BOTC - US Lacrosse Community Forum Forums NORTHEAST LACROSSE BOTC MAIN FORUM (LI, CT, WC) Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!

Biggest reclass issues in my opinion are entering7,8. The easy remedy is U system til 9th grade then go by grad year

I agree with this. Risk of injury is not really the main reason to switch to age based groupings, although a big, but young, kid, will be less of a danger to others than a big and older kid. The older kid will, on the average, be faster, stronger and more agressive that his younger counterpart at the same size.

In general, it is important that this issue relates to averages over a large amount of kids. Obviously, a kid can still be young chronologically, but have an "older" body on terms of early entry into puberty, advanced development of muscle tone, ect. Even if the kid is still small. It becomes an issue, though, when a team has many of these kids, and their opponents have few or none. And the physically advanced kid will not be trapped playing against "lower" competition in an age based system. If his family wants him to, he can play up (i.e. a 2005 playing with the 2004s).

You bring up another point that is under-discussed: more formally denoted skill divisions. The youth lacrosse 'community' would have you believe that there are only 8 - 10 teams on all of LI that are A, with 4 - 5 being AA, and the rest of the teams are all B. That is the most ridiculous approach to such a thing ever. I have no problem with the so designated AA teams - they are the cream of the crop and there is not much argument about them. But, there is a strong argument to be made for a good handful of teams to be considered A, even if they are below that top ten. Yet, the 'country club' of those top 10 (more like 7 or 8!) or so want to keep everyone else out. This is a disservice to both the A and B teams. And, to be clear, this has zero to do with wanting undeserving teams to be recognized as A, a la participation trophies etc. It is all about how to organize a youth sport the proper way for competitive reasons, particularly when the predominant form of play is tournaments.

I never said risk of injury was the main reason - I said that it could be the catalyst for forced change if change doesn't happen for the better reasons and a catastrophic situation comes as a result of an age mismatch. Proactive versus reactive.

The precedent is all the other youth contact sports that have limitations/controls around age. Sorry - next time I'll use a spoon.

At the rec levels, youth lacrosse has always had 2 year spreads, because rural areas can't sustain a team for every birth year. It's just not big enough of a sport to use the same model as youth football, where you have millions of participants. Clubs are able to essentially put together one, or sometimes two, teams per (grad) year, because private clubs draw kids from many communities. If you changed club to birth year, it would still be a different system than recreation councils can sustain. The complaint with the U system at rec, is whenever a team wins at the B level, everyone complains it is an A team playing down, which is about as nauseating as the holdback argument.

3 points:

1. maybe you're not involved in with youth football of late, but the numbers there are dwindling. Fielding a team for a 1-year age group is getting harder and harder outside of the biggest towns. As an example of the decline, Massapequa used to have a whole slew of intra-town teams above and beyond their travel teams at all/many age levels. As I understand it, now they only have the travel team.

2. USL already addressed the issue of rural/non-lacrosse hotbed areas by allowing teams to have 2-year spreads - other mature youth sports (including football) already do this via allowance for boys to play up but never down from a designated age group. (https://www.uslacrosse.org/sites/de.../player-segmentation-task-force-recs.pdf)

3. In addition to the age-based system being implemented, as has been mentioned, a clearer skill designation system should also be implemented. With an age-based system, this would be much easier to do. Teams at the edge of any band of skill designation will always be a point of contention, but you need a better system to start with.

So with all this argument over age based reclassification. Injuries and what no (which I don't think exist) what of an on age kid who is clearly superior in size and speed to everyone else? We have all seen this kid. He just got there faster. Will he be banned from playing? What is the answer? I mean really, it's the same thing isn't it? Its a safety issue if he is allowed to continue playing with the smaller kids. Maybe the smaller kids shouldn't be allowed to play. That would make it safer. The answer is there is no answer. The age reclass argument is based on winning and losing, nothing more. The parents posting on here could care less about injuries, they just want the Trophy/t-shirt.

