BOTC - US Lacrosse Community Forum Forums NORTHEAST LACROSSE BOTC MAIN FORUM (LI, CT, WC) Boys 2017 Fall 2013/Summer 2014

Are all the 2017 players that are committed "cheating"? Are they all older?

Excellent points CSage - and if anyone thinks with the workload to play Division I lacrosse - AND - a top 50 education is going to be able to complete a degree in 4yrs...few and far between. So you can add an additional year to your costs - hopefully they do well enough in school have endeared themselves to the staff and can get a Grad Assistant position to help....

Agreed, however the original point is that some kids might not get the UVA offer because a cheating holback is going instead.

So by your definition of a cheating holdback - do you consider the top lax schools as cheaters? I was just wondering because most, if not all, have kids that enter into their freshman year a whole year (or 2) older. Therefore, by your definition, you seem to be under the impression that starting this year with the class of 2017, these very same schools will be interested with kids that are, by your definition, a year (or 2) younger then the cheater holdbacks? I got news for you. NOTHING has changed with regard to taking the older kids. Many have stated that the holdbacks are taking our kids spots. Newsflash! Educate yourselves and do the research. Schools just aren't interested in 17 yr old freshman. Check out the rosters at these top schools and look up the birth dates. But mostly, just stop whining that it's not fare and stop acting like a victim.

So by your definition of a cheating holdback - do you consider the top lax schools as cheaters? I was just wondering because most, if not all, have kids that enter into their freshman year a whole year (or 2) older. Therefore, by your definition, you seem to be under the impression that starting this year with the class of 2017, these very same schools will be interested with kids that are, by your definition, a year (or 2) younger then the cheater holdbacks? I got news for you. NOTHING has changed with regard to taking the older kids. Many have stated that the holdbacks are taking our kids spots. Newsflash! Educate yourselves and do the research. Schools just aren't interested in 17 yr old freshman. Check out the rosters at these top schools and look up the birth dates. But mostly, just stop whining that it's not fare and stop acting like a victim.

How do you find out when the college prospect days are?

Put down the afternoon beers... You're all over the map. What point are you actually trying to make??? Wow, I hope your wife is smart, because your intellect is not going to help your little Rabil.

Rumour is a 2017 from Long Island has commited to Virginia.

Rumour is a 2017 from Long Island has commited to Virginia.

Just heard that a Dukes/Triple H 2017 M/FO player committed to Penn, or at leaast to the admissions process. So the Ivies are active.

Cage, Out of curiosity, was there the same level of discussion last year at this time with the 2016's? Were they complaining about holdbacks? Was there the same level of interest in who was commiting? What differences or similarities do you see in the two age groups? Only if if you know off the top of your head, otherwise I'll go back and look myself. Thanks

The Class of 2016 had no where near this level of discussion about early commitments, holdbacks, cheating, and more. The differences could include a number of things beyond talent level. Parents might be more comfortable discussing the realities of the subject given that BOTC is now in its fourth year.

If you go back to the Boys 2016 Fall 2012/Spring 2013 or this year's Boys 2016 Fall 2013/Summer 2014 threads, you can review what took place with the Class of 2016's freshman and sophomore seasons.

So can I ask why did you have your son commit at that time if you were not ready? Did you feel pressure from schools?

Add another true 2017 to that list as well. From well known club and HS.

Details to follow. Announcement will be made as per Penn's discretion.

Yes, a little pressure. He had several offers from Ivies and other top lax schools. We decided to take an offer at the time because he had a pick from many excellent choices, many of which were offering very good financial packages. We were afraid that those offers may not still be there as the schools committed more and more players. My son is very happy with the choice, and our family is confident that we made a smart decision. My son is now working harder than ever both academically and athletically. He knows he has obligations to fulfill

University of Virginia is a State School and and is considerred to be a Top 25 School.

St Johns University is a Private School and is ranked around 125.

The cost is about the same for both schools unless you are a resident of Verginia.

