Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Lacrosse is a third rate sport in NCAA, more people at a bad D3 football game than a D1 Lacrosse game. Realistically, no one cares, nor will they ever care. Sport is funded by football and basketball, even baseball throws a few bucks Lacrosse way, that is the truth. No one cares but you. But I still love it



SPOT ON! Love the sport but the facts are the facts. These loons are also entertaining.

Your missing the point!! My kids will all be going to college .I don't care if my kids plays lax in college. I want age based for a variety reasons ( fun, developing, safety, fair estimation of the work they put in.,.But scholarships are not one of them. Youth sports all need to have enforced age requirements.

I disagree. I think grade-based makes the most sense.

I can't wait to hear the basis for this position...!

I really want to hear the logic..why would you choose age based for a youth sport?


Simply put, because very soon my son will be playing middle school lacrosse, and after that, JV and Varsity. He will not be playing against kids his age... many/most will be older. This will better prepare him for that. Additionally, he is developing an impressive work ethic because he needs to work on his own time to take playing time away from the holdbacks on his team. And lastly, because I’m raising him not to make excuses when things don’t go the way he wants. I’m not concerned with T-shirts. I want him to develop into a hard working, independent adult. Not a whiny little snowflake who protests when he doesn’t have a “safe place” for writings in his journal.


This is such a dumb post. Every single other youth sport that uses an aged-based system has procedures in place for kids to play up if that is what the family wants and what the coaches want. Depending on the sport/league/level of play there may be a formal application process, but nonetheless, kids who are capable of playing against older kids, and have parents and coaches who agree that it is appropriate, can play up. Thus, your exceptional 10 year old (this is the 2025 board, so I am assuming your child is 10, especially since you say he will be younger in HS and is competing now against holdbacks) will still be able to challenge and push himself agains older kids if that is what everyone wants. But the large majority of parents want their children playing against kids of similar age and skill level.

The work ethic thing is comical. Are you implying that if he played against kids his same age he would not need to work because he is so good. Again, if this is true, than in an age based system, have him play up. What you are proposing is selfishness taken to an extreme. Essentially you are saying that because your 10 year old can play well against older boys, all other 10 year olds must also play against older boys. Anyone with a brain in their head and the ability to observe youths playing sports knows that the large majority of kids this age will see their performances deteriorate very quickly when thrown in with older kids. Once this happens, they lose interest in the sport, and move on to something else. There is a reason the best lax players in the world can't earn a living without getting a real job - its lack of interest in the sport. Age based youth play opens up the sport to more levels of athletes, who will more likely grow up to be paying consumers of lacrosse than if they didn't play lacrosse.

Also, its beyond stupid to say that 10 year olds need to play against 11 and 12 year olds because when they are 16 they will be playing against 17 and 18 year olds. Every rational human being knows that after the full onset of puberty, there is very little advantage left for the 17 and 18 year old over the 16 year old. Do you let your 10 year old drive your car because he will need to get ready for driving when he is 16?

Lacrosse should do what hockey does. All strictly age based until 16. At 16, the best players (those on a D1 track) can be selected for a junior team, which comprises of players age 16-20. The remainder who still wish to play can stay at age based. Very exceptional 15 year olds can apply for entry to juniors like John Tavares did.

Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Lacrosse is a third rate sport in NCAA, more people at a bad D3 football game than a D1 Lacrosse game. Realistically, no one cares, nor will they ever care. Sport is funded by football and basketball, even baseball throws a few bucks Lacrosse way, that is the truth. No one cares but you. But I still love it



SPOT ON! Love the sport but the facts are the facts. These loons are also entertaining.

Your missing the point!! My kids will all be going to college .I don't care if my kids plays lax in college. I want age based for a variety reasons ( fun, developing, safety, fair estimation of the work they put in.,.But scholarships are not one of them. Youth sports all need to have enforced age requirements.

I disagree. I think grade-based makes the most sense.

I can't wait to hear the basis for this position...!

I really want to hear the logic..why would you choose age based for a youth sport?


Simply put, because very soon my son will be playing middle school lacrosse, and after that, JV and Varsity. He will not be playing against kids his age... many/most will be older. This will better prepare him for that. Additionally, he is developing an impressive work ethic because he needs to work on his own time to take playing time away from the holdbacks on his team. And lastly, because I’m raising him not to make excuses when things don’t go the way he wants. I’m not concerned with T-shirts. I want him to develop into a hard working, independent adult. Not a whiny little snowflake who protests when he doesn’t have a “safe place” for writings in his journal.


This is such a dumb post. Every single other youth sport that uses an aged-based system has procedures in place for kids to play up if that is what the family wants and what the coaches want. Depending on the sport/league/level of play there may be a formal application process, but nonetheless, kids who are capable of playing against older kids, and have parents and coaches who agree that it is appropriate, can play up. Thus, your exceptional 10 year old (this is the 2025 board, so I am assuming your child is 10, especially since you say he will be younger in HS and is competing now against holdbacks) will still be able to challenge and push himself agains older kids if that is what everyone wants. But the large majority of parents want their children playing against kids of similar age and skill level.

The work ethic thing is comical. Are you implying that if he played against kids his same age he would not need to work because he is so good. Again, if this is true, than in an age based system, have him play up. What you are proposing is selfishness taken to an extreme. Essentially you are saying that because your 10 year old can play well against older boys, all other 10 year olds must also play against older boys. Anyone with a brain in their head and the ability to observe youths playing sports knows that the large majority of kids this age will see their performances deteriorate very quickly when thrown in with older kids. Once this happens, they lose interest in the sport, and move on to something else. There is a reason the best lax players in the world can't earn a living without getting a real job - its lack of interest in the sport. Age based youth play opens up the sport to more levels of athletes, who will more likely grow up to be paying consumers of lacrosse than if they didn't play lacrosse.

Also, its beyond stupid to say that 10 year olds need to play against 11 and 12 year olds because when they are 16 they will be playing against 17 and 18 year olds. Every rational human being knows that after the full onset of puberty, there is very little advantage left for the 17 and 18 year old over the 16 year old. Do you let your 10 year old drive your car because he will need to get ready for driving when he is 16?

Lacrosse should do what hockey does. All strictly age based until 16. At 16, the best players (those on a D1 track) can be selected for a junior team, which comprises of players age 16-20. The remainder who still wish to play can stay at age based. Very exceptional 15 year olds can apply for entry to juniors like John Tavares did.


Thank you!


The gentleman did not say his kid was great, he said he is finding the advantage for his kid playing against older kids, everything he said is exactly what I went through with my son who was on age and graduated HS at 17. he was always playing against bigger, stronger and older kids and it made him well prepared when he started school ball.

As for Hockey you are comparing apples to oranges since the top level players stay within USA Hockey and the best players on LI do not even play school hockey so they never wind up playing against older kids. In lacrosse you have 8th graders playing varsity in some towns so you can have 14 year old playing 18 year old... and for you 2025 parents, that is not that far away.


Again, totally missing the point: no one ever has said that a player cannot play up. If a player is that good in an age-based system, they can do what similar talented athletes do in EVERY OTHER sport - play up! Your argument (or his) turns that idea on its head: everyone should play up for the benefit of the few and the disadvantage of the many, IE, playing up should be the individuals choice, NOT playing down. Lastly, the number of 8th graders playing varsity is so small as to not even be relevant to the discussion, but even for those few that do, it is their decision to make, so fully fits within the point i just made above. (And many of the best kids in hockey go and play in junior hockey in the US or Canada, of which there are multiple tiers, and the players range in age from 16 - 21 - so, not following how the fact that they don't play school hockey makes any difference.)