We should assign teams by exact birthday, although the early morning kids may have an advantage over the afternoon kids, and evening kids - forget about it, they are screwed. F'ing morning kids totally gaming the system.

you sound like a total jack off.

but tomorrow I can sound different, but you'll still be a Leaker.

i didnt not say you couldnt be a hold back but it would be known you were a hold back (Cheater or a PG trying to better themselves) - right now it is a hidden consequence. i dont know that my grade player is player a player 1-2 years older. i sign a waiver saying thinking my child is playing against a proper opponent.

and for those saying this isnt USSR, the gov (be it state) does mandate an age but doesnt enforce it with any bite. As for the norm in youth sports, doesnt the Government sub committes actually lets the governing bodies of each sport police these things and USLAX is just that Lax on it.

I too played Football in college and later for fun semi pro, age matters until 25 then, age matters again at 35. 25-35 is the only years age doesnt matter. Puberty or not

You are the perfect example of a person who provides no value to a discussion. You are also likely someone who provides zero time and effort to improving something, but would also likely be the first to complain. You are exactly the complete opposite of what I look for in potential hires for my company!

You just provided zero value to the discussion. I only work with holdbacks that don't look on lax forums for hires anyway.

Lame. Of course there are kids that get big, fast and strong at an early age (as you say, they get there faster). But such kids are rare. By playing a grade based system where different teams/parts of the country have large differences in the ages of the players, you significantly increase the occurrence of players who are significantly bigger, stronger and faster than their opponents. By playing on age, such occurrences are minimized. Not eliminated, but minimized. Such is an achievable and worthy goal.

Moreover, the kid who "gets there faster" can always play up in a age based system if his family deems such to be is his best developmental interest. Than he can move back to his proper age when the other kids catch up.

First off your company is BS, just like you! What have YOU done? Name one action you have taken to improve the current system, OTHER than anonymously posting your nonsense on BOTC. I have yet to see a parent at a tournament with a petition regarding this. I have never seen a parent set up a booth at a tournament to protest. So what Mr. Big Shot, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE? Nonsense, your company, HA, is it as imaginary as your efforts to improve a system you so strenuously object to? I have a word for guys like you....PHONY.

Why because all that is ever posted is how much concern people have for the kids safety and well being? That's a load of BS and you know it. But keep putting that in your argument if it makes you feel better, I know the truth, it's all about the T-shirt. But thanks for the insult on the anonymous site, let me return the favor, you ARE a total jack off! Stop worrying about losing kids lax games and concentrate on being a better person. Ahh, forget it , too much work for a tool like you.

Just because you think winning t-shirts and "ships" is the immediate pay off for your $ and that a college scholarship (which is likely to be worth very little actual $) is the long term pay off - doesn't mean that's the way others think. Set injuries aside if you think it's a non-concern. Organizing around age prior to HS is ultimately better for all the kids - including the left back older kids.

Maybe less t-shirts involved for some, but ultimately better lacrosse and development for all. Anyone who knows anything about player developement knows this is true. Beating up on younger kids may get your son a few more shirts which makes you feel good about your "investment" but it's not the best way to develope players. Ask anyone who knows anything and isn't selling you something. Best players would play up during youth rather than down if you went to age based.

Different poster here. Not really concerned with injuries but do feel rewarding these people who work the system is wrong . How many of the players in the UA senior game are hold backs ? How many of the top ranked 2017 recruits are hold backs ? How many of them would have gotten those same accolades on age ? Seems you are putting the on age kids at a disadvantage .Its comical when the parents of these players puff out their chest and brag about their kids accolades when it's obvious that if they played on age they would be above average but that's it .

I agree, I keep hearing that age doesn't matter in high school, I don't know as we are not there yet, but if age doesn't matter in high school wouldn't kids be going straight into the NFL? My understanding is that even the most talented 18 yr. olds can in no way physically compete with men. Therefore age still matters in high school, right? My only problem is that with the kindergarten standards being what they are now New [lacrosse] is the one a little behind with their 12/1 cut off.

