Recruiting, the exact science

[smoova]

Sorry but it comes down to educational opportunities. Kid has a choice of Loyola, Rutgers and other good Lax programs or Ivy’s, Top schools like Duke, UNC, etc…. There is no real $$$ in Lax. Getting a great education is end game for wealthy families. Full Stop.

This extends beyond DI. I watched several 2022s and 2023s flatly decline strong interest/offers from good DI lacrosse programs at schools with higher acceptance rates in order to commit to highly-selective DIII schools. To quote one kid "I worked waaaaay too hard on my grades and test scores to waste it on [top 20 DI program at a school with >60% acceptance rate]." Not a particularly sensitive statement and ignores the fact that it is possible to get a good education at almost any university, but he definitely made the point.

[MoralTerpitude]

https://www.espn.com/nba/insider/story/ ... -henderson

Look at what is noted….

The article is paywalled. And very long (I have an espn+ account). What is noted?

The ages of the prospects. In basketball, players get marked down for being old.

Ah... that didn't even register with me, I guess probably because I follow NBA draft rankings to some degree.

NBA pro scouting is a totally different ballgame than college recruiting. They take age into account because of the concept that younger players have not yet reached athletic maturity, and thus can develop significantly between age 18 and 22. Thus a 22-year old who has a more developed skill set than a competing 19-year old may get drafted significantly lower because the younger athlete has more physical potential. Obviously this doesn't apply when you're only looking at 18- and 19-year-olds, none of whom have reached their athletic prime.

The other big difference is how important getting superstars is in the NBA. You get a couple, and you have a shot at an NBA title if you can put the right pieces around them. So you might take a chance on a younger player with a lot of potential like a Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, Luka Doncic... or a Kwame Brown. And when you look at the top players in the NBA in the last twenty years, almost all of them were under 21 when they were drafted. I can only think of a handful that weren't (Wade, Curry, Draymond, Klay Thompson, Jimmy Butler... maybe a couple of others?)

This is a rather excellent article that expounds on it.

https://www.libertyballers.com/2016/4/1 ... t-analysis

[molo]

But to an extent, the age does matter. A pg or superannuated graduate of an MIAA or similar school who has been playing club lax since six presents a different profile than a kid from, say Texas, Georgia, Florida, or California, who didn’t pick up a stick until middle school and graduated “on time” and played another sport, say, football, at a high level could have a higher upside.
It’s not always the case, but it’s one reason that I’m not lamenting some changes in the makeup of UVA’s roster.
The hotbeds still produce plenty of good players, but as more hs kids are playing all over the country, athletic ability is beginning to trump pedigree.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.espn.com/nba/insider/story/ ... -henderson

Look at what is noted….

The article is paywalled. And very long (I have an espn+ account). What is noted?

The ages of the prospects. In basketball, players get marked down for being old.

Ah... that didn't even register with me, I guess probably because I follow NBA draft rankings to some degree.

NBA pro scouting is a totally different ballgame than college recruiting. They take age into account because of the concept that younger players have not yet reached athletic maturity, and thus can develop significantly between age 18 and 22. Thus a 22-year old who has a more developed skill set than a competing 19-year old may get drafted significantly lower because the younger athlete has more physical potential. Obviously this doesn't apply when you're only looking at 18- and 19-year-olds, none of whom have reached their athletic prime.

The other big difference is how important getting superstars is in the NBA. You get a couple, and you have a shot at an NBA title if you can put the right pieces around them. So you might take a chance on a younger player with a lot of potential like a Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, Luka Doncic... or a Kwame Brown. And when you look at the top players in the NBA in the last twenty years, almost all of them were under 21 when they were drafted. I can only think of a handful that weren't (Wade, Curry, Draymond, Klay Thompson, Jimmy Butler... maybe a couple of others?)

This is a rather excellent article that expounds on it.

https://www.libertyballers.com/2016/4/1 ... t-analysis

Thanks. I will never understand why a kid playing against club kids 2 years younger would be highly coveted. In virtually every other sport, good players play up….not down.

[MoralTerpitude]

https://www.espn.com/nba/insider/story/ ... -henderson

Look at what is noted….

The article is paywalled. And very long (I have an espn+ account). What is noted?

The ages of the prospects. In basketball, players get marked down for being old.

Ah... that didn't even register with me, I guess probably because I follow NBA draft rankings to some degree.

NBA pro scouting is a totally different ballgame than college recruiting. They take age into account because of the concept that younger players have not yet reached athletic maturity, and thus can develop significantly between age 18 and 22. Thus a 22-year old who has a more developed skill set than a competing 19-year old may get drafted significantly lower because the younger athlete has more physical potential. Obviously this doesn't apply when you're only looking at 18- and 19-year-olds, none of whom have reached their athletic prime.

