Recruiting

[jff97]

Going back to Jff97 posts on the 2018 and 2019 ratings, some great stuff there.

I know the ratings have their issues and a lot of good players don't make that list. But I went through the top 10 teams last year to see how many kids were at least contributors or higher. The thinking being that during these Covid times, the 18/19 recruits should be strong contributors to their team success. I may have a number off here or there as it was manual. These numbers are for the combined 2 years. Northwestern 8, BC 8, Cuse 7, UNC 9, Florida 9, Notre Dame 8, Loyola 6. Stony Brook had 2, but looked like they had asterisks meaning their contributions were after they transferred? Denver and JMU only 1 each. Maryland was not in the final top 10 last year but interestingly they led the way with 13.

One take away - maybe the 20/21/22 numbers would be different, but based on these numbers Denver, JMU and Stony Brook must have success finding players not in these rankings. May not be a coincidence either that Denver, JMU and Stony Brook traditionally are among the top ranked defensive teams in the country and "rankings" may be weighted toward offensive play. Maybe these schools are good targets for the "unranked" recruits to look at?

Also only the 2018 had the list of misses, but only 3 schools were identified with more than one "miss". Maryland had 4 and Cuse 2. The big surprise for me was Stanford with 5 misses (They did have 6 named contributors or better as well).

Question - are the rankings made before or after kids commit? Meaning does that potentially influence the ranking?

At least in the current recruiting era (as in kids are committing junior year rather than 8th or 9th grade) IL has tended to come out with a list of some of the top kids, then add to during their senior year and then come out with the top 100 list when they are college freshman. I'm sure kids committing to a certain school does influence it, but that's no different than the process in other sports. In football or basketball if you get offered by an ACC school, other ACC schools will probably give you a look. Maybe it gets a kid into the top 100, but I haven't seen someone surge into the top 10 just because they committed to UNC or BC. It's not a coincidence that many of the top kids end up at the usual suspects. Coaches do their homework, and a lot of times these lists are based off a mix of personal ranking as well as what they hear from coaches.

[LaxDadMax]

Going back to Jff97 posts on the 2018 and 2019 ratings, some great stuff there.

I know the ratings have their issues and a lot of good players don't make that list. But I went through the top 10 teams last year to see how many kids were at least contributors or higher. The thinking being that during these Covid times, the 18/19 recruits should be strong contributors to their team success. I may have a number off here or there as it was manual. These numbers are for the combined 2 years. Northwestern 8, BC 8, Cuse 7, UNC 9, Florida 9, Notre Dame 8, Loyola 6. Stony Brook had 2, but looked like they had asterisks meaning their contributions were after they transferred? Denver and JMU only 1 each. Maryland was not in the final top 10 last year but interestingly they led the way with 13.

One take away - maybe the 20/21/22 numbers would be different, but based on these numbers Denver, JMU and Stony Brook must have success finding players not in these rankings. May not be a coincidence either that Denver, JMU and Stony Brook traditionally are among the top ranked defensive teams in the country and "rankings" may be weighted toward offensive play. Maybe these schools are good targets for the "unranked" recruits to look at?

Also only the 2018 had the list of misses, but only 3 schools were identified with more than one "miss". Maryland had 4 and Cuse 2. The big surprise for me was Stanford with 5 misses (They did have 6 named contributors or better as well).

Question - are the rankings made before or after kids commit? Meaning does that potentially influence the ranking?

Remember those classes were before the rules changed, so all ranking were definitely after the kids committed. Also remember that those rankings were biased FOR the kids who committed early. In the 2018 rankings, I believe 9 of top 10 committed before fall of freshman year. (which also explains why there were more "misses" in the class.

[RollTheCrease]

Going back to Jff97 posts on the 2018 and 2019 ratings, some great stuff there.

I know the ratings have their issues and a lot of good players don't make that list. But I went through the top 10 teams last year to see how many kids were at least contributors or higher. The thinking being that during these Covid times, the 18/19 recruits should be strong contributors to their team success. I may have a number off here or there as it was manual. These numbers are for the combined 2 years. Northwestern 8, BC 8, Cuse 7, UNC 9, Florida 9, Notre Dame 8, Loyola 6. Stony Brook had 2, but looked like they had asterisks meaning their contributions were after they transferred? Denver and JMU only 1 each. Maryland was not in the final top 10 last year but interestingly they led the way with 13.

One take away - maybe the 20/21/22 numbers would be different, but based on these numbers Denver, JMU and Stony Brook must have success finding players not in these rankings. May not be a coincidence either that Denver, JMU and Stony Brook traditionally are among the top ranked defensive teams in the country and "rankings" may be weighted toward offensive play. Maybe these schools are good targets for the "unranked" recruits to look at?

