New England West 2024

[random observer]

Makes you wonder about the public school kids who start on top D1 teams and didn’t PG or re-class.

Those kids are becoming more and more of a unicorn but man is it impressive when you see them.

I honestly don't know why more college recruiters don't place a bigger emphasis on age. Anecdotally to me it feels like it does make an impact at the next level. I believe both O'Neill and Kirst were on the younger side for the Class of 2020 and they are clearly the top 2 players from that class. In the 2021 class McAdorey and Schutz were both relatively old, and have been good but not transformative the way you'd expect the #1 and #2 recruits to be (Chris Kavanagh is on the younger side, and seems to have had a slightly better career so far). Something to watch for in the current freshman class: Owen Duffy is 11 months younger than McCabe Millon. I predict that when all is said and done he will be the top player from this class (although in fairness I already think that to be the case regardless of age distinction).

[3rdPersonPlural]

Makes you wonder about the public school kids who start on top D1 teams and didn’t PG or re-class.

Those kids are becoming more and more of a unicorn but man is it impressive when you see them.

I honestly don't know why more college recruiters don't place a bigger emphasis on age. Anecdotally to me it feels like it does make an impact at the next level. I believe both O'Neill and Kirst were on the younger side for the Class of 2020 and they are clearly the top 2 players from that class. In the 2021 class McAdorey and Schutz were both relatively old, and have been good but not transformative the way you'd expect the #1 and #2 recruits to be (Chris Kavanagh is on the younger side, and seems to have had a slightly better career so far). Something to watch for in the current freshman class: Owen Duffy is 11 months younger than McCabe Millon. I predict that when all is said and done he will be the top player from this class (although in fairness I already think that to be the case regardless of age distinction).

I really don't think it's age that makes the big difference (once a kid is done growing). I also notice that middle school kids have had as many practices and played as many games as I did by the end of playing POCO, so there ain't much of an experience advantage.

Some of the best HS players are underclassmen and some of the best college players are underclassmen.

We've all seen HS sophomores who are phenomenal and grow bigger but don't get better for the next couple of years. We've all seen college players who hit their team with a splash and then sort of fade away. Maybe an injury....maybe some part of adulting rears it's ugly head and priorities change.

For every Rob Pannell -- who was pretty average (by his own reckoning) until the end of his HS Junior year and then pretty spectacular for the next dozen plus years -- there some kid who is highly recruited out of HS and then disappoints.

[Laxxal22]

I also notice that middle school kids have had as many practices and played as many games as I did by the end of playing POCO, so there ain't much of an experience advantage.

It's interesting that many lacrosse players are starting college later even though they are so much more prepared for it than 15-20 years ago. The Laxachusetts club has a timed wall ball routine/test for middle schoolers that maybe half of my college teammates could've passed. These kids also do so much strength and conditioning work - nobody is showing up freshman fall and getting pinned to the bench by 135 pounds anymore. It makes sense as college lacrosse opportunities haven't kept pace with the growth of the game at younger levels.

[random observer]

Makes you wonder about the public school kids who start on top D1 teams and didn’t PG or re-class.

Those kids are becoming more and more of a unicorn but man is it impressive when you see them.

I honestly don't know why more college recruiters don't place a bigger emphasis on age. Anecdotally to me it feels like it does make an impact at the next level. I believe both O'Neill and Kirst were on the younger side for the Class of 2020 and they are clearly the top 2 players from that class. In the 2021 class McAdorey and Schutz were both relatively old, and have been good but not transformative the way you'd expect the #1 and #2 recruits to be (Chris Kavanagh is on the younger side, and seems to have had a slightly better career so far). Something to watch for in the current freshman class: Owen Duffy is 11 months younger than McCabe Millon. I predict that when all is said and done he will be the top player from this class (although in fairness I already think that to be the case regardless of age distinction).

I really don't think it's age that makes the big difference (once a kid is done growing). I also notice that middle school kids have had as many practices and played as many games as I did by the end of playing POCO, so there ain't much of an experience advantage.

Some of the best HS players are underclassmen and some of the best college players are underclassmen.

We've all seen HS sophomores who are phenomenal and grow bigger but don't get better for the next couple of years. We've all seen college players who hit their team with a splash and then sort of fade away. Maybe an injury....maybe some part of adulting rears it's ugly head and priorities change.

