PDA

View Full Version : Duke LaX 2013



Mudge
02-28-2013, 02:31 PM
Looking at the results so far this season (2-3, with losses to both ranked teams we've played, including a bad loss to ND), it does not appear that Duke's lacrosse team is up to the level of recent teams-- and certainly looks unlikely to continue Duke's streak of reaching the Final Four weekend (the last 6 years?-- and might have been another 2 years longer, but for "the incident")...

I am not optimistic about Saturday's televised game (on ESPNU at 11AM) against #1 Maryland-- sure don't want them to leave the league with wins over us in both basketball and lacrosse (would we continue to play them in lacrosse because, unlike basketball, there aren't as many good opponents to choose from?)-- but it does seem likely to happen, given the results to date.

MCFinARL
02-28-2013, 02:45 PM
Looking at the results so far this season (2-3, with losses to both ranked teams we've played, including a bad loss to ND), it does not appear that Duke's lacrosse team is up to the level of recent teams-- and certainly looks unlikely to continue Duke's streak of reaching the Final Four weekend (the last 6 years?-- and might have been another 2 years longer, but for "the incident")...

I am not optimistic about Saturday's televised game (on ESPNU at 11AM) against #1 Maryland-- sure don't want them to leave the league with wins over us in both basketball and lacrosse (would we continue to play them in lacrosse because, unlike basketball, there aren't as many good opponents to choose from?)-- but it does seem likely to happen, given the results to date.

Yes, that is a very real possibility, as so far this Duke lax team doesn't seem to have it together. It's interesting because there were relatively few losses to graduation (other than the do-it-all Costabile), and so far the team has won the face offs and the ground balls in every game. I haven't seen the games, just read about them, but Quint Kessenich described the defense as "atrocious." It may not be a coincidence that departing assistant coach Chris Gabrielli (now head coach at Providence) focused primarily on defense, while his replacement, Matt Danowski, is an offensive specialist. The defensive specialist on the staff is volunteer assistant Joe Cinoski, a former Maryland player (!) whose previous coaching experience is all at the college club level.

As for continuing to play Maryland, that is certainly possible, though not inevitable. I assume Syracuse will take their spot in the ACC schedule, but because there will still only be 4 ACC lax teams there will be a fair amount of flexibility in the rest of the schedule. Recently Duke has played Denver, Notre Dame, Loyola, Georgetown, and one or two Ivy League teams every year in addition to some less challenging competition. But a lot of attractive matchups come in stadium double headers like the Face-off Classic; Maryland and Duke were paired in one of those a couple years ago and might be again.

Mudge
02-28-2013, 03:29 PM
Yes, that is a very real possibility, as so far this Duke lax team doesn't seem to have it together. It's interesting because there were relatively few losses to graduation (other than the do-it-all Costabile), and so far the team has won the face offs and the ground balls in every game. I haven't seen the games, just read about them, but Quint Kessenich described the defense as "atrocious." It may not be a coincidence that departing assistant coach Chris Gabrielli (now head coach at Providence) focused primarily on defense, while his replacement, Matt Danowski, is an offensive specialist. The defensive specialist on the staff is volunteer assistant Joe Cinoski, a former Maryland player (!) whose previous coaching experience is all at the college club level.

As for continuing to play Maryland, that is certainly possible, though not inevitable. I assume Syracuse will take their spot in the ACC schedule, but because there will still only be 4 ACC lax teams there will be a fair amount of flexibility in the rest of the schedule. Recently Duke has played Denver, Notre Dame, Loyola, Georgetown, and one or two Ivy League teams every year in addition to some less challenging competition. But a lot of attractive matchups come in stadium double headers like the Face-off Classic; Maryland and Duke were paired in one of those a couple years ago and might be again.

Don't you think ND will be included in the ACC for LaX, seeing as they are joining in everything but football (next year?)... I know that we already are playing them-- but they would now be a league game, too... and I would think it is just a matter of time, before Pitt, BC (and maybe Louisville) add teams.

Mudge
02-28-2013, 06:06 PM
Just saw a news story posted on Bloomberg, that the Duke lacrosse players who had filed suit against Duke, in 2008, over the 2006 incident, filed a motion to dismiss the suit yesterday, in federal court in Durham... apparently the motion references some agreement that the parties had reached dated Feb. 20, 2013... so, perhaps this finally puts the lacrosse incident to bed? Are there any other remaining lawsuits over that benighted event?

Native
02-28-2013, 06:23 PM
I'm not sure. This is all in line with Coach Danowski's MO, in my opinion: trade early-season losses for teaching moments.

We never get the season off to a good start, yet we always turn it on when it counts in May.

Don't forget that we're trading Maryland for Notre Dame as well as Syracuse in the ACC — I'd count that as a net gain for the ACC in pure lacrosse terms.

-jk
02-28-2013, 06:39 PM
Don't forget that we're trading Maryland for Notre Dame as well as Syracuse in the ACC I'd count that as a net gain for the ACC in pure lacrosse terms.

My understanding here in greater DC is that MD has had trouble on the recruiting trail in lax since the bigger whatever announcement. Time will tell.

-jk

MCFinARL
02-28-2013, 08:21 PM
Don't you think ND will be included in the ACC for LaX, seeing as they are joining in everything but football (next year?)... I know that we already are playing them-- but they would now be a league game, too... and I would think it is just a matter of time, before Pitt, BC (and maybe Louisville) add teams.

Yes, I forgot about that--not sure if it would be next year or the year after. Lax at Louisville I don't know about, and I'm not sure about Pitt, though BC lax would make sense as they are already playing women's lax and the geographic area BC students generally come from has a fair amount of high school lacrosse.

