US Lacrosse Community Forum Forums NORTHEAST LACROSSE BOTC MAIN FORUM (LI, CT, WC) 2019-2020 Women's DI, II & III College Lacrosse Season

Use this thread to discuss topics pertaining to the 2019-2020 Women's Division I, II & III College Lacrosse season or go to 'The Locker Room' forum & click on the 'College Lacrosse' sub forum

-- "Why is it unacceptable for Duke but not any other school? Why is Duke Women's lacrosse in a different category than so many others?" --

Several reasons come to mind. Duke is a Top 10 Academic Institution, They Compete in the ACC, The University fully funds and supports the program, The Program has Admission Slots, Beautiful Campus, Great Weather, Easy to get to from Hot Bed areas, Up until the past 3 years the program was consistently Top 10.

Correct. Duke has a ton of inherent advantages that should lead to a very successful program. Look at their counterparts on the Men's side. The school supports these programs wholeheartedly. There's no reason that Princeton and Penn are stronger programs than Duke. How has Stony Brook become more successful than Duke? How has USC become more successful when east coast girls have to go all the way out there? How did Florida become more successful?

There's no excuse for what's gone on at Duke over the last 4 years and the school is running out of patience. A great replacement is now on staff and it would be an easy enough transition. If Duke struggles again I believe the change will be made.

The two biggest factors in a programs long term success are: Coaching and talent. The best coaches constantly identify the best players, convince those players to become a part of their program, coach and develop the players and create a culture that is constantly successful.

Duke was one of those programs but it looks like they have fallen off a bit the past few years. What changed? Are they not bringing in the talent? Did an important assistant coach move on? Did the fact that Duke did not aggressively jump on the band wagon of early recruiting? Duke should absolutely be one of the Top 10 - 15 Programs.

looking at the situation (without inside knowledge of the program) I think they missed out on too much talent during the 3 - 4 year stretch of "early recruiting". If they missed on 1 or 2 Top Recruits per year during that time frame it would be enough to hurt their program just enough to keep them out of that top group of 10 - 15 Programs. For sure it would keep them out of the top 4 - 6 programs.

It seams to me that the coaches at the top programs are able to identify the best players and then convince the players to choose to attend their school. When you look at the top programs it is easy to see why the coaches at those schools can land the best talent. The Duke coaches have everything they need in order to compete for the top recruits. Not so easy for many other programs.

Big year for The Blue Devils.

Didn't the current Elon Head Coach leave Duke in 2012?

Dont think they make the tournament again .

Is Michigan for real? Was last year a fluke?

Why? What’s so special about Duke?

Why the focus on Duke. The same can be said about UVA, ND (until this year), Hopkins...

Interestingly Duke just slipped two in the rankings for top schools. They were #8, tied with Penn, Penn moved up to #6, Duke to 10, now tied with Hopkins. I would rather see by kid go to Penn which is a better school, has great lacrosse , and is close enough to drive to easily.

No, it can't be said about UVA and Notre Dame. Hopkins is a very good program but they were not at the level that Duke.

UVA is one of the Top 10 Programs and ND is right there as well. Notre Dame finished outside the Top 20 maybe once in the past 5 or six years. Duke has not finished ranked in the Top 20 for the past three years. Not too long ago Duke was consistently a Top 10 finisher. Hopkins has finished the season in the Top 20 five times in the past 10 years

Hopkins

2010 - #20
2011 - Not ranked
2012 - #18
2013 - Not ranked
2014 - #15
2015 - #17
2016 - #16
2017 - Not ranked
2018 - Not top 20... (ranked 21)
2019 - not top 20... (ranked 22)

Hopkins is a very good program and an excellent school. They are certainly one of the top 20 -25 programs in the country. ND and UVA a little bit stronger in terms of lacrosse.

For whatever reason Duke has fallen off a bit the past few years. IMHO Duke missed out on some top recruits during the Hey Day of early recruiting. While other Top 10 programs were locking up their top recruits Duke was sitting on the sideline. Three or four additional studs on the roster and Duke would have been back in the Top 10. Even one dominant player can make a difference at a program like Duke.

Pretty sure they will be back in the mix this year but if not the coach is probably in trouble.

Okay, Duke didn’t recruit your daughter, everyone sees through this silliness. Move in.

Lol, so many better places to go. Duke Womans lacrosse will always be losers. School went downhill and took the lax team along. Have fun!

Thanks for your insight. Now tell us all what we should move onto? Bashing players perhaps? The Duke situation is interesting. What caused the downturn?

You have been posting this Duke nonsense repeatedly. Why? Tell us your odd obsession with Duke. It screams “snub”. I’m just hoping that your daughter is over it. Because you’re certainly not.

Really? Do you NOT realize that several people have been posting regarding Duke? My posts have actually been positive, in response to the questions:

"Why is it unacceptable for Duke but not any other school? Why is Duke Women's lacrosse in a different category than so many others?"

Below was my was my answer:

"Several reasons come to mind. Duke is a Top 10 Academic Institution, They Compete in the ACC, The University fully funds and supports the program, The Program has Admission Slots,
Beautiful Campus, Great Weather, Easy to get to from Hot Bed areas, Up until the past 3 years the program was consistently Top 10."

