Page 1 of 2
USA Lacrosse Way Too Early Top 25
Posted: Mon Aug 19, 2024 1:37 pm
by jff97
So USA Lacrosse magazine rolled out their Way Too Early Top 25 last week. I have no problem with BC at #1 but some of the other choices are interesting. Feels like some teams got spots based on their brand rather than what they have coming back. Then again that's what happens in a lot of sports. I put the full list below, as well as the link to their writeup for each team. Let the usual discussion and whining begin.
No. 1-5:
https://www.usalacrosse.com/magazine/co ... on-i-women
1. Boston College
2. Northwestern
3. Syracuse
4. North Carolina
5. Michigan
No. 6-10:
https://www.usalacrosse.com/magazine/co ... on-i-women
6. Virginia
7. Yale
8. Maryland
9. Penn
10. Johns Hopkins
No. 11-15:
https://www.usalacrosse.com/magazine/co ... on-i-women
11. Florida
12. Notre Dame
13. Loyola
14. Stony Brook
15. Denver
No. 16-20:
https://www.usalacrosse.com/magazine/co ... on-i-women
16. Princeton
17. James Madison
18. Navy
19. Penn State
20. USC
No. 21-25:
https://www.usalacrosse.com/magazine/co ... on-i-women
21. Drexel
22. Duke
23. Stanford
24. Colorado
25. Brown
Re: USA Lacrosse Way Too Early Top 25
Posted: Mon Aug 19, 2024 3:26 pm
by laxfan2889
Syracuse is way too high IMO…I love the orange but they lost the most I would say and it will be very hard to fill all those scoring holes
UNC has a great team on paper but we’ve never seen it in action! I hope they can have a phenomenal season, but I don’t think I would have had them ranked so highly when they have a lot to prove.
Agree with BC at #1 and they didn’t even mention the new transfers as additions..
Northwestern makes sense at 2 for now. I am not sure who i would slide in there…
UVA to me is a program to watch out for this year. They has a lot of success last year with their younger talent.
Re: USA Lacrosse Way Too Early Top 25
Posted: Mon Aug 19, 2024 4:32 pm
by MolonLaxe
Some teams are just trendy and almost always make it on the list a little too high.
Re: USA Lacrosse Way Too Early Top 25
Posted: Wed Aug 21, 2024 4:54 pm
by LaxDadMax
FWIW My top 20
1. BC
2. Cuse
3. NW
4. Florida
5. UNC
6. Yale
7. Michigan
8. MD
9. UVA
10. Hop
11. JMU
12. Princeton
13. Stony Brook
14. Loyola
15. Penn
16. USC
17. Brown
18. Notre Dame
19. Navy
20. Army
21. Duke
Re: USA Lacrosse Way Too Early Top 25
Posted: Wed Aug 21, 2024 5:25 pm
by hsllax
LaxDadMax wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 4:54 pm
FWIW My top 20
1. BC
2. Cuse
3. NW
4. Florida
5. Yale
6. Michigan
7. MD
8. UVA
9. Hop
10. JMU
11. Princeton
12. Stony Brook
13. Loyola
14. Penn
15. USC
16. Brown
17. Notre Dame
18. Navy
19. Army
20. Duke
No Carolina in your top 20? Curious about Cuse at 2 and MD at 7. Would love to hear the rationale.
Beyond BC, next year feels like a big question mark. Programs like Cuse and UNC that return several potentially strong players from injury- how well do those kids come back? What's the timeline like? How does their return impact team politics, pecking order etc?
How is NU without Coykendall and Scane? Taylor is excellent but she can't do it alone. Can Sammy White get back to 100% (never seemed to get there last year, wonder if she would have redshirted. Says a lot about her caliber to take a Sammy White at 80% vs. someone else at 100.
Programs like NU, MD and Cuse graduate multi-year starting goalies who had strong records. No guarantee with goalies how they'll pan out and it matters a lot in tight games.
Was the demise over Cuse's coaching staff/ team culture greatly exaggerated?
Re: USA Lacrosse Way Too Early Top 25
Posted: Wed Aug 21, 2024 5:45 pm
by laxfan2889
hsllax wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 5:25 pm
LaxDadMax wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 4:54 pm
FWIW My top 20
1. BC
2. Cuse
3. NW
4. Florida
5. Yale
6. Michigan
7. MD
8. UVA
9. Hop
10. JMU
11. Princeton
12. Stony Brook
13. Loyola
14. Penn
15. USC
16. Brown
17. Notre Dame
18. Navy
19. Army
20. Duke
No Carolina in your top 20? Curious about Cuse at 2 and MD at 7. Would love to hear the rationale.
