Schools do what they think is best for themselves, as do athletic conferences. Leave the grudges to the fans - it makes for great rivalries. AD's. coaches & university presidents need to care more about the bottom line and the health of their programs than thinking they have the power to punish another school that has acted in its own best interests.

(02-01-2013 01:52 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-01-2013 09:14 AM)HtownOrange Wrote:  Thanks, Terry. I can never remember the names and such. Michigan's collective stupidity help to build ND mystique.

If UNC and Duke shun Maryland, there will probably be no real lasting effect on Maryland.

Eh, the only relationship that might be severed that I care about is UMD/UVA.

You might have some trouble there since typically UVA doesn't go to the restroom without clearing it with Chapel Hill first.

(02-01-2013 04:02 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(02-01-2013 10:08 AM)7fielder Wrote:  Pitt fans can attest to that!

Sorry, I forgot Mr. Bitter himself. He blamed both Syracuse and Pitt for blocking PSU from entering the Big East BF (Before Football). He refused to play either one for many moons, it was nearly 20 years before he got over his ignorance.

The irony is that we voted for PSU. Nobody ever knowingly (and accurately) accused Joe Pa of not being a COMPLETE waste of humanity in EVERY sense of the word.

As an Italian-American, I think that we should disown Joe and everyone closely related to him.

I disliked Joe since I was 11 years old (in 1968), growing up in Southwestern Pennsylvania.

I thought then that he was an arrogant, embittered bully. Time never changed my opinions of him.

(01-30-2013 02:38 PM)7fielder Wrote:  

(01-30-2013 02:00 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-30-2013 11:36 AM)westmc9th Wrote:  Apparently Hopkins is pulling strings not only in the B1G but also within the ACC, would you guys prefer Hopkins join the ACC to make a "super conference" in Lacrosse or get Pitt and another school to form a team. 8/11 schools must approve their addition.

FYI that would give the ACC Syracuse, UNC, Hopkins, Duke, UVA all ranked in the top 20. I believe this would sell on an ACC Network... Yes?

There are 4 teams that matter in Lax. Those teams are Syracuse, UVA, Princeton, and Johns Hopkins.

After that, UNC, Duke, UMD, and Cornell kind of matter.

Obviously there are good teams that have bad years (SU last year), and non-big four teams that have great years here and there (i.e. Notre Dame was good last year). But, there are only 4 teams that I would call elite and the next four below them are also on their own level. Adding JH would give the ACC 3 of the top 4, and 2 of the next 4. That's pretty sick, and that isn't even counting ND who, like I said earlier, is capable of putting together excellent years.

However, I still think we should make a move on PSU and Texas as partials (6 football games/yr plus full members in everything else). PSU would give us a 6th lax team, and the ACC is already loaded in lax, so the conference's lax problem would be solved. PSU and Texas have excellent olympic sports, and both schools move the football needle more than ND most years (in fact, Texas does every year). Also, even though PSU bball is REALLY bad, the ACC is strong enough in basketball to make that a non-issue, and adding Texas would make the conference even stronger.

And for anyone who things that partials will doom the conference, apparently the B1G, which is arguably the strongest conference, is flirting with a partial (see OP), and the Pac-12, which has the highest media deal, has partials. It's all a matter of how many you have compared to the rest of the conference, and how much money you give 'em. The BIG EAST failed because half the conference consisted of partial members and they got paid crazy money in compared to the full members. As long as the ACC keeps the numebrs and the dollars in check, then we will be fine.

One would argue if you have won or been to the National Championship game in the last half dozen years, then you matter?

Do you also think Auburn football equals Alabama football?

EDIT: I think this comes off snarkier than I mean it to, so try to read it in a non-snarky voice.

(02-02-2013 10:42 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-30-2013 02:38 PM)7fielder Wrote:  

(01-30-2013 02:00 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-30-2013 11:36 AM)westmc9th Wrote:  Apparently Hopkins is pulling strings not only in the B1G but also within the ACC, would you guys prefer Hopkins join the ACC to make a "super conference" in Lacrosse or get Pitt and another school to form a team. 8/11 schools must approve their addition.

FYI that would give the ACC Syracuse, UNC, Hopkins, Duke, UVA all ranked in the top 20. I believe this would sell on an ACC Network... Yes?