Seriously, what is your fascination with pretending there is a birthday year team, and creating this false reality in your mind? There is not a 17 year old team, not a 18 year old team, not a 19 year old team. They have High School teams, by grade. Other than trying to disparage a very large batch of private school kids, what is your point?
How about calling people that don't take the extra year, if available, lazy impatient cheapskate mf'ers. Is there really a parent out there that thinks an extra year of education is a detriment in any way? It's available at some schools, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with taking it if available, because 'Merica.

i didnt not say you couldnt be a hold back but it would be known you were a hold back (Cheater or a PG trying to better themselves) - right now it is a hidden consequence. i dont know that my grade player is player a player 1-2 years older. i sign a waiver saying thinking my child is playing against a proper opponent.

and for those saying this isnt USSR, the gov (be it state) does mandate an age but doesnt enforce it with any bite. As for the norm in youth sports, doesnt the Government sub committes actually lets the governing bodies of each sport police these things and USLAX is just that Lax on it.

I too played Football in college and later for fun semi pro, age matters until 25 then, age matters again at 35. 25-35 is the only years age doesnt matter. Puberty or not [/quote]

I agree, I keep hearing that age doesn't matter in high school, I don't know as we are not there yet, but if age doesn't matter in high school wouldn't kids be going straight into the NFL? My understanding is that even the most talented 18 yr. olds can in no way physically compete with men. Therefore age still matters in high school, right? My only problem is that with the kindergarten standards being what they are now New [lacrosse] is the one a little behind with their 12/1 cut off.
[/quote]

Ask the Germans how our most talented 18 year olds did when put to the test. Still, wth does this have to do with 17-19 year olds playing Varsity lacrosse together in HS?? As soon as you hit college, it goes to like 18-22, so again, what is your point? Are you saying that most HS Senior athletes can't yet compete with most pro athletes, at any particular sport? Ok, sounds logical. But, still, wth does that have to do with some kid that repeated a middle school grade?

No one is complaining about your kid taking an extra year of education, or repeating 8th grade, or whatever it is you do. Have at it. Its just that when your kid plays travel lacrosse, he should be on a team populated with kids of similar age, and he should be playing games against other teams similarly rostered. That is all. Put your kid in 3rd grade when he is 14 - no one cares. But when he plays travel lax, just have him play against other 14 year olds. That is all people are asking, and many people are advocating for such a system. This forum is one place where that advocacy happens.

The fascination with birth year teams is not in pretending that they exit. Its in wishing they exist. Why is this hard to understand?

For your High School team, it doesn't matter how old the kids are, so long as they are not above whatever age your governing body dictates is too old (in many places, it is capped at 19). But realize that HS competition is almost always organized amongst schools that have similar aged kids. NY public high schools compete only against NY public high schools, and these kids are largely the same age per grade. Prep schools play against Prep schools. Ect. Sometimes, teams voluntarily play outside their category (like a Yorktown type school playing a prep school in CT or something like that), but they do such voluntarily knowing what they are getting into - and the games never really count for anything - its not a league or sectional game.

But for travel lacrosse, where kids are competing against kids from all over the country regardless of state or high school, it should be an age-based system. That is how it is in most other team sports, and it works well. It would work well in lacrosse, and in undeniably better than the system we have now. If your kid is very good, he can play up against older kids at your choosing.

I agree, I keep hearing that age doesn't matter in high school, I don't know as we are not there yet, but if age doesn't matter in high school wouldn't kids be going straight into the NFL? My understanding is that even the most talented 18 yr. olds can in no way physically compete with men. Therefore age still matters in high school, right? My only problem is that with the kindergarten standards being what they are now New [lacrosse] is the one a little behind with their 12/1 cut off.
[/quote]


It isn't that it doesn't matter in HS. The point is - that varying school systems across the country aren't going to uniformly re-organize around sport's concerns. They have curriculums, age systems, and business models which they deem best (for whatever the reason). That isn't likely to ever get addressed - so not really worth focusing too much attention on IMO.

The reality is - once your kid hits HS he is competing against those kids (older or not) if he hopes to move on and play at the college level. The 20+ year old player from Deerfield or Brunswick is entering college the same time as your 17/18 yr. old from LI - that's just life with competitive college sports. Does the older player have an advantage? Sure. But, put a talented 18 yr. old on the field with a potentially less or even equally talented 20 yr. old and the difference isn't overwhelming for the younger player.

