Recruiting, the exact science

[jff97]

I'm not sure Reeves was a top 100 recruit. He originally committed to Hobart before Shay picked him off. It is has been historically rare that my Statesmen get top 100 recruits. Though Ryan Archer was the most recent outlier. This should change over the next few years as Hobart (finally) gets to be a fully funded program after having zero athletic scholarships until recently.

Reeves was the No. 77 recruit in the class of 2014
https://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/ ... ngs/29706

Was he the #77 recruit when he committed to Hobart? I don't think so. IL seems to have a proclivity of upgrading recruits depending on where they end up.

Notice a lot of that actually. It's no coincidence that Rutgers recruits are getting higher rankings now, all after the team has been making the playoffs.

Is recruiting on the upswing? Yes. That much difference? I guess we will see.

The reality is the amount of resources dedicated to evaluating talent at Inside Lacrosse isn't exactly a professional league in investment. As far as I can tell it's a couple of guys who I am not even sure played lacrosse and are trying to cover the entire country. It's simply not feasible to be very accurate all things considered.

It's much easier to know who certain schools are recruiting and consider them 5 stars or whatever. It's fun message board fodder but that's about it. I hate to pick on Hopkins but they were littered with 4 and 5 star players prior to Petro's departure. If you watched them on the field, you could see those rankings are simply inaccurate. So either they had bad coaching, which I don't believe, or the recruiting rankings are highly subjective.

I believe there a small handful of guys you would say are as close to can't miss as you can get in sports. The next batch are very similar and the one's who excel do so through growth, dedication, effort.

That happens in every sport. Guys who have mostly MAC offers but commit to a Big 10 school will get a boost. Same thing can happen on the recruiting trail. If one Power 5 school offers a kid, schools of similar stature start doing their due diligence on him as well.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I'm not sure Reeves was a top 100 recruit. He originally committed to Hobart before Shay picked him off. It is has been historically rare that my Statesmen get top 100 recruits. Though Ryan Archer was the most recent outlier. This should change over the next few years as Hobart (finally) gets to be a fully funded program after having zero athletic scholarships until recently.

Reeves was the No. 77 recruit in the class of 2014
https://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/ ... ngs/29706

Was he the #77 recruit when he committed to Hobart? I don't think so. IL seems to have a proclivity of upgrading recruits depending on where they end up.

Notice a lot of that actually. It's no coincidence that Rutgers recruits are getting higher rankings now, all after the team has been making the playoffs.

Is recruiting on the upswing? Yes. That much difference? I guess we will see.

The reality is the amount of resources dedicated to evaluating talent at Inside Lacrosse isn't exactly a professional league in investment. As far as I can tell it's a couple of guys who I am not even sure played lacrosse and are trying to cover the entire country. It's simply not feasible to be very accurate all things considered.

It's much easier to know who certain schools are recruiting and consider them 5 stars or whatever. It's fun message board fodder but that's about it. I hate to pick on Hopkins but they were littered with 4 and 5 star players prior to Petro's departure. If you watched them on the field, you could see those rankings are simply inaccurate. So either they had bad coaching, which I don't believe, or the recruiting rankings are highly subjective.

I believe there a small handful of guys you would say are as close to can't miss as you can get in sports. The next batch are very similar and the one's who excel do so through growth, dedication, effort.

This is exactly right. Was talking to a friend that had a former ND lacrosse player working for him. The player was a top 100 recruit. He told my buddy, who isn’t a lacrosse guy, that it is so political and based on where you play that it is almost meaningless. It’s true. I saw it first hand. Don’t get me started.

Just remembered. Player was once top 20 and then in top 55 as a freshman power 100. He got recruited over and didn’t play much…..his words.

[Ezra White]

I'm not sure Reeves was a top 100 recruit. He originally committed to Hobart before Shay picked him off. It is has been historically rare that my Statesmen get top 100 recruits. Though Ryan Archer was the most recent outlier. This should change over the next few years as Hobart (finally) gets to be a fully funded program after having zero athletic scholarships until recently.

Reeves was the No. 77 recruit in the class of 2014
https://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/ ... ngs/29706

Was he the #77 recruit when he committed to Hobart? I don't think so. IL seems to have a proclivity of upgrading recruits depending on where they end up.

Notice a lot of that actually. It's no coincidence that Rutgers recruits are getting higher rankings now, all after the team has been making the playoffs.

Is recruiting on the upswing? Yes. That much difference? I guess we will see.

The reality is the amount of resources dedicated to evaluating talent at Inside Lacrosse isn't exactly a professional league in investment. As far as I can tell it's a couple of guys who I am not even sure played lacrosse and are trying to cover the entire country. It's simply not feasible to be very accurate all things considered.

It's much easier to know who certain schools are recruiting and consider them 5 stars or whatever. It's fun message board fodder but that's about it. I hate to pick on Hopkins but they were littered with 4 and 5 star players prior to Petro's departure. If you watched them on the field, you could see those rankings are simply inaccurate. So either they had bad coaching, which I don't believe, or the recruiting rankings are highly subjective.

I believe there a small handful of guys you would say are as close to can't miss as you can get in sports. The next batch are very similar and the one's who excel do so through growth, dedication, effort.

This is exactly right. Was talking to a friend that had a former ND lacrosse player working for him. The player was a top 100 recruit. He told my buddy, who isn’t a lacrosse guy, that it is so political and based on where you play that it is almost meaningless. It’s true. I saw it first hand. Don’t get me started.

Just remembered. Player was once top 20 and then in top 55 as a freshman power 100. He got recruited over and didn’t play much…..his words.

On top of this, lacrosse is a sport in which a teenage player can improve as they mature physically and in which players of a certain skill level can improve considerably, especially with good coaching. It's not like basketball where "you can't teach height" plays such an important role. Size also really matters in football, and to a lesser extent in hockey; to an even lesser extent, but still there, in baseball.

Lacrosse and soccer are similar in many ways, and it's not an accident that in these sports small players like Pelé, Maradona, Messi, or Adler can be superstars. But while growing up and being scouted, small players may not yet have the strength to stand out compared to bigger kids or, especially in lacrosse, the strength and bulk to develop certain skills. E.g., if a growth spurt results after late puberty, the muscle mass needed to increase one's speed or withstand a bodycheck may also develop later in life.

I remember hearing, during the World Cup, a commentator's remarks that in the U.S. the emphasis on winning in youth clubs and in high school leads coaches to put the biggest, strongest kids at the striker position, and this is why the most talented kids don't get the chance to develop the skills to be a #9. The commentator said until the U.S. fixes this, the U.S. will never develop a Pelé, Maradona, or Messi. Something similar may occur in lacrosse, although many college lacrosse coaches have an eye out for players with the potential to develop. IIRC, Rob Panel was neither heavily recruited, nor heavily ballyhooed when he arrived at Cornell. But the coaches saw his potential.

[MDlaxfan76]

Pannell was during the advent of ER, but his senior year of HS at Smithtown (2007) he led the entire Island with 130 points. HS All-American but only 2nd team all-Island. He then took a PG year at Deerfield where he broke the school record for points in a season with 99...so, I'm not sure what "ballyhooed" would have needed to be...

Here's what his pre college bio was when he arrived:

At Deerfield
Pannell spent one year at Deerfield Academy, where he lettered in both lacrosse and basketball. He set the school record for points in a season (99) and earned the Stewart Lindsay, Jr. Award for the Outstanding Attackman in Division I lacrosse.

At Smithtown
Pannell earned three varsity letters at Smithtown HS West, earning All-American honors as a senior captain. He set the school record and led Long Island with 130 points (49 goals, 89 assists) in 2007. As a senior, Pannell earned his team’s offensive MVP award and was named to Newsday’s All-Long Island second-team. He was also the 2007 offensive MVP of the Suffolk County Exceptional Senior Game, and earned the Lou Antonetti Family & Service Scholarship Award. Pannell was named All-Division as a junior. He also lettered once each in football, basketball and golf, earning Academic All-Division honors in football as a senior.

