This may be the case when all the talent was centralized in one place, the NE. That is no longer the case. Certainly if you want to contain your recruiting effort in a single area your best bang to the buck would be the NE. My guess, and it is a complete guess, is that Clemson will have a large enough recruiting budget to spread out and concentrate on players and not an area. Lots and lots of great talent not located in the NE. Certain teams seem to throw a wider net. Syr has 6 non NE players on the Roster with Karney and Cooper(Tx) a pair or Canadians and some reserves (Widner was a nice piece at the x but after her injury seems to have stepped into a reserve role). Northwestern has 12 non NE players on their roster most notablely Gilbert and Scane and McKone. Heck, even the national champion BC eagles rode the backs of two non-NE players to a National Championship but everyone already knows this.
You cold very well be right, the NE player may not flock to Clemson SC. Time will tell. My guess, a complete guess, is that athletics at Clemson is important enough that they will spend the money on the recruiting budget to get talent from more than just the NE. It appears that they certainly have the money. Will they win the Natty in 10 years? I would not take that bet. Will they be competitive in the ACC and make the Tournament in 10 years? That one I would take......DMAc's gummies?
I am with you. I will take the bet and hope we are both around and healthy 10 years from now
You’re on! I have it officially marked in me gummy bet ledger
Ipayforlax wrote: ↑Fri Jul 30, 2021 11:15 am
Kwolek from Richmond.
She did a good job at Richmond, made them a real contender in the A10, although I thought they underperformed this past year. Good gig for her, and an opening in Spiderville.
I think we will see Richmond decline from its recent success. Good Hire.
had to go back and check - but Richmond was 17-2 the last 2 years, pretty impressive until you check the SOS. I like the hire, anytime you have a chance to be a head coach in the ACC - you take it.
Really? THE ACC...you take it! Why? So if you don't take an ACC JOB, then you should feel shame? Worthless? Consider yourself not a good coach?
I'm surprised at how snooty that actually sounded...or am I being a bit sensitive. Coaching the game at any of the 3 levels should be considered an honor. If you are who I think you are, then you know exactly what I mean. Being a snob is not going to grow the game, but only succeed in keeping it stagnant.
Would love to hear your thoughts and others as well.
Maybe it's just me but you're definitely being a bit sensitive on this one. I'm sure she was honored to be the head coach at Richmond. I'm sure most coaches are happy to be where they are. The point was if you have the opportunity to go coach in the ACC you don't turn that down. You don't see the coach of UCF football saying no to Nebraska and Tennessee(who they lost their last two coaches to). The resources available at the higher level schools make your job easier and typically they are able to pay you(and more importantly your assistants) more money. As was said, if you're offered a job in the ACC you take it. If you're the coach at Army and are offered the Va Tech job you take it. If you're the head coach at Canisius and you're offered the Louisville job you take it. This isn't surprising stuff and shouldn't be offensive to anyone. No one is belittling Richmond, Army or Canisius but those are just facts.
I thought it was a no-brainer, but you laid it out very well. Coaching is a profession and it's matter of climbing the ladder just like any other profession. I think it's great that AK was able to be so successful at Richmond and use that experience and track record to get a HC job at the best conference in women's lacrosse - those opportunities rarely come available so you go for it when they do become available.
My 2 cents. Sure the ACC is the best women's lacrosse conference. But Clemson isn't one of the best universities in the country (subjective I know). For what it is worth, USNews has them ranked #74 in the country. I find it hard to believe that in the next 10 years they will be competitive in the ACC, but who knows.
I think it will be a hard sell for a coach to attract top talent. What does Clemson offer that's better than the top ACC schools? Why would a top player choose Clemson over BC, UNC, Duke, Virginia, Syracuse? If I am a high school girl and want to play college lacrosse, do I really want to play for a team that has little to no shot of making their conference tournament, and no chance of making the NCAA's?
