BOTC - US Lacrosse Community Forum Forums NORTHEAST LACROSSE BOTC MAIN FORUM (LI, CT, WC) Early Recruiting

I know the NCAA Div 1 season is still quite young, but there have been some stunning upsets by mid-majors over two well established ACC teams.

UVA 11 HPU 12 Hofstra (LI's Univ.) 10 UNC 5 Also- Harvard with two one goal wins. Ohio St 9 UMass 16 --- Loyola 9 Hopkins 8

Is this an example of the demise of early recruiting? UVA UNC and JHU are 3 of the most aggressive early recruiters. Are the 8th grade club studs getting beaten by kids that get recruited in 10th, 11th or even 12th grade? Are the late bloomers the ones that ultimately do better once they get to Div 1? I doubt High Pt, Hofstra or Loyola get 9th graders to commit to their progs.

Early recruiting is killing this sport. But people will come on here and think your jealous because your kid is not getting recruiting yet in 9th grade. Late bloomers in many cases catch up. Early bloomers in terms of growth look like studs now because they are men playing with boys. Seen it time and time again an early bloomer bypassing that early matured kid.

Its causing parity which is good.
Kids playing for UVA where mostly recruited in 9th Grade
Kids now playing with high point were recruited in 10th/11th
And the Winner is? Schools like High Point
The LOSERS The schools and coaches of these so called top programs.
They recruit a 9th Grade Hold Back because he's dominating. Now 4 years later, It all evens out, and some kids just pass them by.
Those programs that recruit too early are getting exactly what they deserve

Here is what I said in the 2016 College thread.


In my opinion the early losses by some of these high profile teams is just the tip of the iceberg. There is more parody in the sport than ever before. Too many programs taking kids on the word of a travel team coach before the kid has matured. What dont these guys get(college coaches) its the job of these travel team guys to get kids committed early and as many from their program as possible. The coaches are hedging their bets on these early recruits hoping some are as good as the travel coaches say they are. For the most part the early studs will be good players later on, but I have seen it all too often kids getting the early recognition because they were early to mature and were dominating at an early age get all of the accolades. As time passed many of the unheralded kids now were passing the so called best players. It doesn't happen all the time but it does happen a large percentage of the time. There are many factors to consider like growth, speed, athletic ability, game iq, drive etc. Two thing s I have always heard you cant teach size and speed. with all this training you can only enhance them. You will only be as tall as your meant to be and as fast as your meant to be. Drive determination heart are the uncontrollable factors coaches can not measure with a stopwatch or a tape measure. This is good for the sport and will help it grow.

This is from a girls coach, but the message is the same for either gender:


February 24, 2016

Early Recruiting: Seeing It from the Other Side


By Sue Stimmel, Associate Head Lacrosse Coach at Upper Arlington High School

After more than 25 years as a college coach and athlete, I began teaching high school mathematics and coaching high school lacrosse. When recruiting for a Division I collegiate lacrosse program, I thought I understood high school students. After 4 years as a high school teacher/coach, I have concluded I really did not have a clear picture at all!
Photo courtesy of the author.Photo courtesy of the author.
Kids and High Schools Do Not Benefit from Early Recruiting

If you spend time daily with high school freshmen, you would determine quickly that they are clueless about high school, social development, individual identity… even personal hygiene. They want to be independent, yet need an overwhelming amount of guidance and direction. The maturity observed between underclassmen and upperclassmen is stunning. Their bodies change. They begin to have an idea of who they are and who they want to be. Seniors often reflect on decisions/things they did as an underclassman and laugh. The best part of teaching seniors, especially those I also taught as freshmen and sophomores, is the ability to see how they have evolved individually and to be able to have more mature and candid discussions. And even interacting with seniors, I realize how naive they still are. I feel early recruiting is bad because kids need time to grow without developmentally inappropriate external pressures. They are not ready!

In addition to these pressures, early recruiting discourages multi-sport participation, resulting in less well rounded athletes, specialization in one sport, and overuse injuries. Early recruiting also introduces a social dynamic to high school teams that focuses on individual performance. This is a time when kids should be learning to work with others, learning to deal with adversity, and forming lifelong friendships.

