2023 Boys HS lacrosse outlook

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please stop spreading false information. The player in question went to Hill Academy as an 8th grader and entered Bullis as a 9th grader in the fall of 2019.
The player meets all requirements to play in the IAC and will be attending Princeton in the Fall.

he has been re-classified twice. He was originally a 2020

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please stop spreading false information. The player in question went to Hill Academy as an 8th grader and entered Bullis as a 9th grader in the fall of 2019.
The player meets all requirements to play in the IAC and will be attending Princeton in the Fall.

he has been re-classified twice. He was originally a 2020

That's not true. A 2020 would make him a jr. in college. Not sure you see many 19 yr old juniors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is it spreading false information when its common knowledge about the reclass at Hill and Bullis? Isn't sunlight the best disinfectant?

If you are this obsessed about one player and it is not your kid you have issues. There are many re-classed kids and a few double re-classed. Get over it this is not the HOCO league.

Everyone realize that the holdback epidemic has 16 year old freshman, 17 year old soph, 18 year old juniors and 19 year old seniors in the IAC right now. Not sure why anyone is caught off guard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s talk about the new 2023 rankings. I think they are solid rankings

I'd love to see the DOBs next to these players, maybe not their actual birthday due to PII concerns.

The Bullis player turned 19 this past September and has been in high school now for 6 years. I'm sure there are others on this list who are re-classes or even double re-class.

Overall, I do think it's a very good list.

Just in the DC area, we have Freshman turning 16 this past Fall semester in the IAC. There will be multiple 19 year olds playing across many of the private schools. We have Mater Dei embedding the believe that it is better for boys development/maturity to be held back ie it is an institutional practice. Holding back is so common now, that if your child (particularly boy) is "on age" in the traditional sense, he is often considered young. It is here to stay.

Only thing that stops it is changing rules to where 19 is the cutoff, not 20. If not, parents will continue to push the boundaries. In most sports, the truly special talents are the one's who play up/above their age group. Funny how things change.

So one of the big rumors floating around is that some of the big club teams are going to try to push for scaling of the system similar to soccer i.e., age for consideration in playing in tournaments. Though there would be an overlap of 3 months on the back end. So in short it would be October 1st through the next December 31st to be eligible. Now, this rumor has floated around before but seems to have gained some traction given I've heard it from several different sources. The word coming from all these sources is "equity" and that it isn't equitable to have kids being holdbacks/reclassifications as they move through private schools compared to those kids that go right through school (typically in public school). Now, the other big issue is that it would go against almost all the interests of these club teams to push this. But, who knows maybe the equity argument holds.

But, I'm not holding my breath on that one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can’t play in miaa conference games

Why?

IAC doesn't allow any varsity play for students turning 19 before 9/1. MIAA allows non-conference play.

Correct. 04/2004 birthday.

[Anonymous]

The 'equity' debate is not about the age/holdback issue but rather the pay-to-play piece. If you are a low to lower-middle income family there is almost no way for your child to get recruited. You can't afford club. The travel costs for tournaments. The fees for showcases, etc. This is why the NCAA is looking at more specific changes, capping the costs. Sure colleges and tournaments can say they are open to everyone, but the unsaid portion is 'everyone who can pay'. The hold-back piece is an off-shoot of this talk, but its really more of an equity piece. Absent acting on this now that its been raised by the new NCAA leadership there is a very real chance of litigation. But to the earlier points raised, the age-based ideas are a very real possibility starting with the 2027 class.

[Anonymous]

has St John's posted their schedule yet? curious if they are playing any of the big boys up north, Taft or Brunswick or Deerfield?

[Anonymous]

Taft won’t be as strong this year. Deerfield will be good and same as Brunswick. Their schedule is posted on inside lacrosse. The only team that is really strong from up north is st. Anthony’s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s talk about the new 2023 rankings. I think they are solid rankings

I'd love to see the DOBs next to these players, maybe not their actual birthday due to PII concerns.

The Bullis player turned 19 this past September and has been in high school now for 6 years. I'm sure there are others on this list who are re-classes or even double re-class.

Overall, I do think it's a very good list.

Just in the DC area, we have Freshman turning 16 this past Fall semester in the IAC. There will be multiple 19 year olds playing across many of the private schools. We have Mater Dei embedding the believe that it is better for boys development/maturity to be held back ie it is an institutional practice. Holding back is so common now, that if your child (particularly boy) is "on age" in the traditional sense, he is often considered young. It is here to stay.

Only thing that stops it is changing rules to where 19 is the cutoff, not 20. If not, parents will continue to push the boundaries. In most sports, the truly special talents are the one's who play up/above their age group. Funny how things change.

