WOMBAT, Mod Emeritus wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 6:31 pm
Well, yeah. Back then Hopkins usually went undefeated or lost at most one or two games.
So, it was easy to “be in the conversation” regarding who’s in the running to be champ.
Still, voting for a champ sucks.
Though as a rule the vote was perfunctory as the best team for the season was obvious...
And matchups during the season could be quite significant. The Jays last collegiate game was almost always with the Hyattsville Turtles and often had a significant impact on the success of the season. That's why those games were so often SRO. Now these games are rather ho hum ! The passion is no longer there.
Anyway...
The choice was less obvious in 1958 when Hopkins was undefeated in collegiate play, but lost to Mt. Washington. Army was voted champ that year. Thereafter, championships could be shared.
I think my dad may have been in the goal for that game on behalf of the Mounties...did Army play MWLC that year? I see they were undefeated, but can't seem to find who they played...
Sure seems screwy that losing to MWLC would factor into the Wingate Trophy unless it was the only reasonable differentiator, with one team losing, one team winning against them.
But then, the voting was sometimes indeed a bit screwy...
I'd note that in '52, RPI and UVA split the award.
WOMBAT, Mod Emeritus wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 6:31 pm
Well, yeah. Back then Hopkins usually went undefeated or lost at most one or two games.
So, it was easy to “be in the conversation” regarding who’s in the running to be champ.
Still, voting for a champ sucks.
Though as a rule the vote was perfunctory as the best team for the season was obvious...
And matchups during the season could be quite significant. The Jays last collegiate game was almost always with the Hyattsville Turtles and often had a significant impact on the success of the season. That's why those games were so often SRO. Now these games are rather ho hum ! The passion is no longer there.
Anyway...
The choice was less obvious in 1958 when Hopkins was undefeated in collegiate play, but lost to Mt. Washington. Army was voted champ that year. Thereafter, championships could be shared.
I think my dad may have been in the goal for that game on behalf of the Mounties...did Army play MWLC that year? I see they were undefeated, but can't seem to find who they played...
Sure seems screwy that losing to MWLC would factor into the Wingate Trophy unless it was the only reasonable differentiator, with one team losing, one team winning against them.
But then, the voting was sometimes indeed a bit screwy...
I'd note that in '52, RPI and UVA split the award.
From Scott's book, Army beat Mt. Washington in the first game of the season, and Hopkins lost to them 10-4 in the last game. Club play was not considered when deciding a national champion. You got 6 points for beating an A team, 5 for beating a B team and 4 for beating a C team. Army played one more A team than Hopkins and that was the difference. Army played neither Hopkins nor Maryland.
There was also controversy regarding the Maryland game, but I digress.
Re: Johns Hopkins 2021
Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2020 2:51 pm
by ABV 8.3%
Very interested in the A, B & C criteria. Who determines that? The history of it? Did it change, even when the N$aa got involved.
Bucknell must have only beaten C team's after going 12-0, beating Army too. Yet, Army went to the NCAA's ?
some things never change. invite winners, that is what even little league does.
WOMBAT, Mod Emeritus wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 6:31 pm
Well, yeah. Back then Hopkins usually went undefeated or lost at most one or two games.
So, it was easy to “be in the conversation” regarding who’s in the running to be champ.
Still, voting for a champ sucks.
Though as a rule the vote was perfunctory as the best team for the season was obvious...
And matchups during the season could be quite significant. The Jays last collegiate game was almost always with the Hyattsville Turtles and often had a significant impact on the success of the season. That's why those games were so often SRO. Now these games are rather ho hum ! The passion is no longer there.
Anyway...
The choice was less obvious in 1958 when Hopkins was undefeated in collegiate play, but lost to Mt. Washington. Army was voted champ that year. Thereafter, championships could be shared.
As noted games against club teams didn't figure in determining champions.
Games with Army in the 40s and 50s were always tough. In 1957 the great attack combo of Morrill , Webster and Jory dominated play. Army knew that it was quite likely the Jays would beat them in 1958 and they dropped Hopkins from their schedule that year for the sole reason that a loss to the Jays would be a big roadblock to a championship for them. It was a pretty big stink at the time as the Black Knights lack of sportsmanship was blatantly apparent...they basically " chickened out ".
WOMBAT, Mod Emeritus wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 6:31 pm
Well, yeah. Back then Hopkins usually went undefeated or lost at most one or two games.
So, it was easy to “be in the conversation” regarding who’s in the running to be champ.
Still, voting for a champ sucks.
Though as a rule the vote was perfunctory as the best team for the season was obvious...
And matchups during the season could be quite significant. The Jays last collegiate game was almost always with the Hyattsville Turtles and often had a significant impact on the success of the season. That's why those games were so often SRO. Now these games are rather ho hum ! The passion is no longer there.
Anyway...
