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

Where is the jealousy exactly? Is it the comment that a 15 year old with three years to play shouldn't need to make a life decision at that time is that jealousy? Is the comment that a 15 year old really doesn't have the life experience to make that decision jealousy? Is saying that colleges do rescind verbal offers jealousy ? Or was my comment about hoping every gets the opportunity to follow their dream by getting an offer jealousy ? The other comments in my post are facts. Look it up verbals get rescinded all the time in the NCAA. It is a fact. I have nothing to be jealous about. My 2017 plays varsity and on a club has made some great friends, has been to tournaments and is pretty damn happy. When he is ready to decide where or what sport or what academic life he wants for himself we will sit down and talk it out. Once again I hope everyone gets the opportunity to follow their dream or wait is that the jealousy coming out.

Thats true, Tambroni did that. But what about Harvard? The current Harvard coach honored all the prior commits that were made before he was hired. So maybe you should mention that unless you didn't know. Which you probably didnt.

Night and day comparison. Tambroni did what every coach can do if he wants when he takes over a program. Harvard coach could have done the same thing but the difference is getting a kid to commit and GET IN to Harvard is a lot harder than getting in to Penn St. To start recruiting late there would be no way for the Harvard Coach to fill his needs. Penn St on the other hand you have a much larger pool to choose from. Spell your name right and fill out a post card with a return address and you are half way there.

Bottom line: do not assume that one year of growth will have any major impact on a student athlete's ability or inability to make life decisions. That is where parenting comes in. That is where family discussions and decisions are made.
You make it sound like these kids are out in the cold making every decision by themselves. Many can and will have the majority of say in the decision and their parents will hopefully be there to guide them. I contend that the majority of these elite players can in fact be very instrumental in the process. It takes a certain level of maturity and accumen to become an elite level player.

Can commits be rescinded? Sure; when a student athlete does not live up to the verbal contract that stipulates his or her obligations; it can and may be rescinded. But this he's true for any year during the commitment and even after a national letter of intent is signed.

But it is not all meaningless as you have purported it to be. You are just not on the committed side of the equation and this your bias is as such. When and if your son gets signed; you may have different opinions.

The thread was implying that rescinding verbals was a very rare occurrence. I brought up the Penn St example as an effort to point out it happens more than we would all like to admit. And it should be noted, a verbal to the ivy admission process is different than the Penn St situation.

Ok I stand corrected. Good points.

Well said and I agree.

One year of growth or two years of growth? Commitments should not be made to students until the end of their sophomore year is my belief. Yes there is tremendous growth and maturity of a child maturing into a young man from when he enters as a freshman to when he enters as a junior. Not all elite players display maturity many are not very mature having been catered too for years. We have all seen them. A 14-15 year old cannot make a verbal commitment it must be made with their parents.

A verbal commitment is not a contract where the nli is. Yes they can be rescinded but the nli is more binding.

My bias is not on the committed - uncommitted side you are mistaken. My feelings are that these verbal commitments to minors in their freshman year are too soon. The NCAA needs better regulations. Lacrosse is getting away from the old boys network and becoming more of a college business for winning. This will go either in a positive direction or negative because college lacrosse does not make money for colleges.

As for my son he will go to college and play one of two sports. I am lucky enough to be in a different position because I am on staff at a local university and my son will have different opportunities at different schools because of it. My perspective is admittedly different because my situation. As I said all these boys should be lucky enough to,follow their dreams but at 14\15 year old freshman that dream may change several times.

FYI - The 2017 freshman Chaminade team rolled over Anthony's yesterday

Great. No ones cares.

Actually, I do. Thanks for sharing. I generally only hear about the older teams, so good to hear about this year. How have the other games gone?

Woa, you don't speak for everyone - some of us are interested in hearing about freshman games.

What was the score? Did you see the game? Future does not bode well for St. A's - the 2018 Chaminade class looks to be much more stacked than does the St. A's 2018 class.

Freshman plus the 17 year old on the team

He isn't the only older one on that team. But very good freshman team, hope it keeps up for you guys.