Personal
Robert James Pannell is the son of Robert and Susan Pannell and he has an older sister and a younger brother. His father Robert played baseball and football at Brown, while his uncle Jim Metzger was an All-American attackman at Hofstra in 1980. Pannell is enrolled in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.


So, folks knew he was darn good as he entered college.
His dad a Brown grad, 2 sport athlete, uncle an All-American attack man at Hofstra...not a surprise that he chose an Ivy, given dad's choice...Ag school probably helped make that Cornell, not Brown or others. Great lax tradition undoubtedly helped as well.

Born in 1989, won the Tewey in 2013.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I'm not sure Reeves was a top 100 recruit. He originally committed to Hobart before Shay picked him off. It is has been historically rare that my Statesmen get top 100 recruits. Though Ryan Archer was the most recent outlier. This should change over the next few years as Hobart (finally) gets to be a fully funded program after having zero athletic scholarships until recently.

Reeves was the No. 77 recruit in the class of 2014
https://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/ ... ngs/29706

Was he the #77 recruit when he committed to Hobart? I don't think so. IL seems to have a proclivity of upgrading recruits depending on where they end up.

Notice a lot of that actually. It's no coincidence that Rutgers recruits are getting higher rankings now, all after the team has been making the playoffs.

Is recruiting on the upswing? Yes. That much difference? I guess we will see.

The reality is the amount of resources dedicated to evaluating talent at Inside Lacrosse isn't exactly a professional league in investment. As far as I can tell it's a couple of guys who I am not even sure played lacrosse and are trying to cover the entire country. It's simply not feasible to be very accurate all things considered.

It's much easier to know who certain schools are recruiting and consider them 5 stars or whatever. It's fun message board fodder but that's about it. I hate to pick on Hopkins but they were littered with 4 and 5 star players prior to Petro's departure. If you watched them on the field, you could see those rankings are simply inaccurate. So either they had bad coaching, which I don't believe, or the recruiting rankings are highly subjective.

I believe there a small handful of guys you would say are as close to can't miss as you can get in sports. The next batch are very similar and the one's who excel do so through growth, dedication, effort.

This is exactly right. Was talking to a friend that had a former ND lacrosse player working for him. The player was a top 100 recruit. He told my buddy, who isn’t a lacrosse guy, that it is so political and based on where you play that it is almost meaningless. It’s true. I saw it first hand. Don’t get me started.

Just remembered. Player was once top 20 and then in top 55 as a freshman power 100. He got recruited over and didn’t play much…..his words.

On top of this, lacrosse is a sport in which a teenage player can improve as they mature physically and in which players of a certain skill level can improve considerably, especially with good coaching. It's not like basketball where "you can't teach height" plays such an important role. Size also really matters in football, and to a lesser extent in hockey; to an even lesser extent, but still there, in baseball.

Lacrosse and soccer are similar in many ways, and it's not an accident that in these sports small players like Pelé, Maradona, Messi, or Adler can be superstars. But while growing up and being scouted, small players may not yet have the strength to stand out compared to bigger kids or, especially in lacrosse, the strength and bulk to develop certain skills. E.g., if a growth spurt results after late puberty, the muscle mass needed to increase one's speed or withstand a bodycheck may also develop later in life.

I remember hearing, during the World Cup, a commentator's remarks that in the U.S. the emphasis on winning in youth clubs and in high school leads coaches to put the biggest, strongest kids at the striker position, and this is why the most talented kids don't get the chance to develop the skills to be a #9. The commentator said until the U.S. fixes this, the U.S. will never develop a Pelé, Maradona, or Messi. Something similar may occur in lacrosse, although many college lacrosse coaches have an eye out for players with the potential to develop. IIRC, Rob Panel was neither heavily recruited, nor heavily ballyhooed when he arrived at Cornell. But the coaches saw his potential.

The problem with US soccer is there is the pay to play and poor coaching. Coaching to win is also a part of it. In France, if a youth team wins too much, the coach is reassigned and team split up. Our biggest problem is the presumption is that soccer players have a stay at home mom to shuttle the player around and it’s a lot of pressure on families to travel. It’s a FAMILY COMMITMENT. In Europe and South America, it’s largely free, practice is daily and travel is minimal or managed by the club. We practice two maybe 3 days a week. In other countries, it’s daily, virtually. A friend moved his 12 year old to England for soccer because it’s difficult to develop players here. I saw Pulisic and Zelalem as youth players here. Both had to exit the system for real development. Gedion Zelalem was the best youth player I have ever seen. Christian was playing two years up and Gedion was playing 1 year up. My son played against both of them on the youth circuit.

[Ezra White]

Pannell was during the advent of ER, but his senior year of HS at Smithtown (2007) he led the entire Island with 130 points. HS All-American but only 2nd team all-Island. He then took a PG year at Deerfield where he broke the school record for points in a season with 99...so, I'm not sure what "ballyhooed" would have needed to be...

Here's what his pre college bio was when he arrived:

At Deerfield
Pannell spent one year at Deerfield Academy, where he lettered in both lacrosse and basketball. He set the school record for points in a season (99) and earned the Stewart Lindsay, Jr. Award for the Outstanding Attackman in Division I lacrosse.

At Smithtown
Pannell earned three varsity letters at Smithtown HS West, earning All-American honors as a senior captain. He set the school record and led Long Island with 130 points (49 goals, 89 assists) in 2007. As a senior, Pannell earned his team’s offensive MVP award and was named to Newsday’s All-Long Island second-team. He was also the 2007 offensive MVP of the Suffolk County Exceptional Senior Game, and earned the Lou Antonetti Family & Service Scholarship Award. Pannell was named All-Division as a junior. He also lettered once each in football, basketball and golf, earning Academic All-Division honors in football as a senior.

Personal
Robert James Pannell is the son of Robert and Susan Pannell and he has an older sister and a younger brother. His father Robert played baseball and football at Brown, while his uncle Jim Metzger was an All-American attackman at Hofstra in 1980. Pannell is enrolled in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.


So, folks knew he was darn good as he entered college.
His dad a Brown grad, 2 sport athlete, uncle an All-American attack man at Hofstra...not a surprise that he chose an Ivy, given dad's choice...Ag school probably helped make that Cornell, not Brown or others. Great lax tradition undoubtedly helped as well.

Born in 1989, won the Tewey in 2013.

There you go again, bringing facts and evidence to bear against my casual impressions.

My impression was partly formed from the comparison with Jeff Teat, who was written up and given high praise by Cornell coaches long before he showed up in Ithaca. In contrast, I hardly heard anything about Pannell until he started playing in the spring of his first year.

It was also partly formed by reading stories such as this one in USA Lacrosse Magazine:

As most elite players began committing as juniors, Pannell was still looking for an offer. In the summer prior to his senior year, he tried out for the elite Empire Games, then a key recruiting venue. He didn’t make it.

“I had some schools I was talking to [that said], ‘Make the Empire team and we’ll figure it out,’” Pannell said. “I never heard from them again.”

Recruited by Towson and Quinnipiac, Pannell signed a letter of intent with the latter before his senior season.

“I felt like I needed to do it before every spot was taken,” he said.

Then, quite literally, he grew up. Between the Empire tryouts and his senior season at Smithtown High School (N.Y.), Pannell grew more than three inches and gained 15 pounds. As a senior, he scored 130 points, made All-American teams and might have had his pick of Division I schools. But his signed letter of intent meant he was untouchable. After a year of prep school, but still tied to Quinnipiac, he landed at Cornell, which, as an Ivy League campus, is not bound by scholarship rules.

As far as the Ag school goes, its evolution is very interesting. Back in the sixties, when I started at Cornell, it was mainly considered a school for students coming from farming families and who planned some day to run the family farm. But already some students were realizing the Ag school was easier to get into than Arts & Sciences, but one could still major in a field that would look good on med school applications.

