InsiderRoll wrote: ↑Wed Sep 28, 2022 6:55 am
I think people need to know there’s a complete difference in being a great recruiter vs a great evaluator. They are two different skill sets and not always possessed by everyone.
When it comes to rankings… for the most part Ty just talks to college coaches and club coaches and sees who they are going to recruit. That’s why they don’t come out until right at Sept. 1. So when he here’s that UVA and Duke are going to call them they get bumped up the list. It’s not a comprehensive ranking.
Lastly, great evaluators have the ability to project how a players game can grow and translate to college. Being a great HS player with talent doesn’t mean you’ll have a successful college career. Then there’s the hardest piece of all, it’s projecting which kids can buy into your program fully as and 18-23 year old and commit to being an elite player. With all of the distractions in college that come up, there isn’t a coach in the world that can project that with 100% certainty. Basically, the kids personality will play a major role in how they develop.
Oh, and it doesnt matter if UVA has 50 5 stars, only 10 can be on the field at a time, so if Rutgers can put together 10 guys that can play at that level, then they can compete.
I hate to break it to you but Virginia’s list of the top players, and those of many other top Coaches, is certainly somewhat different from the Ty Xanders list. They may be similar for a handful of the very best players, but the top teams recruit to who they project has the most athleticism and potential in college. It is not an exact science and some work out but many stars don’t. That may not always include the same players stuffing the stat sheet in Summer play.
We’re saying the same thing. I didn’t say it was a carbon copy. I said Ty does his research with club coaches and can to a certain degree line up his evaluations with projected calls. If there’s a kid that he thought was pretty good and he learns that ACC schools like him, he shoots up the “rankings”.
Is he going to know every kid that top schools are reaching out to… no. I’m well aware that coaches don’t care at all about rankings.
Than why are people on here getting so exorcised and putting so much stock over the IL rankings? I am pretty sure Virginia got everyone on their A list, even if they missed a few they might have liked. That also might be true for Loyola and Delaware, whose staffs are thinking the same thing and I have no idea who either team got……………
InsiderRoll wrote: ↑Wed Sep 28, 2022 6:55 am
I think people need to know there’s a complete difference in being a great recruiter vs a great evaluator. They are two different skill sets and not always possessed by everyone.
When it comes to rankings… for the most part Ty just talks to college coaches and club coaches and sees who they are going to recruit. That’s why they don’t come out until right at Sept. 1. So when he here’s that UVA and Duke are going to call them they get bumped up the list. It’s not a comprehensive ranking.
Lastly, great evaluators have the ability to project how a players game can grow and translate to college. Being a great HS player with talent doesn’t mean you’ll have a successful college career. Then there’s the hardest piece of all, it’s projecting which kids can buy into your program fully as and 18-23 year old and commit to being an elite player. With all of the distractions in college that come up, there isn’t a coach in the world that can project that with 100% certainty. Basically, the kids personality will play a major role in how they develop.
Oh, and it doesnt matter if UVA has 50 5 stars, only 10 can be on the field at a time, so if Rutgers can put together 10 guys that can play at that level, then they can compete.
I hate to break it to you but Virginia’s list of the top players, and those of many other top Coaches, is certainly somewhat different from the Ty Xanders list. They may be similar for a handful of the very best players, but the top teams recruit to who they project has the most athleticism and potential in college. It is not an exact science and some work out but many stars don’t. That may not always include the same players stuffing the stat sheet in Summer play.
We’re saying the same thing. I didn’t say it was a carbon copy. I said Ty does his research with club coaches and can to a certain degree line up his evaluations with projected calls. If there’s a kid that he thought was pretty good and he learns that ACC schools like him, he shoots up the “rankings”.
Is he going to know every kid that top schools are reaching out to… no. I’m well aware that coaches don’t care at all about rankings.
has xanders gone on record to say that's what he's doing? calling club coaches, and lining up recruits with hoo is going to recruit them?
or are we just spitballing?
