Long time coming…

[DeepPocket]

Age based classification in youth lacrosse.

https://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/ ... osse/60381

[smoova]

As the father of a kid who was young for his class and spent years playing summer/fall events against players who were 24+ months older, I am pretty biased against the current play-down/reclass racket.

This sounds like a step in the right direction, but the club lacrosse scene exists to please wealthy parents and college coaches ... and those folks will do just about anything to secure the meanest advantage for their desperately average progeny/team.

IMO, nothing will change until the college coaches are only permitted to recruit at age-based tournaments/showcases ... and we all know how miserable those guys are at self discipline ... *cough* early recruiting *cough* ...

I'm hopeful, but not optimistic, this this new initiative will drive real change.

[Laxxal22]

Makes sense to keep younger players competing against kids who are within a 12-month range of each other (I don't think it matters as much once they reach high school age). The question then becomes what is date starts the cycle? 8/1 or 9/1 would do a better job of keeping kids in the same grade playing with each other than 1/1 imo.

[cltlax]

Makes sense to keep younger players competing against kids who are within a 12-month range of each other (I don't think it matters as much once they reach high school age). The question then becomes what is date starts the cycle? 8/1 or 9/1 would do a better job of keeping kids in the same grade playing with each other than 1/1 imo.

Soccer moved to 1/1 years ago and it seems to have worked out just fine. Somehow, colleges are still able to recruit players...

[OSVAlacrosse]

As the father of a kid who was young for his class and spent years playing summer/fall events against players who were 24+ months older, I am pretty biased against the current play-down/reclass racket.

This sounds like a step in the right direction, but the club lacrosse scene exists to please wealthy parents and college coaches ... and those folks will do just about anything to secure the meanest advantage for their desperately average progeny/team.

IMO, nothing will change until the college coaches are only permitted to recruit at age-based tournaments/showcases ... and we all know how miserable those guys are at self discipline ... *cough* early recruiting *cough* ...

I'm hopeful, but not optimistic, this this new initiative will drive real change.

My son was also typically the youngest on the team. I think it will be great for youth. Especially the Howard County Parks and Rec league. No more 8th graders driving themselves to games early so more parking for all.

I am not sure why college coaches would care about age v grade based. According to IL this is supported by the NLF to keep HS grade based. College coaches will attend these events no matter how they are set up. They will also evaluate players at showcases, prospect days, all star teams. None of these are age based. I think by HS it does not matter. What should a 2023 player compete in this fall? Most teams end summer prior to Senior year so if events want to have combined brackets or group teams together I think that would be fine. With later recruiting I do not see it as an issue with grouping by grade as it would be more efficient for the coaches.

[Laxxal22]

Makes sense to keep younger players competing against kids who are within a 12-month range of each other (I don't think it matters as much once they reach high school age). The question then becomes what is date starts the cycle? 8/1 or 9/1 would do a better job of keeping kids in the same grade playing with each other than 1/1 imo.

Soccer moved to 1/1 years ago and it seems to have worked out just fine. Somehow, colleges are still able to recruit players...

I just think there's probably a better date than 1/1 to separate youth players to make sure kids are playing with kids in their grade. I have a December birthday and in youth sports with a 1/1 cutoff was usually playing with mostly kids the class ahead of me. Maybe I have a sour grapes perspective having always been youngest.

[kramerica.inc]

It should happen.

The injuries I've seen at the youth level is crazy.

But let this sink in- The ONLY complaint about age-based lacrosse is that there could be a 12 month age difference between the oldest and youngest, meaning some kids might not be the tops at their position in lacrosse.

As it currently sits, there can currently be a 24 month difference. So the kids who aren't tops in their position, can just hold back and play... against younger kids... to gain an advantage and succeed.

[MA Lax Fan]

I 100% support going to a age classification and not a grade classification.

This re-classing, multiple times over 12 years, is a luxury of the super rich and does nothing to help grow the sport.

They should do it all the way through high school. Enough with the shell game of holding kids back just so they can dominate against players 24 months younger.

The college coaches can, and will, adjust.

[Laxxal22]

I 100% support going to a age classification and not a grade classification.
This re-classing, multiple times over 12 years, is a luxury of the super rich and does nothing to help grow the sport.

