BOTC - US Lacrosse Community Forum Forums NORTHEAST LACROSSE BOTC MAIN FORUM (LI, CT, WC) Long Island Yellow Jackets Lacrosse

^^^^^^^^^ Very good advice, spot on actually.
[/quote]

Spot on in regard to what? Was not sot on in regard to my kids experience at all. The Club director was involved in helping my kid get noticed and she is on their top team but definitely not considered a top 10 player on the team. A lot more academic money? Couple problems with that . First you will not know what academic money you will qualify for until very late in the process and getting academic money at some of the more competitive schools is in my opinion harder than getting athletic.[/quote]

Did your daughter commit before, or after, the rule change? Would have to be a 2018 (or older) if she did it after the change. 2019s have 3 more weeks before they can start committing again.

The main point is that the rule change shifted a huge amount of power FROM club directors TO college coaches and recruits. I think most people would agree that club directors can still help marginal players over the hump at some schools, especially schools having trouble filling their last spots. Doesn't seem likely to happen often at the better lacrosse schools or the better academic schools. Recruits flood them with interest, and college coaches have plenty of time to see anyone they are actually interested in. No more club directors talking up a 14 or 15 year old girl. The girl's ability will do most of the talking now.
[/quote]

Seems so douchie when you come on this site and act like you have a clue when in reality you are just guessing at how the new recruiting rule will impact these kids. My point was that your " spot on " statement was not for my kid or her friends. Getting athletic money was an easier road than academic for many who went on to great academic schools. There are many who were in the top 5 of their graduating classes wait listed or denied entry from my daughters high school graduating class to many of the schools that her club teammates are attending with decent money. As far as athletic money not being guaranteed , only if they quit.

^^^^^^^^^ Very good advice, spot on actually.
[/quote]

Spot on in regard to what? Was not sot on in regard to my kids experience at all. The Club director was involved in helping my kid get noticed and she is on their top team but definitely not considered a top 10 player on the team. A lot more academic money? Couple problems with that . First you will not know what academic money you will qualify for until very late in the process and getting academic money at some of the more competitive schools is in my opinion harder than getting athletic.[/quote]

Did your daughter commit before, or after, the rule change? Would have to be a 2018 (or older) if she did it after the change. 2019s have 3 more weeks before they can start committing again.

The main point is that the rule change shifted a huge amount of power FROM club directors TO college coaches and recruits. I think most people would agree that club directors can still help marginal players over the hump at some schools, especially schools having trouble filling their last spots. Doesn't seem likely to happen often at the better lacrosse schools or the better academic schools. Recruits flood them with interest, and college coaches have plenty of time to see anyone they are actually interested in. No more club directors talking up a 14 or 15 year old girl. The girl's ability will do most of the talking now.
[/quote]

Seems so douchie when you come on this site and act like you have a clue when in reality you are just guessing at how the new recruiting rule will impact these kids. My point was that your " spot on " statement was not for my kid or her friends. Getting athletic money was an easier road than academic for many who went on to great academic schools. There are many who were in the top 5 of their graduating classes wait listed or denied entry from my daughters high school graduating class to many of the schools that her club teammates are attending with decent money. As far as athletic money not being guaranteed , only if they quit.
[/quote]

Actually, I didn't mention athletic vs academic money because I have no disagreement on that point. If you want academic money, focus on very safe schools where your daughter is over-qualified. You shouldn't count on a penny of academic money at any "reach" school where lacrosse is the only reason your daughter can get in.

What I wrote about the power shift is an educated guess, to be sure, but it's supported by logic and reason (unlike your emotional response). If you think what I wrote is wrong, why not say what you think is wrong with it, and explain what you think will happen? I could use a laugh.

Spot on in regard to what? Was not sot on in regard to my kids experience at all. The Club director was involved in helping my kid get noticed and she is on their top team but definitely not considered a top 10 player on the team. A lot more academic money? Couple problems with that . First you will not know what academic money you will qualify for until very late in the process and getting academic money at some of the more competitive schools is in my opinion harder than getting athletic.[/quote]

Did your daughter commit before, or after, the rule change? Would have to be a 2018 (or older) if she did it after the change. 2019s have 3 more weeks before they can start committing again.