The other big difference is how important getting superstars is in the NBA. You get a couple, and you have a shot at an NBA title if you can put the right pieces around them. So you might take a chance on a younger player with a lot of potential like a Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, Luka Doncic... or a Kwame Brown. And when you look at the top players in the NBA in the last twenty years, almost all of them were under 21 when they were drafted. I can only think of a handful that weren't (Wade, Curry, Draymond, Klay Thompson, Jimmy Butler... maybe a couple of others?)

This is a rather excellent article that expounds on it.

https://www.libertyballers.com/2016/4/1 ... t-analysis

Thanks. I will never understand why a kid playing against club kids 2 years younger would be highly coveted. In virtually every other sport, good players play up….not down.

For sure. Soccer and basketball are good examples of this. Only in football does it not make sense to play up in age groups, because physical development is so crucial.

[molo]

I’m not sure why either, but it must be related to the private school influences on the history of the game.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I’m not sure why either, but it must be related to the private school influences on the history of the game.

We have 8th graders reclassifying and then high school
players reclassifying again to enhance recruiting. I am
convinced that that is why so many are just ordinary players in college despite the 5 stars. A 5 star playing down is probably a 3 star. If you watch a u16 soccer team practice next to a u15 team, which you see routinely in soccer, it’s night and day.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.espn.com/nba/insider/story/ ... -henderson

Look at what is noted….

The article is paywalled. And very long (I have an espn+ account). What is noted?

The ages of the prospects. In basketball, players get marked down for being old.

Ah... that didn't even register with me, I guess probably because I follow NBA draft rankings to some degree.

NBA pro scouting is a totally different ballgame than college recruiting. They take age into account because of the concept that younger players have not yet reached athletic maturity, and thus can develop significantly between age 18 and 22. Thus a 22-year old who has a more developed skill set than a competing 19-year old may get drafted significantly lower because the younger athlete has more physical potential. Obviously this doesn't apply when you're only looking at 18- and 19-year-olds, none of whom have reached their athletic prime.

The other big difference is how important getting superstars is in the NBA. You get a couple, and you have a shot at an NBA title if you can put the right pieces around them. So you might take a chance on a younger player with a lot of potential like a Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, Luka Doncic... or a Kwame Brown. And when you look at the top players in the NBA in the last twenty years, almost all of them were under 21 when they were drafted. I can only think of a handful that weren't (Wade, Curry, Draymond, Klay Thompson, Jimmy Butler... maybe a couple of others?)

This is a rather excellent article that expounds on it.

https://www.libertyballers.com/2016/4/1 ... t-analysis

Thanks. I will never understand why a kid playing against club kids 2 years younger would be highly coveted. In virtually every other sport, good players play up….not down.

For sure. Soccer and basketball are good examples of this. Only in football does it not make sense to play up in age groups, because physical development is so crucial.

Yep. A lacrosse player that had a great career at UMd reclassified….but he played with his normal class until they all graduated and then he played down. He was already committed by this time. He did reclassify to enhance his recruiting options by playing against younger kids. He was an AA.

[smoova]

I will never understand why a kid playing against club kids 2 years younger would be highly coveted.

Many (most?) college coaches generally prefer (i) "known quantities" to "upside potential" and (ii) to have a roster loaded of players who have reached physical maturity. 20 year-old freshman help satisfy both preferences.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I will never understand why a kid playing against club kids 2 years younger would be highly coveted.

Many (most?) college coaches generally prefer (i) "known quantities" to "upside potential" and (ii) to have a roster loaded of players who have reached physical maturity. 20 year-old freshman help satisfy both preferences.

If two players are close, give me the kid that is 18 to 24 months younger. You can have the the marginally better player that has probably peaked as an 18 going on 19 year old junior in high school.

[molo]

I agree, and that’s not even getting into some other issues. I was 17 when I started college, 20 when my girlfriend and I started living together, and 21 when I got married. I’m not recommended anything, but I can’t imagine being 19 in hs, and what might seem cool to an undergrad of 18 or 19 might seem like kid stuff to a 20 year old. Holding kids back would seem to me to promote infantilizing them when they should be looking to develop some autonomy.

[Farfromgeneva]

I agree, and that’s not even getting into some other issues. I was 17 when I started college, 20 when my girlfriend and I started living together, and 21 when I got married. I’m not recommended anything, but I can’t imagine being 19 in hs, and what might seem cool to an undergrad of 18 or 19 might seem like kid stuff to a 20 year old. Holding kids back would seem to me to promote infantilizing them when they should be looking to develop some autonomy.

