BOTC BOTC
The UnD1sputed Showcase (Boys & Girls) in June & the Girls LI Showcase is Open for Registration on CBLaxers.com - Don't Miss Out as 88 Players Only Accepted! | Invest for Growth - ADVERTISE with us!
BOTC GIRLS BOTC BOY BACK OF THE CAGE
BOTC GIRLS BOTC BOY MOST RECENT POSTS
Girls High School
by Anonymous -
Boys High School
by Anonymous -
BOTC GIRLS BOTC BOY Forum Statistics
Forums20
Topics3,802
Posts385,564
Members2,606
Most Online62,980
Feb 6th, 2020
BOTC GIRLS BOTC BOY FOLLOW US ON TWITTER
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4
Re: NCAA Face Off Rule Changes
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
FOGO is a valid and sought after position. Colleges are recruiting these kids as early as possible and I suspect they are using those spots wisely...Having a face off does not slow the game in fact makes it more exciting. You can argue that one player is better than another at every position, should we tell the really fast guys to slow down so the other teams middies can catch up? Should we tell the athletic D man he can't play because at 6'4" his reach is 6 inches better than everyone else on the field and its not fair? Or like the other poster said, take out the goalies and play basketball.

Only people that don't like face offs are those that don't have a good fogo...

I dont have a fogo kid, but if I did i would be happy given that people with that skill, win the ground ball by whatever means possible, are a commodity in this market.

For the doomsday guy that apparently has the inside knowledge that the face off is going away, what are you on the rules committee? Get a grip, the growth of this sport like all others will depend on TV deals. Not based upon the speed of the game. So like Hockey, people like to watch the face off and the cameras capture the action very well.

Everyone says its about the "speed of the game" and to a certain extent that is true. So the way to speed up the game is a real shot clock behind both cages or in the box.

But the real growth will only come from TV and that is about watch-ability and enjoyment of watching.... How fast does baseball move? How fast does soccer move? How about football?

No, those sports have grown and are successful, not because there is non stop action, but because they are distributed through TV in a viewer friendly manner.

Scores of 12 to 8 are more than enough and there is no need to tinker with one of the real skill positions in the game. Spend your time and energy figuring out how to get ESPN to do more than 8 college games per year and you will grow the sport without regard to any rule change....

BOTC GIRLS BOTC BOY BACK OF THE CAGE SPONSORS

Re: NCAA Face Off Rule Changes
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
If I have to watch one more soccer game I'll throw up!
KEEP THE FACEOFF!!!!!

Re: NCAA Face Off Rule Changes
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
So i f you are down two with less the minute and score your screwed. How many comebacks have been built around winning face offs ? Its not broke, don't fix it


Seems as though more than a few people do think it is broken and limiting the game from advancing to the next level.

There will always be pros and cons but in this case replacing the face off with a fast restart will have more positives than negatives for the game.


So if you're down three and cut it to two with 2 minutes left but lose every face off, you have no chance of coming back either...you make a good point but i think the solution is to make the face off more equitable - they need to figure out how to make it a true ground ball situation, which unfortunately means taking some of the technique out of the process.


Get a better FOGO! That's what you need to do! It's called a game. You put your best out there, sometimes it doesn't work out.

Re: NCAA Face Off Rule Changes
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by Anonymous
FOGO is a valid and sought after position. Colleges are recruiting these kids as early as possible and I suspect they are using those spots wisely...Having a face off does not slow the game in fact makes it more exciting. You can argue that one player is better than another at every position, should we tell the really fast guys to slow down so the other teams middies can catch up? Should we tell the athletic D man he can't play because at 6'4" his reach is 6 inches better than everyone else on the field and its not fair? Or like the other poster said, take out the goalies and play basketball.

Only people that don't like face offs are those that don't have a good fogo...

I dont have a fogo kid, but if I did i would be happy given that people with that skill, win the ground ball by whatever means possible, are a commodity in this market.

For the doomsday guy that apparently has the inside knowledge that the face off is going away, what are you on the rules committee? Get a grip, the growth of this sport like all others will depend on TV deals. Not based upon the speed of the game. So like Hockey, people like to watch the face off and the cameras capture the action very well.

Everyone says its about the "speed of the game" and to a certain extent that is true. So the way to speed up the game is a real shot clock behind both cages or in the box.

But the real growth will only come from TV and that is about watch-ability and enjoyment of watching.... How fast does baseball move? How fast does soccer move? How about football?

No, those sports have grown and are successful, not because there is non stop action, but because they are distributed through TV in a viewer friendly manner.

Scores of 12 to 8 are more than enough and there is no need to tinker with one of the real skill positions in the game. Spend your time and energy figuring out how to get ESPN to do more than 8 college games per year and you will grow the sport without regard to any rule change....


Great post! We all want the sport to grow. Need to keep it exciting. The breaks for F/O are good for the boys to regroup and good for the spectators to refocus attention. My son is an attackman, but I love to watch the F/O, kind of like a mini wrestling match!

Re: NCAA Face Off Rule Changes
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
It works as long as your son is an attachman on the team that keeps winning these face offs ..otherwise your son might be bored just watching the game played in the other end of the field

BOTC GIRLS BOTC BOY Sponsored Links
Re: NCAA Face Off Rule Changes
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by Anonymous
It works as long as your son is an attachman on the team that keeps winning these face offs ..otherwise your son might be bored just watching the game played in the other end of the field


Get or train a FOGO! This is not brain surgery, it's a specialized position and there are plenty of kids out there that can get the job done!

