[OT LAX] Cornell lacrosse vs. Princeton

[Q]Hillel Hoffmann Wrote:

Oops. I forgot. Princeton's last two recruiting classes were even better. And half our best players are seniors.[/q]

I know that the word has been that Princeton has great sophomore and freshman classes and that the junior and senior classes were "poor recruiting years". I know that Cornell is a more experienced, senior dominated team. I would, however, have thought that all those great sophomores and freshmen for Princeton would have been able to at least maintain possession of the ball when they did get it or at least put up a semblance of competition. I would have thought that by game ten certainly the sophomores would be showing their world class quality. Maybe, just maybe, they really aren't as good as people have said they are.

In any event, for 2005 the King is dead. Long live the (Big Red) King!

[Q]peterg Wrote: I know that the word has been that Princeton has great sophomore and freshman classes and that the junior and senior classes were "poor recruiting years"... [/q]
Although Princeton's current freshman and sophomore classes are superb, the class that really scares me is their incoming class (next year's freshmen). But even if you rule them out and just focus on Princeton's current underclassmen, I think it's fair to say that the Tigers' frosh and sophs are light years ahead of Cornell's current underclassmen.

The hockey conferences have all been formed just for hockey and don't really have any affiliation with existing conferences (now that the ECACHL is not really with the ECAC).

In lax, several of the conferences are existing conferences. Therefore, it's hard for an independent, especially a D-III playing up, to get into a conference if they're not a member for other sports.

Not to mention that two of those four have traditionally been good enough to qualify at large without the inconvenience of a tournament.

USILA Geico/STX Coaches Poll: Divison I (April 25)

No. Name Record    (1st)  Points/Previous

1 Johns Hopkins 10-0(10)    200 1
2 Duke 13-1                  190 2
3 Virginia 9-2               172 4
4 Cornell 8-2                164 6
5 Navy 9-3                   163 5
6 Georgetown 8-3             150 3
7 Syracuse 7-4               137 T7
8 Massachusetts 9-2          133 9
9 Army 10-3                  119 T7
10 Maryland 6-5              108 10
11 Dartmouth 7-3             106 11
12 Towson 9-3                 82 14
13 Albany 8-4                 76 13
14 Bucknell 8-4               64 12
15 Denver 8-4                 59 19
16 Fairfield 9-3              57 15
17 Stony Brook 9-3            26 NR
18 Penn State 7-5             25 NR
19 Delaware 9-4               23 NR
20 Brown 5-5                  14 18

Others receiving votes (in order): Hofstra 12, Yale 9, North Carolina 6, Notre Dame 4

[www.laxpower.com]

Good luck to Joe!

I'm doing a physics of sports presentation. As I looked at the speed at which various projectiles can be propelled, I realized that you must be able to shoot a lacrosse ball pretty fast, but I don't see any claims with a few quick Googles. Does anyone know the record recorded speed?

a normal D1 college guy is shooting somewhere in the high 80's mid 90's. for reference the last time i shot with a decent radar gun it was something like 91mph with my left and 86mph with my right. the fastest i've seen in my 17 around the game would be in the 103-105 mph range ... charlie lockwood (SU '94) was over 100 with both hands and jon reese (Yale '90) had a one hell of a cannon up around 102 ... and remember long poles are even more dangerous b/c the release point is tough read for the goalie and they can shoot faster with the added leverage of the longer shaft.

[Q]Hillel Hoffmann Wrote:

Fast forward to this Saturday. There's Cornell dominating time of possession. Cornell with more juice, more skills, more discipline, more depth and a lot more desire. And there's Cornell with the best recruiting class they've had in a long, long time waiting in the wings and there's--


Oops. I forgot. Princeton's last two recruiting classes were even better. And half our best players are seniors.[/q]

Don't know about the incoming class. I have heard (note - I have a conflict of interests here) that Cornell has a very, very good class coming. At this point, I'm thinking that Princeton's time alone on top of the league may be over. Billy Wilson at Dartmouth and Coach Tambroni have their programs right there to compete every year.

