Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not true at all. College coaches want to win and win now. They don't care about age or upside or development. Each coach is looking to extend their short term contracts or parlay their results into a better school. Your example is not a good one with 3 deep at one spot because neither the 20 or 17 year old will go to that school. If there is a need, they will take the 20 year old and tell the 17 year old to take a gap year or repeat or go to a college prep school to get bigger physically.

I am guessing you decided to hold your kid back and are now wondering why he is not committed yet. There are several people here who are not agreeing with your logic. This is because it does not make sense. It is easy to say college coaches want to WIN and WIN now. Do they want to Loose? However fact is that Lars at UVA told alumni and fans that he was building a program. Each coach is in a different position. Let's skip that for now and address the recruiting process. Would you agree that most players that are active recruits are being evaluated during the summer of sophomore and fall of junior year? If you do not accept this premise there is little else to discuss. If you do then you would agree that a 20 year old junior could cause a red flag. You claim that a coach does not care about age or upside development? That is silly. That is 100% the point of recruiting. Future potential is the only thing they are looking at. You state if there is a need they take the 20 year old. How many 20 year olds will be in the Underclass group at Under Armour this summer? FYI, age is provided at registration. Sure ESPN will feature 19 and even a few 20 year old players, how many will be available. I think 99.9% were already committed when they play on TV coaches are not recruiting these players. Taking two players of relative equal size and skill the 17 year old would be more appealing to a coach. The key is equal size and skill. The 20 year old may even be at a disadvantage as the PG year would be less of an option. There are far more 20 and 21 year old players in the NCAA final than there are 24 and 25 year old players. If a player is a great player with D1 potential they will get recruited either way but all things equal it is only logical that a 17 year old would be more desirable than a 21 year old. If an 8 year old is holding his own in the U15 division he would be considered a phenom.

If I'm a NCAA coach, why do I care how old a recruit is. Is there an age limit on athletes, nope. You lose me when you say 19 and a few 20 year olds are featured on ESPN. These kids are being recruited and that's why they are on TV. It's been stated before, a few years ago UnderArmour accidentally posted the birth dates of their rosters and almost every one was 19 and 20. This isn't a theory, it's real. And when you say there are far more 20 and 21 year olds in the NCAA finals, you show it again. There are very few 18/19 year olds. The best teams have the older players and are physically mature. At that point, college coaches have an equal field of players to choose from to get playing time.

But that's college. These arguments started because 16 and 15 year 9 month olds are playing 8th grade lacrosse in HoCo. So if you think there are a bunch of 13/14 year olds able to compete against 16/15 year olds in 8th grade based on potential, you are wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Do you recall Freddy Adu?"

I do and DC United would probably say it was a waste of time and money. He stunk because he was too small physically and never did anything of any note and borders on bust. I think if the same choice were presented now, Freddy would have been a nice D1 player and the team would have signed the 6 foot 18 year old. They went for potential and got burned.

Your recollection is slightly flawed. I think the bone density scan showed that Freddy was a 24 year old 17 year old. He came from a third world country to the US and as it turned out, was a grown man. The example of Freddy is proof to the point of picking the younger player with potential.

My recollection is spot on and says nothing about his age. I wouldn't have wasted the team's money because I would have taken a good look at Mom and Dad to see how big the kid might be. There is a reason it's called exceptions when Messi and Russel Wilson make it as undersized athletes in sports. Most of the better players look like Rabil, Ronaldo and Tom Brady. I'd have the same eye on holdbacks. If a kid is a holdback and is dominant then I want to make sure he's going to continue in that manner down the road.

As for the MadLax 16 year old holdbacks and 15 year old 9 month holdbacks playing in 8th grade, if they are going to top out at 5'10", I'll move on to the next player regardless of age. But I don't want my 13/14 year old child getting crushed by them in the near term.

Anonymous wrote:Not true at all. College coaches want to win and win now. They don't care about age or upside or development. Each coach is looking to extend their short term contracts or parlay their results into a better school. Your example is not a good one with 3 deep at one spot because neither the 20 or 17 year old will go to that school. If there is a need, they will take the 20 year old and tell the 17 year old to take a gap year or repeat or go to a college prep school to get bigger physically.

