Inside Lacrosse Top 50

[DMac]

Watched Laliberty play last year. She is excellent. Excited to see her play this year.

I keep thinking Liberty Biberty....

Ha. Glad I wasn’t the only one

The power of advertising.....keeps stupid stuff like that in your head as intended.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

I see a lot of words about a lot of different topics brought in to muddy the waters. What I saw and what I read was a new poster writing about a player and that poster then being bullied and insulted. That’s what I take issue with. Very simple.

There are rules on this forum, established by the owners and custodians. There are no rules about critiquing a player, or her character for that matter. There are rules about attacking other posters.

Can Opener, like a surgeon, separated the pretzel logic and semantic gymnastics from the essential issue and isolated the hypocrisy of bullying other posters for things that they themselves are guilty of.

As ol’ TL was wont to say—that is all.

[GratefulRed]

To say DC's are not relevant seems a bit simplistic. More DC's, more shots.

Don't think anyone is saying draws/face offs are not relevant but I do believe DC specialist/FOGOs are highly overrated in their value and draw/face off stats can be very deceiving with regards to wins and losses. Brought this up many years back and naturally initially received a lot push back on it.
1. Stats wise a draw/face off win can amount to about a one second possession, goes in the books as a win but it was essentially a meaningless win. This is not at all uncommon.
2. Will use the same example I've used many times: Team A wins the draw, gets a shot, save is made, ball goes the other way. Team B gets a shot on that possession, save is made, Team A comes back and scores on that possession. Do that three times and the score is 3-0. Team A has three draw wins and three goals. Stats people will look at that and say, see, draws/face offs wins games. Fact of the matter is none of the draw/face offs had anything to do with the three goals. Yes, 100% of the time I would rather win the draw/face off than lose it but I don't put nearly the stock in wins at the circle/X as a whole lot of other folks do. Have seen way too many games when the team that won the draw/face off battle lost the game. Complete teams win games, gotta have it all, face offs/draws are just one part of the game and not all that much more important than the other parts. JMHO.

Sorry but disagree. It really is not that difficult. Winning the draw leads to more chances. Some connect and some do not. That is it. Find me one coach who does not want a dominant draw person/team.

Compared to some other top 50 debates, the ranking of MJ doesn't evoke an emotional response for me. She is statistically the best at her (dare I say important?) specialty. She has also improved her offensive skills and creates some match-up problems in the 8 as a result--tip my cap to her hard work.

The debate on how far a coach should go to get this/any dominant draw specialist is interesting. The very last word of Bart's quote is how I think of draw success--team. Check out the 2022 draw control stats below for Duke compared to the Final 4 teams--the top 5 player DC totals for each team are telling. All final 4 teams stats are far more to my liking because they don't rely as heavily on one person to shoulder the load. I would rather have 3 Schleichers (or insert your fave circle player here) on circle and dot than one MJ because I think 1 self-drawer should be easier to beat. As draw taker you don't have to win the draw, just get the ball on the ground and make it a 3v3 (oversimplified, of course). This makes what MJ has accomplished perhaps more impressive, but also makes the team more susceptible to her fatigue, a bad match-up, better opposition game planning, etc. In 2022, Duke's DC win % in ACC/NCAA games was 55.7% (avg data from LacrosseReference.com) compared to 62.5% overall (Duke website). Just like any other position, most coaches want superstars but far fewer find the best way to manage/support them.

In response to ONW "Calling all Nerds" to resolve the statistical importance of winning draws, I would look no further than Zack Capozzi of LacrosseReference.com . He probably already knows the answer.

2022 Draw Controls (Top 5 player totals for each team)
Duke
1.233 DC (MJ)
2.29
3.23
4.21
5.13

BC
1.138 (CN)
2.108
3.90
4.10
5.9

MD
1.115 (SA)
2.89
3.63
4.21
5.11

NU
1.183 (JG)
2.155
3.45
4.38
5.34

UNC
1.136 (AM)
2.58
3.36
4.32
5.24

[ultravisitor]

I would rather have 3 Schleichers (or insert your fave circle player here) on circle and dot than one MJ because I think 1 self-drawer should be easier to beat. As draw taker you don't have to win the draw, just get the ball on the ground and make it a 3v3 (oversimplified, of course). This makes what MJ has accomplished perhaps more impressive, but also makes the team more susceptible to her fatigue, a bad match-up, better opposition game planning, etc.

