FOGO -- WTF?

I have more than a passing interest in lacrosse.  I know people who played it, my son played it in high school for a while, I have been to travel team tournaments and a few NCAA Division I Final Fours.  At times, it can be a most compelling game.  That said, in this advanced age of specialization, there is something that is killing it -- the advent of the FOGO, which stands for "face off, get off."  The FOGO can be one of the most important players on the team -- all for a player who in all likelihood will not take a shot on goal, not get many assists and will not be on the field for important defensive series -- and who might be on the field for less than 10 minutes of a 60-minute game.

The FOGO arrived on the scene when the Lords of Lax decided that there should be a faceoff after every goal is scored.  Before that happened, it was "make it take it" -- according to a friend who played DI lax back in the day -- before the advanced age of specialization.  That is, you scored a goal, you got the ball.  At some point, the rule changed, and smart coaches -- and there were many of them -- figured out that they needed kids to specialize in the skill of bending low, with the back of one's stick to his opponent's, and exhibit feats of strength known to edge rushers, Greco-Roman wrestlers and perhaps Frank Costanza on Festivus in order to win the ball and get a team's offense going.  Have a good FOGO, one who can win many more than half of his face-off attempts, and your team will have more than a good chance of winning games, for the basic reason that you will have the ball -- and thus many chances to score -- much more than your opponents will.  Have a great FOGO and you can get to the Final Four.

I am not criticizing parents who encourage their kids to become FOGOs or players who become FOGOs.  Trevor Baptiste, seemingly a wonderful young man, was a four-time all-American at the University of Denver -- as a FOGO.  Baptiste was all set to go from his private school in northern New Jersey to Franklin & Marshall, a DIII school in Lancaster, Pennsylvania when Denver's Hall-of-Fame coach Bill Tierney saw him play.  Lax coaches are known for not poaching recruits who have committed to other schools; Tierney spoke with the F&M coach, got his approval to talk with Baptiste and low and behold what Tierney saw in the 5'9", 220-pound or so midfielder bore out -- Baptiste was amazing.  As is Yale's TD Ierlan, a FOGO who almost singlehandedly demoralized #1 Penn State yesterdaly in the first half with his ability to win almost every faceoff against the Nittany Lions.  The Lions are known for their scintillating offense, but they could not get it into gear until the second quarter because Ierlan kept winning faceoffs.  By that time Penn State was down 10-1, and while they staged a noble comeback, the difference in the game was the work of Ierlan.  He dominated the conversation of the announcers on ESPN.

The importance --and I would say exaggerated importance -- of the FOGO begs the question -- is this really good lacrosse, is this really necessary and does this specialization make the game better?  There was a time in basketball where they had a jump ball at mid-court after each basket, until some guys with names like Wilt Chamberlain made a mockery of it, won almost jump ball, and now the game has evolved today where they have a jump ball to start the game and on a rare occasion when the rule compel a jump ball as opposed to the possession arrow's dictating which team gets the ball next after the players tie up the ball.  Basketball is much better for it.

So why can't lacrosse either go back to "make it take it" or giving the ball to the scored upon team after a goal is scored?  The games will go faster -- there were times in yesterday's Penn State-Yale contest where the standoff between faceoff men lasted at least 20 seconds if not more, so determined and stubborn were the gallant FOGO's not to yield any edge to their opponents.  More importantly, guys who are not on the field for much of the time will not have an overexaggerated impact on the game.  Sure, women's softball pitchers can have a huge impact on the game -- but they are out there as focal points the entire time.  The FOGOs -- they are hardly on the field.  That just does not make any sense.  Let the players who are on the field the most have the biggest impact on the game.

That is the main point -- that the players who play most of the minutes have most of the impact.  Sure, you can argue that no one has ever won the Tewaarton Award -- given to the best DI lax player -- being a FOGO.  That's because the FOGO's do not rack up goals and assists.  But the FOGO's determine in great part which team will have the greater amount of possession -- and thus the opportunity for more goals and assists.  And somehow, that just doesn't seem right.

I am sure that my lax friends will tell me that I am wrong, that the game is great, that I am the one exaggerating the importance of the FOGO and not the Lords of Lax, but I would like to understand why they say that.  I do not think that there is a phenomenon like the FOGO in any other sport -- and to me, that is a good thing.

End the FOGO.  Make the game better.