How about BW?

Would it be possible to get parents to send in all the vitriolic and profane emails they have traded with Cabell Maddox and any / all other club owners? A collection of them would make a pretty hilarious book. Seriously, is it possible? I'd fund it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Performance, Club Blue, Bethesda Lacrosse Club (BLC) and Breakout seem to be the ones offering good coaching and an emphasis on inclusive player development and the owners running them are not foaming from the mouth lunatics.

Club blue and Bethesda don't have HS teams.

Neither does Breakout. Madlax and Blackwolf have owners who are nuts; the other clubs in the area are run by decent people.

http://deadspin.com/hey-ungrateful-quitter-emails-from-an-angry-lacrosse-660703941

Vel lacrosse fields high level high school teams without crazy coaches. They will also be fielding an eigth grade team this year.

"High Level" is not true. Their teams are pretty mediocre. Their 2018 team went 0-7 in a tournament this summer. Their 2017 team went 2-6 in the same tournament and 2016 team went 3-5. They don't play in marquee tournaments, either.

The head of the program used to be the coach at Langley, so he pressured all his Langley players to play for VEL. Now that he retired, expect the best
players for VEL to move elsewhere.

It is really a 3rd rate program.

They have a few players going division 1 would say they are at least a 2 tier team

For someone who bashes lacrosse and calls it a 3rd tier sport...

you sure do have a lot of time to look up college rosters and look up how many players are on a team.

go troll elsewhere!

You are being silly now. Most teams have rosters in the low 40s.

Anonymous wrote:I dont see 69 kids on their roster. less than 55 actually. where are you getting?

Hopkins dressed 76 players for their fall ball alumni game. Their official spring roster was over 60 but less than the number of kids who dressed in fall. Syracuse rostered over 60 players officially in spring and that didn't include 15 freshmen who were redshirted and not rostered for games. Maryland does this, Denver had 7 goalies and well over 70 players at the final four this year, and again can only roster less. I don't know what the NCAA roster limit is in lacrosse, but it is a fact that at least these programs have a huge number of players in their programs. There are some programs with 40-45 and have kept it that way so far.

Anonymous wrote:Denver, Hopkins and Syracuse all rostered over 69 players and Syracuse redshirted another 15 first years. So Syracuse is actually over the 75 number.

The growth rate you quoted for high school varsity lacrosse participation is misleading and is not growth. For example, lacrosse became a sanctioned varsity sport in Georgia this year. The number of programs didn't increase by a huge rate, before those same teams were high school clubs. Just like ice hockey in Maryland. There is no such thing as a varsity public high school ice hockey team in Maryland, but public high schools have teams and they have players make All-MET. Those are all high school club teams literally not sanctioned by the schools, but they exist. The growth of lacrosse last year in the U.S. was 3 something percent according to U.S. lacrosse. I don't know of another source or how accurate that is, but what you pointed out is not accurate.

Statistics don't lie, but people do. Looking at an annual growth rate does not do justice to how much lacrosse has grown in popularity and participants over the last 5 -10 years. After those years of incredible growth, then at some point the sport has to plateau in terms of year over year increased participation. The next hot areas for the sport are still building an infrastructure and finding qualified coaches and officials.

As for the practicality of focusing on lacrosse as compared to any other sport, there is no way to paint broad brush here. For some players, the goal of playing in college is all-consuming. Others leverage the sport for academic opportunity. Still others want the lacrosse experiences after high school days are done. Many players see the commitment required in terms of time and lost social/academic opportunity in college and simply drift away from the sport. Others find that they will not get substantial playing time and opt out of continued participation. Still others will play for all four years of college because the experience is worthwhile.

As a sport, lacrosse is still considered "new" except in the established hot beds of Long Island, the Mid-Atlantic and upstate NY. If the interest in the sport holds over the next 10 years, there will be a lot of competition for limited Division 1 opportunities. Title IX has done a lot of great things for women's sports, but it is a major obstacle to the growth of a new sport like lacrosse. With only 12.6 scholarships per team, it is not a realistic expectation for most lacrosse players that lacrosse will pay for college. So, if your player "loves" the sport, it is wise to look at the lacrosse endeavor as one that has positive benefits beyond just the college admissions process.

I dont see 69 kids on their roster. less than 55 actually. where are you getting?

Denver, Hopkins and Syracuse all rostered over 69 players and Syracuse redshirted another 15 first years. So Syracuse is actually over the 75 number.

