COACHING CAROUSEL 2021

[DocBarrister]

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

To make one comparison: IMO, Breschi is not as good at getting the best out of his players as Danowski. Over the past 10 years, Duke has been more successful overall than UNC, by a variety of measures. Switch Breschi and Danowski, and I think that reverses.

Another point: very few of the current top 20 coaches (and maybe none) could do what Tierney did: go to a total lax backwater (Princeton at the time), and, using players with notably less talent than much of the competition, win a national championship. (After that win, the talent level improved of course.)

Did it twice. After Princeton, took a rising but still second-tier Denver program and won a national championship in 2015.

Best coach of his era (which is still ongoing), and no one is really even close.

DocBarrister

hmmm.... 2 overtime games doesn't make it close? what would make it close?

You seem to think winning close games, especially in OT, does not support greatness, but those close wins are arguably the greatest evidence of a great coach.

And the bottom line is … they were wins.

DocBarrister

actually never said that. you said it wasn't close between coaches. but the margin was 2 ot wins between him and starsia.

and then there's desko, with 5 champs in a lot less time as a head coach. and 6 more in his time as an asst. (tierney got 2 in 3 years at jhu?). anyone that knows anything about su lacrosse then knows desko was a if not the driving force for those wins as well.

i was just wondering what would be close.

I admire both Starsia and Desko, but neither can compare with Tierney.

Longevity and continued success do count for something, and Tierney has outlasted them both.

DocBarrister

tierney has won one title in the last 20 years. sounds like you have your own criteria. we'll call it the doc criteria.

Yep.

One lousy national championship since 2001.

By the way, how many other Division I lacrosse head coaches have won Division I NCAA championships at two different schools?

Oh, and how many Division I lacrosse head coaches have won a Division I NCAA title with a team west of the Mississippi?

What other Division I lacrosse head coach has won SEVEN Division I NCAA titles?

That one lousy title since 2001 is kinda important, don’t you think?

DocBarrister

[tech37]

Again, his '92 team was very talented. They were the #3 seed, seeded right behind #2 UNC, the defending NC, whom they beat (obviously) in the semis before shocking SU in finals. And it was shocking. Outside of the Ivy League, his talented players were not well known.

I think Tierney is a very fine coach, but he's had tons of talent to work with, including the'92 NC. Talent and coaching go hand in hand, no?

[wgdsr]

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

To make one comparison: IMO, Breschi is not as good at getting the best out of his players as Danowski. Over the past 10 years, Duke has been more successful overall than UNC, by a variety of measures. Switch Breschi and Danowski, and I think that reverses.

Another point: very few of the current top 20 coaches (and maybe none) could do what Tierney did: go to a total lax backwater (Princeton at the time), and, using players with notably less talent than much of the competition, win a national championship. (After that win, the talent level improved of course.)

Did it twice. After Princeton, took a rising but still second-tier Denver program and won a national championship in 2015.

Best coach of his era (which is still ongoing), and no one is really even close.

DocBarrister

hmmm.... 2 overtime games doesn't make it close? what would make it close?

You seem to think winning close games, especially in OT, does not support greatness, but those close wins are arguably the greatest evidence of a great coach.

And the bottom line is … they were wins.

DocBarrister

actually never said that. you said it wasn't close between coaches. but the margin was 2 ot wins between him and starsia.

and then there's desko, with 5 champs in a lot less time as a head coach. and 6 more in his time as an asst. (tierney got 2 in 3 years at jhu?). anyone that knows anything about su lacrosse then knows desko was a if not the driving force for those wins as well.

i was just wondering what would be close.

I admire both Starsia and Desko, but neither can compare with Tierney.

Longevity and continued success do count for something, and Tierney has outlasted them both.

DocBarrister

tierney has won one title in the last 20 years. sounds like you have your own criteria. we'll call it the doc criteria.

Yep.

One lousy national championship since 2001.

By the way, how many other Division I lacrosse head coaches have won Division I NCAA championships at two different schools?

Oh, and how many Division I lacrosse head coaches have won a Division I NCAA title with a team west of the Mississippi?

