You can't spell "lacrosse" without SLACs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You are really only complaining about 2 recruits who need full support , or 8 total in a school. Would you rather have 8 xc runners that are slightly below academically or 8 international students who keep to themselves and don’t contribute to the school community, other than being full pay.

And XC runners often tend to be good students/nice kids so I'm sure there are plenty who didn't need a heavy push from the coach.

Much different than the bigger team sports where there are often a lot of meatheads sneaking through the cracks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why people hate athletes so much? When we don't hate the made-up research or non-profit that Mom started for their kid and then got shut down before the kid even left for college.

We don't hate the player, hate the game.

It's a ridiculous proposition to say that any sport besides football and basketball really adds anything to a university. Most sports are a drain on finances. Sure, offering athletics is good for the mind and body, but why not just have all sports be walk on?
Recruitment highly favors kids whose parents have the time and money to help them get to a certain level.

What makes a good club sport lacrosse player that much more valuable to the school over the kid who was a starter on his school's lax team but not good enough for recruitment? Assuming they are similar in all other ways. Both put in a lot of time and effort and discipline. One just makes the lax team better but what does that do for the school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Terrible post. I am from a low income area with 100% minority kids and lacrosse has been great for us. Literally a game changer. Maybe they don't go to SLACs, but lots of D3 college scholarships for kids who really need them.

But stay in your world and pretend you're the one who doesn't get enough privilege.

Pitt-Bradford just did a nice article on how they are trying to honor the origins of the sport. The campus is in the area where the sport originated.

https://www.pittwire.pitt.edu/magazine/2025/03/21/bradford-lacrosse-seneca-nation

We live in an increasingly globalized world and people are sharing things they love across cultures. That's going to keep happening. Let's be "good sports" about it and stop calling "cultural appropriation" fouls on pastimes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why people hate athletes so much? When we don't hate the made-up research or non-profit that Mom started for their kid and then got shut down before the kid even left for college.

lacrosse bros are not athletes. hockey is actually a difficult sport.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You are really only complaining about 2 recruits who need full support , or 8 total in a school. Would you rather have 8 xc runners that are slightly below academically or 8 international students who keep to themselves and don’t contribute to the school community, other than being full pay.

are those my only 2 choices?

[Anonymous]

Crew is $$$$.

At our school the fees are approx 5K in addition to the $55K tuition. And this is just for the spring season. It's absurd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Colleges/universities are supposed to strive for the ideal of the well-rounded human being. So a good athlete should be recognized and that should be given weight. But it has shifted from being a positive factor at many of these schools back in our generation to having way too much influence on the process. And when a lacrosse roster has 50 kids at a small school, that is a lot of seats.

And this is coming from someone who is absolutely obsessed with sports and went to a major D1 sports school.

Applause. The most sensible thing anyone has written on this thread!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why people hate athletes so much? When we don't hate the made-up research or non-profit that Mom started for their kid and then got shut down before the kid even left for college.

lacrosse bros are not athletes. hockey is actually a difficult sport.

If you look at a lot of the division 1 lacrosse rosters you will shocked at the other sports the lacrosse kid plays. They are also frequently the starting quarterback.

[Anonymous]

Really I think what people are complaining about is the differential admissions standards applied to athletes at many schools.

It would be one thing if the admissions slots reserved for lax/ hockey at these schools were filled by students who had more or less the same grades/ test scores/ academic profile as everyone else.

But this is objectively *NOT* the case. Study after study shows that being a recruited athlete confers an admissions advantage equivalent to ~150 SAT points or more, or perhaps a whole point of GPA. Athlete routinely make up the lowest part of the admitted "stats" ranges for most schools. Don't protest about how your DS or DD athlete has great grades...this is just objectively a fact.

If schools are going to do this, reserving "slots" for otherwise unqualified athletes needs to become a *much* more restricted practice. Fine, bring in a few low GPA/SAT ringers. But I think everyone would feel better about selective college athletic if coaches were generally forced to build the rest of their teams out of walk-ons from the general pool of smart kids. In a school the size of many SLACs, where there may be only 700 or so total male students, special preferences for lacrosse (~50 students) and ice hockey (~40 students) and football (~60+ students) add up fast. The solution is not to abandon sports altogether, but to significantly, if not totally, eliminate the influence of coaches in recruiting and admissions.

