Winter BIC

[Anonymous]

It’s worth saying out loud: a large portion of player rankings require payment just to be evaluated. Many athletes and families opt out because they value development and performance over purchasing a star rating. Within the sport, it’s widely understood how these rankings are generated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s worth saying out loud: a large portion of player rankings require payment just to be evaluated. Many athletes and families opt out because they value development and performance over purchasing a star rating. Within the sport, it’s widely understood how these rankings are generated.

In the boys 2027, almost every single 4, 5 and top 100 player was committed before anyone else. Exceptions were exceptionally high gpa’s and personal connections. Schools rate players and reinforce those decisions with players slotting up or down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s worth saying out loud: a large portion of player rankings require payment just to be evaluated. Many athletes and families opt out because they value development and performance over purchasing a star rating. Within the sport, it’s widely understood how these rankings are generated.

In the boys 2027, almost every single 4, 5 and top 100 player was committed before anyone else. Exceptions were exceptionally high gpa’s and personal connections. Schools rate players and reinforce those decisions with players slotting up or down.

Those players would have already been highly sought after by top schools even before star and numerical ratings came out. Y'all are trying to understand how rankings, ratings, BIC invites, and early commitments are interconnected, but are overlooking the causal factor behind all of these: actually being good at lacrosse and/or demonstrating significant potential.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s worth saying out loud: a large portion of player rankings require payment just to be evaluated. Many athletes and families opt out because they value development and performance over purchasing a star rating. Within the sport, it’s widely understood how these rankings are generated.

In the boys 2027, almost every single 4, 5 and top 100 player was committed before anyone else. Exceptions were exceptionally high gpa’s and personal connections. Schools rate players and reinforce those decisions with players slotting up or down.

Those players would have already been highly sought after by top schools even before star and numerical ratings came out. Y'all are trying to understand how rankings, ratings, BIC invites, and early commitments are interconnected, but are overlooking the causal factor behind all of these: actually being good at lacrosse and/or demonstrating significant potential.

The point is not they are good players but there are many players going unranked because they aren't seen or there are players ranked slightly below when they should be higher. The star system provided by IL provides a "go with IBM" decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s worth saying out loud: a large portion of player rankings require payment just to be evaluated. Many athletes and families opt out because they value development and performance over purchasing a star rating. Within the sport, it’s widely understood how these rankings are generated.

In the boys 2027, almost every single 4, 5 and top 100 player was committed before anyone else. Exceptions were exceptionally high gpa’s and personal connections. Schools rate players and reinforce those decisions with players slotting up or down.

Those players would have already been highly sought after by top schools even before star and numerical ratings came out. Y'all are trying to understand how rankings, ratings, BIC invites, and early commitments are interconnected, but are overlooking the causal factor behind all of these: actually being good at lacrosse and/or demonstrating significant potential.

Some yes, talent is so great, they are on everyone’s radar. Many are just as talent as the next 100 that aren’t ranked though. Watching the 2027s for years made that apparent, lots of politics, whose last name is who, club affiliation, etc goes a long way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s worth saying out loud: a large portion of player rankings require payment just to be evaluated. Many athletes and families opt out because they value development and performance over purchasing a star rating. Within the sport, it’s widely understood how these rankings are generated.

In the boys 2027, almost every single 4, 5 and top 100 player was committed before anyone else. Exceptions were exceptionally high gpa’s and personal connections. Schools rate players and reinforce those decisions with players slotting up or down.

Those players would have already been highly sought after by top schools even before star and numerical ratings came out. Y'all are trying to understand how rankings, ratings, BIC invites, and early commitments are interconnected, but are overlooking the causal factor behind all of these: actually being good at lacrosse and/or demonstrating significant potential.

Some yes, talent is so great, they are on everyone’s radar. Many are just as talent as the next 100 that aren’t ranked though. Watching the 2027s for years made that apparent, lots of politics, whose last name is who, club affiliation, etc goes a long way.

Agreed. It’s probably 50% talent and 50% all the intangibles stated above. If you think it’s all about lacrosse talent, you’d be surprised (except for the top lax schools).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s worth saying out loud: a large portion of player rankings require payment just to be evaluated. Many athletes and families opt out because they value development and performance over purchasing a star rating. Within the sport, it’s widely understood how these rankings are generated.