Then, around 2000, the school's ag econ department shifted from being a backwater to Economics in A&S and the graduate business school. It became the Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management and eventually was shared by the B-school and ag school. Other than Industrial and Labor Relations, which focuses on labor relations, unions, etc., and Industrial Engineering, which by then had shifted to focus on operations research (applied math) and computers, Cornell had no undergraduate business major. Dyson became the major of choice among students who wanted to study business. Today, with an admission rate of 3%, Dyson is the most selective major at Cornell.

Pannell's year at Deerfield may also have included courses in economics and calculus. If so, in a sense it was both an academic and athletic redshirt year.

[MDlaxfan76]

Pannell was during the advent of ER, but his senior year of HS at Smithtown (2007) he led the entire Island with 130 points. HS All-American but only 2nd team all-Island. He then took a PG year at Deerfield where he broke the school record for points in a season with 99...so, I'm not sure what "ballyhooed" would have needed to be...

Here's what his pre college bio was when he arrived:

At Deerfield
Pannell spent one year at Deerfield Academy, where he lettered in both lacrosse and basketball. He set the school record for points in a season (99) and earned the Stewart Lindsay, Jr. Award for the Outstanding Attackman in Division I lacrosse.

At Smithtown
Pannell earned three varsity letters at Smithtown HS West, earning All-American honors as a senior captain. He set the school record and led Long Island with 130 points (49 goals, 89 assists) in 2007. As a senior, Pannell earned his team’s offensive MVP award and was named to Newsday’s All-Long Island second-team. He was also the 2007 offensive MVP of the Suffolk County Exceptional Senior Game, and earned the Lou Antonetti Family & Service Scholarship Award. Pannell was named All-Division as a junior. He also lettered once each in football, basketball and golf, earning Academic All-Division honors in football as a senior.

Personal
Robert James Pannell is the son of Robert and Susan Pannell and he has an older sister and a younger brother. His father Robert played baseball and football at Brown, while his uncle Jim Metzger was an All-American attackman at Hofstra in 1980. Pannell is enrolled in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.


So, folks knew he was darn good as he entered college.
His dad a Brown grad, 2 sport athlete, uncle an All-American attack man at Hofstra...not a surprise that he chose an Ivy, given dad's choice...Ag school probably helped make that Cornell, not Brown or others. Great lax tradition undoubtedly helped as well.

Born in 1989, won the Tewey in 2013.

There you go again, bringing facts and evidence to bear against my casual impressions.

My impression was partly formed from the comparison with Jeff Teat, who was written up and given high praise by Cornell coaches long before he showed up in Ithaca. In contrast, I hardly heard anything about Pannell until he started playing in the spring of his first year.

It was also partly formed by reading stories such as this one in USA Lacrosse Magazine:

As most elite players began committing as juniors, Pannell was still looking for an offer. In the summer prior to his senior year, he tried out for the elite Empire Games, then a key recruiting venue. He didn’t make it.

“I had some schools I was talking to [that said], ‘Make the Empire team and we’ll figure it out,’” Pannell said. “I never heard from them again.”

Recruited by Towson and Quinnipiac, Pannell signed a letter of intent with the latter before his senior season.

“I felt like I needed to do it before every spot was taken,” he said.

Then, quite literally, he grew up. Between the Empire tryouts and his senior season at Smithtown High School (N.Y.), Pannell grew more than three inches and gained 15 pounds. As a senior, he scored 130 points, made All-American teams and might have had his pick of Division I schools. But his signed letter of intent meant he was untouchable. After a year of prep school, but still tied to Quinnipiac, he landed at Cornell, which, as an Ivy League campus, is not bound by scholarship rules.

As far as the Ag school goes, its evolution is very interesting. Back in the sixties, when I started at Cornell, it was mainly considered a school for students coming from farming families and who planned some day to run the family farm. But already some students were realizing the Ag school was easier to get into than Arts & Sciences, but one could still major in a field that would look good on med school applications.

Then, around 2000, the school's ag econ department shifted from being a backwater to Economics in A&S and the graduate business school. It became the Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management and eventually was shared by the B-school and ag school. Other than Industrial and Labor Relations, which focuses on labor relations, unions, etc., and Industrial Engineering, which by then had shifted to focus on operations research (applied math) and computers, Cornell had no undergraduate business major. Dyson became the major of choice among students who wanted to study business. Today, with an admission rate of 3%, Dyson is the most selective major at Cornell.

Pannell's year at Deerfield may also have included courses in economics and calculus. If so, in a sense it was both an academic and athletic redshirt year.

Did Pannell do a Dyson major?
I'd assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that the Ag school entry was about admissions being easier. In-state too.

But no insult intended, just a partial explanation of perhaps why Cornell over other Ivies.
Pretty sure that if he'd had high boards, for instance, he'd have been on lots of other lists earlier.

Yes, Pannell definitely developed later. He was at the beginning of ER gaining momentum and lost in that push, even not getting noticed much that summer before senior year...but had a strong football season, then huge lax season. Even then not getting full notice (probably a hangover in the media of having not been noticed earlier).

Deerfield made sense.

I was just speaking about him being well known as a top player by the time he arrived at Cornell.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Pannell was during the advent of ER, but his senior year of HS at Smithtown (2007) he led the entire Island with 130 points. HS All-American but only 2nd team all-Island. He then took a PG year at Deerfield where he broke the school record for points in a season with 99...so, I'm not sure what "ballyhooed" would have needed to be...

Here's what his pre college bio was when he arrived:

At Deerfield
Pannell spent one year at Deerfield Academy, where he lettered in both lacrosse and basketball. He set the school record for points in a season (99) and earned the Stewart Lindsay, Jr. Award for the Outstanding Attackman in Division I lacrosse.

At Smithtown
Pannell earned three varsity letters at Smithtown HS West, earning All-American honors as a senior captain. He set the school record and led Long Island with 130 points (49 goals, 89 assists) in 2007. As a senior, Pannell earned his team’s offensive MVP award and was named to Newsday’s All-Long Island second-team. He was also the 2007 offensive MVP of the Suffolk County Exceptional Senior Game, and earned the Lou Antonetti Family & Service Scholarship Award. Pannell was named All-Division as a junior. He also lettered once each in football, basketball and golf, earning Academic All-Division honors in football as a senior.

Personal
Robert James Pannell is the son of Robert and Susan Pannell and he has an older sister and a younger brother. His father Robert played baseball and football at Brown, while his uncle Jim Metzger was an All-American attackman at Hofstra in 1980. Pannell is enrolled in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.


So, folks knew he was darn good as he entered college.
His dad a Brown grad, 2 sport athlete, uncle an All-American attack man at Hofstra...not a surprise that he chose an Ivy, given dad's choice...Ag school probably helped make that Cornell, not Brown or others. Great lax tradition undoubtedly helped as well.

Born in 1989, won the Tewey in 2013.

There you go again, bringing facts and evidence to bear against my casual impressions.

My impression was partly formed from the comparison with Jeff Teat, who was written up and given high praise by Cornell coaches long before he showed up in Ithaca. In contrast, I hardly heard anything about Pannell until he started playing in the spring of his first year.

It was also partly formed by reading stories such as this one in USA Lacrosse Magazine:

As most elite players began committing as juniors, Pannell was still looking for an offer. In the summer prior to his senior year, he tried out for the elite Empire Games, then a key recruiting venue. He didn’t make it.

“I had some schools I was talking to [that said], ‘Make the Empire team and we’ll figure it out,’” Pannell said. “I never heard from them again.”

Recruited by Towson and Quinnipiac, Pannell signed a letter of intent with the latter before his senior season.

“I felt like I needed to do it before every spot was taken,” he said.

Then, quite literally, he grew up. Between the Empire tryouts and his senior season at Smithtown High School (N.Y.), Pannell grew more than three inches and gained 15 pounds. As a senior, he scored 130 points, made All-American teams and might have had his pick of Division I schools. But his signed letter of intent meant he was untouchable. After a year of prep school, but still tied to Quinnipiac, he landed at Cornell, which, as an Ivy League campus, is not bound by scholarship rules.

