Johns Hopkins 2022

[Farfromgeneva]

The coaches wont be on the hotseat. That assumes Hopkins will value winning above all else in years 4 and 5 of the contract. Which isn't likely the case.

There is a program philosophy "reset" occurring. They stated it loudly and clearly when they fired DP and hired PM. They said it out loud. No one was listening or paying attention, or wanted to believe it. Petro said it in the interview. "Philosophy change." "Difference in vision/direction of the program."

Gone are the days of differing admission/behavior standards for laxers vs the rest of JHU student population. The expectations athletically are also lower. My guess is the admin will be happy with good, academically-sound kids, a winning record, and occasionally qualifying for the NCAAs. Some fans already get it- "Hopkins already has one more win than last year... so it's an improvement."

In today's world, running a D1 program out of a d3 athletics office for a sport is incredibly hard. It was possible when lacrosse was a small niche sport. but it's not any more. Now the big boys with are involved, with big football and big tv money. They are ramping up their lax games. Not so easy any more. And frankly, not worth the effort.

Hobart has been living with that for a while just to exist at this level.

[Farfromgeneva]

I disagree when anyone who says that the players we have are not good enough to score goals and win the games that Hopkins “should win.”

Please define what is a game that this team "Should win" right now?

Surely you can't be talking about Rutgers which has been playing rather well the last couple years, certainly better than our group and the rankings reflect that. This is an awful lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth over a game this team wasn't "supposed to win" last night. At times it looked rather ugly, at times it looked like they were in it and figuring it out. Always a work in progress with this group right now, learn to enjoy the ride fellas.

Nobody that’s a Hop fan wants to be saying “well we beat them 5-3 after going down 9-2”…hard to have that view and still be talking final fours.

[kramerica.inc]

Gone are the days of differing admission/behavior standards for laxers vs the rest of JHU student population.

Yiiiiiikes this is deeply, deeply incorrect

But it's a consistent refrain from those who, it seems, wish it were so...not because they think that Hopkins could/should have high admission standards for their D1 players (same as the rest of the pop is ridiculous, not so for the DIII athletes even) but rather because they think that would lead to less winning by Hopkins.

Personally, I think an Ivy-like model could fit Hopkins quite well, but then these same sorts of ill-wishers have thought that the Ivies are doomed to irrelevance...many of them also predicted that the Ivies' Covid response would doom them as well...ill-wishers.

But Hopkins has not, at least not yet, made any significant move to shift admission standards to be even similar to the DIII Hop standards, much less equivalent to the overall pop. Which is not intended as a knock on Hopkins lax athletes, in the slightest. Want to go to Hopkins? You'll need to compete in the classroom too. Maybe fewer 'gut' courses these days, but also tons of opportunity to learn at a great institution.

The "behavior" crack, on the other hand, seems to imply that lax athletes used to be treated way differently than other students in their off-field behaviors; mostly just a shot at an insult...maybe that was true a couple of generations ago (I've heard my share of funny, self-deprecating stories) but even then I'm not so sure that the standards were actually different...seems to me there was simply more latitude in general for everyone. It certainly was the case at my college in my generation.

Quite certainly true with the behavior comment. No crack. If you faced off well, scored goals well or saved the ball between the pipes, you had a different standard of behavior. And it wasn't just light-hearted shenanigans or a drunken fist fight. Not sure how far you consider a generation ago, but I'm talking 15 years ago. It wasn't only true at Hopkins, but at many places, and likely got cleaned up after the Duke scandal. I wont rehash it here but I am glad to send you a PM about it if you don't believe me.

[Farfromgeneva]

Gone are the days of differing admission/behavior standards for laxers vs the rest of JHU student population.

Yiiiiiikes this is deeply, deeply incorrect

But it's a consistent refrain from those who, it seems, wish it were so...not because they think that Hopkins could/should have high admission standards for their D1 players (same as the rest of the pop is ridiculous, not so for the DIII athletes even) but rather because they think that would lead to less winning by Hopkins.

