Atlantic Article

[Laxfan#1969]

When they lazily adopted the Women's proposal to curb early recruiting they forgot that, like it did with the women beforehand it only made the club owners kings/queens of recruiting and left everyone else out in the cold.

You do get what you wish for in this case.

I totally agree with you but I do not hear better solutions. I would think a staged calendar might be a little better, like let 10th graders communicate directly with coaches via e-mail only and then maybe allow on campus visits in the summer before 11th grade so both coaches and players can get to know each other a little before verbal commitments. Unless I am mistaken the way it is now a kid can verbally commit on Sept. 1st of his junior year where technically he has had no contact with the coaches or visited the school (unless on his own without a coach led tour and meeting) and even his HS or Club coach should not have had contact as intermediaries.

The new rules are light years better than the prior...sure it's not perfect, but putting the Sept 1 junior year rule in effect is very good for kids and coaches...

Prior to the rule, the "held back" kid that was a year older and was shaving a full beard in 8th or 9th grade, was just physically dominating other kids and hence caught all the attention and coaches needed to act, in most cases earlier than they wanted just to secure a kid...well before they could really see how he developed in the next year or two...in most cases (not all) this kid was thecearly bloomer and may have tapped out physically...I've seen it man many times...

The new rule allows for the late bloomer to get more time and more looks and late bloomers (kids that grow/mature in 10th/11th/12th grade tend to have more upside...they were small and competing in 8/9th grade..
But once they catch up physically...they far exceed the early bloomer that was beating up kids on field when they were bigger than everyone...this allows coaches an entirely new view on kids that were late to the game...and they don't have to commit to kids in 9th/10th grade...it's better for all.

Is it perfect...nope. I've lived through recruitments in both situations...the new rules are much better

But I digress...

The PG Prep year is a whole different bag to unpack...I'll try and stay away from that

[palaxoff]

Just wondering what do you think the success rate as athletes those kids are. It kind of seems like the goal is to get into a certain school not succeed at the sport at a higher level.

[Typical Lax Dad]

When they lazily adopted the Women's proposal to curb early recruiting they forgot that, like it did with the women beforehand it only made the club owners kings/queens of recruiting and left everyone else out in the cold.

You do get what you wish for in this case.

I totally agree with you but I do not hear better solutions. I would think a staged calendar might be a little better, like let 10th graders communicate directly with coaches via e-mail only and then maybe allow on campus visits in the summer before 11th grade so both coaches and players can get to know each other a little before verbal commitments. Unless I am mistaken the way it is now a kid can verbally commit on Sept. 1st of his junior year where technically he has had no contact with the coaches or visited the school (unless on his own without a coach led tour and meeting) and even his HS or Club coach should not have had contact as intermediaries.

The new rules are light years better than the prior...sure it's not perfect, but putting the Sept 1 junior year rule in effect is very good for kids and coaches...

Prior to the rule, the "held back" kid that was a year older and was shaving a full beard in 8th or 9th grade, was just physically dominating other kids and hence caught all the attention and coaches needed to act, in most cases earlier than they wanted just to secure a kid...well before they could really see how he developed in the next year or two...in most cases (not all) this kid was thecearly bloomer and may have tapped out physically...I've seen it man many times...

The new rule allows for the late bloomer to get more time and more looks and late bloomers (kids that grow/mature in 10th/11th/12th grade tend to have more upside...they were small and competing in 8/9th grade..
But once they catch up physically...they far exceed the early bloomer that was beating up kids on field when they were bigger than everyone...this allows coaches an entirely new view on kids that were late to the game...and they don't have to commit to kids in 9th/10th grade...it's better for all.

Is it perfect...nope. I've lived through recruitments in both situations...the new rules are much better

But I digress...

The PG Prep year is a whole different bag to unpack...I'll try and stay away from that

The current system is better. Less pressure on the coaches and the players. More natural development process. I would push the contact date up to July 15th other than that, I wouldn’t change much.

[Unknown Participant]

When they lazily adopted the Women's proposal to curb early recruiting they forgot that, like it did with the women beforehand it only made the club owners kings/queens of recruiting and left everyone else out in the cold.

You do get what you wish for in this case.

I totally agree with you but I do not hear better solutions. I would think a staged calendar might be a little better, like let 10th graders communicate directly with coaches via e-mail only and then maybe allow on campus visits in the summer before 11th grade so both coaches and players can get to know each other a little before verbal commitments. Unless I am mistaken the way it is now a kid can verbally commit on Sept. 1st of his junior year where technically he has had no contact with the coaches or visited the school (unless on his own without a coach led tour and meeting) and even his HS or Club coach should not have had contact as intermediaries.