As far as the Ag school goes, its evolution is very interesting. Back in the sixties, when I started at Cornell, it was mainly considered a school for students coming from farming families and who planned some day to run the family farm. But already some students were realizing the Ag school was easier to get into than Arts & Sciences, but one could still major in a field that would look good on med school applications.

Then, around 2000, the school's ag econ department shifted from being a backwater to Economics in A&S and the graduate business school. It became the Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management and eventually was shared by the B-school and ag school. Other than Industrial and Labor Relations, which focuses on labor relations, unions, etc., and Industrial Engineering, which by then had shifted to focus on operations research (applied math) and computers, Cornell had no undergraduate business major. Dyson became the major of choice among students who wanted to study business. Today, with an admission rate of 3%, Dyson is the most selective major at Cornell.

Pannell's year at Deerfield may also have included courses in economics and calculus. If so, in a sense it was both an academic and athletic redshirt year.

Thanks for the background. Also, by the time Teat came along, social media and the college lacrosse recruiting cottage industry were well on their way. I bet Buczek didn’t get a lot of coverage prior to his arrival either.

[jff97]

Inside Lacrosse dropped its new top 50 for the class of 2023
https://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/ ... ings/60555
Schools on the list:
Duke-5
Princeton-5
Maryland-3
Michigan-3
Navy-3
North Carolina-3
Notre Dame-3
Penn-3
Virginia-3
Army-2
Cornell-2
Georgetown-2
Harvard-2
Johns Hopkins-2
Ohio State-2
Syracuse-2
Yale-2
Brown-1
Penn State-1
Rutgers-1

[wgdsr]

Inside Lacrosse dropped its new top 50 for the class of 2023
https://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/ ... ings/60555
Schools on the list:
Duke-5
Princeton-5
Maryland-3
Michigan-3
Navy-3
North Carolina-3
Notre Dame-3
Penn-3
Virginia-3
Army-2
Cornell-2
Georgetown-2
Harvard-2
Johns Hopkins-2
Ohio State-2
Syracuse-2
Yale-2
Brown-1
Penn State-1
Rutgers-1

look @ army and navy fans crying they don't have talent.

[Farfromgeneva]

Inside Lacrosse dropped its new top 50 for the class of 2023
https://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/ ... ings/60555
Schools on the list:
Duke-5
Princeton-5
Maryland-3
Michigan-3
Navy-3
North Carolina-3
Notre Dame-3
Penn-3
Virginia-3
Army-2
Cornell-2
Georgetown-2
Harvard-2
Johns Hopkins-2
Ohio State-2
Syracuse-2
Yale-2
Brown-1
Penn State-1
Rutgers-1

look @ army and navy fans crying they don't have talent.

But but but the transfer portal...

[PizzaSnake]

I'm not sure Reeves was a top 100 recruit. He originally committed to Hobart before Shay picked him off. It is has been historically rare that my Statesmen get top 100 recruits. Though Ryan Archer was the most recent outlier. This should change over the next few years as Hobart (finally) gets to be a fully funded program after having zero athletic scholarships until recently.

Reeves was the No. 77 recruit in the class of 2014
https://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/ ... ngs/29706

Was he the #77 recruit when he committed to Hobart? I don't think so. IL seems to have a proclivity of upgrading recruits depending on where they end up.

Notice a lot of that actually. It's no coincidence that Rutgers recruits are getting higher rankings now, all after the team has been making the playoffs.

Is recruiting on the upswing? Yes. That much difference? I guess we will see.

The reality is the amount of resources dedicated to evaluating talent at Inside Lacrosse isn't exactly a professional league in investment. As far as I can tell it's a couple of guys who I am not even sure played lacrosse and are trying to cover the entire country. It's simply not feasible to be very accurate all things considered.

It's much easier to know who certain schools are recruiting and consider them 5 stars or whatever. It's fun message board fodder but that's about it. I hate to pick on Hopkins but they were littered with 4 and 5 star players prior to Petro's departure. If you watched them on the field, you could see those rankings are simply inaccurate. So either they had bad coaching, which I don't believe, or the recruiting rankings are highly subjective.

I believe there a small handful of guys you would say are as close to can't miss as you can get in sports. The next batch are very similar and the one's who excel do so through growth, dedication, effort.

This is exactly right. Was talking to a friend that had a former ND lacrosse player working for him. The player was a top 100 recruit. He told my buddy, who isn’t a lacrosse guy, that it is so political and based on where you play that it is almost meaningless. It’s true. I saw it first hand. Don’t get me started.

Just remembered. Player was once top 20 and then in top 55 as a freshman power 100. He got recruited over and didn’t play much…..his words.

On top of this, lacrosse is a sport in which a teenage player can improve as they mature physically and in which players of a certain skill level can improve considerably, especially with good coaching. It's not like basketball where "you can't teach height" plays such an important role. Size also really matters in football, and to a lesser extent in hockey; to an even lesser extent, but still there, in baseball.

Lacrosse and soccer are similar in many ways, and it's not an accident that in these sports small players like Pelé, Maradona, Messi, or Adler can be superstars. But while growing up and being scouted, small players may not yet have the strength to stand out compared to bigger kids or, especially in lacrosse, the strength and bulk to develop certain skills. E.g., if a growth spurt results after late puberty, the muscle mass needed to increase one's speed or withstand a bodycheck may also develop later in life.

I remember hearing, during the World Cup, a commentator's remarks that in the U.S. the emphasis on winning in youth clubs and in high school leads coaches to put the biggest, strongest kids at the striker position, and this is why the most talented kids don't get the chance to develop the skills to be a #9. The commentator said until the U.S. fixes this, the U.S. will never develop a Pelé, Maradona, or Messi. Something similar may occur in lacrosse, although many college lacrosse coaches have an eye out for players with the potential to develop. IIRC, Rob Panel was neither heavily recruited, nor heavily ballyhooed when he arrived at Cornell. But the coaches saw his potential.

The problem with US soccer is there is the pay to play and poor coaching. Coaching to win is also a part of it. In France, if a youth team wins too much, the coach is reassigned and team split up. Our biggest problem is the presumption is that soccer players have a stay at home mom to shuttle the player around and it’s a lot of pressure on families to travel. It’s a FAMILY COMMITMENT. In Europe and South America, it’s largely free, practice is daily and travel is minimal or managed by the club. We practice two maybe 3 days a week. In other countries, it’s daily, virtually. A friend moved his 12 year old to England for soccer because it’s difficult to develop players here. I saw Pulisic and Zelalem as youth players here. Both had to exit the system for real development. Gedion Zelalem was the best youth player I have ever seen. Christian was playing two years up and Gedion was playing 1 year up. My son played against both of them on the youth circuit.

Testify!!

[Typical Lax Dad]

I'm not sure Reeves was a top 100 recruit. He originally committed to Hobart before Shay picked him off. It is has been historically rare that my Statesmen get top 100 recruits. Though Ryan Archer was the most recent outlier. This should change over the next few years as Hobart (finally) gets to be a fully funded program after having zero athletic scholarships until recently.

Reeves was the No. 77 recruit in the class of 2014
https://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/ ... ngs/29706

Was he the #77 recruit when he committed to Hobart? I don't think so. IL seems to have a proclivity of upgrading recruits depending on where they end up.

Notice a lot of that actually. It's no coincidence that Rutgers recruits are getting higher rankings now, all after the team has been making the playoffs.

Is recruiting on the upswing? Yes. That much difference? I guess we will see.

The reality is the amount of resources dedicated to evaluating talent at Inside Lacrosse isn't exactly a professional league in investment. As far as I can tell it's a couple of guys who I am not even sure played lacrosse and are trying to cover the entire country. It's simply not feasible to be very accurate all things considered.

