COACHING CAROUSEL 2021

[jrn19]

It’s hilarious how literally everyone can agree that coaching matters in every sport and has a tangible outcome on games through development and strategy and then you apparently have discovered that literally all of these games are just automatons who can be subbed in and out and literally do not make any impact whatsoever

No, what's hilarious is that you guys keep building a strawman, and aren't paying attention to what I'm saying.

I'm not saying these coaches don't affect their teams. Of course they do. You're acting like I'm saying the option is: Lars Tiffany and Co. on the sidelines, or: no one on the sidelines at all.

That's not what I'm saying, and you know it.

I'm saying: look at the top 20 for D1. Tell me which coaches are great, and which aren't.

I'm saying, if you have, say, the 2021 UVa roster? The odds are that Brecht, Desko, Tierney, Nadelen, Conry, Danowski, Milliman, etc. will all get them to the Final Four.

That's it. That's my point. So yep, I agree 1000% that Tiffany is a fine coach. But here's the thing you're missing: so are Brecht, Desko, Tierney, Nadelen, Conry, Danowski, Milliman, etc.

Heck, Tierney and Desko are already in the HoF. Twelve championships as Head Coaches between them. Both bounced in the 1st round. Why?

You all know why...but are playing dumb. The one thing I know is that it sure as *hit wasn't because they can't coach lacrosse.

Literally no is saying Bill freaking Tierney isn’t good at coaching lacrosse. YOU’RE the one building a straw man

[a fan]

Literally no is saying Bill freaking Tierney isn’t good at coaching lacrosse. YOU’RE the one building a straw man

You're coming in late to the conversation, I think, and missed some context.

My assertion is that there's no difference between the top 20 D1 coaching staffs. THey're all good, all competent. And if you give them a top roster, every of those coaching staffs will take their teams on a run to the Final Four.

Some have said this is nuts. My response is: great. Tell me which D1 Top 20 coaching staffs couldn't do it. Give me some names, and tell me why they couldn't do it.

Here's the thing people seem to forget. Take the 2019 final coaches poll, since the Ivy's didn't play this year.

How many of the teams in the top 20 have coaches that have taken them to a FInal Four?

Twelve. So that's twelve teams that we KNOW can take their roster to the Final Four IF they have the talent. That's proof on the field that these coaches know what they're doing.

So that means we're left with 8 coaches in the top 20 who might be subpar. Want the list?

Mike Murphy
Kevin Warne
Joe Alberci
Jon Torpey
Dan Chemotti
Greg Canella
Peter Milliman
Connor Buczek

So tell me...which of these coaches isn't up to snuff, and isn't getting the best out of their players?

My answer? None of them. But that's apparently just me. But I'm happy to hear names.....

[Farfromgeneva]

Cannella went to the finals in 2006.

Millikan and Buczek remain to be seen. I think Millikan underperformed w Cornell’s roster personally.

Torpey and Alberci May be debatable. Does Alberici have the ability to coach a bunch of effected highly skilled but not military sized mid Atlantic kids or only a style fit for an academy? It’s a fair question when comparing sowell at Dartmouth/SBU vs Navy experience.

Murphy, Warne and Chemotti Id say yes. But hey, Greg Raymond has had Hobart in the top 20 and I’m not sure he could.

[pcowlax]

Literally no is saying Bill freaking Tierney isn’t good at coaching lacrosse. YOU’RE the one building a straw man

You're coming in late to the conversation, I think, and missed some context.

My assertion is that there's no difference between the top 20 D1 coaching staffs. THey're all good, all competent. And if you give them a top roster, every of those coaching staffs will take their teams on a run to the Final Four.

Some have said this is nuts. My response is: great. Tell me which D1 Top 20 coaching staffs couldn't do it. Give me some names, and tell me why they couldn't do it.

Here's the thing people seem to forget. Take the 2019 final coaches poll, since the Ivy's didn't play this year.

How many of the teams in the top 20 have coaches that have taken them to a FInal Four?

Twelve. So that's twelve teams that we KNOW can take their roster to the Final Four IF they have the talent. That's proof on the field that these coaches know what they're doing.

So that means we're left with 8 coaches in the top 20 who might be subpar. Want the list?

