Dartmouth Men's Lacrosse

[sguy9]

0-5 Binghamton comes to Scully-Fahey tomorrow to face the 1-3 Big Green.

Bing losses:
Colgate, Hobart, Lafayette, Delaware, Army

Dartmouth Losses:
Boston, Bryant, UMass Lowell
Dartmouth Win:
Wagner

I would say up until today Bing has the stronger SOS. Have yet to see them play, any intel? Can the Big Green take this one? Doesn't get any easier after tomorrow.

[Laxing97]

Binghamton is quick, scrappy and like to push in transition. They are better than Wagner and they do play hard. They are 39 percent on face offs. IMO this is where the game will be won or lost. If they control the ball they will be hard to beat.

If DU can control the game and get a big game from their goalie they can have a chance. But they can not have many turnovers because Binghamton has offensive talent that can score quickly

[check sticks]

If DU can control the game and get a big game from their goalie they can have a chance. But they can not have many turnovers because Binghamton has offensive talent that can score quickly

Despite the usual schit show on TOs and abysmal clearing, Dartmouth ekes out the win.
Game ball to #2 on 15 saves.

[MDlaxfan76]

Awful day on TO's (27!), but a 68% day in net by the freshman, 13 of 21 at X, and solid day on GB's, with better offensive efficiency than Binghampton (44 shots, 22 on cage & 7G's vs DC's 37 shots, 22 SOG, 11G's) resulted in 11-7 win for the Big Green.

Game ball to Hincks again.

Man, gotta clean up the TO's.

[calourie]

Dartmouth is a better team this year than they have been the past few.

[Dartjd76]

I sure hope you are right about the improvement. It has been a loooong dry spell punctuated by an occasional unexpected win. It seems we are back in the mid 70's mode where 1 Ivy win a year was cause for celebration. Although the program has progressed from those days of teams consisting of mostly walk-ons and bored football (and occasional hockey) players, the competition seems to have improved even more. The difficulty of notching even non-Ivy wins today contrasts to past periods where UVM, UNH, Union, Williams were evenly-matched to the Green, and the Green usually found a way to win.
I have nothing specific to suggest that would take the Green Lax program to the next level in short order. I guess we just have to keep the faith, support the team and hope for better times down the road.

[check sticks]

Awful day on TO's (27!)...
Man, gotta clean up the TO's.

Coach C's interval update to FODL:
"Our clearing and stick work were still sloppy and will be our primary focus as we prepare for St. John's tomorrow"

If tomorrow is anything like Saturday, and we get only average goalie play tomorrow, St Johns will double the score on Dartmouth.

[MDlaxfan76]

I sure hope you are right about the improvement. It has been a loooong dry spell punctuated by an occasional unexpected win. It seems we are back in the mid 70's mode where 1 Ivy win a year was cause for celebration. Although the program has progressed from those days of teams consisting of mostly walk-ons and bored football (and occasional hockey) players, the competition seems to have improved even more. The difficulty of notching even non-Ivy wins today contrasts to past periods where UVM, UNH, Union, Williams were evenly-matched to the Green, and the Green usually found a way to win.
I have nothing specific to suggest that would take the Green Lax program to the next level in short order. I guess we just have to keep the faith, support the team and hope for better times down the road.

Sounds like we're from much the same era?
I'm not sure I'd call my fellow players who were football-first athletes, 'bored'. Same for the hockey-first guys. They were some of the most competitive, good guys I've had the pleasure to be teammates with in any sport. But they weren't lax-first guys. Total lax IQ wasn't high, stick work by many was pretty awful, and they never missed a chance to get into a fight. Which they won.That said, there were always some excellent players too. Just not enough.

When Dud started recruiting more lax-first players into the mix, and that cohort became the top, older players, with more behind us, we started to improve. But I think it was the addition of legendary Bill Ritch to the staff that also moved the needle. Top 10 nationally in 1979.

After those two coaches retired, Dartmouth slid slowly back, until Rick Sowell gave the program a huge boost of energy and top flight talent and performance. Several terrific teams, multiple multi-year AA's. Then that momentum was lost after he left. Worse, the program developed some real challenges off the field that exacerbated the problems.

