Johns Hopkins 2020

[runrussellrun]

I don't think the moderation of this site is likely to be the same as LP.
Topics are going to be much more openly discussed, opinions stated, with less concern about protecting certain coaches from critique (and not others).

It's a discussion forum, not a journalistic endeavor.
I think that's a good thing, however we need to be mindful that what is put forward by anonymous posters may or not have credibility.

MD, you're spot on. There's a limit to how far a post-er can go with innuendo and otherwise and... I don't feel comfortable deleting a post-ers opinion about why a coach was fired. Even if it is seemingly unsubstantiated. It's the nature of a forum. Just one man's opinion. Taken out of context, the post is awful. But within a thread, especially a thread where others are refuting the claim, I think it's appropriate to leave it and, in the name of facilitating discussions, discussions being the heart of a forum, inappropriate to delete it.

certainly i can do a better job of inserting the unwritten "in my opinion" to user's posts as i read them. even when on multiple occasions it doesn't read that way, but rather some sort of factual conclusion. even when those facts are wrong. and verifiably wrong.
in this instance, my preference is to not have to go into a reason, several or however many explanations -- as it is about the most sensitive topic possible. having it argued and posted again and again (which i typically try to leave alone until it looks like the assertions will just keep coming) isn't desirable.
so yeah. it is awful. imo. not taken out of any type of context.
given the above, it actually doesn't seem like there is a limit to how far a poster can go with innuendo and otherwise. your site, i guess.
so guess will have to take option #2 on the occasion.

I met wgdsr at bear week a few summers ago.....THERE.....I said it. Ask, he won't deny it. Evah since he cut past me for an easy layup. (I was the guy that nevah happened too) I used the truth, recalling this story at my Cousin's P'town condo to watch the sun set., anyway, I hadn't slept, much, saw the Dead the nite before, actually the day OF ...the game. Concert in Hampton, game in Charlottsville. So, with maybe a half an hour pregame nap, merry pranksters having their way with me.....yeah, you're not getting my A defensive game.......but, anyway, the KEY to this sad, but TRUE story....is after wgdsr scored, he ran up, kinda of gently, you know, but "slapped" me, smiled, and said, "heard you stayed well past the encore".

Oh....we laughed and laughed and laughed. THan, watched the MOON rise......if you know what I mean

the sad part is it took so many years, decades really, to find each other again.

I DID see Jerry reffing the game, I kid you not

[AreaLax]

2020 schedule

[MDlaxfan76]

I don't think the moderation of this site is likely to be the same as LP.
Topics are going to be much more openly discussed, opinions stated, with less concern about protecting certain coaches from critique (and not others).

It's a discussion forum, not a journalistic endeavor.
I think that's a good thing, however we need to be mindful that what is put forward by anonymous posters may or not have credibility.

MD, you're spot on. There's a limit to how far a post-er can go with innuendo and otherwise and... I don't feel comfortable deleting a post-ers opinion about why a coach was fired. Even if it is seemingly unsubstantiated. It's the nature of a forum. Just one man's opinion. Taken out of context, the post is awful. But within a thread, especially a thread where others are refuting the claim, I think it's appropriate to leave it and, in the name of facilitating discussions, discussions being the heart of a forum, inappropriate to delete it.

certainly i can do a better job of inserting the unwritten "in my opinion" to user's posts as i read them. even when on multiple occasions it doesn't read that way, but rather some sort of factual conclusion. even when those facts are wrong. and verifiably wrong.
in this instance, my preference is to not have to go into a reason, several or however many explanations -- as it is about the most sensitive topic possible. having it argued and posted again and again (which i typically try to leave alone until it looks like the assertions will just keep coming) isn't desirable.
so yeah. it is awful. imo. not taken out of any type of context.
given the above, it actually doesn't seem like there is a limit to how far a poster can go with innuendo and otherwise. your site, i guess.
so guess will have to take option #2 on the occasion.