What other Division I lacrosse head coach has won SEVEN Division I NCAA titles?

That one lousy title since 2001 is kinda important, don’t you think?

DocBarrister

so maybe starsia or desko will go west so they can make the doc criteria. so they can be close.

[jrn19]

Because his offense isn’t as effective with the shot clock, a massive rules change that didn’t exist at all before the last 3 years

A few posts up, you told me that no one was claiming that Tierney can't coach. Told me I was concocting a straw man.

Now you've changed your mind, and you're back telling me that Tierney can't coach offense in the post shot clock era, and that's why he's dropping 1st round games. Like it's really hard to score with a shot clock, or something...and forgetting that DU had a first round exit in 2016, before the shot clock.

Is scoring up, or down across D1? But sure, Tierney just can't crack the shot clock.

Agree to disagree.

Where did I say Tierney couldn’t coach anywhere in my post? Strawman once again

[DocBarrister]

Again, his '92 team was very talented. They were the #3 seed, seeded right behind #2 UNC, the defending NC, whom they beat (obviously) in the semis before shocking SU in finals. And it was shocking. Outside of the Ivy League, his talented players were not well known.

I think Tierney is a very fine coach, but he's had tons of talent to work with, including the'92 NC. Talent and coaching go hand in hand, no?

Great coaches bring in great players and win with them.

This distinction between “coaching” and “talent” is ridiculous. Great recruiting is part of being a great coach, but hardly enough.

By the way, I saw that great 1992 Princeton team at Franklin Field. After Syracuse dismantled Hopkins (and I continue to believe it’s a bad idea to wear black uniforms on a hot day), I was certain Syracuse would win the title. Was among those who were absolutely shocked to hear the final result.

Not so shocking now since we know who was leading that Princeton team … the greatest head lacrosse coach of his generation.

DocBarrister

[a fan]

Because his offense isn’t as effective with the shot clock, a massive rules change that didn’t exist at all before the last 3 years

A few posts up, you told me that no one was claiming that Tierney can't coach. Told me I was concocting a straw man.

Now you've changed your mind, and you're back telling me that Tierney can't coach offense in the post shot clock era, and that's why he's dropping 1st round games. Like it's really hard to score with a shot clock, or something...and forgetting that DU had a first round exit in 2016, before the shot clock.

Is scoring up, or down across D1? But sure, Tierney just can't crack the shot clock.

Agree to disagree.

Where did I say Tierney couldn’t coach anywhere in my post? Strawman once again

Bolded. You're telling me that Tierney can't figure out the shot clock, and make simple adjustments just like every other successful D1 coach has plainly done, leading to more scoring than ever.

If that's not what you're claiming, please explain what that sentence means.

[DocBarrister]

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

To make one comparison: IMO, Breschi is not as good at getting the best out of his players as Danowski. Over the past 10 years, Duke has been more successful overall than UNC, by a variety of measures. Switch Breschi and Danowski, and I think that reverses.

Another point: very few of the current top 20 coaches (and maybe none) could do what Tierney did: go to a total lax backwater (Princeton at the time), and, using players with notably less talent than much of the competition, win a national championship. (After that win, the talent level improved of course.)

Did it twice. After Princeton, took a rising but still second-tier Denver program and won a national championship in 2015.

Best coach of his era (which is still ongoing), and no one is really even close.

DocBarrister

hmmm.... 2 overtime games doesn't make it close? what would make it close?

You seem to think winning close games, especially in OT, does not support greatness, but those close wins are arguably the greatest evidence of a great coach.

And the bottom line is … they were wins.

DocBarrister

actually never said that. you said it wasn't close between coaches. but the margin was 2 ot wins between him and starsia.

and then there's desko, with 5 champs in a lot less time as a head coach. and 6 more in his time as an asst. (tierney got 2 in 3 years at jhu?). anyone that knows anything about su lacrosse then knows desko was a if not the driving force for those wins as well.

i was just wondering what would be close.

I admire both Starsia and Desko, but neither can compare with Tierney.

