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

West Islip WON 6-5 in DOUBLE OT

Manhasset WON 11-10 in DOUBLE OT

CSH WON in DOUBLE OT

and Mattituck blew out CP - no surprise there 16-5 (they need to do something about the D conference as Nassau will never be competitive there

Mattituck/Southhold may be moving up to Class C next year as the state is changing the way enrollment is calculated of combined school districts.

No.
West Islip will be in B next year.

No. The following year

West Islip will be in B next year.

No. The following year

for 2018/19 WI enrollment will be 1060 placing them in B where enrollment is 790-1074

You really are a loser. "Their player's competition on the recruiting circuit " may be the funniest thing I have seen. Don't know all of the coaches but here are some factual examples of why what you are saying is nonsense. Maloney , well of the 5 players who went to the tryout from Mattituck it looks like 2 made a team, as Mattituck is a decent team not exactly taking care of his own. Steve Levy , well his own child was cut from any team and she is easily good enough to play so again taking care of his own seems like nonsense. Bergman , again had none of her players on the top team and had one who was on top team last year but team 3 this year , again does not seem like taking care of her own. Carro had 1 of his YJ players on top team which honestly seems low for 1 of the if not the top 2019 team on LI.
There are a lot more examples but convincing people that have kids that were cut that politics may come into play its not all politics is impossible.

I'm the original poster, and in spite of your name calling, not a loser.

If you don't want to hear what I have to say, how about D1 Head Coach Mindy McCord? Here are her timely tweets from yesterday:
(@JUwomenslax 7:16 p.m. 6/3/18)
"Some tryouts are decided based on what brand name school a kid has already committed to or who is their HS coach/runs the tryout. It's all brand name economics & does not address the real needs of a young player. It benefits the HS/Club coach's rep. Think deeper than a logo."
(@JUwomenslax 7:35 p.m. 6/3/18)
"You think that by making a team at a tryout that you will gain some recruiting advantage, but the 19/20 kids selected have already committed & selectors pick the ones that provide their all-star game the most notoriety at the moment. Doesn't benefit aspiring players at all."

My daughter will continue to play her heart out against any opponent, whether some "committee" filled with conflict$ of intere$t thinks she's worthy of their recognition or not. Don't bother calling my daughter a loser either, because she does not value an ignorant opinion. She knows her worth and things will turn out just fine for her.

There are some girls who are the obvious choices at a tryout - they just draw your eye and you know they are special. Then there are a lot of girls who are very similar in skill, speed, style. In my opinion, this is where the "politics" comes into play. We'll have to agree to disagree on that point, I suppose.

Good luck to all the girls in their recruiting process. May they find their "right fit" school with the proper sport/academic balance for them and may they all enjoy the great sport of lacrosse for as long as they possibly can.

West Islip will be in B next year.

She has zero idea how the teams from LI are chosen and by whom . That said arguably her best defender and 4 year starter was a regular on the school girl and USteams so I guess she was undeserving . You want to deal in nonsense instead of facts .Gutless losers like you say the same nonsense every year but never actually point to any player who should have made a team but did not due to politics .Schoolgirls this year teams 1 and 2 from LI made the championship game w team 1 winning .Last year I believe it was a clean sweep at UA for the LI teams . If what you are saying were true those things would not happen . “Their players competition on the recruiting circuit” What the what .

I'm the original poster, and in spite of your name calling, not a loser.

If you don't want to hear what I have to say, how about D1 Head Coach Mindy McCord? Here are her timely tweets from yesterday:
(@JUwomenslax 7:16 p.m. 6/3/18)
"Some tryouts are decided based on what brand name school a kid has already committed to or who is their HS coach/runs the tryout. It's all brand name economics & does not address the real needs of a young player. It benefits the HS/Club coach's rep. Think deeper than a logo."
(@JUwomenslax 7:35 p.m. 6/3/18)
"You think that by making a team at a tryout that you will gain some recruiting advantage, but the 19/20 kids selected have already committed & selectors pick the ones that provide their all-star game the most notoriety at the moment. Doesn't benefit aspiring players at all."

My daughter will continue to play her heart out against any opponent, whether some "committee" filled with conflict$ of intere$t thinks she's worthy of their recognition or not. Don't bother calling my daughter a loser either, because she does not value an ignorant opinion. She knows her worth and things will turn out just fine for her.

There are some girls who are the obvious choices at a tryout - they just draw your eye and you know they are special. Then there are a lot of girls who are very similar in skill, speed, style. In my opinion, this is where the "politics" comes into play. We'll have to agree to disagree on that point, I suppose.

Good luck to all the girls in their recruiting process. May they find their "right fit" school with the proper sport/academic balance for them and may they all enjoy the great sport of lacrosse for as long as they possibly can.