I don't know whether the current staff has the stuff to bring the program back into serious contention, but that's certainly what we hope. But it was a deep ditch so it's not going to be overnight. 2 wins is a start, need more. And need to get way, way better with the ball handling.

But it's a super young team. If they stay healthy, we should expect growth.

[MDlaxfan76]

Awful day on TO's (27!)...
Man, gotta clean up the TO's.

Coach C's interval update to FODL:
"Our clearing and stick work were still sloppy and will be our primary focus as we prepare for St. John's tomorrow"

If tomorrow is anything like Saturday, and we get only average goalie play tomorrow, St Johns will double the score on Dartmouth.

Probably true.

[DMac]

Man, Dartmouth has quite a number of big boys on this team.
Seventeen 6'2" or taller, four 6'5" or taller. Smart, #17, looks
to be a pretty good player...tall boy to cover.
6-3 St Johns about 7 min into the 2nd (having some clock on the screen issues).
Way too many TOs by Dartmouth.

7-4 SJ at the half, anyone's game.
D's gotta be more efficient on O if they're going to come back and win it.
15-8 SJ, final.

[MDlaxfan76]

Man, Dartmouth has quite a number of big boys on this team.
Seventeen 6'2" or taller, four 6'5" or taller. Smart, #17, looks
to be a pretty good player...tall boy to cover.
6-3 St Johns about 7 min into the 2nd (having some clock on the screen issues).
Way too many TOs by Dartmouth.

7-4 SJ at the half, anyone's game.
D's gotta be more efficient on O if they're going to come back and win it.
15-8 SJ, final.

Ouch. I was only able to watch the very early part of the game and then had back to back business meetings. The little bit I saw, Dartmouth was bigger, stronger, faster and was definitely out hustling St. Johns; passes were sharp...but the St. Johns goalie was making save after save. And each time St. Johns got the ball, Dartmouth was swarming and taking the ball away. Felt good, despite 0-0.

Must have fallen apart. Brutal.

EDIT: ok, looking at box score, Dartmouth got whupped at X, 18-8, 10 possession differential, but otherwise won the GB battle. 15 TO to StJ's 17. Lowest TO's for Big Green this season? Decent clearing.

But wow, 19 saves for the St. Johns tender. Just 4 for Dartmouth's 3 goalies.
We've been living off great ball stopping...but not today!
And got beaten by a hot tender and at X.

[Dartjd76]

I sure hope you are right about the improvement. It has been a loooong dry spell punctuated by an occasional unexpected win. It seems we are back in the mid 70's mode where 1 Ivy win a year was cause for celebration. Although the program has progressed from those days of teams consisting of mostly walk-ons and bored football (and occasional hockey) players, the competition seems to have improved even more. The difficulty of notching even non-Ivy wins today contrasts to past periods where UVM, UNH, Union, Williams were evenly-matched to the Green, and the Green usually found a way to win.
I have nothing specific to suggest that would take the Green Lax program to the next level in short order. I guess we just have to keep the faith, support the team and hope for better times down the road.

Sounds like we're from much the same era?
I'm not sure I'd call my fellow players who were football-first athletes, 'bored'. Same for the hockey-first guys. They were some of the most competitive, good guys I've had the pleasure to be teammates with in any sport. But they weren't lax-first guys. Total lax IQ wasn't high, stick work by many was pretty awful, and they never missed a chance to get into a fight. Which they won.That said, there were always some excellent players too. Just not enough.

When Dud started recruiting more lax-first players into the mix, and that cohort became the top, older players, with more behind us, we started to improve. But I think it was the addition of legendary Bill Ritch to the staff that also moved the needle. Top 10 nationally in 1979.

After those two coaches retired, Dartmouth slid slowly back, until Rick Sowell gave the program a huge boost of energy and top flight talent and performance. Several terrific teams, multiple multi-year AA's. Then that momentum was lost after he left. Worse, the program developed some real challenges off the field that exacerbated the problems.

I don't know whether the current staff has the stuff to bring the program back into serious contention, but that's certainly what we hope. But it was a deep ditch so it's not going to be overnight. 2 wins is a start, need more. And need to get way, way better with the ball handling.

But it's a super young team. If they stay healthy, we should expect growth.

I think the historical perspective is useful in setting realistic goals for the D lax program over the long haul.

Two things jump out at me:
1. The Ivy League regularly fields 2-3 teams that are nationally-ranked and are competitive with any program in the country. I have no data to back it up, but I surmise that of the men's Ivy NCAA sports, lacrosse consistently produces the most talented and successful teams on a national scale. In other words, unlike almost any other men's sport in the Ivies, in order to win the league a team has to be very, very good on a national level, not just within the League. Contrast to football where the IVY champ rarely would rank high on a national level. Bottom line = Ivy lacrosse is darn good and a tough nut to crack.

2. Dartmouth, for various reasons (location, facilities, commitment, etc.) does not have a history of consistent Ivy lacrosse success. Yes, we have had episodic runs and events which were awesome (playing in the Dome at SYR, winning in Foxboro, etc.) but Dartmouth is not Cornell, Princeton, etc. when it comes to lacrosse pedigree.

My point is, while most D lax followers are competitive folks who wish the best for the program, set a high bar for "success", and are dying for the Green to compete for the Ivy title, that is an unrealistic goal. Instead, we should calibrate our thinking and measure success by the more difficult metrics of: progress, effort, attitude, conduct on and off the field, and an occasional "big win".

Not every Major Leaguer bats .300. Not every NFL team makes the playoffs, etc. Let's enjoy the process and keep things in perspective.

[MDlaxfan76]

I sure hope you are right about the improvement. It has been a loooong dry spell punctuated by an occasional unexpected win. It seems we are back in the mid 70's mode where 1 Ivy win a year was cause for celebration. Although the program has progressed from those days of teams consisting of mostly walk-ons and bored football (and occasional hockey) players, the competition seems to have improved even more. The difficulty of notching even non-Ivy wins today contrasts to past periods where UVM, UNH, Union, Williams were evenly-matched to the Green, and the Green usually found a way to win.
I have nothing specific to suggest that would take the Green Lax program to the next level in short order. I guess we just have to keep the faith, support the team and hope for better times down the road.

Sounds like we're from much the same era?
I'm not sure I'd call my fellow players who were football-first athletes, 'bored'. Same for the hockey-first guys. They were some of the most competitive, good guys I've had the pleasure to be teammates with in any sport. But they weren't lax-first guys. Total lax IQ wasn't high, stick work by many was pretty awful, and they never missed a chance to get into a fight. Which they won.That said, there were always some excellent players too. Just not enough.

When Dud started recruiting more lax-first players into the mix, and that cohort became the top, older players, with more behind us, we started to improve. But I think it was the addition of legendary Bill Ritch to the staff that also moved the needle. Top 10 nationally in 1979.

After those two coaches retired, Dartmouth slid slowly back, until Rick Sowell gave the program a huge boost of energy and top flight talent and performance. Several terrific teams, multiple multi-year AA's. Then that momentum was lost after he left. Worse, the program developed some real challenges off the field that exacerbated the problems.

I don't know whether the current staff has the stuff to bring the program back into serious contention, but that's certainly what we hope. But it was a deep ditch so it's not going to be overnight. 2 wins is a start, need more. And need to get way, way better with the ball handling.

But it's a super young team. If they stay healthy, we should expect growth.

I think the historical perspective is useful in setting realistic goals for the D lax program over the long haul.

Two things jump out at me:
1. The Ivy League regularly fields 2-3 teams that are nationally-ranked and are competitive with any program in the country. I have no data to back it up, but I surmise that of the men's Ivy NCAA sports, lacrosse consistently produces the most talented and successful teams on a national scale. In other words, unlike almost any other men's sport in the Ivies, in order to win the league a team has to be very, very good on a national level, not just within the League. Contrast to football where the IVY champ rarely would rank high on a national level. Bottom line = Ivy lacrosse is darn good and a tough nut to crack.

2. Dartmouth, for various reasons (location, facilities, commitment, etc.) does not have a history of consistent Ivy lacrosse success. Yes, we have had episodic runs and events which were awesome (playing in the Dome at SYR, winning in Foxboro, etc.) but Dartmouth is not Cornell, Princeton, etc. when it comes to lacrosse pedigree.