Indeed. Look at the 2021 NCAA tournament matchup between Northwestern and Duke.

Team draws
NU: 21
Duke: 13

Individual draws
NU
Lauren Gilbert: 6
Brennan Dwyer: 5
Jill Girardi: 4
Lindsey McKone: 4
Izzy Scane: 1

Duke
Maddie Jenner: 7
Katie Cosgrove: 3
Olivia Carner: 2
Cubby Biscardi: 1

Before the match up, Shelby Fredericks asked Kelly Amonte-Hiller if they needed a solution for Maddie Jenner on the draw. Amonte-Hiller's response: "I don't need a solution. I have three." During the game, NU made sure that Jenner did not settle into any kind of groove by constantly rotating between Brennan Dwyer, Jill Girardi--both of whom established themselves as among the best draw takers in all of Division I--and Lindsey McKone. Jenner was so flustered that for much of that game she wasn't even taking draws (I'm not saying she quit. I'm guessing Kimel pulled her from the center), and when she wasn't in the center, Duke had a lot of trouble gaining possession.

While I do think Maddie Jenner is great at the draw, I'm not so sure she's THAT much better than everyone else. I think that Duke's schedule has made it easier for her to put up crazy numbers throughout her career as she simply hasn't faced the same level of talent as consistently throughout her career as Northwestern's Dwyer and Girardi had. Still, her height gives her a major advantage on the circle, and she's undeniably an asset to a team.

[Seacoaster(1)]

I would rather have 3 Schleichers (or insert your fave circle player here) on circle and dot than one MJ because I think 1 self-drawer should be easier to beat. As draw taker you don't have to win the draw, just get the ball on the ground and make it a 3v3 (oversimplified, of course). This makes what MJ has accomplished perhaps more impressive, but also makes the team more susceptible to her fatigue, a bad match-up, better opposition game planning, etc.

Indeed. Look at the 2021 NCAA tournament matchup between Northwestern and Duke.

Team draws
NU: 21
Duke: 13

Individual draws
NU
Lauren Gilbert: 6
Brennan Dwyer: 5
Jill Girardi: 4
Lindsey McKone: 4
Izzy Scane: 1

Duke
Maddie Jenner: 7
Katie Cosgrove: 3
Olivia Carner: 2
Cubby Biscardi: 1

Before the match up, Shelby Fredericks asked Kelly Amonte-Hiller if they needed a solution for Maddie Jenner on the draw. Amonte-Hiller's response: "I don't need a solution. I have three." During the game, NU made sure that Jenner did not settle into any kind of groove by constantly rotating between Brennan Dwyer, Jill Girardi--both of whom established themselves as among the best draw takers in all of Division I--and Lindsey McKone. Jenner was so flustered that for much of that game she wasn't even taking draws (I'm not saying she quit. I'm guessing Kimel pulled her from the center), and when she wasn't in the center, Duke had a lot of trouble gaining possession.

While I do think Maddie Jenner is great at the draw, I'm not so sure she's THAT much better than everyone else. I think that Duke's schedule has made it easier for her to put up crazy numbers throughout her career as she simply hasn't faced the same level of talent as consistently throughout her career as Northwestern's Dwyer and Girardi had. Still, her height gives her a major advantage on the circle, and she's undeniably an asset to a team.

It's just this sort of analysis and reflection that NJBill would appreciate. I think this whole business boils down to a poster calling a kid a quitter, or someone who "quit" or gave up -- a pretty serious indictment of a player's character. There is a difference, at least for me, between evaluating how a player performs in a team offense and concluding she carries the ball too much or shoots poorly, etc., and saying that a player gave up and tossed in the towel.

[Bart]

To say DC's are not relevant seems a bit simplistic. More DC's, more shots.

