2023 Girls ISL and WCAC outlook

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Potomac is mid-tier in girls lacrosse. What did you expect?

That due date can’t come soon enough

[Anonymous]

Any score updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Potomac is mid-tier in girls lacrosse. What did you expect?

That due date can’t come soon enough

are you really attacking a coach on an anonymous message board who is expected to go on maternity leave any day now?

What's wrong with you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sort of. There are plenty of high level clubs in the area that split playing time to no less than approximately 60/40, while others let their players sit. Parents are investing a lot of money and time and so the kid should get sufficient playing time to generate game film and college interest.

IMO, High school is where the time can go to the highest performers because at the varsity level, their mission is simply to win. I've had travel coaches tell me the wins and losses are secondary to getting game film against the best teams and to leverage that for recruiting. Hard to do that if parked on the bench and raises the logical question of why pay for something that has little benefit.

We all need to get out of the "everyone is a winner and gets a lollipop" mentality. Sports are competitive. If they weren't then we wouldn't all be on here all the time bashing each others teams and clubs in order for our to sound better. The best kids will get the most playing time. The parents who complain that their kid is sitting on the bench more than another kid is also the same exact parent who would complain that the team isn't winning enough if their kid WAS getting playing time. Coaches are always the first ones to get blamed. Of course coaches want their teams to win. It's impossible for all kids to get 100% equal playing time. Go to a rec program if you want to play outside of school and get equal playing time. Parents all pay the same amount of school tuition but they don't all get A's or get called on in class equally or given the same awards. It needs to be earned. Every parent in this area wants their kid to be better than the other kids - at sports, academics, etc, and they want to be able to talk about how great little suzy is in her sport.

At the end of the days, all these kids on all these teams - private, public, club etc all work hard. Some will rise to the top and some will be mid-tier. That's life. There are a lot of mid tier club teams out there with great coaches who are doing their best with mid-level players. Nobody can fault those teams, coaches or clubs. These kids love playing, maybe don't win much but enjoy the game and are happy to have a stick in their hand and don't mind if they play less than other kids. It's the parents who care way more than the players at this age. FWIW my DD played on a college team - sat on the bench a lot but was grateful for the experience and was thrilled just to be on the team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sort of. There are plenty of high level clubs in the area that split playing time to no less than approximately 60/40, while others let their players sit. Parents are investing a lot of money and time and so the kid should get sufficient playing time to generate game film and college interest.

IMO, High school is where the time can go to the highest performers because at the varsity level, their mission is simply to win. I've had travel coaches tell me the wins and losses are secondary to getting game film against the best teams and to leverage that for recruiting. Hard to do that if parked on the bench and raises the logical question of why pay for something that has little benefit.

We all need to get out of the "everyone is a winner and gets a lollipop" mentality. Sports are competitive. If they weren't then we wouldn't all be on here all the time bashing each others teams and clubs in order for our to sound better. The best kids will get the most playing time. The parents who complain that their kid is sitting on the bench more than another kid is also the same exact parent who would complain that the team isn't winning enough if their kid WAS getting playing time. Coaches are always the first ones to get blamed. Of course coaches want their teams to win. It's impossible for all kids to get 100% equal playing time. Go to a rec program if you want to play outside of school and get equal playing time. Parents all pay the same amount of school tuition but they don't all get A's or get called on in class equally or given the same awards. It needs to be earned. Every parent in this area wants their kid to be better than the other kids - at sports, academics, etc, and they want to be able to talk about how great little suzy is in her sport.

At the end of the days, all these kids on all these teams - private, public, club etc all work hard. Some will rise to the top and some will be mid-tier. That's life. There are a lot of mid tier club teams out there with great coaches who are doing their best with mid-level players. Nobody can fault those teams, coaches or clubs. These kids love playing, maybe don't win much but enjoy the game and are happy to have a stick in their hand and don't mind if they play less than other kids. It's the parents who care way more than the players at this age. FWIW my DD played on a college team - sat on the bench a lot but was grateful for the experience and was thrilled just to be on the team.

The problem with the post is that it’s the clubs that cause the “fair play” fleecing problem. They want/need lots of players if the club is going to make good money. They claim lots of reasons for fair play, some true, others not, but the real reason is it helps with their bottom line.

[Anonymous]

That’s a good point. The motivation for Club owners is to have 20-24 players rotating through so everyone is happy and the $$ keeps coming in. The better players want more playing time and believe the weaker players should be on the bench more. That leads to bench players quitting though. Why would you play all that money to sit on the bench? It’s a tough balance between getting everyone ample playing time and making sure the better players are happy.

I’ve seen a couple travel teams that only have 3-4 subs. They rotate everyone through because they have to. Less money for the club but girls seem generally happier (albeit tired)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Potomac is mid-tier in girls lacrosse. What did you expect?

That due date can’t come soon enough

are you really attacking a coach on an anonymous message board who is expected to go on maternity leave any day now?

What's wrong with you?

Different poster here, and I hesitate to do this, mostly because I agree about calling out individuals and am paranoid about being found out. So, let's just make it about the program instead (though if that Madlax guy was fair game, I would say this runs pretty close to his level). If Potomac were as committed to the mental health of their students as they say they are, they would give this program a good hard look. It is completely inconsistent with the way many of the other girls' programs are run and certainly in opposition to Potomac's stated values.

[Anonymous]

Any score updates

[Anonymous]

Georgetown Visitation 10 McDonough 9

[Anonymous]

Top 25 High School Power Rankings: Inside Lacrosse

with Visi's win against McDonogh, week 3 will see them rise.


St. Paul's School for Girls (Md.)
Darien (Conn.)
New Canaan (Conn.)
McDonogh (Md.)
St. Anthony's (N.Y.)
Glenelg Country Day (Md.)
Bayport Blue Point (N.Y.)
Archbishop Spalding (Md.)
Episcopal Academy (Pa.)
Georgetown Visitation (D.C.)
Baldwinsville (N.Y.)
Stone Ridge (Md.)
Canandaigua Academy (N.Y.)
Manhasset (N.Y.)
Summit (N.J.)
Wilton (Conn.)
Conestoga (Pa.)
Rush Henrietta (N.Y.)
Bronxville (N.Y.)
Bryn Mawr (Md.)
Sacred Heart Greenwich (Conn.)
Westhampton Beach (N.Y.)
Glenelg (Md.)
Colorado Academy (Colo.)
Suffern (N.Y.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Georgetown Visitation 10 McDonough 9

Correction
GV 12 MCD 11

[Anonymous]

All those predicting the Visi coach's demise at the school may want to rethink that forecast.

Looks like he's got them hitting on all cylinders, just like he did at his previous job.

[Anonymous]

Will the MVP coach & the squad be able to beat SJC this year?

[Anonymous]

If SJC underestimates Visi like they did HC, they'll have a hard time winning. Time will tell.

[Anonymous]

SJC is not winning that game regardless.