Mudge
03-01-2013, 09:44 AM
Yes, I forgot about that--not sure if it would be next year or the year after. Lax at Louisville I don't know about, and I'm not sure about Pitt, though BC lax would make sense as they are already playing women's lax and the geographic area BC students generally come from has a fair amount of high school lacrosse.

BC not already having a team has never made sense to me. I also don't quite get why VPI and NCSU don't have teams, given UVA and UNC do. As for Pitt, they draw from the state of Pennsylvania, which has plenty of lacrosse in the eastern half, and has Ohio (where OSU has already made the NCAA tourney a few years back) immediately to the west, so there is no lack of players surrounding them... Louisville also is starting to be surrounded by players, as the state of Ohio has a good number (including some kids starting for top Ivy League teams) and the state of Kentucky is gradually starting to have them (though not many good ones yet)-- I would expect Louisville to go for it, before the local area is strong, as a way of boosting their athletic department's presence in the ACC-- they already spend far more on athletics than a school of their financial size would be expected to-- so it is evident that they see athletics as a key way to raise their school's profile... with only two or three more schools (BC, Pitt, and VPI or Louisville), the ACC could finally have a real 8-team lacrosse league.

sagegrouse
03-01-2013, 09:46 AM
Yes, I forgot about that--not sure if it would be next year or the year after. Lax at Louisville I don't know about, and I'm not sure about Pitt, though BC lax would make sense as they are already playing women's lax and the geographic area BC students generally come from has a fair amount of high school lacrosse.


BC not already having a team has never made sense to me. I also don't quite get why VPI and NCSU don't have teams, given UVA and UNC do. As for Pitt, they draw from the state of Pennsylvania, which has plenty of lacrosse in the eastern half, and has Ohio (where OSU has already made the NCAA tourney a few years back) immediately to the west, so there is no lack of players surrounding them... Louisville also is starting to be surrounded by players, as the state of Ohio has a good number (including some kids starting for top Ivy League teams) and the state of Kentucky is gradually starting to have them (though not many good ones yet)-- I would expect Louisville to go for it, before the local area is strong, as a way of boosting their athletic department's presence in the ACC-- they already spend far more on athletics than a school of their financial size would be expected to-- so it is evident that they see athletics as a key way to raise their school's profile.

This is also a major Title 9 issue. LAX is a large team and, with scholarships, there would likely have to be either a women's team added or another men's team dropped.

sagegrouse

MCFinARL
03-01-2013, 10:08 AM
This is also a major Title 9 issue. LAX is a large team and, with scholarships, there would likely have to be either a women's team added or another men's team dropped.

sagegrouse

It is, of course, a major Title 9 issue, you're right about that. And it's a shame that Title 9, which has been wonderful for women's sports, has been interpreted to create these conflicts (and sometimes used as an excuse by schools who would rather cut any non-revenue program than lose a single red-shirt football player).

That being said, while lacrosse teams are large, their allotment of scholarships is not especially large. I believe men's lacrosse is allotted 12.6 scholarships for the whole team. Most recruited lacrosse players receive only token financial aid as a result. That is no doubt one of the reasons lacrosse, despite a lot of efforts to spread the sport, retains its reputation as a sport of the socioeconomic elite. It's also one reason why the Ivy League, which has no athletic scholarships but very generous need-based financial aid that reaches a lot of solidly middle class families, can field very competitive D1 lacrosse teams.

On a side note, why a sport is allotted 0.6 of a scholarship I don't know--yet another mystery of the NCAA.

burnspbesq
03-01-2013, 10:13 AM
I've watched every minute of all five games, and I'm sorry to report that what you are seeing is not the annual slow start.

This team is deeply flawed, and the problem starts in goal. Dan Wigrizer is just horrible this year. Even after a 14-save performance against Penn, his save percentage is in the low 40s (good keepers typically have a save percentage of at least 53).

The defense is running around like headless chickens, sliding prematurely, not recovering, and not making second slides on time. Opposing shooters are getting great looks.

The first midfield is way too passive, and Dave Lawson seems to have forgotten how to dodge. Myles Jones, it turns out, is slow; at 6'5" and 240 he can bully defenders, but he's not going to run by anybody. The second midfield has no offensive threats.

Only three Duke players deserve a "meets expectations" or "exceeds expectations" rating after five games: Brendan Fowler, Jordan Wolf, and Luke Duprey.

The next 13 days are make-or-break: we play Maryland, Loyola, and Carolina. I fully expect that we will get blown out in all three games.

If you've made plans to go to Philly for Memorial Day weekend, change them now, before you incur any late-cancellation penalties.

DCGeneral
03-01-2013, 10:26 AM
BC not already having a team has never made sense to me. I also don't quite get why VPI and NCSU don't have teams, given UVA and UNC do. As for Pitt, they draw from the state of Pennsylvania, which has plenty of lacrosse in the eastern half, and has Ohio (where OSU has already made the NCAA tourney a few years back) immediately to the west, so there is no lack of players surrounding them... Louisville also is starting to be surrounded by players, as the state of Ohio has a good number (including some kids starting for top Ivy League teams) and the state of Kentucky is gradually starting to have them (though not many good ones yet)-- I would expect Louisville to go for it, before the local area is strong, as a way of boosting their athletic department's presence in the ACC-- they already spend far more on athletics than a school of their financial size would be expected to-- so it is evident that they see athletics as a key way to raise their school's profile... with only two or three more schools (BC, Pitt, and VPI or Louisville), the ACC could finally have a real 8-team lacrosse league.

