The CBLaxers.com Elite 88 Showcase & The Igloo Elite 80 Showcase Camp Are Now Open for Registration - Limited Spots!
BACK OF THE CAGE
MOST RECENT POSTS
Team 91 MD
by Anonymous -
Boys High School
by Anonymous -
Forum Statistics
Forums20
Topics3,269
Posts349,092
Members2,503
Most Online62,980
Feb 6th, 2020
FOLLOW US ON TWITTER
Previous Thread
Next Thread
New Reply
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 1 of 21 1 2 3 20 21
Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
Joined: Nov 2011
L
lax516 Offline OP
Back of THE CAGE
OP Offline
Back of THE CAGE
L
Joined: Nov 2011
After reading through many of these forums over the years the age and reclassification debate consistently comes to dominate so many of the forums. With so many interested in the topic I think its a good time to debate all aspects including the good, the bad, and the ugly.
For purposes of this discussion let's start by setting the ground rules.
1. A player who complies with the US Lacrosse age requirement of Sept 1, but find themselves in a state that has a dec 1 school cutoff is NOT considered a hold back or reclassified if he is in the lower grade. You must even the playing field and for this argument Sept 1 is the most fair way to start.
2. That being said the current class of 2019 should be sept 1, 2000 or later and be u-13 eligible, and the class of 2017 should be sept 1, 1998 or later and would qualify as U-15.
3. This is not to say private schools don't have different requirement, but this is the fairest way to think of it.

The way many think of this is that the age in the younger divisions U-11 and U-13 are important due to safety. Then as you get into recruiting it then becomes an issue of fairness.

Each year at this time early recruiting class is full of reclassified players and this year is no different. There are boys who have left a public school and repeated 9th grade and other who repeated 8th grade in a private school and returned to public school. There are many ways to get this done and these are just two examples. Most of these players who are turning 16 before and or after the sept 1 us lacrosse guideline, reclassify down a year and repeat the recruiting circuit.
Fair? Not Fair? Short Lived until other boys mature? Exploiting the system. Let's have at it.

Like Reply Quote
BACK OF THE CAGE SPONSORS

Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by lax516
After reading through many of these forums over the years the age and reclassification debate consistently comes to dominate so many of the forums. With so many interested in the topic I think its a good time to debate all aspects including the good, the bad, and the ugly.
For purposes of this discussion let's start by setting the ground rules.
1. A player who complies with the US Lacrosse age requirement of Sept 1, but find themselves in a state that has a dec 1 school cutoff is NOT considered a hold back or reclassified if he is in the lower grade. You must even the playing field and for this argument Sept 1 is the most fair way to start.
2. That being said the current class of 2019 should be sept 1, 2000 or later and be u-13 eligible, and the class of 2017 should be sept 1, 1998 or later and would qualify as U-15.
3. This is not to say private schools don't have different requirement, but this is the fairest way to think of it.

The way many think of this is that the age in the younger divisions U-11 and U-13 are important due to safety. Then as you get into recruiting it then becomes an issue of fairness.

Each year at this time early recruiting class is full of reclassified players and this year is no different. There are boys who have left a public school and repeated 9th grade and other who repeated 8th grade in a private school and returned to public school. There are many ways to get this done and these are just two examples. Most of these players who are turning 16 before and or after the sept 1 us lacrosse guideline, reclassify down a year and repeat the recruiting circuit.
Fair? Not Fair? Short Lived until other boys mature? Exploiting the system. Let's have at it.


In my mind there are two questions here. First, is it fair/ok that parents reclass? To me it is every parents prerogative to choose to reclass. Whether you decide to reclass is completely up to the parents. For those who choose not to, I don't think they have the right to cry about it. Whether its fair in a grade based youth tourney is a completely separate issue. This is the primary reason USL went to an age based format. If a tournament chooses not to organize their tourney this way then that i there issue.

The second question is whether reclassifying ultimately matters in college play. Since it is a relatively new phenonenom time will tell. It certainly matters in recruiting which is why for now the trend is to reclass.

Like Reply Quote
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
I just think in my opinion if you go to a birth year system such as youth hockey has used for many years it takes all of the nonsense out it. You have to play with boys and girls your own age. Therefore you can go to any tournament in any state and you are assured of playing teams your own age. Do I think that having your child reclassified to gain an athletic advantage is fair NO but do the rules allow it yes. So I guess we have to live with it for now. In the interest of full disclosure my child has a January birthday. Don't you think it would be a huge advantage reclassifying ?

Like Reply Quote
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by lax516
After reading through many of these forums over the years the age and reclassification debate consistently comes to dominate so many of the forums. With so many interested in the topic I think its a good time to debate all aspects including the good, the bad, and the ugly.
For purposes of this discussion let's start by setting the ground rules.
1. A player who complies with the US Lacrosse age requirement of Sept 1, but find themselves in a state that has a dec 1 school cutoff is NOT considered a hold back or reclassified if he is in the lower grade. You must even the playing field and for this argument Sept 1 is the most fair way to start.
2. That being said the current class of 2019 should be sept 1, 2000 or later and be u-13 eligible, and the class of 2017 should be sept 1, 1998 or later and would qualify as U-15.
3. This is not to say private schools don't have different requirement, but this is the fairest way to think of it.