I have never been to Clemson, but I hear it is a lovely school and a beautiful campus. But no matter how much money the athletic department may throw at the women's lacrosse team and no matter how much swag they have for their players, I just can't see them being competitive. I wish the best for the program, but I always see the glass half full
I'm sure softball people thought the same when Clemson started their softball program last year. In their first full year as a program they won the ACC with a record of 29-5 which is a good softball league(4 top 20 teams). Clemson is a HUGE draw to kids from the NE. One thing they offer that the other ACC schools don't is a national championship level football program which creates a whole different dynamic on campus and is a draw socially.
Can I be a complete snob here, I think the demographics of the softball family is different than the demographics of the traditional lacrosse family from NE. That is probably one of the things the Clemson board look at when they decided to add women's lacrosse. They may have wanted to try to get more students from NE going to their school.
You can be...and were. This may be the case when all the talent was centralized in one place, the NE. That is no longer the case. Certainly if you want to contain your recruiting effort in a single area your best bang to the buck would be the NE. My guess, and it is a complete guess, is that Clemson will have a large enough recruiting budget to spread out and concentrate on players and not an area. Lots and lots of great talent not located in the NE. Certain teams seem to throw a wider net. Syr has 6 non NE players on the Roster with Karney and Cooper(Tx) a pair or Canadians and some reserves (Widner was a nice piece at the x but after her injury seems to have stepped into a reserve role). Northwestern has 12 non NE players on their roster most notablely Gilbert and Scane and McKone. Heck, even the national champion BC eagles rode the backs of two non-NE players to a National Championship but everyone already knows this.
You cold very well be right, the NE player may not flock to Clemson SC. Time will tell. My guess, a complete guess, is that athletics at Clemson is important enough that they will spend the money on the recruiting budget to get talent from more than just the NE. It appears that they certainly have the money. Will they win the Natty in 10 years? I would not take that bet. Will they be competitive in the ACC and make the Tournament in 10 years? That one I would take......DMAc's gummies?
I am with you. I will take the bet and hope we are both around and healthy 10 years from now
You’re on! I have it officially marked in me gummy bet ledger
Ipayforlax wrote: ↑Fri Jul 30, 2021 11:15 am
Kwolek from Richmond.
She did a good job at Richmond, made them a real contender in the A10, although I thought they underperformed this past year. Good gig for her, and an opening in Spiderville.
I think we will see Richmond decline from its recent success. Good Hire.
had to go back and check - but Richmond was 17-2 the last 2 years, pretty impressive until you check the SOS. I like the hire, anytime you have a chance to be a head coach in the ACC - you take it.
Really? THE ACC...you take it! Why? So if you don't take an ACC JOB, then you should feel shame? Worthless? Consider yourself not a good coach?
I'm surprised at how snooty that actually sounded...or am I being a bit sensitive. Coaching the game at any of the 3 levels should be considered an honor. If you are who I think you are, then you know exactly what I mean. Being a snob is not going to grow the game, but only succeed in keeping it stagnant.
Would love to hear your thoughts and others as well.
Maybe it's just me but you're definitely being a bit sensitive on this one. I'm sure she was honored to be the head coach at Richmond. I'm sure most coaches are happy to be where they are. The point was if you have the opportunity to go coach in the ACC you don't turn that down. You don't see the coach of UCF football saying no to Nebraska and Tennessee(who they lost their last two coaches to). The resources available at the higher level schools make your job easier and typically they are able to pay you(and more importantly your assistants) more money. As was said, if you're offered a job in the ACC you take it. If you're the coach at Army and are offered the Va Tech job you take it. If you're the head coach at Canisius and you're offered the Louisville job you take it. This isn't surprising stuff and shouldn't be offensive to anyone. No one is belittling Richmond, Army or Canisius but those are just facts.
I thought it was a no-brainer, but you laid it out very well. Coaching is a profession and it's matter of climbing the ladder just like any other profession. I think it's great that AK was able to be so successful at Richmond and use that experience and track record to get a HC job at the best conference in women's lacrosse - those opportunities rarely come available so you go for it when they do become available.