Same is simply not true at youth level. Talented still 12 not yet 13 year old going into 8th grade vs. 14+ year old kids is, in fact, often times overwhelming. To all those that say this is just crying and whining - you're either delusional or blind.

All the posters complaining about advocating for an age-based system never provide the one thing to make an actual argument: rationale for the grade-based system! Because there isn't one!

All those saying that it isn't about the injuries should note that USL felt compelled to make injuries the top reason for implementing its age-based policy recommendations:

"The development of this policy was based on the overarching goal of providing a safe, quality and consistent playing experience
for all youth lacrosse players in the country."

https://www.uslacrosse.org/sites/de.../player-segmentation-task-force-recs.pdf

Until RECOMMENDS becomes MANDATES this is a useless conversation

Seriously, what is your fascination with pretending there is a birthday year team, and creating this false reality in your mind? There is not a 17 year old team, not a 18 year old team, not a 19 year old team. They have High School teams, by grade. Other than trying to disparage a very large batch of private school kids, what is your point?
How about calling people that don't take the extra year, if available, lazy impatient cheapskate mf'ers. Is there really a parent out there that thinks an extra year of education is a detriment in any way? It's available at some schools, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with taking it if available, because 'Merica. [/quote]

No one is complaining about your kid taking an extra year of education, or repeating 8th grade, or whatever it is you do. Have at it. Its just that when your kid plays travel lacrosse, he should be on a team populated with kids of similar age, and he should be playing games against other teams similarly rostered. That is all. Put your kid in 3rd grade when he is 14 - no one cares. But when he plays travel lax, just have him play against other 14 year olds. That is all people are asking, and many people are advocating for such a system. This forum is one place where that advocacy happens.

The fascination with birth year teams is not in pretending that they exit. Its in wishing they exist. Why is this hard to understand?

For your High School team, it doesn't matter how old the kids are, so long as they are not above whatever age your governing body dictates is too old (in many places, it is capped at 19). But realize that HS competition is almost always organized amongst schools that have similar aged kids. NY public high schools compete only against NY public high schools, and these kids are largely the same age per grade. Prep schools play against Prep schools. Ect. Sometimes, teams voluntarily play outside their category (like a Yorktown type school playing a prep school in CT or something like that), but they do such voluntarily knowing what they are getting into - and the games never really count for anything - its not a league or sectional game.

But for travel lacrosse, where kids are competing against kids from all over the country regardless of state or high school, it should be an age-based system. That is how it is in most other team sports, and it works well. It would work well in lacrosse, and in undeniably better than the system we have now. If your kid is very good, he can play up against older kids at your choosing. [/quote]

All the posters complaining about advocating for an age-based system never provide the one thing to make an actual argument: rationale for the grade-based system! Because there isn't one![/quote]

The rationale is that club was originally formed for kids that wanted to excel and definitely wanted to play Varsity in HS, then into college, so the system was set up for continuity from middle school into HS, which is obviously going to be grade-based, because HS events are showcases, not team trophy chases. Middle school was to build the teams, then HS was to showcase the players. Then, club got really popular, and everyone wanted to play, so it became really just an expensive rec league, and the younger teams were added and more average teams have emerged. Now, folks don't want it to be high level HS prep, they want it to be a universal rec league, and with the rec league mentality comes rec league rules. My question, does rec not exist anymore, for those that want to play the game as a mere youth activity? Club should be high level HS prep for anyone that wants high level HS prep. What's wrong now, the teams that treat it as high level HS prep aren't playing in events with teams that treat it like expensive rec, they play in high level HS prep-style events against each other.

No one is complaining about your kid taking an extra year of education, or repeating 8th grade, or whatever it is you do. Have at it. Its just that when your kid plays travel lacrosse, he should be on a team populated with kids of similar age, and he should be playing games against other teams similarly rostered. That is all. Put your kid in 3rd grade when he is 14 - no one cares. But when he plays travel lax, just have him play against other 14 year olds. That is all people are asking, and many people are advocating for such a system. This forum is one place where that advocacy happens.

