BOTC - US Lacrosse Community Forum Forums NORTHEAST LACROSSE BOTC MAIN FORUM (LI, CT, WC) 2019-2020 Women's DI, II & III College Lacrosse Season

Can we please discuss something else? The poster has an obvious anti-Duke bias.

This year... Fall 2019 - ILWomen's Top 10 Incoming Classes

1. Maryland
2. Notre Dame
3. North Carolina
4. Northwestern
5. Penn
6. Duke
7. Florida
8. Loyola
9. Syracuse
10. Richmond

. [/quote]

Maryland has the Number 1 incoming class... but there are [b]12 incoming Freshman[/b]! . there cant be a lot of scholarship passed around.. I figure they're whacking up 2.5 or 3 max scholarships between the 12 of them..
[/quote]

10 of the 12 freshmen are "in-state" players and keep in mind that not all recruits are equal nor do all recruits receive the same scholarship $$. Scholarship dollars go a long way to the in-state recruits. It is my understanding that coaches have at their disposal a "dollar amount" for athletic scholarships. That dollar amount is calculated by the number of scholarships multiplied by the cost to attend the university (tuition, room and board, fees, books etc..) I believe they use "out of state tuition" in the formula. So, lets say 12 x $50,000 (aprox) = $600,000 per year.

If someone has country info please elaborate.

If that is the way it works, the coach can make it very affordable for the players and that is why Maryland has such a huge advantage.

Maryland has the Number 1 incoming class... but there are [b]12 incoming Freshman[/b]! . there cant be a lot of scholarship passed around.. I figure they're whacking up 2.5 or 3 max scholarships between the 12 of them..
[/quote]

10 of the 12 freshmen are "in-state" players and keep in mind that not all recruits are equal nor do all recruits receive the same scholarship $$. Scholarship dollars go a long way to the in-state recruits. It is my understanding that coaches have at their disposal a "dollar amount" for athletic scholarships. That dollar amount is calculated by the number of scholarships multiplied by the cost to attend the university (tuition, room and board, fees, books etc..) I believe they use "out of state tuition" in the formula. So, lets say 12 x $50,000 (aprox) = $600,000 per year.

If someone has country info please elaborate.

If that is the way it works, the coach can make it very affordable for the players and that is why Maryland has such a huge advantage. [/quote]


That is completely wrong .The coaches have 12 scholarships to work with , if you give an instate player a 50% cost of attendance it still equals 0.5 out of those 12 even thou its about a $14,000 monetary value. Give an out of state player a 50 % cost of attendance scholarship and it also equals 0.5 out of the 12 total but it value is closer to $26,000. those two players taken together would be equal to 1 full ride out of the 12 total they can give, in other words their scholarships count the same toward that total of 12.

Fall. Ball.

Who looks good????

Any schedules for this weekend coming up?

Would not give much thought to Fall Ball regarding game / scrimmage outcomes. Don't get me wrong, coaches and players want to win but the fall is when coaches try to see what they have. Most freshmen will get and reserve players from previous year will get playing time. If returning starters are dinged up or recovering from injury don't expect to see much of them.

In the fall players should want to show that they worked hard in the off season. Show up in shape, pass their run test, display sharp stick skills, be strong in the weight room etc...

Fall ball is a chance for freshmen and non starters from the previous year to impress the coaching staff.

As for "who looks good????" it really does not matter, lets see who looks good in May.

Oh I see, you joyless know-it-all, the bench and the freshman don't matter for a "team". Clearly who looks good in May matters most, thanks for clearing that up, but no point in having any fun watching and speculating based on Fall Ball. In fact, no point in even playing the games I guess since nothing matters 'till May.

Thank God for a wise lax sage like you to help everyone along. Get over yourself.

10 of the 12 freshmen are "in-state" players and keep in mind that not all recruits are equal nor do all recruits receive the same scholarship $$. Scholarship dollars go a long way to the in-state recruits. It is my understanding that coaches have at their disposal a "dollar amount" for athletic scholarships. That dollar amount is calculated by the number of scholarships multiplied by the cost to attend the university (tuition, room and board, fees, books etc..) I believe they use "out of state tuition" in the formula. So, lets say 12 x $50,000 (aprox) = $600,000 per year.

If someone has country info please elaborate.