Also only the 2018 had the list of misses, but only 3 schools were identified with more than one "miss". Maryland had 4 and Cuse 2. The big surprise for me was Stanford with 5 misses (They did have 6 named contributors or better as well).

Question - are the rankings made before or after kids commit? Meaning does that potentially influence the ranking?

At least in the current recruiting era (as in kids are committing junior year rather than 8th or 9th grade) IL has tended to come out with a list of some of the top kids, then add to during their senior year and then come out with the top 100 list when they are college freshman. I'm sure kids committing to a certain school does influence it, but that's no different than the process in other sports. In football or basketball if you get offered by an ACC school, other ACC schools will probably give you a look. Maybe it gets a kid into the top 100, but I haven't seen someone surge into the top 10 just because they committed to UNC or BC. It's not a coincidence that many of the top kids end up at the usual suspects. Coaches do their homework, and a lot of times these lists are based off a mix of personal ranking as well as what they hear from coaches.

I don’t always buy into these rankings, even for the Top 10. I’ve seen players on the same team of a IL Top 10 who were equally as talented. The difference is the marketing machine the parents create to promote the player. You have to be talented, but you also have to know how to promote yourself to earn the name recognition.

[RollTheCrease]

Going back to Jff97 posts on the 2018 and 2019 ratings, some great stuff there.

I know the ratings have their issues and a lot of good players don't make that list. But I went through the top 10 teams last year to see how many kids were at least contributors or higher. The thinking being that during these Covid times, the 18/19 recruits should be strong contributors to their team success. I may have a number off here or there as it was manual. These numbers are for the combined 2 years. Northwestern 8, BC 8, Cuse 7, UNC 9, Florida 9, Notre Dame 8, Loyola 6. Stony Brook had 2, but looked like they had asterisks meaning their contributions were after they transferred? Denver and JMU only 1 each. Maryland was not in the final top 10 last year but interestingly they led the way with 13.

One take away - maybe the 20/21/22 numbers would be different, but based on these numbers Denver, JMU and Stony Brook must have success finding players not in these rankings. May not be a coincidence either that Denver, JMU and Stony Brook traditionally are among the top ranked defensive teams in the country and "rankings" may be weighted toward offensive play. Maybe these schools are good targets for the "unranked" recruits to look at?

Also only the 2018 had the list of misses, but only 3 schools were identified with more than one "miss". Maryland had 4 and Cuse 2. The big surprise for me was Stanford with 5 misses (They did have 6 named contributors or better as well).

Question - are the rankings made before or after kids commit? Meaning does that potentially influence the ranking?

At least in the current recruiting era (as in kids are committing junior year rather than 8th or 9th grade) IL has tended to come out with a list of some of the top kids, then add to during their senior year and then come out with the top 100 list when they are college freshman. I'm sure kids committing to a certain school does influence it, but that's no different than the process in other sports. In football or basketball if you get offered by an ACC school, other ACC schools will probably give you a look. Maybe it gets a kid into the top 100, but I haven't seen someone surge into the top 10 just because they committed to UNC or BC. It's not a coincidence that many of the top kids end up at the usual suspects. Coaches do their homework, and a lot of times these lists are based off a mix of personal ranking as well as what they hear from coaches.

I don’t always buy into these rankings, even for the Top 10. I’ve seen players on the same team of a IL Top 10 who were equally as talented. The difference is the marketing machine the parents create to promote the player. You have to be talented, but you also have to know how to promote yourself.

[Relax77]

Going back to Jff97 posts on the 2018 and 2019 ratings, some great stuff there.

I know the ratings have their issues and a lot of good players don't make that list. But I went through the top 10 teams last year to see how many kids were at least contributors or higher. The thinking being that during these Covid times, the 18/19 recruits should be strong contributors to their team success. I may have a number off here or there as it was manual. These numbers are for the combined 2 years. Northwestern 8, BC 8, Cuse 7, UNC 9, Florida 9, Notre Dame 8, Loyola 6. Stony Brook had 2, but looked like they had asterisks meaning their contributions were after they transferred? Denver and JMU only 1 each. Maryland was not in the final top 10 last year but interestingly they led the way with 13.

One take away - maybe the 20/21/22 numbers would be different, but based on these numbers Denver, JMU and Stony Brook must have success finding players not in these rankings. May not be a coincidence either that Denver, JMU and Stony Brook traditionally are among the top ranked defensive teams in the country and "rankings" may be weighted toward offensive play. Maybe these schools are good targets for the "unranked" recruits to look at?

