|
Forums20
Topics3,814
Posts387,672
Members2,608
| |
Most Online62,980
Feb 6th, 2020
|
|
 Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
BC in a week gains one of the best attackers in the game, Apuzzo's numbers will only go up as the team's offense gets stronger. They will be much better in a week. And no im not this person parent nor a BC parent, i just have an opinion. She has 51 points through 9 games, most in the country Most in the country is realative. She is the first player off the course and in the club house, the Phils and Tigers are still on the front nine. BC has played 11 games so far, that is a lot compared to many other programs. For comparisons sake, the SBU player has 50 points in 7 games. 5.2 points per game avg for SA and KO has a 7.1 points per game average. Plus a bunch of others have better point averages, just haven't played as many games. If a season were 20 games , SA on course for a 103 point Season and KO on course for 143 point season. And many others on target for higher than 103. In the end I am a SA and BC fan. But the T award has only ever gone to top players on championship teams or very near championship teams. BC is not that. Someone made the argument that it should go to the best player, that's what this excercise here is about. SA is a great player, that 51 points in 9 games, now 57 in eleven, is not the best in the country. They both are really good players, but to use points per game as the barometer for the T award is short sighted. It should be a factor, But there are so many more aspects to the game. I have a tough time giving it to an attacker who only affects one side of the field. Give me the great 2 way middy any day. I t is silly to just look at points. A great defensive middy who can transition,get draw controls and score in my opinion is way more valuable than the kid with the most points, Especially when the schedules are not balanced. Many of those points could be in garbage time against less competitive teams. This isn't a knock on those 2 players, they are great , but there are kids who do way more on both ends. the argument can be made those other players from the top 3 are playing with way more support than the others its a strange balance Which means your stats are not as gaudy because others can also contribute to the scoring
|
|
|
Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
How's the program at SUNY Maritime? They have the best cost/salary ratio in the country! most teams are walk on especially for the girls. But great pay after graduation and they place almost 100% of students
|
|
|
Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
|
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 861
Back of THE CAGE
|
Back of THE CAGE
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 861 |
There seems to be some dialogue as to "what is a better school". The mixture of sports life, class work and your own student's desire is an almost impossible equation that if you hit on all three I applaud you. But to single out a particluiar school, such as Boston College or Northwestern (NW in particular carries a lot of passion on this board) is ignorant.
In years past large schools were able to recruit below their acceptance levels due too scale. You have a 40,000 student body so recruiting 500 students below the acceptance levels was OK--especially in money sports (men's football and basketball). But it carried over to other sports for "prestige".
The Ivies and Little Ivies were the exception. You still needed to meet the acceptance standards. But not long ago that changed--again in the money sports but for the Ivies it was men's basketball. I'm not saying they reduced the standards like other schools (lets face it, Kentucky has no standards for its basketball program; they only stay a year), but they tweaked it just enough to get a qualit's player (Lin). That network money come tournament time was nice!
So you see t his now through all levels of college sports. The Ivies are still tough, don't get me wrong, but they have a bit of flexibility. NESCAC schools on the D3 level are the same way. You still need to in the top 10 percentile, good test scores, etc.
Jobs! That's why we send our students to the same schools, right? I'm a Villanova graduate and in my day went to Haverford down the road for some parties. Became friendly with a Haverford student who said, with a bit of superiority, "You go to Villanova? You'll work for me someday". Funny thing is I did and it worked out for both of us. Friend to this day.
My point is you have a student that wants to be a doctor, engineer, etc they better be extraordinary to make it as a D1 student. That's why you see a lot of Communication majors in D1. Slide over to D3, and the NESCAC (which I know well) and you have pre-law, pre-med, finance, graduate school candidates--it's a different deal. So if you want your student to have a good job maybe a finance degree from Middlebury will get them that Wall Street job better than a communications degree from Northwestern (just using NW because it's such a target on this thread!).
The worst school is not a school by name but when a student picks a school for all the wrong reasons.
Middlebury? You could have used a better example. That school and students are a total disgrace. And those students as our future is killing this once great country. Snowflakes!
I need examples to your reply. I think you are thinking of a different school. There seems to be some dialogue as to "what is a better school". The mixture of sports life, class work and your own student's desire is an almost impossible equation that if you hit on all three I applaud you. But to single out a particluiar school, such as Boston College or Northwestern (NW in particular carries a lot of passion on this board) is ignorant.
In years past large schools were able to recruit below their acceptance levels due too scale. You have a 40,000 student body so recruiting 500 students below the acceptance levels was OK--especially in money sports (men's football and basketball). But it carried over to other sports for "prestige".
The Ivies and Little Ivies were the exception. You still needed to meet the acceptance standards. But not long ago that changed--again in the money sports but for the Ivies it was men's basketball. I'm not saying they reduced the standards like other schools (lets face it, Kentucky has no standards for its basketball program; they only stay a year), but they tweaked it just enough to get a qualit's player (Lin). That network money come tournament time was nice!
So you see t his now through all levels of college sports. The Ivies are still tough, don't get me wrong, but they have a bit of flexibility. NESCAC schools on the D3 level are the same way. You still need to in the top 10 percentile, good test scores, etc.
Jobs! That's why we send our students to the same schools, right? I'm a Villanova graduate and in my day went to Haverford down the road for some parties. Became friendly with a Haverford student who said, with a bit of superiority, "You go to Villanova? You'll work for me someday". Funny thing is I did and it worked out for both of us. Friend to this day.