There are 4 teams that matter in Lax. Those teams are Syracuse, UVA, Princeton, and Johns Hopkins.

After that, UNC, Duke, UMD, and Cornell kind of matter.

Obviously there are good teams that have bad years (SU last year), and non-big four teams that have great years here and there (i.e. Notre Dame was good last year). But, there are only 4 teams that I would call elite and the next four below them are also on their own level. Adding JH would give the ACC 3 of the top 4, and 2 of the next 4. That's pretty sick, and that isn't even counting ND who, like I said earlier, is capable of putting together excellent years.

However, I still think we should make a move on PSU and Texas as partials (6 football games/yr plus full members in everything else). PSU would give us a 6th lax team, and the ACC is already loaded in lax, so the conference's lax problem would be solved. PSU and Texas have excellent olympic sports, and both schools move the football needle more than ND most years (in fact, Texas does every year). Also, even though PSU bball is REALLY bad, the ACC is strong enough in basketball to make that a non-issue, and adding Texas would make the conference even stronger.

And for anyone who things that partials will doom the conference, apparently the B1G, which is arguably the strongest conference, is flirting with a partial (see OP), and the Pac-12, which has the highest media deal, has partials. It's all a matter of how many you have compared to the rest of the conference, and how much money you give 'em. The BIG EAST failed because half the conference consisted of partial members and they got paid crazy money in compared to the full members. As long as the ACC keeps the numebrs and the dollars in check, then we will be fine.

One would argue if you have won or been to the National Championship game in the last half dozen years, then you matter?

Do you also think Auburn football equals Alabama football?

EDIT: I think this comes off snarkier than I mean it to, so try to read it in a non-snarky voice.

Two trips to the national championships in two years, I think we matter (at least for now). UMD has also never had a losing season. Ever. Which is a bigger deal if you consider that we had to play the rest of the ACC schools twice each season and Hopkins every year.

88 seasons without a losing record.

We may not be the best team out there, but we are taken seriously each and every season.

(02-02-2013 10:18 AM)TerryD Wrote:  I disliked Joe since I was 11 years old (in 1968), growing up in Southwestern Pennsylvania.

I thought then that he was an arrogant, embittered bully. Time never changed my opinions of him.

And don't forget holier than thou.

(01-31-2013 11:40 AM)ej6687 Wrote:  Gymnastics would be a needed addition, since the ACC will need another program to form a gymnastics league when Maryland leaves. Currently, they all compete in the EAGL, but WVU left this past season and Rutgers and Maryland will leave in 2014-2015 season (likely). UNC, NC St and Pitt are the only other schools that offer the sport right now.

One thing I do know for certain is that Jurich loves having all of UofL's sports programs under a single conference banner. He's mentioned that several times over the years when talking about the Big East versus C-USA (no field hockey) and more recently when talking about the ACC versus Big 12 (no soccer).

So my guess is that if UofL decided to sponsor men's LAX, Jurich would try to add a women's sport that the ACC sponsors (we currently sponsor every women's sport offered by the ACC). So I have a feeling that gymnastics would be the one added.

With that said, I wouldn't expect UofL to add either sport anytime soon. As I mentioned in an earlier post, UofL already has a ton of projects on deck (i.e. new soccer stadium, expanding softball stadium, redoing the old soccer stadium for all track events, etc) and a lot of debt service it needs to retire on its football stadium (still owes money for the original stadium construction plus the expansion).

(02-01-2013 04:02 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(02-01-2013 10:08 AM)7fielder Wrote:  

(01-31-2013 05:36 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(01-31-2013 05:23 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(01-30-2013 05:06 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  Oh, sure the rest of the ACC is going to blacklist UMD (which is unfortunate, we have a lot of great history and the players and fans shouldn't be punished for the decision of two people). But even if the ACC mandates that UMD is now "the school that shall not be named or played" we will still play Hopkins. Good luck getting them to join if it involves them dropping the biggest rivalry in college lacrosse.

I wouldn't bet on that.