No obsession, no bitterness and sorry there was no snub. Why do you care that others want to discuss the current state of the Duke Womens's Program. Why must they move on?

Not really familiar with the other programs but lets take a comparison of UVA vs Duke. UVA coach has won a national championship and has reached NCAA final 3 times , Duke has 0 finals appearances. UVA has made every NCAA tournament since Myers has been coaching , Kimmel and Duke have not done so multiple times. Duke ended season ranked outside the to 20 the past 3 years , UVA has been top 20 the last 5 seasons and possibly longer with 2 of those seasons being in the top 10. As far as ND it has been said on this site many times that her job is or should be in jeopardy.

*** "Why the focus on Duke? The same can be said about UVA".... No, the same can not be said about UVA.

Below is how Duke and Virginia finished the season since 2010.

............... 2010......2011......2012......2013......2014......2015......2016......2017......2018......2019

UVA----------4--------14----------8----------9----------4----------8----------16--------14----------13--------7

Duke---------5---------5----------6-----------7----------8----------4----------11--------NR---------NR------NR

Something has gone wrong at Duke.

The Duke Women's Lacrosse program began in 1996 Virginia began in 1976. Virginia has won 3 National Championships and 5 ACC Championships. Duke has not won a national championship but has won 1 ACC Championship. Duke has made the NCAA Tournament 19 times in the programs 24 year history. Since the NCAA Tournament began in 1986 Virginia has made the Tournament 32 times in 33 years .

Virginia is one of five programs in the NCAA to be ranked at least once in every year of the IWLCA Coaches Poll. The poll was created
in 1988, with Dartmouth, Maryland, Penn State and Princeton joining Virginia
as the only programs to be nationally ranked every year.

For many years Duke was constantly one the Top 10 Programs. What happened?

Thanks for the analysis, bottom line, if Coach Kimel called tomorrow and offered your daughter a spot, are you taking it?....

Yup. so am I.

Most players but not all players would accept an offer from Duke. So the bottom line is... with all that Duke has to offer what has happened ? Why the downturn?

Personally, I think they will be back in the Tourney and The Top 20 this year and all will be well but if they are not than I think we will see a change in the coaching staff.

Hopkins is ranked the same academically, is travel friendly, and has better lacrosse.

LOL ND has been at the top of the recruitment lists for years now. My guess is that the recruits are overhyped, under-coached, or a combo of both.

I have not seen IL's 2019 Top 10 Freshmen Class Ranking but I assume from your comment that Notre Dame has the highest rated incoming freshmen class. If that is the case it will be the first time ND has had the Number 1 spot in the past 5 years.

Notre Dame has not been at the top for years. Notre Dame is one of a number of programs that usually bring in strong (top 10) recruiting classes. Maryland, North Carolina, Syracuse, Florida, Princeton, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Boston College, Loyola, Duke, UVA have all had classes ranked in the Top 10 multiple times in the past 4 years. Again, have not seen this years ranking but I am sure it will be many of the usual suspects.

ND is #5 and #7 in '19 and '18 respectively.

In both 2017 and 2019 they have the #1 recruit (supposedly).

In 2015 (their recent senior class) they had 4 Top 50 recruits.

Most of the Top 10 - 15 Programs will have Top Recruiting classes most years Notre Dame is no different. Maryland, North Carolina and Syracuse seem to have highly ranked classes every year. Notre Dame, Northwestern, Florida, Princeton, Virginia, Duke, Boston College and some others also bring in highly ranked recruiting classes just about every year. Penn, Loyola, Hopkins and some others are also in the mix from time to time.

The two programs that have done the best without highly ranked recruiting classes have to be JMU and Stony Brook. Penn State should be mentioned as well, I do not recall seeing any of their classes being ranked in the Top 10 and they are usually a Top 20 Team.

No surprise that the same teams that bring in the top recruiting classes tend to be the strongest programs.

With all their success why does Maryland have to play of that dopey Field Hockey turf field...

They don't have to they want to, they feel its an advantage.

I think the point that some are trying to make is: if ND, Florida and Duke are always at (or near) the top with their recruiting classes, then where are the final four appearances? Where are the championships? Why do they consistently fall-short of expectations?

over-hype of recruits, coaching, or both.

2023 parent here in NJ
Why do I keep getting emails about showcases over the winter in fFlorida? So many good schools but we are not going to go down for a weekend bc of basketball and it’s too expensive after going for the ICWLA.
Are these schools looking for Florida players? Where do the girls come from down here?

the dopey field hockey field was redone in the spring for the 19-20 school year.

Definitely overrated and overhyped recruits of course!c

Probably a combination but more so the coaching.

Here is a question... If the Lists, IL Player Rankings, UA All-Americans are always off and political then why are the teams that get the highest ranked players always the Top Teams and Top Programs?

Maryland, North Carolina, Northwestern, Syracuse, Florida, Notre Dame, Princeton, Virginia, Boston College, and a few others always seem to get the top ranked players and they always seem to finish in the Top 10 - 20. Where do all of these other teams who have all of the "just as deserving players" finish every year?

