Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s semantics. The lower level club out b teams is the same as old school rec. maybe the structure has changed but it s very similar.

It’s the same or worse talent wise, that’s it. However it cost 10x as much as rec and it’s not normally neighborhood based. Rec is where one plays low stress lacrosse with your buddies. It’s one part hanging out with your boys and one part lacrosse. It’s made up of kids of all skill levels, b-aaa. The top kids would typically also play on a club team. Rec league was Saturday and HOCO was Sunday so you could play both. Maybe the days were switched, I can’t remember.

This is exactly it. Low cost and neighborhood based used to produce better results. The model where rec comes first and club is for all stars to showcase closer to college recruiting is a much better model that used to produce better results for the DMV. Paying 10x as much may benefit the clubs. These fools are trying to make this a full time job so of course they require year round work. None/zero/nada of these club directors grew up playing only club year round they all played rec themselves. They may not want you to know that. Support your local rec teams. Rec is NOT about level of play.

It's actually 20x now. Before add ons.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s semantics. The lower level club out b teams is the same as old school rec. maybe the structure has changed but it s very similar.

It’s the same or worse talent wise, that’s it. However it cost 10x as much as rec and it’s not normally neighborhood based. Rec is where one plays low stress lacrosse with your buddies. It’s one part hanging out with your boys and one part lacrosse. It’s made up of kids of all skill levels, b-aaa. The top kids would typically also play on a club team. Rec league was Saturday and HOCO was Sunday so you could play both. Maybe the days were switched, I can’t remember.

This is exactly it. Low cost and neighborhood based used to produce better results. The model where rec comes first and club is for all stars to showcase closer to college recruiting is a much better model that used to produce better results for the DMV. Paying 10x as much may benefit the clubs. These fools are trying to make this a full time job so of course they require year round work. None/zero/nada of these club directors grew up playing only club year round they all played rec themselves. They may not want you to know that. Support your local rec teams. Rec is NOT about level of play.

I don't have specific numbers, and can only speak from experience. Years ago, many youth lacrosse players also played other sports in the Fall & Winter. Some even played tackle/flag football, and then also did club lacrosse practice on Sunday's, and the tournaments were in November. There was some overlap, but it was manageable. You played wit your club in the summer and fall, or maybe just one or the other.

Now days, club lacrosse is a year round commitment, with multiple practices, speed/agility training, positional practices, etc... and 2-3X per week. Kids that want to play a fall or winter sport too, are being tasked with committing to something 6-7 days a week if they want to try and do both. It becomes too much for them, and their parents, and they either become burnt out totally from doing too much, become year-round lacrosse players, or quit lacrosse completely.

Every kid and family is different. Some families have 1 kid, who is driven, and easily manages this level of commitment. Some families have 2-4 kids, playing multiple different sports including lacrosse, but don't have the ability, finances or kids that want to play lacrosse year-round. In my personal experience with my own kids, they love lacrosse, they have enjoyed both rec and club lacrosse, going to a summer camp, and messing around in the backyard with their friends nd making up games for fun. Having to commit to a club program and participate year-round became a burden on them, and me, and became less enjoyable. They still play 3 sports at the rec and some travel BB level, and enjoy all three. Not making them pick one sport. If that is want they wanted to do, we'd consider it and support them.

The coaching at the club level, not National Teams is also not as good as it used to be. 2 drills and scrimmaging for 40 minutes. Not seeing the development with skills and field IQ that I used too.

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s semantics. The lower level club out b teams is the same as old school rec. maybe the structure has changed but it s very similar.

It’s the same or worse talent wise, that’s it. However it cost 10x as much as rec and it’s not normally neighborhood based. Rec is where one plays low stress lacrosse with your buddies. It’s one part hanging out with your boys and one part lacrosse. It’s made up of kids of all skill levels, b-aaa. The top kids would typically also play on a club team. Rec league was Saturday and HOCO was Sunday so you could play both. Maybe the days were switched, I can’t remember.

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s semantics. The lower level club out b teams is the same as old school rec. maybe the structure has changed but it s very similar.

B team club is more expensive than rec and requires travel (even more money). It's not that similar.

I think it’s semantics. The lower level club out b teams is the same as old school rec. maybe the structure has changed but it s very similar.

Anonymous wrote:There was a time when club was only for elite players. NPYLL was only AA and A.

I can see the point some are trying to make that A or B or AA or anything not elite has would not beat a rec team. This is really missing the point. Rec level lacrosse used to be why kids started playing. Club was then a place older kids could showcase talent. Now club is replacing rec and the overall talent is down. Get job.

There was a time when club was only for elite players. NPYLL was only AA and A.

Anonymous wrote:Yes but only the bottom 3 divisions.

Talent level has nothing to do with it. Rec is low cost and based on neighborhoods. Low cost and no travel = more kids playing. Top players play with the local friends for fun and they get better and make their friends better. This also creates better HS teams. The more kids that play the better the over all talent as more athletes play. Club spreads out the talent and results in fewer kids playing. As they start young not all kids want to drive hours to play. Fun fact lots of top level D1 players and even some local PLL players played rec. if their rec team had fewer AAA level players they played with what they had and made all better. Now the top players don’t play rec and the sum is down. The DMV decline can be tracked to the growth of HOCO club league. There was a time when Elite players played both and this led to a stronger overall result in the DMV

Yes but only the bottom 3 divisions.

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t people see aa, an and b as rec?

Not sure I understand your question. Are you asking the difference between HOCO league and Rec leagues?

Why don’t people see aa, an and b as rec?

1. There are several people posting here so when summarizing it is not a Mashup of points but several people making different points.
2. There was rec lacrosse in the DMV in the 1980’s and 1990’s and D1 players from the DMV area long before NVYLL. It used to be called the WALL washington area lacrosse league.
3. Up until very recently this area was steadily growing in lacrosse. More players bigger pool better competition and clubs that could rival the best in Baltimore LI NE ect
4. The HOCO league only recently competed with MYLA and NVYLL and did narrow the pool as kids skip rec games to play HOCO and kids do not pra rice as much with local players and expand the pool.
5. It is not a drastic change but the level of DMV is clearly trending down if you can’t see it I don’t know what to tell you.
6. Madlax VLC NL and DCE all have dad coaches who years ago would have coached rec.

The result is clear.

Anonymous wrote:What is lacrosse growth? Which local clubs run a scoopers program? Who runs scoopers programs, BLC, NL, ML. Lacrosse is a niche sport, with limited college programs playing at the d1 level, and even fewer scholarships available.

Lacrosse doesn't grow with rec programs, local lax dads pockets grow with rec lax, almost as quickly as their egos grow when Timmy scores 5 goals.

Please share with us the rec program and the years each of the current D1 all American list played for? More likely to find the club team they played on from 6th grade on.

No rec coach is getting fatter pockets. It is bizarre that you would even push send after writing that. Also, before club was even a thing the local rec programs did great job nurturing awesome players and great communities. First hand knowledge on both topics.

Anonymous wrote:Kids don't play NVYLL because it is woefully behind the times in terms of developing players. NVYLL is totally dependent on the quality of the coach, if you are lucky enough to get a coach that understands the game, is willing to coach and develop kids then you've won.

More likely, you're getting a dad or mom coach who might've played some HS lacrosse, who really want to see their kid score. Listening to parents yell "your hot". The two pass rule creates more bad habits than it deters. They should align with US Lacrosse for the 1 pass rule.

Bottom line, club fills a void that rec can't/won't fill. NVYLL killed itself with lack of quality coaches, Club directors at ML, NL, VLC just expedited the process.

If you replace NVYLL with Club everything you states is also accurate in my experience