Tweak the College Rules

[ABV 8.3%]

Question: What would happen if, for example, Sun's Buttermore never played club ball. Just HS ball during the Spring? Then he gets into SU by his own merit and tells desko he'd like to try-out for the team. What would happen?

The math on scholarships vs club and travel costs does not add up, unless of course the kid is given a "scholarship" at the club, but even then there is travel. By my math it looks like this:

Club Fees: $3,000 per summer, plus an other $2,000 in the fall for a total of $5,000 per year Who is charging that?
Travel (7 events a year you fly to at $500 each, plus 6 events a year you drive to at $200) = $4,700 per year. 13 events seems high
Hotels: (13 x $100) = $1,300 You sharing a room , or getting two rooms. This number is LOW, way low.
Miscellaneous travel expenses and extra wear and tear on equipment - call it another $1,000 per year. 26-30 nights of meals, cigars and alcohol. Again, this number is low. Spent that on coaches drink tab in one weekend

If you want to make the good travel teams when you are a freshman and sophomore (the new key recruiting window) you have to get involved in a program by 7th grade - or be a total stud in which case you will be found anyway - so you will be paying up for 5 years.

5 x $12,000 = $60,000.

Depending on where you go to school the value of the scholarship varies, but let's use Cuse where tuition is $52,000 per year.

Here are my assumptions:
50 man roster, but somewhere around 10 are paying full boat, so
40 kids with some scholarship
12.6/40 = 0.32 scholarships per player
$52,000 * 0.32 = $16,380
$16,380 x 4 = $65,520
$65,520-$60,000 = $5,520 potential benefit - IF you get the nod and an "average" scholarship.

Now a few comments:
- the scholarships are not divided up evenly. A handful of kids get a LOT of help and many get what amounts to book money. The kids who get more tend to be studs who also have financial need. When that is the case, at many schools, you have a better chance of getting more help via need based aid than athletic scholarships.
- the kids who are good enough to get the disproportionate amount of athletic scholarships are good enough to get it whether they play club or not.

In summary, there is a lot to be said for spending more time with the books. Getting accepted into the school of your choice and getting yourself into a position to be an invited walk-on.

The best rationale for getting on the recruiting treadmill that I have heard is that the parents can afford it, and that $60k is being spent to help little johnny get into a better school than he otherwise would. $60k pays for a LOT of tutoring..... I am just saying....

This post should be made public for social media. I bet a lot of the parents have no idea of how the numbers break down. Thank you for taking the time to post this.

While $60k won't go far on Martha's Vineyard, four summers at $15,000 gets you some decent 3-4 week rentals at Brigatine, Wildwood, Dewey or the Outer Banks. Lake Placid should be THE destination of choice, but we know what your coach is doing that week, so best leave it alone.

[ABV 8.3%]

Tried to eliminate the moto grip in 2012 but the NCAA backtracked on its decision


“Many of our coaches voiced concern that removing this grip would basically eliminate some student-athletes from the game,” Hind, athletic director at Hamilton, said in a press release. “Ultimately, we are trying to have fair faceoffs, and with the point of emphasis, we think that will help. This is an example of the rules process working, and we appreciate the membership feedback.”

Penalites were released when the defense advanced the ball to the offensive zone circa mid 1990's the rule was rescinded after a few years.
Can't remember exactly why, but changing back to the current rule made sense at the time.

I've said it before. The issue is the grip.

I remember that quote from the release all those years ago.

And it's complete BS.

As someone that has faced off and taught both styles of faceoff for 20+ years I can attest. If a Fogo can't learn the other grip, he's not a Fogo.

IMO, that comment was part and parcel of the recruiting bs that was going on- Most likely a coach or two that recruited a top moto-grip kid pushed back for fear of losing a known asset. The kids habe and will adapt and learn a new style and the pecking order of recruits might change a bit, but Kids wont be pushed from the game. That's ridiculous.

Still concern? Just phase in the change. Let the college kids keep moto for 2 more years and require the rec and h./s to move to O/U now. Problem solved.

Leave the FO alone. Remember, 75% of the top 20 FOGO's played for teams that did not make the tournament this year. UVA seemed fine without dominance.