For every Rob Pannell -- who was pretty average (by his own reckoning) until the end of his HS Junior year and then pretty spectacular for the next dozen plus years -- there some kid who is highly recruited out of HS and then disappoints.

In practice you may be right, but in terms of the attention college coaches pay these kids, I find that is often not the case. With a few very notable exceptions, I do get the sense that what class these kids are in tends to shape recruiting opinions as much or more than age, which seems backwards. Even for the can't miss prospects, the level enthusiasm from both coaches and the media generally are shaped by what class they are in. If McCabe Millon was on age in the 2022 class, would he still be considered the top recruit, or just one of a number of really good attackmen bound for top programs? If Owen Duffy was a hold back and in the class of 2024, would he not be seen as perhaps a generational talent rather than simply a top tier player?

For example, I know Schutz in particular was not a highly touted recruit by IL or by coaches until he re-classed and starting playing against younger, smaller kids in the summer circuit (although to be fair, people may have started paying a little more attention to him that summer because he was transferring from unheralded Trumbull to Deerfield).

[3rdPersonPlural]

Makes you wonder about the public school kids who start on top D1 teams and didn’t PG or re-class.

Those kids are becoming more and more of a unicorn but man is it impressive when you see them.

I honestly don't know why more college recruiters don't place a bigger emphasis on age. Anecdotally to me it feels like it does make an impact at the next level. I believe both O'Neill and Kirst were on the younger side for the Class of 2020 and they are clearly the top 2 players from that class. In the 2021 class McAdorey and Schutz were both relatively old, and have been good but not transformative the way you'd expect the #1 and #2 recruits to be (Chris Kavanagh is on the younger side, and seems to have had a slightly better career so far). Something to watch for in the current freshman class: Owen Duffy is 11 months younger than McCabe Millon. I predict that when all is said and done he will be the top player from this class (although in fairness I already think that to be the case regardless of age distinction).

I really don't think it's age that makes the big difference (once a kid is done growing). I also notice that middle school kids have had as many practices and played as many games as I did by the end of playing POCO, so there ain't much of an experience advantage.

Some of the best HS players are underclassmen and some of the best college players are underclassmen.

We've all seen HS sophomores who are phenomenal and grow bigger but don't get better for the next couple of years. We've all seen college players who hit their team with a splash and then sort of fade away. Maybe an injury....maybe some part of adulting rears it's ugly head and priorities change.

For every Rob Pannell -- who was pretty average (by his own reckoning) until the end of his HS Junior year and then pretty spectacular for the next dozen plus years -- there some kid who is highly recruited out of HS and then disappoints.

In practice you may be right, but in terms of the attention college coaches pay these kids, I find that is often not the case. With a few very notable exceptions, I do get the sense that what class these kids are in tends to shape recruiting opinions as much or more than age, which seems backwards. Even for the can't miss prospects, the level enthusiasm from both coaches and the media generally are shaped by what class they are in. If McCabe Millon was on age in the 2022 class, would he still be considered the top recruit, or just one of a number of really good attackmen bound for top programs? If Owen Duffy was a hold back and in the class of 2024, would he not be seen as perhaps a generational talent rather than simply a top tier player?

For example, I know Schutz in particular was not a highly touted recruit by IL or by coaches until he re-classed and starting playing against younger, smaller kids in the summer circuit (although to be fair, people may have started paying a little more attention to him that summer because he was transferring from unheralded Trumbull to Deerfield).

Yeah....a player's gotta get used to playing against bigger, faster, more experienced players. That works for exceptional players in HS (remember little Nicky Galosso who started for a strong West Islip team back in the oughts?)

I remember Cam Kelly -- the Frosh Attackman at Taft -- doing a toe drag dodge against a future DI defenseman in the Taft/Salisbury game a couple of years ago, though.

I remember reffing innumerable games where in my post-game debrief with the coaches they refer to the accomplishments of their 'Super - Soph'.

That Kavanaugh kid, Chris, who played at Taft and owned the NEWest for a year? I think he was a 17 or 18 year old player. But he started for a national contender the next year. But then I recall that Krauss kid who came to Taft from a strong New Canaan program as an afterthought and a PG, rocked NEWest for a season, and then started at UVA for 4 years.

Some kids just mature slower than others....

But most kids grow up at a pace that meets the fat part of the bell curve.

Again, I contend that age is a part -- but a minor part -- of the production of a 14 to 19 year old player.

[random observer]

Makes you wonder about the public school kids who start on top D1 teams and didn’t PG or re-class.

Those kids are becoming more and more of a unicorn but man is it impressive when you see them.

I honestly don't know why more college recruiters don't place a bigger emphasis on age. Anecdotally to me it feels like it does make an impact at the next level. I believe both O'Neill and Kirst were on the younger side for the Class of 2020 and they are clearly the top 2 players from that class. In the 2021 class McAdorey and Schutz were both relatively old, and have been good but not transformative the way you'd expect the #1 and #2 recruits to be (Chris Kavanagh is on the younger side, and seems to have had a slightly better career so far). Something to watch for in the current freshman class: Owen Duffy is 11 months younger than McCabe Millon. I predict that when all is said and done he will be the top player from this class (although in fairness I already think that to be the case regardless of age distinction).

I really don't think it's age that makes the big difference (once a kid is done growing). I also notice that middle school kids have had as many practices and played as many games as I did by the end of playing POCO, so there ain't much of an experience advantage.

Some of the best HS players are underclassmen and some of the best college players are underclassmen.

We've all seen HS sophomores who are phenomenal and grow bigger but don't get better for the next couple of years. We've all seen college players who hit their team with a splash and then sort of fade away. Maybe an injury....maybe some part of adulting rears it's ugly head and priorities change.

For every Rob Pannell -- who was pretty average (by his own reckoning) until the end of his HS Junior year and then pretty spectacular for the next dozen plus years -- there some kid who is highly recruited out of HS and then disappoints.

In practice you may be right, but in terms of the attention college coaches pay these kids, I find that is often not the case. With a few very notable exceptions, I do get the sense that what class these kids are in tends to shape recruiting opinions as much or more than age, which seems backwards. Even for the can't miss prospects, the level enthusiasm from both coaches and the media generally are shaped by what class they are in. If McCabe Millon was on age in the 2022 class, would he still be considered the top recruit, or just one of a number of really good attackmen bound for top programs? If Owen Duffy was a hold back and in the class of 2024, would he not be seen as perhaps a generational talent rather than simply a top tier player?

For example, I know Schutz in particular was not a highly touted recruit by IL or by coaches until he re-classed and starting playing against younger, smaller kids in the summer circuit (although to be fair, people may have started paying a little more attention to him that summer because he was transferring from unheralded Trumbull to Deerfield).

Yeah....a player's gotta get used to playing against bigger, faster, more experienced players. That works for exceptional players in HS (remember little Nicky Galosso who started for a strong West Islip team back in the oughts?)

I remember Cam Kelly -- the Frosh Attackman at Taft -- doing a toe drag dodge against a future DI defenseman in the Taft/Salisbury game a couple of years ago, though.

I remember reffing innumerable games where in my post-game debrief with the coaches they refer to the accomplishments of their 'Super - Soph'.

That Kavanaugh kid, Chris, who played at Taft and owned the NEWest for a year? I think he was a 17 or 18 year old player. But he started for a national contender the next year. But then I recall that Krauss kid who came to Taft from a strong New Canaan program as an afterthought and a PG, rocked NEWest for a season, and then started at UVA for 4 years.

Some kids just mature slower than others....

But most kids grow up at a pace that meets the fat part of the bell curve.

Again, I contend that age is a part -- but a minor part -- of the production of a 14 to 19 year old player.

Yup, and I think all of this aligns with my point; some of these kids who gain recognition only after reclassing were always good, but moreso, the on-age kids at the top of these rankings are the ones who are more consistently the real deal, and if they re-classed they'd get even more hype. Galasso was one of the best high school players I've ever seen; he was doing everything on-age which validated his talent (the only reason he wasn't a star in college was because of injuries). If he had reclassed and been a 2011 instead of a 2010 the hype would have been stratospheric, and he would have been ranked #1 even over the great Lyle Thompson.

Cam Kelley, again, is on-age and has proven that he is one of the best talents in his class. If he held back and became a 2026, do you think he'd be considered merely a top 15-20 recruit? People would be talking about him as a transcendent talent and sure fire #1, even though nothing about him as a player and prospect would be different. This echoes my comments about Millon; if he had stayed as a 2022 there's no doubt he still would have been a top 15-20 player with his pick of suitors. But by reclassing he became the #1 recruit and the narrative and hype skyrocketed even though he is more or less the same player.

Kavanagh, again was young for his age and clearly a legit talent. In his case I think he would have had similar hype if he had stayed at Chaminade, but then again he was not reclassing. His brother Pat on the other hand, was not a ranked recruit until he...wait for it...PGed at Taft.

