Tewaaraton Award 2024

[coda]

1. Shellenberger
2. Pat kav
3. Brandau
4. Malone
5. Kirst
34 for Duke has not earned my vote here. He should be 3rd team all American

They will have 4 or 5 first team AA this year, they don't have the onions to leave O'Neil off first team.

I could see this happening too.. something like:

1st team: O'neill, Pkav, Shelly, and Brandau
2nd team: Kirst, Malone, M. Long, and prob Spallina

I’m a pkav guy and think he’s undoubtedly a 1st teamer but I just don’t see how they can leave Kirst off, guys a stud.

no matter what happens, someone deserving will be left off the list.

Imo stats matter when certain players have good ones.

I think stats are much more complex than that. People just want to look at pts per game. I mentioned Long vs Kirst earlier. Long actually has 1 pt more than Kirst. Based on most Tewaarton talk on stats, that means Long is more deserving than Kirst. If I give a possession the value of .3 goals (I used to use that number when coaching kids and talking about the value of Gbs, riding, and clearing) and factor in GBs, Turnovers, and CTOs that pts/game goes from 5.0 for Long and 4.92 for Kirst to 5.77 for Kirst and 5.33 for Long. I havent done the work to quantify that .3, but I think that reflects value better than simple pts per goals. (Just an aside, I think a CTO on the offensive end is definitely undervalued vs Gb using the method. You could also say a turnover on your offensive end is not equal to creating a turnover in your offensive end on the ride). I havent seen anyone adjusting offensive performance for defenses faced. Based on my model Kirst has played median defense around 10 and Brandau in the 20s. How much do you factor that into points/game for a player?
Maybe Lacrosse Reference can chime in with his thoughts.

A 2+ points per game difference (Brandau to Shellenberger) is much more significant than a one total point over twelve games difference (Long to Kirst). Let's be reasonable in making comparisons. Brandau has put up 40% more points per game than Shellenberger.

I do agree that caused turnovers in the offensive end are worth a lot. Kirst has 16 in 12 games, or 1.33 per game. If you look at the NCAA's stats for caused turnovers, the top 50 listed are all Ds, LSMs and one M. Numbers 49 and 50 on the list have 1.33 caused turnovers per game, the same as attackman Kirst.

I did not compare them. I kept it in the Ivy to avoid the Ivy sucks/ACC is great arguments. While I think Shelly is probably the best player, I do think Kirst, Malone, and Brandau have outperformed him this season. Shelly's biggest argument is giving it to him for his ridiculously consistent high level career. Just my opinion, but I think Malone is the most under-rated of all the candidates. Nobody talks about him. I do think when you factor in total game and the defensive schedules, Kirst and Brandau are much closer than pts/game stats would leave you to believe. I do think Kirst is the best offensive Ivy player.

[lorin]

Beyond the individual awards, going to be interesting to see whose named 1st, 2nd, 3rd, AA on attack. However it turns out, likely to be the most talented 2nd team AA unit in memory.

2019 was pretty good

Wow I didn’t even realize how many good attackman their were that year… even the 3rd team and HM had names like Logan wisnauskas, Asher Nolting, Michael Kraus, Brendan Nichtern, Matt Moore, Jake Carraway, Tre Leclaire, and Ethan Walker. That is insane.

Yes 2019 was a very deep in talent year

[The Orfling]

Christian Swezey over the weekend had an interesting metric for attackmen (he credited the idea as partly coming from Marc Van Arsdale of Loyola): add Goals, assists, ground balls, and caused turnovers and then subtract turnovers. Swezey’s post had the arithmetic totals, which would be dependent in part on games played, but I suspect if you refined that by dividing by number of games played it would be a pretty solid “attackman’s overall impact on the game” measurement that would give a boost to efficient guys (high production, low turnovers) as well as those like Kavanagh and Kirst who are so good with ground balls and caused turnovers.

This is probably best seen as a metric for “impact on the game/his team” vs. “best player” because a player on a team that concentrates much of its point production in him will have higher numbers. Here’s how it shakes out for some of the attackmen in the conversation:

1. Brandau: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 105: Per game 8.08
2. Sam King: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 86: Per game 7.82
3. CJ Kirst: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 85: Per game 7.08
4. Pat Kav: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 68: Per game 6.8
5. O’Neill: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 80: Per game 5.71
6. TJ Malone: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 60: Per game 5.45
7. Shellenberger: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 58: Per game 4.46

This isn’t just about the points, either — part of why Sam King finishes so high is that he’s averaging 3.7 ground balls per game (vs. the next highest, Kirst and Brandau at 2.5 ground balls per game and Shelley lowest in ground balls per game at 1.3).

If you calculated this metric again just for games in conference tournaments and NCAAs you could probably get a good sense of who will close really strong for the post-season awards including the Tewaaraton.

[coda]

Christian Swezey over the weekend had an interesting metric for attackmen (he credited the idea as partly coming from Marc Van Arsdale of Loyola): add Goals, assists, ground balls, and caused turnovers and then subtract turnovers. Swezey’s post had the arithmetic totals, which would be dependent in part on games played, but I suspect if you refined that by dividing by number of games played it would be a pretty solid “attackman’s overall impact on the game” measurement that would give a boost to efficient guys (high production, low turnovers) as well as those like Kavanagh and Kirst who are so good with ground balls and caused turnovers.

This is probably best seen as a metric for “impact on the game/his team” vs. “best player” because a player on a team that concentrates much of its point production in him will have higher numbers. Here’s how it shakes out for some of the attackmen in the conversation:

1. Brandau: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 105: Per game 8.08
2. Sam King: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 86: Per game 7.82
3. CJ Kirst: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 85: Per game 7.08
4. Pat Kav: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 68: Per game 6.8
5. O’Neill: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 80: Per game 5.71
6. TJ Malone: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 60: Per game 5.45
7. Shellenberger: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 58: Per game 4.46

This isn’t just about the points, either — part of why Sam King finishes so high is that he’s averaging 3.7 ground balls per game (vs. the next highest, Kirst and Brandau at 2.5 ground balls per game and Shelley lowest in ground balls per game at 1.3).