The fascination with birth year teams is not in pretending that they exit. Its in wishing they exist. Why is this hard to understand?

For your High School team, it doesn't matter how old the kids are, so long as they are not above whatever age your governing body dictates is too old (in many places, it is capped at 19). But realize that HS competition is almost always organized amongst schools that have similar aged kids. NY public high schools compete only against NY public high schools, and these kids are largely the same age per grade. Prep schools play against Prep schools. Ect. Sometimes, teams voluntarily play outside their category (like a Yorktown type school playing a prep school in CT or something like that), but they do such voluntarily knowing what they are getting into - and the games never really count for anything - its not a league or sectional game.

But for travel lacrosse, where kids are competing against kids from all over the country regardless of state or high school, it should be an age-based system. That is how it is in most other team sports, and it works well. It would work well in lacrosse, and in undeniably better than the system we have now. If your kid is very good, he can play up against older kids at your choosing. [/quote]

All the posters complaining about advocating for an age-based system never provide the one thing to make an actual argument: rationale for the grade-based system! Because there isn't one![/quote]

The rationale is that club was originally formed for kids that wanted to excel and definitely wanted to play Varsity in HS, then into college, so the system was set up for continuity from middle school into HS, which is obviously going to be grade-based, because HS events are showcases, not team trophy chases. Middle school was to build the teams, then HS was to showcase the players. Then, club got really popular, and everyone wanted to play, so it became really just an expensive rec league, and the younger teams were added and more average teams have emerged. Now, folks don't want it to be high level HS prep, they want it to be a universal rec league, and with the rec league mentality comes rec league rules. My question, does rec not exist anymore, for those that want to play the game as a mere youth activity? Club should be high level HS prep for anyone that wants high level HS prep. What's wrong now, the teams that treat it as high level HS prep aren't playing in events with teams that treat it like expensive rec, they play in high level HS prep-style events against each other.

[/quote]

The sport should be organized around what it is, not what it was. Thus, any argument about how it was set up before has no bearing on how it should be set up now, and is in effect not a valid argument to maintain the current state. It should be age-based for 7 - 14 YOs (roughly equivalent to 2nd grade through MS/8th grade), and then HS players can be grade-based if that is preferred for the recruiting aspect of it.

It's only useless if you are of the mindset that no one will pursue transitioning it from "recommended" to "mandated" - that's called progress! It's what most other major youth sports all achieved, probably with the same naysayers then as we see here regarding lax today!

True Conversation that happened at NLF Elite 120 2020:

Crabs Attackmen: How old are you?
Upstate New [lacrosse] Defender: I am 14 turning 15 in July
Crabs Attackmen: Your Crazy. I am 17. You should stay back at least one year maybe even two

It is a shame that one would walk around with his head up while competing against kids 2 to 3 years younger.

Just an observation

No one is complaining about your kid taking an extra year of education, or repeating 8th grade, or whatever it is you do. Have at it. Its just that when your kid plays travel lacrosse, he should be on a team populated with kids of similar age, and he should be playing games against other teams similarly rostered. That is all. Put your kid in 3rd grade when he is 14 - no one cares. But when he plays travel lax, just have him play against other 14 year olds. That is all people are asking, and many people are advocating for such a system. This forum is one place where that advocacy happens.

The fascination with birth year teams is not in pretending that they exit. Its in wishing they exist. Why is this hard to understand?

For your High School team, it doesn't matter how old the kids are, so long as they are not above whatever age your governing body dictates is too old (in many places, it is capped at 19). But realize that HS competition is almost always organized amongst schools that have similar aged kids. NY public high schools compete only against NY public high schools, and these kids are largely the same age per grade. Prep schools play against Prep schools. Ect. Sometimes, teams voluntarily play outside their category (like a Yorktown type school playing a prep school in CT or something like that), but they do such voluntarily knowing what they are getting into - and the games never really count for anything - its not a league or sectional game.