For me, my family and everyone I knew growing up there was only one way to get into a great school and that was through working my a-- off in school. All this club stuff, picking random sports to get tutored in, just says more negative things about those communities, their values, what they're trying to teach their kids about how life works. It catches up to you later in life eventually.

Actually in the good old days headmasters from exclusive private schools would call up the admissions folks at highly selective colleges and tell them “we are sending you 5 boys”..... Not even sure an application was filled out.

Agreed 100%. I think that may have been how I was admitted, but it was a pretty good prep school.

[Typical Lax Dad]

When they lazily adopted the Women's proposal to curb early recruiting they forgot that, like it did with the women beforehand it only made the club owners kings/queens of recruiting and left everyone else out in the cold.

You do get what you wish for in this case.

I totally agree with you but I do not hear better solutions. I would think a staged calendar might be a little better, like let 10th graders communicate directly with coaches via e-mail only and then maybe allow on campus visits in the summer before 11th grade so both coaches and players can get to know each other a little before verbal commitments. Unless I am mistaken the way it is now a kid can verbally commit on Sept. 1st of his junior year where technically he has had no contact with the coaches or visited the school (unless on his own without a coach led tour and meeting) and even his HS or Club coach should not have had contact as intermediaries.

For me, my family and everyone I knew growing up there was only one way to get into a great school and that was through working my a-- off in school. All this club stuff, picking random sports to get tutored in, just says more negative things about those communities, their values, what they're trying to teach their kids about how life works. It catches up to you later in life eventually.

Actually in the good old days headmasters from exclusive private schools would call up the admissions folks at highly selective colleges and tell them “we are sending you 5 boys”..... Not even sure an application was filled out.

Agreed 100%. I think that may have been how I was admitted, but it was a pretty good prep school.

Yep. Probably part of the network. Things have changed. Parents focus too much on grades and sat scores. Partly because spending money can influence those two metrics. It’s more to it than that. When kids that are accepted start failing out, I will have a problem with how colleges admit kids.

[old salt]

Not to rant about the article, but it brings up people with full sized lighted olympic ice hockey rink in their back yards. You'd need almost an acre of free land to do that properly, as well as some maintenance support work. While I know that there are people in the neighborhoods noted with that amount of property and cash, those motivated to undertake such a project must be limited. The number of people with the space, finances and skilled players to do such work must be miniscule.

I found that a bit dubious too. That's a bit bigger than needed for individual skills training or neighborhood pickup games.

[DocBarrister]

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... ns/616474/

For lacrosse, the situation is perhaps worse, if only because the absolute number of kids playing the game is higher. Lacrosse has topped the list of the most-added high-school sports for the past seven years, according to the National Federation of State High School Associations, but again, its growth at high-status colleges has been anemic.

Before the pandemic, determined lacrosse families from New Canaan, Greenwich, and Darien had put their heads together to try to address the dearth of college-lacrosse spots, with a twist on Sharadin’s approach to water polo. Their inspiration: the JetBlue founder and New Canaan resident David Neeleman, whose $15.6 million donation helped establish a Division I lacrosse team at the University of Utah—his son Seth is a star defender and team captain. “We’ve been looking into what is the ticket price to start a men’s [varsity lacrosse] program” at Stanford, one parent told me. “We could create lacrosse at Stanford with $20 million. If we could just find $20 million, we could make this work.”

One Greenwich parent told me she believes that, far from being a glide path to the Ivies, lacrosse had actually hurt her older son’s college prospects. As team captain and a straight‑A student with stellar test scores, he would have been a credible applicant to NYU or Columbia—but these schools lack varsity-lacrosse programs, and he’d fallen in love with his sport. “There were eight or 10 strong academic schools we couldn’t even look at, because they didn’t have varsity lacrosse,” she said.

Her kid just completed his freshman year at a not-so-fancy college in the South, and, according to his mom, he’s happy enough. But she feels bitter, and wonders if her younger boy should quit club lacrosse. “The guys who get recruited to the Ivies—it turns out these guys are beasts,” she said. “I saw them at showcases. They were like stallions.”

She and her husband feel hoodwinked by the directors of her son’s club-lacrosse program, which happily stoked her fantasies while stockpiling her money: $10,000 a year for 11 years. “They were talking Notre Dame for him,” she said. “Our eyes were glistening … We went to 16 showcases last year. I can’t believe the money we spent to see our son rejected 16 times.”

