Coaching Carousel

[wlaxphan20]

Kwolek from Richmond.

She did a good job at Richmond, made them a real contender in the A10, although I thought they underperformed this past year. Good gig for her, and an opening in Spiderville.

I think we will see Richmond decline from its recent success. Good Hire.

had to go back and check - but Richmond was 17-2 the last 2 years, pretty impressive until you check the SOS. I like the hire, anytime you have a chance to be a head coach in the ACC - you take it.

Really? THE ACC...you take it! Why? So if you don't take an ACC JOB, then you should feel shame? Worthless? Consider yourself not a good coach?
I'm surprised at how snooty that actually sounded...or am I being a bit sensitive. Coaching the game at any of the 3 levels should be considered an honor. If you are who I think you are, then you know exactly what I mean. Being a snob is not going to grow the game, but only succeed in keeping it stagnant.

Would love to hear your thoughts and others as well.

Larry, I see the point you are making and I agree with you wholeheartedly on the under-appreciation of DII & DIII. In the same vein, I thought hiring a coach who has only ever coached in any capacity at in a mid-major conference (CAA & A10) & Ivy level was at least more refreshing than paying big bucks to lure a coach away from a hoity toity Big 10 or ACC school. Having the chance to help start a varsity program at a school like Clemson is a unique opportunity that one might even say is once in a lifetime, and admitting that doesn't mean that any of the other job openings are shameful. I also thought Kwolek leaving corporate America after 5 years to become a college coach shows real passion for it, and maybe that's what Clemson saw during the interview process as well.

South Carolina is surrounded by growing lacrosse hotbeds in NC and GA. Over half the student body at Clemson comes from South Carolina, and Clemson fans are downright fanatics. I think this could lead to the establishment of some great youth programs and actual sustained growth of the game at a community level if it's done right. Maybe I'm the one being too sensitive or too optimistic.

I'll admit, I don't know who any of the other candidates were, so I don't know if this was blatant D1 favoritism

[AreaLax]

Brooke Shriver Named Navy Associate Head Coach

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

Kwolek from Richmond.

She did a good job at Richmond, made them a real contender in the A10, although I thought they underperformed this past year. Good gig for her, and an opening in Spiderville.

I think we will see Richmond decline from its recent success. Good Hire.

had to go back and check - but Richmond was 17-2 the last 2 years, pretty impressive until you check the SOS. I like the hire, anytime you have a chance to be a head coach in the ACC - you take it.

Kind of suprised . Thought job would go to maybe a more well known coach. That’s gotta be a great job at a cool place to play.

Very excited to see this job go to a PROVEN head coach. Kwolek has done an excellent job at Richmond. Obviously that is no guarantee she will do the same at Clemson. But glad to see it go to a proven head coach. These are BIG jobs. And while the trend is to hire the kid who played US or at Northwestern/Maryland etc...Clemson bucks that trend and hires the proven leader and winner. Good for them.

https://www.usalaxmagazine.com/college/ ... osse-coach

[hmmm]

Kwolek from Richmond.

She did a good job at Richmond, made them a real contender in the A10, although I thought they underperformed this past year. Good gig for her, and an opening in Spiderville.

I think we will see Richmond decline from its recent success. Good Hire.

had to go back and check - but Richmond was 17-2 the last 2 years, pretty impressive until you check the SOS. I like the hire, anytime you have a chance to be a head coach in the ACC - you take it.

Really? THE ACC...you take it! Why? So if you don't take an ACC JOB, then you should feel shame? Worthless? Consider yourself not a good coach?
I'm surprised at how snooty that actually sounded...or am I being a bit sensitive. Coaching the game at any of the 3 levels should be considered an honor. If you are who I think you are, then you know exactly what I mean. Being a snob is not going to grow the game, but only succeed in keeping it stagnant.

Would love to hear your thoughts and others as well.

Maybe it's just me but you're definitely being a bit sensitive on this one. I'm sure she was honored to be the head coach at Richmond. I'm sure most coaches are happy to be where they are. The point was if you have the opportunity to go coach in the ACC you don't turn that down. You don't see the coach of UCF football saying no to Nebraska and Tennessee(who they lost their last two coaches to). The resources available at the higher level schools make your job easier and typically they are able to pay you(and more importantly your assistants) more money. As was said, if you're offered a job in the ACC you take it. If you're the coach at Army and are offered the Va Tech job you take it. If you're the head coach at Canisius and you're offered the Louisville job you take it. This isn't surprising stuff and shouldn't be offensive to anyone. No one is belittling Richmond, Army or Canisius but those are just facts.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

had to go back and check - but Richmond was 17-2 the last 2 years, pretty impressive until you check the SOS. I like the hire, anytime you have a chance to be a head coach in the ACC - you take it.