The way many think of this is that the age in the younger divisions U-11 and U-13 are important due to safety. Then as you get into recruiting it then becomes an issue of fairness.

Each year at this time early recruiting class is full of reclassified players and this year is no different. There are boys who have left a public school and repeated 9th grade and other who repeated 8th grade in a private school and returned to public school. There are many ways to get this done and these are just two examples. Most of these players who are turning 16 before and or after the sept 1 us lacrosse guideline, reclassify down a year and repeat the recruiting circuit.
Fair? Not Fair? Short Lived until other boys mature? Exploiting the system. Let's have at it.


In my mind there are two questions here. First, is it fair/ok that parents reclass? To me it is every parents prerogative to choose to reclass. Whether you decide to reclass is completely up to the parents. For those who choose not to, I don't think they have the right to cry about it. Whether its fair in a grade based youth tourney is a completely separate issue. This is the primary reason USL went to an age based format. If a tournament chooses not to organize their tourney this way then that i there issue.

The second question is whether reclassifying ultimately matters in college play. Since it is a relatively new phenonenom time will tell. It certainly matters in recruiting which is why for now the trend is to reclass.


!. No it is not fair, because everyone can't afford to do it. This perpetuates Lacrosse as a "rich mans sport" It creates an dichotomy between the "haves" and the "have nots". Yes some are good enough to still make it , but it put other excellent prospects at a disadvantage.

2. I believe that re-classed recruits will pan out to be mostly average college players. This is because the best athletes in the grade who are age true and make it through the recruiting process, will ultimately surpass the hold backs, on average. If you hold your kid back for athletic reasons, it means you don't believe in the abilities of your child. Just like you cheat on your taxes, you are cheating with the lives of other people who are doing things the right way. You are a disgrace to the sport and insulting you own child's abilities.

Like Reply Quote
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
I agree it is every parents prerogative to hold a child back but I do not agree it is right. and I am sorry, I do not agree with your ground rules.

To me a Sept 1 to Nov 30 birthdate is a hold back. Why because that is what my state (NY) says it to be. Also if I started at one grade lets say 2019 and realized I can get held back after I started school because my birthdate was Sept/Oct 2001. That is a clear hold back (reclassify) and shoots your Sept theory in my opinion! Some kids did this as early as 3rd grade not 8th/9th.

Now if your son/daughter was born in Sept-Nov 2001 and did not start as a 2019 child (started K in 2006) you are far less creepy but you are a hold back and are still gaming the system. Especially if you are in a state which states Birth month Sept -Nov should start on time.






Originally Posted by lax516
After reading through many of these forums over the years the age and reclassification debate consistently comes to dominate so many of the forums. With so many interested in the topic I think its a good time to debate all aspects including the good, the bad, and the ugly.
For purposes of this discussion let's start by setting the ground rules.
1. A player who complies with the US Lacrosse age requirement of Sept 1, but find themselves in a state that has a dec 1 school cutoff is NOT considered a hold back or reclassified if he is in the lower grade. You must even the playing field and for this argument Sept 1 is the most fair way to start.
2. That being said the current class of 2019 should be sept 1, 2000 or later and be u-13 eligible, and the class of 2017 should be sept 1, 1998 or later and would qualify as U-15.
3. This is not to say private schools don't have different requirement, but this is the fairest way to think of it.

The way many think of this is that the age in the younger divisions U-11 and U-13 are important due to safety. Then as you get into recruiting it then becomes an issue of fairness.

Each year at this time early recruiting class is full of reclassified players and this year is no different. There are boys who have left a public school and repeated 9th grade and other who repeated 8th grade in a private school and returned to public school. There are many ways to get this done and these are just two examples. Most of these players who are turning 16 before and or after the sept 1 us lacrosse guideline, reclassify down a year and repeat the recruiting circuit.
Fair? Not Fair? Short Lived until other boys mature? Exploiting the system. Let's have at it.

Like Reply Quote
Sponsored Links
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
There is no question that holding back, grade repeating, and reclassifying are all done for one reason. It is to gain a competitive, unfair advantage over your competition. This is an indisputable fact. It is also the definition of "cheating" as defined by google, should you decide to search the meaning of the word.
Again, the benefits of taking an athlete and dropping him into a group of kids 1 to 2 years younger and having him compete are very clear.
You need not go any further than the BCS National Championship game last night to see the potential benefits of holding back your kid. The Hiesman winning, Championship winning "FRESHMAN" quarterback was 20 years old! That's right, a 20 year old freshman. Not 17 or 18. Many, many kids are 20 in the beginning of their SENIOR year of college. The afore mentioned QB could play in college till 24 or 25. Surely, he'll be in the NFL before that.
Whether you agree with reclassification or not you cannot dispute the potential benefits. Of course, those benefits come at the expense of others. Hence, the concept of "cheating". Obviously, with Lacrosse there is no NFL, so the big benefit is the prized colleges.
Moving forward, all tournaments, camps, showcases and recruiting events need to be age based with proof of age. Its the only way to take the benefit out of doing this. Clearly, there is nothing you can do about the HS piece. However, by adopting age based, enforced events outside of HS, coaches will be able to determine how good these hold backs really are. Surely, when playing in the HS environment they will excel, when forced to play on age, they may not be so stand out. Better for the colleges and better for the kids.
For those parents that have already done this, no this not whining. It is a clear presentation of the facts and the truth, something you folks don't do well with.

