Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Club lacrosse isn't killing growth in cities. It is a suburban or rural sport in the US where you have lots of space to play. Very few rec programs in the inner cities. Name a competitive club team based in a city??
Lots of rec programs have access to turf fields and lights for night practices just like soccer, football etc can practice and play in all kinds of weather day and night. What is hurting growth is Xbox/video games.

I think the aholes who insist everything is about being "competitive" are who are ruining the sport and killing growth.

Inner cities (what a loaded term) have lots of sports played on fields. Soccer, football, baseball, even rugby and cricket etc. They have fields and lights. Rec programs don't exist generally where there's a lack of lacrosse. It takes people willing to grow the game so that more people play. Not people who find excuses.

Disagree. The lack of space, the competition for that limited space, the hoops you have to jump through to get the space and then the price you have to pay make it prohibitively hard to grow any green sport inside of a city. You'd be hard pressed to find any youth clubs growing out of DC right now. No lax, 2 little leagues, 1 football. I'm not sure about soccer but DC United is very strong so would be interested to hear if they have a DC field. Montgomery County's rules are so ridiculous they can't even sponsor a introductory rec program of any value in any sport but soccer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Club lacrosse isn't killing growth in cities. It is a suburban or rural sport in the US where you have lots of space to play. Very few rec programs in the inner cities. Name a competitive club team based in a city??
Lots of rec programs have access to turf fields and lights for night practices just like soccer, football etc can practice and play in all kinds of weather day and night. What is hurting growth is Xbox/video games.

I think the aholes who insist everything is about being "competitive" are who are ruining the sport and killing growth.

Inner cities (what a loaded term) have lots of sports played on fields. Soccer, football, baseball, even rugby and cricket etc. They have fields and lights. Rec programs don't exist generally where there's a lack of lacrosse. It takes people willing to grow the game so that more people play. Not people who find excuses.

What is hurting the sport is that local clubs are trying to be competitive? That is an interesting opinion. What should they do?

That's not what was written, you know that, and it's a BS tactic.

Being competitive is great, it isn't the hallmark of a successful lacrosse program, specifically when discussing growing the game and the limitations of growth.

And it seems that club programs are competing with rec programs, and it is hurting the game.

Sorry I forgot to call people who like competition Aholes. Competition is what matters. Parents flock to winning programs and those that don’t go away. It is not the winning programs that hurt rec it is the lower tier that offer rec level play at travel or club prices

^The last statement is what is hurting Rec programs and numbers. There are too many "clubs", both on the Boys and Girls side for the talent pool for Lax to continue to grow. The watered down club programs that are basically rec or lower level are hurting the overall Rec league/s. Travel teams used to be for the elite players and you had a few teams.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Club lacrosse isn't killing growth in cities. It is a suburban or rural sport in the US where you have lots of space to play. Very few rec programs in the inner cities. Name a competitive club team based in a city??
Lots of rec programs have access to turf fields and lights for night practices just like soccer, football etc can practice and play in all kinds of weather day and night. What is hurting growth is Xbox/video games.

I think the aholes who insist everything is about being "competitive" are who are ruining the sport and killing growth.

Inner cities (what a loaded term) have lots of sports played on fields. Soccer, football, baseball, even rugby and cricket etc. They have fields and lights. Rec programs don't exist generally where there's a lack of lacrosse. It takes people willing to grow the game so that more people play. Not people who find excuses.

What is hurting the sport is that local clubs are trying to be competitive? That is an interesting opinion. What should they do?

That's not what was written, you know that, and it's a BS tactic.

Being competitive is great, it isn't the hallmark of a successful lacrosse program, specifically when discussing growing the game and the limitations of growth.

And it seems that club programs are competing with rec programs, and it is hurting the game.

Sorry I forgot to call people who like competition Aholes. Competition is what matters. Parents flock to winning programs and those that don’t go away. It is not the winning programs that hurt rec it is the lower tier that offer rec level play at travel or club prices

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Club lacrosse isn't killing growth in cities. It is a suburban or rural sport in the US where you have lots of space to play. Very few rec programs in the inner cities. Name a competitive club team based in a city??
Lots of rec programs have access to turf fields and lights for night practices just like soccer, football etc can practice and play in all kinds of weather day and night. What is hurting growth is Xbox/video games.

I think the aholes who insist everything is about being "competitive" are who are ruining the sport and killing growth.

Inner cities (what a loaded term) have lots of sports played on fields. Soccer, football, baseball, even rugby and cricket etc. They have fields and lights. Rec programs don't exist generally where there's a lack of lacrosse. It takes people willing to grow the game so that more people play. Not people who find excuses.

What is hurting the sport is that local clubs are trying to be competitive? That is an interesting opinion. What should they do?

That's not what was written, you know that, and it's a BS tactic.

Being competitive is great, it isn't the hallmark of a successful lacrosse program, specifically when discussing growing the game and the limitations of growth.

And it seems that club programs are competing with rec programs, and it is hurting the game.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Club lacrosse isn't killing growth in cities. It is a suburban or rural sport in the US where you have lots of space to play. Very few rec programs in the inner cities. Name a competitive club team based in a city??
Lots of rec programs have access to turf fields and lights for night practices just like soccer, football etc can practice and play in all kinds of weather day and night. What is hurting growth is Xbox/video games.

I think the aholes who insist everything is about being "competitive" are who are ruining the sport and killing growth.

Inner cities (what a loaded term) have lots of sports played on fields. Soccer, football, baseball, even rugby and cricket etc. They have fields and lights. Rec programs don't exist generally where there's a lack of lacrosse. It takes people willing to grow the game so that more people play. Not people who find excuses.