The main point is that the rule change shifted a huge amount of power FROM club directors TO college coaches and recruits. I think most people would agree that club directors can still help marginal players over the hump at some schools, especially schools having trouble filling their last spots. Doesn't seem likely to happen often at the better lacrosse schools or the better academic schools. Recruits flood them with interest, and college coaches have plenty of time to see anyone they are actually interested in. No more club directors talking up a 14 or 15 year old girl. The girl's ability will do most of the talking now.
[/quote]

Seems so douchie when you come on this site and act like you have a clue when in reality you are just guessing at how the new recruiting rule will impact these kids. My point was that your " spot on " statement was not for my kid or her friends. Getting athletic money was an easier road than academic for many who went on to great academic schools. There are many who were in the top 5 of their graduating classes wait listed or denied entry from my daughters high school graduating class to many of the schools that her club teammates are attending with decent money. As far as athletic money not being guaranteed , only if they quit.
[/quote]

What schools would you be talking about?

Spot on in regard to what? Was not sot on in regard to my kids experience at all. The Club director was involved in helping my kid get noticed and she is on their top team but definitely not considered a top 10 player on the team. A lot more academic money? Couple problems with that . First you will not know what academic money you will qualify for until very late in the process and getting academic money at some of the more competitive schools is in my opinion harder than getting athletic.[/quote]

Did your daughter commit before, or after, the rule change? Would have to be a 2018 (or older) if she did it after the change. 2019s have 3 more weeks before they can start committing again.

The main point is that the rule change shifted a huge amount of power FROM club directors TO college coaches and recruits. I think most people would agree that club directors can still help marginal players over the hump at some schools, especially schools having trouble filling their last spots. Doesn't seem likely to happen often at the better lacrosse schools or the better academic schools. Recruits flood them with interest, and college coaches have plenty of time to see anyone they are actually interested in. No more club directors talking up a 14 or 15 year old girl. The girl's ability will do most of the talking now.
[/quote]

Seems so douchie when you come on this site and act like you have a clue when in reality you are just guessing at how the new recruiting rule will impact these kids. My point was that your " spot on " statement was not for my kid or her friends. Getting athletic money was an easier road than academic for many who went on to great academic schools. There are many who were in the top 5 of their graduating classes wait listed or denied entry from my daughters high school graduating class to many of the schools that her club teammates are attending with decent money. As far as athletic money not being guaranteed , only if they quit.
[/quote]

Actually, I didn't mention athletic vs academic money because I have no disagreement on that point. If you want academic money, focus on very safe schools where your daughter is over-qualified. You shouldn't count on a penny of academic money at any "reach" school where lacrosse is the only reason your daughter can get in.

What I wrote about the power shift is an educated guess, to be sure, but it's supported by logic and reason (unlike your emotional response). If you think what I wrote is wrong, why not say what you think is wrong with it, and explain what you think will happen? I could use a laugh.
[/quote]

Okay I think the club directors will still have a lot of power, was not very long ago that players did not get recruited or commit until their junior year at the earliest. Many seniors at the top schools now did not commit until junior year so it seems logical that things will be similar to that and the club coaches wielded a lot of influence. It seems more about jealousy for you to suggest that the kids who committed early were not chosen because of ability but because a club director "talked them up" but that would not happen 2 years later. If a college coach is too lazy to watch them play in 9th grade but willing to offer them money why would they still not be lazy if the kid is a few years older. The kids that got recruited early did so because they were talented and possibly because their club director got them on the coaches radar , same thing will happen with the new rules. Keep laughing but its obvious your kid missed out on the early recruiting thing and now you need someone to blame, must have been those evil club directors.

Don't count on it!

Agreed, don't count on any coaching changes at 2023 YJ. It won't happen. CR will keep pushing the BT (ESM) program. Parents will continue to complain, threaten to leave, but won't. CR will cash their checks after tryouts, after all the parents drink the cool-aid from CR that "this year will be different. Lot's of issues have and will be addressed...Blah blah blah.... ! ! !"

Then those kids will commit to many great academic and Lax schools with excellent scholarship offers before the kids that left even have any interest from any program. Sign me up.

Then those kids will commit to many great academic and Lax schools with excellent scholarship offers before the kids that left even have any interest from any program. Sign me up.

That may have been true in the past not anymore. Everyone will wait until September of their junior year. That YJ sales pitch for early recruiting no longer exist.

Sign you up for what ?
Please stop thinking that every girl wears the yellow and blue
Is a college level athlete with offers flooding in
Some will play college ball
Some will not
And sorry dad but depending on age some and please sit down for this - will stop playing (dare I say it )
In or before HS
Just the facts

Got to love the 1st time parents that would push their kid to play in [lacrosse] as long as it meant they could say their kid played in college. Girls are blowing out knees and getting injured like crazy. Coaches own the girls 5 hours a day. Many club superstars become bench warmers when the roster size is 35. Coaching turnover at the mid and low levels is insane. Pick a school that your daughter would stay at even if she stopped playing and then make sure she takes the major she wants and not the one the coach wants. GOOD LUCK!

Got to live the jackass that comes on here acting like he knows it all making fun of people because he thinks they are 1rst time parents . "Girls are blowing out knees ",yes they are but they are doing it at all age levels so what do you think they should do stop playing the game .Coaches do not own the girls for 5 hours a day , tell me the program that they do and don't include study hall hours ,when you exaggerate it just shows you know you are coming from a weak position. Again tell me the school where the coach makes any kid take a certain major , does not happen .

Not The poster but 5 hours is not that far off. Typ. schedule at D1 and D2 level: up before 5am, on the field at 6am, off to class around 8. Back at 3pm for conditioning, lift, film, individuals. Dinner with team members, Team event in evening ( other sporting event, fundraiser, volunteer work ) back to dorm around 9pm, study, around 12am. Wake at 5 start again.

Sounds like you are the clueless jackass. Go really look at the rosters and the majors. Communications, Sports Anything, Human Development, Women's Anything, Undecided etc are by far the most prevalent majors so that says one of two things.1. the kids are choosing to play as their #1 priority so they are taking an easiest degree route or 2. the coach is pushing the most manageable majors to keep team GPA's up, keep the girls eligible and not have to compete with lab and off campus major requirements.

It's fine either way but accept it. Most team rosters in college sports under index in the most challenging majors that many of these great schools are known for. Just look at what percent of the schools population is the engineering, sciences, nursing and then overlay team rosters. The FACTS don't lie.

a Communications Degree from UNC is great, but that isn't the argument

Did your daughter commit before, or after, the rule change? Would have to be a 2018 (or older) if she did it after the change. 2019s have 3 more weeks before they can start committing again.

The main point is that the rule change shifted a huge amount of power FROM club directors TO college coaches and recruits. I think most people would agree that club directors can still help marginal players over the hump at some schools, especially schools having trouble filling their last spots. Doesn't seem likely to happen often at the better lacrosse schools or the better academic schools. Recruits flood them with interest, and college coaches have plenty of time to see anyone they are actually interested in. No more club directors talking up a 14 or 15 year old girl. The girl's ability will do most of the talking now.
[/quote]

Seems so douchie when you come on this site and act like you have a clue when in reality you are just guessing at how the new recruiting rule will impact these kids. My point was that your " spot on " statement was not for my kid or her friends. Getting athletic money was an easier road than academic for many who went on to great academic schools. There are many who were in the top 5 of their graduating classes wait listed or denied entry from my daughters high school graduating class to many of the schools that her club teammates are attending with decent money. As far as athletic money not being guaranteed , only if they quit.
[/quote]

Actually, I didn't mention athletic vs academic money because I have no disagreement on that point. If you want academic money, focus on very safe schools where your daughter is over-qualified. You shouldn't count on a penny of academic money at any "reach" school where lacrosse is the only reason your daughter can get in.

What I wrote about the power shift is an educated guess, to be sure, but it's supported by logic and reason (unlike your emotional response). If you think what I wrote is wrong, why not say what you think is wrong with it, and explain what you think will happen? I could use a laugh.
[/quote]

Okay I think the club directors will still have a lot of power, was not very long ago that players did not get recruited or commit until their junior year at the earliest. Many seniors at the top schools now did not commit until junior year so it seems logical that things will be similar to that and the club coaches wielded a lot of influence. It seems more about jealousy for you to suggest that the kids who committed early were not chosen because of ability but because a club director "talked them up" but that would not happen 2 years later. If a college coach is too lazy to watch them play in 9th grade but willing to offer them money why would they still not be lazy if the kid is a few years older. The kids that got recruited early did so because they were talented and possibly because their club director got them on the coaches radar , same thing will happen with the new rules. Keep laughing but its obvious your kid missed out on the early recruiting thing and now you need someone to blame, must have been those evil club directors. [/quote]

You're just begging the question. You've assumed that club directors were quite powerful when it was more typical for girls to commit during junior year (which is far from clear), and assumed that the rule change will revert to that state of affairs (which is preposterous). Directors cannot act as the middle man between college coaches and recruits like they used to. Period. That's all the difference in the world, and you've just assumed it away.

