Official Class Of 2024 Recruiting Thread

[gymman1031]

Announcements, predictions, and anything else are welcome.

I do know that the first announced commitment since 09/01 has happened. St. John's College(DC) long stick midfielder Henry Weller has committed to Michigan. Michigan continues to do great recruiting. That said, will they start to have solid seasons soon?

[wgdsr]

Announcements, predictions, and anything else are welcome.

I do know that the first announced commitment since 09/01 has happened. St. John's College(DC) long stick midfielder Henry Weller has committed to Michigan. Michigan continues to do great recruiting. That said, will they start to have solid seasons soon?

michigan's recruiting hasn't been up to snuff since they got started.

if their 2022 class and beyond can help them, they'll have a chance to stack seasons.

[gymman1031]

Announcements, predictions, and anything else are welcome.

I do know that the first announced commitment since 09/01 has happened. St. John's College(DC) long stick midfielder Henry Weller has committed to Michigan. Michigan continues to do great recruiting. That said, will they start to have solid seasons soon?

michigan's recruiting hasn't been up to snuff since they got started.

if their 2022 class and beyond can help them, they'll have a chance to stack seasons.

Michigan's recruiting has been nothing less than rock-solid since they got started. It just hasn't shown on the field.

[wgdsr]

Announcements, predictions, and anything else are welcome.

I do know that the first announced commitment since 09/01 has happened. St. John's College(DC) long stick midfielder Henry Weller has committed to Michigan. Michigan continues to do great recruiting. That said, will they start to have solid seasons soon?

michigan's recruiting hasn't been up to snuff since they got started.

if their 2022 class and beyond can help them, they'll have a chance to stack seasons.

Michigan's recruiting has been nothing less than rock-solid since they got started. It just hasn't shown on the field.

how do you quantify the great recruiting, then?

[gymman1031]

Announcements, predictions, and anything else are welcome.

I do know that the first announced commitment since 09/01 has happened. St. John's College(DC) long stick midfielder Henry Weller has committed to Michigan. Michigan continues to do great recruiting. That said, will they start to have solid seasons soon?

michigan's recruiting hasn't been up to snuff since they got started.

if their 2022 class and beyond can help them, they'll have a chance to stack seasons.

Michigan's recruiting has been nothing less than rock-solid since they got started. It just hasn't shown on the field.

how do you quantify the great recruiting, then?

They have gotten many highly-ranked classes with 4* and 5* players. The thing is, they haven't done as well as those other programs who have gotten similar amounts of such players.

[wgdsr]

Announcements, predictions, and anything else are welcome.

I do know that the first announced commitment since 09/01 has happened. St. John's College(DC) long stick midfielder Henry Weller has committed to Michigan. Michigan continues to do great recruiting. That said, will they start to have solid seasons soon?

michigan's recruiting hasn't been up to snuff since they got started.

if their 2022 class and beyond can help them, they'll have a chance to stack seasons.

Michigan's recruiting has been nothing less than rock-solid since they got started. It just hasn't shown on the field.

how do you quantify the great recruiting, then?

They have gotten many highly-ranked classes with 4* and 5* players. The thing is, they haven't done as well as those other programs who have gotten similar amounts of such players.

hmmm...
i have a couple questions, then. in the matrix of high/not high ranked and perform/not perform, there are 4 outcomes. mengel or somebody said that.
1) high ranked/perform
2) high ranked/ not perform
3) not high ranked/ perform
4) not high ranked/ not perform

are you saying #4 is the only outcome for not great recruiting? the other 3 are great recruiting, just that no one else knew it until they performed?

say loyola... they get a guy or 2 in the top 100 maybe. the rest not so much. but they perform typically. are they recruiting awesome sauce or no?

if top rated = great recruiting, you'd have to say their recruiting is garbage, correct?

[gymman1031]

Announcements, predictions, and anything else are welcome.

I do know that the first announced commitment since 09/01 has happened. St. John's College(DC) long stick midfielder Henry Weller has committed to Michigan. Michigan continues to do great recruiting. That said, will they start to have solid seasons soon?

michigan's recruiting hasn't been up to snuff since they got started.

if their 2022 class and beyond can help them, they'll have a chance to stack seasons.