Also only the 2018 had the list of misses, but only 3 schools were identified with more than one "miss". Maryland had 4 and Cuse 2. The big surprise for me was Stanford with 5 misses (They did have 6 named contributors or better as well).

Question - are the rankings made before or after kids commit? Meaning does that potentially influence the ranking?

At least in the current recruiting era (as in kids are committing junior year rather than 8th or 9th grade) IL has tended to come out with a list of some of the top kids, then add to during their senior year and then come out with the top 100 list when they are college freshman. I'm sure kids committing to a certain school does influence it, but that's no different than the process in other sports. In football or basketball if you get offered by an ACC school, other ACC schools will probably give you a look. Maybe it gets a kid into the top 100, but I haven't seen someone surge into the top 10 just because they committed to UNC or BC. It's not a coincidence that many of the top kids end up at the usual suspects. Coaches do their homework, and a lot of times these lists are based off a mix of personal ranking as well as what they hear from coaches.

I don’t always buy into these rankings, even for the Top 10. I’ve seen players on the same team of a IL Top 10 who were equally as talented. The difference is the marketing machine the parents create to promote the player. You have to be talented, but you also have to know how to promote yourself to earn the name recognition.

Yep. Name recognition is key. Certainly on the club level.

[realitychecks]

As we head into this let’s remember these are kids. These things play themselves out either way and there’s been times when I thought it was wrong and it was right and vice versa. Some of you also need to be careful you state where your older kid is and then state you have a 2025. It isn’t hard to figure out and don’t ruin your kids opportunity. Trust me coaches speak and parents can ruin it Regardless it’s an exciting time

[Womenslaxxfan]

It’s an exciting time for the 2025s. Hope parents can keep anxiety down. One piece of advice I got when my daughters went through the process was to keep the “broken leg test” top of mind. Having seen many of my daughters’ teammates lax careers end through injury, not enough playing time, etc, I now realize how wise that advice was….
Basically don’t consider committing to a school for lacrosse that wouldn’t be on a players list without lacrosse.

[watcherinthewoods]

It’s an exciting time for the 2025s. Hope parents can keep anxiety down. One piece of advice I got when my daughters went through the process was to keep the “broken leg test” top of mind. Having seen many of my daughters’ teammates lax careers end through injury, not enough playing time, etc, I now realize how wise that advice was….
Basically don’t consider committing to a school for lacrosse that wouldn’t be on a players list without lacrosse.

+1 ^

[Relax77]

It’s an exciting time for the 2025s. Hope parents can keep anxiety down. One piece of advice I got when my daughters went through the process was to keep the “broken leg test” top of mind. Having seen many of my daughters’ teammates lax careers end through injury, not enough playing time, etc, I now realize how wise that advice was….
Basically don’t consider committing to a school for lacrosse that wouldn’t be on a players list without lacrosse.

Yep. But hard to convince a 15 year old that. They k ow everything.

[Laxfan212]

It’s an exciting time for the 2025s. Hope parents can keep anxiety down. One piece of advice I got when my daughters went through the process was to keep the “broken leg test” top of mind. Having seen many of my daughters’ teammates lax careers end through injury, not enough playing time, etc, I now realize how wise that advice was….
Basically don’t consider committing to a school for lacrosse that wouldn’t be on a players list without lacrosse.

Yep. But hard to convince a 15 year old that. They k ow everything.

As a counterpoint to this, I also think kids shouldn’t feel the weight of the world on their shoulders with this decision. I know a lot of kids (not athletes) who have transferred after their first or even second year of college for a lot of reasons - location, major, vibe, etc. It’s ok to try something and have it not work out, and make a change. It’s ok if they go somewhere for lax and break their leg and decide they’d rather be somewhere else. Maybe it’s a hassle but it’s not the end of the world to change their mind if things don’t work out. Sure, kids should start out with a choice that feels like a great choice even if they weren’t playing lax, but I also think it’s not a bad idea to acknowledge that things can change and that’s ok too.

[Relax77]

It’s an exciting time for the 2025s. Hope parents can keep anxiety down. One piece of advice I got when my daughters went through the process was to keep the “broken leg test” top of mind. Having seen many of my daughters’ teammates lax careers end through injury, not enough playing time, etc, I now realize how wise that advice was….
Basically don’t consider committing to a school for lacrosse that wouldn’t be on a players list without lacrosse.

Yep. But hard to convince a 15 year old that. They k ow everything.