Can anyone explain the number of games each team is allowed to play? Why does Duke have a 14 game schedule (plus 2 ACC tournament games) when most other teams play only 11 or 12?

[Q]nshapiro Wrote:
Can anyone explain the number of games each team is allowed to play? Why does Duke have a 14 game schedule (plus 2 ACC tournament games) when most other teams play only 11 or 12?[/q]
if i remember correctly, the maximum number of NCAA competitive contests is set at 17 for the entire year, including "fall ball". This number excludes the NCAA playoffs, alumni event games … not sure about Conference tournaments. Take Cornell for example, we play 2 fall tournament games, 3 preseason scrimmages and then12 regular season contests to reach the 17 game maximum.

see: [cornellbigred.collegesports.com]

Thanks, Ben. I was wondering how much advantage a lacrosse player got from the extra lever arm compared to a baseball pitcher. It's not a perfect comparison, especially under game conditions, but not totally unreasonable either, so I'm somewhat surprised that it isn't a bit faster. Some how they don't come close to the speed of a pelote in jai alai.

I'm no physicist, but I imagine it hsa something to do with a less free/fluid motion than throwing (baseball-style). There must be some energy lost with both arms more levering the ball than flinging it. I imagine if someone had a 4 foot arm extension that he could throw with, it would be significantly faster.

Some differences:

When a long-stick hurls a lax ball, it's rarely fully overhand. There's usually a lot of sidearm action. Jai alai balls are often thrown fully overhand.

Maybe the effort of keeping the ball in the crosse causes the thrower to take something off the throw, where a jai alai cesta is shaped that the pelota tends to stay in it so maybe they can put everything into the throw.

Just some theories.

A baseball pitcher can do a full windup which helps put velocity on the ball. Power pitchers often seem to say that it's the legs that really do the work.

It's totally the legs. If pitchers bulk up their arms, they lose mobility. Same with power hitters. That's why good baseball players always have such big asses and thighs.

Ironically the conclusive evidence to this personal long-held suspicion (directly proportional relationship between ass size and hitting power) didn't come from long hours up in the Bronx staring at Jeter's booty, but from my time working with a Cornell baseball player who was always complaining that his ass was too small to be a good player. Indeed, as his ass size increased, so did his playing time.

So what's the story with Princeton lacrosse? They dominated the sport for a decade -- six national champiosnhips and NCAA runner up as recently as three years ago. 17 to 4?

Have they tightened up on admissions. (It's their former president William Bowen who has made such an issue of the Ivies overemphasizing sports.) Or did they just have a couple of bad recruiting years?

[Q]ben03 Wrote:

So with only a few weeks left in the lacrosse season here's what the NCAA's might look like after yesterdays results:

Seeded something like this:
1. JHU
2. Duke
3. UVA
4. Cornell*

5. Georgetown
6. Navy*
7. Syracuse
8. Army

9. Maryland
10. UMass
11. Dartmouth
12. Towson/Delaware*

13. Albany/Stony Brook*
14. Denver/Fairfield*
15. Bucknell/Penn State et al
16.Manhattan/Mount St. Mary’s*

Hillel, Al, Fred please feel free to correct any errors you see as my brain isn't up to speed ... b/c it's sunday morning[/q]
From Inside Lacrosse

Bracketology 4/26: [insidelacrosse.com]

Quality wins and SOS rankings 4/21: [www.insidelacrosse.com]

[Q]peterg Wrote: I have heard (note - I have a conflict of interests here) that Cornell has a very, very good class coming. At this point, I'm thinking that Princeton's time alone on top of the league may be over. Billy Wilson at Dartmouth and Coach Tambroni have their programs right there to compete every year. [/q]
I hope you're right.

I don't know if Dartmouth's success will be sustainable, given what I've heard about their administration.

Cornell, on the other hand, is going to be swimming in the photic zone of Ivy League lacrosse for as long as the current staff is willing to stick around. You're right, Tambroni and DeLuca have taken recruiting to the next level, and with the exception of abyssmal home attendance, there are plenty of signs of the program's long-term health.

