Recruiting, the exact science

[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.

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.

It’s not the same thing. Hockey isn’t recruiting a kid because he looks good against younger players…no more than a soccer coach. More money in soccer than any other sport on the planet. They aren’t fooled by an old kid playing down. I believe the bust factor is correlated to old kids that look good against young kids. Matt Rambo, is another example of a player ID’d by playing up. He didn’t need to “play down”. Brennan O’Neill didn’t need to play down either….I wonder why not?

[Typical Lax Dad]

USA HOCKEY YOUTH HOCKEY AGE GROUPS
The new age classifications are as follows:

Age Category: 8 - Age Division: 8 or Under (8U)
Age Category: 9-10 - Age Division: 10 or Under (10U)
Age Category: 11-12 - Age Division: 12 or Under (12U)
Age Category: 13-14 - Age Division: 14 or Under (14U)
Age Category: 15-16 - Age Division: 16 & Under (16U)
Age Category: 17-18 - Age Division: 18 & Under (18U)

What hockey coach in his right mind is going to offer an 18 year old playing U16? In lacrosse, we call them 5 Stars. I don’t buy it.

[InsiderRoll]

USA HOCKEY YOUTH HOCKEY AGE GROUPS
The new age classifications are as follows:

Age Category: 8 - Age Division: 8 or Under (8U)
Age Category: 9-10 - Age Division: 10 or Under (10U)
Age Category: 11-12 - Age Division: 12 or Under (12U)
Age Category: 13-14 - Age Division: 14 or Under (14U)
Age Category: 15-16 - Age Division: 16 & Under (16U)
Age Category: 17-18 - Age Division: 18 & Under (18U)

What hockey coach in his right mind is going to offer an 18 year old playing U16? In lacrosse, we call them 5 Stars. I don’t buy it.

Most hockey players are in their early 20’s when they enter college. Are you evaluating for long term pro prospects or to build a team? Athletes are in their prime from 22-26 years of age. Not 18-22. Union won a national championship in hockey with a team full of 24 and 25 year olds because the more “talented” NHL prospect guys at blue blood hockey schools were all 18-21 years old that year. They won because they were more physically mature despite not having as much NHL level talent. Wouldn’t that be counter to peoples arguments here?

[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.

It’s not the same thing. Hockey isn’t recruiting a kid because he looks good against younger players…no more than a soccer coach. More money in soccer than any other sport on the planet. They aren’t fooled by an old kid playing down. I believe the bust factor is correlated to old kids that look good against young kids. Matt Rambo, is another example of a player ID’d by playing up. He didn’t need to “play down”. Brennan O’Neill didn’t need to play down either….I wonder why not?

You have personal experience with regards to lacrosse recruiting. I do not. I believe you when you say that some college lacrosse coaches are recruiting players two years older than their competition. I don't know how prevalent it is, but I believe you. There is so much reclassing going on, plus you have the possibility of a kid starting kindergarten at 6 instead of 5, so I can see why college coaches haven't put much effort into know the age of the kid, or at least didn't when you were really in the recruiting world.

I don't think I'm really arguing against any of your points. I'm adding alternative ideas that emphasize what the original poster said facetiously in the thread title. Recruiting is not an exact science.

[ohmilax34]

USA HOCKEY YOUTH HOCKEY AGE GROUPS
The new age classifications are as follows:

Age Category: 8 - Age Division: 8 or Under (8U)
Age Category: 9-10 - Age Division: 10 or Under (10U)
Age Category: 11-12 - Age Division: 12 or Under (12U)
Age Category: 13-14 - Age Division: 14 or Under (14U)
Age Category: 15-16 - Age Division: 16 & Under (16U)
Age Category: 17-18 - Age Division: 18 & Under (18U)

What hockey coach in his right mind is going to offer an 18 year old playing U16? In lacrosse, we call them 5 Stars. I don’t buy it.

Most hockey players are in their early 20’s when they enter college. Are you evaluating for long term pro prospects or to build a team? Athletes are in their prime from 22-26 years of age. Not 18-22. Union won a national championship in hockey with a team full of 24 and 25 year olds because the more “talented” NHL prospect guys at blue blood hockey schools were all 18-21 years old that year. They won because they were more physically mature despite not having as much NHL level talent. Wouldn’t that be counter to peoples arguments here?

Yes, it is. More than one way to skin a cat.