So one of the big rumors floating around is that some of the big club teams are going to try to push for scaling of the system similar to soccer i.e., age for consideration in playing in tournaments. Though there would be an overlap of 3 months on the back end. So in short it would be October 1st through the next December 31st to be eligible. Now, this rumor has floated around before but seems to have gained some traction given I've heard it from several different sources. The word coming from all these sources is "equity" and that it isn't equitable to have kids being holdbacks/reclassifications as they move through private schools compared to those kids that go right through school (typically in public school). Now, the other big issue is that it would go against almost all the interests of these club teams to push this. But, who knows maybe the equity argument holds.

But, I'm not holding my breath on that one.

IL and the NLF support this but not for high school only for youth lacrosse. College coaches want to see all kids in a grad year Many kids switch teams in HS so I do not think this will stop reclassing maybe just delay it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s talk about the new 2023 rankings. I think they are solid rankings

I'd love to see the DOBs next to these players, maybe not their actual birthday due to PII concerns.

The Bullis player turned 19 this past September and has been in high school now for 6 years. I'm sure there are others on this list who are re-classes or even double re-class.

Overall, I do think it's a very good list.

Just in the DC area, we have Freshman turning 16 this past Fall semester in the IAC. There will be multiple 19 year olds playing across many of the private schools. We have Mater Dei embedding the believe that it is better for boys development/maturity to be held back ie it is an institutional practice. Holding back is so common now, that if your child (particularly boy) is "on age" in the traditional sense, he is often considered young. It is here to stay.

Only thing that stops it is changing rules to where 19 is the cutoff, not 20. If not, parents will continue to push the boundaries. In most sports, the truly special talents are the one's who play up/above their age group. Funny how things change.

So one of the big rumors floating around is that some of the big club teams are going to try to push for scaling of the system similar to soccer i.e., age for consideration in playing in tournaments. Though there would be an overlap of 3 months on the back end. So in short it would be October 1st through the next December 31st to be eligible. Now, this rumor has floated around before but seems to have gained some traction given I've heard it from several different sources. The word coming from all these sources is "equity" and that it isn't equitable to have kids being holdbacks/reclassifications as they move through private schools compared to those kids that go right through school (typically in public school). Now, the other big issue is that it would go against almost all the interests of these club teams to push this. But, who knows maybe the equity argument holds.

But, I'm not holding my breath on that one.

IL and the NLF support this but not for high school only for youth lacrosse. College coaches want to see all kids in a grad year Many kids switch teams in HS so I do not think this will stop reclassing maybe just delay it.

That's a win. At least we don't have 10 year olds playing against 12 year olds. Once you get to HS and you want to reclass, knock yourself out. At least then we will know it's about sports and not "learning" difficulty.

[Anonymous]

Deerfield and Brunswick are kings of the North.

I'm surprised Culver is not on St John's schedule.

Unless SJC's schedule posted on IL is missing some games, their schedule is surprisingly "average".

[Anonymous]

SJC played 19 games last season and there are only 15 on the IL schedule. Probably will be a few more added but agree what is there so far is not testing themselves against the best of the best.

[Anonymous]

I said this last year but the WCAC commissioner really does a disserve to its own student-athletes and coaches.

SJC, Gonzaga, PVI and DeMatha get NOTHING out of playing Ireton or O'Connell or Ryken or Bishop McNamara. Beating a team 25-2 is not fun for the players, coaches, or parents of either team.

The WCAC has an upper and lower division for football, why not have one for lacrosse? It makes sense and would also help grow the game.

[Anonymous]

The players get to pad their stats and say they scored 30 or 40 or 50 goals in a season, and the coaches keep their jobs when they go 19-0. It seems to be working for recruiting purposes, but agree it doesn't necessarily make them better as players, and definitely is no fun to be on the losing end of those.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The 'equity' debate is not about the age/holdback issue but rather the pay-to-play piece. If you are a low to lower-middle income family there is almost no way for your child to get recruited. You can't afford club. The travel costs for tournaments. The fees for showcases, etc. This is why the NCAA is looking at more specific changes, capping the costs. Sure colleges and tournaments can say they are open to everyone, but the unsaid portion is 'everyone who can pay'. The hold-back piece is an off-shoot of this talk, but its really more of an equity piece. Absent acting on this now that its been raised by the new NCAA leadership there is a very real chance of litigation. But to the earlier points raised, the age-based ideas are a very real possibility starting with the 2027 class.

Sorry. I should have been more expressive when talking about equity and it is for reasons that you state WRT to pay for play aspect of lacrosse. I'm not sure how much this impacts pay to play and club lacrosse because at the end of the day, a kid is still going to have to play for a club team to improve his skills. I am also not sure by what you mean "capping the costs" on what? Tuition? I doubt that happens and I doubt the NCAA has an authority in saying a parents can only pay X amount of dollars on their kids club team.