US Lacrosse Community Forum Forums NORTHEAST LACROSSE BOTC MAIN FORUM (LI, CT, WC) Boys 2017 Fall 2013/Summer 2014

relax 2018 parent, little Johnny is not committing anytime soon. The majority of the kids you see committing at the moment represent the best of the 2017 class and it is still relatively a small number of kids. The 2017 commits will start really revving up during the fall and next summer. Lets calm down a little.

I would not put it past UNC or UVa to commit a kid before first day of high school. Last year Breschi did it in September for a 2017, so we are really picking at the nit as to whether someone pushes it weeks or a month earlier than that. Maybe Breschi and Starsia consider it their competitive advantage. If you look closely, the earlier and earlier lunacy is limited to a recruiting rivalry between UNC, UVa and Hopkins. I find it interesting that all three are very good academic schools and the admissions directors have not spoken up against it. At bottom if I were are JHU alum I would be disgusted to have a degree from a world class university pulling this crap for a lacrosse team.

McLernan can't hear your complaints, he's got wads of $100 bills stuffed in his ears from you suckers that pay the high price for his tournaments...And don't call Breakers weak

For anyone that thinks age isn't a factor in this sport, go take a look at the Under Armour 2017 Uncommitted teams. A large majority of them are 1998 Birthdays and many of them have 1997 birthdays. So lets hear the Maryland and PA parents come on here and tell us it doesn't make a difference. What an absolute farce

Thoughts anyone?[/quote]

You are an idiot. The seeding for the playoffs was due to goal differential and other criteria, not an arbitrary "these teams on one side, the other teams on the other side".

[/quote]

Nice post, Ryan.

You do realize there are some rising Sophomores that are not only advanced on the field but in the classroom as well. It is not uncommon that a player has completed their NYS Math and Science requirements entering into their 2nd year of HS. Some of these students could have also taken a Bio SAT. Not sure if these are the same kids but it is possible.

To your Alum comment, I would take a 90 avg Student elite athlete (as above) over a 97 student only. I think the alum would be proud of such a recruit.

I think you missed the mark. The above is making reference to kids committing before high school or very early in Fall of freshman year. No grades, no scores. Let a kid get his 90 in a high school classroom for at least a year and put up a PSAT score at a minimum. As a UVa alum who'd like to believe UVa is a great school, I think it is disgraceful and an embarrassment to the institution to waive in children.

That last comment is really too much....If you think 90 average athletes rule the world you have spent too much time on this site.

You do realize there are some rising Sophomores that are not only advanced on the field but in the classroom as well. It is not uncommon that a player has completed their NYS Math and Science requirements entering into their 2nd year of HS. Some of these students could have also taken a Bio SAT. Not sure if these are the same kids but it is possible.

To your Alum comment, I would take a 90 avg Student elite athlete (as above) over a 97 student only. I think the alum would be proud of such a recruit. [/quote]

We all realize there are exceptional and gifted kids in New [lacrosse]. I am a lacrosse mom with a medical degree from JHU. My husband has an undergraduate degree from JHU. I think it is a disgrace to admit kids as rising high school freshman or freshman without grades and scores. JHU is a world class research university. If a kid has a special talent like lacrosse, that is fine but no kids should get a pass from meeting basic requirements. There is always Towson State for that.

For that UVA ALUM - there is a light at the end of the tunnel. It's just a train that will run you over!

I think you are too much. 90 avg ELITE athletes do contribute the world. They have much on their plate and still are able to balance the work load. Many of these student are in those AP and advanced courses with those 97 avgs.

