The other aspect about stars and rankings is they rarely up or downgrade them. They don't adequately account for the kid who gains weight or has an injury or for the kid who fills out. This is because stars and rankings, for the most part, are dished out before a kid plays his last 2 seasons.

It's a flawed system but because of the sheer volume of highly ranked players going to the higher profile schools, it usually ends up with them at the top.

Anonymous wrote:It has always seemed to me that IL favors the sons and daughters of well known lacrosse players and/or coaches. Probably much harder to get noticed if a great player not on one of a dozen or so clubs.

Maybe in some cases, but the sons and daughters are the exceptions, not the rule. You’re talking about maybe 1 or 2 kids a year.

As for getting noticed, it’s a much larger group of clubs. Probably 40+. And if you’re really good, you’ll get noticed from almost anywhere. Helps to be tall.

Anonymous wrote:It has always seemed to me that IL favors the sons and daughters of well known lacrosse players and/or coaches. Probably much harder to get noticed if a great player not on one of a dozen or so clubs.

I would agree with this somewhat. But they are always watching the same players and teams. Even when you have other great teams and players. For example, how many times do you need to see a 5 star?

Ty Xanders used to be the IL star guy a couple of years ago, he was pretty good, he left and started his own shop. Now IL has some flunkies doing the ratings and they are completely out of their depths. The correlation between stars and talent will diverge significant over the next few years.

It has always seemed to me that IL favors the sons and daughters of well known lacrosse players and/or coaches. Probably much harder to get noticed if a great player not on one of a dozen or so clubs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Using inside lacrosse preseason rankings, player stars, and college commit lists provides very little predicting power of how games will be won or lost. The winning teams will be ones with the follow: a) the team with the better players on the spine (x, FO, SSDM, goalie) b) # of seniors who play.

Agreed. Commitment does not make a better player- it marks a combination of good marketing, the right timing, and coach connections.

Keep telling yourself that. There's a reason why the best college teams are filled with the highest ranked and the more starred players. I'll keep checking but I don't see a lot of High Points and Bucknell's making the final 8 every year.

Because UVA is such a powerhouse right now.


Look at Richmond’s roster

UVA - National Championship in 2021, Final 4's in 2023 and 2024

Richmond - Never had a championship. HOWEVER, with their rising success their 2023 class had 3x 4 stars and only one non-starred players. The 2024 - 4x4 stars and 2 non-starred, 2025 3x4 stars and 1 non-starred
2025 - 2x4 stars and 1 non starred
2021 - 2x4 stars and the rest non-starred and they never cracked anything
Their best run so far has been in 2025 to the final 8 with 8x 4 stars and 33x3 stars on the roster.

Yeah, players matter and the ratings/stars usually correlate to better talent and more wins.

Weird hill to die on. UVA has been performing well below expectations since Schellenberger and Courmier, that 30 year old FOGO and the mountain men they had at long pole left in 24. Those expectations were set by the 5 stars in their recruitment pipeline, which undeniably has been really strong. So, if anything, at 3-4, they're a deep disappointment the past two seasons.

Um, what? If they were winning championships with Shellenberger and Courmier (and company - silly to discount the fogo, the d and the cage in that run), and now they’re not despite being all starred up in terms of the current roster, doesn’t that mean that stars aren’t dispositive? Or am I reading this back and forth incorrectly?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Using inside lacrosse preseason rankings, player stars, and college commit lists provides very little predicting power of how games will be won or lost. The winning teams will be ones with the follow: a) the team with the better players on the spine (x, FO, SSDM, goalie) b) # of seniors who play.

Agreed. Commitment does not make a better player- it marks a combination of good marketing, the right timing, and coach connections.

This is a silly thing to say and comes across bitter.

Most 27 kids who are committed are the best players in their class. Are there exceptions? Of course. Will some flame out? Yes. But the vast majority earned their commitment by working hard at their game and being the best of their peers. Marketing and connections have nothing to do with it (in most cases).

Are there uncommitted 27s who will end up being more successful in D1 lacrosse than some of the committed players now? Probably. But not that many.

The vast majority of players who succeed at the D1 level are players who committed before spring of their Junior year in high school. There are plenty of exceptions, so everyone should keep working if that is their goal, but telling yourself or your kid that the committed kids just had better connections and better marketing is foolish and unhelpful.

Bringing up Courmier and Shellenberger is brain dead. Shellenberger was the #1 player and Courmier was #26. They weren't hidden gems. I can get behind Duenkel and the Millon bros being over-rated though. It's well documented Tiffany relied heavily upon assistants for recruiting, especially Kirwan, so that probably has played into UVA's bad run.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Using inside lacrosse preseason rankings, player stars, and college commit lists provides very little predicting power of how games will be won or lost. The winning teams will be ones with the follow: a) the team with the better players on the spine (x, FO, SSDM, goalie) b) # of seniors who play.