Mike Murphy
Kevin Warne
Joe Alberci
Jon Torpey
Dan Chemotti
Greg Canella
Peter Milliman
Connor Buczek

So tell me...which of these coaches isn't up to snuff, and isn't getting the best out of their players?

My answer? None of them. But that's apparently just me. But I'm happy to hear names.....

Not that this is wrong but part of the job of coaching (and not a small part) is recruiting. You can’t just say “give them a top roster”. Whether they have a top roster or not is, within the constraints of their school, up to them! A coach at a top 20 school who is always in the top 5 because he always has a great roster is doing a better job as a coach than the one who always has the 15th best roster, it’s not random, rosters aren’t bestowed from above.

[Farfromgeneva]

That’s not what some Hopkins folks think.

Does “above” mean the transfer portal?

[a fan]

Cannella went to the finals in 2006.

Ah, right. Thanks for the correction. So that's 13 of 20 coaches who have proven that they will succeed if they have the talent.

[jrn19]

Literally no is saying Bill freaking Tierney isn’t good at coaching lacrosse. YOU’RE the one building a straw man

You're coming in late to the conversation, I think, and missed some context.

My assertion is that there's no difference between the top 20 D1 coaching staffs. THey're all good, all competent. And if you give them a top roster, every of those coaching staffs will take their teams on a run to the Final Four.

Some have said this is nuts. My response is: great. Tell me which D1 Top 20 coaching staffs couldn't do it. Give me some names, and tell me why they couldn't do it.

Here's the thing people seem to forget. Take the 2019 final coaches poll, since the Ivy's didn't play this year.

How many of the teams in the top 20 have coaches that have taken them to a FInal Four?

Twelve. So that's twelve teams that we KNOW can take their roster to the Final Four IF they have the talent. That's proof on the field that these coaches know what they're doing.

So that means we're left with 8 coaches in the top 20 who might be subpar. Want the list?

Mike Murphy
Kevin Warne
Joe Alberci
Jon Torpey
Dan Chemotti
Greg Canella
Peter Milliman
Connor Buczek

So tell me...which of these coaches isn't up to snuff, and isn't getting the best out of their players?

My answer? None of them. But that's apparently just me. But I'm happy to hear names.....

I’ve literally never seen Buczek coach a D1 game so I’d love to know how you know he’s up to snuff.

[jrn19]

Literally no is saying Bill freaking Tierney isn’t good at coaching lacrosse. YOU’RE the one building a straw man

You're coming in late to the conversation, I think, and missed some context.

My assertion is that there's no difference between the top 20 D1 coaching staffs. THey're all good, all competent. And if you give them a top roster, every of those coaching staffs will take their teams on a run to the Final Four.

Some have said this is nuts. My response is: great. Tell me which D1 Top 20 coaching staffs couldn't do it. Give me some names, and tell me why they couldn't do it.

Here's the thing people seem to forget. Take the 2019 final coaches poll, since the Ivy's didn't play this year.

How many of the teams in the top 20 have coaches that have taken them to a FInal Four?

Twelve. So that's twelve teams that we KNOW can take their roster to the Final Four IF they have the talent. That's proof on the field that these coaches know what they're doing.

So that means we're left with 8 coaches in the top 20 who might be subpar. Want the list?

Mike Murphy
Kevin Warne
Joe Alberci
Jon Torpey
Dan Chemotti
Greg Canella
Peter Milliman
Connor Buczek

So tell me...which of these coaches isn't up to snuff, and isn't getting the best out of their players?

My answer? None of them. But that's apparently just me. But I'm happy to hear names.....

Not that this is wrong but part of the job of coaching (and not a small part) is recruiting. You can’t just say “give them a top roster”. Whether they have a top roster or not is, within the constraints of their school, up to them! A coach at a top 20 school who is always in the top 5 because he always has a great roster is doing a better job as a coach than the one who always has the 15th best roster, it’s not random, rosters aren’t bestowed from above.

Thank you!

[a fan]

Not that this is wrong but part of the job of coaching (and not a small part) is recruiting

Of course it is! And in fact, my point is that is their only real job if the goal is Final Fours, and not just some nice winning seasons.

This is part of a conversation I've been having for several years with some Syracuse and Hop fans. Some of them have been insisting that all the talent in the world was arriving at the Dome and Homewood---and the coaches were ruining this awesome talent.