Has anyone actually looked at the pools for Crabfeast? Why the complaints? One national or top team, one very good or regional team, and the rest are mostly good "local" teams. Hardly "glorified rec" teams except for the one that lost to Turtles by 20. Tourney gave many teams a shot at the reigning great teams. Great teams came through with the best 2017 coming out on top. Teams were seeded 1-10 based on record and goals against then other criteria including head to head. To say that Crabs head set up the bracket his way is probably giving him way too much credit. If Mesa did not fall asleep in their last game and give up 3 quick goals, they would have been 2nd seed opposite the turtles and this whole comment would be moot as Crabs would have been same side as Turtles. After day 1, Turtles, Crabs, Mesa, Dukes, Building Blocks, and Edge were 3-0. Son's team one of the good but not great teams and it was fun to play others outside of the usual MD/NY matchups.

I did take a look at the roster and I wouldn't create hysteria over it. Yes, there are some early '98 birthdays and even a couple of '97's, but 3/4 of the roster are on-age. This might not be enough for the on-age fans, but it's hardly a disadvantage to be a true 2017.

And C+ students run the world... A students are the professors that teach B students to work for the C student. He was bored with school, barely graduated and created the company. Most highly successful Entrepreneurs are C students and many never graduated. Sorry.

How many Ward Melville kids are playing on the Outlaws Team?

Fact is the two best teams played in the championship, Crabs vs Turtles. Classic MD vs LI and Turtles (LI) win it. Great job by both teams to reach this final game with 40 teams in the Crabfeast.

Very hard to disagree that the Turtles are the #1 2017 team in the land. Undefeated at Adrenaline Platinum Cup & undefeated at Crabfeast.

Is it true turtles have 10 division 1 commits already?

You do realize that that entering your sophomore year in high school it is impossible to complete your three years of regents required math classes. At best a sophomore would be in the third math regents class. So your statement carries no weight at all.

Because youre not one of them or know who has accomplished this please dont spew your opinion as fact. Many students take integrated algebra in 7th. This allows them to complete their regents requirement at the end of freshman year. These same students know which schools they have as their top 3.

Uva is not on the list but hopkins and cornell are.

There are 2 2017 uncommitted teams with a total of 48 kids. There are at least 26 kids with 1998 or 1997 birthdays on the rosters. So I don't know where you went to school but how is that any where near 3/4 of the rosters being on age? So your statement of being a true 2017 not being a disadvantage is equally misleading. Only true 2017's should be allowed to tryout for a 2017 team, plain and simple. One of the kids on the roster has a June of 1997 birthday! That's not an advantage? He took the spot of a "true" 2017, end of discussion. Nice try though........

There are 2 2017 uncommitted teams with a total of 48 kids. There are at least 26 kids with 1998 or 1997 birthdays on the rosters. So I don't know where you went to school but how is that any where near 3/4 of the rosters being on age? So your statement of being a true 2017 not being a disadvantage is equally misleading. Only true 2017's should be allowed to tryout for a 2017 team, plain and simple. One of the kids on the roster has a June of 1997 birthday! That's not an advantage? He took the spot of a "true" 2017, end of discussion. Nice try though........ [/quote]

I have to believe that pretty soon lacrosse will wind up at what larger participation sports like soccer and hockey do...just make club play age level. U-9, U-11, U-13, U-15, U-17 and U-19. You can go to high school at a 16 year old freshman 2017, but in club ball you play U-17. If parents want their kids home until they are 21 graduating high school, go have at it. But the only field he can play at years older than his peers is high school season.

If all these "reclassified" kids who turned 16 as high school freshmen in Winter or Spring were playing U-17 ball this Summer, I'd wager we'd bee seeing a very different complexion of early recruiting. I am from Baltimore, and with rare exceptions of the local guys down the street at Hop or Loyola, coaches can't go out of zip code to watch high school lacrosse. And even if they are local they can't do much to watch HS ball because of their own season.

If a kid is really all that, and is lit it up as a reclassified 16 y.o. freshman at an MIAA school or a LI school then I say legit. I saw very very few examples of that in MD this Spring. If the evaluation is 16 y.o. lighting it up in 2017 club ball in Fall or Summer, then I say fraud.