It's much easier to know who certain schools are recruiting and consider them 5 stars or whatever. It's fun message board fodder but that's about it. I hate to pick on Hopkins but they were littered with 4 and 5 star players prior to Petro's departure. If you watched them on the field, you could see those rankings are simply inaccurate. So either they had bad coaching, which I don't believe, or the recruiting rankings are highly subjective.

I believe there a small handful of guys you would say are as close to can't miss as you can get in sports. The next batch are very similar and the one's who excel do so through growth, dedication, effort.

This is exactly right. Was talking to a friend that had a former ND lacrosse player working for him. The player was a top 100 recruit. He told my buddy, who isn’t a lacrosse guy, that it is so political and based on where you play that it is almost meaningless. It’s true. I saw it first hand. Don’t get me started.

Just remembered. Player was once top 20 and then in top 55 as a freshman power 100. He got recruited over and didn’t play much…..his words.

On top of this, lacrosse is a sport in which a teenage player can improve as they mature physically and in which players of a certain skill level can improve considerably, especially with good coaching. It's not like basketball where "you can't teach height" plays such an important role. Size also really matters in football, and to a lesser extent in hockey; to an even lesser extent, but still there, in baseball.

Lacrosse and soccer are similar in many ways, and it's not an accident that in these sports small players like Pelé, Maradona, Messi, or Adler can be superstars. But while growing up and being scouted, small players may not yet have the strength to stand out compared to bigger kids or, especially in lacrosse, the strength and bulk to develop certain skills. E.g., if a growth spurt results after late puberty, the muscle mass needed to increase one's speed or withstand a bodycheck may also develop later in life.

I remember hearing, during the World Cup, a commentator's remarks that in the U.S. the emphasis on winning in youth clubs and in high school leads coaches to put the biggest, strongest kids at the striker position, and this is why the most talented kids don't get the chance to develop the skills to be a #9. The commentator said until the U.S. fixes this, the U.S. will never develop a Pelé, Maradona, or Messi. Something similar may occur in lacrosse, although many college lacrosse coaches have an eye out for players with the potential to develop. IIRC, Rob Panel was neither heavily recruited, nor heavily ballyhooed when he arrived at Cornell. But the coaches saw his potential.

The problem with US soccer is there is the pay to play and poor coaching. Coaching to win is also a part of it. In France, if a youth team wins too much, the coach is reassigned and team split up. Our biggest problem is the presumption is that soccer players have a stay at home mom to shuttle the player around and it’s a lot of pressure on families to travel. It’s a FAMILY COMMITMENT. In Europe and South America, it’s largely free, practice is daily and travel is minimal or managed by the club. We practice two maybe 3 days a week. In other countries, it’s daily, virtually. A friend moved his 12 year old to England for soccer because it’s difficult to develop players here. I saw Pulisic and Zelalem as youth players here. Both had to exit the system for real development. Gedion Zelalem was the best youth player I have ever seen. Christian was playing two years up and Gedion was playing 1 year up. My son played against both of them on the youth circuit.

Testify!!

I favor the french system of development. We need a regional training center system and “winning” needs to be de-emphasized at the youth level. My son’s youth team won Region 1 regionals. I heard myself yelling like a fool on old recordings. So much unnecessary pressure on the kids. My daughter never liked playing because she said all the parents screaming was too much pressure. She was actually very good and didn’t realize it. She was a good basketball player also. Had that innate sense to see the floor and was skillful despite not having an interest. It was the pressure to win games that turned her off. Barca’s youth program only lets parents watch 1 youth game a month.

[Ezra White]

I'm not sure Reeves was a top 100 recruit. He originally committed to Hobart before Shay picked him off. It is has been historically rare that my Statesmen get top 100 recruits. Though Ryan Archer was the most recent outlier. This should change over the next few years as Hobart (finally) gets to be a fully funded program after having zero athletic scholarships until recently.

Reeves was the No. 77 recruit in the class of 2014
https://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/ ... ngs/29706

Was he the #77 recruit when he committed to Hobart? I don't think so. IL seems to have a proclivity of upgrading recruits depending on where they end up.

Notice a lot of that actually. It's no coincidence that Rutgers recruits are getting higher rankings now, all after the team has been making the playoffs.

Is recruiting on the upswing? Yes. That much difference? I guess we will see.

The reality is the amount of resources dedicated to evaluating talent at Inside Lacrosse isn't exactly a professional league in investment. As far as I can tell it's a couple of guys who I am not even sure played lacrosse and are trying to cover the entire country. It's simply not feasible to be very accurate all things considered.

It's much easier to know who certain schools are recruiting and consider them 5 stars or whatever. It's fun message board fodder but that's about it. I hate to pick on Hopkins but they were littered with 4 and 5 star players prior to Petro's departure. If you watched them on the field, you could see those rankings are simply inaccurate. So either they had bad coaching, which I don't believe, or the recruiting rankings are highly subjective.

I believe there a small handful of guys you would say are as close to can't miss as you can get in sports. The next batch are very similar and the one's who excel do so through growth, dedication, effort.

This is exactly right. Was talking to a friend that had a former ND lacrosse player working for him. The player was a top 100 recruit. He told my buddy, who isn’t a lacrosse guy, that it is so political and based on where you play that it is almost meaningless. It’s true. I saw it first hand. Don’t get me started.

Just remembered. Player was once top 20 and then in top 55 as a freshman power 100. He got recruited over and didn’t play much…..his words.

On top of this, lacrosse is a sport in which a teenage player can improve as they mature physically and in which players of a certain skill level can improve considerably, especially with good coaching. It's not like basketball where "you can't teach height" plays such an important role. Size also really matters in football, and to a lesser extent in hockey; to an even lesser extent, but still there, in baseball.

Lacrosse and soccer are similar in many ways, and it's not an accident that in these sports small players like Pelé, Maradona, Messi, or Adler can be superstars. But while growing up and being scouted, small players may not yet have the strength to stand out compared to bigger kids or, especially in lacrosse, the strength and bulk to develop certain skills. E.g., if a growth spurt results after late puberty, the muscle mass needed to increase one's speed or withstand a bodycheck may also develop later in life.

I remember hearing, during the World Cup, a commentator's remarks that in the U.S. the emphasis on winning in youth clubs and in high school leads coaches to put the biggest, strongest kids at the striker position, and this is why the most talented kids don't get the chance to develop the skills to be a #9. The commentator said until the U.S. fixes this, the U.S. will never develop a Pelé, Maradona, or Messi. Something similar may occur in lacrosse, although many college lacrosse coaches have an eye out for players with the potential to develop. IIRC, Rob Panel was neither heavily recruited, nor heavily ballyhooed when he arrived at Cornell. But the coaches saw his potential.

The problem with US soccer is there is the pay to play and poor coaching. Coaching to win is also a part of it. In France, if a youth team wins too much, the coach is reassigned and team split up. Our biggest problem is the presumption is that soccer players have a stay at home mom to shuttle the player around and it’s a lot of pressure on families to travel. It’s a FAMILY COMMITMENT. In Europe and South America, it’s largely free, practice is daily and travel is minimal or managed by the club. We practice two maybe 3 days a week. In other countries, it’s daily, virtually. A friend moved his 12 year old to England for soccer because it’s difficult to develop players here. I saw Pulisic and Zelalem as youth players here. Both had to exit the system for real development. Gedion Zelalem was the best youth player I have ever seen. Christian was playing two years up and Gedion was playing 1 year up. My son played against both of them on the youth circuit.

Testify!!

I favor the french system of development. We need a regional training center system and “winning” needs to be de-emphasized at the youth level. My son’s youth team won Region 1 regionals. I heard myself yelling like a fool on old recordings. So much unnecessary pressure on the kids. My daughter never liked playing because she said all the parents screaming was too much pressure. She was actually very good and didn’t realize it. She was a good basketball player also. Had that innate sense to see the floor and was skillful despite not having an interest. It was the pressure to win games that turned her off. Barca’s youth program only lets parents watch 1 youth game a month.

This is getting way OT from lacrosse, but youth lacrosse very likely resembles youth soccer. So, here goes.