I guess you don't follow lacrosse. BC DID have a Division 1 team; it was dropped back in 2002.

MCFinARL
03-01-2013, 10:49 AM
I've watched every minute of all five games, and I'm sorry to report that what you are seeing is not the annual slow start.

This team is deeply flawed, and the problem starts in goal. Dan Wigrizer is just horrible this year. Even after a 14-save performance against Penn, his save percentage is in the low 40s (good keepers typically have a save percentage of at least 53).

The defense is running around like headless chickens, sliding prematurely, not recovering, and not making second slides on time. Opposing shooters are getting great looks.

The first midfield is way too passive, and Dave Lawson seems to have forgotten how to dodge. Myles Jones, it turns out, is slow; at 6'5" and 240 he can bully defenders, but he's not going to run by anybody. The second midfield has no offensive threats.

Only three Duke players deserve a "meets expectations" or "exceeds expectations" rating after five games: Brendan Fowler, Jordan Wolf, and Luke Duprey.

The next 13 days are make-or-break: we play Maryland, Loyola, and Carolina. I fully expect that we will get blown out in all three games.

If you've made plans to go to Philly for Memorial Day weekend, change them now, before you incur any late-cancellation penalties.

This, alas, sounds like what I suspected, without having seen the games. The loss to Denver could have been the annual slow start. The loss to Notre Dame seemed worrisome because it was so lopsided. The loss to Penn seemed clearly to suggest deeper problems.

Wigrizer has been erratic, to say the least, throughout his career. Working with John Galloway seemed to help some at times last year, but it sounds like that progress left with Galloway. It's worrisome that of the three other goalies we have on the roster, none is apparently any better than Wigrizer is currently playing. (Or if they are, there is some reason why they are not getting the time in goal.) I'm not sure why Duke has struggled to recruit and develop good goalies; the last really outstanding one was Aaron Fenton, who graduated in 2005.

It's also worrisome that our defense in front of the goalie, based on your description, apparently doesn't know what they are doing, even though they all got lots of playing time last year. Sounds like the first priority for next year would be to find a strong defensive coach to make up for the loss of Coach Gabrielli.

Mudge
03-01-2013, 12:25 PM
I guess you don't follow lacrosse. BC DID have a Division 1 team; it was dropped back in 2002.

I guess you are correct, in the sense of the word "already" meaning that BC already had a team-- and dropped it-- but I meant it in the sense that BC should already have a team NOW... there is too much interest in lacrosse in New England, for BC to be without a team, anymore than they should be without a hockey team. I do recall that BC used to field a team (my kid used to play in a youth league where all of the teams were named after colleges, and one of the teams was called BC), but I assume that the team was dropped because of the infernal Title IX ramifications that athletic directors (e.g.- football coaches) have used to eliminate all manner of non-revenue generating men's sports... but I don't see where my comment implies that I don't follow lacrosse.

Mudge
03-01-2013, 12:28 PM
This, alas, sounds like what I suspected, without having seen the games. The loss to Denver could have been the annual slow start. The loss to Notre Dame seemed worrisome because it was so lopsided. The loss to Penn seemed clearly to suggest deeper problems.

Wigrizer has been erratic, to say the least, throughout his career. Working with John Galloway seemed to help some at times last year, but it sounds like that progress left with Galloway. It's worrisome that of the three other goalies we have on the roster, none is apparently any better than Wigrizer is currently playing. (Or if they are, there is some reason why they are not getting the time in goal.) I'm not sure why Duke has struggled to recruit and develop good goalies; the last really outstanding one was Aaron Fenton, who graduated in 2005.

It's also worrisome that our defense in front of the goalie, based on your description, apparently doesn't know what they are doing, even though they all got lots of playing time last year. Sounds like the first priority for next year would be to find a strong defensive coach to make up for the loss of Coach Gabrielli.

I tend to agree with both you and Burnsie-- this doesn't look good-- and the ND and Penn games were the ones that underlined it... I guess we'll all have a chance to find out for sure, tomorrow (with the Maryland game being on ESPNU at 11 AM), but I don't think I'm gonna like what I see anymore than I liked what I saw last night at UVa.

CameronBornAndBred
03-01-2013, 01:33 PM
I'll be at the game tomorrow taking pics for a painting. It will be the first LAX game I've ever been to. I know it's a down season, but I'm still looking forward to catching the action live. Hope to run into some DBR folks there; if you see a long haired hippie with a camera, say hi.

BigWayne
03-01-2013, 02:50 PM
I guess you are correct, in the sense of the word "already" meaning that BC already had a team-- and dropped it-- but I meant it in the sense that BC should already have a team NOW... there is too much interest in lacrosse in New England, for BC to be without a team, anymore than they should be without a hockey team. I do recall that BC used to field a team (my kid used to play in a youth league where all of the teams were named after colleges, and one of the teams was called BC), but I assume that the team was dropped because of the infernal Title IX ramifications that athletic directors (e.g.- football coaches) have used to eliminate all manner of non-revenue generating men's sports... but I don't see where my comment implies that I don't follow lacrosse.
Yes it was Title IX. There is a movement to bring it back though:

http://www.bcheights.com/alumni-call-for-the-return-of-varsity-lacrosse-1.2965747

BigWayne
03-01-2013, 03:10 PM
It is, of course, a major Title 9 issue, you're right about that. And it's a shame that Title 9, which has been wonderful for women's sports, has been interpreted to create these conflicts (and sometimes used as an excuse by schools who would rather cut any non-revenue program than lose a single red-shirt football player).