My 2 cents. Sure the ACC is the best women's lacrosse conference. But Clemson isn't one of the best universities in the country (subjective I know). For what it is worth, USNews has them ranked #74 in the country. I find it hard to believe that in the next 10 years they will be competitive in the ACC, but who knows.
I think it will be a hard sell for a coach to attract top talent. What does Clemson offer that's better than the top ACC schools? Why would a top player choose Clemson over BC, UNC, Duke, Virginia, Syracuse? If I am a high school girl and want to play college lacrosse, do I really want to play for a team that has little to no shot of making their conference tournament, and no chance of making the NCAA's?
I have never been to Clemson, but I hear it is a lovely school and a beautiful campus. But no matter how much money the athletic department may throw at the women's lacrosse team and no matter how much swag they have for their players, I just can't see them being competitive. I wish the best for the program, but I always see the glass half full
I'm sure softball people thought the same when Clemson started their softball program last year. In their first full year as a program they won the ACC with a record of 29-5 which is a good softball league(4 top 20 teams). Clemson is a HUGE draw to kids from the NE. One thing they offer that the other ACC schools don't is a national championship level football program which creates a whole different dynamic on campus and is a draw socially.
Can I be a complete snob here, I think the demographics of the softball family is different than the demographics of the traditional lacrosse family from NE. That is probably one of the things the Clemson board look at when they decided to add women's lacrosse. They may have wanted to try to get more students from NE going to their school.
I can tell you from the academic side - meaning non-athletes - Clemson, Alabama, Texas A&M, TCU and other similar southern schools recruit very heavily for high achieving students from both top public & private schools in suburban Phila and they have been successful..throw a ton of academic money at them. These kids are all the same demographic as the lax kid from the NE.
So yes, I'd be willing to bet that Clemson will have a successful program within 5 years - much better chance than Pitt. Florida did ok as a start up - didn't they?
I don't rank schools, but Florida is ranked a lot higher than Clemson. I am not saying Florida is a better school, just ranked higher.
Also Florida wasn't in the ACC, hired a heck of a coach with great track record from Yale and they had good chances to win the conferences they played in, played top lacrosse teams out of conference and play annually in the NCAA. Time will tell how it all works out.
My point about FL was that it was a southern school, far from lax hotbeds with a relatively unknown coach. School committed a lot of money to the program and was able to recruit - without the benefit of the transfer portal.
Parents who are overly concerned about academics, I doubt draw a distinction between FL and Clemson. Those kids go to Ivy or Patriot league, JHU, etc.
I can tell you from my small sliver of lax world that there is a fair amount of chatter about Clemson, especially among this year's seniors who could take their 5th year there. I wouldn't tell my kid not to go there because of their academics if that's where she wanted to go.
8meter...did you actually call Mandy O'Leary "a relatively unknown coach"? Really? Dude, bite your tongue! You really don't know the lay of the land if you are saying something crazy like that! Do your research before you make these kind of ridiculous statements. That was said with all respect.
you caught me - hyperbole!!
But you have to remember she took that job over 10 years ago and is much better known now than she was then.
Ipayforlax wrote: ↑Fri Jul 30, 2021 11:15 am
Kwolek from Richmond.
She did a good job at Richmond, made them a real contender in the A10, although I thought they underperformed this past year. Good gig for her, and an opening in Spiderville.
I think we will see Richmond decline from its recent success. Good Hire.
had to go back and check - but Richmond was 17-2 the last 2 years, pretty impressive until you check the SOS. I like the hire, anytime you have a chance to be a head coach in the ACC - you take it.
Really? THE ACC...you take it! Why? So if you don't take an ACC JOB, then you should feel shame? Worthless? Consider yourself not a good coach?
I'm surprised at how snooty that actually sounded...or am I being a bit sensitive. Coaching the game at any of the 3 levels should be considered an honor. If you are who I think you are, then you know exactly what I mean. Being a snob is not going to grow the game, but only succeed in keeping it stagnant.