Some of these discussions splintered into conversations about the silliness of Inside Lacrosse evaluations where, for example, IL thought that #1 recruit Jordan Evans (Syracuse) was better than----or equal to----Matt Rambo (Maryland). Some fans don't want to hear that IL is wrong every year, and can't possibly predict how a kid is going to do in college. So what do they do instead? They claim that the coach sucks, and can't develop talent.

This, imho, is absurd. And that the FAR more likely explanation is that Inside Lacrosse was simply wrong.

So for example, for the 2021 season? It's clear as day to me that neither Hopkins nor Syracuse had anywhere close to the talent of the teams in the Final Four. That's not a lack of on the field coaching. That's a recruiting failure. Many, many here disagree with me.

. You can’t just say “give them a top roster”. Whether they have a top roster or not is, within the constraints of their school, up to them!

Sure I can! We're just bs'ing in the offseason here....and separating recruiting from a coaching staffs other responsibilities .....teaching, developing talent, x's and o's, etc. It's a reasonable conversation...particularly when so many here are claiming that some D1 coaching staffs are "better" than others when it comes to those non-recruiting responsibilities, while giving me zero evidence to support that claim.

A coach at a top 20 school who is always in the top 5 because he always has a great roster is doing a better job as a coach

Demonstrably false. Why did Danowski flounder around in the top 20, and then start winning at Duke?

Why did Mike Pressler make those Final Fours at Duke, only to flounder around the top 20 at Bryant?

Why did ZImmerman win those Championships at Hopkins, only to flounder around the top 20 at UMBC.

The coach is only one piece of the recruiting puzzle. Clearly.

[a fan]

I’ve literally never seen Buczek coach a D1 game so I’d love to know how you know he’s up to snuff.

Great. So that's one. Any other coaching staffs that you think are---or might be---subpar?

That's a pretty short list.

[tech37]

I probably should wait until Syracuse makes its announcement of its new DC. BUT it seems unlikely to me that Gary Gait would name Pietramala as his new DC. Why would he? Gait doesn't swear at Refs from the sideline. Pietramala was chastised by the Hopkins Admin to curb his behavior on the sideline. Quite a difference in public coaching behavior. Gait wears a coat & tie on the sideline. Pietramala does not. (just a difference in attitude). Can you imagine the sideline at a game with both of them there! Who is in charge? They are the same age. There are lots of younger up & coming coaches. Why would you hire a guy who is trying to redeem himself (possibly at your(Gaits) expense). None of Pietramala's assistant coaches were hired away as Head Coaches, Why? Other programs may have thought they had better choices. Etc, etc, etc.

is this a serious post or sarcasm?

Sarcastic or not, I tend to agree with the basic idea. I'd take it a step further though... despite Benson going to MD (which I thought was weird) why would Petro want to coach at SU under HC Gary Gait?

[AreaLax]

I probably should wait until Syracuse makes its announcement of its new DC. BUT it seems unlikely to me that Gary Gait would name Pietramala as his new DC. Why would he? Gait doesn't swear at Refs from the sideline. Pietramala was chastised by the Hopkins Admin to curb his behavior on the sideline. Quite a difference in public coaching behavior. Gait wears a coat & tie on the sideline. Pietramala does not. (just a difference in attitude). Can you imagine the sideline at a game with both of them there! Who is in charge? They are the same age. There are lots of younger up & coming coaches. Why would you hire a guy who is trying to redeem himself (possibly at your(Gaits) expense). None of Pietramala's assistant coaches were hired away as Head Coaches, Why? Other programs may have thought they had better choices. Etc, etc, etc.

is this a serious post or sarcasm?

Sarcastic or not, I tend to agree with the basic idea. I'd take it a step further though... despite Benson going to MD (which I thought was weird) why would Petro want to coach at SU under HC Gary Gait?

Because Petro has made it very public known he wants a HC or Assistant job at a Power 5 school. There aren’t many of them.

[a fan]

Sarcastic or not, I tend to agree with the basic idea. I'd take it a step further though... despite Benson going to MD (which I thought was weird) why would Petro want to coach at SU under HC Gary Gait?