Re: NCAA Face Off Rule Changes
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Ok so i have read some of these posts, and have something to add. My family is not well off, in fact we struggle. My son who is going into HS next year started to play lacrosse in middle school. He became very good at the face off position and people are telling us he could get a scholarship. This has changed his life. He works so hard every day trying to get better at this. I go to all of his games and enjoy watching the face off as much as the other parts of the game. It is so intense and exciting, and I know it is not just because it's my son. Everyone stops chatting and watches. If faceoffs are taken out of the game in the way they are used now, there are so many young boys that will see their dreams burn up in front of them. This is bad for everyone. I don't see how such an important part of the game can change. It makes no sense at all. What kind of person would want to stir a pot like this. There must be something else you can focus on. leave the Faceoff alone!

Re: NCAA Face Off Rule Changes
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Good luck to you and your boy, I agree with you wholeheartedly!

Re: NCAA Face Off Rule Changes
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Did anyone else watch the FIL Championship? The face offs weren't the problem. The stall is going to kill any TV deal.

Re: NCAA Face Off Rule Changes
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Did anyone else watch the FIL Championship? The face offs weren't the problem. The stall is going to kill any TV deal.


A shot clock at the college and international level is very much needed.

BOTC GIRLS BOTC BOY Sponsored Links
Re: NCAA Face Off Rule Changes
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Ok so i have read some of these posts, and have something to add. My family is not well off, in fact we struggle. My son who is going into HS next year started to play lacrosse in middle school. He became very good at the face off position and people are telling us he could get a scholarship. This has changed his life. He works so hard every day trying to get better at this. I go to all of his games and enjoy watching the face off as much as the other parts of the game. It is so intense and exciting, and I know it is not just because it's my son. Everyone stops chatting and watches. If faceoffs are taken out of the game in the way they are used now, there are so many young boys that will see their dreams burn up in front of them. This is bad for everyone. I don't see how such an important part of the game can change. It makes no sense at all. What kind of person would want to stir a pot like this. There must be something else you can focus on. leave the Faceoff alone!



This talk is coming straight from the NCAA I believe.They are always looking for ways to improve the game and make it flow much quicker and the reality looks lik it will happen.

Re: NCAA Face Off Rule Changes
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by Anonymous
FOGO is a valid and sought after position. Colleges are recruiting these kids as early as possible and I suspect they are using those spots wisely...Having a face off does not slow the game in fact makes it more exciting. You can argue that one player is better than another at every position, should we tell the really fast guys to slow down so the other teams middies can catch up? Should we tell the athletic D man he can't play because at 6'4" his reach is 6 inches better than everyone else on the field and its not fair? Or like the other poster said, take out the goalies and play basketball.

Only people that don't like face offs are those that don't have a good fogo...

I dont have a fogo kid, but if I did i would be happy given that people with that skill, win the ground ball by whatever means possible, are a commodity in this market.

For the doomsday guy that apparently has the inside knowledge that the face off is going away, what are you on the rules committee? Get a grip, the growth of this sport like all others will depend on TV deals. Not based upon the speed of the game. So like Hockey, people like to watch the face off and the cameras capture the action very well.

Everyone says its about the "speed of the game" and to a certain extent that is true. So the way to speed up the game is a real shot clock behind both cages or in the box.

But the real growth will only come from TV and that is about watch-ability and enjoyment of watching.... How fast does baseball move? How fast does soccer move? How about football?

No, those sports have grown and are successful, not because there is non stop action, but because they are distributed through TV in a viewer friendly manner.

Scores of 12 to 8 are more than enough and there is no need to tinker with one of the real skill positions in the game. Spend your time and energy figuring out how to get ESPN to do more than 8 college games per year and you will grow the sport without regard to any rule change....
No. You maybe right regarding tv $ but the sport plays well on tv when it is fast moving, any sport does. Could you imagine if basketball went back to mid court for a jump ball after every basket? Could you imagine lacrosse taking the ball back to mid field after a goal and having another face off? Being able to quick restart after a goal and force the team to clear leaves shorties on the field and less opportunity to sub out. Shorties on shorties will create more opportunites and less crowded passing lanes. God forbid a shorty have to play O AND D. Sorry if I submit that the fast break in hoops and lacrosse is the most exciting, not the face off or jump ball. While a LSM may also be a specialty and will be less important, a new specialty will be created, or recreated - the 2 way middy. Faster paced sport with constant action will attract the $, not the face off.

Re: NCAA Face Off Rule Changes
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
FOGO is a valid and sought after position. Colleges are recruiting these kids as early as possible and I suspect they are using those spots wisely...Having a face off does not slow the game in fact makes it more exciting. You can argue that one player is better than another at every position, should we tell the really fast guys to slow down so the other teams middies can catch up? Should we tell the athletic D man he can't play because at 6'4" his reach is 6 inches better than everyone else on the field and its not fair? Or like the other poster said, take out the goalies and play basketball.

Only people that don't like face offs are those that don't have a good fogo...

I dont have a fogo kid, but if I did i would be happy given that people with that skill, win the ground ball by whatever means possible, are a commodity in this market.

For the doomsday guy that apparently has the inside knowledge that the face off is going away, what are you on the rules committee? Get a grip, the growth of this sport like all others will depend on TV deals. Not based upon the speed of the game. So like Hockey, people like to watch the face off and the cameras capture the action very well.

Everyone says its about the "speed of the game" and to a certain extent that is true. So the way to speed up the game is a real shot clock behind both cages or in the box.

But the real growth will only come from TV and that is about watch-ability and enjoyment of watching.... How fast does baseball move? How fast does soccer move? How about football?

No, those sports have grown and are successful, not because there is non stop action, but because they are distributed through TV in a viewer friendly manner.

