2027 GIRLS PLAYER COMMITMENTS 🥍🥍🥍

[Anonymous]

27s commited faster than ever. Top 25 schools are done or virtually done, and taking smaller classes due to imminent 5 year eligibilty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:27s commited faster than ever. Top 25 schools are done or virtually done, and taking smaller classes due to imminent 5 year eligibilty.

Plus roster caps for most conferences. Feels like a tough recruiting year for many players.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:27s commited faster than ever. Top 25 schools are done or virtually done, and taking smaller classes due to imminent 5 year eligibilty.

They are not virtually done and 5 year eligibility is not imminent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:27s commited faster than ever. Top 25 schools are done or virtually done, and taking smaller classes due to imminent 5 year eligibilty.

They are not virtually done and 5 year eligibility is not imminent.

Scroll down the rosters of the top 60 schools. Most of them are done or almost done. And definitely the top 35 are near full.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:27s commited faster than ever. Top 25 schools are done or virtually done, and taking smaller classes due to imminent 5 year eligibilty.

They are not virtually done and 5 year eligibility is not imminent.

Scroll down the rosters of the top 60 schools. Most of them are done or almost done. And definitely the top 35 are near full.

*Should say “scroll down commitment lists” not rosters (on Inside Lacrosse)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:27s commited faster than ever. Top 25 schools are done or virtually done, and taking smaller classes due to imminent 5 year eligibilty.

They are not virtually done and 5 year eligibility is not imminent.

Scroll down the rosters of the top 60 schools. Most of them are done or almost done. And definitely the top 35 are near full.

*Should say “scroll down commitment lists” not rosters (on Inside Lacrosse)

I did. They're not. You also posted that 5 year eligibility is imminent, which is patently untrue. Not sure what your angle is, but it really isn't called for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another Capital Blue to Harvard!

Awesome! What high school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another Capital Blue to Harvard!

Awesome! What high school?

Maret

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:27s commited faster than ever. Top 25 schools are done or virtually done, and taking smaller classes due to imminent 5 year eligibilty.

They are not virtually done and 5 year eligibility is not imminent.

Scroll down the rosters of the top 60 schools. Most of them are done or almost done. And definitely the top 35 are near full.

*Should say “scroll down commitment lists” not rosters (on Inside Lacrosse)

I did. They're not. You also posted that 5 year eligibility is imminent, which is patently untrue. Not sure what your angle is, but it really isn't called for.

Different poster, and it is imminent. Per Inside Lacrosse article with Joe Spallina a proposal is being voted on in October for Five in Five.

Coaches will have to account for incoming transfers (like from Ivies who will stick with 4 years of eligibility), even more than they do now when projecting their roster numbers.

[Anonymous]

Wau to go Capital! Back to back double Harvard Committs for Capital Blue for 2026 and 2027 years! Impressive!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:27s commited faster than ever. Top 25 schools are done or virtually done, and taking smaller classes due to imminent 5 year eligibilty.

They are not virtually done and 5 year eligibility is not imminent.

Scroll down the rosters of the top 60 schools. Most of them are done or almost done. And definitely the top 35 are near full.

*Should say “scroll down commitment lists” not rosters (on Inside Lacrosse)

I did. They're not. You also posted that 5 year eligibility is imminent, which is patently untrue. Not sure what your angle is, but it really isn't called for.

Different poster, and it is imminent. Per Inside Lacrosse article with Joe Spallina a proposal is being voted on in October for Five in Five.

Coaches will have to account for incoming transfers (like from Ivies who will stick with 4 years of eligibility), even more than they do now when projecting their roster numbers.

It may eventually happen. There's nothing imminent about it. RE: Inside Lacrosse, is there a major outlet anywhere that's reporting even a vote coming up?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:27s commited faster than ever. Top 25 schools are done or virtually done, and taking smaller classes due to imminent 5 year eligibilty.

They are not virtually done and 5 year eligibility is not imminent.

Scroll down the rosters of the top 60 schools. Most of them are done or almost done. And definitely the top 35 are near full.

*Should say “scroll down commitment lists” not rosters (on Inside Lacrosse)

I did. They're not. You also posted that 5 year eligibility is imminent, which is patently untrue. Not sure what your angle is, but it really isn't called for.

I’m not sure if the article but the article mentioned it being announced in October. I am not PP but not sure there is an angle?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:27s commited faster than ever. Top 25 schools are done or virtually done, and taking smaller classes due to imminent 5 year eligibilty.

They are not virtually done and 5 year eligibility is not imminent.

Scroll down the rosters of the top 60 schools. Most of them are done or almost done. And definitely the top 35 are near full.

*Should say “scroll down commitment lists” not rosters (on Inside Lacrosse)

I did. They're not. You also posted that 5 year eligibility is imminent, which is patently untrue. Not sure what your angle is, but it really isn't called for.

I’m not sure if the article but the article mentioned it being announced in October. I am not PP but not sure there is an angle?

There's no record as of now of even a vote coming up, or maybe one of us can find it? Agreed , that's why I said I'm not sure what their angle is.

[Anonymous]

https://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/parenting-recruiting-by-tg-performance-joe-spallina-stony-brook-hc-father-to-four-di-athletes/65918

Not sure why you insist on making it an angle. Sometimes it is simply opinion which we all have. Nothing directed or with an angle

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/parenting-recruiting-by-tg-performance-joe-spallina-stony-brook-hc-father-to-four-di-athletes/65918

Not sure why you insist on making it an angle. Sometimes it is simply opinion which we all have. Nothing directed or with an angle

Are you the OP?