Recruiting Question

[Anonymous]

Given that every year I’ve watched high school lacrosse a number of highly committed players look relatively average by the end of junior year or senior year and a number of mid or uncommitted players end up looking better, why don’t teams hold open more roster spots open to scoop up players towards the end of high school. Similarly, how come you don’t see more five star type players wait until the end of high school when they can better assess the roster to commit. You see this in basketball and football where a lot of five star players commit senior year (although some commitments are made much earlier). Why is lacrosse different in the sense that nearly everyone on both the player and the coach side go all in on commitments the summer before junior year? Is it just a collective action problem? And if so, how come the revenue sports don’t have the same issue? This is an earnest question. I’m not trying to denigrate anyone who commits or does not commit early. It just seems weird that lacrosse is so different than basketball and football in terms of timeline.

[Anonymous]

Good question—and honestly, I think it’s just the way the system has evolved more than anything else. Lacrosse has smaller rosters and limited scholarships, so coaches don’t want to risk waiting and missing out. Add in the club and showcase scene, and by the time kids are heading into junior year, most of them have already been seen a ton. So decisions get made early. You’re absolutely right though—some kids level off and others take big jumps later. But if a coach waits, there’s a good chance the top kids are already gone. So it turns into a bit of a chain reaction where everyone feels like they have to commit early.
With football and basketball, there’s more flexibility because of bigger rosters, more scholarships, and more exposure during senior year, which makes it easier to wait. Lacrosse just hasn’t shifted that way yet, even though the same late-development dynamic exists.

[Anonymous]

I don't know how much, if anything this contributes..... but the recruiting process is brutal an absolute grind in a way that is not normal for a child. It is absolutely exhausting emotionally and physically.

I think some of them "take it easy" and recover spring of Junior year. Also they are trying not to get hurt and limit injury and overuse. At least that is what I saw with my daughter. There was some recovery time that happened once she was committed and she wasn't in the best shape heading into high school lacrosse. Once she hit the summer before her senior year she upped the intensity and was in peak shape heading into college. But the post recruiting crash is real. I could see that showing up in high school game and contributing to what you are seeing on the field. That may explain some of what you are seeing.

[Anonymous]

Fantastic question.

I think in large part, it’s a game of musical chairs, you don’t want to be without a spot when music ends.

There is also a ton of over and under recruited kids, once you realize that, it all makes sense.

My 27 was a D1 recruit, we committed days into process not weeks or months. There was pressure but at same time, I feel like she was at place who valued her the most. And that means something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Given that every year I’ve watched high school lacrosse a number of highly committed players look relatively average by the end of junior year or senior year and a number of mid or uncommitted players end up looking better, why don’t teams hold open more roster spots open to scoop up players towards the end of high school. Similarly, how come you don’t see more five star type players wait until the end of high school when they can better assess the roster to commit. You see this in basketball and football where a lot of five star players commit senior year (although some commitments are made much earlier). Why is lacrosse different in the sense that nearly everyone on both the player and the coach side go all in on commitments the summer before junior year? Is it just a collective action problem? And if so, how come the revenue sports don’t have the same issue? This is an earnest question. I’m not trying to denigrate anyone who commits or does not commit early. It just seems weird that lacrosse is so different than basketball and football in terms of timeline.

A few things. First girls used to commit in middle school. Crazy I know but moving to junior year was a big change. Second lacrosse is used to get into the college of your choice not as an earnings vehicle or career. Third colleges sign 9-12 kids knowing only 3-4 will eventually play. A good percentage will quit in college or retire from injury. Wide margin for error. Fourth transfer portal solves the problem you are trying to solve. Also what you observe is highly subjective. Players may be hurt, fatigued, or asked to play different roles for many reasons. Unless the rules change a college coach should sign as many players as they can as early as they can. That is the rationale play in this game. I think you see that in all sports. You don’t see the nfl teams declining to draft players. College football and basketball all sign classes relatively immediately. Bottom line you draft potential and hope it works out enough of the time to keep your job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given that every year I’ve watched high school lacrosse a number of highly committed players look relatively average by the end of junior year or senior year and a number of mid or uncommitted players end up looking better, why don’t teams hold open more roster spots open to scoop up players towards the end of high school. Similarly, how come you don’t see more five star type players wait until the end of high school when they can better assess the roster to commit. You see this in basketball and football where a lot of five star players commit senior year (although some commitments are made much earlier). Why is lacrosse different in the sense that nearly everyone on both the player and the coach side go all in on commitments the summer before junior year? Is it just a collective action problem? And if so, how come the revenue sports don’t have the same issue? This is an earnest question. I’m not trying to denigrate anyone who commits or does not commit early. It just seems weird that lacrosse is so different than basketball and football in terms of timeline.