Like Reply Quote
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
2017s regardless of age should play on HS teams and not youth U-15 teams. The reason US Lacrosse uses U-15 instead of U-14 is to allow reclassified 8th graders to play the year before they begin high school.

U-15 is intended for 8th graders only (it is a 2018 bracket this year).

Originally Posted by lax516
After reading through many of these forums over the years the age and reclassification debate consistently comes to dominate so many of the forums. With so many interested in the topic I think its a good time to debate all aspects including the good, the bad, and the ugly.
For purposes of this discussion let's start by setting the ground rules.
1. A player who complies with the US Lacrosse age requirement of Sept 1, but find themselves in a state that has a dec 1 school cutoff is NOT considered a hold back or reclassified if he is in the lower grade. You must even the playing field and for this argument Sept 1 is the most fair way to start.
2. That being said the current class of 2019 should be sept 1, 2000 or later and be u-13 eligible, and the class of 2017 should be sept 1, 1998 or later and would qualify as U-15.
3. This is not to say private schools don't have different requirement, but this is the fairest way to think of it.

The way many think of this is that the age in the younger divisions U-11 and U-13 are important due to safety. Then as you get into recruiting it then becomes an issue of fairness.

Each year at this time early recruiting class is full of reclassified players and this year is no different. There are boys who have left a public school and repeated 9th grade and other who repeated 8th grade in a private school and returned to public school. There are many ways to get this done and these are just two examples. Most of these players who are turning 16 before and or after the sept 1 us lacrosse guideline, reclassify down a year and repeat the recruiting circuit.
Fair? Not Fair? Short Lived until other boys mature? Exploiting the system. Let's have at it.

Like Reply Quote
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
So says the parent of a re-classified/ holdback child. U-15 eligibility is determined by age, not grade level.
Originally Posted by Anonymous
2017s regardless of age should play on HS teams and not youth U-15 teams. The reason US Lacrosse uses U-15 instead of U-14 is to allow reclassified 8th graders to play the year before they begin high school.

U-15 is intended for 8th graders only (it is a 2018 bracket this year).

Originally Posted by lax516
After reading through many of these forums over the years the age and reclassification debate consistently comes to dominate so many of the forums. With so many interested in the topic I think its a good time to debate all aspects including the good, the bad, and the ugly.
For purposes of this discussion let's start by setting the ground rules.
1. A player who complies with the US Lacrosse age requirement of Sept 1, but find themselves in a state that has a dec 1 school cutoff is NOT considered a hold back or reclassified if he is in the lower grade. You must even the playing field and for this argument Sept 1 is the most fair way to start.
2. That being said the current class of 2019 should be sept 1, 2000 or later and be u-13 eligible, and the class of 2017 should be sept 1, 1998 or later and would qualify as U-15.
3. This is not to say private schools don't have different requirement, but this is the fairest way to think of it.

The way many think of this is that the age in the younger divisions U-11 and U-13 are important due to safety. Then as you get into recruiting it then becomes an issue of fairness.

Each year at this time early recruiting class is full of reclassified players and this year is no different. There are boys who have left a public school and repeated 9th grade and other who repeated 8th grade in a private school and returned to public school. There are many ways to get this done and these are just two examples. Most of these players who are turning 16 before and or after the sept 1 us lacrosse guideline, reclassify down a year and repeat the recruiting circuit.
Fair? Not Fair? Short Lived until other boys mature? Exploiting the system. Let's have at it.

Like Reply Quote
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Most rising sophomores on LI are U-15... Hello. Of course in Md and Pa they are 8th graders. Amazing, age based for everything, this has really got to stop. That's why Pa and Md teams can't compete at the U-15 Championship. They can't play down, they have to play on age.

Originally Posted by Anonymous
So says the parent of a re-classified/ holdback child. U-15 eligibility is determined by age, not grade level.
Originally Posted by Anonymous
2017s regardless of age should play on HS teams and not youth U-15 teams. The reason US Lacrosse uses U-15 instead of U-14 is to allow reclassified 8th graders to play the year before they begin high school.

U-15 is intended for 8th graders only (it is a 2018 bracket this year).

Originally Posted by lax516
After reading through many of these forums over the years the age and reclassification debate consistently comes to dominate so many of the forums. With so many interested in the topic I think its a good time to debate all aspects including the good, the bad, and the ugly.
For purposes of this discussion let's start by setting the ground rules.
1. A player who complies with the US Lacrosse age requirement of Sept 1, but find themselves in a state that has a dec 1 school cutoff is NOT considered a hold back or reclassified if he is in the lower grade. You must even the playing field and for this argument Sept 1 is the most fair way to start.
2. That being said the current class of 2019 should be sept 1, 2000 or later and be u-13 eligible, and the class of 2017 should be sept 1, 1998 or later and would qualify as U-15.
3. This is not to say private schools don't have different requirement, but this is the fairest way to think of it.

The way many think of this is that the age in the younger divisions U-11 and U-13 are important due to safety. Then as you get into recruiting it then becomes an issue of fairness.