If you calculated this metric again just for games in conference tournaments and NCAAs you could probably get a good sense of who will close really strong for the post-season awards including the Tewaaraton.

interesting.. Now if you factor schedule, I would bet Kirst and Brandau are very close. (i have not bothered to look at King's schedule). Only thing I would point out is that is the top 3 are in 1 conference, which should give you pause.

[10stone5]

Beyond the individual awards, going to be interesting to see whose named 1st, 2nd, 3rd, AA on attack. However it turns out, likely to be the most talented 2nd team AA unit in memory.

2019 was pretty good

Wow I didn’t even realize how many good attackman their were that year… even the 3rd team and HM had names like Logan wisnauskas, Asher Nolting, Michael Kraus, Brendan Nichtern, Matt Moore, Jake Carraway, Tre Leclaire, and Ethan Walker. That is insane.

Brendan Sunday,
came virtually out of nowhere to lead the Tigers to a number one ranking and a near win over the Terps in the 1st round.

Jeff Teat,
possibly the top player in the world today,
2nd team.

Grant Ament - 96 assists, Mac O’Keefe.

[Farfromgeneva]

Christian Swezey over the weekend had an interesting metric for attackmen (he credited the idea as partly coming from Marc Van Arsdale of Loyola): add Goals, assists, ground balls, and caused turnovers and then subtract turnovers. Swezey’s post had the arithmetic totals, which would be dependent in part on games played, but I suspect if you refined that by dividing by number of games played it would be a pretty solid “attackman’s overall impact on the game” measurement that would give a boost to efficient guys (high production, low turnovers) as well as those like Kavanagh and Kirst who are so good with ground balls and caused turnovers.

This is probably best seen as a metric for “impact on the game/his team” vs. “best player” because a player on a team that concentrates much of its point production in him will have higher numbers. Here’s how it shakes out for some of the attackmen in the conversation:

1. Brandau: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 105: Per game 8.08
2. Sam King: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 86: Per game 7.82
3. CJ Kirst: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 85: Per game 7.08
4. Pat Kav: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 68: Per game 6.8
5. O’Neill: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 80: Per game 5.71
6. TJ Malone: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 60: Per game 5.45
7. Shellenberger: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 58: Per game 4.46

This isn’t just about the points, either — part of why Sam King finishes so high is that he’s averaging 3.7 ground balls per game (vs. the next highest, Kirst and Brandau at 2.5 ground balls per game and Shelley lowest in ground balls per game at 1.3).

If you calculated this metric again just for games in conference tournaments and NCAAs you could probably get a good sense of who will close really strong for the post-season awards including the Tewaaraton.

I told folks Sam King is legit and only a soph and yet no one anywhere talks much about him

Also however loyola fans insist that MVA doesnt understand lacrosse anymore so we have ot be careful around anything involving him.

[Chousnake]

Christian Swezey over the weekend had an interesting metric for attackmen (he credited the idea as partly coming from Marc Van Arsdale of Loyola): add Goals, assists, ground balls, and caused turnovers and then subtract turnovers. Swezey’s post had the arithmetic totals, which would be dependent in part on games played, but I suspect if you refined that by dividing by number of games played it would be a pretty solid “attackman’s overall impact on the game” measurement that would give a boost to efficient guys (high production, low turnovers) as well as those like Kavanagh and Kirst who are so good with ground balls and caused turnovers.

This is probably best seen as a metric for “impact on the game/his team” vs. “best player” because a player on a team that concentrates much of its point production in him will have higher numbers. Here’s how it shakes out for some of the attackmen in the conversation:

1. Brandau: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 105: Per game 8.08
2. Sam King: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 86: Per game 7.82
3. CJ Kirst: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 85: Per game 7.08
4. Pat Kav: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 68: Per game 6.8
5. O’Neill: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 80: Per game 5.71
6. TJ Malone: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 60: Per game 5.45
7. Shellenberger: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 58: Per game 4.46

This isn’t just about the points, either — part of why Sam King finishes so high is that he’s averaging 3.7 ground balls per game (vs. the next highest, Kirst and Brandau at 2.5 ground balls per game and Shelley lowest in ground balls per game at 1.3).

If you calculated this metric again just for games in conference tournaments and NCAAs you could probably get a good sense of who will close really strong for the post-season awards including the Tewaaraton.

interesting.. Now if you factor schedule, I would bet Kirst and Brandau are very close. (i have not bothered to look at King's schedule). Only thing I would point out is that is the top 3 are in 1 conference, which should give you pause.

If the top three were Kavanaugh, O'Neill and Shelly, would you "pause?"

[coda]

Christian Swezey over the weekend had an interesting metric for attackmen (he credited the idea as partly coming from Marc Van Arsdale of Loyola): add Goals, assists, ground balls, and caused turnovers and then subtract turnovers. Swezey’s post had the arithmetic totals, which would be dependent in part on games played, but I suspect if you refined that by dividing by number of games played it would be a pretty solid “attackman’s overall impact on the game” measurement that would give a boost to efficient guys (high production, low turnovers) as well as those like Kavanagh and Kirst who are so good with ground balls and caused turnovers.

This is probably best seen as a metric for “impact on the game/his team” vs. “best player” because a player on a team that concentrates much of its point production in him will have higher numbers. Here’s how it shakes out for some of the attackmen in the conversation:

1. Brandau: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 105: Per game 8.08
2. Sam King: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 86: Per game 7.82
3. CJ Kirst: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 85: Per game 7.08
4. Pat Kav: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 68: Per game 6.8
5. O’Neill: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 80: Per game 5.71
6. TJ Malone: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 60: Per game 5.45
7. Shellenberger: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 58: Per game 4.46

This isn’t just about the points, either — part of why Sam King finishes so high is that he’s averaging 3.7 ground balls per game (vs. the next highest, Kirst and Brandau at 2.5 ground balls per game and Shelley lowest in ground balls per game at 1.3).

If you calculated this metric again just for games in conference tournaments and NCAAs you could probably get a good sense of who will close really strong for the post-season awards including the Tewaaraton.

interesting.. Now if you factor schedule, I would bet Kirst and Brandau are very close. (i have not bothered to look at King's schedule). Only thing I would point out is that is the top 3 are in 1 conference, which should give you pause.