They should do it all the way through high school. Enough with the shell game of holding kids back just so they can dominate against players 24 months younger.

The college coaches can, and will, adjust.

Yeah, it'd be simple enough for club teams could adjust as well. With the current landscape and what colleges value, they'd have no problem fielding teams of kids who are already 18 going into the summer of senior year. That's just more revenue for the clubs.

Reclassing isn't going to stop. The college coaches like it, the private schools like it, and (especially for boys) there are benefits beyond sports of showing up at college more matured.

Also, I've never understood wanting to have a kid in the 9-13 age range with talent play against younger kids just to be the best player. Your development benefits by playing against older kids.

[smoova]

Reclassing isn't going to stop. The college coaches like it, the private schools like it, and (especially for boys) there are benefits beyond sports of showing up at college more matured.

Good point - although the hold-backs at my son's school are widely mocked for being so old, their ability to purchase alcohol without fake identification makes them important members of the social community.

[wgdsr]

As the father of a kid who was young for his class and spent years playing summer/fall events against players who were 24+ months older, I am pretty biased against the current play-down/reclass racket.

This sounds like a step in the right direction, but the club lacrosse scene exists to please wealthy parents and college coaches ... and those folks will do just about anything to secure the meanest advantage for their desperately average progeny/team.

IMO, nothing will change until the college coaches are only permitted to recruit at age-based tournaments/showcases ... and we all know how miserable those guys are at self discipline ... *cough* early recruiting *cough* ...

I'm hopeful, but not optimistic, this this new initiative will drive real change.

My son was also typically the youngest on the team. I think it will be great for youth. Especially the Howard County Parks and Rec league. No more 8th graders driving themselves to games early so more parking for all.

I am not sure why college coaches would care about age v grade based. According to IL this is supported by the NLF to keep HS grade based. College coaches will attend these events no matter how they are set up. They will also evaluate players at showcases, prospect days, all star teams. None of these are age based. I think by HS it does not matter. What should a 2023 player compete in this fall? Most teams end summer prior to Senior year so if events want to have combined brackets or group teams together I think that would be fine. With later recruiting I do not see it as an issue with grouping by grade as it would be more efficient for the coaches.

college coaches were the ones that drove this to grades in the 1st place, and then it trickled on down to youth. they claimed it would be more efficient for them. us lacrosse signed on essentially right away.

it does make a difference. even and up until over age 18. the whole thing should be age based, and would help coaches more than they know, if that matters.

it looks like there may be no consensus on high school aged kids from the clubs and tournaments, so they'll win that war and have all the holdbacks playing against kids years younger. rinse and repeat.

[MDlaxfan76]

clarification: will kids be allowed to play up?

For a few kids, playing up an age level is much better for development.
And at youth level, that's what is important.

Agreed re age level extending to high school; that's where the recruiting evaluations should be happening anyway.

[Laxxal22]

The more I think about it I'm really not seeing a downside to extending it through high school. There can still be individual showcase events and prospect days based on grad year.

[smoova]

The more I think about it I'm really not seeing a downside to extending it through high school. There can still be individual showcase events and prospect days based on grad year.

We are on the same page here, but I see downsides for two groups: (i) wealthy parents would lose an easy way to purchase an advantage for their unexceptional offspring and (ii) college coaches would be forced to evaluate and coach more players who are further from full maturity. As we've both noted up-thread, the entire club lacrosse system exists to serve those two groups.

[OSVAlacrosse]

The more I think about it I'm really not seeing a downside to extending it through high school. There can still be individual showcase events and prospect days based on grad year.

We are on the same page here, but I see downsides for two groups: (i) wealthy parents would lose an easy way to purchase an advantage for their unexceptional offspring and (ii) college coaches would be forced to evaluate and coach more players who are further from full maturity. As we've both noted up-thread, the entire club lacrosse system exists to serve those two groups.

I think another issue is enforcement. Tournaments can barely run schedules and parking. I am sure anyone with a kid who played club lacrosse would trust clubs completely with "self" regulation. I think it is an issue at youth and needs to be monitored. I think for HS age teams the juice is not worth the squeeze. If a coach wants to watch a team why not just have HS divisions and let kids play where the coaches will be. I think age based HS teams would just make the high dollar showcases and prospect camps the defacto recruiting platform. My son is finished with recruiting so no horse in the race.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJfbRj3L38o

[Laxxal22]

Granted plenty of parents are willing to spend the money, but I wonder how often it's worth the investment. I've said before that I don't think repeating is going to turn an offer from Denison (a great place to end up) into an offer from Duke.