Really? THE ACC...you take it! Why? So if you don't take an ACC JOB, then you should feel shame? Worthless? Consider yourself not a good coach?
I'm surprised at how snooty that actually sounded...or am I being a bit sensitive. Coaching the game at any of the 3 levels should be considered an honor. If you are who I think you are, then you know exactly what I mean. Being a snob is not going to grow the game, but only succeed in keeping it stagnant.

Would love to hear your thoughts and others as well.

Maybe it's just me but you're definitely being a bit sensitive on this one. I'm sure she was honored to be the head coach at Richmond. I'm sure most coaches are happy to be where they are. The point was if you have the opportunity to go coach in the ACC you don't turn that down. You don't see the coach of UCF football saying no to Nebraska and Tennessee(who they lost their last two coaches to). The resources available at the higher level schools make your job easier and typically they are able to pay you(and more importantly your assistants) more money. As was said, if you're offered a job in the ACC you take it. If you're the coach at Army and are offered the Va Tech job you take it. If you're the head coach at Canisius and you're offered the Louisville job you take it. This isn't surprising stuff and shouldn't be offensive to anyone. No one is belittling Richmond, Army or Canisius but those are just facts.

Well said.

[8meterPA]

Kwolek from Richmond.

She did a good job at Richmond, made them a real contender in the A10, although I thought they underperformed this past year. Good gig for her, and an opening in Spiderville.

I think we will see Richmond decline from its recent success. Good Hire.

had to go back and check - but Richmond was 17-2 the last 2 years, pretty impressive until you check the SOS. I like the hire, anytime you have a chance to be a head coach in the ACC - you take it.

Really? THE ACC...you take it! Why? So if you don't take an ACC JOB, then you should feel shame? Worthless? Consider yourself not a good coach?
I'm surprised at how snooty that actually sounded...or am I being a bit sensitive. Coaching the game at any of the 3 levels should be considered an honor. If you are who I think you are, then you know exactly what I mean. Being a snob is not going to grow the game, but only succeed in keeping it stagnant.

Would love to hear your thoughts and others as well.

Maybe it's just me but you're definitely being a bit sensitive on this one. I'm sure she was honored to be the head coach at Richmond. I'm sure most coaches are happy to be where they are. The point was if you have the opportunity to go coach in the ACC you don't turn that down. You don't see the coach of UCF football saying no to Nebraska and Tennessee(who they lost their last two coaches to). The resources available at the higher level schools make your job easier and typically they are able to pay you(and more importantly your assistants) more money. As was said, if you're offered a job in the ACC you take it. If you're the coach at Army and are offered the Va Tech job you take it. If you're the head coach at Canisius and you're offered the Louisville job you take it. This isn't surprising stuff and shouldn't be offensive to anyone. No one is belittling Richmond, Army or Canisius but those are just facts.

I thought it was a no-brainer, but you laid it out very well. Coaching is a profession and it's matter of climbing the ladder just like any other profession. I think it's great that AK was able to be so successful at Richmond and use that experience and track record to get a HC job at the best conference in women's lacrosse - those opportunities rarely come available so you go for it when they do become available.

[TNLAX]

Kwolek from Richmond.

She did a good job at Richmond, made them a real contender in the A10, although I thought they underperformed this past year. Good gig for her, and an opening in Spiderville.

I think we will see Richmond decline from its recent success. Good Hire.

had to go back and check - but Richmond was 17-2 the last 2 years, pretty impressive until you check the SOS. I like the hire, anytime you have a chance to be a head coach in the ACC - you take it.

Really? THE ACC...you take it! Why? So if you don't take an ACC JOB, then you should feel shame? Worthless? Consider yourself not a good coach?
I'm surprised at how snooty that actually sounded...or am I being a bit sensitive. Coaching the game at any of the 3 levels should be considered an honor. If you are who I think you are, then you know exactly what I mean. Being a snob is not going to grow the game, but only succeed in keeping it stagnant.

Would love to hear your thoughts and others as well.

Maybe it's just me but you're definitely being a bit sensitive on this one. I'm sure she was honored to be the head coach at Richmond. I'm sure most coaches are happy to be where they are. The point was if you have the opportunity to go coach in the ACC you don't turn that down. You don't see the coach of UCF football saying no to Nebraska and Tennessee(who they lost their last two coaches to). The resources available at the higher level schools make your job easier and typically they are able to pay you(and more importantly your assistants) more money. As was said, if you're offered a job in the ACC you take it. If you're the coach at Army and are offered the Va Tech job you take it. If you're the head coach at Canisius and you're offered the Louisville job you take it. This isn't surprising stuff and shouldn't be offensive to anyone. No one is belittling Richmond, Army or Canisius but those are just facts.

I thought it was a no-brainer, but you laid it out very well. Coaching is a profession and it's matter of climbing the ladder just like any other profession. I think it's great that AK was able to be so successful at Richmond and use that experience and track record to get a HC job at the best conference in women's lacrosse - those opportunities rarely come available so you go for it when they do become available.

