Yes!!I disagree!, Do you really think you know better than D1 coaches from top programs? The only thing desparate, is their quest to indentify and lock in top talent. By 9th grade, you will not see much vertical movement in talent. The boys will just get bigger and stronger. By summer of rising sophomore, most boys height is leveling off, if the skill level is there, it will most likely still be there in 4 years. I also don't think you can use the term "historic". This is a newer phenomena, we are making history. Real data won't be available for about 6-7 years. I can say for sure that the current HS jrs and seniors who committed in their sophomore year (this was considered ground breaking a couple years ago) are in fact the stars of their HS teams in most cases. These kids didn't just magically get good as sophomores, most of them were great as freshman an middle school players as well. I can agree that it must be very frutrating for the parents of 9-12th graders who are not commited. The more time goes by , the slimmer the chances. This however, does not mean the boys who have committed, are not well deserving. [/quote]
I don't disagree with the poster. You're wrong. Girls physically mature by 13-14. Look at Olympic sports where the medalists are girls in 8th to 10th grades like Katie Ledecky in swimming. Then look at men's Olympic sports...it is the rarest of rare for a teen to be a medalist in track, swimming, basketball, etc.
In truth, the period for boys with the most volatility of growth is 13-18. Our club team had a dinner in the recent weeks, and I coild swear on average the kids grew 2 inches and a lot of weight since last seeing them in November. What you see at 14 or 15 is not what you get physically. And I have always believed that the real advantage our MD kids and your LI kids have is stick skills, and frankly that delta goes away with practice. What we know is some kids are the best 11, 13, or 14 year olds and those kids are normally not the same kids as they age up. I think we have all seen that with our own eyes already. One commit to an ACC school from our club team didn't start to play lacrosse until he was 12 and in 8th grade in Fall all said he was too behind...but he was a physical talent, a fast growing big kid and he had the natural ability to pick up the stick skills. Come Summer as a rising 9th grader he was arguably the best player on our team and in thr local area...passed the MD blue blood kids like they were standing still.
Not complaining about early recruiting at all. My kid didn't want UVa, UNC and would rather die than go to school near home in MD...so we're not losing or losers.
I think of it like poker. Some NCAA coaches are going all in before the flop. Some coaches are just checking until they can at least see the flop, if not the turn and the river. Realistically no coach can see the turn or the river anymore to look at juniors and seniors...but the smart ones are at least understanding their own bets better. The more information you have, and that mwans more time, the better your decisions will be.
Oh, and by the way, what storied programs are either declining (UVa and Hop) or have not done anything at NCAAs (UNC) in recent years? The early recruiters. What programs are rising or dominating (Duke, Loyola)? The smart gamblers. I don't think the early data are misleading or wrong.