That being said, while lacrosse teams are large, their allotment of scholarships is not especially large. I believe men's lacrosse is allotted 12.6 scholarships for the whole team. Most recruited lacrosse players receive only token financial aid as a result. That is no doubt one of the reasons lacrosse, despite a lot of efforts to spread the sport, retains its reputation as a sport of the socioeconomic elite. It's also one reason why the Ivy League, which has no athletic scholarships but very generous need-based financial aid that reaches a lot of solidly middle class families, can field very competitive D1 lacrosse teams.

On a side note, why a sport is allotted 0.6 of a scholarship I don't know--yet another mystery of the NCAA.

Scholarship funding equality is only part of the compliance problem. The number of students on teams must also be "equal" proportionately.
One way some schools do this is by limiting walk-ons for male teams. (http://thedartmouth.com/2012/06/29/sports/titleix)

The other issue that is coming up at some schools is the student body makeup. Even if the school is all balanced and in compliance now, if the proportion of women in the overall student body increases, then they have to either add spots on the women's teams or take them away from the men's teams. Kind of like census based legislative redistricting I guess.

MCFinARL
03-01-2013, 04:39 PM
I'll be at the game tomorrow taking pics for a painting. It will be the first LAX game I've ever been to. I know it's a down season, but I'm still looking forward to catching the action live. Hope to run into some DBR folks there; if you see a long haired hippie with a camera, say hi.

I hope it's a pretty good game because then you will get a fair idea of how exciting a sport LAX is to watch in person. Have fun!


Scholarship funding equality is only part of the compliance problem. The number of students on teams must also be "equal" proportionately.
One way some schools do this is by limiting walk-ons for male teams. (http://thedartmouth.com/2012/06/29/sports/titleix)

The other issue that is coming up at some schools is the student body makeup. Even if the school is all balanced and in compliance now, if the proportion of women in the overall student body increases, then they have to either add spots on the women's teams or take them away from the men's teams. Kind of like census based legislative redistricting I guess.

Well, given the current trends in college attendance--with big increases for women relative to men at many schools--your last point could mean still more cuts to men's sports.

MCFinARL
03-02-2013, 12:34 PM
Duke falls to Maryland 16-7--and honestly, it wasn't really that close. The defense is obviously the weakest point--as burnspbesq said earlier, they don't seem to have a plan out there, and they left Maryland's key shooters wide open numerous times, with predictable results. Commentators suggested that Duke might be struggling to adjust to a new defensive scheme and that Cinowski may be more focused on working with individual players than on team strategy. Three goalies saw action; of them, Turri looked the best, but none looked great, and to be fair when your defense gives you no protection from wide open shots it's hard to look very good as a goalie.

To be honest, though, the whole team (with the possible exception of Brendan Fowler at face off, who was working hard though was less effective today against a really excellent face off guy than he has been in previous games) seemed to lack energy and focus.

Looking at where this team is now, unfortunately, I think it's not too soon for the coaches to consider tearing things up and starting over, with the goal of figuring out something that might build a foundation for next year.

burnspbesq
03-02-2013, 12:46 PM
The third quarter was pretty encouraging. Then they reverted to type and gave up six in the fourth.

I think the answer at this point is to uncomplicate things. Duke has big, athletic guys on defense. Trust them to be able to win their matchups.

Chanenchuk's fourth goal was a perfect example. He didn't beat his man at all in the third quarter. He scored on a free look from up top that resulted because the guy who was supposed be guarding sloughed way off to be in a position to give help that wasn't needed.

Mudge
03-07-2013, 04:27 PM
I don't know if anyone else caught this, but ESPNU was televising the Johns Hopkins/Mount St. Mary's lacrosse game, just before the Duke-VPI broadcast Tuesday night, and my DVR happened to catch the end of that game. Something odd/interesting happened:

Hopkins was winning 19-9 with less than a minute to go, when MSM had the ball in front of JH's crease, and a Hopkins defender basically loaded up, took a running 10-yard start, and just crushed a defenseless MSM attacker in a scrum for a loose ball, from behind, completely blowing him up (and drawing a penalty in the process)... an MSM player got a reciprocal penalty for shoving a JH player, right after this, so, somehow, the re-start actually gave possession to JH...

Now, here is where is got interesting: on the re-start, JH passed the ball down the left side, with a JH middie advancing quickly along the sideline into MSM's defensive half, as if he were going to attack the goal... an MSM defender caught up to the JH player with the ball, and used his long stick to check the JH player very hard-- but completely cleanly-- the MSM player came up from behind with a low-to-high swipe (definitely not a slash-- and no penalty was called) across the JH player's stick that dislodged the ball-- and completely broke the JH player's stick shaft in half-- I've never seen one break like that before-- it was as if he had just chopped the JH player's stick shaft in half... anyway, the MSM player scooped up the free ball, and reverted to attack, while the JH player lay rolling on the ground in pain, not getting up (surprisingly to me, because it looked like the MSM player's stick only contacted the JH player's stick)... MSM got one last shot off, then the game ended...

Now, immediately after the game, JH's coach (Pietramala) came charging onto the field, repeatedly cursing at somebody on MSM's team (and I am assuming it was this same MSM defender), calling the play F-ing BS, over and over...

So, here's my question-- why is Piet so mad-- and does he have any right to be: first, the MSM check was completely legal; second, if Piet doesn't want his guys getting checked, then how about not attacking the opponent's goal, with a 10-goal lead and only seconds to go in the game; and third, how about not having your defenseman try to destroy an unsuspecting, exposed attackman (with his back turned to you) with a 10-goal lead and less than a minute to go... seems to me, turnabout is fair play, and Piet doesn't have a leg to stand on, in this situation.