Please, there is no "17" year old on the team. Was a great game and the next few years will be a lot of fun to watch both teams compete

Great game? My kid had a black helmet on, wasn't so great for us. Congrats on your win, will be very tough for us to beat you guys just not enough firepower with the 2017 Friars.

I thought it was a great game for all the boys. Most of both teams know each other, some from town and some play club ball together. That reason alone makes it a great game!

I noticed some posts on what happens to "verbal commitments" when there is a coaching change. One example was new Penn State coach redacting the prior verbals given out and re-doing it. This leads to a point and then a question...a few coaches of bellwether NCAA teams are either older now or could be on the ropes if their programs decline / don't show at a high level / something unforseen happens like Cornell earlier this year. For example, a coach like Dom Starsia is an icon and is greatly respected and all, but he can't coach forever. Given the extremes of early recruiting, it would not be too bold to suggest that a current 2017 high school player will not play for Coach Starsia. What if the next UVa coach is not enamored with the 2017 commits and wants to do what Tamborini did at Penn State? It is at least a material risk to consider before having your kid go commit. Once these kids are juniors or seniors and there is a coaching change, there is no 1-800-get me another deal in this sport.

Chaminade 2017 team is clearly on another level.

that is no way a slight to the freshman St. Anthony's team.

Chaminade's depth of talent at all positions creates competitive imbalance...

Ok so should a 2017 player & his family pass up an a chance to commit with a school he loves because of a "what if" ? WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!

Ok so should a 2017 player & his family pass up an a chance to commit with a school he loves because of a "what if" ? WAKE UP!!!!!!!!! [/quote]

What which I wrote merits your Neanderthal reply? Look, a kid commits to Penn or Princeton, who gives a hoot who the coach is. I don't think it is a bad point to wonder if my 2017 son will be playing for a coach recruiting him. If you believe that a guy in his 60s is going to be there another 7-8 years, or that a coach like Petro won't get heat if Hop goes mediocre, then ignore those risks. And if a verbal is no good, there also goes the scholarship economics offered.

...don't sweat, friend. Just somebody going all "sour grapes". They figured that if they tried hard enough, and veiled their reasoning with good grammar and such, that their green wouldn't show.

That sounds very sporting of you. Is this a freshman team? Question being, "Do they have a freshman, a JV, and a Varsity team?" Thank you and enjoy. I'm sure that the defeated team is no joke as well, although some seriously maladapted folks would like to conceal their inadequacies by flaunting and taunting!

The middie lines for Chaminade and St Anthony's seemed equal

The middies comparison is probably fair...

The issue is, although "early commits" has become a controversial subject; the slots are being filled at the top programs. In that there is no doubt. Thus; the question becomes: take what you are offered while its available or wait it out to see if any coaching changes will occur and turn down a slot because 1-800-..... is not a sure thing?

I am sure everyone would say 'no thanks,coach. It's too early for us; check back in a couple of years'.

As I read the posts why is it anyone with an opinion against early commits is jealous? There is a reality that they could be rescinded. But, it's hard to imagine anyone turning them down. I certainly wouldn't. You offered my son a college commitment at a school he wants he will say yes the same way he will to a new car when he hits age 17. What kid wouldn't and what parent wouldn't be proud and happy to get that financial support. It is controversial.

College Lax Coaches have no better change of predicting what a 15 year old boy will become 4-8 years from now than a weather forecast from Al Gore...

Guess how many historic early commits are on the roster as seniors, let alone starting for their original college...

These "early commit" college coaches are either desperate or delusional

Can anyone reasonably disagree?

Yes!!I disagree!, Do you really think you know better than D1 coaches from top programs? The only thing desparate, is their quest to indentify and lock in top talent. By 9th grade, you will not see much vertical movement in talent. The boys will just get bigger and stronger. By summer of rising sophomore, most boys height is leveling off, if the skill level is there, it will most likely still be there in 4 years. I also don't think you can use the term "historic". This is a newer phenomena, we are making history. Real data won't be available for about 6-7 years. I can say for sure that the current HS jrs and seniors who committed in their sophomore year (this was considered ground breaking a couple years ago) are in fact the stars of their HS teams in most cases. These kids didn't just magically get good as sophomores, most of them were great as freshman an middle school players as well. I can agree that it must be very frutrating for the parents of 9-12th graders who are not commited. The more time goes by , the slimmer the chances. This however, does not mean the boys who have committed, are not well deserving.