If your daughter is on the A team at a top club like YJ and she's happy and treated well, then great -- you're in a wonderful place. If she's #22 on a roster of 25 girls, and you feel that she's not getting the proper attention or playing time, you might be well served looking elsewhere. There are plenty of clubs that can get you the same exposure and who might actually appreciate your daughter instead of taking her (and your money) for granted. Being a go-to player on a "lesser" club can give her the confidence to improve and maybe even surpass the "better" girls on YJ. It happens all the time. (Or maybe she's really not quite good enough to be on YJ A. I wouldn't know.)

Just look at the college rosters -- how is it possible that there are LI girls on teams who did NOT play for YJ? Positively astounding!!

Here's an even better one, how are their girls playing in college that never played club summer lacrosse? Kind of blows a hole in the directors message that you need them. The best born athletes will always be the best athletes regardless of how much money you throw at it

The best 2014 and 2015 LI graduated kids played for TG

This is pretty much the way it is. My kids have lived it.

I have a serious question ( I say that because I know how people can be in this forum). When I look at groups of YJ commits like 2018s it looks like there were 50 maybe more kids committed but almost all to D1 schools. Some schools aren't really great schools. IAM sure all the kids are very good at lax so why don't they opt to go play lax at better D3 academic schools and play competitive lacrosse at Cortland, Gettysburg, NESCAC schools and try and get some academic money and go to a better academic institution. I am sure many kids going to some of the lesser D1 lax schools aren't getting all that much money. I am really curious. This NOT a knock on YJ and I use them as an example because they have so many recruited kids?

2014
TG YJ
Shelby Fredricks Shayna Pireca, Kylie Ohlmiller

2015
TG YJ
Sam Appuzzo Giacaleone, Syd Pireca, Claire Quinn

Don't forget that the commit page does not mean they are getting an athletic monetary award. That is never spoken about. In the end they just write down where every player goes to college

So if they aren't getting money then why aren't more of them going to D3 schools Amherst, F&M, etc and playing competitive lacrosse but getting a better education. Even more of a reason to play D3 if you aren't getting money?

Honest Question? How many girls on the ginormous Syracuse roster of 50 are getting any money?

Exactly. And high school lacrosse (and HS coaches) will actually matter again for recruiting purposes. All freshman and sophomores will be uncommitted at every school, and will have a chance to play against older, committed D1 players in many games. If they do well, how could colleges not notice? Local colleges will be attending games more often, especially when powerhouse teams face off.

Make sure your daughter is enjoying club lacrosse. Sometimes a change of scenery is good thing.

good read-

y Bud Poliquin

Syracuse, N.Y. — Because folks through the years have searched for fountains of youth, lost continents and unicorns, it should surprise nobody that we have all these loony parents among us seeking athletic scholarships for their sons and daughters.

Now, these moms and dads may be well-intended, but that doesn't make them any less dunderheaded. And rubes that they are, they're easy targets for those bag men, representing irrelevant travel teams and bogus AAU outfits, who are only too delighted to sell fairy tales while separating fools from their money.

This just in, people: Your kids aren't nearly as good as you think they are. More specifically, they're almost certainly not good enough to grab free rides to college. And you know who says so? The lords who run the NCAA, that's who.

Here is, according to NCAA.org, the hard truth of the matter: "Only about two per cent of high school athletes are awarded athletics scholarships to compete in college."

That's one in 50. And the chances are overwhelming that that gifted one in 50 will receive only a partial scholarship. Like maybe enough of a stipend to buy books. Used. For one semester.

The not-so-very-secret secret is that there are NCAA-mandated limits on how many athletic scholarships any school can offer. For instance, Division I lacrosse programs divvy up just 12.6 scholarships per year … baseball and softball programs split only 11.7 … soccer programs parcel out merely 9.9. And so on and so forth.

Oh, and those numbers dip as you reach down into Division II.

Thus, the arithmetic in the matter of this ongoing folly is easy: Precious few annual rides divided by tens of thousands of yearly dreamers equals massive and continuing delusion.

This is hunting Sasquatch. Chasing shadows. Listening for reindeer up there on the roof. And yet so many mothers and fathers, believing their fantasies and too often taken by charlatans with palms up and promises to deliver their children to college coaches supposedly so very eager to recruit them, hunt and chase and listen.

And it's both comical and disturbing all at once.

Pat Murphy, the Eastwood street urchin who went to CBA and Le Moyne before eventually making it to the top step of the dugout as the manager of the San Diego Padres, once told me a story about the folklore of athletic scholarships.