Your recent response just above was indeed more helpful as an explanation of your disagreement. That said, I'm not sure your response entirely refutes the assertion that litigation may have played a role in Dom's extended tenure (though I agree with you that it was limited or, as you suggest strongly, no importance to the decision process). There's indeed been an ongoing question of liability and, whether we like it or not, this overlaps with the decisions made by University personnel in a position to have made a difference. But I quite agree that other factors were the tipping point factors to the ultimate decision made to change the coaching, not a lawsuit.

IMO, this discussion is old ground, and isn't particularly relevant to the Hopkins situation and thread other than to say that the two situations are different, albeit both involving formerly highly successful, long time coaches, widely admired by many in the lacrosse community and from their prior teams.

I do get why it gets tiresome to have to grind on this sort of thing again, even more so perhaps, by those with no particular affinity for UVA, its lax program, or the people involved.

However, I'd suggest that there's a limited data set of such situations around long time coaches, so it's inevitable that they will be brought up in such context.

Frustrating as that may be, and ripe for misunderstandings.

[runrussellrun]

simple, if you don't want to talk about it. don't.

All in under almost 1000 words this time one can improve, eh dartmouth keep

[Sagittarius A*]

I don’t think it matters so much why UVA decided to make a change. What matters is that it worked out well for them.

[WOMBAT, Mod Emeritus]

I don’t think the fault lies with Petro. Circumstances and the game changed. Bill Tierney left Princeton when personnel changed outside the athletic department meant he could get the kids he wanted in, I don’t recall when performance dropped off after those changes anyone questioning his coaching ability. Danowski was at risk at Hofstra because they were unhappy with his results. He could always coach. A bunch of old grads err unhappy with Richie Meade and forced a change. That was not productive either. It seems almost like a cliche but circumstances have a lot to do wlth success. Books have been written on it.

Hopkins is not getting the best players on average any more. I think we all agree on that or at least most of us. You don’t win titles if you don’t have the athletes. There are the occasional flukes but seldom

So reasons.

Finances. The private schools without big endowments have bern unable to maintain the level of success they had in the past. I am pointing to Cuse and Hopkins. If you get a 1/4 scholarship at Hopkins your family still has to come up with 56,000 or so. Hopkins until the MB gift was short of needed financial aid and was having to take kids whose parents could afford to pay. They were losing kids they wanted. A priority was for academics over athletes. Parents of kids who went elsewhere would tell be they didn’t want to pay the difference over another school because the IRR wasn’t there anymore. Grad school has become the more important factor.

Jerry Schnydman - Jerry was for decades the Exec Asst to the President and would carry water if the staff believed a kid could make it through Hopkins. Jerry retired many years ago

The President - Bill retired many years ago. Eisenhower, Muller were all believers in the program. Other schools would roll out a coach or athlete Hopkins would roll out the President. No other school would do that and these people were impressive. Now at best they see the AD. The administration’s support that was historically there has been significantly diluted.

The spread of talent. Bob Scott told me when he was leading the charge for an NCAA tourney for lax with a few other coaches, that in time Hopkins should be competitive but would no longer dominate the sport. He also noted is the SEC and PAC jumped in everyone would be threatened.

Athletic program: Hopkins isn’t a big time athletic school. A lot of kids want the big time FB or BB experience. Hopkins doesn’t offer it.

What schools have risen to the top? Conferences with major athletic programs and the Ivies with big endowments or other advantages. State schools that can offer in state solution. Schools with large financial aid packages available also benefit.

Hopkins has a relatively smaller recruitment base than it’s competitors when you factor in finances, academic requirements, effort required to stay in school once accepted etc. Two Princeton players who became AA and will eventually be HOFers said they went to Princeton because it would be easier to stay in.