Scores of 12 to 8 are more than enough and there is no need to tinker with one of the real skill positions in the game. Spend your time and energy figuring out how to get ESPN to do more than 8 college games per year and you will grow the sport without regard to any rule change....
No. You maybe right regarding tv $ but the sport plays well on tv when it is fast moving, any sport does. Could you imagine if basketball went back to mid court for a jump ball after every basket? Could you imagine lacrosse taking the ball back to mid field after a goal and having another face off? Being able to quick restart after a goal and force the team to clear leaves shorties on the field and less opportunity to sub out. Shorties on shorties will create more opportunites and less crowded passing lanes. God forbid a shorty have to play O AND D. Sorry if I submit that the fast break in hoops and lacrosse is the most exciting, not the face off or jump ball. While a LSM may also be a specialty and will be less important, a new specialty will be created, or recreated - the 2 way middy. Faster paced sport with constant action will attract the $, not the face off.



I couldn't agree more. That is why this change is being looked at so closely

Re: NCAA Face Off Rule Changes
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
FOGO is a valid and sought after position. Colleges are recruiting these kids as early as possible and I suspect they are using those spots wisely...Having a face off does not slow the game in fact makes it more exciting. You can argue that one player is better than another at every position, should we tell the really fast guys to slow down so the other teams middies can catch up? Should we tell the athletic D man he can't play because at 6'4" his reach is 6 inches better than everyone else on the field and its not fair? Or like the other poster said, take out the goalies and play basketball.

Only people that don't like face offs are those that don't have a good fogo...

I dont have a fogo kid, but if I did i would be happy given that people with that skill, win the ground ball by whatever means possible, are a commodity in this market.

For the doomsday guy that apparently has the inside knowledge that the face off is going away, what are you on the rules committee? Get a grip, the growth of this sport like all others will depend on TV deals. Not based upon the speed of the game. So like Hockey, people like to watch the face off and the cameras capture the action very well.

Everyone says its about the "speed of the game" and to a certain extent that is true. So the way to speed up the game is a real shot clock behind both cages or in the box.

But the real growth will only come from TV and that is about watch-ability and enjoyment of watching.... How fast does baseball move? How fast does soccer move? How about football?

No, those sports have grown and are successful, not because there is non stop action, but because they are distributed through TV in a viewer friendly manner.

Scores of 12 to 8 are more than enough and there is no need to tinker with one of the real skill positions in the game. Spend your time and energy figuring out how to get ESPN to do more than 8 college games per year and you will grow the sport without regard to any rule change....
No. You maybe right regarding tv $ but the sport plays well on tv when it is fast moving, any sport does. Could you imagine if basketball went back to mid court for a jump ball after every basket? Could you imagine lacrosse taking the ball back to mid field after a goal and having another face off? Being able to quick restart after a goal and force the team to clear leaves shorties on the field and less opportunity to sub out. Shorties on shorties will create more opportunites and less crowded passing lanes. God forbid a shorty have to play O AND D. Sorry if I submit that the fast break in hoops and lacrosse is the most exciting, not the face off or jump ball. While a LSM may also be a specialty and will be less important, a new specialty will be created, or recreated - the 2 way middy. Faster paced sport with constant action will attract the $, not the face off.


You couldn't be more wrong! Lax and bball have their similarities, but are also different in many ways. Maybe we should get rid of the goalie too? You make silly points. Face off needs to stay in the game as is. As others have pointed out, it makes the game exciting, and refocuses people's attention. What I do agree wholeheartedly with however, is the shot clock. This will improve the speed of the game.face off is not the problem so stop trying to create one!

Re: NCAA Face Off Rule Changes
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
FOGO is a valid and sought after position. Colleges are recruiting these kids as early as possible and I suspect they are using those spots wisely...Having a face off does not slow the game in fact makes it more exciting. You can argue that one player is better than another at every position, should we tell the really fast guys to slow down so the other teams middies can catch up? Should we tell the athletic D man he can't play because at 6'4" his reach is 6 inches better than everyone else on the field and its not fair? Or like the other poster said, take out the goalies and play basketball.

Only people that don't like face offs are those that don't have a good fogo...

I dont have a fogo kid, but if I did i would be happy given that people with that skill, win the ground ball by whatever means possible, are a commodity in this market.

For the doomsday guy that apparently has the inside knowledge that the face off is going away, what are you on the rules committee? Get a grip, the growth of this sport like all others will depend on TV deals. Not based upon the speed of the game. So like Hockey, people like to watch the face off and the cameras capture the action very well.

Everyone says its about the "speed of the game" and to a certain extent that is true. So the way to speed up the game is a real shot clock behind both cages or in the box.

But the real growth will only come from TV and that is about watch-ability and enjoyment of watching.... How fast does baseball move? How fast does soccer move? How about football?

No, those sports have grown and are successful, not because there is non stop action, but because they are distributed through TV in a viewer friendly manner.

Scores of 12 to 8 are more than enough and there is no need to tinker with one of the real skill positions in the game. Spend your time and energy figuring out how to get ESPN to do more than 8 college games per year and you will grow the sport without regard to any rule change....
No. You maybe right regarding tv $ but the sport plays well on tv when it is fast moving, any sport does. Could you imagine if basketball went back to mid court for a jump ball after every basket? Could you imagine lacrosse taking the ball back to mid field after a goal and having another face off? Being able to quick restart after a goal and force the team to clear leaves shorties on the field and less opportunity to sub out. Shorties on shorties will create more opportunites and less crowded passing lanes. God forbid a shorty have to play O AND D. Sorry if I submit that the fast break in hoops and lacrosse is the most exciting, not the face off or jump ball. While a LSM may also be a specialty and will be less important, a new specialty will be created, or recreated - the 2 way middy. Faster paced sport with constant action will attract the $, not the face off.


You couldn't be more wrong! Lax and bball have their similarities, but are also different in many ways. Maybe we should get rid of the goalie too? You make silly points. Face off needs to stay in the game as is. As others have pointed out, it makes the game exciting, and refocuses people's attention. What I do agree wholeheartedly with however, is the shot clock. This will improve the speed of the game.face off is not the problem so stop trying to create one!
Silly? Per previous posts this topic is being reviewed every year so not trying to create one. It's already out there silly. Time elapsed after goal to reset and refocus is faster than a quick restart that has possibilities for fast break? Use a stop watch silly. The face off guy is a midfielder first, fogo 2nd silly. But if you think it is silly to not have your kid or player start playing midfield instead of fogo, now that is silly.

