Home
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.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/07/14 12:49 AM
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.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/07/14 01:36 AM
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 ?
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/07/14 01:50 AM
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.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/07/14 03:23 AM
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.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/07/14 12:46 PM
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.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/07/14 01:22 PM
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.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/07/14 01:35 PM
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.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/07/14 04:12 PM
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.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/07/14 04:28 PM
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
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/07/14 04:36 PM
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.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/07/14 05:17 PM
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
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/07/14 05:24 PM
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.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/07/14 05:54 PM
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
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/07/14 06:33 PM
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!
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/07/14 07:06 PM
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.
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.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/07/14 10:39 PM
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.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/07/14 10:49 PM
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
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.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/08/14 12:25 AM
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.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/08/14 03:47 AM
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.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/08/14 12:14 PM
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.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/08/14 12:50 PM

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.

Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/08/14 01:10 PM
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
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/08/14 09:54 PM
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.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/09/14 12:16 AM
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.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/10/14 04:12 PM
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.
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.)



Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/10/14 05:52 PM
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.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/10/14 07:17 PM
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.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/10/14 07:40 PM
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!
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/10/14 08:22 PM
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...
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/11/14 12:44 AM
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.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/11/14 03:46 AM
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.

Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/11/14 05:32 AM
LOL. Nobody cares about this except some random dads in Long Island.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/11/14 12:36 PM
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.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/11/14 12:49 PM
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!

Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/11/14 12:51 PM
EXCELLENT
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.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/11/14 01:40 PM
Originally Posted by CageSage
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.


Sage strikes early!
at least he could try and bring some back from Colorado and let his kid take it to school...that ought to do the trick...a year in Juvie is kinda like a PG but early, no?
:-)
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/11/14 03:05 PM
Justify all you want. However you justify it, it all comes down to the same thing. People are trying to help their children. They want to give their child an advantage that will help them in some way.

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

It is all done to help the kid gain an advantage.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/11/14 04:08 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
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.


Don't be so surprised how big the number of kinder holdbacks is for more than emotional, academic or physical reasons. They know what they are doing. Academically, If you are lucky enough to be in a town with an accelerated program how many of them are the kinder hold backs. An overwhelming majority. Why?because their parents held hem back not for sport but to gain another advantage, an academic year advantage over a new set of younger peers. Sports or academics doesn't matter still Gaming the system.

I wonder how many of the accelerated programs in the LI schools are made up of the "older" student body for the grade. And how many are made up of the younger "sept -dec".

In one of my child's grade, over 60% of the students in the ap program have a prior years birth year. 30% are grade birth year jan/mar and 4 (yes 4) are kids with June through Dec birth years correct for the grade.

So why are the 60% in the wrong year, simply because the parents wanted to game the system and make sure their kids were the top in their grade.

I see this in two scenarios. One, well educated wealthy families who saw their college friends do this for years and the moms didn't have to return or go to work. Two, families are doing it with their second or third child. Who after seeing it first hand in their other older children's classes figured why shouldn't I too.

Argue all you want. One side says I'm doing it to further my family and put them in the best situation I can. Why is that so wrong? The other side says by doing what you do you have put my family at a disadvantage. Life is more dumb luck and timing than being good at something. It is truly better to be lucky than to be good.

Originally Posted by Anonymous
I wonder how many of the accelerated programs in the LI schools are made up of the "older" student body for the grade. And how many are made up of the younger "sept -dec".
I can tell you categorically that "accelerated programs" and "academic holdbacks" are diametrically (SAT Word of the Day) opposing terms. In fact, you will more often find students "playing up" in accelerated academic settings. The difference of birth month within the academic calendar year is a non-issue.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/11/14 07:49 PM
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.


The big difference between lacrosse and hockey is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, for hockey it is the NHL ant they base the draft on Birth year, for lacrosse it is NCAA D1 an they base recruiting on grades so it will never change - my son is a 2000 birth year 2018, I do not want him playing against 2000 birth year 2019's or 2020's because it will do nothing for him from a recruiting point of you,
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/11/14 09:42 PM
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.


The big difference between lacrosse and hockey is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, for hockey it is the NHL ant they base the draft on Birth year, for lacrosse it is NCAA D1 an they base recruiting on grades so it will never change - my son is a 2000 birth year 2018, I do not want him playing against 2000 birth year 2019's or 2020's because it will do nothing for him from a recruiting point of you,


Can someone please do a birth year comparison on the MLB draft last night? Aren't we all focused on the 1,000 mll game check?
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/11/14 09:46 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Justify all you want. However you justify it, it all comes down to the same thing. People are trying to help their children. They want to give their child an advantage that will help them in some way.

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

It is all done to help the kid gain an advantage.


I live in the city and psycho parents here holdback too but for academic advantages. If you have a kid born after June the pvt schools won't even accept them and force you to hold back.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/12/14 12:15 AM
Originally Posted by CageSage
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I wonder how many of the accelerated programs in the LI schools are made up of the "older" student body for the grade. And how many are made up of the younger "sept -dec".
I can tell you categorically that "accelerated programs" and "academic holdbacks" are diametrically (SAT Word of the Day) opposing terms. In fact, you will more often find students "playing up" in accelerated academic settings. The difference of birth month within the academic calendar year is a non-issue.


In my district, the good majority of students playing up academically are the students who should be a year ahead in the first place. gaming the system.

Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/12/14 09:21 PM
If you have $$ and hire private tutors and trainers for your son, and send him to he best camps and training sessions that money can buy (and few of his peers can afford), is that a form of cheating similar to holding back? Is it an unfair advantage? I know families who have bought their sons a hundred or more private sessions at 60 bucks a pop with excellent college players. Is that fair, especially to those of us who cannot afford it?

My son is a very good 8th grader, but he may "lose" a college spot to a holdback. We live in VA near DC and the first three verbals from our area for 2017 are holdbacks. It is a little annoying but, as with love and war, all is fair when it comes to your children. My two cents.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/12/14 11:15 PM
there are people that can afford to pay to give their kids the best possible shot. For those people I say go have at it. those people still have their kid competing against others hi/her own age.

For other that hold their kid back for an advantage, the have crossed the line. they are cheating because they are taking advantage of other kids that are not as physically or mentally mature. We have all seen the studs that stand head and shoulders above everyone else on the field because they are a year older. Unlike, the age appropriate kid that just hit his growth spurt early...

You can all justify but in your heart of heart, you know you are cheating.

Hope you can sleep well.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/12/14 11:27 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
If you have $$ and hire private tutors and trainers for your son, and send him to he best camps and training sessions that money can buy (and few of his peers can afford), is that a form of cheating similar to holding back? Is it an unfair advantage? I know families who have bought their sons a hundred or more private sessions at 60 bucks a pop with excellent college players. Is that fair, especially to those of us who cannot afford it?

My son is a very good 8th grader, but he may "lose" a college spot to a holdback. We live in VA near DC and the first three verbals from our area for 2017 are holdbacks. It is a little annoying but, as with love and war, all is fair when it comes to your children. My two cents.


Working hard, making the most of your advantages, and maximizing one's potential relative to one's peers, is admirable. Providing those advantages and encouragement is good parenting.

Holding a kid back to change his peer group to gain an advantage is gaming the system. There is very little to admire in that situation.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/13/14 12:29 AM
Unc just goes a commit from Texas. 2017 who will be taking a PG. I think that should be a new low, unc taking an effective 8th grader....
Originally Posted by CageSage
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.


Very impressive CS. Thank you for reaching out to USL. I registered my son today on a website requiring USL membership. This notice popped up:
Confirmation of Birthdate

If the birth date is incorrect or invalid and results in your child being assigned to an incorrect age group, the US Lacrosse membership for your child and all benefits that accompany membership, including supplemental accident insurance coverage and the ability to play at events that require US Lacrosse membership, may be voided and/or terminated.
Please confirm the birthdate enter is correct. Y/N

This seems like a positive first step. Hopefully they will continue to refine the process


Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/14/14 04:32 AM
No silly. The 2017 from Texas is really a 2016 who will reclass as a 2017 when he does his pg year. He is currently a sophomore.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/14/14 12:51 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Unc just goes a commit from Texas. 2017 who will be taking a PG. I think that should be a new low, unc taking an effective 8th grader....


I think this is a 2016 reclassifying to 2017??? can anyone confirm?
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/14/14 03:56 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Unc just goes a commit from Texas. 2017 who will be taking a PG. I think that should be a new low, unc taking an effective 8th grader....


I think this is a 2016 reclassifying to 2017??? can anyone confirm?


Oh, God, no!!!!! Now 8th graders are taking 2017 spots away from the precious Long Island boys! Be happy you have good delis and pizza...oh yeah, and Jones Beach
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/14/14 07:45 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Unc just goes a commit from Texas. 2017 who will be taking a PG. I think that should be a new low, unc taking an effective 8th grader....


I think this is a 2016 reclassifying to 2017??? can anyone confirm?


Oh, God, no!!!!! Now 8th graders are taking 2017 spots away from the precious Long Island boys! Be happy you have good delis and pizza...oh yeah, and Jones Beach


Uhh that would be a 10th grader... 2016 DOWN to 2017 is a 10th going to 9th. I'll agree on the Deli's pizza and beach though.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/15/14 05:42 PM
Interesting, is this how they do it in Texas for football.

Start Kindergarten late so a 2016 becomes 2017 (but in texas the start date is Sept 1 so late is a relative term), then reclassify in 8th grade so that the original 2016 is no longer a 2017 and now becomes a 2018. Do a PG year on top of that and truly become a 2019.

Someone who should have graduated from college 2020, instead graduates 2023.

Crazy huh.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/15/14 07:36 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Unc just goes a commit from Texas. 2017 who will be taking a PG. I think that should be a new low, unc taking an effective 8th grader....


I think this is a 2016 reclassifying to 2017??? can anyone confirm?


Oh, God, no!!!!! Now 8th graders are taking 2017 spots away from the precious Long Island boys! Be happy you have good delis and pizza...oh yeah, and Jones Beach
Maybe you should have been a "Hold Back " to get your grades up, then you would have understood it's a 2016 doing a PG to re-classify as a 2017.What will happen when all the LI parents start holding back to game the system? what will the Md parents do? hold back 2 years? 3 years?
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 06/23/15 03:33 PM
USL is reluctant to take a stand. The USL could do it in a minute if they wanted to. A calendar cut-off works in hockey universally. Why wouldn't it work in lacrosse?

It is "the haves($$)" vs. the have-nots. The haves ($$) get the early advantage, but the have-nots do catch-up by sophomore/junior year of high school. In Greenwich, CT, an undisputed hot-bed of talent, the public school kids play on the "B" youth teams, and the private school kids play on the "A" youth teams simply due to the size/maturity advantage of the extra year. Yet, by sophomore/junior year of high school, it all evens out. The only folks kidding themselves here are the parents and the D1 coaches making bad choice.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 06/23/15 03:37 PM
I read Outliers too. Malcolm Gladwell's fact on the NHL stats were contrived. Trust me, the birth months are random. It all evens out. Good athletes will rise to the top of the pack.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 06/23/15 04:27 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I read Outliers too. Malcolm Gladwell's fact on the NHL stats were contrived. Trust me, the birth months are random. It all evens out. Good athletes will rise to the top of the pack.


Have you been to or heard any of his recent forums. Gladwell asserts some of his findings are being screwed due to the obvious fact that once a larger population takes advantage of a situation... it no longer becomes an advantage (in the future and sort of becomes the norm and no longer a benefit)... and for those that are not able to take the advantage it now becomes a significant disadvantage... for those who are not able!



Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 06/24/15 09:27 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
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!


This is a ridiculous post. No one is suggesting any of this. Just suggesting age based.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 06/24/15 10:10 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
USL is reluctant to take a stand. The USL could do it in a minute if they wanted to. A calendar cut-off works in hockey universally. Why wouldn't it work in lacrosse?



it works in hockey because the golden ring in hockey is the NHL draft that is also birth date based, in lacrosse the golden ring is a spot on a college team and that is, was and always will be grade based. Also in hockey you have most kids playing Junior trying to get to the NHL once they realize that is not happening they go to college usually as 20 year old freshman much like a lax player that re-classifies and PG's.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 06/24/15 11:13 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
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!


This is a ridiculous post. No one is suggesting any of this. Just suggesting age based.


Yes, that's what reclass parents say to try to justify their cheating ways!
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 06/25/15 01:53 AM
I dont care if kids are reclassified. My son has been playing up his whole career. In fact he got his offer because he went to a school camp and played up as a 7th grader against Varsity. He is actually small for his age. The reality is in college you have to play against older bigger faster stronger kids. Get used to it now and you will be much better off for the experience. In the meantime do lots of wall ball. The wall doesnt know your age.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 06/25/15 01:52 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I dont care if kids are reclassified. My son has been playing up his whole career. In fact he got his offer because he went to a school camp and played up as a 7th grader against Varsity. He is actually small for his age. The reality is in college you have to play against older bigger faster stronger kids. Get used to it now and you will be much better off for the experience. In the meantime do lots of wall ball. The wall doesnt know your age.


I think you missed the point!

I too was in a similar situation as you and your son; my son played up from 2nd grade up (and I am not talking a late birthday). I was comfortable moving him up because he was a piece on a team of older boys. Just as your son was playing against older boys he was also playing with older boys. You are only as good as you surround yourself with.

Now I highly doubt you would have played your son up with a full team of other boys on his age. That is the issue. Many of us can state our sons played up but not many can boast they did it with a complete team playing up (sans Turtles and Crush don't need to hear age bickering there).


Also knowing what you are up against is good sportsmanship policy. Choosing to play up verses having to play a team on your schedule (who is supposed to be on age and isn't) is two different things.

Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 06/25/15 03:04 PM
If you hold your kid back in school for freakin lacrosse they should take your kid away from you. If your child has a change of mind about the sport or has a serious injury or after all your efforts just isn't that good you will look back at your ludicrous decision and say what the [lacrosse] was I thinking?

You are the nuts I watch on HBO's documentary "State Of Play" which is about crazy sport parents and their kid's who hate them.

Do any of you hold back parents know the names of your kid's teachers? Or when their next test is? Or what they got on the last one? Probably not, but you have the lax coaches cell phone number and you can recite your kids stats faster then you can say your phone number. Sad...

Good players will play in college no need for hold backs.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 06/25/15 04:52 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I dont care if kids are reclassified. My son has been playing up his whole career. In fact he got his offer because he went to a school camp and played up as a 7th grader against Varsity. He is actually small for his age. The reality is in college you have to play against older bigger faster stronger kids. Get used to it now and you will be much better off for the experience. In the meantime do lots of wall ball. The wall doesnt know your age.


If your son, as a 7th grader, played against varsity players and earned a scholarship offer, than he is/was one of the top 1% players in the world at his age. You can not take the experiences of a kid this athletic and talented and use it as a guide for all kids in general. It would be like a lottery winner advocating that buying lottery tickets is a sound investment simply because it worked for him.

The large majority of youth players, even including many that play on high level travel teams, will not be able to compete adequately against older players, and as such, will not develop and not have fun.

Moreover, as someone else has said, there is a big difference between choosing to have your son play against older kids (because he is uniquely athletic and talented) vs having it forced upon someone who signed their kid up for a 2020 team, drove him 200 miles to a tournament, only to see him walk onto a field opposite a group of 15 year olds.

And please stop with the wall ball. Yes, tons of wall ball will make you a better player, but it will not affect a boy's inherent speed, athleticism, quickness and strength. For 99% of 7th graders, all the wall ball in the world will not make them competitive against varsity players. For most of them, tons of wall ball is necessary to simply make them competitive against elite kids their own age.

As for the analogy to college, the last I checked, no one is playing college until they are 18 (some may be 17 when they start college but they all should be at least 18 by the time the real games start). At this age, these individuals are essentially men, and can compete with 20 year olds. Telling a 12 or 13 year old to suck it up and play against older kids because they will have to play 20 year olds when they are 18 is just plain silly.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 06/25/15 05:20 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I dont care if kids are reclassified. My son has been playing up his whole career. In fact he got his offer because he went to a school camp and played up as a 7th grader against Varsity. He is actually small for his age. The reality is in college you have to play against older bigger faster stronger kids. Get used to it now and you will be much better off for the experience. In the meantime do lots of wall ball. The wall doesnt know your age.


If your son, as a 7th grader, played against varsity players and earned a scholarship offer, than he is/was one of the top 1% players in the world at his age. You can not take the experiences of a kid this athletic and talented and use it as a guide for all kids in general. It would be like a lottery winner advocating that buying lottery tickets is a sound investment simply because it worked for him.

The large majority of youth players, even including many that play on high level travel teams, will not be able to compete adequately against older players, and as such, will not develop and not have fun.

Moreover, as someone else has said, there is a big difference between choosing to have your son play against older kids (because he is uniquely athletic and talented) vs having it forced upon someone who signed their kid up for a 2020 team, drove him 200 miles to a tournament, only to see him walk onto a field opposite a group of 15 year olds.

And please stop with the wall ball. Yes, tons of wall ball will make you a better player, but it will not affect a boy's inherent speed, athleticism, quickness and strength. For 99% of 7th graders, all the wall ball in the world will not make them competitive against varsity players. For most of them, tons of wall ball is necessary to simply make them competitive against elite kids their own age.

As for the analogy to college, the last I checked, no one is playing college until they are 18 (some may be 17 when they start college but they all should be at least 18 by the time the real games start). At this age, these individuals are essentially men, and can compete with 20 year olds. Telling a 12 or 13 year old to suck it up and play against older kids because they will have to play 20 year olds when they are 18 is just plain silly.


Thank you well said
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 06/25/15 08:39 PM
I call bull on this one. 7th grader who is small for his age against what varsity players?? Where was it that he was so good or the varsity players were so bad that he stood out enough to get an "OFFER" Because that is all it is an "OFFER". This kid has 5 more seasons of HS ball and if he does not grow or get better or have the grades that "OFFER" can easily go away. In addition 5 years is a long time I hope the coach is still there
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 06/25/15 08:43 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I dont care if kids are reclassified. My son has been playing up his whole career. In fact he got his offer because he went to a school camp and played up as a 7th grader against Varsity. He is actually small for his age. The reality is in college you have to play against older bigger faster stronger kids. Get used to it now and you will be much better off for the experience. In the meantime do lots of wall ball. The wall doesnt know your age.


If your son, as a 7th grader, played against varsity players and earned a scholarship offer, than he is/was one of the top 1% players in the world at his age. You can not take the experiences of a kid this athletic and talented and use it as a guide for all kids in general. It would be like a lottery winner advocating that buying lottery tickets is a sound investment simply because it worked for him.

The large majority of youth players, even including many that play on high level travel teams, will not be able to compete adequately against older players, and as such, will not develop and not have fun.

Moreover, as someone else has said, there is a big difference between choosing to have your son play against older kids (because he is uniquely athletic and talented) vs having it forced upon someone who signed their kid up for a 2020 team, drove him 200 miles to a tournament, only to see him walk onto a field opposite a group of 15 year olds.

And please stop with the wall ball. Yes, tons of wall ball will make you a better player, but it will not affect a boy's inherent speed, athleticism, quickness and strength. For 99% of 7th graders, all the wall ball in the world will not make them competitive against varsity players. For most of them, tons of wall ball is necessary to simply make them competitive against elite kids their own age.

As for the analogy to college, the last I checked, no one is playing college until they are 18 (some may be 17 when they start college but they all should be at least 18 by the time the real games start). At this age, these individuals are essentially men, and can compete with 20 year olds. Telling a 12 or 13 year old to suck it up and play against older kids because they will have to play 20 year olds when they are 18 is just plain silly.


Thank you well said

Oh please. How many guys get drafted in the NFL that termed 'developmental" and need to put mass on. Another year or two of getting bigger is a bonus. Often in the NFL teams are leery of a guy who dleayed college and comes out at 23 or 24 because he peaked. Holding back is a clear advantage and the only ones who claim its fair is the ones who do it
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 06/26/15 03:09 AM
The mere fact that your 7th grade son has a "career" spells volumes about you as a parent. Must be a blast in your house. Read about a guy by the name of Todd Marinovich and his "career" very eye opening.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 06/26/15 04:23 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
The mere fact that your 7th grade son has a "career" spells volumes about you as a parent. Must be a blast in your house. Read about a guy by the name of Todd Marinovich and his "career" very eye opening.
why all the hate?
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 06/26/15 02:05 PM
Comparing college football to lacrosse, seriously? One has 100,000 people watching games on any given Saturday and one has 100 people in the stands. One has the potential for players to make 20+million a year in a league and one has a league that pays $200 per game. So if you want to argue holdback at least their MIGHT again MIGHT be a chance at a monster payout in football.

If you are holding your kid back with hopes of a 50% athletic offer your are misguided.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 06/26/15 02:54 PM
I agree, also its almost never 50 percent. Its maybe 25 percent. Also rhe 100 people in the stands are mostly kids parents. Holding a kid back to play lacrosse. I don't get it. Then everytime your kid plays well, it sits in the back of your head, my son did well, but he is a yr older than everyone else. You can say you don't think about it, you can act like you don't think about it. But you do think about it. Its a legal thing to do, but it isn't the rite thing to do and everyone knows it.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 06/26/15 03:56 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I agree, also its almost never 50 percent. Its maybe 25 percent. Also rhe 100 people in the stands are mostly kids parents. Holding a kid back to play lacrosse. I don't get it. Then everytime your kid plays well, it sits in the back of your head, my son did well, but he is a yr older than everyone else. You can say you don't think about it, you can act like you don't think about it. But you do think about it. Its a legal thing to do, but it isn't the rite thing to do and everyone knows it.


A true stud (of course all holdbacks are studs lol) can get +50% but that is probably less than 1% of the kids. You are right, most GOOD players are fighting for that 15-30% offer.

What's a joke is the parents that are holding kids back, paying $5,000+ a year on summer lax, camps, clinics and travel expenses are usually still only getting .25% SO WHATS THE POINT???
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 06/26/15 04:12 PM
Parents that do that, travel , camp, clinics etc. There is nothing wrong with that. I do that too. I'm not looking at it, to make money or I should say save money on school one day. I do the same thing for my other son with baseball. I'm giving my kids all the opportunitys to do well, and they are having fun which is most important. However to make a kid repeat a grade, to play lax. Thats crazy. Kids graduating high school at 20. Unreal what people do to get an edge.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 06/26/15 07:59 PM
Think you need to do a little more research. A four year college degree at a school that is not SUNY will cost $120,000 on average. You don't need to be a stud to get a 50% scholarship. My brother plays at a D2 school, was one of the better players on a not so good HS team, and pays $0 for his college education. He started playing travel lax in 5th grade, so that's 7 years of fees and showcases, so figure about $20,000. I would say that's a pretty good return on investment.

Now he also has a head on his shoulders and does well in school, so if you are one of the crazies who preaches lax all day all night, and your kid can't spell "cat", odds are you won't be getting that scholarship...
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 06/26/15 08:38 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Think you need to do a little more research. A four year college degree at a school that is not SUNY will cost $120,000 on average. You don't need to be a stud to get a 50% scholarship. My brother plays at a D2 school, was one of the better players on a not so good HS team, and pays $0 for his college education. He started playing travel lax in 5th grade, so that's 7 years of fees and showcases, so figure about $20,000. I would say that's a pretty good return on investment.

Now he also has a head on his shoulders and does well in school, so if you are one of the crazies who preaches lax all day all night, and your kid can't spell "cat", odds are you won't be getting that scholarship...


Here's some research for you...12.6 d1 or 10.8 d2 available men's scholarships for rosters of 40 or more kids. There are 59 d1 programs, 47 d2 that's 1251 scholarships a year if all programs use their allotment (and many don't because they aren't fully funded).

So if you just averaged it out, most will get .25-.35 and even more will get ZERO vs a full ride
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 06/29/15 11:44 AM
Again, keep researching. Does he have a full "athletic" scholarship, of course not. If you are not heavily recruited by major schools, you aren't getting one them. He gets $10,000 a year as a lacrosse scholarship. However, most programs will also offer academic scholarships which are reasonably attainable. He keeps a 3.2 GPA, and that is where the other $20,000 a year comes in.

At the end of four years his lax career will be over but he will be debt free and have a college degree to start his life.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 06/29/15 12:00 PM
Does anyone have any experience with combining financial aid with athletic scholarship. Does the scholarship money get deducted from the aid money zip?
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 06/29/15 06:32 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Does anyone have any experience with combining financial aid with athletic scholarship. Does the scholarship money get deducted from the aid money zip?


Financial Aid (need based) or Academic awards (earned through outstanding academics)?

Most from LI get the second, not the first
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/03/15 04:27 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I dont care if kids are reclassified. My son has been playing up his whole career. In fact he got his offer because he went to a school camp and played up as a 7th grader against Varsity. He is actually small for his age. The reality is in college you have to play against older bigger faster stronger kids. Get used to it now and you will be much better off for the experience. In the meantime do lots of wall ball. The wall doesnt know your age.


If your son, as a 7th grader, played against varsity players and earned a scholarship offer, than he is/was one of the top 1% players in the world at his age. You can not take the experiences of a kid this athletic and talented and use it as a guide for all kids in general. It would be like a lottery winner advocating that buying lottery tickets is a sound investment simply because it worked for him.

The large majority of youth players, even including many that play on high level travel teams, will not be able to compete adequately against older players, and as such, will not develop and not have fun.

Moreover, as someone else has said, there is a big difference between choosing to have your son play against older kids (because he is uniquely athletic and talented) vs having it forced upon someone who signed their kid up for a 2020 team, drove him 200 miles to a tournament, only to see him walk onto a field opposite a group of 15 year olds.

And please stop with the wall ball. Yes, tons of wall ball will make you a better player, but it will not affect a boy's inherent speed, athleticism, quickness and strength. For 99% of 7th graders, all the wall ball in the world will not make them competitive against varsity players. For most of them, tons of wall ball is necessary to simply make them competitive against elite kids their own age.

As for the analogy to college, the last I checked, no one is playing college until they are 18 (some may be 17 when they start college but they all should be at least 18 by the time the real games start). At this age, these individuals are essentially men, and can compete with 20 year olds. Telling a 12 or 13 year old to suck it up and play against older kids because they will have to play 20 year olds when they are 18 is just plain silly.


First of all I didn't advocate the playing up posture for everyone. In fact I am the first to admit I probably made a mistake doing this, and unnecessarily put my kid at risk.

All I am saying is 1) my son did play up at an early age,2) it helped him get recruited and 3) it helped him play significantly on varsity as a freshman on a quality team. It is the counter point to all the people who claim holding back gives an unfair advantage as he was small for his age and continues to be undersized.


Yes as you point out he has inherent speed, is athletic, has quickness and strength. However, without the years of wall ball he would not be able to make use of those skills. Wall ball combined with IQ really is what makes the difference. One of the reasons I think I made a mistake with the playing up was my kid became overly reliant on athleticism . As time has gone by, I realize more and more the stick skills are what set kids apart and I think those are better developed in an age appropriate setting which I am doing with my son now.

I am not the only parent that believes playing can be beneficial in certain circumstances.

A great example are the Turtles, they always played up and look where that got them.

I think the held back kids are at a disadvantage. They learn to beat up on less mature kids.



Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/10/15 05:05 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I dont care if kids are reclassified. My son has been playing up his whole career. In fact he got his offer because he went to a school camp and played up as a 7th grader against Varsity. He is actually small for his age. The reality is in college you have to play against older bigger faster stronger kids. Get used to it now and you will be much better off for the experience. In the meantime do lots of wall ball. The wall doesnt know your age.


If your son, as a 7th grader, played against varsity players and earned a scholarship offer, than he is/was one of the top 1% players in the world at his age. You can not take the experiences of a kid this athletic and talented and use it as a guide for all kids in general. It would be like a lottery winner advocating that buying lottery tickets is a sound investment simply because it worked for him.

The large majority of youth players, even including many that play on high level travel teams, will not be able to compete adequately against older players, and as such, will not develop and not have fun.

Moreover, as someone else has said, there is a big difference between choosing to have your son play against older kids (because he is uniquely athletic and talented) vs having it forced upon someone who signed their kid up for a 2020 team, drove him 200 miles to a tournament, only to see him walk onto a field opposite a group of 15 year olds.

And please stop with the wall ball. Yes, tons of wall ball will make you a better player, but it will not affect a boy's inherent speed, athleticism, quickness and strength. For 99% of 7th graders, all the wall ball in the world will not make them competitive against varsity players. For most of them, tons of wall ball is necessary to simply make them competitive against elite kids their own age.

As for the analogy to college, the last I checked, no one is playing college until they are 18 (some may be 17 when they start college but they all should be at least 18 by the time the real games start). At this age, these individuals are essentially men, and can compete with 20 year olds. Telling a 12 or 13 year old to suck it up and play against older kids because they will have to play 20 year olds when they are 18 is just plain silly.


First of all I didn't advocate the playing up posture for everyone. In fact I am the first to admit I probably made a mistake doing this, and unnecessarily put my kid at risk.

All I am saying is 1) my son did play up at an early age,2) it helped him get recruited and 3) it helped him play significantly on varsity as a freshman on a quality team. It is the counter point to all the people who claim holding back gives an unfair advantage as he was small for his age and continues to be undersized.


Yes as you point out he has inherent speed, is athletic, has quickness and strength. However, without the years of wall ball he would not be able to make use of those skills. Wall ball combined with IQ really is what makes the difference. One of the reasons I think I made a mistake with the playing up was my kid became overly reliant on athleticism . As time has gone by, I realize more and more the stick skills are what set kids apart and I think those are better developed in an age appropriate setting which I am doing with my son now.

I am not the only parent that believes playing can be beneficial in certain circumstances.

A great example are the Turtles, they always played up and look where that got them.

I think the held back kids are at a disadvantage. They learn to beat up on less mature kids.




I agree with your analysis
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/13/15 11:57 PM
I also agree. This is the first season (2019) that my son is not playing up and I truly believe it helped prepare and push his development.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/14/15 02:04 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I also agree. This is the first season (2019) that my son is not playing up and I truly believe it helped prepare and push his development.


Confused, not playing up helped him prepare and develop?
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/14/15 12:04 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I also agree. This is the first season (2019) that my son is not playing up and I truly believe it helped prepare and push his development.


Confused, not playing up helped him prepare and develop?


Not the poster, but he meant his kid has always played up and has gotten better through the years in doing so, but this year as he is older is playing on age.

Playing up and on age is for the talented kids, in ALL states. It's the way to go. Coaches will notice a talented kid and be more impressed when seen against older kids not younger ones.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/14/15 04:50 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I also agree. This is the first season (2019) that my son is not playing up and I truly believe it helped prepare and push his development.


Confused, not playing up helped him prepare and develop?


My son has always played with older kids (played up) and this year he is playing for the first time with kids his age. Playing up over the years (IMO), really helped push his development and he enjoyed the challenge.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/15/16 03:47 PM
US Lacrosse Adopts New Player Segmentation Policy


US Lacrosse today announced a new player segmentation policy to ensure player safety, competitive fairness and a consistent experience for youth lacrosse. The US Lacrosse Board of Directors approved the policy in January, and it takes effect Sept. 1, 2017 (earlier adoption is encouraged).
Policy highlights include grouping players by single-age years, using Sept. 1 as the determining date for a player's age and as the first day of a 12-month playing calendar, and standardizing nomenclature that lists the age first, i.e., 12U.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/15/16 04:36 PM
About time. So if your birthday is August 31, you would be the oldest on your team correct?
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/15/16 05:00 PM
correct.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/15/16 05:17 PM
US Lacrosse Adopts New Player Segmentation Policy

from press release | Twitter

BALTIMORE US Lacrosse, the national governing body for mens and womens lacrosse, has adopted a new player segmentation policy to help ensure player safety, competitive fairness and a consistent experience for youth lacrosse. The policy was approved by the US Lacrosse Board of Directors in January.

In order to allow leagues, programs and events to adjust, the policy will go into effect on September 1, 2017, but groups are encouraged to begin following the policy sooner if logistics permit.

We want this to happen as soon as possible, but we know it will take some time for people to adapt to these changes, said Kristen Murray, vice chair of the US Lacrosse Board of Directors and chair of the task force that recommended the policy. We need to keep driving it forward, because this is whats best for the kids.

Among the notable items in the player segmentation policy:
An emphasis on grouping players by single-age years (12-month span).
Age is based on players age as of September 1 in an attempt to align with the majority of school systems nationwide to allow players to play with people in their own grade level.
Firmly defined playing season that begins its 12-month cycle on September 1.
Standardized nomenclature that lists age first, i.e., 12U.

In order to help leagues and events monitor the age of participants, US Lacrosse has developed an online age verification system, which includes a review of a birth certificate or other legal document to confirm a players birth date.

All of these things player segmentation, age verification, athlete development improve the quality of competition, play and overall experience, said George Leveille, a task force member who also serves as organizer of the popular Summit Lacrosse Tournament in Lake Placid, N.Y. The new player segmentation policy was designed to increase participation by making it a more enjoyable and safer playing experience.

Rules for each age group will be determined by the US Lacrosse rules subcommittees. The rules subcommittees meet each spring and summer to propose rules, which are voted on by the US Lacrosse Board of Directors in September. The rules for each age group will be in sync with the Lacrosse Athlete Development Model, a new initiative for US Lacrosse launched this year.

Members of the lacrosse community wishing to provide input to the rules change process can do so by visiting the following links:

Boys: http://www.uslacrosse.org/rules/boys-rules/boys-rule-change-proposal-form.aspx

Girls: http://www.uslacrosse.org/rules/girls-rules/girls-rule-change-proposal-form.aspx

US Lacrosse recognizes that many leagues and programs are currently grouped in age spans beyond 12 months. For local league and community-based play, organizations may form teams with up to a 24-month age variance if necessary to ensure participation. If two age groups are combined, the even year age should be the maximum age for the paired segment (i.e., 7U/8U) and teams with a greater than 12-month variance must play by the rules for the youngest age group of the team. Local organizations that choose to form teams with a 24-month variance should have appropriate risk management policies and planning in place to ensure that player safety is not compromised.

A chart with the player segmentations for the 2016-17 and 2017-18 seasons is available here.

A task force that included US Lacrosse staff, volunteers, and lacrosse leaders from around the country developed the player segmentation policy. A complete copy of the policy is available on the US Lacrosse web site. Helping to guide the decision making process was a research-based position paper on recommendations for youth lacrosse participation published in 2011.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why did the US Lacrosse Board of Directors adopt this policy?

The US Lacrosse Board of Directors adopted the player segmentation policy for three primary reasons: Player safety, competitive fairness and consistent experience for participants.

Why was age chosen to segment players?

Age is the best indicator for determining how to group children due to physical and cognitive development. It is also the most easily verified method to segment players. The new US Lacrosse age verification system will assist leagues and events in ensuring that players are segmented properly. However, the age groupings were designed to align as closely as possible with students grade level in school so that they can participate with their classmates.

What happens if there are not enough players to field a team using the new segmentations?

The task force recognized that some programs will not have enough players to segment by single-aged years. Provisions are included to allow 24-month age segmentations for local league and community-based play, if necessary, to ensure participation. The aim of the policy is to improve the experience for everyone in order increase participation, not discourage it.

Why was September 1 chosen as the start date of the season?

The playing season was firmly defined as September 1 through August 31 of each year to help ensure consistency. The fall date was chosen as the start date for the new season, as the majority of teams use the fall to begin their preparation for the upcoming spring and summer seasons.

Why is the age listed first on the groupings?

The nomenclature for age groupings was changed to have the age listed first for clarity and to allow for a clear break between youth (14U and younger) and scholastic (15U to 18U) lacrosse. Previously, the U15 level was considered youth, but often included age-eligible high school players. Those situations will be limited in the new structure.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/15/16 05:29 PM
No, August 31 will make you the YOUNGEST on the team.September 1 birthday will be the oldest kid on the team.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/15/16 05:29 PM
That's a drag for the boys who have Fall birthdays. They will be playing down with kids in a lower grade versus playing with their friends
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/15/16 05:46 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
About time. So if your birthday is August 31, you would be the oldest on your team correct?

Youngest.
The oldest is 9/1
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/15/16 05:54 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
correct.


I don't think so. Guidelines on USL website show 9/1 through 8/31 as one tranche. An August birthday would be the youngest on the team. Correct me if I got that wrong.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/15/16 06:02 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
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.


are you joking? those people don't give a damn about fair and square.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/15/16 06:09 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
About time. So if your birthday is August 31, you would be the oldest on your team correct?


Youngest. A Sept 1st birthday would be the oldest.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/15/16 06:39 PM
I just read the release. So my son who is Nov 2002 birthday is presently in 8th grade and plays 2020 will be reclassified next year/summer (2017) to U14 (8th grade equivalent) and be the equivalent of reclassified to 2021 for tournaments with travel and play 8th graders even though he will have finished his first year of high school?

Am I understanding this correctly?
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/15/16 06:50 PM
You can always play up but you cannot play down. your son can keep playing 'up' with his grade. You have a choice now.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/15/16 06:55 PM
I think the idea is to do away with grade based play completely
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/15/16 07:00 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I just read the release. So my son who is Nov 2002 birthday is presently in 8th grade and plays 2020 will be reclassified next year/summer (2017) to U14 (8th grade equivalent) and be the equivalent of reclassified to 2021 for tournaments with travel and play 8th graders even though he will have finished his first year of high school?

Am I understanding this correctly?


Yes but you can always play up.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/15/16 07:00 PM
But US Lacrosse guidelines are not used by anyone today in competitive lacrosse which is where the issue really lies. Why would this be expected to change?
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/15/16 07:05 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I just read the release. So my son who is Nov 2002 birthday is presently in 8th grade and plays 2020 will be reclassified next year/summer (2017) to U14 (8th grade equivalent) and be the equivalent of reclassified to 2021 for tournaments with travel and play 8th graders even though he will have finished his first year of high school?

Am I understanding this correctly?


Don't over complicate it. He will be playing with and against only kids who were born on or between September 1, 2002 and August 31, 2003. Who cares what grade the kids are in.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/15/16 07:14 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I just read the release. So my son who is Nov 2002 birthday is presently in 8th grade and plays 2020 will be reclassified next year/summer (2017) to U14 (8th grade equivalent) and be the equivalent of reclassified to 2021 for tournaments with travel and play 8th graders even though he will have finished his first year of high school?

Am I understanding this correctly?


You are correct. He will not be forced to play down a grade he can still play up with his classmates if you choose to. He can not play down a grade if he chooses to reclassify
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/15/16 07:21 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I just read the release. So my son who is Nov 2002 birthday is presently in 8th grade and plays 2020 will be reclassified next year/summer (2017) to U14 (8th grade equivalent) and be the equivalent of reclassified to 2021 for tournaments with travel and play 8th graders even though he will have finished his first year of high school?

Am I understanding this correctly?


You are correct. He will not be forced to play down a grade he can still play up with his classmates if you choose to. He can not play down a grade if he chooses to reclassify
Ha and isn't that the way it should be? I'd love to know the number of kids who decide against repeating 8/9th grade this Fall.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/15/16 07:55 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I just read the release. So my son who is Nov 2002 birthday is presently in 8th grade and plays 2020 will be reclassified next year/summer (2017) to U14 (8th grade equivalent) and be the equivalent of reclassified to 2021 for tournaments with travel and play 8th graders even though he will have finished his first year of high school?

Am I understanding this correctly?


You are correct. He will not be forced to play down a grade he can still play up with his classmates if you choose to. He can not play down a grade if he chooses to reclassify
Ha and isn't that the way it should be? I'd love to know the number of kids who decide against repeating 8/9th grade this Fall.



my son has a late nov 2002 birthday and will not repeat 8th grade . has too many close friends to hold back

Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/15/16 08:01 PM
rule is for sandbagging parents. Play up as high as you like just no more cheating hold backs and playing down
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/15/16 08:01 PM
Hopefully these age guidelines will become the norm but club teams, tournaments have a lot invested in grade system. USL makes guidelines but doesnt have power to force on tournaments or leagues they dont directly run. Theyve always advocated age guidelines but with 2 year gaps u11,u13 etc. So this is only a start and it will be interesting to see if clubs and tournaments follow.

also i think this is for youth lacrosse not HS. So in the case of a fall bday in NY, he'd be among the older kids (at least locally) and play with and against kids in the grade below during his youth days. Then in 9th grade become one of the youngest. Could be good or bad for that kid depending on your viewpoint
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/16/16 04:56 PM
I am very curious about several aspects:
1. How will most of the clubs implement this rule in the "suggested" season (2016-17). (I know the current season is just starting.)

2. How will the tournaments respond?

3. How will U.S Lacrosse implement verification? Anyone who has been a member for X number of years is grandfathered. all new players submit proof to a "certifying official" at a US Lacrosse sanctioned tournament. Or leave it to the coaches. Who would have to provide proof

As a former certifying official for Basketball, I had a 6-ft kid who used his 8th grade brothers birth certificate to try to play 15U. (He was a older sophomore). (Hint: do not drive yourself to the verification)
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/16/16 05:42 PM
Why are people getting so worked up over this? If your kid is in the right age based group you are fine. If not, sounds like you will have some choices to make. As others have posted, soccer and hockey has already been doing this. If people are going to try and get over these are the same people trying to game the system now.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/16/16 05:59 PM
I'm sure next summer all tryouts will be based on the new age requirements. You'll have the opportunity to play up or have your child play in their appropriate age group.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/16/16 06:26 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I'm sure next summer all tryouts will be based on the new age requirements. You'll have the opportunity to play up or have your child play in their appropriate age group.


Think you are going to be disappointed if you believe this. The clubs won't change. USL has no power to enforce this.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/16/16 06:39 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I'm sure next summer all tryouts will be based on the new age requirements. You'll have the opportunity to play up or have your child play in their appropriate age group.


Think you are going to be disappointed if you believe this. The clubs won't change. USL has no power to enforce this.


What about insurance? Don't many tournaments require players to be US Lacrosse registered for insurance purposes? I'm not saying the insurance actually does much, but I'd think that US Lax would make playing at the appropriate age level a condition of having coverage under their insurance. My girls' club is making sure that every single player is US Lax registered before the first practice by confirming it directly with US Lax.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/16/16 06:52 PM
I think the power goes to the schools and the municipalities/parks where the games are played. They will have to require that the tournament is sanctioned buy the governing body of the sport...
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/16/16 07:01 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I'm sure next summer all tryouts will be based on the new age requirements. You'll have the opportunity to play up or have your child play in their appropriate age group.


Think you are going to be disappointed if you believe this. The clubs won't change. USL has no power to enforce this.


What about insurance? Don't many tournaments require players to be US Lacrosse registered for insurance purposes? I'm not saying the insurance actually does much, but I'd think that US Lax would make playing at the appropriate age level a condition of having coverage under their insurance. My girls' club is making sure that every single player is US Lax registered before the first practice by confirming it directly with US Lax.


I can't remember the last time I had to enter my son's US Lacrosse number for a tournament. Not even sure it it's active. Most big tournaments are run by clubs now and they can do what they want.

The only way this could change is the spring leagues, like HOCO in Maryland, tell the clubs they are changing to age based. But they don't require USL membership, so they don't have to follow the new standard either.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/16/16 07:20 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I'm sure next summer all tryouts will be based on the new age requirements. You'll have the opportunity to play up or have your child play in their appropriate age group.


Think you are going to be disappointed if you believe this. The clubs won't change. USL has no power to enforce this.


What about insurance? Don't many tournaments require players to be US Lacrosse registered for insurance purposes? I'm not saying the insurance actually does much, but I'd think that US Lax would make playing at the appropriate age level a condition of having coverage under their insurance. My girls' club is making sure that every single player is US Lax registered before the first practice by confirming it directly with US Lax.


I can't remember the last time I had to enter my son's US Lacrosse number for a tournament. Not even sure it it's active. Most big tournaments are run by clubs now and they can do what they want.

The only way this could change is the spring leagues, like HOCO in Maryland, tell the clubs they are changing to age based. But they don't require USL membership, so they don't have to follow the new standard either.


I wonder if the fields that are rented will have the power. because if no one pays will the paying customer get the field but then if someone is hurt everyone gets sued in this day and age
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/17/16 01:16 PM
I will answer this.

My son is an on-age 2020 (May 2002). For the most part in Maryland (and elsewhere?), teams have their last tryouts for the boys in their freshman year and that team continues playing in summer (and some fall) tourneys throughout the high school years. Yes there are some additions and subtractions, but for the most part the "core" stays the same. So to the 2020s, in particular, how clubs implement the changes could be critical to this age group.

I have asked our club owner what he plans to do, and he has not yet decided whether to "bite the bullet" next year yet. He said he looked at the rosters and thinks that the private school holdbacks on the 2021 can replace the private school holdbacks on the 2020 and upwards. Since lacrosse is still a relatively small community, I am sure the bar room meetings will be taking place during the summer season.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/17/16 07:47 PM
Keep crying, LI dads.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/18/16 07:27 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I just read the release. So my son who is Nov 2002 birthday is presently in 8th grade and plays 2020 will be reclassified next year/summer (2017) to U14 (8th grade equivalent) and be the equivalent of reclassified to 2021 for tournaments with travel and play 8th graders even though he will have finished his first year of high school?

Am I understanding this correctly?


Don't over complicate it. He will be playing with and against only kids who were born on or between September 1, 2002 and August 31, 2003. Who cares what grade the kids are in.


Well that's really the question isn't it? Who cares? Do college coaches care? do they care now and do they factor chronological age in? So in the example above this boy can play high school JV as a freshman (against freshmen and sophomores)and then play for a club team in the summer as a u14 against mostly 8th graders. As he moves on and plays in recruiting tournaments, will this get factored in? I can see a scenario where he is a little behind the curve as a HS player then a standout on the travel team. Will this affect how kids are evaluated and recruited?
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 05/16/16 02:58 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
But US Lacrosse guidelines are not used by anyone today in competitive lacrosse which is where the issue really lies. Why would this be expected to change?


Have heard that most clubs dont care about this. I spoke to the director of our club, and "we have all talked about it with other clubs, but dont expect anything to change. Its just not that big of a deal, and kids want to play in their actual grades."

Will be interesting how this shakes out - or if its just a non issue
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 05/16/16 12:35 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I just read the release. So my son who is Nov 2002 birthday is presently in 8th grade and plays 2020 will be reclassified next year/summer (2017) to U14 (8th grade equivalent) and be the equivalent of reclassified to 2021 for tournaments with travel and play 8th graders even though he will have finished his first year of high school?

Am I understanding this correctly?


Don't over complicate it. He will be playing with and against only kids who were born on or between September 1, 2002 and August 31, 2003. Who cares what grade the kids are in.


Well that's really the question isn't it? Who cares? Do college coaches care? do they care now and do they factor chronological age in? So in the example above this boy can play high school JV as a freshman (against freshmen and sophomores)and then play for a club team in the summer as a u14 against mostly 8th graders. As he moves on and plays in recruiting tournaments, will this get factored in? I can see a scenario where he is a little behind the curve as a HS player then a standout on the travel team. Will this affect how kids are evaluated and recruited?


I maintain that the best way for a college coach to access youth players is to watch them play against kids their own age. Watching a 16 year old dominate 14 year olds tells me very little about how that 16 year old will play when he is 20. Offering him would make me very nervous since those 14 year olds will catch up physically when they get to age 18 or so.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 05/16/16 01:05 PM
Why is everyone surprised? Anyone that follows the sport knew the clubs were going to do what was best for them and not US lacrosse. Clubs run the sport and US is a gutless useless powerless organization (except for insurance). What a shame that this isn't going to stick. Just like there will never be player cards. Can we please stop talking about all of US Lax' initiatives that are never going to happen.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 05/16/16 01:31 PM
What, if anything, is known about a service called "Athletic Passport"?

I have been asked by the organizers of a tournament to sign up for the service to verify my son's eligibility regarding age/grade.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 05/16/16 02:18 PM
US Lacrosse needs to step up & have more age based tournaments!!
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 05/16/16 02:33 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
US Lacrosse needs to step up & have more age based tournaments!!


Agreed. And if the clubs were smart they would get on board. Just like all businesses, I am sure they want to grow. Regarding kids that are talented enough to play in college, there is no growth left. Its a small, limited pool of kids that are already playing. There is room to grow with the more mediocre athlete who just loves to play, but needs to compete against same age kids. The families of these kids are much more easily turned off by age discrepancies in competition.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 05/16/16 03:28 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
US Lacrosse needs to step up & have more age based tournaments!!


Agreed. And if the clubs were smart they would get on board. Just like all businesses, I am sure they want to grow. Regarding kids that are talented enough to play in college, there is no growth left. Its a small, limited pool of kids that are already playing. There is room to grow with the more mediocre athlete who just loves to play, but needs to compete against same age kids. The families of these kids are much more easily turned off by age discrepancies in competition.


I have a bridge to sell you, a very expensive one that we drive over every weekend on our way to MD to make these tournament promoters and club directors MILLIONAIRS! US Lax is a an absolute JOKE!
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 05/16/16 10:44 PM
If you want your child to play in age-based tournaments, with card checks, then seek out those tournaments. If none exist and there is so much angst against grade based, then starting one should be no problem. If your club won't do it, then start a new club with all the parents who want age based. Why do you complain and then wait for someone else to solve your problems??? Get out of your SUV and get involved. Otherwise, ... let the kids play.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 05/16/16 10:47 PM
It is a way to get you to pay 10 dollars for age verification and the tournament operator gets 3 dollars from every registrant. If the tournament operator wants to have a proof of age service, then they should pay for it. Not us.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 05/16/16 11:28 PM
Its a mess, as always. Why does hockey/soccer work so well? Is it because there is little high school recruiting? I was at our practice tonight (2022) and the coach said that there is nothing changing. At all. It was talked about as a organization.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 05/17/16 02:12 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Its a mess, as always. Why does hockey/soccer work so well? Is it because there is little high school recruiting? I was at our practice tonight (2022) and the coach said that there is nothing changing. At all. It was talked about as a organization.


because soccer isn't recruiting kids in kindergarten
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 05/17/16 02:18 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Its a mess, as always. Why does hockey/soccer work so well? Is it because there is little high school recruiting? I was at our practice tonight (2022) and the coach said that there is nothing changing. At all. It was talked about as a organization.


because soccer isn't recruiting kids in kindergarten


Get your facts straight, girls soccer recruits 7th and 8th graders. Look into it.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 05/17/16 07:44 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I just read the release. So my son who is Nov 2002 birthday is presently in 8th grade and plays 2020 will be reclassified next year/summer (2017) to U14 (8th grade equivalent) and be the equivalent of reclassified to 2021 for tournaments with travel and play 8th graders even though he will have finished his first year of high school?

Am I understanding this correctly?


Don't over complicate it. He will be playing with and against only kids who were born on or between September 1, 2002 and August 31, 2003. Who cares what grade the kids are in.


Well that's really the question isn't it? Who cares? Do college coaches care? do they care now and do they factor chronological age in? So in the example above this boy can play high school JV as a freshman (against freshmen and sophomores)and then play for a club team in the summer as a u14 against mostly 8th graders. As he moves on and plays in recruiting tournaments, will this get factored in? I can see a scenario where he is a little behind the curve as a HS player then a standout on the travel team. Will this affect how kids are evaluated and recruited?


PS the tournament teams that win will collect the older kids. So the discrepancy at the top will be even smaller.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 05/18/16 01:33 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I just read the release. So my son who is Nov 2002 birthday is presently in 8th grade and plays 2020 will be reclassified next year/summer (2017) to U14 (8th grade equivalent) and be the equivalent of reclassified to 2021 for tournaments with travel and play 8th graders even though he will have finished his first year of high school?

Am I understanding this correctly?


Don't over complicate it. He will be playing with and against only kids who were born on or between September 1, 2002 and August 31, 2003. Who cares what grade the kids are in.


Well that's really the question isn't it? Who cares? Do college coaches care? do they care now and do they factor chronological age in? So in the example above this boy can play high school JV as a freshman (against freshmen and sophomores)and then play for a club team in the summer as a u14 against mostly 8th graders. As he moves on and plays in recruiting tournaments, will this get factored in? I can see a scenario where he is a little behind the curve as a HS player then a standout on the travel team. Will this affect how kids are evaluated and recruited?


PS the tournament teams that win will collect the older kids. So the discrepancy at the top will be even smaller.


bbbbbbbbingo. Nothing going to change. To 95% of players, it just doesnt matter...

Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 05/19/16 01:26 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I just read the release. So my son who is Nov 2002 birthday is presently in 8th grade and plays 2020 will be reclassified next year/summer (2017) to U14 (8th grade equivalent) and be the equivalent of reclassified to 2021 for tournaments with travel and play 8th graders even though he will have finished his first year of high school?

Am I understanding this correctly?


Don't over complicate it. He will be playing with and against only kids who were born on or between September 1, 2002 and August 31, 2003. Who cares what grade the kids are in.


Well that's really the question isn't it? Who cares? Do college coaches care? do they care now and do they factor chronological age in? So in the example above this boy can play high school JV as a freshman (against freshmen and sophomores)and then play for a club team in the summer as a u14 against mostly 8th graders. As he moves on and plays in recruiting tournaments, will this get factored in? I can see a scenario where he is a little behind the curve as a HS player then a standout on the travel team. Will this affect how kids are evaluated and recruited?


PS the tournament teams that win will collect the older kids. So the discrepancy at the top will be even smaller.


bbbbbbbbingo. Nothing going to change. To 95% of players, it just doesnt matter...



That is the truth. Kids want to play with their grade. Enough already. Next.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 06/30/17 06:10 PM
Fairness is just one of the issues. Safety is another and more important issue. Lacrosse is a contact sport and having an 18 year old pummel a 16 year old who has yet to fill out is just plain dangerous. High level hockey recognizes this and teams are all by birth year. Lacrosse should change the rules.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 06/30/17 07:34 PM
All sports should be done by birth year not grad year
Period
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 06/30/17 07:59 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
All sports should be done by birth year not grad year
Period

even ping pong?
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 06/30/17 08:11 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Fairness is just one of the issues. Safety is another and more important issue. Lacrosse is a contact sport and having an 18 year old pummel a 16 year old who has yet to fill out is just plain dangerous. High level hockey recognizes this and teams are all by birth year. Lacrosse should change the rules.


Firstly, "lacrosse" is not an entity or person. Secondly shut up. Lastly, let's just humor you for a minute - So on average, we'll have senior class varsity teams with 14 kids, junior class varsity teams with 12 kids, sophomore class varsity teams of 9 kids, freshman varsity team with 3 kids. Then, we will have a sophmore class JV team with 15 kids, and a freshman class JV team with 17 kids. Once we hire the extra 4 coaching staffs and work out the fields we should be good to go. Brilliant!!!!!!! Where have you been all of our lives!!!!!!
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 06/30/17 08:16 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
All sports should be done by birth year not grad year
Period

even ping pong?


Originally Posted by Anonymous
All sports should be done by birth year not grad year
Period


Couple hundred thousand coaching staffs just kind of sitting around waiting for the call up?
Wait, why not exact day of birth? Although, some of those early morning births could gain an advantage from the afternoon kids.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 06/30/17 09:12 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
All sports should be done by birth year not grad year
Period

even ping pong?


Originally Posted by Anonymous
All sports should be done by birth year not grad year
Period


Couple hundred thousand coaching staffs just kind of sitting around waiting for the call up?
Wait, why not exact day of birth? Although, some of those early morning births could gain an advantage from the afternoon kids.


Thanks dad
I'm sure you enjoy watching JR play varsity as a 8 grader
But his bday would make him a sophomore
Not impressed
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 06/30/17 11:43 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
All sports should be done by birth year not grad year
Period

even ping pong?


Originally Posted by Anonymous
All sports should be done by birth year not grad year
Period


Couple hundred thousand coaching staffs just kind of sitting around waiting for the call up?
Wait, why not exact day of birth? Although, some of those early morning births could gain an advantage from the afternoon kids.


Thanks dad
I'm sure you enjoy watching JR play varsity as a 8 grader
But his bday would make him a sophomore
Not impressed

Not all dad's that think this way have older 8th graders. Mine was only 13. Birthday was two days after the playoffs.

Still burns me he went up against 16year olds that say they are only one grad year over him. F'n cheaters. Their Kid can't handle themselves so you hold back so he looks better. I always thought you should challenge your kid.

Boy oh. Boy what was I thinking. And wait what is this I think we may hold back $hit so he can play a year younger. When was this acceptable practice.

You play your HS graduation year. That is what the year means. It doesn't mean the year you enter college.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/01/17 12:56 AM
Agreed and they should also require picture ID like soccer does.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/01/17 10:26 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Fairness is just one of the issues. Safety is another and more important issue. Lacrosse is a contact sport and having an 18 year old pummel a 16 year old who has yet to fill out is just plain dangerous. High level hockey recognizes this and teams are all by birth year. Lacrosse should change the rules.


Firstly, "lacrosse" is not an entity or person. Secondly shut up. Lastly, let's just humor you for a minute - So on average, we'll have senior class varsity teams with 14 kids, junior class varsity teams with 12 kids, sophomore class varsity teams of 9 kids, freshman varsity team with 3 kids. Then, we will have a sophmore class JV team with 15 kids, and a freshman class JV team with 17 kids. Once we hire the extra 4 coaching staffs and work out the fields we should be good to go. Brilliant!!!!!!! Where have you been all of our lives!!!!!!


I think they are talking about club. You seem to be talking about High school lax.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/01/17 10:45 AM
There should not be more than 11 month difference between the oldest and youngest kid by grad year. unless your kid was left back. If he was, then he should probably bring focusing on school and not lacrosse. even kids the same age can have a 30lb -40lb difference between them. So if it's the size of the boys you have an issue with. Then seperate them by weight classes and not age. If your a parent that is playing your 7th grader at the 6th grade level. Then shame on you for separating your kid from kids in his grade and kids going through the same experiences.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/01/17 11:42 AM
I have bad news for you all from MD. Part of the problem here is somewhere around 2001 the idiots who run the public schools pushed the cut off date to begin kindergarten up to September 1st. So, they essential taken anyone born in September through December and forced them to be held back a grade. My son was born in October 2003 but he just finished 7th grade. Previously he would be finishing 8th grade. He looks like he's in 10th grade.

My youngest son starts kindergarten this fall. He was born in October 2011. I've pleaded with Baltimore county schools to let him go early but they refuse. So he's being forced back too. Here is the bad news....I've been told they are pushing that cutoff up even further to June 1st to begin kindergarten. So any child not 5 by may 31st will be forced back a grade. It sucks and is ridiculous. So now the hold backs will be even older

Sorry. Blame the fools at MD public schools!!!
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/01/17 12:06 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Fairness is just one of the issues. Safety is another and more important issue. Lacrosse is a contact sport and having an 18 year old pummel a 16 year old who has yet to fill out is just plain dangerous. High level hockey recognizes this and teams are all by birth year. Lacrosse should change the rules.


