Syracuse Lacrosse: End of a Dynasty or Flourishing in a New Era?

Recently the Syracuse Post Standard printed a reader response concerning boosters in college sports. The response, written by a reader from South Carolina, contained this little nugget of a paragraph:

"First, I disregard any reference to lacrosse, basketball or Jim Boeheim. You'd have to travel outside of Central New York to realize how lightly lacrosse was regarded until fairly recently. The Syracuse dynasty existed in an era when lacrosse teams with losing records could make the Top 20."

The piece contained no other reference to lacrosse and generally was not centered on it, but it got me thinking about a few things. Is Syracuse's dominance in the 80's and 90s mainly due to a lack of competition and the supposed troubles since that time due to an increase in competition? Additionally, in recent years I believe there has existed this perception amongst SU fans of a decline in the success of the program on the field and in the recruiting ranks. I believe most fans think the Syracuse Orange dynasty and dominance has run its course, but is this a fair picture of reality?

First, let's take the second sentence of the quote. The writer states that until recently lacrosse has been an afterthought in the world of sports on a national level. He is correct. Traditionally, lacrosse has been a niche sport holding dominance in areas like the tri-state and the mid-Atlantic regions. Recently however, it has taken off. Take a look at the below graph on the high school participation rates in the sport of lacrosse. The graph can be found on Laxpower.com as reported by the National Federation of State High School Associations. As any long time lacrosse fan knows, the sport has gained significant footholds in the last decade in non-traditional areas like New England, Colorado, Florida and California. Take California for example, in 2002-03 there existed 60 boys high school teams and in 2012-13 204 high schools sponsored boys lacrosse (here's a cool database of the statistics). In that same time period the state of Florida went from 29 to 162 schools sponsoring the sport and Massachusetts gained 101 programs. Take a look at the following statistics:

• According to the NFHS, high school sponsorship of lacrosse has increased just over 149% between 2001 and 2011
• The NFHS reported that in 2013 21 states have high school athletic associations that sanction or recognize boys' lacrosse
• US Lacrosse reported that the total number of lacrosse participation in 2009 reached more than 520,000 players, more than double the 2001 number
• US Lacrosse also reported that since its inception in 1998 to 2008, membership in the organization increased 579% to 296,743

This increase in high school participation correlates directly to the increased level of competition that we have seen at the college level. In fact it also has correlated to the growth of NCAA programs. Below is a map provided by The Growth Blog showing the growth of NCAA lacrosse programs. Therefore, while lacrosse may have been a regional, niche sport in the 1990's, it is hard to still say that this is the case.

NCAA Regional Growth Map provided by TheGrowthBlog.com

NFHS Lacrosse Participation Rates for Number of Programs, found at http://www.laxpower.com/common/ParticipationRates2014.php

Next, let's examine this sentence from the quote: "The Syracuse dynasty existed in an era when lacrosse teams with losing records could make the Top 20." It is safe to assume that the "Syracuse Dynasty" is in reference to the glory years of the 1980's and 90's. I think this opinion is shared by many Orange fans. It's this idea that Syracuse dominated during a time when the lacrosse field was very weak and recruiting only needed to be on a local level instead of on a national level and now the program is struggling in the face of big time schools picking up the sport.

Let's first identify the most important measuring stick, National Championships. During the 1980's and 90's, SU took home six National Championships. However, in the last fourteen years, Syracuse has won five National Championships. Beginning in 2000, the Orange has had a higher National Championship winning percentage than it did during the "dynasty" era.

There is no question that the "dynasty" era is represented by a much weaker field than exists now, but has that increase in NCAA competition significantly decreased the success of the program? The following statistics have been compiled using the NCAA Sports Sponsorship and Participation Rates Report. In the 1981-82 season 50 men's teams played at the D1 level compared to 67 during the 2013-14. Below are the participation rates in Division I for every year Syracuse has won a National Championship.

Year	Number of Men's D1 Teams
1983	48
1988	48
1989	49
1990	51
1993	53
1995	52
2000	55
2002	55
2004	54
2008	56
2009	57

That means that since the last Syracuse National Championship, 10 schools have added lacrosse programs. In the "dynasty" era there was no massive increase in programs. Here are a few notes on these numbers:

• Between 1982 and 1999 the net number of programs added was 2
• Between 2000 and 2009, the last Syracuse National Championship, the net number of programs added was 2
• Between 2009 and 2014 the net number of programs added was 10
• Between 2000 and 2014 the net number of programs added was 12.