If the lists and rankings etc.. are alwaysl wrong, political and a joke wouldn't other programs constantly outperform the perennial top 10 -15 programs?

Congratulations to all of the Young Guns and Freshmen who were recognized by Inside lacrosse. Good Luck to All.

This year... Fall 2019 - LWomen's Top 10 Incoming Classes

1. Maryland
2. Notre Dame
3. North Carolina
4. Northwestern
5. Penn
6. Duke
7. Florida
8. Loyola
9. Syracuse
10. Richmond

Nice to see Richmond making some waves. The others bring in top 10 classes just about every year.

I'm not saying it isn't nice as Its a nice field .. but its designed for a different sport, the turf is like concrete..

[ [/quote]

This year... Fall 2019 - ILWomen's Top 10 Incoming Classes

1. Maryland
2. Notre Dame
3. North Carolina
4. Northwestern
5. Penn
6. Duke
7. Florida
8. Loyola
9. Syracuse
10. Richmond

. [/quote]

Maryland has the Number 1 incoming class... but there are [b]12 incoming Freshman[/b]! . there cant be a lot of scholarship passed around.. I figure they're whacking up 2.5 or 3 max scholarships between the 12 of them..

This year... Fall 2019 - ILWomen's Top 10 Incoming Classes

1. Maryland
2. Notre Dame
3. North Carolina
4. Northwestern
5. Penn
6. Duke
7. Florida
8. Loyola
9. Syracuse
10. Richmond

. [/quote]

Maryland has the Number 1 incoming class... but there are [b]12 incoming Freshman[/b]! . there cant be a lot of scholarship passed around.. I figure they're whacking up 2.5 or 3 max scholarships between the 12 of them..
[/quote]

State School. In state tuition much cheaper than out of state and pretty sure scholarships are based on out of state tuition. Can get a lot more for less to stay in state for both the student athlete and the lacrosse program. Given the fact that many players are coming from private schools with tuitions near 30k-40k per year a full ride to UMD can be beneficial on the pocketbook.

The answer is absolutely not. ask one of the best player's in the country, she ran as fast as should could from Duke, even potentially having to sit out a year. Speaks volumes... If your daughter is getting an offer from Duke, she is getting them from other great academic schools, choose one of those schools...

If you are throwing Duke under the bus, at least say WHY. That player could have left for a myriad of reasons, maybe Duke was not the right fit for her. Don’t scare people away from an amazing institution that by all appearances offers an amazing experience and education for all athletes.

Agree that if Duke is offering it is likely several other top programs would be offering. Not sure what you are answering with your comment "The answer is absolutely not". I assume that you do not think Duke will rebound this year and make the tournament and finish the season in the Top 20. Maybe they will maybe they will not but the question was what has happened, why the downturn?

I do not believe that there is a lack of talent and the University has a lot to offer. I think they will be back Top 20 this year and will remain one of the top 10 - 15 programs for years to come.

Maryland has the Number 1 incoming class... but there are [b]12 incoming Freshman[/b]! . there cant be a lot of scholarship passed around.. I figure they're whacking up 2.5 or 3 max scholarships between the 12 of them..
[/quote]

State School. In state tuition much cheaper than out of state and pretty sure scholarships are based on out of state tuition. Can get a lot more for less to stay in state for both the student athlete and the lacrosse program. Given the fact that many players are coming from private schools with tuitions near 30k-40k per year a full ride to UMD can be beneficial on the pocketbook. [/quote]


Of those Schools, Penn makes most sense, better school. If I wanted to travel, I would consider Northwestern or ND over Duke.

Can we please discuss something else? The poster has an obvious anti-Duke bias.

This year... Fall 2019 - ILWomen's Top 10 Incoming Classes

1. Maryland
2. Notre Dame
3. North Carolina
4. Northwestern
5. Penn
6. Duke
7. Florida
8. Loyola
9. Syracuse
10. Richmond

. [/quote]

Maryland has the Number 1 incoming class... but there are [b]12 incoming Freshman[/b]! . there cant be a lot of scholarship passed around.. I figure they're whacking up 2.5 or 3 max scholarships between the 12 of them..
[/quote]

10 of the 12 freshmen are "in-state" players and keep in mind that not all recruits are equal nor do all recruits receive the same scholarship $$. Scholarship dollars go a long way to the in-state recruits. It is my understanding that coaches have at their disposal a "dollar amount" for athletic scholarships. That dollar amount is calculated by the number of scholarships multiplied by the cost to attend the university (tuition, room and board, fees, books etc..) I believe they use "out of state tuition" in the formula. So, lets say 12 x $50,000 (aprox) = $600,000 per year.

If someone has country info please elaborate.

If that is the way it works, the coach can make it very affordable for the players and that is why Maryland has such a huge advantage.