Hands down one of the most ridiculous posts on here ever. Baseball is more for you friend! My so. Was a 150 pound Sophomore on varsity. He did just fine.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/01/17 12:09 PM
My son is right in the middle of the pack for his school year (if you look at on age "normal" age kids), so he has always been able to hold his own. But it was always frustrating when he would play against kids from other teams who have been held back a year or two, sometimes they would literally just blow right by him! But, this summer (he is 2020 class) things seem to have evened out quite a bit, he has been loving kicking "holdback" butt. Kids he could never handle for the last few years he can now compete with, it has been very fun to watch. I have to admit, that some of the "holdback" kids must be struggling this summer because they don't stand out like they used to!
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/01/17 01:05 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I have bad news for you all from MD. Part of the problem here is somewhere around 2001 the idiots who run the public schools pushed the cut off date to begin kindergarten up to September 1st. So, they essential taken anyone born in September through December and forced them to be held back a grade. My son was born in October 2003 but he just finished 7th grade. Previously he would be finishing 8th grade. He looks like he's in 10th grade.

My youngest son starts kindergarten this fall. He was born in October 2011. I've pleaded with Baltimore county schools to let him go early but they refuse. So he's being forced back too. Here is the bad news....I've been told they are pushing that cutoff up even further to June 1st to begin kindergarten. So any child not 5 by may 31st will be forced back a grade. It sucks and is ridiculous. So now the hold backs will be even older

Sorry. Blame the fools at MD public schools!!!


I am not following you?? MD is Sept 1 now starting any grade ..... If they change it to June 1 ...then it will make the the kids that used to be June 1 to Sept 1 go down a grade ... ..not up???

That is what most MIAA schools do to summer babies..after kindergarten make them go to a made up grade between Kindergarten and 1st called prefirst grade..which is basically hold them back from June 1 to Sept 1

Your Oct child may be on the older side for his age and big, but he is at the proper age for a Md public school and most of schools in country. My understanding is that NY is more in line with what you say about a Dec start for school. Md has always been Sept like most schools in country.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/01/17 02:05 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I have bad news for you all from MD. Part of the problem here is somewhere around 2001 the idiots who run the public schools pushed the cut off date to begin kindergarten up to September 1st. So, they essential taken anyone born in September through December and forced them to be held back a grade. My son was born in October 2003 but he just finished 7th grade. Previously he would be finishing 8th grade. He looks like he's in 10th grade.

My youngest son starts kindergarten this fall. He was born in October 2011. I've pleaded with Baltimore county schools to let him go early but they refuse. So he's being forced back too. Here is the bad news....I've been told they are pushing that cutoff up even further to June 1st to begin kindergarten. So any child not 5 by may 31st will be forced back a grade. It sucks and is ridiculous. So now the hold backs will be even older

Sorry. Blame the fools at MD public schools!!!


I am not following you?? MD is Sept 1 now starting any grade ..... If they change it to June 1 ...then it will make the the kids that used to be June 1 to Sept 1 go down a grade ... ..not up???

That is what most MIAA schools do to summer babies..after kindergarten make them go to a made up grade between Kindergarten and 1st called prefirst grade..which is basically hold them back from June 1 to Sept 1

Your Oct child may be on the older side for his age and big, but he is at the proper age for a Md public school and most of schools in country. My understanding is that NY is more in line with what you say about a Dec start for school. Md has always been Sept like most schools in country.


Maryland public did change the cutoff starting with the 2001 babies but that is not what is being discussed here. September 1 change was to be in line with most of the country - NY being an exception that remains at December. Hold backs are kids that either do a full year of pre first, the parents hold them a year later for kindergarten or hold back a grade before high school. Kids born between September and December in Maryland are in the proper grad year and in line with most of the country and the old lacrosse age requirements which used September 1. Any kid born before that September 1st date is a holdback or to be gentler, in the wrong grade.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/01/17 02:41 PM
If you can legally give your kid an extra year of school, do it if you want. I held my kid back and think it is great. Worry about your own kids, cheapskate mfer's. Suck it.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/01/17 05:07 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
If you can legally give your kid an extra year of school, do it if you want. I held my kid back and think it is great. Worry about your own kids, cheapskate mfer's. Suck it.


Actually it was the arrogant mfer who had to suck it when my on age son took the starting spot from the 20 yr old freshman. Parents got humble real quick.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/04/17 12:30 PM
You can rationalize away all day long why your 16 and 17 year old with a drivers license is in 9th grade. Billy was a slow learner, summer birthday, etc. Just admit it - you held him back in the 8th grade along with a bunch of his private school/FCA/Crabs/Loonies pals in order to gain an advantage over on age kids so he could get a verbal commitment. OWN IT.

Age based classification in youth lacrosse is coming. Deny it all you want - but your little club of man children and obnoxious parents is in peril.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/04/17 02:19 PM
My daughter (a 2020 who just turned 15) commented when leaving the UA Command banquet that some of the boys really need to shave if they want to pass as that age group. We live in an area where there are not as many holdbacks, so she's not used to seeing boys her grade who are that old.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/04/17 03:45 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
My daughter (a 2020 who just turned 15) commented when leaving the UA Command banquet that some of the boys really need to shave if they want to pass as that age group. We live in an area where there are not as many holdbacks, so she's not used to seeing boys her grade who are that old.


My kid is 13 and needs to shave. Your comment means nothing. Don't make assumptions.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/04/17 03:54 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
If you can legally give your kid an extra year of school, do it if you want. I held my kid back and think it is great. Worry about your own kids, cheapskate mfer's. Suck it.


No one cares if you hold your kid back to repeat a grade in school. What people are complaining about is a system that allows him to play lacrosse against younger kids because of it.

Kids should play youth sports - not school sports - against kids of similar age. A one year window (calendar year or sept to aug or something else) has been proven in other sports to work well. It shouldn't matter what grade they are in.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/04/17 04:07 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
My daughter (a 2020 who just turned 15) commented when leaving the UA Command banquet that some of the boys really need to shave if they want to pass as that age group. We live in an area where there are not as many holdbacks, so she's not used to seeing boys her grade who are that old.


My kid is 13 and needs to shave. Your comment means nothing. Don't make assumptions.


Notice that she said boys - as in plural. Of course some kids may still be 13 and need to shave. Yours is one of them. But a team with several of them - of course they are not all 13. Don't be silly.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/04/17 04:09 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
My daughter (a 2020 who just turned 15) commented when leaving the UA Command banquet that some of the boys really need to shave if they want to pass as that age group. We live in an area where there are not as many holdbacks, so she's not used to seeing boys her grade who are that old.


My kid is 13 and needs to shave. Your comment means nothing. Don't make assumptions.


Part gorilla?
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/04/17 04:28 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
My daughter (a 2020 who just turned 15) commented when leaving the UA Command banquet that some of the boys really need to shave if they want to pass as that age group. We live in an area where there are not as many holdbacks, so she's not used to seeing boys her grade who are that old.


My kid is 13 and needs to shave. Your comment means nothing. Don't make assumptions.

I agree that you cannot assume that someone is too old because they are shaving. Because my son was born in 2002 and is "on age" for 2020 and he has been shaving for at least 18 months
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/04/17 04:33 PM
In NY, if you are in the public schools, being a holdback is problamatic. You can't play HS sports if you are 19 before the start of the season. So, anyone who is trying to play that game, must either go the private school route or pay the consequences.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/04/17 06:56 PM
US lacrosse should enact penalties against clubs and individuals that intentionally violate the USlax age and grade guidelines. Clubs and players found guilty should be prohibited from attending U-19 and USA World team tryouts.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/05/17 12:07 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
So post the DOBs of the 2020 kids that were on the team. A 2019 player should be born in 01. A 2020 in 02.

2019's

1 5/99
1 9/99
2 11/99
1 12/99
2 1/00
1 2/00
3 3/00
3 4/00
2 5/00
1 6/00
7 7/00
10 8/00
16 9/00
13 10/00
7 11/00
9 12/00
6 1/01
9 2/01
5 3/01
6 4/01
4 5/01
3 7/01

2020's
1 4/01
1 7/01
3 8/01
2 9/01
3 11/01
1 12/01
1 2/02
2 4/02
1/ 5/02


Here is some interesting numbers from Under Armour Command Division (Rising 9th and 10th graders) last year. This year UA has decided to NOT post birthdays like last year. Wonder Why??

Out of 112 players that are 2019 last year,,,, 34 were heldback, prefirst, reclassed or whatever you want to call it .....Thats a bunch!!

So 30% of players couldnt play if they went by USL age guidelines of Sept 1 or like most schools of a Sept 1 start for beginning of school . I know its HS so age doesnt matter but it looks like reclass works.

Out of 15 players that are 2020 last year ,,, 5 were heldback, prefirst,reclassed or whatever you want to call it.

Thats 33% of players .......

So basically around ONE THIRD of all players in Command last year were heldback!!!!! WOW!!!!

And to add to that, around One third 33% of All players are born From Sept -Dec from both 2019 and 2020..So you have a good shot if you are on the older side for proper age of your grade.


Being older works according to this. At least for UA .. Strong conclusions that if your son is born between Jan and Aug and you/he is interested in lacrosse...Might want to hold him back!

These are for numbers after start of puberty for boys which does even things out some( doesn't look like a lot at this age) , can you imagine advantage at youth for older players prior to puberty.

Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/06/17 03:37 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
In NY, if you are in the public schools, being a holdback is problamatic. You can't play HS sports if you are 19 before the start of the season. So, anyone who is trying to play that game, must either go the private school route or pay the consequences.


MIAA in Baltimore has same rule.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/07/17 01:36 AM
All over country, public and private schools have varying curriculums, where private more likely to promote extra year, been going on for years. 16-19 year olds been playing varsity together and against each other's tfor years. No news, no story, just some libs grabbing a talking point in order to criticize others not just like them. My 16 year old rising sophomore has the same rights as your 15 year old sophomore, because says 'Merica.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/07/17 02:18 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
All over country, public and private schools have varying curriculums, where private more likely to promote extra year, been going on for years. 16-19 year olds been playing varsity together and against each other's tfor years. No news, no story, just some libs grabbing a talking point in order to criticize others not just like them. My 16 year old rising sophomore has the same rights as your 15 year old sophomore, because says 'Merica.



That now has shifted down to YOUTH sports.. No one cared when the holdbacks HS teams usually played other holdback teams in HS..

Now we have select age wise 5th graders playing 4th graders.. When did the private schools dictate what goes on in ALL youth sports??
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/07/17 05:01 AM
With the topic of prep vs public being brought up ... reclassification (and PG year) helps preps in a major way. It is stupid for national rankings hypesters to even include a school like Deerfield or Brunswick in same category as Cold Spring. Public schools cannot openly recruit 19 year olds to come play for free for a year. And don't get me started on including IMG Academy in the mix. Those "top" prep schools just want to brag about national rankings with their incredibly old and recruited rosters. They know damn well they are an unfair advantage and they love it.

In Westchester and Fairfield, the holdback fever has taken over the youth level because these ultra-rich kids know they are headed to preps where being older than others isn't just accepted, it is encouraged or even forced. It is the "get ahead by any means necessary" approach their parents embrace.

Can you imagine pulling your kid out of one of the best public schools in the country, paying $35,000 to have your kid repeat 6th grade, then relying on a Brunswick varsity spot where the pot at the end of the rainbow is admission to Duke? That is what these types call a plan, not a dream.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/10/17 04:52 PM
Breaking News, families of public and private school kids across the country pay lots of money to voluntarily play in a youth private club sports league that is grade-based, so they sign up appropriately by grade. This Just In - More Exclusive Breaking News, if the league changes to age-based, kids will appropriately sign up by age.

Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/10/17 05:09 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Breaking News, families of public and private school kids across the country pay lots of money to voluntarily play in a youth private club sports league that is grade-based, so they sign up appropriately by grade. This Just In - More Exclusive Breaking News, if the league changes to age-based, kids will appropriately sign up by age.



Thanks captain obvious! Hence the push by many to get lax to go age-based!
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/10/17 06:29 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
With the topic of prep vs public being brought up ... reclassification (and PG year) helps preps in a major way. It is stupid for national rankings hypesters to even include a school like Deerfield or Brunswick in same category as Cold Spring. Public schools cannot openly recruit 19 year olds to come play for free for a year. And don't get me started on including IMG Academy in the mix. Those "top" prep schools just want to brag about national rankings with their incredibly old and recruited rosters. They know damn well they are an unfair advantage and they love it.

In Westchester and Fairfield, the holdback fever has taken over the youth level because these ultra-rich kids know they are headed to preps where being older than others isn't just accepted, it is encouraged or even forced. It is the "get ahead by any means necessary" approach their parents embrace.

Can you imagine pulling your kid out of one of the best public schools in the country, paying $35,000 to have your kid repeat 6th grade, then relying on a Brunswick varsity spot where the pot at the end of the rainbow is admission to Duke? That is what these types call a plan, not a dream.


I have no problem with an uber rich Westchester/Fairfield kid repeating a grade. Many of these families decide at birth that the kid will be going to Brunswick or a similar school. Lax players or not, many of these kids are 16 or so as Freshman (especially by the end of the year). So its reasonable (maybe) that they don't want their kid to be the odd 14 year old. And if the kid proves to be athletic, all the more reason to repeat a pre-HS grade to advance the lax career and use it too get into an Ivy or Duke when junior's grades are only meh. None of this I have a problem with. Its just that when the kid plays club or town lax, have the kid play against other kids born the same year as him.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/10/17 08:04 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
With the topic of prep vs public being brought up ... reclassification (and PG year) helps preps in a major way. It is stupid for national rankings hypesters to even include a school like Deerfield or Brunswick in same category as Cold Spring. Public schools cannot openly recruit 19 year olds to come play for free for a year. And don't get me started on including IMG Academy in the mix. Those "top" prep schools just want to brag about national rankings with their incredibly old and recruited rosters. They know damn well they are an unfair advantage and they love it.

In Westchester and Fairfield, the holdback fever has taken over the youth level because these ultra-rich kids know they are headed to preps where being older than others isn't just accepted, it is encouraged or even forced. It is the "get ahead by any means necessary" approach their parents embrace.

Can you imagine pulling your kid out of one of the best public schools in the country, paying $35,000 to have your kid repeat 6th grade, then relying on a Brunswick varsity spot where the pot at the end of the rainbow is admission to Duke? That is what these types call a plan, not a dream.


I have no problem with an uber rich Westchester/Fairfield kid repeating a grade. Many of these families decide at birth that the kid will be going to Brunswick or a similar school. Lax players or not, many of these kids are 16 or so as Freshman (especially by the end of the year). So its reasonable (maybe) that they don't want their kid to be the odd 14 year old. And if the kid proves to be athletic, all the more reason to repeat a pre-HS grade to advance the lax career and use it too get into an Ivy or Duke when junior's grades are only meh. None of this I have a problem with. Its just that when the kid plays club or town lax, have the kid play against other kids born the same year as him.


What a sane and rational comment. Holdback all you want, but you'll always be playing kids your own age. Who could have a problem with that? Unfortunately, many apparently...
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/10/17 09:03 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Breaking News, families of public and private school kids across the country pay lots of money to voluntarily play in a youth private club sports league that is grade-based, so they sign up appropriately by grade. This Just In - More Exclusive Breaking News, if the league changes to age-based, kids will appropriately sign up by age.


All of the tryouts are grade-based again. Youth participation doubled last year, largest single-year spike in history of sport. What is the sell to change? Club is a private business, so has to be more than some complaining from parents that already paid for the year, and continue to do so every year.
Safety - not valid argument. Lacrosse is a very small sport, rural rec areas never sustained, and still can't sustain, single year age groups, always been average 1-1/2 year spreads at youth level. There is no precedent for a safety outcry.
Practicality - HS will always be by grad year, clubs don't want to rebuild or major shake from 8th to 9th, and they control the market. Clubs build 6th to 8th, represents product going into high school, and clubs market on success.
Fairness - product selling at record levels, again what is sell? Best case on a compromise would be to lean on kind hearts to go age-based from 1st to 5th grade, then let the more business-minded approach take over with grade-based in middle school.
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Breaking News, families of public and private school kids across the country pay lots of money to voluntarily play in a youth private club sports league that is grade-based, so they sign up appropriately by grade. This Just In - More Exclusive Breaking News, if the league changes to age-based, kids will appropriately sign up by age.



Thanks captain obvious! Hence the push by many to get lax to go age-based!


All of the tryouts are grade-based again. Youth participation doubled last year, largest single-year spike in history of sport. What is the sell to change? Club is a private business, so has to be more than some complaining from parents that already paid for the year, and continue to do so every year. If a minority number of your customers hate your product, but stop in every day to buy it anyway, is there precedent for change? You may need a competitor to offer a better product, or you need impede the growth of the current product. Buying it and complaining about it, is really just buying it...
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/10/17 09:44 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Breaking News, families of public and private school kids across the country pay lots of money to voluntarily play in a youth private club sports league that is grade-based, so they sign up appropriately by grade. This Just In - More Exclusive Breaking News, if the league changes to age-based, kids will appropriately sign up by age.


All of the tryouts are grade-based again. Youth participation doubled last year, largest single-year spike in history of sport. What is the sell to change? Club is a private business, so has to be more than some complaining from parents that already paid for the year, and continue to do so every year.
Safety - not valid argument. Lacrosse is a very small sport, rural rec areas never sustained, and still can't sustain, single year age groups, always been average 1-1/2 year spreads at youth level. There is no precedent for a safety outcry.
Practicality - HS will always be by grad year, clubs don't want to rebuild or major shake from 8th to 9th, and they control the market. Clubs build 6th to 8th, represents product going into high school, and clubs market on success.
Fairness - product selling at record levels, again what is sell? Best case on a compromise would be to lean on kind hearts to go age-based from 1st to 5th grade, then let the more business-minded approach take over with grade-based in middle school.
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Breaking News, families of public and private school kids across the country pay lots of money to voluntarily play in a youth private club sports league that is grade-based, so they sign up appropriately by grade. This Just In - More Exclusive Breaking News, if the league changes to age-based, kids will appropriately sign up by age.



Thanks captain obvious! Hence the push by many to get lax to go age-based!


All of the tryouts are grade-based again. Youth participation doubled last year, largest single-year spike in history of sport. What is the sell to change? Club is a private business, so has to be more than some complaining from parents that already paid for the year, and continue to do so every year. If a minority number of your customers hate your product, but stop in every day to buy it anyway, is there precedent for change? You may need a competitor to offer a better product, or you need impede the growth of the current product. Buying it and complaining about it, is really just buying it...


I can guarantee that there will need to be only one catastrophic safety incident that occurs between mismatched aged boys in a grade-based situation before the whole sport is forced by the insurance industry to go age-based. The only question is whether to do it proactively before that happens or wait for the incident to occur, which it will.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/10/17 10:57 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Breaking News, families of public and private school kids across the country pay lots of money to voluntarily play in a youth private club sports league that is grade-based, so they sign up appropriately by grade. This Just In - More Exclusive Breaking News, if the league changes to age-based, kids will appropriately sign up by age.


All of the tryouts are grade-based again. Youth participation doubled last year, largest single-year spike in history of sport. What is the sell to change? Club is a private business, so has to be more than some complaining from parents that already paid for the year, and continue to do so every year.
Safety - not valid argument. Lacrosse is a very small sport, rural rec areas never sustained, and still can't sustain, single year age groups, always been average 1-1/2 year spreads at youth level. There is no precedent for a safety outcry.
Practicality - HS will always be by grad year, clubs don't want to rebuild or major shake from 8th to 9th, and they control the market. Clubs build 6th to 8th, represents product going into high school, and clubs market on success.
Fairness - product selling at record levels, again what is sell? Best case on a compromise would be to lean on kind hearts to go age-based from 1st to 5th grade, then let the more business-minded approach take over with grade-based in middle school.
Originally Posted by Anonymous
[quote=Anonymous]Breaking News, families of public and private school kids across the country pay lots of money to voluntarily play in a youth private club sports league that is grade-based, so they sign up appropriately by grade. This Just In - More Exclusive Breaking News, if the league changes to age-based, kids will appropriately sign up by age.



Thanks captain obvious! Hence the push by many to get lax to go age-based!


All of the tryouts are grade-based again. Youth participation doubled last year, largest single-year spike in history of sport. What is the sell to change? Club is a private business, so has to be more than some complaining from parents that already paid for the year, and continue to do so every year. If a minority number of your customers hate your product, but stop in every day to buy it anyway, is there precedent for change? You may need a competitor to offer a better product, or you need impede the growth of the current product. Buying it and complaining about it, is really just buying it...


I can guarantee that there will need to be only one catastrophic safety incident that occurs between mismatched aged boys in a grade-based situation before the whole sport is forced by the insurance industry to go age-based. The only question is whether to do it proactively before that happens or wait for the incident to occur, which it will.[/quote

Crickets. So the last 60 years was this one big huge unnecessary risk? That's what skill brackets are for, not birthday candles.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/10/17 10:59 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Breaking News, families of public and private school kids across the country pay lots of money to voluntarily play in a youth private club sports league that is grade-based, so they sign up appropriately by grade. This Just In - More Exclusive Breaking News, if the league changes to age-based, kids will appropriately sign up by age.


All of the tryouts are grade-based again. Youth participation doubled last year, largest single-year spike in history of sport. What is the sell to change? Club is a private business, so has to be more than some complaining from parents that already paid for the year, and continue to do so every year.
Safety - not valid argument. Lacrosse is a very small sport, rural rec areas never sustained, and still can't sustain, single year age groups, always been average 1-1/2 year spreads at youth level. There is no precedent for a safety outcry.
Practicality - HS will always be by grad year, clubs don't want to rebuild or major shake from 8th to 9th, and they control the market. Clubs build 6th to 8th, represents product going into high school, and clubs market on success.
Fairness - product selling at record levels, again what is sell? Best case on a compromise would be to lean on kind hearts to go age-based from 1st to 5th grade, then let the more business-minded approach take over with grade-based in middle school.
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Breaking News, families of public and private school kids across the country pay lots of money to voluntarily play in a youth private club sports league that is grade-based, so they sign up appropriately by grade. This Just In - More Exclusive Breaking News, if the league changes to age-based, kids will appropriately sign up by age.



Thanks captain obvious! Hence the push by many to get lax to go age-based!


All of the tryouts are grade-based again. Youth participation doubled last year, largest single-year spike in history of sport. What is the sell to change? Club is a private business, so has to be more than some complaining from parents that already paid for the year, and continue to do so every year. If a minority number of your customers hate your product, but stop in every day to buy it anyway, is there precedent for change? You may need a competitor to offer a better product, or you need impede the growth of the current product. Buying it and complaining about it, is really just buying it...


I can guarantee that there will need to be only one catastrophic safety incident that occurs between mismatched aged boys in a grade-based situation before the whole sport is forced by the insurance industry to go age-based. The only question is whether to do it proactively before that happens or wait for the incident to occur, which it will.


What your personal line? With the injuries in other sports out there, ha..
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/10/17 11:37 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Breaking News, families of public and private school kids across the country pay lots of money to voluntarily play in a youth private club sports league that is grade-based, so they sign up appropriately by grade. This Just In - More Exclusive Breaking News, if the league changes to age-based, kids will appropriately sign up by age.


All of the tryouts are grade-based again. Youth participation doubled last year, largest single-year spike in history of sport. What is the sell to change? Club is a private business, so has to be more than some complaining from parents that already paid for the year, and continue to do so every year.
Safety - not valid argument. Lacrosse is a very small sport, rural rec areas never sustained, and still can't sustain, single year age groups, always been average 1-1/2 year spreads at youth level. There is no precedent for a safety outcry.
Practicality - HS will always be by grad year, clubs don't want to rebuild or major shake from 8th to 9th, and they control the market. Clubs build 6th to 8th, represents product going into high school, and clubs market on success.
Fairness - product selling at record levels, again what is sell? Best case on a compromise would be to lean on kind hearts to go age-based from 1st to 5th grade, then let the more business-minded approach take over with grade-based in middle school.
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Breaking News, families of public and private school kids across the country pay lots of money to voluntarily play in a youth private club sports league that is grade-based, so they sign up appropriately by grade. This Just In - More Exclusive Breaking News, if the league changes to age-based, kids will appropriately sign up by age.



Thanks captain obvious! Hence the push by many to get lax to go age-based!


All of the tryouts are grade-based again. Youth participation doubled last year, largest single-year spike in history of sport. What is the sell to change? Club is a private business, so has to be more than some complaining from parents that already paid for the year, and continue to do so every year. If a minority number of your customers hate your product, but stop in every day to buy it anyway, is there precedent for change? You may need a competitor to offer a better product, or you need impede the growth of the current product. Buying it and complaining about it, is really just buying it...


I can guarantee that there will need to be only one catastrophic safety incident that occurs between mismatched aged boys in a grade-based situation before the whole sport is forced by the insurance industry to go age-based. The only question is whether to do it proactively before that happens or wait for the incident to occur, which it will.


That's why they have waivers. Also when is the last time you saw a high speed devastating hit in a 4th, 5th 6th 7th 8th grade game? Varsity, sure, otherwise no.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/11/17 02:11 AM
My son is an on age 2020, born in 2002. He is a big boy 6' and 200 lbs. he has always been big and when he was younger teams would complain that he was a "hold back" which he isn't. My question for "hold back" parents is this. Do you feel good about your kid looking like a stud, when he is beating up on kids who are 1-2 years younger? I don't even like when my on age, big kid plays against boys that are smaller than him. I can't even imagine what he would look like if we held him back, but again, I would be embarrassed because he would be beating up younger kids. Am I missing something? Seriously, that must by like an "A" team playing in a "B" division and feeling good about how awesome they look. What is the point?
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/11/17 02:31 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
My son is an on age 2020, born in 2002. He is a big boy 6' and 200 lbs. he has always been big and when he was younger teams would complain that he was a "hold back" which he isn't. My question for "hold back" parents is this. Do you feel good about your kid looking like a stud, when he is beating up on kids who are 1-2 years younger? I don't even like when my on age, big kid plays against boys that are smaller than him. I can't even imagine what he would look like if we held him back, but again, I would be embarrassed because he would be beating up younger kids. Am I missing something? Seriously, that must by like an "A" team playing in a "B" division and feeling good about how awesome they look. What is the point?


The point is a carefully calculated cheating loser move. My son is an on age smaller 2020. Love when he smokes the holdback sand they throw tantrums on the sidelines. Priceless!
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/11/17 03:03 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
My son is an on age 2020, born in 2002. He is a big boy 6' and 200 lbs. he has always been big and when he was younger teams would complain that he was a "hold back" which he isn't. My question for "hold back" parents is this. Do you feel good about your kid looking like a stud, when he is beating up on kids who are 1-2 years younger? I don't even like when my on age, big kid plays against boys that are smaller than him. I can't even imagine what he would look like if we held him back, but again, I would be embarrassed because he would be beating up younger kids. Am I missing something? Seriously, that must by like an "A" team playing in a "B" division and feeling good about how awesome they look. What is the point?


No, but to assume every private school 1st grade, 2nd grade, etc parent is going to add plus 1 when they register under the current rules, if they have a prefirst curriculum, because there could be now or in the future a size disparity is ridiculous, and certainly not worthy of being personally criticized. Can 6 and 7, 7 and 8 year olds all of a sudden not play and learn lacrosse together?! If the registration system changes, cool. If your kid develops, grows, whatever, and at 8,9,10 you want to move him up, cool. Your specific example is not typical. Sure, if there are a handful of superior older 6,7th graders running the tables in middle school, play them up if you have any good sense as a parent or coach, but once high school hits, business is business, no such thing as fair, there is legal or not legal. If they can't play, it won't matter how old they are at that point.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/11/17 01:30 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Breaking News, families of public and private school kids across the country pay lots of money to voluntarily play in a youth private club sports league that is grade-based, so they sign up appropriately by grade. This Just In - More Exclusive Breaking News, if the league changes to age-based, kids will appropriately sign up by age.


All of the tryouts are grade-based again. Youth participation doubled last year, largest single-year spike in history of sport. What is the sell to change? Club is a private business, so has to be more than some complaining from parents that already paid for the year, and continue to do so every year.
Safety - not valid argument. Lacrosse is a very small sport, rural rec areas never sustained, and still can't sustain, single year age groups, always been average 1-1/2 year spreads at youth level. There is no precedent for a safety outcry.
Practicality - HS will always be by grad year, clubs don't want to rebuild or major shake from 8th to 9th, and they control the market. Clubs build 6th to 8th, represents product going into high school, and clubs market on success.
Fairness - product selling at record levels, again what is sell? Best case on a compromise would be to lean on kind hearts to go age-based from 1st to 5th grade, then let the more business-minded approach take over with grade-based in middle school.
Originally Posted by Anonymous
[quote=Anonymous]Breaking News, families of public and private school kids across the country pay lots of money to voluntarily play in a youth private club sports league that is grade-based, so they sign up appropriately by grade. This Just In - More Exclusive Breaking News, if the league changes to age-based, kids will appropriately sign up by age.



Thanks captain obvious! Hence the push by many to get lax to go age-based!


All of the tryouts are grade-based again. Youth participation doubled last year, largest single-year spike in history of sport. What is the sell to change? Club is a private business, so has to be more than some complaining from parents that already paid for the year, and continue to do so every year. If a minority number of your customers hate your product, but stop in every day to buy it anyway, is there precedent for change? You may need a competitor to offer a better product, or you need impede the growth of the current product. Buying it and complaining about it, is really just buying it...


I can guarantee that there will need to be only one catastrophic safety incident that occurs between mismatched aged boys in a grade-based situation before the whole sport is forced by the insurance industry to go age-based. The only question is whether to do it proactively before that happens or wait for the incident to occur, which it will.[/quote

Crickets. So the last 60 years was this one big huge unnecessary risk? That's what skill brackets are for, not birthday candles.


You quote recent growth numbers and then subsequently treat the current situation as the 60-year status quo?! You're not really good at this logic and debate thing, are you??
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/11/17 01:32 PM
This holdback thing was completely thrown in my face this summer.

explaining how it works went something like this.

Them: which boy is yours?

Me: ###

Them: Wow he is thick

Me: "Johnnie" is a big boy for his age, his birthday is September. By other state schools definition, he could be a year younger in school and play a year lower in sports. On LI it is Dec 1 or Jan 1st or something in between.

Them: Our (Declan) son is born in June, in our district (Cali) he would have been one of the youngest in his grade so we decided to wait and have him be the oldest. Wasnt fair to him to be the youngest. and he has a slight frame.

Me: I guess someone has to be the youngest.

Them: your LI teams are good. are they all aged like your son's team.

ME: many are,

Them: we were at the WSYL the past few years. someone said they werent real teams

Me: "John" was asked to play in the WSYL, but it was for a new team they were making in his organization. they would play 4/5 games then go to Denver.

Them: thats not fair, it isnt his team.

Me: yeah, how about that. If any LI team would go with the summer team they would be younger so they create new teams. Many kids play on 1 or 2 teams anyway. These teams fit the age boundaries. they play 4/5 games and becomes a team..

Them: How is that fair?

Me: I dont mean to be rude but you say fair, to me your boy is playing down?

Them: well he is the youngest on the team

Me: wait he is playing down and the youngest on the team, and you are complaining about what is fair. admittingly I regret it, but I said no to my son playing down. So please I no longer get what is fair or not. the WSYL maybe a farce with the age cutoffs, since it hasnt been consistent since inception. but age is age.

Them: I guess you are right, how old are the boys on the field now?

ME: 15/16

Them: oh, but what year are they?

ME: 2019

Them: I still dont get why you have them play 2019 they should be 2020? They are playing against older kids.

ME: well that is how we do it? thanks for the conversation have a great day good luck


Qtr changes and gave me an excuse to exit stage right....

My outtake why the [lacrosse] doesnt the government have a set date for school (across the country). People dont get it . When did cheating become the norm. When kids across the country go to college it is a bell curve of ages, why not have a consistent age of when you should go in. Heck, not just in sport but academics also. Hey Im not saying take away a PG or holdback, you want to PG or hold back okay go ahead, but let everyone be on the same page of what is going on. You want to gain an advantage because you/He/She couldnt do it the right way. Now you need to find that back door.

Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/11/17 01:35 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Breaking News, families of public and private school kids across the country pay lots of money to voluntarily play in a youth private club sports league that is grade-based, so they sign up appropriately by grade. This Just In - More Exclusive Breaking News, if the league changes to age-based, kids will appropriately sign up by age.


All of the tryouts are grade-based again. Youth participation doubled last year, largest single-year spike in history of sport. What is the sell to change? Club is a private business, so has to be more than some complaining from parents that already paid for the year, and continue to do so every year.
Safety - not valid argument. Lacrosse is a very small sport, rural rec areas never sustained, and still can't sustain, single year age groups, always been average 1-1/2 year spreads at youth level. There is no precedent for a safety outcry.
Practicality - HS will always be by grad year, clubs don't want to rebuild or major shake from 8th to 9th, and they control the market. Clubs build 6th to 8th, represents product going into high school, and clubs market on success.
Fairness - product selling at record levels, again what is sell? Best case on a compromise would be to lean on kind hearts to go age-based from 1st to 5th grade, then let the more business-minded approach take over with grade-based in middle school.
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Breaking News, families of public and private school kids across the country pay lots of money to voluntarily play in a youth private club sports league that is grade-based, so they sign up appropriately by grade. This Just In - More Exclusive Breaking News, if the league changes to age-based, kids will appropriately sign up by age.



Thanks captain obvious! Hence the push by many to get lax to go age-based!


All of the tryouts are grade-based again. Youth participation doubled last year, largest single-year spike in history of sport. What is the sell to change? Club is a private business, so has to be more than some complaining from parents that already paid for the year, and continue to do so every year. If a minority number of your customers hate your product, but stop in every day to buy it anyway, is there precedent for change? You may need a competitor to offer a better product, or you need impede the growth of the current product. Buying it and complaining about it, is really just buying it...


I can guarantee that there will need to be only one catastrophic safety incident that occurs between mismatched aged boys in a grade-based situation before the whole sport is forced by the insurance industry to go age-based. The only question is whether to do it proactively before that happens or wait for the incident to occur, which it will.


That's why they have waivers. Also when is the last time you saw a high speed devastating hit in a 4th, 5th 6th 7th 8th grade game? Varsity, sure, otherwise no.


Waivers are a scare tactic - they don't stand up a lot of the time. You must not be watching the 7th and 8th grade divisions much - I've seen some big hits in those games.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/11/17 01:39 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous


My outtake why the [lacrosse] doesnt the government have a set date for school (across the country).



We have something in this country (or used to) called "federalism" - education is a state right . . . strangely, it's kind of almost making a comeback now . . .
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/11/17 01:50 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Breaking News, families of public and private school kids across the country pay lots of money to voluntarily play in a youth private club sports league that is grade-based, so they sign up appropriately by grade. This Just In - More Exclusive Breaking News, if the league changes to age-based, kids will appropriately sign up by age.


All of the tryouts are grade-based again. Youth participation doubled last year, largest single-year spike in history of sport. What is the sell to change? Club is a private business, so has to be more than some complaining from parents that already paid for the year, and continue to do so every year.
Safety - not valid argument. Lacrosse is a very small sport, rural rec areas never sustained, and still can't sustain, single year age groups, always been average 1-1/2 year spreads at youth level. There is no precedent for a safety outcry.
Practicality - HS will always be by grad year, clubs don't want to rebuild or major shake from 8th to 9th, and they control the market. Clubs build 6th to 8th, represents product going into high school, and clubs market on success.
Fairness - product selling at record levels, again what is sell? Best case on a compromise would be to lean on kind hearts to go age-based from 1st to 5th grade, then let the more business-minded approach take over with grade-based in middle school.
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Breaking News, families of public and private school kids across the country pay lots of money to voluntarily play in a youth private club sports league that is grade-based, so they sign up appropriately by grade. This Just In - More Exclusive Breaking News, if the league changes to age-based, kids will appropriately sign up by age.



Thanks captain obvious! Hence the push by many to get lax to go age-based!


All of the tryouts are grade-based again. Youth participation doubled last year, largest single-year spike in history of sport. What is the sell to change? Club is a private business, so has to be more than some complaining from parents that already paid for the year, and continue to do so every year. If a minority number of your customers hate your product, but stop in every day to buy it anyway, is there precedent for change? You may need a competitor to offer a better product, or you need impede the growth of the current product. Buying it and complaining about it, is really just buying it...


I can guarantee that there will need to be only one catastrophic safety incident that occurs between mismatched aged boys in a grade-based situation before the whole sport is forced by the insurance industry to go age-based. The only question is whether to do it proactively before that happens or wait for the incident to occur, which it will.


What your personal line? With the injuries in other sports out there, ha..


Just because injuries happen in other sports doesn't mean that you do not do everything possible to prevent them and/or limit/mitigate their severity - you only need one suit brought by one party where they prevail to change the tune, and failure to provide "safe playing conditions", IE, mismatched ages, would be the low hanging fruit for an attorney to go after. ALL other contact sports at the youth level are age-based, and for good reason that fact would be used as evidence in such a suit. Lastly, there is NO legitimate argument that lacrosse should not be age-based.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/11/17 01:59 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Breaking News, families of public and private school kids across the country pay lots of money to voluntarily play in a youth private club sports league that is grade-based, so they sign up appropriately by grade. This Just In - More Exclusive Breaking News, if the league changes to age-based, kids will appropriately sign up by age.


All of the tryouts are grade-based again. Youth participation doubled last year, largest single-year spike in history of sport. What is the sell to change? Club is a private business, so has to be more than some complaining from parents that already paid for the year, and continue to do so every year.
Safety - not valid argument. Lacrosse is a very small sport, rural rec areas never sustained, and still can't sustain, single year age groups, always been average 1-1/2 year spreads at youth level. There is no precedent for a safety outcry.
Practicality - HS will always be by grad year, clubs don't want to rebuild or major shake from 8th to 9th, and they control the market. Clubs build 6th to 8th, represents product going into high school, and clubs market on success.
Fairness - product selling at record levels, again what is sell? Best case on a compromise would be to lean on kind hearts to go age-based from 1st to 5th grade, then let the more business-minded approach take over with grade-based in middle school.
Originally Posted by Anonymous
[quote=Anonymous]Breaking News, families of public and private school kids across the country pay lots of money to voluntarily play in a youth private club sports league that is grade-based, so they sign up appropriately by grade. This Just In - More Exclusive Breaking News, if the league changes to age-based, kids will appropriately sign up by age.



Thanks captain obvious! Hence the push by many to get lax to go age-based!


All of the tryouts are grade-based again. Youth participation doubled last year, largest single-year spike in history of sport. What is the sell to change? Club is a private business, so has to be more than some complaining from parents that already paid for the year, and continue to do so every year. If a minority number of your customers hate your product, but stop in every day to buy it anyway, is there precedent for change? You may need a competitor to offer a better product, or you need impede the growth of the current product. Buying it and complaining about it, is really just buying it...


I can guarantee that there will need to be only one catastrophic safety incident that occurs between mismatched aged boys in a grade-based situation before the whole sport is forced by the insurance industry to go age-based. The only question is whether to do it proactively before that happens or wait for the incident to occur, which it will.[/quote

Crickets. So the last 60 years was this one big huge unnecessary risk? That's what skill brackets are for, not birthday candles.


You quote recent growth numbers and then subsequently treat the current situation as the 60-year status quo?! You're not really good at this logic and debate thing, are you??


I don't see anything about growth in the 60 year comment. You realize there are multiple people on here, and it's not just you and some other ding dong arguing, correct?
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/11/17 02:04 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
This holdback thing was completely thrown in my face this summer.

explaining how it works went something like this.

Them: which boy is yours?

Me: ###

Them: Wow he is thick

Me: "Johnnie" is a big boy for his age, his birthday is September. By other state schools definition, he could be a year younger in school and play a year lower in sports. On LI it is Dec 1 or Jan 1st or something in between.

Them: Our (Declan) son is born in June, in our district (Cali) he would have been one of the youngest in his grade so we decided to wait and have him be the oldest. Wasnt fair to him to be the youngest. and he has a slight frame.

Me: I guess someone has to be the youngest.

Them: your LI teams are good. are they all aged like your son's team.

ME: many are,

Them: we were at the WSYL the past few years. someone said they werent real teams

Me: "John" was asked to play in the WSYL, but it was for a new team they were making in his organization. they would play 4/5 games then go to Denver.

Them: thats not fair, it isnt his team.

Me: yeah, how about that. If any LI team would go with the summer team they would be younger so they create new teams. Many kids play on 1 or 2 teams anyway. These teams fit the age boundaries. they play 4/5 games and becomes a team..

Them: How is that fair?

Me: I dont mean to be rude but you say fair, to me your boy is playing down?

Them: well he is the youngest on the team

Me: wait he is playing down and the youngest on the team, and you are complaining about what is fair. admittingly I regret it, but I said no to my son playing down. So please I no longer get what is fair or not. the WSYL maybe a farce with the age cutoffs, since it hasnt been consistent since inception. but age is age.

Them: I guess you are right, how old are the boys on the field now?

ME: 15/16

Them: oh, but what year are they?

ME: 2019

Them: I still dont get why you have them play 2019 they should be 2020? They are playing against older kids.

ME: well that is how we do it? thanks for the conversation have a great day good luck


Qtr changes and gave me an excuse to exit stage right....

My outtake why the [lacrosse] doesnt the government have a set date for school (across the country). People dont get it . When did cheating become the norm. When kids across the country go to college it is a bell curve of ages, why not have a consistent age of when you should go in. Heck, not just in sport but academics also. Hey Im not saying take away a PG or holdback, you want to PG or hold back okay go ahead, but let everyone be on the same page of what is going on. You want to gain an advantage because you/He/She couldnt do it the right way. Now you need to find that back door.



You should call your script "Fart Noise".
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/11/17 02:17 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
This holdback thing was completely thrown in my face this summer.

explaining how it works went something like this.

Them: which boy is yours?

Me: ###

Them: Wow he is thick

Me: "Johnnie" is a big boy for his age, his birthday is September. By other state schools definition, he could be a year younger in school and play a year lower in sports. On LI it is Dec 1 or Jan 1st or something in between.

Them: Our (Declan) son is born in June, in our district (Cali) he would have been one of the youngest in his grade so we decided to wait and have him be the oldest. Wasnt fair to him to be the youngest. and he has a slight frame.

Me: I guess someone has to be the youngest.

Them: your LI teams are good. are they all aged like your son's team.

ME: many are,

Them: we were at the WSYL the past few years. someone said they werent real teams

Me: "John" was asked to play in the WSYL, but it was for a new team they were making in his organization. they would play 4/5 games then go to Denver.

Them: thats not fair, it isnt his team.

Me: yeah, how about that. If any LI team would go with the summer team they would be younger so they create new teams. Many kids play on 1 or 2 teams anyway. These teams fit the age boundaries. they play 4/5 games and becomes a team..

Them: How is that fair?

Me: I dont mean to be rude but you say fair, to me your boy is playing down?

Them: well he is the youngest on the team

Me: wait he is playing down and the youngest on the team, and you are complaining about what is fair. admittingly I regret it, but I said no to my son playing down. So please I no longer get what is fair or not. the WSYL maybe a farce with the age cutoffs, since it hasnt been consistent since inception. but age is age.

Them: I guess you are right, how old are the boys on the field now?

ME: 15/16

Them: oh, but what year are they?

ME: 2019

Them: I still dont get why you have them play 2019 they should be 2020? They are playing against older kids.

ME: well that is how we do it? thanks for the conversation have a great day good luck


Qtr changes and gave me an excuse to exit stage right....

My outtake why the [lacrosse] doesnt the government have a set date for school (across the country). People dont get it . When did cheating become the norm. When kids across the country go to college it is a bell curve of ages, why not have a consistent age of when you should go in. Heck, not just in sport but academics also. Hey Im not saying take away a PG or holdback, you want to PG or hold back okay go ahead, but let everyone be on the same page of what is going on. You want to gain an advantage because you/He/She couldnt do it the right way. Now you need to find that back door.


Because this isn't the USSR. Most schools do set a maximum for athletic participation, and it is typically the equivalent of doing one extra year. Makes sense, since almost the entire private school industry has evolved. Did you seriously mean to infer that every American would need to finish HS (as in mandated) at the same birth year age? All of your nonsensical drivel aside, come on, you realize when you start talking to someone on the sideline, they walk away within like 20 seconds, right?
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/11/17 02:55 PM
Tell me ONE instance where a waiver did not stand up? Just ONE! And yes I have watched 4-8 lacrosse and what you may think is a "big" hit is not. It's a three step pop. Guessing your kid does not play football or soccer or hockey. See the same hits. The only scare tactic is your statement that someone is going to get severely hurt due to some imaginary massive size difference. Don't see it at the HS level and my guy plays Nassau A. No one cares there. Sorry, you are wrong on this.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/11/17 02:56 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Breaking News, families of public and private school kids across the country pay lots of money to voluntarily play in a youth private club sports league that is grade-based, so they sign up appropriately by grade. This Just In - More Exclusive Breaking News, if the league changes to age-based, kids will appropriately sign up by age.


All of the tryouts are grade-based again. Youth participation doubled last year, largest single-year spike in history of sport. What is the sell to change? Club is a private business, so has to be more than some complaining from parents that already paid for the year, and continue to do so every year.
Safety - not valid argument. Lacrosse is a very small sport, rural rec areas never sustained, and still can't sustain, single year age groups, always been average 1-1/2 year spreads at youth level. There is no precedent for a safety outcry.
Practicality - HS will always be by grad year, clubs don't want to rebuild or major shake from 8th to 9th, and they control the market. Clubs build 6th to 8th, represents product going into high school, and clubs market on success.
Fairness - product selling at record levels, again what is sell? Best case on a compromise would be to lean on kind hearts to go age-based from 1st to 5th grade, then let the more business-minded approach take over with grade-based in middle school.
Originally Posted by Anonymous
[quote=Anonymous]Breaking News, families of public and private school kids across the country pay lots of money to voluntarily play in a youth private club sports league that is grade-based, so they sign up appropriately by grade. This Just In - More Exclusive Breaking News, if the league changes to age-based, kids will appropriately sign up by age.



Thanks captain obvious! Hence the push by many to get lax to go age-based!


All of the tryouts are grade-based again. Youth participation doubled last year, largest single-year spike in history of sport. What is the sell to change? Club is a private business, so has to be more than some complaining from parents that already paid for the year, and continue to do so every year. If a minority number of your customers hate your product, but stop in every day to buy it anyway, is there precedent for change? You may need a competitor to offer a better product, or you need impede the growth of the current product. Buying it and complaining about it, is really just buying it...


I can guarantee that there will need to be only one catastrophic safety incident that occurs between mismatched aged boys in a grade-based situation before the whole sport is forced by the insurance industry to go age-based. The only question is whether to do it proactively before that happens or wait for the incident to occur, which it will.[/quote

Crickets. So the last 60 years was this one big huge unnecessary risk? That's what skill brackets are for, not birthday candles.


You quote recent growth numbers and then subsequently treat the current situation as the 60-year status quo?! You're not really good at this logic and debate thing, are you??


I don't see anything about growth in the 60 year comment. You realize there are multiple people on here, and it's not just you and some other ding dong arguing, correct?


OK ding dong . . .
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/11/17 03:13 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
This holdback thing was completely thrown in my face this summer.

explaining how it works went something like this.

Them: which boy is yours?

Me: ###

Them: Wow he is thick

Me: "Johnnie" is a big boy for his age, his birthday is September. By other state schools definition, he could be a year younger in school and play a year lower in sports. On LI it is Dec 1 or Jan 1st or something in between.

Them: Our (Declan) son is born in June, in our district (Cali) he would have been one of the youngest in his grade so we decided to wait and have him be the oldest. Wasnt fair to him to be the youngest. and he has a slight frame.

Me: I guess someone has to be the youngest.

Them: your LI teams are good. are they all aged like your son's team.

ME: many are,

Them: we were at the WSYL the past few years. someone said they werent real teams

Me: "John" was asked to play in the WSYL, but it was for a new team they were making in his organization. they would play 4/5 games then go to Denver.

Them: thats not fair, it isnt his team.

Me: yeah, how about that. If any LI team would go with the summer team they would be younger so they create new teams. Many kids play on 1 or 2 teams anyway. These teams fit the age boundaries. they play 4/5 games and becomes a team..

Them: How is that fair?

Me: I dont mean to be rude but you say fair, to me your boy is playing down?

Them: well he is the youngest on the team

Me: wait he is playing down and the youngest on the team, and you are complaining about what is fair. admittingly I regret it, but I said no to my son playing down. So please I no longer get what is fair or not. the WSYL maybe a farce with the age cutoffs, since it hasnt been consistent since inception. but age is age.

Them: I guess you are right, how old are the boys on the field now?

ME: 15/16

Them: oh, but what year are they?

ME: 2019

Them: I still dont get why you have them play 2019 they should be 2020? They are playing against older kids.

ME: well that is how we do it? thanks for the conversation have a great day good luck


Qtr changes and gave me an excuse to exit stage right....

My outtake why the [lacrosse] doesnt the government have a set date for school (across the country). People dont get it . When did cheating become the norm. When kids across the country go to college it is a bell curve of ages, why not have a consistent age of when you should go in. Heck, not just in sport but academics also. Hey Im not saying take away a PG or holdback, you want to PG or hold back okay go ahead, but let everyone be on the same page of what is going on. You want to gain an advantage because you/He/She couldnt do it the right way. Now you need to find that back door.


Because this isn't the USSR. Most schools do set a maximum for athletic participation, and it is typically the equivalent of doing one extra year. Makes sense, since almost the entire private school industry has evolved. Did you seriously mean to infer that every American would need to finish HS (as in mandated) at the same birth year age? All of your nonsensical drivel aside, come on, you realize when you start talking to someone on the sideline, they walk away within like 20 seconds, right?



Once the government does that, then they can make the biotech industry create a drug that makes every boy reach puberty at the same time. Then we can have leagues by height and weight, and while we are at it let's time them in the 40yrd dash and make sure there are kids that are not too fast. and maybe we can compensate the dumb ones that don't know what they are doing by only allowing a defender to be so close. Make sure the bell curve is as steep as possible.....
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/11/17 03:26 PM
Beat me too it. Even though DC has been trying more and more to control what is done in the states, you want Florida, Mississippi, and the rest of the country having a say in how to run our schools in NY?

Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/11/17 03:44 PM
To the fool that wrote, “there is no precedent for a safety outcry” and then again wrote, “If a minority number of your customers hate your product, but stop in everyday to buy it anyway, is there precedent for change”… I would suggest you look up the meaning of the word precedent and then go and find me another contact sport (at the youth level) that doesn’t have some limitation or control for size and/or age. Do you think that was always the case?

Here are a few tips for you moving forward - a) don’t use words you don’t really understand the meaning of and b) don’t cite examples of things that actually argue against your point.

Business is business and this whole thing is real $ for the people that run it. So, no - it won’t change overnight. That doesn’t mean that consumers of the product (with as much right to their opinion as you have to yours) shouldn’t make the case for why there is a better path forward. Parents of left-back kids exploit a system that is deliberately set up to be exploited. Sorry, but Jr. is just older than his opponents, he is greatly advantaged by that fact and the left-back parents know this is true. Rationalize away!

Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/11/17 04:39 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
This holdback thing was completely thrown in my face this summer.

explaining how it works went something like this.

Them: which boy is yours?

Me: ###

Them: Wow he is thick

Me: "Johnnie" is a big boy for his age, his birthday is September. By other state schools definition, he could be a year younger in school and play a year lower in sports. On LI it is Dec 1 or Jan 1st or something in between.

Them: Our (Declan) son is born in June, in our district (Cali) he would have been one of the youngest in his grade so we decided to wait and have him be the oldest. Wasnt fair to him to be the youngest. and he has a slight frame.

Me: I guess someone has to be the youngest.

Them: your LI teams are good. are they all aged like your son's team.

ME: many are,

Them: we were at the WSYL the past few years. someone said they werent real teams

Me: "John" was asked to play in the WSYL, but it was for a new team they were making in his organization. they would play 4/5 games then go to Denver.

Them: thats not fair, it isnt his team.

Me: yeah, how about that. If any LI team would go with the summer team they would be younger so they create new teams. Many kids play on 1 or 2 teams anyway. These teams fit the age boundaries. they play 4/5 games and becomes a team..

Them: How is that fair?

Me: I dont mean to be rude but you say fair, to me your boy is playing down?

Them: well he is the youngest on the team

Me: wait he is playing down and the youngest on the team, and you are complaining about what is fair. admittingly I regret it, but I said no to my son playing down. So please I no longer get what is fair or not. the WSYL maybe a farce with the age cutoffs, since it hasnt been consistent since inception. but age is age.

Them: I guess you are right, how old are the boys on the field now?

ME: 15/16

Them: oh, but what year are they?

ME: 2019

Them: I still dont get why you have them play 2019 they should be 2020? They are playing against older kids.

ME: well that is how we do it? thanks for the conversation have a great day good luck


Qtr changes and gave me an excuse to exit stage right....

My outtake why the [lacrosse] doesnt the government have a set date for school (across the country). People dont get it . When did cheating become the norm. When kids across the country go to college it is a bell curve of ages, why not have a consistent age of when you should go in. Heck, not just in sport but academics also. Hey Im not saying take away a PG or holdback, you want to PG or hold back okay go ahead, but let everyone be on the same page of what is going on. You want to gain an advantage because you/He/She couldnt do it the right way. Now you need to find that back door.



If the gubment - listened to folks like you and instituted strict guidelines on what age a kid must be to be in that particular grade in the name of "fairness" for a particular sport, they would get pushback and opposition never before seen. Look beyond your small world of lacrosse and maybe you might understand how people get away with it. Have you ever noticed how old some of those boys are that are being drafted by the NFL? Juniors in some of those major SEC programs who are 22 or 23 at the draft, that's not on age. But, a lot of times, those are not intentional holdbacks. And then you want the gubment to institute something that would run counter to the NCLB's replacement the ESSA. Please pass that on to your local representative or Senator and see how far that gets along.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/11/17 06:11 PM
Bottom line Holdback parents and non holdback parents will never agree on this so why continue arguing. My son is a 2023 born in April plays on a top program and is very athletic but he is small I would love to have held him back seeing what goes on but when he was 5 I wasn't thinking about any of this, such is life. Good luck arguing back and fourth at least you give people some laughs.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/11/17 06:18 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Tell me ONE instance where a waiver did not stand up? Just ONE! And yes I have watched 4-8 lacrosse and what you may think is a "big" hit is not. It's a three step pop. Guessing your kid does not play football or soccer or hockey. See the same hits. The only scare tactic is your statement that someone is going to get severely hurt due to some imaginary massive size difference. Don't see it at the HS level and my guy plays Nassau A. No one cares there. Sorry, you are wrong on this.


Dude - I played college football and all my sons play football - I know better than you will ever know what a big hit is like. Plus, you are missing the point on this altogether: the case where this problem will likely come to a tipping point will be the vast difference in size between two players, where the hit on otherwise similar sized players might not have been as dangerous, but because of the laws of physics and with respect to mass, along with other 'perfect storm' conditions, the results will be catastrophic. The bigger the sport gets, the more participants that play, the more likely an unfortunate and catastrophic incident will occur between mismatched aged players in a grade-based system. You mention three other sports (one not even a contact sport!) - funny how all three of those sports all moved to aged-based governance. And, yes I've seen big hits in lax games, although most result in man down situations these days, but they happen nonetheless.

Lastly, there are states where a parent signing of a waiver on behalf of their children and the courts generally hold that such a waiver DOES NOT preclude the injured child from bringing suit against a party for negligence - two of those states are New Jersey and Pennsylvania!
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/11/17 06:54 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
To the fool that wrote, “there is no precedent for a safety outcry” and then again wrote, “If a minority number of your customers hate your product, but stop in everyday to buy it anyway, is there precedent for change”… I would suggest you look up the meaning of the word precedent and then go and find me another contact sport (at the youth level) that doesn’t have some limitation or control for size and/or age. Do you think that was always the case?

Here are a few tips for you moving forward - a) don’t use words you don’t really understand the meaning of and b) don’t cite examples of things that actually argue against your point.

Business is business and this whole thing is real $ for the people that run it. So, no - it won’t change overnight. That doesn’t mean that consumers of the product (with as much right to their opinion as you have to yours) shouldn’t make the case for why there is a better path forward. Parents of left-back kids exploit a system that is deliberately set up to be exploited. Sorry, but Jr. is just older than his opponents, he is greatly advantaged by that fact and the left-back parents know this is true. Rationalize away!



Agreed. Moreover, many businesses, and even entire industries, have rested on their laurels and said "why make changes, we are successful", only to see the world change and leave them behind. As said above, this thing is real $ for those that run it, and if they are not concerned with growth, they should be. Moving to an aged based system, in conjunction with a more delineated and uniform skill level division (AAA, AA, A & B), will, in my opinion, engender more growth than they are already experienced, and more importantly, more sustained growth. For those who site numbers showing that lacrosse is growing at a substantial rate as it, keep in mind that this growth is mostly due to the fact that lacrosse is only starting to move away from its very small niche areas of LI and MD. Its a great sport and its being established in many areas of the country where it was never played before. This type of "0-60" growth for any industry is very easy. But there is still room for tons of growth, especially with the summer/fall teams, and in order to maximize this growth, it needs to move to age-based, and it needs to move to a more stratified skill/athletism structure, which will be easier to do the more it grows. This will ensure that kids play against kids who are similar in both age and skill. When this happens, kids and parents will be happier, more likely to keep coming back, and most importantly, more families will want to participate in travel lacrosse. I have seen many kids put on teams where they don't belong, than play against kids who are much older and much more skilled. These kids don't come back. Their money is just a green as everyone else's. If these clubs fostered a true B division (not the so-called one where if the team is not one of the top 10 in the country it is B) where kids played on age, these kids would thrive. My kids would likely be AA on age and the experience would be much better.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/11/17 07:04 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
To the fool that wrote, “there is no precedent for a safety outcry” and then again wrote, “If a minority number of your customers hate your product, but stop in everyday to buy it anyway, is there precedent for change”… I would suggest you look up the meaning of the word precedent and then go and find me another contact sport (at the youth level) that doesn’t have some limitation or control for size and/or age. Do you think that was always the case?

Here are a few tips for you moving forward - a) don’t use words you don’t really understand the meaning of and b) don’t cite examples of things that actually argue against your point.

Business is business and this whole thing is real $ for the people that run it. So, no - it won’t change overnight. That doesn’t mean that consumers of the product (with as much right to their opinion as you have to yours) shouldn’t make the case for why there is a better path forward. Parents of left-back kids exploit a system that is deliberately set up to be exploited. Sorry, but Jr. is just older than his opponents, he is greatly advantaged by that fact and the left-back parents know this is true. Rationalize away!


Sorry, in your over-thinking and under-explaining, you forgot to cite the precedent. Oh, and it would be, "for which you don't understand the meaning", or some other correctly-written variation. You wouldn't finish that thought with a preposition.
You would make a better case if you would just concede that the grade-based system has certain flaws, rather than essentially accusing the majority of private school parents with some type of mass exploitation. Seriously, most elementary school parents, whether new to the game or not, are not putting much thought into the system at time of registration; if their kid is in 3rd grade, they are probably compelled to check off 3rd grade! Sure, there are those parents of older middle school kids that are smart enough to realize they could play their kid up, probably to his benefit developmentally, but those folks aren't the baseline for all kids that are in a different school curriculum. Just comes off as complaining when you start criticizing a large share of the market base, rather than the leagues that control the rules. At the end of the day, the people that you criticize would sign up legally under any rule without much fanfare, but folks like you would just find another reason to whine and complain, so who gives a crap anyway. Keep crying, but don't forget to send that check in, please.

Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/11/17 07:08 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Tell me ONE instance where a waiver did not stand up? Just ONE! And yes I have watched 4-8 lacrosse and what you may think is a "big" hit is not. It's a three step pop. Guessing your kid does not play football or soccer or hockey. See the same hits. The only scare tactic is your statement that someone is going to get severely hurt due to some imaginary massive size difference. Don't see it at the HS level and my guy plays Nassau A. No one cares there. Sorry, you are wrong on this.


Dude - I played college football and all my sons play football - I know better than you will ever know what a big hit is like. Plus, you are missing the point on this altogether: the case where this problem will likely come to a tipping point will be the vast difference in size between two players, where the hit on otherwise similar sized players might not have been as dangerous, but because of the laws of physics and with respect to mass, along with other 'perfect storm' conditions, the results will be catastrophic. The bigger the sport gets, the more participants that play, the more likely an unfortunate and catastrophic incident will occur between mismatched aged players in a grade-based system. You mention three other sports (one not even a contact sport!) - funny how all three of those sports all moved to aged-based governance. And, yes I've seen big hits in lax games, although most result in man down situations these days, but they happen nonetheless.

Lastly, there are states where a parent signing of a waiver on behalf of their children and the courts generally hold that such a waiver DOES NOT preclude the injured child from bringing suit against a party for negligence - two of those states are New Jersey and Pennsylvania!


Please keep talking, please. Tell us one of your college football stories, but tie in some stuff from one of your science classes. Please don't stop responding on here, seriously, we need you.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/11/17 07:46 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Tell me ONE instance where a waiver did not stand up? Just ONE! And yes I have watched 4-8 lacrosse and what you may think is a "big" hit is not. It's a three step pop. Guessing your kid does not play football or soccer or hockey. See the same hits. The only scare tactic is your statement that someone is going to get severely hurt due to some imaginary massive size difference. Don't see it at the HS level and my guy plays Nassau A. No one cares there. Sorry, you are wrong on this.


Dude - I played college football and all my sons play football - I know better than you will ever know what a big hit is like. Plus, you are missing the point on this altogether: the case where this problem will likely come to a tipping point will be the vast difference in size between two players, where the hit on otherwise similar sized players might not have been as dangerous, but because of the laws of physics and with respect to mass, along with other 'perfect storm' conditions, the results will be catastrophic. The bigger the sport gets, the more participants that play, the more likely an unfortunate and catastrophic incident will occur between mismatched aged players in a grade-based system. You mention three other sports (one not even a contact sport!) - funny how all three of those sports all moved to aged-based governance. And, yes I've seen big hits in lax games, although most result in man down situations these days, but they happen nonetheless.

Lastly, there are states where a parent signing of a waiver on behalf of their children and the courts generally hold that such a waiver DOES NOT preclude the injured child from bringing suit against a party for negligence - two of those states are New Jersey and Pennsylvania!


Please keep talking, please. Tell us one of your college football stories, but tie in some stuff from one of your science classes. Please don't stop responding on here, seriously, we need you.


Way to argue your position - pat yourself on the back for that great retort . . . and then make an ortho appointment for your resulting torn rotator cuff.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/11/17 07:54 PM
The injury thing seems like a stretch in that you are relating it to size and there are many kids the same age that are vastly different in size. I do think that lax teams and tournaments should be age based but purely based on fairness. It is clearly an advantage to hold your kid back from an athletic perspective so essentially you are putting those who do not at a disadvantage .That disadvantage can ultimately impact where your child goes to school etc. Some of you will disagree but not much different from taking steroids out of sports as best as possible.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/11/17 09:02 PM
Biggest reclass issues in my opinion are entering7,8. The easy remedy is U system til 9th grade then go by grad year
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/11/17 09:12 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
The injury thing seems like a stretch in that you are relating it to size and there are many kids the same age that are vastly different in size. I do think that lax teams and tournaments should be age based but purely based on fairness. It is clearly an advantage to hold your kid back from an athletic perspective so essentially you are putting those who do not at a disadvantage .That disadvantage can ultimately impact where your child goes to school etc. Some of you will disagree but not much different from taking steroids out of sports as best as possible.


I agree with this. Risk of injury is not really the main reason to switch to age based groupings, although a big, but young, kid, will be less of a danger to others than a big and older kid. The older kid will, on the average, be faster, stronger and more agressive that his younger counterpart at the same size.

In general, it is important that this issue relates to averages over a large amount of kids. Obviously, a kid can still be young chronologically, but have an "older" body on terms of early entry into puberty, advanced development of muscle tone, ect. Even if the kid is still small. It becomes an issue, though, when a team has many of these kids, and their opponents have few or none. And the physically advanced kid will not be trapped playing against "lower" competition in an age based system. If his family wants him to, he can play up (i.e. a 2005 playing with the 2004s).
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/12/17 01:13 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
To the fool that wrote, “there is no precedent for a safety outcry” and then again wrote, “If a minority number of your customers hate your product, but stop in everyday to buy it anyway, is there precedent for change”… I would suggest you look up the meaning of the word precedent and then go and find me another contact sport (at the youth level) that doesn’t have some limitation or control for size and/or age. Do you think that was always the case?

Here are a few tips for you moving forward - a) don’t use words you don’t really understand the meaning of and b) don’t cite examples of things that actually argue against your point.

Business is business and this whole thing is real $ for the people that run it. So, no - it won’t change overnight. That doesn’t mean that consumers of the product (with as much right to their opinion as you have to yours) shouldn’t make the case for why there is a better path forward. Parents of left-back kids exploit a system that is deliberately set up to be exploited. Sorry, but Jr. is just older than his opponents, he is greatly advantaged by that fact and the left-back parents know this is true. Rationalize away!



Agreed. Moreover, many businesses, and even entire industries, have rested on their laurels and said "why make changes, we are successful", only to see the world change and leave them behind. As said above, this thing is real $ for those that run it, and if they are not concerned with growth, they should be. Moving to an aged based system, in conjunction with a more delineated and uniform skill level division (AAA, AA, A & B), will, in my opinion, engender more growth than they are already experienced, and more importantly, more sustained growth. For those who site numbers showing that lacrosse is growing at a substantial rate as it, keep in mind that this growth is mostly due to the fact that lacrosse is only starting to move away from its very small niche areas of LI and MD. Its a great sport and its being established in many areas of the country where it was never played before. This type of "0-60" growth for any industry is very easy. But there is still room for tons of growth, especially with the summer/fall teams, and in order to maximize this growth, it needs to move to age-based, and it needs to move to a more stratified skill/athletism structure, which will be easier to do the more it grows. This will ensure that kids play against kids who are similar in both age and skill. When this happens, kids and parents will be happier, more likely to keep coming back, and most importantly, more families will want to participate in travel lacrosse. I have seen many kids put on teams where they don't belong, than play against kids who are much older and much more skilled. These kids don't come back. Their money is just a green as everyone else's. If these clubs fostered a true B division (not the so-called one where if the team is not one of the top 10 in the country it is B) where kids played on age, these kids would thrive. My kids would likely be AA on age and the experience would be much better.



You bring up another point that is under-discussed: more formally denoted skill divisions. The youth lacrosse 'community' would have you believe that there are only 8 - 10 teams on all of LI that are A, with 4 - 5 being AA, and the rest of the teams are all B. That is the most ridiculous approach to such a thing ever. I have no problem with the so designated AA teams - they are the cream of the crop and there is not much argument about them. But, there is a strong argument to be made for a good handful of teams to be considered A, even if they are below that top ten. Yet, the 'country club' of those top 10 (more like 7 or 8!) or so want to keep everyone else out. This is a disservice to both the A and B teams. And, to be clear, this has zero to do with wanting undeserving teams to be recognized as A, a la participation trophies etc. It is all about how to organize a youth sport the proper way for competitive reasons, particularly when the predominant form of play is tournaments.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/12/17 01:32 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
The injury thing seems like a stretch in that you are relating it to size and there are many kids the same age that are vastly different in size. I do think that lax teams and tournaments should be age based but purely based on fairness. It is clearly an advantage to hold your kid back from an athletic perspective so essentially you are putting those who do not at a disadvantage .That disadvantage can ultimately impact where your child goes to school etc. Some of you will disagree but not much different from taking steroids out of sports as best as possible.


I agree with this. Risk of injury is not really the main reason to switch to age based groupings, although a big, but young, kid, will be less of a danger to others than a big and older kid. The older kid will, on the average, be faster, stronger and more agressive that his younger counterpart at the same size.

In general, it is important that this issue relates to averages over a large amount of kids. Obviously, a kid can still be young chronologically, but have an "older" body on terms of early entry into puberty, advanced development of muscle tone, ect. Even if the kid is still small. It becomes an issue, though, when a team has many of these kids, and their opponents have few or none. And the physically advanced kid will not be trapped playing against "lower" competition in an age based system. If his family wants him to, he can play up (i.e. a 2005 playing with the 2004s).


I never said risk of injury was the main reason - I said that it could be the catalyst for forced change if change doesn't happen for the better reasons and a catastrophic situation comes as a result of an age mismatch. Proactive versus reactive.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/12/17 02:26 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
To the fool that wrote, “there is no precedent for a safety outcry” and then again wrote, “If a minority number of your customers hate your product, but stop in everyday to buy it anyway, is there precedent for change”… I would suggest you look up the meaning of the word precedent and then go and find me another contact sport (at the youth level) that doesn’t have some limitation or control for size and/or age. Do you think that was always the case?

Here are a few tips for you moving forward - a) don’t use words you don’t really understand the meaning of and b) don’t cite examples of things that actually argue against your point.

Business is business and this whole thing is real $ for the people that run it. So, no - it won’t change overnight. That doesn’t mean that consumers of the product (with as much right to their opinion as you have to yours) shouldn’t make the case for why there is a better path forward. Parents of left-back kids exploit a system that is deliberately set up to be exploited. Sorry, but Jr. is just older than his opponents, he is greatly advantaged by that fact and the left-back parents know this is true. Rationalize away!


Sorry, in your over-thinking and under-explaining, you forgot to cite the precedent. Oh, and it would be, "for which you don't understand the meaning", or some other correctly-written variation. You wouldn't finish that thought with a preposition.
You would make a better case if you would just concede that the grade-based system has certain flaws, rather than essentially accusing the majority of private school parents with some type of mass exploitation. Seriously, most elementary school parents, whether new to the game or not, are not putting much thought into the system at time of registration; if their kid is in 3rd grade, they are probably compelled to check off 3rd grade! Sure, there are those parents of older middle school kids that are smart enough to realize they could play their kid up, probably to his benefit developmentally, but those folks aren't the baseline for all kids that are in a different school curriculum. Just comes off as complaining when you start criticizing a large share of the market base, rather than the leagues that control the rules. At the end of the day, the people that you criticize would sign up legally under any rule without much fanfare, but folks like you would just find another reason to whine and complain, so who gives a crap anyway. Keep crying, but don't forget to send that check in, please.



The precedent is all the other youth contact sports that have limitations/controls around age. Sorry - next time I'll use a spoon.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/12/17 12:21 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
To the fool that wrote, “there is no precedent for a safety outcry” and then again wrote, “If a minority number of your customers hate your product, but stop in everyday to buy it anyway, is there precedent for change”… I would suggest you look up the meaning of the word precedent and then go and find me another contact sport (at the youth level) that doesn’t have some limitation or control for size and/or age. Do you think that was always the case?

Here are a few tips for you moving forward - a) don’t use words you don’t really understand the meaning of and b) don’t cite examples of things that actually argue against your point.

Business is business and this whole thing is real $ for the people that run it. So, no - it won’t change overnight. That doesn’t mean that consumers of the product (with as much right to their opinion as you have to yours) shouldn’t make the case for why there is a better path forward. Parents of left-back kids exploit a system that is deliberately set up to be exploited. Sorry, but Jr. is just older than his opponents, he is greatly advantaged by that fact and the left-back parents know this is true. Rationalize away!


Sorry, in your over-thinking and under-explaining, you forgot to cite the precedent. Oh, and it would be, "for which you don't understand the meaning", or some other correctly-written variation. You wouldn't finish that thought with a preposition.
You would make a better case if you would just concede that the grade-based system has certain flaws, rather than essentially accusing the majority of private school parents with some type of mass exploitation. Seriously, most elementary school parents, whether new to the game or not, are not putting much thought into the system at time of registration; if their kid is in 3rd grade, they are probably compelled to check off 3rd grade! Sure, there are those parents of older middle school kids that are smart enough to realize they could play their kid up, probably to his benefit developmentally, but those folks aren't the baseline for all kids that are in a different school curriculum. Just comes off as complaining when you start criticizing a large share of the market base, rather than the leagues that control the rules. At the end of the day, the people that you criticize would sign up legally under any rule without much fanfare, but folks like you would just find another reason to whine and complain, so who gives a crap anyway. Keep crying, but don't forget to send that check in, please.



The precedent is all the other youth contact sports that have limitations/controls around age. Sorry - next time I'll use a spoon.


At the rec levels, youth lacrosse has always had 2 year spreads, because rural areas can't sustain a team for every birth year. It's just not big enough of a sport to use the same model as youth football, where you have millions of participants. Clubs are able to essentially put together one, or sometimes two, teams per (grad) year, because private clubs draw kids from many communities. If you changed club to birth year, it would still be a different system than recreation councils can sustain. The complaint with the U system at rec, is whenever a team wins at the B level, everyone complains it is an A team playing down, which is about as nauseating as the holdback argument.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/12/17 01:42 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
To the fool that wrote, “there is no precedent for a safety outcry” and then again wrote, “If a minority number of your customers hate your product, but stop in everyday to buy it anyway, is there precedent for change”… I would suggest you look up the meaning of the word precedent and then go and find me another contact sport (at the youth level) that doesn’t have some limitation or control for size and/or age. Do you think that was always the case?

Here are a few tips for you moving forward - a) don’t use words you don’t really understand the meaning of and b) don’t cite examples of things that actually argue against your point.

Business is business and this whole thing is real $ for the people that run it. So, no - it won’t change overnight. That doesn’t mean that consumers of the product (with as much right to their opinion as you have to yours) shouldn’t make the case for why there is a better path forward. Parents of left-back kids exploit a system that is deliberately set up to be exploited. Sorry, but Jr. is just older than his opponents, he is greatly advantaged by that fact and the left-back parents know this is true. Rationalize away!


Sorry, in your over-thinking and under-explaining, you forgot to cite the precedent. Oh, and it would be, "for which you don't understand the meaning", or some other correctly-written variation. You wouldn't finish that thought with a preposition.
You would make a better case if you would just concede that the grade-based system has certain flaws, rather than essentially accusing the majority of private school parents with some type of mass exploitation. Seriously, most elementary school parents, whether new to the game or not, are not putting much thought into the system at time of registration; if their kid is in 3rd grade, they are probably compelled to check off 3rd grade! Sure, there are those parents of older middle school kids that are smart enough to realize they could play their kid up, probably to his benefit developmentally, but those folks aren't the baseline for all kids that are in a different school curriculum. Just comes off as complaining when you start criticizing a large share of the market base, rather than the leagues that control the rules. At the end of the day, the people that you criticize would sign up legally under any rule without much fanfare, but folks like you would just find another reason to whine and complain, so who gives a crap anyway. Keep crying, but don't forget to send that check in, please.



The precedent is all the other youth contact sports that have limitations/controls around age. Sorry - next time I'll use a spoon.


At the rec levels, youth lacrosse has always had 2 year spreads, because rural areas can't sustain a team for every birth year. It's just not big enough of a sport to use the same model as youth football, where you have millions of participants. Clubs are able to essentially put together one, or sometimes two, teams per (grad) year, because private clubs draw kids from many communities. If you changed club to birth year, it would still be a different system than recreation councils can sustain. The complaint with the U system at rec, is whenever a team wins at the B level, everyone complains it is an A team playing down, which is about as nauseating as the holdback argument.



3 points:

1. maybe you're not involved in with youth football of late, but the numbers there are dwindling. Fielding a team for a 1-year age group is getting harder and harder outside of the biggest towns. As an example of the decline, Massapequa used to have a whole slew of intra-town teams above and beyond their travel teams at all/many age levels. As I understand it, now they only have the travel team.

2. USL already addressed the issue of rural/non-lacrosse hotbed areas by allowing teams to have 2-year spreads - other mature youth sports (including football) already do this via allowance for boys to play up but never down from a designated age group. (https://www.uslacrosse.org/sites/de.../player-segmentation-task-force-recs.pdf)

3. In addition to the age-based system being implemented, as has been mentioned, a clearer skill designation system should also be implemented. With an age-based system, this would be much easier to do. Teams at the edge of any band of skill designation will always be a point of contention, but you need a better system to start with.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/12/17 07:06 PM
So with all this argument over age based reclassification. Injuries and what no (which I don't think exist) what of an on age kid who is clearly superior in size and speed to everyone else? We have all seen this kid. He just got there faster. Will he be banned from playing? What is the answer? I mean really, it's the same thing isn't it? Its a safety issue if he is allowed to continue playing with the smaller kids. Maybe the smaller kids shouldn't be allowed to play. That would make it safer. The answer is there is no answer. The age reclass argument is based on winning and losing, nothing more. The parents posting on here could care less about injuries, they just want the Trophy/t-shirt.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/12/17 07:30 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
So with all this argument over age based reclassification. Injuries and what no (which I don't think exist) what of an on age kid who is clearly superior in size and speed to everyone else? We have all seen this kid. He just got there faster. Will he be banned from playing? What is the answer? I mean really, it's the same thing isn't it? Its a safety issue if he is allowed to continue playing with the smaller kids. Maybe the smaller kids shouldn't be allowed to play. That would make it safer. The answer is there is no answer. The age reclass argument is based on winning and losing, nothing more. The parents posting on here could care less about injuries, they just want the Trophy/t-shirt.


We should assign teams by exact birthday, although the early morning kids may have an advantage over the afternoon kids, and evening kids - forget about it, they are screwed. F'ing morning kids totally gaming the system.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/12/17 07:38 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
So with all this argument over age based reclassification. Injuries and what no (which I don't think exist) what of an on age kid who is clearly superior in size and speed to everyone else? We have all seen this kid. He just got there faster. Will he be banned from playing? What is the answer? I mean really, it's the same thing isn't it? Its a safety issue if he is allowed to continue playing with the smaller kids. Maybe the smaller kids shouldn't be allowed to play. That would make it safer. The answer is there is no answer. The age reclass argument is based on winning and losing, nothing more. The parents posting on here could care less about injuries, they just want the Trophy/t-shirt.

you sound like a total jack off.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/12/17 07:59 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
So with all this argument over age based reclassification. Injuries and what no (which I don't think exist) what of an on age kid who is clearly superior in size and speed to everyone else? We have all seen this kid. He just got there faster. Will he be banned from playing? What is the answer? I mean really, it's the same thing isn't it? Its a safety issue if he is allowed to continue playing with the smaller kids. Maybe the smaller kids shouldn't be allowed to play. That would make it safer. The answer is there is no answer. The age reclass argument is based on winning and losing, nothing more. The parents posting on here could care less about injuries, they just want the Trophy/t-shirt.

you sound like a total jack off.


but tomorrow I can sound different, but you'll still be a Leaker.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/12/17 08:01 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
This holdback thing was completely thrown in my face this summer.

explaining how it works went something like this.

Them: which boy is yours?

Me: ###

Them: Wow he is thick

Me: "Johnnie" is a big boy for his age, his birthday is September. By other state schools definition, he could be a year younger in school and play a year lower in sports. On LI it is Dec 1 or Jan 1st or something in between.

Them: Our (Declan) son is born in June, in our district (Cali) he would have been one of the youngest in his grade so we decided to wait and have him be the oldest. Wasnt fair to him to be the youngest. and he has a slight frame.

Me: I guess someone has to be the youngest.

Them: your LI teams are good. are they all aged like your son's team.

ME: many are,

Them: we were at the WSYL the past few years. someone said they werent real teams

Me: "John" was asked to play in the WSYL, but it was for a new team they were making in his organization. they would play 4/5 games then go to Denver.

Them: thats not fair, it isnt his team.

Me: yeah, how about that. If any LI team would go with the summer team they would be younger so they create new teams. Many kids play on 1 or 2 teams anyway. These teams fit the age boundaries. they play 4/5 games and becomes a team..

Them: How is that fair?

Me: I dont mean to be rude but you say fair, to me your boy is playing down?

Them: well he is the youngest on the team

Me: wait he is playing down and the youngest on the team, and you are complaining about what is fair. admittingly I regret it, but I said no to my son playing down. So please I no longer get what is fair or not. the WSYL maybe a farce with the age cutoffs, since it hasnt been consistent since inception. but age is age.

Them: I guess you are right, how old are the boys on the field now?

ME: 15/16

Them: oh, but what year are they?

ME: 2019

Them: I still dont get why you have them play 2019 they should be 2020? They are playing against older kids.

ME: well that is how we do it? thanks for the conversation have a great day good luck


Qtr changes and gave me an excuse to exit stage right....

My outtake why the [lacrosse] doesnt the government have a set date for school (across the country). People dont get it . When did cheating become the norm. When kids across the country go to college it is a bell curve of ages, why not have a consistent age of when you should go in. Heck, not just in sport but academics also. Hey Im not saying take away a PG or holdback, you want to PG or hold back okay go ahead, but let everyone be on the same page of what is going on. You want to gain an advantage because you/He/She couldnt do it the right way. Now you need to find that back door.


Because this isn't the USSR. Most schools do set a maximum for athletic participation, and it is typically the equivalent of doing one extra year. Makes sense, since almost the entire private school industry has evolved. Did you seriously mean to infer that every American would need to finish HS (as in mandated) at the same birth year age? All of your nonsensical drivel aside, come on, you realize when you start talking to someone on the sideline, they walk away within like 20 seconds, right?



i didnt not say you couldnt be a hold back but it would be known you were a hold back (Cheater or a PG trying to better themselves) - right now it is a hidden consequence. i dont know that my grade player is player a player 1-2 years older. i sign a waiver saying thinking my child is playing against a proper opponent.

and for those saying this isnt USSR, the gov (be it state) does mandate an age but doesnt enforce it with any bite. As for the norm in youth sports, doesnt the Government sub committes actually lets the governing bodies of each sport police these things and USLAX is just that Lax on it.

I too played Football in college and later for fun semi pro, age matters until 25 then, age matters again at 35. 25-35 is the only years age doesnt matter. Puberty or not
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/12/17 08:05 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
So with all this argument over age based reclassification. Injuries and what no (which I don't think exist) what of an on age kid who is clearly superior in size and speed to everyone else? We have all seen this kid. He just got there faster. Will he be banned from playing? What is the answer? I mean really, it's the same thing isn't it? Its a safety issue if he is allowed to continue playing with the smaller kids. Maybe the smaller kids shouldn't be allowed to play. That would make it safer. The answer is there is no answer. The age reclass argument is based on winning and losing, nothing more. The parents posting on here could care less about injuries, they just want the Trophy/t-shirt.


We should assign teams by exact birthday, although the early morning kids may have an advantage over the afternoon kids, and evening kids - forget about it, they are screwed. F'ing morning kids totally gaming the system.


You are the perfect example of a person who provides no value to a discussion. You are also likely someone who provides zero time and effort to improving something, but would also likely be the first to complain. You are exactly the complete opposite of what I look for in potential hires for my company!
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/12/17 08:51 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
So with all this argument over age based reclassification. Injuries and what no (which I don't think exist) what of an on age kid who is clearly superior in size and speed to everyone else? We have all seen this kid. He just got there faster. Will he be banned from playing? What is the answer? I mean really, it's the same thing isn't it? Its a safety issue if he is allowed to continue playing with the smaller kids. Maybe the smaller kids shouldn't be allowed to play. That would make it safer. The answer is there is no answer. The age reclass argument is based on winning and losing, nothing more. The parents posting on here could care less about injuries, they just want the Trophy/t-shirt.


We should assign teams by exact birthday, although the early morning kids may have an advantage over the afternoon kids, and evening kids - forget about it, they are screwed. F'ing morning kids totally gaming the system.


You are the perfect example of a person who provides no value to a discussion. You are also likely someone who provides zero time and effort to improving something, but would also likely be the first to complain. You are exactly the complete opposite of what I look for in potential hires for my company!


You just provided zero value to the discussion. I only work with holdbacks that don't look on lax forums for hires anyway.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/12/17 08:57 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
So with all this argument over age based reclassification. Injuries and what no (which I don't think exist) what of an on age kid who is clearly superior in size and speed to everyone else? We have all seen this kid. He just got there faster. Will he be banned from playing? What is the answer? I mean really, it's the same thing isn't it? Its a safety issue if he is allowed to continue playing with the smaller kids. Maybe the smaller kids shouldn't be allowed to play. That would make it safer. The answer is there is no answer. The age reclass argument is based on winning and losing, nothing more. The parents posting on here could care less about injuries, they just want the Trophy/t-shirt.


Lame. Of course there are kids that get big, fast and strong at an early age (as you say, they get there faster). But such kids are rare. By playing a grade based system where different teams/parts of the country have large differences in the ages of the players, you significantly increase the occurrence of players who are significantly bigger, stronger and faster than their opponents. By playing on age, such occurrences are minimized. Not eliminated, but minimized. Such is an achievable and worthy goal.

Moreover, the kid who "gets there faster" can always play up in a age based system if his family deems such to be is his best developmental interest. Than he can move back to his proper age when the other kids catch up.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/12/17 09:26 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
So with all this argument over age based reclassification. Injuries and what no (which I don't think exist) what of an on age kid who is clearly superior in size and speed to everyone else? We have all seen this kid. He just got there faster. Will he be banned from playing? What is the answer? I mean really, it's the same thing isn't it? Its a safety issue if he is allowed to continue playing with the smaller kids. Maybe the smaller kids shouldn't be allowed to play. That would make it safer. The answer is there is no answer. The age reclass argument is based on winning and losing, nothing more. The parents posting on here could care less about injuries, they just want the Trophy/t-shirt.


We should assign teams by exact birthday, although the early morning kids may have an advantage over the afternoon kids, and evening kids - forget about it, they are screwed. F'ing morning kids totally gaming the system.


You are the perfect example of a person who provides no value to a discussion. You are also likely someone who provides zero time and effort to improving something, but would also likely be the first to complain. You are exactly the complete opposite of what I look for in potential hires for my company!


First off your company is BS, just like you! What have YOU done? Name one action you have taken to improve the current system, OTHER than anonymously posting your nonsense on BOTC. I have yet to see a parent at a tournament with a petition regarding this. I have never seen a parent set up a booth at a tournament to protest. So what Mr. Big Shot, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE? Nonsense, your company, HA, is it as imaginary as your efforts to improve a system you so strenuously object to? I have a word for guys like you....PHONY.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/12/17 10:27 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
So with all this argument over age based reclassification. Injuries and what no (which I don't think exist) what of an on age kid who is clearly superior in size and speed to everyone else? We have all seen this kid. He just got there faster. Will he be banned from playing? What is the answer? I mean really, it's the same thing isn't it? Its a safety issue if he is allowed to continue playing with the smaller kids. Maybe the smaller kids shouldn't be allowed to play. That would make it safer. The answer is there is no answer. The age reclass argument is based on winning and losing, nothing more. The parents posting on here could care less about injuries, they just want the Trophy/t-shirt.

you sound like a total jack off.


Why because all that is ever posted is how much concern people have for the kids safety and well being? That's a load of BS and you know it. But keep putting that in your argument if it makes you feel better, I know the truth, it's all about the T-shirt. But thanks for the insult on the anonymous site, let me return the favor, you ARE a total jack off! Stop worrying about losing kids lax games and concentrate on being a better person. Ahh, forget it , too much work for a tool like you.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/13/17 11:46 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
So with all this argument over age based reclassification. Injuries and what no (which I don't think exist) what of an on age kid who is clearly superior in size and speed to everyone else? We have all seen this kid. He just got there faster. Will he be banned from playing? What is the answer? I mean really, it's the same thing isn't it? Its a safety issue if he is allowed to continue playing with the smaller kids. Maybe the smaller kids shouldn't be allowed to play. That would make it safer. The answer is there is no answer. The age reclass argument is based on winning and losing, nothing more. The parents posting on here could care less about injuries, they just want the
Trophy/t-shirt.

you sound like a total jack off.


Why because all that is ever posted is how much concern people have for the kids safety and well being? That's a load of BS and you know it. But keep putting that in your argument if it makes you feel better, I know the truth, it's all about the T-shirt. But thanks for the insult on the anonymous site, let me return the favor, you ARE a total jack off! Stop worrying about losing kids lax games and concentrate on being a better person. Ahh, forget it , too much work for a tool like you.


Just because you think winning t-shirts and "ships" is the immediate pay off for your $ and that a college scholarship (which is likely to be worth very little actual $) is the long term pay off - doesn't mean that's the way others think. Set injuries aside if you think it's a non-concern. Organizing around age prior to HS is ultimately better for all the kids - including the left back older kids.

Maybe less t-shirts involved for some, but ultimately better lacrosse and development for all. Anyone who knows anything about player developement knows this is true. Beating up on younger kids may get your son a few more shirts which makes you feel good about your "investment" but it's not the best way to develope players. Ask anyone who knows anything and isn't selling you something. Best players would play up during youth rather than down if you went to age based.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/13/17 12:05 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
So with all this argument over age based reclassification. Injuries and what no (which I don't think exist) what of an on age kid who is clearly superior in size and speed to everyone else? We have all seen this kid. He just got there faster. Will he be banned from playing? What is the answer? I mean really, it's the same thing isn't it? Its a safety issue if he is allowed to continue playing with the smaller kids. Maybe the smaller kids shouldn't be allowed to play. That would make it safer. The answer is there is no answer. The age reclass argument is based on winning and losing, nothing more. The parents posting on here could care less about injuries, they just want the
Trophy/t-shirt.

you sound like a total jack off.


Why because all that is ever posted is how much concern people have for the kids safety and well being? That's a load of BS and you know it. But keep putting that in your argument if it makes you feel better, I know the truth, it's all about the T-shirt. But thanks for the insult on the anonymous site, let me return the favor, you ARE a total jack off! Stop worrying about losing kids lax games and concentrate on being a better person. Ahh, forget it , too much work for a tool like you.


Different poster here. Not really concerned with injuries but do feel rewarding these people who work the system is wrong . How many of the players in the UA senior game are hold backs ? How many of the top ranked 2017 recruits are hold backs ? How many of them would have gotten those same accolades on age ? Seems you are putting the on age kids at a disadvantage .Its comical when the parents of these players puff out their chest and brag about their kids accolades when it's obvious that if they played on age they would be above average but that's it .
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/13/17 12:42 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
This holdback thing was completely thrown in my face this summer.

explaining how it works went something like this.

Them: which boy is yours?

Me: ###

Them: Wow he is thick

Me: "Johnnie" is a big boy for his age, his birthday is September. By other state schools definition, he could be a year younger in school and play a year lower in sports. On LI it is Dec 1 or Jan 1st or something in between.

Them: Our (Declan) son is born in June, in our district (Cali) he would have been one of the youngest in his grade so we decided to wait and have him be the oldest. Wasnt fair to him to be the youngest. and he has a slight frame.

Me: I guess someone has to be the youngest.

Them: your LI teams are good. are they all aged like your son's team.

ME: many are,

Them: we were at the WSYL the past few years. someone said they werent real teams

Me: "John" was asked to play in the WSYL, but it was for a new team they were making in his organization. they would play 4/5 games then go to Denver.

Them: thats not fair, it isnt his team.

Me: yeah, how about that. If any LI team would go with the summer team they would be younger so they create new teams. Many kids play on 1 or 2 teams anyway. These teams fit the age boundaries. they play 4/5 games and becomes a team..

Them: How is that fair?

Me: I dont mean to be rude but you say fair, to me your boy is playing down?

Them: well he is the youngest on the team

Me: wait he is playing down and the youngest on the team, and you are complaining about what is fair. admittingly I regret it, but I said no to my son playing down. So please I no longer get what is fair or not. the WSYL maybe a farce with the age cutoffs, since it hasnt been consistent since inception. but age is age.

Them: I guess you are right, how old are the boys on the field now?

ME: 15/16

Them: oh, but what year are they?

ME: 2019

Them: I still dont get why you have them play 2019 they should be 2020? They are playing against older kids.

ME: well that is how we do it? thanks for the conversation have a great day good luck


Qtr changes and gave me an excuse to exit stage right....

My outtake why the [lacrosse] doesnt the government have a set date for school (across the country). People dont get it . When did cheating become the norm. When kids across the country go to college it is a bell curve of ages, why not have a consistent age of when you should go in. Heck, not just in sport but academics also. Hey Im not saying take away a PG or holdback, you want to PG or hold back okay go ahead, but let everyone be on the same page of what is going on. You want to gain an advantage because you/He/She couldnt do it the right way. Now you need to find that back door.


Because this isn't the USSR. Most schools do set a maximum for athletic participation, and it is typically the equivalent of doing one extra year. Makes sense, since almost the entire private school industry has evolved. Did you seriously mean to infer that every American would need to finish HS (as in mandated) at the same birth year age? All of your nonsensical drivel aside, come on, you realize when you start talking to someone on the sideline, they walk away within like 20 seconds, right?



i didnt not say you couldnt be a hold back but it would be known you were a hold back (Cheater or a PG trying to better themselves) - right now it is a hidden consequence. i dont know that my grade player is player a player 1-2 years older. i sign a waiver saying thinking my child is playing against a proper opponent.

and for those saying this isnt USSR, the gov (be it state) does mandate an age but doesnt enforce it with any bite. As for the norm in youth sports, doesnt the Government sub committes actually lets the governing bodies of each sport police these things and USLAX is just that Lax on it.

I too played Football in college and later for fun semi pro, age matters until 25 then, age matters again at 35. 25-35 is the only years age doesnt matter. Puberty or not


I agree, I keep hearing that age doesn't matter in high school, I don't know as we are not there yet, but if age doesn't matter in high school wouldn't kids be going straight into the NFL? My understanding is that even the most talented 18 yr. olds can in no way physically compete with men. Therefore age still matters in high school, right? My only problem is that with the kindergarten standards being what they are now New [lacrosse] is the one a little behind with their 12/1 cut off.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/13/17 01:33 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
So with all this argument over age based reclassification. Injuries and what no (which I don't think exist) what of an on age kid who is clearly superior in size and speed to everyone else? We have all seen this kid. He just got there faster. Will he be banned from playing? What is the answer? I mean really, it's the same thing isn't it? Its a safety issue if he is allowed to continue playing with the smaller kids. Maybe the smaller kids shouldn't be allowed to play. That would make it safer. The answer is there is no answer. The age reclass argument is based on winning and losing, nothing more. The parents posting on here could care less about injuries, they just want the
Trophy/t-shirt.

you sound like a total jack off.


Why because all that is ever posted is how much concern people have for the kids safety and well being? That's a load of BS and you know it. But keep putting that in your argument if it makes you feel better, I know the truth, it's all about the T-shirt. But thanks for the insult on the anonymous site, let me return the favor, you ARE a total jack off! Stop worrying about losing kids lax games and concentrate on being a better person. Ahh, forget it , too much work for a tool like you.


Different poster here. Not really concerned with injuries but do feel rewarding these people who work the system is wrong . How many of the players in the UA senior game are hold backs ? How many of the top ranked 2017 recruits are hold backs ? How many of them would have gotten those same accolades on age ? Seems you are putting the on age kids at a disadvantage .Its comical when the parents of these players puff out their chest and brag about their kids accolades when it's obvious that if they played on age they would be above average but that's it .


Seriously, what is your fascination with pretending there is a birthday year team, and creating this false reality in your mind? There is not a 17 year old team, not a 18 year old team, not a 19 year old team. They have High School teams, by grade. Other than trying to disparage a very large batch of private school kids, what is your point?
How about calling people that don't take the extra year, if available, lazy impatient cheapskate mf'ers. Is there really a parent out there that thinks an extra year of education is a detriment in any way? It's available at some schools, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with taking it if available, because 'Merica.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/13/17 01:48 PM
i didnt not say you couldnt be a hold back but it would be known you were a hold back (Cheater or a PG trying to better themselves) - right now it is a hidden consequence. i dont know that my grade player is player a player 1-2 years older. i sign a waiver saying thinking my child is playing against a proper opponent.

and for those saying this isnt USSR, the gov (be it state) does mandate an age but doesnt enforce it with any bite. As for the norm in youth sports, doesnt the Government sub committes actually lets the governing bodies of each sport police these things and USLAX is just that Lax on it.

I too played Football in college and later for fun semi pro, age matters until 25 then, age matters again at 35. 25-35 is the only years age doesnt matter. Puberty or not [/quote]

I agree, I keep hearing that age doesn't matter in high school, I don't know as we are not there yet, but if age doesn't matter in high school wouldn't kids be going straight into the NFL? My understanding is that even the most talented 18 yr. olds can in no way physically compete with men. Therefore age still matters in high school, right? My only problem is that with the kindergarten standards being what they are now New [lacrosse] is the one a little behind with their 12/1 cut off.
[/quote]

Ask the Germans how our most talented 18 year olds did when put to the test. Still, wth does this have to do with 17-19 year olds playing Varsity lacrosse together in HS?? As soon as you hit college, it goes to like 18-22, so again, what is your point? Are you saying that most HS Senior athletes can't yet compete with most pro athletes, at any particular sport? Ok, sounds logical. But, still, wth does that have to do with some kid that repeated a middle school grade?

Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/13/17 02:12 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
So with all this argument over age based reclassification. Injuries and what no (which I don't think exist) what of an on age kid who is clearly superior in size and speed to everyone else? We have all seen this kid. He just got there faster. Will he be banned from playing? What is the answer? I mean really, it's the same thing isn't it? Its a safety issue if he is allowed to continue playing with the smaller kids. Maybe the smaller kids shouldn't be allowed to play. That would make it safer. The answer is there is no answer. The age reclass argument is based on winning and losing, nothing more. The parents posting on here could care less about injuries, they just want the
Trophy/t-shirt.

you sound like a total jack off.


Why because all that is ever posted is how much concern people have for the kids safety and well being? That's a load of BS and you know it. But keep putting that in your argument if it makes you feel better, I know the truth, it's all about the T-shirt. But thanks for the insult on the anonymous site, let me return the favor, you ARE a total jack off! Stop worrying about losing kids lax games and concentrate on being a better person. Ahh, forget it , too much work for a tool like you.


Different poster here. Not really concerned with injuries but do feel rewarding these people who work the system is wrong . How many of the players in the UA senior game are hold backs ? How many of the top ranked 2017 recruits are hold backs ? How many of them would have gotten those same accolades on age ? Seems you are putting the on age kids at a disadvantage .Its comical when the parents of these players puff out their chest and brag about their kids accolades when it's obvious that if they played on age they would be above average but that's it .


Seriously, what is your fascination with pretending there is a birthday year team, and creating this false reality in your mind? There is not a 17 year old team, not a 18 year old team, not a 19 year old team. They have High School teams, by grade. Other than trying to disparage a very large batch of private school kids, what is your point?
How about calling people that don't take the extra year, if available, lazy impatient cheapskate mf'ers. Is there really a parent out there that thinks an extra year of education is a detriment in any way? It's available at some schools, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with taking it if available, because 'Merica.


No one is complaining about your kid taking an extra year of education, or repeating 8th grade, or whatever it is you do. Have at it. Its just that when your kid plays travel lacrosse, he should be on a team populated with kids of similar age, and he should be playing games against other teams similarly rostered. That is all. Put your kid in 3rd grade when he is 14 - no one cares. But when he plays travel lax, just have him play against other 14 year olds. That is all people are asking, and many people are advocating for such a system. This forum is one place where that advocacy happens.

The fascination with birth year teams is not in pretending that they exit. Its in wishing they exist. Why is this hard to understand?

For your High School team, it doesn't matter how old the kids are, so long as they are not above whatever age your governing body dictates is too old (in many places, it is capped at 19). But realize that HS competition is almost always organized amongst schools that have similar aged kids. NY public high schools compete only against NY public high schools, and these kids are largely the same age per grade. Prep schools play against Prep schools. Ect. Sometimes, teams voluntarily play outside their category (like a Yorktown type school playing a prep school in CT or something like that), but they do such voluntarily knowing what they are getting into - and the games never really count for anything - its not a league or sectional game.

But for travel lacrosse, where kids are competing against kids from all over the country regardless of state or high school, it should be an age-based system. That is how it is in most other team sports, and it works well. It would work well in lacrosse, and in undeniably better than the system we have now. If your kid is very good, he can play up against older kids at your choosing.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/13/17 02:28 PM
I agree, I keep hearing that age doesn't matter in high school, I don't know as we are not there yet, but if age doesn't matter in high school wouldn't kids be going straight into the NFL? My understanding is that even the most talented 18 yr. olds can in no way physically compete with men. Therefore age still matters in high school, right? My only problem is that with the kindergarten standards being what they are now New [lacrosse] is the one a little behind with their 12/1 cut off.
[/quote]


It isn't that it doesn't matter in HS. The point is - that varying school systems across the country aren't going to uniformly re-organize around sport's concerns. They have curriculums, age systems, and business models which they deem best (for whatever the reason). That isn't likely to ever get addressed - so not really worth focusing too much attention on IMO.

The reality is - once your kid hits HS he is competing against those kids (older or not) if he hopes to move on and play at the college level. The 20+ year old player from Deerfield or Brunswick is entering college the same time as your 17/18 yr. old from LI - that's just life with competitive college sports. Does the older player have an advantage? Sure. But, put a talented 18 yr. old on the field with a potentially less or even equally talented 20 yr. old and the difference isn't overwhelming for the younger player.

Same is simply not true at youth level. Talented still 12 not yet 13 year old going into 8th grade vs. 14+ year old kids is, in fact, often times overwhelming. To all those that say this is just crying and whining - you're either delusional or blind.


Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/13/17 02:59 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
So with all this argument over age based reclassification. Injuries and what no (which I don't think exist) what of an on age kid who is clearly superior in size and speed to everyone else? We have all seen this kid. He just got there faster. Will he be banned from playing? What is the answer? I mean really, it's the same thing isn't it? Its a safety issue if he is allowed to continue playing with the smaller kids. Maybe the smaller kids shouldn't be allowed to play. That would make it safer. The answer is there is no answer. The age reclass argument is based on winning and losing, nothing more. The parents posting on here could care less about injuries, they just want the
Trophy/t-shirt.

you sound like a total jack off.


Why because all that is ever posted is how much concern people have for the kids safety and well being? That's a load of BS and you know it. But keep putting that in your argument if it makes you feel better, I know the truth, it's all about the T-shirt. But thanks for the insult on the anonymous site, let me return the favor, you ARE a total jack off! Stop worrying about losing kids lax games and concentrate on being a better person. Ahh, forget it , too much work for a tool like you.


Different poster here. Not really concerned with injuries but do feel rewarding these people who work the system is wrong . How many of the players in the UA senior game are hold backs ? How many of the top ranked 2017 recruits are hold backs ? How many of them would have gotten those same accolades on age ? Seems you are putting the on age kids at a disadvantage .Its comical when the parents of these players puff out their chest and brag about their kids accolades when it's obvious that if they played on age they would be above average but that's it .


Seriously, what is your fascination with pretending there is a birthday year team, and creating this false reality in your mind? There is not a 17 year old team, not a 18 year old team, not a 19 year old team. They have High School teams, by grade. Other than trying to disparage a very large batch of private school kids, what is your point?
How about calling people that don't take the extra year, if available, lazy impatient cheapskate mf'ers. Is there really a parent out there that thinks an extra year of education is a detriment in any way? It's available at some schools, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with taking it if available, because 'Merica.


No one is complaining about your kid taking an extra year of education, or repeating 8th grade, or whatever it is you do. Have at it. Its just that when your kid plays travel lacrosse, he should be on a team populated with kids of similar age, and he should be playing games against other teams similarly rostered. That is all. Put your kid in 3rd grade when he is 14 - no one cares. But when he plays travel lax, just have him play against other 14 year olds. That is all people are asking, and many people are advocating for such a system. This forum is one place where that advocacy happens.

The fascination with birth year teams is not in pretending that they exit. Its in wishing they exist. Why is this hard to understand?

For your High School team, it doesn't matter how old the kids are, so long as they are not above whatever age your governing body dictates is too old (in many places, it is capped at 19). But realize that HS competition is almost always organized amongst schools that have similar aged kids. NY public high schools compete only against NY public high schools, and these kids are largely the same age per grade. Prep schools play against Prep schools. Ect. Sometimes, teams voluntarily play outside their category (like a Yorktown type school playing a prep school in CT or something like that), but they do such voluntarily knowing what they are getting into - and the games never really count for anything - its not a league or sectional game.

But for travel lacrosse, where kids are competing against kids from all over the country regardless of state or high school, it should be an age-based system. That is how it is in most other team sports, and it works well. It would work well in lacrosse, and in undeniably better than the system we have now. If your kid is very good, he can play up against older kids at your choosing.


All the posters complaining about advocating for an age-based system never provide the one thing to make an actual argument: rationale for the grade-based system! Because there isn't one!
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/13/17 03:04 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
So with all this argument over age based reclassification. Injuries and what no (which I don't think exist) what of an on age kid who is clearly superior in size and speed to everyone else? We have all seen this kid. He just got there faster. Will he be banned from playing? What is the answer? I mean really, it's the same thing isn't it? Its a safety issue if he is allowed to continue playing with the smaller kids. Maybe the smaller kids shouldn't be allowed to play. That would make it safer. The answer is there is no answer. The age reclass argument is based on winning and losing, nothing more. The parents posting on here could care less about injuries, they just want the
Trophy/t-shirt.

you sound like a total jack off.


Why because all that is ever posted is how much concern people have for the kids safety and well being? That's a load of BS and you know it. But keep putting that in your argument if it makes you feel better, I know the truth, it's all about the T-shirt. But thanks for the insult on the anonymous site, let me return the favor, you ARE a total jack off! Stop worrying about losing kids lax games and concentrate on being a better person. Ahh, forget it , too much work for a tool like you.


Different poster here. Not really concerned with injuries but do feel rewarding these people who work the system is wrong . How many of the players in the UA senior game are hold backs ? How many of the top ranked 2017 recruits are hold backs ? How many of them would have gotten those same accolades on age ? Seems you are putting the on age kids at a disadvantage .Its comical when the parents of these players puff out their chest and brag about their kids accolades when it's obvious that if they played on age they would be above average but that's it .


All those saying that it isn't about the injuries should note that USL felt compelled to make injuries the top reason for implementing its age-based policy recommendations:

"The development of this policy was based on the overarching goal of providing a safe, quality and consistent playing experience
for all youth lacrosse players in the country."

https://www.uslacrosse.org/sites/de.../player-segmentation-task-force-recs.pdf
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/13/17 03:41 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
So with all this argument over age based reclassification. Injuries and what no (which I don't think exist) what of an on age kid who is clearly superior in size and speed to everyone else? We have all seen this kid. He just got there faster. Will he be banned from playing? What is the answer? I mean really, it's the same thing isn't it? Its a safety issue if he is allowed to continue playing with the smaller kids. Maybe the smaller kids shouldn't be allowed to play. That would make it safer. The answer is there is no answer. The age reclass argument is based on winning and losing, nothing more. The parents posting on here could care less about injuries, they just want the
Trophy/t-shirt.

you sound like a total jack off.


Why because all that is ever posted is how much concern people have for the kids safety and well being? That's a load of BS and you know it. But keep putting that in your argument if it makes you feel better, I know the truth, it's all about the T-shirt. But thanks for the insult on the anonymous site, let me return the favor, you ARE a total jack off! Stop worrying about losing kids lax games and concentrate on being a better person. Ahh, forget it , too much work for a tool like you.


Different poster here. Not really concerned with injuries but do feel rewarding these people who work the system is wrong . How many of the players in the UA senior game are hold backs ? How many of the top ranked 2017 recruits are hold backs ? How many of them would have gotten those same accolades on age ? Seems you are putting the on age kids at a disadvantage .Its comical when the parents of these players puff out their chest and brag about their kids accolades when it's obvious that if they played on age they would be above average but that's it .


All those saying that it isn't about the injuries should note that USL felt compelled to make injuries the top reason for implementing its age-based policy recommendations:

"The development of this policy was based on the overarching goal of providing a safe, quality and consistent playing experience
for all youth lacrosse players in the country."

https://www.uslacrosse.org/sites/de.../player-segmentation-task-force-recs.pdf



Until RECOMMENDS becomes MANDATES this is a useless conversation
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/13/17 03:43 PM
Seriously, what is your fascination with pretending there is a birthday year team, and creating this false reality in your mind? There is not a 17 year old team, not a 18 year old team, not a 19 year old team. They have High School teams, by grade. Other than trying to disparage a very large batch of private school kids, what is your point?
How about calling people that don't take the extra year, if available, lazy impatient cheapskate mf'ers. Is there really a parent out there that thinks an extra year of education is a detriment in any way? It's available at some schools, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with taking it if available, because 'Merica. [/quote]

No one is complaining about your kid taking an extra year of education, or repeating 8th grade, or whatever it is you do. Have at it. Its just that when your kid plays travel lacrosse, he should be on a team populated with kids of similar age, and he should be playing games against other teams similarly rostered. That is all. Put your kid in 3rd grade when he is 14 - no one cares. But when he plays travel lax, just have him play against other 14 year olds. That is all people are asking, and many people are advocating for such a system. This forum is one place where that advocacy happens.

The fascination with birth year teams is not in pretending that they exit. Its in wishing they exist. Why is this hard to understand?

For your High School team, it doesn't matter how old the kids are, so long as they are not above whatever age your governing body dictates is too old (in many places, it is capped at 19). But realize that HS competition is almost always organized amongst schools that have similar aged kids. NY public high schools compete only against NY public high schools, and these kids are largely the same age per grade. Prep schools play against Prep schools. Ect. Sometimes, teams voluntarily play outside their category (like a Yorktown type school playing a prep school in CT or something like that), but they do such voluntarily knowing what they are getting into - and the games never really count for anything - its not a league or sectional game.

But for travel lacrosse, where kids are competing against kids from all over the country regardless of state or high school, it should be an age-based system. That is how it is in most other team sports, and it works well. It would work well in lacrosse, and in undeniably better than the system we have now. If your kid is very good, he can play up against older kids at your choosing. [/quote]

All the posters complaining about advocating for an age-based system never provide the one thing to make an actual argument: rationale for the grade-based system! Because there isn't one![/quote]

The rationale is that club was originally formed for kids that wanted to excel and definitely wanted to play Varsity in HS, then into college, so the system was set up for continuity from middle school into HS, which is obviously going to be grade-based, because HS events are showcases, not team trophy chases. Middle school was to build the teams, then HS was to showcase the players. Then, club got really popular, and everyone wanted to play, so it became really just an expensive rec league, and the younger teams were added and more average teams have emerged. Now, folks don't want it to be high level HS prep, they want it to be a universal rec league, and with the rec league mentality comes rec league rules. My question, does rec not exist anymore, for those that want to play the game as a mere youth activity? Club should be high level HS prep for anyone that wants high level HS prep. What's wrong now, the teams that treat it as high level HS prep aren't playing in events with teams that treat it like expensive rec, they play in high level HS prep-style events against each other.

Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/13/17 04:35 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Seriously, what is your fascination with pretending there is a birthday year team, and creating this false reality in your mind? There is not a 17 year old team, not a 18 year old team, not a 19 year old team. They have High School teams, by grade. Other than trying to disparage a very large batch of private school kids, what is your point?
How about calling people that don't take the extra year, if available, lazy impatient cheapskate mf'ers. Is there really a parent out there that thinks an extra year of education is a detriment in any way? It's available at some schools, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with taking it if available, because 'Merica.


No one is complaining about your kid taking an extra year of education, or repeating 8th grade, or whatever it is you do. Have at it. Its just that when your kid plays travel lacrosse, he should be on a team populated with kids of similar age, and he should be playing games against other teams similarly rostered. That is all. Put your kid in 3rd grade when he is 14 - no one cares. But when he plays travel lax, just have him play against other 14 year olds. That is all people are asking, and many people are advocating for such a system. This forum is one place where that advocacy happens.

The fascination with birth year teams is not in pretending that they exit. Its in wishing they exist. Why is this hard to understand?

For your High School team, it doesn't matter how old the kids are, so long as they are not above whatever age your governing body dictates is too old (in many places, it is capped at 19). But realize that HS competition is almost always organized amongst schools that have similar aged kids. NY public high schools compete only against NY public high schools, and these kids are largely the same age per grade. Prep schools play against Prep schools. Ect. Sometimes, teams voluntarily play outside their category (like a Yorktown type school playing a prep school in CT or something like that), but they do such voluntarily knowing what they are getting into - and the games never really count for anything - its not a league or sectional game.

But for travel lacrosse, where kids are competing against kids from all over the country regardless of state or high school, it should be an age-based system. That is how it is in most other team sports, and it works well. It would work well in lacrosse, and in undeniably better than the system we have now. If your kid is very good, he can play up against older kids at your choosing. [/quote]

All the posters complaining about advocating for an age-based system never provide the one thing to make an actual argument: rationale for the grade-based system! Because there isn't one![/quote]

The rationale is that club was originally formed for kids that wanted to excel and definitely wanted to play Varsity in HS, then into college, so the system was set up for continuity from middle school into HS, which is obviously going to be grade-based, because HS events are showcases, not team trophy chases. Middle school was to build the teams, then HS was to showcase the players. Then, club got really popular, and everyone wanted to play, so it became really just an expensive rec league, and the younger teams were added and more average teams have emerged. Now, folks don't want it to be high level HS prep, they want it to be a universal rec league, and with the rec league mentality comes rec league rules. My question, does rec not exist anymore, for those that want to play the game as a mere youth activity? Club should be high level HS prep for anyone that wants high level HS prep. What's wrong now, the teams that treat it as high level HS prep aren't playing in events with teams that treat it like expensive rec, they play in high level HS prep-style events against each other.

[/quote]

The sport should be organized around what it is, not what it was. Thus, any argument about how it was set up before has no bearing on how it should be set up now, and is in effect not a valid argument to maintain the current state. It should be age-based for 7 - 14 YOs (roughly equivalent to 2nd grade through MS/8th grade), and then HS players can be grade-based if that is preferred for the recruiting aspect of it.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/13/17 04:38 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
So with all this argument over age based reclassification. Injuries and what no (which I don't think exist) what of an on age kid who is clearly superior in size and speed to everyone else? We have all seen this kid. He just got there faster. Will he be banned from playing? What is the answer? I mean really, it's the same thing isn't it? Its a safety issue if he is allowed to continue playing with the smaller kids. Maybe the smaller kids shouldn't be allowed to play. That would make it safer. The answer is there is no answer. The age reclass argument is based on winning and losing, nothing more. The parents posting on here could care less about injuries, they just want the
Trophy/t-shirt.

you sound like a total jack off.


Why because all that is ever posted is how much concern people have for the kids safety and well being? That's a load of BS and you know it. But keep putting that in your argument if it makes you feel better, I know the truth, it's all about the T-shirt. But thanks for the insult on the anonymous site, let me return the favor, you ARE a total jack off! Stop worrying about losing kids lax games and concentrate on being a better person. Ahh, forget it , too much work for a tool like you.


Different poster here. Not really concerned with injuries but do feel rewarding these people who work the system is wrong . How many of the players in the UA senior game are hold backs ? How many of the top ranked 2017 recruits are hold backs ? How many of them would have gotten those same accolades on age ? Seems you are putting the on age kids at a disadvantage .Its comical when the parents of these players puff out their chest and brag about their kids accolades when it's obvious that if they played on age they would be above average but that's it .


All those saying that it isn't about the injuries should note that USL felt compelled to make injuries the top reason for implementing its age-based policy recommendations:

"The development of this policy was based on the overarching goal of providing a safe, quality and consistent playing experience
for all youth lacrosse players in the country."

https://www.uslacrosse.org/sites/de.../player-segmentation-task-force-recs.pdf



Until RECOMMENDS becomes MANDATES this is a useless conversation


It's only useless if you are of the mindset that no one will pursue transitioning it from "recommended" to "mandated" - that's called progress! It's what most other major youth sports all achieved, probably with the same naysayers then as we see here regarding lax today!
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/13/17 04:47 PM
True Conversation that happened at NLF Elite 120 2020:

Crabs Attackmen: How old are you?
Upstate New [lacrosse] Defender: I am 14 turning 15 in July
Crabs Attackmen: Your Crazy. I am 17. You should stay back at least one year maybe even two

It is a shame that one would walk around with his head up while competing against kids 2 to 3 years younger.

Just an observation
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/13/17 04:56 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Seriously, what is your fascination with pretending there is a birthday year team, and creating this false reality in your mind? There is not a 17 year old team, not a 18 year old team, not a 19 year old team. They have High School teams, by grade. Other than trying to disparage a very large batch of private school kids, what is your point?
How about calling people that don't take the extra year, if available, lazy impatient cheapskate mf'ers. Is there really a parent out there that thinks an extra year of education is a detriment in any way? It's available at some schools, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with taking it if available, because 'Merica.


No one is complaining about your kid taking an extra year of education, or repeating 8th grade, or whatever it is you do. Have at it. Its just that when your kid plays travel lacrosse, he should be on a team populated with kids of similar age, and he should be playing games against other teams similarly rostered. That is all. Put your kid in 3rd grade when he is 14 - no one cares. But when he plays travel lax, just have him play against other 14 year olds. That is all people are asking, and many people are advocating for such a system. This forum is one place where that advocacy happens.

The fascination with birth year teams is not in pretending that they exit. Its in wishing they exist. Why is this hard to understand?

For your High School team, it doesn't matter how old the kids are, so long as they are not above whatever age your governing body dictates is too old (in many places, it is capped at 19). But realize that HS competition is almost always organized amongst schools that have similar aged kids. NY public high schools compete only against NY public high schools, and these kids are largely the same age per grade. Prep schools play against Prep schools. Ect. Sometimes, teams voluntarily play outside their category (like a Yorktown type school playing a prep school in CT or something like that), but they do such voluntarily knowing what they are getting into - and the games never really count for anything - its not a league or sectional game.

But for travel lacrosse, where kids are competing against kids from all over the country regardless of state or high school, it should be an age-based system. That is how it is in most other team sports, and it works well. It would work well in lacrosse, and in undeniably better than the system we have now. If your kid is very good, he can play up against older kids at your choosing. [/quote]

All the posters complaining about advocating for an age-based system never provide the one thing to make an actual argument: rationale for the grade-based system! Because there isn't one![/quote]

The rationale is that club was originally formed for kids that wanted to excel and definitely wanted to play Varsity in HS, then into college, so the system was set up for continuity from middle school into HS, which is obviously going to be grade-based, because HS events are showcases, not team trophy chases. Middle school was to build the teams, then HS was to showcase the players. Then, club got really popular, and everyone wanted to play, so it became really just an expensive rec league, and the younger teams were added and more average teams have emerged. Now, folks don't want it to be high level HS prep, they want it to be a universal rec league, and with the rec league mentality comes rec league rules. My question, does rec not exist anymore, for those that want to play the game as a mere youth activity? Club should be high level HS prep for anyone that wants high level HS prep. What's wrong now, the teams that treat it as high level HS prep aren't playing in events with teams that treat it like expensive rec, they play in high level HS prep-style events against each other.