If that is the way it works, the coach can make it very affordable for the players and that is why Maryland has such a huge advantage. [/quote]


That is completely wrong .The coaches have 12 scholarships to work with , if you give an instate player a 50% cost of attendance it still equals 0.5 out of those 12 even thou its about a $14,000 monetary value. Give an out of state player a 50 % cost of attendance scholarship and it also equals 0.5 out of the 12 total but it value is closer to $26,000. those two players taken together would be equal to 1 full ride out of the 12 total they can give, in other words their scholarships count the same toward that total of 12.[/quote]

looks to me the only assumption that might be wrong is the calculation of in-state vs out of state $$. In any event, Maryland has a big advantage over other programs. Maryland can offer an in-state player 1/3 scholarship and the cost to attend is very reasonable. That same player would be paying significantly more to attend UNC, UVA , Florida or PSU if offered 1/3 as an out of state student. The cost is way more if the player is offered 1/3 at Duke, Northwestern, Notre Dame or Boston College. If the players parents earn a little too much money Princeton and Penn will cost a boat load... if the parents have multiple kids in college and are of modest means Penn or Princeton's cost would probably be in line with a small in-state scholarship offer from MD. Any way you slice it Maryland has a leg up on the competition.

Where did it say: "the bench and the freshman don't matter for a "team"." ? Where did it say: "no point in even playing the games I guess since nothing matters 'till May." ? The only point was that the outcomes of games are not indicative of what will happen in the spring. Freshmen and reserves from the prior year will get more opportunities to prove themselves than they will once the spring comes. Coaches know what they have with their returning upper-class starters and if a returning All-American is nursing an injury don't expect to see them on the field. Also, coaches do like to see that their players worked hard in the off season so showing up in-shpe, passing the run test, keeping their stick skills sharp and progressing in their lifts etc... are important.

Why so sensitive?

That is completely wrong .The coaches have 12 scholarships to work with , if you give an instate player a 50% cost of attendance it still equals 0.5 out of those 12 even thou its about a $14,000 monetary value. Give an out of state player a 50 % cost of attendance scholarship and it also equals 0.5 out of the 12 total but it value is closer to $26,000. those two players taken together would be equal to 1 full ride out of the 12 total they can give, in other words their scholarships count the same toward that total of 12.[/quote]

looks to me the only assumption that might be wrong is the calculation of in-state vs out of state $$. In any event, Maryland has a big advantage over other programs. Maryland can offer an in-state player 1/3 scholarship and the cost to attend is very reasonable. That same player would be paying significantly more to attend UNC, UVA , Florida or PSU if offered 1/3 as an out of state student. The cost is way more if the player is offered 1/3 at Duke, Northwestern, Notre Dame or Boston College. If the players parents earn a little too much money Princeton and Penn will cost a boat load... if the parents have multiple kids in college and are of modest means Penn or Princeton's cost would probably be in line with a small in-state scholarship offer from MD. Any way you slice it Maryland has a leg up on the competition. [/quote]

Actually the point was more that the way you were calculating the scholarships was not correct in regard to in state players. The reason MD has a leg up is that for in state layers with little to no money given its still reasonable and MD has alot of good players. In terms of education level MD is not even close to being on level with any of the schools you mentioned other than PSU which can be looked at as a positive or a negative from a lacrosse standpoint.

and it is ND classic underachiever, another clueless coach who lets club coaches do her recruiting for her

at the end of the day, barring some insane behavior (see duke asst coach) it's pretty hard to lose a job that no university administrator cares about, women's lax is a title 9 baby that draws 200-300 friends and family to their games and is a revenue lost, as long as the school is not embarrassed by the team or coaches they don't care about these programs at all

Care to elaborate on the assistant coach “baggage”? Considering Duke and really don’t want to make an big mistake ...

Still hard to believe the animosity toward Duke in particular. Sour grapes? Duke is an amazing academic institution and at the end of the 4 years, education is what matters, not lacrosse. Go vilify someone else.

That's exactly the point. Duke is an amazing academic institution. But so is Princeton, Penn, Hopkins, Northwestern, etc. Something is amiss in Durham.

What is the assistant coach's "baggage"? And what about the new assistant coach who came from Georgetown?

