I was making 2 points: if you love the game and think it is good for kids, logically it would be better for there to be as much opportunity as possible. Yes, families might be able to scrimp and sacrifice, but at the end of the day it is reducing the number of lacrosse athletes and the impact of the game. There is no reason for the system to function this way. If people truly cared about expanding the game there would be more support for rec programs, public schools and recruitment from public schools. The girls game is not nearly as elitist. Point #2 is that people in the lacrosse world love to claim it is a pure meritocracy and the best athletes/players are the ones who will shine, get recruited, etc. If you are “good” you will be found. Please educate yourself about how the world works and the role of opportunity. Just be honest about the fact that Johnny gets recruited by Penn State because his dad played there and his uncle knows the coach, etc…
Yes. I totally agree with what you are saying. The game did expand a bit geographically, and people start freaking out about fly ins.
There used to be joy associated with the game (listen to the way Lyle Thompson talks about the game). As clubs have become more and more prominent ( at the expense of rec teams) the fun/joy of just playing the game has been completely [Censored] out. Which is why it’s not growing at the pace it should be and it’s basically stagnating (if not declining) from a participating perspective.
I don’t disagree on the meritocracy. It’s just the way it works. Always going to be the rich donor who gets his kid a vanity spot on the team: I’m assuming those recruits get the swag and ride the bench for 4-5 years. Everybody gets what they want. While it does take a spot away from a more deserving kid, it’s not impacting very many people as if it were happening at a much lower age group.
