The issue is I feel early recruiting has damaged the game of lacrosse , especially the youth aspect. And these colleges keep on looking at these kids younger and younger putting an undue stress on many young athletes. I always felt lacrosse wasn't going to do this. That's why I love to see the underdogs win. Drexel, Bryant to name a few don't get those early bloomer studs who sometimes fizzle out because those late bloomers caught up physically. The parity of lacrosse at the division 1 level is great because we are seeing those late bloomers come on the scene who were not recruited early. Hence I was a late bloomer and outplayed my early bloomers studs in college. Many who were physically mature in 8th 9th grade were not as good in college. Or some of them quit because they weren't those studs anymore!
By your logic, early recruiting is good for the game. As those late bloomers start to take national championships away fro the ten or so programs that typically win, and further increase parity, it means that the game will grow...Parity is good for the game isn't it? more late bloomers continue to play rather than quit...early recruiting, I would argue, actually increasing the reach of the game...
The only people that don't like it are the college coaches (at least that is what they say while they do exactly the opposite) and the parents of kids that don't get recruited.
The early recruits pick up the scholarship $, can't blame them can you? Who are you blaming as the sport grows things will change, that is a function of growth. It happens in every aspect of life. People need to embrace or when a college coach wants your 9th grade son, say no...
There is no scourge, plenty of opportunities for kids to play this game and never see a college coach. It is the parents clamoring for JR and Maverick and adrenaline to get their kid seen...