Kraus is an interesting case as he was a relatively late bloomer because of early recruiting. Kids were getting snapped up so early that the evaluations weren't always accurate; he agreed to PG early on as a condition of his commitment to UVA. I always felt he was a hidden gem (and many others in the know did too), but by the time he was a senior (arguably in his junior year too) he had left no doubt that he was one of the better attackmen in the 2015 class. But he wasn't a top 20 recruit by IL until he PGed at Taft and became a 2016. Great player either way, but once again the coaches and the media weren't enamored with him until he reclassified, even though he was the same prospect either way. I'd argue that the UVA coaches shouldn't have needed to view him as a 2016 to see his talent.

One last example; Wyatt Bowman out of Georgetown Prep is a consensus top 20 recruit in the 2025 class committed to UNC. Last year he was a 2024 at Darien before he re-classed; he wasn't a starter but he actually saw some meaningful minutes on a top 10-15 team nationally, and played for a top tier Express North club team. But you could scrape the internet and you wouldn't have found a single note from any evaluators on him as a prospect. They didn't even have him in the Inside Lacrosse database. And Darien is not some backwater program. But then he re-classes at a prep school and the narrative completely shifts and he finally gets noticed. I'd argue that he should have always gotten far more attention than he did before he re-classed, but also that top 20 recruit is maybe not an accurate reflection either; if you placed him back into the 2024 rankings I don't think evaluators would put him nearly that high.

[justanotherperson]

Agree. The landscape of recruitment has changed over the last decade and gaining speed in the last 3-4 years. So many talented unheralded players that have no exposure and fade into obscurity for better or for worse. But the name of the game now is what top lax high school or top club lax so you play for and it’s getting more prevalent because the more they draw from those pipelines, the more likely they are to draw from them. Not saying recruiters are lazy at all as they are incredibly hard working but if you can continue to get your groceries from a store that consistently has at least a serviceable product why shop around. Reclassification as well as playing for a known prep or known public lax school opens a lot more doors for sure. Are there outliers? Absolutely but reclass+ well known lax high school + well known club = best chances

[Superlite]

Makes you wonder about the public school kids who start on top D1 teams and didn’t PG or re-class.

Those kids are becoming more and more of a unicorn but man is it impressive when you see them.

I honestly don't know why more college recruiters don't place a bigger emphasis on age. Anecdotally to me it feels like it does make an impact at the next level. I believe both O'Neill and Kirst were on the younger side for the Class of 2020 and they are clearly the top 2 players from that class. In the 2021 class McAdorey and Schutz were both relatively old, and have been good but not transformative the way you'd expect the #1 and #2 recruits to be (Chris Kavanagh is on the younger side, and seems to have had a slightly better career so far). Something to watch for in the current freshman class: Owen Duffy is 11 months younger than McCabe Millon. I predict that when all is said and done he will be the top player from this class (although in fairness I already think that to be the case regardless of age distinction).

I really don't think it's age that makes the big difference (once a kid is done growing). I also notice that middle school kids have had as many practices and played as many games as I did by the end of playing POCO, so there ain't much of an experience advantage.

Some of the best HS players are underclassmen and some of the best college players are underclassmen.

We've all seen HS sophomores who are phenomenal and grow bigger but don't get better for the next couple of years. We've all seen college players who hit their team with a splash and then sort of fade away. Maybe an injury....maybe some part of adulting rears it's ugly head and priorities change.

For every Rob Pannell -- who was pretty average (by his own reckoning) until the end of his HS Junior year and then pretty spectacular for the next dozen plus years -- there some kid who is highly recruited out of HS and then disappoints.

In practice you may be right, but in terms of the attention college coaches pay these kids, I find that is often not the case. With a few very notable exceptions, I do get the sense that what class these kids are in tends to shape recruiting opinions as much or more than age, which seems backwards. Even for the can't miss prospects, the level enthusiasm from both coaches and the media generally are shaped by what class they are in. If McCabe Millon was on age in the 2022 class, would he still be considered the top recruit, or just one of a number of really good attackmen bound for top programs? If Owen Duffy was a hold back and in the class of 2024, would he not be seen as perhaps a generational talent rather than simply a top tier player?

For example, I know Schutz in particular was not a highly touted recruit by IL or by coaches until he re-classed and starting playing against younger, smaller kids in the summer circuit (although to be fair, people may have started paying a little more attention to him that summer because he was transferring from unheralded Trumbull to Deerfield).

