Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know anything about the PVI lacrosse prospects day on Nov 1 for 7th and 8th graders? Is it worth attending?

Absolutely....if you live out in West Virginia near the new PVI campus or want to burn private school tuition rather than go the top public schools in area. Plus, if your kid is already on a good club team, you are better off saving your $$ for the college tuition that lacrosse does NOT pay for.

Does anyone know anything about the PVI lacrosse prospects day on Nov 1 for 7th and 8th graders? Is it worth attending?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to their social media VLC 2022 is on the board with a D1 commit to Vermont.

That's great for that player but I saw VLC 2022 scrimmage against Crabs on Sunday and that kid must not have been there. The attack was non-existent. I'd be surprised if any/many other players on that team get committed. Didn't see much there...yes I am a Crabs parent but there were maybe 2 other players on the field that looked like they belonged on an "elite" squad and they were both on the defensive side. Maybe they were missing some kids but what was there was not great.

Undortunately, the player mentioned and about 5/6 other key players were at another showcase and definitely hurt the VLC 2022 squad. I saw the scrimmage too and it would have been more competitive with their main role players. To combat this they borrowed younger 2023 players who were already gassed from scrimmaging the 2023 Crabs team right beforehand and the size and strength edge weighed heavily in Crabs favor. Crabs would still have won in my opinion if both swuads were at full strength as they were very on point that game, but maybe not as distanced as shown on Sunday. 2022 will for sure have more recruits and that is to be showcased more this fall. Best of luck to the Crabs players as there were very good players all over the field, best of luck to VLC players as they continue to get better as well.

Anonymous wrote:According to their social media VLC 2022 is on the board with a D1 commit to Vermont.

That's great for that player but I saw VLC 2022 scrimmage against Crabs on Sunday and that kid must not have been there. The attack was non-existent. I'd be surprised if any/many other players on that team get committed. Didn't see much there...yes I am a Crabs parent but there were maybe 2 other players on the field that looked like they belonged on an "elite" squad and they were both on the defensive side. Maybe they were missing some kids but what was there was not great.

According to their social media VLC 2022 is on the board with a D1 commit to Vermont.

Nah, they retired that temporary role last year.

Is VLC looking for someone to head operations?

Anonymous wrote:Nothing wrong with a wider discussion, but this started because within VLC, those numbers are not hypothetical. Somebody on this thread (not me) listed team sizes and the VLC 2026 team has 18 players, but all the other VLC teams are between 23 and 27. The poster's argument is that VLC is losing its way and becoming too much like its main competitor MadLax.

I think it would be hard to say that VLC is losing its way because it has some teams that are larger. I think 25 is probably the reasonable max number of players on a team (giving plenty of room for injuries, conflicts, etc). I know that a few of their teams have kids that play hockey and have fall conflicts so they may carry a bit larger a squad but still in the 20s. As a contrast, ML 2022 capital has 34 kids on the roster and their DMV team has 32. That's 66 kids in that age group that all are paying for elite lacrosse when its probably really 20 total kids that could be called "elite." When VLC starts running 2+ squads per age group and exceeding 30 kids per roster we can start talking about them losing their way.

ML is a business and its business is focused on having as many kids as possible registered and paying. VLC (I know from talking with leadership) is a barely break even proposition. Its part of the reason why it was folded into Crabs because it wasn't generating enough revenue to stand on its own (and the prior owner was ready to take a break). Nothing wrong with ML being a business and making money but I think it's wrong to compare VLC to it. At any age group VLC has kids that belong at a higher club level (or if a kid falls behind he gets cut). If you look at the ML teams, especially the DMV teams, they have kids that are low level rec players just paying for the swag and it's all ego to be on a big club team. Tons of good rec players, but there is and should be a difference in the quality level of club. VLC gets that and I don't think they have lost or will lose their way.

Nothing wrong with a wider discussion, but this started because within VLC, those numbers are not hypothetical. Somebody on this thread (not me) listed team sizes and the VLC 2026 team has 18 players, but all the other VLC teams are between 23 and 27. The poster's argument is that VLC is losing its way and becoming too much like its main competitor MadLax.