MCFinARL
03-07-2013, 05:41 PM
I don't know if anyone else caught this, but ESPNU was televising the Johns Hopkins/Mount St. Mary's lacrosse game, just before the Duke-VPI broadcast Tuesday night, and my DVR happened to catch the end of that game. Something odd/interesting happened:

Hopkins was winning 19-9 with less than a minute to go, when MSM had the ball in front of JH's crease, and a Hopkins defender basically loaded up, took a running 10-yard start, and just crushed a defenseless MSM attacker in a scrum for a loose ball, from behind, completely blowing him up (and drawing a penalty in the process)... an MSM player got a reciprocal penalty for shoving a JH player, right after this, so, somehow, the re-start actually gave possession to JH...

Now, here is where is got interesting: on the re-start, JH passed the ball down the left side, with a JH middie advancing quickly along the sideline into MSM's defensive half, as if he were going to attack the goal... an MSM defender caught up to the JH player with the ball, and used his long stick to check the JH player very hard-- but completely cleanly-- the MSM player came up from behind with a low-to-high swipe (definitely not a slash-- and no penalty was called) across the JH player's stick that dislodged the ball-- and completely broke the JH player's stick shaft in half-- I've never seen one break like that before-- it was as if he had just chopped the JH player's stick shaft in half... anyway, the MSM player scooped up the free ball, and reverted to attack, while the JH player lay rolling on the ground in pain, not getting up (surprisingly to me, because it looked like the MSM player's stick only contacted the JH player's stick)... MSM got one last shot off, then the game ended...

Now, immediately after the game, JH's coach (Pietramala) came charging onto the field, repeatedly cursing at somebody on MSM's team (and I am assuming it was this same MSM defender), calling the play F-ing BS, over and over...

So, here's my question-- why is Piet so mad-- and does he have any right to be: first, the MSM check was completely legal; second, if Piet doesn't want his guys getting checked, then how about not attacking the opponent's goal, with a 10-goal lead and only seconds to go in the game; and third, how about not having your defenseman try to destroy an unsuspecting, exposed attackman (with his back turned to you) with a 10-goal lead and less than a minute to go... seems to me, turnabout is fair play, and Piet doesn't have a leg to stand on, in this situation.

Since I didn't see this, I can't really say much--except that Pietramala has always struck me as an angry, angry man.

ForkFondler
05-28-2013, 11:18 AM
I've watched every minute of all five games, and I'm sorry to report that what you are seeing is not the annual slow start.

This team is deeply flawed, and the problem starts in goal. Dan Wigrizer is just horrible this year. Even after a 14-save performance against Penn, his save percentage is in the low 40s (good keepers typically have a save percentage of at least 53).

The defense is running around like headless chickens, sliding prematurely, not recovering, and not making second slides on time. Opposing shooters are getting great looks.

The first midfield is way too passive, and Dave Lawson seems to have forgotten how to dodge. Myles Jones, it turns out, is slow; at 6'5" and 240 he can bully defenders, but he's not going to run by anybody. The second midfield has no offensive threats.

Only three Duke players deserve a "meets expectations" or "exceeds expectations" rating after five games: Brendan Fowler, Jordan Wolf, and Luke Duprey.

The next 13 days are make-or-break: we play Maryland, Loyola, and Carolina. I fully expect that we will get blown out in all three games.

If you've made plans to go to Philly for Memorial Day weekend, change them now, before you incur any late-cancellation penalties.

BTTT, :D:cool:

-jk
05-28-2013, 12:04 PM
I've watched every minute of all five games, and I'm sorry to report that what you are seeing is not the annual slow start.

This team is deeply flawed, and the problem starts in goal. Dan Wigrizer is just horrible this year. Even after a 14-save performance against Penn, his save percentage is in the low 40s (good keepers typically have a save percentage of at least 53).

The defense is running around like headless chickens, sliding prematurely, not recovering, and not making second slides on time. Opposing shooters are getting great looks.

The first midfield is way too passive, and Dave Lawson seems to have forgotten how to dodge. Myles Jones, it turns out, is slow; at 6'5" and 240 he can bully defenders, but he's not going to run by anybody. The second midfield has no offensive threats.

Only three Duke players deserve a "meets expectations" or "exceeds expectations" rating after five games: Brendan Fowler, Jordan Wolf, and Luke Duprey.

The next 13 days are make-or-break: we play Maryland, Loyola, and Carolina. I fully expect that we will get blown out in all three games.

If you've made plans to go to Philly for Memorial Day weekend, change them now, before you incur any late-cancellation penalties.

BTTT, :D:cool:

Perhaps the best reverse weaux of all-time.

-jk

CameronBlue
05-28-2013, 12:13 PM
Perhaps the best reverse weaux of all-time.

-jk

I envision a t-shirt featuring a muscle-ripped, headless chicken emblazoned with a "2013 National Champs" banner across its breast.

devildeac
05-28-2013, 12:44 PM
Perhaps the best reverse weaux of all-time.

-jk

Wait! Many of us have been trying that for years here and no one ever believed it worked so we filed that technique right along with the Duke Curse:rolleyes:;).

MCFinARL
05-28-2013, 01:16 PM
Hilarious to re-read this thread now. So glad I (among others) was so wrong.

burnspbesq
05-28-2013, 01:33 PM
If you sincerely believed it when you wrote it, can you still claim credit for a reverse weauxf?

AncientPsychicT
05-28-2013, 03:09 PM
Wait! Many of us have been trying that for years here and no one ever believed it worked so we filed that technique right along with the Duke Curse:rolleyes:;).

The problem with the reverse jinx is that in order to make it work, you have to...