My point is you have a student that wants to be a doctor, engineer, etc they better be extraordinary to make it as a D1 student. That's why you see a lot of Communication majors in D1. Slide over to D3, and the NESCAC (which I know well) and you have pre-law, pre-med, finance, graduate school candidates--it's a different deal. So if you want your student to have a good job maybe a finance degree from Middlebury will get them that Wall Street job better than a communications degree from Northwestern (just using NW because it's such a target on this thread!).
The worst school is not a school by name but when a student picks a school for all the wrong reasons.
Middlebury? You could have used a better example. That school and students are a total disgrace. And those students as our future is killing this once great country. Snowflakes!
I need examples to your reply. I think you are thinking of a different school. There seems to be some dialogue as to "what is a better school". The mixture of sports life, class work and your own student's desire is an almost impossible equation that if you hit on all three I applaud you. But to single out a particluiar school, such as Boston College or Northwestern (NW in particular carries a lot of passion on this board) is ignorant.
In years past large schools were able to recruit below their acceptance levels due too scale. You have a 40,000 student body so recruiting 500 students below the acceptance levels was OK--especially in money sports (men's football and basketball). But it carried over to other sports for "prestige".
The Ivies and Little Ivies were the exception. You still needed to meet the acceptance standards. But not long ago that changed--again in the money sports but for the Ivies it was men's basketball. I'm not saying they reduced the standards like other schools (lets face it, Kentucky has no standards for its basketball program; they only stay a year), but they tweaked it just enough to get a qualit's player (Lin). That network money come tournament time was nice!
So you see t his now through all levels of college sports. The Ivies are still tough, don't get me wrong, but they have a bit of flexibility. NESCAC schools on the D3 level are the same way. You still need to in the top 10 percentile, good test scores, etc.
Jobs! That's why we send our students to the same schools, right? I'm a Villanova graduate and in my day went to Haverford down the road for some parties. Became friendly with a Haverford student who said, with a bit of superiority, "You go to Villanova? You'll work for me someday". Funny thing is I did and it worked out for both of us. Friend to this day.
My point is you have a student that wants to be a doctor, engineer, etc they better be extraordinary to make it as a D1 student. That's why you see a lot of Communication majors in D1. Slide over to D3, and the NESCAC (which I know well) and you have pre-law, pre-med, finance, graduate school candidates--it's a different deal. So if you want your student to have a good job maybe a finance degree from Middlebury will get them that Wall Street job better than a communications degree from Northwestern (just using NW because it's such a target on this thread!).
The worst school is not a school by name but when a student picks a school for all the wrong reasons.
Middlebury? You could have used a better example. That school and students are a total disgrace. And those students as our future is killing this once great country. Snowflakes!
I need examples to your reply. I think you are thinking of a different school. There seems to be some dialogue as to "what is a better school". The mixture of sports life, class work and your own student's desire is an almost impossible equation that if you hit on all three I applaud you. But to single out a particluiar school, such as Boston College or Northwestern (NW in particular carries a lot of passion on this board) is ignorant.
In years past large schools were able to recruit below their acceptance levels due too scale. You have a 40,000 student body so recruiting 500 students below the acceptance levels was OK--especially in money sports (men's football and basketball). But it carried over to other sports for "prestige".
The Ivies and Little Ivies were the exception. You still needed to meet the acceptance standards. But not long ago that changed--again in the money sports but for the Ivies it was men's basketball. I'm not saying they reduced the standards like other schools (lets face it, Kentucky has no standards for its basketball program; they only stay a year), but they tweaked it just enough to get a qualit's player (Lin). That network money come tournament time was nice!
So you see t his now through all levels of college sports. The Ivies are still tough, don't get me wrong, but they have a bit of flexibility. NESCAC schools on the D3 level are the same way. You still need to in the top 10 percentile, good test scores, etc.
Jobs! That's why we send our students to the same schools, right? I'm a Villanova graduate and in my day went to Haverford down the road for some parties. Became friendly with a Haverford student who said, with a bit of superiority, "You go to Villanova? You'll work for me someday". Funny thing is I did and it worked out for both of us. Friend to this day.
My point is you have a student that wants to be a doctor, engineer, etc they better be extraordinary to make it as a D1 student. That's why you see a lot of Communication majors in D1. Slide over to D3, and the NESCAC (which I know well) and you have pre-law, pre-med, finance, graduate school candidates--it's a different deal. So if you want your student to have a good job maybe a finance degree from Middlebury will get them that Wall Street job better than a communications degree from Northwestern (just using NW because it's such a target on this thread!).
The worst school is not a school by name but when a student picks a school for all the wrong reasons.
Middlebury? You could have used a better example. That school and students are a total disgrace. And those students as our future is killing this once great country. Snowflakes!
I need examples to your reply. I think you are thinking of a different school. All you have to do is google it. Student protest shuts down free speech and assaults teacher sending her to the hospital. You must watch CNN and MSNBC where they choose not to report on matters unflatterIng to their view of the world. Actually a Fox guy. Found an Op Ed from the professor in the New [lacrosse] Times on the matter. He seemed to take the injury in context to the protest better than you did. All schools are liberal at its base. Yale gave out coloring books and the day off after the election. Princeton brought in puppies. Cal did significant damage during a protest. Don't let the militant minority drive you nuts. Forbes ranks Middlebury as the 4th best school in terms of tuition cost versus real world earnings. Perhaps you need to read the op ed again, the professor that was injured is a female. If that is what the 4th best tuition to earnings ratio is giving you in terms of an education they failed. You should read a dozen or so of the reports, gives a broader perspective. The irony is that the injured professor was apparently one of the faculty protesting in the audience preventing the session from occurring in clear violation of school policy. The issue is that students and faculty are all being given a pass from school rules even though they were reinforced by the administration before the speaker took the stage. Middlebury has completely mis-handled this situation because they all wanted to suppress free speech because they do not support what they believe the speaker stands for but could not find a way other than this and still maintain a shred of pretend credibility on the subject. There seems to be some dialogue as to "what is a better school". The mixture of sports life, class work and your own student's desire is an almost impossible equation that if you hit on all three I applaud you. But to single out a particluiar school, such as Boston College or Northwestern (NW in particular carries a lot of passion on this board) is ignorant.
