BOTC - US Lacrosse Community Forum Forums NORTHEAST LACROSSE BOTC MAIN FORUM (LI, CT, WC) 2021-2022 Women's DI-III College Lacrosse Season

Division III Women’s Lacrosse

Rank Institution Points (FPV) Last Poll
1 Salisbury (0 - 0) 547 (19) 4
2 Tufts (0 - 0) 529 (3) 3
3 St. John Fisher (0 - 0) 475 9
4 Ithaca (0 - 0) 432 11
5 Washington & Lee (0 - 0) 401 2
6 William Smith (0 - 0) 385 16
7 Franklin & Marshall (0 - 0) 378 1
8 Messiah (0 - 0) 374 10
9 Gettysburg (0 - 0) 363 5
10 TCNJ (0 - 0) 359 14
11 Middlebury (0 - 0) 352 NR
12 Denison (0 - 0) 279 8
13 Cortland (0 - 0) 276 13
14 Catholic (DC) (0 - 0) 250 6
15 Colby (0 - 0) 236 7
16 Brockport (0 - 0) 223 17
17 Wesleyan (CT) (0 - 0) 188 12
18 York (0 - 0) 156 15
19 Amherst (0 - 0) 138 NR
20 Trinity (0 - 0) 101 20
21 Bowdoin (0 - 0) 99 NR
22 Geneseo (0 - 0) 92 18
23 Hamilton (0 - 0) 78 19
24 Christopher Newport (0 - 0) 62 21
25 Chicago (0 - 0) 51 21

It will come down to RPI, quality wins and strength of schedule etc… as The NCAA defines them…. They have done some odd things in the past… especially on the Men’s side.

We will not know who falls where until the regular season ends. Stony Brook has done a good job over the years at scheduling high caliber programs for their OOC games. JMU always plays challenging OOC schedule as well. As stated above , we will not know how it all shake out until the games are played but it looks like JMU has the tougher row to [ChillLaxin].

All SBU and JMU can do now is play who they have on the schedule.

The good news for SBU is the “projected” top four teams on their schedule have some challenges to deal with. Syracuse has a new coach and some injury issues. Florida lost a lot of mainstays to graduation. Princeton has been off for two years. NOrthwestern is without their strongest offensive player.

JMU and Stony Brook will now be competing with ACC, B1G, Ivy and any other conference that usually gets multiple Bids.

It should be interesting to say the least, every game will matter and it could very much come down to head to head. Syracuse, Florida, Princeton, Dartmouth and Hopkins are critical because of the importance of Head to Head outcomes when deciding who gets an at large bid.

Did some SB research because numbers seemed off ( not shocked ) was actually interesting to look back on box scores during Spallina’s tenure they are 36 -25 vs Top 20 opponents was interesting to look at results before he arrived they were terrible. Every season on their archive has the rank of teams on their schedule. Regardless so glad games start this week

The numbers are not off.

You looked at where the opponents were ranked when the games were played, rankings change throughout the season based on performance. The numbers in the previous post reflect Stony Brooks Record vs the opponents actual end of season "Final Ranking" which is the only ranking worth anything. Just because a team is Ranked #1 doesn't mean we crown them National Champions, they actually have to play the games and we see where they end up.

You can beat a team that was ranked 10th on March 1st but if that team is not ranked in the Top 20 at the end of the season you did not beat the number 10 team.

Since 2012, Stony Brook is 5 - 21 vs Top 10 Teams (end of season ranking).

Since 2012, Stony Brook is 22 - 25 vs Top 20 Teams (end of season ranking).


Just looked quickly at some of their schedules on line:

2021 - schedule has USC ranked 13. USC was not Ranked in the Top 20 in the Final Ranking.
2019 - schedule has Hopkins ranked 1. Hopkins was not Ranked in the Top 20 in the Final Ranking.
2018 - schedule has USC ranked 5. USC was not Ranked in the Top 20 in the Final Ranking.
2017 - schedule has Towson ranked 19. Towson was not Ranked in the Top 20 in the Final Ranking.

I'm sure there are several more examples in previous years.

Did you also count wins over UMBC ranked #4 and Albany ranked # 2 as they are listed on the schedule? (wouldn't be shocked)

Try to spin it any way you want but the numbers are accurate.

