When I take a moment to think critically about sports — and youth sports in particular – it seems bizarre to consider how passionate we all are. In concrete terms, after all, the grass field has no meaning without us on it. The rules of the game are worthless unless we believe the score reflects some form of superiority. As athletes, we charge the game with meaning.

But why? Why is it important — and why do we play?

This is one of my favorite questions to ask the laxers I coach. In my small consulting business, I get to work with players on an individual basis and it never takes long for this issue to surface.

Typically, when I first ask the question, I get puzzled looks. The girls suspect I’m some nutty Yale-educated existentialist. After the shrugging, fidgeting and squirming, however, words emerge. The first round of spoken answers are something like “Well, because it’s fun” or “Because my friends do it.” To many young players, this may be all there is to the question. In some cases, I may leave it at that.

But for most of my high school players, I push further. “OK, but what else?”

This gets the wheels turning. From here, conversations embark in unique directions. Some girls talk about wanting to make Dad proud; others describe feeling a sense of identity as an athlete; and still others reference the bonding among teammates that comes with long bus rides and pre-game rituals.

When I think back to why I played, I know my motivations ebbed and flowed over time. I was a ten-year-old who liked to get dirty – and was loud and aggressive. At 14, I was awkward everywhere but on the lacrosse field. As a 17-year-old, I needed sports to balance the chaos of an AP-heavy academic schedule.

Now, as a coach, I am struck by what you can learn about a player by asking an open-ended question and shutting up. Each conversation helps me to identify the value systems on which a particular player bases her decisions. I become better informed about root causes of success, struggle and failure. In short, I become a more effective coach.

An example: A young player who tells me she plays because she wants Dad to be proud will not respond to my yelling at her during a game because as I yell, Dad watches, and instead of listening to me, this player thinks about what Dad hears from his seat in the bleachers. Her play suffers. Inevitably, there’s a breaking point beyond which she reasons there’s no way of making him proud today – might as well pack up and go home.

In that scenario, I’ve lost her for the rest of the game — and I may not even know it. That is, unless we’ve discussed her motivations for playing. If we have, then I can use her value system to my team’s advantage – leveraging the fact that Dad is there to privately encourage her to dare to be great today. I can even use her language: “I bet Dad would be really proud if he saw you running as hard as you can after every loose ball.”

This may be a single (and common) example. But I believe it matters at virtually every level of sports competition. Sure, coaching at higher levels you can be more selective about choosing players who are driven to play for one reason or another.

A college coach can seek recruits whose their internal drive is in line with the program and team values. But at youth and even high school levels, attaining such homogeneity almost never happens. Youth coaches, on the other hand, would be wise to accept – and even embrace – their players’ motivational diversity.

Lauren Taylor is assistant lacrosse coach at Yale, a former three-time college All-American selection, and and 2009 graduate of the Yale School of Public Health who now works for the Yale Global Health Leadership Institute.

By Lauren Taylor

Let’s get it out up front: No other team has put out a strong enough showing during the NCAA DI Tournament (or season) to make me doubt that the “purple haze” we’ve fallen into won’t continue.

I’d like to see another team besides Northwestern come out on top, (better for the game), but that’s personal wish – not professional opinion.

Here’s what they’ve got: Every player in a Northwestern jersey can run and gun, throw and catch and understand the game thanks to Kelly Amonte Hiller. She’s crafted a team whose balance is its greatest asset, and, ultimately, that’s what makes them unbeatable.

There’s not one girl to face guard; there are seven. There’s not one lock-off defender; there are seven. They are a team with players who take turns leading by example, and that quality — perhaps more than any other — has made them the dynasty they have become.

Northwestern may be a runaway favorite, but there is a lot to see when they take the field.

Five stats to watch for:

1.   How many goals does Northwestern manage to run up on Penn?

( In their game against Princeton, the Wildcats established a new program record with 373 goals scored this season.  That’s already 12 more than the championship team of two seasons ago).

2.  How many passes does Penn drop?

(My guess is will be under 10 in 60 minutes. Unreal. So consistent).

3.  How many aggressive double teams does Northwestern throw at its opponents?

(I bet more than 10 in 60 minutes. Also unreal. So high energy.)

4.   How many draw control does Penn’s Emma Spiro comes up with?

(She had 46 through the end of the regular season, dominating the Ivy League in that stat. But how does she fare against the Wildcats, also know for their aggression in the circle?)

5.    How many turnovers do North Carolina and Maryland commit?

(My prediction: It will be high on both ends, because of the hyper-aggressive run and gun game. Compare that state with Penn and you’ll be shocked these three teams have made it to the same point in the tournament.)

Lauren Taylor, who will receive her Master’s in Public Health from Yale on Monday, is assistant coach for the Yale Women’s Lacrosse team. As a player for Yale, she earned three All-America selections and was a four-time first team All-Ivy League selection.

Round one of the women’s NCAA Division 1 lacrosse tournament offered zero upsets, but expect excitement this weekend when top teams meet in the quarterfinals (championships next weekend at Towson University in Maryland).

This is college sports — and anything can happen.

Breaking it down:

Number one seed Northwestern wants to repeat (they’re national champs four years running).  Under Kelly Amonte Hiller, the Wildcats get credit for revolutionizing the women’s game. Coach Hiller recruits pure athletes and molds them into cogs in the well-oiled machine that is her Northwestern dynasty.  Every year the Cats lose seemingly irreplaceable leaders, but young guns step up and file seamlessly into the lineup. Do note, though, highly-touted player Hannah Nielsen suffered a knee injury a few weeks ago. Bottom line: The balance of this team is tough to beat.