Personally, I think an Ivy-like model could fit Hopkins quite well, but then these same sorts of ill-wishers have thought that the Ivies are doomed to irrelevance...many of them also predicted that the Ivies' Covid response would doom them as well...ill-wishers.

But Hopkins has not, at least not yet, made any significant move to shift admission standards to be even similar to the DIII Hop standards, much less equivalent to the overall pop. Which is not intended as a knock on Hopkins lax athletes, in the slightest. Want to go to Hopkins? You'll need to compete in the classroom too. Maybe fewer 'gut' courses these days, but also tons of opportunity to learn at a great institution.

The "behavior" crack, on the other hand, seems to imply that lax athletes used to be treated way differently than other students in their off-field behaviors; mostly just a shot at an insult...maybe that was true a couple of generations ago (I've heard my share of funny, self-deprecating stories) but even then I'm not so sure that the standards were actually different...seems to me there was simply more latitude in general for everyone. It certainly was the case at my college in my generation.

I know for a fact the football program has reach/stretch kids admissions wise. Not to say they don’t have great student athletes but happen to know D3 football very well and they are taking kids who definitely wouldn’t get in on their own terms without football being a driver. Probably 5-10 each year out of 35-45 FR on a roster of 90 ish. The CC was terrible overall for much of the prior decade, Dickinson was the dominant program generally in the late 90s - 2000s but fell off end of that decade and Hop filled the hole but until 2-3yrs ago when Muhlenberg (HC is a Hobart alum I played with for 2yrs) and Susquehanna picked it back up so they’re having to be more competitive on admissions than they were 4-5yrs ago but even then I happen to know a few situations of kids that went there, and got a great degree, because of football not academics. But we’re good community citizens who contributed and earned their diploma like everyone else of course.

[notentitled]

Far and away, the funniest of the forums.

[Farfromgeneva]

There’s a thread called Hansterdam…

[HopFan16]

Far and away, the funniest of the forums.

you must not have been paying attention to the loyola thread lately, in which the parent of a current player has been posting criticizing the team only to reveal his son found out so now he can't post anymore. that's way funnier than anything in this thread

back to kramerica — there probably is less tolerance for off the field shenanigans now than there used to be (for example, the infamous 2013 rolling suspensions) but as far as admissions go they absolutely are still very much relaxed for lacrosse recruits. they're not going to let in kids they think will flunk out but the standards are not remotely the same as they are for regular applicants

[MDlaxfan76]

Gone are the days of differing admission/behavior standards for laxers vs the rest of JHU student population.

Yiiiiiikes this is deeply, deeply incorrect

But it's a consistent refrain from those who, it seems, wish it were so...not because they think that Hopkins could/should have high admission standards for their D1 players (same as the rest of the pop is ridiculous, not so for the DIII athletes even) but rather because they think that would lead to less winning by Hopkins.

Personally, I think an Ivy-like model could fit Hopkins quite well, but then these same sorts of ill-wishers have thought that the Ivies are doomed to irrelevance...many of them also predicted that the Ivies' Covid response would doom them as well...ill-wishers.

But Hopkins has not, at least not yet, made any significant move to shift admission standards to be even similar to the DIII Hop standards, much less equivalent to the overall pop. Which is not intended as a knock on Hopkins lax athletes, in the slightest. Want to go to Hopkins? You'll need to compete in the classroom too. Maybe fewer 'gut' courses these days, but also tons of opportunity to learn at a great institution.

The "behavior" crack, on the other hand, seems to imply that lax athletes used to be treated way differently than other students in their off-field behaviors; mostly just a shot at an insult...maybe that was true a couple of generations ago (I've heard my share of funny, self-deprecating stories) but even then I'm not so sure that the standards were actually different...seems to me there was simply more latitude in general for everyone. It certainly was the case at my college in my generation.

Quite certainly true with the behavior comment. No crack. If you faced off well, scored goals well or saved the ball between the pipes, you had a different standard of behavior. And it wasn't just light-hearted shenanigans or a drunken fist fight. Not sure how far you consider a generation ago, but I'm talking 15 years ago. It wasn't only true at Hopkins, but at many places, and likely got cleaned up after the Duke scandal. I wont rehash it here but I am glad to send you a PM about it if you don't believe me.