Did not use AE tourn ranks as ranked games so come on and also if you play a team and at the time of the game the team is ranked it’s beating a ranked a opponent on your in season resume . You also can spin it however you want. I understand what you are saying but the ncaa tournament doesn’t operate that way. Be interesting to see other teams in that 6-15 area ranking Good interesting conversation

The numbers are not off.

You looked at where the opponents were ranked when the games were played, rankings change throughout the season based on performance. The numbers in the previous post reflect Stony Brooks Record vs the opponents actual end of season "Final Ranking" which is the only ranking worth anything. Just because a team is Ranked #1 doesn't mean we crown them National Champions, they actually have to play the games and we see where they end up.

You can beat a team that was ranked 10th on March 1st but if that team is not ranked in the Top 20 at the end of the season you did not beat the number 10 team.

Since 2012, Stony Brook is 5 - 21 vs Top 10 Teams (end of season ranking).

Since 2012, Stony Brook is 22 - 25 vs Top 20 Teams (end of season ranking).


Just looked quickly at some of their schedules on line:

2021 - schedule has USC ranked 13. USC was not Ranked in the Top 20 in the Final Ranking.
2019 - schedule has Hopkins ranked 1. Hopkins was not Ranked in the Top 20 in the Final Ranking.
2018 - schedule has USC ranked 5. USC was not Ranked in the Top 20 in the Final Ranking.
2017 - schedule has Towson ranked 19. Towson was not Ranked in the Top 20 in the Final Ranking.

I'm sure there are several more examples in previous years.

Did you also count wins over UMBC ranked #4 and Albany ranked # 2 as they are listed on the schedule? (wouldn't be shocked)

Try to spin it any way you want but the numbers are accurate.[/

Isn’t East setauket close to SB

While I agree SBU is almost always overhyped and over ranked I have to say Spallina does more with these players that no other top 15 programs even looked at . They can beat anybody while having essentially not top recruits . The problem for Joe is it’s not a great college experience going to a commuter school and the best players have better options .

Why is it that every time Stony Brook is discussed people always diminish the players? Stony Brook has had many great players yet people on here always want to make it all about the coach. This has been the narrative for a long time now but it is not accurate. Stony Brook gets some great players, the propaganda simply is not true.

My post wasn’t meant to disparage players it was actually a compliment that was worded poorly. My point was their recruits are very often not “highly ranked “ out high school. They are excellent and in many cases turn out better than the “highly ranked “ kids out of Hs. My reference was based on past few years inside lacrosse rankings where SB had very few players. I’m certainly not spitballing I went by actual rankings

All the time they are discussions about high school players that either never pan out, or are the superstars they were expected to be. No one ever mentions the exponentially greater level of training, lifting, practice speed, film, and general level of “ professionalism” that goes along with college lacrosse! Kids from hotbed areas have had more training during ms and hs, yes, but those kids enter college with , in general, little what I call “spare capacity”. Soo maybe coaches like Spallina has a knack for spotting the girls who, maybe their parents didn’t throw down money for every single exposure opportunity, every chance to be set by IL contributors, for funding and grabbing the real diamonds in the rough. My guess is Amonte-Hiller has that same knack.
North, Scane, Gilbert, Hall and a few others all started relatively late (6th grade I think I read) never looked to see which of them had over of those storybook high school careers, but someone did their homework, chose not to after the low hanging fruit, and identified those with the biggest perceived room to grow at the college level. With the likes of IL and USAlax citing hs “superstars “ in the hotbeds, the real stars might be missed, and the soo called experts evaluations might more often than not be needed to be taken with a grain of salt.
Soo I think part of my point, kinda buried a little, is that how the girls do in college is every bit of if not more a reflection of how they adapted to the college level and intensity of training, not soo much what they speed up with on the first day of college practice

Too much gibberish to respond to, Spallina would love to get more highly ranked players but cannot simply because going to SBU which is essentially a commuter school is not regarded as good a college experience by many. Take the scrimmage that they just played in the last 2 years UVA has brought in 7 UA senior AA to 1 for SBU so yes Spallina does more with players that were not as highly recruited. It is not that he can see their future potential over other coaches but its more that those players did not have as many options so that is who he can recruit to go there. Spallina seems to have the ability to get these players to reach their potential while many other coaches dont. Maybe its the illegal amount of hours that his teams practice ,who knows.

