Reply to Recruiting Question

Forum Index » Lacrosse

Reply to "Recruiting Question"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Given that every year I’ve watched high school lacrosse a number of highly committed players look relatively average by the end of junior year or senior year and a number of mid or uncommitted players end up looking better, why don’t teams hold open more roster spots open to scoop up players towards the end of high school. Similarly, how come you don’t see more five star type players wait until the end of high school when they can better assess the roster to commit. You see this in basketball and football where a lot of five star players commit senior year (although some commitments are made much earlier).  Why is lacrosse different in the sense that nearly everyone on both the player and the coach side go all in on commitments the summer before junior year?  Is it just a collective action problem?  And if so, how come the revenue sports don’t have the same issue? This is an earnest question. I’m not trying to denigrate anyone who commits or does not commit early. It just seems weird that lacrosse is so different than basketball and football in terms of timeline. [/quote]

A number of reasons.

First, the spring/summer season does not align with the admissions calendar, so lacrosse players always lose that last year.

Second, college lacrosse programs do not have big recruiting budgets, so they have to use their dollars wisely and go to tournaments where the best players are.  All the "if you're good, they'll find you" talk is just that: talk.

Third, college coaches are not lazy, so they let clubs do the player sorting for them.  Anyone who has been involved with club lacrosse for more than a minute knows the clubs are heavily political and not nearly as merit-based as they pretend.  The clubs don't get punished because the coaches are too lazy/dumb to see which clubs can't get their best guys to the top of their lineups.  The best evidence this year is the fact that Timothy Shannehan is at Boston and not a top program.  Kid set all sorts of records in CT, but he was not given his due in club ball, so tons of teams missed.

Fourth, college coaches are not sophisticated.  I've talked to a ton, and they don't understand the drawbacks to exploiting the relative age effect.  In competitive sports like soccer and basketball, the pro teams understand that a younger player who performs well against older competition have a higher ceiling.  College coaches are often cavemen who say, "Older stronger.  Stronger better.  Me want stronger."  I've personally heard this from guys on a staff like Maryland, a program I think that tends to recruit quite well.

Fifth, put all this together and boys who hit puberty sooner are rewarded.  A kid who is solidly into stage IV in 8th grade is at a huge advantage over one who is just starting III at the same age.  If the two players are close, a smart coach could pick III every time, but today's dimwits inevitably take IV instead.

Parents spend a lot of time and money to operate within these constraints.  The best way to fix this would be to start showcases/tournaments with bio-banding to give the coaches a better chance to see a player against his developmentally appropriate competition.  Then, coaches would have to show up and reward.  Finally, instead of rewarding holdbacks, those coaches could encourage the developmentally younger kids to do a PG year and then maybe redshirt again to get maximum holdback effect, but with better recruiting efficiency.  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics