When I was in college, I was part of the athlete crowd, so I had a pretty good sense of who could do what (even though I'm admittedly only a pretty middling athlete myself). My experience was that the men's sports with the best overall athletes were basketball, crew, football (including not only the glory positions but also the line and the special teams units), soccer, and swimming. The men who made those teams were uniformly excellent athletes. The lacrosse, baseball, and hockey players (along with other sports like rugby) were mostly filled with middling athletes like me. Each of those non-core sports would have a handful of excellent athletes, on par with the other core sports, but those top athletes really stood out as exceptions on the non-core team.

I think a lot of this had to do with the fact that making these teams as a recruited athlete (or even as a walk-on) meant fighting thru lots of competition, so the ones who made the teams were uniformly good athletes. My theory is that the core sports (crew, football, basketball, soccer, swimming) have tons of competition, so only the very best athletes made those teams. For non-core sports, like lacrosse or hockey, there was less competition, so many of the ones who made the teams were good-not-great athletes.

Admittedly, my college had particularly strong crew, basketball, and swimming programs, so that probably skewed my perception. For example, at another college with a weak crew program, the crew team might be only middling athletes. However, my college did have strong lacrosse and hockey programs (not Duke/Princeton level, but still top 20), so I was a little surprised to discover most of the lacrosse players were not any better athletes than I am.

I'm definitely not suggesting lacrosse players are poor athletes. (I sure don't want DCUM's "lacrosse mafia" flaming me!) To be clear, for all these sports, the men who made the teams were all good athletes. But I did sense a distinct difference between the core and non-core sports. In short, even as a middling athlete, I could hang with just about anyone on the non-core teams when we played pickup games. But when players from the core sports joined our game (or the top athletes from the non-core sports), I'd get smoked unless it was a sport I was strong at.

Just my 2 cents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, lacrosse is not a sport catering to natural athletes. Lacrosse was adapted by the stratum of American society who would have a difficult time competing in the traditional sports with athletes. Hence, a "sport" where they too can experience the euphoria of victory and the agony of defeat.

Nether are baseball, football or basketball - all of which can be played by non-athletic freaks of nature ( the fat lineman or freakishly tall center) or puny runts (baseball). Hockey and soccer are the only sports where EVERYONE must be an athlete.

eh..Rugby!!

U of MD wasn't attracting the talented swimmers from this area, who were going out of town to Ann Arbor, etc. They dropped swimming despite the fact that they have an excellent pool because it isn't a revenue sport.

Anonymous wrote:Do you think the administration shows any favoritism towards their star athletes?

No, I don't think that. Some few years ago there were some very serious disciplinary incidents in the course of one school year, and several very good athletes were among the students involved in the several incidents. The good athletes were treated just like the other students.

11;51
How is favoritism showed?

The DC area is a hotbed for swimming, especially Montgomery County, MD. Before Katie Ledecky was born there was Gold Medalist Mike Barrowman. Many others have become NCAA Champions.

Then why did UMD drop swimming, like a hot potato, in the face of this swimming hotbed and feeder?

Do you think the administration shows any favoritism towards their star athletes?

The DC area is a hotbed for swimming, especially Montgomery County, MD. Before Katie Ledecky was born there was Gold Medalist Mike Barrowman. Many others have become NCAA Champions.

The Naval Academy water polo team and their crew and water polo summer camps, the Chesapeake, the Potomic and Anacostia rivers...I certainly do not feel this is a hotbed for water sports and activities including swimming and water polo. The delphi oracle has spoken there is no need to prepare your kids for the sailing, rowing, crew, swimming and water polo activities that are the special entre into esteemed Ivy institutions and the Amherst, Middlebury, Williams, Bowdoin, Swarthmore and other prestigious liberal arts colleges throughout the land.

Anonymous wrote:No. Just Florida and California. No swimming in the DC area.

really? katie Ledecky, michael phelps and jack conger might disagree with you on that one

Anonymous wrote:No. Just Florida and California. No swimming in the DC area.

The Washington metro area has many excellent swimmers, among the country's best, but for some reason it is not a strong region for water polo. Also, as someone who has followed water polo for some years, the sport does take many converts from swim team converts, and vice-versa (there is an MIT swimmer who began club swimming only in his junior year -- and had nationals cuts by senior year -- after being in water polo all of his childhood), but the best players with the greatest chance at college offers, are still those who start the game as a year-round club sport before high school. In California we saw many kids pick up the sport at the high school level, and become very good players perhaps, but not the ones who made it to the college level. It would be like expecting a lacrosse player to transition to football at 12 years of age, and end up playing in the SEC. It could happen, but it is just not likely.

No. Just Florida and California. No swimming in the DC area.

you got me. i don't think so.

Some of the water polo kids at the elite collegiate level are converted 10-12 yr (year-round) club swimmers + 4 yr high school swimmers that make the switch. Is this area a hotbed for swimming?

PP, You got me.