All of the players that you mention were superstars in HS. Anyone who watched them play could tell they were exceptional. They certainly did not go unnoticed, they were not diamonds in the rough.

They were playing in non hotbed areas where it easy for great players to look great when the competition is not up to snuff and the coaching is not widely recognized and experienced in the toughest playing environments.
Which of them played in the UA senior game? Which of them were not coached or nominated for/won USALax AA ? Did they have the funds to go to every east coast showcase? They started VERY late relatively ( not sure when Gilbert started)
Did u actually see them play in the likes of mid Atlantic, UA, ect?

I once read or hear I can’t recall, that Amonte sought out what she deemed the most athletic girls she could find to build the early NU teams that eventually won it all, supporting my claim that it’s coaching and adaptive potential to the cogitate playing environment. Thus the results of the spallinas and hollers-they don’t rely on IL/USALax/UA lists

Agree, way to much gibberish...

To be clear, just because a player chooses to attend SBU does not mean that the player was not identified as strong players or recruited by other college programs. For many, cost of attendance is a major factor and for many LI kids SBU can be significantly more affordable than many other schools. Just like Maryland, I'm sure many of the Maryland kids would have loved to go to UNC, Virginia, Stanford, Florida, Penn State, USC, Penn, Princeton, Northwestern, Notre Dame etc... but at what cost?

This notion that the SBU players were not recognized by other programs is not true. Just about all of the high performing players for SBU in the past several years were very well known HS players. For many, it's about the $$$ and the kids happiness.

I seem to recall a post on here not long ago that pointed out that Stony Brook had more players the made the Long Island Underclass Under Armour team than any other college program. Players who earn a spot on the LI Under Armour Underclass teams are not diamond in the rough, they are very well known.

There has been a consistent narrative over the years that Pumps up JS as the best coach in college lacrosse (yes, he is an excellent coach). That narrative has also consistently downplayed the actual ability of the Stony Brook Players.

Stony Brook gets very good players.

All were HS AA's

North, Scane and Hall were all Senior Under Armour All-Americans and were recognized by Inside Lacrosse .

Not to lose the point of what I was saying as it pertains to the Spallina ect, is that picking local girls not on all the “ lists” and having great success is as much about the coaching, the players potential to rise up to the college game and seeing something in those players the list makers miss. One concussion from this is that the lists and how they’re made can always be improved with more effort

There is not a single college coach that relies on Inside Lacrosse, USA Lacrosse or Under Armour to identify the players that they recruit.

Did you ever think that people who actually know what they are looking at will identify many of the same players as being a high caliber player with a high level of potential?

There is a reason that the best programs tend to bring in the most players that are “recognized” by the likes of IL, USA lacrosse and UA.

The majority of players from Long Island do not want to stay on The Island, it doesn't matter if they are on the "lists" or not, most do not want to go to school on The Island. The players that do make the so called "lists" generally have many options that are more appealing than SBU for a variety of reasons (academic, lacrosse, social, overall experience etc...).

JS does not "pick local girls that are not on all the lists", if he could get the players that make the lists he would take them. He gets the players who are willing to stay on the Island many of which are excellent players.

How in the world do you know what players other Top 15 programs looked at? Most of the players that have excelled at Stony Brook were very well known Long Island players. Stony Brook does not have a national draw but they attract plenty of talented Long Island players. Some on here would have us believe that SBU brings in kids that can not throw and catch.

Joe knows and recognizes very good players. He is also keenly aware that many good players get overlooked and lost in the politics of LI travel lacrosse. That is his gain for being able to spot these talented players. Yes most of those players he picks up are not at the top of all the notIntelligent “lists and teams”. And many of them go to SBU and break it open. Half credit to Joe’s coaching, polishing them as players, and half discredit to the politics of travel lacrosse. Many of these players were very deserving their whole careers, just ended up on the short end. That is also the chip on the shoulder attitude that joe motivates the whole team with, and he is not wrong.

"Joe knows and recognizes very good players."

I guess other coaches do not know how to recognize very good players. Who are the good players that get overlooked? You make it seem like other coaches are not able to spot talented players. What exactly are you referring to by "all the notIntelligent lists and teams"? What exactly do they break open? So, it's Joe and the politics that are responsible for any success that a Stony Brook player has? The player is not responsible? What exactly were all of these players deserving of?