Michigan's recruiting has been nothing less than rock-solid since they got started. It just hasn't shown on the field.

how do you quantify the great recruiting, then?

They have gotten many highly-ranked classes with 4* and 5* players. The thing is, they haven't done as well as those other programs who have gotten similar amounts of such players.

hmmm...
i have a couple questions, then. in the matrix of high/not high ranked and perform/not perform, there are 4 outcomes. mengel or somebody said that.
1) high ranked/perform
2) high ranked/ not perform
3) not high ranked/ perform
4) not high ranked/ not perform

are you saying #4 is the only outcome for not great recruiting? the other 3 are great recruiting, just that no one else knew it until they performed?

say loyola... they get a guy or 2 in the top 100 maybe. the rest not so much. but they perform typically. are they recruiting awesome sauce or no?

if top rated = great recruiting, you'd have to say their recruiting is garbage, correct?

Absolutely not. And a big reason is that coaching plays a big part in the overall success of a program. You mentioned Loyola. And Charley Toomey has proven to be a great coach who does very well with some players who were 4*, but with a lot who weren't either. And take a look at Rutgers. In the Big Ten, they have gotten, hands down, the smallest amount of highly-ranked players. That said, they have faired pretty well recently. Programs like Maryland and Virginia get lots of highly-ranked players. Not all perform, but many of them do. Of course, they have head coaches who need no introduction.
As for Coach Conry at Michigan, even if I have been critical, I am not ready to throw in the towel on him just yet. After all, he didn't actually inherit a goldmine of a program. And, these past couple of years, his teams have been very, very young. But he will be in Year #6 in 2023. Not only will even more of the talent be his, but they will be older and more experienced. I don't care if highly-ranked players don't always pan out. He has recruited very, very well. And now, it is time to do well when it comes to game and season results, too. I am cheering for him. But the above is perfectly fair.

[wgdsr]

Announcements, predictions, and anything else are welcome.

I do know that the first announced commitment since 09/01 has happened. St. John's College(DC) long stick midfielder Henry Weller has committed to Michigan. Michigan continues to do great recruiting. That said, will they start to have solid seasons soon?

michigan's recruiting hasn't been up to snuff since they got started.

if their 2022 class and beyond can help them, they'll have a chance to stack seasons.

Michigan's recruiting has been nothing less than rock-solid since they got started. It just hasn't shown on the field.

how do you quantify the great recruiting, then?

They have gotten many highly-ranked classes with 4* and 5* players. The thing is, they haven't done as well as those other programs who have gotten similar amounts of such players.

hmmm...
i have a couple questions, then. in the matrix of high/not high ranked and perform/not perform, there are 4 outcomes. mengel or somebody said that.
1) high ranked/perform
2) high ranked/ not perform
3) not high ranked/ perform
4) not high ranked/ not perform

are you saying #4 is the only outcome for not great recruiting? the other 3 are great recruiting, just that no one else knew it until they performed?

say loyola... they get a guy or 2 in the top 100 maybe. the rest not so much. but they perform typically. are they recruiting awesome sauce or no?

if top rated = great recruiting, you'd have to say their recruiting is garbage, correct?

Absolutely not. And a big reason is that coaching plays a big part in the overall success of a program. You mentioned Loyola. And Charley Toomey has proven to be a great coach who does very well with some players who were 4*, but with a lot who weren't either. And take a look at Rutgers. In the Big Ten, they have gotten, hands down, the smallest amount of highly-ranked players. That said, they have faired pretty well recently. Programs like Maryland and Virginia get lots of highly-ranked players. Not all perform, but many of them do. Of course, they have head coaches who need no introduction.
As for Coach Conry at Michigan, even if I have been critical, I am not ready to throw in the towel on him just yet. After all, he didn't actually inherit a goldmine of a program. And, these past couple of years, his teams have been very, very young. But he will be in Year #6 in 2023. Not only will even more of the talent be his, but they will be older and more experienced. I don't care if highly-ranked players don't always pan out. He has recruited very, very well. And now, it is time to do well when it comes to game and season results, too. I am cheering for him. But the above is perfectly fair.

so you write your own conclusion (must be coaching on the field) so you can come to your hypothesis. top rated = great recruiting.