From a career perspective....he has to stay on the D1 stage if he really wants another D1 head coaching job. If he's away from the game for a few years? No AD will consider him.

And if he does well at Syracuse? Now he's back on the short list for top jobs.

Then there's the fact that he's so close to Gary. So there's really a bunch of good reasons, imho. I'm sure money is on that list somewhere with kids in college.

[tech37]

I probably should wait until Syracuse makes its announcement of its new DC. BUT it seems unlikely to me that Gary Gait would name Pietramala as his new DC. Why would he? Gait doesn't swear at Refs from the sideline. Pietramala was chastised by the Hopkins Admin to curb his behavior on the sideline. Quite a difference in public coaching behavior. Gait wears a coat & tie on the sideline. Pietramala does not. (just a difference in attitude). Can you imagine the sideline at a game with both of them there! Who is in charge? They are the same age. There are lots of younger up & coming coaches. Why would you hire a guy who is trying to redeem himself (possibly at your(Gaits) expense). None of Pietramala's assistant coaches were hired away as Head Coaches, Why? Other programs may have thought they had better choices. Etc, etc, etc.

is this a serious post or sarcasm?

Sarcastic or not, I tend to agree with the basic idea. I'd take it a step further though... despite Benson going to MD (which I thought was weird) why would Petro want to coach at SU under HC Gary Gait?

Because Petro has made it very public known he wants a HC or Assistant job at a Power 5 school. There aren’t many of them.

That's obvious but SU has been an antagonist for him for a long time, including when he played of course. And then to work for Gait of all people, again based on their adversarial past as players, IMO it seems a stretch.

Hey, I was completely wrong about Desko, thinking he would be back. So there's that...

[jrn19]

I’ve literally never seen Buczek coach a D1 game so I’d love to know how you know he’s up to snuff.

Great. So that's one. Any other coaching staffs that you think are---or might be---subpar?

That's a pretty short list.

I thought we were talking coaching staffs that could get to Final Fours? That’s a different question than staffs that are “subpar.” If you’re in the Top 20 you’re probably not a “subpar” coach. But that also doesn’t automatically make you good enough to get to a Final Four. Nor does it mean there’s literally no difference between any of the coaches and the coaches have no impact like you say

[a fan]

I thought we were talking coaching staffs that could get to Final Fours? That’s a different question than staffs that are “subpar.” If you’re in the Top 20 you’re probably not a “subpar” coach. But that also doesn’t automatically make you good enough to get to a Final Four.

Yes. But 13 of them have been good enough to make a Final Four. That makes my point fairly well, don't you think?

And again: you and Doc and others don't want answer my question. Which among those 7 coaches can't take their team to a Final Four, if they have elite rosters? You listed the unproven Cornell coach. Who else is on your list?

Nor does it mean there’s literally no difference between any of the coaches and the coaches have no impact like you say

You're deliberately missing the point. What I have claimed----multiple times now----is that I don't believe that there's a difference in on the field ability between the coaches in the top 20. Give them an elite roster? Every one of those coaches will get that roster to the Final Four.

So that's why I claim that in our little world of D1? Coaching doesn't matter in terms of Final Fours....because every top 20 coaching staff is capable of getting their team to a Final Four if they have the talent. Given that, it's obvious that the entire game is about recruiting.

[Chitown]

Chitown

I probably should wait until Syracuse makes its announcement of its new DC. BUT it seems unlikely to me that Gary Gait would name Pietramala as his new DC. Why would he? Gait doesn't swear at Refs from the sideline. Pietramala was chastised by the Hopkins Admin to curb his behavior on the sideline. Quite a difference in public coaching behavior. Gait wears a coat & tie on the sideline. Pietramala does not. (just a difference in attitude). Can you imagine the sideline at a game with both of them there! Who is in charge? They are the same age. There are lots of younger up & coming coaches. Why would you hire a guy who is trying to redeem himself (possibly at your(Gaits) expense). None of Pietramala's assistant coaches were hired away as Head Coaches, Why? Other programs may have thought they had better choices. Etc, etc, etc.

is this a serious post or sarcasm?

Sarcastic or not, I tend to agree with the basic idea. I'd take it a step further though... despite Benson going to MD (which I thought was weird) why would Petro want to coach at SU under HC Gary Gait?