If the top three were Kavanaugh, O'Neill and Shelly, would you "pause?"

Probably not as much, because the ACC recruits better than anyone. You should probably think about the statement. Those 3 maybe the 1st 3 offensive players taken by the PLL, which would only give my statement more credence. That said anytime a conference dominates a particular stat, you have to ask yourself if is just the players or a result of the play in that conference. I think that is just logical, though it may upset the fans of conferences

[Gobigred]

Christian Swezey over the weekend had an interesting metric for attackmen (he credited the idea as partly coming from Marc Van Arsdale of Loyola): add Goals, assists, ground balls, and caused turnovers and then subtract turnovers. Swezey’s post had the arithmetic totals, which would be dependent in part on games played, but I suspect if you refined that by dividing by number of games played it would be a pretty solid “attackman’s overall impact on the game” measurement that would give a boost to efficient guys (high production, low turnovers) as well as those like Kavanagh and Kirst who are so good with ground balls and caused turnovers.

This is probably best seen as a metric for “impact on the game/his team” vs. “best player” because a player on a team that concentrates much of its point production in him will have higher numbers. Here’s how it shakes out for some of the attackmen in the conversation:

1. Brandau: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 105: Per game 8.08
2. Sam King: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 86: Per game 7.82
3. CJ Kirst: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 85: Per game 7.08
4. Pat Kav: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 68: Per game 6.8
5. O’Neill: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 80: Per game 5.71
6. TJ Malone: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 60: Per game 5.45
7. Shellenberger: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 58: Per game 4.46

This isn’t just about the points, either — part of why Sam King finishes so high is that he’s averaging 3.7 ground balls per game (vs. the next highest, Kirst and Brandau at 2.5 ground balls per game and Shelley lowest in ground balls per game at 1.3).

If you calculated this metric again just for games in conference tournaments and NCAAs you could probably get a good sense of who will close really strong for the post-season awards including the Tewaaraton.

interesting.. Now if you factor schedule, I would bet Kirst and Brandau are very close. (i have not bothered to look at King's schedule). Only thing I would point out is that is the top 3 are in 1 conference, which should give you pause.

If the top three were Kavanaugh, O'Neill and Shelly, would you "pause?"

Probably not as much, because the ACC recruits better than anyone. You should probably think about the statement. Those 3 maybe the 1st 3 offensive players taken by the PLL, which would only give my statement more credence. That said anytime a conference dominates a particular stat, you have to ask yourself if is just the players or a result of the play in that conference. I think that is just logical, though it may upset the fans of conferences

You've lost all credibility...or, better said, what little you may have had...with this response. Sorry.

[coda]

Christian Swezey over the weekend had an interesting metric for attackmen (he credited the idea as partly coming from Marc Van Arsdale of Loyola): add Goals, assists, ground balls, and caused turnovers and then subtract turnovers. Swezey’s post had the arithmetic totals, which would be dependent in part on games played, but I suspect if you refined that by dividing by number of games played it would be a pretty solid “attackman’s overall impact on the game” measurement that would give a boost to efficient guys (high production, low turnovers) as well as those like Kavanagh and Kirst who are so good with ground balls and caused turnovers.

This is probably best seen as a metric for “impact on the game/his team” vs. “best player” because a player on a team that concentrates much of its point production in him will have higher numbers. Here’s how it shakes out for some of the attackmen in the conversation:

1. Brandau: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 105: Per game 8.08
2. Sam King: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 86: Per game 7.82
3. CJ Kirst: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 85: Per game 7.08
4. Pat Kav: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 68: Per game 6.8
5. O’Neill: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 80: Per game 5.71
6. TJ Malone: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 60: Per game 5.45
7. Shellenberger: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 58: Per game 4.46

This isn’t just about the points, either — part of why Sam King finishes so high is that he’s averaging 3.7 ground balls per game (vs. the next highest, Kirst and Brandau at 2.5 ground balls per game and Shelley lowest in ground balls per game at 1.3).

If you calculated this metric again just for games in conference tournaments and NCAAs you could probably get a good sense of who will close really strong for the post-season awards including the Tewaaraton.

interesting.. Now if you factor schedule, I would bet Kirst and Brandau are very close. (i have not bothered to look at King's schedule). Only thing I would point out is that is the top 3 are in 1 conference, which should give you pause.

If the top three were Kavanaugh, O'Neill and Shelly, would you "pause?"

Probably not as much, because the ACC recruits better than anyone. You should probably think about the statement. Those 3 maybe the 1st 3 offensive players taken by the PLL, which would only give my statement more credence. That said anytime a conference dominates a particular stat, you have to ask yourself if is just the players or a result of the play in that conference. I think that is just logical, though it may upset the fans of conferences

You've lost all credibility...or, better said, what little you may have had...with this response. Sorry.

Please explain your apparent disagreement. What in particular do you have an issue with?

[StephenBaldwin]

Kirst is averaging 5,2 in two games v the ACC (top 2 teams currently)
Oneill is averaging 2,1 in two games v the IVY (3rd & 4th team)
Shelly had 2 assists v Harvard.
P kav had 2,2 v Cornell

[Gobigred]

Christian Swezey over the weekend had an interesting metric for attackmen (he credited the idea as partly coming from Marc Van Arsdale of Loyola): add Goals, assists, ground balls, and caused turnovers and then subtract turnovers. Swezey’s post had the arithmetic totals, which would be dependent in part on games played, but I suspect if you refined that by dividing by number of games played it would be a pretty solid “attackman’s overall impact on the game” measurement that would give a boost to efficient guys (high production, low turnovers) as well as those like Kavanagh and Kirst who are so good with ground balls and caused turnovers.

This is probably best seen as a metric for “impact on the game/his team” vs. “best player” because a player on a team that concentrates much of its point production in him will have higher numbers. Here’s how it shakes out for some of the attackmen in the conversation:

1. Brandau: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 105: Per game 8.08
2. Sam King: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 86: Per game 7.82
3. CJ Kirst: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 85: Per game 7.08
4. Pat Kav: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 68: Per game 6.8
5. O’Neill: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 80: Per game 5.71
6. TJ Malone: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 60: Per game 5.45
7. Shellenberger: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 58: Per game 4.46

This isn’t just about the points, either — part of why Sam King finishes so high is that he’s averaging 3.7 ground balls per game (vs. the next highest, Kirst and Brandau at 2.5 ground balls per game and Shelley lowest in ground balls per game at 1.3).

If you calculated this metric again just for games in conference tournaments and NCAAs you could probably get a good sense of who will close really strong for the post-season awards including the Tewaaraton.

interesting.. Now if you factor schedule, I would bet Kirst and Brandau are very close. (i have not bothered to look at King's schedule). Only thing I would point out is that is the top 3 are in 1 conference, which should give you pause.

If the top three were Kavanaugh, O'Neill and Shelly, would you "pause?"

Probably not as much, because the ACC recruits better than anyone. You should probably think about the statement. Those 3 maybe the 1st 3 offensive players taken by the PLL, which would only give my statement more credence. That said anytime a conference dominates a particular stat, you have to ask yourself if is just the players or a result of the play in that conference. I think that is just logical, though it may upset the fans of conferences

You've lost all credibility...or, better said, what little you may have had...with this response. Sorry.

Please explain your apparent disagreement. What in particular do you have an issue with?

Your ongoing, uninformed assertions that, because someone plays in the ACC, he must be better than someone who doesn't, regardless of performance on the field. Stats of non-ACC players must be questioned...now, absurdly, because you assert "the ACC recruits better." Tiresome. Empty. No substance. Blind loyalty.

[lorin]

Christian Swezey over the weekend had an interesting metric for attackmen (he credited the idea as partly coming from Marc Van Arsdale of Loyola): add Goals, assists, ground balls, and caused turnovers and then subtract turnovers. Swezey’s post had the arithmetic totals, which would be dependent in part on games played, but I suspect if you refined that by dividing by number of games played it would be a pretty solid “attackman’s overall impact on the game” measurement that would give a boost to efficient guys (high production, low turnovers) as well as those like Kavanagh and Kirst who are so good with ground balls and caused turnovers.

This is probably best seen as a metric for “impact on the game/his team” vs. “best player” because a player on a team that concentrates much of its point production in him will have higher numbers. Here’s how it shakes out for some of the attackmen in the conversation:

1. Brandau: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 105: Per game 8.08
2. Sam King: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 86: Per game 7.82
3. CJ Kirst: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 85: Per game 7.08
4. Pat Kav: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 68: Per game 6.8
5. O’Neill: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 80: Per game 5.71
6. TJ Malone: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 60: Per game 5.45
7. Shellenberger: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 58: Per game 4.46

This isn’t just about the points, either — part of why Sam King finishes so high is that he’s averaging 3.7 ground balls per game (vs. the next highest, Kirst and Brandau at 2.5 ground balls per game and Shelley lowest in ground balls per game at 1.3).

If you calculated this metric again just for games in conference tournaments and NCAAs you could probably get a good sense of who will close really strong for the post-season awards including the Tewaaraton.

interesting.. Now if you factor schedule, I would bet Kirst and Brandau are very close. (i have not bothered to look at King's schedule). Only thing I would point out is that is the top 3 are in 1 conference, which should give you pause.

If the top three were Kavanaugh, O'Neill and Shelly, would you "pause?"

Probably not as much, because the ACC recruits better than anyone. You should probably think about the statement. Those 3 maybe the 1st 3 offensive players taken by the PLL, which would only give my statement more credence. That said anytime a conference dominates a particular stat, you have to ask yourself if is just the players or a result of the play in that conference. I think that is just logical, though it may upset the fans of conferences

You've lost all credibility...or, better said, what little you may have had...with this response. Sorry.

Please explain your apparent disagreement. What in particular do you have an issue with?

Your ongoing, uninformed assertions that, because someone plays in the ACC, he must be better than someone who doesn't, regardless of performance on the field. Stats of non-ACC players must be questioned...now, absurdly, because you assert "the ACC recruits better." Tiresome. Empty. No substance. Blind loyalty.

Well said

[coda]

Christian Swezey over the weekend had an interesting metric for attackmen (he credited the idea as partly coming from Marc Van Arsdale of Loyola): add Goals, assists, ground balls, and caused turnovers and then subtract turnovers. Swezey’s post had the arithmetic totals, which would be dependent in part on games played, but I suspect if you refined that by dividing by number of games played it would be a pretty solid “attackman’s overall impact on the game” measurement that would give a boost to efficient guys (high production, low turnovers) as well as those like Kavanagh and Kirst who are so good with ground balls and caused turnovers.

This is probably best seen as a metric for “impact on the game/his team” vs. “best player” because a player on a team that concentrates much of its point production in him will have higher numbers. Here’s how it shakes out for some of the attackmen in the conversation:

1. Brandau: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 105: Per game 8.08
2. Sam King: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 86: Per game 7.82
3. CJ Kirst: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 85: Per game 7.08
4. Pat Kav: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 68: Per game 6.8
5. O’Neill: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 80: Per game 5.71
6. TJ Malone: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 60: Per game 5.45
7. Shellenberger: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 58: Per game 4.46

This isn’t just about the points, either — part of why Sam King finishes so high is that he’s averaging 3.7 ground balls per game (vs. the next highest, Kirst and Brandau at 2.5 ground balls per game and Shelley lowest in ground balls per game at 1.3).

If you calculated this metric again just for games in conference tournaments and NCAAs you could probably get a good sense of who will close really strong for the post-season awards including the Tewaaraton.

interesting.. Now if you factor schedule, I would bet Kirst and Brandau are very close. (i have not bothered to look at King's schedule). Only thing I would point out is that is the top 3 are in 1 conference, which should give you pause.

If the top three were Kavanaugh, O'Neill and Shelly, would you "pause?"

Probably not as much, because the ACC recruits better than anyone. You should probably think about the statement. Those 3 maybe the 1st 3 offensive players taken by the PLL, which would only give my statement more credence. That said anytime a conference dominates a particular stat, you have to ask yourself if is just the players or a result of the play in that conference. I think that is just logical, though it may upset the fans of conferences

You've lost all credibility...or, better said, what little you may have had...with this response. Sorry.

Please explain your apparent disagreement. What in particular do you have an issue with?

