Feedback on Next Level Lacrosse?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Profiting is not a problem they are businesses , but when my children where in MCPS the ties between the public school coaches and these private ventures were unacceptable at best. For example, field hockey coach pushes girls to camps and tournaments that she profited off of then cuts them from the public school teams. The whole you won't play on my team if you don't do my personal for profit camp. It's a fine line...... |
Anonymous
Sounds like you have a beef with the coach who did this but you should be complaining to the school system. The Walt Whitman JV basketball coach was doing exactly this by requiring his players to play on his off season teams. The parents complained and he was removed from the school. |
Anonymous
| All of this is such BS. Next Level plays the game like everyone else, if not more so. To the PP who said NL doesn't recruit, that is laughable and they need to educate themselves. NL steals kids from other club teams by offering them incentives, promises, and discounted fees. I have even heard of NL paying for some A team players annual fees and travel expenses. The middle school and high school kids all talk, they know who is being offered what and what coaches are telling kids to lure them over. Next Level also lures kids over and then doesn't play them. So they lure your kid over, take your money, and then don't play your kid. I know lots of players who left their club, went to NL and then came back or moved to another. In terms of shady practices for the close in popular DMV clubs, I would say first Madlax, then NL, and Express. Madlax being the worst, then NL, then Express. |
Anonymous
| 22:53, all true |
Anonymous
| NL 2023 Blue team has 29 players on the roster. Can anyone say MONEY GRAB! |
Anonymous
Money grab my asshole. If that was the case then they would make another team. Next Level would be able to add another 15 players to the B team roster if they were super concerned about money. You are clearly uneducated on how High School Club Lacrosse works. Everyone keeps a large roster in the Sophmore+ years because they want to get there players recruited. It’s a recruiting tactic, not money grab. Next Level 2026, for example, only has 19 players. You simply do not know how college recruiting works. Maybe join the Madlax 2026 with 35+ players? |
Anonymous
|
Nice try, their 2023 B team already has 20 players and no one would pay to play on a B team with 35 players. Also nice try with the high school recruiting angle. Just because you have 29 players doesn't mean you'll get more college recruits, only a certain amount of kids can get real play time with that large of a roster. And their 2024 team has 28 players and that's not a "sophomore+" team worried about recruiting. Also their other high school A teams have 26 players, not 29. That's a big difference in lax and almost $9,000 in NL's pockets.
The 2028s have 24 kids on the roster and they're no where near high school and recruiting. Money, Money, Money. |
Anonymous
|
No different than any of the other clubs in the beltway area. It seems there are just a few too many players for the 3 teams and not enough for a 4th club.
Where is the next closest club on the Maryland side of the the beltway - MDX in Olney maybe? |
Anonymous
How does an unusually large roster (29 players) at the sophomore year help players to get recruited? |
Anonymous
\ It doesn't. Somebody just wants to believe her little Spartan is Ivy bound because he's on the team, and not just $$ for the owners. |
Anonymous
| This isn’t the whole story, but the rosters are larger generally because they kept all players from the previous year teams because of the Covid shortened season last year. My guess is the rosters go down a little in size next year to a more normal level. So all the teams are a couple players more heavy than they would otherwise be. I personally think for the younger teams a slightly larger roster is better because you can do more in practice. Obviously you have to balance that with playing time in games. But around 22 is best for younger teams and a few extra for the older teams especially if you have players that play multiple sports. |
Anonymous
Disinterested party here, but I would presume the theory would be that if you have a larger roster it means more coaches will watch to see specific players and as a result could see other kids who they did not plan to see. The obvious hole in the logic is that only so many kids can play at once, so larger rosters means many kids will have limited to no playing time which means that it won’t matter if a college coach is watching. |
Anonymous
9k per team -7k in expenses. 2k per team for the owners. That’s literally nothing for a full time job working as a coach to a bunch of Millionaires. Would you want your child’s teacher to be making 20-30k a year? Neither would I. |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
Expenses per team would be essentially fixed. The incremental cost for an extra kid on the roster would be virtually zero so prior poster was more right about the money. As far as roster sizes, if NL is *relatively* honest (let’s be real, ML/DCE wouldn’t be any more) about playing time philosophy, then the parents and kids go into it with eyes wide open and can choose to spend their money as they see fit. I’m guessing most of the college players buried deep on those 40-50 man rosters are still happy they got to be part of those teams. |