BOTC - US Lacrosse Community Forum Forums MID-ATLANTIC LACROSSE MARYLAND FORUM Boys 2020

I'm with that guy. I call BS or loser. You claim to have and "Ivy and another top 20 commit" yet you don't like early recruiting. What the heck are you doing trolling on a Boys 2020. .. Oh yeah you were the guy with the Hag wife who yells "Boom". Yeah you win ... lololo

I have two other boys in elementary school and I would like to see this nonsense stop before they get to high school. I'm filthy rich and have a ton of free time on my hands. I enjoy messing with you assclowns.

The PA kids are all on age.

I wanna party with you, cowboy

Grade based is hear to stay. No one really wants to change it. They will say what people want to hear, but when it comes to voting in April, I guarantee you it will not pass.

So much of early verbals are more about politics, who is where when and who knows who and not necessarily about the best players. Not worth worrying about - there are plenty of just as talented kids out there as on this list. They just do not have former player dads or dad coaches with hooks all over and many are being pushed to fulfill their parents ego and get out there to be able to say they are committed. There will be a place for everyone who wants to play and many of these kids wont be playing at the school they have "committed" to.

It's not high school where this is really a problem, which is why it's so silly that we're grade based in youth (elem/middle school). High school is the great equalizer in that regard. If you're that good, you'll play varsity as a 9th grader no matter your age.

The problem is really middle school, particularly 8th grade where you have kids who have just been re-classed (after being held back as a pre-first and are therefore two years older than grade) that are 6-4 225lb driving themselves to games playing against on-age kids that haven't hit puberty yet.

It's not even that bad in elementary school as the kids haven't learned to play that physical yet... the spread in size is much greater when you have older-than-grade kids who have hit puberty playing against on-age kids that haven't.

It's only going to change when someone in that situation gets hurt and there's a giant lawsuit.

There will never be a lawsuit because USL encourages age groups where kids are as much as 2 years apart with their U13, U11, U9 brackets.

Not sure why there are so many people on this board that think having lacrosse be aged based LIKE EVERY OTHER YOUTH SPORT is a bad thing. The only explanation is that somehow their children are benefitting from this cooked system. USL encourages 2 year age brackets in order to accommodate areas where there are not enough kids to have it be grouped in twelve month segments. That is clearly not necessary in the DC/MD/VA area. There are plenty of kids to field complete on age teams.

As the above poster mentioned, the real problem is that club owners (Crabs) have used this convoluted system in order to gain and unfair advantage. 16 year olds on a 8th grade team is beyond ridiculous. It creates an unsafe environment and uneven playing field. It needs to end.

If USL really wants single year age groups, why don't their tournaments and championships have single year brackets? Everything is always shown in two year brackets. If they just once had single year brackets shown in any event, they would have some credibility. They just pay lip service to the single year brackets.

The people who think age based is a bad thing, are the parents of the hold backs. That simple.

Or any parent outside of LI or MD where there simply aren't enough lacrosse players to support teams or league participation based on one calendar year.. I don't know what you people keep referring to anyway but all Rec sports ((where all kids get introduced to different sports to see what they like best) combine ages or grades. U9, u11, u13 etc.. This includes football, soccer, baseball, basketball, lacrosse. One year you are the younger player and the next year you benefit from being older. Just one naive and simple minded statement after another.

Most of the moneyed private schoolers that think as long as it is best for them - that justifies it, versus the majority public schoolers that believe in doing the right thing and / or simply cannot afford to reclass. I have seen numerous "very good" on age players on elite teams reclass and they are top level studs as holdbacks! I have seen kids holdback that are still mediocre players. Most of the kids that commit at 8th and 9th graders are elite players, but I would guess 66% of them are holdbacks that would not be committing to the UNC, MD, JH and Dukes of the world if they were playing with their on age peers as 8th and 9th graders.