Northwestern will face perennial power, Princeton. Princeton, which long sat atop the Ivy League, is lately coming in second behind rival Penn.  The difference between the two programs? Princeton plays a more emotional, flow-state game. They’ll go up, they’ll go down, but it’s always interesting. Holly McGarvie (Sr., Midfield) is the team’s heart and soul, and her intensity serves as a barometer for the play of the entire Princeton squad.

Conversely, the Penn Quakers play a more deliberate and methodical game. Nothing about them is particularly special, but everything is rock solid. Penn dropped a surprise game to Stanford towards the end of the regular season, but that may have been the loss they needed to refocus for the NCAA Tournament. Their first round game with MAAC Champs Fairfield was closer than most expected (10-8), but a win is a win — and they got it. This is a team that has grown accustomed to winning, and that’s provided a real mental advantage.

Duke, North Carolina and Maryland are the three ACC teams still standing. No surprises there: these are classic women’s lacrosse powerhouses.  All three programs are built on the backs of blue chip recruits and long-tenured coaches. The three all play some variation on a “run and gun” game. They’ll push fast breaks, take a lot of shots, make a lot of mistakes, but hopefully win on the merit of players’ speed, stick work, and natural intuition. There’s little pre-conceived about game plans, so they live and die by the decision-making on the field. Sometimes that leadership comes through and they win big. Other times they fold unexpectedly under pressure.

Syracuse and Notre Dame are the two Big East teams rounding out the quarterfinal bracket.  Each has been making noise the past few years — Syracuse under the esteemed Gary Gait and Notre Dame under Tracy Coyne.  The Syracuse-Maryland matchup will be particularly interesting because Coach Gait arrived at Syracuse after a long stint as an assistant at Maryland (under Cindy Timchal). He knows the Maryland game plan well (he helped engineer it in the 1990s and early 2000s). Think of this game as a contest of old and new Gary Gait philosophies.  Maryland has more talent, but Gait is a genius. He knows the Terrapins can be fragile under pressure and will coach his Orange to push all the right buttons.

Notre Dame’s matchup with North Carolina is the biggest question mark of the bracket. Notre Dame’s potent attack lead by Jillian Byers (Sr., Midfield) will have a tough go against a Tarheels defense lead by Amber Falcone (Sr., Defense). Byers is as good as attackers come, but Falcone has seen it all playing a tough ACC schedule for the past four years. Both are Tewaaraton Trophy (lacrosse’s Heisman) finalists, and the two will play on USA national teams (Amber, World Cup Team and Jillian, Developmental team) this summer.

My picks for the final four: Northwestern, Penn, UNC, Maryland.

Lauren Taylor, who will receive her Master’s in Public Health from Yale this month, is assistant coach for the Yale Women’s Lacrosse team. As a player for Yale, she earned three All-America selections and was a four-time first team All-Ivy League selection.

After many years of lugging around a lacrosse stick to various U.S. locales and being met with conspicuous stares and questions of “What is that?” I was thrilled to see women’s (and men’s) lacrosse being nationally televised this past weekend.

As I watched Syracuse and Notre Dame face off, I noticed something: Women’s lacrosse is looking more like men’s lacrosse. Gary Gait (one of the all time greats of the men’s game) coaches the Syracuse women, and as I watched I saw what I’ve seen elsewhere, namely the flow of people, technology and tactical concepts from the men’s game to the women’s.

For example:

1. Coaches (top men’s players are coaching college women, like Gary Gait @ Syracuse and Mike Waldvogel @ Fairfield)

2. Equipment (women are adopting an offset stick design which has more of a curve to the head – like the men; the use of protective goggles is now required – and some wonder if helmets could be next)

3. Hard Boundaries and Restraining Lines (prior to 2006, there were no boundaries in the women’s game)

4.    Tactical Concepts
a.    Draw Packages Many women’s teams are now training and using certain players in games         specifically to win possession of the ball and then quickly sub out for offensive/defensive players.
b.    Subbing “on the fly” Women’s teams are now substituting one player for another within the natural flow of the game so as to make better use of specialized skill sets, and catch defenses off guard.
c.    Goalie Tactics Women goalies are adopting a lower, more athletic stance in the cage and being significantly more active outside the cage.

d.    Defensive Sets Certain styles of defense, for instance the “Backer D” are lifted directly from the men’s game with only minor adjustments to accommodate women’s rules.

These changes are not necessarily a bad thing. Some of my greatest mentors as a player, particularly in college, were men. They offered me a perspective on the game that I hadn’t already seen or heard and as a result, I listened more closely and applied their ideas more readily. I’m nothing if not thankful for their influence on me.

That said, I have mixed feelings about whether the influx of personnel from the men’s game and adoption of male lacrosse practices is a good thing for the women’s game. On one hand, it can make the women feel like second class citizens who simply take, take, take without having anything much the men want to “borrow” from our game.

On the other hand, stealing the men’s style of play may mean the women’s game becomes faster-paced and more exciting, attracting higher rates of participation, viewership and support. So maybe we women should just take the goods (say thank you very much to the men) and run! What do you think?

Lauren Taylor, who will receive her Master’s in Public Health from Yale next month, is assistant coach for the Yale Women’s Lacrosse team. As a player for Yale, she earned three All-America selections and was a four-time first team All-Ivy League selection.