Longevity and continued success do count for something, and Tierney has outlasted them both.

DocBarrister

tierney has won one title in the last 20 years. sounds like you have your own criteria. we'll call it the doc criteria.

Yep.

One lousy national championship since 2001.

By the way, how many other Division I lacrosse head coaches have won Division I NCAA championships at two different schools?

Oh, and how many Division I lacrosse head coaches have won a Division I NCAA title with a team west of the Mississippi?

What other Division I lacrosse head coach has won SEVEN Division I NCAA titles?

That one lousy title since 2001 is kinda important, don’t you think?

DocBarrister

so maybe starsia or desko will go west so they can make the doc criteria. so they can be close.

Why not? I think both can still coach and succeed.

DocBarrister

[CU77]

Again, his '92 team was very talented. They were the #3 seed, seeded right behind #2 UNC, the defending NC, whom they beat (obviously) in the semis before shocking SU in finals. And it was shocking. Outside of the Ivy League, his talented players were not well known.

I think Tierney is a very fine coach, but he's had tons of talent to work with, including the'92 NC. Talent and coaching go hand in hand, no?

First, his 92 team was talented because he coached them up. His 92 seniors were not especially well regarded when they came in as freshman.

Second, Tierney was clearly still a top-20 coach when he left. His last team (2009) was seeded #4 in the NCAAs (but, I'm happy to say, lost to #5 Cornell). After he left, Princeton collapsed pretty much immediately. If only incoming talent matters, why couldn't the new coaches keep the team in the top 20 with its glorious record of success?

[Drcthru]

To make one comparison: IMO, Breschi is not as good at getting the best out of his players as Danowski. Over the past 10 years, Duke has been more successful overall than UNC, by a variety of measures. Switch Breschi and Danowski, and I think that reverses.

Well, I disagree. Doubly so when you look at how Danowski did at Hofstra. And I don't think Breschi has pulled as much talent as Dano...particularly so on the D side of the field. You have a different opinion, and I respect that.

But with all the talent showing up at Duke, I have a hard time believing that Dano does more with less....Dano has had more than one 1st round exit. That doesn't happen if he's getting "more" out of his players....because by any measure, he's killing it on the recruiting trail at Duke.

And what happened this year? Maryland blew their doors off...and Dano how how much firepower on attack?

It's events like Duke getting blown out that tells me that coaching just isn't all that important.

I get, and respect, that you (and most posters, probably) disagree.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

[44WeWantMore]

Again, his '92 team was very talented. They were the #3 seed, seeded right behind #2 UNC, the defending NC, whom they beat (obviously) in the semis before shocking SU in finals. And it was shocking. Outside of the Ivy League, his talented players were not well known.

I think Tierney is a very fine coach, but he's had tons of talent to work with, including the'92 NC. Talent and coaching go hand in hand, no?

First, his 92 team was talented because he coached them up. His 92 seniors were not especially well regarded when they came in as freshman.

Second, Tierney was clearly still a top-20 coach when he left. His last team (2009) was seeded #4 in the NCAAs (but, I'm happy to say, lost to #5 Cornell). After he left, Princeton collapsed pretty much immediately. If only incoming talent matters, why couldn't the new coaches keep the team in the top 20 with its glorious record of success?

Rumor was that Princeton denied him the AI leniency he previously enjoyed.

[Farfromgeneva]

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

Well in fairness to Milliman (not Millikan) Cornell was 5-0 and ranked #2 when 2020 was shut down.

Syracuse was #1. I’m looking more at what I thought was a very disappointing lack of adjustments in losses in 2019 with a talented team.

Spelling was just fat fingers I’m aware of his name just happens frequently.

[Farfromgeneva]

Again, his '92 team was very talented. They were the #3 seed, seeded right behind #2 UNC, the defending NC, whom they beat (obviously) in the semis before shocking SU in finals. And it was shocking. Outside of the Ivy League, his talented players were not well known.

I think Tierney is a very fine coach, but he's had tons of talent to work with, including the'92 NC. Talent and coaching go hand in hand, no?