Re: Recruiting, the exact science
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2022 9:13 am
by wgdsr
for all the haters, the domers have been killing it in the '24s. by the numbers. another natty on the horizon.
livelovelax wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 10:21 am
A school like Rutgers, never gets these can't miss players. Never. How is it that they are in the mix with kids that don't get ranked especially the last two years? And please don't say transfer portal
Why not? Before 2021 Rutgers hadn't won a playoff game in three decades and had never made a Final Four. Then they make huge additions through the portal and all of a sudden they're in the mix. You think those things aren't related?
Bingo, back to 2019 for Rutgers.
"2022 Rutgers will be lucky to be .500". -Lorin's last prediction. Nostradamus he is not. Great hater though!
A hater on any team that has had Army's number.
Gotta admire his dedication though.
15 and five since 2001, and last year you had 9G from transfers, like I stated you suck without the portal.
Re: Recruiting, the exact science
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2022 9:56 am
by Typical Lax Dad
wgdsr wrote: ↑Wed Sep 28, 2022 9:13 am
for all the haters, the domers have been killing it in the '24s. by the numbers. another natty on the horizon.
livelovelax wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 10:21 am
A school like Rutgers, never gets these can't miss players. Never. How is it that they are in the mix with kids that don't get ranked especially the last two years? And please don't say transfer portal
Why not? Before 2021 Rutgers hadn't won a playoff game in three decades and had never made a Final Four. Then they make huge additions through the portal and all of a sudden they're in the mix. You think those things aren't related?
Bingo, back to 2019 for Rutgers.
"2022 Rutgers will be lucky to be .500". -Lorin's last prediction. Nostradamus he is not. Great hater though!
A hater on any team that has had Army's number.
Gotta admire his dedication though.
15 and five since 2001, and last year you had 9G from transfers, like I stated you suck without the portal.
Could also be said that Army really sucks without 100% full rides. Or a prep school. Or having (even) older kids than the competition. Or a $50M+ atheletic budget that comes from federal grants and government loans and is able to maintain an unknown board and unknown coaches compensation structure.
But none of those things are relevant.
Just like the portal.
livelovelax wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 10:21 am
A school like Rutgers, never gets these can't miss players. Never. How is it that they are in the mix with kids that don't get ranked especially the last two years? And please don't say transfer portal
Why not? Before 2021 Rutgers hadn't won a playoff game in three decades and had never made a Final Four. Then they make huge additions through the portal and all of a sudden they're in the mix. You think those things aren't related?
Bingo, back to 2019 for Rutgers.
"2022 Rutgers will be lucky to be .500". -Lorin's last prediction. Nostradamus he is not. Great hater though!
A hater on any team that has had Army's number.
Gotta admire his dedication though.
15 and five since 2001, and last year you had 9G from transfers, like I stated you suck without the portal.
Could also be said that Army really sucks without 100% full rides. Or a prep school. Or having (even) older kids than the competition. Or a $50M+ atheletic budget that comes from federal grants and government loans and is able to maintain an unknown board and unknown coaches compensation structure.
But none of those things are relevant.
Just like the portal.
Very weak response.
Re: Recruiting, the exact science
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2022 1:05 pm
by kramerica.inc
Lorin, I find it odd that you criticize Rutgers for not performing well in the NCAAs when your team is...Army.
If you are using the same standard for your favorite team - How many NCAA tournament games has Army won in the past 22 years?
livelovelax wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 10:21 am
A school like Rutgers, never gets these can't miss players. Never. How is it that they are in the mix with kids that don't get ranked especially the last two years? And please don't say transfer portal
Why not? Before 2021 Rutgers hadn't won a playoff game in three decades and had never made a Final Four. Then they make huge additions through the portal and all of a sudden they're in the mix. You think those things aren't related?
Bingo, back to 2019 for Rutgers.
"2022 Rutgers will be lucky to be .500". -Lorin's last prediction. Nostradamus he is not. Great hater though!
A hater on any team that has had Army's number.
Gotta admire his dedication though.
15 and five since 2001, and last year you had 9G from transfers, like I stated you suck without the portal.
