THE 2019 Hopkins Lacrosse Fallout Shelter (44, we want more!)

[DocBarrister]

If early recruiting is such a problem then how have Maryland, Duke, Denver, Yale, etc. been able to succeed? They're all doing it too. Duke, Maryland, and Ohio State all have 2021 recruits already (Hopkins does not). I'm not saying early recruiting hasn't hurt this team but it does not come close to telling the whole story. Tillman, Danowski, and those guys have done a lot more with the early-recruited talent they've acquired than Hop's staff has.

Anyway, what's the point of recruiting early to make sure you get your guy if you're not even going to play the kid at the position where he thrives? (and where he would most help the team?) That to me is a bigger issue. Why did you want that kid on your team? To lead the midfield for four years, or to be a fourth-string SSDM? Has that decision helped the team?

I have no inside info on any player but I am not too worried about Epstein. He's the anchor of this offense as long as he stays healthy. He's got a chance to be one of this program's all-time greats. I wouldn't be completely shocked if he's a sophomore captain next year. (Ok I would be shocked, but hell, I'd give it to the kid at this point.) And I forget the specifics but isn't his father involved with the school somehow? I don't think he will leave. I am more worried about Zinn. This couldn't have been what he imagined when he committed.

Either way, whoever the coaches are next year, they simply must, MUST look into a transfer or two at the midfield. I know it's not like free agency and you can't just sign whoever you want but there will be guys in the transfer portal who'd love a chance to play at Homewood. You have to roll the dice on one. This incoming class of freshman may not provide any help at the position.

I absolutely do NOT believe we need transfer middies. We have very talented middies already ... big, fast, and skilled. What we need is to develop them with more reps in actual games. All the practice in the world can’t substitute for actual game time.

DocBarrister

[a fan]

Gotta love Petros boys defending him. As if this turd today and season is the only reason he should be canned.

No one had blindly defended him.

What some of us have suggested is: maybe the problem isn't the coach? Some of you don't want to hear that, so you take it to mean we're blind and can't see what's happening on the field.

Case in point: the team that blew you off the field yesterday hired a "can't miss" coach. How'd that work out? Depends on who you ask.

Tambroni still doesn't have one single NCAA playoff win in 9 years of trying. Is that the bar you're setting for your new coach? Would that be ok at Hopkins. I'd guess not. My bet is he would have been fired at the end of five year contract, and we'd never get to see the team you played yesterday.

The great news for the coach-haters is that you're going to get to find out whether the coach was the issue or not.

[HopFan16]

Let me be clear - I do not think Hopkins co-eds are un-attractive AT ALL. A very conspicuous group to someone who visits mostly for lax games are the lady laxers who watch their male compatriots on the fence on the opposite side - very pretty young women. I am discussing the stereotype - which DOES exist. It exists at places like Duke and the Ivies too I am sure.

The point about other successful lax schools having similar enrollments is a great point - probably counteracted by some of the other things that Hopkins does not have that those schools do.

Not to mention that there is quite a bit of intermingling with female students at Towson and Loyola, who (rightly) have reputations for being attractive. The stereotype at Hopkins certainly exists, but I think any kid with a brain—especially ones from the Maryland area who are familiar with the city already and know kids going to those other schools—knows that it's not an actual issue. Not sure the type of kid who picks where he plays lacrosse based on the attractiveness of the student body is one you necessarily want for your team's culture, anyway.

I think one big advantage Hopkins has that's underrated is that lacrosse *actually matters*. There are alums and fans who care about the team. All 112 pages of this is proof of that. Other schools can't say the same. How many Penn State students/alumni are watching their #1 ranked team with keen interest? How many of them even KNOW that their mens lacrosse team is great this year? Lacrosse players at Hopkins are the "big men on campus" or whatever you want to call it, as much as such things still exist these days. Having lacrosse for your homecoming is pretty cool. Joining Hopkins lacrosse is joining a special community, and I think recruits know that. Of course, that's just one positive. But hopefully it's something the school is able to maintain no matter who the coach is.

With regards to Petro and his staff, are any high profile alumni sticking up for him? Rabil might be too busy...but what about Harrison, Brown, etc.?

I seldom see or hear anything from former JHU players defending Petro. Of course, I might not be looking in the right place for it.

I haven't seen any *public* expressions of support, but who knows what's going on behind the scenes. They're obviously not going to criticize their former coach on social media. I think if you do see/hear anything it's more likely to be from the Riordan-types who did not play with or were coached by this staff.

