2028 Girls Lacrosse

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m hearing a lot of chatter about the NCAA's proposed 5-in-5 rule and the idea that it could hurt 2028 recruiting because players in older classes may use a fifth year, leading coaches to reduce the size of the 2028 recruiting class to balance the equation. That said, it seems to me that the only players who would stay for all five years are the ones who meaningfully contribute, and that group is probably less than half of most rosters. Coaches also cannot know this far in advance how many players from multiple future classes will develop into key contributors, especially when some of them have not even arrived on campus yet. Given all that uncertainty, I doubt coaches will make major changes to their recruiting approach in this cycle. Does anyone see it differently and think the 2028 class is really in trouble? I’d be interested to hear other views.

Depends how much the coach uses the portal. If the roster cap is 38 girls and a player can now play 5 seasons...my guess is the 2028 recruiting classes will go from 9-10 girls down to 7-8.

That view assumes everyone stays for five years, which will not be true at most schools. It may be more realistic for a few elite programs like UNC, where roster turnover is low and top-end talent is deep. Even then, projecting that accurately four or five years ahead is difficult, and in most cases it is safer for coaches to over-recruit than under-recruit. We may see some modest tightening at the top, but it is unlikely to become a significant recruiting problem for most 2028s.

Ok think what you want

Great thank you

[Anonymous]

They’re not over recruiting- they can always pick up a player if they need to. Go to Laxnumbers.com you can see for yourself how much recruiting numbers have fallen. The 2028 class will be the smallest recruiting class yet, if your club coaches are not telling you this they’re lying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m hearing a lot of chatter about the NCAA's proposed 5-in-5 rule and the idea that it could hurt 2028 recruiting because players in older classes may use a fifth year, leading coaches to reduce the size of the 2028 recruiting class to balance the equation. That said, it seems to me that the only players who would stay for all five years are the ones who meaningfully contribute, and that group is probably less than half of most rosters. Coaches also cannot know this far in advance how many players from multiple future classes will develop into key contributors, especially when some of them have not even arrived on campus yet. Given all that uncertainty, I doubt coaches will make major changes to their recruiting approach in this cycle. Does anyone see it differently and think the 2028 class is really in trouble? I’d be interested to hear other views.

Depends how much the coach uses the portal. If the roster cap is 38 girls and a player can now play 5 seasons...my guess is the 2028 recruiting classes will go from 9-10 girls down to 7-8.

More like 7-9 down to 5-6. Really concerning from my research.

THIS 100%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m hearing a lot of chatter about the NCAA's proposed 5-in-5 rule and the idea that it could hurt 2028 recruiting because players in older classes may use a fifth year, leading coaches to reduce the size of the 2028 recruiting class to balance the equation. That said, it seems to me that the only players who would stay for all five years are the ones who meaningfully contribute, and that group is probably less than half of most rosters. Coaches also cannot know this far in advance how many players from multiple future classes will develop into key contributors, especially when some of them have not even arrived on campus yet. Given all that uncertainty, I doubt coaches will make major changes to their recruiting approach in this cycle. Does anyone see it differently and think the 2028 class is really in trouble? I’d be interested to hear other views.

Depends how much the coach uses the portal. If the roster cap is 38 girls and a player can now play 5 seasons...my guess is the 2028 recruiting classes will go from 9-10 girls down to 7-8.

More like 7-8 down to 5-6. Really concerning from my research.

Going to say the same thing. At least on the D1 level we were seeing 7-9 spots per team last year. The only ones still pickup up 9-10 were the known “over recruiters” like Mercer, U Mass Lowell, etc. Many girls / families shot too high and got caught flat footed this year.

[Anonymous]

The 2028 classes will probably be one player smaller on average, with “project” players hardest hit. You’ll see fewer head scratchers this cycle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The 2028 classes will probably be one player smaller on average, with “project” players hardest hit. You’ll see fewer head scratchers this cycle.

What is a “project” player?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain how a girl can be on both rosters? Arent these events the same day?

The jerk store is definitely calling on this one.

