Anonymous
09/25/2025 19:05
Subject: 2027 GIRLS PLAYER COMMITMENTS 🥍🥍🥍
Anonymous wrote:https://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/parenting-recruiting-by-tg-performance-joe-spallina-stony-brook-hc-father-to-four-di-athletes/65918
Not sure why you insist on making it an angle. Sometimes it is simply opinion which we all have. Nothing directed or with an angle
Are you the OP?
Anonymous
09/25/2025 18:56
Subject: 2027 GIRLS PLAYER COMMITMENTS 🥍🥍🥍
https://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/parenting-recruiting-by-tg-performance-joe-spallina-stony-brook-hc-father-to-four-di-athletes/65918
Not sure why you insist on making it an angle. Sometimes it is simply opinion which we all have. Nothing directed or with an angle
Not sure why you insist on making it an angle. Sometimes it is simply opinion which we all have. Nothing directed or with an angle
Anonymous
09/25/2025 17:55
Subject: Re:2027 GIRLS PLAYER COMMITMENTS 🥍🥍🥍
There's no record as of now of even a vote coming up, or maybe one of us can find it? Agreed , that's why I said I'm not sure what their angle is.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I did. They're not. You also posted that 5 year eligibility is imminent, which is patently untrue. Not sure what your angle is, but it really isn't called for.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:They are not virtually done and 5 year eligibility is not imminent.Anonymous wrote:27s commited faster than ever. Top 25 schools are done or virtually done, and taking smaller classes due to imminent 5 year eligibilty.
Scroll down the rosters of the top 60 schools. Most of them are done or almost done. And definitely the top 35 are near full.
*Should say “scroll down commitment lists” not rosters (on Inside Lacrosse)
I’m not sure if the article but the article mentioned it being announced in October. I am not PP but not sure there is an angle?
Anonymous
09/25/2025 17:42
Subject: Re:2027 GIRLS PLAYER COMMITMENTS 🥍🥍🥍
Anonymous wrote:I did. They're not. You also posted that 5 year eligibility is imminent, which is patently untrue. Not sure what your angle is, but it really isn't called for.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:They are not virtually done and 5 year eligibility is not imminent.Anonymous wrote:27s commited faster than ever. Top 25 schools are done or virtually done, and taking smaller classes due to imminent 5 year eligibilty.
Scroll down the rosters of the top 60 schools. Most of them are done or almost done. And definitely the top 35 are near full.
*Should say “scroll down commitment lists” not rosters (on Inside Lacrosse)
I’m not sure if the article but the article mentioned it being announced in October. I am not PP but not sure there is an angle?
Anonymous
09/25/2025 17:29
Subject: Re:2027 GIRLS PLAYER COMMITMENTS 🥍🥍🥍
It may eventually happen. There's nothing imminent about it. RE: Inside Lacrosse, is there a major outlet anywhere that's reporting even a vote coming up?Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I did. They're not. You also posted that 5 year eligibility is imminent, which is patently untrue. Not sure what your angle is, but it really isn't called for.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:They are not virtually done and 5 year eligibility is not imminent.Anonymous wrote:27s commited faster than ever. Top 25 schools are done or virtually done, and taking smaller classes due to imminent 5 year eligibilty.
Scroll down the rosters of the top 60 schools. Most of them are done or almost done. And definitely the top 35 are near full.
*Should say “scroll down commitment lists” not rosters (on Inside Lacrosse)
Different poster, and it is imminent. Per Inside Lacrosse article with Joe Spallina a proposal is being voted on in October for Five in Five.
Coaches will have to account for incoming transfers (like from Ivies who will stick with 4 years of eligibility), even more than they do now when projecting their roster numbers.
Anonymous
09/25/2025 17:10
Subject: 2027 GIRLS PLAYER COMMITMENTS 🥍🥍🥍
Wau to go Capital! Back to back double Harvard Committs for Capital Blue for 2026 and 2027 years! Impressive!!!