The 10 men's programs added in the five years since Syracuse last won a National Championship are: Richmond Spiders, Furman Paladin, Boston University Terriers, Monmouth Hawks, Marquette University Golden Eagles, High Point Panthers, Michigan Wolverines, Mercer Bears, Jacksonville Dolphins, and Detroit Titans. It should also be noted that the Bryant Bulldogs, which beat Syracuse in the first round of the Tournament in 2014, began playing at the Division I level in 2008-09.

Although there has been massive growth in the NCAA, none of the most recent 10 programs has played Syracuse in a regular or post-season game. In terms of recruiting, big time schools like Ohio State and Michigan adding lacrosse will probably hurt Syracuse on the recruiting trail but as of yet have not. Starting in 2009, all ten of those new programs have only broken into Inside Lacrosse Magazine's top 20 recruiting classes a combined four times. Since the magazine began ranking the classes in 1998, the only two Syracuse classes that have not been in the top 10 of that list were the 1999 and 2014 classes. According to the IL rankings, the overall recruiting picture for Syracuse has been strong in that time span.

Year	Syracuse Recruiting Class Ranking
2014	17
2013	2
2012	9
2011	6
2010	2
2009	4
2008	4
2007	5
2006	9
2005	5
2004	4
2003	7
2002	6
2001	3
2000	1
1999	Not Ranked
1998	1

The writer also mentioned that Syracuse reigned during the time when a losing team could still make the top 20. While it proved extremely difficult to find the final poll archives by year, I have looked at a smattering of in-season USILA Coaches Polls that do have teams with losing records included. Of course this is deceptive if we take into account that those polls are mid-season so not many games have been played and that the programs with the losing records are high caliber teams that played strong schedules. For example, in the April 12, 1993 USILA poll (as reported by the Baltimore Sun) the Maryland Terrapins were ranked #11 with a 2-3 record. That record included losses to Duke, at North Carolina (1993 runner-up) and a one-goal loss at Virginia as well as wins at Cornell and at Navy; all traditionally strong programs. If we look at the final season polls since 2005 only once has a team made the final poll with a losing record. The last time it happened was all the way back in... 2013 when the Villanova Wildcats finished #20 in the USILA Coaches Poll. But again, this is due to the factors we talked about earlier, a high strength of schedule and a big win against the #2 team in the country (Syracuse). Of course that's not to say I don't grasp his point. Since the 80's competition amongst teams has increased steadily, mainly due to the constantly increasing number of high school programs and the level of talent available to college programs.

Yet it is not as if the Orange did not play good competition prior to 2000. As a matter of fact the Orange consistently played the best of the best. The only thing that has changed is the schools which used to be used as "fillers" in the schedule, now present actual challenges. Below is a list of the highlights of the Syracuse schedule from the first six National Championship years.

Year	Schedule Highlights
1983	Maryland (twice), Penn, Cornell, Hopkins
1988	Hopkins, UNC, Penn (twice), Brown, Cornell (twice)
1989	Hopkins (twice), UNC, Brown, Cornell, Penn, Maryland
1990	UNC (twice), Hopkins, Cornell, Penn, Brown
1993	UNC (twice), Brown, Penn, Cornell, Hopkins, Princeton
1995	Georgetown, Virginia, Hopkins, Brown, Cornell, Princeton, Virginia, Maryland

In sum, blue chip programs, like Syracuse, have always played the toughest schedules available. As participation and competition have steadily increased these blue chip programs continue to play more challenging schedules each year, and yet those same programs have continued to win National Championships.

There is no question that the last few years have seemed challenging for the Syracuse program. I don't know about the outside world, but for Syracuse fans the first round losses to Bryant and Army, and the 2007 season in which the team failed to qualify for the tournament have certainly discolored this post "dynasty" era. However, considering the recent macro trends in lacrosse that we have touched upon, and the continued success of the program in this new era, I think we should feel pretty good as fans.

With eight Final Four appearances, including five National Championships, in the last fourteen years, it is hard to say this program is still not dominant. Dynasty? Maybe not anymore. Dominant? Definitely.