NCAA Lacrosse Quarterfinals vs UVA

[billhoward]

Seeds 1-2-3-4 lost in the QFs so No. 2 Cornell has company. Syracuse's orange-yellow shoes and socks perhaps presaged a nickname change to the Fighting Ducks? (One time I will not praise high-def.) I feel a little bad all the NYS teams are out of the playoffs; with CU ouit it made me unsure whether to root for Maryland or Syracause. There is a Cornell connection in the final four with the Terps coach John Tillman Hotel '91. Much as we love to hate Duke, Danowski (father) has shown what he can do at the highest level after all those years at Hofstra. Bill Tierney did an amazing job to take Denver to the final four; hey, nice guys can finish first (and so can the other types). Before Denver, I'm trying to recall how many FF teams in the NCAA's 40 years of lax tournaments have been from outside the Eastern time zone (Notre Dame and South Bend is at the very western edge of ET). Maryland's plodding attack does not make the Terps look like a team that will win it all.

Maybe we're bitter from Cornell going down (and still playing what-if about Bucknell not taking down Virginia the week before), but over the weekend's broadcasts I thought I sensed the announcer's desire to see bad breaks or human interest from the southern schools' POV and a lot of talk time went to lamenting how bad Maryland must have felt being unseeded going in to the tourney just because they had four losses going in including the season finale to Colgate. Quint Kessenich and Eamon McEenaneney (announcer) pale in comparison to Mike Emrick calling the Stanley Cup playoffs. Also fascinating to see Quint backpedal quickly from the previous two weeks when he and others declared Rob Pannell the best attackman of the decade and the Tewaaraton already decided. Not that it makes a huge difference either who wins compared to our not being in the FF. The Tewaaraton shouldn't be decided based on one game, but it might. Steele Stanwick, the only one of the five finalists to make the FF, looked great vs. Cornell. Others have noted this was supposed to be a rebuilding year for Cornell and we should be happy we got this far. I suppose so. Meanwhile, who else was at the the 1977 title game at Viginia [edit fixing year: 1976 & 1977 we won, 1978 we lost the title game]  ... and who then would have suspected 1977 would have been the last time Cornell hoisted an NCAA team championship trophy in any of the sports we care so much about?

Fascinating to see what the final lax poll will look like.

[Al DeFlorio]

Bill, I think I was in Charlottesville in 1977 when Cornell won its last one, unless you're aware of another that I'm not.;-)

[billhoward]

Of course you're right. In 1978 we played Hopkins for the title at Rutgers (and they reversed the previous year's outcome). The back to back titles were 1976 and 1977, the senior years respectively for French and McEneaney. And then it was a decade to Cornell's next title appearances (1987, 1988), and then two decades (2009). My fondest recall is, at the end of OT vs. Maryland in 1976, when we gave up the first goal and then rolled up a commanding lead (in OT before this stupid sudden victory stuff) and in the waning moments McEneaney got a 2-on-1 fast break and it was a thing of beauty for Cornellians and hopelessness for the Terps to see McEneaney pass off to French for the score.

[Ben]

Just to go back to the game for a moment, I thought the turning point was the shot that Ghitleman picked up off the line in the middle of the second quarter. I think it was 4-6 or 4-7 at that point, and getting a goal back would have been huge. I was sitting nearer our goal, but it looked very close to being over. Oh, what could have been....

[Swampy]

Just to go back to the game for a moment, I thought the turning point was the shot that Ghitleman picked up off the line in the middle of the second quarter. I think it was 4-6 or 4-7 at that point, and getting a goal back would have been huge. I was sitting nearer our goal, but it looked very close to being over. Oh, what could have been....

Maybe, but our first four goals came off of several UVa miscues. Once they settled down, our defense looked terrible, and our offense looked as if it did not know how to attack the zone. UVa clearly outplayed and outcoached us.

As Ben said, we had real bad luck in the offensive zone, but good teams make their own luck. As is, we came back to make the score respectable. Hopefully, next year the team will be more mature (physically, mentally, working together, working at this high level, and in coaching) and live up to the advanced billing that the preseason favorites will be Duke, JHU, and us. Hopefully Harvard, Penn, and Princeton will be better and give us better preparation (but we'll still be the favorite to win the Ivies). Hopefully the schedule will include a few more elite teams to help us prepare.