I love jerk store calling comments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m hearing a lot of chatter about the NCAA's proposed 5-in-5 rule and the idea that it could hurt 2028 recruiting because players in older classes may use a fifth year, leading coaches to reduce the size of the 2028 recruiting class to balance the equation. That said, it seems to me that the only players who would stay for all five years are the ones who meaningfully contribute, and that group is probably less than half of most rosters. Coaches also cannot know this far in advance how many players from multiple future classes will develop into key contributors, especially when some of them have not even arrived on campus yet. Given all that uncertainty, I doubt coaches will make major changes to their recruiting approach in this cycle. Does anyone see it differently and think the 2028 class is really in trouble? I’d be interested to hear other views.

Depends how much the coach uses the portal. If the roster cap is 38 girls and a player can now play 5 seasons...my guess is the 2028 recruiting classes will go from 9-10 girls down to 7-8.

More like 7-8 down to 5-6. Really concerning from my research.

Going to say the same thing. At least on the D1 level we were seeing 7-9 spots per team last year. The only ones still pickup up 9-10 were the known “over recruiters” like Mercer, U Mass Lowell, etc. Many girls / families shot too high and got caught flat footed this year.

Or schools that had small senior class so had more spots to use in lower classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 2028 classes will probably be one player smaller on average, with “project” players hardest hit. You’ll see fewer head scratchers this cycle.

What is a “project” player?

In recruiting, a “project player” usually means an athlete who has high potential but isn’t expected to contribute immediately. Coaches see traits they can develop over time. That must of been someone who knows the landscape of this next recruiting cycle is changing. You will see less room and spots for project players unless they can significantly boost the team’s GPA as an example.

[Anonymous]

Just trying to get a sense of what the general thinking is on the value of attending a specific school’s prospect day versus a showcase type format with multiple coaches from different schools. Appreciate any thoughts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just trying to get a sense of what the general thinking is on the value of attending a specific school’s prospect day versus a showcase type format with multiple coaches from different schools. Appreciate any thoughts.

I’m no more of an expert than you, but my view is that the girls should focus first on showcases and tournaments to get on coaches’ radar and generate interest. Once that interest is established, and assuming it’s mutual, then prospect camps make sense. Otherwise, attending a prospect camp before a school is actively interested could be a poor allocation of resources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just trying to get a sense of what the general thinking is on the value of attending a specific school’s prospect day versus a showcase type format with multiple coaches from different schools. Appreciate any thoughts.

I’m no more of an expert than you, but my view is that the girls should focus first on showcases and tournaments to get on coaches’ radar and generate interest. Once that interest is established, and assuming it’s mutual, then prospect camps make sense. Otherwise, attending a prospect camp before a school is actively interested could be a poor allocation of resources.

If a coach is following your daughter on social media and has visited her IMLCA page, it might be worth attending a prospect day. Beware of fatigue though, my DC was an absolute mess at the end of the summer, if I had to do it over again, we’d do less larger showcases like BIC and Juniors Open and focus on the tournaments where my DC could be seen on an established team versus hero ball/all star play.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just trying to get a sense of what the general thinking is on the value of attending a specific school’s prospect day versus a showcase type format with multiple coaches from different schools. Appreciate any thoughts.

I’m no more of an expert than you, but my view is that the girls should focus first on showcases and tournaments to get on coaches’ radar and generate interest. Once that interest is established, and assuming it’s mutual, then prospect camps make sense. Otherwise, attending a prospect camp before a school is actively interested could be a poor allocation of resources.

If a coach is following your daughter on social media and has visited her IMLCA page, it might be worth attending a prospect day. Beware of fatigue though, my DC was an absolute mess at the end of the summer, if I had to do it over again, we’d do less larger showcases like BIC and Juniors Open and focus on the tournaments where my DC could be seen on an established team versus hero ball/all star play.

I don’t know that anyone would turn down a BIC invite even if hindsight tells you it may not have been necessary. And Juniors seems to be the next most hyped for those not attending BIC. The one to sit out in the future will probably be American select. It will probably go the way of the schoolgirls tournament and fizzle out.

[Anonymous]

MD American Select rosters are out. One Cap Blue on top team and one Cap Blue on second team. Will be interesting to see who wins if MD plays DC-VA which is almost all Capital. Seems like big advantage having played together all year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MD American Select rosters are out. One Cap Blue on top team and one Cap Blue on second team. Will be interesting to see who wins if MD plays DC-VA which is almost all Capital. Seems like big advantage having played together all year.

They played 2 years ago in the consolation game because both teams were winless in pool play I am Guessing it may happen again this since several cap blue starters are on AA this year instead and most of MD’s top girls are on AA for Baltimore as well.