Parents Do Not Benefit from Early Recruiting

Communities that offer a wide array of athletic opportunities for young children are good for physical and psychological development. However, specialization at an early age through year round travel teams and camps creates a financial burden. This may also create emotional stress on the parent/child relationship. Even in conversations with parents who have had older children go through the college decision process without athletic involvement, they report feeling much more overwhelmed. They feel pressured to visit multiple colleges to create early interest and to make significant decisions without all the desired information, fearing their window of opportunity may close. The timing of these visits supersede family, academics, and athletic schedules. A well rounded student-athlete needs a balanced academic and social experience in addition to athletics. Early recruiting creates unnecessary pressure at a time when balance is already difficult to achieve.

Colleges Do Not Benefit from Early Recruiting

The IWLCA submitted two recruiting legislative proposals to the NCAA, addressing concerns about early recruiting. Support of this proposed legislation is important for collegiate recruiters. In my opinion, the potential negative effect on the individual athlete, family, and high school far outweighs the perceived benefits of early recruiting. Early recruiting is likely to result in recruited athletes who are not vested in the decision but lack the maturity to navigate subsequent change. With early specialization, I am seeing more and more overuse injuries at the high school level. Because of this students are more likely to arrive on campus with chronic injuries. Others may arrive burned out. College coaches are more likely to miss economically disadvantaged kids, who cannot afford camps, visits, and travel teams. Late bloomers are heavily penalized. College coaches are forced to make decisions without knowing the dynamics of a future team. This creates a false sense of security for both athletes and coaches because significant change in four years is inevitable.

In the past high school athletes played multiple sports for fun. By the time they were looking at colleges, if they excelled at one of their sports they went on to play at the next level. Exceptional athletes received scholarships. However, at some point playing in middle/high school became a means to an end. When I ask high school athletes why they quit a sport, many reply because they do not want to play in college or that they are not good enough to play in college. When did one become a vehicle for the other?

There are so many things that are great about scholastic athletics, but early recruiting is not one of them. It creates external pressures that are subversive to healthy adolescent development. No one wins.

Sue Stimmel is currently a math teacher at Franklin Heights High School and the Associate Head Lacrosse Coach at Upper Arlington High School, the 2013 and 2015 State Champions. She coached collegiately for 21 years, including 15 as the head coach at the Ohio State University.

this says it all.... Paul Rabil didn't play until 7th grade. Rob Pannel was a late bloomer. I am sure that there are many more examples...

I'm sure a lot of the best players now were the best players back in 4th grade also

Thanks for the corrections. I meant parity but sometimes spell check has its own mind. I still believe everyone got the gist of what I was saying.

everyone on both sides of this debate paints with too broad a brush...some athletes will be late bloomers, some athletes will always be the best-not because they are bigger than the other 7th graders (that is the holdback trap) because they have natural physical abilities that other people don't have.

if a college coach recruits a young kid, why do the others who weren't recruited care? If a college coach doesn't recruit any young kids, why does anyone care?

early recruiting has been going on for years in many sports, lax just seeing it now because the sport has more visibility than ever before.

for the record, both hofstra and loyola recruited and verbally committed 9th graders last year.

the clear advantage will be with the early recruited kid that continues to be the stud. he or she will have more leverage entering 11th grade and be able to get more $ from some other great school...

the rest of the argument or debate is pointless and silly. parents and kids that want to be recruited early-for whatever reason, will chase the dream. parents and kids that don't think it is a wise move, will simply wait. why anyone seems to think it is the downfall of lax is beyond me.

the game is expanding, not shrinking. more d-1 teams...but no professional game so why comment on decisions of others? unless of course you wanted your kid to be recruited and he or she wasn't...

See the tough guy dad who has to say the ones complaining are the kids not getting recruited. No it's many people who love the game and now see the craziness of holdbacks, early recruiting and travel programs making hand over fists. It's not growing the game it's ruining it.

Good players in fourth grade? What truly defines a good player in 4th grade?

It's my opinion that if a player has had good training he can be a standout in 4th grade. This used to be the children of past collegiate players, the younger sibling of a player etc. As time has gone by now everyone is dreaming of their kid playing college ball and as a result kids are being introduced to the game at a very young age. There will be less dominant 4th graders because so many are playing the game. What will eventually happen is the athlete who is a standout athlete who truly loves the game and is playing because they love it and it's not mom or dad's dream will separate themselves from the pack. With so many people now playing the sport is growing and as a result more colleges can field competitive teams.

