2026 Men's Lacrosse

[BearLover]

At least 90% of recruiting has to do with factors that the coach has no direct control over: academics, campus culture, weather, facilities, likelihood of a championship,  etc. There's not some magic knob that a coach can turn to improve recruiting.

Perhaps. But while Princeton and ND may have some advantages, I don't see enough difference in the five things you explicitly mention (academics, campus culture, weather, facilities, likelihood of a championship) to account for Princeton repeatedly recruiting the #1 class (several years in a row with 5x5*) while we recruit #20.

This is particularly vexing because until recently we have regularly recruited generational players like Kurst, Teat, Adler, etc.

We are still recruiting potentially generational players.

The fact we still get the occasional 5-star doesn't disprove the broader point. BTW, Adler was not a big-time recruit. Nor was Pannell.

The problem is not recruiting. The problem is how well we play. We're absolutely able to beat the national champions Princeton Tigers. Do you know how I know?

Sorry, but this is cope. Can we beat Princeton? Yes. Were we as good as Princeton this season? No. We fortunately recruit well enough that we aren't completely overmatched against the top teams, and often we do beat them, but we'd beat them more often if we recruited better. Developing players is important, but the ceiling is higher on a 5-star recruit than a 3-star recruit. You'll win more by developing a 5-star. What I'm saying is so simple that it's practically tautological: bringing in better players means you win more. Yes, we can beat the teams that out-recruit us, but this is in spite of the recruiting disparity, and we'd beat those teams more often if we recruited better.

Overall our recruiting has been fine. Clearly not as good as Princeton's or Notre Dame's or UVA's or Duke's or UNC's, but it's been good enough to compete nationally. This will no longer be the case if we bring in the 20th best recruiting class every season (as we will next year). Even our 2027 ranking (11th) isn't very good, considering the class was recruited in the wake of our national title. So, we need to step it up.

I could be wrong, I suppose, but didn't Cornell just win a national championship twelve months ago? 

What will it take to quiesce the insistent, persistent whining we are depressingly subjected to?  I'd rather read the Cyrillic garbage we get than this tiresome Chicken Little act.

You're freaking out because a poster on a sports forum said their team needs to (gasp!) "step up recruiting." The horror!

[BearLover]

Even our 2027 ranking (11th) isn't very good, considering the class was recruited in the wake of our national title. So, we need to step it up.

What does "step it up" mean exactly? What could Cornell be doing to recruit better lacrosse players that it is not already doing? I am
not familiar with college athletics recruiting, so I am genuinely curious.

It's less that I have specific ideas about what we should do to improve recruiting and more that our recruiting is the clearest weakness of the program currently. Coaching seems great, culture seems great, player development probably also great. But recruiting is where we have the most room to grow. IL star rankings are imperfect, but highly correlated with team success. We've been 14th, 10th, 20th, and 11th the past four years, which isn't gonna cut it if we have national championship aspirations. BTW, our 2025 national championship team consisted of classes with the following recruiting rankings: 6th, 4th, 20th, 9th, 3rd.

[Cornell troll]

Difficult to attract top recruits on a consistent basis like princeton when lacking prestige and being in the middle of nowhere.

[stereax]

I think Points Rank is intended to be more objective. 

[mike1960]

At least 90% of recruiting has to do with factors that the coach has no direct control over: academics, campus culture, weather, facilities, likelihood of a championship,  etc. There's not some magic knob that a coach can turn to improve recruiting.

Perhaps. But while Princeton and ND may have some advantages, I don't see enough difference in the five things you explicitly mention (academics, campus culture, weather, facilities, likelihood of a championship) to account for Princeton repeatedly recruiting the #1 class (several years in a row with 5x5*) while we recruit #20.

This is particularly vexing because until recently we have regularly recruited generational players like Kurst, Teat, Adler, etc.

We are still recruiting potentially generational players.

The fact we still get the occasional 5-star doesn't disprove the broader point. BTW, Adler was not a big-time recruit. Nor was Pannell.

The problem is not recruiting. The problem is how well we play. We're absolutely able to beat the national champions Princeton Tigers. Do you know how I know?

Sorry, but this is cope. Can we beat Princeton? Yes. Were we as good as Princeton this season? No. We fortunately recruit well enough that we aren't completely overmatched against the top teams, and often we do beat them, but we'd beat them more often if we recruited better. Developing players is important, but the ceiling is higher on a 5-star recruit than a 3-star recruit. You'll win more by developing a 5-star. What I'm saying is so simple that it's practically tautological: bringing in better players means you win more. Yes, we can beat the teams that out-recruit us, but this is in spite of the recruiting disparity, and we'd beat those teams more often if we recruited better.

Overall our recruiting has been fine. Clearly not as good as Princeton's or Notre Dame's or UVA's or Duke's or UNC's, but it's been good enough to compete nationally. This will no longer be the case if we bring in the 20th best recruiting class every season (as we will next year). Even our 2027 ranking (11th) isn't very good, considering the class was recruited in the wake of our national title. So, we need to step it up.