I think it's totally justifiable to respect and appreciate everything Petro and staff have done for this program while simultaneously thinking we should go in a new direction, get a fresh start. It doesn't have to be a bitter breakup or resentful in any way. Whenever he does leave it will be as one of the most important and successful people in the history of this program. But coaches are not supreme court judges, it's not a lifetime appointment. Sometimes things can and should change.

[DocBarrister]

It is not working on any level. It will be interesting to see if anything happens - one might argue that if Daniels and Shanahan don't really care about Hopkins men's lacrosse - then they will let him at least finish his contract.

That would be Admin malpractice. If Petro is just on a one-year remaining contract, other coaches/recruiters will have a field day with that fact: come here and I'll be with you for four years; go to Bawlamer and you won't even know will be coaching there by the time you arrive.

Really only three choices: 1) Petro steps down/forced out/retires now; 2) Petro announces his retirement at the end of 2020 AND the school announces his replacement at the same time; 3) Petro is given an 'extension' with a simple buyout clause after next year. (The latter would be ridiculous, however, as no one would buy it.)

(IMO, an interim coach as noted above will put recruiting back a year.)

Petro is only 52, I think. He is nowhere near retirement. Sometimes a fresh start is good for everyone, but I doubt that is what he wants, especially with two sons at Boys Latin.

If Pietramala wants to continue at Hopkins, he will need to change. His role model for that should be Coach Brian Kelly at Notre Dame, not Coach Belichick.

DocBarrister

[primitiveskills]

Gotta love Petros boys defending him. As if this turd today and season is the only reason he should be canned.

Case in point: the team that blew you off the field yesterday hired a "can't miss" coach. How'd that work out? Depends on who you ask.

Tambroni still doesn't have one single NCAA playoff win in 9 years of trying. Is that the bar you're setting for your new coach? Would that be ok at Hopkins. I'd guess not. My bet is he would have been fired at the end of five year contract, and we'd never get to see the team you played yesterday.

You could argue that Hopkins situation is closer to UVa at the end of the Starsia era; no so much to PSU when Tambroni was installed. While PSU wasn't starting from scratch, Tambroni's arrival clearly coincided with the administration's decision to emphasize certain non-revenue sports, like lacrosse and hockey. The goal was program building, not immediate success. Interestingly, both lacrosse and hockey are now highly competitive in the same time frame.
Both UVa and Hopkins situations are/were tradition-laden programs facing stagnation. There's definitely risk in going a different coaching direction, but equally difficult to see things getting "better" without changes. Not an enviable situation.

[jhu72]

Thanks for sharing you thoughts - I think in many areas you nailed it. One area I disagree with is

shortcomings of Hopkins as a lacrosse destination (in no particular order of importance) - difficult academically, Baltimore's current decline/crime rate, no other DI teams or facilities, small student body, small female population with the intelligence stereotype of unattractiveness, diverse population with over 50% not looking like 95% of the lacrosse team - I am sure I have missed some. Petro long ago decided - IMO - that he had to combat this with a quantitative strategy rather than a qualitative one - i.e. he would take in 13-15 or so kids per class - he would recruit as early as possible - let the commitment process and no room at other inns get most of the kids to Hopkins

If you look at the non-public schools the are historically good (Duke, Notre Dame, Yale, ...) they are no bigger than JHU, the academics are comparable, Hopkins women are beautiful (my daughter was Class of '17, so KMA on that one) and although parts of Baltimore are a pit, the campus is an oasis and is probably all a recruit will see on a visit.
My worry is Petro doesn't recruit early because he is combating anything; he does it because it is easier. Face it: signing an 8th grader is easier that being in contact with a family for two years and then signing them as a junior. It also keeps the Alumni off his back (at least the ones who pay attention to IL Young Guns ranking). IMO, the new recruiting rules will be a huge benefit to JHU, for no reason than to protect us from ourselves

I have/had no female child who attended Hopkins, two sons however did. Hopkins women undergraduates compare favorably in the looks department to any other school that requires the individual actually have a brain. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to get out more. The Hopkins women I am familiar with in recent years are absolutely beautiful. The campus is absolutely beautiful thanks to Bloomberg's contributions. The students who can get into Hopkins are for the most part not worried about being involved in the only D1 sport on campus. The Baltimore crime rate is not keeping lacrosse players from coming to Hopkins.

