[LAX] Cornell is 7 seed

(1) Hopkins
Providence
        (winners meet @ UVa)
Ohio State
(8) UNC

(5) Georgetown
Towson
        (winners meet @ Cornell)
Albany
(4) Syracuse

(3) Maryland
Army
       (winners meet @ UVa)
Rutgers
(6) Princeton

(7) Cornell
Hobart
        (winners meet @ Cornell)
Penn
(2) Navy

It's nice that Cornell got to be a) at home and b) not on grass somewhere. [/Q]
Can someone briefly explain to the lacrosse ignorant (me) the difference that grass vs. turf makes?[/q]

Balls bounce truer on shots off artificial turf, which is good because they go where you (shooter) want and bad because the goalie can track where they go (even if he can't get his stick there in time). No clump of dirt will make the bounce go at an off angle, which is a killer for the goalie the way a deflection shot is tough on a hockey goalie. I don't know if players try more bounce shots on artificial turf than on regular fields but I'd guess yes because it's still harder to handle a bounce shot than a straight-on shot.

(The first time Virginia (?) saw Cornell's field in the 1970s for a playoff game, the Cavaliers tried bounce passes in practice. I don't think it ever caught on in games.)

Ground balls travel faster. They don't get slowed down by the grass blades. A shot that goes past the cage and hits the ground may get out of bounds fractionally faster, meaning there's an advantage to a team with well-positioned man behind the cage, or faster runners.

Scooping up ground balls is easier if you're the first one to the ball.

Precision players can pivot faster including in the rain.

The field is hotter on a hot day.

There's better footing in the rain.

It hurts like hell getting exposed skin rubbed on artificial turf.

There's the potential for more knee injuries because when you're hit hard from the side, your foot is more likely to stay in contact with the surface. (Long term in the past, the people who played on artificial turf seemed to suffer more injuries. Newer fields are better cushioned and the surface is more grasslike.)

Artificial turf is good for Cornell and Syracuse and Princeton because you have a decent field to practice on earlier in the year. Artificial turf is good for land-locked colleges (who isn't?) becaue one field can be used for practice and play by several sports, men and women both, if they want. (Princeton's Class of 1952 field is the prime example.) I think natural grass fields may be the province of the pros and big time colleges. Artificial turf is cheaper on upkeep once it's installed.

There must be more reasons.

Funny thing about terminology. "Artificial turf" is often shortened now to "turf" or "turf field." You almost have to say "natural grass" or "natural grass turf" to distinguish. Thus you wind up with retronyms (you have to say corded drill because there now are cordless drills. William Safire in On Language once bitched about having to say English language radio to distinguish from the stuff he perhaps did not want to listen to on the radio.)