What is hurting the sport is that local clubs are trying to be competitive? That is an interesting opinion. What should they do?

Anonymous wrote:Club lacrosse isn't killing growth in cities. It is a suburban or rural sport in the US where you have lots of space to play. Very few rec programs in the inner cities. Name a competitive club team based in a city??
Lots of rec programs have access to turf fields and lights for night practices just like soccer, football etc can practice and play in all kinds of weather day and night. What is hurting growth is Xbox/video games.

I think the aholes who insist everything is about being "competitive" are who are ruining the sport and killing growth.

Inner cities (what a loaded term) have lots of sports played on fields. Soccer, football, baseball, even rugby and cricket etc. They have fields and lights. Rec programs don't exist generally where there's a lack of lacrosse. It takes people willing to grow the game so that more people play. Not people who find excuses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will True have enough for A and B teams at the HS level?

My understanding is they think yes, at the HS level A and B teams.

Just got the email for 2024. Yes there are 2 teams.
At first I thought they were =, but the wording says that kids can move "up" with hard work.

There is a black and a green team.

Trust but verify any club's actions show their real values.

I assume the MD True B teams will be equivalent to the VA A teams, but perhaps at the HS level the talent level will be more equivalent.

Club lacrosse isn't killing growth in cities. It is a suburban or rural sport in the US where you have lots of space to play. Very few rec programs in the inner cities. Name a competitive club team based in a city??
Lots of rec programs have access to turf fields and lights for night practices just like soccer, football etc can practice and play in all kinds of weather day and night. What is hurting growth is Xbox/video games.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's the difference between rec and club in the DC area?

Rec is usually trying to make sure everyone has exposure to the game. Beginners welcome. Less pricey.

Club is a try out situation, more $$, and one assumes, more targeted coaching.

$200 vs. $900 and up (plus travel to tournaments).

This article is kind of old and sarcastic, but I like it and #5 is my favorite:

https://ilovetowatchyouplay.com/2016/09/13/15-signs-your-child-is-on-an-elite-team/

So who else besides BLC and NL have rec?

All of Virginia. NVYLL although numbers have been decreasing

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will True have enough for A and B teams at the HS level?

My understanding is they think yes, at the HS level A and B teams.

Just got the email for 2024. Yes there are 2 teams.
At first I thought they were =, but the wording says that kids can move "up" with hard work.

There is a black and a green team.

My advice for True would be schedule a few scrimmages v some local HS clubs to gauge the level of event the teams should enter

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's the difference between rec and club in the DC area?

Rec is usually trying to make sure everyone has exposure to the game. Beginners welcome. Less pricey.

Club is a try out situation, more $$, and one assumes, more targeted coaching.

$200 vs. $900 and up (plus travel to tournaments).

This article is kind of old and sarcastic, but I like it and #5 is my favorite:

https://ilovetowatchyouplay.com/2016/09/13/15-signs-your-child-is-on-an-elite-team/

So who else besides BLC and NL have rec?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will True have enough for A and B teams at the HS level?

My understanding is they think yes, at the HS level A and B teams.

Just got the email for 2024. Yes there are 2 teams.
At first I thought they were =, but the wording says that kids can move "up" with hard work.

There is a black and a green team.

Anonymous wrote:What's the difference between rec and club in the DC area?

Rec is usually trying to make sure everyone has exposure to the game. Beginners welcome. Less pricey.

Club is a try out situation, more $$, and one assumes, more targeted coaching.

$200 vs. $900 and up (plus travel to tournaments).

This article is kind of old and sarcastic, but I like it and #5 is my favorite:

https://ilovetowatchyouplay.com/2016/09/13/15-signs-your-child-is-on-an-elite-team/

What's the difference between rec and club in the DC area?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TC or VLC?

It wasn’t TC. They had their tryouts at same time and had best numbers for attendance in club history. Another solid indicator that lax continues to grow and the demand exists for more clubs. If anything, the days of one club having multiple teams is likely over.

Clubs will have multiple teams for as long as there are parents willing to pay the fee so they can say their child plays “club” instead of “rec”.

Definitely agree with this. If anything the market shows that it will tolerate for more programs and them all having A/B teams at least at the HS level.

But several clubs below the HS level still work in conjunction with the Rec programs, not trying to replace them (unlike another club or two). I don't think everyone is avoiding Rec.

Some kids at the HS level want to play more than on their HS team and have no delusions about playing in college, which is great. Ideally it wouldn't cost a couple thousand dollars to do that.

Too many rec lacrosse programs are seeing numbers plummet because of grade school club lacrosse, which is completely unnecessary and more importantly is killing the growth of the sport where it’s needed most - inner cities. It’s the opposite of what needs to happen for lacrosse to make the jump to being a major sport. This is true in many sports of course and it is what’s driving single sport athletes, another short sighted craze. If the drive to the game for your third grader is longer than the game - regardless of the sport - then you’re part of the problem

We're kinda out of scope for True discussion (if that matters), but I believe lacrosse participation is down from its peak several years ago. That's "globally" for lacrosse in the US, total participants in Rec and/or Club. Any club that pulls players out of Rec at the U14 level or below is doing a disservice to the game.

Absolutely price is an issue, and I personally hate that people immediately point to urban participation. That's across the board for participation, rural or urban and between the cost is an issue. Generally, IMO the most pressing challenging is kids seeing the sport and having any level of exposure and access. That's in DC, Arlington, MoCo, Prince George's County or the hinter lands.