Since when has Yale been historically good?? They have only won the Ivy League Title 5 times in over 130 seasons, and a single NCAA Championship. This is hardly a lacrosse destination, historically. Notre Dame has won nothing. If Hopkins lacrosse had accomplished over the past 10 years what Notre Dame has accomplished, people on this forum would be complaining just as loudly.

For those of you who have not noticed, Dave has changed over the past 10 years. This is not meant as anything other than a simple FACT!

[jhu72]

It is not working on any level. It will be interesting to see if anything happens - one might argue that if Daniels and Shanahan don't really care about Hopkins men's lacrosse - then they will let him at least finish his contract.

That would be Admin malpractice. If Petro is just on a one-year remaining contract, other coaches/recruiters will have a field day with that fact: come here and I'll be with you for four years; go to Bawlamer and you won't even know will be coaching there by the time you arrive.

Really only three choices: 1) Petro steps down/forced out/retires now; 2) Petro announces his retirement at the end of 2020 AND the school announces his replacement at the same time; 3) Petro is given an 'extension' with a simple buyout clause after next year. (The latter would be ridiculous, however, as no one would buy it.)

(IMO, an interim coach as noted above will put recruiting back a year.)

Petro is only 52, I think. He is nowhere near retirement. Sometimes a fresh start is good for everyone, but I doubt that is what he wants, especially with two sons at Boys Latin.

If Pietramala wants to continue at Hopkins, he will need to change. His role model for that should be Coach Brian Kelly at Notre Dame, not Coach Belichick.

DocBarrister

Dave needs to change alright, using himself in 2000-2008 as the role model. He needs to tell anyone who does not like it to KIss His Ass as he leaves to go somewhere he is appreciated!

[Peter Brown]

Gotta love Petros boys defending him. As if this turd today and season is the only reason he should be canned.

No one had blindly defended him.

What some of us have suggested is: maybe the problem isn't the coach? Some of you don't want to hear that, so you take it to mean we're blind and can't see what's happening on the field.

Case in point: the team that blew you off the field yesterday hired a "can't miss" coach. How'd that work out? Depends on who you ask.

Tambroni still doesn't have one single NCAA playoff win in 9 years of trying. Is that the bar you're setting for your new coach? Would that be ok at Hopkins. I'd guess not. My bet is he would have been fired at the end of five year contract, and we'd never get to see the team you played yesterday.

The great news for the coach-haters is that you're going to get to find out whether the coach was the issue or not.

a fan: I am a Loyola guy, but I have a ton of Hopkins friends, some of whom post here but the vast majority who do not post anywhere. Not one of them "hates" Petro; the opposite in fact. They love him as a man and for the immense contributions the guy has made to Hop in the present and in the past. But they all share the same thought; it's time to go. He's lost that undefinable edge of being a winner. And he's a winner. The hardest part of leading is recognizing when we have stumbled. It would be a miracle if Petro can regain his edge, for now, at Hop. I can see him taking a year off from coaching to watch his sons play at BL, and recharge his life; the dude has at least another chapter left if not more. He needs that break; the team needs it; the fans need it.

[a fan]

a fan: I am a Loyola guy, but I have a ton of Hopkins friends, some of whom post here but the vast majority who do not post anywhere. Not one of them "hates" Petro; the opposite in fact. They love him as a man and for the immense contributions the guy has made to Hop in the present and in the past. But they all share the same thought; it's time to go. He's lost that undefinable edge of being a winner.

Respectfully, this is the part I disagree with. Is Petro telling all his middies not to be able to beat their man? Or telling his offense to have the worst shooting percentage in the top 20? I can't remember the last time I saw player after player miss the cage completely from ten yards out and no one in their hands. That's on the players. Hit the doggone cage.

To me, it's simple. There are better players at the other top ten teams. Period. Yesterday, it was as clear as day that Penn State had better players at all positions, was it not? You can't game plan around a lack of talent. If you could, no one would bother with recruiting....just pick some players, and sit back and "coach 'em up".

I'm a Syracuse fan. So Desko? After years of missed Final Fours and lopsided seasons, suddenly his team is winning again. Why? What you are selling is: "he regained his winning edge" with the same coaching staff he's had for forever.

What has happened is obvious. His recruiting started hitting again, after years of misses. So he's got six kids on offense who can either beat their man or create their own shot, and he (finally!) picked up a top five goalie. Result? Wins.

Same goes for Tambroni. Great coach, but he's been in the weeds for 9 years, no? But when he finally gets 1st team AA talent at key positions? Hey, how about that "he regained his coaching edge".