In years past large schools were able to recruit below their acceptance levels due too scale. You have a 40,000 student body so recruiting 500 students below the acceptance levels was OK--especially in money sports (men's football and basketball). But it carried over to other sports for "prestige".
The Ivies and Little Ivies were the exception. You still needed to meet the acceptance standards. But not long ago that changed--again in the money sports but for the Ivies it was men's basketball. I'm not saying they reduced the standards like other schools (lets face it, Kentucky has no standards for its basketball program; they only stay a year), but they tweaked it just enough to get a qualit's player (Lin). That network money come tournament time was nice!
So you see t his now through all levels of college sports. The Ivies are still tough, don't get me wrong, but they have a bit of flexibility. NESCAC schools on the D3 level are the same way. You still need to in the top 10 percentile, good test scores, etc.
Jobs! That's why we send our students to the same schools, right? I'm a Villanova graduate and in my day went to Haverford down the road for some parties. Became friendly with a Haverford student who said, with a bit of superiority, "You go to Villanova? You'll work for me someday". Funny thing is I did and it worked out for both of us. Friend to this day.
My point is you have a student that wants to be a doctor, engineer, etc they better be extraordinary to make it as a D1 student. That's why you see a lot of Communication majors in D1. Slide over to D3, and the NESCAC (which I know well) and you have pre-law, pre-med, finance, graduate school candidates--it's a different deal. So if you want your student to have a good job maybe a finance degree from Middlebury will get them that Wall Street job better than a communications degree from Northwestern (just using NW because it's such a target on this thread!).
The worst school is not a school by name but when a student picks a school for all the wrong reasons.
Middlebury? You could have used a better example. That school and students are a total disgrace. And those students as our future is killing this once great country. Snowflakes!
I need examples to your reply. I think you are thinking of a different school. There seems to be some dialogue as to "what is a better school". The mixture of sports life, class work and your own student's desire is an almost impossible equation that if you hit on all three I applaud you. But to single out a particluiar school, such as Boston College or Northwestern (NW in particular carries a lot of passion on this board) is ignorant.
In years past large schools were able to recruit below their acceptance levels due too scale. You have a 40,000 student body so recruiting 500 students below the acceptance levels was OK--especially in money sports (men's football and basketball). But it carried over to other sports for "prestige".
The Ivies and Little Ivies were the exception. You still needed to meet the acceptance standards. But not long ago that changed--again in the money sports but for the Ivies it was men's basketball. I'm not saying they reduced the standards like other schools (lets face it, Kentucky has no standards for its basketball program; they only stay a year), but they tweaked it just enough to get a qualit's player (Lin). That network money come tournament time was nice!
So you see t his now through all levels of college sports. The Ivies are still tough, don't get me wrong, but they have a bit of flexibility. NESCAC schools on the D3 level are the same way. You still need to in the top 10 percentile, good test scores, etc.
Jobs! That's why we send our students to the same schools, right? I'm a Villanova graduate and in my day went to Haverford down the road for some parties. Became friendly with a Haverford student who said, with a bit of superiority, "You go to Villanova? You'll work for me someday". Funny thing is I did and it worked out for both of us. Friend to this day.
My point is you have a student that wants to be a doctor, engineer, etc they better be extraordinary to make it as a D1 student. That's why you see a lot of Communication majors in D1. Slide over to D3, and the NESCAC (which I know well) and you have pre-law, pre-med, finance, graduate school candidates--it's a different deal. So if you want your student to have a good job maybe a finance degree from Middlebury will get them that Wall Street job better than a communications degree from Northwestern (just using NW because it's such a target on this thread!).
The worst school is not a school by name but when a student picks a school for all the wrong reasons.
Middlebury? You could have used a better example. That school and students are a total disgrace. And those students as our future is killing this once great country. Snowflakes!
I need examples to your reply. I think you are thinking of a different school. There seems to be some dialogue as to "what is a better school". The mixture of sports life, class work and your own student's desire is an almost impossible equation that if you hit on all three I applaud you. But to single out a particluiar school, such as Boston College or Northwestern (NW in particular carries a lot of passion on this board) is ignorant.
In years past large schools were able to recruit below their acceptance levels due too scale. You have a 40,000 student body so recruiting 500 students below the acceptance levels was OK--especially in money sports (men's football and basketball). But it carried over to other sports for "prestige".
The Ivies and Little Ivies were the exception. You still needed to meet the acceptance standards. But not long ago that changed--again in the money sports but for the Ivies it was men's basketball. I'm not saying they reduced the standards like other schools (lets face it, Kentucky has no standards for its basketball program; they only stay a year), but they tweaked it just enough to get a qualit's player (Lin). That network money come tournament time was nice!
So you see t his now through all levels of college sports. The Ivies are still tough, don't get me wrong, but they have a bit of flexibility. NESCAC schools on the D3 level are the same way. You still need to in the top 10 percentile, good test scores, etc.
