2028 Girls Lacrosse

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Good / Great players can skip BIC and it won’t hurt their recruiting one bit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Good / Great players can skip BIC and it won’t hurt their recruiting one bit.

A normal/healthy player is not skipping BIC for almost any reason.

[Anonymous]

Do not skip BIC if you got an invite!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

AA IS BETTER THAN AS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

AA IS BETTER THAN AS

For HS, yes. AA better. But who cares? Most likely success is tied to which club you play for and how you do while all those coaches are watching. Good luck to everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Good / Great players can skip BIC and it won’t hurt their recruiting one bit.

No one said it would hurt their recruiting. But it is an event they all want to go to. Did your daughter actually turn down a BIC invite?

[Anonymous]

Having lived through this twice, here is the checklist:

1) Is your daughter FAST?

2) Is your daughter Tall? (Over 5'7)

3) Does your daughter have good grades and test scores?

4) Does she play for a top club?

If the answer to all 4 is YES, she can play for most schools. If you add in "great Lax IQ" and "great stickwork" she could be looking at B10 or ACC. These are the only things that matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Having lived through this twice, here is the checklist:

1) Is your daughter FAST?

2) Is your daughter Tall? (Over 5'7)

3) Does your daughter have good grades and test scores?

4) Does she play for a top club?

If the answer to all 4 is YES, she can play for most schools. If you add in "great Lax IQ" and "great stickwork" she could be looking at B10 or ACC. These are the only things that matter.

I don’t want to talk body style, especially when it comes to girls/women, but having watched a lot of college lax this season, I am always noticing how many non-lean (trying to be careful) bodies are out there killing it in the lax field. Maybe they still meet your criteria because maybe they are FAST but I am not sure. They definitely are effective, so maybe that has to include being fast. Maybe though they are strong and quick and have exceptional agility and lax IQ and stick skills. I don’t want to call anyone out or get flamed here, but Alexa Spallina is 5’6 and not lanky. She could be faaaast still. Not sure. Sam Smith. Very similar. Alyssa Chung. So many more. Maybe they are all lightening fast or maybe have another constellation of qualities that is magic nonetheless??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having lived through this twice, here is the checklist:

1) Is your daughter FAST?

2) Is your daughter Tall? (Over 5'7)

3) Does your daughter have good grades and test scores?

4) Does she play for a top club?

If the answer to all 4 is YES, she can play for most schools. If you add in "great Lax IQ" and "great stickwork" she could be looking at B10 or ACC. These are the only things that matter.

I don’t want to talk body style, especially when it comes to girls/women, but having watched a lot of college lax this season, I am always noticing how many non-lean (trying to be careful) bodies are out there killing it in the lax field. Maybe they still meet your criteria because maybe they are FAST but I am not sure. They definitely are effective, so maybe that has to include being fast. Maybe though they are strong and quick and have exceptional agility and lax IQ and stick skills. I don’t want to call anyone out or get flamed here, but Alexa Spallina is 5’6 and not lanky. She could be faaaast still. Not sure. Sam Smith. Very similar. Alyssa Chung. So many more. Maybe they are all lightening fast or maybe have another constellation of qualities that is magic nonetheless??

I think the OP describes an ideal Middie. I think if you're looking at attackers, it's more quick first step, good dodging/feeding, and maybe not as tall. Spallina has a hard shot and decent vision, not much else.

[Anonymous]

She also played with her brothers for years and received top-notch coaching in the backyard! Her body type is not the norm for success—look around. They are the outliers. There will always be outliers, but that is not the typical D1 player in the DMV or really anywhere. What the poster mentioned are the ideal target qualities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She also played with her brothers for years and received top-notch coaching in the backyard! Her body type is not the norm for success—look around. They are the outliers. There will always be outliers, but that is not the typical D1 player in the DMV or really anywhere. What the poster mentioned are the ideal target qualities.

I dunno. Typical is one thing. But I’m seeing enough (10%?) that are similar body type to call it an outlier. I think it seems like a successful body type, but, as the prior poster noted, maybe primarily for attack. Unsure if we see it for defenders. Of course goalies yes yes for sure.

[Anonymous]

Few things less helpful than a group of dads deciding what bodies are best for D1 women's lacrosse, and which are outliers on an anonymous chat board. So unhelpful, in fact, that I feel compelled to respond.