I do not think it is animosity, sour grapes, throwing someone under the bus or an anti Duke bias; just facts about the lacrosse program. I do not read anyone arguing that Duke University is not a top education. The issues being noted are about the performance on the lacrosse field. Below are the five schools that have recruited the highest number of Under Armour All Americans during the 14 years it has existed. Duke has substantially under performed all 4 of those programs, 3 of them are miles ahead. Duke has not even made a national final. The other important fact about that list, all of those coaches have been there for almost the entire period of time, Reese missed the first couple of years. All the schools have had substantial talent, all have had the same head coach and only one is clearly lagging behind.

65 Maryland
53 North Carolina
50 Virginia
44 Duke
39 Northwestern

Is Duke considering your daughter? Did the Duke head coach offer your daughter a spot? Are you seriously looking for insight on BOTC?

Under Armour? How can there be any correlation between the programs that bring in the UA All-Americans and a programs success ? Many times I have read on here and heard on the sidelines and in my local pub that Under Armour, Inside Lacrosse, USLacrosse, etc... are all political and the players will disappear in college etc... I would think the programs that get all of the other "just as deserving players" would out perform the programs that consistently bring in the highest regarded players if in fact it is all BS and political.

Ok, so you want to use things like I read this or heard that as an argument? Show me facts that demonstrate it does not correlate. Her are some more for you.... of the 5 teams referenced above that recruit the most UA All-Americans, they have won 15 of the last 16 national championships or 94%. Let’s look at the 2019 D1 Media All-Americans. There were 48 women selected to the first, second and third teams. 34 or 71% were UA All-Americans. For the 5 teams referenced above, they had a combined 17 and 14 or 82% were UA All-Americans. You give any coach a better than 70% chance of getting an all-American, or, one of these 5 teams better than 80% chance, they would take that in a heart beat. It translates into results, big time, except at a place in Durham NC...

Here is a list of the 14 from the five programs listed above, you might recognize some of the names...

Caroline Steele
Jen Giles
Julia Bragg
Kali Hartshorn
Lizzie Colson
Megan Taylor
Jamie Ortega
Katie Hoeg
Taylor Moreno
Brennan Dwyer
Izzy Scane
Selena Losota
Olivia Jenner
Maggie Jackson

How is that possible? I have been told that the Inside Lacrosse rankings and Under Armour All-American selections are a joke. How is it possible that the players do so well and the programs who recruit these overrated players are consistently rank among the best in the country? Thats a real head scratcher.

All sarcasm aside.

I think it is safe to say that the people at Inside Lacrosse, Under Armour and the coaches at the best college programs know how to evaluate talent. They do in fact get it right.

No my daughter is a 2022 and I have a younger too. Both interested in Duke. She is a high level player in her year and plays on top team. but before we spend $$$ on camps and hotels and airfare this is an issue. Or is it. first I here she has to go to camp and is it a money grab, now all this. Sometimes people exaggerate on BOTC but sometimes things are true.

Maybe she is a high level player maybe not, only time will tell. Some parents have a pretty good idea of where their daughter stands while others are very delusional. Women's lacrosse provides tremendous opportunities for our daughters to take advantage of. I do not know of any other sport or activity that even comes close to women's lacrosse in helping our daughters get into many of the best colleges and universities in the country.

If your daughter is truly high end then it doesn't matter if she goes to camps or not. If your daughter can play at a high level but isn't a blue chip player (top 30 - 40 or so) then going to the camp can give her an advantage.

Duke is obviously great school with a very supportive athletic program and the Duke Women's Lacrosse Program has a very rich history. I believe they will right the ship this year and they will be back in the Top 20 at seasons end. Have they fallen off a bit the past few years? Yes, but nobody on here can tell us why. Keep in mind, they finished 21 in the coaches poll last year not exactly terrible.

Best of luck to your daughters I hope they get some love from the Duke coaching staff.

Not the Duke hater but to say they will be better this year than last is as delusional as those parents you speak about. They have lost their two best players who accounted for close to 50 percent of their offense. Lost their 2 best defenders . Honestly they will be lucky to win more than 2 ACC games this season.