Add to this that U.S. youth soccer goes through the local school system. In my experience, high school soccer coaches are likely to prioritize: (1) their own kids, (2) their friends' kids, (3) kids of School Board members, (4) kids of Town Council members, (5) big, somewhat talented kids, (6) other talented kids, and lastly (7) kids who have potential but need good coaching to develop.

Some years ago a friend showed me the local high-school yearbook from the late 1960s. There was a picture of the state champion basketball team, which included the current soccer coach and a few others whose kids were currently playing youth soccer. My friend predicted that kids of the people in the picture would all make the local high-school team. He was right.

Completely independently, another parent wrote an op-ed for the town newspaper. Its title was something like, "Making the team at the local high school should not be a family affair."

Of course, this may be more a small-town phenomenon because bigger, urban schools are more removed from school boards and the like. But then again, U.S. youth soccer is reasonably characterized as a suburban sport, so this characterization may be quite common.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I'm not sure Reeves was a top 100 recruit. He originally committed to Hobart before Shay picked him off. It is has been historically rare that my Statesmen get top 100 recruits. Though Ryan Archer was the most recent outlier. This should change over the next few years as Hobart (finally) gets to be a fully funded program after having zero athletic scholarships until recently.

Reeves was the No. 77 recruit in the class of 2014
https://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/ ... ngs/29706

Was he the #77 recruit when he committed to Hobart? I don't think so. IL seems to have a proclivity of upgrading recruits depending on where they end up.

Notice a lot of that actually. It's no coincidence that Rutgers recruits are getting higher rankings now, all after the team has been making the playoffs.

Is recruiting on the upswing? Yes. That much difference? I guess we will see.

The reality is the amount of resources dedicated to evaluating talent at Inside Lacrosse isn't exactly a professional league in investment. As far as I can tell it's a couple of guys who I am not even sure played lacrosse and are trying to cover the entire country. It's simply not feasible to be very accurate all things considered.

It's much easier to know who certain schools are recruiting and consider them 5 stars or whatever. It's fun message board fodder but that's about it. I hate to pick on Hopkins but they were littered with 4 and 5 star players prior to Petro's departure. If you watched them on the field, you could see those rankings are simply inaccurate. So either they had bad coaching, which I don't believe, or the recruiting rankings are highly subjective.

I believe there a small handful of guys you would say are as close to can't miss as you can get in sports. The next batch are very similar and the one's who excel do so through growth, dedication, effort.

This is exactly right. Was talking to a friend that had a former ND lacrosse player working for him. The player was a top 100 recruit. He told my buddy, who isn’t a lacrosse guy, that it is so political and based on where you play that it is almost meaningless. It’s true. I saw it first hand. Don’t get me started.

Just remembered. Player was once top 20 and then in top 55 as a freshman power 100. He got recruited over and didn’t play much…..his words.

On top of this, lacrosse is a sport in which a teenage player can improve as they mature physically and in which players of a certain skill level can improve considerably, especially with good coaching. It's not like basketball where "you can't teach height" plays such an important role. Size also really matters in football, and to a lesser extent in hockey; to an even lesser extent, but still there, in baseball.

Lacrosse and soccer are similar in many ways, and it's not an accident that in these sports small players like Pelé, Maradona, Messi, or Adler can be superstars. But while growing up and being scouted, small players may not yet have the strength to stand out compared to bigger kids or, especially in lacrosse, the strength and bulk to develop certain skills. E.g., if a growth spurt results after late puberty, the muscle mass needed to increase one's speed or withstand a bodycheck may also develop later in life.

I remember hearing, during the World Cup, a commentator's remarks that in the U.S. the emphasis on winning in youth clubs and in high school leads coaches to put the biggest, strongest kids at the striker position, and this is why the most talented kids don't get the chance to develop the skills to be a #9. The commentator said until the U.S. fixes this, the U.S. will never develop a Pelé, Maradona, or Messi. Something similar may occur in lacrosse, although many college lacrosse coaches have an eye out for players with the potential to develop. IIRC, Rob Panel was neither heavily recruited, nor heavily ballyhooed when he arrived at Cornell. But the coaches saw his potential.

The problem with US soccer is there is the pay to play and poor coaching. Coaching to win is also a part of it. In France, if a youth team wins too much, the coach is reassigned and team split up. Our biggest problem is the presumption is that soccer players have a stay at home mom to shuttle the player around and it’s a lot of pressure on families to travel. It’s a FAMILY COMMITMENT. In Europe and South America, it’s largely free, practice is daily and travel is minimal or managed by the club. We practice two maybe 3 days a week. In other countries, it’s daily, virtually. A friend moved his 12 year old to England for soccer because it’s difficult to develop players here. I saw Pulisic and Zelalem as youth players here. Both had to exit the system for real development. Gedion Zelalem was the best youth player I have ever seen. Christian was playing two years up and Gedion was playing 1 year up. My son played against both of them on the youth circuit.

Testify!!

I favor the french system of development. We need a regional training center system and “winning” needs to be de-emphasized at the youth level. My son’s youth team won Region 1 regionals. I heard myself yelling like a fool on old recordings. So much unnecessary pressure on the kids. My daughter never liked playing because she said all the parents screaming was too much pressure. She was actually very good and didn’t realize it. She was a good basketball player also. Had that innate sense to see the floor and was skillful despite not having an interest. It was the pressure to win games that turned her off. Barca’s youth program only lets parents watch 1 youth game a month.

This is getting way OT from lacrosse, but youth lacrosse very likely resembles youth soccer. So, here goes.

Add to this that U.S. youth soccer goes through the local school system. In my experience, high school soccer coaches are likely to prioritize: (1) their own kids, (2) their friends' kids, (3) kids of School Board members, (4) kids of Town Council members, (5) big, somewhat talented kids, (6) other talented kids, and lastly (7) kids who have potential but need good coaching to develop.

Some years ago a friend showed me the local high-school yearbook from the late 1960s. There was a picture of the state champion basketball team, which included the current soccer coach and a few others whose kids were currently playing youth soccer. My friend predicted that kids of the people in the picture would all make the local high-school team. He was right.

Completely independently, another parent wrote an op-ed for the town newspaper. Its title was something like, "Making the team at the local high school should not be a family affair."

Of course, this may be more a small-town phenomenon because bigger, urban schools are more removed from school boards and the like. But then again, U.S. youth soccer is reasonably characterized as a suburban sport, so this characterization may be quite common.

Gio Reyna and his parents are a classic example. Coming up at NYCFC, there was a lot of daddy ball. A couple of players just as good as Gio at 12,13,14 weren’t developed like he was. He was playing up when he wasn’t competitive and wasn’t the best player in his age group at the club. In Lacrosse, there is also a degree of daddy ball….

Here is another example….

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/298 ... atform=amp

Coach just helping Ben develop……I met Ryan Hite a few years ago. He was a great D3 college receiver…..he laughed and said “yeah I played QB in front of Ben”…

[jff97]

Saw an interesting stat in an article on The Athletic recently that said since 2016, 43 percent of 5 stars start at least one game as a true freshman, while 78 percent crack the starting lineup by Year 2 and 52 percent are starting at least half their team's games. Wonder how that checks out for lacrosse.

[wgdsr]

I'm not sure Reeves was a top 100 recruit. He originally committed to Hobart before Shay picked him off. It is has been historically rare that my Statesmen get top 100 recruits. Though Ryan Archer was the most recent outlier. This should change over the next few years as Hobart (finally) gets to be a fully funded program after having zero athletic scholarships until recently.

Reeves was the No. 77 recruit in the class of 2014
https://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/ ... ngs/29706

Was he the #77 recruit when he committed to Hobart? I don't think so. IL seems to have a proclivity of upgrading recruits depending on where they end up.

Notice a lot of that actually. It's no coincidence that Rutgers recruits are getting higher rankings now, all after the team has been making the playoffs.

Is recruiting on the upswing? Yes. That much difference? I guess we will see.