Would love to hear your thoughts and others as well.
Maybe it's just me but you're definitely being a bit sensitive on this one. I'm sure she was honored to be the head coach at Richmond. I'm sure most coaches are happy to be where they are. The point was if you have the opportunity to go coach in the ACC you don't turn that down. You don't see the coach of UCF football saying no to Nebraska and Tennessee(who they lost their last two coaches to). The resources available at the higher level schools make your job easier and typically they are able to pay you(and more importantly your assistants) more money. As was said, if you're offered a job in the ACC you take it. If you're the coach at Army and are offered the Va Tech job you take it. If you're the head coach at Canisius and you're offered the Louisville job you take it. This isn't surprising stuff and shouldn't be offensive to anyone. No one is belittling Richmond, Army or Canisius but those are just facts.
I thought it was a no-brainer, but you laid it out very well. Coaching is a profession and it's matter of climbing the ladder just like any other profession. I think it's great that AK was able to be so successful at Richmond and use that experience and track record to get a HC job at the best conference in women's lacrosse - those opportunities rarely come available so you go for it when they do become available.
My 2 cents. Sure the ACC is the best women's lacrosse conference. But Clemson isn't one of the best universities in the country (subjective I know). For what it is worth, USNews has them ranked #74 in the country. I find it hard to believe that in the next 10 years they will be competitive in the ACC, but who knows.
I think it will be a hard sell for a coach to attract top talent. What does Clemson offer that's better than the top ACC schools? Why would a top player choose Clemson over BC, UNC, Duke, Virginia, Syracuse? If I am a high school girl and want to play college lacrosse, do I really want to play for a team that has little to no shot of making their conference tournament, and no chance of making the NCAA's?
I have never been to Clemson, but I hear it is a lovely school and a beautiful campus. But no matter how much money the athletic department may throw at the women's lacrosse team and no matter how much swag they have for their players, I just can't see them being competitive. I wish the best for the program, but I always see the glass half full
I'm sure softball people thought the same when Clemson started their softball program last year. In their first full year as a program they won the ACC with a record of 29-5 which is a good softball league(4 top 20 teams). Clemson is a HUGE draw to kids from the NE. One thing they offer that the other ACC schools don't is a national championship level football program which creates a whole different dynamic on campus and is a draw socially.
Can I be a complete snob here, I think the demographics of the softball family is different than the demographics of the traditional lacrosse family from NE. That is probably one of the things the Clemson board look at when they decided to add women's lacrosse. They may have wanted to try to get more students from NE going to their school.
I can tell you from the academic side - meaning non-athletes - Clemson, Alabama, Texas A&M, TCU and other similar southern schools recruit very heavily for high achieving students from both top public & private schools in suburban Phila and they have been successful..throw a ton of academic money at them. These kids are all the same demographic as the lax kid from the NE.
So yes, I'd be willing to bet that Clemson will have a successful program within 5 years - much better chance than Pitt. Florida did ok as a start up - didn't they?
I don't rank schools, but Florida is ranked a lot higher than Clemson. I am not saying Florida is a better school, just ranked higher.
Also Florida wasn't in the ACC, hired a heck of a coach with great track record from Yale and they had good chances to win the conferences they played in, played top lacrosse teams out of conference and play annually in the NCAA. Time will tell how it all works out.
My point about FL was that it was a southern school, far from lax hotbeds with a relatively unknown coach. School committed a lot of money to the program and was able to recruit - without the benefit of the transfer portal.
Parents who are overly concerned about academics, I doubt draw a distinction between FL and Clemson. Those kids go to Ivy or Patriot league, JHU, etc.
I can tell you from my small sliver of lax world that there is a fair amount of chatter about Clemson, especially among this year's seniors who could take their 5th year there. I wouldn't tell my kid not to go there because of their academics if that's where she wanted to go.