Right fit. Hopkins aside from sports is not for everyone and is right for fewer than most. It’s the nature of the school. It was founded as a research university. It’s not a place to go and figure out what you want to do next. Many of the students have already made that decision even if they ultimately change their mind. I went but sometimes wonder if it was the right decision or whether I should have gone to Princeton or West Point.

Changes in strategy by some schools. Some Ivies have told potential recruits to accept an offer from their next choice and if they get accepted through their process they can then flip.

Duke had become an established program before Danowski. He took a program that had been tarnished in the public eye and improved it. He was always a great coach but unable to keep players on LI and for that was going to be let go. He couldn’t get the players. It wasn’t that he couldn’t coach.

Corrigan wanted desperately to leave ND for years and go to VA. ND was not fully funding the program. Once they did they rose. He could always coach but without a fully funded program he wasn’t able to compete at the highest level. ND is A destination school like VA, Duke etc. great athletic tradition. Iconic

OC, very good post.

And I must say, very well typed. Are you okay?

[WOMBAT, Mod Emeritus]

100% agree. JHU wouldn't be the first premier lacrosse program to grab someone from outside the traditional channels. Especially for a sport like lacrosse, i think this would work. JHU is too inside-the-box and finding a coach using an outside-the-box method will go a long way.

Some of us are expecting a diversity hire.

Maybe someone who has bad hair and looks like a tired old lesbian.

[WOMBAT, Mod Emeritus]

I don't think the moderation of this site is likely to be the same as LP.
Topics are going to be much more openly discussed, opinions stated, with less concern about protecting certain coaches from critique (and not others).

It's a discussion forum, not a journalistic endeavor.
I think that's a good thing, however we need to be mindful that what is put forward by anonymous posters may or not have credibility.

MD, you're spot on. There's a limit to how far a post-er can go with innuendo and otherwise and... I don't feel comfortable deleting a post-ers opinion about why a coach was fired. Even if it is seemingly unsubstantiated. It's the nature of a forum. Just one man's opinion. Taken out of context, the post is awful. But within a thread, especially a thread where others are refuting the claim, I think it's appropriate to leave it and, in the name of facilitating discussions, discussions being the heart of a forum, inappropriate to delete it.

certainly i can do a better job of inserting the unwritten "in my opinion" to user's posts as i read them. even when on multiple occasions it doesn't read that way, but rather some sort of factual conclusion. even when those facts are wrong. and verifiably wrong.
in this instance, my preference is to not have to go into a reason, several or however many explanations -- as it is about the most sensitive topic possible. having it argued and posted again and again (which i typically try to leave alone until it looks like the assertions will just keep coming) isn't desirable.
so yeah. it is awful. imo. not taken out of any type of context.
given the above, it actually doesn't seem like there is a limit to how far a poster can go with innuendo and otherwise. your site, i guess.
so guess will have to take option #2 on the occasion.

Your recent response just above was indeed more helpful as an explanation of your disagreement. That said, I'm not sure your response entirely refutes the assertion that litigation may have played a role in Dom's extended tenure (though I agree with you that it was limited or, as you suggest strongly, no importance to the decision process). There's indeed been an ongoing question of liability and, whether we like it or not, this overlaps with the decisions made by University personnel in a position to have made a difference. But I quite agree that other factors were the tipping point factors to the ultimate decision made to change the coaching, not a lawsuit.

IMO, this discussion is old ground, and isn't particularly relevant to the Hopkins situation and thread other than to say that the two situations are different, albeit both involving formerly highly successful, long time coaches, widely admired by many in the lacrosse community and from their prior teams.

I do get why it gets tiresome to have to grind on this sort of thing again, even more so perhaps, by those with no particular affinity for UVA, its lax program, or the people involved.

However, I'd suggest that there's a limited data set of such situations around long time coaches, so it's inevitable that they will be brought up in such context.

Frustrating as that may be, and ripe for misunderstandings.

What would be far better than trying to have posts deleted, playing ostrich and hoping the stench will go away would be to own it, discuss it openly, and put truth to it.

