Private School Lacrosse Thread

[Anonymous]

Bullis will drop big time next Spring regardless who is the next head coach. It’s pretty much public knowledge that their number recruit in the country is returning back to STAB for his senior season. He was Bullis’ leading goal and assist producer by a good margin.

[Anonymous]

Seriously? He’s going back?

[Anonymous]

Jeez, I would hope so. After reading all these threads, it sounds like a horrible situation for him. I would hope his parents told him he had to get out. Who would want their kid (and he is JUST A KID, people!) all alone facing all this vitriol? Not me. I love lax and think it is a great sport but a lot of this commentary has been waaaay over the top.

[Anonymous]

The transfer was 3rd in goals on the team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You don't earn a spot on a team for being full pay.

Either you are good enough to play or your not.

Gonzaga has approx 10 Rugby and crew teams because ... Guess what, your not good enough for whatever sport you thought you could play when
you were in 8th grade and sit down, you won't like this but your dad can't buy you a spot.

I get it, you would start at Churchill... And break records. But your not at Churchill.

You can't just go around trying to oust coaches because your kid has " tried his hardest" and "put in his time".

You are either good enough for a nationally ranked team or your not.

Thanks Junior, but let me tell you how it really works.

The reason those privates even have those sanctioned outlier sports instead of them being labeled as club sports is because they gave away roster spots to recruits for the primary sports. The schools made rowing and rugby official to appease the tuition paying parents. And it doesn't matter if you are good enough or not because the school has to justify the scholarship by playing the recruit. There's a reason so many kids transfer over and over. It's because they aren't that good or they can't keep up in school. And who do you think is going to get a better shot at playing time, the coach's recruit/transfer or the kid who showed up to try out?

Gonzaga has over 1000 students so they can absorb the scholarship kids far better than the IAC schools. Same goes for DeMatha (900), Good Counsel (1200), St. John's (1000) and the other large schools.

Who cares about Churchill because it's a public school and not relevant to the conversation but you better get in good with the coach there too as he is part of the BLC/Performance group along with the assistants. It's pay to play there too but just not with tuition but with camp and club fees. Same goes for other public schools and the basketball camps run by their coaches or with other sports.

The national rankings for all high school sports is a joke and are too simplistic. Even with the transfers and holdbacks, there is no way to compare IAC and WCAC teams against places like IMG or the major college prep academies.

And you better believe that tuition and those donations matter and should matter. That's why the Prep facility is called the Hanley center and the STEM center has the Blair name on it. You don't build a community around a school by taking someone's money and then sloughing the family off and then come back to them and ask for more $$.

It's a problem and it's a real fine line to walk for these Presidents and headmasters.

Why do any of these schools allow their coaches to foster this conflict of interest with their work on outside clubs? Even my DS's private, which is not one of the super strong programs, has staffed most of its coaches with Madlax staff and coaches and all those club players are given much more opportunity. As an example, three freshman played varsity--all three were Madlax. It did not shed a good light on what is supposed to be a well-rounded school. This clearly happens with the girls and the clubs as well. I think the HS leagues should come together and say no outside coaching. Eliminate the favoritism and the pay-to-play.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You don't earn a spot on a team for being full pay.

Either you are good enough to play or your not.

Gonzaga has approx 10 Rugby and crew teams because ... Guess what, your not good enough for whatever sport you thought you could play when
you were in 8th grade and sit down, you won't like this but your dad can't buy you a spot.

I get it, you would start at Churchill... And break records. But your not at Churchill.

You can't just go around trying to oust coaches because your kid has " tried his hardest" and "put in his time".

You are either good enough for a nationally ranked team or your not.

Thanks Junior, but let me tell you how it really works.

The reason those privates even have those sanctioned outlier sports instead of them being labeled as club sports is because they gave away roster spots to recruits for the primary sports. The schools made rowing and rugby official to appease the tuition paying parents. And it doesn't matter if you are good enough or not because the school has to justify the scholarship by playing the recruit. There's a reason so many kids transfer over and over. It's because they aren't that good or they can't keep up in school. And who do you think is going to get a better shot at playing time, the coach's recruit/transfer or the kid who showed up to try out?