Make it about character, sportsmanship, and fun, rather than winning. The way it was always supposed to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why people hate athletes so much? When we don't hate the made-up research or non-profit that Mom started for their kid and then got shut down before the kid even left for college.

lacrosse bros are not athletes. hockey is actually a difficult sport.

If you look at a lot of the division 1 lacrosse rosters you will shocked at the other sports the lacrosse kid plays. They are also frequently the starting quarterback.

Not true. Name two. Perhaps they were in HS, but they are not playing D1 lax and QB on the football team. A number of lax players have transitioned to other sports (including Pat Spencer is in the NBA), but not at the same time.

Lacrosse is a very challenging sport. It requires strength, speed and excellent hand-eye coordination. This does not justify saving 50 seats at a 2000 student school for lacrosse players who are often several standard deviations academically below the rest of the student body, but those who question the athleticism of lax players are foolish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Really I think what people are complaining about is the differential admissions standards applied to athletes at many schools.

It would be one thing if the admissions slots reserved for lax/ hockey at these schools were filled by students who had more or less the same grades/ test scores/ academic profile as everyone else.

But this is objectively *NOT* the case. Study after study shows that being a recruited athlete confers an admissions advantage equivalent to ~150 SAT points or more, or perhaps a whole point of GPA. Athlete routinely make up the lowest part of the admitted "stats" ranges for most schools. Don't protest about how your DS or DD athlete has great grades...this is just objectively a fact.

If schools are going to do this, reserving "slots" for otherwise unqualified athletes needs to become a *much* more restricted practice. Fine, bring in a few low GPA/SAT ringers. But I think everyone would feel better about selective college athletic if coaches were generally forced to build the rest of their teams out of walk-ons from the general pool of smart kids. In a school the size of many SLACs, where there may be only 700 or so total male students, special preferences for lacrosse (~50 students) and ice hockey (~40 students) and football (~60+ students) add up fast. The solution is not to abandon sports altogether, but to significantly, if not totally, eliminate the influence of coaches in recruiting and admissions.

Make it about character, sportsmanship, and fun, rather than winning. The way it was always supposed to be.

100% agree and I'm the poster above who said something similar (my post was deemed post of the year!).

The problem is telling this to the coaches. They have gained a lot of power with admissions. If their livelihood depends on winning, then they are going to push to have as much flexibility as possible. SLACs don't have as short a leash on their coaches as major D1 schools, but if a lax coach goes 3-10 a few years in a row, his job security is going to be limited.

I'm not sure what the right answer is. But I fully agree it has gone too far in the wrong direction. One big step would be getting rid of the pre-read process for athletes. But that isn't going to happen.

Also note that there are plenty of athletes on these teams who are good academic fits, or very close. We should not overly generalize. But there are way too many who aren't. As you noted, if it was 1-2 per year, it would be less of a concern. But it is more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why people hate athletes so much? When we don't hate the made-up research or non-profit that Mom started for their kid and then got shut down before the kid even left for college.

lacrosse bros are not athletes. hockey is actually a difficult sport.

If you look at a lot of the division 1 lacrosse rosters you will shocked at the other sports the lacrosse kid plays. They are also frequently the starting quarterback.

Not true. Name two. Perhaps they were in HS, but they are not playing D1 lax and QB on the football team. A number of lax players have transitioned to other sports (including Pat Spencer is in the NBA), but not at the same time.

Lacrosse is a very challenging sport. It requires strength, speed and excellent hand-eye coordination. This does not justify saving 50 seats at a 2000 student school for lacrosse players who are often several standard deviations academically below the rest of the student body, but those who question the athleticism of lax players are foolish.

I meant while in high school they played lacrosse and were frequently the qb of the football team. Two kids from ND plays lacrosse and football.

My kids play hockey and lacrosse. Hockey takes a lot work to get good. Lots and lots of lessons. Lacrosse you can become pretty good, pretty quickly if you are a legit athlete.

[Anonymous]

DCUM moms still seething because their kid didn't get into a highly selective school, supposedly because an athlete took their spot.

The sad fact is that your kid just wasn't that special or academically competitive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DCUM moms still seething because their kid didn't get into a highly selective school, supposedly because an athlete took their spot.

The sad fact is that your kid just wasn't that special or academically competitive.

How are the triplets doing at Holy Cross, Bucknell and Northeastern? FFS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DCUM moms still seething because their kid didn't get into a highly selective school, supposedly because an athlete took their spot.

The sad fact is that your kid just wasn't that special or academically competitive.

Np. Have to admit though, lacrosse culture tends to be kinda rape-ey.