Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:You see all sorts of ranges of size and speed but when push comes to shove the it needs to be there.
I don’t really understand what this means?
It means it's 90% mental. The other half is physical.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:You see all sorts of ranges of size and speed but when push comes to shove the it needs to be there.
I don’t really understand what this means?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I am expecting data guy to soon deliver a lengthy yet unconvincing analysis on how size, speed, and athleticism actually don’t matter that much in college lacrosse.
No data needed. It’s just the nature of collegiate sports. Players keep getting bigger, faster, and stronger. Agree with a PP poster, the biggest difference I have seen watching my daughter play D1 is speed. If a player doesn’t have it they will struggle on a top 20-30 D1 team. The game is also getting more physical so players need size and strength to compete at the highest level. It’s that simple.
Parents need to stop talking about D1 programs as though they are all equal. Playing for a top 20-30 team is a whole different level than the bottom half of D1. It’s the same sport, but at times looks much different. The NCAA should create D1a, D1b, and D1c.
Anonymous wrote:You see all sorts of ranges of size and speed but when push comes to shove the it needs to be there.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I am expecting data guy to soon deliver a lengthy yet unconvincing analysis on how size, speed, and athleticism actually don’t matter that much in college lacrosse.
No data needed. It’s just the nature of collegiate sports. Players keep getting bigger, faster, and stronger. Agree with a PP poster, the biggest difference I have seen watching my daughter play D1 is speed. If a player doesn’t have it they will struggle on a top 20-30 D1 team. The game is also getting more physical so players need size and strength to compete at the highest level. It’s that simple.
Parents need to stop talking about D1 programs as though they are all equal. Playing for a top 20-30 team is a whole different level than the bottom half of D1. It’s the same sport, but at times looks much different. The NCAA should create D1a, D1b, and D1c.
Anonymous wrote:I am expecting data guy to soon deliver a lengthy yet unconvincing analysis on how size, speed, and athleticism actually don’t matter that much in college lacrosse.
Anonymous wrote:I am expecting data guy to soon deliver a lengthy yet unconvincing analysis on how size, speed, and athleticism actually don’t matter that much in college lacrosse.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I have one still in college and she followed the same path as her older sister. My oldest daughter does not regret playing D1 lax, yes she actually hd 2 offers, one school consistently ranked in the top 30 and the other school ranked around 43. However, to one of the pp out there’s comments, she chose to play at a NESCAC and had a blast and of course competed. Now she is a resident in a hospital and going to become a doctor. Guess my point is, no matter what your daughter’s path is, she has to be happy and comfortable within her surroundings. For some the D1 path is all they dream about, for others it’s not. College is also what you make of it, but I do admit that because she played lacrosse, she has friends for life and I also keep up with the former parents as well. It’s been a wonderful ride so my advice is- enjoy it while it lasts and your daughter will figure it out…..
This.....D3 high academic over random D1 any day....I wish kids and parents both would stop saying "Suzy is playing D1" .... who cares, it's a crappy school!!!!
The high academic top D1 (eg, Northwestern) is the big prize. Many of us are seriously invested in lacrosse, but let’s don’t forget about academics!
Is it? At that level it’s an uphill climb to see the field,
especially now with the portal, and the team culture at many of those top 10 programs is terrible. Be careful what you wish for.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My kid sucks. Plays on a shitty team. But she has fun and that is all I care about. And I bet the kids of most of the people on this thread who are posting and wasting all of their time with stats will play the same amount of time in college as my kid which is zero (and I am sure some (like 3 or 4) of your kids will play and get into D1 schools and that is great.
While an interesting way to post on the topic you are not far off in your assessment of the time posters are spending writing about kids playing D1 vs those players who will actually have the opportunity to play at this level.
The reality is maybe 3% of high school players will receive the opportunity to play at the D1 level each year. When you break this down to the top 20 D1 programs, which are those that have a chance of winning a national title, the numbers equate to about 140-180 recruits each year. Those are very small odds. Then getting on the field and playing is a whole different challenge. As you you seem to suggest there will be many disappointed parents and players if expectations are not set and managed correctly.
Just a comment on the label of D1 lacrosse. The level and depth of talent drops off quickly as you move away from the top D1 programs. And the play can be downright bad for the second half of D1 programs. The D1 label really needs clarification because the play is so different from top to bottom.
I agree about generally lowering expectations, but if my daughter is one of the top starters on her team which is currently in the top 20 doesn’t she have some decent chance of playing college lacrosse if she keeps up at this pace? I don’t think she’s Charlotte North but I do think she will likely make a D1 team.