Jobs! That's why we send our students to the same schools, right? I'm a Villanova graduate and in my day went to Haverford down the road for some parties. Became friendly with a Haverford student who said, with a bit of superiority, "You go to Villanova? You'll work for me someday". Funny thing is I did and it worked out for both of us. Friend to this day.
My point is you have a student that wants to be a doctor, engineer, etc they better be extraordinary to make it as a D1 student. That's why you see a lot of Communication majors in D1. Slide over to D3, and the NESCAC (which I know well) and you have pre-law, pre-med, finance, graduate school candidates--it's a different deal. So if you want your student to have a good job maybe a finance degree from Middlebury will get them that Wall Street job better than a communications degree from Northwestern (just using NW because it's such a target on this thread!).
The worst school is not a school by name but when a student picks a school for all the wrong reasons.
Middlebury? You could have used a better example. That school and students are a total disgrace. And those students as our future is killing this once great country. Snowflakes!
I need examples to your reply. I think you are thinking of a different school. There seems to be some dialogue as to "what is a better school". The mixture of sports life, class work and your own student's desire is an almost impossible equation that if you hit on all three I applaud you. But to single out a particluiar school, such as Boston College or Northwestern (NW in particular carries a lot of passion on this board) is ignorant.
In years past large schools were able to recruit below their acceptance levels due too scale. You have a 40,000 student body so recruiting 500 students below the acceptance levels was OK--especially in money sports (men's football and basketball). But it carried over to other sports for "prestige".
The Ivies and Little Ivies were the exception. You still needed to meet the acceptance standards. But not long ago that changed--again in the money sports but for the Ivies it was men's basketball. I'm not saying they reduced the standards like other schools (lets face it, Kentucky has no standards for its basketball program; they only stay a year), but they tweaked it just enough to get a qualit's player (Lin). That network money come tournament time was nice!
So you see t his now through all levels of college sports. The Ivies are still tough, don't get me wrong, but they have a bit of flexibility. NESCAC schools on the D3 level are the same way. You still need to in the top 10 percentile, good test scores, etc.
Jobs! That's why we send our students to the same schools, right? I'm a Villanova graduate and in my day went to Haverford down the road for some parties. Became friendly with a Haverford student who said, with a bit of superiority, "You go to Villanova? You'll work for me someday". Funny thing is I did and it worked out for both of us. Friend to this day.
My point is you have a student that wants to be a doctor, engineer, etc they better be extraordinary to make it as a D1 student. That's why you see a lot of Communication majors in D1. Slide over to D3, and the NESCAC (which I know well) and you have pre-law, pre-med, finance, graduate school candidates--it's a different deal. So if you want your student to have a good job maybe a finance degree from Middlebury will get them that Wall Street job better than a communications degree from Northwestern (just using NW because it's such a target on this thread!).
The worst school is not a school by name but when a student picks a school for all the wrong reasons.
Middlebury? You could have used a better example. That school and students are a total disgrace. And those students as our future is killing this once great country. Snowflakes!
I need examples to your reply. I think you are thinking of a different school. All you have to do is google it. Student protest shuts down free speech and assaults teacher sending her to the hospital. You must watch CNN and MSNBC where they choose not to report on matters unflatterIng to their view of the world. Actually a Fox guy. Found an Op Ed from the professor in the New [lacrosse] Times on the matter. He seemed to take the injury in context to the protest better than you did. All schools are liberal at its base. Yale gave out coloring books and the day off after the election. Princeton brought in puppies. Cal did significant damage during a protest. Don't let the militant minority drive you nuts. Forbes ranks Middlebury as the 4th best school in terms of tuition cost versus real world earnings. Perhaps you need to read the op ed again, the professor that was injured is a female. If that is what the 4th best tuition to earnings ratio is giving you in terms of an education they failed. You should read a dozen or so of the reports, gives a broader perspective. The irony is that the injured professor was apparently one of the faculty protesting in the audience preventing the session from occurring in clear violation of school policy. The issue is that students and faculty are all being given a pass from school rules even though they were reinforced by the administration before the speaker took the stage. Middlebury has completely mis-handled this situation because they all wanted to suppress free speech because they do not support what they believe the speaker stands for but could not find a way other than this and still maintain a shred of pretend credibility on the subject. It's why Jerry Seinfeld won't play colleges anymore.
|
|
|
Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
How's the program at SUNY Maritime? They have the best cost/salary ratio in the country! most teams are walk on especially for the girls. But great pay after graduation and they place almost 100% of students You go to the school if you are looking to work in the Maritime industry, not to play girls lax, and their best player (daughters friend) is out for the season with a torn ACL.
|
|
|
Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Don't think so, there's a classic example of me first player, M Bill is a better all around player and not as selfish. if she went to goal as often as mccool her stats would dwarf mccool
|
|
|
Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
How's the program at SUNY Maritime? They have the best cost/salary ratio in the country! most teams are walk on especially for the girls. But great pay after graduation and they place almost 100% of students You go to the school if you are looking to work in the Maritime industry, not to play girls lax, and their best player (daughters friend) is out for the season with a torn ACL. Your daughter shouldn't go anywhere to play girls lax. She should go somewhere that has a great program in her chosen field. Then play lax for that school.
|
|
|
Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
for those Duke bashers out there, you should read the commentary from their coach after they got thumped by Penn yesterday... pretty much fell on her sword by saying the scheme they are running is not a good one..
