US Lacrosse Community Forum Forums MID-ATLANTIC LACROSSE MARYLAND FORUM Boys 2028 Grads - Mid Atlantic Region

Adults ARE acting accordingly.

Every kid needs to be reminded to hit the wall.

...Or they will never make Nash Parker's dad's list.

Well. Considering Madlax beat Team91 9-4, and it could have been 15-1 had they not pulled their starters after an 8-0 start— not sure your reasoning makes much sense. Team 91 beat Nations Best handily in pool play. So why would Nations Best have fared any better against Madlax?

Madlax beat WCS in Delaware a month ago. Again, good one though.

Fair point. Keep names off the board. Fine for parents to talk trash, as it’s all in jest anyway.

Not the mighty Black!!

BTW, no chatter about the nations #1 ranked Express North. Guess they couldn’t hang without their 7th graders??

True Black was very solid. They beat us (ML) with good play all around and have clock management down very well. No need to say more. They deserved to win.

I am responding to the above re EN. I watched about a quarter early in pool play they looked very good. I'm actually surprised they ended up getting ousted early. Im not sure what happened.

Also, I would add that it was a great tourney. Fields were very good. Last day they were a little torn up but to be expected given they are all real grass. Games started pretty much on time, plenty of parking. All fields had real score boards. I hope more DMV/HOCO teams go down next year.


Fwiw

I'm mostly here to see the Biff Tannens from Madlax and True duke it out over whose roster carried more "unfair" "ringers." After bouncing Nationals from the tournament for "like so many ringers you guys." What a laugh. Although it would appear ML had the last laugh this time!

ML had 4 guests. 3 from Sentry, which is a ML partner program. Two of the kids have played regularly on ML national teams. The 3rd was new. The other kid was from 4Leaf. The remaining players were all the kids you see week-in-week out. That is the usual format/%% for 28 nationals.

Here’s a question what do people think the hit rate of players of the current elite rosters ending up committing to a D1 program? My guess is something like:

Something like 8 or so for Madlax/Hawks/FCA.

Around 6 or so for Next Level and Crabs.

3-4 for True

1-2 for BLC and then a few/several others that are currently on lower ranked teams.

People think that is high or low? Aside from a few kids I’d be willing to bet on, hard to tell exactly who they will be, but that is my general sense of the talent level.

And they still came in 3rd! Ouch

Time to figure out whose actually playing where in HoCo.

Still many question marks.

There were certainly a lot of teams with the name "national" in their name. Makes me think there might be something more to the lawsuit.

My kid plays AAA, with no (real) D1 aspirations, so I have no dog in this fight, and I think those #s are low. I'd say:

12 Madlax/Hawks
8 FCA Blue
4-6 NL, Crabs
1-2 BLC, Cavs, KP, True Annapolis, FCA White

Notably......zero from T91, Sidewinders, Team MD, Predators, and other big talkers around these parts.

Very few from most AAA and AA teams, but not zero, and who knows, they haven't hit puberty yet, except the 16 year olds on the ML squad (joking, sort of).

There are a few kids on A, AA, AAA who in fact will go D1 in other sports. Hawks and BLC historically have 1-2 kids go D1 football.

Top 6 pretty welll set, right?

Hawks
MLax
FCA
NL
True Annapolis
Crabs

Then maybe BLC, Blue Claws, or TK Post? Someone oughtta get Freedom to drive down from Philly. They’d be a great add.

Start by looking at the ‘21 -‘23 teams and you’ll have a good idea. Roughly 2/3 of the Madlax kids are doing D1, likely similar numbers from Hawks and Crabs. I think Madlax had the #1 recruits overall in ‘18 and ‘20 (Epstein and Shellenberger).

Purely going off recollection, could be off on %.

You’re selling Blake’s dad short. No pun intended.

Is this for real? So much will change in the next three years for these kids. You can’t predict ANYTHING. That kid that didn’t make the Hawks A team can be one of the top recruits. Sure the teams historically have high recruit levels, but what’s the player torn over rate like between now and sophomore year. I doubt the rosters will be recognizable in a few years.

There’s a reason beyond letting kids play that the NCAA went to Junior year recruiting: too many misses for superstar 8th graders.

