IL Four stars:

IAC
Landon (A, LSM, LSM, D, D)
Prep (A, SSDM)
SJC (M, D)
Yorktown (A)

If you add these to the three stars, they suggest that Landon, Prep, and SJC have the best 27 classes (as one might expect) and the three are relatively even in the class.

I have heard that college coaches don’t really look at the stars when deciding who to recruit, but I think they rely heavily on the IL stars.

Anonymous wrote:Pay for play!

Dunkel was a 5 star when he missed his entire senior campaign at SJC and likely might not even play this spring (I hope I’m wrong)

He's never playing. The school was notified long ago. Even if he could, he hasn't played in 3 years, was always too small and now he has 2 years of 5 stars over top of him.

Just looked at some of the ages of the 4 star players from IL My goodness you got some old kids!

Birthdays in June 07, Jan 08, March 08, Nov 07 to name a few on the list. And if any local kid goes up North to a prep school, book it he is a year back, at a minimum.

I guess…if you must in order to compete…

Dad loves coming on this forum

Anonymous wrote:Just watched the public school 4 /5 star. No chance at 5’5” should he be rated that high. What are we doing here, rating on crappy summer ball and public school stats? I’ve seen 30 others this summer just as good with higher ceilings.

He got the 4 stars and 89 rating playing the crappy spring public school and the ML machine doing the marketing.

Both of you guys would be hilarious to watch trying to play lacrosse.

Anonymous wrote:Just watched the public school 4 /5 star. No chance at 5’5” should he be rated that high. What are we doing here, rating on crappy summer ball and public school stats? I’ve seen 30 others this summer just as good with higher ceilings.

He got the 4 stars and 89 rating playing the crappy spring public school and the ML machine doing the marketing.

Pay for play!

Dunkel was a 5 star when he missed his entire senior campaign at SJC and likely might not even play this spring (I hope I’m wrong)

The article doesn't mesh with reality. The ratings being given to players up and down aren't correlating to the stars. A number of highly rated 88+ are being given 3 stars and a number of unrated, very average players are being lumped with them. When 40% of the class is being given 3 stars along with a "pay to rate" kind of thing going on, it makes their system very suspect.

Instead of IL rating some kid 3-7x, they should be trying to rate more players along a broader scoring system. It would probably help in both thoroughness and readership.

IL is pretty transparent in how they come up with evaluations, ratings, and rankings.

https://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/kaplan-understanding-inside-lacrosse-s-recruiting-content-calendar-strategy/62367

According IL the stars are a prediction on the players impact to the college program. What would be interesting is to look back over the past 5-8 years and do an analysis on those who received stars and what were their stats in college. Did the 5 star actual play freshman year? How many goals did he score? Etc. I am sure there are a handful of examples where IL was accurate, but the real question is how many star ratings were inaccurate?

There's definitely correlation between stars and recruiting but to illustrate the opposite, look at the current 2027 star page on IL. The very first kid is a reclass 4 star going to IMG. If he was a 4 star, why no high recruitment? 5'7" isn't going to change from age 17 to 18.

The ratings are kind of interesting, but no one puts much actual weight behind them. That is, most 4 or 5 star players are offered by big programs, but that’s because they are good players and coaches notice them rather than the coaches relying on IL’s star ratings.

Nobody holds any weight on ratings, it’s an IL money maker.

Are stars a better indicator or a rating?