getting very little out of an absurd amount of talent. crazy. I think that duke and a bunch of other perennial top 10-20 teams (Loyola, ND, etc) think that they just need to walk on the field and they will win because of the name on the uniform. They seem to be very slow to realize that the landscape has and is changing and there are plenty of good players to go around and programs (especially the relatively new ones) that are a little more hungry to win and are blindsiding some of them. MD, UNC & FL still have the horses to separate themselves from the pack, but the rest are all more of the same.
|
|
|
Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
BC in a week gains one of the best attackers in the game, Apuzzo's numbers will only go up as the team's offense gets stronger. They will be much better in a week. And no im not this person parent nor a BC parent, i just have an opinion. She has 51 points through 9 games, most in the country Most in the country is realative. She is the first player off the course and in the club house, the Phils and Tigers are still on the front nine. BC has played 11 games so far, that is a lot compared to many other programs. For comparisons sake, the SBU player has 50 points in 7 games. 5.2 points per game avg for SA and KO has a 7.1 points per game average. Plus a bunch of others have better point averages, just haven't played as many games. If a season were 20 games , SA on course for a 103 point Season and KO on course for 143 point season. And many others on target for higher than 103. In the end I am a SA and BC fan. But the T award has only ever gone to top players on championship teams or very near championship teams. BC is not that. Someone made the argument that it should go to the best player, that's what this excercise here is about. SA is a great player, that 51 points in 9 games, now 57 in eleven, is not the best in the country. Stony Brook plays the worst teams, they have 2 hard games. That girl just stacks her points against Bryant and UNH.
|
|
|
Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
BC in a week gains one of the best attackers in the game, Apuzzo's numbers will only go up as the team's offense gets stronger. They will be much better in a week. And no im not this person parent nor a BC parent, i just have an opinion. She has 51 points through 9 games, most in the country Most in the country is realative. She is the first player off the course and in the club house, the Phils and Tigers are still on the front nine. BC has played 11 games so far, that is a lot compared to many other programs. For comparisons sake, the SBU player has 50 points in 7 games. 5.2 points per game avg for SA and KO has a 7.1 points per game average. Plus a bunch of others have better point averages, just haven't played as many games. If a season were 20 games , SA on course for a 103 point Season and KO on course for 143 point season. And many others on target for higher than 103. In the end I am a SA and BC fan. But the T award has only ever gone to top players on championship teams or very near championship teams. BC is not that. Someone made the argument that it should go to the best player, that's what this excercise here is about. SA is a great player, that 51 points in 9 games, now 57 in eleven, is not the best in the country. Stony Brook plays the worst teams, they have 2 hard games. That girl just stacks her points against Bryant and UNH. True, that's why they lose when it counts
|
|
|
Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
BC in a week gains one of the best attackers in the game, Apuzzo's numbers will only go up as the team's offense gets stronger. They will be much better in a week. And no im not this person parent nor a BC parent, i just have an opinion. She has 51 points through 9 games, most in the country Most in the country is realative. She is the first player off the course and in the club house, the Phils and Tigers are still on the front nine. BC has played 11 games so far, that is a lot compared to many other programs. For comparisons sake, the SBU player has 50 points in 7 games. 5.2 points per game avg for SA and KO has a 7.1 points per game average. Plus a bunch of others have better point averages, just haven't played as many games. If a season were 20 games , SA on course for a 103 point Season and KO on course for 143 point season. And many others on target for higher than 103. In the end I am a SA and BC fan. But the T award has only ever gone to top players on championship teams or very near championship teams. BC is not that. Someone made the argument that it should go to the best player, that's what this excercise here is about. SA is a great player, that 51 points in 9 games, now 57 in eleven, is not the best in the country. Stony Brook plays the worst teams, they have 2 hard games. That girl just stacks her points against Bryant and UNH. True, that's why they lose when it counts All YJ's pad
|
|
|
Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
BC in a week gains one of the best attackers in the game, Apuzzo's numbers will only go up as the team's offense gets stronger. They will be much better in a week. And no im not this person parent nor a BC parent, i just have an opinion. She has 51 points through 9 games, most in the country Most in the country is realative. She is the first player off the course and in the club house, the Phils and Tigers are still on the front nine. BC has played 11 games so far, that is a lot compared to many other programs. For comparisons sake, the SBU player has 50 points in 7 games. 5.2 points per game avg for SA and KO has a 7.1 points per game average. Plus a bunch of others have better point averages, just haven't played as many games. If a season were 20 games , SA on course for a 103 point Season and KO on course for 143 point season. And many others on target for higher than 103. In the end I am a SA and BC fan. But the T award has only ever gone to top players on championship teams or very near championship teams. BC is not that. Someone made the argument that it should go to the best player, that's what this excercise here is about. SA is a great player, that 51 points in 9 games, now 57 in eleven, is not the best in the country. Stony Brook plays the worst teams, they have 2 hard games. That girl just stacks her points against Bryant and UNH. BC in a week gains one of the best attackers in the game, Apuzzo's numbers will only go up as the team's offense gets stronger. They will be much better in a week. And no im not this person parent nor a BC parent, i just have an opinion. She has 51 points through 9 games, most in the country Most in the country is realative. She is the first player off the course and in the club house, the Phils and Tigers are still on the front nine. BC has played 11 games so far, that is a lot compared to many other programs. For comparisons sake, the SBU player has 50 points in 7 games. 5.2 points per game avg for SA and KO has a 7.1 points per game average. Plus a bunch of others have better point averages, just haven't played as many games. If a season were 20 games , SA on course for a 103 point Season and KO on course for 143 point season. And many others on target for higher than 103. In the end I am a SA and BC fan. But the T award has only ever gone to top players on championship teams or very near championship teams. BC is not that. Someone made the argument that it should go to the best player, that's what this excercise here is about. SA is a great player, that 51 points in 9 games, now 57 in eleven, is not the best in the country. Stony Brook plays the worst teams, they have 2 hard games. That girl just stacks her points against Bryant and UNH. No way this is an adult. If it is WOW Just wow.
|
|
|
Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Upenn gave the terms quite the battle. Florida is best team
|
|
|
Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Stony Brook plays the worst teams, they have 2 hard games. That girl just stacks her points against Bryant and UNH.