Beyond BC, next year feels like a big question mark. Programs like Cuse and UNC that return several potentially strong players from injury- how well do those kids come back? What's the timeline like? How does their return impact team politics, pecking order etc?
How is NU without Coykendall and Scane? Taylor is excellent but she can't do it alone. Can Sammy White get back to 100% (never seemed to get there last year, wonder if she would have redshirted. Says a lot about her caliber to take a Sammy White at 80% vs. someone else at 100.
Programs like NU, MD and Cuse graduate multi-year starting goalies who had strong records. No guarantee with goalies how they'll pan out and it matters a lot in tight games.
Was the demise over Cuse's coaching staff/ team culture greatly exaggerated?
I think this is a phenomenal breakdown!
I am beyond excited to see the new UNC team. This is basically a whole new group of players. I think we all don’t know enough to place them anywhere on a list yet. On paper they should be great, but they have a lot of chemistry to figure out this Fall. I personally love when UNC is one of the favorites, and I hope they can get back to where they once were this upcoming season. They have a lot of pressure on them.
Cuse will be a tough one to watch. They are losing SO much talent. I love Cuse, but I just don’t see them being able to maintain in the top 5 this year sadly. I hope I’m wrong. The scoring power they have lost and their goalie are brutal.
NW will become the Madison Taylor show, but with more defensive attention on her, without Scane and Coykendall to distract, she will have to adapt. I look forward to seeing them rebuild their offense. They have some incoming freshman that have been playing pretty well at the u20 championship.
BC to me is the clear top dog. They finally announced some strong transfers. I will be fascinated to see how they replace one of the strongest class of midfielders the game has ever seen. I think Baker will have to step up in that classic two way midfielder role to fill the major holes that Belle Smith and Cassidy Weeks once filled.
Re: USA Lacrosse Way Too Early Top 25
Posted: Wed Aug 21, 2024 5:47 pm
by LaxDadMax
hsllax wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 5:25 pm
LaxDadMax wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 4:54 pm
FWIW My top 20
1. BC
2. Cuse
3. NW
4. Florida
5. Yale
6. Michigan
7. MD
8. UVA
9. Hop
10. JMU
11. Princeton
12. Stony Brook
13. Loyola
14. Penn
15. USC
16. Brown
17. Notre Dame
18. Navy
19. Army
20. Duke
No Carolina in your top 20? Curious about Cuse at 2 and MD at 7. Would love to hear the rationale.
Beyond BC, next year feels like a big question mark. Programs like Cuse and UNC that return several potentially strong players from injury- how well do those kids come back? What's the timeline like? How does their return impact team politics, pecking order etc?
How is NU without Coykendall and Scane? Taylor is excellent but she can't do it alone. Can Sammy White get back to 100% (never seemed to get there last year, wonder if she would have redshirted. Says a lot about her caliber to take a Sammy White at 80% vs. someone else at 100.
Programs like NU, MD and Cuse graduate multi-year starting goalies who had strong records. No guarantee with goalies how they'll pan out and it matters a lot in tight games.
Was the demise over Cuse's coaching staff/ team culture greatly exaggerated?
The rationale is i'm an idiot and just forget them. I updated it with them at 5.
Just so you know, I am calling out who I think will be the best teams in February, not necessarily May. I think Cuse is one of the most talented rosters around. These challenge won't have to do with scandal in the coaching room, but big game yips and playing the occasion, not the game.
For me the biggest X factor is Hop. I initially had them as high as 5. Then I moved a bunch around and accidently deleted UNC in the process. I think they could beat anyone in the big ten and if I had to pick a final four sleep, it would undoubtedly be them.
Re: USA Lacrosse Way Too Early Top 25
Posted: Wed Aug 21, 2024 6:01 pm
by ultravisitor
LaxDadMax wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 5:47 pm
For me the biggest X factor is Hop. I initially had them as high as 5. Then I moved a bunch around and accidently deleted UNC in the process. I think they could beat anyone in the big ten and if I had to pick a final four sleep, it would undoubtedly be them.
Will 2025 be the year that Hopkins finally beats Maryland? I think it's a realistic possibility.
Would Michigan be considered a sleeper team if they make the final four? They've never advanced very far in the tournament.