First, his 92 team was talented because he coached them up. His 92 seniors were not especially well regarded when they came in as freshman.

Second, Tierney was clearly still a top-20 coach when he left. His last team (2009) was seeded #4 in the NCAAs (but, I'm happy to say, lost to #5 Cornell). After he left, Princeton collapsed pretty much immediately. If only incoming talent matters, why couldn't the new coaches keep the team in the top 20 with its glorious record of success?

Rumor was that Princeton denied him the AI leniency he previously enjoyed.

My understanding was he bailed because he wasn’t enjoying the same kind of support which is a mark against him but I still think he may be the best coach in the last couple of decades. That being said Denver was a playoff track when he got there, just a bit out of control under Munro.

[a fan]

Second, Tierney was clearly still a top-20 coach when he left. His last team (2009) was seeded #4 in the NCAAs (but, I'm happy to say, lost to #5 Cornell). After he left, Princeton collapsed pretty much immediately. If only incoming talent matters, why couldn't the new coaches keep the team in the top 20 with its glorious record of success?

You forgot that Tierney was 5-7 in 2005 (Ryan Boyle graduated the year before). And was 7-6 in 2008. And in 2009? Yale blew Tierney's doors off in the QuarterFinals. The decline started before Tierney left.....

Agree to disagree.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Second, Tierney was clearly still a top-20 coach when he left. His last team (2009) was seeded #4 in the NCAAs (but, I'm happy to say, lost to #5 Cornell). After he left, Princeton collapsed pretty much immediately. If only incoming talent matters, why couldn't the new coaches keep the team in the top 20 with its glorious record of success?

You forgot that Tierney was 5-7 in 2005 (Ryan Boyle graduated the year before). And was 7-6 in 2008. And in 2009? Yale blew Tierney's doors off in the QuarterFinals. The decline started before Tierney left.....

Agree to disagree.

Yes. Tierney didn’t forget how to coach at the end of his Princeton tenure. Administrative support makes a huge difference…. Ask the guys at Yale or the guys at Cornell in the early to mid 1990’s.

[10stone5]

Second, Tierney was clearly still a top-20 coach when he left. His last team (2009) was seeded #4 in the NCAAs (but, I'm happy to say, lost to #5 Cornell). After he left, Princeton collapsed pretty much immediately. If only incoming talent matters, why couldn't the new coaches keep the team in the top 20 with its glorious record of success?

You forgot that Tierney was 5-7 in 2005 (Ryan Boyle graduated the year before). And was 7-6 in 2008. And in 2009? Yale blew Tierney's doors off in the QuarterFinals. The decline started before Tierney left.....

Agree to disagree.

I liked that final Tierney team.
He brought in Chanenchuk.
The Tierney’s were among the 1st recruiting in
N Cal, I recall seeing Trevor’s name at more than a
few camps, and Tierney brought in some guys from
Saint Ignatius (N Cal).

[wgdsr]

Second, Tierney was clearly still a top-20 coach when he left. His last team (2009) was seeded #4 in the NCAAs (but, I'm happy to say, lost to #5 Cornell). After he left, Princeton collapsed pretty much immediately. If only incoming talent matters, why couldn't the new coaches keep the team in the top 20 with its glorious record of success?

You forgot that Tierney was 5-7 in 2005 (Ryan Boyle graduated the year before). And was 7-6 in 2008. And in 2009? Yale blew Tierney's doors off in the QuarterFinals. The decline started before Tierney left.....

Agree to disagree.

Yes. Tierney didn’t forget how to coach at the end of his Princeton tenure. Administrative support makes a huge difference…. Ask the guys at Yale or the guys at Cornell in the early to mid 1990’s.

he was the best at getting ivy administrative support in the 90's. and no one was really even close.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Second, Tierney was clearly still a top-20 coach when he left. His last team (2009) was seeded #4 in the NCAAs (but, I'm happy to say, lost to #5 Cornell). After he left, Princeton collapsed pretty much immediately. If only incoming talent matters, why couldn't the new coaches keep the team in the top 20 with its glorious record of success?