"I'm rubber. You're glue. Insults bounce off me and stick to you." I figured you could relate to that kind of immaturity better than any rational thought. Since you think you know more than a D1 coach, you must be some kind of LI lacrosse guru. Do you have the courage to reveal your identity? Didn't think so...bye bye.

"I'm rubber. You're glue. Insults bounce off me and stick to you." I figured you could relate to that kind of immaturity better than any rational thought. Since you think you know more than a D1 coach, you must be some kind of LI lacrosse guru. Do you have the courage to reveal your identity? Didn't think so...bye bye.

You sound reasonable and I am not the person who called you a loser. However, I do believe most people including coaches have their own agenda. Take a look a last years Under Armour All-Americans (North Roster).

Here is the breakdown of the schools the players went to. I am guessing they are all very good players. Many of the players that I am familiar with did in fact do very well this past season as freshman.

North Carolina - 4
Syracuse - 3
Boston College - 2
Princeton - 2
Northwestern - 2
USC - 2
Duke - 2
Florida - 2
Penn State - 2
Penn - 1
Virginia - 1
Loyola - 1
Notre Dame - 1

It is safe to assume that the reason those schools are some of the best lacrosse programs in the country is because they consistently bring in the best recruits in the country.

When schools like: Albany, Bucknell, Cornell, Drexlel, Elon, Fairfield, George Mason, High Point, Jacksonville, Kennesaw State, Lafayette, and Marist start competing with the schools listed above on a regular basis I will take the coach seriously.

When the evaluators are selecting the same kids that the the top college programs are selecting I would not be so quick to assume it is simply because of where the player is committed (or due to politics). It just might be because the player is really good.

No JMU?...hmmm

Where can you get a list of All County and All League players?

So this year's senior class is one of the last of the super early recruiting classes. Share opinions of whether you think the college coaches who committed 9th graders 3 years ago got it right or wrong. I see several top seniors who were overlooked in 9th and 10th grade, but really peaked in 11th and 12th who are not going to top tier lacrosse schools. Certainly in some cases the top college teams got it right with the younger girls, but in my opinion it was pretty much 50% of the early commits had strong junior and senior campaigns and 50% have not quite panned out yet. What do other people think?

The coaches would be beyond thrilled if 50% of the recruits panned out, the real number tops out around 25-30% and sometimes it can be much less. How many times have you heard ND #1 recruiting class in the country or Florida top #3 recruiting class in the country and the have nothing to show for it.
This year ND put the weight of the team on a freshman, what happened to all the studs from the previous three classes? The were not as good as the coach thought they were! Coaches get it wrong at all levels of every sport more often than not, it's nothing more than a calculated guess and a numbers game. How many Heisman trophy winners have had exceptional NFL careers?

I can see Oceanside dropping out and perhaps Farmingdale coming back in. I do not see any other B or C teams moving up.

Also, CSH up 16-8 in semi against Jamesville-Dewitt very late in game

I


I think it’s an impossible subject to comment on as most do not want to post negative things about young women . To say 25-30 % at best pan out is ridiculous as no one really knows what these coaches expectations of these players really was nor what type scholarship they were receiving . I can tell you that of the players from my daughters travel team a greater number panned out than did not .

If there's 30-40 players on any given roster, 15 play meaningful minutes - that's just reality, no bias, nothing negative, just reality and numbers, around 50% (according to Bald Bear) will no longer be playing by senior year. If a coach recruits 8-10 kids they know the majority won't be impact players

Let me reframe the question...I would say 50% of the early recruits (those that committed in 8th and 9th grade) have panned out by 12th grade, then the number four years from now will be substantially lower. So of these will 25% still be strong players in college as they graduate? Maybe that is the expectation. And will that be a lower percentage than the girls coming up with later recruiting rules? Will the girls recruited earlier have higher transfer rates than the girls who commit later?

I am somewhat leading the argument...I believe later recruiting is better and more accurate. The best player on our hs team was a little under the radar as a 9th grader. She is going D1 to a mid-major lacrosse school, although a great academic school...it will work out well for this girl. However if she came up with today’s recruiting rules, she would be looking at Ivy League and Stanford as well as the top level lacrosse schools. So as we watch these transition years from early recruiting to 11th grade recruiting what do people think is better?

The majority of top recruits do pan out. The majority of top recruits at the top programs do not stop playing.

Take a look at this years freshman class the majority of top recruits were impact players at powerhouse programs.

I know many of you want these young women to fail but the reality is the majority of the top recruits go on to have successful college careers.

Nice to see the 3 long island girls teams that won states did it with balanced scoring and played a team game. Many other teams can take a closer look at playing a team game and having better results. Are you paying attention West Babylon Coach?