2026 Men's Lacrosse

[LGR14]

I think Points Rank is intended to be more objective. 

[Swampy]

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.

[Swampy]

It would be interesting to plot our InsideLacrosse recruiting ranking on a graph for each year of its existence.

give me a link to the recruiting rankings and i'll do it

Thanks! Here ya go: https://www.insidelacrosse.com/recruiting/m/2027/college

You can flip back to past years by clicking on the "2027" tab.

You want regular rank or points rank?

I'm not sure what the difference is, so I guess regular rank.

Click it so it looks better. The bright red is us, obviously.

There do seem to be at least 2 important trends. Since 2023 we've declined, while Princeton has moved towards the top in each of the last 3 years.

[stereax]

I think Points Rank is intended to be more objective. 

I'll do it when I get home. Sigh

[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. 

[BearLover]

It would be interesting to plot our InsideLacrosse recruiting ranking on a graph for each year of its existence.

give me a link to the recruiting rankings and i'll do it

Thanks! Here ya go: https://www.insidelacrosse.com/recruiting/m/2027/college

You can flip back to past years by clicking on the "2027" tab.

You want regular rank or points rank?

I'm not sure what the difference is, so I guess regular rank.

Click it so it looks better. The bright red is us, obviously.

Thanks. Much appreciated. Sorry to be annoying but it would be easier to read if you took some of the teams off. GTown, Michigan, OSU would be good candidates for removal. Obviously, only if you have time and feel like it.

[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.

[stereax]

It would be interesting to plot our InsideLacrosse recruiting ranking on a graph for each year of its existence.

give me a link to the recruiting rankings and i'll do it

Thanks! Here ya go: https://www.insidelacrosse.com/recruiting/m/2027/college

You can flip back to past years by clicking on the "2027" tab.

You want regular rank or points rank?

I'm not sure what the difference is, so I guess regular rank.

Click it so it looks better. The bright red is us, obviously.

Thanks. Much appreciated. Sorry to be annoying but it would be easier to read if you took some of the teams off. GTown, Michigan, OSU would be good candidates for removal. Obviously, only if you have time and feel like it.

That I can do a lot more easily. I just rounded to anyone with an average under 12 or something like that. If you want me to kick anyone else off, lmk. I know the colors are annoying but I didn't want to fix each one manually.

[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?

[LGR14]

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.

Adler was a 3-star recruit when he committed.

[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.

Adler was a 3-star recruit when he committed.

Yes. How well a team develops players is as important, and in many cases more important, than their high school rankings.

[tretiak]

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.

Pannell broke out his PG year at Deerfield. Pre-Deerfield Pannell wasn't a big-time recruit. By the time he committed to Cornell he was one.

From the IL website on Kirst as a recruit: One of the most consistent programs in college lacrosse over the last 20 years, Cornell's recruiting strategy bears out a pattern — every few years, they land a Top 10 player and he's incredibly likely to turn into a star, and they flank him with comparatively unknown talent that turn into All-America-level role players. Consider that Max Seibald was ranked No. 5 in 2005, Rob Pannell was the No. 1-ranked postgraduate in 2008 and Jeff Teat was the No. 1-ranked player in 2016.

I think Nurry is supposed to be the next superstar, but the injury limited his role this year. The margins at this level are slim. Cornell couldn't find the solution at offensive middy that could carry them on a bad day. Going into the season, I think we all felt that the team would take a step back. The beating by Princeton and the poor showing against JHU really left a bittersweet taste on this year.

[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.

[djk26]

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.

[Al DeFlorio]

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.