Feedback on VLC Club Lacrosse?

[Anonymous]

OMG a middle school kid turned the ball over after a time out? Is that worse than what the ML guy or Bw guy did?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A roster of 18-20 would get crushed in the summer with multiple games in a day, in the heat, plus injuries and vacations. 18-20 is good for Rec ball with 1-2 games a week but not ideal for high level club ball. VLC would never merge with Cavalier, and vice versa, as the leaders of each organization have completely different goals for for the clubs.

Pipelines are a necessity for the greedy and I would say VLC is it's on pipeline as they have kids from nearly every HS, public and private, with decent lacrosse, in the DMV (including GZ, Landon, SJC, PVI, etc.). I don't think any other club can tout this. If a quality product is available, it will attract quality consumers - which is what VLC has done for years, just takes some time for players/parents to realize it.

Now this is a thoughtful post and I agree with the second paragraph, and also with the second sentence of the first paragraph. But I disagree on roster size. If kids are well conditioned and love the game and are pumped to play (as high level travel had better be) then they easily can play a game with 15-16 players, and a roster of 18-20 provides some cushion. Summer tournament games are running time and go fast. Families on high level teams should not schedule vacations on tournament weekends; if they do, then the team has other issues. Nothing is perfect, but 95% of the time smaller rosters do just fine and the boys love it. Yes, occasionally a team with a roster of 18-20 gets into a tight spot due to injuries, but the worst case scenario is not that they get crushed, but merely that they lose a close game or two that they might have won with a couple more players. Big deal. That is better than the opposite problem that happens on 22-27 man rosters, where most or all of the team is unhappy with their playing time game after game. I have three sons who have played on multiple travel and rec teams over the years and I have seen all roster sizes, from crazy small to crazy big. I am convinced that smaller rosters give the boys a better experience, hands down. I recall somebody from VLC once saying "we are about the players, not the profits" and I believe that to be true. That is why I can't figure out why all the VLC rosters besides 2026 currently are so large.

[Anonymous]

That is better than the opposite problem that happens on 22-27 man rosters, where most or all of the team is unhappy with their playing time game after game. I have three sons who have played on multiple travel and rec teams over the years and I have seen all roster sizes, from crazy small to crazy big. I am convinced that smaller rosters give the boys a better experience, hands down. I recall somebody from VLC once saying "we are about the players, not the profits" and I believe that to be true. That is why I can't figure out why all the VLC rosters besides 2026 currently are so large.

Totally agree.

[Anonymous]

HS teams do have larger rosters at all clubs

[Anonymous]

The reality is people keep their kids on these so called elite teams even though they know they will not get any playing time. One because their kids is "perceived" not to be as good and two, the rosters are just too big. I just don't get it. I have kids at varying levels of talent and the right team for them is the team where they play in the games. I'm not paying for my kid to just watch the game from the sidelines so I can brag about what team he's on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The reality is people keep their kids on these so called elite teams even though they know they will not get any playing time. One because their kids is "perceived" not to be as good and two, the rosters are just too big. I just don't get it. I have kids at varying levels of talent and the right team for them is the team where they play in the games. I'm not paying for my kid to just watch the game from the sidelines so I can brag about what team he's on.

I'm with you, but fortunately for the owners, many families are content to pay for exactly that!

[Anonymous]

Kids need to be challenged to get better prove it at practice and ball out when your number is called. Or join another team. This is America

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A roster of 18-20 would get crushed in the summer with multiple games in a day, in the heat, plus injuries and vacations. 18-20 is good for Rec ball with 1-2 games a week but not ideal for high level club ball. VLC would never merge with Cavalier, and vice versa, as the leaders of each organization have completely different goals for for the clubs.

Pipelines are a necessity for the greedy and I would say VLC is it's on pipeline as they have kids from nearly every HS, public and private, with decent lacrosse, in the DMV (including GZ, Landon, SJC, PVI, etc.). I don't think any other club can tout this. If a quality product is available, it will attract quality consumers - which is what VLC has done for years, just takes some time for players/parents to realize it.