[/quote]

Another lame argument. How come hockey does it age based at the highest levels? Same for soccer? Why can't you prep for high level HS and college against kids your own age? The best of the best of the best can play AAA leagues/divisions against kids their same age. How is an elite player's development disadvantaged by playing against other elite players his same age? If a kid is even better than the best kids his age than he can play in a higher age bracket.

The college showcase argument is lame also. When college coaches watch HS and MS kids, they don't care how good they are now. They are instead trying to figure out who will be good when they reach college. They are trying to see who projects to be great when they are older. How on earth are you able to do that when some kids on the field are 15 and some are 13? A 15 year old dominating a 13 year old tells you nothing about whether or not that 15 year old projects to be great in college. The same is true for the 13 year old being dominated. But if a 15 year old dominates other 15 year olds, than you have some data to work with.

And please no one respond with the equally lame argument that "they will be playing against each other in college so you might as well compete now." When said 13 year old gets to college, and its late winter/spring of his freshman year, he will be 18-close to 19 in all likelihood, which means he will be fully matured and physically able to compete against a 20-21 year old. The difference is either nil or trivial at that point. But when they are 12 and 14 or 13 and 15, or 14 and 16, etc., the difference will be stark outside of a few outliers who mature very early.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/13/17 06:09 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Seriously, what is your fascination with pretending there is a birthday year team, and creating this false reality in your mind? There is not a 17 year old team, not a 18 year old team, not a 19 year old team. They have High School teams, by grade. Other than trying to disparage a very large batch of private school kids, what is your point?
How about calling people that don't take the extra year, if available, lazy impatient cheapskate mf'ers. Is there really a parent out there that thinks an extra year of education is a detriment in any way? It's available at some schools, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with taking it if available, because 'Merica.


No one is complaining about your kid taking an extra year of education, or repeating 8th grade, or whatever it is you do. Have at it. Its just that when your kid plays travel lacrosse, he should be on a team populated with kids of similar age, and he should be playing games against other teams similarly rostered. That is all. Put your kid in 3rd grade when he is 14 - no one cares. But when he plays travel lax, just have him play against other 14 year olds. That is all people are asking, and many people are advocating for such a system. This forum is one place where that advocacy happens.

The fascination with birth year teams is not in pretending that they exit. Its in wishing they exist. Why is this hard to understand?

For your High School team, it doesn't matter how old the kids are, so long as they are not above whatever age your governing body dictates is too old (in many places, it is capped at 19). But realize that HS competition is almost always organized amongst schools that have similar aged kids. NY public high schools compete only against NY public high schools, and these kids are largely the same age per grade. Prep schools play against Prep schools. Ect. Sometimes, teams voluntarily play outside their category (like a Yorktown type school playing a prep school in CT or something like that), but they do such voluntarily knowing what they are getting into - and the games never really count for anything - its not a league or sectional game.

But for travel lacrosse, where kids are competing against kids from all over the country regardless of state or high school, it should be an age-based system. That is how it is in most other team sports, and it works well. It would work well in lacrosse, and in undeniably better than the system we have now. If your kid is very good, he can play up against older kids at your choosing.


All the posters complaining about advocating for an age-based system never provide the one thing to make an actual argument: rationale for the grade-based system! Because there isn't one![/quote]

The rationale is that club was originally formed for kids that wanted to excel and definitely wanted to play Varsity in HS, then into college, so the system was set up for continuity from middle school into HS, which is obviously going to be grade-based, because HS events are showcases, not team trophy chases. Middle school was to build the teams, then HS was to showcase the players. Then, club got really popular, and everyone wanted to play, so it became really just an expensive rec league, and the younger teams were added and more average teams have emerged. Now, folks don't want it to be high level HS prep, they want it to be a universal rec league, and with the rec league mentality comes rec league rules. My question, does rec not exist anymore, for those that want to play the game as a mere youth activity? Club should be high level HS prep for anyone that wants high level HS prep. What's wrong now, the teams that treat it as high level HS prep aren't playing in events with teams that treat it like expensive rec, they play in high level HS prep-style events against each other.

[/quote]

Another lame argument. How come hockey does it age based at the highest levels? Same for soccer? Why can't you prep for high level HS and college against kids your own age? The best of the best of the best can play AAA leagues/divisions against kids their same age. How is an elite player's development disadvantaged by playing against other elite players his same age? If a kid is even better than the best kids his age than he can play in a higher age bracket.

The college showcase argument is lame also. When college coaches watch HS and MS kids, they don't care how good they are now. They are instead trying to figure out who will be good when they reach college. They are trying to see who projects to be great when they are older. How on earth are you able to do that when some kids on the field are 15 and some are 13? A 15 year old dominating a 13 year old tells you nothing about whether or not that 15 year old projects to be great in college. The same is true for the 13 year old being dominated. But if a 15 year old dominates other 15 year olds, than you have some data to work with.

And please no one respond with the equally lame argument that "they will be playing against each other in college so you might as well compete now." When said 13 year old gets to college, and its late winter/spring of his freshman year, he will be 18-close to 19 in all likelihood, which means he will be fully matured and physically able to compete against a 20-21 year old. The difference is either nil or trivial at that point. But when they are 12 and 14 or 13 and 15, or 14 and 16, etc., the difference will be stark outside of a few outliers who mature very early.[/quote]

Did you have a petition set up at any tourneys this year? On here, it's just whining. I win, because it is my way now.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/13/17 06:47 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Seriously, what is your fascination with pretending there is a birthday year team, and creating this false reality in your mind? There is not a 17 year old team, not a 18 year old team, not a 19 year old team. They have High School teams, by grade. Other than trying to disparage a very large batch of private school kids, what is your point?
How about calling people that don't take the extra year, if available, lazy impatient cheapskate mf'ers. Is there really a parent out there that thinks an extra year of education is a detriment in any way? It's available at some schools, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with taking it if available, because 'Merica.


No one is complaining about your kid taking an extra year of education, or repeating 8th grade, or whatever it is you do. Have at it. Its just that when your kid plays travel lacrosse, he should be on a team populated with kids of similar age, and he should be playing games against other teams similarly rostered. That is all. Put your kid in 3rd grade when he is 14 - no one cares. But when he plays travel lax, just have him play against other 14 year olds. That is all people are asking, and many people are advocating for such a system. This forum is one place where that advocacy happens.

The fascination with birth year teams is not in pretending that they exit. Its in wishing they exist. Why is this hard to understand?

For your High School team, it doesn't matter how old the kids are, so long as they are not above whatever age your governing body dictates is too old (in many places, it is capped at 19). But realize that HS competition is almost always organized amongst schools that have similar aged kids. NY public high schools compete only against NY public high schools, and these kids are largely the same age per grade. Prep schools play against Prep schools. Ect. Sometimes, teams voluntarily play outside their category (like a Yorktown type school playing a prep school in CT or something like that), but they do such voluntarily knowing what they are getting into - and the games never really count for anything - its not a league or sectional game.

But for travel lacrosse, where kids are competing against kids from all over the country regardless of state or high school, it should be an age-based system. That is how it is in most other team sports, and it works well. It would work well in lacrosse, and in undeniably better than the system we have now. If your kid is very good, he can play up against older kids at your choosing.


All the posters complaining about advocating for an age-based system never provide the one thing to make an actual argument: rationale for the grade-based system! Because there isn't one!


The rationale is that club was originally formed for kids that wanted to excel and definitely wanted to play Varsity in HS, then into college, so the system was set up for continuity from middle school into HS, which is obviously going to be grade-based, because HS events are showcases, not team trophy chases. Middle school was to build the teams, then HS was to showcase the players. Then, club got really popular, and everyone wanted to play, so it became really just an expensive rec league, and the younger teams were added and more average teams have emerged. Now, folks don't want it to be high level HS prep, they want it to be a universal rec league, and with the rec league mentality comes rec league rules. My question, does rec not exist anymore, for those that want to play the game as a mere youth activity? Club should be high level HS prep for anyone that wants high level HS prep. What's wrong now, the teams that treat it as high level HS prep aren't playing in events with teams that treat it like expensive rec, they play in high level HS prep-style events against each other.

[/quote]

Another lame argument. How come hockey does it age based at the highest levels? Same for soccer? Why can't you prep for high level HS and college against kids your own age? The best of the best of the best can play AAA leagues/divisions against kids their same age. How is an elite player's development disadvantaged by playing against other elite players his same age? If a kid is even better than the best kids his age than he can play in a higher age bracket.

The college showcase argument is lame also. When college coaches watch HS and MS kids, they don't care how good they are now. They are instead trying to figure out who will be good when they reach college. They are trying to see who projects to be great when they are older. How on earth are you able to do that when some kids on the field are 15 and some are 13? A 15 year old dominating a 13 year old tells you nothing about whether or not that 15 year old projects to be great in college. The same is true for the 13 year old being dominated. But if a 15 year old dominates other 15 year olds, than you have some data to work with.

And please no one respond with the equally lame argument that "they will be playing against each other in college so you might as well compete now." When said 13 year old gets to college, and its late winter/spring of his freshman year, he will be 18-close to 19 in all likelihood, which means he will be fully matured and physically able to compete against a 20-21 year old. The difference is either nil or trivial at that point. But when they are 12 and 14 or 13 and 15, or 14 and 16, etc., the difference will be stark outside of a few outliers who mature very early.[/quote]

Did you have a petition set up at any tourneys this year? On here, it's just whining. I win, because it is my way now.
[/quote]

"Your" way?? And you do realize you are arguing against multiple posters? Lastly, as if petitioning is the sole means to accomplish anything? I'd argue that THAT approach might be the most useless - you can get people to sign petitions for practically anything, in many cases for outlandish 'causes'.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/13/17 06:49 PM
The rationale is that club was originally formed for kids that wanted to excel and definitely wanted to play Varsity in HS, then into college, so the system was set up for continuity from middle school into HS, which is obviously going to be grade-based, because HS events are showcases, not team trophy chases. Middle school was to build the teams, then HS was to showcase the players. Then, club got really popular, and everyone wanted to play, so it became really just an expensive rec league, and the younger teams were added and more average teams have emerged. Now, folks don't want it to be high level HS prep, they want it to be a universal rec league, and with the rec league mentality comes rec league rules. My question, does rec not exist anymore, for those that want to play the game as a mere youth activity? Club should be high level HS prep for anyone that wants high level HS prep. What's wrong now, the teams that treat it as high level HS prep aren't playing in events with teams that treat it like expensive rec, they play in high level HS prep-style events against each other.

[/quote]

Another lame argument. How come hockey does it age based at the highest levels? Same for soccer? Why can't you prep for high level HS and college against kids your own age? The best of the best of the best can play AAA leagues/divisions against kids their same age. How is an elite player's development disadvantaged by playing against other elite players his same age? If a kid is even better than the best kids his age than he can play in a higher age bracket.

The college showcase argument is lame also. When college coaches watch HS and MS kids, they don't care how good they are now. They are instead trying to figure out who will be good when they reach college. They are trying to see who projects to be great when they are older. How on earth are you able to do that when some kids on the field are 15 and some are 13? A 15 year old dominating a 13 year old tells you nothing about whether or not that 15 year old projects to be great in college. The same is true for the 13 year old being dominated. But if a 15 year old dominates other 15 year olds, than you have some data to work with.

And please no one respond with the equally lame argument that "they will be playing against each other in college so you might as well compete now." When said 13 year old gets to college, and its late winter/spring of his freshman year, he will be 18-close to 19 in all likelihood, which means he will be fully matured and physically able to compete against a 20-21 year old. The difference is either nil or trivial at that point. But when they are 12 and 14 or 13 and 15, or 14 and 16, etc., the difference will be stark outside of a few outliers who mature very early.[/quote]

Did you have a petition set up at any tourneys this year? On here, it's just whining. I win, because it is my way now.
[/quote]

If that is the best argument that can be made then it’s not surprising it took so long for someone to actually write it down. The industry (which is exactly what it is now as opposed to then) should take ownership for what it is putting on the field tourney after tourney. Seems to me there are plenty of people at the tournaments you are describing who don’t like the way it is now – I’m one of them and people talk about it all the time. Diminishes the entire experience – even for the older kids.

This industry makes a large portion of its’ collective income off of younger and younger players and they continue to organize around something you say was set-up for the super talented few heading into HS oh so many years ago. Why should all these kids who love playing be told either play against kids older than you or play Rec and go have an ice cream. I’ll bet your son’s club (assuming you’re a parent) or your team/club (assuming you are a coach/club owner) - which only plays in the very best of the best tourneys is probably holding tryouts w/in the next few days/weeks for the “classes” of 2027 and 2028 (7-8 year olds) and cashing those checks the same way they cashed the uber elite HS prep player’s check.

Organize around age so the experience is level and better for all youth players and if that doesn't hone a player’s skills well enough - have him “play-up” age wise to get ready for future HS showcases rather than “play-down” age wise which is what happens now. It isn’t the skill level that is the issue during youth lacrosse that people object to - it is the size, speed and physicality issue of older v. younger. There will still be the best players on the best teams playing in the most competitive tournaments – why would that change in an age based system? No reason the way it was is the way it should be any longer and there is no dilution effect at the top.

You're "I win" comment exposes you for the kind of left back proponent you really are. I'm glad that you think you are the big winner here - compelling interested, talented and dedicated kids to play in an environment that few if any believe to be optimal - nice W! FWIW - not actually whining in a forum set up to specifically discuss this issue. Go celebrate your big win with a Cohiba champ.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/13/17 07:35 PM
Spoken like a parent that held back there kid for a Sport! Here is the argument......Your Cheating!!!!!
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/13/17 08:26 PM
Finally someone is trying to move to age base
NXT Sports
https://nxtsports.com/blog/entry/nx...to-adopt-us-lacrosse-age-segmentation-p/
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/13/17 08:43 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Spoken like a parent that held back there kid for a Sport! Here is the argument......Your Cheating!!!!!


If you ain't cheating, you ain't trying
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/13/17 08:48 PM
As the season gets ready to reset, let all be reminded that we are grade based again. Now send in those dues, losers!!
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/13/17 09:35 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Finally someone is trying to move to age base
NXT Sports
https://nxtsports.com/blog/entry/nx...to-adopt-us-lacrosse-age-segmentation-p/


I like it. Using Sept to Aug mirrors the year used by schools in the majority of states where youth lacrosse is fairly developed as a sport. Calendar year would be best for NY, as it comes close to NYs school age system, but NY is in the minority here. While NYers would prefer the calendar, moving to Sept-Aug would be much better than the current grade system. Going to age based teams is all that matters. Where the 12 month window lies is far less important.

Calendar year is used in hockey mostly because the Canadians use it, and USA Hockey more or less emulated them. Soccer recently moved from Aug-July (I think - am not sure) to calendar year simply to be in line with what is done internationally.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/13/17 10:23 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous

Calendar year is used in hockey mostly because the Canadians use it, and USA Hockey more or less emulated them. Soccer recently moved from Aug-July (I think - am not sure) to calendar year simply to be in line with what is done internationally.


In Hockey the pot o' gold at the end of the rainbow is the NHL draft and that is age based for when kids are eligible so age based makes sense. in lacrosse the pot o' gold at the end of the rainbow is the college commitment and that will always grade based for obvious reason so travel lacrosse should (IMHO) always be grade based so a college coach can go to a game and know all the kids playing are graduating in the same year

With the new NCAA rules can you imagine an age based tournament? college coach would go to a November recruiting event and try to figure out what 17 year old (is on an age based team) he can talk to because some might be Juniors and some might be sophomores.

Before any of you call me a jack off or a cheater, my son is "on age" and he turned 18 in the spring of his Senior year .I just liked him playing against his own grade in travel lacrosse and never really cared about age.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/13/17 11:09 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous

Calendar year is used in hockey mostly because the Canadians use it, and USA Hockey more or less emulated them. Soccer recently moved from Aug-July (I think - am not sure) to calendar year simply to be in line with what is done internationally.


In Hockey the pot o' gold at the end of the rainbow is the NHL draft and that is age based for when kids are eligible so age based makes sense. in lacrosse the pot o' gold at the end of the rainbow is the college commitment and that will always grade based for obvious reason so travel lacrosse should (IMHO) always be grade based so a college coach can go to a game and know all the kids playing are graduating in the same year

With the new NCAA rules can you imagine an age based tournament? college coach would go to a November recruiting event and try to figure out what 17 year old (is on an age based team) he can talk to because some might be Juniors and some might be sophomores.

Before any of you call me a jack off or a cheater, my son is "on age" and he turned 18 in the spring of his Senior year .I just liked him playing against his own grade in travel lacrosse and never really cared about age.


A college coach is more than capable of watching an age-based game and understand that players will be entering college in different years. That is what college hockey coaches do. The pot o' gold for many hockey players, if you ask the parents, is the D1 scholarship, which is, as you know, grade based. Not necessarily the NHL draft. If college hockey coaches can do it, why can't college lacrosse coaches? They can go to a 2002 game and identify two great players that they are interested in. Then they can simply look at their programs and see that #23 in green is GY 2020, and #12 in white is GY 2021. They will then recruit accordingly. Why would this be hard? College soccer coaches do it also. If there are rules prohibiting contact for GY 2021, but not GY 2020, than they contact the 2020 kid, but wait on the 2021 kid. Moreover, why not tweak the new recruiting limitations to be based on age, not GY. No contact until a kid turns 16, for instance. Or no contact until January 1 in the year the kid will turn 16, or something similar.

Also, a BIG fact that you are missing, which disproves your point, is that the age year used for the NHL draft is different than that which is used in youth play. Hockey uses a calendar year, but the NHL deems you draft eligible using a Sept 15 cut off date. So NHL scouts are watching calendar year games knowing that kids born Jan 1 - Sept 15 will be draft eligible one year before kids born Sept 16-Dec 31. Yet somehow the world doesn't come to an end. This would be the EXACT same thing as a college coach watching a 2002 game knowing that some of the kids will be entering college a year ahead of other kids in the same game. Also, much of what they are scouting is junior hockey, which largely eliminates age differences once a kid turns 16. I, for one, would be fine with a travel lacrosse system that says once you are 16 (either calendar year, or sept/aug) its all "varsity division" or "senior division".

Again, college hockey and soccer coaches recruit just fine out of age based systems, which means they do just fine watching games where the players GYs will vary. I can't imagine why college lacrosse coaches couldn't do the same.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/14/17 12:36 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous

Calendar year is used in hockey mostly because the Canadians use it, and USA Hockey more or less emulated them. Soccer recently moved from Aug-July (I think - am not sure) to calendar year simply to be in line with what is done internationally.


In Hockey the pot o' gold at the end of the rainbow is the NHL draft and that is age based for when kids are eligible so age based makes sense. in lacrosse the pot o' gold at the end of the rainbow is the college commitment and that will always grade based for obvious reason so travel lacrosse should (IMHO) always be grade based so a college coach can go to a game and know all the kids playing are graduating in the same year

With the new NCAA rules can you imagine an age based tournament? college coach would go to a November recruiting event and try to figure out what 17 year old (is on an age based team) he can talk to because some might be Juniors and some might be sophomores.

Before any of you call me a jack off or a cheater, my son is "on age" and he turned 18 in the spring of his Senior year .I just liked him playing against his own grade in travel lacrosse and never really cared about age.


A college coach is more than capable of watching an age-based game and understand that players will be entering college in different years. That is what college hockey coaches do. The pot o' gold for many hockey players, if you ask the parents, is the D1 scholarship, which is, as you know, grade based. Not necessarily the NHL draft. If college hockey coaches can do it, why can't college lacrosse coaches? They can go to a 2002 game and identify two great players that they are interested in. Then they can simply look at their programs and see that #23 in green is GY 2020, and #12 in white is GY 2021. They will then recruit accordingly. Why would this be hard? College soccer coaches do it also. If there are rules prohibiting contact for GY 2021, but not GY 2020, than they contact the 2020 kid, but wait on the 2021 kid. Moreover, why not tweak the new recruiting limitations to be based on age, not GY. No contact until a kid turns 16, for instance. Or no contact until January 1 in the year the kid will turn 16, or something similar.

Also, a BIG fact that you are missing, which disproves your point, is that the age year used for the NHL draft is different than that which is used in youth play. Hockey uses a calendar year, but the NHL deems you draft eligible using a Sept 15 cut off date. So NHL scouts are watching calendar year games knowing that kids born Jan 1 - Sept 15 will be draft eligible one year before kids born Sept 16-Dec 31. Yet somehow the world doesn't come to an end. This would be the EXACT same thing as a college coach watching a 2002 game knowing that some of the kids will be entering college a year ahead of other kids in the same game. Also, much of what they are scouting is junior hockey, which largely eliminates age differences once a kid turns 16. I, for one, would be fine with a travel lacrosse system that says once you are 16 (either calendar year, or sept/aug) its all "varsity division" or "senior division".

Again, college hockey and soccer coaches recruit just fine out of age based systems, which means they do just fine watching games where the players GYs will vary. I can't imagine why college lacrosse coaches couldn't do the same.


All very good points but at the end of the day if my kid is going to Jake Reed, Maverik or a big time recruiting tournament I want him to play against kids in the same recruiting year
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/14/17 01:56 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous

Calendar year is used in hockey mostly because the Canadians use it, and USA Hockey more or less emulated them. Soccer recently moved from Aug-July (I think - am not sure) to calendar year simply to be in line with what is done internationally.


In Hockey the pot o' gold at the end of the rainbow is the NHL draft and that is age based for when kids are eligible so age based makes sense. in lacrosse the pot o' gold at the end of the rainbow is the college commitment and that will always grade based for obvious reason so travel lacrosse should (IMHO) always be grade based so a college coach can go to a game and know all the kids playing are graduating in the same year

With the new NCAA rules can you imagine an age based tournament? college coach would go to a November recruiting event and try to figure out what 17 year old (is on an age based team) he can talk to because some might be Juniors and some might be sophomores.

Before any of you call me a jack off or a cheater, my son is "on age" and he turned 18 in the spring of his Senior year .I just liked him playing against his own grade in travel lacrosse and never really cared about age.


A college coach is more than capable of watching an age-based game and understand that players will be entering college in different years. That is what college hockey coaches do. The pot o' gold for many hockey players, if you ask the parents, is the D1 scholarship, which is, as you know, grade based. Not necessarily the NHL draft. If college hockey coaches can do it, why can't college lacrosse coaches? They can go to a 2002 game and identify two great players that they are interested in. Then they can simply look at their programs and see that #23 in green is GY 2020, and #12 in white is GY 2021. They will then recruit accordingly. Why would this be hard? College soccer coaches do it also. If there are rules prohibiting contact for GY 2021, but not GY 2020, than they contact the 2020 kid, but wait on the 2021 kid. Moreover, why not tweak the new recruiting limitations to be based on age, not GY. No contact until a kid turns 16, for instance. Or no contact until January 1 in the year the kid will turn 16, or something similar.

Also, a BIG fact that you are missing, which disproves your point, is that the age year used for the NHL draft is different than that which is used in youth play. Hockey uses a calendar year, but the NHL deems you draft eligible using a Sept 15 cut off date. So NHL scouts are watching calendar year games knowing that kids born Jan 1 - Sept 15 will be draft eligible one year before kids born Sept 16-Dec 31. Yet somehow the world doesn't come to an end. This would be the EXACT same thing as a college coach watching a 2002 game knowing that some of the kids will be entering college a year ahead of other kids in the same game. Also, much of what they are scouting is junior hockey, which largely eliminates age differences once a kid turns 16. I, for one, would be fine with a travel lacrosse system that says once you are 16 (either calendar year, or sept/aug) its all "varsity division" or "senior division".

Again, college hockey and soccer coaches recruit just fine out of age based systems, which means they do just fine watching games where the players GYs will vary. I can't imagine why college lacrosse coaches couldn't do the same.


All very good points but at the end of the day if my kid is going to Jake Reed, Maverik or a big time recruiting tournament I want him to play against kids in the same recruiting year


Why?
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/14/17 03:17 AM
All you parents that have your kid repeat a grade or two is for Lacrosse or another sport its not because of his grades stop the bulls**t. You all think he will end up at some D1 school its pathetic. You keep telling Johnny how good he is when he scores 4 goals against kids 1 or 2 years younger (He's Awesome). I have a 2023 live on Long Island he plays on a so called top club as you knuckleheads state and every year it gets worse with the age situation my own team included. Don't even get me started on MD, PA, MA, even Canada these areas are disgusting. Good luck I hope Johnny goes to Duke, ND or NC they deserve it.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/14/17 03:53 AM
Scientific studies have shown that athletes generally hit their peak performance at age 26. If you are doing a sport where the pinnacle of competition is college athletics, you really should holdback, do couple PG years, and play some club ball so that you enter college at age 24. Makes sense to me.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/14/17 04:52 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous

Calendar year is used in hockey mostly because the Canadians use it, and USA Hockey more or less emulated them. Soccer recently moved from Aug-July (I think - am not sure) to calendar year simply to be in line with what is done internationally.


In Hockey the pot o' gold at the end of the rainbow is the NHL draft and that is age based for when kids are eligible so age based makes sense. in lacrosse the pot o' gold at the end of the rainbow is the college commitment and that will always grade based for obvious reason so travel lacrosse should (IMHO) always be grade based so a college coach can go to a game and know all the kids playing are graduating in the same year

With the new NCAA rules can you imagine an age based tournament? college coach would go to a November recruiting event and try to figure out what 17 year old (is on an age based team) he can talk to because some might be Juniors and some might be sophomores.

Before any of you call me a jack off or a cheater, my son is "on age" and he turned 18 in the spring of his Senior year .I just liked him playing against his own grade in travel lacrosse and never really cared about age.


A college coach is more than capable of watching an age-based game and understand that players will be entering college in different years. That is what college hockey coaches do. The pot o' gold for many hockey players, if you ask the parents, is the D1 scholarship, which is, as you know, grade based. Not necessarily the NHL draft. If college hockey coaches can do it, why can't college lacrosse coaches? They can go to a 2002 game and identify two great players that they are interested in. Then they can simply look at their programs and see that #23 in green is GY 2020, and #12 in white is GY 2021. They will then recruit accordingly. Why would this be hard? College soccer coaches do it also. If there are rules prohibiting contact for GY 2021, but not GY 2020, than they contact the 2020 kid, but wait on the 2021 kid. Moreover, why not tweak the new recruiting limitations to be based on age, not GY. No contact until a kid turns 16, for instance. Or no contact until January 1 in the year the kid will turn 16, or something similar.

Also, a BIG fact that you are missing, which disproves your point, is that the age year used for the NHL draft is different than that which is used in youth play. Hockey uses a calendar year, but the NHL deems you draft eligible using a Sept 15 cut off date. So NHL scouts are watching calendar year games knowing that kids born Jan 1 - Sept 15 will be draft eligible one year before kids born Sept 16-Dec 31. Yet somehow the world doesn't come to an end. This would be the EXACT same thing as a college coach watching a 2002 game knowing that some of the kids will be entering college a year ahead of other kids in the same game. Also, much of what they are scouting is junior hockey, which largely eliminates age differences once a kid turns 16. I, for one, would be fine with a travel lacrosse system that says once you are 16 (either calendar year, or sept/aug) its all "varsity division" or "senior division".

Again, college hockey and soccer coaches recruit just fine out of age based systems, which means they do just fine watching games where the players GYs will vary. I can't imagine why college lacrosse coaches couldn't do the same.


All very good points but at the end of the day if my kid is going to Jake Reed, Maverik or a big time recruiting tournament I want him to play against kids in the same recruiting year


Why?



Real simple to answer for him...Because it gives his son an advantage being older.. Simple as that
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/14/17 09:37 AM
Ding, ding, ding! You win!
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/14/17 02:57 PM
It's happening - https://nxtsports.com/blog/entry/nx...to-adopt-us-lacrosse-age-segmentation-p/
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/14/17 02:59 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
So with all this argument over age based reclassification. Injuries and what no (which I don't think exist) what of an on age kid who is clearly superior in size and speed to everyone else? We have all seen this kid. He just got there faster. Will he be banned from playing? What is the answer? I mean really, it's the same thing isn't it? Its a safety issue if he is allowed to continue playing with the smaller kids. Maybe the smaller kids shouldn't be allowed to play. That would make it safer. The answer is there is no answer. The age reclass argument is based on winning and losing, nothing more. The parents posting on here could care less about injuries, they just want the
Trophy/t-shirt.

you sound like a total jack off.


Why because all that is ever posted is how much concern people have for the kids safety and well being? That's a load of BS and you know it. But keep putting that in your argument if it makes you feel better, I know the truth, it's all about the T-shirt. But thanks for the insult on the anonymous site, let me return the favor, you ARE a total jack off! Stop worrying about losing kids lax games and concentrate on being a better person. Ahh, forget it , too much work for a tool like you.


Different poster here. Not really concerned with injuries but do feel rewarding these people who work the system is wrong . How many of the players in the UA senior game are hold backs ? How many of the top ranked 2017 recruits are hold backs ? How many of them would have gotten those same accolades on age ? Seems you are putting the on age kids at a disadvantage .Its comical when the parents of these players puff out their chest and brag about their kids accolades when it's obvious that if they played on age they would be above average but that's it .


All those saying that it isn't about the injuries should note that USL felt compelled to make injuries the top reason for implementing its age-based policy recommendations:

"The development of this policy was based on the overarching goal of providing a safe, quality and consistent playing experience
for all youth lacrosse players in the country."

https://www.uslacrosse.org/sites/de.../player-segmentation-task-force-recs.pdf



Until RECOMMENDS becomes MANDATES this is a useless conversation


https://nxtsports.com/blog/entry/nx...to-adopt-us-lacrosse-age-segmentation-p/
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/14/17 03:08 PM
Personally, I would think college coaches would want to see the kids play against kids of similar ages, because for recruiting purposes, if a kid looks like a giant stud, but really the only reason that is is because they are 1.5 to 2 years older, then they really aren't good, they are just older. Of course, now that the recruiting frenzy has calmed down, coaches will have a better idea of what they are getting, because rising Juniors who are older my look a little better, but it is not nearly the gap as it was in 8th grade. I have seen a big closing of the gap this summer (my son is an on-age 2020) kids that we super studs the last few years (and yes are "committed" to top programs) are struggling to stand out this summer and are very frustrated by that too (based on their acting out on the field when they are being consistently being beaten, they are clearly not used to that!). It will be very interesting to see how some of these "total studs" do moving forward, IMO, they are in for a rude awakening as are the coaches who have "committed" them. Of course, this is probably why coaches are "committing" close to 20 kids per grade, so the ones that don't work out, will just fall to the wayside.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/14/17 03:08 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous

Calendar year is used in hockey mostly because the Canadians use it, and USA Hockey more or less emulated them. Soccer recently moved from Aug-July (I think - am not sure) to calendar year simply to be in line with what is done internationally.


In Hockey the pot o' gold at the end of the rainbow is the NHL draft and that is age based for when kids are eligible so age based makes sense. in lacrosse the pot o' gold at the end of the rainbow is the college commitment and that will always grade based for obvious reason so travel lacrosse should (IMHO) always be grade based so a college coach can go to a game and know all the kids playing are graduating in the same year

With the new NCAA rules can you imagine an age based tournament? college coach would go to a November recruiting event and try to figure out what 17 year old (is on an age based team) he can talk to because some might be Juniors and some might be sophomores.

Before any of you call me a jack off or a cheater, my son is "on age" and he turned 18 in the spring of his Senior year .I just liked him playing against his own grade in travel lacrosse and never really cared about age.


Why does everyone always fixate on black & white solutions??! As has been mentioned previoulsy, go with age-based through 8th grade, and then grade-based for HS level athletes -'problem' (!) solved! Anyone who wants to can play up at ANY level.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/14/17 03:18 PM
We can be realistic, or we can keep saying f the prefirst and holdback kids. HS is never changing from grade based, because it just isn't! Showcases and recruiting style tournaments are not going to have age groups. Again, we can pout, stick out our lips, bang our head against the wall, but HS is staying by grad year. That being said, for those that say go age based for youth, grade based for HS, what would pre-first kids play in 8th grade, since you would not be including their age group for youth ball? Grade based excludes nobody right now. So if we want to change youth to age based, we need to make sure to address the pre-first/holdback kids at the 8th grade log jam. Add a smaller U15/U16 middle school division for those kids? Productive solutions call for productive debate, so no we can't call it the elite 8th grade league, and no we can't call it the MS cheater bracket. You guys are like the dems and reps fighting over health care repeal, this is certainly less complicated, but there has to be some budge in both directions.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/14/17 03:20 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Finally someone is trying to move to age base
NXT Sports
https://nxtsports.com/blog/entry/nx...to-adopt-us-lacrosse-age-segmentation-p/


Wondering if the club directors start rethinking their tryouts this year and next in for an orderly transition? Do they see NXT as an outlier, or the direction that everyone is going? If the latter, do they avoid NXT events and wait until last minute to implement age-based teams?
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/14/17 03:31 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Scientific studies have shown that athletes generally hit their peak performance at age 26. If you are doing a sport where the pinnacle of competition is college athletics, you really should holdback, do couple PG years, and play some club ball so that you enter college at age 24. Makes sense to me.


Well, if you do that, we appreciate your service, and/or we are glad you have recovered from your significant injury, because the NCAA has eligibility requirements, usually only leaving about a one year gap between HS graduation, and your clock starts (unless you were in military service, some type of volunteer corp, or had a documented rehabilitating injury).
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/14/17 04:48 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous

All very good points but at the end of the day if my kid is going to Jake Reed, Maverik or a big time recruiting tournament I want him to play against kids in the same recruiting year


Why?[/quote]

Because, when my son (who is on age) went to Maverik Showtime and played in the All Star game, I knew that the 75 D1 coaches watching that game were evaluating him against other kids that will be entering College in the Fall of 2017 - NOBODY, except maybe the parents of the kids that didn't make the all star game care if some kids were 17 and some kids were 15 or who was what age. We also used it as a selling tool when talking to coaches that he was on the younger side of the grade and is competing at a high level when is still wasn't shaving. IMHO he would have gained nothing my competing against kids his same age but two grades behind him.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/14/17 05:57 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Finally someone is trying to move to age base
NXT Sports
https://nxtsports.com/blog/entry/nx...to-adopt-us-lacrosse-age-segmentation-p/


Wondering if the club directors start rethinking their tryouts this year and next in for an orderly transition? Do they see NXT as an outlier, or the direction that everyone is going? If the latter, do they avoid NXT events and wait until last minute to implement age-based teams?


my bet is, avoid NXT events
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/14/17 06:13 PM
The bottom line, after over 20 years of experience with college recruiting is that, no downside exists for reclassing. It is a massive advantage. No downside. None at all. If the kid is good then reclass and he will be great.
Colleges like the older player because they are more mature and weightroom ready.
It my be unfair but not a rule violation so go ahead and do it. You have nothing to lose.

Other neighbors send their kids to prep schools to gain an advantage. I do not see the need to shell out $50K for prep when they can do 5th or 8th grade twice for substantially less.

I have four kids, reclassed one and will reclass the others at some point. The benefits also exist in the classroom with higher intellectual capacity and maturity.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/14/17 06:24 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
We can be realistic, or we can keep saying f the prefirst and holdback kids. HS is never changing from grade based, because it just isn't! Showcases and recruiting style tournaments are not going to have age groups. Again, we can pout, stick out our lips, bang our head against the wall, but HS is staying by grad year. That being said, for those that say go age based for youth, grade based for HS, what would pre-first kids play in 8th grade, since you would not be including their age group for youth ball? Grade based excludes nobody right now. So if we want to change youth to age based, we need to make sure to address the pre-first/holdback kids at the 8th grade log jam. Add a smaller U15/U16 middle school division for those kids? Productive solutions call for productive debate, so no we can't call it the elite 8th grade league, and no we can't call it the MS cheater bracket. You guys are like the dems and reps fighting over health care repeal, this is certainly less complicated, but there has to be some budge in both directions.


I don't see a reason why the older 8th graders can't play up with the appropriate GY 9th graders - that's the team the kid would have been on on had they not done the pre-first/heldback/leftback/whatever. The ability to play up is never an issue. Yes, that player would then get to play on a freshman team again for the following season when he was truly a freshman, but how is that a problem? There is also no reason why a tourney can't have a 15U division to go along with a freshman grade-based division - I don't see both happening in one tourney, but nothing prevents it. Again, the ability to play 'up' (which, for the older 8th grader is a joke anyway, cause they're really not!) is the out for this 'problem'. At the end of the day, an enacted age-based system will do away with the sport-based holdbacks et al, so the number of boys in this situation will go down anyway. All you will have are true academic-driven situations.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/14/17 07:13 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
The bottom line, after over 20 years of experience with college recruiting is that, no downside exists for reclassing. It is a massive advantage. No downside. None at all. If the kid is good then reclass and he will be great.
Colleges like the older player because they are more mature and weightroom ready.
It my be unfair but not a rule violation so go ahead and do it. You have nothing to lose.

Other neighbors send their kids to prep schools to gain an advantage. I do not see the need to shell out $50K for prep when they can do 5th or 8th grade twice for substantially less.

I have four kids, reclassed one and will reclass the others at some point. The benefits also exist in the classroom with higher intellectual capacity and maturity.


If you can't see all the things your kid has to potentially lose - no post here will help you. Good luck to your kids.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/14/17 07:57 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
We can be realistic, or we can keep saying f the prefirst and holdback kids. HS is never changing from grade based, because it just isn't! Showcases and recruiting style tournaments are not going to have age groups. Again, we can pout, stick out our lips, bang our head against the wall, but HS is staying by grad year. That being said, for those that say go age based for youth, grade based for HS, what would pre-first kids play in 8th grade, since you would not be including their age group for youth ball? Grade based excludes nobody right now. So if we want to change youth to age based, we need to make sure to address the pre-first/holdback kids at the 8th grade log jam. Add a smaller U15/U16 middle school division for those kids? Productive solutions call for productive debate, so no we can't call it the elite 8th grade league, and no we can't call it the MS cheater bracket. You guys are like the dems and reps fighting over health care repeal, this is certainly less complicated, but there has to be some budge in both directions.


I don't see a reason why the older 8th graders can't play up with the appropriate GY 9th graders - that's the team the kid would have been on on had they not done the pre-first/heldback/leftback/whatever. The ability to play up is never an issue. Yes, that player would then get to play on a freshman team again for the following season when he was truly a freshman, but how is that a problem? There is also no reason why a tourney can't have a 15U division to go along with a freshman grade-based division - I don't see both happening in one tourney, but nothing prevents it. Again, the ability to play 'up' (which, for the older 8th grader is a joke anyway, cause they're really not!) is the out for this 'problem'. At the end of the day, an enacted age-based system will do away with the sport-based holdbacks et al, so the number of boys in this situation will go down anyway. All you will have are true academic-driven situations.


Yeah, God forbid the kid plays the with his friends
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/14/17 09:17 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Finally someone is trying to move to age base
NXT Sports
https://nxtsports.com/blog/entry/nx...to-adopt-us-lacrosse-age-segmentation-p/


Wondering if the club directors start rethinking their tryouts this year and next in for an orderly transition? Do they see NXT as an outlier, or the direction that everyone is going? If the latter, do they avoid NXT events and wait until last minute to implement age-based teams?


Bravo for NXT for showing some leadership in this area. An overlooked aspect of this is where grade based team started - which is NY. Before 2013 there were zero youth clubs that were grade down here in MD/DC/VA. Even Crabs, Madlax, FCA, Looneys, Hawks etc were U11,13,15 . Crabs was one of the last to change. Not sure why or when NY teams went grade since it's to your disadvantage. But when Turtle 2018 2019 express, 2020 crush etc started showing up and destroying teams at what had been rec tournaments, clubs down here started organizing by grade as well. Then the hoco club league started and was grade based so all teams followed. Here's my point. Since NY has the most teams and have the most willingness to travel, if they all switched to single year U9,10,11,12 etc with US Lax 9/1 cutoff and only went to tournaments with the age cutoffs - this whole thing would turn. Tourney organizers follow the money and NY participation is key. I'm talking youth only. HS never changing. Also probably have to skip u14 and just have u15 for 8th grade. But at least that would get majority of youth with proper age segmentation. Just one guys opinion.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/14/17 09:52 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
The bottom line, after over 20 years of experience with college recruiting is that, no downside exists for reclassing. It is a massive advantage. No downside. None at all. If the kid is good then reclass and he will be great.
Colleges like the older player because they are more mature and weightroom ready.
It my be unfair but not a rule violation so go ahead and do it. You have nothing to lose.

Other neighbors send their kids to prep schools to gain an advantage. I do not see the need to shell out $50K for prep when they can do 5th or 8th grade twice for substantially less.

I have four kids, reclassed one and will reclass the others at some point. The benefits also exist in the classroom with higher intellectual capacity and maturity.

Poor kids are balding before the Senior Ball.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/14/17 11:26 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
The bottom line, after over 20 years of experience with college recruiting is that, no downside exists for reclassing. It is a massive advantage. No downside. None at all. If the kid is good then reclass and he will be great.
Colleges like the older player because they are more mature and weightroom ready.
It my be unfair but not a rule violation so go ahead and do it. You have nothing to lose.

Other neighbors send their kids to prep schools to gain an advantage. I do not see the need to shell out $50K for prep when they can do 5th or 8th grade twice for substantially less.

I have four kids, reclassed one and will reclass the others at some point. The benefits also exist in the classroom with higher intellectual capacity and maturity.


A refreshingly honest post, and that's coming from someone who's staunchly against the practice.

What part of the country are you in?
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/14/17 11:50 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
The bottom line, after over 20 years of experience with college recruiting is that, no downside exists for reclassing. It is a massive advantage. No downside. None at all. If the kid is good then reclass and he will be great.
Colleges like the older player because they are more mature and weightroom ready.
It my be unfair but not a rule violation so go ahead and do it. You have nothing to lose.

Other neighbors send their kids to prep schools to gain an advantage. I do not see the need to shell out $50K for prep when they can do 5th or 8th grade twice for substantially less.

I have four kids, reclassed one and will reclass the others at some point. The benefits also exist in the classroom with higher intellectual capacity and maturity.


A refreshingly honest post, and that's coming from someone who's staunchly against the practice.

What part of the country are you in?


I see the guy as just another POS cheater whose kids will still be mediocre no matter how many times they TRY to get an unfair advantage. Maybe if they're lucky one day they will be asked to play for FCA....only to take a beat down by on age kids....in the end what will you have accomplished? That you are a weasel that becomes roadkill. Me, I'd rather teach my kids to overcome adversity by competing hard with morals and class, more important attributes in the grand scheme.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/15/17 12:14 AM
That.in.a.nutshell.is.what.is.wrong.with.this.sport.

Win at all costs. Sportsmanship be damned.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/16/17 01:03 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
The bottom line, after over 20 years of experience with college recruiting is that, no downside exists for reclassing. It is a massive advantage. No downside. None at all. If the kid is good then reclass and he will be great.
Colleges like the older player because they are more mature and weightroom ready.
It my be unfair but not a rule violation so go ahead and do it. You have nothing to lose.

Other neighbors send their kids to prep schools to gain an advantage. I do not see the need to shell out $50K for prep when they can do 5th or 8th grade twice for substantially less.

I have four kids, reclassed one and will reclass the others at some point. The benefits also exist in the classroom with higher intellectual capacity and maturity.


A refreshingly honest post, and that's coming from someone who's staunchly against the practice.

What part of the country are you in?


I see the guy as just another POS cheater whose kids will still be mediocre no matter how many times they TRY to get an unfair advantage. Maybe if they're lucky one day they will be asked to play for FCA....only to take a beat down by on age kids....in the end what will you have accomplished? That you are a weasel that becomes roadkill. Me, I'd rather teach my kids to overcome adversity by competing hard with morals and class, more important attributes in the grand scheme.



He may be those things to you....But unfortunately it works.. The UA games and tryouts are loaded with over age kids for their grade.
The better teams are loaded with holdbacks and older on age kids ..

Even tho puberty kicks in and evens it out with many. There will always be an advantage to be older than younger. There is a reason college Football red-shirts freshman ( among many other reasons) but even after puberty for boys there is some advantage to being older.. At around 22-25 that is when there is zero effect..

I think it is a completely sour note on lacrosse for the amount of kids being older for grade. The truth is , it will only get more and more as it works..
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/16/17 03:28 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
The bottom line, after over 20 years of experience with college recruiting is that, no downside exists for reclassing. It is a massive advantage. No downside. None at all. If the kid is good then reclass and he will be great.
Colleges like the older player because they are more mature and weightroom ready.
It my be unfair but not a rule violation so go ahead and do it. You have nothing to lose.

Other neighbors send their kids to prep schools to gain an advantage. I do not see the need to shell out $50K for prep when they can do 5th or 8th grade twice for substantially less.

I have four kids, reclassed one and will reclass the others at some point. The benefits also exist in the classroom with higher intellectual capacity and maturity.


A refreshingly honest post, and that's coming from someone who's staunchly against the practice.

What part of the country are you in?


No one argues there isnt an advantage. Thats the whole point both on the field and classroom. As you dont care what i have to say, i'll still say it is cheating the system!!!
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/16/17 10:17 AM
Once USL puts the pressure on college coaches - just like they did with early recruiting legislation - you are going to see a drip, drip, drip of a shift to age based classifidcation. It's only a matter of time. You want to be a sport that isn't just played by rich white kids - then you have to have a level playing field. Take one look at the UA teams, Inside Lacrosse HS rankings, etc and you will see a sport dominated by private schools/players with rosters stocked with reclassed kids. All of THAT starts with youth based grade classification. It's a sham and it needs to stop.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/16/17 11:58 AM
I will start by saying I did not hold back my son, but obviously it works. If it wasn't working this would not be such a hot topic on this site. So the detractors who are arguing against it are affirming people's attitudes that hold backs work. If I'm wrong let me know, but based on what I am reading here it appears holdbacks are dominating younger kids in lacrosse.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/16/17 02:22 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Once USL puts the pressure on college coaches - just like they did with early recruiting legislation - you are going to see a drip, drip, drip of a shift to age based classifidcation. It's only a matter of time. You want to be a sport that isn't just played by rich white kids - then you have to have a level playing field. Take one look at the UA teams, Inside Lacrosse HS rankings, etc and you will see a sport dominated by private schools/players with rosters stocked with reclassed kids. All of THAT starts with youth based grade classification. It's a sham and it needs to stop.


Why would USL pressure on college coaches to stop the practice? College lacrosse is guided by the NCAA. Only they can pressure college coaches.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/16/17 03:13 PM
USL was one of the driving forces behind the ER rule change. All they need is a couple of big name coaches to come out in favor of age based classification and that is all she wrote...
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/17/17 12:36 PM
What a Joke I have to look at this garbage on the US Lacrosse website, inept organization!

"Formed in 2007, the US Lacrosse Ethics Subcommittee seeks to enhance internal policies focused on appropriate ethical practice; investigate and manage ethical issues that arise within the organization; prioritize broader ethical issues facing the sport; and develop resources and standards for the national lacrosse community."
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/17/17 01:35 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I will start by saying I did not hold back my son, but obviously it works. If it wasn't working this would not be such a hot topic on this site. So the detractors who are arguing against it are affirming people's attitudes that hold backs work. If I'm wrong let me know, but based on what I am reading here it appears holdbacks are dominating younger kids in lacrosse.


Two word summary of your post: "cheating works". Wow - what a revelation! There are zero readers on this board that disagree with that conclusion. At the same time, that does not mean that is right, both ethically or in any other way, for the sport in general, which is WHAT everyone is arguing.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/17/17 03:27 PM
of course they are dominating - they are 12 to 24 months older - which is a HUGE advantage in the 7th and 8th grade.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/17/17 05:06 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I will start by saying I did not hold back my son, but obviously it works. If it wasn't working this would not be such a hot topic on this site. So the detractors who are arguing against it are affirming people's attitudes that hold backs work. If I'm wrong let me know, but based on what I am reading here it appears holdbacks are dominating younger kids in lacrosse.


Two word summary of your post: "cheating works". Wow - what a revelation! There are zero readers on this board that disagree with that conclusion. At the same time, that does not mean that is right, both ethically or in any other way, for the sport in general, which is WHAT everyone is arguing.


I understand, but what is the advantage to NOT holding your son back? Unless it's over grade 3 the kid won't remember and he will be dominant up until about age 22. At which point it doesn't really matter anymore. Really, in 2017 what is morals driving? It's unethical to cheat in your taxes, yet everyone does it. Lie about being sick to miss work? Unethical. Scam an injury to get workers comp, the list is endless. I don't know, I don't agree with hold backs but really, I just don't think it's the be all end all.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/17/17 05:21 PM
If you hold your kid back for sport (especially dead end lacrosse) the state should take your kids away from you!

Focus on grades, grades, grades and then a little lacrosse
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/17/17 05:24 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I will start by saying I did not hold back my son, but obviously it works. If it wasn't working this would not be such a hot topic on this site. So the detractors who are arguing against it are affirming people's attitudes that hold backs work. If I'm wrong let me know, but based on what I am reading here it appears holdbacks are dominating younger kids in lacrosse.


Two word summary of your post: "cheating works". Wow - what a revelation! There are zero readers on this board that disagree with that conclusion. At the same time, that does not mean that is right, both ethically or in any other way, for the sport in general, which is WHAT everyone is arguing.


I understand, but what is the advantage to NOT holding your son back? Unless it's over grade 3 the kid won't remember and he will be dominant up until about age 22. At which point it doesn't really matter anymore. Really, in 2017 what is morals driving? It's unethical to cheat in your taxes, yet everyone does it. Lie about being sick to miss work? Unethical. Scam an injury to get workers comp, the list is endless. I don't know, I don't agree with hold backs but really, I just don't think it's the be all end all.


= the decline of civilization . . .
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/17/17 06:38 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
If you hold your kid back for sport (especially dead end lacrosse) the state should take your kids away from you!

Focus on grades, grades, grades and then a little lacrosse


Cant reason with red cup holding, foul mouth yelling, overweight lax dad blowhards
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/17/17 09:35 PM
Would like to see some of these parents who purposely hold their kid back or intentionally enter their child into younger competition be brought up on criminal charges should something happen to a younger player. Imagine your the parent of a 9 year that gets a life altering injury due to a parent, coach, organization playing an older kid that has no bussiness being on that field. Someone has to answer for that. Children will get hurt playing sports there is no doubt in that but it should be by someone their own age. If you play your child/children against younger kids then heads up up your kid is garbage at the sport, and you have officially failed as a parent.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/17/17 09:56 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Would like to see some of these parents who purposely hold their kid back or intentionally enter their child into younger competition be brought up on criminal charges should something happen to a younger player. Imagine your the parent of a 9 year that gets a life altering injury due to a parent, coach, organization playing an older kid that has no bussiness being on that field. Someone has to answer for that. Children will get hurt playing sports there is no doubt in that but it should be by someone their own age. If you play your child/children against younger kids then heads up up your kid is garbage at the sport, and you have officially failed as a parent.


Fortunately that just doesnt happen. Yea..some of older kids push and beat up on the younger ones. But the old kids just dont hurt the younger ones.
It is epidemic now the amount of prefirsts/holdbacks and people doing it for sports, but it is what it is. Morals be damned!

It is hilarious that the majority of these kids are in private schools where they constantly teach morals and doing the right thing. Look at any MIAA school and the preaching about morals that goes on at school. LOL
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/17/17 10:12 PM
I believe that age based is way to subjective and it does not take into account the ethnicity of the child, some whom mature earlier and some that mature later, I would require each lacrosse participating child to have MRI's taken to measure growth plates. This would be the only fair way to classify kids to make sure they are in the safest playing environment against other kids of the same physical maturity levels. this would make so much more sense then grade or age based.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/17/17 10:33 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I will start by saying I did not hold back my son, but obviously it works. If it wasn't working this would not be such a hot topic on this site. So the detractors who are arguing against it are affirming people's attitudes that hold backs work. If I'm wrong let me know, but based on what I am reading here it appears holdbacks are dominating younger kids in lacrosse.


Two word summary of your post: "cheating works". Wow - what a revelation! There are zero readers on this board that disagree with that conclusion. At the same time, that does not mean that is right, both ethically or in any other way, for the sport in general, which is WHAT everyone is arguing.


I understand, but what is the advantage to NOT holding your son back? Unless it's over grade 3 the kid won't remember and he will be dominant up until about age 22. At which point it doesn't really matter anymore. Really, in 2017 what is morals driving? It's unethical to cheat in your taxes, yet everyone does it. Lie about being sick to miss work? Unethical. Scam an injury to get workers comp, the list is endless. I don't know, I don't agree with hold backs but really, I just don't think it's the be all end all.


Believe it or not, many people don't do any of the things that you mention. Some folks are guided by morals principles and values, and others hold their kids back to look better at sports.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/17/17 10:40 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Would like to see some of these parents who purposely hold their kid back or intentionally enter their child into younger competition be brought up on criminal charges should something happen to a younger player. Imagine your the parent of a 9 year that gets a life altering injury due to a parent, coach, organization playing an older kid that has no bussiness being on that field. Someone has to answer for that. Children will get hurt playing sports there is no doubt in that but it should be by someone their own age. If you play your child/children against younger kids then heads up up your kid is garbage at the sport, and you have officially failed as a parent.


That probably won't happen, although I wish it should! Many of these boys peak early. They get to college and ride the bench for 4 years. My on age son easily started over a dbag hold back at a top 10 school last year. Parents shut up real quick. The kid is a loser just like the parents. Karma comes around to the vast majority. The ones that do succeed, would have anyway. A shame the parents didn't have more faith in them.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/17/17 11:06 PM
No downside to holding back your son. Do it and they will be more successful on the field and in the classroom. It is not cheating.

The entire discussion is a waste of time.

No downside... someone please present any evidence at all that it damages the child. Anyone? Anyone?

Ethics and Karma are what you argue? That is just stupid.

The dbag kid was not that good in the first place. If they hadn't held him back he would not have made the team.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/17/17 11:09 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I will start by saying I did not hold back my son, but obviously it works. If it wasn't working this would not be such a hot topic on this site. So the detractors who are arguing against it are affirming people's attitudes that hold backs work. If I'm wrong let me know, but based on what I am reading here it appears holdbacks are dominating younger kids in lacrosse.


Two word summary of your post: "cheating works". Wow - what a revelation! There are zero readers on this board that disagree with that conclusion. At the same time, that does not mean that is right, both ethically or in any other way, for the sport in general, which is WHAT everyone is arguing.


I understand, but what is the advantage to NOT holding your son back? Unless it's over grade 3 the kid won't remember and he will be dominant up until about age 22. At which point it doesn't really matter anymore. Really, in 2017 what is morals driving? It's unethical to cheat in your taxes, yet everyone does it. Lie about being sick to miss work? Unethical. Scam an injury to get workers comp, the list is endless. I don't know, I don't agree with hold backs but really, I just don't think it's the be all end all.


That sentiment is why everyone cheats. The main concern is injury. NY beats the Maryland hold backs but they get pretty bruised up in the process with nonreleasable penalties coming more often with 50 to 60 pound differences. It's ridiculous. They are not even winning half the time. It's just plain dangerous
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/17/17 11:11 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I believe that age based is way to subjective and it does not take into account the ethnicity of the child, some whom mature earlier and some that mature later, I would require each lacrosse participating child to have MRI's taken to measure growth plates. This would be the only fair way to classify kids to make sure they are in the safest playing environment against other kids of the same physical maturity levels. this would make so much more sense then grade or age based.


Spoken like an apologist who has his son play down and never actually play against kids his own age group. Little Johnny holdback just cant compete against kids his age. LOL
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/17/17 11:25 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I believe that age based is way to subjective and it does not take into account the ethnicity of the child, some whom mature earlier and some that mature later, I would require each lacrosse participating child to have MRI's taken to measure growth plates. This would be the only fair way to classify kids to make sure they are in the safest playing environment against other kids of the same physical maturity levels. this would make so much more sense then grade or age based.


You apparently have never heard the term "strawman argument".
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/17/17 11:28 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
No downside to holding back your son. Do it and they will be more successful on the field and in the classroom. It is not cheating.

The entire discussion is a waste of time.

No downside... someone please present any evidence at all that it damages the child. Anyone? Anyone?

Ethics and Karma are what you argue? That is just stupid.

The dbag kid was not that good in the first place. If they hadn't held him back he would not have made the team.



It is cheating, and the dbag was a US Lacrosse and UA All-American. Also a 20-year-old Freshman. We just call him a loser. Karma will get many of the kids, actually, I should say parents, who thought they could fix everything. Unfortunately, it doesn't always work out that way. The best kids will rise to the top, and age advantage will disappear. Worked for both my sons.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/17/17 11:45 PM
C Rec dad Your imaginary sons did great.

You present no argument

Get those burgers before they burn
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/18/17 12:15 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
C Rec dad Your imaginary sons did great.

You present no argument

Get those burgers before they burn


If you do your research you will see that I am telling the truth, get back to your 5th martini! All I know is my sons excelled because of their talent, and holdbacks never were an issue because they were mostly soft in the end, like you. Can't wait to see the next Vinyard Vine throw a tantrum....Priceless!
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/18/17 01:17 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Once USL puts the pressure on college coaches - just like they did with early recruiting legislation - you are going to see a drip, drip, drip of a shift to age based classifidcation. It's only a matter of time. You want to be a sport that isn't just played by rich white kids - then you have to have a level playing field. Take one look at the UA teams, Inside Lacrosse HS rankings, etc and you will see a sport dominated by private schools/players with rosters stocked with reclassed kids. All of THAT starts with youth based grade classification. It's a sham and it needs to stop.


Why would USL pressure on college coaches to stop the practice? College lacrosse is guided by the NCAA. Only they can pressure college coaches.



Oh and South American baseball players don't lie about their ages and football players all get passing grades. Don't throw mud at the rich white boys. Nobody is clean.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/18/17 03:08 AM
The 54 year old spouses at the 55+ communities are starting to game the system in the shuffleboard leagues in FL. USL needs to step in, it's like anarchy down there, hammie pulls, even some hips popping, the on age folks just can't keep up. This one year thing is catching and needs to be stopped. These are original hold backs coming back around for another taste. They are all rich and white too..
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/18/17 03:22 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
C Rec dad Your imaginary sons did great.

You present no argument

Get those burgers before they burn


If you do your research you will see that I am telling the truth, get back to your 5th martini! All I know is my sons excelled because of their talent, and holdbacks never were an issue because they were mostly soft in the end, like you. Can't wait to see the next Vinyard Vine throw a tantrum....Priceless!


Agreed, The holdbacks became a challenge for my son. You will always gravitate to your environment and ostensibly playing up helped him compete. The kids that were 15 when he was 14 were much bigger and stronger, that is all gone. He became tougher and played with a chip on his shoulder these last two years. I saw the parents of these whale belters and knew it would be just a matter of time..... They stopped growing and started to take on the frame of their ectomorph parents. BTW a coach of a major school asked me how tall my wife was when we visited this final 4 school.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/18/17 05:17 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
C Rec dad Your imaginary sons did great.

You present no argument

Get those burgers before they burn


If you do your research you will see that I am telling the truth, get back to your 5th martini! All I know is my sons excelled because of their talent, and holdbacks never were an issue because they were mostly soft in the end, like you. Can't wait to see the next Vinyard Vine throw a tantrum....Priceless!