Re: USA Lacrosse Way Too Early Top 25
Posted: Wed Aug 21, 2024 7:33 pm
by cdb
Until all these athletes are offered full scholarships similar to football players, a state school should never be out recruited by a private school. Out of state students can usually qualify as residents by living in the state for one full year -- so out of state students will be charged an additional fee until they qualify as residents. For example, North Carolina charges an out of state student around $54K vs 25.3K for resident. CUSE charges over 77K for all students. Unless CUSE can offer a full scholarship, UNC will always have a tremendous advantage in recruiting. Let's not even discuss BC that charges more than Harvard. There has been tons of discussion on the expected ascension of Clemson into a top team. Compare Clemson's approximate cost of $15,500 for in-state vs BC's $81,200 plus. If you are a parent, which option sounds best to you -- unless you have tons of money and that is not an issue.
I really believe that if schools like NW, BC, CUSE, Hopkins, etc. are going to remain competitive, they will have to offer full scholarships to all athletes --they can easily get around the present requirements by offering non-athletic scholarships, but the barometer seems to be pointing away from the NCAA dictating anything. We will just have to wait and see. But with all it costs parents to get the gifted athlete trained, colleges are going to have to help much more with college costs or the parents are going to steer their kids into sports that offer a greater chance for a quality education without putting the family in the poor house.
Re: USA Lacrosse Way Too Early Top 25
Posted: Wed Aug 21, 2024 9:32 pm
by Womenslaxxfan
LaxDadMax wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 5:47 pm
hsllax wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 5:25 pm
LaxDadMax wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 4:54 pm
FWIW My top 20
1. BC
2. Cuse
3. NW
4. Florida
5. Yale
6. Michigan
7. MD
8. UVA
9. Hop
10. JMU
11. Princeton
12. Stony Brook
13. Loyola
14. Penn
15. USC
16. Brown
17. Notre Dame
18. Navy
19. Army
20. Duke
No Carolina in your top 20? Curious about Cuse at 2 and MD at 7. Would love to hear the rationale.
Beyond BC, next year feels like a big question mark. Programs like Cuse and UNC that return several potentially strong players from injury- how well do those kids come back? What's the timeline like? How does their return impact team politics, pecking order etc?
How is NU without Coykendall and Scane? Taylor is excellent but she can't do it alone. Can Sammy White get back to 100% (never seemed to get there last year, wonder if she would have redshirted. Says a lot about her caliber to take a Sammy White at 80% vs. someone else at 100.
Programs like NU, MD and Cuse graduate multi-year starting goalies who had strong records. No guarantee with goalies how they'll pan out and it matters a lot in tight games.
Was the demise over Cuse's coaching staff/ team culture greatly exaggerated?
The rationale is i'm an idiot and just forget them. I updated it with them at 5.
Just so you know, I am calling out who I think will be the best teams in February, not necessarily May. I think Cuse is one of the most talented rosters around. These challenge won't have to do with scandal in the coaching room, but big game yips and playing the occasion, not the game.
For me the biggest X factor is Hop. I initially had them as high as 5. Then I moved a bunch around and accidently deleted UNC in the process. I think they could beat anyone in the big ten and if I had to pick a final four sleep, it would undoubtedly be them.
Florida lost most of their team. They were all in on 2024. They will struggle to remain top 10.
Re: USA Lacrosse Way Too Early Top 25
Posted: Wed Aug 21, 2024 11:24 pm
by laxer12
laxfan2889 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 5:45 pm
hsllax wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 5:25 pm
LaxDadMax wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 4:54 pm
FWIW My top 20
1. BC
2. Cuse
3. NW
4. Florida
5. Yale
6. Michigan
7. MD
8. UVA
9. Hop
10. JMU
11. Princeton
12. Stony Brook
13. Loyola
14. Penn
15. USC
16. Brown
17. Notre Dame
18. Navy
19. Army
20. Duke
No Carolina in your top 20? Curious about Cuse at 2 and MD at 7. Would love to hear the rationale.
Beyond BC, next year feels like a big question mark. Programs like Cuse and UNC that return several potentially strong players from injury- how well do those kids come back? What's the timeline like? How does their return impact team politics, pecking order etc?
How is NU without Coykendall and Scane? Taylor is excellent but she can't do it alone. Can Sammy White get back to 100% (never seemed to get there last year, wonder if she would have redshirted. Says a lot about her caliber to take a Sammy White at 80% vs. someone else at 100.
Programs like NU, MD and Cuse graduate multi-year starting goalies who had strong records. No guarantee with goalies how they'll pan out and it matters a lot in tight games.