Having gone through recruiting with an older son in DC, here is how it has played out. Around 30 kids from Madlax, Next Level, DCE/BLC will commit to a decent D1 program (defining decent broadly). That’s been fairly consistent the last several years though individual club numbers vary. Of those 30, probably 10-12 are not yet playing on one of those 3 teams. Those kids are mostly very strong athletes that aren’t playing club at this point and maybe a few kids that are but puberty super charges them. So realistically it’s maybe 20 kids currently on those teams at most. The top 10 or so athletes spread among those teams currently will have a high success rate. Of the 50-55 other kids on the rosters, around 10 will eventually make it, but beyond the very top studs, it is really hard to predict which kids will pop because puberty and which kids will really hit the weights/wall in middle and high school is hard to predict. So unless you are a very top stud athlete, the odds still aren’t that high even for kids currently on an elite roster.

I think that all makes sense. Somewhere on BOTC there was a recent mention of the impact of COVID, and honestly I think the impact will be to those "not playing club lax yet" kids who either hadn't started playing lax 2 years ago, or are still playing rec for some reason (with rec being somewhat limited the last two years). At some point they have to enter the sport and at some point they have to "level up" to wherever they fit in the AA-AAA-Elite lax world. The on ramp has been difficult at best the last 2 years. But for the 2027s-2029s.......a fair # of kids went to club ball in Fall 2017 or Fall 2018, and saw minimal COVID impact/disruption (except for parents having to drive to lax COVID workout jurisdictions).

In short I think while there will always be legit (and not so legit) lax talent that "shows up" in 8th and 9th grade from out of nowhere, I think with the 2027s-2029s and how COVID impacted the "on ramp" to decent/good club lax, there will be far fewer of these. Those kids are substantially far behind most club players not only in skill but in game IQ, and if they are that great of an athlete, they probably already have a spring sport, no?

Here is the madlax commits page thru the years. I don't know if the other clubs do this....fwiw

https://capital.madlax.com/collegecommitments

A lot of it will depend on where kids go to high school.

It shouldn’t matter but it will.

As long as they play in the MIAA or WCAC they will be fine.

Out of curiosity how did going to a strong high school and playing later impact vs a relatively weaker school and playing earlier.

For example, Hall vs. St. Pauls

That may well be. Sounds reasonable. With my older son, though, it was really eye opening how much raw size and athleticism drives recruiting other than at a couple of positions. Thinking back to 6th grade for that class, if I would have listed the top 10 athletes of the DC-area kids, probably 8 to 9 ended up committing to good programs. If I would have listed the 10 most skilled players at that point, the hit rate would have been much lower. I was surprised by this or maybe I was just not good at evaluating skill.

Translation… all our boys are going D1! Woohoo!

It’s hard to say because as alluded to above it’s tough to fully gauge where a kids athleticism will shake out.

It’ll be easier to see over the next two years as puberty sets in.

I’m in DC and don’t know the Baltimore kids nearly well enough to have an opinion on Calvert Hall vs St Pauls or anything like that. For the DC kids, I would say school seemed to matter less than club or just how you present as an athlete. Kids that show out well in the IAC or top part of WCAC obviously do well in recruiting. But most of those kids also showed well in the club/showcase context so it’s hard to tell if the school mattered or not. It certainly does not hurt to go to the top programs. But whether that makes you significantly more marketable probably depends on the player and position. I don’t have any evidence for this other than my observation, but I think that school may matter more for attack and maybe goalie than other positions. The stock of middies and defensive players rose or fell much more on how they presented in terms of size and speed on the club/showcase circuit than school in my opinion.

Attack is the most political position on the field. The gap between D1 and D3 attackman is a lot smaller than say a D1 mid and a D3 mid.

That said it helps to be on the right club AND have a coach with some influence if your kid wants to play attack. Because there are tons of good ones out there and have to differentiate somehow.

A stud pole on the other hand is a lot easier to pick out with the eyes test at these showcases.

Definitely the case. Lots (most) of the coaches’ kids are attackers. There are lots of different reasons, some just have the best sticks (their parents are coaches after all) some aren’t athletic enough to play middie and very few want to play defense. With that said it lends itself to limited opportunities and a bunch of politics. Not throwing stones, but definitely what I’ve seen over the years.

FWIW - my son has played with 6 attackers who were coaches kids, all were pretty good. Only complaint is that sometimes the offense runs through the kid more than the appropriate amount of time.

Has only played with 2 defenders and 1 middie (who shouldn’t have been) who were coaches kids.

Never thought about this, but wholeheartedly agree. Most of the MIAA attackmen can see the field the same, find soft spots to get their hands free, have good lax IQs, and distribute well.

But D1 coaches are always gonna take the attackmen who has most of those things AND size because the defensemen at the D1 level are huge. You have to be a real special talent like Sowers, Mikey Powell or Thompson to be smaller and make an impact at the next level. Somewhat lesser skilled + larger size is usually gonna prevail.

