Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Thanks again for the facts and analysis copied below:

------ "Ok, so you want to use things like I read this or heard that as an argument? Show me facts that demonstrate it does not correlate. Her are some more for you.... of the 5 teams referenced above that recruit the most UA All-Americans, they have won 15 of the last 16 national championships or 94%. Let’s look at the 2019 D1 Media All-Americans. There were 48 women selected to the first, second and third teams. 34 or 71% were UA All-Americans. For the 5 teams referenced above, they had a combined 17 and 14 or 82% were UA All-Americans. You give any coach a better than 70% chance of getting an all-American, or, one of these 5 teams better than 80% chance, they would take that in a heart beat. It translates into results, big time, except at a place in Durham NC...

Here is a list of the 14 from the five programs listed above, you might recognize some of the names...

Caroline Steele
Jen Giles
Julia Bragg
Kali Hartshorn
Lizzie Colson
Megan Taylor
Jamie Ortega
Katie Hoeg
Taylor Moreno
Brennan Dwyer
Izzy Scane
Selena Losota
Olivia Jenner
Maggie Jackson" ----------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pretty sure you dispelled some myths....

* 50% of the players do not stop playing (at least not the high end players).
* The highly touted Inside Lacrosse top 40 / Under Armour All-Americans do not disappear in college.
* The collage coaches (at least the ones at the top programs) do not get it wrong very often.
* The lists, rankings, teams etc... are not a joke, they are not all political and the players recognized are actually for the most part the top players.

There definitely seems to be a correlation between how many Under Armour All-Americans a program gets and how well that program performs. The Top 10 - 15 programs look like the same Top 10 - 15 in terms of how many UA players they get. Maryland and North Carolina are 1 & 2.... no surprise there.

Exceptions to the rule: JMU, Stony Brook, Navy and Denver.




Honestly you are just clueless. You can use fake stats however you want. The college coaches do not get it wrong very often is my favorite. Here is a stat for you , most of the players those coaches who rarely get it wrong recruit will spend more time on the bench than they will on the field. Do I think those players that are recruited by all the top schools and make every team they try out for have a better chance than those that have not, yes , but its not a lock thats for sure. Politics plays a big part in it all .


Please tell us what stats are fake? Please tell us the schools that consistently finish in the top 20 that do not get the highly touted players.

"Here is a stat for you , most of the players those coaches who rarely get it wrong recruit will spend more time on the bench than they will on the field." Myth. The poster pointed out the correlation between number of Under Armour All-Americans and a College Programs success. Not every recruit at the top programs was an UA AA, not all of the recruits are the same and coaches do not have the same expectations for each. The poster also pointed out that a large percentage of 2019 Division I All Americans were also Under Armour All-Americans. I would also bet that if you were to look at the the 2015 & 2016 Under Armour All-Americans the large majority were major contributors / played every game / started every game / captain etc... even if they were not named Division I AA.

Apparently , The coaches at the Top 10 - 20 programs, Inside lacrosse and under armour tend to agree on who the best players are.

The best programs seem to bring in the most UA All-Americans year after year and those programs consistently out perform all of the other programs. It looks to be the same 10 - 15 programs. As noted above, the exceptions to the rule in recent years have been JMU, Stony Brook, Navy and Denver (not sure about Denver).

Programs who have brought in the most UA players.

Maryland - 65
UNC - 53
UVA - 48
Duke - 45
NU - 42
ND - 38
Syracuse - 35
GT - 33
Fla - 31
Princeton - 23
BC - 21
JHU - 21
Loyola - 20
PSU -15
Stanford - 14
Penn - 13
Dartmouth- 12
USC - 11
Harvard - 11

Do not believe any other program had more than 10 (maybe Vandy). Surprises in terms of performance based on the numbers are Georgetown seems to get a lot and they have under performed. Also surprised Harvard has not done better as a program.

Please name a program that does not bring in UA recruits each year that has consistently out performed any of the Top 10 - 15 teams listed above that do bring in UA All-Americans. What is the reason for the success at the top programs? IMHO the number one reason is they bring in the best players. Coaching would be number two.


It is completely true that the top programs have the lion's share of the UA girls. But I also feel that there is a very strong push from these coaches for their own recruits, as well as a benefit of the doubt that their recruits get, that helps these girls become the UA girls. As in, the process is often backwards, the kids were recruits of the top programs before they became shoe in UA selections. The coaches certainly want their own players recognized and push and pull politically first, for their incoming recruits, then for conference awards and honors, spots on select lists and teams and so on... until they graduate. Most kids are likely good candidates for most of these accolades, so it is not really that big of a deal. Just like any and all the lists you see compiled these days, the top 25% of any given list is likely non-disputable. The bottom 75% could very easily be swapped out with players just as deserving. Certainly not coming from a bitter standpoint on this, more from a standpoint of having benefitted from this as described.


Gibberish. Not even sure where to begin. " Most kids are likely good candidates for most of these accolades". Really, Under Armour selects 44 players to be named All-American and you really think that most kids are on the same level as the 44? Wow. "Just like any and all the lists you see compiled these days." We are not discussing random lists, the only list that is relevant would be the Inside Lacrosse Young Gun Senior Girls Top 40 list. And here we go again with "just as deserving" as if there are hundreds of just as deserving players. Where do all of these just as deserving players go to school? Why do we see the same programs in the top 5 and the top 10 - 15 every year? Why are the top 10 - 15 programs the very same 10 - 15 programs that bring in the most Under Armour All-Americans? "the process is often backwards, the kids were recruits of the top programs before they became shoe in UA selections." How about this, the top programs recruited the players because they were the best players. If there were so many just as deserving players, if the college coaches got it wrong all of the time, if Under Armour and Inside lacrosse were all political and BS we would see much more parity . We do not see parity because the talent pool is not deep enough. Sure from time to time we see upsets and from time to time a non traditional team will be in the Top 15 but it is not on a consistent basis. Look at the numbers, the best programs constantly get the best players and those programs constantly do better than the other programs.