I think a lot of the early recruiting drama with the parents on this thread and the early recruiting stupidity of the 2017s age advantage deltas on the field gets made if club ball was just straight up U-15 or U-17. My 2017 could be U-15 still by that and would look like a moose in a china shop. A lot of the preppy kids who are 16 would be getting smoked as undersized U-17s. Stick skills don't save 5'7 and 140 middies in this sport that has evolved a lot.

The oldest 17 uncommitted plays for the Crabs, drove himself to Jake Reed Blue Chip...win at any cost, that's the Crab way...they put a good team on the field, granted a year or 2 older than the competition...boycott their camps, boycott their tournaments if it bothers you that much, if not, ignore it and live with it

"I don't know where you went to school...." That's funny and immature.

You need to do the math better. Later 1998 birthdays are legitimate 2017's in many areas. So, again, 3/4 of the roster are on age.

Not denying that the early '98's and especially the '97's can get people like you all riled up, but the roster hardly reflects an unfair advantage. Just worry about your kid getting better and stronger. They'll be a better player for it.

So how is this for real math or couting:

DOB 1997 = 5
DOB 1998 = 20
DOB 1999 = 21
then there are 2 w/o DOB's.

DOB in 1998 in Dec = 5
DOB in 1998 in Nov = 2

So excluding the 2 w/o DOB's and including the Dec and Nov 1998, there would be 28 out of 46....pull your calculators out if you need to but still not 3/4. Plus there is one DOB 1997 kid(?)that lists his accolades as playing on the 2016 Laxachusets team last year and 2017 Laxachussetts team this year.

Don't you people have anything else to do?

No, actually.

So, the calculator says 65% (thank God for that invention). Don't forget, on-age crusader, that you must also include September and October for on-age 2017 kids.

Sure, there may be some reclassed kids. You would know since you are really tackling this forensically. My 3/4 assessment was cursory, because really, this issue doesn't demand that kind of effort. However, no doubt most are kids who started school later, which is a worthy parental decision if your child is born close to the school cutoff date.

March on soldier.

I think you are completely missing the point. For example, there is one kid on the 2017 uncommitted roster who just turned 17 he is a full 2 years to almost 3 years older than most on age 2017's as you call them. Do you think maybe that helped him get a spot? Do you think he might have had an advantage at tryout time? He took a spot from a kid that was a legit 2017, that's the point. Im sure your cavalier attitude is most definitely due to the fact that your intimately familiar with this whole concept, so your child is one that is benefiting.

The kid who turned 17 couldn't figure out the
correct percentage either, hence his being a 17 year
old rising sophomore.

The 3/4 guy keeps saying that 3/4 are age appropriate. No matter how many times he says it or insults people that point out he is wrong, he is still wrong. My 2017 was born in October 1999 and is on a top club team and played varsity this year so yes, he played with and against older kids. I think the point is with these teams such as Under Armour is that the boys who are two years older should be embarrassed to be on a 2017 team when they are 17 or 16. 5 years old. Play with your age. Pretty simple concept unless you can't hang with your age on the filed.

Let's be honest, there's a reason the kids that are born before the sept 1 US lacrosse cutoff are uncommitted. 17?? and uncommitted, news flash, your not that good. You can drop these kids back as far as you want, bottom line it will all catch up to them. what is an advantage today will dissipate in college, and the college coaches are keenly aware of that.

Not at all denying that there are some age discrepancies, so to speak. I'm just suggesting that it's not as prevalent as originally portrayed. Believe it or not, I'm also critical of the reclass strategy for athletic reasons. We're on the same side of the fence. So, no, my son is not benefitting from a holdback and is, in fact, a summer '99 birthday.

My "cavalier" attitude simply comes from the fact that I make sure my son is smiling everyday he plays the game, and that he plays because he loves it. I teach him self respect, integrity and that hard work is the runway to achievement. From there it's up to him to train hard to achieve. We'll leave the system gaming to others. The cream does rise to the top.

