Coaching Carousel 2023 - D3

[StuckinD2]

I’ve been told that both AD’s at Ithaca and Catholic have reached out to candidates this week to start Zoom interviews next week.

[Old&InTheWay]

Anyone have any insight into the Wells situation.....seems like they could be heading the same direction as Caz, hopefully not but lopsided loses and small roster seems like thin ice. Maybe they can attract an experienced coach to right the ship. Hate to see another small NY school go down.

[Leonard Washington]

Anyone have any insight into the Wells situation.....seems like they could be heading the same direction as Caz, hopefully not but lopsided loses and small roster seems like thin ice. Maybe they can attract an experienced coach to right the ship. Hate to see another small NY school go down.

Wells and Cazenovia both have larger issues that are not and were not lacrosse related. The coach coming in to Wells at this time will not matter. The financial mess along with the infrastructure of the school (and many small private liberal arts schools across the country) may be its downfall. Seems like the college is running on fumes. Hopefully they can continue to keep the doors open.

[SKUD]

Anyone have any insight into the Wells situation.....seems like they could be heading the same direction as Caz, hopefully not but lopsided loses and small roster seems like thin ice. Maybe they can attract an experienced coach to right the ship. Hate to see another small NY school go down.

Very hard to support any athletics when the student body is under 400 students. Probably tough to attract faculty and offer a variety of classes that would make a student want to attend.

[Old&InTheWay]

Sounds like a sinking ship situation.

[River Donkey]

Anyone have any insight into the Wells situation.....seems like they could be heading the same direction as Caz, hopefully not but lopsided loses and small roster seems like thin ice. Maybe they can attract an experienced coach to right the ship. Hate to see another small NY school go down.

Very hard to support any athletics when the student body is under 400 students. Probably tough to attract faculty and offer a variety of classes that would make a student want to attend.

This is a bigger issue then most realize. There were a number of teams last year with less then 20 guys on their roster. No program can survive with those numbers. I think it’s time to discuss roster limits for lacrosse. Rosters with 50 plus players just isn’t needed and bad for the program. At that size it is very difficult to get everyone reps in practice let alone game time. We all want and speak of the growth of the game, but with the rules being as they are growth can not happen. One school adds the sport while another drops, it’s an endless cycle right now. I don’t blame the coaches, I blame the greedy administrators who could care less if your kid is ever going to get a chance, but more that you can pay full tuition. D1 rosters are flooded with B level athletes who will NEVER see the field but the parents can pay full tuition. The game is getting more exclusive for the chosen few each day.

[ThirdString]

More exclusive? As opposed to when it was a rich white dude sport in NY/MD/NE?

There’s more teams than ever in the NCAA and while we’ve made strides it’s still is and always will be primarily played by upper middle class whites. Colleges are just noticing it more and using it more.

The bottom 4th of D3 could have literally anyone who wants to pay play on there team. Not sure how that’s more exclusive than a bottom 4th D3 football team that will also take literally anyone who wants to pay to play.

[River Donkey]

More exclusive? As opposed to when it was a rich white dude sport in NY/MD/NE?

There’s more teams than ever in the NCAA and while we’ve made strides it’s still is and always will be primarily played by upper middle class whites. Colleges are just noticing it more and using it more.

The bottom 4th of D3 could have literally anyone who wants to pay play on there team. Not sure how that’s more exclusive than a bottom 4th D3 football team that will also take literally anyone who wants to pay to play.

You missed my point. By more exclusive I was referring to club ball’s pay to play being extended into NCAA. And yes the bottom of D3 will basically take anyone who wants to play, but those are the teams I’m talking about, they still can’t fill the rosters because kids would rather be a scrub who never plays on a roster where Mom and Dad’s checkbook gets them on the roster then go to a building program or even worse try and save face by playing MCLA at some power 5 school. As per D3 football rosters, I can’t defend that either. Most are over 100, some with 200 plus filled with kids who have no business playing a college sport.

[justanotherperson]

MCLA is the way to go. Fun, less pressure albeit very expensive I would imagine. Lax is finite so I would think this path would be better than most D2-3 schools or riding the bench of a top program. But I do agree with much of what has been said. I can't imagine how hard it would be to recruit for a small school

*Edit: way to go for a large part of the high school athletes.