No argument that behavioral stuff, whether acting out or not doing well in school, was pretty lax (no pun intended) in prior eras but I don't think this was limited to sports (certainly not just lacrosse) but rather just looser in general...but all sorts of publicity, high and low, and litigation...has 'encouraged' schools to take all sorts steps to tighten up expectations on behavior. And I'm speaking about all colleges. Sure, no doubt that there have been even higher profile 'look the other way' events at schools with big time sports on the line have down publicity...and I assume we'd agree that it's good to get these expectations improved!

[a fan]

I disagree when anyone who says that the players we have are not good enough to score goals and win the games that Hopkins “should win.” You do not need to be able to beat your man by 5 steps in order to get a defense to rotate. It would be nice, but if you lack that spark, then you need organization and anticipation, all of which can be taught/drilled into the brain to some degree.

If this was remotely true, most teams in D1 would challenge for the Final Four every year. Toomey wouldn't be having a bad season this year. Same goes for Tierney. Same goes for Tambroni.

You need talent to execute what the coaches want. Hop hasn't had that. In both the Delaware and the Rutgers game, the best players were on the other team. That's why they lost.

[Mightyjoe]

Gone are the days of differing admission/behavior standards for laxers vs the rest of JHU student population.

Yiiiiiikes this is deeply, deeply incorrect

When did those standards change? Perhaps I'm just still remembering the early 00s.

Surely you don't imagine that the admission standards for any the sports, not just the lax programs, are equivalent today to the general pop???

The DIII sports have quite high targets, but are akin to the Ivy targets relative to their overall pop, meaning within a standard deviation but certainly not equivalent. The D1 have a wider range, lower target.

I'm not sure it could be said of any D1 program in the nation that their admission standards are equivalent to the overall admission standards.

It’s very simple folks. Why would kids want to come to JHU to play. There are so many programs that offer these young kids much more than “a great education”. Take the big ten schools. All have big football. Kids have the opportunity to enjoy other sports at the highest level when they are not playing lacrosse. They have much better facilities, etc. Kids and families have changed. Without Hopkins being a national championship team, the days of being at an elite school with elite lacrosse is gone.
Hopkins is not known to be the elite program it once was and no one cares ……well at least not the younger generation of kids and families coming up. A lot of you guys are hanging onto the old days while scratching your heads on how the program has changed so much over the last 6 years. Wake up!!!

[courtdog]

I disagree when anyone who says that the players we have are not good enough to score goals and win the games that Hopkins “should win.” You do not need to be able to beat your man by 5 steps in order to get a defense to rotate. It would be nice, but if you lack that spark, then you need organization and anticipation, all of which can be taught/drilled into the brain to some degree.

If this was remotely true, most teams in D1 would challenge for the Final Four every year. Toomey wouldn't be having a bad season this year. Same goes for Tierney. Same goes for Tamobroni.

You need talent to execute what the coaches want. Hop hasn't had that. In both the Delaware and the Rutgers game, the best players were on the other team. That's why they lost.

Everyone should read the above and drill it into their brains

[Mightyjoe]

Agree. We don’t have those kids. The kids that are the spark on other teams chose the schools they are at for a reason. Why didn’t they “chose” Hopkins??

[MDlaxfan76]

Gone are the days of differing admission/behavior standards for laxers vs the rest of JHU student population.

Yiiiiiikes this is deeply, deeply incorrect

When did those standards change? Perhaps I'm just still remembering the early 00s.

Surely you don't imagine that the admission standards for any the sports, not just the lax programs, are equivalent today to the general pop???

The DIII sports have quite high targets, but are akin to the Ivy targets relative to their overall pop, meaning within a standard deviation but certainly not equivalent. The D1 have a wider range, lower target.

I'm not sure it could be said of any D1 program in the nation that their admission standards are equivalent to the overall admission standards.