My 2 cents. Sure the ACC is the best women's lacrosse conference. But Clemson isn't one of the best universities in the country (subjective I know). For what it is worth, USNews has them ranked #74 in the country. I find it hard to believe that in the next 10 years they will be competitive in the ACC, but who knows.

I think it will be a hard sell for a coach to attract top talent. What does Clemson offer that's better than the top ACC schools? Why would a top player choose Clemson over BC, UNC, Duke, Virginia, Syracuse? If I am a high school girl and want to play college lacrosse, do I really want to play for a team that has little to no shot of making their conference tournament, and no chance of making the NCAA's?

I have never been to Clemson, but I hear it is a lovely school and a beautiful campus. But no matter how much money the athletic department may throw at the women's lacrosse team and no matter how much swag they have for their players, I just can't see them being competitive. I wish the best for the program, but I always see the glass half full

[hmmm]

Kwolek from Richmond.

She did a good job at Richmond, made them a real contender in the A10, although I thought they underperformed this past year. Good gig for her, and an opening in Spiderville.

I think we will see Richmond decline from its recent success. Good Hire.

had to go back and check - but Richmond was 17-2 the last 2 years, pretty impressive until you check the SOS. I like the hire, anytime you have a chance to be a head coach in the ACC - you take it.

Really? THE ACC...you take it! Why? So if you don't take an ACC JOB, then you should feel shame? Worthless? Consider yourself not a good coach?
I'm surprised at how snooty that actually sounded...or am I being a bit sensitive. Coaching the game at any of the 3 levels should be considered an honor. If you are who I think you are, then you know exactly what I mean. Being a snob is not going to grow the game, but only succeed in keeping it stagnant.

Would love to hear your thoughts and others as well.

Maybe it's just me but you're definitely being a bit sensitive on this one. I'm sure she was honored to be the head coach at Richmond. I'm sure most coaches are happy to be where they are. The point was if you have the opportunity to go coach in the ACC you don't turn that down. You don't see the coach of UCF football saying no to Nebraska and Tennessee(who they lost their last two coaches to). The resources available at the higher level schools make your job easier and typically they are able to pay you(and more importantly your assistants) more money. As was said, if you're offered a job in the ACC you take it. If you're the coach at Army and are offered the Va Tech job you take it. If you're the head coach at Canisius and you're offered the Louisville job you take it. This isn't surprising stuff and shouldn't be offensive to anyone. No one is belittling Richmond, Army or Canisius but those are just facts.

I thought it was a no-brainer, but you laid it out very well. Coaching is a profession and it's matter of climbing the ladder just like any other profession. I think it's great that AK was able to be so successful at Richmond and use that experience and track record to get a HC job at the best conference in women's lacrosse - those opportunities rarely come available so you go for it when they do become available.

My 2 cents. Sure the ACC is the best women's lacrosse conference. But Clemson isn't one of the best universities in the country (subjective I know). For what it is worth, USNews has them ranked #74 in the country. I find it hard to believe that in the next 10 years they will be competitive in the ACC, but who knows.

I think it will be a hard sell for a coach to attract top talent. What does Clemson offer that's better than the top ACC schools? Why would a top player choose Clemson over BC, UNC, Duke, Virginia, Syracuse? If I am a high school girl and want to play college lacrosse, do I really want to play for a team that has little to no shot of making their conference tournament, and no chance of making the NCAA's?

I have never been to Clemson, but I hear it is a lovely school and a beautiful campus. But no matter how much money the athletic department may throw at the women's lacrosse team and no matter how much swag they have for their players, I just can't see them being competitive. I wish the best for the program, but I always see the glass half full

I'm sure softball people thought the same when Clemson started their softball program last year. In their first full year as a program they won the ACC with a record of 29-5 which is a good softball league(4 top 20 teams). Clemson is a HUGE draw to kids from the NE. One thing they offer that the other ACC schools don't is a national championship level football program which creates a whole different dynamic on campus and is a draw socially.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

I'm sure softball people thought the same when Clemson started their softball program last year. In their first full year as a program they won the ACC with a record of 29-5 which is a good softball league(4 top 20 teams). Clemson is a HUGE draw to kids from the NE. One thing they offer that the other ACC schools don't is a national championship level football program which creates a whole different dynamic on campus and is a draw socially.

I'm glad you addressed this. I was curious about the football team's national championship and how it factored into the equation.

[seacoaster]

I'm sure softball people thought the same when Clemson started their softball program last year. In their first full year as a program they won the ACC with a record of 29-5 which is a good softball league(4 top 20 teams). Clemson is a HUGE draw to kids from the NE. One thing they offer that the other ACC schools don't is a national championship level football program which creates a whole different dynamic on campus and is a draw socially.

I'm glad you addressed this. I was curious about the football team's national championship and how it factored into the equation.