This is not a complicated sport. If you want to argue that Petro, Desko, and Breschi have been losing more than winning on the recruiting trail? I'm right there with you.

[HopFan16]

a fan: I am a Loyola guy, but I have a ton of Hopkins friends, some of whom post here but the vast majority who do not post anywhere. Not one of them "hates" Petro; the opposite in fact. They love him as a man and for the immense contributions the guy has made to Hop in the present and in the past. But they all share the same thought; it's time to go. He's lost that undefinable edge of being a winner.

Respectfully, this is the part I disagree with. Is Petro telling all his middies not to be able to beat their man? Or telling his offense to have the worst shooting percentage in the top 20? I can't remember the last time I saw player after player miss the cage completely from ten yards out and no one in their hands. That's on the players. Hit the doggone cage.

To me, it's simple. There are better players at the other top ten teams. Period. Yesterday, it was as clear as day that Penn State had better players at all positions, was it not? You can't game plan around a lack of talent. If you could, no one would bother with recruiting....just pick some players, and sit back and "coach 'em up".

I'm a Syracuse fan. So Desko? After years of missed Final Fours and lopsided seasons, suddenly his team is winning again. Why? What you are selling is: "he regained his winning edge" with the same coaching staff he's had for forever.

What has happened is obvious. His recruiting started hitting again, after years of misses. So he's got six kids on offense who can either beat their man or create their own shot, and he (finally!) picked up a top five goalie. Result? Wins.

Same goes for Tambroni. Great coach, but he's been in the weeds for 9 years, no? But when he finally gets 1st team AA talent at key positions? Hey, how about that "he regained his coaching edge".

This is not a complicated sport. If you want to argue that Petro, Desko, and Breschi have been losing more than winning on the recruiting trail? I'm right there with you.

So all you're saying is we just have to wait 6-9 years for Hopkins to get lucky on the recruiting trail and be good again? Half of this forum will be dead by then.

The staff might not be THE problem right now (though there's a decent argument that they are) but they are certainly not a solution. At some point you have to take a chance on someone else being able to recruit/coach/develop/strategize/motivate more successfully more often than once or twice a decade. What you're essentially saying is coaches who've had some success, no matter if it were 11 years ago, should get to be in their position for life if they want to be? At what point in your mind will it be time to move on? To me, this is the definition of sunk cost fallacy. One could argue that the recruiting has "missed" because of deficiencies in other departments. If you stubbornly run a certain offense or defense, then you recruit players tailored to that philosophy. And then it becomes a vicious cycle. Recruiting doesn't exist in a vacuum. Neither does player development or in-game strategy. It's all connected. And I don't think anyone here—even those who are unyielding in their support for the staff no matter how big the blowout—would argue that this staff has been particularly *good* at ANY aspect of coaching, on the whole, in the last several years.

[a fan]

So all you're saying is we just have to wait 6-9 years for Hopkins to get lucky on the recruiting trail and be good again? Half of this forum will be dead by then.

No. I'm suggesting: yep, it makes sense to get a new coach. But...you've got a "lacrosse board", yes? Then I'd suggest they turn over every rock and make sure that all other parts of getting recruits to Homewood are looked at, and any negatives are fixed, if possible.

Example: what happened when Tierney lost admissions support at Princeton?

In other words, you get a new coach, and nothing changes because of other factors that you didn't bother considering.

E.g., how much is tuition at Hopkins again?

[Peter Brown]

a fan: I am a Loyola guy, but I have a ton of Hopkins friends, some of whom post here but the vast majority who do not post anywhere. Not one of them "hates" Petro; the opposite in fact. They love him as a man and for the immense contributions the guy has made to Hop in the present and in the past. But they all share the same thought; it's time to go. He's lost that undefinable edge of being a winner.

Respectfully, this is the part I disagree with. Is Petro telling all his middies not to be able to beat their man? Or telling his offense to have the worst shooting percentage in the top 20? I can't remember the last time I saw player after player miss the cage completely from ten yards out and no one in their hands. That's on the players. Hit the doggone cage.

To me, it's simple. There are better players at the other top ten teams. Period. Yesterday, it was as clear as day that Penn State had better players at all positions, was it not? You can't game plan around a lack of talent. If you could, no one would bother with recruiting....just pick some players, and sit back and "coach 'em up".