Your ongoing, uninformed assertions that, because someone plays in the ACC, he must be better than someone who doesn't, regardless of performance on the field. Stats of non-ACC players must be questioned...now, absurdly, because you assert "the ACC recruits better." Tiresome. Empty. No substance. Blind loyalty.

I didnt say that at all. I actually said Brandau, Malone, and Kirst have outperformed Shelly this year. It seems your issues are with your own reading comprehension, not my actual posts. You have to be living under a rock to think that the ACC does not recruit better than the Big 10 or Ivy. That is just a fact. For the record, I generally root against the ACC. I am just being honest about recruiting.

[Finster]

Christian Swezey over the weekend had an interesting metric for attackmen (he credited the idea as partly coming from Marc Van Arsdale of Loyola): add Goals, assists, ground balls, and caused turnovers and then subtract turnovers. Swezey’s post had the arithmetic totals, which would be dependent in part on games played, but I suspect if you refined that by dividing by number of games played it would be a pretty solid “attackman’s overall impact on the game” measurement that would give a boost to efficient guys (high production, low turnovers) as well as those like Kavanagh and Kirst who are so good with ground balls and caused turnovers.

This is probably best seen as a metric for “impact on the game/his team” vs. “best player” because a player on a team that concentrates much of its point production in him will have higher numbers. Here’s how it shakes out for some of the attackmen in the conversation:

1. Brandau: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 105: Per game 8.08
2. Sam King: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 86: Per game 7.82
3. CJ Kirst: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 85: Per game 7.08
4. Pat Kav: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 68: Per game 6.8
5. O’Neill: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 80: Per game 5.71
6. TJ Malone: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 60: Per game 5.45
7. Shellenberger: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 58: Per game 4.46

This isn’t just about the points, either — part of why Sam King finishes so high is that he’s averaging 3.7 ground balls per game (vs. the next highest, Kirst and Brandau at 2.5 ground balls per game and Shelley lowest in ground balls per game at 1.3).

If you calculated this metric again just for games in conference tournaments and NCAAs you could probably get a good sense of who will close really strong for the post-season awards including the Tewaaraton.

interesting.. Now if you factor schedule, I would bet Kirst and Brandau are very close. (i have not bothered to look at King's schedule). Only thing I would point out is that is the top 3 are in 1 conference, which should give you pause.

If the top three were Kavanaugh, O'Neill and Shelly, would you "pause?"

Probably not as much, because the ACC recruits better than anyone. You should probably think about the statement. Those 3 maybe the 1st 3 offensive players taken by the PLL, which would only give my statement more credence. That said anytime a conference dominates a particular stat, you have to ask yourself if is just the players or a result of the play in that conference. I think that is just logical, though it may upset the fans of conferences

You've lost all credibility...or, better said, what little you may have had...with this response. Sorry.

Please explain your apparent disagreement. What in particular do you have an issue with?

Your ongoing, uninformed assertions that, because someone plays in the ACC, he must be better than someone who doesn't, regardless of performance on the field. Stats of non-ACC players must be questioned...now, absurdly, because you assert "the ACC recruits better." Tiresome. Empty. No substance. Blind loyalty.

I didnt say that at all. I actually said Brandau, Malone, and Kirst have outperformed Shelly this year. It seems your issues are with your own reading comprehension, not my actual posts. You have to be living under a rock to think that the ACC does not recruit better than the Big 10 or Ivy. That is just a fact. For the record, I generally root against the ACC. I am just being honest about recruiting.

Does the ACC recruit 'better', or simply more well known? 2024 UNC seems to be a case study in how "name" recruits don't automatically translate to D1 success.

I feel like the Ivies often have far grittier players...a playing personality I personally prefer.

[lorin]

Christian Swezey over the weekend had an interesting metric for attackmen (he credited the idea as partly coming from Marc Van Arsdale of Loyola): add Goals, assists, ground balls, and caused turnovers and then subtract turnovers. Swezey’s post had the arithmetic totals, which would be dependent in part on games played, but I suspect if you refined that by dividing by number of games played it would be a pretty solid “attackman’s overall impact on the game” measurement that would give a boost to efficient guys (high production, low turnovers) as well as those like Kavanagh and Kirst who are so good with ground balls and caused turnovers.

This is probably best seen as a metric for “impact on the game/his team” vs. “best player” because a player on a team that concentrates much of its point production in him will have higher numbers. Here’s how it shakes out for some of the attackmen in the conversation:

1. Brandau: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 105: Per game 8.08
2. Sam King: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 86: Per game 7.82
3. CJ Kirst: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 85: Per game 7.08
4. Pat Kav: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 68: Per game 6.8
5. O’Neill: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 80: Per game 5.71
6. TJ Malone: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 60: Per game 5.45
7. Shellenberger: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 58: Per game 4.46

This isn’t just about the points, either — part of why Sam King finishes so high is that he’s averaging 3.7 ground balls per game (vs. the next highest, Kirst and Brandau at 2.5 ground balls per game and Shelley lowest in ground balls per game at 1.3).

If you calculated this metric again just for games in conference tournaments and NCAAs you could probably get a good sense of who will close really strong for the post-season awards including the Tewaaraton.

interesting.. Now if you factor schedule, I would bet Kirst and Brandau are very close. (i have not bothered to look at King's schedule). Only thing I would point out is that is the top 3 are in 1 conference, which should give you pause.

If the top three were Kavanaugh, O'Neill and Shelly, would you "pause?"

Probably not as much, because the ACC recruits better than anyone. You should probably think about the statement. Those 3 maybe the 1st 3 offensive players taken by the PLL, which would only give my statement more credence. That said anytime a conference dominates a particular stat, you have to ask yourself if is just the players or a result of the play in that conference. I think that is just logical, though it may upset the fans of conferences

You've lost all credibility...or, better said, what little you may have had...with this response. Sorry.

Please explain your apparent disagreement. What in particular do you have an issue with?

Your ongoing, uninformed assertions that, because someone plays in the ACC, he must be better than someone who doesn't, regardless of performance on the field. Stats of non-ACC players must be questioned...now, absurdly, because you assert "the ACC recruits better." Tiresome. Empty. No substance. Blind loyalty.

I didnt say that at all. I actually said Brandau, Malone, and Kirst have outperformed Shelly this year. It seems your issues are with your own reading comprehension, not my actual posts. You have to be living under a rock to think that the ACC does not recruit better than the Big 10 or Ivy. That is just a fact. For the record, I generally root against the ACC. I am just being honest about recruiting.

Well I don't think ND wins NC without the 2 Yale kids and Holy Cross kid, just saying

[coda]

Christian Swezey over the weekend had an interesting metric for attackmen (he credited the idea as partly coming from Marc Van Arsdale of Loyola): add Goals, assists, ground balls, and caused turnovers and then subtract turnovers. Swezey’s post had the arithmetic totals, which would be dependent in part on games played, but I suspect if you refined that by dividing by number of games played it would be a pretty solid “attackman’s overall impact on the game” measurement that would give a boost to efficient guys (high production, low turnovers) as well as those like Kavanagh and Kirst who are so good with ground balls and caused turnovers.

This is probably best seen as a metric for “impact on the game/his team” vs. “best player” because a player on a team that concentrates much of its point production in him will have higher numbers. Here’s how it shakes out for some of the attackmen in the conversation:

1. Brandau: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 105: Per game 8.08
2. Sam King: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 86: Per game 7.82
3. CJ Kirst: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 85: Per game 7.08
4. Pat Kav: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 68: Per game 6.8
5. O’Neill: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 80: Per game 5.71
6. TJ Malone: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 60: Per game 5.45
7. Shellenberger: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 58: Per game 4.46

This isn’t just about the points, either — part of why Sam King finishes so high is that he’s averaging 3.7 ground balls per game (vs. the next highest, Kirst and Brandau at 2.5 ground balls per game and Shelley lowest in ground balls per game at 1.3).

If you calculated this metric again just for games in conference tournaments and NCAAs you could probably get a good sense of who will close really strong for the post-season awards including the Tewaaraton.

interesting.. Now if you factor schedule, I would bet Kirst and Brandau are very close. (i have not bothered to look at King's schedule). Only thing I would point out is that is the top 3 are in 1 conference, which should give you pause.

If the top three were Kavanaugh, O'Neill and Shelly, would you "pause?"

Probably not as much, because the ACC recruits better than anyone. You should probably think about the statement. Those 3 maybe the 1st 3 offensive players taken by the PLL, which would only give my statement more credence. That said anytime a conference dominates a particular stat, you have to ask yourself if is just the players or a result of the play in that conference. I think that is just logical, though it may upset the fans of conferences

You've lost all credibility...or, better said, what little you may have had...with this response. Sorry.

Please explain your apparent disagreement. What in particular do you have an issue with?

Your ongoing, uninformed assertions that, because someone plays in the ACC, he must be better than someone who doesn't, regardless of performance on the field. Stats of non-ACC players must be questioned...now, absurdly, because you assert "the ACC recruits better." Tiresome. Empty. No substance. Blind loyalty.

I didnt say that at all. I actually said Brandau, Malone, and Kirst have outperformed Shelly this year. It seems your issues are with your own reading comprehension, not my actual posts. You have to be living under a rock to think that the ACC does not recruit better than the Big 10 or Ivy. That is just a fact. For the record, I generally root against the ACC. I am just being honest about recruiting.

Does the ACC recruit 'better', or simply more well known? 2024 UNC seems to be a case study in how "name" recruits don't automatically translate to D1 success.

I feel like the Ivies often have far grittier players...a playing personality I personally prefer.

That completely fine. Accumulating talent does not always guarantee success. Things like development and constructing a roster come into play.
The field results are pretty clear on this though. The last 10 years have seen 10 ACC teams reach the finals, 6 Big 10 teams, 3 Ivy, and 1 mid-major (Denver). That includes every member of the ACC making a title game the last 10 years, which is a crazy stat. 2 Big 10 teams (33% of the conference). 2 Ivy teams (28.5%). I would prefer talent to be more spread out, but that does not seem to be happening.

[Chousnake]

Christian Swezey over the weekend had an interesting metric for attackmen (he credited the idea as partly coming from Marc Van Arsdale of Loyola): add Goals, assists, ground balls, and caused turnovers and then subtract turnovers. Swezey’s post had the arithmetic totals, which would be dependent in part on games played, but I suspect if you refined that by dividing by number of games played it would be a pretty solid “attackman’s overall impact on the game” measurement that would give a boost to efficient guys (high production, low turnovers) as well as those like Kavanagh and Kirst who are so good with ground balls and caused turnovers.

This is probably best seen as a metric for “impact on the game/his team” vs. “best player” because a player on a team that concentrates much of its point production in him will have higher numbers. Here’s how it shakes out for some of the attackmen in the conversation:

1. Brandau: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 105: Per game 8.08
2. Sam King: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 86: Per game 7.82
3. CJ Kirst: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 85: Per game 7.08
4. Pat Kav: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 68: Per game 6.8
5. O’Neill: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 80: Per game 5.71
6. TJ Malone: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 60: Per game 5.45
7. Shellenberger: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 58: Per game 4.46

This isn’t just about the points, either — part of why Sam King finishes so high is that he’s averaging 3.7 ground balls per game (vs. the next highest, Kirst and Brandau at 2.5 ground balls per game and Shelley lowest in ground balls per game at 1.3).

If you calculated this metric again just for games in conference tournaments and NCAAs you could probably get a good sense of who will close really strong for the post-season awards including the Tewaaraton.

interesting.. Now if you factor schedule, I would bet Kirst and Brandau are very close. (i have not bothered to look at King's schedule). Only thing I would point out is that is the top 3 are in 1 conference, which should give you pause.

If the top three were Kavanaugh, O'Neill and Shelly, would you "pause?"

Probably not as much, because the ACC recruits better than anyone. You should probably think about the statement. Those 3 maybe the 1st 3 offensive players taken by the PLL, which would only give my statement more credence. That said anytime a conference dominates a particular stat, you have to ask yourself if is just the players or a result of the play in that conference. I think that is just logical, though it may upset the fans of conferences

You've lost all credibility...or, better said, what little you may have had...with this response. Sorry.

Please explain your apparent disagreement. What in particular do you have an issue with?