Don't think anyone is saying draws/face offs are not relevant but I do believe DC specialist/FOGOs are highly overrated in their value and draw/face off stats can be very deceiving with regards to wins and losses. Brought this up many years back and naturally initially received a lot push back on it.
1. Stats wise a draw/face off win can amount to about a one second possession, goes in the books as a win but it was essentially a meaningless win. This is not at all uncommon.
2. Will use the same example I've used many times: Team A wins the draw, gets a shot, save is made, ball goes the other way. Team B gets a shot on that possession, save is made, Team A comes back and scores on that possession. Do that three times and the score is 3-0. Team A has three draw wins and three goals. Stats people will look at that and say, see, draws/face offs wins games. Fact of the matter is none of the draw/face offs had anything to do with the three goals. Yes, 100% of the time I would rather win the draw/face off than lose it but I don't put nearly the stock in wins at the circle/X as a whole lot of other folks do. Have seen way too many games when the team that won the draw/face off battle lost the game. Complete teams win games, gotta have it all, face offs/draws are just one part of the game and not all that much more important than the other parts. JMHO.

Sorry but disagree. It really is not that difficult. Winning the draw leads to more chances. Some connect and some do not. That is it. Find me one coach who does not want a dominant draw person/team.

Compared to some other top 50 debates, the ranking of MJ doesn't evoke an emotional response for me. She is statistically the best at her (dare I say important?) specialty. She has also improved her offensive skills and creates some match-up problems in the 8 as a result--tip my cap to her hard work.

The debate on how far a coach should go to get this/any dominant draw specialist is interesting. The very last word of Bart's quote is how I think of draw success--team. Check out the 2022 draw control stats below for Duke compared to the Final 4 teams--the top 5 player DC totals for each team are telling. All final 4 teams stats are far more to my liking because they don't rely as heavily on one person to shoulder the load. I would rather have 3 Schleichers (or insert your fave circle player here) on circle and dot than one MJ because I think 1 self-drawer should be easier to beat. As draw taker you don't have to win the draw, just get the ball on the ground and make it a 3v3 (oversimplified, of course). This makes what MJ has accomplished perhaps more impressive, but also makes the team more susceptible to her fatigue, a bad match-up, better opposition game planning, etc. In 2022, Duke's DC win % in ACC/NCAA games was 55.7% (avg data from LacrosseReference.com) compared to 62.5% overall (Duke website). Just like any other position, most coaches want superstars but far fewer find the best way to manage/support them.

In response to ONW "Calling all Nerds" to resolve the statistical importance of winning draws, I would look no further than Zack Capozzi of LacrosseReference.com . He probably already knows the answer.

2022 Draw Controls (Top 5 player totals for each team)
Duke
1.233 DC (MJ)
2.29
3.23
4.21
5.13

BC
1.138 (CN)
2.108
3.90
4.10
5.9

MD
1.115 (SA)
2.89
3.63
4.21
5.11

NU
1.183 (JG)
2.155
3.45
4.38
5.34

UNC
1.136 (AM)
2.58
3.36
4.32
5.24

The maths are hard for me...I do not quite follow you analysis here? Can you give me a bit of an explanation.

[GratefulRed]

Sorry. 2nd best draw player on Duke had only 29 for the year. Second best draw player for BC had 108. 2nd best for MD had 89, and so on. Compared to Duke, the other teams had more players contribute to the draw effort which I would prefer as a coach (which I am not, nor should I be).

[Bart]

There are rules on this forum, established by the owners and custodians. There are no rules about critiquing a player, or her character for that matter. There are rules about attacking other posters.

So what you are saying is that CanOpener had no reason to come back on NJBill for what he was saying about the player in question. CanOpener had no cause for saying some things that may have been construed as bullying or attacking NJBill. Remember, there are no rules for critiquing a player or her character. The other player's father had no reason to get bent out of shape and say some things that may have been offensive to LGL? Difference to me seems that neither whined about it as bullying to the admin. I say both can and do and the posters doing the critique have no cause for crying about the clap back.