In the last few weeks we did seem to address our problems at faceoffs, and with four goalies we should be able to address that too. (I like Fiore, but hope he improves his game on high shots, clears, and becomes a bit quicker.) And besides the obvious studs like Connor Buczek, with Cornell's approach of recruiting our style of players, who knows what diamonds-in-the-rough will come off this year's bench or next year's frosh.

Next year's team should be even better.::banana::

[Josh '99]

In the last few weeks we did seem to address our problems at faceoffs...

Tesoriero did look really solid on Saturday, maybe one silver lining to come out of it anyway.

[billhoward]

"Good teams make their own luck." The opposite also rings true, that luck makes good outcomes for teams. Maybe we had more bad luck, or bad bounces, than on the typical Saturday this past spring. At least after that amazingly lucky-for-Cornell Virginia givaway for our first goal (didn't Quinnipiac do something equally horrible in the mid-2000s against us in NCAA first round hockey?). But some of our pipe shots would've gone in.

We could have beaten Virginia Sunday if this was a best of two (three) series. We were good enough, just not on Saturday. And we were not alone in having a crappy quarterfinal game.

Did anyone else have the same feeling as last year vs. Notre Dame, that the Cornell team felt it had the skill and the time to catch up and then, oops, all of a sudden the margin was too much and the time too little. On the rebroadcast, I heard the announcers talking about how Lau (?) wanted to drive for the goal while Pannell was more laid back, and Kessenich (?) said, "The time is now." For all the silly platitudes we heard (how many times "worm burner"?), that was right on.

[billhoward]

The forum is taking this loss pretty stoically. Because it's lacrosse not hockey? Because Virginia plain-out whupped us and we can't think of enough if-onlys to make up a four-goal margin? And the heart of the team returns in 2012, so there always is next year. In the meantime, we're likely to have one of the lowest-rated incoming classes (proving only the value of those lists) although we'll still be on everyone's radar.

I suppose we should feel sorry for our neighbors to the north and their Class of 2011 that only made two final fours and, uh, two titles, IIRC. Maybe the Syracuse seniors get to keep the orange-yellow socks and shoes.

Who should we root for this weekend? Starsia and Virginia because the man is a class act and Ivy Leaguer (Brown) or Maryland and Cornellian coach John Tillman? Denver to show the lax establishment how the sport has changed again, just as those Cornell teams 1970-77 showed the Mint Julep lax crowd that the center of the sport had shifted north? (Plus we all love Bill Tierney.) Or the Ivy League of the South and Duke? Which has a pretty decent coach in Danowski. I don't think Maryland showed enough last weekend to be the winner and Denver has got to fall to earth sometime. If this is Starsia's finale, maybe he deserves to go out on top.

[Josh '99]

Seeds 1-2-3-4 lost in the QFs so No. 2 Cornell has company. Syracuse's orange-yellow shoes and socks perhaps presaged a nickname change to the Fighting Ducks? (One time I will not praise high-def.) I feel a little bad all the NYS teams are out of the playoffs; with CU ouit it made me unsure whether to root for Maryland or Syracause. There is a Cornell connection in the final four with the Terps coach John Tillman Hotel '91. Much as we love to hate Duke, Danowski (father) has shown what he can do at the highest level after all those years at Hofstra. Bill Tierney did an amazing job to take Denver to the final four; hey, nice guys can finish first (and so can the other types). Before Denver, I'm trying to recall how many FF teams in the NCAA's 40 years of lax tournaments have been from outside the Eastern time zone (Notre Dame and South Bend is at the very western edge of ET). Maryland's plodding attack does not make the Terps look like a team that will win it all.

Maybe we're bitter from Cornell going down (and still playing what-if about Bucknell not taking down Virginia the week before), but over the weekend's broadcasts I thought I sensed the announcer's desire to see bad breaks or human interest from the southern schools' POV and a lot of talk time went to lamenting how bad Maryland must have felt being unseeded going in to the tourney just because they had four losses going in including the season finale to Colgate. Quint Kessenich and Eamon McEenaneney (announcer) pale in comparison to Mike Emrick calling the Stanley Cup playoffs. Also fascinating to see Quint backpedal quickly from the previous two weeks when he and others declared Rob Pannell the best attackman of the decade and the Tewaaraton already decided. Not that it makes a huge difference either who wins compared to our not being in the FF. The Tewaaraton shouldn't be decided based on one game, but it might. Steele Stanwick, the only one of the five finalists to make the FF, looked great vs. Cornell. Others have noted this was supposed to be a rebuilding year for Cornell and we should be happy we got this far. I suppose so. Meanwhile, who else was at the the 1977 title game at Viginia [edit fixing year: 1976 & 1977 we won, 1978 we lost the title game]  ... and who then would have suspected 1977 would have been the last time Cornell hoisted an NCAA team championship trophy in any of the sports we care so much about?

