STATS ON PLAYTIME OF FORMER Capital players in College?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My daughter didn’t make Capital so now I am posting to this forum about how Capital is a terrible club.

My daughter made Capital and loves her team and Coaches! We also LOVE Healthy Baller! I do feel bad for the kids/parents that do not get to be part of such an amazing Club! Website updates and improvements would make it a phenomenal club for sure! No club is perfect. We love Capital! We love following all the older girls now at college and watching their games! Go Capital!!!

What year is your DD?

Obviously not a 27 or 28.

Pretty please, will you try the M&D DC instead of Capital sales pitch here in this forum? I’m sure it will be well received. Go for it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read this and think to myself "thank god I don't have the worries of this person" - just want my kid to use the sport to get into a great school and have a great experience. If that means they never play so what [/quote

I have a kid in a different D1 sport. They played the first 8 games of the season freshman year, then was inextricably benched the rest of the season. No explanation, nothing. It's horrible To say "so what," means you truly don't understand what these players give up in college to be on these teams. To give up all that and not play is almost pointless. In my kids case, they had a great sophomore season. We'll see what happens next. But not playing at all is pretty pointless. And the fact is, many of these Capital players do not play. It's great that there are a few here and there, but the majority are not. That's just a fact.

I understand it can be frustrating but you picked the school first right? Meaning you didn't just go to the school for lacrosse. If you used it as a means to egt into a school you may have had difficulty getting into without then I think your kid would still be thankful to be there and apart of the team regardless of playing time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:2025 season stats on active rosters of the top three teams comparing playing time of Capital, M&D and Hero's players:

UNC #1
- Two M&D players have each played in 14 games
- One Capital player has played in 8 games
- No Hero's players are on the roster



BC #2
- One Capital player has played in 15 games
- One M&D player has played in three games
- One M&D player has played in zero games
- No Hero's players are on the roster

NW #3

- One Capital player has played in 10 games
- No M&D or Hero's players are on the roster

Total games played among the top three teams in 2025:

- Capital players = 33
- M&D players = 31
- Hero's = 0

Thank you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:StoneRidge 2022 grad - O’Connor- Boston College Junior 14 games played

SJC 2023 grad- Archer- Northwestern sophomore 9 games played

Notably, in light of the conversation re freshmen, 0’Connor didn’t play much her first 2 years because BC is stacked but as a junior she starts.

.
You make a really good point about the roster being stacked. These are good things to remember when you’re involved in the recruiting process and choosing a school; that even if you’re a five star recruit, if your roster is stacked, you will not see the field as much. The recruit must take some of these factors into consideration. i’m glad to hear she’s is playing more as a junior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I read this and think to myself "thank god I don't have the worries of this person" - just want my kid to use the sport to get into a great school and have a great experience. If that means they never play so what

The objective of any athlete is to play the sport and dominate. No player is happy sitting on the bench, please stop with this cop out crap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The relative lack of success of Capital players at the college level is partly the result of Capital's "fair play" system. Dominant players get approximately the same playing time as less dominant players. That helps with the development and recruiting of the less dominant players. In other clubs the less dominant player would not get as much time or development. But, that system can also hurt the team (through less wins) and the more dominant players b.c the more dominate player might not get as much playing time or accolades, which can impact player rankings etc. Those player rankings then impact allocated scholarship money, and consequently playing opportunities at the college level. It only makes sense for college coaches to give more playing opportunities to the players with the higher scholarship amounts. As Capital's recruiting success bears out, the fair play system works very well at getting significant numbers of commits to D1 program. Its not as great at allowing the most dominate players to shine as brightly (as compared to other clubs) which can lead to more buzz, higher rankings, scholarships & consequently college opportunities.

Teams for 27s were set and never changed. I watched Spring Fling and Capital Orange girls started on some of the top teams while Capital blue girls barely played or not at all. There’s no way the teams that were picked when girls were finishing 8th grade are still accurate. The model is flawed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My daughter is from Howard County and plays for Heroes and didn't get the GPA or SAT scores of Capital Kids that go to top schools. Therefore I am going to trash on Capital Recruit play time.

My daughter is from Arlington County and plays for Capital and got the best GPA and SAT scores to all her top schools. Therefore I watch as she got $0 in scholarship money and sit on the bench for 4 years. Just to protect the Capital recruiting image.

huzzah! Truth shall set you all free. Cap parents will never concede because they planned, manipulated, and spent loads of money living to impress someone else. For every one cap player that actually plays there are dozens who ride the pine and wonder how it ended up the way it did.

What you will never understand is that we love your obsession with us.

We love your commitment to.posting continuously on DCUM as well.

Which is what you’ve just done.

[Anonymous]

On the very top teams that have the best chance of vying for a national championship, Capital players see more time on the field than M&D and Hero’s players combined.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read this and think to myself "thank god I don't have the worries of this person" - just want my kid to use the sport to get into a great school and have a great experience. If that means they never play so what

I have a kid in a different D1 sport. They played the first 8 games of the season freshman year, then was inextricably benched the rest of the season. No explanation, nothing. It's horrible To say "so what," means you truly don't understand what these players give up in college to be on these teams. To give up all that and not play is almost pointless. In my kids case, they had a great sophomore season. We'll see what happens next. But not playing at all is pretty pointless. And the fact is, many of these Capital players do not play. It's great that there are a few here and there, but the majority are not. That's just a fact.

I understand it can be frustrating but you picked the school first right? Meaning you didn't just go to the school for lacrosse. If you used it as a means to egt into a school you may have had difficulty getting into without then I think your kid would still be thankful to be there and apart of the team regardless of playing time.

My daughter has always played her sport because she loves it and thrives on being competitive and playing hard. She never played with the goal of getting into a school she wouldn't have without it. That's just an odd reason to commit so much time to a sport. Did she have a goal of playing D1 in college? Yes. Again, to play--not just to get into a college she couldn't otherwise. I wonder if those who do think like that are the ones sitting out. It must be so much more draining to play a sport you're not that into and doing it only for college acceptance. Anyway, as i said, she played lots of time in every game sophomore year and is feeling good about the seasons ahead--at a top univesity. Would she have chosen that without her sport? Probably not honestly, but only because of location. But it checked all the other boxes and she loves it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The relative lack of success of Capital players at the college level is partly the result of Capital's "fair play" system. Dominant players get approximately the same playing time as less dominant players. That helps with the development and recruiting of the less dominant players. In other clubs the less dominant player would not get as much time or development. But, that system can also hurt the team (through less wins) and the more dominant players b.c the more dominate player might not get as much playing time or accolades, which can impact player rankings etc. Those player rankings then impact allocated scholarship money, and consequently playing opportunities at the college level. It only makes sense for college coaches to give more playing opportunities to the players with the higher scholarship amounts. As Capital's recruiting success bears out, the fair play system works very well at getting significant numbers of commits to D1 program. Its not as great at allowing the most dominate players to shine as brightly (as compared to other clubs) which can lead to more buzz, higher rankings, scholarships & consequently college opportunities.

Teams for 27s were set and never changed. I watched Spring Fling and Capital Orange girls started on some of the top teams while Capital blue girls barely played or not at all. There’s no way the teams that were picked when girls were finishing 8th grade are still accurate. The model is flawed.

This is a silly argument. For some schools an orange girl might start because she’s the best girl they have at that position. For another school a blue girl might be in a position where she plays behind several older girls who are also on top teams. Different teams have different depths on their bench. Just because an orange girl on one team gets more playing time than a blue girl on another team, doesn’t mean the orange girl is better than the blue girl.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read this and think to myself "thank god I don't have the worries of this person" - just want my kid to use the sport to get into a great school and have a great experience. If that means they never play so what

I have a kid in a different D1 sport. They played the first 8 games of the season freshman year, then was inextricably benched the rest of the season. No explanation, nothing. It's horrible To say "so what," means you truly don't understand what these players give up in college to be on these teams. To give up all that and not play is almost pointless. In my kids case, they had a great sophomore season. We'll see what happens next. But not playing at all is pretty pointless. And the fact is, many of these Capital players do not play. It's great that there are a few here and there, but the majority are not. That's just a fact.

I understand it can be frustrating but you picked the school first right? Meaning you didn't just go to the school for lacrosse. If you used it as a means to egt into a school you may have had difficulty getting into without then I think your kid would still be thankful to be there and apart of the team regardless of playing time.

My daughter has always played her sport because she loves it and thrives on being competitive and playing hard. She never played with the goal of getting into a school she wouldn't have without it. That's just an odd reason to commit so much time to a sport. Did she have a goal of playing D1 in college? Yes. Again, to play--not just to get into a college she couldn't otherwise. I wonder if those who do think like that are the ones sitting out. It must be so much more draining to play a sport you're not that into and doing it only for college acceptance. Anyway, as i said, she played lots of time in every game sophomore year and is feeling good about the seasons ahead--at a top univesity. Would she have chosen that without her sport? Probably not honestly, but only because of location. But it checked all the other boxes and she loves it.

