clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Eulogizing the 2012 College Lacrosse Season: (33) Pennsylvania

You spent the better part of four months meticulously dissecting the 2012 college lacrosse season. You shouldn't stop now because cold turkey is a bad way to go through life, man. College Crosse is providing decompression snapshots of all 61 teams and their 2012 campaigns, mostly because everything needs a proper burial.


Team: Pennsylvania Quakers

2012 Record: 3-10 (1-5, Ascot and Deck Shoes Conference)

2012 Strength of Schedule (Efficiency Margin): 3.07 (3)

2011 Strength of Schedule (Efficiency Margin): 1.95 (9)

Winning Percentage Change from 2011: -30.26%

2012 Efficiency Margin: -1.04 (33)

Efficiency Margin Change from 2011: -4.92


  • In a season where Penn regressed to only three wins, two of them were pretty good: against Harvard and North Carolina. It's the latter game that the Quakers -- only three games into their season -- turned the amp all the way up and pissed off the neighbors: They completely controlled the tempo of the game, keeping the pace around 53 total possessions; kept overall possession percentage close (a huge wart for the Quakers all season), generating a 47.17 percentage; hit the red button launching missiles from the silo to the tune of a 40.00 offensive efficiency value (well above its overall efficiency on the season); and held a Carolina offense that would finish the season ranked 11th in adjusted offensive efficiency to just six goals. LaxPower ranked the win as the 17th biggest upset of the season, but given where each team would end up at the end of the season and how Penn went about its business, it was probably one of the more notable results of the year.


  • The Quakers had a hard time -- like, trying-to-plow-a-road-with-a-beach-bucket-and-human-leg-power kind of hard time -- both generating and maximizing offensive possessions in 2012. On the year, Penn played at a 2.3 possession deficit per 60 minutes of play, due in heavy part to the team's struggles at the dot (the Quakers only won about 46 percent of their draws) and were pretty average in both the clearing and riding departments. When Pennsylvania actually had the ball they didn't exactly help themselves: Only two teams turned the ball over more than Penn per offensive opportunity. For an offense that had some issues canning the bean, these wasted opportunities to both maximize and generate possessions significantly impacted some of the Quakers' most disappointing losses -- Villanova (7-8), Yale (9-10), Brown (10-11), and Dartmouth (6-7). Send them to the stocks!


  • It's kind of all the little things that need addressing for the Quakers. Four one-goal losses show how close Pennsylvania was to moving toward a .500 record and giving themselves entrance to the Ivy League Tournament. A little more execution in the offensive end -- especially targeting the bean -- and fewer turnovers can really change how the Quakers function. This isn't a team that totally fell off the map (despite the change in results); Mike Murphy just needs to see a little more cleanliness in performance and the Quakers could be a handful in 2013.