“I understand the frustration,” says Jeff Brameier, who is entering his 36th year as the lacrosse coach at Darien High School, consistently one of the highest-ranked public-school lacrosse teams in the country. “I’ve had a few team captains who were among my best defensive kids ever. Near-perfect GPAs. I couldn’t get them into an Ivy. I tried.”

Someone should tell that mom that Duke, while not-so-fancy, is a pretty good school.

DocBarrister

[notentitled]

Someone should tell these parents that there are roughly 70 D1 schools and if every year they graduated 10 players and replaced them that is only 700 spots. There are thousands of players out there for those few D1 spots and the same for D2 and D3. Just saying

[Typical Lax Dad]

Not to rant about the article, but it brings up people with full sized lighted olympic ice hockey rink in their back yards. You'd need almost an acre of free land to do that properly, as well as some maintenance support work. While I know that there are people in the neighborhoods noted with that amount of property and cash, those motivated to undertake such a project must be limited. The number of people with the space, finances and skilled players to do such work must be miniscule.

I found that a bit dubious too. That's a bit bigger than needed for individual skills training or neighborhood pickup games.

2.5 acres minimum zoning in some of those lax communities.

[viper]

When they lazily adopted the Women's proposal to curb early recruiting they forgot that, like it did with the women beforehand it only made the club owners kings/queens of recruiting and left everyone else out in the cold.

You do get what you wish for in this case.

I totally agree with you but I do not hear better solutions. I would think a staged calendar might be a little better, like let 10th graders communicate directly with coaches via e-mail only and then maybe allow on campus visits in the summer before 11th grade so both coaches and players can get to know each other a little before verbal commitments. Unless I am mistaken the way it is now a kid can verbally commit on Sept. 1st of his junior year where technically he has had no contact with the coaches or visited the school (unless on his own without a coach led tour and meeting) and even his HS or Club coach should not have had contact as intermediaries.

That is what they are hoping to have with the rule...but the reality is the families of top level prospects already have a good idea about their suitors before Sept. 1st of their junior year. This rule change only gave more power to club directors and programs. A good club director is always selling his guys, and the college coaches all have found ways around the rules to communicate their interests. If you don't think the club system has it's talons in the system...just go and see how All-Star games are picked at tournaments. Sending out an All-Star "suggestion" form to club programs before the tournament begins is an easy way to pick an All-Star Team.

But I'm sure YOUR tournament does it differently

I remember my son participating in tournaments where the "All Star" game was Friday evening before the tournament started! Needless to say the same group of 3-4 kids were always "selected" for that team. There is no question that youth sports are, in a sense, a self fulfilling prophecy. Once a reputation is established the marketing forces add on to the performance (even when the performance aspect sometimes fails to excel) aspects to propel certain kids to the top and close doors on "late bloomers".

[laxpere]

One Greenwich parent told me she believes that, far from being a glide path to the Ivies, lacrosse had actually hurt her older son’s college prospects. As team captain and a straight‑A student with stellar test scores, he would have been a credible applicant to NYU or Columbia—but these schools lack varsity-lacrosse programs, and he’d fallen in love with his sport. “There were eight or 10 strong academic schools we couldn’t even look at, because they didn’t have varsity lacrosse,” she said.

Her kid just completed his freshman year at a not-so-fancy college in the South, and, according to his mom, he’s happy enough. But she feels bitter, and wonders if her younger boy should quit club lacrosse.
She and her husband feel hoodwinked by the directors of her son’s club-lacrosse program, which happily stoked her fantasies while stockpiling her money: $10,000 a year for 11 years. “They were talking Notre Dame for him,” she said. “Our eyes were glistening … We went to 16 showcases last year. I can’t believe the money we spent to see our son rejected 16 times.”

Someone should tell that mom that Duke, while not-so-fancy, is a pretty good school.
DocBarrister

Someone should tell this Greenwich mom many things, but she probably knows it all! Given recent press about coaches also assessing parents during the recruiting process, the kid's college prospects were probably hurt more by her, not lacrosse? But "...he's happy enough..." I wonder what her husband really thinks now given the spotlight glaring on his family and their sons. Same with the prep school community, including the trustees.

I am confused by her academic rankings and would never have guessed that Duke is "not-so-fancy." "They were talking Notre Dame for him...Our eyes were glistening..." Maybe, she doesn't like Durham, but Duke seems to consistently rank above Notre Dame and NYU.