...sincerely believe [what you are saying] when you write it.
(grammar adjusted so the sentence works)

If you are trying to reverse jinx, in that you actually think you can still come back and you're just pretending to lose faith, then it won't work.

Oh, and burnspbesq, thanks. We couldn't have done this without you.

loran16
05-28-2013, 03:50 PM
Wait! Many of us have been trying that for years here and no one ever believed it worked so we filed that technique right along with the Duke Curse:rolleyes:;).

Hey it worked for me! http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?19000-MBB-NC-State-88-Duke-74-Post-Game-Thread/page2&p=353897#post353897

Course I believed it at the time of that post as well! :-)

chrishoke
05-28-2013, 04:16 PM
It never worked for Duke football. :(

buddy
05-28-2013, 07:39 PM
I am allowing myself to post to this thread because (thankfully) I have not posted to it before. I too was a doubter early on. On another thread I believe I predicted that we would have to win out, including at least one win in the ACC Tournament, to get to the NCAA. Wrong about that! I hope Coach Danowski figures out the early season blues, but there is no arguing with his results.

Acymetric
05-28-2013, 09:03 PM
If you sincerely believed it when you wrote it, can you still claim credit for a reverse weauxf?

It seems to me that is the only way you can claim a reverse weauxf. A blatant reverse weauxf is worse than the weauxf itself.

ForkFondler
05-28-2013, 09:29 PM
It seems to me that is the only way you can claim a reverse weauxf. A blatant reverse weauxf is worse than the weauxf itself.

Well, of course. A reverse weauxf IS a weauxf. What makes it worse is that when the Weauxf Gods realize that you are trying to fool them, they will exact an even greater penalty out of spite. However, what PBBEsq has clearly demonstrated is that the Weauxf Gods can be had by a damn clever reverse weauxf. We must hope they never realize their mistake, otherwise it will be much harder next time.

Ooops.

burnspbesq
05-28-2013, 10:30 PM
If it's all the same to y'all, I'd prefer that Dano & Co. never again give me a reason to write anything like that.

loran16
05-29-2013, 10:47 AM
If it's all the same to y'all, I'd prefer that Dano & Co. never again give me a reason to write anything like that.

I know this year was extreme, but I kind of wonder if Danowski is the Lacrosse version of Izzo. Every year Izzo's teams come in to the season highly ranked, and very very frequently they seem to falter early on, losing multiple games here and there. Then they suddenly put together a big win streak going in and through the tournament.

BBall fans at Duke are spoiled by the team almost always being near its potential to start the season, so there aren't early setbacks, but that's not the only way to do it.

msdukie
05-29-2013, 09:45 PM
I know this year was extreme, but I kind of wonder if Danowski is the Lacrosse version of Izzo. Every year Izzo's teams come in to the season highly ranked, and very very frequently they seem to falter early on, losing multiple games here and there. Then they suddenly put together a big win streak going in and through the tournament.

BBall fans at Duke are spoiled by the team almost always being near its potential to start the season, so there aren't early setbacks, but that's not the only way to do it.

Izzo only has ONE ring.

Dev11
05-30-2013, 08:08 AM
Izzo only has ONE ring.

And doesn't go to the Final Four every single year, just about every other year.

Kedsy
05-30-2013, 09:23 AM
And doesn't go to the Final Four every single year, just about every other year.

Big difference between a 16 team tournament and a 68 team tournament. Comparing lacrosse Final Fours and basketball Final Fours is apples and oranges.

Dev11
05-30-2013, 09:36 AM
Big difference between a 16 team tournament and a 68 team tournament. Comparing lacrosse Final Fours and basketball Final Fours is apples and oranges.

Oh I know, I just like reminding myself that Dano goes to every Final Four.

InSpades
05-30-2013, 10:15 AM
Big difference between a 16 team tournament and a 68 team tournament. Comparing lacrosse Final Fours and basketball Final Fours is apples and oranges.

Yes. It's a lot harder to qualify for a 16 team tournament :).

The real difference between lacrosse and basketball is not the size of the tournament it's the # of teams that are competitive. Still, the streak that Danowski and Duke Lacrosse have going is incredibly impressive.

Kedsy
05-30-2013, 02:58 PM
Still, the streak that Danowski and Duke Lacrosse have going is incredibly impressive.

Yes it is, and we can all be proud. But having said that, it's not close to unique in college lacrosse. Syracuse, for example, went to 22 straight Final Fours, from 1983 to 2004, and 25 of 27 from 1983 to 2009. Hopkins went to 12 straight in the 70s/80s (16 of 18), and then 7 of 9 from 1999 to 2008. Princeton went to 10 of 13 Final Fours from 1992 to 2004. Maryland scored 9 in a row in the 70s. UNC made 7 in a row and 12 of 14 in the 80s/90s. Navy made 6 of 7 in the 70s/80s. UVa did it in 12 of 17 years from 1994 to 2010. There may be other similar streaks.

Duke under Danowski now stands with those other programs (although way behind Syracuse and Hopkins), but we're nowhere near the level of a UCLA basketball in the 60s/70s or Duke basketball in the 80s/90s as far as Final Four streaks go.

MCFinARL
05-30-2013, 03:45 PM
I know this year was extreme, but I kind of wonder if Danowski is the Lacrosse version of Izzo. Every year Izzo's teams come in to the season highly ranked, and very very frequently they seem to falter early on, losing multiple games here and there. Then they suddenly put together a big win streak going in and through the tournament.

BBall fans at Duke are spoiled by the team almost always being near its potential to start the season, so there aren't early setbacks, but that's not the only way to do it.