[smoova]

Tried to eliminate the moto grip in 2012 but the NCAA backtracked on its decision


“Many of our coaches voiced concern that removing this grip would basically eliminate some student-athletes from the game,” Hind, athletic director at Hamilton, said in a press release. “Ultimately, we are trying to have fair faceoffs, and with the point of emphasis, we think that will help. This is an example of the rules process working, and we appreciate the membership feedback.”

Penalites were released when the defense advanced the ball to the offensive zone circa mid 1990's the rule was rescinded after a few years.
Can't remember exactly why, but changing back to the current rule made sense at the time.

I've said it before. The issue is the grip.

I remember that quote from the release all those years ago.

And it's complete BS.

As someone that has faced off and taught both styles of faceoff for 20+ years I can attest. If a Fogo can't learn the other grip, he's not a Fogo.

IMO, that comment was part and parcel of the recruiting bs that was going on- Most likely a coach or two that recruited a top moto-grip kid pushed back for fear of losing a known asset. The kids habe and will adapt and learn a new style and the pecking order of recruits might change a bit, but Kids wont be pushed from the game. That's ridiculous.

Still concern? Just phase in the change. Let the college kids keep moto for 2 more years and require the rec and h./s to move to O/U now. Problem solved.

Leave the FO alone. Remember, 75% of the top 20 FOGO's played for teams that did not make the tournament this year. UVA seemed fine without dominance.

I'm not sure everyone is advocating for changes as the result of the "dominance" of any particular player or players. Rather, there is a general objection to a player who is on the field for less than 20 seconds at a time, attempts to perform a specific task and is then removed regardless of success or failure. This consistently short-term, single task-specific role seems incongruous in a sport where every other player is on the field for a much longer period and is asked to perform myriad different tasks during that time.

[wgdsr]

relievers, pinch hitters, pinch runners, designated hitters, defensive outfield replacements, punters, kickers, longsnappers, other special teams guys, 3rd down backs, 3rd down rushers, dime backs, hockey enforcers, lax man down defenseman, man up specialist. we employ a clearing middie for a close d.

i'm missing some.

[smoova]

relievers, pinch hitters, pinch runners, designated hitters, defensive outfield replacements, punters, kickers, longsnappers, other special teams guys, 3rd down backs, 3rd down rushers, dime backs, hockey enforcers, lax man down defenseman, man up specialist. we employ a clearing middie for a close d.

i'm missing some.

I am discussing lacrosse, so I'll ignore the football/hockey/baseball references. I've only been around this sport for a few decades, and haven't seen everything, but I'm not familiar with any players who only come onto the field (i) to clear the ball, (ii) to play man down or (iii) to play man up. If they do actually exist, which is possible, there certainly aren't several of them on every team.

[wgdsr]

well, they do exist.
and now the rule would be you could only have one of them? because they're specialists?

maybe you have said this also, but i think the 2 things to ask to address it, if you want to address it, are:
1) is the FO the best way to handle post goal?
2) are the rules set best if yay?

i've asked before... whatever you don't like about the FO, what doesn't get fixed by moving the wings in 5 yards?

[Can Opener]

Tried to eliminate the moto grip in 2012 but the NCAA backtracked on its decision


“Many of our coaches voiced concern that removing this grip would basically eliminate some student-athletes from the game,” Hind, athletic director at Hamilton, said in a press release. “Ultimately, we are trying to have fair faceoffs, and with the point of emphasis, we think that will help. This is an example of the rules process working, and we appreciate the membership feedback.”

Penalites were released when the defense advanced the ball to the offensive zone circa mid 1990's the rule was rescinded after a few years.
Can't remember exactly why, but changing back to the current rule made sense at the time.

I've said it before. The issue is the grip.

I remember that quote from the release all those years ago.

And it's complete BS.

As someone that has faced off and taught both styles of faceoff for 20+ years I can attest. If a Fogo can't learn the other grip, he's not a Fogo.

IMO, that comment was part and parcel of the recruiting bs that was going on- Most likely a coach or two that recruited a top moto-grip kid pushed back for fear of losing a known asset. The kids habe and will adapt and learn a new style and the pecking order of recruits might change a bit, but Kids wont be pushed from the game. That's ridiculous.