I suspect school matters most in terms of weeding out kids— D1 coaches are probably (I say probably as I have zero evidence of this theory) are less likely to take a chance on a sick athlete playing in Virginia or MD public schools, and dominating there, Vs a very good player/athlete at one of the elites. Just a lot more unknowns with public school competition.

I detest to wade into these waters, but......former coach here.

#1 if your kid is between Richmond VA and Boston MA and he or she can't get "looks", then that is highly suspect in terms of D1 "appropriateness."

#2 Coaches have to sell their "picks" to the admissions department of these D1 schools, most of whom have high academic integrity. So "your school" counts, period. A 3.9 at a public HS in Garrett County is not the same as a 3.9 at a public in MoCo or HoCo. Or.....sigh...... a 3.9 at Gilman. And because it's not football, your kid's 2.6 GPA and his 100mph shot at public school is not going to be enough.

#3 I AM NOT SAYING THAT PRIVATE SCHOOLS ARE BETTER THAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS but no college lax coach wants a stud with a substantial risk of academic suspension. College preparedness at a Garrett County PS is not equal to a MoCo PS is not equal to a prep school. Most "prep school" graduates find that college academics are not particularly challenging. That is a (small) factor in lax recruitment. And yes, for sure, prep school does NOT necessarily weed out or flag future behavior problems that we occasionally see in all college athletes including lax players.

#4 There is honestly an "X" factor in the # of coaches, faculty, and counselors per student at the (best) privates, who in many cases attended a prep school themselves and perhaps played lax and can "put in a call" to a college coach or recruiter. When you are at a PG County public school and there's a total of 4 adult lax coaches and 4 college counselers per 2000 students, your odds of getting someone to make a call are quite slim.

Which is the best excuse around for why your kid would play for a club coach who WILL make those calls.

One of the more sober posts on this board.

Good to see the elitism/classism in lacrosse is poised to continue.

/s

so example if my kid plays at his local highschool walter johnson and is the best player on the team he won't be good because his team is not if he goes to combines and trained with his club madlax he wont secuceed that is a joke

If your son has your writing skills, he should be thinking D3, just for academic survival. Maybe Lees-McRae has a spot for him.

Oh brother. The question asked was basically, "how does my son get the best look from D1 programs, assuming he has D1 talent and work ethic?"

If you think that 21st century American Life is going to be a meritocracy, I have some really bad news for you.

I suppose you are making the argument that the average graduate from Garrett County Public Schools *is* as adequately prepared for college as the average graduate from Georgetown Prep. Because the opposite is well documented and statistically supported. A better argument would be that some public schools are better than some private schools in this way. Which is true.

Or are you arguing that college lacrosse coaches don't care about GPAs. Because that's also not factual.

Or are you arguing that you don't need a (non-parent) adult to advocate for your son in his recruitment. Because that not factual and borderline dangerous.

Or are you arguing that having fewer college counselors per student has no impact on college placement. Because that is not factual.

Or are your arguing that high-price clubs (most in the DC area) don't have better access to college coaches than your average rec or rec-club-MYLA coach? Because that would be hard to believe. It doesn't mean those elite club coaches are BETTER coaches (in many cases they surely are not). But it might mean someone picks up the phone when they call as opposed to "Coach Bob from Forest Hill Wild Cats!"

Are you arguing anything, or are you just a "Society is BS, Man, Dang Patriarchy!!!" kind of adult?

In other words...if your son is playing for Forest Hill, Blue Claws or KP (although they may be quality teams) you may want to consider trying out for another club with directors/coaches who will help get your kid recruited and has a lot of connections come July.

In many cases - the simplest answer is the correct one.

The poster above laid out how playing for more expensive clubs (madlax be say Kelly post) position you better for high college exposure because the coaches are better connected.

It’s then layered with going to Landon or McDonough or some other expensive private school also makes it easier to get better exposure because of the built in connections.

The point was - based on the above, the families who can afford Madlax and Landon are better positioned for success than those who go to free school and play for Kelly post.

That’s all. That’s the point. Not sure how that’s debatable.

And this does indeed keep the elitism going in lacrosse. It is what it is.

People overestimate how much club/high school coaches connections matter. I mean sure, someone like CH coach has real juice with certain coaches like UNC. But for most people what matters in recruiting is exposure.

So the reason to go to an established club like Crabs or FCA is they do a good job of getting their boys in front of college coaches at good tournaments. The calls might help a couple people at the margin, but for 90% of kids that are potential D1 players the exposure is the key.