Agreed, The holdbacks became a challenge for my son. You will always gravitate to your environment and ostensibly playing up helped him compete. The kids that were 15 when he was 14 were much bigger and stronger, that is all gone. He became tougher and played with a chip on his shoulder these last two years. I saw the parents of these whale belters and knew it would be just a matter of time..... They stopped growing and started to take on the frame of their ectomorph parents. BTW a coach of a major school asked me how tall my wife was when we visited this final 4 school.


None of this happened. Except for your amazing amazon wife.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/18/17 10:13 AM
It's just plain ridiculous when 13 years olds play 15 year olds. Even when the 13 year olds win it's at a much higher risk of injury.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/18/17 10:57 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
C Rec dad Your imaginary sons did great.

You present no argument

Get those burgers before they burn


If you do your research you will see that I am telling the truth, get back to your 5th martini! All I know is my sons excelled because of their talent, and holdbacks never were an issue because they were mostly soft in the end, like you. Can't wait to see the next Vinyard Vine throw a tantrum....Priceless!


Agreed, The holdbacks became a challenge for my son. You will always gravitate to your environment and ostensibly playing up helped him compete. The kids that were 15 when he was 14 were much bigger and stronger, that is all gone. He became tougher and played with a chip on his shoulder these last two years. I saw the parents of these whale belters and knew it would be just a matter of time..... They stopped growing and started to take on the frame of their ectomorph parents. BTW a coach of a major school asked me how tall my wife was when we visited this final 4 school.



Holding back only works in the short run. My son will be out of college with a job at 22. Would be weird to still be in college at 24-25. Especially with the new recruiting rules, by the end of sophomore year, things even out.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/18/17 11:33 AM
CPS is coming for all of you
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/18/17 11:33 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
C Rec dad Your imaginary sons did great.

You present no argument

Get those burgers before they burn


If you do your research you will see that I am telling the truth, get back to your 5th martini! All I know is my sons excelled because of their talent, and holdbacks never were an issue because they were mostly soft in the end, like you. Can't wait to see the next Vinyard Vine throw a tantrum....Priceless!


Agreed, The holdbacks became a challenge for my son. You will always gravitate to your environment and ostensibly playing up helped him compete. The kids that were 15 when he was 14 were much bigger and stronger, that is all gone. He became tougher and played with a chip on his shoulder these last two years. I saw the parents of these whale belters and knew it would be just a matter of time..... They stopped growing and started to take on the frame of their ectomorph parents. BTW a coach of a major school asked me how tall my wife was when we visited this final 4 school.


None of this happened. Except for your amazing amazon wife.



A few schools where True on age Freshman started over older classmates: Albany, OSU, UNC, PSU, Rutgers, probably a few more, just the first few I found. OSU kid was Freshman of the year over many holdbacks.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/18/17 12:47 PM
Still no one has an example to indicate that holding back is not an effective tool.
C team dad and his imaginary kids are imaginary outliers.

If you live from Phili to DC being a holdback is not odd but the norm. Two year holdbacks (pre-first) is very common. C team dad's imaginary kids would be crushed by these September born two year holdbacks. But the adversity would make them stronger. Burgers are done C team dad.

How old do you think the kids at Culver are?

BTW how did you get the ages of the "True" freshman at those schools. In 2011 most schools took the DOB off of the website. Lyle Thompson's age has changed at least twice.

Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/18/17 01:39 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Still no one has an example to indicate that holding back is not an effective tool.
C team dad and his imaginary kids are imaginary outliers.

If you live from Phili to DC being a holdback is not odd but the norm. Two year holdbacks (pre-first) is very common. C team dad's imaginary kids would be crushed by these September born two year holdbacks. But the adversity would make them stronger. Burgers are done C team dad.

How old do you think the kids at Culver are?

BTW how did you get the ages of the "True" freshman at those schools. In 2011 most schools took the DOB off of the website. Lyle Thompson's age has changed at least twice.




I know several of them personally, played with/against my son over the years. They all started college at 18. They are all examples of kids/families that didn't need to resort to cheating the system to try to make their kids look better. Holding back simply does not work for most, as they will be surpassed by better athletes. For holdbacks that are successful, and there are plenty, the sad part is that they would have been just as good if they didn't hold back. it's the same as cheating on a test. You may look good short term, but eventually you will be exposed.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/18/17 02:28 PM
I honestly cant believe the arguments to hold kids back to get an advantage in a dead end sport. Seriously? There is no real pro league or at least one anyone cares about. Maybe Football, Basketball, Baseball, those I would get, BUT LAX? You guys are freakin NUTS

Have your kid read a book once in a while and get off the wall
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/18/17 02:28 PM
Studies, US pediatricians board, etc. (look up any study shared by the Times or Post) all have come out stating holding back students (whether for the old school reason that they flunked or the new school reason that they will have better chance to win) is bad for the kid. They actually adjust by dumbing themselves down including emotionally because they are not developing with their proper peer group-- they tend to do poorly adjusting in life, don't handle adversity well, expert preferred treatment, etc. Funny how what used to be a lower-class and minority-dominant issue (flunking) which was determined as bad for all involved is now an upper-class issue (redshirting) championed by prep schools and rich folks in the name of beating out others. YES, Johnny will be better at lacrosse from now through high school. But the experts say he will be worse off in life.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/18/17 02:30 PM
Re-classification works for many of the kids that do it, it is an advantage for those that can afford it, and it is worth it if it helps your kid get into a great school that he would not get into without lacrosse. Zero moral dilemma in helping you child get a foot up in life and it should be used and if you can afford it ....go for it.

To me (my kid is going to a very good D1 and is a 17 year old entering his senior year of HS, Turning 18 in March) it is no different than hiring an SAT tutor, personal trainer or private positional coach. As long as you are following the rules, nobody should be ridiculed for doing what is best for their own kid.

I doubt that a single person on this board, if given the following choice would not pick B.

A) Have your kid stay on grade, do well in school and lacrosse and go to a very good state school and graduate at 22 years old

B) Have your kid repeat kindergarten repeat 8th grade and PG a year before starting HYP as a 20 year old.

IMHO the choice would be B every time.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/18/17 03:34 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Re-classification works for many of the kids that do it, it is an advantage for those that can afford it, and it is worth it if it helps your kid get into a great school that he would not get into without lacrosse. Zero moral dilemma in helping you child get a foot up in life and it should be used and if you can afford it ....go for it.

To me (my kid is going to a very good D1 and is a 17 year old entering his senior year of HS, Turning 18 in March) it is no different than hiring an SAT tutor, personal trainer or private positional coach. As long as you are following the rules, nobody should be ridiculed for doing what is best for their own kid.

I doubt that a single person on this board, if given the following choice would not pick B.

A) Have your kid stay on grade, do well in school and lacrosse and go to a very good state school and graduate at 22 years old

B) Have your kid repeat kindergarten repeat 8th grade and PG a year before starting HYP as a 20 year old.

IMHO the choice would be B every time.


I would not ever consider doing B - every one has the chance to repeat or delay start of K; not sure everyone could repeat 8th, but considering what I see parents exacting from public schools now a days, if you pushed hard enough, you might be able to make that happen, too; PG costs $, so most wouldn't do it.

Look at this way - given the clear opportunity, would you do the first two within your own public school district? And, by opportunity I mean only that you could do it, not that it would be norm. The reason I put it that way is that in all likelihood, the very act of repeating 8th grade without having to do so would be looked down upon by both the school and probably also by his peers and community - it's looked down upon for a reason. Doing so by 'hiding' it out in the open at a private school doesn't take away the nature of what made it looked down upon within the school community - you just created some distance.

Another point: The number of first- and second-hand times I have heard of the following exchange at this point is beyond counting: You're at a tourney with teams from MA, PA, NJ, DE, and/or MD, and the following Q is asked - "How old is X"? The A is almost always, "He is in Y grade". We all know why the users refuse to answer the actual question - they know they are playing "by the rules" in a grade-based system, but they also know they are gaming the system by having a boy who is older than would otherwise be in that grade, IE, they have reservations about the ethics of it. Otherwise, they would answer the actual Q! That said, the only parents/players that seem to answer this Q directly are from MA - they seem damn proud of their Johnny being older, and the go so far as to ask why more of your son's teams don't reclass/holdback/etc?! (Maybe that's just part and parcel of the whole New England prep school mentality that they are much more involved in.)
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/18/17 03:54 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Re-classification works for many of the kids that do it, it is an advantage for those that can afford it, and it is worth it if it helps your kid get into a great school that he would not get into without lacrosse. Zero moral dilemma in helping you child get a foot up in life and it should be used and if you can afford it ....go for it.

To me (my kid is going to a very good D1 and is a 17 year old entering his senior year of HS, Turning 18 in March) it is no different than hiring an SAT tutor, personal trainer or private positional coach. As long as you are following the rules, nobody should be ridiculed for doing what is best for their own kid.

I doubt that a single person on this board, if given the following choice would not pick B.

A) Have your kid stay on grade, do well in school and lacrosse and go to a very good state school and graduate at 22 years old

B) Have your kid repeat kindergarten repeat 8th grade and PG a year before starting HYP as a 20 year old.

IMHO the choice would be B every time.


I would not ever consider doing B - every one has the chance to repeat or delay start of K; not sure everyone could repeat 8th, but considering what I see parents exacting from public schools now a days, if you pushed hard enough, you might be able to make that happen, too; PG costs $, so most wouldn't do it.

Look at this way - given the clear opportunity, would you do the first two within your own public school district? And, by opportunity I mean only that you could do it, not that it would be norm. The reason I put it that way is that in all likelihood, the very act of repeating 8th grade without having to do so would be looked down upon by both the school and probably also by his peers and community - it's looked down upon for a reason. Doing so by 'hiding' it out in the open at a private school doesn't take away the nature of what made it looked down upon within the school community - you just created some distance.

Another point: The number of first- and second-hand times I have heard of the following exchange at this point is beyond counting: You're at a tourney with teams from MA, PA, NJ, DE, and/or MD, and the following Q is asked - "How old is X"? The A is almost always, "He is in Y grade". We all know why the users refuse to answer the actual question - they know they are playing "by the rules" in a grade-based system, but they also know they are gaming the system by having a boy who is older than would otherwise be in that grade, IE, they have reservations about the ethics of it. Otherwise, they would answer the actual Q! That said, the only parents/players that seem to answer this Q directly are from MA - they seem damn proud of their Johnny being older, and the go so far as to ask why more of your son's teams don't reclass/holdback/etc?! (Maybe that's just part and parcel of the whole New England prep school mentality that they are much more involved in.)


Holdbacks do not bother me. My understanding is that in order to "keep up with the Jones" in the prep school world you need to be most likely a double holdback. Have at it. Its just that when you play on your travel lacrosse team, you should play vs. kids your age. The two systems can coexist. 2003 birth years vs 2003 birth years. It doesn't matter if one team has kids planning to graduate HS in 2021 and the other in 2023.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/18/17 03:58 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
C Rec dad Your imaginary sons did great.

You present no argument

Get those burgers before they burn


If you do your research you will see that I am telling the truth, get back to your 5th martini! All I know is my sons excelled because of their talent, and holdbacks never were an issue because they were mostly soft in the end, like you. Can't wait to see the next Vinyard Vine throw a tantrum....Priceless!


Agreed, The holdbacks became a challenge for my son. You will always gravitate to your environment and ostensibly playing up helped him compete. The kids that were 15 when he was 14 were much bigger and stronger, that is all gone. He became tougher and played with a chip on his shoulder these last two years. I saw the parents of these whale belters and knew it would be just a matter of time..... They stopped growing and started to take on the frame of their ectomorph parents. BTW a coach of a major school asked me how tall my wife was when we visited this final 4 school.



Holding back only works in the short run. My son will be out of college with a job at 22. Would be weird to still be in college at 24-25. Especially with the new recruiting rules, by the end of sophomore year, things even out.


22 + hold back 1 year = 23. What's weird is you had to exaggerate with 24-25 to make a point, or at least try to make sense. Entering the job market in your early twenties is normal, and no particular birth age makes it any more likely than not, has no bearing. This is a bad attempt to make a non-existent point.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/18/17 04:00 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Studies, US pediatricians board, etc. (look up any study shared by the Times or Post) all have come out stating holding back students (whether for the old school reason that they flunked or the new school reason that they will have better chance to win) is bad for the kid. They actually adjust by dumbing themselves down including emotionally because they are not developing with their proper peer group-- they tend to do poorly adjusting in life, don't handle adversity well, expert preferred treatment, etc. Funny how what used to be a lower-class and minority-dominant issue (flunking) which was determined as bad for all involved is now an upper-class issue (redshirting) championed by prep schools and rich folks in the name of beating out others. YES, Johnny will be better at lacrosse from now through high school. But the experts say he will be worse off in life.


Yes that's all true, we called it getting left back, was for the [lacrosse] who couldn't cut it in their own age group. Left behind, while the capable kids got on with their lives. Beyond me why anyone would chose to do this to their kid. But then I have seen plenty of parents get their kids classified for special ed when they weren't in the public school system to get extra services like resource room, extra time etc. Me, I'd rather let my kid learn how to deal with real life challenges so he will know how to cope with being an adult one day.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/18/17 04:28 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Studies, US pediatricians board, etc. (look up any study shared by the Times or Post) all have come out stating holding back students (whether for the old school reason that they flunked or the new school reason that they will have better chance to win) is bad for the kid. They actually adjust by dumbing themselves down including emotionally because they are not developing with their proper peer group-- they tend to do poorly adjusting in life, don't handle adversity well, expert preferred treatment, etc. Funny how what used to be a lower-class and minority-dominant issue (flunking) which was determined as bad for all involved is now an upper-class issue (redshirting) championed by prep schools and rich folks in the name of beating out others. YES, Johnny will be better at lacrosse from now through high school. But the experts say he will be worse off in life.


Yes that's all true, we called it getting left back, was for the [lacrosse] who couldn't cut it in their own age group. Left behind, while the capable kids got on with their lives. Beyond me why anyone would chose to do this to their kid. But then I have seen plenty of parents get their kids classified for special ed when they weren't in the public school system to get extra services like resource room, extra time etc. Me, I'd rather let my kid learn how to deal with real life challenges so he will know how to cope with being an adult one day.


Because average public education is essentially third world, and when you get to private you realize what you've been missing, and the extra year helps with catching up to reality. An extra year of school is a gift, there is absolutely no negative whatsoever. Private schools are almost universally adopting the pre-first curriculum, and the studies used to develop are probably more relevant than studies focused on kids that fail public school grades (which are the studies referenced in original posts). Sour grapes public school parents love to pretend there is some negative connotation, but it is a ridiculous argument. Do what you want, but don't try to pretend public school education is some gold standard extraordinary system!!! Just keep saying spoiled/rich/privileged, gets your point across better. Stop with the public school pedestal, not so good!!
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/18/17 06:14 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
The 54 year old spouses at the 55+ communities are starting to game the system in the shuffleboard leagues in FL. USL needs to step in, it's like anarchy down there, hammie pulls, even some hips popping, the on age folks just can't keep up. This one year thing is catching and needs to be stopped. These are original hold backs coming back around for another taste. They are all rich and white too..



Well you are sorta right. The only ones gaming the system are the same ones that held their child back to get an advantage against other children. Now these old geezers want it for themselves.

Problem is that they were never any good and still arent. Age is a non factor
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/18/17 06:46 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Studies, US pediatricians board, etc. (look up any study shared by the Times or Post) all have come out stating holding back students (whether for the old school reason that they flunked or the new school reason that they will have better chance to win) is bad for the kid. They actually adjust by dumbing themselves down including emotionally because they are not developing with their proper peer group-- they tend to do poorly adjusting in life, don't handle adversity well, expert preferred treatment, etc. Funny how what used to be a lower-class and minority-dominant issue (flunking) which was determined as bad for all involved is now an upper-class issue (redshirting) championed by prep schools and rich folks in the name of beating out others. YES, Johnny will be better at lacrosse from now through high school. But the experts say he will be worse off in life.


Yes that's all true, we called it getting left back, was for the [lacrosse] who couldn't cut it in their own age group. Left behind, while the capable kids got on with their lives. Beyond me why anyone would chose to do this to their kid. But then I have seen plenty of parents get their kids classified for special ed when they weren't in the public school system to get extra services like resource room, extra time etc. Me, I'd rather let my kid learn how to deal with real life challenges so he will know how to cope with being an adult one day.


Because average public education is essentially third world, and when you get to private you realize what you've been missing, and the extra year helps with catching up to reality. An extra year of school is a gift, there is absolutely no negative whatsoever. Private schools are almost universally adopting the pre-first curriculum, and the studies used to develop are probably more relevant than studies focused on kids that fail public school grades (which are the studies referenced in original posts). Sour grapes public school parents love to pretend there is some negative connotation, but it is a ridiculous argument. Do what you want, but don't try to pretend public school education is some gold standard extraordinary system!!! Just keep saying spoiled/rich/privileged, gets your point across better. Stop with the public school pedestal, not so good!!


Average in general, "yes" - but, the average on LI is WAY higher than general, and in many cases the top 10% publics rival the local privates.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/18/17 07:06 PM
The best are the meathead parents that hold back average kids trying to make them great. Guess what, after the holdback they are bigger, but still AVERAGE.

You people are crazy its a dead end sport.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/18/17 07:07 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Studies, US pediatricians board, etc. (look up any study shared by the Times or Post) all have come out stating holding back students (whether for the old school reason that they flunked or the new school reason that they will have better chance to win) is bad for the kid. They actually adjust by dumbing themselves down including emotionally because they are not developing with their proper peer group-- they tend to do poorly adjusting in life, don't handle adversity well, expert preferred treatment, etc. Funny how what used to be a lower-class and minority-dominant issue (flunking) which was determined as bad for all involved is now an upper-class issue (redshirting) championed by prep schools and rich folks in the name of beating out others. YES, Johnny will be better at lacrosse from now through high school. But the experts say he will be worse off in life.


Yes that's all true, we called it getting left back, was for the [lacrosse] who couldn't cut it in their own age group. Left behind, while the capable kids got on with their lives. Beyond me why anyone would chose to do this to their kid. But then I have seen plenty of parents get their kids classified for special ed when they weren't in the public school system to get extra services like resource room, extra time etc. Me, I'd rather let my kid learn how to deal with real life challenges so he will know how to cope with being an adult one day.


Because average public education is essentially third world, and when you get to private you realize what you've been missing, and the extra year helps with catching up to reality. An extra year of school is a gift, there is absolutely no negative whatsoever. Private schools are almost universally adopting the pre-first curriculum, and the studies used to develop are probably more relevant than studies focused on kids that fail public school grades (which are the studies referenced in original posts). Sour grapes public school parents love to pretend there is some negative connotation, but it is a ridiculous argument. Do what you want, but don't try to pretend public school education is some gold standard extraordinary system!!! Just keep saying spoiled/rich/privileged, gets your point across better. Stop with the public school pedestal, not so good!!


Average in general, "yes" - but, the average on LI is WAY higher than general, and in many cases the top 10% publics rival the local privates.


Grenada is nicer than Beirut also.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/18/17 07:23 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
The best are the meathead parents that hold back average kids trying to make them great. Guess what, after the holdback they are bigger, but still AVERAGE.

You people are crazy its a dead end sport.


It's not a dead end sport. It's just that the "end" -- admission to a strong academic school -- is different than it is for other sports.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/18/17 07:30 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Studies, US pediatricians board, etc. (look up any study shared by the Times or Post) all have come out stating holding back students (whether for the old school reason that they flunked or the new school reason that they will have better chance to win) is bad for the kid. They actually adjust by dumbing themselves down including emotionally because they are not developing with their proper peer group-- they tend to do poorly adjusting in life, don't handle adversity well, expert preferred treatment, etc. Funny how what used to be a lower-class and minority-dominant issue (flunking) which was determined as bad for all involved is now an upper-class issue (redshirting) championed by prep schools and rich folks in the name of beating out others. YES, Johnny will be better at lacrosse from now through high school. But the experts say he will be worse off in life.


Yes that's all true, we called it getting left back, was for the [lacrosse] who couldn't cut it in their own age group. Left behind, while the capable kids got on with their lives. Beyond me why anyone would chose to do this to their kid. But then I have seen plenty of parents get their kids classified for special ed when they weren't in the public school system to get extra services like resource room, extra time etc. Me, I'd rather let my kid learn how to deal with real life challenges so he will know how to cope with being an adult one day.


Because average public education is essentially third world, and when you get to private you realize what you've been missing, and the extra year helps with catching up to reality. An extra year of school is a gift, there is absolutely no negative whatsoever. Private schools are almost universally adopting the pre-first curriculum, and the studies used to develop are probably more relevant than studies focused on kids that fail public school grades (which are the studies referenced in original posts). Sour grapes public school parents love to pretend there is some negative connotation, but it is a ridiculous argument. Do what you want, but don't try to pretend public school education is some gold standard extraordinary system!!! Just keep saying spoiled/rich/privileged, gets your point across better. Stop with the public school pedestal, not so good!!


Average in general, "yes" - but, the average on LI is WAY higher than general, and in many cases the top 10% publics rival the local privates.


Grenada is nicer than Beirut also.


That's a ridiculous statement - 12 of the top 50 schools in NYS are on LI (USN News & World Rept), and even more would be included from Long Island were it that they had higher participation in standardized tests (I live in such a district - in top 100 in US for other reports that do not require standardized test participation thresholds). Many of these LI schools are similarly in the top for the entire country! Sorry if you live in one of the districts that isn't cutting it. Don't go away angry - just go away!
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/18/17 08:28 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Studies, US pediatricians board, etc. (look up any study shared by the Times or Post) all have come out stating holding back students (whether for the old school reason that they flunked or the new school reason that they will have better chance to win) is bad for the kid. They actually adjust by dumbing themselves down including emotionally because they are not developing with their proper peer group-- they tend to do poorly adjusting in life, don't handle adversity well, expert preferred treatment, etc. Funny how what used to be a lower-class and minority-dominant issue (flunking) which was determined as bad for all involved is now an upper-class issue (redshirting) championed by prep schools and rich folks in the name of beating out others. YES, Johnny will be better at lacrosse from now through high school. But the experts say he will be worse off in life.


Yes that's all true, we called it getting left back, was for the [lacrosse] who couldn't cut it in their own age group. Left behind, while the capable kids got on with their lives. Beyond me why anyone would chose to do this to their kid. But then I have seen plenty of parents get their kids classified for special ed when they weren't in the public school system to get extra services like resource room, extra time etc. Me, I'd rather let my kid learn how to deal with real life challenges so he will know how to cope with being an adult one day.


Because average public education is essentially third world, and when you get to private you realize what you've been missing, and the extra year helps with catching up to reality. An extra year of school is a gift, there is absolutely no negative whatsoever. Private schools are almost universally adopting the pre-first curriculum, and the studies used to develop are probably more relevant than studies focused on kids that fail public school grades (which are the studies referenced in original posts). Sour grapes public school parents love to pretend there is some negative connotation, but it is a ridiculous argument. Do what you want, but don't try to pretend public school education is some gold standard extraordinary system!!! Just keep saying spoiled/rich/privileged, gets your point across better. Stop with the public school pedestal, not so good!!


Average in general, "yes" - but, the average on LI is WAY higher than general, and in many cases the top 10% publics rival the local privates.


Grenada is nicer than Beirut also.


That's a ridiculous statement - 12 of the top 50 schools in NYS are on LI (USN News & World Rept), and even more would be included from Long Island were it that they had higher participation in standardized tests (I live in such a district - in top 100 in US for other reports that do not require standardized test participation thresholds). Many of these LI schools are similarly in the top for the entire country! Sorry if you live in one of the districts that isn't cutting it. Don't go away angry - just go away!


Even the trash public school system has to have a best location.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/18/17 08:36 PM
[/quote]

Grenada is nicer than Beirut also. [/quote]

That's a ridiculous statement - 12 of the top 50 schools in NYS are on LI (USN News & World Rept), and even more would be included from Long Island were it that they had higher participation in standardized tests (I live in such a district - in top 100 in US for other reports that do not require standardized test participation thresholds). Many of these LI schools are similarly in the top for the entire country! Sorry if you live in one of the districts that isn't cutting it. Don't go away angry - just go away![/quote]

Even the trash public school system has to have a best location.
[/quote]

#JealousMuch ?
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/18/17 08:45 PM
Why do people use steroids? Because they work.

Why do people hold back their kids? Because it works.

You have to adapt to your community. LI has some good schools and Myles Jones PGed. To keep up with the Jones (LOL)

I have four kids, all hold backs. Only one plays sports at a high level. All four are judged based upon their peer group. Being older gives them more opportunities. They win. No cheating just using the arbitrary nature of the system established to treat kids based on their DOB. It is a joke.

Get on board people... we have cookies

Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/18/17 09:51 PM
Some intellectual honesty might help this discussion. I know this will get ripped - but I’ll bet there are a lot of people with similar stories and it hardly ever gets discussed. And I also know there are people doing extreme things deliberately for an advantage in this sport and others.

If you played lacrosse back 20+/- years ago, you probably have great friends and former teammates from college who likely live in that other place. Did they somehow become evil child abusing cheaters? Over time did they all become whining crybabies? Not likely. What is more likely is that they are sending their kids to school in the way their school system says is best (public or private). People don’t want their kid to be an outlier age wise either way. Is that really hard to understand? Would you swim against the stream if you lived in the other place – and throw out the advice or rules of your school of choice? Most of us are just trying to do what is best for our kids and having them fit in age wise at school seems pretty logical. Forget the nut job double hold-back, double pre-k. pre-pre-first people for a minute, they do enough to ruin this great sport and hi-jack the conversation.

Two of my college teammates and best friends live in MD. They have boys roughly same age as my oldest (few months max). My son is young for his grade by our standards. We are all really close and consider each other “family”. My son plays in one age bracket, their boys play (2) age brackets lower. Call me an exaggerator – this is fact. According to my friends, their boys are average age for their team. I see them at tournaments because their oldest boys play against my next oldest son. Fair? No. Who would really even argue that? Evil? No. Cheating? Again – No. In practical reality - it isn’t up to them. They sent their boys to school the way the schools told them they should in order to attend. Now - they play club lax which is organized by grade. To them, you sign up and tryout and it is based by grade and that is that. I can see their point. These aren’t crazies that did this for an advantage in sports, but they also are guys that don’t deny their sons are advantaged by this set-up. I know their boys really well - they are great kids, really good players who work hard on this game. Win or lose these boys would much rather be playing my their older similar aged "cousin" than battling it out with their little “cousin”.

My friends and I get it – youth results really don’t mean anything – sorry folks, but they really, really don’t. We don’t care about the T-shirts or trophies, but the kids actually do - especially earlier on. When you win one - you want to know you earned it and when you come up short you shouldn’t have a built in excuse. Point – this system sucks for all the kids. Up until at least U15 it should be totally age based. Easy to do and easy to enforce. Better for all the kids. Can’t happen soon enough. My littlest ones are doing NXT, Adrenaline and 3d events when the time comes – I’ll seek out teams that seek that out. Hopefully everyone is along for the ride well before that.

Once they are in HS you have a different conversation - still an advantage, but a 5’10” 175 lb. 16 year old can at least compete v. 6’0” 200 lb. 18 yr. old. Simply not true with 5’2” 110 lb 12 yr. old v. 5’8” 150 lb 14 year old (both of whom btw will likely end up being the same size at the end of the day). It just isn’t good all around.

Club Directors - be as “elite” or AAA+++ as you want, make all the kids buy matching underwear and pajamas for the hotels with logos emblazoned on the sides, charge whatever, make as much money selling the college dream to 9 year old kids as you can, but please do it age based at the youth level. Much better for all the kids and the sport as a whole. Parents - the money you spend on this stuff is not an “investment” it’s a childhood activity for your son. If you view it the other way it clouds your thinking and makes it about the destination not the journey.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/18/17 10:15 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Why do people use steroids? Because they work.

Why do people hold back their kids? Because it works.

You have to adapt to your community. LI has some good schools and Myles Jones PGed. To keep up with the Jones (LOL)

I have four kids, all hold backs. Only one plays sports at a high level. All four are judged based upon their peer group. Being older gives them more opportunities. They win. No cheating just using the arbitrary nature of the system established to treat kids based on their DOB. It is a joke.

Get on board people... we have cookies



Have you ever wondered how your kids would have done in life without cheating? Sad for you that you will never know. You're the Joke. I'm glad I had faith in my kids and let them succeed without being a scumbag. Hope you get cancer and die.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/18/17 10:26 PM
Wow, well said.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/18/17 11:18 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Some intellectual honesty might help this discussion. I know this will get ripped - but I’ll bet there are a lot of people with similar stories and it hardly ever gets discussed. And I also know there are people doing extreme things deliberately for an advantage in this sport and others.

If you played lacrosse back 20+/- years ago, you probably have great friends and former teammates from college who likely live in that other place. Did they somehow become evil child abusing cheaters? Over time did they all become whining crybabies? Not likely. What is more likely is that they are sending their kids to school in the way their school system says is best (public or private). People don’t want their kid to be an outlier age wise either way. Is that really hard to understand? Would you swim against the stream if you lived in the other place – and throw out the advice or rules of your school of choice? Most of us are just trying to do what is best for our kids and having them fit in age wise at school seems pretty logical. Forget the nut job double hold-back, double pre-k. pre-pre-first people for a minute, they do enough to ruin this great sport and hi-jack the conversation.

Two of my college teammates and best friends live in MD. They have boys roughly same age as my oldest (few months max). My son is young for his grade by our standards. We are all really close and consider each other “family”. My son plays in one age bracket, their boys play (2) age brackets lower. Call me an exaggerator – this is fact. According to my friends, their boys are average age for their team. I see them at tournaments because their oldest boys play against my next oldest son. Fair? No. Who would really even argue that? Evil? No. Cheating? Again – No. In practical reality - it isn’t up to them. They sent their boys to school the way the schools told them they should in order to attend. Now - they play club lax which is organized by grade. To them, you sign up and tryout and it is based by grade and that is that. I can see their point. These aren’t crazies that did this for an advantage in sports, but they also are guys that don’t deny their sons are advantaged by this set-up. I know their boys really well - they are great kids, really good players who work hard on this game. Win or lose these boys would much rather be playing my their older similar aged "cousin" than battling it out with their little “cousin”.

My friends and I get it – youth results really don’t mean anything – sorry folks, but they really, really don’t. We don’t care about the T-shirts or trophies, but the kids actually do - especially earlier on. When you win one - you want to know you earned it and when you come up short you shouldn’t have a built in excuse. Point – this system sucks for all the kids. Up until at least U15 it should be totally age based. Easy to do and easy to enforce. Better for all the kids. Can’t happen soon enough. My littlest ones are doing NXT, Adrenaline and 3d events when the time comes – I’ll seek out teams that seek that out. Hopefully everyone is along for the ride well before that.

Once they are in HS you have a different conversation - still an advantage, but a 5’10” 175 lb. 16 year old can at least compete v. 6’0” 200 lb. 18 yr. old. Simply not true with 5’2” 110 lb 12 yr. old v. 5’8” 150 lb 14 year old (both of whom btw will likely end up being the same size at the end of the day). It just isn’t good all around.

Club Directors - be as “elite” or AAA+++ as you want, make all the kids buy matching underwear and pajamas for the hotels with logos emblazoned on the sides, charge whatever, make as much money selling the college dream to 9 year old kids as you can, but please do it age based at the youth level. Much better for all the kids and the sport as a whole. Parents - the money you spend on this stuff is not an “investment” it’s a childhood activity for your son. If you view it the other way it clouds your thinking and makes it about the destination not the journey.


Appreciate your perspective
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/19/17 12:33 AM
No one is cheating by holding back. Shut your mouth and take your beating on the field, the classroom and workplace.

Hope you get cancer as well. Statistically your ginger skin type makes it very likely. At least your kids are still living at home in their twenties so you always have them, and the 11 year old grandson. If you held them back maybe they would have earned that promotion at Starbucks months ago.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/19/17 12:44 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
[/quote]

Grenada is nicer than Beirut also.


That's a ridiculous statement - 12 of the top 50 schools in NYS are on LI (USN News & World Rept), and even more would be included from Long Island were it that they had higher participation in standardized tests (I live in such a district - in top 100 in US for other reports that do not require standardized test participation thresholds). Many of these LI schools are similarly in the top for the entire country! Sorry if you live in one of the districts that isn't cutting it. Don't go away angry - just go away![/quote]

Even the trash public school system has to have a best location.
[/quote]

#JealousMuch ?[/quote]

Huh? Mine are all in very very nice privates, dude! Keep pumping out that government best, though, and yes, be prideful that you send yours to the best of the best trash public schools!!
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/19/17 01:53 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
No one is cheating by holding back. Shut your mouth and take your beating on the field, the classroom and workplace.

Hope you get cancer as well. Statistically your ginger skin type makes it very likely. At least your kids are still living at home in their twenties so you always have them, and the 11 year old grandson. If you held them back maybe they would have earned that promotion at Starbucks months ago.


You got the wrong guy, nice try though! My on age son will run circles around your wannabe every day of the week. You are exactly what is wrong with society in general. Glad I raised my kids to be above losers like you. Typical jackass running your mouth about things you have no idea about and never will. If you only knew who my son was, you would shut your mouth real quick and run back into the hole you came from. Holdbacks never were an issue for him, I am just sickened by what I see happening to this great sport because of [lacrosse] wipes like you.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/19/17 02:08 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Some intellectual honesty might help this discussion. I know this will get ripped - but I’ll bet there are a lot of people with similar stories and it hardly ever gets discussed. And I also know there are people doing extreme things deliberately for an advantage in this sport and others.

If you played lacrosse back 20+/- years ago, you probably have great friends and former teammates from college who likely live in that other place. Did they somehow become evil child abusing cheaters? Over time did they all become whining crybabies? Not likely. What is more likely is that they are sending their kids to school in the way their school system says is best (public or private). People don’t want their kid to be an outlier age wise either way. Is that really hard to understand? Would you swim against the stream if you lived in the other place – and throw out the advice or rules of your school of choice? Most of us are just trying to do what is best for our kids and having them fit in age wise at school seems pretty logical. Forget the nut job double hold-back, double pre-k. pre-pre-first people for a minute, they do enough to ruin this great sport and hi-jack the conversation.

Two of my college teammates and best friends live in MD. They have boys roughly same age as my oldest (few months max). My son is young for his grade by our standards. We are all really close and consider each other “family”. My son plays in one age bracket, their boys play (2) age brackets lower. Call me an exaggerator – this is fact. According to my friends, their boys are average age for their team. I see them at tournaments because their oldest boys play against my next oldest son. Fair? No. Who would really even argue that? Evil? No. Cheating? Again – No. In practical reality - it isn’t up to them. They sent their boys to school the way the schools told them they should in order to attend. Now - they play club lax which is organized by grade. To them, you sign up and tryout and it is based by grade and that is that. I can see their point. These aren’t crazies that did this for an advantage in sports, but they also are guys that don’t deny their sons are advantaged by this set-up. I know their boys really well - they are great kids, really good players who work hard on this game. Win or lose these boys would much rather be playing my their older similar aged "cousin" than battling it out with their little “cousin”.

My friends and I get it – youth results really don’t mean anything – sorry folks, but they really, really don’t. We don’t care about the T-shirts or trophies, but the kids actually do - especially earlier on. When you win one - you want to know you earned it and when you come up short you shouldn’t have a built in excuse. Point – this system sucks for all the kids. Up until at least U15 it should be totally age based. Easy to do and easy to enforce. Better for all the kids. Can’t happen soon enough. My littlest ones are doing NXT, Adrenaline and 3d events when the time comes – I’ll seek out teams that seek that out. Hopefully everyone is along for the ride well before that.

Once they are in HS you have a different conversation - still an advantage, but a 5’10” 175 lb. 16 year old can at least compete v. 6’0” 200 lb. 18 yr. old. Simply not true with 5’2” 110 lb 12 yr. old v. 5’8” 150 lb 14 year old (both of whom btw will likely end up being the same size at the end of the day). It just isn’t good all around.

Club Directors - be as “elite” or AAA+++ as you want, make all the kids buy matching underwear and pajamas for the hotels with logos emblazoned on the sides, charge whatever, make as much money selling the college dream to 9 year old kids as you can, but please do it age based at the youth level. Much better for all the kids and the sport as a whole. Parents - the money you spend on this stuff is not an “investment” it’s a childhood activity for your son. If you view it the other way it clouds your thinking and makes it about the destination not the journey.


Nicely said! Agree completely. In MD it will be hard to change as most elite players want to play in the MIAA, not all but most. That is full of holdbacks/prefirsts. The MIAA coaches like it that the MIAA kids are older and getting more playing time etc. Crabs and FCA are perfect examples of MIAA influenced teams full of older players.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/19/17 03:02 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Why do people use steroids? Because they work.

Why do people hold back their kids? Because it works.

You have to adapt to your community. LI has some good schools and Myles Jones PGed. To keep up with the Jones (LOL)

I have four kids, all hold backs. Only one plays sports at a high level. All four are judged based upon their peer group. Being older gives them more opportunities. They win. No cheating just using the arbitrary nature of the system established to treat kids based on their DOB. It is a joke.

Get on board people... we have cookies




And their peers all talk behind their backs. He won because he's a hold back or he should have won because he's a holdback. It's a lose lose. Just as they say "gaming" the system.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/19/17 01:54 PM
I watched a kid get his collar bone broken last weekend trying to defend a kid 30+ pounds heavier and way more physically mature. Not against the rules so it's all good...right?

Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Why do people use steroids? Because they work.

Why do people hold back their kids? Because it works.

You have to adapt to your community. LI has some good schools and Myles Jones PGed. To keep up with the Jones (LOL)

I have four kids, all hold backs. Only one plays sports at a high level. All four are judged based upon their peer group. Being older gives them more opportunities. They win. No cheating just using the arbitrary nature of the system established to treat kids based on their DOB. It is a joke.

Get on board people... we have cookies




And their peers all talk behind their backs. He won because he's a hold back or he should have won because he's a holdback. It's a lose lose. Just as they say "gaming" the system.

Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/19/17 02:17 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I watched a kid get his collar bone broken last weekend trying to defend a kid 30+ pounds heavier and way more physically mature. Not against the rules so it's all good...right?

Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Why do people use steroids? Because they work.

Why do people hold back their kids? Because it works.

You have to adapt to your community. LI has some good schools and Myles Jones PGed. To keep up with the Jones (LOL)

I have four kids, all hold backs. Only one plays sports at a high level. All four are judged based upon their peer group. Being older gives them more opportunities. They win. No cheating just using the arbitrary nature of the system established to treat kids based on their DOB. It is a joke.

Get on board people... we have cookies




And their peers all talk behind their backs. He won because he's a hold back or he should have won because he's a holdback. It's a lose lose. Just as they say "gaming" the system.



People deny it, but if the current system doesn't change on its own, there WILL BE a catastrophic injury, with a subsequent lawsuit, and then the external forces of lawyers/insurance will make the change come about. So, the only question is will that change be proactive or reactive? Considering NXT, Adrenaline, and 3D1's announcement, it is looking like proactive for now, but their phased in approach might get accelerated if something happens in the interim.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/19/17 02:30 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I watched a kid get his collar bone broken last weekend trying to defend a kid 30+ pounds heavier and way more physically mature. Not against the rules so it's all good...right?

Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Why do people use steroids? Because they work.

Why do people hold back their kids? Because it works.

You have to adapt to your community. LI has some good schools and Myles Jones PGed. To keep up with the Jones (LOL)

I have four kids, all hold backs. Only one plays sports at a high level. All four are judged based upon their peer group. Being older gives them more opportunities. They win. No cheating just using the arbitrary nature of the system established to treat kids based on their DOB. It is a joke.

Get on board people... we have cookies




And their peers all talk behind their backs. He won because he's a hold back or he should have won because he's a holdback. It's a lose lose. Just as they say "gaming" the system.



Fault of the parents. You all saw a dangerous situation, yet left the smaller kids on the field. Want to fix the holdback problem, pull your team when there is an older kid. If that happens enough, the playing field will become level. But if YOU keep showing up and paying and playing you get what you deserve.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/19/17 03:15 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I watched a kid get his collar bone broken last weekend trying to defend a kid 30+ pounds heavier and way more physically mature. Not against the rules so it's all good...right?

Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Why do people use steroids? Because they work.

Why do people hold back their kids? Because it works.

You have to adapt to your community. LI has some good schools and Myles Jones PGed. To keep up with the Jones (LOL)

I have four kids, all hold backs. Only one plays sports at a high level. All four are judged based upon their peer group. Being older gives them more opportunities. They win. No cheating just using the arbitrary nature of the system established to treat kids based on their DOB. It is a joke.

Get on board people... we have cookies




And their peers all talk behind their backs. He won because he's a hold back or he should have won because he's a holdback. It's a lose lose. Just as they say "gaming" the system.



Fault of the parents. You all saw a dangerous situation, yet left the smaller kids on the field. Want to fix the holdback problem, pull your team when there is an older kid. If that happens enough, the playing field will become level. But if YOU keep showing up and paying and playing you get what you deserve.


So the correct age kids should not be allowed to play? WOW
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/19/17 05:23 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I watched a kid get his collar bone broken last weekend trying to defend a kid 30+ pounds heavier and way more physically mature. Not against the rules so it's all good...right?

Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Why do people use steroids? Because they work.

Why do people hold back their kids? Because it works.

You have to adapt to your community. LI has some good schools and Myles Jones PGed. To keep up with the Jones (LOL)

I have four kids, all hold backs. Only one plays sports at a high level. All four are judged based upon their peer group. Being older gives them more opportunities. They win. No cheating just using the arbitrary nature of the system established to treat kids based on their DOB. It is a joke.

Get on board people... we have cookies




And their peers all talk behind their backs. He won because he's a hold back or he should have won because he's a holdback. It's a lose lose. Just as they say "gaming" the system.



Fault of the parents. You all saw a dangerous situation, yet left the smaller kids on the field. Want to fix the holdback problem, pull your team when there is an older kid. If that happens enough, the playing field will become level. But if YOU keep showing up and paying and playing you get what you deserve.


So the correct age kids should not be allowed to play? WOW


Missing the point. You are saying "correct age", but are talking about a grade based league. In this case, there is no "correct age", there is only "correct grade". You are making up what you want it to be, then complaining! There are age based leagues that you can enter. If you sign up for grade based league, pay money, and step on the field, I suppose we are compelled to believe you were ok with the rules. Don't pay and complain. Just don't pay. There is a rec league for you, just around the corner somewhere.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/19/17 05:45 PM
Open letter to all the 17 year old HS freshman and 16 year old HS Seniors and everybody in between -

Best of luck in all of your lacrosse and life endeavors - be the best you can be and enjoy your youth because soon enough you will be grown up, paying bills, beating the keyboard until your fingers are bleeding and hopefully titling at a windmill or two. It all goes by very fast .

Have fun in spite of us parents (yes I am including myself)
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/19/17 05:56 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I watched a kid get his collar bone broken last weekend trying to defend a kid 30+ pounds heavier and way more physically mature. Not against the rules so it's all good...right?

Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Why do people use steroids? Because they work.

Why do people hold back their kids? Because it works.

You have to adapt to your community. LI has some good schools and Myles Jones PGed. To keep up with the Jones (LOL)

I have four kids, all hold backs. Only one plays sports at a high level. All four are judged based upon their peer group. Being older gives them more opportunities. They win. No cheating just using the arbitrary nature of the system established to treat kids based on their DOB. It is a joke.

Get on board people... we have cookies




And their peers all talk behind their backs. He won because he's a hold back or he should have won because he's a holdback. It's a lose lose. Just as they say "gaming" the system.



Fault of the parents. You all saw a dangerous situation, yet left the smaller kids on the field. Want to fix the holdback problem, pull your team when there is an older kid. If that happens enough, the playing field will become level. But if YOU keep showing up and paying and playing you get what you deserve.


So the correct age kids should not be allowed to play? WOW


Missing the point. You are saying "correct age", but are talking about a grade based league. In this case, there is no "correct age", there is only "correct grade". You are making up what you want it to be, then complaining! There are age based leagues that you can enter. If you sign up for grade based league, pay money, and step on the field, I suppose we are compelled to believe you were ok with the rules. Don't pay and complain. Just don't pay. There is a rec league for you, just around the corner somewhere.


There is a reasonable expectation of a limitation of age even within a grade-based system that has been turned on its head by private schools and/or athletics - that is the point that many are missing (or wish to obfuscate!). That age variance per grade level today versus 10 or 20 years ago is much greater, and for many not extensively involved in the private school realm (most people) and/or club lacrosse, their expectation today are not any different than twenty years ago. When I have had conversations with friends and family - people that all are readily involved in communities and sports on Long Island - that are not involved or knowledgeable about club lacrosse, they are flabbergasted about the scope of the whole pre-first/reclass thing. They all know some families who have started kids a year later here or there, but their perception is that MOST kids still start K at 5'ish and proceed along to graduate at ~17. Most people are unaware of the difference in state grade threshold cutoffs differing from NY - other than in lacrosse, where else would that even come up? Every other major youth sport is pure age-based, so this topic wouldn't arise. With lax growing as it has, the number of boys playing their first years of club lacrosse at many youth grade/age levels is also growing, and you are dealing with a large number of people who are just becoming aware of the the issue that grade-based play brings to the table. Stop assuming that everyone goes into this with all aspects of this clearly presented to them up front - the clubs, tournaments, etc do not go out of their way to make it known. The reality is that regardless of their feelings on the topic, one way or the other, as a business they don't want to present anything that might shrink their universe of potential customers, so intentionally never bringing this up is probably in their best interests for new customers.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/19/17 06:24 PM
Missing the point. You are saying "correct age", but are talking about a grade based league. In this case, there is no "correct age", there is only "correct grade". You are making up what you want it to be, then complaining! There are age based leagues that you can enter. If you sign up for grade based league, pay money, and step on the field, I suppose we are compelled to believe you were ok with the rules. Don't pay and complain. Just don't pay. There is a rec league for you, just around the corner somewhere. [/quote]

There is a reasonable expectation of a limitation of age even within a grade-based system that has been turned on its head by private schools and/or athletics - that is the point that many are missing (or wish to obfuscate!). That age variance per grade level today versus 10 or 20 years ago is much greater, and for many not extensively involved in the private school realm (most people) and/or club lacrosse, their expectation today are not any different than twenty years ago. When I have had conversations with friends and family - people that all are readily involved in communities and sports on Long Island - that are not involved or knowledgeable about club lacrosse, they are flabbergasted about the scope of the whole pre-first/reclass thing. They all know some families who have started kids a year later here or there, but their perception is that MOST kids still start K at 5'ish and proceed along to graduate at ~17. Most people are unaware of the difference in state grade threshold cutoffs differing from NY - other than in lacrosse, where else would that even come up? Every other major youth sport is pure age-based, so this topic wouldn't arise. With lax growing as it has, the number of boys playing their first years of club lacrosse at many youth grade/age levels is also growing, and you are dealing with a large number of people who are just becoming aware of the the issue that grade-based play brings to the table. Stop assuming that everyone goes into this with all aspects of this clearly presented to them up front - the clubs, tournaments, etc do not go out of their way to make it known. The reality is that regardless of their feelings on the topic, one way or the other, as a business they don't want to present anything that might shrink their universe of potential customers, so intentionally never bringing this up is probably in their best interests for new customers.[/quote]

Or you could have just made a really loud fart noise if you wanted to do something more productive today.

Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/19/17 06:24 PM
You are missing my point completely. I didn't say to penalize the on age kids. Pull your teams from tournaments that don't abide by the age based rules you want. With old your money, make the tournaments know you don't approve. Penalize the organizers of these events. Money talks, BOTC is a useless platform to elicit change. Grab the director of your team and along with the other parents tell him NO MORE! If you don't have that type of commitment then forget it, never going to change.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/19/17 06:28 PM
.... and as others have said, these club owners would make more money if they used a strict calendar year system. It would open up club lacrosse to a wider range of athletes, skill level and experience. The best of the best of the best can hang with older kids, and their families probably love it. But the more typical "good" athlete can not.

The MD MIAA and the MA and PA prep schoolers can still enter HS at 16, and enter college at 20. No one wants to stop that if that is what they want. Just have club lacrosse be age on age. AAA, AA, A and B divisions. Will increase enrollment and $$$ for club owners. Fair, even, competitive games keeps parents coming back, and entices more parents to come - especially from the lesser athletes and the less experienced players, who can play A or B and have fun.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/19/17 06:58 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
.... and as others have said, these club owners would make more money if they used a strict calendar year system. It would open up club lacrosse to a wider range of athletes, skill level and experience. The best of the best of the best can hang with older kids, and their families probably love it. But the more typical "good" athlete can not.

The MD MIAA and the MA and PA prep schoolers can still enter HS at 16, and enter college at 20. No one wants to stop that if that is what they want. Just have club lacrosse be age on age. AAA, AA, A and B divisions. Will increase enrollment and $$$ for club owners. Fair, even, competitive games keeps parents coming back, and entices more parents to come - especially from the lesser athletes and the less experienced players, who can play A or B and have fun.


HS club is not going to do that, as it would be incredibly ineffective for scouting. HS club is for showcasing talent, not winning trophies. You play for the trophy during school in the Spring.
Youth, fine, sounds good. Now go and get it set up. Build it and they will come.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/19/17 07:29 PM
I love the ineffective for scouting argument - when every other organized sports program is age based and they seem to figure out recruiting just fine.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/19/17 07:33 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
.... and as others have said, these club owners would make more money if they used a strict calendar year system. It would open up club lacrosse to a wider range of athletes, skill level and experience. The best of the best of the best can hang with older kids, and their families probably love it. But the more typical "good" athlete can not.

The MD MIAA and the MA and PA prep schoolers can still enter HS at 16, and enter college at 20. No one wants to stop that if that is what they want. Just have club lacrosse be age on age. AAA, AA, A and B divisions. Will increase enrollment and $$$ for club owners. Fair, even, competitive games keeps parents coming back, and entices more parents to come - especially from the lesser athletes and the less experienced players, who can play A or B and have fun.


HS club is not going to do that, as it would be incredibly ineffective for scouting. HS club is for showcasing talent, not winning trophies. You play for the trophy during school in the Spring.
Youth, fine, sounds good. Now go and get it set up. Build it and they will come.


"ineffective for scouting"???? Then how do colleges in other sports scout in an age based system? The answer is that they do so just fine. This is the biggest myth out there coming from lax people who know nothing but lax. College coaches will go to the top AAA tournaments around. They will see the best play the best. They will identify who they want. Then they simply look at their program, note the GY, and commence recruiting (according to relevant rules in place by NCAA, ect.). How is this hard? Do you think their brain will freeze and they will go into a panic because a 16 year old middie is dodging the alley against a 16 year old pole who is a different GY than he is? Why can't they simply watch a 2002 BY game, see three elite players that they like, then recruit them? If the kid is GY 2020, than they can offer him a spot entering 2020. If the other two are GY 2021, than they can offer spots entering 2021. Why is it necessary for these three players to enter college in the same year? Do you really think college coaches can't handle this, when their counterparts in other sports easily can?
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/19/17 07:38 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I love the ineffective for scouting argument - when every other organized sports program is age based and they seem to figure out recruiting just fine.


Bingo
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/19/17 08:05 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
.... and as others have said, these club owners would make more money if they used a strict calendar year system. It would open up club lacrosse to a wider range of athletes, skill level and experience. The best of the best of the best can hang with older kids, and their families probably love it. But the more typical "good" athlete can not.

The MD MIAA and the MA and PA prep schoolers can still enter HS at 16, and enter college at 20. No one wants to stop that if that is what they want. Just have club lacrosse be age on age. AAA, AA, A and B divisions. Will increase enrollment and $$$ for club owners. Fair, even, competitive games keeps parents coming back, and entices more parents to come - especially from the lesser athletes and the less experienced players, who can play A or B and have fun.


Unless the rules have changed lately, max age to play in the MIAA is 19 (you can turn 19 during your senior year). This is only one year older than the "normal" senior age (17 into 18).
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/20/17 12:05 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
.... and as others have said, these club owners would make more money if they used a strict calendar year system. It would open up club lacrosse to a wider range of athletes, skill level and experience. The best of the best of the best can hang with older kids, and their families probably love it. But the more typical "good" athlete can not.

The MD MIAA and the MA and PA prep schoolers can still enter HS at 16, and enter college at 20. No one wants to stop that if that is what they want. Just have club lacrosse be age on age. AAA, AA, A and B divisions. Will increase enrollment and $$$ for club owners. Fair, even, competitive games keeps parents coming back, and entices more parents to come - especially from the lesser athletes and the less experienced players, who can play A or B and have fun.


HS club is not going to do that, as it would be incredibly ineffective for scouting. HS club is for showcasing talent, not winning trophies. You play for the trophy during school in the Spring.
Youth, fine, sounds good. Now go and get it set up. Build it and they will come.


"ineffective for scouting"???? Then how do colleges in other sports scout in an age based system? The answer is that they do so just fine. This is the biggest myth out there coming from lax people who know nothing but lax. College coaches will go to the top AAA tournaments around. They will see the best play the best. They will identify who they want. Then they simply look at their program, note the GY, and commence recruiting (according to relevant rules in place by NCAA, ect.). How is this hard? Do you think their brain will freeze and they will go into a panic because a 16 year old middie is dodging the alley against a 16 year old pole who is a different GY than he is? Why can't they simply watch a 2002 BY game, see three elite players that they like, then recruit them? If the kid is GY 2020, than they can offer him a spot entering 2020. If the other two are GY 2021, than they can offer spots entering 2021. Why is it necessary for these three players to enter college in the same year? Do you really think college coaches can't handle this, when their counterparts in other sports easily can?


You are comparing college staffs of 4-5 vs 14-15 with severely different program budgets. Much different. The Summer HS lax tourneys were set up this way to cater to small-staff scouting with collegiate coach guidance, so argue all you want, it's that way now, and business is booming. Take the age argument to youth where you can make some headway; stupid mindless argument at HS level. At the end of day, we are arguing over an average 1 year spread folks, education evolves, public could follow..
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/20/17 12:09 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
.... and as others have said, these club owners would make more money if they used a strict calendar year system. It would open up club lacrosse to a wider range of athletes, skill level and experience. The best of the best of the best can hang with older kids, and their families probably love it. But the more typical "good" athlete can not.

The MD MIAA and the MA and PA prep schoolers can still enter HS at 16, and enter college at 20. No one wants to stop that if that is what they want. Just have club lacrosse be age on age. AAA, AA, A and B divisions. Will increase enrollment and $$$ for club owners. Fair, even, competitive games keeps parents coming back, and entices more parents to come - especially from the lesser athletes and the less experienced players, who can play A or B and have fun.


HS club is not going to do that, as it would be incredibly ineffective for scouting. HS club is for showcasing talent, not winning trophies. You play for the trophy during school in the Spring.
Youth, fine, sounds good. Now go and get it set up. Build it and they will come.


"ineffective for scouting"???? Then how do colleges in other sports scout in an age based system? The answer is that they do so just fine. This is the biggest myth out there coming from lax people who know nothing but lax. College coaches will go to the top AAA tournaments around. They will see the best play the best. They will identify who they want. Then they simply look at their program, note the GY, and commence recruiting (according to relevant rules in place by NCAA, ect.). How is this hard? Do you think their brain will freeze and they will go into a panic because a 16 year old middie is dodging the alley against a 16 year old pole who is a different GY than he is? Why can't they simply watch a 2002 BY game, see three elite players that they like, then recruit them? If the kid is GY 2020, than they can offer him a spot entering 2020. If the other two are GY 2021, than they can offer spots entering 2021. Why is it necessary for these three players to enter college in the same year? Do you really think college coaches can't handle this, when their counterparts in other sports easily can?


Well, you are currently on the counter side of what exists, so before you get too cocky, remember, the industry does not currently agree with you. So right now, you are a person that is wrong.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/20/17 03:03 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
.... and as others have said, these club owners would make more money if they used a strict calendar year system. It would open up club lacrosse to a wider range of athletes, skill level and experience. The best of the best of the best can hang with older kids, and their families probably love it. But the more typical "good" athlete can not.

The MD MIAA and the MA and PA prep schoolers can still enter HS at 16, and enter college at 20. No one wants to stop that if that is what they want. Just have club lacrosse be age on age. AAA, AA, A and B divisions. Will increase enrollment and $$$ for club owners. Fair, even, competitive games keeps parents coming back, and entices more parents to come - especially from the lesser athletes and the less experienced players, who can play A or B and have fun.


Unless the rules have changed lately, max age to play in the MIAA is 19 (you can turn 19 during your senior year). This is only one year older than the "normal" senior age (17 into 18).


only huh. There can be huge difference between a high school senior and a college freshman. It's not changing but it is gaming the system without a doubt
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/20/17 06:35 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
.... and as others have said, these club owners would make more money if they used a strict calendar year system. It would open up club lacrosse to a wider range of athletes, skill level and experience. The best of the best of the best can hang with older kids, and their families probably love it. But the more typical "good" athlete can not.

The MD MIAA and the MA and PA prep schoolers can still enter HS at 16, and enter college at 20. No one wants to stop that if that is what they want. Just have club lacrosse be age on age. AAA, AA, A and B divisions. Will increase enrollment and $$$ for club owners. Fair, even, competitive games keeps parents coming back, and entices more parents to come - especially from the lesser athletes and the less experienced players, who can play A or B and have fun.


Unless the rules have changed lately, max age to play in the MIAA is 19 (you can turn 19 during your senior year). This is only one year older than the "normal" senior age (17 into 18).


only huh. There can be huge difference between a high school senior and a college freshman. It's not changing but it is gaming the system without a doubt


and you can also just turn 17 in your senior year making the spread 2 years not just or only 1 year
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/20/17 07:30 PM
The only point of the age argument is for public school parents to marginalize private school families in their own minds. Nothing more, nothing less. Obviously private systems have evolved at a greater rate than public systems, so the only way to make themselves feel better is to bully and criticize. There's plenty to criticize about the public system, but I don't typically see parents on here going out of their way to point out the negatives of public school education. Maybe they should, plenty of material.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/20/17 10:03 PM
My kids go to private school
My kids are on age
My kids play/played Varsity lacrosse in the MIAA
My kid is on a top 20 D1 lax team

There is nothing noble about reclassing your child. It's a pathetic way of making mediocre kids look better than they really are.

Sorry - truth hurts.

Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/20/17 10:25 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
.... and as others have said, these club owners would make more money if they used a strict calendar year system. It would open up club lacrosse to a wider range of athletes, skill level and experience. The best of the best of the best can hang with older kids, and their families probably love it. But the more typical "good" athlete can not.

The MD MIAA and the MA and PA prep schoolers can still enter HS at 16, and enter college at 20. No one wants to stop that if that is what they want. Just have club lacrosse be age on age. AAA, AA, A and B divisions. Will increase enrollment and $$$ for club owners. Fair, even, competitive games keeps parents coming back, and entices more parents to come - especially from the lesser athletes and the less experienced players, who can play A or B and have fun.


HS club is not going to do that, as it would be incredibly ineffective for scouting. HS club is for showcasing talent, not winning trophies. You play for the trophy during school in the Spring.
Youth, fine, sounds good. Now go and get it set up. Build it and they will come.