I am guessing you decided to hold your kid back and are now wondering why he is not committed yet. There are several people here who are not agreeing with your logic. This is because it does not make sense. It is easy to say college coaches want to WIN and WIN now. Do they want to Loose? However fact is that Lars at UVA told alumni and fans that he was building a program. Each coach is in a different position. Let's skip that for now and address the recruiting process. Would you agree that most players that are active recruits are being evaluated during the summer of sophomore and fall of junior year? If you do not accept this premise there is little else to discuss. If you do then you would agree that a 20 year old junior could cause a red flag. You claim that a coach does not care about age or upside development? That is silly. That is 100% the point of recruiting. Future potential is the only thing they are looking at. You state if there is a need they take the 20 year old. How many 20 year olds will be in the Underclass group at Under Armour this summer? FYI, age is provided at registration. Sure ESPN will feature 19 and even a few 20 year old players, how many will be available. I think 99.9% were already committed when they play on TV coaches are not recruiting these players. Taking two players of relative equal size and skill the 17 year old would be more appealing to a coach. The key is equal size and skill. The 20 year old may even be at a disadvantage as the PG year would be less of an option. There are far more 20 and 21 year old players in the NCAA final than there are 24 and 25 year old players. If a player is a great player with D1 potential they will get recruited either way but all things equal it is only logical that a 17 year old would be more desirable than a 21 year old. If an 8 year old is holding his own in the U15 division he would be considered a phenom.

Anonymous wrote:"Do you recall Freddy Adu?"

I do and DC United would probably say it was a waste of time and money. He stunk because he was too small physically and never did anything of any note and borders on bust. I think if the same choice were presented now, Freddy would have been a nice D1 player and the team would have signed the 6 foot 18 year old. They went for potential and got burned.

Your recollection is slightly flawed. I think the bone density scan showed that Freddy was a 24 year old 17 year old. He came from a third world country to the US and as it turned out, was a grown man. The example of Freddy is proof to the point of picking the younger player with potential.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have no clue. College recruiters want the best possible kids in each class. They couldn't care less if a kid is older or younger. They want the best players. Period.

Part of getting the best player is assessing upside. If you have a choice between a 6' 3" 20-year old defender and a 6' 3" 17-year old defender, both are 200 pounds, the 20-year old is slightly better in IQ and stick skill, and you have three deep on your college roster at the spot, you pick the younger player because he has significantly more upside and has the potential to contribute. Most college coaches believe that they can improve players coming out of high school, and a player with more room to grow physically and IQ-wise is more appealing.

You clearly don't/didn't have a kid who went through the recruiting process. That is not how it works in college. In the NBA, yes - they draft on potential. College coaches have the kids for a much shorter duration. They are not picking kids based on potential. They need to provide results right now because their jobs depend on it.

Please stop posting.

I will disregard your ad hominem attacks ... For now. So you know, I have three kids. Each played or plays college sports. At really good schools academically. Collectively, they have been in 3 final fours. (Never won the elusive Natty). And, one currently in a ranked men's lacrosse program in the most competitive conference. He plays lots of minutes, too. Disagree with my observations, but they are at least based on experience ...

“Right now?” That logic does not even make sense. Most players commit as Juniors and up until last year freshman in HS. Even as JR’s there are still two full seasons before the player will play one minute of college lacrosse assuming they play as Freshman in college which most don’t. To say coaches not not recruit on future potential is just not logical. Also there are several people making the same points not just one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have no clue. College recruiters want the best possible kids in each class. They couldn't care less if a kid is older or younger. They want the best players. Period.

Part of getting the best player is assessing upside. If you have a choice between a 6' 3" 20-year old defender and a 6' 3" 17-year old defender, both are 200 pounds, the 20-year old is slightly better in IQ and stick skill, and you have three deep on your college roster at the spot, you pick the younger player because he has significantly more upside and has the potential to contribute. Most college coaches believe that they can improve players coming out of high school, and a player with more room to grow physically and IQ-wise is more appealing.

You clearly don't/didn't have a kid who went through the recruiting process. That is not how it works in college. In the NBA, yes - they draft on potential. College coaches have the kids for a much shorter duration. They are not picking kids based on potential. They need to provide results right now because their jobs depend on it.

Please stop posting.

Nope, keep on posting because it's actually what a top 15 D1 coach told a player who ended up committing to that school. How many freshman play their first year and provide results "right now?" Heard from a PLL player who was on a Natl Championship team saying the colleges basically have retool incoming players to play more efficiently.

"Do you recall Freddy Adu?"