I will say again...post what you want. It is your right to use an anonymous pseudoname, like I am, to say what ever you want about a player by name who we know an entire bio about. I find it laughable that the fact that there are no rules about critiquing a player....including her character.....is ok but "attacking" an anonymous pseudoname is such a capital offense. Save your crocodile tears. Posters want to be provocative and make claims that may/may not be true about players or even coaches to some extent, then great have at it but in such a small community everyone knows someone and it's quite probable it is going to reach someone that takes it personally.

If I say something about a player that is cruel and harsh and offensive go ahead call me out. Call my character in judgement. I may deserve it as we all have blinders. Might change my mind, may not. I wont cry to the admin about it. If I have done it in the past, I may have, then go ahead and call my a hypocrite. If that happens then to some extent I am so I can live with that.

[Bart]

Sorry. 2nd best draw player on Duke had only 29 for the year. Second best draw player for BC had 108. 2nd best for MD had 89, and so on. Compared to Duke, the other teams had more players contribute to the draw effort which I would prefer as a coach (which I am not, nor should I be).

Ahhh. I see now. Thanks I had it as 1.233 not 1) 233.
I get your point as well. It is a point worth making as it is a team sport.

[njbill]

I would rather have 3 Schleichers (or insert your fave circle player here) on circle and dot than one MJ because I think 1 self-drawer should be easier to beat. As draw taker you don't have to win the draw, just get the ball on the ground and make it a 3v3 (oversimplified, of course). This makes what MJ has accomplished perhaps more impressive, but also makes the team more susceptible to her fatigue, a bad match-up, better opposition game planning, etc.

Indeed. Look at the 2021 NCAA tournament matchup between Northwestern and Duke.

Team draws
NU: 21
Duke: 13

Individual draws
NU
Lauren Gilbert: 6
Brennan Dwyer: 5
Jill Girardi: 4
Lindsey McKone: 4
Izzy Scane: 1

Duke
Maddie Jenner: 7
Katie Cosgrove: 3
Olivia Carner: 2
Cubby Biscardi: 1

Before the match up, Shelby Fredericks asked Kelly Amonte-Hiller if they needed a solution for Maddie Jenner on the draw. Amonte-Hiller's response: "I don't need a solution. I have three." During the game, NU made sure that Jenner did not settle into any kind of groove by constantly rotating between Brennan Dwyer, Jill Girardi--both of whom established themselves as among the best draw takers in all of Division I--and Lindsey McKone. Jenner was so flustered that for much of that game she wasn't even taking draws (I'm not saying she quit. I'm guessing Kimel pulled her from the center), and when she wasn't in the center, Duke had a lot of trouble gaining possession.

While I do think Maddie Jenner is great at the draw, I'm not so sure she's THAT much better than everyone else. I think that Duke's schedule has made it easier for her to put up crazy numbers throughout her career as she simply hasn't faced the same level of talent as consistently throughout her career as Northwestern's Dwyer and Girardi had. Still, her height gives her a major advantage on the circle, and she's undeniably an asset to a team.

It's just this sort of analysis and reflection that NJBill would appreciate. I think this whole business boils down to a poster calling a kid a quitter, or someone who "quit" or gave up -- a pretty serious indictment of a player's character. There is a difference, at least for me, between evaluating how a player performs in a team offense and concluding she carries the ball too much or shoots poorly, etc., and saying that a player gave up and tossed in the towel.

+1. Thank you for being the voice of reason.

On reflection, I may have come down too hard on mom, especially with some of my verbiage. But the fundamental point remains: calling a kid a quitter is a really serious allegation. I still can’t recall any other poster ever calling any player a quitter in all my years on Laxpower and now fanlax. Maybe it happened. Maybe I forgot it. Maybe I missed it. But I don’t remember it. I note that no poster has agreed with her comment, including two whom I specifically asked about it.

My current thought is that maybe mom came out of the gate too hot, not really knowing the parameters and norms for posting here. Perhaps she, too, has done some self reflection.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

I’ve made my position on the momlax kerfuffle very clear—as Alexander Dulage was wont to say, “As an unmuddied lake; as clear as an azure sky of deepest summer”.

I have no desire nor compunction to elucidate further.