Programs lose impact players every year. The top programs bring in impact players every year that is why they are consistently the top programs. Duke has been off from where they were but they are still a very good program. IMHO Duke will be back in the Top 20 at the end of the season. We all know the teams that bring in the top recruits just about every year and has been Duke is one of those programs. Maybe they missed on 2 or 3 studs in recent years but they are still an excellent program. If Duke did miss out on a few players during the early recruiting craze it was because Duke was trying to hold off not because top players do not want to go to Duke. Not saying that Duke didn't bring in good players just saying that having just 1 or 2 additional studs would have had Duke back in the Top 20. Do you really believe that Duke is going to fall off the map and no longer be a consistent Top 10 -15 program?

Thanks again for the facts and analysis copied below:

------ "Ok, so you want to use things like I read this or heard that as an argument? Show me facts that demonstrate it does not correlate. Her are some more for you.... of the 5 teams referenced above that recruit the most UA All-Americans, they have won 15 of the last 16 national championships or 94%. Let’s look at the 2019 D1 Media All-Americans. There were 48 women selected to the first, second and third teams. 34 or 71% were UA All-Americans. For the 5 teams referenced above, they had a combined 17 and 14 or 82% were UA All-Americans. You give any coach a better than 70% chance of getting an all-American, or, one of these 5 teams better than 80% chance, they would take that in a heart beat. It translates into results, big time, except at a place in Durham NC...

Here is a list of the 14 from the five programs listed above, you might recognize some of the names...

Caroline Steele
Jen Giles
Julia Bragg
Kali Hartshorn
Lizzie Colson
Megan Taylor
Jamie Ortega
Katie Hoeg
Taylor Moreno
Brennan Dwyer
Izzy Scane
Selena Losota
Olivia Jenner
Maggie Jackson" ----------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pretty sure you dispelled some myths....

* 50% of the players do not stop playing (at least not the high end players).
* The highly touted Inside Lacrosse top 40 / Under Armour All-Americans do not disappear in college.
* The collage coaches (at least the ones at the top programs) do not get it wrong very often.
* The lists, rankings, teams etc... are not a joke, they are not all political and the players recognized are actually for the most part the top players.

There definitely seems to be a correlation between how many Under Armour All-Americans a program gets and how well that program performs. The Top 10 - 15 programs look like the same Top 10 - 15 in terms of how many UA players they get. Maryland and North Carolina are 1 & 2.... no surprise there.

Exceptions to the rule: JMU, Stony Brook, Navy and Denver.

"Programs lose impact players every year. The top programs bring in impact players every year that is why they are consistently the top programs. Duke has been off from where they were but they are still a very good program. IMHO Duke will be back in the Top 20 at the end of the season. We all know the teams that bring in the top recruits just about every year and has been Duke is one of those programs. Maybe they missed on 2 or 3 studs in recent years but they are still an excellent program. If Duke did miss out on a few players during the early recruiting craze it was because Duke was trying to hold off not because top players do not want to go to Duke. Not saying that Duke didn't bring in good players just saying that having just 1 or 2 additional studs would have had Duke back in the Top 20. Do you really believe that Duke is going to fall off the map and no longer be a consistent Top 10 -15 program?"

Why would you think Duke would be a consistent top 10-15 program as their recent history tells you otherwise and as pointed out they lost their two best offensive players and two best defensive players.Not only is your post difficult to understand its also clueless. Duke missed out on exactly zero recruits because they in fact were recruiting as early as everyone else, to say otherwise is just false.There are many top players who have zero interest in going to Duke for many different reasons just like any other school. "Do you really believe that Duke is going to fall off the map and no longer be a consistent Top 10 -15 program?" They already have and are in fact no longer a consistent to 10-15 program.

Honestly you are just clueless. You can use fake stats however you want. The college coaches do not get it wrong very often is my favorite. Here is a stat for you , most of the players those coaches who rarely get it wrong recruit will spend more time on the bench than they will on the field. Do I think those players that are recruited by all the top schools and make every team they try out for have a better chance than those that have not, yes , but its not a lock thats for sure. Politics plays a big part in it all .

Please tell us what stats are fake? Please tell us the schools that consistently finish in the top 20 that do not get the highly touted players.