8meter...did you actually call Mandy O'Leary "a relatively unknown coach"? Really? Dude, bite your tongue! You really don't know the lay of the land if you are saying something crazy like that! Do your research before you make these kind of ridiculous statements. That was said with all respect.
you caught me - hyperbole!!
But you have to remember she took that job over 10 years ago and is much better known now than she was then.
Is she “much better” ? In what way ? When was the last time she got to a 2nd round playoff game . She has had ALot of talent go through that program… one year she had : Hicklen, both Pirecca sisters Ronbeck, Kavanagh and Trombetta??
Also have talked to many parents of kids that have gone through the program and bottom line. Nice person, lousy coach.
My bad apologies…I tht you said much better
Didnt read much better known” sorry! Need those reading glasses
Ipayforlax wrote: ↑Fri Jul 30, 2021 11:15 am
Kwolek from Richmond.
She did a good job at Richmond, made them a real contender in the A10, although I thought they underperformed this past year. Good gig for her, and an opening in Spiderville.
I think we will see Richmond decline from its recent success. Good Hire.
had to go back and check - but Richmond was 17-2 the last 2 years, pretty impressive until you check the SOS. I like the hire, anytime you have a chance to be a head coach in the ACC - you take it.
Really? THE ACC...you take it! Why? So if you don't take an ACC JOB, then you should feel shame? Worthless? Consider yourself not a good coach?
I'm surprised at how snooty that actually sounded...or am I being a bit sensitive. Coaching the game at any of the 3 levels should be considered an honor. If you are who I think you are, then you know exactly what I mean. Being a snob is not going to grow the game, but only succeed in keeping it stagnant.
Would love to hear your thoughts and others as well.
Maybe it's just me but you're definitely being a bit sensitive on this one. I'm sure she was honored to be the head coach at Richmond. I'm sure most coaches are happy to be where they are. The point was if you have the opportunity to go coach in the ACC you don't turn that down. You don't see the coach of UCF football saying no to Nebraska and Tennessee(who they lost their last two coaches to). The resources available at the higher level schools make your job easier and typically they are able to pay you(and more importantly your assistants) more money. As was said, if you're offered a job in the ACC you take it. If you're the coach at Army and are offered the Va Tech job you take it. If you're the head coach at Canisius and you're offered the Louisville job you take it. This isn't surprising stuff and shouldn't be offensive to anyone. No one is belittling Richmond, Army or Canisius but those are just facts.
I thought it was a no-brainer, but you laid it out very well. Coaching is a profession and it's matter of climbing the ladder just like any other profession. I think it's great that AK was able to be so successful at Richmond and use that experience and track record to get a HC job at the best conference in women's lacrosse - those opportunities rarely come available so you go for it when they do become available.
My 2 cents. Sure the ACC is the best women's lacrosse conference. But Clemson isn't one of the best universities in the country (subjective I know). For what it is worth, USNews has them ranked #74 in the country. I find it hard to believe that in the next 10 years they will be competitive in the ACC, but who knows.
I think it will be a hard sell for a coach to attract top talent. What does Clemson offer that's better than the top ACC schools? Why would a top player choose Clemson over BC, UNC, Duke, Virginia, Syracuse? If I am a high school girl and want to play college lacrosse, do I really want to play for a team that has little to no shot of making their conference tournament, and no chance of making the NCAA's?
I have never been to Clemson, but I hear it is a lovely school and a beautiful campus. But no matter how much money the athletic department may throw at the women's lacrosse team and no matter how much swag they have for their players, I just can't see them being competitive. I wish the best for the program, but I always see the glass half full
I'm sure softball people thought the same when Clemson started their softball program last year. In their first full year as a program they won the ACC with a record of 29-5 which is a good softball league(4 top 20 teams). Clemson is a HUGE draw to kids from the NE. One thing they offer that the other ACC schools don't is a national championship level football program which creates a whole different dynamic on campus and is a draw socially.
Can I be a complete snob here, I think the demographics of the softball family is different than the demographics of the traditional lacrosse family from NE. That is probably one of the things the Clemson board look at when they decided to add women's lacrosse. They may have wanted to try to get more students from NE going to their school.