A few things. First girls used to commit in middle school. Crazy I know but moving to junior year was a big change. Second lacrosse is used to get into the college of your choice not as an earnings vehicle or career. Third colleges sign 9-12 kids knowing only 3-4 will eventually play. A good percentage will quit in college or retire from injury. Wide margin for error. Fourth transfer portal solves the problem you are trying to solve. Also what you observe is highly subjective. Players may be hurt, fatigued, or asked to play different roles for many reasons. Unless the rules change a college coach should sign as many players as they can as early as they can. That is the rationale play in this game. I think you see that in all sports. You don’t see the nfl teams declining to draft players. College football and basketball all sign classes relatively immediately. Bottom line you draft potential and hope it works out enough of the time to keep your job.

I think you are missing the point: “College football and basketball all sign classes relatively immediately” is not true. For football, maybe 25% of the 2027 class is currently signed and way less than half the ESPN 300 top players. For college basketball, less than 5-10% of the top 300 2027 have committed. The top basketball player in the area for 2026 committed at the end of his senior season. Men’s Football and basketball are very different and those are the ones will actually money on the line in terms of getting things right.

[Anonymous]

Lacrosse is different than football and basketball because there is basically no money involved. Recruiting for boys lacrosse at least would change substantially if you had the money and amount of coaches that football and basketball teams did. Lack of resources forces the narrow recruiting window because there is no money or time for full season evaluation like there is in football and basketball.

[Anonymous]

On the boys lacrosse side, I don't see what you are saying. The boys who have committed to D1 are the top HS players and I can see why the college coaches agree. No real drop off

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Given that every year I’ve watched high school lacrosse a number of highly committed players look relatively average by the end of junior year or senior year and a number of mid or uncommitted players end up looking better, why don’t teams hold open more roster spots open to scoop up players towards the end of high school. Similarly, how come you don’t see more five star type players wait until the end of high school when they can better assess the roster to commit. You see this in basketball and football where a lot of five star players commit senior year (although some commitments are made much earlier). Why is lacrosse different in the sense that nearly everyone on both the player and the coach side go all in on commitments the summer before junior year? Is it just a collective action problem? And if so, how come the revenue sports don’t have the same issue? This is an earnest question. I’m not trying to denigrate anyone who commits or does not commit early. It just seems weird that lacrosse is so different than basketball and football in terms of timeline.

A number of reasons.

First, the spring/summer season does not align with the admissions calendar, so lacrosse players always lose that last year.

Second, college lacrosse programs do not have big recruiting budgets, so they have to use their dollars wisely and go to tournaments where the best players are. All the "if you're good, they'll find you" talk is just that: talk.

Third, college coaches are not lazy, so they let clubs do the player sorting for them. Anyone who has been involved with club lacrosse for more than a minute knows the clubs are heavily political and not nearly as merit-based as they pretend. The clubs don't get punished because the coaches are too lazy/dumb to see which clubs can't get their best guys to the top of their lineups. The best evidence this year is the fact that Timothy Shannehan is at Boston and not a top program. Kid set all sorts of records in CT, but he was not given his due in club ball, so tons of teams missed.

Fourth, college coaches are not sophisticated. I've talked to a ton, and they don't understand the drawbacks to exploiting the relative age effect. In competitive sports like soccer and basketball, the pro teams understand that a younger player who performs well against older competition have a higher ceiling. College coaches are often cavemen who say, "Older stronger. Stronger better. Me want stronger." I've personally heard this from guys on a staff like Maryland, a program I think that tends to recruit quite well.

Fifth, put all this together and boys who hit puberty sooner are rewarded. A kid who is solidly into stage IV in 8th grade is at a huge advantage over one who is just starting III at the same age. If the two players are close, a smart coach could pick III every time, but today's dimwits inevitably take IV instead.

Parents spend a lot of time and money to operate within these constraints. The best way to fix this would be to start showcases/tournaments with bio-banding to give the coaches a better chance to see a player against his developmentally appropriate competition. Then, coaches would have to show up and reward. Finally, instead of rewarding holdbacks, those coaches could encourage the developmentally younger kids to do a PG year and then maybe redshirt again to get maximum holdback effect, but with better recruiting efficiency.