Each year at this time early recruiting class is full of reclassified players and this year is no different. There are boys who have left a public school and repeated 9th grade and other who repeated 8th grade in a private school and returned to public school. There are many ways to get this done and these are just two examples. Most of these players who are turning 16 before and or after the sept 1 us lacrosse guideline, reclassify down a year and repeat the recruiting circuit.
Fair? Not Fair? Short Lived until other boys mature? Exploiting the system. Let's have at it.

Like Reply Quote
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by Anonymous
There is no question that holding back, grade repeating, and reclassifying are all done for one reason. It is to gain a competitive, unfair advantage over your competition. This is an indisputable fact. It is also the definition of "cheating" as defined by google, should you decide to search the meaning of the word.
Again, the benefits of taking an athlete and dropping him into a group of kids 1 to 2 years younger and having him compete are very clear.
You need not go any further than the BCS National Championship game last night to see the potential benefits of holding back your kid. The Hiesman winning, Championship winning "FRESHMAN" quarterback was 20 years old! That's right, a 20 year old freshman. Not 17 or 18. Many, many kids are 20 in the beginning of their SENIOR year of college. The afore mentioned QB could play in college till 24 or 25. Surely, he'll be in the NFL before that.
Whether you agree with reclassification or not you cannot dispute the potential benefits. Of course, those benefits come at the expense of others. Hence, the concept of "cheating". Obviously, with Lacrosse there is no NFL, so the big benefit is the prized colleges.
Moving forward, all tournaments, camps, showcases and recruiting events need to be age based with proof of age. Its the only way to take the benefit out of doing this. Clearly, there is nothing you can do about the HS piece. However, by adopting age based, enforced events outside of HS, coaches will be able to determine how good these hold backs really are. Surely, when playing in the HS environment they will excel, when forced to play on age, they may not be so stand out. Better for the colleges and better for the kids.
For those parents that have already done this, no this not whining. It is a clear presentation of the facts and the truth, something you folks don't do well with.


Good post

Like Reply Quote
Sponsored Links
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Let's face the facts, the only reason that reclassification is such a controversial topic is because of the recent insanity of freshman committing. Years ago, no one ever mentioned or cared if a player being recruited as a junior was 17yr old or 18yrs old. The lacrosse world has changed and now everyone feels the need to gain an edge. In the end, it really doesn't matter. The 'known' kids on the Island are committed, quietly committing, or are in advanced talks and visits. Don't sweat it, talent will always be noticed and most coaches can see the player's skill set regardless of his/her 'premature' size.

Like Reply Quote
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Unfortunately, we/you can complain all you want - without a strong national governing body, i.e. US Lacrosse... mandating correct age classifications, AND enforcing them this is all moot. There are two very simple models to follow, US Soccer or US Hockey. Yes, initial costs will be significant to implement. But in the long run, is not the growth of the sport and the safety of the players the ultimate goal of US Lacrosse? In membership alone, and this is low end... 410,000 members X $25 per year = $10,250,000 per year for US Lacrosse. Individual Player Cards, Birth Certficates, Age Classifications from U7-U15, (not U11, U13, U15...should be U7,U8,U9, etc) older than that you can call HS-A for Varsity, HS-B for JV

Like Reply Quote
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
The sad thing is that it might take a catastrophic injury to a player that is a year and a half younger and 50 pounds lighter for US Lacrosse to rethink to whole process. Isn't that why [lacrosse] football in most states have weight limits for players ? Yes I know that every once in a while there is the young man who's Dad played in the NFL and who's Mom played in the WNBA who is just going to be big for his age. Thats just lucky genetics not working/cheating the system. Seems like the MD. parents are pretty quiet on this topic. Come up north this summer and bring your birth certificates or better yet have US Lacrosse start issuing player I.D. when memberships are payed. Lets just even the playing field. Don't you want to win fair and square ? I would.

Like Reply Quote
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Let's face the facts, the only reason that reclassification is such a controversial topic is because of the recent insanity of freshman committing. Years ago, no one ever mentioned or cared if a player being recruited as a junior was 17yr old or 18yrs old. The lacrosse world has changed and now everyone feels the need to gain an edge. In the end, it really doesn't matter. The 'known' kids on the Island are committed, quietly committing, or are in advanced talks and visits. Don't sweat it, talent will always be noticed and most coaches can see the player's skill set regardless of his/her 'premature' size.



I could not agree with you more. I am a parent of a early January 2017 9th grader in NY who is has always been bigger stronger and faster than most other kids his grade (currently over 6' and about 160lbs.). I think at the younger grades, lets say 8th and under it should be strict age based as I would be upset if my child had to opppose a player the size of my son who had reclassified down to 8th grade. I think it is purely a safety issue at that level. Once they hit HS I think it should be all bets are off. Everything will even out once they hit the playing field as my son played against senior and juniors. all during fall ball. As far as recruiting goes if your son can play he will eventuall y get seen and he will end going somewhere. I think a lot of the issues we see on this board are from insecure parents wh o need to have a son or daughter be " commited" by the time they finish 10th grade. Remember everyone, playing lax at a top tier D1 school is work, about 30+ hours a week on top of classes with no NBA or NFL pot of gold at graduation. Not sure if a 15 or 16 year old understands that yet. Be careful what yo u wish for

Like Reply Quote
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
I have an idea - why don't we all rally to remove any kid that's better than ours because of cheating!!! Yeah, like those kids bigger and stronger and faster than ours because they had good training and that's not fair. Hey, while we're at it lets get rid of the two handed players because they are ambidextrious and THAT'S not fair. And finally, get rid of all the brainiacs because they all have the best tutors and isn't that cheating, too!