How old were you when you started living with your girlfriend?

[Typical Lax Dad]

I agree, and that’s not even getting into some other issues. I was 17 when I started college, 20 when my girlfriend and I started living together, and 21 when I got married. I’m not recommended anything, but I can’t imagine being 19 in hs, and what might seem cool to an undergrad of 18 or 19 might seem like kid stuff to a 20 year old. Holding kids back would seem to me to promote infantilizing them when they should be looking to develop some autonomy.

Yes. One other thing, when you mention these old lacrosse players being recruited, folks often point to hockey…. Well no hockey player is being recruited based on how he is playing against younger kids. The basis of recruiting is performance against your age based peer group.

[smoova]

I will never understand why a kid playing against club kids 2 years younger would be highly coveted.

Many (most?) college coaches generally prefer (i) "known quantities" to "upside potential" and (ii) to have a roster loaded of players who have reached physical maturity. 20 year-old freshman help satisfy both preferences.

If two players are close, give me the kid that is 18 to 24 months younger. You can have the the marginally better player that has probably peaked as an 18 going on 19 year old junior in high school.

We are in violent agreement, but it's unfortunately clear that most DI coaches are comfortable with the play-down model. I also agree with @molo that holding kids back can have some unintended developmental/emotional consequences.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I will never understand why a kid playing against club kids 2 years younger would be highly coveted.

Many (most?) college coaches generally prefer (i) "known quantities" to "upside potential" and (ii) to have a roster loaded of players who have reached physical maturity. 20 year-old freshman help satisfy both preferences.

If two players are close, give me the kid that is 18 to 24 months younger. You can have the the marginally better player that has probably peaked as an 18 going on 19 year old junior in high school.

We are in violent agreement, but it's unfortunately clear that most DI coaches are comfortable with the play-down model. I also agree with @molo that holding kids back can have some unintended developmental/emotional consequences.

I was talking to a college coach who was high on a player….. I told him I liked his younger on age teammate better… well kid committed elsewhere and a year later, it was clear the player I liked was better. A recent 5 star that everyone knows here is a double holdback. Held back to uptier. It worked. Good college player but was WYSIWYG by the time he finished Prep School.

As for soccer, I first laid eyes on Gideon Zelalem when he was playing u13 soccer as a u11. It took my all of 5 minutes to realize he was the best young soccer player I had ever seen. Feel for the game, vision and ball delivery was ridiculous. Arsenal signed him a few years later. Injuries did him in. My son played against Pulisic who was playing 2 if not 3 years up at u14. He wasn’t the best player on his team but he held his own. What’s the point of those kids playing down. My son played on age but skipped u15 and went to U16 because it was more competitive.

[HooDat]

But to an extent, the age does matter. A pg or superannuated graduate of an MIAA or similar school who has been playing club lax since six presents a different profile than a kid from, say Texas, Georgia, Florida, or California, who didn’t pick up a stick until middle school and graduated “on time” and played another sport, say, football, at a high level could have a higher upside.
It’s not always the case, but it’s one reason that I’m not lamenting some changes in the makeup of UVA’s roster.
The hotbeds still produce plenty of good players, but as more hs kids are playing all over the country, athletic ability is beginning to trump pedigree.

Coach Starsia was famous for having a preference for multi-sport athletes. I think too many people tried to make more out of the philosophy talking about things you learn from another sport, etc... What I always thought he was really saying is: "I want a kid that is such a stud athlete that he can dominate in football, go straight to wrestling/basketball, miss pre-season lacrosse, simply pick up his stick in February and still dominate in lacrosse too."

At academic schools, it also demonstrates the discipline to be able to play sports year round and still get good grades.

[Farfromgeneva]

But to an extent, the age does matter. A pg or superannuated graduate of an MIAA or similar school who has been playing club lax since six presents a different profile than a kid from, say Texas, Georgia, Florida, or California, who didn’t pick up a stick until middle school and graduated “on time” and played another sport, say, football, at a high level could have a higher upside.
It’s not always the case, but it’s one reason that I’m not lamenting some changes in the makeup of UVA’s roster.
The hotbeds still produce plenty of good players, but as more hs kids are playing all over the country, athletic ability is beginning to trump pedigree.

Coach Starsia was famous for having a preference for multi-sport athletes. I think too many people tried to make more out of the philosophy talking about things you learn from another sport, etc... What I always thought he was really saying is: "I want a kid that is such a stud athlete that he can dominate in football, go straight to wrestling/basketball, miss pre-season lacrosse, simply pick up his stick in February and still dominate in lacrosse too."