[njbill]

Sorry. 2nd best draw player on Duke had only 29 for the year. Second best draw player for BC had 108. 2nd best for MD had 89, and so on. Compared to Duke, the other teams had more players contribute to the draw effort which I would prefer as a coach (which I am not, nor should I be).

Ahhh. I see now. Thanks I had it as 1.233 not 1) 233.
I get your point as well. It is a point worth making as it is a team sport.

Thanks to Bart for asking (I had the same question) and Grateful Red for explaining. Interesting stats.

[GratefulRed]

Sorry. 2nd best draw player on Duke had only 29 for the year. Second best draw player for BC had 108. 2nd best for MD had 89, and so on. Compared to Duke, the other teams had more players contribute to the draw effort which I would prefer as a coach (which I am not, nor should I be).

Ahhh. I see now. Thanks I had it as 1.233 not 1) 233.
I get your point as well. It is a point worth making as it is a team sport.

Thanks to Bart for asking (I had the same question) and Grateful Red for explaining. Interesting stats.

Amazing the difference a _ can make. Still losing credit for punctuation to this day

[njbill]

Ohdontworryaboutit

[Justalaxdad]

NU -- underrated first-year goalie Argentieri is good enough to cover some defensive deficiencies but I think they have lost too much to be a factor in '23.

I feel like many people are overlooking the fact that not only does NU have a very strong addition to their offense in Hailey Rhatigan, but they're also adding Molly Laliberty in goal. Sure, she played Division III, but she was IWLCA's Division III goalie of the year in 2021 and 2022. Her experience in playing back to back national championship games in 2021 and 2022 means she's battle tested. As long as she can handle the transition to Division I--and why wouldn't she be able to if younger kids can handle the transition from high school to Division I?--then Northwestern should be fine.

Laliberty apparently also got offers from UNC and Hopkins, so she can't be all that terrible for NU to have gotten for their roster.

Watched Laliberty play last year. She is excellent. Excited to see her play this year.

I keep thinking Liberty Biberty....

[Justalaxdad]

There are rules on this forum, established by the owners and custodians. There are no rules about critiquing a player, or her character for that matter. There are rules about attacking other posters.

Do you (not saying you in particular) really need a rule to keep from attacking a college player’s character? Hell, do you need a rule to keep from “attacking” them at all?

This is where the site breaks down. It’s one thing to critique someone’s play and another to attack it. Too many times here, people start attacking because of school or kid alliances. This tends to happen when people can be keyboard bullies. I’m betting 95% of what gets said here wouldn’t be said if we were all in a room talking face to face.

I shouldn’t speak for njbill but I think that was his point in this whole matter. If someone thinks MJ shouldn’t be top 10, that’s fine, but labeling her a quitter is the problem. Anyone who plays/played sports, knows that’s the worst thing you can call an athlete. All players have bad games from time to time, by no means does that make them quitters.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

There are rules on this forum, established by the owners and custodians. There are no rules about critiquing a player, or her character for that matter. There are rules about attacking other posters.

Do you (not saying you in particular) really need a rule to keep from attacking a college player’s character? Hell, do you need a rule to keep from “attacking” them at all?

This is where the site breaks down. It’s one thing to critique someone’s play and another to attack it. Too many times here, people start attacking because of school or kid alliances. This tends to happen when people can be keyboard bullies. I’m betting 95% of what gets said here wouldn’t be said if we were all in a room talking face to face.

I shouldn’t speak for njbill but I think that was his point in this whole matter. If someone thinks MJ shouldn’t be top 10, that’s fine, but labeling her a quitter is the problem. Anyone who plays/played sports, knows that’s the worst thing you can call an athlete. All players have bad games from time to time, by no means does that make them quitters.

https://fanlax.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=416847#p416847

I’ve also addressed the criticism of players issue at length in the past as well if you’d be interested in reading that post.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

There are rules on this forum, established by the owners and custodians. There are no rules about critiquing a player, or her character for that matter. There are rules about attacking other posters.

Do you (not saying you in particular) really need a rule to keep from attacking a college player’s character? Hell, do you need a rule to keep from “attacking” them at all?