My point is, while most D lax followers are competitive folks who wish the best for the program, set a high bar for "success", and are dying for the Green to compete for the Ivy title, that is an unrealistic goal. Instead, we should calibrate our thinking and measure success by the more difficult metrics of: progress, effort, attitude, conduct on and off the field, and an occasional "big win".

Not every Major Leaguer bats .300. Not every NFL team makes the playoffs, etc. Let's enjoy the process and keep things in perspective.

I think that's a mature, thoughtful perspective.
And I'd certainly agree with the priorities you describe.

However, I don't think it's unreasonable for Dartmouth to aspire to being one of those 2-3 Ivy teams any given year, and certainly not this sense of being at the bottom nearly every year, and not even in the top 40 much less top 20 nationally.

It's indeed "unrealistic" to duplicate the legacy of Cornell and Princeton, but I think we've seen what "commitment" can do at a peer school such as Yale, which had a pretty darn spotty history in lacrosse too. They've proven (again) that Ivies can even win NC's in this sport. But it took Shay over a decade to get to the point where it was remotely plausible. It's a long road, even when you have the right leadership and commitment.

That said, we've seen serious commitments get made at all of our peer Ivy institutions, an upping of the ante so to speak. We compete with these institutions, and others, for the best players who can meet the admissions requirements of Ivies. So, it's certainly going to be difficult.

I've become pretty familiar with the Harvard program, which certainly made serious commitments, yet have been frustrated. Certainly, had they managed to hold onto Tillman, I think most observers would say that it might have been Harvard with an NC. On the other hand, they've still pretty regularly knocked off top 10, even top 5 opponents, every so often though not every year. So has Penn.

In the meantime, I quite agree about the realistic priorities of: progress, effort, attitude, conduct on and off the field, and an occasional "big win"

[UpstateMiddie]

Atticus,
After 5 losing years why would a recruit want to play here. Any recruit with multiple offers will not pick Dc. I have friends kids on this team and on the woman’s team. The joke up there is the womans team would win heads up.
Explain to us pathetic people how anybody, alumni included can say this program is moving in the right direction. The head couch is looking forward after 4 games to improve stick work. This should be addressed in fall ball.

Binghamton is a scrappy team who are fast and are good in transition. This is not a easy W. No player wants to go to a program and lose no matter how good the school is.

Give me 5 things that this coach has done to make the program better and I will eat my words

Your premise that it's difficult to recruit top players to a program that hasn't had a winning season in 5 years is a fair one, IMO.

However, note that our last winning season was 2006, the last breakeven season was 2008. The program went way way down in the ensuing years.

That's indeed what the current staff faces when recruiting ball players with, as you say "multiple offers". Prior to their management, and now with their management.

But let me ask you a couple of questions, given that you say you have some insight as you "have friends kids" on the current team.

Did those kids, current players, have "multiple offers" or did they land at Dartmouth because no one else wanted them?? I think I know the answer to that, but here are the implications:

Either,

1) They weren't wanted by anyone else and that explains why they can't hit the broad side of a barn and have so many unforced turnovers; or

2) They actually had other attractive offers and chose Dartmouth nevertheless...and, thus, they have the talent to win games, but according to you guys they aren't being 'put in a position to win'.

Let's assume #2 is the case for sake of argument. Are you saying the wrong guys are on the field? Or they have the wrong schemes? Are there guys riding the pine who can hit the goal and who can pass a catch or pick up FO's, who aren't getting to play?

I don't know why you call yourself, "pathetic people", but your gripe with the current head coach seems way over the top personal. That indeed is 'pathetic'.

I can quite agree that the status quo is certainly not acceptable but this constant personal attack is beyond the pale.

On what has the head coach done positively, my fundamental answer remains that the program is no longer an off the field embarrassment on campus. The Administration no longer assumes that the recruits being presented for Admission are likely to have off-field behavioral problems at a higher rate than any other sports team at Dartmouth.

Likewise, recruits to Dartmouth who don't want to be part of a dysfunctional off-field culture can now be attracted; but I quite agree that they need to buy into the notion that winning is not far around the corner.

From what I'm told, the Admissions dept has new leadership, impacting Dartmouth's admissions overall very favorably. Apparently, much greater emphasis is being placed on identifying the applicants most likely to choose and thrive at Dartmouth for the reasons those of us who love the place feel it's so special. We went through over a decade of Dartmouth selling itself as just another Ivy, rather than focusing on our unique attributes. When my own son took his college tour in Hanover in 2010, it was an embarrassment to his mother and me, both Dartmouth alums. Frankly, we couldn't believe how badly they pitched Dartmouth. We hear that's radically changed for the better.

