Lacroses

BGSUVA · Post by **BGSUVA** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 2:10 pm

Anyone else wish Lacrosse was a varsity sport here? Coming from Virginia, I'm a big lacrosse fan. It's the fastest growing sport in America...Would love to see it here.

ffejfalcon · Post by **ffejfalcon** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 2:52 pm

Go check out the club team. I played for four years with the club team and we always put on a good show for the fans. Plus all fans are usually invited to attend the keg party after the games!!!

Go to Mr. Spots when you get to BG and hook up with SHARK. He'll be able to fill you in............

TG1996 · Post by **TG1996** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 3:11 pm

ffejfalcon wrote:I played for four years with the club team and we always put on a good show for the fans.

Go to Mr. Spots when you get to BG and hook up with SHARK. He'll be able to fill you in............

What years did you play? An old roommate of mine played from 94-97 or so (I'm thinking you might be a bit younger than that...

).

And the "sign-up" process sounds like its mob-related. "Knock on the green door between the blue doors, where you see the sign of the chicken. Ask for Shark and tell him Vinnie sent ya."

ffejfalcon · Post by **ffejfalcon** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 3:49 pm

I played from 1986 thru 1990. Does that make me old???

Dr. Bucko · Post by **Dr. Bucko** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 4:04 pm

There are too many sports now --- please, no Lacrosse. It's cropping up here and there now in Ohio, but most high schools, especially the smaller ones (the majority of them) are already overloaded with spring sports, and don't have the bodies to field teams unless they cut into other sports which most are unwilling to do. With baseball (softball), tennis and track and field gobbling up the athletes, there just isn't room for another Spring sport. It can be a nightmare for an athletic director. In fact, most of the smaller schools can't field more than two spring sports ---- those two sports being baseball and track. There ain't no room. We're sported out. ----- Conversily, having lacrosse as a club activity at the university level (like rugby, curling, etc) would probably be a good idea. It would give people who enjoy the sport an opportunity to play/watch.

TG1996 · Post by **TG1996** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 4:34 pm

ffejfalcon wrote:I played from 1986 thru 1990. Does that make me old???

yes.

I don't know why I thought you might have been younger. Uhhh... you LOOK younger?

Class of 61 · Post by **Class of 61** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:19 am

Dr. Bucko wrote:There are too many sports now --- please, no Lacrosse. It's cropping up here and there now in Ohio, but most high schools, especially the smaller ones (the majority of them) are already overloaded with spring sports, and don't have the bodies to field teams unless they cut into other sports which most are unwilling to do. With baseball (softball), tennis and track and field gobbling up the athletes, there just isn't room for another Spring sport. It can be a nightmare for an athletic director. In fact, most of the smaller schools can't field more than two spring sports ---- those two sports being baseball and track. There ain't no room. We're sported out. ----- Conversily, having lacrosse as a club activity at the university level (like rugby, curling, etc) would probably be a good idea. It would give people who enjoy the sport an opportunity to play/watch.

Dr. Bucko,
Sorry, but as a retired lacrosse coach, I can't buy your argument about "too many sports".... Yes, small schools wouldn't, perhaps even shouldn't, attempt to add a sport that would probably draw anywhere from 20-50 athletes....But most large schools have a LOT of kids who DON"T run Track, who DON"T play baseball, the two "primary" spring sports for guys... (Tennis doesn't draw large numbers so I''m not counting it). I've coached at Walsh Jesuit and Hudson High Schools and neither had a problem coming up with enough athletes to more than fill out rosters and NOT hurt other sports...The only coaches who really bitch about it a lot tend to be the track guys, but I can tell you that Lax draws a "different" type of kid with different interests than "just running". And once football coaches realize the value of kids running AND hitting on a field slightly larger than the FB field, most of them have come around from the usual, " but you've got to lift, lift, lift" that used to be their complaint. Remember a guy named Jim Brown? A fair to middlin lax player well known for that BEFORE he was well known in FB.
As to having it back at BG, I'd love it!!! We used to be considered somewhat of a "power" in the sport years ago...And playing OSU, ND, plus all the quality D-3 schools in Ohio would more than fill out a schedule quickly...(the D-3's in Lax are usually more than minimally competitive, unlike some other sports.)

