IAC Lacrosse

[Anonymous]

for the guy who mocks the sports soo much, you sure seem to follow the sport and know the gossip.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gonzaga parents are just as crazy.

i'm sure they have arrived at Landon already and set up the tailgate.

I think the PP was referring to all the STA, SFS etc lax parents that like to throw stones on this site.

[Anonymous]

the STA parents are just are nuts.

they just are too above everyone else.

why else do they have their own thread on the state of HS athletics at their school, their lacrosse program, and for crying out loud, Prize Day aka "mommy loves to brag how special her son is"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gonzaga parents are just as crazy.

i'm sure they have arrived at Landon already and set up the tailgate.

Gonzaga 13 Landon 9

Eagles Fly High

[Anonymous]

Not as close as score would indicate. Gonzaga completely outclassed Landon... was out of hand in the 2nd half.

Landon doesn't look at all like a team that will fare any better against Bullis and they might lose to Prep as well.

[Anonymous]

I actually think quite the opposite. What do you mean "out classed" Landon? The game was closer in the 4th quarter.

Other than the 2nd quarter which Gonzaga dominated and built. 7-2 lead at half, the game seemed to be more even in the 2nd half.

Starters were in till the last second for both teams.

[Anonymous]

Bullis has a racist on their lacrosse team. That's what people should be talking about. Has anyone seen the video?

[Anonymous]

The Landon vs Gonzaga game was an outstanding game. GZ just played better today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I "walked on" to my Ivy college team. Coach didn't know or recruit me. I called when I got there and the coach said I could try out at fall ball along with a few others. I got lucky and made it. Everyone else was recruited or known to the coach and their admission was enabled by him. I was referred to the coaches as a "walk on" who worked harder than everyone else to make it.

But what do they know?

The coaches were borrowing a term from the D-1 football world. I guess they found an accurate description --- people we didn't recruit or sponsored in the Admissions process who just showed up" --- to be too long.

Just because they used the term inaccurately, doesn't change what it means specifically. According to you, they used it to describe anybody they didn't recruit. Although the bar to being a "a recruit" is so low that it excludes few potential players. If you received a letter in one of the mass mailings and filled out the form and sent it in, you officially become a "recruit" regardless of what other contact you had with the coaching staff or whether you were one of the athletes the Athletic Department lobbied for in the admissions process.

What the term actually refers to is any athlete that receives no scholarship money.

I forgot my post

In DI basketball, there are rarely more than 10 or so scholarship players even though they are allowed more. The rest of the team consists of "walk-ons" or non-scholarship players, who practice with the team and play only at the end of games when the outcome is no longer in doubt. Sometimes "walk-ons" in both football and basketball earn a scholarship and become scholarship players.

A "preferred walk-on" is a new term that has crept into the lexicon. It's a clever bit of marketing. It says to the "recruit", "We aren't going to give you any scholarship money. But we would like you to apply to our school and if you get in you are welcome to try out for the team. You are different from other "walk-ons" in our eyes."

The Ivies and Division III schools technically have no "Walk-ons" because they don't offer scholarships.

Does the coach weigh in with Admissions for the so-called "preferred walk-on"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I "walked on" to my Ivy college team. Coach didn't know or recruit me. I called when I got there and the coach said I could try out at fall ball along with a few others. I got lucky and made it. Everyone else was recruited or known to the coach and their admission was enabled by him. I was referred to the coaches as a "walk on" who worked harder than everyone else to make it.

But what do they know?

The coaches were borrowing a term from the D-1 football world. I guess they found an accurate description --- people we didn't recruit or sponsored in the Admissions process who just showed up" --- to be too long.

Just because they used the term inaccurately, doesn't change what it means specifically. According to you, they used it to describe anybody they didn't recruit. Although the bar to being a "a recruit" is so low that it excludes few potential players. If you received a letter in one of the mass mailings and filled out the form and sent it in, you officially become a "recruit" regardless of what other contact you had with the coaching staff or whether you were one of the athletes the Athletic Department lobbied for in the admissions process.

What the term actually refers to is any athlete that receives no scholarship money.



I forgot my post

In DI basketball, there are rarely more than 10 or so scholarship players even though they are allowed more. The rest of the team consists of "walk-ons" or non-scholarship players, who practice with the team and play only at the end of games when the outcome is no longer in doubt. Sometimes "walk-ons" in both football and basketball earn a scholarship and become scholarship players.

A "preferred walk-on" is a new term that has crept into the lexicon. It's a clever bit of marketing. It says to the "recruit", "We aren't going to give you any scholarship money. But we would like you to apply to our school and if you get in you are welcome to try out for the team. You are different from other "walk-ons" in our eyes."

The Ivies and Division III schools technically have no "Walk-ons" because they don't offer scholarships.

Does the coach weigh in with Admissions for the so-called "preferred walk-on"?

Ivy's don't call them walk ons...just unrecruited

[Anonymous]

Gonzaga was just the better team today - Period!

I know players and families at both schools - good, hard fought lacrosse game.

[Anonymous]

Congrats to GZ....

[Anonymous]

Gonzaga has a much better, deeper roster than Landon. Could be a long year in the IAC for Landon.

[Anonymous]

Shouldn't gonzaga have more depth than any school in the area - its a school of 1,000 boys? Shouldn't they have a deeper talent pool to choose from?

Landon's team is entirely sophomores and juniors. They looked pretty inexperienced today and GZ from what I have been told is very senior heavy.

Very hard to say who will bring home IAC Title and bragging rights.

It will come down to Bullis, Landon, Prep and Saint Stephens.

IAC playoffs don't start for another month...

[Anonymous]

Landon is not entire sophomores and juniors, though their senior class isn't very impressive.

On paper, Bullis is the clear favorite.