Schutz was committed to BU before he transferred to Deerfield. As an 8th or 9th grader. That is not “unknown”. To be fair, he did grow physically and improve his game after transferring to Deerfield and join 3D.

[random observer]

Makes you wonder about the public school kids who start on top D1 teams and didn’t PG or re-class.

Those kids are becoming more and more of a unicorn but man is it impressive when you see them.

I honestly don't know why more college recruiters don't place a bigger emphasis on age. Anecdotally to me it feels like it does make an impact at the next level. I believe both O'Neill and Kirst were on the younger side for the Class of 2020 and they are clearly the top 2 players from that class. In the 2021 class McAdorey and Schutz were both relatively old, and have been good but not transformative the way you'd expect the #1 and #2 recruits to be (Chris Kavanagh is on the younger side, and seems to have had a slightly better career so far). Something to watch for in the current freshman class: Owen Duffy is 11 months younger than McCabe Millon. I predict that when all is said and done he will be the top player from this class (although in fairness I already think that to be the case regardless of age distinction).

I really don't think it's age that makes the big difference (once a kid is done growing). I also notice that middle school kids have had as many practices and played as many games as I did by the end of playing POCO, so there ain't much of an experience advantage.

Some of the best HS players are underclassmen and some of the best college players are underclassmen.

We've all seen HS sophomores who are phenomenal and grow bigger but don't get better for the next couple of years. We've all seen college players who hit their team with a splash and then sort of fade away. Maybe an injury....maybe some part of adulting rears it's ugly head and priorities change.

For every Rob Pannell -- who was pretty average (by his own reckoning) until the end of his HS Junior year and then pretty spectacular for the next dozen plus years -- there some kid who is highly recruited out of HS and then disappoints.

In practice you may be right, but in terms of the attention college coaches pay these kids, I find that is often not the case. With a few very notable exceptions, I do get the sense that what class these kids are in tends to shape recruiting opinions as much or more than age, which seems backwards. Even for the can't miss prospects, the level enthusiasm from both coaches and the media generally are shaped by what class they are in. If McCabe Millon was on age in the 2022 class, would he still be considered the top recruit, or just one of a number of really good attackmen bound for top programs? If Owen Duffy was a hold back and in the class of 2024, would he not be seen as perhaps a generational talent rather than simply a top tier player?

For example, I know Schutz in particular was not a highly touted recruit by IL or by coaches until he re-classed and starting playing against younger, smaller kids in the summer circuit (although to be fair, people may have started paying a little more attention to him that summer because he was transferring from unheralded Trumbull to Deerfield).

Schutz was committed to BU before he transferred to Deerfield. As an 8th or 9th grader. That is not “unknown”. To be fair, he did grow physically and improve his game after transferring to Deerfield and join 3D.

I didn't say he was unknown, I said he wasn't highly touted, which he inarguably wasn't. There's a reason he was initially committed to BU rather than UVA: he was a good player that the media and coaches either didn't think was an elite player or didn't have on their radar. He was never in the discussion of ranked recruits in the 2020 class. Then the summer after his sophomore year he reclassed and transferred to Deerfield, and on 9/1 he was a top 10 ranked recruit in the 2021 class. Shortly after he switched his commitment to UVA. He was the same player he had been 2 months before that, but the perception of him had completely changed. I'd argue that as it usually is in this case, he was very overlooked before the reclass, and then there was maybe a bit of an overcorrection afterwards.

[Laxxal22]

Agree. The landscape of recruitment has changed over the last decade and gaining speed in the last 3-4 years. So many talented unheralded players that have no exposure and fade into obscurity for better or for worse. But the name of the game now is what top lax high school or top club lax so you play for and it’s getting more prevalent because the more they draw from those pipelines, the more likely they are to draw from them. Not saying recruiters are lazy at all as they are incredibly hard working but if you can continue to get your groceries from a store that consistently has at least a serviceable product why shop around. Reclassification as well as playing for a known prep or known public lax school opens a lot more doors for sure. Are there outliers? Absolutely but reclass+ well known lax high school + well known club = best chances

The pipelines are getting to the point where if you have a good sense of a player's talent and academics then based on his school/club combo you can write down 3-4 colleges at the start of the recruiting cycle and be pretty confident that he ends up at one of them. There's an element of recruiting, for both parties, that's like fishing. Coaches go to the spots where they've caught keepers before, and players/parents will use the lures that have landed big fish for others.