I do know that the "powers that be" at Clemson have been reminded that in 1952 Clemson and Maryland stuck together, the ties between the two schools (Thomas Green Clemson was part of the founding of Maryland Agricultural College and his will lead to Clemson) and that with Maryland now in a different conference they would fit the profile we are seeking for future OOC series: A top conference, a regional opponent, great media exposure, and a fertile recruiting area. We might not play every year, but I could see a minimum of a football series a decade, and especially y'all becoming a fixture on our early season baseball schedule.

Catdaddy is right and most other schools will not hold grudges. Those that do usually only do so until certain powers that be leave the school/die off.TerryD is better able to present this, but ND was blacklisted by the Michigan led B1G (whatever it was way back then) because it was Catholic. Once the DIC (Dude in Charge) passed from the scene, things quieted down and we all know Michigan and ND have had some great games the last several decades.

BC faced some backlash as did VATech when they left the Big East for the ACC.

MAryland will survive, most ACC schools will not hold a grudge.

Pitt fans can attest to that!

Sorry, I forgot Mr. Bitter himself. He blamed both Syracuse and Pitt for blocking PSU from entering the Big East BF (Before Football). He refused to play either one for many moons, it was nearly 20 years before he got over his ignorance.

He never got over it in regards to Pitt...

(02-02-2013 10:42 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-30-2013 02:38 PM)7fielder Wrote:  

(01-30-2013 02:00 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-30-2013 11:36 AM)westmc9th Wrote:  Apparently Hopkins is pulling strings not only in the B1G but also within the ACC, would you guys prefer Hopkins join the ACC to make a "super conference" in Lacrosse or get Pitt and another school to form a team. 8/11 schools must approve their addition.

FYI that would give the ACC Syracuse, UNC, Hopkins, Duke, UVA all ranked in the top 20. I believe this would sell on an ACC Network... Yes?

There are 4 teams that matter in Lax. Those teams are Syracuse, UVA, Princeton, and Johns Hopkins.

After that, UNC, Duke, UMD, and Cornell kind of matter.

Obviously there are good teams that have bad years (SU last year), and non-big four teams that have great years here and there (i.e. Notre Dame was good last year). But, there are only 4 teams that I would call elite and the next four below them are also on their own level. Adding JH would give the ACC 3 of the top 4, and 2 of the next 4. That's pretty sick, and that isn't even counting ND who, like I said earlier, is capable of putting together excellent years.

However, I still think we should make a move on PSU and Texas as partials (6 football games/yr plus full members in everything else). PSU would give us a 6th lax team, and the ACC is already loaded in lax, so the conference's lax problem would be solved. PSU and Texas have excellent olympic sports, and both schools move the football needle more than ND most years (in fact, Texas does every year). Also, even though PSU bball is REALLY bad, the ACC is strong enough in basketball to make that a non-issue, and adding Texas would make the conference even stronger.

And for anyone who things that partials will doom the conference, apparently the B1G, which is arguably the strongest conference, is flirting with a partial (see OP), and the Pac-12, which has the highest media deal, has partials. It's all a matter of how many you have compared to the rest of the conference, and how much money you give 'em. The BIG EAST failed because half the conference consisted of partial members and they got paid crazy money in compared to the full members. As long as the ACC keeps the numebrs and the dollars in check, then we will be fine.

One would argue if you have won or been to the National Championship game in the last half dozen years, then you matter?

Do you also think Auburn football equals Alabama football?

EDIT: I think this comes off snarkier than I mean it to, so try to read it in a non-snarky voice.

No I don't think Auburn equals Bama... but I do think Auburn matters in college football.

I think Duke, MD and Notre Dame matter now in lax. I might also say that Princeton doesn't matter nearly as much as they used to?

(02-02-2013 04:02 PM)7fielder Wrote:  

(02-02-2013 10:42 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-30-2013 02:38 PM)7fielder Wrote:  

(01-30-2013 02:00 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-30-2013 11:36 AM)westmc9th Wrote:  Apparently Hopkins is pulling strings not only in the B1G but also within the ACC, would you guys prefer Hopkins join the ACC to make a "super conference" in Lacrosse or get Pitt and another school to form a team. 8/11 schools must approve their addition.

FYI that would give the ACC Syracuse, UNC, Hopkins, Duke, UVA all ranked in the top 20. I believe this would sell on an ACC Network... Yes?

There are 4 teams that matter in Lax. Those teams are Syracuse, UVA, Princeton, and Johns Hopkins.