Re: NCAA Face Off Rule Changes
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
FOGO is a valid and sought after position. Colleges are recruiting these kids as early as possible and I suspect they are using those spots wisely...Having a face off does not slow the game in fact makes it more exciting. You can argue that one player is better than another at every position, should we tell the really fast guys to slow down so the other teams middies can catch up? Should we tell the athletic D man he can't play because at 6'4" his reach is 6 inches better than everyone else on the field and its not fair? Or like the other poster said, take out the goalies and play basketball.

Only people that don't like face offs are those that don't have a good fogo...

I dont have a fogo kid, but if I did i would be happy given that people with that skill, win the ground ball by whatever means possible, are a commodity in this market.

For the doomsday guy that apparently has the inside knowledge that the face off is going away, what are you on the rules committee? Get a grip, the growth of this sport like all others will depend on TV deals. Not based upon the speed of the game. So like Hockey, people like to watch the face off and the cameras capture the action very well.

Everyone says its about the "speed of the game" and to a certain extent that is true. So the way to speed up the game is a real shot clock behind both cages or in the box.

But the real growth will only come from TV and that is about watch-ability and enjoyment of watching.... How fast does baseball move? How fast does soccer move? How about football?

No, those sports have grown and are successful, not because there is non stop action, but because they are distributed through TV in a viewer friendly manner.

Scores of 12 to 8 are more than enough and there is no need to tinker with one of the real skill positions in the game. Spend your time and energy figuring out how to get ESPN to do more than 8 college games per year and you will grow the sport without regard to any rule change....
No. You maybe right regarding tv $ but the sport plays well on tv when it is fast moving, any sport does. Could you imagine if basketball went back to mid court for a jump ball after every basket? Could you imagine lacrosse taking the ball back to mid field after a goal and having another face off? Being able to quick restart after a goal and force the team to clear leaves shorties on the field and less opportunity to sub out. Shorties on shorties will create more opportunites and less crowded passing lanes. God forbid a shorty have to play O AND D. Sorry if I submit that the fast break in hoops and lacrosse is the most exciting, not the face off or jump ball. While a LSM may also be a specialty and will be less important, a new specialty will be created, or recreated - the 2 way middy. Faster paced sport with constant action will attract the $, not the face off.


You couldn't be more wrong! Lax and bball have their similarities, but are also different in many ways. Maybe we should get rid of the goalie too? You make silly points. Face off needs to stay in the game as is. As others have pointed out, it makes the game exciting, and refocuses people's attention. What I do agree wholeheartedly with however, is the shot clock. This will improve the speed of the game.face off is not the problem so stop trying to create one!
Silly? Per previous posts this topic is being reviewed every year so not trying to create one. It's already out there silly. Time elapsed after goal to reset and refocus is faster than a quick restart that has possibilities for fast break? Use a stop watch silly. The face off guy is a midfielder first, fogo 2nd silly. But if you think it is silly to not have your kid or player start playing midfield instead of fogo, now that is silly.



I believe they think the changes could be made within 2-3 years.

Re: NCAA Face Off Rule Changes
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
FOGO is a valid and sought after position. Colleges are recruiting these kids as early as possible and I suspect they are using those spots wisely...Having a face off does not slow the game in fact makes it more exciting. You can argue that one player is better than another at every position, should we tell the really fast guys to slow down so the other teams middies can catch up? Should we tell the athletic D man he can't play because at 6'4" his reach is 6 inches better than everyone else on the field and its not fair? Or like the other poster said, take out the goalies and play basketball.

Only people that don't like face offs are those that don't have a good fogo...

I dont have a fogo kid, but if I did i would be happy given that people with that skill, win the ground ball by whatever means possible, are a commodity in this market.

For the doomsday guy that apparently has the inside knowledge that the face off is going away, what are you on the rules committee? Get a grip, the growth of this sport like all others will depend on TV deals. Not based upon the speed of the game. So like Hockey, people like to watch the face off and the cameras capture the action very well.

Everyone says its about the "speed of the game" and to a certain extent that is true. So the way to speed up the game is a real shot clock behind both cages or in the box.

But the real growth will only come from TV and that is about watch-ability and enjoyment of watching.... How fast does baseball move? How fast does soccer move? How about football?

No, those sports have grown and are successful, not because there is non stop action, but because they are distributed through TV in a viewer friendly manner.

Scores of 12 to 8 are more than enough and there is no need to tinker with one of the real skill positions in the game. Spend your time and energy figuring out how to get ESPN to do more than 8 college games per year and you will grow the sport without regard to any rule change....
No. You maybe right regarding tv $ but the sport plays well on tv when it is fast moving, any sport does. Could you imagine if basketball went back to mid court for a jump ball after every basket? Could you imagine lacrosse taking the ball back to mid field after a goal and having another face off? Being able to quick restart after a goal and force the team to clear leaves shorties on the field and less opportunity to sub out. Shorties on shorties will create more opportunites and less crowded passing lanes. God forbid a shorty have to play O AND D. Sorry if I submit that the fast break in hoops and lacrosse is the most exciting, not the face off or jump ball. While a LSM may also be a specialty and will be less important, a new specialty will be created, or recreated - the 2 way middy. Faster paced sport with constant action will attract the $, not the face off.


You couldn't be more wrong! Lax and bball have their similarities, but are also different in many ways. Maybe we should get rid of the goalie too? You make silly points. Face off needs to stay in the game as is. As others have pointed out, it makes the game exciting, and refocuses people's attention. What I do agree wholeheartedly with however, is the shot clock. This will improve the speed of the game.face off is not the problem so stop trying to create one!
Silly? Per previous posts this topic is being reviewed every year so not trying to create one. It's already out there silly. Time elapsed after goal to reset and refocus is faster than a quick restart that has possibilities for fast break? Use a stop watch silly. The face off guy is a midfielder first, fogo 2nd silly. But if you think it is silly to not have your kid or player start playing midfield instead of fogo, now that is silly.