Like Reply Quote
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by Anonymous
There is no question that holding back, grade repeating, and reclassifying are all done for one reason. It is to gain a competitive, unfair advantage over your competition. This is an indisputable fact. It is also the definition of "cheating" as defined by google, should you decide to search the meaning of the word.
Again, the benefits of taking an athlete and dropping him into a group of kids 1 to 2 years younger and having him compete are very clear.
You need not go any further than the BCS National Championship game last night to see the potential benefits of holding back your kid. The Hiesman winning, Championship winning "FRESHMAN" quarterback was 20 years old! That's right, a 20 year old freshman. Not 17 or 18. Many, many kids are 20 in the beginning of their SENIOR year of college. The afore mentioned QB could play in college till 24 or 25. Surely, he'll be in the NFL before that.
Whether you agree with reclassification or not you cannot dispute the potential benefits. Of course, those benefits come at the expense of others. Hence, the concept of "cheating". Obviously, with Lacrosse there is no NFL, so the big benefit is the prized colleges.
Moving forward, all tournaments, camps, showcases and recruiting events need to be age based with proof of age. Its the only way to take the benefit out of doing this. Clearly, there is nothing you can do about the HS piece. However, by adopting age based, enforced events outside of HS, coaches will be able to determine how good these hold backs really are. Surely, when playing in the HS environment they will excel, when forced to play on age, they may not be so stand out. Better for the colleges and better for the kids.
For those parents that have already done this, no this not whining. It is a clear presentation of the facts and the truth, something you folks don't do well with.


Winston was 18 when he entered Florida State; his birthday is in January and he red-shirted.

Maturity and academic development are both legitimate reasons for parents to hold back their child; it's not all about gaining an athletic advantage.

Reclassifying may affect some "normal" aged children in their ability to be recruited, but it does not affect so many that you think. Where reclassifying really affects other children is at the younger ages where size disparity can lead to injuries.

Reclassification is a reality that parents and children will need to deal with and accept because there is nothing that can prevent it.

Like Reply Quote
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
Joined: Nov 2013
V
Back of THE CAGE
Offline
Back of THE CAGE
V
Joined: Nov 2013
Good post. I agree with premise that it will ultimately come out in the wash. However, I also think the recruiting of 14-15 yo kids is the main driver of reclassing.

A few points on the age issue:
- USLacrosse claims to be "working on" an age verification system to include birth certificate submission;
- USLacrosse can enforce rules by refusing to provide supplemental insurance for the events that don't comply with its age restrictions;
- States have a variety of cut offs for school age. VA is 9/30, NY is 12/31. Current date of September 1 makes us older in VA, but 3 months seems trivial;
- Lax may not have the numbers in non-hotbeds to do individual years (U7, U8, U9 etc);
- Under current guidelines, U15 isn't just 8th grade, it includes 9th grade too (provided kid doesn't play JV).

Assuming USLacrosse gets it together and implements a reasonable system, it seems pretty easy to fix youth lacrosse age issues. In addition, limiting kids to 4 years of HS/JV play will eliminate most of the transfer/repeat/reclass issues during HS years.

Biggest problems are in the U15 year, which is when kids are hitting puberty, are about to start being recruited, and an extra year is very meaningful. Not surprisingly, this is when majority of reclassings occur.

Absent a NCAA recruiting fix, or Gentlemens' agreement among coaches to delay recruiting, I don't think there a perfect solution. Many of the reclassed kids play HS ball anyway, and enjoy best of both worlds. 4 yr HS rule would help.

Bottom line, this is on USLacrosse to fix.

Like Reply Quote
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Wow that was a great post. Did you put a lot of thought into it. I bet you are one of those parents who reclassified your child. Do you pound your chest and feel proud that your child , who is a year older or more is a star on their team ? This thread must have hit a real nerve with you Dad. Try and add something constructive next time.

Like Reply Quote
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Well said VA Lax dad. I have read all of your post. We are on the same page with all of this nonsense . I just wish US Lacrosse would do something about it. Thanks Again. Long Island Lax Dad

Like Reply Quote
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
Joined: Oct 2010
Likes: 1
C
Back of THE CAGE
*
Offline
Back of THE CAGE
*
C
Joined: Oct 2010
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Well said VA Lax dad. I have read all of your post. We are on the same page with all of this nonsense . I just wish US Lacrosse would do something about it. Thanks Again. Long Island Lax Dad
BOTC has actually e-mailed our contacts here on Long Island and we have asked that this thread be passed along to our US Lacrosse peers as a lesson in what is really happening on the ground. Would it surprise you to hear that the Long Island organization responded within five minutes ... and the US Lacrosse organization ... well, let's just say we hope that they opened the e-mail.