I can tell you from the academic side - meaning non-athletes - Clemson, Alabama, Texas A&M, TCU and other similar southern schools recruit very heavily for high achieving students from both top public & private schools in suburban Phila and they have been successful..throw a ton of academic money at them. These kids are all the same demographic as the lax kid from the NE.
So yes, I'd be willing to bet that Clemson will have a successful program within 5 years - much better chance than Pitt. Florida did ok as a start up - didn't they?
I don't rank schools, but Florida is ranked a lot higher than Clemson. I am not saying Florida is a better school, just ranked higher.
Also Florida wasn't in the ACC, hired a heck of a coach with great track record from Yale and they had good chances to win the conferences they played in, played top lacrosse teams out of conference and play annually in the NCAA. Time will tell how it all works out.
My point about FL was that it was a southern school, far from lax hotbeds with a relatively unknown coach. School committed a lot of money to the program and was able to recruit - without the benefit of the transfer portal.
Parents who are overly concerned about academics, I doubt draw a distinction between FL and Clemson. Those kids go to Ivy or Patriot league, JHU, etc.
I can tell you from my small sliver of lax world that there is a fair amount of chatter about Clemson, especially among this year's seniors who could take their 5th year there. I wouldn't tell my kid not to go there because of their academics if that's where she wanted to go.
8meter...did you actually call Mandy O'Leary "a relatively unknown coach"? Really? Dude, bite your tongue! You really don't know the lay of the land if you are saying something crazy like that! Do your research before you make these kind of ridiculous statements. That was said with all respect.
you caught me - hyperbole!!
But you have to remember she took that job over 10 years ago and is much better known now than she was then.
Is she “much better” ? In what way ? When was the last time she got to a 2nd round playoff game . She has had ALot of talent go through that program… one year she had : Hicklen, both Pirecca sisters Ronbeck, Kavanagh and Trombetta??
Also have talked to many parents of kids that have gone through the program and bottom line. Nice person, lousy coach.
My bad apologies…I tht you said much better
Didnt read much better known” sorry! Need those reading glasses
Florida ………where outstanding lacrosse players go to become mediocre. Can’t remember a team with the present coaching staff ( leave Reggie out of this ) that continued to improve as the season progressed.
Ipayforlax wrote: ↑Fri Jul 30, 2021 11:15 am
Kwolek from Richmond.
She did a good job at Richmond, made them a real contender in the A10, although I thought they underperformed this past year. Good gig for her, and an opening in Spiderville.
I think we will see Richmond decline from its recent success. Good Hire.
had to go back and check - but Richmond was 17-2 the last 2 years, pretty impressive until you check the SOS. I like the hire, anytime you have a chance to be a head coach in the ACC - you take it.
Really? THE ACC...you take it! Why? So if you don't take an ACC JOB, then you should feel shame? Worthless? Consider yourself not a good coach?
I'm surprised at how snooty that actually sounded...or am I being a bit sensitive. Coaching the game at any of the 3 levels should be considered an honor. If you are who I think you are, then you know exactly what I mean. Being a snob is not going to grow the game, but only succeed in keeping it stagnant.
Would love to hear your thoughts and others as well.
Maybe it's just me but you're definitely being a bit sensitive on this one. I'm sure she was honored to be the head coach at Richmond. I'm sure most coaches are happy to be where they are. The point was if you have the opportunity to go coach in the ACC you don't turn that down. You don't see the coach of UCF football saying no to Nebraska and Tennessee(who they lost their last two coaches to). The resources available at the higher level schools make your job easier and typically they are able to pay you(and more importantly your assistants) more money. As was said, if you're offered a job in the ACC you take it. If you're the coach at Army and are offered the Va Tech job you take it. If you're the head coach at Canisius and you're offered the Louisville job you take it. This isn't surprising stuff and shouldn't be offensive to anyone. No one is belittling Richmond, Army or Canisius but those are just facts.
