Also, hockey is still a Canadian-centered sport, where there's a sort of gentleman's code to many things.

Anonymous wrote:It seems that hockey players aren't known for being as douchey and alcoholic as laxers. I wonder why that is, considering hockey is also a white, prep school sport.

I would imagine part of it stems from why people start playing a specific sport in the first place. Most hockey players who excel at their sport start playing when they're 3-6 years old - too young to really take into consideration the sorts of social benefits that accrue from participating in one sport over another.

Part of it also probably stems from the emotional, time, and financial requirements required to develop skills in a particular sport. Hockey practices tend to be at insanely early hours, which leaves less time or inclination for late night carousing. Kids who can't hack it, or who lack the necessary focus and emotional stability, tend to drop out before they reach the high school level. Plus, hockey has viable professional leagues, not only in the U.S. but around the world (most European, and even some Asian, countries have national leagues, all of which recruit Americans and Canadians that the NHL and AHL don't pick up). So, talented hockey players have an incentive to maintain a laser like focus on their goals if they have any desire to go pro after college.

Laxers have the benefits and temptations that go along with D1 sports at the collegiate level, without the counterbalancing incentive of potential future rewards within the sport. Thus the strong built-in incentive for players to get it all while the getting is good.

It seems that hockey players aren't known for being as douchey and alcoholic as laxers. I wonder why that is, considering hockey is also a white, prep school sport.

Anonymous wrote:The fact that you can be a lax star and be under 6' is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing.

On Duke, only 12 out of 41 laxers are listed at under 6'. on UNC, 15 out of 46. At UVA, 13 out of 42. At Cornell, though, 27 out of 47. At Princeton, 14 out of 43.

Anybody listed as 6' or 6'1" is really 5'10" or 5'11". Men inflate their height for public consumption like women downgrade their weights.

The fact that you can be a lax star and be under 6' is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing.

On Duke, only 12 out of 41 laxers are listed at under 6'. on UNC, 15 out of 46. At UVA, 13 out of 42. At Cornell, though, 27 out of 47. At Princeton, 14 out of 43.

What a waste of vertical protoplasm on non athletic pursuits; or perhaps these guys simply couldn't make it in the big leagues with bona fide athletes. I am sure the Canadian Steve Nash was a rock star at lacrosse but ulltimately chose basketball over soccer because he was a true athlete. Lacrosse was a mere after thought ...apres sports!

My boys are very interested in lacrosse. But I'm wary, given the "lacrosse culture." What area llacrosse eagues best foster the anti-lacrosse culture notion?

The fact that you can be a lax star and be under 6' is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing.

On Duke, only 12 out of 41 laxers are listed at under 6'. on UNC, 15 out of 46. At UVA, 13 out of 42. At Cornell, though, 27 out of 47. At Princeton, 14 out of 43.

Must be lots of LAX moms on this thread still trying to keep up the fiction that their kids are the best at everything. There will come a day when your kids have grown up and it doesn't really matter how well they played high school or college sports. The only thing that will matter is if they are happy and healthy. And, you all should be a little more concerned with whether you, yourself, are in decent shape and healthy.....
Signed,
Mother of D-I, ACC Pitcher

The ignorance displayed on this thread is off the charts. Are the top of the line athletes in lacrosse comparable to the best athletes in football and/or basketball? Of course not.

There are great kids/athletes who are lacrosse players and some who are idiots.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like lacrosse -- it's a great game and it's wonderful that it is growing as a sport (for both boys and girls) nationwide. But let's just say that the only sports in which the best athletes are 5'10" white guys are sports in which the only athletes are the 5'10" white guys.

5'10 white guys with speed and strength and coordination. Unlike your 7 foot center in basketball who does nothing but be tall and dunk a ball, or the 300 lb lineman in football who blocks people with his massive size. Lax requires athleticism at all positions. PS it's not the only sport where you don't have to be tall or black to be a star. Tennis, golf, soccer, baseball...

I agree the 5'10" white guys who play at UVA and UNC and Syracuse are wonderful athletes. However, market analysis says that if they could truly excel at a sport with a major economic payoff, they would be doing that. I would venture to say almost any 3d string running back in the major football conferences would be a lacrosse superstar within about a year of picking up the game.

3rd string running backs aren't making the NFL. Better to be a lacrosse player who goes to a better college, bangs hotter women, and gets a better job.

Does anyone really think that basketball players just stand there and dunk balls? really? ... one of the most athletic games around -requiring tons of running and hand-eye coordination for dribbling, passing and dunking. Ridiculous to say they aren't athletes.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-03-22/wall-streets-lacrosse-mafia

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like lacrosse -- it's a great game and it's wonderful that it is growing as a sport (for both boys and girls) nationwide. But let's just say that the only sports in which the best athletes are 5'10" white guys are sports in which the only athletes are the 5'10" white guys.

5'10 white guys with speed and strength and coordination. Unlike your 7 foot center in basketball who does nothing but be tall and dunk a ball, or the 300 lb lineman in football who blocks people with his massive size. Lax requires athleticism at all positions. PS it's not the only sport where you don't have to be tall or black to be a star. Tennis, golf, soccer, baseball...

I agree the 5'10" white guys who play at UVA and UNC and Syracuse are wonderful athletes. However, market analysis says that if they could truly excel at a sport with a major economic payoff, they would be doing that. I would venture to say almost any 3d string running back in the major football conferences would be a lacrosse superstar within about a year of picking up the game.

10:19 with a comment. I'm not in high school or college. Simply a middle aged mom who saw the sports/kids/parents through youth leagues and high school. I'm a person who was privy to the sideline and party conversations.

Anonymous wrote:The constant citing of "5'10" white guys" - as if all lax players are under 6 feet tall is laughable.

Pretty accurate, actually, if you are really around them and don't look at the inflated height totals on rosters. But yes, thanks for pointing out that there are some lacrosse players over six feet. Now we all think they are better athletes than ACC basketball and SEC football players.

The constant citing of "5'10" white guys" - as if all lax players are under 6 feet tall is laughable.