The choice was less obvious in 1958 when Hopkins was undefeated in collegiate play, but lost to Mt. Washington. Army was voted champ that year. Thereafter, championships could be shared.
I think my dad may have been in the goal for that game on behalf of the Mounties...did Army play MWLC that year? I see they were undefeated, but can't seem to find who they played...
Sure seems screwy that losing to MWLC would factor into the Wingate Trophy unless it was the only reasonable differentiator, with one team losing, one team winning against them.
But then, the voting was sometimes indeed a bit screwy...
I'd note that in '52, RPI and UVA split the award.
From Scott's book, Army beat Mt. Washington in the first game of the season, and Hopkins lost to them 10-4 in the last game. Club play was not considered when deciding a national champion. You got 6 points for beating an A team, 5 for beating a B team and 4 for beating a C team. Army played one more A team than Hopkins and that was the difference. Army played neither Hopkins nor Maryland.
There was also controversy regarding the Maryland game, but I digress.
Thanks!
My copy of Scott's history is home in Baltimore...
"the milliman recruiting difference" will be midfield/ssdm/lsm/close d/goalie. Petro did well w/attackmen and ok w/fogos aside from 2011.
Tried listening to the IL podcasts-a mess. I'd love to hear an acc/b1g/patriot ad/coach roundtable on a pod discussing what the planning debates for next season have been like.
I think it's worth pointing out that he is at least the fifth Black player the new staff has recruited already—Wong, Bowler, and Hicks in the '21s and Lane and Brown in the '22s. Not sure there is a coach more putting his money where his mouth is in terms of growing the D1 game at this moment than Milliman. We hear a lot of talk but then you look at some of these teams' recruiting classes every cycle and they look awfully similar to the ones prior. Rinse and repeat. But if the country's most historic program can lead by example in this regard I think the game will be better for it, and it seems as though the new staff recognizes the opportunity.
Speaking of the staff, they did trivia vs. the women's staff, not the worst way to kill a half hour:
I think it's worth pointing out that he is at least the fifth Black player the new staff has recruited already—Wong, Bowler, and Hicks in the '21s and Lane and Brown in the '22s. Not sure there is a coach more putting his money where his mouth is in terms of growing the D1 game at this moment than Milliman. We hear a lot of talk but then you look at some of these teams' recruiting classes every cycle and they look awfully similar to the ones prior. Rinse and repeat. But if the country's most historic program can lead by example in this regard I think the game will be better for it, and it seems as though the new staff recognizes the opportunity.
Totally agree on this. It appears there will be a commitment to diversity and I don’t believe you have to sacrifice talent level to do so. Also how many native players did Petro recruit? 2 in 20 years? PM recruited Koleton Marquis in his first class. Not a coincidence.
Re: Johns Hopkins 2021
Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2020 12:37 pm
by ohmilax34
I think the new coaching staff at JHU makes this program much more likeable. The old staff ( at least the head coach and O coord.) seemed like Bond villains. They yelled a lot and made inexplicable decisions (why didn't Blofeld just shoot Bond?). I don't know if the new staff will ever win a national championship at JHU, but I think they will do better than the old staff did the last 5 years.
There are some things about Petro that I want to get JHU fans' opinions on...
Supposedly Petro was a reader of books written about leadership or similar coaching topics. Also, he was obviously a micro-manager of his players. He and Benson scripted too much and his players looked uncomfortable in chaotic situations. Also, I want to bring up trends in coaching basketball players both at the college and pro levels. College basketball has been known for its over-coaching lately, and there are probably some yellers in the NCAA coaching ranks, but I think those are probably the older coaches, like Izzo, Calipari and Coach K. In the NBA, which I think is thriving with lots of talented players spread over many good teams, the coaches seem to be very calm and give the players the framework to succeed.
How did someone who was interested in improving himself and took his job very seriously not figure out that the way he was doing things was limiting his players' development when there are excellent examples of coaches getting a lot out of their players in lots of sports?
Re: Johns Hopkins 2021
Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2020 1:14 pm
by stupefied
Bond villain? HOF coach successful for a long time, the approach and voice of almost every boss/coach has a life cycle.
Re: Johns Hopkins 2021
Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2020 1:52 pm
by jhu06
next spring there will be an article where Petro will essentially say I'm ready to be a coach for 2021-22, I've learned, I've evolved, I've grown, I've seen where I could've done things better. I just don't know where the landing spot options are going to be for him and what kind of schools are going to have the $+ambition for that.
Re: Johns Hopkins 2021
Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2020 3:40 pm
by Sagittarius A*
jhu06 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 1:52 pm
next spring there will be an article where Petro will essentially say I'm ready to be a coach for 2021-22, I've learned, I've evolved, I've grown, I've seen where I could've done things better. I just don't know where the landing spot options are going to be for him and what kind of schools are going to have the $+ambition for that.