On the women's side, I'm a big fan of that program, have followed it pretty closely given the Friends relationship between the teams. They enjoy an excellent long term legacy of success and, IMO, hired a rockstar head coach.

The new indoor facility will be very beneficial to both teams.

I have a kid who had a four or 5 D1 offers (including one he accepted from a top 20 Big 10 school.) Near perfect college board scores and a 4.0 GPA. He got an Ivy offer late from an even higher ranked team, and flipped. Net net, great student, great player by most accounts. After two prospect days at Dartmouth, more than a dozen phone calls, and maybe 20 emails to coaching staff, he couldn't get an email back from the staff, and didn't get a call returned. After the whole process concluded, I had to wonder exactly who Dartmouth DOES recruit. If multiple Top 20 schools are willing to recruit a student that would likely get in on their own, why wouldn't this program?

[MDlaxfan76]

Atticus,
After 5 losing years why would a recruit want to play here. Any recruit with multiple offers will not pick Dc. I have friends kids on this team and on the woman’s team. The joke up there is the womans team would win heads up.
Explain to us pathetic people how anybody, alumni included can say this program is moving in the right direction. The head couch is looking forward after 4 games to improve stick work. This should be addressed in fall ball.

Binghamton is a scrappy team who are fast and are good in transition. This is not a easy W. No player wants to go to a program and lose no matter how good the school is.

Give me 5 things that this coach has done to make the program better and I will eat my words

Your premise that it's difficult to recruit top players to a program that hasn't had a winning season in 5 years is a fair one, IMO.

However, note that our last winning season was 2006, the last breakeven season was 2008. The program went way way down in the ensuing years.

That's indeed what the current staff faces when recruiting ball players with, as you say "multiple offers". Prior to their management, and now with their management.

But let me ask you a couple of questions, given that you say you have some insight as you "have friends kids" on the current team.

Did those kids, current players, have "multiple offers" or did they land at Dartmouth because no one else wanted them?? I think I know the answer to that, but here are the implications:

Either,

1) They weren't wanted by anyone else and that explains why they can't hit the broad side of a barn and have so many unforced turnovers; or

2) They actually had other attractive offers and chose Dartmouth nevertheless...and, thus, they have the talent to win games, but according to you guys they aren't being 'put in a position to win'.

Let's assume #2 is the case for sake of argument. Are you saying the wrong guys are on the field? Or they have the wrong schemes? Are there guys riding the pine who can hit the goal and who can pass a catch or pick up FO's, who aren't getting to play?

I don't know why you call yourself, "pathetic people", but your gripe with the current head coach seems way over the top personal. That indeed is 'pathetic'.

I can quite agree that the status quo is certainly not acceptable but this constant personal attack is beyond the pale.

On what has the head coach done positively, my fundamental answer remains that the program is no longer an off the field embarrassment on campus. The Administration no longer assumes that the recruits being presented for Admission are likely to have off-field behavioral problems at a higher rate than any other sports team at Dartmouth.

Likewise, recruits to Dartmouth who don't want to be part of a dysfunctional off-field culture can now be attracted; but I quite agree that they need to buy into the notion that winning is not far around the corner.

From what I'm told, the Admissions dept has new leadership, impacting Dartmouth's admissions overall very favorably. Apparently, much greater emphasis is being placed on identifying the applicants most likely to choose and thrive at Dartmouth for the reasons those of us who love the place feel it's so special. We went through over a decade of Dartmouth selling itself as just another Ivy, rather than focusing on our unique attributes. When my own son took his college tour in Hanover in 2010, it was an embarrassment to his mother and me, both Dartmouth alums. Frankly, we couldn't believe how badly they pitched Dartmouth. We hear that's radically changed for the better.

On the women's side, I'm a big fan of that program, have followed it pretty closely given the Friends relationship between the teams. They enjoy an excellent long term legacy of success and, IMO, hired a rockstar head coach.

The new indoor facility will be very beneficial to both teams.

