It’s not polite to say, but being very thin is worse than being short. Very thin girls get knocked off the ball and can’t handle the physical nature of play at the higher level D1 schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone run into issues due to their daughter being small and very thin but fast?

Not sure how old your daughter is...they change a lot in HS years. Having said that, I've seen a grand total of 1 player I'd describe as very thin get D1 committed for the entire 2026 class, but she's tall and probably one of the 5-10 fastest people in the 2026 class. If someone is small and very thin, their odds are close to zero of going D1, even if fast. They'd have to be extraordinary in every other aspect of the game to get D1 interest.

Agree for the most part, but do think a smaller player could easily fit in with the bottom half of D1 teams. Lacrosse in the second half of D1 is not great to put it kindly. My daughter’s team played their third and fourth stringers (all freshman) who easily beat a bottom half D1 team by 20+ goals. The talent gap is really wide at the D1 level. Playing for a Radford is like playing for a club team ranked 200th.

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone run into issues due to their daughter being small and very thin but fast?

Not sure how old your daughter is...they change a lot in HS years. Having said that, I've seen a grand total of 1 player I'd describe as very thin get D1 committed for the entire 2026 class, but she's tall and probably one of the 5-10 fastest people in the 2026 class. If someone is small and very thin, their odds are close to zero of going D1, even if fast. They'd have to be extraordinary in every other aspect of the game to get D1 interest.

Anonymous wrote:Depends on the level of D1 and the team.

^This. Saying one plays D1 is extremely misleading in women’s lacrosse. There is a huge discrepancy in talent level from top to bottom.

To play on the top 10-20 teams size is important, but it’s really the combination of size, speed, quickness, strength, skills, and game IQ that sets these players apart. I would lean towards size, elite speed and strength at this level to separate players and start building a championship team.

As you move up towards teams in the 20-30, 31-60, and 60+ rankings size is not as much of a factor. The level of play starts to fall off pretty quickly to the point where when you reach the bottom half of D1 the sport is almost unrecognizable compared to the top half. The better D2 and D3 teams will beat the bottom third of D1 and some college club teams will beat the bottom of D1.

So it all goes back to the level of D1. I wish the NCAA would create subdivisions within D1 to better align the teams and talent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
0.03% of test takers get a perfect score on the SAT. What are the odds that they are big, fast, and excellent lacrosse players?

In fairness to the OP, she said for every fast, excellent player out there, there are many with 1,600 SATs. As reading comprehension is still part of the SAT, it's no wonder there are so few perfect scores.

Though I doubt the OP meant there are almost no excellent players. Maybe we'll never know.

“ because for every fast, excellent player out there, there are many with straight A’s and a 1600 on the SAT.”

This implies many lax players get 1600, which is insane. Guess you could infer that they mean excellent lax players on top of it.


I do wonder if two kids on the field are equal or close, they take the one with higher SATs?

They will if there is an academic index in place because it can allow them to reach lower on the academics for a desirable prospect.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
0.03% of test takers get a perfect score on the SAT. What are the odds that they are big, fast, and excellent lacrosse players?

In fairness to the OP, she said for every fast, excellent player out there, there are many with 1,600 SATs. As reading comprehension is still part of the SAT, it's no wonder there are so few perfect scores.

Though I doubt the OP meant there are almost no excellent players. Maybe we'll never know.

“ because for every fast, excellent player out there, there are many with straight A’s and a 1600 on the SAT.”

This implies many lax players get 1600, which is insane. Guess you could infer that they mean excellent lax players on top of it.


I do wonder if two kids on the field are equal or close, they take the one with higher SATs?

5'7" is the base threshold if she's looking at Clemson and a couple of the Florida schools.

Anonymous wrote:My dd is 5’7” in 8th grade, could stop here or maybe get an inch taller. Is this tall enough to not have her size count against her?

Yes, 5’7 is fine.

My dd is 5’7” in 8th grade, could stop here or maybe get an inch taller. Is this tall enough to not have her size count against her?

Size is one of the measurables looked at, but others such as speed (foot and hand), motor, strength, endurance all factor in too. As pp mentioned, a lot depends on the school and even conference. If opponents have all big tall attackers, coaches may be looking for tall defenders, etc. Style of play can also factor in too.

For D-I recruiting, size is tremendously important. D-III it's less so.

Several inches of height and reach are huge advantages in lacrosse, tennis, basketball, volleyball and just about every similar sport.

So if coach is faced with deciding between a 5'4" inch prospect and a 5'10" one it's an easy decision for them. Unless of course the shorter girl has exceptional speed, agility and skill.

Depends on the level of D1 and the team.

Exaggerating about the 1600s on the SAT, but the point remains that relying solely on lacrosse talent is risky. In the cutthroat world of D1 recruiting today, there is a plethora of players with different heights who boast remarkable speed, skill, and academics. It is amazing how these players manage to excel both on the field and in the classroom. The talent pool of student-athletes is deeper than you think, especially in this competitive mid-Atlantic area. So, brace yourself for disappointment if your child doesn't make it into their dream school. Another player, equally skilled and sized, might just snatch that spot with better scores and grades. Trust me, the coach is eyeing your kid and ten others, and she's likely to choose the one with the top grades and scores 99% of the time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
0.03% of test takers get a perfect score on the SAT. What are the odds that they are big, fast, and excellent lacrosse players?

Virtually every player has a 4.0 (or close to), so now that colleges are again requiring test scores, the SAT/ACT was more important in last year's cycle, and will be going forward.

I think we need to calm down on the assertions of perfect grades and scores. What I think might be more defensible, is that, on average, women's lacrosse recruits have higher grades and test scores than, say, men's football or baseball. You still have a strong private school, and relatively affluent base in the sport. Beyond the Boston, LI, Philly, Baltimore, DC traditional areas, even in the new hotbeds, like So. California, Georgia, and Florida, the top producing high schools are private or very high-income areas, with resources for schools and to support players' academic success.

But no, successful recruiters don't all have unweighted 4.0s or 1500+ SAT scores. Not even for the Ivies or NESCAC (although many will).

I don't know the men's side as well, but I would imagine a similar distribution compared to other sports.

Anonymous wrote:
0.03% of test takers get a perfect score on the SAT. What are the odds that they are big, fast, and excellent lacrosse players?

Virtually every player has a 4.0 (or close to), so now that colleges are again requiring test scores, the SAT/ACT was more important in last year's cycle, and will be going forward.