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

So you are saying an 13/14 year old HS freshman M who is 6-0 and 170 has a weaker chance over a 15 year old 5-7 155 pounder?
The discussion has been about age but physical characteristics comes into play as well.

So in other words, because the scholarship money in D1 lacrosse is so low, coaches don't want to tie up money for 5 years like in football. Lacrosse coaches want manic lacrosse parents to pay for a redshirt year at a prep school. One way is to repeat 8th grade or 9th grade, another way is do a PG year.

Maybe the college coaches are reading this thread and laughing at us, the outrage over kids repeating grades and all. We are basically underwriting their unwillingness to redshirt kids like in football for the same reason...they want kids on the weights and more physically mature for the 4 years they play. Has anyone asked a college coach for their son this: "He is a good student, so there is not an academic reason to do this. Will you take him and designate him as a redshirt freshman when he arrives?" Now here is the test: if your kid really is a very special lacrosse prodigy, who has the leverage? I have to admit, didn't occur to me until reading the latest thoughtful comments including the one above.

We're idiots.

I'm not sure how your concern relates to the proposal. The situation that you describe exists today at the HS level, only it is worse because the comparison "Freshman" may be 16 yo. The proposal would not effect those seeking PG yrs- the late bloomers (Rob Pannell, for example). PG is a real option, the offer's exist as you describe, and, for a late bloomer, they represent a real opportunity vs. none at all.
You may have a legitimate concern at the youth level since states have varying school year cut offs, and currently NY is 3 months out of alignment with the USLacrosse age guidelines. Not sure how to resolve, but I think the proposal still has merit and is better than the status quo.

Don't you have a job? All you do is post around the Internet on multiple forums bragging about your son's Madlax team. Weird.

My school cutoff is dec 1, not sept 1. And not for nothing but your 17yo college freshman would not only be competing with 18 year old but possibly 23 and 24 yr olds as was evidenced last season.

Interesting analysis, but, again, not a real consequence of the proposal to limit youth to age and HS to 4 yrs as a way of discouraging reclassers.
For me, it comes down to opportunity. Lax is a non-revenue sport at the collegiate level, particularly D1. There's not, and will not be in the near future, the $$ that exists in football and basketball. As such, redshirting and generous scholarships are the exception. In general, this is true of all non-revenue sports. Because of early recruiting, the PG year provides an opportunity to those late bloomers that doesn't otherwise exist.
The opportunity to gain admission to a quality university, defray some of the costs while working toward a goal, learning to compete and having fun are worthwhile pursuits in my book.
I believe my son will prevail on a level paying field. As it is, in the current D1 recruiting environment, that field is not level.
You can play a revenue sport instead, work within the realities of the current lax system, or try to effect change. As the parent of a 7th grader facing the real prospect of competing with reclassed kid for these precious opportunities, I would like to see change. I would like to build consensus on Boards like this to begin making a difference.
All Said, I welcome criticism, comment or friendly amendments.
Absent real change, "beating them" as it would be, I might just "join 'em" by reclassing my son too!

Example of what's wrong with America! Easy to criticize, hard to do something.

Have fun following my other posts!

As a point for discussion. There was a UNC commit today who's a 2016 reclassified, his brother committed last week to Hopkins and is a 2017 reclassified. Away from is this right or wrong.
How does a kid who got minimal attention in his original grade get so much better by doing nothing more than repeating a grade?
Are they better, or do they SHOW better?
It seems to me there will come time to pay the piper, and I assume it will be when the maturity playing field balances out in HS or early in college.
I'm starting to think the coaches really don't know what their doing. And maybe as a previous post states Duke is laughing all the way to the finals. The results speak for themselves, Hopkins and Virginia missed the tournament last year, UNC hasn't been to final 4 in 20 years.
No hate toward the boys, just interested to discuss the results of all this madness.

Easy now with the personal attacks. I don't think this VaLaxGuy has done anything but put some constructive info on this thread.

After all, you posted during the 9-5. Put the donut down and step away from the keyboard, sir, no one needs to get hurt here.

Have had many of the same thoughts. Since kids are committing now so much earlier than even 4/5 years ago (starting first half of freshman year now, over 100 2016s already committed as well at first half of their sophomore year) there is no data yet to support if early recruting correlates to college rankings/success. Will continue to be an interesting debate until there is more conclusive data or the NCAA grows a pair and slows the early recruting thing down.

Well, consider this. Many of these early recruits are from affluent areas, or have reclassified at private schools - I understand not all - just using a wide brush here - maybe these parents have essentially demonstrated that at the college level, cost will not be an issue. So scholarship money is not the most prevalant reason nor should it be i understand, but a college coach having this conversation with someone from a very affluent area, and is able to afford the college without financial assistance of any kind, athletic, academic, financial aid - I have to think his bursar's office will be pleased that he has 3-4 kids on the team that are paying 95% of the full price tag... When a 2017 early commits from Amityville or Freeport then it gets interesting... Again, broad strokes, I am sure it is not the case with every case or situation... I don't live in one of the most affluent towns either, so I apologize Iam not putting down A'ville or F'port - just using examples

And you spend all day reading the above mentioned forums...weird

Earlier today, BOTC was part of a one hour teleconference with Joel Franklin from the Brine National Lacrosse Classic to discuss many of the questions that have appeared here on the message boards. Discussions ranged from the tryout game plan to the evaluators and their selection process.

BOTC will share this information with our readers in the upcoming posts.

Brine National Lacrosse Classic Tryout Agenda

Brine National Lacrosse Classic - Evaluators

The following individuals were the evaluators for the Long Island player selection process. Additional individual might have been helping to administer individual training stations however they were not involved in the selection process according to event organizers.