No way this is an adult. If it is WOW Just wow. [/quote] Why don't you think this is an adult? I'm an adult and I can see what the original poster is saying. Can't you?
|
|
|
Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
UPenn plays great team defense. Key to winning is team defense and goal keeping.
|
|
|
Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
BC in a week gains one of the best attackers in the game, Apuzzo's numbers will only go up as the team's offense gets stronger. They will be much better in a week. And no im not this person parent nor a BC parent, i just have an opinion. She has 51 points through 9 games, most in the country Most in the country is realative. She is the first player off the course and in the club house, the Phils and Tigers are still on the front nine. BC has played 11 games so far, that is a lot compared to many other programs. For comparisons sake, the SBU player has 50 points in 7 games. 5.2 points per game avg for SA and KO has a 7.1 points per game average. Plus a bunch of others have better point averages, just haven't played as many games. If a season were 20 games , SA on course for a 103 point Season and KO on course for 143 point season. And many others on target for higher than 103. In the end I am a SA and BC fan. But the T award has only ever gone to top players on championship teams or very near championship teams. BC is not that. Someone made the argument that it should go to the best player, that's what this excercise here is about. SA is a great player, that 51 points in 9 games, now 57 in eleven, is not the best in the country. Stony Brook plays the worst teams, they have 2 hard games. That girl just stacks her points against Bryant and UNH. So you are knocking a 20 year old who made it to the final 25 for US National team. Yeah. you know what you are talking about. You must have missed the 4 goals and 3 assist game vs Florida
|
|
|
Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
BC in a week gains one of the best attackers in the game, Apuzzo's numbers will only go up as the team's offense gets stronger. They will be much better in a week. And no im not this person parent nor a BC parent, i just have an opinion. She has 51 points through 9 games, most in the country Most in the country is realative. She is the first player off the course and in the club house, the Phils and Tigers are still on the front nine. BC has played 11 games so far, that is a lot compared to many other programs. For comparisons sake, the SBU player has 50 points in 7 games. 5.2 points per game avg for SA and KO has a 7.1 points per game average. Plus a bunch of others have better point averages, just haven't played as many games. If a season were 20 games , SA on course for a 103 point Season and KO on course for 143 point season. And many others on target for higher than 103. In the end I am a SA and BC fan. But the T award has only ever gone to top players on championship teams or very near championship teams. BC is not that. Someone made the argument that it should go to the best player, that's what this excercise here is about. SA is a great player, that 51 points in 9 games, now 57 in eleven, is not the best in the country. Stony Brook plays the worst teams, they have 2 hard games. That girl just stacks her points against Bryant and UNH. So you are knocking a 20 year old who made it to the final 25 for US National team. Yeah. you know what you are talking about. You must have missed the 4 goals and 3 assist game vs Florida You must of missed Apuzzo's 4g and 2a against the Terps. This doesn't matter neither are very good, McCool or Stukenberg depending on who wins the NCAA
|
|
|
Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
BC in a week gains one of the best attackers in the game, Apuzzo's numbers will only go up as the team's offense gets stronger. They will be much better in a week. And no im not this person parent nor a BC parent, i just have an opinion. She has 51 points through 9 games, most in the country Most in the country is realative. She is the first player off the course and in the club house, the Phils and Tigers are still on the front nine. BC has played 11 games so far, that is a lot compared to many other programs. For comparisons sake, the SBU player has 50 points in 7 games. 5.2 points per game avg for SA and KO has a 7.1 points per game average. Plus a bunch of others have better point averages, just haven't played as many games. If a season were 20 games , SA on course for a 103 point Season and KO on course for 143 point season. And many others on target for higher than 103. In the end I am a SA and BC fan. But the T award has only ever gone to top players on championship teams or very near championship teams. BC is not that. Someone made the argument that it should go to the best player, that's what this excercise here is about. SA is a great player, that 51 points in 9 games, now 57 in eleven, is not the best in the country. Stony Brook plays the worst teams, they have 2 hard games. That girl just stacks her points against Bryant and UNH. So you are knocking a 20 year old who made it to the final 25 for US National team. Yeah. you know what you are talking about. You must have missed the 4 goals and 3 assist game vs Florida You must of missed Apuzzo's 4g and 2a against the Terps. This doesn't matter neither are very good, McCool or Stukenberg depending on who wins the NCAA How are McCool's and Stukenberg's assist numbers?
|
|
|
Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
McCool and Stukenberg are not compelling choices either. They just play on Top 2 teams. There might be better all round players on Florida, Penn State etc. There has to be a reason those teams are doing so well.