"Here is a stat for you , most of the players those coaches who rarely get it wrong recruit will spend more time on the bench than they will on the field." Myth. The poster pointed out the correlation between number of Under Armour All-Americans and a College Programs success. Not every recruit at the top programs was an UA AA, not all of the recruits are the same and coaches do not have the same expectations for each. The poster also pointed out that a large percentage of 2019 Division I All Americans were also Under Armour All-Americans. I would also bet that if you were to look at the the 2015 & 2016 Under Armour All-Americans the large majority were major contributors / played every game / started every game / captain etc... even if they were not named Division I AA.

Apparently , The coaches at the Top 10 - 20 programs, Inside lacrosse and under armour tend to agree on who the best players are.

The best programs seem to bring in the most UA All-Americans year after year and those programs consistently out perform all of the other programs. It looks to be the same 10 - 15 programs. As noted above, the exceptions to the rule in recent years have been JMU, Stony Brook, Navy and Denver (not sure about Denver).

Programs who have brought in the most UA players.

Maryland - 65
UNC - 53
UVA - 48
Duke - 45
NU - 42
ND - 38
Syracuse - 35
GT - 33
Fla - 31
Princeton - 23
BC - 21
JHU - 21
Loyola - 20
PSU -15
Stanford - 14
Penn - 13
Dartmouth- 12
USC - 11
Harvard - 11

Do not believe any other program had more than 10 (maybe Vandy). Surprises in terms of performance based on the numbers are Georgetown seems to get a lot and they have under performed. Also surprised Harvard has not done better as a program.

Please name a program that does not bring in UA recruits each year that has consistently out performed any of the Top 10 - 15 teams listed above that do bring in UA All-Americans. What is the reason for the success at the top programs? IMHO the number one reason is they bring in the best players. Coaching would be number two.

Duke finished last year 21st in the coaches poll. Every school looses top players.... the key is recruiting and Duke tends to do a pretty good job when it comes to recruiting. Duke plays a tough schedule and they were very competitive with some of the best teams in the country last year. Everything is in place for Duke to get back to being a top 10 -15 program. We all know not every top recruit will choose Duke but history tells us that a lot of them will. Not sure why the blip but I suspect they will be back.

It is completely true that the top programs have the lion's share of the UA girls. But I also feel that there is a very strong push from these coaches for their own recruits, as well as a benefit of the doubt that their recruits get, that helps these girls become the UA girls. As in, the process is often backwards, the kids were recruits of the top programs before they became shoe in UA selections. The coaches certainly want their own players recognized and push and pull politically first, for their incoming recruits, then for conference awards and honors, spots on select lists and teams and so on... until they graduate. Most kids are likely good candidates for most of these accolades, so it is not really that big of a deal. Just like any and all the lists you see compiled these days, the top 25% of any given list is likely non-disputable. The bottom 75% could very easily be swapped out with players just as deserving. Certainly not coming from a bitter standpoint on this, more from a standpoint of having benefitted from this as described.

I agree whole heartedly to this statement. Seen firsthand an early recruit recieve accolades they did not deserve and now that this so called wunderkind has seen teammates pass her by she is now plummeting down the rankings list. Which by the way IMHO is still ranked way too high

Gibberish. Not even sure where to begin. " Most kids are likely good candidates for most of these accolades". Really, Under Armour selects 44 players to be named All-American and you really think that most kids are on the same level as the 44? Wow. "Just like any and all the lists you see compiled these days." We are not discussing random lists, the only list that is relevant would be the Inside Lacrosse Young Gun Senior Girls Top 40 list. And here we go again with "just as deserving" as if there are hundreds of just as deserving players. Where do all of these just as deserving players go to school? Why do we see the same programs in the top 5 and the top 10 - 15 every year? Why are the top 10 - 15 programs the very same 10 - 15 programs that bring in the most Under Armour All-Americans? "the process is often backwards, the kids were recruits of the top programs before they became shoe in UA selections." How about this, the top programs recruited the players because they were the best players. If there were so many just as deserving players, if the college coaches got it wrong all of the time, if Under Armour and Inside lacrosse were all political and BS we would see much more parity . We do not see parity because the talent pool is not deep enough. Sure from time to time we see upsets and from time to time a non traditional team will be in the Top 15 but it is not on a consistent basis. Look at the numbers, the best programs constantly get the best players and those programs constantly do better than the other programs.