I have a kid who had a four or 5 D1 offers (including one he accepted from a top 20 Big 10 school.) Near perfect college board scores and a 4.0 GPA. He got an Ivy offer late from an even higher ranked team, and flipped. Net net, great student, great player by most accounts. After two prospect days at Dartmouth, more than a dozen phone calls, and maybe 20 emails to coaching staff, he couldn't get an email back from the staff, and didn't get a call returned. After the whole process concluded, I had to wonder exactly who Dartmouth DOES recruit. If multiple Top 20 schools are willing to recruit a student that would likely get in on their own, why wouldn't this program?

That's indeed a weird story. This is just your first post, though, so could you PM me with the name of your kid? I'd like to track down what in the world happened, if I can.

[HooDat]

I would be curious if the experience you describe is recent - because that sounds a lot more like the old regime, under Towers and his staff.

[DaneFan]

Had a similar experience with the current staff, although ultimately I don't think Ivy was the best path.

[smoova]

Interesting to read the above. My oldest is just beginning the recruiting insanity. IMO, he is not a top-tier recruit, but the Dartmouth staff has been very prompt in responding to his communications.

[DaneFan]

To be fair to Dartmouth, I bet everyone except the most heralded guys in each class, have similar experiences with a lot of programs. What looks like a good fit and can't get anywhere, and then lots of traction elsewhere.

[MDlaxfan76]

To be fair to Dartmouth, I bet everyone except the most heralded guys in each class, have similar experiences with a lot of programs. What looks like a good fit and can't get anywhere, and then lots of traction elsewhere.

That certainly happened with my son at a number of schools he had an interest in; maybe a little bit of a response then crickets, while others were intensely interested. It was puzzling at times, though I generally understood the rationale as he was a goalie and was not yet the starter at his HS. One goalie per year, at most. The other dynamic was that 3 other players at his MIAA school were getting all the attention and support from the school coaching staff as top tier recruits. He got nada during the prime recruiting period, a little bit of support at the very end but nothing much that helped.

Those 3 guys in his class certainly deserved the attention. All were eventually 1st team All-MIAA, All-Metro, etc. One became captain of a NC team as an SSDM, another was the #1 defenseman in the Big 10 his senior year and captain of his team, the third, MVP of UA AA senior game, was the 3rd leading scorer at Denver his freshman season before concussions ended his career. Very good players. So, my son was the 4th most sought after recruit from his HS... but wasn't yet even a starter there during the recruiting process.

One Ivy told him that they weren't looking for a goalie that class as they had one from the year above they liked...he ended up being much better than all of their tenders his 4 years, but...they had a plan. Hard to argue as that coach just won a NC. It's not as if he doesn't know how to recruit. Another Ivy coach was quite responsive but ended up taking a guy who became the #1 tender in the country his senior year. Head to head my son outplayed that goalie in their two match-ups, one of the only tenders who ever did, but I sure as heck had no argument with that coach's choice. The kid he took had been a multi-year, proven performer in a very strong Hs league and was a really fine tender all 4 years in college and tremendous senior season.

My son ended up going to an Ivy (his #1 choice from the start) that had recruited the top ranked tender in the country the year before him. I think they had low expectations of his ever playing, but took a chance after watching him a bunch of times junior summer. His grades undoubtedly helped. He was on crutches his freshman year, sat his sophomore year, but eventually won the job by turning around a couple of games for wins. Concussions got him later. Only problem, I had to learn to wear that color...

But even those 3 guys from his HS had varied recruiting experiences. Only one went to his original 1st choice, his dad's alma mater. The other two were turned away by their top choices. "Too small" (as HS sophomores). Those coaches, both of whom have won NC's, were surely kicking themselves when they started as freshmen for teams that beat them. The one that turned down the defenseman really, really could have used him instead of on the other end of the field! That said, how many NC's has Petro won?

My point is simply that even some of the best players don't get the attention one might think.

What DOES bother me is when a coaching staff isn't responsive, one way or the other. Every coach is going to see a prospect differently, just be polite about the assessment. I think that's what HooDat was referring to as an issue in the former regime. As I've always gotten very prompt responses from the current staff when inquiring about a kid they might or might not be interested in, I'm hoping they do so as a matter of course. Families just want to know where they stand, no BS.