The reality is the amount of resources dedicated to evaluating talent at Inside Lacrosse isn't exactly a professional league in investment. As far as I can tell it's a couple of guys who I am not even sure played lacrosse and are trying to cover the entire country. It's simply not feasible to be very accurate all things considered.

It's much easier to know who certain schools are recruiting and consider them 5 stars or whatever. It's fun message board fodder but that's about it. I hate to pick on Hopkins but they were littered with 4 and 5 star players prior to Petro's departure. If you watched them on the field, you could see those rankings are simply inaccurate. So either they had bad coaching, which I don't believe, or the recruiting rankings are highly subjective.

I believe there a small handful of guys you would say are as close to can't miss as you can get in sports. The next batch are very similar and the one's who excel do so through growth, dedication, effort.

This is exactly right. Was talking to a friend that had a former ND lacrosse player working for him. The player was a top 100 recruit. He told my buddy, who isn’t a lacrosse guy, that it is so political and based on where you play that it is almost meaningless. It’s true. I saw it first hand. Don’t get me started.

Just remembered. Player was once top 20 and then in top 55 as a freshman power 100. He got recruited over and didn’t play much…..his words.

On top of this, lacrosse is a sport in which a teenage player can improve as they mature physically and in which players of a certain skill level can improve considerably, especially with good coaching. It's not like basketball where "you can't teach height" plays such an important role. Size also really matters in football, and to a lesser extent in hockey; to an even lesser extent, but still there, in baseball.

Lacrosse and soccer are similar in many ways, and it's not an accident that in these sports small players like Pelé, Maradona, Messi, or Adler can be superstars. But while growing up and being scouted, small players may not yet have the strength to stand out compared to bigger kids or, especially in lacrosse, the strength and bulk to develop certain skills. E.g., if a growth spurt results after late puberty, the muscle mass needed to increase one's speed or withstand a bodycheck may also develop later in life.

I remember hearing, during the World Cup, a commentator's remarks that in the U.S. the emphasis on winning in youth clubs and in high school leads coaches to put the biggest, strongest kids at the striker position, and this is why the most talented kids don't get the chance to develop the skills to be a #9. The commentator said until the U.S. fixes this, the U.S. will never develop a Pelé, Maradona, or Messi. Something similar may occur in lacrosse, although many college lacrosse coaches have an eye out for players with the potential to develop. IIRC, Rob Panel was neither heavily recruited, nor heavily ballyhooed when he arrived at Cornell. But the coaches saw his potential.

The problem with US soccer is there is the pay to play and poor coaching. Coaching to win is also a part of it. In France, if a youth team wins too much, the coach is reassigned and team split up. Our biggest problem is the presumption is that soccer players have a stay at home mom to shuttle the player around and it’s a lot of pressure on families to travel. It’s a FAMILY COMMITMENT. In Europe and South America, it’s largely free, practice is daily and travel is minimal or managed by the club. We practice two maybe 3 days a week. In other countries, it’s daily, virtually. A friend moved his 12 year old to England for soccer because it’s difficult to develop players here. I saw Pulisic and Zelalem as youth players here. Both had to exit the system for real development. Gedion Zelalem was the best youth player I have ever seen. Christian was playing two years up and Gedion was playing 1 year up. My son played against both of them on the youth circuit.

Testify!!

I favor the french system of development. We need a regional training center system and “winning” needs to be de-emphasized at the youth level. My son’s youth team won Region 1 regionals. I heard myself yelling like a fool on old recordings. So much unnecessary pressure on the kids. My daughter never liked playing because she said all the parents screaming was too much pressure. She was actually very good and didn’t realize it. She was a good basketball player also. Had that innate sense to see the floor and was skillful despite not having an interest. It was the pressure to win games that turned her off. Barca’s youth program only lets parents watch 1 youth game a month.

This is getting way OT from lacrosse, but youth lacrosse very likely resembles youth soccer. So, here goes.

Add to this that U.S. youth soccer goes through the local school system. In my experience, high school soccer coaches are likely to prioritize: (1) their own kids, (2) their friends' kids, (3) kids of School Board members, (4) kids of Town Council members, (5) big, somewhat talented kids, (6) other talented kids, and lastly (7) kids who have potential but need good coaching to develop.

Some years ago a friend showed me the local high-school yearbook from the late 1960s. There was a picture of the state champion basketball team, which included the current soccer coach and a few others whose kids were currently playing youth soccer. My friend predicted that kids of the people in the picture would all make the local high-school team. He was right.

Completely independently, another parent wrote an op-ed for the town newspaper. Its title was something like, "Making the team at the local high school should not be a family affair."

Of course, this may be more a small-town phenomenon because bigger, urban schools are more removed from school boards and the like. But then again, U.S. youth soccer is reasonably characterized as a suburban sport, so this characterization may be quite common.

Gio Reyna and his parents are a classic example. Coming up at NYCFC, there was a lot of daddy ball. A couple of players just as good as Gio at 12,13,14 weren’t developed like he was. He was playing up when he wasn’t competitive and wasn’t the best player in his age group at the club. In Lacrosse, there is also a degree of daddy ball….

Here is another example….

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/298 ... atform=amp

Coach just helping Ben develop……I met Ryan Hite a few years ago. He was a great D3 college receiver…..he laughed and said “yeah I played QB in front of Ben”…

claudio needs some more time in order to keep on top of things for gio:
https://www.espn.com/soccer/austin-fc/s ... ontroversy

[Typical Lax Dad]

I'm not sure Reeves was a top 100 recruit. He originally committed to Hobart before Shay picked him off. It is has been historically rare that my Statesmen get top 100 recruits. Though Ryan Archer was the most recent outlier. This should change over the next few years as Hobart (finally) gets to be a fully funded program after having zero athletic scholarships until recently.

Reeves was the No. 77 recruit in the class of 2014
https://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/ ... ngs/29706

Was he the #77 recruit when he committed to Hobart? I don't think so. IL seems to have a proclivity of upgrading recruits depending on where they end up.

Notice a lot of that actually. It's no coincidence that Rutgers recruits are getting higher rankings now, all after the team has been making the playoffs.

Is recruiting on the upswing? Yes. That much difference? I guess we will see.

The reality is the amount of resources dedicated to evaluating talent at Inside Lacrosse isn't exactly a professional league in investment. As far as I can tell it's a couple of guys who I am not even sure played lacrosse and are trying to cover the entire country. It's simply not feasible to be very accurate all things considered.

It's much easier to know who certain schools are recruiting and consider them 5 stars or whatever. It's fun message board fodder but that's about it. I hate to pick on Hopkins but they were littered with 4 and 5 star players prior to Petro's departure. If you watched them on the field, you could see those rankings are simply inaccurate. So either they had bad coaching, which I don't believe, or the recruiting rankings are highly subjective.

I believe there a small handful of guys you would say are as close to can't miss as you can get in sports. The next batch are very similar and the one's who excel do so through growth, dedication, effort.

This is exactly right. Was talking to a friend that had a former ND lacrosse player working for him. The player was a top 100 recruit. He told my buddy, who isn’t a lacrosse guy, that it is so political and based on where you play that it is almost meaningless. It’s true. I saw it first hand. Don’t get me started.

Just remembered. Player was once top 20 and then in top 55 as a freshman power 100. He got recruited over and didn’t play much…..his words.

On top of this, lacrosse is a sport in which a teenage player can improve as they mature physically and in which players of a certain skill level can improve considerably, especially with good coaching. It's not like basketball where "you can't teach height" plays such an important role. Size also really matters in football, and to a lesser extent in hockey; to an even lesser extent, but still there, in baseball.

Lacrosse and soccer are similar in many ways, and it's not an accident that in these sports small players like Pelé, Maradona, Messi, or Adler can be superstars. But while growing up and being scouted, small players may not yet have the strength to stand out compared to bigger kids or, especially in lacrosse, the strength and bulk to develop certain skills. E.g., if a growth spurt results after late puberty, the muscle mass needed to increase one's speed or withstand a bodycheck may also develop later in life.