I’m sure Craig Littlepage’s bumbling around is part of the story too.

It’s a complex, multifaceted case down there, and the important thing is to learn as many lessons from it as possible, NOT bury the story because people get butthurt on message boards.

So, ideally, since wgdsr objected, the best approach would be for him to tell us all what he thinks went down. Set the record straight from his view instead of trying to squelch discussion.

[flalax22]

100% agree. JHU wouldn't be the first premier lacrosse program to grab someone from outside the traditional channels. Especially for a sport like lacrosse, i think this would work. JHU is too inside-the-box and finding a coach using an outside-the-box method will go a long way.

Some of us are expecting a diversity hire.

Maybe someone who has bad hair and looks like a tired old lesbian.

Lars already has a job.

[stupefied]

I don't think the moderation of this site is likely to be the same as LP.
Topics are going to be much more openly discussed, opinions stated, with less concern about protecting certain coaches from critique (and not others).

It's a discussion forum, not a journalistic endeavor.
I think that's a good thing, however we need to be mindful that what is put forward by anonymous posters may or not have credibility.

MD, you're spot on. There's a limit to how far a post-er can go with innuendo and otherwise and... I don't feel comfortable deleting a post-ers opinion about why a coach was fired. Even if it is seemingly unsubstantiated. It's the nature of a forum. Just one man's opinion. Taken out of context, the post is awful. But within a thread, especially a thread where others are refuting the claim, I think it's appropriate to leave it and, in the name of facilitating discussions, discussions being the heart of a forum, inappropriate to delete it.

certainly i can do a better job of inserting the unwritten "in my opinion" to user's posts as i read them. even when on multiple occasions it doesn't read that way, but rather some sort of factual conclusion. even when those facts are wrong. and verifiably wrong.
in this instance, my preference is to not have to go into a reason, several or however many explanations -- as it is about the most sensitive topic possible. having it argued and posted again and again (which i typically try to leave alone until it looks like the assertions will just keep coming) isn't desirable.
so yeah. it is awful. imo. not taken out of any type of context.
given the above, it actually doesn't seem like there is a limit to how far a poster can go with innuendo and otherwise. your site, i guess.
so guess will have to take option #2 on the occasion.

Your recent response just above was indeed more helpful as an explanation of your disagreement. That said, I'm not sure your response entirely refutes the assertion that litigation may have played a role in Dom's extended tenure (though I agree with you that it was limited or, as you suggest strongly, no importance to the decision process). There's indeed been an ongoing question of liability and, whether we like it or not, this overlaps with the decisions made by University personnel in a position to have made a difference. But I quite agree that other factors were the tipping point factors to the ultimate decision made to change the coaching, not a lawsuit.

IMO, this discussion is old ground, and isn't particularly relevant to the Hopkins situation and thread other than to say that the two situations are different, albeit both involving formerly highly successful, long time coaches, widely admired by many in the lacrosse community and from their prior teams.

I do get why it gets tiresome to have to grind on this sort of thing again, even more so perhaps, by those with no particular affinity for UVA, its lax program, or the people involved.

However, I'd suggest that there's a limited data set of such situations around long time coaches, so it's inevitable that they will be brought up in such context.

Frustrating as that may be, and ripe for misunderstandings.

What would be far better than trying to have posts deleted, playing ostrich and hoping the stench will go away would be to own it, discuss it openly, and put truth to it.

I’m sure Craig Littlepage’s bumbling around is part of the story too.

It’s a complex, multifaceted case down there, and the important thing is to learn as many lessons from it as possible, NOT bury the story because people get butthurt on message boards.

So, ideally, since wgdsr objected, the best approach would be for him to tell us all what he thinks went down. Set the record straight from his view instead of trying to squelch discussion.

Agreed

[MDlaxfan76]

simple, if you don't want to talk about it. don't.