Maryland has the Number 1 incoming class... but there are [b]12 incoming Freshman[/b]! . there cant be a lot of scholarship passed around.. I figure they're whacking up 2.5 or 3 max scholarships between the 12 of them..
[/quote]

10 of the 12 freshmen are "in-state" players and keep in mind that not all recruits are equal nor do all recruits receive the same scholarship $$. Scholarship dollars go a long way to the in-state recruits. It is my understanding that coaches have at their disposal a "dollar amount" for athletic scholarships. That dollar amount is calculated by the number of scholarships multiplied by the cost to attend the university (tuition, room and board, fees, books etc..) I believe they use "out of state tuition" in the formula. So, lets say 12 x $50,000 (aprox) = $600,000 per year.

If someone has country info please elaborate.

If that is the way it works, the coach can make it very affordable for the players and that is why Maryland has such a huge advantage. [/quote]


That is completely wrong .The coaches have 12 scholarships to work with , if you give an instate player a 50% cost of attendance it still equals 0.5 out of those 12 even thou its about a $14,000 monetary value. Give an out of state player a 50 % cost of attendance scholarship and it also equals 0.5 out of the 12 total but it value is closer to $26,000. those two players taken together would be equal to 1 full ride out of the 12 total they can give, in other words their scholarships count the same toward that total of 12.

Fall. Ball.

Who looks good????

Any schedules for this weekend coming up?

Would not give much thought to Fall Ball regarding game / scrimmage outcomes. Don't get me wrong, coaches and players want to win but the fall is when coaches try to see what they have. Most freshmen will get and reserve players from previous year will get playing time. If returning starters are dinged up or recovering from injury don't expect to see much of them.

In the fall players should want to show that they worked hard in the off season. Show up in shape, pass their run test, display sharp stick skills, be strong in the weight room etc...

Fall ball is a chance for freshmen and non starters from the previous year to impress the coaching staff.

As for "who looks good????" it really does not matter, lets see who looks good in May.

Oh I see, you joyless know-it-all, the bench and the freshman don't matter for a "team". Clearly who looks good in May matters most, thanks for clearing that up, but no point in having any fun watching and speculating based on Fall Ball. In fact, no point in even playing the games I guess since nothing matters 'till May.

Thank God for a wise lax sage like you to help everyone along. Get over yourself.

10 of the 12 freshmen are "in-state" players and keep in mind that not all recruits are equal nor do all recruits receive the same scholarship $$. Scholarship dollars go a long way to the in-state recruits. It is my understanding that coaches have at their disposal a "dollar amount" for athletic scholarships. That dollar amount is calculated by the number of scholarships multiplied by the cost to attend the university (tuition, room and board, fees, books etc..) I believe they use "out of state tuition" in the formula. So, lets say 12 x $50,000 (aprox) = $600,000 per year.

If someone has country info please elaborate.

If that is the way it works, the coach can make it very affordable for the players and that is why Maryland has such a huge advantage. [/quote]


That is completely wrong .The coaches have 12 scholarships to work with , if you give an instate player a 50% cost of attendance it still equals 0.5 out of those 12 even thou its about a $14,000 monetary value. Give an out of state player a 50 % cost of attendance scholarship and it also equals 0.5 out of the 12 total but it value is closer to $26,000. those two players taken together would be equal to 1 full ride out of the 12 total they can give, in other words their scholarships count the same toward that total of 12.[/quote]

looks to me the only assumption that might be wrong is the calculation of in-state vs out of state $$. In any event, Maryland has a big advantage over other programs. Maryland can offer an in-state player 1/3 scholarship and the cost to attend is very reasonable. That same player would be paying significantly more to attend UNC, UVA , Florida or PSU if offered 1/3 as an out of state student. The cost is way more if the player is offered 1/3 at Duke, Northwestern, Notre Dame or Boston College. If the players parents earn a little too much money Princeton and Penn will cost a boat load... if the parents have multiple kids in college and are of modest means Penn or Princeton's cost would probably be in line with a small in-state scholarship offer from MD. Any way you slice it Maryland has a leg up on the competition.

Where did it say: "the bench and the freshman don't matter for a "team"." ? Where did it say: "no point in even playing the games I guess since nothing matters 'till May." ? The only point was that the outcomes of games are not indicative of what will happen in the spring. Freshmen and reserves from the prior year will get more opportunities to prove themselves than they will once the spring comes. Coaches know what they have with their returning upper-class starters and if a returning All-American is nursing an injury don't expect to see them on the field. Also, coaches do like to see that their players worked hard in the off season so showing up in-shpe, passing the run test, keeping their stick skills sharp and progressing in their lifts etc... are important.

Why so sensitive?