Sounds like you're mad. Probably cause your son is a wanna be FOGO who sucks and you're just bitter about spending all that money training him. Maybe try a new position? The face off negative nellys try to bring up this crap every year. Fact is the majority of lax players and fans enjoy that aspect of the game, silly!

Re: NCAA Face Off Rule Changes
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
FOGO is a valid and sought after position. Colleges are recruiting these kids as early as possible and I suspect they are using those spots wisely...Having a face off does not slow the game in fact makes it more exciting. You can argue that one player is better than another at every position, should we tell the really fast guys to slow down so the other teams middies can catch up? Should we tell the athletic D man he can't play because at 6'4" his reach is 6 inches better than everyone else on the field and its not fair? Or like the other poster said, take out the goalies and play basketball.

Only people that don't like face offs are those that don't have a good fogo...

I dont have a fogo kid, but if I did i would be happy given that people with that skill, win the ground ball by whatever means possible, are a commodity in this market.

For the doomsday guy that apparently has the inside knowledge that the face off is going away, what are you on the rules committee? Get a grip, the growth of this sport like all others will depend on TV deals. Not based upon the speed of the game. So like Hockey, people like to watch the face off and the cameras capture the action very well.

Everyone says its about the "speed of the game" and to a certain extent that is true. So the way to speed up the game is a real shot clock behind both cages or in the box.

But the real growth will only come from TV and that is about watch-ability and enjoyment of watching.... How fast does baseball move? How fast does soccer move? How about football?

No, those sports have grown and are successful, not because there is non stop action, but because they are distributed through TV in a viewer friendly manner.

Scores of 12 to 8 are more than enough and there is no need to tinker with one of the real skill positions in the game. Spend your time and energy figuring out how to get ESPN to do more than 8 college games per year and you will grow the sport without regard to any rule change....
No. You maybe right regarding tv $ but the sport plays well on tv when it is fast moving, any sport does. Could you imagine if basketball went back to mid court for a jump ball after every basket? Could you imagine lacrosse taking the ball back to mid field after a goal and having another face off? Being able to quick restart after a goal and force the team to clear leaves shorties on the field and less opportunity to sub out. Shorties on shorties will create more opportunites and less crowded passing lanes. God forbid a shorty have to play O AND D. Sorry if I submit that the fast break in hoops and lacrosse is the most exciting, not the face off or jump ball. While a LSM may also be a specialty and will be less important, a new specialty will be created, or recreated - the 2 way middy. Faster paced sport with constant action will attract the $, not the face off.


You couldn't be more wrong! Lax and bball have their similarities, but are also different in many ways. Maybe we should get rid of the goalie too? You make silly points. Face off needs to stay in the game as is. As others have pointed out, it makes the game exciting, and refocuses people's attention. What I do agree wholeheartedly with however, is the shot clock. This will improve the speed of the game.face off is not the problem so stop trying to create one!
Silly? Per previous posts this topic is being reviewed every year so not trying to create one. It's already out there silly. Time elapsed after goal to reset and refocus is faster than a quick restart that has possibilities for fast break? Use a stop watch silly. The face off guy is a midfielder first, fogo 2nd silly. But if you think it is silly to not have your kid or player start playing midfield instead of fogo, now that is silly.


Sounds like you're mad. Probably cause your son is a wanna be FOGO who sucks and you're just bitter about spending all that money training him. Maybe try a new position? The face off negative nellys try to bring up this crap every year. Fact is the majority of lax players and fans enjoy that aspect of the game, silly!
Wow, your family must love you around the dinner table. Fast break less exciting than face off? Now that is silly, loser!

Re: NCAA Face Off Rule Changes
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
FOGO is a valid and sought after position. Colleges are recruiting these kids as early as possible and I suspect they are using those spots wisely...Having a face off does not slow the game in fact makes it more exciting. You can argue that one player is better than another at every position, should we tell the really fast guys to slow down so the other teams middies can catch up? Should we tell the athletic D man he can't play because at 6'4" his reach is 6 inches better than everyone else on the field and its not fair? Or like the other poster said, take out the goalies and play basketball.

Only people that don't like face offs are those that don't have a good fogo...

I dont have a fogo kid, but if I did i would be happy given that people with that skill, win the ground ball by whatever means possible, are a commodity in this market.

For the doomsday guy that apparently has the inside knowledge that the face off is going away, what are you on the rules committee? Get a grip, the growth of this sport like all others will depend on TV deals. Not based upon the speed of the game. So like Hockey, people like to watch the face off and the cameras capture the action very well.

Everyone says its about the "speed of the game" and to a certain extent that is true. So the way to speed up the game is a real shot clock behind both cages or in the box.

But the real growth will only come from TV and that is about watch-ability and enjoyment of watching.... How fast does baseball move? How fast does soccer move? How about football?

No, those sports have grown and are successful, not because there is non stop action, but because they are distributed through TV in a viewer friendly manner.

Scores of 12 to 8 are more than enough and there is no need to tinker with one of the real skill positions in the game. Spend your time and energy figuring out how to get ESPN to do more than 8 college games per year and you will grow the sport without regard to any rule change....
No. You maybe right regarding tv $ but the sport plays well on tv when it is fast moving, any sport does. Could you imagine if basketball went back to mid court for a jump ball after every basket? Could you imagine lacrosse taking the ball back to mid field after a goal and having another face off? Being able to quick restart after a goal and force the team to clear leaves shorties on the field and less opportunity to sub out. Shorties on shorties will create more opportunites and less crowded passing lanes. God forbid a shorty have to play O AND D. Sorry if I submit that the fast break in hoops and lacrosse is the most exciting, not the face off or jump ball. While a LSM may also be a specialty and will be less important, a new specialty will be created, or recreated - the 2 way middy. Faster paced sport with constant action will attract the $, not the face off.