Like Reply Quote
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
There is no question that holding back, grade repeating, and reclassifying are all done for one reason. It is to gain a competitive, unfair advantage over your competition. This is an indisputable fact. It is also the definition of "cheating" as defined by google, should you decide to search the meaning of the word.
Again, the benefits of taking an athlete and dropping him into a group of kids 1 to 2 years younger and having him compete are very clear.
You need not go any further than the BCS National Championship game last night to see the potential benefits of holding back your kid. The Hiesman winning, Championship winning "FRESHMAN" quarterback was 20 years old! That's right, a 20 year old freshman. Not 17 or 18. Many, many kids are 20 in the beginning of their SENIOR year of college. The afore mentioned QB could play in college till 24 or 25. Surely, he'll be in the NFL before that.
Whether you agree with reclassification or not you cannot dispute the potential benefits. Of course, those benefits come at the expense of others. Hence, the concept of "cheating". Obviously, with Lacrosse there is no NFL, so the big benefit is the prized colleges.
Moving forward, all tournaments, camps, showcases and recruiting events need to be age based with proof of age. Its the only way to take the benefit out of doing this. Clearly, there is nothing you can do about the HS piece. However, by adopting age based, enforced events outside of HS, coaches will be able to determine how good these hold backs really are. Surely, when playing in the HS environment they will excel, when forced to play on age, they may not be so stand out. Better for the colleges and better for the kids.
For those parents that have already done this, no this not whining. It is a clear presentation of the facts and the truth, something you folks don't do well with.


Winston was 18 when he entered Florida State; his birthday is in January and he red-shirted.

Maturity and academic development are both legitimate reasons for parents to hold back their child; it's not all about gaining an athletic advantage.

Reclassifying may affect some "normal" aged children in their ability to be recruited, but it does not affect so many that you think. Where reclassifying really affects other children is at the younger ages where size disparity can lead to injuries.

Reclassification is a reality that parents and children will need to deal with and accept because there is nothing that can prevent it.


Winston IS a 20 yo freshman, red shirt or not. As reported by ESPN last night.
Correction: We may have to deal with cheating I mean "reclassification", but we definitely don't have to accept it.

Like Reply Quote
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
This is college sports. This is life. It sucks, but it's the way it is. And we all make choices that build our personal character.

Yes, I agree US Lacrosse should do something about it. I agree colleges should do something about it. I agree parents shouldn't make initial contact so early...and yes, I agree those trying to gain unfair advantage with age and physical maturity should wear a big red 'L' on their chest.

Know what's interesting though? I just did a 15 minute search on wikipedia for the top ten lax players that came to my mind...starting at a time of a famous goalie to a recent Tewaaraton winner. Would you believe they all started college at 20 years old? Try it for yourself. I was shocked and saddened. Birth year/first year of college.

I chose not to list them out of respect, although much of that respect is now lost... (I can see them all now, frantically removing their birth dates!)...and ironically(?), they are all the main ambassadors of the sport we love. So we consumers are at fault too, giving them the support.

I instantly realized this issue has been going on for a very long time, my friends. And for a brief moment, I was jealous I didn't take an extra two years of development to dominate even more, and become part of the money making machine.

This is not a recent phenomenon.

Like Reply Quote
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by Anonymous
This is college sports. This is life. It sucks, but it's the way it is. And we all make choices that build our personal character.

Yes, I agree US Lacrosse should do something about it. I agree colleges should do something about it. I agree parents shouldn't make initial contact so early...and yes, I agree those trying to gain unfair advantage with age and physical maturity should wear a big red 'L' on their chest.

Know what's interesting though? I just did a 15 minute search on wikipedia for the top ten lax players that came to my mind...starting at a time of a famous goalie to a recent Tewaaraton winner. Would you believe they all started college at 20 years old? Try it for yourself. I was shocked and saddened. Birth year/first year of college.

I chose not to list them out of respect, although much of that respect is now lost... (I can see them all now, frantically removing their birth dates!)...and ironically(?), they are all the main ambassadors of the sport we love. So we consumers are at fault too, giving them the support.

I instantly realized this issue has been going on for a very long time, my friends. And for a brief moment, I was jealous I didn't take an extra two years of development to dominate even more, and become part of the money making machine.

This is not a recent phenomenon.


I am a huge proponent of enforced age based rules and despise those that game the system. That being said, there is a tremendous difference between gaming the system at 16 and playing with 14 years olds to increase your standing at a freshman recruiting event and taking a PG year after you earned your way fair and square. Many times that PG year is truly academic based. Even if it is athletic based, those that chose to do it are not doing it at another's expense. Big difference between the two situations. I'm sure the majority of the guys you're talking about are PG type guys... Let's hope.

Like Reply Quote
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A

Correct this is a sport where they have been playing down for as long as I can remember. I remember going into homeroom on the first day of school (a long time ago) and seeing new faces... Not to the school but to the grade. And it was for Lax. Going age based takes care of this on the youth level (which I wish US lacrosse would enact ASAP) however, it will still be done on the school level. It doesn't bother me on the school level - but on the youth level it is gaining an unfair advantage because of the disparity of how kids mature. But it makes no sense to spread the age groups in two year intervals. Just go U9, U10, U11, U12 etc. to U15 - put a corresponding birth day rage with each age (Sept 1st - Aug 31st) and then go grade in two year intervals on the JV & Varsity level. Really, why is so hard. This would end the debate and if parents choose to hold back their child (which I don't begrudge) the child plays with the right age group up to HS.

I may be over simplifying a very hot topic, but what am I missing.


