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

From what you just said it doesn't sound like your kid is that much of a stud. Do you really want your 12 or 13 year old hanging out with 18 year old kids? Your probably in a small school that does not have a good number of kids to choose from and they are bringing up your son. That's what it sounds like to me. There's a big difference maturity wise in a 13 year old and an 18 year old. I just hope your son doesn't get hurt playing with the bigger kids. If I were you I would let him stay at middle school he can go up next year. Well best of luck to your son. Think about it.

Yes, he would start on most or get plenty of playing time on the teams that you list. Please do not act as though it is unheard of for 9th graders to see a lot of time on those teams. He as good or better than most if not all 9th graders that have come through in the past several years.

He would start on WI for sure.

Besides the fact he is in 8th grade .. You are talking about Suffolk county not Nassau correct?

Not even close, they have 4 committed 2017 and 2016 attackmen and the head coach always favors the older kids. Try again

The fact is 2019 and 2020 classes are very strong. A lot of extremely good lacrosse players with outstanding IQ's and stick skills that are better then the older kids. I see it with my high school. The younger kids are better lacrosse players plain and simple.

Bay Shore had a game against Islip yesterday, howd that go?

Bay Shore is lucky to have him play with them. His level of play is way above what Bay Shore is producing. As far as leaving school im sure he will know a good amount of kids going to st anthony's.

Syosset kid played as an 8th grader...worked out pretty well for him as it has him at Hopkins.

would start on GC so he wouldn't go to Chammy

OK, so who is next to come off the board at 2020?

Sorry, you have absolutely no idea what youre talking about. The 2017 and 2018 classes on Long Island are absolutely loaded with excellent lacrosse players. I dont know what high school your speaking of but if the 2019 and 2020 classes are better than the 16's, 17's and 18's, its gonna be a long long year for you.

i agree. this is from some freshman mom at best. what an idiotic post.

Welcome to the world of pressure and stats, not fun for these high profile early commits, you need a thick skin!

to say 2017 and 2016 are not loaded means you haven't followed LI lax for a while. each year has its studs play makers and avg palyers.

I will say there are pockets of 2019 towns and even less 2020. 2021's step it up a knotch again but even at 2019 you never know what you will get in the next few years. Cant compare 2019/2020 to '16 '17

cmon mom. send your little 2019/2020 towards my 2016 kid so my kid can pound your little tyke. But then you will call for a penalty..and complain about playing against older kids.

Better stick skills please can they face dodge, bull rush a guy, blow passed a guy , the answer is no. Please shut up and enjoy watching the older boys that are on your sons team.

Wow big tough guys!! Again fathers who rant on here because they sucked in athletics growing up. Living through your boys!

probably knocked you on your butt too

Lets face it every year has its strong players and club teams. Many of the best club teams are loaded with talent and as a whole the players look better on the team then they are as individuals. These players get the looks because they happen to play on a club team that has been together for a long time and they have won many tournaments and showcases. Each year has had these particular teams.

Now you take some of these early recruits and you see that they mostly play for strong club teams that have given them exposure. A town team player or a player that doesn't play for one of these elite club will not get this exposure at such an early age. Maybe the club coach has connections and is promoting the kid to college coaches at an early age. Most people will say that "well if a player is so good he would get picked up by one of these elite club teams". That is not the case and if you have been around travel ball you know there are many reasons why some kids are not picked to play on these elite teams. Like not trying out, politics and nepotism and or pay your way onto a team etc. It happens all the time. I have seen it many times when you take the so called elite club team player and put them in an unbiased playing situation they don'ts stand out like they do on their club team because plays aren't drawn up specifically for them or they haven't had the chance to practice or play with the other players at the prospect day or individual showcase like they do with their own teammates. I am not saying that there are not studs and regardless of who they play with or against they will shine but there are not as many as people assume or predict. Many so called great players are a product of a well coached team and they fit well into a system that has been built around them and their teammates.

I have said it before early recruiting has been around for a very very long time they just weren't publicized like it is in this day and age of social media and extended coverage of lacrosse. Most early commits were in 10th and 11th grade but weren't publicized until signing day.

Coaches void verbals all the time? I am not trying to be confrontational, I didn't know that. This is the first time I have ever heard anything but the standard line " coaches never void the verbal, even if it is a new coach because its bad for recruiting". I know the kids do it, I didn't know it was happening in reverse as well. This is a little disconcerting as my son is a 2019 and still has two years to go until his NLI - if he even gets there. I understand academic and behavioral issues could lead to a de-commit, but your post makes it sound like it is a little more arbitrary. If anyone else knows about this happening all the time, I would love to be enlightened. Definitely something I would like to know going in.

Rarely happens.

Happens ALLLLLLLL the time in Football, heck there are even twitter account parodies of specific coaches(ahem Michigan coach, Alabama coach) who are notorious for offering 150 verbals a recruiting cycle for 25-30 roster spots. As for lacrosse specific, look at what is going on at U Tampa. The earlier and more frequent early recruiting gets, you can bet your dollars on it increasing.