This is spot on. It is a clear advantage. People want to talk about the kids who are on age and being picked up early. But the fact is the number of holdbacks /relass/prefirst kids in the 2020,2019 and last year 2018 kids verbal list are one of these three things. They are not on age or younger for there age kids. Its like if 100 people jump off the roof and 3 people live would you say its a good idea to jump off that roof? Point being holdbacks/reclass kids are winning the early recruiting game. And when you talk about there being no money in lacrosse it makes this a even bigger deal. Because guess what if the early recruit gets in to UVA or Duke with a 3.5 to 3.8 GPA and he quits lacrosse guess what the school can not kick him out. So tell me again how cheating the system is not wrong.

Good to know that you able to state that 66% would not be top commits. I'm sure you have empirical data.

Waaaaaaaaaahhhh. No one cares. The rules are the way they are and they aren't changing. Get over it or find another sport.

Signed,
Parent of 3 on age kids

Yea..We really believe that you have 3 on age kids..Haaaaaaaaahhhh Haaaaaaaaaaahhhhh .

Well he may or may not have "3 on age kids". What we know for sure is that your coaches phone didn't ring once this summer asking questions about your little johnny and regardless of your delusional state of mind, removing a handful of reclassed kids wouldn't have made a difference. Very simple. More wall ball, more speed and agility and weight training, participate in other sports etc etc.. You're welcome. All that advice to get Johhny looks free of charge.

Not the case! Son committed as a on age / public school sophomore to a mid level D1 program. Earned it on his own merits. No additional help from mommy and daddy needed!

Spoken like a true patent of a holdback.

Congrats. Job well done. Not sure what your point is though. I don't really care what your response or anyone else's is but if I were in that same situation and had the means to reclass and get my "mid D1 athlete" into Duke instead, I'm all over it. So that kid is 4-6 months older then some of his competition or teammates. Really?? Who Frkn cares.. A holdback graduates high school at 18 instead of 17. Really is laughable that people would question the integrity or motive of that player or his parents.

Singed Parent of 2 on age players..

Whats laughable is the strawman you and the rest of the holdback/prefirst apologists keep coming up with.
You keep confusing youth lacrosse with " whats best for your son in school".
No one cares about what your choices are for your child to get an education to attend his school of choice. Hold your son back three years ..Who cares if thats what it takes to get him a good education.

What you holdbacks want is a select group getting an advantage at YOUTH sports that no other sport has. If that means your son gets in a good school due to this advantage..who cares what others think..I got mine!

Means justifying the end usually isnt a slogan you hear in youth sports..but probably is with you.

Heard the SAT's are easier when you are 19 as well!!

The last two posts are as dumb as they get. I use to side against holdback parents, however, you guys are making me lean in the other direction. Such stupid responses.

You are full of it..You are an holdback proponent acting like you aren't.. Try some other tactic..maybe spell out your reasoning clear and concise why you think that way..Not I used to be but now I am not and you guys are dumb.

Don't try that reversible psychotherapy on me! I did not used to be but now do not disagree with that whole scenario! Now who's the dumb guy?

I thought the earlier post was the best of the year...I think this one over took it. Well said and so very true....

So he is saying 80% of the kids playing D1 are on age coming out of school? I would guess its closer to 50% of the kids playing D1 are at least 12 months older then a kid starting public school on time.

The Hawks kid is a stud. He stood out among others in the UA tournament and maybe the reason that he played so much on his club team is because he was one of the best players. Ever consider that? Or do you just immediately assume that politics are always involved?
Most D1 college coaches can have their pick of players....especially Big 10 schools And especially schools who have dominant programs. Why would a coach who could have his pick succumb to politics? Hmmmmm.....there's a question for the masses....
Maybe the kids that are committing early really are good. Maybe they really are the kids who are working both on and off the field. And let's not forget that a coach's impression is about more than lacrosse. All things being equal, a kid's ability to interact with adults appropriately and to conduct himself in a courteous and respectful manner matters as well.

I'd agree about the Hawks middie. He is a real talent. Not to mention he is not reclassed like the majority of the early commits.