After that, UNC, Duke, UMD, and Cornell kind of matter.

Obviously there are good teams that have bad years (SU last year), and non-big four teams that have great years here and there (i.e. Notre Dame was good last year). But, there are only 4 teams that I would call elite and the next four below them are also on their own level. Adding JH would give the ACC 3 of the top 4, and 2 of the next 4. That's pretty sick, and that isn't even counting ND who, like I said earlier, is capable of putting together excellent years.

However, I still think we should make a move on PSU and Texas as partials (6 football games/yr plus full members in everything else). PSU would give us a 6th lax team, and the ACC is already loaded in lax, so the conference's lax problem would be solved. PSU and Texas have excellent olympic sports, and both schools move the football needle more than ND most years (in fact, Texas does every year). Also, even though PSU bball is REALLY bad, the ACC is strong enough in basketball to make that a non-issue, and adding Texas would make the conference even stronger.

And for anyone who things that partials will doom the conference, apparently the B1G, which is arguably the strongest conference, is flirting with a partial (see OP), and the Pac-12, which has the highest media deal, has partials. It's all a matter of how many you have compared to the rest of the conference, and how much money you give 'em. The BIG EAST failed because half the conference consisted of partial members and they got paid crazy money in compared to the full members. As long as the ACC keeps the numebrs and the dollars in check, then we will be fine.

One would argue if you have won or been to the National Championship game in the last half dozen years, then you matter?

Do you also think Auburn football equals Alabama football?

EDIT: I think this comes off snarkier than I mean it to, so try to read it in a non-snarky voice.

No I don't think Auburn equals Bama... but I do think Auburn matters in college football.

I think Duke, MD and Notre Dame matter now in lax. I might also say that Princeton doesn't matter nearly as much as they used to?

Up until 2-3 years ago, there was a 20+ year stretch where only big four teams had won a NC. If Alabama was as important in lax as they are at football, the difference between Prin, UVA, SU, and JH and alabama would be like the difference between alabama and auburn in football.

Saying teams like UMD matter in lax in the sense that SU/UVA/Prin/JH matter is like saying Syracuse fb matters in football in the sense that ND matters in football. Unfortunately, we just don't. Don't get me wrong, we aren't unimportant, and we have had many great accomplishments (we are 15 in wins, we have knocked off big-time teams, we have won NC's we have multiple no loss seasons, awards are named after SU grads, we've won a maxwell, we'ev won a heisman, we are #5 in Hall of Famers, and so on). Heck, we have even made substantial changes to the game (i.e. Ernie Davis broke the color barrier and the "ND v. SU rule") However, despite that, nobody sees ND and Syracuse as equals in general football importance.

I'm not putting ND/Duke/UMD down. They have a good program, but there is a big four, and they are not in it. The same is true for UNC, Cornell, and every other team that aspires to be great.

That said, losing a coach to Denver is not a bright moment in Prin's lax history.

Sorry, I don't see Princeton as part of the Big 4 anymore...

(02-04-2013 01:58 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(02-02-2013 04:02 PM)7fielder Wrote:  

(02-02-2013 10:42 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-30-2013 02:38 PM)7fielder Wrote:  

(01-30-2013 02:00 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  There are 4 teams that matter in Lax. Those teams are Syracuse, UVA, Princeton, and Johns Hopkins.

After that, UNC, Duke, UMD, and Cornell kind of matter.

Obviously there are good teams that have bad years (SU last year), and non-big four teams that have great years here and there (i.e. Notre Dame was good last year). But, there are only 4 teams that I would call elite and the next four below them are also on their own level. Adding JH would give the ACC 3 of the top 4, and 2 of the next 4. That's pretty sick, and that isn't even counting ND who, like I said earlier, is capable of putting together excellent years.

However, I still think we should make a move on PSU and Texas as partials (6 football games/yr plus full members in everything else). PSU would give us a 6th lax team, and the ACC is already loaded in lax, so the conference's lax problem would be solved. PSU and Texas have excellent olympic sports, and both schools move the football needle more than ND most years (in fact, Texas does every year). Also, even though PSU bball is REALLY bad, the ACC is strong enough in basketball to make that a non-issue, and adding Texas would make the conference even stronger.

