By The Rules

You won't find too many people TigerBlog likes more than Christian Swezey, one of the top lacrosse writers there has ever been.

TB and Christian go way back, all the way to Princeton's first NCAA title, back in 1992. Christian has created something of a lacrosse board game, one that enables one great team from one year to play another from another year.

He tweeted about a game he ran the other night, when the 1996 Virginia Cavaliers took on the 1992 Princeton Tigers. Princeton won the NCAA title in 1992 and 1996 (and 1994, 1997, 1998 and 2001), and the 1996 title came in OT against Virginia.

The 1996 Virginia team is the best team TigerBlog has ever seen that did not win the NCAA title. The Cavs were led by Michael Watson, the Most Outstanding Player of the tournament, as well as Doug Knight and Tim Whiteley, who were great players who TB is guessing are still bothered by the fact that they lost to Princeton in the final that year, and in 1994.

Princeton won both of those championship games in overtime, on goals by Kevin Lowe (1994) and Jesse Hubbard (1996). Princeton also need OT to win in 1992 (Andy Moe) and 2001 (B.J. Prager).

In Christian's simulation, the ’96 Cavs beat the ’92 Tigers 13-10. TigerBlog could believe that.

The 1992 Tigers went 13-2, defeating Syracuse 9-8 in the final. In five games that year, Princeton gave up at least 10 goals, including in a 16-14 win over North Carolina in the semifinal and a 15-13 win over UVa in the regular season.

In other words, more than 25 years ago, teams could play high scoring games. The rules back then were radically different, with stalling permitted but the requirement to keep it in the restraining box if the refs put a stall warning on.

Princeton, by a huge margin, was the best back then at running out the clock while keeping the ball in the box. The Tigers could move the ball in a small space almost indefinitely, and it's a tactic that came in very helpful in more than one fourth quarter of an NCAA tournament game.

Eventually, the keep-it-in rule was replaced by a timer-on rule, one that put a 30-second shot clock on when the refs decided the offensive team was stalling. That was sort of a compromise between the competing voices calling either for a shot clock or no shot clock.

This past week, the NCAA men's lacrosse rules committee came up with some radical rules changes. The most radical, by the way, is the one lacrosse people are talking about the least.

The one getting all the attention is pretty radical as well, as the game has finally gone to a full shot clock on every possession. Teams will now have 20 seconds to advance the ball past midfield (as opposed to 30 seconds to get it into the restraining box), and then a 60-second shot clock will start as soon as the ball crosses into midfield.

The shot clock rule has caused everyone TigerBlog knows to formulate an opinion, and these opinions basically fall into two camps: 1) about time or 2) this is the worst thing that ever happen to the game.

The "about time" group talks about how the pace of the game needs improving, how effective the shot clock has been in the women's game and how Major League Lacrosse has one. They point to what they perceive to be the worst part of the current game, where a team will clear the ball, get it behind the cage, sub off its D middies for O middies while the defense does the opposite and then pass it around once or twice before starting an offense. This is a 30-second process.

The "worst thing ever" group envisions a game now where defenses will play tight zones, offenses won't have enough time to get good opportunities and there will be endless possessions that end with the ball rolled into the corner.

TigerBlog's take? Wait and see.

He didn't think there was anything wrong with the pace of the game, but he had a major problem with the way the shot clock was put on before. It just made it way too subjective for the officials.

And could you call the game the exact same way when it was 2-1 five minutes in and 11-10 with five minutes left? Now all of that subjectivity is gone, which is good. And the last minute of a one-goal game is sort of the same now, minus the part where everyone yells "shot clock."

As for the result, TB isn't sure. If he had to guess, he'd think there will be more possessions, good and bad. Teams are going to have to move quicker than they have in the past, and the teams with the best quarterbacking attackmen - you know, like Michael Sowers - will have an advantage.

Also, the shot clock will lead to more possessions. Will it lead to more goals like it has in the women's game? If it does, then it'll lead to more face-offs, which seems to make FOGOs more important. On the other hand, though, the ability to win a face-off, have a two-minute possession, score and repeat is gone now, so maybe winning face-offs won't have the same impact as in the past.

The shot clock has gotten the most attention. So has the return of the crease dive.

If the point of the rule change is to create more transition, then it's a different rule that's going to do that. It seems innocuous enough - the substitution box is now half the size of what it was.

This, though, is going to make subbing in transition really hard, which is going to lead to more up-and-down and the need for two-way middies. Yes, there will still be a need for shortstick D middies, but they're going to be way more valuable if they can shoot too. The same is true for longstick midfielders.

TigerBlog's biggest fear for all these rules is that they're going to change again in two years with the next cycle. That's the big issue, that the way the game is played is changed radically and then changed radically again and then changed radically again. Let the game breathe now and see what happens.

If nothing else, these rule changes will make next year even more fascinating.

TigerBlog is looking forward to it.