I thought this was a VLC thread. Maybe start a new one on this hypothetical and open it to others.

Agree - this discussion has gone way off track.

The question is whether an 18-20 man roster or a 23-27 man roster is better for the players. (I think we all know which is better for the owners). Could it be that smaller is better for youth and larger for HS?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More than 18 can see the field with relatively normal subbing patterns. For tournaments, I think you need something like the following:

2 goalies
2 FOGO
6 mids
5-6 poles (including LSM)
4-5 attack

That gets you to 19-21 without much effort in substitutions. Thats why around 22-24 is ideal if you have kids that miss for other sports, etc. 18 would be really lean.

18 field players makes some sense. But hard to get by or practice without 2 goalies and 2 Fogos.

you cant make it through a hot summer tournament with 6 mids and kids get hurt:

2 FOGO
2 Goalies
4 Attack
7 Poles - Including 2 LSM
10 Mids

2 Goalies is a must...both the 22s and the 23s have been with single goalies for the last 2-3 seasons and its a lot to ask of the kids.

Doesn't that prove it can be done, therefore isn't a must? Must would mean "can't be done."

Well since you want to try to be clever, let me reply by defining the word MUST for you.

Must means:

be obliged to; should (expressing necessity)

expressing an opinion about something that is logically very likely

So when I say "2 goalies is a must" it means that it is foolhardy to run the risk of having a single skill player at a position. It's not like carrying 1 FOGO where other players could fill in if needed or LSM could take the face offs. As a favorite quote of mine goes "Redundancy is expensive, but indispensable." Apparently so is knowing the definition of words before writing a snarky comment. Enjoy your day and you are welcome for the vocab lesson.

The team has back players to put in goal and moves younger ones up to cover. It is not an issue kids miss they get it covered. Not a big deal for either team you have no clue

I don't think this is even remotely correct. I'm pretty sure neither team has coverage for "what if our goalie gets hurt during a tournament" and that is a risk. If they know one of them can't make it and knows in advance they may be able to scramble and find a goalie but not during a tournament.

This is not close to accurate time to move on the teams have more than one kid able to play the position
On

I think they have tried. I think it's a skill gap between what they have and what they've seen in tryouts from others.

It's not really hard to recruit two goalies so why would a team not have two goalies?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More than 18 can see the field with relatively normal subbing patterns. For tournaments, I think you need something like the following:

2 goalies
2 FOGO
6 mids
5-6 poles (including LSM)
4-5 attack

That gets you to 19-21 without much effort in substitutions. Thats why around 22-24 is ideal if you have kids that miss for other sports, etc. 18 would be really lean.

18 field players makes some sense. But hard to get by or practice without 2 goalies and 2 Fogos.

you cant make it through a hot summer tournament with 6 mids and kids get hurt:

2 FOGO
2 Goalies
4 Attack
7 Poles - Including 2 LSM
10 Mids

2 Goalies is a must...both the 22s and the 23s have been with single goalies for the last 2-3 seasons and its a lot to ask of the kids.

Doesn't that prove it can be done, therefore isn't a must? Must would mean "can't be done."

Well since you want to try to be clever, let me reply by defining the word MUST for you.

Must means:

be obliged to; should (expressing necessity)

expressing an opinion about something that is logically very likely

So when I say "2 goalies is a must" it means that it is foolhardy to run the risk of having a single skill player at a position. It's not like carrying 1 FOGO where other players could fill in if needed or LSM could take the face offs. As a favorite quote of mine goes "Redundancy is expensive, but indispensable." Apparently so is knowing the definition of words before writing a snarky comment. Enjoy your day and you are welcome for the vocab lesson.

The team has back players to put in goal and moves younger ones up to cover. It is not an issue kids miss they get it covered. Not a big deal for either team you have no clue

I don't think this is even remotely correct. I'm pretty sure neither team has coverage for "what if our goalie gets hurt during a tournament" and that is a risk. If they know one of them can't make it and knows in advance they may be able to scramble and find a goalie but not during a tournament.