Ill end this argument by disagreeing with you once again and I will reiterate that this reclassifying and holding back is VERY prevalent and the Under Armour team was just one example of it. I happen to have a late November 1999 son and he plays pole for a decent club team. The fact of the matter is had he tried out for Under Armour he would have no shot against kids that are 1 1/2 to 2 years older than him. The size, speed and physical maturity difference is quite drastic at this age as you know. It all evens out in 11th and 12th grade for the most part, but with the early recruiting that is going he is most definitely at a extreme disadvantage. I too teach my son to work hard, keep a positive attitude and persevere, however I also teach him not to stand by when there is unfairness or injustice and to speak up for yourself and what's right. Nothing will change unless people change it. Like a previous poster said, play with your age group, I don't think that's too much to ask.

As you may think you ended the argument all you did was continue it. Your son is now going into his 2nd yr of HS now; it is all grade based. Your son playing to get noticed by colleges and they want to know when one graduates. In HS it isn't even grade base but mixed grade based.

My son is also a summer boy I realize unfortunate things do happen you just need to work through them and persevere.

Ill end this argument by disagreeing with you once again and I will reiterate that this reclassifying and holding back is VERY prevalent and the Under Armour team was just one example of it. I happen to have a late November 1999 son and he plays pole for a decent club team. The fact of the matter is had he tried out for Under Armour he would have no shot against kids that are 1 1/2 to 2 years older than him. The size, speed and physical maturity difference is quite drastic at this age as you know. It all evens out in 11th and 12th grade for the most part, but with the early recruiting that is going he is most definitely at a extreme disadvantage. I too teach my son to work hard, keep a positive attitude and persevere, however I also teach him not to stand by when there is unfairness or injustice and to speak up for yourself and what's right. Nothing will change unless people change it. Like a previous poster said, play with your age group, I don't think that's too much to ask. [/quote]

Why not just have open field teams in club tournaments once they are done with 8th grade? All these kids are in high school and here we are believing they need to be recruited as 9th or 10th graders. When they get to college as freshman they have to compete with upperclassmen, and are playing on HS teams now with upperclassmen. The reclassified game has made it so that kids years apart anyways despite the 2017 label.

The bottom line is how in the world does a 17 yr old get to call himself a 2017? It matters at these individual showcases. When a 17yr old can call himself a freshman theres something really wrong.

This article sums it up pretty nicely

http://deadspin.com/my-father-happens-to-be-from-jamaica-and-he-ran-high-sc-1570498629

Why is lacrosse not like elite club soccer? Soccer is all age based. Girls playing U-16, U-17 can be in odd school years as holdbacks. Nobody in soccer seems confused if they are recruiting a specific U16 kid who is a 2017 or a 2016 at a tournament. Do we have a confidence problem that NCAA lacrosse coaches can't read the school year from a tournament roster sheet?

Crabs have a few players close to, if not 17 on the 2017 team...look at the school they attend, BL is a notorious dumping ground for children with poor academic skills. The coaches love to wait and grab them from other prep schools promising them an easier education and a chance to play lacrosse at a high level...no different than Alabama or Florida State

Dear Duke Daddy,
Your son has no accomplished YOUR main goal. He repeated a grade so he could be a better athlete and commit to a school. Now, get the [lacrosse] of this site!

Check this out:
http://future150.com/hs/basketball-rankings/2015/

can go by class for NCAA men's basketball for commits:

31 of the top 150 in 2015 class
6 of the top 150 in 2016 class
1 of the top 100 in 2017 class

Just interesting to note how another larger and wildly more competitive NCAA sport goes along on it. The best basketball recruits are mostly losers, especially 99 of the 2017s.

No kidding
http://www.boyslatinmd.com/document.doc?id=1910

Take away the lacrosse admissions office exceptions and SUNIJ at Parsippany is a reach for BL kids.