D1 Women's lacrosse and playing time

[Anonymous]

Given the strength of the various high school and club teams in the DMV area is it surprising how few players actually see time as a starter or major contributor at the college level? Understood there are 3-4 times total players on most rosters than can be on the field at any given time but for every one starter/contributor there are probably 6-8 players, many highly touted recruits, who don't see the field. Is this the same for most areas where lacrosse is a top recruited sport?

[Anonymous]

I don’t know if it’s that surprising when you think the Top 20 D1 teams collectively may have about 160 commits each year. I’m not sure what percentage come from this area, but assuming 10% that’s only 16 players per year or a little less than one commit per top 20 team. With these top rosters filled with 30+ players it is very hard to crack the lineup, especially as a starter. Most will see limited to no playing time over their four years on the top teams.

It’s a different experience for lower level D1 teams. Average players will start and get significant playing time. Once you get below the top 30 ranked teams no one really pays attention to the games and who’s playing. So, if you don’t see it the perception is no one is starting or making a difference.

Players have to really want the experience to choose this path and stick it out for four or five years. Many opt to stop playing after a few years, contributing to why you feel players don’t start or contribute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know if it’s that surprising when you think the Top 20 D1 teams collectively may have about 160 commits each year. I’m not sure what percentage come from this area, but assuming 10% that’s only 16 players per year or a little less than one commit per top 20 team. With these top rosters filled with 30+ players it is very hard to crack the lineup, especially as a starter. Most will see limited to no playing time over their four years on the top teams.

It’s a different experience for lower level D1 teams. Average players will start and get significant playing time. Once you get below the top 30 ranked teams no one really pays attention to the games and who’s playing. So, if you don’t see it the perception is no one is starting or making a difference.

Players have to really want the experience to choose this path and stick it out for four or five years. Many opt to stop playing after a few years, contributing to why you feel players don’t start or contribute.

Don’t listen to any of this. Competition and talent is abound at the 50+ teams. It’s tough everywhere.

[Anonymous]

What is also hard to accept is that if you are not seeing any playing time by your sophomore year the chances of getting on the field drastically reduce as coaches invest in the underclass development for future success. This is not to say some players grow into roles but that would be an exception to the rule

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know if it’s that surprising when you think the Top 20 D1 teams collectively may have about 160 commits each year. I’m not sure what percentage come from this area, but assuming 10% that’s only 16 players per year or a little less than one commit per top 20 team. With these top rosters filled with 30+ players it is very hard to crack the lineup, especially as a starter. Most will see limited to no playing time over their four years on the top teams.

It’s a different experience for lower level D1 teams. Average players will start and get significant playing time. Once you get below the top 30 ranked teams no one really pays attention to the games and who’s playing. So, if you don’t see it the perception is no one is starting or making a difference.

Players have to really want the experience to choose this path and stick it out for four or five years. Many opt to stop playing after a few years, contributing to why you feel players don’t start or contribute.

Don’t listen to any of this. Competition and talent is abound at the 50+ teams. It’s tough everywhere.

And the top 20+ D3s. Probably top D2s also, but there are none of those on my kid's list.

[Anonymous]

And this is not what most players and parents expect in the recruiting process so can be a big shock. Of an average 8 recruits maybe 1-2 become starters in first two years and as earlier poster said, it’s hard to crack the lineup after that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know if it’s that surprising when you think the Top 20 D1 teams collectively may have about 160 commits each year. I’m not sure what percentage come from this area, but assuming 10% that’s only 16 players per year or a little less than one commit per top 20 team. With these top rosters filled with 30+ players it is very hard to crack the lineup, especially as a starter. Most will see limited to no playing time over their four years on the top teams.

It’s a different experience for lower level D1 teams. Average players will start and get significant playing time. Once you get below the top 30 ranked teams no one really pays attention to the games and who’s playing. So, if you don’t see it the perception is no one is starting or making a difference.

Players have to really want the experience to choose this path and stick it out for four or five years. Many opt to stop playing after a few years, contributing to why you feel players don’t start or contribute.

Don’t listen to any of this. Competition and talent is abound at the 50+ teams. It’s tough everywhere.

Agree, 100%. The original post is ridiculous...playing at any D1 school is extremely competitive. Considering the commitment, it is not surprising how much better all the players get through their college experience, and for almost every program, there is legitimate competition for playing time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know if it’s that surprising when you think the Top 20 D1 teams collectively may have about 160 commits each year. I’m not sure what percentage come from this area, but assuming 10% that’s only 16 players per year or a little less than one commit per top 20 team. With these top rosters filled with 30+ players it is very hard to crack the lineup, especially as a starter. Most will see limited to no playing time over their four years on the top teams.

It’s a different experience for lower level D1 teams. Average players will start and get significant playing time. Once you get below the top 30 ranked teams no one really pays attention to the games and who’s playing. So, if you don’t see it the perception is no one is starting or making a difference.

Players have to really want the experience to choose this path and stick it out for four or five years. Many opt to stop playing after a few years, contributing to why you feel players don’t start or contribute.

For the record, no one really pays attention too much of any of women's lacrosse beyond the families in the programs, player alumni and families of players that want to play in college....

[Anonymous]

That is a strange comment from someone who would bother to read and respond to this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And this is not what most players and parents expect in the recruiting process so can be a big shock. Of an average 8 recruits maybe 1-2 become starters in first two years and as earlier poster said, it’s hard to crack the lineup after that.

That's why lower level programs stay at the lower level and never get any better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And this is not what most players and parents expect in the recruiting process so can be a big shock. Of an average 8 recruits maybe 1-2 become starters in first two years and as earlier poster said, it’s hard to crack the lineup after that.

That's why lower level programs stay at the lower level and never get any better.

Not following...

[Anonymous]

DMV players are no where near as good as say Long Island NY players.

Sorry people

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DMV players are no where near as good as say Long Island NY players.

Sorry people

Dumb comment

[Anonymous]

A lot of the new recruits just become practice players for the starters and the starting lineup. The players not starting serve a vital role and important role helping prepare the starting lineup for their upcoming games. Look at the huge rosters of some of the schools half those players do not travel & are the practice squad that learns the opposing teams defense so the starters can be ready game day.

[Anonymous]

going over freshman impact players from nova in the past years, Kelly Larkin at Navy in 2017, Zoe Belodeau at Penn in 2018, Annabel Frist at Stanford in 2022 are the only ones that registered in the Top 5 freshman for points in the country. Thats not a lot of representation over the past 8 years.... i dont know about defense or goaltending stats