What exactly has Stony Brook accomplished? You make it sound as though the SBU coach takes players off the street with no experience and wins National Championships with them. We all know JS is a very good coach but the constant beating of the drum of how it's all him is becoming absurd. Just about all of his top players over the years were very well know HS/Club players. As another post pointed out that Stony Brook had more players that made the Long Island Under Armour Underclass Teams than any other college program. The constant belittling of the Stony Brook players is getting old.

Stony Brook is a very good program, JS is a very good coach and Stony Brook gets some very good players. Some of you sycophants must be delusional if you think that JS is the only coach that can identify talent. You act as though the schools that tend to bring in the so called highly touted players are not the best programs in the country. The proof is there for all to see the programs that consistently bring in those highly touted player are consistently the most competitive programs.

When you look their record vs Top 10 teams (5 - 21) during JS's time at Stony Brook it becomes very clear that they are often overrated.

Stony Brook is no different than any other program, they use the same formula, which is: Consistently Identify, recruit and land top tier players/athletes and you will have a very good college team.

No coach wins without talent. as a John Wooden is to have said "it's more about the Jimmy's and the Joe's than about the X's and the 0's"

Very tough to follow, what exactly is your point?

JS is an excellent coach. JS brings in some excellent players. Stony Brook is an excellent program. But this nonsense about JS having some special ability to see talent where others do not is a bit much. Way too much spin and propaganda surrounding the SBU program, not sure where it comes from, can’t tell if it emanates from Stony Brook or if it comes from disgruntled SBU parents who believe their kid was overlooked by UNC, BC, Northwestern, Syracuse etc…

Personally, I just don’t like the way SBU players are diminished by so called supporters of Stony Brook.

Maybe you are on to something. Stony Brook gets some very good players but obviously there are several teams that get better players.

That’s not a knock, it’s just reality. The more I read some of these posts and listen to some people it is apparent that some people have an agenda when it comes to the narrative with respect to Stony Brook. There is definitely an agenda at play.

I think the point here is a very good one. Basically, hotbed players are strong due to the abundance of good coaches and strong competition in the hotbeds. And, they are very developed players by the time they get to college. Players like North, Scane, Gilbert, Hall (from Texas, Michigan, Oregon & Texas) come from areas that have so much less access to that level of opportunity. Recruiting - Coaches are actively seeking those players because they hope they will have much more potential to grow. If you look at the Adrenaline All American 2023 watch list (best to the west), there are a good number of west coast players going to strong DI programs.

Look at the men's game. UVA's Lars Tiffany was quoted saying this exact thing about the west coast players and said that he seeks them out. There has already had a tewaarton winner from Oregon (and Charlotte North is from Texas).

Coaches are looking for those kids from outside the hotbed who can play to the level in high school club play, despite not having had as much access to all the east coast opportunities - they will have more potential for growth.

Coaches look for the best athletes / players that they can find. They could care less where the player is from. Just like when Coaches say that they like Multi Sport Athletes, they want "Athletes". It just so happens that the best athletes have the ability to excel at multiple sports. You will not see Lars or any other coach recruit a kid that plays three sports but sits on the bench in all three, nor will you see him take a kid from California just because he is a west coast kid.

I do not put much stock in what the coaches say, just go back and listen to the nonsense that they spewed about "early recruiting" after listing to them or reading what they were saying publicly how they didn't like it I would then see them on the sidelines watching 8th and 9th graders.

Coaches know what they like and they know what they are looking for, they do not care where the kid is from.

Stony Brook receives a lot of hype due to their usually impressive record. If they played a difficult schedule they would never receive all the hype or high ranking because their record would be very average. Yes they are a very good program but their schedule is nothin like other teams that are considered to be Top 10 programs.
Not sure that they would finish in the Top 10 very often if they played a difficult schedule. Top 20 yes, Top 10 maybe not.

Some good game this coming weekend.

Syracuse Vs Stanford
Northwestern Vs Boston College
JMU Vs UNC
Notre Dame Vs Michigan

New Coach at Cuse. New Offensive look at NU. How will the new faces at UNC fit in? Can Michigan pull off an upset?

There should be some really great games this weekend! So excited about lax starting up.