I thought it was a no-brainer, but you laid it out very well. Coaching is a profession and it's matter of climbing the ladder just like any other profession. I think it's great that AK was able to be so successful at Richmond and use that experience and track record to get a HC job at the best conference in women's lacrosse - those opportunities rarely come available so you go for it when they do become available.
My 2 cents. Sure the ACC is the best women's lacrosse conference. But Clemson isn't one of the best universities in the country (subjective I know). For what it is worth, USNews has them ranked #74 in the country. I find it hard to believe that in the next 10 years they will be competitive in the ACC, but who knows.
I think it will be a hard sell for a coach to attract top talent. What does Clemson offer that's better than the top ACC schools? Why would a top player choose Clemson over BC, UNC, Duke, Virginia, Syracuse? If I am a high school girl and want to play college lacrosse, do I really want to play for a team that has little to no shot of making their conference tournament, and no chance of making the NCAA's?
I have never been to Clemson, but I hear it is a lovely school and a beautiful campus. But no matter how much money the athletic department may throw at the women's lacrosse team and no matter how much swag they have for their players, I just can't see them being competitive. I wish the best for the program, but I always see the glass half full
I'm sure softball people thought the same when Clemson started their softball program last year. In their first full year as a program they won the ACC with a record of 29-5 which is a good softball league(4 top 20 teams). Clemson is a HUGE draw to kids from the NE. One thing they offer that the other ACC schools don't is a national championship level football program which creates a whole different dynamic on campus and is a draw socially.
Can I be a complete snob here, I think the demographics of the softball family is different than the demographics of the traditional lacrosse family from NE. That is probably one of the things the Clemson board look at when they decided to add women's lacrosse. They may have wanted to try to get more students from NE going to their school.
I can tell you from the academic side - meaning non-athletes - Clemson, Alabama, Texas A&M, TCU and other similar southern schools recruit very heavily for high achieving students from both top public & private schools in suburban Phila and they have been successful..throw a ton of academic money at them. These kids are all the same demographic as the lax kid from the NE.
So yes, I'd be willing to bet that Clemson will have a successful program within 5 years - much better chance than Pitt. Florida did ok as a start up - didn't they?
I don't rank schools, but Florida is ranked a lot higher than Clemson. I am not saying Florida is a better school, just ranked higher.
Also Florida wasn't in the ACC, hired a heck of a coach with great track record from Yale and they had good chances to win the conferences they played in, played top lacrosse teams out of conference and play annually in the NCAA. Time will tell how it all works out.
My point about FL was that it was a southern school, far from lax hotbeds with a relatively unknown coach. School committed a lot of money to the program and was able to recruit - without the benefit of the transfer portal.
Parents who are overly concerned about academics, I doubt draw a distinction between FL and Clemson. Those kids go to Ivy or Patriot league, JHU, etc.
I can tell you from my small sliver of lax world that there is a fair amount of chatter about Clemson, especially among this year's seniors who could take their 5th year there. I wouldn't tell my kid not to go there because of their academics if that's where she wanted to go.
8meter...did you actually call Mandy O'Leary "a relatively unknown coach"? Really? Dude, bite your tongue! You really don't know the lay of the land if you are saying something crazy like that! Do your research before you make these kind of ridiculous statements. That was said with all respect.
you caught me - hyperbole!!
But you have to remember she took that job over 10 years ago and is much better known now than she was then.
Is she “much better” ? In what way ? When was the last time she got to a 2nd round playoff game . She has had ALot of talent go through that program… one year she had : Hicklen, both Pirecca sisters Ronbeck, Kavanagh and Trombetta??
Also have talked to many parents of kids that have gone through the program and bottom line. Nice person, lousy coach.
My bad apologies…I tht you said much better
Didnt read much better known” sorry! Need those reading glasses
Florida ………where outstanding lacrosse players go to become mediocre. Can’t remember a team with the present coaching staff ( leave Reggie out of this ) that continued to improve as the season progressed.