You couldn't be more wrong! Lax and bball have their similarities, but are also different in many ways. Maybe we should get rid of the goalie too? You make silly points. Face off needs to stay in the game as is. As others have pointed out, it makes the game exciting, and refocuses people's attention. What I do agree wholeheartedly with however, is the shot clock. This will improve the speed of the game.face off is not the problem so stop trying to create one!
Silly? Per previous posts this topic is being reviewed every year so not trying to create one. It's already out there silly. Time elapsed after goal to reset and refocus is faster than a quick restart that has possibilities for fast break? Use a stop watch silly. The face off guy is a midfielder first, fogo 2nd silly. But if you think it is silly to not have your kid or player start playing midfield instead of fogo, now that is silly.


Sounds like you're mad. Probably cause your son is a wanna be FOGO who sucks and you're just bitter about spending all that money training him. Maybe try a new position? The face off negative nellys try to bring up this crap every year. Fact is the majority of lax players and fans enjoy that aspect of the game, silly!
Wow, your family must love you around the dinner table. Fast break less exciting than face off? Now that is silly, loser!


Actually, I like the fast break following a f/o smoking.

Re: NCAA Face Off Rule Changes
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
What do you think the original intent of the face off was? I believe it was for both Teams to have a 50-50 shot at getting ball. With specialized Individuals getting 60% or more of the balls and running off the field, I think spirit of the original rule is lost and changes should be made.

Re: NCAA Face Off Rule Changes
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
You couldn't be more wrong! As the game evolved, so did the position. There are specialists in many sports. FOGO is one of them. These boys work incredibly hard at their position. The best rise to the top and are sought after. What's wrong with that? It's a niche that is filled by a type of elite lax player who is committed to his craft. They make the game exciting!

Re: NCAA Face Off Rule Changes
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by Anonymous
You couldn't be more wrong! As the game evolved, so did the position. There are specialists in many sports. FOGO is one of them. These boys work incredibly hard at their position. The best rise to the top and are sought after. What's wrong with that? It's a niche that is filled by a type of elite lax player who is committed to his craft. They make the game exciting!


I guess you would call it a lax player.It's just sad watching a kid run off the field every time he wins a faceoff. It's almost like the kid has no other lacrosse skills. Just saying

Re: NCAA Face Off Rule Changes
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
The simple fact that most fans agree on is that a player that is only on the field for a couple of minutes a game shouldn't have that big of an impact. The game drags to a halt after every goal as the players celebrate and take there time making substitutions. A quick restart would greatly enhance the flow and competitiveness of the game!

Re: NCAA Face Off Rule Changes
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by Anonymous
The simple fact that most fans agree on is that a player that is only on the field for a couple of minutes a game shouldn't have that big of an impact. The game drags to a halt after every goal as the players celebrate and take there time making substitutions. A quick restart would greatly enhance the flow and competitiveness of the game!


Not all"fogos" run off the field. In fact, many are darn good players. Coach wants to keep them fresh. My son fogos for a very good (top 20) HS program and scored 12 goals this season including 2 game winners. Many fogos are versatile plyers, you just don't always get a chance to see. Even in the college playoffs fogos had some big goals!

Re: NCAA Face Off Rule Changes
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by Anonymous
The simple fact that most fans agree on is that a player that is only on the field for a couple of minutes a game shouldn't have that big of an impact. The game drags to a halt after every goal as the players celebrate and take there time making substitutions. A quick restart would greatly enhance the flow and competitiveness of the game!


Very true

Re: NCAA Face Off Rule Changes
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Most fans? You represent them? Please, in my experience "most people I have talked to" like the face off and the battle...

Not so simple after all.

Not sure what games you and "most fans" are watching that grind to a halt. I think it makes the game more fun to watch which is exactly what the sport needs.

Re: NCAA Face Off Rule Changes
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Most fans? You represent them? Please, in my experience "most people I have talked to" like the face off and the battle...

Not so simple after all.

Not sure what games you and "most fans" are watching that grind to a halt. I think it makes the game more fun to watch which is exactly what the sport needs.


AGREED!

Re: NCAA Face Off Rule Changes
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by Anonymous
What do you think the original intent of the face off was? I believe it was for both Teams to have a 50-50 shot at getting ball. With specialized Individuals getting 60% or more of the balls and running off the field, I think spirit of the original rule is lost and changes should be made.



Did a little research and from the very first set of rules, the face off was meant to be a way for one team to have a distinct advantage. It turns out the Indians did not have face offs in their original game, so the white players could usually dominate in this area with a little practice. George Beers who wrote the original set of rules in 1860 wrote "when they (Indians) succeed at all at the present time (1869) with our best white facers, it is more an anticipatory ruse than any superior skill". In fact, even back then the players would pick up the ball on the back of the stick on a face off - the "back catch" method. Check out chapter 7 Facing (face offs) -

http://books.google.com/books?id=J8E9AAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22William+George+Beers%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cNTRU6zwEJSlyASspoGAAw&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false


Re: NCAA Face Off Rule Changes
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
What do you think the original intent of the face off was? I believe it was for both Teams to have a 50-50 shot at getting ball. With specialized Individuals getting 60% or more of the balls and running off the field, I think spirit of the original rule is lost and changes should be made.