I think you make some very valid points. Athletes are athletes yes but at a very young age athletic ability is truly not reached until puberty. Yes yhere are the kids who just have it, and will always have it. That it factor can not be taught. The athlete who is playing with other players his age that has hit puberty or matured more quickly will of course stand out. I don't think people have an issue with the early recruiting aspects I think that people have an issue with the so-called old guard not doing as well as they normally do because of early recruiting failures. Look at the teams that have been early recruiters Virginia, Hopkins, and Syracuse, they have not done that well for them. These schools will always get interest from the best players but they are taking a risk on taking players in 8th 9th and maybe even 10th grade. When their roster slots are full this leaves room for other teams like High Point and other colleges to get great players that might have not fully matured until 11 or 12 grade and were passed over. Not all great players play for great teams either so they don't go to the best showcases or tournaments. As a result they are not seen maybe until later on in high school. The expansion of the game is great. Makes for really exciting Saturday lacrosse.

Not really directly on topic, but Loyola very recently won the national title (2012) before the early recruiting kicked in,so the hounds playing even with and beating JHU should not be a shocker when Hopkins hasn't won it all since 2007.

So it wasn't really working all that great before early recruiting either.

Early recruiting has been around for a very long time. Most of the top players knew where they were going even back in the day by 11th grade. It's the publicity of early recruiting that's the phenomenon that we are seeing. This is all due to the Internet, social media, and coverage of the game. The 9th and 10th grade recruiting is new, this is changing the game but not really hurting it.

It's not about the 9th grade players committing early and the consequences of a 14-15 yo picking a college. It's about mom and dad standing under the club team tent, after having spent thousands of dollars, feeling like their investment paid off. They can puff their chest out and say, "you're just jealous your late bloomer can't go to Hopkins." And why would the club directors counsel them to wait? They can't wait to list it on their website to get more suckers in the pipeline as early as possible. Whole process is whacked.

on the other side of the coin Drexel coach Voelker has been vocal in his refusal to early recruit and it is commendable, but they lost to UVA 14 - 7. making the argument that early recruiting is so bad one would think that with the later recruiting they would do better, I am not for or against early recruiting but you need to look at both sides.

Share a sideline with the parents. Early recruiting is hurting the game because its not a team game anymore. Gotta get mine

Of course Drexel is against early recruiting. Schools like Drexel don't have the pedigree that let's say the Ivys, Hopkins, Duke, and Virginia have so they don't get the pick of the litter. Things is with more players playing and only 12.6 Scholarships there will be enough talented players to go around. Also with the schools that do fill their rosters up early they often overlook very good players in 9th and 10th grade because the haven't reached their potential yet. The thing is some of these early recruits might have reached their max potential in 9th grade and now everyone else is passing them.

As for Loyola they caught lightning in a bottle that season. The stars aligned and they won their title. Won't happen for a while the way they did it.

Loyola beating Hopkins is not a major upset. Hopkins should have lost to Navy. Loyola is legit and will be around come May.

Hofstra always comes up with a big regular season win and then disappears come the end of the season. IMO UNC really needs to start looking at their coaching staff, with the talent they stockpile every year its bewildering that they havent made a final four in forever it seems.

Virginia appears to be on a downward slide and one can only wonder if the game is starting to pass Starsia by. They can get any recruit they want for the most part so I dont think early recruiting is their only issue.


Although I am not am early recruiting advocate I think there are different forces at work here as well. I think there is so much talent out there now that parity was inevitable. Coaches have expanded their recruiting to non traditional markets and kids from all over are starting to play and excel at the game.

I think a fascinating study would be to look at a Top 5 lax program and look at their impact players. Look at when they verballed and where they played high school and club lacrosse and see if any patterns emerge.

Having said all that, does anyone here believe that this years final four will be dramatically different than years past? I think come May the same top programs will be at the final four . Looking at the last 5 years, the same teams end up playing on championship weekend so Im really not sure how that proves or disproves the theory that early recruiting is hurting the sport. It will be fascinating to see what happens over the next few years and if any changes are made.

To be fair, Rabil and Pannell are both freaks of nature. Not fair to compare them to regular humans

Rabil is a physical specimen, yes. He's not the first one either but he has embraced his stardom better than most and as a result has launched himself into the limelight of a sport that is begging for a superstar. Someone that can put lacrosse on the map.

As for Pannel what makes you call him a freak. He was recruited to play at Quinnipiac decided to PG and went to Cornell. He's basically the Rudy of lacrosse. He's 5 foot nothing weighs a hundred and nothing and is considered one of the best to play the game. He also has grasped the limelight and is a charismatic figure in the lacrosse world.