And for anyone who things that partials will doom the conference, apparently the B1G, which is arguably the strongest conference, is flirting with a partial (see OP), and the Pac-12, which has the highest media deal, has partials. It's all a matter of how many you have compared to the rest of the conference, and how much money you give 'em. The BIG EAST failed because half the conference consisted of partial members and they got paid crazy money in compared to the full members. As long as the ACC keeps the numebrs and the dollars in check, then we will be fine.

One would argue if you have won or been to the National Championship game in the last half dozen years, then you matter?

Do you also think Auburn football equals Alabama football?

EDIT: I think this comes off snarkier than I mean it to, so try to read it in a non-snarky voice.

No I don't think Auburn equals Bama... but I do think Auburn matters in college football.

I think Duke, MD and Notre Dame matter now in lax. I might also say that Princeton doesn't matter nearly as much as they used to?

Up until 2-3 years ago, there was a 20+ year stretch where only big four teams had won a NC. If Alabama was as important in lax as they are at football, the difference between Prin, UVA, SU, and JH and alabama would be like the difference between alabama and auburn in football.

Saying teams like UMD matter in lax in the sense that SU/UVA/Prin/JH matter is like saying Syracuse fb matters in football in the sense that ND matters in football. Unfortunately, we just don't. Don't get me wrong, we aren't unimportant, and we have had many great accomplishments (we are 15 in wins, we have knocked off big-time teams, we have won NC's we have multiple no loss seasons, awards are named after SU grads, we've won a maxwell, we'ev won a heisman, we are #5 in Hall of Famers, and so on). Heck, we have even made substantial changes to the game (i.e. Ernie Davis broke the color barrier and the "ND v. SU rule") However, despite that, nobody sees ND and Syracuse as equals in general football importance.

I'm not putting ND/Duke/UMD down. They have a good program, but there is a big four, and they are not in it. The same is true for UNC, Cornell, and every other team that aspires to be great.

That said, losing a coach to Denver is not a bright moment in Prin's lax history.

All-time Tournament game wins:
Hopkins - 68
Syracuse - 62
Maryland - 48
Virginia - 48
Cornell - 30
Princeton - 30
North Carolina - 27
Duke - 20

Note the big drop between Hopkins / Syracuse and Maryland / Virginia for all-time program powerhouse. I like tournament game wins because it covers both how often the teams play in the tournament and how successful they are in it.

Now let's take a look at recent history at the very top:

National Championship Appearances in the last 10 Years:
Hopkins - 4
Duke - 3
Syracuse - 3
Virginia - 3
Maryland - 2
Cornell - 1
Loyola - 1
UMass - 1
Navy - 1
Notre Dame - 1
Princeton - 0

If anything, I'd say there is a "Big 2" at the hyper-elite level, with the ACC teams just below that.

And for what it's worth, over the last five years, UMD is 3 - 3 against Hopkins and 1 - 1 against Syracuse.

(02-04-2013 06:11 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 01:58 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(02-02-2013 04:02 PM)7fielder Wrote:  

(02-02-2013 10:42 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-30-2013 02:38 PM)7fielder Wrote:  One would argue if you have won or been to the National Championship game in the last half dozen years, then you matter?

Do you also think Auburn football equals Alabama football?

EDIT: I think this comes off snarkier than I mean it to, so try to read it in a non-snarky voice.

No I don't think Auburn equals Bama... but I do think Auburn matters in college football.

I think Duke, MD and Notre Dame matter now in lax. I might also say that Princeton doesn't matter nearly as much as they used to?

Up until 2-3 years ago, there was a 20+ year stretch where only big four teams had won a NC. If Alabama was as important in lax as they are at football, the difference between Prin, UVA, SU, and JH and alabama would be like the difference between alabama and auburn in football.

Saying teams like UMD matter in lax in the sense that SU/UVA/Prin/JH matter is like saying Syracuse fb matters in football in the sense that ND matters in football. Unfortunately, we just don't. Don't get me wrong, we aren't unimportant, and we have had many great accomplishments (we are 15 in wins, we have knocked off big-time teams, we have won NC's we have multiple no loss seasons, awards are named after SU grads, we've won a maxwell, we'ev won a heisman, we are #5 in Hall of Famers, and so on). Heck, we have even made substantial changes to the game (i.e. Ernie Davis broke the color barrier and the "ND v. SU rule") However, despite that, nobody sees ND and Syracuse as equals in general football importance.