i'm sure by this point, you're aware the #1 ratings guy played volleyball in high school?

you mentioned uva and maryland. they get more "top rated" guys than michigan, no? and as you say, some top rated guys don't live up. well, uva and umd has both of those groups. and then others that also perform that weren't top rated. that's what great recruiting is in some people's eyes.

and so a umich seems to have more guys in the top rated/not perform category. that could be a result of causation = miss. like every team has, but without the hits. coaching could be one possible explanation, but unless you're in the meetings and huddles, it's perplexing how that's the only possible conclusion you could draw.

a more reasonable explanation is they haven't been all the right guys. especially since conry didn't fall off of a bus. why do you think he decided to start coaching poorly?

[gymman1031]

Announcements, predictions, and anything else are welcome.

I do know that the first announced commitment since 09/01 has happened. St. John's College(DC) long stick midfielder Henry Weller has committed to Michigan. Michigan continues to do great recruiting. That said, will they start to have solid seasons soon?

michigan's recruiting hasn't been up to snuff since they got started.

if their 2022 class and beyond can help them, they'll have a chance to stack seasons.

Michigan's recruiting has been nothing less than rock-solid since they got started. It just hasn't shown on the field.

how do you quantify the great recruiting, then?

They have gotten many highly-ranked classes with 4* and 5* players. The thing is, they haven't done as well as those other programs who have gotten similar amounts of such players.

hmmm...
i have a couple questions, then. in the matrix of high/not high ranked and perform/not perform, there are 4 outcomes. mengel or somebody said that.
1) high ranked/perform
2) high ranked/ not perform
3) not high ranked/ perform
4) not high ranked/ not perform

are you saying #4 is the only outcome for not great recruiting? the other 3 are great recruiting, just that no one else knew it until they performed?

say loyola... they get a guy or 2 in the top 100 maybe. the rest not so much. but they perform typically. are they recruiting awesome sauce or no?

if top rated = great recruiting, you'd have to say their recruiting is garbage, correct?

Absolutely not. And a big reason is that coaching plays a big part in the overall success of a program. You mentioned Loyola. And Charley Toomey has proven to be a great coach who does very well with some players who were 4*, but with a lot who weren't either. And take a look at Rutgers. In the Big Ten, they have gotten, hands down, the smallest amount of highly-ranked players. That said, they have faired pretty well recently. Programs like Maryland and Virginia get lots of highly-ranked players. Not all perform, but many of them do. Of course, they have head coaches who need no introduction.
As for Coach Conry at Michigan, even if I have been critical, I am not ready to throw in the towel on him just yet. After all, he didn't actually inherit a goldmine of a program. And, these past couple of years, his teams have been very, very young. But he will be in Year #6 in 2023. Not only will even more of the talent be his, but they will be older and more experienced. I don't care if highly-ranked players don't always pan out. He has recruited very, very well. And now, it is time to do well when it comes to game and season results, too. I am cheering for him. But the above is perfectly fair.

so you write your own conclusion (must be coaching on the field) so you can come to your hypothesis. top rated = great recruiting.

i'm sure by this point, you're aware the #1 ratings guy played volleyball in high school?

you mentioned uva and maryland. they get more "top rated" guys than michigan, no? and as you say, some top rated guys don't live up. well, uva and umd has both of those groups. and then others that also perform that weren't top rated. that's what great recruiting is in some people's eyes.

and so a umich seems to have more guys in the top rated/not perform category. that could be a result of causation = miss. like every team has, but without the hits. coaching could be one possible explanation, but unless you're in the meetings and huddles, it's perplexing how that's the only possible conclusion you could draw.

a more reasonable explanation is they haven't been all the right guys. especially since conry didn't fall off of a bus. why do you think he decided to start coaching poorly?

I never said coaching was definitely the main reason they haven't done so well. But, if much more time goes by and things don't get better, it is totally understandable if people start believing more that might be a top reason. And no, top players don't always pan out. But to get as many players as he has who weren't just highly-ranked, but recruited by many programs, it is perfectly fair to say that Conry has done a good job with recruiting.

[Farfromgeneva]

Announcements, predictions, and anything else are welcome.