Anonymous
09/25/2025 16:21
Subject: Re:2027 GIRLS PLAYER COMMITMENTS 🥍🥍🥍
Anonymous wrote:I did. They're not. You also posted that 5 year eligibility is imminent, which is patently untrue. Not sure what your angle is, but it really isn't called for.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:They are not virtually done and 5 year eligibility is not imminent.Anonymous wrote:27s commited faster than ever. Top 25 schools are done or virtually done, and taking smaller classes due to imminent 5 year eligibilty.
Scroll down the rosters of the top 60 schools. Most of them are done or almost done. And definitely the top 35 are near full.
*Should say “scroll down commitment lists” not rosters (on Inside Lacrosse)
Different poster, and it is imminent. Per Inside Lacrosse article with Joe Spallina a proposal is being voted on in October for Five in Five.
Coaches will have to account for incoming transfers (like from Ivies who will stick with 4 years of eligibility), even more than they do now when projecting their roster numbers.
Anonymous
09/25/2025 15:10
Subject: 2027 GIRLS PLAYER COMMITMENTS 🥍🥍🥍
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Another Capital Blue to Harvard!
Awesome! What high school?
Maret
Anonymous
09/25/2025 14:51
Subject: 2027 GIRLS PLAYER COMMITMENTS 🥍🥍🥍
Anonymous wrote:Another Capital Blue to Harvard!
Awesome! What high school?
Anonymous
09/25/2025 14:49
Subject: Re:2027 GIRLS PLAYER COMMITMENTS 🥍🥍🥍
I did. They're not. You also posted that 5 year eligibility is imminent, which is patently untrue. Not sure what your angle is, but it really isn't called for.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:They are not virtually done and 5 year eligibility is not imminent.Anonymous wrote:27s commited faster than ever. Top 25 schools are done or virtually done, and taking smaller classes due to imminent 5 year eligibilty.
Scroll down the rosters of the top 60 schools. Most of them are done or almost done. And definitely the top 35 are near full.
*Should say “scroll down commitment lists” not rosters (on Inside Lacrosse)
Anonymous
09/25/2025 14:46
Subject: Re:2027 GIRLS PLAYER COMMITMENTS 🥍🥍🥍
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:They are not virtually done and 5 year eligibility is not imminent.Anonymous wrote:27s commited faster than ever. Top 25 schools are done or virtually done, and taking smaller classes due to imminent 5 year eligibilty.
Scroll down the rosters of the top 60 schools. Most of them are done or almost done. And definitely the top 35 are near full.
*Should say “scroll down commitment lists” not rosters (on Inside Lacrosse)
Anonymous
09/25/2025 14:44
Subject: Re:2027 GIRLS PLAYER COMMITMENTS 🥍🥍🥍
Anonymous wrote:They are not virtually done and 5 year eligibility is not imminent.Anonymous wrote:27s commited faster than ever. Top 25 schools are done or virtually done, and taking smaller classes due to imminent 5 year eligibilty.
Scroll down the rosters of the top 60 schools. Most of them are done or almost done. And definitely the top 35 are near full.
Anonymous
09/25/2025 14:38
Subject: Re:2027 GIRLS PLAYER COMMITMENTS 🥍🥍🥍
They are not virtually done and 5 year eligibility is not imminent.Anonymous wrote:27s commited faster than ever. Top 25 schools are done or virtually done, and taking smaller classes due to imminent 5 year eligibilty.
Anonymous
09/25/2025 13:34
Subject: Re:2027 GIRLS PLAYER COMMITMENTS 🥍🥍🥍
Anonymous wrote:27s commited faster than ever. Top 25 schools are done or virtually done, and taking smaller classes due to imminent 5 year eligibilty.
Plus roster caps for most conferences. Feels like a tough recruiting year for many players.
Anonymous
09/25/2025 13:22
Subject: Re:2027 GIRLS PLAYER COMMITMENTS 🥍🥍🥍
27s commited faster than ever. Top 25 schools are done or virtually done, and taking smaller classes due to imminent 5 year eligibilty.