[Laxattackjack]

Not sure I am understanding the concern in roster size impacting the growth of the sport
D3 does not give athletic scholarships. 99% of teams keep the roster below 50 for travel reasons (can only fit about 54 people on a bus). How does this have anything to do with parents paying for kids to play?
D1 and D2 have the same scholarship money regardless of the roster size.

Lots of kids just want to be part of a team. An instant group of friends. Every roster has 10-15 kids that know they will never play. But enjoy the friendships.

[Bananas4Laxx]

The bottom third of D3 schools that are struggling to fill their roster is more of a coach recruiting issue. Some of these coaches have no idea what they are doing and others are way to selective when recruiting to their 2-12 program rather than contacting everyone.
If the coach works hard enough there are enough kids out there we he should be able to get 7 kids minimum per recruiting class

[VTLaxGuy]

These last two posts kind of hit at the issue of roster size in relation to growing the game.....

I guess how somebody defines "grow the game" can differ between more kids playing / having the opportunity to play vs more schools running successful lacrosse programs.

Most D3 athletic programs are all about filling beds....coaches are under pressure to fill or grow rosters and that leads to a lot of "over recruiting". A Coach will take those 7-8 kids who may never help his team, just to meet the number his admin expect him to be at....so now there's 7-8 kids on the roster at school A, who talent wise, should be playing for that 2-12 team (we'll call school C).

So when school A takes 7-8 kids who should be playing at school B or C to fill beds; school B needs to take 10-12 kids who should be playing at school C....now school C is left having to take ANYBODY who can run and hold a stick just to have enough kids on the roster to run a west genny drill at practice.

Because this is happening across the board, those running stick holders actually become a commodity among lower end schools and I think we're seeing over the years that there aren't enough of them to go around.

So in the end; better teams get larger rosters with more and more kids who may never help their team on the field = more kids on college rosters overall = Growing the game?

But bottom end programs being unable to field full rosters due to the number of kids being over-recruited and ending up on rosters above their pay grade leads to a lot of bottom end schools folding their programs and / or shutting their doors = hurting the game?

[River Donkey]

Not sure I am understanding the concern in roster size impacting the growth of the sport
D3 does not give athletic scholarships. 99% of teams keep the roster below 50 for travel reasons (can only fit about 54 people on a bus). How does this have anything to do with parents paying for kids to play?
D1 and D2 have the same scholarship money regardless of the roster size.

Lots of kids just want to be part of a team. An instant group of friends. Every roster has 10-15 kids that know they will never play. But enjoy the friendships.

Large rosters thin the candidate pool for new or small programs to fill their roster. If they don’t meet recruiting expectations the program is in danger of being dropped. Ultimately creating less opportunities to play bringing less growth. As far as full tuition kids, it’s a thing, trust me. I get the being part of the team thing but are they really contributing to the team getting better if they have no aspirations of earning playing time??
For me it’s a “everyone gets a trophy” mentality and is destroying the game in many ways. Pay to play for the right club or prep school and you too have a roster spot at the school of your choice. More exclusive.

[River Donkey]

The bottom third of D3 schools that are struggling to fill their roster is more of a coach recruiting issue. Some of these coaches have no idea what they are doing and others are way to selective when recruiting to their 2-12 program rather than contacting everyone.
If the coach works hard enough there are enough kids out there we he should be able to get 7 kids minimum per recruiting class

No argument from me on the recruiting point and putting in the work. But your 7 recruits gets you a roster of 28. Factor in player retention, injuries, class schedules etc and you will still struggle with numbers.
My whole point here is of a recruit didn’t have the option of being the 67th player on the team he wants to be a part of, maybe, just maybe the recruit may look at one of these smaller programs. And even crazier thought, maybe he starts for 4 years sets school records, gets in school HOF, gave of the program going forward. Fast forward 20 years when he returns with his son and can walk his son around the campus he helped build, how proud would that father feel. Now compare that to the kid who played at a high end D2 program, hell maybe even win a championship, but 20 years later his program no longer exists, he never saw the field so their are no records he was even on the team, just a team picture with 100 dudes and his son struggles for 20 minutes to even find his dad. How proud does that dad feel?? My point be your own man, build your own brand, actually play the game you love and create lasting memories with and lifelong friendships with the friends you made along the way building something.
Maybe it’s just me.

