Sure but it’s a lacrosse board here. You know I never get off topic YA!youthathletics wrote: ↑Sun Aug 29, 2021 10:02 amThose are all scenarios only insiders with brass would be privy too, but I am sure it helps balance the slow recruiting on the streets in to the military. My nephew is an AF recruiter in Florida, in short.....he said it is tough out there, very tough. We could argue the same thing (roster size) for football. Who in the hell needs +110 players, and over 20+ coaches for a fb team that runs the same damned schemes over the past 20 years.Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Sun Aug 29, 2021 9:57 amLess about Amplo to me than is this an appropriate use of limited vacancies to the academy. Is the marginal ten guys better than the last ten non athletes not accepted and does that really make sense despite some argument for the need for depth like this.youthathletics wrote: ↑Sun Aug 29, 2021 9:52 am Not going to claim I have all the answers, but there is far more going on than carrying a dozen extra players, than they did 15 years ago.
Maybe Dip Dunk should go back through the years this is not a new thing. in 2010 they were in the low 60s, even in 2005 50.....so they carry an extra dozen, big deal. they all do not travel, the old days of sending guys out with injury, separated shoulders, concussions protocol, etc. Heavily respected scout team, attrition, and yes (only a handful of years ago) at least half a dozen bounced. The class of 20' ended up with only 5 or 6 lax players out of 15 or so recruits.
Additionally, the new staff are respecting the recruits of the last staff. Also, a void in interest over the last 10 years which did not support NAAA and FONL. It is not just one thing,
But yes and stuffing the pro schools with athletes is a joke as well. It’s tax dollars so nobody gets to play the “you didn’t do this so you can’t talk” nonsense. That how you get zero accountability and bad outcomes.