Michigan was pretty tough in 19 and 20. Hard to tell last year because of the Big 10 only schedule. Honestly surprised they have not been more competitive simply because the school has so much to offer. Maybe they will be the next program to consistently be a Top 20 team. Great academics, great athletic / lacrosse facilities no reason they should not be a Top 10 - 20 Program.

Somewhat incoherent. That said, All of the players that you mention were known to everyone while in HS, they were not diamond in the rough. In this day and age kids can get get good training just about everywhere but atr the end of the day, they player needs to put in the time and most importantly have the God given natural athletic ability.

I'm not exactly sure what the following even means

"Soo maybe coaches like Spallina has a knack for spotting the girls who, maybe their parents didn’t throw down money for every single exposure opportunity, every chance to be set by IL contributors, for funding and grabbing the real diamonds in the rough. "

I assume that you believe that if you spend the $$ you will be recognized by Inside lacrosse. Sorry, there are thousands of parents who spend thousands of dollars sending their kids to everything and they are never recognized. It's not about the $$ it's about the players ability. JS is a very good coach but he is not finding "diamonds in the rough" he is finding good players that pretty much everyone knows are good players.

It sounds to me like your daughter might not have been recognized by IL so you believe the evaluators got it wrong. Most of the players who have been recognized by the likes of IL and USA Lax have also been recognized by the best college programs because that is where the large majority of those players go to school.

By the way, pretty sure North, Scane were both recognized by the experts... no need to take their opinion with a grain of salt.

The real experts are the college coaches at the best college programs and they tend to agree with the people at IL, UA and USA Lax more times than not.

It's not very difficult to spot talented athletes, not too many slip through the cracks.

Nah, if a team falls out of the rankings than you did not beat a ranked team. I don't see any spin in the post that you are responding to, the actual record is the record, it's not spin. It is a fact not opinion that SBU has not done very well against Top 10 teams (nothing wrong with that very few teams do well vs Top 10 teams).

Maybe I am wrong but it seems that Stony Brook usually gets ranked high in the preseason, plays a significantly weaker schedule than the majority of teams that are ranked in the Top 20 therefor they do not lose many games and they remain ranked high throughout the season. Their Strength of Schedule is probably on par with programs like USC and Stanford who over the years have had some success and have been ranked fairly high from time to time but are usually exposed come tournament time. Unfortunately you can not use a teams record as a barometer in Women's Lacrosse when comparing teams from different conferences due to the fact that the level of competition varies so greatly. Some years, teams like UVA, Duke, Penn State, Hopkins might have to play UNC, BC, Northwestern or Maryland 2 or even 3 times because of conference and NCAA tournaments.

The NCAA Tournament absolutely operates that way, The Rankings are not supposed to be used, they use their own RPI formula to rank teams and they use the ranking as it actually is at the end of the regular season. So if a team had a Top 10 RPI in week three of the season but that team lost a bunch of games was not in the RPI Top 10 at the end of the regular season then you are not given credit for have a Top 10 win. That is reality, not spin.

Does ND beating up on central Michigan really help
Them become a better team or are they just padding stats a la Stony Brook?

Not really a fair comparison. Stony Brook dose a very good job scheduling strong programs for their OOC games.ND has had to lighten their OOC schedule a bit in order to ensure at least a .500 record so they can be considered for an at large bid to the Tournament. In any event, this is not youth lacrosse, as long as the stronger team clears their bench “early “ it’s okay. You have to let the players play, they can’t run around playing keep away. That said, It would be nice to see more assisted goals.

My guess is that if Stony Brook were an ACC team they would have to lighten their out of conference schedule a little as well. The reality is, most ACC and Big 10 teams have to be careful who they play OOC.

Wow North doesn’t disappoint at all. She is sensational. NW has to go back to positional defense and learn the lost trait of body position first, don’t chase the stick and learn how to take the charge and force through. North does a great job driving to cage and womens lax rules allow it. Have to play body defense on her even to have a chance.

Duke's out of conference schedule is awful. So far they outscored Gardner-Webb and Elon by a combined 47-8. Look at the rest of their non-conference and there is only one remotely competitive game with Penn.

Gardner-Webb 22-3
Elon 25-5
William & Mary
High Point
Wofford
East Carolina
Penn
Davidson
Liberty

And she was face-guarded!

She only disappoints if you play on the same team as her or when she goes up against the actual best player in the country .

Here we go again…obvious troll…..save it