BOTC - US Lacrosse Community Forum Forums NORTHEAST LACROSSE BOTC MAIN FORUM (LI, CT, WC) Boys High School Lax

'Quot will underperform, it is the coaching.

What does cormmack have that I am missing? ( And why the r). Second time.

No way WM v Quot! Our coach is horrible.

The high school coaching ranks are thin with a few exceptions (WM) Most of these coaches are little more than managers that inherit fully trained kids from clubs and clinics. Parents spend thousands to deliver a athlete with plenty of game experience and honed skills only to watch a high school coach NOT make them better as a team or player.

unfortunately, very true

Aren’t the majority of club coaches HS coaches as well?

I think that Massapequa has the best coaching staff on Long Island. A great mix of styles and experience.

—exactly. Good Club kids play against only kids their age, the parents and the kid think they’re the next Paul Rabil, and then get upset when the coach “doesn’t know what he’s doing” or better known to realists as the kid stops working hard because he thinks he knows better and because the parents spent thousands of dollars they’re experts? Give me a break. How come not every kid playing varsity goes division 1?! The coach?? No. It’s 1) the players just aren’t that good and 2) kids these days would rather play Xbox, go to their SAT tutor (not a bad thing but it’s true) and just don’t have the same motivation as a class or 2 precious. Hard work beats talent? Well thousands spent doesn’t mean you’re talented, and most kids these days don’t know what“hard work” is.

There are teams with all d1 starters and depth on the bench. Last year one of them under performed miserably.

Gibberish.

Hard to argue. They definitely get he most out of their talent and make teams better.

Aren’t the majority of club coaches HS coaches as well? [/quote]

I think that Massapequa has the best coaching staff on Long Island. A great mix of styles and experience. [/quote]

Hard to argue. They definitely get he most out of their talent and make teams better. [/quote]

I'd rather go with Ward Melville and CSH

I think most schools on LI would take either 3.

Northport has minimal depth and this year will be a challenge in itself. Of the seniors, a few low level D3 commits and the starting goalie is a top D2 commit. Under classmen, some potential, 1-2 D1 commits. Coaching and cohesiveness is an issue.

D1 commits are not a factor in how well a team will do.

Ehh I have to say talent plays a major roll in how a team does. If you have a good number of D1 and top D3 commits on a team it means there is talent. I dont care how good coaching is if you dont have talent you dont win games. I know there have been a few teams with a tremendous amount of talent but have been unsuccessful. Thats a poor mix of selfish players, parents who dont have a clue and push an all me type of game, and a coach who cant coach.

That brings us back to coaching.

How much you only reference D1 and D3 commits and not D2? What is the constant gobshite stigma with D2?

Say hallelujah and amen

As per the reference to D1 and D3. D1 and D3 are historically the better programs. D2 does not have many strong teams and also not a long history in the game. The upper tier D3 teams can beat many of the lower tier D1 teams and give some of the upper tier teams a battle

The top 6 or so D II programs are very solid programs.

No they are not.

Stop with your stupid opinion. This is the same non-factual argument every year. You have no facts to back up your opinion. Your obvious attempt to somehow equate D3 programs with D1 teams and disparage D2 is obvious. Enjoy your daughters D3 games and leave it at that.

no need to bash others to make a point - it is a big accomplishment for any kid to go on and play college lacrosse at any level - D1,2,3 club ect. many factors into decisions and not just lacrosse (location, scholastic and cost being major factors)

As for the coaching argument I am a big believer in the best coach usually gets off the bus with the best players - was Bob Hartranft a mediocre coach for 46 years and a great coach for one year? has Dennis Bonn really become a better coach the last three years and if he goes 12-5 this year is he not as good a coach as he was last year? No, it depends on the players.

Obviously there are great coaches, good coaches and bad coaches but IMHO a bad coach can win with great players but a good coach can not win a championship without them. give me a strong youth program, a 75% fogo and a 65% save goalie over a "great" coach any day

smh

As opposed to your stupid opinion . . . ??

How many HS coaches try to stay current and innovative in their training, practices, game planning, and motivational skills?
How many have cookie cutter practices, drills, and plays year in year out?

ok cement head....second time.......give some facts to back up your stupid opinion.........we are all waiting to be enlightened

What is your opinion gospel. LOL. Guess we know whos kid is going D2. Come on, nothing against D2 there is a school for everyone yet to say D3 is not better lacrosse is being silly. Look at the traditionally strong D3 programs year in and year out. Lacrosse wise and academically you can not compare D2 to D3.