Still concern? Just phase in the change. Let the college kids keep moto for 2 more years and require the rec and h./s to move to O/U now. Problem solved.

Leave the FO alone. Remember, 75% of the top 20 FOGO's played for teams that did not make the tournament this year. UVA seemed fine without dominance.

I'm not sure everyone is advocating for changes as the result of the "dominance" of any particular player or players. Rather, there is a general objection to a player who is on the field for less than 20 seconds at a time, attempts to perform a specific task and is then removed regardless of success or failure. This consistently short-term, single task-specific role seems incongruous in a sport where every other player is on the field for a much longer period and is asked to perform myriad different tasks during that time.

I don't think we should recommend rules changes because something "seems incongruous." You may have another reason in mind, but that's not a compelling one. I also don't think your math supports your point. Twenty seconds X 25 face offs = 8.3 minutes per game or more than half a quarter. Most of that time is spent in pretty intense one-on-one battles either at the X, leading/defending a fast break, scrapping for GBs or trying to get free in space. FOs are a cool little quirk to the game. Why mess? At worst it's a victimless crime.

[NElaxtalent]

[

I'm not sure everyone is advocating for changes as the result of the "dominance" of any particular player or players. Rather, there is a general objection to a player who is on the field for less than 20 seconds at a time, attempts to perform a specific task and is then removed regardless of success or failure. This consistently short-term, single task-specific role seems incongruous in a sport where every other player is on the field for a much longer period and is asked to perform myriad different tasks during that time.

Exactly. And often that part-time (less that 5% of the game) player is literally the MOST IMPORTANT factor in who wins a TEAM game.

As a frame of reference, in 53 years, there has only been ONE Super Bowl MVP won by a special teams player (Desmond Howard in 1997).In lacrosse since the moto-grip, the FO dominance has had far more impact.

[pcowlax]

[

I'm not sure everyone is advocating for changes as the result of the "dominance" of any particular player or players. Rather, there is a general objection to a player who is on the field for less than 20 seconds at a time, attempts to perform a specific task and is then removed regardless of success or failure. This consistently short-term, single task-specific role seems incongruous in a sport where every other player is on the field for a much longer period and is asked to perform myriad different tasks during that time.

Exactly. And often that part-time (less that 5% of the game) player is literally the MOST IMPORTANT factor in who wins a TEAM game.

As a frame of reference, in 53 years, there has only been ONE Super Bowl MVP won by a special teams player (Desmond Howard in 1997).In lacrosse since the moto-grip, the FO dominance has had far more impact.

No, really not that often. I’ll say it again, put aside Baptiste and Ierlan, other than Smith from Delaware a few years ago, there really aren’t that many FOGOs who are the MOST IMPORTANT factor in who wins a game, there just aren’t. Is it better to have more possession? Sure! Is it better to have a top flight goalie? Sure. The correlation between f/o win % and team win/loss record is much less than you think.

[DMac]

FOGOs being the MOST IMPORTANT factor in who wins a team game is a lot of nonsense.
Between these two generational FOGOs (Baptise and Ierlan) how many national titles do they have? Should be seven by the "FOGOs are the MOST IMPORTANT factor in who wins a team game" mentality, no?
Cuse doesn't win the '09 NC game cuz they didn't win the face off in OT...oh wait.
Loyola never wins the '12 title cuz they can't win a face off...oh wait.

[smoova]

well, they do exist.
and now the rule would be you could only have one of them? because they're specialists?

I'm curious whether you have any examples from the last 5 years of a college player who played only man-up or man-down. Regardless, I don't think it is necessary to design a rule for an extreme exception.

Are you aware of any FOGO within the last 5 years who was regularly substituted onto the field at any time other than prior to a faceoff?

maybe you have said this also, but i think the 2 things to ask to address it, if you want to address it, are:
1) is the FO the best way to handle post goal?
2) are the rules set best if yay?

i've asked before... whatever you don't like about the FO, what doesn't get fixed by moving the wings in 5 yards?

1) Yes
2) No - we still have a player, who is on the field for less than 20 seconds at a time, attempts to perform a specific task and is then removed regardless of success or failure

Moving the wings in 5 yards does not address my concern. Limiting substitutions following a faceoff would.