In the boys 2027, almost every single 4, 5 and top 100 player was committed before anyone else. Exceptions were exceptionally high gpa’s and personal connections. Schools rate players and reinforce those decisions with players slotting up or down.

Those players would have already been highly sought after by top schools even before star and numerical ratings came out. Y'all are trying to understand how rankings, ratings, BIC invites, and early commitments are interconnected, but are overlooking the causal factor behind all of these: actually being good at lacrosse and/or demonstrating significant potential.

Some yes, talent is so great, they are on everyone’s radar. Many are just as talent as the next 100 that aren’t ranked though. Watching the 2027s for years made that apparent, lots of politics, whose last name is who, club affiliation, etc goes a long way.

Agreed. It’s probably 50% talent and 50% all the intangibles stated above. If you think it’s all about lacrosse talent, you’d be surprised (except for the top lax schools).

Even top lax schools take kids for $$$ or other reasons beyond actual talent.

You can literally buy your kid a roster spot in women’s lax.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s worth saying out loud: a large portion of player rankings require payment just to be evaluated. Many athletes and families opt out because they value development and performance over purchasing a star rating. Within the sport, it’s widely understood how these rankings are generated.

In the boys 2027, almost every single 4, 5 and top 100 player was committed before anyone else. Exceptions were exceptionally high gpa’s and personal connections. Schools rate players and reinforce those decisions with players slotting up or down.

Those players would have already been highly sought after by top schools even before star and numerical ratings came out. Y'all are trying to understand how rankings, ratings, BIC invites, and early commitments are interconnected, but are overlooking the causal factor behind all of these: actually being good at lacrosse and/or demonstrating significant potential.

The point is not they are good players but there are many players going unranked because they aren't seen or there are players ranked slightly below when they should be higher. The star system provided by IL provides a "go with IBM" decision.

Nick Saban's comments recently on the Pat McAfee Show capture my general thoughts on star ratings.

"We never ever looked at how many stars a guy has because I think what you all need to do is look at who’s giving out the stars. They don’t know their ass from a handful of sand when it comes to what a football player is. So why would you as a coach depend on somebody who’s not even a coach evaluating players to give them stars?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s worth saying out loud: a large portion of player rankings require payment just to be evaluated. Many athletes and families opt out because they value development and performance over purchasing a star rating. Within the sport, it’s widely understood how these rankings are generated.

In the boys 2027, almost every single 4, 5 and top 100 player was committed before anyone else. Exceptions were exceptionally high gpa’s and personal connections. Schools rate players and reinforce those decisions with players slotting up or down.

Those players would have already been highly sought after by top schools even before star and numerical ratings came out. Y'all are trying to understand how rankings, ratings, BIC invites, and early commitments are interconnected, but are overlooking the causal factor behind all of these: actually being good at lacrosse and/or demonstrating significant potential.

The point is not they are good players but there are many players going unranked because they aren't seen or there are players ranked slightly below when they should be higher. The star system provided by IL provides a "go with IBM" decision.

Nick Saban's comments recently on the Pat McAfee Show capture my general thoughts on star ratings.

"We never ever looked at how many stars a guy has because I think what you all need to do is look at who’s giving out the stars. They don’t know their ass from a handful of sand when it comes to what a football player is. So why would you as a coach depend on somebody who’s not even a coach evaluating players to give them stars?"

It’s interesting because football tends to reevaluate stars based on who offers. With girls lax, this doesn’t happen.

Also interesting to see how off college football is ranking these kids (look at Indiana QB) and girls gets 1% of the time, money in evaluating.

So many busts in girls lax and unranked kids being studs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s worth saying out loud: a large portion of player rankings require payment just to be evaluated. Many athletes and families opt out because they value development and performance over purchasing a star rating. Within the sport, it’s widely understood how these rankings are generated.

In the boys 2027, almost every single 4, 5 and top 100 player was committed before anyone else. Exceptions were exceptionally high gpa’s and personal connections. Schools rate players and reinforce those decisions with players slotting up or down.

Those players would have already been highly sought after by top schools even before star and numerical ratings came out. Y'all are trying to understand how rankings, ratings, BIC invites, and early commitments are interconnected, but are overlooking the causal factor behind all of these: actually being good at lacrosse and/or demonstrating significant potential.

The point is not they are good players but there are many players going unranked because they aren't seen or there are players ranked slightly below when they should be higher. The star system provided by IL provides a "go with IBM" decision.

Nick Saban's comments recently on the Pat McAfee Show capture my general thoughts on star ratings.