I wonder, for girls, how much of a draw the D1 football bowl series thing really is. I know that anecdotally it is a factor in recruiting boys. Having said that, I will say that for a lot of kids, the big tailgate scene and 100,000 fan games in the Fall are a pretty big draw. Have a nephew who went to Alabama for a graduate program -- from Bowdoin -- and the culture shock was, umm, intergalactic.

[TNLAX]

Kwolek from Richmond.

She did a good job at Richmond, made them a real contender in the A10, although I thought they underperformed this past year. Good gig for her, and an opening in Spiderville.

I think we will see Richmond decline from its recent success. Good Hire.

had to go back and check - but Richmond was 17-2 the last 2 years, pretty impressive until you check the SOS. I like the hire, anytime you have a chance to be a head coach in the ACC - you take it.

Really? THE ACC...you take it! Why? So if you don't take an ACC JOB, then you should feel shame? Worthless? Consider yourself not a good coach?
I'm surprised at how snooty that actually sounded...or am I being a bit sensitive. Coaching the game at any of the 3 levels should be considered an honor. If you are who I think you are, then you know exactly what I mean. Being a snob is not going to grow the game, but only succeed in keeping it stagnant.

Would love to hear your thoughts and others as well.

Maybe it's just me but you're definitely being a bit sensitive on this one. I'm sure she was honored to be the head coach at Richmond. I'm sure most coaches are happy to be where they are. The point was if you have the opportunity to go coach in the ACC you don't turn that down. You don't see the coach of UCF football saying no to Nebraska and Tennessee(who they lost their last two coaches to). The resources available at the higher level schools make your job easier and typically they are able to pay you(and more importantly your assistants) more money. As was said, if you're offered a job in the ACC you take it. If you're the coach at Army and are offered the Va Tech job you take it. If you're the head coach at Canisius and you're offered the Louisville job you take it. This isn't surprising stuff and shouldn't be offensive to anyone. No one is belittling Richmond, Army or Canisius but those are just facts.

I thought it was a no-brainer, but you laid it out very well. Coaching is a profession and it's matter of climbing the ladder just like any other profession. I think it's great that AK was able to be so successful at Richmond and use that experience and track record to get a HC job at the best conference in women's lacrosse - those opportunities rarely come available so you go for it when they do become available.

My 2 cents. Sure the ACC is the best women's lacrosse conference. But Clemson isn't one of the best universities in the country (subjective I know). For what it is worth, USNews has them ranked #74 in the country. I find it hard to believe that in the next 10 years they will be competitive in the ACC, but who knows.

I think it will be a hard sell for a coach to attract top talent. What does Clemson offer that's better than the top ACC schools? Why would a top player choose Clemson over BC, UNC, Duke, Virginia, Syracuse? If I am a high school girl and want to play college lacrosse, do I really want to play for a team that has little to no shot of making their conference tournament, and no chance of making the NCAA's?

I have never been to Clemson, but I hear it is a lovely school and a beautiful campus. But no matter how much money the athletic department may throw at the women's lacrosse team and no matter how much swag they have for their players, I just can't see them being competitive. I wish the best for the program, but I always see the glass half full

I'm sure softball people thought the same when Clemson started their softball program last year. In their first full year as a program they won the ACC with a record of 29-5 which is a good softball league(4 top 20 teams). Clemson is a HUGE draw to kids from the NE. One thing they offer that the other ACC schools don't is a national championship level football program which creates a whole different dynamic on campus and is a draw socially.

Can I be a complete snob here, I think the demographics of the softball family is different than the demographics of the traditional lacrosse family from NE. That is probably one of the things the Clemson board look at when they decided to add women's lacrosse. They may have wanted to try to get more students from NE going to their school.

[Dr. Tact]

I'm sure softball people thought the same when Clemson started their softball program last year. In their first full year as a program they won the ACC with a record of 29-5 which is a good softball league(4 top 20 teams). Clemson is a HUGE draw to kids from the NE. One thing they offer that the other ACC schools don't is a national championship level football program which creates a whole different dynamic on campus and is a draw socially.

I'm glad you addressed this. I was curious about the football team's national championship and how it factored into the equation.

I wonder, for girls, how much of a draw the D1 football bowl series thing really is. I know that anecdotally it is a factor in recruiting boys. Having said that, I will say that for a lot of kids, the big tailgate scene and 100,000 fan games in the Fall are a pretty big draw. Have a nephew who went to Alabama for a graduate program -- from Bowdoin -- and the culture shock was, umm, intergalactic.

The girls that I know that went to VT went for a variety of reasons, including the social aspect of tailgating and football. Some wanted that big school experience along with (my descriptors here) a low level ACC lax experience.

[8meterPA]

Kwolek from Richmond.

She did a good job at Richmond, made them a real contender in the A10, although I thought they underperformed this past year. Good gig for her, and an opening in Spiderville.