[3rdPersonPlural]

NEW1 played Lawrenceville recently at Loyola in MD

Taft’s fall ball squad squared off against Lawrenceville’s fall ball squad in Maryland – and lost. Badly. 14 – 8.

See Link from Lawrenceville’s videographer: ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8Ik3q ... &index=31 )

My Impressions:
Lawrenceville has a stout D. When they doubled, they dislodged.
Lawrenceville has enough offense to win against anyone. I didn’t see any paradigm-breakers, but they always scored when it made sense for the O to put it in the net.

Taft has some calibration to do. I obviously watched their players a lot more closely, and I saw a lot of talent that couldn’t/didn’t pay off. Taft isn’t bereft of talent – they just haven’t meshed as well as the slick Lawrenceville squad. This is a challenge for the coaches.

Taft’s FOGO ‘Won” all the FO’s in the first half but couldn’t secure the GB.

Both Taft and L’Ville have exceptional keepers. Neither team was comfortable or successful with shooting from outside of the 5X5, which meant that the better-oiled squad could go 4 or 5 deep into offenses. And that was L’Ville.

Feedback appreciated

[Superlite]

Don’t kids play fall sports in high school anymore?

NEW1 played Lawrenceville recently at Loyola in MD

Taft’s fall ball squad squared off against Lawrenceville’s fall ball squad in Maryland – and lost. Badly. 14 – 8.

See Link from Lawrenceville’s videographer: ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8Ik3q ... &index=31 )

My Impressions:
Lawrenceville has a stout D. When they doubled, they dislodged.
Lawrenceville has enough offense to win against anyone. I didn’t see any paradigm-breakers, but they always scored when it made sense for the O to put it in the net.

Taft has some calibration to do. I obviously watched their players a lot more closely, and I saw a lot of talent that couldn’t/didn’t pay off. Taft isn’t bereft of talent – they just haven’t meshed as well as the slick Lawrenceville squad. This is a challenge for the coaches.

Taft’s FOGO ‘Won” all the FO’s in the first half but couldn’t secure the GB.

Both Taft and L’Ville have exceptional keepers. Neither team was comfortable or successful with shooting from outside of the 5X5, which meant that the better-oiled squad could go 4 or 5 deep into offenses. And that was L’Ville.

Feedback appreciated

[3rdPersonPlural]

Don’t kids play fall sports in high school anymore?

NEW1 played Lawrenceville recently at Loyola in MD

Taft’s fall ball squad squared off against Lawrenceville’s fall ball squad in Maryland – and lost. Badly. 14 – 8.

See Link from Lawrenceville’s videographer: ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8Ik3q ... &index=31 )

My Impressions:
Lawrenceville has a stout D. When they doubled, they dislodged.
Lawrenceville has enough offense to win against anyone. I didn’t see any paradigm-breakers, but they always scored when it made sense for the O to put it in the net.

Taft has some calibration to do. I obviously watched their players a lot more closely, and I saw a lot of talent that couldn’t/didn’t pay off. Taft isn’t bereft of talent – they just haven’t meshed as well as the slick Lawrenceville squad. This is a challenge for the coaches.

Taft’s FOGO ‘Won” all the FO’s in the first half but couldn’t secure the GB.

Both Taft and L’Ville have exceptional keepers. Neither team was comfortable or successful with shooting from outside of the 5X5, which meant that the better-oiled squad could go 4 or 5 deep into offenses. And that was L’Ville.

Feedback appreciated

Some do.
I did.
But Lax Bros play lax, dude. (I suppose).
I suspect that the kids on the football or soccer teams will materially change the line-ups of each team come spring. This is fall ball.....

[ausus]

Loomis scrimmaged a 1/2 dozen teams this fall and posted scores online... don't have any color beyond that but the results are promising.

NHSLS Fall 2023
W 11-4 over St. Paul's (MD)
W 10-4 over Lawrenceville
W 9-8 over Calvert Hall

Atlantic Coast Showcase
W 10-4 over Georgetown Prep
L 6-11 to Culver Academy
W 9-3 over Dematha

[Laxxal22]

NEW1 played Lawrenceville recently at Loyola in MD

Taft’s fall ball squad squared off against Lawrenceville’s fall ball squad in Maryland – and lost. Badly. 14 – 8.