Well, I don't know if "lacrosse version of Izzo" works exactly or not, but it's not completely an accident that Duke starts slow and gets better as the season goes along. Coach Danowski has offered some insight into his coaching approach in recent interviews. Unlike many teams, Duke does not scrimmage with other teams during the fall, focusing more on fundamentals and drills, so they may not be as game-ready in the early season. Danowski has noted that many players learn what he calls bad habits playing in summer leagues, so the first step is to unlearn them. Also, unlike some coaches, Danowski is less interested in imposing his own rigid system than in teaching players how to make good decisions on the field and encouraging them to learn to play together and trust each other. This can take a while to work. http://www.laxmagazine.com/college_men/DI/2012-13/news/052013_danowski_duke_lacrosse_coaching_run_somethi ng_special

Granted, at 2-4, Danowski has some concern that it would not work this year.

BigWayne
05-30-2013, 04:00 PM
Yes it is, and we can all be proud. But having said that, it's not close to unique in college lacrosse. Syracuse, for example, went to 22 straight Final Fours, from 1983 to 2004, and 25 of 27 from 1983 to 2009. Hopkins went to 12 straight in the 70s/80s (16 of 18), and then 7 of 9 from 1999 to 2008. Princeton went to 10 of 13 Final Fours from 1992 to 2004. Maryland scored 9 in a row in the 70s. UNC made 7 in a row and 12 of 14 in the 80s/90s. Navy made 6 of 7 in the 70s/80s. UVa did it in 12 of 17 years from 1994 to 2010. There may be other similar streaks.

Duke under Danowski now stands with those other programs (although way behind Syracuse and Hopkins), but we're nowhere near the level of a UCLA basketball in the 60s/70s or Duke basketball in the 80s/90s as far as Final Four streaks go.

That's a whole nother can of worms. We are familiar with the comparisons of the college hoops landscape being different for Wooden in the 60s vs. Coach K in the last 30 years. Lacrosse has a similar issue and the changes are far from over. Div 1 basketball is at 347 teams now. I don't know how many there were in the 60s, but it was a lot less. Div 1 lacrosse was at 50 teams or so for the 80s and 90s and still is only at 63 teams. While it will likely never get to 347, it will probably move North of 100 teams eventually and it will get harder and harder to stay as a top team, just like we have seen happen in hoops.

The D3 growth here echoes the HS growth and is likely a sign of things to come:

http://www.laxpower.com/participation/sponsorship12ms.gif

Syracuse at the top of college lacrosse was to some extent a latecomer before Duke aspired to that role in the last 20 years. Navy, Maryland and Hopkins were the big names before Syracuse rose up in the 80s.

summerwind03
05-30-2013, 04:01 PM
Yes it is, and we can all be proud. But having said that, it's not close to unique in college lacrosse. Syracuse, for example, went to 22 straight Final Fours, from 1983 to 2004, and 25 of 27 from 1983 to 2009. Hopkins went to 12 straight in the 70s/80s (16 of 18), and then 7 of 9 from 1999 to 2008. Princeton went to 10 of 13 Final Fours from 1992 to 2004. Maryland scored 9 in a row in the 70s. UNC made 7 in a row and 12 of 14 in the 80s/90s. Navy made 6 of 7 in the 70s/80s. UVa did it in 12 of 17 years from 1994 to 2010. There may be other similar streaks.

Duke under Danowski now stands with those other programs (although way behind Syracuse and Hopkins), but we're nowhere near the level of a UCLA basketball in the 60s/70s or Duke basketball in the 80s/90s as far as Final Four streaks go.

Fascinating! Thanks for the background.

Kedsy
05-30-2013, 04:34 PM
Syracuse at the top of college lacrosse was to some extent a latecomer before Duke aspired to that role in the last 20 years. Navy, Maryland and Hopkins were the big names before Syracuse rose up in the 80s.

Well, I've heard Jim Brown was considered one of the greatest lacrosse players of all time, and he played for Syracuse in the '50s. So they can't be too much of a Johnny-come-lately, can they?

BigWayne
05-30-2013, 05:03 PM
Well, I've heard Jim Brown was considered one of the greatest lacrosse players of all time, and he played for Syracuse in the '50s. So they can't be too much of a Johnny-come-lately, can they?
They have been playing lacrosse for a long time but did not dominate on the national stage until the 80s. Duke started playing lacrosse back in the late 30's when Wallace Wade put Duke sports on the map, but didn't have much national success until the 90s.

Faustus
05-30-2013, 05:20 PM
Yes it is, and we can all be proud. But having said that, it's not close to unique in college lacrosse. Syracuse, for example, went to 22 straight Final Fours, from 1983 to 2004, and 25 of 27 from 1983 to 2009. Hopkins went to 12 straight in the 70s/80s (16 of 18), and then 7 of 9 from 1999 to 2008. Princeton went to 10 of 13 Final Fours from 1992 to 2004. Maryland scored 9 in a row in the 70s. UNC made 7 in a row and 12 of 14 in the 80s/90s. Navy made 6 of 7 in the 70s/80s. UVa did it in 12 of 17 years from 1994 to 2010. There may be other similar streaks.

Duke under Danowski now stands with those other programs (although way behind Syracuse and Hopkins), but we're nowhere near the level of a UCLA basketball in the 60s/70s or Duke basketball in the 80s/90s as far as Final Four streaks go.

Of course Danowski isn't necessarily quite finished yet ;)

MCFinARL
05-30-2013, 05:20 PM
They have been playing lacrosse for a long time but did not dominate on the national stage until the 80s. Duke started playing lacrosse back in the late 30's when Wallace Wade put Duke sports on the map, but didn't have much national success until the 90s.