I'm a Syracuse fan. So Desko? After years of missed Final Fours and lopsided seasons, suddenly his team is winning again. Why? What you are selling is: "he regained his winning edge" with the same coaching staff he's had for forever.

What has happened is obvious. His recruiting started hitting again, after years of misses. So he's got six kids on offense who can either beat their man or create their own shot, and he (finally!) picked up a top five goalie. Result? Wins.

Same goes for Tambroni. Great coach, but he's been in the weeds for 9 years, no? But when he finally gets 1st team AA talent at key positions? Hey, how about that "he regained his coaching edge".

This is not a complicated sport. If you want to argue that Petro, Desko, and Breschi have been losing more than winning on the recruiting trail? I'm right there with you.

I understand what you're saying and I think you're *partially* correct, but not 100%. I think you're skipping past something that you'd know deeper about if you lived here in Bodymore and lived this team some. Like I said, I'm a fan from a mile away, not a HOP guy, but HOP runs through anyone in this town, whether we admit or not (The Baltimore Sun may as well be a Hopkins student newspaper).

I've seen incredible talent sit (rot) on Petro's bench for a year, two, before they see any time, or when they do see time, it's not the best time to insert them on the field so they regress. On the flip side, I've seen other freshmen start at HOP (and never come off the field!) who, charitably, wouldn't start on most perennial top-10 teams (names will go unmentioned). Petro occasionally falls prey to stargazing (don't we all?) with some of his starters...but ummm, some of'em aren't really all they're made out to be via Inside Lax or others who make the star ratings systems (this somewhat buttresses your opinion, but not fully, because here we go): others sit on his bench who many relatively knowledgeable lax people are astounded don't see the field. Now you can argue that Internet warriors such as myself don't have the benefit of seeing kids in practice every day (true!), but we also don't suffer the same. Some kids excel in practice, some only excel on the field in real games. What seems to occur with HOP is some sort of sclerosis of decision making; if Petro says you start, then you start and there's little change made to it (and if you don't start, then you won't start).

But this guy does attract enough high end talent to be much better record wise than he is. I do not think it's a simple question of the talent is not there. I'd argue over many beers that it's more a matter of him being too set in his decisions too early, and not calibrating the talent he does have to maximize wins. I mentioned the one kid from Victor; I won't again (by name), but it's tough to watch a kid like that not get runs when others are.

Enough from me on HOP (whom I love and respect) and back to Loyola's board where I belong!

[steel_hop]

If early recruiting is such a problem then how have Maryland, Duke, Denver, Yale, etc. been able to succeed? They're all doing it too. Duke, Maryland, and Ohio State all have 2021 recruits already (Hopkins does not).

Are those commits holdovers from prior to the rule change? Otherwise, they cant even talk with coaches until this fall.

But, doesn't really matter. Petro's contract runs through the end of 2020. Would a recruit commit to a school before knowing who the coach is? This is why coaches are given extensions 2 years out to show kids a coach will still be at the school. I hope this is an indicator of where the school is going i.e. they gave him 1 more year to see if he could improve and he didnt.

[viper]

Let me be clear - I do not think Hopkins co-eds are un-attractive AT ALL. A very conspicuous group to someone who visits mostly for lax games are the lady laxers who watch their male compatriots on the fence on the opposite side - very pretty young women. I am discussing the stereotype - which DOES exist. It exists at places like Duke and the Ivies too I am sure.

The point about other successful lax schools having similar enrollments is a great point - probably counteracted by some of the other things that Hopkins does not have that those schools do.

While schools like Yale and Penn may not have the exact same recruiting ups and downs as Hopkins, they are about as similar any other schools might be. All are tough academically offering great educations and promise beyond the bachelors, all are in urban locations with the ups and downs of city life and they are all prohibitively expensive with no purely merit based aid. However, two of these schools have grown their programs into contenders and champions and the other has been falling backward to mediocrity.

You won't sell me on the statement that Hopkins is too handicapped to recruit with Yale and Penn sitting in the top 5.

[sguy9]

A “diverse population” is not a “shortcoming” at Hopkins, and any recruit who thinks so should not be welcomed to the Blue Jay program.

DocBarrister

+1 (and I'm not even a Hop fan)

[viper]

So all you're saying is we just have to wait 6-9 years for Hopkins to get lucky on the recruiting trail and be good again? Half of this forum will be dead by then.

No. I'm suggesting: yep, it makes sense to get a new coach. But...you've got a "lacrosse board", yes? Then I'd suggest they turn over every rock and make sure that all other parts of getting recruits to Homewood are looked at, and any negatives are fixed, if possible.