Gonzaga has over 1000 students so they can absorb the scholarship kids far better than the IAC schools. Same goes for DeMatha (900), Good Counsel (1200), St. John's (1000) and the other large schools.

Who cares about Churchill because it's a public school and not relevant to the conversation but you better get in good with the coach there too as he is part of the BLC/Performance group along with the assistants. It's pay to play there too but just not with tuition but with camp and club fees. Same goes for other public schools and the basketball camps run by their coaches or with other sports.

The national rankings for all high school sports is a joke and are too simplistic. Even with the transfers and holdbacks, there is no way to compare IAC and WCAC teams against places like IMG or the major college prep academies.

And you better believe that tuition and those donations matter and should matter. That's why the Prep facility is called the Hanley center and the STEM center has the Blair name on it. You don't build a community around a school by taking someone's money and then sloughing the family off and then come back to them and ask for more $$.

It's a problem and it's a real fine line to walk for these Presidents and headmasters.

There are very few Churchill kids that play club lacrosse. Most of the D1 recruits played for VLC. All of the D1 recruits graduated this year. Only one assistant is a DCE person. Time will tell what happens with the new crop of freshman coming. (2022)

[Anonymous]

Why do any of these schools allow their coaches to foster this conflict of interest with their work on outside clubs? Even my DS's private, which is not one of the super strong programs, has staffed most of its coaches with Madlax staff and coaches and all those club players are given much more opportunity. As an example, three freshman played varsity--all three were Madlax. It did not shed a good light on what is supposed to be a well-rounded school. This clearly happens with the girls and the clubs as well. I think the HS leagues should come together and say no outside coaching. Eliminate the favoritism and the pay-to-play.

agreed. i undertsand the coaches do it for more money (and to funnel players), but the schools get no financial benefit. mayeb their teams are better, maybe not. but it's shady.

[Anonymous]

Sigh. I miss the private school forum. Too much club talk muddying the water.

[Anonymous]

Why do any of these schools allow their coaches to foster this conflict of interest with their work on outside clubs? Even my DS's private, which is not one of the super strong programs, has staffed most of its coaches with Madlax staff and coaches and all those club players are given much more opportunity. As an example, three freshman played varsity--all three were Madlax. It did not shed a good light on what is supposed to be a well-rounded school. This clearly happens with the girls and the clubs as well. I think the HS leagues should come together and say no outside coaching. Eliminate the favoritism and the pay-to-play.

I couldn’t agree more

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do any of these schools allow their coaches to foster this conflict of interest with their work on outside clubs? Even my DS's private, which is not one of the super strong programs, has staffed most of its coaches with Madlax staff and coaches and all those club players are given much more opportunity. As an example, three freshman played varsity--all three were Madlax. It did not shed a good light on what is supposed to be a well-rounded school. This clearly happens with the girls and the clubs as well. I think the HS leagues should come together and say no outside coaching. Eliminate the favoritism and the pay-to-play.

I couldn’t agree more

This happens and I think mainly for 2 reasons-first, the school has committed to have lacrosse be one of the "focus" sports of the school-this can be due to the board of trustees or from a well-funded parent or two of the stronger team players who request the school beef up the sport and second, the coaches, also committed to their sport for obvious reasons, look at their graduating players and then look down the pipeline at their current younger players and see they need to fill in some gaps to create a team that's stronger/more likely to win etc. They look at coach-ability, work ethic, general athleticism etc and may notice it's not where they want it to be - some of those qualities are innate or not in athletes by high school. It's not fair but as others have pointed out, since when is life fair? I'm betting most of those Madlax players will go on to play college lacrosse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do any of these schools allow their coaches to foster this conflict of interest with their work on outside clubs? Even my DS's private, which is not one of the super strong programs, has staffed most of its coaches with Madlax staff and coaches and all those club players are given much more opportunity. As an example, three freshman played varsity--all three were Madlax. It did not shed a good light on what is supposed to be a well-rounded school. This clearly happens with the girls and the clubs as well. I think the HS leagues should come together and say no outside coaching. Eliminate the favoritism and the pay-to-play.

I couldn’t agree more

It can be a problem for sure but schools will have a hard time finding coaches due to the constraints of the position: weekday work for 2-3 hours during normal business hours for very low pay along with games during evening hours and weekends for only 3 months.