That is completely wrong .The coaches have 12 scholarships to work with , if you give an instate player a 50% cost of attendance it still equals 0.5 out of those 12 even thou its about a $14,000 monetary value. Give an out of state player a 50 % cost of attendance scholarship and it also equals 0.5 out of the 12 total but it value is closer to $26,000. those two players taken together would be equal to 1 full ride out of the 12 total they can give, in other words their scholarships count the same toward that total of 12.[/quote]

looks to me the only assumption that might be wrong is the calculation of in-state vs out of state $$. In any event, Maryland has a big advantage over other programs. Maryland can offer an in-state player 1/3 scholarship and the cost to attend is very reasonable. That same player would be paying significantly more to attend UNC, UVA , Florida or PSU if offered 1/3 as an out of state student. The cost is way more if the player is offered 1/3 at Duke, Northwestern, Notre Dame or Boston College. If the players parents earn a little too much money Princeton and Penn will cost a boat load... if the parents have multiple kids in college and are of modest means Penn or Princeton's cost would probably be in line with a small in-state scholarship offer from MD. Any way you slice it Maryland has a leg up on the competition. [/quote]

Actually the point was more that the way you were calculating the scholarships was not correct in regard to in state players. The reason MD has a leg up is that for in state layers with little to no money given its still reasonable and MD has alot of good players. In terms of education level MD is not even close to being on level with any of the schools you mentioned other than PSU which can be looked at as a positive or a negative from a lacrosse standpoint.

and it is ND classic underachiever, another clueless coach who lets club coaches do her recruiting for her

at the end of the day, barring some insane behavior (see duke asst coach) it's pretty hard to lose a job that no university administrator cares about, women's lax is a title 9 baby that draws 200-300 friends and family to their games and is a revenue lost, as long as the school is not embarrassed by the team or coaches they don't care about these programs at all

Care to elaborate on the assistant coach “baggage”? Considering Duke and really don’t want to make an big mistake ...

Still hard to believe the animosity toward Duke in particular. Sour grapes? Duke is an amazing academic institution and at the end of the 4 years, education is what matters, not lacrosse. Go vilify someone else.

That's exactly the point. Duke is an amazing academic institution. But so is Princeton, Penn, Hopkins, Northwestern, etc. Something is amiss in Durham.

What is the assistant coach's "baggage"? And what about the new assistant coach who came from Georgetown?

I do not think it is animosity, sour grapes, throwing someone under the bus or an anti Duke bias; just facts about the lacrosse program. I do not read anyone arguing that Duke University is not a top education. The issues being noted are about the performance on the lacrosse field. Below are the five schools that have recruited the highest number of Under Armour All Americans during the 14 years it has existed. Duke has substantially under performed all 4 of those programs, 3 of them are miles ahead. Duke has not even made a national final. The other important fact about that list, all of those coaches have been there for almost the entire period of time, Reese missed the first couple of years. All the schools have had substantial talent, all have had the same head coach and only one is clearly lagging behind.

65 Maryland
53 North Carolina
50 Virginia
44 Duke
39 Northwestern

Is Duke considering your daughter? Did the Duke head coach offer your daughter a spot? Are you seriously looking for insight on BOTC?

Under Armour? How can there be any correlation between the programs that bring in the UA All-Americans and a programs success ? Many times I have read on here and heard on the sidelines and in my local pub that Under Armour, Inside Lacrosse, USLacrosse, etc... are all political and the players will disappear in college etc... I would think the programs that get all of the other "just as deserving players" would out perform the programs that consistently bring in the highest regarded players if in fact it is all BS and political.

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

How is that possible? I have been told that the Inside Lacrosse rankings and Under Armour All-American selections are a joke. How is it possible that the players do so well and the programs who recruit these overrated players are consistently rank among the best in the country? Thats a real head scratcher.

All sarcasm aside.

I think it is safe to say that the people at Inside Lacrosse, Under Armour and the coaches at the best college programs know how to evaluate talent. They do in fact get it right.

No my daughter is a 2022 and I have a younger too. Both interested in Duke. She is a high level player in her year and plays on top team. but before we spend $$$ on camps and hotels and airfare this is an issue. Or is it. first I here she has to go to camp and is it a money grab, now all this. Sometimes people exaggerate on BOTC but sometimes things are true.

Maybe she is a high level player maybe not, only time will tell. Some parents have a pretty good idea of where their daughter stands while others are very delusional. Women's lacrosse provides tremendous opportunities for our daughters to take advantage of. I do not know of any other sport or activity that even comes close to women's lacrosse in helping our daughters get into many of the best colleges and universities in the country.

If your daughter is truly high end then it doesn't matter if she goes to camps or not. If your daughter can play at a high level but isn't a blue chip player (top 30 - 40 or so) then going to the camp can give her an advantage.

Duke is obviously great school with a very supportive athletic program and the Duke Women's Lacrosse Program has a very rich history. I believe they will right the ship this year and they will be back in the Top 20 at seasons end. Have they fallen off a bit the past few years? Yes, but nobody on here can tell us why. Keep in mind, they finished 21 in the coaches poll last year not exactly terrible.

Best of luck to your daughters I hope they get some love from the Duke coaching staff.

Not the Duke hater but to say they will be better this year than last is as delusional as those parents you speak about. They have lost their two best players who accounted for close to 50 percent of their offense. Lost their 2 best defenders . Honestly they will be lucky to win more than 2 ACC games this season.