Now this is a thoughtful post and I agree with the second paragraph, and also with the second sentence of the first paragraph. But I disagree on roster size. If kids are well conditioned and love the game and are pumped to play (as high level travel had better be) then they easily can play a game with 15-16 players, and a roster of 18-20 provides some cushion. Summer tournament games are running time and go fast. Families on high level teams should not schedule vacations on tournament weekends; if they do, then the team has other issues. Nothing is perfect, but 95% of the time smaller rosters do just fine and the boys love it. Yes, occasionally a team with a roster of 18-20 gets into a tight spot due to injuries, but the worst case scenario is not that they get crushed, but merely that they lose a close game or two that they might have won with a couple more players. Big deal. That is better than the opposite problem that happens on 22-27 man rosters, where most or all of the team is unhappy with their playing time game after game. I have three sons who have played on multiple travel and rec teams over the years and I have seen all roster sizes, from crazy small to crazy big. I am convinced that smaller rosters give the boys a better experience, hands down. I recall somebody from VLC once saying "we are about the players, not the profits" and I believe that to be true. That is why I can't figure out why all the VLC rosters besides 2026 currently are so large.

If you consider conflicts such as NHSLS, Under Armor, Nike Lax Nationals, Various Prospect days, etc. - if a team only had 18 players then it is extremely likely they would find themselves going into tournaments with 13-14 kids. If you think that 14 kids can survive 5 games in the heat at an extremely competitive level, and win them all, you are mistaken.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kids need to be challenged to get better prove it at practice and ball out when your number is called. Or join another team. This is America

I still think you get better playing in games rather than watching them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A roster of 18-20 would get crushed in the summer with multiple games in a day, in the heat, plus injuries and vacations. 18-20 is good for Rec ball with 1-2 games a week but not ideal for high level club ball. VLC would never merge with Cavalier, and vice versa, as the leaders of each organization have completely different goals for for the clubs.

Pipelines are a necessity for the greedy and I would say VLC is it's on pipeline as they have kids from nearly every HS, public and private, with decent lacrosse, in the DMV (including GZ, Landon, SJC, PVI, etc.). I don't think any other club can tout this. If a quality product is available, it will attract quality consumers - which is what VLC has done for years, just takes some time for players/parents to realize it.

Now this is a thoughtful post and I agree with the second paragraph, and also with the second sentence of the first paragraph. But I disagree on roster size. If kids are well conditioned and love the game and are pumped to play (as high level travel had better be) then they easily can play a game with 15-16 players, and a roster of 18-20 provides some cushion. Summer tournament games are running time and go fast. Families on high level teams should not schedule vacations on tournament weekends; if they do, then the team has other issues. Nothing is perfect, but 95% of the time smaller rosters do just fine and the boys love it. Yes, occasionally a team with a roster of 18-20 gets into a tight spot due to injuries, but the worst case scenario is not that they get crushed, but merely that they lose a close game or two that they might have won with a couple more players. Big deal. That is better than the opposite problem that happens on 22-27 man rosters, where most or all of the team is unhappy with their playing time game after game. I have three sons who have played on multiple travel and rec teams over the years and I have seen all roster sizes, from crazy small to crazy big. I am convinced that smaller rosters give the boys a better experience, hands down. I recall somebody from VLC once saying "we are about the players, not the profits" and I believe that to be true. That is why I can't figure out why all the VLC rosters besides 2026 currently are so large.

If you consider conflicts such as NHSLS, Under Armor, Nike Lax Nationals, Various Prospect days, etc. - if a team only had 18 players then it is extremely likely they would find themselves going into tournaments with 13-14 kids. If you think that 14 kids can survive 5 games in the heat at an extremely competitive level, and win them all, you are mistaken.