[Typical Lax Dad]

USA HOCKEY YOUTH HOCKEY AGE GROUPS
The new age classifications are as follows:

Age Category: 8 - Age Division: 8 or Under (8U)
Age Category: 9-10 - Age Division: 10 or Under (10U)
Age Category: 11-12 - Age Division: 12 or Under (12U)
Age Category: 13-14 - Age Division: 14 or Under (14U)
Age Category: 15-16 - Age Division: 16 & Under (16U)
Age Category: 17-18 - Age Division: 18 & Under (18U)

What hockey coach in his right mind is going to offer an 18 year old playing U16? In lacrosse, we call them 5 Stars. I don’t buy it.

Most hockey players are in their early 20’s when they enter college. Are you evaluating for long term pro prospects or to build a team? Athletes are in their prime from 22-26 years of age. Not 18-22. Union won a national championship in hockey with a team full of 24 and 25 year olds because the more “talented” NHL prospect guys at blue blood hockey schools were all 18-21 years old that year. They won because they were more physically mature despite not having as much NHL level talent. Wouldn’t that be counter to peoples arguments here?

How would union have done against 24 and 25 year olds? The hockey players at Union were recruited based on playing U16 as 18 year olds? I don’t believe it.

[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.

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.

It’s not the same thing. Hockey isn’t recruiting a kid because he looks good against younger players…no more than a soccer coach. More money in soccer than any other sport on the planet. They aren’t fooled by an old kid playing down. I believe the bust factor is correlated to old kids that look good against young kids. Matt Rambo, is another example of a player ID’d by playing up. He didn’t need to “play down”. Brennan O’Neill didn’t need to play down either….I wonder why not?

You have personal experience with regards to lacrosse recruiting. I do not. I believe you when you say that some college lacrosse coaches are recruiting players two years older than their competition. I don't know how prevalent it is, but I believe you. There is so much reclassing going on, plus you have the possibility of a kid starting kindergarten at 6 instead of 5, so I can see why college coaches haven't put much effort into know the age of the kid, or at least didn't when you were really in the recruiting world.

I don't think I'm really arguing against any of your points. I'm adding alternative ideas that emphasize what the original poster said facetiously in the thread title. Recruiting is not an exact science.

It’s not an exact science. Never is. Recruiting old kids based on how they play against young kids make it harder. Just heard about a 2 year holdback having problems landing. Father thought he would be off the board by now. He’s a 2024. I may see him on Sunday night after he wraps up a prospect camp.

[ohmilax34]

USA HOCKEY YOUTH HOCKEY AGE GROUPS
The new age classifications are as follows:

Age Category: 8 - Age Division: 8 or Under (8U)
Age Category: 9-10 - Age Division: 10 or Under (10U)
Age Category: 11-12 - Age Division: 12 or Under (12U)
Age Category: 13-14 - Age Division: 14 or Under (14U)
Age Category: 15-16 - Age Division: 16 & Under (16U)
Age Category: 17-18 - Age Division: 18 & Under (18U)

What hockey coach in his right mind is going to offer an 18 year old playing U16? In lacrosse, we call them 5 Stars. I don’t buy it.

Most hockey players are in their early 20’s when they enter college. Are you evaluating for long term pro prospects or to build a team? Athletes are in their prime from 22-26 years of age. Not 18-22. Union won a national championship in hockey with a team full of 24 and 25 year olds because the more “talented” NHL prospect guys at blue blood hockey schools were all 18-21 years old that year. They won because they were more physically mature despite not having as much NHL level talent. Wouldn’t that be counter to peoples arguments here?

How would union have done against 24 and 25 year olds? The hockey players at Union were recruited based on playing U16 as 18 year olds? I don’t believe it.

I think that a LOT of the American kids going on to play college hockey are playing either in the NAHL or USHL by the time they're 18 yers old, but the age range in the USHL (the better of those 2 leagues) is 16-21. That's a BIG range. So, if a kid is being recruited by Union a couple years before he matriculates to Union and he's playing in the USHL at age 18, there are some older players and some younger. I don't think there's a lot of 18U kids getting recruited to Div 1 hockey schools. They are in a junior league like the USHL or NAHL with a broad age range.

[1766]

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.

Rutgers current NSWR ranking is 55, tied with Maryland who is obviously having wild success on the field and in the recruiting game. While that isn't Ivy League and a few select schools outside of that, it isn't Loyola territory either, or a number of other lacrosse playing schools.