Like Reply Quote
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
I do believe that taking a PG year to mature academically and ready yourself for a school is very different from reclassifying in 8th grade or red-shirting in Kindergarten.

Many of the older players who took Post Grad years did so because they needed to as a contingency for acceptence to Lax U which would not of admitted them without lacrosse and without the PG.

I think this is a reasonable decision for an adult (18 yr old) to make and therefore very different from reclassifying and/or red-shirting in kindergarten.

In the post grad case there is no age based physical advantage gained during the recruiting period (no lacrosse cheating).

I am strongly opposed to reclassifying 13 year olds and red-shirting 5 yr olds, but if my son has an opportunity to attend a top school available only with a willingness to PG then I will support.

For your old school lax heroes you should check date of birth vs. HS graduation date. If you agree with me, perhaps you will start respecting some of them again

Like Reply Quote
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
To me the schools take a big risk by committing earlier. What if the kid gets hurt or otherwise cannot play? If you get him as a junior then you have one more year of lacrosse (and other sports) to survive. But for every year earlier that you take a kid the university is at greater risk that he won't be able to play or be the player they hoped by the time he arrives on their campus. Of course he could work hard, get stronger, etc. and be more of a beast on arrival......but it just seems so early.

Like Reply Quote
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
A parent of a true 2017 14 yr old here who stands 5'11" about 177 lbs. middle of '99 birth date.

It has been my observation that while there are numerous reclassifieds out there; the lax abilities of those kids who are true 2017's are not overwhelmed by the age differential. Both large and smaller 2017's who are in the puberty stage appear to be able to hold their own quite proficiently.

However; the size discrepancy does present a challenge for those who have yet to reach the puberty stride and thus they are at a disadvantage in that respect, but I've seen some amazing "little" kids outshine these reclassifieds on so many occasions that it doesn't seem to matter after a while. Thankfully, there aren't that many injuries sustained as a result of these differentials in age and size. Sure some larger and older specimens need to rely on aggression to compete but that won't change significantly in their lax careers.

"Stealing" potential recruitment spots is probably less significant than assumed by most.
Clearly, those kids with talent will be noticed by recruiters eventually. Be it in the age appropriate class or a year later. The players who are destined to play in D1-3 programs will hopefully most likely get a chance to do so.

I would argue that most of the objections to all of this are generated by the families of players who are are on that proverbial cusp of being "elite" and who might likely be over shadowed by a reclassified player. I contend that given time, they will mature into the great players they want to be and land with a good program.

It's the early recruiting frenzy that has lit many fires of insecurity. I am not opposed to the early commitment process. It will eventually reveal itself to be just another wrinkle in the recruiting process that will be contended with and ultimately not be as large a factor as the hype is purporting it to be.

As long as the player(s) in question are mature enough, be they reclassifieds or not, and can be safely guided through this gauntlet by their parents and coaches, there should be little impact that will place them under undo stresses.

For these early commitment players, academic indices will be met or not. Abilities will prove to be sufficient or not. There will be "pressures" on committed players and non-committed players alike to continue to strive and achieve as they are wont to do.

This is not a new concept to these upper level players and they and their parents will choose that which is appropriate for them. They are all clearly high achievers with respect to lax.

It will remain to be revealed whether or not they can continue to develop both academically and athletically, as it will be for any player with hopes of playing at the next level.

Let them play. The chips will fall where they are supposed to.

Like Reply Quote
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Seventh grader Oliver Wahlstrom has committed to play college hockey for Red Gendron at the University of Maine. Just weeks after Springfield Cathedral goaltender Keith Petruzzelli became the first '99 in the country to commit, Wahlstrom one-upped him. Wahlstrom was born June 13, 2000, meaning he won't turn 14 for another six months, which makes him the youngest player to ever commit to an NCAA college hockey program.

Like Reply Quote
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
Joined: Oct 2010
Likes: 1
C
Back of THE CAGE
*
Offline
Back of THE CAGE
*
C
Joined: Oct 2010
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Seventh grader Oliver Wahlstrom has committed to play college hockey for Red Gendron at the University of Maine. Just weeks after Springfield Cathedral goaltender Keith Petruzzelli became the first '99 in the country to commit, Wahlstrom one-upped him. Wahlstrom was born June 13, 2000, meaning he won't turn 14 for another six months, which makes him the youngest player to ever commit to an NCAA college hockey program.
Although off-topic to lacrosse, here are two videos of this junior league player at nine and ten years of age. He will be eligible to participate at the University of Maine in the Fall 2019 semester.

This child has incredible stickwork and skating skill as you can see. Being from Yarmouth, Maine, this is his home town college and the family might well be season ticket holders for Maine. (For those not familiar with NCAA Division I's Hockey East Conference, the level of competition is the very best in the country and the college varsity teams play a tremendous brand of hockey.)




Like Reply Quote
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
By his birthdate he should be in 8th grade. Probably doesn't matter, I bet he plays for H.S. team already. You would think a kid with his skills would be playing Juniors in Canada and try to be drafted at 17-18.

Like Reply Quote
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
That may be true that he should be in 8th grade but unlike lacrosse when it comes to tournament play he has to play with kids that were born his same year. Wish US Lacrosse would adopt the same system. I believe that a large percentage of the NHL have birthdays in the first three months of their birth year.