By and large, yes, although Wikipedia tells me that Syracuse had a shorter earlier era of dominance, winning USILA national championships in 1920, 1922, 1924 and 1925. From the 30's through 1971, national champions were determined, apparently, by regular season records and/or polls; Syracuse was voted the Coaches' poll national champion in 1957, Brown's senior year, with a 10-0 record. At 6'2", 212 (according to orangehoops.org), Brown was very big for a lacrosse player at the time and pretty much dominated his competition--if people got in his way he could simply run right through them. He is arguably the greatest lacrosse player of all time by any standard and certainly the greatest lacrosse player relative to the competition in his own era. The amazing Brown also played basketball for two years at Cuse, averaging over 13 points a game, and was on the track team, placing fifth in the decathlon at the 1954 National AAU championship.

Rumor has it he also played a little football.

-jk
05-30-2013, 05:51 PM
That's a whole nother can of worms. We are familiar with the comparisons of the college hoops landscape being different for Wooden in the 60s vs. Coach K in the last 30 years. Lacrosse has a similar issue and the changes are far from over. Div 1 basketball is at 347 teams now. I don't know how many there were in the 60s, but it was a lot less. Div 1 lacrosse was at 50 teams or so for the 80s and 90s and still is only at 63 teams. While it will likely never get to 347, it will probably move North of 100 teams eventually and it will get harder and harder to stay as a top team, just like we have seen happen in hoops.

The D3 growth here echoes the HS growth and is likely a sign of things to come:

...

Syracuse at the top of college lacrosse was to some extent a latecomer before Duke aspired to that role in the last 20 years. Navy, Maryland and Hopkins were the big names before Syracuse rose up in the 80s.

As I suggested in another thread (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?31368-ACC-Lax-Expansion&p=652480#post652480), I suspect the tension of Football v. Title IX will keep men's Div 1 lax from growing a lot any time soon. D3 schools generally don't play football, so it's not so much an issue for them. Even now, women's D1 lax has about twice the number of teams as men's.

-jk

BigWayne
05-30-2013, 06:25 PM
As I suggested in another thread (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?31368-ACC-Lax-Expansion&p=652480#post652480), I suspect the tension of Football v. Title IX will keep men's Div 1 lax from growing a lot any time soon. D3 schools generally don't play football, so it's not so much an issue for them. Even now, women's D1 lax has about twice the number of teams as men's.

-jk
Yes, very valid point. Title IX limits the growth at D1 because of the size of D1 football teams. The slope of the growth will be less than D3 has been. D3 growth may slow down soon. Currently 208 D3 lacrosse teams vs. 243 D3 football teams and 411 D3 hoops teams. D1 has 63 lacrosse, 246 football and 347 hoops.

Richmond cut track and soccer to add lacrosse next year. While this is an anomaly right now, there's an underlying momentum to lacrosse now that simply wasn't there 10 or 15 years ago even.

ForkFondler
05-30-2013, 06:38 PM
As I suggested in another thread (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?31368-ACC-Lax-Expansion&p=652480#post652480), I suspect the tension of Football v. Title IX will keep men's Div 1 lax from growing a lot any time soon. D3 schools generally don't play football, so it's not so much an issue for them. Even now, women's D1 lax has about twice the number of teams as men's.

-jk

BC already fields a women's team in soccer, lacrosse, field hockey, softball, volleyball, and even hockey -- so why can't they muster enough scholarships for MLax? Duke doesn't have softball, yet we still have baseball. I don't get it.

sagegrouse
05-30-2013, 08:06 PM
Yes, very valid point. Title IX limits the growth at D1 because of the size of D1 football teams. The slope of the growth will be less than D3 has been. D3 growth may slow down soon. Currently 208 D3 lacrosse teams vs. 243 D3 football teams and 411 D3 hoops teams. D1 has 63 lacrosse, 246 football and 347 hoops.

Richmond cut track and soccer to add lacrosse next year. While this is an anomaly right now, there's an underlying momentum to lacrosse now that simply wasn't there 10 or 15 years ago even.

I am told by one long-time Lacrosser (Ohio State in the 1970s), that the momentum is beginning on the playgrounds. There, he says, lacrosse is doing very well at the expense of baseball. My explanation for this is simple: in baseball, there is only one of 18 players with a bat. In Lacrosse, there are 20 players with bats. Simple, eh?

sagegrouse
'I had to look it up; I had no idea how many players are on the field in a LAX match'

ForkFondler
05-30-2013, 08:20 PM
I am told by one long-time Lacrosser (Ohio State in the 1970s), that the momentum is beginning on the playgrounds. There, he says, lacrosse is doing very well at the expense of baseball. My explanation for this is simple: in baseball, there is only one of 18 players with a bat. In Lacrosse, there are 20 players with bats. Simple, eh?

sagegrouse
'I had to look it up; I had no idea how many players are on the field in a LAX match'

Even though I grew up playing baseball, I decided early on in my parenting stage that baseball (or more specifically t-ball) is a complete bore. You do have to buy more bats and helmets.

BigWayne
05-31-2013, 01:16 AM
I am told by one long-time Lacrosser (Ohio State in the 1970s), that the momentum is beginning on the playgrounds. There, he says, lacrosse is doing very well at the expense of baseball. My explanation for this is simple: in baseball, there is only one of 18 players with a bat. In Lacrosse, there are 20 players with bats. Simple, eh?

sagegrouse
'I had to look it up; I had no idea how many players are on the field in a LAX match'
You are also allowed to hit people with a stick and not get in trouble. What red blooded boy does not
get a charge out of that?