As a current hs coach, I'm seeing the standard for athletes be much closer to the general pop at many D1 schools these days. Having played D1 and coached D3, I'm aware of the difference. A few of my friends and peers went to JHU, so I'm aware of their curve at least back in the late 90s and early 00s. Definitely some wiggle room. Not a great matriculation rate. And like the general pop, transfer admissions was much easier. There was no wiggle room at the D3 school I coached. No help and no slots. But D3 is a whole other animal.

I don't know how you would define "closer" but there's a significant gap, very definitely there are "slots" at all DI programs. Even the most rigorously attentive to such, eg the Ivies, have a significant gap especially for sports like football, hockey, lacrosse. Some of the sports have higher Academic Indexes than these, but the overall is a target of one standard deviation from the overall student body, inclusive of the athletes, which are the largest portion that skews lower.

At Hopkins, the DIII athletes are comparably "closer" to the overall population as what I just described at the Ivies...a full half of any of those teams would not have been close to admission were it not for the sports slot, and for some sports 'closer' to 90% would not have been.

Lacrosse at Hopkins is well less rigorous...but again, that's not saying these guys don't have to have the horsepower to be able to succeed in the classroom much less in life. And they should!

I'm familiar with some DIII admissions standards and generally speaking, at least at the most selective such, the athletes still get an admissions bump from a 'slot'. Certainly true at NESCACs. But pretty darn high standards, including for those athletes, for sure. It's just that their applicant pool's academic #'s are so strong. I dunno that such is true at less selective schools where lacrosse might well draw full pay applicants and high acceptance of offer rates...that could be a different dynamic.

[MDlaxfan76]

Gone are the days of differing admission/behavior standards for laxers vs the rest of JHU student population.

Yiiiiiikes this is deeply, deeply incorrect

When did those standards change? Perhaps I'm just still remembering the early 00s.

Surely you don't imagine that the admission standards for any the sports, not just the lax programs, are equivalent today to the general pop???

The DIII sports have quite high targets, but are akin to the Ivy targets relative to their overall pop, meaning within a standard deviation but certainly not equivalent. The D1 have a wider range, lower target.

I'm not sure it could be said of any D1 program in the nation that their admission standards are equivalent to the overall admission standards.

It’s very simple folks. Why would kids want to come to JHU to play. There are so many programs that offer these young kids much more than “a great education”. Take the big ten schools. All have big football. Kids have the opportunity to enjoy other sports at the highest level when they are not playing lacrosse. They have much better facilities, etc. Kids and families have changed. Without Hopkins being a national championship team, the days of being at an elite school with elite lacrosse is gone.
Hopkins is not known to be the elite program it once was and no one cares ……well at least not the younger generation of kids and families coming up. A lot of you guys are hanging onto the old days while scratching your heads on how the program has changed so much over the last 6 years. Wake up!!!

Well, seems to me that the Ivies are doing ok being "great education" without big time sports...

Sure, Hopkins is unlikely to ever again be the kind of dominant force it was for the USILA era and the couple of decades after, but that doesn't mean it can't get back to being in the conversation year in and year out as a top 10 contender, potential NC contender from time to time...ala the Ivies.

It does require some good recruiting and coaching...sustained such.

[HopFan16]

Sure, Hopkins is unlikely to ever again be the kind of dominant force it was for the USILA era and the couple of decades after, but that doesn't mean it can't get back to being in the conversation year in and year out as a top 10 contender, potential NC contender from time to time...ala the Ivies.

That's what these people parachuting in here willfully misunderstand. Outside of a few deluded posters, no one here has expectations of dominance or anything close to what things used to be. Cornell seems to be doing ok (with a bunch of guys Milliman recruited). They aren't exactly known for big-time sports and they're out in the middle of goddamn nowhere. Penn and Yale have done ok recently too. And before someone dog-whistles about Baltimore, they clearly haven't explored the Penn and Yale campus environs. Not exactly Montecito.

