NCAA Tournament Expansion

Jim Hyla · May 02, 2002, 09:46:58 PM

But, for the sake of the Brown's fans, you have to be happy that they kept those records. After all, can any NY Giant fan conceive of Jim Brown's records being transferred to Baltimore?

Al DeFlorio · May 14, 2002, 08:59:22 AM

Speaking of Jim Brown...does anyone think he was the greatest lacrosse player ever? ::nut::

Jim Hyla · May 15, 2002, 09:48:47 PM

YES

zg88 · May 16, 2002, 06:22:15 AM

I want to start by saying that I wasn't even born when Jim Brown played lacrosse at Syracuse. :-D

So, while Al and Jim both could've theoretically attended lacrosse games featuring the Jim-Brown-led Orangemen, and thus they could theoretically provide eyewitness accounts, I am unfortunately too young to have 1st-hand knowledge... sorry... :-D

Going strictly on 2nd-hand knowledge, therefore...

I've heard conflicting accounts on Jim Brown and his place in lacrosse history (duh). I'm sure there are others among us who are more qualified to comment, but it seems that there are two "camps" of opinion on this:

------------

1.) The Gait brothers were the best. They raised the sport to a new level. They were the "twin Gretzky's" of lacrosse. Jim Brown is "over-rated" because he relied strictly on power. (He'd supposedly use his stick to trap the ball against his chest (apparently still a legal maneuver in the mid-'50's) and just steamroll his way to the goal.) Very effective use of football running-back power in another sport, but not necessarily an indicator of lacrosse skill. (So they say.)

------------

2.) The standard, party-line ("you-don't-really-know-lacrosse-history") answer to anyone who "foolishly" claims Gait supremacy is that Jim Brown was the real "best-ever" lax player. Countering the Gait argument with the Brown argument has the added benefit of giving one instant credibility as a "true lacrosse fan" (i.e., someone who knows the "real story" and is, therefore, more than just a superficial follower of modern lax hype).

Since only a tiny handful of really old fogeys ;-) are capable of making a 1st-hand-knowledge-based rebuttal to the Brown-is-best claim, it's usually a safe bet to play the "Brown card".

I'm unfamiliar with the specific arguments used in favor of Brown, or how this camp refutes the other camp's anti-Brown argument. I will add, however, that I've read that, in the opinion of a "supremely knowledgeable" old-timer lax wizard (who has seen both the Gaits and Brown play), Brown was "definitely" the best ever. Tough to counter that.

------------

I personally haven't a clue. Perhaps the two eras (30+ years apart) are simply too different for us to ever be able to settle this debate. But, hey, that's OK -- debates that are settled cease to be fun! :-)

jeh25 · May 16, 2002, 09:10:47 AM

Great post!

My solution:

a) Brown was the best athlete to ever play lacrosse

b) The Gaits were the best lacrosse players ever*

(to be fair, having guys like Lockwood and Marachek on the same squad didn't hurt.)

c) Petro is the best *defensive* player ever, as evidenced by his performance against Gary Gait in the '89 title game.

zg88 · May 16, 2002, 10:23:01 AM

Thanks, John. I like your "solution"!

(OK, that's it -- the debate is officially settled!) :-))

P.S. -- If anyone's interested in exploring the "who's the greatest lax player of all time, Jim Brown or someone else?" debate, then do the following search at the LaxPower Forum: "Jim Brown" (exact phrase / all dates). Let's just say that there've been some discussions on this matter...

Jim Hyla · May 16, 2002, 12:44:18 PM

QuoteSince only a tiny handful of really old fogeys are capable of making a 1st-hand-knowledge-based rebuttal to the Brown-is-best claim, it's usually a safe bet to play the "Brown card".

Come-on now. Either you should put a smiley face by this, or you really don't understand demographics, or you really mean it.

I'll choose the first option, thanks.

zg88 · May 16, 2002, 03:59:24 PM

Hee-hee. I figured it was a sure thing that either you or Al would offer some commentary on my characterization of the (remaining) pool of potential Jim Brown lax witnesses. Mission accomplished. :-D

OK... now I've atoned for my naughtiness -- Option #1 has been duly implemented.

(BTW, I was merely going by AARP membership requirements!) :-))

ugarte · May 16, 2002, 07:16:54 PM

:-D I hadn't read this thread in a while, Al, or I would have responded sooner.

Al DeFlorio · May 16, 2002, 07:44:03 PM

Thank you, apple, for taking it as it was intended--tongue-firmly-in-cheek.

Al DeFlorio · June 02, 2002, 07:05:19 PM

According to this blurb on USCHO, the NCAA capacity requirement for a regional venue is now 4,000.

http://www.uscollegehockey.com/news/2002/06/02_004447.php

Jim Hyla · June 04, 2002, 10:01:00 PM

I'll bet on Rochester. Far enough away from Worcester and close to that other Western NY city, who is hosting the Frozen Four.

Josh '99 · June 05, 2002, 08:40:34 AM

Does anyone know whether we might be the host school for that Rochester bid? I can't imagine it's Niagara or Canisius, given that they're co-hosting the Frozen Four... Seems to me it has to be either us or Colgate.

Greg Berge · June 05, 2002, 02:53:43 PM

It could be an eastern Michigan school or a North Country school, but I just assumed it was Niagara/Canisius -- the only schools anywhere near Roch.

Note that the hockey committee is meeting in San Francisco. Now that's what I call taking any excuse for a cool roadie. ;-)

cquinn · June 05, 2002, 03:31:26 PM

I believe any school can be the host. Most schools obviously prefer to tie in with venues close to their fan base, but it's not a requirement. (See Anaheim.) The bid is a package deal - both host school and venue as a predetermined pair - yes?

Obviously the same travel factor used for the regionals wasn't applied to the location selection for the hockey committee's boondoggle!