Programs lose impact players every year. The top programs bring in impact players every year that is why they are consistently the top programs. Duke has been off from where they were but they are still a very good program. IMHO Duke will be back in the Top 20 at the end of the season. We all know the teams that bring in the top recruits just about every year and has been Duke is one of those programs. Maybe they missed on 2 or 3 studs in recent years but they are still an excellent program. If Duke did miss out on a few players during the early recruiting craze it was because Duke was trying to hold off not because top players do not want to go to Duke. Not saying that Duke didn't bring in good players just saying that having just 1 or 2 additional studs would have had Duke back in the Top 20. Do you really believe that Duke is going to fall off the map and no longer be a consistent Top 10 -15 program?

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.

"Programs lose impact players every year. The top programs bring in impact players every year that is why they are consistently the top programs. Duke has been off from where they were but they are still a very good program. IMHO Duke will be back in the Top 20 at the end of the season. We all know the teams that bring in the top recruits just about every year and has been Duke is one of those programs. Maybe they missed on 2 or 3 studs in recent years but they are still an excellent program. If Duke did miss out on a few players during the early recruiting craze it was because Duke was trying to hold off not because top players do not want to go to Duke. Not saying that Duke didn't bring in good players just saying that having just 1 or 2 additional studs would have had Duke back in the Top 20. Do you really believe that Duke is going to fall off the map and no longer be a consistent Top 10 -15 program?"

Why would you think Duke would be a consistent top 10-15 program as their recent history tells you otherwise and as pointed out they lost their two best offensive players and two best defensive players.Not only is your post difficult to understand its also clueless. Duke missed out on exactly zero recruits because they in fact were recruiting as early as everyone else, to say otherwise is just false.There are many top players who have zero interest in going to Duke for many different reasons just like any other school. "Do you really believe that Duke is going to fall off the map and no longer be a consistent Top 10 -15 program?" They already have and are in fact no longer a consistent to 10-15 program.

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.

Duke finished last year 21st in the coaches poll. Every school looses top players.... the key is recruiting and Duke tends to do a pretty good job when it comes to recruiting. Duke plays a tough schedule and they were very competitive with some of the best teams in the country last year. Everything is in place for Duke to get back to being a top 10 -15 program. We all know not every top recruit will choose Duke but history tells us that a lot of them will. Not sure why the blip but I suspect they will be back.

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.

I agree whole heartedly to this statement. Seen firsthand an early recruit recieve accolades they did not deserve and now that this so called wunderkind has seen teammates pass her by she is now plummeting down the rankings list. Which by the way IMHO is still ranked way too high

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.

While there are many examples of players that were selected and go on to do great, there are just as many examples of players that certainly do not live up to expectations . Then there are hundreds of examples of players who were never selected who go on to kick butt in college. So ABSOLUTELY the bottom of these selection lists could very easily be swapped out. And it isn’t always the bottom of the list players that don’t work out. Hey, it’s fun and an honor to have your daughter recognized, be thankful and hope they have a successful college career. Don’t get too caught up in what you think all the praise means, be humble. Problem is, people don’t know how to do that.

I think the real problem is that some people want to attack whenever their daughter is not recognized. They want to diminish in order to elevate their daughter.

"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."


First off I am not the guy you responded to but will say my opinion seems to come from the same background as his in that my kid has had many of those accolades but I realize there is a good deal of politics involved that she has benefited from. Your initial response just shows a lack of reading comprehension as when he says "most kids" he is talking about the players who actually receive the awards and not the whole population in general. Then you go on to preach that the only list that matters is the Inside Lacrosse Young Guns which has now become as political as it gets ( you want to move u or onto that list go pay them to play in there tournament) right after saying the list of UA senior AA is the best barometer of future success, so which is it. After that its just more drivel. In the end be proud of your kid when they make those lists but be humble and realize there are others who may not have the connections that have equal ability.

No one is arguing that some programs are always good because they consistently bring in top players, as represented with UA and IL rankings. The observation is that some schools have a lot of UA and IL ranked players, but don't over time perform better than programs with far fewer of those players. There are multiple reasons, but partly because some programs are "favored" in the process and their commits receive benefit of the doubt that other players don't get. None of it matters in the long run - best teams and players are determined on the playing field each year.

As you state: "best teams and players are determined on the playing field each year." I completely agree with you. After reading all of this banter I look at the numbers and I do not believe that they lie. No time right now to check on Harvard and Dartmouth but I do not believe that there are many teams that do not get a high number of UA Players that out consistently out perform the following:

Maryland
UNC
UVA
NU
Duke
ND
Syracuse
GT
Florida
Princeton
BC
Hopkins
Loyola
Penn State
Stanford
Penn
USC

It was stated that JMU, Stony Brook, Navy and maybe Denver are exceptions.

Please name all of the programs that consistently out perform the programs named above.

Not arguing there are programs consistently outperforming most of the programs above. But, there are programs doing more with fewer of UA players, whatever that is worth. The only program that really jumps out to me as over-represented based on program strength the last decade is JHU. Maybe GT, but they could have been a lot stronger in the early days of UA. USC has almost as many UA as programs that have been around a lot longer with many top 20 seasons. That doesn't mean the JHU, GT and USC girls named to UA weren't deserving. There are other factors at play. Penn and PSU seem under-represented compared to some programs with more UA. ND stands out most to me as having a lot of UA with good but not amazing results. I think people are actually being too hard on Duke. They've been down the past few years, but a lot of really strong years prior. I have no ties to Duke and it is not a school my daughter was ever interested in attending, so my opinion is neutral. Aside from the past two years they've been better than ND and as good as UVA this decade.