Was the demise over Cuse's coaching staff/ team culture greatly exaggerated?
Cuse will be a tough one to watch. They are losing SO much talent. I love Cuse, but I just don’t see them being able to maintain in the top 5 this year sadly. I hope I’m wrong. The scoring power they have lost and their goalie are brutal.
Cuse isn't losing any more offensive weapons from 2024 than they lost in 2023. After the 2023 season, they lost 3 main offensive contributors in Meaghan Tyrrell, Megan Carney, and Sierra Cockerille. In 2024, they lost scoring threats Emma Tyrrell, Natalie Smith, and Maddie Baxter.
However, they return attackers Emma Ward and Olivia Adamson (both 80+ point scorers from last season), attacker Payton Rowley as well as midfielders Emma Muchnick and Joely Caramelli. Biggest question mark is how their top 2 freshman recruits from last season (Ashlee Volpe and Alexa Vogelman) return from injury. If they're healthy (I sincerely hope they are), Cuse will definitely be dangerous on the offensive end. They also have a pair of top 20 freshman midfielders in Mileena Cotter and Molly Guzik coming in next season.
Delaney Sweitzer had a fantastic 2023 campaign (IWLCA Goalkeeper of the year) but had a rather subpar 2024 season. Obviously she'll be a big presence to replace but nowhere near impossible. I think Cuse will be fine.
Re: USA Lacrosse Way Too Early Top 25
Posted: Thu Aug 22, 2024 8:44 am
by hmmm
cdb wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 7:33 pm
Until all these athletes are offered full scholarships similar to football players, a state school should never be out recruited by a private school. Out of state students can usually qualify as residents by living in the state for one full year -- so out of state students will be charged an additional fee until they qualify as residents. For example, North Carolina charges an out of state student around $54K vs 25.3K for resident. CUSE charges over 77K for all students. Unless CUSE can offer a full scholarship, UNC will always have a tremendous advantage in recruiting. Let's not even discuss BC that charges more than Harvard. There has been tons of discussion on the expected ascension of Clemson into a top team. Compare Clemson's approximate cost of $15,500 for in-state vs BC's $81,200 plus. If you are a parent, which option sounds best to you -- unless you have tons of money and that is not an issue.
I really believe that if schools like NW, BC, CUSE, Hopkins, etc. are going to remain competitive, they will have to offer full scholarships to all athletes --they can easily get around the present requirements by offering non-athletic scholarships, but the barometer seems to be pointing away from the NCAA dictating anything. We will just have to wait and see. But with all it costs parents to get the gifted athlete trained, colleges are going to have to help much more with college costs or the parents are going to steer their kids into sports that offer a greater chance for a quality education without putting the family in the poor house.
What you seem to be suggesting is that parents will cease wanting to send their kids to top academic private schools to save money? First off, many schools like Hopkins, Duke, NU, Ivies provide significant need based aid due to their huge endowments. All of those schools meet all need, and the income level to not qualify for need at those schools is quite high. Many students at these schools aren't even on athletic scholarships(none at the Ivies obviously). Secondly, for those that want to go to these schools who don't qualify for need based or merit based aid, money isn't typically a concern when choosing a college. I know Hopkins and Syracuse are already working to significantly increase their budget for scholarships with the limits going away but I can't see anyone providing all 48 to men and 38 to women.
Re: USA Lacrosse Way Too Early Top 25
Posted: Thu Aug 22, 2024 9:32 am
by cdb
No. I should have been clearer. Many of these girls are also excellent athletes in sports like basketball and soccer. Parents may urge their kids to play the sports that's provide the greatest opportunity for a scholarship in those same schools. But if they choose Lacrosse, a partial scholarship to Clemson is almost a full scholarship will result in an over a $30K tuition cost no matter how much help they get. The Ivy colleges have always awarded scholarships win a different way and I don't expect they will be affected.
If I were a school like NW and I had prospect who wanted a business MBA -- I would offer a scholarship for 4 years and then a scholarship for their excellent MBA program. That would be very difficult for another school to match.
But if folks have more than one kid who they need to get educated, financial help with the tuition and room and board needs to be forthcoming -- and will produce a more fervent fan base.