As a counterpoint to this, I also think kids shouldn’t feel the weight of the world on their shoulders with this decision. I know a lot of kids (not athletes) who have transferred after their first or even second year of college for a lot of reasons - location, major, vibe, etc. It’s ok to try something and have it not work out, and make a change. It’s ok if they go somewhere for lax and break their leg and decide they’d rather be somewhere else. Maybe it’s a hassle but it’s not the end of the world to change their mind if things don’t work out. Sure, kids should start out with a choice that feels like a great choice even if they weren’t playing lax, but I also think it’s not a bad idea to acknowledge that things can change and that’s ok too.

I just feel 15 or for most 16 is too early to make these decisions. Most kids get to chose their college at late 17 early 18. Can only imagine how messed up not was when they were 12 doing it. Break a leg test can’t apply to kids who can’t see a forest through the trees.

[njbill]

+1.

Not that long ago, kids didn’t commit until the summer after their junior year in high school. Then the march to the maternity ward began which culminated in some restrictions, but not enough in my view. As noted, non-athletes don’t need to decide until May 1 of their senior year. Even those who choose to go early action or early decision don’t need to make a decision until the middle of their senior year.

The coaches will never go for this, but I’ve long contended that July 1 after junior year should be the initial offer date, and not September 1 before junior year as it is now.

[Kleizaster]

Rankings are based on high school performance and how these girls project at the next level. I don't understand the people that try to paint it as some great evil that needs to be abolished. Being ranked and compared to peers is a fact of life. If you can't accept that i don't know what to tell ya. People will often point to girls who weren't highly ranked who have had success as some great counter argument. "see? this girl wasn't ranked but now she's an all American. IL needs to shut down because they were wrong!" This argument might hold weight if the claim was that rankings are absolute and 100% fact or accurate. No one has ever claimed that. ever. It's common sense that it's an impossible task to accurately predict how all these girls will develop. You can't do it in the pros, you can't do it in amateur leagues, and you can't do it in college. But you can look at players and say this is what i think based on what i've seen.

Women's lacrosse is probably one of the easiest sports to spot elite talent, which is why these rankings tend to be accurate for the most part. You can connect that to who the top programs are based on who lands these girls. You can look at programs that have won championships or been to the championship game in the history of the sport, and you can connect THAT to everything else i just spoke about. No matter how you try to break it down or analyze it, graph it, the trend and correlation is clear as day. it's not rocket science. There are always going to be players that are outlier. It's expected. It's not some great equalizer some people think it is. If your daughter is not ranked, tell her it's okay and let it be motivation to work harder instead of trying to put others down.

[wlaxphan20]

Rankings are based on high school performance and how these girls project at the next level. I don't understand the people that try to paint it as some great evil that needs to be abolished. Being ranked and compared to peers is a fact of life. If you can't accept that i don't know what to tell ya. People will often point to girls who weren't highly ranked who have had success as some great counter argument. "see? this girl wasn't ranked but now she's an all American. IL needs to shut down because they were wrong!" This argument might hold weight if the claim was that rankings are absolute and 100% fact or accurate. No one has ever claimed that. ever. It's common sense that it's an impossible task to accurately predict how all these girls will develop. You can't do it in the pros, you can't do it in amateur leagues, and you can't do it in college. But you can look at players and say this is what i think based on what i've seen.

Women's lacrosse is probably one of the easiest sports to spot elite talent, which is why these rankings tend to be accurate for the most part. You can connect that to who the top programs are based on who lands these girls. You can look at programs that have won championships or been to the championship game in the history of the sport, and you can connect THAT to everything else i just spoke about. No matter how you try to break it down or analyze it, graph it, the trend and correlation is clear as day. it's not rocket science. There are always going to be players that are outlier. It's expected. It's not some great equalizer some people think it is. If your daughter is not ranked, tell her it's okay and let it be motivation to work harder instead of trying to put others down.

I genuinely don't remember a single time anyone has referred to recruiting rankings as a "great evil" or called for them to be abolished. I think the issue starts when some highly ranked recruits don't have the career people assume they should be having based on their high school ranking and assumptions start being made. These assumptions often don't take into account other factors like returning players or transfers. The narrow-minded conclusion that is often reached is that something must be wrong with either the player or the coaching staff, instead of acknowledging the possibility that other players in the recruiting class may have improved since the rankings were made, have skills that better translate to the college game, etc. I think their point and the point you are making are the same - they are high school rankings.

[Relax77]

Uh oh. Gonna be a lot of pissed off parents with this list of Top 2025 players.

[Madlax59]

Uh oh. Gonna be a lot of ticked off parents with this list of Top 2025 players.