[smoova]

Tried to eliminate the moto grip in 2012 but the NCAA backtracked on its decision


“Many of our coaches voiced concern that removing this grip would basically eliminate some student-athletes from the game,” Hind, athletic director at Hamilton, said in a press release. “Ultimately, we are trying to have fair faceoffs, and with the point of emphasis, we think that will help. This is an example of the rules process working, and we appreciate the membership feedback.”

Penalites were released when the defense advanced the ball to the offensive zone circa mid 1990's the rule was rescinded after a few years.
Can't remember exactly why, but changing back to the current rule made sense at the time.

I've said it before. The issue is the grip.

I remember that quote from the release all those years ago.

And it's complete BS.

As someone that has faced off and taught both styles of faceoff for 20+ years I can attest. If a Fogo can't learn the other grip, he's not a Fogo.

IMO, that comment was part and parcel of the recruiting bs that was going on- Most likely a coach or two that recruited a top moto-grip kid pushed back for fear of losing a known asset. The kids habe and will adapt and learn a new style and the pecking order of recruits might change a bit, but Kids wont be pushed from the game. That's ridiculous.

Still concern? Just phase in the change. Let the college kids keep moto for 2 more years and require the rec and h./s to move to O/U now. Problem solved.

Leave the FO alone. Remember, 75% of the top 20 FOGO's played for teams that did not make the tournament this year. UVA seemed fine without dominance.

I'm not sure everyone is advocating for changes as the result of the "dominance" of any particular player or players. Rather, there is a general objection to a player who is on the field for less than 20 seconds at a time, attempts to perform a specific task and is then removed regardless of success or failure. This consistently short-term, single task-specific role seems incongruous in a sport where every other player is on the field for a much longer period and is asked to perform myriad different tasks during that time.

I don't think we should recommend rules changes because something "seems incongruous." You may have another reason in mind, but that's not a compelling one. I also don't think your math supports your point. Twenty seconds X 25 face offs = 8.3 minutes per game or more than half a quarter. Most of that time is spent in pretty intense one-on-one battles either at the X, leading/defending a fast break, scrapping for GBs or trying to get free in space. FOs are a cool little quirk to the game. Why mess? At worst it's a victimless crime.

8 drastically fragmented minutes of playing time each and every game? Hooray! Don't let this news get out or every youth parent will want their kid to play FOGO and nothing else!

I want to be very clear: I want to keep the FO in the game. I'd just like to force coaches to wait a little longer before they make make the FOGO GO ... so they actually play a little lacrosse too. (And, no, none of my kids are FOGOs.)

[Can Opener]

At the risk of stirring some boring facts into the opinion stew, I'll repeat my earlier post. Compare the stats for the best FO specialists in the country (https://www.ncaa.com/stats/lacrosse-men ... vidual/410) with the final media rankings (https://www.insidelacrosse.com/league/di/polls/19). There is only one top-10 FOGO among the top 10 teams in the NCAA. The national champion's FO specialist was ranked #19. If the goal of face-off rule changes is to bring the best guys to about a 60% win rate, we are basically already there among the major conferences except for TD.

As for this "less than 5% of the game" stat, 20 second FO appearances equate to 8.3 minutes or about 14% of a game. It doesn't make sense to argue that FOs involve long boring wrestling matches, but that they are somehow over so quickly that they take up less than 3 minutes per game. Folks are entitled to their own set of opinions, but not their own set of facts.

[whaley]

wgsdr asked if the FO is the best way to handle post goal. I think that's the fundamental question. Lax is unusual in that it uses a test of skill to determine possession post goal. As has been mentioned before, basketball stareted out the same way (jump balls after each basket) but abandoned the practice as scoring increased. I can imagine the same arguments taking place then in basketball as we see here wrt lax. (why should one really tall guy who only comes in for the jump ball make such a difference?)

I argue that a test of skill after post goal is unnecessary (even though Lax has been doing it forever and eliminating it, therefore, would be a change). But a change for the worse or better? Would the game of basketball be better with jump balls after each basket? Would lax be worse if we just gave the ball to the team scored upon?

