I try to tell people to do your homework if you are considering sending your son to BL, LB, CHC. They consistently have 50 plus on roster-they only play up to 18 tops in MIAA games. The rest are there to be practice players. Unless you are attending for legacy purposes or some other compelling reason and not going to be in the top 18 move on and help one of the other MIAA schools build a better team and get playing time.... It will help with the balance of the league in the long run. Many talented players that have upside do not play on the teams listed. Other teams fit in here as well depending on the year, but those three are consistent with carrying large rosters of kids that never see the field.
Would education qualify as one of your compelling reasons to send a kid to one of these schools? You can't predict who is going to be one of the top 18. You can try to look at the recruiting class and what the school has at your kids position but things change. Kids grow. Positions change. Kids transfer. It's not worth basing a HS choice on predicted playing time.
And who cares about the large rosters? Who does it hurt? They are mostly seniors who already know they aren't seeing the field. I think it's great the schools carry that many kids. It looks good on a college transcript and they get to compete in practice and travel to games with their friends. What's the downside?[/quote]
1. There's a downside for some (very few) kids who just can't get with the idea that they can't play. Those kids should transfer.
2. There's more typically a downside for parents whose egos are hurt by the lack of status and not seeing their son's highlights on the school's IG feed.
I'm always amused by the people who reject this system (usually when their son is in 7th-8th grade), and end up choosing a Centennial HS where over 1600 boys are competing for 40 varsity roster spots, and no "extra" practice teams like the 9th and 10th grade teams you see in the MIAA schools.
Reply
Quote
