Original "math" poster here again. I really appreciate the reasoned responses to this. While I completely agree that at the 2024 level 9-12 months can be an advantage it is also within the bounds of what can happen within an age bracket. Having sons who play hockey as well (with horrible hockey birthdays but great lacrosse birthdays in an age based world) I understand. We are all aware that within a 12 month bracket at this age there can be huge differences in size and athleticism that no system can even up.
It seemed to me the conversation was beginning to go a little out of bounds with the whole 15 vs 12 arguments. Does that happen, to be honest I am not aware of any 15 yos playing in 2024 but I don't know this as a "fact" either way, but on average for the MD teams this is not the case. It was not that long ago that these kids were all playing age based and there were some really great games between the LI & MD teams. I will also readily admit that part of the purpose for my post was a defensive response to the concept that the MD 2024s were all a bunch of 15 yos with no lacrosse skills that were just winning because they were so much older. On average I don't believe that is the case.
Also agree on the market size and culture comment about LI vs MD.
Every team in the elite division is stacked with kids born prior to 9/1 and most with a few kids born in the prior year. There has to be a cap somewhere. None of these teams are school based so I don't get the clinging to the idea of the class designation.