Fascinating to see what the final lax poll will look like.

"Good teams make their own luck." The opposite also rings true, that luck makes good outcomes for teams. Maybe we had more bad luck, or bad bounces, than on the typical Saturday this past spring. At least after that amazingly lucky-for-Cornell Virginia givaway for our first goal (didn't Quinnipiac do something equally horrible in the mid-2000s against us in NCAA first round hockey?). But some of our pipe shots would've gone in.

We could have beaten Virginia Sunday if this was a best of two (three) series. We were good enough, just not on Saturday. And we were not alone in having a crappy quarterfinal game.

Did anyone else have the same feeling as last year vs. Notre Dame, that the Cornell team felt it had the skill and the time to catch up and then, oops, all of a sudden the margin was too much and the time too little. On the rebroadcast, I heard the announcers talking about how Lau (?) wanted to drive for the goal while Pannell was more laid back, and Kessenich (?) said, "The time is now." For all the silly platitudes we heard (how many times "worm burner"?), that was right on.

The forum is taking this loss pretty stoically. Because it's lacrosse not hockey? Because Virginia plain-out whupped us and we can't think of enough if-onlys to make up a four-goal margin? And the heart of the team returns in 2012, so there always is next year. In the meantime, we're likely to have one of the lowest-rated incoming classes (proving only the value of those lists) although we'll still be on everyone's radar.

I suppose we should feel sorry for our neighbors to the north and their Class of 2011 that only made two final fours and, uh, two titles, IIRC. Maybe the Syracuse seniors get to keep the orange-yellow socks and shoes.

Who should we root for this weekend? Starsia and Virginia because the man is a class act and Ivy Leaguer (Brown) or Maryland and Cornellian coach John Tillman? Denver to show the lax establishment how the sport has changed again, just as those Cornell teams 1970-77 showed the Mint Julep lax crowd that the center of the sport had shifted north? (Plus we all love Bill Tierney.) Or the Ivy League of the South and Duke? Which has a pretty decent coach in Danowski. I don't think Maryland showed enough last weekend to be the winner and Denver has got to fall to earth sometime. If this is Starsia's finale, maybe he deserves to go out on top.

We're so quiet because you're using up all the internets.

[Swampy]

The forum is taking this loss pretty stoically. Because it's lacrosse not hockey? Because Virginia plain-out whupped us and we can't think of enough if-onlys to make up a four-goal margin? And the heart of the team returns in 2012, so there always is next year. In the meantime, we're likely to have one of the lowest-rated incoming classes (proving only the value of those lists) although we'll still be on everyone's radar.

Maybe this past weekend and a recent Memorial Day I'm trying to forget prove that those lists do have some value after all. We do great recruiting guys under the radar, developing them, and putting together a TEAM that's among the elite. But in both loses it seemed raw talent won the day.

Last weekend the announcers were saying it seemed only Lang was dodging from the midfield. Wouldn't it have been nice to have a couple of other middies posing serious scoring threats and clocking a few UVa guys on the defensive slides?

In the current NC format, we're bound to run into a team with blue-chippers at just about every position. We have our share of blue-chippers, and the rest of the team is not exactly chopped liver. But if we allow for a rotation of two offensive midfields, 4 attackers, 4 defenders, and say 5 defensive midfielders, plus a keeper, that's twenty player seeing serious playing time. If we face a team with more raw talent at say 12-14 of those positions, we will always have to play our system better than they play theirs, and we will almost never be able to win despite a sub-par performance like the one we had Saturday.

In short, we need to be the team with the better personnel at 60%+ of the positions.

[CUontheslopes]

The forum is taking this loss pretty stoically. Because it's lacrosse not hockey? Because Virginia plain-out whupped us and we can't think of enough if-onlys to make up a four-goal margin? And the heart of the team returns in 2012, so there always is next year. In the meantime, we're likely to have one of the lowest-rated incoming classes (proving only the value of those lists) although we'll still be on everyone's radar.

Maybe this past weekend and a recent Memorial Day I'm trying to forget prove that those lists do have some value after all. We do great recruiting guys under the radar, developing them, and putting together a TEAM that's among the elite. But in both loses it seemed raw talent won the day.

