Anonymous wrote:Prep looks like the team to beat in the spring of 2018. Tons of underclassmen making verbals to top D1 colleges. Another kid recently committed to Dartmouth.

I haven't of many kids at Landon or Gonzaga getting much attention from college programs.

The talent in the younger classes really has shifted towards Prep.

Anonymous wrote:Prep looks like the team to beat in the spring of 2018. Tons of underclassmen making verbals to top D1 colleges. Another kid recently committed to Dartmouth.

I haven't of many kids at Landon or Gonzaga getting much attention from college programs.

The talent in the younger classes really has shifted towards Prep.

Anonymous wrote:Georgetown Prep appears to be on the way back in being the top doc in DC. There are more kids in their incoming 2020 class and kids in their current 2019 class who have made committs to big time D1 programs than at Gonzaga and Landon.

Look for Prep to be very competitive this Spring.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a good luck when 3 Bullis seniors have to do a PG year to get into college.

Great job Boarman!

I get most of the critiques of Bullis but this one seems a stretch -- PG years are increasingly about either trying to "trade up" to get Division I or a stronger Division I school, or a college coach wants the player to essentially redshirt either to manage the size of his recruiting class or to have the kid get one year bigger and stronger. On the latter point, by comparison it is now very common to have 20 and 21-year-old freshmen in Division I ice hockey. (Not a good thing, in my view, but that is the landscape.)

Circling back, saw that one of the Bullis kids doing a PG year, who was formerly committed to Bucknell (maybe top 30-ish program), has now committed to Duke (generally seen as a top 5 program). Seems to support the idea that at least some of the Bullis players who are doing a PG year are doing it to trade up -- Duke is certainly a big deal lacrosse program (not to mention a great academic school).

If you beg enough, go to enough $500+ a weekend events, run through enough repeat years and prep schools & offer to come for nothing but a roster spot in fall ball...they will take you. Even Duke. I wouldn't confuse that with being recruited outright. It's also rather sad and pathetic that some valedictorian w/ a sleeve of AP courses and 5s on those tests would be declined admission to make room for more lacrosse garbage. Every year that passes Dino looks worse. E parks 3-4 halfway house candidates at boarding schools every year now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a good luck when 3 Bullis seniors have to do a PG year to get into college.

Great job Boarman!

I get most of the critiques of Bullis but this one seems a stretch -- PG years are increasingly about either trying to "trade up" to get Division I or a stronger Division I school, or a college coach wants the player to essentially redshirt either to manage the size of his recruiting class or to have the kid get one year bigger and stronger. On the latter point, by comparison it is now very common to have 20 and 21-year-old freshmen in Division I ice hockey. (Not a good thing, in my view, but that is the landscape.)

Circling back, saw that one of the Bullis kids doing a PG year, who was formerly committed to Bucknell (maybe top 30-ish program), has now committed to Duke (generally seen as a top 5 program). Seems to support the idea that at least some of the Bullis players who are doing a PG year are doing it to trade up -- Duke is certainly a big deal lacrosse program (not to mention a great academic school).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a good luck when 3 Bullis seniors have to do a PG year to get into college.

Great job Boarman!

I get most of the critiques of Bullis but this one seems a stretch -- PG years are increasingly about either trying to "trade up" to get Division I or a stronger Division I school, or a college coach wants the player to essentially redshirt either to manage the size of his recruiting class or to have the kid get one year bigger and stronger. On the latter point, by comparison it is now very common to have 20 and 21-year-old freshmen in Division I ice hockey. (Not a good thing, in my view, but that is the landscape.)

Anonymous wrote:Have your FIL read two books written by people who did real research rather than a series of hyperbolic interviews:

1. "Black Box Thinking" by Matthew Syed
2. "Talent is Overrated" by Geoff Colvin

Being great at something isn't a linear function of being a year older. If it was everyone in the world would be underemployed until they hit some arbitrary age. Being great at something isn't a function of doing it for 10,000 hours either. Every day of our lives we see people in the workforce, our kids' school teachers and sports coaches or those who follow the same interests we do who suck at things they've been doing for decades. Nobody on this thread can go to a local driving range and point to Fred Couples' golf swing, but every local schmuck can point to his kid who plays wall ball for an hour a day because he "wants it"? There's a difference between doing something more and being better and a lack of understanding of this is why club lacrosse guys can sell clinics and showcases nobody needs and some sports destination prep schools sell tuitions that don't need to be had. That is exactly the mentality that gets you a cubicle for life later in life.

Anonymous wrote:The ice hockey metaphor is stupid. I think people read Outliers and believe they have found religion. There are reasons why college ice hockey players are 21-25 years old. First, the ones who are Canadian from rural areas often need more academic finishing after high school to be eligible to be admitted to the colleges in the US that recruit them to play hockey. Second, the NCAA scholarship in ice hockey is widely held out to be a consolation prize for kids who didn't get drafted by the NHL. After high school US and Canadian kids will go off to play juniors for 1-3 years in hopes to get drafted by the pro teams.

In lacrosse it is something to do when you weren't good enough to be recruited in your class or weren't good enough to be recruited by a higher end program than the one you were recruited at. PG years for lacrosse players have nothing to do with getting academics up or one more year or getting bigger in the weight room. If that were true these same kids would matriculate to college and take either a redshirt or gap year as a less than full time enrolled student to lift weights, train, etc. You don't need to spend $65K to lift weights at a gym or find a place to do lacrosse drills. You need to spend $65K on a PG year to force a fit, and the places that welcome that are either the traditional NE prep meathead lockers (Avon OF, Taft or Salisbury) or the prep that used to be a top academic powerhouse decades ago but regressed to be the new meathead locker (Deerfield). Kids go to those boarding schools when they aren't admitted to the more selective ones and when their parents need to park them for a sports gap year. Every middle tier or top D1 lacrosse coach has the mobile number of the admissions directors and lacrosse coaches at these schools (and at Deerfield it is the same guy) and know they can make one 5 minute phone call in July to park a kid he deferred in a recruiting class for a PG year so long as he can also assure the prep AD the parents have the dough to wire $65K fast. This year Taft took three lax bros in July who had not even applied earlier, and Deerfield took EIGHT lax PGs this spring/summer.

I went to Choate a generation ago and know several people in these boarding school networks and have been active as an alum. I'm not bragging on Choate like it's the blue blood #1, but I will make the point it is still a school at first. Anyone who thinks a lacrosse PG year at one of those four is a strong move is delusional. It's where mediocrity goes to run and hide for a year.