Easy to jump on Hopkins and say they'll never be good again when they're at the beginning of a rebuild. Pretty sure Penn hadn't won a tournament game in 30 years prior to 2018. They went through some really dark years and Murphy's tenure was quite mediocre up until very recently. Kerwick's last two seasons at Cornell were rough. It took Shay 7-8 years to make Yale relevant. He hasn't looked back since but before the turnaround I'm sure there were people questioning whether or not it could be done. As for Hopkins, of course they can get back to being nationally relevant. Anyone who says otherwise is just projecting their own desires.

[steel_hop]

You can certainly question Millman
- why Epstein did see some of the field?
- why he thought it was a good idea to have not one but two set of games less than 48 hours apart from each other?
- why did we set up one of the toughest schedules this year? That belies a view that he misevaluated where he thought the program was.
- what the offense is trying to do? Doesn't seem like it has an sense of how to attack a defense (some of this is pure lack of high end talent) but offense of strategy leaves a lot to be desired. If anyone is on the hot seat it is Grant because the team is average 10 goals a game. That is awful
- why has the defense seemed to figure out how to play with intensity and passion while the offense seems to be going through the motions.

In their introductory press conference, the coaches seemed very confident and oblivious to the difficulties with the team they were inheriting.
I thought they were overconfident at the time tbh. There is an advantage to playing a tough schedule in that it enhances your RPI.
Playing two games over a weekend to simulate the postseason assumes that you will actually make it to the post season.
The coach has a five year contract. He's shooting to do well in year 4. If he shows well in year's 4 and 5 he gets extended.
While I'm sure he'd like to win now, I don't think he's sweating it either. Since certain players will be gone from this roster by year 4, they don't really matter to him all that much in the final analysis.

This is the right approach for an employee presuming certain conditions precedent. (Which appear to be the case here). Doesn’t do much for fans but it’s what happens when portions of an institution become about over time. Micro focused

That is not reality in the least. Typically, coaches get contracts extended with at least 2 years remaining, maybe in the off scenario with 1 year left (i.e. after year 4 for Millman). This is done for recruiting reasons or at least that this the argument because other coaches can recruit against Hopkins by saying "Millman doesn't have an extension and only 1 year left on his contract. How do you know he's going to be there when you show up to Hopkins?" You'd be tying PM's hands on recruiting.

If Millman doesn't have a contract extension after year 4 - and I am not making an argument he should or shouldn't - but just the factual point. If that happens that basically tells you where the administrastion is heading. It is why Petro was a dead man walking after the 2019 season and he wasn't given an extension.

So year 3 is a pretty big one for him.

Who’s reality? If Hop has a mediocre year next year, in or out of playoffs but .500 or better record, then has a 11-3 type QF or better season in year four he’s getting extended no doubt.

How many lacrosse coaches do you think have 4-5yr contracts out of the 70 odd programs out there? 10? 15? Less?

I didn't argue that point. I stated that for recruiting purposes you don't want a coach with only 1 year left on his contract. But, yes, if he does what you state he's going to get a contract extension. If he misses the NCAA's 4 straight years, I'd imagine there will be a conversation about him coaching his 5th year. Note, I doubt that Hopkins misses 4 straight tournaments but anything is possible in this day and age.

My view is that next year is likely going to be the hardest. It will be the team with the first year of his "talent" he recruited and most of the older guys have started to graduate out (though some COVID guys might remain). You usually have a dearth of talent in the Soph and Junior years because of the coaching change - though Hopkins does have some nice sophmores. So you have the issue of not great older talent mixed with a bunch of younger talent. Makes it tough to go against Hopkins schedule. Now, this doesn't mean my theory is going to happen but my guess is they miss the NCAAs again next year (obviously they haven't missed this year but need the AQ to make it).

As I said before, the program was in a complete mess. It wasn't like UVA where there was tons of talent just laying around but wasn't getting pointed in the right direction.

I don't pay any attention to recruiting so I just looked. It appears the Hopkins is 8th for the guys coming in 2022. Fine. But looking at the 2023 class...eek not a single guy on IL's top 60 list has committed to Hopkins. That is more than concerning given you can give most recruits "you can start as a freshman because there is no one in front of you."