Your ongoing, uninformed assertions that, because someone plays in the ACC, he must be better than someone who doesn't, regardless of performance on the field. Stats of non-ACC players must be questioned...now, absurdly, because you assert "the ACC recruits better." Tiresome. Empty. No substance. Blind loyalty.

I didnt say that at all. I actually said Brandau, Malone, and Kirst have outperformed Shelly this year. It seems your issues are with your own reading comprehension, not my actual posts. You have to be living under a rock to think that the ACC does not recruit better than the Big 10 or Ivy. That is just a fact. For the record, I generally root against the ACC. I am just being honest about recruiting.

Does the ACC recruit 'better', or simply more well known? 2024 UNC seems to be a case study in how "name" recruits don't automatically translate to D1 success.

I feel like the Ivies often have far grittier players...a playing personality I personally prefer.

That completely fine. Accumulating talent does not always guarantee success. Things like development and constructing a roster come into play.
The field results are pretty clear on this though. The last 10 years have seen 10 ACC teams reach the finals, 6 Big 10 teams, 3 Ivy, and 1 mid-major (Denver). That includes every member of the ACC making a title game the last 10 years, which is a crazy stat. 2 Big 10 teams (33% of the conference). 2 Ivy teams (28.5%). I would prefer talent to be more spread out, but that does not seem to be happening.

You're counting two years (20-21) when the Ivies didn't even play and two years (22-23) when all other conferences were using Ivy transfers as 5th year players. If you count final four teams, eliminate 2020 and 2021(when the Ivies didn't play), and start in 2015 when the B10 was created, it's pretty balanced. In those 7 seasons - 2015-2019,, 2022-23 - final four representation is:

Big 10 - 10 (4 teams)
ACC - 7 (5 teams)
Ivy -5 (3 teams)
Big East - 3 (1 team)
Others 3 (3 teams)

And in 2020, the Ivies had three teams in the top 5 when play was suspended. There just isn't as much disparity in the level of talent across the top 3-4 conferences as you think or claim it to be.

[coda]

Christian Swezey over the weekend had an interesting metric for attackmen (he credited the idea as partly coming from Marc Van Arsdale of Loyola): add Goals, assists, ground balls, and caused turnovers and then subtract turnovers. Swezey’s post had the arithmetic totals, which would be dependent in part on games played, but I suspect if you refined that by dividing by number of games played it would be a pretty solid “attackman’s overall impact on the game” measurement that would give a boost to efficient guys (high production, low turnovers) as well as those like Kavanagh and Kirst who are so good with ground balls and caused turnovers.

This is probably best seen as a metric for “impact on the game/his team” vs. “best player” because a player on a team that concentrates much of its point production in him will have higher numbers. Here’s how it shakes out for some of the attackmen in the conversation:

1. Brandau: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 105: Per game 8.08
2. Sam King: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 86: Per game 7.82
3. CJ Kirst: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 85: Per game 7.08
4. Pat Kav: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 68: Per game 6.8
5. O’Neill: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 80: Per game 5.71
6. TJ Malone: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 60: Per game 5.45
7. Shellenberger: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 58: Per game 4.46

This isn’t just about the points, either — part of why Sam King finishes so high is that he’s averaging 3.7 ground balls per game (vs. the next highest, Kirst and Brandau at 2.5 ground balls per game and Shelley lowest in ground balls per game at 1.3).

If you calculated this metric again just for games in conference tournaments and NCAAs you could probably get a good sense of who will close really strong for the post-season awards including the Tewaaraton.

interesting.. Now if you factor schedule, I would bet Kirst and Brandau are very close. (i have not bothered to look at King's schedule). Only thing I would point out is that is the top 3 are in 1 conference, which should give you pause.

If the top three were Kavanaugh, O'Neill and Shelly, would you "pause?"

Probably not as much, because the ACC recruits better than anyone. You should probably think about the statement. Those 3 maybe the 1st 3 offensive players taken by the PLL, which would only give my statement more credence. That said anytime a conference dominates a particular stat, you have to ask yourself if is just the players or a result of the play in that conference. I think that is just logical, though it may upset the fans of conferences

You've lost all credibility...or, better said, what little you may have had...with this response. Sorry.

Please explain your apparent disagreement. What in particular do you have an issue with?

Your ongoing, uninformed assertions that, because someone plays in the ACC, he must be better than someone who doesn't, regardless of performance on the field. Stats of non-ACC players must be questioned...now, absurdly, because you assert "the ACC recruits better." Tiresome. Empty. No substance. Blind loyalty.

I didnt say that at all. I actually said Brandau, Malone, and Kirst have outperformed Shelly this year. It seems your issues are with your own reading comprehension, not my actual posts. You have to be living under a rock to think that the ACC does not recruit better than the Big 10 or Ivy. That is just a fact. For the record, I generally root against the ACC. I am just being honest about recruiting.

Does the ACC recruit 'better', or simply more well known? 2024 UNC seems to be a case study in how "name" recruits don't automatically translate to D1 success.

I feel like the Ivies often have far grittier players...a playing personality I personally prefer.

That completely fine. Accumulating talent does not always guarantee success. Things like development and constructing a roster come into play.
The field results are pretty clear on this though. The last 10 years have seen 10 ACC teams reach the finals, 6 Big 10 teams, 3 Ivy, and 1 mid-major (Denver). That includes every member of the ACC making a title game the last 10 years, which is a crazy stat. 2 Big 10 teams (33% of the conference). 2 Ivy teams (28.5%). I would prefer talent to be more spread out, but that does not seem to be happening.

You're counting two years (20-21) when the Ivies didn't even play and two years (22-23) when all other conferences were using Ivy transfers as 5th year players. If you count final four teams, eliminate 2020 and 2021(when the Ivies didn't play), and start in 2015 when the B10 was created, it's pretty balanced. In those 7 seasons - 2015-2019,, 2022-23 - final four representation is:

Big 10 - 10
ACC - 7
Ivy -5
Big East - 3
Others 3

And in 2020, the Ivies had three teams in the top 5 when play was suspended. There just isn't as much disparity in the level of talent across the top 3-4 conferences as you think or claim it to be.