|
|
|
Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
BC in a week gains one of the best attackers in the game, Apuzzo's numbers will only go up as the team's offense gets stronger. They will be much better in a week. And no im not this person parent nor a BC parent, i just have an opinion. She has 51 points through 9 games, most in the country Most in the country is realative. She is the first player off the course and in the club house, the Phils and Tigers are still on the front nine. BC has played 11 games so far, that is a lot compared to many other programs. For comparisons sake, the SBU player has 50 points in 7 games. 5.2 points per game avg for SA and KO has a 7.1 points per game average. Plus a bunch of others have better point averages, just haven't played as many games. If a season were 20 games , SA on course for a 103 point Season and KO on course for 143 point season. And many others on target for higher than 103. In the end I am a SA and BC fan. But the T award has only ever gone to top players on championship teams or very near championship teams. BC is not that. Someone made the argument that it should go to the best player, that's what this excercise here is about. SA is a great player, that 51 points in 9 games, now 57 in eleven, is not the best in the country. Stony Brook plays the worst teams, they have 2 hard games. That girl just stacks her points against Bryant and UNH. So you are knocking a 20 year old who made it to the final 25 for US National team. Yeah. you know what you are talking about. You must have missed the 4 goals and 3 assist game vs Florida You must of missed Apuzzo's 4g and 2a against the Terps. This doesn't matter neither are very good, McCool or Stukenberg depending on who wins the NCAA McCool the PC pick, but would rather have Maggie Bill if I had to choose between the two
|
|
|
Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
BC in a week gains one of the best attackers in the game, Apuzzo's numbers will only go up as the team's offense gets stronger. They will be much better in a week. And no im not this person parent nor a BC parent, i just have an opinion. She has 51 points through 9 games, most in the country Most in the country is realative. She is the first player off the course and in the club house, the Phils and Tigers are still on the front nine. BC has played 11 games so far, that is a lot compared to many other programs. For comparisons sake, the SBU player has 50 points in 7 games. 5.2 points per game avg for SA and KO has a 7.1 points per game average. Plus a bunch of others have better point averages, just haven't played as many games. If a season were 20 games , SA on course for a 103 point Season and KO on course for 143 point season. And many others on target for higher than 103. In the end I am a SA and BC fan. But the T award has only ever gone to top players on championship teams or very near championship teams. BC is not that. Someone made the argument that it should go to the best player, that's what this excercise here is about. SA is a great player, that 51 points in 9 games, now 57 in eleven, is not the best in the country. Stony Brook plays the worst teams, they have 2 hard games. That girl just stacks her points against Bryant and UNH. So you are knocking a 20 year old who made it to the final 25 for US National team. Yeah. you know what you are talking about. You must have missed the 4 goals and 3 assist game vs Florida You must of missed Apuzzo's 4g and 2a against the Terps. This doesn't matter neither are very good, McCool or Stukenberg depending on who wins the NCAA McCool the PC pick, but would rather have Maggie Bill if I had to choose between the two Yeah you already said that . You are wrong but maybe if you keep saying that others will think it also . They are both awesome players on both ends of the field but McCool is better at the draw and does not turn the ball over as much .
|
|
|
Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Will the picture get even clearer this weekend? I think the top 3 widen the gap and the rest have no hope of a championship. Unfortunate I guess.
|
|
|
Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Will the picture get even clearer this weekend? I think the top 3 widen the gap and the rest have no hope of a championship. Unfortunate I guess. Personally think Florida is best team. Maryland is overrated No Cummings no rings Whittle was much better when everyone was looking at Cummings
|
|
|
Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Will the picture get even clearer this weekend? I think the top 3 widen the gap and the rest have no hope of a championship. Unfortunate I guess. Personally think Florida is best team. Maryland is overrated No Cummings no rings Whittle was much better when everyone was looking at Cummings Dumb..... most teams were trying to shut down Whittle. She is having a great season, Maryland is the real deal. Florida is very good though and has a chance.
|
|
|
Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
I think we will get a good picture when Maryland plays Florida on 3/29. Go Gators !!
|
|
|
Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Will the picture get even clearer this weekend? I think the top 3 widen the gap and the rest have no hope of a championship. Unfortunate I guess. Personally think Florida is best team. Maryland is overrated No Cummings no rings Whittle was much better when everyone was looking at Cummings Dumb..... most teams were trying to shut down Whittle. She is having a great season, Maryland is the real deal. Florida is very good though and has a chance. Florida has no chance. their coaching will always get exposed by Levy & Reese- sounds like NY law firm but...
|
|
|
Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Florida and UNC way more athletic tan Maryland
|
|
|
Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Is Miller a bust, or is USC's offensive set just so poorly conceived that no good player ever do well in it?
|
|
|
Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
SB just beat USC. Someone explain to me how USC garners such a high ranking. No, really. They're okay, but I haven't seen anything this season to justify top 5 or 10. SB outplayed them tonight at any rate.
|
|
|
Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Will the picture get even clearer this weekend? I think the top 3 widen the gap and the rest have no hope of a championship. Unfortunate I guess. Personally think Florida is best team. Maryland is overrated No Cummings no rings Whittle was much better when everyone was looking at Cummings Dumb..... most teams were trying to shut down Whittle. She is having a great season, Maryland is the real deal. Florida is very good though and has a chance. Florida has no chance. their coaching will always get exposed by Levy & Reese- sounds like NY law firm but... Sorry but just wrong , let's see Levy win one without Dowd , not going to happen even though they have the most talent of any team .
|
|
|
Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
SB just beat USC. Someone explain to me how USC garners such a high ranking. No, really. They're okay, but I haven't seen anything this season to justify top 5 or 10. SB outplayed them tonight at any rate. SB brought their best game tonight. We're fans and we go to all the games. They had more fire in their bellies tonight than they've had since 2015. They were hungry again and it showed.
