Feedback on Next Level Lacrosse?

[Anonymous]

When talking about top players at top 20 programs they are all there on skill. They would be top players regardless. Cheating the system may get a player on a roster at An expensive private school but life is unfair. Re-classing also requires the financial means to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My point is that it can end up being a disadvantage to athletes who have never had to climb a ladder so to speak because they have always been bigger and stronger due to age. When all things become equal with size and speed - the lessons missed a long the way may catch up to you .

So you are concerned an older athlete might not be able to deal with other kids catching up in college might hurt them mentally? Big deal and deal with it.

[Anonymous]

I am not concerned. Just saying I would rather my kid have to climb the ladder without arriving in high school bigger and stronger than piers due to reclassing for sports. It's good to learn that lesson in high school as you are going to have another ladder to climb in college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Club leagues, e.g., HoCo, need to strictly enforce US Lacrosse's Sept 1 cutoff. Similarly, club teams should avoid tournaments that aren't sanctioned by US Lacrosse because this organization requires age verification.

Problem is that so may clubs rely on ringers, not much motivation to make the push.

You'd feel differently if your kid's birthday was Aug 31. It's a random date at best.

That "ringer" that you object to will be recruited for college in the class year he/she graduates, not based on a Sep 1 birthday.

Your argument would be better with some nuance, say age based through middle school, then grade based in high school, or something with some logic behind it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Club leagues, e.g., HoCo, need to strictly enforce US Lacrosse's Sept 1 cutoff. Similarly, club teams should avoid tournaments that aren't sanctioned by US Lacrosse because this organization requires age verification.

Problem is that so may clubs rely on ringers, not much motivation to make the push.

You'd feel differently if your kid's birthday was Aug 31. It's a random date at best.

That "ringer" that you object to will be recruited for college in the class year he/she graduates, not based on a Sep 1 birthday.

Your argument would be better with some nuance, say age based through middle school, then grade based in high school, or something with some logic behind it.

Not PP - Age-based in middle school makes especially good sense especially when you see 15 and even 16 year olds playing in youth games - exploiting their size, speed and aggression on smaller, less developed kids - that's precisely why US Lacrosse recommends organizing kids by age, not grade (this ain't an educational program). Maybe these holdback kids should have birth month/year posted on their team's roster, stowing the hype of "how does this kid dominate..." when it's clear they are not playing w/ their age peers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Club leagues, e.g., HoCo, need to strictly enforce US Lacrosse's Sept 1 cutoff. Similarly, club teams should avoid tournaments that aren't sanctioned by US Lacrosse because this organization requires age verification.

Problem is that so may clubs rely on ringers, not much motivation to make the push.

You'd feel differently if your kid's birthday was Aug 31. It's a random date at best.

That "ringer" that you object to will be recruited for college in the class year he/she graduates, not based on a Sep 1 birthday.

Your argument would be better with some nuance, say age based through middle school, then grade based in high school, or something with some logic behind it.

Not PP - Age-based in middle school makes especially good sense especially when you see 15 and even 16 year olds playing in youth games - exploiting their size, speed and aggression on smaller, less developed kids - that's precisely why US Lacrosse recommends organizing kids by age, not grade (this ain't an educational program). Maybe these holdback kids should have birth month/year posted on their team's roster, stowing the hype of "how does this kid dominate..." when it's clear they are not playing w/ their age peers.

And that is why US lacrosse fails to get rope teams to sanctioned events

[Anonymous]

What did auto correct "rope" from?

[Anonymous]

Is Next Level losing its indoor facility?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is Next Level losing its indoor facility?

Yes, as of September 1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Next Level losing its indoor facility?

Yes, as of September 1.

Oh no. They had some good clinics there especially in the winter. Are they moving?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Next Level losing its indoor facility?

Yes, as of September 1.

Oh no. They had some good clinics there especially in the winter. Are they moving?

This is the beginning of the END for NL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Next Level losing its indoor facility?

Yes, as of September 1.

Oh no. They had some good clinics there especially in the winter. Are they moving?

This is the beginning of the END for NL

They will figure it out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Next Level losing its indoor facility?

Yes, as of September 1.

Oh no. They had some good clinics there especially in the winter. Are they moving?

This is the beginning of the END for NL

They will figure it out.

Does DC Express have indoor space?

[Anonymous]

Yes, in Gaithersburg.

[Anonymous]

It's tiny and not as well run.