There was no tournament in 2020, my apologies on 2021. I generally root for the Big 10. Big 10 is been Maryland and the others, until the last 2 years (and that 1 run from OSU). Hopefully, that is a sign things are changing. No conference has the kind of balance that the ACC has had. Your numbers are saying I have under-estimated the Big 10, but that is skewed to 1 consistent power. I still think the ACC has basically been the SEC of college lacrosse. Its annoying, but they recruit better. If you have to bet on future champions, you are most likely picking ACC teams first. Its up to the Big 10 and the Ivies to change the current perception among recruits, media, and fans.

[Chousnake]

Christian Swezey over the weekend had an interesting metric for attackmen (he credited the idea as partly coming from Marc Van Arsdale of Loyola): add Goals, assists, ground balls, and caused turnovers and then subtract turnovers. Swezey’s post had the arithmetic totals, which would be dependent in part on games played, but I suspect if you refined that by dividing by number of games played it would be a pretty solid “attackman’s overall impact on the game” measurement that would give a boost to efficient guys (high production, low turnovers) as well as those like Kavanagh and Kirst who are so good with ground balls and caused turnovers.

This is probably best seen as a metric for “impact on the game/his team” vs. “best player” because a player on a team that concentrates much of its point production in him will have higher numbers. Here’s how it shakes out for some of the attackmen in the conversation:

1. Brandau: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 105: Per game 8.08
2. Sam King: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 86: Per game 7.82
3. CJ Kirst: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 85: Per game 7.08
4. Pat Kav: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 68: Per game 6.8
5. O’Neill: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 80: Per game 5.71
6. TJ Malone: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 60: Per game 5.45
7. Shellenberger: G/A/GB/CT minus turnovers 58: Per game 4.46

This isn’t just about the points, either — part of why Sam King finishes so high is that he’s averaging 3.7 ground balls per game (vs. the next highest, Kirst and Brandau at 2.5 ground balls per game and Shelley lowest in ground balls per game at 1.3).

If you calculated this metric again just for games in conference tournaments and NCAAs you could probably get a good sense of who will close really strong for the post-season awards including the Tewaaraton.

interesting.. Now if you factor schedule, I would bet Kirst and Brandau are very close. (i have not bothered to look at King's schedule). Only thing I would point out is that is the top 3 are in 1 conference, which should give you pause.

If the top three were Kavanaugh, O'Neill and Shelly, would you "pause?"

Probably not as much, because the ACC recruits better than anyone. You should probably think about the statement. Those 3 maybe the 1st 3 offensive players taken by the PLL, which would only give my statement more credence. That said anytime a conference dominates a particular stat, you have to ask yourself if is just the players or a result of the play in that conference. I think that is just logical, though it may upset the fans of conferences

You've lost all credibility...or, better said, what little you may have had...with this response. Sorry.

Please explain your apparent disagreement. What in particular do you have an issue with?

Your ongoing, uninformed assertions that, because someone plays in the ACC, he must be better than someone who doesn't, regardless of performance on the field. Stats of non-ACC players must be questioned...now, absurdly, because you assert "the ACC recruits better." Tiresome. Empty. No substance. Blind loyalty.

I didnt say that at all. I actually said Brandau, Malone, and Kirst have outperformed Shelly this year. It seems your issues are with your own reading comprehension, not my actual posts. You have to be living under a rock to think that the ACC does not recruit better than the Big 10 or Ivy. That is just a fact. For the record, I generally root against the ACC. I am just being honest about recruiting.

Does the ACC recruit 'better', or simply more well known? 2024 UNC seems to be a case study in how "name" recruits don't automatically translate to D1 success.

I feel like the Ivies often have far grittier players...a playing personality I personally prefer.

That completely fine. Accumulating talent does not always guarantee success. Things like development and constructing a roster come into play.
The field results are pretty clear on this though. The last 10 years have seen 10 ACC teams reach the finals, 6 Big 10 teams, 3 Ivy, and 1 mid-major (Denver). That includes every member of the ACC making a title game the last 10 years, which is a crazy stat. 2 Big 10 teams (33% of the conference). 2 Ivy teams (28.5%). I would prefer talent to be more spread out, but that does not seem to be happening.

You're counting two years (20-21) when the Ivies didn't even play and two years (22-23) when all other conferences were using Ivy transfers as 5th year players. If you count final four teams, eliminate 2020 and 2021(when the Ivies didn't play), and start in 2015 when the B10 was created, it's pretty balanced. In those 7 seasons - 2015-2019,, 2022-23 - final four representation is:

Big 10 - 10
ACC - 7
Ivy -5
Big East - 3
Others 3

And in 2020, the Ivies had three teams in the top 5 when play was suspended. There just isn't as much disparity in the level of talent across the top 3-4 conferences as you think or claim it to be.

There was no tournament in 2020, my apologies on 2021. I generally root for the Big 10. Big 10 is been Maryland and the others, until the last 2 years (and that 1 run from OSU). Hopefully, that is a sign things are changing. No conference has the kind of balance that the ACC has had. Your numbers are saying I have under-estimated the Big 10, but that is skewed to 1 consistent power. I still think the ACC has basically been the SEC of college lacrosse. Its annoying, but they recruit better. If you have to bet on future champions, you are most likely picking ACC teams first. Its up to the Big 10 and the Ivies to change the current perception among recruits, media, and fans.

I still think your perception and analysis are not demonstrated by the numbers. In those 7 years, all 5 ACC teams made the final four. But 4 Big 10 teams made it and 3 Ivies (with 2 others on the doorstep a few times). So where is this ACC dominance? Yes, the ACC won more titles, and yes they are deep, but taking 7 of 32 spots on Memorial Day weekend does not indicate that the ACC is a monster, especially when 3 of those 7 were last season. So from 2015 to 2022, the ACC took 4 of 24 spots while the Big 10 took 9 and the Ivies 5. It's fairly even. And certainly not enough to denigrate the seasons some Ivy players are having this year. Is the ACC the best conference in the lacrosse in 2023-24? Yes, so far. But it's been a year to year thing for the past decade.

The attack position is loaded with talent this year and I just can't see rating Shelly, Kavanaugh, O'Neill, or Shelly above Brandau, King, or Kirst just because the former play in the ACC and the latter in the Ivy. And the ACC-Ivy games this season bear that out.