NOBODY DOES IT BETTER
Most Recent Posts
Boys 2023 - 7th Grade Fall 2017/Summer 2018
by Anonymous. 12/12/17 06:02 PM
Sky Walkers Lacrosse
by Anonymous. 12/12/17 05:38 PM
Boys 2025 - 5th Grade Fall 2017/Summer 2018
by Anonymous. 12/12/17 05:25 PM
Boys 2023 - 7th Grade Fall 2017/Summer 2018
by Anonymous. 12/12/17 04:14 PM
Girls 2021 - 9th Grade Fall 2017/Summer 2018
by Anonymous. 12/12/17 04:07 PM
Boys 2020 - 10th Grade Fall 2017/Summer 2018
by Anonymous. 12/12/17 03:50 PM
Forum Statistics
Forums13
Topics1,225
Posts215,908
Members1,871
Most Online3,796
Oct 23rd, 2017
SUBSCRIBE


Previous Thread
Next Thread
New Reply
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Page 1 of 30 1 2 3 29 30
#50976 - 01/06/14 06:20 PM Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!  
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 4
lax516 Offline
Back of THE CAGE
lax516  Offline
Back of THE CAGE

Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 4
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.

Top Reply Quote
BACK OF THE CAGE SPONSORS

#50981 - 01/06/14 07:49 PM Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! [Re: lax516]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


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.

Top Reply Quote
#50982 - 01/06/14 08:36 PM Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! [Re: Anonymous]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


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 ?

Top Reply Quote
#50985 - 01/06/14 08:50 PM Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! [Re: Anonymous]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


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.

Top Reply Quote
#50988 - 01/06/14 10:23 PM Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! [Re: lax516]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


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.

Top Reply Quote
Sponsored Links
#50992 - 01/07/14 07:46 AM Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! [Re: Anonymous]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


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.

Top Reply Quote
#50995 - 01/07/14 08:22 AM Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! [Re: lax516]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


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.

Top Reply Quote
#50996 - 01/07/14 08:35 AM Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! [Re: Anonymous]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


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.

Top Reply Quote
#51007 - 01/07/14 11:12 AM Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! [Re: Anonymous]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


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.

Top Reply Quote
#51008 - 01/07/14 11:28 AM Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! [Re: Anonymous]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


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

Top Reply Quote
Sponsored Links
#51011 - 01/07/14 11:36 AM Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! [Re: Anonymous]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


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.

Top Reply Quote
#51014 - 01/07/14 12:17 PM Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! [Re: Anonymous]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


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

Top Reply Quote
#51018 - 01/07/14 12:24 PM Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! [Re: Anonymous]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


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.

Top Reply Quote
#51020 - 01/07/14 12:54 PM Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! [Re: Anonymous]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


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

Top Reply Quote
#51025 - 01/07/14 01:33 PM Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! [Re: Anonymous]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


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!

Top Reply Quote
Page 1 of 30 1 2 3 29 30
Quick Reply

Options
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
Image Verification




TOURNAMENTS/SHOWCASES
Martin Luther King Jr. - Girls LAX Tournament
Harding Battle by the Bay
Harding Summer Sunset
Andy Forsberg Memorial Lacrosse Tournament
JC17 Memorial Shootout for Dreams
New York Lacrosse Academy Boy's HS Showcase
The Boy's Und1sputed Showcase
LI Girl's Showcase
LI Boy's Showcase
CAMPS & CLINICS
Duke Lacrosse Winter Camp & Goalie School
FOGOLAX Academy Mini Camp
Lax Clinics at The Athlete Zone
Long Island Lady Outlaws Girl's Lacrosse Clinic
Long Island Outlaws Boy's Lacrosse Clinic
LACROSSE COMPANY'S
Lacrosse Unlimited Team Sales
LEAGUES
Boys Winter 7v7 Indoor Lacrosse League
Harding Fall Twilight-Sept 14th 2018
BOTC SPONSORS

FOLLOW US ON TWITTER



Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0