I think Petro will get another shot at the college coaching ranks at the same time that Dave Cottle does.
jhu06 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 1:52 pm
next spring there will be an article where Petro will essentially say I'm ready to be a coach for 2021-22, I've learned, I've evolved, I've grown, I've seen where I could've done things better. I just don't know where the landing spot options are going to be for him and what kind of schools are going to have the $+ambition for that.
I think Petro will get another shot at the college coaching ranks at the same time that Dave Cottle does.
they don't do the whole mommy the coach was tough on me parent thing in the south. If there was d1 sec lacrosse they'd love his approach and success.
jhu06 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 1:52 pm
next spring there will be an article where Petro will essentially say I'm ready to be a coach for 2021-22, I've learned, I've evolved, I've grown, I've seen where I could've done things better. I just don't know where the landing spot options are going to be for him and what kind of schools are going to have the $+ambition for that.
I think Petro will get another shot at the college coaching ranks at the same time that Dave Cottle does.
they don't do the whole mommy the coach was tough on me parent thing in the south. If there was d1 sec lacrosse they'd love his approach and success.
jhu06 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 1:52 pm
next spring there will be an article where Petro will essentially say I'm ready to be a coach for 2021-22, I've learned, I've evolved, I've grown, I've seen where I could've done things better. I just don't know where the landing spot options are going to be for him and what kind of schools are going to have the $+ambition for that.
I think Petro will get another shot at the college coaching ranks at the same time that Dave Cottle does.
they don't do the whole mommy the coach was tough on me parent thing in the south. If there was d1 sec lacrosse they'd love his approach and success.
But they like winning in the south.
well played.
Re: Johns Hopkins 2021
Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2020 4:42 pm
by nyjay
I think Petro's style can still be successful, at least in the short term. Let's not forget that he was quite successful for a while. Just seems to me that a coach like that eventually wears out his welcome, especially when the losses start to pile up. Kids start tuning him out (while still being afraid of failing) and the culture falls apart. The only exception I can think of to this rule is Bellichick. But I guess if you win enough, people's willingness to buy in lasts a bit longer.
My guess is that when Petro does get another job, probably at a SoCon kind of program, he'll be good for a couple of years (his profile will help recruiting and kids will initially be thrilled to have him there). Then he'll wear everybody out and move on again.
As for the current staff, obviously a breath of fresh air. New and different kind of recruits, more transparency, more engagement generally. Really hoping we get to see the team play this year. Can't wait to see what it feels like to root for a team that looks like it's having fun on the field. There are some very good lacrosse players on that team.
Re: Johns Hopkins 2021
Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2020 4:51 pm
by HopFan16
If Cuse ever hires Galloway I feel like Petro would be a good fit for Jacksonville, though I doubt they could afford him unless he drastically lowered his asking price. I agree that he'd probably do fairly well at a newer program that's looking to establish a culture and at least get into the conversation, similar to what Tierney did at Denver, though I think the almost immediate success he had there will be tough to emulate somewhere else.
By that same token, it wouldn't be a huge stretch to argue that Petro may have looked over at his friend Bill and seen the enormous success he's had coaching for a very long time and tried to mimic that to some degree. The issue there is that Belichick IMO is a once-in-a-generation tactical and player development genius that simply cannot be imitated. That might be part of the reason some of his underlings have failed when they've gone off to coach on their own—not because Belichick didn't prepare them well but because they tried to be him, and no one can be him but him. Not necessarily adopting the theory that this happened to Petro but bottom line is that it's very difficult to change the way you coach after several decades in the business even when you recognize the need to do so—especially when you've had so much success in the past doing things a certain way. I don't buy the notion that the game has passed him by and he's incapable of coaching at a high level anymore but I also don't think it's very controversial to say he made a few missteps, the competition caught up quickly, and whatever adjustments were attempted by that point were either too late or not enough. When you get to that point there's really nothing else to be done but get a new set of eyes in there and that's what they did. Doesn't mean the previous guy just suddenly doesn't know what he's doing anymore. It's not SCOTUS—no lifetime appointments in sports.
Re: Johns Hopkins 2021
Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2020 4:53 pm
by flalax22
nyjay wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 4:42 pm
I think Petro's style can still be successful, at least in the short term. Let's not forget that he was quite successful for a while. Just seems to me that a coach like that eventually wears out his welcome, especially when the losses start to pile up. Kids start tuning him out (while still being afraid of failing) and the culture falls apart. The only exception I can think of to this rule is Bellichick. But I guess if you win enough, people's willingness to buy in lasts a bit longer.
I don’t believe wins and losses have anything to do with why Petro is gone. I do believe that the administration did not believe in HIS approach to building the culture of the men’s lacrosse team.
Re: Johns Hopkins 2021
Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2020 5:16 pm
by jhu06
towson has tape of the 1989 upset over hop up on their site, have we done those throwbacks yet and why doesnt the website sell those kinds of old school throwback jerseys.