I do know that the first announced commitment since 09/01 has happened. St. John's College(DC) long stick midfielder Henry Weller has committed to Michigan. Michigan continues to do great recruiting. That said, will they start to have solid seasons soon?

michigan's recruiting hasn't been up to snuff since they got started.

if their 2022 class and beyond can help them, they'll have a chance to stack seasons.

Michigan's recruiting has been nothing less than rock-solid since they got started. It just hasn't shown on the field.

how do you quantify the great recruiting, then?

They have gotten many highly-ranked classes with 4* and 5* players. The thing is, they haven't done as well as those other programs who have gotten similar amounts of such players.

hmmm...
i have a couple questions, then. in the matrix of high/not high ranked and perform/not perform, there are 4 outcomes. mengel or somebody said that.
1) high ranked/perform
2) high ranked/ not perform
3) not high ranked/ perform
4) not high ranked/ not perform

are you saying #4 is the only outcome for not great recruiting? the other 3 are great recruiting, just that no one else knew it until they performed?

say loyola... they get a guy or 2 in the top 100 maybe. the rest not so much. but they perform typically. are they recruiting awesome sauce or no?

if top rated = great recruiting, you'd have to say their recruiting is garbage, correct?

Absolutely not. And a big reason is that coaching plays a big part in the overall success of a program. You mentioned Loyola. And Charley Toomey has proven to be a great coach who does very well with some players who were 4*, but with a lot who weren't either. And take a look at Rutgers. In the Big Ten, they have gotten, hands down, the smallest amount of highly-ranked players. That said, they have faired pretty well recently. Programs like Maryland and Virginia get lots of highly-ranked players. Not all perform, but many of them do. Of course, they have head coaches who need no introduction.
As for Coach Conry at Michigan, even if I have been critical, I am not ready to throw in the towel on him just yet. After all, he didn't actually inherit a goldmine of a program. And, these past couple of years, his teams have been very, very young. But he will be in Year #6 in 2023. Not only will even more of the talent be his, but they will be older and more experienced. I don't care if highly-ranked players don't always pan out. He has recruited very, very well. And now, it is time to do well when it comes to game and season results, too. I am cheering for him. But the above is perfectly fair.

so you write your own conclusion (must be coaching on the field) so you can come to your hypothesis. top rated = great recruiting.

i'm sure by this point, you're aware the #1 ratings guy played volleyball in high school?

you mentioned uva and maryland. they get more "top rated" guys than michigan, no? and as you say, some top rated guys don't live up. well, uva and umd has both of those groups. and then others that also perform that weren't top rated. that's what great recruiting is in some people's eyes.

and so a umich seems to have more guys in the top rated/not perform category. that could be a result of causation = miss. like every team has, but without the hits. coaching could be one possible explanation, but unless you're in the meetings and huddles, it's perplexing how that's the only possible conclusion you could draw.

a more reasonable explanation is they haven't been all the right guys. especially since conry didn't fall off of a bus. why do you think he decided to start coaching poorly?

What seems to be missing is there's been 1-3 schools that are popular every couple to years that get all these 5-50 ranked kids who seem like pretty toys but aren’t what they seem at a high level for one reason or another. I pick on them for it but the late 2000s GTown was a classic example. Early Breschi UNC and Haus UNC. Michigan has been that school since they went D1. The legit high ranked kids end up flipping to Cornell or elsewhere.

[gymman1031]

Just like that, another St. John's(DC) player for 2024 has committed. In this case, it is #1-ranked Ryan Duenkel, an attackman. Ryan is headed to UVA.

[AreaLax]

Just like that, another St. John's(DC) player for 2024 has committed. In this case, it is #1-ranked Ryan Duenkel, an attackman. Ryan is headed to UVA.

UVA also flipped ‘23 from OSU commit Chase Brand

[gymman1031]

Just like that, another St. John's(DC) player for 2024 has committed. In this case, it is #1-ranked Ryan Duenkel, an attackman. Ryan is headed to UVA.

UVA also flipped ‘23 from OSU commit Chase Brand

Yes, they sure did.

[wgdsr]

does anyone else think the committing of kids several days after you're allowed to start recruiting them/be recruited is dumb?