This is where the site breaks down. It’s one thing to critique someone’s play and another to attack it. Too many times here, people start attacking because of school or kid alliances. This tends to happen when people can be keyboard bullies. I’m betting 95% of what gets said here wouldn’t be said if we were all in a room talking face to face.

I shouldn’t speak for njbill but I think that was his point in this whole matter. If someone thinks MJ shouldn’t be top 10, that’s fine, but labeling her a quitter is the problem. Anyone who plays/played sports, knows that’s the worst thing you can call an athlete. All players have bad games from time to time, by no means does that make them quitters.

https://fanlax.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=416847#p416847

I’ve also addressed the criticism of players issue at length in the past as well if you’d be interested in reading that post.

Here it be—

I have always understood that talking about sports teams and their coaches and players and how they perform on the field was very natural. I try to keep in perspective that I am talking about games; organized athletics. They are, all of them, pastimes. Not devotion to God, or country or family. Sports.

Sports is huge in this country. It only follows that the players and coaches of sports teams get talked about and written about 24/7 in this digital age. A good portion of the commentary is negative.

If I’m understanding what you’re saying, I’m being advised to watch what I write because someone might read it who has “deep personal relationships with people, coaches, players or alum.” and “see it as an aggressive unpleasant attack.” Perhaps have their feelings hurt. If I was to apply this rationale to any serious sports commentary in this country, people would say I was being non-sensical and ridiculous.

What is the distinction between Sports Talk Nation USA and women’s lacrosse on the Lax Power Back-Up Stick forum? Why is it okay to talk about male players and coaches freely, including the men’s lacrosse boards on this same Back-Up Stick, but a restrictive standard exists for what we can write about the performances of the female players and coaches of women’s lacrosse? All male athletes and coaches have family and friends with “deep personal relationships with people, coaches, players or alum.” I can’t imagine anyone saying we should stop saying critical things about male players and coaches for their performances on the field for the same reason. The notion is absurd.

I would strongly encourage you, and anyone else reading this, to search the word “paternalistic” on these boards and read what Badlands has eloquently opined on the subject. I can’t say it better than him.

https://fanlax.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=63822#p63822

[Can Opener]

I would rather have 3 Schleichers (or insert your fave circle player here) on circle and dot than one MJ because I think 1 self-drawer should be easier to beat. As draw taker you don't have to win the draw, just get the ball on the ground and make it a 3v3 (oversimplified, of course). This makes what MJ has accomplished perhaps more impressive, but also makes the team more susceptible to her fatigue, a bad match-up, better opposition game planning, etc.

Indeed. Look at the 2021 NCAA tournament matchup between Northwestern and Duke.

Team draws
NU: 21
Duke: 13

Individual draws
NU
Lauren Gilbert: 6
Brennan Dwyer: 5
Jill Girardi: 4
Lindsey McKone: 4
Izzy Scane: 1

Duke
Maddie Jenner: 7
Katie Cosgrove: 3
Olivia Carner: 2
Cubby Biscardi: 1

Before the match up, Shelby Fredericks asked Kelly Amonte-Hiller if they needed a solution for Maddie Jenner on the draw. Amonte-Hiller's response: "I don't need a solution. I have three." During the game, NU made sure that Jenner did not settle into any kind of groove by constantly rotating between Brennan Dwyer, Jill Girardi--both of whom established themselves as among the best draw takers in all of Division I--and Lindsey McKone. Jenner was so flustered that for much of that game she wasn't even taking draws (I'm not saying she quit. I'm guessing Kimel pulled her from the center), and when she wasn't in the center, Duke had a lot of trouble gaining possession.

While I do think Maddie Jenner is great at the draw, I'm not so sure she's THAT much better than everyone else. I think that Duke's schedule has made it easier for her to put up crazy numbers throughout her career as she simply hasn't faced the same level of talent as consistently throughout her career as Northwestern's Dwyer and Girardi had. Still, her height gives her a major advantage on the circle, and she's undeniably an asset to a team.