I think UA and IL do their best, and overall get a lot more right than wrong. They recognize individuals and there is some subjectivity to it, plus we all know there's more to team success than each individual's ability on its own.

Well said. At the end of the day none of it really matters. However, I think is was nice to see someone do the analysis and show that much of what has been spewed on here over the years regarding UA is just sour grapes. The equation is simple.... Best Players = Best Programs. It's about the Jimmy's & Joe's not the X's & O's.

There has been a fair amount of bander back and forth on this topic. I hope this information can help separate the fact from the fiction.

The HS graduating class of 2015 had the traditional 44 Under Armour All-Americans plus an additional 14 players who were selected to the US U19 Team for a total of 58 Under Armour All-Americans.

Below is how Under Armour class 2015 faired in College:

21 were All-Americans
13 were All-Confereence..... All-ACC, All-Big 10, All-Ivy etc... that is in addition to the players named All-American as I am sure the AA's were All conference as well.
15 were major contributors to their teams...... Starting and or Playing in every game.
6 were reserve players who saw limited playing time.
2 may have stopped playing due to injury.
1 Transferred to a school that does not currently have a Division I program.

Looks like 49 of the 58 had outstanding college careers. The numbers tell a much different story than what has been told on here by some.

Spelling police.... fared in college, not faired.. : - ) .... Banter , not bander..... ; - )

Oh and by the way several from that class captained their teams.... several were considered for the Tewaaraton Award and if I am not mistaken two from that group won the Tewaaraton Award.

You guys are pathetic . Have not seen anyone say the senior UA players are not successful but you seem to feel it is said often . Your analysis is also misleading, an example being one of the Tewaaraton Award winners was neither a senior UA member nor did she make the actual U19 tournament team , she has been clearly the best player in her class for years but in my opinion did not make the U19 tournament team and was ranked by Inside lacrosse too low because of POLITICS. Had the U19 team taken her they actually would have won .So of those best 60 in the country a third made one of the 6 AA teams , that sounds about right . Or in other words 2/3 of the greatest superstars in high school did not turn out to be superstars in college but most had successful college careers .

There you go again.... below see actual facts , not your BS. She was named Under Armour All-American and she was ranked 18 by inside lacrosse. Stop with your nonsense .

Directly from UA Site and Program.......

"This year, 14 girls of the class of 2015 were named Under Armour All-Americans but will be unable to participate in the game due to prior commitments to the U.S. Women’s Under-19 National Team. This group is still considered Under Armour All-Americans in the event’s records and will be acknowledged in a half-time ceremony during All-America weekend. The players are as follows: Sam Apuzzo, Natalie Bulgier, Olivia “Ya” Ferrucci, Samantha Giacolone, Jackie Gilbert, Miranda Ibello, Erin Kelly, Nikki Ortega, Hannah Proctor, Claire Quinn, Lindsey Ronbeck, Mallory Weisse, Francesca Whitehurst & Caroline Zaffino."

2014 ILWomen Top 30 Rising Senior Rankings

1. Sydney Pirreca, M, Mount Sinai (N.Y.), Florida

2. Lindsey Ronbeck, A/M, Manhasset (N.Y.), Florida

3. Miranda Ibello, M, Maryvale (Md.), Johns Hopkins

4. Nicole Levy, A, East Islip (N.Y.), Syracuse

5. Nikki Ortega, A, Middle Country (N.Y.), Notre Dame

6. Jen Giles, M, Mt. Hebron (Md.), Maryland

7. Claire Quinn, M, St. Anthony’s (N.Y.), Northwestern

8. Charlotte Sofield, M, Bishop Ireton (Va.), North Carolina

9. Olivia Jenner, M, McDonogh (Md.), Duke

10. Samantha Giacolone, G, Eastport South Manor (N.Y.), Notre Dame

11. Olivia Ferrucci, M, Barron Collier (Fla.), North Carolina

12. Elizabeth George, M, McDonogh (Md.), Princeton

13. Kara Klages, M, John Carroll (Md.), North Carolina

14. Gianna Bowe, A, Clearview (N.J.), North Carolina

15. Francesca Whitehurst, M, Roland Park (Md.), Georgetown

16. Julia Braig, M/D, St. Paul’s (Md.), Maryland

17. Erin Kelly, D, Clarkstown South (N.Y.), North Carolina

18. Sam Apuzzo, M, West Babylon (N.Y.), Boston College

19. Shelby Mercer, D, Century (Md.), Maryland

20. Ella Bonafede, A, St. Anthony’s (N.Y.), Duke

21. Samantha Lynch, M, Huntington (N.Y.), Notre Dame

22. Meghan Doherty, D, Mt. Hebron (N.Y.), Maryland

23. Hannah Pridemore, M, Vero Beach (Fla.), Liberty

24. Kathryn Hallett, M, Manhasset (N.Y.), Princeton

25. Mary Rahal, Queensbury (N.Y.), Syracuse

26. Genesis Lucero, M, La Costa Canyon (Calif.), Stanford

27. Lauren Daly, G, Shoreham Wading-River (N.Y.), Boston College

28. Taylor Gebhardt, A, Baker (N.Y.), Georgetown

29. Mallory Weisse, G, Westfield (N.J.), Northwestern

30. Natalie Wallon, M, Charlotte Catholic (N.C.), Syracuse

BTW, Ranked 11 for incoming freshmen in 2015. Not exactly overlooked.