I'm not putting ND/Duke/UMD down. They have a good program, but there is a big four, and they are not in it. The same is true for UNC, Cornell, and every other team that aspires to be great.

That said, losing a coach to Denver is not a bright moment in Prin's lax history.

All-time Tournament game wins:
Hopkins - 68
Syracuse - 62
Maryland - 48
Virginia - 48
Cornell - 30
Princeton - 30
North Carolina - 27
Duke - 20

Note the big drop between Hopkins / Syracuse and Maryland / Virginia for all-time program powerhouse. I like tournament game wins because it covers both how often the teams play in the tournament and how successful they are in it.

Now let's take a look at recent history at the very top:

National Championship Appearances in the last 10 Years:
Hopkins - 4
Duke - 3
Syracuse - 3
Virginia - 3
Maryland - 2
Cornell - 1
Loyola - 1
UMass - 1
Navy - 1
Notre Dame - 1
Princeton - 0

If anything, I'd say there is a "Big 2" at the hyper-elite level, with the ACC teams just below that.

And for what it's worth, over the last five years, UMD is 3 - 3 against Hopkins and 1 - 1 against Syracuse.

From '92 to '09 only 4 teams made it from '78-'09 only 5 teams won (UNC had one in the early '90's and a couple in the '80's). I'm not saying that UMD is bad, nor have I ever said that. I'm just saying they aren't part of the club. The last time Maryland won was 1975. Yes, UMD has made it to the game since then, but winning is what seperates the elite from the good. Yes, non "big four" teams have won it 2 of the last 3 years, so maybe times are changing, but it will be a while before the rest of the world can call us equals. Don't get me wrong, though Duke, UMD, and UNC are 3 of the next group of 4, but just like Oregon and Auburn aren't as "elite" as Notre Dame and Alabama, even though they may be better some years, Duke, UNC, Cornell, and UMD aren't as "elite" as Syracuse, JH, UVA, and Princeton, even though they may be better some years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Men's_...ampionship

(02-06-2013 11:29 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 06:11 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 01:58 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(02-02-2013 04:02 PM)7fielder Wrote:  

(02-02-2013 10:42 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  Do you also think Auburn football equals Alabama football?

EDIT: I think this comes off snarkier than I mean it to, so try to read it in a non-snarky voice.

No I don't think Auburn equals Bama... but I do think Auburn matters in college football.

I think Duke, MD and Notre Dame matter now in lax. I might also say that Princeton doesn't matter nearly as much as they used to?

Up until 2-3 years ago, there was a 20+ year stretch where only big four teams had won a NC. If Alabama was as important in lax as they are at football, the difference between Prin, UVA, SU, and JH and alabama would be like the difference between alabama and auburn in football.

Saying teams like UMD matter in lax in the sense that SU/UVA/Prin/JH matter is like saying Syracuse fb matters in football in the sense that ND matters in football. Unfortunately, we just don't. Don't get me wrong, we aren't unimportant, and we have had many great accomplishments (we are 15 in wins, we have knocked off big-time teams, we have won NC's we have multiple no loss seasons, awards are named after SU grads, we've won a maxwell, we'ev won a heisman, we are #5 in Hall of Famers, and so on). Heck, we have even made substantial changes to the game (i.e. Ernie Davis broke the color barrier and the "ND v. SU rule") However, despite that, nobody sees ND and Syracuse as equals in general football importance.

I'm not putting ND/Duke/UMD down. They have a good program, but there is a big four, and they are not in it. The same is true for UNC, Cornell, and every other team that aspires to be great.

That said, losing a coach to Denver is not a bright moment in Prin's lax history.

All-time Tournament game wins:
Hopkins - 68
Syracuse - 62
Maryland - 48
Virginia - 48
Cornell - 30
Princeton - 30
North Carolina - 27
Duke - 20

Note the big drop between Hopkins / Syracuse and Maryland / Virginia for all-time program powerhouse. I like tournament game wins because it covers both how often the teams play in the tournament and how successful they are in it.

