Anonymous wrote:You don’t need a “solution” to HoCo because it is not a problem.
If you want to “save” rec lacrosse, find a way to make it accessible and interesting to all the kids who play soccer now.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So the pandemic has made a lot of people realizing they were doing "too much". Club teams picked up a lot of kids ($$$) because they were playing and the schools were not. No problem with this as its simply supply vs demand.
BUT...where do we go from here to keep this sport healthy?
Nobody started playing to get a scholarship. No one started to play pro as a goal. Everyone started to have fun.
How do we make/keep the game "healthy" for the next generation?
(no offense to the girls side, just don't know much about it but please chime in if lessons have been learned)
Need to find a way to reverse the trend of rec program numbers shrinking - especially true in NVYLL. The proliferation of entry level club teams (U9), and their cost, is disincentivizing too many families from giving lacrosse a shot in rec leagues for fun to see if their son/daughter likes it. Now the perception, and maybe reality, is that if you don’t also play club lax at an early age your child is wasting his/her time in the sport. Much less likely today to see examples of great athletes taking up lacrosse in middle school or even 9th grade. And there is little to no meaningful scholarship $$ available in lacrosse, which is a factor as well.
100% on this for BOTH Boys and Girls Lacrosse, especially in the NVA area and NVYLL. The girls program is declining even faster than boys for NVYLL. Part of that is the NGLL and Boys younger "travel" programs are affecting it as well. Every player has to start somewhere and the Rec leagues are the back bone of the growth. It's discouraging to see the number of teams continue to decline in NVYLL. The # of travel programs is too many and travel is no longer for "elite" or players that want to take their game to the top level. Too many clubs, too many clubs with "B" teams that are no better and in some cases worse than some of the better Rec programs. A recipe for disaster.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Simple answer is to get rid of HOCO, let's club teams have the summer and fall. Spring can be for the Rec teams.
I thought local VA club teams were working on a VA HOCO and had something in the works but then Covid happened.
I would love not to drive 1-1.5 hours every weekend for one game.
Anonymous wrote:A related issue is that many of the club teams play way too many games. My sons team in late elementary will play something like 50 games this year between fall, spring, and summer. There’s no need for so many games and it greatly increases the cost and leads to burn out unnecessarily.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Simple answer is to get rid of HOCO, let's club teams have the summer and fall. Spring can be for the Rec teams.
I thought local VA club teams were working on a VA HOCO and had
something in the works but then Covid happened.
I would love not to drive 1-1.5 hours every weekend for one game.
Anonymous wrote:Simple answer is to get rid of HOCO, let's club teams have the summer and fall. Spring can be for the Rec teams.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Simple answer is to get rid of HOCO, let's club teams have the summer and fall. Spring can be for the Rec teams.
You can't tell HoCo to just go away. Why should they? And why should we stop thousands of kids who play HoCo from doing that just because it's supposedly "bad" for rec?
And in any event, club teams encourage kids to be on a rec team even when they're playing HoCo. I know plenty of kids who did HoCo and rec simultaneously from 5th to 8th grade.
Who says there are "too many" club teams anyway? If people are willing to pay for it there is obviously a demand for it.
Anonymous wrote:Simple answer is to get rid of HOCO, let's club teams have the summer and fall. Spring can be for the Rec teams.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So the pandemic has made a lot of people realizing they were doing "too much". Club teams picked up a lot of kids ($$$) because they were playing and the schools were not. No problem with this as its simply supply vs demand.
BUT...where do we go from here to keep this sport healthy?
Nobody started playing to get a scholarship. No one started to play pro as a goal. Everyone started to have fun.
How do we make/keep the game "healthy" for the next generation?
(no offense to the girls side, just don't know much about it but please chime in if lessons have been learned)
Need to find a way to reverse the trend of rec program numbers shrinking - especially true in NVYLL. The proliferation of entry level club teams (U9), and their cost, is disincentivizing too many families from giving lacrosse a shot in rec leagues for fun to see if their son/daughter likes it. Now the perception, and maybe reality, is that if you don’t also play club lax at an early age your child is wasting his/her time in the sport. Much less likely today to see examples of great athletes taking up lacrosse in middle school or even 9th grade. And there is little to no meaningful scholarship $$ available in lacrosse, which is a factor as well.
Anonymous wrote:So the pandemic has made a lot of people realizing they were doing "too much". Club teams picked up a lot of kids ($$$) because they were playing and the schools were not. No problem with this as its simply supply vs demand.
BUT...where do we go from here to keep this sport healthy?
Nobody started playing to get a scholarship. No one started to play pro as a goal. Everyone started to have fun.
How do we make/keep the game "healthy" for the next generation?
(no offense to the girls side, just don't know much about it but please chime in if lessons have been learned)