Cornell lacrosse 2019

[underskill]

as a very casual lacrosse fan (i.e. when Cornell is in the tournament) - how did Yale get so good recently? I remember people kept thinking Harvard would make a jump, but Yale seemed to come out of nowhere.

[billhoward]

as a very casual lacrosse fan (i.e. when Cornell is in the tournament) - how did Yale get so good recently? I remember people kept thinking Harvard would make a jump, but Yale seemed to come out of nowhere.

It's the Yale Corporation System. Also, Harvard-intenders maybe got scared off by Harvard's opposition to finals clubs. Maybe New Haven is going through a resurrection. Nah, skip that last one.

[upprdeck]

shot clock rules could really change things up

[Swampy]

as a very casual lacrosse fan (i.e. when Cornell is in the tournament) - how did Yale get so good recently? I remember people kept thinking Harvard would make a jump, but Yale seemed to come out of nowhere.

Here's one set of answers: http://www.courant.com/sports/college/hc-sp-yale-lacrosse-column-20180528-story.html.

There's also been more than a little bit of luck. Ben Reeves was "under recruited" and turned out better than expected. (Cornell has had its share of players like this: among recent classes, RP3 & Jake P. come to mind.) This spring TD Ierlan decided he wanted to transfer to a school with stronger academics than Albany, and the choice came down to following his younger brother to Cornell and being closer to home vs going to Yale. But Yale's coach Shay did a great job recruiting him. And besides, who wouldn't want the chance to be a key player on a NC team trying to repeat?

Meanwhile, Shay seems happy at Yale and unlikely to jump ship, as successful coaches at Brown and Cornell have done. OTOH, at least Cornell has suffered from coaching turnover and an AD who makes puzzling timing decisions -- to put it mildly -- regarding hiring and firing coaches. Notice, for example, that Cornell's last 3 HC's were all internal hires -- one after a successful coach jumped, one after another successful coach was fired late in the Fall Semester, and one after serving a year as an interim coach even though the former coach resigned in plenty of time to do a national search for a new coach without hurting recruiting with a coach who's future at the position was uncertain. Princeton, the other traditional Ivy power, had similar turnover when Bill Tierney left for Denver (rumored to be because of trouble with a new admissions regime), his replacement was fired 7 years later for elbowing an opposing player, and his replacement was interim HC for the rest of the season but then appointed HC. So Yale has risen to the top when the other Ivy teams most likely to challenge Yale have been undergoing coaching turmoil.

Part of Yale's rise has also been the culture Yale's players have fostered. Compare the Yale and Penn threads on Laxpower, and you'll see what I mean. From what I've read, Yale's culture is all encompassing. Even out of season the players have to post pictures of their meals, and the upperclassmen use this to police the diets of underclassmen and teach them that substituting Kind bars for Milky Ways does not make a healthy/athletic diet. Meanwhile, over on the Penn thread, posters complain about members of the lacrosse team being stuck up and acting entitled.

[djk26]

Even out of season the players have to post pictures of their meals, and the upperclassmen use this to police the diets of underclassmen and teach them that substituting Kind bars for Milky Ways does not make a healthy/athletic diet.

I can't argue with the results (I am still jealous of Yale's national championship), but ugh.  That does not sound fun. Of course, I have never been part of an athletic team, so I imagine it wouldn't work at Yale (or anywhere else) unless all the players loved and respected each other.

[Trotsky]

Harvard-intenders maybe got scared off by Harvard's opposition to finals clubs.

Oh please.  The Upper Class Twits of the Year at Harvard will remain as entitled, pampered, and clueless after that little PR stunt by the Harvard administration as Cantabs of yore.  Or Yalies.  Or Cornellians, for that matter.  Snotty McCokespoon's great, great grandchildren will still be circle-jerking at Phillips Academy long after our bones have been ground into Soylent White for our own progeny.

[TimV]

Just my opinion:  the Yale worship is waaaayyy overdone.  If Teat gets a little stronger and with some offensive adjustments  I think they'll be looking up at us next season.  They lost a lot of talent and what they have coming in won't replace it.

[ugarte]

Even out of season the players have to post pictures of their meals, and the upperclassmen use this to police the diets of underclassmen and teach them that substituting Kind bars for Milky Ways does not make a healthy/athletic diet.

I can't argue with the results (I am still jealous of Yale's national championship), but ugh.  That does not sound fun. Of course, I have never been part of an athletic team, so I imagine it wouldn't work at Yale (or anywhere else) unless all the players loved and respected each other.

it sounds less like hazing than mutual support so it didn't reflexively bug me

[jeff '84]

https://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/it-s-official-a-shot-clock-is-coming-to-ncaa-men-s-lacrosse-the-dive-returns/52934

Inside Lacrosse: It's Official: A Shot Clock is Coming to NCAA Men's Lacrosse; 'The Dive' Returns

[billhoward]

https://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/it-s-official-a-shot-clock-is-coming-to-ncaa-men-s-lacrosse-the-dive-returns/52934

Inside Lacrosse: It's Official: A Shot Clock is Coming to NCAA Men's Lacrosse; 'The Dive' Returns

It appears to target the upcoming season but still needs to get one more round of approval from the NCAA. Although the majority of coaches support the shot clock: 20 seconds to get the ball into the offensive end, at which point the 60-second shot clock kicks in. A shot on-goal (not at-goal) resets the clock. The dive refers to taking an athletic shot at the net where the attacker winds up inside the crease when he lands. If his direction of flight is not in the direction of the goal mouth and if he scores before touching down, the goal counts. Diving at the goal mouth will be rewarded with a one-minute personal foul penalty, as I read it.

The NCAA Men's Lacrosse Rules Committee has recommended both a visible 60-second shot clock on every possession and rules changes to allow offenses more flexibility around the crease beginning with the 2019 regular season.

If approved next month by the NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Committee, the shot clock will follow a 20-second clearing count, during which players must advance the ball across the midfield line with the over-and-back provision in effect.

The committee, which met this week in Indianapolis, made the proposal after several years of experimentation and discussion. In the annual rules survey, 62 percent of coaches indicated support for a shot clock on every possession, including 71 percent of Division I coaches.

"It was clear to the committee that the majority of the lacrosse community felt strongly that a shot clock was needed to properly manage today's game," said Rob Randall, chair of the committee and head coach at Nazareth. "In our discussions, we debated many different options and reviewed the experiments that took place in the fall. Ultimately, we believe our proposal will continue the evolution of our sport."

All of the committee's proposals will be distributed to the NCAA membership to collect feedback. The committee will view the comments and move its final proposals to PROP for review Sept. 12.

Under the proposal, a team will have 20 seconds to cross the midfield line when it gains possession in its defensive half of the field. If a team fails to clear the defensive half of the field, the ball is awarded to the opposing team. The referees will keep this time on the field, as they do currently.

After advancing the ball to the offensive half the visible 60-second shot clock will start. If the offensive team regains possession after satisfying the shot clock, such as with a save, rebound off goal, etc., [no further explain of what the etceteras would be] the shot clock will reset to 60 seconds. If no shot is taken in the 60 seconds, the defending team will be awarded possession.

So the question for Cornell is, does this in any way help Jeff Teat, or does he need to keep lifting weights and/or find undetectable human growth hormones?

[margolism]

I have to imagine that this rule change would lessen the impact of face offs to a certain extent, and benefit team defenses (since there would likely be fewer super long possessions.)

This rule change will likely impact Cornell's game quite a bit since they really took advantage of longer possessions and the extra pass.

[Swampy]

I have to imagine that this rule change would lessen the impact of face offs to a certain extent, and benefit team defenses (since there would likely be fewer super long possessions.)

This rule change will likely impact Cornell's game quite a bit since they really took advantage of longer possessions and the extra pass.

This is why I'm disappointed by the new rule: not because it disadvantages Cornell, but because it makes the game less attractive.

I really dislike the offensive/defensive platooning, especially when it makes the game stand still while teams substitute after a clear; I also dislike it because of the silly game one sometimes sees in which players fake being substituted. The 20 sec. clear and other adjustments could have addressed this.

The 60-second shot clock will reduce the number of extra passes (i.e., dilute the passing game), increase the prevalence of zone defenses, increase the likelihood of shut-off (as in SOT) defensive strategies, and put more emphasis on individual dodging, size, and strength. I consider all of these detrimental to the game.

Taking the subjectivity out of the existing shot-clock regulations is a good thing, but there are other ways to accomplish this.

Also, it seems more than a little self-contradictory to consider a "shot" for shot-clock purposes to be one that goes in, hits the GK, or hits the goal. But a "shot" for possession purposes (i.e., one in which possession goes to the team closest to where the "shot" goes out of bounds) is one that, in the judgement of the ref, was intended to go in and had a reasonable chance of doing so, whereas other throws -- such as a completed or errant "pass" behind the cage or in front of it, or an intended shot that never had a remote chance of going in -- are not. The criteria for what counts as a "shot" should be consistent.

[ugarte]

I have to imagine that this rule change would lessen the impact of face offs to a certain extent, and benefit team defenses (since there would likely be fewer super long possessions.)

This rule change will likely impact Cornell's game quite a bit since they really took advantage of longer possessions and the extra pass.

This is why I'm disappointed by the new rule: not because it disadvantages Cornell, but because it makes the game less attractive.

I really dislike the offensive/defensive platooning, especially when it makes the game stand still while teams substitute after a clear; I also dislike it because of the silly game one sometimes sees in which players fake being substituted. The 20 sec. clear and other adjustments could have addressed this.

The 60-second shot clock will reduce the number of extra passes (i.e., dilute the passing game), increase the prevalence of zone defenses, increase the likelihood of shut-off (as in SOT) defensive strategies, and put more emphasis on individual dodging, size, and strength. I consider all of these detrimental to the game.

Taking the subjectivity out of the existing shot-clock regulations is a good thing, but there are other ways to accomplish this.

Also, it seems more than a little self-contradictory to consider a "shot" for shot-clock purposes to be one that goes in, hits the GK, or hits the goal. But a "shot" for possession purposes (i.e., one in which possession goes to the team closest to where the "shot" goes out of bounds) is one that, in the judgement of the ref, was intended to go in and had a reasonable chance of doing so, whereas other throws -- such as a completed or errant "pass" behind the cage or in front of it, or an intended shot that never had a remote chance of going in -- are not. The criteria for what counts as a "shot" should be consistent.

The inconsistency likely comes down to how easy it is to fake an errant shot for shot clock purposes when you have someone in position to keep possession. "Pass or shot" is generally not a tough call. "Real shot or Reset-Trigger Shot" would be.

[CU77]

I agree with Swampy that this is bad for the game and bad for Cornell.

On the plus side, here's a nice article on the team & PM from US Lacrosse:

https://www.uslaxmagazine.com/college/men/cornell-returns-as-national-contender-with-milliman-as-head-coach

[upprdeck]

I thought the new rule was you get to keep the ball when shooting for the duration of the shot clock but it wont reset unless it hits goalie or net, so just taking shots  wont let you keep the ball.

i think its great for the game.. it will force teams to play faster hopefully cause more unsettled play and players taking shots before they are ready again causing more unsettled play.

anything that makes the faceoffs more valuable and also less dominating is great.