One thing is for certain. Lacrosse schools on the men's side especially, is being played at the very top of the American education system.

[InsiderRoll]

USA HOCKEY YOUTH HOCKEY AGE GROUPS
The new age classifications are as follows:

Age Category: 8 - Age Division: 8 or Under (8U)
Age Category: 9-10 - Age Division: 10 or Under (10U)
Age Category: 11-12 - Age Division: 12 or Under (12U)
Age Category: 13-14 - Age Division: 14 or Under (14U)
Age Category: 15-16 - Age Division: 16 & Under (16U)
Age Category: 17-18 - Age Division: 18 & Under (18U)

What hockey coach in his right mind is going to offer an 18 year old playing U16? In lacrosse, we call them 5 Stars. I don’t buy it.

Most hockey players are in their early 20’s when they enter college. Are you evaluating for long term pro prospects or to build a team? Athletes are in their prime from 22-26 years of age. Not 18-22. Union won a national championship in hockey with a team full of 24 and 25 year olds because the more “talented” NHL prospect guys at blue blood hockey schools were all 18-21 years old that year. They won because they were more physically mature despite not having as much NHL level talent. Wouldn’t that be counter to peoples arguments here?

How would union have done against 24 and 25 year olds? The hockey players at Union were recruited based on playing U16 as 18 year olds? I don’t believe it.

Coaches don’t recruit based on how you’re playing against anyone. They recruit based on a projection of talent and development. If you run a 4.5 and are 6’2. Then whether you are playing against 16 year olds or 20 year olds you still run a 4.5 and are 6’2.

If you don’t have a frame to put in weight and maintain speed, then you don’t project well. It doesn’t matter what age kid you are playing against.

Just like scoring 5 goals in a club game doesn’t equate to you having the ability to score 5 goals at the college level.

In case it isn’t obvious, this is a generality.

[Typical Lax Dad]

USA HOCKEY YOUTH HOCKEY AGE GROUPS
The new age classifications are as follows:

Age Category: 8 - Age Division: 8 or Under (8U)
Age Category: 9-10 - Age Division: 10 or Under (10U)
Age Category: 11-12 - Age Division: 12 or Under (12U)
Age Category: 13-14 - Age Division: 14 or Under (14U)
Age Category: 15-16 - Age Division: 16 & Under (16U)
Age Category: 17-18 - Age Division: 18 & Under (18U)

What hockey coach in his right mind is going to offer an 18 year old playing U16? In lacrosse, we call them 5 Stars. I don’t buy it.

Most hockey players are in their early 20’s when they enter college. Are you evaluating for long term pro prospects or to build a team? Athletes are in their prime from 22-26 years of age. Not 18-22. Union won a national championship in hockey with a team full of 24 and 25 year olds because the more “talented” NHL prospect guys at blue blood hockey schools were all 18-21 years old that year. They won because they were more physically mature despite not having as much NHL level talent. Wouldn’t that be counter to peoples arguments here?

How would union have done against 24 and 25 year olds? The hockey players at Union were recruited based on playing U16 as 18 year olds? I don’t believe it.

Coaches don’t recruit based on how you’re playing against anyone. They recruit based on a projection of talent and development. If you run a 4.5 and are 6’2. Then whether you are playing against 16 year olds or 20 year olds you still run a 4.5 and are 6’2.

If you don’t have a frame to put in weight and maintain speed, then you don’t project well. It doesn’t matter what age kid you are playing against.

Just like scoring 5 goals in a club game doesn’t equate to you having the ability to score 5 goals at the college level.

In case it isn’t obvious, this is a generality.

I am biased. My son was recruited for ACC soccer and ACC lacrosse so I am probably not the right guy. My perception may in fact be distorted. BTW, lacrosse isn’t football where a combine can get you recruited without having put on pads.

A 18 year old against a 16 year old may in fact “look” fast.

[Typical Lax Dad]

USA HOCKEY YOUTH HOCKEY AGE GROUPS
The new age classifications are as follows:

Age Category: 8 - Age Division: 8 or Under (8U)
Age Category: 9-10 - Age Division: 10 or Under (10U)
Age Category: 11-12 - Age Division: 12 or Under (12U)
Age Category: 13-14 - Age Division: 14 or Under (14U)
Age Category: 15-16 - Age Division: 16 & Under (16U)
Age Category: 17-18 - Age Division: 18 & Under (18U)

What hockey coach in his right mind is going to offer an 18 year old playing U16? In lacrosse, we call them 5 Stars. I don’t buy it.

