[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Anyone attend Battle of the Bay; what teams looked good and what teams disappointed?
Dukes: looked good.better than the summer. Good collection of studs.
"Studs"? They come from weak minded families that need them to play down to succeed. In 2 years they will be barely noticeable.
The only thing laughable is the amount of koolaid your drinking.They have a nice team but they aren't so big when compared to boys the same age. And truthfully that's fine, but show me these studs in three years when those "big athletic kids" are still 5' 8" and just your run of the mill lacrosse players. These types of pluers were the mistakes college coaches are looking forward to not making now early recruiting is over. PS all the kids are friends so they know how old they are, it's not a big secret.
They actually ARE big when compared to boys the same age--that's what everyone is complaining about, right? How big they are? Well this one's going to hurt your theory--they're all 12 or 13. In fact all but 3 are age eligible for the WSYL (which seems to be THE measuring stick for a fair tournament all of a sudden) and the 3 who aren't miss it by literally weeks because they have August birthdays.
I wholly agree that if they stay 5'8" and ONLY depend on their size that wouldn't really work out well. But given that they're being taught how to be lacrosse players and utilize IQs I think they'll be okay.
So let's see you win without them since you "only" have 3
Two things. First, no one actually believes that there were only 3 that they missed the cutoff by a matter of weeks, but I guess you can make whatever BS claims you want on the internet. And second, without those 3 (and we all know it is higher), Duke's goes 3-2 and misses the finals. I am fine with holdbacks but at least be honest about it. And yes, the entire Igloo roster is on age, which is why you already see them registered and ranked for WSYL.