Re: USA Lacrosse Way Too Early Top 25
Posted: Thu Aug 22, 2024 9:36 am
by 301Hayes
cdb wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 7:33 pm
Until all these athletes are offered full scholarships similar to football players, a state school should never be out recruited by a private school. Out of state students can usually qualify as residents by living in the state for one full year -- so out of state students will be charged an additional fee until they qualify as residents. For example, North Carolina charges an out of state student around $54K vs 25.3K for resident. CUSE charges over 77K for all students. Unless CUSE can offer a full scholarship, UNC will always have a tremendous advantage in recruiting. Let's not even discuss BC that charges more than Harvard. There has been tons of discussion on the expected ascension of Clemson into a top team. Compare Clemson's approximate cost of $15,500 for in-state vs BC's $81,200 plus. If you are a parent, which option sounds best to you -- unless you have tons of money and that is not an issue.
I really believe that if schools like NW, BC, CUSE, Hopkins, etc. are going to remain competitive, they will have to offer full scholarships to all athletes --they can easily get around the present requirements by offering non-athletic scholarships, but the barometer seems to be pointing away from the NCAA dictating anything. We will just have to wait and see. But with all it costs parents to get the gifted athlete trained, colleges are going to have to help much more with college costs or the parents are going to steer their kids into sports that offer a greater chance for a quality education without putting the family in the poor house.
It’s next to impossible for an out-of-state student to get in state tuition as an undergraduate. That was the case in the 80’s - but definitely not the case now - at almost any state school.
https://www.ncresidency.org/important-before-you-begin/
Re: USA Lacrosse Way Too Early Top 25
Posted: Thu Aug 22, 2024 9:52 am
by hmmm
301Hayes wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2024 9:36 am
cdb wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 7:33 pm
Until all these athletes are offered full scholarships similar to football players, a state school should never be out recruited by a private school. Out of state students can usually qualify as residents by living in the state for one full year -- so out of state students will be charged an additional fee until they qualify as residents. For example, North Carolina charges an out of state student around $54K vs 25.3K for resident. CUSE charges over 77K for all students. Unless CUSE can offer a full scholarship, UNC will always have a tremendous advantage in recruiting. Let's not even discuss BC that charges more than Harvard. There has been tons of discussion on the expected ascension of Clemson into a top team. Compare Clemson's approximate cost of $15,500 for in-state vs BC's $81,200 plus. If you are a parent, which option sounds best to you -- unless you have tons of money and that is not an issue.
I really believe that if schools like NW, BC, CUSE, Hopkins, etc. are going to remain competitive, they will have to offer full scholarships to all athletes --they can easily get around the present requirements by offering non-athletic scholarships, but the barometer seems to be pointing away from the NCAA dictating anything. We will just have to wait and see. But with all it costs parents to get the gifted athlete trained, colleges are going to have to help much more with college costs or the parents are going to steer their kids into sports that offer a greater chance for a quality education without putting the family in the poor house.
It’s next to impossible for an out-of-state student to get in state tuition as an undergraduate. That was the case in the 80’s - but definitely not the case now - at almost any state school.
https://www.ncresidency.org/important-before-you-begin/
Agree. Most states have closed that loophole and the student can't claim a state of residency that differs from their parents until they are 21 or 25. As a parent of a child at CU-Boulder with friends that live in Denver willing to sign my son to a lease it was a disappointing discovery.
Re: USA Lacrosse Way Too Early Top 25
Posted: Fri Aug 23, 2024 12:16 pm
by user1020
hmmm wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2024 8:44 am
cdb wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 7:33 pm
Until all these athletes are offered full scholarships similar to football players, a state school should never be out recruited by a private school. Out of state students can usually qualify as residents by living in the state for one full year -- so out of state students will be charged an additional fee until they qualify as residents. For example, North Carolina charges an out of state student around $54K vs 25.3K for resident. CUSE charges over 77K for all students. Unless CUSE can offer a full scholarship, UNC will always have a tremendous advantage in recruiting. Let's not even discuss BC that charges more than Harvard. There has been tons of discussion on the expected ascension of Clemson into a top team. Compare Clemson's approximate cost of $15,500 for in-state vs BC's $81,200 plus. If you are a parent, which option sounds best to you -- unless you have tons of money and that is not an issue.
I really believe that if schools like NW, BC, CUSE, Hopkins, etc. are going to remain competitive, they will have to offer full scholarships to all athletes --they can easily get around the present requirements by offering non-athletic scholarships, but the barometer seems to be pointing away from the NCAA dictating anything. We will just have to wait and see. But with all it costs parents to get the gifted athlete trained, colleges are going to have to help much more with college costs or the parents are going to steer their kids into sports that offer a greater chance for a quality education without putting the family in the poor house.