[jhu06]

Sun didn't bother to cover the team at all last week. Nothing on the homepage when I checked. Not even remotely interested in this morass anymore.

At least we're not the womens program whose coach seems to already be well into the mcla mode many of you dream the mens team is headed to.
Janine Tucker @JanineRTucker Apr 3 Ha ha ha! I’m hanging out of the sunroof of my car with my sister driving and cracking up! We had fun!
The women were pasted 17-6 by Maryland this week.

Epstein a 3x captain, 1 overall recruit benched homecoming w/alums on campus en masse and not one story about it or on the record question to PM shows just how awful lacrosse media and coverage of the program are. Dixon, Quint, Carc, IL, lee, some guys really failing at their jobs there.

9-2 to start the game against an opponent we beat last year and that lost longtime studs like mullins and adam c is simply unacceptable. Rutgers was able to rebuild in an offseason (that's forbidden at Hopkins where fielding a competent lacrosse team apparently takes longer than the building of the pyramids) and we're woefully short on talent offensively and have a goalie making the same mistakes he's made now for two years with clearing. mcmanus was beaten clean at least twice and he's supposed to be our top defenseman.

About 80 percent of what's mentioned here on a weekly basis are good informed points befitting a fan base that is one of the most educated about the game in all of sports. Unfortunately the aging adult journalist/media bros who cover the game for a living don't have the stones to get onrecord confirmation about admissions, players off field behavior, coaching decisions like epstein, failures in recruiting, fights with the administration, injuries and I could go on.

[1766]

The end of early recruiting should benefit Hopkins more than anyone. From an outside perspective it looks like there are number of guys out there who matured early then stopped. The overall lack of speed and size from a number of Hopkins offensive players appears very noticeable. You'd think those misses would be avoided if these players were recruited at an older age.

[HopFan16]

My view is that next year is likely going to be the hardest. It will be the team with the first year of his "talent" he recruited and most of the older guys have started to graduate out (though some COVID guys might remain). You usually have a dearth of talent in the Soph and Junior years because of the coaching change - though Hopkins does have some nice sophmores. So you have the issue of not great older talent mixed with a bunch of younger talent. Makes it tough to go against Hopkins schedule. Now, this doesn't mean my theory is going to happen but my guess is they miss the NCAAs again next year (obviously they haven't missed this year but need the AQ to make it).

No idea if we make the NCAAs next year but I expect it to be better than this year. The class coming in is very talented. Smith, Szuluk, and Martin are fantastic pieces with which to build around on defense. We'll see who they bring back from this senior class (you'd think Narewski and Degnon) but from a culture standpoint, I think it could be a good thing to get a little "younger." In my view this sophomore class has bought in more than anyone — I count 9 guys in that class with regular playing time and perhaps some good leadership for the future. That class really brings a lot of energy. Combine that with guys like Collison, Marquis, English, Iler (I'm confident at least one of those guys is going to pop immediately) and I think the end result is a team that's closer to what the staff intends to build.

As far as the 2023 class goes, I'd expect Ayers to crack that IL list — he's a top 5 attackman in that class IMO. Jewell and Rawson can also play, among others. We really need to stop focusing on those lists. Rutgers is a pretty good example. There's talent all over. You get guys who fit your system and your culture and you can win. PM and co. are just at the very start of doing that and we're in the growing pains phase.

[Ruffled_Feathers]

Agree. We don’t have those kids. The kids that are the spark on other teams chose the schools they are at for a reason. Why didn’t they “chose” Hopkins??

Reasons that are their own to have, maybe they didn't want to play for Petro, maybe we weren't going after/selling the JHU of today to the right kids? Or maybe we couldn't because "the class was already full" thanks to ER nonsense. I don't follow national HS lacrosse enough to even know current rankings not that we should be putting stock in them given the last 15 years but are Collison and Marquis not the kind of guys we need? It's always hard to cut through the noise but what little I've seen those boys look like difference makers. Why did they choose Hopkins?