Disagree? Have you read the posts? Yes people will disagree not with facts to support anything you say because children are fully developed mentally and physically at 14-15 reaching their peak athletic performance.

Many will just call you jealous and green with envy. Any opinion against early commit is just jealousy.

As the original poster questioning the veracity of the early verbal in instances of coaching changes, I do take well the point that this alone is not a reason to decline a spot IF the school is first rate and the kid and parent are decided on it. Offer me a spot for my 8 year old at any Ivy and I'd jump to secure it.

I only suggested it as a reason to evaluate. UVa is a good school, but is not an Ivy or a Stanford. The coach is in his 60s and that school has a recent history of running long tenured coaches out to rejuvenate a program. Women's basketball, baseball, swimming, track and field all had legendary coaches shown a door as they got to a certain age. Dom Starsia retires in 2 years, then what? At that point the new coach may look at the 2017, 2018 & 2019 commits and say you must be kidding me...I take over a program and can't have my own recruits on the field for the next 3-4 years?!? I am just saying it is an outcome all families need to handicap. I'd be pretty concerned if my family was offered some economics needed to have a kid attend a school, and then lose that in 2 years. I don't believe that a coach taking over a first flight NCAA program is going to risk his own job without at least re-evaluating the spot lacrosse and the money and possibly re-auditioning recruits to earn it from him. This is just a factor, and one that has NEVER BEEN ONE BEFORE because this is the first time 9th graders have committed verbally end masse. Just saying. Anyone in disagreement I can understand.

Does anyone know what happened at Penn State? Were kids and families told the deal is no longer the deal when Tamborini took over? If it is true, there is precedent to make that approach more comfortable for the next coaches taking over a Bucknell, UVa, Hop, Penn...you name it.

There are so many variables to the process. Club team, High school team, playing time, upper class players in front of you, attitude, grades, injury, social influence, genetics, coaching, drive, mental toughness, smart and stupid decisions, girlfriends, passion, parents, luck, timing, money and God's blessing. Probably missed a few but you know all of this gets thrown into the recruiting soup! You want a grilled cheese with your soup??

Can anyone reasonably disagree?

[/quote]

Yes!!I disagree!, Do you really think you know better than D1 coaches from top programs? The only thing desparate, is their quest to indentify and lock in top talent. By 9th grade, you will not see much vertical movement in talent. The boys will just get bigger and stronger. By summer of rising sophomore, most boys height is leveling off, if the skill level is there, it will most likely still be there in 4 years. I also don't think you can use the term "historic". This is a newer phenomena, we are making history. Real data won't be available for about 6-7 years. I can say for sure that the current HS jrs and seniors who committed in their sophomore year (this was considered ground breaking a couple years ago) are in fact the stars of their HS teams in most cases. These kids didn't just magically get good as sophomores, most of them were great as freshman an middle school players as well. I can agree that it must be very frutrating for the parents of 9-12th graders who are not commited. The more time goes by , the slimmer the chances. This however, does not mean the boys who have committed, are not well deserving. [/quote]

I don't disagree with the poster. You're wrong. Girls physically mature by 13-14. Look at Olympic sports where the medalists are girls in 8th to 10th grades like Katie Ledecky in swimming. Then look at men's Olympic sports...it is the rarest of rare for a teen to be a medalist in track, swimming, basketball, etc.