I think we will see Richmond decline from its recent success. Good Hire.

had to go back and check - but Richmond was 17-2 the last 2 years, pretty impressive until you check the SOS. I like the hire, anytime you have a chance to be a head coach in the ACC - you take it.

Really? THE ACC...you take it! Why? So if you don't take an ACC JOB, then you should feel shame? Worthless? Consider yourself not a good coach?
I'm surprised at how snooty that actually sounded...or am I being a bit sensitive. Coaching the game at any of the 3 levels should be considered an honor. If you are who I think you are, then you know exactly what I mean. Being a snob is not going to grow the game, but only succeed in keeping it stagnant.

Would love to hear your thoughts and others as well.

Maybe it's just me but you're definitely being a bit sensitive on this one. I'm sure she was honored to be the head coach at Richmond. I'm sure most coaches are happy to be where they are. The point was if you have the opportunity to go coach in the ACC you don't turn that down. You don't see the coach of UCF football saying no to Nebraska and Tennessee(who they lost their last two coaches to). The resources available at the higher level schools make your job easier and typically they are able to pay you(and more importantly your assistants) more money. As was said, if you're offered a job in the ACC you take it. If you're the coach at Army and are offered the Va Tech job you take it. If you're the head coach at Canisius and you're offered the Louisville job you take it. This isn't surprising stuff and shouldn't be offensive to anyone. No one is belittling Richmond, Army or Canisius but those are just facts.

I thought it was a no-brainer, but you laid it out very well. Coaching is a profession and it's matter of climbing the ladder just like any other profession. I think it's great that AK was able to be so successful at Richmond and use that experience and track record to get a HC job at the best conference in women's lacrosse - those opportunities rarely come available so you go for it when they do become available.

My 2 cents. Sure the ACC is the best women's lacrosse conference. But Clemson isn't one of the best universities in the country (subjective I know). For what it is worth, USNews has them ranked #74 in the country. I find it hard to believe that in the next 10 years they will be competitive in the ACC, but who knows.

I think it will be a hard sell for a coach to attract top talent. What does Clemson offer that's better than the top ACC schools? Why would a top player choose Clemson over BC, UNC, Duke, Virginia, Syracuse? If I am a high school girl and want to play college lacrosse, do I really want to play for a team that has little to no shot of making their conference tournament, and no chance of making the NCAA's?

I have never been to Clemson, but I hear it is a lovely school and a beautiful campus. But no matter how much money the athletic department may throw at the women's lacrosse team and no matter how much swag they have for their players, I just can't see them being competitive. I wish the best for the program, but I always see the glass half full

I'm sure softball people thought the same when Clemson started their softball program last year. In their first full year as a program they won the ACC with a record of 29-5 which is a good softball league(4 top 20 teams). Clemson is a HUGE draw to kids from the NE. One thing they offer that the other ACC schools don't is a national championship level football program which creates a whole different dynamic on campus and is a draw socially.

Can I be a complete snob here, I think the demographics of the softball family is different than the demographics of the traditional lacrosse family from NE. That is probably one of the things the Clemson board look at when they decided to add women's lacrosse. They may have wanted to try to get more students from NE going to their school.

I can tell you from the academic side - meaning non-athletes - Clemson, Alabama, Texas A&M, TCU and other similar southern schools recruit very heavily for high achieving students from both top public & private schools in suburban Phila and they have been successful..throw a ton of academic money at them. These kids are all the same demographic as the lax kid from the NE.

So yes, I'd be willing to bet that Clemson will have a successful program within 5 years - much better chance than Pitt. Florida did ok as a start up - didn't they?

[TNLAX]

Kwolek from Richmond.

She did a good job at Richmond, made them a real contender in the A10, although I thought they underperformed this past year. Good gig for her, and an opening in Spiderville.

I think we will see Richmond decline from its recent success. Good Hire.

had to go back and check - but Richmond was 17-2 the last 2 years, pretty impressive until you check the SOS. I like the hire, anytime you have a chance to be a head coach in the ACC - you take it.

Really? THE ACC...you take it! Why? So if you don't take an ACC JOB, then you should feel shame? Worthless? Consider yourself not a good coach?
I'm surprised at how snooty that actually sounded...or am I being a bit sensitive. Coaching the game at any of the 3 levels should be considered an honor. If you are who I think you are, then you know exactly what I mean. Being a snob is not going to grow the game, but only succeed in keeping it stagnant.

Would love to hear your thoughts and others as well.

Maybe it's just me but you're definitely being a bit sensitive on this one. I'm sure she was honored to be the head coach at Richmond. I'm sure most coaches are happy to be where they are. The point was if you have the opportunity to go coach in the ACC you don't turn that down. You don't see the coach of UCF football saying no to Nebraska and Tennessee(who they lost their last two coaches to). The resources available at the higher level schools make your job easier and typically they are able to pay you(and more importantly your assistants) more money. As was said, if you're offered a job in the ACC you take it. If you're the coach at Army and are offered the Va Tech job you take it. If you're the head coach at Canisius and you're offered the Louisville job you take it. This isn't surprising stuff and shouldn't be offensive to anyone. No one is belittling Richmond, Army or Canisius but those are just facts.