Different strokes. Some prioritize playing time. Some prioritize lacrosse ranking at expense of playing time. Some join great teams and don’t play initially, but overcome obstacles to earn their spot. Some prioritize education. Some find a balance of top 25 school, top 25 lacrosse and playing time. Some are fine riding the bench bec they view it as an athletic sorority experience. Some prioritize scholarship money. Whatever the decision, doesn’t matter. The second you say one is better than the other? That’s when you sound like a dick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read this and think to myself "thank god I don't have the worries of this person" - just want my kid to use the sport to get into a great school and have a great experience. If that means they never play so what

I have a kid in a different D1 sport. They played the first 8 games of the season freshman year, then was inextricably benched the rest of the season. No explanation, nothing. It's horrible To say "so what," means you truly don't understand what these players give up in college to be on these teams. To give up all that and not play is almost pointless. In my kids case, they had a great sophomore season. We'll see what happens next. But not playing at all is pretty pointless. And the fact is, many of these Capital players do not play. It's great that there are a few here and there, but the majority are not. That's just a fact.

I understand it can be frustrating but you picked the school first right? Meaning you didn't just go to the school for lacrosse. If you used it as a means to egt into a school you may have had difficulty getting into without then I think your kid would still be thankful to be there and apart of the team regardless of playing time.

My daughter has always played her sport because she loves it and thrives on being competitive and playing hard. She never played with the goal of getting into a school she wouldn't have without it. That's just an odd reason to commit so much time to a sport. Did she have a goal of playing D1 in college? Yes. Again, to play--not just to get into a college she couldn't otherwise. I wonder if those who do think like that are the ones sitting out. It must be so much more draining to play a sport you're not that into and doing it only for college acceptance. Anyway, as i said, she played lots of time in every game sophomore year and is feeling good about the seasons ahead--at a top univesity. Would she have chosen that without her sport? Probably not honestly, but only because of location. But it checked all the other boxes and she loves it.

Different strokes. Some prioritize playing time. Some prioritize lacrosse ranking at expense of playing time. Some join great teams and don’t play initially, but overcome obstacles to earn their spot. Some prioritize education. Some find a balance of top 25 school, top 25 lacrosse and playing time. Some are fine riding the bench bec they view it as an athletic sorority experience. Some prioritize scholarship money. Whatever the decision, doesn’t matter. The second you say one is better than the other? That’s when you sound like a dick.

I don't know, I'd think the person using that kind of language toward fellow human beings is the dick here. But that's a lacrosee parent for you.

[Anonymous]

There is a former capital player(not a sssa player), who never gets mentioned by capital. She was on the us national team, tewartan finalist, plays professionally, owns her own lax company, and was in sports illustrated. Even married into a men’s famous lax family. Sad she never got the recognition from capital or that prentice don’t even know she exists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a former capital player(not a sssa player), who never gets mentioned by capital. She was on the us national team, tewartan finalist, plays professionally, owns her own lax company, and was in sports illustrated. Even married into a men’s famous lax family. Sad she never got the recognition from capital or that prentice don’t even know she exists.

I didn't know that. Cool. Quite a lacrosse career.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read this and think to myself "thank god I don't have the worries of this person" - just want my kid to use the sport to get into a great school and have a great experience. If that means they never play so what

I have a kid in a different D1 sport. They played the first 8 games of the season freshman year, then was inextricably benched the rest of the season. No explanation, nothing. It's horrible To say "so what," means you truly don't understand what these players give up in college to be on these teams. To give up all that and not play is almost pointless. In my kids case, they had a great sophomore season. We'll see what happens next. But not playing at all is pretty pointless. And the fact is, many of these Capital players do not play. It's great that there are a few here and there, but the majority are not. That's just a fact.

I understand it can be frustrating but you picked the school first right? Meaning you didn't just go to the school for lacrosse. If you used it as a means to egt into a school you may have had difficulty getting into without then I think your kid would still be thankful to be there and apart of the team regardless of playing time.

My daughter has always played her sport because she loves it and thrives on being competitive and playing hard. She never played with the goal of getting into a school she wouldn't have without it. That's just an odd reason to commit so much time to a sport. Did she have a goal of playing D1 in college? Yes. Again, to play--not just to get into a college she couldn't otherwise. I wonder if those who do think like that are the ones sitting out. It must be so much more draining to play a sport you're not that into and doing it only for college acceptance. Anyway, as i said, she played lots of time in every game sophomore year and is feeling good about the seasons ahead--at a top univesity. Would she have chosen that without her sport? Probably not honestly, but only because of location. But it checked all the other boxes and she loves it.

Different strokes. Some prioritize playing time. Some prioritize lacrosse ranking at expense of playing time. Some join great teams and don’t play initially, but overcome obstacles to earn their spot. Some prioritize education. Some find a balance of top 25 school, top 25 lacrosse and playing time. Some are fine riding the bench bec they view it as an athletic sorority experience. Some prioritize scholarship money. Whatever the decision, doesn’t matter. The second you say one is better than the other? That’s when you sound like a dick.

I don't know, I'd think the person using that kind of language toward fellow human beings is the dick here. But that's a lacrosee parent for you.

You had us at “I don’t know.” Should have stopped there.