The first time you heard the word lacrosse you thought it was a tennis shirt and its logo was an alligator

Please just look at the schools your speaking of in D2
academics
1 Limestone 21-1 1 not in top 650
2 Merrimack 15-4 4 #404
3 Adelphi 15-4 3 #332
4 Le Moyne 14-3 2 #354
5 Tampa 15-5 7 #483
6 Pace 12-4 5 #387
7 Lenoir-Rhyne 12-3 6 not in top 650
8 Mercyhurst 12-3 8 not in top 650
9 NYIT 14-3 9 not in top 650
10 Wingate 13-4 14 not in top 650

[/quote]
[/quote]


As per the reference to D1 and D3. D1 and D3 are historically the better programs. D2 does not have many strong teams and also not a long history in the game. The upper tier D3 teams can beat many of the lower tier D1 teams and give some of the upper tier teams a battle[/quote]


Stop with your stupid opinion. This is the same non-factual argument every year. You have no facts to back up your opinion. Your obvious attempt to somehow equate D3 programs with D1 teams and disparage D2 is obvious. Enjoy your daughters D3 games and leave it at that. [/quote]

As opposed to your stupid opinion . . . ??[/quote]


ok cement head....second time.......give some facts to back up your stupid opinion.........we are all waiting to be enlightened
[/quote]

I am not the OP - just pointing out the flaw in your argument about opposing "opinions".

Facts here!!!

As per the reference to D1 and D3. D1 and D3 are historically the better programs. D2 does not have many strong teams and also not a long history in the game. The upper tier D3 teams can beat many of the lower tier D1 teams and give some of the upper tier teams a battle[/quote]


Stop with your stupid opinion. This is the same non-factual argument every year. You have no facts to back up your opinion. Your obvious attempt to somehow equate D3 programs with D1 teams and disparage D2 is obvious. Enjoy your daughters D3 games and leave it at that. [/quote]

As opposed to your stupid opinion . . . ??[/quote]


ok cement head....second time.......give some facts to back up your stupid opinion.........we are all waiting to be enlightened
[/quote]

You must have fallen off the evolutionary train one stop before [ChillLaxin] habilis. You sound like such a goon. Please enlighten us with why you think D2 better than D3 in lacrosse and academics. Its bizarre you must come from a very confused family you sound like a MAGA but act like a Snowflake

The whole picture is that you have the best academic fit for your son. So this will give them the best opportunity to succeed in life. Sorry break the news to everyone there is life after lacrosse!!!

Where did you get the academic #'s? Just curious, I couldn't find them.

Ha.....ok ...I guess you need to try and change the original statement you were called out on...page 258 #25364 "

"As per the reference to D1 and D3. D1 and D3 are historically the better programs. D2 does not have many strong teams and also not a long history in the game. The upper tier D3 teams can beat many of the lower tier D1 teams and give some of the upper tier teams a battle"

You were called out on this to provide facts which you were unable to do. Soooo....you try to change your argument to the old straw man argument that D3 schools are better acedemically that D2 schools. Little impotent men like yourself have brought these statements up for decades, D3 schools are just as good as D1 and D3 schools are better academically that D2. Most informed people dismiss these stupid statements made by donkeys like yourself. Approximately 12% of men/women HS players get to play college lax. There is no use in comparing divisions. The kids who get to play in college typically are able to balance lax/academics that fit their own criteria and the uninformed cementheads like yourself drive the comparison narrative and live through their kid....snowflake. Oh yea...by the way...heck yea for MAGA.

It's just "Per. . . ", not "As per . . . " . . . you're not citing or referencing a document, policy, or some other formal thing! smh

Does it really matter in the end? Such a small % of player's get the opportunity to play in college, whatever the level, is a major achievement in itself. And for those few players, and remember, the country is a big place and there are a lot of high schools and a lot of players, finding the right fit, athletically, academically and financially is really what it is all about. I'll give an example. My son had offers from all 3 divisions, did a good number of visits and ended up deciding, (his decision) on a D2 school. Between the athletic and academic money they offered, he will come out with minimal debt, be able to go onto to graduate school without holding a heavy bag.
In addition, he will get the chance to play, and they are a top 10 D2 school and possibly win as well as get his college experience and his education. Things to think about for the kids. One of his coaches went D3 and won a championship many years ago and he reminded him again and again that regardless of the level, he won an NCAA championship and that is something he will always have.
He also got is degree and lived the college life. Just something to think about...

D3 schools are typically better academically than.D2. as well are mamy of the lower tier D1. Just Google any D2 school vs the lower D1s and add in the d3s. There is a great site (start class) that compares the schools. Academically can't compare to most (not talking outliers).

I also do not think the top D3 will CONSISTENTLY beat the lower tier D1s. In a game. Maybe the bottom few. Although those rosters do have D1 Caliber players.

The only thing I hope we can all agree is there is a school for everyone and the "for" has got to be right.

D3 schools are typically better academically than.D2. as well are mamy of the lower tier D1. Just Google any D2 school vs the lower D1s and add in the d3s. There is a great site (start class) that compares the schools. Academically can't compare to most (not talking outliers).

I also do not think the top D3 will CONSISTENTLY beat the lower tier D1s. In a game. Maybe the bottom few. Although those rosters do have D1 Caliber players.

The only thing I hope we can all agree is there is a school for everyone and the "for" has got to be right.

I've seen the same man up play for 5 years