In truth, the period for boys with the most volatility of growth is 13-18. Our club team had a dinner in the recent weeks, and I coild swear on average the kids grew 2 inches and a lot of weight since last seeing them in November. What you see at 14 or 15 is not what you get physically. And I have always believed that the real advantage our MD kids and your LI kids have is stick skills, and frankly that delta goes away with practice. What we know is some kids are the best 11, 13, or 14 year olds and those kids are normally not the same kids as they age up. I think we have all seen that with our own eyes already. One commit to an ACC school from our club team didn't start to play lacrosse until he was 12 and in 8th grade in Fall all said he was too behind...but he was a physical talent, a fast growing big kid and he had the natural ability to pick up the stick skills. Come Summer as a rising 9th grader he was arguably the best player on our team and in thr local area...passed the MD blue blood kids like they were standing still.

Not complaining about early recruiting at all. My kid didn't want UVa, UNC and would rather die than go to school near home in MD...so we're not losing or losers.

I think of it like poker. Some NCAA coaches are going all in before the flop. Some coaches are just checking until they can at least see the flop, if not the turn and the river. Realistically no coach can see the turn or the river anymore to look at juniors and seniors...but the smart ones are at least understanding their own bets better. The more information you have, and that mwans more time, the better your decisions will be.

Oh, and by the way, what storied programs are either declining (UVa and Hop) or have not done anything at NCAAs (UNC) in recent years? The early recruiters. What programs are rising or dominating (Duke, Loyola)? The smart gamblers. I don't think the early data are misleading or wrong.

These are professionals. You have to believe they see things that us parents do not. These verbals seem to be an ACC/Hop thing. I wonder if Maryland will still feel the pressure to verbal early once they move to the Big 10. Impossible to have the answers until these Boys get to College.

How come the IL verball list hasnt been updated in weeks?

Maryland and Virgina verbals.

You really believe there will not be vertical movement in talent? The pro athletes in so many sports weren't playing freshman or jv some didn't play until varsity. This is a fact. One of the most famous is Michael Jordan. Too many factors into giving a 14/15 playe a verbal commitment to justify it. You are right the data doesn't yet come into okay because this is so new. We will not know if it hurst or helps the game for ten years. If you start seeing the "second" tier schools get better because they are getting juniors and Seniors who didn't commit early then we will know. What does it really mean if a child gets a d1 scholarship to play lacrosse or a d3? Isn't it about th education ?

Careful what you wish for... I am hearing about so many kids that went D1 and hated it. They hate the grind, the demands, they realize they may never play, etc, etc. Many are transferring to D3 schools where they play immediately and still get a great education. Not sure if this has anything to do with early recruiting, but it's something that seems to be happening at higher rate.

At one interview; my son asked the head coach; why do you think that I'm a good enough player to choose so early?

The coach's answer was straight forward. He said, " this my job, my profession. This is what I get paid to do. It is not a hobby. I use my knowledge and experience to "see" who has what I need in a player in order for them to ultimately contribute to our team".

Here is how it typically went in the recruiting my son went through at a few schools:

The coaches (head and assistants) all are at different events the previous summer and see individual players and talent. They get together and confer on who they want to look at as a group. Those players then get "invited" to prospect camps that are supposed to be open to the public but are somehow typically limited to 45-60 blue chip players. Then all of the coaches can see the players as a group. These players are then reevaluated and are culled once again. The third look visit is when it starts to get interesting and the coaches then relay to the player and their parents what their goals are and that they are considering that player as a potential commitment player. From there it gets rolling really fast and "slots" are offered or not. It can be pretty heady and intimidating yet also very flattering.

The vetting process also included review of current academic class load and the previous year of grades. Assuredly they are a poor litmus for future success; but these guys seem to "know the ropes". A clandestine review of social media sites was also researched at a couple of interviews and it was related that his media profile is not seen in a negative context (get your kids off of Facebook, my space, twitter, etc !! They look at these areas for character development and or flaws. Make sure you know who is writing what that might be seen in a bad connotation. Get you kid away from that stuff ASAP)

So it's not just genetics and field performance that is being reviewed. Far from it. These guys do know what they are doing and it is very systematic so I don't see it as playing poker in their eyes. They are stacking the deck in their favor by doing their due diligence.

Define "many kids that went D1 and transferred".

Please show the source of "many" and how they hate the grind.

Please do expand upon this weak claim which is mostly anecdotal, I am sure.