Originally Posted by Powderfinger
Originally Posted by Anonymous


I have no idea at all who any of those recruits are and don't really care, the fact is statistically 60% of any given recruiting class will never see the field in any meaningful way. Take a look at the sidelines in some of the early season games when the weather hasn't warmed up yet and you will see a significant amount of players on any given sideline that have sweatshirts on the entire game, they know they're not playing, because 12-15 players play the vast majority of the minutes, the other 15-20 players are the practice squad or bowling pins on the sideline or whatever they do. They may have all been HS standouts and UA this and NIKE that, but in the end it's impossible for 28-35 players to get playing time and that's not an opinion, its just simple math


So can we extrapolate and say that some of the UA this and NIKE that players got there through political lifts? Because if UA and NIKE chose the best, then the best would see the field over the other less-recognized players.

Originally Posted by Powderfinger
Originally Posted by Anonymous


I have no idea at all who any of those recruits are and don't really care, the fact is statistically 60% of any given recruiting class will never see the field in any meaningful way. Take a look at the sidelines in some of the early season games when the weather hasn't warmed up yet and you will see a significant amount of players on any given sideline that have sweatshirts on the entire game, they know they're not playing, because 12-15 players play the vast majority of the minutes, the other 15-20 players are the practice squad or bowling pins on the sideline or whatever they do. They may have all been HS standouts and UA this and NIKE that, but in the end it's impossible for 28-35 players to get playing time and that's not an opinion, its just simple math


So can we extrapolate and say that some of the UA this and NIKE that players got there through political lifts? Because if UA and NIKE chose the best, then the best would see the field over the other less-recognized players.


I have to agree with the below post. These UA this and Nike that are not helping players make the IL Top Player list. They (IL) have analysts that cover specific events but then they get help from club coaches and college coaches so they are pretty accurate with their list but are they missing some blue chips, absolutely but they can’t be everywhere or some of these other top tier players aren’t attending the coveted, top recruiting events therefore not getting recognized. But it’s just a list. I was voted the 20th best Attackmen in the country back in the day (04) yet I was runner up for attackmen of the year and a Nassau AA. You would think being from the ‘hotbed’ of Lacrosse would have helped but It didn’t but I didnt go to any of the 3 recruiting events offered back then....But it has changed a lot since then with great players from all over and there are a plethora of recruiting events to attend. End of the day, it’s just a list.

And the 60% of any given recruiting class won’t see the field that you speak of, is this a proven stat bc I know in my experience that most of them do play. I would say maybe 10-20% of the top recruits don’t pan out as expected but I can’t prove that but to say 60% is awefully high.

These are good debates. Stay on track and don’t go after one another. Good stuff