While he was running the baseball show at Notre Dame, Murphy became intrigued with an infielder from Whitefish Bay, Wisc. So he invited the young man to walk on with the Fighting Irish down in South Bend.

Well, a mating dance resulted and during it, the kid — and/or his parents … I forget — brought up the "S" word. Murphy responded that he was all tapped out, but that he'd see what he could do. He thereupon re-worked his numbers, offered the kid $500 off of Notre Dame's then-tuition/room-and-board/books/fees cost of roughly $15,000 (this, according to the university's archives) … and a deal was reached.

"And you know what the newspaper back in Whitefish Bay said?" Murphy recalled. "It said, 'Craig Counsell gets scholarship to Notre Dame'."

That speaks to the mythology of scholarships. But it also tells this story: Counsell, who would go on to play in all or parts of 16 seasons in the big leagues and win two World Series rings — and now serves as the manager of the Milwaukee Brewers — wasn't good enough to earn a scholarship.

There's a lesson in there for more than a few moms and dads. Those aren't reindeer up there on the roof. It's just the wind.

Having been through this with more than one, DIII schools are of course an
excellent option, including Nescacs- the problem is that on the whole, although
they offer great college experiences, they are very expensive and less likely to offer any $ at all.

A lot of this comes down to $, and you can't judge other people's situations or choices- hopefully
the kid and parent come together and figure out what's best for the kid that still fits somewhere
within the parents' ability to pay.

[quote=Anonymous]good read-

y Bud Poliquin

Syracuse, N.Y. — Because folks through the years have searched for fountains of youth, lost continents and unicorns, it should surprise nobody that we have all these loony parents among us seeking athletic scholarships for their sons and daughters.

Now, these moms and dads may be well-intended, but that doesn't make them any less dunderheaded. And rubes that they are, they're easy targets for those bag men, representing irrelevant travel teams and bogus AAU outfits, who are only too delighted to sell fairy tales while separating fools from their money.

This just in, people: Your kids aren't nearly as good as you think they are. More specifically, they're almost certainly not good enough to grab free rides to college. And you know who says so? The lords who run the NCAA, that's who.

Here is, according to NCAA.org, the hard truth of the matter: "Only about two per cent of high school athletes are awarded athletics scholarships to compete in college."

That's one in 50. And the chances are overwhelming that that gifted one in 50 will receive only a partial scholarship. Like maybe enough of a stipend to buy books. Used. For one semester.

The not-so-very-secret secret is that there are NCAA-mandated limits on how many athletic scholarships any school can offer. For instance, Division I lacrosse programs divvy up just 12.6 scholarships per year … baseball and softball programs split only 11.7 … soccer programs parcel out merely 9.9. And so on and so forth.

Oh, and those numbers dip as you reach down into Division II.

Thus, the arithmetic in the matter of this ongoing folly is easy: Precious few annual rides divided by tens of thousands of yearly dreamers equals massive and continuing delusion.

This is hunting Sasquatch. Chasing shadows. Listening for reindeer up there on the roof. And yet so many mothers and fathers, believing their fantasies and too often taken by charlatans with palms up and promises to deliver their children to college coaches supposedly so very eager to recruit them, hunt and chase and listen.

And it's both comical and disturbing all at once.

Pat Murphy, the Eastwood street urchin who went to CBA and Le Moyne before eventually making it to the top step of the dugout as the manager of the San Diego Padres, once told me a story about the folklore of athletic scholarships.

While he was running the baseball show at Notre Dame, Murphy became intrigued with an infielder from Whitefish Bay, Wisc. So he invited the young man to walk on with the Fighting Irish down in South Bend.

Well, a mating dance resulted and during it, the kid — and/or his parents … I forget — brought up the "S" word. Murphy responded that he was all tapped out, but that he'd see what he could do. He thereupon re-worked his numbers, offered the kid $500 off of Notre Dame's then-tuition/room-and-board/books/fees cost of roughly $15,000 (this, according to the university's archives) … and a deal was reached.

"And you know what the newspaper back in Whitefish Bay said?" Murphy recalled. "It said, 'Craig Counsell gets scholarship to Notre Dame'."

That speaks to the mythology of scholarships. But it also tells this story: Counsell, who would go on to play in all or parts of 16 seasons in the big leagues and win two World Series rings — and now serves as the manager of the Milwaukee Brewers — wasn't good enough to earn a scholarship.