"She and her husband feel hoodwinked..."? Spending "$10,000 a year for 11 years"? "...I can't believe the money we spent to see our son rejected 16 times at showcases?"
No wonder Ruth S. Barrett found her. What about the years of prep school tuition to see your son at a "not so fancy" school? I really wish that Greenwich mom would talked about her experiences with coaches on her son's campus visits. Maybe she is the inspiration for Coach Tiffany's quote about FC kids? She should be on the club lacrosse moms gone wild poster. It appears that she isn't done spending money since her younger sons play for club lacrosse teams. If they don't end up at an Ivy, will she have to move out of town?

[youthathletics]

Not to rant about the article, but it brings up people with full sized lighted olympic ice hockey rink in their back yards. You'd need almost an acre of free land to do that properly, as well as some maintenance support work. While I know that there are people in the neighborhoods noted with that amount of property and cash, those motivated to undertake such a project must be limited. The number of people with the space, finances and skilled players to do such work must be miniscule.

I found that a bit dubious too. That's a bit bigger than needed for individual skills training or neighborhood pickup games.

2.5 acres minimum zoning in some of those lax communities.

Not sure about full sized, with a chiller and brine solution, but you can build a pretty darned nice one for reasonably inexpensive compared to the read deal.

[Farfromgeneva]

Not to rant about the article, but it brings up people with full sized lighted olympic ice hockey rink in their back yards. You'd need almost an acre of free land to do that properly, as well as some maintenance support work. While I know that there are people in the neighborhoods noted with that amount of property and cash, those motivated to undertake such a project must be limited. The number of people with the space, finances and skilled players to do such work must be miniscule.

I found that a bit dubious too. That's a bit bigger than needed for individual skills training or neighborhood pickup games.

2.5 acres minimum zoning in some of those lax communities.

Yes, but isn't it kidn of like diamond sizes? I.e. if you're going much above 1-1.25 you are likely going north of 2? In Fairfield Co, seems like it's under 1.5ac or over 3.5-4, not a lot in between

[Typical Lax Dad]

Not to rant about the article, but it brings up people with full sized lighted olympic ice hockey rink in their back yards. You'd need almost an acre of free land to do that properly, as well as some maintenance support work. While I know that there are people in the neighborhoods noted with that amount of property and cash, those motivated to undertake such a project must be limited. The number of people with the space, finances and skilled players to do such work must be miniscule.

I found that a bit dubious too. That's a bit bigger than needed for individual skills training or neighborhood pickup games.

2.5 acres minimum zoning in some of those lax communities.

Yes, but isn't it kidn of like diamond sizes? I.e. if you're going much above 1-1.25 you are likely going north of 2? In Fairfield Co, seems like it's under 1.5ac or over 3.5-4, not a lot in between

I was just thinking of a couple spots off the top of my head that are 2.5 minimum. There are some smaller and some larger. I haven’t seen any full size rinks but nothing would surprise me at all.

[old salt]

Not to rant about the article, but it brings up people with full sized lighted olympic ice hockey rink in their back yards. You'd need almost an acre of free land to do that properly, as well as some maintenance support work. While I know that there are people in the neighborhoods noted with that amount of property and cash, those motivated to undertake such a project must be limited. The number of people with the space, finances and skilled players to do such work must be miniscule.

I found that a bit dubious too. That's a bit bigger than needed for individual skills training or neighborhood pickup games.

2.5 acres minimum zoning in some of those lax communities.

Not sure about full sized, with a chiller and brine solution, but you can build a pretty darned nice one for reasonably inexpensive compared to the read deal.

A full size olympic rink = 200 ft x 100 ft ; NHL = 200 ft x 85 ft.
Don't know if you can get a kit that big.
If you build that big, might as well put a metal building over it & buy a Zamboni too.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Not to rant about the article, but it brings up people with full sized lighted olympic ice hockey rink in their back yards. You'd need almost an acre of free land to do that properly, as well as some maintenance support work. While I know that there are people in the neighborhoods noted with that amount of property and cash, those motivated to undertake such a project must be limited. The number of people with the space, finances and skilled players to do such work must be miniscule.

I found that a bit dubious too. That's a bit bigger than needed for individual skills training or neighborhood pickup games.

2.5 acres minimum zoning in some of those lax communities.

Not sure about full sized, with a chiller and brine solution, but you can build a pretty darned nice one for reasonably inexpensive compared to the read deal.

A full size olympic rink = 200 ft x 100 ft ; NHL = 200 ft x 85 ft.
Don't know if you can get a kit that big.
If you build that big, might as well put a metal building over it & buy a Zamboni too.

A guy in Westchester did just that with a soccer field. Covered it to get year round use.....converted it to field turf. Money to burn. He also started a youth club.