But for travel lacrosse, where kids are competing against kids from all over the country regardless of state or high school, it should be an age-based system. That is how it is in most other team sports, and it works well. It would work well in lacrosse, and in undeniably better than the system we have now. If your kid is very good, he can play up against older kids at your choosing. [/quote]

All the posters complaining about advocating for an age-based system never provide the one thing to make an actual argument: rationale for the grade-based system! Because there isn't one![/quote]

The rationale is that club was originally formed for kids that wanted to excel and definitely wanted to play Varsity in HS, then into college, so the system was set up for continuity from middle school into HS, which is obviously going to be grade-based, because HS events are showcases, not team trophy chases. Middle school was to build the teams, then HS was to showcase the players. Then, club got really popular, and everyone wanted to play, so it became really just an expensive rec league, and the younger teams were added and more average teams have emerged. Now, folks don't want it to be high level HS prep, they want it to be a universal rec league, and with the rec league mentality comes rec league rules. My question, does rec not exist anymore, for those that want to play the game as a mere youth activity? Club should be high level HS prep for anyone that wants high level HS prep. What's wrong now, the teams that treat it as high level HS prep aren't playing in events with teams that treat it like expensive rec, they play in high level HS prep-style events against each other.

[/quote]

Another lame argument. How come hockey does it age based at the highest levels? Same for soccer? Why can't you prep for high level HS and college against kids your own age? The best of the best of the best can play AAA leagues/divisions against kids their same age. How is an elite player's development disadvantaged by playing against other elite players his same age? If a kid is even better than the best kids his age than he can play in a higher age bracket.

The college showcase argument is lame also. When college coaches watch HS and MS kids, they don't care how good they are now. They are instead trying to figure out who will be good when they reach college. They are trying to see who projects to be great when they are older. How on earth are you able to do that when some kids on the field are 15 and some are 13? A 15 year old dominating a 13 year old tells you nothing about whether or not that 15 year old projects to be great in college. The same is true for the 13 year old being dominated. But if a 15 year old dominates other 15 year olds, than you have some data to work with.

And please no one respond with the equally lame argument that "they will be playing against each other in college so you might as well compete now." When said 13 year old gets to college, and its late winter/spring of his freshman year, he will be 18-close to 19 in all likelihood, which means he will be fully matured and physically able to compete against a 20-21 year old. The difference is either nil or trivial at that point. But when they are 12 and 14 or 13 and 15, or 14 and 16, etc., the difference will be stark outside of a few outliers who mature very early.

All the posters complaining about advocating for an age-based system never provide the one thing to make an actual argument: rationale for the grade-based system! Because there isn't one![/quote]

The rationale is that club was originally formed for kids that wanted to excel and definitely wanted to play Varsity in HS, then into college, so the system was set up for continuity from middle school into HS, which is obviously going to be grade-based, because HS events are showcases, not team trophy chases. Middle school was to build the teams, then HS was to showcase the players. Then, club got really popular, and everyone wanted to play, so it became really just an expensive rec league, and the younger teams were added and more average teams have emerged. Now, folks don't want it to be high level HS prep, they want it to be a universal rec league, and with the rec league mentality comes rec league rules. My question, does rec not exist anymore, for those that want to play the game as a mere youth activity? Club should be high level HS prep for anyone that wants high level HS prep. What's wrong now, the teams that treat it as high level HS prep aren't playing in events with teams that treat it like expensive rec, they play in high level HS prep-style events against each other.

[/quote]

Another lame argument. How come hockey does it age based at the highest levels? Same for soccer? Why can't you prep for high level HS and college against kids your own age? The best of the best of the best can play AAA leagues/divisions against kids their same age. How is an elite player's development disadvantaged by playing against other elite players his same age? If a kid is even better than the best kids his age than he can play in a higher age bracket.