I thought it was a no-brainer, but you laid it out very well. Coaching is a profession and it's matter of climbing the ladder just like any other profession. I think it's great that AK was able to be so successful at Richmond and use that experience and track record to get a HC job at the best conference in women's lacrosse - those opportunities rarely come available so you go for it when they do become available.

My 2 cents. Sure the ACC is the best women's lacrosse conference. But Clemson isn't one of the best universities in the country (subjective I know). For what it is worth, USNews has them ranked #74 in the country. I find it hard to believe that in the next 10 years they will be competitive in the ACC, but who knows.

I think it will be a hard sell for a coach to attract top talent. What does Clemson offer that's better than the top ACC schools? Why would a top player choose Clemson over BC, UNC, Duke, Virginia, Syracuse? If I am a high school girl and want to play college lacrosse, do I really want to play for a team that has little to no shot of making their conference tournament, and no chance of making the NCAA's?

I have never been to Clemson, but I hear it is a lovely school and a beautiful campus. But no matter how much money the athletic department may throw at the women's lacrosse team and no matter how much swag they have for their players, I just can't see them being competitive. I wish the best for the program, but I always see the glass half full

I'm sure softball people thought the same when Clemson started their softball program last year. In their first full year as a program they won the ACC with a record of 29-5 which is a good softball league(4 top 20 teams). Clemson is a HUGE draw to kids from the NE. One thing they offer that the other ACC schools don't is a national championship level football program which creates a whole different dynamic on campus and is a draw socially.

Can I be a complete snob here, I think the demographics of the softball family is different than the demographics of the traditional lacrosse family from NE. That is probably one of the things the Clemson board look at when they decided to add women's lacrosse. They may have wanted to try to get more students from NE going to their school.

I can tell you from the academic side - meaning non-athletes - Clemson, Alabama, Texas A&M, TCU and other similar southern schools recruit very heavily for high achieving students from both top public & private schools in suburban Phila and they have been successful..throw a ton of academic money at them. These kids are all the same demographic as the lax kid from the NE.

So yes, I'd be willing to bet that Clemson will have a successful program within 5 years - much better chance than Pitt. Florida did ok as a start up - didn't they?

I don't rank schools, but Florida is ranked a lot higher than Clemson. I am not saying Florida is a better school, just ranked higher.

Also Florida wasn't in the ACC, hired a heck of a coach with great track record from Yale and they had good chances to win the conferences they played in, played top lacrosse teams out of conference and play annually in the NCAA. Time will tell how it all works out.

[8meterPA]

Kwolek from Richmond.

She did a good job at Richmond, made them a real contender in the A10, although I thought they underperformed this past year. Good gig for her, and an opening in Spiderville.

I think we will see Richmond decline from its recent success. Good Hire.

had to go back and check - but Richmond was 17-2 the last 2 years, pretty impressive until you check the SOS. I like the hire, anytime you have a chance to be a head coach in the ACC - you take it.

Really? THE ACC...you take it! Why? So if you don't take an ACC JOB, then you should feel shame? Worthless? Consider yourself not a good coach?
I'm surprised at how snooty that actually sounded...or am I being a bit sensitive. Coaching the game at any of the 3 levels should be considered an honor. If you are who I think you are, then you know exactly what I mean. Being a snob is not going to grow the game, but only succeed in keeping it stagnant.

Would love to hear your thoughts and others as well.

Maybe it's just me but you're definitely being a bit sensitive on this one. I'm sure she was honored to be the head coach at Richmond. I'm sure most coaches are happy to be where they are. The point was if you have the opportunity to go coach in the ACC you don't turn that down. You don't see the coach of UCF football saying no to Nebraska and Tennessee(who they lost their last two coaches to). The resources available at the higher level schools make your job easier and typically they are able to pay you(and more importantly your assistants) more money. As was said, if you're offered a job in the ACC you take it. If you're the coach at Army and are offered the Va Tech job you take it. If you're the head coach at Canisius and you're offered the Louisville job you take it. This isn't surprising stuff and shouldn't be offensive to anyone. No one is belittling Richmond, Army or Canisius but those are just facts.

I thought it was a no-brainer, but you laid it out very well. Coaching is a profession and it's matter of climbing the ladder just like any other profession. I think it's great that AK was able to be so successful at Richmond and use that experience and track record to get a HC job at the best conference in women's lacrosse - those opportunities rarely come available so you go for it when they do become available.

My 2 cents. Sure the ACC is the best women's lacrosse conference. But Clemson isn't one of the best universities in the country (subjective I know). For what it is worth, USNews has them ranked #74 in the country. I find it hard to believe that in the next 10 years they will be competitive in the ACC, but who knows.