“ For unto whomever much is given ,of him shall be much required “ Luke 12:48:
Itsallgood said..."Florida ………where outstanding lacrosse players go to become mediocre. Can’t remember a team with the present coaching staff ( leave Reggie out of this ) that continued to improve as the season progressed."
If you want to put that on Florida, okay that's your opinion. My guess is that you can comb through the top 30 and find that regularly.
Remember, D1 is about acquiring talent. For me the best Coaching is in D2 and D3.
LarryGamLax wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 12:24 pm
Itsallgood said..."Florida ………where outstanding lacrosse players go to become mediocre. Can’t remember a team with the present coaching staff ( leave Reggie out of this ) that continued to improve as the season progressed."
that's funny, but kind of true
LarryGamLax wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 12:24 pm
If you want to put that on Florida, okay that's your opinion. My guess is that you can comb through the top 30 and find that regularly.
Remember, D1 is about acquiring talent. For me the best Coaching is in D2 and D3.
I think there are a few teams (BC, Cuse are two that come to mind) that do benefit from good coaching. They get great talent, but seem to have good game planning, execution and in-game adjustments over some other schools. UNC I think is more to your statement above (Acquiring talent), MD to a degree as well.
LarryGamLax wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 12:24 pm
Itsallgood said..."Florida ………where outstanding lacrosse players go to become mediocre. Can’t remember a team with the present coaching staff ( leave Reggie out of this ) that continued to improve as the season progressed."
If you want to put that on Florida, okay that's your opinion. My guess is that you can comb through the top 30 and find that regularly.
Remember, D1 is about acquiring talent. For me the best Coaching is in D2 and D3.
I know you are a big fan of Stony Brook and Coach Spallina so my question is if Joe Spallina was at Florida with the talent that has been there , would they have only 1 Final Four appearance ? My answer is no , as talent is developed and improves each year with Coach Spallina and a few others.
Few thoughts ... Spallina is one of the Top 3 coaches in the country. He would take Florida to the Elite 8 every year and final four several years. One of the worst coached games I ever saw was in Florida's second year or so when they made it to the final four at Stony Brook. Up by something like 4 goals with about 6 minutes left and no shot clock and they are still shooting the ball and ultimately lose. It was them against the clock - should have been in absolute stall mode for the final even 8 minutes. Believe they lost in that game to NW who mastered the "stall" during their championship runs. How the Florida coach has kept her job this long is shocking but the reality of it all is that most schools don't care about their women's lacrosse team that generates no income.
LarryGamLax wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 12:24 pm
Itsallgood said..."Florida ………where outstanding lacrosse players go to become mediocre. Can’t remember a team with the present coaching staff ( leave Reggie out of this ) that continued to improve as the season progressed."
If you want to put that on Florida, okay that's your opinion. My guess is that you can comb through the top 30 and find that regularly.
Remember, D1 is about acquiring talent. For me the best Coaching is in D2 and D3.
Larry who in your opinion are some of the best d2 coaches. I agree. I feel at d2 there’s so much talent but girls don’t want to completely drown in the commitment of all lax
LarryGamLax wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 12:24 pm
Itsallgood said..."Florida ………where outstanding lacrosse players go to become mediocre. Can’t remember a team with the present coaching staff ( leave Reggie out of this ) that continued to improve as the season progressed."
If you want to put that on Florida, okay that's your opinion. My guess is that you can comb through the top 30 and find that regularly.
Remember, D1 is about acquiring talent. For me the best Coaching is in D2 and D3.
Larry who in your opinion are some of the best d2 coaches. I agree. I feel at d2 there’s so much talent but girls don’t want to completely drown in the commitment of all lax
Dennis(Utah) Short, Rollins College
Ginny Martino, West Chester University
Pat McCabe , Adelphi University
Kara Reber, Florida Southern
Jack Cribbin, Lindenwood
Xeni Barakos-Yoder, East Stroudsburg