1. Sydney Pirreca | M | Mount Sinai (N.Y.) | Florida

A two-time state champion, Pirreca heads to Gainesville as one of the top players out of the high school game in recent years. Dynamic, speedy and incredibly athletic, her ability to put a team on her back at crucial moments and produce under pressure is seemingly unparalleled.

Mandee O’Leary on Pirreca: “She’s a seasoned player, and we feel she can make an impact for us as a freshman… She’s used to having the ball in her stick, making game-changing plays, and we’re looking forward to having her in a Florida uniform for the next four years.”

2. Lindsey Ronbeck | A | Manhasset (N.Y.) | Florida

3. Miranda Ibello | A/M | Maryvale (Md.) | Johns Hopkins

4. Francesca Whitehurst | M | Roland Park (Md.) | Georgetown

5. Olivia Ferrucci | M | Barron Collier (Fla.) | North Carolina

6. Nikki Ortega | A | Middle Country (N.Y.) | Notre Dame

7. Nicole Levy | A | East Islip (N.Y.) | Syracuse

8. Olivia Jenner | M | McDonogh (Md.) | Duke

9. Samantha Giacolone | G | Eastport-South Manor (N.Y.) | Notre Dame

10. Elizabeth George | M | McDonogh (Md.) | Princeton

11. Sam Apuzzo | M | West Babylon (N.Y.) | Boston College

12. Claire Quinn | M/D | St. Anthony’s (N.Y.) | Northwestern

13. Erin Kelly | D | Clarkstown South (N.Y.) | North Carolina

14. Charlotte Sofield | M | Bishop Ireton (Va.) | North Carolina

15. Jen Giles | M | Mt. Hebron (Md.) | Maryland

16. Caroline Steele | A | Severn (Md.) | Maryland

17. Jackie Gilbert | M | Amador Valley (Calif.) | USC

18. Gianna Bowe | A | Clearview (N.J.) | North Carolina

19. Alexa Radziewicz | D | Christian Brothers Academy (N.Y.) | Syracuse

20. Shelby Mercer | D | Century (Md.) | Maryland

21. Mallory Weisse | G | Westfield (N.J.) | Northwestern

22. Hannah Proctor | M/D | Radnor (Pa.) | Notre Dame

23. Kady Glynn | G | Summit (N.J.) | Loyola

24. Caroline Wakefield | M/D | Centreville (Va.) | North Carolina

25. Julia Braig | D | St. Paul’s School for Girls (Md.) | Maryland

26. Emily Resnick | M | Webster Thomas (N.Y.) | Syracuse

27. Megan Taylor | G | Glenelg (Md.) | Maryland

28. Kristen Adams | D | Garden City (N.Y.) | Penn

29. Angie Loynaz | A | Greenwich Academy (Conn.) | Virginia

30. Alexis Phillips | M | Archbishop Spalding (Md.) | Penn State

31. Natalie Bulgier | M/D | Souderton (Pa.) | Georgetown

32. Kimberly Harker | M | Mahopac (N.Y.) | Northwestern

33. Kara Klages | M | John Carroll (Md.) | North Carolina

34. Genesis Lucero | M | La Costa Canyon (Calif.) | Stanford

35. Brooke Troy | A | Westwood (Mass.) | Boston College

36. Meghan Doherty | D | Mt. Hebron (Md.) | Maryland

37. Caroline Zaffino | A | St. Paul’s (N.H.) | Boston College

38. Emily McBride | M | Manheim Township (Pa.) | Virginia

39. Kristen Yanchoris | D | Century (Md.) | Loyola

40. Kaitlin Luzik | D | Bishop Ireton (Va.) | Virginia

41. Keeley MacAfee | M | Notre Dame Academy (Mass.) | Harvard

42. Ivy Arlia | M | Thayer Academy (Mass.) | Northwestern

43. Abby Shields | M | Vero Beach (Fla.) | Furman

44. Greta Meyer | M | Germantown Friends (Pa.) | Stanford

45. Taylor Gebhardt | A | Baker (N.Y.) | Georgetown

46. Ellie Majure | A | St. Stephen’s & St. Agnes (Va.) | Duke

47. Samantha Lynch | M | Huntington (N.Y.) | Notre Dame

48. Kelsey Cummings | A | McDonogh (Md.) | Maryland

49. Lauren Daly | G | Shoreham-Wading River (N.Y.) | Boston College

50. Alexandra Argo | D | Bryn Mawr (Md.) |Princeton