I do and DC United would probably say it was a waste of time and money. He stunk because he was too small physically and never did anything of any note and borders on bust. I think if the same choice were presented now, Freddy would have been a nice D1 player and the team would have signed the 6 foot 18 year old. They went for potential and got burned.

Not true at all. College coaches want to win and win now. They don't care about age or upside or development. Each coach is looking to extend their short term contracts or parlay their results into a better school. Your example is not a good one with 3 deep at one spot because neither the 20 or 17 year old will go to that school. If there is a need, they will take the 20 year old and tell the 17 year old to take a gap year or repeat or go to a college prep school to get bigger physically.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have no clue. College recruiters want the best possible kids in each class. They couldn't care less if a kid is older or younger. They want the best players. Period.

Part of getting the best player is assessing upside. If you have a choice between a 6' 3" 20-year old defender and a 6' 3" 17-year old defender, both are 200 pounds, the 20-year old is slightly better in IQ and stick skill, and you have three deep on your college roster at the spot, you pick the younger player because he has significantly more upside and has the potential to contribute. Most college coaches believe that they can improve players coming out of high school, and a player with more room to grow physically and IQ-wise is more appealing.

You clearly don't/didn't have a kid who went through the recruiting process. That is not how it works in college. In the NBA, yes - they draft on potential. College coaches have the kids for a much shorter duration. They are not picking kids based on potential. They need to provide results right now because their jobs depend on it.

Please stop posting.

Anonymous wrote:You have no clue. College recruiters want the best possible kids in each class. They couldn't care less if a kid is older or younger. They want the best players. Period.

Part of getting the best player is assessing upside. If you have a choice between a 6' 3" 20-year old defender and a 6' 3" 17-year old defender, both are 200 pounds, the 20-year old is slightly better in IQ and stick skill, and you have three deep on your college roster at the spot, you pick the younger player because he has significantly more upside and has the potential to contribute. Most college coaches believe that they can improve players coming out of high school, and a player with more room to grow physically and IQ-wise is more appealing.

You have no clue. College recruiters want the best possible kids in each class. They couldn't care less if a kid is older or younger. They want the best players. Period.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The sport is fluid and changing all the time. A few years ago this board would be full of parents complaining about 8th grade verbal commitments now it is about the re-class issue. Reclassing actually did make sense when kids could gain the advantage of getting early commitment to a good school. However, the process was not good for coaches as they took too much risk in taking an 8th grader who did not pan out. Therefore they changed the rules. Clubs and private schools exist to sell the dream of college athletics in this sport. Right now re-classing works because it gives kids a early lead on the spotlight of recruiting events and top teams which leads to top HS programs, showcases, ect.. The fact they might not even be allowed to play the senior year does not matter because they would have already committed as a Junior. The ONLY way to fix this is for college coaches to adjust. If they take the actual age into consideration when recruiting the practice will stop. I think this makes sense. When looking at a sophomore or Junior it should make a difference if he is 15 or 18. USL should pressure the college coaches to make a statement about this. Clubs and HOCO will not change this anymore than complaining on a message board will.

Why in the world would colleges change? They get bigger and emotionally more mature kids who have better test scores and are easier to put through the process. We love the Navy but they are the worst. They recruit double holdbacks, holdbacks and whoever just like everyone else. Then they ask most to do another year at Navy Prep. They are getting 21 year old freshman and they love it because the demands of the academy show older students do better.

It's up to the parents to police their own children's teams and activities and I've been the one screaming about MadLax's team of 16 and 15 year olds playing 8th grade lacrosse. My kid will not be playing in divisions or tournaments against these types of teams unless his roster changes dramatically. The NY teams are very wary of playing against MD teams due to this. It's also why you see the NY teams dominate in National age based tournaments like WSYL. I've read how people trash it but it is an age based tournament with no exceptions and the MD teams aren't even trying to qualify this year due to their roster imbalances. But those same MD teams will have plenty of young men on college rosters.

I've complained to HoCo and every other tournament and it falls on deaf ears. Maybe complaining on a board like this will help.

You do bring up some interesting points. I started playing lacrosse in the late 70's and through the 90's and so when I say the landscape is changing it is from this perspective of time. Re-class was not an issue or even a term in 1983 when I applied to college. The example of the Naval Academy is also interesting. I am not a graduate but it would seem that the Department of the Navy would care far more about the officer than the lacrosse player. If having a 21 year old Freshman is a desire of the academy they would create a system to encourage more or this. Does this only apply to Lacrosse? Navy Prep was designed to give officers siblings a way to prove they could qualify while still maintaining the extremely tough admissions requirements applied to the rest of the applicants. I am not sure they intent is necessarily to have an older class entering the academy.