I think it will be a hard sell for a coach to attract top talent. What does Clemson offer that's better than the top ACC schools? Why would a top player choose Clemson over BC, UNC, Duke, Virginia, Syracuse? If I am a high school girl and want to play college lacrosse, do I really want to play for a team that has little to no shot of making their conference tournament, and no chance of making the NCAA's?

I have never been to Clemson, but I hear it is a lovely school and a beautiful campus. But no matter how much money the athletic department may throw at the women's lacrosse team and no matter how much swag they have for their players, I just can't see them being competitive. I wish the best for the program, but I always see the glass half full

I'm sure softball people thought the same when Clemson started their softball program last year. In their first full year as a program they won the ACC with a record of 29-5 which is a good softball league(4 top 20 teams). Clemson is a HUGE draw to kids from the NE. One thing they offer that the other ACC schools don't is a national championship level football program which creates a whole different dynamic on campus and is a draw socially.

Can I be a complete snob here, I think the demographics of the softball family is different than the demographics of the traditional lacrosse family from NE. That is probably one of the things the Clemson board look at when they decided to add women's lacrosse. They may have wanted to try to get more students from NE going to their school.

I can tell you from the academic side - meaning non-athletes - Clemson, Alabama, Texas A&M, TCU and other similar southern schools recruit very heavily for high achieving students from both top public & private schools in suburban Phila and they have been successful..throw a ton of academic money at them. These kids are all the same demographic as the lax kid from the NE.

So yes, I'd be willing to bet that Clemson will have a successful program within 5 years - much better chance than Pitt. Florida did ok as a start up - didn't they?

I don't rank schools, but Florida is ranked a lot higher than Clemson. I am not saying Florida is a better school, just ranked higher.

Also Florida wasn't in the ACC, hired a heck of a coach with great track record from Yale and they had good chances to win the conferences they played in, played top lacrosse teams out of conference and play annually in the NCAA. Time will tell how it all works out.

My point about FL was that it was a southern school, far from lax hotbeds with a relatively unknown coach. School committed a lot of money to the program and was able to recruit - without the benefit of the transfer portal.

Parents who are overly concerned about academics, I doubt draw a distinction between FL and Clemson. Those kids go to Ivy or Patriot league, JHU, etc.

I can tell you from my small sliver of lax world that there is a fair amount of chatter about Clemson, especially among this year's seniors who could take their 5th year there. I wouldn't tell my kid not to go there because of their academics if that's where she wanted to go.

[LarryGamLax]

Kwolek from Richmond.

She did a good job at Richmond, made them a real contender in the A10, although I thought they underperformed this past year. Good gig for her, and an opening in Spiderville.

I think we will see Richmond decline from its recent success. Good Hire.

had to go back and check - but Richmond was 17-2 the last 2 years, pretty impressive until you check the SOS. I like the hire, anytime you have a chance to be a head coach in the ACC - you take it.

Really? THE ACC...you take it! Why? So if you don't take an ACC JOB, then you should feel shame? Worthless? Consider yourself not a good coach?
I'm surprised at how snooty that actually sounded...or am I being a bit sensitive. Coaching the game at any of the 3 levels should be considered an honor. If you are who I think you are, then you know exactly what I mean. Being a snob is not going to grow the game, but only succeed in keeping it stagnant.

Would love to hear your thoughts and others as well.

Maybe it's just me but you're definitely being a bit sensitive on this one. I'm sure she was honored to be the head coach at Richmond. I'm sure most coaches are happy to be where they are. The point was if you have the opportunity to go coach in the ACC you don't turn that down. You don't see the coach of UCF football saying no to Nebraska and Tennessee(who they lost their last two coaches to). The resources available at the higher level schools make your job easier and typically they are able to pay you(and more importantly your assistants) more money. As was said, if you're offered a job in the ACC you take it. If you're the coach at Army and are offered the Va Tech job you take it. If you're the head coach at Canisius and you're offered the Louisville job you take it. This isn't surprising stuff and shouldn't be offensive to anyone. No one is belittling Richmond, Army or Canisius but those are just facts.

You take the ACC job if you WANT TO...you don't have to. Other places have great facilities and resources and academics. The ACC hasn't cornered the market on those things.
I may be a bit sensitive, but I do not believe all the hype. There are wonderful opportunities in a lot of places.

[LarryGamLax]

Kwolek from Richmond.

She did a good job at Richmond, made them a real contender in the A10, although I thought they underperformed this past year. Good gig for her, and an opening in Spiderville.

I think we will see Richmond decline from its recent success. Good Hire.

had to go back and check - but Richmond was 17-2 the last 2 years, pretty impressive until you check the SOS. I like the hire, anytime you have a chance to be a head coach in the ACC - you take it.