At academic schools, it also demonstrates the discipline to be able to play sports year round and still get good grades.

I’m sure you know Coach Urick would recruit more athletes than lacrosse IQ guys during his title run at Bart and even to a degree at GTown, the high skill guys in the highly ranked classes were opposite his standard approach and what got him fired because once you have access to the club you tend to overdo it in the free apps and high quality liquor.

Athleticism combined with time management.

[ohmilax34]

But to an extent, the age does matter. A pg or superannuated graduate of an MIAA or similar school who has been playing club lax since six presents a different profile than a kid from, say Texas, Georgia, Florida, or California, who didn’t pick up a stick until middle school and graduated “on time” and played another sport, say, football, at a high level could have a higher upside.
It’s not always the case, but it’s one reason that I’m not lamenting some changes in the makeup of UVA’s roster.
The hotbeds still produce plenty of good players, but as more hs kids are playing all over the country, athletic ability is beginning to trump pedigree.

Coach Starsia was famous for having a preference for multi-sport athletes. I think too many people tried to make more out of the philosophy talking about things you learn from another sport, etc... What I always thought he was really saying is: "I want a kid that is such a stud athlete that he can dominate in football, go straight to wrestling/basketball, miss pre-season lacrosse, simply pick up his stick in February and still dominate in lacrosse too."

At academic schools, it also demonstrates the discipline to be able to play sports year round and still get good grades.

I'm sure Starsia was asked about this multiple times and there are probably a few quotes out there, but I think I remember Starsia saying something like a kid develops more athletically from playing football during football season or hockey during hockey season than playing fall or winter club lacrosse during those months. That was close to 10+ years ago, and training opportunities have changed for high school lacrosse players, so I'm not sure if he would necessarily feel the exact same way.

Also, I get what TLD is saying about him preferring the younger of two competing players, and I generally agree, but I think there some other sides to it.
1) When does a male reach his athletic peak? 26/27 years old? If a college coach gets a kid as a freshman who's 19 or 20, he's closer to his athletic peak than a 17 or 18 year old. College hockey is FULL of 20 year old freshmen. It's different because those guys are expected to play right away, but I'm sure college lacrosse coaches want their freshmen to get some playing time too. How old was Wisnauskas this past season? 25?

2) A high school kid's HS and club experience is probably going to have times when he's competing against kids older than him, kids younger than him and kids the same age. As that player gets older, there are going to be fewer opportunities for him to compete against players older than him, because there aren't any.

3) There are good development opportunities for lacrosse players when they are underloading (playing against lesser competition or not competing at a really high level). Players can try new skills without worrying about messing up. If you're always playing up, you're probably not trying some new things out, because you're trying hard not to screw up. I think most serious HS lacrosse players are getting plenty of underloading opportunities, usually while playing box (each offensive possession is kind of an underloading opportunity, because the outcome doesn't matter as much as a field lacrosse possession) or pick up/backyard lacrosse with family or friends. Ever wonder why we see so many good sibling lacrosse players? They get good in the backyard, not at practice.

I would like TLD to PM the names of the players he's referring to.

[Typical Lax Dad]

But to an extent, the age does matter. A pg or superannuated graduate of an MIAA or similar school who has been playing club lax since six presents a different profile than a kid from, say Texas, Georgia, Florida, or California, who didn’t pick up a stick until middle school and graduated “on time” and played another sport, say, football, at a high level could have a higher upside.
It’s not always the case, but it’s one reason that I’m not lamenting some changes in the makeup of UVA’s roster.
The hotbeds still produce plenty of good players, but as more hs kids are playing all over the country, athletic ability is beginning to trump pedigree.

Coach Starsia was famous for having a preference for multi-sport athletes. I think too many people tried to make more out of the philosophy talking about things you learn from another sport, etc... What I always thought he was really saying is: "I want a kid that is such a stud athlete that he can dominate in football, go straight to wrestling/basketball, miss pre-season lacrosse, simply pick up his stick in February and still dominate in lacrosse too."

At academic schools, it also demonstrates the discipline to be able to play sports year round and still get good grades.

I'm sure Starsia was asked about this multiple times and there are probably a few quotes out there, but I think I remember Starsia saying something like a kid develops more athletically from playing football during football season or hockey during hockey season than playing fall or winter club lacrosse during those months. That was close to 10+ years ago, and training opportunities have changed for high school lacrosse players, so I'm not sure if he would necessarily feel the exact same way.

