and found to be ineffective, resulted in lower scoring games and fewer fast breaks. What will end up happening is teams will swap out their middies and just do a normal ride. Further, you essentially do away with a team's ability to make a comeback on the momentum of winning the face-off.

The issue is that you are watching only the face-off men and not looking at the totality of action. There are three other people involved in the face-off for each team. There is the face-off man and the two wing players. Denver's was better than ND's yesterday. Just look at the last (or second to last) face-off. It wasn't won because Baptiste beat ND's face-off man right off the bat. It was won when Denver's long stick rode ND's player, who was in better position to scoop the ball, preventing ND's guy from scooping the ball. Baptiste then picked it up. It was excellent technique and teamwork.

Your argument is similar to one that says we should get rid of kick-offs.

Only allow them to sub in the fly or during time outs. That would open up some fast break chances if you catch a team subbing and it would cause some coaches to change their strategy.

fly. Some but not many. With made goals, there is going to be a stoppage in play just like if the ball went out of bounds because there will be the need to report scores, check sticks, etc. that goes on after a typical score.

If you make subbing only on the fly, the coach is going to have his players run to the substitution box and just swap out on the whistle with his defensive guys. The ball is more than likely going to be placed either on the side near the endline, behind the goal with the goalie or with the goalie in the crease.

It was tried before and it failed to do what people think it will do.

Per my son's high school lacrosse coach, there is a movement to remove face-offs except for at the start of each quarter.

The proposal is that after Team A scores, Team B gets the ball behind it's own goal, similar to basketball. Both teams would still be allowed to substitute after the goal, and then play would resume.

My understanding is this is being considered at both the college and high school level.

After every basket?

They are not the same sport.

Think of it this way. The guys without a good face-off player want to get eliminate face-off. It is "unfair" that the other team is better at something. See John Desko's quote in 2014 when Syracuse didn't. Now, compare his quotes in 2017 when he does have one.

And I know this is just a personal opinion. I just like the clearing/riding game more than face offs, and I'm not a fan of how much time there is in between a goal and the face off. I'd rather it have more flow. But I get it completely and don't anticipate that it will ever change.

Having coached girls/women's lacrosse at the high school and college level for 18 years now, I've had teams that were great at winning the draws and some that were terrible. I have been on both sides of that coin, but I still prefer to get rid of it. Just my opinion, and I know I'm in the minority.

In most games the faceoff ratios fall between 65/35 and 50/50 so making the change you describe would not drastically alter most results. However, it would improve the flow of the game. I am in favor of implementing the changes.

I realize that the team with the player nearest the ball retain possession when an errant shot goes out of bounds. It seems almost all the time that the offense retains possession when this occurs. Would a shot clock that covers the entire length of possession be considered or something else?

And I think it should be considered in the men's game. The women have a 90 second possession clock in college that starts immediately when their hey get the ball, no matter where it is. It will reset for certain fouls though. I think it's been a great addition to that game. I think stalls ruin the game and so I was glad to see them add it and hope something like that comes to the men's game.

As for alternating possessions, Navy's old coach, Richie Meade has been lobbying for alternating possessions for quite awhile now to speed up the game. Opponents have said that it hurts the chance of FOGO guys to get college scholarships or even find a way to play. I don't think that's enough of a reason to keep the face off though.

I don't like the idea of a dedicated middie as a fogo. They should be able to play offense and defense. When Hopkins was dominate from 2001 to 2007, they had stretch of dominate face-off guys that could also play. Harrison, Peyser 1 and Peyser 2.

I'm not a fan of that. I don't know how to change it, or if anyone cares enough to even think about changing it, but I think they should be able to play the whole field as well.

you could ask this same question about any sport with skilled positions like football even. Think of it as special teams. The fact of the matter is Notre Dame should adjust and be recruiting aggressively face off specialists and practicing face offs constantly. The recent rule changes have actually made it harder for faceoff guys to be even more dominant by penalizing early play and the cheating that is and was such a big part of the face off game. Today, corrigan should have adjusted more aggressively and put two poles on the wing as he did; considered putting in a large midfielder like Sergio to jam on baptists hands or arms and just slow him down or hurt him; or deal with losing face offs in the second half and focus on everyone getting back to the hole to play good team defense. Additionally, he could have extended the offensive possessions in the second half to burn time and deal with losing so many face offs Nd needs to adjust if they are going to find more success and win a championship. Lacrosse is a game of possession.

Until 1937. This is a better analogy as teams with a Ralph Sampson or Patrick Ewing would have a much more unfair advantage then they already had in alternating possession. Yes, we should recruit better, should have used different strategies (what we were doing wasn't working)

I'm OK with keeping the rule the way it is - makes for a different game - but I don't think there are many that would advocate basketball going back to jump balls

Although of course my interest in this issue is based on seeing how many games face-off play has cost ND. Certainly, we need a top face-off guy.

The special teams comparison is fair enough, but face-off play in lacrosse determines possession, while special teams play in football does not, and between different teams face-off play seems to vary to a much greater extent than special teams play.

I still think that the important of face-offs in lacrosse is anomalous, given how possession is relatively fixed.

Can't do anything about it this year, but FO recruiting has to be at the top of the needs list. I think it's an overly-important part of the game, but it is what it is, so we'll have to deal with it. We don't necessarily need to best FO guy in the country (that would be nice, however), but we need more than 20% against the best FO guy in the country. That shouldn't be too much to ask for.

Were it not for faceoffs, Denver would not have beaten us for the past few years and probably wouldn't have won a NC. The system provides a trailing team with the opportunity to make a comeback. However, it probably overly rewards one aspect of the game (faceoffs) over the rest of the team play. Faceoffs tend to even out for the most part but Denver has had a great faceoff ability lately and we are average in this aspect of the game. Faceoffs were the determining factor in today's game.