Most hockey players are in their early 20’s when they enter college. Are you evaluating for long term pro prospects or to build a team? Athletes are in their prime from 22-26 years of age. Not 18-22. Union won a national championship in hockey with a team full of 24 and 25 year olds because the more “talented” NHL prospect guys at blue blood hockey schools were all 18-21 years old that year. They won because they were more physically mature despite not having as much NHL level talent. Wouldn’t that be counter to peoples arguments here?

How would union have done against 24 and 25 year olds? The hockey players at Union were recruited based on playing U16 as 18 year olds? I don’t believe it.

I think that a LOT of the American kids going on to play college hockey are playing either in the NAHL or USHL by the time they're 18 yers old, but the age range in the USHL (the better of those 2 leagues) is 16-21. That's a BIG range. So, if a kid is being recruited by Union a couple years before he matriculates to Union and he's playing in the USHL at age 18, there are some older players and some younger. I don't think there's a lot of 18U kids getting recruited to Div 1 hockey schools. They are in a junior league like the USHL or NAHL with a broad age range.

https://collegehockeyinc.com/articles/2 ... tience.php


I likey…: “Those who are drafted by NHL teams are, not surprisingly, the youngest cohort, committing at an average of 17.3 years old. But those who go on to sign NHL contracts commit later than that group as a whole; last year’s NHL signees committed at an average age of 17.6.” If it’s close, give me the younger player. It’s not rocket science.

We have 18 year old 5 Star lacrosse players committing 24 months before they land on campus….then they look like 3 stars.

[1766]

I think it depends on what coaches look for. Some coaches want more system type guys and value IQ and stick skills. Denver comes to mind. Not to say they don't value athleticism but it's apparent they put a high premium on stick skills. Other programs value athleticism more and have implemented different systems based off of that. Of course, if you are on a D1 lacrosse field, outside of a few specialized skill guys here or there, you are at the upper echelon of athleticism. Some systems require more that some others though. Coach Brecht wants athletes. That program isn't a place for system type kids.

[wgdsr]

USA HOCKEY YOUTH HOCKEY AGE GROUPS
The new age classifications are as follows:

Age Category: 8 - Age Division: 8 or Under (8U)
Age Category: 9-10 - Age Division: 10 or Under (10U)
Age Category: 11-12 - Age Division: 12 or Under (12U)
Age Category: 13-14 - Age Division: 14 or Under (14U)
Age Category: 15-16 - Age Division: 16 & Under (16U)
Age Category: 17-18 - Age Division: 18 & Under (18U)

What hockey coach in his right mind is going to offer an 18 year old playing U16? In lacrosse, we call them 5 Stars. I don’t buy it.

Most hockey players are in their early 20’s when they enter college. Are you evaluating for long term pro prospects or to build a team? Athletes are in their prime from 22-26 years of age. Not 18-22. Union won a national championship in hockey with a team full of 24 and 25 year olds because the more “talented” NHL prospect guys at blue blood hockey schools were all 18-21 years old that year. They won because they were more physically mature despite not having as much NHL level talent. Wouldn’t that be counter to peoples arguments here?

How would union have done against 24 and 25 year olds? The hockey players at Union were recruited based on playing U16 as 18 year olds? I don’t believe it.

Coaches don’t recruit based on how you’re playing against anyone. They recruit based on a projection of talent and development. If you run a 4.5 and are 6’2. Then whether you are playing against 16 year olds or 20 year olds you still run a 4.5 and are 6’2.

If you don’t have a frame to put in weight and maintain speed, then you don’t project well. It doesn’t matter what age kid you are playing against.

Just like scoring 5 goals in a club game doesn’t equate to you having the ability to score 5 goals at the college level.

In case it isn’t obvious, this is a generality.

I am biased. My son was recruited for ACC soccer and ACC lacrosse so I am probably not the right guy. My perception may in fact be distorted. BTW, lacrosse isn’t football where a combine can get you recruited without having put on pads.

A 18 year old against a 16 year old may in fact “look” fast.

both things can be true. this is what lax coaches want. as in college hockey, they're looking for the squad that they will be at (often) older ages for that 4 year (or 5-6 year in the era of covid) span.

that's why they muscled uslacrosse in changing age groups to grad groups. in addition to being lazy (or not having resources, take your pick).

it's why kids pg.

it's why by their system holdbacks are promoted.

they absolutely know the age of everyone, and their parents' measurables, and believe working it around that construct is best. maybe they don't think they're good at projecting, or don't want that variable.

there's no pro league really that fits into this, so it's the window they want. young kids, on age or less... too bad. go pg.