I remember hearing, during the World Cup, a commentator's remarks that in the U.S. the emphasis on winning in youth clubs and in high school leads coaches to put the biggest, strongest kids at the striker position, and this is why the most talented kids don't get the chance to develop the skills to be a #9. The commentator said until the U.S. fixes this, the U.S. will never develop a Pelé, Maradona, or Messi. Something similar may occur in lacrosse, although many college lacrosse coaches have an eye out for players with the potential to develop. IIRC, Rob Panel was neither heavily recruited, nor heavily ballyhooed when he arrived at Cornell. But the coaches saw his potential.

The problem with US soccer is there is the pay to play and poor coaching. Coaching to win is also a part of it. In France, if a youth team wins too much, the coach is reassigned and team split up. Our biggest problem is the presumption is that soccer players have a stay at home mom to shuttle the player around and it’s a lot of pressure on families to travel. It’s a FAMILY COMMITMENT. In Europe and South America, it’s largely free, practice is daily and travel is minimal or managed by the club. We practice two maybe 3 days a week. In other countries, it’s daily, virtually. A friend moved his 12 year old to England for soccer because it’s difficult to develop players here. I saw Pulisic and Zelalem as youth players here. Both had to exit the system for real development. Gedion Zelalem was the best youth player I have ever seen. Christian was playing two years up and Gedion was playing 1 year up. My son played against both of them on the youth circuit.

Testify!!

I favor the french system of development. We need a regional training center system and “winning” needs to be de-emphasized at the youth level. My son’s youth team won Region 1 regionals. I heard myself yelling like a fool on old recordings. So much unnecessary pressure on the kids. My daughter never liked playing because she said all the parents screaming was too much pressure. She was actually very good and didn’t realize it. She was a good basketball player also. Had that innate sense to see the floor and was skillful despite not having an interest. It was the pressure to win games that turned her off. Barca’s youth program only lets parents watch 1 youth game a month.

This is getting way OT from lacrosse, but youth lacrosse very likely resembles youth soccer. So, here goes.

Add to this that U.S. youth soccer goes through the local school system. In my experience, high school soccer coaches are likely to prioritize: (1) their own kids, (2) their friends' kids, (3) kids of School Board members, (4) kids of Town Council members, (5) big, somewhat talented kids, (6) other talented kids, and lastly (7) kids who have potential but need good coaching to develop.

Some years ago a friend showed me the local high-school yearbook from the late 1960s. There was a picture of the state champion basketball team, which included the current soccer coach and a few others whose kids were currently playing youth soccer. My friend predicted that kids of the people in the picture would all make the local high-school team. He was right.

Completely independently, another parent wrote an op-ed for the town newspaper. Its title was something like, "Making the team at the local high school should not be a family affair."

Of course, this may be more a small-town phenomenon because bigger, urban schools are more removed from school boards and the like. But then again, U.S. youth soccer is reasonably characterized as a suburban sport, so this characterization may be quite common.

Gio Reyna and his parents are a classic example. Coming up at NYCFC, there was a lot of daddy ball. A couple of players just as good as Gio at 12,13,14 weren’t developed like he was. He was playing up when he wasn’t competitive and wasn’t the best player in his age group at the club. In Lacrosse, there is also a degree of daddy ball….

Here is another example….

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/298 ... atform=amp

Coach just helping Ben develop……I met Ryan Hite a few years ago. He was a great D3 college receiver…..he laughed and said “yeah I played QB in front of Ben”…

claudio needs some more time in order to keep on top of things for gio:
https://www.espn.com/soccer/austin-fc/s ... ontroversy

More….. “The club did not comment on Claudio's status as the scandal unfolded earlier this month. In addition to Claudio's communication with Stewart and McBride, Fox Sports reported that he tried to influence then-U.S. Under-17 coach Raphaël Wicky’s handling of Gio at the 2019 U-17 World Cup.”

This has been going on since Gio was playing U13 at NYCFC. Claudio tilting the field and making sure Gio gets every opportunity to be developed at the expense of kids just as good as he was….but didn’t have an influential dad…

https://sports.yahoo.com/amphtml/claudi ... 44438.html

[wgdsr]

Gio Reyna and his parents are a classic example. Coming up at NYCFC, there was a lot of daddy ball. A couple of players just as good as Gio at 12,13,14 weren’t developed like he was. He was playing up when he wasn’t competitive and wasn’t the best player in his age group at the club. In Lacrosse, there is also a degree of daddy ball….

Here is another example….

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/298 ... atform=amp

Coach just helping Ben develop……I met Ryan Hite a few years ago. He was a great D3 college receiver…..he laughed and said “yeah I played QB in front of Ben”…

claudio needs some more time in order to keep on top of things for gio:
https://www.espn.com/soccer/austin-fc/s ... ontroversy

More….. “The club did not comment on Claudio's status as the scandal unfolded earlier this month. In addition to Claudio's communication with Stewart and McBride, Fox Sports reported that he tried to influence then-U.S. Under-17 coach Raphaël Wicky’s handling of Gio at the 2019 U-17 World Cup.”

This has been going on since Gio was playing U13 at NYCFC. Claudio tilting the field and making sure Gio gets every opportunity to be developed at the expense of kids just as good as he was….but didn’t have an influential dad…

https://sports.yahoo.com/amphtml/claudi ... 44438.html

it really is an amazing story. in fairness to claudio, mommy's the one who actually made good on the threat! and she was roommates and teammates with berhalter's wife! & claudio was the best man @ the berhalter's wedding! w.t.f!!!

how many people have been fired so far? 3 1/2 including berhalter plus claudio? it's not over yet! next coach better hope gio plays!!!
https://www.espn.com/soccer/united-stat ... ng-parents

[Typical Lax Dad]

Gio Reyna and his parents are a classic example. Coming up at NYCFC, there was a lot of daddy ball. A couple of players just as good as Gio at 12,13,14 weren’t developed like he was. He was playing up when he wasn’t competitive and wasn’t the best player in his age group at the club. In Lacrosse, there is also a degree of daddy ball….

Here is another example….

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/298 ... atform=amp

Coach just helping Ben develop……I met Ryan Hite a few years ago. He was a great D3 college receiver…..he laughed and said “yeah I played QB in front of Ben”…

claudio needs some more time in order to keep on top of things for gio:
https://www.espn.com/soccer/austin-fc/s ... ontroversy

More….. “The club did not comment on Claudio's status as the scandal unfolded earlier this month. In addition to Claudio's communication with Stewart and McBride, Fox Sports reported that he tried to influence then-U.S. Under-17 coach Raphaël Wicky’s handling of Gio at the 2019 U-17 World Cup.”

This has been going on since Gio was playing U13 at NYCFC. Claudio tilting the field and making sure Gio gets every opportunity to be developed at the expense of kids just as good as he was….but didn’t have an influential dad…

https://sports.yahoo.com/amphtml/claudi ... 44438.html

it really is an amazing story. in fairness to claudio, mommy's the one who actually made good on the threat! and she was roommates and teammates with berhalter's wife! & claudio was the best man @ the berhalter's wedding! w.t.f!!!

how many people have been fired so far? 3 1/2 including berhalter plus claudio? it's not over yet! next coach better hope gio plays!!!
https://www.espn.com/soccer/united-stat ... ng-parents

My friend moved his son to England basically for better development. The parents have one 15 minute meeting with the coach at the end of the season. Parents line up….get their 15 minutes and move on. The coach doesn’t talk to parents otherwise. My friend’s son went over at 12 and he is now 15. His brother played at UVA BTW. In Spain, parents can watch the Barca youth kids play once a month, I believe. Parents are waaay over the top here. I watched a video of my son playing u11 soccer and I was ridiculous with all the yelling. I started toning it down by 13….Parents would actually bait my son. I remember asking a ref to talk to the parents because a 13 year old kid shouldn’t be baited by adults.