[River Donkey]

These last two posts kind of hit at the issue of roster size in relation to growing the game.....

I guess how somebody defines "grow the game" can differ between more kids playing / having the opportunity to play vs more schools running successful lacrosse programs.

Most D3 athletic programs are all about filling beds....coaches are under pressure to fill or grow rosters and that leads to a lot of "over recruiting". A Coach will take those 7-8 kids who may never help his team, just to meet the number his admin expect him to be at....so now there's 7-8 kids on the roster at school A, who talent wise, should be playing for that 2-12 team (we'll call school C).

So when school A takes 7-8 kids who should be playing at school B or C to fill beds; school B needs to take 10-12 kids who should be playing at school C....now school C is left having to take ANYBODY who can run and hold a stick just to have enough kids on the roster to run a west genny drill at practice.

Because this is happening across the board, those running stick holders actually become a commodity among lower end schools and I think we're seeing over the years that there aren't enough of them to go around.

So in the end; better teams get larger rosters with more and more kids who may never help their team on the field = more kids on college rosters overall = Growing the game?

But bottom end programs being unable to field full rosters due to the number of kids being over-recruited and ending up on rosters above their pay grade leads to a lot of bottom end schools folding their programs and / or shutting their doors = hurting the game?

Yes, good points. But also hurting the game in kids who have no idea that they are the player we are talking about. That kid goes to school B when he belongs at school C, eventually figures out he will never play, quits team leaves school never plays lacrosse again. When had he played at the right level maybe becomes fan for life. Moves to new area without lacrosse, starts program and grows the game. Hypothetical points obviously but something to think about.

[Old&InTheWay]

All good points. The larger roster are about $$$. I would dare say parents at these schools who are paying full boat to have their kids on these inflated roster are also having to supplement the lacrosse budgets at these schools by through fundraising the short-falls the college provides in the budget. pay to play for the rich. The school takes the $65k and then goes into the pockets of the parents again. AD's are now on the hook to parents not coaches. This opens up a can of words for coaches at these schools. The sport needs to grow but expensive club ball and travel and the disappearance of rec league will continue to keep growth at a snails pace.

[camskidamski]

Anyone think a top d3 head coach/assistant would be targeted for either of the ACC Offensive Coordinator openings? Any names to throw around…?

[River Donkey]

Anyone think a top d3 head coach/assistant would be targeted for either of the ACC Offensive Coordinator openings? Any names to throw around…?

Interesting thought… I doubt it and no names come to mind but former d3 guys do seem to be doing things in D1 coaching ranks and it’s not crazy to consider. IMO D3 coaches have to be more creative and “coach” more then the guys with D1 pedigrees.

[Laxattackjack]

Anyone think a top d3 head coach/assistant would be targeted for either of the ACC Offensive Coordinator openings? Any names to throw around…?

Hard to say. I can see mikey Thompson making the jump to D1. Not sure about any of the other top coaches.

It brings a good topic. Who are the top d3 coaches??

[wgdsr]

More exclusive? As opposed to when it was a rich white dude sport in NY/MD/NE?

There’s more teams than ever in the NCAA and while we’ve made strides it’s still is and always will be primarily played by upper middle class whites. Colleges are just noticing it more and using it more.

The bottom 4th of D3 could have literally anyone who wants to pay play on there team. Not sure how that’s more exclusive than a bottom 4th D3 football team that will also take literally anyone who wants to pay to play.

You missed my point. By more exclusive I was referring to club ball’s pay to play being extended into NCAA. And yes the bottom of D3 will basically take anyone who wants to play, but those are the teams I’m talking about, they still can’t fill the rosters because kids would rather be a scrub who never plays on a roster where Mom and Dad’s checkbook gets them on the roster then go to a building program or even worse try and save face by playing MCLA at some power 5 school. As per D3 football rosters, I can’t defend that either. Most are over 100, some with 200 plus filled with kids who have no business playing a college sport.

wow. u want kids to go to a school that they don't want to go to because they should help build a program?
someone wants to put them on a football roster. both sides agree to the transaction. to me, sounds like they belong on the roster. the guys that play at mcla schools do it because they love playing. not because they're saving face anywhere.