"ineffective for scouting"???? Then how do colleges in other sports scout in an age based system? The answer is that they do so just fine. This is the biggest myth out there coming from lax people who know nothing but lax. College coaches will go to the top AAA tournaments around. They will see the best play the best. They will identify who they want. Then they simply look at their program, note the GY, and commence recruiting (according to relevant rules in place by NCAA, ect.). How is this hard? Do you think their brain will freeze and they will go into a panic because a 16 year old middie is dodging the alley against a 16 year old pole who is a different GY than he is? Why can't they simply watch a 2002 BY game, see three elite players that they like, then recruit them? If the kid is GY 2020, than they can offer him a spot entering 2020. If the other two are GY 2021, than they can offer spots entering 2021. Why is it necessary for these three players to enter college in the same year? Do you really think college coaches can't handle this, when their counterparts in other sports easily can?


You are comparing college staffs of 4-5 vs 14-15 with severely different program budgets. Much different. The Summer HS lax tourneys were set up this way to cater to small-staff scouting with collegiate coach guidance, so argue all you want, it's that way now, and business is booming. Take the age argument to youth where you can make some headway; stupid mindless argument at HS level. At the end of day, we are arguing over an average 1 year spread folks, education evolves, public could follow..


You think college soccer programs are staffed any differently than lax programs?? Please. I agree that you can stay grade-based at HS, but still the argument to not go age-based even there for the sake of recruiting ease is weak at best.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/20/17 10:28 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
.... and as others have said, these club owners would make more money if they used a strict calendar year system. It would open up club lacrosse to a wider range of athletes, skill level and experience. The best of the best of the best can hang with older kids, and their families probably love it. But the more typical "good" athlete can not.

The MD MIAA and the MA and PA prep schoolers can still enter HS at 16, and enter college at 20. No one wants to stop that if that is what they want. Just have club lacrosse be age on age. AAA, AA, A and B divisions. Will increase enrollment and $$$ for club owners. Fair, even, competitive games keeps parents coming back, and entices more parents to come - especially from the lesser athletes and the less experienced players, who can play A or B and have fun.


HS club is not going to do that, as it would be incredibly ineffective for scouting. HS club is for showcasing talent, not winning trophies. You play for the trophy during school in the Spring.
Youth, fine, sounds good. Now go and get it set up. Build it and they will come.


"ineffective for scouting"???? Then how do colleges in other sports scout in an age based system? The answer is that they do so just fine. This is the biggest myth out there coming from lax people who know nothing but lax. College coaches will go to the top AAA tournaments around. They will see the best play the best. They will identify who they want. Then they simply look at their program, note the GY, and commence recruiting (according to relevant rules in place by NCAA, ect.). How is this hard? Do you think their brain will freeze and they will go into a panic because a 16 year old middie is dodging the alley against a 16 year old pole who is a different GY than he is? Why can't they simply watch a 2002 BY game, see three elite players that they like, then recruit them? If the kid is GY 2020, than they can offer him a spot entering 2020. If the other two are GY 2021, than they can offer spots entering 2021. Why is it necessary for these three players to enter college in the same year? Do you really think college coaches can't handle this, when their counterparts in other sports easily can?


Well, you are currently on the counter side of what exists, so before you get too cocky, remember, the industry does not currently agree with you. So right now, you are a person that is wrong.


Being on other side of the majority ≠ wrong! It only means you are not on the side of the majority.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/20/17 10:51 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
.... and as others have said, these club owners would make more money if they used a strict calendar year system. It would open up club lacrosse to a wider range of athletes, skill level and experience. The best of the best of the best can hang with older kids, and their families probably love it. But the more typical "good" athlete can not.

The MD MIAA and the MA and PA prep schoolers can still enter HS at 16, and enter college at 20. No one wants to stop that if that is what they want. Just have club lacrosse be age on age. AAA, AA, A and B divisions. Will increase enrollment and $$$ for club owners. Fair, even, competitive games keeps parents coming back, and entices more parents to come - especially from the lesser athletes and the less experienced players, who can play A or B and have fun.


Unless the rules have changed lately, max age to play in the MIAA is 19 (you can turn 19 during your senior year). This is only one year older than the "normal" senior age (17 into 18).


While there is a huge amount of HS players turning 19 during the school year, There is only a few that turn 20 prior to school year. These double holdbacks if not starters stay and play occasionally. People turn a blind eye as they have no effect on game.... I have seen this. I do know of a couple of starters( two year) who were turning 20 prior to season and went to a PG school where they played without an issue. It is a rare thing of double holdbacks in MIAA but does happen. Doesnt have much effect.

Now the 19 year old's ...Loaded at the MIAA schools. Funny how Booker announcing on his network saying.."this player is a great soph or Freshman wonder"..knowing full well the player is a JR age wise ore Soph age wise in MD. ...
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/20/17 11:01 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
The only point of the age argument is for public school parents to marginalize private school families in their own minds. Nothing more, nothing less. Obviously private systems have evolved at a greater rate than public systems, so the only way to make themselves feel better is to bully and criticize. There's plenty to criticize about the public system, but I don't typically see parents on here going out of their way to point out the negatives of public school education. Maybe they should, plenty of material.


You marginalized yourself pretty well with your holier than thou attitude, arrogance and behavior. You don't need our help.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/21/17 03:28 PM
LOL, never thought I'd see the day where even TY Xander denounces the POS cheaters. Saying it's not fair and needs to stop. Check your twitter
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/21/17 04:09 PM
USL coming out with Ranking system for all tourneys also using Tourney Machine. Only mentions the age cutoff divisions. Clubs would hate to miss out on that.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/21/17 04:16 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
The only point of the age argument is for public school parents to marginalize private school families in their own minds. Nothing more, nothing less. Obviously private systems have evolved at a greater rate than public systems, so the only way to make themselves feel better is to bully and criticize. There's plenty to criticize about the public system, but I don't typically see parents on here going out of their way to point out the negatives of public school education. Maybe they should, plenty of material.


This might be the single dumbest post on the site, and that says a lot. No one, and I mean no one, is looking to "marginalize" private school families. My kids go to public school. I don't care if every kid on their travel team goes to private school. I don't care if every opponent at every tournament goes to private school. All I care about is having the kids play vs kids their own age.

I also don't care what grade my kids teammates are, and I don't care what grade their opponents are in. Indeed, I don't even care if they go to school at all.

There are a s---t ton of private school kids playing hockey. They all play on age, and there are no issues with this whatsoever.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/21/17 04:21 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
The only point of the age argument is for public school parents to marginalize private school families in their own minds. Nothing more, nothing less. Obviously private systems have evolved at a greater rate than public systems, so the only way to make themselves feel better is to bully and criticize. There's plenty to criticize about the public system, but I don't typically see parents on here going out of their way to point out the negatives of public school education. Maybe they should, plenty of material.


This might be the single dumbest post on the site, and that says a lot. No one, and I mean no one, is looking to "marginalize" private school families. My kids go to public school. I don't care if every kid on their travel team goes to private school. I don't care if every opponent at every tournament goes to private school. All I care about is having the kids play vs kids their own age.

I also don't care what grade my kids teammates are, and I don't care what grade their opponents are in. Indeed, I don't even care if they go to school at all.

There are a s---t ton of private school kids playing hockey. They all play on age, and there are no issues with this whatsoever.


Somehow lax is "special" . . . or something . . .!
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/21/17 04:53 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
The only point of the age argument is for public school parents to marginalize private school families in their own minds. Nothing more, nothing less. Obviously private systems have evolved at a greater rate than public systems, so the only way to make themselves feel better is to bully and criticize. There's plenty to criticize about the public system, but I don't typically see parents on here going out of their way to point out the negatives of public school education. Maybe they should, plenty of material.


This might be the single dumbest post on the site, and that says a lot. No one, and I mean no one, is looking to "marginalize" private school families. My kids go to public school. I don't care if every kid on their travel team goes to private school. I don't care if every opponent at every tournament goes to private school. All I care about is having the kids play vs kids their own age.

I also don't care what grade my kids teammates are, and I don't care what grade their opponents are in. Indeed, I don't even care if they go to school at all.

There are a s---t ton of private school kids playing hockey. They all play on age, and there are no issues with this whatsoever.


Somehow lax is "special" . . . or something . . .!


I think part of the problem is that on-age proponents are sloppy with their arguments, and make it seem like they are advocating against holdbacks, which I think is what threatens private school families who want to hold their kids back for reasons that may be broader than just lax.

Instead, its best to advocate that families should be able to hold their kids back all they want. It's none of my business if a kids completes two years at 8th grade. I don't care if every frosh at St. Elite HS is 16. Just play vs kids your own age in travel lax. School has nothing to do with youth travel lax.

Copying hockey would be perfect. It should be birth year (or Sept-Aug; no need to EXACTLY copy hockey if Sept-Aug is deemed best) exclusively up to and through when the kids are 15. At 16 there would be a split - like their is in hockey. The top kids can go to "junior lax", where kids ages 16-20 compete together and otherwise prep for college lax. The rest (the majority of kids) can still play on age in "[lacrosse] lax". Kids playing [lacrosse] would largely be kids not going D1, or even college at all - just kids who like to play and are prepping for the final years of HS lax.

The top kids who are playing "junior lax" - for the prep school kids who might be 19 or 20 entering college, they can play here for 4 years, then start their college careers. For the public school kids, they can play here for two years. When they graduate and they are ready for college and college lax, they go. If they want, they can do a PG year before college, ect.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/21/17 05:08 PM
Anyone know the date for the Syracuse 17 year-old Fall Prospect Day?
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/21/17 05:13 PM
This HS age debate is just birth-year-baby warm-up for whining about ages in college. Just watch..
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/21/17 05:29 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
LOL, never thought I'd see the day where even TY Xander denounces the POS cheaters. Saying it's not fair and needs to stop. Check your twitter


Age based is coming, If you have reclassed and not already going into Sophomore year, I'd be worried, your perceived advantage is about to disappear.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/21/17 08:49 PM
https://twitter.com/uslacrosseceo/status/888391038414577666
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/22/17 12:31 AM
My son has an extremely late August birthday. During all of the years that he played travel rec lacrosse (yes, most everyone used to do that), he always had to move up into the next age group before any of his classmates did. Those age groups spanned two years and every other year he was probably the youngest kid out there. We never looked at it as a disadvantage....we looked at it as an opportunity to challenge himself and led him to perceive it the same way. It's absolutely part of what made him better.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/22/17 12:48 AM
If USLacrosse really wants to "grow the game" in this country, why can't they make it possible for US fans to watch the playoff games that our national women's team is playing without having to pay to stream them?
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/22/17 01:29 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
If USLacrosse really wants to "grow the game" in this country, why can't they make it possible for US fans to watch the playoff games that our national women's team is playing without having to pay to stream them?


Who cares....that's why. Games are boring and there is no competition. My 9th grade daughter could beat these "international" teams! On the other hand, I would love to see US Lacrosse grow some balls and enforce age-based competition. That's the next step that needs to be done to reduce the joke this sport is becoming.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/22/17 02:07 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
If USLacrosse really wants to "grow the game" in this country, why can't they make it possible for US fans to watch the playoff games that our national women's team is playing without having to pay to stream them?


Who cares....that's why. Games are boring and there is no competition. My 9th grade daughter could beat these "international" teams! On the other hand, I would love to see US Lacrosse grow some balls and enforce age-based competition. That's the next step that needs to be done to reduce the joke this sport is becoming.


USL lacrosse is located in Baltimore suburb. Close by the mecca of MIAA schools where prefirsts/holdbacks are abundant. And once again, who cares what they do ( holdback) at MIAA school, but it shouldnt rule youth club lacrosse.
The Youth Clubs that hold many holdbacks and draw the most venom are all located close by.

USL representatives know all the club coaches well. No reason that if they got those clubs ( Crabs, FCA, Looneys,etc,etc) to change to age base all would follow.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/22/17 02:42 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
If USLacrosse really wants to "grow the game" in this country, why can't they make it possible for US fans to watch the playoff games that our national women's team is playing without having to pay to stream them?


Who cares....that's why. Games are boring and there is no competition. My 9th grade daughter could beat these "international" teams! On the other hand, I would love to see US Lacrosse grow some balls and enforce age-based competition. That's the next step that needs to be done to reduce the joke this sport is becoming.


Why don't you tell us how you really feel???
If your ninth grade daughter is such a boss why do you care about age based play?
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/22/17 01:17 PM
why apologize for continued incompetent US LAX leadership? They are the worst there is. Sport is run by the clubs and as long as you have your useless US LAx membership card that's all they care about. Should have gone to player cards years ago to ensure kids are properly registered, insured,the right age and playing on the right team. How hard is that? US Lax is and remains a joke. That's how I really feel
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/22/17 02:36 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
why apologize for continued incompetent US LAX leadership? They are the worst there is. Sport is run by the clubs and as long as you have your useless US LAx membership card that's all they care about. Should have gone to player cards years ago to ensure kids are properly registered, insured,the right age and playing on the right team. How hard is that? US Lax is and remains a joke. That's how I really feel


Agreed 100%. Totally incompetent organization. And people wonder why this sport is a regarded as a joke. I would NEVER contribute one dime to them. They are hypocritical sleaze bags.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/22/17 08:53 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
why apologize for continued incompetent US LAX leadership? They are the worst there is. Sport is run by the clubs and as long as you have your useless US LAx membership card that's all they care about. Should have gone to player cards years ago to ensure kids are properly registered, insured,the right age and playing on the right team. How hard is that? US Lax is and remains a joke. That's how I really feel


Agreed 100%. Totally incompetent organization. And people wonder why this sport is a regarded as a joke. I would NEVER contribute one dime to them. They are hypocritical sleaze bags.


The magazine is PC correct constantly.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/25/17 04:10 PM
I wonder if that 8th grade football player down in Mississippi is a hold back. 6'4 and 286 pounds going into 8th grade with scholarship offers from SEC schools.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/27/17 12:05 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I wonder if that 8th grade football player down in Mississippi is a hold back. 6'4 and 286 pounds going into 8th grade with scholarship offers from SEC schools.


Did you watch Friday Night Tykes. " Big Daddy" wasnt a holdback and was the biggest kid out there. I think he was as big as many adults.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/27/17 02:01 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
why apologize for continued incompetent US LAX leadership? They are the worst there is. Sport is run by the clubs and as long as you have your useless US LAx membership card that's all they care about. Should have gone to player cards years ago to ensure kids are properly registered, insured,the right age and playing on the right team. How hard is that? US Lax is and remains a joke. That's how I really feel


Agreed 100%. Totally incompetent organization. And people wonder why this sport is a regarded as a joke. I would NEVER contribute one dime to them. They are hypocritical sleaze bags.


Can you tell me where you read or saw where lacrosse is regarded as a joke? I would love to see these references. Thanks
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/27/17 03:50 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
why apologize for continued incompetent US LAX leadership? They are the worst there is. Sport is run by the clubs and as long as you have your useless US LAx membership card that's all they care about. Should have gone to player cards years ago to ensure kids are properly registered, insured,the right age and playing on the right team. How hard is that? US Lax is and remains a joke. That's how I really feel


Agreed 100%. Totally incompetent organization. And people wonder why this sport is a regarded as a joke. I would NEVER contribute one dime to them. They are hypocritical sleaze bags.


Can you tell me where you read or saw where lacrosse is regarded as a joke? I would love to see these references. Thanks


I am sure "joke" was referencing the often discussed problems in youth lacrosse - there are many to be found online; Google is your friend! To be sure, none of them use the word "joke", but the inference in there.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/28/17 01:26 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
why apologize for continued incompetent US LAX leadership? They are the worst there is. Sport is run by the clubs and as long as you have your useless US LAx membership card that's all they care about. Should have gone to player cards years ago to ensure kids are properly registered, insured,the right age and playing on the right team. How hard is that? US Lax is and remains a joke. That's how I really feel


Agreed 100%. Totally incompetent organization. And people wonder why this sport is a regarded as a joke. I would NEVER contribute one dime to them. They are hypocritical sleaze bags.


Can you tell me where you read or saw where lacrosse is regarded as a joke? I would love to see these references. Thanks


Check your sons birthday and how that coincides with the normal grad year=JOKE
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/28/17 01:36 AM
US lax incompetent! They choose not to get it right.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/29/17 02:57 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
why apologize for continued incompetent US LAX leadership? They are the worst there is. Sport is run by the clubs and as long as you have your useless US LAx membership card that's all they care about. Should have gone to player cards years ago to ensure kids are properly registered, insured,the right age and playing on the right team. How hard is that? US Lax is and remains a joke. That's how I really feel


Agreed 100%. Totally incompetent organization. And people wonder why this sport is a regarded as a joke. I would NEVER contribute one dime to them. They are hypocritical sleaze bags.


Can you tell me where you read or saw where lacrosse is regarded as a joke? I would love to see these references. Thanks


Check your sons birthday and how that coincides with the normal grad year=JOKE



Be careful of what you are chasing.... All are welcome, but leave your nads at the door. https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/34858/
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 07/29/17 12:31 PM
So I googled lacrosse is a joke like the poster suggested and the only reference I found was an urban dictionary statement that baseball is cool and lacrosse is for sissys. Thanks that was really helpful. Pretty sure the joke is in you a$$ clown, you post on a lacrosse website to a sport you hate. Spend some time with your kid, maybe he'll stop wearing dresses and talking like a girl. But there's nothing wrong with that! Just saying!! Keep it real LOSER!! Hahahaha
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 08/09/17 06:21 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
So I googled lacrosse is a joke like the poster suggested and the only reference I found was an urban dictionary statement that baseball is cool and lacrosse is for sissys. Thanks that was really helpful. Pretty sure the joke is in you a$$ clown, you post on a lacrosse website to a sport you hate. Spend some time with your kid, maybe he'll stop wearing dresses and talking like a girl. But there's nothing wrong with that! Just saying!! Keep it real LOSER!! Hahahaha


While most think lacrosse is a great sport.. The majority think that the whole grade based garbage of letting kids play down is a complete joke.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 08/10/17 03:06 PM
Someone please tell me how does one go about playing down if they say they will PG. What the progression? How is it all outlined? I've had many a conflicting conversation about this. This should be good.

I thought if you are in HS you can't magically lower your grade designation, Sure you can get left back or not finish a grade but that is not the point here.
1. Do you go to a Prep school (Avon / Taft / one of the Philips / Deerfield / TP etc) and say I want to enroll my son?
2. What is the enrollment criteria? (is it $$ and grades and/or Skill gets you in)
3. Do you say I want to enroll him now, or do you say in a year or 2? or do they tell you when?
4. Do they say okay if you come in your son will repeat x grade?
5. Does he continue on his academic progression and you get the benefit of taking other higher level courses strengthening his academic resume?
6. Or does he just repeat classes he already took?
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 08/10/17 03:26 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Someone please tell me how does one go about playing down if they say they will PG. What the progression? How is it all outlined? I've had many a conflicting conversation about this. This should be good.

I thought if you are in HS you can't magically lower your grade designation, Sure you can get left back or not finish a grade but that is not the point here.
1. Do you go to a Prep school (Avon / Taft / one of the Philips / Deerfield / TP etc) and say I want to enroll my son?
2. What is the enrollment criteria? (is it $$ and grades and/or Skill gets you in)
3. Do you say I want to enroll him now, or do you say in a year or 2? or do they tell you when?
4. Do they say okay if you come in your son will repeat x grade?
5. Does he continue on his academic progression and you get the benefit of taking other higher level courses strengthening his academic resume?
6. Or does he just repeat classes he already took?



Regardless of the answers to the above, when was the last time you or your son or your son's club team was required to provide any proof of his grade for any tournament? For that matter, have you ever heard of a tournament even asking for any information about who is on a roster?? It's the wild west, so you can get away with just about anything you want and have the balls to attempt! There are very few repercussions to that. I was shocked to hear that the Bulldog tournament at Yale this year had banned some teams from last year that had played with players that were 'outside' the divisions' criteria - how oftent have you heard of that happening?!
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 08/10/17 03:35 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Someone please tell me how does one go about playing down if they say they will PG. What the progression? How is it all outlined? I've had many a conflicting conversation about this. This should be good.

I thought if you are in HS you can't magically lower your grade designation, Sure you can get left back or not finish a grade but that is not the point here.
1. Do you go to a Prep school (Avon / Taft / one of the Philips / Deerfield / TP etc) and say I want to enroll my son?
2. What is the enrollment criteria? (is it $$ and grades and/or Skill gets you in)
3. Do you say I want to enroll him now, or do you say in a year or 2? or do they tell you when?
4. Do they say okay if you come in your son will repeat x grade?
5. Does he continue on his academic progression and you get the benefit of taking other higher level courses strengthening his academic resume?
6. Or does he just repeat classes he already took?


The answer is this, in regards to travel lacrosse - if you want your kid playing at 2023, and your organization wants him to play at 2023, than it happens. It doesn't matter if he is 13, 14, 24, 43 or 105 years of age. There is no governing body or clearing house that you need to go through to get approval.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 08/10/17 03:43 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Someone please tell me how does one go about playing down if they say they will PG. What the progression? How is it all outlined? I've had many a conflicting conversation about this. This should be good.

I thought if you are in HS you can't magically lower your grade designation, Sure you can get left back or not finish a grade but that is not the point here.
1. Do you go to a Prep school (Avon / Taft / one of the Philips / Deerfield / TP etc) and say I want to enroll my son?
2. What is the enrollment criteria? (is it $$ and grades and/or Skill gets you in)
3. Do you say I want to enroll him now, or do you say in a year or 2? or do they tell you when?
4. Do they say okay if you come in your son will repeat x grade?
5. Does he continue on his academic progression and you get the benefit of taking other higher level courses strengthening his academic resume?
6. Or does he just repeat classes he already took?


They were just kidding. You can't just make up your grade. It's whatever grade you are currently enrolled for all grade based leagues. They were being sarcastic.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 08/10/17 06:10 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Someone please tell me how does one go about playing down if they say they will PG. What the progression? How is it all outlined? I've had many a conflicting conversation about this. This should be good.

I thought if you are in HS you can't magically lower your grade designation, Sure you can get left back or not finish a grade but that is not the point here.
1. Do you go to a Prep school (Avon / Taft / one of the Philips / Deerfield / TP etc) and say I want to enroll my son?
2. What is the enrollment criteria? (is it $$ and grades and/or Skill gets you in)
3. Do you say I want to enroll him now, or do you say in a year or 2? or do they tell you when?
4. Do they say okay if you come in your son will repeat x grade?
5. Does he continue on his academic progression and you get the benefit of taking other higher level courses strengthening his academic resume?
6. Or does he just repeat classes he already took?


They were just kidding. You can't just make up your grade. It's whatever grade you are currently enrolled for all grade based leagues. They were being sarcastic.



No, they were not, some said their child will repeat the current grade ( their child was in 80's) others said it is a pre college year (their children were 90's) but without an advanced course load? Does it depend on the needs of the child and what the family wants or does the school steer that ship?

As far as just playing a grade at random tournaments, my son would be recognized. I am having a hard enough time now seriously considering it; I could not do it without the PG being in motion. It is now or never to reclass/PG. If it is going to be done I would want to do it the right way, mainly play at his age, but yes, also squeeze in some games at his future college entrance year. (Only doing this for a spot at the school of his/our choice, the year above is loaded with talent a year separation helps all involved - red/blue shirt 5th year is not an option. I realize "I am changing his stars", and it is only lacrosse but it is a top school academically and athletically. Yes, he would be able to get in on his current year and be rostered but the reclass does set him up a lot better. if the PG program offers AP courses which will better prepare him for the rigors of the next level I say no brainer it is about making the college experience the best it can be in and out of the classroom.

This decision did not come lightly and have 3 family members playing and they all wished they had the options that have been laid out for us.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 08/10/17 06:22 PM
One question, who will wipe his butt for him when he does (finally) go to college?

Get a grip.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 08/10/17 07:31 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Someone please tell me how does one go about playing down if they say they will PG. What the progression? How is it all outlined? I've had many a conflicting conversation about this. This should be good.

I thought if you are in HS you can't magically lower your grade designation, Sure you can get left back or not finish a grade but that is not the point here.
1. Do you go to a Prep school (Avon / Taft / one of the Philips / Deerfield / TP etc) and say I want to enroll my son?
2. What is the enrollment criteria? (is it $$ and grades and/or Skill gets you in)
3. Do you say I want to enroll him now, or do you say in a year or 2? or do they tell you when?
4. Do they say okay if you come in your son will repeat x grade?
5. Does he continue on his academic progression and you get the benefit of taking other higher level courses strengthening his academic resume?
6. Or does he just repeat classes he already took?


They were just kidding. You can't just make up your grade. It's whatever grade you are currently enrolled for all grade based leagues. They were being sarcastic.



No, they were not, some said their child will repeat the current grade ( their child was in 80's) others said it is a pre college year (their children were 90's) but without an advanced course load? Does it depend on the needs of the child and what the family wants or does the school steer that ship?

As far as just playing a grade at random tournaments, my son would be recognized. I am having a hard enough time now seriously considering it; I could not do it without the PG being in motion. It is now or never to reclass/PG. If it is going to be done I would want to do it the right way, mainly play at his age, but yes, also squeeze in some games at his future college entrance year. (Only doing this for a spot at the school of his/our choice, the year above is loaded with talent a year separation helps all involved - red/blue shirt 5th year is not an option. I realize "I am changing his stars", and it is only lacrosse but it is a top school academically and athletically. Yes, he would be able to get in on his current year and be rostered but the reclass does set him up a lot better. if the PG program offers AP courses which will better prepare him for the rigors of the next level I say no brainer it is about making the college experience the best it can be in and out of the classroom.

This decision did not come lightly and have 3 family members playing and they all wished they had the options that have been laid out for us.


I know of boys planning to do a PG year and currently playing the grad year below their actual grade. That's how some people do it. I'm sure private schools are happy to reclass a new student because it makes their school performance look better athletically and academically, when actually it's at least partly because average age of students is older.

Another great way to "set your kid up better" is to have them learn the value of determination and hard work, maybe even with a little struggle/frustration along the way, rather than performing better because they were handed an age advantage. I'm not trying to pick on you or single you out - I know you are not alone - but there is something to be said for being the younger, smaller kid who is not the best at something learning how to work hard and achieve success.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 08/10/17 07:43 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Someone please tell me how does one go about playing down if they say they will PG. What the progression? How is it all outlined? I've had many a conflicting conversation about this. This should be good.

I thought if you are in HS you can't magically lower your grade designation, Sure you can get left back or not finish a grade but that is not the point here.
1. Do you go to a Prep school (Avon / Taft / one of the Philips / Deerfield / TP etc) and say I want to enroll my son?
2. What is the enrollment criteria? (is it $$ and grades and/or Skill gets you in)
3. Do you say I want to enroll him now, or do you say in a year or 2? or do they tell you when?
4. Do they say okay if you come in your son will repeat x grade?
5. Does he continue on his academic progression and you get the benefit of taking other higher level courses strengthening his academic resume?
6. Or does he just repeat classes he already took?


They were just kidding. You can't just make up your grade. It's whatever grade you are currently enrolled for all grade based leagues. They were being sarcastic.



Really - checked by whom?
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 08/10/17 10:10 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I realize "I am changing his stars", and it is only lacrosse but it is a top school academically and athletically. Yes, he would be able to get in on his current year and be rostered but the reclass does set him up a lot better. if the PG program offers AP courses which will better prepare him for the rigors of the next level I say no brainer it is about making the college experience the best it can be in and out of the classroom.

This decision did not come lightly and have 3 family members playing and they all wished they had the options that have been laid out for us.


So let me get this straight, you are pretty well set up in life, perhaps even by your own hard work and success, either way, good for you. But that is not enough. Not only did you get your precious boy into a 'top school academically and athletically' but now you want yet another advantage. Geee-zus, when does it end?

You are what's wrong with the rich and powerful in this country, you can convince yourself to go to almost any extent just to carve out a little bigger advantage for yourself. And the powers that be allow you to get away with it because they are beholden to your funding. Pretty disgusting.

Lemme save you a piece of advice that will save you some time, money, heart ache and frustration. If you have to go to such lengths for your kid to be a success, he isn't working hard enough and the path you are considering does nothing to build his character and work ethic. In fact it provides all sorts of perverse incentives.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 08/10/17 10:32 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
One question, who will wipe his butt for him when he does (finally) go to college?

Get a grip.


This is a reality for some. No need to resort to fatuous comments. Maybe open your mind a bit.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 08/14/17 03:51 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
One question, who will wipe his butt for him when he does (finally) go to college?

Get a grip.


This is a reality for some. No need to resort to fatuous comments. Maybe open your mind a bit.


The reality is that many people with sons who were not held back are considering it. Many are very good players and would be way above average if held back. . Even anti grade based parents are considering it. Lots of factors go into it..what college does that help get into if any, Does lacrosse really mean that much to your son, etc, etc..
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 08/14/17 04:28 PM
the topic started with the simple "Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!"

I would like to answer that

The Good - any kid that can use anything to his advantage to get into the best college he can get into.

The Bad - parents, kids or coaches that do it for any reason other than getting into a great academic college

The Ugly - People that anonymously expresses their opinion about how another person should raise his kids.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 08/14/17 04:48 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
the topic started with the simple "Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!"

I would like to answer that

The Good - any kid that can use anything to his advantage to get into the best college he can get into.

The Bad - parents, kids or coaches that do it for any reason other than getting into a great academic college

The Ugly - People that anonymously expresses their opinion about how another person should raise his kids.




What's really ugly is that you and your kid are both cheating weasels
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 08/14/17 05:03 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
the topic started with the simple "Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!"

I would like to answer that

The Good - any kid that can use anything to his advantage to get into the best college he can get into.

The Bad - parents, kids or coaches that do it for any reason other than getting into a great academic college

The Ugly - People that anonymously expresses their opinion about how another person should raise his kids.


The above post is beyond stupid. Expressing an opinion that youth sports should be organized by age not grade somehow equates to telling people how to raise their kids????? Their should be an IQ test in order to use the internet.

Again, for the millionth time, from presumably many different anonymous posters - No one cares if you hold your kid back, start him late for kindergarten, have him repeat 8th grade, home school him, or none of the above. Do what is best for your kid. If you feel like this will help him gain entry to an Ivy League school, or better his chances of playing D1 lax, than that is fine. Its just that, in the opinion of many, while he is playing youth sports, his teammates and opponents should all be with a fixed 12 month age window.

There is simply no rational argument for youth sports to be organized by grade and not age. Again, for the people who are slow, this is NOT a complaint against holdbacks - please enroll your kid in whatever grade at school you think is best for him.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 08/14/17 05:48 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
the topic started with the simple "Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!"

I would like to answer that

The Good - any kid that can use anything to his advantage to get into the best college he can get into.

The Bad - parents, kids or coaches that do it for any reason other than getting into a great academic college

The Ugly - People that anonymously expresses their opinion about how another person should raise his kids.


The above post is beyond stupid. Expressing an opinion that youth sports should be organized by age not grade somehow equates to telling people how to raise their kids????? Their should be an IQ test in order to use the internet.

Again, for the millionth time, from presumably many different anonymous posters - No one cares if you hold your kid back, start him late for kindergarten, have him repeat 8th grade, home school him, or none of the above. Do what is best for your kid. If you feel like this will help him gain entry to an Ivy League school, or better his chances of playing D1 lax, than that is fine. Its just that, in the opinion of many, while he is playing youth sports, his teammates and opponents should all be with a fixed 12 month age window.

There is simply no rational argument for youth sports to be organized by grade and not age. Again, for the people who are slow, this is NOT a complaint against holdbacks - please enroll your kid in whatever grade at school you think is best for him.



All of that said, IF lacrosse decides to be governed by a body that goes to an age-based system, these parents will no longer be able to do what they want, and the sport will be better for it.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 08/15/17 12:57 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
the topic started with the simple "Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!"

I would like to answer that

The Good - any kid that can use anything to his advantage to get into the best college he can get into.

The Bad - parents, kids or coaches that do it for any reason other than getting into a great academic college

The Ugly - People that anonymously expresses their opinion about how another person should raise his kids.




What's really ugly is that you and your kid are both cheating weasels

Totally agree!
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 11/20/17 12:51 PM
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.



Seems to be the most talked topic. Let's debate and share opinions further.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 11/20/17 03:37 PM
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.



Seems to be the most talked topic. Let's debate and share opinions further.


Just switch to age-based system like EVERY.OTHER.MAJOR.SPORT and the whole discussion goes away, and safety and fairness issues are all covered. There really is no valid argument for grade-based play, and before anyone cites it, the "staus quo" argument isn't an argument.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 11/21/17 04:43 PM
Another vote for age based. It's getting out of hand now. No rules whatsoever!!

Check rosters.

Check birth certificates.

Make it a fair & even playing field.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 11/21/17 05:08 PM
Soccer and hockey have it...why cant lacrosse start..ID cards. Sept 1-Aug 31...only fair way to do this. Start in 4-5 grade on down. cant enforce it with older grades that have established team already. I would love to see it enforced from 8th grade down....Just wait till one boy gets really hurt because of a grade based tournament. I mean really really hurt..Parents will then be on board. Why does a boy have to get hurt really bad before we change this rule. Its about growing the game and getting more kids involved...Not championships for 4-8th grades and T shirts
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 11/21/17 06:08 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Soccer and hockey have it...why cant lacrosse start..ID cards. Sept 1-Aug 31...only fair way to do this. Start in 4-5 grade on down. cant enforce it with older grades that have established team already. I would love to see it enforced from 8th grade down....Just wait till one boy gets really hurt because of a grade based tournament. I mean really really hurt..Parents will then be on board. Why does a boy have to get hurt really bad before we change this rule. Its about growing the game and getting more kids involved...Not championships for 4-8th grades and T shirts

Totally agree. It's especially scary when you have kids playing up -- and other kids playing down.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 11/21/17 06:20 PM
The private school parents won’t have a edge and they won’t allow it .until the insurance companies stop insury these tournaments it won’t happen . I agree with you
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 11/22/17 01:52 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Soccer and hockey have it...why cant lacrosse start..ID cards. Sept 1-Aug 31...only fair way to do this. Start in 4-5 grade on down. cant enforce it with older grades that have established team already. I would love to see it enforced from 8th grade down....Just wait till one boy gets really hurt because of a grade based tournament. I mean really really hurt..Parents will then be on board. Why does a boy have to get hurt really bad before we change this rule. Its about growing the game and getting more kids involved...Not championships for 4-8th grades and T shirts


"established teams" - every team has enough turnover that even that excuse isn't cutting it (and let's be honest, that is the lamest reason to not take every level up through MS'ers to age based).
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 11/22/17 03:09 AM
No one is getting hurt. There have been thousands of games played over the last several years and No one got really hurt. Even if they were, nothing will change. Best bet is to just keep your kid in PAL until HS, then the worry is over. Sorry to be the truth teller but that’s it.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 11/22/17 05:19 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
No one is getting hurt. There have been thousands of games played over the last several years and No one got really hurt. Even if they were, nothing will change. Best bet is to just keep your kid in PAL until HS, then the worry is over. Sorry to be the truth teller but that’s it.


Yup - you keep testing the law of numbers - increasing holdback problem with increasing numbers of players. It's not a question of "if - it's a question of" when"! And all you need is one along with the resulting lawsuit.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 11/22/17 06:19 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Soccer and hockey have it...why cant lacrosse start..ID cards. Sept 1-Aug 31...only fair way to do this. Start in 4-5 grade on down. cant enforce it with older grades that have established team already. I would love to see it enforced from 8th grade down....Just wait till one boy gets really hurt because of a grade based tournament. I mean really really hurt..Parents will then be on board. Why does a boy have to get hurt really bad before we change this rule. Its about growing the game and getting more kids involved...Not championships for 4-8th grades and T shirts


Everyone's main argument is about the supposed safety/insurance issue once a young kid is injured by a holdback. But after thousands of games, it hasn't happened. Or at least no parent of an injured kid has made enough noise or lawsuits about it to impact anything.

Give it up. As long as the major clubs using and encouraging holdbacks are in charge (which they are), it won't change. They have the best teams, run the tournaments, do camps, get the most kids at tryouts, generate recruits, get the publicity, have strong college connections, and so on.

You think they want a level playing field? You think they will change out of doing what's right? You think they fear some hollow US Lacrosse insurance issue?

Holdbacks thrive in lacrosse, not in life.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 11/22/17 11:31 AM
Leading Edge has taken this to a whole new level.
They now interpret the rule as:
2022 is the graduating year and if you intend to graduate in 2022 then you can play with the 2022 team. Meaning "high school freshman are now playing against 8th graders." They have at least 5 freshman on the team, according to the LE parents talking at NLF this past weekend. It sounded like the on age parents had no clue this was going on until they got to the first practice, Ridiculous....
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 11/22/17 12:05 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Leading Edge has taken this to a whole new level.
They now interpret the rule as:
2022 is the graduating year and if you intend to graduate in 2022 then you can play with the 2022 team. Meaning "high school freshman are now playing against 8th graders." They have at least 5 freshman on the team, according to the LE parents talking at NLF this past weekend. It sounded like the on age parents had no clue this was going on until they got to the first practice, Ridiculous....

Where did you get this info. If true wow
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 11/22/17 12:27 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
the topic started with the simple "Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly!"

I would like to answer that

The Good - any kid that can use anything to his advantage to get into the best college he can get into.

The Bad - parents, kids or coaches that do it for any reason other than getting into a great academic college

The Ugly - People that anonymously expresses their opinion about how another person should raise his kids.




What's really ugly is that you and your kid are both cheating weasels

Totally agree!


College coaches don't care so it will never happen.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 11/22/17 12:38 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Leading Edge has taken this to a whole new level.
They now interpret the rule as:
2022 is the graduating year and if you intend to graduate in 2022 then you can play with the 2022 team. Meaning "high school freshman are now playing against 8th graders." They have at least 5 freshman on the team, according to the LE parents talking at NLF this past weekend. It sounded like the on age parents had no clue this was going on until they got to the first practice, Ridiculous....

Where did you get this info. If true wow


Frist, off its Fall ball. Are you sure it wasn't "our 22 Goalie couldn't make it so we had to pulled down a 21 so we could play?" Most clubs would pull up their 23. Yes, they have 10 to 12 holdbacks.. the "freshman" holdback could be at Pingry taking 8th/9th classes but technically be in the 8th grade.
Regardless Leading Edge is now 91 so it should get cleaned up. Unless 91 lets it continue.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 11/22/17 01:18 PM
2025 Chan put 2 2024's on his team and ran team thru the 2 boys. Sad Sad days.

If the Director of a Major club is doing it and rubbing it in all our faces then its never going to change.
The 2025 thread is littered with upset parents.

These people answer to no one in youth Lacrosse. They run the clubs, tournaments, showcases, and High School LAX.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 11/22/17 04:08 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Leading Edge has taken this to a whole new level.
They now interpret the rule as:
2022 is the graduating year and if you intend to graduate in 2022 then you can play with the 2022 team. Meaning "high school freshman are now playing against 8th graders." They have at least 5 freshman on the team, according to the LE parents talking at NLF this past weekend. It sounded like the on age parents had no clue this was going on until they got to the first practice, Ridiculous....

Where did you get this info. If true wow


Frist, off its Fall ball. Are you sure it wasn't "our 22 Goalie couldn't make it so we had to pulled down a 21 so we could play?" Most clubs would pull up their 23. Yes, they have 10 to 12 holdbacks.. the "freshman" holdback could be at Pingry taking 8th/9th classes but technically be in the 8th grade.
Regardless Leading Edge is now 91 so it should get cleaned up. Unless 91 lets it continue.

Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Leading Edge has taken this to a whole new level.
They now interpret the rule as:
2022 is the graduating year and if you intend to graduate in 2022 then you can play with the 2022 team. Meaning "high school freshman are now playing against 8th graders." They have at least 5 freshman on the team, according to the LE parents talking at NLF this past weekend. It sounded like the on age parents had no clue this was going on until they got to the first practice, Ridiculous....

Where did you get this info. If true wow


Frist, off its Fall ball. Are you sure it wasn't "our 22 Goalie couldn't make it so we had to pulled down a 21 so we could play?" Most clubs would pull up their 23. Yes, they have 10 to 12 holdbacks.. the "freshman" holdback could be at Pingry taking 8th/9th classes but technically be in the 8th grade.
Regardless Leading Edge is now 91 so it should get cleaned up. Unless 91 lets it continue.


Fall ball has nothing to do with it. I was talking about the rule interpretation. LE on age parents were talking about a bunch of boys. They thought their sons had a fair chance at playing time. Not even close when they found out their kid was competing against 15 year olds. Not just the Pingry students...what about the seton hall kid and the others arriving in the spring. This is a bastardized version of hold back. Maryland doesn’t even sink that low. I hope it’s worth it. Wins against kids 2 years younger will not get you anywhere.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 11/22/17 04:44 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Leading Edge has taken this to a whole new level.
They now interpret the rule as:
2022 is the graduating year and if you intend to graduate in 2022 then you can play with the 2022 team. Meaning "high school freshman are now playing against 8th graders." They have at least 5 freshman on the team, according to the LE parents talking at NLF this past weekend. It sounded like the on age parents had no clue this was going on until they got to the first practice, Ridiculous....

Where did you get this info. If true wow


Frist, off its Fall ball. Are you sure it wasn't "our 22 Goalie couldn't make it so we had to pull down a 21 so we could play?" Most clubs would pull up their 23. Yes, they have 10 to 12 holdbacks.. the "freshman" holdback could be at Pingry taking 8th/9th classes but technically be in the 8th grade.
Regardless Leading Edge is now 91 so it should get cleaned up. Unless 91 lets it continue.

Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Leading Edge has taken this to a whole new level.
They now interpret the rule as:
2022 is the graduating year and if you intend to graduate in 2022 then you can play with the 2022 team. Meaning "high school freshman are now playing against 8th graders." They have at least 5 freshman on the team, according to the LE parents talking at NLF this past weekend. It sounded like the on age parents had no clue this was going on until they got to the first practice, Ridiculous....

Where did you get this info. If true wow


Frist, off its Fall ball. Are you sure it wasn't "our 22 Goalie couldn't make it so we had to pulled down a 21 so we could play?" Most clubs would pull up their 23. Yes, they have 10 to 12 holdbacks.. the "freshman" holdback could be at Pingry taking 8th/9th classes but technically be in the 8th grade.
Regardless Leading Edge is now 91 so it should get cleaned up. Unless 91 lets it continue.


Fall ball has nothing to do with it. I was talking about the rule interpretation. LE on age parents were talking about a bunch of boys. They thought their sons had a fair chance at playing time. Not even close when they found out their kid was competing against 15 year olds. Not just the Pingry students...what about the seton hall kid and the others arriving in the spring. This is a bastardized version of hold back. Maryland doesn’t even sink that low. I hope it’s worth it. Wins against kids 2 years younger will not get you anywhere.


The on age parents should go back to the clubs they left or find another team. NJ is low on top-level talent and most of the clubs will take the players back at a major discount just to show the 23s and 24s LE is not what they think.

Only way LE changes is when the cash stops coming in.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 11/22/17 05:07 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Leading Edge has taken this to a whole new level.
They now interpret the rule as:
2022 is the graduating year and if you intend to graduate in 2022 then you can play with the 2022 team. Meaning "high school freshman are now playing against 8th graders." They have at least 5 freshman on the team, according to the LE parents talking at NLF this past weekend. It sounded like the on age parents had no clue this was going on until they got to the first practice, Ridiculous....

Where did you get this info. If true wow


Frist, off its Fall ball. Are you sure it wasn't "our 22 Goalie couldn't make it so we had to pull down a 21 so we could play?" Most clubs would pull up their 23. Yes, they have 10 to 12 holdbacks.. the "freshman" holdback could be at Pingry taking 8th/9th classes but technically be in the 8th grade.
Regardless Leading Edge is now 91 so it should get cleaned up. Unless 91 lets it continue.

Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Leading Edge has taken this to a whole new level.
They now interpret the rule as:
2022 is the graduating year and if you intend to graduate in 2022 then you can play with the 2022 team. Meaning "high school freshman are now playing against 8th graders." They have at least 5 freshman on the team, according to the LE parents talking at NLF this past weekend. It sounded like the on age parents had no clue this was going on until they got to the first practice, Ridiculous....

Where did you get this info. If true wow


Frist, off its Fall ball. Are you sure it wasn't "our 22 Goalie couldn't make it so we had to pulled down a 21 so we could play?" Most clubs would pull up their 23. Yes, they have 10 to 12 holdbacks.. the "freshman" holdback could be at Pingry taking 8th/9th classes but technically be in the 8th grade.
Regardless Leading Edge is now 91 so it should get cleaned up. Unless 91 lets it continue.


Fall ball has nothing to do with it. I was talking about the rule interpretation. LE on age parents were talking about a bunch of boys. They thought their sons had a fair chance at playing time. Not even close when they found out their kid was competing against 15 year olds. Not just the Pingry students...what about the seton hall kid and the others arriving in the spring. This is a bastardized version of hold back. Maryland doesn’t even sink that low. I hope it’s worth it. Wins against kids 2 years younger will not get you anywhere.


The on age parents should go back to the clubs they left or find another team. NJ is low on top-level talent and most of the clubs will take the players back at a major discount just to show the 23s and 24s LE is not what they think.

Only way LE changes is when the cash stops coming in.


If a team is winning, most won't leave.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 11/22/17 05:26 PM
No doubt LE is better. But from their whole pool of players they only achieved progress by pulling players down 2 years while currently enrolled in high school. That’s horrendous and would not be tolerated in other sports. The parents of those kids are a joke. They have zero confidence in their son’s ability to perform on age. Says a lot. Weak parents, weak kids and a weak program.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 11/22/17 07:47 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
No doubt LE is better. But from their whole pool of players they only achieved progress by pulling players down 2 years while currently enrolled in high school. That’s horrendous and would not be tolerated in other sports. The parents of those kids are a joke. They have zero confidence in their son’s ability to perform on age. Says a lot. Weak parents, weak kids and a weak program.

If a kid is in 8th grade but is going to reclass next year does he play as a 22 or 23 this summer
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 11/22/17 09:06 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
No doubt LE is better. But from their whole pool of players they only achieved progress by pulling players down 2 years while currently enrolled in high school. That’s horrendous and would not be tolerated in other sports. The parents of those kids are a joke. They have zero confidence in their son’s ability to perform on age. Says a lot. Weak parents, weak kids and a weak program.

If a kid is in 8th grade but is going to reclass next year does he play as a 22 or 23 this summer


He would be on the LE 2024 team..
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 11/22/17 09:15 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
No doubt LE is better. But from their whole pool of players they only achieved progress by pulling players down 2 years while currently enrolled in high school. That’s horrendous and would not be tolerated in other sports. The parents of those kids are a joke. They have zero confidence in their son’s ability to perform on age. Says a lot. Weak parents, weak kids and a weak program.

If a kid is in 8th grade but is going to reclass next year does he play as a 22 or 23 this summer


23, because nobody will challege it and the tourney director's won't enforce it. So might as well
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 11/22/17 09:34 PM
Hey, if you can identify as a different gender, and now I even heard of someone who is identifying as a different race, why not identify as a different grade?
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 11/22/17 10:07 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
If a kid is in 8th grade but is going to reclass next year does he play as a 22 or 23 this summer


Depends if he wants to actually get better or just look better (at least for awhile)...
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 11/23/17 06:54 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Leading Edge has taken this to a whole new level.
They now interpret the rule as:
2022 is the graduating year and if you intend to graduate in 2022 then you can play with the 2022 team. Meaning "high school freshman are now playing against 8th graders." They have at least 5 freshman on the team, according to the LE parents talking at NLF this past weekend. It sounded like the on age parents had no clue this was going on until they got to the first practice, Ridiculous....

Where did you get this info. If true wow


Frist, off its Fall ball. Are you sure it wasn't "our 22 Goalie couldn't make it so we had to pulled down a 21 so we could play?" Most clubs would pull up their 23. Yes, they have 10 to 12 holdbacks.. the "freshman" holdback could be at Pingry taking 8th/9th classes but technically be in the 8th grade.
Regardless Leading Edge is now 91 so it should get cleaned up. Unless 91 lets it continue.

Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Leading Edge has taken this to a whole new level.
They now interpret the rule as:
2022 is the graduating year and if you intend to graduate in 2022 then you can play with the 2022 team. Meaning "high school freshman are now playing against 8th graders." They have at least 5 freshman on the team, according to the LE parents talking at NLF this past weekend. It sounded like the on age parents had no clue this was going on until they got to the first practice, Ridiculous....

Where did you get this info. If true wow


Frist, off its Fall ball. Are you sure it wasn't "our 22 Goalie couldn't make it so we had to pulled down a 21 so we could play?" Most clubs would pull up their 23. Yes, they have 10 to 12 holdbacks.. the "freshman" holdback could be at Pingry taking 8th/9th classes but technically be in the 8th grade.
Regardless Leading Edge is now 91 so it should get cleaned up. Unless 91 lets it continue.


Fall ball has nothing to do with it. I was talking about the rule interpretation. LE on age parents were talking about a bunch of boys. They thought their sons had a fair chance at playing time. Not even close when they found out their kid was competing against 15 year olds. Not just the Pingry students...what about the seton hall kid and the others arriving in the spring. This is a bastardized version of hold back. Maryland doesn’t even sink that low. I hope it’s worth it. Wins against kids 2 years younger will not get you anywhere.


The whole "I intendd to repeat a grade" or, even better, "I intend to do a PG year" LATER, so I can down NOW is not new - we were posting about this here on BOTC last year or maybe even the year prior. Age-based play can't happen soon enough!
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 11/23/17 06:59 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Soccer and hockey have it...why cant lacrosse start..ID cards. Sept 1-Aug 31...only fair way to do this. Start in 4-5 grade on down. cant enforce it with older grades that have established team already. I would love to see it enforced from 8th grade down....Just wait till one boy gets really hurt because of a grade based tournament. I mean really really hurt..Parents will then be on board. Why does a boy have to get hurt really bad before we change this rule. Its about growing the game and getting more kids involved...Not championships for 4-8th grades and T shirts


Everyone's main argument is about the supposed safety/insurance issue once a young kid is injured by a holdback. But after thousands of games, it hasn't happened. Or at least no parent of an injured kid has made enough noise or lawsuits about it to impact anything.

Give it up. As long as the major clubs using and encouraging holdbacks are in charge (which they are), it won't change. They have the best teams, run the tournaments, do camps, get the most kids at tryouts, generate recruits, get the publicity, have strong college connections, and so on.

You think they want a level playing field? You think they will change out of doing what's right? You think they fear some hollow US Lacrosse insurance issue?

Holdbacks thrive in lacrosse, not in life.


I'm sure soccer and hockey folks said the same thing - good thing no one listened to those people pushing the status quo thing!
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 11/25/17 08:26 PM
Just for your information... my son is back from school and we are enjoying our thanksgiving vacation together. He plays on a top 20 DI college team and he tells me that out of a class of 17 Freshman, he is the only freshman who is 18 years old (on age for his grade). He is generally a year younger than every other Freshman on the team.

Some were held back when they were very young. Some were held back in 8th grade and some took a PG year or decided to wait a year between high school and college because of the availability of scholarship money.

To his knowledge no one is getting a full ride. Most are getting 25% scholarships or just $10k or $15k and many will not be receiving them next year. Receipt will depend upon their performance.

Know that each family has to 'donate' money to the team and so far this year we have been asked to donate to several charities the team sponsors.

While neither I nor my son I wouldn't change anything, there is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow here other than the friends he will make and the experiences he will come away with.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 11/26/17 12:42 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Just for your information... my son is back from school and we are enjoying our thanksgiving vacation together. He plays on a top 20 DI college team and he tells me that out of a class of 17 Freshman, he is the only freshman who is 18 years old (on age for his grade). He is generally a year younger than every other Freshman on the team.

Some were held back when they were very young. Some were held back in 8th grade and some took a PG year or decided to wait a year between high school and college because of the availability of scholarship money.

To his knowledge no one is getting a full ride. Most are getting 25% scholarships or just $10k or $15k and many will not be receiving them next year. Receipt will depend upon their performance.

Know that each family has to 'donate' money to the team and so far this year we have been asked to donate to several charities the team sponsors.

While neither I nor my son I wouldn't change anything, there is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow here other than the friends he will make and the experiences he will come away with.



What a sad state lacrosse has become.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 11/26/17 03:02 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Just for your information... my son is back from school and we are enjoying our thanksgiving vacation together. He plays on a top 20 DI college team and he tells me that out of a class of 17 Freshman, he is the only freshman who is 18 years old (on age for his grade). He is generally a year younger than every other Freshman on the team.

Some were held back when they were very young. Some were held back in 8th grade and some took a PG year or decided to wait a year between high school and college because of the availability of scholarship money.

To his knowledge no one is getting a full ride. Most are getting 25% scholarships or just $10k or $15k and many will not be receiving them next year. Receipt will depend upon their performance.

Know that each family has to 'donate' money to the team and so far this year we have been asked to donate to several charities the team sponsors.

While neither I nor my son I wouldn't change anything, there is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow here other than the friends he will make and the experiences he will come away with.


Thank you for sharing. Nothing we don't know but everything rarely summarized so cleanly. College sports such a business now. Inflated rosters hurt more then help. Difficult to use more than get used. Compete against your teammates more than opponents.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 11/26/17 12:41 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Just for your information... my son is back from school and we are enjoying our thanksgiving vacation together. He plays on a top 20 DI college team and he tells me that out of a class of 17 Freshman, he is the only freshman who is 18 years old (on age for his grade). He is generally a year younger than every other Freshman on the team.

Some were held back when they were very young. Some were held back in 8th grade and some took a PG year or decided to wait a year between high school and college because of the availability of scholarship money.

To his knowledge no one is getting a full ride. Most are getting 25% scholarships or just $10k or $15k and many will not be receiving them next year. Receipt will depend upon their performance.

Know that each family has to 'donate' money to the team and so far this year we have been asked to donate to several charities the team sponsors.

While neither I nor my son I wouldn't change anything, there is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow here other than the friends he will make and the experiences he will come away with.


Thank you for sharing. Nothing we don't know but everything rarely summarized so cleanly. College sports such a business now. Inflated rosters hurt more then help. Difficult to use more than get used. Compete against your teammates more than opponents.


Great post. I have a college Junior who hates Lacrosse and would love to quit. My son is a hard worker and starter on the team. It is even worse for the othe boys who don’t even have a shot of seeing the field and are getting very little money. All the coaches are nasty bastards, they are not at all what you see at the recruiting visits. They are unreasonable with their expectations. We have encouraged him to stick it out, although he insists that Lacrosse is ruining his like. The one good thing is the friendships he has made, they will have that bond forever.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 11/26/17 02:33 PM
I am sure this is all true. But a key question is, is he going to a better college than he otherwise would have? For me, who is fully expecting to pay full freight for my non sports playing other child, or full ride if my son can go Ivy or top DIII, that is a big reason to play beyond the love of the game, friendships, etc...
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 11/26/17 05:18 PM
Very sad, but true. I’m hearing a lot of these types of stories these days.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 11/26/17 07:38 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I am sure this is all true. But a key question is, is he going to a better college than he otherwise would have? For me, who is fully expecting to pay full freight for my non sports playing other child, or full ride if my son can go Ivy or top DIII, that is a big reason to play beyond the love of the game, friendships, etc...


From "Just for your info.." I agree that lax might be able to get your children into better schools than they otherwise would be able to without lax. However, all the coaches my son talked to asked about his grades. In my case, he was a walk-on. He got into the school on his own (without lacrosse) and it was his dream school. We always told him to apply the 'break a leg test' - would you be happy if you couldn't play lacrosse. The 2017 HS class was one of the worst in terms of early recruiting and he didn't peak until his junior and senior year at which point there were very few, if any, spots available (with or without scholarships). Luckily he's good enough that he will probably get some playing time either as a freshman or sophomore, if he continues with it. I have another son and he will probably take a completely different track. Good luck to all.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 12/03/17 04:31 AM
Sorry the hold back issue will never seem right to me. Whether it is in NY when a DOB before December holds back. Call me old school. You just didnt want your son to be the youngest kid, and you could have changed his stripes by making him one of the oldest knowing that would give him advantages.

Watching the NCAA football it is ridiculous when they say true freshman when they are 20 years old!!!! As sad as having 16 year old freshman. No freshman should be 16 right now, but there are. No Soph should be 17 but there are
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 12/03/17 01:29 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Sorry the hold back issue will never seem right to me. Whether it is in NY when a DOB before December holds back. Call me old school. You just didnt want your son to be the youngest kid, and you could have changed his stripes by making him one of the oldest knowing that would give him advantages.

Watching the NCAA football it is ridiculous when they say true freshman when they are 20 years old!!!! As sad as having 16 year old freshman. No freshman should be 16 right now, but there are. No Soph should be 17 but there are


There are plenty of 16 year old freshman now. Crazy how one of the main reason for lacrosse going grade base was early recruiting of 9th graders. NCAA did right thing and made 11th grade the first year to talk with and recruit players last May. Even NCAA stopping ER hasnt slowed down the holdback mess at youth lacrosse or grade base at youth lacrosse.
Clearly an advantage at youth level and to some extant at HS level. Hopefully Youth will at least go back to age one day...but even that I am not sure of with so many clubs encouraging and having holdbacks.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 12/03/17 02:02 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Sorry the hold back issue will never seem right to me. Whether it is in NY when a DOB before December holds back. Call me old school. You just didnt want your son to be the youngest kid, and you could have changed his stripes by making him one of the oldest knowing that would give him advantages.

Watching the NCAA football it is ridiculous when they say true freshman when they are 20 years old!!!! As sad as having 16 year old freshman. No freshman should be 16 right now, but there are. No Soph should be 17 but there are


There are plenty of 16 year old freshman now. Crazy how one of the main reason for lacrosse going grade base was early recruiting of 9th graders. NCAA did right thing and made 11th grade the first year to talk with and recruit players last May. Even NCAA stopping ER hasnt slowed down the holdback mess at youth lacrosse or grade base at youth lacrosse.
Clearly an advantage at youth level and to some extant at HS level. Hopefully Youth will at least go back to age one day...but even that I am not sure of with so many clubs encouraging and having holdbacks.


It’s too soon to say that he new NCAA rule about junior year recruiting has had no impact - it was just implemented,. I've read that recruiting tourneys/showcases where 2020s and 2021s are in attendance have seen little (or greatly lessened) obvious interest by college coaches towards those grades. We'll see see over the next few years whether the rule change has any impacts on the hold back aspect, but any impact there was always going to take some time, if at all.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 12/05/17 01:23 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Sorry the hold back issue will never seem right to me. Whether it is in NY when a DOB before December holds back. Call me old school. You just didnt want your son to be the youngest kid, and you could have changed his stripes by making him one of the oldest knowing that would give him advantages.

Watching the NCAA football it is ridiculous when they say true freshman when they are 20 years old!!!! As sad as having 16 year old freshman. No freshman should be 16 right now, but there are. No Soph should be 17 but there are


There are plenty of 16 year old freshman now. Crazy how one of the main reason for lacrosse going grade base was early recruiting of 9th graders. NCAA did right thing and made 11th grade the first year to talk with and recruit players last May. Even NCAA stopping ER hasnt slowed down the holdback mess at youth lacrosse or grade base at youth lacrosse.
Clearly an advantage at youth level and to some extant at HS level. Hopefully Youth will at least go back to age one day...but even that I am not sure of with so many clubs encouraging and having holdbacks.


