Wahoo, I take no issue with your assertion that it takes some time to build a champion. I agree that Michigan won't immediately become a perennial national contender. My only issue is that I think Michigan's pedigree, while not in lacrosse, will lure top talent... IMMEDIATELY. This of course will not IMMEDIATELY translate into FINAL FOUR appearances (although the Fab Five did it with the help of Mr. Martin). You've got to recruit well for several years before you field a champion; a team of freshman ain't getting it done. The contender crowd is simply saying that Michigan will recruit with the big boys NOW and recruiting consistency will result in a steady increase in the level of competitiveness of the team. I have no idea how many of Michigan's current crop of players could play on a successful D1 team, so the personnel may need to be built from the ground up. But Michigan's size, tradition, national recruiting appeal, and athletic budget all combine to make Michigan a very marketable institution to young athletes. Can we find 40 of them every year who have sick lacrosse skills? - I bet.
Good points UVA blogger. I guess the issue I have with all of this sports specific tradition is that when it comes down to it, you just need to find 35-50 players who can play ball, an excellent coach, and a committed athletic director to field a top-tier program. We have to be careful talking about the DNA of lacrosse being entrenched so much at the Ivy's and East Coast teams that Michigan is not going to lure top talent. These were the same voices who probable suggested that ND was not going to lure top talent to that school when they began their varsity program in '81. Football tradition would insist that Princeton and Yale, with their 50+ championships would together occupy the epicenter of college football power. My, how times have changed. I think we would all argue that the Florida program is as strong and is positioned as competitively in college football as any other school. Yet, they only have 3 championships. Their "DNA" began very recently, and is etching its success into college football history. Old school lacrosse-a-philes have to realize that with the growth of the sport comes the thinning of its power base. The 6 powerhouses can still only field one team, so the pool of talented kids who will want to play immediately will only grow. Michigan is in a unique position to offer overall athletic excellence in an array of diverse sports, immense fiduciary resources, and a very strong academic rep - all of which magnify the appeal. No one is suggesting the block "M" is going to automatically equal immediate success, but let's be real and not suggest the lure of large schools is a fallacy: imagine this discussion if UVA did not have a varsity lacrosse program. There would be no sane reason for UVA to not become varsity, immediately start pulling top talent to its storied and beautiful campus close to the east coast, and soon begin forging its lacrosse legacy on collegiate athletics.
I feel the same way about the converse argument where Michigan already has a foothold. Let's take men's ice hockey for example. If NYU had a very successful D2 men's hockey team that seemed to be on the verge of gaining D1 status (and this is a big if), why wouldn't I think that they would not lure top talent from the northeast once D1 is the official status? NYU is a great school in a great setting that offers a unique experience that also benefits from being located in a great hockey state; it only makes sense that some of the top hockey talent finds it appealing and is lured to whatever unique qualities exist at NYU that the other 21,000 undergraduates find appealing. UM is a huge school, that competitively draws STUDENTS and athletes from the ENTIRE country, and has HUGE resources. Get a great coach - JP has proven himself to be a stellar coach and innovative leader who has formed a varsity mindset at the club level - and get Brandon behind the team, and there is no reason that 35-50 all-star lacrosse athletes from the widening world of high school lacrosse would not come on board every year.
Who knows how recruiting will go once Michigan goes D1. What I do know is this. If OSU and ND can field competitive and nationally recognized teams in the midwest, them Michigan is a lock to recruit better students and better athletes to a school that competes academically with the stronger schools out east as well as having a stronger althletic tradition (recent football and basketball performance not withstanding) than either of those two schools. It is certainly not conceited to suggest that a school with the type of atletic and academic tradition as UM and with the vast alumni network of UM is losing potential lacrosse recruits because they do NOT currently offer a D1 lacrosse program. The cases of better academic schools that curently reside in the top 10 of the lacrosse polls is a misnomer. Let's take them 1 by 1 and assess the schools' academic merits according to US News and World Reports 2010 National University rankings:
1. UVA - on par
2. UNC - on par
3. Syracuse - lower
4. Maryland - lower
5. Hofstra - much lower
7. Lafayette - not national, hard to compare
8. Princeton - IVY - need I say more
9. Bucknell - not national, hard to compare
10. Drexel - lower ranked
Just to clear up my perspective. I was accepted to Penn, UVA, GT, and UM. I was rejected by Cornell. I chose to come to A2 for the quality of the experience, the huge academic resources, and the highly touted engineering program. I grew up on the East coast, went to a prep school, and planned on staying out there until I researched and visited Michigan. The Michigan experience is unique and there are plenty of top lacrosse all-stars from both coasts who would love the opportunity to play D1 lacrosse in a place with huge athletic resources and rhe breadth of academic opprtunities at a place like Michigan. Now if we can only get the traditional UM sports to start holding up their end of the bargain. Let's go Rich Rod!
Recent Comments