I don't know what you mean by "this is cope." The young people these days speak a different English than Old Bill Strunk. This Cornell team is as good as Princeton. Our team just didn't play well. Ask any player or coach, who I think you will agree may know a thing or two about the game, maybe even more than you. I'm certain they will tell you the same. 

[BearLover]

At least 90% of recruiting has to do with factors that the coach has no direct control over: academics, campus culture, weather, facilities, likelihood of a championship,  etc. There's not some magic knob that a coach can turn to improve recruiting.

Perhaps. But while Princeton and ND may have some advantages, I don't see enough difference in the five things you explicitly mention (academics, campus culture, weather, facilities, likelihood of a championship) to account for Princeton repeatedly recruiting the #1 class (several years in a row with 5x5*) while we recruit #20.

This is particularly vexing because until recently we have regularly recruited generational players like Kurst, Teat, Adler, etc.

We are still recruiting potentially generational players.

The fact we still get the occasional 5-star doesn't disprove the broader point. BTW, Adler was not a big-time recruit. Nor was Pannell.

The problem is not recruiting. The problem is how well we play. We're absolutely able to beat the national champions Princeton Tigers. Do you know how I know?

Sorry, but this is cope. Can we beat Princeton? Yes. Were we as good as Princeton this season? No. We fortunately recruit well enough that we aren't completely overmatched against the top teams, and often we do beat them, but we'd beat them more often if we recruited better. Developing players is important, but the ceiling is higher on a 5-star recruit than a 3-star recruit. You'll win more by developing a 5-star. What I'm saying is so simple that it's practically tautological: bringing in better players means you win more. Yes, we can beat the teams that out-recruit us, but this is in spite of the recruiting disparity, and we'd beat those teams more often if we recruited better.

Overall our recruiting has been fine. Clearly not as good as Princeton's or Notre Dame's or UVA's or Duke's or UNC's, but it's been good enough to compete nationally. This will no longer be the case if we bring in the 20th best recruiting class every season (as we will next year). Even our 2027 ranking (11th) isn't very good, considering the class was recruited in the wake of our national title. So, we need to step it up.

I don't know what you mean by "this is cope." The young people these days speak a different English than Old Bill Strunk. This Cornell team is as good as Princeton. Our team just didn't play well. Ask any player or coach, who I think you will agree may know a thing or two about the game, maybe even more than you. I'm certain they will tell you the same.

I'm sure Cornell players and coaches would say that. Ask any impartial observer and they'd tell you Princeton was a significantly better team than Cornell this year.

[mike1960]

At least 90% of recruiting has to do with factors that the coach has no direct control over: academics, campus culture, weather, facilities, likelihood of a championship,  etc. There's not some magic knob that a coach can turn to improve recruiting.

Perhaps. But while Princeton and ND may have some advantages, I don't see enough difference in the five things you explicitly mention (academics, campus culture, weather, facilities, likelihood of a championship) to account for Princeton repeatedly recruiting the #1 class (several years in a row with 5x5*) while we recruit #20.

This is particularly vexing because until recently we have regularly recruited generational players like Kurst, Teat, Adler, etc.

We are still recruiting potentially generational players.

The fact we still get the occasional 5-star doesn't disprove the broader point. BTW, Adler was not a big-time recruit. Nor was Pannell.

The problem is not recruiting. The problem is how well we play. We're absolutely able to beat the national champions Princeton Tigers. Do you know how I know?

Sorry, but this is cope. Can we beat Princeton? Yes. Were we as good as Princeton this season? No. We fortunately recruit well enough that we aren't completely overmatched against the top teams, and often we do beat them, but we'd beat them more often if we recruited better. Developing players is important, but the ceiling is higher on a 5-star recruit than a 3-star recruit. You'll win more by developing a 5-star. What I'm saying is so simple that it's practically tautological: bringing in better players means you win more. Yes, we can beat the teams that out-recruit us, but this is in spite of the recruiting disparity, and we'd beat those teams more often if we recruited better.

Overall our recruiting has been fine. Clearly not as good as Princeton's or Notre Dame's or UVA's or Duke's or UNC's, but it's been good enough to compete nationally. This will no longer be the case if we bring in the 20th best recruiting class every season (as we will next year). Even our 2027 ranking (11th) isn't very good, considering the class was recruited in the wake of our national title. So, we need to step it up.

I don't know what you mean by "this is cope." The young people these days speak a different English than Old Bill Strunk. This Cornell team is as good as Princeton. Our team just didn't play well. Ask any player or coach, who I think you will agree may know a thing or two about the game, maybe even more than you. I'm certain they will tell you the same.

I'm sure Cornell players and coaches would say that. Ask any impartial observer and they'd tell you Princeton was a significantly better team than Cornell this year.

If Princeton had beaten us twice, I might agree with you. But the scoreboard speaks louder than us internet experts.