Ok....so when does it happen ALL THE TIME in Lacrosse?? I only know of one out of the hundreds of kids I'm familiar with. And it was for a good reason, and all the fault of the kid. Can you please cite some examples of your false claims?

And FYI, Tampa not a reputable D1 program, should not even be in this conversation,

I guess reading comprehension is not one of your strengths. It clearly states, as early recruiting increases and becomes more frequent, one can bet over recruiting will occur. And to the other poster, again reading is fundamental. Never said Tampa was D1 did I?

Im around this game more years than I care to divulge. I know what I know.
I guess your not familiar with Penn State circa 2011 recruiting class and verbals.

My reading comprehension is fine. You are on speculating. There are barely any examples of D1 lacrosse coaches decommitting kids. If you believe I'm wrong, please provide some examples! If anything, kids switch their commitment to find a better fit. As long as a kid adheres to the verbal agreement, coach would not decommit.

It does happen a lot. The first thing Tambroni did when he took the Penn State job was to release all the commits and he told them he may or may not recruit them again. That should serve as notice for any HS underclassman who commits to UVA or another program where the coach is headed out the door. It also happens a lot more than people think when kids decommit here and then commit there. This can be a family just upgrading from a Furman to a UNC but just as often it is a kid who is getting a signal that he's not lined up well anymore to get the earlier promised scholarship and he should consider looking into other options. That is a polite way of saying you can come here and walk on but that may not be in your best interests.

The Penn State example is not really a good one, because he did not recruit those kids. Yes if you commit early and the coach leaves for whatever reason your verbal is obviously null, unless the new coach wants you. My point still remains that it is extremely rare for a coach to decommit a kid he recruited. Simply does not happen, provided the kid adheres to the specifications of the verbal. I've been through this with two sons and practically every kid in their recruiting cohort is going where they committed. You are correct that some switch their commitment, either because they did not meet Ivy requirements or they got a better offer because their level of play increased dramatically. This I found to be the exception, not the norm.

Happens a lot? What is your definition of a lot? To me a lot would be 8 out of 10 kids...I think your over the top on your call there.

People are on here questioning why an extremely talented 2020 would early commit, while I'm guessing he got a pretty substantial commitment from PSU.
The one's I don't quite understand are the 15+ 2019s committing to Maryland. (A similar state school to PSU, btw.) So far there are 7 Middies and 3 FO/M. Are they committing just for a chance to try-out? with a good chance of being red-shirted freshman year and possibly the next. I'm guessing 2018 has a similar sized class, which then brings it to how much money is actually available when there are only 12.6 scholarships available per team, with a roster size around 50 the athletic scholarship money can't be much. (I realize there's always academic money)
Again, not sure why some are questioning a full scholarship verbal commitment to PSU and not those who are accepting a rather limited Verbal to Maryland.

As a side note, having gone through this with a baseball son a few years back, what coaches & recruiters always told us "If you could throw a 95mph fastball or hit a 95mph fastball" a school would always be able to 'find' you scholarship money. Unfortunately my son could do neither, and I'm not sure what the lacrosse analogy would be, but even in later years there are slots available, so this whole notion of slots disappearing is not quite true for kids who can really play.

My biggest problem with this recent 2020 Verbal, is that now on my son's 2020 summer team, there will be those 2 or 3 parents, who will feel further enabled to loudly encourage their sons from the sidelines to do it 'all', just to showcase. And not sure how this helps to develop middle school players to play a team based game.

The U Delaware coach this past summer fired all of his assistants and voided all of the 2016 verbals and went and recruited all new kids. While this is certainly not the norm, it is a good example of the volatility of this process and how nothing is guaranteed.

Or dartmouth

Where did it say that this kid got a "Full Scholarship"? PSU carries 43 players. I know many coaches like to give something to each kid. That equals about 0.3 of a scholarship or around $14K for out of state tuition of $48K.

Ok, what happened at Dartmouth?

I can accept to an extent that coaches are loathe to drop recruits. But weren't they also loathe to join the earlier recruiting trend? Wasn't that something none of them ever did 3 years ago? It is also a given none have never had commits who went from 8th or 9th grade to 11th grade without getting better (or have seen other recruits in the same class pass them by).

Quite honestly, are these really men who are beyond reproach? They went early to compete, and if they needed to dump recruits to compete they'd do this as easily. Dropping a recruit will be a bad thing and something that singles out a coach in a negative way only until the next coach does it too and then a herd of them do it after that. Who is the bad guy then?

Even In Bernie Sander's world, if this kid is in the top 1% for both the 2020 & 2019 class, which people on here seem to think, then he would definitely be getting more than 0.3. There would be just a little less shares for the rest.

I don't think it ever did, anywhere. Just speculations on such an early valuable commit. Lets not blow that out of proportion, only the family and school will truly know what was offered to them.

I think de-committing is starting to happen at a more rapid pace as is poaching committed players. There are plenty of stories of kids not getting in to their committed university for a variety of reasons including academics. It would be more interesting to see how many play all four years at college. Many drop out before their junior year