Prior poster here. My experience is only through 7th grade, and I assume that NHSLS, etc. are HS events, since I have barely heard of them. Maybe the landscape changes in HS and a team that had 18-20 through 8th grade needs to expand a bit. But even at the HS level, I would much prefer to play with a smaller team occasionally and go 3-2 some weekends when we could have gone 4-1 or 5-0, rather than have a roster in the mid-20's and kids not getting on the field. But to each his own; if you think that teams that size are in your son/daughter's best interest, there are a lot of club owners who wholeheartedly agree, and your son/daughter will have plenty of options.

[Anonymous]

HS rosters are 35 to 40 college some are over 50. 25
Is small by comparison. In my experience every kid plays. Girls roster not relevant to VLC thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A roster of 18-20 would get crushed in the summer with multiple games in a day, in the heat, plus injuries and vacations. 18-20 is good for Rec ball with 1-2 games a week but not ideal for high level club ball. VLC would never merge with Cavalier, and vice versa, as the leaders of each organization have completely different goals for for the clubs.

Pipelines are a necessity for the greedy and I would say VLC is it's on pipeline as they have kids from nearly every HS, public and private, with decent lacrosse, in the DMV (including GZ, Landon, SJC, PVI, etc.). I don't think any other club can tout this. If a quality product is available, it will attract quality consumers - which is what VLC has done for years, just takes some time for players/parents to realize it.

Now this is a thoughtful post and I agree with the second paragraph, and also with the second sentence of the first paragraph. But I disagree on roster size. If kids are well conditioned and love the game and are pumped to play (as high level travel had better be) then they easily can play a game with 15-16 players, and a roster of 18-20 provides some cushion. Summer tournament games are running time and go fast. Families on high level teams should not schedule vacations on tournament weekends; if they do, then the team has other issues. Nothing is perfect, but 95% of the time smaller rosters do just fine and the boys love it. Yes, occasionally a team with a roster of 18-20 gets into a tight spot due to injuries, but the worst case scenario is not that they get crushed, but merely that they lose a close game or two that they might have won with a couple more players. Big deal. That is better than the opposite problem that happens on 22-27 man rosters, where most or all of the team is unhappy with their playing time game after game. I have three sons who have played on multiple travel and rec teams over the years and I have seen all roster sizes, from crazy small to crazy big. I am convinced that smaller rosters give the boys a better experience, hands down. I recall somebody from VLC once saying "we are about the players, not the profits" and I believe that to be true. That is why I can't figure out why all the VLC rosters besides 2026 currently are so large.

If you consider conflicts such as NHSLS, Under Armor, Nike Lax Nationals, Various Prospect days, etc. - if a team only had 18 players then it is extremely likely they would find themselves going into tournaments with 13-14 kids. If you think that 14 kids can survive 5 games in the heat at an extremely competitive level, and win them all, you are mistaken.

Prior poster here. My experience is only through 7th grade, and I assume that NHSLS, etc. are HS events, since I have barely heard of them. Maybe the landscape changes in HS and a team that had 18-20 through 8th grade needs to expand a bit. But even at the HS level, I would much prefer to play with a smaller team occasionally and go 3-2 some weekends when we could have gone 4-1 or 5-0, rather than have a roster in the mid-20's and kids not getting on the field. But to each his own; if you think that teams that size are in your son/daughter's best interest, there are a lot of club owners who wholeheartedly agree, and your son/daughter will have plenty of options.

NHSLS is the best of these tournaments by far, especially if your kids play in the division with the New England prep schools (Red Session, it was on ESPN). Your rising soph or jr can play against committed post-grads. Plus, it's real lacrosse and not the club "look at me" crap. Definitely need a bigger roster for that style of play. I know some VLC kids played in the lower tournament (White Session) with Paul VI. Not sure if VLC kids played for SJC or Episcopal who did play in Red Session. I'm pretty sure no other local teams played (not counting MIAA as local).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:2023 does not have 27 players

Team App says they do

[Anonymous]

VLC players from SSSAS played in Red Session. Very competitive tournament.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2023 does not have 27 players

Team App says they do

So this must be a parent poster. Suggest you escalate your issues to your Head Coach or the VLC Leadership. I'm sure they will take care of you.