"Be specific, you talk mostly about accolades they received while still in HS. You talk about the 14 that played on the U-19 out of the 14 1 has been benched, one started to split time with a frosh, one definitely did not live up to expectations ( though her sister is exceeding expectation) 2 are starters on team that are on a down turn (one of which didn't even make tournament this year) and thats just off the top of my head. and just for giggles, the alternate won Tawaarton, a non traditional team won the tournament with non of your top 58, and the #1 team for most of the year didn't have any either. so maybe UA, Inside lacrosse and schoo lgirls is really just what people, a popularity contest"
You really are a dope, the Tewaaraton winner was an early recruit so it goes against your moronic argument, the national champs were led by several players that as freshman and sophomores by your standards would have been players that did not pan out and no one is saying there are not players who were recruited late that will successful in college.
Is english a second language for you? The T winner was an early recruit, yes , But that was not your "moronic" argument was it. Your "moronic" argument was the top 58 girls ( Why 58 is anyones guess but mine is that it means something to you) The T winner was not in your precious top 58, neither were any of the Tournament champs, or any girl on the team ranked #1 for most of the year. Now I may be a "dope" to you, but at least I can form a coherent sentence, and follow my own train of thought, both thing you seem to struggle with. I stand by my original statement, selection to UA, Nike, and School girls is mostly a popularity contest.
A couple simple points that even a stunad like you can understand
1)11. Sam Apuzzo | M | West Babylon (N.Y.) | Boston College
Copied directly from inside lacrosse recruit rankings you dope . So you understand being ranked 11 puts you in the top 58
2) You are responding to several different posters , why he picked 58 I have no idea
3) Your original statement had nothing to do w UA etc was about early recruits not planning out
4) You may be the most uneducated poster out there .
The posts that started it... Below: Notice the last line,,,
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
So this year's senior class is one of the last of the super early recruiting classes. Share opinions of whether you think the college coaches who committed 9th graders 3 years ago got it right or wrong. I see several top seniors who were overlooked in 9th and 10th grade, but really peaked in 11th and 12th who are not going to top tier lacrosse schools. Certainly in some cases the top college teams got it right with the younger girls, but in my opinion it was pretty much 50% of the early commits had strong junior and senior campaigns and 50% have not quite panned out yet. What do other people think?
The coaches would be beyond thrilled if 50% of the recruits panned out, the real number tops out around 25-30% and sometimes it can be much less. How many times have you heard ND #1 recruiting class in the country or Florida top #3 recruiting class in the country and the have nothing to show for it.
This year ND put the weight of the team on a freshman, what happened to all the studs from the previous three classes? The were not as good as the coach thought they were! Coaches get it wrong at all levels of every sport more often than not, it's nothing more than a calculated guess and a numbers game. How many Heisman trophy winners have had exceptional NFL careers?
I think it’s an impossible subject to comment on as most do not want to post negative things about young women . To say 25-30 % at best pan out is ridiculous as no one really knows what these coaches expectations of these players really was nor what type scholarship they were receiving . I can tell you that of the players from my daughters travel team a greater number panned out than did not .
If there's 30-40 players on any given roster, 15 play meaningful minutes - that's just reality, no bias, nothing negative, just reality and numbers, around 50% (according to Bald Bear) will no longer be playing by senior year. If a coach recruits 8-10 kids they know the majority won't be impact players
The majority of top recruits do pan out. The majority of top recruits at the top programs do not stop playing.
Take a look at this years freshman class the majority of top recruits were impact players at powerhouse programs.
I know many of you want these young women to fail but the reality is the majority of the top recruits go on to have successful college careers.
this is just not true. Looking at the 2015 class, out of the top 50players, maybe 5 panned out to be truly top players. If anyone can come up wit more, prove it.