Now let's take a look at recent history at the very top:

National Championship Appearances in the last 10 Years:
Hopkins - 4
Duke - 3
Syracuse - 3
Virginia - 3
Maryland - 2
Cornell - 1
Loyola - 1
UMass - 1
Navy - 1
Notre Dame - 1
Princeton - 0

If anything, I'd say there is a "Big 2" at the hyper-elite level, with the ACC teams just below that.

And for what it's worth, over the last five years, UMD is 3 - 3 against Hopkins and 1 - 1 against Syracuse.

From '92 to '09 only 4 teams made it from '78-'09 only 5 teams won (UNC had one in the early '90's and a couple in the '80's). I'm not saying that UMD is bad, nor have I ever said that. I'm just saying they aren't part of the club. The last time Maryland won was 1975. Yes, UMD has made it to the game since then, but winning is what seperates the elite from the good. Yes, non "big four" teams have won it 2 of the last 3 years, so maybe times are changing, but it will be a while before the rest of the world can call us equals. Don't get me wrong, though Duke, UMD, and UNC are 3 of the next group of 4, but just like Oregon and Auburn aren't as "elite" as Notre Dame and Alabama, even though they may be better some years, Duke, UNC, Cornell, and UMD aren't as "elite" as Syracuse, JH, UVA, and Princeton, even though they may be better some years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Men's_...ampionship

Syracuse and Hopkins are at that hyper-elite level, no doubt.

Princeton and UVA have "dropped" to the UMD/Duke/Cornell level.

What? UVA won the national championship 17 months ago? Duke the year before that?

Big four right now are Cuse, Hopkins, Duke, UVA.

Next level... UMD, Cornell, Notre Dame, UNC and I put Princeton beneath them.

(02-07-2013 10:13 AM)7fielder Wrote:  What? UVA won the national championship 17 months ago? Duke the year before that?

Big four right now are Cuse, Hopkins, Duke, UVA.

Next level... UMD, Cornell, Notre Dame, UNC and I put Princeton beneath them.

Loyola won it last year and none of the "big four" were even in the final four.

(02-07-2013 10:42 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-07-2013 10:13 AM)7fielder Wrote:  What? UVA won the national championship 17 months ago? Duke the year before that?

Big four right now are Cuse, Hopkins, Duke, UVA.

Next level... UMD, Cornell, Notre Dame, UNC and I put Princeton beneath them.

Loyola won it last year and none of the "big four" were even in the final four.

And Auburn played Oregon in a NC game in football a couple of years ago (2?), but I would be amazed if anyone thinks either Auburn or Oregon are on the same level as either Alabama or Notre Dame.

Like the above example, you are describing short term variance, not a team's actual position.

Duke has exactly one NC in the modern era. Calling them elite is insane.

Similarily, one off year by the big four doesn't mean they are no longer elite. Times may be changing, but it will be a while before the big four fade away. That said, I do agree that Princeton is the weakest of the big four (by far), and I (obviously) do agree that UVA is without a doubt a member of the big four. Saying UVA isn't an elite lax team is like saying Ohio State football isn't elite.

(02-07-2013 11:15 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(02-07-2013 10:42 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-07-2013 10:13 AM)7fielder Wrote:  What? UVA won the national championship 17 months ago? Duke the year before that?

Big four right now are Cuse, Hopkins, Duke, UVA.

Next level... UMD, Cornell, Notre Dame, UNC and I put Princeton beneath them.

Loyola won it last year and none of the "big four" were even in the final four.

And Auburn played Oregon in a NC game in football a couple of years ago (2?), but I would be amazed if anyone thinks either Auburn or Oregon are on the same level as either Alabama or Notre Dame.

Like the above example, you are describing short term variance, not a team's actual position.

Duke has exactly one NC in the modern era. Calling them elite is insane.

Similarily, one off year by the big four doesn't mean they are no longer elite. Times may be changing, but it will be a while before the big four fade away. That said, I do agree that Princeton is the weakest of the big four (by far), and I (obviously) do agree that UVA is without a doubt a member of the big four. Saying UVA isn't an elite lax team is like saying Ohio State football isn't elite.

I'm only saying that UVA is not at the same level as Hopkins and Syracuse.

This thread summed up in video format.