While there are many examples of players that were selected and go on to do great, there are just as many examples of players that certainly do not live up to expectations . Then there are hundreds of examples of players who were never selected who go on to kick butt in college. So ABSOLUTELY the bottom of these selection lists could very easily be swapped out. And it isn’t always the bottom of the list players that don’t work out. Hey, it’s fun and an honor to have your daughter recognized, be thankful and hope they have a successful college career. Don’t get too caught up in what you think all the praise means, be humble. Problem is, people don’t know how to do that.

I think the real problem is that some people want to attack whenever their daughter is not recognized. They want to diminish in order to elevate their daughter.

"Gibberish. Not even sure where to begin. " Most kids are likely good candidates for most of these accolades". Really, Under Armour selects 44 players to be named All-American and you really think that most kids are on the same level as the 44? Wow. "Just like any and all the lists you see compiled these days." We are not discussing random lists, the only list that is relevant would be the Inside Lacrosse Young Gun Senior Girls Top 40 list. And here we go again with "just as deserving" as if there are hundreds of just as deserving players. Where do all of these just as deserving players go to school? Why do we see the same programs in the top 5 and the top 10 - 15 every year? Why are the top 10 - 15 programs the very same 10 - 15 programs that bring in the most Under Armour All-Americans? "the process is often backwards, the kids were recruits of the top programs before they became shoe in UA selections." How about this, the top programs recruited the players because they were the best players. If there were so many just as deserving players, if the college coaches got it wrong all of the time, if Under Armour and Inside lacrosse were all political and BS we would see much more parity . We do not see parity because the talent pool is not deep enough. Sure from time to time we see upsets and from time to time a non traditional team will be in the Top 15 but it is not on a consistent basis. Look at the numbers, the best programs constantly get the best players and those programs constantly do better than the other programs."


First off I am not the guy you responded to but will say my opinion seems to come from the same background as his in that my kid has had many of those accolades but I realize there is a good deal of politics involved that she has benefited from. Your initial response just shows a lack of reading comprehension as when he says "most kids" he is talking about the players who actually receive the awards and not the whole population in general. Then you go on to preach that the only list that matters is the Inside Lacrosse Young Guns which has now become as political as it gets ( you want to move u or onto that list go pay them to play in there tournament) right after saying the list of UA senior AA is the best barometer of future success, so which is it. After that its just more drivel. In the end be proud of your kid when they make those lists but be humble and realize there are others who may not have the connections that have equal ability.

No one is arguing that some programs are always good because they consistently bring in top players, as represented with UA and IL rankings. The observation is that some schools have a lot of UA and IL ranked players, but don't over time perform better than programs with far fewer of those players. There are multiple reasons, but partly because some programs are "favored" in the process and their commits receive benefit of the doubt that other players don't get. None of it matters in the long run - best teams and players are determined on the playing field each year.

As you state: "best teams and players are determined on the playing field each year." I completely agree with you. After reading all of this banter I look at the numbers and I do not believe that they lie. No time right now to check on Harvard and Dartmouth but I do not believe that there are many teams that do not get a high number of UA Players that out consistently out perform the following:

Maryland
UNC
UVA
NU
Duke
ND
Syracuse
GT
Florida
Princeton
BC
Hopkins
Loyola
Penn State
Stanford
Penn
USC

It was stated that JMU, Stony Brook, Navy and maybe Denver are exceptions.

Please name all of the programs that consistently out perform the programs named above.

Not arguing there are programs consistently outperforming most of the programs above. But, there are programs doing more with fewer of UA players, whatever that is worth. The only program that really jumps out to me as over-represented based on program strength the last decade is JHU. Maybe GT, but they could have been a lot stronger in the early days of UA. USC has almost as many UA as programs that have been around a lot longer with many top 20 seasons. That doesn't mean the JHU, GT and USC girls named to UA weren't deserving. There are other factors at play. Penn and PSU seem under-represented compared to some programs with more UA. ND stands out most to me as having a lot of UA with good but not amazing results. I think people are actually being too hard on Duke. They've been down the past few years, but a lot of really strong years prior. I have no ties to Duke and it is not a school my daughter was ever interested in attending, so my opinion is neutral. Aside from the past two years they've been better than ND and as good as UVA this decade.

I think UA and IL do their best, and overall get a lot more right than wrong. They recognize individuals and there is some subjectivity to it, plus we all know there's more to team success than each individual's ability on its own.