Sarcasm is serious.

I am thinking "style" here. Two very different styles both in personality and in coaching. Gary Gait successfully coached women's lacrosse for years. Can anyone realistically envision Pietramala coaching women's lacrosse? Well, I can not.

Can anyone realistically envision Pietramala playing Second Fiddle to another Coach? Well, I can not.

How long would it take for an "amicable parting of the ways"? Well, I think not very long if Gait actually hires him

[wgdsr]

this combo was surely to always have takes. maybe he'll wear a suit.
seth tierney was hired away to head coach hofstra, fwiw.

[jrn19]

I thought we were talking coaching staffs that could get to Final Fours? That’s a different question than staffs that are “subpar.” If you’re in the Top 20 you’re probably not a “subpar” coach. But that also doesn’t automatically make you good enough to get to a Final Four.

Yes. But 13 of them have been good enough to make a Final Four. That makes my point fairly well, don't you think?

And again: you and Doc and others don't want answer my question. Which among those 7 coaches can't take their team to a Final Four, if they have elite rosters? You listed the unproven Cornell coach. Who else is on your list?

Nor does it mean there’s literally no difference between any of the coaches and the coaches have no impact like you say

You're deliberately missing the point. What I have claimed----multiple times now----is that I don't believe that there's a difference in on the field ability between the coaches in the top 20. Give them an elite roster? Every one of those coaches will get that roster to the Final Four.

So that's why I claim that in our little world of D1? Coaching doesn't matter in terms of Final Fours....because every top 20 coaching staff is capable of getting their team to a Final Four if they have the talent. Given that, it's obvious that the entire game is about recruiting.

Alberici. Doesn't put together good offenses, which means they can't capitalize on the consistent great goalie and defensive play they get. Only 1 NCAA Tournament win in his time there. Maybe he'd do it if he went elsewhere but I don't see it at Army.

Torpey is the inverse of Alberici. Consistently has some of the worst defenses in Division I, even when accounting for the fact that he's in the SoCon and isn't getting ACC/B1G/Ivy talent. They were abhorrent this year on defense; which means he can't capitalize on Nolting or those other good offenses. 0 NCAA Tournament wins.

Murphy is an interesting one. Before he hired Abbott his offenses were extremely slow paced and inefficient compared to the rest of the Ivy which has been an offensive conference for awhile. 2019 this changed and they should have gone to the F4 that year, but that may have been a flash in the pan.

[MDlaxfan76]

This debate over coaches versus players..."elite rosters" as if it can be broken down to a binary choice seems to be the issue.

A fan asserts that every or nearly every staff could take their team to Final Fours if only they had the 'elite roster' of players. I'd agree that it's very difficult to argue otherwise. But I don't agree that there's no difference in these staffs, that they're identically good.

While I quite agree that IL sure as heck is a poor predictor of likelihood of college performance, I'd also suggest that what we may call an 'elite roster' only becomes visible if the team wins again and again and again...if it does not, then we look at the team that does and we say 'ahh, that's an elite roster'...and if they don't, we say "ahh, they had some key weaknesses"...

The reality, IMO, is that there are actual 'elite' players on teams that don't win, who would be recognized as 'elite' only if they were playing on a better team overall. And there are players on winning teams who get recognized as 'elite' in part specifically because the guys around them are good and the team wins a lot.

IMO, players gravitate to programs for lots of reasons, some of which are the expectation that the players around them will be good, that their talents and efforts will contribute to team success, and that they'll learn from the coaches, their talents will be developed and maximized. Ton of non-lax factors, but there's no doubt in my mind that the coaching staff contributes to all of those lax expectations. Another big factor, IMO, is perceived 'culture' of the program.

And then the coaching staff needs to decide which kids who would love to come to their program to actively encourage and support in doing so. The idea that the coaches don't have an enormous impact on the quality and makeup of their roster seems to me to be a bit ridiculous. Sure, coaches don't get all of their wish list, but they often have to choose between two or three guys each of which looks pretty darn good, but only one can get the #1 slot, the financial support, etc. Which goalie, which FOGO, which X attack man, do I take this midfielder or that one? Do I put this LSM above another close defender, do I recruit excess midfielders or do I recruit excess attack men?