It's the Journey... · Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:34 am

Calss of 61, I have a question for you. How do we pay for this sport? We have recently dropped a few sports and I think it would be irresponsible for us to consider adding anything right now. We have to do a lot of work financially first. I also believe the first sports we add, when we are financially able, should be men's trach and field along with men's swimming and diving. I believe we had lacross here at BGSU before but it was cut as well. That is dissapointing, but it happened.

Dr. Bucko · Post by **Dr. Bucko** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:19 pm

Well, "61," as a retired Lacrosse coach I would have expected you to debate the issue. I have nothing against Lacrosse, Water Polo, Team handball or any other sport, ---- the point is, and regardless of what you say, there are too many sports at the secondary level now. The smaller schools can not handle another Spring team sport; they just can't do it without diluting or eliminating other sports, and that's not fair to the other programs. Lacrosse, by the way, is not even a State sanctioned sport in Ohio at the secondary level --- it fits into the same catagory as men's volleyball, water polo, water ballet, etc. --- Bowling Green needs to bring back some of the men's sports that they cut before they do anything else. And by the way, the most physically fit athletes in the world (on an anerobic/aerobic basis) are track and field athletes (according to a hord of information on the subect), and proper wt lifting is very much a part of their training routine much as it is in Football, and a flood of other sports. Don't knock it.

transfer2BGSU · Post by **transfer2BGSU** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 5:25 pm

Dr. Bucko wrote:And by the way, the most physically fit athletes in the world (on an anerobic/aerobic basis) are

I bet I know what he is going to say next!

Dr. Bucko wrote:track and field athletes

I was right!

Bleeding Orange · Post by **Bleeding Orange** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 6:14 pm

transfer2BGSU wrote:
Dr. Bucko wrote:And by the way, the most physically fit athletes in the world (on an anerobic/aerobic basis) are
I bet I know what he is going to say next!

Dr. Bucko wrote:track and field athletes
I was right!

Its actually hockey players. But thanks for playing!

UK Peregrine · Post by **UK Peregrine** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 7:41 pm

Bleeding Orange wrote:
transfer2BGSU wrote:
Dr. Bucko wrote:And by the way, the most physically fit athletes in the world (on an anerobic/aerobic basis) are
I bet I know what he is going to say next!

Dr. Bucko wrote:track and field athletes
I was right!
Its actually hockey players. But thanks for playing!

I always thought it was cyclists.

Or maybe it was baseball pitchers.

Dr. Bucko · Post by **Dr. Bucko** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 8:49 am

Baseball pitchers --- most physicall fit?????? Oh My! According to a Kent State sports physiologist, baseball players (including pitchers) are the least physicall fit of all the mainstream professional sports people. That, however, doesn't make it a "bad" sport as evidenced by the popularity of the game.

UK Peregrine · Post by **UK Peregrine** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 9:30 am

Dr. Bucko wrote:Baseball pitchers --- most physicall fit?????? Oh My! According to a Kent State sports physiologist, baseball players (including pitchers) are the least physicall fit of all the mainstream professional sports people. That, however, doesn't make it a "bad" sport as evidenced by the popularity of the game.

Come on now Dr. Bucko. Was it that I didn't put the winking smilie

behind the baseball comment that you actually thought I was serious. We're just a little touchy this morning, aren't we?

I would obviously put cyclists in the same category with track athletes. But baseball pitchers was a transparent attempt at humor and levity. Do you really think that I thought men like David Wells were the most physically fit athletes?

After all, he is one finely tuned machine.

Falconfreak90 · Post by **Falconfreak90** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 9:31 am

ffejfalcon wrote:I played from 1986 thru 1990. Does that make me old???

I certainly hope not! I attended BGSU from 86-90!

Good Times....

BTW, I'd like to see Lacrosse back at BG. Green High School has a team and the sport is picking up steam at HS's in the Akron/Canton area. Fun game to watch.