All in under almost 1000 words this time one can improve, eh dartmouth keep

I'd also applaud a remarkable degree of cogency in your post, fatty.
Perhaps because you stayed on topic?

Wish you bothered with grammar and punctuation too, as that would make it even easier to understand your points. Unfortunately, that may be a bridge too far.

Ahh well.

[MDlaxfan76]

I don’t think it matters so much why UVA decided to make a change. What matters is that it worked out well for them.

Whereas Navy's appears to be a case that other frictions to greater success may overwhelm a fresh start.

Of course, as my fellow math nerds (surely some of you Hopkins alums) would point out, this is a tiny data set with all sorts of complicating factors, so of no real use in drawing conclusions other than Sagittarius' point that a change CAN work out well.

[stupefied]

I don’t think it matters so much why UVA decided to make a change. What matters is that it worked out well for them.

Whereas Navy's appears to be a case that other frictions to greater success may overwhelm a fresh start.

Of course, as my fellow math nerds (surely some of you Hopkins alums) would point out, this is a tiny data set with all sorts of complicating factors, so of no real use in drawing conclusions other than Sagittarius' point that a change CAN work out well.

Tiffany implemented an exciting style of play to UVA but he also came in inheriting many top talents that Starsia had recruited that led that team to victory. In fairness to Lars , cant do any better than winning it all. He had his talent realize their potential and his recruiting classes at UVA are strong giving that program strong footings

[wgdsr]

What would be far better than trying to have posts deleted, playing ostrich and hoping the stench will go away would be to own it, discuss it openly, and put truth to it.

I’m sure Craig Littlepage’s bumbling around is part of the story too.

It’s a complex, multifaceted case down there, and the important thing is to learn as many lessons from it as possible, NOT bury the story because people get butthurt on message boards.

So, ideally, since wgdsr objected, the best approach would be for him to tell us all what he thinks went down. Set the record straight from his view instead of trying to squelch discussion.

another poster typically like to hear from. then when you get the opportunity to smell chum in the water your preference is to throw out b.s. like it's your god given right.
i think i was pretty clear that if you're just going to out and out lie or put out defamatory garbage, that's what i have a problem with. and why.

aren't you the guy who has multiple times, if not many, tossed out that starsia is responsible for the tragic death of will barrow? oh yeah, you are. own it, you say? so you can just **** off with your sanctimonious post here.

[wgdsr]

What would be far better than trying to have posts deleted, playing ostrich and hoping the stench will go away would be to own it, discuss it openly, and put truth to it.

I’m sure Craig Littlepage’s bumbling around is part of the story too.

It’s a complex, multifaceted case down there, and the important thing is to learn as many lessons from it as possible, NOT bury the story because people get butthurt on message boards.

So, ideally, since wgdsr objected, the best approach would be for him to tell us all what he thinks went down. Set the record straight from his view instead of trying to squelch discussion.

Agreed

stupified, are you aware that once the conversation, most often inaccurate, gets going on here, guys like wombat graduate to things like putting the suicide of will barrow on starsia's head? just one example.
if not, that may inform your opinion. pretty tasteful, huh? yay, lacrosse discussion.

[MDlaxfan76]

I don’t think it matters so much why UVA decided to make a change. What matters is that it worked out well for them.

Whereas Navy's appears to be a case that other frictions to greater success may overwhelm a fresh start.

Of course, as my fellow math nerds (surely some of you Hopkins alums) would point out, this is a tiny data set with all sorts of complicating factors, so of no real use in drawing conclusions other than Sagittarius' point that a change CAN work out well.

Tiffany implemented an exciting style of play to UVA but he also came in inheriting many top talents that Starsia had recruited that led that team to victory. In fairness to Lars , cant do any better than winning it all. He had his talent realize their potential and his recruiting classes at UVA are strong giving that program strong footings

Quite agree as to talent (albeit not 100%); "strong footings" is correct, Ryan Conrad perhaps being the preeminent example...however, let's ask the question as to whether we believe that same overall set of talent would have done as well without 3 years of development with the new coaching regime?