"We never ever looked at how many stars a guy has because I think what you all need to do is look at who’s giving out the stars. They don’t know their ass from a handful of sand when it comes to what a football player is. So why would you as a coach depend on somebody who’s not even a coach evaluating players to give them stars?"

Saban's Alabama recruits averaged about 60 four and 5 stars on the roster over a 17 year period. Every single program is referencing their own reports against those stars or looking at the stars and then going back to see if they missed anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s worth saying out loud: a large portion of player rankings require payment just to be evaluated. Many athletes and families opt out because they value development and performance over purchasing a star rating. Within the sport, it’s widely understood how these rankings are generated.

In the boys 2027, almost every single 4, 5 and top 100 player was committed before anyone else. Exceptions were exceptionally high gpa’s and personal connections. Schools rate players and reinforce those decisions with players slotting up or down.

Those players would have already been highly sought after by top schools even before star and numerical ratings came out. Y'all are trying to understand how rankings, ratings, BIC invites, and early commitments are interconnected, but are overlooking the causal factor behind all of these: actually being good at lacrosse and/or demonstrating significant potential.

The point is not they are good players but there are many players going unranked because they aren't seen or there are players ranked slightly below when they should be higher. The star system provided by IL provides a "go with IBM" decision.

Nick Saban's comments recently on the Pat McAfee Show capture my general thoughts on star ratings.

"We never ever looked at how many stars a guy has because I think what you all need to do is look at who’s giving out the stars. They don’t know their ass from a handful of sand when it comes to what a football player is. So why would you as a coach depend on somebody who’s not even a coach evaluating players to give them stars?"

Saban's Alabama recruits averaged about 60 four and 5 stars on the roster over a 17 year period. Every single program is referencing their own reports against those stars or looking at the stars and then going back to see if they missed anything.

Well maybe every single program looks at stars except of course for Alamaba when Saban was coaching considering he literally said on a televised show two days ago they "never ever" looked at stars.

https://www.tiktok.com/@patmcafeeshowofficial/video/7597501113692065055

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s worth saying out loud: a large portion of player rankings require payment just to be evaluated. Many athletes and families opt out because they value development and performance over purchasing a star rating. Within the sport, it’s widely understood how these rankings are generated.

In the boys 2027, almost every single 4, 5 and top 100 player was committed before anyone else. Exceptions were exceptionally high gpa’s and personal connections. Schools rate players and reinforce those decisions with players slotting up or down.

Those players would have already been highly sought after by top schools even before star and numerical ratings came out. Y'all are trying to understand how rankings, ratings, BIC invites, and early commitments are interconnected, but are overlooking the causal factor behind all of these: actually being good at lacrosse and/or demonstrating significant potential.

The point is not they are good players but there are many players going unranked because they aren't seen or there are players ranked slightly below when they should be higher. The star system provided by IL provides a "go with IBM" decision.

Nick Saban's comments recently on the Pat McAfee Show capture my general thoughts on star ratings.

"We never ever looked at how many stars a guy has because I think what you all need to do is look at who’s giving out the stars. They don’t know their ass from a handful of sand when it comes to what a football player is. So why would you as a coach depend on somebody who’s not even a coach evaluating players to give them stars?"

Saban's Alabama recruits averaged about 60 four and 5 stars on the roster over a 17 year period. Every single program is referencing their own reports against those stars or looking at the stars and then going back to see if they missed anything.

Well maybe every single program looks at stars except of course for Alamaba when Saban was coaching considering he literally said on a televised show two days ago they "never ever" looked at stars.

https://www.tiktok.com/@patmcafeeshowofficial/video/7597501113692065055

They even joke how how the number of stars for a player would shoot up when Alabama signed them.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, Saban's the most honest guy in the world. He literally paid every player long before NIL and got out when others were allowed and guys like Cuban got in the game. He also said Alabama was going to destroy Indiana because of the differential in perceived talent.

[Anonymous]

Over the years you have probably seen a lot of IL ratings for players. Do you feel confident they know what they are doing? At least for me, more often than not, I see players I know well getting higher ratings and more gushing commentary than I would expect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, Saban's the most honest guy in the world. He literally paid every player long before NIL and got out when others were allowed and guys like Cuban got in the game. He also said Alabama was going to destroy Indiana because of the differential in perceived talent.

So therefore he did look at the stars? Weird take.