Also, I get what TLD is saying about him preferring the younger of two competing players, and I generally agree, but I think there some other sides to it.
1) When does a male reach his athletic peak? 26/27 years old? If a college coach gets a kid as a freshman who's 19 or 20, he's closer to his athletic peak than a 17 or 18 year old. College hockey is FULL of 20 year old freshmen. It's different because those guys are expected to play right away, but I'm sure college lacrosse coaches want their freshmen to get some playing time too. How old was Wisnauskas this past season? 25?

2) A high school kid's HS and club experience is probably going to have times when he's competing against kids older than him, kids younger than him and kids the same age. As that player gets older, there are going to be fewer opportunities for him to compete against players older than him, because there aren't any.

3) There are good development opportunities for lacrosse players when they are underloading (playing against lesser competition or not competing at a really high level). Players can try new skills without worrying about messing up. If you're always playing up, you're probably not trying some new things out, because you're trying hard not to screw up. I think most serious HS lacrosse players are getting plenty of underloading opportunities, usually while playing box (each offensive possession is kind of an underloading opportunity, because the outcome doesn't matter as much as a field lacrosse possession) or pick up/backyard lacrosse with family or friends. Ever wonder why we see so many good sibling lacrosse players? They get good in the backyard, not at practice.

I would like TLD to PM the names of the players he's referring to.

They are not recruited based on playing two years down. The hockey analogy is flawed. Yes they are old when they arrive but they are recruited based on play against their peers.

[ohmilax34]

But to an extent, the age does matter. A pg or superannuated graduate of an MIAA or similar school who has been playing club lax since six presents a different profile than a kid from, say Texas, Georgia, Florida, or California, who didn’t pick up a stick until middle school and graduated “on time” and played another sport, say, football, at a high level could have a higher upside.
It’s not always the case, but it’s one reason that I’m not lamenting some changes in the makeup of UVA’s roster.
The hotbeds still produce plenty of good players, but as more hs kids are playing all over the country, athletic ability is beginning to trump pedigree.

Coach Starsia was famous for having a preference for multi-sport athletes. I think too many people tried to make more out of the philosophy talking about things you learn from another sport, etc... What I always thought he was really saying is: "I want a kid that is such a stud athlete that he can dominate in football, go straight to wrestling/basketball, miss pre-season lacrosse, simply pick up his stick in February and still dominate in lacrosse too."

At academic schools, it also demonstrates the discipline to be able to play sports year round and still get good grades.

I'm sure Starsia was asked about this multiple times and there are probably a few quotes out there, but I think I remember Starsia saying something like a kid develops more athletically from playing football during football season or hockey during hockey season than playing fall or winter club lacrosse during those months. That was close to 10+ years ago, and training opportunities have changed for high school lacrosse players, so I'm not sure if he would necessarily feel the exact same way.

Also, I get what TLD is saying about him preferring the younger of two competing players, and I generally agree, but I think there some other sides to it.
1) When does a male reach his athletic peak? 26/27 years old? If a college coach gets a kid as a freshman who's 19 or 20, he's closer to his athletic peak than a 17 or 18 year old. College hockey is FULL of 20 year old freshmen. It's different because those guys are expected to play right away, but I'm sure college lacrosse coaches want their freshmen to get some playing time too. How old was Wisnauskas this past season? 25?

2) A high school kid's HS and club experience is probably going to have times when he's competing against kids older than him, kids younger than him and kids the same age. As that player gets older, there are going to be fewer opportunities for him to compete against players older than him, because there aren't any.

3) There are good development opportunities for lacrosse players when they are underloading (playing against lesser competition or not competing at a really high level). Players can try new skills without worrying about messing up. If you're always playing up, you're probably not trying some new things out, because you're trying hard not to screw up. I think most serious HS lacrosse players are getting plenty of underloading opportunities, usually while playing box (each offensive possession is kind of an underloading opportunity, because the outcome doesn't matter as much as a field lacrosse possession) or pick up/backyard lacrosse with family or friends. Ever wonder why we see so many good sibling lacrosse players? They get good in the backyard, not at practice.

I would like TLD to PM the names of the players he's referring to.

They are not recruited based on playing two years down. The hockey analogy is flawed. Yes they are old when they arrive but they are recruited based on play against their peers.

I don't think we're arguing opposite points of view. My hockey analogy is to show that college hockey coaches think that having older players can be beneficial to the college team, not that college hockey coaches can't discern what age their recruits are.

The USHL and NAHL junior leagues in the US have a range of ages, probably from about 16-21 year olds.