Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Newhouse_83, post: 3017179, member: 7139"] "- Desko ran the program as a corporation, expecting wins to never decrease, think GM during the 1970's and 1980's. - SU could simply make an offer and recruits were clamoring to play for SU (and a few other elites) - Markets change, so did major lacrosse - Desko fell behind NOTE: While most other schools would love SU's success while Desko "fell behind" it simply is not SU standards (see 11 championship trophies - SU is the lacrosse equivalent of Oklahoma in football) - Desko has improved in his actions, though he has not landed the recruits SU fans are accustomed to see on the field - Competition has improved - Talent levels have improved - Roy Simmons Junior installed a great system, fast, physical, fun (should it be fast, fysical, fun or perhaps phast, physical phun), he won a lot, too." #PPP. I like that. Lots of strong analysis in some of the recent posts, especially the idea of "peer programs" (and well-chosen ones at that) and the idea that running this program equates to heading a corporation. Agreed that we trail Dook and are slightly ahead of Hopkins, though I think ND holds an advantage in that Corrigan gets more out of the talent he's had and, more importantly, has done better than SU on the defensive side of the ball recently -- ND typically has an outstanding goalie, one if not two all-conference-type SSMs and had a monster LSM in Sexton. This enables that team to be a threat to go to Championship Weekend even without a ton of guys who are necessarily elite athletes. To the idea of "program as corporation," we're lacking in one, and possibly two, key areas. The first is a succession plan -- the idea that Jim Boeheim had a Mike Hopkins for *years* until Boeheim decided to stay longer than most people expected. We can make a solid guess at the plan for the next head coaches at Duke and Denver -- two other strong programs run by older guys -- and can probably conclude that the next JHU coach is someone currently in the program. SU? The youngest guy, Scaramuzzino, is early 50s, and not on the payroll. There's a ton of talk about Galloway, but it's hard to be certain when a guy's building a name for himself in another part of the country. Someone like that could be a hot property when the next Utah comes along and wants a young guy with energy. This is a big disadvantage for this program. My sense is that the next coach probably needs to be a young-er, hyper-kinetic ass-kicker likely now at, or with strong connections to, a selective or selective-ish private university north of the Mason-Dixon line (If you were drawing a blueprint for SU's next basketball coach, you'd end up with a profile like Bobby Hurley's, right?). Shea or Tiffany could have been that guy until they hit the big time. Another option would be a no. 2 at a good program with the experience and the chops to lead a program like ours (but we're probably not getting Matt Danowski when his dad retires in 2024). Now? I don't know enough about which mid-major programs are making things happen, but a program with the size and profile of 'Nova's or a guy with av resume like Kevin Cassese's is probably a starting point. We need to remember, also, that Roy Jr. put the program on the map by innovating. At a time when many programs played stall-ball, he was recruiting athletes -- Kotz and Nelson and Curry and Beardsley, and turning 'em loose -- few programs would've recruited the Gaits because they (at the time) played one-handed. Many programs play fast now; we need to be looking for other weaknesses in the system to exploit. The other question -- probably for Wildhack -- is what's the vision to measure success in the program? Lots of people here long for the good ol' days when we had the first- or second-most national titles in a decade, but that ain't happening anymore, with anyone, with a 12.6-scholarship limit. As much as I dislike ND, I think the expectation and the approach that exists there is probably reasonable for SU: Recruit a certain nucleus of smart, responsible, above-average D-1 players (Jack Near is an example) to build from goalie/defense forward, then stir in a couple talented offensive guys every year who might be able to tip the scales ... Kavanagh, Perkovic, Garnsey, Costabile, Wynne, and Gleason all come to mind, with a nucleus of guys like Dearth -- a 50-ish prospect who probably didn't turn a ton of heads. Boeheim does a version of this -- long, lean wing players who work in the 2-3. Sure he had Coleman and Forth and Siock and Hawkins, but he didn't build teams around them. I'm not saying build a team to play stall-ball, but build one that wins the games it's supposed to win, and rarely blows leads (did anyone here not know we were toast once ND got a decent lead this year?). Not as exciting to watch, but "Cardiac Cuse" isn't playing on Memorial Day weekend. Yes, we used to run other teams off the field on talent alone -- just like Boeheim's teams from the mid-80s until a decade or so ago -- but with so many other schools playing lacrosse, and scholarships limited, those days are over. Finally, I'm seriously concerned about the program's chances in the future if we don't evolve and adapt. Some more big schools in states full of talented, athletic kids are going to see that an Ohio State can run a solid lax program with the change it finds in the couch cushions at the football offices. And when Texas and/or Florida and/or USC launch men's programs (the latter two already field good women's teams), we're not gonna see Dordevic or Mullins or Seau or Schoonmaker or Van Rapphorst or Crance coming to CNY, or even to the ACC. If SU's not ready, its world is gonna change, and it'll be ugly. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?