[old salt]

Not to rant about the article, but it brings up people with full sized lighted olympic ice hockey rink in their back yards. You'd need almost an acre of free land to do that properly, as well as some maintenance support work. While I know that there are people in the neighborhoods noted with that amount of property and cash, those motivated to undertake such a project must be limited. The number of people with the space, finances and skilled players to do such work must be miniscule.

I found that a bit dubious too. That's a bit bigger than needed for individual skills training or neighborhood pickup games.

2.5 acres minimum zoning in some of those lax communities.

Not sure about full sized, with a chiller and brine solution, but you can build a pretty darned nice one for reasonably inexpensive compared to the read deal.

A full size olympic rink = 200 ft x 100 ft ; NHL = 200 ft x 85 ft.
Don't know if you can get a kit that big.
If you build that big, might as well put a metal building over it & buy a Zamboni too.

A guy in Westchester did just that with a soccer field. Covered it to get year round use.....converted it to field turf. Money to burn. He also started a youth club.

That's great. If you can afford it, build a year round full size hockey rink for your kids & their friends, for practice & games.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Not to rant about the article, but it brings up people with full sized lighted olympic ice hockey rink in their back yards. You'd need almost an acre of free land to do that properly, as well as some maintenance support work. While I know that there are people in the neighborhoods noted with that amount of property and cash, those motivated to undertake such a project must be limited. The number of people with the space, finances and skilled players to do such work must be miniscule.

I found that a bit dubious too. That's a bit bigger than needed for individual skills training or neighborhood pickup games.

2.5 acres minimum zoning in some of those lax communities.

Not sure about full sized, with a chiller and brine solution, but you can build a pretty darned nice one for reasonably inexpensive compared to the read deal.

A full size olympic rink = 200 ft x 100 ft ; NHL = 200 ft x 85 ft.
Don't know if you can get a kit that big.
If you build that big, might as well put a metal building over it & buy a Zamboni too.

A guy in Westchester did just that with a soccer field. Covered it to get year round use.....converted it to field turf. Money to burn. He also started a youth club.

That's great. If you can afford it, build a year round full size hockey rink for your kids & their friends, for practice & games.

Yep. Good guy.

[DocBarrister]

Not to rant about the article, but it brings up people with full sized lighted olympic ice hockey rink in their back yards. You'd need almost an acre of free land to do that properly, as well as some maintenance support work. While I know that there are people in the neighborhoods noted with that amount of property and cash, those motivated to undertake such a project must be limited. The number of people with the space, finances and skilled players to do such work must be miniscule.

I found that a bit dubious too. That's a bit bigger than needed for individual skills training or neighborhood pickup games.

2.5 acres minimum zoning in some of those lax communities.

Not sure about full sized, with a chiller and brine solution, but you can build a pretty darned nice one for reasonably inexpensive compared to the read deal.

A full size olympic rink = 200 ft x 100 ft ; NHL = 200 ft x 85 ft.
Don't know if you can get a kit that big.
If you build that big, might as well put a metal building over it & buy a Zamboni too.

A guy in Westchester did just that with a soccer field. Covered it to get year round use.....converted it to field turf. Money to burn. He also started a youth club.

That's great. If you can afford it, build a year round full size hockey rink for your kids & their friends, for practice & games.

Didn’t Wayne Gretzky’s dad make a rink for him in the backyard by flooding the lawn with a garden hose?

DocBarrister

[old salt]

Not to rant about the article, but it brings up people with full sized lighted olympic ice hockey rink in their back yards. You'd need almost an acre of free land to do that properly, as well as some maintenance support work. While I know that there are people in the neighborhoods noted with that amount of property and cash, those motivated to undertake such a project must be limited. The number of people with the space, finances and skilled players to do such work must be miniscule.

I found that a bit dubious too. That's a bit bigger than needed for individual skills training or neighborhood pickup games.

2.5 acres minimum zoning in some of those lax communities.

Not sure about full sized, with a chiller and brine solution, but you can build a pretty darned nice one for reasonably inexpensive compared to the read deal.

A full size olympic rink = 200 ft x 100 ft ; NHL = 200 ft x 85 ft.
Don't know if you can get a kit that big.
If you build that big, might as well put a metal building over it & buy a Zamboni too.

A guy in Westchester did just that with a soccer field. Covered it to get year round use.....converted it to field turf. Money to burn. He also started a youth club.

That's great. If you can afford it, build a year round full size hockey rink for your kids & their friends, for practice & games.

Didn’t Wayne Gretzky’s dad make a rink for him in the backyard by flooding the lawn with a garden hose?

DocBarrister

My cousin in Detroit did that when we were growing up.
Backyard rinks are great feats of North American ingenuity.