[Typical Lax Dad]

USA HOCKEY YOUTH HOCKEY AGE GROUPS
The new age classifications are as follows:

Age Category: 8 - Age Division: 8 or Under (8U)
Age Category: 9-10 - Age Division: 10 or Under (10U)
Age Category: 11-12 - Age Division: 12 or Under (12U)
Age Category: 13-14 - Age Division: 14 or Under (14U)
Age Category: 15-16 - Age Division: 16 & Under (16U)
Age Category: 17-18 - Age Division: 18 & Under (18U)

What hockey coach in his right mind is going to offer an 18 year old playing U16? In lacrosse, we call them 5 Stars. I don’t buy it.

Most hockey players are in their early 20’s when they enter college. Are you evaluating for long term pro prospects or to build a team? Athletes are in their prime from 22-26 years of age. Not 18-22. Union won a national championship in hockey with a team full of 24 and 25 year olds because the more “talented” NHL prospect guys at blue blood hockey schools were all 18-21 years old that year. They won because they were more physically mature despite not having as much NHL level talent. Wouldn’t that be counter to peoples arguments here?

How would union have done against 24 and 25 year olds? The hockey players at Union were recruited based on playing U16 as 18 year olds? I don’t believe it.

Coaches don’t recruit based on how you’re playing against anyone. They recruit based on a projection of talent and development. If you run a 4.5 and are 6’2. Then whether you are playing against 16 year olds or 20 year olds you still run a 4.5 and are 6’2.

If you don’t have a frame to put in weight and maintain speed, then you don’t project well. It doesn’t matter what age kid you are playing against.

Just like scoring 5 goals in a club game doesn’t equate to you having the ability to score 5 goals at the college level.

In case it isn’t obvious, this is a generality.

I am biased. My son was recruited for ACC soccer and ACC lacrosse so I am probably not the right guy. My perception may in fact be distorted. BTW, lacrosse isn’t football where a combine can get you recruited without having put on pads.

A 18 year old against a 16 year old may in fact “look” fast.

both things can be true. this is what lax coaches want. as in college hockey, they're looking for the squad that they will be at (often) older ages for that 4 year (or 5-6 year in the era of covid) span.

that's why they muscled uslacrosse in changing age groups to grad groups. in addition to being lazy (or not having resources, take your pick).

it's why kids pg.

it's why by their system holdbacks are promoted.

they absolutely know the age of everyone, and their parents' measurables, and believe working it around that construct is best. maybe they don't think they're good at projecting, or don't want that variable.

there's no pro league really that fits into this, so it's the window they want. young kids, on age or less... too bad. go pg.

So college coaches are routinely asking the older kids to Reclassify or PG? What it is are parents looking for a recruiting advantage and/or club coaches looking for another year. One club director told a friend’s son 3 weeks ago that he should consider reclassifying. The player committed a week later and had plenty of offers. Relatively young by comparison. February birthday is now young if you are on grade…..nobody suggested he “PG” or reclassify other than his Club Director….He was holding a re-class in his back pocket if his offers were limited. I believe he will be a strong player in college. He played up for years and continues to do it whenever he can. It’s good development. Playing down isn’t good development. I watched Victor Wembenyama the past couple of days….he’s nice. I bet he isn’t going to play down.

EDIT: I should make it a point to also distinguish between ranking older kids and recruiting older kids.

[hofpride]

when the recruits family visits the campus first stop should be the library because at the end of the day its always books first

[Dip&Dunk]

So what should the relationship be between re-classify, PG and red shirting? I am sure there is no one size fits all answer.

[Typical Lax Dad]

So what should the relationship be between re-classify, PG and red shirting? I am sure there is no one size fits all answer.

Some re-classify and PG. I have a hard time calling a 18 year old rising junior playing against a 16 year old rising junior a 5 star or blue chip player. But again, there are plenty or 3 star recruits by the time they land.

[Typical Lax Dad]

when the recruits family visits the campus first stop should be the library because at the end of the day its always books first

THE…Ohio…STATE University

[wgdsr]

when the recruits family visits the campus first stop should be the library because at the end of the day its always books first

THE…Ohio…STATE University

just cover your eyes, tld. they got a shot this year.