Last weekend the announcers were saying it seemed only Lang was dodging from the midfield. Wouldn't it have been nice to have a couple of other middies posing serious scoring threats and clocking a few UVa guys on the defensive slides?

In the current NC format, we're bound to run into a team with blue-chippers at just about every position. We have our share of blue-chippers, and the rest of the team is not exactly chopped liver. But if we allow for a rotation of two offensive midfields, 4 attackers, 4 defenders, and say 5 defensive midfielders, plus a keeper, that's twenty player seeing serious playing time. If we face a team with more raw talent at say 12-14 of those positions, we will always have to play our system better than they play theirs, and we will almost never be able to win despite a sub-par performance like the one we had Saturday.

In short, we need to be the team with the better personnel at 60%+ of the positions.

I've been wondering this as well. I keep thinking that at some point we'll start getting those blue-chip recruits based upon our success in the past. Cornell's got to be a pretty desirable program for high school recruits. Particularly given the struggles Princeton has had in the last few years, Cornell is THE choice for a blue-chip recruit who wants to play in the Ivies and have a chance to compete for a NC.

As of yet, I'm not sure we've really seen an impactful boost to our recruiting. Someone feel free to disagree, but it seems like we're still hunting under the radar guys. Maybe our coaching staff needs to change its approach and get in the mix for some of the best recruits in hotbed areas. We're a lot more attractive than we were 10 years ago...

[Jim Hyla]

The forum is taking this loss pretty stoically. Because it's lacrosse not hockey? Because Virginia plain-out whupped us and we can't think of enough if-onlys to make up a four-goal margin? And the heart of the team returns in 2012, so there always is next year. In the meantime, we're likely to have one of the lowest-rated incoming classes (proving only the value of those lists) although we'll still be on everyone's radar.

Maybe this past weekend and a recent Memorial Day I'm trying to forget prove that those lists do have some value after all. We do great recruiting guys under the radar, developing them, and putting together a TEAM that's among the elite. But in both loses it seemed raw talent won the day.

Last weekend the announcers were saying it seemed only Lang was dodging from the midfield. Wouldn't it have been nice to have a couple of other middies posing serious scoring threats and clocking a few UVa guys on the defensive slides?

In the current NC format, we're bound to run into a team with blue-chippers at just about every position. We have our share of blue-chippers, and the rest of the team is not exactly chopped liver. But if we allow for a rotation of two offensive midfields, 4 attackers, 4 defenders, and say 5 defensive midfielders, plus a keeper, that's twenty player seeing serious playing time. If we face a team with more raw talent at say 12-14 of those positions, we will always have to play our system better than they play theirs, and we will almost never be able to win despite a sub-par performance like the one we had Saturday.

In short, we need to be the team with the better personnel at 60%+ of the positions.

I've been wondering this as well. I keep thinking that at some point we'll start getting those blue-chip recruits based upon our success in the past. Cornell's got to be a pretty desirable program for high school recruits. Particularly given the struggles Princeton has had in the last few years, Cornell is THE choice for a blue-chip recruit who wants to play in the Ivies and have a chance to compete for a NC.

As of yet, I'm not sure we've really seen an impactful boost to our recruiting. Someone feel free to disagree, but it seems like we're still hunting under the radar guys. Maybe our coaching staff needs to change its approach and get in the mix for some of the best recruits in hotbed areas. We're a lot more attractive than we were 10 years ago...

And we have no scholarships. That can make a big difference. Most lax players don't get free rides, but they do get some support. Put that together with a more difficult curriculum, and we are never going to get the number of "best recruits" that a place like SU or Maryland, or probably even Duke can get. I don't think our coaches go out of their way to not recruit "the best". If those guys want to come and they fit into Cornell, not like some recent UVA students, they for sure will take them. I don't think we need to tell the coaches how to change their recruiting.

Princeton wasn't blessed with all the best either; they had a system and got players who would fit the system. It will be interesting to see how his recruiting continues at DU; I suspect he will have much more high profile recruiting classes than he did at PU. Easier to get students in, easier to give them money, better classes.

[phillysportsfan]

the new financial aid policy may help then as it matches all the Ivies + Duke, hopefully the school finds a way to keep that policy

[phillysportsfan]

http://cornell.edu/video/?VideoID=1256

Sidelines interview with Richie Moran

[Al DeFlorio]

http://cornell.edu/video/?VideoID=1256

Sidelines interview with Richie Moran

Am I crazy, or did Richie segue directly from the 1971 NCAA semifinal win over Army at West Point to the 1976 NCAA championship win over Maryland at Brown?