Example: what happened when Tierney lost admissions support at Princeton?

In other words, you get a new coach, and nothing changes because of other factors that you didn't bother considering.

E.g., how much is tuition at Hopkins again?

Tuition is in the same ballpark as Yale, Princeton, Penn, and a dozen other competitive schools who seem to be doing just fine.

[steel_hop]

Gotta love Petros boys defending him. As if this turd today and season is the only reason he should be canned.

No one had blindly defended him.

What some of us have suggested is: maybe the problem isn't the coach? Some of you don't want to hear that, so you take it to mean we're blind and can't see what's happening on the field.

Case in point: the team that blew you off the field yesterday hired a "can't miss" coach. How'd that work out? Depends on who you ask.

Tambroni still doesn't have one single NCAA playoff win in 9 years of trying. Is that the bar you're setting for your new coach? Would that be ok at Hopkins. I'd guess not. My bet is he would have been fired at the end of five year contract, and we'd never get to see the team you played yesterday.

The great news for the coach-haters is that you're going to get to find out whether the coach was the issue or not.

I was talking about the announcers. You know the ones that were doing the hard hitting interview while cutting hair.

To paraphrase Carc "it isnt the schemes coaching, it is the players." That is always a sure sign of a coach on the edge of firing. If it is the players and the coach picks the players, whose ultimate fault is it? Um the coach which is why that argument never works when a coach is a dead man walking. It is called accountability.

Further, his schemes are outdated. Defensively, even prior to the shot clock, his team weren't aggressive enough and played too passive. His defenses were all reactive and never proactive. He never wanted to make an offense uncomfortable. He was too afraid of player making a mistake which means his defense was passive and passive defense get destroyed against talented teams. Those days might have worked in the past but they dont work now.

And, yes, we know your view of being just happy to be here. That's great but there is nothing wrong with holding the lacrosse program to a certain standard. If the next coach doesnt work out, fine. Just makes you closer to someone that will.

[viper]

If early recruiting is such a problem then how have Maryland, Duke, Denver, Yale, etc. been able to succeed? They're all doing it too. Duke, Maryland, and Ohio State all have 2021 recruits already (Hopkins does not).

Are those commits holdovers from prior to the rule change? Otherwise, they cant even talk with coaches until this fall.

But, doesn't really matter. Petro's contract runs through the end of 2020. Would a recruit commit to a school before knowing who the coach is? This is why coaches are given extensions 2 years out to show kids a coach will still be at the school. I hope this is an indicator of where the school is going i.e. they gave him 1 more year to see if he could improve and he didnt.

My son is in the HS class of 2019 and we were in the middle of the recruiting changeover from early recruiting to now. I can tell you that some coaches were actually trying to recruit 2019 kids in their 2020 class or 2020 kids into the 2021 class. Essentially, getting the "early" without getting them early. I am not sure if or how well that worked, but its possible that some of these 2021 kids are actually juniors who are waiting that extra year just to play for a specific program.

[a fan]

But this guy does attract enough high end talent to be much better record wise than he is. I do not think it's a simple question of the talent is not there. I'd argue over many beers that it's more a matter of him being too set in his decisions too early, and not calibrating the talent he does have to maximize wins.

Again, I disagree. You're talking about replacing a middling midfielder with another slightly better midifielder.

That's not the problem, imho. The problem is, for example, you don't have a top 10 goalie anywhere on your roster.

And a far better example is Epstein. He's their best player, yes? Are you suggesting that they have offensive players of that caliber on the the bench? Not "potentially"----but are actually that caliber right now? No, right?

Well, multiple teams have players that are better than Epstein on offense. Top ten teams have two kids that are better. Witness yesterdays O'Keefe and Ament. Maryland's Bernhardt and Wisnauskas. Penn's Goldner and Handley. Loyola's Spencer and Lindley.

THAT is the problem.

You and others are suggesting that with a new coach and the same roster, boom, you have a Final Four caliber team.

We're in the world of opinion here, and boy, I just disagree with that. But I like your suggestion of discussing this over beers!


This will all get sorted out for Hopkins fans soon enough.

[a fan]

Tuition is in the same ballpark as Yale, Princeton, Penn, and a dozen other competitive schools who seem to be doing just fine.

Look at how each of those three teams have done over the last decade. None of their records are acceptable to Hop fans, correct?