There's a lesson in there for more than a few moms and dads. Those aren't reindeer up there on the roof. It's just the wind.
[/quote

Got it...so nobody is getting scholarships...these stories are almost written as often as the full ride stories these days...there are prob 250+ hs lax girls getting money, add the boys lax and this ! out of 50 ratio is blown out of the water.

Maybe they dont have the grades?

A player who is good enough to get excellent athletic money from a top lacrosse program is going to have interest no matter which club. You do realize that some players take spots at top schools with little or no athletic money, right? I'm sure this includes some YJ players, and there are definitely former YJ players at top programs not seeing much playing time. Also, playing time in college is not determined by who committed earliest. Now if you want your kid pushed onto college coaches in middle school, then YJ seems to be the right club...or used to be before the rule change.

My daughter plays YJ. She's getting athletic and academic money with no help from club director or coach {not that we asked or expected it}. Get your daughter to her college choice[s]. Go to their camp and or prospect day. If she has the skills and the smarts, she'll get opportunities. For those of you waiting for club director or coach to help, you'll going to be disappointed. You and your daughter need to put in the work both on and off the field. Make sure your kid takes the lead. Be there to support.....but don't be the lead. College coaches want to deal with the student athlete, not a proud parent. Do yourself and your daughter a favor and keep in real......not every kid is built for for a top program. Many options out there if you search a school that's in your daughter's wheel house. It's a fun process. If it's not fun, you're doing it wrong.

A good message gets lost with the absolutism about no one getting a scholarship. Simple math says plenty of kids do, they just have to make it to a DI college program (that is the difficult part mathematically). A school spending all parts of 12 scholarships can give total cost of attendance as follows: 50% to 12 players leaving 6 full scholarships. Can now give 25% to 24 additional players. That has 36 players getting 25% or better in athletic money. You could raise a total of six up to 50% or 75% and still give 30 girls 25% or better while incenting "top talent" with a bigger package.

If 25% of 60-65K makes you happy that's great if you're going to a school that you would otherwise not get into or is a school you would go to if you were not playing lax, but way too many kids are steered to schools they are probably not a good fit for because there's a 15K scholarship and all the spots at their dream school are already filled, 50% is on the high end of kids who actually play all four years at the school listed on their club lacrosse website - buyer beware

That was not the point of the article, completely different topic but valid...

I think the point is that most parents are delusional and living through their kids and really have no idea how to navigate this process until it's too late

Parents are delusional living through their kids pushing them to commit anywhere just to say they got an award. Cant tell you how many kids we know playing at schools where all you need is a 900 SAT with a $55k price tag. I get the UNC's and DUKES of the world but some of these schools kids are spending big bucks to go to are a joke. 25% at a $55k school is still $42k for lousy lacrosse and a lousy education!

Probably the same reason people have their kids ride the bench on an A team rather than getting playing time on a B.

I agree with all your points - very good advice. I would add for players to focus on schools that are a good all around fit. Schools they would like even without lacrosse in the picture.

Wonder how the 2023 coaches meetings went with CR. I'll tell you, NO CHANGE! Off to TG. A, B, or C , still better than Jackoffalone!

There are about 22-26 girls on the Syracuse roster who get ZERO MONEY, nobody ever talks about that. Sure its a top 10 program with a legendary coach but the point is that all the "commits" the clubs brags about doesn't always mean they are getting an athletic award

"If 25% of 60-65K makes you happy that's great if you're going to a school that you would otherwise not get into or is a school you would go to if you were not playing lax, but way too many kids are steered to schools they are probably not a good fit for because there's a 15K scholarship and all the spots at their dream school are already filled, 50% is on the high end of kids who actually play all four years at the school listed on their club lacrosse website - buyer beware"

Honestly I keep reading posts like this and some that followed and it just comes across as bitter parents who are jealous. You are making assumptions about the reason why kids picked a particular school with no information. One thing I have learned watching my daughter play collegiate lacrosse is there are a lot of excellent schools with great locations ,great programs etc. that many of us have little idea about. How do you know if someone else is a good fit for a school or not, you don't. Tell us the schools these kids are being steered to. Most of the early commits are actually going to excellent academic schools.

You name undecided as an example of taking the easiest major route, is it possible that as freshmen they were undecided and now have decided on a major that meets your high standards. Again you don't name even one program where the coach is pushing majors on kids because you have no clue. You sound like a [lacrosse] when you say kids are choosing to play as their #1 priority when you don't even know these kids. Please give us the list of acceptable majors.