Has it occurred to any of you who are hating on the early commits that the majority of these kids will be playing in the MIAA for the next four years? If they are currently standing out on a consistent basis now, the expectation is that they will continue on the same trajectory while they play in the most competitive high school lacrosse conference in the nation.
And I may be going out on a limb here but I'd be willing to bet that none of these kids blame any of their own shortcomings on anyone else. My guess is that they have the guts to self access and the courage and humility to admit it to themselves and others when work is needed to refine their game. Maybe some of your kids should do the same.

Thanks Dad. Everyone on this forum have seen all these kids play over and over for years.

We will all see about this entire group of early commits and whether they end up where their parents think they will. There is no downside for the college coaches- they "lock" in kids but keep all the flexibility in exchange for bragging rights for the kids and parents. It is not the colleges announcing out there -it is the parents saying look at us. The majority all have something that gave them an advantage whether it was holdback, coaches' son, right school or lineage. Whether it holds will be interesting to watch going forward.

You really think the college coaches, where jobs depend on wins and losses, really commit kids based upon politics???? There may be a tiny fraction but a majority come from what the coach sees on the field and after that what a HS or club coach says about them (and I doubt any coach would torpedo a player)...coaches aren't getting called unless the player proved himself on the field. Sometimes it is being in the right place at the right time and playing a style that fits into a college coaches scheme. Stop being so negative about ER, it all seems to workout for many

Poster was being realistic-not negative. And yes, college coaches absolutely do play the politics game so do not be naive to think they are exempt. If they even honor the commit FOUR years from now, many of these kids won't see the field.

Clearly a college coach is not going to take an early commit if the kid can't play. However, like everything in life - knowing the right people certainly doesn't hurt. There is a reason every single commit to UNC is from Maryland. The UNC coach has ties to Baltimore and the Kelly family. Don't kid yourself that politics doesn't play a role.

In the end - all the commits better hit the books and work on their game. A verbal is just that - a verbal. A gentleman's agreement that can be broken by either party for any reason. If a new shiny toy shows up on a coach's door in two years and one of these early commits just isn't that special anymore - guess who loses. Buyer beware...

I'm not his dad or even related to him and my kid doesn't play club with him. He's one of the hardest working midfielders in the 2020 class and when he's on the wing there are no fast breaks. He's very effective and there's not a coach in town who wouldn't want to coach him.
I just don't think that I have to tear other kids down to feel better about my own.

If this is the case, what do you say about the commits in the 2019 class?

I will give you that the relationship helped with Breschi's relative, but the other FCA MD commits (one from Colorado) are studs, recruited by many other schools. The other commits are from all over.

Contrary to what many may believe, there is money being offered in early recruiting.....big money for some. For some of the families that have an early commit it will cost them less to send their son to college than it will to send them to a moderately priced private high school. Therefore, there is a lot at stake and the kids who take it seriously realize that. Most of these kids are committed early because they tend to take their game seriously, set goals, work on and off the field to achieve and improve, and most of the ones that I know also happen to be great students. I'm gonna choose to encourage them and believe that most of them will make good decisions in high school and that they WILL cross the "finish line". It also helps immensely when they have those "political game players" encouraging them to make good choices along the way. When you criticize the quality of the early commits, you're really just insulting the college coaches who made the choices. And perhaps the UNC relationship with Baltimore has something to do with the fact that Baltimore happens to be the nucleus of the MIAA. And maybe the fact that the Calvert Hall coach sends so many recruits their way has something to do with the fact that he happens to coach at one of the largest and most competitive all boys schools in the MIAA...just sayin. Maybe it's just good recruiting vs politics.

There haven't been many MIAA kids heading to UVA except ones affiliated with alum. There has been a Kelly at UNC for the last 100 years and I think there are enough siblings, cousins and the like to keep a Kelly at UNC for the next 100 years. There is a Matthews (alum nephew) and a few other non-relatives sprinkled in. That being said, they have all been very good players and key contributors in many cases. Breschi has a network of close friends who point him in the right direction regarding MIAA. I would call it smart recruiting, not politics