I see how repeating can turn a kid into more of a high school stud than he would have been; makes varsity early in his career, ends up as a senior captain when he otherwise wouldn't have been, etc. But just being older won't give you D1 athleticism if you don't naturally have it.

I can't imagine that college recruiters who've been at this for years go to a June tournament and see a 17.5 year old rising junior, who's clearly had a personal trainer for years, and not have their antenna up that the kid may already be pretty close to his ceiling.

Am I off base here? Do you all think repeating ends up being a massive advantage in where you end up in college? Or do you think the coaches are savvy to what's going on?

[smoova]

Granted plenty of parents are willing to spend the money, but I wonder how often it's worth the investment. I've said before that I don't think repeating is going to turn an offer from Denison (a great place to end up) into an offer from Duke.

I see how repeating can turn a kid into more of a high school stud than he would have been; makes varsity early in his career, ends up as a senior captain when he otherwise wouldn't have been, etc. But just being older won't give you D1 athleticism if you don't naturally have it.

I can't imagine that college recruiters who've been at this for years go to a June tournament and see a 17.5 year old rising junior, who's clearly had a personal trainer for years, and not have their antenna up that the kid may already be pretty close to his ceiling.

Am I off base here? Do you all think repeating ends up being a massive advantage in where you end up in college? Or do you think the coaches are savvy to what's going on?

We agree, again - reclassing isn't going to turn a Denison commit into a Duke commit, but it can turn a Williams commit into a Penn commit. I've seen enough recent examples to be very firm in my opinion.

College coaches have limited recruiting resources and they crave certainty - particularly those coaches who cannot take 18+ player recruiting classes or bring in 2-3 transfers every season. These guys would rather take a slightly better reclass over a much younger player who might turn into a better player in 1-3 years. It doesn't mean they are bad or lazy, it's just a natural reaction to the current environment.

[smoova]

I think another issue is enforcement. Tournaments can barely run schedules and parking. I am sure anyone with a kid who played club lacrosse would trust clubs completely with "self" regulation. I think it is an issue at youth and needs to be monitored. I think for HS age teams the juice is not worth the squeeze. If a coach wants to watch a team why not just have HS divisions and let kids play where the coaches will be. I think age based HS teams would just make the high dollar showcases and prospect camps the defacto recruiting platform. My son is finished with recruiting so no horse in the race.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJfbRj3L38o

Absolutely - nothing changes at the HS level until the college coaches are forced to change (because they certainly won't demand the change themselves). The juice is only worth the squeeze if folks want lacrosse to improve beyond its current form. I don't like how easy it is for people to purchase the right to have their 17 year old "junior" evaluated against 14 and 15 year-olds whose parents aren't as wealthy or crafty. I recognize and accept that other folks think the current system is just fine.

I've coached teams in at least 10 boom lacrosse tournaments over the years and the Boomtown Classic and Boomerang and still the most fun tournaments my kids ever played. I love those guys and they certainly share my opinion on the shameful nature of the current recruiting scheme.

[Laxxal22]

We agree, again - reclassing isn't going to turn a Denison commit into a Duke commit, but it can turn a Williams commit into a Penn commit. I've seen enough recent examples to be very firm in my opinion.

Fair and valid point. The sad truth that parents and players don't seem to realize, or simply bury in denial, is that if you're not one of the top 6-7 guys in your class the chance of seeing the field much over your four years is pretty low. The 4th best player in a Williams recruiting class will probably have a much more fulfilling career than the 10th at Penn.

[smoova]

We agree, again - reclassing isn't going to turn a Denison commit into a Duke commit, but it can turn a Williams commit into a Penn commit. I've seen enough recent examples to be very firm in my opinion.

Fair and valid point. The sad truth that parents and players don't seem to realize, or simply bury in denial, is that if you're not one of the top 6-7 guys in your class the chance of seeing the field much over your four years is pretty low. The 4th best player in a Williams recruiting class will probably have a much more fulfilling career than the 10th at Penn.

Preach!