Like Reply Quote
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by Anonymous
That may be true that he should be in 8th grade but unlike lacrosse when it comes to tournament play he has to play with kids that were born his same year. Wish US Lacrosse would adopt the same system. I believe that a large percentage of the NHL have birthdays in the first three months of their birth year.


That's because age matters... It's all about physical maturity and development. Why else would all these sleaze bag parents do this? For academics? No, to gain an unfair advantage, period!

Like Reply Quote
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Let's everyone agree, those that reclass their kids in 8th and 9th grade are gaming the system for an athlitic advantage...unlike that parent who holds back his late developing child in kindergarden.

Reclass=cheating
hold back for maturity reasons=smart parenting

If you are a parent that reclassed your kid, you are the cheater, there is simply no way around it. If you were being fair, you would just send your kid to a pg year, but you dont, you do it when the size difference makes your kid a standout.

check out the 2018 forum, dukes bringing kids that are now 2 years older...sad silly people...

Like Reply Quote
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Let's everyone agree, those that reclass their kids in 8th and 9th grade are gaming the system for an athlitic advantage...unlike that parent who holds back his late developing child in kindergarden.

Reclass=cheating
hold back for maturity reasons=smart parenting

If you are a parent that reclassed your kid, you are the cheater, there is simply no way around it. If you were being fair, you would just send your kid to a pg year, but you dont, you do it when the size difference makes your kid a standout.

check out the 2018 forum, dukes bringing kids that are now 2 years older...sad silly people...


I think it is all the same, kindergarden holdback, 9th grade reclass, PG year at prep and non medical redshirt in college.

Like Reply Quote
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Let's everyone agree, those that reclass their kids in 8th and 9th grade are gaming the system for an athlitic advantage...unlike that parent who holds back his late developing child in kindergarden.

Reclass=cheating
hold back for maturity reasons=smart parenting

If you are a parent that reclassed your kid, you are the cheater, there is simply no way around it. If you were being fair, you would just send your kid to a pg year, but you dont, you do it when the size difference makes your kid a standout.

check out the 2018 forum, dukes bringing kids that are now 2 years older...sad silly people...


I think it is all the same, kindergarden holdback, 9th grade reclass, PG year at prep and non medical redshirt in college.


And that is the problem... It is not all the same! How manty times does it have to be spelt out. They are all cheating but not all the same severity.
Least PG earned the spot and needs to get grades up.
Middle kinder holdbacks do it because the child isn't ready at 5yo (gaming the system to put your child in a better life situations.
Worst any hold back after 2nd grade for sports reasons. Because if the kid was held back for grades do you think they should be so committed to a sport and not the books.


Like Reply Quote
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
LOL. Nobody cares about this except some random dads in Long Island.

Like Reply Quote
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
That may be true that he should be in 8th grade but unlike lacrosse when it comes to tournament play he has to play with kids that were born his same year. Wish US Lacrosse would adopt the same system. I believe that a large percentage of the NHL have birthdays in the first three months of their birth year.


That's because age matters... It's all about physical maturity and development. Why else would all these sleaze bag parents do this? For academics? No, to gain an unfair advantage, period!


That is ridiculous. The number of kids that do not start kindergarten or repeat kindergarten are doing so because they are not ready emotionally, academically, physically or socially. The percentage of parents that are thinking about their kid being a D1 player some day are very small. Most parents spend many nights worrying about their kid not being on par with their peers, and you are going to say they are cheaters? The few that do think that holding their kid back at kindergarten for athletics will have other issues down the road, but like others have said- most sports require player passes with birth dates- so if they want to play hockey or baseball or another sport- they will play with their correct age. It would be smart for US Lacrosse to follow in their lead, but clearly there is a huge difference in someone repeating kindergarten or starting a year late, as opposed to parents holding their kid back in 8th or 9th grade.

Like Reply Quote
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
My kid is in 2nd grade but birthday is May. I want to hold him back. He has great stick skills so when held back he will be even more dominate.

Can someone give me advice on the best way to hold him back? What grade?do I have to send him to pvt school? Thanks for the help!


Like Reply Quote
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
EXCELLENT

Like Reply Quote
Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!
Joined: Oct 2010
Likes: 1
C
Back of THE CAGE
*
Offline
Back of THE CAGE
*
C
Joined: Oct 2010
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by Anonymous
My kid is in 2nd grade but birthday is May. I want to hold him back. He has great stick skills so when held back he will be even more dominate.

Can someone give me advice on the best way to hold him back? What grade?do I have to send him to pvt school? Thanks for the help!
Our advice would be to seriously review the criteria you are using to decide your child's future.

If that doesn't convince you holding back a second grader is wrong, why not put it all on your son? Encourage him to cut class, fail exams, become socially inept, and perhaps even have some behavioral issues with the teacher - and principal. That should do the trick.

Second, please learn the difference between dominate (a verb) and dominant (an adjective)? If you want to be snarky in a post, you have to at least make the effort to use the language properly.

Sometimes, I really wonder whether folks are visiting Colorado and then coming back on an overnight flight with some of these posts.

Like Reply Quote
Page 1 of 21 1 2 3 20 21
Quick Reply

Options
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
CAPTCHA Verification



Link Copied to Clipboard







Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.4