It’s too soon to say that he new NCAA rule about junior year recruiting has had no impact - it was just implemented,. I've read that recruiting tourneys/showcases where 2020s and 2021s are in attendance have seen little (or greatly lessened) obvious interest by college coaches towards those grades. We'll see see over the next few years whether the rule change has any impacts on the hold back aspect, but any impact there was always going to take some time, if at all.


We can only hope some sanity comes back to Youth lacrosse. This crop of players in last few years is very much all about holdbacks. Many of better clubs in holdback areas are littered with them. Even teams from Fl, TX , NC and GA have them now. Hard to blame them. They want to compete at highest level too, Especially hard 6-9th grade, when you go against a team of kids one -two years into their puberty and growth and your team is just starting. Difference in Size is noticeable.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 12/05/17 05:41 PM
The rule change has been great for on age kids and late bloomers. Unfortunately, reclassifying your kid for lacrosse worked before the rule change. 16 year olds look better when the play against 14 year olds. There is no getting around it. Fortunately, the powers that be realized that verbally committing a kid to a school before he even set foot on a high school field was ridiculous and adjusted accordingly. I don't think you are really going to see the effect of the rule change until you get to the 2021s and 2022s. Most schools have the majority of their 19s squared away and are now focused on 20s. 21s will be the first class that will finish their Sophomore year without any kids being verbally committed. Its a good thing for the kids and the sport. Moving to age based youth lacrosse is the next step in leveling the playing field....
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 12/05/17 07:15 PM
Why do u think the rule change would stop parents from reclassifying their kids? I don’t see that making any difference. These parents need any advantage they can get for their son and playing against kids two years younger is the way to get it. Sad but they don’t seem to care
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 12/05/17 07:34 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Just for your information... my son is back from school and we are enjoying our thanksgiving vacation together. He plays on a top 20 DI college team and he tells me that out of a class of 17 Freshman, he is the only freshman who is 18 years old (on age for his grade). He is generally a year younger than every other Freshman on the team.

Some were held back when they were very young. Some were held back in 8th grade and some took a PG year or decided to wait a year between high school and college because of the availability of scholarship money.

To his knowledge no one is getting a full ride. Most are getting 25% scholarships or just $10k or $15k and many will not be receiving them next year. Receipt will depend upon their performance.

Know that each family has to 'donate' money to the team and so far this year we have been asked to donate to several charities the team sponsors.

While neither I nor my son I wouldn't change anything, there is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow here other than the friends he will make and the experiences he will come away with.


Thank you for sharing. Nothing we don't know but everything rarely summarized so cleanly. College sports such a business now. Inflated rosters hurt more then help. Difficult to use more than get used. Compete against your teammates more than opponents.


Great post. I have a college Junior who hates Lacrosse and would love to quit. My son is a hard worker and starter on the team. It is even worse for the othe boys who don’t even have a shot of seeing the field and are getting very little money. All the coaches are nasty bastards, they are not at all what you see at the recruiting visits. They are unreasonable with their expectations. We have encouraged him to stick it out, although he insists that Lacrosse is ruining his like. The one good thing is the friendships he has made, they will have that bond forever.


Its tough now, but once he is done, he will look at it a lot differently. There is so much to be said about the perseverance it takes to complete 4 years of college athletics. I used to hate getting up and practicing on frozen grass at 6am in February and March. It felt like the worst job ever at times, but we pushed through it for our teammates. If they are going through it, we cant stay in bed with a clean conscience. When I have to do things I hate doing for my job or any other aspect of my life, I always remember dragging myself out of bed at 5am, breaking into a sweat in 15 degree weather, then standing and listening to our coaches talk while freezing our [ChillLaxin]es off for the remainder of practice. Everything else seems easy compared to that stuff. Wasn't overly excited about it back then, but would not trade the experience for anything now. Once every man gets to the age where they can no longer compete at that level, your appreciation of the adversity you pushed through increases 10 fold. Then you try to help your kids understand how important that commitment and work is later in life.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 12/05/17 10:14 PM
Parents may continue to hold their kids back - but the advantage of playing against kids who haven't gone through puberty will be significantly diminished by their Jr. year.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 12/06/17 12:04 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Just for your information... my son is back from school and we are enjoying our thanksgiving vacation together. He plays on a top 20 DI college team and he tells me that out of a class of 17 Freshman, he is the only freshman who is 18 years old (on age for his grade). He is generally a year younger than every other Freshman on the team.

Some were held back when they were very young. Some were held back in 8th grade and some took a PG year or decided to wait a year between high school and college because of the availability of scholarship money.

To his knowledge no one is getting a full ride. Most are getting 25% scholarships or just $10k or $15k and many will not be receiving them next year. Receipt will depend upon their performance.

Know that each family has to 'donate' money to the team and so far this year we have been asked to donate to several charities the team sponsors.

While neither I nor my son I wouldn't change anything, there is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow here other than the friends he will make and the experiences he will come away with.


Thank you for sharing. Nothing we don't know but everything rarely summarized so cleanly. College sports such a business now. Inflated rosters hurt more then help. Difficult to use more than get used. Compete against your teammates more than opponents.


Great post. I have a college Junior who hates Lacrosse and would love to quit. My son is a hard worker and starter on the team. It is even worse for the othe boys who don’t even have a shot of seeing the field and are getting very little money. All the coaches are nasty bastards, they are not at all what you see at the recruiting visits. They are unreasonable with their expectations. We have encouraged him to stick it out, although he insists that Lacrosse is ruining his like. The one good thing is the friendships he has made, they will have that bond forever.


Its tough now, but once he is done, he will look at it a lot differently. There is so much to be said about the perseverance it takes to complete 4 years of college athletics. I used to hate getting up and practicing on frozen grass at 6am in February and March. It felt like the worst job ever at times, but we pushed through it for our teammates. If they are going through it, we cant stay in bed with a clean conscience. When I have to do things I hate doing for my job or any other aspect of my life, I always remember dragging myself out of bed at 5am, breaking into a sweat in 15 degree weather, then standing and listening to our coaches talk while freezing our [ChillLaxin]es off for the remainder of practice. Everything else seems easy compared to that stuff. Wasn't overly excited about it back then, but would not trade the experience for anything now. Once every man gets to the age where they can no longer compete at that level, your appreciation of the adversity you pushed through increases 10 fold. Then you try to help your kids understand how important that commitment and work is later in life.


I agree - I didn't play lax in college but played football. Kind of the opposite [ChillLaxin] - 135° on the astroturf for the first few weeks of practice, and cold and snowy practices and playoffs games at the end of the season, and 6+ days a week for the better part of 4 months. You definitely have a better appreciation of what you were willing to go through then when you are looking back. And for those that haven't experienced it, it's hard to begin to appreciate the time, effort and the competitiveness that is involved - it's a huge jump up from HS, even from a large program.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 12/06/17 02:45 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Parents may continue to hold their kids back - but the advantage of playing against kids who haven't gone through puberty will be significantly diminished by their Jr. year.


I agree that you are in essence correct, however, it will take 10 years for people to figure that out.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 12/11/17 07:18 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Parents may continue to hold their kids back - but the advantage of playing against kids who haven't gone through puberty will be significantly diminished by their Jr. year.


I agree that you are in essence correct, however, it will take 10 years for people to figure that out.

I think that the early recruiting being behind us, it give less of an advantage to the holdbacks and reclass kids.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 12/11/17 07:40 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Parents may continue to hold their kids back - but the advantage of playing against kids who haven't gone through puberty will be significantly diminished by their Jr. year.


I agree that you are in essence correct, however, it will take 10 years for people to figure that out.

I think that the early recruiting being behind us, it give less of an advantage to the holdbacks and reclass kids.


While I agree as it relates to recruiting. It still is an advantage at youth level, And in Maryland with all the private school kids held back. It will be hard to get the clubs to change. Top clubs are associated with MIAA schools in some ways. In MD that is where the best lacrosse players want to end up...In the MIAA . Rest of the country may not be as unique with holdbacks like MD..so I guess there is hope.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 12/11/17 10:08 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Parents may continue to hold their kids back - but the advantage of playing against kids who haven't gone through puberty will be significantly diminished by their Jr. year.


I agree that you are in essence correct, however, it will take 10 years for people to figure that out.

I think that the early recruiting being behind us, it give less of an advantage to the holdbacks and reclass kids.


While I agree as it relates to recruiting. It still is an advantage at youth level, And in Maryland with all the private school kids held back. It will be hard to get the clubs to change. Top clubs are associated with MIAA schools in some ways. In MD that is where the best lacrosse players want to end up...In the MIAA . Rest of the country may not be as unique with holdbacks like MD..so I guess there is hope.

Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Just for your information... my son is back from school and we are enjoying our thanksgiving vacation together. He plays on a top 20 DI college team and he tells me that out of a class of 17 Freshman, he is the only freshman who is 18 years old (on age for his grade). He is generally a year younger than every other Freshman on the team.

Some were held back when they were very young. Some were held back in 8th grade and some took a PG year or decided to wait a year between high school and college because of the availability of scholarship money.

To his knowledge no one is getting a full ride. Most are getting 25% scholarships or just $10k or $15k and many will not be receiving them next year. Receipt will depend upon their performance.

Know that each family has to 'donate' money to the team and so far this year we have been asked to donate to several charities the team sponsors.

While neither I nor my son I wouldn't change anything, there is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow here other than the friends he will make and the experiences he will come away with.


Thank you for sharing. Nothing we don't know but everything rarely summarized so cleanly. College sports such a business now. Inflated rosters hurt more then help. Difficult to use more than get used. Compete against your teammates more than opponents.


Great post. I have a college Junior who hates Lacrosse and would love to quit. My son is a hard worker and starter on the team. It is even worse for the othe boys who don’t even have a shot of seeing the field and are getting very little money. All the coaches are nasty bastards, they are not at all what you see at the recruiting visits. They are unreasonable with their expectations. We have encouraged him to stick it out, although he insists that Lacrosse is ruining his like. The one good thing is the friendships he has made, they will have that bond forever.


Its tough now, but once he is done, he will look at it a lot differently. There is so much to be said about the perseverance it takes to complete 4 years of college athletics. I used to hate getting up and practicing on frozen grass at 6am in February and March. It felt like the worst job ever at times, but we pushed through it for our teammates. If they are going through it, we cant stay in bed with a clean conscience. When I have to do things I hate doing for my job or any other aspect of my life, I always remember dragging myself out of bed at 5am, breaking into a sweat in 15 degree weather, then standing and listening to our coaches talk while freezing our [ChillLaxin]es off for the remainder of practice. Everything else seems easy compared to that stuff. Wasn't overly excited about it back then, but would not trade the experience for anything now. Once every man gets to the age where they can no longer compete at that level, your appreciation of the adversity you pushed through increases 10 fold. Then you try to help your kids understand how important that commitment and work is later in life.


I agree - I didn't play lax in college but played football. Kind of the opposite heck - 135° on the astroturf for the first few weeks of practice, and cold and snowy practices and playoffs games at the end of the season, and 6+ days a week for the better part of 4 months. You definitely have a better appreciation of what you were willing to go through then when you are looking back. And for those that haven't experienced it, it's hard to begin to appreciate the time, effort and the competitiveness that is involved - it's a huge jump up from HS, even from a large program.


I agree with everything you guys are saying. One major regret I have was quitting lacrosse in college after two years. I had a serious injury but not career ending. I wish I had someone, should have been myself, to tell me to go out there and finish what you started. Not that I was a super star but I did love to play.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/31/18 06:36 AM
While this kid is clearly talented, your example proves the point of "reclassifying" - a "normal" 7th grader born in June would be 12 yrs old in the middle of the 7th grade, but in your example, says he is 13 - he should be in 8th grade, not 7th
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/31/18 03:50 PM
My son is a summer birthday. He was young for his grade through 9th grade. He was a very good athlete in multiple sports, but both young and a late bloomer. He went from one of the biggest kids in his grade through middle school to basically average size by the end of 8th grade, but not even starting puberty. While still a very good athlete, older kids and early bloomers had a clear advantage on him which he had to deal with. After 9th grade, he transferred to private school and repeated. Despite repeating, he was nowhere near the oldest in his class and probably even a little below the average age (even for non-athletes). Most of these kids were held back in pre-school..... His school also played in a league were 20 year olds were permitted and not uncommon. So he still had to deal with older kids and early bloomers. By the end of sophomore year (post repeat) the early bloomers and older kids no longer had an advantage and he had grown into a very large athletic teenager. I would laugh when people on the summer circuit would say, "oh he repeated" when he was a sophomore. The kid simply grew into a huge athlete for any age who could run like the wind.. By the time he was a junior, you couldn't help but notice him in any varsity football or lacrosse game. At the start of his senior year he was committed to a top 10 lacrosse program and had D1 scholarship offers for football. Repeating had nothing to do with it. He ended up sticking with his lacrosse commitment and gained some notoriety along the way. And yes, when he went to college, almost all of the freshmen recruits were 19 year olds. In addition, numerous "seniors" / 5th years were 23. Never heard my son ever complain about having to play against older or more mature kids when he was younger - he actually played up when he could - I also never heard him complain about playing with or against kids who were 4 years older than him in high school or college. He actually repeated for academic reasons when he transferred after 9th grade and we (his parents) certainly didn't have him pegged as a D1 athlete in any sport at that time.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/31/18 04:41 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
My son is a summer birthday. He was young for his grade through 9th grade. He was a very good athlete in multiple sports, but both young and a late bloomer. He went from one of the biggest kids in his grade through middle school to basically average size by the end of 8th grade, but not even starting puberty. While still a very good athlete, older kids and early bloomers had a clear advantage on him which he had to deal with. After 9th grade, he transferred to private school and repeated. Despite repeating, he was nowhere near the oldest in his class and probably even a little below the average age (even for non-athletes). Most of these kids were held back in pre-school..... His school also played in a league were 20 year olds were permitted and not uncommon. So he still had to deal with older kids and early bloomers. By the end of sophomore year (post repeat) the early bloomers and older kids no longer had an advantage and he had grown into a very large athletic teenager. I would laugh when people on the summer circuit would say, "oh he repeated" when he was a sophomore. The kid simply grew into a huge athlete for any age who could run like the wind.. By the time he was a junior, you couldn't help but notice him in any varsity football or lacrosse game. At the start of his senior year he was committed to a top 10 lacrosse program and had D1 scholarship offers for football. Repeating had nothing to do with it. He ended up sticking with his lacrosse commitment and gained some notoriety along the way. And yes, when he went to college, almost all of the freshmen recruits were 19 year olds. In addition, numerous "seniors" / 5th years were 23. Never heard my son ever complain about having to play against older or more mature kids when he was younger - he actually played up when he could - I also never heard him complain about playing with or against kids who were 4 years older than him in high school or college. He actually repeated for academic reasons when he transferred after 9th grade and we (his parents) certainly didn't have him pegged as a D1 athlete in any sport at that time.


That's all well and good. The biggest mistake any ONE person can do is make the assumption that "my case is typical". It worked out for you and your son, but that doesn't mean that it will for others, and maybe not for the broad majority. You say he was held back for academic reasons - that's the (only) way it should ever happen! The fact of the matter is that pre-HS, when it matters greatly, all youth sports should be age-based, and whether you held back early (grade school) or not, the 'playing field' for age-based play is equal, no matter what. Standouts can always play up, but it's their decision. The current state of affairs in lax is that the decision to play up is forced upon everyone by virtue of the fact that grade-based play essentially allows older kids to play down, age-wise, at THEIR choice.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/31/18 06:15 PM
Well said.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/31/18 07:50 PM
All this juggling for lacrosse? Whatever floats your boat...
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/31/18 08:49 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
All this juggling for lacrosse? Whatever floats your boat...


Couldn't agree more. Dead end sport. get the priorities straight mom and dad. Geesh
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 01/31/18 09:13 PM
I cant understand how you don't get it. You changed out of the norm, to give your child an ADVANTAGE. You CHEATED; it simply doesn't matter if others cheated. I think it is funny, to me it sounds like you think you are creating an even playing field.

Its simple, it didn't work for your child on age, whether academically or athletically, so you changed the game. It doesn't have to be illeagal to be cheating.

I wish I had the balls not to care enough and simply hold back my children. Maybe im just jealous. I am quite sure they would be better off, both academically and athletically, if i did and by the way they do quite well in each being on age (also summer birthdays).
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 02/02/18 02:30 PM
Major issue in the sport and will continue to be
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 02/02/18 02:39 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Major issue in the sport and will continue to be


Similar issues existed in other youth sports - they all realized this and went to age-based play. That's the kicker: lacrosse had all of that previous history to draw upon, yet they failed to be proactive and address it. The problem is with USL - they are not the governing body they claim to be, and the sport is less than what it could be as a result.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 02/02/18 05:56 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
My son is a summer birthday. He was young for his grade through 9th grade. He was a very good athlete in multiple sports, but both young and a late bloomer. He went from one of the biggest kids in his grade through middle school to basically average size by the end of 8th grade, but not even starting puberty. While still a very good athlete, older kids and early bloomers had a clear advantage on him which he had to deal with. After 9th grade, he transferred to private school and repeated. Despite repeating, he was nowhere near the oldest in his class and probably even a little below the average age (even for non-athletes). Most of these kids were held back in pre-school..... His school also played in a league were 20 year olds were permitted and not uncommon. So he still had to deal with older kids and early bloomers. By the end of sophomore year (post repeat) the early bloomers and older kids no longer had an advantage and he had grown into a very large athletic teenager. I would laugh when people on the summer circuit would say, "oh he repeated" when he was a sophomore. The kid simply grew into a huge athlete for any age who could run like the wind.. By the time he was a junior, you couldn't help but notice him in any varsity football or lacrosse game. At the start of his senior year he was committed to a top 10 lacrosse program and had D1 scholarship offers for football. Repeating had nothing to do with it. He ended up sticking with his lacrosse commitment and gained some notoriety along the way. And yes, when he went to college, almost all of the freshmen recruits were 19 year olds. In addition, numerous "seniors" / 5th years were 23. Never heard my son ever complain about having to play against older or more mature kids when he was younger - he actually played up when he could - I also never heard him complain about playing with or against kids who were 4 years older than him in high school or college. He actually repeated for academic reasons when he transferred after 9th grade and we (his parents) certainly didn't have him pegged as a D1 athlete in any sport at that time.


This post is a joke. Your kid committed to a top 10 lacrosse program and had D1 scholarship offers? If true, than do you realize how special of an athlete your kid is? Do you really think his experiences were the same as every other kid? Using your kid's experience as evidence of how youth sports should be organized is kind of like pointing to a lottery winner and saying "look, this proves that buying lottery tickets is the best investment strategy for retirement." The large majority of kids (pre-HS aged) have no ability to "deal with", to use your words, older kids. If the owners of these clubs and tournaments (mostly the same people) opened their eyes and realized this simple concept, they would see their participation numbers and profits grow. There can always be AAA teams for the super athletes, as well as the ability to play up if that is the choice made by the family and the coaches. Everyone can have their cake and eat it too. The problem is that too many of the owners benefit financially by the winning done by their older holdbacks, and fear that when the playing field is evened in an age-based system, they will just become just another club. Again, if these stunads opened their eyes they would see that they could emulate hockey's Tier I system and utilize charters to limit entry and monopolize it just like they do now, only they will have more paying customers at Tier II, as more average athletes have a place to compete. Heck, they have it already with NLF.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 02/02/18 06:22 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
My son is a summer birthday. He was young for his grade through 9th grade. He was a very good athlete in multiple sports, but both young and a late bloomer. He went from one of the biggest kids in his grade through middle school to basically average size by the end of 8th grade, but not even starting puberty. While still a very good athlete, older kids and early bloomers had a clear advantage on him which he had to deal with. After 9th grade, he transferred to private school and repeated. Despite repeating, he was nowhere near the oldest in his class and probably even a little below the average age (even for non-athletes). Most of these kids were held back in pre-school..... His school also played in a league were 20 year olds were permitted and not uncommon. So he still had to deal with older kids and early bloomers. By the end of sophomore year (post repeat) the early bloomers and older kids no longer had an advantage and he had grown into a very large athletic teenager. I would laugh when people on the summer circuit would say, "oh he repeated" when he was a sophomore. The kid simply grew into a huge athlete for any age who could run like the wind.. By the time he was a junior, you couldn't help but notice him in any varsity football or lacrosse game. At the start of his senior year he was committed to a top 10 lacrosse program and had D1 scholarship offers for football. Repeating had nothing to do with it. He ended up sticking with his lacrosse commitment and gained some notoriety along the way. And yes, when he went to college, almost all of the freshmen recruits were 19 year olds. In addition, numerous "seniors" / 5th years were 23. Never heard my son ever complain about having to play against older or more mature kids when he was younger - he actually played up when he could - I also never heard him complain about playing with or against kids who were 4 years older than him in high school or college. He actually repeated for academic reasons when he transferred after 9th grade and we (his parents) certainly didn't have him pegged as a D1 athlete in any sport at that time.


This post is a joke. Your kid committed to a top 10 lacrosse program and had D1 scholarship offers? If true, than do you realize how special of an athlete your kid is? Do you really think his experiences were the same as every other kid? Using your kid's experience as evidence of how youth sports should be organized is kind of like pointing to a lottery winner and saying "look, this proves that buying lottery tickets is the best investment strategy for retirement." The large majority of kids (pre-HS aged) have no ability to "deal with", to use your words, older kids. If the owners of these clubs and tournaments (mostly the same people) opened their eyes and realized this simple concept, they would see their participation numbers and profits grow. There can always be AAA teams for the super athletes, as well as the ability to play up if that is the choice made by the family and the coaches. Everyone can have their cake and eat it too. The problem is that too many of the owners benefit financially by the winning done by their older holdbacks, and fear that when the playing field is evened in an age-based system, they will just become just another club. Again, if these stunads opened their eyes they would see that they could emulate hockey's Tier I system and utilize charters to limit entry and monopolize it just like they do now, only they will have more paying customers at Tier II, as more average athletes have a place to compete. Heck, they have it already with NLF.


Bingo!
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 02/04/18 12:13 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
My son is a summer birthday. He was young for his grade through 9th grade. He was a very good athlete in multiple sports, but both young and a late bloomer. He went from one of the biggest kids in his grade through middle school to basically average size by the end of 8th grade, but not even starting puberty. While still a very good athlete, older kids and early bloomers had a clear advantage on him which he had to deal with. After 9th grade, he transferred to private school and repeated. Despite repeating, he was nowhere near the oldest in his class and probably even a little below the average age (even for non-athletes). Most of these kids were held back in pre-school..... His school also played in a league were 20 year olds were permitted and not uncommon. So he still had to deal with older kids and early bloomers. By the end of sophomore year (post repeat) the early bloomers and older kids no longer had an advantage and he had grown into a very large athletic teenager. I would laugh when people on the summer circuit would say, "oh he repeated" when he was a sophomore. The kid simply grew into a huge athlete for any age who could run like the wind.. By the time he was a junior, you couldn't help but notice him in any varsity football or lacrosse game. At the start of his senior year he was committed to a top 10 lacrosse program and had D1 scholarship offers for football. Repeating had nothing to do with it. He ended up sticking with his lacrosse commitment and gained some notoriety along the way. And yes, when he went to college, almost all of the freshmen recruits were 19 year olds. In addition, numerous "seniors" / 5th years were 23. Never heard my son ever complain about having to play against older or more mature kids when he was younger - he actually played up when he could - I also never heard him complain about playing with or against kids who were 4 years older than him in high school or college. He actually repeated for academic reasons when he transferred after 9th grade and we (his parents) certainly didn't have him pegged as a D1 athlete in any sport at that time.


All fine and good. When other parents said he repeated, they were right. So why the laughter??

Once you repeated you became the norm or even younger for the private school players. That in itself reinforces all that is wrong with lacrosse and especially as it relates to YOUTH lacrosse. Private school teams and players are 1-2 years older than majority of public school teams and players.

Under Armour HS teams have become a joke for many area's with its grade based system. Last year Ty Xanders even said something had to be done about it as it was so obvious of the effects of holdbacks/prefirsts/reclassed going against proper age for grade players
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 02/05/18 12:42 PM
Does anyone look at the long term for the reclassed kids? Two I know of personally who were dominating studs have peaked. One is a sophomore who was a Freshman Phenom, the other is freshman at Top D1 program. Parents are short cited in their thinking. Give me the late developer any day of the week and he will have a longer “life span”
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 02/05/18 01:51 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Does anyone look at the long term for the reclassed kids? Two I know of personally who were dominating studs have peaked. One is a sophomore who was a Freshman Phenom, the other is freshman at Top D1 program. Parents are short cited in their thinking. Give me the late developer any day of the week and he will have a longer “life span”


I dont know of any overall study. But many players in NCAA Div 1 are 19 entering their freshman year of lacrosse. Look at any NCAA lacrosse roster and many are littered with private school holdbacks. Guterding ( Private HS) of Duke had his 24th Birthday yesterday according to TV. That is a holdback age. Many MIAA players are 19 going into first year of college. I dont have an exact number, but if it holds true to my own interactions with MIAA players, its over 50%
Now there may be more that have fallen to wayside, but for many, it works.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 02/05/18 02:33 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Does anyone look at the long term for the reclassed kids? Two I know of personally who were dominating studs have peaked. One is a sophomore who was a Freshman Phenom, the other is freshman at Top D1 program. Parents are short cited in their thinking. Give me the late developer any day of the week and he will have a longer “life span”


I dont know of any overall study. But many players in NCAA Div 1 are 19 entering their freshman year of lacrosse. Look at any NCAA lacrosse roster and many are littered with private school holdbacks. Guterding ( Private HS) of Duke had his 24th Birthday yesterday according to TV. That is a holdback age. Many MIAA players are 19 going into first year of college. I dont have an exact number, but if it holds true to my own interactions with MIAA players, its over 50%
Now there may be more that have fallen to wayside, but for many, it works.

It was actually his 23rd birthday according to the broadcast. You got that part wrong.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 02/05/18 02:51 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Does anyone look at the long term for the reclassed kids? Two I know of personally who were dominating studs have peaked. One is a sophomore who was a Freshman Phenom, the other is freshman at Top D1 program. Parents are short cited in their thinking. Give me the late developer any day of the week and he will have a longer “life span”


I dont know of any overall study. But many players in NCAA Div 1 are 19 entering their freshman year of lacrosse. Look at any NCAA lacrosse roster and many are littered with private school holdbacks. Guterding ( Private HS) of Duke had his 24th Birthday yesterday according to TV. That is a holdback age. Many MIAA players are 19 going into first year of college. I dont have an exact number, but if it holds true to my own interactions with MIAA players, its over 50%
Now there may be more that have fallen to wayside, but for many, it works.

It was actually his 23rd birthday according to the broadcast. You got that part wrong.


I know if I asked my 7th grader if he wanted to be left back for lacrosse, oops, i forgot, the politically correct phrase "hold-back" he would look at me as if I were crazy. Different strokes for different folks.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 02/05/18 03:57 PM
I’m not talking the borderline birthdays. I’m talking about reclassification. Guterding did a PG year. I don’t have any problems with that after HS. But 7/8th grade is insane. The guys I know who did it in 8th grade have peaked in HS and are going nowhere they expected in college.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 02/05/18 04:09 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Does anyone look at the long term for the reclassed kids? Two I know of personally who were dominating studs have peaked. One is a sophomore who was a Freshman Phenom, the other is freshman at Top D1 program. Parents are short cited in their thinking. Give me the late developer any day of the week and he will have a longer “life span”


I dont know of any overall study. But many players in NCAA Div 1 are 19 entering their freshman year of lacrosse. Look at any NCAA lacrosse roster and many are littered with private school holdbacks. Guterding ( Private HS) of Duke had his 24th Birthday yesterday according to TV. That is a holdback age. Many MIAA players are 19 going into first year of college. I dont have an exact number, but if it holds true to my own interactions with MIAA players, its over 50%
Now there may be more that have fallen to wayside, but for many, it works.

It was actually his 23rd birthday according to the broadcast. You got that part wrong.


I know if I asked my 7th grader if he wanted to be left back for lacrosse, oops, i forgot, the politically correct phrase "hold-back" he would look at me as if I were crazy. Different strokes for different folks.


Guterding did PG before Duke. Sometimes that is a prereq for admission to highly selective school. Guy will end up has 3X time all-american, 300+ points & degree from Duke University. You guys may want to pick a different example for whatever point you're making.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 02/05/18 04:45 PM
I, for one, have no problem with a family holding a kid back (or reclassing him if that is the proper word) so that he can be in whatever grade they want the kid to be in. It just should be true that in youth lacrosse, these kids should play vs kids their same age. So if I have a 2005 kid, I want him to play against 2005 kids (or use a Sept 1-Aug 30 year). I don't care if his opponents are in 7th grade, 9th grade, 5th grade, or no grade at all. With regard to school lacrosse (Middle School Teams, JV, Varsity), there is a fair amount of consistency within leagues, conferences, ect. My kids are suburban NY public school kids. There are very few extreme hold backs in the public schools. The extreme holdbacks are mostly at the prep school, catholic schools, ect. The publics and the privates largely don't compete against each other except for non-league games that are voluntarily scheduled.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 02/05/18 05:05 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I, for one, have no problem with a family holding a kid back (or reclassing him if that is the proper word) so that he can be in whatever grade they want the kid to be in. It just should be true that in youth lacrosse, these kids should play vs kids their same age. So if I have a 2005 kid, I want him to play against 2005 kids (or use a Sept 1-Aug 30 year). I don't care if his opponents are in 7th grade, 9th grade, 5th grade, or no grade at all. With regard to school lacrosse (Middle School Teams, JV, Varsity), there is a fair amount of consistency within leagues, conferences, ect. My kids are suburban NY public school kids. There are very few extreme hold backs in the public schools. The extreme holdbacks are mostly at the prep school, catholic schools, ect. The publics and the privates largely don't compete against each other except for non-league games that are voluntarily scheduled.


Age-based play for club lacrosse should go through the MS ages - so U13 and below.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 02/06/18 07:18 PM
They are no changing the system. The club directors won’t do it. The money is there, it’s not broken so it’s not getting fixed. My kids are past club so I don’t care but this army has been going on for close to 10 years, it’s not changing...ever! Unless you all pull your kid from club until it’s fixed. That’s not happening, BOTC is not the battlefield this war is going to be won on. Until the majority of parents band together and don’t pony up the money it’s going to continue, I wish you all luck, but just forget this.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 02/07/18 04:12 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I, for one, have no problem with a family holding a kid back (or reclassing him if that is the proper word) so that he can be in whatever grade they want the kid to be in. It just should be true that in youth lacrosse, these kids should play vs kids their same age. So if I have a 2005 kid, I want him to play against 2005 kids (or use a Sept 1-Aug 30 year). I don't care if his opponents are in 7th grade, 9th grade, 5th grade, or no grade at all. With regard to school lacrosse (Middle School Teams, JV, Varsity), there is a fair amount of consistency within leagues, conferences, ect. My kids are suburban NY public school kids. There are very few extreme hold backs in the public schools. The extreme holdbacks are mostly at the prep school, catholic schools, ect. The publics and the privates largely don't compete against each other except for non-league games that are voluntarily scheduled.



You may have no issue with it. I do, Ill paint this picture on the academic front; on age kid who is undersized, always played up, is a prospective D1 player at a few schools, as well as a top 10 student with 1300's SAT. Had not been for pre-1st hold backs, would have been a top 1, 2 or 3 student and this in a public NY school now is 15. So yeah, I think there is an issue, not just in sports. Why, because if "they" didnt hold their child back they would not have been a top 25 student if they were in their state intended/appropriate class/grade. Instead, they changed their child's "stars" which in turned impacted this student athlete!!!!

And you say, everything balances out in college. But no, it doesn't, how can it. Each recruiting class at a school has what, at most, 12 recruits. If you are a goalie, a Fogo, an LSM, or a Lefty Attack there are truly 20 coveted spots in your recruited year. Now, over half the top 10 school have recruits in any given position that is a Hold-back of some sort. Compound this over 4 years the needle has moved further away from the coaches wanting a true on age athlete.

It was best shown that, an athlete who works out at the same level at 23 as they did at 21 is in fact faster/stronger and both mentally/physically more mature at 23 than 21.

.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 02/07/18 04:52 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I, for one, have no problem with a family holding a kid back (or reclassing him if that is the proper word) so that he can be in whatever grade they want the kid to be in. It just should be true that in youth lacrosse, these kids should play vs kids their same age. So if I have a 2005 kid, I want him to play against 2005 kids (or use a Sept 1-Aug 30 year). I don't care if his opponents are in 7th grade, 9th grade, 5th grade, or no grade at all. With regard to school lacrosse (Middle School Teams, JV, Varsity), there is a fair amount of consistency within leagues, conferences, ect. My kids are suburban NY public school kids. There are very few extreme hold backs in the public schools. The extreme holdbacks are mostly at the prep school, catholic schools, ect. The publics and the privates largely don't compete against each other except for non-league games that are voluntarily scheduled.



You may have no issue with it. I do, Ill paint this picture on the academic front; on age kid who is undersized, but always played and succeeded playing up, is a prospective D1 player at a few schools, as well as a top 15 student with 1300's SAT. Had not been for pre-1st hold backs in his school, would have been ranked a top 1, 2 or 3 student (and this in a public NY school) unfortunately, now due to Hold-backs is now ranked 15. So yeah, I think there is an issue, not just in sports. Why, because if "some" didnt hold their child back, their child would most certainly NOT have been a top 5 student, if they were in their state intended/appropriate class/grade. Instead, they changed their child's "stars/grad year" and BINGO they are Top 5 (actually 6 of top 10, 9 of top 15 are hold backs in a NYS public) so yes hold back have more than athletic impacts.

And if you say, in sports everything balances out in college. No, it doesn't, how can it. Each school has a recruiting class of what, at most, 12 recruits. If you are a goalie, a Fogo, an LSM, or a Lefty Attack top 20 schools arnt taking multiple at those positions. Now, over half the top recruits in the top 10 schools have recruits in any given position that is a Hold-back of some sort. Compound this over 4 years and the needle has moved further away from the coaches wanting a true on age athlete.

But I believe the best example I saw saw was when it was shown that, an athlete who works out at the same level at 23 as they did at 21 is in fact much faster/stronger and tougher both mentally/physically at 23 than 21.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 02/07/18 02:56 PM
The only thing you said that made any sense was your last paragraph.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 02/09/18 01:55 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Does anyone look at the long term for the reclassed kids? Two I know of personally who were dominating studs have peaked. One is a sophomore who was a Freshman Phenom, the other is freshman at Top D1 program. Parents are short cited in their thinking. Give me the late developer any day of the week and he will have a longer “life span”


I dont know of any overall study. But many players in NCAA Div 1 are 19 entering their freshman year of lacrosse. Look at any NCAA lacrosse roster and many are littered with private school holdbacks. Guterding ( Private HS) of Duke had his 24th Birthday yesterday according to TV. That is a holdback age. Many MIAA players are 19 going into first year of college. I dont have an exact number, but if it holds true to my own interactions with MIAA players, its over 50%
Now there may be more that have fallen to wayside, but for many, it works.

It was actually his 23rd birthday according to the broadcast. You got that part wrong.


Pretty sure I heard 24 ..23 24 both are holdbacks.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 02/09/18 02:07 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I, for one, have no problem with a family holding a kid back (or reclassing him if that is the proper word) so that he can be in whatever grade they want the kid to be in. It just should be true that in youth lacrosse, these kids should play vs kids their same age. So if I have a 2005 kid, I want him to play against 2005 kids (or use a Sept 1-Aug 30 year). I don't care if his opponents are in 7th grade, 9th grade, 5th grade, or no grade at all. With regard to school lacrosse (Middle School Teams, JV, Varsity), there is a fair amount of consistency within leagues, conferences, ect. My kids are suburban NY public school kids. There are very few extreme hold backs in the public schools. The extreme holdbacks are mostly at the prep school, catholic schools, ect. The publics and the privates largely don't compete against each other except for non-league games that are voluntarily scheduled.



You may have no issue with it. I do, Ill paint this picture on the academic front; on age kid who is undersized, always played up, is a prospective D1 player at a few schools, as well as a top 10 student with 1300's SAT. Had not been for pre-1st hold backs, would have been a top 1, 2 or 3 student and this in a public NY school now is 15. So yeah, I think there is an issue, not just in sports. Why, because if "they" didnt hold their child back they would not have been a top 25 student if they were in their state intended/appropriate class/grade. Instead, they changed their child's "stars" which in turned impacted this student athlete!!!!

And you say, everything balances out in college. But no, it doesn't, how can it. Each recruiting class at a school has what, at most, 12 recruits. If you are a goalie, a Fogo, an LSM, or a Lefty Attack there are truly 20 coveted spots in your recruited year. Now, over half the top 10 school have recruits in any given position that is a Hold-back of some sort. Compound this over 4 years the needle has moved further away from the coaches wanting a true on age athlete.

It was best shown that, an athlete who works out at the same level at 23 as they did at 21 is in fact faster/stronger and both mentally/physically more mature at 23 than 21.

.



Your reasoning why you dont like it is the reason people do it.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 02/09/18 09:55 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I, for one, have no problem with a family holding a kid back (or reclassing him if that is the proper word) so that he can be in whatever grade they want the kid to be in. It just should be true that in youth lacrosse, these kids should play vs kids their same age. So if I have a 2005 kid, I want him to play against 2005 kids (or use a Sept 1-Aug 30 year). I don't care if his opponents are in 7th grade, 9th grade, 5th grade, or no grade at all. With regard to school lacrosse (Middle School Teams, JV, Varsity), there is a fair amount of consistency within leagues, conferences, ect. My kids are suburban NY public school kids. There are very few extreme hold backs in the public schools. The extreme holdbacks are mostly at the prep school, catholic schools, ect. The publics and the privates largely don't compete against each other except for non-league games that are voluntarily scheduled.



You may have no issue with it. I do, Ill paint this picture on the academic front; on age kid who is undersized, always played up, is a prospective D1 player at a few schools, as well as a top 10 student with 1300's SAT. Had not been for pre-1st hold backs, would have been a top 1, 2 or 3 student and this in a public NY school now is 15. So yeah, I think there is an issue, not just in sports. Why, because if "they" didnt hold their child back they would not have been a top 25 student if they were in their state intended/appropriate class/grade. Instead, they changed their child's "stars" which in turned impacted this student athlete!!!!

And you say, everything balances out in college. But no, it doesn't, how can it. Each recruiting class at a school has what, at most, 12 recruits. If you are a goalie, a Fogo, an LSM, or a Lefty Attack there are truly 20 coveted spots in your recruited year. Now, over half the top 10 school have recruits in any given position that is a Hold-back of some sort. Compound this over 4 years the needle has moved further away from the coaches wanting a true on age athlete.

It was best shown that, an athlete who works out at the same level at 23 as they did at 21 is in fact faster/stronger and both mentally/physically more mature at 23 than 21.

.



Your reasoning why you dont like it is the reason people do it.

Have to say, that’s your problem, not the hold back parents. You want an even playing field, then hold back. Otherwise, since it’s filly within the rules, too bad.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 02/10/18 01:53 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I, for one, have no problem with a family holding a kid back (or reclassing him if that is the proper word) so that he can be in whatever grade they want the kid to be in. It just should be true that in youth lacrosse, these kids should play vs kids their same age. So if I have a 2005 kid, I want him to play against 2005 kids (or use a Sept 1-Aug 30 year). I don't care if his opponents are in 7th grade, 9th grade, 5th grade, or no grade at all. With regard to school lacrosse (Middle School Teams, JV, Varsity), there is a fair amount of consistency within leagues, conferences, ect. My kids are suburban NY public school kids. There are very few extreme hold backs in the public schools. The extreme holdbacks are mostly at the prep school, catholic schools, ect. The publics and the privates largely don't compete against each other except for non-league games that are voluntarily scheduled.



You may have no issue with it. I do, Ill paint this picture on the academic front; on age kid who is undersized, always played up, is a prospective D1 player at a few schools, as well as a top 10 student with 1300's SAT. Had not been for pre-1st hold backs, would have been a top 1, 2 or 3 student and this in a public NY school now is 15. So yeah, I think there is an issue, not just in sports. Why, because if "they" didnt hold their child back they would not have been a top 25 student if they were in their state intended/appropriate class/grade. Instead, they changed their child's "stars" which in turned impacted this student athlete!!!!

And you say, everything balances out in college. But no, it doesn't, how can it. Each recruiting class at a school has what, at most, 12 recruits. If you are a goalie, a Fogo, an LSM, or a Lefty Attack there are truly 20 coveted spots in your recruited year. Now, over half the top 10 school have recruits in any given position that is a Hold-back of some sort. Compound this over 4 years the needle has moved further away from the coaches wanting a true on age athlete.

It was best shown that, an athlete who works out at the same level at 23 as they did at 21 is in fact faster/stronger and both mentally/physically more mature at 23 than 21.

.



Your reasoning why you dont like it is the reason people do it.

Have to say, that’s your problem, not the hold back parents. You want an even playing field, then hold back. Otherwise, since it’s filly within the rules, too bad.


Spoken like a true holdback apologist. Majority dislike the YOUTH aspect of holdbacks not HS. It is wrong at Youth level. It should be changed to age. Common sense tells you that, unless you are a holdback apologist.

At HS its always been grade based and for most kids puberty has kicked in or is on its way. There are always going to be a few moaners but the vast Majority accept it without even caring about ages, its HS. But apologists like you cant tell the difference.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/25/20 04:39 PM
The problem with reclassing is total cheating by clubs at the youth level. You have 16 year olds playing against 13/14 year old kids. Totally disgusting. At the high school level for prep schools they reclass for various reasons.....fine....stay in you age group when you go to club ball. Problem solved.

I would be totally embarrassed having my 16 year old son play against 13 year olds. (MADLAX, BBL, LAXACHUSETTS...just to name a few guilty clubs) Some parents and clubs don't have a problem with this.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/25/20 08:31 PM
US Lax has no guts, never have. If soccer can have a validated age and team based player card so can lax. The travel clubs yield too much power more than the US Lax governing body. What a twisted model.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/25/20 09:05 PM
It’s one of the stupidest discussions that never, ever seems to end. In youth sports, soccer, hockey, baseball all have age based play. Why is this such an ongoing conversation with lax. Not high school, not college. Youth is what I’m talking about. Shouldn’t competition at the youth ages be on a level playing field. It’s called fair competition. How can anyone debate that age based isn’t fair. There is no answer to that. Age based is fair. Grade based in many instances is unfair. That’s it. If your held back academically, or social issues, that’s life, I understand. In those instances parents should have their kids play up a grade to be on age. That’s would I would do. My 11 year old son would play with 11 year old kids. That’s called level playing field. Incredible that people still debate this.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/25/20 11:39 PM
Unless your kid is born in june, july or august and then you think age based is unfair.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/26/20 02:08 AM
Kids aren’t all going to be born same month. Let’s stop with the ridiculous comments. If your son is born June, July, or August. He is playing with kids less than a year older. If the cutoff was Jan 1, then kids Nov and Dec, would be 10,11 months younger than the oldest. We all understand there can be kids 11 months younger. But 11 months isn’t, 2,3 years. I couldn’t care what the cutoff date was. Just have a date like all other sports, enforce that date, then it would be as fair as possible. Plus this notIntelligent conversation can finally end. There is nothing else to say on this topic.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/26/20 10:13 AM
Sure there is. Parents are mad their little babies born in September, October and November don't get the built in age advantage. Hang in there Mom.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/27/20 12:09 AM
If the spring Hs season is cxld? Does that mean all kids get another year of varsity? I ask, because I can see some reclass action.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/27/20 12:55 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
If the spring Hs season is cxld? Does that mean all kids get another year of varsity? I ask, because I can see some reclass action.


You want little Johnny to be a Senior in HS again? Get a life!
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/27/20 12:09 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
If the spring Hs season is cxld? Does that mean all kids get another year of varsity? I ask, because I can see some reclass action.


You want little Johnny to be a Senior in HS again? Get a life!


It was a question followed by statement, I can see underclassmen doing it. Please work of reading comprehension.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/27/20 01:23 PM
If the kid had a chance to go to the nba, I’d say reclass him. With this sport, if it were my son, he would go to college, then get a job. The upside with this sport is limited to saving 12 grand a year in college, maybe working a lacrosse camp for 300 dollars a week. No thanks.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/27/20 02:00 PM
You'd have to move the child from public to private to reclass unless the kid was failing academically in most districts. In private, you run the risk of not being age eligible anyway unless they waive that requirement. Not happening on any approved board level.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/27/20 03:33 PM
this is
Originally Posted by Anonymous
If the kid had a chance to go to the nba, I’d say reclass him. With this sport, if it were my son, he would go to college, then get a job. The upside with this sport is limited to saving 12 grand a year in college, maybe working a lacrosse camp for 300 dollars a week. No thanks.


This is the part of the conversation I find funny. Maybe I am in the minority but for the most part we are probably talking about the elite or excellent player who reclassifies (I know those who will say if they are elite why will they reclassify) but putting that aside I cant imagine people reclassifying bc they want their kid to go play in the PLL for a few bucks or saving 12 grand in college. If reclassifying gets a boy into the Ivies or Duke or Va etc or certain schools in the NESCAC versus a second rate school then the parent did well by the child. Its not about a few month advantage in high school or even a year its about getting your child he best education possible which will potentially lead to greater chances and choices in life. Note I said potentially bc you can be successful going to lower end state school. Now before anyone says I am a parent of a hold back, my son will enter his senior year as a 16 year old and turn 17 in January of his senior year thus clearly younger than holdbacks. I do not begrudge the parents who seek to have their kids go to Deerfield or Brunswick or any other school if they are able to provide the best for their kid then good for them. My son will have to step up.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/27/20 04:30 PM
I hear what you are saying and I agree. If holding him back, education wise, helping him get a better job, that makes sense. However this is a lacrosse thread. That means the point of holding someone back for lacrosse purposes is probably the point of this discussion. So to better answer your point, I in a million years wouldn’t hold my son back for lacrosse. If he is a really good player, instead of a great player, that’s life. He will graduate high school when he is supposed to. Hopefully graduate college in 4 years. He will be 22 at that point, then it’s interviews and get a job.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/27/20 05:45 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
this is
Originally Posted by Anonymous
If the kid had a chance to go to the nba, I’d say reclass him. With this sport, if it were my son, he would go to college, then get a job. The upside with this sport is limited to saving 12 grand a year in college, maybe working a lacrosse camp for 300 dollars a week. No thanks.


This is the part of the conversation I find funny. Maybe I am in the minority but for the most part we are probably talking about the elite or excellent player who reclassifies (I know those who will say if they are elite why will they reclassify) but putting that aside I cant imagine people reclassifying bc they want their kid to go play in the PLL for a few bucks or saving 12 grand in college. If reclassifying gets a boy into the Ivies or Duke or Va etc or certain schools in the NESCAC versus a second rate school then the parent did well by the child. Its not about a few month advantage in high school or even a year its about getting your child he best education possible which will potentially lead to greater chances and choices in life. Note I said potentially bc you can be successful going to lower end state school. Now before anyone says I am a parent of a hold back, my son will enter his senior year as a 16 year old and turn 17 in January of his senior year thus clearly younger than holdbacks. I do not begrudge the parents who seek to have their kids go to Deerfield or Brunswick or any other school if they are able to provide the best for their kid then good for them. My son will have to step up.


I agree with the comment above wholeheartedly! This Fall, my son is transferring to prep school from a public school setting. He’s a solid on-age starter in the NLF. I’ve seen/read about both sides of the holdback story and I can say I’m not at all thinking about my son becoming a “holdback”. I’m also not transferring him to gain an athletic advantage (he’s already strong on- age, playing against kids who’ve already been “held back”. Here’s what I’m in it for: He’ll get a tremendous high school education that *may* help him get into a better university. He’ll gain a network of alumni who perform well in the real world. He’ll be able to play strong competition in HS and maybe in college and have fun along the way. As a parent I’m valuing the education with lacrosse as a means to an end.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/27/20 09:39 PM
Holdback to get into a better school is fine, it’s just the other side will cry that you held back and took a spot from another kid, true but I put my kids needs first. I am seriously considering holding my son back because (a) I think this online class stinks (b) he’ll get an advantage in the classroom and (c) a better opportunity at a college acceptance. Sorry if you disagree and call me a name, have at it.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/28/20 03:03 PM
For club lacrosse Age based should be a thing, do what you want in HS. The difference between hockey, soccer and lacrosse is that soccer and hockey have well established national team programs and regional/national club leagues that feed to established well paying pro careers. We are really talking about the top 5% of the entire sports population. US Lacrosse has zero power, pull whatever you want to call it. Until they can become a true sanctioning body, be able to force the clubs and tournaments to follow their regulation, reclass players is a null point. Hockey and soccer will not let teams or individuals play on national teams that fail to follow their guidelines and they enforce policies. The kids want to be on these highest level teams and they must abide by the rules to get there. To be on the best lacrosse teams, they need to be a top 5% player and then they can just reclass to be a top 2% player.. Until the club team directors/owners are separated from the tournament director/owners, US Lacrosse will continue to be a neutered organization and we will still be complaining about reclass kids..
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/28/20 05:27 PM
I agree. Forget US lacrosse for one minute. I’m saying this as a parent. How does another parent of a youth player, actually allow their son to play against younger kids. Not high school, youth is what I’m saying. I’d be embarrassed as a dad, allowing my son to play against kids a year or 2 younger. If your kid has a good game, what do you say to him. Good game son, you scored 4 goals. Doesn’t it enter your head as you say that. Well my son is 10, he dominated 8 and 9 year olds.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/28/20 06:41 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I agree. Forget US lacrosse for one minute. I’m saying this as a parent. How does another parent of a youth player, actually allow their son to play against younger kids. Not high school, youth is what I’m saying. I’d be embarrassed as a dad, allowing my son to play against kids a year or 2 younger. If your kid has a good game, what do you say to him. Good game son, you scored 4 goals. Doesn’t it enter your head as you say that. Well my son is 10, he dominated 8 and 9 year olds.


It say a lot about lacrosse parents in general. I second that. I don't see the point of it, but the parents that allow this, easily justify their own actions. even the 1 year hold backs stand out from the majority of the on age kids, let alone a 2 year hold back.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/28/20 08:34 PM
I agree, but some parents only care about their children and are selfish. I have two sons playing for last 7 years. I have seen multiple parents have sons repeat a grade and play their kid against kids two and half younger against combo teams and one year and half younger on grade. As long as their kid does well its great, god forbid though if their kid has to play against older kids. Guess the ends justify the means. Back when I was a kid it was cheating and pathetic. Now its a viable strategy. Parents need to be called out by the other parents if you ask me. Sure it will make conflict but hey they don't care about your kid why should we care if they get embarrassed that little Johnie is exposed. Clubs just want the money thats a business.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/28/20 08:42 PM
Just wondering. My son was born in early August. At around 3 years old he exhibited learning differences. His start of kindergarten was delayed by a year after consultation with his dr. He started playing organized sports at around six or so and in the past few years took to lacrosse. 1) Is it fair that he, using your “holdback” logic, be negated from playing sports with his classmates and instead be pushed up a year and play with kids not in his class? Remember the only reason for him being “held back” was his having a learning difference. 2) Do you really think he has some kind of super advantage in sports over kids born in Oct or Dec in the same year? A 3 to 4 month time frame. 3) How do you reconcile the trade off of him being behind his peers in learning vs some perceived advantage in sports? 4) Would you be willing to have your son switch places with him and give up academic advantage for perceived sports “holdback” advantage? Not trying to pick a fight, just trying to better understand perspective on this topic.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/28/20 09:16 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I agree, but some parents only care about their children and are selfish. I have two sons playing for last 7 years. I have seen multiple parents have sons repeat a grade and play their kid against kids two and half younger against combo teams and one year and half younger on grade. As long as their kid does well its great, god forbid though if their kid has to play against older kids. Guess the ends justify the means. Back when I was a kid it was cheating and pathetic. Now its a viable strategy. Parents need to be called out by the other parents if you ask me. Sure it will make conflict but hey they don't care about your kid why should we care if they get embarrassed that little Johnie is exposed. Clubs just want the money thats a business.


Senior at one of the top privates on the Island is a 2 year hold back.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/28/20 10:55 PM
He started kindergarten late. He had delays, social issues, the doctor says this, the doctor says that, all this is legitimate reasons to hold a kid back. 100 percent. I’m sure there are soccer kids, baseball kids, hockey kids with similar situations. Nobody is saying holding your kid back for real life issues is wrong. However late August, mid July, early April, means nothing. A cutoff date is a cutoff date. Pick a date and go with it, period. Those real life issues, shouldn’t pertain to sports. If he academically is a 3rd grader, but his age makes him a 4th grader, he should play with the 4th graders. That’s what I would do. That’s what other sports do. That’s the right thing to do.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/29/20 02:57 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
He started kindergarten late. He had delays, social issues, the doctor says this, the doctor says that, all this is legitimate reasons to hold a kid back. 100 percent. I’m sure there are soccer kids, baseball kids, hockey kids with similar situations. Nobody is saying holding your kid back for real life issues is wrong. However late August, mid July, early April, means nothing. A cutoff date is a cutoff date. Pick a date and go with it, period. Those real life issues, shouldn’t pertain to sports. If he academically is a 3rd grader, but his age makes him a 4th grader, he should play with the 4th graders. That’s what I would do. That’s what other sports do. That’s the right thing to do.


Okay, I pick my kid's birthday as the start date for age cut off.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/29/20 03:02 PM
What's the argument against having a % number of players older than 9/1 and being in the same class? In some basketball leagues, the directors grade the teams after the 1st games and shape divisions based off talent levels. Lots of different ways than a strict age date. Why not an age ceiling plus %?
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/29/20 03:28 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Just wondering. My son was born in early August. At around 3 years old he exhibited learning differences. His start of kindergarten was delayed by a year after consultation with his dr. He started playing organized sports at around six or so and in the past few years took to lacrosse. 1) Is it fair that he, using your “holdback” logic, be negated from playing sports with his classmates and instead be pushed up a year and play with kids not in his class? Remember the only reason for him being “held back” was his having a learning difference. 2) Do you really think he has some kind of super advantage in sports over kids born in Oct or Dec in the same year? A 3 to 4 month time frame. 3) How do you reconcile the trade off of him being behind his peers in learning vs some perceived advantage in sports? 4) Would you be willing to have your son switch places with him and give up academic advantage for perceived sports “holdback” advantage? Not trying to pick a fight, just trying to better understand perspective on this topic.


Your situation is the rarity. If that is all to contend with , I am not sure it would be a problem. What is happening now in lacrosse is holdbacks/reclassed/prefirsts are out of control. Many are only staying back for an advantage in sports.
Total wrong to get an advantage in youth that others dont get.

Like someone said. Pick a date and stick with it. at least every in youth will be within 12 months or less of each other
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/29/20 05:51 PM
1. Kid would probably make new friends not unlike travel and get better playing with older kids. 2. Not a significant advantage over the fall winter of his year but a huge advantage over the summer fall winter kids of the grade year. He could be a 1 yr 4 months older. On a combo even greater 2 years 4 months. Example 1/2 team 6 year old vs 8 and a half year old. Worse 5/6 10 yearold vs a 12 and half year old who hit puberty. Would you want to have your kid play? 3. The holdback is not trading off anything, the parent is creating an artificial advantage academically for child and also using it to create an advantage in athletics also. Which is really pronounced in lacrosse because unlike other sports its not being age regulated. 4. No. All parents do what they think is best for their child, if something a parent does for their child adversely affects another parents child , isn't it up to the us as parents to stick up for their child especially when some parents have a total disregard for another childrens well being or are being taken advantage of. Sometimes a kid is just better or bigger than the others. As a coach I have seen kids that I thought were prodigies or really physically gifted then I find out they are holdbacks or double holdbacks. Man, that 10 year old plays like a 13 year old. Coach, thats because he is 13.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/29/20 06:36 PM
An age ceiling percentage. Really man. It’s youth sports. This isn’t physics. Stop already. Stop making this difficult. It’s black and white. There is a date cutoff. Kids should play the same year. I have 3 kids, one is a summer baby. Too bad on him, he will be 10 or 11 months younger than others. That’s life, sorry. He will he youngest on team. Oh well. Life goes on. Kids aren’t 2 or 3 years older, maybe 11 months. That’s the way it goes.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/30/20 01:02 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
An age ceiling percentage. Really man. It’s youth sports. This isn’t physics. Stop already. Stop making this difficult. It’s black and white. There is a date cutoff. Kids should play the same year. I have 3 kids, one is a summer baby. Too bad on him, he will be 10 or 11 months younger than others. That’s life, sorry. He will he youngest on team. Oh well. Life goes on. Kids aren’t 2 or 3 years older, maybe 11 months. That’s the way it goes.


It is that easy yet all top tournaments go by grade . Youth lacrosse is broken, and there is no fix. The Top Clubs from MD to MA and many of top clubs from CA, TX, FL , etc are loaded with holdbacks/prefirst/reclass players now.

If you want to compete at top level and your child is just a very good player...He needs to be held back to compete now.

It isnt as simple as , he will catch up at 10 grade. He might, but he may be so far behind many other holdbacks ( due to holdbacks getting playing time and attention) that it will be difficult unless he is above average.

I wish they would go back to age, but it isnt happening,
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/30/20 11:05 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
An age ceiling percentage. Really man. It’s youth sports. This isn’t physics. Stop already. Stop making this difficult. It’s black and white. There is a date cutoff. Kids should play the same year. I have 3 kids, one is a summer baby. Too bad on him, he will be 10 or 11 months younger than others. That’s life, sorry. He will he youngest on team. Oh well. Life goes on. Kids aren’t 2 or 3 years older, maybe 11 months. That’s the way it goes.


If it were black and white, you wouldn't be so wound up and I feel sorry for your summer baby. The example of an age percentage is the best one. 20 kids on a roster gets you 20% or 4 kids above the 9/1 guideline. 25 kids gets you 5.

Every lacrosse region plays class based except for the Island. Time to get in line. No one is changing the class based system because there is no financial incentive for the tournament and league directors to do so just because you want them to.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/30/20 12:42 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I agree. Forget US lacrosse for one minute. I’m saying this as a parent. How does another parent of a youth player, actually allow their son to play against younger kids. Not high school, youth is what I’m saying. I’d be embarrassed as a dad, allowing my son to play against kids a year or 2 younger. If your kid has a good game, what do you say to him. Good game son, you scored 4 goals. Doesn’t it enter your head as you say that. Well my son is 10, he dominated 8 and 9 year olds.


------
Whomever wrote this must be new to lacrosse...i remember when my son first started playing, thinking wow how are these other few kids so physically advanced over my son. My kid was a very good athlete, and not a small kid, but in a totally different class at the beginning stage. Little did i know, all of their dads played lacrosse in various college settings, and each of their dads held them back and had them play down. It was not that they were better players, they were older and had been playing for years. When my son started travel lacrosse at 7/8, there were kids 20 months older than him on the team (disgraceful).

4 years later, i am still grappling with this concept. My kid caught up, their kids still look like they should be playing in a different age group, and my wife and I cannot fathom a family holding back kids in school for a youth sport that has ZERO chance of having a lifetime of earnings (unless you are Paul Rabil or want to be a gym teacher/lax coach).