First, data guy did a multi-paragraph analysis of the size and speed arguments on the old thread based on data from UA 150 combines and recruiting results and, if I recall, showed that there was not a direct correlation between speed and recruiting results, especially for attackers, and even for midfielders, although it was a plus for defenders.

For height, there are so many exceptions that undermine the rule, that the rule is not that relevant. Does it help to be over 5'7"? Maybe for some programs. Is it the deciding factor, not really.

What matters the most is whether you can play the game. You don't have to look too far to confirm that. Chloe Humphrey is listed as 5'4" but looks smaller. I watched a group of rising 9th graders tower over her at American Select last year--and she would be any team's first pick today.

One massive example not good enough for you. How about this--the MAJORITY of the US National team is under 5'7". That means most of the players on the team ((Ally Kennedy (5'3"), (Emma Muchnick (5'4"), Emma Lopinto (5'4") Cassidy Weeks (5'5"), Katie Gooddale (5'5"), Sam Apuzzo (5'6"), Sydney Scales (5'6"), Shea Baker (5'6"), Caylee Waters (5'6"), Marie McCool (5'6"), Kenzie Kent (5'6"), Brigid Duffy (5'6")), okay? Being over 5'7" is not one of the "only things that matter". Enough of that already.

Stick skills and lax IQ are both significantly more important, but they were buried as an afterthought in the OP's post. And no, let's not talk about "shape". Somehow different body types can excel at the same sport. Just ask Steph Curry and Victor Wembyana. Enough of this.

Good luck to all the 2028s going out to leave their heart on the field and have a chance to play at the next level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Few things less helpful than a group of dads deciding what bodies are best for D1 women's lacrosse, and which are outliers on an anonymous chat board. So unhelpful, in fact, that I feel compelled to respond.

First, data guy did a multi-paragraph analysis of the size and speed arguments on the old thread based on data from UA 150 combines and recruiting results and, if I recall, showed that there was not a direct correlation between speed and recruiting results, especially for attackers, and even for midfielders, although it was a plus for defenders.

For height, there are so many exceptions that undermine the rule, that the rule is not that relevant. Does it help to be over 5'7"? Maybe for some programs. Is it the deciding factor, not really.

What matters the most is whether you can play the game. You don't have to look too far to confirm that. Chloe Humphrey is listed as 5'4" but looks smaller. I watched a group of rising 9th graders tower over her at American Select last year--and she would be any team's first pick today.

One massive example not good enough for you. How about this--the MAJORITY of the US National team is under 5'7". That means most of the players on the team ((Ally Kennedy (5'3"), (Emma Muchnick (5'4"), Emma Lopinto (5'4") Cassidy Weeks (5'5"), Katie Gooddale (5'5"), Sam Apuzzo (5'6"), Sydney Scales (5'6"), Shea Baker (5'6"), Caylee Waters (5'6"), Marie McCool (5'6"), Kenzie Kent (5'6"), Brigid Duffy (5'6")), okay? Being over 5'7" is not one of the "only things that matter". Enough of that already.

Stick skills and lax IQ are both significantly more important, but they were buried as an afterthought in the OP's post. And no, let's not talk about "shape". Somehow different body types can excel at the same sport. Just ask Steph Curry and Victor Wembyana. Enough of this.

Good luck to all the 2028s going out to leave their heart on the field and have a chance to play at the next level.

To be fair, the original poster cited several traits that college coaches clearly value—speed, height, grades, club affiliation, lacrosse IQ, and stickwork. A later poster then introduced the “body type” strawman, which seems to be what prompted the pearl-clutching.

[Anonymous]

Of the 2027s, there was 47 kids ranked five stars, 2 of them were not at BIC, the other 45 were

[Anonymous]

I was the one who inserted body type (beyond height, that is). I’m a woman/mom. It jumped to mind for me when reading that post because youngest my daughter is not lean or “fast” (tall is tbd) but is doing well at low attack. Plus I do think people get stuck on a prototype of very tall and lean yet strong. There are so many who aren’t that prototype. I notice when I see something more akin to what my daughter may be.

I did not see the UA 150 combine related post from data guy about speed and recruiting but would like to see that.