Monday games All Games Cancelled

St Albans 1 - 3 @ 4:00p Archbishop Curley 0 - 0
Gotta be STA -3

Bishop McNamara 1 - 1 @ 4:00p #8 Heights 1-0
BM has a win with goals. H -5

St Marys Ryken 1 - 3 @ 4:15p St Andrews Episcopal (MD) 0 - 1
STMR -4

My apologies for the post above and taking this thread further off topic. Did anyone play today?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The sport is dying at the collegiate level.

You will begin to see more D1 schools cut the sport entirely from their athletic budget.

Why do you think lacrosse is dying at the collegiate level and what's the evidence to support that idea? Are you lumping lacrosse in with all other non-football/basketball sports or is your thesis specific to only lacrosse?

I’m not the one who said it, but my concern would be that lax is an expensive sport for schools to maintain. Mainly in that its roster size is so large - creating the need for larger facilities and higher travel costs. Tennis, swimming, baseball, soccer all have less players and are less expensive. Indoor swimming pools are expensive, but at most universities they are used by the regular students too.

Also consider the socio-economic factor. Most lax players are upper-middle class to uber wealthy. Many college admins just don’t like them, and don’t think they do much to help diversify the school.

Personally I think D1 lax is fine, but do suspect that most programs are going to have to figure out how to fund themselves. Conveniently, most of the lax alums and players families have the dough to help out.

Anonymous wrote:The sport is dying at the collegiate level.

You will begin to see more D1 schools cut the sport entirely from their athletic budget.

Why do you think lacrosse is dying at the collegiate level and what's the evidence to support that idea? Are you lumping lacrosse in with all other non-football/basketball sports or is your thesis specific to only lacrosse?

Anonymous wrote:The sport is dying at the collegiate level.

You will begin to see more D1 schools cut the sport entirely from their athletic budget.

Last few years two dropped in Furman and Lindenwood but Sienna Lemoyne Mercyhurst and Sienna add. Your math ain't mathing

The sport is dying at the collegiate level.

You will begin to see more D1 schools cut the sport entirely from their athletic budget.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Ty was a joke, rankings are based on how much money you spend at certain events. Stars are bought, not earned.

I’m sorry you or your kid didn’t get any love from him.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Ty was a joke, rankings are based on how much money you spend at certain events. Stars are bought, not earned.

FWIW, Prep Lacrosse is objectively more through and far more comprehensive in it's analysis.

There is paywall - BUT their content is more old school beat writing.

IL is turning into a laxbro frathouse - basically ECD with a website.

I think we can all agree that AI should assign star ratings and we wish our kid was recruited by UVA.

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.