We have come to grips that the age and "how can i get Johnnie to be physically superior" discussions will not end until a new player either takes a ball to the neck/chest from a kid playing down 2 years, or a "true on age" player basically gets run over by a 20 month older player. It's pretty disappointing. It forces the on-age players to play more aggressive because they are 10 inches smaller, lol.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/30/20 01:25 PM
It is black and white. It’s not illegal or cheating according to the rules. It’s like golfing with your friends, you win, but you golfed from the ladies tees. Bowling with your friends, you win,but they gave you a handicap. That’s how I see it. Winning and competing on age is the proud way to do it. I’d rather my 10 year old son compete hard and lose to other 10 year olds, than beat up 8 and 9 year olds. This conversation doesn’t exist in any other sport, why is that. Each sport has an age cutoff. Why? I know why. They want youth competition to be as fair as possible, that’s why.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/30/20 01:32 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I agree. Forget US lacrosse for one minute. I’m saying this as a parent. How does another parent of a youth player, actually allow their son to play against younger kids. Not high school, youth is what I’m saying. I’d be embarrassed as a dad, allowing my son to play against kids a year or 2 younger. If your kid has a good game, what do you say to him. Good game son, you scored 4 goals. Doesn’t it enter your head as you say that. Well my son is 10, he dominated 8 and 9 year olds.



Just about every Top Club Coach ( Head and assistant) I know in Maryland who has a son that is in either in youth lacrosse or High School has held his son back . Not one Top Club Coach and especially MIAA coaches ( Head and Assistants ) ALL have held their sons back. They have no problem with their sons playing down. It is a rarity that their son or sons dont play down. And please, we arent talking summer birthdays

It just filters down in MD. No one is ashamed of their son playing down.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/30/20 01:36 PM
Any parent that holds their kid back for lacrosse, LACROSSE! Should have their child taken away from them period! Wake up people! its a great game but its over after college and at 95% of collages the only people watching the games are parents just like in HS.

Here is another public service announcement as my 3rd child finishes up lax play. I have never heard of someone who Wanted to play in college that couldn't find a team. There is a place for everyone and you don't even need to be very good. Go watch a bottom D1 women's game. Your current summer league team could beat most of them!
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/30/20 02:13 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I agree. Forget US lacrosse for one minute. I’m saying this as a parent. How does another parent of a youth player, actually allow their son to play against younger kids. Not high school, youth is what I’m saying. I’d be embarrassed as a dad, allowing my son to play against kids a year or 2 younger. If your kid has a good game, what do you say to him. Good game son, you scored 4 goals. Doesn’t it enter your head as you say that. Well my son is 10, he dominated 8 and 9 year olds.


------
Whomever wrote this must be new to lacrosse...i remember when my son first started playing, thinking wow how are these other few kids so physically advanced over my son. My kid was a very good athlete, and not a small kid, but in a totally different class at the beginning stage. Little did i know, all of their dads played lacrosse in various college settings, and each of their dads held them back and had them play down. It was not that they were better players, they were older and had been playing for years. When my son started travel lacrosse at 7/8, there were kids 20 months older than him on the team (disgraceful).

4 years later, i am still grappling with this concept. My kid caught up, their kids still look like they should be playing in a different age group, and my wife and I cannot fathom a family holding back kids in school for a youth sport that has ZERO chance of having a lifetime of earnings (unless you are Paul Rabil or want to be a gym teacher/lax coach).

We have come to grips that the age and "how can i get Johnnie to be physically superior" discussions will not end until a new player either takes a ball to the neck/chest from a kid playing down 2 years, or a "true on age" player basically gets run over by a 20 month older player. It's pretty disappointing. It forces the on-age players to play more aggressive because they are 10 inches smaller, lol.


My son has had a very similar experience. He is in later stages of HS and he has caught up and is a starter. He is better than many of those holdbacks, but still there is no question the extra year helps and has given many that extra training and experience others dont have with similar skills. He plays in MD not NY.

If he had been heldback , he would have been a different player than and now. Oh well, it isnt like this is a money sport or even a good sport for scholarships.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/30/20 03:04 PM
Regardless of the good, the bad or the ugly, reclassification is here to stay about to get a whole lot worse. Due to recent events there is going to be alot of reclassifying and PG years.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/30/20 05:20 PM
Reclassification in HS or college is different than youth. If a youth child is reclassified for a learning reason, social reason, anything, that shouldn’t translate to that youth playing with younger kids. Same if it was the other way. Say a kid is so smart and he is taking 7th grade classes, but he is 6th grade age. He should play behind his academic year. It goes both ways. Serious question to a parent of a holdback youth kid. What if you had twins? One boy loves lax and excels. One boy loves soccer or hockey and excels. Do you have one boy stay in 3rd grade twice, for a 10 year youth lax advantage and have the other go to 4th grade like he should. Soccer, hockey all other sports is on age, no holdback advantage allowed. What’s the answer to that question?
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/31/20 01:14 AM
With the recent NCAA decision to grant an extra year of eligibility for all spring athletes, expect a huge in crease in PG and Holdbacks.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/31/20 02:00 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Regardless of the good, the bad or the ugly, reclassification is here to stay about to get a whole lot worse. Due to recent events there is going to be alot of reclassifying and PG years.


Yeah, but hush schoolers, juniors and lower, can’t reclass now that have entered 9th grade, unless they sit out of year. I think that’s the way it works.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/31/20 10:33 AM
Been reading this argument for 10 years, know what changed, nothing. Know what will change 10 years from now? Nothing
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/31/20 01:02 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Been reading this argument for 10 years, know what changed, nothing. Know what will change 10 years from now? Nothing



Actually, something has changed. With the NCAA granting an extra year of eligibility, there will be some 25-26 year olds playing COLLEGE lacrosse at my sons school next year! They peaked at 18 in HS and haven't played too much since, so not concerned. Can't make this stuff up!
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/31/20 05:06 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Regardless of the good, the bad or the ugly, reclassification is here to stay about to get a whole lot worse. Due to recent events there is going to be alot of reclassifying and PG years.


Yeah, but hush schoolers, juniors and lower, can’t reclass now that have entered 9th grade, unless they sit out of year. I think that’s the way it works.

That is not true for some areas as these Freshman have not played an official varsity season or even a game. Enforcement will be lax and kids can move between public and private with no impact. There will be an increase in re-class for the 2023 grade to the 2024 grade.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/31/20 05:19 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Regardless of the good, the bad or the ugly, reclassification is here to stay about to get a whole lot worse. Due to recent events there is going to be alot of reclassifying and PG years.


Yeah, but hush schoolers, juniors and lower, can’t reclass now that have entered 9th grade, unless they sit out of year. I think that’s the way it works.

That is not true for some areas as these Freshman have not played an official varsity season or even a game. Enforcement will be lax and kids can move between public and private with no impact. There will be an increase in re-class for the 2023 grade to the 2024 grade.


Just how many additional parents are going to take on the expense of a public to private so their kid can play lacrosse?
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/31/20 06:47 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Regardless of the good, the bad or the ugly, reclassification is here to stay about to get a whole lot worse. Due to recent events there is going to be alot of reclassifying and PG years.


Yeah, but hush schoolers, juniors and lower, can’t reclass now that have entered 9th grade, unless they sit out of year. I think that’s the way it works.

That is not true for some areas as these Freshman have not played an official varsity season or even a game. Enforcement will be lax and kids can move between public and private with no impact. There will be an increase in re-class for the 2023 grade to the 2024 grade.


Just how many additional parents are going to take on the expense of a public to private so their kid can play lacrosse?


May be some, just depends on the parent's ego and how good he thinks his son is.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/31/20 06:55 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Regardless of the good, the bad or the ugly, reclassification is here to stay about to get a whole lot worse. Due to recent events there is going to be alot of reclassifying and PG years.


Yeah, but hush schoolers, juniors and lower, can’t reclass now that have entered 9th grade, unless they sit out of year. I think that’s the way it works.

That is not true for some areas as these Freshman have not played an official varsity season or even a game. Enforcement will be lax and kids can move between public and private with no impact. There will be an increase in re-class for the 2023 grade to the 2024 grade.


Just how many additional parents are going to take on the expense of a public to private so their kid can play lacrosse?

It can go the other way, a parent now needs to send son to public, have not played any official games, they could re-class. I do know of some that are considering going public to private that were on the fence. The real advantage to the re-class kid will be next season's showcases, club events, UA team ect. Also this puts more distance between a player and the current recruiting logjam caused by the extra NCAA year.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 03/31/20 11:41 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Regardless of the good, the bad or the ugly, reclassification is here to stay about to get a whole lot worse. Due to recent events there is going to be alot of reclassifying and PG years.


Yeah, but hush schoolers, juniors and lower, can’t reclass now that have entered 9th grade, unless they sit out of year. I think that’s the way it works.

That is not true for some areas as these Freshman have not played an official varsity season or even a game. Enforcement will be lax and kids can move between public and private with no impact. There will be an increase in re-class for the 2023 grade to the 2024 grade.


I thought the 4 year clock starts in 9th grade. The question is, does this spring season count as one of the years? Because the season officially started.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/03/20 09:12 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Been reading this argument for 10 years, know what changed, nothing. Know what will change 10 years from now? Nothing



Actually, something has changed. With the NCAA granting an extra year of eligibility, there will be some 25-26 year olds playing COLLEGE lacrosse at my sons school next year! They peaked at 18 in HS and haven't played too much since, so not concerned. Can't make this stuff up!


Again, big picture, nothing changed. Truth is hold backs dominated in HS and most dominated in college. It’s a fact that you can easily look up. Most parents detest it, but it’s true. And to the statement on 25-26 year old players, how many? One or maybe two. But at most schools, none.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/04/20 12:10 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Regardless of the good, the bad or the ugly, reclassification is here to stay about to get a whole lot worse. Due to recent events there is going to be alot of reclassifying and PG years.


Yeah, but hush schoolers, juniors and lower, can’t reclass now that have entered 9th grade, unless they sit out of year. I think that’s the way it works.

That is not true for some areas as these Freshman have not played an official varsity season or even a game. Enforcement will be lax and kids can move between public and private with no impact. There will be an increase in re-class for the 2023 grade to the 2024 grade.


Just how many additional parents are going to take on the expense of a public to private so their kid can play lacrosse?

It can go the other way, a parent now needs to send son to public, have not played any official games, they could re-class. I do know of some that are considering going public to private that were on the fence. The real advantage to the re-class kid will be next season's showcases, club events, UA team ect. Also this puts more distance between a player and the current recruiting logjam caused by the extra NCAA year.


Why not? If it gives an advantage.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/04/20 09:54 AM
[/quote]
It can go the other way, a parent now needs to send son to public, have not played any official games, they could re-class. I do know of some that are considering going public to private that were on the fence. The real advantage to the re-class kid will be next season's showcases, club events, UA team ect. Also this puts more distance between a player and the current recruiting logjam caused by the extra NCAA year.[/quote]

You must be a child. A private school kid cannot transfer to a public school and be held back unless the kid is significantly behind in academics. Every kid has a cost to the state and the state wants them moving through the system as quickly as possible.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/04/20 09:57 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Regardless of the good, the bad or the ugly, reclassification is here to stay about to get a whole lot worse. Due to recent events there is going to be alot of reclassifying and PG years.


Yeah, but hush schoolers, juniors and lower, can’t reclass now that have entered 9th grade, unless they sit out of year. I think that’s the way it works.

That is not true for some areas as these Freshman have not played an official varsity season or even a game. Enforcement will be lax and kids can move between public and private with no impact. There will be an increase in re-class for the 2023 grade to the 2024 grade.


Just how many additional parents are going to take on the expense of a public to private so their kid can play lacrosse?

It can go the other way, a parent now needs to send son to public, have not played any official games, they could re-class. I do know of some that are considering going public to private that were on the fence. The real advantage to the re-class kid will be next season's showcases, club events, UA team ect. Also this puts more distance between a player and the current recruiting logjam caused by the extra NCAA year.


Why not? If it gives an advantage.


Gee, I don't know. Maybe because a public education is free and a private costs money, lots of it. Please stop posting.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/06/20 02:06 PM
Youth (through 8th grade) Age based calendar year groupings. There really is no logical argument against this. If you really wanted to take the other side of this argument the only possible counter could be 9/1 cutoff for when school/grade starts. August birthday, sorry Charlie. High school anything goes.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/06/20 04:39 PM
So true. It’s not even an argument. Up into 8th grade, should be age based. High school, anything goes. One day, I hope this don’t happen, some big 12 year old kid, will seriously injure a 10 year old kid. Oh wait, they are both in 5th grade. Kids the same age can also get hurt, but at least it’s on a level playing field. The parents want to hold their kids back for a real life issue, no problem. He plays sports, he plays his age. He will make new friends. Sorry mom and dad. What would you do if he played baseball or hockey. I’d be embarrassed playing my kids down in any sport.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/06/20 08:31 PM
Great, I propose 8/1. You propose 9/1 and others propose 1/1. Glad we're all in agreement. Sorry Charlie.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/06/20 11:30 PM
It’s within 1 year. What don’t you get? Have someone explain this to you. Whatever date is picked, there will be a 364 day window. That’s goes for every sport. I could care less what the cutoff date is. You play your age. My son is April. Make cutoff May 1. My son would be the youngest by less than a year. Guess what. Too bad. He isn’t going through youth sports playing with younger kids. If he goes through youth sports being an average, that’s life. Sorry holdback dad, you are wrong.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/07/20 09:39 AM
Okay, May 1 it is. All those February, March, and April LI parents in favor, say "aye." Good luck, it's not that easy regardless of what date you use.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/07/20 12:54 PM
The topic is holding back kids. The topic isn’t a cutoff date. It’s seems like you are unable to understand this. Again, not cutoff date. Holding kids back to play youth sports. Nothing more to say on this.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/07/20 01:20 PM
Cheating at youth is ridiculous. I know at least a half dozen kids that heldback in PAL and played on combo teams. Some kids quit or don't get to play because they think they stink. Tommy you don't stink Johnnie is 2 and a half years older than you thats why he is a 4th grade Myles Jones.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/07/20 01:33 PM
So true. Now that holdback dad will come on here again and start talking about cutoff dates again for the 5th time.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/07/20 02:42 PM
"Great, I propose 8/1. You propose 9/1 and others propose 1/1. Glad we're all in agreement. Sorry Charlie."

You are right, I stand corrected. NO FLEX. Calendar year. Sorry your old for the grade kid now has to play with kids his own age.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/07/20 07:16 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Cheating at youth is ridiculous. I know at least a half dozen kids that heldback in PAL and played on combo teams. Some kids quit or don't get to play because they think they stink. Tommy you don't stink Johnnie is 2 and a half years older than you thats why he is a 4th grade Myles Jones.

Two and a half years older ??? The vast majority of holdbacks are 3 to 9 months older. Stop making excuses for Tommy - maybe he just isn't good enough.
Several years ago, soccer made the switch to a January 1st cutoff. There was some initial moaning, but that quickly died down and everyone just adapted. It's refreshing to watch kids play against others their own age.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/07/20 08:39 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Cheating at youth is ridiculous. I know at least a half dozen kids that heldback in PAL and played on combo teams. Some kids quit or don't get to play because they think they stink. Tommy you don't stink Johnnie is 2 and a half years older than you thats why he is a 4th grade Myles Jones.

Two and a half years older ??? The vast majority of holdbacks are 3 to 9 months older. Stop making excuses for Tommy - maybe he just isn't good enough.


My son who is now in HS does know a few kids who re-classed. Some did late starts, some did it just before 8th and 9th grade. However in all cases I know of, these kids were not the tallest or biggest kids. They were not the ones people think are holdbacks.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/07/20 09:17 PM
Originally Posted by cltlax
Several years ago, soccer made the switch to a January 1st cutoff. There was some initial moaning, but that quickly died down and everyone just adapted. It's refreshing to watch kids play against others their own age.


Just not true. Soccer participation is down 4 years in a row and by about 700,000 over the last 4 years as reported by US Soccer Foundation and Aspen Institute.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/07/20 09:18 PM
Sorry for your old for the grade kid. Someone actually posted a statement like that. Who are these ridiculous people. There is a date in every single sport. It’s youth sports pal. Relax. You don’t want your son growing up playing with dolls. Stop holding him back. It’s ok. He will be ok.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/07/20 10:24 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Cheating at youth is ridiculous. I know at least a half dozen kids that heldback in PAL and played on combo teams. Some kids quit or don't get to play because they think they stink. Tommy you don't stink Johnnie is 2 and a half years older than you thats why he is a 4th grade Myles Jones.

Two and a half years older ??? The vast majority of holdbacks are 3 to 9 months older. Stop making excuses for Tommy - maybe he just isn't good enough.


Or maybe you're just trying to justify why Tad needs to play up two years to be relevant. Having two kids that have played in college, the majority of the Tads ride pine because the others catch up. Yes they get recruited...not sure why, you'd think college coaches would be smarter than that. But those entitled parents have a great time being cheerleaders and drinking till they blackout at the games their kids dont even play in!
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/08/20 12:36 AM
Comb team two grades. One kid early august repeats a grade plays vs late december young kid in lower ,grade dec 31 cut off. Tommy doesn't know this he is 5.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/08/20 02:25 AM
This is Tad, I dominated Tommy in PAL be cause I am on 3 different travel teams and I am so good that I played 3rd grade lacrosse twice just like I was in 3rd grade twice. It has made me twice as good.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/08/20 01:32 PM
There is no rational, logical, intelligent argument against kids playing youth sports with and against kids their own age. Sorry.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/08/20 03:11 PM
There is no argument at all. Holdback parents try so hard explaining there reasoning. It sounds comical.

My kid wants to play with classmates.
Answer. no, he will make new friends. Parents of kids in other sports have no choice. It’s age based.

My kid was academically/socially not ready at time kindergarten started, so we held him back.
Answer, I hope your son does well in life. No problem. However in youth sports, he still plays his age.

My family moved around a lot, needed to change schools. Had to redo 2nd grade.
Answer. Ok academically it’s more important, I hope he does well. I hope your new home is nice. However youth sports he plays his age.

My son has a birthday in July or August.
Answer. Sept 1st. That’s the cutoff date for this sport. That’s the way it goes. There has to be a date. Tell your son in 20 years to get his wife pregnant 8 months before cutoff date. This is the most ridiculous argument of them all.

My oldest sons birthday is in 2 weeks. APRIL. So he isn’t near cut off date. He plays with kids 8 months older. If I held him back according to cutoff date he would be 4 to 16 months older than everyone else. I’d be embarrassed being a dad on sideline watching my son do well against younger, smaller kids. They are little kids. It’s Youth sports If other dads had this way of thinking, this sport would be great. High school is different.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/08/20 03:41 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
This is Tad, I dominated Tommy in PAL be cause I am on 3 different travel teams and I am so good that I played 3rd grade lacrosse twice just like I was in 3rd grade twice. It has made me twice as good.


So if you repeated a grade and played on three travel teams shouldn't you be 6x as "good" as Tommy. Clearly you aren't that "good" if you are only "twice as good."
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/08/20 04:43 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
So true. Now that holdback dad will come on here again and start talking about cutoff dates again for the 5th time.


Not the parent of a holdback but dont you need to have a cutoff date in order to classify someone as a holdback. I think its ridiculous that lacrosse does not have age restrictions that continue thru high school travel tournaments as all other sorts have. Look on the girls side and IL keeps promoting the same high school holdbacks even writing about how these poor kids are going to miss their senior season of high school lax when none of them should even be in high school anymore.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/08/20 06:15 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
So true. Now that holdback dad will come on here again and start talking about cutoff dates again for the 5th time.


Not the parent of a holdback but dont you need to have a cutoff date in order to classify someone as a holdback. I think its ridiculous that lacrosse does not have age restrictions that continue thru high school travel tournaments as all other sorts have. Look on the girls side and IL keeps promoting the same high school holdbacks even writing about how these poor kids are going to miss their senior season of high school lax when none of them should even be in high school anymore.


So true....they’re always preaching how they want to “grow the game” phrase only pertains to the entitled spoiled cheaters. A shame! There will be “kids” on my sons college team last year who will be 26. Yikes!
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/08/20 07:32 PM
I always find it hilarious when the announcers of the big holdback High School teams tell us how great this Senior is and that senior is. Well they should be, they should be College Freshman.

Boys Latin in MD a few years ago was one of the top teams in country. Every starter was a holdback except ONE ! Basically a College Freshman team .
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/08/20 08:08 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by cltlax
Several years ago, soccer made the switch to a January 1st cutoff. There was some initial moaning, but that quickly died down and everyone just adapted. It's refreshing to watch kids play against others their own age.


Just not true. Soccer participation is down 4 years in a row and by about 700,000 over the last 4 years as reported by US Soccer Foundation and Aspen Institute.


I agree the soccer change was great and also eye opening. My kid got to play with kids in his grade/birthyear that he went to school with that he didn't before. His birthday was in June so he was use to playing with kids in the grade older before the cutoff change. My big takeaway from it was the kids that played UP had a much easier time while the kids that played down before found it harder playing against kids in their own birthyear/grade. Parents of the kids who were use to playing kids in the younger grade were constantly complaining about everything because their little superstar doesn't score 3 goals a game anymore. Its the coaches fault, other kids on the team don't pass, they are not playing the right position blah blah blah. The difference between the kids in the same birthyear isn't always 12 months. Its not like half the team was born on Jan 1 and the rest on Dec 1. Its usually a couple months. You can't tell me that holding back kids in youth sports isn't an unfair advantage because I saw what happened when kids got taken out of that in soccer and had to play against kids their own birth year. My takeaway was most of the kids who played up were much better off then the kids that played down when everything got evened out. Its funny how if you ask most kids around 9th grade if they would rather play up with Varsity vs stay down on JV most of them want to play up. I'm guessing most of the holdback's were put there by their crazy parents.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/09/20 01:23 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
There is no argument at all. Holdback parents try so hard explaining there reasoning. It sounds comical.

My kid wants to play with classmates.
Answer. no, he will make new friends. Parents of kids in other sports have no choice. It’s age based.

My kid was academically/socially not ready at time kindergarten started, so we held him back.
Answer, I hope your son does well in life. No problem. However in youth sports, he still plays his age.

My family moved around a lot, needed to change schools. Had to redo 2nd grade.
Answer. Ok academically it’s more important, I hope he does well. I hope your new home is nice. However youth sports he plays his age.

My son has a birthday in July or August.
Answer. Sept 1st. That’s the cutoff date for this sport. That’s the way it goes. There has to be a date. Tell your son in 20 years to get his wife pregnant 8 months before cutoff date. This is the most ridiculous argument of them all.

My oldest sons birthday is in 2 weeks. APRIL. So he isn’t near cut off date. He plays with kids 8 months older. If I held him back according to cutoff date he would be 4 to 16 months older than everyone else. I’d be embarrassed being a dad on sideline watching my son do well against younger, smaller kids. They are little kids. It’s Youth sports If other dads had this way of thinking, this sport would be great. High school is different.



-------

This seems to be the most common thinking - except, when you actually go to the team's Teamsnap or whatever... the players all turn out to be 12-18 months older! It's really kind of embarrassing. That some parents hold multiple sons back... then try to rationalize why it was "better for the kid"
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/09/20 01:57 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by cltlax
Several years ago, soccer made the switch to a January 1st cutoff. There was some initial moaning, but that quickly died down and everyone just adapted. It's refreshing to watch kids play against others their own age.


Just not true. Soccer participation is down 4 years in a row and by about 700,000 over the last 4 years as reported by US Soccer Foundation and Aspen Institute.


Nope, it is nice watching true competition of all top soccer players within a year of each other. Instead of the constant who is playing down in lacrosse. With lacrosse players within a two year range all the while acting like they are within a year. LOL..

Go to any top soccer tournament. No mention of holdbacks playing down, NONE. Go to any Top lacrosse tournament, The holdback parents are closed mouth while many look on in disgust.

Lacrosse will take soccer numbers any day. More than 3-4 times play soccer than lacrosse in youth and as they get to adult, it isnt even close. Soccer shot itself in foot a few years ago with many areas going to Club only ( higher cost). Resulting in many players not participating due to costs and travel. Sound familiar.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/09/20 11:41 PM
For the life of me, I have never understood why people care so much about age in youth sports. Just play whoever shows up... my kids played on older teams or in older divisions most of their youth lives- it never mattered. sometimes they didn't win a game but had fun. when they played on-age and there were older kids, they usually were just bigger and stronger but never very good. never did I feel anything other than sadness for the older kids having to play with younger ones and feeling what I presume to be inadequate
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/10/20 09:25 AM
The reality is holdbacks are better, and remain better throughout their playing days. It’s factual and can be easily researched. No one wants to hear it, but it’s true.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/10/20 01:11 PM
My son is in his senior year at a public high school. Obviously he is bummed not playing this spring. I asked him ifhe ever plays vs. older kids. His response is yeah some are a year older. Granted my son isn't good enough to play in college but playing vs a kid a year older never bothered him but it bothered me. This year I realized if he's OK with it I should be too. Seems to be more of a private school thing where lacrosse is more important to parents than the kids.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/10/20 01:13 PM
Everyone knows that’s true. It’s simple logic. My 4th grade son is a good lacrosse player and a good soccer player. He is good, not great. Now if I tell my wife let’s hold him back a year,he will be great going against kids a year younger in lacrosse. She would think I’m crazy for suggesting something so notIntelligent, plus my son, who is a good student would be devastated. However as notIntelligent as that does sound, the fact is he would go from being a good 4th grade player, to next year being a great 4th grade player. At the end of the day, I also know this is so notIntelligent, so I wouldn’t even consider it. If he goes through his youth years being a good player and enjoys it, good for my son. If he becomes great, with practice, hard work and ability. Awesome. Kids who become great because mom and dad, decide to hold him back. Not so awesome. I’d use the word pathetic.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/10/20 01:56 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Everyone knows that’s true. It’s simple logic. My 4th grade son is a good lacrosse player and a good soccer player. He is good, not great. Now if I tell my wife let’s hold him back a year,he will be great going against kids a year younger in lacrosse. She would think I’m crazy for suggesting something so notIntelligent, plus my son, who is a good student would be devastated. However as notIntelligent as that does sound, the fact is he would go from being a good 4th grade player, to next year being a great 4th grade player. At the end of the day, I also know this is so notIntelligent, so I wouldn’t even consider it. If he goes through his youth years being a good player and enjoys it, good for my son. If he becomes great, with practice, hard work and ability. Awesome. Kids who become great because mom and dad, decide to hold him back. Not so awesome. I’d use the word pathetic.


A great player is a great player regardless of age of his/her competition. Comparative analysis vs other players of lesser or greater talent is silly. The player plays because of how the sport makes him feel when playing and to identify with the culture of the activity. Feeling that you are a good at something helps, feeling that you are learning something and becoming better helps even more.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/10/20 01:58 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Everyone knows that’s true. It’s simple logic. My 4th grade son is a good lacrosse player and a good soccer player. He is good, not great. Now if I tell my wife let’s hold him back a year,he will be great going against kids a year younger in lacrosse. She would think I’m crazy for suggesting something so notIntelligent, plus my son, who is a good student would be devastated. However as notIntelligent as that does sound, the fact is he would go from being a good 4th grade player, to next year being a great 4th grade player. At the end of the day, I also know this is so notIntelligent, so I wouldn’t even consider it. If he goes through his youth years being a good player and enjoys it, good for my son. If he becomes great, with practice, hard work and ability. Awesome. Kids who become great because mom and dad, decide to hold him back. Not so awesome. I’d use the word pathetic.


I totally agree with you. In the long run, parents do what they feel is best for their kid. I'll tell you what, the few parents on my kids H.S. team who held their kid back. once they get on their soap box I turn around and walk away.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/10/20 03:43 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
The reality is holdbacks are better, and remain better throughout their playing days. It’s factual and can be easily researched. No one wants to hear it, but it’s true.


Haha, that's a joke! Look at any D1 roster. They are loaded with holdbacks who don't play. Many of those kids were stars in HS because they had an age advantage. In college they are exposed for the bottom feeders that they (the parents) are. Granted there are some holdbacks that excel in college, but those kids would have been stars regardless of being heldback, for them, it's a shame their parents didn't believe in them. It's the ones whose parents thought they were gaming the system to get their kid recruited to sit on the pine that is revealing of the character of kid and parent. Karma! At least the kid can put on their resume that they were on the X lacrosse team!
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/10/20 04:42 PM
When kids go to college. Many kids redshirt a year. In football as well. Kids sometimes go to prep school, then college. Doing this, if it works for your kid, God bless. It’s the youth parent holding their kid back. This is the part that’s the problem. Not college. YOUTH is YOUTH. Kids should be the same age. There is no logical argument to say different. None. Zero. These are the facts. Baseball, soccer, football, hockey, basketball all have this factual information and corrected this. This is the one and only team sport at the youth level that hasn’t.
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Kids should be the same age. There is no logical argument to say different. None. Zero. These are the facts. Baseball, soccer, football, hockey, basketball all have this factual information and corrected this. This is the one and only team sport at the youth level that hasn’t.


Truth! I have not seen one legitimate argument for why lacrosse is so special that it has to be done by grade, not age.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/10/20 06:00 PM
Originally Posted by cltlax
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Kids should be the same age. There is no logical argument to say different. None. Zero. These are the facts. Baseball, soccer, football, hockey, basketball all have this factual information and corrected this. This is the one and only team sport at the youth level that hasn’t.


Truth! I have not seen one legitimate argument for why lacrosse is so special that it has to be done by grade, not age.


It's all is a reflection on the parents. I can't see the reasoning for doing it. Ok, the kid gets to play for a D1 school. what happens after that? So often, lacrosse consumed the kids life 24/7 from a very young age. In addition, the child most likely was never told "No" in regards to anything. So after D1 lacrosse, then what? I guess, live off the fat of mom and dad...
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/10/20 06:31 PM
My son is the youngest kid on a team with Holdbacks. He plays, a lot. The team is ranked in the top 10. I told him, go beat everyone and anyone on the field if you want to play. Work harder then the older kids and the younger ones your age won't be a problem. He worked harder then the older ones and earned his time. Now I feel blessed he gets to absorb the skills playing along side older kids. Has anyone complaining thought to use it as a motivator. But the horse has been beaten, dug up, re beat and reburied on this subject. I get venting, but this thread reads like a knitting circle wrote it
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/10/20 07:44 PM
This thread has become boring to the point of being irrelevant. The non stop complaining about a kid who happens to be 6 or 9 months older then other kids being what justifies him being a superior player is dense and long in the tooth. My son plays basketball and lacrosse. He has kids who are young in both seasons who have or currently play-up in age and were/are top players. Likewise there are kids on these teams who are on grade but younger then others who are superior players. During the basketball season his team played against, and beat teams, that were a grade older then them. Why? The guys on his team, whether young or on grade, were better players then the other guys despite the other guys being older, a little bigger and stronger.

Likewise, when I was a kid I played both sandlot sports and organized sports. On the sand lot I played against guys 2 and 3 years older then me. Competing against these guys these guys “in no blood / no foul” games made me a much better player in organized sports despite me being a non “holdback” with an August birthday. During high school I was always one of the better players on the team, was a varsity basketball starter as a sophomore and team captain in my jr and sr years despite being way younger then the other guys on the team.

Sports, like in life, will see the cream rise. If your son or his team cannot hang against a team that has two or three kids 6 or 9 months older them him please accept the fact that your son or his team just are not as good as the other team. Constant blaming, crying or calling foul only demeans your son, his team and you. As the slogan goes - “Nobody cares, work harder!”
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/10/20 09:10 PM
It’s funny how people embellish their posts. It’s not 6 to 9 months. That’s within a year. The cutoff date means kids are within a year. You wrote that novel, at least write facts. Holdbacks are sometimes 18 months to 30 months difference. I like watching my 8 year old play against kids the same age. Not getting his butt kicked by kids way older. Meaning 10 year olds. Just the same way I don’t want him playing kids 6 or 7. Same age doesn’t mean the same exact birthday, it means within the year. That’s the purpose of a cutoff date. Plus everyone who post on here talks about how their kids play up, kids are the youngest kids on the team. How is it possible, every single person that posts is the youngest kid. The point being made and it’s beaten to death, is I’d be incredibly embarrassed to play my kid down in youth sports. I’d be embarrassed to clap when he did well. I’d be embarrassed watching. It’s as embarrassing as watching your son getting into a fist fight with a girl. No need to twist my words around now. If I’m embarrassed by these things. My question is, how are others not embarrassed.,
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/10/20 09:12 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
This thread has become boring to the point of being irrelevant. The non stop complaining about a kid who happens to be 6 or 9 months older then other kids being what justifies him being a superior player is dense and long in the tooth. My son plays basketball and lacrosse. He has kids who are young in both seasons who have or currently play-up in age and were/are top players. Likewise there are kids on these teams who are on grade but younger then others who are superior players. During the basketball season his team played against, and beat teams, that were a grade older then them. Why? The guys on his team, whether young or on grade, were better players then the other guys despite the other guys being older, a little bigger and stronger.

Likewise, when I was a kid I played both sandlot sports and organized sports. On the sand lot I played against guys 2 and 3 years older then me. Competing against these guys these guys “in no blood / no foul” games made me a much better player in organized sports despite me being a non “holdback” with an August birthday. During high school I was always one of the better players on the team, was a varsity basketball starter as a sophomore and team captain in my jr and sr years despite being way younger then the other guys on the team.

Sports, like in life, will see the cream rise. If your son or his team cannot hang against a team that has two or three kids 6 or 9 months older them him please accept the fact that your son or his team just are not as good as the other team. Constant blaming, crying or calling foul only demeans your son, his team and you. As the slogan goes - “Nobody cares, work harder!”


Are you Michael Jordan? Clapping for you!!!!!!!
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/10/20 10:10 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
The reality is holdbacks are better, and remain better throughout their playing days. It’s factual and can be easily researched. No one wants to hear it, but it’s true.


Haha, that's a joke! Look at any D1 roster. They are loaded with holdbacks who don't play. Many of those kids were stars in HS because they had an age advantage. In college they are exposed for the bottom feeders that they (the parents) are. Granted there are some holdbacks that excel in college, but those kids would have been stars regardless of being heldback, for them, it's a shame their parents didn't believe in them. It's the ones whose parents thought they were gaming the system to get their kid recruited to sit on the pine that is revealing of the character of kid and parent. Karma! At least the kid can put on their resume that they were on the X lacrosse team!


Bury your head in the sand, all those Canadians and Maryland kids are holdbacks, they’re also the dominant players in NCAA. Sorry Charlie, look at the facts, not your emotions.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/10/20 10:13 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
This thread has become boring to the point of being irrelevant. The non stop complaining about a kid who happens to be 6 or 9 months older then other kids being what justifies him being a superior player is dense and long in the tooth. My son plays basketball and lacrosse. He has kids who are young in both seasons who have or currently play-up in age and were/are top players. Likewise there are kids on these teams who are on grade but younger then others who are superior players. During the basketball season his team played against, and beat teams, that were a grade older then them. Why? The guys on his team, whether young or on grade, were better players then the other guys despite the other guys being older, a little bigger and stronger.

Likewise, when I was a kid I played both sandlot sports and organized sports. On the sand lot I played against guys 2 and 3 years older then me. Competing against these guys these guys “in no blood / no foul” games made me a much better player in organized sports despite me being a non “holdback” with an August birthday. During high school I was always one of the better players on the team, was a varsity basketball starter as a sophomore and team captain in my jr and sr years despite being way younger then the other guys on the team.

Sports, like in life, will see the cream rise. If your son or his team cannot hang against a team that has two or three kids 6 or 9 months older them him please accept the fact that your son or his team just are not as good as the other team. Constant blaming, crying or calling foul only demeans your son, his team and you. As the slogan goes - “Nobody cares, work harder!”



What about the cheating losers who are 1-2 years older, plenty of them out there! Great in HS, disappear in college! Love seeing them riding the bench!
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/11/20 01:13 PM
As Reagan used to say during debates, “well there you go again”. Talking about how folks should be embarrassed watching their team kick your eight year old son’s team’s but. Is every kid on the other team a “holdback”? No. Maybe one or two? Are the “holdbacks” 2 years older then your eight year old? No. Probably six to nine months older unless your son is a summer birthday. Fact is the other team is simply better. If your son is as good as you believe he is he in time will be part of the cream that rises. If the “holdback” is good simply because of his age, but he is slow and has no stick skills in time your son will surpass him. Until then “nobody cares, work harder”, or stop playing club against teams from other states and play ball only in you age controlled local leagues and tourneys.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/11/20 01:22 PM
Great point by you. These “holdbacks” are not cream so they stop rising and the non “holdbacks” who suffered so much defeat in their club days are the ultimate winners that get a partial scholarship and play on tv. In the end athleticism, speed, stickskills, positive attitude, dedication and sports iq win the day. If your son has these attributes and the “holdback” does not amen for you son. If, on the other hand, your son continues to struggle when playing teams with “holdbacks” stop complaining and realize no body cares, work harder; or stop playing club ball vs teams from other states and instead play in local leagues and tourneys that conform to the age rules you so covet.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/11/20 01:53 PM
I could care less what team wins. My son is 8. I’m talking about individual players. Not score results of games. Again he is 8. Truth of the matter is, I’d be embarrassed if my son went against 6 and 7 year olds. I’d feel embarrassed telling my son good game. That’s just me.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/11/20 03:06 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I could care less what team wins. My son is 8. I’m talking about individual players. Not score results of games. Again he is 8. Truth of the matter is, I’d be embarrassed if my son went against 6 and 7 year olds. I’d feel embarrassed telling my son good game. That’s just me.

Would to see lax go to age based teams. Then all the complaints will be about all the age based kids who have matured early & are so much taller, faster & stronger than the other kids. Complainers want to complain , it never ends.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/11/20 03:43 PM
"Sports, like in life, will see the cream rise. If your son or his team cannot hang against a team that has two or three kids 6 or 9 months older them him please accept the fact that your son or his team just are not as good as the other team. Constant blaming, crying or calling foul only demeans your son, his team and you. As the slogan goes - “Nobody cares, work harder!”

Congratulations! the above poster wins the award for toughest BOC dad and densest. Organized youth sports-play your own age. HS, College, post college, after all the kids have developed and matured great, whatever, there will be holdbacks, leftbacks, re-classed, pg, 5th year, grad students, no problem. Again, THERE IS NO LOGICAL ARGUMENT AGAINST FOR YOUTH SPORTS BEING AGED BASED.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/11/20 04:23 PM
Dude my sons team had 5 holdbacks out of like 16 kids, some kids stared late the others repeated 3rd grade. This on a youth team. A kid has to sit because another kids parents cheated ? High school is best play. Travel you know there is cheating. On a youth PAL team one set of parents is advancing their child by cheating and diminishing the other kids because their kid couldn't compete. Why should a kid have to wait to get better ,getting discouraged for years because someone else is cheating?
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/11/20 04:28 PM
You and I would be embarrassed but some parents want their 8 year old to beat on 6 year olds to build their confidence especially if no one finds out. Screw your 6 year old. You usually find out when your older kids say hi to that kid and says he plays against the kid in a age requlated sport.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/11/20 05:41 PM
Same on my kids team. One of those kids had a great game last spring. I was driving my son and his friend home after the game. I remember saying, so and so had a great game. He is really good. The boys started giggling they were in 3rd grade. I said what’s so funny. They said you know he was left back. He is older than everyone else. The next practice I spoke to another couple dads. He wasn’t left back, his parents held him back. He is a really good player, but against younger kids, he is off the charts good. I’d also be embarrassed by this. How his parents can sit and watch the game, cheer like everything is all peachy is laughable. Plus all the kids know this. For a parent to do this to his son at this young age, embarrassing. You want your son to be off the charts good. Do it the right way. Practice hard. Get him training. That’s the way to do it.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/11/20 10:48 PM
i remember growing up it was admirable to play up a year - that was a badge of honor to say you were good enough to. Today, parents think it's glorious to have their kids play down... to dominate the younger age group... maybe they will get that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, right? $5500 of scholarship money to Jacksonville University? A lifetime of teaching faceoff clinics or coaching PAL?
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/12/20 12:01 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Same on my kids team. One of those kids had a great game last spring. I was driving my son and his friend home after the game. I remember saying, so and so had a great game. He is really good. The boys started giggling they were in 3rd grade. I said what’s so funny. They said you know he was left back. He is older than everyone else. The next practice I spoke to another couple dads. He wasn’t left back, his parents held him back. He is a really good player, but against younger kids, he is off the charts good. I’d also be embarrassed by this. How his parents can sit and watch the game, cheer like everything is all peachy is laughable. Plus all the kids know this. For a parent to do this to his son at this young age, embarrassing. You want your son to be off the charts good. Do it the right way. Practice hard. Get him training. That’s the way to do it.


The parents do it because they think they have everything figured out. They could care less who they may be hurting. Cheating and lying are intentional practices. We all know who you are and will be routing against your kid. I love the honest hardworking warriors out there....go get it!
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/12/20 03:15 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Same on my kids team. One of those kids had a great game last spring. I was driving my son and his friend home after the game. I remember saying, so and so had a great game. He is really good. The boys started giggling they were in 3rd grade. I said what’s so funny. They said you know he was left back. He is older than everyone else. The next practice I spoke to another couple dads. He wasn’t left back, his parents held him back. He is a really good player, but against younger kids, he is off the charts good. I’d also be embarrassed by this. How his parents can sit and watch the game, cheer like everything is all peachy is laughable. Plus all the kids know this. For a parent to do this to his son at this young age, embarrassing. You want your son to be off the charts good. Do it the right way. Practice hard. Get him training. That’s the way to do it.


The parents do it because they think they have everything figured out. They could care less who they may be hurting. Cheating and lying are intentional practices. We all know who you are and will be routing against your kid. I love the honest hardworking warriors out there....go get it!


When your children (and the holdbacks you despise) get to Varsity HS and college, the best players play. Whether they are 14 or 19... 17 or 25. Doesn't matter. Let them play youth sports in peace- lace em up and see what happens.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/12/20 12:03 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
This thread has become boring to the point of being irrelevant. The non stop complaining about a kid who happens to be 6 or 9 months older then other kids being what justifies him being a superior player is dense and long in the tooth. My son plays basketball and lacrosse. He has kids who are young in both seasons who have or currently play-up in age and were/are top players. Likewise there are kids on these teams who are on grade but younger then others who are superior players. During the basketball season his team played against, and beat teams, that were a grade older then them. Why? The guys on his team, whether young or on grade, were better players then the other guys despite the other guys being older, a little bigger and stronger.

Likewise, when I was a kid I played both sandlot sports and organized sports. On the sand lot I played against guys 2 and 3 years older then me. Competing against these guys these guys “in no blood / no foul” games made me a much better player in organized sports despite me being a non “holdback” with an August birthday. During high school I was always one of the better players on the team, was a varsity basketball starter as a sophomore and team captain in my jr and sr years despite being way younger then the other guys on the team.

Sports, like in life, will see the cream rise. If your son or his team cannot hang against a team that has two or three kids 6 or 9 months older them him please accept the fact that your son or his team just are not as good as the other team. Constant blaming, crying or calling foul only demeans your son, his team and you. As the slogan goes - “Nobody cares, work harder!”


It is always the same. Some reason all the holdback parents want their holdback son to get better playing down yet tell us parents that our on age son will get better playing against their older son. Total Hypocrites.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/12/20 02:03 PM
I don’t despise anyone. It’s not kids fault it’s parents. Do you hear well? It’s not 14 to 19 or 18 to 25. It’s youth sports. They can play in peace. Play their age is peaceful. It’s not loud playing your age. It’s called fair. All I’m saying 15 times in a row. I’d be embarrassed if my 8 year old dominated 6 and 7 year olds. This seems like a cut and dry statement. My question to you peaceful mom or dad. Would you not be embarrassed if your 8 year old went against 6 and 7 year olds? I just can’t imagine normal people not being embarrassed by this.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/12/20 06:44 PM
Nice one! Jordan the Goat was cut for an older bigger kid in high school! So if a super talent had problems beating out an older better kid what chance does a regular kid have when a parent has their kid play down because of a loophole. At least Jordan was HS Varsity. See how it affected Jordan? Did you hear his hall of fame speech? What a donk. Used his podium of honor to denigrate a retired teacher and coach, old teamates, coaches, his kids and others. No class. I would hope that sports would teach our kids better. I used to think he was the man in the 80s. Now my favorite Michael Jordan story is that he threatened to beat up Robert Parish's in practice and Parish said okay lets go, Jordan walked away. Just a Bully.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/12/20 08:02 PM
I agree that having an 8 year old playing a 6 year old is pretty bizarre. My point is most “holdbacks” are not 2 years older then the kids they play. More likely the kid was born in June or July so he is on average maybe 4 to 8 months older. The problem I have is you conflate your 2 year age example and smear it evenly across all so called “holdbacks” as if - 2 yeaa as r age difference is common when it is the exception.

For kids who are a few months early of your magic September cut off date, please do not judge them or the their folks until you walk a mile in their shoes.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/12/20 11:32 PM
If the kid is on average only 4 to 8 months older why so scared to play on age against kids 4 to 8 months older? No way thats crazy little johnny might get pushed around.......instead I will do to younger kids what I fear might happen to my kid. In fact I might send him to do private school so he can get another year so he can dominate. Parents that think their kid is good will play them up not beat on younger kids. When I was a kid the older kids respected the kid playing up and looked out for them. The younger kid looked up to those guys. Nowadays , I saw a holdback on a middle school team who slap a teamate who is the youngest littlest kid on the team in the helmet telling him to catch the ball. This is the same kid that in youth league got rocked and cried when when he scrimmaged against the year older team which he should have been on but repeated the grade. Can't compete repeat or holdback so you can bully younger kids instead of earning your peers respect.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/12/20 11:33 PM
If the kid is on average only 4 to 8 months older why so scared to play on age against kids 4 to 8 months older? No way thats crazy little johnny might get pushed around.......instead I will do to younger kids what I fear might happen to my kid. In fact I might send him to do private school so he can get another year so he can dominate. Parents that think their kid is good will play them up not beat on younger kids. When I was a kid the older kids respected the kid playing up and looked out for them. The younger kid looked up to those guys. Nowadays , I saw a holdback on a middle school team who slap a teamate who is the youngest littlest kid on the team in the helmet telling him to catch the ball. This is the same kid that in youth league got rocked and cried when when he scrimmaged against the year older team which he should have been on but repeated the grade. Can't compete repeat or holdback so you can bully younger kids instead of earning your peers respect.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/12/20 11:43 PM
First off it’s not my magic cutoff date. It’s the lacrosse date used. Secondly I said 8 year olds playing 6 and 7 year olds. That means 1 to 2 years. Stop twisting things. My son is playing his grade. He is April. Now if I hold him back a year, he will play kids 1 year to possibly 2 years younger than him. If I were to watch my son run up and down the field on these younger kids, I’d feel like an embarrassment. That’s all I’m saying. I don’t need to walk in other peoples shoes. What does that even mean?. Walk in their shoes to have an 8 year old play younger kids. What kind of response is that. Discussion over.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/13/20 01:28 AM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
First off it’s not my magic cutoff date. It’s the lacrosse date used. Secondly I said 8 year olds playing 6 and 7 year olds. That means 1 to 2 years. Stop twisting things. My son is playing his grade. He is April. Now if I hold him back a year, he will play kids 1 year to possibly 2 years younger than him. If I were to watch my son run up and down the field on these younger kids, I’d feel like an embarrassment. That’s all I’m saying. I don’t need to walk in other peoples shoes. What does that even mean?. Walk in their shoes to have an 8 year old play younger kids. What kind of response is that. Discussion over.

This guy is right and on top of this the states have different grade cut off so this holdback thing is even more complicated. My kid is March school cut off is December he is 9 months older than some December kid. The holdback is August/Sept he is 7 months older than my kid. He is 16 months older than the December kid. Now go to a state with September cutoff take a holdback from that state add another 6 months. They are are the same grade at a travel tournament. My kid can't cut it,I will let him beat on younger kids. The only magic is the parent cheating. We all know magic is illusion and tricks.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/13/20 01:12 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Same on my kids team. One of those kids had a great game last spring. I was driving my son and his friend home after the game. I remember saying, so and so had a great game. He is really good. The boys started giggling they were in 3rd grade. I said what’s so funny. They said you know he was left back. He is older than everyone else. The next practice I spoke to another couple dads. He wasn’t left back, his parents held him back. He is a really good player, but against younger kids, he is off the charts good. I’d also be embarrassed by this. How his parents can sit and watch the game, cheer like everything is all peachy is laughable. Plus all the kids know this. For a parent to do this to his son at this young age, embarrassing. You want your son to be off the charts good. Do it the right way. Practice hard. Get him training. That’s the way to do it.


More embarrassing to me are the parents who moan and complain on the sidelines when a big kid outplays their kid or team. My son is a tall, good player (from MD). Every time we play a NY team I hear dads complaining that he's a hold back when he scores. I am 6'2, my wife is almost 6'0, he is on grade. bigger doesn't mean hold back.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/13/20 01:21 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
First off it’s not my magic cutoff date. It’s the lacrosse date used. Secondly I said 8 year olds playing 6 and 7 year olds. That means 1 to 2 years. Stop twisting things. My son is playing his grade. He is April. Now if I hold him back a year, he will play kids 1 year to possibly 2 years younger than him. If I were to watch my son run up and down the field on these younger kids, I’d feel like an embarrassment. That’s all I’m saying. I don’t need to walk in other peoples shoes. What does that even mean?. Walk in their shoes to have an 8 year old play younger kids. What kind of response is that. Discussion over.

This guy is right and on top of this the states have different grade cut off so this holdback thing is even more complicated. My kid is March school cut off is December he is 9 months older than some December kid. The holdback is August/Sept he is 7 months older than my kid. He is 16 months older than the December kid. Now go to a state with September cutoff take a holdback from that state add another 6 months. They are are the same grade at a travel tournament. My kid can't cut it,I will let him beat on younger kids. The only magic is the parent cheating. We all know magic is illusion and tricks.



Did anyone celebrate Easter with their family yesterday? Give it a rest already. No one of any importance from US lacrosse is on here ever. It’s just a bunch of frustrated dads who can’t come to grips with their sons ability.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/13/20 01:47 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
First off it’s not my magic cutoff date. It’s the lacrosse date used. Secondly I said 8 year olds playing 6 and 7 year olds. That means 1 to 2 years. Stop twisting things. My son is playing his grade. He is April. Now if I hold him back a year, he will play kids 1 year to possibly 2 years younger than him. If I were to watch my son run up and down the field on these younger kids, I’d feel like an embarrassment. That’s all I’m saying. I don’t need to walk in other peoples shoes. What does that even mean?. Walk in their shoes to have an 8 year old play younger kids. What kind of response is that. Discussion over.

This guy is right and on top of this the states have different grade cut off so this holdback thing is even more complicated. My kid is March school cut off is December he is 9 months older than some December kid. The holdback is August/Sept he is 7 months older than my kid. He is 16 months older than the December kid. Now go to a state with September cutoff take a holdback from that state add another 6 months. They are are the same grade at a travel tournament. My kid can't cut it,I will let him beat on younger kids. The only magic is the parent cheating. We all know magic is illusion and tricks.


It doesn't matter... if the kids are good enough, they are good enough. Regardless of age. Freshman play varsity against seniors and seniors play against freshman. Just play. If you are good, you won't get missed.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/13/20 02:31 PM
Again, discussion over. It’s like talking to robots. Seniors playing against freshman. . Freshman playing against seniors. That’s High school. Do you not here well? I’m talking youth. My 8 year old playing against 6 and 7 year olds, would be an embarrassment. Watching my kid run through younger kids, I’d feel ashamed. Now some other guy is saying he is 6 foot 2. I’m not talking size. Do you hear well too. I don’t care if your youth kid is 6 foot 8. I’m talking about youth holdbacks. Parents who do this, in my opinion, are embarrassments. Normal parents are talking behind your backs, they are bad mouthing you.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/13/20 03:29 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Same on my kids team. One of those kids had a great game last spring. I was driving my son and his friend home after the game. I remember saying, so and so had a great game. He is really good. The boys started giggling they were in 3rd grade. I said what’s so funny. They said you know he was left back. He is older than everyone else. The next practice I spoke to another couple dads. He wasn’t left back, his parents held him back. He is a really good player, but against younger kids, he is off the charts good. I’d also be embarrassed by this. How his parents can sit and watch the game, cheer like everything is all peachy is laughable. Plus all the kids know this. For a parent to do this to his son at this young age, embarrassing. You want your son to be off the charts good. Do it the right way. Practice hard. Get him training. That’s the way to do it.


More embarrassing to me are the parents who moan and complain on the sidelines when a big kid outplays their kid or team. My son is a tall, good player (from MD). Every time we play a NY team I hear dads complaining that he's a hold back when he scores. I am 6'2, my wife is almost 6'0, he is on grade. bigger doesn't mean hold back.


When I see a big kid I have brains enough to look at the sideline. If I see parents that are 6+ ft then you can obviously tell thats why that kid is so big, not that he is a holdback. There are many times when there are 5 kids on a team who are a head taller and none of the parents are over 5ft 8. There is a very successful high school soccer team near me. Might be ranked top 3 in the country now. Growing up they always had kids who were way bigger and often times more skilled then everyone else. None of the parents are over 5ft 5. I know one of the coaches there and he told me there is nothing he can do. They show him a birth certificate from some country that looks made up and that the kid has a full beard but the birth certificate says he is only 11.

Point being it is usually easy to see which teams are using holdbacks/cheating. Looks at the parents. 99% of the time dna doesn't lie.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/13/20 03:59 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Again, discussion over. It’s like talking to robots. Seniors playing against freshman. . Freshman playing against seniors. That’s High school. Do you not here well? I’m talking youth. My 8 year old playing against 6 and 7 year olds, would be an embarrassment. Watching my kid run through younger kids, I’d feel ashamed. Now some other guy is saying he is 6 foot 2. I’m not talking size. Do you hear well too. I don’t care if your youth kid is 6 foot 8. I’m talking about youth holdbacks. Parents who do this, in my opinion, are embarrassments. Normal parents are talking behind your backs, they are bad mouthing you.


Why do you think that life is fair? Its not and never will be. Competition in youth sports is optional. You know what you are getting into when you sign up. Yes it stinks that there are cheaters and amoral leaders. Its not going to change until "you" change. The governing bodies are feckless because they are concerned about protecting the organization above its members. So choose. Work your butt off for change, or survive the system and see what happens. IMO there are bigger issues to tackle before we can get to this one. In hindsight one day I suspect you will realize it never really mattered anyway. While living it, its angering. Think of it this way, encourage your son to play, have fun, even if its for a B team, train, get better, and if he wants to kick butt in HS, get prepared.
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Again, discussion over. It’s like talking to robots. Seniors playing against freshman. . Freshman playing against seniors. That’s High school. Do you not here well? I’m talking youth. My 8 year old playing against 6 and 7 year olds, would be an embarrassment. Watching my kid run through younger kids, I’d feel ashamed. Now some other guy is saying he is 6 foot 2. I’m not talking size. Do you hear well too. I don’t care if your youth kid is 6 foot 8. I’m talking about youth holdbacks. Parents who do this, in my opinion, are embarrassments. Normal parents are talking behind your backs, they are bad mouthing you.


Why do you think that life is fair? Its not and never will be. Competition in youth sports is optional. You know what you are getting into when you sign up. Yes it stinks that there are cheaters and amoral leaders. Its not going to change until "you" change. The governing bodies are feckless because they are concerned about protecting the organization above its members. So choose. Work your butt off for change, or survive the system and see what happens. IMO there are bigger issues to tackle before we can get to this one. In hindsight one day I suspect you will realize it never really mattered anyway. While living it, its angering. Think of it this way, encourage your son to play, have fun, even if its for a B team, train, get better, and if he wants to kick butt in HS, get prepared.


I still don't understand what makes lacrosse so special that it is the only sport still organized by grade instead of age. Not whining, just haven't heard a coherent argument for why that should be.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/13/20 05:49 PM
The question isn’t about the governing body of lacrosse. I agree, they allow this. The question is simply to the parents of other kids. Parents of a youth holdbacks. The question is what do you feel like watching your older son, run through kids 1 to 2 years younger. Not high school parents, not college parents. Youth parents. I just want to know that answer. What do you feel when you see your son doing this? Just answer the question.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/13/20 05:51 PM
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Again, discussion over. It’s like talking to robots. Seniors playing against freshman. . Freshman playing against seniors. That’s High school. Do you not here well? I’m talking youth. My 8 year old playing against 6 and 7 year olds, would be an embarrassment. Watching my kid run through younger kids, I’d feel ashamed. Now some other guy is saying he is 6 foot 2. I’m not talking size. Do you hear well too. I don’t care if your youth kid is 6 foot 8. I’m talking about youth holdbacks. Parents who do this, in my opinion, are embarrassments. Normal parents are talking behind your backs, they are bad mouthing you.


Why do you think that life is fair? Its not and never will be. Competition in youth sports is optional. You know what you are getting into when you sign up. Yes it stinks that there are cheaters and amoral leaders. Its not going to change until "you" change. The governing bodies are feckless because they are concerned about protecting the organization above its members. So choose. Work your butt off for change, or survive the system and see what happens. IMO there are bigger issues to tackle before we can get to this one. In hindsight one day I suspect you will realize it never really mattered anyway. While living it, its angering. Think of it this way, encourage your son to play, have fun, even if its for a B team, train, get better, and if he wants to kick butt in HS, get prepared.


Thats the right stuff that built this country. I just told my second grader all that, Who cares if those other boys are older by 1 year to two years and should be in a grade higher . You need to learn these bitter life lessons when you are a second grader. Time for you to GROW UP !! Quit acting like a second grader , time to be an adult and learn life's lessons. " So choose. Work your butt off for change, or survive the system and see what happens." and while you are at it, get a job, I am tired of carrying you.

Always thought that youth sports should give an advantage to select kids that others dont get.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Age and Reclassification. The good the bad the ugly! - 04/13/20 05:58 PM
Originally Posted by cltlax
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Again, discussion over. It’s like talking to robots. Seniors playing against freshman. . Freshman playing against seniors. That’s High school. Do you not here well? I’m talking youth. My 8 year old playing against 6 and 7 year olds, would be an embarrassment. Watching my kid run through younger kids, I’d feel ashamed. Now some other guy is saying he is 6 foot 2. I’m not talking size. Do you hear well too. I don’t care if your youth kid is 6 foot 8. I’m talking about youth holdbacks. Parents who do this, in my opinion, are embarrassments. Normal parents are talking behind your backs, they are bad mouthing you.


Why do you think that life is fair? Its not and never will be. Competition in youth sports is optional. You know what you are getting into when you sign up. Yes it stinks that there are cheaters and amoral leaders. Its not going to change until "you" change. The governing bodies are feckless because they are concerned about protecting the organization above its members. So choose. Work your butt off for change, or survive the system and see what happens. IMO there are bigger issues to tackle before we can get to this one. In hindsight one day I suspect you will realize it never really mattered anyway. While living it, its angering. Think of it this way, encourage your son to play, have fun, even if its for a B team, train, get better, and if he wants to kick butt in HS, get prepared.


I still don't understand what makes lacrosse so special that it is the only sport still organized by grade instead of age. Not whining, just haven't heard a coherent argument for why that should be.


My son plays basketball year round in the DMV and every tournament we play in is organized as 5th grade, 6th grade, 7th grade, 8th grade . My son is a normal average kid with some decent skills.