The entire system, you would think, would correct itself, from the point of view of scholarship obtainment. College coaches are paid to win. They can't win with s--t players. If this kid garners a scholarship at a top program because the coach sees him dominate on the travel circuit, but he turns out to be s--t when he gets there and has to play against other grown men, than it will the coach that gets hurt, especially if he repeats this mistake over and over again. So, you would think the coaches would be wise to these extreme examples and judge them accordingly. In basketball, at least, I have had a D1 coach tell me that they know what a D1 player looks like regardless of the competition. Hopefully this holds true for lax coaches.
Where this hurts the sport is in the growth of the game beyond the top college projects. The guy a few posts up who has the on-age LI top 20 D1 player - he will be fine. The kid is a stud who can compete against anyone. It's the next level kids, and beyond, who are hurt by ridiculous holdbacks, and they, in turn, tune the game out and focus on other sports and other things.
Hockey is a great model for lacrosse. Their college coaches LOVE the older players ... just like college lacrosse coaches do. Unless you are a Jack Eichel type, you are not getting into the program until you are 20. But yet youth hockey is strictly birth year based. The birth year-ness of youth hockey has not hurt college recruitment or what the college coaches are trying to do. But yet it makes youth hockey a much better experience for the thousands of kids who will never play past high school. There is no reason, ever, for a 14 year old to compete against a 17 year old unless the 14 year old is doing it voluntarily - like when a freshman chooses to play varsity.