You forgot that Tierney was 5-7 in 2005 (Ryan Boyle graduated the year before). And was 7-6 in 2008. And in 2009? Yale blew Tierney's doors off in the QuarterFinals. The decline started before Tierney left.....

Agree to disagree.

Yes. Tierney didn’t forget how to coach at the end of his Princeton tenure. Administrative support makes a huge difference…. Ask the guys at Yale or the guys at Cornell in the early to mid 1990’s.

he was the best at getting ivy administrative support in the 90's. and no one was really even close.

I just remember my buddy telling me in 1996 or so that he couldn’t get kids into Cornell but they were going to Princeton and Harvard. I didn’t know what he meant by that until years laters. Anyway, institutional support can determine how competitive programs are….it ebbs and flows.

[Kismet]

Second, Tierney was clearly still a top-20 coach when he left. His last team (2009) was seeded #4 in the NCAAs (but, I'm happy to say, lost to #5 Cornell). After he left, Princeton collapsed pretty much immediately. If only incoming talent matters, why couldn't the new coaches keep the team in the top 20 with its glorious record of success?

You forgot that Tierney was 5-7 in 2005 (Ryan Boyle graduated the year before). And was 7-6 in 2008. And in 2009? Yale blew Tierney's doors off in the QuarterFinals. The decline started before Tierney left.....

Agree to disagree.

Yes. Tierney didn’t forget how to coach at the end of his Princeton tenure. Administrative support makes a huge difference…. Ask the guys at Yale or the guys at Cornell in the early to mid 1990’s.

he was the best at getting ivy administrative support in the 90's. and no one was really even close.

In the Ivies, its extra important as you don't have to deal with a 12.6 schollie limit. That said, you cannot get just anybody in, even with a cooperative admissions department. In Bill T's case, admissions was becoming less cooperative and he was smart enough to know what that was going to mean and move on.

[Farfromgeneva]

Second, Tierney was clearly still a top-20 coach when he left. His last team (2009) was seeded #4 in the NCAAs (but, I'm happy to say, lost to #5 Cornell). After he left, Princeton collapsed pretty much immediately. If only incoming talent matters, why couldn't the new coaches keep the team in the top 20 with its glorious record of success?

You forgot that Tierney was 5-7 in 2005 (Ryan Boyle graduated the year before). And was 7-6 in 2008. And in 2009? Yale blew Tierney's doors off in the QuarterFinals. The decline started before Tierney left.....

Agree to disagree.

Yes. Tierney didn’t forget how to coach at the end of his Princeton tenure. Administrative support makes a huge difference…. Ask the guys at Yale or the guys at Cornell in the early to mid 1990’s.

For Cornell I refer to that as “the world as it should be” (8-3 good guys in that stretch)

1990 Ithaca, NY Hobart 15–14OT
110 1991 Geneva, NY #14 Cornell 11–9
111 1992 Ithaca, NY #16 Cornell 14–12
112 1993 Geneva, NY Hobart 9–7
113 1994 Ithaca, NY Hobart 11–9
114 1995 Geneva, NY Cornell 14–7
115 1996 Ithaca, NY Hobart 10–8
116 1997 Geneva, NY #19 Hobart 12–9
117 1998 Ithaca, NY #8 Hobart 13–12
118 1999 Ithaca, NY Hobart 13–12
119 2000 Geneva, NY #15 Hobart 14–10

[FMUBart]

No one is debating Tierney's coaching ability or his HOF career...but, as a math major, it was statistically impossible for Princeton, as an overall athletic dept., to have the success they had--assuming all the Ivies were operating under the same AI blueprint. When Tierney was contacted by Denver for HC candidates, he threw his name in the hat. Why? The dynamics had changed. As someone pointed out(DocB), administrative support is the key to success of any school's athletic department. Ask Butch Davis when he went to UNC; he got them to lower the academic standards to allow less qualified "student"/athletes admission...goes on everywhere, but when the spicket is turned off, the W's stop too!