Did a little research and from the very first set of rules, the face off was meant to be a way for one team to have a distinct advantage. It turns out the Indians did not have face offs in their original game, so the white players could usually dominate in this area with a little practice. George Beers who wrote the original set of rules in 1860 wrote "when they (Indians) succeed at all at the present time (1869) with our best white facers, it is more an anticipatory ruse than any superior skill". In fact, even back then the players would pick up the ball on the back of the stick on a face off - the "back catch" method. Check out chapter 7 Facing (face offs) -

http://books.google.com/books?id=J8E9AAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22William+George+Beers%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cNTRU6zwEJSlyASspoGAAw&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false



Interesting. I especially like the part about excelling with a little practice. This position has certainly evolved. My favorite part of the game!!

Re: NCAA Face Off Rule Changes
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
What do you think the original intent of the face off was? I believe it was for both Teams to have a 50-50 shot at getting ball. With specialized Individuals getting 60% or more of the balls and running off the field, I think spirit of the original rule is lost and changes should be made.



Did a little research and from the very first set of rules, the face off was meant to be a way for one team to have a distinct advantage. It turns out the Indians did not have face offs in their original game, so the white players could usually dominate in this area with a little practice. George Beers who wrote the original set of rules in 1860 wrote "when they (Indians) succeed at all at the present time (1869) with our best white facers, it is more an anticipatory ruse than any superior skill". In fact, even back then the players would pick up the ball on the back of the stick on a face off - the "back catch" method. Check out chapter 7 Facing (face offs) -

http://books.google.com/books?id=J8E9AAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22William+George+Beers%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cNTRU6zwEJSlyASspoGAAw&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false



Interesting. I especially like the part about excelling with a little practice. This position has certainly evolved. My favorite part of the game!!
Enjoy it while it's still here

Re: NCAA Face Off Rule Changes
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
What do you think the original intent of the face off was? I believe it was for both Teams to have a 50-50 shot at getting ball. With specialized Individuals getting 60% or more of the balls and running off the field, I think spirit of the original rule is lost and changes should be made.



Did a little research and from the very first set of rules, the face off was meant to be a way for one team to have a distinct advantage. It turns out the Indians did not have face offs in their original game, so the white players could usually dominate in this area with a little practice. George Beers who wrote the original set of rules in 1860 wrote "when they (Indians) succeed at all at the present time (1869) with our best white facers, it is more an anticipatory ruse than any superior skill". In fact, even back then the players would pick up the ball on the back of the stick on a face off - the "back catch" method. Check out chapter 7 Facing (face offs) -

http://books.google.com/books?id=J8E9AAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22William+George+Beers%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cNTRU6zwEJSlyASspoGAAw&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false



Interesting. I especially like the part about excelling with a little practice. This position has certainly evolved. My favorite part of the game!!
Enjoy it while it's still here


Not going anywhere, just chatter from haters! Would never happen, I even spoke to several D1 coaches about this issue, and was told by every one of them that the F/O is safe. Deal with it.

Re: NCAA Face Off Rule Changes
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
What do you think the original intent of the face off was? I believe it was for both Teams to have a 50-50 shot at getting ball. With specialized Individuals getting 60% or more of the balls and running off the field, I think spirit of the original rule is lost and changes should be made.



Did a little research and from the very first set of rules, the face off was meant to be a way for one team to have a distinct advantage. It turns out the Indians did not have face offs in their original game, so the white players could usually dominate in this area with a little practice. George Beers who wrote the original set of rules in 1860 wrote "when they (Indians) succeed at all at the present time (1869) with our best white facers, it is more an anticipatory ruse than any superior skill". In fact, even back then the players would pick up the ball on the back of the stick on a face off - the "back catch" method. Check out chapter 7 Facing (face offs) -

http://books.google.com/books?id=J8E9AAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22William+George+Beers%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cNTRU6zwEJSlyASspoGAAw&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false



I heard the NCAA rules committe was waiting on Chief Fogonomore to weigh in on the change. When making these important decisions they should always refer to how the game was played a hundred and fifty years ago.

Re: NCAA Face Off Rule Changes
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
What do you think the original intent of the face off was? I believe it was for both Teams to have a 50-50 shot at getting ball. With specialized Individuals getting 60% or more of the balls and running off the field, I think spirit of the original rule is lost and changes should be made.



Did a little research and from the very first set of rules, the face off was meant to be a way for one team to have a distinct advantage. It turns out the Indians did not have face offs in their original game, so the white players could usually dominate in this area with a little practice. George Beers who wrote the original set of rules in 1860 wrote "when they (Indians) succeed at all at the present time (1869) with our best white facers, it is more an anticipatory ruse than any superior skill". In fact, even back then the players would pick up the ball on the back of the stick on a face off - the "back catch" method. Check out chapter 7 Facing (face offs) -

http://books.google.com/books?id=J8E9AAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22William+George+Beers%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cNTRU6zwEJSlyASspoGAAw&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false



Interesting. I especially like the part about excelling with a little practice. This position has certainly evolved. My favorite part of the game!!
Enjoy it while it's still here


Not going anywhere, just chatter from haters! Would never happen, I even spoke to several D1 coaches about this issue, and was told by every one of them that the F/O is safe. Deal with it.


I spoke with a few who I am friends with and they don't want to rock the boat with their FOGO recruits because nothing has been decided yet. They feel it might happen but can't tell the kids that at this time for their own teams sake.

Re: NCAA Face Off Rule Changes
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Great article in Lacrosse Magazine this month on possible changes to the face off. They focus on how the face off was eliminated in 1979 and was a big disappointment and was reinstated in 1980. Seems like there will always be face offs at some level based on this article.

Re: NCAA Face Off Rule Changes
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
What do you think the original intent of the face off was? I believe it was for both Teams to have a 50-50 shot at getting ball. With specialized Individuals getting 60% or more of the balls and running off the field, I think spirit of the original rule is lost and changes should be made.