In your specific example at a school that's not super strong, the Madlax kids probably are very skilled and might stand out as a way to build the program. But if you and other parents think there is blatant favoritism than you have to be strong enough to go to the athletic director with the coach present to address the situation. You better also have video evidence of your concerns or else you'll just look like meddling parents.

The last, and most controversial for these threads, is to find out where the school's coaches clubs are and enroll in their programs. The clubs and high school teams in this area are pretty good so this system of favoritism is working to some degree. Lax is not alone in this situation and the public school coaches are just as busy between their clubs and school teams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do any of these schools allow their coaches to foster this conflict of interest with their work on outside clubs? Even my DS's private, which is not one of the super strong programs, has staffed most of its coaches with Madlax staff and coaches and all those club players are given much more opportunity. As an example, three freshman played varsity--all three were Madlax. It did not shed a good light on what is supposed to be a well-rounded school. This clearly happens with the girls and the clubs as well. I think the HS leagues should come together and say no outside coaching. Eliminate the favoritism and the pay-to-play.

I couldn’t agree more

Were the Madlax kids given any kind of favoritism in applying to the school? Were the families part of the school already or are they completely new and separate to the school? Were the families active in the school outside of lacrosse?

Otherwise, this actually reads as if you would rather have less competitive teams for the purpose of being well rounded. Was there some resentment among the older classes that freshmen made varsity? I don't see how having freshman play varsity lax doesn't make the school well rounded. You'll need to provide a breakdown of the roster by class number and what clubs, if any, those kids play for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do any of these schools allow their coaches to foster this conflict of interest with their work on outside clubs? Even my DS's private, which is not one of the super strong programs, has staffed most of its coaches with Madlax staff and coaches and all those club players are given much more opportunity. As an example, three freshman played varsity--all three were Madlax. It did not shed a good light on what is supposed to be a well-rounded school. This clearly happens with the girls and the clubs as well. I think the HS leagues should come together and say no outside coaching. Eliminate the favoritism and the pay-to-play.

I couldn’t agree more

Were the Madlax kids given any kind of favoritism in applying to the school? Were the families part of the school already or are they completely new and separate to the school? Were the families active in the school outside of lacrosse?

Otherwise, this actually reads as if you would rather have less competitive teams for the purpose of being well rounded. Was there some resentment among the older classes that freshmen made varsity? I don't see how having freshman play varsity lax doesn't make the school well rounded. You'll need to provide a breakdown of the roster by class number and what clubs, if any, those kids play for.

Yes. Some parents want less competitive teams, slower play so their kids can play. Go look at the Bullis lacrosse thread, a parent is literally arguing against "merit" for a measure on who starts/plays.

[Anonymous]

Yes. Some parents want less competitive teams, slower play so their kids can play. Go look at the Bullis lacrosse thread, a parent is literally arguing against "merit" for a measure on who starts/plays.



If the school makes the decision to admit kids who don't meet their standards or have a stated policy of recruitment like the WCAC schools, then once those kids are admitted it should be based on merit. But too often, kids are admitted with favoritism and they are no better or even worse than the kids who went through the standard process. What is bearing out at the IAC schools is the headaches of recruiting 14 - 17 year olds is not worth the headaches it produces with regard to parent discontentment and the threat of lower donations.

If you go to one of these schools where sports recruiting is front and center and you have a kid who can play, you better realize up front he/she is not going to get the same opportunity to make the team or play as one of the kids who are given favorable admission.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yes. Some parents want less competitive teams, slower play so their kids can play. Go look at the Bullis lacrosse thread, a parent is literally arguing against "merit" for a measure on who starts/plays.



If the school makes the decision to admit kids who don't meet their standards or have a stated policy of recruitment like the WCAC schools, then once those kids are admitted it should be based on merit. But too often, kids are admitted with favoritism and they are no better or even worse than the kids who went through the standard process. What is bearing out at the IAC schools is the headaches of recruiting 14 - 17 year olds is not worth the headaches it produces with regard to parent discontentment and the threat of lower donations.

If you go to one of these schools where sports recruiting is front and center and you have a kid who can play, you better realize up front he/she is not going to get the same opportunity to make the team or play as one of the kids who are given favorable admission.

Should read "the benefits of recruiting 14 -17 year olds is not worth the headaches it produces."