I get the impression that Lville runs a fall ball that's comparable to a D3 college. Even if the overall talent were equal, it's tough to compete with that if you've only been having informal captain's practices once or twice a week.

[3rdPersonPlural]

I clicked on this video while wasting some time browsing the internet because I liked the “Why Lacrosse is Objectively the Best Sport” part.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvM95bn ... 4&index=30

The presenter is a thoughtful and well spoken chap and I was impressed by his observations – particularly his simile to lacrosse being influenced by warrior cultures whereas football descends more from Feudal cultures.

In football, for instance, if you’re a Center, you hike and block and your role is defending the QB or making a lane for the RB. Obeying and executing orders is the name of the game. Like a Feudal soldier.

In lacrosse, in the period of a minute you can compare your role to a Cover Corner, a Safety, a Linebacker, a Wide Receiver, then a Running Back, then a QB, then …a shooter. If you’re good enough, you get to practice what being an entrepreneur or a CEO is like from an early age.
I was, like, yesterday years old when I grocked that.

His reasoning for low Black participation is the usual rationale: Expensive to play and a community of mentors (family and friends) is required to develop the skills to play competitively. Of course, the observation that excelling at a revenue sport can result in a financial windfall makes more sense to the under priviledged than excelling at lacrosse (along with academics) can result in an elite academic education which leads to professional success (generally). White parents, who have generations of prosperity in this way, are more confident in the wisdom and efficacy of this approach.

The reasons I bring this video here (on the NEWest1 thread) are:

• I liked the video clips the presenter chose. Lax Prons for the fan
• I’m always happy to see content that praises my preferred sport. I trust y'all are too.
• I trust the fellas (you’re all fellas …right?) on this thread not to get their panties in a twist. I also suppose that the moderators are going to keep an eagle eye on proceedings, so please don’t Drink ‘n’ Post.

[3rdPersonPlural]

Well, that went badly.

All the serious programs in NEWest fielded fall ball squads and results must be logged somewhere.

Who won?

Who lost?

Who looked really good?

Who.....needs work?

Whose PG and underclassman intake looks likely to pay dividends?

Who seems to have created a mess?

What's up with the Taft squad 'under new management'?

Is Chip's Deerfield squad looking world class as usual?

[Run2theEL]

Looking at Tourney Machine here are some scores from NHSLS in November:
Choate - 6 Landon - 7
Choate- 7 Shade Side - 8
Choate - 10 Boys Latin (white) - 5

Hotchkiss - 4 Calvert Hall - 5
Hotchkiss - 5 St. Mary’s (MD) - 6
Hotchkiss - 12 St Paul’s (MD) - 4

Loomis - 11 St Paul’s (MD) - 4
Loomis- 10 Big Red A (L’ville) - 4
Loomis- 9 Calvert Hall - 8

Taft - 9 Gilman - 8
Taft - 11 Spalding - 8
Taft - 4 Culver - 10

TP - 6 boy’s Latin (white) - 8
TP - 14 Woodberry Forest - 5
TP - 6 Landon - 7

Looks like TP also played the following day, going 0-3 losing to Haverford, the Hill Academy, and Episcopal (PA).

[NNELax]

Kirkaldy doesn't get enough credit at TP. He's done a great job of always keeping TP competitive...He also does a great job with the type of kid TP usually attracts...TP is lucky to have him there...I'm sure he's on the radar for other programs for his indoor resume alone...Gold medal this past summer for the U18's is a great accomplishment..

[JoeMauer89]

Looking at Tourney Machine here are some scores from NHSLS in November:
Choate - 6 Landon - 7
Choate- 7 Shade Side - 8
Choate - 10 Boys Latin (white) - 5

Hotchkiss - 4 Calvert Hall - 5
Hotchkiss - 5 St. Mary’s (MD) - 6
Hotchkiss - 12 St Paul’s (MD) - 4

Loomis - 11 St Paul’s (MD) - 4
Loomis- 10 Big Red A (L’ville) - 4
Loomis- 9 Calvert Hall - 8

Taft - 9 Gilman - 8
Taft - 11 Spalding - 8
Taft - 4 Culver - 10

TP - 6 boy’s Latin (white) - 8
TP - 14 Woodberry Forest - 5
TP - 6 Landon - 7

Looks like TP also played the following day, going 0-3 losing to Haverford, the Hill Academy, and Episcopal (PA).

WOW, Loomis. What's the story there?

Joe