The college showcase argument is lame also. When college coaches watch HS and MS kids, they don't care how good they are now. They are instead trying to figure out who will be good when they reach college. They are trying to see who projects to be great when they are older. How on earth are you able to do that when some kids on the field are 15 and some are 13? A 15 year old dominating a 13 year old tells you nothing about whether or not that 15 year old projects to be great in college. The same is true for the 13 year old being dominated. But if a 15 year old dominates other 15 year olds, than you have some data to work with.

And please no one respond with the equally lame argument that "they will be playing against each other in college so you might as well compete now." When said 13 year old gets to college, and its late winter/spring of his freshman year, he will be 18-close to 19 in all likelihood, which means he will be fully matured and physically able to compete against a 20-21 year old. The difference is either nil or trivial at that point. But when they are 12 and 14 or 13 and 15, or 14 and 16, etc., the difference will be stark outside of a few outliers who mature very early.[/quote]

Did you have a petition set up at any tourneys this year? On here, it's just whining. I win, because it is my way now.

The rationale is that club was originally formed for kids that wanted to excel and definitely wanted to play Varsity in HS, then into college, so the system was set up for continuity from middle school into HS, which is obviously going to be grade-based, because HS events are showcases, not team trophy chases. Middle school was to build the teams, then HS was to showcase the players. Then, club got really popular, and everyone wanted to play, so it became really just an expensive rec league, and the younger teams were added and more average teams have emerged. Now, folks don't want it to be high level HS prep, they want it to be a universal rec league, and with the rec league mentality comes rec league rules. My question, does rec not exist anymore, for those that want to play the game as a mere youth activity? Club should be high level HS prep for anyone that wants high level HS prep. What's wrong now, the teams that treat it as high level HS prep aren't playing in events with teams that treat it like expensive rec, they play in high level HS prep-style events against each other.

[/quote]

Another lame argument. How come hockey does it age based at the highest levels? Same for soccer? Why can't you prep for high level HS and college against kids your own age? The best of the best of the best can play AAA leagues/divisions against kids their same age. How is an elite player's development disadvantaged by playing against other elite players his same age? If a kid is even better than the best kids his age than he can play in a higher age bracket.

The college showcase argument is lame also. When college coaches watch HS and MS kids, they don't care how good they are now. They are instead trying to figure out who will be good when they reach college. They are trying to see who projects to be great when they are older. How on earth are you able to do that when some kids on the field are 15 and some are 13? A 15 year old dominating a 13 year old tells you nothing about whether or not that 15 year old projects to be great in college. The same is true for the 13 year old being dominated. But if a 15 year old dominates other 15 year olds, than you have some data to work with.

And please no one respond with the equally lame argument that "they will be playing against each other in college so you might as well compete now." When said 13 year old gets to college, and its late winter/spring of his freshman year, he will be 18-close to 19 in all likelihood, which means he will be fully matured and physically able to compete against a 20-21 year old. The difference is either nil or trivial at that point. But when they are 12 and 14 or 13 and 15, or 14 and 16, etc., the difference will be stark outside of a few outliers who mature very early.[/quote]

Did you have a petition set up at any tourneys this year? On here, it's just whining. I win, because it is my way now.
[/quote]

"Your" way?? And you do realize you are arguing against multiple posters? Lastly, as if petitioning is the sole means to accomplish anything? I'd argue that THAT approach might be the most useless - you can get people to sign petitions for practically anything, in many cases for outlandish 'causes'.

The rationale is that club was originally formed for kids that wanted to excel and definitely wanted to play Varsity in HS, then into college, so the system was set up for continuity from middle school into HS, which is obviously going to be grade-based, because HS events are showcases, not team trophy chases. Middle school was to build the teams, then HS was to showcase the players. Then, club got really popular, and everyone wanted to play, so it became really just an expensive rec league, and the younger teams were added and more average teams have emerged. Now, folks don't want it to be high level HS prep, they want it to be a universal rec league, and with the rec league mentality comes rec league rules. My question, does rec not exist anymore, for those that want to play the game as a mere youth activity? Club should be high level HS prep for anyone that wants high level HS prep. What's wrong now, the teams that treat it as high level HS prep aren't playing in events with teams that treat it like expensive rec, they play in high level HS prep-style events against each other.