I think that given the choice I would select Verginia every time.

Here's a potential problem with the very early commits we are seeing. The kids (and they are kids still) have an expectation both athletically and academically to continue to be a top prospect for the next 4 years of high school. Admit it or not, it is a lot of pressure for most to handle. When they leave high school the real pressure cooker starts. Division 1 athletics is a grind - and yes I know from personal experience. It is very rewarding but it is ultimately a full time job along with studies. So a kid who commits to a top school in 9th grade has 4 years that he has to "perform" because he is expected to as an early commit and then has to continue on an even bigger stage with better, stronger competition. Overall that's 8 years of a tough grind. I know some kids handle it fine, but I would think for others the idea of an early commit and "now I don't have to worry" is shortsighted. You have to ask yourself and your son " Are we committing just to say we committed or are we committing because the school, the program, the offer is everything we could hope for and more? Just one man's thoughts.

Guy..
You have been hinting about this for days, every post lends a bit more info. No one cares! When the time comes, please let us all know so we'll know what a lunatic you are.

Here's a potential problem with the very early commits we are seeing. The kids (and they are kids still) have an expectation both athletically and academically to continue to be a top prospect for the next 4 years of high school. Admit it or not, it is a lot of pressure for most to handle. When they leave high school the real pressure cooker starts. Division 1 athletics is a grind - and yes I know from personal experience. It is very rewarding but it is ultimately a full time job along with studies. So a kid who commits to a top school in 9th grade has 4 years that he has to "perform" because he is expected to as an early commit and then has to continue on an even bigger stage with better, stronger competition. Overall that's 8 years of a tough grind. I know some kids handle it fine, but I would think for others the idea of an early commit and "now I don't have to worry" is shortsighted. You have to ask yourself and your son " Are we committing just to say we committed or are we committing because the school, the program, the offer is everything we could hope for and more? Just one man's thoughts.

Do you really think that if you moved the recruiting deadline back to the summer before your senior year, you would all of a sudden remove all stress and pressure to perform throughout high school? Whether it's an early commit having to work hard to live up to expectations or it's a freshman working hard to get noticed, the kid has to work hard no matter what if he wants to play D1 ball. He has to work just as hard in the weight room, on the field and in the classroom, with or without a commit. A true athlete is always pushing himself, commit or not. So sorry, I don't buy your argument that early recruiting is detrimental due to pressure.

It also seems like many people think that parents of early commits are complete morons who have no care whatsoever about their child's future. Do you really think they allowed their child to commit to UNC, UVA, Bucknell, etc., without thinking about programs, fit, money, and so on? Seriously? How could a kid commit to Bucknell and you suggest anything other than a kids academic long term future was considered? And most I'm sure, if not everyone of these 2017 commits, probably had more than one offer in front of them. So suggesting they jumped at the first school to offer probably isn't accurate either. And the reality is, there is only one way to curb early commits anyways, more scholarship money. It will never happen, but the reason basketball and football players can wait and take their time is that they know all offers are full. Sure, football coaches will offer freshman, but that's more to be able to say "Hey, we loved you from the start". Most commits are juniors and seniors. Basically, until the pie gets big enough that no one has to fight over the crumbs, people will continue to take the security for their children.

As for reclassifying, it's 50/50 whining and legit. Club ball should 100% age based, something akin to AAA hockey. But showcases should be grad based as kids do go to prep school and also start school late for various reasons. I do have to say I find it a bit odd that kids want to play varsity lacrosse as a freshman, or even 8th grader in some cases, but chooses to play below their age level during club ball. I know kids who have dropped down after reclassifying and unfortunately I think it stems their development. It's like playing in the back yard with a 5 year old, how much do you benefit from that? Yeah you look awesome, but did you get any better by toying with younger kids? Of course not. You could still grad when you want to, and look awesome at Jake Reed too, but also still get challenged during the summer and also keep things fair for those how spent thousands of dollars. It should be similar to hockey, age based minor hockey until junior. Some will go straight to college after high school at 18, others might play junior for a few years, whatever works for each individual.