[Farfromgeneva]

does anyone else think the committing of kids several days after you're allowed to start recruiting them/be recruited is dumb?

If the rules weren’t mangled and deformed then yes. But under the hood we know there’s communication, analysis and research done long before the day-especially with the rise of club sports in general and with lacrosse specific.

But also it’s the closest thing an axiom can be without being a “law” that situations move to the rule. Like when price floors and caps end up being the price ultimately for subject items/services. Game theory/Monte Carlo simulation stuff, of course the best kids and eventually the top 200-250 (out of what like 1,000 new D1 kids each year) will be signing within a week of the date.

[youthathletics]

does anyone else think the committing of kids several days after you're allowed to start recruiting them/be recruited is dumb?

I think what it really means, is that they where likely already recruited before the allowable day.

[AreaLax]

does anyone else think the committing of kids several days after you're allowed to start recruiting them/be recruited is dumb?

I think what it really means, is that they where likely already recruited before the allowable day.

Duenkel brother is on the football team and their father is an alumni so not a surprise
The Michigan commit believe his older brother is also a commit to Michigan so again not a surprise

[wgdsr]

does anyone else think the committing of kids several days after you're allowed to start recruiting them/be recruited is dumb?

If the rules weren’t mangled and deformed then yes. But under the hood we know there’s communication, analysis and research done long before the day-especially with the rise of club sports in general and with lacrosse specific.

But also it’s the closest thing an axiom can be without being a “law” that situations move to the rule. Like when price floors and caps end up being the price ultimately for subject items/services. Game theory/Monte Carlo simulation stuff, of course the best kids and eventually the top 200-250 (out of what like 1,000 new D1 kids each year) will be signing within a week of the date.

it won't be. it might be 18 or 12 or 34 but it won't be 200-250.
2 weeks, 3 weeks there'll be some numbers piling in bit not close to that.

but also to youth... what's not talked about very frequently is fit and getting the guys that u want. you can't tell that from 10-20% of their best plays/games plus their promoter and kids can't tell the best place in a couple short convos.

obv there will be a superficiality to everything for whatever length of time, but pulling the trigger on hoo you want to be your guys (especially when you have some hand) in a couple of days is ridiculous. imo. and we can not crazily infer that offers are going out in 1st convo.

[Farfromgeneva]

does anyone else think the committing of kids several days after you're allowed to start recruiting them/be recruited is dumb?

If the rules weren’t mangled and deformed then yes. But under the hood we know there’s communication, analysis and research done long before the day-especially with the rise of club sports in general and with lacrosse specific.

But also it’s the closest thing an axiom can be without being a “law” that situations move to the rule. Like when price floors and caps end up being the price ultimately for subject items/services. Game theory/Monte Carlo simulation stuff, of course the best kids and eventually the top 200-250 (out of what like 1,000 new D1 kids each year) will be signing within a week of the date.

it won't be. it might be 18 or 12 or 34 but it won't be 200-250.
2 weeks, 3 weeks there'll be some numbers piling in bit not close to that.

but also to youth... what's not talked about very frequently is fit and getting the guys that u want. you can't tell that from 10-20% of their best plays/games plus their promoter and kids can't tell the best place in a couple short convos.

obv there will be a superficiality to everything for whatever length of time, but pulling the trigger on hoo you want to be your guys (especially when you have some hand) in a couple of days is ridiculous. imo. and we can not crazily infer that offers are going out in 1st convo.

I was talking eventually if that wasn’t clear on the numbers. More will get into the same system and routine and it’ll ramp up. Same happened w early recruiting. One school does it then two then all the sudden Quinnipiac and RoMo were committing kids as Sophs in HS.

But also that was my point that the Sept 2 date is clearly being violated on the reg. So I presume they’ve spent a lot more time with the kids than we know. Any professional at the top of a sector would do that type of DD. If not they shouldn’t be a D1 HC.

[MDlaxfan76]

Sounds like a few kids are on a very short list already and in a few such situations, there's enough other insight, both directions, to enable a quick initial choice, but for the vast majority, as a coach I'd want to have more than one conversation before pulling the trigger...of course, these days, kids commit and de-commit, coaches too...so, until there's an NLI signed, it can still be fluid.