It's just this sort of analysis and reflection that NJBill would appreciate. I think this whole business boils down to a poster calling a kid a quitter, or someone who "quit" or gave up -- a pretty serious indictment of a player's character. There is a difference, at least for me, between evaluating how a player performs in a team offense and concluding she carries the ball too much or shoots poorly, etc., and saying that a player gave up and tossed in the towel.

You know that I respect your opinion and your contributions to the sport. You have largely avoided taking sides in certain disputes, which I also respect, so I'm puzzled why you'd jump in now to support this new construct of "all criticism of young athletes is fair game -- except the Q Word." Other than one or two of us, most posters here have stood by silently as posters have relentlessly criticized a young female athlete for many years to an extent that has never been seen before on these boards. Many of us coach young women and are deeply committed to growing the sport, so it’s puzzling that so few have spoken up to say: “Hey man, I get it that you think she’s selfish, but we all heard you the 20th time. Time to move on.” Most folks also remained silent when criticism expanded beyond “selfishness” to terms like "appalling disrespect," "bad sportsmanship," "pathetic," "North choked," "rumors," "screeching," and "celebrates too exuberantly." It seems the consensus was: that’s all fair criticism of a player's athletic performance, but alleging that another player dropped her level of intensity is now deemed to be going way too far. Seems like a curious place to make a stand. If you call a borderline cross check early in the game, smart players then avoid cross checking. If you don’t call it, someone could get hurt.

I have no idea if the original "Q" allegation was justified or not, but it is a criticism of her play on the field. It’s charged and personal, but it is based on her on-field performance. I don't like criticizing college athletes, as you know, but saying someone "quit" is not de facto on a lower moral plane than calling another player names, accusing her of appalling disrespect, rumor mongering, and fabricating criticisms out of whole cloth. I would also point out that CN has been accused of dogging it on the ride for years by many posters. Where was the moral outrage when she was accused of not trying hard? Isn’t that what the current allegation is about – indifferent play? No one is saying that MJ walked off the field. She didn’t literally “quit.” Mom thought she stopped giving 100%. We can all differ on our opinions about whether quitting is the ultimate sin, but it is not so clearly more abhorrent than all the highly personal criticism that has been aimed at CN. I mean, what’s worse, a one-time allegation at the DEFCON 1 level or dozens and dozens of allegations at the DEFCON 2, 3 & 4 levels? To be more specific, why all the sudden moral outrage over Mom’s allegation when the anti-CN posters have been doing this stuff for years?

Perhaps we can at least agree on this: the poster who initiated the moral outrage over the Q Word was probably not the best spokesperson for the cause. It's a little like a serial bank robber who leads a movement to never steal from a mom and pop corner grocery. ("Now that's a really terrible crime," he claims.)

[hmmm]

Didn't want to quote because the string was too long. Understand your point about male vs female athlete criticism. Personally, I don't agree with any criticism of athletes that aren't in a pro league. While that line has become blurred in certain sports with NIL, no lacrosse player is making a ton of money playing this sport while also going through the rigors of getting an education, and in terms of what programs are typically discussed here at a highly ranked academic institution. I don't believe I have ever criticized an individual player on this forum. I have voiced my opinions about programs and certain coaches, but never players. I would never do so on the men's board either. I assume many of the people that post here are either parents of current NCAA players, parents of former NCAA players, parents of future NCAA players, or former NCAA players themselves. In all of those cases you are all completely cognizant of the relentless dedication that is required by these kids, call them young adults if you prefer, to both excel on the field and more importantly in the classroom. To criticize someone for their performance at the second biggest priority in their college experience is nonsensical to me. Doc's daughter was an example of what every college athlete should aspire to be in terms of her success on the field but much more importantly her incredible performance in the classroom. These are not NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, etc players whose sole job is to train their bodies, practice and win games. These are incredibly dedicated and gifted kids that are trying to juggle a full class schedule, studying, training, lifting, practicing, traveling and missing classes, and oh by the way trying to maintain some semblance of a social life so that they don't lose their minds. It's your right to criticize them if you choose, but expect backlash if you do and maybe think about how you would feel if your daughter or son was the one who was being called a quitter.