That's my 2 cents…

Do you really think that if you moved the recruiting deadline back to the summer before your senior year, you would all of a sudden remove all stress and pressure to perform throughout high school? Whether it's an early commit having to work hard to live up to expectations or it's a freshman working hard to get noticed, the kid has to work hard no matter what if he wants to play D1 ball. He has to work just as hard in the weight room, on the field and in the classroom, with or without a commit. A true athlete is always pushing himself, commit or not. So sorry, I don't buy your argument that early recruiting is detrimental due to pressure.

It also seems like many people think that parents of early commits are complete morons who have no care whatsoever about their child's future. Do you really think they allowed their child to commit to UNC, UVA, Bucknell, etc., without thinking about programs, fit, money, and so on? Seriously? How could a kid commit to Bucknell and you suggest anything other than a kids academic long term future was considered? And most I'm sure, if not everyone of these 2017 commits, probably had more than one offer in front of them. So suggesting they jumped at the first school to offer probably isn't accurate either. And the reality is, there is only one way to curb early commits anyways, more scholarship money. It will never happen, but the reason basketball and football players can wait and take their time is that they know all offers are full. Sure, football coaches will offer freshman, but that's more to be able to say "Hey, we loved you from the start". Most commits are juniors and seniors. Basically, until the pie gets big enough that no one has to fight over the crumbs, people will continue to take the security for their children.

As for reclassifying, it's 50/50 whining and legit. Club ball should 100% age based, something akin to AAA hockey. But showcases should be grad based as kids do go to prep school and also start school late for various reasons. I do have to say I find it a bit odd that kids want to play varsity lacrosse as a freshman, or even 8th grader in some cases, but chooses to play below their age level during club ball. I know kids who have dropped down after reclassifying and unfortunately I think it stems their development. It's like playing in the back yard with a 5 year old, how much do you benefit from that? Yeah you look awesome, but did you get any better by toying with younger kids? Of course not. You could still grad when you want to, and look awesome at Jake Reed too, but also still get challenged during the summer and also keep things fair for those how spent thousands of dollars. It should be similar to hockey, age based minor hockey until junior. Some will go straight to college after high school at 18, others might play junior for a few years, whatever works for each individual.

That's my 2 cents…

a valuable 2 cents..thanks

I read in another thread where the [lacrosse]'s Sporting Goods Tournament of Champions is requiring birth certificates to enforce age restrictions. Couple youth age restrictions with 4yr limitations for HS players and you will go a long way toward resolving reclassing issues.

It would neither prevent the kindergarten holdbacks, nor the 8th grade reclassers, but it would eliminate some advantages. Right now, an old 4th grader would still play with his classmates. Age restrictions would force him to play with the 5th grade teams. Additionally, many reclassed 8th graders play JV (or varsity) to continue their development. If these players were forced to play another year of youth, it would make this a less attractive option.

In the end, it really won't matter as far a recruiting goes because at the college level the coaches are still going to recruit the oldest players for their freshman class. Additionally, I will predict there will be more red shirts and pgs like the old days. It's not like the top colleges will fill their freshman classes with younger kids. They'll just say we want you if you pg.

I don't understand your point. Reading through these threads, most posters are upset with reclassed 16yo competing with 14 yo son for an opportunity to play D1 lacrosse. Me too. Frankly, the system as it is rewards the older, reclassed kid with little downside other than cost. Enforcing age restrictions at the youth level, thereby forcing older kids to play out of class, makes kindergarten holdbacks a little more painful-no friends on team, car pools for Mom, or social hour with fellow parents at tourneys. 4yr HS restriction would curb reclassers by forcing another year of youth ball. Choosing 2-3 practices a week and higher costs for a year of physical growth over 5 practices, better competition and coaching becomes a much more difficult decision.

It is not perfect, but it would be a start.