If the sport insists on using a test of skill post goal, then it seems that test ought to be a good test of which team is better...that's the other displeasure with the current FO...it is not a very good test of which team is better. Perhaps back when scraps for ground balls were more common, it was a better test of which team is better...but now it is not....what happens during the FO bears liltte resemblance to what happens during field play.

[runrussellrun]

At the risk of stirring some boring facts into the opinion stew, I'll repeat my earlier post. Compare the stats for the best FO specialists in the country (https://www.ncaa.com/stats/lacrosse-men ... vidual/410) with the final media rankings (https://www.insidelacrosse.com/league/di/polls/19). There is only one top-10 FOGO among the top 10 teams in the NCAA. The national champion's FO specialist was ranked #19. If the goal of face-off rule changes is to bring the best guys to about a 60% win rate, we are basically already there among the major conferences except for TD.

As for this "less than 5% of the game" stat, 20 second FO appearances equate to 8.3 minutes or about 14% of a game. It doesn't make sense to argue that FOs involve long boring wrestling matches, but that they are somehow over so quickly that they take up less than 3 minutes per game. Folks are entitled to their own set of opinions, but not their own set of facts.

Similar stats/facts have been posted weeks ago.

I say put in hecter the rejectors, replacing the goalies. Think of the the children The concussions that you will save. Better yet, use peach baskets mounted 30 feet in the air for goals. That way, all the Hopkins engineering majors can play, b/c only they will know the trajectory

[SCLaxAttack]

Do you enjoy fast break goals? From where do you think most fast break goals emanate? How about when a long stick scores on an overhand bounce shot starting 10 feet off the ground? How about the excitement that comes from the ability for a team to score three or four goals in a minute or two, thereby changing the entire complexion of a game?

Remove face offs to go to a basketball style change possession behind the end line and you minimize those exciting parts of the game, if not exterminate them.

[smoova]

Do you enjoy fast break goals? From where do you think most fast break goals emanate? How about when a long stick scores on an overhand bounce shot starting 10 feet off the ground?

IME, the vast majority of fast breaks and long stick goals follow saves and/or offensive turnovers followed by long outlet passes.

How about the excitement that comes from the ability for a team to score three or four goals in a minute or two, thereby changing the entire complexion of a game?

This is a more appropriate rationale for keeping FOs in the game, which I want.

[NElaxtalent]

wgsdr asked if the FO is the best way to handle post goal. I think that's the fundamental question. Lax is unusual in that it uses a test of skill to determine possession post goal. As has been mentioned before, basketball stareted out the same way (jump balls after each basket) but abandoned the practice as scoring increased. I can imagine the same arguments taking place then in basketball as we see here wrt lax. (why should one really tall guy who only comes in for the jump ball make such a difference?)

I argue that a test of skill after post goal is unnecessary (even though Lax has been doing it forever and eliminating it, therefore, would be a change). But a change for the worse or better? Would the game of basketball be better with jump balls after each basket? Would lax be worse if we just gave the ball to the team scored upon?

If the sport insists on using a test of skill post goal, then it seems that test ought to be a good test of which team is better...that's the other displeasure with the current FO...it is not a very good test of which team is better. Perhaps back when scraps for ground balls were more common, it was a better test of which team is better...but now it is not....what happens during the FO bears liltte resemblance to what happens during field play.

Very nicely stated.

I'm actually neutral on whether the FO remains or not ... so long that it is a team-earned possession (since this IS a team sport). If the FO rules can't be tweaked to a team-based outcome determining possession, then I'd follow basketball's lead and give possession to the team scored upon (which would REALLY speed up pace of play & favor 2 way players & transition). Just sayin'

[Cheeseandcrackers]

To me keeping or getting rid of the FO really depends on what you want for the game. If you want the game to appeal to the mass audience, I don't think stopping the game after each of 20+ goals, followed by a significant stoppage while the ball is brought back to the X and each team substitutes players, followed by a 2-man wrestling match that can last up to 30 seconds or more is going to get you there. Everybody on here played the game or is/was very close to the game and has a romanticized view of all its quirks. Joe Blow flipping channels in the sports area of his cable channel line-up - not so much.

[Matnum PI]

I don't think it'd be so crazy, after a goal, to have the goalie rake the ball out of the net and immediately go into a clear. Similar to Basketball.