[/quote]

Another lame argument. How come hockey does it age based at the highest levels? Same for soccer? Why can't you prep for high level HS and college against kids your own age? The best of the best of the best can play AAA leagues/divisions against kids their same age. How is an elite player's development disadvantaged by playing against other elite players his same age? If a kid is even better than the best kids his age than he can play in a higher age bracket.

The college showcase argument is lame also. When college coaches watch HS and MS kids, they don't care how good they are now. They are instead trying to figure out who will be good when they reach college. They are trying to see who projects to be great when they are older. How on earth are you able to do that when some kids on the field are 15 and some are 13? A 15 year old dominating a 13 year old tells you nothing about whether or not that 15 year old projects to be great in college. The same is true for the 13 year old being dominated. But if a 15 year old dominates other 15 year olds, than you have some data to work with.

And please no one respond with the equally lame argument that "they will be playing against each other in college so you might as well compete now." When said 13 year old gets to college, and its late winter/spring of his freshman year, he will be 18-close to 19 in all likelihood, which means he will be fully matured and physically able to compete against a 20-21 year old. The difference is either nil or trivial at that point. But when they are 12 and 14 or 13 and 15, or 14 and 16, etc., the difference will be stark outside of a few outliers who mature very early.[/quote]

Did you have a petition set up at any tourneys this year? On here, it's just whining. I win, because it is my way now.
[/quote]

If that is the best argument that can be made then it’s not surprising it took so long for someone to actually write it down. The industry (which is exactly what it is now as opposed to then) should take ownership for what it is putting on the field tourney after tourney. Seems to me there are plenty of people at the tournaments you are describing who don’t like the way it is now – I’m one of them and people talk about it all the time. Diminishes the entire experience – even for the older kids.

This industry makes a large portion of its’ collective income off of younger and younger players and they continue to organize around something you say was set-up for the super talented few heading into HS oh so many years ago. Why should all these kids who love playing be told either play against kids older than you or play Rec and go have an ice cream. I’ll bet your son’s club (assuming you’re a parent) or your team/club (assuming you are a coach/club owner) - which only plays in the very best of the best tourneys is probably holding tryouts w/in the next few days/weeks for the “classes” of 2027 and 2028 (7-8 year olds) and cashing those checks the same way they cashed the uber elite HS prep player’s check.

Organize around age so the experience is level and better for all youth players and if that doesn't hone a player’s skills well enough - have him “play-up” age wise to get ready for future HS showcases rather than “play-down” age wise which is what happens now. It isn’t the skill level that is the issue during youth lacrosse that people object to - it is the size, speed and physicality issue of older v. younger. There will still be the best players on the best teams playing in the most competitive tournaments – why would that change in an age based system? No reason the way it was is the way it should be any longer and there is no dilution effect at the top.

You're "I win" comment exposes you for the kind of left back proponent you really are. I'm glad that you think you are the big winner here - compelling interested, talented and dedicated kids to play in an environment that few if any believe to be optimal - nice W! FWIW - not actually whining in a forum set up to specifically discuss this issue. Go celebrate your big win with a Cohiba champ.

Spoken like a parent that held back there kid for a Sport! Here is the argument......Your Cheating!!!!!

Finally someone is trying to move to age base
NXT Sports
https://nxtsports.com/blog/entry/nx...to-adopt-us-lacrosse-age-segmentation-p/

If you ain't cheating, you ain't trying

As the season gets ready to reset, let all be reminded that we are grade based again. Now send in those dues, losers!!

I like it. Using Sept to Aug mirrors the year used by schools in the majority of states where youth lacrosse is fairly developed as a sport. Calendar year would be best for NY, as it comes close to NYs school age system, but NY is in the minority here. While NYers would prefer the calendar, moving to Sept-Aug would be much better than the current grade system. Going to age based teams is all that matters. Where the 12 month window lies is far less important.

Calendar year is used in hockey mostly because the Canadians use it, and USA Hockey more or less emulated them. Soccer recently moved from Aug-July (I think - am not sure) to calendar year simply to be in line with what is done internationally.