You are really only complaining about 2 recruits who need full support , or 8 total in a school. Would you rather have 8 xc runners that are slightly below academically or 8 international students who keep to themselves and don’t contribute to the school community, other than being full pay.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:cross country probably the worst example of this - most nescacs are fielding 30 men and 30 women when only 5 score most of the year. terrible way to bring in full pay white kids. The house settlement reduced the SEC to 10 runners per x country team. Joke that Wesleyan Bates Bowdoin have 60 kids on these teams

You do realize that only 2-4 kids each year have coach support through recruiting for the sport don’t you?

yes, in fact I know exactly how it works. The number of supportable x country athletes is typically 5, and in different bands from slot to tips - but all with support typically get in. Usually 2 get full support because they need it and times/potential justify the use. 5x4=20- still a big number

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why people hate athletes so much? When we don't hate the made-up research or non-profit that Mom started for their kid and then got shut down before the kid even left for college.

There has been plenty of hate on that as well. I have become so disenchanted that my default is to assume that these things are bogus and manufactured. I do alumni interviewing and I am usually super easy going and nice but I love ripping apart the kids who have these fake research/non-profit/international service type things. And I am very pleasantly surprised when I meet a kid for whom it really is legit.

Colleges/universities are supposed to strive for the ideal of the well-rounded human being. So a good athlete should be recognized and that should be given weight. But it has shifted from being a positive factor at many of these schools back in our generation to having way too much influence on the process. And when a lacrosse roster has 50 kids at a small school, that is a lot of seats.

And this is coming from someone who is absolutely obsessed with sports and went to a major D1 sports school.

I don't get why people hate athletes so much? When we don't hate the made-up research or non-profit that Mom started for their kid and then got shut down before the kid even left for college.

So much going on this thread. But all it shows is that we all know that lacrosse (as a stand in for rich white athletics generally) remains at the core of the liberal arts college value proposition, whatever that may be.

It is also notable how Lacrosseworld is a universe unto itself, a class and racial ghetto *very* unlike both the rest of the student populations at these schools and very different from the "shiny happy diversity" image promoted from all of these schools.

Highly selective colleges in the USA engaging in rank hypocrisy...who'd have thunk it? (Besides everybody).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Terrible post. I am from a low income area with 100% minority kids and lacrosse has been great for us. Literally a game changer. Maybe they don't go to SLACs, but lots of D3 college scholarships for kids who really need them.

But stay in your world and pretend you're the one who doesn't get enough privilege.

Div. 3 does not give scholarships. So these kids you are referring to “who really need them” will get financial aid or merit aid without lacrosse. What you think is a “game changer” is you justifying affirmative action for whites.

"Merit" $ with a wink and a nod for athletes

Doesn’t work that way, people need to stop perpetuating that myth.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If anything, ice hockey is worse than lacrosse. Pretty much a 1950s country club look for the ice hockey team at ultra-woke Middlebury:

https://athletics.middlebury.edu/sports/mhockey/roster

IME, ice hockey is a much more expensive sport than lacrosse. Unlike lax, you're playing inside a facility year-round, and maintaining ice and paying for time isn't cheap. The padding is more $$, too. Unlike lax, you don't usually have the option of playing on a school team in younger years, either. You have to spend a lot of time skating to get good enough to play hockey, whereas anyone can run (lax).

Ice hockey team fees were literally thousands of dollars for private HS team. This is over and above what most of these kids are already paying for separate club teams. Lacrosse fees were negligible in comparison.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Terrible post. I am from a low income area with 100% minority kids and lacrosse has been great for us. Literally a game changer. Maybe they don't go to SLACs, but lots of D3 college scholarships for kids who really need them.

But stay in your world and pretend you're the one who doesn't get enough privilege.

Div. 3 does not give scholarships. So these kids you are referring to “who really need them” will get financial aid or merit aid without lacrosse. What you think is a “game changer” is you justifying affirmative action for whites.

"Merit" $ with a wink and a nod for athletes

Isn't it kind of cringy to be looking at kids on rosters? Good for them for using their talents to their advantage. Just because you have money to play a sport growing up doesn't mean you'll actually be good enough to be able to play at the college level.

If the school wants a lax or hockey or squash team, they need to kids who are actually good at playing those sports.

Anonymous wrote:If anything, ice hockey is worse than lacrosse. Pretty much a 1950s country club look for the ice hockey team at ultra-woke Middlebury:

https://athletics.middlebury.edu/sports/mhockey/roster

IME, ice hockey is a much more expensive sport than lacrosse. Unlike lax, you're playing inside a facility year-round, and maintaining ice and paying for time isn't cheap. The padding is more $$, too. Unlike lax, you don't usually have the option of playing on a school team in younger years, either. You have to spend a lot of time skating to get good enough to play hockey, whereas anyone can run (lax).

WTH. It's just a game / sport. One of my kids thought it was fun and played for about 10 years. It's not like the equipment is that expensive or you're paying for ice time (hockey) or pool time. We spent more on travel baseball. It's growing in the US, so I don't think it will be viewed as "elitist" in the way that you're viewing it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LAX is a rapey sport full of toxically masculine bros.

Sober up, Hillary.

LAX “bro” is literally a thing. Make sure you get and hold onto your own drink at a LAX party ladies.

You do realize the Duke rape case was a hoax, it never happened. Not sure what other examples you would be talking about.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LAX is a rapey sport full of toxically masculine bros.

Sober up, Hillary.

LAX “bro” is literally a thing. Make sure you get and hold onto your own drink at a LAX party ladies.

Anonymous wrote:LAX is a rapey sport full of toxically masculine bros.

Sober up, Hillary.

Anonymous wrote:If anything, ice hockey is worse than lacrosse. Pretty much a 1950s country club look for the ice hockey team at ultra-woke Middlebury:

https://athletics.middlebury.edu/sports/mhockey/roster

Ice hockey and lacrosse are sports originated in Canada.

Ice hockey originated in Nova Scotia in the early 1800’s. In 1895 The Colored Hockey Team of the Maritime was founded by Black leaders who resided near the capital Halifax. The Colored Hockey League of the Maritimes (CHLM) was established in 1895 and were 12 black teams who played in the league. They made changes in hockey that are still in play now. The Black league lasted until 1930. It took almost 30 years for the first Black player to play in the NHL for the Bruins.

Lacrosse started with the indigenous people in Canada hundreds of years ago. French Canadians perfected the game with rules and regulations, organized leagues and called it Lacrosse.

My family is French Canadian from Nova Scotia and I learned this years ago. Fun fact - curling was also invented in Nova Scotia. So cool.