Agreed. Commitment does not make a better player- it marks a combination of good marketing, the right timing, and coach connections.

Keep telling yourself that. There's a reason why the best college teams are filled with the highest ranked and the more starred players. I'll keep checking but I don't see a lot of High Points and Bucknell's making the final 8 every year.

Because UVA is such a powerhouse right now.


Look at Richmond’s roster

UVA - National Championship in 2021, Final 4's in 2023 and 2024

Richmond - Never had a championship. HOWEVER, with their rising success their 2023 class had 3x 4 stars and only one non-starred players. The 2024 - 4x4 stars and 2 non-starred, 2025 3x4 stars and 1 non-starred
2025 - 2x4 stars and 1 non starred
2021 - 2x4 stars and the rest non-starred and they never cracked anything
Their best run so far has been in 2025 to the final 8 with 8x 4 stars and 33x3 stars on the roster.

Yeah, players matter and the ratings/stars usually correlate to better talent and more wins.

Weird hill to die on. UVA has been performing well below expectations since Schellenberger and Courmier, that 30 year old FOGO and the mountain men they had at long pole left in 24. Those expectations were set by the 5 stars in their recruitment pipeline, which undeniably has been really strong. So, if anything, at 3-4, they're a deep disappointment the past two seasons.

Both can be true.
Talent matters and commits to top programs have earned respect.
Takes grounded in preseason rankings or number of commits are made by casuals.
Do not overthink it - appreciate the comedy for what it is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Using inside lacrosse preseason rankings, player stars, and college commit lists provides very little predicting power of how games will be won or lost. The winning teams will be ones with the follow: a) the team with the better players on the spine (x, FO, SSDM, goalie) b) # of seniors who play.

Agreed. Commitment does not make a better player- it marks a combination of good marketing, the right timing, and coach connections.

Keep telling yourself that. There's a reason why the best college teams are filled with the highest ranked and the more starred players. I'll keep checking but I don't see a lot of High Points and Bucknell's making the final 8 every year.

Because UVA is such a powerhouse right now.


Look at Richmond’s roster

UVA - National Championship in 2021, Final 4's in 2023 and 2024

Richmond - Never had a championship. HOWEVER, with their rising success their 2023 class had 3x 4 stars and only one non-starred players. The 2024 - 4x4 stars and 2 non-starred, 2025 3x4 stars and 1 non-starred
2025 - 2x4 stars and 1 non starred
2021 - 2x4 stars and the rest non-starred and they never cracked anything
Their best run so far has been in 2025 to the final 8 with 8x 4 stars and 33x3 stars on the roster.

Yeah, players matter and the ratings/stars usually correlate to better talent and more wins.

UVA has loaded up with highest ranked IL players because Tiffany relies on IL to tell him what is good. IL has no clue because they just don’t have the manpower to objectively assess. IL sees one game and all of a sudden a kid gets four or five stars. Tiffany is cooked.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Using inside lacrosse preseason rankings, player stars, and college commit lists provides very little predicting power of how games will be won or lost. The winning teams will be ones with the follow: a) the team with the better players on the spine (x, FO, SSDM, goalie) b) # of seniors who play.

Agreed. Commitment does not make a better player- it marks a combination of good marketing, the right timing, and coach connections.

Keep telling yourself that. There's a reason why the best college teams are filled with the highest ranked and the more starred players. I'll keep checking but I don't see a lot of High Points and Bucknell's making the final 8 every year.

Because UVA is such a powerhouse right now.


Look at Richmond’s roster

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Using inside lacrosse preseason rankings, player stars, and college commit lists provides very little predicting power of how games will be won or lost. The winning teams will be ones with the follow: a) the team with the better players on the spine (x, FO, SSDM, goalie) b) # of seniors who play.

Agreed. Commitment does not make a better player- it marks a combination of good marketing, the right timing, and coach connections.

Keep telling yourself that. There's a reason why the best college teams are filled with the highest ranked and the more starred players. I'll keep checking but I don't see a lot of High Points and Bucknell's making the final 8 every year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay. Can someone catch me up in the movie?

PVI has a 1 goal OT win against STAB. STAB then beats Spalding. And now PVI is supposed to dominate the WCAC after years of irrelevance? Seems a little early, no?

If their offense is better than SJC D, I have yet to see that. PVI boosters may be jumping the gun a bit, but I love the enthusiasm.

Okay Johnnie, you’re right. Everything runs through military road (except the last two years). Big Tasty will return and make everything okay for you.

Unclench, Janey. Seems like he was asking a perfectly reasonable question. Time will tell all around.

If SJC lost to Ryken with same players in the field today, good chance they could lose to McNamara.

If you're seriously suggesting that kids don't change physically or otherwise over the course of a year, then, wow. Hopefully your only involvement with child development is whatever warping you're engaged in with your own spawn.