Next year's freshman class may indeed be the best in a long time -- they have the potential to surpass this year's seniors (see below), which is saying a lot, and they could be the best cohort since the groups that graduated in 1982 and '83 (Crowley, Daly, Bollinger, Happel, Bruno, Mercer, et al). I mean, when was the last time that Cornell was able to land two Long Islanders in the same class who earned All America status ... as JUNIORS? (The kids in question: M/A Max Seibald of Hewlett and A Chris Finn of Manhasset).

The other thing you have to like about recent recruiting classes is the number of kids from lacrosse's developing nations: Texas, California, the Philadelphia area and such. That's a sign of a hard-working staff with deep, widespread connections. Some of the most intriguing prospects are Nick Gradinger, a defenseman from the San Diego area (via a post-graduate year at Deerfield) and a trio of long poles from the Delaware Valley (although the guy who may be the best of them, John Decker from the Haverford School, is out this season with a leg injury).

It's also nice to see Cornell landing some great players who also have superb academic credentials, even when competing head-to-head with Princeton and the like (DeBlois was an example of this). Check out the majors of the players in the media guide; you'll see a wide variety of challenging curricula. It's certainly a healthier mix than you saw on the roster when I went was at Cornell. Shoot, there are two physics majors getting minutes. The point here is that Cornell lacrosse hasn't always been able to get these kinds of kids. It's an indicator.

All evidence suggests that Cornell is reaching what our Colgate buddies on USCHO call a "high, flat plane."

However...

I think it's realistic to expect a temporary step backward next year, even with the arrival of kick-butt recruits. This year's senior class was just so f'ing talented and deep -- and they have three consecutive Ivy titles to show for it. Unfortunately, there's little evidence that the current underclassmen can fill their shoes. No one in that group made an immediate major impact, as Greenhalgh and Redd did (or for that matter as Princeton's Sowanick, Trombino, or Cocoziello did). Part of that, of course, is that the underclassmen haven't had much playing time. That lack of PT could really hurt in '06.

I'm not saying that Cornell won't be competitive. Peter's absolutely right: Princeton struggled to do so much as throw and catch in 2005. But looking at Princeton's projected roster in '06, which includes three of the very best HS seniors in the nation (Kovler, Peyser and Lesko), I see a return to Ivy championship form for the Tigers, even without a proven goalie. As this year's Cornell and Dartmouth teams prove, experience is worth a lot, and that's what Princeton will have in spades.

[Q]rstott wrote: So what's the story with Princeton lacrosse? They dominated the sport for a decade -- six national champiosnhips and NCAA runner up as recently as three years ago. 17 to 4? Have they tightened up on admissions...Or did they just have a couple of bad recruiting years? [/q]
Just a coupla bad recruiting years. But they'll never dominate Cornell year after year after year like they did in the 1990s.

Cornell. Is. Back.

[Q]Hillel Hoffmann Wrote:

[
Cornell. Is. Back.

[/q]

That sounds sooooo good!

I hope you're right.

>>> the photic zone

Hillel, are you hoping Williams Safire and F. Buckley stop by the site? What amazing and thought-provoking phraseology. Not to be confused with JM's bracketology.

[Q]Jerseygirl Wrote: It's totally the legs. If pitchers bulk up their arms, they lose mobility. Same with power hitters. That's why good baseball players always have such big asses and thighs. Ironically the conclusive evidence to this personal long-held suspicion (directly proportional relationship between ass size and hitting power) didn't come from long hours up in the Bronx staring at Jeter's booty, but from my time working with a Cornell baseball player who was always complaining that his ass was too small to be a good player. Indeed, as his ass size increased, so did his playing time.[/q]You're thinking Shaq would be the next .400 hitter? His butt should have those red triangular flags on either side.

[Q]billhoward Wrote:
You're thinking Shaq would be the next .400 hitter? His butt should have those red triangular flags on either side.
[/q]
Interesting that the last guy to do it was called "the splendid splinter."