Good point - I don't think that Ivy Leagues want to "water down" their student intellect base like many of the very good football program schools do, there it's about education first and sports after. The first poster has no clue though - clearly he has never played lacrosse at a competitive level, or likely any of the other sports he mentioned either. Too many armchair quarterbacks on this lacrosse forum.
Football is not the sole determinant of athletic ability. The kids that I see who are great lacrosse players would be good at any sport they played an many are good at multiple sports. I would not imagine a linebacker being good at basketball or soccer.
While lacrosse gets some very good Athletics..No one can honestly think that they get the best...The very best gravitate to Football, Basketball,hockey, baseball,etc..money sports..
Nonsense, how do you define "the best". The things that make you good at one sport - height, sheer size - may not be an advantage in other sports. You cannot define athletics or athleticism based on the 4 main money sports in the U.S. Just because someone is good at hitting a fastball does not mean they are athletic - David Ortiz? The hand eye coordination of a tennis player is as good as any mlb hitter. Gymnasts, pound for pound, are stronger than any other athlete. We can do this all night. Yes, more kids gravitate towards the mainstream sports, but that does not mean that they are better athletes.
Lacrosse does not have the same level of adoption across the U.S. but the athleticism of the participants is as good as in any other sport.
Reply
Quote