Yes the hype machine rolls along....

[Brokelaxdad]

Been reading this forum for an awhile so I figured with sept 1 in a few hours I would post.

DD plays on a top 20-25 team and looking for some advice.

Without going in to much detail she has a very very good summer with really good games against several of the top teams in nation (m&d black.. monsters etc. we usually loose by 1 or 2 to top 5 and rarely get blown out. that being said some of our girls have gotten some nice exposer.

My daughter has received 20-30 requests to fill out questionnaires and her club coach has been called by 20 plus schools on her.
A few of the names are Hopkins, ucon, Mercer, Denver, nova Georgetown and many other smaller and lower ranked schools that she is keeping an open mind too.

She is set to go to several camps after sept 1. Here is issue… she has been playing on an injury that was at pain level of 5-6 and she was running 60-70% when these schools identified her. Now she is at 7-8 and I would guess she would be at 50% for 1-2 hours (most of these camps are very short)

The plan was to push through but after working her out the other day it is clear she has to shut it down (surgery is scheduled for mid November) it’s a long recovery but good news is athletes come back 100% if not better (it’s not acl thank god) she will not play this upcoming HS and is targeting to be back on field 100% summer fair well tour with her club.

So question is do we keep injury under radar or come out and be honest. Sever schools said they don’t need to see her anymore they are going to “fight like hell” for her (a few coaches comments). However, some want her back to see her compete with other prospect.

As you can imagine for a 16 year old emotions are running high as she see some of her teammates at schools they past few weekends and sept 1 approaching fast.

I keep telling her to ask the coach when they call to share where they saw you and what they liked… then tell them they you were playing hurt and unfortunately doctors are suggesting surgery to fix injury and get back to 100% . If you loved me at 70 I am going to blow you away at 100%

We were very fortunate that the injury progressed when it did and she was able to play in majorly of tournament games .. we did not do AS or UA 150 etc for reasons we felt it could only hurt her.

Any comments, advise is welcomed

[Bart]

Been reading this forum for an awhile so I figured with sept 1 in a few hours I would post.

DD plays on a top 20-25 team and looking for some advice.

Without going in to much detail she has a very very good summer with really good games against several of the top teams in nation (m&d black.. monsters etc. we usually loose by 1 or 2 to top 5 and rarely get blown out. that being said some of our girls have gotten some nice exposer.

My daughter has received 20-30 requests to fill out questionnaires and her club coach has been called by 20 plus schools on her.
A few of the names are Hopkins, ucon, Mercer, Denver, nova Georgetown and many other smaller and lower ranked schools that she is keeping an open mind too.

She is set to go to several camps after sept 1. Here is issue… she has been playing on an injury that was at pain level of 5-6 and she was running 60-70% when these schools identified her. Now she is at 7-8 and I would guess she would be at 50% for 1-2 hours (most of these camps are very short)

The plan was to push through but after working her out the other day it is clear she has to shut it down (surgery is scheduled for mid November) it’s a long recovery but good news is athletes come back 100% if not better (it’s not acl thank god) she will not play this upcoming HS and is targeting to be back on field 100% summer fair well tour with her club.

So question is do we keep injury under radar or come out and be honest. Sever schools said they don’t need to see her anymore they are going to “fight like hell” for her (a few coaches comments). However, some want her back to see her compete with other prospect.

As you can imagine for a 16 year old emotions are running high as she see some of her teammates at schools they past few weekends and sept 1 approaching fast.

I keep telling her to ask the coach when they call to share where they saw you and what they liked… then tell them they you were playing hurt and unfortunately doctors are suggesting surgery to fix injury and get back to 100% . If you loved me at 70 I am going to blow you away at 100%

We were very fortunate that the injury progressed when it did and she was able to play in majorly of tournament games .. we did not do AS or UA 150 etc for reasons we felt it could only hurt her.

Any comments, advise is welcomed

Take the advice here for what you paid for it.........but for me the decision would be easy. Shut her down. No sense imho. Be honest with the coaches who contact you. Starting out this relationship with an untruth or half truth is not a great foundation to build a relationship with someone whom your kid will spend 4-5 years playing for.

If a coach ghosts you after disclosing this injury you may be better off looking elsewhere to begin with. My $0.02 and it is probably worth less than that. Good luck.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Completely agree with Bart. Good luck.

[DMac]

Completely agree as well, the risk of further injury outweighs everything else (lacrosse wise).
Not a hard decision in my book (sometimes you have to protect an athlete from themselves..
even if it's a sixteen-year-old who is going to be mad at you for awhile).