UVA is a strong destination school with a rich lax history. They have and will attract their share of top talent.
I'd say the same for Hopkins, though even more storied history.
Lots of differences, but both schools should be able to attract excellent lax talent.

However, if you are a confident, high motor athlete looking at schools right now, UVA certainly would be a darn exciting choice, right?

I suggested as much when Lars was in his first year and there was all sorts of gnashing of teeth by many of the UVA faithful that the 'system' was not sufficiently 'discipled' ala UMD and that there were glaring issues with defense and goaltending...I suggested that such would take time, not be an overnight process. I argued that aggressive, athletic defenders would love the green light to press pace both defensively and then getting the ball down the field attacking. I even argued that goalies could be attracted to the high pace of play, albeit it requires a certain attitude that not all tenders possess.

For offensive guys, the high pace and near constant green light is super attractive. And for midfielders it means a lot of guys are needed to go full speed.

The other aspect of the change was that there was a clear signal of various sorts of 'culture' change that likely make a positive difference in how families perceive UVA. Perception matters.

And now they have momentum.

The question may be for Hopkins whether there's another way for Petro to create that momentum with his squad over the next short period?

[HopFan16]

So anyway I hope Evan Zinn has a big year

[Matnum PI]

Agreed. And it's not the team with the best players that has the most success. It's the team that comes together the best. If it was otherwise, UNC would have won the National C'ship umpteen times in the past 10-15 years. But, instead, they had some awful season. (Used to drive me crazy to see great HS talent go to UNC to grossly under-perform.) And... I think UVA did a great job of coming together as a team last season. Or, said more accurately, over the past few seasons. And Tiffany had no small role in this. Though, I think few would argue that Conrad had no small role either. Maybe Epstein is that Conrad...

[stupefied]

What would be far better than trying to have posts deleted, playing ostrich and hoping the stench will go away would be to own it, discuss it openly, and put truth to it.

I’m sure Craig Littlepage’s bumbling around is part of the story too.

It’s a complex, multifaceted case down there, and the important thing is to learn as many lessons from it as possible, NOT bury the story because people get butthurt on message boards.

So, ideally, since wgdsr objected, the best approach would be for him to tell us all what he thinks went down. Set the record straight from his view instead of trying to squelch discussion.

Agreed

stupified, are you aware that once the conversation, most often inaccurate, gets going on here, guys like wombat graduate to things like putting the suicide of will barrow on starsia's head? just one example.
if not, that may inform your opinion. pretty tasteful, huh? yay, lacrosse discussion.

Fair enough. Thought the hazy drips and drabs were being purposely thrown back and forth between a few on a tragedy where maybe all would move on after clarifying views. Ive read on that sad story but understand how others have not.

As far as Barrow, he was a fantastic ssdm . These sad happenings are always disturbing and happen way too often today.

Respect your take and will not add further to these discussions

[MDlaxfan76]

Agreed. And it's not the team with the best players that has the most success. It's the team that comes together the best. If it was otherwise, UNC would have won the National C'ship umpteen times in the past 10-15 years. But, instead, they had some awful season. (Used to drive me crazy to see great HS talent go to UNC to grossly under-perform.) And... I think UVA did a great job of coming together as a team last season. Or, said more accurately, over the past few seasons. And Tiffany had no small role in this. Though, I think few would argue that Conrad had no small role either. Maybe Epstein is that Conrad...

Yup, Conrad was special...leadership from major impact players willing to sacrifice their own role to optimize the team makes a huge difference to team culture, which matters immensely down the stretch.

On the UNC comment, I'm pleased to say that my son's very good buddy Jake Matthai, was a captain of the team that did win it. Similar willingness to do what was best for the team. https://www.newsobserver.com/sports/col ... 79587.html