Unfortunately for you, the portal exists. Going to be fun throwing Army another beat down on their own field. You going?
Re: Recruiting, the exact science
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2022 1:43 pm
by 1766
kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Wed Sep 28, 2022 1:05 pm
Lorin, I find it odd that you criticize Rutgers for not performing well in the NCAAs when your team is...Army.
If you are using the same standard for your favorite team - How many NCAA tournament games has Army won in the past 22 years?
Anyone know?
Rutgers triggers him badly. I think it has to do with his son not getting recruited by the school.
Re: Recruiting, the exact science
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2022 2:35 pm
by Laxfan#1969
kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Wed Sep 28, 2022 1:05 pm
Lorin, I find it odd that you criticize Rutgers for not performing well in the NCAAs when your team is...Army.
If you are using the same standard for your favorite team - How many NCAA tournament games has Army won in the past 22 years?
Anyone know?
I think Army has one what I’ll call semi-recent NCAA win and it was in 2010. (12 years ago)
kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Wed Sep 28, 2022 1:05 pm
Lorin, I find it odd that you criticize Rutgers for not performing well in the NCAAs when your team is...Army.
If you are using the same standard for your favorite team - How many NCAA tournament games has Army won in the past 22 years?
Anyone know?
I think Army has one what I’ll call semi-recent NCAA win and it was in 2010. (12 years ago)
They did make the field in 2019
Lorin does not like Rutgers…that is clear
Rutgers yes but really he’d give Silky Johnson a run for his money!
kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Wed Sep 28, 2022 1:05 pm
Lorin, I find it odd that you criticize Rutgers for not performing well in the NCAAs when your team is...Army.
If you are using the same standard for your favorite team - How many NCAA tournament games has Army won in the past 22 years?
Anyone know?
I think Army has one what I’ll call semi-recent NCAA win and it was in 2010. (12 years ago)
They did make the field in 2019
Lorin does not like Rutgers…that is clear
Most of Army's grad year team was like 7 years old when then. I am not sure I'd call that recent. Michie should be fun this year!
kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Wed Sep 28, 2022 1:05 pm
Lorin, I find it odd that you criticize Rutgers for not performing well in the NCAAs when your team is...Army.
If you are using the same standard for your favorite team - How many NCAA tournament games has Army won in the past 22 years?
Anyone know?
I think Army has one what I’ll call semi-recent NCAA win and it was in 2010. (12 years ago)
They did make the field in 2019
Lorin does not like Rutgers…that is clear
Most of Army's grad year team was like 7 years old when then. I am not sure I'd call that recent. Michie should be fun this year!
Have to laugh at myself, I really do hate Rutgers.
Re: Recruiting, the exact science
Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2022 5:31 pm
by Farfromgeneva
I can respect an honest man for their honesty for sure.
Re: Recruiting, the exact science
Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2022 7:34 pm
by jersey shore lax
Ty Xanders : Um, he's Inside Lacrosse's #57 incoming freshman . My best friend's coaches organizations directors brother's teammate heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going to Duke who saw Chad Powers get two assist at 31 Flavors last night. I guess he's pretty good.
Re: Recruiting, the exact science
Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2022 8:17 pm
by a fan
jersey shore lax wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 7:34 pm
Ty Xanders : Um, he's Inside Lacrosse's #57 incoming freshman . My best friend's coaches organizations directors brother's teammate heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going to Duke who saw Chad Powers get two assist at 31 Flavors last night. I guess he's pretty good.
"Thank you, Simone"
Re: Recruiting, the exact science
Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2022 9:17 pm
by Typical Lax Dad
jersey shore lax wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 7:34 pm
Ty Xanders : Um, he's Inside Lacrosse's #57 incoming freshman . My best friend's coaches organizations directors brother's teammate heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going to Duke who saw Chad Powers get two assist at 31 Flavors last night. I guess he's pretty good.
I have seen several of these players with my own eyes and have have read Ty’s stuff. Fantasy land. Jargon and buzz words.