Really? THE ACC...you take it! Why? So if you don't take an ACC JOB, then you should feel shame? Worthless? Consider yourself not a good coach?
I'm surprised at how snooty that actually sounded...or am I being a bit sensitive. Coaching the game at any of the 3 levels should be considered an honor. If you are who I think you are, then you know exactly what I mean. Being a snob is not going to grow the game, but only succeed in keeping it stagnant.

Would love to hear your thoughts and others as well.

Maybe it's just me but you're definitely being a bit sensitive on this one. I'm sure she was honored to be the head coach at Richmond. I'm sure most coaches are happy to be where they are. The point was if you have the opportunity to go coach in the ACC you don't turn that down. You don't see the coach of UCF football saying no to Nebraska and Tennessee(who they lost their last two coaches to). The resources available at the higher level schools make your job easier and typically they are able to pay you(and more importantly your assistants) more money. As was said, if you're offered a job in the ACC you take it. If you're the coach at Army and are offered the Va Tech job you take it. If you're the head coach at Canisius and you're offered the Louisville job you take it. This isn't surprising stuff and shouldn't be offensive to anyone. No one is belittling Richmond, Army or Canisius but those are just facts.

I thought it was a no-brainer, but you laid it out very well. Coaching is a profession and it's matter of climbing the ladder just like any other profession. I think it's great that AK was able to be so successful at Richmond and use that experience and track record to get a HC job at the best conference in women's lacrosse - those opportunities rarely come available so you go for it when they do become available.

My 2 cents. Sure the ACC is the best women's lacrosse conference. But Clemson isn't one of the best universities in the country (subjective I know). For what it is worth, USNews has them ranked #74 in the country. I find it hard to believe that in the next 10 years they will be competitive in the ACC, but who knows.

I think it will be a hard sell for a coach to attract top talent. What does Clemson offer that's better than the top ACC schools? Why would a top player choose Clemson over BC, UNC, Duke, Virginia, Syracuse? If I am a high school girl and want to play college lacrosse, do I really want to play for a team that has little to no shot of making their conference tournament, and no chance of making the NCAA's?

I have never been to Clemson, but I hear it is a lovely school and a beautiful campus. But no matter how much money the athletic department may throw at the women's lacrosse team and no matter how much swag they have for their players, I just can't see them being competitive. I wish the best for the program, but I always see the glass half full

I'm sure softball people thought the same when Clemson started their softball program last year. In their first full year as a program they won the ACC with a record of 29-5 which is a good softball league(4 top 20 teams). Clemson is a HUGE draw to kids from the NE. One thing they offer that the other ACC schools don't is a national championship level football program which creates a whole different dynamic on campus and is a draw socially.

Can I be a complete snob here, I think the demographics of the softball family is different than the demographics of the traditional lacrosse family from NE. That is probably one of the things the Clemson board look at when they decided to add women's lacrosse. They may have wanted to try to get more students from NE going to their school.

I can tell you from the academic side - meaning non-athletes - Clemson, Alabama, Texas A&M, TCU and other similar southern schools recruit very heavily for high achieving students from both top public & private schools in suburban Phila and they have been successful..throw a ton of academic money at them. These kids are all the same demographic as the lax kid from the NE.

So yes, I'd be willing to bet that Clemson will have a successful program within 5 years - much better chance than Pitt. Florida did ok as a start up - didn't they?

I don't rank schools, but Florida is ranked a lot higher than Clemson. I am not saying Florida is a better school, just ranked higher.

Also Florida wasn't in the ACC, hired a heck of a coach with great track record from Yale and they had good chances to win the conferences they played in, played top lacrosse teams out of conference and play annually in the NCAA. Time will tell how it all works out.

My point about FL was that it was a southern school, far from lax hotbeds with a relatively unknown coach. School committed a lot of money to the program and was able to recruit - without the benefit of the transfer portal.

Parents who are overly concerned about academics, I doubt draw a distinction between FL and Clemson. Those kids go to Ivy or Patriot league, JHU, etc.

I can tell you from my small sliver of lax world that there is a fair amount of chatter about Clemson, especially among this year's seniors who could take their 5th year there. I wouldn't tell my kid not to go there because of their academics if that's where she wanted to go.

8meter...did you actually call Mandy O'Leary "a relatively unknown coach"? Really? Dude, bite your tongue! You really don't know the lay of the land if you are saying something crazy like that! Do your research before you make these kind of ridiculous statements. That was said with all respect.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

Mandy O'Leary "a relatively unknown coach”?

I’m interested to know more about her, Larry. What can you tell us?

[TNLAX]

Mandy O'Leary "a relatively unknown coach”?

I’m interested to know more about her, Larry. What can you tell us?

Amanda O’Leary. https://floridagators.com/sports/womens ... leary/1298

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

Mandy O'Leary "a relatively unknown coach”?

I’m interested to know more about her, Larry. What can you tell us?

Amanda O’Leary. https://floridagators.com/sports/womens ... leary/1298

I think Larry could share more with us than any bio on a school website. Thanks for the link though.