Did a little research and from the very first set of rules, the face off was meant to be a way for one team to have a distinct advantage. It turns out the Indians did not have face offs in their original game, so the white players could usually dominate in this area with a little practice. George Beers who wrote the original set of rules in 1860 wrote "when they (Indians) succeed at all at the present time (1869) with our best white facers, it is more an anticipatory ruse than any superior skill". In fact, even back then the players would pick up the ball on the back of the stick on a face off - the "back catch" method. Check out chapter 7 Facing (face offs) -

http://books.google.com/books?id=J8E9AAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22William+George+Beers%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cNTRU6zwEJSlyASspoGAAw&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false



Interesting. I especially like the part about excelling with a little practice. This position has certainly evolved. My favorite part of the game!!
Enjoy it while it's still here


Not going anywhere, just chatter from haters! Would never happen, I even spoke to several D1 coaches about this issue, and was told by every one of them that the F/O is safe. Deal with it.


I spoke with a few who I am friends with and they don't want to rock the boat with their FOGO recruits because nothing has been decided yet. They feel it might happen but can't tell the kids that at this time for their own teams sake.


And I might win the power ball tonight. I don't want to tell anyone yet though because they might get jealous.

Re: NCAA Face Off Rule Changes
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
some of you think FOGO going away because it slows down the game...another guys has some college lacrosse coaches as friends and also thinks the position is going away, but Duke goes out and takes a proven FOGO from Stony Brook today?

Syracuse searching hard for a better FOGO?

UNC, VIrgina, Upenn, Penn State, Princeton all recruited 2017 for FOGO? Come on people, you may not like the position, you might not think it is fair for one player/position to have an impact on the game, but the schools are fielding the best FOGOs they can find...

I am sure, if they all thought it was going away, they wouldn't have been recruiting 2018s at Jake Reed...why would they waste their time?

So, no matter if you like the position or its impact, common sense tells you that the top schools would not waste their time recruiting FOGO for 3 years hence if they thought the position was going away...

Re: NCAA Face Off Rule Changes
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by Anonymous
some of you think FOGO going away because it slows down the game...another guys has some college lacrosse coaches as friends and also thinks the position is going away, but Duke goes out and takes a proven FOGO from Stony Brook today?

Syracuse searching hard for a better FOGO?

UNC, VIrgina, Upenn, Penn State, Princeton all recruited 2017 for FOGO? Come on people, you may not like the position, you might not think it is fair for one player/position to have an impact on the game, but the schools are fielding the best FOGOs they can find...

I am sure, if they all thought it was going away, they wouldn't have been recruiting 2018s at Jake Reed...why would they waste their time?

So, no matter if you like the position or its impact, common sense tells you that the top schools would not waste their time recruiting FOGO for 3 years hence if they thought the position was going away...


Well said, and most importantly it adds a special excitement to the game. Needs to stay if the sport wants to grow. Rules changers are like school administrators. Always trying to reinvent an already well-oiled wheel!

Re: NCAA Face Off Rule Changes
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
some of you think FOGO going away because it slows down the game...another guys has some college lacrosse coaches as friends and also thinks the position is going away, but Duke goes out and takes a proven FOGO from Stony Brook today?

Syracuse searching hard for a better FOGO?

UNC, VIrgina, Upenn, Penn State, Princeton all recruited 2017 for FOGO? Come on people, you may not like the position, you might not think it is fair for one player/position to have an impact on the game, but the schools are fielding the best FOGOs they can find...

I am sure, if they all thought it was going away, they wouldn't have been recruiting 2018s at Jake Reed...why would they waste their time?

So, no matter if you like the position or its impact, common sense tells you that the top schools would not waste their time recruiting FOGO for 3 years hence if they thought the position was going away...


Well said, and most importantly it adds a special excitement to the game. Needs to stay if the sport wants to grow. Rules changers are like school administrators. Always trying to reinvent an already well-oiled wheel!


Of course they are still going to recruit those kids. Until it gets eliminated you would have to. I don't think it will happen next year but I do see it being eliminated down the road. Just like long pole midfielders wee added . Back in the 80's no one did that. the game evolves and changes are made by the administrators to make the game better. It's pretty simple if you ask me so don't fight it

Re: NCAA Face Off Rule Changes
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
some of you think FOGO going away because it slows down the game...another guys has some college lacrosse coaches as friends and also thinks the position is going away, but Duke goes out and takes a proven FOGO from Stony Brook today?

Syracuse searching hard for a better FOGO?

UNC, VIrgina, Upenn, Penn State, Princeton all recruited 2017 for FOGO? Come on people, you may not like the position, you might not think it is fair for one player/position to have an impact on the game, but the schools are fielding the best FOGOs they can find...

I am sure, if they all thought it was going away, they wouldn't have been recruiting 2018s at Jake Reed...why would they waste their time?

So, no matter if you like the position or its impact, common sense tells you that the top schools would not waste their time recruiting FOGO for 3 years hence if they thought the position was going away...


Well said, and most importantly it adds a special excitement to the game. Needs to stay if the sport wants to grow. Rules changers are like school administrators. Always trying to reinvent an already well-oiled wheel!


Of course they are still going to recruit those kids. Until it gets eliminated you would have to. I don't think it will happen next year but I do see it being eliminated down the road. Just like long pole midfielders wee added . Back in the 80's no one did that. the game evolves and changes are made by the administrators to make the game better. It's pretty simple if you ask me so don't fight it


Things always seem simple to a simpleton. F/O has evolved to the great position it has become and there is no reason to change it. The only people that don't like it are those whose team lacks a good one. Stop crying!

Re: NCAA Face Off Rule Changes
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
That is correct, of course they will recruit because as of now it is still in the rules. I however, would not have a 5th grader specializing as a FOGO, in fact, I don't think any kid should specialize before college. Because you are totally limiting yourself. And, if a a coach is pushing your son to specialize, in my opinion, that is bad advice! Of course practice the FO, but also practice off hand, stick work and defense! So, if the rule changes you still have options!

Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard












Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.4