Jim Konen
Chris Roberts
Mike Hungerford
Kieran O'Brien
Steven Romano
John Reicherter
Tyler Begley
Michael Malave
Jeff Atlas
Ryan Kuhn
Chris Schreiber
Daniel Steigert
Tom Rooney
Emile Caiazza
Greg Foster
Al Escalante
Joe Thon

Great info from Brine - Thanks for advocating Sage

Is similar available for the Middle School tryout?

Brine National Lacrosse Classic - Selection Process

The Brine regional tryout and selection process is standardized as follows:

1. Limit the total number of players
2. 3 hour time limit
3. No player data provided to coaches
4. Jersey numbers are not pre-assigned
5. 10:1 player coach ratio
6. Divide players by positions in to smaller team groups
7. Rotate team groups to drill stations: 1v1, 2v3, 4v4, half field and full field transition
8. Assign evaluators to drill stations
9. Provide evaluators with master player check in list to contain position and jersey number only
10. High school coaches cannot vote for their own players or biological children
11. Player selection is by unanimous vote

Really well thought out, I could not agree more. The "paper chase" of a D1 scholarship is fleeting. No matter what these kids need to keep their grades up because it is their grades that will determine where they go and BTW lots of these schools give more merit aid based on their grades than they may get from a 1/4 D1 scholarship.

Apologies however we do not have any additional material exclusively targeted at Middle School players, but the subject did come up during our teleconference. We did discuss the fact that Grades 6 through 8 were grouped together which might have fed some of the posts that you have seen here on BOTC with younger players facing players 24+ months older in the Middle School bracket. This is something that the event will look into potentially changing going forward.

While the MS bracket is open to 6th-8th grade players, it takes a VERY special player to make this sort of team as a 6th grader. The tryout should be open to these players.

Shame on the 6th grade parents who bring their children to this and then complain that the 8th graders are too old, too big and too strong. Parents should know better.

Actually, I don't. But whenever I come to this forum (and others), I see that guy posting all the time, so I assume he must visit/post on these boards every day. Bizarre, but I guess some guys live their lives through their kids. I guess he doesn't mind that the Madlax owner is a nightmare.

Now the agenda is clear.

For others, I don't use this screen name anywhere else.

Let's try the Golden Rule, shall we? Anything of substance to add?

Just observing that seemingly every one of your posts is an apology for the Madlax owner's behavior. What are you going to do when your son leaves the nest?

Yawn, Mr Anon. I have not excused his behavior. Quote me, since you have all day to research my posts.

I have been transparent in my intentions. How about you?

My guess is the team Mr Anon's son plays for was beaten badly by MadLax...he is bitter and now will complain about older players, unfair advantages...blah, blah, blah...

How are all the LONG ISLAND 2017 Teams Looking?

Express Orange
Team 91A
True Blue
fl$
Jesters
Team Long Island
Outlaws
Be the Best
Tomahawks
Checkmate
Millon Force
Recon
Pride

From a NJ person from what I saw in Fall tournaments:

- Turtles
- Team 91
- Express Orange
- everyone else

No way Express Orange is #1. In fact, all but Turtles had a few to several loses this Fall.

Turtles were not unbeaten.

Hey, maybe they can all battle it out at the Hershey Chocolate Shootout or some other kindergarten tournament??? Seriously guys, time to grow up, they are 14yrs old now. No coaches care if you run around dressed in your ninja turtle garanimals, claim to play solely "for the love of the game", or you're a pumlin-colored terp, a scary outlaw, a court jester or the big bad wolf. Focus on going to some showcase/ prospect camps ... and wear your high school helmet.

Years of entitlement are catching up to that team. They've already witnessed some defections. Just a matter of time before they blow up.

The Yankees will rebuild again don't worry.

Great advice about where to focus energy.

I think the helmet comment is an actual up in the air question. I've been told that whichever affiliation helped you along/recommended you for the showcase/camp it is that assocation that you should represent at the showcase.

If your club directors/coaches provided your Blue Chip recommend you should sport their colors when you attend. If it was your HS coach then wear HS colors.

Why do you care?

Many years back, the Eastern New [lacrosse] State Soccer Association sponsored summer elite tournament teams which had a spring-time selection process. (These have since been overrun by year-'round club and premier teams.) Anyway, the tryouts for these teams were very competitive at the time and players would wear crazy neon socks and mismatched outfits just to stand out from the crowd. Bottom line : No one was ever selected based on their apparel.

Same argument applies here. Stop worrying about the name on the helmet and spend more time focused on the quality of play at these showcase events. The rest will indeed take care of itself. Lacrosse has a great advantage over many youths sports with individualized combine/showcases.

Not saying helmet is something to worry about. The suggestion about helmet is less about the player and more about recognizing where you come from and returning a favor to the people who helped you. It is not the same as the neon sock situation you describe.

If you get into an event with help from a recommendation and are an all-star or MVP, or just play better than the defender or attackman standing next to you, you will get the question "Where did you get those skills?" the answer is on your helmet.

I am not suggesting the player owes anything to his club or HS, I am suggesting that recognizing your coaches is the right thing to do.

The chest thumping by 2017 club parents is providing insight to 2019-2023 parents as to where they should send their boys to develop.

Agreed. The LI 2017 parents on this forum are out of whack and insecure.

Since this is a 2017 post,I don't think that the HS coaches have had anything to do with helping to develop the players.

How many 8th graders played on the varsity last year.

The college coaches do not care what helmet you have on or what HS you will go to. If you perform well in front of them they will take notice.

Really? Where you getting players from? Its OVER. There is something like 15 players that are 2017 players verbally committed already. And not ONE Turtle. Everyone thought Turtles would all go first, enjoy some humble pie with the rest of us.

All going IVY...wait and see hater

Sigh.