What you seem to be suggesting is that parents will cease wanting to send their kids to top academic private schools to save money? First off, many schools like Hopkins, Duke, NU, Ivies provide significant need based aid due to their huge endowments. All of those schools meet all need, and the income level to not qualify for need at those schools is quite high. Many students at these schools aren't even on athletic scholarships(none at the Ivies obviously). Secondly, for those that want to go to these schools who don't qualify for need based or merit based aid, money isn't typically a concern when choosing a college. I know Hopkins and Syracuse are already working to significantly increase their budget for scholarships with the limits going away but I can't see anyone providing all 48 to men and 38 to women.
This is extremely true. An athlete that has good academics can combine academic scholarships, aid, and athletic scholarships to make it pretty comparable or often cheaper than in state tuition. The only people paying full price are filthy rich parents with dumb kids. Granted there are stipulations to combining athletic and academic scholarships, but the price of these private schools isn’t anywhere near the total. The price is simply fictitious and an attempt to show prestige.
Re: USA Lacrosse Way Too Early Top 25
Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2024 12:16 pm
by laxfan2889
I don’t mean this in a rude way at all…but genuinely curious people’s thoughts. IMO BC and UNC this year are going to be at a whole other level compared to the other teams. Does anybody feel similar to this?
Re: USA Lacrosse Way Too Early Top 25
Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2024 1:02 pm
by cdb
I have noted the the top coaches are not as concerned with ratings as many are. They coach with Memorial Day Weekend in mind. Many times they will put their teams in situations to teach them what is required to win in a close game against a good opponent. So, I can see the coaches of both UNC and BC, having losses that they can use to make the team better. I saw that with BC in all the seasons I have watched them. I saw it with MD, NC, and UNC.
So, I can see the two teams mentioned here, UNC and BC, having losses that are didactic in nature. Last year BC was rated somewhere between 6-10 going into the tournaments. They came out as National Champions -- Teams like BC and UNC can have talent -- but the question is how that talent will play as a team -- especially since most of the best teams always have great defenses. Yes, not as glamorous as the attacker, but necessary to win the biggest games. BC has to replace highly skilled defensive players -- I will wait to judge until I see how Coach Walker does -- and without great midfielders I don't see BC having an advantage because they were beaten in draw controls against the best teams. UNC has all those talented players and the challenge is getting all that talent playing time and developing them into a cohesive team -- They have a great coach and I expect they will do so -- particularly if all the injured players are back, but again, I will wait to see it.
And there is always that surprise team -- last year it was Florida.
We can predict, but what is the old saying, "You still have to lace them up and play the game."
Re: USA Lacrosse Way Too Early Top 25
Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2024 1:12 pm
by laxfan2889
cdb wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2024 1:02 pm
I have noted the the top coaches are not as concerned with ratings as many are. They coach with Memorial Day Weekend in mind. Many times they will put their teams in situations to teach them what is required to win in a close game against a good opponent. So, I can see the coaches of both UNC and BC, having losses that they can use to make the team better. I saw that with BC in all the seasons I have watched them. I saw it with MD, NC, and UNC.
So, I can see the two teams mentioned here, UNC and BC, having losses that are didactic in nature. Last year BC was rated somewhere between 6-10 going into the tournaments. They came out as National Champions -- Teams like BC and UNC can have talent -- but the question is how that talent will play as a team -- especially since most of the best teams always have great defenses. Yes, not as glamorous as the attacker, but necessary to win the biggest games. BC has to replace highly skilled defensive players -- I will wait to judge until I see how Coach Walker does -- and without great midfielders I don't see BC having an advantage because they were beaten in draw controls against the best teams. UNC has all those talented players and the challenge is getting all that talent playing time and developing them into a cohesive team -- They have a great coach and I expect they will do so -- particularly if all the injured players are back, but again, I will wait to see it.
And there is always that surprise team -- last year it was Florida.
We can predict, but what is the old saying, "You still have to lace them up and play the game."
I really appreciate this take. Very detailed and thorough. You have opened my eyes!
Re: USA Lacrosse Way Too Early Top 25
Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2024 1:41 pm
by ultravisitor
laxfan2889 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2024 12:16 pm
I don’t mean this in a rude way at all…but genuinely curious people’s thoughts. IMO BC and UNC this year are going to be at a whole other level compared to the other teams. Does anybody feel similar to this?
People always think UNC is going to be at a whole other level than other teams, but they rarely are. As much as people want to give them credit for their recruiting classes and rosters, it's never that easy and obvious.