Another person that is doing great things for lacrosse is The Beast Greg Gurenlion. It's personalities like these we need at the helme of lacrosse to help it grow. There were many before but these are the guys now doing it in the world of social media and blazing a trail.

i guess i am missing your point. you are annoyed because some people want to pretend they are better?

isn't that what some people do in all aspects of life? Avoid them and move on...has nothing to do with early recruiting...

example, if boy down the street was committed verbally to Harvard, but told no one, would you or anyone else care?

Really, i gotta get mine is the attitude ?

Two boys and one girl-one in college (d-3 at great school) and two in process, one of which is an early commit to d-1 with $. if you are on the team you describe-my advice-leave and find another. we have been lucky i suppose and the kids are there to play and enjoy and have fun. when the fun is gone-move on...

now, if you go to maverick or jake reed, that attitude is to be expected...

good luck

Pannell is a freak of a lacrosse player, just a rare and special talent and happens to be an exceptional athlete. (oh and Rudy had absolutely no physical gifts or special athletic ability, just the heart of a lion)

I wasn't knocking Pannell. I said he is one of the faces of lacrosse and one of the best to play the game. Rudy is my all-time favorite movie. Like you said the character in the movie exemplified heart. Rob is considered one of the best to play but his path to get there wasn't a typical one. Think about it he wasn't wooed and picked up by a Duke or even Cornell right out of school. He did what worked for him. Now if you lined up Perkovic ND, Jones Duke, Rabil and Pannell. Odds are Pannell would be the last guy picked. Yet he tore it up on the lacrosse field. In his own words" I was never the fastest, strongest, biggest, or most dominating figure" "I matured physically from junior to senior year from 5'6 to 5'9 165 to 185" (lacrosse magazine 2012)

To take your point further, I have heard many D1 coaches state they hold spots for the late bloomers and kids they may have missed. They may be stockpiling kids early but they arent discounting the late bloomers or kids that went under the radar. The 2017 class has had several kids switch their commitments from mid and lower D1 programs to Top 10 programs and I may be wrong here but I think thats the way it has always been. Although I think early recruiting is an issue, I just think its the fact that their are so many talented kids playing now and the mid and lower level schools are scooping them up and becoming competitive.

But, the oldest....

per Ty Xanders--- the 100th 2019 just committed. 100 public commits by Feb of their freshman years! How many have committed but have not made it public yet? Md has like 12 kids already.

With the exception of the kids from Texas and Florida, most haven't even played a high school game yet.

Duke doesn't want the kids to announce because it might be a little embarrassing especially if you are one of the 20 kids. It's like being in a room of 30 kids and being told you are the one we want and find out that 10 kids were told the same thing...you will have 150 kids commit and half will change by junior year if they can. At this point if Maryland comes and wants you to commit , how can you say yes

Danowski will take the best underclassmen all day long. As opposed to being at Hofstra and begging for LI kids to stay. Even his own son headed south.

According to recruiting rundown website, Maryland has 14 commits from 2019

To be honest I wouldn't want my son to be one of them. It's just a numbers game to the university obviously.

If I was the parent of one of the 14 I wouldn't be putting the video camera away just yet.

But seriously, to a degree I get early recruiting, but not recruiting an enitre class when they are freshmen. Kids are playing more lacrosse than ever before, are getting more advanced and better coaching at an earlier age so they are more polished than the players of even five years ago.

Early recruiting is hurting this sport. My son is a freshman and being recruited by D1 schools and inside I know there are a few juniors on the HS team that are better , physically and maybe skill too , that have no offers yet. Why ? I spent a lot of money on exposure. This is hurting the HS teams. Kids don't get fair chances because of "hype" from other underclass men. When I was HS in the 80's very rare that a freshman was on varsity. It was seniors and juniors and the younger waited their turn. Now it's a rush to "pull them up".

They are better right NOW. Do you think your own will be better then them in 2 years ? Thats the question. Coaches would love the NCAA to ban recruiting at such a young age, the NCAA won't do it because they thing enforcement will be a nightmare. The colleges are then put on a position to try and project where a a 14 year old kid will be in 5 years. On the bright side for som of the lesser colleges so to speak, the big dogs being forced to gamble on younger players means more misses and while those misses will fill up rosters by default other colleges can find late bloomers who emerge in Jr or even SR year.

Who's son headed south?

Danowski's kid went to Duke.