The issue of reclassing or holding a student back for an advantage in sports seems to be a fairly new trend as it was not rampant many years ago. This does not seem to apply only to lacrosse. The question would be is this good or bad for college coaches? Why would colleges change? Here is another perspective. If two players are fairly equal when evaluated, the better option would be the younger player. In high school if a player is 18 or 19 he would be closer to peak performance. If a player is 15 or 16 the upside would be far better. Do you recall Freddy Adu? He signed a contract at 14. I think that if there was a player who was equal to Freddy who was 18 he would not be signed or at least not for as much money. Coaches are looking for upside. What would it prove for a 21 year old HS player to dominate a game with 15-16 year old players v. dominating v. kids in college? One issue may be that access to age is not considered when the coaches evaluate. Clearly all things being equal a coach would want the younger player. I agree with you that the current system is flawed (an understatement) but I feel only the recruiting process will fix this. The private HS programs benefit from an extra year of tuition and the clubs get an extra year of fees. They would not want to stop the practice of reclassing. However for the college coaches there would be an advantage to having a more complete evaluation of players if they were all the same age. Clearly the younger player has more upside. Unlike Basketball a coach will get four years with a lacrosse player.

"If they live in VA the learners is 15 and 6 mo. "

This means they are 16 in July - as an 8th grader. Or they are turning 16 tomorrow if they've had their learner's for 6 months. Why do you argue this?

"I'm not obtuse, I have lived it with hockey, lacrosse and soccer. "

So what?

"CYO changed the rules since "varsity" is 7th and 8th grade and 16 year olds from mater dei played 12 year olds. "

Mater Dei isn't in the CYO.

"Change the rules... complain to the league ... don't just bemoan this ridiculousness .... do something about it. It is not a rule created by Madlax. "

I have. Have you? No, because you think your 16 year olds are so much more talented than the 13/14 year olds they are playing. Or you are 16.

"Yes... the league makes the rules. "

No, they don't. Call the league and ask like I did.

I doubt you have seen any of these kids birth certificates. Believe me, Prep and Gonzaga are the worst. They have 50% of their team hold backs and starting Freshman from other schools, who are barely 15, are playing against 19 year olds. It's pathetic."

We aren't talking about Prep and Gonzaga. We are talking about 16 year old and just about to turn 16 year old 8th graders.

Anonymous wrote:The sport is fluid and changing all the time. A few years ago this board would be full of parents complaining about 8th grade verbal commitments now it is about the re-class issue. Reclassing actually did make sense when kids could gain the advantage of getting early commitment to a good school. However, the process was not good for coaches as they took too much risk in taking an 8th grader who did not pan out. Therefore they changed the rules. Clubs and private schools exist to sell the dream of college athletics in this sport. Right now re-classing works because it gives kids a early lead on the spotlight of recruiting events and top teams which leads to top HS programs, showcases, ect.. The fact they might not even be allowed to play the senior year does not matter because they would have already committed as a Junior. The ONLY way to fix this is for college coaches to adjust. If they take the actual age into consideration when recruiting the practice will stop. I think this makes sense. When looking at a sophomore or Junior it should make a difference if he is 15 or 18. USL should pressure the college coaches to make a statement about this. Clubs and HOCO will not change this anymore than complaining on a message board will.

Why in the world would colleges change? They get bigger and emotionally more mature kids who have better test scores and are easier to put through the process. We love the Navy but they are the worst. They recruit double holdbacks, holdbacks and whoever just like everyone else. Then they ask most to do another year at Navy Prep. They are getting 21 year old freshman and they love it because the demands of the academy show older students do better.

It's up to the parents to police their own children's teams and activities and I've been the one screaming about MadLax's team of 16 and 15 year olds playing 8th grade lacrosse. My kid will not be playing in divisions or tournaments against these types of teams unless his roster changes dramatically. The NY teams are very wary of playing against MD teams due to this. It's also why you see the NY teams dominate in National age based tournaments like WSYL. I've read how people trash it but it is an age based tournament with no exceptions and the MD teams aren't even trying to qualify this year due to their roster imbalances. But those same MD teams will have plenty of young men on college rosters.

I've complained to HoCo and every other tournament and it falls on deaf ears. Maybe complaining on a board like this will help.