The growth rate you quoted for high school varsity lacrosse participation is misleading and is not growth. For example, lacrosse became a sanctioned varsity sport in Georgia this year. The number of programs didn't increase by a huge rate, before those same teams were high school clubs. Just like ice hockey in Maryland. There is no such thing as a varsity public high school ice hockey team in Maryland, but public high schools have teams and they have players make All-MET. Those are all high school club teams literally not sanctioned by the schools, but they exist. The growth of lacrosse last year in the U.S. was 3 something percent according to U.S. lacrosse. I don't know of another source or how accurate that is, but what you pointed out is not accurate.

Anonymous wrote:Growth of lacrosse last year was about 3% according to U.S. lacrosse. Not sure how reliable those stats are, but lacrosse is clearly not an emerging growth sport right now. There are non revenue NCAA sports for men and women which are much more favorable for scholarship money capacity than lacrosse. Tennis teams, soccer, swimming, volleyball and most others have constrained rosters versus the scholarship money. Looking at ratios, 12.6 in mens lacrosse over 45-75 players is the worst sport by far using that ratio as a measure.

If the argument is that lacrosse can get kids into selective colleges, that's a good point. But the economics of the sport (club fees, events travel, instructional or showcase events, prep school tuitions for many) versus the yield potential to play college if that is the be all end all...makes lacrosse players and parents look very stupid. But we already knew that.

You must be a lot of fun at cocktail parties. Aiming to play college lacrosse is the goal for many parents, but the reasons why differ. Some parents are focused just on maximing playing time/on field success. Some simply see lacrosse as a way to get into a school their child might not get into otherwise. Some are just supporting the dream of their kid, no matter what the driving factor is.

As for a roster of 75 players, what are you smoking? Even the service academies are nowhere near that number. Navy has 56 on their roster, for example. Most D1 schools are in the low 40s.

As for the growth rate, you neglect to mention that the 5 year growth rate for HS programs was 27.8%, and no other sport had a growth rate above 10%. It's easier for lacrosse to show higher growth since it is a smaller base than a sport like baseball, but you know you are playing with stats.

Growth of lacrosse last year was about 3% according to U.S. lacrosse. Not sure how reliable those stats are, but lacrosse is clearly not an emerging growth sport right now. There are non revenue NCAA sports for men and women which are much more favorable for scholarship money capacity than lacrosse. Tennis teams, soccer, swimming, volleyball and most others have constrained rosters versus the scholarship money. Looking at ratios, 12.6 in mens lacrosse over 45-75 players is the worst sport by far using that ratio as a measure.

If the argument is that lacrosse can get kids into selective colleges, that's a good point. But the economics of the sport (club fees, events travel, instructional or showcase events, prep school tuitions for many) versus the yield potential to play college if that is the be all end all...makes lacrosse players and parents look very stupid. But we already knew that.

Anonymous wrote:It is really a third rate sport with very little scholarship money.

You are correct that there's little scholarship money. But as the PP stated, there is little scholarship money for all NCAA sports with the exception of football and basketball.

As for being a 3rd rate sport, it's a great sport to play and watch, as evidenced that it continues to be the fastest growing sport in the country.

PP: every sport is 3rd rate next to football and basketball.

Most other sports at the college level do not have many scholarships to play with other than than the two major revenue generating sports in the NCAA. and I hate to break it to you, as much as I love baseball, its not a revenue generating sport. not sure what you are trying to prove by your previous comment.

Very well thought out!

It is really a third rate sport with very little scholarship money.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Performance, Club Blue, Bethesda Lacrosse Club (BLC) and Breakout seem to be the ones offering good coaching and an emphasis on inclusive player development and the owners running them are not foaming from the mouth lunatics.

Club blue and Bethesda don't have HS teams.

Neither does Breakout. Madlax and Blackwolf have owners who are nuts; the other clubs in the area are run by decent people.

http://deadspin.com/hey-ungrateful-quitter-emails-from-an-angry-lacrosse-660703941

Vel lacrosse fields high level high school teams without crazy coaches. They will also be fielding an eigth grade team this year.

"High Level" is not true. Their teams are pretty mediocre. Their 2018 team went 0-7 in a tournament this summer. Their 2017 team went 2-6 in the same tournament and 2016 team went 3-5. They don't play in marquee tournaments, either.

The head of the program used to be the coach at Langley, so he pressured all his Langley players to play for VEL. Now that he retired, expect the best players for VEL to move elsewhere.

It is really a 3rd rate program.