|
|
|
Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Will the picture get even clearer this weekend? I think the top 3 widen the gap and the rest have no hope of a championship. Unfortunate I guess. Personally think Florida is best team. Maryland is overrated No Cummings no rings Whittle was much better when everyone was looking at Cummings Dumb..... most teams were trying to shut down Whittle. She is having a great season, Maryland is the real deal. Florida is very good though and has a chance. Florida has no chance. their coaching will always get exposed by Levy & Reese- sounds like NY law firm but... Sorry but just wrong , let's see Levy win one without Dowd , not going to happen even though they have the most talent of any team . We just found Sasquatch!!! Someone who thinks Mandy O'Leary can outcoach a potted plant!! Best of luck.
|
|
|
Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Md overrated????? What a silly post. Beat them and then you can post a silly statement. They will beat Florida by 7. Which amounts to a close game against md. I have no kid going to md or a chance of it but just calling out stupidity.
|
|
|
Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
SB just beat USC. Someone explain to me how USC garners such a high ranking. No, really. They're okay, but I haven't seen anything this season to justify top 5 or 10. SB outplayed them tonight at any rate. USC gets overrated every year as they play a weak schedule . Not sure but their record against east coast schools tells you they should be about 35-40 ranked team but the coaches have a lot of pull. The Miller kid is no bust she has never been much of an offensive threat but very good between the restraining lines . That said I got to watch the game tonight and she was not shy about shooting and has a bit of peacock in her the way she struts around . She is only a freshman playing on a not very talented team , put her on one of the top teams and she would barely see the field st this point .way too early to say a bust.
|
|
|
Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
You got on here at 4 am to give back handed compliments to a college freshman that is extremely talented. It is shaping up to be an entertaining finish, yes there are three ahead of the pack but the next five are neck and neck. All of which is wonderful for the sport because the next tier is just as competitive! USC will be fine to say they should be ranked in the 30's make anything you say irrelevant. Your daughter must be proud. Just enjoy the ride the negative crap ruins what could be a great forum Dad!
|
|
|
Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Maryland should enjoy its final weekend undefeated the Gators are coming
|
|
|
Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
SB just beat USC. Someone explain to me how USC garners such a high ranking. No, really. They're okay, but I haven't seen anything this season to justify top 5 or 10. SB outplayed them tonight at any rate. USC gets overrated every year as they play a weak schedule . Not sure but their record against east coast schools tells you they should be about 35-40 ranked team but the coaches have a lot of pull. The Miller kid is no bust she has never been much of an offensive threat but very good between the restraining lines . That said I got to watch the game tonight and she was not shy about shooting and has a bit of peacock in her the way she struts around . She is only a freshman playing on a not very talented team , put her on one of the top teams and she would barely see the field st this point .way too early to say a bust. Watched the game last night. Surprised at the limited stick skills on some of the USC players. SB faster, sticks in passing lanes, shut down their offense and goalie was lights out for SB last night. Agreed USC always gets the higher ranking, not deserved.
|
|
|
Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Not so sure about that...She is very good!
They (USC) get a lot of attention from Lax mag and more, their coaching staff has a lot of contacts and the school has big money. Last year they were very talented now they have to reload.
Not a top 5 team, maybe not a top 10 team...
|
|
|
Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
SB just beat USC. Someone explain to me how USC garners such a high ranking. No, really. They're okay, but I haven't seen anything this season to justify top 5 or 10. SB outplayed them tonight at any rate. USC gets overrated every year as they play a weak schedule . Not sure but their record against east coast schools tells you they should be about 35-40 ranked team but the coaches have a lot of pull. The Miller kid is no bust she has never been much of an offensive threat but very good between the restraining lines . That said I got to watch the game tonight and she was not shy about shooting and has a bit of peacock in her the way she struts around . She is only a freshman playing on a not very talented team , put her on one of the top teams and she would barely see the field st this point .way too early to say a bust. Watched the game last night. Surprised at the limited stick skills on some of the USC players. SB faster, sticks in passing lanes, shut down their offense and goalie was lights out for SB last night. Agreed USC always gets the higher ranking, not deserved. USC had a trouble catching and keeping a ball in the stick. Also, defensively, more than once I saw a SB player wide open in front of the cage. That's pretty poor. The SB goalie was on fire last night.
|
|
|
Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
SB just beat USC. Someone explain to me how USC garners such a high ranking. No, really. They're okay, but I haven't seen anything this season to justify top 5 or 10. SB outplayed them tonight at any rate. USC gets overrated every year as they play a weak schedule . Not sure but their record against east coast schools tells you they should be about 35-40 ranked team but the coaches have a lot of pull. The Miller kid is no bust she has never been much of an offensive threat but very good between the restraining lines . That said I got to watch the game tonight and she was not shy about shooting and has a bit of peacock in her the way she struts around . She is only a freshman playing on a not very talented team , put her on one of the top teams and she would barely see the field st this point .way too early to say a bust. Watched the game last night. Surprised at the limited stick skills on some of the USC players. SB faster, sticks in passing lanes, shut down their offense and goalie was lights out for SB last night. Agreed USC always gets the higher ranking, not deserved. With all that, 9-7 final...if USC is so overrated,SB should be also...win a playoff game for your commuter school would ya.
|
|
|
Moderated by A1Laxer, Abclax123, America's Game, Annoy., Anonymous 1, baldbear, Bearded_Kaos, BiggLax, BOTC_EVENTS, botc_ne, clax422, CP@BOTC, cp_botc, Gremelin, HammerOfJustice, hatimd80, JimSection1, Ladylaxer2609, lax516, Laxers412, LaxMomma, Liam Kassl, LILax15, MomOf6, Team BOTC, The Hop, TheBackOfTheCage, Thirdy@BOTC, TM@BOTC |
|
